JOHN 12:1 La,zaroj {A} Although the absence of o` teqnhkw,j from a B L W X ita, c, e, r1 Syrp, pal copsa, boms eth _al_ can be explained as a deliberate deletion because it seemed entirely superfluous in view of the following clause, a majority of the Committee, impressed by the external attestati... [ Continue Reading ]
JOHN 12:4 VIou,daj o` VIskariw,thj ei-j @evk# tw/n maqhtw/n auvtou/ The identification of Judas as Si,mwnoj (A K X D Q P Y 065 ¦13 28 _Byz_) or as Si,mwn (1195 1242* 1344 2148 _al_) is a scribal accretion derived from John 6:71. These same witnesses also smooth the sequence by placing the name afte... [ Continue Reading ]
JOHN 12:8 _include verse_ {A} The omission of meqV e`autw/n evme. de. ouv pa,ntote e;cete by î75 and L* is clearly the result of parablepsis, the eye of the scribe passing from e;cete to e;cete. The omission of verses John 12:7 and John 12:8 from 0250 seems also to be due to a transcriptional accid... [ Continue Reading ]
JOHN 12:9 :Egnw ou=n @o`# o;cloj polu.j evk tw/n VIoudai,wn {C} It is natural to regard o;cloj polu,j (î66*, 75 A B3 K X D Q P Y ¦1 33 _Byz_) and o` o;cloj o` polu,j (î66c W 0250 1010) as scribal ameliorations of the difficult reading e;gnw ou=n o` o;cloj polu,j (a B* L 28 892 _al_). But the expres... [ Continue Reading ]
JOHN 12:17 o[te {B} The reading o[te is preferable to o[ti because it is supported by generally superior external testimony, and because o[ti appears to be an attempt to clarify the account, which otherwise could be taken to refer to two crowds (cf. ver. John 12:18).... [ Continue Reading ]
JOHN 12:28 sou to. o;noma {A} Instead of the reading “glorify thy name,” found in all the early and in most of the later witnesses, several of the later witnesses (L X ¦1 ¦13 33 1071 1241 _al_), influenced by the recollection of the opening of Jesus’ high-priestly prayer ( John 17:1), read “glorify... [ Continue Reading ]
JOHN 12:32 pa,ntaj e`lku,sw {B} Since the reading pa,nta, supported by î66 a* D it vg syrs, p, pal copsa, bo, ach2 goth eth geo1 _al,_ is ambiguous (“everyone,” “all things,” “all”), it is possible that copyists, desiring to remove the ambiguity, added a sigma. A majority of the Committee, however,... [ Continue Reading ]
JOHN 12:40 evpw,rwsen {C} The reading evph,rwsen (î66, 75 a K W P _al_) appeared to a majority of the Committee to have arisen in an attempt to supply a somewhat more suitable verb with th.n kardi,an than evpw,rwsen or pepw,rwken. The form pepw,rwken (B3 D ¦1 565 700 _Byz al_) has doubtless been a... [ Continue Reading ]
JOHN 12:41 o[ti {B} A majority of the Committee preferred o[ti to o[te, chiefly because of the age and weight of the supporting evidence (î66, 75 a A B L X Q Y ¦1 33 _al_), but also because o[ti appears, on the surface, to be somewhat less appropriate in the context than either o[te or evpei, (W),... [ Continue Reading ]
JOHN 12:43 h;per The comparative particle h;per, which occurs only here in the New Testament, is attested by î75 A B D G D P _al_. It was altered to the much more usual u`pe,r by î66c a L W X ¦1 33 69 565 _al_. In koine and Byzantine Greek the two words were pronounced alike.... [ Continue Reading ]