Lectionary Calendar
Friday, July 18th, 2025
the Week of Proper 10 / Ordinary 15
the Week of Proper 10 / Ordinary 15
video advertismenet
advertisement
advertisement
advertisement
Attention!
StudyLight.org has pledged to help build churches in Uganda. Help us with that pledge and support pastors in the heart of Africa.
Click here to join the effort!
Click here to join the effort!
Bible Commentaries
International Critical Commentary NT International Critical
Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Bibliographical Information
Driver, S.A., Plummer, A.A., Briggs, C.A. "Commentary on Hebrews 8". International Critical Commentary NT. https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/icc/hebrews-8.html. 1896-1924.
Driver, S.A., Plummer, A.A., Briggs, C.A. "Commentary on Hebrews 8". International Critical Commentary NT. https://www.studylight.org/
Whole Bible (50)New Testament (17)Individual Books (15)
Verses 1-99
1 The point of all this is, we do have such a highpriest, one who is âseated at the right handâ of the throne of Majesty (see 1:3) in the heavens, 2 and who officiates in the sanctuary or âtrue tabernacle set up by the Lordâ and not by man. 3 Now, as every highpriest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices, he too must have something to offer. 4 Were he on earth, he would not be a priest at all, for there are priests already to offer the gifts prescribed by Law (5 men who serve a mere outline and shadow of the heavenlyâas Moses was instructed when he was about to execute the building of the tabernacle: âsee,â God said, âthat (sc. á½ ÏÏÏ) you make everything on the pattern shown you upon the mountainâ). 6 As it is, however, the divine service he has obtained is superior, owing to the fact that he mediates a superior covenant, enacted with superior promises.
The terseness of the clause ἢν á¼Ïηξεν ὠκÏÏιοÏ, οá½Îº á¼Î½Î¸ÏÏÏÎ¿Ï (v. 1) is spoiled by the insertion of καί before οá½Îº (A K L P vg boh syr arm eth Cosm). In v. 4 οá½Î½ becomes Î³Î¬Ï in Dc K L syrhkl arm Chrys. Theod., and a similar group of authorities add ἱεÏÎÏν after á½Î½ÏÏν. ΤÏν is prefixed needlessly to νÏμον by ×c D K L P Chrys. Dam. to conform to the usage in 7:5, 9:22; but the sense is really unaffected, for the only legal regulation conceivable is that of the Law. In v. 6. νῦν and Î½Ï Î½Î¯ (9:26) are both attested; the former is more common in the papyri. The Hellenistic (from Aristotle onwards) form ÏÎÏÎµÏ Ïεν (×c B Dc 5 226, 487, 623, 920, 927, 1311, 1827, 1836, 1873, 2004, 2143, etc.: or ÏÎÏÏ Ïεν, ×c A D* K L) has been corrected in P Ψ 6, 33, 1908 Orig. to the Attic ÏεÏÏÏηκεν. Before κÏείÏÏονÏÏ, καί is omitted by D* 69, 436, 462 arm Thdt.
