Situating the 'Letter to the Hebrewsm in early Christian history

Jonathan M. Isaak

Faculty of Religious Studies McGill University Montreal, Canada.

August 1999

A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

@ Jonathan M. Isaak 1999 National Library Bibiiièque nationale du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographie Services services bibliographiques

The author has granteci a non- L'auteur a accordé une ticence non exclusive licence allowing the exclusive permettant à la National Li- of Canada to Bibliothèque nationaie du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or sel reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electroaic formats. la forme de microfiche/film, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique.

The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qPi protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or otheMrise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many people provided the encouragement and the help that I needed to write this thesis. 1 would like to acknowledge a few. First, there is my wife, Mary Anne, who is my constant support and constructive critic. Then too, Our parents, hers and mine, deserve mention especially for taking Our children this sumer for a month so that 1 could make the submission deadline. Pierre Gilbert kindly corrected my anglicisrns in the French abstract.

Along with some of the recent publications by the Society of Biblical Literature, 1 have chosen to use the 'author- date1 parenthetical documentation style. My aim is to provide an efficient referencing system that also keeps relevant material within the main text.

Finally, 1 want to acknowledge my deep gratitude to my thesis advisor, Dr. Frederik Wisse. During the last four years he has given valuable supervision at each stage of my program. My file of correspondence shows that 345 ernails and dozens of hard copy texts have gone back and forth between us. Proposais, course assignments, grant applications, =d chapter draftç have al1 benefited from his careful attention to detail and his probing questions. This is t~lyremarkable. My educational experience and formation at McGill has been very constructive due to this kind of mentoring. While 1 take responsibility for the argument that follows, Dr. Wisse's helpful feedback and insightful suggestions, have al1 helped to clarify my thinking and ta sharpen my writing. ABSTRACT

Situating the 'Letter to the Hebrews' in early Christian history

The early Christian text known as the 'Letter to the Hebrewsl has presented a riddle to scholarship. Its anonymity and anomalous form are puzzling. Scholars like Norman Perrin and Barnabas Lindars also find Hebrews enigmatic because it does not appear to represent the views of any early Christian community.

This thesis contends that the riddle of Hebrewsl lack of community-fit is due to a conceptual flaw. Beginning with Franz Overbeck (1882), there has been a tendency to assess early Christian texts as nonliterary. unlike later Patristic texts. Deemed nonliterary, they are thereby thought to document the situation within which they were written. For Hebrews, this has resulted in numerous reconstructions of its historical setting. None, however, has proven satisfactory. This lack of consensus casts doubt on the appropriateness of ruling out Hebrewsl essential literary character. Moreover, the explanations used to justify the unique nonliterary character of early Christian literature are not compelling. Thus, the probability of Hebrewst literary character increases.

The literary texts written by Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian, are more likely comparable to Hebrews. These Patristic texts were produced in the late second century before the shape of orthodoxy became fixed. A survey of representative scholarly literature shows a low expectation of retrieving from these early Patristic texts an unambiguous profile of the author's ideological community, of the textls occasion, or of its audience. Thus, it would be unwarranted to expect Hebrews to be more representative of its situation.

Given the probability of Hebrews' literary character, the thesis demonstrates that it is inappropriate to assume that Hebrews represents ideas that extend beyond those of the author to a specific community or to a particular situation. The burden of proof is reversed. Without evidence to the contrary, Hebrews is best explained as a persuasive literary effort by an idiosyncratic author directed to a general Christian audience.

Thus, the riddle of Hebrewsl lack of community-fit dissolves. Furthemore, questions are raised regarding the contemporary scholarly expectation that other early Christian writings (Matthew, James, etc.) were shaped by and for ideologically distinct communities. SOMMAIRE

Situer la «Lettre aux Hébreux,, dans l'histoire du paléochristianisrne

Le texte paléochrétien connu sous le nom de #Lettre aux Hébreux)) représente une énigme pour les biblistes . Son caractère anonyme et sa forme inhabituelle sont problématiques. Des exégètes comme Norman Perrin et Barnabas Lindars estiment de plus que l'absence d'une correspondance idéologique entre le texte et une communauté paféochrétienne précise contribue au caractère énigmatique du texte.

La présente thèse soutient que la problématique créée par l'absence apparente d'une idéologie reflètant une communauté identifiable n'est que le résultat, en fait, d'un cadre théorique inadéquat. Depuis l'étude de Franz Overbeck (1882), plusieurs chercheurs ont eu la tendance de qualifier les textes paléochrétiens de non littéraires, en contraste aux textes patristiques qui datent d'une époque plus tardive. Puisquton qualifie les textes paléochrétiens de non littéraires, on estime qu'ils ont principalement comme fonction de documenter la période durant laquelle ils sont écrits. Dans le cas de la Lettre aux Hébreux, cette approche a donné lieu à un grand nombre dthypothèses relativement à son arrière-plan historique. Cependant, aucune d'entre elles ne s'est avérée vraiment satisfaisante jusqutà maintenant. Cette absence de consensus jette un doute sérieux sur la pertinence d'un refus du caractère essentiellement littéraire du texte. Il faut de plus souligner que les raisons invoquées pour justifier le caractère non littéraire des textes paléochrétiens ne sont pas convaincants. Ces observations rendent encore plus probable l'hypothèse du caractère littéraire de la Lettre aux Hébreux.

Les textes littéraires d'Irénée, Clément d'Alexandrie et Tertullien se comparent favorablement à la Lettre aux Hébreux. Ces textes patristiques ont été rédigés durant la dernière partie du deuxième siècle, avant même que la doctrine orthodoxe ne trouve sa formulation définitive- Un survol reprdsentatif de la recherche démontre que les spécialistes en patristique ont généralement peu d'attentes quant a la possibilité de reconstituer un portrait clair de la communauté idéologique de l'auteur, des raisons motivant la production du texte et dela composition de l'auditoire. Si c'est le cas, il n'y aucune raison de croire qu'il puisse en être autrement pour la Lettre aux Hébreux.

Étant donné la possibilité de pouvoir attribuer à la Lettre aux Hébreux un caractère littéraire, cette thèse cherche à démontrer qu'il est faux de présumer que ce texte représente une idéologie qui dépasse celle de l'auteur pour rejoindre l'idéologie d'une communauté précise ou une situation particulière. Le fardeau de la preuve s'en trouve donc renversé. Ainsi, étant donné l'absence de preuves à l'effet du contraire, il est préférable de considérer la Lettre aux Hébreux comme une oeuvre littéraire produite par un auteur précis et adressé à un auditoire général, et dont l'intention est fondamentalement rhétorique. Dans une telle optique, la problématique de l'absence de correspondance entre la Lettre aux Hébreux et une communauté precise disparaît. Cette thèse soulève en plus certaines questions en ce qui concerne l'hypothèse que d'autres écrits chrétiens (Matthieu, Jacques, etc,) aient été façonngs par des communautés idéologiques distinctes. TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ...... The Riddle of Hebrews ...... Riddle #1: Anonymity; ancient letters are usually not anonymous ...... Riddle #2: Anomalous form; it neither conforms to the normal fom of a letter nor to that of a hornily/treatise ...... Riddle #3: Lack of community-fit; it does not represent any known group ... Thesis Problem ...... Operative Assumptions ...... Assumption #1: Riddles are due to unmet expectations ...... Assumption #2: Expectations for situating a text are based on patterns set by the genre to which the text is thought to belong ...... Assumption #3: Expectations for situating a text depend on certain assumptions as to the representative or referential nature of the text ... Objective ...... Thesis ...... Line of Argument ...... Contribution ......

CHAPTER ONE SURVEYING THE HISTORY OF =BREWS1 GENRE ASSESSMENT . 28 The Text of Hebrews and its Reception . . . . 28 Canonization history ...... 31 Summary ...... 36 Pre-Nineteenth-Century NT Scholarship . 37 John Chrysostom ...... 38 MartinLuther ...... 39 John Calvin ...... 41 Johann D . Michaelis ...... 43 Summary ...... 45 Argumentation Pattern ...... 46 Literary Structure ...... 47 Greco-Roman Rhetoric ...... 48 Chapter Thirteen ...... 50

Scholarly Views of Hebrewst Genre since the Nineteenth-Century ...... 53 The Role of Background on Text/Author . 54 CeslasSpicq ...... 55 Yigael Yadin ...... 56 Ernst Kgsemam ...... 58 William Manson 60 ...... Helmut Koester ...... 61 Erich Grâsser .....O..t...63 Lincoln D . Hurst ...... 65 Harold W . Attridge ...... 67 Charles F.D. Moule ...... 69

The Scope/Extent of Textual Representation 71 William Manson ...... 72 Barnabas Lindars ...... 75 MarieE . Isaacs ...... 77 Summary ...... O..79 The Specificity of the Textts ~udience/Destination ...80 ThornasW.Manson...... 81 Charles P . Anderson ....82 Robert Jewett ...... 85 Sutnrnary ...... 87 Conclusions ...... 88

CHAPTER TWO TRACING THE DEVELOPMENT OF EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATTT'S ASSUMED NONLITERARY NATURE ...... 90 NT Scholarship from the Nineteenth-Century to the Present ...... 91 Ferdinand C . Baur ...... 91 Franz Overbeck ...... 94 Martin Dibelius ...... 100 Rudolf Bultmann ...... 102 Walter Bauer ...... 105 Helmut Koester ...... 109 Werner Kelber ...... 114 Vernon K . Robbins ...... 119 Conclusions ...... 123

CHAPTER THREE TESTING THE EXPECTED COMMUNITY-FIT OF EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE ...... 127 Anachronism in the Overbeckian Legacy ..... 129 Romanticism in the Overbeckian Legacy ..... 136 Determinism in the Overbeckian Legacy ..... 145 Negative Literary Bias in the Overbeckian Legacy ...... 149 Conclusions ...... 159 CHAPTER FOUR USING EARLY PATRISTIC LITERATURE TO RESET EXPECTATIONS 161 Patristic Writers to 200 and their Texts . 165 Irenaeus of Lyons ...... 167 Clernent of Alexandria ...... 170 TertuIlian of Carthage ...... 173 Summary ...... 178 Contenrporary Scholarly Expectations of Patristic Texts ...... 180 The Role of Background on ~ext/Author ... 181 Denise K . Bueil ...... 183 Annewies van den Hoek ...... 186 Summary ...... 192 The Scope/~xtentof Textual Representation 194 Timothy D . Barnes ...... 196 Frederik Wisse ...... 201 Summary ...... 205 The Specificity of the Text's Audience/Destination ....207 Mark S . Burrows ...... 208 Louis W . Roberts ...... 211 Summary ...... 215 Conclusions ...... 217

CONCLUSION ...... 220 Defauït Expectations for Early Christian Literature ...... 223 What about the Riddle? ...... 226

WORKS CITED ...... 228 INTRODUCTION

The religious text at the center of this thesis investigation is an anonymous early Christian text that has corne to be known as, 'the Letter to the Hebrews.' For some New Testament (NT) scholars and historians of Early Christianity, Hebrews presents something of a riddle. As such, it provides a particularly useful case study of the contemporary methods used for situating ancient religious texts in their original setting-

The Riddle of Hebrews

A brief overview of the history-of-interpretation shows three ways that the riddle of Hebrews has been posed, resolved, or left to stand,

Riddle #1: Anonymity; ancient letters are usually not anonymous .

Initially, the riddle of Hebrews was associated with its anonymity. If it was indeed a letter as the ending suggested (Heb 13-22-25). it was puzzling why the author and the addressees were not identified. Already during the early centuries of the Common Era, the concern of some readers focused on trying to identify the author and the addressees. Since ancient letters were not usually anonymous. Hebrews presented a riddle to them. By the second century, some measure of the enigma was answered when the designation 'Letter to the Hebrewsl became attached to the text (Kümmel 1975392). This designation reflects the experience of early Christians with their religious texts in two ways. First, Hebrews b was classified as a letter along with other early Christian texts of authoritative teaching. Very early, it became comrnon for Paul's letters, which were addressed to particular congregations, to be copied and circulated for use in other Christian communities. This early practice served to standardize the catholic letter as the generic form of authoritative Christian teaching (Gamble 1995:107) .

Second, the addressees were assumed to be Hebrew people, either Hebrew Christians or Hebrews in general. This was probably because the text often refers to the Israelite sacrificial systern and to heros and heroines of faith in the Hebrew Bible (Heb 3.1-6; 4.14-5.14; 7-1-26; 9.11- 10.18; 11.1-40). These are, however, hardly conclusive indicators of Hebrew recipients. Paul's letters addressed to his largely Gentile congregations, also contained references to Jewish faith and practice. Nevertheless, in view of the lack of any direct evidence, these textual details were read as indirect dues indicating that the original recipients were Hebrew people.

Thus, the identification of the text as a 'letter' and as 'to the Hebrewst developed from the early Christian experience with texts of teaching and exhortation. Apparently, the authority of an early Christian text was enhanced if it was in the form of a letter addressed to a particular group of people.

Some second-century readers, however, were still troubled by an early Christian letter of exhortation for which the author was unidentified. This part of the enigma too did not xemain for long. Already in the second century some began to attribute the text to Paul because it made reference to Timothy (Heb 13-23], Paul's close associate. Furthemore, the echoes of Paul's characteristic greeting at the close of the text (Heb 13-22-25], senred to strengthen the attribution to Paul. Eventually, by the fifth century, the riddle of Hebrewts anonymity was resolved to the satisfaction of most and the text was identified as '*Paul's Letter to the Hebrews" (Kümel 1975:501) .

In addition to the early Christian experience with the genre of letter, there was a desire to associate the church's authoritative writings with apostolic figures. Evidently, for an early Christian text to retain the authoritative status that it had already achieved while circulating among the early churches, it needed to be traceable back to an apostle. These concems most likely also played a part in attributing Hebrews to Paul. Riddle #Zr Anomalou8 form; it neither confonw to the normal fonn of a letter nor to that of a homily/treatise.

The publication of Wilhelm Wrede's 1906 monograph, Das 1i terarische Ra tsel des Hebraerbrief es, marked a new version of the riddle of Hebrews. For Wrede (1906:2), the concern was Hebrewsl literary form, From the second century until the nineteenth century, Hebrewsl genre classification as a letter had gone largely unchallenged. Now Wrede revisited the ancient characterization of Hebrews as a letter.

The puzzle of Hebrewsl literary form was double-edged. On the one hand, the text entered directly into its argument without any prescript or introductory greeting. In this respect, it did not look like a real letter. On the other hand, because the text concluded with a persona1 postscript which resernbled an epistolary closing, it did not look like a real homily or a treatise.

Further experience with the genre of ancient letters, especially in light of Adolf Deissrnann's publication of recently discovered letters, receipts, and wills frorn antiquity, raised questions about the appropriateness of Hebrews' genre categorization (Deissmann 1927). The phenornenon of an early Christian text whose literary form did not conforrn to the letters of that period, was perplexing to some nineteenth-century NT scholars. For some scholars, the riddle was resolved by s~ggesting that the prescript was omitted (Overbeck 1880) or was delivered orally (Zahn 1917). Either way, scholars asserted that Hebrews was still in essence a letter addreçsed to a specific group living in a ~articular locality (Overbeck 1880; Jülicher 1904; Zahn 1917) - This assessment of Hebrewsl basic genre as a letter continues to be maintained by some today (Bruce 1990; Lane 1991; Lindars 1991).

Others, however, argued that Hebrews was a general homily/treatise masquerading as a letter (Wrede 1906; Deissmann 1927). This view has growing support among NT scholars today (Spicq 1952 -53 ; Vanhoye 1963 ; KuBs 1966; Vielhauer 1975; Kümmel 1975; Koester 1982). For this second group, the assessment of Hebrews is best s~mmedUP by the terse rejoinder that the so-called p pi se le of Paul to the Hebrews is not by Paul, not to the flebrewst and not an Epistlew (Sandmel 1974 :23s) .

The expanded experience with ancient texts (DeiBsmaM 1927) has guided the expectations which have re~ultedin the second version of the riddle of Hebrews. The Presence or absence of certain textual details (prescriptt postscript , etc. has been used to adjudicate afisessments of the textws genre. With little external or interna1 evidence, NT scholars have been compelled to trWsfom these textual details into Ievidence' for Hebrews' genre classification. Some argue that since Hebrews dQes net sufficiently conform to the typical Greco-Roman letter form, it cannot be an authentic letter, but rather essentially a homily/treatise. Others contend that since Hebrews does not exactly correspond to the typical Greco- Roman homily/treatise form, it cannot be a genuine homily/treatise, but rather essentially a letter.

This development reflects a growing recognition among contemporary NT schofars that it is inappropriate to assume that the final form of Hebrews must align exactly within the narrow strictures of an ancient letter or of a hornily- For many, the riddle of Hebrewsf final form has been resolved in large measure by various explanations for the departure from the genre-noms. Some assert that pseudepigraphical aims justify the inclusion of an epistolary ending without disqualifying its essential homily/treatise form. Others claim that rhetorical aims excuse the omission of the prescript without negating its basic letter form. Thus, the riddle has been 'resolvedl to some degree as the 'evidencet is used to qualify or disqualify Hebrews from one or other genre classification depending on which scholars are consulted.

Riddle #3: Lack of community-fit; it does not represent any known group.

The nineteenth-century NT scholarls concern for Hebrewsl enigmatic literary form also developed into an interest in the textls fmction. With the rise of form criticism, it was argued that a textls form and its function were mutually dependent. In other words, the form of a text may indicate its function and conversely, the intended function of a text may dictate its form.

Franz Overbeck (1882 :423 ) anticipated the development of form criticism with his often quoted remark that a literary text betrays the history of its function in its form. Thus, a Formengeschichte (history-of-f orm) will also be a Li tera turgeschichte (history-of-1iterature) . This meant that views regarding the text1s literary form

(letter, epistle, homily, treatise, etc. ) were tightly linked to assessments of the textls function within a cornmuni ty .

For some contemporary NT scholars, the third forrn of the riddle of Hebrews is associated with determining the historical background within which the text was written (Hurst 1990 :3) . In other words, Hebrews is enigmatic not so much because it is anonymous or because it has an unusual literary fom. These may be interesting problems, but they are seen as largely unresolvable to the satisfaction of al1 and only secondary to the main thrust of the riddle, namely, where to fit Hebrews within early Christian history?

The problem is that Hebrews cannot easily be associated with any of the distinct ideological communities that are thought to have been present within early Christianity (Vielhauer 1975:238). The expectation that a text must fit within an ideological community, has generated the most recent form of the riddle of Hebrews. Some contemporary NT scholars are puzzled by an early Christian text that does not appear to reflect the concerns of an identifiable ideological community.

Norman Perrin's assessrnent is indicative of the third version of the riddle of Hebrews. For Perrin, the enigma is left to stand as Hebrews is acknowledged as simply an anomaly. It is an alien presence and an intruder from a thought-world that is not representative of any of the assumed streams within early Christianity. Perrin mites: The letter to the Hebrews is extraordinarily difficult to fit into any survey of the New Testament. Like Melchizedek of whom it speaks, it is "without father or rnother or genealogyw (Heb 7:3), and we would be tempted to add also "without offspring." In the New Testament it has neither antecedents nor descendants and is not part of any movement; it is simply a text of such excellence that it forced its way into the canon of the New Testament (1982:137) .

For scholars like Perrin, the singularity of the ideas expressed in Hebrews is surprising. According to the normal expectations of these NT scholars, an early Christian text should be representative of a distinct ideological community. Thus, Hebrews' lack of community- fit is puzzling. For Perrin, Aebrewsl idiosyncratic content is unexpected. Barnabas Lindarsls evaluation is another example of the third form of the riddle of Hebrews. For Lindars, however, the riddle of Hebrewsl enigmatic historical background is resolved by proposing that Hebrews represents a faction within Christianity that is otherwise unknown. Lindars claims that: The people addressed in Hebrews cannot be identified with any of the main groups of Christians known to us in the New Testament. They are not Pauline Christians and they are not Johannine Christians, and they do not belong to the mother church in Jerusalem. In Hebrews we have a glimpse into a segment of earliest Christianity unknown from other sources (1991:2).

For scholars like Lindars, it is unusual that there is no information about the group with which Hebrews was affiliated. According to the standard expectations of these NT scholars, an early Christian text is linked to a well-defined community tradition. Thus, Hebrewsl lack of comunity-fit is enigmatic. For Lindars, Hebrews can only make sense as evidence of an otherwise unknown early Christian community.

Both Perrin and Lindars exhibit expectations that continue to guide the riddle of Hebrews. Whether resolved (Lindars) or unresolved (Perrin), the currency of the riddle reveals certain expectations for the way early Christian texts relate to the historical context in which they were written. The expectation that guides the most recent version of the riddle of Hebrews is that an early Christian text must 'fit1 with a particular strand of early Christianity.

Thesis Problem

The central focus of this thesis is the third aspect of the tiddle of Hebrews, namely, the lack of an expected comunity-fit. The assumption that an early Christian text must conform to a distinct ideological community needs analysis and testing. As Keith Whitelam observes, an appreciation for the challenges of extrapolating the social world of a religious text based on that text itself, "appears to be less well developed in New Testament studies compared with parallel movements in the study of the Hebrew Biblew (1998:45).

Thus, the thesis problern can be framed as follows: what are the appropriate expectations with regard to the representative or referential nature of an early Christian text? Put another way, at what point is it insufficient to expect that the ideas expresçed in the text are restricted to the author? Or conversely, when can an early Christian text be expected to be evidence for, or representative of, a particular community's ideology? There are three operative assumptions that guide this study.

Assirmption #l: Riddles are due to unmet expectations.

The point that each version of the riddle illustrates is that Hebrews' enigmatic form and/or content is based on unmet scholarly expectations without a plausible explanation available. In each case, that which is considered nomal for situating an ancient religious text in history is absent, resulting in the characterization of Hebrews as a riddle. It is precisely the link between riddle and unmet expectations that makes Hebrews a particularly useful case study of the contemporary scholarly methods used for situating early Christian texts in history.

The large role of expectations in shaping the enigmatic character of Hebrews can be sumrnarized as follows. The expectation guiding Riddle #1 (anonymity) is based on scholarly experience with ancient texts. Real or pseudepigraphic letters are not anonymous or lacking of specified addressees, and therefore, Hebrewsl anonymity is baffling. The expectations behind Riddle #2 (anomalous form) are two-fold. First, experience with ancient texts indicates that real or pseudepigraphic letters usually have prescripts. Therefore, Hebrewsl lack of prescript and other features typical of letters is surprising. Second, experience with ancient texts also suggests that real homilies/treatises usually do not have epistolary postscripts. Therefore, Hebrewsl existing postscript is unexpected and puzzling. Finally, the expectation driving Riddle #3 (lack of community-fit) is based on the contemporary scholarly assumption that early Christian texts are normally produced within and for distinct ideological Christian communities. Therefore, Hebrews' lack of community-fit is mysterious.

The pressing question is whether these expectations, and the assumptions on which they are based, are warranted. While it may well be true that these expectations are unmet, the more important question is whether they are justified in the first place. This leads us to my second assumption.

Assumption #2: Expectations for situating a text are based on patterns set by the genre to which the text is tbought to belong.

A review of the scholarly expectations that have generated the riddle of Hebrews shows that usually the expectations are derived from experience with a wide variety of texts of similar genre. For exampie, ancient letters both real and pseudonymous as well as sermonic treatises are well known. Legitimate expectations can be derived from studying these texts. Thus, the apparent genre of the text in question determines the expectations that are normally appropriate. The recent literature on genre underlines the importance of genre for determining expectations (Hirsch 1967; Culler 1975; Fowler 1982; Dubrow 1982; Burridge 1992; Bauckham 1998) . There is what amounts to a "genre- contract" established between writer and reader that guides the reader's expectations. According to Jonathan Culler, readers attend to characters in a different way if they are reading a tragedy or if they are reading a comedy which they expect to end in multiple marriages (1975:147). In much the same way, it is the genre that sets the parameters within which the historian works. The genre assessment determines the significance that can be attributed to the textual details and especially their usefulness for situating the text in history-

These kinds of experience-based expectations, however, are limited. The experience with texts may not be wide enough to derive appropriate expectations. For instance, the genre may be improperly or too narrowly defined causing the expectations to be skewed or arbitrary. Thus, there is a real possibility that a riddle could be unwarranted. If either the consequences of the assessed genre are not taken seriously or if the genre is assessed incorrectly, the resulting expectations rnay be unjustif ied.

The fallacy of misplaced concreteness (Snell 1935:331; Nock 1972:887) is an especially common pitfall rooted in bringing expectations to a literary text which cannot be legitimately sustained by the literary genre, For example, pressing the artificial textual details of a pseudepigraphical letter like Jude in the NT into concrete profiles of particular heretical groups is misguided (Wisse 1972:135-36). The fallacy is that pseudepigrapha's essential literary character is not taken seriously when its historical usefulness is overestimated. Consider also apocalyptic literature like the Revelation to John also in the NT. When the author describes a war in heaven between Michael and his angels and the Devil and his angels (Rev 12-7-11}it is inappropriate to treat this literally as a cosmic event in the past or in the future (Caird 1980 :55) . While the apocalypticist uses the cosmic language of myth and eschatology, it is primarily intended to affirm and encourage readers in the conternporary earthly situation.

Another classic example of how the misdiagnosis of a textlsgenre generated false expectations is recorded in Deissmann'ç Light from the Ancient East (1927). Deissmannts work has already been alluded to, but the full significance of his contribution can be seen in the following example. For a long time NT Greek confused many scholars because it differed significantly from classical Greek. One explanation for the difference was that NT Greek was a special language unique to Christianity. Deissmannls contribution ruled out this explanation. His compilation of common Egyptian papyri from the NT period (wills, personal letters, receipts, shopping lists, etc.) showed that the difference between NT Greek and Classicai Greek could no longer be attributed to the NT1s special language. fnstead NT Greek shared al1 the characteristics of the common or Koiné Greek used in the first century. The threat of misplaced concreteness is always present and only rigorous and consequent genre assessment can reduce the danger.

In order to promote such a rigorous and consequent genre assessment so that reliable historical evidence can be gathered, a distinction will be drawn between the two most basic genre types of early Christian texts. Thus, a text is either essentially a documentary/nonliterary (occasional) writing or a text is essentially a literary (non-occasional) writing,

Determining a textls essential genre (whether documentary or literary) plays a major role in influencing the reader's general expectations about a text and its usefulness for historical reconstruction. On the one hand, certain expectations emerge when considering a real letter (a documentary/nonliterary text) since it is occasioned by a situation known mutually by the author and the addressee. Documentary texts provide direct evidence which is the most useful fox reconstructing the situation within which the text was written. On the other hand, another set of expectations arise when reading a sermonic treatise or a pseudonymous text rnasquerading as a letter. Since both of these are essentially literary texts, there is no obvious specific occasion. Literary texts provide only indirect evidence which is the least useful (more speculative) for reconstructing the situation within which the text was written. Thus, calling a text a riddle may be ruled out at genre level, if the expectations can be shown to be inappropriate for the genre or if plausible reasons for the discrepancy can be found.

The larger question, howevex, is one of determining whether the expectations derived from the assumptions regarding the referential nature of a particular genre are justifiable . For example, an occasional letter without certain formal characteristics, may pose a legitimate riddle, while a non-occasional literary text (an apocalypse) that lacks formal characteristics would not be that surprising. This leads us to my third assumption.

Assumption #3: Expectations for situating a text depend on certain assumptions as to the representative or referential nature of the text.

The nature of early Christian texts (and of ancient religious texts in general) requires that scholars make certain assumptions regarding their representative or referential character. For most contemporary texts, however, scholars are not as dependent on these assumptions . This is because the reader usually has access to two kinds of information which are useful for sorting out how the views stated in the text relate to the situation within which the text was written. First, contemporary texts usually have direct intemal evidence that will explain whether the views expressed in the text are unique, representative of a group, or influenced by external factors- In many cases, there are a number of common internal features that accompany the text and facilitate the location of the text (preface, introduction, acknowledgements, endorsements, publication data, etc. ) .

Second, contemporary texts also enjoy a wealth of external material which can be consulted and used for the task of situating the background of a text (newspaper reports, journals, letters, documentaries, archives, etc.). While each of these external xeferences to the author's persona1 context may or may not be useful for a better understanding of the text, they are helpful for situating the text in the historical situation within which it was written.

For ancient religious texts, however, the conditions are quite different. Ancient texts normally lack internal features useful for situating them in history. What the author thought the reader needed to know about the background, the situation, and the reasons for composition, is usually provided in the text. Thus, if information about the historical setting within which the text was written is lacking (and not accidentally or intentionally lost), then it is questionable whether its recovery is necessary for understanding the ideas expressed in the text. Furthermore, the'referential nature of textual details that are present in a text may not be dependable. For example, the referential details in pseudonymous texts are artificial and intentionally deceptive.

With regard to external evidence, here too ancient religious texts are disadvantaged. It is precisely such evidence, so useful for locating a text's background, that is largely absent for early Christian texts. For example, it is only mid-way through the second century, that Papias first attributed the Gospels to the authors by which they are known today. Papias' text survives only in Eusebiusl fourth-century history of the church (Historia Ecclesiastica [HE] 3.39.3-5,15-16). The late attestation raises questions about the claim of an unbroken tradition concerning the named authors (Sanders and Davies 1989:13).

If there ever was documentary external evidence for early Christianity, such as church records, court proceedings, and written correspondence, these have long since been lost. Only a couple of non-Christian documentary texts remain for the first hundred years of Christianity. These include the brief and not unambiguous references to Jesus and to early Christianity by Pliny, the Roman governor (Letters 10.961, by the Roman historians, Tacitus (Annals 15.44) and Suetonius (Claudius 25). and by Josephus, the Jewish historian (Antiquities 18.63-64; 20 .200) . The earliest documentary evidence concerning Christianity is internal to the NT. Several of Paul's personal letters document his relationship with early Christian communities. Even here the representative or referential nature of the letters in the Pauline corpus is far from obvious. The likelihood of pseudepigrapha in the Pauline corpus (e.g. , the Pastoral Letters) and even Paul ' s own rhetorical argumentation do not make for unambiguous reconstruction of the situation within which these letters were produced (Donfried 1977; Lyons 1985; Mitchell 1989, 1991) .

Thus, apart from the NT'S own historical account of Christian begimings (Acts of the Apostles), there are only seven undisputed letters of Paul and nine non- canonical early Christian letters that document the birth, development, and expansion of Christianity during the first hundred years (see Ehrman 1998). This limited documentary evidence makes the task of locating early Christian literature in its original context especially challenging for the historian. Given these particular challenges, expectations for situating these ancient texts depend a great deal on the scholarly assumptions about the representative nature of these texts.

The critical task for the historian of early Christian literature is to formulate appropriate expectations based on a prior assumption as to the representative or the referential character of these texts. These assumptions about what the internal or external evidence represents, however, need to be defensible. For example, a religious text may be assumed to be nonliterary or to be literary as long as plausible explanations are given to account for the lack of explicit indications in the text. In other words, these prior assumptions must be subject to review, to evaluation, and to the burden of proof within the scholarly community. The stronger assumption will be the one that is simpler and requires less special pleading. Thus, calling a text a riddle may be unwarranted if the expectations can be shown to be based on an assumption that is made on insufficient grounds or depends on extraordinary circumstances.

Objective

This thesis is about reassessment. The aim is to show that the burden of proof has been inappropriately reversed so that now Hebrews is largely assumed to be a documentary text. By reviewing how NT scholarship has assessed the genre of Hebrews and located Hebrews within early Christian history, it will be argued that the literary character of Hebrews cannot be ruled out. The possibility of Hebrewsl literary character strengthens to a probability when it is argued that the explanations used by some contemporary scholars to rule out the literary character of early Christian literature, are not justified.

Furthermore, the reestablishment of the probability of Hebrewsl literary character allows for cornparison between Hebrews and early Patristic literature written still before the parameters of orthodoxy were fixed in the third and fourth century. The late second-century Patristic writers also lived and taught in the diverse and relatively uncontrolled environment of pre-orthodox Christianity. The power of this cornparison is that the expectations scholars have for situating early Patristic literature enjoy wide agreement. The religious texts written by, for example, Irenaeus of Lyons, Tertullian of Carthage, and Clement of Alexandria, are unif ormly characterized as literary texts dealing with various topics of interest to early Christians (Chadwick 1966, 1993; Grant 1967; Osborn 1981; Wagner 1994; Bue11 1999).

Besides the unifom genre assessment, these early Patristic texts enjoy the additional advantage of having some extemal evidence for the situation in which they were written. Albeit minimal, even the little that can be ascertained, is more than is available for the setting of Hebrews. This external evidence for early patristic texts functions as a 'check1 on the scholarly expectations for situating ancient literary texts in history.

This rneans that expectations for situating early Patristic literature carry the potential for setting appropriate expectations for situating Christian literary texts generally to 200. It is only after this tirne and in certain Christian centers like Rome and Alexandria, that bishops began to exert more ecclesiastical control and censorship of Christian writing and teaching (Pagels 1979:niii; Bue11 1999:12). Therefore, the scholarly expectations of these Patristic writings to 200 may well function as benchmark or default expectations for al1 early Christian literature. They could qualify as default expectations in that they would be generally appropriate unless there was evidence to the contrary.

Moreover, if the scholarly expectations for situating early Patristic literature were confirmed as the default expectations for Hebrews as well, the validity of the riddle of Hebrews' lack of community-fit could be determined. Thus, a thesis statement emerges which will be subject to proof in the investigation that follows.

Thesis

It is inappropriate to expect that Hebrews represents ideas that extend beyond those of the author to a specific community or to a particular situation given the probability of Hebrews' literary character.

Line of Argument

The argument is designed establish the thesis statement by surveying, analyzing, and comparing the expectations that scholars have for situating early Christian literature. The line of argument is based on showing two things. First, it will be argued that the scholarly reconstructions based on the textual details are inconclusive, which raises doubts about the necessi ty of classifying Hebrews as a nonliterary text. Second, it will be argued that the explanations that are used to justify the unique nonliterary character of early Christian literature, in contrast to Patristic literature to 200, are unwarranted. Thus, not only is Hebrewst literary character not to be ruled out, but the probability of Hebrewsl literary character will be shown to be the stronger hypothesis. Such probability provides a basis for reassessing the validity of the riddle of Hebrewsf lack of community-fit.

The argument is divided into four steps. Each step is the subject of one chapter. Chapter One surveys the history of Hebrews' genre assessment. In this chapter the objective is to describe scholarshipfs assessment of Hebrewsf genre. In view of Assumption #2 (that genre determines expectations), it is important to ascertain what can be said (or not ruled out) concerning the genre of Hebrews in order to set legitimate expectations. 1s Hebrews best described as essentially a documentary

(occasional) text or a literary (non-occasional) text? The aim of the first chapter is to establish a minimal understanding of the kind of text Hebrews is. The intention is not to show that Hebrews is literary as opposed to documentary (which is in any case impossible to prove categorically). The goal is only to show that it cannot be taken for granted that Hebrews is nonliterary and occasional. Chapter Two traces the development of early Christian literaturels assumed nonliterary nature. The purpose of this chapter is to recount the reasons some scholars have for assuming Hebrewsr nonliterary nature in spite of the lack of conclusive interna1 evidence. In view of Assumption #3 (that assumptions determine expectations), it is important to clarify the assumption that pre-150 Christian literature is essentially nonliterary and occasional. This assumption has generated the expectation that early Christian texts must conform to distinct ideological communities. What are the arguments put forward by some NT scholars for privileging early Christian texts as representative and reflective of a community ideology? The aim of this second chapter is to narrate the origin and developrnent of the special theory of history and literature that separates early Christian literature from early Patristic literature.

