Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Critical Commentary NT - Hebrews 3:1 - 3:99
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1 Holy brothers (ἅιι= ο ἁιζμνι 2:11), you who participate in a heavenly calling, look at Jesus then (ὅε in the light of what has just been said), at the apostle and highpriest of our confession; 2 he is “faithful” to Him who appointed him. For while “Moses” also was “faithful in every department of God`s house,” 3 Jesus (οτς as in 10:12) has been adjudged greater glory (δξς than (πρ, as 1:4) Moses, inasmuch as the founder of a house enjoys greater honour (τμν a literary synonym for δξν than the house itself. 4 (Every house is founded by some one, but God is the founder of all.) 5 Besides, while “Moses” was “faithful in every department of God`s house” as an attendant—by way of witness to the coming revelation—6 Christ is faithful as a son over God`s house.
In v. 2 ὅῳ(om. p 13 B sah boh Cyr. Amb.) may be a gloss from v. 5. In v. 3 the emphasis on πεοο is better maintained by οτςδξς(אA B C D P vt Chrys.) than by δξςοτς(p 13 K L M 6. 33. 104. 326. 1175. 1288 vg) or by the omission of οτςaltogether (467 arm Basil). In v. 4 πναhas been harmonized artificially with 1:3, 2:10 by the addition of τ (Cc L P Ψ104. 326. 1175. 1128 Athan.).
For the first time the writer addresses his readers, and as ἀεφὶἅιι(only here in NT, for ἁίι in 1Th_5:27 is a later insertion), κήεςἐορνο μτχι(6:4 etc., cp. Psa_119:63 μτχςἐώεμ πνω τνφβυέω σ, Ep. Arist. 207; de Mundo, 401b). In Php_3:14 the ἄωκῆι is the prize conferred at the end upon Christian faith and faithfulness. Here there may be a side allusion to 2:11 (ἀεφὺ ατὺ κλῖ). In κτνήαε(a verb used in this general sense by Ep. Aristeas, 3, πὸ τ πρέγςτ θῖ κτνεν κλ the writer summons his readers to consider Jesus as πσό; but, instead of explaining why or how Jesus was loyal to God, he uses this quality to bring out two respects (the first in vv. 2a-4, the second in vv. 5-6a) in which Jesus outshone Moses, the divinely-commissioned leader and lawgiver of the People in far-off days, although there is no tone of disparagement in the comparison with Moses, as in the comparison with the angels.
In the description of Jesus as τνἀότλνκὶἀχεέ τςὁοοίςἡῶ, ὁοοί is almost an equivalent for “our religion,” as in 4:14 (cp. 10:23).1 Through the sense of a vow (LXX) or of a legal agreement (papyri and inscriptions), it had naturally passed into the Christian vocabulary as a term for the common and solemn confession or creed of faith. Ἡῶ is emphatic. In “our religion” it is Jesus who is ἀότλςκὶἀχεες not Moses. This suits the context better than to make the antithesis one between the law and the gospel (Theophyl. ο γρτςκτ νμνλτεα ἀχεεςἐτν ἀλ τςἡεέα πσες Possibly the writer had in mind the Jewish veneration for Moses which found expression during the second century in a remark of rabbi Jose ben Chalafta upon this very phrase from Numbers (Sifre, §110): “God calls Moses ‘faithful in all His house,’ and thereby he ranked higher than the ministering angels themselves.” The use of ἀότλςas an epithet for Jesus shows “the fresh creative genius of the writer and the unconventional nature of his style” (Bruce). Over half a century later, Justin (in Rev_1:12) called Jesus Christ τῦπτὸ πνω κὶδσόο θο υὸ κὶἀότλςὤ, and in Apol. 1:63 described him as ἄγλςκὶἀότλς ατςγρἀαγλε ὅαδῖγωθνι κὶἀοτλεα, μνσνὅαἀγλεα (the connexion of thought here possibly explains the alteration of δηήοα into ἀαγλ in Heb_2:12). Naturally Jesus was rarely called ἄγλς but it was all the easier for our author to call Jesus ἀότλς as he avoids the term in its ecclesiastical sense (cp. 2:3). For him it carries the usual associations of authority; ἀότλςis Ionic for πεβυή, not a mere envoy, but an ambassador or representative sent with powers, authorized to speak in the name of the person who has dispatched him. Here the allusion is to 2:3, where the parallel is with the Sinaitic legislation, just as the allusion to Jesus as ἀχεεςrecalls the ὁἁιζνof 2:11, 17. On the other hand, it is not so clear that any explicit antithesis to Moses is implied in ἀχεέ, for, although Philo had invested Moses with highpriestly honour (praem. et poen. 9, τγάε …ἀχεωύη, de vita Mosis ii., I, ἐέεογρποοᾳθο …ἀχεες this is never prominent, and it is never worked out in “Hebrews.”