ÎεÏάλαιον (âthe pith,â Coverdale), which is nominative absolute, is used as in Cic. ad Attic. v.18: âet multa, immo omnia, quorum κεÏάλαιον,â etc., Dem. 13:36: á¼ÏÏι δʼ, ὦ á¼Î½Î´ÏÎµÏ á¼Î¸Î·Î½Î±á¿Î¿Î¹, κεÏάλαιον á¼ÏάνÏÏν Ïῶν εἰÏημÎνÏν (at the close of a speech); Musonius (ed. Hense, 67 f.) Î²Î¯Î¿Ï ÎºÎ±á½¶ γενÎÏεÏÏ ÏαίδÏν κοινÏνίαν κεÏάλαιον εἶναι Î³Î¬Î¼Î¿Ï , etc. The word in this sense is common throughout literature and the more colloquial papyri, here with á¼Ïá½¶ Ïοá¿Ï λεγομÎÎ½Î¿Î¹Ï (concerning what has been said). In passing from the intricate argument about the Melchizedek priesthood, which is now dropped, the writer disentangles the salient and central truth of the discussion, in order to continue his exposition of Jesus as highpriest. âSuch, I have said, was the�Romans 12:1f.), by arguing that devotion to God is the real highpriesthood (Ïὸ Î³á½°Ï Î¸ÎµÏαÏÎµÏ Ïικὸν γÎνοÏ�
The phrase in v. 2 Ïῶν á¼Î³Î¯Ïν λειÏÎ¿Ï ÏγÏÏ, offers two points of interest. First, the linguistic form λειÏÎ¿Ï ÏγÏÏ. The ει form stands between the older η or ηι, which waned apparently from the third cent. b.c., and the later ι form; âλειÏÎ¿Ï ÏγÏÏ sim. socios habet omnium temporum papyros praeter perpaucas recentiores quae sacris fere cum libris conspirantes λιÏÎ¿Ï ÏÎ³á½¸Ï Î»Î¹ÏÎ¿Ï Ïγία scribuntâ (Crönert, Memoria Graeca Hercul. 39). Then, the meaning of Ïῶν á¼Î³Î¯Ïν. Philo has the phrase, in Leg. Alleg. iii. 46, ÏοιοῦÏÎ¿Ï Î´á½² ὠθεÏαÏÎµÏ Ïá½´Ï ÎºÎ±á½¶ λειÏÎ¿Ï ÏÎ³á½¸Ï Ïῶν á¼Î³Î¯Ïν, where Ïῶν á¼Î³Î¯Ïν means âsacred things,â as in de Fug. 17, where the Levites are described as priests Î¿á¼·Ï á¼¡ Ïῶν á¼Î³Î¯Ïν�Numbers 24:6 Ïκηναὶ á¼Ï á¼Ïηξεν ÎÏÏιοÏ, and of Exodus 33:7 καὶ λαβὼν ÎÏÏ Ïá¿Ï Ïὴν Ïκηνὴν αá½Ïοῦ á¼Ïηξεν). The reality and authenticity of the writerâs faith come out in a term like�
Instead of contrasting at this point (v. 4) ÏἠδῶÏα (sacrifices, as in 11:4) of the levitical priests with the spiritual sacrifice of Jesus, he hints that the mere fact of these sacrifices being made á¼Ïá½¶ γá¿Ï is a proof of their inferiority. This is put into a parenthesis (v. 5); but, though a grammatical aside, it contains one of the writerâs fundamental ideas about religion (Eusebius, in Praep. Evang. xii.19, after quoting Hebrews 8:5, refers to the similar Platonic view in the sixth book of the Republic). Such priests (οἵÏινεÏ, the simple relative as in 9:2, 10:8, 11, 12:5) λαÏÏεÏÎ¿Ï Ïι (with dative as in 13:10) á½ÏοδείγμαÏι καὶ Ïκιᾷ Ïῶν á¼ÏÎ¿Ï ÏανίÏν (cp. 9:23). á½ÏÏδειγμα here as in 9:23 is a mere outline or copy (the only analogous instance in the LXX being Ezekiel 42:15 Ïὸ á½ÏÏδειγμα Ïοῦ Î¿á¼´ÎºÎ¿Ï ); the phrase is practically a hendiadys for âa shadowy outline,â a second-hand, inferior reproduction. The proof of this is given in a reference to Exodus 25:40: ÎÎ±Î¸á½¼Ï ÎºÎµÏÏημάÏιÏÏαι ÎÏÏ Ïá¿Ïâ ÏÏημαÏίζÏ,2 as often in the LXX and the papyri, of divine revelations as well as of royal instructionsâμÎλλÏν á¼ÏιÏελεá¿Î½ Ïὴν Ïκηνήν. The subject of the ÏηÏι is