The King James Only-ites Vs Modern Versions on Lk 2:21-25
The King James Only-ites Vs Modern Versions on Lk 2:21-25
“And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb. 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; (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;) And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.” (Lk 2:21-24) KJV
What, you ask, is the problem here? It is this: the modern versions of the Bible change the pronoun “her” in verse twenty-two to “their.” The King James Version Only advocates tell us that this is a mistake, because Jesus had no need to be purified.
Is this truly a problem?
First of all, let’s consult an authority on the issue.
“The expression τοῦ καθαρισμοῦ αὐτῶν cannot refer to the Purification of the Virgin and her Babe , nor to that of the Virgin and Joseph, because neither the Babe nor Joseph needed, nor were they included in, the purification. It can only refer to ‘their’ (i.e. the Jews’) purification. But this does not imply any Romish inferences as to the superhuman condition or origin of the Blessed Virgin; on the contrary, the offering of the sin-offering points in the other direction.”
Edersheim, A. (1896, 2003). The life and times of Jesus the Messiah. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
Edersheim is here declaring to us that “their” refers to the Jew’s purification, and not that Mary and Jesus were both purified.
Next we must understand that “their” is in the Greek TR of 1550 which was edited by Stephens. It is not, however, in Scrivener’s TR of 1894, yet it is given as a variant in Scrivener’s TR of 1881. One wonders when the perfection of the TR actually came into being. The Matthew Bible of the sixteenth century translates the Greek as “their.” So does the Tyndale of 1525 and the Coverdale of 1535(HT Bob Hayton). Though Wycliffe and Geneva Versions do not use the plural pronoun, we can at least see that some of the translations which led up to the King James Version did us the plural. For most of us this is significant cause for pausing and refusing to dogmatize or cry “heresy” over a pronoun. As a matter of fact, our next point shows why “their” is a suitable translation.
Finally, we must look at the context to see what is going on. Jesus went to the temple to be redeemed per Jewish law, “As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord.” (Lk 2:23) KJV Edersheim says, “mothers who were within convenient distance of the Temple, and especially the more earnest among them, would naturally attend personally in the Temple; and in such cases, when practicable, the redemption of the firstborn, and the purification of his mother, would be combined. Such was undoubtedly the case with the Virgin-Mother and her Son.”
Edersheim, A. (1896, 2003). The life and times of Jesus the Messiah (1:194-195). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
It is very reasonable to use the pronoun “their” in reference to this event, when Mary’s purification (according to Lev 12:1-6) is combined with the presentation of Jesus before the Lord (according to Ex 13:1-15).
In conclusion, whether it be “her” or “their” (textual evidence pointing to “their”1) the fuss that it put up the KJVO advocates is truly much ado about nothing. Why? Because either translation is Biblically admissible. If one were to quibble that God preserves the Scriptures, we affirm that, too. In fact, we affirm that He has preserved the Scriptures and has preserved “their” (auton) in the majority of extant texts as well as the Majority Text according to the Byzantine family of texts from which we get the TR.
1Daniel Wallace also writes concerning this issue here and addresses the manuscript evidence.