The Structure of Hebrews Revisited1 George H. Guthrie [email protected] Society of Biblical Literature 2006 Annual Meeting, Washington, DC Hebrews Consultation

I wish to begin by thanking the steering committee for the Hebrews consultation, particularly Professors Bauer and Gelardini, for the invitation to present and enter dialogue on the important topic before us today. Having thought about the structure of Hebrews for about twenty years now, it remains for me an intriguing subject, a challenging puzzle to which one can return time and again to find new puzzles within the puzzle, as well as suddenly discernible pieces that seem to fall into place. Yet, thankfully, there have been many dialogue partners in working the literary puzzle, including the two colleagues joining me today. Thus, I am grateful for the ongoing process, and hope to contribute to, as well as learn from, the discussion before us.

© Copyright 2006 by George H. Guthrie, Jackson, TN, USA. All rights reserved. This publication may be quoted, yet no part of it may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the author. 1

To stimulate our thinking as we begin this dialogue, I want to draw an analogy between the structure of Hebrews and a form of structural representation from the hard sciences, obviously an area outside of literary and biblical studies. If we looked to the world of molecular science, what might be the molecular model that would most correspond to the dynamics we find in Hebrews? Would Hebrews’ structure, perhaps, parallel a fairly linear picture, such as model A in Figure 1, which perhaps calls to mind thematically oriented approaches built on the back of the κρείττων motif?:

Or, in the vein of works that have questioned whether Hebrews has a discernable outline, might we, rather, draw on the more enigmatic Model B:

Perhaps a double helix, depicted in Model C, might be more in line with the structural dynamics in the book, highlighting the delicate dance between the expositional material on the Son and the more directly hortatory material:

Or, with Wolfgang Nauck and others, might the structure of Hebrews more closely correspond to a nicely-balanced, three-tier organization, a tripartite scheme, such as that represented by Model D?:

Or finally, might model E, based on concentric circles, calling to mind, for instance, the work of Vanhoye, provide a better depiction of the dynamics in Hebrews?:

Of course, analogies break down rather quickly, but anyone who has studied the history of interpretation concerning Hebrews’ structure will recognize in these models parallels with suggestions made concerning the book’s organization. Perhaps none of these, or from another vantage point, each of these in its own way, serve as helpful depictions of dynamics in the macro-structure of Hebrews. It is telling that this one book has spawned so many widely varying attempts at displaying its framework in a coherent fashion.

I want to suggest that the great complexity of Hebrews, which has been such a bane to those seeking to unlock its organization, and such a stimulus for varied readings of its structure, serves also as a very great boon, for the book’s power and elegance as a discourse are concomitant with its complexity. As Aristophanes wrote half a millennia before the author of Hebrews put pen to medium, “High thoughts must have high language,” and the language and thoughts and, we might add, the style here are high indeed. How then, with its inherent complexity, are we to get at the book’s structure?

An Overview of the Structure of Hebrews I understand the structure of Hebrews much in line with that presented in my Novum Testamentum Sup. volume of 1994 and reiterated in my 1998 commentary on Hebrews, yet with a number of minor adjustments here and there. My current reading of the book’s organization you have before you in Figure 2. On this reading of Hebrews’ structure, there exist three general movements in the discourse, the first and second overlapping at 4:14-16 and the second and third overlapping at 10:19-25. Thus, my approach has this similarity with the tripartite scheme of Wolfgang Nauck, to which I have long been indebted, or the more recent approach of my

colleague Cindy Westfall. At the same time, the approach insists that there exists both a brilliant interplay between expositional spans and more overtly hortatory spans in the book, and that these subgenres, while dynamically interweaving both rhetorically and semantically, have distinct features and functions, which must be taken into account in structural assessments of the book. These subgenre neither should be held apart, as if they were two parallel but separate rivers flowing side-by-side, nor should they be mingled to the point that their distinctiveness and unique contributions to the discourse become obscured. More on this in a moment.