The reason why they are to look at Jesus is (v. 2) his faithfulness τ πισνιατν where πιῖ means “to appoint” to an office (as 1 S 12:6 κρο ὁπισςτνΜυῆ κὶτνἈρν Mar_3:14 κὶἐοηε δδκ). This faithfulness puts him above Moses for two reasons. First (vv. 2b-4), because he is the founder of the House or Household of God, whereas Moses is part of the House. The text the writer has in mind is Num_12:7 (οχοτςὁθρπνμυΜυῆ·ἐ ὅῳτ οκ μυπσό ἐτν and the argument of v. 3, where οκς like our “house,” includes the sense of household or family,1 turns on the assumption that Moses belonged to the οκςin which he served so faithfully. How Jesus “founded” God`s household, we are not told. But there was an οκςθο before Moses, as is noted later in 11:2, 25, a line of πεβτριwho lived by faith; and their existence is naturally referred to the eternal Son. The founding of the Household is part and parcel of the creation of the τ πνα(1:2, 3). Κτσεάενincludes, of course (see 9:2, 6), the arrangement of the οκς(cp. Epict. i. 6. 7-10, where κτσεάωis similarly used in the argument from design). The author then adds an edifying aside, in v. 4, to explain how the οκςwas God`s (v. 2 ατῦ though Jesus had specially founded it. It would ease the connexion of thought if θό meant (as in 1:8?) “divine” as applied to Christ (so, e.g., Cramer, M. Stuart), or if οτςcould be read for θό, as Blass actually proposes. But this is to rewrite the passage. Nor can we take ατῦin v. 6a as “Christ`s”; there are not two Households, and πς(v. 4) does not mean “each” (so, e.g., Reuss). Ατῦin vv. 2, 5; and 6a must mean “God`s.” He as creator is ultimately responsible for the House which, under him, Jesus founded and supervises.
This was a commonplace of ancient thought. Justin, e.g., observes: Μννρ τ κμκ κὶτῖ τῦαφσσ τὐὰφάοε·μίοαγρτνδμορὸ τῦσεαοέο ἀεήαο(Rev_1:20). It had been remarked by Philo (De Plant. 16): ὅῳγρὁκηάεο τ κῆατῦκήαο ἀεννκὶτ ππικςτῦγγντς τσύῳβσλκτριἀενι and in Legum Allegor. iii. 32 he argues that just as no one would ever suppose that a furnished mansion had been completed ἄε τχη κὶδμορο, so anyone entering and studying the universe ὥπρεςμγση οκα ἢπλνwould naturally conclude that ἧ κὶἔτνὁτῦετῦπνὸ δμορὸ ὁθό.
The usual way of combining the thought of v. 4 with the context is indicated by Lactantius in proving the unity of the Father and the Son (diuin. instit. iv. 29): “When anyone has a son of whom he is specially fond (quem unice diligat), a son who is still in the house and under his father`s authority (in manu patris)—he may grant him the name and power of lord (nomen domini potestatemque), yet by civil law (civili iure) the house is one, and one is called lord. So this world is one house of God, and the Son and the Father, who in harmony (unanimos) dwell in the world, are one God.”
The second (5-6a) proof of the superiority of Jesus to Moses is now introduced by κί It rests on the term θρπνused of Moses in the context (as well as in Num_11:11, Num_11:12:7, Num_11:8 etc.; of Moses and Aaron in Wis 10:16, 18:21); θρπνis not the same as δῦο, but for our author it is less than υό, and he contrasts Moses as the θρπνἐ τ οκ with Jesus as the Son ἐὶτνοκν ἐίused as in 10:21 (ἱραμγνἐὶτνοκντῦθο) and Mat_25:21, Mat_25:23 (ἐὶὀίαῃ πσό). Moses is “egregius domesticus fidei tuae” (Aug. Conf. xii. 23). The difficult phrase εςτ μρύιντνλλθσμννmeans, like 9:9, that the position of Moses was one which pointed beyond itself to a future and higher revelation; the tabernacle was a σήητῦμρυίυ(Num_12:5) in a deep sense. This is much more likely than the idea that the faithfulness of Moses guaranteed the trustworthiness of anything he said, or even that Moses merely served to bear testimony of what God revealed from time to time (as if the writer was thinking of the words σόακτ σόαλλσ ατ which follow the above-quoted text in Numbers).
