1 For comprehensive surveys of the history of research on this issue see Guthrie, G., The Structure of Hebrews: A Text-Linguistic Analysis (NovTSup 73; Leiden: Brill, 1994) 3–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Westfall, C. L., A Discourse Analysis of the Letter to the Hebrews: The Relationship between Form and Meaning (Library of New Testament Studies 297; London: T&T Clark, 2005) 1–21Google Scholar; and Gelardini, Gabriella, ‘Verhärtet eure Herzen nicht’: der Hebräer, eine Synagogenhomilie zu Tischa Be-Aw (BIS 83; Leiden: Brill, 2007) 1–84Google Scholar.

2 The most influential literary-critical study on the structure of Hebrews in the twentieth century has been by Vanhoye, A. (La Structure Littéraire de l’Épître aux Hébreux [Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 2nd ed. 1976])Google Scholar who proposed a five-part concentric structure based on five textual cues: announcement of the subject, hook words, inclusions, characteristic terms, and change in genre. Recently, Gelardini (‘Verhärtet eure Herzen nicht’, 83) has attempted to defend a five-part concentric structure for Hebrews that shares some similarities with Vanhoye's own structure.

3 Nauck's, W. (‘Zum Aufbau des Hebräerbriefes’, Judentum Urchristentum Kirche: Festschrift für Joachim Jeremias [ed. Eltester, W.; BZNW 26; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1960] 199–206)Google Scholar proposal accounts for the other major structural analysis that has gained traction in the recent studies on Hebrews. Following the original proposal by O. Michel, Nauck proposed a tripartite division of Hebrews taking as his structural clues the parallel exhortations in 4.14-16 and 10.19-23. This tripartite structure has had significant influence on the German interpretation of Hebrews and is followed with slight modification by Zimmermann, H., Das Bekenntnis der Hoffnung: Tradition und Redaktion im Hebräerbrief (Cologne: Peter Hanstein, 1977) 18–24Google Scholar; Kümmel, W. G., Introduction to the New Testament (trans. Kee, H. C.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1975) 390–2Google Scholar; Michel, O., Der Brief an die Hebräer (KEK 13; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966) 29–35Google Scholar; Weiss, H.-F., Der Brief an die Hebräer (KEK 15; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991) 42–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Backhaus, K., Der Neue Bund und das Werden der Kirche: die Diatheke-Deutung des Hebräerbrief im Rahmen der frühchristlichen Theologiegeschichte (NTAbh 29; Münster: Aschendorff, 1996) 63Google Scholar. This tripartite arrangement also provides the structural framework for the discourse analysis of Hebrews by Westfall (A Discourse Analysis, 299-301) and for the commentary by Thompson, J. W., Hebrews (Paideia; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 19Google Scholar. Though he does not advocate a tripartite structure for Hebrews, Guthrie (The Structure of Hebrews, 117) does treat these exhortations as significant textual markers for the outline of Hebrews in his ‘text-linguistic’ approach.

4 Guthrie's work is approvingly cited in the commentaries by Lane, W., Hebrews 1–8 (WBC 47A; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1991) xc–xcviiiGoogle Scholar, and the recent commentary by O'Brien, P., The Letter to the Hebrews (PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010) 34Google Scholar.

5 Under such an approach, the significance of literary features like those identified by close readings and modern linguistic or discourse analysis theories becomes apparent strictly in relationship to the compositional-rhetorical outline followed by the writer, and in any case, those features are regarded as secondary clues to the structure.

6 Of the literary devices Vanhoye identifies only three are acknowledged to have precedent in ancient rhetorical instructions: hook words, chiasmus, and inclusios. But as Nauck (‘Zum Aufbau des Hebräerbriefes’, 201) points out, these devices do not provide a sufficient foundation for the overall arrangement and logic of the material in Hebrews. Additionally, Vanhoye's overall approach to Hebrews is eclectic and does not attempt to ground itself comprehensively in the compositional methods contemporaneous with Hebrews.

