Bible Commentaries
Hebrews 13

Verses 1-99

1Let your brotherly love continue. 2Never forget to be hospitable, for by hospitality (διὰ ταύτης, as 12:15) some have entertained angels unawares. 3Remember prisoners as if you were in prison yourselves; remember those who are being ill-treated (11:37), since you too are in the body.

Neither φιλαδελφία nor φιλοξενία is a &LXX term, though the broader sense of the former begins in 4 Mac 13:23, 26, 14:1. Μενέτω (cp. 6:10, 10:24, 32f.), though its demands might be severe at times (cp. Romans 12:10, Romans 12:1 P 1:22; Clem. Romans 1:2; Herm. Mand. 8:10); the duty is laid as usual on members of the church, not specially on officials. In v. 2 a particular expression of this φιλαδελφία is called for. φιλοξενία was practically an article of religion in the ancient world. The primary reference here in τινες is to Abraham and Sara (Genesis 18:1f.), possibly to Manoah (Judges 13:3f.), and even to Tobit (Tob 12:15); but the point of the counsel would be caught readily by readers familiar with the Greek and Roman legends of divine visitants being entertained unawares by hospitable people, e.g. Hom. Odyss. xvii. 485 f. (καί τε θεοὶ ξείνοισιν ἐοικότες�Acts 14:11. In the Hellenic world the worship of Zeus Xenios (e.g. Musonius Rufus, xv. a, ὁ περὶ ξένους ἄδικος εἰς τὸν ξένιον ἁμαρτάνει Δία) fortified this kindly custom. According to Resh Lakish (Sota, 10a), Abraham planted the tree at Beersheba (Genesis 21:33) for the refreshment of wayfarers, and φιλοξενία was always honoured in Jewish tradition (e.g. Sabbath, 127. 1, “there are six things, the fruit of which a man eats in this world and by which his horn is raised in the world to come: they are, hospitality to strangers, the visiting of the sick,” etc.). But there were pressing local reasons for this kindly virtue in the primitive church. Christians travelling abroad on business might be too poor to afford a local inn. Extortionate charges were frequent; indeed the bad repute which innkeepers enjoyed in the Greek world (cp. Plato’s Laws, 918 D) was due partly to this and partly also to a “general feeling against taking money for hospitality” (cp. Jebb’s Theophrastus, p. 94). But, in addition, the moral repute of inns stood low (Theophrastus, Char. 6:5 δεινὸς δὲ πανδοκεῦσαι καὶ πορνοβοσκῆσαι κτλ.); there is significance in the Jewish tradition preserved by Josephus (Ant. v. 1. 1) that Rahab ἡ πόρνη (11:31) kept an inn. For a Christian to frequent such inns might be to endanger his character, and this consideration favoured the practice of hospitality on the part of the local church, apart altogether from the discomforts of an inn. (“In the better parts of the empire and in the larger places of resort there were houses corresponding in some measure to the old coaching inns of the eighteenth century; in the East there were the well-known caravanserais; but for the most part the ancient hostelries must have afforded but undesirable quarters. They were neither select nor clean,” T. G. Tucker, Life in the Roman World, p. 20.) Some of these travellers would be itinerant evangelists (cp. 3 John 1:5-8).

According to Philo the three wayfarers seen by Abraham did not at first appear divine (οἱ δὲ θειοτέρας ὄντες φύσεως ἐλελήθεσαν), though later on he suspected they were either prophets or angels when they had promised him the birth of a son in return for his splendid hospitality (Abrah. 22-23). “In a wise man’s house,” Philo observes, “no one is slow to practise hospitality: women and men, slaves and freedmen alike, are most eager to do service to strangers”; at the same time such hospitality was only an incident (πάρεργον) and instance (δεῖγμα σαφέστατον) of Abraham’s larger virtue, i.e. of his piety. Josephus also (Ant. i. 11. 2) makes Abraham suppose the three visitors were human strangers, until at last they revealed themselves as divine angels (θεασάμενος τρεῖς�Galatians 4:14).

Μιμνήσκεσθε (bear in mind, and act on your thought of) τῶν δεσμίων. Strangers come within sight; prisoners (v. 3) have to be sought out or—if at a distance—borne in mind. Christian kindness to the latter, i.e. to fellow-Christians arrested for some reason or other, took the form either of personally visiting them to alleviate their sufferings by sympathy and gifts (cp. Matthew 25:36, 2 Timothy 1:16), or of subscribing money (to pay their debts or, in the case of prisoners of war, to purchase their release), or of praying for them (Colossians 4:18 and 4:3). All this formed a prominent feature of early Christian social ethics. The literature is full of tales about the general practice: e.g. Aristid. Rev_15; Tertull. ad Mart. 1 f. and Apol. 39, with the vivid account of Lucian in the de Morte Peregr. 12, 13. This subject is discussed by Harnack in the Expansion of Early Christianity (bk. 2Ch_3, section 5). Our author urges, “remember the imprisoned” ὡς συνδεδεμένοι. If ὡς is taken in the same sense as the following ὡς, the meaning is: (a) “as prisoners yourselves,” i.e. in the literal sense, “since you know what it means to be in prison”; or (b) “as imprisoned,” in the metaphorical sense of Diognet. 6, Χριστιανοὶκατέχονται ὡς ἐν φρουρᾷ τῷ κόσμῳ. A third alternative sense is suggested by LXX of 1 S 18:1 (ἡ ψυχὴ Ἰωνάθαν συνεδέθη τῇ ψυχῇΔαυίδ), but the absence of a dative after συνδεδεμένοι and the parallel phrase ὡς ἐν σώματι rule it out. Probably ὡς is no more than an equivalent for ὡσεί. Christians are to regard themselves as one with their imprisoned fellows, in the sense of 1 Corinthians 12:26 εἴτε πάσχει ἓν μέλος, συμπάσχει πάντα τὰ μέλη. This interpretation tallies with 10:34 above (cp. Nehemiah 1:3, Nehemiah 1:4). It does not, however, imply that ἐν σώματι, in the next clause, means “in the Body (of which you and your suffering fellows are alike members”); for ἐν σώματι refers to the physical condition of liability to similar ill-usage. See Orig. c. Cels. ii. 23, τῶν τοῖς ἐν σώμασι (Bouhéreau conj. σώματι) συμβαινόντων, and especially Philo’s words describing some spectators of the cruelties inflicted by a revenue officer on his victims, as suffering acute pain, ὡς ἐν τοῖς ἑτέρων σώμασιναὐτοὶ κακούμενοι (de Spec. Leg. iii. 30). So in de Confus. Ling. 35, καὶ τῷ συμφορῶν�Hebrews 11:37) οὐκ ἐνδεθεῖσαι χωρίῳ, σώματι.