The expositional material focuses on the Son of God, in 1:5-2:18 addressing “The Son, Our Messenger, in Relation to the Angels,” the angelic beings here used as a point of reference to celebrate both the exaltation, in 1:5-14, and incarnation, in 2:10-18, of the Son. The quotation of Ps. 8:4-6 at Heb. 2:5-9 functions as a key, intermediary transition in this section, since the psalm text contains both elements of exaltation (“you have crowned him with glory and honor, you put all things under his feet’) and incarnation (“you made him lower than the angels for a little while”). Heb. 2:5-9, moreover, coheres around the topic of the submission of all things to

Christ, the term ὑποτάσσω used, four times, once in the introductory formula, once in the quotation itself, and twice in the comment on the quotation in v. 8.

The second main movement of Christology runs from 4:14-10:25 and concerns “The Position of the Son, our High Priest, in Relation to the Earthly Sacrificial System.” Notice the symmetry of this great central section of the book. It stands framed by a grand inclusio at 4:14-16 and 10:19-25 and consists of two primary movements: 5:1-10/7:1-28 address the Appointment of the Son as a Superior Priest” and 8:3-10:18 “The Superior Offering of the Appointed High Priest.” These movements each have three embedded discourses: an introduction, followed by a discourse on the superiority of a figure (in the case of Melchizedek) or an institution (in the case of the new covenant) from the Jewish Scriptures, followed by an explication of Christ’s superior priesthood. In 7:11-28 his priesthood is proclaimed as superior on the basis of a superior, Melchizedekan priesthood proclaimed in Ps. 110:4, and in 9:1-10:18 his new covenant offering is demonstrated as superior, based on superior blood, a superior place of offering, and the finality of Christ’s decisive offering.

As I have pointed out elsewhere, the expositional material on Christ develops both logically and spatially. Logically, the discourse begins with the Son as exalted Lord of the universe, his superior status setting up the dynamic a fortiori argument of 2:1-4. The discourse then transitions to the topic of incarnation, the focus of 2:10-18, via the quotation of Ps. 8 at 2:5-9, since the Son had to take on flesh and blood to die for the sins of the people. Then comes the great central section of Hebrews, which deals with Christ’s high priesthood. High priests are appointed from among people and thus can empathize with their weaknesses. So too the Christ was appointed (5:1-10, 7:1-28) from among people and can sympathize with their weaknesses, and this appointed priest must have something to offer, the superiority of his offering treated extensively in 8:3-10:18. One aspect of the offering’s superiority concerns the place of offering—in heaven—the discourse thus moving back to a focus on the heavenly realm where it began.

This expositional treatment of Christ, however, integrates dynamically with and serves the hortatory purpose of the book. In my book The Structure of Hebrews, I suggest the following concerning the central purpose of this New Testament writing: “The purpose of the book of Hebrews is to

exhort the hearers to endure in their pursuit of the promised reward, in obedience to the Word of God, and especially on the basis of their new covenant relationship with the Son.”

Thus the hortatory material in the book constitutes the end purpose of all the expositional materials. At points this relationship is rhetorically associated in the most direct of fashions, as in the case of the relationship between 1:5-14 and 2:1-4, the first of these units laying the foundation and basis for the a fortiori argument in 2:1-4. At other times the semantic and pragmatic association of a unit of exposition with the exhortation that follows seems less dynamic, but it must be stressed that semantic continuity exists in every case as the author moves from his exposition on Christ to the hortatory materials that form the discourse’s end goal.

Thus, the hortatory material contributes to the discourse both by drawing force from the expositional material and by reiteration of key themes and forms found in other blocks of exhortation, the author using especially encouragement, warnings, promises, and positive and negative examples. These materials especially cohere around the vital importance of hearing and responding to the Word of God.

Notice, for instance, the content and symmetry of the warning passages evenly spaced throughout Hebrews. At 2:1-4 we find the a fortiori argument that warns of the importance of paying attention to the word of Salvation heard through the superior Son. The terse warning of 4:11-13 provides a fitting reminder of the power and effectiveness of God’s word, which flows from the treatment of Ps. 95 and Gen. 2:2 in 3:7-4:11, challenging the audience to hear God’s voice today and enter God’s rest. The warning of 6:4-8 concerns the negative example of those who had fallen away from the faith, who, among other descriptions, had tasted God’s good word. At 10:26-31 one finds another harsh warning, built around yet another a fortiori argument, which has similarities with both 2:1-4 and 6:4-8. Here, the person who rejects the Son of God, regarding the blood of the new covenant as common, can expect a more severe punishment than the person who had disregarded the law of Moses. Finally, the warning of 12:25-29 again emphasizes listening to God’s voice and offers yet another a fortiori argument to drive the point home. These warnings are rhetorically effective, in part, because they reiterate time and again a focal message: God’s word must be heard and obeyed, and the one who does not respond to that word appropriately faces the judgment of God.

