Hebrews 7

Hebrews 7:1-99

The first paragraph (7:1-3), which is one long sentence in Greek, applies and expands εἰςτὸναἰῶνα , the first note of Melchizedek’ s priesthood being that it is perpetual, thus typifying the priesthood of Jesus. The next is (7:4-10), that it is prior and superior to the levitical priesthood; this is implied in the former claim, but the writer works it out fancifully from the allusion to tithes.

20 There Jesus entered for us in advance, when he became highpriest “ for ever with the rank of Melchizedek.” 1For “ Melchizedek, the king of Salem, a priest of the Most High God,” who “ met Abraham on his return from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him” — 2 who had “ a tenth part of everything” assigned him by Abraham— this Melchizedek is primarily a “ king of righteousness” (that is the meaning of his name); then, besides that, “ king of Salem” (which means, king of peace). 3 He has neither father nor mother nor genealogy, neither a beginning to his days nor an end to his life, but, resembling the Son of God, continues to be “ priest” permanently.

This paragraph and that which follows (vv. 4-10) are another little sermon, this time on the story of Gen 14:18-20. In 6:20-7:3 the writer starts from the idea that Jesus is ἀρχιερεὺςεἰςτὸναἰῶνακατὰτὴντάξινΜελχισεδέκ , and shows how the Melchizedek priesthood was εἰςτὸναἰῶνα , i.e. explaining Psalms 110:4 from Genesis 14:18-20. Εἰσῆλθεν in 6:20 is explained later, in 9:12f. Πρόδρομος recalls ἀρχηγός (2:10), with its suggestion of pioneering. The term is only used in the LXX of the days ἔαρος , πρόδρομοισταφυλῆς (Numbers 13:22), or of early fruit (ὡςπρόδρομοςσύκου , Isaiah 28:4); the present sense occurs, however, in Wis 12:8, where wasps or hornets are called the πρόδρομοι of God’ s avenging host. The thought here is of Christ entering heaven as we are destined to do, after him, once like him (5:9) we are “ perfected.” Vv.1-3 in ch. 7 are another of the writer’ s long sentences: οὗτοςὁΜελχισεδέκ … μένειἱερεὺςεἰςτὸδιηνεκές is the central thought, but the subject is overloaded with quotations and comments, including a long μέν … δέ clause. The length of the sentence and the difficulty of applying μένειἱερεὺςεἰςτὸδιηνεκές to Melchizedek have led some editors to make Jesus the subject of the sentence: οὗτος (Jesus) γὰρμένειἱερεὺςεἰςτὸναἰῶνα . But the οὗτος , as v. 4 shows, is Melchizedek, and the theory is wrecked upon v. 8, for it is quite impossible to take ἐκεῖκτλ . as “ in the upper sanctuary there is One of whom the record is that He lives.” There is a slight but characteristic freedom at the very outset in the use of the story, e.g. in ὁσυναντήσαςκτλ .

The story implies this, but does not say it. It was the king of Sodom who ἐξῆλθενεἰςσυνάντησιναὐτῷμετὰτὸὑποστρέψαιαὐτὸνἀπὸτῆςκοπῆς , but as Melchizedek is immediately said to have brought the conquering hero bread and wine, our writer assumed that he also met Abraham.

An interesting example of the original reading being preserved in an inferior group of MSS is afforded by ὁσυναντήσας (C* L P). The variant ὄςσυναντήσας (א A B C2 D K W 33. 436. 794. 1831. 1837. 1912), which makes a pointless anacolouthon, was due to the accidental reduplication of C , though attempts have been made to justify this reading by assuming an anacolouthon in the sentence, or a parenthesis in ὅς … Ἀβραάμ , or carelessness on the part of the writer who began with a relative and forgot to carry on the proper construction. Some curious homiletic expansions have crept into the text of vv.1, 2. After βασιλέων two late minuscules (456, 460) read ὅτιἐδίωξεντοὺςἀλλοφύλουςκαὶἐξείλατοΛὼτμετὰπάσηςαἰχμαλωσίας , and after αὐτόν , D* vt 330. 440. 823 put καὶεὐλογησθεὶςὑπ ʼ αὐτοῦ . The latter is another (cp. 11:23) of the glosses which were thrown up by the Latin versions.

In v. 2 ἐμέρισεν is substituted for the ἔδωκεν of the LXX (which reappears in v. 4), in order to make it clear that Abraham’ s gift was a sort of tithe. Tithes were not paid by the Hebrews from spoils of war; this was a pagan custom. But such is the interpretation of the story in Philo, e.g. in his fragment on Genesis 14:18 (Fragments of Philo, ed. J. Rendel Harris, p. 72); τὰγὰρτοῦπολέμουἀριστεῖαδίδωσιτῷἱερεῖκαὶτὰςτῆςνίκηςἀπαρχάς . ἱεροπρεπεστάτηδὲκαὶἁγιωτάτηπασῶνἀπαρχῶνἡδεκάτηδιὰτὸπαντέλειονεἶναιτὸνἀριθμόν , ἀφ ʼ οὗκαὶτοῖςἱερεῦσικαὶνεωκόροιςαἱδεκάταιπροστάξεινόμουκαρπῶνκαὶθρεμμάτωνἀποδίδονται , ἄρξαντοςτῆςἀπαρχῆςἈβραάμ , ὃςκαὶτοῦγένουςἀρχηγέτηςἐστίν . Or again in de congressu, 17, where he describes the same incident as Abraham offering God τὰςδεκάταςχαριστήριατῆςνίκης .

The fantastic interpretation of the Melchizedek episode is all the writer’ s own. What use, if any, was made of Melchizedek in pre-Christian Judaism, is no longer to be ascertained. Apparently the book of Jubilees contained a reference to this episode in Abraham’ s career, but it has been excised for some reason (see R. H. Charles’ note on Jub 13:25). Josephus makes little of the story (Ant. i. 10. 2).