God, understood from κεÏÏημάÏιÏÏαι, and the γάÏ1 introduces the quotation, in which the writer, following Philo (Leg. Alleg. iii. 33), as probably codex Ambrosianus (F) of the LXX followed him, adds ÏάνÏα. He also substitutes δειÏθÎνÏα for δεδειγμÎνον, which Philo keeps (καÏá½° Ïὸ ÏαÏάδειγμα Ïὸ δεδειγμÎνον Ïοι á¼Î½ Ïá¿· á½Ïει ÏάνÏα ÏοιήÏειÏ), and retains the LXX ÏÏÏον (like Stephen in Acts 7:44). The idea was current in Alexandrian Judaism, under the influence of Platonism, that this Ïκηνή on earth had been but a reproduction of the pre-existent heavenly sanctuary. Thus the author of Wisdom makes Solomon remind God that he had been told to build the temple (νάον ⦠καὶ Î¸Ï ÏιαÏÏήÏιον) as μίμημα Ïκηνá¿Ï á¼Î³Î¯Î±Ï ἣν ÏÏοηÏοίμαÏαÏ�
Such ideas were not unknown in other circles. Seneca (Ep. lviii.18-19) had just explained to Lucilius that the Platonic ideas were âwhat all visible things were created from, and what formed the pattern for all things,â quoting the Parmenides, 132 D, to prove that the Platonic idea was the everlasting pattern of all things in nature. The metaphor is more than once used by Cicero, e.g. Tusc. iii.2. 3, and in de Officiis, 3:17, where he writes: âWe have no real and life-like (solidam et expressam effigiem) likeness of real law and genuine justice; all we enjoy is shadow and sketch (umbra et imaginibus). Would that we were true even to these! For they are taken from the excellent patterns provided by nature and truth.â But our authorâs thought is deeper. In the contemporary Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch the idea of Exodus 25:40 is developed into the thought that the heavenly Jerusalem was also revealed to Moses along with the patterns of the Ïκηνή and its utensils (4:4f.); God also showed Moses âthe pattern of Zion and its measures, in the pattern of which the sanctuary of the present time was to be madeâ (Charlesâ tr.). The origin of this notion is very ancient; it goes back to Sumerian sources, for Gudea the prince-priest of Lagash (c. 3000 b.c.) receives in a vision the plan of the temple which he is commanded to build (cp. A. Jeremias, Babylonisches im NT, pp. 62 f.). It is to this fundamental conception that the author of Î Ïá½¸Ï á¼Î²ÏÎ±Î¯Î¿Ï Ï recurs, only to elaborate it in an altogether new form, which went far beyond Philo. Philoâs argument (Leg. Alleg. iii. 33), on this very verse of Exodus, is that Bezaleel only constructed an imitation (μιμήμαÏα) of Ïὰ�
He then continues (v. 6 νῦν δÎ, logical as in 2:8, 9:26, answering to εἰ μÎν in v. 4) the thought of Christâs superior λειÏÎ¿Ï Ïγία by describing him again (cp. 7:22) in connexion with the superior διαθήκη, and using now not á¼Î³Î³Ï Î¿Ï but μεÏίÏηÏ. ÎεÏίÏÎ·Ï (see on Galatians 3:19) commonly means an arbitrator (e.g. Job 9:33, ReinP 44:3 [a.d. 104] ὠκαÏαÏÏÎ±Î¸Îµá½¶Ï ÎºÏιÏá½´Ï Î¼ÎµÏίÏηÏ) or intermediary in some civil transaction (OP 1298:19); but this writerâs use of it, always in connexion with διαθήκη (9:15, 12:24)1 and