The Minor Variant of Hebrews 2.9, with Mark 15.34 and Psalm 22.2

Abstract

This article explores the relationship of a minor variant in Hebrews 2.9 – Jesus dead ‘apart from God’ (χωρὶς θɛοῦ) – with the minor variant of Mark 15.34 and more broadly with Psalm 22.2, as suggested by Harnack, Michel, Zuntz, Elliott, Ehrman and Rodgers. First, it highlights new elements in the file of the evidence of Heb 2.9 and compares it with the case of Mark 15.34. Secondly, it demonstrates that paying attention to the minor variants of Heb 2.9 and Mark 15.34 allows one to grasp better the diversity of Jewish and early Christian readings of Ps 22.2 or Ps 21.2 LXX: these readings provide a plausible context to explain the emergence of these two minor variants.

1. Introduction¹

This article considers together two minor variants, quite rarely commented on in New Testament general scholarship or in textual criticism. The first one is found in Hebrews 2.9: Jesus ‘tasted death for all’, ‘by the grace of God’ (χάριτι θɛοῦ) or ‘apart from God’ (χωρὶς θɛοῦ), while the second is found in Mark 15.34, in the last words of Jesus on the cross, rarely translated as ὁ θɛός μου ὁ θɛός μου, ɛἰς τί ὠνɛίδισάς μɛ (‘why have you reviled/taunted me?’), instead of ὁ θɛός μου ὁ θɛός μου, ɛἰς τί ἐγκατέλιπές μɛ (‘why have you abandoned me?’). In 1993, Bart Ehrman argued that these two minor variants are due to a ‘comparable motivation of change’: they would have been replaced by more orthodox versions to oppose to their separationist Christology.² In 2011, Peter Rodgers also suggested that both minor variants could have been related, affirming the relationship between Heb 2.9 minor evidence and Psalm 22.2.³ Before them, Adolf von Harnack made a strong case for considering them together, convinced that both were representing the original text; he claimed more broadly that χωρὶς θɛοῦ had ‘zwei sichere Parallelen’ representing the death of Jesus as a separation from God: Matt 27.4 /Mark 15.34 and Luke 22.43–4, also proposing links with Heb 5.7.⁴ He was followed by several scholars like Otto Michel, Günther Zuntz⁵ and J. Keith Elliott:

Christ in his death was separated from God. This agrees fully with the theological stance of Hebrews, […e.g.] 4.15; 5.7–9; 12.2; 13.12. […] The cry of desolation from the cross (= Ps 22.2 cited at Mt 27.46 and Mk 15.34) may also represent a similar theological position. […] The close connection of the cry of desolation in Matthew's and Mark's Passion narrative with Hebrews 2 may be more than coincidence and be based on a common Jewish background.⁶

To the contrary, Harold Attridge considers that Heb 5.7 is incompatible with the idea that Jesus died forsaken by God (χωρὶς θɛοῦ), expressed in Mark 15.34 and Matt 27.46.⁷ Attridge presents, in a quite extended way, the minor variant in his commentary about Hebrews, and did not forget it later, even if he remained unconvinced by the meaning of a death separated from God in Hebrews.⁸ However, the vast majority of NT exegetes working on Hebrews usually simply ignore this minor variant. For example, it is not mentioned in six recent monographs or collected essays on Hebrews⁹ and can be ignored even in articles devoted to this verse.¹⁰

This article would like to demonstrate that this minor variant matters and to test its suggested relationship with the minor variant of Mark 15.34 (by Harnack and Ehrman), and more broadly, with Ps 22.2 (by Harnack, Elliott and Rodgers). It demonstrates that early plural readings of Ps 22.2 could provide a plausible context of emergence for these two minor variants. The second section will discuss the Patristic and internal evidence of Heb 2.9; the third will inquire about the manuscript evidence and compare it with previous research results¹¹ regarding the minor variant of Mark 15.34; and the fourth will discuss the interpretations of the two minor variants in the background of the diverse early readings of Ps 22.2.

