Hebrews 8
ICCNTHebrews 8:1-99
1 The point of all this is, we do have such a highpriest, one who is “ seated at the right hand” of the throne of Majesty (see 1:3) in the heavens, 2 and who officiates in the sanctuary or “ true tabernacle set up by the Lord” 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 heavenly— as Moses was instructed when he was about to execute the building of the tabernacle: “ see,” God said, “ that you make everything on the pattern shown you upon the mountain” ). 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 ἢνἔπηξενὁκύριος , οὐκἄνθρωπος (v. 1) is spoiled by the insertion of καί before οὐκ (A K L P vg boh syr arm eth Cosm). In v. 4 οὖν becomes γάρ in Dc K L syrhkl arm Chrys. Theod., and a similar group of authorities add ἱερέων after ὄντων . Τόν is prefixed needlessly to νόμον by א 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 νυνί (9:26) are both attested; the former is more common in the papyri. The Hellenistic (from Aristotle onwards) form τέτευχεν (א c B Dc 5 226, 487, 623, 920, 927, 1311, 1827, 1836, 1873, 2004, 2143, etc.: or τέτυχεν , א c A D* K L) has been corrected in P Ψ 6, 33, 1908 Orig. to the Attic τετύχηκεν . Before κρείττονός , καί is omitted by D* 69, 436, 462 arm Thdt.
Κεφάλαιον (“ the pith,” Coverdale), which is nominative absolute, is used as in Cic. ad Attic. v.18: “ et multa, immo omnia, quorum κεφάλαιον ,” etc., Dem. 13:36: ἔστιδ ʼ , ὦἄνδρεςἈθηναῖοι , κεφάλαιονἁπάντωντῶνεἰρημένων (at the close of a speech); Musonius (ed. Hense, 67 f.) βίουκαὶγενέσεωςπαίδωνκοινωνίανκεφάλαιονεἶναιγάμου , etc. The word in this sense is common throughout literature and the more colloquial papyri, here with ἐπὶτοῖςλεγομένοις (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. “ Such, I have said, was the ἀρχιερεύς for us, and such is the ἀρχιερεύς we have — One who is enthroned, ἐντοῖςοὐρανοῖς , next to God himself.” While Philo spiritualizes the highpriesthood, not unlike Paul (Romans 12:1f.), by arguing that devotion to God is the real highpriesthood (τὸγὰρθεραπευτικὸνγένοςἀνάθημάἐστιθεοῦ , ἱερώμενοντὴνμεγάληνἀρχιερωσύνηναὐτῷμόνῳ , de Fug. 7), our author sees its essential functions transcended by Jesus in the spiritual order.
The phrase in v. 2 τῶνἁγίωνλειτουργός , offers two points of interest. First, the linguistic form λειτουργός . The ει form stands between the older η or ηι , which waned apparently from the third cent. b.c., and the later ι form; “ λειτουργός sim. socios habet omnium temporum papyros praeter perpaucas recentiores quae sacris fere cum libris conspirantes λιτουργὸςλιτουργία scribunt” (Crö nert, Memoria Graeca Hercul. 39). Then, the meaning of τῶνἁγίων . Philo has the phrase, in Leg. Alleg. iii. 46, τοιοῦτοςδὲὁθεραπευτὴςκαὶλειτουργὸςτῶνἁγίων , where τῶνἁγίων means “ sacred things,” as in de Fug. 17, where the Levites are described as priests οἷςἡτῶνἁγίωνἀνακεῖταιλειτουργία .
This might be the meaning here. But the writer uses τὰἅγια elsewhere (9:8f. 10:19, 13:11) of “ the sanctuary,” a rendering favoured by the context.
By τὰἅγια he means, as often in the LXX, the sanctuary in general, without any reference to the distinction (cp. 9:2f.) between the outer and the inner shrine. The LXX avoids the pagan term ἱερόν in this connexion, though τὸἅγιον itself was already in use among ethnic writers (e.g. the edict of Ptolemy iii., καὶκαθιδρῦσαιἐντῶνἁγίωι = “ in sacrario templi,” Dittenberger, OGIS 56:59). It is here defined (καί epexegetic) as the true or real σκηνή , ἣν 1 ἔπηξενὁκύριος (a reminiscence of Num 24:6 σκηναὶἃςἔπηξενΚύριος , and of Exo 33:7 καὶλαβὼνΜωυσῆςτὴνσκηνὴναὐτοῦἔπηξεν ). The reality and authenticity of the writer’ s faith come out in a term like ἀληθινός . What he means by it he will explain in a moment (v. 5). Meanwhile he turns to the λειτουργία of Jesus in this ideal sanctuary.
