^{page 382 note 1} Spicq, C., L'Épître aux Hébreux (Études bibliques; Paris: Gabalda, 1952–1953) I. 351–78.Google Scholar

^{page 382 note 2} Elisabeth Fiorenza, Schüssler, ‘Rhetorical Situation and Historical Reconstruction in 1 Corinthians’, NTS 33 (1987) 306–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar This article includes discussion of some of the wider issues raised in connection with rhetorical criticism in recent studies.

^{page 383 note 1} Cf. Quintilian, , Institutio Oratoria III. ivGoogle Scholar, confirming the threefold division. On deliberative rhetoric he says, ‘Its functions are twofold and consist in advising and dissuading’ (III. viii. 6, Loeb).

^{page 383 note 2} It is disputed whether Hebrews should be regarded as a letter. It is described by Bruce, F. F. as ‘a homily in written form, with some personal remarks added at the end’ (Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1964, 413)Google Scholar, cf. more recently Braun, H., An die Hebräer (HNR 14; Tübingen: Mohr, 1984) 1–2Google Scholar, and for discussion of the issue Swetnam, J., ‘On the Literary Genre of the “Epistle to the Hebrews”’, NovT 11 (1969) 261–9.Google Scholar But this does not decide the question whether the primary object is to give doctrinal teaching or moral exhortation. The claim of Buchanan, G. W. (To the Hebrews; The Anchor Bible; Garden City: Doubleday, 1972, xix)Google Scholar that Hebrews ‘is a homiletical midrash based on Ps 110’ deprives it of all the urgency, which nevertheless demands recognition. Once it is seen that Hebrews is dealing with a pressing practical problem of the readers, its character as a letter is decisively re-established. It is a letter, consisting of a homily, sent to the church of destination, because the author is not able to address the recipients in person, and the absence of a formal epistolary opening does not negate its essential character as a communication to specific persons from a distance.

^{page 383 note 3} Op. cit., I.38.

^{page 383 note 4} Vanhoye, A., La Structure littéraire de l'Épître aux Hébreux (Studia Neotestamentica 1; Paris/Bruges: Desclée de Brouwer, 1963).Google Scholar

^{page 385 note 1} This point is generally overlooked by commentators, who think of Hebrews as encouraging Christians who have grown slack. Thus, most recently, Rissi, M., Die Theologie des Hebräerbriefes (WUNT 41; Tübingen: Mohr, 1987)Google Scholar suggests that Hebrews is a ‘meditation’ to encourage them to accept persecution bravely.

^{page 385 note 2} The designation Έβραίους cannot have the same meaning as it has in Acts 6. 1, where it refers to Aramaic-speaking Christians in contrast with the Hellenists. As a national name for Jews in contrast with Gentiles (cf. 2 Cor 11. 22; Phil 3. 5), it was used for Jewish-Christian groups in the second century (cf:τό καθ' Έβραίους εύαγγέλιον). This suggests that it arose at that time as a deduction from the contents of the epistle, considered to be addressed to Jewish Christians, and so it tells us nothing about the actual destination (so Braun, 3). The reference to ‘our brother Timothy’ ties up with the Pauline letters, especially 1 Thess 3. 2. If the same person is meant, some kind of connection, both of time and place, with the Pauline churches must be presupposed, though the community presupposed by Hebrews is not to be identified with Paul's Gentile foundations as such (see the concluding remarks of this paper). The reference would, however, support an early date for Hebrews. ‘The people from Italy’ suggests that Italy is either the destination or less likely the country of origin of the letter, and so contributes to the external evidence which connects Hebrews with Rome (cf. Bruce, op. cit., xxxiv f.).

^{page 385 note 3} Bruce, op. cit., 413.

^{page 386 note 1} Cf. Acts 15. 22; 1 Clem 1. 3. Both passages show that ήγουμένοι is a general term and does not denote a particular office. See below on v. 7.

^{page 386 note 2} Spicq, II. 431 f.

^{page 386 note 3} It seems to be clearly implied in 2. 3 f. that these were missionaries who had themselves ‘heard the Lord’, though the author may be referring to the succession of apostolic witness, and caution on this issue is recommended by Montefiore, H. W., The Epistle to the Hebrews (BNTC; London: A. & C. Black, 1964) 54Google Scholar, cf. Braun, 49 f. The appeal is comparable to the well known claim of Papias (Eus. H.E. III. 39.4).