Chapter Three tests the expectation of community-fit for early Christian literature. The objective of this chapter is to evaluate the legitimacy of the assumption that pre-150 Christian literature is essentially nonliterary and occasional. It is important to test the validity of this assumption that is often used to overrule genre assessments and fuel expectations of community-fit. Since the genre of Hebrews cannot be shown to be necessarily nonliterary, is the contemporary expectation of community-fit warranted? The airn of this chapter is not to rule out the possibility of such a privileged status, only to determine if the reasons for reversing the burden of proof are compelling. The goal will be to show that there are no compelling reasons for requiring the privileged status of pre-150 Christian literature and that the probability of Hebrewst essential literary character must therefore be reestablished.

Chapter Four builds on the results of Chapter Three by using early Patristic literature to reset expectations for situating Hebrews in early Christian history. If the privileging of early Christian literature as nonliterary is found to be unwarranted (argued in Chapter Three), then the expectations for situating other literary texts like early Patristic literature become germane. If the probability of Hebrews' literary nature is demonstrable, then the expectations for situating early Patristic texts can be used to determine appropriate benchmark or default expectations for Hebrews as well. What are the expectations for situating Patristic texts like those by Irenaeus, Clenient of Alexandria, and Tertullian? Are these texts expected to be representative or reflective of more than the authorts ideas? Are these authors thought to have written under significant community constraint? If most scholars do not expect the representation for these later texts to extend much beyond the authors themselves, would it not be inappropriate to expect anything more representative in an earlier, less stable period without unambiguous evidence of their essential documentary nature? If confirmed, there would be further reason to return the burden of proof to those arguing that pre-150 Christian texts reflect/represent more than the ideas of the author. Such a finding would have direct implications both for research in early Christian literature in general and for the riddle of Hebrews in particulas.

Contribution

The potential contribution of this thesis for NT studies is two-fold. First, the thesis implies that Hebrews' lack of community-fit would no longer be a riddle. Since the assumption that early Christian texts must conform to distinct ideological communities will have been shown be exceptional and not typical of literary products , Hebrewls lack of community-fit would no longer be enigmatic. Furthemore, the probability of Hebrewsr literary character would also raise questions about the contemporary scholarly assumption that other early

Christian writings (Matthew, John, James, etc, ) were shaped by and for ideologically distinct communities, even if such communities existed.

Second, the thesis also implies that the expectations which historians use for situating early Christian literature can no longer be guided by the assumption that pre-150 Christian literature is necessarily nonliterary and occasional without corroborating interna1 evidence. Instead, the scholarly expectations for situating Patristic literature to 200 would now function as the default expectations for early Christian literary texts as well. As the default expectations, they could not be set aside without supporting evidence. CHAPTER ONE

SURVEYING THE HISTORY OF HEBREWS' GENRE ASSESSMENT

The aim of this chapter is to survey the expectations of NT scholarship with regard to assessing Hebrewsr genre and location within early Christian history. In view of Assumption #2 (that genre determines expectations), it is important to ascertain what can be said or at least not ruled out concerning the genre of Hebrews in order to set legitimate expectations. 1s Hebrews best described as essentially a docurnentary/nonliterary (occasional) text or as a literary (non-occasional) text? Before discussing the scholarly expectations for situating Hebrews, however, a brief introduction to the text of Hebrews and its reception may be useful.

The Text of Hebrews and its Reception

Hebrews is one of the longest sustained arguments of the NT. Harold W. Attridge considers Hebrews to be "a masterpiece of early Christian rhetorical homileticsH (1989:l). In fact, the text calls readers to 'listen to the word/tract of encouragement ' (a&p& io6Royovnîr;yov r&

1~1~l;d~~d-Heb 13.22). Even though this appellation is found in the epistolary ending, whose integrity is contested, there is little doubt as to Hebrewsl early reception as a word/tract of encouragement. Whether this description is original or was added later as a covering postscript, the text functioned as a word/tract for general encouragement in the early Christian communities.

Hebrewsl self-designation as a word/tract of encouragement has been explored as a sample of Hellenistic-Jewish and early Christian preaching. For example, Lawrence Wills discerns a pattern in Hebrews where "the exempla/conclusion/exhortation schema is repeated sevexal times in cyclical fashionu (1984:280). Wills suggests that this three-part schema is evidence for an early Christian innovation and that it clarifies the form of the early Christian sermon. C. Clifton Black (1988) has taken issue with Willsls suggestion of llinnovation.l1 According to Black, the three part schema of Hebrews 5s perfectly understandable in tems of the rhetorical conventions outlined in the ancient handbooksN (1988:ll). Thus, while there is still debate about how early Christian preaching related to the Greco-Roman rhetorical conventions, the rhetorical function of Hebrews as word/tract of encouragement is generally accepted.

The pressing question for the purposes of this thesis, however, is whether Hebrews8 classification as Irhetorical homileticsl has had any influence on the expectations that NT scholars have for situating Hebrews in early Christian history. In other words, has Hebrewsl sermonic form functioned to indicate its genre, and therefore, to detennine the appropriate expectations for situating Hebrews? Evidently this has not been the case. Hebrews' status as a riddle, suggests that the designation A&qmqtxrd&tig has not been appreciated by some contemporary NT scholars as an unambiguous indicator of genre. Apparently, there are other factors that have caused these NT scholars to set aside expectations norrnally associated with literary products like sermons. What could these be? What factors have complicated the determination of genre? What are the expectations that NT scholars exhibit for situating the text of Hebrews? Have these.expectations shifted over the years or have they remained consistent in the history-of-interpretation of Hebrews?

To better understand the scholarly expectations for situating the text of Hebrews, it may be helpful to first consider three particular introductory matters: its canonization history, its pre-nineteenth-century reception, and its argumentation pattern. Since comprehensive reviews of the scholarly research on Hebrews exist (GrZsser 1964; Buchanan 1975; Johnsson 1977-78; Hughes 1989; Watson 1997), only the highlights related to situating Hebrews in early Christian history will be addressed. Canonization hia tory

Not only is the author of Hebrews unknotirri, but the circumstances in which the text was composed and the audience to which it was first directed are also unknown. Because of Hebrewsr anonymity on al1 three fronts, its early reception history reveals much interest in debating the location of Hebrews both in history and in the early Christian collection of authoritative writings. Among early Christians, however, there is little doubt that the text functioned as a much-used and cherished piece of Christian exhortation. The early attempts to fix the authorship and destination were likely intended to confirm the place Hebrews already occupied in the collection of authoritative writings (Anderson 1966:432).

The earliest extant copy of the text of Hebrews is part of the third-century papyrus codex P'~. In this manuscript, Hebrews is located in the Pauline corpus and placed--probably on the basis of length--in the second position between Romans and the Corinthiari letters (Hatch 1936:133). The earliest extant allusion to Hebrews, however, is found in a letter attributed to Clement of Rome. This letter, known as 1 Clement (ca. 90-120), alludes to Hebrews 1.3,5-13 (1 Clement 36.1-5) and suggests that the author of 1 Clement knew the text of Hebrews. First Clement, then, provides an upper limit of 100 for the date of Hebrews' composition. A lower limit of 60 allows for the fact that there is no explicit indication that Hebrews was written befoxe or after the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70. This silence, however, should not be considered significant either for setting a pre-70 or a post-70 composition date, since Hebrews shows little interest in first- century Judaisrn. Thus, a compositicn range for Hebrews of 60-100 is generally accepted (Attridge 1989:6-9).

Hebrewsl early association with Paul reflects the view of certain Alexandrian Christian teachers fxom at least the middle of the second century. The fourth-century historian, Eusebius, quotes long excerpts from both Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150-215) and Origen (ca. 185- 253) which link Hebrews to Paul in various ways (HE 6.14.2-4; 6.25.11-14). It is unlikely, however, that Clement of Alexandria had any direct evidence for his claim that Paul wrote Hebrews in Hebrew and that Luke translated it into Greek. He was probably following earlier conjecture. Unfortunately, Clement of Alexandria's text is no longer available; only the citation in Eusebius remains.

Eusebius also reports Origenls doubt that Hebrews was Paul's work because of its substantially different style compared to the rest of the writings in the Pauline collection. For Origen, Hebrews was the work of an unknown disciple of Paul. Again, Origenls text is no longer extant apart from Eusebiusl citation. Nevertheless, the Alexandrians found a way around the stylistic problern by suggesting that Paul was somehow responsible for the content and that a follower or an assistant like Luke, Clement of Rome, or someone else, was responsible for the style. Charles P. Anderson speculates that the Alexandrian teachers were probably not I1arguing for [Hebrews' 1 inclusion but for the right to the place it already heldN (1966:432) in the collection of authoritative writings.

From the second century to the present, the number of alternatives to Paul for the authorship of Hebrews has included: Barnabas (Tertullian de Pudici tia 2 0 ) , Apollos (Luther Werke 45.389; T.W. Manson 1949), Epaphras (Anderson 1975-76; Jewett 1981) and Priscilla (Hamack 1900). None of these theories, however, fias received widespread support since they are beyond proof or refutation.

Sven though Hebrews was known early in the West (1 Clement), it was not readily accepted by the Roman bishops into the Pauline collection. Attridge (1989:lO) suggests that the hesitancy of the Latin West about accepting Hebrews as Pauline could be explained if the original recipients of the writing in its final form were Raman churches. Those in favor of a Roman destination include Harnack (1900), Lane (1991), BNC~ (1962-63), and Attridge (1989). These scholars point to the early attestation in Rome (1 Clement), close affinities with 1 Peter in thought (which was likely written from Rome [cryptically called 'Babylonl in 1 Pet 5.13]), and the postscript ( l those f rom Italy greet youl d&omaz z&&<;ot' &ro&kdiiq Heb 13.24). It should be noted, however, that the phrase 'those from 1talyt.neednot refer to individuals from Rome who are sending greetings back home along with the text. The phrase is not without ambiguity since it could also simply refer to the nationality of those sending greetings to friends anywhere in the Mediterranean (Hughes 1989:353-54; Attridge 1989:lO). At any rate, the argument is that if Rome were the initial destination, then Rome may simply have had more first- hand knowledge of Hebrews than the Alexandrians. Thus, a lingering memory in Rome that the work was not by Paul would readily account for its exclusion from the Pauline corpus.

For others, the argument for a Roman destination is incompatible with the silence of canonical history. Ceslas Spicq (1952:1.233-34) observes that if the church in Rome had been the original recipients of Hebrews, it is hard to imagine that they would have neglected to pass on the name of its author when circulating Hebrews with other communities.

Needless to Say, there is no shortage of other candidates for the destination of Hebrews. Besides Rome, Samaria (Scobie 1972-73), Antioch (Spicq 1952-53), Ephesus (Howard 1951) , and Colossae (T.W. Manson 1949 ; Anderson 1975-76; Jewett 1981), have al1 been proposed without any scholarly consensus emerging.

Neither has there been a shortage of proposals for locating the occasion and the historical background of Hebrews. Several historical contexts have been suggested. Some have placed Hebrews in a Jewish Christian context as specific as former members of the.desert communities at Qumran (Yadin 1958; Spicq 1958-59; Hughes 1989) or as general as Hellenistic Judaism (Westcott 1906; W. Manson 1951; Bruce 1962-63; Attridge 1989; Lane 1991). Others place Hebrews in a primarily Gentile Christian context where the attractions to syncretistic gnosticisrn were being countered (Roeth 1836; Wrede 1906; T.W. Manson 1949; Koester 1962; GrZsser 1965; Kuss 1966; Anderson 1975-76; Jewett 1981; KZsemann 1984). None of these contexts, however, has achieved consensus since they are again beyond proof or refutation.

At any rate, the endorsement by respected Latin teachers like Augustine (ca. 354-430) and Jerome (ca. 347-420) was eventually sufficient to insure the inclusion of Hebrews within the Pauline collection for the Western churches (Attridge 1989:2). For both Augustine (De Civitate Dei 16.22) and Jerome (De Viris Illustribus 5), the value of so-called fapostolic content1 outweighed any uncertainty of direct apostolic authorship.

This development is consistent with the reception history of other early Christian writings. Hebrewsf early use in the West (1 Clernent) shows that factors other than apostolic authorship were operative in assuring a place in the collection of authoritative writings. For example, non-apostolic texts such as the Gospel of Mark and Luke- Acts which also enjoyed early acceptance, were not Thus, by the fifth century (405) the Western bishops formally recognized Hebrewsl place within the collection of authoritative writings by joining the Eastern bishops in attributing Hebrews to Paul. Hebrews, however, was moved from its number two position in the Pauline collection (P~~)to the end of the collection, after Philemon (Hatch 1936:lSO). The position of Hebrews among the 'fourteenl letters of Paul remained secure until the sixteenth-century Reformation when doubts about the Pauline authorship of Hebrews reemerged. Today, the general view is that Paul could not have been the author of Hebrews because of the great differences in writing style and theology (Attridge 1989:l-3).

From the review of Hebrews' canonization history, we can see that its reception among early Christians as a cherished and meaningful text of exhortation has never been challenged. Furthermore, Hebrews place in the NT canon was not seriously contested after the fifth century. So while the debate about authorship, destination, and occasion, has continued in varying degrees of intensity, there is seldom disagreement about the textls basic meaning and usefulness within the Christian church. Thus, the ongoing lack of scholarly consensus on Hebrews' historical background raises questions about the resolvablity of the riddle of Hebrewsl location within early Christian history. Moreover, it is clear that the debate has had little or no significance for grasping the basic meaning of the text. Nevertheless, the riddle of Hebrews continues to merit consideration--if for no other reason than it helps to clarify the methods used by scholars to situate ancient religious texts.

Pre-Nineteenth-Century NT Scholarship

Earlier in this chapter, we considered the expectations of Patristic theologians like Clement of Alexandria and Origen regarding Hebrews. Among these early Christians there was little doubt about the textls function as a useful piece of Christian exhortation. In fact, their early attempts to fix the authorship (in a Pauline sphere) and audience (in a Jewish Christian context) were largely about confirming the place Hebrews had already come to occupy in the collection of authoritative Christian writings. Their concern could hardly be described as similar to the later scientific concern to explain Hebrews as a product of historical forces. For these early Patristic writers, the expectations for situating Hebrews match rather closely the expectations of literature in general. There is no evidence that they expected the author to be constrained by a particular sector of the early Christian community. Instead, as a lword/tract of exhortation1 the text was treasured as an instructive piece of rhetorical homiletics (a literary product) beneficial for al1 Christian communities. We turn now to the scholarship from the fourth century to the eighteenth century. Of particular interest will be the degree to which they share expectations of the early Patristic writers for situating Hebrews, The works of John Chrysostom, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Johann D. Michaelis have been selected to give a representative survey of pre-nineteenth-century NT scholarship.

John Chrysostom (ca. 350-407) made a brief comment on the Pauline authorship in the introduction to his Homilies on Hebrews that shows an appreciation for the literary nature of Hebrews' argument. From the literary perspective, Chrysostom was able to overiook the apparent contradiction of the then dominant assumption that Hebrews was a letter from Paul, the Apostïe to the Gentiles (Rom 11-13), to a Jewish Christian community.

Chrysostom writes : Why, then, not being a teacher of the Jews, does he [Paul] send an Epistle to them? And where were those to whom he sent it? It seems to me in Jerusalem and Palestine. How then does he send them an Epistle? Just as he baptized, though he was not commanded to baptize. For, he says, "1 was not sent to baptizem: not, however, that he was forbidden, but he does it as a subordinate matter. And how could he fail to mite to those, for whom he was willing even to become accursed? (Homilies on Hebrews, Argument 2) . While Chrysostom's problematic was theological and not historical, his answer is a clever bit of sophistry that reveals his basic orientation to the text. For Chrysostorn, the assumed traditions of Pauline authorship and Jewish Christian destination were subordinate to the literary function of Hebrews as Christian exhortation.

Luther

The record of the lectures that Luther (1483-1546) gave on Hebrews in 1517-18 also indicates that he like everyone else in this period accepted the traditional epistolary character and Jewish Christian destination. Like Chrysostom, these situational descriptions are really quite incidental to the general nature of the argument in the yourig Luther's analysis, In fact, Luther's description of the audience would fit almost any Greco-Roman Christian community. Based on philological analyses Luther makes this observation: The Apostle rarely if ever quotes the Hebrew texts of the Bible, as is clear from Rom. 3:lOff. and many other places .... It is perfectly clear that this epistle was written not in Hebrew but in Greek, since the author is writing to those converts of Christ dispersed among the Gentiles who used the LXX (Lectures on Hebrews, comment on Heb 2 .5) .

It is true that Luther later reopened earlier speculation by suggesting that Paul had not written Hebrews directly, but in the end he still felt that it should still be considered part of the Pauline tradition (Luther Werke 7.600) . Nevertheless, in spite of the doubts that Luther later had about Hebrewsl authorship and content, any efforts to situate Hebrews were focused on interpreting its meaning and argument. He did not read Hebrews as documentary evidence which could be used to reconstruct the generating situation. Luther located Hebrews neither in a community nor in a school. Instead, Luther placed Hebrews within the theological polemic in which he himself was engaged. His expectations of the text were aligned with those associated with literary texts. The following comment on Hebrews 1.1 is typical of how Luther situated the text of Hebrews: The reader must bear in mind that in this Epistle Paul is commending trust in the grace of God as opposed to any confidence in a humanistic and legalistic righteousness. He set out to prove that apart from Christ neither the law nor the pries thood, nei ther prophecy not even the minis try of angels in the last resort, are sufficient unto salvation. On the contrary, al1 these were instituted and effected to find their fulfilment in the Christ who was to come. There is no shadow of doubt that Paul laid dom that what needed to be taught was Christ, and Christ alone (Lectures on Hebrews, comment on Heb 1.1 ) .

Thus, in spite of Luther's pejorative comment that it was not among the really "certain chief books of the New Testament1' (Preface to the Epistle to the Hebrews) , his concern was entirely with Hebrewsl theological argument. He saw no need nor possibility of considering expectations that went beyond those normally associated with literary texts.

John Calvin (1509-64) began his commentary on Hebrews with the usual discussion of authorship. He stated quite plainly that he %an adduce no reason to show that Paul was its authorI1 (Hebrews 1) . This, however, cannot be described as the modem concern to situate the author, text, and audience. His interests remained on the literary and religious fevel. For Calvin, the anonymity was not a problem. He assured his readers by saying, "as to its author, we need not be greatly worriedol (Hebrews 1). Throughout his commentary the author of Hebrews was referred to simply as 'The Apost1e.I Although he too accepted the traditional epistolary nature and Jewish Christian destination, Calvin did not see any particular group or party addressed. The argument is one of general Christian encouragement for which Calvin was even able to find contemporary relevance. Calvin offers this description: The object at the begiming is not to show to the Jews that Jesus, Son of Mary, was the Christ, the Redeemer promised to them. Because he was writing to those who had already made a profession of Christ, that point was taken for granted. The concern of the miter is to prove what the office of Christ is. From this it appears evident, that by His coming an end was put to ceremonies ... They did not as yet clearly understand the end, the effect, and the advantages of His conting, but being taken up with a false view of the Law, they laid hold on the shadow instead of the substance. Our business with the papists is the same today (Hebrews 2).

Calvin's comments show that he, like Luther, was mainly interested in Hebrews' theological argument as it applied to the polemics which preoccupied him and his time. Thus, for Chrysostom, Luther, and Calvin, the fact that they worked with the received tradition regarding Hebrews (Pauline authorship, epistolary form, and Jewish Christian destination), can hardly be thought of as historically situating the text. The question of situating a text historically is a modem development. For the pre-nineteenth-century NT scholar, immediately following a short discussion on 'the authorship question, ' attention was turned to the primary scholarly and literary task of interpreting the text. Their primary concern was to show the relevance of the text to contemporary theological issues. Of course, their theological convictions about divine inspiration of scripture would not allow them to cal1 Hebrews a literary product. In the end, however, their expectations for situating Hebrews did not differ essentially from the usual expectations for religious literature. Only near the end of the eighteenth century did truly historical-critical studies of the NT texts begin. Johann Michaelis (1717-91) was the first, according to Werner G. Kümmel (1972:69), to write a genuinely scientific NT Introduction (1788). Michaelis was also the first to include a comprehensive discussion of the historical problems of the NT and its individual books. In his section on Hebrews, Michaelis listed ten historical questions about the text of Hebrews and then proceeded to respond to each in depth. Michaelisls ten questions are the following: 1. 1s that, which we cal1 the Epistle to the Hebrews , really an Epistle? 2. 1s it quoted by St. Peter? 3. If it is an Epistle, to what community was it sent? 4. What is the situation of this community? 5. At what time was it written? 6. In what language was it written? 7. If it was written in Hebrew, by whom was it translated into Greek? 8. What is the character of its Greek style? 9. Who was the author of this Epistle? 10. 1s it canonical? [according to the criterion of apostolic authorship] (1823:4.187)

Michaelis's list of the historical problems concerning Hebrews is important because it reveals a shift within late eighteenth-century NT scholarship toward a more historical orientation. Yet even Michaelisls new interest in determining the historical situation of Hebrews, was still limited to the anonymity of the text as it related to the question of its canonicity. Michaelis writes: Now according to the principle, which 1 laid in the chapter on Inspiration, a canonical book of the New Testament is a book written by an Apostle. If the Epistle to the Hebrews was written by the Apostle St. Paul, it is canonical. But if it was not written by an Apostle, it is not canonical: for, however excellent its contents may be, they alone will not oblige us to receive it, as a work inspired by the Deity .... We see then that in the early ages of Christianity the Epistle to the Hebrews was received as canonical by some churches, while other churches did not reckon it among the canonical writings. Whether we ought to receive it as such, depends, according to the criterion laid dom in the beginning of this section .... But we have already seen that this previous question camot, at least not with certainty, be answered in the affirmative: consequently, the canonical authority of the Epistle is uncertain (1823 :4.264, 267-68) .

KÜmmel (1972:73) observes that Michaelisis dogmatie interests subordinated his budding historical consciousness. For Michaelis, the purely historical investigation into a book's apostolic authorship became his criterion for determining the inspiration or canonicity of that particular NT book. Thus, Michaelists efforts to situate Hebrews historically still did not exhibit expectations that differed much from those of earlier NT scholars like Chrysostom, Luther, or Calvin. Although Michaelis was willing to leave open the question of the canonicity of Hebrews, he too did not expect the text of Hebrews to reflect/represent ideas that extended beyond those of the author into a particular community or specific audience.

Before the nineteenth century, NT scholars exhibited expectations which would be compatible with expectations for situating any literary text. In other words, there is no evidence in Chrysostom, Luther, Calvin, or Michaelis, that they set aside the literary assessment of Hebrews in favor of assuming it to be highly reflective and representative of commity ideology. Of course, there was discussion about the author's anonymity. The debate, however, remained a largely inconsequential topic among commentators interested primarily in elucidating the meaning of the text. Al1 pre-nineteenth-century NT scholars were content to work with the received traditions including: Pauline authorship (defined narrowly or more broadly), epistolary form, and Jewish Christian destination. Nevertheless, these received traditions did not work to offset the normal literary expectations which located a text within the aims of the author and not beyond without compelling evidence to the contrary .

Argumentation Pattern

The argumentation of the text of Hebrews is enhanced with some of the richest vocabulary and imagery in the NT. There are some 150 words which are not found elsewhere in the NT and 90 others which occur in only one other place in the NT (Attridge 1989:21). The author1s christological reflection on Jesusf priesthood after the order of Melchizedek (Heb 7.1-28) and the explanation of the sacrificial death of Jesus in terms of the Day of Atonement (Heb 8.1-10.18) are unique in the NT. Throughout the argument, eschatological and soteriological themes are alluded to through use of symbols like 'restr (Heb 4.1-Il), Irewardt (11.6,26), 'perfectedf 10.14, Iage to cornef (6.51, 'the approaching dayr (10.25) , Iworld to cornet (2.5), and Iunshakable kingdomf (12.28).

Recent-scholarly work on Hebrewsr argumentation pattern has contributed to a heightened interest in reconstructing the situation which gave rise to this text. In particular, analysis on the literary structure of the text, the Greco-Roman rhetorical features, and the form/function of chapter thirteen have resulted in several proposed scenarios. Scholars have noted the abundance of structural pointers which suggests that some architectural design carries the argument. At the same the, Hebrews is notoriously difficult to analyze structurally because it "constantly foreshadows themes that receive fuller treatment elsewhere and frequently provides brief summaries that resume and refocus earlier developments" (Attridge 1989 :16-17) .

Many so-called 'objective' structures for the argument of Hebrews have been promoted. In general, al1 versions deal with the obsenration that the first twelve chapters read like a treatise-like sermon with blocks of expositions on the superiority Jesus' ministry (Heb 1.1-2.18; 5.1-10.18) alternating with exhortations to faithfulness (Heb 3.1- 4.16; 10.19-12.29). In 1963, Albert Vanhoye first proposed a concentric literary structure which has distinguished itself as the most elaborate. Vanhoye (1963:51-57) bases his structural analysis on clues like catchwords, inclusions, thematic amouncement, vocabulary, and alternation. While his attempt to outline the structural architecture of Hebrews is not without its cxitics who want more attention given to the linguistic elements (Guthrie 1994) , it has become a point of reference for al1 studies of the text. Vanhoye (1963~59)charts Hebrewsl structure as follows:

GENE- SCHEMA OF THE STRUCTWRE OF THE EPISTLE TO TKE HEBREWS

Section Subject Dominant Homological Genre Section a 1.1-4 Introduction

1: 1.5-2.18 The name superior to Doctrine the angels

II A. 3.1-4.14 Jesus, the faithful one Paraenesis B. 4.15-5.10 Jesus, the compassionate Doctrine high priest

III p. 5.11-6.20 Prelirninary Exhortation Paraenesis III f. Jesus, the high priest . . . A. 7.1-28 ...according to the order of Melchizedek Doctrine III C. B. 8.1-9.28 ...perfected Doctrine Center C. 10.1-18 ...cause of eternal salvation Doctrine III A.

f. 10.19-39 Final Exhortation Paraenesis III p.

IV A. 11.1-40 The faith of the ancestors Doctrine B. 12.1-13 The necessary endurance Paraenesis

V: 12.14-13.19 The peaceful fruit of justice Paraenesis z 13.20-21 Conclusion

Greco - Ro~toric.

Scholars have also observed that the argumentation of Hebrews makes striking use of Greco-Roman rhetorical patterns of persuasion. Besides the discussion of Hebrewsl form as a ~aç.i~qx~d~(see Wills 1984; Black 19881, the most obvious rhetorical section of Hebrews is the rendition of the 'heros of faitht in chapter eleven. Michael R. Cosby (1988:90) claims that there are formal and technical links between Hebrewsl catalogue of heroes and other ancient exempla lists. He draws attention to the l'oral artistrytfof persuasion, For Cosby "the author intensifies motivation as he parades each hero of faith before his audience, revealing how they remained true and finally conquered over worldly oppositionw (1988:90-91).

Socio-rhetorical interests have led a number of scholars to explore not only the rhetorical forms but also the sociological function of Hebrewsl persuasive rhetoric (Watson 1997:181-87). For example, David A. DeSilva analyzes Hebrews' honor/shame discourse and concludes that it serves the author's "aim of promoting solidarity within the Christian rninority culture and increasing commitment to the values and behaviors of that alternative social groupfl (1995: 315) .

Referring specifically to Hebrews 11, Alan Bulley argues that the lhymn of faith1 is a specimen of epideictic rhetoric intended to reinforce "the values shared (hopefully) by both the author of Hebrews and his audience" (1996:418). For Bulley, "these values include devotion to Christ as the divinely appointed means of access to God, faithfulness to God regardless of suffering, deprivation or death and the maintenance of community solidarity and compassionfl (1996:418).

Finally, Pamela M. Eisenbaum (1997:2-3) finds the ideological differences between the hero list in Hebrews II and Jewish hero lists to be sociologically instructive and instrumental in the formation of early Christianity. She argues th& "Hebrewsl reading of the great heroes and events of biblical history serves both to denationalize Jewish scripture and to revalue the religious significance of Jewish history so that its ethnic particularity is rendered inconseq~ential~~(1997:3). Unfortunately, many of these socio-rhetorical analyses are weakened by the lack corroborating external evidence.

No discussion of Hebrewsl argumentation is complete without some discussion of the scholarly debate about the integrity of chapter thirteen. The problem is the relationship between this final chapter and the twelve that proceed it. Scholars have pointed out the different vocabulary, the unexpected epistolary ending, and the abrupt change in style and tone. For a minority of scholars, al1 of chapter thirteen is a secondary addition (Spicq 1952-53; Buchanan 1972). Among those who question the integrity of chapter thirteen, however, the majority consider only the four verse epistolary postscript (Heb 13.22-25) to be added later by the author or an editor (Overbeck 1880; Wrede 1906; Torrey 1911; Deissmann 1927; Vanhoye 1963; Koester 1982) .

The close thematic continuity of the first part of chapter thirteen (W. 1-21) with the preceding twelve chapters strengthens the argument for the integrity of these verses. For example, Helmut Koester (1962) notes that the central section (Heb 13.9-14) brings to a climax the author1s christological polemic that the Christian pilgrimage is not an escape from the physical world nor a flight into mysticism. For Koester, "the sacrifice 'outside the camp1 puts an end to al1 cultic and sacred performances" and calls Christian pilgrims "to go out into the world to bear [Jesus'1 reproachfl(1962 : 313 .

Marie E. Isaacs proceeds in a different direction claiming that the foods (Heb 13.9) , the camp 13. l , and the city (13.14) which are to be abandoned, signify a "relocation of the sacred, not its replacement" (1997:283). For Isaacs, the sacred space "is no longer to be identified with Israells shrine [the recently destroyed temple] but with heaven itself--the ultimate goal of the pilgrimage of God's people, past and presentI1 (1997:283). Thus, she claims that the thematic continuities of Hebrews 13.1-21 with what precedes, argues strongly in favor of its integrity.

The case for the integrity of Hebrews 13.22-25 is less strong. Those scholars who hold to the seconda= nature of the epistolary ending (Heb 13-22-25) can be divided into two groups. First, there are a few who maintain that these are Paul's greetings added to an existing homily before forwarding the whole text on to a church (Spicq 1952-53; Vanhoye 1963). Second, there is a larger group of scholars who allege that the addition of the last four verses represents a pseudepigraphist ' s effort to bring the whole text into conformity with Paul's letters (Overbeck 1880; Wrede 1906; Torrey 1911; Koester 1982). Not al1 scholars, however, question the integrity of the epistolary ending (Heb 13.22-25) . Some contend that the thematic continuities extend into the epistolary ending as well and that the challenges to its integrity are weak (Attridge 1989; Bruce 1990; Kümmel 1975; Lane 1991). Although, even Atrridge admits that the epistolary ending does Vo some extent function as a covering memo for the document as a wholen (1989:384) . Isaacs (1997:271-72) is also cautious in her judgement . She is prudently content to "remain agnosticI1 concerning the integrity of the last four verses of chapter thirteen.

The striking feature that the above survey reveals concerning the structure, rhetoric, and form/£unction of chapter thirteen, is their inconclusiveness. While each attempt to account for Hebrewsl enigmatic literary character falls within the range of possibilities, none has achieved the kind of scholarly consensus required to become any kind of probability. One thing that is clear is that the assessrnent of Hebrewst genre, whether literary/non-occasional or nonliterary/occasional, plays a large role in shaping the expectations that scholars have for situating Hebrews within early Christian history. Scholatly Views of Hebreweu Genre since the Nineteenth-Century

With this brief introduction to Hebrews8 canonization history, early reception, and argumentation, we can turn now to the main task of sunreying the expectations that recent NT scholars have for situating Hebrews in early Christian history. Many of the issues that have corne up in the above introduction play a significant role as scholars attempt to locate the author, the text, and the audience in history. By probing the scholarly expectations for the role of the background influences on the author, the scope and extent of textual representation, and the particularity of the audience, the guiding genre assessrnent can be clarified.

The scholars surveyed below do not focus directly on the questions that concern us in this thesis. Nevertheless, their analysis, assessments, and argumentation, do reveal a set of expectations which is relevant to the problematics of this thesis. So, for example, even though the scholars reviewed here do not specifically deal with the question of background influence, textual representation, or audience particularity, their expectations regarding these three can be identified from their argumentation. Thus, these scholars can provide a useful database for establishing the operative expectations in contemporary NT studies. The Role of Background on Teact/Author

The first task is to determine how the background influences on the author are conceptualized and evaluated. How constraining are these background influences? The impact that backgrcund influences are thought to have on the author is really determined by the genre assessment with which scholars work. The expectations of Ceslas Spicq, Yigael Yadin, Ernst Kasemann, William Manson, Helmut Koester, Erich Gràsser, Lincoln Hurst, Harold Attridge, and Charles Moule will be reviewed. Each has written on the influence of background on the author of Hebrews. The situational expectations of these scholars provides reasonable sample of the expectations typical of contemporary NT studies.

Lincoln D. Hurstls 1990 study, The Epistle to the Hebrews: Its Background of Thought, is probably the most thorough investigation into the various proposals for the background of Hebrews. While his focus is on the strengths of each background scenario proposed, his analysis can also be used for Our attempt to gauge the degree of constraint under which NT scholars assume the author of Hebrews worked. Besides offering his own assessment of Hebrewst background, Hurstls study also provides a convenient way to organize a survey of the expectations of a wide range of scholars for situating the author. Hurst considers six different background scenarios for Hebrews that have been suggested over the years and evaluates the claims each has for having influenced the author of Hebrews. At this point it is important to emphasize that 'backgroundt need not indicate 'c~nstraint.~A high degree of constraint may be indicated, however, if the background is used to explain textual details that appear peculiar in such a way that little room is left for the author's idiosyncratic construction. With this in mind, we will look first at each of six background proposals that Hurst isolates and the assumed genre on which each is based.

The first background scenario that Hurst studies, locates Hebrews within the framework of Philo, Alexandria, and Platonism. Hurst notes that up until the middle of the twentieth century, "the Philonic background of Hebrews was felt to be one of the assured results of criticismu (1990:7). The name most associated with the Philonic background to Hebrews is Ceslas Spicq. For Spicq (1951:481), the large number of lPhilonisms' and 1Alexandrianisrns8in Hebrews suggested that the author not only appropriated Philonic philosophy, but must have known Philo personally and been shaped by him. Spicq's massive 1952-53 commentary argued that Hebrews could be best explained by the Philonic background. In the chapter, Le Philonisme de l'Épître aux Hébreux (1952- 53:1.39-911, Spicq made his case by marshalling parallels in vocabulary, hermeneutical techniques, and special themes. For Spicq, the Philonic setting of Hebrews played a role more narrowly defined than general religious/intellectual milieu--it was the source of the specific arguments made by the author of Hebrews.