The writer now passes into a long appeal for loyalty, which has three movements (3:6b-19, 4:1-10, 4:11-13). The first two are connected with a homily on Psa_95:7-11 as a divine warning against the peril of apostasy, the story of Israel after the exodus from Egypt being chosen as a solemn instance of how easy and fatal it is to forfeit privilege by practical unbelief. It is a variant upon the theme of 2:2, 3 suggested by the comparison between Moses and Jesus, but there is no comparison between Jesus and Joshua; for although the former opens up the Rest for the People of to-day, the stress of the exhortation falls upon the unbelief and disobedience of the People in the past.
6 Now we are this house of God (ο, from the preceding ατῦ if we will only keep confident and proud of our hope. 7 Therefore, as the holy Spirit says:
“Today, when (ἐν as in 1Jn_2:28) you hear his voice,
8 harden not (μ σλρντ, aor. subj. of negative entreaty) your hearts as at the Provocation,
on the day of the Temptation in the desert,
9 where (ο = ὅο as Deu_8:15) your fathers put me to the proof,
10 and for forty years felt what I could do.”
Therefore “ I grew exasperated with that generation,
I said, ‘They are always astray in their heart’;
they would not learn my ways;
11 so (ὡ consecutive) I swore in my anger
‘they shall never (ε = the emphatic negative א in oaths) enter my Rest.’ ”
12 Brothers, take care in case there is a wicked, unbelieving heart in any of you, moving you to apostatize from the living God. 13 Rather admonish one another (ὲυος= ἀλλυ) daily, so long as this word “Today” is uttered. that none of you may be deceived by sin and “hardened.” 14 For we only participate in Christ provided that we keep firm to the very end the confidence with which we started, 15 this word ever sounding in our ears:
“Today when you hear his voice,
harden not your hearts as at the Provocation.”
16 Who heard and yet “provoked” him? Was it not all who left Egypt under the leadership of Moses? 17 And with whom was he exasperated for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose “corpses1 fell in the desert”? 18 And to whom “did he swear that they (sc. ατύ ) would never enter his Rest”? To whom but those who disobeyed (ἀεθσσν cp. Act_19:9)? 19 Thus (κίconsecutive) we see it was owing to unbelief that they could not enter.
In v. 6 (a) ο is altered into ὅ by D* M 6. 424 Lat Lucifer, Ambr. Priscillian, probably owing to the erroneous idea that the definite article (supplied by 440. 2005) would have been necessary between ο and οκς (b) ἐνis assimilated to the text of v. 14 by a change to ἐνε in א A C Dc K L W syrhkl Lucifer, Chrys, etc. (von Soden). (c) After ἐπδςthe words μχιτλυ ββίνare inserted from v. 14 by a number of MSS; the shorter, correct text is preserved in P13 B 1739 sah eth Lucifer, Ambrose.
V. 6b introduces the appeal, by a transition from 6a. When Philo claims that πρηί is the mark of intelligent religion (quis rer. div. haeres, 4, τῖ μνονἀαέισμέο ἡυί, τῖ δ ἐιτμςἐιμνι κὶἅαφλδσόοςἀακιττνἡπρηί κῆα he means by πρηί the confidence which is not afraid to pray aloud: cp. ib. 5 (πρηί δ φλα σγεέ, ἐε πὸ τν ἄ τςἢπὸ τνἑυο φλνπρηισιο), where the prayers and remonstrances of Moses are explained as a proof that he was God`s friend. But here as elsewhere in the NT πρηί has the broader meaning of “confidence” which already appears in the LXX (e.g. in Job_27:10 μ ἔε τν πρηίνἐατο ατῦ This confidence is the outcome of the Christian ἐπς(for τςἐπδςgoes with τνπρηίνas well as with τ κύηα here as in 4:16 and 10:19, 35; it denotes the believing man`s attitude to a God whom he knows to be trustworthy. The idea of τ κύηατςἐπδςis exactly that of Rom_5:2 (κυώεαἐʼἐπδ τςδξςτῦθο), and of a saying like Psa_5:12 (κὶεφαθτσνἐὶσὶπνε ο ἐπζνε ἐὶσ).