In some ways, the most arresting use of exhortation is in the digressio beginning at 5:11 and extending to 6:20. Digressions were used in ancient oratory, not to distract from the main topic at hand, but rather, strategically, to refresh the hearer in the midst of a logically developing argument and to rivet the attention with supportive but varied material. Quintillian, The Orator’s Education, 4.3.14-17, writes of the effectiveness of digressions: “. . . there are so many different ways of diverging from the straight path of a speech. . . . When these are subordinate to Arguments involving similar subjects, they are not felt as Digressions, because they cohere with the whole; but many such passages are inserted with no such coherence with the context, and serve to refresh, admonish, placate, plead with, or praise the judge. Such things are countless. . . . one who breaks off in the middle must get back quickly to the point where he left the main track. This is exactly what the author accomplishes in 5:11-6:20. By the time he returns to the topic of Melchizedek, anticipated in 6:13-20, and reactivated as a primary topic of discussion in 7:1-10, the hearers’ ears are straining to hear this more advanced teaching alluded to in 5:11. So much for my digression on the use of digressions.

Forms of lexical recurrence This reading of Hebrews’ structure builds in part on discerning distinctions between three types of lexical repetition, and I want to suggest that

identifying these distinctions proves mandatory for unraveling Hebrews’ structure. In the ancient rhetorical handbooks, extensive attention was given to the various strategic uses of the repetition of terms, phrases and clauses. Orators of the ancient world were well versed, for example, in various ways of using words as a powerful tool of amplification of a theme, transition from one theme to another, or the marking of discourse movements. We also find a number of devices in the biblical literature that demonstrate literary strategies, especially utilizing distant parallelism, to mark movements in a discourse.

I want to mention three distinct forms of lexical repetition found in Hebrews, and demonstrate various conventions from the first century world that illustrate the last two. These forms of repetition might be labeled: simple lexical repetition, lexical stitching, and structural framing.

First, the author of Hebrews utilizes what might be called simple lexical repetition. This form of repetition might involve uses of a term at various points in the discourse, or throughout a section, thus enhancing discourse cohesion. For instance, the word ἔργον occurs nine times in Hebrews (Heb. 1:10; 3:9; 4:3-4,10; 6:1,10; 9:14; 10:24), three of the occurrences speaking of

God’s work of creation, one referring to his miraculous works in the wilderness, two referring to so-called dead works by people, two having to do with human good works, and one having to do with the correspondence between God resting from his work and the rest found by those who cease from their own works (4:10). These uses of ἔργον constitute a minor theme in the book, contributing in a small way to the cohesiveness of the discourse through lexical repetition. Other terms, such as the use of υἵος in 1:1-3:6, or ἄγγελος in the first two chapters of the book, or ὑπομένω and its cognates in 10:32-12:17 have a greater discourse role to play but, for the most part, build discourse cohesion via simple lexical repetition.

A second form of lexical recurrence might be called lexical stitching, by which two parts of the discourse are stitched together in the book’s structural development. The rabbinic principle of verbal analogy, by which a rabbi brought two scriptural passages together for consideration based on their common wording, offers one example of this form of lexical recurrence. For instance, the quotation of Ps. 110:1 at Heb. 1:13, with its proclamation to the Son that his enemies would be put ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν σου gives rise to the quotation of Ps. 8:4-6 at Heb. 2:6-8a, a scriptural text that also ends with the submission of all things under τῶν ποδῶν.

Verbal analogy also forms the basis of the association of Ps. 95 with Gen. 2:2 in Heb. 4, both passages referring to God’s rest. Thus, the passages stand stitched together by virtue of common wording.

Yet there exists in Hebrews a number of identifiable transition techniques that also work on the basis of lexical stitching. Bruce Longenecker, in his 2005 book Rhetoric at the Boundaries, demonstrates conclusively that crafted transition techniques are spoken of overtly in the rhetorical handbooks, but also are clearly identifiable in many literatures of the ancient world, including the biblical literature, Philo, and Josephus. The second century rhetor Lucian writes of a discourse: Though all parts must be independently perfected, when the first is complete, the second will be brought into essential connection with it, and attached like one link of a chain to another; there must be no possibility of separating them; no mere bundle of parallel threads; the first is not simply to be next to the second, but to have fellowship with it by mixing across the boundaries.

