...

CHAPTER X.

VER. 1 reads in the Recepta : Σκιὰν γὰρ ἔχων ὁ νόμος τῶν μελλόντων ἀγαθῶν, οὐκ αὐτὴν τὴν εἰκόνα τῶν πραγμάτων, κατ' ἐνιαυτὸν ταῖς αὐταῖς θυσίαις, ἃς προσφέρουσιν εἰς τὸ διηνεκές, οὐδέποτε δύναται τοὺς προσερχο μένους τελειώσαι. Instead thereof, Lachm. takes the words Σκιὰν πραγμάτων as an independent clause, placing a full stop after πραγμάτων. payuára. He then, in the stereotype edition, omits the relative before porpipovo,—while in the larger edition he has again added the ; of the Recepta before this verb,-places a comma after προσφέρουσιν, and writes δύνανται in place of δύναται. This punctuation and form of the text given by Lachm. is in all essential respects to be unhesitatingly rejected. In connection with the breaking off of the opening words of the verse into an independent statement, orív must be supplemented to xv. Such supplementing, however, would be altogether opposed to the linguistic character of the Epistle to the Hebrews; moreover, it would remain inexplicable, from the very brevity of the clause, how the participle we should come to be written for the finite tense, which naturally suggests itself. In addition to this, the joining to that which precedes by means of yap would occasion a difficulty, and the clause following would become an asyndeton. Besides, this following clause, in the absence of any connecting relative, would not even comply with the laws of grammar. The relative before poopépouon is wanting in A, 2, 7* 17, 47, Syr. utr. Arm., and A** 31, Syr. Philonex. then insert a before odors. Instead of the Recepta as poopp. there is found, however, in D* L (?), 73, 137, in an ancient fragment with Matthaei, which Tisch., in the edit. vii. (comp. Pars I. p. cxci.), has designated as N, with Theodoret, as well as in a Ms. of Chrysostom and in the Latin version of D E: als poopsp., and the latter is preferred by Bleek, Tisch. and Alford. Yet the Recepta äs, which is supported by C D*** E (?) K, the majority of the cursives, and many Fathers, is to be defended. Since the three words immediately preceding end in as, as might easily also be changed into as. The Recepta dúvarai, finally, is attested by D (* and ***) E K L, very many cursives, Vulg. It. Copt. al., Chrys. Theodoret (text),

ηὐδόκησας.

Oecum. (comm.) al., while the plural divara (preferred also by Tisch. 1, and already placed by Griesbach upon the inner margin) is presented by A C D**, about thirty cursives, Syr. al., Chrys. (codd.) Theodoret (comm. ?), Damasc. Theophyl. al. But the plural is devoid of sense, and can on that account be regarded only as a transcriber's error, which was occasioned by the foregoing plural προσφέρουσιν. — Ver. 2. Επεὶ οὐκ ἂν ἐπαύσαντο] àv Elz.: ἐπεὶ ἂν ἐπαύσαντο. Against the decisive authority of all uncial mss., of most cursives, vss. and Fathers. - The preference to the Recepta κεκαθαρμένους is deserved by κεκαθαρισμένους (approved by Grotius, Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 8, Delitzsch, Alford), as better attested. In favour of κεκαθαρισμένους pleads not only the testimony of D E KN, 23** 37, 39, al., but also the form which in A C has arisen as a transcriber's error from the same xɛxalεpouévous, which latter Lachm. has adopted. Ver. 6. Recepta here and ver. 8: sidóznous. Better attested, however, here (by A C D* E, the early fragment in Matth. al.) and ver. 8 (by A D* [E?], al., Cyr. Theodoret) is the reading, chosen by Lachm. Tisch. and Alford, as also approved by Delitzsch: nôóznoas. — Ver. 8. In place of the Recepta voiav xai πpoopopáv, Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford rightly read the plural: θυσίας καὶ προσφοράς, in accordance with A C D* * 17, 23, 57, al., Vulg. It. Syr. Copt. Sahid. Arab. Erp. Cyril. Already commended to attention by Griesbach. The singular is a later change, with a view to its conformation to ver. 5.- In like manner we have, with Lachm. and Tisch., to delete ró, which the Recepta adds before vómov, as not being found in A C, N, 37, 46, 71, 73, al., Sahid. Cyril, Chrys. Theodoret. The insertion of the article was more easily possible than its rejection. — Ver. 9. τοῦ ποιῆσαι] Elz. : τοῦ ποιῆσαι, ὁ 0865. Against ACDEK * 17, 39, 46, al. mult. It. Copt. al., ó sós is a complementary addition from ver. 7. Rightly deleted by Griesbach, Lachm. Scholz, Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford, Reiche. Ver. 10. Instead of the mere dá in the Recepta, Matthaei and Tisch. 2 and 7 read, after the precedent of the Edd. Complutens. Erasm. Colin. Stephan.: o ora. Bloomfield places of within brackets. But oi (sc. youévo) is wanting in A C D* E* x, 31, 47, al., Chrys. Theodoret, and owes its origin to an error of the eye, in that the termination uvo in ἡγιασμένοι gave rise to the writing of ἐσμεν οί. — In place of To owμaros in the Recepta, D* E, with their Latin translation, have τοῦ αἵματος. Mistaken emendation, since τοῦ σώματος, ver. 10, was chosen in manifest correspondence to the citation σῶμα δὲ κατηρτίσω μοι, ver. 5. — Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ] Elz.: τοῦ Ἰησοῦ Xploro. But the article has against it the testimony of all the