Δόin v. 7 goes most naturally with μ σλρντ (v. 8), the thought of which recurs in v. 13 as the central thread. The alternative, to take it with βέεεin v. 12, which turns the whole quotation into a parenthesis, seems to blunt the direct force of the admonition; it makes the parenthesis far too long, and empties the second δόof its meaning. βέεεis no more abrupt in v. 12 than in 12:25; it introduces a sharp, sudden warning, without any particle like ονor δ, and requires no previous term like δό The quotation is introduced as in 10:15 by “the holy Spirit” as the Speaker, a rabbinic idea of inspiration. The quotation itself is from Psa_95:7-11 which in A runs as follows:
σμρνἐντςφνςατῦἀοστ,
μ σλρντ τςκρίςὑῶ ὡ ἐ τ πρπκαμ
κτ τνἡέα τῦπιαμῦἐ τ ἐήῳ
ο ἐερσν ο πτρςὑῶ,
ἐοίαα μ κὶἴο τ ἔγ μυ
τσεάοτ ἔηποώθσ τ γνᾷἐεν,2
κὶεπν3 ἀὶ παῶτιτ κρί,
ατὶδ οκἔνσντςὁοςμυ
ὡ ὤοαἐ τ ὀγ μυ
ε εσλύοτιεςτνκτπυί μυ
In vv. 9, 10, though he knew (v. 17) the correct connexion of the LXX (cp. v. 17a), he alters it here for his own purpose, taking τσαάοτ ἔηwith what precedes instead of with what follows, inserting δό(which crept into the text of R in the psalm) before ποώθσ for emphasis, and altering ἐοίαα μ into ἐ δκμσᾳ The LXX always renders the place-names “Meriba” and “Massa” by generalizing moral terms, here by πρπκαμςand πιαμς the former only here in the LXX (Aquila, 1Sa_15:33; Theodotion, Pro_17:11). The displacement of τσεάοτ ἔηwas all the more feasible as εδντ ἔγ μυmeant for him the experience of God`s punishing indignation. (Τσαάοτ is better attested than τσεάοτ (Moulton, ii. 66) for the first century.) There is no hint that the writer was conscious of the rabbinic tradition, deduced from this psalm, that the period of messiah would last for forty years, still less that he had any idea of comparing this term with the period between the crucifixion and 70 a.d. What he really does is to manipulate the LXX text in order to bring out his idea that the entire forty years in the desert were a “day of temptation,”6 during which the People exasperated God. Hence (in v. 9) he transfers the “forty years” to εδντ ἔγ μυ in order to emphasize the truth that the stay of the People in the desert was one long provocation of God; for εδντ ἔγ μυis not an aggravation of their offence (“though they felt what I could do for them”), but a reminder that all along God let them feel how he could punish them for their disobedience. Finally, their long-continued obstinacy led him to exclude them from the land of Rest. This “finally” does not mean that the divine oath of exclusion was pronounced at the end of the forty years in the desert, but that as the result of God`s experience he gradually killed off (v. 17) all those who had left Egypt. This retribution was forced upon him by the conviction ατὶδ οκἔνσντςὁοςμυ(i.e. would not learn my laws for life, cared not to take my road).
The rabbinic interpretation of Psa_95 as messianic appears in the legend (T.B. Sanhedrim, 98a) of R. Joshua ben Levi and Elijah. When the rabbi was sent by Elijah to messiah at the gates of Rome, he asked, “Lord, when comest thou?” He answered, “To-day.” Joshua returned to Elijah, who inquired of him: “ What said He to thee?” Joshua: “Peace be with thee, son of Levi.” Elijah: “Thereby He has assured to thee and My father a prospect of attaining the world to come.” Joshua: “But He has deceived me, by telling me He would come to-day.” Elijah: “Not so, what He meant was, To-day, if you will hear His voice.” The severe view of the fate of the wilderness-generation also appears in Sanh. 110b, where it is proved that the generation of the wilderness have no part in the world to come, from Num_14:35 and also from Psa_95 (as I swore in my anger that they should not enter into my Rest). This was rabbi Akiba’s stern reading of the text. But rabbinic opinion, as reflected in the Mishna (cp. W. Bacher, Agada der Tannaiten2, i. 135 f.), varied on the question of the fate assigned to the generation of Israelited during the forty years of wandering in the desert. While some authorities took Psa_95:11 strictly, as if the “rest” meant the rest after death, and these Israelites were by the divine oath excluded from the world to come, others endeavoured to minimize the text; God`s oath only referred to the incredulous spies, they argued, or it was uttered in the haste of anger and recalled. In defence of the latter milder view Psa_50:5 was quoted, and Isa_35:10. Our author takes the sterner view, reproduced later by Dante (Purgatorio, xviii. 133-135), for example, who makes the Israelites an example of sloth; “the folk for whom the sea opened were dead ere Jordan saw the heirs of promise.” He never speaks of men “tempting God,” apart from this quotation, and indeed, except in 11:17, God`s πιαμςor probation of men is confined to the human life of Jesus.