^{page 386 note 4} πίστις in Hebrews never refers to the content of faith (here designated τòν λόγον τοû θεοû) but is always an active virtue, embracing acceptance, obedience, trust and perseverance (see further below on Heb 11). It is not incompatible with the Pauline concept of faith, but Paul's special issue of justification does not arise in Hebrews. See Dautzenberg, G., ‘Der Glaube im Hebräerbrief’, BZ 17 (1973) 161–77Google Scholar and excursuses in Spicq (II 371–81) and Braun (106–8).

^{page 387 note 1} Spicq refers to the verse as formulaic, but the form of the verse is literary (cf Braun, 459) rather than confessional. For χριστò Ίησος as the most primitive confession, which tended to be replaced by Κûρις Ίησûς (1 Cor 12. 3) in Gentile congregations, cf. Neufeld, V., The Earliest Christian Confessions (Leiden: Brill, 1963).Google Scholar

^{page 388 note 1} They are identified with the Colossian heresy by Manson, T. W., ‘The Problem of the Epistle to the Hebrews’, BJRL 32 (1949) 1–7Google Scholar (reprinted in id., Studies in the Gospels and Epistles, Manchester, 1962).Google Scholar Bruce, 398, thinks of ‘some form of syncretistic gnosis, perhaps with Essene or quasi-Essene affinities’. Most commentators assume a form of Jewish teaching, or Judaizing teaching if the recipients are held to be Gentile Christians.

^{page 388 note 2} Cf. Josephus, , Ant. XIV. 213–16.Google Scholar Spicq objects that the word used by Josephus is σỦνδειπνα, and βρώματα must refer to particular foods, and so he suggests that it refers to the sacrificial meat used at temple banquets. Braun points out that the σỦνδειπνα had no sacramental significance, contrary to the implications of the context. This view presupposes antisacramentalism on the part of the author, and therefore also excludes the possibility of a reference to the eucharist in the following verses. Braun even suggests that the word βρώματα itself refers to the Christian eucharist, which the author disapproves. But once more the allusive style of Hebrews favours the identification of both διδαχαί and βρώματα with Jewish practices, which the readers obviously do regard as spiritually beneficial, not because of any supposed sacramental significance, but because they are the prescribed means of remaining within the Jewish covenant and so obtaining purification of sins. The reason for singling out the meals is to make a foil to the eucharist, which is the Christian means of remaining in the new covenant, and is referred to equally allusively in what follows.

^{page 389 note 1} Cf. 9. 9 f., 13. Hebrews' objection to the temple sacrifices is that they are the ordinances of the old covenant, but these verses suggest that the author shared the revulsion against such rites which was widely held by educated people in the Greco-Roman world. This explains the reference to the red heifer (9. 13), which is not part of the ritual of the Day of Atonement in Lev 16. See Bruce, 201–4, who adduces the statement of Maimonides (Mishneh Torah, VIII. viii. 1.4) that the high priest was twice sprinkled with the ashes of the heifer during the week before the Day of Atonement. If this was the case in New Testament times, it would suggest that Hebrews does show knowledge of contemporary practice, and is not relying solely on the law, as is generally assumed.

^{page 389 note 2} Spicq, II 425 f.

^{page 389 note 3} It is necessary to distinguish this from the temporal contrast between the era of the old covenant and that of the new, and also from the spatial contrast between earthly and heavenly, to which the era of the new covenant belongs. The sacrifices of the temple are inadequate because they belong to the old covenant, not because they are material. On the other hand the Christian eucharist, as the setting of the earthly celebration of the sacrifice of the new covenant, belongs to the new era, though it is at present performed with material things. Cf. n. 1, p. 400 below.

^{page 391 note 1} Cf. Loader, W. R. G., Sohn und Hoherpriester. Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zur Christologie des Hebräerbriefes (WMANT 53; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981) 61–80Google Scholar; Hengel, M., The Son of God (London: SCM Press, 1976).Google Scholar

^{page 391 note 2} Loader, op. cit. 7–30. He points out that άρχηγς (2. 10; 12. 2) may well be derived from this primitive tradition, which has left a trace in Acts 5. 31, where άρχηγòν καἱ σωτρα occurs with an allusion to Ps 110. 1.