Seneca (Ep. ix. 8) illustrates the disinterestedness of friendship by observing that the wise man does not make friends for the reason suggested by Epicurus, viz., to “have someone who will sit beside him when he is ill, someone to assist him when he is thrown into chains or in poverty,” but “that he may have someone beside whom, in sickness, he may himself sit, someone whom he may set free from captivity in the hands of the enemy.” The former kind of friendship he dismisses as inadequate: “a man has made a friend who is to assist him in the event of bondage (‘adversum vincula’), but such a friend will forsake him as soon as the chains rattle (‘cum primum crepuerit catena’).” In Ep. Arist. 241, 242, when the king asks what is the use of kinship, the Jew replies, ἐὰν τοῖς συμβαίνουσι νομίζωμεν�

As vv. 1, 2 echo 10:24, 32, 33, v. 4 drives home the πόρνος of 12:16, and vv. 5, 6 echo the reminder of 10:34. Evidently (v. 4), as among the Macedonian Christians (1 Thessalonians 4:3-9), φιλαδελφία could be taken for granted more readily than sexual purity. Τίμιος (sc. ἔστω as in v. 5, Romans 12:9, the asyndeton being forcible) ὁ γάμος ἐνπᾶσιν, i.e. primarily by all who are married, as the following clause explains. There may be an inclusive reference to others who are warned against lax views of sexual morality, but there is no clear evidence that the writer means to protest against an ascetic disparagement of marriage. Κοίτη is, like the classical λέχος, a euphemistic term for sexual intercourse, here between the married;�

μακαρία ἡ στεῖρα ἡ�

This is another social duty (cp. Philo, de Decalogo, 24). In view of the Epicurean rejection of marriage (e.g. Epict. iii. 7. 19), which is finely answered by Antipater of Tarsus (Stob. Florileg. lxvii. 25: ὁ εὐγενὴς καὶεὔψυχος νέος … θεωρῶν διότι τέλειος οἷκος καὶ βίος οὑκ ἄλλως δύναταιγενέσθαι, ἢ μετὰ. γυναικὸς καὶ τέκνων κτλ.), as well as of current ascetic tendencies (e.g., 1 Timothy 4:3), there may have been a need of vindicating marriage, but the words here simply maintain the duty of keeping marriage vows unbroken. The writer is urging chastity, not the right and duty of any Christian to marry. Prejudices born of the later passion for celibacy led to the suppression of the inconvenient ἐν πᾶσι (om. 38. 460. 623. 1836. 1912* Didymus, Cyril Jerus., Eus., Athan, Epiphanius, Thdt.). The sense is hardly affected, whether γάρ (א A D* M P lat sah boh) or δέ (C Dc Ψ 6 syr arm eth Clem., Eus., Didymus, Chrys.) is read, although the latter would give better support to the interpretation of the previous clause as an antiascetic maxim.

A warning against greed of gain (vv. 5, 6) follows the warning against sexual impurity. There may be a link of thought between them. For the collocation of sensuality and the love of money, see Epict. iii. 7. 21, σοὶ καλὴν γυναῖκα φαίνεσθαι μηδεμίαν ἢ τὴνσήν, καλὸν παῖδα μηδένα, καλὸν�Jude 1:18, φυλάξασθε�1 Corinthians 5:10f. Paul brackets οἱ πόρνοι with οἱ πλεονέκται, and πλεονεξία (cp. 1 Thessalonians 4:6) as selfishness covers adultery as well as grasping covetousness. But the deeper tie between the two sins is that the love of luxury and the desire for wealth open up opportunities of sensual indulgence. In injuries to other people, Cicero observes (de Offic. i. 7. 24), “latissime patet avaritia.” When Longinus describes the deteriorating effects of this passion or vice in character (de Sublim. 44), he begins by distinguishing it from mere love of pleasure; φιλαργυρία μὲν νόσημα μικροποιόν, φιληδονία δʼ�

Ἀφιλάργυρος (the rebel Appianus tells Marcus Aurelius, in OP xxxiii. 10, 11, that his father τὸ μὲν πρῶτον ἦν φιλόσοφος, τὸ δεύτερον�2 Corinthians 1:7, Romans 12:9), and with τοῖς παροῦσιν reproduces a common Greek phrase for contentment, e.g. Teles, vii. 7,�Acts 20:35 αὐτὸς εἶπεν) recalls the Pythagorean αὐτὸς ἔφα (“thus said the Master”). The quotation οὐ μή σε�Joshua 1:5 or Genesis 28:15 (cp. Deuteronomy 31:8, 1 Chronicles 28:20) which the writer owes to Philo (de Confus. Ling. 32), who quotes it exactly in this form as a λόγιον τοῦ ἵλεω θεοῦ μεστὸν ἡμερότητος, but simply as a promise that God will never leave the human soul to its own unrestrained passions. The combination of the aor. subj. with the first οὐ μή and the reduplication of the negative (for οὐδʼ οὐ μή, cp. Matthew 24:21) amount to a strong asseveration. Note that the writer does not appeal, as Josephus does, to the merits of the fathers (Antiq. xi. 5. 7, τὸν μὲν θεὸν ἴστε μνήμῃ τῶν πατέρων Ἀβράμου καὶ Ἰσάκου καὶ Ἰακώβου παραμένον τα καὶ διὰ τῆς ἐκείνων δικαιοσύνης οὐκ ἐγκαταλείποντα τὴν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν πρόνοιαν) in assuring his readers that they will not be left forlorn by God.

Ἐγκαταλείπω (so all the uncials except D) may be simply an orthographical variant of the true reading ἐγκαταλίπω (aorist subj.). In Deuteronomy 31:6 the A text runs οὐ μή σε�Joshua 1:5 οὐκ ἐγκαταλείπω σε οὐδὲ ὑπερόψομαί σε, and in Genesis 28:15 οὐ μή σε ἐγκαταλείπω. The promise originally was of a martial character. But, as Keble puts it (Christian Year, “The Accession”):

“Not upon kings or priests alone

the power of that dear word is spent;

it chants to all in softest tone

the lowly lesson of content.”