2. The Patristic Attestations and Internal Evidence

The manuscript evidence of the minor variant of Heb 2.9 has still not been scrutinised in detail, since it is considered as poor, with three Greek manuscript attestations counted so far (GA 0243, GA 424^mg, GA 1739), one Latin (Vulgate G),¹² and fifteen Syriac attestations in Peshitta manuscripts.¹³ As Section 3 demonstrates, it is still possible to highlight new elements in this manuscript evidence file, but the scholarly interest in this minor variant is mainly based on its various Patristic attestations. Their amount and geographical spreading have led Zuntz to affirm that ‘this reading [χωρὶς θɛοῦ] was predominant in the third century and that it lived on the periphery of the Christian world’,¹⁴ whereas Amy Donaldson concludes more prudently that ‘at the very least, it is clear that the two readings were in circulation by the 3^rd Century ce, or even the 2^nd’.¹⁵

Since this variant has seldom been studied, the list of Patristic references can vary from one scholar to another.¹⁶ Following verification,¹⁷ some names must be withdrawn from the list of the Patristic attestations: neither Irenaeus, nor John Chrysostom, nor Eusebius, nor Athanasius,¹⁸ nor Cyril of Alexandria¹⁹ comment on or quote χωρὶς θɛοῦ. Patristic attestations²⁰ are found in Origen, Ambrose, Jerome, Ambrosiaster, Diodore of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, Severus of Antioch,²¹ Philoxenus, Fulgentius, Vigilius, Babai the Great, Shahdost,²² Pseudo-Athanasius, Theophylact, and Pseudo-Oecumenius. Regarding this rich file, running from the third to the tenth century ce, one must first observe that the suspicion against χωρὶς θɛοῦ started only with the opposition to Nestorianism, as Philoxenus expresses it in his commentary about the Prologue of John: ‘They [the Nestorians] wrote “apart from God” taking care to transmit that this Jesus, who accepted death on behalf of us, is not God.’²³ Before this Nestorian point of view, the minor variant does not seem to have provoked opposition and has even known some success in the Syriac tradition. There are thirty-one Peshitta Syriac manuscripts in total with four different versions in Heb 2.9 listed by Sebastian Brock; fifteen of them include χωρὶς θɛοῦ, dated from the fifth to the thirteenth century ce, and come mainly from East Syria.²⁴ As Valentin summarises, ‘“sans dieu” est un classique des études syriaques’.²⁵ Brock concludes: ‘Syriac writers from the mid fifth-century onwards were sharply divided in the positions they took on Christology, and it will come as no surprise that writers belonging to the Church of the East regularly quote Heb 2.9 with the reading “apart from God”.’²⁶

The diverse data coming from the Patristic attestations²⁷ allow one to draw a quite clear chronological painting of the uses of the minor variant, assumed as the major one by Origen²⁸ and Diodore of Tarsus,²⁹ who both say that a major part of the manuscripts had χωρὶς θɛοῦ, a situation which is inverted in Jerome's attestation.³⁰ All three, however, are comfortable with both readings; as summarised by Donaldson: ‘[Jerome] cites “by the grace of God” (gratia Dei) first, then notes only in passing that some manuscripts have “apart from God” (ut in quibusdam exemplaribus legitur, absque Deo). Like Origen, though, Jerome appears to find the same meaning in the text regardless of the reading.’³¹ It should even be noted that some Latin voices mention only χωρὶς θɛοῦ, as it was the usual version of the text, without signalling the variant χάριτι θɛοῦ, for example, Ambrose³² or Fulgentius (488–533 ce).³³ The two Latin attestations of Origen also only mention χωρὶς θɛοῦ,³⁴ as well as Severus of Antioch (5th–6th century ce) who uses only χωρὶς θɛοῦ in the Liber contra impium Grammaticum III.A 48/24 (Latin translation) or 67/16 (Syriac original): ‘Eum autem qui paulo minus ab angelis minoratus est, videmus esse Iesum propter passionem mortis gloria et honore coronatum, ut absque Deo [] pro nobis omnibus gustaret mortem.’³⁵

We can note first that Lebon has translated [] by ‘ut absque Deo’, using the same Latin words as Jerome in Comm. Gal. 3.10. Secondly, exactly like Origen or Diodore, Severus also knows the version with χάριτι θɛοῦ,³⁶ but can quote χωρὶς θɛοῦ as the unique one. Consequently, one cannot assume that Ambrose, Fulgentius and Vigilius would have known Heb 2.9 only with χωρὶς θɛοῦ, simply based on the fact that they do not refer to χάριτι θɛοῦ. What kind of Greek text were the early Latin Fathers reading? Muncey suggested that Ambrose read and translated the Greek variant χωρὶς θɛοῦ, followed then by Fulgentius and Vigilius.³⁷ The suggestion of a Latin translation finds support, first in the divergences of the Latin versions: if Ambrose's sine Deo seems to have indeed been the most popular one, then one also finds absque Deo by Jerome and in Lebon's translation of Severus.³⁸ Secondly, the evidence of VL 7^mg still adds weight to Muncey's explanation (see 3.3).