He simply recounts how, when Abraham returned from the rout of the Assyrians, ἀπήντησεδ ʼ αὐτῷὸτῶνΣοδομιτῶνβασιλεὺςεἰςτόποντινὰὃνκαλοῦσιΠεδίονβασιλικόν · ἔνθαὁτῆςΣολυμᾶπόλεωςὑποδέχεταιβασιλεὺςαὐτὸνΜελχισεδέκης . σημαίνειδὲτοῦτοβασιλεὺςδίκαιος · καὶἧνδὲτοιοῦτοςὁμολογουμένως , ὡςδιὰταύτηναὐτὸντὴναἰτίανκαὶἱερέαγινέσθαιτοῦθεοῦ . τὴνμέντοιΣολυμᾶὕστερονἐκάλεσανἹεροσόλυμα . ἐχορήγησεδὲοὗτοςὁΜελχισεδέκηςτῷἈβράμουστρατῷξένιακαὶπολλὴνἀφθονίαντῶνἐπιτηδείωνπαρέσχε , καὶπαρὰτὴνεὐωχίαναὐτὸντ ʼ ἐπαινεῖνἤρξατοκαὶτὸνθεὸνεὐλογεῖνὑποχειρίουςαὐτῷποιήσαντατοὺςἐχθροὺς . Ἀβράμουδὲδιδόντοςκαὶτὴνδεκάτηντῆςλείαςαὐτῷ , προσδέχεταιτὴνδόσινκτλ . In the later Judaism, however, more interest was taken in Melchizedek (cp.

M. Friedlä nder in Revue des É tudes Juives, v. pp. 1f.). Thus some applied the 110th psalm to Abraham (Mechilta on Exodus 15:7, r. Gen. 55:6,), who was ranked as the priest after the order of Melchizedek, while Melchizedek was supposed to have been degraded because he (Genesis 14:19) mentioned the name of Abraham before that of God! This, as Bacher conjectures, represented a protest against the Christian view of Melchizedek (Agada der Tannaiten2, i. p. 259). It denotes the influence of ΠρὸςἙβραίους . Philo, as we might expect, had already made more of the episode than Josephus, and it is Philo’ s method of interpretation which gives the clue to our writer’ s use of the story. Thus in Leg.

Alleg. iii. 25, 26 he points out (a) that Μελχισεδὲκβασιλέατετῆςεὶρἡνης — Σαλὴμτοῦτογὰρὲρμηνεύεται — καὶἱερέαἑαυτοῦπεποίηκεν 1 ὁθεός (in Genesis 14:18), and allegorizes the reference into a panegyric upon the peaceful, persuasive influence of the really royal mind. He then (b) does the same with the sacerdotal reference. Ἀλλ ʼ ὀμὲνΜελχισεδὲκἀντἰὕδατοςοἶνονπροσφερέτωκαὶποτιζέτωκαὶἀκρατιζέτωψυχάς , ἵνακατάσχετοιγένωνταιθείᾳμέθῃνηφαλεωτέρᾳνήψεωςαὐτῆς . ἱερεὺςγάρἑστιλόγοςκλῆρονἔχωντὸνὄντακαὶὑψηλῶςπερἰαὐτοῦκαὶὑπερόγκωςκαὶμεγαλοπρεπῶςλογιζόμενος · τοῦγὰρὐψίστουἐστὶνἰερεύς , quoting Genesis 14:18 and hastening to add, οὐχὅτιἐστίτιςἄλλοςοὐχὕψιστος . Philo points out thus the symbolism of wine (not water) as the divine intoxication which raises the soul to lofty thought of God; but our author does not even mention the food and drink, though later on there was a tendency to regard them as symbolizing the elements in the eucharist. His interest in Melchizedek lies in the parallel to Christ. This leads him along a line of his own, though, like Philo, he sees immense significance not only in what scripture says, but in what it does not say, about this mysterious figure in the early dawn of history.

In vv.1, 2 the only points in the original tale which are specially noted are (a) that his name means βασιλεὺςδικαιοσύνης ; (b) that Σαλήμ , his capital, means εἰρήνη ; and (c) inferentially that this primitive ideal priest was also a king. Yet none of these is developed. Thus, the writer has no interest in identifying Σαλήμ . All that matters is its meaning. He quotes ἱερεὺςτοῦθεοῦτοῦὑψίστου , but it is ἱερεύς alone that interests him. The fact about the tithes is certainly significant, but it is held over until v. 4.

What strikes him as far more vital is the silence of the record about the birth and death of Melchizedek (v. 3). Δικαιοσύνη as a royal characteristic (see Introd. pp. xxxii f.) had been already noted in connexion with Christ (1:8f.); but he does not connect it with εἰρήνη , as Philo does, though the traditional association of δικαιοσύνηκαὶεἰρήνη with the messianic reign may have been in his mind. In the alliteration (v. 3) of ἀπάτωρ , ἀμήτωρ , ἀγενεαλόγητος , the third term is apparently coined by himself; it does not mean “ of no pedigree,” nor “ without successors,” but simply (cp. v. 6) “ devoid of any genealogy.” Having no beginning (since none is mentioned), M. has no end. Ἀπάτωρ and ἀμήτωρ are boldly lifted from their pagan associations.

In the brief episode of Gen 14:18-20, this mysterious Melchizedek appears only as a priest of God; his birth is never mentioned, neither is his death; unlike the Aaronic priests, with whom a pure family descent was vital, this priest has no progenitors. Reading the record in the light of Psa 110:4, and on the Alexandrian principle that the very silence of scripture is charged with meaning, the writer divines in Melchizedek a priest who is permanent. This method of interpretation had been popularized by Philo. In quod det. pot. 48, e.g., he calls attention to the fact that Moses does not explain in Genesis 4:15 what was the mark put by God upon Cain. Why? Because the mark was to prevent him from being killed.

Now Moses never mentions the death of Cain διὰπάσηςτῆςνομοθεσίας , suggesting that ὥσπερἡμεμυθευμένηΣκύλλα , κακὸνἀθάνατονἐστινἀφροσύνη . Again (de Ebriet. 14) εἶπεγάρπούτις “ καὶγὰρἀληθῶςἀδελφήμούἐστινἐκπατρός , ἀλλ ʼ οὐκἐκμητρός ” (Genesis 20:12)— Abraham’ s evasive description of Sarah— is most significant; she had no mother, i. e. she had no connexion with the material world of the senses.