This ἀρχιερεύς of ours, in his vocation (v. 3, cp. 5:1), must have some sacrifice to present before God, though what this offering is, the writer does not definitely say, even later in 9:24. The analogy of a highpriest carrying the blood of an animal inside the sacred shrine had its obvious limitations, for Jesus was both ἀρχιερεύς and offering, by his self-sacrifice. Προσενέγκῃ is the Hellenistic aorist subjunctive, where classical Greek would have employed a future indicative (Radermacher, 138).
The writer proceeds to argue that this λειτουργία is far superior to the levitical cultus (vv. 4f.). Even in the heavenly sanctuary there must be sacrifice of some kind— for sacrifice is essential to communion, in his view. It is not a sacrifice according to the levitical ritual; indeed Jesus on this level would not be in levitical orders at all. But so far from that being any drawback or disqualification to our ἀρχιερεύς , it is a proof of his superiority, for the bible itself indicates that the levitical cultus is only an inferior copy of the heavenly order to which Jesus belongs.
Instead of contrasting at this point (v. 4) τἀδῶρα (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 ἐπὶγῆς is a proof of their inferiority. This is put into a parenthesis (v. 5); but, though a grammatical aside, it contains one of the writer’ s 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 (οἵτινες , the simple relative as in 9:2, 10:8, 11, 12:5) λατρεύουσι (with dative as in 13:10) ὑποδείγματικαὶσκιᾷτῶνἐπουρανίων (cp. 9:23). Ὑπόδειγμα here as in 9:23 is a mere outline or copy ; the phrase is practically a hendiadys for “ a shadowy outline,” a second-hand, inferior reproduction. The proof of this is given in a reference to Exodus 25:40: ΚαθὼςκεχρημάτισταιΜωυσῆς — χρηματίζω ,2 as often in the LXX and the papyri, of divine revelations as well as of royal instructions— μέλλωνἐπιτελεῖντὴνσκηνήν . The subject of the φησι is God, understood from κεχρημάτισται , and the γάρ 1 introduces the quotation, in which the writer, following Philo (Leg.
Alleg. iii. 33), as probably codex Ambrosianus (F) of the LXX followed him, adds πάντα . He also substitutes δειχθέντα for δεδειγμένον , which Philo keeps , and retains the LXX τύπον (like Stephen in Acts 7:44). The idea was current in Alexandrian Judaism, under the influence of Platonism, that this σκηνή 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 as μίμημασκηνῆςἁγίαςἣνπροητοίμασαςἀπ ʼ ἀρχῆς (9:8), where σκηνὴἁγία is plainly the heavenly sanctuary as the eternal archetype. This idealism determines the thought of our writer (see Introd. pp. xxxi f.). Above the shows and shadows of material things he sees the real order of being, and it is most real to him on account of Jesus being there, for the entire relationship between God and man depends upon this function and vocation of Jesus in the eternal sanctuary.
Such ideas were not unknown in other circles. Seneca (Ep. lviii.18-19) had just explained to Lucilius that the Platonic ideas were “ what all visible things were created from, and what formed the pattern for all things,” 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: “ We 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.” But our author’ s thought is deeper.
In the contemporary Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch the idea of Exo 25:40 is developed into the thought that the heavenly Jerusalem was also revealed to Moses along with the patterns of the σκηνή and its utensils (4:4f.); God also showed Moses “ the pattern of Zion and its measures, in the pattern of which the sanctuary of the present time was to be made” (Charles’ 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 ΠρὸςἙβραίους recurs, only to elaborate it in an altogether new form, which went far beyond Philo. Philo’ s argument (Leg. Alleg. iii. 33), on this very verse of Exodus, is that Bezaleel only constructed an imitation of τὰἀρχέτυπα given to Moses; the latter was called up to the mountain to receive the direct idea of God, whereas the former worked simply ἀπὸσκιᾶςτῶνγενομένων . In de Plant. 6 he observes that the very name of Bezaleel means “ one who works in shadows” ; in De Somniis, i. 35, he defines it as “ in the shadow of God,” and again contrasts Bezaleel with Moses: ὁμὲνοἶασκιὰςὑπεγράφετο , ὁδ ʼ οὐσκιάς , αὐτὰςδὲτὰςἀρχετύπουςἐδημιούργειφύσεις .