Thus clarity is achieved, according to Lucian, by interweaving the subjects addressed by the orator.

In The Structure of Hebrews I treated transition techniques extensively, isolating eleven, and I would like to focus for a moment on two of these. The first, what commonly are referred to as “hook words,” were a

transition technique by which the end of one unit and the beginning of the next were stitched together by the use of a repeated term or terms. This literary device, first detected by Leon Vaganay and incorporated into the analysis of Albert Vanhoye, is utilized throughout the book of Hebrews, almost every unit of text stitched to its neighbors by this technique or a variation on this technique. For example, I have suggested above that Heb. 2:5-9 forms a distinct unit, cohering around the theme of “submission,” which is meaningfully integrated with the units that go before and follow it. Heb. 2:10-18, picks up on and develops the theme of the Son’s incarnation, his solidarity with “the sons” of God. As the author moves fluidly from the first of the units to the second, there exists a great continuity, as well as a discontinuity. The discontinuity involves a deactivation of the theme of the submission of all things, but the continuity involves a carrying forward of themes related to the Son’s incarnation, and the result that he, by his suffering, takes many sons to glory. To facilitate the transition from the first to the second movement, the author uses several hook words, namely, forms of πάθημα, πᾶς, αnd δόξα, as shown in Fig. 3: Heb. 2:9 τὸν δὲ βραχύ τι παρ᾿ ἀγγέλους ἠλαττωμένον βλέπομεν Ἰησοῦν διὰ τὸ πάθημα τοῦ θανάτου δόξῃ καὶ τιμῇ ἐστεφανωμένον, ὅπως χάριτι θεοῦ ὑπὲρ παντὸς γεύσηται θανάτου.

Heb. 2:10 Ἔπρεπεν γὰρ αὐτῷ, δι᾿ ὃν τὰ πάντα καὶ δι᾿ οὗ τὰ πάντα, πολλοὺς υἱοὺς εἰς δόξαν ἀγαγόντα τὸν ἀρχηγὸν τῆς σωτηρίας αὐτῶν διὰ παθημάτων τελειῶσαι. There is, however, a variation on this transition technique that has to do with the interplay of the two primary literary forms that dominate Hebrews. When the author shifts between exposition on the Son of God to exhortation of his hearers, not only does he build continuity between the adjacent units via hook words, he also effects a stitching of the expository unit to the next expository unit. The same can be said as the author moves from exhortation to exposition, back to exhortation, and this phenomenon occurs every time there is a change in genre in Hebrews.

Let me offer an example of this phenomenon, which occurs at two of the most important transition points in the discourse. At the end of chapter two, we find the first reference to the high priesthood of Christ. As the author shifts to exhortation at 3:1 the high priest theme is reiterated and then deactivated until 4:14. As the author moves from 2:18 to 3:1, several hook words are used. These are forms of ὅθεν, ἀδελφός, πιστός, and ἀρχιερεύς, as seen in Figure 4.

Heb. 2:17-18 ὅθεν ὤφειλεν κατὰ πάντα τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς ὁμοιωθῆναι, ἵνα ἐλεήμων γένηται καὶ πιστὸς ἀρχιερεὺς τὰ πρὸς τὸν θεὸν εἰς τὸ ἱλάσκεσθαι τὰς ἁμαρτίας τοῦ λαοῦ. ἐν ᾧ γὰρ πέπονθεν αὐτὸς πειρασθείς, δύναται τοῖς πειραζομένοις βοηθῆσαι. Heb. 3:1-2 Ὅθεν, ἀδελφοὶ ἅγιοι, κλήσεως ἐπουρανίου μέτοχοι, κατανοήσατε τὸν ἀπόστολον καὶ ἀρχιερέα τῆς ὁμολογίας ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν, πιστὸν ὄντα τῷ ποιήσαντι αὐτὸν ὡς καὶ Μωϋσῆς ἐν [ὅλῳ] τῷ οἴκῳ Figure 4

