one which places the date of the epistle's composition between the years 65 and 67.

According to Orelli (Select. patrum eccles. capp. ad elonynTIKηv sacram pertinentia, P. III., Turic. 1822, p. 4 sq.), the Epistle to the Hebrews was composed only towards the year 90; according to Holtzmann (Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1867, p. 6 f.), Harnack (Patrum Apostt. Opp. I. p. lxxxii.), and others, only after the persecution under Domitian; according to Schwegler (Nachapostolisches Zeitalter, Bd. II. p. 309), somewhere about the close of the first century; according to Hausrath (Neutestamentl. Zeitgesch., 1st ed. III. p. 401 f.), only after Trajan's persecution; according to Volkmar (Religion Jesu, p. 388 f.) and Keim (Geschichte Jesu v. Nazara, Bd. I., Zürich 1867, p. 148 f., 636), only between the years 116-118. See, on the other hand, the remarks of Grimm in the Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1870, p. 23 ff. Without ground does Mangold (in Bleek's Einl. in d. N. T., 3d ed., Berlin 1875, p. 617) object against the conclusiveness of Grimm's reasoning, that "the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews conducts his argument on the basis of the Scripture representation of the tabernacle" as of "a purely ideal magnitude," which does not guarantee "the actual continuance of the temple cultus." This objection would be admissible if the preterites eixev, ix. 1, and кaтeoкeváσ0ŋ, ix. 2, had, in the formula which resumes all the previous description,—TOÚTV δὲ οὕτως κατεσκευασμένων, ver. 6, — been followed by a participle aorist. But it becomes directly impossible when instead thereof a participle perfect is chosen; inasmuch as, by this construction, beyond doubt the opinion of the author is manifested that in the inner arrangement of the temple the inner arrangement of the tabernacle is still perpetuated. The following praesentia can therefore be understood only in the most strictly present sense, and not "as praesentia of the legal defining."

The place of composition is indeterminable. Only thus much is clear from xiii. 24, that it is to be sought outside of Italy.

SEC. 5.-FORM AND ORIGINAL LANGUAGE.

That the composition was an actual letter, and not, as has been assumed by Berger (Götting. theol. Bibl., Th. III. St. 3, p. 449 ff.; Moral. Einleit. in das N. T., Th. III. p. 442 f. Comp. also Reuss, Geschichte der h. Schrr. N. T., 5th ed., Braunschw. 1874, § 151), a homily, is acknowledged, and is, moreover, rendered certain by the personal allusions at the close of the composition, since these admit neither of our regarding them, with Berger, as the later appendix of another author, nor, with Schwegler (Nachapostolisches Zeitalter, Bd. II. p. 304), as a "literary fiction."

In like manner, the opinion frequently expressed in ancient times, originally broached with a view to the removal of the difficulties arising from the literary character of the book, upon the presupposition of the authorship of the Apostle Paul,—and in recent times specially advocated by Joseph Hallet, jun., and John David Michaelis, that the epistle was originally composed in the Hebrew (Aramaic) language, and only afterwards translated into Greek, is at the present time universally recognised to be erroneous. Even on account of the great freedom with which the translator must have proceeded in the remoulding of the original,-on account of the purity in the Greek expression, the skill in the formation of genuine Greek periods, such as are foreign to the Aramaic, -on account of the many compound terms, the equivalent of which could have been expressed in Aramaic only by means of periphrases (as πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως, i. 1; απαύγασμα, i. 3; μετριοπαθεῖν, ν. 2; εὐπερίστατος, xii. 1, etc.),—on account of the multitude of paronomasias, which could not possibly be in every case the work of chance (i. 1, ii. 2, ii. 3, ii. 8, ii. 10, ii. 18, iii. 13, iv. 2, v. 1, v. 8, v. 14, vii. 3, vii. 9, vii. 13, vii. 19, 22, vii. 23, 24, ix. 10, ix. 28, x. 29, x. 34, x. 38, 39, xi. 27, xi. 37, xii. 24, 25, xiii. 14),—and on account of the ambiguous use of dɩalýêŋ, ix. 15 ff., this view is wanting in all probability and naturalness. Absolutely inadmissible, however, it becomes only from the fact that the author, not

1 Nevertheless, as has already been observed by Braun, as also by Bleek, the 'p', adopted by the Aramaic from the Greek and occurring in the MEYER-HEB.

E

only in connection with his Biblical citations, but also in the conducting of his argument, bases his reasoning throughout upon the form of the text in the LXX., even when this version gives a sense entirely at variance with that of the original text. With particular distinctness does this appear x. 5 ff., where in place of the Hebrew the entirely diverse σῶμα δὲ κατηρτίσω μοι of the LXX. is adopted by our author, and then at ver. 10 the poopоpà тоû σúμатоs Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ brought into relation therewith.

Talmud, as frequently also in the Peshito; or the p, more usual with the Chaldee Paraphrasts, as also in the Peshito,-might certainly also have combined the twofold signification of a "covenant" and a "testament."

Η πρὸς Ἑβραίους ἐπιστολή,

Α Β Κ s have merely Προς Εβραίους. Simplest and probably earliest superscription.

CHAPTER I.

