Doctoral Degrees (Ancient Studies)

Permanent URI for this collection

https://scholar.sun.ac.za/handle/10019.1/593

Browse

Browsing Doctoral Degrees (Ancient Studies) by Author "Heath, David Mark"

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Chiastic structures in Hebrews : a study of form and function in Biblical discourse
    (Stellenbosch : University of Stellenbosch, 2011-03) Heath, David Mark; Thom, Johan C.; Wendland, Ernst R.; University of Stellenbosch. Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences. Dept. of Ancient Studies.
    ENGLISH ABSTRACT: The compositional strategy, structure, and peak of the book Hebrews are heavily debated. Most scholars analyze Hebrews from only a Western linear approach. Other scholars like Vanhoye, Neeley, G.H. Guthrie, and Gelardini have suggested a chiastic perspective. Despite the insights gained from a chiastic approach, the linguistic analyses of Neeley and G.H. Guthrie posit linguistic peaks that appear incompatible with the chiastic peak of Vanhoye, Neeley, and Gelardini. Neeley, G.H. Guthrie, and Westfall claim to apply linguistic principles to the text, but with quite different conclusions. This study focuses on the form and function of the literary units and the relationship of these units to the overall book-level structure. Initial considerations include defining the individual literary units and determining the significance of lexical and syntactical recurrences within the pericopes. Such recurrences are important features for determining textual boundaries, transitions, and compositional patterns. Subsequently, this study evaluates literary units in relation to each other in light of book-level correspondences (syntactical and semantic) as a means of positing an overall structure and compositional strategy for the book of Hebrews. Unlike the linear study of Westfall, the relationships of non-sequential literary units are considered as well as sequential units (i.e., both linear and concentric patterns). In addition to the analysis of the form and function of chiastic and parallel literary units, this study also considers the rhetorical function and significance of the central placement of OT quotations within those structures. Although the OT quotations often occur in the center of the chiastic structures, imperativals (imperatives, prohibitive subjunctives, and hortatory subjunctives) do not generally occur in the chiastic centers, but in the outer components of the chiastic structures. Such a perspective is helpful for understanding where the author is placing emphasis as well as for clarifying the relationship between the epideictic (doctrinal) and deliberative (hortatory) sections. Contrary to G.H. Guthrie’s and Westfall’s emphases on the deliberative sections, this study contends that Hebrews contains a coherent concentric pattern (involving a central thematic peak, dual hortatory climaxes, and dual apexes) as part of an overall compositional strategy. This is not to suggest that the epideictic sections are more important than the explicit exhortations found in the deliberative sections, but that the hortatory essence of Hebrews is rooted in both the theological truth of Jesus’ role as the great high priest and the function of his everlasting sacrifice in the heavenly tabernacle. The author weaved these texttypes together to deliver an even more powerful call to faithfulness. This study also challenges Nauck’s assertion that Heb 4:14–10:31 is one integral section. One of the key elements of this challenge is the unique interpretation of Heb 5:1-10 as foreshadowing the topic found in Hebrews 7. Understanding the foreshadowing essence of Heb 5:1-10 opens the means of interpreting Heb 4:14-16 and 10:19-22 as hortatory bookends to the central theological sections of Hebrews as opposed to designating Nauck’s lexical parallels as an inclusio.