The opening of this Epistle seems to me unworthily represented in the Revised Version. In ver. 1 “Divers twice is to make bad worse, though not so incorrect as the “diversely” of Tyndale, the one being obsolete for more than one, the other really meaning differently. They have, of course, substituted ἐσχάτου for the Text. Rec., ἐσχάτου, which has not the support of a single uncial; and they have avoided the error of “times” instead of parts or portions. “God having of old spoken in many measures and in many modes to the fathers in the prophets, at the end of these days spake to us in [the] Son.” The last expression is evidently the truth of especial weight; and here the Revisers conspicuously fail. Indeed, the anarthrous construction is their habitual stumbling-block, as is the abstract usage of the Greek article, which requires the absence of the definite article in English. Their text is wrong in bringing in “his,” which is not all the idea here, though, of course, true in itself; whilst their margin, “a Son,” is yet worse in every way, as being liable to grave misconstruction anywhere, and peculiarly at issue with a context which has for its aim to set forth His sole, intrinsic, and unapproachable glory as Son of God. The true idea is as Son, or in the person of Him who is Son, contrasted with His servants the prophets. Our tongue, however, does not admit of this characterizing style of speech, like the Greek, after a preposition, but only in the nominative; and hence we must insert our article or even paraphrase it. But can there be any doubt that here, as too often in such cases elsewhere, the Revisers have missed the mark in a very essential point of truth? In 8 they give rightly the very image, or impress, “of His substance.” “Person” is quite wrong, not only in translation, but in doctrine. For a wonder they are right about purification “of sins,” perhaps to avoid the appearance of reading as in Text. Rec. contrary to àp.m. A B Dp.m. all and many other witnesses. They ought to have translated similarly in Eph. 1:7, Col. 1:14, where they have ruined the sense by treating the article as a possessive four times in error. Nor is the omission of δἰ ἑαυτοῦ ["by himself] by any means so sure as to justify not even a notice in the margin. E K L M are no doubt inferior to à A B P, Dp.m. giving δἰ αὐτοῦ, but both the Syriac, the ΑEthiopic and the Coptic are at least equal to the Vulgate and the Armenian. Indeed, Theodoret in his comment expressly says that δἰ αὑτοῦ; should be read with an aspirate for δἰ ἑαυτοῦ (δασέως ἀναγιγνώσκειν προσήκει, ἀντὶ τοῦ, δἰ ἑαυτοῦ, B. Theod. Opp. ed. Sirmond. v. 549). Nor is there the least hint of the middle voice in the aorist participle, the more striking as the purification made was of the sins of others—assuredly not His own. The favorite Vulgate (factus) is here out of the way false, as it is in the next word, and often to the subversion of the truth in this epistle. In 4 the Revisers have improved on “being made” of the Authorized Version, which is very objectionable, but “having become” is not much better. The doubtful point of 6 is the Revisers' adoption of the margin of the Authorized Version, and consigning its text to their margin; the improvement is “first-born” for “first-begotten.” In 7 and 8 and 13 it is better to assimilate if not render the same (for the first πρός is indirect, the second direct), instead of giving “of” and “unto,” as in the Authorized Version. Whether “of” in both cases is better than “as to” seems doubtful. But there is as little doubt that καί is wrongly dropt in the Text. Rec. and Authorized Version of 8 as that the Authorized Version is more correct than the Revised Version in not making a reciprocal sentence of the clause that follows, where the predicate by poetical inversion precedes the subject—a matter of no moment where the latter is defined by the article. In 8 they have not adhered to the preterit rendering of the aorists, though there seems no reason why they might not have said, “Thou didst love righteousness and hate iniquity (or lawlessness). Therefore God, thy God, anointed,” &c. And so in 10 “didst say,” &c. But it does seem strange that the advocates of the Vatican and a few others (MSS. à A Dp.m. &c. should have induced the Company to adopt ὡς ἱμάτιον, which reads so unmeaningly in the second clause of 12. Even Tregelles' bracketed, and Lachmann alone adopted the gloss. It is a wonder they did not heed Tischendorf's reading ἀλλάξεις for ἐλἴξεις, which adheres to the Hebrew, though resting only on àp.m. Dp.m., Latin auxiliaries, &c., “as a vesture wilt thou change them, and they shall be changed,” but the Vatican does not favor this. In 18 why not “a” rather than “the” footstool?