In Vit. Mos. iii.3 he argues that in building the σκηνή Moses designed to produce καθάπερἀπ ʼ ἀρχετύπουγραφῆςκαὶνοητῶνπαραδειγμάτωναἰσθητὰμιμήματα … ὁμὲνοὖντύποςτοῦπαραδείγματοςἐνεσφραγίζετοτῇδιανοίᾳτοῦπροφήτου … τὸδ ʼ ἀποτέλεσμαπρὸςτὸντύπονἐδημιουργεῖτο .
He then continues (v. 6 νῦνδέ , logical as in 2:8, 9:26, answering to εἰμέν in v. 4) the thought of Christ’ s superior λειτουργία by describing him again (cp. 7:22) in connexion with the superior διαθήκη , and using now not ἔγγυος but μεσίτης . Μεσίτης (see on Galatians 3:19) commonly means an arbitrator or intermediary in some civil transaction (OP 1298:19); but this writer’ s 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 ἔγγυος . Indeed, linguistically, it is a Hellenistic equivalent for the Attic μετέγγυος , and in Diod. Siculus, iv. 54 (τοῦτονγὰρμεσίτηνγεγονότατῶνὁμολογιῶνἐνΚόλχοιςἐπηγγέλθαιβοηθήσειναὐτῇπαρασπονδουμένῃ ), its meaning corresponds to that of ἔγγυος . The sense is plain, even before the writer develops his ideas about the new διαθήκη , for, whenever the idea of reconciliation emerges, terms like μεσίτης and μεσιτεύειν are natural. Μεσίτηςκαὶδιαλλακτής is Philo’ s 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 ; 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) ἐπὶκρείττοσινἐπαγγελίαις . This passive use of νομοθετεῖν is not unexampled; cf. e.g. OGIS. 493:55 (ii a.d.) καὶταῦταμὲνὑμεῖνὀρθῶςκαὶκαλῶς … νενομοθετήσθω . It is implied, of course, that God is ὁνομοθετῶν (as in LXX Psalms 83:7). What the “ better promises” 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:
“ The 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 Egypt’ s 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 (“ the day” 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 (εἰςθεόν , 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 (τὸνἀδελφὸναὐτοῦ , i.e. one another, Exodus 10:23),
saying, “ Know the Lord.”
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 “ a new covenant,” he antiquates the first. And whatever is antiquated and aged is on the verge of vanishing.
The contents of the prediction of a καινὴδιαθήκη 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 ἡπρώτηἐκείνη , εἰ … ἄμεμπτος (if no fault could have been found with it), οὐκἀνδευτέραςἐζητεῖτοτόπος . Δευτέρας is replaced by ἑτέρας in B* (so B. Weiss, Blass); but, while ἕτερος could follow πρῶτος (Matthew 21:30), δεύτερος is the term chosen in 10:9, and B* is far too slender evidence by itself. Ζητεῖντόπον is one of those idiomatic phrases, like εὑρεῖντόπον and λαβεῖντόπον , of which the writer was fond. The force of the γάρ after μεμφὀμενος is: “ and there was occasion for a second διαθήκη , the first was not ἄμεμπτος , since,” etc. It need make little or no difference to the sense whether we read αὐτοῖς (א c B Dc L 6, 38, 88, 104, 256, 436, 487, 999, 1311, 1319, 1739, 1837, 1845, 1912, 2004, 2127 Origen) or αὐτούς (א * A D* K P W 33 vg arm), for μεμφόμενος can take a dative as well as an accusative (cf.
Arist. Rhet. i.6. 24, Κορινθίοιςδ ʼ οὐμέμφεταιτὸἼλιον : Aesch.
Prom. 63, οὐδεὶςἐνδίκωςμέμψαιτομοι ) in the sense of “ censuring” or “ finding fault with,” and μεμφόμενος naturally goes with αὐτοῖς or αὐτούς . The objection to taking αὐτοῖς with λέγει 1 is that the quotation is not addressed directly to the people, but spoken at large. Thus the parallel from 2 Mal 2:7 is not decisive, and the vg is probably correct in rendering “ vituperans enim eos dicit.” The context explains here as in 4:8 and 11:28 who are meant by αὐτούς . 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:
ἰδοὺἡμέραιἔρχονται , λέγειΚύριος ,
καὶδιαθήσομαιτῷοἴκωἸσραὴλκαὶτῷοἶκῳἸούδαδιαθήκηνκαινήν ,
οὐκατὰτὴνδιαθήκηνἣνδιεθέμηντοῖςπατράσιναὐτῶν
ἐνἡμέρᾳἐπιλαβομένουμουτῆςχειρὸςαὐτῶνἐξαγαγεῖναὐτοὺςἐκγῆςΑἰγύπτου ,
ὅτιαὐτοὶοὐκἐνέμεινανἐντῇδιαθήκῃμου ,
κἀγὼἠμέλησααὐτῶν , φησὶνΚύριος .
