Novenson, Matthew

Edinburgh Research Explorer

     Edinburgh Research Explorer                                      The Panegyric to the HebrewsCitation for published version:Novenson, M 2008, 'The Panegyric to the Hebrews: A Response to Amy Peeler' Koinonia, vol 20, pp. 27-33.Link:Link to publication record in Edinburgh Research ExplorerDocument Version:Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of recordPublished In:KoinoniaPublisher Rights Statement:© Novenson, M. (2008). The Panegyric to the Hebrews: A Response to Amy Peeler. Koinonia, 20, 27-33.General rightsCopyright for the publications made accessible via the Edinburgh Research Explorer is retained by the author(s)and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise andabide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.Take down policyThe University of Edinburgh has made every reasonable effort to ensure that Edinburgh Research Explorercontent complies with UK legislation. If you believe that the public display of this file breaches copyright pleasecontact openaccess@ed.ac.uk providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately andinvestigate your claim.Download date: 28. Apr. 2017KOINONIA XX (2oo8) 27-33 The Panegyric to the Hebrews: A Response to Amy Peeler MATTHEWV. NOVENSON There is a certain irony in the fact that Amy Peeler presents her paper Tears and Joy: The Emotions of Christ in Hebrews" in this vener-lsY ""'c lecture hall nnder the watchful eye of Benjamin Breckinridge Warf-who in 1912, a stone's throw from where we sit today, wrote the clas-sic little study, "On the Emotional Life of Our Lord."' Warfield's sources the canonical Gospels, and he unde1takes to investigate "the emotions I;; .. ascri!Jed to Jesus in the Evangelical narratives."' But near the end of that Warfield leaves behind the evangelical narratives and comments in-on the subject of my colleague's essay. While the Gospels do speak to emotions of Jesus, Warfield opines, "The highest note is struck by the ;>.Jipistle to the Hebrews .... [in which,] when we observe [Christ] exhibiting movements of his human emotions, we are gazing on the very process salvation."' That Warfield turns aside to Hebrews in order to make point about the Gospels is, I take it, indirect evidence that Peeler is •. basic<tlly right. Hebrews is at pains, in a way that no other first-century Ch1dstian text is, to reflect upon the affective aspects of Jesus' experience, th"ttJ,,~theologians are warranted when they appeal to Hebrews in cer-finer points of Christological discussion. As I see it, Peeler's excel-paper provides us with a plausible historical-critical (more specifi-rhetorical-critical) rationale for this legitimate theological use of our For my part, I come to Peeler's essay as a Paulinist, which for fifteen .cEmtlll"i<es would have made me a Hebrews scholar but does so no longer. B. B. Warfield, "On the Emotional Life of Our Lord," in Princeton Theological ;; Se,min1a<y, Biblical and 111eological Studies (New York: Scribner's, 1912), 35-90. 2 Warfield, 38. 3 Warfield, 88-89. 28 KOINONIA Nevertheless, I think I can contribnte to the discussion that she initiates by raising questions about several aspects of her argument, which I will do: under three headings. First of all, I would like to speak to Peeler's exegesis of the epistle, with' which I have little disagreement. She makes a generally compelling case' for her thesis, although some particular argnments are stronger than oth-: ers. Peeler is surely right to make mnch of the word rra8~~a and cognates,' which are conspicuously present in Hebrews, but there are problems with' her analysis of the word gronp. Peeler glosses rrae~~a with "the emotional' experience of suffering" (Peeler, 16). This is a fair account of the semantic, range of the word, but it conflates at least two discrete definitions. rrae~~a' can mean either "suffering, thing suffered" or "passion, e1notion"; but iri,;: any particular case, it is typically used to mean one or the other of thesej things, not both.' In fact, both rra8~~a and its cousin rra8o5 can carl'J\1 either of these meanings, but in actual usage, the former more often means1 the former and the latter the latter. In this connection, it may be signifi~ cant that our author never uses rraeo,' only rrae~~a. ;l Later in the same section, Peeler wants to suggest 12:2 ("Jesus, whol for the joy laid before him endured the cross") as evidence for her suf,li fering-as-emotion motif. "As the only mention of the cross in the entireJ work, this reference would have carried notions of suffering, both physical! :j and