Bible Commentaries
Hebrews 3

Verses 1-99

1 Holy brothers (ἅγιοι = οἱ ἁγιαζόμενοι, 2:11), you who participate in a heavenly calling, look at Jesus then (ὅθεν in the light of what has just been said), at the apostle and highpriest of our confession; 2 he is “faithful” to Him who appointed him. For while “Moses” also was “faithful in every department of God`s house,” 3 Jesus (οὗτος, as in 10:12) has been adjudged greater glory (δόξης) than (παρά, as 1:4) Moses, inasmuch as the founder of a house enjoys greater honour (τιμήν, a literary synonym for δόξην) than the house itself. 4 (Every house is founded by some one, but God is the founder of all.) 5 Besides, while “Moses” was “faithful in every department of God`s house” as an attendant—by way of witness to the coming revelation—6 Christ is faithful as a son over God`s house.

In v. 2 ὅλῳ (om. p 13 B sah boh Cyr. Amb.) may be a gloss from v. 5. In v. 3 the emphasis on πλείονος is better maintained by οὗτος δόξης (א A B C D P vt Chrys.) than by δόξης οὗτος (p 13 K L M 6. 33. 104. 326. 1175. 1288 vg) or by the omission of οὗτος altogether (467 arm Basil). In v. 4 πάντα has been harmonized artificially with 1:3, 2:10 by the addition of τά (Cc L P Ψ 104. 326. 1175. 1128 Athan.).

For the first time the writer addresses his readers, and as�1 Thessalonians 5:27 is a later insertion), κλήσεως ἐπουρανίου μέτοχοι (6:4 etc., cp. Psalms 119:63 μέτοχος ἐγώ εἰμι πάντων τῶν φοβουμένων σε, Ep. Arist. 207; de Mundo, 401b). In Philippians 3:14 the ἄνω κλῆσις is the prize conferred at the end upon Christian faith and faithfulness. Here there may be a side allusion to 2:11 �

In the description of Jesus as τὸν�Revelation 1:12) called Jesus Christ τοῦ πατρὸς πάντων καὶ δεσπότου θεοῦ υἱὸς καὶ�Hebrews 2:12). Naturally Jesus was rarely called ἄγγελος; but it was all the easier for our author to call Jesus�

The reason why they are to look at Jesus is (v. 2) his faithfulness τῷ ποιήσαντι αὐτόν, where ποιεῖν means “to appoint” to an office (as 1 S 12:6 κύριος ὁ ποιήσας τὸν Μωυσῆν καὶ τὸν Ἀαρών, Mark 3:14 καὶ ἐποίησεν δώδεκα). This faithfulness puts him above Moses for two reasons. First (vv. 2b-4), because he is the founder of the House or Household of God, whereas Moses is part of the House. The text the writer has in mind is Numbers 12:7 (οὐχ οὕτως ὁ θεράπων μου Μωυσῆς· ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ οἴκῳ μου πιστός ἐστιν), and the argument of v. 3, where οἶκος, like our “house,” includes the sense of household or family,1 turns on the assumption that Moses belonged to the οἶκος in which he served so faithfully. How Jesus “founded” God`s household, we are not told. But there was an οἶκος θεοῦ before Moses, as is noted later in 11:2, 25, a line of πρεσβύτεροι who lived by faith; and their existence is naturally referred to the eternal Son. The founding of the Household is part and parcel of the creation of the τὰ πάντα (1:2, 3). Κατασκευάζειν includes, of course (see 9:2, 6), the arrangement of the οἶκος (cp. Epict. i. 6. 7-10, where κατασκευάζω is similarly used in the argument from design). The author then adds an edifying aside, in v. 4, to explain how the οἶκος was God`s (v. 2 αὐτοῦ), though Jesus had specially founded it. It would ease the connexion of thought if θεός meant (as in 1:8?) “divine” as applied to Christ (so, e.g., Cramer, M. Stuart), or if οὗτος could be read for θεός, as Blass actually proposes. But this is to rewrite the passage. Nor can we take αὐτοῦ in v. 6a as “Christ`s”; there are not two Households, and πᾶς (v. 4) does not mean “each” (so, e.g., Reuss). Αὐτοῦ in vv. 2, 5; and 6a must mean “God`s.” He as creator is ultimately responsible for the House which, under him, Jesus founded and supervises.

