I wonder why almost all translation give :Mark 14:3 wrote: ἦλθεν γυνὴ ἔχουσα ἀλάβαστρον
- an alabastar jar/vial/box/vase/flask
when the text means (in my eyes) that she wears an "alabastron", which is an object, namly a small vase, and not a material, as found in the Thayer's Greek Lexicon :
The confusion comes probably from the fact that alabastra (the vases) were originally made of alabaster (the material). But at least since the 5th century BC some of them were poteries or made of glass (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabastron and especially : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... CA1920.jpg).Thayer's Greek Lexicon wrote: STRONGS NT 211: ἀλάβαστρον
ἀλάβαστρον, , τό (...), a box made of alabaster
I have also checked in italian, spanish, french and german http://biblehub.com/multi/mark/14-3.htm + more modern (paper) versions : same.
I have found only 2 exceptions :
Spanish: Sagradas Escrituras 1569 wrote: una mujer teniendo un alabastro de ungüento de nardo
Luther gets it not totally right, because in no case an alabaster can be a "Glas" = jar made of glas.German Luther 1912 wrote:da kam ein Weib, die hatte ein Glas
I'm interested in your opinion :
- are the 2 readings ok or is it right, as I personnaly hold, to understand "a vase of type alabastron (maybe made of alabaster)" and not "a vase made of alabaster" ?
- is Thayer not the good reference here ?
- in the case there is only one correct reading, why this "mistake" in so many translations ?