Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Critical Commentary NT - Hebrews 8:1 - 8:99
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1 The point of all this is, we do have such a highpriest, one who is “seated at the right hand” of the throne of Majesty (see 1:3) in the heavens, 2 and who officiates in the sanctuary or “true tabernacle set up by the Lord” and not by man. 3 Now, as every highpriest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices, he too must have something to offer. 4 Were he on earth, he would not be a priest at all, for there are priests already to offer the gifts prescribed by Law (5 men who serve a mere outline and shadow of the heavenly—as Moses was instructed when he was about to execute the building of the tabernacle: “see,” God said, “that (sc. ὅω) you make everything on the pattern shown you upon the mountain”). 6 As it is, however, the divine service he has obtained is superior, owing to the fact that he mediates a superior covenant, enacted with superior promises.
The terseness of the clause ἢ ἔηε ὁκρο, οκἄθωο (v. 1) is spoiled by the insertion of κίbefore οκ(A K L P vg boh syr arm eth Cosm). In v. 4 ονbecomes γρin Dc K L syrhkl arm Chrys. Theod., and a similar group of authorities add ἱρω after ὄτν Τνis prefixed needlessly to νμνby א D K L P Chrys. Dam. to conform to the usage in 7:5, 9:22; but the sense is really unaffected, for the only legal regulation conceivable is that of the Law. In v. 6. ννand νν (9:26) are both attested; the former is more common in the papyri. The Hellenistic (from Aristotle onwards) form ττυε (א B Dc 5 226, 487, 623, 920, 927, 1311, 1827, 1836, 1873, 2004, 2143, etc.: or ττχν א A D* K L) has been corrected in P Ψ6, 33, 1908 Orig. to the Attic ττχκν Before κετοό, κίis omitted by D* 69, 436, 462 arm Thdt.
Κφλιν(“the pith,” Coverdale), which is nominative absolute, is used as in Cic. ad Attic. v.18: “et multa, immo omnia, quorum κφλιν” etc., Dem. 13:36: ἔτ δ, ὦἄδε Ἀηαο, κφλινἁάτντνερμνν(at the close of a speech); Musonius (ed. Hense, 67 f.) βο κὶγνσω πίω κιωίνκφλινενιγμυ etc. The word in this sense is common throughout literature and the more colloquial papyri, here with ἐὶτῖ λγμνι (concerning what has been said). In passing from the intricate argument about the Melchizedek priesthood, which is now dropped, the writer disentangles the salient and central truth of the discussion, in order to continue his exposition of Jesus as highpriest. “Such, I have said, was the ἀχεεςfor us, and such is the ἀχεεςwe have —One who is enthroned, ἐ τῖ ορνῖ, next to God himself.” While Philo spiritualizes the highpriesthood, not unlike Paul (Rom_12:1f.), by arguing that devotion to God is the real highpriesthood (τ γρθρπυιὸ γνςἀάηάἐτ θο, ἱρμνντνμγλνἀχεωύη ατ μν, de Fug. 7), our author sees its essential functions transcended by Jesus in the spiritual order.