Ὥστε (v. 6) θαρροῦντας (on the evidence for this form, which Plutarch prefers to the Ionic variant θαρσεῖν, cp. Crönert’s Memoria Graeca Herculanensis, 133:2) ἡμᾶς (om. M, accidentally) λέγειν. What God says to us moves us to say something to ourselves. This quotation from Psalms 118:6 is exact, except that the writer, for the sake of terseness, omits the καί ( = so) before οὐ φοβηθήσομαι, which is reinserted by אc A D K L M syrhkl etc. For the phrase θαρροῦντας λέγειν, see Proverbs 1:21 (Wisdom) ἐπὶ δὲ πύλαις πόλεως θαρροῦσα λέγει: and for βοηθός and θαρρεῖν in conjunction, see Xen. Cyr. v. i. 25, 26, ἐπειδὴ δʼ ἐκ Περσῶν βοηθὸς ἡμῖν ὡρμήθης … νῦν δʼ αὖ οὕτως ἔχομεν ὡς σὺν μὲν σοὶ ὅμως καὶ ἐν τῇ πολεμίᾳ ὄντες θαρροῦμεν. Epictetus tells a man who is tempted (ii. 18, 29), τοῦ θεοῦ μέμνησο, ἐκεῖνον ἐπικαλοῦ βοηθὸν καὶ παραστάτην. This is the idea of the psalm-quotation here. Courage is described in Galen (de H. et Plat. decr. vii. 2) as the knowledge ὧν χρὴ θαρῥεῖν ἢ μὴ θαρῥεῖν, a genuinely Stoic definition; and Alkibiades tells, in the Symposium (221 A), how he came upon Sokrates and Laches retreating during the Athenian defeat at Delium καὶ ἰδὼν εὐθὺς παρακελεύομαί τε αὐτοῖν θαρρεῖν, καὶ ἔλεγον ὅτι οὐκ�

According to Pliny (Epp. ix. 30: “primum est autem suo esse contentum, deinde, quos praecipue scias indigere sustentantem fouentemque orbe quodam societatis ambire”) a man’s first duty is to be content with what he has; his second, to go round and help all in his circle who are most in need. Epictetus quotes a saying of Musonius Rufus: οὐ θέλεις μελετᾶν�

Μνημονεύετε τῶν ἡγουμένων ὑμῶν οἵτινες (since they were the men who) ἐλάλησαν ὑμῖν τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ. The special function of these primitive apostles and prophets was to preach the gospel (cp. 1 Corinthians 1:17) with the supernatural powers of the Spirit. Then the writer adds a further title to remembrance, their consistent and heroic life; they had sealed their testimony with their (ὧν κτλ.) blood. Ἡγούμενος, like ἄρχων, was a substantival formation which had a wide range of meaning; here it is equivalent to “president” or “leader” (cp. Epp. Apollon. ii. 69, ἄνδρας τοὺς ἡγουμένους ὑμων = your leading citizens, or prominent men, and Acts 15:22).1 It was they who had founded the church by their authoritative preaching; ἐλάλησαν ὑμῖν τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ recalls the allusion to the σωτηρία which ὑπὸ τῶν�

In Egypt, during the Roman period, “a liturgical college of πρεσβύτεροι or ἡγούμενοι was at the head of each temple” (GCP i. 127), the latter term being probably taken from its military sense of “officers” (e.g. ἡγεμόνες τῶν ἔξω τάξεων).

Ἀναθεωροῦντες is “scanning closely, looking back �Psalms 31:6, and there in a bad sense. The good sense begins in Wis 4:2 (παροῦσάν τε μιμοῦνται αὐτήν), so far as Hellenistic Judaism goes, and in 4 Mac 9:23 (μιμήσασθε με) 13:9 (μιμησώμεθα τοὺς τρεῖς τοὺς ἐπὶ τῆς Συρίας νεανίσκους) it is used of imitating a personal example, as here. In the de Congressu Erudit. 13, Philo argues that the learner listens to what his teacher says, whereas a man who acquires true wisdom by practice and meditation (ὁ δὲ�

Human leaders may pass away, but Jesus Christ, the supreme object and subject of their faithful preaching, remains, and remains the same; no novel additions to his truth are required, least of all innovations which mix up his spiritual religion with what is sensuous and material.



8 Jesus Christ is always the same, yesterday, to-day, and for ever. 9 Never let yourselves be carried away with a variety of novel doctrines; for the right thing is to have one’s heart strengthened by grace, not by the eating of food— that has never been any use to those who have had recourse to it. 10 Our (ἔχομεν as 4:15) altar is one of which the worshippers have no right to eat. 11 For the bodies of the animals whose “blood is taken into the holy Place” by the highpriest as a “sin-offering, are burned outside the camp”; 12 and so Jesus also suffered outside the gale, in order to sanctify the people (cp. 10:2f.) by his own blood (9:12). 13 Let us go to him “outside the camp,” then, bearing his obloquy 14 (for we have no lasting city here below, we seek the City to come). 15 And by him “let us” constantly “offer praise to God” as our “sacrifice,” that is, “the fruit of lips” that celebrate his Name. 16 Do not forget (μὴ ἐπιλανθάνεσθε, as in v. 2) beneficence and charity either; these are the kind of sacrifices that are acceptable to God.

V. 8 connects with what precedes and introduces what follows. Ἐχθες1 refers to his life on earth (2:3, 5:7) and includes the service of the original ἡγούμενοι; it does not necessarily imply a long retrospect. Σήμερον as in 3:15, and ὁ αὐτός as in 1:12. The finality of the revelation in Jesus, sounded at the opening of the homily (1:1f.), resounds again here. He is never to be superseded; he never needs to be supplemented. Hence (v. 9) the warning against some new theology about the media of forgiveness and fellowship, which, it is implied, infringes the all-sufficient efficacy of Jesus Christ. Διδαχαῖς (6:2) ποικίλαις (2:4 in good sense) καὶ ξέναις μὴ παραφέρεσθε. Παραφέρεσθαι (cp. Jude 1:12) is never used in this metaphorical sense (swayed, swerved) in the LXX, where it is always literal, and the best illustration of ξέναις in the sense of “foreign to” (the apostolic faith) is furnished by the author of the epistle to Diognetus (11:1), who protests, οὐ ξένα ὁμιλῶ …�Mark 7:18.

Παραφέρεσθε was altered (under the influence of Ephesians 4:14) into περιφέρεσθε (K L Ψ 2, 5, 88, 330, 378, 440, 491, 547, 642, 919, 920, 1867, 1872, 1908, arm sah). Περιπατήσαντες (אc C Dc K L M P syrhkl arm Orig. Chrys. etc.) and περιπατοῦντες (א* A D* 1912 lat) are variants which are substantially the same in meaning, περιπατεῖν ἐν being used in its common sense = living in the sphere of (Ephesians 2:10 etc.), having recourse to.