^{page 391 note 3} The death of Jesus as a sacrifice is, of course, traditional (cf. 1 Cor 15. 3), but the vocabulary is distinctly unusual, and deliberately chosen for the sake of the following argument. καθαρισμς to denote the effect of the sacrificial death of Jesus is unique in the New Testament. The only close parallel is 2 Pet 1. 9, which is generally regarded as a reference to baptism, cf. Bauckham, R. J., Jude, 2 Peter (Word Bib. Corn.; Waco: Word, 1983) 189 f.Google Scholar For καθαρίζω in connection with the death of Jesus, cf. Eph 5. 26; Tit 2. 14; 1 Jn 1. 7, 9 and Heb 9. 14, 22, 23; 10. 2. The middle ποιησάμενος points to Jesus himself as the effective agent of the action (hence the Western Text adds δι' έαυτοû).

^{page 392 note 1} It is disputed whether the designation high priest had already been attributed to Jesus on the basis of the christological use of Ps 110. 4 (but the way this is introduced in 5. 1–10 is against this), or in relation to the application of Is 53. 12 to Jesus (but this alone would not supply the title), or in existing speculations with regard to Melchizedek (but we have no other evidence for this in Christian sources). Loader (203–22) argues that it is likely on the grounds that the concept is introduced in 2. 17 as if it is familiar to the readers, and that άρχιερεύς shows a development from Ps 110. 4 (ίερεỦς). Rissi (55) maintains on the basis of 2. 17 and 3. 1 that the priesthood of Christ was a datum of the Hebrews church. Our approach through rhetoric suggests on the other hand this is another case like καθαρισμν in 1. 3, where the author slips in a concept which he will use later in the argument. It does not therefore have to be already familiar. The use of άρχιερεỦς can also be attributed to the author, as he will use the model of the Day of Atonement for his central argument, and Loader does admit that this feature has no precedent in the kerygma (254). The author's rhetorical skill appears here in the fact that the concept of high priest is used metaphorically both here and in 3. 1; 4. 15, so that the readers have time to get accustomed to the idea before it is proved that Jesus really is high priest in 5. 1–10.

^{page 392 note 2} It is particularly in his attempt to keep doctrine and parenesis separate that the chiastic scheme of Vanhoye is most obviously open to criticism. The whole composition is parenesis (οτ παράκλησις, 13. 22), and the doctrinal exposition is subordinate to this purpose.

^{page 393 note 1} This motif has been taken as the clue for the exposition of the whole epistle by Käsemann, E., Das Wandernde Gottesvolk: Eine Untersuchung zum Hebräerbrief (FRLANT n. f. 37; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, ² 1957)Google Scholar, cf. Grässer, E., ‘Das Wandernde Gottesvolk. Zum Basismotiv des Hebräerbriefes’, ZNW 77 (1986) 160–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar But this makes Hebrews a call to perfection (in the sense of full response to the revelation of existence of which Jesus is the pioneer and high priest), and completely misses the practical nature of the crisis which the author is facing. However Hebrews here uses a paraenetic theme of Jewish moral discourse (used also by Paul in 1 Cor 10. 1–11), and does not return to it later (Käsemann's attempt to trace it in 10. 19–39 and 13. 13 is not convincing). For the idea of perfection in Hebrews, see n. 1, p. 398 below.

^{page 393 note 2} Conjectured by Moffatt to be a word coined by the author of Hebrews himself, σαββατισμός occurs only here and in Plutarch, , De Superstit. 3Google Scholar (II. 166A), referring to superstitious practices. It is used to make the link between the conquest as ‘rest’ (cf. Dt 3. 20; 12. 9: Jos 1. 13, 15, etc.) and the seventh day of creation (Gen 2. 2 f.) as a type of the age to come (cf. M. Tamid 7.4: ‘On the Sabbath they sang A Psalm: a Song for the Sabbath Day; a Psalm, a song for the time that is to come, for the day that shall be all Sabbath and rest in the life everlasting’, Danby, 589).