Given the lexical elements that facilitate the transition from the section on Christ’s incarnation to the synkrisis with Moses, the movement might be depicted as in Fig. 5:

Yet, there also are a number of hook words here at the end of chapter two, which tie this unit of exposition to the great embedded discourse on Christ’s superior priesthood, which extends from 4:14-10:25. These are seen in Figure 6:

Heb. 2:17-18 ὅθεν ὤφειλεν κατὰ πάντα τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς ὁμοιωθῆναι, ἵνα ἐλεήμων γένηται καὶ πιστὸς ἀρχιερεὺς τὰ πρὸς τὸν θεὸν εἰς τὸ ἱλάσκεσθαι τὰς ἁμαρτίας τοῦ λαοῦ. ἐν ᾧ γὰρ πέπονθεν αὐτὸς πειρασθείς, δύναται τοῖς πειραζομένοις βοηθῆσαι. Heb. 4:14-5:3 Ἔχοντες οὖν ἀρχιερέα μέγαν διεληλυθότα τοὺς οὐρανούς, Ἰησοῦν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, κρατῶμεν τῆς ὁμολογίας. οὐ γὰρ ἔχομεν ἀρχιερέα μὴ δυνάμενον συμπαθῆσαι ταῖς ἀσθενείαις ἡμῶν, πεπειρασμένον δὲ κατὰ πάντα καθ᾿ ὁμοιότητα χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας. προσερχώμεθα οὖν μετὰ παρρησίας τῷ θρόνῳ τῆς χάριτος, ἵνα λάβωμεν ἔλεος καὶ χάριν εὕρωμεν εἰς εὔκαιρον βοήθειαν. Πᾶς γὰρ ἀρχιερεὺς ἐξ ἀνθρώπων λαμβανόμενος ὑπὲρ ἀνθρώπων καθίσταται τὰ πρὸς τὸν θεόν, ἵνα προσφέρῃ δῶρά τε καὶ θυσίας ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν, μετριοπαθεῖν δυνάμενος τοῖς ἀγνοοῦσιν καὶ πλανωμένοις, ἐπεὶ καὶ αὐτὸς περίκειται ἀσθένειαν καὶ δι᾿ αὐτὴν ὀφείλει, καθὼς περὶ τοῦ λαοῦ, οὕτως καὶ περὶ αὐτοῦ προσφέρειν περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν. Given this data, there exists both a transition from 2:10-18 to 3:1-6, but also a dynamic transition from 2:10-18 to the point at which the author resumes his Christological exposition at 4:142 and following. These transitions might be depicted as in Fig. 7:

2

Although 4:14-16 constitutes hortatory material, I have argued elsewhere that it forms a unique, overlapping transition between the hortatory material of 3:1-4:12 and the expositional material of 5:1-10:18. In short, the author both wraps up the exhortation with twin hortatory subjunctives—“hold fast” and “draw near”—and introduces the great Christological, central section of Hebrews.

Presented with this data, can there be any doubt that the author in some way wished to mark development of Hebrews’ discourse via these extensive lexical links? I think not, and any treatment of the structure of Hebrews must account for such data.

This brings us to the third form of lexical recurrence in Hebrews, namely structural framing. Two literary devices contribute to the marking of the beginning and ending of discourse units in Hebrews by the use of strategic placement of repeated lexical items. First, the author uses inclusio, a literary device found extensively both in the Jewish scriptures (e.g. Ps. 118; Lev. 11?; Deut. 1-28; Jer. 25 ) and the New Testament literature (e.g., Mark’s Gospel, James), which consisted of lexical elements at the beginning and ending of a discourse movement. Rather than decreasing discourse cohesion, the opening and closing of inclusions in Hebrews, constitute a

form of lexical cohesion and serve as orientation markers for the hearer or reader, much like our use of subheadings in a book chapter. This was especially important in ancient literature, in which words and sentences ran together. Would anyone suggest that the use of subheadings in a book chapter decrease discourse cohesion? No. They function rather to signal transitions in a discourse, providing a helpful orientation for the hearer or reader.

