Vv.
.. b a , > a x , 3 ‘ ‘ biii-/78,e6 ὩΣ μετριοπαθεῖν δυνάμενος τοις ἀγνοουσι και πλανωμένοις, επει και
iv. 15, et Vii. 28. C Vil. 27;
t Yo , > , αὐτὸς περίκειται ἀσθένειαν ’
3. “καὶ διὰ ταύτην ! ὀφείλει, καθὼς
ή \ A - cr ‘ AY le a 2 , Ἐπ δν λα an Lev. ix. 7, περὶ TOU λαοῦ, οὕτω καὶ περὶ ἑαυτοῦ ~ προσφέρειν ὑπὲρ ὃ ἁμαρτιῶν.
et Xvi. 3,
xxviii.; 1 Par. xxiii. 13; 2 Par. xxvi. 16, etc.
4. “Kat οὐχ ἑαυτῷ τις λαμβάνει τὴν τιμὴν, ἀλλὰ 6 καλούμενος”
1 Τ.Ε. read by CcDcEKL; δι αὐτὴν by ΜΜΑΒΟ ΣΡ, 7, 17, 80.
2 T.R. with SACDcEKLP; αὐτου with BD*, 210.
3 yep in CCDcEKL ; περι in §$ABC*D*P and in Levit. xvi. 6 and 15. 4 Omit art. with SABC*DEK;; insert art. CbLP.
ὑπὲρ ap. is to be joined with θυσίας and not with προσφέρῃ as referring to both nouns. The two ideas of eucharistic and expiatory offerings are distinctly marked.”’ Ver. 2. μετριοπαθεῖν δυνάμενος : “as one who is able to moderate his feeling”’. The Vulgate is too strong: “ qui con- dolere possit’’?; Grotius has: ‘‘ non in- clementer affici’?; Weizsdcker: ‘‘als der billig fihlen kann”; and Peirce: “who can reasonably bear with”. As ‘the etymology shows, it means “10 be moderate in one’s passions”. It was opposed by Aristotle to the ἀπάθεια of the Stoics. [Diog. Laert., Arvist.: ἔφη δὲ τὸν σοφὸν μὴ εἶναι μὲν ἀπαθῆ μετριοπαθῆ δέ: not without feeling, but feeling in moderation; and Peirce, Tho- luck, and Weiss conclude that the word was first formed by the Peripatetics ; Tholuck expressly ; and Weiss, ‘‘ stammt aus dem _ philosophischen Sprachge- brauch”’. Cf. the chapter of Philo (Leg. Allegor., iii., 45; Wendland’s ed., vol. i. 142) in which he puts ἀπάθεια first and µετριοπάθ. Second; and to the numerous exx., cited by Wetstein and Kypke, add Nemesius, De Natura Hominis, cxix., where the word is defined in relation to grief. Josephus (411έ., xii. 3, 2) remarks upon the striking self-restraint and mod- eration (μετριοπαθησάντων) of Vespasian and Titus towards the Jews notwith- standing their many conflicts.] If the priest is cordially to plead with God for \ the sinner, he must bridle his natural \disgust at the loathsomeness of sen- ‘suality, his impatience at the frequently ‘recurring fall, his hopeless alienation from the hypocrite and the superficial, his indignation at any confession he hears from the penitent. This self-repression he must exercise Tots ἀγνοοῦσι καὶ πλανωμένοις : “the ignorant and err- ing”. The single article leads Peirce and others to render as a Hendiadys = τοῖς ἐξ ἀγνοίας πλαν., those who err through ignorance. ἄγνοια is not fre- -quent in LXX, but in Ezek. ΧΙ, 13, and
--------
also in chaps. xliv. and xlvi., it translates OWN, but in Lev. ν. 18 and in Eccles.
v. 5 it translates maw which in Lev.
iv. 2 and elsewhere is rendered by ἀκουσίως. A comparison too of the passages in which the word occurs seems to show that by “‘ sins of ignorance”’ are meant both sins committed unawares or accidentally, and sins into which a man is betrayed by passion. They are op- posed to presumptuous sins, sins with a high hand ἐν χειρὶ ὑπερηφανίας,
m7 TWA (Num. xv. 30), sins which constitute a renunciation of God and for
-which there is no sacrifice, cf. x. 26.
ἐπεὶ καὶ αὐτὸς περίκειται ἀσθ- ένειαν : “since he himself also is com- passed with infirmity,” giving the reason or ground of μετριοπ. δυνάμενος. περί- κειμαι, “1 lie round,” as in Mk. ix. 42, Luke xvii. 2 with wept and in Heb. xii. 1 with dative. In Acts xxviii. 20, τὴν ἅλυσιν ταύτην περίκειμαι, it is used pas- sively as here, followed by an accusative according to the rule that verbs which in the active govern a dative of the person with an accusative of the thing, retain the latter in the passive. See Winer, p. 287, and Rutherford’s Babrius. The priests, living for the greater part of the year in their own homes, were known to have their weaknesses like other men, and even the high priests were not exempt from the common passions. Their gor- geous robes alone separated them from sinners, but like a garment infirmity clung around them. ‘‘ How the very sanctity of his office would force on the attention of one who was not a mere puppet priest the contrast between his official and his personal character, as a subject of solemn reflection”’ (Bruce).