In Luke 2:22, "her" or "their"?

[Justice2006]

Question:

her purification or their purification ?

Catholics’ The Douay Rheims Bible
Luke 2:21-24

21 And after eight days were accomplished, that the child should be circumcised, his name was called JESUS, which was called by the angel, before he was conceived in the womb.
22 ** And after the days of her purification, according to the law of Moses, were accomplished, they carried him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord: **
23 As it is written in the law of the Lord: Every male opening the womb shall be called holy to the Lord:
24 And to offer a sacrifice, according as it is written in the law of the Lord, a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons:
[Douay-Rheims Bible, Luke Chapter 2]](Douay-Rheims Bible, Luke Chapter 2])

---

Catholics’ The New American Bible
Luke 2:21-24

21 **When eight days were completed for his circumcision, he was named Jesus, the name given him by the angel before he was conceived in the womb. **
22 ** When the days were completed for their purification according to the law of Moses, they took him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord, **
23 **just as it is written in the law of the Lord, “Every male that opens the womb shall be consecrated to the Lord,” **
24 **and to offer the sacrifice of “a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons,” in accordance with the dictate in the law of the Lord. **
[usccb.org/nab/bible/luke/luke2.htm]](http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/luke/luke2.htm])

Question: What motivated the latest Catholics’ official Bible (The New American Bible) to reject the word “her” of Douay Rheims Bible and replaced it with the word “their”, in verse Luke 2:22 ?

.

 

[puzzleannie]

the basis for the practice in Jewish law, as the passage makes clear, is that the firstborn, and the womb from which he issues, is consecrated to the Lord, and the sacrifice and rite is for the purpose of “redeeming” both to the family, so that the wife may once more engage in relations with her husband, (which of course Mary never did, but she and Joseph were nonetheless obedient to the Law) and the child is released to remain with the family. That is the basis for the ritual family purity laws, and the connotation of unclean meant “reserved for the Lord” not unclean in the sense of dirty or defiled.

 

[exoflare]

My gosh, you’re desperate.

 

[Justice2006]

puzzleannie:

the basis for the practice in Jewish law, as the passage makes clear,…

But the Mosaic law never mentions the purification of the husband.

Why “her” is replaced by “their” in the latest Catholic Bible?

.

 

[Justice2006]

Catholics’ The New American Bible
Luke 2:21-24

21 **When eight days were completed for his circumcision, he was named Jesus, the name given him by the angel before he was conceived in the womb. **
22 ** When the days were completed for their purification according to the law of Moses, they took him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord, **
23 **just as it is written in the law of the Lord, “Every male that opens the womb shall be consecrated to the Lord,” **
24 **and to offer the sacrifice of “a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons,” in accordance with the dictate in the law of the Lord. **
[usccb.org/nab/bible/luke/luke2.htm]](http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/luke/luke2.htm])

Question: What motivated the latest Catholics’ official Bible (The New American Bible) to reject the word “her” of Douay Rheims Bible and replaced it with the word “their”, in verse Luke 2:22 ?

The following footnote of same New American Bible gives a typical answer:

9 [2] their purification : syntactically, **their must refer to Mary and Joseph, even though the Mosaic law never mentions the purification of the husband. Recognizing the problem, some Western scribes have altered the text to read “his purification,” understanding the presentation of Jesus in the temple as a form of purification; the Vulgate version has a Latin form that could be either “his” or “her.”

According to the Mosaic law (Lev 12:2-8), the woman who gives birth to a boy is unable for forty days to touch anything sacred or to enter the temple area by reason of her legal impurity. At the end of this period she is required to offer a year-old lamb as a burnt offering and a turtledove or young pigeon as an expiation of sin. The woman who could not afford a lamb offered instead two turtledoves or two young pigeons, as Mary does here. They took him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord: as the firstborn son (Luke 2:7) Jesus was consecrated to the Lord as the law required (Exodus 13:2, 12), but there was no requirement that this be done at the temple. The concept of a presentation at the temple is probably derived from 1 Sam 1:24-28, where Hannah offers the child Samuel for sanctuary services. The law further stipulated (Numbers 3:47-48) that the firstborn son should be redeemed by the parents through their payment of five shekels to a member of a priestly family. About this legal requirement Luke is silent.**
[usccb.org/nab/bible/luke/luke2.htm#foot9]](http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/luke/luke2.htm#foot9])​

 

[Mike_D30]

Justice2006:

But the Mosaic law never mentions the purification of the husband.

Why “her” is replaced by “their” in the latest Catholic Bible?

.

