Featured Luke 2:22 and Christology

“Now when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord” (Luke 2:22)

This is the reading of the King James Version, the New King James Version, the Douay-Rheims, Websters, etc. This reading is found in a late Greek manuscript (076), which is of the 14th century, but is no doubt the original of Luke, as we shall see.

In Leviticus chapter 12, in the Greek Septuagint version, which reflects what the original Hebrew says, reads in verse 6, “And when the days of her (autes) cleansing are fulfilled”. Luke in his Gospel, refers to the Law of Moses (verses 22-24), in which case, it was only the woman who became defiled, and needed to be purified. There is no evidence from the Old Testament, that either the husband, or child, needed purification.

The Old Latin New Testament, which dates from the 2nd century A.D., is from earlier Greek manuscripts. Some of these manuscripts read in Luke 2:22, “eius” (like the Codex Corbiensis, of the 5th or 6th century (B Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, p.74), which can be either masculine (him), or feminine (her). It is evident that the Old Latin means “her”.

Next we have the Latin Vulgate complied by the scholar Jerome in the 4th century A.D.. “eius” is also the reading found in the important Latin Vulgate Manuscript, the Codex Fuldensis, which is the work of Victor, Bishop of Capus, written between A.D. 541-546. Which can only mean “her”, as we have seen.

The best Latin manuscript of the Vulgate, is in the opinion of many scholars, the Codex Amiatinus, which is of the 7th century. This also reads “eius”.

There is no reason to assume, that the use of the Latin “eius” in any of the Versions, means other than “her”, as this is exactly what the Hebrew and Greek Old Testament has in Leviticus chapter 12. The Jewish Targum also has, “And when the days of her purification are completed”

“And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were fulfilled, they brought him up to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord (as it is written in the law of the Lord, every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord) and to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, a pair of turtle-doves, or two young pigeons.” (Jerome, NPNF2-06, p.765)

“as also the incidents reported by the same Luke to have occurred after the days of the purification of Mary were fulfilled” (Augustine, Harmony of the Gospels, Bk. II, 15)

Instead of “her purification” most of the Greek manuscripts have the reading “their purification”, as found in the majority of the English versions. As does the heretic Origen, who lived in the 3rd century.

This is a very good example in textual studies, where the evidence of the majority of the Greek manuscripts, and the oldest ones, do not have the correct reading. We shall see, that there are only two real choices here. Either we adopt the oldest reading, as found in Irenaeus, or, that of the Old Latin Version, and the single Greek manuscript of the 14th century, as found in the KJV, etc. It is very clear, that in the providence of Almighty God, that the original reading, which excludes any reference to either Jesus Christ, or Joseph, was preserved in the Old Latin version, Vulgate, and a single Greek manuscript, though of a late date!

Irenaeus (A.D. 130-202 ), who quotes this passage in Luke:

“And still further does Luke say in reference to the Lord: “When the days of purification were accomplished, they brought Him up to Jerusalem, to present Him before the Lord, as it is written in the law of the Lord, That every male opening the womb shall be called holy to the Lord; and that they should offer a sacrifice, as it is said in the law of the Lord, a pair of turtle-doves, or two young pigeons””

This is also the reading found in the Christian writer, Amphilochius of Iconium, who lived (A.D. 339-394). And, the early Egyptian version, known as the Bohairic, which dates from about the 3rd century A.D.. The Greek manuscript, 435, which dates from the 10th century, also omits any reference to “her/his/their”. As does the Coptic Bohairic version, which is from about the 6th century.

The earliest printed Greek New Testament, is the Complutensian Polyglot, which was published in 1514 under the direction of Cardinal Ximenes of Spain. It has the New Testament in Greek and Latin. It is the first version that has “autes (her)” in Luke 2:22. Theodore Beza, in his 1559 Greek/Latin edition, has “autes” and “Mariae” (Mary). In his note on this verse, he says that he uses Mary, “vt vitaremus ambiguitatem” (to avoid ambiguity). Over 150 years earlier, the English Reformer, John Wycliffe, in 1380, has in his New Testament, , “and aftir that the daies of purcacioun of marie weren fulfilled”. Some manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate read “Marie”. The 1560 Geneva version also has, “And when the dayes of her purificatio”, and it the margin note, “or, their”.