Ἀπάτωρ and ἀμήτωρ were applied to (a) waifs, whose parents were unknown; or (b) to illegitimate children; or (c) to people of low origin; or (d) to deities who were supposed to have been born, like Athenê and Hephaestus, from only one sex. Lactantius (diuin. instit. i. 7) quotes the Delphic oracle, which described Apollo as ἀμήτωρ , and insists that such terms refer only to God (ibid. iv. 13). “ As God the Father, the origin and source of things, is without parentage, he is most accurately called ἀπάτωρ and ἀμήτωρ by Trismegistus, since he was not begotten by anyone. Hence it was fitting that the Son also should be twice born, that he too should become ἀπάτωρ and ἀμήτωρ .” His argument apparently1 is that the pre-existent Son was ἀμήτωρ and that He became ἀμάτωρ by the Virgin-birth (so Theodore of Mopsuestia). Lactantius proves the priesthood of Christ from Psalms 110:4 among other passages, but he ignores the deduction from the Melchizedek of Gen_14; indeed he gives a rival derivation of Jerusalem as if from ἱερὸνΣολομών . Theodoret, who (Dial. ii.) explains that the incarnate Son was ἀμήτωρ , with respect to his divine nature, and ἀγενεαλόγητος in fulfilment of Isa 53:8, faces the difficulty of Melchizedek with characteristic frankness. Melchizedek, he explains, is described as ἀπάτωρ , ἀμήτωρ , simply because scripture does not record his parentage or lineage. Εἰἀληθῶςἀπάτωρἧνκαὶἀμήτωρ , οὐκἂνἧνεἰκὼν , ἀλλ ʼ ἀλήθεια . Ἐπειδὴδὲοὐφύσειταῦτ ʼ ἔχει , ἀλλὰκατὰτὴντῆςθείαςΓραφῆςοἰκονομίαν , δείκνυσιτῆςἀληθείαςτὸντύπον . In his commentary he explains that μένειἱερεὺςεἰςτὸδιηνεκές means τὴνἰερωσύνηνοὐπαρέπεμψενεἰςπαῖδας , καθάπερἈαρὼνκαὶἘλεάζαρκαὶΦινεές .

Ἀφωμοιωμένος in v. 3 means “ resembling,” as, e.g., in Ep. Jerem. 70 νεκρῷἐρριμένῳἐνσκότειἀφωμοίωνταιοἱθεοὶαὐτῶν , though it might even be taken as a strict passive, “ made to resemble” (i.e. in scripture), the Son of God being understood to be eternal. Εἰςτὸδιηνεκές is a classical equivalent for εἰςτὸναἰῶνα , a phrase which is always to be understood in the light of its context. Here it could not be simply “ ad vitam” ; the foregoing phrases and the fact that even the levitical priests were appointed for life, rule out such an interpretation.

The writer now (vv. 4-10) moralizes upon the statement that Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek and received his blessing, which proves the supreme dignity of the Melchizedek priesthood, and, inferentially, its superiority to the levitical.

4Now mark the dignity of this man. The patriarch “ Abraham paid” him “ a tenth” of the spoils. 5 Those sons of Levi, who receive the priestly office, are indeed ordered by law to tithe the people (that is, their brothers), although the latter are descended from Abraham; 6 but he who had no levitical genealogy actually tithed Abraham and “ blessed” the possessor of the promises! 7 (And there is no question that it is the inferior who is blessed by the superior.) 8 Again, it is mortal men in the one case who receive tithes, while in the other it is one of whom the witness is that “ he lives.” 9 In fact, we might almost say that even Levi the receiver of tithes paid tithes through Abraham; 10 for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.

Θεωρεῖτε (v. 4) is an oratorical imperative as in 4 Mac 14:13 ; πηλίκος is a rare word, often used for ἡλίκος after vowels, though not in Zechariah 2:6 , where alone it occurs in the LXX. The οὗτος (om. D* 67**. 1739 Blass) repeats the οὗτος of v. 1. We have now a triple proof of the inferiority of the levitical priesthood to Melchizedek. (a) Melchizedek, though not in levitical orders, took tithes from and gave a blessing to Abraham himself (vv. 4-7); (b) he is never recorded to have lost his priesthood by death (v. 8); and (c) indeed, in his ancestor Abraham, Levi yet unborn did homage to Melchizedek (9, 10). Τὰἀκροθίνια (v. 4), which this alone of NT writers has occasion to use, explains the πάντα of v. 2; it is one of the classical terms for which he went outside the LXX. Ὁπατριάρχης is thrown to the end of the sentence for emphasis. In v. 5; ἱερατείαν is chosen instead of ἱερωσύνην for the sake of assonance with Λευεί . The LXX does not distinguish them sharply.

The general statement about tithing, κατὰτὸννόμον (the ἐντολή of Numbers 18:20, Numbers 18:21), is intended to throw the spontaneous action of Abraham into relief; ἀποδεκατοῦν of “ tithing” persons occurs in 1 S 8:15f., but usually means “ to pay tithes,” like the more common δεκατοῦν (v. 6), the classical form being δεκατεύειν . In v. 6; the perfect εὐλογήκε is like the Philonic perfect (see above). In describing the incident (de Abrahamo, 40), Philo lays stress upon the fact that ὁμέγαςἱερεύςτοῦμεγίστουθεοῦ offered ἐπινίκια and feasted the conquerors; he omits both the blessing and the offering of tithes, though he soon allegorizes the latter (41).

Moulton calls attention to “ the beautiful parallel in Plato`s Apol. 28c, for the characteristic perfect in Hebrews, describing what stands written in Scripture,” holding that “ ὅσοιἐνΤροίᾳτετελευτήκασι (as is written in the Athenians’ Bible) is exactly like Hebrews 7:6, Hebrews 7:11:17, Hebrews 7:28.” But these perfects are simply aoristic (see above, p. 91, note).

V.7 is a parenthetical comment on what blessing and being blessed imply; the neuter is used, as usual in Greek (cp. Blass, § 138. 1), in a general statement, especially in a collective sense, about persons. Then the writer rapidly summarizes, from vv. 1-4, the contrast between the levitical priests who die off and Melchizedek whose record (μαρτυρούμενος in scripture, cp. 11:5) is “ he lives” . Finally (vv. 9, 10), he ventures (ὡςἔποςεἰπεῖν , a literary phrase, much affected by Philo) on what he seems to feel may be regarded as a forced and fanciful remark, that Levi was committed δι ʼ Ἀβραάμ (genitive) to a position of respectful deference towards the prince-priest of Salem. In v. 5; καίπερἐληλυθόταςἐκτῆςὀσφύοςἈβραάμ (the Semitic expression for descendants, chosen here in view of what he was going to say in v. 10 ἐντῇὀσφύϊτοῦπατρός ) is another imaginative touch added in order to signalize the pre-eminent honour of the levitical priests over their fellow-countrymen. Such is their high authority. And yet Melchizedek’ s is higher still!

