CHAPTER II.

VER. 1. Instead of the Recepta: jμãs #pocéxεrv (K L, Theodoret), Lachm. Tisch. and Alford read: porÉXε μãs. In favour of the latter decides the preponderating_authority of ABDEN, Vulg. Athan. Aug. alii. — Ver. 4. airoû] D* E*: Toũ αὐτοῦ] τοῦ 00. Explanatory gloss. Ver. 6. Tí or] Lachm. (but only in the ed. stereot.) Bleek, and Kurtz: rís lor. Only insufficiently attested by C* Clar. Sangerm. Tol. Copt. Damascenus, although also A contains rís in Ps. viii. By reason of the preceding rís, rí might easily pass over into ris. Ver. 7. After šorepávwous auróv there is added by Elz., with A C D* E* M x, many cursives and translations, Theodoret, Sedulius: xalxarioτησας αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τὰ ἔργα τῶν χειρῶν σου. Against B D*** E** K L, more than 65 min., Syr. (codices and some edd.) Slav. ms. Chrys. Damasc. alii. The addition already regarded as spurious by Mill (Prolegg. 1376, 1421). Bracketed by Lachm. and Bloomf. Rightly deleted by Griesb. Matthaei, Scholz, Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. Alford, Reiche, and others. Complementary gloss from the LXX. Comp. the exposition of ver. 7. -Ver. 8. iv yàp ] So A C K L, al. Lachm. and Tisch. 1, 7, and 8, after B D E MN, 23: iv r y áp. Ver. 9. Besides zápir 80 (so also in the Cod. Sinait., as well as ABCDEK L, al.), Origen,-in Joann. i. 1, Opp. iv. 41; in Joann. xi. 49, Opp. iv. 393; in Joann. extr. Opp. iv. 450,— Theodor. Mopsuest. (in N. T. commentariorum quae reperiri potuerunt, ed. Fritzsche, Turic. 1847, p. 163 f.), and Jerome, on Gal. iii. 10, know of a reading xwpis sou, to which the two former give the preference. Theodoret ad loc. and ad Eph. i. 10, takes notice only of the reading xwpis sou. In like manner do, also, Anastas. abbas Palaestin., in the 8th century, in his work, Contra Judaeos (Latin ed. Canis.), in ant. lect. iii.; Ambrose, de fid. ad Gratian. ii. 8. 63, 65, v. 8. 106; Fulgentius, ad Thrasimund. iii. 20; and Vigilius Thapsens. Contra Eutych. ii. 3, cite in accordance with the same; it has also passed over into single MSS. of the Peshito (sometimes in combination with the ordinary reading; so also in Syr. Cod. Heidelbergens.: " ipse enim excepto Deo per beneficentiam suam pro quovis homine gustavit mor

66

tem," according to Tremellius in Tisch. edd. 7 and 8); comp. La Croze, Histoire du Christianisme des Indes, iii. 3. 64; Bode, Pseudo-crit. Millio-Bengel, t. ii. p. 339. So, too, it is found in Arab. Petropolitana of the 8th century (in Tisch. edd. 7 and 8): quare xwpis eo, qui eum sibi fecerat templum, gustavit mortem ὑπὲρ πάντων τῶν ἀνθρώπων.” Above all, this reading was championed by the Nestorians (see Oecumen. and Theophyl. ad loc.). Among later expositors it has found defenders in Camerarius, P. Colomesius (Observatt. sacr. p. 603), Bengel, Ch. F. Schmid, Paulus, and Ebrard. But neither in our codd. nor in the versions (with the exceptions above named) does xwpis so find any countenance; it is met with only in the Cod. M (of Tisch.; with Wetst. and Griesb.: Cod. 53) of the 9th or 10th century, and in the Cod. 67 of the 11th or 12th century—in the latter only on the margin. On internal grounds, too, it is to be rejected (see the exposition, and Reiche in the Commentarius Criticus, p. 14 ff.). Probably arose from the placing of xwpis Oo, occasioned by 1 Cor. xv. 27, as a gloss to the words of ver. 8: οὐδὲν ἀφῆκεν αὐτῷ ἀνυπότακτον; and this gloss being erroneously regarded by a later transcriber as a correction of xápısı sou, ver. 9, was taken up in place thereof into the text. Ver. 14. Elz. Matthaei, Scholz: capnds xai aïparos. But ABCDEM, 37, al., many versions and Fathers, have apaJos nai capnós. Already approved by Bengel and Griesb. Rightly adopted by Lachm. Tisch. and Alford. The Recepta is a later transposition, since the order ràpğ xai alua is elsewhere the more usual one. Twv aurav] D* E* It. Eus. Theodoret (semel), Jerome: rãv airwv Talnuárov. (Erroneous) explanatory gloss. διὰ τοῦ θανάτου] D* E* It. : διὰ τοῦ θανάτου θάνατον. An addition incompatible with that which follows. Proceeded from an erroneous twofold writing of θανάτου.

