Peshitta Forum

Full Version: Luke 2:22 casts DARK SHADOWS on Aramaic Primacy
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Hello folks. Peace and Grace to all who desire to follow Y'shua or die trying.

anyone familiar with the game of chess knows that if one of the players gets ahead in the game by a several pieces and then within the next move or two unknowingly exposes his queen so that his opponet takes it - from then the whole complexion of the game is altered and brings about "a whole new ball game."

Astonishingly, in Luke 2:22 there "SEEMS" to be such a similar exposure on Aramaic/Peshitta primacy. I am writing this somewhat "cold" as I have been away from my studies. But I have looked at this and thought of this verse for several days now. It does not bid well for Aramaic Primacy lovers and can cause serious doubts for Aramaic Primacy. But Luke 2:22 : "Now when the days of THEIR purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord, as it is written in the law of the Lord 'Every male who opens the womb shall be called holy to the LORD.' "

This scripture quote is not taken directly from the Aramaic Peshitta New Testament but this point is not important for now because I just want to emphasize one very big and important word in this passage: "THEIR". I believe the Byzantine text which backs the King James version and the New King James version has the correct Greek behind it which should read like this: "Now when the days of HER purification according to the law of Moses were completed they brought Him to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord. v23 - as it is written in the law of the Lord 'Every male who opens the wombe shall be called holy to the LORD.' "

According to the Peshitta New Testament the wrod they use is in the plural; or 3rd person - possessive - plural. But this can not be correct because the whole narrative in this context is a fullfillment of Leviticus 12 and applies only to the women(the wife) and uses only the 3rd person - possessive - SINGULAR . I have not found in the Hebrew or the Seputagint where the women AND THE HUSBAND are involved here when reading Leviticus 12. tHE husband or male is not the one sharing in any of the purification. Only the women is to follow certain steps , in Levitcus 12, for HER PURIFICATION and not THEIR PURIFICATION. The Aramaic seems to be dead wrong here and there are Greek manuscript copies that have correct with "HER PURIFICATION."

Mainly the Greek manuscript copies that have HER PURIFICATION is in the Byzantine family. Well, what say you?? What do we make of this??

Cordially and with Grace,

Mike Karoules
Tikanis~Shlama Mike,

Actually it is "their" days of purification. "Their purification" refers to both the baby and the mother. The baby was considered unclean for a period after birth. The mother, impure after childbirth, and the son, as yet uncircumcised, are both considered ceremonially impure (the boy until the 8th day when he is circumcised, and the mother for another 33 days.)

I think you are only looking at the passage in Lev. that deals with a mother's uncleanness, but a male baby is unclean for a period of time, too, according to the Law "of Moses."

There was nothing unclean about Joseph. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Tikanis, Paul. Neipon, ego eime kalo. I am pretty good. Well, I'm not bad.

But thank you for your reply. I have 2 points to make pertaining to this thread and your reply. First, (like I said I did not delve into any "deep" research on this. Just thought about it and looked up appropriate texts) I have to admit that it seems that even within the Greek Byzantine text family type it appears that some/many manuscripts have the word "autwn" (their purification: genitive-plural) while some others of the Byzantine Greek MSs have "auths" or autys (feminine-genitive-singular). These in the latter group appear to be in the minority from what I have found. But they still could be the proper rendering of this word - "her." So, Zorba here shouldn't get all that excited.

However, from your reply, I just can not see how the baby Y'shua could be unclean. I don't have to get all into how he was w/o sin and knew no sin. Paul, there would absolutely be no need for "their" to be used and for Jesus to have a period of purification. HE HAS NO NEED TO BE PURIFIED FROM ANYTHING. I gave this some thought before I opened this thread. Y'shua just can not be referenced here. No way, I believe. In order to go through some "purification" one would have need to be "purified" from some sin or transgression. This excludes Y'shua. I believe that the reference in the law of Moses to purification would include a sin offering or some other offering to "cleans" himself or themselves. I would have brought up the sacrifice that Luke wrote in 2:24 but at this point Joseph would be with Mary and the "they" in Luke 2:22 probably spoke of Joseph and Mary so as to read it thus: "Now when the days of HER purification according to the law of Moses were completed/fulfilled they(Mary and Joseph) brought Him to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord as it is written in the law of the Lord, 'Every male who opens the wombe shall be called holy to the LORD' and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the law of the Lord, 'A pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.' " (NKJV, Luke 2:22-24) Who offered the sacrifice when they went to the temple?? Why , Mary did and Joseph was there next to her even though the sacrifice was for the benefit of Mary only. I have no problem with the 2nd mention of a plural for "they" in Luke 2:22. I do have a problem with the 1st menion of the plural in Luke 2:22 - "their" as applying to Mary and to Y'shua for the baby Y'shua needed no purifying for anything. There is nothing to be purified from.