(a) In v. 6; “ forte legendum, ὁδὲμἡγενεαλογούμενοςαὐτὸνδεδεκάτωκετὸνἈβραάμ , ipsum Abrahamam” (Bentley). But ἐξαὐτῶν explains itself, and the stress which αὐτόν would convey is already brought out by the emphatic position of Ἀβραάμ , and by the comment καὶτὸνἕχοντακτλ . (b) In v. 4 καὶ is inserted after ᾧ , in conformity with v. 2, by א A C Dc K L P syrhkl arm, etc. For ἀποδεκατοῦν in v. 5; the termination (cp. Thackeray, 244) ἀποδεκατοῖν is read by B D (as κατασκηνοῖν in Matthew 13:32). In v. 6; the more common (11:20) aorist, εὐλόγησε , is read by A C P 6, 104, 242. 263. 326. 383. 1288. 1739. 2004. 2143, Chrys. for εὐλόγηκε .

He now (vv. 11f.) turns to prove his point further, by glancing at the text from the 110th psalm. “ It is no use to plead that Melchizedek was succeeded by the imposing Aaronic priesthood; this priesthood belonged to an order of religion which had to be superseded by the Melchizedek-order of priesthood.” He argues here, as already, from the fact that the psalter is later than the pentateuch; the point of 7:11 is exactly that of 4:7f.

11 Further, if the levitical priesthood had been the means of reaching perfection (for it was on the basis of that priesthood that the Law was enacted for the People), why was it still necessary for another sort of priest to emerge “ with the rank of Melchizedek,” instead of simply with the rank of Aaron (12 for when the priesthood is changed, a change of law necessarily follows)? 13 He who is thus described belongs to another tribe, no member of which ever devoted himself to the altar; 14 for it is evident that our Lord sprang from Judah, and Moses never mentioned priesthood in connexion with that tribe. 15 This becomes all the more plain when another priest emerges “ resembling Melchizedek,” 16 one who has become a priest by the power of an indissoluble (ἀκαταλύτου , i.e. by death) Life and not by the Law of an external command; 17 for the witness to him is,

“ Thou art priest for ever, with the rank of Melchizedek.”

18 A previous command is set aside on account of its weakness and uselessness 19 (for the Law made nothing perfect), and there is introduced a better Hope, by means of which we can draw near to God.

Εἰμένοὗν (without any δέ to follow, as in 8:4) τελείωσις (“ perfection” in the sense of a perfectly adequate relation to God; see v. 19) διὰτηςΛευειτικηςἱερωσύνησκτλ . Λευειτικῆς is a rare word, found in Philo , but never in the LXX except in the title of Leviticus; ἱερωσύνη does occur in the LXX, and is not distinguishable from ἱερατεία (v. 5). In the parenthetical remark ὁλαὸςγὰρἐπ ʼ αὐτῆςνενομοθέτηται , αὐτῆς was changed into αὐτήν (6, 242, 330, 378, 383, 440, 462, 467, 489, 491, 999, 1610, 1836 Theophyl.), or αὐτῇ (K L 326, 1288, etc. Chrys.) after 8:6 (where again we have this curious passive), and νενομοθετήται altered into the pluperfect ἐνενομοθέτητο (K L, etc.). The less obvious genitive ἐπ ʼ αὐτῆς is not “ in the time of,” for the levitical priesthood was not in existence prior to the Law; it might mean “ in connexion with,” since ἐπί and περί have a similar force with this genitive, but the incorrect dative correctly explains the genitive. The Mosaic νόμος could not be worked for the λαός without a priesthood, to deal with the offences incurred.

The idea of the writer always is that a νόμος or διαθήκη depends for its validity and effectiveness upon the ἱερεύς or ἱερεῖς by whom it is administered. Their personal character and position are the essential thing.

Every consideration is subordinated to that of the priesthood. As a change in that involves a change in the νόμος (v. 12), the meaning of the parenthesis in v. 11 must be that the priesthood was the basis for the νόμος , though, no doubt, the writer has put his points in vv. 11, 12 somewhat intricately; this parenthetical remark would have been better placed after the other in v. 12, as indeed van d. Sande Bakhuyzen proposes. Three times over (cp. v. 19) he puts in depreciatory remarks about the Law, the reason being that the Law and the priesthood went together. It is as if he meant here: “ the levitical priesthood (which, of course, implies the Law, for the Law rested on the priesthood).” The inference that the νόμος is antiquated for Christians reaches the same end as Paul does by his dialectic, but by a very different route. Ἀνίστασθαι ( = appear on the scene, as v. 15) and λέγεσθαι refer to Psalms 110:4, which is regarded as marking a new departure, with far-reaching effects, involving (v. 12) an alteration of the νόμος as well as of the ἱερωσύνη . In καὶοὐ … λέγεσθαι the οὐ negatives the infinitive as μή usually does; Ἀαρών , like Κανᾶ (John 21:2), has become indeclinable, though Josephus still employs the ordinary genitive Ἀαρῶνος .

In v. 12 μετάθεσις , which is not a LXX term, though it occurs in 2 Mac 11:24, is practically equivalent here (cp. 12:27) to ἀθέτησις in v. 18. A close parallel occurs in de Mundo, 6, νόμοςμὲνγὰρἡμῖνἰσοκλινὴςὁθεὸς , οὐδεμίανἐπιδεχόμενοςδιόρθωσινἤμετάθεσιν , and a similar phrase is employed by Josephus to describe the arbitrary transference of the highpriesthood (Ant. xii. 9. 7, ὑπὸΛυσίονπεισθεὶς , μεταθεῖναιτὴντιμὴνἀπὸταύτηςτῆςοἰκίαςεἰςἕτερον ).