In 1970, Ronald Williamson published his exhaustive study on Philo and Hebrews which ended up unravelling Spicqls case. Williamson (1970:8) compared the vocabulary, themes, and use of the Hebrew Bible in both Philo and Hebrews, and did not find compelling evidence that would suggest Philo had any direct influence on Hebrews. The biggest blow to the argument for a dependence on Philo, however, was the discovery of the Qumran texts (1947). These texts showed that "rnany of the ideas thbught to be peculiar to Hebrews and Philo circulated in at least one other backgroundw (Hurst 1990:41).

The second context that may have influenced the conceptual world of the author of Hebrews is the Qumran sect. The discovery of the Qumran texts not only put into doubt the dependence of Hebrews on Philo, it also introduced a new hypothesis. Yigael Yadin (1958:38) argued that Hebrews addresses a group of former Essenes who had converted to Christianity but who had carried over some of their previous beliefs. The points of contact between Qumran and Hebrews that Yadia (1958:45- 55) collected, include the particular views of angels, messiah, prophecy, and wildemess identity.

Spicq was so impressed with arguments for Hebrewst Qumran comection that he expanded his philonic background to incorporate the Dead Sea sectarian communities. For Spicq, Philo provided Hebrews with its cultural and intellectual background, while the challenges of sectarian Judaism provided the immediate occasion for the text. Spicq (1958-59:381) clairned that Hebrews was written as a firm almost aggressive response against the speculations of the Qumran community. According to Spicq

(1958-59 :3 90) , Hebrews was best explained as Apollos l s address to a group of Esseno-Christians and Jewish priests among whom there were a certain number of ex- Qumranians. Again, for Yadin and Spicq, the Qumranian setting for Hebrews has taken on a determining role that extends beyond a general religious/intellectual background.

Dependence on Qumran was challenged by Frederick F. Bruce (1962-63) who argued that the parallels drawn by Yadin to Qumran could be sufficiently explained without resorting to a sectarian special case. According to Bruce "these 'Hebrews1 were in culture and language lHellenistsl,and in religious background Jewish nonconformists--but it would be outstripping the evidence to cal1 them Essenes or spiritual brethren to the men of Qumranm (1962- 63:232), Hurst agrees and concludes that the arguments for dependence of Hebrews on Qumran "involve a certain distortion of the argument of Hebrews, and in some cases the evidence of Qumran appears to have been misinterpreted" (1990 :66) .

The third situation that Hebrews is sometimes associated with is pre-Christian gnosticism. Not surprisingly, the rise in interest in gnosticism during the twentieth century had implications for the speculation about the background of Hebrews. Kasemann in his 1938 Hebrews commentary, Das wandernde Gottesvolk, was the f irst to argue that Hebrews was directly influenced by a type of pre-Christian gnosticism. For Kasemann (1984:17-24). the central myth that informed the whole writing was that of a redeemed redeemer who achieved salvation by journeying from the enslaving realm of the material to the heavenly realm of light. KZsemann (1984:67-96) found certain themes in Hebrews to be similar to those in Mandaean, Manichaean, Rabbinic, and Hermetic literature. The significant themes for KZsemamfs argument for gnostic influence included: 'faithl as wandering and pilgrimage, Sabbath rest and perfection, and the redeemed redeemer as the Urmensch.

Hurst (1990:68) notes that continental scholarship has greeted the arguments for a pre-Christian gnosticism with more cympathy than British-oriented scholarship. According to Erich Grasser (1964:186), Kasemanxlts gnostic thesis prepared the fouidation for al1 subsequent religionsgeschichtlichen Forschung (history-of-religions research) on Hebrews. Koester too claims that Das wandernde Gottesvolk was a Mclassic monograph which gave directions for modern research" (1982:2.272). For Koester, Hebrewsv argument with its I1esoteric scriptural gnosisu makes sense given a situation where ~Gnosticism offered the most convincing alternativesw to the young Pauline churches (1982:2.274). Thus, IvHebrews enters into a critical theological controversy with Gnosticism by refuting the gnostic understanding of both the redeemer and the process of salvationu (1982:2.274). For these scholars who are sympathetic to KSsemamtsgnostic setting, background functions in a special way--one that determines Hebrewsv argument.

The main problem that British-oriented scholarship has with the link between Hebrews and gnosticisrn is the lack of evidence for pre-Christian gnosticism. Two specific concerns are often raised. First, the terms tgnosisvand vgnosticismlare frequently used without precision. Robert McL. Wilson (1968:8-9) maintains that lgnosticisml should be reserved for characterizing some of the competing visions of Christianity that materialized in the second century. vGnosis,lhowever, should be used more broadly to include "the whole complex of ideas belonging to the Gnostic movement and related trends of thoughtIt (1968:8-9). Second, the Mandaean literature which guides =semann1s work is derived from the seventh to the ninth centuries (Hurst 1990:74). Even though Kasemann (1984:88,95) claims that I1strong parallelism~ between Hebrews and the later Mandaean literature is sufficient to I1establish a tradition common to both," the risk of anachronism is great. Thus, Hurst concludes, "the degree of sympathy which is attached to a gnostic background for Hebrews depends largely upon whether one's scholarly orientation is continental or Britishw (1990:68).

The fourth background and first of three Christian frameworks thought to inform Hebrews, is the Stephen tradition. The best-known attempt to link Stephen's speech in Acts 7 to Hebrews was made by William Manson in 1949. Manson (1951:36) assembled an impressive list of eight correspondences between Acts 7 and Hebrews. According to Manson (1951:37), Stephen and the Hellenistic Christians had a more universalistic view of Christianity than the Galilean Christians of Jerusalem. Stephenls hostility to the temple, his stress on wilderness journey, and the vision of Christ on the throne of the universe, are arguably mirrored in Hebrews. For Manson, these 'parallelsl are evaluated more narrowly than general background--instead, they function as the imprint on Hebrews of a particular type of lHellenistic

Christianity. l

Hurst (1990:105) admits that many of the parallels that are cited by Manson stand up to cross examination. A literary dependence of Hebrews on Acts 7 or its source, however, is not likely since important differences do exist (1990:104). For exarnple, Stephen has no interest in the priesthood. Hurst (1990:106) suggests that, instead of direct literary dependence, the indications are that the author of Hebrews had access to an independent form of the same Hebrew Bible traditions which also turn up in Acts 7.

A fifth sphere that has been thought to exert some influence on Hebrews is the Pauline tradition. This is a newer development and is advocated by Helmut Koester (1982:2.272). Since the nineteenth century, the connections between Hebrews and Paul have not always been appreciated. For many years, when it was common to talk about the Alexandrian background of Hebrews, it was equally common to see little if any connection between Hebrews and Paul (Hurst 1990:107). In fact, Manson (1951:192) argued that Hebrews and Paul could not have had any serious contact given the points of divergence (grace, cross, justification).

Hurst (1990:llO-24), on the other hand, shows that a case can be made for a number of general points of contact between Hebrews and Paul. These points of contact, however, are not surprising and quite typical of early Christianity. There is a sirnilar exposition of Psalm 8 in describing the destiny of humanity, comparable descriptions of Christ's ministry in terms of obedience and exaltation, and related ideas of the role of faith in Christian discipleship.

Koester (1982:2.272) is more specific when he contends that the links are enough to place Hebrews on the trajectory of Pauline Christianity as opposed to other trajectories within early Christianity. Koester's specialized concept of trajectories will be discussed further in Chapter Two. For now it is enough to note the way Koester assesses these 'links' as more than general religious background. According to Koester, Hebrews 5s a witness for the efforts to develop the Pauline legacy during the last decades of [the first centuryl" (1982:2.272). Hebrewsl christological theme (Jesus, the heavenly high priest who offers himself as sacrifice) and its ecclesiological theme (the church, God's wandering people on the way to the heavenly rest), both grow out of Pauline proclamation (1982:2.274).

At this point, it is important to note the way lparallelslhave been used in NT scholarship. Both non- Pauline and Pauline contacts have been argued on the basis of tparallelst!Thus, the methodological usefulness of using parallels to determine source or causation is seriously undermined. The fact that parallels exist is not the issue; the problem is knowing when parallels are significant. For example, when do parallels indicate a high degree of constraint like a common source or literary relationship? Or, when do parallels signal simply a common milieu with a much lower degree of constraint? These questions raise important issues for NT scholarship,

Hurstls own assessment is telling- He notes that it is a matter of some debate whether Hebrews represents a common Christian tradition or one that is limited to a Pauline tradition (1990:124). This reality indicates that the scholarly evaluation of lparallelslis closely linked to the a priori assumption as to the degree of constraint under which the author of Hebrews is expected to work. Those scholars who appreciate the literary nature of religious texts are more willing to grant the author a certain autonomy both to borrow and to invent--al1 of which means that parallels are less significant. Other scholars, however, view a text, any text, as the product of a historical situation which necessarily leaves its identifiable marks on text. For these scholars, parallels are valued highly because they are deemed useful for reconstructing the histoxical situation which gave rise to that particular text. As has already been noted, these competing a priori assumptions raise an important issue for NT studies--one that is at the core of this thesis investigation.

ich Grassez"

The sixth background to which Hebrews is sometimes linked is 1 Peter. Erich Grasser (1964:l95) notes that given ail the NT parallels that have been associated with Hebrews, nowhere is the cornparison better justified than with First Peter. Hurst (1990:126-27) lists the points of contact between the two writings that are often cited. Examples of the similar phrases and concepts include: 'strangers and alienstl 'sprinkling of Christ's bloodtl heavenly 'inheritance,' use of Christ's suffering as an exarnple for Christians, testing through suffering, and exaltation of Christ 'at the right hand of God,'

According to GrZsserls argument, not only are there links with 1 Peter, but there are notable difierences from the Pauline tradition. For example, GrZsser argues that in Hebrews the role of faith is seen to be much more ethically oriented than in Paul or in the primitive church (1965:66) , Thus, Grasser (1965:184%) contends that the author of Hebrews is a theologian standing at the threshold between early Christianity (Urchristentum) and the post -apostolic (nachapostolischen) period.

GrZsserls explanation of the genesis of Hebrews is grounded on the Tübingen hypothesis which will be discussed further in Chapter Two. For now it is enough to note that Gràsser views the author as subject to something more than the general religious background shared by the author of 1 Peter and by early Christians generally. According to Grgsser, the author of Hebrews intended to write a synthesis. As a disciple of both Peter and Paul, the writer of Hebrews aimed to bring harmony between the Pauline circle and Petrine circle at the threshold of early catholicism (FrÜhkatholizismus). For GrZsser, the so-called 'parallels' with 1 Peter and with the Pauline tradition are used as evidence of yet a third historical situation (early catholicism) which was distinct from its precursors. It is within this later comrnunity, contends Gràsser, that Hebrews was given its distinctive shape.

While the points of contact with 1 Peter and some of Paul's writings are impressive, they do not require the intervention of GrSsserts historical framework. Hurst (1990:127-30) shows that the so-called tparallelstcan be explained more easily without an appeal to a special theory of early Christian history. Instead, resemblances can be accounted for easily enough by the common Greek idiom, an independent use of the Hebrew Bible, the cornmon Christian tradition, and Pauline influence.

Lincoln Hurstls exhaustive review of the six backgrounds with which Hebrews is most often associated, is significant for two reasons. First, his analysis shows just how predisposed some NT scholars are to reading tbackgroundtas more than simply milieu. For these NT scholars, the term tbackgroundfhas more deteministic connotations. In an effort to texplain' the genesis of texts, Ibackgroundt is often identified as a determining social or an ideological force which has constrained the author. Given the lack of external evidence for early Christianity, the little indirect evidence within the text is often used to draw conclusions that under other circumstances would not be appropriate. Second, Hurst's investigation of the suggested backgrounds to Hebrews has yielded largely negative results. None of the proposals has succeeded in achieving any kind of consensus among NT scholars. There is no agreement on even the most probable background to Hebrews. Furthemore, nothing indicates that the author was shaped by any known cornmunity. Thus, Hurst infers from his investigation that the author of Hebrews likely interacted independently with the Hebrew Bible, common Christian tradition, and Pauline theology.

Even so, Hurst appears unwilling to grant too much independence to the author of Hebrews. Hurstls concluding comment is indicative of the high degree of constraint under which he too thinks the author of Hebrews is working. He says: How [the author] proceeded from Christ as the "priest like Melchizedekw of Ps. 110:4 to high priest who operates within a Levitical-type framework remains a riddle ... It was once felt the Philo's logos doctrine supplied the answer to this question, but now that any direct influence of Philo upon [the author] may be said to have been seriously undermined, the search for another answer must go on (1990:133).

The next two scholars to be considered are selected not so much for their specific background proposals, but for the way they illustrate the operative expectations that scholarship works with in situating NT authors. Harold Attridgels 1989 commentary in the Hermeneia series, edited by Koester, represents the English language standard of historical-critical scholarship on Hebrews. In a lengthy excursus, Attridge (1989:97-103) addresses the search for the antecedents of Hebrewsl peculiar high-priestly christology. As in the case of Hurst, it is here that Attridge reveals his fundamental expectations for situating the author.

Attridge begins his reflection on Hebrewst high-priestly christology by noting that it is "singular" in the NT. Then he expresses his doubt that this development is the result of the author1s creativity. Instead, Attridge suggests that "in the late second temple period there emerge expectations of an eschatological priestly Messiah, probably as part of opposition to the claims of the Hasm~neans~~(1989:98).

Attridge claims that Hebrews develops two features of Jesust role as High priest, namely his intercessory function and self-sacrifice, which are not found in the "priestly angels of Jewish traditionu (1989:102). These Christian modifications, however, are still seen to be largely based on the analogy to the second temple Jewish tradition. More specifically, Attridge claims Itthat the image of Christ as a heavenly High Priest was traditional within the early Christian community addressed by HebrewsV (1989: 102) . In a 1990 article, Attridge goes on to explore the characteristics of paraenetic literatuxe using Hebrews as a test case. He argues that the hortatory program of Hebrews is not so much about construction but about confirmation (1990:223). In other words, Hebrews is not like most literary texts where the author has a degree of autonomy to construct something new (in this case a new way of talking about Jesus and the church) . Instead, Hebrews is more like an linsider' document that reflects and confirms the shared values and views that are already operative in that particular comrnunity. Attridge puts it

like this : Hebrews cleverly plays with inherited symbols and images. It juxtaposes and develops them in its expository sections in interesting new ways. The function of such expository play is confirmatory. ft reinforces the validity of the symbolic universe to which the addressees are supposed to adhere. This confirmation stands in service of a hortatory program to accept willingly and to use creatively a marginalized social status. This piece of paraclesis serves primarily not to socialize new members of a group, to legitimate a structure of authority, or to polemicize against an external social unit and its symbol system, but to reinforce the identity of a social sub-group in such a way as not to isolate it from its environment (1990:223).

Attridgels comments reflect the growing socio-rhetorical interests of NT scholars. For there to be anything to Say about the "identity of a social sub-group," the author needs to be perceived as operating under a high degree of constraint, In other words, the author must be seen as a spokesperson for the community who caters specifically to its unique needs.

The popular Introduction to the NT written by Charles F.D. Moule (1982), Birth of the New Testament, illustrates well the contemporary views fox situating the NT writings. Following the important work of James M. Robinson and Helmut Koester (19711, Moule argues that the NT writings represent "various stages of tradition" which "might be plotted along a ItrajectoryU leading up to the canonical documents and out beyond them into the post- canonical literaturew (1982:118). Each NT writing captures I1teaching and practice frozen in writing at particular pointsu (1982: 118) .

Moule calls the particular christological interpretations in Hebrews "extreme examples of arbitrary application of scripture" (1982:100). This evaluation leads him to suggest that Hebrews is a product of a particular school of thought and that the author was dependent on this school. He explains his guiding assumption as follows: The constant and often very subtle application of scripture makes it plausible to postulate for Hebrews, as K. Stendahl has postulated for Matthew, a lschoollof Christian apologetic: a systematic re- examination and re-application of the Greek scriptures by educated Christians in debate with scripture-searching non-Christians (1982: 100) .

Moule's NT Introduction reveals the expectations that much of NT scholarship has for situating NT writers. The unique contributions of NT authors are viewed not as individual achievements but more as identity markers of larger communities of thought. The NT writings are read as documentary evidence for particular communities with rival ideologies. Moule expresses the basic expectations as follows: Given such intellectual activity (even among a minority) as seems evidenced by Hebrews and Matthew and the Pauline Epistles, it is not surprising that rivalry and faction showed themselves ... The a priori likelihood is certainly that there would be a variety of emphasis, tendencies, outlook and approach in different groups of Christians, which would ultimately harden into distinguishable schools of thought (1982:2l3-l4) .

With the aid of Hurstls thorough investigation into the backgrounds suggested for Hebrews by Spicq, Yadin, KZsemann, W. Manson, Koester, Grasser, along with the comments of Attridge and Moule, the general expectations as to the role of background on Hebrews can now be charted. For the scholars surveyed, there is a high expectation that the background plays a large role in shaping the text. It is instructive, however, that each one ofiers a different scenario as to the history-of- ideas within which Hebrews should be understood. The lack of consensus, however, raises doubts even about the appropriateness of this more modest expectation of identifying the author1s ideological background.

While Hurst is optimistic that the lack of agreement as to Hebrews background is because the right one has not yet been fourid, the lack of consensus may well be more easily explained by Hebrewsl literary and non-occasional character. In any case, the lack of consensus suggests that Hebrews' literary character cannot be ruled out,

The Scope/Extent of Textual Representation

Having considered the expectations with regard to the role of background on the text/author, the second task is to determine the assumed scope/extent of the textual representation. As has been noted above, the determination of the genre controls to a large degree just how much beyond the author the ideas represented in the text extend. For example, documentary texts are usually more representative than literary texts. Nevertheless, given the paucity of external documentary evidence for the birth, development, and spread of early Christianity, certain assumptions need to be made regarding the degree of xepresentation inherent in the genre. It is these assumptions which will in turn direct the expectations scholars have for locating the text. The expectations of William Manson, Barnabas Lindars, and Marie E. Isaacs will be surveyed to uncover their guiding assurnptions. Each one of these three NT scholars has seriously considered the issues involved in determining a text1sgenre and the relation between the genre and the historical situation in which a text like Hebrews was written. These three scholars have advanced proposals that are typical of the kind that are common in contemporary NT scholarship.

William Manson1s 1949 Baird lecture was a self-declared attempt to resuscitate the traditional view that situated Hebrews within a crisis "in the history of a group of Jewish Christians tempted in some way to relapse to Judai~rn~~(1951: 8) . Ever since Eduard M. Roethls 1836 study, the traditional location for the text within Jewish Christianity has been a matter of debate. Roeth was the first to argue that Hebrews should be placed later in the development of early Christianity within a largely Gentile Christian context.

Manson argued that the traditional view was still more persuasive especially if the problem addressed was modified from the danger of "relapseu to the danger of "missing the true horizon of the eschatological callingm (1951:24). Using the parallels to the Stephen speech in Acts 7, Manson argued that Hebrews, in a similar way, aimed to promote a "Christian world-missionv which challenged the wcomplacency of the original Jerusalem Churchw (1951:37). The division in the church that Stephen caused between Hellenistic and Hebrew elements is claimed to be the same division that Hebrews addresses.

Manson (1951:23-24) based his reconstruction on the textual arguments for the superiority of Christ's office and for the effectiveness of Christ's ministry. For Manson, the text is evidence for a specific situation or occasion which gave rise to the admonitions in the text. Thus, Manson shows high expectations for the representative nature of the text. In Manson's mirror- reading, the text represents the answer to a wide spread problem which cari be reconstructed from the author's solution.

Manson moves easily from the text to the situation assumed to have given rise it, based on his expectation that the text is highly representative of its generating situation. The author, according to Manson, was "an ardent adherent to the principles of Stephen and the world-mission, who employed his special Jewish-Hellenist theological and dialectical equipment to bring this disaffected minority to a better mindu (1951:160). Furthemore, Manson claims that, "the members of the group were personally known to [the author], and he believed them to be drifting in a direction inimizal and indeed disastrous to their continued Christian existenceM (1951:160-61). Manson locates the community addressed by Hebrews within a Iegroup of self-isolated Jewish Christians at RomeM who were "tempted to accentuate one-sidedly the Jewish element in their inheritance, and were living so entirely on the sub-Christian level of their religionn (1951:168). Manson argues that to the author of Hebrews. "with his uncompromising insistence on the world-renouncing character of Christianity, they seemed to be turning from Christ and forfeiting their share in the World to Come" (1951:168) .

With poetic flourish, Manson concludes: To avert this catastrophe, this atrophy of Christian existence, this loss of hold on Godfs calling, this forfeiture of eternal life, the writer develops an argument which in its range and magnificence of religious and theological insight soars perhaps far above what the immediate exigencies of the particular situation demanded (1951:168).

Manson's expectations are high. The text is representative of something more than the authorts ideas. Not only is Hebrews representative of a wider problem (Hebrew-Hellenistic tension) but representative of a wider solution (the Stephen tradition) . Furthermore, instead of being read as general exhortation and encouragement, Manson assumes Hebrews is a polemical corrective, which then drives his expectations of being able to reconstruct the opposition. In his 1991 book on the theology of Hebrews, Barnabas Lindars argues that the peculiar features of Hebrews are evidence for a particular situation that generated the letter to the Hebrews. Lindars claims that "the priesthood of Jesus after the order of Melchizedek is entirely neww and that "it was mgfrom Hebrews by the special needs of the problem to which the letter is addressedu (1991:l).

Lindars (1991:xi) insists that Hebrews is not a "theological treatiseu but an actual letter. For Lindars, the textls details function as documentary evidence. He claims that the "use of the ceremonial of the Day of Atonement to expound the sacrificial death of Jesus goes beyond any previous expositions~ (1991:l). The argument "arises directly front the particular character of the pressing problem which confronts Hebrewstt (1991:l). For Lindars, Hebrews is "an urgent address to the original readers, who are on the brink of taking action which their leaders regard as nothing short of apostasyv (1991:xi).

Lindars becomes more specific. He claims that the text represents "a segment of earliest Christianity unknown from other sources11 (1991: 2) . Hebrews, for Lindars, represents a community of Christians who "are not Pauline Christians and they are not Johannine Christians, and they do not belong to the mother church in JerusalemIl

(1991:2),

According to this scenario, Lindars reconstructs the generating situation as follows: [The author of Hebrews] is a member of the church .who is much loved and respected. The leaders have written to him, urging him to intervene in the crisis. Perhaps they hope that he will be able to corne in person, This is impossible, however, and so he has responded with this letter. If this is correct, then we can understand why it has been composed with such immense care, using every available device of rhetorical ski11 to make the most powerful impact on the readers. For this letter is the last resort. If it fails, the leaders have nothing more that they can do to Save the situation (1991:8).

Lindars likens the problem of Hebrews to that of 1 Thessalonians where Christians are troubled by the distress and confusion of a renewed consciousness of sin. Since 'nothing was said about post-baptismal sinN the Christians "simply assumed that they would remain in a state of grace until the parousian (1991:13), With the passage of time, however, %orne of them at least began to be oppressed by renewed consciousness of sinw since "the gospel as they had received it appeared not ta allow for itm (1991:13) . Therefore, the author of Hebrews hopes I1they will regain confidence1l through his use of Ilthe Jewish theory and practice of atonement which the readers themselves acceptv (1991:14). Then, so as not I1to leave the matter at the level of theory," the author follows up with an argument "devoted to explaining how their knowledge of atonement can be experienced in the present and maintained in the futurew (1991:14) .

According to Lindars, "the above reconstruction of the situation of the readers has been based entirely on an integrated reading of Chapter 13, interpreted in the light of hints elsewhere in the letter" (1991:15). Thus, Lindars has great expectations of the representative nature of the text (see Lindars 1989). For Lindars, the text gives access not only to the author's rhetorical situation, but also to the generating historical situation of the community.

In Sacred Space (1992) , Marie Isaacs contends that Hebrews is driven by a new "theology of access." In her monograph, Isaacs devotes the first chapter to a discussion of the historical context within which the text can be placed. In her words, Hebrews is "a text in search of a contextN (1992: 15) .

Isaacs rehearses the possible locations that have been put forward for Hebrews and finds them lacking. She argues that the key to situating Hebrews lies in the ludepictionof the work of Christ in priestly termsI1 which is "something quite unique in the New Testamenttt (1992:66). Only in Hebrews is Vesus, rather than the Christian community, depicted in priestly terms. Here he is not the Temple, but the victim and officiant who has entered heaven itselfu (1992: 66) .

Isaacsts high expectation for the representative nature of the text is shown in her search for a context that would provide the question that the text answers. Her search is for a context which could "be answered by a presentation of Jesus as the pioneer whose pilgrimage attained the true, promised land of heaven itself, and whose role as victim and priest enables him to gain access to God where he is now seated at His right handm (1992:67) .

Isaacs ~presupposes that a specific historical situation gave rise to the theology which we find in HebrewsH (1992:67). In the case of Hebrews, she postulates that the most likely scenario that could have generated this Vheology of accessu is one where "Christians of Jewish origin, whether in Judaea or the Diaspora, especially those with a priestly frame of mind, would have moumed the loss of Jerusalemm (1992:67).

Thus, Isaacs argues that the most likely context for Hebrews "would be the destruction of Jerusalem and its Templet1 (1992:67). The tremendous sense of loss on the part of Jewish Christians "called forth from Our author a reinterpretation of Judaismts established means of access to God, replacing them by Christ and relocating sacred space in heaven itself--understood as the presence of God" (1992:67) .

According to Isaacs, the context in which she locates the text is derivable from the textual argument. At the same the, she argues that the textual argument can only be fully understood if we can Ifplace this enigmatic text in its original contextu (1992:46). The circularity of the argument is unavoidable since the text is seen as representative of something more than the author's literary product; it is documentary evidence for a communityls particular ideological and social situation.

Having surveyed the contributions of Manson, Lindars, and Isaacs, the scholarly expectations for situating the text cari now be recorded. Based on the scholars sunreyed these is essentially a high expectation for recovering the situation that generated the text from the details found in the text itself.'~hereason for this optimism is tbat the text is assumed to be representative of more than the author's ideas, speculations, and reflections. Any unique or peculiar developments in the text are explained as due to the particular historical situation. While contemporary scholars often assess these textual details as being indicative of the textls documentary nature, the uncertainty regarding the reconstruction the community's particular situation suggests otherwise. The lack of agreement regarding Hebrews' occasion may be better explained if the textls literary character were not ruled out. In other words, the lack of consensus may not be because the right scenario has eluded scholars until now. Instead, the lack of consensus suggests that the expected community-fit of early Christian texts may be inappropriate for texts which do not explicitly state the situation within which they were produced.

The Specificity of the Text's Audience/Destination

With the expectations of the background and of the referential character examined, the third task is to ascertain how particular the readers or the audience is perceived to be. The specificity of the audience profile is yet another way to measure scholarship's assessment of the text's genre. The degree of audience particularity indicates just what kind of text Hebrews is thought to be and just how much or how little scholars make of the textual details that are interna1 to Hebrews. Assumptions regarding the referential nature of the text bear heavily on the confidence with which the profile of the audience is reconstructed. The expectations of Thomas W. Manson, Charles P. Anderson, and Robert Jewett will be examined. Each one of these three NT scholars has given special attention to the issues raised when considering the destination and the original recipients of Hebrews. Their views are illustrative of those that guide much of contemporary NT scholarship. In 1949, Thomas Manson argued that the original audience of Hebrews was not Roman churches but churches in the Lycus Valley near Colossae. Mansonls thesis is that Hebrews should be called "The Epistle of Apollos to the Churches of the Lycus Valleyu (1949:l).

Manson used the textual argument to establish an early date for Hebrews. First, he gathered conceptual links between Hebrews and Romans to bring the author into the circle of Paul and Apollos. Then, he used an argument from silence to back up his claim that the text must have been written before the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. Manson writes: The whole point of the argument of Heb, v.-x. is that the levitical priesthood with al1 its ritual had now been superseded by the Melchizedekian High- priesthood of Christ ... It is difficult to see how the writer, who shows such ingenuity in drawing support for his thesis from the most unlikely places, could have missed this argument, if it were there to be used. That he does not use it 1 take to be a strong indication that he was writing before A.D. 70 (1949:l.l).

Finally, Manson contended that the churches of the Lycus Valley (Colossae and Laodicea) were the original recipients because "the conditions implied in our document seem to answer the conditions in those churches at some time during the period 55-70" (1949:11)- Here Manson followed Joseph B. Lightfoot's assessrnent of the mColossian Heresy," calling it "a hankering after Jewish religious observances and a doctrine of intermediaries between God and manuf (1949:12). In Manson's reconstruction, Hebrews 5-10 with its argument that the "whole Jewish ritual system is superseded by the High- priestly work of Christ ... is a complete answer to the first main point in the Colossian heresy" (1949:12). Moreover, Hebrews 1-4 and its concern Yo prove the uniqueness and supremacy of Christ as against al1 other intermediaries . is a detailed answer to the second main point in the Colossian heresyff (1949:12-13) .

Manson's arguments for placing Hebrews before 70 and for isolating the first readers within the Lycus Valley are guided by certain assumptions. They are driven primariiy by an assumption that the audience of an early Christian writing must be highly particular. Every textual detail (or lack there of) is transformed into evidence for the profile of the specific audience addressed by the text.

A decade later, Charles P. Anderson argued a thesis that built on the work of T.W. Manson. Anderson's contention was that "the epistle recommended in Colossians 4:16 is the writing we know as the Epistle to the Hebrews, and that it entered the Pauline corpus through association with Colossiansu (1975-76:26l) . Like Manson, Anderson argued that %oth epistles [Hebrews and Colossians] countered a form of Jewish gnosticism in the Lycus valley whose characteristics included cultic observances aimed at gaining mystical insight and ascent of the souln (1975-76:261). Anderson also suggested that Hebrews may be the unidentified letter mentioned in Colossians 4.16. His reasoning is as follows: When the problem of the identity and fate of Laodiceans is superimposed on the problem of Hebrews' inclusion in the Pauline corpus, an interesting pattern emerges. On the one hand, something of the circumstances surrounding the origin of the lepistle from Laodiceal is presumably known, though not its subsequent fate. On the other hand, we know sornething of the later history of Hebrews, but not its origin. One epistle which çhould have found its way into the Pauline corpus did not, and one which should not have, did. 1 suggest that al1 this may be more than mere coincidence (1975-76 :S6l).

These two 'unknownsl suggest a lknown' for Anderson, when they are coupled with another hypothesis. Anderson's first hypothesis about the link between Colossians and Hebrews, which he thinks was written by Epaphras, is dependent on a second hypothesis. Anderson theorizes that the Alexandrians received a form of the Pauline corpus where Colossians and Hebrews were in close physical proximity. Later collectors, howeves, gave it a title and placed it after Romans because of its relative length. Anderson explains it like this: Rather than risk omitting a genuine Pauline letter, the collecter included it. Obviously it was doctrinally acceptable to him, and he had no reason to deny that it was Paul's, although he would have had no reason to claim it as Paul's apart from its connection with Colossians. But the effect of allotting Hebrews a place in Pauline corpus was to break its previous connection with Colossians (1975- 76:263).

For Anderson, this 'double hypothesis' explains the peculiar canonical history of Hebrews. The Romans knew Hebrews as an independent writing and the Alexandrians knew Hebrews in the context of the Pauline corpus. So, glwhileAlexandria saw no sufficient reason to question Hebrews' authenticity, Rome saw none to grant the epistle Pauline statusw (1975-76:263). Eventually the compromising position of Alexandria wore dom the Roman resistance.

The 'arguments from silence' and 'double hypotheses' are evidence of a high expectation for specifying the historical location of the audience. Besides being unfalsifiable and unverifiable, Anderson's reconstruction represents NT scholarshipls expectation that al1 early Christian texts were addressed to audiences with a high degree of particularity. Robert Jewett in his 1981 Hebrews commentary cornplains that many commentaries "suggest a tentative solution to the audience question and then proceed with an exegesis that is largely untouched by itw (1981:3) . Jewett is very clear in stating his assumption that "each detail in a brilliantly written piece like this had a very precise significance for its original readers or hearers" (1981:3).

For Jewett the anonymous text of Hebrews is likened to a "telephone conversationt1where only half is heard. Given this mode1 he has high expectations of being able to reconstruct the "other haMn from the clues in the text. Although the risks are great, given the lack of evidence about the audience, Jewett (1981:4) argues that proper understanding is subject to the reconstruction of the most plausible audience. He outlines his conviction as f ollows : 1 have corne to the conclusion, however, that such risks are worth taking, and indeed, that they are inevitable if one wishes to penetrate the dialogue between and ancient writer and the writerls audience. If one has ta rnake a case on the basis of hearing only one half of a telephone conversation, so to speak, then let it be done as extensively and accurately as possible, so that readers can assess whether the "other sidetthas been plausibly reconstructed on the basis of dues in the partner's voice (1981:4) .

Working with a combination of the suggestions put forward by T.W. Manson and Anderson, Jewett declares that "Hebrews was written by Epaphras to the Lycus Valley situation at approximately the same time as Colossians was sent, which would be the winter of A.D. 55-56" (1981:lO). Jewett (1981:9) claims to make the case for Anderson's reconstruction even stronger by noting that the two stated desires of Epaphras (Col 4.10) are precisely those which Hebrews addresses. Jewett finds Epaphras concern for their ' maturity and for their lassurancetalso mirrored in Hebrews 6.1 and 6.11. Jewett underlines the linkage like this: When a first hand witness, the author of Colossians, describes what his fellow prisoner desires for a congregation in terms that fit the anonymous letter to the Hebrews this exactly, it deserves notice. One would be hard pressed, even after more than a century of historical-critical research into the argument and purpose of Hebrews, to find a more succinct and accurate summary than in the ten words describing Epaphrasl desire for his Lycus Valley congregations, in Colossians 4:10 (1981:lO).

According to Jewett, the original audience is narrowly defined as a particular community in a particular location. The exhortations to maturity and assurance are not general paraenesis, but indicative of a particular audience. For NT scholars like Jewett, not only do the textual details give access to the audience, but meaningful understanding is subject to a correct reccjnstruction of the particular audience.

With the above survey of the arguments by T.W. Manson, Anderson, and Jewett, the scholarly expectations for situating the audience can be identified. As evidenced by the scholars surveyed, there is a high expectation that the profile of the audience is recoverable from the textual details. The reason for this optimism is that the text is assumed to be directed to a particular audience-- an audience much more particular than a literary text intended for Christians in general. Moreover, the intended readership is expected to be limited, originally at least, to a well-defined sub-group within Christianity. The audience is assumed to have specific contours.

The degree of particularity is high. NT scholars tend to grant Hebrews the special status of a nonliterary product originally addressed to a specific audience. Yet the lack of consensus raises questions about the validity of such a high degree of particularity. Instead of claiming that the right audience has simply not yet been found. the lack of consensus could suggest a methodological flaw (inferring a constraining community when none is explicitly indicated) . It may also suggest an idiosyncratic author whose ideas are truly unique and unlike those of others.