uncials, many cursives and Fathers, and is rightly rejected by Griesbach, Matthaei, Scholz, Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford. Ver. 11. Elz. Griesbach, Matthaei, Scholz, Tisch. 2, 7, and 8, Bloomfield, Reiche read: ãs μèv ispsús. Defended also by Böhme, Tholuck, and Delitzsch. The preference, however, is deserved by the reading: πᾶς μὲν ἀρχιερεύς, which is furnished by A C, 31, 37, 46, al., Syr. utr. (yet in the Philonex. with an asterisk) Basm. Aeth. Arm. Theodoret (text), Cyril. Euthal. al., was already adopted in the Editt. Complut. Plantin. Genev., and more recently has been restored by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1, and Alford. If the ordinary Levitical priests had been intended, oi iɛpeis would, as is rightly observed by Bleek, have been written instead of ãs ispeús, since each single Levitical priest had by no means daily to offer sacrifice. Less unsuitable, on the other hand, is the statement of the daily presentation of sacrifice in regard to the high priest, since that which was true of the Levitical priests in general could indeed be ascribed to the high priest as the head and representative of the same. In any case we have here, at the close of the argument, and because of the parallel with the person of Christ, to expect not so much the mention of the ordinary Jewish priest, as the mention of the Jewish high priest. The reading: ãs v ispss, is therefore to be looked upon as a later correction, made on account of the following καθ' ἡμέραν, since this stood in apparent contradiction to πᾶς μὲν ἀρχιερεύς. — Ver. 12. οὗτος Elz. Matthaei, Tisch. 2 and 7, Bloomfield: aròs di. But oros de (recommended by Griesbach; adopted by Lachm. Bleek, Scholz, Tisch. 1 and 8, Alford, Reiche; approved also by Delitzsch) is demanded by the preponderating authority of A C D* EN, 67** 80, 116, al., Syr. utr. Arr. Copt. Basm. Aeth. Arm. It. Vulg. al., Chrys. Cyr. Damasc. al. Instead of the Recepta: v dia, Lachm. had written in the stereotype edition: ix dεiv, which, however, is only feebly attested by A, 31 (N* has iz deği, which by *** was changed into v deži). Rightly, therefore, has Lachm. returned in his larger edition to the Recepta. Ver. 15. μerà yàp rò sipnnévai] Elz. Matth. Scholz, Tisch. 2 and 7, Bloomfield, Reiche: erà yàp to πрoεspηxévar. Against decisive witnesses (A C D E s, 17, 31, 47, al. m. Syr. utr. Arr. Copt. Basm. Aeth. It. Vulg. Chrys. Theoph. Ambrose, Sedul.). Already held suspected by Griesbach.-Ver. 16. Elz. Griesbach, Matthaei, Scholz, Tisch. 2 and 7, Bloomfield, Alford, Reiche: rv diavov, after D** and *** E K L, most cursives and vss., Chrys. Theodoret, al., Ambrose, al. On the other hand, A C D*, 17, 31, 47, al., Vulg. (Amiat. Harlej.* Tolet.) have: ì sàv diávolav. Approved by Lachm. Bleek,