The positive position is affirmed in καλόν κτλ. (καλόν, as in 1 Corinthians 7:1, Romans 14:21 etc.). “Καλός … denotes that kind of goodness which is at once seen to be good” (Hort on 1 P 2:12), i e. by those who have a right instinct. The really right and good course is χάριτι βεβαιοῦσθαι τὴν καρδίαν, i.e. either to have one’s heart strengthened, or to be strengthened in heart (καρδίαν, accus. of reference). Bread sustains our physical life (ἄρτος καρδίαν�Psalms 104:15), but καρδία here means more than vitality; it is the inner life of the human soul, which God’s χάρις alone can sustain, and God’s χάρις in Jesus Christ is everything (2:9 etc.). But what does this contrast mean? The explanation is suggested in the next passage (vv. 10-16), which flows out of what has just been said. The various novel doctrines were connected in some way with βρώματα. So much is clear. The difficulty is to infer what the βρώματα were. There is a touch of scorn for such a motley, unheard of, set of διδαχαί. The writer does not trouble to characterize them, but his words imply that they were many-sided, and that their main characteristic was a preoccupation with βρώματα. There is no reference to the ancient regulations of the Hebrew ritual mentioned in 9:10; this would only be tenable on the hypothesis, for which there is no evidence, that the readers were Jewish Christians apt to be fascinated by the ritual of their ancestral faith, and, in any case, such notions could not naturally be described as ποικίλαι καὶ ξέναι. We must look in other directions for the meaning of this enigmatic reference. (a) The new διδαχαί may have included ascetic regulations about diet as aids to the higher life, like the ἐντάλματα καὶ διδασκαλίαι τῶν�1 Timothy 4:3) were becoming common in some circles, in the supposed interests of spiritual religion. “We may assume,” says Pfleiderer, one of the representatives of this view (pp. 278 f.), “a similar Gnostic spiritualism, which placed the historical Saviour in an inferior position as compared with angels or spiritual powers who do not take upon them flesh and blood, and whose service consists in mystical purifications and ascetic abstinences.” (b) They may also have included such religious sacraments as were popularized in some of the mystery-cults, where worshippers ate the flesh of a sacrificial victim or consecrated elements which represented the deity. Participation in these festivals was not unknown among some ultra-liberal Christians of the age. It is denounced by Paul in 1Co_10, and may underlie what the writer has already said in 10:25. Why our author did not speak outright of εἰδωλόθυτα, we cannot tell; but some such reference is more suitable to the context than (a), since it is sacrificial meals which are in question. He is primarily drawing a contrast between the various cult-feasts of paganism, which the readers feel they might indulge in, not only with immunity, but even with spiritual profit, and the Christian religion, which dispensed with any such participation. (c) Is there also a reference to the Lord’s supper, or to the realistic sense in which it was being interpreted, as though participation in it implied an actual eating of the sacrificial body of the Lord? This reference is urged by some critics, especially by F. Spitta (Zur Geschichte u. Litteratur des Urchristentums, i. pp. 325 f.) and O. Holtzmann (in Zeitschrift für die neutest. Wissenschaft, x. pp. 251-260). Spitta goes wrong by misinterpreting v. 10 as though the σῶμα of Christ implied a sacrificial meal from which Jewish priests were excluded. Holtzmann rightly sees that the contrast between χάρις and βρώματα implies, for the latter, the only βρῶμα possible for Christians, viz. the Lord’s body as a food. What the writer protests against is the rising conception of the Lord’s supper as a φαγεῖν τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ. On the day of Atonement in the OT ritual, to which he refers, there was no participation in the flesh of the sacrificial victim; there could not be, in the nature of the case (v. 11). So, he argues, the σῶμα Χριστοῦ of our sacrifice cannot be literally eaten, as these neo-sacramentarians allege; any such notion is, to him, a relapse upon the sensuous, which as a spiritual idealist he despises as “a vain thing, fondly invented.” A true insight into the significance of Jesus, such as he has been trying to bring out in what he has written, such as their earlier leaders themselves had conveyed in their own way, would reveal the superfluousness and irrelevance of these διδαχαί. As the writer is alluding to what is familiar, he does not enter into details, so that we have to guess at his references. But the trend of thought in vv. 10f. is plain. In real Christian worship there is no sacrificial meal; the Christian sacrifice is not one of which the worshippers partake by eating. This is the point of v. 10. The writer characteristically illustrates it from the OT ritual of atonementday, by showing how the very death of Jesus outside the city of Jerusalem fulfilled the proviso in that ritual (vv. 11, 12) that the sacrifice must not be eaten. Then he finds in this fact about the death of Jesus a further illustration of the need for unworldliness (vv. 13, 14). Finally, in reply to the question, “Then have Christians no sacrifices to offer at all?” he mentions the two standing sacrifices of thanksgiving and charity (vv. 15, 16), both owing their efficacy to Christ. Inwardness is the dominating thought of the entire paragraph. God’s grace in Jesus Christ works upon the soul; no external medium like food is required to bring us into fellowship with him; it is vain to imagine that by eating anything one can enjoy communion with God. Our Lord stands wholly outside the material world of sense, outside things touched and tasted; in relationship to him and him alone, we can worship God. The writer has a mystical or idealistic bent, to which the sacramental idea is foreign. He never alludes to the eucharist; the one sacrament he notices is baptism. A ritual meal as the means of strengthening communion with God through Christ does not appeal to him in the slightest degree. It is not thus that God’s χάρις is experienced.

The clue to v. 10 lies in the obvious fact that the θυσιαστήριον and the σκηνή belong to the same figurative order. In our spiritual or heavenly σκηνή, the real σκηνή of the soul, there is indeed a θυσιαστήριον ἐξ οὗ (partitive; cp. τὰ εἰς τοῦ ἱεροῦ ἐσθίουσιν, 1 Corinthians 9:13) φαγεῖν (emphatic by position) οὐκ ἔχουσιν ἐξουσίαν1 (1 Corinthians 9:4) οἱ τῇ σκηνῇ λατρεύοντες (λατρεύειν with dative as in 8:5). It makes no difference to the sense whether οἱ … λατρεύοντες means worshippers (9:9, 10:2) or priests (8:5), and the writer does not allegorize θυσιαστήριον as Philo does (e.g. in de Leg. Alleg. i. 15, τῆς καθαρᾶς καὶ�Leviticus 16:27 for the disposal of the carcases of the two animals sacrificed περὶ τῆς ἁμαρτίας (ὧν τὸ αἷμα εἰσηνέχθη ἐξιλάσασθαι ἐν τῷ ἁγίῳ ἐξοίσουσιν αὐτὰ ἔξω τῆς παρεμβολῆς καὶ κατακαύσουσιν αὐτὰ ἐνπυρί). For a moment the writer recalls his main argument in chs. 7-10; in v. 10 Christ is regarded as the victim or sacrifice (cp. προσενεχθείς in 9:28), but here the necessities of the case involve the activity of the Victim. Διὸ καὶ Ἰησοῦς κτλ. (v. 12). The parallel breaks down at one point, of course; his body was not burned up.2 But the real comparison lies in ἔξω τῆς πύλης (sc. τῆς παρεμβολῆς, as Exodus 32:26, Exodus 32:27). The Peshitto and 436 make the reference explicit by reading πόλεως, which seems to have been known to Tertullian (adv. Jude 1:14, “extra civitatem”). The fact that Jesus was crucified outside Jerusalem influenced the synoptic transcripts of the parable in Mark 12:8 = Matthew 21:39 = Luke 20:15. Mark’s version,�

Τοίνυν (beginning a sentence as in Luke 20:28 τοίνυν�Romans 12:2), and the words τὸν ὀνειδισμὸν αὐτοῦ φέροντες recall the warnings against false shame (11:26, 12:2), just as the following (v. 14) reason, οὐ γὰρ ἔχομεν ὧδε (in the present outward order of things) μένουσαν1 πόλιν�Exodus 33:7, he explains that by ἐν τῷ στρατοπέδῳ ( = ἐν τῇ παρεμβολῇ) Moses meant allegorically ἐν τῷ μετὰ σώματος βίῳ, the material interests of the worldly life which must be forsaken if the soul is to enjoy the inward vision of God. Such is the renunciation which the writer here has in view. It is the thought in 2 Clem. 5:1 (ὅθεν,�

The next exhortation in v. 15 �Hosea 14:3 where the true text has פָּרִים (bullocks) instead of פְּרִי (fruit). In ὁμολογούντων τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ, ὁμολογεῖν is used in the sense of ἐξομολογεῖσθαι by an unusual2 turn of expression. The ὄνομα means, as usual, the revealed personality. Probably there is an unconscious recollection of Ps 54:8 (ἐξομολογήσομαι τῷ ὀνόματί σου); θυσία αἰνέσεως3 is also from the psalter (e.g. 50:14, 23). Ἀναφέρειν elsewhere in the NT is only used of spiritual sacrifices in the parallel passage 1 P 2:5�1 Corinthians 6:7, as D in Romans 7:25). The thought of 12:28 is thus expanded, with the additional touch that thankfulness to God is inspired by our experience of Jesus (διʼ αὐτοῦ, as Colossians 3:17 εὐχαριστοῦντες τῷ θεῷ πατρὶ διʼ αὐτοῦ); the phrase is a counterpart of διὰ τοῦ�1 Thessalonians 5:16). The Mishna (cp. Berachoth 5:4) declares that he must be silenced who only calls upon God’s name with thankfulness in the enjoyment of good (Berachoth 5:3 הָאוֹמֵר . . . עַל טוֹב יִזָּכֵר שְׁמֶךָ מוֹדִים מוֹדִים מְשַׁתְּקִין אוֹתוֹ).

The religious idea of thanksgiving was prominent in several quarters. According to Fronto (Loeb ed. i. p. 22) thank-offerings were more acceptable to the gods than sin-offerings, as being more disinterested: μάντεων δὲ παῖδές φασιν καὶ τοῖς θεοῖς ἡδίους εἶναι θυσιῶν τὰς χαριστηρίους ἢ τὰς μειλιχίους. Philo had taught (de Plant. 30) that εὐχαριστία is exceptionally sacred, and that towards God it must be an inward sacrifice: θεῷ δὲ οὐκ ἔνεστι γνησίως εὐχαριστῆσαι διʼ ὧν νομίζουσιν οἱ πολλοὶ κατασκευῶν�Genesis 29:35) son of Leah, for nothing could be added to praise of God, nothing excels ὁ εὐλογῶν τὸν θεὸν νοῦς. This tallies with the well-known rabbinic saying, quoted in Tanchuma, 55. 2: “in the time of messiah all sacrifices will cease, but the sacrifice of thanksgiving will not cease; all prayers will cease, but praises will not cease” (on basis of Jeremiah 33:1 and Psalms 56:13). The praise of God as the real sacrifice of the pious is frequently noted in the later Judaism (e.g. 2 Mac 10:7).

In v. 16 the writer notes the second Christian sacrifice of charity. Εὐποιία, though not a LXX term, is common in Hellenistic Greek, especially in Epictetus, e.g. Fragm. 15 (ed. Schenk), ἐπὶ χρηστότητι καὶ εὐποιίᾳ; Fragm. 45, οὐδὲν κρεῖσσον … εὐποιίας (where the context suggests “beneficence”). Κοινωνία in the sense of charity or contributions had been already used by Paul (2 Corinthians 9:13 etc.). To share with others, to impart to them what we possess, is one way of worshipping God. The three great definitions of worship or religious service in the NT (here, Romans 12:1, Romans 12:2 and James 1:27) are all inward and ethical; what lies behind this one is the fact that part of the food used in ancient OT sacrifices went to the support of the priests, and part was used to provide meals for the poor. Charitable relief was bound up with the sacrificial system, for such parts of the animals as were not burnt were devoted to these beneficent purposes. An equivalent must be provided in our spiritual religion, the writer suggests; if we have no longer any animal sacrifices, we must carry on at any rate the charitable element in that ritual. This is the force of μὴ ἐπιλανθάνεσθε. Contributions, e.g., for the support of ἡγούμενοι, who were not priests, were unknown in the ancient world, and had to be explicitly urged as a duty (cp. 1 Corinthians 9:6-14). Similarly the needs of the poor had to be met by voluntary sacrifices, by which alone, in a spiritual religion, God could be satisfied—τοιαύταις (perhaps including the sacrifice of praise as well as εὐποιία and κοινωνία) θυσίαις εὐαρεστεῖται (cp. 11:5, 6; 12:28) ὁ θεός. This counsel agrees with some rabbinic opinions (e.g. T. B. Sukkah, 59b: “he who offers alms is greater than all sacrifices”). The special duty of supporting the priesthood is urged in Sir 7:30f., but our author shows no trace of the theory that almsgiving in general was not only superior to sacrifices but possessed atoning merit before God (Sir 3:14 ἐλεημοσύνη γὰρ πατρὸς οὐκ ἐπιλησθήσεται, καὶ�Hosea 6:6, that in the practice of charity they still possessed a valid sacrifice for sins; he voiced the conviction also (e.g. b. baba bathra 10 b) that charity (צדקה) won forgiveness for pagans as the sin-offering did for Israel. In the Ep. Barnabas (2:7f.) the writer quotes Jeremiah 7:22, Jeremiah 7:23 (Zechariah 8:17) as a warning to Christians against Jewish sacrifices (αἰσθάνεσθαι οὖν ὀφείλομεν τὴν γνώμην τῆς�Psalms 51:19 as the description of the ideal sacrifice.

