聖書注解書

使徒は、手紙を書いたヘブル人たちがレビの制度に不思議なほど愛着を持っていたことをよく知っていた。それゆえ彼らをそれから離れさせるための論拠で口を満たした。そしてそのために、この章において次のように進める。Ⅰ. その祭司職といけにえの全体を低く置く（Heb 10:1-6）。Ⅱ. 彼らにキリストとその福音を効果的に勧めるために、キリストの祭司職を非常に高く上げる（Heb 10:7-18）。Ⅲ. 信者たちにその状態の誉れと尊厳を示し、ふさわしい務めに召す（Heb 10:19-39）。

章の分析

本章Hebrews 10の全体的な主題は、キリストが罪のためにささげられたいけにえと、彼が十分な贖罪を成し遂げられたという事実から流れ出る結果である。第9章において使徒は、ユダヤの儀式が一時的で型的なものとして意図されていたこと、またあの摂理の時代の下でささげられたささげ物は決して罪を取り除けないことを示していた。本章において彼は、罪が赦され得る本物のいけにえがささげられたこと、そしてその事実からいくつかのきわめて重要な結果が従うことを示す。「いけにえ」という主題は、ユダヤの体制の最も重要な部分であり、またキリスト教の摂理の時代における本質的な事柄でもあった。それゆえ、使徒はこれほど長くわたってこの主題にとどまっているのである。本章は次の諸主題を含む。

一. 使徒は、律法の下でささげられたいけにえの無効性について、以前に言ったことを繰り返すHebrews 10:1-4。律法は来たるべき良いものの単なる影にすぎず、その下でささげられたいけにえは、それをささげる者を決して完全にすることができなかった。これは、それらが絶えずささげられ続けていたという事実によって決定的に立証されていた。

二. これがそれらのいけにえに関する事実であった以上、福音において、贖い主によってより良いささげ物が備えられていたHebrews 10:5-10。このわざのために、からだが彼のために備えられていた。また、神が律法の下のささげ物に喜びを持たれないと言われたとき、キリストは来られ、罪のための効力ある贖罪がなされるように、そのからだをただ一度だけささげられた。

三. 使徒はこの趣旨をさらに、この一つの大いなるささげ物が罪の赦しとどのように結びついているかを示すことによって解き明かすHebrews 10:11-18。ユダヤの摂理の時代の下では、いけにえは毎日繰り返しささげられた。しかしキリスト教の体制の下では、いけにえが一度ささげられると、それをささげた方は、その大いなるわざが成し遂げられたので、神の右に永遠に着座された。これをなされて後、彼は、自分のわざが完全な効力を持つ時、自分の敵が足台とされる時を見つめられた。これがメシアのささげるささげ物の効果であるべきことは、使徒が次に、聖書それ自体から示すところである。そこでは、福音の下では神の律法が心に書き記され、罪はもはや思い出されないと言われているエレミヤ31:33-34。それゆえ、これが確保される何らかの道があるに違いないと、使徒は推論した。そしてそれが、十字架上の大いなるいけにえによってである。このいけにえは、聖化された者たちを永遠に完全にする効果を持っていた。

四. そのような贖罪がなされたということ、罪のための一つの大いなるささげ物が、繰り返されることのないものとして神にささげられたということが事実である以上、そこから従ういくつかの結果があり、使徒はそれを述べるへと進むHebrews 10:19-25。それらは次のとおりである。