We now (vv. 13f.) get an account of what was meant by οὐκατὰτὴντάξινἈαρών or ἕτεροςἱερεύς in v. 11; Jesus, this ἱερεὺςκατὰτὴντάξινΜελχισεδέκ , came from the non-sacerdotal tribe of Judah, not from that of Levi. Ἐφ ʼ ὅν is another instance of the extension of this metaphorical use of ἐπί from the Attic dative to the accusative. The perfect μετέσχηκεν may be used in an aoristic sense, like ἔσχηκα , or simply for the sake of assonance with προσέσχηκεν , and it means no more than μετέσχεν in 2:14; indeed μετέσχεν is read here by P 489, 623*. 1912 arm, as προσέσχεν is (by A C 33, 1288) for προσέσχηκεν . The conjecture of Erasmus, προσέστηκεν , is ingenious, but προσέχειν in the sense of “ attend” is quite classical. The rule referred to in εἰςἧνφυλήν (ἐξἧςφυλῆς , arm?), i.e. ἐκφυλῆςεἰςἥν (as Luke 10:10) κτλ . is noted in Josephus, Ant. xx. 10. 1, πάτριόνἐστιμηδένατοῦθεοῦτὴνἀρχιερωσύνηνλαμβάνεινἥτόνἐξαἵματοςτοῦἈαρῶνος . No tribe except Levi supplied priests. (Πρόδηλον in v. 14 is not a LXX term, but occurs in this sense in 2 Mal 3:17 and 14:39, as well as in Judith 8:29.) In Test. Leviticus 8:14 it is predicted (cp.

Introd. p. xlviii) that βασιλεὺςἐκτοῦἸούδαἀναστήσεταικαὶποιήσειἱερατείαννέαν : but this is a purely verbal parallel, the βασιλεύς is Hyrcanus and the reference is to the Maccabean priest-kings who succeed the Aaronic priesthood. Ἀνατέλλειν is a synonym for ἀνίστασθαι (v. 15), as in Numbers 24:17, though it is just possible that ἀνατέταλκεν is a subtle allusion to the messianic title of Ἀνατολή in Zechariah 6:12; in commenting on that verse Philo observes (de confus. ling. 14): τοῦτονμὲνγὰρπρεσβύτατονυἱὸνὁτῶνὅλωνἀνέτειλεπατήρ . (For ἱερέων the abstract equivalent ἱερωσύνης , from v. 12, is substituted by Dc K L.) The title ὁκύριοςἡμῶν is one of the links between the vocabulary of this epistle and that of the pastorals (1 Timothy 1:14, 2 Timothy 1:8). As the result of all this, what is it that becomes (v. 15) περισσότερονκατάδηλον ?1 The provisional character of the levitical priesthood, or the μετάθεσιςνόμου

Probably the latter, though the writer would not have distinguished the one from the other. In v. 15 κατὰτὴνὁμοιότητα linguistically has the same sense as ἀφωμοιώμενος (v. 3). In v. 16 σαρκίνης (for which σαρκικῆς is substituted by Cc D K Ψ 104, 326, 1175, etc.) hints at the contrast which is to be worked out later (in 9:1-14) between the external and the inward or spiritual, the sacerdotal ἐντολή being dismissed as merely σαρκίνη , since it laid down physical descent as a requisite for office. Hereditary succession is opposed to the inherent personality of the Son (= 9:14). The distinction between σαρκικός and σάρκινος is blurred in Hellenistic Greek of the period, where adjectives in -ινος tend to take over the sense of those in -ικος , and vice versa. In v. 17 μαρτυρεῖται (cp. μαρτυρούμενος , v. 8) is altered to the active (10:15) μαρτυρεῖ by C D K L 256, 326, 436, 1175, 1837, 2127 syrhkl Ap.vg; arm Chrys.

The μετάθεσις of v. 12 is now explained negatively and positively in vv. 18, 19. Ἀθέτησις (one of his juristic metaphors, cp. 9:26) γίνεται (i.e. by the promulgation of Psa 110:4) προαγούσης (cp. IMA iii. 247, τὰπροάγονταψαψίσματα : προάγειν is not used by the LXX in this sense of “ fore-going” ) ἐντολῆς (v. 16) διὰτὸαὐτῆς (unemphatic) ἀσθενὲςκαὶἀνωφελές (ailiteration). Ἀνωφελές is a word common in such connexions, e.g Ep. Arist. 253, ὅπερἀνωφελὲςκαὶἀλγεινόνἐστιν : Polyb. xii. 25:9 ἄζηλονκαὶἀνωφελές . The uselessness of the Law lay in its failure to secure an adequate forgiveness of sins, without which a real access or fellowship was impossible; οὐδὲνἐτελείωσεν , it led to no absolute order of communion between men and God, no τελείωσις . The positive contrast (v. 19) is introduced by the striking compound ἐπεισαγωγή , a term used by Josephus for the replacing of Vashti by Esther (Ant. xi. 6, 2, σβέννυσθαιγὰρτὸπρὸςτὴνπροτήρανφιλόστοργονἑτέραςἐπεισαγωγῇ , καὶτὸπρὸςἐκείνηνεὔνουνἀποσπώμενονκατὰμικρὸνγίγνεσθαιτῆςσυνούσης ); there is no force here in the ἐπει , as if it meant “ fresh” or “ further.” The new ἐλπίς is κρείττων by its effectiveness (6:18); it accomplishes what the νόμος and its ἱερωσύνη had failed to realize for men, viz. a direct and lasting access to God. In what follows the writer ceases to use the term ἐλπίς , and concentrates upon the ἐγγίζειντῷθεῷ , since the essence of the ἐλπίς lies in the priesthood and sacrifice of Jesus the Son. With this allusion to the κρείττωνἐλπίς , he really resumes the thought of 6:18, 19; but he has another word to say upon the superiority of the Melchizedek priest, and in this connexion he recalls another oath of God, viz. at the inauguration or consecration mentioned in Psalms 110:4, a solemn divine oath, which was absent from the ritual of the levitical priesthood, and which ratifies the new priesthood of Jesus as permanent (vv. 20-22), enabling him to do for men what the levitical priests one after another failed to accomplish (vv. 23-25).

20 A better Hope, because it was not promised apart from an oath. Previous priests (οἱμέν = levitical priests) became priests apart from any oath, 21 but he has an oath from Him who said to him,

“ The Lord has sworn, and he will not change his mind, thou art a priest for ever.”

