In Testing the Textus Receptus posts, I test the claims of Textus Receptus (TR) Onlyism. This is a moderate form of King James Onlyism focusing on the Greek (& Hebrew) basis for the King James Version.
As I mentioned earlier, Luke 2:22 is one of three passages that James White (author of The King James Only Controversy) recently asked TR Only proponents to “explain why [someone] should use the TR’s [reading]”.
To help explain the context, let me quote Luke 2:22 and 23 here.
And when the time came for their purification according to the Law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every male who first opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord” ) — Luke 2:22-23 (ESV)
Jesus is a baby, and Joseph and Mary in this passage are going to Jerusalem to perform all the sacrificial rituals the Law required. The textual variant here concerns “their”. The King James Version reads “her”.
The TR Only Claim
This textual difference is claimed as an error in the modern Critical Text. “Their purification” would either implicate Jesus as possibly requiring purification for sin, or it would disagree with the OT Law which required only a woman to go through ceremonial purification after a child birth, not the man (if Joseph is in view). Again, this reading, according to TR Onlyists, must be an error due to theological reasons. Since two possible options for interpreting the text are clearly errors, and since the KJV offers a different reading, the conclusion is reached that the modern text must have it wrong on this point.
This verse then becomes one of a number of texts claimed to be doctrinal errors in the modern critical text. If we accept the critical text, we are accepting this theological error. We should side, say they, with the Textus Receptus which has been given the approval of God’s people for hundreds of years. The churches received this text with the reading: “her purification”. Case dismissed.
But when we start to test this claim, and dig a little deeper into this textual decision, the picture gets blurry fast.
Testing that Claim: History of the TR
Which reading did the churches receive? Well, the Textus Receptus did not always contain this reading. Early Bible Versions before the KJV, such as William Tyndale’s New Testament (1525) and the Coverdale Bible (1535) read “their purification”. The churches accepted those Bibles, it would seem. Stephen’s (or Stephanus) 1550 text which was accepted in England as the preferred form of the Textus Receptus, also reads “their purification”. Beza’s text (the 1598 edition which was most preferred by the KJV) and the later Elzevir’s text of 1633 both have “her purification”.
So did the churches cry foul, and eventually influence the textual editors to change the reading to suit their tastes? Maybe. It’s also possible that Beza fixed what he thought was a defect in the text, to bring it more in line with the Latin Vulgate.
Before we move on, we should note that nothing in Scripture would make us think that only churches of one nationality and one language should make this grave a decision. When we look at other Reformation era Protestant Bibles, produced for other languages, we again find a split in opinion. The Italian Diodati (1603) supports the “their” reading, according to some textual critical notes I found online (at this site). Luther’s German Bible uses a pronoun that in German can be either “her” or “their” so it doesn’t help us. The Dutch Staten translation of 1637 uses “her”. The Portugues translation of 1681 (by Ferreira de Almeida) says just “days of purification”. We could go on in this search, but the prevailing theory would be all the Bibles produced by Christians before the 1800s should all read the same since they were received text Christians before the modern versions, right? It’d be interesting to see some more research done in this area, I am limited in what I can do here.
Testing that Claim: Manuscript Evidence
Looking more closely at the question, we come to manuscript evidence. Here we get an ever clearer picture of the situation. The Greek manuscripts overwhelmingly support “their”. There are a few manuscripts, such as an early Western manuscript (Codex D) along with a few other manuscripts which read “his”. But only 1 miniscule, a late text (number 076), contains “her”. Now, E.F. Hills, a TR Only advocate trained in text criticism, wrote that there may be a few other miniscules that have this reading. So the Greek evidence overwhelmingly supports the reading “their”. Keep in mind, this evidence comes from Ceasarean, Alexandrian and Byzantine type manuscripts. The Greek is clear, the reading is “their”.
With the Latin, the majority of the Vulgate readings have a pronoun which means either “his” or “her”. It is not a support for “their”, but not an unequivocal support of “her” either. Their are some Vulgate manuscripts that read “Mary”. We can add in here some of the Old Italian manuscripts as well, also having a neutral support for either “his or her”.
Next their are two possible supports from the Church Fathers for “her”. But these are dubious, and not clear.
Moving on to other languages we have no more support for “her” at all. We do have Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopic, Georgian and Armenian support for “their”.
If you want to test my account of the evidence, you can read the NET Bible footnote regarding this, here. See the explanation of the textual problem in this article at Bible.org. Or see the listing of key texts supporting the various options of the readings, here at zhubert.com, or from this excellent online Greek New Testament site. You can also see that “their” (αυτων) is the 1550 Stephanus TR reading, and “her” (αυτης) is the 1894 Scrivener TR reading, at Biblegateway.com.
Testing that Claim: Exegetical Discussion
We won’t go into great depth on this point, but we should provide some other options for interpreting the text that the TR Only position does not consider. The presence and use of “their” as a valid reading, was at one point part of the TR tradition. To assume that reading requires an interpretation that either Jesus needed purification for his sin, or that Luke did not understand the OT law well enough, is to impugn the TR tradition itself. Not to mention the multitude of Byzantine manuscripts that have “their” as well.
