• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Luke 2:22 and Christology

SavedByGrace

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
Yeshua1 said:
I think being both head of the DTS Original Languages dept qualified them!
Click to expand...

can YOU prove what I have written about the Greek for him and her being different, as wrong? Makes no difference if they are head of any department! Facts are facts. Proof is everything!
 
SavedByGrace

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
Daniel Wallace

The Textual Evidence
The translation of Luke 2:22 given above follows most manuscripts, including early and important ones (א A B L W f1 f13 33 565 700 copsa Byz ). Some copyists, aware that the purification law applied to women only, produced manuscripts (76 itpt vg [though the Latin word eius could be either masculine or feminine) that read “her purification.” But the extant evidence for an unambiguous “her” is shut up to one late minuscule (codex 76) and a couple of patristic citations of dubious worth (Pseudo-Athanasius whose date is unknown, and the Catenae in euangelia Lucae et Joannis [ed. J. A. Cramer, Oxford, 1841]. The Catenae is a work of collected patristic sayings whose exact source is unknown [thus, it could come from a period covering hundreds of years]). A few other witnesses (D pc) read “his purification.” The KJV has “her purification,” following Beza’s Greek text (essentially a revision of Erasmus’). Erasmus did not have it in any of his five editions. Most likely Beza put in the feminine form αὐτῆς because, recognizing that the eius found in several Latin manuscripts 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. In sum, the evidence for the feminine singular is virtually non-existent, while the masculine singular αὐτοῦ was a clear scribal blunder. There can be no doubt that “their purification” is the authentic reading.

Luke 2:22 "their purification" or "her purification"? A Test-Case for Faith Vs. Reason | Bible.org

is he also wrong???
 
SavedByGrace

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
Ziggy said:
Amazing.... Ziggy doesn't know anything about textual criticism and Dr Bob doesn't know anything about Greek. But the British self-proclaimed "expert" knows more than all of us combined!

"Methinks the lady doth protest too much"

So, since the "expert" can't or won't do any research homework on his own, nor even use a hint on how he should proceed, let him check out the following :

Images of MS 76 at NTVMR of the ITNF, and also at the CSNTM.

See also Willker's Textual Commentary on Lk 2:22, as well as Gregory's Textkritik, vol. 1, and Hatch's HTR article on Lk 2:22 —after which he can apologize profusely for his textual arrogance (if even then he is willing to concede error on his part).
Click to expand...

look at #24!
 
SavedByGrace

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
Ziggy said:
Amazing.... Ziggy doesn't know anything about textual criticism and Dr Bob doesn't know anything about Greek. But the British self-proclaimed "expert" knows more than all of us combined!

"Methinks the lady doth protest too much"

So, since the "expert" can't or won't do any research homework on his own, nor even use a hint on how he should proceed, let him check out the following :

Images of MS 76 at NTVMR of the ITNF, and also at the CSNTM.

See also Willker's Textual Commentary on Lk 2:22, as well as Gregory's Textkritik, vol. 1, and Hatch's HTR article on Lk 2:22 —after which he can apologize profusely for his textual arrogance (if even then he is willing to concede error on his part).
Click to expand...

2.png

So here is Hatch. All he is doing here, is trying to show that his opinion for the reading "their", is the correct one. And then tries to discredit those who disagree with his position! Scrivener in his eariler editon read "auton", but later, "autes".

1888 edition 1888.png
1894 edition

1894.png
 
37818

37818

Well-Known Member
SavedByGrace said:
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!
Click to expand...
Huh. And some 90% of those manuscripts used by the churches.
 
Last edited:
Ziggy

Ziggy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
SbG: "is he also wrong???

In regard to manuscript 76, definitely. His own CSNTM website images of manuscript 76 shows this clearly. Why haven't you bothered to take a look at it?

Similarly, your own clip from Hatch clearly states that 76 reads αυτών. Would you like to see Gregory's own comment on the αυτων reading after having personally examined the manuscript in the 19th century as well? Or what will it take to remove the blinders from your eyes on this point and admit error?
 
Last edited:
SavedByGrace

SavedByGrace

Well-Known Member
Ziggy said:
SbG: "is he also wrong???

In regard to manuscript 76, definitely. His own CSNTM website images of manuscript 76 shows this clearly. Why haven't you bothered to take a look at it?

Similarly, your own clip from Hatch clearly states that 76 reads αυτών. Would you like to see Gregory's own comment on the αυτων reading after having personally examined the manuscript in the 19th century as well? Or what will it take to remove the blinders from your eyes on this point and admit error?
Click to expand...

Gregory was only ONE person who examined the mss, others read αὐτῆς, like Scrivener, probably the foremost NT textual scholar, who, as I have shown above, originally read αυτων in his Gk NT, and then changed it to αὐτῆς! On personal examination of Greek mss. I examined the original Codex Alexandrinus, over 30 years ago when I lived in London, with the aid of a high-power microscope, and saw with my own eyes in 1 Timothy 3:16, that it originally read "ΘΣ", which was corrupted to "ΟΣ", which is now accepted at the "original"!

You have yet to deal with the other evidence, that of the Old Latin, which is MUCH older than the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus, made from Greek manuscripts of the early SECOND century! Also, Jerome's Latin Vulgate, again made from Greek mss OLDER than the Codex Sinaiticus.

At the end of the day, this is my thread, and I FULLY accept the reading of the KJV here, as being that of Luke!
 
Ziggy

Ziggy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Scrivener never saw MS 76, so that is apples and oranges.

Gregory saw it with his own eyes, and now, with the CSNTM images, anyone can view it (why haven't you?) — and it reads clearly αυτων.

So why are you refusing to acknowledge this fact instead of trying to divert the point?
 
37818

37818

Well-Known Member
Wilbur N. Pickering on "their" in Luke 2:22.

The Text has ‘their’, not ‘her’; since a woman was not to have intercourse for forty days after giving birth to a boy (80 for a girl), Leviticus 12:2-5, her purification obviously affected her husband as well.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top