Hebrews 1:8-9 (Traditional Text)
προς δε τον υιον
ο θρονος σου ο θεος
εις τον αιωνα του αιωνος
ραβδος ευθυτητος
η ραβδος της βασιλειας σου and unto the Son:
`Thy throne, O God,
[is] to the age of the age;
a scepter of righteousness [is]
the scepter of thy reign;'...
___________________________________________
Exclude phrase: B 33 t vg(some mss)
___________________________________________
Perhaps
B.J. Wright gave the most concise description of this obvious Haplography error, recently (Dallas Seminary, 2007):
"For centuries, the book of
Hebrews has been the combat zone of many impasses and cacophonous speculations: its juncture is unstated, its author is unknown, and its destination ambiguous. Fortunately, these matters, while fascinating, are not at the viscera of the book's significance. What interests us here then, is one verse in the first chapter that possibly denotes the deity of Christ: namely,
1:8. Since the hermeneutical and exegetical issues here are beyond the scope of this paper, I will proceed by simply addressing the textual issues.
...
The first textual variant is pretty straightforward: the presence or absence of
του αιωνος ("and ever") after
εις τον αιωνα ("forever").
Externally, the absence of is significantly inferior with only a small handful of concentrated MSS omitting it (
B 33 t vg-mss). Although it is true that scribes often expanded readings (with the apocapated reading generally being preferred), it is not the situation here for several reasons.
First,
του αιωνος is a direct quotation from the OT with both the
LXX [44:7] and
MT [45:7] supporting it.
Second, this reading is supported by the best and earliest MSS (only a few omit it:
B 33 t vg-mss).
Third, every time [ Heb:
'oulam od' ] occurs in the OT the LXX translates it with
του αιωνος (Ps 10:16; 21:5; 45:7; 48:15; 52:10; 104:5). Putting it another way, if one accepts the shorter Greek rendering of the OT quote in
Heb. 1:8 (simply by
εις τον αιωνα ), and does not include
του αιωνος,
it goes against all the ancient versions. Fourth, faulty eyesight could easily explain the omission."
- Brian James Wright, "Jesus as Theos: Scriptural Fact or Scribal Fantasy?" (2007)
Wright adds a footnote: 'For this and other possibilities see E.C. Colwell,
Studies in the Methodology in Textual Criticism of the NT (Eerdmans, 1969), 106-124. , Cf. J. R. Royse, "Scribal Tendencies in the Transmission of the Text of the NT"; J.R. Royse,
"The Treatment of Scribal Leaps in Metzger's Textual Commentary", NTS 29 (1983) 539-51.'
It only needs to be added that Codex Sinaiticus also carries its own unique set of absurd variants in the book of Hebrews, and consequently its omissions also have all the appearance of scribal boners due to negligence and fatigue. (see B.B. Warfield's enlightening list of Aleph's boners in Hebrews).
Linear Mode
