Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Hebrews 11
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
The preference to the Recepta: τὰ βλεπόμενα , is merited by the reading τὸ βλεπόμενον , commended to attention by Griesbach, adopted by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. and Alford, approved also by de Wette, Tholuck, Delitzsch, and others. To be preferred partly on account of the better attestation by means of A D* E* à , 17, It. Copt. Clem. Didym. Ath. Cyr. al., partly because a mutation from the singular into the plural was more naturally suggested than the opposite.
Heb_11:4. Elz.: μαρτυροῦντος ἐπὶ τοῖς δώροις αὐτοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ . Instead of this, A D* à * 17 have: μαρτυροῦντος ἐπὶ τοῖς δώροις αὐτοῦ τῷ θεῷ . Adopted by Lachm. But the thought: “in that Abel, in regard to his offerings, gave testimony to God,” would be unintelligible, and, moreover, incorrectly and unhappily expressed. Besides, since μαρτυροῦντος κ . τ . λ . is the unmistakable nearer definition to ἐμαρτυρήθη , the context naturally points to God as the subject in μαρτυροῦντος . Beyond doubt, therefore, τῷ θεῷ arose only from the eye of the copyist wandering to the τῷ θεῷ at the beginning of the verse.
In place of the Recepta λαλεῖται , Griesbach (who, however, attaches equal value to the Recepta), Bleek, Scholz, Tisch. Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Alford, Reiche rightly read λαλεῖ . In favour of this is decisive, on the one hand, the important authority of A à , 17, 23, 31, 39, al. mult., Syr. utr. Arabb. Copt. Armen. Slav. rec. Vulg. Clem. Orig. Athan. Nyss. Chrys. (in comment.) Epiphan. Austerius Damasc. Chron. alex. Theodoret (in textu), Photius ms. Oecum. Theophyl., on the other hand, the usus loquendi. For neither in taking λαλεῖται in the middle sense, with Beza, Er. Schmid, Wolf, Carpzov, Baumgarten, nor yet in the passive: praedicatur, laudatur, in omnium ore est, with Jos. Scaliger, Lud. de Dieu, Wetstein, Heinrichs, Stengel, should we be warranted on linguistic grounds; quite apart from the fact that, in the latter acceptation, the statement would be a very trivial one.
Heb_11:5. Elz.: εὑρίσκετο . Better attested, however (by A D E à , 109, Epiphan.), is the form ηὑρίσκετο , which is found likewise in the LXX. Gen_5:24, in the Cod. Alex. Rightly adopted by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. and Alford.
In place of the Recepta: τῆς μεταθέσεως αὐτοῦ , we have to write, with Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. de Wette, Delitzsch, Alford, and others, after A D* à * 17, 67** 80, Vulg. It. Copt., merely: τῆς μεταθέσεως , and in place of the received form εὐηρεστηκέναι , with Lachm. Tisch. 1, 2, and 7, Delitzsch, and Alford, the form better attested (by A K L, 46, 71, 73, al., Theophyl.): εὐαρεστηκέναι .
Heb_11:8. Elz.: καλούμενος . But A D (E?) Vulg. It. Arm. Theodoret, Jer. Bed. Have ὁ καλούμενος . Approved by Mill. Rightly placed in the text by Lachm. and Tisch. 1.
The article τόν , inserted in the Recepta before τόπον , we have, with Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1, 7, and 8, and Alford, after A D* à *, to delete; and, after A D* K, many min. Chrys. Damasc. Theophyl., with Lachm. Tisch. 1, 2, and 7, and Alford, to write ἔμελλεν in place of the Recepta ἤμελλε .
Heb_11:9. καὶ παρῷκησεν , which D* E, together with their Latin translation, furnish in place of the Recepta: πίστει παρῷκησεν , is a later corruption, inasmuch as in Heb_11:9 a fresh evidence is given of the πίστις of Abraham.
εἰς γῆν ] Elz.: εἰς τὴν γῆν . But the article is wanting in A D** K L à , very many cursives, with Damasc. and Oecum. It is suspected by Griesbach, rightly rejected by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Alford.
Heb_11:11. καὶ παρὰ καιρὸν ἠλικίας ] Elz.: καὶ παρὰ καιρὸν ἡλικίας ἔτεκεν . But ἔτεκεν is a later gloss, which is condemned by A D* à * 17, Vulg. It. Copt. Sah. Aeth. utr. Chrys. (codd.). It was already regarded as spurious by Beza, Grotius, Mill (Prolegg. 1355), Bengel; and is rightly deleted by Griesbach, Knapp, Lachm. Scholz, Bleek, Tisch. Alford, and others.
Heb_11:12. In place of the Recepta ἐγεννήθησαν , Lachm. Bleek, Delitzsch, and Alford read ἐγενήθησαν , which, on account of the stronger attestation by A D* K, 109, 219* al. (Vulg. It.: orti sunt), is to be preferred.
ὡς ἡ ἄμμος ] So already the Editt. Complut. and Steph. 2, then Bengel, Griesbach, Matthaei, Knapp, Lachm. Scholz, Bleek, Tisch. Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Alford, and others. Elz.: ὡσεὶ ἄμμος . Against A D (* and ** and ***)[104] E K L à , 23, 37, 46, 47, al. mult., Chrys. (codd.) Damasc. Oecum. Theophyl.
