Enns begins by noting the important emendations the author makes when quoting the LXX. The author inserts the conjunction dio/v in v. 10, essentially changing the meaning of the phrase from, “Where your fathers tested, they tried, and saw my works. I was angry with that generation for forty years” to “Your fathers tested with scrutiny and saw my works for forty years. Therefore, [dio/v] I was angry with this generation.”94 The point of the change is to highlight the fact that the wilderness episode was not to be seen in a negative light. God was not angry with them for the forty years they were in the wilderness, but he was angry after their disobedience. The author wants to paint the wilderness time period positively, because he sees the church currently in the wilderness, so to speak. Therefore by identifying the wilderness time period positively, he also affirms that the current time of his audience is a time of blessing.95
One obvious problem with Enns’s analysis is the fact that 3:17 clearly describes God being angry with the wilderness community for forty years. Enns believes this highlights the contrast between the New Testament community and the Old. The Old Testament community suffered under God’s anger, but the New Testament community experienced God’s wonders or works.96 Yet it seems reasonable that quoting the LXX as it was originally written could have made this same contrast. Why would the author of Hebrews intentionally misquote the “word of God,” to make one theological point, and then contradict it in his own analysis?
Also focusing on use of Old Testament Scripture in Hebrews, Karen Jobes uses new rhetorical analysis to help explain the variant quotation of Psalm 40 in Heb 10:5-7.97 Instead of hypothesizing that the author quoted a corrupted text, Jobes argues that the author purposefully misquoted the Psalm for his own rhetorical purposes.98 She notes in a detailed analysis that the variant changes produce phonetic assonance with other words in the quotation, which is the rhetorical technique of paronomasia.99 This particular technique functioned to bring attention to specific elements of the argument.100 Perhaps the most important variation is the change from “ears” to “body” in verse 5. In contrast to the many burnt offerings, God has prepared a body for Jesus as the once-for-all sacrifice. The assonance produced by this change eloquently embellishes the argument creating a catchy tune easy to remember.101 Thus the author of Hebrews alters the text of Psalm 40 in order to show the discontinuity with the past and to persuade his hearers that in these last days God spoke to them in his Son.102
In a short article entitled, “The Use of Antithesis in Hebrews 8–10,”103 Harold Attridge demonstrates the rhetorical mastery of the author of Hebrews. Attridge first describes the social context of the epistle as one in which Christians were often ambivalent toward their Jewish past.104 He then identifies several antitheses used in chapters 8-10: opposition of flesh and spirit, earth and heaven, many and one, old and new, and external and internal.105 Attridge argues that the sacrifice of Christ, which combines many of these antitheses, is uniquely qualified to inaugurate the new covenant of Jeremiah 31:31.106 In the climactic section (10:1-10), the Christ utters Psalm 40:7-9 (6-8 MT) as he comes into the world (10:5). A fleshly body is prepared for the divine Son. Thus in Jesus the heavenly/ earthly antithesis is brought together (10:5). How then can the believer receive internal cleansing and spiritual renewal from external rituals? It is by faith in Jesus, who conformed to the will of God, that one is sanctified and overcomes the internal/ external antithesis. Attridge concludes that the author of Hebrews uses exegetical rhetoric to resolve antithetical oppositions and suggests that perhaps this type of rhetoric helped Christians who were ambivalent to their Jewish past. 107
One scholar who attempts to weave aspects of the three major approaches mentioned above (literary aesthetic, rhetorical criticism, “new rhetoric”) in his analysis of the structure of Hebrews is George Guthrie. After a lengthy survey of the history of scholarship on the subject, he suggests that a text-linguistic analysis incorporates the concerns of the new rhetorical criticism, rhetorical criticism, and literary analysis. He also notes that one must take into account the unique literary conventions of the first century.108
In his analysis Guthrie focuses on cohesion shifts, where the unity of a text changes. These shifts are marked off by changes in genre, topic, conjunction, logical relationships, consistency of grammar, verb tense, person and number, lexical repetition, and consistency of temporal and spatial indicators. By examining these shifts, one is able to identify new units and sub-units.109 Guthrie also uses the rhetorical convention of inclusio in determining structure.110 Finally, he argues that the two genres of exposition and hortatory material each share the same goal in calling the hearers to endure. “The expositional material builds toward the goal by focusing on the appointed high priest as a superior basis for endurance. The hortatory passages move toward the goal by reiteration of warnings, promises, and examples used to challenge the hearers to endure.”111
Review of Social Scientific Approaches to Hebrews
General Trends
Bruce J. Malina identifies John H. Elliot as the one who coined the term social-scientific criticism in 1993.112 Originally it was called sociological criticism, but was changed because of the different meanings of “sociological” in the United States and Europe. Malina also notes that sociological studies of the New Testament are mainly social descriptions and social history.113 The term, “social-scientific criticism,” however, is more general and includes all types of social sciences applied to New Testament interpretation.
The goal of social scientific criticism is to find out what an initial audience understood when a speech was given or a document was read aloud.114 The approach used to achieve the goal is to examine the social systems, which reveal meaning in a given social interaction. These social interactions are presumed in the writing and reading of the New Testament documents. Malina presupposes that meaning is rooted in one’s “enculturation, socialization, interrelationships and interactions.”115 Elliott comments, “Sociological exegesis asks not only what a text said ‘then and there’ but also how and why that text was designed to function, and what its impact upon the life and activity of its recipients and formulators was intended to be.”116
Dale Martin identifies two major trends in the social scientific criticism movement.117 One movement is characterized by those who seek to