always as a description of Jesus (as in 1 Timothy 2:5), implies that it is practically (see on 7:22) a synonym for á¼Î³Î³Ï οÏ. Indeed, linguistically, it is a Hellenistic equivalent for the Attic μεÏÎÎ³Î³Ï Î¿Ï, and in Diod. Siculus, iv. 54 (ÏοῦÏον Î³á½°Ï Î¼ÎµÏίÏην γεγονÏÏα Ïῶν á½Î¼Î¿Î»Î¿Î³Î¹á¿¶Î½ á¼Î½ ÎÏλÏÎ¿Î¹Ï á¼ÏηγγÎλθαι βοηθήÏειν αá½Ïá¿ ÏαÏαÏÏÎ¿Î½Î´Î¿Ï Î¼Îνá¿), its meaning corresponds to that of á¼Î³Î³Ï οÏ. The sense is plain, even before the writer develops his ideas about the new διαθήκη, for, whenever the idea of reconciliation emerges, terms like μεÏίÏÎ·Ï and μεÏιÏεÏειν are natural. ÎεÏίÏÎ·Ï ÎºÎ±á½¶ διαλλακÏÎ®Ï is Philoâs phrase2 for Moses (Vit. Mos. iii:19). And as a διαθήκη was a gracious order of religious fellowship, inaugurated upon some historical occasion by sacrifice, it was natural to speak of Jesus as the One who mediated this new διαθήκη of Christianity. He gave it (Theophyl. μεÏίÏÎ·Ï ÎºÎ±á½¶ δÏÏηÏ); he it was who realized it for men and who maintains it for men. All that the writer has to say meantime about the διαθήκη is that it has been enacted (v. 6) á¼Ïá½¶ κÏείÏÏοÏιν á¼ÏαγγελίαιÏ. This passive use of νομοθεÏεá¿Î½ is not unexampled; cf. e.g. OGIS. 493:55 (ii a.d.) καὶ ÏαῦÏα μὲν á½Î¼Îµá¿Î½ á½ÏÎ¸á¿¶Ï ÎºÎ±á½¶ ÎºÎ±Î»á¿¶Ï â¦ Î½ÎµÎ½Î¿Î¼Î¿Î¸ÎµÏήÏθÏ. It is implied, of course, that God is ὠνομοθεÏῶν (as in LXX Psalms 83:7). What the âbetter promisesâ are, he now proceeds to explain, by a contrast between their διαθήκη and its predecessor. The superiority of the new διαθήκη is shown by the fact that God thereby superseded the διαθήκη with which the levitical cultus was bound up; the writer quotes an oracle from Jeremiah, again laying stress on the fact that it came after the older διαθήκη (vv. 7-13), and enumerating its promises ascontained in a new διαθήκη.
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion for a second. 8 Whereas God does find fault with the people of that covenant, when he says:
âThe day is coming, saith the Lord,
when I will conclude a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.
9 It will not be on the lines of the covenant I made with their fathers,
on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egyptâs Land;
for they would not hold to my covenant,
so I left them alone, saith the Lord,
10 This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel when that (âthe dayâ of v. 8) day comes, saith the Lord;
I will set my laws within their mind,
inscribing them upon their hearts;
I will be a God (Îµá¼°Ï Î¸ÎµÏν, i.e. all that men can expect a God to be) to them,
and they shall be a People to me;
11 one citizen will no longer teach his fellow,
one man will no longer teach his brother (Ïὸν�Exodus 10:23),
saying, âKnow the Lord.â
for all shall know me, low and high together.
12 I will be merciful to their iniquities,
and remember their sins no more.
13 By saying âa new covenant,â he antiquates the first. And whatever is antiquated and aged is on the verge of vanishing.
