Lukas 2:22

Jesus’ Presentation at the Temple

2:22 Now ¹  when the time came for their ²  purification according to the law of Moses, Joseph and Mary ³  brought Jesus ⁴  up to Jerusalem ⁵  to present him to the Lord

Lukas 2:51

2:51 Then ⁶  he went down with them and came to Nazareth, ⁷  and was obedient ⁸  to them. But ⁹  his mother kept all these things ¹⁰  in her heart. ¹¹ 

Lukas 4:42

4:42 The next morning ¹²  Jesus ¹³  departed and went to a deserted place. Yet ¹⁴  the crowds were seeking him, and they came to him and tried to keep him from leaving them.

Lukas 10:1

The Mission of the Seventy-Two

10:1 After this ¹⁵  the Lord appointed seventy-two ¹⁶  others and sent them on ahead of him two by two into every town ¹⁷  and place where he himself was about to go.

Lukas 11:18

11:18 So ¹⁸  if ¹⁹  Satan too is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand? I ask you this because ²⁰  you claim that I cast out demons by Beelzebul.

Lukas 11:39

11:39 But the Lord said to him, “Now you Pharisees clean ²¹  the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. ²² 

Lukas 12:42

12:42 The Lord replied, ²³  “Who then is the faithful and wise manager, ²⁴  whom the master puts in charge of his household servants, ²⁵  to give them their allowance of food at the proper time?

Lukas 12:46

12:46 then the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not foresee, and will cut him in two, ²⁶  and assign him a place with the unfaithful. ²⁷ 

Lukas 20:6

20:6 But if we say, ‘From people,’ all the people will stone us, because they are convinced that John was a prophet.”

[2:22]  ¹ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “now” to indicate the transition to a new topic.

[2:22]  ² tc The translation follows most mss, including early and important ones ({א A B L}). Some copyists, aware that the purification law applied to women only, produced mss ({76 it^pt vg} [though the Latin word eius could be either masculine or feminine]) that read “her purification.” But the extant evidence for an unambiguous “her” is shut up to one late minuscule ({codex 76}) and a couple of patristic citations of dubious worth ({Pseudo-Athanasius} whose date is unknown, and the {Catenae in euangelia Lucae et Joannis}, edited by J. A. Cramer. The Catenae is a work of collected patristic sayings whose exact source is unknown [thus, it could come from a period covering hundreds of years]). A few other witnesses (D pc lat) read “his purification.” The KJV has “her purification,” following Beza’s Greek text (essentially a revision of Erasmus’). Erasmus did not have it in any of his five editions. Most likely Beza put in the feminine form αὐτῆς (auths) because, recognizing that the eius found in several Latin mss could be read either as a masculine or a feminine, he made the contextually more satisfying choice of the feminine. Perhaps it crept into one or two late Greek witnesses via this interpretive Latin back-translation. So the evidence for the feminine singular is virtually nonexistent, while the masculine singular αὐτοῦ (autou, “his”) was a clear scribal blunder. There can be no doubt that “their purification” is the authentic reading.

[2:22]  tn Or “when the days of their purification were completed.” In addition to the textual problem concerning the plural pronoun (which apparently includes Joseph in the process) there is also a question whether the term translated “purification” (καθαρισμός, kaqarismo") refers to the time period prescribed by the Mosaic law or to the offering itself which marked the end of the time period (cf. NLT, “it was time for the purification offering”).

[2:22]  sn Exegetically the plural pronoun “their” creates a problem. It was Mary’s purification that was required by law, forty days after the birth (Lev 12:2-4). However, it is possible that Joseph shared in a need to be purified by having to help with the birth or that they also dedicated the child as a first born (Exod 13:2), which would also require a sacrifice that Joseph would bring. Luke’s point is that the parents followed the law. They were pious.

[2:22]  ³ tn Grk “they”; the referents (Joseph and Mary) have been specified in the translation for clarity.