(a) 信仰の完全な確信をもって神に近づく特権Hebrews 10:22。

(b) 揺らぐことなく信仰の告白をしっかり保つ義務Hebrews 10:23。

(c) 忠実さと善いわざへとたがいに励まし合う義務Hebrews 10:24。

(d) 公の礼拝のために集まる義務。彼らは天に大祭司を持ち、今や神に近づくことができるのだからHebrews 10:25。

五. 神的ないのちにおける忠実さのための、また十字架上の一つのいけにえを通して今なされたあわれみの提供を受け入れるための「理由」として、使徒は、その贖罪を退けることから、とりわけ真理を知らされた後にそれを退けることから、「必然的に」従う結果を促すHebrews 10:26-31。その結果は、と彼は言う、確実な滅びに違いない。それが退けられるなら、恐るべき審判の期待のほかに何も残らない。救いの他の道はないからである。これを支持するために、使徒は、モーセの律法の下での不従順の結果がどうであったかに言及し、福音のより大きな光の下では、さらにいっそう恐るべき結果が従わなければならないと言う。

六. 本章はHebrews 10:32-39を、忠実さと忍耐への勧めをもって閉じる。使徒は、書き送った人々に、彼らがすでに耐え忍んだことを思い起こさせ、彼らがすでに成したこと、とりわけ彼に示された親切さによって彼らを励まし、彼らに必要なのは忍耐だけであること、すべての試練からの救出の時は遠くないこと——来られるべき方が来られるからである——を言い、信仰によって生きることが彼らの義務であるが、もし人が退くなら、神はその者に喜びを持たれ得ないと言う。本章の終わりでこうして信仰という主題に言及したので、彼は次の章でその価値を詳しく解き明かすへと進む。全体の目的は、キリスト者を救いのために精力的な努力へと励まし、背教の危険から彼らを守り、試練を忍耐をもって、神のみこころに従って忍ぶように勧めることにある。

The insufficiency of the legal sacrifices to take away sin, Hebrews 10:1-4. The purpose and will of God, as declared by the Psalmist, relative to the salvation of the world by the incarnation of Christ; and our sanctification through that will, Hebrews 10:5-10. Comparison between the priesthood of Christ and that of the Jews, Hebrews 10:11-14. The new covenant which God promised to make, and the blessings of it, Hebrews 10:15-17. The access which genuine believers have to the holiest by the blood of Jesus, Hebrews 10:18-20. Having a High Priest over the Church of God, we should have faith, walk uprightly, hold fast our profession, exhort and help each other, and maintain Christian communion, Hebrews 10:21-25. The danger and awful consequences of final apostasy, Hebrews 10:26-31. In order to our perseverance, we should often reflect on past mercies, and the support afforded us in temptations and afflictions; and not cast away our confidence, for we shall receive the promise if we patiently fulfill the will of God, Hebrews 10:32-37. The just by faith shall live; but the soul that draws back shall die, Hebrews 10:38. The apostle's confidence in the believing Hebrews, Hebrews 10:39.