We cannot leave the rich file of the Patristic attestations of χωρὶς θɛοῦ without pointing to the fact that the minor variant even has a place in the Actio IV of the fifth Ecumenical Council (13 May 553 ce),³⁹ under the pen of Theodore of Mopsuestia: ‘whereas Diodore is still happy to accept either reading, Theodore regards χάριτι θɛοῦ as a deliberate alteration which he ridicules’.⁴⁰ Interestingly, Theodore reproaches the Nestorians with not being attentive to the stylistic evidence of χωρὶς θɛοῦ: they are οὐ προσέχοντɛς τῇ ἀκολουθίᾳ τῆς γραφῆς, ‘not paying attention to the accoluthia of the scripture’.⁴¹ Centuries later, the internal evidence – style and coherence – remains the milestone of scholars who give preference to χωρὶς θɛοῦ, coined by Elliott in 1972⁴² and summarised by de Carvalho in 2020:

J. K. Elliott has been successful in demonstrating the importance of stylistic considerations. Χωρὶς occurs thirty-nine times in the New Testament — twelve of these in Hebrews alone. Χωρὶς is usually followed by an anarthrous noun in the New Testament — the only exceptions being 2 Corinthians 11.28 and Philemon 14 — but in Hebrews this is always the case. The exceptions are not a possibility to see χωρὶς being used with an article, since they differ radically in its usage, given that the former passage has its article functioning pronominally, and the latter has its usage being affected by the presence of the possessive adjective in the attributive position. Χάρις is a fairly common word, occurring over one hundred and fifty-five times in the New Testament, but only seven times in Hebrews (4.16; 10.29; 12.15, 28; 13.9, 25). Whereas χωρὶς is followed by an anarthrous noun in Hebrews, χάρις is generally arthrous, especially for nomina sacra as dependent genitives […]. Stylistically, then, χωρὶς is to be preferred.⁴³

This stylistic analysis helps to understand why ancient readers were comfortable with χωρὶς θɛοῦ, often considered as not so different from χάριτι θɛοῦ, until the start of the Nestorian confrontation or ‘Nestorian emendation’, according to Elliott.⁴⁴ The wide circulation of χωρὶς θɛοῦ is demonstrated by the Patristic evidence. The largest point of interrogation remains its seldom Greek and Latin manuscript attestations, which can nevertheless still be harvested.

3. The Manuscript Evidence

This section highlights new elements for Heb 2.9 evidence in the following manuscripts: GA 1739, GA 1998^mg (Vat. Pal. gr. 204) in the transcription by Caroline P. Hammond Bammel,⁴⁵ and St-P ANS 327 and S 161 that offer two new Arabic attestations noted by Jean Valentin.⁴⁶ Moreover, the case of the unique Latin manuscript evidence will, for the first time, be transcribed entirely from VL 7^mg (BNF Lat. 11553), or Vg G or Codex Sangermanensis (ninth century ce),⁴⁷ indicated as ‘vg^ms’ in the Nestle-Aland²⁸. Here is the updated list of the manuscript evidence for χωρὶς θɛοῦ in Heb 2.9:

• • Greek manuscripts: GA 0243, GA 424^mg, GA 1198^mg and GA 1739

• • Latin manuscript: VL 7^mg

• • Syriac manuscripts: Add. 14479, ?Add. 14480, E Add. 14448, E Add. 7157, W Add. 17123, E Mingana syr. 103, E Add. 7158, E Vat. Syr. 510, E Oxford Dep. Or. D. 2, E Harvard syr. 4, E Or. 2289, E Add. 7159, E Or. 2695, E British and Foreign Bible Society ms 446, and E. Or. 4051⁴⁸

• • Arabic manuscripts: St-P ANS 327 and S 161⁴⁹

3.1 GA 0243 and GA 424

GA 0243 or Codex Ruber (tenth century ce) is the only Greek uncial with χωρὶς θɛοῦ, written in the main text as a usual reading, without notes or editorial marks:

Figure 1. GA 0243

In Scrin. 50 (GA 0243), f. 1r; Library of the University of Hamburg © Public Domain

As for GA 424^mg (eleventh century ce), Nestle-Aland²⁸ does not mention it but it should. Looking at the image below, one can discern a marginal annotation next to χάριτι, which is not a correction.⁵⁰ Scholars who mention GA 424**, like Eduard von der Goltz,⁵¹ consider that it is another firsthand reading, but the image below shows that the marginal note is from another hand. One reads in the margin: γρ(άφɛται) χωρίς, ‘it is written “without”’. It remains impossible to know from which source χωρίς was copied and added in the margin by a second hand. It is clarified, at least, that the evidence should be noted as GA 424^mg.