emotional for the readers" (Peeler, 16). Here she reasons from th~ word aTaupOs to "notions of suffering" to emotional notions in pmticularj1 // but this is rather further than one would like to have to carry evidence~ Granted, "suffering" signifies an aspect of lived experience, one pmt o£j which, for human beings at least, is emotion. But it is imprecise, even false!j to suggest that this whole bundle of associated concepts is contained i~ the word "suffering." I do not think this objection strikes at the heart o~ Peeler's thesis, only that her semantic argument in section one should ru4l differently than it in fact does. ' 4 See LSJ, s.v. rrci8ru..1cc In 2:9, one is struck that uci8ruw appears in the singular, th:f only such instance in the New Testament and one of few in extant Greek literature (cf. Arrianf, anab. 4.22.2; 6.n.2-3). Walter Bauer takes this to suggest that the genitive construction ij epexegetical (BDAG, s.v. ml8rnm), and I am inclined to agree: TO rrderu.ta ToG eavdTou, "tl\6 suffering of death," here means "the death that he suffered." ;),, Novenson Response: The Panegyric to the Hebrews 29 The section on gladness is very well argued. Peeler's case for reading I Tf)S" rrpOKEI~EVDS" aun;;, xapas- in 12:2 as ''for the purpose of (not fns:tea.d ofl the joy laid before him" is impressive, even here where all the English versions agree with her (Peeler, 22). All the more impres-is her ingenious argument for reading rrapix Tovs- ~n6xous- crou (in 1:9, if not in Ps 44:7 LXX) as "in the presence of your fellows" rath-than "more than your fellows," against most major English versions '"""'""· 21). And while it does not follow that God's anointing in 1:9 "makes a brother of humanity" (Peeler, 24) (it is that he is anointed in their m·eserwe. not that he is anointed like they are), Peeler's translation is ad-(llit·ablly sensitive to the author's capacity for exploiting the ambiguity of biblical words and phrases to accord with the near context of his discourse. ; I am less persuaded by Peeler's invocation of 1/.atov ixya/./.uxcrsws-, of gladness," in 1:9 as evidence of the feeling of joy on Christ's part. "gladness [is] the medium of his anointing" (Peeler, 21) is certainly . overstatement. Oil is the medium of the anointment; gladness sped-which oil it is with which Christ is anointed. There is also the word yu.Mtuut<; itself, on which Peeler comments, "This is a term that conveys n. •~xu.berar1t joy" (Peeler, 21). But while "gladness" or "rejoicing" is an gloss, ixyat./.iam> comes from the lexicon of the cultus (both pagan Israelite), not that of human affective experience. An aya/.~a, literally of rejoicing" or "celebrated thing," is simply a temple artifact, a or an altar or a statue-' It is analogous to the English word "festal," although etymologically related to partying, typically just means :notJHJH); to a holy day." In short, I mean to say that Peeler's account of of Christ in Hebrews would be stronger without this putative piece wiclertce than it is with it. have questions, too, about her understanding of the citation of Ps LXX in Heb 2:12, "I will proclaim your name to my brothers, in the of the assembly I will praise you." Peeler comments, "Admittedly, errtot:ive aspect is not explicit here, but is implicit in the act of praising" 24). She then reasons from the fact that our author "quotes from See LSJ, s.v. ciyaf.11a. 30 KOINONIA the first lines of the exnberant section of praise, rather than the excruc:J ciating lament" (Peeler, 24) to conclnde that the function of the citation,J is "to pnt into sharp relief the joy of Christ" (Peeler, 24). Bnt even if wej grant that the affection of joy is implicit in the Greek verb u~viw (which' is not at all obvions, in my view), why shonld onr anthor's selection of; this pa1ticnlar verse serve to contrast with its psalmic context rather thmt allude to its psalmic context? In other words, why not read the citation tql mean, "All my misery notwithstanding, yet I will praise yon," rather than;' "With joy as opposed to mise1y, I will praise you"? In keeping with a pat~ tern attested across the psalms of lament, it is not that the psalmist was: miserable bnt now is joyful; rather it is that he is still miserable bnt confi1 dent nonetheless. In short, I am not convinced that the affection of glad;' ness is as implicit in this act of praising as Peeler understands it to be. : My second set of comments has to do with Peeler's application of can~ ons of ancient rhetoric to the epistle. Here I have reservations abont he!' move from the emotions of Christ to the rhetorical categ01y of ~8os-. A, great