AN I M A D V E R S I O N E S Ex eJnov" in Hebrews 2,11 j The phrase ejx eJnov" in Hebrews 2,11 is interpreted in ways which are as varied as they are perdurable (1). So varied and so perdurable, in fact, that one may be pardoned, perhaps, in thinking of them as permanent parts of the exegetical landscape. But resignation in the face of difficulty is defeatism by another name. It would seem preferable to launch regular attempts at explanations in the hope that trust in the intelligibility of the author of Hebrews may be vindicated sooner or later. The present article is such an attempt. The method involved may be sanguinely described as a “close reading”. 1. The State of the Question The suggestions made as to the identify of the “one” indicated by the word eJnov" are varied. Some of the principal ones are (2): 1) one substance or race; 2) one priestly lineage; 3) one source, i.e., God; 4) one origin, i.e., Adam; 5) one ancestor, i.e., Abraham; 6) one transcendent Gnostic world. These interpretations are supported by arguments based on the context (3). This, of course, is the proper way to proceed. But those who advance differing interpretations invoke the same context. Since there is such a variety of interpretations, each plausible, depending on what elements of the context are chosen, it seems necessary to establish a context which would measurably enhance the plausibility of any interpretation based on it (4). And since the crux seems so intractable, any suggested solution will probably have to appear out of the ordinary, idiosyncratic even. But conventional suggestions based on conventional suppositions would seem to have failed. Something unconventional seems called for. (1) The text in the article which follows is that of Nestle–Aland27. Translations are by the present writer. (2) Cf. H.W. ATTRIDGE, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Philadelphia 1989) 88-89. (3) Cf., for example, W.L. LANE, Hebrews 1–8 (WBC 47; Dallas 1991) 58: “The contextual references to God in v 10 and to the family relationship in v 11…tend to support the contention that eJnov" is masculine and has reference to God…. Both the Son and those who are sons share a common familial relationship that is rooted in the gracious determination of God to bring his children to their destiny through the redemptive mission of the Son…”. (4) In what follows the present writer is going to attempt to arrive at a plausible interpretation of ejx eJnov" and nothing more. No “proof” is envisaged. Perhaps another close reading of the context of Heb 2,11 can yield an interpretation different from the one being advanced here. All that will be claimed is that, considering one close reading of the context of 2,11, the proposed interpretation is plausible.