Michael Wade Martin, and Jason A. Whitlark. Inventing
Hebrews: Design and Purpose in Ancient Rhetoric. Society for New Testament
Studies Monograph Series 171. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018. Pp.
xiv + 305.
The structure and rhetorical genre of Hebrews has been a
matter of long-standing debate in Hebrews studies. Michael Martin and Jason
Whitlark (henceforth, “the authors”) offer here an important and valuable
contribution to this ongoing debate.
In the opening chapter the authors briefly outline the
problem of structuring Hebrews. Various approaches have been applied to the
structuring of Hebrews including thematic/topical approaches, structuring the
discourse according to scriptural quotations, and the use of literary
indicators to structure the discourse (i.e., the tripartite arrangement
suggested by Nauck, the chiastic arrangement offered by Vanhoye, and the discourse
analysis approaches of Guthrie, Westfall, and Gelardini). The authors opt for
an audience-critical approach, that is, they believe that the structure of
Hebrews should be ordered according to the expectations of ancient audiences,
who would have anticipated a speech arranged according to Greco-Roman
rhetorical conventions. The authors address two possible objections. First,
there is no hard evidence that Hebrews is patterned after a synagogue homily.
Second, while ancient speakers were not bound to rigid forms, their
adaptability and creativity still must be assessed according to the expected
elements of rhetorical arrangement. As a sort of an appendix to the chapter,
the authors provide a survey of select proposals for the rhetorical arrangement
of Hebrews [I do something similar in my book The Characterization of Jesus
in the Book of Hebrews; see pages 17–20 and the accompanying footnotes].
The remainder of the book is divided into two unequal parts.
Part 1, consisting of chapters 2 and 3, lays the foundation for the structural
arrangement of Hebrews with particular attention to the rhetorical device of
syncrisis. (Previous versions of these chapters appeared as two articles in the
journal New Testament Studies.) Part 2, comprised of chapters 4 through
10, arranges the discourse of Hebrews according to ancient rhetorical design.
Chapter 2 deals with one of the key rhetorical devices of
Hebrews: syncrisis or comparison. Hebrews employs a five-part epideictic syncrisis
demonstrating the superiority of the new covenant to the old. This syncrisis is
arranged both chronologically and topically from ultimate origins to ultimate
eschatological ends. The authors first identify four key rules formulated by
ancient progymnasmata regarding syncrises that are pertinent for Hebrews:
(1) comparisons consider whole subjects according to their parts; (2) the parts
to be compared are the encomiastic topics employed in praise of a person; (3)
the encomiastic topics, chronologically arranged, serve as the compositional
outline of the syncrisis; (4) when comparing things, one employs topics
analogous to those used in comparing persons (pp. 25–29).
The authors then set forth their thesis regarding the
argument and structure of Hebrews’ “syncritical project.” The authors identify
five epideictic syncrises in Hebrews, outlined as follows (p. 30):
I. Angels vs. Jesus (1:5–14)
II. Moses vs. Jesus (3:1–6)
III. The
Aaronic High Priests vs. Jesus (5:1–10)
IV. The
Levitical Priestly Ministry vs. the Melchizedekian Priestly Ministry
(7:1–10:18)
V. Mt. Sinai vs. Mt. Zion (12:18–24)
These five comparisons correspond to encomiastic topics used
in syncrises of persons. The authors make the following correlations (pp.
32–33):
I. Origins: Syncrisis of Covenant Mediators
II. Birth: Syncrisis of Covenant Inaugurators
III.
Pursuits – Education: Syncrisis of the Priestly Apprenticeships of Each
Covenant
IV.
Pursuits – Deeds: Syncrisis of the Priestly Deeds of Each Covenant
V. Death/Events after Death: Syncrisis of
Covenant Eschata
In the remainder of the chapter, the authors elaborate on
how each of these comparisons carry out the author’s syncritical argument.
In chapter 3 the authors demonstrate the relationship
between the epideictic syncrises and the deliberative syncrises found in the
hortatory sections of Hebrews. While some scholars have argued that Hebrews is
primarily an epideictic oration, the authors side with those who contend that
Hebrews is a deliberative discourse. First, the authors turn to the rhetorical
handbooks to identify two characteristic traits of deliberative syncrisis: (1)
as deliberative rhetoric, its aim is to show the merit (or lack thereof) of a
proposed course of action; (2) as syncritical argument, it takes one of three
logical forms: comparison to the greater, comparison to the lesser, or
comparison to the equal.