For δόin v. 10 Clem. Alex. (Protrept. 9) reads δʼο Ποωθζι is a LXX term for the indignant loathing excited by some defiance of God’s will, here by a discontented, critical attitude towards him. In v. 11 κτπυι is used of Canaan as the promised land of settled peace, as only in Deu_12:9 (ο γρἥαε…εςτνκτπυι) and 1 K 8:56 (ελγτςΚρο σμρν ὃ ἐωε κτπυι τ λῷατῦ The mystical sense is developed in 4:3f.
The application (vv. 12f.) opens with βέεε(for the classical ὁᾶε μ…ἔτι(as in Col_2:8 (βέεεμ …ἔτι the reason for the future being probably “because the verb εμ has no aorist, which is the tense required,” Field, Notes on Translation of N.T., p. 38) ἐ τν ὑῶ—the same concern for individuals as in 4:11, 10:25, 12:15—κρί ἀιτα (genitive of quality—a Semitism here). Ἀιταmust mean more than “incredulity”; the assonance with ἀοτνιwas all the more apt as ἀιταdenoted the unbelief which issues in action, ἐ τ ἀοτνιthe idea as in Eze_20:8 κὶἀέτσνἀʼἐο, κὶοκἠέηα εσκῦα μυ though the preposition ἀόwas not needed, as may be seen, e.g., in Wis 3:10 (ο …τῦκρο ἀοτνε). Our author is fond of this construction, the infinitive with a preposition. “The living God” suggests what they lose by their apostasy, and what they bring upon themselves by way of retribution (10:31), especially the latter (cp. 4:12). There is no real distinction between θο ζνο and τῦθο ζνο, for the article could be dropped, as in the case of θὸ πτρand κρο Ἰσύ, once the expression became stamped and current.
In v. 13 πρκλῖε…κθ ἑάτνἡέα (cp. Test. Lev_9:8 ἦ κθ ἑάτνἡέα σντζνμ) emphasizes the keen, constant care of the community for its members, which is one feature of the epistle. In ἄρςο (elsewhere in NT with aorist or future), which is not a common phrase among Attic historians and orators, ἄρςis a Hellenistic form of ἄρ (p13 M) used sometimes when a vowel followed. Σμρνis “God`s instant men call years” (Browning), and the paronamasia in κλῖα1 …πρκλῖεled the writer to prefer κλῖα to a term like κρσεα. The period (see 4:7) is that during which God`s call and opportunity still hold out, and the same idea is expressed in ἐ τ λγσα Σμρνκλ (v. 15). ἐ ὑῶ is sufficiently emphatic as it stands, without being shifted forward before τς(B D K L d e etc. harkl Theodt. Dam.) in order to contrast ὑεςwith ο πτρςὑῶ (v. 9). As for ἡἁατα it is the sin of apostasy (12:4), which like all sin deceives men (Rom_7:11), in this case by persuading them that they will be better off if they allow themselves to abandon the exacting demands of God. The responsibility of their position is expressed in ἵαμ σλρνῇ a passive with a middle meaning; men can harden themselves or let lower considerations harden them against the call of God. As Clement of Alexandria (Protrept. ix.) explains: ὁᾶετνἀελν ὁᾶετνπορπν ὁᾶετντμν τ δ ονἔιτνχρνεςὀγνμτλάσμν… μγλ γρτςἐαγλα ατῦἡχρς “ἐνσμρντςφνςατῦἀοσμν·τ δ σμρντςφνςατῦαξτιτνἡέα, ἔτ ἂ ἡσμρνὀοάηα.