The reading “their” is an impossible one, as this suggests that, either it refers to “Joseph and Mary”, or “Jesus, Joseph and Mary”. In fact, this verse has been used by some, like the Encyclopaedia Biblica, to say that “their” must mean “Joseph and Mary”, and therefore shows that Joseph was the biological father of Jesus Christ, as he was “unclean”, due to Jesus’ birth, and needed purification.

“In 222 we read, further, that the days of their purification were fulfilled… the writer regarded Joseph as the actual father of Jesus ; otherwise he could not have thought of him at all as unclean…The whole of Lk. 2, accordingly, not only knows nothing of the virgin birth, but rests upon the opposite presupposition.” (T Cheyne and J Sutherland; Encyclopedia Biblica, Vol. III, pp. 2955-2956. 1902 ed)

Which is also an attack on the Virgin Conception of the Lord Jesus Christ!

Some also take “their” to mean “Jesus and Mary”, which then makes Jesus “unclean”, and needing “purification”, and a sin offering offered on His behalf (Luke 2:24). This then makes Jesus a sinner!

Even the Evangelical Greek scholar, Dr A T Robertson is unsure of the reading “their”:

“The days of their purification (hai hêmerai tou katharismou autôn). The old manuscripts have "their" (autôn) instead of "her" (autês) of the later documents. But it is not clear whether "their" refers to Mary and Joseph as is true of "they brought" or to Mary and the child. The mother was Levitically unclean for forty days after the birth of a son (Lev 12:1-8).” (Word Pictures, Volume II).

Dr Robertson is wrong to assume, that it could in nay way refer “to Mary and the child”, which is the sinless, Lord Jesus Christ!

Also the commentary of Jemeison, Faussett and Brown, where we read:

“But whether this is to be understood of mother and Babe together, or of Joseph and Mary, as the parents, the great fact that "we are shapen in iniquity, and in sin by our mothers conceived," which the Levitical rite was designed to proclaim, had no real place, and so could only be symbolically taught, in the present case; since "that which was conceived in the Virgin was of the Holy Spirit," and Joseph was only the Babe's legal father”

This would mean that Jesus Christ, the sinless Second Person of the Holy Trinity, was somehow “sin”, whether literally of symbolically, is absolutely impossible!

And, Matthew Henry:

“Many copies, and authentic ones, read auton for autes, the days of their purification, the purification both of the mother and of the child, for so it was intended to be by the law; and our Lord Jesus, though he had no impurity to be cleansed from, yet submitted to it, as he did to circumcision, because he was made sin for us”

This “explanation” by Henry is nonsense. If Jesus Christ was “purified”, then it must mean that He was “unclean”, in the same way that Mary was. He did NOT “submit” to this “because he was made sin for us”! People like Henry are trying to “explain” the corrupt reading “their”, and using really impossible explanations. Even though Jesus Christ was baptized by John, He never did confess any sins while doing so, which was required. To be circumcised, was not because of any “sins”, so this example does not fit.

In fact, there are old versions of the New Testament, that actually have another reading, “his”, referring to Jesus Christ. Which is the reading of the Greek manuscript, Codex Bezae Cantabrigensis, of the 5th century. Also in the Old Syriac and Coptic Versions. These readings are quite impossible!

“and the days of his cleansing were finished, as it is written in the law of Moses. Then they took him up to Jerusalem” (F Crawford Burkitt; Old Syriac, the Curetonian; Evangelion DA-Mepharreshe, Vol. I, p.255. 5th century)

The old Egyptian version, called the Sahidic, of the 5th century, or earlier This reads:

“And when had been fulfilled the days of his cleansing according to the law of Moyses, they took him up to [the] Hierosolyma, to present him to the Lord.” (George Horner; The Coptic Version, the Sahidic and Thebaic, p.35)

 

