Heb_4:2. Better attested, it is true, than the nominative singular
συγκεκραμένος
(
συγκεκραμμένος
), which the Recepta presents, is the accusative plural of this participle, inasmuch as A B C D* M, 23, al., Theodor. Mops, read
συγκεκερασμένους
(
συνκεκερασμένους
), and D*** E K L, 4, 6, 10, al. plur., Cyr. Alex. (semel) Macar. Chrys. Theodoret, Phot. al.,
συγκεκραμένους
(
συγκεκραμμένους
), and also the majority of translations (Syr. poster. Copt. Aeth. Arm. Slav. al.) render in the accusative. Griesbach therefore commended the accusative to notice.
συγκεκραμ
(
μ
)
ένους
is adopted into the text by the edd. Complut. Antw. Plantin. Genev., by Matthaei and others;
συγκεκερασμένους
, by Lachm. Tisch. 1, and Alford. The accusative is, notwithstanding, to be rejected, as opposed to the context and unmeaning. This reading being accepted, we have as exposition either: “but the word listened to did not profit them, since they were not mixed in faith or joined together in one with Joshua and Caleb, who heard, i.e. were obedient to the word listened to” (so Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Hammond, Cramer, Matthaei, al.). But this interpretation is in conflict with Heb_3:15 ff., according to which the whole people of Israel brought out of Egypt by Moses is described as rebellious and unbelieving; between two classes thereof, on the other hand, a class of believers and another of unbelievers, no distinction whatever is made. Moreover, in connection with this interpretation,
τοῖς
ἀκούσασιν
suffers transmutation into a notion which it cannot have, regarded in itself only, much less here, seeing its evident correspondence with the preceding
ἀκοῆς
. (Not less untenable is the modification of this construction with Alford, who, rejecting all reference to Joshua and Caleb, will have
τοῖς
ἀκούσασιν
taken, not at all in the historic sense, but, like Joh_5:25, as an indication of the category: “
ὁ
λόγος
τῆς
ἀκοῆς
having been mentioned in the general sense of the word heard,
οἱ
ἀκούσαντες
is also in the general sense of its hearers, and the assumption is made that the word heard has naturally recipients, of whom the normal characteristic is faith. And so these men received no benefit from the word of hearing, because they were not one in faith with its hearers; did not correspond, in their method of receiving it, with faithful hearers, whom it does profit;” as, accordingly, Alford himself frankly confesses that he does not feel satisfied with this explanation, and is only driven to adopt it on the ground of critical and grammatical difficulties,—difficulties of the latter kind, nevertheless, do not exist, and those urged by Alford are easily solved. Or else a passive notion is substituted for the active
τοῖς
ἀκούσασιν
. So already Theodore of Mopsuestia, who thinks
τοῖς
ἀκουσθεῖσιν
[62] must be read (in Nov. Test. Commentariorum quae reperiri potuerunt Coll. O. Fr. Fritzsche, Turici 1847, p. 166:
μηδὲ
γάρ
τις
οἰέσθω
ἀρκεῖν
αὐτῷ
τὴν
ἐπαγγελίαν
τῶν
μελλόντων
,
ὥσπερ
οὐδὲ
ἐκείνοις
·
οὐ
γὰρ
ἦσαν
κατὰ
τὴν
τίστιν
τοῖς
ἐπαγγελθεῖσι
συνημμένοι
·
ὅθεν
οὕτως
ἀναγνωστέον
·
μὴ
συγκεκερασμένους
τῇ
πίστει
τοῖς
ἀκουσθεῖσιν
,
ἵνα
εἴπῃ
ταῖς
πρὸς
αὐτοὺς
γεγενημέναις
ἐπαγγελίαις
τοῦ
θεοῦ
διὰ
Μωσέως
); further, as it appears, Theodoret, since—although in our editions
ΤΟῖς
ἈΚΟΎΣΑΣΙΝ
precedes—he makes use of the words:
ΤΊ
ΓᾺΡ
ὬΝΗΣΕΝ
Ἡ
ΤΟῦ
ΘΕΟῦ
ἘΠΑΓΓΕΛΊΑ
ΤΟῪς
ΤΑΎΤΗΝ
ΔΕΞΑΜΈΝΟΥς
,
ΜῊ
ΠΙΣΤῶς
ΔΕΞΑΜΈΝΟΥς
ΚΑῚ
Τῇ
ΤΟῦ
ΘΕΟῦ
ΔΥΝΆΜΕΙ
ΤΕΘΑῤῬΗΚΌΤΑς