7 Nissilä, K., Das Hohepriestermotiv im Hebräerbrief: Eine exegetische Untersuchung (Schriften der Finnischen Exegetischen Gesellschaft 33; Helsinki: Oy Liiton Kirjapaino, 1979) 74–8, 143–7, 239–44Google Scholar; Überlacker, W., Der Hebräerbrief als Appell: Untersuchungen zur Exordium, Narratio und Postscriptum (Hebr 1–2 und 13,22-25) (ConBNT 21; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1989) 224Google Scholar; and Koester, C., Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 36: New York: Doubleday, 2001) 84–5Google Scholar. Also see Lincoln, A., Hebrews: A Guide (London: T&T Clark, 2006) 24–5Google Scholar. While Backhaus (Der Neue Bund, 63) and Thompson (Hebrews, 19) adopt Nauck's tripartite structure, they both attempt to integrate the rhetorical components of a speech into this framework.

8 E.g., Überlacker (Der Hebräerbrief als Appell, 224): prooemium = exordium (1.1-4), narratio with propositio (1.4-2.18), argumentatio with probatio and refutatio (3.1-12.29), peroratio (13.1-21), postscriptum (13.22-25); Backhaus (Der Neue Bund, 63): exordium (1.1-4), narratio (1.5-4.13), propositio (4.14-16), argumentatio (5.1-10.18), and peroratio (10.19-13.21); Koester (Hebrews, 84-5): exordium (1.1-2.4), propositio (2.5-9), argumentatio with digressions (2.10-12.27), peroratio (12.28-13.21), and epistolary postscript (13.22-25); Lincoln (Hebrews, 24-5): exordium (1.1-4), argumentatio (1.5-12.17), peroratio (12.18-29), and epistolary conclusion (13.1-25); and Thompson (Hebrews, 19): exordium (1.1-4), narratio (1.5-4.13), propositio (4.14-16), probatio (5.1-10.31), and peroratio (10.32-13.25).

9 Olbricht, T. H., ‘Hebrews as Amplification’, Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference (ed. Porter, S. E. and Olbricht, T. H.; JSNTSup 90; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993) 375–87 (377)Google Scholar; Seid, T., ‘Synkrisis in Hebrews 7: Rhetorical Structure and Analysis’, The Rhetorical Interpretation of Scripture: Essays from the 1996 Malibu Conference (ed. Porter, S. E. and Stamps, D. L.; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999) 322–6Google Scholar.

10 The ‘Christ is superior’ motif has been a dominant approach in the history of interpretation. Cf. Guthrie, The Structure of Hebrews, 1-20.

11 All translations of the progymnasmata are from Kennedy, G. A., Progymnasmata: Greek Textbooks of Prose Composition and Rhetoric (Atlanta: SBL, 2003)Google Scholar; citations for Theon and Aphthonius refer to the page numbers of the critical editions in Spengel, L., ed., Rhetores Graeci (3 vols.; Leipzig: Teubner, 1854–56)Google Scholar, citations for Ps. Hermogenes to the page numbers of Rabe, H., ed., Hermogenis Opera (Leipzig: Teubner, 1931)Google Scholar, and citations for Nicolaus to the page numbers of Felten, J., ed., Nicolai Progymnasmata (Leipzig: Teubner, 1913; repr., Osnabrück: Zeller, 1968)Google Scholar.

12 For the recent proposal that Theon's progymnasmata are attributable to the fifth-century rhetorician and not the first, see Heath, Malcolm, ‘Theon and the History of the Progymnasmata’, Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 43 (2002/3) 129–60Google Scholar. Though most, if not all, of the textbooks derive from after Hebrews was written, the forms they teach derive from classical Greek literature, and the curriculum they preserve derives from no later than the early Hellenistic period (Kennedy, Progymnasmata, xi). More importantly, Quintilian's overview of the progymnasmata (2.4.21) shows that by the first century ce, syncrisis was an established exercise in the Latin curriculum, which is itself dependent on—and therefore later than—the Greek curriculum.