22 And this makes Jesus surety for a superior covenant. 23 Also, while they became priests in large numbers, since death prevents them from continuing to serve, 24 he holds his priesthood without any successor, since he continues for ever. 25 Hence for all time he is able to save those who approach God through him, as he is always living to intercede on their behalf.

The long sentence (vv. 20-22) closes with Ἰησοῦς in an emphatic position. After καὶκαθ ʼ ὅσονοὐχωρὶςὁρκωμοσίας , which connect with ἐπεισαγωγὴκρείττονοςἐλπίδος , there is a long explanatory parenthesis οἱμὲνγὰρ … εἰςτὸναἰῶνα , exactly in the literary style of Philo (e.g. quis rer. div. 17, ἐφ ʼ ὅσονγὰροἶμαικτλ .— νοῦςμὲνγὰρ … αἴσθησις — ἐπὶτοσοῦτονκτλ .). In v. 20 ὁρκωμοσία (oath-taking) is a neuter plural (cp. Syll. 593:29, OGIS 229:82) which, like ἀντωμοσία , has become a feminine singular of the first declension, and εἰσὶνγεγονότες is simply an analytic form of the perfect tense, adopted as more sonorous than γεγόνασι . As we have already seen (on 6:13), Philo (de sacrific. 28-29) discusses such references to God swearing. Thousands of people, he observes, regard an oath as inconsistent with the character of God, who requires no witness to his character. “ Men who are disbelieved have recourse to an oath in order to win credence, but God’ s mere word must be believed ; hence, his words are in no sense different from oaths, as far as assurance goes.” He concludes that the idea of God swearing an oath is simply an anthropomorphism which is necessary on account of human weakness.

Our author takes the OT language in Psalms 110:4 more naively, detecting a profound significance in the line ὤμοσενκύριοςκαὶοὐμεταμεληθήσεται (in the Hellenistic sense of “ regret” = change his mind). The allusion is, of course, to the levitical priests. But Roman readers could understand from their former religion how oaths were needful in such a matter. Claudius, says Suetonius (Vit. Claud. 22), “ in co-optandis per collegia sacerdotibus neminem nisi juratus (i.e. that they were suitable) nominavit.”

The superfluous addition of κατὰτὴντάξινΜελχιζεδέκ was soon made, after εἰςτὸναἰῶνα , by א c A D K L P vt Syrpesh hkl boh eth Eus (Dem. iv. 15, 40), etc.

Παραμένειν means to remain in office or serve (a common euphemism in the papyri). The priestly office could last in a family , but mortal men (ἀποθνήσκοντες , v. 8) could not παραμένειν as priests, whereas (v. 24) Jesus remains a perpetual ἱερεύς , διὰτὸμένειν (= πάντοτεζῶν , v. 25) αὐτόν . Ἀπαράβατον , a legal adjective for “ inviolable,” is here used in the uncommon sense of non-transferable , as an equivalent for μὴπαραβαίνουσανεἰςἄλλον , and contrasts Jesus with the long succession of the levitical priests . The passive sense of “ not to be infringed” (cp. Justin Martyr, Apol. i. 43, εἱμαρμένηνφαμὲνἀπαράβατονταύτηνεἶναι , where the adjective = ineluctabile) or “ unbroken” does not suit the context, for Jesus had no rivals and the word can hardly refer to the invasion of death.

Like γεγυμνασμένα in 5:14, also after ἔχειν , it has a predicative force, marked by the absence of the article. Philo (quis rer. div. heres, 6) finds a similar significance in the etymology of κύριος as a divine title: κύριοςμὲνγὰρπαρὰτὸκῦρος , ὃδὴβέβαιόνἐστιν , εἴρηται , κατ ʼ ἐναντιότηταἀβεβαίουκαὶἀκύρου . But our author does not discover any basis for the perpetuity of ὁκύριοςἡμῶν in the etymology of κύριος , and is content (in vv. 22-24) to stress the line of the psalm, in order to prove that Jesus guaranteed a superior διαθήκη (i.e. order of religious fellowship). Ἔγγυος is one of the juristic terms (vg, sponsor) which he uses in a general sense; here it is “ surety” or “ pledge.” Διαθήκη is discussed by him later on; it is a term put in here as often to excite interest and anticipation. How readily ἔγγυος could be associated with a term like σώζειν (v. 25) may be understood from Sir 29:15f.:

χάριταςἐγγύουμὴἐπιλάθῃ ,

ἔδωκενγὰρτὴνψυχὴναὐτοῦὑπὲρσου .

ἀγαθὰἐγγύουἀνατρέψειἁμαρτωλός ,

καὶἀχάριστοςἐνδιανοίᾳἐγκαταλείψειῥυσάμενον .

Our author might have written μεσίτης here as well as in 8:6; he prefers ἔγγυος probably for the sake of assonance with γέγονεν or even ἐγγίζομεν . As μεσιτεύειν means to vouch for the truth of a promise or statement (cp. 6:17), so ἔγγυος means one who vouches for the fulfilment of a promise, and therefore is a synonym for μεσίτης here. The conclusion (v. 25) is put in simple and effective language. Εἰςτὸπαντελές is to be taken in the temporal sense of the phrase, as in BMiii:161:11 (a.d. 212) ἀπὸτοῦνῦνεἰςτὸπαντελές , being simply a literary variant for πάντοτε . The alternative rendering “ utterly” suits Luke 13:11 better than this passage. This full and final ἱερωσύνη of Jesus is the κρείττωνἐλπίς (v. 19), the τελείωσις which the levitical priesthood failed to supply, a perfect access to God’ s Presence. His intercession has red blood in it, unlike Philo’ s conception, e.g. in Vit.

Mos. iii.14, ἀναγκαῖονγὰρἦντὸνἱερωμένον (the highpriest) τῷτοῦκόσμουπατρὶπαρακλήτῳχρῆσθαιτελειοτάτῳτὴνἀρετὴνυἱῷ (i.e. the Logos) πρόςτεἀμνηστίανἁμαρημάτωνκαὶχορηγίανἀφθονωτάτωνἀγαθῶν , and in quis rer. div. 42, where the Logos is ἱκέτηςτοῦθνητοῦκηραίνοντοςἀεὶπρὸςτὸἄφθαρτονπαρὰδὲτῷφύντιπρὸςεὐελπιστίαντοῦμήποτετὸνἵλεωθεὸνπεριιδεῖντὸἴδιονἔργον . The function of intercession in heaven for the People, which originally (see p. 37) was the prerogative of Michael the angelic guardian of Israel, or generally of angels (see on 1:14), is thus transferred to Jesus, to One who is no mere angel but who has sacrificed himself for the People. The author deliberately excludes any other mediator or semi-mediator in the heavenly sphere (see p. xxxix).