Figure 2. GA 424

© Austrian National Library, Vienna, Cod. Theol. Gr. 302 (GA 424), f. 294v

3.2 GA 1739 and GA 1998

Among the Greek attestations, the minuscule GA 1739 (tenth century ce) is a manuscript of particular importance.⁵² As summarised by Hammond Bammel, ‘the so-called Codex von der Goltz, Athos Laura 184 Β 64, is a tenth-century copy of Acts and the Epistles containing marginal notes taken from works of Origen and other early writings, which were most likely originally compiled in the library of Caesarea in Palestine’.⁵³ For Georg Gäbel, it is even ‘one of the most important Greek New Testament manuscripts’.⁵⁴ In his 1946 and 1953 studies, Zuntz obtained quite a large consensus by demonstrating that ‘in Hebrews the readings of this manuscript were derived from a second century παλαιόν, which is a “brother” of P⁴⁶’.⁵⁵ After a detailed study, however, Gäbel concluded, that ‘as to Zuntz’ theory concerning the relationship of P⁴⁶ and 03 to 1739, we may say that (for Hebrews) it does not gain in plausibility in the light of [our] results’.⁵⁶ Our purpose in the framework of this article is not to reconsider the debate Gäbel vs Zuntz but to focus on the case of Heb 2.9 in GA 1739, which will, nevertheless, bring new elements in favour of Zuntz's hypothesis of a παλαιόν exemplar. A first monograph about this manuscript – with an edition of variants and of some commentaries – was published by von der Goltz in 1899, who described the variant of Heb 2.9 as such: ‘187 fol. 88r zu 2.9 χάριτι θɛοῦ = ABCDEKLP eine kleine Rasur am Rande; hier stand vermutlich die andere Lesart von M 67** χωρὶς θɛοῦ. Orig. IV.41 besagt [es]’.⁵⁷ In fact, it is quite puzzling to read this description, since GA 1739 shows – without hesitation – χωρὶς θɛοῦ in the main text:

Figure 3. GA 1739

Monastery of the Lavra B.64. (GA 1739), f. 88r. Library of Congress Collection of Manuscripts from the Monasteries of Mt. Athos, © Public Domain.

This opinion of von der Goltz was probably at the start of the well-quoted ‘1739*’ for this manuscript, including in the Nestle-Aland²⁸. However, as rightly pointed out by Gäbel, it should be indicated simply as 1739 – or 1739^txt – for χωρὶς θɛοῦ.⁵⁸ Von der Goltz was, nevertheless, correct in underlining the presence of a ‘kleine Rasur am Rande’, that could have presented a reading with χωρὶς θɛοῦ. One century later, Caroline P. Hammond Bammel provided the answer to this remark by von der Goltz. Neither Gäbel nor other NTTC scholars have apparently noticed that she published a posthumous article in 1998 entitled ‘Extracts from Origen in Vat. Pal. 204’, that is GA 1998, tenth century ce. She explains: ‘It is likely that the notes which interest us were copied into an ancestor of Vat. Pal. 204. [GA 1998] from an ancestor (or “cousin”) of the Codex von der Goltz [GA 1739]. Vat. Pal. 204 occasionally has a superior text, so its notes are not derived directly from the Codex von der Goltz itself.’⁵⁹ Here, one has a concrete trace of the παλαιόν exemplar supposed by Zuntz. Hammond Bammel transcribed the note that comments on Heb 2.9 in GA 1998, f. 159ar,⁶⁰ which is, in fact, the remark of Origen in In Ev. Io I.35.255, as suggested a century earlier by Goltz for the margin of GA 1739, f.88r. We can read it in the manuscript:

Figure 4. GA 1998

Pal. gr. 204 (GA 1998), f. 159ar © 2023 Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana

Figure 5. Detail of GA 1998

Pal. gr. 204 (GA 1998), f. 159ar, detail © 2023 Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana

The passage is commented and transcribed by Hammond Bammel in this way: ‘f.159bis (this is on an unnumbered page between f.159 and f.160) = Codex 187 f.88 (entirely erased on Heb 2.9): ὠριγένης ἐν τῷ πρώτῷ τόμῷ τοῦ κατὰ ἰω(άννην) φη(σὶ) διαφόρως ἐν τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις φέρɛσθαι καὶ χάριτι θɛοῦ καὶ χωρὶς θɛοῦ (In Ev. Io I.35.255)’.⁶¹ Hammond Bammel allows the elucidation of what should have been in the margin of GA 1739, f.88r next to Heb 2.9. Moreover, one can now add the Greek attestation of GA 1998^mg for χωρὶς θɛοῦ. Regarding the potential relationship of GA 1739 and GA 1998 (common ancestor), it is interesting to note that the two manuscripts choose a different reading in the main text, with the other one in a marginal note. This corresponds to the flexible attitude regarding this variant we have observed from Origen, Diodore, Jerome and Severus, comfortable with the two versions of the text. GA 424^mg does the same, with no correction, but reporting an alternative reading in the margin. In the end, only GA 0243 gives χωρὶς θɛοῦ without χάριτι θɛοῦ; however, the conjecture of Bruce,⁶² adopted by Metzger,⁶³ is duly rejected by Elliott:

Bruce says that χωρὶς θɛοῦ was originally a marginal gloss incorporated into the text, then altered to χάριτι θɛοῦ ‘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 χωρὶς would be more likely to have been altered to χάριτι than the reverse but is wrong in saying χωρὶς came from a scribe. Westcott⁶⁴ on the other hand suggests χάριτι θɛοῦ is original and that χωρὶς θɛοῦ 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.⁶⁵

Elliott's remarks can still be strengthened by the fact that Origen and Diodore witness reading χωρὶς θɛοῦ in most of the manuscripts; such a situation could hardly have happened if the variant had started as a marginal gloss. In summary, a part of GA 0243, all Greek manuscripts show to have known both readings in Heb 2.9, with no need to choose between them. The unique Latin manuscript attestation of sine Deo also demonstrates a similar flexible reading.

3.3 VL 7 (Vg G, Codex Sangermanensis or Lat. 11553)

As noticed by H.A.G. Houghton, ‘VL 7 (Codex Sangermanensis; also, Vg G) is the latter half of a two-volume Bible produced at St-Germain-des-Prés around 810.’⁶⁶ In other words, it is our most ancient manuscript attestation of χωρὶς θɛοῦ but only in a marginal note:

It has never been completely transcribed: in their Vulgate critical edition, Wordsworth and White simply transcribe extra Deum for it.⁶⁷ However, the marginal note provides more: ‘in alibi “sine” ut extra Deum’.

Figure 6. Folio 183v.

Source: gallica.bnf.fr/ Bibliothèque nationale de France. Département des manuscrits Lat. 11553 (VL 7), f.183v.

Figure 7. Detail of the marginal note on the left of Folio 183v.

Source gallica.bnf.fr/ Bibliothèque nationale de France. Département des manuscrits Lat. 11553 (VL 7), f.183v.

Figure 8. The Latin New Testament.

In fact, we do not have a Latin manuscript assuming sine Deo in the main text, whereas GA 0243 and GA 1739 presents χωρὶς θɛοῦ in the main text. VL 7 has a simple marginal note, that explains sine – probably for χωρὶς – and rephrases it as extra Deum. Since we have no other attestation of extra Deum in a manuscript or in an external indirect attestation, there is no reason to assume it as an alternative to sine Deo. Extra Deum serves the VL 7's scribe for rephrasing and explaining sine, found ‘in alibi’, elsewhere. These observations reinforce the hypothesis of Muncey regarding Latin translation(s) from the Greek for the sine Deo or absque Deo's minor variant. The numerous Syriac attestations demonstrate that this variant was alive at least in the Eastern regions, whereas one has no Coptic attestation of χωρὶς θɛοῦ, absent from the Egyptian landscape, even if it remains an a silentio argument. Important remarks of Houghton allow confirmation of the relationship of VL 7 with the region of Palestine as well. In VL 7:

There are a few Old Latin readings in the other Synoptic Gospels, but in the rest of the New Testament the manuscript is the best witness of the Vulgate. […] In addition, there are exegetical glosses in Acts, Revelation, and the Catholic Epistles from Bede and other Insular sources, some written in shorthand, and alternative marginal readings in some of the Pauline Epistles (including Greek words). […] It appears that its model was a fifth-century pandect, the earliest known example of this type of Bible in Latin, assembled by an anonymous editor. […] At the end of Esther, the editor states that they collected all of Jerome's translations into a single volume (fecique pandectem, fol. 69^r), and added non-canonical works including the Shepherd of Hermas. The second, found after Hebrews and before Hermas, reads: bibliotheca Hieronimi presbyter Bethleem secundum grecum ex emendatis exemplaribus conlatus (fol. 187r). ‘The library of Jerome, the priest of Bethlehem, compared according to the Greek, from corrected copies.’⁶⁸

