Heinrich Meyer Commentary - Hebrews 10

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Heinrich Meyer Commentary - Hebrews 10


Verse Commentaries:



Chapter Level Commentary:
CHAPTER 10

Heb_10:1 reads in the Recepta: Σκιὰν γὰρ ἔχων ὁ νόμος τῶν μελλόντων ἀγαθῶν , οὐκ αὐτὴν τὴν εἰκόνα τῶν πραγμάτων , κατʼ ἐνιαυτὸν ταῖς αὐταῖς θυσίαις , ἃς προσφέρουσιν εἰς τὸ διηνεκές , οὐδέποτε δύναται τοὺς προσερχομένους τελειῶσαι . Instead thereof, Lachm. takes the words Σκιὰν … πραγμάτων as an independent clause, placing a full stop after πραγμάτων . He then, in the stereotype edition, omits the relative before προσφέρουσιν ,—while in the larger edition he has again added the ἅς of the Recepta before this verb,—places a comma after προσφἐρουσιν , and writes δύνανται in place of δύναται . This punctuation and form of the text given by Lachm. is in all essential respects to be unhesitatingly rejected. In connection with the breaking off of the opening words of the verse into an independent statement, ἐστίν must be supplemented to ἔχων . Such supplementing, however, would be altogether opposed to the linguistic character of the Epistle to the Hebrews; moreover, it would remain inexplicable, from the very brevity of the clause, how the participle ἔχων should come to be written for the finite tense ἔχει , which naturally suggests itself. In addition to this, the joining to that which precedes by means of γάρ would occasion a difficulty, and the clause following would become an asyndeton. Besides, this following clause, in the absence of any connecting relative, would not even comply with the laws of grammar. The relative before προσφέρουσιν is wanting in A, 2, 7* 17, 47, Syr. utr. Arm., and A** 31, Syr. Philonex. then insert αἵ before old οὐδέποτε . Instead of the Recepta ἃς προσφέρ . there is found, however, in D* L (?), 73, 137, in an ancient fragment with Matthaei, which Tisch., in the edit. 7 (comp. Pars I. p. cxci.), has designated as N, with Theodoret, as well as in a MS. of Chrysostom and in the Latin version of D E: αἷς προσφέρ ., and the latter is preferred by Bleek, Tisch. and Alford. Yet the Recepta ἅς , which is supported by C D*** E (?) K à , the majority of the cursives, and many Fathers, is to be defended. Since the three words immediately preceding end in αις , ἅς might easily also be changed into αἷς . The Recepta δύναται , finally, is attested by D (* and ***) E K L, very many cursives, Vulg. It. Copt, al., Chrys. Theodoret (text), Oecum. (comm.) al., while the plural δύνανται (preferred also by Tisch. 1, and already placed by Griesbach upon the inner margin) is presented by A C D** à , about thirty cursives, Syr. al., Chrys. (codd.) Theodoret (comm.?), Damasc. Theophyl. al. But the plural is devoid of sense, and can on that account be regarded only as a transcriber’s error, which was occasioned by the foregoing plural προσφέρουσιν .

Heb_10:2. Ἐπεὶ οὐκ ἂν ἐπαύσαντο ] Elz.: ἐπεὶ ἂν ἐπαύσαντο . Against the decisive authority of all uncial mss., of most cursives, vss. and Fathers.

The preference to the Recepta κεκαθαρμένους is deserved by κεκαθαρισμένους (approved by Grotius, Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 8, Delitzsch, Alford), as better attested. In favour of κεκαθαρισμένους pleads not only the testimony of D E K à , 23** 37, 39, al., but also the form which in A C has arisen as a transcriber’s error from the same κεκαθερισμένους , which latter Lachm. has adopted.

Heb_10:6. Recepta here and Heb_10:8 : εὐδόκησας . Better attested, however, here (by A C D* E, the early fragment in Matth. al.) and Heb_10:8 (by A D* [E?], al., Cyr. Theodoret) is the reading, chosen by Lachm. Tisch. and Alford, as also approved by Delitzsch: ηὐδόκησας .

Heb_10:8. In place of the Recepta θυσίαν καὶ προσφοράν , Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford rightly read the plural: θυσίας καὶ προσφοράς , in accordance with A C D* à * 17, 23, 57, al., Vulg. It. Syr. Copt. Sahid. Arab. Erp. Cyril. Already commended to attention by Griesbach. The singular is a later change, with a view to its conformation to Heb_10:5.

In like manner we have, with Lachm. and Tisch., to delete τόν , which the Recepta adds before νόμον , as not being found in A C, à , 37, 46, 71, 73, al., Sahid. Cyril, Chrys. Theodoret. The insertion of the article was more easily possible than its rejection.