In 2:1 “lest haply we drift away” is a better rendering than in either the text or the margin of the Authorized Version, both of which are ungrammatical. But is “recompense of reward” well here, because it snits, though cumbrously 10: 35, 11:26? Would not requital or retribution in our text, and recompense elsewhere be better English? The Authorized Version misled the Revisers' Version in this unusual excess of sameness. In 4 it is hard to see why the Authorized Version should be followed in the text and the margin. In 5 the “habitable” world as it really is would dispel some vague impressions which “the world” is apt to leave on ill-taught minds. The version of Psa. 8:4 is kept in 6, not quite in unison with 13:3; but the preterit which prevails in 7 was forgotten in 6. And why should we have “the” angels in 9 as in 7, where it is no question of the whole class but of beings thus characterized Our language allows corresponding precision. And is it certain that ὑπὲρ παντος means “for every man?” Why not for every [thing]? We have just heard of πάντα, τὰ πάντα, and τὴν οἰκ., and afterward in ver. 10, but these of men also, not as πάντας but as πολλοὺς υἱοὑς. It is not that there is the least dogmatic difficulty as to all mankind, at least for one who applies Christ's death for all in 2 Cor. 5:14, as His death through and for sin, rather than to it, which last is exclusively true of believers. It is a question only of what best suits the context. In 12 “the congregation” is decidedly better than “the church,” as in the Authorized Version. In 13 they desert their preterit, perhaps owing to the Authorized Version of Isa. 8:18. In 14 is it not strange to consign the true order “blood and flesh” to the margin, and to adopt the other and commoner order in the text? In 16 there is a well-known correction of the Authorized Version adopted; for it is a question not at all of having taken the nature of man, but of interest and succor for Abraham's seed, not angels. In 17 “reconciliation” gives place very properly to “propitiation.”
In 3:1 “Christ” of the Authorized Version, following Text. Rec., disappears rightly. But why in 2 “who was” or “who is”? “As being” is more correct. It is hardly to be supposed that Mr. Green meant to omit ὅλῳ with the Vatican, especially as he gives “all” in his version. In 6 surely it is Christ as “Son over His house,” not “a Son.” Nor is there ground to say “our,” but “the” boldness and the boast, rather than boasting or glorying, which would be rather καύχησις. In 9 “wherewith,” not “when,” or “where,” also “by proving,” ἐν δοκιμασία, rather than ἐδοκ. as in the LXX. and Text. Rec., which adds, με twice. In 10, “this,” not ἐλείνη, “that.” Is not the connection of διό with βλέπετε (12)? If so, it is neglected in the Revised as much as in the Authorized Version. In 14 as “partakers of Christ” has quite a different meaning, would it not have been better to have adopted throughout, as in 1:9, a more suitable rendering? “Fellows” from Psa. 45 is scarcely desirable. Partners or companions might be used. In 16, for τινές of the Text. Rec., they read with most critics rival. For who when they heard, or in hearing, did provoke? In the end of 18 the disobedient means those who did not listen to the word. Hence in 19 it is “unbelief.” See 4:6, 11.
