Debate On Luke 2:22; Eighth Letter

Letter dated 12/26/96 from Thomas Holland:

Dear Brother James,

[Edited information concerning personal greating and indiviguals we both know]

By way of clarification, there is something which should be noted. You wrote, in regard to the Latin of Luke 2:22, >>the appearance of such a reading in a secondary language (especially since it has to do with gender) is not relevant.<<

I would agree, if the question only dealt with gender. However, it does not. It was the citation from Irenaeus which only dealt with the gender of the Latin word for purification. The early Latin texts used a word Irenaeus did not use, the word *ejus,* which means "of her."

Secondly, as for "secondary language(s)" not being "relevant," I am afraid that modern textual scholars would not agree with your statement. Kurt Aland wrote:

>>The transmission of the New Testament textual tradition is characterized by an extremely impressive degree of tenacity. Once a reading occurs it will persist with obstinacy. It is precisely the overwhelming mass of the New Testament textual tradition, assuming the hugainousa didaskalia of New Testament textual criticism (we trust the reader will not be offended by this application of 1 Tim. 1:10), which provides an assurance of certainty in establishing the original text. Even apart from the lectionaries (cf. p. 163), there is still the evidence of approximately 3,200 manuscripts of the New Testament text, not to mention the early versions and the patristic quotations--we can be certain that among these there is still a group of witnesses which preserves the original form of the text, despite the pervasive authority of ecclesiastical tradition and the prestige of the later text.<< (The Text of the New Testament, p. 291-292)

Please note that Aland believe the "tenacity" of a reading can be found not only in the evidence of the Greek manuscripts, but also among the "early versions and the patristic quotations." He states that we can be CERTAIN that, "among these there is still a group of witness which preserves the original form of the text. . ." Therefore, early versions are to be used and considered evidence in the science of textual criticism.

Dr. Alexander Souter noted:
>>The second (source of the NT text) is translations made from this original Greek, especially if directly made from it, and not through the medium of another language, which is itself a direct translation from the original Greek. If such a translation was carefully made, and has survived in the precise form and text in which the translator himself issued it, what we possess in it is tantamount to the Greek copy in front of the translators when he made his translation.<< (The Text And Canon Of The New Testament, p.10.)

Since the Old Latin manuscripts are almost unanimous in their reading "of her" and since the Latin Vulgate likewise possesses the reading "ejus" (of her), it is highly likely that there was an early Greek text with this reading which we no longer possess, at least according to the logic of textual criticism as just expressed by Souter. I do not believe that there is any reason to continue with additional citations which agree with this point. However the same may be found in the writings of Metzger, Geisler and Nix, Jack Finegan, and others.

Concerning the difference in date between the NA27 and the NA26 with regard to minuscule 76, you write:

>>And thank you for pointing out the discrepancy. Any idea how we can get hold of Aland to find out which is which? Ever seen a web address for the Alands? I've not seen one, but personally, I'd be more than a bit surprised if he's not available through that means.<<

You are welcome. I would be delighted to find a web address for Dr. Aland. I know that there is a web site which contains copies of manuscripts, however I do not have that address with me. I found it at Dayton's United Theological Seminary and plan on visiting there again next week. I will try and find this web address and mail it to you once I do. Another way, perhaps, is to contact the publisher and ask.

You ask about the "of her" reading:

>>By the way, would you not agree that the "push" for this reading is most probably due to the rise of monasticism and the resultant increase in Mariolatry?<<

No. I think it is the original reading which agrees with the Old Testament law concerning the rites of purification. I think the reading "of them" has no basis in the law, while the reading "of her" most certainly does. And since Mary was under the OT law, the logical reading would be "of her."

Further, if the push was a result of Mariolatry, then there are a few questions I would have. First, if Mary were immaculately conceived (which is part of the doctrine of Mariolatry as I understand it) than why would she need any purification? To me the reading "of their" would be better for those who hold such a doctrine because it could be interpreted as placing Mary on the level of Christ. Or, it could be interpreted as "of their" meaning Joseph and Christ by extreme worshippers of Mary.

Second, modern Catholic scholars use the reading "of their" in agreement with modern textual criticism. Yet, they still hold to Mariolatry. Why? If this were a foundational verse in the doctrine of Mariolatry, it would seem to me that the RCC would be more likely to argue the translation based on the tradition of the Church regardless of the findings of modern textual criticism. And, in the spirit of ecumenicalism, I could see modern liberal Protestant scholars making concession on the verse. Don't you think this would be likely if the verse were critical to Mariolatry?

I think that you are reading a great deal into something without any proof. If there were any documentation of such a claim, such as a writing of an ancient Catholic textual critic claiming that the proper reading should be "of her" in order to exalt the person of Mary, then you may have some ground for believing such a thing. Otherwise, it is pure conjecture. Of course, my friend, you are free to make whatever conjectures you wish. In fact, you should. However, I think that we both would agree that the danger is not in our conjectures, but when we make our conjectures gospel.

You ask:
>>Did you agree with me that Beza did not have access to 76? I couldn't tell from what you wrote.<<

I don't know. I am not sure when 76 was discovered, or if discovered during the time of Beza, if he used it. I do know that according to his footnote (which I sent you in Latin) he had access to some reading and noted his disagreement with others in adopting the reading "of their."

[Letter edited: The information which followed concerned the Cum Privilegio and not Luke 2:22. The edited informatin on the Cum Privilegio is located in that debate.]

Yours in Christ Jesus,
Thomas Holland (Psalm 118:8)
"Commendo vos dilectioni Dei, et odio papatus et superstitionis."

On to Final Letters
Or
Back to Debate Page