In v. 14 μτχιτῦΧιτῦ(which is not an equivalent for the Pauline ἐ Χιτ, but rather means to have a personal interest in him) answers to μτχικήεςἐορνο in v. 1 and to μτχυ πεμτςἁίυin 6:4; γγνμνbetrays the predilection of the writer for γγν rather than its equivalent ενι Ἐνε an intensive particle (for ἐν v. 6) τνἀχντςὑοτσω (genitive of apposition)—i.e. “our initial confidence” (the idea of 10:32)—κτσωε (echoing v. 6b). The misinterpretation of ὑοτσω as (Christ’s) “substance”1 led to the addition of ατῦ(A 588. 623. 1827. 1912 vg). But ὑότσςhere as in 11:1 denotes a firm, confident conviction or resolute hope (in LXX, e.g., Rth_1:12 ἔτνμιὑότσςτῦγνθνιμ ἀδί rendering תו, which is translated by ἐπςin Pro_11:7), with the associations of steadfast patience under trying discouragements. This psychological meaning was already current (cp. 2Co_9:4 μ …κτιχνῶε ἡεςἐ τ ὑοτσιτύῃ alongside of the physical or metaphysical. What a man bases himself on, as he confronts the future, is his ὑότσς which here in sound and even (by contrast) in thought answers to ἀοτνι
It is possible to regard v. 14 as a parenthesis, and connect ἐ τ λγσα (v. 15) closely with πρκλῖεor ἵαμ …ἁατα (v. 13), but this is less natural; ἐ τ λγσα (“while it is said,” as in Psa_42:4 ἐ τ λγσα) connects easily and aptly with κτσωε, and vv. 14, 15 thus carry on positively the thought of v. 13, viz. that the writer and his readers are still within the sound of God’s call to his οκςto be πσό.
The pointed questions which now follow (vv. 16-18) are a favourite device of the diatribe style. Πρπκανι (Hesych. πρρίεν in v. 16 seems to have been coined by the LXX to express “rebellious” with a further sense of provoking or angering God; e.g. Deu_31:27 πρπκαννε ἦετ πὸ τνθό (translating מה and Deu_32:16 ἐ βεύμσνατνπρπκαά μ (translating בם The sense of “disobey” recurs occasionally in the LXX psalter (e.g. 104:28, 106:11); indeed the term involves a disobedience which stirs up the divine anger against rebels, the flagrant disobedience (cp. πρβίενfor מהin Deu_1:43, Num_27:14) which rouses exasperation in God. Ἀλ, one rhetorical question being answered by another (as Luk_17:8), logically presupposes τνς but τνςmust be read in the previous question. By writing πνε the writer does not stop to allow for the faithful minority, as Paul does (1Co_10:7f. τνςατν In the grave conclusion (v. 19) δʼἀιτα (from v. 12) is thrown to the end for the sake of emphasis.
But, the author continues (4:1f.), the promised rest is still available; it is open to faith, though only to faith (1-3). No matter how certainly all has been done upon God’s part (3-5), and no matter how sure some human beings are to share his Rest (v. 6), it does not follow that we shall, unless we take warning by this failure of our fathers in the past and have faith in God. Such is the urgent general idea of this paragraph. But the argument is compressed; the writer complicates it by defining the divine Rest as the sabbath-rest of eternity, and also by introducing an allusion to Joshua. That is, he (a) explains God’s κτπυι in Psa_95 by the σβαιμςof Gen_2:2, and then (b) draws an inference from the fact that the psalm-promise is long subsequent to the announcement of the σβαιμς He assumes that there is only one Rest mentioned, the κτπυι into which God entered when he finished the work of creation, to which ο πτρςὑῶ were called under Moses, and to which Christians are now called. They must never lose faith in it, whatever be appearances to the contrary.
B [03: δ1] cont. 1:1-9:18: for remainder cp. cursive 293.
sah The Coptic Version of the NT in the Southern Dialect (Oxford, 1920), vol. v. pp. 1-131.
boh The Coptic Version of the NT in the Northern Dialect (Oxford, 1905), vol. iii. pp. 472-555.
Amb Ambrose.
א[01: δ2).
A [02: δ4].
C [04: δ3] cont. 2:4-7:26 9:15-10:24 12:16-13:25.