ὅτιαὕτηἡδιαθήκηἣνδιαθήσομαιτῷοἴκῳἸσραήλ
μετὰτὰςἡμέραςἐκείνας , φησὶνΚύριος ,
διδοὺςνόμουςμουεἰςτὴνδιάνοιαναὐτῶν
καὶἐπιγράψωαὐτοὺςἐπὶτὰςκαρδίαςαὐτῶν ,
καὶὄψομαιαὐτοὺς
καὶἔσομαιαὐτοῖςεἰςθεὸν .
καὶαὐτοὶἔσονταίμοιεἰςλαόν .
καὶοὐμὴ 1 διδάξωσινἕκαστοςτὸνἀδελφὸναὐτοῦ
καὶἕκαστοςτὸνπλησίοναὐτοῦλέγων · γνῶθιτὸνΚύριον ,
ὅτιπάντεςἰδήσουσινμε
ἀπὸμικροῦἕωςμεγάλουαὐτῶν .
ὅτιἵλεωςἔσομαιταῖςἀδικίαιςαὐτῶν
καὶτῶνἁμαρτιῶναὐτῶνοὐμὴμνησθῶἔτι .
Our author follows as usual the text of A upon the whole (e.g. λέγει for φησίν in v. 31, κἀγώ in v. 32, the omission of μου after διαθήκη and of δώσω after διδούς in v. 33, οὐμὴδιδάξωσιν for οὐδιδάξουσιν in v. 34 and the omission of αὐτῶν after μικροῦ ), but substitutes συντελέσωἐπὶτὸνοἷκον (his) for διαθήσομαιτῷοἴκῳ in v. 31, reads λέγει for φησίν in v. 32 and v. 33, alters διεθέμην into ἐποίησα (Q*), and follows B in reading καὶἐπὶκ . αὐτῶν before the verb (v. 33), and πολίτην … ἀδελφόν in v. 34, as well as in omitting καὶὄψ . αὐτούς in the former verse; in v. 34 he reads εἰδήσουσιν (א Q) instead of ἰδήσουσιν , the forms of οἷδα and εἶδον being repeatedly confused (cp. Thackeray, 278). These minor changes may be partly due to the fact that he is quoting from memory. In some cases his own text has been conformed to other versions of the LXX; e.g. A D Ψ boh restore μου in v. 10, א * K vg Clem. Chrys. read καρδίαν (with א in LXX), though the singular1 is plainly a conformation to δίανοιαν (“ Fü r den Plural sprechen ausser A D L noch B, wo nur das C in ε verschrieben und daraus επικαρδιαεαυτων geworden ist, und P, wo der Dat. in den Acc. verwandelt,” B.
Weiss in Texte u. Untersuchungen, xiv. 3. 16, 55); B Ψ arm revive the LXX (B) variant γράψω ; the LXX (Q) variant πλησἰον is substituted for πολίτην by P vg syrhkl eth 38 206 218 226 257 547 642 1288 1311 1912 etc. Cyril, and the LXX αὐτῶν restored after μικροῦ by De L syr boh eth, etc. On the other hand, a trait like the reading ἐποίησα in the LXX text of Q* may be due to the influence of Hebrews itself. The addition of καὶτῶνἀνομιῶναὐτῶν after or before καὶτῶνἁμαρτιῶναὐτῶν in v. 12 is a homiletic gloss from 10:17, though strongly entrenched in א c A C D K L P Ψ 6 104 326 etc. vg pesh arm Clem
Συντελέσωδιαθήκην , a literary LXX variant for ποιήσωδιαθήκην , recalls the phrase συντελέσαιδιαθήκην (Jeremiah 41:8 (34:8), and, as 12:24 shows, the writer draws no distinction between καινός and νέος (v. 8). In v. 9 the genitive absolute after ἡμέρα ,ͅ instead of ἐνᾗἐπελαβόμην (as Justin correctly puts it, Dial. xi.), is a Hellenistic innovation, due here to translation, but paralleled in Bar 2:28 ἐνἡμέρᾳἐντειλαμένουσουαὐτῷ ); in ὅτι (causal only here and in v. 10) … ἐνέμειναν , the latter is our “ abide by,” in the sense of obey or practise, exactly as in Isokrates, κατὰτῶνΣοφιστῶν , 20: οἷςεἰτιςἐπὶτῶνπράξεωνἐμμείνειεν . Bengel has a crisp comment on αὐτοὶ … κἀγώ here and on ἔσομαι … καὶαὐτοί (“ correlata … sed ratione inversa; populus fecerat initium tollendi foederis prius, in novo omnia et incipit et perficit Deus” ); and, as it happens, there is a dramatic contrast between ἠμέλησα here and the only other use of the verb in this epistle (2:3). In v. 10 διδούς , by the omission of δώσω , 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. χειροτονηθείς in 2 Corinthians 8:19). The καινὴδιαθήκη 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, καὶἔσομαιαὐτοῖς … εἰςλαόν . 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.