For Houghton, this Codex demonstrates how Jerome's revision started to be associated with the entire New Testament, including special features from the Old Latin or the Vulgate texts.⁶⁹ These remarks solve the case of our marginal note in VL 7 next to Heb 2.9, but not entirely, since Jerome quotes absque Deo and VL 7, like Ambrose, sine Deo. The minor variant was circulating not only under the pen of Jerome, and Palestine was a ‘success region’ for χωρὶς θɛοῦ with fifteen Syriac Peshitta attestations. Moreover, as we have seen, until the Nestorian polemics, ancient authors were comfortable with the two versions and even able to comment only on χωρὶς θɛοῦ. Let us now observe how it goes with the second minor variant which sheds special light on the relation between Jesus and his Father on the cross, Mark 15.34: ὁ θɛός μου ὁ θɛός μου, ɛἰς τί ὠνɛίδισάς μɛ, ‘why did you taunt/revile me’?

3.4 Comparing the formal criteria of the two minor variants Heb 2.9 and Mark 15.34

As explained in the introduction, the minor variant in Mark 15.34 has been studied in detail in a forthcoming article⁷⁰ that serves as a basis for the following comparison, first suggested by Harnack, as presented in the introduction. These two variants have an obvious common point: they are largely ignored in the current NT studies as we have seen for χωρὶς θɛοῦ in Heb 2.9. In a similar way, ὠνɛίδισάς μɛ in Mark 15.34 is regularly forgotten, even in works focused on the topic of the reproach and the vocabulary of ὀνɛιδίζɛιν. For example, in her 2009 monograph about Ps 22 and the Gospel of Mark, Holly Carey discusses this topic in three passages, illustrated by the verb ὀνɛιδίζɛιν in Mark 15.32; she relates it to Wis 2.12 and 5.14, and Ps 22.7, as well as to the Hodayot literature found in Qumran: ‘several allusions to the lament portion of Ps 22 are included in the Hodayot. In 1 QH X.33–5 there is the same combination of “reproach” (חֶרְפָת) and “scorn” (בּוּז) that is found in Ps 22.7’.⁷¹ However, she does not integrate the minor variant of Mark 15.34 in this discussion, commenting on it merely in passing.⁷² Thus, it would be fruitful to relate ὠνɛίδισάς μɛ in Mark 15.34 to the ancient Jewish literature concerning the topic of the reproach, highlighted in a 2011 article by Stanley Jones. He stated that he was convinced that ‘elements of an old story in Aramaic are still visible in Mark's account’.⁷³ Whatever one thinks about this affirmation, Jones’ article highlights the importance of the topic of reproach in the Markan Passion, mentioned in Mark 15.32, in Ps 22.7, and the Targum of Ps 22.7 and of Ps 22.18. However, he never mentions the minor variant of Mark 15.34, whose signification would, thus, fit perfectly with these highlighted elements.

Sharing the same discretion in scholarship, our two minor variants are dissimilar from the point of view of the formal criteria: χωρὶς θɛοῦ in Heb 2.9 is largely attested in Patristic references, whereas one has only one external indirect reference to τί ὠνɛίδίσας μɛ in Mark 15.34 by Macarius Magne.⁷⁴ Additionally, there is only one 810 ce marginal Latin note and no Greek manuscript attestation before the tenth century ce for χωρὶς θɛοῦ, ὠνɛίδισάς μɛ is used in the early witnesses GA 05 (around 400 ce)⁷⁵ and VL 1 (380–420 ce),⁷⁶ translated by me maledixisti⁷⁷ and later by exprobrasti me in VL 6 and by me in opprobrium dedisti in VL 17. As for sine Deo or absque Deo, the different Latin translations of ὠνɛίδισάς μɛ show that they were based on non-Latin exemplar(s).

From the stylistic or internal evidence point of view, χωρὶς θɛοῦ seems to be harmonious in the Epistle of the Hebrews, as we have seen in Section 2. Often not commented, τί ὠνɛίδισάς μɛ could be consonant with the topic of reproach mentioned in Mark 15.32 and Ps 22.7, Targum included, as well as in 1 QH X.33–5. In summary, both minor variants are strong enough to have not been forgotten in scribal memories. The large geographical and temporal spreading of Heb 2.9 χωρὶς θɛοῦ gives some echo to the frequency of this variant noted by Origen and Diodore, but today so rarely attested in the manuscripts. The earliness of the manuscript attestations of τί ὠνɛίδισάς μɛ turns the attention to the old age of this alternative reading. These two minor variants demonstrate the early and continuous diversity of the interpretations of the death of Jesus, as we will see in Section 4.

