idea that the text is a unity, and must be seen as a unity. He argues that from an analysis of the literary character we come to understand the basic thoughts of organization.37 The warning sections in Hebrews are identified as paraklesis just as the author himself calls his work a word of paraklesis (encouragement). Übelacker also distinguishes between direct warnings and indirect warnings. The direct warnings are admonitions and can be categorized as paraenesis. The indirect, however, he describes as “Evaluation” or “Appeal”.38
In another study, Thomas H. Olbricht discusses the rhetorical technique of amplification as it is applied to the epistle to the Hebrews. The term is Aristotle’s and describes a way of fleshing out an argument by demonstrating a person’s value or worth by comparing him with men of notable reputation. Olbricht comments on the structure of Hebrews and then compares its use of amplification with funereal oratory in classical Greece and in the early Christian fathers.39
In his study of funeral sermons, he notes a common pattern and then applies this knowledge to the structure of Hebrews. He finds significant parallels between Hebrews and the eulogies of Isocrates on Evagoras and Gregory Nazianzen on Basil the Great.40 Taking the general categories of funeral discourses, Olbricht identifies three main sections in Hebrews: 1) exordium (1:1-4); 2) encomium (1:5—13:16); and 3) the final exhortation and prayer (13:17-25). Under encomium there are further divisions that speak of: 1) Jesus’ family and birth (1:5—3:13); 2) his endowments, upbringing, and education (3:14—6:12); 3) his life, occupation, achievements, fortune (6:13—10:39); and 4) an ongoing comparison with great men (11:1—13:16).41
Olbricht argues that the author of Hebrews seeks to present Jesus as superior in order to challenge his readers to action and to perseverance. In his analysis of the author’s comparison between Christ and angels, Olbricht notes that the power of the argument resides in the fact that several Old Testament texts are quoted to support the argument.42 Ironically, this is precisely where the use of amplification in Hebrews differs with Greek speeches. In Greek orations the evidence of the superiority is empirically verified. The primary evidence in Hebrews comes from sacred texts. The only empirical evidence offered according to Olbricht is the fact of Christ’s death. 43
In Hebrews 7–10, Christ is compared with Levitical priests and their sacrifices. The superiority of Christ extends beyond that of persons as he is also shown to be superior to the sacrifice itself. Furthermore, the location of the sacrifice is amplified.44 Again the evidence does not come from empirical data or even his own experience, but from Scripture. Since much of the saving work of Christ took place in heaven, there is a lack of empirical earthly evidence. However, the comparison between the earthly and heavenly temple was based both on observation and Scripture.45
One scholar who attempts to utilize the insights of form criticism and rhetorical analysis is Steve Stanley. He has contributed to the on going study of the structure of the epistle to the Hebrews by balancing three important perspectives or considerations in determining structure: literary genre, rhetorical character, and content.46
Stanley argues that the literary genre of the epistle is fundamentally a homily. He bases this insight mainly from the epistle’s self-identification as a “word of exhortation” (13:22). Stanley cites Lawrence Wills’ study, which attempts to establish the “word of exhortation” as a sermonic form in early Christianity and Hellenistic Judaism.47 Wills first notes the use of the phrase in Acts 13:15, where Paul speaks during a synagogue service. He identifies three sections to the exhortation that Paul gives in the subsequent verses: 1) authoritative examples (exempla); 2) a conclusion based on the authoritative exempla; and 3) an exhortation. This forms the general pattern for all “words of exhortation.”48 Wills then examines several other early Christian and Hellenistic Jewish sermons also finding this same pattern.49 He argues that the “word of exhortation” does not follow classical Greco-Roman forms, but comes from innovations of Greek oratory in the fifth century BC.50 The identification of Hebrews as a homily has obvious benefits in determining its structure.51
The second perspective that he considers is the rhetorical character of Hebrews. Stanley cites Vanhoye’s work in identifying several important literary markers in determining structure, but argues that there is still a great deal of subjectivity in demarcating the precise divisions.
It is for this reason that the third perspective or content of the epistle is also important to keep in mind. If a particular structure is at odds with the content of the epistle itself, then it must be reevaluated.52 The structure should be seen as a servant of the content. Stanley distinguishes between the doctrinal sections, which mainly deal with the superiority of Christ and all that he brings, and the paraenetic sections, which demand fidelity to Christ and the Christian community.53 In coordinating these two sections, he argues that the message of Hebrews is “Christ’s priestly ministry demands fidelity to the new relationship with God that he mediates.”54 With all three of these perspectives in mind, Stanley then outlines his structure of Hebrews.55
C. F. Evans argues that though most people recognize that the letter to the Hebrews uses Greco-Roman forms of rhetoric, they tend to discount the importance of the form in influencing the actual content of the speech. 56 His short study is devoted to examining how the form of the speech (rhetoric) is related to its content. He first notes the extensive use by the author of synkrisis, which he identifies as a branch of the encomiastic tradition that focused on praising those who were excellent. The way praise or blame is given is by way of comparison. Sometimes it is a comparison of opposites, but more often it is a comparison of similar things.57 Evans discusses the specific uses of this technique in highlighting the superiority of Christ’s revelation, priesthood, sacrifice, etc.
Evans also discusses Christology. He notes that the author uses synkrisis to demonstrate that Jesus is the eschatological Messiah. Thus the types that prefigured Jesus are replaced and demoted when compared to Jesus (i.e., he is like Moses in faithfulness, but is superior to him as Son).58 It is this use of synkrisis that leads Evans to believe that the Christology of Hebrews is properly identified as a divine-hero Christology.59
Studies on Specific Passages
Several other studies on specific texts have emerged using rhetorical criticism. One study on Heb 2:10 examines the use of pre/pein and rhetorical propriety.60 Alan Mitchell argues that the author of Hebrews was influenced by the idea of propriety in rhetoric when he wrote