It’s actually not nearly as scandalous as you think the translation is iffy. The same problem exists in Genesis 3:15. In fact go take a look at your KJV where it says “IT” in the original KJV Genesis 3:15, and later changes the word to “HE” in the revised KJV. Translating into Latin from Hebrew that was translated from Greek was tricky business. Whether or no tthe pronouns are masculine of feminine was/is difficult. In fact many popular translations of the Bible today have idiosynchrasies like this INCLUDING the KJV.

Many other Bibles translate the Genesis 3:15 passage Their, instead of He.

 

[DaveBj]

Luke 2:22 (transliterated Greek): Kaí hóte epleéstheesan hai heemérai toú katharismoú autoón katá tón nómon Moouséoos aneégagon autón eis Hierosóluma parasteésai toó Kuríoo

“…the purification of them…”

Oddly enough, the interlinear on my PC Study Bible software has the plural form (as above) in the Greek, but “her” in the English. “Her purification” would have been “toú katharismoú auteés” in this translit system.

Ask the Language Geek.

DaveBj

 

[Justice2006]

Dear DaveBj,

But the New American Bible says:

9 [2] their purification : syntactically, their must refer to Mary and Joseph, even though the Mosaic law never mentions the purification of the husband. Recognizing the problem, some Western scribes have altered the text to read “his purification,”
[usccb.org/nab/bible/luke/luke2.htm#foot9]](http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/luke/luke2.htm#foot9])

Now there are few problems here:

1. If *any other husband * is not required a specific purification according to the Mosaic Law, then why translators of the NT love to play with the Greek/Latin words, while translating whatever the word is found in the "original"Greek/Latin? Isn’t Latin version actually a translation of “original” Greek?
2. If the Greek “originals” (not really originals, because Jesus/disciples were not Greek) says: toú katharismoú autoón which means**:"…the purification of them…"**, then was Joseph literally indeed Mary’s husband, then?
3. Who was Jesus’ father?
4. Why Joseph too required a purification? Purification from what? If any Jewish Tom, Dick and Harry is not required purification, then why Joseph must/had to go through a purification?
5. Did he infact go through it or it depends upon the attitude of unknown/known Translators of the Greek/Latin to whether pass Joseph (a supposed husband of Mary) through a purification or not.
   Lets say Joseph did not purify, then are you going to believe that he did, simply because the Bible in your hand told you due to the mistranslation?
6. Which translation is approved/attested/verified by the Holy Ghost? Because every church denomination is under “insipiration” and according to Catholics’ only RCC is under the guidance of Holy Spirit which makes her infallible/save from mistakes.
7. If the word supposed to be “her” instead of “their”, as Latin Douay BIble says, then why Mary too required purification? Purification from what? Isn’t God (Jesus) Holy?
8. Was he not born because of the Holy Ghost? Who was in fact Jesus’ father, anyway in Christian theology, then?

God bless you.​

.

 

[inJESUS]

hey Justice, does this traslation variation change the doctrine?

now tell me : alwaladu katala and alwaladu kutila: is it the same? if the sentence had no variants, how would you know which variation to put?

 

[DaveBj]

Justice2006:

Dear DaveBj,

But the New American Bible says:
9 [2] their purification : syntactically, their must refer to Mary and Joseph, even though the Mosaic law never mentions the purification of the husband. Recognizing the problem, some Western scribes have altered the text to read “his purification.”

I am not responsible for the footnotes in the NAB.

Now there are few problems here:

1. If *any other husband * is not required a specific purification according to the Mosaic Law, then why translators of the NT love to play with the Greek/Latin words, while translating whatever the word is found in the "original"Greek/Latin? Isn’t Latin version actually a translation of “original” Greek?

Second question = yes.
First question = I don’t know.

1. If the Greek “originals” (not really originals, because Jesus/disciples were not Greek) says: toú katharismoú autoón which means**:"…the purification of them**…", then was Joseph literally indeed Mary’s husband, then?

Luke (who wrote the passage in question) was a Greek, so his original would have been in Greek.

1. Who was Jesus’ father?

God. See Luke 1:35.

1. Why Joseph too required a purification? Purification from what? If any Jewish Tom, Dick and Harry is not required purification, then why Joseph must/had to go through a purification?{/QUOTE]

He didn’t. You have to take that footnote (and a lot of other footnotes in the NAB) with a sizeable grain of salt.

1. Did he infact go through it or it depends upon the attitude of unknown/known Translators of the Greek/Latin to whether pass Joseph (a supposed husband of Mary) through a purification or not.

Lets say Joseph did not purify, then are you going to believe that he did, simply because the Bible in your hand told you due to the mistranslation?

No, and there was no “mistranslation;” only a wild guess in a footnote.

1. Which translation is approved/attested/verified by the Holy Ghost? Because every church denomination is under “insipiration” and according to Catholics’ only RCC is under the guidance of Holy Spirit which makes her infallible/save from mistakes

.