This was a commonplace of ancient thought. Justin, e.g., observes: Μενάνδρῳ τῷ κωμικῷ καὶ τοῖς ταῦτα φήσασι ταὐτὰ φράζομεν· μείζονα γὰρ τὸν δημιουργὸν τοῦ σκευαζομένου�Revelation 1:20). It had been remarked by Philo (De Plant. 16): ὅσῳ γὰρ ὁ κτησάμενος τὸ κτῆμα τοῦ κτήματος�

The usual way of combining the thought of v. 4 with the context is indicated by Lactantius in proving the unity of the Father and the Son (diuin. instit. iv. 29): “When anyone has a son of whom he is specially fond (quem unice diligat), a son who is still in the house and under his father`s authority (in manu patris)—he may grant him the name and power of lord (nomen domini potestatemque), yet by civil law (civili iure) the house is one, and one is called lord. So this world is one house of God, and the Son and the Father, who in harmony (unanimos) dwell in the world, are one God.”

The second (5-6a) proof of the superiority of Jesus to Moses is now introduced by καί. It rests on the term θεράπων used of Moses in the context (as well as in Numbers 11:11, Numbers 11:12:7, Numbers 11:8 etc.; of Moses and Aaron in Wis 10:16, 18:21); θεράπων is not the same as δοῦλος, but for our author it is less than υἱός, and he contrasts Moses as the θεράπων ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ with Jesus as the Son ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον, ἐπί used as in 10:21 (ἱερέα μέγαν ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ) and Matthew 25:21, Matthew 25:23 (ἐπὶ ὀλίγα ῃς πιστός). Moses is “egregius domesticus fidei tuae” (Aug. Conf. xii. 23). The difficult phrase εἰς τὸ μαρτύριον τῶν λαληθησομένων means, like 9:9, that the position of Moses was one which pointed beyond itself to a future and higher revelation; the tabernacle was a σκήνη τοῦ μαρτυρίου (Numbers 12:5) in a deep sense. This is much more likely than the idea that the faithfulness of Moses guaranteed the trustworthiness of anything he said, or even that Moses merely served to bear testimony of what God revealed from time to time (as if the writer was thinking of the words στόμα κατὰ στόμα λαλήσω αὐτῷ which follow the above-quoted text in Numbers).

The writer now passes into a long appeal for loyalty, which has three movements (3:6b-19, 4:1-10, 4:11-13). The first two are connected with a homily on Psalms 95:7-11 as a divine warning against the peril of apostasy, the story of Israel after the exodus from Egypt being chosen as a solemn instance of how easy and fatal it is to forfeit privilege by practical unbelief. It is a variant upon the theme of 2:2, 3 suggested by the comparison between Moses and Jesus, but there is no comparison between Jesus and Joshua; for although the former opens up the Rest for the People of to-day, the stress of the exhortation falls upon the unbelief and disobedience of the People in the past.

6 Now we are this house of God (οὖ, from the preceding αὐτοῦ), if we will only keep confident and proud of our hope. 7 Therefore, as the holy Spirit says:

“Today, when (ἐάν, as in 1 John 2:28) you hear his voice,

8 harden not (μὴ σκληρύνητε, aor. subj. of negative entreaty) your hearts as at the Provocation,

on the day of the Temptation in the desert,

9 where (οὗ = ὅπου as Deuteronomy 8:15) your fathers put me to the proof,

10 and for forty years felt what I could do.”