^{page 393 note 3} Williamson, R., Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews (Leiden: Brill, 1970) 544 57Google Scholar, has shown that Philo's metaphorical use of the idea is a timeless sharing in God's rest, which has no direct bearing on the argument of Hebrews. But the idea is clear in J. and A. 8. 9: ‘Let her enter your rest which you have prepared for your chosen ones.’ Cf. Burchard, C. in Charlesworth, J. H., ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha 2 (London: Dartun Longman and Todd, 1985) 213Google Scholar; Hofius, O., Katapausis. Die Vorstellung vom endzeitlichen Ruheort im Hebräerbrief (WUNT 11; Tübingen: Mohr, 1970)Google Scholar, says that this is the earliest evidence for this use of the idea.

^{page 394 note 1} See especially Barrett, C. K., ‘The Eschatology of the Epistle to the Hebrews’ (The Background of the New Testament and its Eschatology. In Honour of C. H. Dodd, Cambridge: CUP, 1956) 363–93.Google Scholar

^{page 394 note 2} The position of Rissi is exactly the reverse, for he holds that the readers have einer mystischen Erfüllungsglaube (58) whereby they share in the heavenly priesthood of Christ regardless of their sins and need for atonement. This view is based on the highly dubious analysis of H. Zimmermann, who separates Christ as heavenly high priest (= tradition accepted by the readers) from Christ as earthly high priest (= new teaching by the author to promote his christology of the death of Christ) on the basis of supposed contradictions in the presentation of the theme ( Das Bekenntnis der Hoffnung: Tradition and Redaktion im Hebräerbrief, BBB 47; Köln: Hanstein, 1977).Google Scholar

^{page 396 note 1} The possibility is suggested by those such as Zimmermann who postulate a christological hymn as the source of 5. 1–10, cf. Loader, 107 f., for brief presentation and critique. For criticism of Loader's own view see n. 1, p. 392 above.

^{page 396 note 2} The figure of Melchizedek in Hebrews bears no direct relation to 11Q Melchizedek and comparable traditions in Jewish sources, cf. de Jonge, M. and van der Woude, A. S., ‘11Q Melchizedek and the New Testament’, NTS 12 (1966) 301–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Horton, F. L., The Melchizedek Tradition (SNTSMS 30: Cambridge: CUP, 1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Demarest, B. A., A History of Interpretation of Hebrews 7, 1–10 from the Reformation to the Present Day (BGBE 19: Tübingen: Mohr, 1976).Google Scholar For Philo, cf. Williamson, 434–9. The one point which Hebrews has in common with Philo is the explanation of the name (Heb 7. 2; Philo, , Leg. All. III. 79Google Scholar ), but this kind of popular etymologizing was not confined to Philo, but rather suggests that both writers are indebted to some extent to current Jewish traditions of exegesis.

^{page 396 note 3} Most commentators remark on the contradiction between the readers' need for ‘milk’ in 5. 12 and the author's determination to ‘leave the elementary doctrines and go on to maturity (τελειτητα)’ in 6. 1. It is, of course, a further example of rhetorical skill, aimed at persuading the readers to want to prove their maturity by attending to the new doctrine. The ‘foundation’ (θεμλιον, cf. 1 Cor 3. 11) is capable of being regarded entirely as Jewish teaching (so Nairne, A., The Epistle of Priesthood, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1913, 15)Google Scholar, especially as the plural βαπτισμ is very strange for Christian baptism (for which βάπτισμα is normally used). But this is probably another example of the author's allusive style. All the points in this list can then be regarded as subject-headings of Christian catechesis.

^{page 396 note 4} For the history of exegesis see the very full study of Sauer, R. C., A Critical and Exegetical Re-examination of Hebrews 5: 11 to 6: 8 (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Manchester, 1981).Google Scholar See also the excursuses of Spicq, II 167–78, and Braun, 170 ff., and Westeott, B. F., The Epistle to the Hebrews (London: Macmillan ³ 1903) 165 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 397 note 1} The use of this device here is not generally recognized by commentators. Of those I have been able to consult only Luther comes near to suggesting it (‘The Apostle … neither persecutes them in all respects nor does he flatter them in all respects’, Luther, M.: Early Theological Works, tr. Atkinson, J., London: SCM 1962, 124).Google Scholar Bengel calls the verse a case of epitherapia, i.e. an after-mitigation, when what has been said might have injured the listener's self-respect or feelings.

