Heinrich Meyer Commentary - Hebrews 5

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Heinrich Meyer Commentary - Hebrews 5


Verse Commentaries:



Chapter Level Commentary:
CHAPTER 5

Heb_5:1. Instead of the Recepta δῶρά τε καὶ θυσίας , Lachm. and Tisch. 1 read merely δῶρα καὶ θυσίας . But the single testimony of B (D**?)—for nothing is here to be inferred from the Latin versions—does not suffice for the condemnation of the particle, τε is protected by A C D*** (D*: τε δῶρα ) E K L à , of, as it appears, all the cursives, Epiph. and many others. Cf. also Heb_8:3; Heb_9:9.

Heb_5:3. Elz.: διὰ ταύτην . Lachm. Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford, al.: διʼ ταὐτήν . To be preferred on account of the better attestation by A B C* D* à , 7, 80, al., Syr. utr. Chrys. ms. Cyril. Theodoret (alic.).

Instead of the Recepta ἑαυτοῦ , there is placed in the text by Lachm., after B D*, αὐτοῦ ; by Tisch. 1, αὑτοῦ .

But ἑαυτοῦ is found in A C D*** E K L à , almost all min., and many Fathers, and is on that account to be retained, with Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. 2, 7, and 8, Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Alford, and others.

The preference over the Recepta ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν (supported by C*** D*** E K L, the majority of the min. Chrys. Theodoret ad loc., al.; defended by Bleek, and more recently by Bloomfield and Reiche) is merited by the reading περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν , already commended to attention by Griesbach; adopted by Lachm. Tisch. and Alford, with the assent of Delitzsch and Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 434), partly on account of the stronger attestation by A B C* D* à , 17, 31, 47, 73, 118, Chrys. codd. Theodoret (semel), partly because περί might easily, on account of the περί placed twice before, be altered into ὑπέρ , in conformity with ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν , Heb_5:1.

Heb_5:4. ἀλλὰ καλούμενος ] So rightly already the Editt. Complut. and Plantin.; in like manner Bengel, Griesbach, Matthaei, Knapp, Scholz, Lachm. Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford, after the preponderating authority of A B C* D E K à , 23, 37, 44, al. plur., Chrys. Damasc. Procop. Oecum. The article added in the Recepta: ἀλλὰ ὁ καλούμενος , is not only badly attested (C** L, Constitutt. apostoll., Theodoret, Theophylact), but also unsuitable, since not a new subject in opposition to the unemphatic τις is required by the context, but an antithetic nearer defining in opposition to the significant οὐχ ἐαυτῷ .

Instead of the Recepta καθάπερ (C** D*** E K L à *** Theodoret), approved by Griesbach, Matthaei, Knapp, Scholz, Bleek, de Wette, Bloomfield, al., Lachm., after C* (?) Chrys. Procop. reads: καθώς ; Tisch., with Alford, after A B D* à * Damasc.: καθώσπερ . The last, in favour of which Delitzsch also declares himself, deserves the preference as the best attested, and as most in keeping with the predilection of the author for harmonious combinations.

The article ὁ before Ἀαρών in the Recepta was already with justice deleted in the edit. Complut., and later by Bengel, Griesbach, Matthaei, Scholz, Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Alford, and others. Against it decides the weighty authority of A B C D E K L à , many min. and Fathers.

Heb_5:9. Elz. Matthaei, Scholz, Tisch. 2 and 7, Bloomfield: τοῖς ὑπακούουσιν αὐτῷ πᾶσιν ! But preponderating witnesses (A B C D E à , 17, 37, al., Syr. utr. Copt. It. Vulg. Vigil. Cassiod. Chrys. Cyril, Theodoret, Damasc. Theophyl.) require the order: πᾶσιν τοῖς ὑπακούουσιν αὐτῷ . Already recommended by Griesbach. Adopted by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 8, Alford. Approved also by Delitzsch. The sequence of the words in the Recepta is a later alteration, in order to bring out the more noticeably the paronomasia of τοῖς ὑπακούουσιν with the foregoing τὴν ὑπακοήν .

Heb_5:12. καὶ οὐ στερεᾶς τροφῆς ] So Elz. Lachm. Bloomfield, Alford, al.; while Tisch. 2, 7, and 8 has, after B** C, 17, à * Copt. Vulg. Orig. (thrice) Cyril, Chrys. ms. Aug. Bede, only οὐ στερεᾶς τροφῆς . But καί is protected by A B* D E K L à *** the majority of the min., many versions, and several Fathers.