Many interpreters, however, insist on attaching the second
participial clause xal Aedovpévol, K.T.r., to KaTéy@pev, in
preference to mpocepyapeOa. So Erasmus, Beza, Bengel,
Griesbach, Kuincel, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Bohme, Schulz,
Ebrard, and Liinemann ; and it has even been maintained
that the period commencing with éyovres concludes with


Hofmann ; and also Lactantius, Jnst. iv. 14,—a passage which, speaking.
of the sempiternum sacerdotium Christi in the great and everlasting
temple of His church, seems to be an echo of our epistle.
——— —t—‘=Os


NTs eo


— oe PS Is





~~. a ee ee


CHAP. X. 22, 175


miotews, and that both the participial clauses are to be con-
nected with the following xatéywpev. (So Hofmann, Weiss.
ii. 234; Schrift. ii. 2.160; and Lntsteh. 345.) Both con-
structions seem to us unnatural in the highest degree. The
former separates two closely connected liturgical acts, those
of sprinkling and washing: the latter separates them from
the liturgical zpocepywueOa. To say that the clause éyovres
introduces the exhortation mpocepywpefa, and the clauses
éppavticpévor and AeAovpévor the exhortation Katéywper, is
to misstate the relations of thought in the whole paragraph.
