Polemic in the Book of Hebrews. Lloyd Kim

target="_blank" rel="nofollow" href="#ulink_808d25b0-5fcd-55a5-a53c-2c4ed6a031f5">159 Ibid., 14.

160 Ibid., 37–39.

161 Ibid., 243–44.

162 Ibid., 9.

163 Ibid., 116.

164 Ibid., 261.

165 See Vernon K. Robbins, Exploring the Texture of Texts: A Guide to Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation (Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity, 1996) and The Tapestry of Early Christian Discourse: Rhetoric, Society, and Ideology (London: Routledge, 1996). Hens-Piazza proposes a slightly different socio-rhetorical approach applied mainly to Old Testament texts. See Gina Hens-Piazza, Of Methods, Monarchs, and Meanings: A Sociorhetorical Approach to Exegesis, SOTI 3 (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1996).

166 Robbins, Exploring, 1.

167 Ibid., 3.

168 Ibid., 3, 40–70.

169 Ibid., 71.

170 Robbins identifies cultural categories that help identify one’s cultural location (the manner which one presents one’s propositions, arguments, and reasons to oneself and others): 1) dominant culture rhetoric (these are norms, values, and attitudes presupposed in the social structure); 2) subculture rhetoric (imitates the norms and values of the dominant culture but claims to support them better than the dominant culture); 3) counterculture rhetoric (rejects the dominant subculture and responds to it); and 4) contraculture rhetoric (a short lived response to the dominant culture that does not formulate its response from a set of values, but just reacts negatively to certain dominant values or norms) (ibid., 86–87).

171 Ibid., 4.

172 See David A. deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle ‘to the Hebrews’ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000).

173 David A. deSilva, Despising Shame: Honor Discourse and Community Maintenance in the Epistle to the Hebrews, SBLDS 152 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1995).

174 Ibid., 23–27.

175 David Arthur deSilva, “Heb 6:4-8: A Socio-Rhetorical Investigation (Part 1),” TynBul 50 (1999) 33–57. Part II is TynBul 50 (1999) 225–36 and describes the ideology promoted in the passage and how it serves the author’s rhetorical goals. See also deSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 219–44.

176 DeSilva, “Heb 6:4-8 (Part 1),” 39–40. De Silva does not see any direct polemic at work in the epistle against the dominant Jewish society. He does not believe there is a threat of reversion back to Judaism. See above chapter 1, pages 15-16.

177 Ibid., 42.

178 Ibid., 45. See also idem, “Exchanging Favor for Wrath: Apostasy,” JBL 115 (1996) 91–116.

179 DeSilva, “Heb 6:4-8 (Part 1),” 45–46. Cf. Seneca, Ben. 2.22.1; 2.24.2.

180 Ibid., 48. Cf. Seneca, Ben. 3.1.1.

181 Ibid., 52–54. De Silva is not arguing that the author of Hebrews used either of these as a direct source.

182 R. Alan Culpepper, “Mapping the Textures of the New Testament Criticism: A Response to Socio-Rhetorical Criticism,” JSNT 70 (1998) 73.

183 Ibid., 74. Robbins responds by arguing that we need to move beyond literary genres to rhetorical genres (different forms of speech); Robbins, “Response,” JSNT 70 (1998) 103. Yet, there seems to be a close connection between literary genre and rhetorical genre. Why should we neglect to consider the literary form of the text for the purpose of exegesis?

184 Stephen C. Barton, “Historical Criticism and Social-Scientific Perspectives in New Testament Study,” in Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation, ed. Joel B. Green (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995) 74–76.