The phrase in v. 2 τνἁίνλιορό, offers two points of interest. First, the linguistic form λιορό. The ε form stands between the older ηor η, which waned apparently from the third cent. b.c., and the later ιform; “λιορό sim. socios habet omnium temporum papyros praeter perpaucas recentiores quae sacris fere cum libris conspirantes λτυγςλτυγαscribunt” (Crö Memoria Graeca Hercul. 39). Then, the meaning of τνἁίν Philo has the phrase, in Leg. Alleg. iii. 46, τιῦο δ ὁθρπυὴ κὶλιορὸ τνἁίν where τνἁίνmeans “sacred things,” as in de Fug. 17, where the Levites are described as priests οςἡτνἁίνἀαετιλιορί. This might be the meaning here. But the writer uses τ ἅι elsewhere (9:8f. 10:19, 13:11) of “the sanctuary,” a rendering favoured by the context. By τ ἅι he means, as often in the LXX, the sanctuary in general, without any reference to the distinction (cp. 9:2f.) between the outer and the inner shrine. The LXX avoids the pagan term ἱρνin this connexion, though τ ἅινitself was already in use among ethnic writers (e.g. the edict of Ptolemy iii., κὶκθδῦα ἐ τνἁίι= “in sacrario templi,” Dittenberger, OGIS 56:59). It is here defined (κίepexegetic) as the true or real σηή ἣ1 ἔηε ὁκρο (a reminiscence of Num_24:6 σηα ἃ ἔηε Κρο, and of Exo_33:7 κὶλβνΜυῆ τνσηὴ ατῦἔηε). The reality and authenticity of the writer’s faith come out in a term like ἀηιό. What he means by it he will explain in a moment (v. 5). Meanwhile he turns to the λιορί of Jesus in this ideal sanctuary. This ἀχεεςof ours, in his vocation (v. 3, cp. 5:1), must have (ἀακῖν sc. ἐτν some sacrifice to present before God, though what this offering is, the writer does not definitely say, even later in 9:24. The analogy of a highpriest carrying the blood of an animal inside the sacred shrine had its obvious limitations, for Jesus was both ἀχεεςand offering, by his self-sacrifice. Ποεέκ is the Hellenistic aorist subjunctive, where classical Greek would have employed a future indicative (Radermacher, 138). The writer proceeds to argue that this λιορί is far superior to the levitical cultus (vv. 4f.). Even in the heavenly sanctuary there must be sacrifice of some kind—for sacrifice is essential to communion, in his view. It is not a sacrifice according to the levitical ritual; indeed Jesus on this level would not be in levitical orders at all. But so far from that being any drawback or disqualification to our ἀχεες it is a proof of his superiority, for the bible itself indicates that the levitical cultus is only an inferior copy of the heavenly order to which Jesus belongs.
Instead of contrasting at this point (v. 4) τ δρ (sacrifices, as in 11:4) of the levitical priests with the spiritual sacrifice of Jesus, he hints that the mere fact of these sacrifices being made ἐὶγςis a proof of their inferiority. This is put into a parenthesis (v. 5); but, though a grammatical aside, it contains one of the writer’s fundamental ideas about religion (Eusebius, in Praep. Evang. xii.19, after quoting Heb_8:5, refers to the similar Platonic view in the sixth book of the Republic). Such priests (οτνς the simple relative as in 9:2, 10:8, 11, 12:5) λτεοσ (with dative as in 13:10) ὑοεγαικὶσι τνἐορνω (cp. 9:23). Ὑόεγαhere as in 9:23 is a mere outline or copy (the only analogous instance in the LXX being Eze_42:15 τ ὑόεγατῦοκυ the phrase is practically a hendiadys for “a shadowy outline,” a second-hand, inferior reproduction. The proof of this is given in a reference to Exo_25:40: ΚθςκχηάιτιΜυῆ— χηαίω as often in the LXX and the papyri, of divine revelations as well as of royal instructions—μλω ἐιεεντνσηή. The subject of the φσ is God, understood from κχηάιτι and the γρ introduces the quotation, in which the writer, following Philo (Leg. Alleg. iii. 33), as probably codex Ambrosianus (F) of the LXX followed him, adds πνα He also substitutes διθναfor δδιμνν which Philo keeps (κτ τ πρδιμ τ δδιμννσιἐ τ ὄε πναπισι), and retains the LXX τπν(like Stephen in Act_7:44). The idea was current in Alexandrian Judaism, under the influence of Platonism, that this σηήon earth had been but a reproduction of the pre-existent heavenly sanctuary. Thus the author of Wisdom makes Solomon remind God that he had been told to build the temple (νο …κὶθσατρο) as μμμ σηῆ ἁίςἣ ποτίαα ἀʼἀχς(9:8), where σηὴἁί is plainly the heavenly sanctuary as the eternal archetype. This idealism determines the thought of our writer (see Introd. pp. xxxi f.). Above the shows and shadows of material things he sees the real order of being, and it is most real to him on account of Jesus being there, for the entire relationship between God and man depends upon this function and vocation of Jesus in the eternal sanctuary.