A triumphant little summary (vv. 26-28) now rounds off the argument of 6:19f-7:25:

26 Such was the highpriest for us, saintly, innocent, unstained, far from all contact with the sinful, lifted high above the heavens, 27 one who has no need, like yonder highpriests, day by day to offer sacrifices first for their own sins and then for (the preposition is omitted as in Acts 26:18) those of the People— he did that once for all in offering up himself. 28 For the Law appoints human beings in their weakness to the priesthood; but the word of the Oath (which came after the Law) appoints a Son who is made perfect for ever.

The text of this paragraph has only a few variants, none of any importance. After ἡμῖν in v. 27 καί is added by A B D 1739 syrpesh hkl Eusebius . In v. 27 it makes no difference to the sense whether προσενέγκας (א A W 33, 256, 436, 442, 1837, 2004, 2127 arm Cyr.) or ἀνενέγκας (B C D K L P etc. Chrys.) is read; the latter may have been suggested by ἀναφέρειν , or προσενέγκας may have appealed to later scribes as the more usual and technical term in the epistle. The technical distinction between ἀναφέρειν (action of people) and προσφέρειν (action of the priest) had long been blurred; both verbs mean what we mean by “ offer up” or “ sacrifice.” In v. 28 the original ἱερεῖς (D* 1 vg) was soon changed (to conform with ἀρχιερεῖς in v. 27) into ἀρχιερεῖς . The reason why ἱερεῦς and ἱερεῖς have been used in 7:1f. is that Melchizedek was called ίερεύς , not ἀρχιερεύς . Once the category is levitical, the interchange of ἀρχιερεύς and ἱερεύς becomes natural.

The words τοιοῦτοςγὰρἡμῖνἔπρεπεν (another daring use of ἔπρεπεν , cp. 2:10) ἀρχιερεύς (v. 26) might be bracketed as one of the author’ s parentheses, in which case ὅσιοςκτλ . would carry on πάντοτεζῶν … αὐτῶν . But ὅς in Greek often follows τοιοῦτος , and the usual construction is quite satisfactory. Γάρ is intensive, as often. It is generally misleading to parse a rhapsody, but there is a certain sequence of thought in ὅσιοςκτλ ., where the positive adjective ὅσιος is followed by two negative terms in alliteration , and κεχωρισμένοςἀπὸτῶνἁμαρτωλῶν is further defined by ὑψηλότεροςτῶνοὐρανῶνγενόμενος . He is ὅσιος , pious or saintly (cp. ERE vi.743), in virtue of qualities like his reverence, obedience, faith, loyalty, and humility, already noted. Ἄκακος is innocent (as in Job 8:20, Jeremiah 11:19), one of the LXX equivalents for ת ּ ָ ם or ת ּ ָ מ ִ י ם , not simply = devoid of evil feeling towards men; like ἀμίαντος , it denotes a character χωρὶςἁμαρτίας . Ἀμίαντος is used of the untainted Isis in OP 1380 . The language may be intended to suggest a contrast between the deep ethical purity of Jesus and the ritual purity of the levitical highpriest, who had to take extreme precautions against outward defilement (cp.

Leviticus 21:10-15 for the regulations, and the details in Josephus, Ant. iii.12. 2, μὴμόνονδὲπερὶτὰςἱερουργίαςκαθαροὺςεἶναι , σπουδάζεινδὲκαὶπερὶτὴναὐτῶνδίαιταν , ὡςαὐτὴνἄμεμπτονεἶναι · καὶδιὰταύτηντὴναἰτίαν , οἱτὴνἱερατικὴνστολὴνφοροῦντεςἄμωμοιτεεἰσικαὶπερὶπάντακαθαροὶκαὶνηφάλιοι ), and had to avoid human contact for seven days before the ceremony of atonement-day. The next two phrases go together. Κεχωρισμένοςἀπὸτῶνἁμαρτωλῶν is intelligible in the light of 9:28; Jesus has ἅπαξ sacrificed himself for the sins of men, and in that sense his connexion with ἁμαρτωλοί is done. He is no levitical highpriest who is in daily contact with them, and therefore obliged to sacrifice repeatedly. Hence the writer at once adds (v. 27) a word to explain and expand this pregnant thought; the sphere in which Jesus now lives (ὑψηλότεροςκτλ .) is not one in which, as on earth, he had to suffer the contagion or the hostility of ἁμαρτωλοί (12:2) and to die for human sins.

“ He has outsoared the shadow of our night;

Envy and calumny and hate and pain …

Can touch him not and torture not again;

From the contagion of the world’ s slow stain

He is secure.”

This is vital1 to the sympathy and intercession of Jesus; it is in virtue of this position before God that he aids his people, as τετελειωμένος , and therefore able to do all for them. His priesthood is, in modern phrase, absolute. As eternal ἀρχιερεύς in the supreme sense, and as no longer in daily contact with sinners, Jesus is far above the routine ministry of the levitical ἀρχιερεῖς . The writer blends loosely in his description (v. 27) the annual sacrifice of the highpriest on atonement-day (to which he has already referred in 5:3) and the daily sacrifices offered by priests. Strictly speaking the ἀρχιερεῖς did not require to offer sacrifices καθ ʼ ἡμέραν , and the accurate phrase would have been κατ ʼ ἐνιαυτόν . According to Leviticus 6:19-23 the highpriest had indeed to offer a cereal offering morning and evening; but the text is uncertain, for it is to be offered both on the day of his consecration and also διὰπάντος .

Besides, this section was not in the LXX text of A, so that the writer of Hebrews did not know of it. Neither had he any knowledge of the later Jewish ritual, according to which the highpriest did offer this offering twice a day.

