Rob Bradshaw has posted an on-line version of an interesting article by F.F. Bruce:
F.F. Bruce, "Textual Problems in the Epistle to the Hebrews" in David Alan Black, ed., Scribes and Scripture: New Testament Essays in Honour of J Harold Greenlee. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992. pp.27-39.
He discusses the following passages: 2.9; 3.6; 4.2; 6.2; 9.11, 19; 10.1, 38; 11.11, 37; 12.1, 3.
He has a view of 2.9 I hadn't heard before: that neither variant was original!
Rob emailed to say that he was putting as much of F.F. Bruce's writing on-line as he could get permission for. "You can see the progress here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theologicalstudies.org.uk/theo_bruce.php"
Peter,
ReplyDeleteWhile Dr F.F. Bruce is rather insightful here, it seems to be unnecessary.
If one understands XARITI QEOU as the dative expressing cause, then the preponderance of the external textual evidence makes and reveals an even greatter reliability.
Malcolm
I quite prefer XWRIS QEOU myself.
ReplyDeleteAs the reading in Heb 2.9 that is, I wouldn't like to be XWRIS QEOU personally.
ReplyDeletePeter,
ReplyDeleteI quite agree that XWRIS QEOU is an undesireable - personally. And I guess based on Origen this reading has some merit as early and I can even justify it from a theological perspective, but....
Never mind, I know what you mean.
Malcolm