Conclusions

From the above survey it is clear that there is a wide- spread tendency among conternporary NT scholars to depart from the expectations that nonnally apply to literary texts. It appears that some contemporary NT scholars have assessed Hebrews' genre as nonliterary in order to facilitate the effort to situate Hebrews within early Christian history. On the basis of this new assessment, the background is expected to play a large role in shaping the argumentation of the text, the generating situation is assumed to be recoverable from the textual details, and the profile of the audience is presumed to be retrievable from the argumentation. The survey, however, raises doubts about the whole venture in general and the assessment of Hebrews as nonliterary in particular .

Three conclusions can be drawn from the survey. First, uncertainty (or lack of consensus) .in specifying the background, occasion, and destination, may indicate a rnethodological flaw. The inference that there must be a constraining community when none is explicitly stated in the text, may not be warranted. Furthemore, the lack of consensus on Hebrewsf background could also mean that the author truly was an idiosyncratic individual whose ideas were largely unique, In other words, Hebrews may be better explained as a literary and non-occasional text. At least, the literary character of Hebrews should not be ruled out.

Second, the nonliterary and occasional genre assessment of Hebrews by some recent scholars is not indicated by the text. The reconstructions al1 require complex argumentation and special pleading to explain why clear indications of occasional character are lacking in the text. The nonliterary assessment is the more complex hypothesis .

Third, pre-nineteenth-century scholarship did not assume that Hebrews was nonliterary and occasional. The shift in expectations took place in the nineteenth century with the trend to consider the genre of pre-150 Christian literature to be nonliterary.

How the shift in scholarly expectations came about is the sub j ect of the next chapter. CILAPTER TWO

TRACfNG THE DEVELOPMENT OF EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE'S ASSUMED NONLITERARY NATURE

The purpose of this chapter is to describe scholarshipls reasons for assuming Hebrewsf nonliterary nature in spite of the lack of conclusive interna1 evidence. In view of Assumption #3 (assumptions determine expectations), it is important to clarify the assumption that pre-150 Christian literature is essentially nonliterary and occasional. This assumption has generated the expectation that early Christian texts must conform to distinct ideological cornmunities. What are the arguments put forward by NT scholars for privileging early Christian texts as representative and reflective of a community ideology? The aim of this chapter is to narrate the origin and development for the special theory of history and literature that separates early Christian literature from early Patristic literature. NT Scholarship fram the Nineteenth Century to the Present

In the nineteenth century, NT scholars were busy following up the new historical-critical questions introduced by Michaelis and others. The interest, however, was no longer in Michaelis's overarching theological enterprise of using historical-critical methods to detemine which NT books could really be traced to an apostolic origin and thus to authoritative canonical status. Instead, the aim was to engage in a consistently historical exploration of the rise of Christianity free from any traditional dogmatic biases. The new goal was to describe the emergence of early Christianity as objectively as possible, without appeals to divine intervention. The historical task was greatly advanced by overturning the traditional biases. New assumptions and new expectations about the relationship between author, text, and historical circumstances were introduced. These new assumptions and expectations were instrumental in asses's-ingearly Christian literature as nonliterary and situating these texts in history. To set the stage for these new literary assessments, we begin our narration with the pioneering historical work of Ferdinand C. Baur.

Ferdinand C. Baur

The name most associated with the introduction of a consistently historical approach to the NT is Ferdinand C. Baur (1792-1860). In 1831, Baur published an article called Die Christuspartei in der korinthischen Gemeinde. Here he outlined a schema for understanding the emergence of early Christianity. Baur's theory was that early Christianity emerged as the synthesis of a conflict between the Pauline and Petrine communities. In 1851, twenty years later, Baur described his theory like this: It was my study of the two Corinthian letters that first caused me to concentrate my attention more directly on the relation of the apostle Paul to the older apostles. 1 became convinced that enough data are to be found in the letters of the apostle to enable us to see that this relationship was one quite other than is ordinarily assumed; that where it is taken for granted that there existed a complete harmony between al1 the apostles, there was actually an opposition ... The opposition between the Paulinists and the Petrinists, or Judaizers, had a significant influence ... on the composition of the book of Acts and of such canonical letters as, in

particular, the Second Letter of Peter (1851: 294- 96) .

KÜmmel (1972:132) observes the influence of Hegelian philosophy in Baur's schematization of early Christianity. Hegel's dialectical process of resolution became combined in Baur's thought with the opposition of Petrine and Pauline Christianity. This opposition was settled in post-apostolic Christendom. For Baur, the tripartite movement of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis became the clue tc the understanding of the history of early Christianity.

The Hegelian schema enabled Baur (1831:205-06) to place the NT writings in one or other of these three streams of tradition based on each book's particular aim or tendency (Tendenzkritik). For example, James was placed in the postapostolic Petrine (Jewish Christian) group because of its so-called 'rnediating spirit.' He located the Gospel of John one step further along in the synthesis of the two factions at the threshold of the early catholicism (Friihkatholizismus). Second Peter, with its affirmation of Paul (2 Pet 3-15}, was also placed in the postapostolic Pauline group along with Hebrews and the Pastorals for their so-called Irnediating tendency.' Referring to 2 Peter, Baur pressed further by asking, Wow is it possible to overlook the fact that in the whole letter the author's main purpose was to counter every doubt of the complete hamony of the two apostles, in order thereby to remove everything that seemed able to justify the persisting conflict?" (1831:206).

Baur and his radical reconstruction of the emergence of Christianity within the framework of conflict came to be known as the Tiibingen School. The influence of the Tübingen School has played -a major role in shaping the direction of NT studies, even though Baur's application of Hegelian philosophy no longer enjoys much support among NT scholars. Despite the fact that his assumption that al1 early Christian literature related to one main conflict is now considered an oversimplification (Sanàmel 1969:156), his influence on NT studies remains.

The lasting significance of Baur on NT studies can be seen in three ways. First, NT scholars continue to work with Baur's understanding that in order to explain a NT text historically, it must be located in relation to the conflicts that are thought to have characterized early Christianity (KÜmel 1972:142). Second, Baur's appreciation for sequence and historical development within the NT and early Christianity has been carried forward by NT scholars (Kümmel 1972 :142 1 . Third, some NT scholars continue to develop Baur's assumption that Early Christian literature reflects the position of rival parties at the time (Wisse 19863179-81).

Franz Overbeck

Franz Overbeck (1837-1905) was also a church historian interested in the new history-of-religions approach to Christianity. Overbeck, however, was critical of Baur's attempt to give a thoroughgoing and consistent historical account of the birth of Christianity. For Overbeck, the problem was not the attempt to a give purely historical account of early Christianity, but that Baur still combined history with a theological overlay (Overbeck 1903:3-4; 1919:180-82; KÜmmel 1972:199-205). The rational and objective manner that Baur used to describe the growth of Christianity offended Overbeck's sensibilities of the way new religious movements began. For Overbeck, the primitive stages of a religious group were anything but rational. Overbeck considered even Baur's critical reconstruction to be hopelessly deluded by a theological attempt to reanimate Christianity as a contemporary religion.

In 1882, Overbeck wrote an important essay entitled Uber die Anfwe der patristischen Literatur. This essay played a key role in modifying Baur's Tendenzkritik. Overbeck argued that early Christian literature was stamped with a necessarily nonliterary character . NT writers were more than simply predisposed to certain 'tendencies,' as in Baur's reconstruction. Instead, early Christian authors wrote without any self-conscious literary aims at all. They could not even legitimately be called authors. In the essay, Overbeck argued that the NT writings were of a different order compared to the Patristic writings after 150 like those of Clement of Alexandria, Overbeck concluded that the apostolic letters (including Hebrews) were a kind of pre-literature (Urliteratur) without any self-conscious literary fonn. Overbeck (1882:427) did not base this distinction on the old dogmatic reason of divine inspiration. Instead, Overbeck (1882:428) argued for distinctiveness based on the NT literary form--or more precisely, the lack of artistic form compared to the second-century Patristic literature .

The key to the distinctive character of the apostolic letters was what Overbeck (1882:429)called their artless (kunstlose) quality. He saw in these writings no atternpt to persuade through style and form. They were completely linsider' documents. The author's writing mirrored the communityls convictions. A kind of group-consciousness was shared between author and reader which made them pre- literary by definition. According to Overbeck (1882:429), the apostolic letters did not want to be understood as anything other than absolutely artless and "accidental surrogatesu for the spoken word.

Unlike Michaelis and the eighteenth-century NT scholars, Overbeck was not concerned to determine the genuineness of the apostolic letters (Pastorals, Peter, John, Hebrews, etc.). For Overbeck (1882:429), the question of genuineness was not that important since these authors really did not determine the content of their writings. According to his conception of the un-self-conscious author in an early religious movement, the author and reader shared the same interests, aims, and consciousness. Therefore, anonymity and pseudonymity were not a problern for early Christianity either. For Overbeck

(1882: 443) , Urliteratur was a unique genre of ïiterature which Christianity created by its own means, developing it on the basis of its own interna1 interests before accommodating to the outside world. Overbeck reasoned that the concern to identify the author only came later as Christianity took steps to anchor itself within history by transforming and formalizing its earlier expression of community consciousness ( Urli teratur) in the formation of a canon. Thus, the transition from pre- history (Urgeschichte) to history (Geschichte) coincided with the transformation of Urli teratur into Li teratur.

Martin Henry (1995:145) in his 1982 dissertation on this German church historian, argues that Overbeck's peculiar understanding of the pre-literary situation of new religious movements was due to his conception of time and of the history-of-religions. Overbeck's romantic view of history was that al1 new religious movements had an un- self-conscious original form which then gradually decayed and died as their self-awareness grew. Unlike Baur, Overbeck's characterization of new religious movements did not allow for any rationaf explanations. His view of Christianity was no different. Only after Christianity lost its special end-of-the-world orientation did it adapt to its environment and becorne a literary movement. Only then did it self-consciously employ conventional Greco-Roman literary forms and styles as in the Patristic writings. Henry offers the following analysis: In Overbeck two main streams of German Idealism converge. From Lessing and Hegel corne both his interest in Christianity as history [i.e., a product of historical forces] and the idea of working oneself free from the past; from Schleiermacher and the Romantics ... he derives his deep-seated conviction, confirmed through his reading of Schopenhauer, that religion, to be true, must be world-denying, subjective, deeply f elt , and completely unrelated if not antagonistic, to reason (1995:llO-11) . Overbeck (1882: 432) did, however, see the barrier between Urliteratur and Patristic literature as somewhat porous. For example, after the apostolic letters, the other categories like the Gospels, Acts, and the Apocalypse showed evidence of growing self-awareness. Even these, however, were not real literary works because their historical form had to do with a desperate attempt to prop up early Christianity ' s gradually dying life- form. They are in themselves an indication that early Christianity cannot be reproduced.

Thus, for Overbeck, it was only af ter Urli teratur came to an end in about 150 that truly Christian literature (Literatur) began. This assessment , however, does not make Urliteratur inf erior or uninteresting . On the contrary, Overbeck was very interested in Urliteratur, but only as a rnuseum piece. Urli teratur was interesting as a datum of history which could be investigated, described, and analyzed like an axtifact. It had nothing to do with the life of the so-called 'Great Churchl (altesten Kirche) , since that was best described by Patristic literature. This is why Overbeck lashed out at any contemporary attempts to study the NT in search of authentic Christianity. NT Christianity was no longer available. Thus, he had only contempt for theology (Overbeck 1903:21-42).

Overbeck's pioneering work on the relation between literary forms and history set the direction for later NT studies. Even though some have challenged Overbeck's

Martin Dibelius

Martin Dibelius (1883-1947) first published his rnonograph, Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums, in 1919. He was interested in using Overbeck's terms of reference in order to describe the pre-literary ( Urli tera tur) period of Christian history. Employing the methods pioneered by Herman Gunkel (1964) in his study of the pre-history of Genesis, Dibelius hoped "to explain the origin of the tradition about Jesus, and thus to penetrate into a period previous to that in which our Gospels and their written sources were recordedu (1935:~).

Besides Overbeck's differentiation between Urliteratur and Patristic literature, Dibelius also used the distinction between popular literature ( Volkslitera tur) and the cultured literature (Kunstlitera tur) made by Adolf Deissmann (1927:247).Thus, by combining Gurikells folklorist methods and Deissmann's categories, Dibelius drew a large contrast between unsophisticated literature (Kleinliteratur) and sophisticated literature (Hochliteratur). Al1 this was done in order to justify a new way of measuring the developrnent of early Christian literature. Dibeliusls contention was that "by putting on one side al1 evaluations derived from literature proper [Hochliteratur], and certainly everything from the classics, the way was open for appreciating the language and the style of primitive Christian writing [Kleinliteratur] according to its own lawsI1 (1935 :6) . Convinced that "the history of literature is the history of its various formsfl (1935:1), Dibelius argued that the Formgeschichte was significant for explaining "the unpretentious literatureN or KZeinliteratur of the NT. The reason for the significance was that for içleinliteratur the author's personality was of little importance. Dibelius explains further that: [Formgeschichte] has, however, special significance when applied to materials where the authorls personality is of little importance. Many anonymous persons-take part in handing dom popular tradition. They act, however, not merely as vehicle, but also as creative forces by introducing changes or additions without any single person having a Iliterary1 intent. In such cases the persona1 peculiarities of the composer or narrator have little significance; much greater importance attaches to the form in which the tradition is cast by practical necessities, by usage or by origin. The development goes on steadily and independently, subject al1 the time to certain definite rules, for no creative mind has worked upon the material and impressed it with his own personality (1935:l).

Dibelius (1935:2) focused on the Synoptic tradition, but his general literary evaluation includes al1 the NT writings, except the letters of Paul. For Dibelius, each anonymous or pseudonymous NT writing "accords no place to the artistic devices and tendencies of literary and polished writing. Unpretentious literary products [KZeinliteratur] f ind their readers in circles not touched by literature proper [Hochli tera tur] (193S :1) .

By ruling out the role of author, Dibelius (1935 : 7) was able to speak of the community and the social setting (Sitz im Leben) which shaped the literature, In this way, Dibelius went beyond Deissmann. Dibelius used the concept of Kl einli teratur, not to speak about dif ferent qualities of literature, but to speak about something uniquely nonliterary-a text as a sociological phenornenon.

Dibelius's contribution to NT scholarship's expectations of early Christian literature is an important development of Overbeck's highly peculiar reading of early Christian literature. Certainly, redaction criticisrn (Perrin 1969) and socio-rhetorical criticism (Mack and Robbins 1989) have challenged Dibelius's low estimation of the author1s role in composition. Nevertheless, NT scholarship still generally shares Dibelius's high expectation that the text as well as its various strata and forms, gives access to a worshipping folk community that Hochliteratur does not.

Rudolf Bultmann

Two years after Dibeliusls form-critical work on the Gospels appeared, Rudolf Bultmann (1884 -1976) published his study, Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition. Bultmamls form-critical program went further than Dibelius in that he hoped to make "judgements about facts (the genuineness of a saying, the historicity of a report and the like)If (1963:s). Bultmann was interested in pressing Urli teratur for information that would not normally be expected from a written text. His aim was to determine "what the original units were, both sayings and stories, to try to establish what their historical setting was, whether they belonged to a primary or secondary tradition or whether they were the product of editorial activity" (1963 :2-3).

Like Dibelius and Overbeck, Bultmann worked from the assumption that the Kleinliteratur of the NT was too different from real literature to use normal literary tools of analysis. In this way, Bultmann could assume something exceptional and nonliterary, namely, that there is a one-to-one relation between text and community (or between form and function). For Bultmarui, the constraints of the folk community on its oral tradition (now fixed in written fom) meant that the profile of the community was discernible in the text. Bultmannls contention was that, "the forms of the literary tradition must be used to establish the influences operating in the life of the community, and the life of the community must be used to render the forms themselves intelligible11(1963:5).

Bultmann's sociological approach to the NT forms capitalized on the anonymity and pseudonymity of the early Christian writings, Harry Gamble (1995:16) notes that Bultmann, together with Overbeck and ~ibelius, valued the idea of the anonymous and collective nature of OmUL)=jUdL) $ g 2 -4O4 (d 0.4 m 04 JJddA ri 4 SB" idadfdcia,kUF: O = N rd &l onoa, -U -a-ri kUdkdU d 3 a, rnkriU rl d41aJ =id mrlu"Wnoum *dL)$drdU'd in rd rdW33UUO 23 U O O rd m SraJmaJ GkUd rdfiaci ahaga &wu5 u-rl n a, a, O -ci $ -Erl c, A Bucnaoma,g Urda~urd-dErl US0 idad U=t kdOW kdkoaCi~~oouE . rd-.( mu El d3UW.d U QJ A OmkmaJm U vi .r(Or?d kvrd

w 4 O 3Y Uri U0-d aJ O vi di d rl .d~-d.dU3CUUO rilPkU0)Ul a,

al rd d .d O O rd rl ri

a.d~a& aJa,kEXa,wdua,d-d aJ m m -rlmxoE:rlmo ~nididr(o-.io~md uo=a-ww~c~m~c- quite clear about building on a modified Bultmamian program.

Walter Bauer

In 1934, Walter Bauer (1877-1960) published Rechtglaubigkeit und Ketzerei im altesten Christentum. In this book he continued F.C. Baur's deconstruction of the traditional Liistory of early Christianity. While F.C. Baur showed that early Christianity developed within a conflictual setting, W. Bauer pressed further. Bauer (1971:xxii) argued that the traditional claim (orthodoxy preceded heresy) was a theological imposition on the historical facts of second-century Christianity. He suggested that the orthodox form of Christianity prevailed only gradually and with great difficulty in the struggle against numerous and competing heretical belief syst ems .

Bauer's method was to analyze early Christian literature from Syria and Egypt for evidence of heresy or orthodoxy. These regions were at that time far from the influence of Roman Christianity. In both cases, he argued that orthodoxy could not describe these Christians. Moreover, orthodoxy appeared to have been the minority position. In the second century, Bauer (1971:192) claimed, orthodoxy was limited to Rome, Corinth, Antioch, and Western Asia Minor. Bauer explains: Even into the third century, no separation between orthodoxy and heresy was accomplished in Egypt and the two types of Christianity were not yet at al1 clearly differentiated from each other. Moreover, until late in the second century, Christianity in this area is decidedly unorthodox. 1 avoid for the moment the term 'hereticsg for the Egyptian Christians of the early period (and the same holds for the beginnings at Edessa) because, strictly speaking, there can be heretics only where orthodox Christians stand in contrast to them or serve as a background for them, but not where such a situation does not exist because al1 Christendom, when viewed from a particular later vantage point, is colored ' heretical' (1971: 59) .

Bauer (1971:147-94) focused his attention on the use of literature in the conflict, especially Eusebius' fourth- century account of the preservation of Christian orthodoxy traceable back to the apostolic era (HE 5.27). Bauer was suspicious of Eusebiusg literary practice of

"piling up superlativesff to describe the depth, breadth, and vintage of orthodox literature while at the same time displaying an Nenonnous lack of knowledge concerning this iiteraturegl(1971 : 150) . Moreover, Bauer (1971: 150) wondered how it was possible that al1 this "abundant orthodox literaturen disappeared in the period after Eusebius when orthodoxy was no longer under threat.

Instead of isolating the heretics, Eusebiusg citation of such a wide ranging orthodox support, suggested to Bauer that it was really the orthodox who felt isolated. Orthodoxy had to "take the initiative in the struggle, because it needed first of al1 to gain a foothold in the aream (1971:170). According to Bauer, this struggle involved inflating facts (1971:191), falsifying opponent's writings (1971:160), and engaging in highly charged persona1 attacks on 5ndividual heresiarchs or heresiesll (1971:174). Wisse observes that "both Eusebius and Bauer appeal to second-century Christian literature in order to support their understanding of the relationship between orthodoxy and heresy, but they come to opposite conclusions~ (1986:182) .

Bauer tried to account for the fact that ~ecclesiasticall Christianity or what has now become known as Roman wproto-orthodoxytl(Ehrman 1993:13), eventually gained the upperhand. Bauer conjectured that the reason for this was that it had a better organizational structure and more uniform content. Bauer explained that: A united front composed of Marcionites and Jewish Christians, Valentinians and Montanists, is inconceivable. Thus it was the destiny of the hereçies, after they had lost their comection with the orthodox Christianity that remained, to stay divided and even to fight among themselves, and thus to be routed one after another by orthodoxy. The form of Christian belief and life which was successful was that supported by the strongest organization- -the form which was the most unif orm and best suited for mass consumption--in spite of the fact that, in my judgment, for a long time after the close of the post-apostolic age the sum total of consciously orthodox and anti-heretical Christians was numerically inferior to that of the 'hereticsr (1971:231).

While Bauer did not distinguish between literary and nonliterary texts as Overbeck did, his contribution was to further solidify expectations of a Tendenzkri tik. Al1 second-century Christian texts were now thought to be placeable within well-defined ideological comrnunities. In this way, Bauer developed F.C. Baur's conceptualization of party conflict in early Christianity. Bauer argued that al1 second-century Christian texts were shaped by well-defined and doctrinally coherent comunities which put identifiable stamps on their texts.

Bauerls reconstruction of interaction between orthodoxy and heresy has had a significant impact on NT studies. Even though Bauer has been criticized for arguing too much from silence at a number of points and oversimplifying the complexity of second-century Christianity (Wisse 1986), his work continues to inform NT scholars in two ways. First, NT scholarship has generally carried forward Bauerls conceptualization that second-century orthodoxy did not precede heresy chronologically, logically, numerically, or geographically. Second, Bauer's suspicion of an author's ideological motivation has predisposed some NT scholars ta look for well-defined and doctrinally coherent communities to be reflected in an author's literary products. Thus, for these scholars, as will become clear in the next section, 'orthodoxyr is simply the one Christian party that survived the struggle with its rival Christian factions, each of whom was trying to promote a particular doctrinal vision.

Helmut Koes ter

Bauer restricted his assessment of the interaction between heresy and orthodoxy to the second century. His widely accepted reconstruction, however, provoked an investigation into the first century and the formation of the NT itself. The question was whether the conflictual struggle between diverse Christian communities, evident in the second century, could also characterize the first century? It was Helmut Koester who extrapolated Bauer's analysis back into the first century and to the beginnings of Christianity itself.

Koesterls 1965 article entitled Gnomai Diaphoroi, was an attempt at 'la thorough and extensive reevaluation of early Christian historyfl (1965:279) . For Koester, the 1945 discovery of gnostic texts near Nag Hammadi in Egypt, confirmed Bauerls earlier assessment of the predominance of so-called 'hereticall Christian groups in the second century. Moreover, these texts suggested to Koester that the traditional understanding of 'canon' and ~apostoliclneeded to be reworked. Koester mites: It is this conventional picture itself that is called into question. At the same time, the convenient, and time-honored labels for the distinction of heretical and orthodox prove to be very dangerous tools since they threaten to distort the historiari's vision and the theologianls judgment. The term 'canonicall becomes useless when the New Testament books themselves emerge as a deliberate collection of writings representing various divergent convictions which are not easily reconciled with each other. The criterion 'Apostoiic' is useless when Christian movements that were later condemned as heretical can daim genuine Apostolic origin. It is certainly untenable that the orthodox Church and only this orthodox Church was the direct offspring of the teachings, doctrines, and institutions of the Apostles' times and that only this Church was able to preserve the Apostolic heritage uncontaminated by foreign influences (1965:279-80) .

The key to Koesterls extrapolation of Bauer's reconstruction into the 'apostolic periodl was the discovery of the Nag Hammadi text entitled the Gospel of Thomas . Koester's contention is that the Gospel of Thomas in which the passion narrative is conspicuously absent is also representative of a Jesus tradition. Thus, he maintains that a Jesus tradition minus the passion tradition parallels Mark's Synoptic passion tradition and has an equal (if not greater) right to the claim of early Christianityls authentic witness. Koester argues that: It is by no means necessary that these canonical writings will ernerge as the direct predecessors of later orthodoxy, and their opponents always as the fathers of the later heretics. But, certainly, the early controversies reflected in the New Testament may not be without relation to the great battle against heresy in the subsequent centuries. New sources from recent discoveries, first of al1 the (coptic) Gospel of Thomas, must be considered on a par with the canonical writings, and they cannot be depreciated by reason of their non-canonical nature (1965:283) .

Later in 1968, Koester further developed his reconstruction of early Christianity by arguing that the apocryphal Gospels (Gospel of Thomas, Apocryphon of John, etc.) were not secondary developments or alterations of the canonical Gospels, but drew on another source. Koester notes that: Many of these [apocryphal] Gospels were composed and used by Christian groups which the orthodox church rejected as heretical. It cannot be presupposed that al1 these groups derived their own IKerygma1 from that specific Kerygma of the cross and resurrection which is the basis of the orthodox creed and of the canonical Gospels. 1s it then necessary to assume that their Gospels had no other source than the type of Gospel which orthodox circles later accepted as canonical? (1968:208). Reminiscent of Bauer's argument that second-century orthodoxy did not precede heresy, Koester (1968: 208 ) argues that canonical Gospels do not precede apocryphal Gospels. In fact, Koester insists that the apocryphal Gospels give access to a Jesus tradition that predates the Jesus tradition of the Synoptic Gospels. Koester's specific argument is: 1) that such earlier and primitive Gospel sources (collections of sayings and miracle stories) were made for very specific theological purposes; 2) that such collections were made according to principles and patterns which have no relation to the pattern of the classic passion/resurrection creed and the 'Gospel1 produced by it; 3) that such primitive sources are very closely related to the forms and types of the apocryphal Gospel literature; 4) that these primitive genres of literature also influenced the canonical Gospels to a considerable degree, even if the primary tendencies of these primitive liteyary genres of Gospels are often better preserved in the apocryphal Gospels (1968:210-11).

Koester, together with James M. Robinson, later edited Trajectories through Early Christiani ty (1971) in which both of Koesterls 1965 and 1968 articles were reprinted. The book was a.trumpet call. It announced 'The Crisis Categories' and called for a massive restructuring of scholarship. Robinson outlined the new direction as a move "From 'Background' to 'Traject~ries~.~In other words, instead of conceptualizing religious literature with reference to static categories like 'background1 or 'environment' or 'context,' religious literature must be located within Istrearns of movement' or ltrajectories,' Robinson declares that: A crisis in the basic categories of scholarship is a crisis at its foundation, a basic crisis for scholarship as such. Such a categorical crisis in a science can be met effectively only at the presuppositional level, in terms of recategorization. The Jewish, Greek, or gnostic 'background1 or 'environmentl cannot be mastered by reducing it to a mass of disorganized parallels to the New Testament; it must be reconceptualized in terms of movements, 'trajectoriesl through the Hellenistic world (1971:13).

There is, however, one important dif ference between Overbeck's definition of early Christian literature and the way Robinson and Koester define these texts. Robinson and Koester do not subscribe to Overbeckls assumed 150 barrier between nonliterary and literary Christian texts. Instead, they expect al1 Christian texts before the fourth century to be representative and reflective of well-defined ideological communities (Koester 1971:272).

The impact of Koester and Robinson on NT studies can hardly be overestimated. In spite of cautionary words regarding the overly deterministic nuance in the concept of trajectories (Sanders 1977 :20-24) , their reconceptualization of early Christian history has achieved a strong following in some quarters of NT studies (e, g . , The Jesus Seminar) .

Koesterls two main contributions resemble those of Bauer. The only difference is that they are applied to the first century and to the beginnings of Christianity. First, a significant segment of NT scholarship assumes Koesterls reconstruction of earliest Christianity in which the Synoptic Jesus tradition does not precede the Apocryphal Jesus tradition. Instead, their view is that the passion Kerygma of the Synoptic Jesus tradition gradually became the dominant tradition only after a struggle with other Christian communities which were defined by passionless Kerygmata .

Second, Robinson's and Koesterls drive to place religious texts within trajectories has gained wide agreement among these same NT scholars. The reason for this is that they expect that a well-defined and ideologically coherent community will be reflected in a writer's literary product .

Werner Kelber

Werner Kelber's 1983 monograph, The Oral and the Written Gospel, was intended to be a corrective to the form- critical program of Dibelius and Bultma~.Kelberls aim was to make a clearer distinction between the oral and written tradition in the NT Synoptic gospels. Following the lead of Erhardt Güttgemanns, Kelber questioned the way form criticism viewed the linearity of the move from oral to written gospel, According to Kelber, the Itvirtual inevitability of synoptic evolution from oral simplicity to gospel complexityn resulted in the "tendency to minimize the effect of the transition from oral motion to textual still lifetp(1983 : 8) .

Kelberls main concern was that not enough attention was paid to the gap between oral and written genres of the Jesus tradition. The Gospel of Mark was of particular interest to Kelber. He agreed with form criticisntls assessment which credited Mark with the initiation of the uniquely Christian Gospel genre. Kelber argued, however, that it was presumptuous to appreciate Mark only as an editor who fixed an already existing oral tradition. Kelber approved of GÜttgemannsls assertion that Mark was not simply "the last link in the chain of a linear development over a longer period of timeu (Güttgemanns 1979 :100 . For Kelber, this both ~misconstrued the transmission of the synoptic traditions and trivialized the genesis of Marku (1983 :8) ,

Kelber did not have a problern with form criticismts aim to clarify the function of traditional material in the life of communities (Sitz im Leben) . His concern was to insert an intermediate step between the community and the Synoptic Gospel text which was sensitized to the orality of the pre-gospel Jesus tradition apart from its later textual form. According to Kelber, Bultmann applied his text-based 'Laws of Transformationf to the oral pre- gospel stage without any modification. The result, in Kelber's assessment, was the lldominantparadigm of iinearitym (1983:32) in Bultmanrits analysis of pre-gospel tradition. Not only did Bultmann not differentiate adequately between orality and textuality, he postulated only a single direction for the course of transmission, and assumed a smooth transition from the oral to the written stage.

Kelber (1983:191) focused his attack on form criticism's theological presupposition that the passion narrative was the 'bedrockt from which the synoptic tradition developed. He cited Dibeliusfs famous line that "we must presuppose the early existence of a Passion narrative complete in itself since preaching, whether for the purpose of the mission or of worship, required some such textu (Dibelius 1935 :23 ) . Kelber countered with the argument that once the Sayings Source Q was duly credited with its own theological integrity and its own Sitz im Leben, then "one cannot speak at al1 of the 'omission of passion christologyl in Q, as if there had existed a

developed text of Jesus' passion prior to Qn (1983:192). In other words, Kelber argued that Mark's basic gospel plan of a passion narrative with an extended introduction was not irreducible. Whereas early form critics privileged early Christian literature as highly representative of a community ideology, Kelber clairned that the oral components which made up the final written text must be viewed as constrained by particular community interests as well.

Kelberls attention to orality and the theology of the Q community anticipated much of the later developments in Q Studies and socio-rhetorical criticism (Robinson 1964; Mack 1988, 1989, 1990, 1993; Vaage 1994; Kioppenborg 1987, 1991; Robbins 1984, 1989, 1993, 1996a, 1996b) . Kelber (1983:197) suggested that, given Q's theology, Mark's "passion apologeticu must be seen as a major tour de force in overcoming what Mark perceived to be an inadequate theology. Kelber writes: If Mark has a deep investment in Jesus death, in the demise of the disciples and the fa11 of the temple, whereas oral tradition by and large does

not, and if he writes, not to continue but to overcome oral mentality, and if indeed he is the creator of the textualization of Jesust life and death, what prevents us from crediting him with the composition of the bulk of the passion narrative? (1983: 196) .

Moreover, by splitting the passion narrative from the essential Gospel narrative, Kelber could explain why Mark had so little of the Q material. Kelber elaborates as follows : If Matthew and Luke managed to accept and absorb Q, how does one account for Mark's reluctance to do just that? The answer must be that Mark writes primarily not for the sake of continuing the sayings genre, and not at al1 to duplicate oral christology, but rather to overcome what are perceived to be problems caused by oral speech and its authoritative carriers. Once the form of written gospel existed, Matthew and Luke could 'safely' appropriate Q, for deconstnicted as the sayings genre then was, it could no longer operate in its oral, prophetic function. But Mark could il1 afford to assimilate sayings in full generic integrity because he created the counterform to oral speech (1983:208).

In spite of Kelber's critique of Bultmann, his own reconstruction follows in the Buitmannian tradition. The only modification of Bultmamts program is that Kelber distinguishes between differing pre-gospel oral Jesus traditions. In the end, both Kelber and Bultmann are still interested in reconstructing the pre-gospel communities based on the assumption that these communities could shape literature. The only difference between Bultmann's folk communities and Kelberts ideological communities is that Bultma~saw them with basically the same christology, whereas Kelber sees them possessing competing and conflicting christologies. Thus, Kelber builds on Bultmann's and Koesterts analysis, arguing that the influence of pre-gospel communities can be seen in what he calls the various "stratal'within the final form of the gospels.

Kelberws sharp distinction between orality and textuality and his conception of the Revolutionary Mark has not been without critique (Hurtado 1990). Nevertheless, Kelber's pre-gospel ideological critique has had a strong influence on the expectations of some NT scholars. As will become clear in the next section, a vocal minority of NT scholars have picked up on Kelber's post- Bultmannian type of form criticism and moved it forward.

Vernon K. Robbins

Vernon K. Robbins (1984, 1989, 1993, 1996a, 1996b) has written extensively on what has become known as socio- rhetorical criticism. His 1993 article, IProgymnastic Fthetorical Composition and Pre-Gospel Traditions,' outlined the methods and assumptions of socio-rhetorical criticism. Robbins1s socio-rhetorical criticism is the most recent variation of Overbeck's special theory of religious literature. Robbins (1993:lll) explains that his program applies the insights from first and second- century Greco-Roman rhetorical textbooks like Theon's

Progymnasma ta (Butt s 198 7 1 and Hermogenes l Progymnasmata (Hock and O1Neil 1986) in order to probe the pre-gospel traditions. Since the gospels were composed in a Greco- Roman context, Robbins (1993:116) claims that the progymnastic techniques for effectively re-performing oral traditions provide a powerful method for analyzing pre-gospel traditions.

Robbins acknowledges that I1perhaps it cornes as a surprise to the reader that rhetorical criticism would have any goal other than interpretation of the final form of a textw (1993:112). The candid admission shows just how

(d) ideological and theological texturem (1993:114). The dynamics of the interaction between these various levels of texture are determined and controlled by the argumentative concerns of the nculture-transntittingw tradition. The high degree of constraint assumed to be operative on the textual products, provides Robbins with the mechanism needed to reach back and reconstruct the pre-gospel traditions.