INTRODUCTION TO Hebrews 10

In this chapter the apostle pursues his argument, showing the weakness and imperfection of the Levitical priesthood, and the superior excellency of Christ's, which he closes with suitable exhortations to faith on Christ, as the alone high priest, and to a constant profession of him. The imperfection of the Levitical priesthood is proved, from the law by which it was established, being only a shadow of good things to come; from the insufficiency of annual sacrifices to perfect the comers to them, or to purge the consciences of the worshippers from sin; and from the non-cessation of these sacrifices which would have been, if the above ends could have been answered by them, Hebrews 10:1, but on the contrary, by the annual return of these sacrifices, sins are afresh remembered, and very good reason there is for it, since it is an impossible thing that the blood of slain beasts should take away sin, Hebrews 10:3 moreover, the apostle proves the insufficiency of such sacrifices, by a divine testimony, out of Psalm 40:6 by which it appears, that they are not agreeable to the will of God, and are rejected by him as useless, Hebrews 10:5 and this leads the apostle to discourse of the excellency of Christ's sacrifice above them; that they are taken away, and his is substituted in their room; that as they are not agreeable to the will of God, his is a fulfilment of it; that though they could not expiate sin, yet by the offering up of the body of Christ, once for all, his people are sanctified, or their sins are expiated, Hebrews 10:9 and this is further illustrated by a comparison between the priests under the law, and Christ; they were many, he but one; they daily offered the same sacrifices, he offered but one sacrifice; theirs could not take away sin, by his offering he has perfectly expiated the sins of his people; they stood daily ministering, their work being never at an end; he is set down at the right hand of God, expecting his enemies to be made his footstool, having done his work to perfection, Hebrews 10:11 and that legal sacrifices are ceased, and no more to be used, is proved by a testimony of the Holy Ghost, out of Jeremiah 31:33 relating to the covenant of grace, among the promises of which stands that of the forgiveness of sin; from whence the apostle justly concludes, that where remission of sin is, there is, and there needs no more offering for it, Hebrews 10:15 and from hence, the apostle passes to exhortations to the exercise of grace, and discharge of duty, which he strongly urges from the consideration of Christ's priesthood, and the efficacy of it: and first, he presses them to the duty of prayer, to draw nigh to God to the throne of his grace. The manner in which he would have them approach to God, is in the sincerity of their hearts, in a plerophory of faith, an high and full exercise of it, and impurity of soul and body: the motives or encouragements to it are taken from their having boldness and liberty to enter by faith into heaven itself with their prayers, through the blood of Jesus; from there being a new and living way opened for them through, the flesh of Christ; and from their having such an high priest over the house of God as he is, Hebrews 10:19, and next he exhorts them to a constant and steadfast profession of their faith, to which he animates them by the faithfulness of a promising God, who will never leave nor forsake his people, Hebrews 10:23 and then to consider one another in their church relation, and to stir up one another to the exercise of the grace of love, and to the performance of good works, Hebrews 10:24, and also not to forsake their public assemblies, as was the custom of some, but to exhort each other to greater diligence in attending there, especially since they might observe that a time of great tribulation was at hand, Hebrews 10:25 and in order to deter from apostasy, which is expressed by a sinning wilfully, after a man has received and professed the knowledge of the truth, the apostle observes that the destruction of such is inevitable; since there never will be another propitiatory sacrifice offered up, and therefore there can be no other than a dreadful expectation of an awful judgment, and of the wrath of God, which, like a consuming fire, will destroy such adversaries of Christ, Hebrews 10:26 the justice of which is argued from the less to the greater; that if the transgressors of the law of Moses had no mercy shown them, but died when there were proper and sufficient witnesses of their crimes, then such must be deserving of a far greater punishment, who treat with the greatest rudeness the person of the Son of God, and his precious blood, and with the greatest contempt the person and grace of the Holy Spirit, Hebrews 10:28, and such persons have reason to expect the vengeance of God will fall on them, since it is threatened them in the word of God, Deuteronomy 32:35 and a dreadful thing it is to fall into his hands, Hebrews 10:30. But in order to encourage these believing Hebrews to hold on and out unto the end, the apostle puts them in mind of their good beginning, how well they set out, and how bravely they behaved, by bearing afflictions and reproaches themselves; by being the companions of those that were afflicted and reproached; by having compassion on the apostle when in bonds; and by cheerfully suffering the loss of their goods upon this consideration, that they had in heaven a better and a more enduring substance, Hebrews 10:32 wherefore it would be exceeding wrong and very unbecoming, after all this, to drop their faith and a profession of it, which otherwise would issue in the enjoyment of the great recompense of reward, Hebrews 10:35 and as patience is necessary, it is right to exercise it under sufferings for Christ's sake, partly because it is doing the will of God, and partly because that after that is done, such shall receive the promised happiness; and what may serve the more to engage to the exercise of it is, it is but a little while and Christ will come and put an end to all the sufferings of his people, Hebrews 10:36 and that faith should be in exercise, is proved from a divine testimony, Habakkuk 2:4 and so must be pleasing to God, when the contrary is highly resented by him, Hebrews 10:38 and now, lest the believing Hebrews should conclude from all this that the apostle suspected them as going into apostasy, he declares his belief, that he and they were not in the number of apostates, but of believers, whose souls would be saved, Hebrews 10:39.

