already the Peshito) with elo@ev. --In that which follows. the emphasis rests upon κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισεδέκ (Böhme, Delitzsch, Alford, Maier, Hofmann), which on that account is preposed; not upon eis Tòv aiova (Bleek, Woerner), which latter, on the contrary, as an additional note of definition is derived only from the κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισ.

MEYER.-HED.

2

CHAPTER VII.

VER. 1. Instead of rou iorov, Elz. has only írov. Against ABCDEKL s, 23, 44, 46, 48, al. pl., Clem. Chrys. Theodoret, al mult. — i ovvavoas] Lachm. and Alford, after A B C (corr.) DE K N, 17, 117, al.: ös ouvavrhoas. Notwithstanding the strong support of authorities, manifest error, arising from the reading together of the article and the initial letter of the participle. Ver. 4. Instead of the Recepta & xai dexárny, Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 read, after B D* E* Vulg. (Amiatin. Toletan.) It. Copt. Basm. Syr., merely szárny. Certainly zaí is not dexárnv. indispensable, and might be regarded as a later gloss from ver. 2. But with quite as much probability it may be supposed that it was added by the author himself, the words of ver. 2 being still present to his mind. It is therefore, since it has in its favour the considerable attestation by A C D*** E** K Ls, by, as it appears, all the cursives, by the Vulgate (also Demidov. and Harlej.), Syr. Philonex. al., by Chrys. Theodoret, Damasc. al., Aug. Bede, with Griesb. Matthaei, Scholz, Tisch. 2, 7, and 8, Bloomfield, Alford, to be retained. Ver. 6. The article ró before 'Aßpaáu is deleted by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 8, and Alford, after B C D* ** 23, 57, 109, al. In favour of the omission pleads the very sparing use made of the article before proper names in the Epistle to the Hebrews, the article as a rule being placed only where, as in xi. 17, the perspicuity of the discourse imperatively demanded it.Ver. 9. In place of the received Asut we have here, with Lachm. and Tisch. 1 and 2, to write Asuts, after A (2λeu15) B C* N*** (EUS). In the ed. vii. and viii. Tisch. writes: Asuíç. Ver. 10. Elz.: MλXIGEEZ. Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1, Alford, after B C* D* N, 73, 118, al., Chrys.: Meλxedez. The rejection of the article is to be approved on the same grounds as in ver. 6. Ver. 11. The Recepta ἐπ' αὐτῇ νενομοθέτητο (defended by Reiche) has decisive witnesses against it. Instead of aur is it autñs (approved by Grotius, placed on the inner margin by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Alford), required by A B C D* E* x, 17, 31, 46, al., Cyril; instead of Vevoμodernro is vevoμolé

na (already approved by Camerarius and Grotius, adopted by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Alford), required by A B C D* x, 17, 47, 73, al., Cyril. Ver. 13. poooxnx] Tisch. 1, after A C, 17, al.: pooεoxv. Commended to notice by Griesb. also. Rightly, however, do Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 2, 7, and 8, Bloomfield, Alford, Reiche (Commentar. crit. p. 56, note 9), prefer the Recepta poooxnxv. In favour of this pleads, besides the yet stronger attestation (B D E K LN, Oecum. al.), the paronomasia with erinev, consonant with the style of the Epistle to the Hebrews.Ver. 14. Elz.: ovdiv TεPi iεpwouvns. But Tepi A B C* D* EN, 17, 47, al., It. Vulg. Copt. Sahid. Arm. Cyr. Chrys. (codd.) have: Tepi ispśwv obdév. Rightly adopted by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. and Alford. spi ispwouvns is a glossematic elucidation. — Ver. 16. Instead of the Recepta caprins, Griesb. Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Alford have adopted oapzívne, after A B C* D* L (also H in the title), many min. and Fathers. Rightly. σαρκίνης might easily be changed into σαρκικῆς by transcribers, since apzinós is an adjective of very frequent recurrence in the N. T., oápivos a rare one. - Ver. 17. μαρτυρεῖται] Elz. : paprups Against preponderating testimony (A B D* E* x, 17, 31, al., Copt. Sahid. Basm. Slav. Cyr. Chrys. Theophyl.). Ver. 21. After aiva Elz. Griesb. Matthaei, Scholz, Lachm. Bloomfield, Reiche add once more: κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισεδέκ. Deleted by Bleek, Tisch. and Alford, after B C, 17, 80, Vulg. Sahid. Basm. Arm. Ambr. (?) Bede. Rejected also by Delitzsch. But without sufficient ground. For the words are found in A DE K L **** It. Syr. utr. Copt. al., with Chrys. Theodoret, al., and the omission of them is to be explained by the fact that immediately after the same (ver. 22) the discourse is continued afresh with zurά; the eye of the transcriber might thus easily wander from the first zará to the second zará. Also for N* there was found in the twofold xará the occasion for overlooking not only κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισεδέκ, but in addition to this likewise si riv aiva. Ver. 22. Todorov] So Elz. Griesb. Matthaei, Scholz, Bloomfield. But the weighty authority of A B C D* * Athan. (cod.) al. decides in favour of the form of the word preferred by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford, ToGouro. — Ver. 23. Recepta: ysyovóres ispets. So also Tisch. 2, 7, and 8. As better attested, however (A C D E, Cyr. [twice] Chrys. [ms.]), the order of words: iepers yeyovóres, is to be preferred, with Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1, Delitzsch, and Alford. Ver. 26. Elz.: pv. More correctly, however, Griesb. Lachm. Bleek, Scholz (?), Tisch. and Alford, after A B D E, Syr. utr. Arab. Erp. Euseb.: xalжPETV.