The authors identify six explicit deliberative syncrises in
Hebrews: 2:2–4; 4:2; 6:13–20; 10:28–29; 12:9; and 12:25. These six syncrises
share two features: (1) each syncrisis adopts the classical deliberative aim of
the advantageous/disadvantageous, that is, perseverance in the faith is
advantageous to the audience, while apostasy is disadvantageous; (2) each
syncrisis is a comparison to the lesser: what is true in the lesser case (the
old covenant) is also true in the greater case (the new covenant). Five of
these deliberative syncrises (with the exception of 12:9) are directly related
to the five epideictic syncrises identified in chapter 2. In the remainder of
the chapter the authors demonstrate how each of the five deliberative syncrises
not only follow logically from the five epideictic syncrises, but they also derive
their topics from them.
Chapter 4 briefly discusses the ancient compositional theory
of arranging an ancient speech. Ancient speeches consisted of four main parts: exordium,
narratio, argumentatio (which could be further subdivided into
different parts), and peroratio. According to the authors, all the parts
of a speech were optional except for the argumentatio. Hence, the
authors propose beginning with an identification of the argumentatio
when analyzing the structure of a discourse. Identifying the individual proofs
will aid in ascertaining the argumentatio of a speech.
In chapter 5 the authors attempt to identify the argumentatio
in Hebrews. They begin, once again, by returning to the rhetorical handbooks to
identify the key features in argumentatio. First, there are three types of speeches that
have different aims. Deliberative speeches use exhortation and dissuasion to
move an audience to make a decision about a future course of action that is
advantageous or disadvantageous. Judicial speeches employ accusation and blame
to persuade an audience to decide whether the actions of a defendant in the
past are just or unjust. Epideictic speeches use praise and blame and address
the audience as a spectator who is not required to render a judgment. Second, argumentatio
employs deductive (such as enthymemes) and inductive (such as examples)
proofs for its argumentation. Third, argumentatio draws upon standard
topics regarding persons or things/actions/deeds for making its argumentation.
Fourth, argumentatio uses argumentative amplification. Fifth, they
contain propositio or summary statements or claims to be demonstrated by
proof. The propositio can occur multiple times in a speech and may take
the form of advice or exhortation.
Having established the main features of argumentatio,
the authors turn their sights on Hebrews. They argue that the five deliberative
sections (2:1–18; 3:7–4:13; 5:11–6:20; 10:19–12:17; 12:25–29) are the argumentatio.
They give close attention to the first of these deliberative sections,
identifying the probatio at 2:2–4, the propositio at 2:1, and the
amplificatio at 2:5–18. Then in an extended outline on pages 117–126,
the authors detail the various parts in each of the deliberative sections and
demonstrate that they evince the characteristic features of argumentatio
that they identified in the first part of the chapter.
In chapter 6, the authors argue that the epideictic sections
previously identified (1:5–14; 3:1–6; 5:1–10; 7:1–10:18; 12:18–24) form the narratio
of Hebrews. The purpose of epideictic is to amplify, and syncrisis or comparison
is one of the commonest means of amplification. This is precisely what we find
in these epideictic sections. Furthermore, epideictic has an auxiliary
function; it can serve deliberative rhetoric but deliberative rhetoric never
serves epideictic. The authors argue that the narratio in Hebrews is a
“disjoined narratio,” that is, it is distributed piecemeal throughout
the discourse, alternating with the deliberative sections. The authors then
advance eleven arguments (see the summary on pages 132–133) that support their
contention that these epideictic sections constitute the narratio of
Hebrews. With meticulous attention to detail, the authors demonstrate that
these sections fulfill the requirements as the narratio.
In chapter 7, the authors seek to identify the exordium
of Hebrews. The exordium seeks to gain favor with the audience by
earning their goodwill, attentiveness, and receptivity to the message. The
authors contend that 1:1–4 achieves this purpose. Moreover, the exordium
is not intended to introduce the central claims of the speech, which is what we
find in 1:1–4. The authors give four additional reasons for demarcating the exordium
at 1:1–4: (1) the authors have already delineated the narratio and the argumentatio;
(2) it evinces a periodic form; (3) it contains a hymnos in verses 3 and
4; (4) verse 4 forms an appropriate transitional link with what follows. The
authors also identify a secondary exordium at 4:14–16, which introduces
the longer section devoted to the topic of pursuits (5:1–12:13). The secondary exordium
seeks to win the favor of the audience, it briefly enumerates the major points
to come in the following section, it fits well between the argumentatio
of 3:7–4:13 and the narratio of 5:1–10, and verse 16 forms an
appropriate link to the next section.