4:2 presents a notable instance of temerity. I do not speak of the clumsy literality of the word “of hearing,” but of what follows, “because they were [in the margin it was according to some] not united by faith with them that beard.” No doubt Alford, Tregelles and Lachmann were blinded by their fidelity to the more ancient MSS. Tischendorf, strengthened by the Sinaitic which rejects the pl. ace. form, corrected his early change from the Text. Rec. because of the paucity of witnesses in its favor, save the Syriac and some of the Latin. But a more monstrous result than the sense flowing from that which pleased the ancient copyists and the modern critics, as well as the Revisers, it is hard to conceive. Besides, even the marginal alternative fares hardly at their hands. What is the sense from “it was?” “Because the word was not united by faith with them that heard.” How greatly inferior to the Authorized Version! If the ordinary reading, or its form in א, had a place in the margin, the Revisers ought to have given it a decent rendering, not one which sounds almost ridiculous. Nothing can be more confused and incoherent with the argument than the sense attached to the favorite reading; and even most modern commentators who adopt it on diplomatic grounds give it up, save the late intrepid Dean of Canterbury, who will have no special reference to Caleb and Joshua, yet fairly owns that his own interpretation does not satisfy himself. Without dwelling on minor points, 10 appears to be only in part corrected. The Authorized Version was misled by Tyndale and that of Geneva, and the rendering falls in with the evangelical misapplication of the chapter to a present rest for the soul by faith, instead of the rest of God, which we are to enter at Christ's coming, a stimulus to present labor and to fear of taking our rest now. It ought to be “ceased from his works as God from His own.” It is clear that it can be no question here of Christ giving rest to all those that labor and are heavy-laden, but to those who already believed in, or at least professed, His name; else they would have been called to believe, not to fear, still less to diligence in every good work. One need say nothing of Owen's wild idea adopted by Ebrard and Alford that so describes Christ. Not so; it is the general statement that he who has entered into God's rest has himself to rest from his works—a truth which applies even to God, who rested after His works in creating. It is no question of bad works: God's own were certainly good. It is a mistake that this view converts the aorist into a perfect or present. For if any tense but the aorist were used in Greek, it might, nay must, have misled. Believers now are viewed as εἰσερχ and in no way as εἰσελθόντες, and the finite verb is properly in the same tense. It is the case supposed when the rest is entered, not at all the present result of a past act in the perfect. If the present had been used, as often expressive of a general principle, it was obviously liable to mislead the reader, for the entrance is unquestionably future. In 14 is not “the” better than “our” confession? But the close of 15 is more serious. To say “yet” as in the Authorized Version, following others since Tyndale, leaves the door open to misconstruction of the true meaning and even to heterodoxy. Indeed, not a few have drawn, what they scarcely could have done from χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας, that it means the Lord, however tempted, never sinned; whereas the true sense is that He has been in all things to tempted in like sort, sin excepted. He never had our sinful temptations from a fallen nature such as James (1:13-15) speaks of. For this He suffered on the cross, and now sympathizes with us in our dangers, difficulties, and weakness. He knew these trials incomparably more than we; but there was no sin in Him, no evil proclivities in His nature as in ours. In 16, why not “for seasonable help?” “Time of need” limits the succor too much to the moment of trespass; the former is the larger and more worthy sense, as it is the most faithful version.
In 5 the first thing we would note is the right omission of ὁ in 4, which would make it not hypothetic, but actual, which really is in the clause following. It is not therefore “he that is,” as in the Authorized Version, following the Text. Rec., but, “as” or “when” called. In 8 “though He were Son,” or “Son as He was,” is better than “a” Son, but there is no need of “the” before “author.". In 7, as in 11:17, προσφέρω is confounded with ἀναφέρω, which does mean offer up as well as bear. In 12 “the rudiments” do not go well with “the first principles” as may be made plainer by 6:1, where our Revisers give us “let us cease to speak of the first principles of Christ.” There is nothing better than “the beginning.” First principles are never to be left; but the word of the beginning of Christ might safely be left to go on to the knowledge of His redemption and glorification, which are the true power for acting by the Holy Ghost on the new man. Without this is no “full growth” to which one is pressed on in 6:1. Solid food is for “full-grown men,” as in 14.