εἰς

Vv. 1-10. While the author now in reality passes over to the work of developing the high-priesthood after the manner of Melchisedec, proper to Christ, and consequently of illustrating upon every side the pre-eminence of the same above the Levitical high-priesthood, he dwells first of all upon the person of Melchisedec himself, in that, following the thread of the Scripture narrative, he brings vividly before his readers the exaltedness of Melchisedec's position, and draws their attention to a threefold superiority of Melchisedec over the Levitical priests.

...

Vv. 1-3. Elucidation of κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισεδέκ ἀρχιερεὺς γενόμενος εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, vi. 20, by a delineation of the character of Melchisedec. Vv. 1-3 form a single proposition, in which μével is the tempus finitum. The characterization of Melchisedec combines in the first half (Baoiλevs Σαλὴμ . . . ἐμέρισεν ̓Αβραάμ, ver. 2) the historic traits which are afforded of him in Genesis (xiv. 18-20), while in the second half (πрŵтоν μèv K.T..) the author himself completes the picture of Melchisedec, in reasoning from that historic delineation. — Baoiλevs Zaλnu] king of Salem. By βασιλεὺς Σαλήμ] Salem is understood, on the part of the Targumists, Josephus, Antiq. i. 10. 2, the majority of the Church Fathers, Grotius, Drusius, Owen, Michaelis, Gesenius, von Bohlen, Winer, Realwörterb. II. 2 Aufl. p. 95, Stuart, Stengel, Tholuck, Bloomfield, Knobel, Bisping, Delitzsch, Auberlen, Moll, Kurtz, Hofmann, and others, Jerusalem. On the other hand, Primasius, Zeger, Jac. Cappellus, Whitby, Cellarius, Reland, Rosenmüller, Bleek (sec, however, at ver. 2), Tuch, Ewald, Alford, Maier, and others think of the place Zaλeíp, mentioned John iii. 23, situated eight Roman miles south of Scythopolis. latter was, as we learn from Jerome (Ep. 126, ad Evagrium), the view already espoused in his day by the "eruditissimi among the Hebrews, in opposition to "Josephus et nostri omnes," as accordingly also it was thought that the ruins of the palace of Melchisedec were still to be shown at the lastnamed place in the time of Jerome. This Σαλείμ, mentioned John iii. 23, has, moreover, been held by some recent exposi

The

1 C. A. Auberlen, "Melchisedek's ewiges Leben und Priesterthum Hebr. 7" (Stud. u. Krit. 1857, H. 3, p. 453 ff.).

tors, as Bleek and Alford, to be likewise identical with the Zaλnu, Judith iv. 4. More correct, however, is the firstnamed view. For, besides the earlier name Jebus for Jerusalem (Judg. xix. 10, al.), occurs also the early name Salem (Ps. lxxvi. 3 [2]), and the narrative in Genesis xiv. 17 ff.) points unmistakeably to the southern part of the land. Comp. specially Knobel, Genesis, 2 Aufl., Leipz. 1860, p. 149 f. ἱερεὺς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ὑψίστου] priest of God, the Most High. In the monotheistic sense, as in Genesis, vid. ibid. ver. 22. —ó ό συναντήσας ̓Αβραὰμ κ.τ.λ.] who went to meet Abraham when he was returning from the smiting of the kings (Gen. xiv. 12 ff.), and blessed him. — Kaì evλoyńoas avτóv] Gen. xiv. 19, 20. εὐλογήσας αὐτόν] Wrongly is it alleged by Heinrichs that evλoyev denotes only: gratulari de victoria tam splendida.

-

Ver. 2. To whom also Abraham portioned out the tenth of all (sc. that he had gained as booty; comp. È тŵν ȧкрoðivíwv, ver. 4). — πρῶτον μὲν ἑρμηνευόμενος βασιλεὺς δικαιοσύνης] he who first, interpreted (ie. if one translates his Hebrew name PT into Greek), is King of Righteousness. Comp. Josephus, Antig. 1. 10. 2 : Μελχισεδέκης, σημαίνει δὲ τοῦτο βασιλεὺς δίκαιος. — Bell. Jud. vi. 10: ὁ δὲ πρῶτος κτίσας Ιεροσόλυμα) ἦν Χαναναίων δυνάστης, ὁ τῇ πατρίῳ γλώσσῃ ó κληθεὶς βασιλεὺς δίκαιος· ἦν γὰρ δὴ τοιοῦτος. The author of the epistle, however, following more closely the sense of the Hebrew words, renders the name by βασιλεὺς δικαιοσύνης (instead of rendering it Baotlevs dikaios, as Josephus does), and thereby brings out more clearly the part sustained by Melchisedec as a type of Christ, inasmuch as the latter is not only Himself righteous (comp. Zech. ix. 9; Jer. xxiii. 5), but also the mediatorial author of righteousness for others. Comp. 1 Cor. i. 30; Jer. xxiii. 6; Mal. iv. 2; Dan. ix. 24.ἔπειτα δὲ καὶ βασιλεὺς Σαλήμ, ὅ ἐστιν βασιλεὺς εἰρήνης] and then also king of Salem, which is (denotes) king of peace. Comp. with regard to Christ as our peace and peace-bringer, Eph. ii. 14, 15, 17; Rom. v. 1; also Isa. ix. 6, 7. —ő éσTIV] corresponds to the épμnvevóμevos of the previous clause. — There is no reason for taking Salem, with Böhme and Bleek, after the precedent given by Petrus Cunaeus, de Rep. Hebraeorum, iii. 3, as not being the name of a place at all, but

ὅ ἐστιν]