attinet carnis, non autem sine Deo quantum ad susceptionem pertinet deitatis, quia impassibilis atque immortalis illa divinitas...; and by Vigilius Taps. c. Eut. ii. § 5 (p. 17).
Jerome mentions both readings ( In Ep. ad Gal. Heb. 3:10) Christus gratia Dei , sive, ut in quibusdam exemplaribus legitur, absque Deo pro omnibus mortuus est. Perhaps the use of absque for sine indicates that his reference is to Greek and not to Latin copies, and it may have been derived from Origen.
Theodore of Mopsuestia ( ad loc. ) condemns severely cavriti qeou' as foreign to the argument: geloiovtaton dhv ti pavscousin ejntau'qa to; &lsquo cwri;" qeou'&rsquo ejnallavttonte" kai; poiou'nte" cavriti qeou' ouj prosevconte" th'/ ajkolouqiva/ th'" grafh'" : while he maintains that it was necessary to insist on the impassibility of the Godhead ( cwri;" qeou' ).
Chrysostom explains cavriti qeou' without any notice of the variety of reading: o{pw", fhsiv, cavriti qeou', kajkei'no" me;n ga;r dia; th;n cavrin tou' qeou' th;n eij" hJma'" tau'ta pevponqen (Rom. 8:32).
Theodoret, on the other hand, explains cwri;" qeou' and takes no notice of any variation: movnh, fhsivn, hJ qeiva fuvsi" ajnendehv", ta[lla de; pavnta tou' th'" ejnanqrwphvsew" ejdei'to farmavkou .
Theophylact ( ad loc. ) ascribes the reading cwri;" qeou' to the Nestorians: ( oiJ de; Nestorianoi; parapoiou'nte" th;n grafhvn fasi &lsquo cwri;" qeou' uJpe;r panto;" geuvshtai,&rsquo i{na susthvswsin o{ti ejstaurwmevnw/ tw'/ Cristw'/ ouj sunh'n hJ qeovth", a{te mh; kaqj uJpovstasin aujtw'/ hJnwmevnh ajlla; kata; scevsin ), but quotes an orthodox writer as answering their arguments for it by giving the interpretation for all beings except God, even for the angels themselves.
OEcumenius ( ad loc. ) writes to the same effect ( ijstevon o{ti oiJ Nestorianoi; parapoiou'si th;n grafhvn ...).
From a review of the evidence it may be fairly concluded that the original reading was cavriti , but that cwriv" found a place in some Greek copies early in the third century, if not before, which had however only a limited circulation, and mainly in Syria. The influence of Theodore and the Nestorian controversy gave a greater importance to the variant, and the common Syriac text was modified in two directions, in accordance with Eutychian and Nestorian views. The appearance of cwriv" in a group of Latin quotations is a noteworthy phenomenon.
The variant may be due to simple error of transcription, but it seems to be more reasonably explained by the supposition that
cwri;" qeou'
was added as a gloss to
uJpe;r pantov"
or
oujde;n ajfh'ken aujtw'/ ajnupovtakton
from 1 Cor. 15:27
ejkto;" tou' uJpotavxanto" aujtw'/ ta; pavnta
, and then substituted for
cavriti qeou'. Cwri;" Cristou'
is found Eph. 2:12. It is scarcely possible that
cavriti qeou'
can have been substituted for
cwri;" qeou'
, though it is really required to lead on to the fuller development of the thought in Heb. 2:10.
Additional Note on Hebrews 2:10. The idea of
teleivwsi"
.
The idea of teleivwsi" consummation, bringing to perfectionis characteristic of the Epistle. The whole family of words connected with tevleio" is found in it: tevleio" (5:14; 9:11), teleiovth" 6:1 (elsewhere only Col. 3:14),