13 Cf. Nicolaus's discussion (51) of both arrangements.

14 So J. R. Butts, ‘The “Progymnasmata” of Theon: A New Text with Translation and Commentary’ (PhD diss., The Claremont Graduate School, 1985) 491.

15 The summational list Ps. Hermogenes provides in his syncrisis exercise differs from the list he provides in the encomion exercise; thus we include both in the chart below.

16 Cf. Rhetorica Ad Herennium 3.6.10-11; Cicero De Inventione 1.24.34; 2.59.177; De Partitione Oratoria 22.74-75; Quintilian, 3.7; Menander Rhetor, 2.368-77.

17 In Aelius Aristides's (second century) encomium of the city of Rome (an inanimate object), the city becomes a metonym for Rome's imperial rule. In a manner similar to Hebrews, Aristides praises the rule of Rome through representative subjects such as its Princeps (32–33), its citizens (36), its army (72), and its constitution (90). The text and translation consulted here is Oliver, J. H., ‘The Ruling Power: A Study of the Roman Empire in the Second Century after Christ through the Roman Oration of Aelius Aristides’, TAPS 43/4 (1953) 895–907, 982–91Google Scholar.

18 As has happened often in the reception history of Hebrews (see n. 10 above). That is, the thesis that the ‘Christ is superior’ motif is key to the structure of Hebrews has dominated the history of interpretation, and undoubtedly because Jesus is featured as the new covenant subject in four of the five syncrises—and as the sole representative in three of the five comparisons. While this thesis is correct in seeing a common purpose among the syncrises, it is too narrowly focused on the several verdicts concerning Jesus’ superiority and not on their collective implication for the larger comparison of covenants in which they participate.

19 This type of progression is in accord with Koester's (Hebrews, 83) observation that the imagery in Hebrews ‘moves in a…linear fashion’ by which the audience is directed towards a goal. Koester sees this linear progression, however, repeated in three major movements (2.10-6.20; 7.1-10.39; 11.1-12.27) and not as a topical progression.

20 See, e.g., Theon, on encomion of honey, health, virtue, etc. (112), and on syncrisis of honey and health (113); Menander Rhetor, on encomion of cities (346.26-367.8); Ps. Hermogenes, on encomion of dumb animals (17), activities (17), growing things (17–18), and cities (18), and on syncrisis of plants (19) and activities (19); Aphthonius, on encomion of things (justice, self-control), occasions (spring, summer), places (harbors, gardens), dumb animals (horse, ox), plants (olive, vine) (35–36) and of wisdom (38–40), on invective of things, occasions, places, dumb animals, and growing things (40), and on syncrisis of things, occasions, places, dumb animals, and plants (42); Nicolaus, on encomion of activities (57), and on syncrisis of goods, evils, and things (60–61); and, in the Latin tradition, Quintilian, on encomion of cities (3.7.26). In Libanius’ comparison of seafaring and farming, his syncrisis starts with the beginnings of each activity and concludes with the manner of death of those who participate in each activity (Libanius's Progymnasmata: Model Exercises in Greek Prose Composition and Rhetoric [trans. Gibson, C.; WGRW 27; Atlanta: SBL, 2008] 343–5Google Scholar).

21 Gräbe, P., ‘The New Covenant and Christian Identity in Hebrews’, A Cloud of Witnesses: The Theology of Hebrews in Its Ancient Context (ed. Bauckham, R. et al. ; LNTS 387; London: T&T Clark, 2008) 121Google Scholar. Cf. Lehne, S., The New Covenant in Hebrews (JSNTSup 44; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1990) 103Google Scholar, who observes that, through the cultic reinterpretation of the covenant, the author of Hebrews makes the covenant motif the organizing principle of his sermon.