In 6:6, “If they shall fall” in the Authorized Version is brought back to the true and literal force, “and have fallen.” It was a fact described. In 7 it is ground, or land, not “the” land.—In 10 they omit “the labor” on high and ample authority. Is not “desire” defective unless more strongly qualified in 11? There is no need of “a” forerunner in 20.
In 7 there is extremely little to criticize: a particle struck out in 4, the article in 5, 10, change of form in 11, 16, 18, and priests instead of priesthood in 14, a quotation curtailed a little in 21, and a particle added in 22, are almost all. Of course, the mistranslation in the Authorized Version of ver. 19 is avoided by the Revisers. The Old English Versions in general treat it wretchedly, from Wield down, Rhemish and all. Not one seems to have heeded the plain fact that 19 is the correlative to 18, marked carefully by the regular μὲν,... δέ, with the first parenthetic clause at the beginning of 19, which explains why the foregoing commandment was annulled. Think of Tyndale making 18 a period, so as to predicate of the law, that it not only made nothing perfect, which is true, but was the introduction of a better hope, which is not only untrue but utterly false. Cranmer follows him in this; but even Wield had avoided it, as the Geneva Version more. The Rhemish is, as often, ambiguous, and suggestive of wrong more than of right, probably the fruit of sheer blank ignorance of the truth. If the Authorized Version kept clear of positive error in the text, they brought it into their margin. The parenthesis of which they did not think would have proved a safeguard, as well as seeing the contrast between the foregoing commandment and the better hope, the one abrogated and the other brought in. Of the ancient version, the Peschito Syriac is perhaps the nearest, save the Philoxenian, which is closer still. Lachmann, in his early and later editions, punctuates the Greek correctly, but not the Vulgate, which may, if rightly divided, intend the true thought. Theophylact is more distinct than Theodoret or Chrysostom.
In 8:1 there is no need to say more than “a” chief point or summary. In 2 why “sanctuary” in text or “holy things” in margin? Surely it should be uniformly the holy [place] or holies here, ix. 8, 12, 24, and x. 19. A needless “and” is rightly excluded. In 4 the γάρ, “for,” of the Text. Rec. and Authorized Version yields to the οὖν of the Revisers, or rather of the best ancient witnesses. “If then he were on earth, he would not even be a priest, since there are those that offer the gifts according to law “; for here again the article is no more desirable in English than in Greek, though it might have been used in both. It is not that it is optional for the same shade of sense; on the contrary, it is due to exactness in expressing character rather than mere fact. But the Revisers seem not at all alive to this refinement in either language. It will be noticed that τῶν ἰέρεων of the Text. Rec. with its counterpart in the Authorized Version disappears as the mere gloss of inferior and later copies. Why “Testament” should be given in the margin of 8, 9, 10 is inconceivable, since the context, as well as the Hebrew, point only to “covenant.” It is quite a different case in ix. 16, 17; but even there neither before nor after, “testament” there too being quite wrong in the margin of 15 and 20. In 11 citizen or “fellow-citizen” is right on the best authority. There is no attempt at distinguishing the call to objective knowledge from the promise of inward knowledge or consciousness, though it has been often pointed out. The omission of “and their iniquities” or lawlessness is supported by but two great uncials (אp.m. B.) and two cursives (17, 23), but by almost all the ancient versions.
