Eric:
It seems to me that what we have here is the Westcott and Hort textual-
critical principle of always preferring the reading that gives the more
"difficult" sense. They argued that the more difficult text will be more
likely to have been the original; because it is more likely to have been
edited "easier to comprehend" by a later redactor, than the other way round.
IMHO this results in a perverse preferring of the "worse" text; but it is a
matter of opinion. Was it Socrates who lamented that Defence Advocates always
argued perversely that the worse cause was the better one?
Westcott in his /The Epistle to the Hebrews/, 3rd ed., 1903, has "hO/" with
rough breathing and acute accent; but he passes over it without textual
comment. He offers by way of exegesis "hO/ TE GAR hAGIAZWN] The discipline
through which Christ reached perfection is that through which he brings his
people. That which is appointed for them He also accepts (John xvii.19), for
both He and they are of One Father. Holiness is the characteristic which
reveals the divine birth..." (page 50).
FWIIW, my printed Bible Society GNT has "hO/" with accent; but my hard-disc-
resident Nestle-Aland 27th edition electronic text has "hO" (no accent).
Since the Codex Sinaiticus has all-uncial text with no breathings, accents,
punctuation, nor even spacing between words, I suppose anything that makes
sense, goes. My Greek hairdresser (Cypriot) informs me that Greek national
newspapers now offically have letters-only text without any breathings,
accents, iota subscripts, or whatever. So but for the gaps between words, the
wheel has now turned full circle!
-- Revd Ben Crick, BA Bristol, 1963 (hons in Theology) <ben.crick@argonet.co.uk> 232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (UK)