Philo’ s sentence (“ even if we are sluggish, however, He is not sluggish about taking to Himself those who are fit for His service; for He says, ‘ I will take you to be a people for myself, and I will be your God,’ ” 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). Ἐντῷλέγειν (same construction as in 2:8)— when the word καινὴν was pronounced, it sealed the doom of the old διαθήκη . Παλαιόω in this transitive sense (“ he hath abrogat,” Tyndale) is known to the LXX (Job 9:5, Lamentations 3:4, both times of God in action); γηράσκειν is practically equivalent to μαραίνεσθαι , and implies decay (see Wilamowitz on Eur. Herakles, 1223). The two words ἐγγὺς (as in 6:8) ἀφανισμοῦ , at the end of the paragraph, sound like the notes of a knell, though they have no contemporary reference; the writer simply means that the end of the old διαθήκη was at hand (p. xxii).
The new would soon follow, as it had done ἐνυἱῷ (1:1). The verb ἀφανίζειν is applied to legislation in the sense of abolition, lapsing or falling into desuetude, Dion.
Hal. Ant. iii. 178, ἃς (i.e. Numa’ s laws) ἀφανισθῆναισυνέβητῷχρόνῳ , the opposite of ἀφανίζειν being γράφειν (ibid. ix. 608, κατὰτοὺςνόμους , οὗςοὐνεωστὶδεήσειγράφεινπάλαιγὰρἐγράφησαν , καὶοὐδεὶςαὐτοὺςἠφάνιζεχρόνος ), and the sense of disappearance in ἀφανισμός appears already in the LXX .
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 ΠρὸςἘβραίους has not been preserved, see below, p. lxix.
Theod. Theodore of Mospsuestia
א Ԡ [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]
Ψ̠ [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] Hort’ s 17
1908 [O π 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 Dittenberger’ s Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae (1903-1905).
1 ἥν is not assimilated, though ἧς might have been written; the practice varied .
Radermacher Neutestamentliche Grammatik (1911), in Lietzmann’ s 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, Μωϋσῆς … εἰςτὴνσκηνὴνεἰσιὼνἐχρηματίζετοπερὶὧνἐδεῖτοπαρὰτοῦθεοῦ .
1 Put before φησι , because the point is not that the oracle was given, but what the oracle contained.
ReinP Papyrus Grecs et Dé motiques (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 “ mediator of the covenant” (“ arbiter testamenti,” 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 τῶνπαρ ʼ Ἀγρίππατισὶνἐπιζητουμένωνμεσίτηςἦν , and that his influence moved πρὸςτὰςεὐεργεσίαςοὐβραδύνοντατὸνἈγρίππαν . Ἰλιεῦσιμὲνγὰραὐτὸνδιήλλαξενὀργιζόμενον .
Weiss B. Weiss, “ Textkritik der paulinischen Briefe” (in Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, vol. xiv. 3), also Der Hebrä erbrief in Zeitgeschichtlicher Beleuchtung (1910).
Blass F. Blass, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch: vierte, vö llig neugearbeitete Auflage, besorgt von Albert Debrunner (1913); also, Brief an die Hebrä er, 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 “ quite free from Western readings.”
1 μεμφόμενος is then “ by way of censure,” and some think the writer purposely avoided adding αὐτήν . Which, in view of what he says in v. 13, is doubtful; besides, he has just said that the former διαθήκη was not ἄμεμπτος .
1 οὐμή 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 ἐπί takes the accusative here is shown by 10:16; καρδίας 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. Moulton’ s Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. i. (2nd edition, 1906).
1 With τῶνἁμαρτῖωναὐτῶνοὐμὴμνησθῶἔτι compare the parable of R. Jochanan and R. Eliezer on God’ s readiness to forget the sinful nature of his servants: “ There 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 king’ s pleasure to remember the dunghill which had been there” (Chagiga, 16 a. i. 27).