Demonstrable Errors in Modern Versions Part 7: Luke 2:22 (and why the Majority doesn’t always rule)

The next verse we will be looking at in our list is really quite interesting as far as extant Greek manuscripts are concerned. It highlights not only a problem in modern versions, but also serves to illustrate why the Received Text position is not the same as the “majority text” position. Luke 2:22 reads:

Luke 2:22 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

Luke is simply alluding back to the Law of Moses here. Specifically he is alluding ot Leviticus 12:1–5:

Leviticus 12:1–5 AND the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, (2) Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. (3) And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. (4) And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled. (5) But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.

So the Law is clear, and Luke is equally clear. Mary, after she had conceived and brought forth our Lord, continued in the blood of her purifying until it was completed and they could present him before God in the temple.

The problem with the modern versions is that they will tell you that this was done when the days of “their” purifying were accomplished. As the ESV says:

Luke 2:22 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

Some of have speculated that “their” must refer to Mary and Joseph, since they are mentioned in the earlier context. Others insist that it is Mary and Jesus who were to be purified. The problem with both of these interpretations is that they are simply false according to Leviticus 12. The Law is clear that it is the woman who gives birth that is unclean and in need of purifying. Therefore, this is a demonstrable error in the modern versions.

It is at this point where we face a very intriguing situation. The reading “their” (αυτων) is not only found in the critical text, but is in fact found in the majority of Greek witnesses. It is therefore considered a “Majority text” reading as well as a critical text reading. In fact, even some editions of the Textus Receptus, such as Stephens’ 1550 edition have the reading “their”. The fact is that this is one of the few “minority” readings found within the Greek text underlying our King James Bible. That is not to say that there is no support externally for this verse whatsoever. Nick Sayers has some very helpful info over on his site.

At the same time, this serves to demonstrate the deficiency in the “Majority Text” position, and why Confessional/Received Text believers do not subscribe to such a view. Here we have a “minority” reading which fits best with the context as well as the whole of Scripture. It is coherent and in accordance with the Law of God. On the other hand, we have a reading which is neither coherent nor in accordance with the Law, yet happens to be present in the current majority of manuscripts that we presently have access to. What is the Bible believer to do in such a case? The answer is simple. The believer is guided by the common faith and grounded in the Scripture itself. He stands upon the foundation of God’s promise to preserve his word, and the outworking of that promise as confirmed by the witness of the Holy Ghost to the Church. God’s people have received “her” and God has providentially authenticated the text in which this reading stands. If the majority of presently extant manuscripts have a wrong reading, they are still wrong, no matter how many they are. And the text of Leviticus 12 abundantly demonstrates this.

This is why the Received Text position is so fundamentally different from the “Majority Text” position. The “Majority Text” advocates are still essentially operating off of the same unbiblical modernistic philosophy that the critical advocates are. They begin with the axiom that doubt and uncertainty are virtues, and that to claim knowledge and certainty is impious and wrong. Then we resort to a collective (in this case, collective of manuscripts), because truth is scattered throughout the whole. Then they must do their best to pick and choose what is right from among the various particulars, all the while acknowledging that they will never come to the whole truth. You see this same attitude among religious pluralism, for example. All religions lead to God, and to claim that only one leads to God is prideful and presumptuous. Therefore we must embrace the collective and search for the truth among the particulars within that collective, even though we can never ultimately be certain of what is absolutely true.

Needless to say, this will never furnish us with truth. Such a naturalistic, empirical methodology will never lead us to the “final form” of the New Testament text. We don’t come to faith in God’s word ultimately by scrambling through manuscripts. This much is obvious given what men like Dan Wallace (a critical text advocate who has spent his career doing just that) have said. He says in his NET bible commentary on this verse that:

There can be no doubt that “their purification” is the authentic reading.

And yet this is the same man who also says:

We do not have now — in our critical Greek texts or any translations — exactly what the authors of the New Testament wrote. Even if we did, we would not know it. There are many, many places in which the text of the New Testament is uncertain. — Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism pg. xii

And therein is the underlying issue. The same men who appeal to majority to substantiate one reading at the same time deny that we can even know what the NT as a whole originally said. But at least there is “no doubt” concerning this one word in Luke 2:22! This goes for the critical text view as well as the majority text view. Both are simply forms of the reconstructionist method, which will only furnish us with a never-ending evolution of printed editions and translations.

The believing perspective of the Received Text view is far simpler. We believe in Providential Preservation. God providentially guided the men of the Reformation — Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, Tyndale, the KJB translators etc. — in their textual and translation work. The Greek text underlying the KJB is the final product. They did it. They finished the work. God has shown this by providentially authenticating that text to His people for over 400 years now. Just as nobody questions the canon of Scripture because God providentially guided the Church and the Holy Ghost has borne witness to the same concerning the truth of the canon. What is true of the canon is also true of the text.

So when we come across the handful of “minority” readings in our KJB, we are guided by God’s promises contained in Scripture, and by the common faith which has received the Scripture. It is just that simple. The fact of the matter is that this is yet another error in the modern versions. A demonstrable error which contradicts Scripture itself, proving that the “minority” reading is in fact the correct one. The modern version advocates and reconstructionists generally reject the doctrine of Providential Preservation, and therefore reject God’s promises of preservation in His word, nor do they have any regard to God’s providential authentication of any given text, hence why they must concede that, ultimately, they will forever remain uncertain as to what the authors originally wrote.

No believing child of God should ever have this mentality. It is unscriptural and unbelieving. Period.