The contents of the prediction of a καινὴ διαθήκη by God, and the very fact that such was necessary, prove the defectiveness of the first διαθήκη. The writer is struck by the mention of a new διαθήκη even in the OT itself, and he now explains the significance of this. As for ἡ ÏÏÏÏη (sc. διαθήκη) á¼ÎºÎµÎ¯Î½Î·, εἰ ⦠á¼Î¼ÎµÎ¼ÏÏÎ¿Ï (if no fault could have been found with it), οá½Îºï¿½Matthew 21:30), δεÏÏεÏÎ¿Ï is the term chosen in 10:9, and B* is far too slender evidence by itself. ÎηÏεá¿Î½ ÏÏÏον is one of those idiomatic phrases, like εá½Ïεá¿Î½ ÏÏÏον and λαβεá¿Î½ ÏÏÏον, of which the writer was fond. The force of the Î³Î¬Ï after μεμÏá½Î¼ÎµÎ½Î¿Ï is: âand there was occasion for a second διαθήκη, the first was not á¼Î¼ÎµÎ¼ÏÏοÏ, since,â etc. It need make little or no difference to the sense whether we read αá½Ïοá¿Ï (×c B Dc L 6, 38, 88, 104, 256, 436, 487, 999, 1311, 1319, 1739, 1837, 1845, 1912, 2004, 2127 Origen) or αá½ÏοÏÏ (×* A D* K P W 33 vg arm), for μεμÏÏÎ¼ÎµÎ½Î¿Ï can take a dative as well as an accusative (cf. Arist. Rhet. i.6. 24, ÎοÏÎ¹Î½Î¸Î¯Î¿Î¹Ï Î´Ê¼ οὠμÎμÏεÏαι Ïὸ Ἴλιον: Aesch. Prom. 63, οá½Î´Îµá½¶Ï á¼Î½Î´Î¯ÎºÏÏ Î¼ÎμÏαιÏο μοι) in the sense of âcensuringâ or âfinding fault with,â and μεμÏÏÎ¼ÎµÎ½Î¿Ï naturally goes with αá½Ïοá¿Ï or αá½ÏοÏÏ. The objection to taking αá½Ïοá¿Ï with λÎγει1 is that the quotation is not addressed directly to the people, but spoken at large. Thus the parallel from 2 Malachi 2:7 (μεμÏÎ¬Î¼ÎµÎ½Î¿Ï Î±á½Ïοá¿Ï εἶÏεν) is not decisive, and the vg is probably correct in rendering âvituperans enim eos dicit.â The context explains here as in 4:8 and 11:28 who are meant by αá½ÏοÏÏ. The real interest of the writer in this Jeremianic oracle is shown when he returns to it in 10:16-18; what arrests him is the promise of a free, full pardon at the close. But he quotes it at length, partly because it did imply the supersession of the older διαθήκη and partly because it contained high promises (vv. 10-12), higher than had yet been given to the People. No doubt it also contains a warning (v. 9), like the text from the 95th psalm (3:7f.), but this is not why he recites it (see p. xl).
The text of Jer 38:31-34 (31:31-34) as he read it in his bible (i.e. in A) ran thus:
ἰδοὺ ἡμÎÏαι á¼ÏÏονÏαι, λÎγει ÎÏÏιοÏ,
καὶ διαθήÏομαι Ïá¿· Î¿á¼´ÎºÏ á¼¸ÏÏαὴλ καὶ Ïá¿· οἶκῳ ἸοÏδα διαθήκην καινήν,
οὠκαÏá½° Ïὴν διαθήκην ἣν διεθÎμην Ïοá¿Ï ÏαÏÏάÏιν αá½Ïῶν
á¼Î½ ἡμÎÏá¾³ á¼ÏιλαβομÎÎ½Î¿Ï Î¼Î¿Ï Ïá¿Ï ÏειÏá½¸Ï Î±á½Ïῶν á¼Î¾Î±Î³Î±Î³Îµá¿Î½ αá½ÏÎ¿á½ºÏ á¼Îº γá¿Ï ÎἰγÏÏÏÎ¿Ï ,
á½ Ïι αá½Ïοὶ οá½Îº á¼Î½Îμειναν á¼Î½ Ïá¿ Î´Î¹Î±Î¸Î®Îºá¿ Î¼Î¿Ï ,
κá¼Î³á½¼ ἠμÎληÏα αá½Ïῶν, ÏηÏὶν ÎÏÏιοÏ.
á½ Ïι αá½Ïη ἡ διαθήκη ἣν διαθήÏομαι Ïá¿· οἴκῳ ἸÏÏαήλ
μεÏá½° Ïá½°Ï á¼¡Î¼ÎÏÎ±Ï á¼ÎºÎµÎ¯Î½Î±Ï, ÏηÏὶν ÎÏÏιοÏ,
Î´Î¹Î´Î¿á½ºÏ Î½ÏÎ¼Î¿Ï Ï Î¼Î¿Ï Îµá¼°Ï Ïὴν διάνοιαν αá½Ïῶν
καὶ á¼ÏιγÏάÏÏ Î±á½ÏÎ¿á½ºÏ á¼Ïá½¶ Ïá½°Ï ÎºÎ±ÏÎ´Î¯Î±Ï Î±á½Ïῶν,
καὶ á½Ïομαι αá½ÏοὺÏ
καὶ á¼Ïομαι αá½Ïοá¿Ï Îµá¼°Ï Î¸Îµá½¸Î½.