Yes, because the RCC is the historic Church founded by Jesus Christ, about which he said that He would be with it until the end of the age (Matt. 28:20), that the gates of hell/forces of evil would not prevail against it (Matt. 16:18), and that its leaders (the apostles and, by extension, their successors) would be led by the Holy Spirit into all truth (John 16:13).

1. If the word supposed to be “her” instead of “their”, as Latin Douay BIble says, then why Mary too required purification? Purification from what? Isn’t God (Jesus) Holy?

Yes, but the Law required the purification of the mother 40 days after the birth of a male child, and one thing that is definitely true about Jesus was that He came to fulfill the Law. Paul said that He was “born under the Law” (Gal. 4:4). For that reason He was circumcised, kept the Sabbath, submitted to John’s baptism, and recognized the legal authority of the Jewish leaders.

1. Was he not born because of the Holy Ghost? Who was in fact Jesus’ father, anyway in Christian theology, then?

See above.

Here is what John Nolland, author of the Word Biblical Commentary volumes on Luke says about this passage:

The plural autoon, “their,” is a puzzle, since only the mother underwent purification. Variant readings…attest to early scribal recognition of the difficulty. The sense could be: “for the Jewish purification ritual”… Despite the imprecise language, it is not likely that Luke thinks of the mother and child as those purified. Closest to hand are the unspecified “they” (Mary and Joseph) who brought Jesus to the temple… It is probably best to consider that Luke speaks loosely of the purification as a family matter…or that his more general language is an accommodation to a Hellenistic manner of speaking…

The point is that, absent a specific, defining pronouncement from the Church, all any of us can do is to guess. My personal guess is that the “their” refers to Mary’s purification and Jesus’ presentation.

DaveBj

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New Testament

The days of their purification (ai hmerai tou kaqarismou autwn). The old manuscripts have “their” (autwn) instead of “her” (authß) 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 (Leviticus 12:1-8). To present him to the Lord (parasthsai twi Kuriwi). Every first-born son was thus redeemed by the sacrifice (Exodus 13:2-12) as a memorial of the sparing of the Israelitish families (Numbers 18:15).

“their” (autwn) instead of “her” (authß)

all we have here is basically a spelling error caused by similiar sounding words, nothing more. The orginal is “their” autwn.

Not a very big deal.

Variant Readings of the Quran
answering-islam.org/Shamoun/quran_variants.htm

Textual Variants of the Qur’an
answering-islam.org/Quran/Text/

google.com/search?hl=en&q=variants+in+quran&spell=1

Many Variant Readings of the Quran
bible.ca/islam/islam-quran-changed-20-versions.htm

Y. Dutton, “Red Dots, Green Dots, Yellow Dots & Blue: Some Reflections On The Vocalisation Of Early Qur’anic Manuscripts - Part I”, Journal Of Qur’anic Studies, 1999, Volume I (no. I), pp. 115-140.

Y. Dutton, “Red Dots, Green Dots, Yellow Dots & Blue: Some Reflections On The Vocalisation Of Early Qur’anic Manuscripts - Part II”, Journal Of Qur’anic Studies, 2000, Volume II (no. I), pp. 1-24.

This two-part detailed study is done on the Qur’anic manuscripts from Bodleian Library (Oxford) that date from 3rd / 4th century of hijra. The broad conclusions of this study are:

Variants, including shadhdh variants, are not only marked, but in a sense, highlighted by the use of different coloured dots.

The presence of shadhdh variants alongside Seven, Ten or Fourteen Qira’a suggests that the shadhdh variants were treated as seriously as the main readings by those responsible for vocalization.

islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/

 

[inJESUS]

“their” (autwn) instead of “her” (authß)

all we have here is basically a spelling error caused by similiar sounding words, nothing more. The orginal is “their” autwn.

Not a very big deal.

Variant Readings of the Quran
answering-islam.org/Shamoun/quran_variants.htm

Textual Variants of the Qur’an
answering-islam.org/Quran/Text/

google.com/search?hl=en&q=variants+in+quran&spell=1

Many Variant Readings of the Quran
bible.ca/islam/islam-quran-changed-20-versions.htm

islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/

exactly…

thx for the links.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Leviticus 12

1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Say to the Israelites: 'A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. 3 On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. 4 Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over. 5 If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding.
6 " 'When the days of her purification for a son or daughter are over, she is to bring to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting a year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a dove for a sin offering. 7 He shall offer them before the LORD to make atonement for her, and then she will be ceremonially clean from her flow of blood.
" ‘These are the regulations for the woman who gives birth to a boy or a girl. 8 If she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean.’ "

**
The Son could be considered “unclean” too which is why he is not circumcised until the 8th day.
**