Ver. 1. oxárov] Elz.: ' ioxάrwv. Against ABDEK LM, most min., Vulg. Copt. al., and many Fathers. The plural oxára arose from the r immediately following. — Ver. 2. In place of καὶ τοὺς αἰῶνας ἐποίησεν of the Recepta, A B D* D*** E MN, 17, 37, al., Vulg. It. Copt. Syr. al., Patres Gr. et Lat. m. have xai iroinger Tous aiuvas. Already recommended by Griesb. Rightly adopted by Lachm. Tisch. and Alford. In addition to the strong attestation, this position of the words is favoured by the internal ground that in this order the emphasis falls, as was required, upon oinov, instead of falling upon τοὺς αἰῶνας. — Ver. 3. Before καθαρισμόν, Elz. Wetst. Griesb. Matth. Scholz, Bloomf. Tisch. 7, Reiche (Commentarius Criticus in N. T., t. III. p. 6 sq.), with D***, almost all min. Syr. utr. (Aeth. ?) Ath. p. 362, Chrys. in text. et comm. dis., Oec. Theoph. Aug. (?) add d' avrou. But δι ̓ ἑαυτοῦ, instead of which daro (according to Theodoret's express observation to be read as d'airo) is found with D* 137, Copt. Clar. Germ. Cyr. (semel) Didym. Theodoret, in t. et comm. Euthal. Damasc. in textu, is wanting in A B D** *, 17, 46* 47, 80, Vulg. Arm. Cyr. (saepe) Cyr. Hieros. pseudo-Athanas. (ed. Bened. ii. 337), Damasc. (comm.) Sedul. Cassiod. Bede. Already suspected by Mill (Prolegg. 991). Rightly deleted as a gloss by Bleek, de Wette, Lachm. Tisch. 1, 2, and 8, and Alford. For although the addition d'auro (by Himself, i.e. by the offering of Himself, inasmuch as He was at the same time High Priest and Victim) is in perfect keeping with the after deductions of the epistle, it is nevertheless not indispensable; and though it is conceivable that di lauro was taken up into the preceding arou, yet it is, on the other hand, hardly credible, seeing the endeavour of the author after linguistic euphony,

that he should have placed the words αὐτοῦ, δι ̓ ἑαυτοῦ (αὑτοῦ) in immediate juxtaposition the one with the other. Instead of TOINGάμEVOS TWν àμaprav, Bengel, Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 8, Alford read: v apaαptiãy monoάuevos. In favour of the latter decides the preponderant attestation on the part of AB DEM N, 37, 46, al., Vulg. It. Cyr. Cyr. Hieros. Athan. Did. ps.-Athan. Dam. (comm.). Twν μαρTia] Elz. Matth. Scholz : τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν. But ἡμῶν is wanting in A B D* E* Μ &*, 67** al., Vulg. It. Copt. Syr. Aeth. Cyr. utr. Nyss. Didym. Damasc. Aug. Sedul. Cassiod. al. Already suspected by Mill (Prolegg. 496) and Griesb. Rightly rejected by Lachm., Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. Reiche, Alford. It was added as a dogmatic precaution, in order to guard against a referring of the words also to the own ȧuapría of the subject. Ver. 8. ῥάβδος εὐθύτητος A páßoos ris Baciλsías cou] Instead of that, Lachm. in the edit. stereot. (as likewise Tisch. 8) read: xai (A B D* E* M 8, 17, Aeth. Clar. Germ. Vulg. ms. Cyr.) (A B Mx, Cyr.) páßòoç Tãs (A B M N** Cyr.) 0úrnos púßdos (A B M *** Сyr.) rñs Basiλsías cou. In the later larger edition, vol. II., on the other βασιλείας σου. hand, he has adopted καὶ ῥάβδος τῆς εὐθύτητος ῥάβδος της Baoinsias oou. The xaí at the beginning is, as also Bleek and βασιλείας σου. Alford decide, to be looked upon as original, but in other respects the Recepta is to be retained, inasmuch as the before the first páßoos (in the first edition of Lachmann) would be a variation from the text presented by the LXX., such as could hardly be ascribed to the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, considering the closeness with which he follows that translation in other cases, and the purity in other respects of his Greek expression. — Ver. 9. ȧvouíav] A 8, 13, 23, al., Cyr. Chron. Alex. Eus. Chrys. ms. ȧdiniav; preferred by Bleek, since it is also found in the Cod. Alex. of the LXX. Adopted also by Tisch. 8. But avouíav might easily be changed into adrziav, since the latter formed a more direct opposite to the preceding δικαιοσύνην. Ver. 12. s] Beza, Bengel, Tisch. 8: áλλúğaç. Only insufficiently supported by D* * 43, Vulg. (not Harl.*) It. Tert. abrous] Lachm.: avroús, is ¡μárov, after A B D* EN, Aeth. Arm. Clar. Germ. Spite of the strong authority, an apparent gloss, explanatory of ὡσεὶ περιβόλαιον.

Vv. 1-4. Without beginning with the ordinary salutation, with the omission even of any kind of preface, the author proceeds at once to place the revelation of God in Christ in contrast with the revelations of God under the Old Covenant, inasmuch as he characterizes the revelations under the Old Covenant as imperfect, while he shows the perfection of this