Such ideas were not unknown in other circles. Seneca (Ep. lviii.18-19) had just explained to Lucilius that the Platonic ideas were “what all visible things were created from, and what formed the pattern for all things,” quoting the Parmenides, 132 D, to prove that the Platonic idea was the everlasting pattern of all things in nature. The metaphor is more than once used by Cicero, e.g. Tusc. iii.2. 3, and in de Officiis, 3:17, where he writes: “We have no real and life-like (solidam et expressam effigiem) likeness of real law and genuine justice; all we enjoy is shadow and sketch (umbra et imaginibus). Would that we were true even to these! For they are taken from the excellent patterns provided by nature and truth.” But our author’s thought is deeper. In the contemporary Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch the idea of Exo_25:40 is developed into the thought that the heavenly Jerusalem was also revealed to Moses along with the patterns of the σηήand its utensils (4:4f.); God also showed Moses “the pattern of Zion and its measures, in the pattern of which the sanctuary of the present time was to be made” (Charles’ tr.). The origin of this notion is very ancient; it goes back to Sumerian sources, for Gudea the prince-priest of Lagash (c. 3000 b.c.) receives in a vision the plan of the temple which he is commanded to build (cp. A. Jeremias, Babylonisches im NT, pp. 62 f.). It is to this fundamental conception that the author of Πὸ Ἑρίυ recurs, only to elaborate it in an altogether new form, which went far beyond Philo. Philo’s argument (Leg. Alleg. iii. 33), on this very verse of Exodus, is that Bezaleel only constructed an imitation (μμμτ) of τ ἀχτπ given to Moses; the latter was called up to the mountain to receive the direct idea of God, whereas the former worked simply ἀὸσιςτνγνμνν In de Plant. 6 he observes that the very name of Bezaleel (בְֵ אל means “one who works in shadows” (ἐ σιῖ πιν in De Somniis, i. 35, he defines it as “in the shadow of God,” and again contrasts Bezaleel with Moses: ὁμνοασιςὑερφτ, ὁδ ο σις ατςδ τςἀχτπυ ἐηιύγιφσι. In Vit. Mos. iii.3 he argues that in building the σηήMoses designed to produce κθπρἀʼἀχτπυγαῆ κὶνηῶ πρδιμτνασηὰμμμτ …ὁμνοντπςτῦπρδίμτςἐεφαίεοτ δαοᾳτῦποήο …τ δ ἀοέεμ πὸ τντπνἐηιυγῖο
He then continues (v. 6 ννδ, logical as in 2:8, 9:26, answering to ε μνin v. 4) the thought of Christ’s superior λιορί by describing him again (cp. 7:22) in connexion with the superior δαήη and using now not ἔγο but μστς Μστς(see on Gal_3:19) commonly means an arbitrator (e.g. Job_9:33, ReinP 44:3 [a.d. 104] ὁκτσαεςκιὴ μστς or intermediary in some civil transaction (OP 1298:19); but this writer’s use of it, always in connexion with δαήη(9:15, 12:24)1 and always as a description of Jesus (as in 1Ti_2:5), implies that it is practically (see on 7:22) a synonym for ἔγο. Indeed, linguistically, it is a Hellenistic equivalent for the Attic μτγυς and in Diod. Siculus, iv. 54 (τῦο γρμστνγγντ τνὁοοινἐ Κλοςἐηγλα βηήενατ πρσοδυέῃ its meaning corresponds to that of ἔγο. The sense is plain, even before the writer develops his ideas about the new δαήη for, whenever the idea of reconciliation emerges, terms like μστςand μστύι are natural. Μστςκὶδαλκή is Philo’s phrase2 for Moses (Vit. Mos. iii:19). And as a δαήηwas a gracious order of religious fellowship, inaugurated upon some historical occasion by sacrifice, it was natural to speak of Jesus as the One who mediated this new δαήηof Christianity. He gave it (Theophyl. μστςκὶδτς he it was who realized it for men and who maintains it for men. All that the writer has to say meantime about the δαήηis that it has been enacted (v. 6) ἐὶκετοι ἐαγλας This passive use of νμθτῖ is not unexampled; cf. e.g. OGIS. 493:55 (ii a.d.) κὶτῦαμνὑενὀθςκὶκλς…ννμθτσω It is implied, of course, that God is ὁνμθτν(as in LXX Psa_83:7). What the “better promises” are, he now proceeds to explain, by a contrast between their δαήηand its predecessor. The superiority of the new δαήηis shown by the fact that God thereby superseded the δαήηwith which the levitical cultus was bound up; the writer quotes an oracle from Jeremiah, again laying stress on the fact that it came after the older δαήη(vv. 7-13), and enumerating its promises ascontained in a new δαήη
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion for a second. 8 Whereas God does find fault with the people of that covenant, when he says:
“The day is coming, saith the Lord,
when I will conclude a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.
