Polemic in the Book of Hebrews. Lloyd Kim

165 He defines socio-rhetorical criticism as a discipline that combines the use of social-scientific approaches with analysis of how a text uses subjects and topics to communicate thoughts, arguments, speeches, etc. Robbins states, “Thus, socio-rhetorical criticism integrates the ways people use language with the ways they live in the world.”166 He identifies several textures of a text, but notes that not all of the textures have to be explored when using the method. The first texture he mentions is the inner texture, which deals with things like the repetition of words, inclusios, alternation of speech and storytelling, different ways arguments are presented, and the aesthetic feel of the text.167

The second texture is the intertexture, which has to do with life outside the text. Robbins distinguishes several types. Oral-scribal intertexture deals with how language was used in the social context of the time. Social intertexture explores family structures, political arrangements, distribution of goods and services, etc. Cultural intertexture describes how people determine their importance, their responsibility to the world, etc. Historical intertexture is concerned with events that happen outside of the text and are recorded as narrative within the text.168

The “social and cultural” texture deals with sociological and anthropological theory. It asks how the text communicates what the world outside the text is like or at least what it is like from the perspective of the text. It seeks to discern how the text perceives how one should live in the world or how one can change the world.169 Ideological texture deals with how the language of the text aligns itself with or against other groups or persons (i.e. feminist readings). It asks questions about the social location of the author and its recipients.170 This texture is narrower than the social and cultural texture in that it does not simply ask how the text aligns itself with or against other views, but it describes the particular view itself. Finally there is sacred texture, which deals with the unique relationship of humans with the divine.171

David deSilva has done much work using this method.172 In his book entitled, Despising Shame: Honor Discourse and Community Maintenance in the Epistle to the Hebrews,173 he examines the honor/shame language in Hebrews within the larger honor/shame culture in the Mediterranean world. He first looks at Classical and Hellenistic texts to determine the dominant cultural view of what constituted honor and shame in the ancient world. He then examines the honor and shame language in groups that are counter-cultural or have set themselves apart from the dominant group. The last part of his study involves a detailed analysis of the book of Hebrews, identifying the recipients as a counter-cultural group. They are those who have been rejected from the dominant culture and explore counter-definitions of honorable and shameful behavior. The author of Hebrews appeals to his reader’s sense of honor and shame especially in relation to God and hopes to establish that God’s view of them is more important than society’s view of them.174

In an article entitled, “Hebrews 6:4-8: A Socio-Rhetorical Investigation (Part 1),” deSilva walks through the method outlined by Vernon Robbins and applies it to a specific passage.175 He argues that the rhetorical goal of the epistle is to dissuade those who are drifting away or shrinking back in their Christian commitment.176 The exhortation beginning in 6:1 presents two options before the readers, either press on to maturity or fall away. He notes the repetitive use of participles in the argument describing an unspecified group of people.177 These people are those who have received God’s gifts. The mention of the heavenly gift (6:4) draws deSilva into a lengthy discussion of the social intertexture of patron-client relationships.178 The people are obviously the clients and God is the patron. DeSilva cites Seneca, De beneficiis in describing the reciprocal obligations understood in this relationship. Those who would receive benefits were obligated to repay their benefactors by giving them honor and thereby increase their fame and reputation.179 Those who show contempt to their benefactors were to be punished and barred from future benefits.

DeSilva argues that the readers of the epistle were tempted to value friendship with the world more than God’s patronage. Thus their shrinking back from their Christian commitments would make it impossible for God to renew them to repentance, according to the social order of patron-client relations.180 He draws from both Greek and Jewish sources in identifying the oral-scribal intertexture, which informs the agricultural illustration in 6:7-8. He argues that similar agricultural examples in both Isaiah 5:1-7 and Philo’s De agricultura 9-18 reinforce the idea of fulfilling one’s obligation of reciprocity.181

      Evaluation of the Socio-Rhetorical Approach

      The socio-rhetorical approach outlined by Vernon Robbins proves to be a valuable tool in approaching the New Testament texts from a variety of perspectives. Its interweaving of disciplines produces a richer, thicker understanding of the text. Nevertheless, one must discuss its limitations and weaknesses.

R. Alan Culpepper affirms much of what Robbins says regarding the inner texture but rightly adds that it should also include analysis of the narrator, plot, characters, settings, and other aspects of the narrative or discourse.182 This refinement of the inner texture should produce studies that better balance insights from rhetorical criticism with insights from new literary criticism. Culpepper also notes that under intertexture, Robbins fails to include any analysis of the text’s genre.183 Certainly genre analysis will greatly assist in the understanding of a text and should be considered.

Under the category of “social and cultural” texture, one is to make use of social scientific methods. Stephen Barton enumerates some potential weaknesses of social scientific approaches: 1) they may anachronistically apply modern Western models and theories to an ancient settings without taking into account the differences in cultures; 2) they run the risk of explaining away true religious experience by describing actions and behaviors exclusively in sociological terms; 3) they have their roots in the atheistic philosophy of the Enlightenment.184 Certainly the use of these sociological models should be sensitive to the culture and context of the time.

      In Robbins’ section on ideological texture we are to examine our own social and cultural location as well as the writer’s. Certainly this particular texture is important for the purposes of this dissertation, yet it also poses the greatest challenge. There is the very obvious issue of subjectivity in exploring this texture. Are all ideological readings of equal merit, or are some readings unacceptable? Some controls or boundaries in determining acceptable ideological readings are needed. The approach in this dissertation will be to use the insights from the other textures as a general guide in exploring the ideological texture. Ideological readings should be grounded upon solid inner texture and intertextural research. Finally, Robbins’ section on sacred texture is vague and without sufficient example and illustration. Nevertheless, this approach will be extremely helpful in adding new insights to the questions posed by this dissertation.