Therefore “ I grew exasperated with that generation,

I said, ‘They are always astray in their heart’;

they would not learn my ways;

11 so (ὡς consecutive) I swore in my anger

‘they shall never (εἰ = the emphatic negative אם in oaths) enter my Rest.’ ”

12 Brothers, take care in case there is a wicked, unbelieving heart in any of you, moving you to apostatize from the living God. 13 Rather admonish one another (ὲαυτούς =�

16 Who heard and yet “provoked” him? Was it not all who left Egypt under the leadership of Moses? 17 And with whom was he exasperated for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose “corpses1 fell in the desert”? 18 And to whom “did he swear that they (sc. αὐτούς ) would never enter his Rest”? To whom but those who disobeyed �Acts 19:9)? 19 Thus (καί consecutive) we see it was owing to unbelief that they could not enter.

In v. 6 (a) οὗ is altered into ὅς by D* M 6. 424 Lat Lucifer, Ambr. Priscillian, probably owing to the erroneous idea that the definite article (supplied by 440. 2005) would have been necessary between οὗ and οἶκος. (b) ἐάν is assimilated to the text of v. 14 by a change to ἐάνπερ in אc A C Dc K L W syrhkl Lucifer, Chrys, etc. (von Soden). (c) After ἐλπίδος the words μέχρι τέλους βεβαίαν are inserted from v. 14 by a number of MSS; the shorter, correct text is preserved in P13 B 1739 sah eth Lucifer, Ambrose.

V. 6b introduces the appeal, by a transition from 6a. When Philo claims that παρρησία is the mark of intelligent religion (quis rer. div. haeres, 4, τοῖς μὲν οὖν�Job 27:10 μὴ ἔχει τινὰ παρρησίαν ἐναντίον αὐτοῦ). This confidence is the outcome of the Christian ἐλπίς (for τῆς ἐλπίδος goes with τὴν παρρησίαν as well as with τὸ καύχημα); here as in 4:16 and 10:19, 35; it denotes the believing man`s attitude to a God whom he knows to be trustworthy. The idea of τὸ καύχημα τῆς ἐλπίδος is exactly that of Romans 5:2 (καυχώμεθα ἐπʼ ἐλπίδι τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ), and of a saying like Psalms 5:12 (καὶ εὐφρανθήτωσαν ἐπὶ σοὶ πάντες οἱ ἐλπίζοντες ἐπὶ σέ).

Διό in v. 7 goes most naturally with μὴ σκληρύνητε (v. 8), the thought of which recurs in v. 13 as the central thread. The alternative, to take it with βλέπετε in v. 12, which turns the whole quotation into a parenthesis, seems to blunt the direct force of the admonition; it makes the parenthesis far too long, and empties the second διό of its meaning. βλέπετε is no more abrupt in v. 12 than in 12:25; it introduces a sharp, sudden warning, without any particle like οὖν or δέ, and requires no previous term like διό. The quotation is introduced as in 10:15 by “the holy Spirit” as the Speaker, a rabbinic idea of inspiration. The quotation itself is from Psalms 95:7-11 which in A runs as follows:

σήμερον ἐὰν τῆς φωνῆς αὐτοῦ�

In vv. 9, 10, though he knew (v. 17) the correct connexion of the LXX (cp. v. 17a), he alters it here for his own purpose, taking τεσσαράκοντα ἔτη with what precedes instead of with what follows, inserting διό (which crept into the text of R in the psalm) before προσώχθισα for emphasis, and altering ἐδοκίμασαν με into ἐν δοκιμασίᾳ.5 The LXX always renders the place-names “Meriba” and “Massa” by generalizing moral terms, here by παραπικρασμός and πειρασμός, the former only here in the LXX (Aquila, 1 Samuel 15:33; Theodotion, Proverbs 17:11). The displacement of τεσσεράκοντα ἔτη was all the more feasible as εἶδον τὰ ἔργα μου meant for him the experience of God`s punishing indignation. (Τεσσαράκοντα is better attested than τεσσεράκοντα (Moulton, ii. 66) for the first century.) There is no hint that the writer was conscious of the rabbinic tradition, deduced from this psalm, that the period of messiah would last for forty years, still less that he had any idea of comparing this term with the period between the crucifixion and 70 a.d. What he really does is to manipulate the LXX text in order to bring out his idea that the entire forty years in the desert were a “day of temptation,”6 during which the People exasperated God. Hence (in v. 9) he transfers the “forty years” to εἶδον τὰ ἔργα μου, in order to emphasize the truth that the stay of the People in the desert was one long provocation of God; for εἶδον τὰ ἔργα μου is not an aggravation of their offence (“though they felt what I could do for them”), but a reminder that all along God let them feel how he could punish them for their disobedience. Finally, their long-continued obstinacy led him to exclude them from the land of Rest. This “finally” does not mean that the divine oath of exclusion was pronounced at the end of the forty years in the desert, but that as the result of God`s experience he gradually killed off (v. 17) all those who had left Egypt. This retribution was forced upon him by the conviction αὐτοὶ δὲ οὐκ ἔγνωσαν τὰς ὁδούς μου (i.e. would not learn my laws for life, cared not to take my road).

