In reply to message #0
With all due respect of Kiraz he does not translate the text in light of a knowledge of Torah.
Also the marks you speak of on later maunscripts were clearly NOT in the original texts as we all agree. Luke did not write any such marks.
Now despite a lot of large red fonts from the oposition I have clearly shown the follwoing facts:
1. When a mother gives birth to a male child she undergoes seven "days of her seperation" (niddah) followed by 33 "days of her purification.
2. The newborn is only unclean during her seven days of seperation and NOT (as a rule) during her 33 days of purification.
3. Only during her seven "days of seperation" does the woman tranfer her uncleanness to others, not during her "days of purification."
4. An unclean male is not "in days of purification" just because he is unclean.
(the same is true of a female. For exa,ple during the first seven days the woman is unclean but she is "in days of seperation" and NOT in "days of purification". The same is true when she minstrates, she is in seperation, not days of purification. This establishes that "days of purification" does not simply refer to a time of uncleanness in general.
5. A male in its first seven days, or a male who has otherwise been exposed to a woman in her "days of seperation" IS unclean but is NOT in "days of purifictaion".
6. Therefore the reading "days of their purification" in Luke 2:22 is unexpected as David Stern writes in his Jewish New Testament Commentary:
Their purification. Only Miriam was ritually impure, so the plural is unexpected.
Other commentators have noticed this as a difficult passage.
Now my opponants have accused me of making up this problem and insist that it does not exist. Yet as I have shown it is well known and documented by others before me as a problem in the text. I did NOT make it up.
One person speculated that Luke was writing history in his own words and was not using this phrase as Moses had. However Luke 2:22 specifies that the "days of ... purification" were "ACCORDING TO THE LAW OF MOSES" so we can safely consult the Torah to understand the usage of the term.
In the face of undeniable facts my oponants have resorted to attacking my flank. They have attempted to discredit my argument by quoting statements that I made apart from the context in which they were made and then attempted to show that the statement was not true.
The first of these occurred when someone posted that the "days of their purification" might refer to the infant as well since he was going to the Temple for the redemption of the firstborn ritual. I pointed out that the firstborn is not being redeemed because he was unclean. That the firstborn is not unclean (at least not at that point in time) he is KODESH (holy; Temple property) and is being purchased back from the Temple. The phase "the firstborn is not unclean" was isolated from its context (I have added a staement in () to accent this point) and quoted by itself as if I was stating a unversal truth about the firstborn's entire life. It was then pointed out that the firstborn is unclean during his first seven days (as any male newborn is) and that my statement was false. My statem,ent however only refered to the "days of purification" and the purpose of the Temple ritual. At no point during the 33 "days of purification" (which start on the 8th day of the child's life) is the child, as a rule, unclean. (remember his mother does not tranfer uncleanness during days of purification, only during days of seperation) neither is he undergoing a purification ritual at the Temple.
The second case in which I was quoted out of context in this way was when my oponants seemed to be mistakenly taking the phrase "days of purification" as if it was a term referring to any kind of ritual uncleaness and specificly to the ritual uncleanness undergone when one is exposed to the woman while she is in her "days of seperation". In my response I tried to make the point that this was not true and said that a man who is unclean is not in "days of purification." This is a true statement but was quoted as if I had said "a man who is unclean is NEVER in days of purification". I was imply making the point that the two things "uncleanness" and "days of purification" are not the same thing and uncleaness does not always precipitate "days of purification". In fact during her her first seven days the woman after childbirth is unclean but she is NOT in "days of purification" she is in fact in "days of seperation". The fact is that a person who is unclean MAY be in "days of seperation" or MAY be in "days of purification" or MAY not be in EITHER of those conditions. Specificly in context of our disussion a man (or woman) exposed to a woman who is in her "days of seperation" DOES become unclean but is NOT in "days of purification" and a newborn male is unclean for the first seven days but is also NOT in "days of purification". Now there are OTHER cases (which have nothing to do with the context of this discussion) in which a man CAN be in "days of purification" (for example if he had just been cured from Leperusy). But this is irrelevant to our discussion.
So despite a lot of large red fonts from the oposition the facts are clear:
Luke states that the "days of ...purification" were "according to the Law of Moses" and when we consult the "Law of Moses" we see that Miriam would have been completing what the Torah callse quote: "days of HER purificatin" and since the child and father would NOT be in "days of purification" even if they had become unclean through contact with Miriam in her days of seperation, we find that Stern is correct and that the reading "days of THEIR purification" is "unexpected" since only Miriam would be in "days of purification".
All of this leaves us with the undeniable fact that the Old Syriac which can be read "days of his purification" or "days of her purification" should be read, as Luke himself instructs us "according to the Law of Moses", as "days of HER purification" as we also read in the Torah (Lev. 12:4).
All of this also leaves us with the undeniable fact that, again if we follow Luke and read this "according to the Law of Moses", that the Old Syriac reading "days of HER purification" is accorate according to the Law of Moses (Lev. 12:4) while "days of their purification" (Peshitta and Greek) is NOT.