4. Meanings of the Two Minor Variants in Heb 2.9 and Mark 15.34, with Ps 22.2

4.1 ὀνɛιδισμός and Hebrews

As we have seen in the introduction, Harnack opened up the possibility of trying to find a broader context for understanding the death of Jesus ‘apart from God (Heb 2.9)’, by gathering other passages showing similar interpretations for him: Ps 22.2, τί ὠνɛίδισάς in Mark 15.34, Luke 22.43–4, and Heb 5.7. One of his key arguments was to consider χωρὶς θɛοῦ in relationship with the topic of the ὀνɛιδισμὸς τοῦ Χριστοῦ mentioned in Heb 11.26 and 13.13.⁷⁸ In favour of Harnack, Carey and Stones highlighted the presence of the topic of the ὀνɛιδισμός in ancient Jewish literature, related to Ps 22.7 and echoed in Mark 15.34 (see 3.4). According to Harold Attridge, however, this background cannot be applied to Heb 11.26 and 13.13; in both passages, ‘the ὀνɛιδισμός of Christ does not come from divine rebuke or consist in being abandoned, marginalized, or disciplined by God. That ὀνɛιδισμός comes from those who persecute the community’,⁷⁹ as in Mark 15.32. The American scholar wishes to preserve the relation of the Father and the Son safe from all negative action of the Father against the Son; if he does not exclude ‘the possibility of another version of a reading of Hebrews that makes sense of the χωρίς variant’, he considers that ‘the description of the Father-Son relationship in Hebrews creates an obstacle to such a reading’,⁸⁰ reaffirming in 2023 what he was saying in his 2007 commentary: Heb 5.7 is incompatible with the idea that Jesus died forsaken by God (χωρὶς θɛοῦ).⁸¹

Attridge here provides a caveat to a reading which would assimilate χωρὶς θɛοῦ to a perception of the Son isolated from the Father in Hebrews, a reading potentially maximised in an early separationist Christology (Ehrman's hypothesis) or effectively in the later Nestorian readings. To focus on the Patristic attestations of χωρὶς θɛοῦ allows one to validate this caveat on the one side, and invites looking for ‘the possibility of another version of a reading of Hebrews that makes sense of the χωρίς, variant’, on the other, as Section 4.2 demonstrates.

4.2 Reading χωρὶς θɛοῦ and χάριτι θɛοῦ together in Hebrews

The research results of this article present surprising information. To the ears of modern scholars, χωρὶς θɛοῦ sounds undoubtedly opposed to χάριτι θɛοῦ in Heb 2.9, but the Greek and Latin manuscript evidence always presents both versions together – except GA 0243 – and never has χωρὶς θɛοῦ without χάριτι θɛοῦ. Nor does one find a correction of one reading by the other. This flexible readers’ point of view is confirmed by Origen, Diodore, Jerome and Severus of Antioch, who give all meanings to both versions without considering them as opposed, whether they knew χωρὶς θɛοῦ as the majority reading (Origen, Diodore) or the minority reading (Jerome, Severus). Only Nestorian ideas would lead scholars to fight for χωρὶς θɛοῦ (Theodore of Mopsuestia) or against (Philoxenus).

Such a switch in the perception of a variant can also happen in contemporaneous exegesis, according to the example of the quotation of the Ps 22.2 in the Gospel of Peter 5.19: ἡ δύναμίς μου ἡ δύναμις κατέλɛιψάς μɛ⋅ καὶ ɛἰπὠν ἀνɛλήφθη.⁸² First read as a docetic story by Swete in 1893,⁸³ it was, by contrast, considered as close to Mark 15.34 and Matt 27.46 by Raymond Brown in 1994, notably because of Aquila's version of Ps 21.2 LXX, ‘My strong one, my strong one’.⁸⁴ This proximity has also been recognised in 2019 by Paul Foster: contrasting Gos. Pet. 5.19 with the Apocalypse of Peter 81, he reads Gos. Pet 5.19 as simply ‘modif[ying] the problematic sense of God forsakenness communicated by Jesus’.⁸⁵ Brown and Foster diverge regarding the chronology of Gos. Pet 5.19 (rooted in a pre-Christian version of Ps 22.2 for Brown, or considered as a post-Synoptic modification by Foster), but both read it as close to the Synoptic story.