Robbins (1993: 132) contends that the textual elaboration of situations, actions, and speech in the Synoptic Jesus tradition, expanded and strengthened the arguments of particular interest groups. Stories like, The Anointing of Jesus at Bethany (Mk 14-3-91, are used by Robbins (1993:145) to show how the techniques listed in the progymnastic textbooks (rationale, contrary, authoritative testimony, example, analogy, etc.) transform a situation or action into a 'complete argument.' In this case, the expansion of the story transforms a potentially embarrassing situation into one that nurtures the subculture both socially and ideologically. In Robbinsls words: The eye and ear of the socio-rhetorical critic is on argumentation and its social and cultural meanings in the context in which it ernerged. Exploration of the contexts of utterance, reference, and culture of the argumentation in the gospels begin to exhibit various kinds of subcultural and countercultural movements in early Christian tradition (1993:146- 47). The socio-rhetorical criticism developed by Robbins in conjunction with Burton L. Mack (1989, 1990) has already made a significant impact on NT studies in its short history. Building on the Kelber's cal1 to listen to the voice of pre-gospel oral traditions, Robbins has provided a method to give expression to the competing and conflicting voices thought to be embedded in the text. In spite of accusations of having succumbed to the fallacy of rhetorical determinism (Henderson 1996:15), Robbinsrs revision of the old form-critical program enjoys much support among some NT scholars.

The success of socio-rhetorical criticism indicates that some NT scholars continue to embrace the new theory of literature first introduced by Overbeck. Robbinsrs socio- rhetorical criticism provides a way to measure the depth dimensions of a textrsmulti-textured thickness. For Robbins the text is documentary evidence that provides an archeological fossil record of the various pre-gospel communities. Unlike normal literary texts, NT texts are perceived to be highly representative of the communities that formed and used them. The only nuance added since Overbeck is that the exploratory methods have grown more sophisticated. Now it is argued that communities, for which no direct evidence exists, can be detected in the various textual sub-strata (e.g., The Q People) . Conclusions

Just over one hundred years ago, Overbeck argued that there was a fundamental dif ference between Urliteratur of the NT and the later Patristic writings. Based on a view of history as decay and a romantic view of authentic religious literature as an expression of community belief , Overbeck placed a high value on the Urli teratur. Grounded in this new theory of literature, Urliteratur was valuable because it gave access to the Urgeschichte of Christianity. Urchristentum was set off from the corruption of Friihkatholizismus which was represented by the Patristic writings after 150. The Overbeckian legacy of privileging early Christian literature as necessarily nonliterary community products has been caxried forward in the scholarship of Dibelius, Bultmarui, Bauer, Koester, Kelber, and Robbins.

The above survey of the development of the nonliterary assessment of early Christian literature narrates the far reaching consequences of Overbeckls special theory. Two conclusions in particular can be drawn from the above overview of the history of scholarship on early Christian literature and history. First, Overbeck% efforts to destroy the privileged position enjoyed by NT writings as divine revelation, ironically resulted in yet another kind of privilege for the NT. Based on the Overbeckian assumption that these texts were necessarily nonliterary community products, sorne scholars justify a special reading strategy. Refusing to count early Christian literature among other self-consciously persuasive literary forms such as religious apology, exhortation, and refutation, these scholars give special status to these texts. Since these texts functioned in a special way--as community products--it is believed that the historical circumstances that gave rise to them can be inferred from them with confidence. Unlike other literary products, they can be read as documentary evidence reflecting the Sitz im Leben of a communityts particular ideological and social location, In spite of the lack of direct corroborating evidence, some contemporary scholars expect to find a communityts particular ideological and social stamp irnprinted on the text.

Second, the influence of the Overbeck's special theory of textual representation among a vocal rninority of contemporary NT scholars appears to have shifted the burden of proof. The predisposition to Tendenzkri tik initiated by Baur (later nuanced by Bauer and Koester) was given a significant modification when combined with Overbeck's special designation of early Christian literature. The Overbeckian legacy in the work of form critics resulted in an expectation that early Christian texts were nonliterary and could be confidently placed within ideological trajectories. The burden of proof was now on anyone who thought otherwise.

While it is true that the new historical framework of the diversity within early Christianity did away with many of the theological and dogmatic biases, it is not clear that the thxeat of special interest has been averted, The contemporary concern to validate diversity appears to be shaping just how early Christian diversity is conceived.

There is little doubt that some reconstructions of Christianityls first hundred years are ingenious and intriguing (e.g., The Q Proj ect) . The lack of extemal and corroborating evidence for this period, however, means that much of the reconst~ctiveframework must be made on unverifiable and unfalsifiable assertions, Usually no proof is given when assertions are made that a religious text was produced by and/or addressed to one particular community. By reversing the burden of proof, there is no need to produce evidence for the claim that a religious text functioned In a highly representative manner, Instead, based on the assumption of its specialized nonliterary nature, 'background1 is transformed into 'trajectory' and a text's historical setting is inferred from particular ldifficulties' or 'silences1 in the text.

For contemporary NT scholarship, the Overbeckian legacy has resulted in a curious situation. Now proof is demanded in order to Say that an early Christian text is what it appears to be, namely, a literary effort produced by an idiosyncratic author aimed at a general audience- Consequently, what could only be described as exceptional for the interpretation of literature generally, has become the standard characteristic of early Christian litexature. The legitimacy of Overbeck's privileging of early Christian literature and the resulting reversa1 of the burden of proof is the subject of the next chapter. CHAPTER THREE

TESTING THE EXPECTED COMM[JNITY-FIT OF EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE

The object of this chapter is to evaluate the legitimacy of the assumption that pre-150 Christian literature is essentially nonliterary and occasional. It is important to test the validity of this assumption that is often used to overrule genre assessments and fuel expectations of community-fit. Since the literary genre of Hebrews cannot be ruled out (argued in Chapter One), is the contemporary expectation of community-fit warranted? 1s it legitimate to assess Hebrews and other pre-150 Christian texts as distinct from most literary products? 1s there justification for setting them off from early Patristic literature as largely community products rather than authorial products? Can the differences between early Patristic and early Christian literature be sufficiently explained without driving a wedge between them? The aim of this chapter is not to try to rule out the possibility of such a privileged status, only to detemine if the reasons for reversing the burden of proof are compelling. The resolution of the riddle of Hebrewsf lack of community-fit depends on the answer to this question. As has been observed, the Overbeckian legacy still plays a major role in contemporary NT studies. It is virtually impossible for the student of early Christian literature and history to attempt any kind of analysis without considering a textts form and composition history. Overbeck's designation of early Christian literature, together with the later refinements by Dibelius, Bultmann, Kelber, and Robbins, has combined with the work of Baur, Bauer, and Koester, to expose the significance of literary forms and their function within the diversity of early Christianity. Overbeck's contribution has ensured that the need for attention to the form and function of early Christian literature cannot be minimized or ignored. It is no longer possible to assume that early Christian literature reflects a situation uninfluenced by the persuasive aims of the writerts Sitz im Leben in a largely post-apostolic situation. Nor is it possible to hold that there was a relatively smooth transfer of the earliest Christian tradition through to the orthodoxy of the Roman church of the third and Eourth century. The notion that orthodoxy preceded heresy logically and chronologically, has been shown to be more a matter of Christian apologetic than a conclusion based on historical analysis.

In spite of the commendable increase in sensitivity to the form and function of early Christian literature, the Overbeckian legacy is susceptible to challenge at several points. For example, it is possible that those NT scholars who characterize early Christian texts as nonliterary community products have inappropriately privileged this literature. 1s there sufficient justification for stepping away from the expectations that are normally associated with literary texts?

It will be argued in this chapter that an unnecessary wedge has been forced between pre-150 and post-150 Christian literature. My contention is that much of the speculation in contemporary scholarship about the literary culture and historical setting within which the NT texts were written, is based on four fallacies: anachronism, rornanticisrn, determinism, and bias.

Anachronism in the ûvetbeckian Legacy

The first problem with Overbeck's theory of the nonliterary nature of early Christian literature is that it is anachronistic. At the outset, it must be said that it is possible that an author of religious literature like Hebrews, wrote under strict community constraints. It is, however, not clear that the conditions, the mechanisms, and the resources needed to manage such an enterprise, were in place by the second century. Thus, by standardizing an expectation of community-fit that may only have been possible later in the fourth century, contemporary NT scholars risk projecting a structure ont0 a situation that was largely unstructured. The imposed structure reverses the normal literary expectations and serves to nourish a historical consciousness which does not fully appreciate the nature of the diversity in early Christianity. In other words, by stressing the role of doctrine, reason, and ideology in early Christian self- definition, NT scholars are forced to adopt an anachronistic historical consciousness. wissets 1986 article entitled The Use of Early Christian Literature as Evidence for Inner Diversi ty and Conflict, makes a convincing case showing how some contemporary NT scholars are culpable of anachronism. According to Wisse: The conflict between orthodoxy and heresy during the third and fourth centuries CE mistakenly was assumed to apply also to the earlier period. This led to the false assumption that early Christian texts reflected the doctrinal diversity of competing factions or communities (1986:178).

Wissets article is important because he presents another scenario of early Christianity which is marked by diversity of practice (ethics, liturgy, leadership) and not diversity of doctrine or ideology (1986:190). While Wisse s historical reconstruction cannot be proven categorically, it is a likely scenario which means that the contrary scenario cannot be taken for granted.

The critical piece in Wissels alternative historical reconstruction of early Christianity is a reassessment of Bauerts significant contribution. Wisse shows how Bauer overextended the available data and inappropriately imposed a later historical conception on the first two centuries. Wisse raises three points that challenge the validity of the historical structure projected ont0 the second century by Bauer and often prornoted by contemporary NT scholarship for early Christian literature in general. First, even though Bauer should be credited for showing that orthodoxy did not precede heresy, Bauer still assumed that early Christian literature is one or the other (Wisse 1986: 183) . Bauer was, as already noted, very critical of Eusebiusl use of literature to bolster his historical accourit, and yet Bauer llshares with Eusebius the belief that second-century Christian literature was either doctrinally orthodox or heretical; there is no third optionu (1986:183). In other words, Bauer assumed that al1 early Christian literature must be aligned with one group or another in the "ideological struggle between competing lorthodoxiesfn(1986:184). The point is that when Bauer reversed the traditional paradigm, he failed to change the traditional terms of reference (orthodoxy and heresy). The resulting anachronism has brought confusion to contemporary NT scholarship's historical reconstruction. Wisse suggests that a third term "heterodoxyW would be a more helpful term to describe the first two centuries since it acknowledges the "open and eclectic situationll where communities were not yet defined around doctrinal positions.

Second, Bauerls observation of the lack of anti-orthodox polemic from the side of the so-called Ihereticalt groups was indeed later confirmed by the texts found at Nag Hammadi. These texts, however, also showed that Bauerfs explanation suffered from anachronistic assumptions. Bauer had explained the phenomenon of limited anti- orthodox polernic by suggesting that orthodoxy, and not heresy, was the marginalized group and that heresy was dominant and unopposed. wisse (1986:190), however, shows that such an explanation is not required. If there is sufficient sensitivity to the truly heterodox situation, then the lack of polernic could be explained by the toleration for doctrinal diversity. Wisse suggests that: In the heterodox situation which prevailed at this time there was considerable tolerance to doctrinal diversity, partly of necessity, because on most issues the theological structure needed for refutation was lacking. The relative isolation of Christian communities and the lack of knowledge about sister churches no doubt contributed to this heterodox milieu and apparent tolerance fox diversity. This explains the absence of clear polemic in some of the writings from this period (1986:190) .

Third, Bauer's assessrnent of the numerical superiority of heretics in most areas, was also based. on an anachronistic conception of the nature of early Christian polemics. According to Wisse, "the focus of Christian polemics in this period was basically ad hominem, Le., directed against persons , rather than ad doctrinam, i .e. , directed against teachingn (1986:184). This meant that the heresiological texts, beginning already with the Pastorals and Jude and continuing on with Irenaeus, Clement, and Tertuïïian, were more about authorizing approved leaders than about establishing correct teaching .

The reverse is afso true. Polemics were focused on vilifying the unauthorized teachers by associating them with villains in the Hebrew Bible. They were accused of immoral practices, their ideas were attributed to pagan sources, and they were discredited as unreasonable or incoherent (1986:185-86). Therefore, not only was the lack of doctrinal polemic not necessarily an indication of numerical superiority, but also the presence of a polemic against persons cannot at this early stage be interpreted as a clash between different doctrinal systems. Both phenomena are adequately accounted for by the nature of the debate in a heterodox environment.

Wisse explains : At this early period there was no comprehensive and widely accepted rule of faith which could function as a standard for truth and falsehood. Hence polemics were hardly possible at the level of doctrine. As a consequence, heresy at this time was not so much a teaching that was at variance with established doctrine, as it was the teaching--any teaching!--of someone who was unauthorized by the leadership or who for some reason or other was considered unworthy and unacceptable. The converse also applies: whatever was taught by someone who was approved by the leadership, or by the author in question, was by definition orthodox (1986:184-85). Bauerls observation was accurate; the traditional pyramid with multiple heresies spanning out from a singular orthodoxy, needed to be inverted. His interpretation, however, was hampered by the anachronistic assumption that the categories of orthodoxy and heresy are still applicable to the first century of the Christian movement. The debate within eaxly Christianity was not yet between orthodoxy and heresy but essentially between heterodoxy and orthocracy (1986:185). In other words, the conflict was between those promoting the freedom of divergent practices and spiritual gifts (heterodoxy) and those promoting adherence to the teaching of authorized apostolic teachers and of those whom they approved (orthocracy). According to Wisse, "heterodoxy was firmly rooted in the charismatic beginnings of gentile Christianityw and "it presented a major and long-lasting threat to the emerging orthocracyw (1986:187). Only after wide-ranging heterodoxy was deemed unbearable and uncontrollable in the eyes of the estabiished church leadership in cities like Rome, were the theological structures developed which provided a standard measure of right doctrine.. Thus, only in the third and fourth centuries could the appeal to an approved author (orthocracy) be set aside and replaced with an appeal to right doctrine (orthodoxy). Only then could the argument be made that there was "an objective basis to evaluate Inew1 teaching; if it proved to cohere it was not really new but already irnplied in apostolic teaching and if it did not cohere it had to be heresyu (1986:187). Wissels critique of Bauer's historical reconstruction can be extended to the way some conternporary NT scholars have conceptualized the first century in general and Hebrews in particular. Genuine appreciation for the truly heterodox situation of early Christianity before 200 goes a long way to avoid anachronistic projections that sometimes characterize contemporary NT scholarship. Since it is anachronistic to explain the author of Hebrews as a highly constrained spokesperson without extemal evidence or unambiguous interna1 indications of the text being a community product, Hebrews cannot be placed securely in a well-defined ideological cornrnunity. Instead, the heterodox situation would suggest that Christian authors wrote more as idiosyncratic individuals intent on creating (not necessarily ref lecting) a world-view for the way things should be (not necessarily were) . The real possibility that the author of Hebrews could be pictured in this manner is enough to make the case that the contrary cannot simply be assumed.

The historical contributions of contemporary NT scholarship in appreciating the diversity of early Christianity are significant. Nevertheless, the anachronistic misinterpretation of the nature of early Christian polemic has skewed the expectations which some scholars have for early Christian texts. By expecting a community-fit for each NT text, some contemporary NT scholars fail to appreciate the heterodox nature of early Christianity. Romanticism in the Overbeckian Legacy

The second problem with Overbeck's nonliterary assessment of early Christian literature is that it is too romantic. In other words, the nonliterary assessment is dependent on a romantic view that the group consciousness of a primitive religious community is clearly reflected in the texts it presumably produced. Furthemore, this group consciousness is thought to be transparent--not yet tainted by the persuasive aims that characterize normal literary texts. Certainly some highly representative community products do exist, such as creeds and liturgies, but these tend to be the exception. Some conternporary NT scholars, however, are inclined to expect that al1 early Christian literature functioned this way in spite of the lack of corroborating evidence. This amounts to a reversa1 of the normal literary expectations which allow room for a significant degree of authorial idiosyncrasy. To read virtually al1 early Christian literature as documentary evidence for a particular community is to violate the normal function of religious litexatuse as it is known from better documented periods. The optimism that some NT scholars exhibit for extrapolating back to a textls generative historical situation places more pressure on a religious text than it.can legitimately bear. Thus, by overestimating the representative character of rhetorical and persuasive speech, these NT scholars are often compelled to embrace a theory of literature that suffers from romanticism. Martin Henry's dissertation on Overbeck makes it clear that Overbeck assessed the character of Urliteratur as un-self-conscious based on his special romantic theory of authentic religious literature. In Overbeck's cornparison of the NT apostolic letters with the more sophisticated forms employed by Patristic writings after 150, the evaluation of the differences was skewed by his romantic theory of literature. Henry explains: The greatest influence on Overbeck's evaluation of the history of Christianity seems undoubtedly to have been, not the Enlightenment, with its ethic of intellectual integrity, highly important though this element is in Overbeckts work, but Romanticism. The notion, for example, that literature is produced under the irresistible pressure of an overwhelming experience and gives spontaneous, infallible expression to original, authentic, unique and self- legitimating experience is the purest Romanticism. Furthermore Overbeck ' s assumptions about Urli teratur colour deeply his highly debatable view concerning the Urgeschichte of Christianity (Le. original Christianity) (1995: 184-85) .

Henry (1995:198) goes on to Say Overbeck's romantic theory of literature was seriously flawed for two reasons. First, Overbeck overestimated the representative nature of language. Language is not the possession of a speaker/author and can only be used to approximate the consciousness. Second, Overbeck was overly optimistic about a speaker's/authorts capacity to use language to

in order to use it as evidence for group ideologies in early Christianity. This critique could be extended to al1 variations of Overbeck's legacy from Dibelius to Robbins. Gamble writes: The idea of the folk community taken up by form criticism was not, however, an analytical concept based on empirical ethnographic studies, but a constructed concept rooted in a romantic notion of history and culture, a view characterized by a nostalgic concept of primitive societies uncorrupted by civilization. The value of this idea for form critics was above al1 its emphasis on the anonymous and collective nature of authorship, and thus on the nonliterary character of folk tradition (199515- 16) .

Not only was the anonymity of early Christian literature overinterpreted by form criticism, the use of pseudonymity in early Christianity was also romantically construed for ideological aims. For example, Kurt Aland (1961:48) identified the appeal to an apostolic author like Paul, Peter, James, John, or Jude with an authentic or spiritual pseudonymity. This early pseudonymity, he contrasted with the fictional or fantastic pseudonpous writings after 150. While Aland was involved in a theologically motivated apologetic for canonical pseudepigrapha, his romanticism is strikingly reminiscent of Overbeck's theory. Aland introduced his romantic category of early pseudonymous literature or pious pseudepigrapha, as follows: What happened in pseudonymous literature of the early period was nothing but the shift of the message from the spoken to the written word. In this change not only was the tool by which the message was given irrelevant, but according to the view of that tirne it would have amounted to a falsification even to name this tool, because, according to this conception, it was not the author of the writing who spoke, but only the authentic witness, the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the apostles. When the pseudonymous writings of the New Testament claimed the authorship of the most prominent apostles only, this was not was not a skilful trick of the so- called fakers, in order to guarantee the highest possible reputation and the widest possible circulation for their work, but the logical conclusion of the presupposition that the Spirit himself was the real author ... As the Christian author won his individuality under the pressure of the necessities of the new era, the possibility for the genesis of 'authentic pseudonymousl writings had passed (1961:44-45,48).

Bruce M. Metzger (1972:17-18) correctly challenged Aland1s rornantic view of pious pseudonymity on two counts. First, the category of pious pseudonymity introduced an unnecessary distinction between the mentality of Paul, a letter writer, and Hebrews, an epistle writer. The question is, why should a different situation be assurned? While the genres differ, both are samples of persuasive speech aimed at community formation. Second, the category of pious pseudonymity suggested that Ifthe writers of Christian pseudepigrapha during the second, third, and fourth generations were more strongly under the influence of the Spirit than was the Apostle Paulff (1972: 18) .

The phenomenon of pseudepigrapha in early Christian writing does not require the special romantic view of religious history imposed by the legacy of Overbeck. There are sociological and demographic explanations which can more easily account for the variety of literary forms and quality within early Christianity. The differing qualities can be sufficiently explained by "the changing circumstances, the new tasks, and the resources that emerged with the missionary expansion of the church in the Gentile environment" (Gamble 1995:41).

If the implications of the heterodox situation before 200 are taken seriously, then the use of pseudonymity is explainable in two very pragmatic ways. First, since the nature of early Christian polemic was essentially ad hominem rather than ad doctrinam, pseudonyms should not be seen as a "sales girnmickN or as a way to honor a revered apostle. Instead, it was a necessity. According to Wisse, %ince there was not yet a standard by which to judge the truth claim of a writing on the basis of its content, souridness came to depend on the reputation of the author" (1986:185). In other words, the nature of the conflict and debate in early Christianity is sufficient to explain the use of pseudonymity.

Second, the creation of pseudonymous letters has more to do with historical precedent than a spiritualized and romantic theory of un-self-conscious religious literature. Gamble argues that the early circulation and collection of Paul's letters provided the mode1 for early Christian literature aimed at wide circulation. Gamble writes: The choice of letters as the favourite form of pseudonymously apostolic literature sprang from Paul's example, and it was the broad currency of Paul's letters that in the late first century produced the conjunction of apostle, written teaching, and letter, Ultimately, the whole phenornenon of pseudonymously apostolic writing found its root in Paul's actual practice. Of course, Paul's letters were not themselves catholic, but as we have seen, they early came to be thcught of and used as such (1995:107).

Moreover, Gamble shows how the use of apostolic pseudonyrn and epistolary form was synonymous with the aim for publication. In this way, Gamble argues that practical and non-ideological reasons are perfectly adequate to explain the appearance of pseudonymous Christian literature. Such explanations may even account for the subsequent attachment of an epistolary ending to Hebrews which refers ta Paul's campanion Timothy (13.22-25). This may well have been a tirnid way to suggest apostolic authorship--the reference certainly functioned in this way. At any rate, the phenomenon of pseudepigrapha and early Christian literature in general does not require romantic explanations and cari be traced to very practical concerns. Gamble explains: The adoption of an apostolic pseudonym was correlative with the intention of broad circulation. At the same time, the author of a pseudonymously apostolic document must have known that the means were available to achieve extensive circulation. In the usual case this probably meant the production at the outset of multiple copies to be simultaneously distributed over a broad area, potentially to any Christian community, but more likely to a limited number of churches well situated to promote yet further, secondary distribution. In short, a catholic epistle, unlike a letter to a specific comunity, aimed from the start to reach a wide readership and was thus composed for publication (1995:107-08) .

Unfortunately, some NT scholars have not found the non- ideological explanation of early Christian literature very satisfying. Instead, these scholars have been drawn into Overbeck's xomantic literary theory for one main reason--there is so little evidence outside the NT for this early period of Christian history. For the social historian interested in describing this early period, Overbeck's romantic literary theory provides the mechanism needed to reconstruct the social world and historical circumstances of the author1s community. The problern, however, is that without direct access to those social experiences in the form of extemal evidence, there is no way to control speculations. Contemporary scholarshipls desire to learn something of the underlying social history of the early Christian communities (a perfectly reasonable desire) is confounded by the limitations of the evidence. Without direct documentary access to the social experiences within which the NT texts were produced, the social historian has "no recourse but to use the text itself, reasoning backwards from what it says to the social experiences that it appears to presuppose1I (Ehrman 1997:147). Thus, the limitations are circumvented--1iterary texts are read as if they were documentary texts. Not only is this highly speculative, it also presses the literary texts of the NT for documentary evidence that it cannot legitimately provide. Frustration with the unfortunate lack of evidence, however, is no reason for the historian of early Christianity to abandon normal expectations and unduly privilege NT literary texts.

The critique that Metzger, Wisse, and Gamble raise against the ahistorical and romantic theory of early Christian literature applies to Overbeck and his conceptual descendants dom to Robbins. Essentially, the argument is that the peculiar forms of early Christian literature do not require the imposition of a specialized function as a community product. Instead, there are, as has already been noted, practical and non-ideological reasons which are adequate to explain the phenomenon of early Christian literature. Just as it is romantic to explain the anonymous and pseudonymous literature as highly representative, so too without external evidence or unambiguous interna1 indications, there is no need to read Hebrews as the reflection of the ideology of a specific, well-defined community. Therefore, there is no compelling reason to set Urli teratur off f rom Patristic writings and no need to abandon the expectations normally associated with literary products.

The contributions of contemporary NT scholarship in appreciating the literary forms of early Christian literature are far reaching. Nevertheless, by superimposing on these early texts a romantic theory that a text is a pure and a transparent reflection of group consciousness, Overbeck standardized inappropriate expectations for early Christian texts. Those NT scholars who are sympathetic to the Overbeckian legacy, fail to appreciate the practical and non-ideological reasons which are adequate to explain the phenomenon of early Christian literature's difference from Patristic literature.

Determinism in the Overbeckian Legacy

The third problem with Overbeckian legacy is that it is deterministic. Certainly the possibility of a highly constrained author of religious literature exists, but some contemporary NT scholars standardize this exceptional situation without the necessary extemal evidence. To reverse the normal expectations for literatute undermines the creative individuality which is typical of authors of religious literature. By underestimating the role of randormess, contingency, and idiosyncrasy in history, contemporary NT scholarship is often forced to adopt a historical consciousness that is deterministic.

Edwin P. Sanders in his ground-breaking monograph, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (1977), wrote an addendum signalling the overly deteministic character of Robinson's category of 'trajectory.' Sanders (1977:20-24) distinguished his own concern to explicate the holistic 'pattern of religion' in Paul fwom Robinson's cal1 for NT scholars to adopt a new category for placing early Christian texts along trajectories through the Hellenistic world. Even though Robinson (1971:14) claimed that his concept of trajectory was not deterministic and did not deny the author's individuaf freedom, Sanders has not been convinced. Sanders writes, "the term trajectory nevertheless implies sequential development and implicit goalw (1977:Sl).

Sanders (1977:21) highlighted Robinson's sketch of two Pauline trajectories in early Christianity as an example of a sequential and causal reconstruction that is overly deterministic given the lack of corroborating evidence. According to Robinson (1971:10), one strearn of Paulinism moved through Ephesians to 1 Peter, Luke-Acts, the Pastorals and on to proto-orthodoxy. The other Stream of Paulinism travelled through Colossians to Valentinus, Basilides, Marcion and on to those later called heretics by the proto-orthodox. Sanders is quite right to ask, Iican the actual historical comections which are asserted be demonstrated?" (1977:22). Sanders presses his critique further noting that: It is further true that Acts and the Pastorals cari best be seen as efforts to domesticate Paul, to bring him into agreement with the developing orthodoxy; these historical developments have been long known; but can we be sure that there is a sequential, causal co~ectionfrom the Pauline school as represented in Colossians to the goal or terminal point of heresy? ... Robinson is not simply asserting that, since both orthodoxy and heresy corne after Paul, Paul's thought must in some way have led to them. He has also made a stab at selecting which prior event is the cause of which subsequent event. But here the imponderables enter, for we do not have at our disposal al1 the prior events (nor al1 the subsequent ones) (1977:20-21).

At issue is good historical method--the kind that recognizes the limitations of data and the implications for historical reconstruction. Not only is there very little evidence to confirm the causal links needed to place early Christian texts securely within trajectories, but as Sanders observes, I1history is not in fact always composed of sequential developments which lead to terminal points" (1977:22). Sanders's critique of Robinson applies to NT scholarship in general. Ever since the nineteenth century, some scholars have promoted an innovative historical conceptualization of early Christianity which reduces al1 conflict to a debate between well-defined ideological communities. Robinson's trajectory formulation is just one of many manifestations of the same nineteenth-century inclination that has enticed these scholars to be too precise about a complex period for which little docurnentary evidence exists.

This is not a new observation. Already in 1969, the careful Jewish historian of early Christianity, Samuel Sandmel, sounded the alarm concerning the overprecision of NT scholarshipls historical expectations. Focusing on Pauline scholarship, Sandmel also criticized NT scholarship~sdeterministic historical method. Sandmel writes: Certainly it is legitimate to try to trace the Stoic influences on Paul, and the influences of the mystery religions and the Pharisaic influences and al1 the other possible influences. Yet 1 wonder if Paul himself would have understood some of the erudition in the clarifying essays. To my own dismay 1 have had to give up trying to undesstand the genesis of this or that idea in Paul as previous influence or contemporary environment would explain it, mostly because 1 have not found these explanations adequately convincing to me, despite community product is that it undervalues the literary culture of early Christianity. In a curious way, by privileging Urli teratur as distinct f rom Patristic writings, Overbeck actually did not give enough credit to the early Christian literary culture that was in existence from the start. As has been noted, Overbeck (1882:426-27) was convinced that christliche Literatur did not begin with the NT but that there was a barrier (Schradce) drawn between the NT and true christliche Literatur. Certainly much of this was part of his caustic Kulturkri tik of the Christian tradition of his own times and was stimulated by his friend Friedrich Nietzsche (Henry 1995:130). Nevertheless, in his wake, some contemporary NT scholars continue to read NT texts as special and curiously privileged (Bultmann 1963; Kelber 1983; Robbins 1993). These texts are thought to be highly representative of pre-gospel communities in a way not normally assumed for religious texts. Without adequate interna1 markings or external evidence, however, the categorization of NT writings (other than Paul's letters) as documentary evidence for a particular ideological community violates the basic nature of religious literature. Each of these privileged readings depends on the devaluation of the early Christian literary culture.

Gamblels 1995 book, Books and Readers, begins with a chapter entitled 'Literacy and Literary Culture in Early Christianity,' in which he argues convincingly that foxm cxiticism worked to minimize the "literary dimensions and diminish the literary culture of the early churchN (1995:17). Gamble launches his critique by first making a helpful clarification of the term 'literary culture.' He notes that sometimes:literary culture refers to ''the cultivation and use of literature in the high sense of belles lettres, an activity that belongs to a privileged class, and sometimes it is used in a neutral way to refer to whatever texts are produced and employed by a society or group, without regard to their extent, type, or qualityu (1995:lO-11). Working with the second definition, Gambie is able to mount a convincing case against the way early Christian literature has been classed as a 'nonliterary movement. '

At issue is the unwarranted barrier or wedge between the so-called oral tradition (nonliterary) and the later written tradition (literary). Certainly differences exist in the literary qualities of Christian literature up to 200, but these cari be accounted for without recourse to Overbeck's special theory of early Christian literature.

Gambie's assessrnent of the misrepresentation of early Christian literature can be extended. Not only have NT writings been unduly devalued but the converse is also true; they have been unduly privileged. The negative bias in literary terms resulted in the privileging of early Christian writings in historical terms. Without the wedge between Patristic writings and NT writings, contemporary NT scholars could not abandon the expectations normally associated with religious literature. Without the wedge, contemporary NT scholars could not justify the mirror- reading that claimed privileged access to the historical situations that generated these texts. Not only is the ûverbeckian wedge based on anachronistic historical method, romantic idealization, and unriecessary determinism, but it ignores the early Christian literary culture already in existence.

Gamblels chapter is significant because he shows how, starting from the nineteenth-century, NT scholarship has consistently diminished both the literary culture and the literary products of early Christianity. Gamblels reasoning can be used to further bolster the contention here that the expectations normally associated with religious literature have been inappropriately set aside by contemporary NT scholarshipls expectation of community-fit. I have drawn six arguments from Gamble's discussion that go a long way in revoking the privileged status that NT writings have enjoyed without warrant.

First, Gamble (1995:18) shows how the categories introduced by Overbeck and Deissmann were used to minimize the complexity and scope of early Christian literature. Originally, Deissmamas categories of Volksli teratur and Kunstli teratur were helpf ul to signal the wide variety of literary quality in the NT. The usefulness of these categories, however, was exceeded when Dibelius and Bultmann, along with much of NT scholarship after them, took these categories beyond their descriptive value and pressed them into a specialized ideological category of commwiity product (Kleinliteratur). In a similar way, Overbeck's term Urli teratur concealed the real continuity early Christian literature had with Greco-Roman literary culture. By limiting the category options to only two, al1 the pre- 150 Christian writing, in spite of its various grades, was forced into the category of nonliterary (Kleinliteratur or Urli teratur) . Thus, the complexity of early Christian literature was misrepresented.

Second, Gamble (1995:19) maintains that the success of redaction criticism has been to show that the NT writers did more than collect and fix an oral tradition. By selecting, recasting, arranging, and elaborating the Jesus tradition, the Gospel writers expressed theological and idiosyncratic aims. They wrote self-consciously and with purpose. These literary decisions require that the Gospel writers be seen as creative and individual authors whose works are genuine literary products,

Third, Gamble (1995: 35) cites the recent contribution of rhetorical criticisrn as evidence to show that the NT writers participated in the Greco-Roman rhetorical culture of the day. Far from isolating themselves in a completely self-absorbed circle, the early Christian writers show familiarity with some of the textbook patterns for elaborating topics and writing persuasively. Early Christian literature camot be set outside the larger Greco-Roman literary culture that valued and promoted persuasive speech for public consumption (see Burridge 1992; Bauckham 1998). Instead, early Christian literature needs to be seen in continuity with the self- consciously artful uses of rhetoric both by non-Christian writers as well as Patristic writers.

Fourth, Gamble (1995:20) contends that the 1947 discovery of the Qumran scrolls disproves Overbeck's idea that end- of-the-world expectations are a disincentive to literary production. The Jewish sectarian community at Qumran also had such expectations and yet they engaged in the publication of literature. The form-critical claim "that apocalyptic eschatology and literary activity are fundamentally incompatible was finally rendered untenable, for in Judaism the two were hand in glove, and imminent eschatology could not itself have inhibited literary activity in early Christianity" (1995 :20) . Furthemore, the rornantic conception of a marginalized and unifom folk community behind early Christian literature does not stand up to the evidence. Instead, Gamble asserts that Itearly Christianity had a diverse social composition, representing a limited cross-section of Roman Society. The scheme of Hochliteratur- Kleinliteratur correlates poorly with a movement that was neither aristocxatic nor vulgar but something in betweenM (1995:20).

Fifth, Gamble (1995:29) shows that there is more continuity between orality and textuality than Overbeck thought. Even before the composition of the Gospels, sayings of Jesus were collected and performed, proofs from prophecy were traced in the Septuagint, and words of encouragement were composed and read in worship meetings. As Gamble says, the "evidence for the production, use, and appreciation of texts in early Christianity, even before the composition of the Gospels, is too strong to allow oral tradition and literary activity to be set off against one anotherm (1995:29). Essentially, "early Christianity was never without a literary dimension, even though it did not immediately generate a large literature of its owntl (1995:29) .

Furthermore, too large a gap between orality and textuality assumes a modern "printing pressH mentality where texts are fixed. The NT texts were produced by hand and were far less stable than our modem books. The large number of variant readings indicates that the text was subject to accidental and deliberate changes. The wedge between oral and written fails to appreciate the way ancient texts were produced and read. Gamble explains: In antiquity virtually al1 reading, public or private, was reading aloud: texts were routinely converted into the oral mode. Knowing this, ancient authors wrote their texts as much for the ear as for the eye. Thus, although the oral and the written remained different modes, they were far closer and interactive in antiquity than today, and a too sharp theoretical differentiation misconceives the situation (1995:3O) .

Sixth, Gamble (1995:36-40) contends that there is more continuity in style, content, and form than Overbeck allowed. While it's true that Patristic writings "dernonstrated an increasing diversity of forms and a more elevated style, ... these factors did not signify a new literary ambitionn (1995:40). In most cases these later Christian writings were still concerned about very practical matters like: apologies, theological treatises, church orders, and scriptural commentaries. Writings like these were continuous with the earliest NT writings.

