The Letter to the Hebrews Research Papers (original) (raw)

Gabriella Gelardini highlights Hebrews’ concept of salvation over against Rome’s imperial “salvation,” as this comes to light through an examination of Hebrews’ faith-concept. She develops the empire-critical undertones of Hebrews’ πίστις rhetoric while observing the failure of earlier studies to appreciate the complexities of bilingualism, biculturalism, and code-switching relating to Hebrews’ use of the Greek language. She begins by noting Martin Buber’s distinction between Judaism’s (and Jesus’s) historically grounded and immediate trust in God (emunah), and Christianity’s (Paul’s) Greek πίστις, born not in history but in the souls of individuals and centering in the acceptance of the truth of certain tenets of faith. For Buber, in Heb. 11:1 these two aspects—assurance and conviction, as he translates the two words—stand unconnected beside each other. Recent research has also been convinced that Hebrews introduces a certain Greek rationalization to his OT concept of emunah (compare Käsemann, Grässer, Schliesser). Making reference to 11:6, however, Gelardini finds evidence that while the Greek way of thinking certainly has a persuasive function, the work of persuasion is carried out on those in whom the confessional tradition is already alive, or at least still awake, in whom faith lives and breathes; the author has addressees in mind whose thinking is already at home with religious beliefs from the Old Testament/Jewish understanding of trust in God’s faithfulness. Pausing to note recent work on bilingualism, biculturalism, and code-switching in relation to Greek-speaking Judaism and Christianity, Gelardini asserts that against the backdrop of a long-established tradition of bicultural interactions in the Hellenistic-Roman Mediterranean, we need to take due account of this—constant—process of negotiating identity. Noting that these cultural anthropological studies have already been applied to the idea of faith in Paul and in the Roman world, Gelardini wishes to apply them to Hebrews. Classical and philological studies have highlighted the importance of the πίστις or fides culture for the Roman empire, particularly the function of fides for relations in society, within the state and between states. Among the differences between the Greek πίστις concept and the Roman/Latin one, reciprocity is crucial for the Roman concept of fides. It marks a reciprocal, albeit hierarchically structured, relationship between the patron and his client in public, private, and also official contracts, as in alliances. Faithfulness and covenant belong together, as also justice and salvation; this is manifest in the fact that fides is a deity symbolizing Roman respect for international law. From this observation Gelardini turns to note how in Hebrews both God and Christ are πιστός (10:23; 2:17; 3:2). The noun πίστις is used for the attitude of the wandering people of God and is associated with the keyword διαθήκη, Latin foedus. Πίστις is a means of salvation, for instance in 11:7. And 10:37-39, a kind of “skopos of Hebrews,” presents salvation through faithfulness, that is, the “acquisition” or “production” of (eternal) life—the word [περιποίησις] does indeed have the basic meaning of the manufacture of commodities. At this point Gelardini notes that the theme of empire, important to the Roman conception, also belongs in this context, for the empire celebrated covenants and friendships in the temple of Fides on the Capitol. Thus also in Hebrews, empire-critical undertones may well also resonate (12:22; 13:14; cf. 11:14, 16). Unlike Augustan court poets, Hebrews hardly considers Rome to be the empire without borders in space and time, nor Rome the lasting and eternal πόλις. That sort of description is reserved for the “unshakable kingdom” in heaven, to which hope, patience, perseverance, and πίστις are directed (cf. 11:10). Christ is the leader of the salvation (salus and σωτηρία being the theme of empire). It is this empire-critical subtext that also underlines the capacity for bilingual or bicultural identity politics. Borrowing and rejection belong together in code-switching. In closing, Gelardini turns to 11:1 and 12:1. Ὑπόστασις indicates that πίστις is indeed a reality, but precisely the substrate of something else. Ἔλεγχος denotes an objective proof: faithfulness is proof or evidence of invisible things. The examples of faith that follow 11:1 are characterized in 12:1 as a νέφος μαρτύρων: the forensic idea of μάρτυς suits both the force of ἔλεγχος in 11:1 and the fact that πίστις can certainly mean credible witness in legal language. In the light of 11:3, πίστις does have an “intellectual” element. But Hebrews’ use of Koine rhetoric, especially with the emphasized contextual link with the comprehensive Greco-Roman concept of πίστις/fides, is also of importance. There might be irony that fides—an identity marker of Roman culture and domination—was used by Hebrews to culturally strengthen allegiance to the celestial empire.