D [06: α1026] cont. 1:1-13:20. Codex Claromontanus is a Graeco-Latin MS, whose Greek text is poorlyreproduced in the later (saec. ix.-x.) E = codex Sangermanensis. The Greek text of the latter (1:1-12:8) is therefore of no independent value (cp. Hort in WH, § 335-337); for its Latin text, as well as for that of F=codex Augiensis (saec. ix.), whose Greek text of Πὸ Ἐρίυ has not been preserved, see below, p. lxix.
P [025: α3] cont. 1:1-12:8 12:11-13:25.
K [018:1:1].
L [020: α5] cont. 1:1-13:10.
M [0121: α1031] cont. 1:1-4:3 12:20-13:25.
6 [δ356] cont. 1:1-9:3 10:22-13:25
33 [δ48] Hort’s 17
104 [α103]
326 [α257]
1175 [α74] cont. 1:1-3:5 6:8-13:20
1288 [α162]
Ψ[044: δ6] cont. 1:1-8:11 9:19-13:25.
Athan Athanasius
1 Had it not been for these other references it might have been possible to take τ ὀ ἡ here as = “whom we confess.” The contents of the ὁοοί are suggested in the beliefs of 6:1f., which form the fixed principles and standards of the community, the Truth (10:26) to which assent was given at baptisra.
LXX The Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint Version (ed. H. B. Swete).
Philo Philonis Alexandriai Opera Quae Supersunt (recognoverunt L. Cohn et P. Wendland).
1 Our author avoids (see on 2:12) ἐκηί, unlike the author of 1Ti_3:15 who writes ἐ οκ θο, ἤι ἐτνἐκηί τῦθο.
Blass F. Blass, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch: vierte, vö neugearbeitete Auflage, besorgt von Albert Debrunner (1913); also, Brief an die Hebrä Text mit Angabe der Rhythmen (1903).
1 κλ in this sense is from Num_14:29, Num_14:32, a passage which the writer has in mind.
424 [O 12] Hort’s 67
440 [δ260]
2005 [α1436] cont. 1:1-7:2
W [I] cont. 1:1-3, 9-12. 2:4-7, 12-14. 3:4-6, 14-16 4:3-6, 12-14 5:5-7 6:1-3, 10-13, 20 7:1-2, 7-11, 18-20, 27-28 8:1, 7-9 9:1-4, 9-11, 16-19, 25-27 10:5-8, 16-18, 26-29, 35-38 11:6-7, 12-15, 22-24, 31-33, 38-40 12:1, 7-9, 16-18, 25-27 13:7-9, 16-18, 23-25: NT MSS in Freer Collection, The Washington MS of the Epp. of Paul (1918), pp. 294-306. Supports Alexandrian text, and is “quite free from Western readings.”
c (Codex Colbertinus: saec. xii.)
1739 [α78]
1 א adds μ (so T), which has crept (needlessly, for πιάενmay be used absolutely as in 1Co_10:9) into the text of Hebrews through א Dc M vg pesh harkl boh arm Apollin.
2 In some texts of Hebrews (p 13 אA B D* M 33. 424** vg Clem. Apollin.) this becomes (under the influence of the literal view of forty years?) τύῃ(ἐεν in C Dc K L P syr sah boh arm eth Eus. Cyril, Chrys.).
3 The Ionic form επ (B) has slipped into some texts of Hebrews (A D 33. 206. 489. 1288. 1518. 1836).
4 The LXX is stronger than the Hebrew; it appears to translate not the ע of the MT, but עם(cp. Flashar in Zeits fü alt. Wiss., 1912, 84-85).
5 ἐοίαα (μ) is read in the text of Hebrews, by assimilation, in א Dc K L vg syr arm eth Apollin. Lucifer, Ambr, Chrys. etc. i.e. ΕΔΚΜCΙ was altered into ΕΟΙΑᾹ
Moulton J. H. Moulton’s Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. i. (2nd edition, 1906).
6 The κτ in κτ τνἡέα (v. 8) is temporal as in 1:10, 7:27, not “after the manner of” (“secundum,” vg).
1 The common confusion between α and ε led to the variant κλῖε(AC).
1 Another early error was to regard it as “our substance,” so that ἡἀχ τςὑοτσω meant faith as “the beginning of our true nature” (a view already current in Chrysostom).
623 [α173]
1827 [α367]
1912 [α1066]
vg vg Vulgate, saec. iv.
2 In Deu_32:16 it is parallel to πρξνι; cp. Flashar’s discussion in Zeitlschrift fü alt. Wiss., 1912, 185 f. It does not always require an object (God).