καὶ αá½Ïοὶ á¼ÏονÏαί μοι Îµá¼°Ï Î»Î±Ïν.
καὶ οὠμὴ1 διδάξÏÏιν á¼ÎºÎ±ÏÏÎ¿Ï Ïὸν�
Î£Ï Î½ÏελÎÏÏ Î´Î¹Î±Î¸Î®ÎºÎ·Î½, a literary LXX variant for ÏοιήÏÏ Î´Î¹Î±Î¸Î®ÎºÎ·Î½, recalls the phrase ÏÏ Î½ÏελÎÏαι διαθήκην (Jeremiah 41:8 (34:8), and, as 12:24 (νÎÎ±Ï Î´Î¹Î±Î¸Î®ÎºÎ·Ï) shows, the writer draws no distinction between καινÏÏ and νÎÎ¿Ï (v. 8). In v. 9 the genitive absolute (á¼ÏιλαβομÎÎ½Î¿Ï Î¼Î¿Ï ) after ἡμÎÏα,Í instead of á¼Î½ á¾ á¼ÏελαβÏμην (as Justin correctly puts it, Dial. xi.), is a Hellenistic innovation, due here to translation, but paralleled in Bar 2:28 á¼Î½ ἡμÎÏá¾³ á¼Î½ÏειλαμÎÎ½Î¿Ï ÏÎ¿Ï Î±á½Ïá¿·); in á½ Ïι (causal only here and in v. 10) ⦠á¼Î½Îμειναν, the latter is our âabide by,â in the sense of obey or practise, exactly as in Isokrates, καÏá½° Ïῶν ΣοÏιÏÏῶν, 20: Î¿á¼·Ï Îµá¼° ÏÎ¹Ï á¼Ïá½¶ Ïῶν ÏÏάξεÏν á¼Î¼Î¼ÎµÎ¯Î½ÎµÎ¹ÎµÎ½. Bengel has a crisp comment on αá½Ïοὶ ⦠κá¼Î³Ï here and on á¼Ïομαι ⦠καὶ αá½Ïοί (âcorrelata ⦠sed ratione inversa; populus fecerat initium tollendi foederis prius, in novo omnia et incipit et perficit Deusâ); and, as it happens, there is a dramatic contrast between ἠμÎληÏα here and the only other use of the verb in this epistle (2:3). In v. 10 διδοÏÏ, by the omission of δÏÏÏ, is left hanging in the air; but (cp. Moulton, 222) such participles could be taken as finite verbs in popular Greek of the period (cp. e.g. ÏειÏοÏÎ¿Î½Î·Î¸ÎµÎ¯Ï in 2 Corinthians 8:19). The καινὴ διαθήκη is to be on entirely fresh lines, not a mere revival of the past; it is to realize a knowledge of God which is inward and intuitive (vv. 10, 11). There is significance in the promise, καὶ á¼Ïομαι αá½Ïοá¿Ï â¦ Îµá¼°Ï Î»Î±Ïν. A διαθήκη was always between God and his people, and this had been the object even of the former διαθήκη (Exodus 6:7); now it is to be realized at last. Philoâs sentence (âeven if we are sluggish, however, He is not sluggish about taking to Himself those who are fit for His service; for He says, âI will take you to be a people for myself, and I will be your God,ââ De Sacrif. Abelis et Caini, 26) is an apt comment; but our author, who sees the new διαθήκη fulfilled in Christianity, has his own views about how such a promise and purpose was attainable, for while the oracle ignores the sacrificial ritual altogether, he cannot conceive any pardon apart from sacrifice, nor any διαθήκη apart from a basal sacrifice. These ideas he is to develop in his next paragraphs, for it is the closing promise of pardon1 which is to him the supreme boon. Meanwhile, before passing on to explain how this had been mediated by Jesus, he (v. 13) drives home the truth of the contrast between old and new (see Introd., p. xxxix). á¼Î½ Ïá¿· λÎγειν (same construction as in 2:8)âwhen the word καινὴν (sc. διαθήκην) was pronounced, it sealed the doom of the old διαθήκη. ΠαλαιÏÏ (ÏεÏαλαίÏκε) in this transitive sense (âhe hath abrogat,â Tyndale) is known to the LXX (Job 9:5, Lamentations 3:4, both times of God in action); γηÏάÏκειν is practically equivalent to μαÏαίνεÏθαι, and implies decay (see Wilamowitz on Eur. Herakles, 1223). The two words á¼Î³Î³á½ºÏ (as in 6:8)�
But the new διαθήκη is also superior to the old by its sacrifice (9:1f.), sacrifice being essential to any forgiveness such as has been promised. The older διαθήκη had its sanctuary and ritual (vv. 1-5), but even these (vv. 6f.) indicated a defect.