deal hinges on her premise that, per ancient rhetorical conventiorii; '0 "Christ's emotions [are] a key element in the overall portrayal of Christ's: ethos" (Peeler 12), that Hebrews "highlights the emotions of Christ in or~ der to construct an enticing ethos [of Christ]" (Peeler, 25). Bnt Aristotl~; at least, classifies emotion nnder the heading not of ~8os- but rather of. rra8os-, as the word itself suggests. For him, ~8os- and rra8os- are two qf the three different classes of TTtOTEI5, "proofs." What is more, Aristotle;§ TTtOTEI5 pertain to different pmties in the rhetorical encounter: ~8os- to tl{' speaker, rra8os to the auditors, and Myos to the speech itself. In the mat' ter before us, when Aristotle speaks of rra8!], "emotions," he has in viei' the emotions of the auditors, not the speaker (much less the speaker's c!If ent, on which more in a moment). "The orator persuades by means of!J! hearers when they are roused to emotion by his speech" (Rhet. 1.2.5).6 Arid jf again, "The emotions are all those affections which cause men to chang' '! their opinion in regard to their judgments" (Rhet. 2.1.8). 1. ;y The closest thing I know to Peeler's premise is Cicero, De or. 2.189' "It is impossible for the listener to feel [any emotion] ... unless all thoS' 6 Aristotle, Tile Art of Rltetol'ic, trans. John Henry Freese (LCL; Cambridge, Ma~i Harvard, 1926, 1994); translations of Aristotle follow Freese unless otherwise noted. ';\" }\: Novenson Response: The Panegyric to the Hebrews 31 ~rrtotiions which the advocate would inspire in the arbitrator are visibly '~tami>edor rather branded on the advocate himself."' But even this gets us as far as the speaker, not all the way back to the client, where the emo-presumably lies in the case of Hebrews. And even for Cicero, emotion pertair1s primarily to the auditors, inasmuch as he speaks of "the emotions eloquence has to excite in the minds of the tribunal, or whatever audience we may be addressing" (De or. 2.206).8 Peeler might find more suppmt in Quintilian, who understands and rrd8os- as being very closely related ("I am prepared to add that and ethos are sometimes of the same nature, and differ only in [Inst. 6.12]) and grudgingly subsumes both under the Latin word "emotion," being dissatisfied with the popular equivalency for ~8os-.' This taxonomy, less so Cicero's, and Aristotle's not at all, work for Peeler's thesis. And in fact, since Quintilian is much closer to Hebrews than Aristotle is, it might be wmthwhile to explore a shift in the meaning of the terms from the late classical to the Ro-period. This might actually give Peeler greater leverage for her use of as evidence of specifically ethical, rather than pathetic, presenta-there is the matter of the ~8os- of the client. Is it right to talk ~8os-, as Peeler does, as a feature not of the speaker but of the being represented? Aristotle, for his part, speaks only about the Tou lleyovTOS", "the moral character of the speaker," whose function is JT01ijcrw Tov AiyoVTa, "to render the speaker trustwo\thy" 1.2.3-4).10 Quintilian, again, is perhaps closer to Peeler's usage, he allows that ~8os- applies, in a secondary sense, to the client. "Since ;lieorator needs to demonstrate these qualities, if he can, in his client too, Cicero, De Oratore, trans. E. W. Sutton and H. Rackham (LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: University Press, 1942, 1988); translations of Cicero follow Sutton and Rackham otherwise noted. Cf. De or. 2.178: "Nothing in oratory, Catulus, is more important than to win for nmtocthefavnn>fl,;s hearer, and to have the latter so affected as to be swayed by some-impulse or emotion [animi et perturbatione], rather than byjudg-Quintilian, Inslitutio Oratoria, trans. Donald A. Russell (LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: University Press, 2001); translations of Quintilian follow Russell unless otherwise My translation. 