It cannot be overemphasized that Hebrews and the theological writings of the early Patristic writers were composed in the first two centuries, before the parameters of Christian orthodoxy were hammered out. The fact that Hebrews was deemed to be an Iapostolic witness' and later Icanonized1 as part of the NT in the Christian Bible was a theological decision. Even though the Christian church distinguished between its canonized texts like Hebrews and those by the early Church theologians like Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement, this distinction was not made on literary grounds but on theological grounds. The canonical distinction plays no role in assessing the literary character of these writings .

Thus, the differences between NT and Patristic writings are not nearly as large as Overbeck claimed and do not require the explanation he proposed. Gamble suggests that there are practical and non-ideological reasons that are adequate to account for the varying quality of early Christian literature. Gamble writes: A sufficient explanation is rather the social one, namely that the success of the Christian mission brought Christian communities into routine contact with the social and cultural life of the empire so that from the second century onward the church was able to count among its converts ever larger numbers of people who were well educated and conversant with Greco-Roman literary and philosophical traditions. Such persons, though they constituted only a small minority within the Christian movement, loom large in early Christian history, It was from their ranks that there emerged the Christian literati who produced the greater part of the literature of the ancient church (1995:40-41).

Gamblels reassessment of the literary culture of early Christianity is a major corrective to the Idetour' taken by NT scholarship following 0verbeck8s bias against early Christian literature and literary culture. At its core, the argument is that neither the evidence for literary production nor the evidence for literary use, warrants the barrier or wedge that some NT scholars have inserted between NT and Patristic writings. Instead, there are, as has already been observed, practical and non-ideological reasons which are adequate to explain the phenornenon of early Christian literature. Therefore, rather than the overly reductionistic fonn-critical categories, Gamble suggests that it is more helpful to think of ancient literature as a continuum. Thus, early Christian literature could be described as I1ranging from the most sophisticated and artistically self-conscious prose and poetry through professional expository and technical writing ta practical prose for a broader readership and finally to mere documentary materials in the vernacular~ (Gamble 1995 :18) .

If early Christian literature is expressed as a continuum of various qualities as Gamble suggests, then it is legitimate to compare al1 pre-200 Christian literary texts. Therefore, the need to penalize (or privilege) NT texts with the category 'nonliteraryl in comparison to post-150 writings disappears. This means that NT writings like Hebrews can resume their place along with the other literary products of early Christianity. Moreover, Hebrews can be released from the privileged status which caused it to be read as highly representative of a well- defined ideological community. Without external evidence or unambiguous interna1 indications, the normal literary expectations associated with literary products can be reinstated for Hebrews.

The contributions of contemporary NT scholarship in appreciating the literary forms of early Christian literature are great. Nevertheless, by driving a wedge between early Christian oral tradition and later Christian written tradition, Overbeck and his legacy have normalized inappropriate expectations of community-fit for early Christian texts. Conclusions

The above argument makes the case that contemporary NT scholarshipls step away from the expectations normally associated with religious literature is without sufficient justification and suffers from four fallacies: anachronism, romanticism, determinism, and bias. In other words, the Overbeckian legacy has inappropriately shifted the burden of proof. These NT scholars have introduced a special categorization of the early Christian texts-- nonliterary community products--which is unnecessary to account for the inner diversity and conflict in early Christianity. Instead, the diversity can be sufficiently explained by the sociological and demographic changes "that emerged with the missionary expansion of the church in the Gentile environmentt1(Gambie 1995:41).

Three conclusions emerge. First, characterizing early Christian literature as a necessarily nonliterary community product is unwarranted, This classification suffers from anachronistic, romantic, deteministic, and biased fallacies. While the possibility that an early Christian text might represent a nonliterary community product carmot be ~ïedout, the attempt to strengthen this possibility to a probability has been shown to be inappropriate. The reasons put forward by contemporary NT scholarship for assessing early Christian literature as nonliterary (surveyed in Chapter Two), have been shown here to be unconvincing. The burden of proof has been inappropriately reversed. Second, the dif ferences between early Christian and Patristic writings are not nearly as large as Overbeck claimed and do not require the explmation that he and subsequent NT scholarship have proposed. Moreover, the probability of Hebrewsl literary nature is the simpler and stronger hypothesis since it involves less special pleading to explain the lack of unambiguous textual details necessary for situating a text. Thus, the burden of proof is returned to those who contend that a certain early Christian text necessarily represents ideas that extend beyond those of the author to a specific community or to a particular situation.

Third, the probability of Hebrews' literary character means that it can be legitirnately compared with other literary texts like the early Patristic literature. The likelihood of Hebrewsl literary nature also means that expectations more in line with those that scholars have for situating early Patristic literary texts can function as a measure of the expectations that would be appropriate for Hebrews. Not only can the scholarly expectations for situating early Patristic literature now function to reset the default expectations, they can help to resolve the riddle of Hebrewsl lack of comrnunity-fit.

Just what the scholarly expectations for situating early Patristic literature include, is the focus of the next chapter . CHAPTER FOUR

USING EARLY PATRISTIC LITERATURE TO RESET EXPECTATIONS

The object of this chapter is to explore the implications of reclassifying pre-150 Christian literature as essentially literary unless there is evidence to the contrary. If the privileging of early Christian literature as nonliterary is truly unwarranted (argued in Chapter Three), then it is reasonable to compare it with early Patristic texts which are universally described as literary (Chadwick 1966, 1993; Grant 1967; Osborn 1981; Wagner 1994; Bueil 1997, 1999) .

Furthemore, it should be noted that it is not uncommon for ancient literary texts to include documentary sections at the begi~ing(Lukets prologue) or at the end (a dedication or a authorial colophon) . Thus, the real or pseudo documentary characteristics of Hebrewsf chapter thirteen are insufficient for ruling out the probability of Hebrews' essential literary character. This being the case, some guidance in setting appropriate expectations for situating Hebrews can be derived from the scholarly reception of early Patristic literature. This chapter builds on the results of Chapter Three by using early Patristic literature to reset expectations for situating Hebrews in early Christian history. Given the probability of Hebrews' essential literary nature, the expectations conternporary scholarship has for situating early Patristic literature can be used to determine appropriate benchmark or default expectations for Hebrews as well. These default expectations would be those that are generally appropriate and could not be set aside without supporting evidence.

Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, are probably the rnost important Patristic authors of the mid second to early third century (Chadwick 1966, 1993; Osborn 1981:18-24; Wagner 1994:139-40). Each one produced religious texts dealing with various topics of concern for early Christians. Nevertheless, for reasons identified below, each of these five is not equally suitable for the cornparison group.

The cornparison group of Patristic writers must meet certain conditions that approximate as much as possible the conditions under which the author of Hebrews also worked. Therefore, a lower and an upper limit must be established before the expectations of contemporary Patristic scholarship can be surveyed. For the sake of argument, we will accept Overbeck's lower limit for Christian literature, which he claimed began only with Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150-215). Clement lived and taught in Alexandria during the last two decades of the second century, reportedly leaving Aiexandria ka. 202- 03) during a period of persecution (Bue11 1999:lO). This means that Justin Martyr (ca. 90-165) and his apologetic writings which technically do satisfy Overbeck's lower limit of 150, will not be considered because they predate Clementls by a couple of decades. Origen (ca. 185-253) will also not be considered. This is because he follows Clement and taught in Aiexandria during a time when the bishop Demetrius began to exert an increasing amount of institutional and ecclesiastical, control (Bue11 1999:12). Thus, 200 will be set as Our upper limit (pagels 1979:xxiii). This leaves three early Patristic writers, Irenaeus, Clement, and Tertullian, for whom we can be fairly sure of their literary ski11 and autonomy.

While Irenaeus, Clement, and Tertullian do satisfy the conditions required to make a valid cornparison group, they are by no means uniform. For authors who were later perceived by the fourth-century historian, Eusebius, to be significant players in the shaping of orthodoxy, their views of Christianity are surprisingly diverse. In this way, they are typical of the diverse and relatively uncontrolled environment of pre-orthodox Christianity. They taught and wrote in a tirne long before the parameters of orthodoxy were fixed and well before orthodox censorship (like bishop Athanasiusl anti- heretical paschal letter of 367) had the power and resources to exert any kind of control over literary content (Wisse 1978 :437) . Besides being considered literary and autonomous, the early Patristic texts in the comparison group enjoy the additional advantage of having some external evidence for the situation in which they were written. Although it is minimal, even the few details that can be determined, are more than is available for the setting of Hebrews. This external evidence for early Patristic texts factions as a 'controlt on the scholarly expectations for situating ancient religious texts in their historical location.

The pertinent questions to be asked of contemporary scholars of the religious texts written by these early Patristic authors include: What are the expectations for situating the texts of Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian? Are these texts expected to be representative or reflective of more than the author's ideas? Are there reasons to believe that these authors wrote under significant community constraint? Of special interest will be the comparison between the expectations of Patristic scholars and those of their colleagues in NT studies .

If it can be shown that contemporary Patristic scholarship does not expect the representation for texts written after 150 to extend much beyond the authors themselves, it would confirm the findings of Chapter Three. Not only would it be unwarranted to dismiss the probability of Hebrewst literary character, the expectations of contemporary Patristic scholarship would also confirm that it is inappropriate to expect anything more representative in an earlier, less stable period without some unambiguous textual evidence. In other words, there would be further reason to return the burden of proof to those arguing that pre-150 Christian texts do reflect/represent more than the ideas of the author. Such a finding would have direct implications both for research in early Christian literature in general and for the riddle of Hebrews' lack of community-fit in particular.

Following the pattern outlined in Chapter One, we will begin with a brief introduction to the three prominent early Patristic authors and their writings. Then Our attention will turn to the main task of surveying the expectations that contemporary Patristic scholarship has for situating these early Patristic texts in their historical situation. By probing the scholarly expectations for the role of the background influences the author, the scope and extent of textual representation, and the particularity of the audience, the default expectations for Christian literary texts should emerge.

Patristic Writers to 200 and their Texts

Walter Wagner, in After the Apostles: Christianity in the Second Cen tury, describes second-century Christianity as 9nessy11 (1994:viii). It was a time when "traditions and expectations were becoming unhinged, but new combinations had not yet gained wide or even authoritative acceptancen (1994:viii). Irenaeus, Clement of Aïexandria, and Tertullian developed imaginative responses to the pressing issues at the end of the second century.

Our concern here, however, is not to analyze the theological reflection of Irenaeus, Clement, and Tertullian, but to get a general profile of these three early theologians. An overview of their biographical references, their writings, and their main emphases is al1 that is necessary in order to appreciate how Patristic scholars situate these men, their texts, and their audiences in early Christian history.

Of particular interest is whether the Patristic author in question supplies the reader with information about himself, the circumstances within which he composed the text, or his intended readership. Does the author indicate that this information (if any) is necessary for understanding the point of his text correctly? Do later commentators like Eusebius exhibit a concern to supply readers with the author's biographical profile and historical situation (if these are missing) so that the author1s text can be properly understood? Finally, do Patristic scholars consider it important or even possible to infer the author's social location from the text alone? Itenaeus of Lyons

There are few details about Irenaeus' life that can be established (see Donovan 119841 and Clark Cl9971 for a survey of recent scholarship and bibliography) . The only biographical sources for Irenaeus (ca. 140-202) are a few lines in his heresiological writing (Adversus Haereses 3.3.4) and the comments by Eusebius (HE 5.20.5-7). These sources indicate that Irenaeus was born in Asia and that he considered Polycarp of Smyrna to be his mentor regarding the teachings of Jesus, the apostles, and the apostolic tradition.

At some point Irenaeus was sent to Lyons to give . leadership to the Christians there. During this time Eusebius (HE 5.23-25) reports that Irenaeus was sent to Rome with a letter describing the Montanist movement. While there, he also advised Pope Victor 1 on the debate with the Eastern bishops about the date of Easter. Irenaeus returned to Lyons to be elected bishop. During the period of his absence, some fifty Christians had been martyred by the Gauls in Lyons and Vienne. Even in this narration, Eusebius, appears more interested in assuring his readers that Irenaeus was in the I1unbroken succession^ from the apostles and observing the "unbroken traditi~n,~'than providing many details about his actual historical situation.

Irenaeus "took over a community ravaged by persecution and tom by interna1 strifem (Wagner 1994:207). Like many new leaders, Irenaeus set out to establish control and authority. His two extant treatises, Adversus Haereses and Demonstra tio ~raedicationisApos tolicae, are part of his attempt to provide bishops and presbyters in the church at large with demonstrations of 'proto-orthodoxyl for refuting the so-called @hereticall sects within heterodox Chxistianity (Grant 1997:6-7).

The term lproto-orthodoxy,' is useful to describe these early Christian leaders and their writings because it was not inevitable that their views were going to be considered orthodox nor were they necessarily in the majority (Ehrman 1993 :13; 1997:6-7) . At this early point, the parameters of Christian belief and practice had not yet been firmly established. Teachews and leaders like Irenaeus were hard pressed to define correct Christian befief and practice during this period of diversity and played an important role in beginning to define them.

Irenaeus is best known for two developments. The first was his theory of recapitulation. It was an attempt to visualize the cosmos and the entire lsalvation historyl under the careful guidance of the creator God (Grant 1997:52-53). Irenaeus described the career of Jesus as @Isumming up in himself the whole human race from the beginning to the endm (Adversus Haereses 5.23.2). Thus, Irenaeus used the term "recapitulation as summation, restoration, new start, and climax to keep the church and its members on the road to salvationN (Wagner 1994:208). Wagner observes that Irenaeus l llseven-orbedcosmos and the recapitulation of the creation of the world answered those who taught that the present order was the flawed product and domain of an ignorant and cruel Demiurge" (1994:209). For Irenaeus, the history of salvation was like a progressive education. God had "brought humanity forward step by step in a long process culminating in the incarnation of the divine Word with a universal gospel diffused throughout the world by the churchn (Chadwick 1993:81). This overarching structure was Irenaeus' alternative to those Christians like Marcion who did not integrate the Hebrew Bible or creation into their understanding of Christianity.

Second, Irenaeus is known for his arguments for an authoritative 'mie-of-faith1which he claimed could be traced back to the apostolic tradition (Adversus Haereses 3.3.3). With this claim he refuted the Valentinian Christians who "claimed to be able to supplement the writings of the apostles with secret unwritten traditionsm (Chadwick 1993:81) . For Irenaeus, innovation and divisive 'gnosticl speculation, were a threat to proto-orthodoxy. Therefore, he marked out the confessional parameters outside of which one could not move and still be called IChristian.l

Irenaeus identified the collection of authoritative 'apostolicl writings as the canon and the rule-of-faith. He insisted tbat the churchls rule-of-faith summed up the tradition of Christian belief throughout the world and that believers should follow it without deviation (Wagner 1994:207). An example of the way Irenaeus rationalized the dimensions of the churchgs authoritative canon can be seen in his defense of a four-fold gospel. According to Irenaeus, there could be no more nor no fewer than four gospels because there were "four zones of the world ... and four principal winds t' (Adversus Haereses 3 -11.8 ) .

Wagner notes that "metaphors of journey, road, and pilgrimageN (1994:221) were central to Irenaeusu response to the challenges of the second century. Not surprisingly, in the Bishopts vision of history and humanity travelling toward fulfillment under Godls guidance, Ilthe undercurrent of obedience was unmistakableu (1994: 221) .

Clement of Alexandria

Like Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150-215) does not tell us much about bis personal life (see Osborn [19831 and Wagner Cl9971 for a survey of recent scholarship and bibliography) . Eusebius (HE 5.10 -11 ; 6.6,8,14) claims that Clement studied under Pantaenus and succeeded him as head of the Alexandrian catechetical school where later Origen became his pupil. Wagner voices suspicion about Eusebiusl claim and suggests that it may be an expression of the need to substantiate the apostolic tradition. He also casts doubt on Eusebiusl biographical information on Clement as well as "the historicity of a pre-Origen official catechetical school in Alexandria" (Wagner 1971:211; see Dawson 1992:219-22; Bue11 1999:lS). Even Chadwick remarks that it is strange that Clement "never mentions the contemporary bishop of Alexandria, Demetrius, and relatively little can be deduced from his text which helps to explain the institutional development of the community" (1993:99). According to Wagner (1971:210), the only thing that is certain is that Clement was a teacher and an Alexandria Christian (Stromateis 1.11.1-3).

There are three important works of Clement that have survived: Protreptikos (refutation of paganism; exhortation aimed at conversion; invitation to potential students) ; Paidagogos (instruction on ethics and esoteric principles for mastering passion; a catechism concerning meals, marriage, prayer, and possessions) ; and Stromateis or 'carpet-bagst (an eight volume collection of notes on philosophy, marriage, martyrdom, theology, and spirituality) .

Clement of Alexandria is best known for two emphases. The first is his embrace of Greek philosophy in the promotion of true education or paideia. Unlike Irenaeus, Clement did not remain negative in his attitude to philosophy. Instead he worked hard to establish what he called a truly gnostic Christian ethic by countering other forms of Christian gnostic teaching.

Clement claimed that philosophy was granted to the Greeks like the law to the Hebrews. As he said, "what is Plato, but Moses speaking GreekI1 (Stromateis 1.150.4) . Each of these dispensations was a gift of God and had an educative role in the unfolding of Godls plan to bring humanity to perfection. Thus, the true gnostic was not afraid of philosophy because it was part of Godls way of communicating tmth--how to think about God correctly and how to live properly (Wagner 1994:173). According to Ciement, "Philosophy was to the Greek world what the Law was to the Hebrews, a tutor escorting them to Christ. So philosophy is a prepatory process; it opens the road for the person whom Christ brings to his final goal" (Stromateis 1.28.3) .

Clementfs proto-orthodox Christianity relied heavily on Scriptures (especially the NT) where, he claims, Godls educative plan for the true gnostic is most clearly revealed. According to Clement, the true gnostic "guards the orthodox doctrine of the apostles and the Church ... For the life of the gnostic, as it seems to me, is nothing else than deeds and words agreeable to the tradition of the Lordu (Stromateis 7.104).

Second, Clement is noted for his spatial conceptualization of the Logos of God. According to Wagner, Clementls thought can be clarified by Wisualizing the cosmos as a cone with its vertex towering above its baseN (1994:174). In this configuration, God occupied the vertex and "generated the Logos to shape the cosmos-cone according to Godls planN (1994:174). As the Logos spiralled downward it created the heavenly places and at the base, it circled to make the physical world. On the return journey through the heavens toward the vertex, "the Logos tuned and , harmonized the cone to be a choir praising and serving GodI1 (1994: 174 ; Protreptikos 6). Clement ' s doctrine of Logos is the foundation of his theological system. As far as Clement was concerned, the Logos created the world and manifested God in the law, in Greek philosophy and finally in the incarnation of God in Jesus.

In Clement s educational program (paideia), pupils were led from one classroom to another by Logos-initiated teachers (like himself) who taught them how to control their passions until ultimately they had grown into the image and likeness of the Logos (Wagner 1994:175). Clement was optirnistic that al1 evil and ignorance would eventually be overcorne by the Logos and paideia.

Clement chose to respond to the challenges of the late second century by spiritualizing and allegorizing Scripture in order to establish 'true1 gnostic Christianity. The result of his abstract formulations was the formation of "a self-perpetuating intellectual and ecclesiastical elitew (Wagner 1994 :186) .

Tertullian of Carthage

Like Irenaeus and Clement, many details of the personal life of Tertullian (ca. 170-220) are not known (see Sider [l982, 19971 for a survey of recent scholarship and bibliography) . Eusebius identifies Tertullian as I1a man well versed in the laws of the Romans, of high repute in other respects and one of the most distinguished persons at Romen (HE 2.2.4). Al1 of Eusebius' five references to Tertullian (HE 2.2.4; 2.25.4; 3.20.7; 3.33.3; 5.5.5) include citations which are limited to Tertullianls Apologeticum. This is strange because Tertullian was a prolific writer of pamphlets and treatises. Thirty-two of Tertullianls treatises are still extant (Barnes 1985:55).

The main recounting of Tertullian's biography is presented by Jerome (De Viris Illustribus 53) . Together with the few lines in Eusebius, Jerome's text has been used to construct a biographical profile of Tertullian that includes the following descriptors: born in Carthage, son of a military man, a lawyer trained in Rome, priest in Carthage until middle age, left the Roman church to join a Montanist sect, and died at a ripe old age .

Wagner (1994:188) notes that recent scholarship has begun to question the objectivity of the reports in Eusebius and Jerome. According to Wagner, there is some reason to suspect that "the usual biography and the traditional dating of his works are based on misinterpretations and guessworkI1 (1994:188; see Barnes 1981, 1985) . The exaggerated profile and the careful distinction between those writings from his Catholic and Montanist period, may be due to the frustrating dilemma that Tertullian presented to later orthodoxy. Their dilemma was summed up by the question, "how could the church use a schismatic and possible heretic as a source for truth and order?" (Wagner 1994 :188) .

The only real access to Tertulliants life situation is limited to his largely polemical writings--and here only his convictions and his thought are accessible. Accordingly, there is evidence for a "brilliant, exasperating, sarcastic, and .., powerful writer of splendid, and torrential proseN (Chadwick 1993 :91) . Nevertheless , Wagner (1994: 188) suggests that it is reasonable to infer from his writings a modest sketch of Tertullian. References to Carthage imply that Tertullian was active among the Christians in Carthage. Also his writings evidence an acquaintance with Greco-Roman rhetorical forms which may explain his frequent use of harsh condemnations. His promotion of the New Prophecy is also clear. Eventually he broke away from the bishops of Rome because he did not approve of their attitude to new revelations, sin, and marriage.

Besides being an embarrassrnent to later orthodoxy, Tertullian is credited with at least three developrnents in proto-orthodoxy. First, his description of the Creator God as the Supreme being was distinctive (Wagner 1994:189). What was special about his description of God was his use of the Latin word substantia. He introduced substmtia because of its philosophical and legal connotations. For Tertullian, the underlying substance or essence of God was described as unity. As Tertullian said IIGod is not, if he is not onet1 (Adversus Marcionem 1.3) . His use of substance was employed ir, proto-orthodox apologetic for creation. By putting together Genesis 1, Psalm 8, and John 1, Tertullian could argue against those who taught the eternity of rnatter. Instead, according to Tertullianls schema the Word-Wisdom of God proceeded from the one transcendent Creator God to create the world out of nothing (Apologeticum 21.10).

Second, Tertullian used the Latin word persona (mask, face, or appearance) which together with substantia, helped to provide the foundations for later orthodoxyls doctrine of Trinity and Christ. He used these terms polemically to hold together the paradoxical proto- orthodox conceptualizations of God and Christ. Thus, Tertullian claimed that the unique and supreme God "reveals that unchanging substance in three masks or faces: Creator-Father, Logos-Son, and Spirit-Powerw (Wagner 1994:193). Jesus, for Tertullian, was then fully human and also the one whose persona was distinct in function but not separate in substantia from either the Father or the Spirit (Apologeticum 21.11-14).

Third, Tertullianls views on women, marriage, and Christian behavior have greatly shaped Christianity. His treatises on womenls apparel, on veils for virgins, on chastity, on monogamy, and on modesty, al1 show a keen interest in defining the patterns of behavior for Christian women. While hardly unique, TertuIlian did further develop a trend already visible in the Pastoral Letters. By merging Enochrs version of Genesis 6 with the original female deception, Tertullian argued that "the whorish activities of the women who seduced the angels continued among women who used cosmetics, jewelry, and lavish clothingu (1994:191). While Tertuilian's views on the status of women have received differing appraisals (see Pagels 1979:39-43; Hoffman 1995:145-82), his rhetorical bent is especially evident in the following citation: The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives on even in our times and so it is necessary that the guilt should live on, also. You are the one who opened the door to the Devil, you are the one who first picked the fruit of the forbidden tree, you are the first who deserted the divine law; you are the one who persuaded him whom the Devil was not strong enough to attack. Al1 too easily you destroyed the image of God, man. Because of your desert, that is, death, even the Son of God had to die. And you still think of putting adornment over the skins of animals that cover you? (De Cultu Feminarum 1.2) .

In each of these three developments, Tertullian, unlike Clement, made little formal use of philosophy. Instead, his apologetic was based on arguments concerning truth, nature, law, and morality. Johannes Quasten notes that Tertullian had no interest in dissolving apparent contradictions but had a "predilection for the paradoxicalH (1950:2.320). Furthemore, the paradoxes that he created did not disturb him since he was "not concerned with building a bridge between religion and reasonm (1950:2.320). Tertullianls low assessment of philosophy is made clear by bis famous rhetorical flourish, "What has Jerusalem to do with Athens, the Church with the Academy, the Christian with the heretic? . 1 have no use for a Stoic or a Platonic or a dialectic Christianity. After Jesus Christ we have no need of speculation" (De Praescriptione Haere ticorum 7 1 .

Tertullian elected to respond to the challenges of the second-century with harsh polemic. While his rhetoric both embarrassed some and animated others, it had an influential role in shaping proto-orthodoxy.

There are three observations that can be made from this review of Irenaeus, Ciement, and Tertullian. First, it is noteworthy that al1 three apparently saw no need to give more than a few incidental biographical details about themselves. Furthemore, they provided little or nothing about the historical circumstances within which they wrote their religious texts. Presumably, they did not think that such information about themselves was significant for proper understanding of the text or necessary to lend it authority. Even the later fourth- century historians like Eusebius are mainly interested in these second-century authors' connection to the apostolic tradition (by then called orthodoxy) . In other words, the biographical information that Eusebius provides in his historical survey is not so much to locate the cited authorfs text in its social location as it is to establish the orthodoxy (or heresy) of its teaching (Grant 1980:60-83; Barnes 1981:126-47; Pearson 1997). Thus, the texts of Irenaeus, Clernent, and Tertullian function in much the same way as anonymous NT texts in that only at a later time does it become important to supply orthodox credentials for the author,

Second, the remarkable feature that emerges from the survey of these Patxistic writers and their works is their vast diversity. They provide a vivid example of heterodoxy that coexisted even among the so-called lproto-orthodox.' Where Tertullian is noted for his disdain of philosophy, Clement of Alexandria is very appreciative of philosophy. While Irenaeus was suspicious of gnostic speculation, Clement of Alexandria felt quite free to define true gnosis. If there is anything these three second-century Christian teachers had in common, however, it was a strong personality and an equally strong desire to shape Christian belief and practice during this format ive period .

Third, besides a great deal of diversity, it appears that the special emphases of Irenaeus, Clement, and Tertullian, are understood to be their own creative contributions. It is interesting that their diverse views do not appear to be credited to a community or a party for which they were only spokespersons. In other woxds, it seems that scholars are not hesitant to see these authors as original or idiosyncratic in their main emphases. The survey that follows will clarify these initial observations,

Contemporary Scholarly Expectations of Patristic Texts

With this brief introduction to the works of second- century Christian writers, the expectations that recent scholars have for situating these early Patristic writers and their texts in early Christian history cari now be surveyed. Many of the issues that have corne up in this introduction play a significant role in attempting to locate the author, text, and audience in history, By probing the scholarly expectations for the role of the background influences on the author, the scope and extent of textual representation, and the particularity of the audience, a set of default expectations will surface.

As in Chapter One, the scholars sunreyed here are not focused specifically on the questions that occupy us in this thesis. In this case, however, unlike Chapter One, it has not been easy to find any Patristic scholarship that addresses in some way the question of the historical circumstances underlying an author's composition, As will soon become apparent, their primary research focus is not on questions of background influence, textual representation, or audience particularity. If there is any historical reconstruction at all, it is limited to situating or re-situating the author. Nevertheless, their research interests are not unrelated to those of this thesis. In fact, their argumentation does reveal a set of expectations which is indeed vital to the problematics of this thesis. The establishment of the operative expectations in contemporary Patristic scholarship will be useful in determining those default expectations that are appropriate for other early Christian literature.

The scholars reviewed below are those who have also been influenced by the nineteenth-century critical scholarship. These are scholars who tend to challenge the traditional history of the standard Patrologies (e-g., Quasten 1950). The point is to compare scholars with the same basic critical formation, but who study different texts--those who study Christian texts from 50 to 150 and those who study Christian texts from 150 to 200. The question is whether there is a discernible difference in expectations. How do the expectations of Patristic scholarship compare with those that are common for literary texts where significant allowance is given for authorial idiosyncrasy? What are the implications for setting out the default expectations for early Christian literature?

The Role of Background on Text/Author

The first task is to find out how the author's background influences are conceptualized and evaluated by contemporary scholarship of Patristic texts. How constraining are these background influences on the author expected to be? Having assessed these texts as literary products, is it appropriate to expect that the background plays a large role in shaping the author and the text?

For this first category, the expectations of Denise K. Bue11 and Annewies van den Hoek will be reviewed. Each has written on the influence of background on Clement of Alexandria. Both of these scholars have several recent publications on Clement and his sources and his relation to the so-called tcatecheticalfschool in Alexandria (Bue11 1997, 1999; Van den Hoek 1988, 1996, 1997). Their views are characteristic of critical scholarship on Clement and his relationship to proto-orthodoxy (Osbom 1983; Pearson 1990 :212; Dawson 1992 :219-22; Wagner 1997) .

Clement is of particular interest because he alludes to his teachers (Stromateis 1.11.3 ) . Eusebius develops these allusions claiming a succession of teachers at the catechetical school of Alexandria (HE 5.11.1-2; 6.6.1). How is Clementts relationship with the so-called 'catechetical schoolt perceived by Patristic scholars? Do these scholars expect Clement's writings to reflect the debates or views current in the school rather than mainly his own? Just exactly how Bueil and van den Hoek (and others) assess these biographical statements by Clement and Eusebius will be helpful for resetting appropriate default expectations for the role of the background on the text/author. Denise Buellls 1997 article, Producing Descent/Dissent: Clernent of AIexandriars Use of Filial Metaphors as Intra- Christian Polemic, begins with the assumption that second-century Christiariity was diverse and polemical. While the environment may have been diverse, the polemical language indicates that diversity was not valued. She draws attention to the procreative and filial metaphors (father/son, natural, genealogy, kinship, etc.) which Clement of Alexandria used polemically to "valorize sameness and conformity over diversityu (1997:103). Even though her investigation is concerned with Clementls rhetorical strategy, it is relevant to our focus on scholarly expectations as well.

Buell notes the way Clement speaks about the tradition his teachers passed to him. Clement mites: They preserved the true tradition of the blessed doctrine in direct line from Peter, James, John, and Paul, the holy apostles, son inheriting from father (only few sons are like their fathers) and came with Godlshelp to plant in us those seeds of their apostolic progenitors. 1 am quite sure they will be delighted--1 do not mean pleased with this exposition of mine, but simply by the preservation of the tradition in following my adumbrations (Stromateis 1 .11.3) . Buellls point is that Clementts use of patrilinic symbolism is typical of the proto-orthodox debate with other visions of Christianity. According to Buell, Vlement appealed to filial metaphors both to cast certain Christians as 'legitimatel heirs to older traditions and to exclude other Christians as 'illegitimatel" (1997:90). Bueil makes clear her concern that "modern scholars who perpetuate such lineages rnay Ùncritically reinscribe the perspectives of certain early Christians or reinforce certain modem assumptions about the character and development of Christianity in generalM (1997:91) .

Buell joins a growing group of scholars that questions Eusebiusl account of church history (Grant 1980; Barnes 1981, 1985; Pearson 1997) . For example, the notion that Clement took over an existing catechetical school in Alexandria as Eusebius states, may not be accurate. According to Buell, ttClement'salmost total silence on ecclesial organization makes more plausible a reconstruction of his role in Alexandria as that of one

Christian teacher among manyw (1997: 92 ) . Eusebius l efforts to give the llimpressionof linear progressionw may have caused him to smooth over too quickly the second-century conflict.

Buell is clear about her expectations for situating Clement. She does not locate Clement within the constellation of a particular community or institution. Instead, for Buell, Clement is concerned about building a comunity. She puts it like this: This hypothesis requires reading Clement not with a presumption of institutional support (or even tension, such as Origen would face a generation later from bishop Demetrius), but rather as one who must persuade his students and would-be students of the superiority of his understanding of Christianity (1997:92).

Furthemore, not only must Eusebius be evaluated critically, but as Buell (1997: 99) argues, Clement ' s use of the terms 'Valentinian, 'Marcionite,' and 'Basilidianl must also not be taken at face value. These terms were likely coined by their opponents and "it is unlikely that the members of any of these groups viewed themselves as anything other than true Christiaris" (1997:99; see Wisse 1971:222). Attempts to exclude by discrediting lineage as well as efforts to secure legitimacy through appeals to "one's spiritual forefathers" (1997:103) , were common in the struggle to define Christianity in the second century.

Buellls concluding comments reveal the low degree of constraint under which she expects Clement to write. In her words, the only way to take "seriously the lack of precise contours of late second-century Alexandrian Christianityttis to read Clement luas one teacher among many ... who had to persuade his students and prospective students of the surpassing virtue of his conception of Christianitym (1997:103).

den Hoek

Annewies van den Hoek's 1988 monograph on Clementfs use of Philo in the Stromateis is also apropos to our interest in role of background on text/author. She reviews al1 the material from Philo that Clement borrowed in order to see what role it played in Clement's thought. Her analysis shows that Clement was not sirnply a compiler who was constrained by a tradition, but a theologian who used Philo in a critical way. Clement selected, contradicted, deleted, and supplemented Philo's constructions in order to suit his purposes (1988:47).

The central purpose that guided Clement's editing of Philo's theology, ethics, and logic was christological. Van den Hoek concludes that: Clementls cbristological focus intervenes repeatedly to create major structural differences from Philo's system ... The central position that God has in Philo, snifts in Clement in favor of Christ, who takes over the salvational and persona1 aspect of divine operation; he is called image of God and is presented as the object of the highest contemplation (1988:227) .

In another article, van den Hoek (1996) furthers the discussion on the relation between citation and dependence. She makes two observations. First. van den Hoek (1996:232) notes that even though Clement borrowed from Paul (1273 times, according to Otto Stahlinfs index), Plato (618), Philo (2791, Homer (2431, and Euripides (117), his use of Philo is unique. Of the 279 times that Clement quotes, paraphrases, or alludes to Philo, only four times is Philo mentioned by name!

Van den Hoek refers to various explanations for this strange omission of Philo's name but prefers Buell's solution. According to Bueil: The omission of his teachersf names serves a specific rhetorical purpose, for Clementfs argument depends not on their identities as particular individuals but on their rnediating function as conduits of 'the true tradition of the blessed doctrine in direct line from Peter, James, John and Pault (1997:95) .

In other words, Buell suggests that for Clement to put the names of his teachers in the foreground would have overemphasized their importance as individuals. This is precisely the accusation he makes against Marcion, Basilides, and Valentinus (Stromateis 2.36-40). Thus, van den Hoek (1996:233) concludes that by omitting Philo's name, Clement was putting Philo in the ranks of his direct mentors (Stromateis 1.11.1-3).

