Against the rendering testament for da0yxn, and in favour of retaining covenant, are the following considerations: (a) The abruptness of the change, and its interruption of the line of reasoning. It is introduced into the middle of a continuous argument, in which the new covenant is compared and contrasted with the Mosaic covenant (ch. viii. 6-x.18). (0) The turning- point, both of the analogy and of the contrast, is that both covenants were inaugurated and ratified by death: not ordinary, natural death, but sacri- ficial, violent death, accompanied with bloodshedding as an essential feat- ure. Such a death is plainly indicated in ver. 15. If d&abyxy signifies testament, Oavarov death in ver. 16 must mean natural death without blood- shed. (c) The figure of a testament would not appeal to Hebrews in connection with an inheritance. On the contrary, the idea of the xAnpo- vopia was always associated in the Hebrew mind with the inheritance of Canaan, and that inheritance with the idea of a covenant. See Deut. iv. 20-23; 1 Chron. xvi. 15-18; Ps. cv. 8-11. (d) In LXX, from which our writer habitually quotes, da0jxn has universally the meaning of covenant. It occurs about 350 times, mostly representing ni 3 covenant. In the Apocryphal books it has the same sense, except in Sir. xxxviii. 33, where it signifies disposition or arrangement. Araribécbat to dispose or arrange represents n72 to cut off, hew, divide. The phrase nya n>» to cut (i.e., make) a covenant, is very common. The verb marks a disposing by the divine will, to which man becomes a party by assent; while cvvribécbar indicates an arrangement between two equal parties. There is not a trace of the meaning testament in the Greek O. T. In the classics Siabyjxn is usually testament. Philo uses the word in the sense of covenant, but also shows how it acquired that of testament (De Mutatione Nominum, § 6 ff.). The Vulgate has testamentum, even where the sense of covenant is indispu- table. See Ex. xxx. 26; Num. xiv. 44; 2 K.vi. 15; Jer. iii. 16; Mal. iii. 1; L.i.72; Acts ili.25; vii.8. Alsoin N.T. quotations from the O.T., where, in its translation of the O.T., it uses foedus. See Jer. xxxi. 31, cit. Heb. viii. 8. For dvariPéc Oa of making a covenant, see Heb. viii. 10; Acts iii. 25; Heb. x. 16. (e) The ratification of a covenant by the sacrifice of a victim is attested by Gen. xv. 10; Ps. 1.5; Jer. xxxiv. 18. This is suggested also by the phrase nya mp to cut a covenant, which finds abundant analogy in both Greek and Latin, Thus we have épxia rdpvewv to cut oaths, that is, to sacrifice a victim in attestation (Hom. JI. ii. 124; Od. xxiv. 483; Hat. vii. 182). Similarly, owovdas réuwpev let us cut (make) a league
Cu. X.] THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 495
(Eurip. Hel. 1235): piAva réuverOar to cement friendship by sacrificing a victim; lit. to cut friendship (Eurip. Suppl. 875). In Latin, foedus ferire to strike a league: foedus ictum a ratified league, ratified by a blow (ictus). (f) If testament is the correct translation in vy. 16, 17, the writer is fairly chargeable with a rhetorical blunder; for ver. 18 ff. is plainly intended as a historical illustration of the propositions in vv. 16, 17, and the illus- tration turns on a point entirely different from the matter illustrated. The writer is made to say, “A will is of no force until after the testator’s death ; therefore the first covenant was ratified with the blood of victims.