889
When Jesus was Apart from
BY DR. J. K. ELLIOTT, DEPARTMENT
AT Hebrews 211 la the reading xdpix 0eo5 appears
in printed editions of the Greek New Testament
such as the United Bible Society, the British and
Foreign Bible Society, von Soden and Souter. This
reading has the support of the vast majority of
Greek MSS as well as versional and Patristic
evidence. However, xcupis OcoO is read by M,
(=OI2Ib) 424** 1739* Latin (Vulgate G) Syriac
(Peshitta), by MSS known to Origen, 4 out of the
6 occurrences of the quotation in Greek by Origen
and all the references to this verse in the Latin
versions of Origen, and by a significantly large
number of other Fathers including Vigilius,
Fulgentius, MSS known to Jerome, Ambrose, MSS
known to Ambrose, the Ambrosiaster, Eusebius,
Theodoret, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Anastasius-
Abbot, Pseudo-Oecumenius and Theophylact.
Most commentators favour xdpim. F. F. Bruce,
for example,ib says Whatever may be said of the
textual warrant for the phrase &dquo; by the grace of
God &dquo; it is entirely appropriate in the context and
makes for a smooth transition to the words which
follow . This is a typical comment.
~tupt?, however, is favoured by Zuntz.2 Follow-
ing Harnack he argues that xdpim is a dogmatic
correction and that xwplg 0eo5 fits the theology of
the author of the letter to Hebrews. xcupis OcoO
according to Zuntz has the same meaning as
SL caurou which appears in KL et al. at He 13.
As far as the ancient commentators are con-
cerned they too are often aware of the variation in
MSS at this point. Origen, as can be seen from the
apparatus criticus to this verse, knows both
variants although in his comments he reaches no
decision. Theodore of Mopsuestia, however, con-
demns Xapt7*,, 0eo5 as alien to the argument.
Theophylact and Oecumenius also know both
readings.
Commentators ancient and modern have usually
been preoccupied with theological considerations
when discussing this verse and neglect to examine
our authors linguistic
usage. This is instructive
1a This verse
speaks of Jesus tasting death for every
one by the grace of God (χ&a cgr;ρiτi &thetas;ϵo&uacgr;). Some Greek
MSS read, however, χωρ&iacgr;&sfgr; &thetas;ϵoυ ( apart from God), and
this is indicated in a footnote in N.E.B.
1b F. F. Bruce,
Commentary on the Epistle to the
Hebrews (New London Commentary), Edinburgh (1964),
40.
2
The Text , London (1953),
of the Epistles
God: an Examination of
Hebrews 2
9
OF THEOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS
and to my mind is decisive in our reaching a
decision on the variants.
xwps occurs 13 times in the epistle to the
Hebrews compared with a total of only 28 occur-
rences in the whole of the rest of the New Testa-
ment. xcupis is always followed by an anarthrous
noun in Hebrews, and this is true of the New
Testament occurrences as a whole. The only two
apparent exceptions to this practice are at 2 Co I I2g
and Philemon 14 where XWpt3 precedes the definite
article. These are, however, not true exceptions
because at 2 Co IIZa Tcuv is used pronominally,
and at Philemon 14 the normal usage has been
affected by the presence of the possessive adjective
in the attributive position3 which in the New
Testament is always preceded by the article. In
the latter instance therefore the usage with the
possessive adjective has over-ridden the normal
usage of xwpt3 followed by an anarthrous noun.
Xwpts- 0eo5 at Hebrews 29, therefore, would con-
form entirely with New Testament usage in general
and with Hebrews usage in particular in this
respect. xdpim 0eo5 on the other hand does not
conform with the usage of the article with this
noun in either the New Testament in general or
Hebrews in particular. Xpl.3 is a common New
Testament word occurring over 100 times in Paul
alone. It occurs eight times in Hebrews. A close
parallel to xdpix 9EOV at He 2 is afforded by
He izl6 where the author speaks of the grace
of God . Here, however, it is significant that both
xdpig and the dependent genitive have the article.
This conforms with normal New Testament usage.
xaptg is normally arthrous when followed by the
nomina sacra as dependent genitives. ~ Xp&dquo;3
ros 0eo5 (or KVPLOtl) occurs 34 times in the
Corpus Paulinum. In all these places Xdpts. and
the divine name are arthrous. There are two
exceptions, one at i Co 15lOa and one at 2 Co I1&dquo;
where both Xpl.3 and 0edg are anarthrous.
However, at 2 Co I1z the normal usage has been
broken in order to parallel v. I2a v aoota aapKLK77.
At i Co 15108. the normal usage may again have
been altered for rhetorical reasons in so far as
Xp&dquo;3 occurs three times in this verse. In the rest
of the New Testament xdpig is arthrous when
followed by the divine name as in the Pauline
3
See G. D. Kilpatrick : The Possessive Pronouns
34. in the New Testament, J ., vol. 42 (1941), 184 f.
S
T
.
