hebrews as an instructional appendix to romans 247
is traditionally emphasized and final impressions are made.8 apart from
citations of scripture and the postscript, Hebrews echoes the language of
romans in ways that imply continuity with paul’s letter while avoiding its
slavish imitation. Hebrews signals this aim not only in its use of vocab-
ulary and stylistic features distinctive to romans, but also by imitating
paul’s exegetical maneuvers in this epistle, including drawing out the same
themes, for example “faith” in the abraham cycle, “life” and “salvation” in
Hab 2:4, and christ as “mercy seat” (lev 16:13–15). needless to say, numer-
ous early christians, not to mention other non-christian Jews, made these
themes a topic of discussion. In romans and Hebrews, however, the precise
manner in which they are addressed demonstrates a deliberate dialogi-
cal relationship consistent over a large set of data.9 well-known alterna-
tion between exposition and exhortation in Hebrews may also echo from
romans.10 these observations are not adequately explained by “tradition,”
that is, mutual dependence on a third unknown source.11 this thesis con-
cerning reliance has been explored in a recent monograph and article.12
the present brief essay focuses on only one, what I deem to be the most
8 cf. aristotle, Rhet. 1.2; 2.1.1–7, 12–17; Quintilian, Inst. 6.2.8–9; demetrius, Eloc. 226. cf.
προσωποποιΐα: demetrius, Eloc. 265–66. In Rhet. Her. 4.66, the technique is treated as an
aspect of the ἐπίλογος. cf. theon, Prog. ii, p. 117, 30–32; cicero, Orat. 85; and rutilius lupus
2.6. of course, this argument also vigorously supports deliberate pauline pseudonymity of
Hebrews. see rothschild, Hebrews as a Pseudepigraphon, ch. 4 where it is argued that the
author of Hebrews deliberately adopts paul’s persona to permit paul posthumous opportu-
nity to correct himself or, as summed up by margaret mitchell on 1 timothy, “to control the
meaning of his previous utterances” (“corrective composition, corrective exegesis,” 43).
david trobisch argues that Hebrews was, from its first publication, understood as a letter
of paul: “as I have shown above, to name a letter by its addressee makes sense if the letter
is part of a collection of letters written by one author. therefore, readers of the canonical
edition will readily assume that they are reading a letter of paul when they encounter the
title ‘to Hebrews.’ the only place Hebrews is found in the extant manuscripts is among
the letters of paul. the uniformity of the title clearly demonstrates that all manuscripts
of Hebrews go back to a single exemplar. In this exemplar Hebrews was already part of a
collection of the letters of Paul” (Paul’s Letter Collection: Tracing the Origins [minneapolis:
Fortress, 1994] 26, emphasis added).
9 see rothschild, Hebrews as a Pseudepigraphon, ch. 4.
10 John chrysostom describes what he sees as blending of exposition and exhortation
in romans not unlike one finds it in Hebrews as strategy intended to commend the moral
teaching: “what I had before occasion to remark, that I mention here too, that he [paul]
continually digresses into exhortation without making any twofold division as he does in
the other epistles, and setting apart the former portion for doctrines (τοῖς δόγμασιν), and
the latter for the care of moral instruction (τῇ τῶν ἠθῶν ἐπιμελείᾳ). Here then he does not
do so, but blends (δι’ ὅλης αὐτῆς ἀναμὶξ τοῦτο ποιεῖ) the latter with the subject throughout,
so as to gain it an easy admission” (Comm. Rom. 9, rom 6:5).
11 this assumption runs throughout the commentary by Harold attridge (Hebrews
[Hermeneia; minneapolis: Fortress, 1989]). see rothschild, Hebrews as Pseudepigraphon, 7.
12 rothschild, Hebrews as Pseudepigraphon; “Hebrews as a Guide.”