Hebrews 1:8
What I got from the reading:
The author starts out by looking at variant readings of eis ton aiona tou aionas. He notes that there are manuscripts that omit tou ainos, though it is “a small handful of concentrated MSS.” He then points out that it would be likely that the best reading includes tou ainoas because 1.) It is a direct quotation from Psalm 44:7 in the Septuagint (LXX) and Psalm 45:7 in the Masoretic Text (MT). 2.) The reading is found in some of the best and earliest manuscripts. 3.) Almost every time olam uod is found in the MT, the LXX uses tou ainos; and, if not tou ainos, then the LXX uses eis aiona aionos which is similar.
The reason that the author is examining eis ton aiona tou aionas is to get as close to what the Vorlage would have been as possible, so we can better see if Jesus is being presented as theos. In the case of Hebrews 1:8, the LXX may be the Vorlage.
—————————————————————————————————————————————
The author then moves on to examining if the verse should end in autou or sou. If autou, then theos is a subject-predicate nominative construction (“God is your throne…..”). If sou, theos is a nominative for vocative (“Your throne, O God……”). The vocative would seem to be the correct reading because that is what it is in the OT passage. He then references Caragounis for 5 reasons why the nominative for vocative is more likely.
The author also references Wallace to say that to use the subject-predicate nominate construction would not gives us a contrast between the angels (discussed in 1:7) and Jesus. Both of these would have God as their throne.
The author then discusses the different ways in which pros has been translated in various versions of the Bible. He points out that to not to have translated it as “to” left the door open for the autou variant in the text.
—————————————————————————————————————————————-
The author makes note that sou is the better attested reading – although both are present in the Alexandrian tradition. But, outside of the Alexandrian traditions, all other traditions contain at least one sou reading and, only the Greek manuscripts – and 6 at that, contain an autou reading.
—————————————————————————————————————————————
At the end of this discussion, the author points out that Bart Ehrman likes to challenge that texts which are corrupted (that is to say, they support Jesus’ deity) in Hebrews 1:8 are corrupted in John 1:18 as well. The author’s reply to this is: that may be true, but it is only a part of the picture. There are plenty of manuscripts where some of the examined passages are “corrupted” while others are not. In conclusion, then, there are many manuscripts that contain at least one Jesus as theos reading in them…….so, no matter which passage this occurred in, a person could take away from that manuscript that Jesus is God.