Being honest in our exegesis of the passage, we see Luke is emphasizing that everything was being done according to the Law as it should be. Perhaps there was some need for Joseph to be purified too, from his involvement with the birth, or other reasons. Also the word “purification” could be a broad term of that era, which could have generally applied to Joseph and Mary consecrating Jesus as their firstborn and paying his redemption price according to he Law. The main point of the passage remains clear and we do not have to assume this is a doctrinal error.
The Verdict
First off, we should be very wary of TR Only claims that this verse represents a doctrinal error, or evidence of textual corruption. Many Christians in the TR era preferred Stephanus’ text and used earlier ones, read Tyndale’s Bible, and were not thereby accepting a doctrinal error in this point. Furthermore virtually every Byzantine manuscript to which TR Only folk point for support for their precious TR, has it wrong (according to the TR Only position) at Luke 2:22 as well. Were the users of such texts intentionally corrupting the text at that point? Or complicit in doctrinal error? Did students of the word conclude from that passage that Jesus was a sinner or the Bible’s message in Luke was errant? No. Throwing this charge out on evangelicals today who choose to use a text that reads “their” instead of “her” at this place, is just as wrong.
Secondly, it should be apparent that their is no clear mechanism here for TR Onlyists to decide whether the reading should be “her” or “their”. The majority of Greek manuscripts support “their”. Stephanus’ text, which is one of the two most widely accepted TR editions of their day, had “their”. Elzevir’s following Beza’s, had “her”. Which is right? This also opens up the questions surrounding the Latin versus Greek debate. The Latin Vulgate is a mix of Western and Alexandrian readings mostly. Do we assume Beza leaned on the Vulgate to get this reading? Codex D, named after Beza (it is called Bezae), reads “his”. It is Western and the Vulgate is Western in the Gospels. So is the Vulgate thinking “her” or “his”? And if the Vulgate meant “her” by its use of the neutral pronoun, are we okay with a reading being preserved down through time in a Latin manuscript tradition, while many other readings are supported instead by the Greek tradition?
My conclusion is we cannot assume the TR has it right at this point. The vast majority of the evidence points to Beza’s being wrong in changing the TR to read “her” instead of “their”.
If we consider other passages involving a rite of cleansing, we can see that we wouldn’t necessarily have to conclude that Jesus was a sinner since the text in Luke 2:22 reads “their.” I’m thinking of Jesus’ baptism at the hands of John (Matt. 3:13-17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22) –the one who administered a baptism of repentance (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3; Acts 13:24; Acts 19:4).
Here’s a note from Philip Comfort’s “New Testament Text & Translation Commentary” (Tyndale, 2008-pages 171-172).
“The TR WH NU reading, though strongly supported, is puzzling because the law of Moses called for the purification of only the woman who gave birth (see Lev 12:6), not the husband or child. This problem prompted the variants above. The first indicates that the baby Jesus was purified, the second leaves the matter ambiguous, and the third specifically identifies Mary The third reading, supported by one late cursive manuscript (76), was adopted in the Complutensian Polyglot Bible (1514) and several of Beza’s editions, which was followed by KJV. “It is a remarkable instance of a reading which had almost no authority becoming widely adopted” (Plummer 1896, 63).
In defense of the TR WH NU reading, Luke may have considered the purification a family matter, involving both Mary and Joseph (the grammatical subjects of the verse). But commentators since Origen have tried to make “their” refer to Mary and Jesus (Fitzmeyer 1981, 424), arguing that the purification of Mary and the presentation of Jesus were considered as two aspects of one “cleansing” (Marshall 1978, 116)”
Thanks, guys. The Complutensian Polyglot, a Catholic Greek edition, follows the Vulgate alot, so they must have brought it more in line with their interpretation of the Latin pronoun meaning either him or her. Stephanus chose not to follow that reading, but I”m not sure when the Polyglot was released to the general market.
Those are also some other good exegetical options.
Thanks guys! Happy Lord’s Day.
I’m glad you are tackling specific issues. This is good.
In James Price’s fairly new (and for some reason not so popular) book, King James Onlyism: A New Sect, he points out the fact that those who claim they are TR-only, and only KJVO by virtue of it being translated from the TR, never disagree with a distinctly KJV reading. Luke 2:22 is one of those examples. I know that admitting the KJV could be wrong here might do away with the doctrine of verbal preservation, but the one who says the KJV is right then is forced to deal with the variety of readings within the TR history that you have pointed out. It becomes a very hard thing to defend.
Thanks for the post.
The first thought that came to me when I read the post was just what John C. said.