9 It will not be on the lines of the covenant I made with their fathers,
on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt’s Land;
for they would not hold to my covenant,
so I left them alone, saith the Lord,
10 This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel when that (“the day” of v. 8) day comes, saith the Lord;
I will set my laws within their mind,
inscribing them upon their hearts;
I will be a God (εςθό, i.e. all that men can expect a God to be) to them,
and they shall be a People to me;
11 one citizen will no longer teach his fellow,
one man will no longer teach his brother (τνἀεφνατῦ i.e. one another, Exo_10:23),
saying, “Know the Lord.”
for all shall know me, low and high together.
12 I will be merciful to their iniquities,
and remember their sins no more.
13 By saying “a new covenant,” he antiquates the first. And whatever is antiquated and aged is on the verge of vanishing.
The contents of the prediction of a κιὴδαήηby God, and the very fact that such was necessary, prove the defectiveness of the first δαήη The writer is struck by the mention of a new δαήηeven in the OT itself, and he now explains the significance of this. As for ἡπώη(sc. δαήη ἐεν, ε …ἄεπο (if no fault could have been found with it), οκἀ δυέα ἐηετ τπς Δυέα is replaced by ἑέα in B* (so B. Weiss, Blass); but, while ἕεο could follow πῶο (Mat_21:30), δύεο is the term chosen in 10:9, and B* is far too slender evidence by itself. Ζτῖ τπνis one of those idiomatic phrases, like ερῖ τπνand λβῖ τπν of which the writer was fond. The force of the γρafter μμὀεο is: “and there was occasion for a second δαήη the first was not ἄεπο, since,” etc. It need make little or no difference to the sense whether we read ατῖ (א B Dc L 6, 38, 88, 104, 256, 436, 487, 999, 1311, 1319, 1739, 1837, 1845, 1912, 2004, 2127 Origen) or ατύ (א A D* K P W 33 vg arm), for μμόεο can take a dative as well as an accusative (cf. Arist. Rhet. i.6. 24, Κρνίι δ ο μμεα τ Ἴιν Aesch. Prom. 63, οδὶ ἐδκςμματ μι in the sense of “censuring” or “finding fault with,” and μμόεο naturally goes with ατῖ or ατύ. The objection to taking ατῖ with λγι is that the quotation is not addressed directly to the people, but spoken at large. Thus the parallel from 2 Mal_2:7 (μμάεο ατῖ επν is not decisive, and the vg is probably correct in rendering “vituperans enim eos dicit.” The context explains here as in 4:8 and 11:28 who are meant by ατύ. The real interest of the writer in this Jeremianic oracle is shown when he returns to it in 10:16-18; what arrests him is the promise of a free, full pardon at the close. But he quotes it at length, partly because it did imply the supersession of the older δαήηand partly because it contained high promises (vv. 10-12), higher than had yet been given to the People. No doubt it also contains a warning (v. 9), like the text from the 95th psalm (3:7f.), but this is not why he recites it (see p. xl).
