<- Previous   First   Next ->

oujk eujd. hJ y. m. ejn auj. ] my soul hath no pleasure in him , Vulg. non placebit animae meae. The construction eujd. ejn is a reproduction of the

Hebrew B] 6p'j; . Compare Matt. 3:17 and parallel; 17:5; 1 Cor. 10:5; 2 Cor.

12:10. Eujdokei'n eij" is also found: [Matt. 12:18]; 2 Pet. 1:17.

For hJ yuchv mou compare Is. 1:14. Heb. 10:39. hJmei'" de; ... uJpost. ] But we are not of shrinking back (of them that shrink back) ... Vulg. nos autem non sumus subtractionis [all. add. filii ). The thought of shrinking back is at once put aside.

The writer here identifies his readers with himself, as before he has identified himself with them (6:1; 10:26 f.).

The genitives uJpostolh'", pivstew" , express that which marks the two classes. Our character is not expressed by ‘shrinking back’ but by ‘faith.’ Compare Heb. 12:11 ( ouj dokei' cara'" ei\nai ); 1 Thess. 5:5 ( oujk ejsme;n nuktov" ,
v. 8
hJmevra" o[nte" ); 1 Cor. 14:33 ( oujk e[stin ajkatastasiva" oJ qeov" ); Luke 9:55 ( oi{ou pneuvmatov" ejste ); Acts 9:2 ( th'" oJdou' o[nta" ).

Primasius dwells on the ‘filii’ of his Latin text: non sumus ego et vos filii eorum paganorum et gentilium qui se subtrahunt a vita fidei...sed sumus filii patriarcharum...

jApwvleia , which occurs here only in the Epistle, is the opposite of swthriva , which is represented vividly under one aspect as peripoivhsi" yuch'" (Vulg. acquisitio (O. L. renascentia) animae ). This phrase exactly expresses the Lord's promise Luke 21:19 ejn th'/ uJpomonh'/ uJmw'n kthvsesqe ta;" yuca;" uJmw'n . Compare also Luke 17:33 ( zwogonhvsei ); Matt. 10:39.

For peripoivhsi" see 1 Thess. 5:9; 2 Thess. 2:14.

Additional Note on the reading of Hebrews 10:1.

The clause katj ejniauto;n tai'" aujtai'" ... duvnatai is given with unusual variations of form by the most ancient authorities.

(1) tai'" aujtai'" qusivai" a}" prosfevrousin ... oujdevpote duvnantai ...C. (2) tai'"

aujtai'" qusivai" aujtw'n a}" prosfevrousin ... oujdevpote duvnantai ... a , P 1. (3) tai'" aujtai'" qusivai" prosfevrousin ...[ ai} ] oujdevpote duvnantai ... Asyr.hl.arm (4) tai'" aujtai'" qusivai" ai|" prosfevrousin ... oujdevpote duvnatai ...D 2H 3me vg.

The later manuscripts are divided between duvnatai and duvnantai , a few read ai|" for a{" , and a few omit the relative, one adding ai{ before oujdevpote . The Latin and Egyptian versions read duvnatai . The Syriac Versions represent duvnantai , and translate the first clause as a finite sentence (‘For there was in the Law...,’ ‘For since the Law had...’), but there is no reason to suppose that this fact points to any further variation of the text not now preserved in the Greek copies. The translators treated skia;n ga;r e[cwn oJ novmo" ... as an ‘absolute clause’ (so Theophylact expressly); and, if duvnantai is read, this appears to be the only way of dealing with the passage. It must be supposed that the construction of the sentence is suddenly broken after pragmavtwn , and the subject changed from the Law to the priests. In this case two explanations of the second clause are possible, represented by (3) and by (1), (2).

If (3) is adopted the sense will be that given by the Harklean Syriac:


<- Previous   First   Next ->