The Letter to the Hebrews

in Social-Scientific

Perspective

David A. deSilva

THE LETTER TO THE HEBREWS IN SOCIAL-SCIENTIFIC PERSPECTIVE

Cascade Companions 15

Copyright © 2012 David A. deSilva. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical publications or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Write: Permissions, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3, Eugene, OR 97401.

Cascade Books

An Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers

199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3

Eugene, OR 97401

www.wipfandstock.com

isbn 13: 978-1-60608-855-5

Cataloging-in-Publication data:

deSilva, David Arhtur

The letter to the Hebrews in social-scientific perspective / David A. deSilva

xvi + 188 p. ; 20 cm. Includes bibliographical references and index.

Cascade Companions 15

isbn 13: 978-1-60608-855-5

1. Bible. N.T. Hebrews—Social scientific criticism. I. Title. II. Series.

BS2775.52 D4 2012

Manufactured in the U.S.A.

In honor of Luke Timothy Johnson,

a generous Doktorvater and exemplary scholar

Abbreviations

Ancient Works

Aristotle, Eth. nic. Ethica nichomachea

Aristotle, Rhet. Rhetorica

John Chrysostom,

Hom. Heb. Homiliae in epistulam ad Hebraeos

Dio Chrysostom, Or. Orationes

Dio Chrysostom,

Philoct. Philoctetes

Epictetus, Diss. Dissertationes

Euripedes, Orest. Orestes

Eusebius, Hist. eccl. Historia ecclesiastica

Fronto, Ad M. Caes. Ad M. Caesarem

Gregory of Nyssa,

Eunom. Contra Eunomium

Herodotus, Hist. Historiae

Justin Martyr, Dial. Dialogus cum Tryphone

L.A.B. Liber antiquitatum biblicarum

(Pseudo-Philo)