^{page 397 note 2} The versions (d r vg sy^P sa bo) understand άνασταυροûντας as ‘crucify afresh’, but this is rejected by most modern scholars on the grounds that this meaning is impossible in the examples in the contemporary literature (chiefly Josephus and Plutarch; full references in Braun ad loc.). The preposition has its primary meaning (to put up on a stake), and so does not denote repetition. This misunderstanding evidently goes back to the third or even the second century, and could be a result of reading the passage in the light of anti-Judaic polemics.

^{page 398 note 1} Peterson, D., Hebrews and Perfection. An Examination of the Concept of Perfection in the ‘Epistle to the Hebrews’; (SNTSMS 47; Cambridge: CUP, 1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar Jesus was ‘perfected’ (τελειωθεἱς, 5. 9) by his death and exaltation to the presence of God. Christians already have access to God through him, but their ‘perfection’ awaits the parousia. Thus perfection in Hebrews is concerned with access to God, which is the goal of salvation, and is not to be identified with human striving after moral perfection through some form of self-help.

^{page 399 note 1} Though not generally referred to by commentators, the eucharistic words of Mk 14. 24 and 1 Cor 11. 25 may well be one of the sources of Hebrews' theology, especially if other possible allusions to the eucharist are allowed. The new contribution of Hebrews is the use of the Day of Atonement, but the references to the covenant ceremony of Ex 24. 3–8 certainly depend on earlier tradition, which is reflected in the eucharistic words. Spicq, II 264, suggests that τοûτο, which replaces LXX ίδοỦ in the quotation of Ex 24. 8 in 9. 20, is due to reminiscence of the eucharistic words.

^{page 399 note 2} The meaning ‘testament’ for διαθήκη in 9. 16 f. is not a case of juggling with double meanings to slip in an invalid step in the argument, but it is part of the meaning of the word as a whole from the author's point of view. As such it suggests to him the comparison which is needed at this point. Just as a covenant is concluded by a sacrifice, which ratifies it and brings it into force permanently, so the lasting effect of the death of Christ can be compared to the death of a person which brings that person's last will and testament into force.

^{page 399 note 3} The same is true of Paul's fundamentally important statement in Rom 3. 25, ὂν προέθετο ό θεòς ίλαστριον δι τς πὑστεως έν τ αύτο αἴματι, which bears a close relation to the present argument. See the discussion in Cranfield, C. E. B., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975–1979) 1 199–218Google Scholar, who considers that Paul's language may have been influenced by contemporary thought about the Maccabean martyrs and the ‘Binding of Isaac’ (both referred to in Heb 11. 17 f., 35 ff. ).

^{page 400 note 1} Nearly all commentators assume that Hebrews is seeking to replace a material understanding of sacrifice by a spiritual one, especially in the light of 10. 4. But in my view this is not a point of dispute between the author and his readers, who would have readily agreed with 10. 4. Rather, it is the ground on which he makes his real point (δι, v. 5). Cf. n. 3, p. 389 above.

^{page 400 note 2} The LXX reading σμα is important for the author's argument (v. 10), but he shows no awareness of the discrepancy with the original Hebrew. Though disputed by recent scholars (Spicq, Bruce, Montefiore, Braun), the best explanation of the reading is inner Greek corruption through dittography of Σ before the original reading ΩΤΙА, which has been restored in Aquila, Theodotion and Symmachus from the Hebrew. The corruption is clearly older than the text used by Hebrews (which shows characteristics of both A and B, cf. Thomas, K. J., ‘The Old Testament Citations in Hebrews’, NTS 11 [1965] 303–25).CrossRefGoogle Scholar The suggestion that σμα is a deliberate change to secure messianic interpretation is grotesque, and owes its popularity to Hebrews itself (v. 5a, cf. 1. 6). No one would ever suppose it was intended to be messianic without this context.