The rabbinic interpretation of Psa_95 as messianic appears in the legend (T.B. Sanhedrim, 98a) of R. Joshua ben Levi and Elijah. When the rabbi was sent by Elijah to messiah at the gates of Rome, he asked, “Lord, when comest thou?” He answered, “To-day.” Joshua returned to Elijah, who inquired of him: “ What said He to thee?” Joshua: “Peace be with thee, son of Levi.” Elijah: “Thereby He has assured to thee and My father a prospect of attaining the world to come.” Joshua: “But He has deceived me, by telling me He would come to-day.” Elijah: “Not so, what He meant was, To-day, if you will hear His voice.” The severe view of the fate of the wilderness-generation also appears in Sanh. 110b, where it is proved that the generation of the wilderness have no part in the world to come, from Numbers 14:35 and also from Psa_95 (as I swore in my anger that they should not enter into my Rest). This was rabbi Akiba’s stern reading of the text. But rabbinic opinion, as reflected in the Mishna (cp. W. Bacher, Agada der Tannaiten2, i. 135 f.), varied on the question of the fate assigned to the generation of Israelited during the forty years of wandering in the desert. While some authorities took Psalms 95:11 strictly, as if the “rest” meant the rest after death, and these Israelites were by the divine oath excluded from the world to come, others endeavoured to minimize the text; God`s oath only referred to the incredulous spies, they argued, or it was uttered in the haste of anger and recalled. In defence of the latter milder view Psalms 50:5 was quoted, and Isaiah 35:10. Our author takes the sterner view, reproduced later by Dante (Purgatorio, xviii. 133-135), for example, who makes the Israelites an example of sloth; “the folk for whom the sea opened were dead ere Jordan saw the heirs of promise.” He never speaks of men “tempting God,” apart from this quotation, and indeed, except in 11:17, God`s πειρασμός or probation of men is confined to the human life of Jesus.

For διό in v. 10 Clem. Alex. (Protrept. 9) reads διʼ ο. Προσωχθίζειν is a LXX term for the indignant loathing excited by some defiance of God’s will, here by a discontented, critical attitude towards him. In v. 11 κατάπαυσις is used of Canaan as the promised land of settled peace, as only in Deuteronomy 12:9 (οὐ γὰρ ἥκατε … εἰς τὴν κατάπαυσιν) and 1 K 8:56 (εὐλογητὸς Κύριος σήμερον, ὃς ἐδωκεν κατάπαυσιν τῷ λαῷ αὐτοῦ). The mystical sense is developed in 4:3f.

The application (vv. 12f.) opens with βλέπετε (for the classical ὁρᾶτε) μὴ… ἔσται (as in Colossians 2:8 (βλέπετε μὴ … ἔσται), the reason for the future being probably “because the verb εἰμί has no aorist, which is the tense required,” Field, Notes on Translation of N.T., p. 38) ἐν τινι ὑμῶν—the same concern for individuals as in 4:11, 10:25, 12:15—καρδία�Ezekiel 20:8 καὶ�

In v. 13 παρακαλεῖτε … καθʼ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν (cp. Test. Leviticus 9:8 ἦν καθʼ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν συνετίζων με) emphasizes the keen, constant care of the community for its members, which is one feature of the epistle. In ἄχρις οὗ (elsewhere in NT with aorist or future), which is not a common phrase among Attic historians and orators, ἄχρις is a Hellenistic form of ἄχρι (p13 M) used sometimes when a vowel followed. Σήμερον is “God`s instant men call years” (Browning), and the paronamasia in καλεῖται1 … παρακαλεῖτε led the writer to prefer καλεῖται to a term like κηρύσσεται. The period (see 4:7) is that during which God`s call and opportunity still hold out, and the same idea is expressed in ἐν τῷ λέγεσθαι Σήμερον κτλ. (v. 15). ἐξ ὑμῶν is sufficiently emphatic as it stands, without being shifted forward before τις (B D K L d e etc. harkl Theodt. Dam.) in order to contrast ὑμεῖς with οἱ πατέρες ὑμῶν (v. 9). As for ἡ ἁμαρτία, it is the sin of apostasy (12:4), which like all sin deceives men (Romans 7:11), in this case by persuading them that they will be better off if they allow themselves to abandon the exacting demands of God. The responsibility of their position is expressed in ἵνα μὴ σκληρυνθῇ, a passive with a middle meaning; men can harden themselves or let lower considerations harden them against the call of God. As Clement of Alexandria (Protrept. ix.) explains: ὁρᾶτε τὴν�

In v. 14 μέτοχοι τοῦ Χριστοῦ (which is not an equivalent for the Pauline ἐν Χριστῷ, but rather means to have a personal interest in him) answers to μέτοχοι κλήσεως ἐπουρανίου in v. 1 and to μετόχους πνεύματος ἁγίου in 6:4; γεγόναμεν betrays the predilection of the writer for γέγονα rather than its equivalent εἰναι. Ἐάνπερ an intensive particle (for ἐάν, v. 6) τὴν�Ruth 1:12 ἔστιν μοι ὑπόστασις τοῦ γενηθῆναι με�Proverbs 11:7), with the associations of steadfast patience under trying discouragements. This psychological meaning was already current (cp. 2 Corinthians 9:4 μὴ … καταισχυνθῶμεν ἡμεῖς ἐν τῇ ὑποστάσει ταύτῃ), alongside of the physical or metaphysical. What a man bases himself on, as he confronts the future, is his ὑπόστασις, which here in sound and even (by contrast) in thought answers to�

It is possible to regard v. 14 as a parenthesis, and connect ἐν τῷ λέγεσθαι (v. 15) closely with παρακαλεῖτε or ἵνα μὴ … ἁμαρτίας (v. 13), but this is less natural; ἐν τῷ λέγεσθαι (“while it is said,” as in Psalms 42:4 ἐν τῷ λέγεσθαι) connects easily and aptly with κατάσχωμεν, and vv. 14, 15 thus carry on positively the thought of v. 13, viz. that the writer and his readers are still within the sound of God’s call to his οἶκος to be πιστός.

The pointed questions which now follow (vv. 16-18) are a favourite device of the diatribe style. Παραπικραίνειν (Hesych. παροργίζειν)2 in v. 16 seems to have been coined by the LXX to express “rebellious” with a further sense of provoking or angering God; e.g. Deuteronomy 31:27 παραπικραίνοντες ἦτε τὰ πρὸς τὸν θεόν (translating מרה), and Deuteronomy 32:16 ἐν βδελύγμασιν αὐτῶν παρεπίκρανάν με (translating בעם). The sense of “disobey” recurs occasionally in the LXX psalter (e.g. 104:28, 106:11); indeed the term involves a disobedience which stirs up the divine anger against rebels, the flagrant disobedience (cp. παραβαίνειν for מרה in Deuteronomy 1:43, Numbers 27:14) which rouses exasperation in God. Ἀλλʼ, one rhetorical question being answered by another (as Luke 17:8), logically presupposes τινές, but τίνες must be read in the previous question. By writing πάντες the writer does not stop to allow for the faithful minority, as Paul does (1 Corinthians 10:7f. τινες αὐτῶν). In the grave conclusion (v. 19) διʼ�

But, the author continues (4:1f.), the promised rest is still available; it is open to faith, though only to faith (1-3). No matter how certainly all has been done upon God’s part (3-5), and no matter how sure some human beings are to share his Rest (v. 6), it does not follow that we shall, unless we take warning by this failure of our fathers in the past and have faith in God. Such is the urgent general idea of this paragraph. But the argument is compressed; the writer complicates it by defining the divine Rest as the sabbath-rest of eternity, and also by introducing an allusion to Joshua. That is, he (a) explains God’s κατάπαυσις in Psa_95 by the σαββατισμός of Genesis 2:2, and then (b) draws an inference from the fact that the psalm-promise is long subsequent to the announcement of the σαββατισμός. He assumes that there is only one Rest mentioned, the κατάπαυσις into which God entered when he finished the work of creation, to which οἱ πατέρες ὑμῶν were called under Moses, and to which Christians are now called. They must never lose faith in it, whatever be appearances to the contrary.

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

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

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

Amb Ambrose.

אԠ[01: δ 2).

A [02: δ 4].

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

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.

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

K [018:1:1].

L [020: α 5] cont. 1:1-13:10.

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

6 [δ 356] cont. 1:1-9:3 10:22-13:25

33 [δ 48] Hort’s 17

104 [α 103]

326 [α 257]

1175 [α 74] cont. 1:1-3:5 6:8-13:20

1288 [α 162]

Ψ̠[044: δ 6] cont. 1:1-8:11 9:19-13:25.

Athan Athanasius

1 Had it not been for these other references it might have been possible to take τ. ὀ. ἡ. here as = “whom we confess.” The contents of the ὁμολογία are suggested in the beliefs of 6:1f., which form the fixed principles and standards of the community, the Truth (10:26) to which assent was given at baptisra.

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

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

1 Our author avoids (see on 2:12) ἐκκλησία, unlike the author of 1 Timothy 3:15 who writes ἐν οἴκῳ θεοῦ, ἤτις ἐστὶν ἐκκλησία τοῦ θεοῦ.

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 κῶλα in this sense is from Numbers 14:29, Numbers 14:32, a passage which the writer has in mind.

424 [O 12] Hort’s 67

440 [δ 260]

2005 [α 1436] cont. 1:1-7:2

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.”

c (Codex Colbertinus: saec. xii.)

1739 [α 78]

1 אca adds με (so T), which has crept (needlessly, for πειράζειν may be used absolutely as in 1 Corinthians 10:9) into the text of Hebrews through אc Dc M vg pesh harkl boh arm Apollin.

2 In some texts of Hebrews (p 13 א A B D* M 33. 424** vg Clem. Apollin.) this becomes (under the influence of the literal view of forty years?) ταύτῃ (ἐκείνῃ in C Dc K L P syr sah boh arm eth Eus. Cyril, Chrys.).

3 The Ionic form εἶπα (B) has slipped into some texts of Hebrews (A D 33. 206. 489. 1288. 1518. 1836).

4 The LXX is stronger than the Hebrew; it appears to translate not the עם of the MT, but עלם (cp. Flashar in Zeits für alt. Wiss., 1912, 84-85).

5 ἐδοκίμασαν (με) is read in the text of Hebrews, by assimilation, in אc Dc K L vg syr arm eth Apollin. Lucifer, Ambr, Chrys. etc. i.e. Ε̄ΔΟΚΙΜΑCΙΑ was altered into ΕΔΟΚΙΜΑCᾹ.

Moulton J. H. Moulton’s Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. i. (2nd edition, 1906).

6 The κατά in κατὰ τὴν ἡμέραν (v. 8) is temporal as in 1:10, 7:27, not “after the manner of” (“secundum,” vg).

1 The common confusion between αι and ει led to the variant καλεῖτε (AC).

1 Another early error was to regard it as “our substance,” so that ἡ�

2 In Deuteronomy 32:16 it is parallel to παροξύνειν; cp. Flashar’s discussion in Zeitlschrift für alt. Wiss., 1912, 185 f. It does not always require an object (God).