Diogenes Laertius,

Vit. Phil. Vitae philosophorum

Lucian, Peregr. De morte Peregrini

Lucian, Pat. enc. Patriae encomium

Origen, Mart. Exhortatio ad Marytrium

Origen, Fr. Ps. Fragmenta in Psalmos

Philo, Flacc. In Flaccum

Philo, Leg. Legum allegoriae

Philo, Mos. De vita Mosis

Philo, Prob. Quod omnis probus liber sit

Philo, Virt. De virtutibus

Plato Cri. Crito

Plato, Phaedr. Phaedrus

Pliny, Ep. Epistulae

Plutarch, Exil. De exilio

Plutarch, Mor. Moralia

Rhet. Her. Rhetorica ad Herennium

Seneca, Ben. De beneficiis

Seneca, Constant. De constantia sapientis

Seneca, Ep. Epistulae morales

Seneca, Prov. De providentia

Tacitus, Ann. Annales

Journals and Series

ACNT Abingdon New Testament Commentary

BSac Bibliotheca sacra

BTB Biblical Theology Bulletin

BZ Biblische Zeitschrift

CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly

CTJ Calvin Theological Journal

HNTC Harper’s New Testament Commentaries

ICC International Critical Commentary

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament

JSSR Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion

KEK Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament

NIBCNT New International Biblical Commentary on the New Testament

NICNT New International Commentary on the New Testament

NIGTC New International Greek Testament Commentary

NIVAC NIV Application Commentary

NTL New Testament Library

NTS New Testament Studies

RRelRes Review of Religious Research

SJT Scottish Journal of Theology

SNTSMS Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series

SNTSU Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt

SP Sacra pagina

SNT Studien zum Neuen Testament

TynBul Tyndale Bulletin

Introduction

Guiding Questions for a Social-Scientific Interpretation

The Letter—or, better, the Sermon—to the Hebrews offers some of the loftiest theological reflections in the New Testament. Here we read of the exaltation of the Son above every cosmic being, all carefully established with Scriptural support (1:1–14). We find arcane speculation about the shadowy figure of Melchizedek (7:1–10), on the basis of which the author launches into an extended exploration of Jesus’ priestly sacrifice in comparison with the sacrifices offered by the Levitical priests in the tabernacle as described in Exodus and Leviticus (7:11—10:18). In what may be the most familiar passage, we read of the heroes of faith across such a broad time span as to become timeless (ch. 11). The author talks so much about the sacred past and the invisible activity in the heavenly realm that we are tempted to forget that he is addressing flesh-and-blood people living somewhere around the Mediterranean basin wrestling with real-life concerns and seeking to come to terms with some very mundane realities in their changing social circumstances, and that he is probably concerned very much with their responses to and within those circumstances.

Social-scientific interpretation provides tools and approaches that help to correct any such tendency in our reading of a particular New Testament text. Grounded in the methods and heuristic models of the social sciences, it helps interpreters enter into the real-life social context of the author that created, and the audience intended to receive and respond to, a text.¹ It helps us not lose sight of how a text is informed by the social situation in which it was produced and by which it was, at least in part, evoked, and how the text potentially impacts people living within their social situation. It allows us to connect the ideas and beliefs communicated by a text with the lived world of the people producing and receiving the text, and perhaps also the changes within that lived world that the text nurtures. When social-scientific interpretation supplements the other varied skills and tools brought to the interpretation of a text, it helps the interpreter discover the flesh behind the word. This is especially important where biblical interpretation happens in contexts where people continue to seek guidance for their own flesh-and-blood lives and communities in this same word.

An important aim of social-scientific criticism, including the cultural-anthropological study of the first-century Greco-Roman world, is to lay bare the cultural and social distance between the modern readers and interpreters, on the one hand, and the ancient authors and audiences, on the other.² We seek to discover the given roles and logic of their social customs and institutions and their cultural norms, so that we may read these ancient texts in the context of the presuppositions and shared knowledge that the ancient authors and audiences brought to these texts as acts of communication, rather than impose our own presuppositions and cultural knowledge upon the same. We will see just how important this is, for example, in the fourth chapter when we read Hebrews in light of grace and the expectations and ethos of grace relationships in the first-century Greco-Roman environment, which is very different from the modern, post-Reformation environment.

Social-scientific criticism invites the formulation of new questions, and thus the potential discovery of new data in the texts and their environment, or at least new ways of analyzing the data to which we already have access.³ The explorations undertaken in this companion to Hebrews can be correlated with several of the particular questions that John H. Elliott formulated as avenues into sociological exegesis. In the first chapter, we will explore author-centered questions: "Who is the explicitly mentioned or implied author-sender of the text? If the document is anonymous, what can be inferred about the author’s identity and on what basis? . . . What is the relationship of intended audience and author-sender(s)?"⁴ While the question of the identity of the author of Hebrews is ultimately unsolvable, his sermon provides ample material for the creation of a social profile. We will focus particularly on the level and nature of his education, his degree of acculturation to the Hellenistic-Roman environment, and the nature of his authority in the community.

The second chapter focuses on audience-centered questions: "Who are the explicitly mentioned (or implied) readers-hearers of this document? What is their geographical location? What is their social composition? . . . Can a social profile of the audience be constructed?"⁵ Again, historical investigation alone comes up short in regard to the audience of Hebrews, since their location cannot be determined with any confidence. Nevertheless, sifting through Hebrews with the kinds of questions social-scientific exegesis brings to a text allows us to analyze the clues that are given in regard to the community’s ethnic composition, the community’s formative history, and its members’ social level.

