John 12:7

Steven Craig Miller scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Tue Dec 7 16:38:23 EST 1999


To: Blahoslav Cicel,

<< I'm just a poor boy... I admit that I don't understand the TC. But my 
question is very pragmatic. What makes the difference different? Or what is 
the difference in the message? >>

I'm just a poor simple soul myself, but I will take a stab at answering 
your question.

There are two problems with the variant reading of hINA + THRHSHI. First, 
the syntax is hard to understand (perhaps because it contains an elliptical 
statement). It is possible to understand this variant reading as: << And so 
Jesus said, "Let her alone; (she did this) in order to keep it for the day 
of my burial" >>. The second problem is how is it possible for this 
woman  to "keep" ointment which she has already used?

The variant reading which omits hINA, plus reads TETHRHKEN, appears to be 
an attempt to alleviate both of these problems. First by improving (or 
smoothing out) the syntax, and second, by suggesting that only a small part 
of the ointment had been used and that the rest would be preserved for 
later. It can be translated as: << But Jesus said, "Let her alone; she has 
kept this for the day of My burial" >> (NKJV).

The reading of hINA + THRHSHi is supported by eight pre-ninth century MSS; 
namely: the third century P66 & P75vid; the fourth century Siniticus 
(Aleph) & Vaticanus (B); the fifth century Bezae (D), Guelferbytanus B (Q), 
& Freerianus (W); and the eighth century Regius (L). The reading omitting 
hINA + TETHRHKEN is supported by only one pre-ninth century MS; namely the 
fifth century Alexandrius (A). If one is impressed by the early date of 
pre-ninth century MSS, then such external support is extremely lopsided in 
favor of hINA + THRHSHi. On the other hand, for those not impressed by the 
MAJORITY of pre-ninth century MSS, these MSS cited are only a small part of 
our over all MS evidence.

Perhaps I've (over?) simplified a number of things here, for example, there 
are more ways one could translate the Greek text than what I've presented 
above; also, textual criticism is not simply a matter of counting pre-ninth 
century MSS; but I hope this gives some indication of the problems involved 
here, and what ramifications they might have.

-Steven Craig Miller
Alton, Illinois (USA)
scmiller at www.plantnet.com
Disclaimer: "I'm just a simple house-husband (with no post-grad degree), 
what do I know?"




More information about the B-Greek mailing list