This modern example of evolving interpretation helps us to understand how Origen, Diodore, Jerome and Severus of Antioch could have been able to read two expressions together that we spontaneously read as opposed. They adopted an interpretation of χωρὶς θɛοῦ aligned with the preceding affirmation in v.9 that Jesus ‘was made lower than the angels for a little while’, and fitting with the singular of ὑπὲρ παντός, Jesus tasted the death for ‘everything’. Attridge himself agreed in 2014 with such a ‘soft reading’ of χωρὶς θɛοῦ in Hebrews:

La variante ‘sans dieu’ est utile [à l'auteur], non pas en lien avec une quelconque christologie kénotique, pas même celle, limitée, envisagée peut-être par l’Évangile de Marc; elle lui permet plutôt de définir l'horizon des effets du sacrifice du Christ. Tout ce qui se trouve en dehors de dieu, pas seulement les êtres humains, est sujet aux effets de la mort du Christ, qui effectue la réconciliation et la rémission du péché.⁸⁶

The question left is consequently the reason for the presence of χωρὶς θɛοῦ in the framework of this ‘soft reading’ fitting well within Chapter 2 of Hebrews. A simple and logical answer is provided by the general background of Psalm 22 since it is quoted right after in Heb 2.12: Jesus is ‘saying, “I will proclaim your name to my brothers and sisters; in the midst of the congregation, I will praise you”’. For the author of Hebrews, Jesus himself pronounced/sang Psalm 22. With this explicit quotation, early readers of Hebrews 2 may have had Psalm 22.2 in mind while thinking of the crucifixion scene evoked in Heb 2.9, a scene which can even include angels in the Gospel of Bartholomew 1.6–9.

With the background of Ps 22.2, Heb 2.9's description could have been read as a χωρὶς θɛοῦ death at an early stage, considering its numerous Patristic attestations. This background is supported by Heb 2.12 and explains why several ancient readers have interpreted χάριτι θɛοῦ and χωρὶς θɛοῦ as two possible and not opposed versions of Heb 2.9. Developing this perspective, the last section of this article argues that Heb 2.9, Mark 15.34, and their minor variants draw attention to early reformulations or reinterpretations of Ps 22.2.

4.3 Ancient receptions and readings of Ps 22.2

As we have seen, the Syriac tradition presents thirty-one Peshitta manuscripts with Heb 2.9, including fifteen with χωρὶς θɛοῦ. Interestingly, the Old Syriac version also shows variants in the quotations of Ps 22.2 in Matt 27.46 and Mark 15.34, which deserve further investigation: first, Samir S. Yohanna, in his edition of the Syriac Gospel of Mark, based on Chaldean 25 (syH6), mentions a scribal marginal note in 15.34: ‘Lema Sabaqtani’: I found [it] in the manuscript of Edessa, and the same also in Matthew’.⁸⁷ The Vat. Syr. 268 (syH4), f. 79v, also shows a marginal note with the transliteration of the Hebrew text.⁸⁸ Secondly, a Syriac Hymn of Ephrem, seldomly quoted, reports still another wording of Ps 22.2, attributed to the Bardaisan community;⁸⁹ and finally, as Randall Buth notes, in Matt 27.46 and Mark 15.34, ‘the Syriac Peshitto […] might indicate that il/Il was being considered a divine name. However, one might also speculate that the Syriac is reflecting an abstract Hebraism אֱיָל “force, power” from a parallel interpretation that shows up in the Gospel of Peter 19’.⁹⁰ Buth does not mention Aquilas’ Greek version of Ps 22.2, referenced above with Brown,⁹¹ but his remarks make the existence of early diverse versions of this verse still more plausible.

It is rewarding to pay attention to the diversity of the quotations of Ps 22.2 in early multilingual Christian sources because it mirrors the diversity we also find in the Greek evidence, often forgotten today. One must come back to a clever 1931 article by David Sidersky for reading the most comprehensive list of variants in Ps 22.2 and its translations in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark. This list is based on Goguel's notes and contains more than twelve variants.⁹² It remains, of course, open-ended⁹³ and should be definitively established on a multilingual basis, as notably demonstrated by the rich Syriac tradition.

To conclude this inquiry, the rich heritage of various readings of Ps 22.2 in Jewish and early Christian traditions provides the most convincing background to explain the emergence and the repetition of the minor variants of Heb 2.9 and Mark 15.34, never forgotten.