The tendency in some circles of the later Judaism to spiritualize sacrifice in general and to insist on its motive and spirit is voiced in a passage like Jth 16:15f.:

ὄρη γὰρ ἐκ θεμελίων σὺν ὕδασιν σαλευθήσεται,

πέτραι δʼ�

Also in a number of statements from various sources, of which that in Ep. Arist. 234 (τὶ μέγιστόν ἐστι δόξησ; ὁ δὲ εἶπε· τὸ τιμᾶν τὸν θεόν· τοῦτο δʼ ἐστὶν οὐ δώροις οὐδὲ θυσίαις,�Psalms 15:4 οὐ μὴ συναγάγω τὰς συναγωγὰς αὐτῶν ἐξ αἱμάτων. Συνάγων, φησὶν, συναγωγὰς ἐκ τῶν ἑθνῶν, οὐ διʼ αἱμάτων ταύτας συνάξω· τοῦτʼ ἔστιν, οὐ παρασκευάσω διὰ τῆς νομικῆς μοι προσέρχεσθαι λατρείας, διʼ αἰνέσεως δὲ μᾶλλον καὶ τῆς�

Now for a word on the living ἡγούμενοι of the community (v. 17), including himself (vv. 18, 19).



17 Obey your leaders, submit to them; for they (αὐτοί) are alive to the interests of your souls, as men who will have to account for their trust. Let their work be a joy to them and not a grief—which would be a loss to yourselves.

18 Pray for me, for I am sure I have a clean conscience; my desire is in every way to lead an honest life. 19 I urge you to this (i.e. to prayer) all the more, that I may get back to you the sooner.

The connexion of vv. 17f. is not only with v. 7, but with vv. 8-16. It would be indeed a grief to your true leaders if you gave way to these ποικίλαι καὶ ξέναι doctrines, instead of following men who are really (this is the force of αὐτοί) concerned for your highest interests. Πείθεσθε (cp. Epict. Fragm. 27, τὸν προσομιλοῦντα … διασκοποῦ … εἰ μὲν�1 Corinthians 4:17, 1 Corinthians 4:21, 1 Corinthians 4:14:37 etc.), inspired by the Spirit. Insubordination was the temptation at one pole, an overbearing temper (1 P 5:3) the temptation at the other. Our author knows that, in the case of his friends, the former alone is to be feared. He does not threaten penalties for disobedience, however, as Josephus does (c. Apionem, ii. 194) for insubordination on the part of the Jewish laity towards a priest: ὁ δέ γε τούτῳ μὴ πειθόμενος ὑφέξει δίκην ὡς εἰς τὸν θεὸν αὐτὸν�

The ἲνα clause (ἵνα μετὰ χαρᾶς τοῦτο ποιῶσιν καὶ μὴ στενάζοντες) goes back to πείθεσθε … ὑπείκετε. The members have it in their power to thwart and disappoint their ἡγούμενοι. Τοῦτο π. refers to�

The next word (v. 18) is about himself. Προσεύχεσθε (continue praying) περὶ (cp. 2 Malachi 1:6 καὶ νῦν ὦδε ἔσμεν προσευχόμενοι περὶ ὑμῶν) ἡμῶν (plural of authorship), πειθόμεθα (a modest confidence: “whatever some of you may think, I believe”) γὰρ ὅτι καλὴν συνείδησιν ἔχομεν. He is conscious of a keen desire (θέλοντες as in 12:17) to act in a straightforward, honest way; hence he can ask their prayers. Hence also they may feel confident and eager about praying for him. The writer chooses καλήν (cp. on v. 9) instead of�2 Corinthians 1:11, 2 Corinthians 1:12 where Paul appeals for the help of his readers’ prayers and pleads his honesty of conscience (τὸ μαρτύριον τῆς συνειδήσεως ἡμῶν, ὅτι …�1 Thessalonians 2:18, 2 Corinthians 1:17f.). This may be the feeling which prompts the protest here and the assurances in vv. 19, 23. “I am still deeply interested in you; my absence is involuntary; believe that.”

Καί is inserted before περί by D vt Chrys. (possibly as a reminiscence of 1 Thessalonians 5:25), i.e. pray as well as obey (“et orate pro nobis,” d); this would emphasize the fact that the writer belonged to the ἡγούμενοι. But the plural in v. 18 is not used to show that the writer is one of the ἡγούμενοι mentioned in v. 17, for whom the prayers of the community are asked. He was one of them; ἡμῶν here is the literary plural already used in 5:11, 6:9, 11. There are apt parallels in Cicero’s de Officiis, ii. 24 (“Quem nos … e Graeco in Latinum convertimus. Sed toto hoc de genere, de quaerenda, de collocanda pecunia vellens etiam de utenda”), and OP x. 1296 (the letter of a boy to his father), ποιῶ … φιλοπονοῦμεν καὶ�Acts 26:26) only amounts to “we believe” (though implying “we are sure”). Retaining πειθόμεθα, A. Bischoff (Zeits. für aie neut. Wiss. ix, 171 f.) evades the difficulty by altering the order of the words: προσεύχ. περὶ ἡμῶν· καλὴν γὰρ συν. ἔχομεν, ὅτι πείθομεθα ἐν πᾶσιν κ. θ.�

As in Philemon 1:22, the writer’s return is dependent on his friends’ prayers (v. 19); specially (see p. 17) let them intercede with God for his speedy restoration to them, ἵνα τάχιον�

A closing prayer and doxology, such as was not uncommon in epistles of the primitive church (e.g. 1 Thessalonians 5:23, 1 Thessalonians 5:1 P 5:11), now follows. Having asked his readers to pray for him, he now prays for them.