In 9:1 the Authorized Version did not follow the Text. Rec. in acknowledging σκηνή, Tabernacle. Like the Revisers it supplies “covenant.” No doubt the former was mistaken from 2. The rendering at the close in the Authorized Version is untenable; it should be, “the sanctuary a worldly one,” rather than the Revisers' form, “its sanctuary, a sanctuary of this world.” Mr. Green takes it as “the holy garniture,” which is at least grammatical. In 6-9 the present form is rightly given by the Revisers, “go in,” “offereth,” “hath not yet,” &c., “is yet,” “which (or, “the which") is,” “are offered,” “that cannot.” Again, is it correct to confound λατρεύειν with προσκνεῖν? No doubt λ. is not δουλεύειν, but divine service is the idea, and this whether of the Jew as here or of the Christian as in 14, 10:2. In the margin of 11 they give that strange reading of some old witnesses,” that are come,” the spiritual sense of most, no doubt, controlling the hard drivers of diplomatic authority. At the end of this verse they give properly “creation,” instead of “building,” as in the Authorized Version. But have they seized the true force of διά in 12? No one denies that the preposition from a local and temporal rises to a causal force, and so to accompaniments, mode, or manner, &c. In 15 it seems very questionable to say “a", death. The famous passage in 16, 17, is fairly rendered, though not so close as might be, and with an interrogation at the end which had better not have been. “Doth it ever avail,” &c., is poor. The validity or force is more suitable here. That the alternative of “covenant” in the margin should not enter this parenthetic digression is to my mind plain from the fact that death of the covenanter is needless to a covenant's validity, whereas it is essential to the operation of a will that the testator die; as is here expressly argued by the inspired writer. Before and after these two verses it is a question only of “covenant.” In 21 the Revisers rightly say with “the” blood, whereas in a general statement, as in 22, it is in English as in Greek anarthrous. In 24 “before the face of God” is more energetic. In 26 it is the consummation “of the ages,” not the equivocal and misleading end “of the world” as in Authorized Version. It was when the past dealings of God in all ways of moral trial conveyed that Christ died as a sacrifice for putting away of sin. The new heavens and earth throughout eternity will display this. 27 is feebler in the Revised than in the Authorized Version, “cometh” being quite uncalled for; judgment is as much the portion of men as once to die. Then comes in 28 what grace gives to faith in Christ once offered and to appear a second time. At His first coming He bore sins of many (not of all: else all would be saved, but of all believers); He will appear again to those that look for Him, as far as regards them apart from sin, unto salvation, i.e., of their bodies, then to be changed into the likeness of the body of His glory.
In 10:1 several obvious blunders of the Authorized Version are corrected: “the” coming good thing, “the same” sacrifices, they “offer.” But how rash to endorse in such a work “they can “! It is known that this plural form is supported by א A C Dcorr. P, and probably thirty or more cursives, &c., whereas the singular as in the Text. Rec. and with most critics has the suffrages of Dp.m., E H K L, and a fair number of cursives, some of the most ancient versions, &c. Of coarse in 2 our is read with an interrogation on the best and fullest authority: so Erasmus, Stephens, and all the modern critics, contrary to the Complutensian editors, Beza, and Elzevirs, who omit it with Hp.m., some cursives, some Latin copies (not the oldest), the Syriac, he., which Wiclif and the Rhemieh follow. “In them” would be quite enough in 3, and better than “in those sacrifices,” as in the Authorized and Revised Versions. In 4 “blood,” not “the” blood. In 5 rightly “didst thou prepare.” But why in 6 “sacrifices for sins?” Why not adhere to the Old Testament familiar “sin-offerings?” So of course in 8. In both the Peschito shows how soon the knowledge of scripture evaporated after the Apostles, for that venerable version actually confounds the burnt-offering with that for sin. I purposely quote from Etheridge, “entire burnt-offerings for sin Thou hast not required.... entire burnt-offerings for sins Thou hast not willed.” No offerings stood in more complete contrast than the holocaust and that for sin; and by this confusion also one loses the four classes here distinguished—burnt-offering, the minchah or unbloody corn oblation, the sacrifice of peace-offering, and the sin-offering. In 9, as in 7, it is “I am come,” not “I come” as in Authorized Version, and “O God” from the Text. Rec. is rightly dropt on the best authority. In 10 they correct the blunder of the Authorized Version, and read “once 'for all'“ without italics. In 12 it is rightly “he” (though it be οὗτος