Corpus-Paul

["David Hindley" <dhindley AT compuserve.com>]

Jeffrey,

You said:

<A non sequitur, I think.  The style of an author tells us
something about the author's style and the way he makes
arguments.  It does not tell us much much about the situation
his argument was addressed to.>

Perhaps.

<In any case, I think we could come up with any number of
writings in the corpus of the speeches of the Attic orators
which show that a well composed rhetorical work and a crisis
situation are not mutually exclusive.>

Yet I would *expect* a well composed rhetorical work from an
Attic orator of the elite class, not an author of the
(presumably) low to mid level retainer class. The former trained
themselves to make quick cases for or against important actions
before civil councils and forums, and in substance these were
propaganda statements (in the pure, not pejorative, sense of the
term). Hebrews is more of a reasoned (maybe better
"rationalized") answer to a hypothetical (i.e. straw) audience,
something that even trained orators took their time to produce.
How much more the author of Hebrews?

Casting about for sets of historical circumstances that best fit
the subject matters and peculiarities of Hebrews should be, IMO,
stock in trade for historical critics. I am in agreement with
Stephen Moore that a blanket rejection of the relevance of
historical circumstances for rhetorical analysis of works is a
tad too convenient. "What it means" is more that the point a
work is trying to make. Following Hayden White, I believe a
critic should, and can, come to an understanding of a work in
context through its structure, and especially by means of its
ideological implications.

Sincerely,

David Hindley
Cleveland, Ohio USA