αυτων (et. ϛ Wtst Gb Sz) cum אABLRXΓΔΛΞΠ unc8 al pler q go sahmünt copschw syrutr armzoh aeth Cyrhr 364 Cyrluc 133 (ap Mai PP. N. Bi. 2: περι τίνος γεγραπται το περι του καθαρ. αυτων· ει γαρ το περι τ. καθ. αυτων περι της αγιας θεοτοκου η περι του μακαριου ιωσηφ η περι του κυριου νομισει τις λεγεσθαι, ασεβησει etc) al Orint 3,947 (“propter purgationem, inquit, eorum. Quorum eorum? Si scriptum esset propter purgationem eius, id est Mariae quae pepererat, nihil quaestionis oriretur”- “nunc vero in eo quod ait dies purgationis eorum, non videtur unum significare sed alterum sive plures” etc) … Gb’ αυτου cum D al6 Chron381, item ϛe (1624. 1633. al) αυτης cum perpaucis ut vdtr minusc (ut 76.G) catoxon 22 Ps-Ath2,358 (οτε γαρ, φησιν, επλησθ. αι ημ. του καθ. αυτης, ανηγαγ. το παιδ. εις ιερολ. παραστησαι τω κυριω, καθως γεγρ. εν νομω κυριου· τουτο περι του βρεφους· και του δουν. θυς. κατα το ειρημ. εν νομω κυρ. ζευγος τρυγ. η δυο νεοσς. περιστερων· τουτο περι της παρθενου και του ταυτης μνηστηρος), item eius itpler vg (et. 130lat) Augcons 2,17 … 435. al2 scr copwi etdz Amphil468 Irint 187 om plane
et. et. (cum puncto) i.e. etiam
ϛ̠ϛ i. e. Elzev. 1624. unaque ed. Rob. Steph. 1550. Quae ubi differunt, ϛ est Rob. Steph., ϛe Elz.
unc unc i.e. unciales
al al i.e. alii; sub finem seriei codicum uncialium significat al codices minusculos, e.g. al6 = alii codd. minn. sex; post patres Graecos significat al alios patres Graecos; post patres Latinos, alios patres Latinos.
pler pler i.e. plerique etc.
ap ap i.e. apud
’ Gb’ et Gb” significant lectionem a Griesbachio commendatam et valde commendatam.
G 2:22 lin. 13 dele (ut 76.)
cat cat i.e. catena
lat lat vel latt i.e. Latina etc.
om om i.e. omittunt etc.
Novum Testamentum graece. 1869-94 (C. v. Tischendorf, C. R. Gregory & E. Abbot, Ed.) (1:431). Lipsiae: Giesecke & Devrient.

Also, Johann Martin Augustin Scholz, Greek New Testament, vol. I. has "autes" in 76. As does Johann Jakob Griesbach, give the same Greek ms as reading

From NET Bible notes: "autes"

"Some copyists, aware that the purification law applied to women only, produced MSS ({76
it pt vg}... Most likely Beza put in the feminine form αὐτῆς (autēs) because, recognizing that the eius found in several Latin MSS could be read either as a masculine or a feminine, he made the contextually more satisfying choice of the feminine. Perhaps it crept into one or two late Greek witnesses via this interpretive Latin back-translation."

 

also, where do you think the Old Latin and Vulgate versions were made from? Both from Greek manuscripts much older than those that have "their" reading here!

 

what so say "about 90% of all the Greek manuscripts", reading "their", does not really mean much in textual stuidies. As I have already said above, both the Old Latin and Vulgate, themselves made from Greek mss, much older than the 90%, and the textual scholars like Beza, and Scrivener (1894 edition), who both read "her", is strong enough evidence for this reading. You are quite wrong to say that the reading "their" their" does not change that truth". To whom would you refer the plural "auton" to?

 

post here the actual image of this Greek mss, as you claim that you know better!

 

by those who wished to show that Joseph was the actual father of Jesus Christ, and thereby show there is no Virgin Conception. See the quote from the Encyclopedia Biblica in the OP, which use this reading for this very purpose!

 

you also ignore the earlier reading of "her" in the Old Latin and Vulgate, both from Greek mss much older than the reading in Origen and later mss!

 

then you too dont understand Koine Greek! "his" is very clearly, "αὐτοῦ", and "her" is "αὐτῆς", not the same! Further, "their" in the Greek is "αὐτῶν", which is plural in number, which cannot mean "him/her", but "their", meaning more than one person!

 

look, we have exchanged before, and you think that you know it all. So I won't even bother! You don't understand how textual studies works!

 

well then prove me wrong!