20 May the God of peace “who brought up” from the dead our Lord (7:14) Jesus (see p. lxiii), “the” great “Shepherd of the sheep, with the blood of the eternal covenant,” 21 furnish you with everything that is good for the doing of his will, creating in your lives by Jesus Christ what is acceptable in his own sight! To him (i.e. God) be (sc. εἴη) glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Ὁ θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης means the God of saving bliss (see on 12:11), εἰρήνη being taken in a sense like the full OT sense of the secure prosperity won by the messianic triumph over the hostile powers of evil (cp. 2:14, 7:2). There is no special allusion here, as in Paul’s use of the phrase (Romans 15:33, 2 Corinthians 13:11 etc.), to friction in the community; the conflict is one in which God secures εἰρήνη for his People, a conflict with evil, not strife between members of the church. The method of this triumph is described in some OT phrases, which the writer uses quite apart from their original setting. The first quotation is from Isaiah 63:11 ποῦ ὁ�Romans 10:7) or some equivalent (ἐξ ᾅδου, Psalms 30:4, Wis 16:13, Joseph. Ant. 6. 14. 2) is much more natural. In τὸν ποιμένα τῶν προβάτων τὸν μέγαν, ὁ μέγας is applied to him as in 4:14, 10:21. The figure of the ποιμήν, which never occurs in Paul, plays no rôle in our author’s argument as it does in 1 Peter (2:25, 5:4); he prefers ἱερεύς or�Zechariah 9:11 (ἐν αἵματι διαθήκης σου ἐξαπέστειλας δεσμίους σου), Isaiah 55:3 (διαθήσομαι ὑμῖν διαθήκην αἰώνιον), etc. Ἐν αἵματι διαθήκης αἰωνίου goes with�Philippians 2:13. Εἰς τὸ ποιῆσαι τὸ θέλημα αὐτοῦ recalls the language of 10:36, and διὰ Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ goes with ποιῶν: the power of God in our lives as for our lives (v. 20) works through the person of Jesus Christ. To take διὰ Ἰ. Χ. with τὸ εὐάρεστον ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ yields an unobjectionable sense, corresponding to the thought of v. 15. But τὸ … αὐτοῦ stands quite well by itself (cf. 1 John 3:22).

The writer makes no such use of the shepherd and flock metaphor as, e.g., Philo had done. The Jewish thinker (Vit. Mos. i. 11) argues that the calling of a shepherd is the best preparation for anyone who is to rule over men; hence “kings are called shepherds of their people” as a title of honour. He also interprets the sheep as the symbol of a nature which is capable of improvement (de sacrif. Abel. 34, προκοπῆς δὲ πρόβατον, ὡς καὶ αὺτὸ δηλοῖ τοὔνομα, σύμβολον). The classical habit of describing kings as shepherds of their people would help to make the metaphor quite intelligible to readers of non-Jewish origin. Compare, e.g., the saying of Cyrus (Xenophon, Cyropaedia, viii. 2. 14), that a good shepherd resembled a good king, τὸν τε γάρ νομέα χρῆναι ἔφη εὐδαίμονα τὰ κτήνη ποιοῦντα χρῆσθαι αὐτοῖς, ἣ δὴ προβάτων εὐδαιμονία, τόν τε βασιλέα ὡσαύτως εὐδαίμονας πόλεις καὶ�

Παντί was soon furnished with the homiletic addition of ἔργῳ (C K M P syr sah arm eth Chrys. Thdt. etc.), or even ἔργῳ καὶ λόγῳ (A, from 2 Thessalonians 2:17). Ποιῶν has either αὐτῷ (א* A C* 33 * 1288 boh) or ἑαυτῷ (Greg. Nyss.) or αὐτός (d 1912) prefixed. Hort, admitting that “it is impossible to make sense of αὐτῷ” (B. Weiss, Blass = ἑαυτῷ), maintains that αὐτός is original. It is a homiletic insertion, out of which αὐτῷ arose by corruption. Ἡμῖν (א D M Ψ 33, 104, 181, 326, 1917, 927, 1288, 1739, 1912, etc. syrvg sah boh arm) is merely an error for ὑμῖν, due to the preceding ἡμῶν.

A personal postscript (vv. 22-24) is now added, as 1 P 5:12-14 after 5:10, 11.



22 I appeal to you, brothers (3:1, 12, 10:19), to bear with this appeal of mine. It is but a short letter.

23 You must understand that our brother Timotheus is now free. If he comes soon, he and I will see you together.

24 Salute all your leaders and all the saints. The Italians salute you.

25 Grace be with you all. Amen.

The Timotheus referred to (in v. 23) is probably the Timotheus who had been a colleague of Paul. The other allusions have nothing to correspond with them in the data of the NT. But there is no ground for supposing that vv. 22-25 were added, either by the writer himself (Wrede) or by those who drew up the canon, in order to give a Pauline appearance to the document (see Introd., pp. xxviii f.). Seeberg’s reasons for regarding vv. 22-25 as a fragment of some other note by the same writer are that 23b implies not a church but a small group of Christians, and that vv. 18, 23 presuppose different situations; neither reason is valid. The style and contents are equally unfavourable to Perdelwitz’s theory, that vv. 22-25 were added brevi manu by some one who wrote out a copy of the original λόγος παρακλήσεως and forwarded it to an Italian church.

In v. 22�Titus 1:9) is a needless conjecture, takes a genitive (as in 2 Timothy 4:3 τῆς ὑγιαινούσης διδασκαλίας οὐκ�Acts 13:15), a λόγος τῆς παρακλήσεως (cp. on 12:5); παράκλησις echoes παρακαλέω He is not the only early Christian writer who mildly suggested that he had not written at undue length (cp. e.g. 1 P 5:12 διʼ ὀλίγων ἔγραψα, παρακαλῶν κτλ.; Barn 1:5, 1:8) Καὶ γὰρ (“etenim” as 4:2) διὰ βραχέων (sc. λόγων) ἐπέστειλα1 (epistolary aorist) ὑμῖν. Διὰ βραχέων was a common phrase in this connexion; e.g. Lucian’s Toxaris, 56 (πειστέον καὶ ταῦτά σοι νομοθετοῦντι καὶ διὰ βραχέων λεκτέον, μὴ καὶ κάμῃς ἡμῖν τῇ�Philippians 1:2). The literary critic Demetrius considered that the length of a letter should be carefully regulated (τὸ δὲ μέγεθος συνεστάλθω τῆς ἐπιστολῆς, De Elocut. 228); letters that were too long and stilted in expression became mere treatises, συγγράμματα, as in the case of many of Plato’s, whereas the true ἐπιστολή, according to Demetrius (ibid. 231), should be φιλοφρόνησις in a brief compass (σύντομος). Which would apply to Πρὸς Ἑβραίους. Erasmus comments: “Scripsi paucis, ut ipse vos brevi visurus.” He may have, but he does not say so.