The text of Jer 38:31-34 (31:31-34) as he read it in his bible (i.e. in A) ran thus:
ἰο ἡέα ἔχνα, λγιΚρο,
κὶδαήοα τ οκ Ἰρὴ κὶτ οκ Ἰύαδαήη κιή,
ο κτ τνδαήη ἣ δεέη τῖ πτάι ατν
ἐ ἡέᾳἐιαοέο μυτςχιὸ ατνἐααενατὺ ἐ γςΑγπο,
ὅιατὶοκἐέεννἐ τ δαήῃμυ
κγ ἠέηαατν φσνΚρο.
ὅιατ ἡδαήηἣ δαήοα τ οκ Ἰρή
μτ τςἡέα ἐενς φσνΚρο,
δδὺ νμυ μυεςτνδάοα ατν
κὶἐιρψ ατὺ ἐὶτςκρίςατν
κὶὄοα ατὺ
κὶἔοα ατῖ εςθὸ.
κὶατὶἔοτίμιεςλό.
κὶο μ1 δδξσνἕατςτνἀεφνατῦ
κὶἕατςτνπηίνατῦλγν γῶιτνΚρο,
ὅιπνε ἰήοσνμ
ἀὸμκο ἕςμγλυατν
ὅιἵεςἔοα τῖ ἀιίι ατν
κὶτνἁατῶ ατνο μ μηθ ἔι
Our author follows as usual the text of A upon the whole (e.g. λγιfor φσνin v. 31, κγ in v. 32, the omission of μυafter δαήηand of δσ after δδύ in v. 33, ο μ δδξσνfor ο δδξυι in v. 34 and the omission of ατνafter μκο), but substitutes σνεέωἐὶτνοκν(his) for δαήοα τ οκ in v. 31, reads λγιfor φσνin v. 32 and v. 33, alters δεέη into ἐοηα(Q*), and follows B in reading κὶἐὶκ ατνbefore the verb (v. 33), and πλτν…ἀεφνin v. 34, as well as in omitting κὶὄ. ατύ (A א in the former verse; in v. 34 he reads εδσυι (אQ) instead of ἰήοσν the forms of οδ and εδνbeing repeatedly confused (cp. Thackeray, 278). These minor changes may be partly due to the fact that he is quoting from memory. In some cases his own text has been conformed to other versions of the LXX; e.g. A D Ψboh restore μυin v. 10, א K vg Clem. Chrys. read κρίν(with אin LXX), though the singular1 is plainly a conformation to δαοα (“Fü den Plural sprechen ausser A D L noch B, wo nur das C in εverschrieben und daraus εικρι ευω geworden ist, und P, wo der Dat. in den Acc. verwandelt,” B. Weiss in Texte u. Untersuchungen, xiv. 3. 16, 55); B Ψarm revive the LXX (B) variant γάω the LXX (Q) variant πηἰνis substituted for πλτνby P vg syrhkl eth 38 206 218 226 257 547 642 1288 1311 1912 etc. Cyril, and the LXX (B Q א ατνrestored after μκο by De L syr boh eth, etc. On the other hand, a trait like the reading ἐοηαin the LXX text of Q* may be due to the influence of Hebrews itself. The addition of κὶτνἀοινατνafter or before κὶτνἁατῶ ατνin v. 12 is a homiletic gloss from 10:17, though strongly entrenched in א A C D K L P Ψ 104 326 etc. vg pesh arm Clem
Σνεέωδαήη, a literary LXX variant for πισ δαήη, recalls the phrase σνεέα δαήη (Jer_41:8 (34:8), and, as 12:24 (να δαήη) shows, the writer draws no distinction between κιό and νο (v. 8). In v. 9 the genitive absolute (ἐιαοέο μυ after ἡέᾳinstead of ἐ ᾗἐεαόη (as Justin correctly puts it, Dial. xi.), is a Hellenistic innovation, due here to translation, but paralleled in Bar 2:28 ἐ ἡέᾳἐτιαέο συατ); in ὅι(causal only here and in v. 10) …ἐέενν the latter is our “abide by,” in the sense of obey or practise, exactly as in Isokrates, κτ τνΣφσῶ, 20: οςε τςἐὶτνπάενἐμίεε. Bengel has a crisp comment on ατὶ…κγ here and on ἔοα …κὶατί(“correlata …sed ratione inversa; populus fecerat initium tollendi foederis prius, in novo omnia et incipit et perficit Deus”); and, as it happens, there is a dramatic contrast between ἠέηαhere and the only other use of the verb in this epistle (2:3). In v. 10 δδύ, by the omission of δσ, is