Right, Paul??

Thank-you Paul for your input. Like I said, Zorba has nothing really to get too excited about. But still, the feminine-genetive-SINGULAR is found in the Greek manuscripts and there is no SINGULAR found in any of the Aramaic manuscripts.

Cordially,

Mike
Shlama Akhi Mike,

A male Jewish baby is uncircumcised for the first 7 days of his life, therefore he is ceremonially impure according to the law - that included Meshikha. We dealt with this very topic a number of years ago but I can't seem to find the exact forum post. However there were references in other Jewish literature from the time period (like the Talmud) that spoke of the days of purification as it related to an uncircumcised infant boy.

I think the Greek manuscripts that have the "her purification" are attempts at reconciling what they incorrectly viewed as an inconsistency with the purity laws, however there is no real contradiction it's just that they did not understand, or did not want to think, that Meshikha was technically, according to the letter of the law, ritually impure for the first week of life and for a period of time until he was healed and presented at the Temple.
Shlama,


to add to the support for the reading of "their," a proper understanding of the laws of uncleanness would have Yoseph most assuredly being unclean as well, since he appears to have been present at the birth of Yeshua, and so would have touched Miryam almost certainly, thus acquiring the status of "unclean."

and i would point out also: the idea of "unclean" doesn't necessarily mean a sin has taken place. a person becomes unclean upon touching a corpse, or after intercourse, etc. neither of these are inherantly sinful actions, and yet uncleanness is incurred by them.

in light of this, i don't see any issue with the reading being "their."


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Well, I thank-you both for responding. It could be that both Mary and Y'shua were ceremonially unclean as the information you provided seems to point to that direction. The sacrifice by Mary though that end the narrative in Luke 2:24 would only be for Mary and if it tied into "HER days of purification" then the problem still exists as the sacrifice is for the purpose of making atonement and we all know that at no time in Y'shua's life would or did HE need atonement. Mary's blood offering here of 2 young pigeons or 2 turtledoves are blood offerings and they point to the Messia Himself as fulfillment of ALL the Old Testament sacrifices.

But if I understand the law of Moshe correctly than for any person who becomes unclean or ceremonially unclean and the days of his or her "purification have been fulfilled" a sacrifice is to be done and presented. Here, in the context of Luke 2:22-24 it can NOT be applied to Y'shua because as we see in Leviticus throughout these sacrifices are for the purpose of making atonement. So, if Mary's baby is involved than we have a problem. But if there is ceremonially uncleanness in Y'shua the baby (with no sin offering or sacrifice involved or needed) than everything is okay. Only Mary needs to present an offering at the temple and does not apply to Y'shua.

To be honest I did not read Leviticus through to check and see if someone who was ceremonially unclean ALWAYS needed to make an animal sacrifice. So you may be right, Paul and probably are.

But Burning One, I would have to disagree with you that Joseph was impure here, even ceremonially. There seems to be no mention at all in Luke that he was impure. Plus, in Leviticus 12 where the woman who is going through the purification process never mentions the husband (male) at all. He is not unclean and even in Lev. 12 when a sacrifice or offering is presented the male(husband) is not even mentioned either. Anyway, thanks for your replies. It may take some more study. But it just looked like a real loser for Aramaic Primacy on the surface and I thought I might have had something for ole Zorba. This may need to take some more looking at. Hey guys, thanks.


sincerely,

Mike
Mike Kar Wrote:To be honest I did not read Leviticus through to check and see if someone who was ceremonially unclean ALWAYS needed to make an animal sacrifice. So you may be right, Paul and probably are.