32 KOINONIA he must at any rate possess, or be thought to possess, them himself' (Inst., 6.2.18)." But even Quintilian speaks of ~605 primarily as a quality quod a dicentibus desideramus, "which we desire from speakers" (Inst. 6.2.13). If I am right abont this (and Peeler, who knows her handbooks better than. I do, may know a way around this problem), then the well known "dimin-; ished authorial presence" of the author of Hebrews represents a real prob-~ !em. If ~6os pertains to the speaker, and our speaker is hidden from view,' then we might wonder whether ~6os is the right category at all. , But maybe this need not be a problem after all, because maybe we;. ought not to think of Christ in the role of client. For the most part, Peeler'~1 essay assumes rather than argues for this identification. By way of contrib:' J uting to the conversation, I would like to hazard an alternative rhetorical~ ) critical proposal, namely, that Jesus relates to the author of Hebrews not~ as client to advocate but rather as hero to panegyTist. Hebrews does not defend Christ; it hymns him. When our author wr·ites, "Let us run with' . endurance the contest laid before us, looking upon Jesus, the founder ana' /,\ perfecter of our faith, who for the joy laid before him endured the crossg having despised the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of ·> God" (Heb 12:2), he speaks in the mode of Pericles at the memorial for the' Athenians slain in the first year of the Peloponnesian War: "Fix your gaz~ upon the power of Athens and become lovers of her, and when the visio~ of her greatness has inspired you, reflect that all this has been acquire' ';';; by men of courage who knew their duty and in the hour of conflict we( ,, moved by a high sense of honor" (Thucydides, 2-43.1). 12 As Pericles rallie_: the Athenians to the cause of the war by celebrating the noble dead, so th 1 author of Hebrews urges his audience to steadfastness by hymning th,_~ excellencies of Christ. If we conceive the rhetorical encounter in Hebrew. along these lines, then a number of the category difficulties I have rais are obviated. ~!' 11 For Cicero, too, something like ~6os pertains both to the speaker and to his C_li~ ent. "A potent factor in success, then, is for the characters [mores], principles, conduct ari: course of life, both of those who are to plead cases and of their clients, to be approved ... all for the feelings of the tribunal to be won over, as far as possible, to goodwill towards the a~ vocate and the advocate's dient, as well [cum e1·ga oratorem tum erga ilium pro quo di~ orator]" (De or. 2.182). _}~ 12 Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, trans. C. Foster Smith (LCL; N"t; York: Putnam's, 1919). Novenson Response: The Panegyric to the Hebrews 33 Third and finally, I would like to raise one methodological question. At points in her paper, Peeler reasons that the author's choice of emo-zl:i<m-larcgu:age with respect to Christ is significant because such language not necessary to the argument being made. She writes, for example, "the of this term ... allows the author to express his thought more fully than strictly necessary" (Peeler, 13; emphasis mine)." I think I understand line of reasoning, and I can see its intuitive force. It is analogous to traditional theological arguments for the freedom of God: because 19II1eone did not have to do something, his doing so is therefore all the remarkable. But I worry that in the present case the argument is not which is actually not a problem, since I do not think that Peeler it for her overall project to work. There are two things to be said on subject. . First, how do we know just what is and is not logically necessary to an point? Ancient authors (and modern ones, too, for that matter) :eq11en:tly write more than they really need to have done. On the other too, they often write a good deal less than logic would seem to de-as Pauline interpreters, for example, have learned from hard expe-l take this to mean that, methodologically, it is impossible for us >'"'"-~Ju'"o'"~'""as to what an author needed to say in such a way as to it against what he did in fact say. For better or worse, all we have are texts, not their hypothetical counterparts in which the same ideas ~ eJ<pr·esi;ed in logically minimal simplicity.'' The second thing, though, on the interpretive model that Peeler herself commends to us, tl1is tative di,stiJoction between a logically necessary kernel and a rhetorically :tinger1t husk falls down. Peeler shows us a Hebrews that is thoroughly in the linguistic conventions of ancient Greek and Roman persua-'· disco•un;e. Our author m·ites the way he does because that is the kind tllat he is, and that is enough. Peeler's Hebrews convinces its of the moral beauty of Christ not because the author did not need it that way but did so anyway, but rather because he did need to say that way. Elsewhere: "One could imagine another author making the same point without ' word]" (3); "It could have been said more succinctly" (3); "The basic point could conveyed without the use of the emotive term" (4). With the possible exception of some reconstructions of Q. 

The Panegyric to the Hebrews:A Response to Amy Peeler

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Edinburgh Research Explorer