left hanging in the air; but (cp. Moulton, 222) such participles could be taken as finite verbs in popular Greek of the period (cp. e.g. χιοοηεςin 2Co_8:19). The κιὴδαήηis to be on entirely fresh lines, not a mere revival of the past; it is to realize a knowledge of God which is inward and intuitive (vv. 10, 11). There is significance in the promise, κὶἔοα ατῖ …εςλό. A δαήηwas always between God and his people, and this had been the object even of the former δαήη(Exo_6:7); now it is to be realized at last. Philo’s sentence (“even if we are sluggish, however, He is not sluggish about taking to Himself those who are fit for His service; for He says, ‘I will take you to be a people for myself, and I will be your God,’” De Sacrif. Abelis et Caini, 26) is an apt comment; but our author, who sees the new δαήηfulfilled in Christianity, has his own views about how such a promise and purpose was attainable, for while the oracle ignores the sacrificial ritual altogether, he cannot conceive any pardon apart from sacrifice, nor any δαήηapart from a basal sacrifice. These ideas he is to develop in his next paragraphs, for it is the closing promise of pardon1 which is to him the supreme boon. Meanwhile, before passing on to explain how this had been mediated by Jesus, he (v. 13) drives home the truth of the contrast between old and new (see Introd., p. xxxix). Ἐ τ λγι (same construction as in 2:8)—when the word κιὴ (sc. δαήη) was pronounced, it sealed the doom of the old δαήη Πλιω(ππλίκ) in this transitive sense (“he hath abrogat,” Tyndale) is known to the LXX (Job_9:5, Lam_3:4, both times of God in action); γρσενis practically equivalent to μρίεθι and implies decay (see Wilamowitz on Eur. Herakles, 1223). The two words ἐγς(as in 6:8) ἀαιμῦ at the end of the paragraph, sound like the notes of a knell, though they have no contemporary reference; the writer simply means that the end of the old δαήηwas at hand (p. xxii). The new would soon follow, as it had done ἐ υῷ(1:1). The verb ἀαίεν(-εθι is applied to legislation (e.g., Lysias, 868, τνὑέεα νμθσα ἀαίοτς in the sense of abolition, lapsing or falling into desuetude, Dion. Hal. Ant. iii. 178, ἃ (i.e. Numa’s laws) ἀαιθνισνβ τ χόῳ the opposite of ἀαίενbeing γάεν(ibid. ix. 608, κτ τὺ νμυ, οςο νωτ δήε γάενπλιγρἐρφσν κὶοδὶ ατὺ ἠάιεχόο), and the sense of disappearance in ἀαιμςappears already in the LXX (e.g. Jer 28:37 κὶἔτιΒβλνεςἀαιμν
But the new δαήηis also superior to the old by its sacrifice (9:1f.), sacrifice being essential to any forgiveness such as has been promised. The older δαήηhad its sanctuary and ritual (vv. 1-5), but even these (vv. 6f.) indicated a defect.
A [02: δ4].
K [018:1:1].
L [020: α5] cont. 1:1-13:10.
P [025: α3] cont. 1:1-12:8 12:11-13:25.
boh The Coptic Version of the NT in the Northern Dialect (Oxford, 1905), vol. iii. pp. 472-555.
Cosm Cosmas Indicopleustes (ed. E. O. Winstedt, CAmbridge, 1909)
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.
Theod. Theodore of Mospsuestia
א[01: δ2).
B [03: δ1] cont. 1:1-9:18: for remainder cp. cursive 293.