Mike, I just wanted to let you know BTW this custom is still very much alive and well in the Church. A mother of a newborn does not come to church for 40 days, she is not allowed to approach the altar area, and at that time she comes for her first Qurbana (offering) she and her family bring a "sacrifice" (usually a lamb that was slaughtered for the occasion), and we partake of the meal as a whole church.

There's nothing "sinful" that needs atonement, as Jeremy said being ceremonially unclean doesn't mean you have a sin to atone for or give an offering for. The gift that is offered up by the mother is in thanksgiving for the birth of her child.

(PS - also, the same rules apply during a woman's menstrual time as far as approaching the altar)
Paul,

Thanks, man. But I am unfamiliar with the liturgical practises of the c.o.e. But not even in any Orthodox church be it Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Syrian Orthodox, etc., is there any practise of an animal offering either for atonement or sin offering. All of the ANIMAL sacrifices under the OT were done for this purpose. Whatever conclusion we come to regarding Mary's purification in Luke 2:22 one thing is for sure: the sacrifice of Luke 2:24 is for her and her alone. It can not be for Y'shua, I believe. All the O.T. ANIMAL sacrifices are a type of Y'shua sacrifice and points to the Messiah sacrifice which he fulfilled on the cross. Once he accomplished this there is no longer any ANIMAL offering needed any longer. Hebrews should tell us this w/o any doubt.

Kindly,

Mike
Mike Kar Wrote:Thanks, man. But I am unfamiliar with the liturgical practises of the c.o.e. But not even in any Orthodox church be it Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Syrian Orthodox, etc., is there any practise of an animal offering either for atonement or sin offering.

Hey Mike, I understand what you're saying as far as the Greek, Russian, Armenian, etc. Churches. In the CoE, an animal offering is never given for atonement (a sin offering). Neither was every animal sacrifice in the OT for sin offering, either.

But the CoE is a Semitic branch of the Church, and being so it has many things that would remind you of Judaism or Islam. We lived in an area of the world that still does these things and we still practice things like "Niddah" (the Jewish term for purity laws) and offerings of thanksgiving like Lambs, etc.

I don't want you to think the CoE does animal sacrifices for sin offerings, that would be a denial of the Sacrifice of our Lord.

Mike Kar Wrote:All of the ANIMAL sacrifices under the OT were done for this purpose.

No, not all Akhi. A mother wasn't required to bring two doves because she sinned giving birth. Quite the opposite - we are commanded to be fruitful and multiply. There's nothing sinful or that needs atonement for having a baby.

Mike Kar Wrote:Whatever conclusion we come to regarding Mary's purification in Luke 2:22 one thing is for sure: the sacrifice of Luke 2:24 is for her and her alone. It can not be for Y'shua, I believe.

The offering she gave was for her according to the Law, it wasn't for Yeshua, no.

Mike Kar Wrote:All the O.T. ANIMAL sacrifices are a type of Y'shua sacrifice and points to the Messiah sacrifice which he fulfilled on the cross.

No, just the sin offerings. There were many types of offerings for different reasons other than atonement for sin.

Mike Kar Wrote:Once he accomplished this there is no longer any ANIMAL offering needed any longer. Hebrews should tell us this w/o any doubt.

Kindly,

Mike [/b]

There are no animal sacrifices needed for sin, absolutely not.
Hello Paul,

All the sacrifices in the OT pointed to Y'shua, I believe. There can almost be no doubt about this Paul because before Adam and Eve sinned there was no need for any kind of sacrifice be it a Thanksgiving offering, a peace offering, a wave offering, a sin offering or any other offering. These sacrifices came about as a result of man's sin. All the offerings were for atonement of sin to one degree or another and all pointed to Christ. If not, Paul, we are in trouble and that means we should still be practising them.

Also , Romans 10:4 tells us plainly that Messiah is the end of the Law. But,

as you know, because of man's sin there had to be some kind of death to be accomplished. And all of the OT sacrifices (wahtever kind) required a death.

If Mary is presenting a sacrifice in temple in Luke 2:24 other than some consequense of sin then why in the world did the law require the life of 2 turtledoves or 2 pigeons as a sacrifice?? It was not because she had sinned by giving birth to Y'shua. But mainly because (and think on this) I believe it goes back to the garden upon Eve's transgression when Aloha said that from now on she Eve(the mother of all living) would give birth to offspring in pain. This was a direct punishment and consequense on her and passed down on all women.