[2:22]  ⁴ tn Grk “him”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[2:22]  ⁵ map For location see Map5 B1; Map6 F3; Map7 E2; Map8 F2; Map10 B3; JP1 F4; JP2 F4; JP3 F4; JP4 F4.

[2:51]  ⁶ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “then” to indicate the implied sequence of events within the narrative.

[2:51]  ⁷ map For location see Map1 D3; Map2 C2; Map3 D5; Map4 C1; Map5 G3.

[2:51]  ⁸ tn Or “was submitting.”

[2:51]  ⁹ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “but” to indicate the contrast.

[2:51]  ¹⁰ tn Or “all these words.”

[2:51]  ¹¹ sn On the phrase his mother kept all these things in her heart compare Luke 2:19.

[4:42]  ¹² tn Grk “When it became day.”

[4:42]  ¹³ tn Grk “he”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[4:42]  ¹⁴ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “yet” to indicate that the crowds still sought Jesus in spite of his withdrawal.

[10:1]  ¹⁵ tn Grk “And after these things.” Here δέ (de) has not been translated.

[10:1]  ¹⁶ tc There is a difficult textual problem here and in v. 17, where the number is either “seventy” (א A C L W Θ Ξ Ψ Ë^1,13 Ï and several church fathers and early versions) or “seventy-two” (Ì⁷⁵ B D 0181 pc lat as well as other versions and fathers). The more difficult reading is “seventy-two,” since scribes would be prone to assimilate this passage to several OT passages that refer to groups of seventy people (Num 11:13-17; Deut 10:22; Judg 8:30; 2 Kgs 10:1 et al.); this reading also has slightly better ms support. “Seventy” could be the preferred reading if scribes drew from the tradition of the number of translators of the LXX, which the Letter of Aristeas puts at seventy-two (TCGNT 127), although this is far less likely. All things considered, “seventy-two” is a much more difficult reading and accounts for the rise of the other. Only Luke notes a second larger mission like the one in 9:1-6.

[10:1]  ¹⁷ tn Or “city.”

[11:18]  ¹⁸ tn Here δέ (de) has been translated as “so” to indicate that the clause that follows is a logical conclusion based on the preceding examples.

[11:18]  ¹⁹ tn This first class condition, the first of three “if” clauses in the following verses, presents the example vividly as if it were so. In fact, all three conditions in these verses are first class. The examples are made totally parallel. The expected answer is that Satan’s kingdom will not stand, so the suggestion makes no sense. Satan would not seek to heal.

[11:18]  ²⁰ tn Grk “because.” “I ask you this” is supplied for the sake of English.

[11:39]  ²¹ sn The allusion to washing (clean the outside of the cup) shows Jesus knew what they were thinking and deliberately set up a contrast that charged them with hypocrisy and majoring on minors.

[11:39]  ²² tn Or “and evil.”

[12:42]  ²³ tn Grk “And the Lord said.” Here καί (kai) has not been translated because of differences between Greek and English style.

[12:42]  ²⁴ tn Or “administrator,” “steward” (L&N 37.39).

[12:42]  ²⁵ tn This term, θεραπεία (qerapeia), describes the group of servants working in a particular household (L&N 46.6).

[12:46]  ²⁶ tn The verb διχοτομέω (dicotomew) means to cut an object into two parts (L&N 19.19). This is an extremely severe punishment compared to the other two later punishments. To translate it simply as “punish” is too mild. If taken literally this servant is dismembered, although it is possible to view the stated punishment as hyperbole (L&N 38.12).

[12:46]  ²⁷ tn Or “unbelieving.” Here the translation employs the slightly more ambiguous “unfaithful,” which creates a link with the point of the parable – faithfulness versus unfaithfulness in servants. The example of this verse must be taken together with the examples of vv. 47-48 as part of a scale of reactions with the most disobedient response coming here. The fact that this servant is placed in a distinct group, unlike the one in vv. 47-48, also suggests ultimate exclusion. This is the hypocrite of Matt 24:51.