840
letters, and the only exceptions are at Lk 240
(Xjptg BEOD) and P 410 (~rocKi~l~s XaPLTO.9
I stated that sin rules in death).
9eov). If xdpim 0eo5 were original at He 29 this
anarthrous usage would disagree not only with
He 1211i but with the other instances of ~ Xaptg
ToD OCOO (Kvpov) in the rest of the New Testa-
ment, where these nouns are, as we have seen,
usually arthrous.
It seems therefore that XWplS OcoO is original to
He 29 but, if so, what is its meaning ? Among
the ancient writers, Theodore of A4opuestia argues
that the words were intended to show the impassi-
bility of the Godhead. Fulgentius similarly states
(ad Tras iii. 20) that Jesus, in tasting death, was
without God (sine Deo) only so far as his mortal
nature was concerned ; the divine part of him was
still with God. Cf. also Ambrose (de Fide, v. io6).
Another possible explanation for xwplg OEOO which
has been put forward is less theologically signifi-
cant. This says that Christ died for all, God only
excepted, or that Christ died to bring all (v~rEp
1TaVToS) under his power but that God is excepted
from 1TaVToS (as in I Co 1527). This latter is
followed by Tasker4 although he attributes the
reading not to the author but to scribes who
changed the original xdpim OEOO to xwplg 9EOv
in order to exclude God from the inclusiveness
implied by 1TP ~rav-ros . Bruce6 and Westcott8
to some extent offer this same suggestion. Bruce
says that Xcoptg 0eov was originally a marginal
gloss incorporated into the text, then altered to
xdpim OEOO in time for P46 to know this reading .
The subtlety behind this suggestion tells against it,
especially as we have no MSS reading the text
without the alleged gloss. Bruce is right in
saying xwplg would be more likely to have been
altered to xdpim than the reverse but is wrong in
saying Xcupis came from a scribe. Westcott on
the other hand suggests ~apt-7-t 0eo5 is original
and that xwplg OEOO was a marginal gloss by a
scribe, which was later substituted for the original
reading. This as we have seen is unlikely to be so.
Far more significant than the above suggestions
is the argument that xwplg OcoO was original to
our author and meant that Christ in his death was
separated from God. This agrees fully with the
theological stance of Hebrews. xwplg 0eo5 at 29
agrees with the authors view of the Passion, for
instance 4~b, 5 7 I2a, 13 12 ~.. Jesus at his death
. Matthews and Marks Passion narrative with
is xcoptg 0eo5 because he entered, albeit tempor-
arily, the realm of Satan which is death (and which
according to Paul is the last Satanic enemy to be
4
The Text of the Corpus Paulinum ,
1954-5,
5
184.
. cit., 32.
op
B. F. Westcott, The Epistle to the ,
Hebrews
6
(1892), 62.
I Co 15 26 ; cf. also Ro 5 21 in which it is
overcome,
The idea of being without God in death is rooted
in the Old Testament.7 For example, Ps 66 : In
death there is no remembrance of you : in Sheol
who shall give you thanks ? ; Is 3818 : The
grave cannot praise you, death cannot celebrate
you : they that go down into the pit cannot hope
for your truth ; cf. also Job ioaE, 14 12-14, Ps 30&dquo;,
491~ 884-6, II517. For this reason the dead are
ritually unclean because they belong to the sphere
of demonic powers. In the later parts of the Old
Testament there is sometimes present the hope
that YHWH will eventually swallow up death for
ever. Meanwhile the living God and the abode of
death are mutually exclusive.e8
In tasting death, by which is meant fully
experiencing the alienation from God which the
sin of Adam brought to every man, Jesus is
without God. The author of Hebrews thus follows
the same doctrine of death as Paul in Ro 5 12. This
doctrine is entirely consonant also with He 2141
where it is stressed that the fully human Jesus
shared death like the rest of mankind, in order to
be able (through his resurrection) to break the
devils power over death and thus effect mans
ultimate salvation (cf. especially Jn gbl-b2).
Salvation means salvation not from sin as such but
sins consequence, i.e., death.
The cry of desolation from the cross ( = Ps 221,
cited at Mt 2748 and Mk 1534) may also represent a
similar theological position. Commentaries on these
uncomfortable words in the gospels reveal the
extent to which a lack of appreciation of the
Hebrew belief that death meant automatic
estrangement from God has created difficulties for
modern Christians. But this belief is as crucial to
the saying in the crucifixion account as it is in
He 2 s : it is basic to the Christian belief that
resurrection is the only means whereby Christ first
and Christians subsequently can be released from
the bondage of death (i.e., from being without
God ) and be eternally with God , restored in
effect to the pre-Fall situation once again (cf.
Ro Sla in which Adam and those who follow after
him lose their potential immortality by allowing
death to enter in as a consequence of their sin).
