Polemic in the Book of Hebrews. Lloyd KimЧитать онлайн книгу.
Ibid., 227.
72 Ibid.
73 Ibid., 228.
74 Michael R. Cosby, The Rhetorical Composition and Function of Hebrews 11: In Light of Example Lists in Antiquity (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1988) 5. See also idem, “The Rhetorical Composition of Hebrews 11,” JBL 107 (1988) 257–73.
75 Cosby, Rhetorical Composition, 6.
76 Ibid., 12.
77 This refers to the repetition of the same element at the beginning of several successive sections.
78 Cosby, Rhetorical Composition, 42.
79 Ibid., 48.
80 This refers to the omission of conjunctions.
81 Cosby, Rhetorical Composition, 59–60.
82 Ibid., 63.
83 Ibid., 65.
84 Ibid., 75–76.
85 Ibid., 84.
86 G. L. Cockerill, “The Better Resurrection: Heb 11:35,” TynBul 51 (2000) 215–34. See also Alan D. Bulley, “Death and Rhetoric in the Hebrews ‘Hymn of Faith,” SR 25 (1996) 409–23. Bulley argues that Heb 11:1-40 is an example of epideictic rhetoric, praising the elders of the church with the deliberative goal of exhorting faithfulness in the midst of suffering and death (410).
87 Cockerill, “The Better Resurrection,” 220.
88 Ibid., 222.
89 Ibid., 224.
90 Ibid., 231–32.
91 Ibid., 234.
92 Peter Enns, “Interpretation of Psalm 95 in Hebrews 3.1—4.13,” in Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Proposals, ed. Craig Evans and James Sanders, JSNTSS 148 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997) 352–63.
93 Ibid., 352–53.
94 Ibid., 353.
95 Ibid., 354.
96 Ibid., 355. Enns also examines the author’s emendation of e0doki/masen in the LXX to e0n dokimasi/a in v. 9. The LXX reading would be, “Your fathers tested, they tried my works.” But in Hebrews we have, “Your fathers tested with scrutiny my works.” This distinction paints the wilderness generation in a more negative light. See ibid., 356.
97 Karen H. Jobes, “The Function of Paronomasia in Hebrews 10:5-7,” TJ 13 (1992) 181–91; and idem, “Rhetorical Achievement in the Hebrews 10 ‘Misquote’ of Psalm 40,” Bib 72 (1991) 387–96.
98 Jobes, “Rhetorical Achievement,” 389. There are four variations of the text of Hebrews compared to the LXX: 1) sw~ma is found in verse 5 instead of w0ti/a; 2) o9lokautw/mata is substituted in verse 6 for the singular form o9lokau/twma; 3) eu0do/khsav is substituted for h1thsav in verse 6; and 4) o9 qeo/v and to\ qelhma/ sou are transposed in verse 7 and the remainder of the verse is omitted (Jobes, “Function of Paronomasia,” 182–3).
99 Jobes, “The Function of Paronomasia,” 184.
100 Ibid., 185.
101 Ibid., 189.
102 Ibid., 191.
103 Harold W. Attridge, “The Uses of Antithesis in Hebrews 8–10,” HTR 79 (1986) 1–9.
104 Ibid., 1.
105 Ibid., 5.
106 Ibid.
107 Ibid., 8–9.
108 George H. Guthrie, The Structure of Hebrews: A Text-Linguistic Analysis, NovTSup 73 (Leiden: Brill, 1994; Biblical Studies Library; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998) 45.
109 Ibid., 54.
110 Ibid., 76–89.
111 Ibid., 146.
112 Bruce J. Malina, “Rhetorical Criticism and Social-Scientific Criticism: Why Won’t Romanticism Leave Us Alone?” in Rhetoric Scripture and Theology: Essays from the 1994 Pretoria Conference, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht, JSNTSS 131 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996) 73. Cf. John H. Elliott, What Is Social-Scientific Criticism? GBS (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993).
113 Malina, “Rhetorical Criticism and Social-Scientific Criticism,” 73–4.