Chapter 8 turns to a discussion of the peroratio of
Hebrews. The authors aver that 13:1–25 forms the peroratio for the
entire discourse, while 12:14–17 functions as a secondary peroratio.
First, 13:1–25 appears at the end of the discourse after the argumentatio,
where we would expect to find it. Hebrews 12:14–17 meanwhile is located at the
end of the lengthy central section, forming an inclusio with 4:14–16. The
authors identify four functions of the peroratio: (1) it disposes the
audience favorably toward the speaker; (2) it amplifies the proofs of the case;
(3) it stirs up the emotions of the audience; and (4) it recapitulates the arguments
of the speech. The authors contend that 13:1–25 and 12:14–17 fulfill the
expectations of the peroratio. First, the authors claim that the two
passages do recapitulate the content of prior components of the discourse.
Second, the two passages do appeal to a variety of emotions. Stylistically,
they excite the emotions through a variety of techniques: the usage of
asyndeton, vivid description, metaphorical language, exhortations, and the
doubling of words. Moreover, they also employ key examples. Third, they exhibit
brevity.
In chapter 9, the authors basically sum up the arguments of
chapters 5 through 8. Their arguments advance two accomplishments. First, the
argumentation of the previous four chapters demonstrates that Hebrews conforms
to the conventional expectations of classical rhetoric. Second, it demonstrates
that Hebrews has primarily a deliberative aim.
In chapter 10, the authors draw some implications from their
study of the rhetorical structure of Hebrews. First, they propose that “Hebrews
is our earliest self-identifying Christian speech (or sermon) to an assembly of
Christ-followers” (p. 261). This has three implications: (1) there was a need
for deliberative sermons for the early Christians because of the precarious
social context in which they lived; (2) some early Christians did have a high
level of rhetorical training; (3) Christians readily adopted classical forms of
rhetoric to advance their own purposes. Second, the authors propose that
Hebrews’ warnings against apostasy were “directed against imperial pagan
culture and not non-Christian forms of Judaism” (p. 265). They advance four reasons
for this conviction. Ultimately, they claim that “the comparative rhetoric of
Hebrews . . . is intended to heighten resistance to pagan imperial culture and
is in no way aimed at other forms of Judaism” (p. 270). [One can read Jason
Whitlark’s monograph, Resisting Empire, for a further elaboration of
this thesis]
This is a meticulously argued book. While at times the prose
gets a little tedious because of the detailed argumentation, it is necessary in
order to show how the different parts of the discourse of Hebrews fit together and
meet the expectations of ancient classical rhetoric. While the proposal that
Hebrews is deliberative rhetoric is not a new thesis, the rhetorical structure
of a disjointed narratio and argumentatio, along with a dual exordium
and peroratio, is completely novel. But their arguments are
well-grounded in the rhetorical handbooks of antiquity. They adduce copious
references and quotations from these handbooks to bolster their argument. I
think they have persuasively demonstrated that Hebrews is primarily
deliberative rhetoric. Certainly, one might question certain parts of the
argument. For example, I am not fully convinced that Hebrews 13 engages in
recapitulation—at least not to the extent that the authors propose—largely because
the chapter seems to introduce so many new themes not addressed elsewhere in
the discourse. Nevertheless, I do believe they have correctly identified it as
the peroratio, because of its location, appeals to emotion, and the
stylistic features that they highlight. Their proposal that the epideictic
rhetoric is meant primarily to praise the new covenant according to the ancient
topoi of persons is a very intriguing thesis and is certainly worthy of
consideration. At the end of the day, the authors have presented a formidable
argument for the rhetorical structure and genre of Hebrews. Any future studies
on the structure of Hebrews will need to seriously engage with the arguments advanced
in this book. Certainly scholars and advanced students who are interested in Hebrews
or the application of classical rhetoric to New Testament studies will find
this book of great interest.
I want to thank Jason Whitlark and Cambridge University
Press for sending me a review copy of this book. Furthermore, a much
abbreviated review will appear in a future issue of Religious Studies Review.
No comments:
Post a Comment