Christ Grown into Perfection 93 come (genovmenoi) or are still waiting to come (mevllonte") (4). The decision of the author of the present article to prefer genovmenoi is based on considerations that will be elaborated below. Though the present paper focuses on Heb 9,11b, in order to be aware of what we are speaking about, the syntax of the whole sentence must first be visualized. The sentence reads as follows: Cristo" de; ; 11a paragenomeno" ajrciereu;" twn genomenwn agaqwn v ' v j ' 11b dia; th'" meivzono" kai; teleiotera" skhnh'" v 11c ouj ceiropoihtou,v 11d tout∆ estin ouj tauth" th'" ktivsew", '[ v oujde; di∆ aimato" tragwn kai; moscwn J v v 12a dia; de; tou' ijdivou aimato" J 12b eijsh'lqen ejfavpax eij" ta; agia { 12c aiwnian lutrwsin euJravmeno". j v v 12d The scheme (5) indicates the main clause consisting of a subject (Cristov") and a predicate (eijsh'lqen), the latter determined by two adverbial constructions, a local (Heb 9,12c: eij" ta; a{gia) and a temporal (Heb 9,12c: ejfavpax). The predicate is furthermore determined by another, elaborated adverbial construction to be found in 11c-12b, providing further details about the local (11c-d: the quality of the skhnhv) and the modal (12a-b: the quality of the ai|ma) (6) circumstances. The focus of this paper, as mentioned, falls on the first participium coniunctum in 11b. This construction consists of an aorist participle (paragenovmeno") together with the nominal predicative ajrciereuv" determining the main clause Cristov" eijsh'lqen. The aorist is hereby most easily explained as describing the state of completion of Christ’s arrival, rather than stressing its anteriority, although Christ’s arrival surely precedes his entrance as well. The nominal predicate, eventually, is qualified by an additional genitive-construction (tw'n genomenwn agaqwn). This phrase is the v j ' crux interpretum, in terms of textual criticism as well as the contents. (4) The manuscripts a, A, D2, Ivid, Û, lat, syhmg as well as the Coptic versions read tw'n mellontwn agaqwn (of the goods to come), P46, B*, D*, 1611, 1739; 2005, d, e, sy(p)..h and v j ' Cyr read instead tw'n genomevnwn ajgaqw'n (the realised goods). For the discussion see, as early as 1951, J.M. BOVER, “Las variantes mellovntwn y genomevnwn en Hebr. 9,22”, Bib 32 (1951) 232-236; there are, in terms of external evidence, no further insights to be added, cf. E. GRÄßER, An die Hebräer (EKK XVII; Zürich – Braunschweig – Neukirchen 1993) II, 144; H.F. WEIß, Der Brief an die Hebräer (KEK 13; Göttingen 15 1991) 465. (5) Cf. e.g. recently G. GÄBEL, Die Kulttheologie des Hebräerbriefes. Eine exegetisch- religionsgeschichtliche Studie (WUNT II/212; Tübingen 2006) 284-285. (6) The point at issue here is mainly to be found within the debate on the understanding of dia; aimato": is it intended to be understood in the sense that Christ took some blood into { the heavenly sanctuary to apply it to the (never explicitly mentioned) tabernacle there (cf e.g. W.R.G. LOADER, Sohn und Hoherpriester. Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zur Christologie des Hebräerbriefes [WMANT 53; Neukirchen 1981] 167: “Es gehört zur Typologie, daß Jesus ‘mit Blut’ ins Allerheiligste eintrat. Deshalb gibt es keinen Grund, diav hier anders zu übersetzen, etwa ‘aufgrund von’, oder ‘kraft’”; similarly GÄBEL, Kulttheologie, 285-286) or, rather, in a causal way, i.e. ‘because of the blood, that is, his death’ (cf. e.g. GRÄßER, Hebräer, 151).