Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-r5zm4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-16T13:10:07.319Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Uses of Antithesis in Hebrews 8–10

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2011

Harold W. Attridge
Harold W. Attridge
Affiliation:
University of Notre Dame
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The interaction between early Christianity and the Judaism from which it emerged took many and diverse forms, and Christians’ attitudes toward their Jewish heritage varied considerably. The Epistle to the Hebrews represents a particularly complex case of both the appropriation and the rejection of that heritage. This ambivalent attitude reaches its climax in the central expository section of the text, where the significance of the death of Christ is explored using primarily the analogy of the Yom Kippur sacrifice. This portion of Hebrews is replete with exegetical difficulties which cannot be resolved here. What this essay will attempt is an analysis of the literary techniques through which the model of the Yom Kippur ritual is appropriated.

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 79 , Issue 1-3: Christians Among Jews and Gentiles: Essays in Honor of Krister Stendahl on His Sixty-fifth Birthday , July 1986 , pp. 1 - 9
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Vanhoye's preliminary works on the structure of Hebrews (“Les indices de la structure litteraire de l'Épître aux Hébreux,” StEv II [TU 87; ed. Cross, F. L.; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1964] 493–507Google Scholar and “De structura litteraria Epistolae ad Hebraeos,” VD 40 [1962] 73–80Google Scholar) culminated in La structure litteraire de l'Épître aux Hébreux (StudNeot 1; Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1963)Google Scholar, issued in a slightly revised edition in 1976. References here will be to that second edition. On the response to his analysis see his “Discussions sur la structure de l'Épître aux Hébreux,” Bib 55 (1974) 349–80Google Scholar. Vanhoye is not alone in separating 10:1–18 from what precedes. See also Michel, Otto, Der Brief an die Hebräer (MeyerK 13; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966) 329.Google Scholar

2 Despite its wide acceptance, Vanhoye's analysis has had its critics. See esp. Bligh, John, “The Structure of Hebrews,” HeyJ 5 (1964) 170–77Google Scholar; Thurén, Jukka, Das Lobopfer der Hebräer: Studien zum Aufbau und Anliegen von Hebräerbrief 13 (Acta Academiae Åboensis A, 47, 1; Åbo: Akademie Verlag, 1973)Google Scholar; Gourges, Michel, “Remarques sur la structure centrale de l'Épître aux Hébreux,” RB 84 (1977) 26–37Google Scholar; Swetnam, James, “Form and Content in Hebrews 1–6,” Bib 53 (1972) 368–85Google Scholar; and idem, “Form and Content in Hebrews 7–13,” Bib 55 (1974) 335–48Google Scholar. Space does not permit a full treatment of these and other proposals about the overall structure of Hebrews.

3 See Vanhoye, La structure, 42.

4 The suggestions of inclusions at 8:3 and 9:28 and of a catchword link at 9:28–10:1 are new elements in Vanhoye's second edition.

5 Cf. e.g., ⋯γγέλων at 1:4–5 and πιστός at 2:17–18.

6 The most obvious major “announcements” are at 1:4; 2:17–18; and 10:36–39.

7 Cf. 7:19, 28; 10:1, 14 for forms of τελειο⋯ν.

8 On the perfection theme in general, see most recently Peterson, David, Hebrews and Perfection: An Examination of the Concept of Perfection in the Epistle to the Hebrews (SNTSMS 47; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9 The point is well made by Bligh, “Structure,” 175.

10 See Vanhoye, La structure, 93–104.

11 This pericope is seen by Wolfgang Nauck as a key structural element: “Zum Aufbau der Hebräerbriefes,” Judentum, Urchristentum, Kirche: Festschrift für Joachim Jeremias (ZNW Beiheft 26; ed. W. Eltester; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1960) 199–206. At this point Vanhoye's analysis is more persuasive. See his “Discussions,” 366.Google Scholar

12 Vanhoye (La structure, 104) prefers to see 4:14 as the conclusion of the section beginning with 3:1, but that division is quite artificial. See Swetnam, “Hebrews 1–6,” 383 and Peterson, Hebrews and Perfection, 74.

13 See, e.g., Loader, William R. G., Sohn und Hohepriester: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zur Christologie des Hebräerbriefes (WMANT 53; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981) 172–73.Google Scholar

14 In general see Hofius, Otfried, Der Vorhang vor dem Thron Gottes: Eine exegetischreligionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Hebräer 6,19f und 10,19f (WUNT 14; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1972)Google Scholar; MacRae, George W., “Heavenly Temple and Eschatology in the Letter to the Hebrews,” Semeia 12 (1978) 179–99; and Loader, Sohn, 182–84.Google Scholar

15 Vanhoye (La structure, 143) sees the function of the citation as purely negative. See also Peterson, Hebrews and Perfection, 132.

16 The σκήνη has frequently been taken as a symbol for the body of Christ in one or another sense. For a review of such interpretations, see Loader, Sohn, 166–67; Peterson, Hebrews and Perfection, 140–44; and Laub, Franz, Bekenntnis und Auslegung: Die paränetische Funktion der Christologie im Hebräerbriefes (Biblische Untersuchungen 15; Regensburg: Pustet, 1980) 196–200.Google Scholar

17 For a review of earlier options, see McGrath, John J., ”Through Eternal Spirit”: An Historical Study of the Exegesis of Hebrews 9:13–14 (Rome: Pontiflcia Universitas Gregoriana, 1961).Google Scholar

18 See, e.g., Cody, Aelred, Heavenly Sanctuary and Liturgy in the Epistle to the Hebrews (St. Meinrad, IN: Grail, 1960)Google Scholar and most recently, Hurst, Lincoln D., “Eschatology and ‘Platonism’ in the Epistle to the Hebrews,” SBL 1984 Seminar Papers (Chico, CA: Scholars, 1984) 41–74.Google Scholar

19 See Schröger, Friedrich, Der Verfasser des Hebräerbriefes als Schriftausleger (Biblische Untersuchungen 4; Regensburg: Pustet, 1968) 172–77Google Scholar and Thomas, Kenneth J., “The Old Testament Citations in Hebrews,” NTS 11 (1965) 303–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar