Luke 2:22 - her purification

Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Versions

cop-sahadic(ms) - may be masculine
syr-s (singular) --- curetonian defecive
old Latin
Vulgate (singular)
Arabic of Erpenius - her
Amsterdam Armenian (his) - may be conformed to the Latin

Hatch -
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1507877?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
http://books.google.com/books?id=qpcWAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA377
https://books.google.com/books?id=IZ9JAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA377

LaParola -
www.laparola.net/greco/index.php?rif1=49&rif2=2:22

Textus Receptus Luke 2:22
http://textus-receptus.com/wiki/Luke_2:22

Facebook threads - PureBible and more

PureBible
2014-10
https://www.facebook.com/groups/pur...id=682707685154457&offset=0&total_comments=12

2017-05
https://www.facebook.com/groups/pur...comment_id=1344649158960303&comment_tracking={"tn"%3A"R"}

https://www.facebook.com/groups/pur...=1344653352293217&comment_tracking={"tn":"R"}

https://www.facebook.com/groups/pur...=2211291935629350&comment_tracking={"tn":"R"}
Click to expand...

=======================

BVDB

Luke 2:22 and "her purification" - Dec 2007 - 111 posts
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bibleversiondiscussionboard/luke-2-22-and-her-purification-t362.html

Beza, Luke 2:22, and conjectural emendation - Aug 2008 - 7 posts
http://bibleversiondiscussionboard....e-222-and-conjectural-emendation#.U8OBFECZiZE

Luke 2:22 and Mythbusting - Aug, 2008 - 67 posts -
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bibleversiondiscussionboard/luke-2-22-and-mythbusting-t4137.html

Beza's Greek NT at Luke 2:22 - March 2016 - 11 posts
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bibleversiondiscussionboard/beza-s-greek-nt-at-luke-2-22-t5872.html

Luke 2:22 "her" purification or "their" purification? Reformation text versus the modern Vatican Versions. - Oct, 2019 - 51 posts
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bib...rification-or-their-purification-r-t6189.html

Luke 2:22 and the KJV - Oct 2019 - 1 post
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bibleversiondiscussionboard/luke-2-22-and-the-kjv-t6183.html

Wasserman does something Daniels has never done! - Oct 2019 - post #245
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bib...daniels-has-never-done-t6157-s240.html#p77182
Click to expand...

===========================

Jan Krans

Beyond What is Written - p. 305
Theodorus Beza and NT Conjectural Emendation - p. 293-4
https://archive.org/stream/BeyondWh...heNew/BeyondWhatIsWritten#page/n303/mode/2up/

===========================

YouTube discussion with M. M. R.
The Young, Textless, and Reformed - Nov 9, 2019
youtube]aAkHk-OZvmc

===========================

Jean de Gagny (d. 1549) - or Gagney
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_de_Gagny

In quatuor sacro sancta Iesu Christi evangelia necnon actus apostolicos ... - (1559) p. 181-182
https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_fIOoN4YMm_cC/page/n399/mode/2up - bottom of right side - Graeci codices variant
https://books.google.com/books?id=7_hbAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA181 - does not go direct to page

Given in Krans p. 294

===========================

Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae, (1674, 1823 edition)
John Lightfoot
https://books.google.com/books?id=lAQUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA36
https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/lightfoot-new-testament/luke/2.html

22. And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;

[When the days of her purification were accomplished, &c.] "R. Asai saith, the child whose mother is unclean by childbearing is circumcised the eighth day; but he whose mother is not unclean by childbearing is not circumcised the eighth day."

You will ask probably, what mother that is, that is not unclean by childbearing. Let the Gloss upon this place make the answer: "She whose child is cut out of her womb: as also a Gentile woman who is brought to bed today, and the next day becomes a proselyte; her child is not deferred till the eighth day, but is circumcised straightway." And the Rabbins a little after: "One takes a handmaid big with child, and while she is with him brings forth; her child is circumcised the eighth day. But if he takes a serving-maid, and with her a child newly born, that child is circumcised the first day."

They did not account a heathen woman unclean by child-bearing, because she was not yet under the law that concerned uncleanness. Hence, on the other side, Mary was unclean at her bearing a child, because she was under the law; so Christ was circumcised because born under the law.

II. After seven days the woman must continue for three and thirty days in the blood of her purifying, Leviticus 12:4; where the Greek, in her unclean blood; far enough from the mind of Moses. And the Alexandrian MS much wider still: She shall sit thirty and ten days in an unclean garment.

Pesikta, as before, col. 4, it is written "in the blood of her purifying: though she issue blood like a flood, yet is she clean. Nor doth she defile any thing by touching it, but what is holy. For seven days, immediately after she is brought to bed, she lies in the blood of her uncleanness; but the three-and-thirty days following, in the blood of her purifying."
Click to expand...

===========================

Liber conciliationis in loca ex Vetere et Novo Testamento (1713)
By Willem Surenhuys
https://books.google.com/books?id=NIFBAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA302

p. 303-304 of Surenhuys is said to be a vindication of either Beza (or less likely Stephanus) per Arthur T. Russell

Memoirs of the life and works of the right honorable, and right rev. father in god Lancelot Andrewes, D.D., Lord Bishop of Winchester (1863)
Arthur T. Russell
https://books.google.com/books?id=MtQ5AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA337
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Dec 2017
https://www.facebook.com/groups/Mod...=1550228178393554&comment_tracking={"tn":"R"}

Daniel Wallace has ms 76 error

Two Greek church writer evidences:

Pseudo-Athanasius
Catenae in euangelia Lucae et Joannis [ed. J. A. Cramer, Oxford, 1841].

Daniel Wallace
https://bible.org/.../luke-222-their-purification-or-her...

It looks like another Jan Krans error.

Any I do not know of any Greek church writer supports for their purification, except maybe Origen in a Latin text.
Cyril of Alexandria is a Greek that might be a support, needs some research.
The Greek Expositor is only through Aquinas in Latin.

The blunder of Krans said no church writer evidence at all, and there are Latin evidences in addition to the Greek.

Incidentally, there is a ms 055 that Tischendorf had with the "her". It is sermons and commentary and can be missed. Not sure if Krans has anything on it.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Timothy Berg tries to attack the superb Beza-Geneva-AV Luke 2:22 'her purification'.

CHOOSING THE TEXT OF THE BIBLE WITH BIAS: LUKE 2:22 IN THE KJV
Timothy Berg
https://www.academia.edu/40221452/CHOOSING_THE_TEXT_OF_THE_BIBLE_WITH_BIAS_LUKE_2_22_IN_THE_KJV

The paper is unfinished, currently unavailable, however the Conclusion was given to us for analysis.
The name of the paper exposes the agenda of Timothy! Amazing.

Facebook
Textus Receptus Academy
https://www.facebook.com/groups/467...219653357232&reply_comment_id=812203859625478

Timothy Berg
“Here’s the conclusion I came to”

A disaster.

Timothy
“Conclusion
“In conclusion, there is virtually no support for the reading of the KJV here.”

Simply not true. You would need a triple qualifier “in the extant Greek manuscripts” to be accurate. You even contradict your claim in the next sentence.

Timothy
“While one can find some support in the Latin tradition, and in a few ancient versions and patristic sources, “

And in the internal considerations as well, Luke’s superb Hebraic knowledge. Overall, “some support” is “excellent support”.

Timothy Berg
“the Greek manuscript tradition speaks in total unison against it.”

“Extant...” hardly any Greek mss extant for hundreds of years

“It was a reading that likely made its way into Greek via the Complutensian Polyglot, a version the text of which was heavily influenced by the Latin Vulgate.”

This ignores the Greek “patristic sources” and the Latin and versional evidences coming from the Greek.

“It was then given a mariological, rather than evidential, defense by Beza, out of a concern not to denigrate the Virgin Mary.”

A huge blunder - false assertion. Beza says specifically that the issue is:

“the law of purification only concerns the mother".

Timothy Berg
“It became widespread in English initially through the Geneva Bible, and came into the KJV via the Bishops’ text, despite the fact that some of the KJV translators clearly disagreed.... it is possible ... it seems possible”

Of minimal relevance. They had back and forth on hundreds of variants, at least.

“... It seems likely that the defense made by Beza, and a concern to protect the reputation of Mary,”

This is dependent on the earlier blunder about Beza. Error begets error.

Next is lots of conjectural, worthless blah-blah.

Timothy Berg
“is what ultimately led to the reading being adopted in the KJV against virtually all known evidence. There was clearly not unanimous agreement, but rather, apparently, vigorous debate, and a large measure of uncertainty. What is seen here is not the consent of all the translators, but rather translator against translator, brother against brother.”

They simply followed their rules.

Timothy Berg
“Which leads one to wonder if one can truly speak of the work of the translation as a monolithic whole at such points, or if it is better to think of the opinions of a more powerful few imposed upon a now silenced majority. “

Worthless conjecture. Who are the “more powerful few” who you are accusing?

“In any case, it remains a clear error in the KJV...”

This is a big lie. Maybe Timothy should simply retire from writing.

Plummer is a modern, worthless textcrit source.

Timothy Berg
“And the charge that the NIV and other modern versions are attacking the deity of Jesus here turns out to be all the more absurd, since the pronoun in fact doesn’t likely refer to Jesus at all, and if it did refer to Jesus, would likely only mean what Origen and Erasmus took it to mean – a ritual purification that in no way suggests sinfulness on the part of the Savior.”

This is a horrid special pleading attempt to create an unknown “ritual purification” out of thin air. Thus, Beza corrected the Erasmus error.

Timothy Berg
“What we have here rather is editors, propagating a mistake in the text”

The error here is the ignorance and bias of Timothy Berg.

Timothy Berg
“driven by a well-intentioned but misplaced desire to correct one. They are, in short, choosing the text of the Bible with bias.”

Meaning, Timothy prefers the corruption variant.
Click to expand...

================================

Here was the full Timothy Berg conclusion:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/467...219653357232&reply_comment_id=808436530002211

Timothy Berg
Here’s the conclusion I came to;
“Conclusion
In conclusion, there is virtually no support for the reading of the KJV here. While one can find some support in the Latin tradition, and in a few ancient versions and patristic sources, the Greek manuscript tradition speaks in total unison against it. It was a reading that likely made its way into Greek via the Complutensian Polyglot, a version the text of which was heavily influenced by the Latin Vulgate. It was then given a mariological, rather than evidential, defense by Beza, out of a concern not to denigrate the Virgin Mary. It became widespread in English initially through the Geneva Bible, and came into the KJV via the Bishops’ text, despite the fact that some of the KJV translators clearly disagreed. It is possible that John Bois was the specific reviser who rejected the proposed return to “their,” because he saw “her” as fitting better theologically. It is also possible that John Harmer was such a voice. Whoever voiced it, the decision of the revisers at Stationer’s Hall reversed the decision of the Second Oxford Company who had been assigned the text, and even went so far as to reject their proposed marginal supplement indicating textual uncertainty. It seems likely that the defense made by Beza, and a concern to protect the reputation of Mary, is what ultimately led to the reading being adopted in the KJV against virtually all known evidence. There was clearly not unanimous agreement, but rather, apparently, vigorous debate, and a large measure of uncertainty. What is seen here is not the consent of all the translators, but rather translator against translator, brother against brother. Which leads one to wonder if one can truly speak of the work of the translation as a monolithic whole at such points, or if it is better to think of the opinions of a more powerful few imposed upon a now silenced majority.
In any case, it remains a clear error in the KJV and the Scrivener TR, with no apparent Greek manuscript support, which should surely, to echo Plummer, never have gained the prominence that it did. And the charge that the NIV and other modern versions are attacking the deity of Jesus here turns out to be all the more absurd, since the pronoun in fact doesn’t likely refer to Jesus at all, and if it did refer to Jesus, would likely only mean what Origen and Erasmus took it to mean – a ritual purification that in no way suggests sinfulness on the part of the Savior. What we have here rather is editors, propagating a mistake in the text, driven by a well-intentioned but misplaced desire to correct one. They are, in short, choosing the text of the Bible with bias.”
Click to expand...
NOTES!

========================

Even Jan Krans complemented the Beza approach.

========================

Facebook - Textus Receptus Academy
https://www.facebook.com/groups/467...k/808212080024656/?comment_id=812835592895638

For a bit of the backdrop of Erasmus on Luke 2:22 and how he was corrected by Noël Béda (Noel Beda 1470-1537) long before the Beza correction.

(Of course there was no absurdity in Mary's purification.)

Holy Scripture Speaks: The Production and Reception of Erasmus' Paraphrases on the New Testament (2002)
Hilmar M. Pabel, Mark Vessey
https://books.google.com/books?id=6nVE1e1O7-kC&pg=PA162

2 PICS

1609940325211.png

1609940354028.png



Jan Krans points out that Gagny also wrote in favor of "her purification".
Apparently he died in 1549, Krans only gives the 1559 publication date.

Jean de Gagny (d. 1549)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_de_Gagny

So this Eramsus error was well understaood before Beza.
Yet more problems in the Timothy Ward misrepresentations.

1 PIC can be ADD
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
The Commentary ms. 055 needs checking. Note that we decided no entry for Titus of Bostra, and this may be the ms.
" 055 has been studied but I don't think is any longer classified as a Greek MS, since it is extracts of sermons mixed with texts of the Gospels. "
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bib...ke-2-22-and-mythbusting-t4137-s40.html#p47741
http://www.skypoint.com/m...uscriptsUncials.html#u055
Manuscript 055
Paris, National Library Gr. 201. Tischendorf/Scrivener 309e. Dated paleographically to the very end of the uncial period (e.g. Aland lists XI; Scrivener says X-XII). Despite being numbered among the uncials, it is not a true New Testament manuscript, containing rather a commentary with partial text (Chrysostom on Matthew and John, Victor on Mark, Titus of Bostra on Luke). Thus it has not been subjected to textual analysis; Von Soden did not even include it in his catalog (despite listing manuscripts of his A type with even less text), the Alands did not place it in a Category, and Wisse did not profile it. Such minimal evidence as is available indicates, however, that the text is Byzantine. The writing itself, as might be expected of a semi-uncial manuscript variously listed as an uncial and a minuscule, is reported as "very peculiar in its style and beautifully written."

=============

GreekBlueFalcon
Here's the word on Titus of Bostra. The source is Joseph Sickenberger, _Titus von Bostra: Studien zu dessen Lukashomilien_ (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1901) 151: "Luke 2:22ff.: And certainly the Evangelist has well spoken: when the days of purification (AI hHMERAI TOU KAQARISMOU) were fulfilled according to the law. For truly the all holy virgin did not have a need to wait for the day of purification (hHMERAS KAQARISMOU), for since she had been pregnant by the Holy Spirit she ran away in order to be unclean according to the law and due to the appearance of him whom she had concealed. Now for others the cleansing happened on the fortieth day according to the law. Because also the forming of the male happens in forty days. On this day on account of the molding (of her infant) she had to receive the cleansing that is from God. Now on the holy molding of Christ, it was not from the seed of men, but rather by divine power. Now also that which was begotten was holy, but not made holy, and was clean, but not made clean. And just as he was baptized not asking for the cleansing that is through water, but rather that he might sanctify the waters and fulfill all righteousness by obeying the prophet, even so also for his purification (hUPER KAQARISMOU AUTOU), for a cleansing not asked for, doves and pigeons are offered, this day of a simple and sensible manner. And so for men these things are shadows and types, but for Christ it is truth. For he is the power of true good sense and nature of true simplicity" (translation from Greek by yours truly). So from Titus of Bostra it is plausible to assume that he read "their purification" in his text, and impossible to prove that he read "her purification" in his text.

Steven Avery
Yes, it is hard to say either way. The above can be consistent with "her", "their" or (omit). Titus of Bostra starts by giving text that looks to be simply Mary, four times, then later he switches to having the purification ceremony also touch the Lord Jesus. That can conceivably be because of "their purification". Or that can be simply the common mixing of the presentation with the
purification, as one related event, which is very doable with "her purification".

Here is the Thomas Aquinas text from Titus of Bostra.

TITUS BOST. Therefore the Evangelist has well observed, that the days of her purification were come according to the law, who since she had conceived of the Holy Spirit, was free from all uncleanness. It follows, They brought him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord.

Apparently Thomas Aquinas saw a grammatical reason for the singular. Perhaps because "she had conceived" is the
immediate referent (lacking the 'holy virgin' section). His text also included the sentence on bringing him to Jerusalem that is not above.

Does Joseph Sickenberger indicate his manuscript source ? I also wonder if we have a Titus of Bostra scholarly expert around, most church writers have a specialist or two today !

===================

See more on p. 6 and 7.
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
MS 76

BVDB
www.tapatalk.com

Bible Versions Disc Board-Luke 2:22 "her" purification or "their" purification? Reformation text versus the modern Vatican Versions.

You are right. These people know zilch about Second Temple Judaisms.
www.tapatalk.com www.tapatalk.com

Hatch text
Codex 76, a Vienna manuscript of the twelfth or thirteenth century, is commonly cited as a witness for αὐτῆς. This, however, is an error; for Gregory, who examined the codex in 1887, reports that it reads αὐτῶν in Luke 2:22 (cf. Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum Graece, III, 484). Codex 76 is one of the manuscripts consulted by Alter. He printed αὐτῆς in Luke 2:22 without recording the reading of this codex. Griesbach inferred from Alter’s silence that αὐτῆς was found in 76, and in order to indicate that the citation was based on inference he enclosed the number 76 in parentheses. It has been pointed out above that this manuscript really has αὐτῶν; and Alter failed to indicate this fact through carelessness. His edition is substantially a reprint of 218, a thirteenth century codex in the Imperial Library in Vienna. Professor Karl Beth, of Vienna, has kindly informed me that it reads αὐτῶν in Luke 2:22. Alter, a Roman Catholic scholar, no doubt adopted αὐτῆς from the Complutensian-Elzevir tradition, or possibly from the Vulgate eius. Scholz, with characteristic inaccuracy, omitted Griesbach’s parentheses about 76, and thenceforth αὐτῆς passed into the critical tradition as the true reading of the manuscript.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top