not αύτὸς), not “this man” as in the Authorized Version. But the connection of “forever” with the offering one sacrifice for sins, instead of with “sat down,” is an error of the first magnitude, common to Wiclif, the Rhemish, the Authorized Version, and the Revised Version, but not Tyndale, Cranmer, or Geneva. The sense of the phrase εὶς τὸ διηνεκές being continually or in perpetuity, rather than “forever,” is in its own nature incapable of being combined with the aorist, and can only go with such tenses as the present and perfect, which suppose continuance. To make the present construction orthodox, one must conceive some such ellipse “as [the efficacy of which lasts] forever,” which would be intolerable. The only party which the misrendering can serve is the sacerdotal one, which pretends to offer a continual sacrifice for the living and the dead; but in order to have the least real weight the Greek should have been προσφέρων, and we should have been landed back into the Judaism of verse 11, with which the Apostle is contrasting Christianity, which mainly depends on the completed act taught by προσενέγκας as in our verse. It is hardly possible to conceive a blunder in more direct issue with the entire teaching of this Epistle. It is evident that the Authorized Version is not justified in giving the same force “are sanctified” to ἡγιασμένοι ἐσμέν in 10 and to τοὺς ἀγισζομένους in 14. The Revisers rightly say in the one case “we have been sanctified,” and in the other “them that are sanctified,” not these that are (or were) being sanctified as in the analogous case of Acts 2:47, 1 Cor. 1:18, which we saw they happily forgot in 1 Cor. 15:2. There is a moral present, and not merely an historical one of actual time. O si sic omnia. The late Dean Alford, was consistently wrong in saying even here, in the face of 10, “them who are being sanctified.” Is there any need for marking the apodosis, formally at the end of 16, “then saith he?” “Before” is certainly wrong in 15. And why in 20 “by” the way? Why not. “the new and living way which he dedicated for us,” &o.? In 21 a great “priest” is right. But why “fullness” here and in vi. 11, when they gave in their text of Col. 2:2 “full assurance?” It is of course “hope” in 23. Would not 28 open more correctly thus, “When one set at naught Moses' law,” &c.? “A man that hath set,” he, offends against more than one point of importance. In 34 it is not as in Text. Rec. “of me in my bonds,” but on good authority “on those in bonds;” also ἰν of the Text Rec. disappears, and the true force is either “that ye yourselves,” &c., or “that ye have for yourselves,” according to the reading preferred. In 38 it is correctly “any righteous (or just) one.” It may not be needful to interpolate “one” or “any man:” but there is no real ground for inferring that the same man is meant. The Hebrew and the Septuagint exclude such a thought, and certainly the Apostle did not intend. differently. But the form differs according to Divine wisdom, to warn the Jewish professor who professed faith but might not live by it.
It is a nice question as to 9:1 whether ὑπόστασις here means grounded assurance as in 3:14, or substantiating which more approaches the older view. The Peschito's “realization” might express it best in this, as “demonstration” in εέγχος. In 2 ἐν τ. means “in virtue of this,” or “by it” briefly. In 3 the perfect is twice misrendered, by the Authorized Version. It should be “have been framed,” and “What is seen hath not come into being;” for the true reading is τὸ βλ. with the best authorities, not τὰ βλ. an accommodation to φ. which is in the plural. In 5 “he hath had testimony"... “that he had,” —not “he had"... “that he,” as in Authorized Version. It is also before “the” translation, not “his” as in Text Rec. In 6 it should be “draweth near” (προσερχ.), as usually, not “cometh” as in Revised Version, following Authorized Version. So also at the end of 10:1, where the Revisers have draw “nigh,” a rendering they give to ἐγγίζειν. Prepared “for” seems in our day better English than “to” in 7. In 8 “was going” is preferable to went, especially after ἐξπηλθεν just before. “Even” in 11 seems out of place; is it not “Sarah herself also?” Is not this a common mistake of the Revisers? “Even” is used properly where one means to express anything strange, as in 19; is this the idea here? They are right in excluding “and been persuaded of them,” an addition of Text. Rec. in 13—on the slenderest testimony. In 14 the Revisers render ἐπιζητοπυσιν, “seek after,” which is all well; but would it not have been better to have given “seek out,” not “after,” to ἐκζ. in 6? Here again in 17 we have twice over the confusion of προσφ. with ἀναφ. offering, and not offering “up.” In 26 it is “of,” not “in” Egypt; Lachmann with the Alexandrian copy reading Αὶγύτρου as the Text. Rec. has ἐν ψwas not needful to alter “for” into “concerning” in 40, as the Revisers render περί in 13:18.