X.

The latter part of the ninth chapter was an expansion of Hebrews 10:11-12. In particular, Hebrews 10:23-28 have been occupied with the theme, “Christ entered once for all into the Holy Place, having won eternal redemption.” The repeated offerings presented by the high priests have been contrasted with the sacrifice which He has offered. To this thought the opening verses of this chapter attach themselves, explaining more fully the inefficacy of the one, the power and virtue of the other. Gradually the main thoughts of the preceding chapters are gathered up, and the last and chief division of the argument of the Epistle is brought to a close in Hebrews 10:18.

Ch. 10. The first eighteen verses of this chapter are a summary, rich with fresh thoughts and illustrations, of the topics on which he has been dwelling; namely (1) The one sacrifice of Christ compared with the many Levitic sacrifices (1–10). (2) The perfectness of His finished work (11–18). The remainder of the chapter is occupied with one of the earnest exhortations (19–25) and solemn warnings (25–31), followed by fresh appeals and encouragements (32–39), by which the writer shews throughout that his object in writing is not speculative or theological, but essentially practical and moral.

CHAPTER 10

Hebrews 10:1 reads in the Recepta: Σκιὰν γὰρ ἔχων ὁ νόμος τῶν μελλόντων ἀγαθῶν, οὐκ αὐτὴν τὴν εἰκόνα τῶν πραγμάτων, κατʼ ἐνιαυτὸν ταῖς αὐταῖς θυσίαις, ἃς προσφέρουσιν εἰς τὸ διηνεκές, οὐδέποτε δύναται τοὺς προσερχομένους τελειῶσαι. Instead thereof, Lachm. takes the words Σκιὰν … πραγμάτων as an independent clause, placing a full stop after πραγμάτων. He then, in the stereotype edition, omits the relative before προσφέρουσιν,—while in the larger edition he has again added the ἅς of the Recepta before this verb,—places a comma after προσφἐρουσιν, and writes δύνανται in place of δύναται. This punctuation and form of the text given by Lachm. is in all essential respects to be unhesitatingly rejected. In connection with the breaking off of the opening words of the verse into an independent statement, ἐστίν must be supplemented to ἔχων. Such supplementing, however, would be altogether opposed to the linguistic character of the Epistle to the Hebrews; moreover, it would remain inexplicable, from the very brevity of the clause, how the participle ἔχων should come to be written for the finite tense ἔχει, which naturally suggests itself. In addition to this, the joining to that which precedes by means of γάρ would occasion a difficulty, and the clause following would become an asyndeton. Besides, this following clause, in the absence of any connecting relative, would not even comply with the laws of grammar. The relative before προσφέρουσιν is wanting in A, 2, 7* 17, 47, Syr. utr. Arm., and A** 31, Syr. Philonex. then insert αἵ before old οὐδέποτε. Instead of the Recepta ἃς προσφέρ. there is found, however, in D* L (?), 73, 137, in an ancient fragment with Matthaei, which Tisch., in the edit. 7 (comp. Pars I. p. cxci.), has designated as N, with Theodoret, as well as in a MS. of Chrysostom and in the Latin version of D E: αἷς προσφέρ., and the latter is preferred by Bleek, Tisch. and Alford. Yet the Recepta ἅς, which is supported by C D*** E (?) K א, the majority of the cursives, and many Fathers, is to be defended. Since the three words immediately preceding end in αις, ἅς might easily also be changed into αἷς. The Recepta δύναται, finally, is attested by D (* and *) E K L, very many cursives, Vulg. It. Copt, al., Chrys. Theodoret (text), Oecum. (comm.) al., while the plural δύνανται (preferred also by Tisch. 1, and already placed by Griesbach upon the inner margin) is presented by A C D א, about thirty cursives, Syr. al., Chrys. (codd.) Theodoret (comm.?), Damasc. Theophyl. al. But the plural is devoid of sense, and can on that account be regarded only as a transcriber’s error, which was occasioned by the foregoing plural προσφέρουσιν.