22 Supporting our thesis is the early Christian reception of Hebrews’ syncrisis by Chrysostom who not only identifies each of the comparisons of Hebrews as ‘syncrisis’, but also interprets the comparison for their representative value—as comparisons ultimately of the old and new covenants. See On Heb. 1.2; 5.1-3; 8.1; 12.1; 13.1, 5; and 32.1 (Schaff, Philip, ed., A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church [14 vols.; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1889]Google Scholar).

23 The theorists are consistent in dividing this topic by geography and family. See Theon, 110; Ps. Hermogenes, 15; Aphthonius, 36; Nicolaus, 50; cf. Quintilian, 3.7.10; Menander Rhetor, 2.368-70.

24 Cf. Schenck, K., ‘A Celebration of the Enthroned Son: The Catena of Hebrews 1’, JBL 120 (2001) 469–85Google Scholar.

25 While Heb 1.5-14 in its entirety treats the post-mortem exaltation of Son (= events after death), that exaltation is depicted as an entrance into a new life in a new world (cf. v. 6: ‘when he brings the firstborn into the world’). Thus it is possible for the writer to depict this new life from beginning to end, chronologically and topically, starting with Jesus’ origin as the Son and his birth into the new world, proceeding to his pursuits in that new world (his heavenly kingship), and ending with his non-death and the final post-mortem event, the subjugation of his enemies at the eschaton. Contra Meier, J. P., ‘Symmetry and Theology in the Old Testament Citations in Heb 1,5-14’, Bib 66 (1985) 529Google Scholar, who attempts to argue that the Christological affirmations of the catena move concentrically from exaltation, back to creation, back to preexistence, forward to preservation, and finally again to exaltation. For the problem of preexistence in Heb 1.1-15 see Schenck, K., ‘Keeping his Appointment: Creation and Enthronement in Hebrews’, JSNT 66 (1997) 91–117Google Scholar.

26 Cf. Schenck, Cosmology and Eschatology in Hebrews, 54-9.

27 Cf. Ps. Hermogenes, 15; Nicolaus, 51–2.

28 Cf. D'Angelo, M., Moses in the Letter to the Hebrews (SBLDS 42; Missoula: Scholars) 248Google Scholar.

29 See, e.g., the numerous comparisons of John the Baptist and Jesus, which assume the principle (Mark 1.7-8; Matt 3.11-12; Luke 3.16-17; John 1.15, 26–34; Recognitions 1.60; 3.3).

30 Cf. Theon, 16; Ps. Hermogenes, 16; Aphthonius, 36; Nicolaus, 52.

31 Scholars such as Backhaus (Der Neue Bund, 54) have recognized a chronological and logical progression from 5.1-10.18. Though we think the topic at hand for 4.14-5.10 is not ‘die Menschenlickeit des Hohepreisters Jesus’ as Backhaus proposes, Backhaus does see a movement from humanity of the high priest Jesus (4.14-5.10) to his priestly office (7.1-28) then to his priestly ministry (8.1-10.18). These latter two topical progressions describe well what the rhetoricians would label as pursuits.

32 Thiessen, M., ‘Hebrews 12.5-13, the Wilderness Period, and Israel's Discipline’, NTS 55 (2009) 366–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33 On Luke 2.40-52 as the treatment of the encomiastic topic of ‘nurture and training’ in the life of Jesus, see Martin, M., ‘Progymnastic Topic Lists: A Compositional Template for Luke and Other Bioi?’, NTS 54 (2008) 18–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the texts in John as topical treatment of ‘nurture and training’ in the life of Jesus, see Neyrey, J. H., ‘Encomion versus Vituperation: Contrasting Portraits of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel’, JBL 126 (2007) 529–52Google Scholar.