5 [δ453]
226 [δ156]
487 [α171]
623 [α173]
920 [α55]
927 [δ251]
1311 [α170]
1827 [α367]
1836 [α65]
1873 [α252]
2004 [α56]
2143 [α184]
Ψ[044: δ6] cont. 1:1-8:11 9:19-13:25.
6 [δ356] cont. 1:1-9:3 10:22-13:25
33 [δ48] Hort’s 17
1908 [O π103]
69 [δ505]
436 [α172]
462 [α502]
Thdt. Theodoret
Philo Philonis Alexandriai Opera Quae Supersunt (recognoverunt L. Cohn et P. Wendland).
LXX The Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint Version (ed. H. B. Swete).
OGIS Dittenberger’s Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae (1903-1905).
1 ἥ is not assimilated, though ἧ might have been written; the practice varied (cp. e.g. Deu_5:31 ἐ τ γ ἥ ἐὼδδμ, and 12:1 ἐ τ γ ῃΚρο δδσν
Radermacher Neutestamentliche Grammatik (1911), in Lietzmann’s Handbuch zum Neuen Testament (vol. i.).
2 Passively in the NT in Act_10:22, but the exact parallel is in Josephus, Ant. iii.8. 8, Μϋῆ …εςτνσηὴ εσὼ ἐρμτζτ πρ ὧ ἐετ πρ τῦθο.
1 Put before φσ, because the point is not that the oracle was given, but what the oracle contained.
ReinP Papyrus Grecs et Dé (Paris, 1905), ed. Th. Reinach.
OP The Oxyrhynchus Papyri (ed. B. P. Grenfell and A. Hunt).
1 In these two latter passages, at least, there may be an allusion to the contemporary description of Moses as “mediator of the covenant” (“arbiter testamenti,” Ass. Mosis, i.14). The writer does not contrast Jesus with Michael, who was the great angelic mediator in some circles of Jewish piety (cp. Jub 1:29, Test. Dan_6).
2 Josephus (Ant. xvi.2. 2) says that Herod τνπρ Ἀρπατσνἐιηομννμστςἦ, and that his influence moved πὸ τςεεγσα ο βαύοτ τνἈρπα. Ἰιῦιμνγρατνδήλξνὀγζμνν
Weiss B. Weiss, “Textkritik der paulinischen Briefe” (in Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, vol. xiv. 3), also Der Hebrä in Zeitgeschichtlicher Beleuchtung (1910).
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).
38 [δ355]
88 [α200]
104 [α103]
256 [α216]
999 [δ353]
1319 [δ180]
1739 [α78]
1837 [α192]
1845 [α64]
1912 [α1066]
2127 [δ202]
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.”
1 μμόεο is then “by way of censure,” and some think the writer purposely avoided adding ατν Which, in view of what he says in v. 13, is doubtful; besides, he has just said that the former δαήηwas not ἄεπο.
1 ο μ only occurs in Hebrews in quotations (here, 10:17, 13:5); out of about ninety-six occurrences in the NT, only eight are with the future.
Thackeray H. St J. Thackeray, A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek (1909).
vg vg Vulgate, saec. iv.
1 That ἐίtakes the accusative here is shown by 10:16; κρίςcannot be the genitive singular alongside of an accusative.
C [04: δ3] cont. 2:4-7:26 9:15-10:24 12:16-13:25.
206 [α365]
218 [δ300]
257 [α466]
547 [δ157]
642 [α552] cont. 1:1-7:18 9:13-13:25
1288 [α162]
326 [α257]
Moulton J. H. Moulton’s Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. i. (2nd edition, 1906).
1 With τνἁατω ατνο μ μηθ ἔιcompare the parable of R. Jochanan and R. Eliezer on God’s readiness to forget the sinful nature of his servants: “There is a parable concerning a king of flesh and blood, who said to his servants, Build me a great palace on the dunghill. They went and built it for him. It was not thenceforward the king’s pleasure to remember the dunghill which had been there” (Chagiga, 16 a. i. 27).