Since our time is limited, I will focus on just two examples of the author’s many uses of this device, but they offer vitally important data for discerning Hebrews’ structure. The most important of these, arguably the most pronounced marking of Hebrews’ discourse, is the inclusio opened at Heb. 4:14-16 and closed at Heb. 10:19-25, as presented in Fig. I1:

Heb. 4:14-16

Heb. 10:19-25

Ἔχοντες οὖν

Ἔχοντες οὖν,

ἀρχιερέα μέγαν

ἱερέα μέγαν

διεληλυθότα τοὺς οὐρανούς,

διὰ τοῦ καταπετάσματος,

Ἰησοῦν

Ἰησοῦ,

τοῦ θεοῦ,

τοῦ θεοῦ,

κρατῶμεν τῆς ὁμολογίας.

κατέχωμεν τὴν ὁμολογίαν

προσερχώμεθα . . . μετὰ

προσερχώμεθα μετὰ

παρρησίας

παρρησίαν

εἰς εὔκαιρον βοήθειαν.

εἰς τὴν εἴσοδον τῶν ἁγίων

Here we have no fewer than nine lexical parallels and a general structure built around the confession of Christ’s great priesthood, followed by two exhortations, “hold fast” and “draw near”. Notice that in Heb. 10:19-25 there is an inversion of a number of the elements as found in 4:14-16. The structure of 4:14-16 and 10:19-25, as well as the sheer density of their lexical parallels, marks these two passages as forming the most pronounced inclusio in the book, a bracket that marks off the great central section of Hebrews’ Christology.

Another pronounced use of inclusio, see in Figure I2, occurs at 5:1-4 and 7:26-28, the author marking clearly the section of the discourse on “The Appointment of the Son as a Superior High Priest.” In 5:1-4 the author introduces the section of the Son’s appointment to high priesthood by offering general principles concerning how high priests are appointed. Having argued forcefully for the superiority of Christ’s priesthood, the

author, in 7:26-28, then recapitulates much of the terminology used in 5:14, but highlights the contrasts between the old covenant priests, appointed under the law, and the new covenant high priest, appointed via the oath of God proclaimed in Ps. 110:4. The key term in both passages is καθίστημι, used only in Hebrews at 5:1 and 7:28. Heb. 5:1-4 Πᾶς γὰρ ἀρχιερεὺς ἐξ ἀνθρώπων λαμβανόμενος ὑπὲρ ἀνθρώπων καθίσταται τὰ πρὸς τὸν θεόν, ἵνα προσφέρῃ δῶρά τε καὶ θυσίας ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν, μετριοπαθεῖν δυνάμενος τοῖς ἀγνοοῦσιν καὶ πλανωμένοις, ἐπεὶ καὶ αὐτὸς περίκειται ἀσθένειαν καὶ δι᾿ αὐτὴν ὀφείλει, καθὼς περὶ τοῦ λαοῦ, οὕτως καὶ περὶ αὐτοῦ προσφέρειν περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν. καὶ οὐχ ἑαυτῷ τις λαμβάνει τὴν τιμὴν ἀλλὰ καλούμενος ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ καθώσπερ καὶ Ἀαρών. Heb. 7:26-28 Τοιοῦτος γὰρ ἡμῖν καὶ ἔπρεπεν ἀρχιερεύς, ὅσιος ἄκακος ἀμίαντος, κεχωρισμένος ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν καὶ ὑψηλότερος τῶν οὐρανῶν γενόμενος, ὃς οὐκ ἔχει καθ᾿ ἡμέραν ἀνάγκην, ὥσπερ οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς, πρότερον ὑπὲρ τῶν ἰδίων ἁμαρτιῶν θυσίας ἀναφέρειν ἔπειτα τῶν τοῦ λαοῦ· τοῦτο γὰρ ἐποίησεν ἐφάπαξ ἑαυτὸν ἀνενέγκας. ὁ νόμος γὰρ ἀνθρώπους καθίστησιν ἀρχιερεῖς ἔχοντας ἀσθένειαν, ὁ λόγος δὲ τῆς ὁρκωμοσίας τῆς μετὰ τὸν νόμον υἱὸν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τετελειωμένον. Here inclusio is used to mark clearly the beginning and ending of a major movement in the discourse.