Ἡ ΠΑΡᾺ ΤῸ ΧΕῖΛΟς ] is wanting in D* E, in their Latin translation, and in Aeth. utr. The origin of the omission is to be traced back to a mere error in writing, to which the resemblance of sound of the closing letters in ἌΜΜΟς and ΧΕῖΛΟς gave occasion.
Heb_11:13. In place of the Recepta μὴ λαβόντες , Lachm. reads μὴ προσδεξάμενοι . But the Recepta is supported by the considerable authority of D E K L à *** almost all the cursives, Theodoret, and others; while the reading of Lachm., probably arising from Heb_11:35, has only the testimony of A in its favour, and is devoid of meaning. For ΠΡΟΣΔΕΞΆΜΕΝΟΙ could, in accordance with the usage prevailing elsewhere, only signify either the subjective having expected (having awaited), or the subjective having admitted. But neither of these, meanings would be compatible with the statement of Heb_11:13, which would be suitably expressed only if ΠΡΟΣΔΕΞΆΜΕΝΟΙ could be explained of the objective having received, what is never denoted by this verb. The reading μὴ κομισάμενοι in à * some cursives (17, 23* 39, al.), and, with Chrys. (in comment.) Damasc. Theophyl. (adopted by Tisch. 8), was only called forth by the similar turn Heb_10:36, Heb_11:39.
ἸΔΌΝΤΕς ] Elz.: ἸΔΌΝΤΕς ΚΑῚ ΠΕΙΣΘΈΝΤΕς . But the addition ΚΑῚ ΠΕΙΣΘΈΝΤΕς has almost all the witnesses (also à ) against it. It is found in only two or three cursives, and is an explanatory gloss to ἈΣΠΑΣΆΜΕΝΟΙ . Comp. Chrysostom: ΟὝΤΩ ΠΕΠΕΙΣΜΈΝΟΙ ἮΣΑΝ ΠΕΡῚ ΑὐΤῶΝ Ὡς ΚΑῚ ἈΣΠΆΣΑΣΘΑΙ ΑὐΤΆς ; Oecumenius: ΚΑῚ ἈΣΠΑΣΆΜΕΝΟΙ · ΠΕΙΣΘΈΝΤΕς .
Heb_11:15. ἘΞΈΒΗΣΑΝ ] Elz. Griesbach (who, however, has placed ἘΞΈΒΗΣΑΝ on the inner margin), Matthaei, Knapp, Scholz, Bloomfield: ἘΞῆΛΘΟΝ . Against A D* E* à * 17, 73, 80, Athan. (ed. Bened.; edd. al.: ἐξεβλήθησαν ) Chron. alex. Damasc.
Heb_11:16. νῦν δέ ] Elz. Matt. Bloomfield: νυνὶ δέ . Against decisive witnesses (A D E à , 44, 48, al. perm., Athan. Chrys. Theodoret, Oecum.).
Heb_11:19. The Recepta ἐγείρειν has the support of D E K L à , almost all min. Orig. Chrys. Theodoret, Damasc. al.; Lachm. and Tisch. 1 read, after A ( ΕΓΕΙΡΕ ), 17, 71, Cyr. Chron. alex.: ἘΓΕῖΡΑΙ .
Elz.: ΔΥΝΑΤΌς ; A D**: ΔΎΝΑΤΑΙ . Adopted by Lachm. into the text.
Heb_11:20. In place of the Recepta πίστει , Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1, 2, 7, Alford have adopted πίστει καί , after A D* 17, 23, 37, al., Vulg. It. Chrys. (but not in all MSS. and editt.) Theodoret, Damasc. Sedul. Bede. Rightly. ΚΑΊ might appear superfluous, and on that account was more likely to be omitted than added.
Heb_11:23. Instead of the Recepta διάταγμα , Lachm. reads δόγμα . But this reading is founded only in a conjectural manner upon A, inasmuch as all the letters of the word except the δ have been torn away from the Codex. Apart from this, δόγμα is found only in one cursive MS. of the twelfth century (Cod. 34). It is probably a gloss from Luk_2:1.
At the close of Heb_11:23, D* E (as also their Latin translation, as well as three codd. of the Vulgate) further add the Words: πιστι μεγας γενομενος μωυσης ανιλεν τον αιγυπτιον κατανοων την ταπινωσιν των αδελφων αυτου , as to the spuriousness of which, although Zeger and Mill (Prolegg. 496) held them to be genuine, no doubt can exist, even on account of the ΜΈΓΑς ΓΕΝΌΜΕΝΟς , Heb_11:24. They are a complementary addition in conformity to Act_7:23 ff.
Heb_11:26. ΤῶΝ ΑἸΓΎΠΤΟΥ ] Elz.: ΤῶΝ ἘΝ ΑἸΓΎΠΤῼ . Against D E K L à (also against the later supplementer of B), 31, 44, 46, al. plur., Syr. utr. Copt, al., Clem. Euseb. al. Rejected by Griesbach, Matthaei, Knapp, Scholz, Bleek, Tisch. de Wette, Delitzsch, Alford, al. The ΤῶΝ ἘΝ ΑἸΓΎΠΤΟΥ , adopted by Lachm., after A and some cursives (3, 71), owes its origin to an uncompleted correction.
Heb_11:28. Instead of the Recepta ὀλοθρεύων , A D E, Damasc. have the more correct ( ὄλεθρος ) form ὀλεθρεύων , which is rightly preferred by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1, 2, 7, and Alford.
Heb_11:29. Elz. has merely ὡς διὰ ξηρᾶς . But, with Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Delitzsch, and Alford, we have to add γῆς , after A D* E à , 17, 31, 47, al., Chrys. Theodoret (cod.), and probably all the versions. Since Γῆς was no necessary addition, it could easily get omitted.
Heb_11:30. Recepta: ἔπεσε . But, after A D* à , 17, 23, 31, al., Chrys. ms., ἜΠΕΣΑΝ (in favour of which, also, ἜΠΕΣΟΝ in 37, and Chrys. ms., testifies) is to be looked upon as the original reading. Adopted by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Alford. Approved by Delitzsch.
Heb_11:32. Elz.: ἘΠΙΛΕΊΨΕΙ ΓΆΡ ΜΕ . With Lachm. Tisch. 7 and 8, and Alford, after A D* à , we have to transpose into: ἘΠΙΛΕΊΨΕΙ ΜΕ ΓΆΡ .
In that which follows, the Recepta reads: περὶ Γεδεών , Βαράκ τε καὶ Σαμψὼν καὶ Ἰεφθάε , Δαυΐδ τε καί Σαμουήλ .
Instead thereof, Lachm. reads (and so also Tisch. 1 and 8), as it also stands in the Codex Sinaiticus: ΠΕΡῚ ΓΕΔΕῺΝ ΒΑΡᾺΚ ΣΑΜΨῺΝ ἸΕΦΘΆΕ , ΔΑΥΊΔ ΤΕ ΚΑΊ ΣΑΜΟΥΉΛ . On internal grounds neither of these forms of the text commends itself. For, in the case of both, the persons here further mentioned would have been enumerated, in contradiction with the mode of proceeding hitherto observed, without regard to the chronology; inasmuch as, historically, Barak was to have been mentioned before Gideon, Jephthah before Samson, Samuel before David. And yet the regularity with which each time the second name designates a person earlier in a chronological respect, points to an order of succession chosen with design. Observe, further, that in the last member, ΔΑΥΐΔ ΤΕ ΚΑῚ ΣΑΜΟΥΉΛ , there is nowhere found a variation with regard to the particles. There can thus hardly be room for doubt that the foregoing names also were originally arranged in groups of two. It appears, accordingly, the better course to retain the Recepta, with the two modifications,—that, with D*, καὶ Βαράκ is read in place of the mere Βαράκ ; and then, with A, 17, Vulg. Copt. Arm. Clem. Cyr. Al. Epiphan. Ambr. Bede, the mere Σαμψών is read instead of τε καὶ Σαμψών . (The καί before Ἰεφθάε is supported by D E K L, almost all cursives, Syr. al., Chrys. Theodoret, Damasc. al.) Thus arises the text: περὶ Γεδεὼν καὶ Βαράκ , Σαμψὼν καὶ Ιεφθάε , Δαυΐδ τε καὶ Σαμουήλ , and the sense is: “of Gideon as well as of Barak, of Samson not less than of Jephthah, of David even as of Samuel.” In connection with this form of the text, the otherwise very strange breach in the chronological order disappears, since the discourse advances historically with the addition of each new double member; while, in the double members themselves, the mention of the later person before the earlier is justified by the mention on each occasion of those who are in point of time contemporaries, as also from the consideration of rhetorical effect.
Heb_11:34. After A D* à , Lachm. has adopted μαχαίρης (and so also Tisch. 7 and 8) instead of the Recepta ΜΑΧΑΊΡΑς , and, after A D* à *: ἘΔΥΝΑΜΏΘΗΣΑΝ (so also Tisch. 8), in place of the Recepta: ἑνεδυναμώθησαν .
Heb_11:35. γυναῖκες ] Lachm. has, after A D* à *: γυναῖκας , what, however, rests upon a mere error in transcribing, and is to be rejected as meaningless.
Heb_11:37. μαχαίρας ] D* à , Lachm. Tisch. 7 and Hebrews 8 : μαχαίρης .
Heb_11:38. The Recepta ἘΝ ἘΡΗΜΊΑΙς is attested by D E K L, min. Clem. Orig. (twice) Chrys. Theodoret, Damasc. al. Lachm. and Tisch. 7 and 8 read, with A à , 71, 73, 118, Orig. (once) Socrat.: ἐπὶ ἐρημίαις , which, however, can have arisen only from an error of the copyist.
Heb_11:39. Elz.: τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν . A, 80, Arab. Polygl. Lachm.: τὰς ἐπαγγελίας .
[104] D* Hebrews 31: καθὼς ἡ .