Tisch. 1 and 8, and probably the original reading. - Ver. 17. Elz. Matthaei, Scholz, Bloomfield: ne. More correctly, Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford, after A C D* Ex* 17: μvodcoμa, which Griesbach has placed upon the inner margin. noe was carried over from viii. 12.-Ver. 22. Recepta : ἐῤῥαντισμένοι. After A C D* * Lachm. writes: βεραντισμένοι, Tisch. and Alford: ῥεραντισμένοι. — Ver. 29. The words yάoon are deleted by Lachm. in the stereotype edition; but are rightly, since they are omitted only by A and Chrysostom, retained by him in the larger edition. Ver. 30. The addition following avramodúow in the _Recepta: éyε xúρros, is rejected by Tisch. 1, 2, and 8, after D** 17, 23* 67** Vulg. It. Copt. Syr. Aeth. Arab. Erp. Ambr. Bede, and is regarded by Mill (Prolegg. 496), Bengel, Griesbach, and others as probably a gloss. Bloomfield encloses it within brackets. It is nevertheless protected by A D*** E K L **** etc., Syr. Philonex. al., and many Fathers. Rightly, therefore, has it been received again by Tisch. into the edit. vii. Delitzsch, Alford, and Reiche also have lately decided in favour of its genuineness. The Recepta zúpios xpIVE we have, with Lachm. Tisch. and Alford, after ADEK * 31, 73, al., Vulg. It. Syr. utr. Aeth. Theodoret (semel), to transpose into zprvεT zúprog. Bleek and Delitzsch read, after D E, 55, 71, Vulg. It. Theodoret (sem.): őrı xpivεł zupros. Quite similarly, LXX. Deut. xxxii. 36; Ps. cxxxv. 14. Ver. 34. τοῖς δεσμίοις] Thus we have to read, with Griesbach, Lachm. Scholz, Bleek, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford, Reiche, and others, after A D* [as Cod. B breaks off at ix. 14, so also x. 24-xii. 15 is wanting in Cod. C] 47, 67** 73, al., Syr. utr. Arab. Erpen. Copt. Arm. Vulg. Chrys. Antioch. Damasc. Theodoret (comm.), Oecum. (comm.) Pelag. Ambrose, al. From rois deuiors arose, by a slip on the part of the copyist, roîs de σμoîs, which is found with Origen, Exhort. ad martyr. 44, and to which the vinculis eorum of the Latin translation in D E corresponds; while, then, rois deσuois was completed by means of a gloss into the Recepta, still defended by Matthaei, Bloomfield, M'Caul, and Hofmann: roîs deoμois Mov (D*** E K Ls, etc.), in that Paul was regarded as the author of the epistle, and thus was found expressed an acknowledgment of the sympathy manifested by the Palestinian Christians towards himself during his imprisonment. — In that which follows, the reading: xe iaurois, very strongly confirmed by D E K L, almost sixty cursives, Chrys. Theodoret, Isidor. iii. 225, Damasc. Theoph., already adopted into the Editt. Complut. Erasm. 1, Steph. 1 and 2, and later preferred by Bengel, Griesbach, Matthaei, Knapp, Scholz, Tisch. 2 and 7,

Delitzsch, Alford, Reiche, is to be held the original one, inasmuch as from this reading the rise, as well of the Recepta: ïxeiv iv bauroîs (which, as it would seem, rests only upon a few cursives), as also of the reading afforded by As, four cursives, the early fragment in Matthaei, Vulg. It. al., and followed by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 8: xv avros, is to be explained. - The addition: ἐν οὐρανοῖς after ὕπαρξιν in the Recepta is wanting in A D* * 17, in the early fragment with Matthaei in the text, in Copt. Aeth. Vulg. It., with Clem. Al. Bed., and stands with Theodoret only after vovoav. Elucidatory gloss, suspected by Mill (Prolegg. 1208) and Griesbach, rightly rejected by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford. Ver. 35. Recepta: bazodooíav μszáλn. With Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. μισθαποδοσίαν μεγάλην. 1, 7, and 8, Alford, we have to transpose into μszáλn Todocia, after A DEN, the early fragment in Matthaei, 73, 116, al., Clem. Al. Orig. Eus. It. Vulg. Copt. al. Ver. 38. The Recepta omits the ou, which is found in most MSS. of the LXX. after iorews. D* Syr. utr. Copt., the Latin version in D E, Eus. Theodoret (alic.), Cypr. Jerome have it after micrews. On the other hand, it is found after díxaos in As, Arm. Vulg., in the early fragment with Matthaei by the first hand, with Clem. Al. Eus. (alic.) Theodoret (alic.), Proc. Sedul. Bed. Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. and Alford have adopted it at this latter place, and probably the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews so read, inasmuch as it is found with the LXX. at this place in Cod. A.

πίστεως.

roda

Vv. 1-4. Presentation in a clearer light of the necessity for Christ's offering Himself only once for the expiation of sins (ix. 25-28), by pointing to the ineffectiveness of the expiatory sacrifices continually repeated within the domain of Judaism. This constant repetition attests that sins are still ever present, as indeed a cancelling of sin by the blood of bullocks and of goats is impossible.

Ver. 1. Establishment of the ἅπαξ προσενεχθεὶς εἰς τὸ πολλῶν ἀνενεγκεῖν ἁμαρτίας, ix. 28, as being the main thought lying in ix. 25-28, by making good the opposite state of the case in the province of the O. T. theocracy: "For since the law contains only a shadow of the future good things, not the actual likeness of the things, it is not able by means of the same sacrifices every year, which are unceasingly offered, ever to make perfect them that draw nigh." The emphasis of the proposition rests partly upon the characteri