Heb_10:9. τοῦ ποιῆσαι ] Elz.: τοῦ ποιῆσαι , ὁ θεός . Against A C D E K à * 17, 39, 46, al. mult. It. Copt, al., ὁ θεός is a complementary addition from Heb_10:7. Rightly deleted by Griesbach, Lachm. Scholz, Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford, Reiche.

Heb_10:10. Instead of the mere διά in the Recepta, Matthaei and Tisch. 2 and 7 read, after the precedent of the Edd. Complutens. Erasm. Colin. Stephan.: οἱ διά . Bloomfield places οἱ within brackets. But οἱ (sc. ἡγιασμένοι ) is wanting in A C D* E* à , 31, 47, al., Chrys. Theodoret, and owes its origin to an error of the eye, in that the termination σμένοι in ἡγιασμένοι gave rise to the writing of ἐσμὲν οἱ .

In place of τοῦ σώματος in the Recepta, D* E, with their Latin translation, have τοῦ αἵματος . Mistaken emendation, since τοῦ σώματος , Heb_10:10, was chosen in manifest correspondence to the citation σῶμα δὲ κατηρτίσω μοι , Heb_10:5.

Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ] Elz.: τοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ . But the article has against it the testimony of all the uncials, many cursives and Fathers, and is rightly rejected by Griesbach, Matthaei, Scholz, Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford.

Heb_10:11. Elz. Griesbach, Matthaei, Scholz, Tisch. 2, 7, and 8, Bloomfield, Reiche read: πᾶς μὲν ἱερεύς . Defended also by Böhme, Tholuck, and Delitzsch. The preference, however, is deserved by the reading: πᾶς μὲν ἀρχιερεύς , which is furnished by A C, 31, 37, 46, al., Syr. utr. (yet in the Philonex. with an asterisk) Basm. Aeth. Arm. Theodoret (text), Cyril Euthal. al., was already adopted in the Editt. Complut. Plantin. Genev., and more recently has been restored by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1, and Alford. If the ordinary Levitical priests had been intended, οἱ ἱερεῖς would, as is rightly observed by Bleek, have been written instead of πᾶς ἱερεύς , since each single Levitical priest had by no means daily to offer sacrifice. Less unsuitable, on the other hand, is the statement of the daily presentation of sacrifice in regard to the high priest, since that which was true of the Levitical priests in general could indeed be ascribed to the high priest as the head and representative of the same. In any case we have here, at the close of the argument, and because of the parallel with the person of Christ, to expect not so much the mention of the ordinary Jewish priest, as the mention of the Jewish high priest. The reading: πᾶς μὲν ἱερεύς , is therefore to be looked upon as a later correction, made on account of the following καθʼ ἡμέραν , since this stood in apparent contradiction to πᾶς μὲν ἀρχιερεύς .

Heb_10:12. οὗτος δέ ] Elz. Matthaei, Tisch. 2 and 7, Bloomfield: αὐτὸς δέ . But οὗτος δέ (recommended by Griesbach; adopted by Lachm. Bleek, Scholz, Tisch. 1 and 8, Alford, Reiche; approved also by Delitzsch) is demanded by the preponderating authority of A C D* E à , 67** 80, 116, al., Syr. utr. Arr. Copt. Basm. Aeth. Arm. It. Vulg. al., Chrys. Cyr. Damasc. al.

Instead of the Recepta: ἐν δεξιᾷ , Lachm. had written in the stereotype edition: ἐκ δεξιῶν , which, however, is only feebly attested by A, 31 ( à * has ἐκ δεξιᾷ , which by à *** was changed into ἐν δεξιᾷ ). Rightly, therefore, has Lachm. returned in his larger edition to the Recepta.

Heb_10:15. μετὰ γὰρ τὸ εἰρηκέναι ] Elz. Matth. Scholz, Tisch. 2 and 7, Bloomfield, Reiche: μετὰ γὰρ τὸ προειρηκέναι . Against decisive witnesses (A C D E à , l7, 31, 47, al. m. Syr. utr. Arr. Copt. Basm. Aeth. It. Vulg. Chrys. Theoph. Ambrose, Sedul.). Already held suspected by Griesbach.

Heb_10:16. Elz. Griesbach, Matthaei, Scholz, Tisch. 2 and 7, Bloomfield, Alford, Reiche: ἐπὶ τῶν διανοιῶν , after D** and *** E K L, most cursives and vss., Chrys. Theodoret, al., Ambrose, al. On the other hand, A C D* à , 17, 31, 47, al., Vulg. (Amiat. Havlej.* Tolet.) have: ἐπὶ τὴν διάνοιαν . Approved by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 8, and probably the original reading.

Heb_10:17. Elz. Matthaei, Scholz, Bloomfield: μνησθῶ . More correctly, Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford, after A C D* E à * Hebrews 17: μνησθήσομαι , which Griesbach has placed upon the inner margin. μνησθῶ was carried over from Heb_8:12.