I find these things to be very interesting…but, due to the fact of the Indwelling Holy Spirit who is the person who leads us to all truth…I doubt seriously that any new truths or church doctrinal error will come to light (after this many centuries) due to these insignificant quibbling of words…unless we truly want to be led astray…The Holy Spirit is always whispering within…This is the way of truth…
I hear you Nancy. I agree too. The thing I guard against is an allegiance to the Textus Receptus that divides the church needlessly and impugns the vast majority of Christians today for using modern Bible versions. There is much ignorance out there concerning this, and I hope to help steer some out of a wrong path by dealing with it here.
I am by no means an expert in what “they” say TR is, but I was struck by one statement you made about the error only existing in the modern versions.
As I understand it, the “modern” versions use older texts (that presumably were discarded or otherwise not used in the TR line) and so the argument (at least some of them) would say that it isn’t that all texts prior to the KJV were identical, but there were ones that were accepted, and other ones that were not, and just because a text is older, doesn’t mean it is better, which I think is the argument for the Critical texts.
When I first heard the argument of preserved, discarded/unused texts, I thought it was pretty odd, but at one point realized – what are the best kept bibles in my house – they are the ones I never read – the “Contemporary English Version” – ie: Jesus said “yo homies, let’s go up to Jerusalem an’ chill for a while with those Pharisee dudes.” 🙂
After I had that thought, it almost persuaded me to throw those copies away, but I stopped since if that is all I had, I’d rather have that than nothing (I think).
Good pont Mr.Chitty! That is a very valid objection, in my opinion.
This is somewhat aside from your point, Bob, but what convinced me to give up the KJO position was simply the fact that Jesus and the apostles quoted Moses and the prophets using the Septuagint which was hardly a “word for word” translation. If Jesus was comfortable quoting a translation that was not exactly the same in every way as the original, but spoke the same truth, then that was evidence enough for me that we are not to be as particular about the letter as we are the meaning of scripture.
I have since become a fan of the NASB, ESV and even the NLT, in that order.
Prodigal,
That is a big argument in my book, too. Then you have other types of quotes where the Bible quotes itself, or where the same event is recorded in different books with different words.
I like the same translations, although I view the NLT as more like commentary on the text.
Blessings,
Bob
Jon,
That’s true, there is the “received” element in this. And with some readings, I do think the Reformation church received the one reading over and against another, which they were aware of from an older text. However, some of the readings in the modern versions were not known by the church for them to pick and choose, during that time period.
An interesting point I like to bring up sometimes, is that even before WH 1881, conservative Bible scholars tried to revise the text. John Wesley published 20,000 footnotes to his translation of the New Testament. Many were of a textual nature. The American Baptists produced a couple Bible versions in the 1800s. Tregelles, a Plymouth Brethren (later a Presbyterian) scholar, in 1854 argued for many of the readings of the modern text at key passages. This was before the discovery of Sinaiticus, the opening up of Vaticanus to scholars, and the work of Westcott and Hort. So it’s not always that the churches received one set of readings over another, as it was they received as accurate a text as was available at the time.
Leviticus 12 settles it for me. It’s clear that “their” does not appear, but “her” does (10x).
My own denomination requires the use of either the KJV or the NKJV in the worship services. This is due to a particular interpretation of a passage in the Westminster Confession, I:8, “by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages”, which is interpreted as a constitutional commitment to the Textus Receptus. I personally interpret that phrase to mean that God has substantially preserved the Biblical text, not necessarily a particular textual tradition. Considering how few textual questions remain, it seems that that belief is well-founded. I use the ESV for my personal reading. To my mind the use of the OT in the NT is definitive, since we know that the apostles quoted versions of texts other than those from the Masoretic Text.
One thought on the “her” versus “their” question: as seen in the article here, and the followup comments, the use of “their” is problematical; one can logically see how it could have been removed to resolve a controversy. However, if the original read “her”, how can one explain the replacement of it with “their”?
Not a soul here believes Psalm 119:140.
Major trauma for the church happens when the leaders and followers refuse to take God at his word and digress to the level of EVE and diss the very words of God over the shoulder in favour of personal preferences. Notice the statement of Satan? Notice that there is no question mark? He is not asking a sincere question. But he is making a blunt Satanic statement. He is daring you to question the truth of God’s word. You folks have sucked into his trap.
Not one here believes that the word of God is very pure:
All of you have no pure Holy Bible. When Christ comes back, will he find faith on the earth? Well not around the likes of these unbelievers. They are all destitute of the truth of the pure word of God. God has sent them strong delusion. Now they go about to usurp God’s authority by being their own authority by playing the game of “I PREFER”.
PeterAV
Every word of God is pure:= bible
Every word of God should be critiqued:=sinful man
I’m not sure how that actually helps anything, Peter. You’re not interacting with the points I made in this post. You’re just coming in from left field and giving us your conclusions to the matter. Those of us here have thought long and hard over these issues and have grappled with Scripture. We believe we are following Scripture’s lead on this and are acting in good faith. You’re holding to a particular conclusion in this matter, one that is not required by any Scripture text.