Hebrews 10:2. Ἐπεὶ οὐκ ἂν ἐπαύσαντο] Elz.: ἐπεὶ ἂν ἐπαύσαντο. Against the decisive authority of all uncial mss., of most cursives, vss. and Fathers.

The preference to the Recepta κεκαθαρμένους is deserved by κεκαθαρισμένους (approved by Grotius, Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 8, Delitzsch, Alford), as better attested. In favour of κεκαθαρισμένους pleads not only the testimony of D E K א, 23** 37, 39, al., but also the form which in A C has arisen as a transcriber’s error from the same κεκαθερισμένους, which latter Lachm. has adopted.

Hebrews 10:6. Recepta here and Hebrews 10:8 : εὐδόκησας. Better attested, however, here (by A C D* E, the early fragment in Matth. al.) and Hebrews 10:8 (by A D* [E?], al., Cyr. Theodoret) is the reading, chosen by Lachm. Tisch. and Alford, as also approved by Delitzsch: ηὐδόκησας.

Hebrews 10:8. In place of the Recepta θυσίαν καὶ προσφοράν, Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford rightly read the plural: θυσίας καὶ προσφοράς, in accordance with A C D* א* 17, 23, 57, al., Vulg. It. Syr. Copt. Sahid. Arab. Erp. Cyril. Already commended to attention by Griesbach. The singular is a later change, with a view to its conformation to Hebrews 10:5.

In like manner we have, with Lachm. and Tisch., to delete τόν, which the Recepta adds before νόμον, as not being found in A C, א, 37, 46, 71, 73, al., Sahid. Cyril, Chrys. Theodoret. The insertion of the article was more easily possible than its rejection.

Hebrews 10:9. τοῦ ποιῆσαι] Elz.: τοῦ ποιῆσαι, ὁ θεός. Against A C D E K א* 17, 39, 46, al. mult. It. Copt, al., ὁ θεός is a complementary addition from Hebrews 10:7. Rightly deleted by Griesbach, Lachm. Scholz, Bleek, de Wette, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford, Reiche.

Hebrews 10:10. Instead of the mere διά in the Recepta, Matthaei and Tisch. 2 and 7 read, after the precedent of the Edd. Complutens. Erasm. Colin. Stephan.: οἱ διά. Bloomfield places οἱ within brackets. But οἱ (sc. ἡγιασμένοι) is wanting in A C D* E* א, 31, 47, al., Chrys. Theodoret, and owes its origin to an error of the eye, in that the termination σμένοι in ἡγιασμένοι gave rise to the writing of ἐσμὲν οἱ.

In place of τοῦ σώματος in the Recepta, D* E, with their Latin translation, have τοῦ αἵματος. Mistaken emendation, since τοῦ σώματος, Hebrews 10:10, was chosen in manifest correspondence to the citation σῶμα δὲ κατηρτίσω μοι, Hebrews 10:5.

Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ] Elz.: τοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. But the article has against it the testimony of all the uncials, many cursives and Fathers, and is rightly rejected by Griesbach, Matthaei, Scholz, Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford.

