<- Previous   First   Next ->

The external authority for ( d ) is relatively so slight that this reading can hardly be accepted unless the better attested readings are inadmissible. Moreover it simply gives in another form the thought which is conveyed by sunkekerasmevno" th'/ pivstei toi'" ajkouvsasin .

Our choice then lies between ( a ) and ( g ). The authorities for ( a ) though few in number cover a very wide field, and reach in each case to the earliest accessible date. And further, while the change from -mevno" to -mevnou" is natural both as a mechanical alteration and as the intentional correction of a scribe, the change from -mevnou" to -mevno" is more difficult to account for. It would scarcely be made mechanically; and it is not obvious as a correction.

On the whole therefore it seems best to accept the reading sunkekerasmevno" th'/ pivstei toi'" ajkouvsasin as attested by varied ancient authority, adequately explaining the other readings, and giving a satisfactory sense.

Some of the patristic explanations are worth quoting: THEODORUS MOPS. (Cram. Cat. p. 177): ouj ga;r h\san kata; th;n pivstin toi'" ejpaggelqei'si sunhmmevnoi, o{qen ou{tw" ajnagnwstevon, mh; sugkekerasmevnou" th'/ pivstei toi'" ajkousqei'sin, i{na ei[ph/ tai'" pro;" aujtou;" gegenhmevnai" ejpaggelivai" tou' qeou' dia; Mwusevw" .

THEODORET: tiv ga;r w[nhsen hJ tou' qeou' ejpaggeliva tou;" tauvthn dexamevnou", mhv pistw'" dexamevnou" kai; th'/ tou' qeou' dunavmei teqarrhkovta" kai; oi|on toi'" qeou' lovgoi" ajnakraqevnta" ;

CHRYSOSTOM: ei\ta ejpavgei ajllj oujk wjfevlhsen oJ lovgo" th'" ajkoh'" ejkeivnou" mh; sugkekramevnou" (so MSS. edd. -mevnh" ) th'/ pivstei toi'" ajkouvsasin, deiknu;" pw'" oJ lovgo" oujk wjfevlhsen, ejk ga;r tou' mh; sugkraqh'nai oujk wjfelhvqhsan . Then afterwards he goes on to say, oiJ ou\n peri; Cavleb kai; jIhsou'n, ejpeidh; mh; sunekravqhsan toi'" ajpisthvsasi, toutevstin ouj sunefwvnhsan, dievfugon th;n katj ejkeivnwn ejxenecqei'san timwrivan . kai; o{ra gev ti qaumastovn . oujk ei\pen, ouj sunefwvnhsan ajllj ouj sunekravqhsan, toutevstin, ajstasiavstw" dievsthsan, ejkeivnwn pavntwn mivan kai; th;n aujth;n gnwvmhn ejschkovtwn .

This latter is the opinion which THEOPHYLACT quotes and criticises as Chrysostom's.

AUGUSTINE, in commenting upon Ps. 77:8 (78:8) non est creditus cum Deo spiritus ejus , writes: ut autem cor cum illo sit et per hoc rectum esse possit, acceditur ad eum non pede sed fide. Ideo dicitur etiam in epistola ad Hebraeos de illa ipsa generatione prava et amaricante, Non profuit sermo auditus illis non contemperatis (so MSS.) fidei eorum qui obaudierunt ( In Ps.
lxxvii. § 10); and again: erant illic etiam electi quorum fidei non contemperabatur generatio prava et amaricans ( id. § 18).

The note of PRIMASIUS is: non profuit illis, quia non fuit admistus et conjunctus fidei, et contemperatus fidei ex his promissionibus quas audierunt. Tunc enim prodesset iis sermo auditus si credidissent quoniam tunc esset contemperatus fide (? fidei). Quoniam vero non crediderunt, non fuit conjunctus fidei, ideoque nihil eis profuit quod audierunt...

Additional Note on Hebrews 4:8. On some hypothetical sentences.

It is worth while for the sake of some young students to illustrate a little


<- Previous   First   Next ->