In xii. 2 “faith,” or the faith, seems to be the thought, not our faith as in the Authorized and Revised Versions. The Revisers say “hath sat down” for κεκ., having given “sat down” for the ἐκαθ. in 1:2, 8:1, 10:12. The Authorized Version had said “is set” in 8:1 as well as in the passage before us, so that they do not seem to have distinguished on principle. But how was the Company persuaded into deserting ἑαυτόν or αὐτόν, accepted even by Alford, Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles, on ample authority? Was it not by the strong pressure of Cambridge admirers of paradox if it be only ancient? No doubt they can cite א D E, all p.m. with the same old Latin copies, the Pesch., &c. The resulting sense in this connection is not only inferior beyond comparison, but intolerable. 7 affords a remarkable departure from the Text. Rec. εἰ “if” for εἰς in the sense of “for.” “For chastening endure (or, better, ye are enduring); as with sons God is dealing with you.” The ancient MSS, and Versions remarkably consent against the text adopted by Erasmus, the Complutensian editors, Colinasus, Stephens, Beza, Elzevirs. Bengel, whose critical insight was great, here failed, thinking the true reading to be the slip of a Greek pen, though he was well aware that the widespread testimony of the old version told a different tale. Even Matthaei, who loved to fight Griesbach, was here compelled to reject the few minuscules and accept the united voice of antiquity; and of course Alford, Lachmann, Scholz, Tischendorf, and Tregelles follow. Is it sound to say that—if ye endure chastening God dealeth with you as with sons? Does His fatherly course depend on our patience? On the other hand, it is important to feel that we endure as chastening, not as punishment: οὐκ εἰς κόλασιν, οὐδὲ εἰς τιμωρίαν, as Chrysostom pertinently observes. It is as certain as such a thing can be that the text of his comment (Epp. Paulin. vii. 330, ed. Field, Oxon.) has been tampered with to make it accord with εἰ. The version of 10 is properly cleared of obsolete speech, save that “us” and “our” rather enfeeble the form. Ought not 11 to be “No chastening,” &c.?” — “The” many in 15 is a doubtful reading sustained by two great uncials and as many cursives, &c., against all the other authorities. Cf. Mark 9:26. In 17 the Revisers have by the parenthesis set out duly the true meaning. It was not repentance, but the inheritance of blessing which Esau sought out with tears. In 18 the Revisers omit ὄρει on fuller evidence than their insertion in 15; but they supply it from 20 in the general sense instead of adopting Mr. Green's singular turn, “to a fire to be touched and glowing.” If the true meaning of παρητήσαντο in 19 had been borne in mind,” deprecated,” “declined,” “excused” (see 25), it would perhaps make the absence of μή more probable as in א P, 10, 73, &c. Of course the last clause of 20 in the Text. Rec. is dropt. In 22, 23 the Revisers have failed to give the true connection, καί really indicating each new object, and consequently misrepresented the sense of this weighty passage. The myriads of angels are the general assembly, and “church of firstborn ones” are a new and wholly distinct group, here confounded with παρηγύρει, which really goes with ἀγγέλων. How absurd to connect, as the margin does, a Mediator with a testament! With a covenant it is all right. And why “than that of Abel?” According to 11:4 it is Abel, as it were, speaking in his blood or death; παρὰ τό in L. and others, but it seems a mere gloss for facility. In 26 it should be “I will shake” instead of the present in the Text. Rec. In 28 there is strong and abundant testimony for “we serve,” where the Revisers rightly cleave to the common text.
(To be continued)