Hebrews 10:11. Elz. Griesbach, Matthaei, Scholz, Tisch. 2, 7, and 8, Bloomfield, Reiche read: πᾶς μὲν ἱερεύς. Defended also by Böhme, Tholuck, and Delitzsch. The preference, however, is deserved by the reading: πᾶς μὲν ἀρχιερεύς, which is furnished by A C, 31, 37, 46, al., Syr. utr. (yet in the Philonex. with an asterisk) Basm. Aeth. Arm. Theodoret (text), Cyril Euthal. al., was already adopted in the Editt. Complut. Plantin. Genev., and more recently has been restored by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1, and Alford. If the ordinary Levitical priests had been intended, οἱ ἱερεῖς would, as is rightly observed by Bleek, have been written instead of πᾶς ἱερεύς, since each single Levitical priest had by no means daily to offer sacrifice. Less unsuitable, on the other hand, is the statement of the daily presentation of sacrifice in regard to the high priest, since that which was true of the Levitical priests in general could indeed be ascribed to the high priest as the head and representative of the same. In any case we have here, at the close of the argument, and because of the parallel with the person of Christ, to expect not so much the mention of the ordinary Jewish priest, as the mention of the Jewish high priest. The reading: πᾶς μὲν ἱερεύς, is therefore to be looked upon as a later correction, made on account of the following καθʼ ἡμέραν, since this stood in apparent contradiction to πᾶς μὲν ἀρχιερεύς.

Hebrews 10:12. οὗτος δέ] Elz. Matthaei, Tisch. 2 and 7, Bloomfield: αὐτὸς δέ. But οὗτος δέ (recommended by Griesbach; adopted by Lachm. Bleek, Scholz, Tisch. 1 and 8, Alford, Reiche; approved also by Delitzsch) is demanded by the preponderating authority of A C D* E א, 67** 80, 116, al., Syr. utr. Arr. Copt. Basm. Aeth. Arm. It. Vulg. al., Chrys. Cyr. Damasc. al.

Instead of the Recepta: ἐν δεξιᾷ, Lachm. had written in the stereotype edition: ἐκ δεξιῶν, which, however, is only feebly attested by A, 31 (א* has ἐκ δεξιᾷ, which by א*** was changed into ἐν δεξιᾷ). Rightly, therefore, has Lachm. returned in his larger edition to the Recepta.

Hebrews 10:15. μετὰ γὰρ τὸ εἰρηκέναι] Elz. Matth. Scholz, Tisch. 2 and 7, Bloomfield, Reiche: μετὰ γὰρ τὸ προειρηκέναι. Against decisive witnesses (A C D E א, l7, 31, 47, al. m. Syr. utr. Arr. Copt. Basm. Aeth. It. Vulg. Chrys. Theoph. Ambrose, Sedul.). Already held suspected by Griesbach.

Hebrews 10:16. Elz. Griesbach, Matthaei, Scholz, Tisch. 2 and 7, Bloomfield, Alford, Reiche: ἐπὶ τῶν διανοιῶν, after D** and *** E K L, most cursives and vss., Chrys. Theodoret, al., Ambrose, al. On the other hand, A C D* א, 17, 31, 47, al., Vulg. (Amiat. Havlej.* Tolet.) have: ἐπὶ τὴν διάνοιαν. Approved by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 and 8, and probably the original reading.

Hebrews 10:17. Elz. Matthaei, Scholz, Bloomfield: μνησθῶ. More correctly, Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford, after A C D* E א* Hebrews 17: μνησθήσομαι, which Griesbach has placed upon the inner margin. μνησθῶ was carried over from Hebrews 8:12.

Hebrews 10:22. Recepta: ἐῤῥαντισμένοι. After A C D* א* Lachm. writes: ῥεραντισμένοι, Tisch. and Alford: ῥεραντισμένοι.

Hebrews 10:29. The words ἐν ᾧ ἡγιάσθη are deleted by Lachm. in the stereotype edition; but are rightly, since they are omitted only by A and Chrysostom, retained by him in the larger edition.

Hebrews 10:30. The addition following ἀνταποδώσω in the Recepta: λέγει κύριος, is rejected by Tisch. 1, 2, and 8, after D* א* 17, 23* 67** Vulg. It. Copt. Syr. Aeth. Arab. Erp. Ambr. Bede, and is regarded by Mill (Prolegg. 496), Bengel, Griesbach, and others as probably a gloss. Bloomfield encloses it within brackets. It is nevertheless protected by A D*** E K L א*** etc., Syr. Philonex. al., and many Fathers. Rightly, therefore, has it been received again by Tisch. into the edit. vii. Delitzsch, Alford, and Reiche also have lately decided in favour of its genuineness.

