CHAPTER XII.

VER. 2. xexάixev] Elz.: ixádiosv. But the perfect, adopted κεκάθικεν] ἐκάθισεν. into the Editt. Complut. Genev. Plant., as also by Bengel, Griesb. Matth. Lachm. Scholz, Bleek, Tisch. Bloomfield, Alford, Reiche, and others, has the preponderant attestation of all the uncials, most cursives, and many Fathers in its favour; and is likewise preferable on internal grounds, since it represents the having sat down as a result extending into the present time.— Ver. 3. In place of the Recepta εἰς αὐτόν or εἰς αὐτόν, which has the support of D*** K L, almost all the cursives and many Fathers, there is found is aurous in ***, with Theodoret ( εἰς αὐτοὺς ἀντὶ τοῦ εἰς ἑαυτούς), and in Cod. 17 ; εἰς ἑαυτούς, however, in *, in the Peshito (quantum sustinuerit a peccatoribus, qui fuerunt adversarii sibi ipsis), in D* E*, together with their Latin version (recogitate igitur, talem vos reportasse a peccatoribus in vobis adversitatem), and in some mss. of the Vulgate; while the Sahidic and Armenian vss. entirely omit the words, and Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 8, de Wette write sis ἑαυτόν. auróv. The latter, which is attested by A and the Vulgate (in semetipsum), indirectly also by D* E*, is to be held the original reading; the plural, on the other hand, to be rejected as devoid of sense.ȧvrixaréornre] In place of this, Tisch. 2 writes, after L 46, al., Chrys. ms. Theodoret, Theophyl. ms.: ἀντεκατέστητε. This form of the word (see on the twofold augment, Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 69 f.) must, it is true, be adopted upon strong attestation, but is not in a position here to set aside the Recepta ἀντικατέστητε, where αντεκ. has against it the preponderating testimony of A D E L** N, etc. Rightly, therefore, has Tisch. restored avriz. in the editt. vii. and viii.

Ver. 5. Elz.: ris μov. D*, some seven cursives, as also the Latin translation in D E, have only ri. Bleek has on that account suspected ov, and enclosed it within brackets. External authority, however, does not warrant our deleting the pronoun. The occasion for its omission might be afforded by the occurrence of a similar initial letter in the following word, or by the text of the LXX. in which it is wanting. - Ver. 7. si maidsiav mouvere] Instead of this, Matth. Lachm. Tisch. 1,

MEYER.-Heb.

2 E

7 and 8, Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 758), and Alford read εἰς παιδείαν ὑπομένετε, and Griesbach has placed is upon the inner margin. In favour of is pleads, it is true, the greatly preponderating authority of A D E (?) K L, of more than thirty cursives, Vulg. It. Syr. Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Arm. Damasc. Procop., while is found only with Chrys. Theodoret, Theophyl. Slav. (?), and, as it seems, in many cursives. Nevertheless is is inadmissible. For, whether sis παιδείαν is taken still with παραδέχεται, or, as Hofmann will have it, with uasriyor,-whereby, however, that which follows would become deformed,-or it be combined with ouévere, in any case día must be understood in the sense of “education,” whereas of a certainty, alike from that which precedes as from that which follows, the signification "chastisement" becomes a necessity. Consequently the Recepta εἰ παιδείαν ὑπομένετε is to be looked upon as that written by the author. The originality and correctness of this reading (defended also by Reiche, p. 115 sqq.) becomes manifestly apparent from the fact that upon its recognition vv. 7, 8, in accordance with the usual accuracy of diction prevailing in the Epistle to the Hebrews, are in perfect mutual correspondence as type and antitype, alike as regards the protasis as also the apodosis. In place of the Recepta rís yap oriv, we have, with Lachm. and Tisch., after A, * Vulg. Sahid. Orig., to write merely ris yáp. Ver. 8. Elz.: vólo èσrè xai oux vioí. With Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 8, Delitzsch, Alford, we have to transpose into: v601 xai oux vioí iors, after A D* and D*** [in Cod. E all the rest is wanting from ávres, ver. 8, to the close of the Epistle], 17, 37, 80, al., Vulg. It. Chrys. (codd.) and Latin Fathers. Ver. 9. Elz.: où поλλã μãäñov. But A D* (D* *** with the addition of d) have où oλù μãλ λov. Rightly preferred by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Alford. In place of the received dià saúrns, we have to adopt, with Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 2, and Alford, after A, 17, 67** 80, 137, 238, Copt. etc., Clem. Chrys. (comment.): di airs; and in place of the Recepta 0220í, with Lachm. Tisch. and Alford, after A, 47, Clem. Theodoret: oi oλ20í. The article was lost sight of in the homoioteleuton πολλοί. - Ver. 16. Lachm. (and Tisch. 2 and 7, as well as Alford, have followed him therein!) has placed in the text, from A C, the form of the word &idero; but this, although not altogether unexampled (see Buttmann, Gramm. des neutestam. Sprachgebr. p. 40 f.), is manifestly a corruption of the Recepta àridoro, which is confirmed by the Cod. Sinait. On the other hand, the reading aurou, given by Lachm. Tisch. and Alford, merits,