No, Mary did not sin bey giving birth and it is not a sin for any women to give birth and have babies. But the travail that is involved is an INDIRECT or a RESIDIAL outcome/consequense because of this. Think of the passage in 1 Timothy by Paul in that women "SHALL BE SAVED IN CHILD BEARING." This is why Mary had to provide and present a sacrifice at the temple in Luke 2:24 of 2 pigions or 2 turtledoves.

If there was no related sin involved or because of the consequense of sin passed down to Mary then why the killing of 2 animals?? ? All the killing of these animals spilled blood. No doubt about that. Well, no blood needed to be spilled if there was no transgression. But in the case of Luke 2:24 blood was spilled.

You said, "Neither was every animal sacrifice in the OT for sin offering either." Well, I would say that NOT all sacrifices in the OT (and here in this context - Leviticus) were called SIN OFFERINGS. But they were all related or tied into some sin being commited directly or as a consequense. I believe all the offerings in the OT and specifically in Levitics were to accomplish atonement to one degree or another. All for sure pointed to Y'shua the Messiah.

Good thing is is that we don't have to do these sacrifices any longer.

Paul, I think we may be getting into something deep here. I have not even begun to get into Hebrews (NT book) but, in my mind, it just can NOT be.

Blood was spilled and in my mind there is only one purpose for blood to be spilled in these sacrifices: to provide atonement for the one who has sinned or because of some transgression in the past carried down to humanity from generation to generation. I believe this latter reason was for Mary's sacrifice in Luke 2:24. No one will say that Mary giving birth to Y'shua was a sin. It just goes back to the garden where the women received her punishment as a result of sin(eating the forbidden fruit).

Paul, I am going to just come out and say that I am not a THEOLOGICAL EXPERT on this subject. I could be off a little and we may be getting into theological subjects that can be lengthy. But as long as the Law of Moshe was in effect this had to be done. and Mary was under the law at the time of her giving birth to Y'shua.

Well, enough on this for now. I will look more into this (Lev-Hebrews) this weekend. BTW, I took a class that was called LEVITICUS-HEBREWS years ago.

Kindly,

Mike
Shlama Akhi Mike,

Check out Leviticus chapter 3, then chapter 7:11-15 - google "Thanksgiving Offerings", "Peace Offerings", etc.

Not every sacrifice (blood) was for the remission of sins.

Take care!

(and no, there is nothing that says we must do them - we just do, it's more of a cultural thing)
Shlama Mike,


i've been on a road trip and only came back this evening and saw the responses.

although the passages in question don't explicitly refer to Yoseph as being defiled, if he indeed was, the idea of his defilement is easily reconciled in that the Torah does state that anyone who comes into contact with a woman during her state of menstrual impurity becomes impure, and this fact is echoed in that a post-partem woman also has this designation of impurity (Leviticus 12 goes into this). since it *appears* from the text that there was no midwife at Messiah's birth, then it is likely that Yoseph acted in her stead, as well as most likely attending to her during the oncoming days of her ritual impurity, which also would have prolonged any defilement he may have acquired. neither of the two scenarios involve any sin at all, but rather merely the erasing of impurity, and they would *explain* the Peshitta's usage of a plural instead of a singular.

Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Paul Younan Wrote:Mike, I just wanted to let you know BTW this custom is still very much alive and well in the Church. A mother of a newborn does not come to church for 40 days, she is not allowed to approach the altar area, and at that time she comes for her first Qurbana (offering) she and her family bring a "sacrifice" (usually a lamb that was slaughtered for the occasion), and we partake of the meal as a whole church.

There's nothing "sinful" that needs atonement, as Jeremy said being ceremonially unclean doesn't mean you have a sin to atone for or give an offering for. The gift that is offered up by the mother is in thanksgiving for the birth of her child.

(PS - also, the same rules apply during a woman's menstrual time as far as approaching the altar)


Shlama Paul,


wow - i had no idea the CoE still watched over this command. this is very interesting! thanks for sharing!