There is, however, another literary device, found especially in the Jewish scriptures, which I have called “parallel introductions.” Two of the most

significant uses of this device in Hebrews may be seen in Figs. P1 and P2. At Heb. 1:5 the author introduces his string of OT texts with a rhetorical question, followed by the quotation of Ps. 2:7: “For to which of the angels did he ever say, ‘You are my son, today I have become your father’?” As for its place in our structural depiction of Hebrews, this quotation of Ps. 2:7 stands at the beginning of point I which concerns “The Position of the Son, Our Messenger, in Relation to the Angels,” a section running from 1:52:18.

We find Ps. 2:7 repeated at Heb. 5:5 with the words, “the one who said to him, ‘you are my son, today I have become your father,’ also says similarly in another place, “You are a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek.” This reiteration of Ps. 2:7, a clear reference back to the quotation of the passage in Heb. 1:5, stands near the beginning of point II in our structural depiction of Hebrews, a movement in the discourse which, building in part on Ps. 110:4, addresses “The Position of the Son, Our High Priest, in Relation to the Earthly Sacrificial System” (4:14-10:25). This parallel introduction facilitates a fluid transition from the first major expositional span of material, to the second.

I would suggest, moreover, that this parallel introduction could not occur at the very beginning of point II because, as already demonstrated, 4:14-16 and 5:1-4 have other structural duties to perform, including the crafting of the two key uses of inclusio described above, and playing part in the distant hook words joining the end of point I and the beginning of point II.

Yet, 5:1 has yet another role to play in the structural crafting of Hebrews; for this first verse in IIA, on “The Appointment of the Son as a Superior High Priest,” forms a clear parallel introduction with 8:3, the first verse in IIB, “The Superior Offering of the Appointed High Priest” (8:3-10:18), as seen in Figure P2. Heb. 5:1 Πᾶς γὰρ ἀρχιερεὺς ἐξ ἀνθρώπων λαμβανόμενος ὑπὲρ ἀνθρώπων καθίσταται τὰ πρὸς τὸν θεόν, ἵνα προσφέρῃ δῶρά τε καὶ θυσίας ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν, Heb. 8:3 Πᾶς γὰρ ἀρχιερεὺς εἰς τὸ προσφέρειν δῶρά τε καὶ θυσίας καθίσταται· ὅθεν ἀναγκαῖον ἔχειν τι καὶ τοῦτον ὃ προσενέγκῃ. It is no coincidence that the introduction to IIA, which treats “The Appointment of the Son as a Superior High Priest,” focuses on appointment, and the introduction to IIB treats “The Superior Offering of

the Appointed High Priest,” focuses on the need for our high priest also to have an offering. Once again, by use of an identifiable set of repeated lexical material, the author crafts a transition technique that plays a key role in structurally framing Hebrews’ discourse.

Conclusion In the latter half of this presentation I have attempted to demonstrate the distinctions between a simple form of lexical recurrence in Hebrews, lexical stitching, and structural framing. Our time has been all too brief to offer more than a few examples of the rich set of rhetorical and literary devices the author has at his command. Although the examples given are among the most important, many other examples of hook words, distant hook words, and inclusiones, could have been presented if time had permitted, and there is at least one other point at which a parallel introduction occurs.

These rhetorico-literary patterns in Hebrews cannot be written off as mere speculation. Rather, they constitute firm data that correspond squarely with prominent structuring devices found in the Jewish scriptures, the New Testament generally, and the Greco-Roman handbooks on rhetoric.

We neglect such conventions at the risk of obscuring rather than elucidating Hebrews complex yet highly crafted structure. These devices, in concert with much else, make Hebrews a discourse of extraordinary power and beauty, a great work of art as well as theological reflection and exhortation.

In the conclusion to my monograph on the structure of Hebrews, I likened the book to a piece of music by Mozart, suggesting that an original audience would not have had to identify, on the spot, all of the devices used here, in order to have been moved profoundly by this wonderful sermon. In this vein, Quintilian wrote, “The learned therefore know the principles of Composition, but even the unlearned know its pleasures” (The Orator’s Education, 9.4.116). I am certain that Hebrews was a joy to hear, as well as a powerful cautionary proclamation, in its original setting, but I am convinced that the well educated in that setting would have recognized it as an example of rhetorical sophistication. Hopefully, understanding more of the principles of its composition, its crafting, will work too for our understanding of and pleasure in this discourse. May we hear it well and respond to its message.