What is the current status of the
enoxle (troubling) / en xole (in gall)
debate in Hebrews 12:15?
The more recent Nestle editions indicate that Chester Beatty II,
papyrus P46, attests to the second reading, and reference Peter
Katz's paper from 1958 ("The Quotations from Deuteronomy in
Hebrews," Zeitschrift fuer die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft
und die Kunde der Aeltern Kirche, vol. 49, pp. 213-223, 1958).
Katz's conclusion, p. 217, is "Consequently, enoxle, which
cannot be genuine in the LXX, is unlikely to be so in Hebrews.
It is a mere corruption which originated during the course of
transmission of Hebrews, at a date early enough to influence
our great MSS in Deut., too; en xole is the true reading in
both" (p. 217).
But still this reading is usually only in the critical apparatus,
and I have not seen any English translation which uses this text.
The UBS3 text doesn't mention the variant.
I have also looked into Rahlf's LXX, BHS and the Hatch & Redpath's
LXX concordance regarding the translation of Hebrew rosh to Greek
xole, and it seems that based on Hebrew and LXX, the correct
reading is en xole.
Is there a good textual argument for retaining enoxle? Was P46
(ca. AD200) a correction to a better translation of
Deut. 29:18 (17), and the other wittnesses (Sinaiticus, A, 048,
D, H, Psi, Majority, etc.) giving the original but perhaps
incorrect reading? Are there any other manuscripts besides
P46 which support en xole?
Thank you for any comments...
Frank Hale halefv@csa1.LBL.GOV