^{page 401 note 1} The repetition of πἱστει is an example of anaphora, a rhetorical device which heightens the emotional effect. The concept of faith here is practical, and the meaning of the chapter is appreciated better if πἱστει is translated ‘acting in faith’. This applies even to 11. 3, where πἱστει νοοûμεν refers to the act of faith required by the concept of creation as a divine act, cf. Rom 1. 20. This reflects the Hebraic notion of firmness, cf. O. Betz, ‘Firmness in Faith: Hebrews 11. 1 and Isaiah 28. 16’, in Scripture: Meaning and Method. Essays presented to Hanson, A. T., ed. Thompson, B. P. (Hull: Hull University Press, 1987) 92–113.Google Scholar

^{page 401 note 2} The influential study of Grässer, E., Der Glaube im Hebrderbrief (MTS 2; Marburg: Elwert, 1965)Google Scholar is vitiated from the start by his argument that the highly specialized concept of faith used by Paul in the Judaistic controversy was normative for early Christianity, so that Hebrews (which uses a normal Jewish concept of faith = firmness, fidelity) marks a fatal degeneration of Christian understanding. In fact Hebrews comes near to reflecting Paul's πίστις in his use of όμολογία (10. 23). For criticism of Grässer, cf. Hughes, G., Hebrews and Hermeneutics (SNTSMS 36; Cambridge: CUP, 1979) 137–42.Google Scholar

^{page 402 note 1} In 12. 4 their struggle ‘against sin’, comparable to the death of Jesus at the hand of sinners (v. 3), reflects the pressure to apostasy, which ironically is bound up with their problem of consciousness of sin. The period of discipline is the interval before the parousia. They need to ‘strive for peace with all’ (v. 14) in view of the serious division in their church, and to maintain ‘holiness’, in spite of the fact that the author is trying to restrain them from reverting to Jewish practices which they feel to be necessary to gain this. So the issue of apostasy is raised again (v. 15, alluding to Dt 29. 18, which is a context of apostasy). The example of Esau is especially telling. He sold his most precious possession for the sake of immediate satisfaction, and that is precisely what the readers will do if they pursue their present intentions. Esau also suggests the impossibility of repentance (v. 17, cf. 6. 4–6), though the rhetorical use of this theme should not be taken to imply that the readers are in fact beyond the possibility of repentance. The concept of participation in the new covenant underlies the elaborate contrast between Sinai and Mount Zion in v. 18–24. The description builds up to a climax with mention of ‘the spirits of just men made perfect’ (τετελειωμένων, cf. 11. 40), Jesus as ‘the mediator of a new covenant’, and ‘the blood of sprinkling which speaks something better than that of Abel’ (cf. Gen 4. 10). These details, which reflect contemporary apocalyptic (notably 1 En 22), remind the readers of the crucial steps in the preceding argument, to the effect that their ‘perfection‘ is a consequence of the new covenant established through the death of Jesus. Finally, the exhortation in v. 25–29 leads to the practical consequence that participation in Christ opens the way to acceptable worship, which the readers have been tempted to abandon (10. 25), but are urged to resume (13. 13–15). Though God remains ’a consuming fire’ (v. 29, cf. Dt 4. 24), and therefore a terror to sinners, the saving act of Jesus has made God accessible in spite of human weakness.

^{page 403 note 1} For a possible exception, cf. n. 1, p. 389 above.

^{page 404 note 1} Cf. Schürer, E., The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, rev. Vermes, G., Millar, F. and Goodman, M. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark) III. i (1986) 138–49.Google Scholar

^{page 405 note 1} Both Manson, W., The Epistle to the Hebrews. An Historical and Theological Reconsideration (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1951)Google Scholar and Spicq argue for the origin of the thought of Hebrews in the views of the Hellenists attributed to Stephen in Acts 6. 11–14. Spicq even identifies the readers with the large number of priests referred to in Acts 6. 7 (Spicq, I 226–31), but this suggestion is open to many objections. For the importance of the Hellenists in the development of earliest Christianity cf. Hengel, M., Between Jesus and Paul (London: SCM, 1983)Google Scholar, especially 1–29, 54–8.

^{page 405 note 2} Against Grässer, E., Glaube (n. 2, p. 401)Google Scholar, cf. Fuller, R. H., A Critical Introduction to the New Testament (London: Duckworth, 1966) 144–50Google Scholar; Koester, H., Introduction to the New Testament. II History and Literature of Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982) 272–6.Google Scholar For the marks of Early Catholicism see H. Conzelmann, ‘Luke's Place in the Development of Early Christianity’ in Keck, L. E. and Martyn, J. L., Studies in Luke-Acts (London: SPCK, 1968) 304Google Scholar; Dunn, J. D. G., Unity and Diversity in the New Testament (London: SCM, 1977) 341–66.Google Scholar