Possibly, however, his expression here was suggested by Philo’ s statement about this offering, viz. that the highpriest did offer a daily sacrifice (quis rer. div. 36: τὰςἐνδελεχεῖςθυσίας … ἥντεὑπὲρἑαυτῶνοἱἱερεῖςπροσφέρουσιτῆςσεμιδάλεωςκαὶτὴνὑπὲρτοῦἔθνουςτῶνδυεῖνἀμνῶν , de spec. leg. iii. 23, ὁἀρχιερεύς … εὐχὰςδὲκαὶθυσίαςτελῶνκαθ ʼ ἑκάστηνἡμέραν ). It is true that this offering ὑπέρἑαυτῶν was not a sin-offering, only an offering of cereals; still it was reckoned a θυσία , and in Sir 45:14 it is counted as such. Τοῦτογὰρἐποίησεν refers then to his sacrifice for sins (9:28), not, of course, including any sins of his own (see on 5:3); it means ὑπὲρτῶνἁμαρτιῶντοῦλαοῦ , and the writer could afford to be technically inexact in his parallelism without fear of being misunderstood. “ Jesus offered his sacrifice,” “ Jesus did all that a highpriest has to do,” — this was what he intended. The Greek fathers rightly referred τοῦτο to ἔπειτατῶντοῦλαοῦ , as if the writer meant “ this, not that πρότερον .” It is doubtful if he had such a sharp distinction in his mind, but when he wrote τοῦτο he was thinking of τῶντοῦλαοῦ , and of that alone. An effort is sometimes made to evade this interpretation by confining καθ ʼ ἡμέραν to ὅςοὐκἔχει and understanding “ yearly” after οἱἀρχιερεῖς , as if the idea were that Christ’ s daily intercession required no daily sacrifice like the annual sacrifice on atonementday. But, as the text stands, ἀνάγκην is knit to καθ ʼ ἡμέραν , and these words must all be taken along with ὥσπεροἱἀρχιερεῖς .

Compare the common assurance of the votaries of Serapis, e.g. BGU. ii.385 (ii/iii a.d.), τὸπροσκύνημάσουποιῶκατ ʼ ἑκάστηνἡμέρανπαρὰτῷκυρίῳΣαράπιδικαὶτοῖςσυννέοιςθεοῖς .

A deep impression is made by the words ἑαυτὸνἀνενέγκας , “ pro nobis tibi uictor et uictima, et ideo uictor, quia uictima, pro nobis tibi sacerdos et sacrificium, et ideo sacerdos, quia sacrificium” (Aug. Conf. x.43). What is meant by this the writer holds over till he reaches the question of the sacrifice of Jesus as ἀρχιερεύς (9:1f.). As usual, he prepares the way for a further idea by dropping an enigmatic allusion to it. Meantime (v. 28) a general statement sums up the argument. Καθίστησιν is used as in 1 Mac 10:20 , and ἀσθένειαν recalls 5:2 , in the special sense that such weakness involved a sacrifice for one’ s personal sins . Whereas Jesus the Son of God was appointed by a divine order which superseded the Law (μετὰτὸννόμον = vv. 11-19), and appointed as one who was τετελειωμένος (in the sense of 2:10) εἰςτὸναἰῶνα . It is implied that he was appointed ἀρχιερεύς , between which and ἱερεύς there is no difference.

The writer now picks up the thought (7:22) of the superior διαθήκη which Jesus as ἀρχιερεύς in the eternal σκηνή or sanctuary mediates for the People. This forms the transition between the discussion of the priesthood (5-8) and the sacrifice of Jesus (9:1-10:17). The absolute sacrifice offered by Jesus as the absolute priest (vv. 1-6) ratifies the new διαθήκη which has superseded the old (vv. 7-13) with its imperfect sacrifices.

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

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

L [020: α 5] cont. 1:1-13:10.

א Ԡ [01: δ 2).

A [02: δ 4].

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

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 ΠρὸςἘβραίους has not been preserved, see below, p. lxix.

K [018:1:1].

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.”

vt vt Old Latin, saec. ii. (?)-iv.

823 [δ 368]

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

Josephus Flavii Josephi Opera Omnia post Immanuelem Bekkerum, recognovit S. A. Naber.

r (codex Frisingensis: saec. vi., cont. 6:6-7:5 7:8-8:1 9:27-11:7)

1 The same sort of perfect as recurs in ΠρὸςἙβραίους (e.g. 7:6 and 11:28).

d (Latin version of D)

1 In iv. 25 he says that “ as God was the Father of his spirit without a mother, so a virgin was the mother of his body without a father.”

1739 [α 78]

Blass F. Blass, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch: vierte, vö llig neugearbeitete Auflage, besorgt von Albert Debrunner (1913); also, Brief an die Hebrä er, Text mit Angabe der Rhythmen (1903).

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

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

Thackeray H. St J. Thackeray, A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek (1909).

6 [δ 356] cont. 1:1-9:3 10:22-13:25

104 [α 103]

242 [δ 206]

263 [δ 372]

326 [α 257]

383 [α 353] cont. 1:1-13:7

1288 [α 162]

2004 [α 56]

2143 [α 184]

330 [δ 259]

378 [α 258]

440 [δ 260]

462 [α 502]

489 [δ 459] Hort’ s 102

491 [δ 152]

999 [δ 353]

1610 [α 468]

1836 [α 65]

623 [α 173]

1912 [α 1066]

33 [δ 48] Hort’ s 17

Erasmus Adnotationes (1516), In epist. Pauli apostoli ad Hebraeos paraphrasis (1521).

1 Κατάδηλον is the classical intensive form of δῆλον , used here for the sake of assonance with the following κατά .

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

1175 [α 74] cont. 1:1-3:5 6:8-13:20

256 [α 216]

436 [α 172]

1837 [α 192]

2127 [δ 202]

IMA Inscriptiones Graecae Insul. Maris Aegaei (1895 f.).

Syll. Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum2 (ed. W. Dittenberger).

OGIS Dittenberger’ s Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae (1903-1905).

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

BM Greek Papyri in the British Museum (1893 f.).

442 [O 18]

ERE Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics (ed. J. Hastings).

OP The Oxyrhynchus Papyri (ed. B. P. Grenfell and A. Hunt).

1 Thus Philo quotes (de Fug. 12) with enthusiasm what Plato says in the Theatetus: οὔτ ʼ ἀπολέσθαιτὰκακὰδυνατόν — ὑπεναντίονγάρτιτῷἀγαθῷἀεὶεἶναιἀνάγκη — οὔτεἐνθείοιςαὐτὰίδρῦσθαι .