ΚΑῚ
ΟἿΟΝ
ΤΟῖς
ΘΕΟῦ
ΛΌΓΟΙς
ἈΝΑΚΡΑΘΈΝΤΑς
; and recently Bleek, who, led thereto by Noesselt’s remark on Theodoret’s exposition of Heb_4:2 (Theod. Opp. t. iii., Hal. 1771, p. 566, note 1), conjectures
τοῖς
ἀκούσμασιν
. For such alteration of the text, however, there exists not the slightest diplomatic justification. We must therefore regard the accusative plural as having arisen from a transcriber’s error, to which the preceding
ἘΚΕΊΝΟΥς
gave occasion, and look upon the nominative singular of the Recepta
συγκεκραμένος
, which yields an excellent sense (see the exposition), as that which was originally written by the author. Rightly, therefore, is the Recepta defended by Mill, Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Reiche (p. 24 sqq.), and others, and also received again into the text by Tisch. 2 (
συγκεκραμένος
-g0-), 7 (
ΣΥΝΚΕΚΡΑΜΈΝΟς
-G0-), and 8 (
ΣΥΝΚΕΚΕΡΑΣΜΈΝΟς
-G0-). Nor is it by any means so badly attested that one could assert, with Bleek, that it could “claim not much more authority than as being a not improbable conjecture.” For it is supported by the testimony of the Peshito, which in antiquity surpasses any of our MSS., as well as by the Codex Sinaiticus, which has
ΜῊ
ΣΥΝΚΕΚΕΡΑΣΜΈΝΟς
. It is found, besides, in the Vulg. It. Erp., as well as with Cyr. Alex, (sem.) [Theodoret (Hervet.)] Lucif. and in five cursives (17, 31, 37, 41, 114).
Heb_4:3.
ΕἸΣΕΡΧΌΜΕΘΑ
ΓΆΡ
] A C:
ΕἸΣΕΡΧΏΜΕΘΑ
ΟὖΝ
. But with an exhortation, the following
ΟἹ
ΤΙΣΤΕΎΣΑΝΤΕς
is irreconcilable, instead of which
ΠΙΣΤΕΎΟΝΤΕς
or
ΔΙᾺ
ΠΊΣΤΕΩς
must be placed.
Heb_4:7. Elz. Wetstein, Matthaei, Scholz, Bloomf.:
ΕἼΡΗΤΑΙ
. But in favour of
ΠΡΟΕΊΡΗΤΑΙ
, which is indirectly supported also by
ΠΡΟΕΊΡΗΚΕΝ
in B, 73, 80, the preponderating authority of A C D* E*
à
, 17, 23, 31, al., Syr. utr. Copt. Arm. Vulg. Cyr. Al. Chrys. Theodoret. Lucif. Bed. is decisive. Commended already by Grotius, Bengel, Griesbach. Rightly adopted into the text by Lachm. Tisch. and Alford. Approved also by Reiche.
Heb_4:12. Elz. Matthaei, Scholz, Bloomfield:
ψυχῆς
τε
καὶ
πνεύματος
. But
τε
is wanting in A B C H L
à
(in which last originally only
μερισμοῦ
καὶ
πνεύματος
was written, which, however, was already supplemented, as it would appear by the first hand, by a
ψυχῆς
inserted before
καί
), 3, 73, al., with Origen (three times), Athan. Euseb. Chrys. Theodoret, Cyril Al. (eleven times), John Damasc. Theoph. and many others. Condemned already by Bengel and Griesbach. [Doubted by Owen.] Rightly rejected by Lachm. Tisch. and Alford. Addition for the sake of uniformity with the following clause:
ἉΡΜῶΝ
ΤΕ
ΚΑῚ
ΜΥΕΛῶΝ
, in which
ΤΕ
is wanting with no witnesses.
Heb_4:15. Instead of the
ΠΕΠΕΙΡΑΜΈΝΟΝ
, commended by Griesbach and adopted by Matthaei, Tisch. 1, 2, 7, and Bloomfield, as earlier by Mill and Bengel (also preferred by Reiche), the
ΠΕΠΕΙΡΑΣΜΈΜΟΝ
of the Recepta, supported by A B D E
à
, Origen (four times), Chrys., al., is to be retained, with Wetstein, Scholz, Lachm. Alford, and Tisch. 8. For the context demands the notion of having been tempted, for which, in the Epistle to the Hebrews (cf. Heb_2:18, Heb_11:17; Heb_11:37), only the verb
πειράζεσθαι
is used, while
πεπειραμένον
would yield the totally unsuitable sense: who had made attempts.
Heb_4:16. Elz.:
ἜΛΕΟΝ
. The form of the word, preferred by Tisch. Bloomf. and Alford,
ἜΛΕΟς
, is, however, required by A B C* D* K
à
, 17, 71, al. pl., Antioch.
[62] Also in one cursive ms. (Cod. 71) is found
τοῖς
ἀκουσθεῖσιν
.
