94 James Swetnam would seem to indicate that for the author of the epistle the word has a particular significance. But if there is a particular significance it has not figured prominently in contemporary commentaries on the epistle as such a thematic significance presumably should (5). The word lalevw occurs sixeen times in Hebrews: 1,1 — of God; 1,2 — of God with reference to the son; 2,2 — passive, with “through angels”; 2,3 — passive with “through the son”; 2,5 — of the author of the epistle; 3,5 — passive with no explicit indication of agent; 4,8 — of David; 5,5 — of God; 6,9 — of the author of the epistle; 7,14 — of “Moses”, i.e., the Mosaic Law; 9,19 — of Moses; 11,4 — of the blood of Abel; 11,18 — of God; 12,24 — of the blood of Jesus; 12,25 — of Jesus; 13,7 — of the leaders of the Christians. The first two occurrences of lalevw are found in the key verses 1,1 and 1,2. In 1,1 God is said to have “spoken” “in the prophets” (6). The unstated supposition underlying this verse is that God’s “speaking” (lalevw) in recognized sources is uniquely and definitively authoritative and should be respected accordingly. To belabor the point would have been to insult the author’s addressees. In 1,2 this speaking is brought into relation with the son. The son’s speaking is said to be God’s speaking. The reason for this identification is to invest the speaking of the son with the authority of God (7). This, too, needs no further explanation, given the Christian faith of the addressees: Heb 1,2 as regards the authoritative nature of the son’s speaking is a reminder for the epistle’s addressees, not a disclosure (8). Thus the word lalew has a connotation of divine authority in its first two occurrences in the v epistle, occurrences which indicate that lalevw has a thematic role in what follows (9). Most of the other fourteen occurrences of lalevw can be divided without hesitation into one or other of the two principal categories of God’s “speaking in the prophets” (1,1) and “speaking in a son” (1,2) (10). This facility in (5) Attridge, for example, refers to the use of the word as initiating the “theme” of God’s “speech” (ATTRIDGE, Hebrews, 111). But he does not explore the implications of this assessment. The present writer knows of no detailed attempt to understand how the author of Hebrews uses the word lalevw throughout his work. (6) “God’s address of old came ‘through’ (ejn) the prophets, agents with whom Hebrews is not, in fact, much concerned. They are probably understood, in a broad sense, to encompass all those, from the patriarchs through Moses, Joshua, David and the classical prophets, through whom God speaks” (ATTRIDGE, Hebrews, 38-39). (7) ATTRIDGE, Hebrews, 37-38. (8) It should be noted that the “speaking” in a son is mentioned as a matter of fact in which the faith assent of the addressees is presumed. The author of the epistle in what follows will attempt to help the addressees understand the implications of their faith with regard to the challenge which they are facing and to remind them of their obligations and opportunities in its regard. He is not trying to solicit faith — he presumes it. He is concerned that the addressees not lose their faith or become weak in it. (9) In terms of New Testament lexicography this use of lalevw would seem to fit in category 2e of Bauer: “Das Reden kann v. näher bestimmter Art sein” (W. BAUER, Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der früchristlichen Literatur, K. ALAND – B. ALAND [eds.] [Berlin – New York 61988] col. 941). It is worth noting how often in the Patristic period the subject of the verb lalevw is one of the divine persons or one of the Old Testament prophets. Cf. G.W.A. LAMPE (ed.), A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford 1961) 790-791. (10) It should be noted that Hebrews seems to carry on the usage of Septuagint Greek of continuing on with the content of something introduced by lalevw by using a form of