The question of primary importance for interpreting any occasional text like a letter or a written sermon concerns what was going on the community’s situation to occasion such a response? Hence we also need to ask: "How is the social situation described in the text? What information is explicitly provided or implied? What information is stressed through repetition, reformulation, or emphatic placement? Can further information on the situation be supplied from external sources? How does the author diagnose and evaluate the situation? What phenomena are singled out for approval, commendation, disapproval, condemnation, or necessary change?"⁶ It is all too tempting to look in the realm of theological ideas or, perhaps, ethical deviations for the presenting cause of an epistle, and thus conclude that the author of Hebrews is primarily concerned about a deficient Christology among his hearers, or a dangerous fascination with non-Christian Judaism. Social-scientific exegesis reminds us that social factors may be just as, if not more, important and pressing.

Chapters 3 through 5, then, seek to understand how the sermon is strategically constructed to address the particular challenges that the author identifies, and to motivate the audience to respond in the way that the author desires: "What response does the author seek from the targeted audience? . . . How does the author attempt to motivate and persuade the audience? To what shared goals, values, norms, sanctions, and traditions is appeal made? . . . Are any dominant symbols or ‘root metaphors’ used to characterize and express the collective identity and action of the audience? How is the document constituted to be an effective instrument of rhetorical persuasion and social interaction?"⁷ It is this focus on how a text’s rhetoric is directed to effect social responses that accounts for the use of the term sociorhetorical in the titles of these chapters. Throughout these explorations, we are also concerned with questions about ideology and interests—the interests of the Christians’ neighbors, the varied interests among the audience, and the author’s interests—and how the author uses the ideological tools at his disposal to make the best interests of the group (namely, its survival in an unsupportive-to-hostile environment) displace any competing interests.

These studies are offered not only in the hope of contributing to the task of helping the Sermon to the Hebrews take on flesh and blood for contemporary readers, but also to the task of expanding the readers’ tools for exploring other texts, asking fresh kinds of questions and discovering fresh dimensions in the situations and responses reflected therein.

1. Some helpful surveys of research in this area and bibliographic guides include Holmberg, Sociology and the New Testament; Elliott, Social-Scientific Criticism,

138

–

74

; Harrington, Second Testament Exegesis and the Social Sciences; Horrell, Social-Scientific Approaches.

2. Elliott, Social-Scientific Criticism,

38

; deSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity,

17

–

21

.

3. See the lists of questions for guiding sociological investigations of texts compiled in Kee, Knowing the Truth,

65

–

69

; Elliott, Social-Scientific Criticism,

72

–

74

,

110

–

23

; deSilva, Introduction to the New Testament,

438

–

44

,

629

–

31

,

650

–

52

,

831

–

38

.

4. Elliott, Social-Scientific Criticism,

74

.

5. Ibid.,

72

.

6. Ibid.,

73

.

7. Ibid.,

73

–

74

.

one

The Author of Hebrews: A Social Profile

Hebrews is an anonymous sermon, which poses something of a challenge to creating a full-bodied social profile. The mention of Timothy in Heb 13:23, combined with Paul’s reputation as a letter writer, led early scribes to begin to attribute the letter to Paul, which aided greatly in its eventual acceptance into the canon. Only after Jerome and Augustine championed the cause of Pauline authorship did this view take deep roots, however. Second- and third-century Christian leaders like Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Tertullian believed that a member of Paul’s team, and not Paul himself, had authored this epistle, or in Origen’s famous judgment, who truly wrote the letter only God knows (quoted in Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.25.14).

Several factors strongly argue against attributing the sermon to Paul. First, the author includes himself among those who came to faith through the preaching of other apostles (Heb 2:3–4). This is perhaps the strongest argument against Pauline authorship, for Paul adamantly insists that he came to faith through a direct intervention by Jesus and not through any human being’s words (see Gal 1:11–17; 1 Cor 15:3–10). Second, none of the writings bearing Paul’s name come close to the rhetorical finesse and stylistic polish of Hebrews. Indeed, Paul explicitly refused to rely on well-crafted rhetoric (the loftiness of words or wisdom, 1 Cor 2:1),¹ lest persuasion come through the speaker’s art rather than the Spirit’s conviction (1 Cor 2:1–5). The author of Hebrews clearly had a different philosophy of preaching than did Paul. Third, although the sermon shares many topics with Paul (the examples of Abraham and Jesus, the Mosaic covenant), they are often developed in different ways. The author’s focus on Jesus as high priest and on the Israelite cult, moreover, is quite distinctive.² Finally, the debates over the letter’s canonicity themselves attest to the fact that Paul’s name was not attached to the letter from the beginning, either in writing or by tradition. If it were written by Paul, there would not have been such discussions concerning authorship and questions concerning canonicity as we find before the Synod of Hippo (393 CE).