Vv. 1-4. The author, in availing himself of the communicative form of speech, deduces from the superiority of the Son over the angels, set forth in chap. i., as likewise from the fact that even the Mosaic law, given through the instrumentality of angels, could not be transgressed with impunity, the imperative obligation for the readers to hold fast to the salvation revealed by Christ, securely handed down, and confirmed by God with miracles. Thus there already comes out here the paraenetic main tendency of the epistle to animate the Hebrews, urgently exposed as they were to the peril of apostasy, to perseverance in the Christian faith, as this aim is

also manifested elsewhere in repeated admonitions (e.g. iii. 6, 14, iv. 14, vi. 11, x. 23); although the author has the intention of speaking further concerning the relation of Christ to the angels (comp. ver. 5 ff.).

Ver. 1. 4ià TOûTO] therefore, sc. because Christ, the mediator of the New Covenant, is as the Son of God so highly exalted above the angels, the intermediate agents in the giving of the Old Covenant. Set] indication of the inner necessity resulting of itself from the described conditions.

περισσοτέρως] so

much the more, sc. than would be the case if He who proclaimed the ȧkovo lévτa were one of lower rank. We have not, however, to connect Tерioσотéрws with det (Grotius, Bengel, Dindorf, Böhme, Kuinoel), but with πpoσéxev as the main idea.πрoσéxew Tivi Tp.] to give heed or attention to anything, sc. in order to hold fast to it. Tois ȧxovoleîσw] to τοῖς ἀκουσθεῖσιν] that which has been heard. The salvation preached by the Lord and His immediate disciples is intended, of which the readers had heard. Comp. ver. 3. — μýπоте πаρappvŵμev] lest haply we should be carried past it (comp. LXX. Prov. iii. 21: υἱὲ μὴ παραῤῥυῇς, τήρησον δὲ ἐμὴν βουλὴν καὶ ἔννοιαν), ie. lest we lose it, fail of obtaining the salvation promised to us by the word we have heard; comp. ver. 3. The interpretation of Erasmus, Clarius, Beza, Cameron, Stuart, al.: lest we forget it, or let it escape attention, is unmeaning and almost tautological. παραῤῥυῶμεν (or παραρνῶμεν, as Lachmann and Tischendorf 2 and 7 write it, after A B* D* L*), moreover, is not, as Wittich, Dindorf, and others suppose, conjunctive present active of παραῤῥυέω, for the forms παραῤῥνέω, παραῤῥύω, παραῤῥύημι are mere figments of the grammarians, in order to derive certain tenses therefrom, but sec. aorist conjunct. passive from mapapрéw.

Vv. 24. Establishing of the δεῖ περισσοτέρως προσέχειν ἡμᾶς τοῖς ἀκουσθεῖσιν, ver. 1, by a warning reference to the great responsibility and culpability in the case of its neglect, and this in a conclusion a minore ad majus. Not justifiably does de Wette take vv. 2-4 as a "proving of the danger of the Tapapp." For not the possibility of foregoing salvation, but

1 Without warrant Delitzsch denies this. He has not been able to adduce an instance in favour of the opposite opinion.

the culpability of losing it through neglect, forms the central thought in vv. 2-4.