Chayim b'Moshiach,
Jeremy
Burning one Wrote:wow - i had no idea the CoE still watched over this command. this is very interesting! thanks for sharing!

Shlama~Shalom Jeremy,

You'd be surprised at how many of these types of things are preserved in the CoE, back from our Jewish days. Never quite shook off some of them.

Read Chapter 7 of Asahel Grant's book for more:

http://www.peshitta.org/pdf/grant.pdf
Jeremy and Paul,

Now Jeremy, After reading your posts I would now have to say that if we are to accept a reading in Luke 2:22 of ''THEIR'' then it would make much more sense that Joseph and Mary would be referenced in the "THEIR" and not Mary and Y'shua. The context in Luke does seem to point out that Joseph was with Mary during the cycle of "Mary's impurity" in Luke 2.


But nothing is said for this kind of situation in Leviticus 12. Only the woman(wife) is involved. Jeremy, could you site the passage in Leviticus where, where upon the physical contact of the husband on/to the wife, he becomes unclean??? I believe I read this a long time ago but do not know exactly where to go. But what about his own purification process and what kind of sacrifice or offering was he to bring according to the Torah?? Is it something other than what Mary offered in Luke 2:24?? If it is then there could be interpretive ramifications to this.

Paul, I read Leviticus 12 this past weekend. I believe I should say that the offering /sacrifice of Mary in Luke 2:24 was for some kind of atonement. Almost no question now because: Lev 12:6 says, "When the days of her purification are fulfilled, whether for a son or a daughter, she shall bring to the priest a LAMB ...(wow!!! And who is the LAMB of Aloha who takes away the sin of the world?? ?? ??) ... of the first year as a burnt offering, and a young pigeon or a turtldove as a SIN OFFERING , to the door of the tabernacle of meeting. vs. 7 Then he shall offer it before the ALOHA and make ATONEMENT for her. And she shall be clean from the flow of her blood."

But vs. 8 "And if she is not able to bring a lamb, then she may bring 2 turtledoves or 2 young pigeons - one as a burnt offering and the other as a SIN offering. SO THE PRIEST SHALL MAKE ATONEMENT FOR HER AND SHE WILL BE CLEAN."

We may really need to talk about this more. All along we have been discussing this and neither of us has gone back to really take a closer look at Lev. 12

I think the very big, big question is this: Is the purification process of Mary in Luke 2:22 tied in with this burnt offering and SIN OFFERING (wow!!) that Mary accomplishes in Luke 2:24 in which (now we know for sure) that the priest offers up for an ATONEMENT??

If this is so then the ''THEIR'' in Luke 2:22 is either for Mary and Joseph only and y'shua is excluded. Or if the "THEIR'' in Luke 2:22 is referencing Mary and Y'shua in mind then we are now in some big trouble. Ever heard of the saying we are in a creek w/o a paddle??

For Aramaic Primacy supporters we shall be in a swamp with not only no paddle but a steady leak in the boat. This would make the Greek manuscripts which read "now according to the days of HER purification. . . ." correct and we might as well close the books for Aramaic Primacy and go home and go to bed.

But what if the ''THEIR'' in Luke 2:22 is referencing Joseph and Mary?? Where in the Torah (as I asked Jeremy above) does it say that (upon Joseph coming into contact with Mary) Jospeh is unclean and must undergo a purification process?? And what offerings must he provide AND BRING BEFORE THE PRIEST??? If he has an altogether different process with different offerings to bring before the priest then Mary's offerings in Luke 2:22 just will not do; right Paul and Jeremy??

Maybe we can untangle this. Yeah??

Of course in Lev. the woman (Lev. 12) is to bring a LAMB to the priest and a turtledove (or pigeon.) In this case because she is poor (from what we can tell of the circumstances) and is NOT able to bring a lamb. She brought 2 turtldoves or 2 pigeons IN PLACE OF THE LAMB.

Yes, Paul and Jeremy. This was a sin offering (Ref. above again of John's words that Y'shua was the LAMB OF ALOHA who takes away the SIN of the world. Right??)

The burnt offering and sin offering was to MAKE ATONEMENT for her.

Anyone wish to respond?? Am I overlooking something??

Thank-you guys;

Kindly,

Mike Karoules
Pages: 1 2