³

Based on their observation that Hebrews differed from Paul’s letters in rhetorical style and content, Clement, Origen, and Tertullian suggested alternative candidates from among the Pauline team: Barnabas and Apollos often emerged as favorites. Nevertheless, the case for any particular member of the Pauline circle will always remain inconclusive and, largely, circumstantial.

⁴

Level of Education

Though we lack a name to attach to this sermon, the author reveals enough of himself to provide at least a partial social profile.⁵ First, he is well educated. Whether he acquired this formally or informally cannot ultimately be demonstrated, but he acquired the level of rhetorical proficiency that formal training sought to nurture and has, perhaps, a better claim to formal education than any other New Testament author. It is particularly striking to find the author using patterns of argumentation that follow—literally—standard textbook exercises. Before advanced study of rhetoric and oratory, young students would be introduced to more elementary exercises in logic, composition, and speech writing called the Progymnasmata, or Preliminary Exercises. Several textbooks from the first through fourth centuries CE survive, giving us direct access to what was taught at this level.⁶ Several of the exercises involved mastering a pattern called elaboration, a pattern applied to a thesis, a proposition, or a famous statement by a famous person (the last is called a chreia). The elaboration pattern took a student through many of the basic building blocks of rhetorical argumentation, building blocks that would be used to construct arguments for the rest of his public life.

According to the Progymnasmata attributed to Hermogenes (second century CE), the exercise began with the recitation of a maxim or chreia and involved developing a full argument in support of the maxim or saying according to the following outline:

Introduction

Statement of chreia (or maxim)

Cause (reason, rationale)

Contrast (contrary)

Comparison (analogy)

Example (historical precedent)

A judgment (quotation of an authority)

Concluding exhortation/restatement

⁷

A very similar pattern appears in the anonymous Rhetorica ad Herennium, an advanced handbook on rhetoric from the early first century BCE, as a useful way to develop any theme (any thesis or exhortation) that might arise in the course of a speech:

2. Thesis

3. Cause (reason, rationale)

– Restatement of theme in another form (with or without reasons)

4. Contrast (contrary)

5. Comparison (analogy)

6. Historical Example (precedent)

7. Concluding exhortation/restatement

Each of these elements may include a more fully developed argument with its own rationales, as the sample elaboration that follows in the textbook shows (Rhet. Her. 4.43.56—4.44.57).

When the author of Hebrews turns to talk about God’s formative discipline—the education God provides the congregation through the trials they have endured—he uses precisely this pattern, with the kind of variation one would expect in actual practice:

Introduction (

12

:

5

a):

You have forgotten the exhortation which

addresses you as sons:

Thesis/Chreia (

12

:

5

b):

"My son, do not regard lightly the formative

discipline [paideia] of the Lord,

nor lose courage while being reproved by him.

Rationale (

12

:

6

):

For whom the Lord loves, he disciplines,

and chastens every son whom he receives."

Restatement of Thesis (

12

:

7

a):

Endure for the sake of formative discipline.

Restatement of Rationale (

12

:

7

b):

God is treating you as sons.

Confirmation of Rationale (

12

:

7

c):

For who is the son whom a father does not

discipline?

Contrary (

12

:

8

):

If you are without formative discipline, of which

all [children]

have become partakers, then you are bastards and

not sons.

Comparison (

12

: