Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Hebrews 12
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
Heb_12:3. In place of the Recepta εἰς αὑτόν or εἰς αὐτόν , which has the support of D*** K L, almost all the cursives and many Fathers, there is found εἰς αὐτούς in à ***, with Theodoret ( τὸ εἰς αὐτοὺς ἀντὶ τοῦ εἰς ἑαυτούς ), and in Cod. 17; εἰς ἑαυτούς , however, in à *, in the Peshito (quantum sustinuerit a peccatoribus, qui fuerunt adversarii sibi ipsis), in D* E*, together with their Latin version (recogitate igitur, talem vos reportasse a peccatoribus in vobis adversitatem), and in some mss. of the Vulgate; while the Sahidic and Armenian vss. entirely omit the words, and Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 8, de Wette write εἰς ἑαυτόν . The latter, which is attested by A and the Vulgate (in semetipsum), indirectly also by D* E*, is to be held the original reading; the plural, on the other hand, to be rejected as devoid of sense.
ἀντικατέστητε ] In place of this, Tisch. 2 writes, after L* 46, al., Chrys. ms. Theodoret, Theophyl. ms.: ἀντεκατέστητε . This form of the word (see on the twofold augment, Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 69 f.) must, it is true, be adopted upon strong attestation, but is not in a position here to set aside the Recepta ἀντικατέστητς , where ἀντεκ . has against it the preponderating testimony of A D E L** à , etc. Rightly, therefore, has Tisch. restored ἀντικ . in the editt. vii. and viii.
Heb_12:5. Elz.: Υἱέ μου . D*, some seven cursives, as also the Latin translation in D E, have only Υἱέ . Bleek has on that account suspected μου , and enclosed it within brackets. External authority, however, does not warrant our deleting the pronoun. The occasion for its omission might be afforded by the occurrence of a similar initial letter in the following word, or by the text of the LXX. in which it is wanting.
Heb_12:7. εἰ παιδείαν ὑπομένετε ] Instead of this, Matth. Lachm. Tisch. 1, 7 and 8, Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 758), and Alford read εἰς παιδείαν ὑπομένετε , and Griesbach has placed εἰς upon the inner margin. In favour of εἰς pleads, it is true, the greatly preponderating authority of A D E (?) K L à , of more than thirty cursives, Vulg. It. Syr. Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Arm. Damasc. Procop., while εἰ is found only with Chrys. Theodoret, Theophyl. Slav. (?), and, as it seems, in many cursives. Nevertheless εἰς is inadmissible. For, whether εἰς παιδείαν is taken still with παραδέχεται , or, as Hofmann will have it, with μαστιγοῖ ,—whereby, however, that which follows would become deformed,—or it be combined with ὑπομένετε , in any case παιδεία must be understood in the sense of “education,” whereas of a certainty, alike from that which precedes as from that which follows, the signification “chastisement” becomes a necessity. Consequently the Recepta εἰ παιδείαν ὑπομένετε is to be looked upon as that written by the author. The originality and correctness of this reading (defended also by Reiche, p. 115 sqq.) becomes manifestly apparent from the fact that upon its recognition Heb_12:7-8, in accordance with the usual accuracy of diction prevailing in the Epistle to the Hebrews, are in perfect mutual correspondence as type and antitype, alike as regards the protasis as also the apodosis.
In place of the Recepta τίς γάρ ἐστιν , we have, with Lachm. and Tisch., after A, à * Vulg. Sahid. Orig., to write merely: τίς γάρ .
Heb_12:8. Elz.: νόθοι ἐστὲ καὶ οὐχ υἱοί . With Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 8, Delitzsch, Alford, we have to transpose into: νόθοι καὶ οὐς υἱοί ἐστε , after A D* and D*** [in Cod. E all the rest is wanting from πάντες , Heb_12:8, to the close of the Epistle] à , 17, 37, 80, al., Vulg. It. Chrys. (codd.) and Latin Fathers.
Heb_12:9. Elz.: οὐ πολλῷ μᾶλλον . But A D* à (D* à *** with the addition of δέ ) have οὐ πολὺ μᾶλλον . Rightly preferred by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Alford.
Heb_12:15. In place of the received διὰ ταύτης , we have to adopt, with Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 2, and Alford, after A, 17, 67** 80, 137, 238, Copt, etc., Clem. Chrys. (comment.): διʼ αὐτῆς ; and in place of the Recepta πολλοί , with Lachm. Tisch. and Alford, after A à , 47, Clem. Theodoret: οἱ πολλοί . The article was lost sight of in the homoioteleuton πολλοί .
Heb_12:16. Lachm. (and Tisch. 2 and 7, as well as Alford, have followed him therein!) has placed in the text, from A C, the form of the word ἀπέδετο ; but this, although not altogether unexampled (see Buttmann, Gramm. des neutestam. Sprachgebr. p. 40 f.), is manifestly corruption of the Recepta ἀπέδοτο , which is confirmed by the Cod. Sinait.
On the other hand, the reading ἑαυτοῦ , given by Lachm. Tisch. and Alford, merits, on account of its more decided attestation by A C D** and D*** à *, the preference over the Recepta αὑτοῦ or αὐτοῦ .
Heb_12:18. Elz.: ψηλαφωμένῳ ὄρει . ὄρει , furnished by D K L, in like manner, as it seems, by almost all cursives, Vulg. (ed. Clem.) Arab. Polygl. Slav. Athan. Theodoret, Damasc. Oecum., is wanting indeed in A C à , 17, 47, in many mss. of the Vulg., in Copt. Sahid. Syr. Arab. Erp. Aeth., with Chrys. (comment.), Theophyl. Mart. pap. Bed., and was already suspected by Mill (Prolegg. 1071) as a gloss, and then deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 1 and 8, as likewise by Alford, is, however, indispensable, and is naturally called for by the opposition ἀλλὰ προσεληλύθατε Σιὼν ὄρει , Heb_12:22 (comp. also τοῦ ὄρους , Heb_12:20), as well as the confusion of idea in a πῦρ ψηλαφώμενον . Rightly, therefore, has Tisch. 2 and 7 placed ὄρει again in the text.
καὶ ζόφῳ ] Elz.: καὶ σκότῳ . Against A C D* à * 17, 31, 39. al. Suspected by Griesb. Rightly rejected by Lachm. Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford. σκότῳ was introduced from the LXX. Deu_4:11; Deu_5:22.
Heb_12:19. In place of the Recepta προστεθῆναι , Lachm. in the stereotype edition had adopted προσθεῖναι , after A. Rightly, however, has he retained the Recepta in the larger edition. This reading is borne out by C D K L à , by, as it seems, all the cursives and many Fathers.
Heb_12:20. After λιθοβοληθήσεται , Elz. adds further: ἢ βολίδι κατατοξευθήσεται . Against all uncials (A C D K L M à ), most min., all translations, and many Fathers. The words, deleted by Griesbach, Scholz, and all later editors, are a gloss from LXX. Exo_19:13.
Heb_12:23. Elz.: ἐν οὐρανοῖς ἀπογεγραμμένων . But the decisive testimony of A C D L M à , 37, al. m., Syr. Copt. Vulg. and many Fathers demands the transposition adopted by Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Alford, and others: ἀπογεγραμμένων ἐν οὐρανοῖς .
Heb_12:24. κρεῖττον λαλοῦντι ] Elz.: κρείττονα λαλοῦντι . Against A C D K L M à , most min. Syr. Arr. Copt. Sahid. Armen. Vulg. al., and many Fathers.
Heb_12:25. Elz.: ἔφογον τὸν ἐπί τῆς γῆς παραιτησάμενοι χρηματίζοντα , πολλῷ μᾶλλον . Instead of this, however, we have to read, with Lachm. Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. (who, however, in the edit. vii. has given the preference to the verbum simplex ἔφυγον , over the verbum compositum ἐξέφυγον ) Alford: ἐξέφυγον ἐπὶ γῆς παραιδησάμενοι τὸν χρηματίζοντα , πολὺ μᾶλλον , in that ἐξέφυγον (already approved by Grotius) is demanded by A C à * 57, 118, al. (Vulg. D, Lat. Slav. Epiph. in cant. cantic.: effugerunt), Cyr. Chrys. Philo Carpas. Oecum.; the deleting of the article τῆς before γῆς (already omitted in the Editt. Erasm. Complut. Colin., afterwards also by Bengel, Griesb. Matth. Scholz) is required by all the uncial mss. (including à ), most min., and very many Fathers; further, the placing of the article τόν only after παραιτησάμενοι is required by A C D M à * Cyril. Damasc.; finally, πολύ is required by A C D* à , Sahid.
Heb_12:26. Elz.: σείω . But A C M à , 6, 47, al., Syr. Vulg. Copt. Sahid. Slav. Athan. Cyril. Cosm. Andr. Areth. have σείσω . Approved by Grotius, recommended by Griesb., rightly adopted by Lachm. Scholz, Bleek, Tisch. Alford, Reiche.
Heb_12:27. Recepta: τῶν σαλευομένων τὴν μετάθεσιν . Better accredited, however (by A C à *), is Lachmann’s order of the words: τὴν τῶν σαλευομένων μετάθεσιν , which on that account is to be preferred. Bleek and Tisch. 1 have entirely rejected the article τήν . It is wanting, however, only in D* and M.
Heb_12:28. The reading ἔχομεν , which Calvin, Mill (Prolegg. 750), Heinrichs, and others approve, and which Luther also followed in his translation, is unsuitable, and insufficiently attested by K à , more than twenty min., most mss. of the Vulg., Aeth. Cyr. Antioch., while the reading ἔχωμεν rests upon the testimony of A C D L M, etc., Copt. Syr. Aeth. al., Chrys. Theodoret, Damasc. al., as also a ms. of the Vulg.
In that likewise which follows, the indicative λατρεύομεν , which Griesbach has placed on the inner margin, stands in point of external attestation below the Recepta λατρεύωμεν . The former is found in K M à , about fifty min., with Athan., in mss. of Chrys., with Oecum. and Theophyl. On the other hand, A C D L, very many min. and many Fathers have λατρεύωμεν .
At the close of the verse the Recepta reads: μετὰ αἰδοῦς καὶ εὐλαβείας , instead of which, however, we have, with Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. and Alford, to adopt the reading (recommended also by Griesb.): μετὰ εὐλαβείας καὶ δέους , after A C D* à * 17, 71, 73, 80, 137, Copt. Sahid. Slav. ed. (al.: μετὰ δέους καὶ εὐλαβείας . Vulg.: cum metu et reverentia. D, Lat.: cum metu et verecundia).