In v. 23 γινώσκετε is imperative; he is conveying a piece of information. See, e.g., TebtP 37:2 (73 b.c.) γίνωσκε Κεφαλᾶν … προσεληλυθέναι Δημητρίῳ: ibid. 12:2 (118 b.c.) 36:2 56:5. The construction with the participle is common (e.g. Luke 8:46); you must understand τὸν�Acts 28:25 �3 John 1:14 ἐλπίζω δὲ εὐθέως ἰδεῖν σε, etc. Ἐὰν τάχιον ἔρχηται may mean either, “as soon as he comes,” or “if he comes soon.” The latter suits the situation implied in v. 19 better. The writer (in v. 19) asks the prayers of his readers, that some obstacle to his speedy return may be removed. If this obstacle were the hindrance that kept Timotheus from joining him on a journey which they had already planned to the church (Riggenbach), he would have said, “Pray for Timotheus, I cannot leave for you till he rejoins me.” But the idea is: as the writer is rejoining his friends soon (he hopes), he will be accompanied by Timotheus, should the latter arrive before he has to start. Written advice is all very well, but he hopes soon to follow up this λόγος παρακλήσεως with personal intercourse, like Seneca in Ep. vi. 5 (“plus tamen tibi et uiua vox et convictus quam oratio proderit. in rem praesentem uenias oportet, primum quia homines amplius oculis quam auribus credunt, deinde quia longum iter est per praecepta, breue et efficax per exempla”).

The greeting comes as usual last (v. 24). Ἀσπάσασθε κτλ. is an unusual turn, however; the homily was evidently sent to the community, who are told to greet all their ἡγούμενοι. This finds its nearest parallel in Paul’s similar injunction (Romans 16:3f.) to the Ephesian Christians to salute this and that eminent member of their circle. Still, no other NT church is bidden to salute its leaders; and though the writer plainly wishes to reinforce his counsel in v. 17, the πάντας suggests that the persons addressed were “part of the whole church of a large city … a congregation attached to some household” (Zahn); they are to convey the writer’s greetings to all the leaders of the larger local church—and to all their fellow-members (καὶ πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους being more intelligible, in the light of a passage like Philippians 4:21�Acts 21:27 (οἱ�

The final benediction, ἡ Χάρις (sc. ἔστω or εἴη) μετὰ πάντων ὑμῶν (Titus 3:15, 2 Timothy 4:22) has a liturgical�

LXX The Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint Version (ed. H. B. Swete).

216 [α 469]

B [03: δ 1] cont. 1:1-9:18: for remainder cp. cursive 293.

Josephus Flavii Josephi Opera Omnia post Immanuelem Bekkerum, recognovit S. A. Naber.

Philo Philonis Alexandriai Opera Quae Supersunt (recognoverunt L. Cohn et P. Wendland).

βοη̠The Coptic Version of the NT in the Northern Dialect (Oxford, 1905), vol. iii. pp. 472-555.

1 μὴ ἐν πάθει ἐπιθυμίας, as Paul would say (1 Thessalonians 4:5).

Bengel J. A. Bengelii Gnomon Novi Testamenti (1742).

38 [δ 355]

460 [α 397]

623 [α 173]

1836 [α 65]

1912 [α 1066]

Athan Athanasius

Thdt. Theodoret

אԠ[01: δ 2).

A [02: δ 4].

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 Πρὸς Ἐβραίους has not been preserved, see below, p. lxix.

M [0121: α 1031] cont. 1:1-4:3 12:20-13:25.

P [025: α 3] cont. 1:1-12:8 12:11-13:25.

sah The Coptic Version of the NT in the Southern Dialect (Oxford, 1920), vol. v. pp. 1-131.

C [04: δ 3] cont. 2:4-7:26 9:15-10:24 12:16-13:25.

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

OP The Oxyrhynchus Papyri (ed. B. P. Grenfell and A. Hunt).

K [018:1:1].

L [020: α 5] cont. 1:1-13:10.

1 In Ep. Arist. 310, of the headmen of the Jewish community at Alexandria.

GCP Grundzüge und Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde, von L. Mitteis und U. Wilcken (1912), I. Band.

Magn Die Inschriften von Magnesia am Maeander (ed. Kern, 1900).

1 The forms vary; but this, the Attic spelling, has the best repute upon the whole (see W. G. Rutherford’s New Phrynichus, pp. 370 f.), and strong support here in א A C* D* M

2 [α 253]

5 [δ 453]

88 [α 200]

330 [δ 259]

378 [α 258]

440 [δ 260]

491 [δ 152]

547 [δ 157]

642 [α 552] cont. 1:1-7:18 9:13-13:25

919 [α 113]

920 [α 55]

1867 [α 154]

1872 [α 209]

1908 [O π 103]

Pfleiderer Primitive Christianity, vol. iii. (1910) pp. 272-299.

1 The omission of ἐξουσίαν by D* M and the Old Latin does not affect the sense; ἔχειν then has the same meaning as in 6:13.

2 The blood, not the body, of the victim mattered in the atonement ritual. Hence, in our writer’s scheme of thought, as Peake observes, “while he fully recognises the fact of the Resurrection of Christ, he can assign it no place in his argument or attach to it any theological significance.”

436 [α 172]

1 In the sense of Aeneas (Verg. Aen. iii. 85, 86, “da moenia fessis | et genus et mansuram urbem”). Note the assonance μένουσαν … μέλλουσαν.

Erasmus Adnotationes (1516), In epist. Pauli apostoli ad Hebraeos paraphrasis (1521).

2 But ὁμολογεῖν τινι occurs in 3 Es 4:60 Esther 4:5:58 (A).

3 In the LXX ἐξομολόγησις is generally preferred to αἴνεσις as an equivalent for תודה.

vg vg Vulgate, saec. iv.

vt vt Old Latin, saec. ii. (?)-iv.

256 [α 216]

1319 [δ 180]

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.”

104 [α 103]

263 [δ 372]

326 [α 257]

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).

1 This lonely occurrence of the optative points to its tendency after the LXX to disappear; thus, apart from μὴ γενοίτο, it only occurs once in a writer like Epictetus (iii. 5. 11).

33 [δ 48] Hort’s 17

1288 [α 162]

d (Latin version of D)

Weiss B. Weiss, “Textkritik der paulinischen Briefe” (in Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, vol. xiv. 3), also Der Hebräerbrief in Zeitgeschichtlicher Beleuchtung (1910).

181 [α 101]

927 [δ 251]

1739 [α 78]

1311 [α 170]

1873 [α 252]

1 For ἐπέστειλα (here as in Acts 15:20, Acts 15:21:25; Theophr. 24:13 ἐπιστέλλων μὴ γράφειν κτλ. = “write,” “send a letter”), see Laqueur’s Quaest. Epigraph. et Papyr. Selectae, 16 f. (ἐπιστέλλειν = “communicare aliquid cum aliquo sive per hominem sive per epistolam”).

TebtP Tebtunis Papyri (ed. Grenfell and Hunt), 1902.

Zahn Theodor Zahn’s Einleitung in das NT, §§ 45-47.