The close connexion of the cry of desolation in
Hebrews 2 may be more than coincidence, and be
based on a common Jewish background. It is well
7
See further N. J. Tromp, Primitive Conceptions of
Death and the Nether World in the Old Testament ,
N.T.S. Biblica et Orientalia 21, Rome (1969).
8 V. Maag in Tod und Jenseits nach den Alten
,Schweizerische Theologische Umschau 34
Testament
London
(1964) speaks of Sheol as ein aussergōttliches Bereich ,
20.

known that Ps 22 has influenced the Passion
narrative to a large extent especially in Matthew
and John. Hebrews has also been influenced by
that same Psalm. Having mentioned the death of
Christ and his separation from God because of
that death (v. 9), the writer goes on to point to
Jesus resurrection and consequent glory. In
doing so, he quotes from Ps 2222, i.e., the verse
which begins the second half of the Psalm, the
half which is concerned not with the suffering and
sense of rejection found in the first half (vv. 1-21)
but with the glorious deeds of God who has not
despised nor abhorred the affliction of the
afflicted nor hid his face from him . Having
therefore explicitly quoted from this Psalm in
v. 12 it is likely that the author to the Hebrews
had the first half of that Psalm in mind when
writing v. 9.89
Moffatts suggestion10 that the author would
have conveyed the meaning forsaken by God
with aTep rather than XCIJp{s ignores the frequency
with which xcupis occurs in Hebrews and the fact
that aTep is restricted to two occurrences in Luke in
the New Testament and is not part of our authors
vocabulary.
~<upt? 0eov, therefore, means that as a result of
death Jesus was automatically separated from
God. He was at that point apart from God and in
Satans realm. Unlike I P 318 -20 there is no
attempt in Hebrews to describe what Christ did in
this interval before his resurrection. Hebrews
states only that when Jesus was raised he was
separated from sinners (728) and eternally with God
again (7 23-25).
The reason why xdpim 0eo5 gained in popularity
and became the standard reading for the majority
of Greek MSS may have been due to Nestorianism.
Theophylact and Oecumenius both ascribe the
reading to the Nestorians for whom xcupis Oeov
would mean that Christs divine nature had no
share in his death. Such condemnation of the
reading may well have been sufficient to discredit
it in the Church, and thus add to the popularity of
the theologically acceptable variant xdpim OEOO.
It is not, however, true to say with Theophylact
and Oecumenius that the Nestorians invented the
reading xwplg 9eov : what it is true to say is that
the Nestorians adopted it. xcupls is not a mere
9cf. C. H. Dodd, According to the Scriptures
, 126,
who argues that the principal Old Testament quotations
in the New Testament were not thought of in isolation
but carried their contents with them by implication.
10
Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Inter-
national Critical Commentary), Edinburgh (1924), 27.
341
Nestorian emendation : it had a wide circulation
not only in Greek MSS associated with Syria but
appeared also in Latin as the quotations in the
western Fathers indicate. It is the appearance of
these quotations in Latin which Westcottll (who
accepts xd pcrc 0eo5 as original) is obliged to
acknowledge as a noteworthy phenomenon I
Xwpis 0eo5 is the lectio dioficilior and therein lies
much of its claim to originality ; Xa&dquo;ptg BEau, on
the other hand, is a perfectly innocuous phrase
familiar to Christians from its frequent appearance
in Pauls writings, and is considered by many
commentators, ancient and modern, to fit the
context of Hebrews 2. Once established in the text
xdpim BEau would not be a reading demanding
alteration, as it is entirely appropriateiz and therein
by comparison lies its weakness as a variant.
xdpim is not a mere anti-Nestorian emendation.
The variation in the text is older than the fifth
century as the presence of xdpim in P46 indicates.
It was an early variation made by scribes who
found the idea that Jesus was without God
puzzling, but who were familiar with the doctrine
of Gods grace. It was an easy orthographical
change to alter XS~PIC to XAPITI and one
that avoided an apparently difficult phrase by
replacing it with a common New Testament idea.
As we have seen above though, the difficult
phrase xwplg OcoO is in fact not only consonant
with our authors theological position in Hebrews,
but also with the New Testament as a whole and
with the Old Testament background.
In conclusion therefore we may summarize that
on the ground of the authors style and usage the
writer to the Hebrews is more likely to have
written xcapis BEau than xdpim BEau. On exegeti-
cal grounds xwplg fits perfectly the theological
position of the New Testament regarding the role
and significance of death prior to Christs resurrec-
tion. xcvpis BEau therefore should be restored to
the text of the New Testament for in that phrase
belongs the depth of theological thought charac-
teristic of the author to the Hebrews. There is
thus much buried treasure in the critical apparatus
to the Greek New Testament, which reveals the
extent to which theological controversy affected
the MSS of the Bible. As Zuntzlg comments
d propos this verse, textual criticism here brings
out a neglected aspect of the theology of Hebrews .
With this judgment we thoroughly agree.
11
., 62.
. cit
op
12
pace Zuntz, op
. cit
., 34, who calls this reading
preposterous .
13
. cit
op ., 44.