Second, van den Hoek (1996:235) underlines at the same time that Clementfs literary dependence on the Greek authors does not mean that he should be pictured as a spokesperson who was restricted by the Philonic paradigm. In fact, van den Hoek asserts just the opposite: In spite of his rather brutal cut-paste-and-twist technique, his illogical insertions and his abrupt transitions, Clement is also capable of clever and ingenious inventions. At times, he subtly turns the words of his source to serve his own purposes, Thus material is transformed by conversion and rearrangement. An impressive ability to vary and juggle is persistently manifest (1996:236) .

In van den Hoekls most recent article (19971, she returns to the scholarly debate on whether or not there was a catechetical school in Alexandria. She rehearses the arguments that have placed doubt on the schoolls existence since Gustav Bardy (1937) first mounted criticisms of the traditional account in Eusebius. Van den Hoek takes issue especially with Roelof van den Broekls 1995 article which argues against a second- century catechetical school in Alexandria--although as we will see, not for the traditional reason of taking Eusebius at face value.

Van den Broekls argument is important and warrants a brief summary before considering van den Hoekls alternative. Essentially, van den Broek (199543) draws a sharp division between church lofficialsland I1aymen.l He admits that while second-century Alexandrian Christian teachers were responsible for religious and pre-baptismal instruction, they were "no ecclesiastical officiais, but laymenn (1995:43). According to van den Broek: It is in this perspective that we have to see the great Christian teachers, the gnostic as well as the non-gnostic, of second-century Egypt. It was their firm conviction that they not only participated in the apostolic tradition but also in the same Spirit which had inspired the apostles. They were in fact chaxismat ic didaskaloi , not holders of academic chairs, incorporated in a school with a fixed curriculum (1995:43).

Van den Broek contends that eventually this heterodox situation was forcibly unified under the monarchical rule of the bishop. The result was that by the third century, the Alexandrian bishop pxevailed over these independent teachers and even forced Origen to leave in 234. Thus, van den Broek concludes, The whole idea of a Christian school with a diadochê of teachers handing down a fixed tradition of learning to their pupil successors is completely false, at least until the second decade of the third centuryw (1995:41).

Given this strong argument against Eusebiusî apparent synthesis, van den Hoek tries to carve out a middle ground between the traditional and the critical view. She does this in three ways. First, van den Hoek (1997:71) shows that both Origen and Clement used similar techniques in their catechetical instruction of morality, biblical reading, and antiheretical discussion. Clement's whole paideia concept worked on the principle that "the pedagogue guides his pupils through the scriptures to a certain point but then bids them farewell and urges his audience to listen carefully to the Didaskolostl (Van den Hoek 1997:66) .

Van den Hoek argues that traditionalists may have institutionalized far too much the imprecise terms used by Eusebius, but there is no reason to discredit Eusebius' modest daim that there was continuity of biblical scholarship between Pantaenus, Clement, and Origen. Eusebius makes the following daims: In his time Clement, the namesake of the pupil of the apostles who had once ruled the church of Rome, was famous in Alexandria for his study of the Holy Scriptures with Pantaenus. In the Hypotyposes which he composed he mentioned Pantaenus by name as his teacher, and he seems to me to allude to him in the f irst book of the Stromateis, when he speaks thus in reference to the more distinguished members of the apostolic succession which he had received (HE 5.11.1-2) .

Pantaenus was succeeded by Clement, who directed the instruction at Alexandria up to such a date that Origen also was one of his pupils (HE 6.6.1).

Second, van den Hoek (1997:71) doubts whether there was such a great distinction between tschoolland 'churchl for Clement as there is for van den Broek (or between lofficialland 'laymanl for that matter). While it is true that Clernent does differentiate between the church and other gatherings, this needs to be understood rhetorically. Van den Hoek (1997:73) points out that for Clement l'the true church bases itself on right interpretation of scripturew and not on the teaching of '~ophists-~But these so-called lsophists' should not be seen as real lo~tsiders.~Van den Hoek (1997:73) maintains this is a rhetorical flourish for showing disapproval of the teaching or practice of individuals or groups within the Christian commity. To label something a Ischool' has more to do with the rivalry that "reflects a period in which communities struggled for existence, identity, and dominance" (1997:74).

Third, van den Hoek (1997:84) points out that the preservation of Philonic collections of books is a good indicator of a Christian tradition in Alexandria. In other words, without some form of ~hristiantradition in Alexandria and its extension via Origen in Caesarea, Philofs writings would not have survived (1997:86).

In the end, van den Hoek concludes that when read with a certain amount of care, Eusebiusl historical account of the Alexandrian teachers may be justified after all. Here how she puts it: Eusebius's characterization of the early schoolts curriculum as consisting of interpreting scripture and teaching catechism, corresponds closely to clementls activities as they emerge from his writings. Eusebiusls daim that Clement engaged in catechetical instruction seems, therefore, amply justified. In general, Eusebiusfs measured comments on the Alexandrian succession and school are verifiable, right dom to the ambiguity of terminology (1997 :76) .

Even though van den Hoek defends the basic veracity of Eusebiusf comments about a catechetical school in Alexandria, her argument is not based on the traditional view (e.g., Frend 1984:286). Instead, she argues for a middle approach which does not read Eusebiusl reflections in an linstitutionalizedlmanner nor dismiss thern as fictitious.

In actuality, both van den Hoek and van den Broek have a great deal in cornmon in their appreciation for the continuity and discontinuity of the heterodox Christian environment of the second century. Van den Hoek defends Eusebiusl account when not too much is read into Eusebius' description of the 'Alexandrian schoolf and van den Broek underlines how inappropriate it is to make too much of Eusebiusl account. At any rate, both have low expectations for situating the Alexandrian teachers within a particularly well-defined school.

With the aid of Buellls and van den Hoekls investigation into the historical background of Clement of Alexandria, the general scholarly expectations for situating early Patristic authors can now be charted. For these scholars there is a low expectation that a @geneticlprofile of the author can be recovered from the textual details. The reason for the pessimism is a greater appreciation for the independence of Christian authors before the third and fourth century.

The assessment of both Bue11 and van den Hoek with respect to the relation between Clement and the so-called catechetical school is significant. Regardless of how that relation is conceived, it is important that neither scholar exhibits an expectation that Clementrs writings would reflect the debates or views of the school. By default it is taken for granted that the views of the author are reflected in literary texts, unless otherwise stated. The author is not assumed to operate within a framework highly constrained by a particular community of thought. In other words, the background's influence on the Patristic author is seen as a general backdrop without playing a determining role. The emphasis is on the author1s independent appropriation of general background influences into a system that is uniquely stamped by the author.

Thus, for scholars studying these early Patristic texts, the background does not play a large enough role to move the genre assessment from a literary to a nonliterary community product. Furthemore, the expectation that the author functions not as a spokesperson for a certain community, but more as an individual author, resets the default expectation. The degree of community constraint on the author is expected to be low.

Not only can Patristic scholarship serve to reset the default expectation for early Christian literary texts, it also confirms the inappropriateness of the expectations of some contemporary NT scholarship. In terms of the community constraint, the expectations of NT and Patristic scholarship are poles apart. NT scholarship tends to evaluate the role of background influences much more highly than Patristic scholarship. For NT scholarship, the background (school, community, ideology, etc.) is pressed into the role of constraining the author1s literary production. Patristic scholarship, on the other hand, acknowledges the background influences but stresses the author's independent appropriation and creative modification. Thus, contemporary NT scholarship's expectation that the early Christian authors necessarily wrote under a high degree of community constraint, is shown to be inappropriate. The expectations of Patristic scholarship have reset the default expectations; early Christian authors should not be expected to have produced their literary writings under a high degree of community constraint.

The Scope/Extent of Textuaï Representation

Having considered the expectations with regard to the role of background on the text/author, the second task is to determine the scope/extent of the textual representation that is expected by contemporary scholarship of early Patristic texts. Assessed as literary texts, is it appropriate to expect that the ideas represented in the text extend much beyond that of the author?

To get a sense of the scope/extent of textual representation expected, the work of Timothy Barnes and Frederik Wisse will be surveyed. Both of these scholars have worked extensively with Patristic texts and reflected on the issues involved in determining a textts genre and the relation between genre and the historical situation in which the text was written. Eames is credited with new perspective on Tertullian (Wagner 1994:188; Rankin 199S:xiv-xvii; Hoffman 1995:146; Osbom 1997:27) which has emerged as the dominant view among critical scholarship (Sider 1982, 1997). Wisse was the first to point out the differences between the characterizations of the gnostics by the proto-orthodox heresiologists and the gnostics own views as witnessed in the Nag Hammadi texts discovered in 1945 (Logan 1996:~~). His warning against expecting ta find a well-defined gnostic sect behind each of the writings cited and countered in the heresiological lists has also become standard among critical scholars of gnosticism (Perkins 1980:78; MacRae 1987~175;Pearson 1990:23; Ehrman 1997:164) as well as of Irenaeus (Donovan 1984; Clark 1997) . Both Tertullian and Irenaeus wrote heresiological material aimed at refuting Christian teaching that they felt was incorrect and misleading. How do Barnes and Wisse assess the relationship between the sects and the way that Tertullian and Irenaeus write about them in their heresiological texts? A survey of how Barnes and Wisse evaluate the scope/extent of textual representation in the writings of Tertullian and Irenaeus will be useful for resetting appropriate default expectations for Christian texts prior to 150.

Timothy Barnes1s 1971 study (republished 1985) on Tertullianls historical and literary context has become a classic and often-cited work. Probably this is because of the iconoclastie nature of Barnes1s study. Barnes spends a good deal of time dismantling the legendary profile that has developed around Tertullian based on the accounts of Eusebius and Jerome. His work is pertinent to our question because while we are not primarily interested in Tertullianls profile, we are interested in how representative the textual details are expected to be .

As has been noted above, Eusebiusl use of Tertullian was confined to citations fxom Tertullianls Apologeticum. Barnes further observes that the references appear to be used simply to document "certain facts or alleged facts for which he has little or no better evidenceN (1985:6). In Barnes ' s evaluation, this is not surprising since "Eusebius had little interest in the development of Christianity in the western half of the Roman Empire, except when it impinged on the eastern half (1985:5) .

Not only is Eusebius' account questionable, but Barnes (1985:ll) argues that scholarship on Tertullian has given far too much weight to Jerome's report of Tertuilian. Apparently, Jerome's sources were only Eusebius' and Tertullian's writings themselves to which he added personal reflections (1985:S). Thus, Jeromets assertions that Tertullian was a priest and a trained lawyer may only be matters of speculation based not on external evidence but on inferences from the writings themselves

(1985:lO),

Furthermore, Barnes (1985: 30 ) contends that just as alrnost nothing of Tertuilian's life can be known, so too al1 attempts to set his many writings in chronological order based on their content are very precarious. For later Christianity, it has been important to try to figure out which writings came from his Montanist period--presumably so they could be avoided since they would be l heretical . '

Traditionally, the chronology of Tertullian's writings is based on three premises, each of which Barnes (1985:31) claims is false. Barnes argues that since Tertullian was not a priest in Carthage, al1 his sermonic material need not be limited to a period from 200 to 206. Neither is his anti-Rome polemic necessarily directed at Callistus who was bishop of Rome from 217 to 222. As a result, neither must his Montanist material nor his attack on Rome (De hrdicitia) be dated Ca. 220. Moreover, his writings on martyrdom should not be restricted to particular periods of persecution.

To show just how uncertain the traditional chronological framework is, Barnes (198543) sets up an experiment. The test that Bames devises shows the arbitrariness of classifying Tertullianls writings based on their doctrinal or ideological content. Barnes identifies eight ideas or expressions which are distinctive to so-called Montanist belief (references to Montanus, New Prophecy, ecstasy, Holy Spirit, etc.). Then he surveys al1 32 of Tertullian's extant writings for traces of these eight ideas. Isolating Tertullian's treatises which exhibit one or more of these eight IMontanist1 ideas generates a list with significant omissions. Apparently those writings which are assumed to be later (during his Montanist period) actually show few traces of these eight Montanist ideas !

Barnes sumarizes the results of his test as follows: The degree to which a treatise is permeated by Montanism does not by itself afford a sure indication of its approximate place in the Tertullianic corpus. Tertullian was too accomplished a pleader to allow any hint of differences between Christians to spoil an argument addressed to pagan audience. Thus Ad Scapulam of 212 reads very much like a précis of the Apologeticum of many years earlier.., So far as concerns its content, therefore the Ad Scapulam could be contemporary with (or even later than) the violent denunciations of catholic Christians for immorality which fil1 so much of the De Jejunio (1985:44-45).

Thus, even after Tertullian became a Montanist (206) he could still write something in 212 without traces of Montanist ideology. This suggests that a move from a literary text to history is not that clear. In the older chronologies. the 212 document (Ad Scapulam) is seen as the end of his pre-Montanist days, Based on this assumption, al1 his Montanist writings were placed af ter this date. In Barnes's alternative chronology, the 212 document is the last extant treatise of Tertullian. This means the writings from Tertullian's Montanist period date from 206 to 212, Even during this time, however, he could write something that is proto-orthodox in content.

Barnes's observation is significant because it challenges earlier views of what a text is evidence for or how representative a text is. Barnes's expectations for placing a text include a much lower degree of representation. Even expecting texts to be reflective of an author's known ideological shifts is not secure. Barnes's analysis shows just how arbitrary such judgements are. If this is the case, it can only be more problematic to infer from a literary text the ideological tri 8 k of his pagan erudition to defend and to propagate what he considered to be the truth (1985:210).

In the end, Barnes concludes that Tertullian has been rnisunderstood. "Tertullian was a creative writer. Not for him the insipid imitation of established canons, the slavish application of traditicnal rhetorical preceptsw (1985:2l9) . Instead, according to Barnes (1985:S3l) , Tertullian was a Christian Sophist who inadvertently showed by his persuasive rhetoric that his pagan intellectual inheritance was compatible with his new faith.

Barnests study illustrates the low degree of representation that he assumes to be operative in the text. In other words, for Barnes, the text gives access to not much more than the author's ideas, and even this is not completely transparent. This being said, he does not even consider whether Tertulliants literary texts could refer unambiguously to their generating historical situation ideologically distinct school, or community. For Barnes, such and expectation would be inappropriate.

Frederik Wisse has written extensively (1971, 1972, 1978, 1983, 1986, 1992) on early Christian texts with a special concern for their genre and the implications for historical reconstruction. Wissets 1971 article entitled The Nag Hammidi Library and the Heresiologists, argues that the reconstructions of the gnostic sects based on heresiologists like Irenaeus, have been undermined by the gnostic writings themselves found in the Nag Hammadi library. His aim is to explain the lack of significant overlap between the heresiological descriptions of the gnostic sects and what the gnostic sectarians wrote about themselves (the Nag Hammadi texts) . While Wisse's concern is to document the misrepresentation of gnosticism by proto-orthodox heresiologists, his work is relevant to our interest in the legitirnacy of the move backward from a literary text to its generating historical situation.

Wisse begins by rnaking two observations. First, the early proto-orthodox heresiologists sometimes give contradictory descriptions of the so-called Iheretical' sects. Wisse notes that "where the heresiologists appear to have independent accounts there are inexplicable and most improbable disagreements in their descriptions of the same sectol (1971:207).

Second, the heresiologistsl accounts were not dispassionate descriptions but must be seen as rhetorical compositions which may have misrepresented the views described. According to Wisse: The Fathers had a special axe to grind in their accounts. They were overly eager to prove that the heretics did not derive their doctrines from Scripture or the apostolic tradition but rather from pagan sources such as Greek philosophy, oriental cults, or the arch-heretic Simon Magus. To prove such a point, a passionate polemicist, even if he was a saintly bishop, would not be above playing fast and loose with the evidence (1971:207).

Wbether intentional or not, the rnisrepresentation came from the heresiologists' practice of systematizing the gnostic sects in terms of dogma and teaching. The problem is that the evidence from the Nag Hammadi library does not confirm these systematizations. As Wisse says, "not only does the collection itself show an amazing variety of writings but also individual tractates place together opinions and myths which, according to the heresiologists, belonged to different sectsI1 (1971:209) .

Wisse explains these observations in the two ways. First, he accounts for discrepancy between the heresiological descriptions and the gnosticsl own writings in the Nag Hamrnadi Library by pointing to the sources likely available to Irenaeus. These included previous heresiological accounts which sometimes were freely expanded on the basis of inferences, direct or indirect contact with one or more 'heretics,' and literatuxe that came in to hands of the heresiologist which was assumed to represent the teaching of a specific sect (1971:216) . Wisse explains further: in irenaeus' account of the disciples of Valentinus we do not see the sects from the inside but from the outside, as they want to appear in their missionary effort. When we subtract the Scriptural prooftexts, we are left with a system which could hardly have been derived from Christian teachings. It would not have drawn the ire of Irenaeus had it not claimed to be the true interpretation of Scripture (1971:216).

Second, Wisse accounts for the misrepresentation by pointing out the fallacy that governed the heresiologistsl systematization of the gnostic sects. The fallacy was to read the gnostic texts with too high a degree of representation. The texts were wrongly assumed to be representative of a particular sectls ideology. They are better thought of as "mystical, poetryN written by creative individuals whose only unifying element appears to have been ascetic morality* Wissels trenchant observation is that: Their fatal mistake--and ours--was to assume that Gnostic sects found their cohesion in a set of doctrines which were expressed in their tractates. They took the Gnostic writings to be compendia of theology or credos of the sects. If the Nag Hammadi find has done anything, it has been to expose this misconception (1971: 219) .

Furthemore, Wisse (1971: 222) argues that because the gnostic sects did not organize themselves around doctrine, they did not refer to themselves as Valentinians, Marcionites, or Basilides. They did not see themselves as Protestant lldenominationsll!Instead, Wisse claims they distinguished themselves in the following way : [The distinction wasl between the pneumatikoi, those who possessed gnosis, and the rest of mankind. How inappropriate it would have been for thern to think of themsefves as Valentinians or Basilideans! Nowhere in the extant Gnostic writings are those founders put up as examples or are their words specifically quoted. Only the heresiologists had a motivation to 'divide and conquerH' (1971:222) .

The heresiologists were victorious. By the third century, the proto-orthodox Christians did gain in strength to such a degree that ''these Gnostics groups were isolated and died out or were swallowed up by a new, Gnostic, world religion, Manichaeismw (Wisse 1971:223).

Like Barnes's study of Tertullian's writings, Wisse's analysis of Irenaeus' heresiological texts also shows a noticeably low degree of representation. Typicai of writings of a literary genre they are presumed to be representative of the author1s ideas, misguided or otherwise. For Wisse, these texts do not function as documentary evidence for the beliefs and practices of the gnostic sects they presume to describe.

Having surveyed the contributions of Barnes and Wisse the scholarly expectations for situating Patristic texts can now be recorded. Based on the scho1a.r~surveyed, there is essentially a low expectation for recovering the situation that generated the text from the details found in the text itself. The reason for this pessimism is that these second-century religious texts are not assumed to be more than representative of the author's own ideas, speculations, and reflections. The text is not evaluated as a documentary product reflecting a communityls particular situation, but rather as a literary product typical of an idiosyncratic author.

Thus, working from the assumption of the textls literary nature, scholarship on early Patristic literary texts does not expect that the scope/extent of the textual representation necessarily extends beyond that of the author. This expectation resets the default expectation. The degree of textual representation is expected to be low .

Not only are the default expectations reset, but the expectations of Patristic scholarship further substantiates the inappropriateness of the expectations held by some contemporary NT scholars. With regard to textual representation, the expectations of NT and Patristic scholarship are diametrically opposed. As we saw in Chapter One, contemporary NT scholarship generally assesses the representative nature of details or anomalies in the textual argument as high. For some NT scholars, textual details like Hebrewsl silence regarding the destruction of the Temple, and particular textual arguments like Jesus' Melchizadekian high priesthood, are thought to be generated unambiguously by the historical situation. Patristic scholars, however, are more ready to acknowledge the ambiguity of the generating circumstances. They are quick to point out that if the text represents anything, it would only be the author's rhetoxical aims, as the heresiologist's distorted description of the gnostic sects has made clear.

Thus, contemporary NT scholarship's expectation that early Christian texts are highly representative of the generating situation is shown to be inappropriate. The expectations of Patristic scholarship have reset the default expectation; early Christian literary texts should not be expected to have a textual representation that extends beyond that of the author.

The Specificity of the TextmsAudience/Destinatfon

With the expectations of the background and of the referential character examined, the third task is to ascertain how particular the audience aüdressed in early Patristic texts is perceived to be by contemporary scholarship. Assessed as literary texts, is it appropriate to expect that the profile of the textls audience can be reconstructed on the basis of the style and argumentation of the text? When is it appropriate to expect that a literary text is addressed to a specific audience?

The specificity of the audience profile is yet another way to measure scholarshipts assessrnent of the textïs genre. As has been already noted, the expected degree of audience-particularity is mainly about discerning how much or how little scholars make of the details that are interna1 to the early Patristic writings. The expectations regarding the referential nature of a literary text determine the level of confidence with which the profile of the audience is reconstructed.

For this third category, the expectations of Mark S. Burrows (for Tertuïlian ' s Apologeticum) and Louis Roberts (for Clementls Stromateis) will be examined. Each of these two scholars has paid particular attention to the relationship between the literary form of these texts and their function both in terms of author and audience. Their expectations are also fairly typical of those that guide much of Patristic scholarship on Tertullian (Sider 1971, 1982, 1997; Barnes 1985; Wagner 1994; Rankin 1995; Hoffman 1995; Osborn 1997) and on Clement (Wagner 1968, 1971, 1997; Osborn 1983; Van den Hoek 1988; Pearson 1990; Dawson 1992; Bueil 1999). Thus, their expectations will be useful for resetting appropriate default expectations for audience particularity.

Mark Burrowsïs 1988 article argues that Tertulliants best known writing, the Apologeticum, is much more than a narrowly defined defense of Christianity addressed to the Roman government. In other words, Burrows's objective is to establish that Tertullian's apology was intended to have a wider audience than the Roman officials narned at the outset. While it is clear that Burrows's aim is to demonstrate the rhetorical artfulness of Tertullian's strategy, Burrowsls work is also relevant to our probe into the scholarly expectations of audience particularity.

According to Burrows, Tertuilianls Apologeticum "must be understood as a treatise on origins--the origin of ChristianityIB (1988:210). Instead of simply defending Christianity against the various Roman accusations, TertuIlian "also forwards a positive argument, a startling 'retorsion' [retaliation] of the Roman indictment which underscored the constructive role of Christianity in and for Roman societyIv (1988:210).

Tertullianls aim to speak to a wider public is made evident by the rhetorical tools he ernploys in arguing his case. He lfadvancesa full-fledged philosophy of history, one which exposes what he calls 'the darkness of antiquity' (iv.7) by accounting for the rise (and demise) of Roman morality, law, and religionN (1988: 211) .

Burrowsls notes three steps in ~ertuilian'spersuasive speech. First, Tertullian puts the Roman anti-Christian legislation into the broader framework of history and argues instead that it is the Romans, not the Christians, who are "despisers of 'ancestral tradition1" (1988:218). Second, Tertullian shows that Moses was older than Roman religion and thus it is the Romans who are subject to the charge of novelty. Third, Tertullian demonstrates "retorsion at its bestw by flipping the apologetic front one which began as "an explanation of how Christians are to live under Roman lawn to "how Romans are to live under Godls judgmentI1 (l988:229) .

Burrowsls main point is that Tertullian applied the Nclassical traditions of rhetoric with consummate skill, heeding Quintilianls advice above al1 else to state his case by calling upon historical evidenceu (1988:230). Like other rhetorically crafted early Christian apologies that appear to be addressed to a limited audience, Burrowsls models how inappropriate it is to take these limitations at face value.

Burrowsts article is important because it shows the kind of expectations Patristic scholars have for identifying the readership (even when they are apparently identified!) . According to Burrows: Tertullianls Iaudiencel1therefore, is not only that of the 'magistrates of the Roman empire, as he claims at the outset. Rather, he is here entering into discourse with a diverse gathering of outstanding historians, encyclopedists, and rhetors of antiquity, including Varro and Tacitus, Cicero and Quintilian, and, of course, Josephus. Tertullian draws upon the rhetorical models of his Roman forebears, but he applies them to the task of Christian apologetics, defining the texture of that genre primarily in terms of historiographical basis (1988:231) .

The fact that Tertullian addresses particular Roman leaders is almost incidental and could be ignored without impacting the understanding of the treatise. In other words, the interpretation of a religious text is not dependent on the identification of a particular audience. In spite of its apparently specific audience, Patristic scholarship does not expect the intended readership to be that limited. For Burrows, Tertullian's Apologeticum is a piece of "forensic rhetoricu aimed at persuading the general Greco-Roman public. Thus, even when a limited audience is specified in an early Christian apologetic text, this is not enough for Patristic scholarship to expect that the intended audience was actually that narrowly defined.

The Literary Fom of the Stromateis is the title of Louis Roberts's 1981 article on Clement's puzzling tapestry of literary sketches. Like Burrows, Roberts too is interested in using the insights of ancient literary forms, this time to situate Clement's patch-work collection of topics. Roberts's work also bears on Our research question because his analysis of the form of Clement's Stromateis reveals the expectations he has for the author and the audience. His examination of the text and its literary form will indicate whether it is appropriate to expect a limited audience if none is specif ied.

Roberts begins by reviewing the problems raised by the literary form of Clementls Stromateis and the various proposals for explaining it . Previously, scholars have accounted for the form of the Stromateis as follows: notes for a later textbook, or notes of dialogues and discussions, or even the record of a dialogue with himself in the flow of a Stream of consciousness (1981:211-12; see Wagner 1968) .

Each of these explanations, however, does not capitalize on the insights from ancient literary forms. According to Roberts, Clementls Stromateis with its jumbled collection of topics and ideas, resembles the books of Aulus Gellius and Macrobius ( 198 1 :2 12 ) . These authors invented ingenious titles (Meadows, Honeycombs, Carpet-bags, etc.) for their carefully written compositions of various and apparently indiscriminate learning . A considerable amount of effort was required on the part of the reader in order ta acquire the knowledge contained in the book. Evidently, this was al1 part of the purpose. Roberts cites Clementls own acknowledgement of this literary form among the Greeks: Our Miscellanies therefore make no pretence of order or of choice diction, seeing that in this kind of composition the Greeks purposely object to over- sweetness of style, and sow their doctrines secretly and not in a plain unmistakable manner, seeking to exercise the diligence and ingenuity of the readers (Stromateis 7.111) .

Roberts contends that Clement employed this particular literary form because of the purpose he wanted to achieve in the lives of his readers. The reader, according to Roberts, was "to accomplish one of the three interrelated

purposes of the Stroma teis : ( 1) conservation and restoration of gnostic doctrine [as opposed to heretical gnostic views]; (2) apologetics; (3) initiation into true gnosistr (1981:213) . In this way the 'kindling sparkst embedded in the Stromateis would be ignited and generate true esoteric knowledge.

Clement, according to Roberts, had a special view of literature. For Clement, "the text is a veil before a mystery which [he] invites his reader to lift aside" (1981:220) . To construct this form, he played with the multiple senses words could signify. Then, he expected his readers to work with him in digging for the truth he wished to communicate. There was an underlying logic or system that emerged as the reader struggled to link the topics which at the surface seemed unrelated. Using ernphasis, recollection, and implication, the underlying logic was gradually elucidated for the dedicated and active reader. Roberts explains as follows: [Clement] believed in the multiple senses of texts. Even words which could be ambiguous or equivocal carried for him a meaning which the reader had to L make an effort to discover .... He expects his reader to follow carefully the course of the argument and to look for both the obvious and hidden transitions which unite the kephalaia [topics] . ... [He] believed an active reader could penetrate to the true dynamism of the Logos, the same power which provides growth to the flowers and trees in the meadow (1981:219, 221) .

In the end, Roberts (1981:220) notes that the literary form depended far too much on a theory of implication to achieve lasting popularity. Since it was only finished in the act of performance, when the reader actively brought the topics into systematic union, there was a risk in employing this art form. Thus, because it demanded so much of the reader, it did not secure lasting favor with literary authors nor with readers. Jerome reports of another Strornateis, by Origen, that is no longer extant (Epistulae 70.4). Evidently, it too proved to be of limited usefulness.

The observations that Roberts makes are significant for our problematic for three reasons. First, Roberts's explanation fox the literary form of Clement's Stroma teis, while diff erent from the traditional explanations, still shares with them no interest in discerning the identity of the intended reader. The scholarship is uniform in focusing on Clement and trying to understand his purpose. The specific identity of the intended readers (geographic, ideological, etc.) has not presented a problem. No one has inferred that the intended readers must have been a special group. Such an expectation appears to be inappropriate.

Second, while there is no specific reading community in view, Clement does have certain expectations of his readers. Roberts shows how Clement's high expectations of his readerls abilities are part of his pedagogical purpose and are demonstrated in the jurnbled literary form of his Stromateis. These great expectations, however, are not limited to one particular focale. Clement aimed his Stroma teis at the Greco-Roman public interested in philosophical and religious ref lection . He had great hopes of influencing and persuading others (anyone) of his view of true knowledge.

Third, the fact that Clement chose to employ this type of writing which was in vogue (briefly) in the Greco-Roman literary culture of the day means that he aimed at a public readership. The act of publishing indicates that a general audience was in view.

With the above survey of the arguments by Burrows and Roberts the scholarly expectations for situating the audience of early Patristic texts cari now be identified. The scholaxship exhibits a low expectation that the profile of the audience is particular and recoverable from the textual details unless otherwise specified. The reason for this pessimism is that these scholars assume that texts like Tertullian's Apologeticm and Clementms Stromateis were intended for lpublicationmand therefore, directed at a general audience. As any literary product, its target was public--in this case, a public interested in reflection on Christianity. Thus, the intended readership is not expected to be lirnited to a well- defined sub-group within Christianity. The readership is expected to have a general configuration.

Thus, given scholarshipms assessment of the literary character of early Patristic texts, the expectation is that the audience was originally an unrestricted and undefined public having some interest in Christian reflection. Patristic scholarship does not expect that these texts (ca. 150-200) were addressed to or shaped by specific sectors of Christianity, but instead addressed to Christians in general. This resets the default expectations for the specificity of a Christian literary textms audience/destination. The degree of audience particularity is expected to be low.

Furthermore, by resetting the de-fault expectations, the inappropriateness of the expectations of some contemporary NT scholars is confirmed. Considering the audience particularity, the expectations of NT and Patristic scholarship are once again divergent. Contemporary NT scholarship tends to assume a particular audience unless there is direct evidence to the contrary. Patristic scholarship, however, assumes the audience to be general unless there is direct evidence to the contrary. For some NT scholars, the peculiarities of the textual argument like Hebrewsl christology and ecclesiology, are specific answers to specific problems and mixror the historical situation in which the text was composed. Patristic scholarship, however, is more prone to view early Christian literary texts as intended for general or public consumption (a small Christian reading public and the larger listening public) without necessarily one particular community or problem in focus.

Thus, contemporary NT scholarship's expectation that the readership of early Christian texts is highly particular and originally limited to a specific Christian community, is shown to be inappropriate. Patristic scholarship has reset the default the expectations; the intended audience of early Christian literary texts should not be expected to be highly particular.

Conclusions

The above survey of the scholarly expectations shows that the advances scholarship introduced in the nineteenth century have also shaped contemporary Patristic scholarship. The Patristic scholars surveyed also work with the basic assumptions of diversity and conflict within second-century Christian history. Also, the basic categories of rhetoric and paraenesis within second- century Christian literature are assumed. The investigations into the heresiological writings of Irenaeus (Wisse 1971), the polemical tracts of Tertullian (Barnes 1985; Burrows 1988), and Clementts special instruction in Christian gnosis (Van den Hoek 1988; Buell 1997, 1999) and sophisticated literary style (Roberts 1981), al1 proceed fxom the starting point of diversity and appreciation for literary and rhetorical form. Within a heterodox context of competing visions of Christianity, Patristic scholarship is quick to highlight Irenaeus' bent for systematization and appeal to treason' (Wisse 1971; 1986), Clementts powerful and esoteric teaching technique (Roberts 1981; Bue11 1997, 19991, and Tertulliants provocative rhetorical skills (Barnes 1985; Burrows 1988).

Contemporary Patristic scholars, however, have not subscribed to the Overbeckian legacy as contemporary scholars have. The Overbeckian legacy which was to privilege early Christian literature as a nonliterary community product, has not found favor with Patristic scholarship. Given that external evidence exists to control expectations for second-century Patristic texts, scholarship has been reluctant to set aside the expectations normally associated with literary texts. The power that these literary expectations have to correct those exhibited by contemporary NT scholarship can now realized.

The following conclusions can now be listed. First, the expectations that contemporary scholars have for situating Patristic texts to 200 confirm the expectations that are appropriate for literary texts in general. These scholars exhibit a low expectation of retrieving from a literary text a clear and dependable profile of the author's community setting, the occasion of the text, or the audience of the text.

Second, contemporary scholars of early Patristic texts do not expect the representation for these later texts to extend much beyond the views of the authors themselves. ~huq,it would be inappropriate to expect anything more representative in an earlier, less stable period without unambiguous evidence of their essential docurnentary nature.

Third, since the grounds for assuming Hebrews' nonliterary nature have been shown to be insufficient, the expectations scholars have for situating Patristic literary texts to 200 can function to guide expectations that are appropriate for situating Hebrews as well.

Applying these literary expectations to Hebrews, the riddle of Hebrews' lack of commity-fit which defined our thesis problem, can now be evaluated. CONCLUSION

The thesis investigation began with the riddle of Hebrews. In its most recent variation, some NT scholars have labelled Hebrews enigmatic because it is not clear into which early Christian comunity Hebrews fits. The contention of this thesis has been that the riddle of Hebrewsl lack of community-fit turns on the laxger issue of contemporary NT scholarshipls efforts to situate early Christian texts in history.

1 have argued that the riddle of Hebrews' lack of community-fit is symptomatic of serious conceptual flaws in post-nineteenth-century NT scholarship. Contemporary NT scholarshipls genre assessment of early Christian literature since Overbeck (nonliterary and occasional) has led to a wide spectrum of inconclusive reconstructions. The lack of consensus casts doubt on the methodological appropriateness of ruling out Hebrewsl literary nature (argued in Chapter One) . Furthermore, the assumption that an early Christian text must necessarily be controlled by a community ideology and reflect unambiguously a particular occasion and destination has been shown to be unwarranted (argued in Chapter Three). Finally, the probability of Hebrewsl essential literary character rneans that the expectations that Patristic scholarship has for its literary texts (identified in Chapter Four) can be used to establish those expectations that are appropriate for Hebrews as well. In the Introduction to the thesis, two expressions of the current version of the riddle of Hebrews were noted. These can now be evaluated. Perrin says: The letter to the Hebrews is extraordinarily difficult to fit into any survey of the New Testament. Like Melchizedek of whom it speaks, it is "without father or mother or genealogytl (Heb 7 :3) , and we would be tempted to add also "without offspring.I1 In the New Testament it has neither antecedents nor descendants and is not part of any movement; it is simply a text of such excellence that it forced its way into the canon of the New Testament (1982: 137) .

