Heb_8:2. Recepta:
καὶ
οὐκ
ἄνθρωπος
. But
καί
is wanting in B D* E*
à
, 17, It. Arabb. Euseb. Already rejected by Mill. Rightly deleted by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Alford.
Heb_8:4. Elz. Matth. Tisch. 2 and 7, Bloomfield, have
εἰ
μὲν
γάρ
. Defended also by Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 504, Obs.), and Reiche. But
γάρ
cannot be referred back to Heb_8:3, and upon the referring of it back to Heb_8:2 the addition, Heb_8:3, would become aimless and inexplicable. More in keeping logically, and better attested (by A B D*
à
, 17, 73, 80, 137, Vulg. It. Copt., al.), is the reading:
εἰ
μὲν
οὖν
, already commended to attention by Griesbach, and adopted by Lachm. Scholz, Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 8, Alford, which is accordingly to be preferred.
Instead of the Recepta
τῶν
ἱερέων
τῶν
προσφερόντων
(approved by Bloomfield, who, however, encloses the first
τῶν
within brackets, and Reiche), Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. and Alford have rightly adopted merely
τῶν
προσφερόντων
. Preferred also by Delitzsch.
τῶν
ἱερέων
, to the rejection of which already Grotius, Mill, and Griesbach were inclined, is an elucidatory gloss. It is condemned by the decisive authority of A B D* E*
à
, 17, 67** 73, 137, al., Vulg. It. Copt. Aeth. Arm.
τόν
] before
νόμον
in the Recepta (recently contended for by Bloomfield and Delitzsch) is to be deleted, with Lachm. Tisch. and Alford, after A B
à
* 17, 57, 80, al., Theodoret. The later addition of the article is more easily to be explained than its omission.
Heb_8:5. Elz.:
ποιήσῃς
. But all the uncial mss., many cursives, Orig. Chrys. Theodoret, Damasc. Oecum. Theophyl. have
ποιήσεις
, which also is found in LXX. Exo_25:40. Commended by Griesbach. Rightly adopted already in the edd. Erasm. 1, Ald. Stephan. 1, 2, and recently by Matthaei, Scholz, Bleek, Lachm. Tisch. and Alford. Approved also by Delitzsch and Reiche.
Heb_8:6. In place of the Recepta
νυνὶ
δέ
, Lachm. reads, but without sufficient authority (B D* Ath.):
νῦν
δέ
. The more euphonious
νυνὶ
δέ
is protected by A D** D*** E K L
à
, min., and many Fathers.
Instead of the Recepta
τέτευχε
(B D***
à
*** min. Damasc. [once] Theophyl. [cod.]), there is found in the edd. Complut. Plantin. Genev. the peculiarly Attic form:
τετύχηκε
. This is supported by 47, 72, 73, 74, al., Athan. (thrice), Bas. Antioch. Chrys. Theodoret, Damasc. Best attested is the form:
τέτυχεν
(by A D* K L
à
* 80, 116, 117, al., Athan. Oecum. Theophylact), which is therefore rightly preferred by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. and Alford.
Heb_8:8.
αὐτοῖς
] So Elz. Griesb. Matthaei, Scholz, Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. 2 and 7, Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Alford, Reiche, after B D*** E L
à
***, likewise, as it seems, almost all min. Chrys. Damasc. al.
Lachm. and Tisch. 1 and 8 read
αὐτούς
. But the attestation of the latter (A D* K
à
* 17, 39, al., Theodoret) is not at all decisive, and the accusative, seeing it requires the conjoining with
μεμφόμενος
, opposed to the context; see the exposition.
Heb_8:10.
ἡ
διαθήκη
] Lachm.:
ἡ
διαθήκη
[
μου
], after A D E.
μου
is found, indeed, also with the LXX. in most MSS. (but not in the Cod. Alex.); yet, nevertheless, since it forms a tautological addition, and does not correspond to the Hebrew original (
ëÌÄé
æÉàú
äÇáÌÀøÄéú
), it probably arose only by a mechanical repetition from the preceding
διαθήκῃ
μου
.
Heb_8:11. Recepta:
τὸν
πλησίον
. But the weighty authority of all uncial mss. (B:
τὸν
πολείτην
), most cursives, as well as that of Syr. utr. Arabb. Copt. Arm. It. al., Chrys. (codd.) Theodoret, Damasc. Aug. requires the reading:
τὸν
πολίτην
, already presented by the edd. Complut. Stephan. 1, 2, al., and later approved by Bengel and Wetstein, as also adopted by Griesbach, Matthaei, Lachm. Scholz, Bleek, Tisch. Bloomfield, Alford, Reiche, and others.
ἀπὸ
μικροῦ
] Elz. Matthaei, Scholz, Tisch. 2 and 7, Bloomfield:
ἀπὸ
μικροῦ
αὐτῶν
. But
αὐτῶν
is wanting in A B D* E* (?) K
à
, 17, 31, 61, 73, 80, al., Copt. Arm. It. Vulg., with Cyr. Chrys. al. Already suspected by Griesbach. Rightly deleted by Lachm. Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. 1 and 8, and Alford.
Heb_8:12.
καὶ
τῶν
ἁμαρτιῶν
αὐτῶν
καὶ
τῶν
ἀνομιῶν
αὐτῶν
] The concluding words:
καὶ
τῶν
ἀνομιῶν
αὐτῶν
, have been taken for a gloss by Bleek, Tisch. 1, 2, and 8, and Alford (comp. already Beza and Grotius); and in accordance with B
à
* 17, 23, Vulg. Copt. Basm. Syr. Arab. Erp. rejected. They are also declared suspected by Delitzsch. But in favour of their retention (Lachm. Bloomfield, Tisch. 7, Reiche) decides partly the preponderating authority of A D E K L
à
*** al., partly the recurrence of the same words on the repetition of the citation Heb_10:17. The addition might easily be overlooked on account of the homoioteleuton.