A [02: δ 4].
K [018:1:1].
L [020: α 5] cont. 1:1-13:10.
P [025: α 3] cont. 1:1-12:8 12:11-13:25.
boh The Coptic Version of the NT in the Northern Dialect (Oxford, 1905), vol. iii. pp. 472-555.
Cosm Cosmas Indicopleustes (ed. E. O. Winstedt, CAmbridge, 1909)
D [06: α 1026] cont. 1:1-13:20. Codex Claromontanus is a Graeco-Latin MS, whose Greek text is poorly* reproduced in the later (saec. ix.-x.) E = codex Sangermanensis. The Greek text of the latter (1:1-12:8) is therefore of no independent value (cp. Hort in WH, §§ 335-337); for its Latin text, as well as for that of F=codex Augiensis (saec. ix.), whose Greek text of Î Ïá½¸Ï á¼Î²ÏÎ±Î¯Î¿Ï Ï has not been preserved, see below, p. lxix.
Theod. Theodore of Mospsuestia
×Ô [01: δ 2).
B [03: δ 1] cont. 1:1-9:18: for remainder cp. cursive 293.
5 [δ 453]
226 [δ 156]
487 [α 171]
623 [α 173]
920 [α 55]
927 [δ 251]
1311 [α 170]
1827 [α 367]
1836 [α 65]
1873 [α 252]
2004 [α 56]
2143 [α 184]
Î¨Ì [044: δ 6] cont. 1:1-8:11 9:19-13:25.
6 [δ 356] cont. 1:1-9:3 10:22-13:25
33 [δ 48] Hortâs 17
1908 [O Ï 103]
69 [δ 505]
436 [α 172]
462 [α 502]
Thdt. Theodoret
Philo Philonis Alexandriai Opera Quae Supersunt (recognoverunt L. Cohn et P. Wendland).
LXX The Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint Version (ed. H. B. Swete).
OGIS Dittenbergerâs Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae (1903-1905).
1 ἥν is not assimilated, though á¼§Ï might have been written; the practice varied (cp. e.g. Deuteronomy 5:31 á¼Î½ Ïῠγῠἥν á¼Î³á½¼ δίδÏμι, and 12:1 á¼Î½ ÏῠγῠῠÎÏÏÎ¹Î¿Ï Î´Î¯Î´ÏÏιν).
Radermacher Neutestamentliche Grammatik (1911), in Lietzmannâs Handbuch zum Neuen Testament (vol. i.).
2 Passively in the NT in Acts 10:22, but the exact parallel is in Josephus, Ant. iii.8. 8, ÎÏÏÏá¿Ï â¦ Îµá¼°Ï Ïὴν Ïκηνὴν εἰÏιὼν á¼ÏÏημαÏίζεÏο ÏεÏá½¶ ὧν á¼Î´Îµá¿Ïο ÏαÏá½° Ïοῦ θεοῦ.
1 Put before ÏηÏι, because the point is not that the oracle was given, but what the oracle contained.
ReinP Papyrus Grecs et Démotiques (Paris, 1905), ed. Th. Reinach.
