o
c 5. "καὶ οἱ μὲν ς Num. XViil. 21,
26; Deut. XVlii. I; Josh. xiv. 4; 2 Par. XXXi. 5.
d 1 Gen,
xiv.1g9,20; Rom. iv. 13; Gal. iii. 16.
Biblical Greek, the classical form being δεκατεύω. κατὰ τὸν νόμον follows ἀποδεκ. τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς αὐτῶν, κ.τ.λ. Not their fellow-Levites, although it is true that the Levites tithed the people, and the priests tithed the Levites (Num. xviii. 21-24 and 26-28), but the words are added in explanation of λαόν in order to emphasise the fact that the priests exacted tithes not in recognition of any personal superiority. Those who paid tithes were Abraham’s descendants equally with the priests; it was merely the law which conveyed the right to tithe their brethren καίπερ ἐξεληλυ- θότας ἐκ τῆς ὀσφύος ᾿Αβραάμ. Ver. 6. In striking contrast, ὁ δὲ μὴ γενεαλογούμενος . . . “but he whose genealogy is not counted from them hath taken tithes of Abraham, and blessed [see below] him that hath the promises”. γενεαλογέω is classical Greek, meaning, to trace ancestry, see Herod. ii. 146. ἐξ αὐτῶν, not “from the sons of Israel”’ (Epiphanius in Bleek), but “from the sons of Levi,’ ver. 5; and who therefore had no claim to tithe appointed by law, and yet tithed Abraham. καὶ τὸν ἔχοντα, in Vulgate “qui habebat”’ ; in Weizsdcker ‘‘der die Verheissungen hatte,” not “hat’’; so Vaughan cor- rectly, “ὙΠῸ possessor of’. “Him who owned the promises.” Cf. Burton, 124 and 126. εὐλόγηκε, on the per- fects of this verse and of this Epistle (viii. 5, xi. 5, etc.), Mr. J. H. Moulton asks, “ Has anyone noticed the beautiful parallel in Plato, Apol., 28 c., for the characteristic perfect in Hebrews, de- scribing what stands written in Scrip- ture? ὅσοι ἐν Τροίᾳ τετελευτήκασι (as is written in the Athenian’s ‘ Bible’) is exactly like Heb. vii. 6, xi. 17, 28” (Ex- positor, April, 1901, p. 280), Vaughan also says: ‘‘ The γέγραπται (5ο to say) quickens the dead, and gives to the praeterite of the history the permanence of a perfect”. Yes; but to translate by the perfect sacrifices English idiom to Greek idiom. See Burton, 82, ‘‘ When the Perfect Indicative is used of a past event which is by reason of the con- text necessarily thought of as separated
210