THE TEXT OF LUKE 2:22
This verse contains a textual problem which has perplexed editors of
the New Testament since the days of Erasmus and the Complutensian edition. The
question is, What pronoun should be read after καθαρισμοῦ?—αὐτῶν, or αὐτοῦ,
or αὐτῆς
Αὐτῶν is attested by אABLWΓΔΠ etc., by nearly all the minuscules, by
the Peshitta, the Harclean, and the Palestinian Syriac, and by three minor
ancient versions (Ethiopic, Armenian, and Gothic). The Arabic Diatessaron also
has the plural pronoun, agreeing with the Peshitta at this point. Origen found αὐτῶν in his text of the Gospel, and, so far as
is known, he was acquainted with no other reading in this place. He quotes Luke
2:22 in his Fourteenth Homily on Luke, which deals with the Circumcision and
Purification, and he discusses the difficulty involved in the plural αὐτῶν without mentioning any variant reading.
If he had known of such, he would certainly have made some reference to it. The
Homiliae in Lucam were written at Caesarea, after Origen’s withdrawal to that
city from Alexandria in the year 231. We may therefore assume that αὐτῶν formed part of Luke 2:22 in the text
current at Caesarea and Alexandria in the early part of the third century, and
that there were no rival claimants for the place. It was also the Antiochian,
or ‘Syrian,’ reading, as its predominance in the minuscule manuscripts proves.
Αὐτῶν is sometimes explained as referring to the Jews.* But this
is contextually objectionable, because the subject understood of ἀνήγαγον is the parents of Jesus. Moreover, this
interpretation becomes much more difficult, not to say impossible, if one
believes, as the present writer does, that the first two chapters of Luke
(except the preface) are based on a Semitic original. Some think the plural
pronoun is used of Mary and Jesus; whilst others, with much better reason in
view of the context, refer αὐτῶν to Joseph and Mary. But both of these explanations are fraught with
the difficulty that the Mosaic Law prescribed purification only for the mother
after childbirth. No ceremonial impurity attached to the father or to the
child.
The feminine pronoun αὐτῆς is found in no Greek manuscript of the New Testament. Its attestation
is not only of inferior quality; it is also extremely scanty, being limited to
a citation in a work wrongly ascribed to Athanasius, to a catena on the Gospel,
and to Erpenius’s edition of the Arabic published in 1616. Αὐτῆς is obviously a learned correction either
of the reading αὐτῶν
or of the variant αὐτοῦ,
which is discussed below. It was made by some one who knew that the woman only
according to the Jewish Law needed purification after the birth of a child.
On the other hand Codex Bezae and at least eight minuscules have αὐτοῦ after καθαρισμοῦ. The Sahidic version and the Amsterdam
edition of the Armenian also have ‘his cleansing’ here. Eius of the Old Latin and the Vulgate, as well as the pronominal
suffix in the Sinaitic Syriac, are ambiguous; they may be interpreted either as
masculine or as feminine. But inasmuch as αὐτοῦ is an early ‘Western’ reading, being
found in Codex Bezae and the Sahidic version, whereas αὐτῆς is very slightly attested and is
doubtless only a learned correction of αὐτῶν or αὐτοῦ,
it seems altogether probable that αὐτοῦ rather than αὐτῆς
underlies the Old Latin and the Sinaitic Syriac. For the Old Latin and Old
Syriac versions were made from manuscripts of the ‘Western’ type. Moreover,
there is no evidence that the reading αὐτῆς was in existence when either of these versions was made. It is quite
possible, however, that many readers of the Old Latin and Sinaitic Syriac
understood the mother of Christ to be meant. Αὐτοῦ can only refer to Jesus, whose
circumcision and naming are recounted in verse 21. But from the point of view
of the Mosaic Law it is erroneous to speak of the purification of the child.
Nevertheless, Griesbach regarded αὐτοῦ as a speciosa lectio, and
Zahn thinks that it may be the right reading in Luke 2:22.
A few authorities have no pronoun at all after καθαρισμοῦ. The omission undoubtedly arose from a
feeling that the Evangelist could not have written either αὐτῶν or αὐτοῦ in this place. This reading, however, has no more claim to be
regarded as correct than the feminine pronoun αὐτῆς.
The Complutensian editors, followed by Beza and the Elzevir editions,
adopted αὐτῆς; but Erasmus and
Stephanus printed αὐτῶν
in their New Testaments. The Antwerp and Paris Polyglots adhere to the Elzevir
tradition, whereas the London Polyglot reproduces the text of Stephanus. Αὐτῶν is read by Griesbach, Lachmann,
Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, Baljon, and von Soden. No editor has
ever adopted αὐτοῦ,
and none since Alter has printed αὐτῆς.
The present writer believes that the first two chapters of Luke
(except the preface) are based on a Semitic source. The Greek variants in Luke
2:22 can be readily explained if one assumes, with Bousset, Gressmann, Plummer,
and Moffatt, that the underlying document was written in Aramaic; and this
assumption seems reasonable at least so far as the narrative parts of the
chapters are concerned.
The source in Luke 2:22, like the Targum of Onkelos on Lev. 12:4 and
6, probably had יומי דכותה.
The suffix in דכותה was intended to be read as feminine,
meaning ‘her purification.’ Luke, or whoever translated the source into Greek,
having read in the preceding verse about the circumcision and naming of Jesus,
took it as masculine, ‘his purification,’ and translated it by καθαρισμοῦ αὐτοῦ. This was the original text of Luke 2:22.
But before the time of Origen it was perceived that αὐτοῦ could not be right, and it was changed to
αὐτῶν, which was
suggested by the verb ἀνήγαγον
and seemed to improve the sense. In course of time αὐτῶν became the dominant reading, though αὐτοῦ survived in texts which preserved the
‘Western’ tradition. But neither αὐτοῦ nor αὐτῶν
was universally satisfactory, since the Mosaic Law demanded purification of the
woman after childbirth and of her only. Accordingly αὐτῆς appeared as a learned correction, but its
range was extremely limited until the appearance of the Complutensian edition
in 1522. The adoption of αὐτῆς
into the text of several early printed editions of the New Testament is due in
part to the Vulgate eius, which was
understood as a feminine pronoun. (W. H. P. Hatch, “The Text
of Luke 2:22,” The Harvard Theological
Review 14, no. 4 [October 1921]: 377-79)