OP The Oxyrhynchus Papyri (ed. B. P. Grenfell and A. Hunt).
1 In these two latter passages, at least, there may be an allusion to the contemporary description of Moses as âmediator of the covenantâ (âarbiter testamenti,â Ass. Mosis, i.14). The writer does not contrast Jesus with Michael, who was the great angelic mediator in some circles of Jewish piety (cp. Jub 1:29, Test. Dan_6).
2 Josephus (Ant. xvi.2. 2) says that Herod Ïῶν ÏαÏʼ á¼Î³ÏίÏÏα ÏιÏὶν á¼ÏιζηÏÎ¿Ï Î¼ÎνÏν μεÏίÏÎ·Ï á¼¦Î½, and that his influence moved ÏÏá½¸Ï Ïá½°Ï Îµá½ÎµÏγεÏÎ¯Î±Ï Î¿á½ Î²ÏαδÏνονÏα Ïὸν á¼Î³ÏίÏÏαν. ἸλιεῦÏι μὲν Î³á½°Ï Î±á½Ïὸν διήλλαξεν á½ÏγιζÏμενον.
Weiss B. Weiss, âTextkritik der paulinischen Briefeâ (in Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, vol. xiv. 3), also Der Hebräerbrief in Zeitgeschichtlicher Beleuchtung (1910).
Blass F. Blass, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch: vierte, völlig neugearbeitete Auflage, besorgt von Albert Debrunner (1913); also, Brief an die Hebräer, Text mit Angabe der Rhythmen (1903).
38 [δ 355]
88 [α 200]
104 [α 103]
256 [α 216]
999 [δ 353]
1319 [δ 180]
1739 [α 78]
1837 [α 192]
1845 [α 64]
1912 [α 1066]
2127 [δ 202]
W [I] cont. 1:1-3, 9-12. 2:4-7, 12-14. 3:4-6, 14-16 4:3-6, 12-14 5:5-7 6:1-3, 10-13, 20 7:1-2, 7-11, 18-20, 27-28 8:1, 7-9 9:1-4, 9-11, 16-19, 25-27 10:5-8, 16-18, 26-29, 35-38 11:6-7, 12-15, 22-24, 31-33, 38-40 12:1, 7-9, 16-18, 25-27 13:7-9, 16-18, 23-25: NT MSS in Freer Collection, The Washington MS of the Epp. of Paul (1918), pp. 294-306. Supports Alexandrian text, and is âquite free from Western readings.â
1 μεμÏÏÎ¼ÎµÎ½Î¿Ï is then âby way of censure,â and some think the writer purposely avoided adding αá½Ïήν. Which, in view of what he says in v. 13, is doubtful; besides, he has just said that the former διαθήκη was not á¼Î¼ÎµÎ¼ÏÏοÏ.
1 οὠμή only occurs in Hebrews in quotations (here, 10:17, 13:5); out of about ninety-six occurrences in the NT, only eight are with the future.
Thackeray H. St J. Thackeray, A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek (1909).
vg vg Vulgate, saec. iv.
1 That á¼Ïί takes the accusative here is shown by 10:16; καÏÎ´Î¯Î±Ï cannot be the genitive singular alongside of an accusative.
C [04: δ 3] cont. 2:4-7:26 9:15-10:24 12:16-13:25.
206 [α 365]
218 [δ 300]
257 [α 466]
547 [δ 157]
642 [α 552] cont. 1:1-7:18 9:13-13:25
1288 [α 162]
326 [α 257]
Moulton J. H. Moultonâs Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. i. (2nd edition, 1906).
1 With Ïῶν á¼Î¼Î±ÏÏá¿Ïν αá½Ïῶν οὠμὴ μνηÏθῶ á¼Ïι compare the parable of R. Jochanan and R. Eliezer on Godâs readiness to forget the sinful nature of his servants: âThere is a parable concerning a king of flesh and blood, who said to his servants, Build me a great palace on the dunghill. They went and built it for him. It was not thenceforward the kingâs pleasure to remember the dunghill which had been thereâ (Chagiga, 16 a. i. 27).