Heb_10:22. Recepta: ἐῤῥαντισμένοι . After A C D* à * Lachm. writes: ῥεραντισμένοι , Tisch. and Alford: ῥεραντισμένοι .

Heb_10:29. The words ἐν ᾧ ἡγιάσθη are deleted by Lachm. in the stereotype edition; but are rightly, since they are omitted only by A and Chrysostom, retained by him in the larger edition.

Heb_10:30. The addition following ἀνταποδώσω in the Recepta: λέγει κύριος , is rejected by Tisch. 1, 2, and 8, after D* à * 17, 23* 67** Vulg. It. Copt. Syr. Aeth. Arab. Erp. Ambr. Bede, and is regarded by Mill (Prolegg. 496), Bengel, Griesbach, and others as probably a gloss. Bloomfield encloses it within brackets. It is nevertheless protected by A D*** E K L à *** etc., Syr. Philonex. al., and many Fathers. Rightly, therefore, has it been received again by Tisch. into the edit. vii. Delitzsch, Alford, and Reiche also have lately decided in favour of its genuineness.

The Recepta κύριος κρινεῖ we have, with Lachm. Tisch. and Alford, after A D E K à * 31, 73, al., Vulg. It. Syr. utr. Aeth. Theodoret (semel), to transpose into κρινεῖ κύριος . Bleek and Delitzsch read, after D E, 55, 71, Vulg. It. Theodoret (sem.): ὅτι κρινεῖ κύριος . Quite similarly, LXX. Deu_32:36; Psa_135:14.

Heb_10:34. τοῖς δεσμίοις ] Thus we have to read, with Griesbach, Lachm. Scholz, Bleek, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford, Reiche, and others, after A D* [as Cod. B breaks off at Heb_9:14, so also Heb_10:24 to Heb_12:15 is wanting in Cod. C] 47, 67** 73, al, Syr. utr. Arab. Erpen. Copt. Arm. Vulg. Chrys. Antioch. Damasc. Theodoret (comm.), Oecum. (comm.) Pelag. Ambrose, al. From τοῖς δεσμίοις arose, by a slip on the part of the copyist, τοῖς δεσμοῖς , which is found with Origen, Exhort. ad martyr. 44, and to which the vinculis eorum of the Latin translation in D E corresponds; while, then, τοῖς δεσμοῖς was completed by means of a gloss into the Recepta, still defended by Matthaei, Bloomfield, M‘Caul, and Hofmann: τοῖς δεσμοῖς μου (D*** E K L à , etc.), in that Paul was regarded as the author of the epistle, and thus was found expressed an acknowledgment of the sympathy manifested by the Palestinian Christians towards himself during his imprisonment.

In that which follows, the reading: ἔχειν ἑαυτοῖς , very strongly confirmed by D E K L, almost sixty cursives, Chrys. Theodoret, Isidor. iii. 225, Damasc. Theoph., already adopted into the Editt. Complut. Erasm. 1, Steph. 1 and 2, and later preferred by Bengel, Griesbach, Matthaei, Knapp, Scholz, Tisch. 2 and 7, Delitzsch, Alford, Reiche, is to be held the original one, inasmuch as from this reading the rise, as well of the Recepta: ἔχειν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς (which, as it would seem, rests only upon a few cursives), as also of the reading afforded by A à , four cursives, the early fragment in Matthaei, Vulg. It. al., and followed by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 and Hebrews 8 : ἔχειν ἑαυτούς , is to be explained.

The addition: ἐν οὐρανοῖς after ὕπαρξιν in the Recepta is wanting in A D* à * 17, in the early fragment with Matthaei in the text, in Copt. Aeth. Vulg. It., with Clem. Al. Bed., and stands with Theodoret only after μένουσαν . Elucidatory gloss, suspected by Mill (Prolegg. 1208) and Griesbach, rightly rejected by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford.

Heb_10:35. Recepta: μισθαποδοσίαν μεγάλην . With Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1, 7, and 8, Alford, we have to transpose into μεγάλην μισθαποδοσίαν , after A D E à , the early fragment in Matthaei, 73, 116, al., Clem. Al. Orig. Eus. It. Vulg. Copt. al.

Heb_10:38. The Recepta omits the μον , which is found in most MSS. of the LXX. after πίστεως . D* Syr. utr. Copt., the Latin version in D E, Eus. Theodoret (alic.), Cypr. Jerome have it after πίστεως . On the other hand, it is found after δίκαιος in A à , Arm. Vulg., in the early fragment with Matthaei by the first hand, with Clem. Al. Eus. (alic.) Theodoret (alic.), Proc. Sedul. Bed. Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. and Alford have adopted it at this latter place, and probably the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews so read, inasmuch as it is found with the LXX. at this place in Cod. A.