1858, Marz, p. 207), Conybeare, Alford, Maier, Kluge, Moll,
Ewald; the latter by Nicholas de Lyra, Calvin, Piscator,
Schlichting, Grotius, Owen, Calov, Braun, Baumgarten, Carpzov,
Rosenmiiller, Heinrichs, Huét, Bohme, Stuart, Kuinoel, Paulus,


CHAP, XI. 27. 419


Klee, Bleek, Stein, Bloomfield, Ebrard, Bisping, Kurtz, Hof-
mann, Woerner, and others. Only the opinion first mentioned is
the correct one. Against it, indeed, the objection appears to be
not without weight, that Ex. ii, 14 a φοβηθῆναι of Moses is
spoken of, whereas here, by means of μὴ φοβηθεὶς x.7.X., the
opposite is asserted. But the contradiction is only an
apparent one. For in the account of Exodus a fear on the
part of Moses is mentioned only in the objective relation,
whereas the fearlessness, which the author of our epistle
intends, belongs. purely to the subjective domain. Moses was
alarmed that, contrary to his expectation, the slaying of the
Egyptian had already become known, and apprehended as a
consequence being exposed to the vengeance of the king, if
the latter should obtain possession of him. On this very
account also he took steps for the saving of his life, in that he
withdrew by flight from the territory of Pharaoh. With this
fact, however, it was perfectly reconcilable that in the con-
sciousness of being chosen to be the deliverer of his people,
and in the confidence in God, in whose hand alone he stood,
he felt himself inwardly, or in his frame of mind, raised above
all fear at the wrath of an earthly king. There is therefore
no need of the concession (de Wette), that the author of the
epistle, when he wrote down his μὴ φοβηθείς, did not
remember the words ἐφοβήθη δὲ Mwiofs, Ex. ii. 14. But
just as little is it permissible, with Delitzsch, to press the
expression κατέλιπεν, chosen by the author, and to assert
that καταλιπεῖν expresses the repairing hence without fear,
whereas φυγεῖν would denote the repairing hence from fear.