34 DeSilva, Perseverence in Gratitude, 191.

35 Cf. Philo Mos. 2.280; Her. 73; Fug. 138; Spec. 4.29; Somn. 2.107; Aeschylus Ag. 177; Aesop Fab. 370.

36 For these citations and further discussion, see Talbert, C. H., ‘The Way of the Lukan Jesus: Dimensions of Lukan Spirituality’, PRSt 9 (1982) 237–49Google Scholar.

37 That training and discipline remedy ‘ignorance’ is, naturally, widely attested. On these as a remedy for ‘waywardness’ (root: πλανα-) in the lxx, see Prov 1.8-10; 10.17; 29.15; Job 6.24; Wis 17.1; Sir 16.23-25.

38 The sacrifice that results in Jesus’ own perfection perfects others internally, enabling them to follow (9.9, 14; 10.15-17); cf. Whitlark, J., Enabling Fidelity to God: Perseverance in Hebrews in Light of the Reciprocity Systems of the Ancient Mediterranean World (PBMS; Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2008)Google Scholar.

39 Ps. Hermogenes’ treatment of body and mind should be viewed as an expansion of his treatment of nurture and training, which mold the person physically and mentally.

40 Space does not allow us to present here both the topical and chronological arrangement of the syncrisis of the Levitical and Melchizedekian priestly ministries in Heb 7 via their representative priests. Cf. Seid, ‘Synkrisis’, 326-47, who rightly attempts to identify the encomiastic topics that structure the syncrisis in Heb 7 but does not recognize the chronological progression of the topics therein.

41 Cf. Theon, 110; Quintilian, 3.7; Rhetorica Ad Herennium 3.6.10-11; Ps. Hermogenes, 19; cf. 16-17.

42 Cf. Theon, 78.

43 Lincoln (Hebrews, 25) in his structural outline identifies 12.18-24 as part of the peroratio but also sees these verses as a final comparative exposition which is focused upon the two covenants, old and new. See also Michel, Hebräerbrief, 459-61.

44 Michel (Hebräerbrief, 462) understands there to be seven old covenant items paralleled to eight (7 + 1) new covenant items in four pairs. The difference between the numbering of Michel's list and our list lies in whether Mt. Zion and the heavenly Jerusalem are counted as one item or two. If we follow Michel's enumeration of the lists here, we might have a case where the superiority of the new covenant is reflected in the numeration (‘plus one’ being an indication of superiority, cf. Homer Od. 9.159-60). Moreover, eight being the number used by early Christians to symbolize resurrection might be used here to reflect the end to which the new covenant leads (for the significance of the number 8 as the number for resurrection see F. Bovon, ‘Names and Numbers in Early Christianity’, NTS 47 [2001] 283). Whether we number both lists according to sevens or seven and seven plus one, the author is clearly comparing, via these closely aligned descriptive lists, the approach to God via the old covenant (Sinai) and the new covenant (Zion).

45 Aristides's encomium of Rome ends focusing on the telos to which Rome has brought the whole world. The world has achieved its ideal state under Roman rule (94-99), a Golden Age of peace (69, 89, 103, 106). Similarly, in Heb 12.22-24 we have the telos to which God leads believers through Jesus Christ and the new covenant he inaugurates. See also Libanius’ encomium of righteousness which employs the topic of events after death with regard to those who possess righteousness: ‘for the just alone, life is good, but the afterlife is better’ (Progymnasmata 249).

46 Peterson, Hebrews and Perfection, 162.

47 Attridge, Hebrews, 373-4.

48 DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude, 465.

49 Cf. Od. 20.356; 2 Pet 2.4, 17. On this redaction, see deSilva, Perseverence in Gratitude, 465; cf. Peterson, Hebrews and Perfection, 162.

50 This is a hypothetical telos only. The old covenant does not exist, in the view of the writer, apart from the new covenant, since its institutions are a shadow of the heavenly, new covenant realities and patterned on those realities. Thus the writer can speak of the old covenant as typological ‘good news’ (4.2) and of Moses as a witness ‘to the things that would be spoken later’ (3.5).