Ver. 15.

on account of its more decided attestation by AC D** and D*** **, the preference over the Recepta abrou or abroũ.Ver. 18. Elz.: Inλapwμery ops. öps, furnished by D K L, in like manner, as it seems, by almost all cursives, Vulg. (ed. Clem.) Arab. polygl. Slav. Athan. Theodoret, Damasc. Oecum., is wanting indeed in A C N, 17, 47, in many mss. of the Vulg., in Copt. Sahid. Syr. Arab. Erp. Aeth., with Chrys. (comment.), Theophyl. Mart. pap. Bed., and was already suspected by Mill (Prolegg. 1071) as a gloss, and then deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 1 and 8, as likewise by Alford, is, however, indispensable, and is naturally called for by the opposition à πрoσsλnhúlate ZiŴv psi, ver. 22 (comp. also ro opous, ver. 20), as well as the confusion of idea in a πῦρ ψηλαφώμενον. Rightly, therefore, has Tisch. 2 and 7 placed ops again in the text. -xai (ópw] Elz.: xal oxóry. Against A C D* * 17, 31, 39 al. Suspected by Griesb. Rightly rejected by Lachm. Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford. oxóry was introduced from the LXX. Deut. iv. 11, v. 22. Ver. 19. In place of the Recepta porseva, Lachm. in the stereotype edition had adopted poolsiva, after A. Rightly, however, has he retained the Recepta in the larger edition. This reading is borne out by CDK LN, by, as it seems, all the cursives and many Fathers. Ver. 20. After 200ßoλncera, Elz. adds further: Boxidi xaraтoğsutnosra. Against all uncials (A CD KLM x), most min., all translations, and many Fathers. The words, deleted by Griesbach, Scholz, and all later editors, are a gloss from LXX. Ex. xix. 13. - Ver. 23. Elz.: iv oupavots ȧTOYεypaμμévwv. But the decisive testimony of A CDL MN, 37, al. m., Syr. Copt. Vulg. and many Fathers demands the transposition adopted by Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Alford, and others: ἀπογεγραμμένων ἐν οὐρανοῖς. — Ver. 24. κρεῖττον λαλοῦντι] Elz. : κρείττονα λαλοῦντι. Against A CD KL Ms, most min. Syr. Arr. Copt. Sahid. Armen. Vulg. al., and many Fathers. — Ver. 25. Elz: ἔφυγον τὸν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς παραι τησάμενοι χρηματίζοντα, πολλῷ μᾶλλον. Instead of this, however, we have to read, with Lachm. Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. (who, however, in the edit. vii. has given the preference to the verbum simplex puyov, over the verbum compositum ἐξέφυγον) Alford: ἐξέφυγον ἐπὶ γῆς παραιτησάμενοι τὸν χρησ ματίζοντα, πολὺ μᾶλλον, in that ἐξέφυγον (already approved by Grotius) is demanded by A C 57, 118, al. (Vulg. D, Lat. Slav. Epiph. in cant. cantic.: effugerunt), Cyr. Chrys. Philo Carpas. Oecum.; the deleting of the articles before ys (already omitted in the Editt. Erasm. Complut. Colin., afterwards also by Bengel, Griesb. Matth. Scholz) is required by all

the uncial mss. (including ), most min., and very many Fathers; further, the placing of the article ró only after Tapainoάμsvor is required by A C D M * Cyril. Damasc.; finally, ou is required by A C D*, Sahid. Ver. 26. Elz.: Giw. But AC M x, 6, 47, al., Syr. Vulg. Copt. Sahid. Slav. Athan. Cyril. Cosm. Andr. Areth. have osiow. Approved by Grotius, recommended by Griesb., rightly adopted by Lachm. Scholz, Bleek, Tisch. Alford, Reiche.-Ver. 27. Recepta: σαλευομένων τὴν μετάθεσιν. Better accredited, however (by A C*), is Lachmann's order of the words: rv TV 67.8VOKÉVWY METάEGIV, which on that account is to be preferred. Bleek and Tisch. 1 have entirely rejected the article r. It is wanting, however, only in D* and M.- Ver. 28. The reading

