Lukas 1:36

1:36 “And look, ¹  your relative ²  Elizabeth has also become pregnant with ³  a son in her old age – although she was called barren, she is now in her sixth month! ⁴ 

Lukas 2:4

2:4 So ⁵  Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth ⁶  in Galilee to Judea, to the city ⁷  of David called Bethlehem, ⁸  because he was of the house ⁹  and family line ¹⁰  of David.

Lukas 2:22

Jesus’ Presentation at the Temple

2:22 Now ¹¹  when the time came for their ¹²  purification according to the law of Moses, Joseph and Mary ¹³  brought Jesus ¹⁴  up to Jerusalem ¹⁵  to present him to the Lord

Lukas 7:16

7:16 Fear ¹⁶  seized them all, and they began to glorify ¹⁷  God, saying, “A great prophet ¹⁸  has appeared ¹⁹  among us!” and “God has come to help ²⁰  his people!”

[1:36]  ¹ tn Grk “behold.”

[1:36]  ² tn Some translations render the word συγγενίς (sungeni") as “cousin” (so Phillips) but the term is not necessarily this specific.

[1:36]  ³ tn Or “has conceived.”

[1:36]  ⁴ tn Grk “and this is the sixth month for her who was called barren.” Yet another note on Elizabeth’s loss of reproach also becomes a sign of the truth of the angel’s declaration.

[2:4]  ⁵ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “so” to indicate the consequential nature of the action.

[2:4]  ⁶ sn On Nazareth see Luke 1:26.

[2:4]  map For location see Map1 D3; Map2 C2; Map3 D5; Map4 C1; Map5 G3.

[2:4]  ⁷ tn Or “town.” The translation “city” is used here because of its collocation with “of David,” suggesting its importance, though not its size.

[2:4]  ⁸ sn The journey from Nazareth to the city of David called Bethlehem was a journey of about 90 mi (150 km). Bethlehem was a small village located about 7 miles south-southwest of Jerusalem.

[2:4]  map For location see Map5 B1; Map7 E2; Map8 E2; Map10 B4.

[2:4]  ⁹ sn Luke’s use of the term “house” probably alludes to the original promise made to David outlined in the Nathan oracle of 2 Sam 7:12-16, especially in light of earlier connections between Jesus and David made in Luke 1:32. Further, the mention of Bethlehem reminds one of the promise of Mic 5:2, namely, that a great king would emerge from Bethlehem to rule over God’s people.

[2:4]  ¹⁰ tn Or “family,” “lineage.”

[2:22]  ¹¹ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “now” to indicate the transition to a new topic.

[2:22]  ¹² 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]  ¹³ tn Grk “they”; the referents (Joseph and Mary) have been specified in the translation for clarity.

[2:22]  ¹⁴ tn Grk “him”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[2:22]  ¹⁵ map For location see Map5 B1; Map6 F3; Map7 E2; Map8 F2; Map10 B3; JP1 F4; JP2 F4; JP3 F4; JP4 F4.

[7:16]  ¹⁶ tn Or “Awe.” Grk “fear,” but the context and the following remark show that it is mixed with wonder; see L&N 53.59. This is a reaction to God’s work; see Luke 5:9.

[7:16]  ¹⁷ tn This imperfect verb has been translated as an ingressive imperfect.

[7:16]  ¹⁸ sn That Jesus was a great prophet was a natural conclusion for the crowd to make, given the healing; but Jesus is more than this. See Luke 9:8, 19-20.

[7:16]  ¹⁹ tn Grk “arisen.”

[7:16]  ²⁰ tn Grk “visited,” but this conveys a different impression to a modern reader. L&N 85.11 renders the verb, “to be present, with the implication of concern – ‘to be present to help, to be on hand to aid.’ … ‘God has come to help his people’ Lk 7:16.” The language recalls Luke 1:68, 78.