Ver. 2. Ο δι' ἀγγέλων λαληθεὶς λόγος] the word proclaimed by angels (not: by human messengers, i.e. prophets; so Daniel Heinsius and G. Olearius, against the connection with chap. i., and contrary to Biblical usage), i.e. the Mosaic law. Of an activity of the angels in connection with the act of legislation on Sinai nothing indeed is mentioned in Ex. xix.; it was, however, a traditional view very widely spread among the Jews. See Schoettgen and Wetstein on Gal. iii. 19. The earliest traces thereof appear Deut. xxxiii. 2, LXX., and Ps. lxviii. 18 (17). It is clearly enunciated Acts vii. 53; Gal. iii. 19; Josephus, Antiq. xv. 5. 3.-To understand other divine revelations given through the intervention of angels, like Gen. xix. 26, to the exclusion of the Mosaic law (Dorscheus, Calov, Schoettgen, Carpzov, Semler, al.), or with the inclusion of the same (Baumgarten, Ewald, M'Caul: "To my mind, the transition to the law exclusively is in the present instance somewhat abrupt. Does it not rather also refer to the ministrations of angels vouchsafed from time to time during the whole of the earlier dispensation, and to which allusion is made in the concluding verse of the first chapter?"), as intended by the ὁ δι' ἀγγέλων λαληθεὶς λόγος, is forbidden -apart from the connection in its main points, and the whole tendency of the epistle-by the expression ó λóyos in the singular. — The preterites éyéveтo and eλaßev characterize the period of the Mosaic law as a past one, the condition of life prevailing in the same as one now obsolete and historically surmounted. BéBaios] firm, i.e. inviolable and obligatory, as is evident from the explanatory clause καὶ πᾶσα . . . μισθαπ. immediately following. παράβασις the objective transgression, Tapaxon the subjective listless hearing or inattention, Uebertretung and Ueberhörung. Not inaptly Böhme, in preserving the paronomasia, "non commissa solum, sed omissa etiam."-evdicos] just, in the N. T. only here and Rom. iii. 8. μiolaπodoσia] selected, sonorous word, a favourite one with our author in the sense of the simple μolós, but not occurring elsewhere in the N. T. The term is a vox media, signifies thus recompense. It is here employed in the unfavourable

sense (= punishment), x. 35, xi. 26, in the favourable sense (= reward).

Ver. 3. The apodosis follows in the form of a question, which for the rest extends only to owτnpías, not to the close of ver. 4.—πws] how is it possible that. —μeîs] has the ἡμεῖς] emphasis. The Christians in general are meant, in opposition to the men once belonging to the O. T. theocracy, of whom the writer has spoken at least by implication in ver. 2. — éxþevğóμeða] stands absolutely, as xii. 25; 1 Thess. v. 3. Needlessly do Heinrichs, Stengel, Ebrard, Bisping, Maier, and many others supplement from ver. 2: Tηv ěvdikov μισθαποδοσίαν. — ἀμελήσαντες] Instancing of the case or condition, after the arising of which an escape or deliverance from punishment becomes an impossibility: in case that, or if, we shall have neglected (slighted). The participle aorist is properly used, since the culpability must first have been incurred before a punishment can ensue. τηλικαύτης σωτηpías] such a salvation, i.e. one so great, so far surpassing in exaltedness that of the O. T. Theodorus Mopsuestenus: ἐκεῖνο νομίμων δόσις ἦν μόνον, ἐνταῦθα δὲ καὶ χάρις πνεύματος καὶ λύσις ἁμαρτημάτων καὶ βασιλείας οὐρανῶν ἐπαγγελία καὶ ἀθανασίας ὑπόσχεσις· ὅθεν καὶ δικαίως τηλικαύτης εἶπεν. τηλικαύτης does not in itself contain a reference to ἥτις (Tholuck and others; the former will then have τis taken in the sense of wσTE), but stands there independently of any correlative; it is then, however, after the question has closed with σωτηρίας, enforced by the clause with ἥτις (quippe quae). — ἥτις ἀρχὴν λαβοῦσα λαλεῖσθαι διὰ τοῦ κυρίου, ὑπὸ τῶν ἀκουσάντων εἰς ἡμᾶς ἐβεβαιώθη] which indeed, at first proclaimed by the Lord, was handed down with certainty to us by them that heard it. Wrongly does Ebrard translate: "which was confirmed to us by the hearers, as one proclaimed by the Lord from the very first," in supposing that apxv λaßovoa depends upon eßeßaiwon as an "apposition of object." For how can ἀρχὴν λαβὸν λαλεῖσθαι denote something proclaimed "from the very beginning," or "from the commencement"? And how unskilfully would the author have proceeded in the choice and position of his words, if-as Ebrard supposeshe had wished to express the thought, "that the owτnpía

ἐβεβαιώθη