This study examines deliberative syncrisis and its relationship to epideictic syncrisis in Hebrews, with a view to addressing the question of whether the rhetoric of Hebrews is ultimately epideictic or deliberative in its overall tenor and aim. Building on a previous study of epideictic syncrisis in Hebrews, the study argues that epideictic syncrisis is consistently in service in Hebrews to deliberative syncrisis, providing it with both the logical premise and the topical theme by which it advances the argument. This relationship is key, the study argues, both to Hebrews' structure and to its aim, which are decidedly deliberative in nature.

This study examines comparison in Hebrews in the light of ancient rhetorical theory of syncrisis, identifying five epideictic syncrises: the messengers/angels vs. Jesus (1.1-14; 2.5-18), Moses vs. Jesus (3.1-6), the Aaronic high priests vs. Jesus (5.1-10), the Levitical priestly ministry vs. the Melchizedekian priestly ministry (7.1-10.18), and Mt. Sinai vs. Mt. Zion (12.18-24). The study shows that these comparisons collectively function as a single syncritical project that argues for the superiority of the new covenant to the old, and that the project, like most of the individual comparisons, is arranged topically in accordance with ancient rhetorical theory.