Perrin acknowledges that "Hebrews is extraordinarily difficult to fit into any survey of the New Te~tarnent.~~ Based on the argument of this thesis, Perrin's assessment fails not because he credits Hebrews with idiosyncrasy, but because he finds this abnormal. Why should it be surprising for Hebrews, and not so for Paul? Perrin's surprise can only be explained if the creative period of Chxistianity is presumed to be limited to the first generation, after which the situation became frozen in terms of a limited number of distinct ideological communities. Such an assessment, however, has been shown in this thesis to be without basis and questionable.

Since probability has been shown to rest with Hebrewsl literary character, an idiosyncratic text without a genetic pedigree is not unusual. When Hebrews is read as van den Hoek, van den Broek, Bueil, Barnes, Wisse, Burrows, Roberts, and other scholars read Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement of Aiexandria, then Hebrews ' idiosyncratic character is not surprising. Hebrews does not represent an extraordinary case. Instead, it should be characterized as a normal literary product by a talented individual aimed at a general Christian audience.

Lindarsls presentation of the current version of the riddle of Hebrews, can also now be appraised. Lindars says : The people addressed in Hebrews cannot be identified with any of the main groups of Christians known to us in the New Testament. They are not Pauline Christians and they are not Johannine Christians, and they do not belong to the mother church in Jerusalem. In Hebrews we have a glimpse into a segment of earliest Christianity unknown from other sources (1991:2).

Lindars also testifies to the difficulty in finding an early Christian community in which to fit Hebrews. While Perrin finds Hebrews extraordinary, Lindars finds Hebrews to be evidence for a yet unknowri early Christian community. In view of the argument of this thesis, Lindarsls assessrnent flounders because it too is based on an inappropriate expectation. Hebrews need not represent a yet unknown "segment of earliest Christianity." Instead, it has been shown that it is inappropriate to expect that an essentially literary text like Hebrews represents anyone other than the author. Conternporary Patristic scholarship confirms the appropriate expectations. Without unambiguous textual evidence to the contrary, the appropriate expectation would be that we are dealing with a gifted early Christian rhetor writing to persuade a general Christian audience.

Thus, the thesis is demonstrated; it is inappropriate to expect that Hebrews represents ideas that extend beyond those of the author to a specific community or to a particular situation given the probability of Hebrewsl literazy character.

If this demonstration of Hebrews' probable literary character has been convincing, there are two implications that follow. First, it follows that the expectations that Patristic scholars have for situating pre-200 Christian literary texts should be normal for NT literary writings as well. This means that the expectations for situating early Christian literature before 200, including Hebrews, need to be revised.

Default Expectations for Early Christian Literature

The expectations which historians use for situating early Christian literature can no longer be guided by the assumption that pre-150 Christian literature is necessarily nonliterary and occasional without corroborating internal evidence. The scholarly expectations for situating Patristic literature to 200 function as default expectations which cannot be set aside without supporting evidence. Therefore, the default expectations for the role of the background influences on the author, the scope and extent of textual representation, and the particularity of the audience can now be identified.

By default, the expectation for situating the author of early Christian literature should be that the author is a creative individual who appropriated the available sources arbitrarily with low community constraints. Efforts to locate the author as a spokesperson of a particular ideological community or school are legitimate only if warranted by internal or external evidence.

This means, for example, that Hebrews' peculiar christological reflection on Jesust priesthood after the order of Melchizedek (Heb 7.1-28) and the explanation of the sacrificial death of Jesus in terms of the Day of Atonement (Heb 8.1-10.18) do not require special communitarian explanation. Without evidence to the contrary, peculiar religious content is adequately explained by the rhetorical capabilities and airns of the author.

By default, the expectation for situating an early Christian literary text (most everything except Paul's authentic letters) should be that it is rhetorically persuasive literature with a low degree of textual representation. On the continuum of ancient literature, it should be located among the literary products and not with the documentary products, unless there is good supportive evidence.

In the case of Hebrews, the letter-like conclusion (Heb 13.22-25) is not enough evidence to switch the evaluation of the whole text from a literary product to a documentary product. The presence of a minor documentary framework in a text dominated by a literary character, is not adequate to transform Hebrews into a highly representative document giving access to a distinct ideological community. The attached letter-like conclusion is sufficiently explained by the nature of early Christian polemic and exhortation in the heterodox environment before orthodoxy was established.

By default, the expectation for locating the audience of an early Christian literary text (most everything except Paul's authentic letters), should be that it is intended for a general readership with a low degree of audience particularity. Given early Christian literature's default classification as a literary product, the text's aim of appealing to a public must be recognized. Without unambiguous references, the audience of an early Christian literary text should not be limited to a particular Christian community. For Hebrews, this means that the hortatory material in chapter thirteen should not be read as a concrete indicator of particular occasioning circumstances in a specific community. There is no unambiguous evidence that warrants an overly precise definition of the audience. The imperatives given in chapter thirteen are satisfactorily explained within the context of generic Christian paraenesis which was governed by the concern for religious and social self-definition.

Thus, the default expectations for situating the author, text, and audience in early Christian literature resume the standard expectations for situating a literary text. These default expectations are summarized as follows: Au thor ===> idiosyncratic individual ===> low conununity constraint

Text ===> literary product ===> low textual representation

===a general ===> low audience particularity

What about the Riddle?

The second implication flowing from the thesis argument is that the riddle of Hebrewsl lack of cornmunity-fit dissolves. Contemporary NT scholarshipts view that early Christian texts are nonliterary and therefore conform to distinct ideological communities, is reduced from a given to an exception. By taking seriously the probability of Hebrewsl essential literary character, the riddle vanishes. Applying literary default expectations does not render Hebrews enigmatic, but quite typical of early Christian literary texts.

Furthemore, the probability of Hebrews l literary character also raises questions about the contemporary scholarly assumption that other early Christian writings

(Matthew, John, James, etc. ) were shaped by and for ideologically distinct communities. Even if such communities existed, contemporary scholarship needs to accept the burden of proof.

Certainly Hebrews could have been community-generated, but the burden of proof needs to be reversed and placed back on the shoulders of those making the case for special community shaping. Without such evidence, the probability that Hebrews can take its place alangside other early Christian literary texts, should have first claim. The chances that Hebrews is the 'fingerprint' of a mysterious and otherwise unknown early Christian community are rernote. Given these odds, it is better to locate Hebrews as a persuasive literary effort by an idiosyncratic author directed to a general Christian audience. WORKS CITED

Aland, K. 1961 "The Problem of Anonymity and Pseudonymity in Christian Literature of the First Two Centuries." The Journal of Theoïogical Studies 12:39-49,

Anderson, C .P. 1966 "The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Pauline Collection. ln Harvard Theological Review 59 :429- 38.

1975-76 I1Hebrews among the Letters of Paul. " Studies in ~eligion/SciencesReligieuses 5:258-264. Atkinson, J. , trans . 1962 Lu fzher: Early Theological Works : Lectures on Hebrews. The Library of Christian Classics. Vol. 6 Ed. T.F. Torrance. Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press.

Attridge, H. W. 1989 The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Comentazy on the Epistle to the Hebrews. ~hiladelphia,PA: Fortress Press.

1990 If Paraenesis in a Homily (h'mR-&*) : The Possible Location of, and Socialization in, the 'Epistle to the Hebrewsl.ln Semeia 50:211-26.

Augustine De Civi tate Dei. See Sanford and Green.

Bachmann, E.T., trans. 1960 "Preface to the Epistle to the Hebrews. l1 Pp. 394-95 in Luther's Works. Vol. 35. Ed. H.T. Lehmann. 1st German ed. 1522. rev. ed. 1546. Philadelphia, PA: Muhlenberg Press.

Bardy, G. 1937 neAuorigines de 1 ' école dl~lexandrie. " Recherches de Science Religieuse 27 :65 -90 . Barnes, T.D. Constantine and Eusebius . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Tertullian: A Historical and Literary Study. Corrected ed. 1st published 1971. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Bauckham, R, 1998 The Gospels for Al1 Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audience. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Bauer , W. 1971 Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christiani ty. 2nd ed. Trans. R.A. Kraft, G. Krodel, et. al. 1st German ed. 1934. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press.

Baur, F.C. 1831 IlDie Christuspartei in der korinthischen Gemeinde, der Gegensatz des petrinischen und paulinischen Christenthurns in der altesten Kirche, der Apostel Petrus in Rom." Winger Zeitschrift für Theologie 4:61-206. Reprint pp. 1-146 in Ferdinand Christian Baur, AusgewShïte Werke in Einzelausgaben. Ed. K. Scholder. - Historisch-kritische Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament. Vol. 1. StuttgartBad Canstatt: Frommann, 1963. Exerpted on pp. 129-30 in KG. KÜmel, The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of Its Problems. 2nd ed. Trans. S.M. Gilmour and H.C. Kee. 1st German ed. 1958. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press,. 1972.

1851 IfDie Einleitung in das Neue Testament als theologische Wissenschaft." Pp. 291-329 in Theologische Jahrbücher. Vol. 10. Eds . F .C . Baur and E. Zeller. Exerpted on pp. 127-28 in W.G, Kümmel, The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of Its Problems. 2nd ed. Trans. S.M. Gilmour and H.C. Kee. 1st German ed. 1958. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1972. 1968 Epochs of Church Historiography. German ed. 1852. Trans. P.C. Hodgson. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Black, C.C. 1988 l'The Rhetorical Form of the Hellenistic Jewish and Early Christian Sermon: A Response to Lawrence Wills . Hanrard Theol ogical Review 81:l-18.

Bruce, F.F.

1962-63 'To the Hebrewsl or 'To the Essenes l?" New Testament Studies 9:217-32.

1990 The Epistle to the Hebrews. Revised ed. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Buchanan, G.W. 1972 To the Hebrews. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co.

1975 "The Present State of Scholarship on Hebrews." Pp. 299-330 in Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults. Vol. 1. Ed. J. Neusner. Leiden: E.J. Brill.

Buell, D.K. 1997 "Producinq Descent/~issent: Clement of Alexandria's Use of Filial Metaphors as Intra- Christian Polemic . Harvard Theological Review 9O:89-104.

1999 Making Christians: Clement of Alexandria and the Rhetoric of Legi timacy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Bulley, A.D. 1996 I1Death and Rhetoric in Hebrews 'hymn to faithW. Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses 25 :409-23.

Bultmann, R. 1958 Jesus Christ and Mythology. New York, NY: Charles Scribnerls Sons. 1963 The History of the synoptic Tradition. 2nd ed. Trans. J. Marsh. 1st German ed. 1921. New York, NK: Harper & Row.

Burridge, R. A. 1992 What are ~e mspels? A Cornparison wi th Graeco- Roman Biography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Burrows , M. S. 1988 "Christianity in the Roman Forum: Tertullian and the Apologetic Use of History . Vigilide Christianae 42 :SO9-235.

Butterworth, G.W., trans. 1919 Ciment of ~lexandria:The Exhortation to the Greeks. Loeb classical Library. New York, NY: G. P. Putnaml s Sons.

Butts, J., trans. 1987 The lfProgymnasrnataw of Theon: A New Text wi th Translation and Commentary. Ann Arbor, MI : University ~icrofilmsInternational.

Calvin, J. Hebrews. See Johnston.

Chadwick, H. 1966 Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition: Studies in Justin, Clement, and Origen. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

1993 The Early Chur&. Revised ed. London: ~enguin.

Caird, G.B. 1980 The Language and Imagery of the Bible. Reprinted with introduction by N.T. Wright in 1997. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Chrysostom, J. Homi li es on ~ebrews. See Gardiner. Clark, M.T. 1997 "Irenaeus.II Pp . 587-90 in Encyclopedia of Early Christianity. 2nd ed. Ed. E. Ferguson. New York, NY: Garland Publishing.

Clement of Alexandria Pai dagogos . See Wood. Protreptikos . See Buttemorth.

Stromateis. Books 1 to 3. See Ferguson.

Stromateis. Books 3 and 7. See Oulton,

Cosby, M.R. 1988 The Rhetorical Composi tion and Function of Hebrews Il: In Light of Example Lists in Antiqui ty. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press.

Culler, J. 1975 Structuralist Poetics: Structuralism, Linguistics and the Study of Li terature. Ithaca, NY: Corne11 University Press.

1997 Li terary Theory: A Very Short Introduction . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dahl, N.A. 1967 IfPaul and the Church at Corinth According to 1 Corinthians 1:l-4.21.If Pp. 313-35 in Christian History and Intezpretation: Studies Presented to John KRox. Eds. W.R. Farmer, et. al. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Daly, E.J., trans. 1950 Tertullian: Apology. The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation. Vol. 10. Eds. R.J. Deferrari, et. al. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press.

Dawson, D. 1992 Al1 egorical Readers and Cul tural Revision in Ancient Alexandria. Berkeley, CA: University of Calif ornia Press. Deissmann, A. 1927 Light from the Ancient East. 4th ed. Trans. L. Strachan. 1st German ed. 1908. London: Hodder and Stoughton.

DeSilva, D.A. 1995 Despising Shame : Honor Discourse and Communi ty Maintenance in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press.

Dibelius, M. 1935 From Tradition to Gospel. 2nd ed. Trans. B. L. Woolf. 1st German ed. 1919. New York, NY: Scribnerls Sons.

Donovan, M .A. 1984 Irenaeus in Recent Scholarship. l1 The Second Century 4 :219-41.

Donfried, K.P., ed. 1977 The Romans Debate. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Press.

Dubrow, H. 1982 Genre. London : Methuen .

Ehrman, B.D. 1993 The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Chris tological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

1997 The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

1998 The New Testament and Other Early Christian Writings: A Reader. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Eisenbaum, P.M. 1997 The Jewish Heroes of Christian History: Hebrews 11 in Literary Context. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press. Eusebius Historia Ecclesiastica. Books 1 to 5. See Lake.

Historia Ecclesiastica. Books 6 to 10. See Oulton and Lawlor.

Feldman, L.H., txans. 1965 Josephus : The Jewish Antiqui ties . Vol. 9. The Loeb Classical Library. Ed. E .H. Warmington. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Ferguson, J., trans. 1991 Clement of Alexandria: Stromateis: Books One to Tkee. The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation. Vol. 85. Eds. T.P. Halton, et. al. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of Arnerica Press.

Fowler, A. 1982 ends of Literature: An Introduction to the Theory of Genres and Modes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Fremantie, W.H., trans. 1887-94 Jerome: Letters and Selected Works. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. 2nd series. Vol. 6. Eds. P, Schaff and H. Wace. New York, NY: Christian Literature Co. Reprint Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1952-56.

Frend, W.H.C. 1984 The Rise of Christiani ty. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press.

Gamble, H.Y. 1995 Books and Readers in the Early Church: A Hiçtory of Early Christian Texts. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Gardiner, F ., trans . 1887-94 The Homilies of St. John Ckuysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. 1st series. Vol. 14. Ed. P. Schaff. New York, NY: Christian Literature Co. Reprint Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmaris Publishing Co., 1952-56.

Grant, R.M. 1967 After the New Testament. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press .

1980 Eusebius as Church Historian. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

1997 Irenaeus of Lyons. With translation of Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies: On the Detection and Refutation of Knowledge Falsely So Called) . London: Routledge.

Grasser, E. 1964 l'Der Hebrâerbrief 1938-1963 . Theologische Rundschau 30:138-236.

1965 Der Glaube im HebrSerbri ef . Marburg : N .G . Elwert Verlag . Greenslade, S.L., trans. 1956 Tertullian : The Prescriptions Agains t The Heretics. The Library of Christian Classics. Vol. S. Eds. J. Baillie, et. al. Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press.

Gunkel, H. 1964 The Legends of Genesis: The Biblical Saga and History. Trans. W.H. Carruth. 1st German ed. 1901. New York, NY: Schocken Books.

Guthrie, G.H. 1994 The Structure of Hebrews: A Text -Linguistic Analysis. Leiden: E.J. Brill.

Güttgemams, E. 1979 Candid Questions Concerning Gospel Form Cri ticism: A Methodological Sketch of the Fundamen ta1 Problema tic of Fom and Redac ti on Criticism. Trans. W.G. Doty. 1st German ed. 1970. Pittsburgh, PA: Pickwick Press. Hamack, A. 1900 "Probabilia Über die Adresse und den Verfasser des Hebraerbrief es. " Zei tschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaf t 1 :16-41.

Hatch, W.H.P. 1936 IfThe Position of Hebrews in the Canon of the New Testament .f1 Harvard Theol ogi cal Review

Henderson , 1. H . 1996 Jesus, Rhetoric arzd Law. Leiden: E.J. Brill.

Henry, M. 1995 Franz Overbeck : Theol ogian ? Re1 igion and History in the Thought of Franz Overbeck. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

Kirsch, E .D. 1967 Validity in Interpreta tion. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Hock, R.F. and E.N. OfNeil, trans. 1986 The Chreia in Ancient Rhetoric: The Propasmata. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press.

Hoffman, D.L. 1995 The Status of Women and Gnosticism in Irenaeus and Tertullian. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press.

Holms, P., trans. 1885-96 Tertullidn: The Five Books Against Marcion. The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Fathers dom to A.D. 325. Vol. 3. Eds. A. Roberts and J. Donaldson. Rev. A.C. Coxe. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Co. Reprint Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1951-56.

Howard, W.F. 1951 IlThe Epistle to the Hebrews . Interpreta tion 5:80-91. Hughes, P.E. 1989 "The Epistïe to the Hebrews." Pp. 351-70 in The New Testament and its Modem Interpreters. Eds. E.J. Epp and G.W. MacRae. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press ; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press . Hurst, L.D. 1990 The Epistle to the Hebrews: Its background of Though t . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press. Hurtado, L.W. 1990 "The Gospel of Mark: Evoiutionary or Revolutionary Doc~ment?~~Journal for the Study of the New Testament 40:15-32.

Irenaeus Adversus Haereses. See Grant Adversus Haereses . See Rousseau. Demons tra tio Praedicationis Apostolicae . See Smith.

Isaacs, M.E. 1992 Sacred Space: An Approach to the Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

1997 "Hebrews 13.9-16 Revisited.IV New Testament Studies 43 :268-84.

Jackson, J., trans. 1937 Taci tus: The Annals. Vol. 5. The Loeb Classical Library. Ed. G.P. Goold. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Jerome De Viris Illustribus. See Richardson.

Epistulae. See Fremantle.

Jewett, R. 1981 Letter to Pilgrims: A Comentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. New York, NY: Pilgrirn Press. W.G. IlThe Cultus of Hebrews in Twentieth-Century Sch~larship.~'Expositozy Times 89:104-08.

Johnston, W.B., trans. 1963 The Epistle of Paul The Apostle to the Hebrews and the First and Second Epistles of St. Peter. Calvin Commentaries. Vol. 12. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdrnans Publishing Co.

Josephus Antiqui ties. See Feldman.

A. An Introduction to the New Testament. Trans . J.P. Ward. 1st German ed. 1894. New York, NY: G.P. Putnamts Sons.

E. The Wandering People of God: An Investigation of the Letter to the Hebrews. Trans. R.A. Harrisville and I.L. Sandberg. 1st German ed. 1938. Mimeapolis, MN: Augsburg Press.

Keck, L. 1981 "1s the New Testament a Field of Study? or, From Outler to Overbeck and Backen The Second Century 1:19-35.

Kelber, W. 1983 The Oral and the Wri tten Gospel : the Hermeneu tics of Speaking and Wri ting in the Synoptic Tradition, '~ark,Paul, and Q. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press.

Kloppenborg, J. S. 1987 The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press.

1991 ItLiterary Convention, Self-Evidence and the Social History of the Q People." Semeia 55:77- 102. Koester, H. 1962 Il1Outside the Camp1: Hebrews 13.9-14," Harvard Theological Review 55:299-315.

1965 I1GNOMAI DIAFOROI: The Origin and Nature of Diversification in the History of Early Christianity . " Harvard Theological Review 58 :S79-318. Reprint pp. 114-57 in Trajectories Through Early Christidnity. Eds . J. M. Robinson and K. Koester. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1971.

1968 "One Jesus and Four Primitive Gospels." Harvard Theological Review 61:203-47. Reprint pp. 158- 204 in Trajectories Through Early Christianity. Eds. LM. Robinson and H. Koester. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1971.

1971 "The Intention and Scope of Trajectories." Pp. 269-79 in Trajectories through Early Chxistianity. Eds. LM. Robinson and K. Koester. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press.

1982 Introduction to the New Testament. 2 vols. Trans. H. Koester. 1st German ed. 1980. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press.

Kümmel, W.G. The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of Its Problems. 2nd ed. Trans. S.M. Gilmour an^ H.C. Kee. 1st German ed. 1958. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.

Introduction to the New Testament. Trans. HIC. Kee. From 17th German ed. 1973. Nashville, TN: Abingdon . Kuss, O. 1966 Der Brief an die Hebraer. Regensburg : Verlag Friedrich Pustet.

Lake, K., trans. 1926 Eusebius : Ecclesiastical History. Vol. 1. Loeb Classical Library, Eds. T.E. Page, et. al. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lane, W.L. 1991 Hebrews. 2 vols. Dallas, TX: Word Books. Le Saint, W. P. , trans . 1959 Tertullian: Treatises on Penance. Ancient Christian Writers: The Works of the Fathers in Translation. Vol. 28. Eds. J. Quasten and W.J. Burghardt. Westminster, MD: The Newman Press.

Lightfoot, J.B. 1892 "The Colossian Heresy. Pp. 71-111 in St. Paul s Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon. Revised ed. London : Macmillan. Reprint pp. 13-59 in Conflict at Colossae. Eds. F.O. Francis and W.A. Meeks. Missola, MT: Scholars Press, 1975.

Lindars, B. 1989 IlThe Rhetorical Structure of Hebrews." New Testament Studies 35 :382-406.

1991 The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Logan, A.H.B. 1996 Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy: A çtudy in the History of Gnosticism. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers.

Luther, M. Lectures on Hebrews. See Atkinson.

Vreface to the Epistle to the Hebrews." See Bachmann . D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe. Vols. 7 and 45. Weimar : K. Bdhlaus . Lyons, G. 1985 Pauline Autobiography: Toward a new Understanding. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press. Mack, B.L. 1988 Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins . Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press.

1990 Rhe toric and the New Tes tament Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress.

1993 The Lost Gospel : The Book of Q and Christian Origins. San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco.

Mack, B. L . and V. K. Robbins 1989 Patterns of Persuasion in the Gospels. Sonoma, CA: Polebridge Press.

MacRae, GoW. 1987 Studies in the New Testament and Gnosticisrn. Wilmington, DE: Michael Galzier.

Manson, T.W. 1949 "The Problem of The Epistle to the Hebrews." Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 32:l-17. Reprint pp. 242-58 in Studies in the Gospels and Epistles. Ed. M. Black. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1962. Manson, W . 1951 The Epistle to the Hebrews: An Historical and Theologi cal Reconsideration . London : Hodder and Stoughton.

Metzger, B.M. 1972 I8Litexary Forgeries and Canonical Pseudepigrapha." Journal of Biblical Literature 91:3-24.

Michaelis , J. D . 1823 Introduction to the New Testament. 4 vols. Trans. H. Marsh. From 4th German ed. 1788. London: F.C. & J. Rivington.

Mitchell, M.M. 1989 "Concerning PERI DE in 1 Corinthians . Nom Testamentm 31: 229-56. Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Ekegetical Investigation of the Language and Composi tion of 1 Corin thians . Tübingen : J .C .B. Mohr . Moule, C.F.D. 1982 The Birth of the New Testament. 3rd ed. 1st published 1962. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row . Nock, A.D. 1972 "Religious Symbols and Symbolism 1." Rev. of Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period 1-IV. By E.R. Goodenough. Gnomon 27 (1955) 558-72. Reprint in Essays on Religion and the Ancient World. 2 vols. Ed. 2. Stewart. Pp. 877-94. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Osborn, E. 1981 The Beginning of Christian Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

1983 Tlement of Alexandria: A Review of Research, 1958-1982. The Second Century 3 :219-44.

1997 Tertullian: First Theologian of the West. Cambridge: Cambridge Univeristy Press.

Oulton, J.E.L., trans. 1954 Alexan&-ian Christiani ty: Selected Translations of Clement and Origen. The Library of Christian Classics. Vol. 2. Eds. J. Baillie, et. al. Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press.

Oulton, J.E.L. and H.J. Lawlor, trans. 1932 Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History. Vol. 2. Loeb Classical Library, Eds. T.E. Page, et. al. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Overbeck, F. 1880 Zur Geschichte des Kanons. Chemnitz. Reprint Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1965. 1882 "Über die Anfàge der patristischen Literatur.I1 Historische Zei tschrift 48 :417-72. Reprint Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1966.

&ber die Christlichkei t unserer heu tigen Theologie, 2nd ed., 1st ed. 1873. Leipzig. Reprint Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1974.

Christentum und Kultur: Gedanken und Anmerkungen zur modernen Theologie. Basel. Reprint Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1963.

Pagels, E.H. 1979 The Gnostic Gospels. New York, NY : Randorn House.

Pearson, B.A. 1990 Gnosticism, Judaism, and Egyptian Christiani ty. Mimeapiois, MN: Fortress Press.

1997 vlEusebiusand Gnosticisrn. Pp. 147-68 in The Emergence of the Christian Religion: Essays on Early Christidni ty. B .A. Pearson. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International.

Perkins, P. 1980 The Gnostic Dialogue: The Early Church and the Crisis of Gnosticism. New York, NY: Pauïist Press.

Perrin, N. 1970 What is Redaction Criticism? Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press.

1982 The New Tes tament, an In troduction : Proclamation and Parenesis, Myth and History. 2nd ed. Revised by Dennis Duling. 1st published 1974. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

IgJesus and the Theology of the New Testament.Iv Journal of Religion 64~413-431. Pliny Letters. See Radice.

Quain, E.A., trans. 1959 Tertullian: The Apparel of Women. The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, Vol. 40, Eds. R.J. Deferrari, et* al. New York, NY: Fathers of the Church, Inc-

Quasten, J. 1950 Patrology, 4 vols, Utrecht: Spectrum.

Radice, B., trans. 1969 Pliny: The Letters of Pliny. Vol, 2 . The Loeb Classical Library, Eds. G.P. Goold. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Rarikin, D.I. 1995 Tertullian and the Church. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richardson, E.C., trans. 1887-94 Jerome: Lives of Illustrious Men. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. 2nd series. Vol. 3. Eds. P. Schaff and H. Wace. New York, NY: Christian Literature Co. Reprint Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1952-56.

Robbins, V.K, 1984 Jesus the Teacher : A Socio-Rhe tori cal Interpretation of Mark. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press.

1993 "Progymnastic Rhetorical Composition and Pre- Gospel Traditions: A new Approach." Pp. 111-47 in Synoptic Gospels: Source Criticism and the New Li terary Cri ticism. Ed. Camille Focant . Louvain: Louvain University Press.

1996a Exploring the Texture of Texts: A Guide to Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International. 1996b The Tapestry of Early Christian Discourse: Rhetoric, Society, and Ideology. New York, N'Y: Routledge.

Roberts, L.W. 1981 "The Literary Form of the Stromateis. The Second Century 1:211-22.

Robinson, J. M. 1964 I1LOGOI SOPHON: Zur Gattung der Spruchquelle Q." Pp. 77-96 in Zeit und Geschichte: Dankesgabe an Rudolf Bultmann zum 80. Geburtstag. Ed. E. Dinkler. Tübingen: 3.C.B. Mohr. Enlarged and trans, as pp. 71-113 in Trajectories through Early Christianity. Eds. J.M. Robinson and H. Koester. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1971.

1971 lîIntroduction:The Dismantling and Reassembling of the Categories of New Testament Scholarship: From Background to Trajectories." Pp. 1-19 in Trajectories through Early Chris timity. Eds . LM. Robinson and H. Koester. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press.

Robinson, J.M. and H. Koester 1971 Trajectories through Early Chris tiani ty, Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press.

Roeth, E.M. 1836 Epistolam vulgo "ad Hebraeos " inscrip tam non ad Hebraeos, id est Christianos genere Judaeos sed ad Christianos genere gentiles et quidem ad Ephesios datam esse demonstrare cona tur. Frankfurt am Main: Schmerber.

Rolfe, J.C., trans. 1960 The Lives of the Caesars: The Deified Claudius. Vol, 2. The Loeb Classical Library. Ed. E.H. Warmington. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Rousseau, A. , trans. 1984 Irénée de Lyon: Contre les Hérésies, Sources Chrétiennes. Vols. 100, 152-53, 210-11, 263-64, 293-94. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf.

Sanders, E.P. 1969 The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

1977 Paul and Pal es tinian Judaism : A Cornparison of Patterns of Religion. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press.

Sanders, E.P. and M. Davies 1989 Studying the Synoptic Gospels, London: SCM Press.

Sandmel, S. 1969 The First Christian Century in Judaism and Chris tiani ty: Certain ties and Uncertainties . New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

1974 A Jewish Understanding of the New Testament. Augmented ed. New York, NY: KTAV Publishing House.

Sanford, E.M. and W.M. Green, trans. 1965 Augustine: The City of God Against the Pagans. Vol. 5. Loeb Classical Library. Eds. T.E. Page, et. al. Cambridge, MA: Hanrard University Press.

Scobie, C.H.H. 1972-73 "The Origins and Development of Samaritan Christianity. 'l New Testament Studies 19 :390- 414.

Sider, R.D. 1971 Ancient Rhetoric and the Art of Tertullian. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

1982 "Approaches to Tertullian: A Study of Recent scholarship. The Second Century 2 :228 -60. 1997 ltTertui1ian.l1 Pp . 1107-09 in Encyclopedia of Early Christidni ty. 2nd ed. Ed. E. Ferguson. New York, NY: Garland Publishing.

Smith, J.P., trans. St. Irenaeus: Proaf of the Apostolic Preaching. Ancient Christian Writers: The Works of the Fathers in Translation. Vol. 16. Eds-. J. Quasten and J-C. Plumbe. New York, NY: Newman Press.

Snell, B. 1935 "Werner Jaeger : Paideia . G6ttingische gelehrte Anzeigen 197:329-53.

Spicq, C. 1951 "~lexandrinisrnesdans llÉpître aux Hébreux.I1 Revue Biblique 58:481-502.

~~gpîtreaux Hébreux. 2 vols. Paris: J. Gabalda .

I~LIÉpTtre aux Hébreux, Apollos, Jean-Baptiste, les Hellénistes et Qumran." Revue de Qumran l:365-90.

Stdhlin, O., trans. 1938 Clemens von Alexandreia. Vol. 7. Bibliothek der Kirchenvater. München: Verlag Josef Khel & Friedrich Pustet.

Suetonius Claudius. See Rolf e . Tacitus Annals. See Jackson.

Tertullian Adversus Marcionem. See Holms . Apologeticum, See Daly .

De Cultu Feminarum. See Quain. De Praescriptione Haereticorum, See Greenslade. De Pudici tia. See Le Saint.

Torrey, C.C. 1911 "The Authorship and Character of the So-called Epistle to the Hebrews '. " Journal of Biblical Literature 30:137-56.

Vaage, L. 1994 Galilean Upstarts: Jesusa First Followers According to Q. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International,

Van den Broek, R. 1995 "The Christian tSchoollof Alexandria in the second and third Centuries." Pp, 39-47 in Centres of Learning: Leaming and Location in Pre-Modern Europe and the Near East . Eds . J. W. Drijvers and A.A. MacDonald. Leiden: E.J. Brill.

Van den Hoek, A. 1988 Clement of Alexandria and his use of Philo in the Stroma teis: An Early Christian Reshaping of a Jewish Model. Leiden: E.J. Brill.

1996 "Techniques of Quotation in Clement of Alexandria: A view of Ancient Literary Working Methods. Vigiliae Christianae 50 :223-243.

1997 "The Tatechetical1 School of Early Christianity and its Philonic Heritage." Harvard Theol ogi cal Review 90 :5 9- 8 7 . Vanhoye, A. 1963 La Structure Littéraire de ~'Épftreaux Hébreux. Paris: Desciée de Brouwer.

Vielhauer, P. 1975 Geschichte der urchristlichen Literatur: Einlei tung in das Neue Testament, die Apokryphen und die Apostolischen Va ter. Berlin : Walter de Gruyter. Wagner, W.H. 1968 I1Another Look at the Literary Problem in Clement of Aïexandria's Major Writings." Church History 37 :S51-60.

1971 "A Fatherls Fate: Attitudes Toward and Interpretations of Clement of Alexandria." Journal of Religious History 6:209-31.

1994 After the Apostles: Christidni ty in the Second Century. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress.

1997 llClernentof Alexandria." Pp. 262-64 in Ehcyclopedia of Early Christianity. 2nd ed. Ed. E. Ferguson. New York, NY: Garland Publishing.

Watson, D.F. 1997 I1Rhetorical Criticism of Hebrews and the Catholic Epistles since 1978.11 Currents in Research: Biblical Studies 5:175-207.

Westcott, B.F. 1906 The Epistle to the Hebrews. 3rd ed. London: Macmillan Co.

Whitelam, K. W. 1998 "The Social World of the Bible." Pp. 35-49 in The Cambridge Cornpanion to Bibli cal Interpretation. Ed. J. Barton. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

Williamson, R 1970 Phil'o and the Epistle to the Hebrews. Leiden: E.J. Brill.

Wills, L. 1984 "The Form of the Sermon in Hellenistic Judaism and Early Christianity. Harvard Theological Review 77:277-99.

Wilson, R. McL. 1968 Gnosis and the New Testament. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Wisse, F. 1971 "The Nag Hammadi Library and the Heresiologists . Vigiliae Christianae 25 :205 - 23 ,

1972 "The Epistïe of Jude in the History of Heresiology. " Pp. 133-43 in Essays on the Nag Hanunadi Texts in Honor of Alexander B6hlig. Ed. M, Krause. Leiden: E.J. Brill.

1978 tlGnosticismand Early Monasticism in Egypt." Pp. 431-40 in Gnosis: Festschrift fer Hans Jonas. Ed. B. Aland. Gijttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht .

1983 IfProlegomena to the Study of the New Testament and Gnosis." Pp. 138-45 in The New Testament and Gnosis : Essays in honour of Robert McL. Wilson. Eds. A.H.B. Logan and A.J.M. Wedderburn. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.

1986 "The Use of Early Christian Literature as Evidence for inner diversity and Conflict." Pp. 177 -90 in Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism and Early Christianity. Eds. C.W. Hedrick and R. Hodgson, Jr . Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers . 1992 "Historical Method and the Johannine Community. ARC 20 :35-42.

Wood, S.P., trans. 1954 Clement of Aiexandria: Christ the Educator. The Fathers of the Church. Vol. 23. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press.

Wrede, W. 1906 Das li terarische Ratsel des Hebrserbriefes. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Yadin, Y. 1958 "The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Epistle to the Hebrews , Pp . 36-55 in Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Scripta Hierosolymitana 4. Eds. C. Rabin and Y. Yadin. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University. Zab, T. 1917 Introduction to the New Testament. Trans . M. W. Jacobus. 2nd ed. from 3rd German ed. 1st Ge- ed. 1897. New York, NY: Charles Scribnergs Sons.