ov, which Calvin, Mill (Prolegg. 750), Heinrichs, and others approve, and which Luther also followed in his translation, is unsuitable, and insufficiently attested by K, more than twenty min., most mss. of the Vulg., Aeth. Cyr. Antioch., while the reading rests upon the testimony of A CDL M, etc., Copt. Syr. Aeth. al., Chrys. Theodoret, Damasc. al., as also a ms. of the Vulg. — In that likewise which follows, the indicative λarpsbous, which Griesbach has placed on the inner margin, stands in point of external attestation below the Recepta λarpswey. The former is found in K M &, about fifty min., with Athan., in mss. of Chrys., with Oecum. and Theophyl. On the other hand, A C D L, very many min. and many Fathers have λατρεύωμεν. — At the close of the verse the Recepta reads: μετὰ αἰδοῦς καὶ εὐλαβείας, instead of which, however, we have, with Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. and Alford, to adopt the reading (recommended also by Griesb.): μerà eùλaBeías xai dious, after A C D* ** 17, 71, 73, 80, 137, Copt. Sahid. Slav. ed. (al.: μerà déovs xai sihaßtías. Vulg.: cum metu et reverentia. D, Lat.: cum metu et verecundia).

Vv. 1-13. In possession of such a multitude of examples, and with the eye uplifted to Jesus Himself, are the readers with stedfastness to maintain the conflict which lies before them, and to regard their sufferings as a salutary chastisement on the part of that God who is full of fatherly love towards them.

Ver. 1. Conclusion from the total contents of chap. xi.— In the animating summons expressed vv. 1, 2, the addition δι' ὑπομονῆς, appended to the main verb τρέχωμεν, has the principal stress; comp. x. 36, xi. 1. Of the participial clauses, however, the first and third are of the same kind,

and are distinguished in equal degree from the second; as accordingly the former are introduced by participles of the present, the latter by a participle of the aorist. The first and third contain a ground of animation to the S' oμov Tρéxwμev; by the second, on the other hand, the historic preliminary condition to the δι' ὑπομονῆς τρέχειν is stated. The euphonious Tоiyapoûv elsewhere in the N. T. only 1 Thess. iv. 8.-кaì ημeîs] we also, namely, like the saints of the Old Covenant described chap. xi. — τοσοῦτον ἔχοντες περικείμενον ἡμῖν νέφος μαρτύρων] since we have so great a cloud of witnesses around us, or: since so great a cloud of witnesses surrounds us. ἔχοντες περικείμενον is intimately connected together, and is a periphrasis of the mere verbal notion, inasmuch as a genitive absolute: τοσούτου περικειμένου ἡμῖν κ.τ.λ., might have been employed instead. νέφος is a figurative designation (also of frequent occurrence with classical writers) of a densely compact crowd. Theodoret: Tos τοσοῦτον, νέφος μιμούμενον τῇ πυκνότητι. Comp. Hom. Il. iv. 274: ἅμα δὲ νέφος εἵπετο πεζῶν, al. Εurip. Hec. 901 f.: τοῖον Ελλάνων νέφος ἀμφί σε κρύπτει. Phoeniss. 1328 f.: πότερ' ἐμαυτὸν ἢ πόλιν στένω δακρύσας, ἣν πέριξ ἔχει νέφος τοσοῦτον, ὥστε δι' ̓Αχέροντος ἰέναι; Herod. viii. 109 : νέφος τοσοῦτον ἀνθρώπων. Similarly also is the Latin nubes employed. Comp. e.g. Liv. 35. 49: rex contra peditum equitumque nubes jactat.-Those meant by the ToσOÛTOV Vépos μартúρov are the persons mentioned chap. xi. When, however, these are characterized as a cloud of witnesses, the author does not intend to imply that these witnesses are present as spectators at the contest to be maintained by the readers (Hammond, Calmet, Böhme, Paulus, Klee, Bleek, Stein, de Wette, Stengel, Tholuck, Bloomfield, Bisping, Hofmann), but represents them thereby as persons who have borne testimony for the TioTis which he demands of his readers, and who consequently have become models for imitation to the readers as regards this virtue.

To this signification of μaprúpov points with necessity the whole reasoning immediately foregoing. For as δι ̓ ὑπομονῆς,

1 The supposition of Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 757), Alford, Maier, and Moll, that in μaprúpwy, ver. 1, the idea of "spectators"