The Recepta κύριος κρινεῖ we have, with Lachm. Tisch. and Alford, after A D E K א* 31, 73, al., Vulg. It. Syr. utr. Aeth. Theodoret (semel), to transpose into κρινεῖ κύριος. Bleek and Delitzsch read, after D E, 55, 71, Vulg. It. Theodoret (sem.): ὅτι κρινεῖ κύριος. Quite similarly, LXX. Deuteronomy 32:36; Psalm 135:14.

Hebrews 10:34. τοῖς δεσμίοις] Thus we have to read, with Griesbach, Lachm. Scholz, Bleek, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford, Reiche, and others, after A D* [as Cod. B breaks off at Hebrews 9:14, so also Hebrews 10:24 to Hebrews 12:15 is wanting in Cod. C] 47, 67** 73, al, Syr. utr. Arab. Erpen. Copt. Arm. Vulg. Chrys. Antioch. Damasc. Theodoret (comm.), Oecum. (comm.) Pelag. Ambrose, al. From τοῖς δεσμίοις arose, by a slip on the part of the copyist, τοῖς δεσμοῖς, which is found with Origen, Exhort. ad martyr. 44, and to which the vinculis eorum of the Latin translation in D E corresponds; while, then, τοῖς δεσμοῖς was completed by means of a gloss into the Recepta, still defended by Matthaei, Bloomfield, M‘Caul, and Hofmann: τοῖς δεσμοῖς μου (D*** E K L א, etc.), in that Paul was regarded as the author of the epistle, and thus was found expressed an acknowledgment of the sympathy manifested by the Palestinian Christians towards himself during his imprisonment.

In that which follows, the reading: ἔχειν ἑαυτοῖς, very strongly confirmed by D E K L, almost sixty cursives, Chrys. Theodoret, Isidor. iii. 225, Damasc. Theoph., already adopted into the Editt. Complut. Erasm. 1, Steph. 1 and 2, and later preferred by Bengel, Griesbach, Matthaei, Knapp, Scholz, Tisch. 2 and 7, Delitzsch, Alford, Reiche, is to be held the original one, inasmuch as from this reading the rise, as well of the Recepta: ἔχειν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς (which, as it would seem, rests only upon a few cursives), as also of the reading afforded by A א, four cursives, the early fragment in Matthaei, Vulg. It. al., and followed by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1 and Hebrews 8 : ἔχειν ἑαυτούς, is to be explained.

The addition: ἐν οὐρανοῖς after ὕπαρξιν in the Recepta is wanting in A D* א* 17, in the early fragment with Matthaei in the text, in Copt. Aeth. Vulg. It., with Clem. Al. Bed., and stands with Theodoret only after μένουσαν. Elucidatory gloss, suspected by Mill (Prolegg. 1208) and Griesbach, rightly rejected by Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. Delitzsch, Alford.

Hebrews 10:35. Recepta: μισθαποδοσίαν μεγάλην. With Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. 1, 7, and 8, Alford, we have to transpose into μεγάλην μισθαποδοσίαν, after A D E א, the early fragment in Matthaei, 73, 116, al., Clem. Al. Orig. Eus. It. Vulg. Copt. al.

Hebrews 10:38. The Recepta omits the μον, which is found in most MSS. of the LXX. after πίστεως. D* Syr. utr. Copt., the Latin version in D E, Eus. Theodoret (alic.), Cypr. Jerome have it after πίστεως. On the other hand, it is found after δίκαιος in A א, Arm. Vulg., in the early fragment with Matthaei by the first hand, with Clem. Al. Eus. (alic.) Theodoret (alic.), Proc. Sedul. Bed. Lachm. Bleek, Tisch. and Alford have adopted it at this latter place, and probably the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews so read, inasmuch as it is found with the LXX. at this place in Cod. A.