Diferenta de calibru - NET vs restul "lumii" traducerilor - un exemplu oarecum aleatoriu

Studiind Scripturile, am ajuns la Leviticul - o carte aparent "arida", plina de prescriptii ritualice tipice cultului mozaic . Lectura, daramite studierea, acestui gen de text biblic pare adesea un travaliu prea putin rasplatit din punct de vedere "nutritiv" devotional. Dar situatia sta asa doar pentru cititorul superficial sau care "sapa" insuficient sau nu are in ce sapa...

Studiu de caz - Levitic 12 vs Luca 2:21-24

Levitic 12 adreseaza problema curatirii ritualice a femeii evreice dupa nastere. Dincolo de "discriminarea" politic incorecta dintre "pedeapsa" pentru nasterea de baiat versus cea de fata ( in cazul fetei perioada de necuratie/impuritate era dubla - v. 5) pasajul acesta din legea mozaica pune o dificultate de interpretare naratiunii curatirii Fecioarei Maria dupa nasterea Domnului relatata de catre Luca 2:21-24 . Adica : desi in Levitic 12 se vorbeste cat se poate de clar de ritualul revenirii la puritate doar a femeii , in Luca la fel de clar apare ca este vorba de curatirea "lor" :

Luca 2:22 Iar când s-au împlinit zilele pentru curățirea lor, după Legea lui Moise, L-au adus la Ierusalim ca să-L prezinte înaintea Domnului,

Noul Testament SBR 2023 (Tipei ed. a II-a)

Asa cum bine observa in nota NT SBR 2023 , legea mozaica cerea doar curatirea femeii. Deci : 1. la cine se refera acest "lor" ? , 2. de unde vine, si 3. cum se explica pluralul atunci?

Pe rand : 1. la cine se refera pluralul "lor" ? Din Levitic reiese clar ca in cazul de fata este vorba de Fecioara Maria ( cu ce implicatii asupra sfinteniei Mariei se poate dezbate mult si bine, sau prost); si la mai cine insa? In cazul de fata poate fi vorba de 1. Iosif - tatal sau 2. Pruncul Sfant. Nu ni se spune ca pruncii ar fi fost impuri ritual si ar fi avut nevoie de vreo curatire, dar nici despre tati nu ni se spune asa ceva in cazul nasterii copiilor lor. Mai mult , Pruncul aici este Insusi Dumnezeu. Desi Domnul de-a lungul vietii s-a supus unor ritualuri desi nu era in nici un fel dator sau obligat sa o faca - a se vedea motivatia botezarii adusa lui Ioan - Matei 3:15 "asa ni se cuvine, sa implinim tot ce este drept" - in cazul de fata Legea nu cerea nimic pentru prunc , iar pentru Acest Prunc Sfant ( Luca 1:35 - ) ritualul curatirii ar fi fost fara noima . Asa ca balanta inclina spre Iosif. In sensul asta sunt mai multe indicii sa le zicem :

1.Iosif era "maculat de pacatul stramosesc" 

2.Iosif ar fi putut conisdera ca Pruncul fiind intaiul nascut din familia lui, intaiul nascut trebuia "rascumparat" in virtutea salvarii miraculoase a intailor nascuti evrei cand cu iesirea din Egipt - a se vedea Exod 13:2,15 - drept urmare si Iosif trebuia sa aduca jertfa

Am cautat in diverse Biblii de studiu sau note de studiu ce explicatii se ofera acestei "discrepante":

• John MacArthur nu pomeneste nimic despre "curatirea lor" - de ce lor, plural.
• Sinodala Anania Bartolomeu - subliniaza doar ca doar femeia trebuia sa se purifice
• Biblia catolica (Iasi, 2013) - purificare era impusa doar mamei iar baiatul prim nascut trebuia rascumparat
• The Orthodox Study Bible - are in text "days of her purification" - ale "ei ", nu "lor" - ups !
• The Eastern Orthodox Bible - are in text "the days of their purification " - interesant !
• o nota de subsol in Biblia GBV - unele mss - "ei" - curatirea ei, a Fecioarei Maria
• The Catholic Study Bible ( 2016 ) - are o nota care merita reda integral :

Their purification: syntactically, their must refer to Mary and Joseph, even though the Mosaic law never mentions the purification of the husband. Recognizing the problem, some Western scribes have altered the text to read “his purification,” understanding the presentation of Jesus in the temple as a form of purification; the Vulgate version has a Latin form that could be either “his” or “her.” According to the Mosaic law (Lv 12:2–8), the woman who gives birth to a boy is unable for forty days to touch anything sacred or to enter the temple area by reason of her legal impurity. At the end of this period she is required to offer a year-old lamb as a burnt offering and a turtledove or young pigeon as an expiation of sin. The woman who could not afford a lamb offered instead two turtledoves or two young pigeons, as Mary does here. They took him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord: as the firstborn son (Lk 2:7) Jesus was consecrated to the Lord as the law required (Ex 13:2, 12), but there was no requirement that this be done at the temple. The concept of a presentation at the temple is probably derived from 1 Sm 1:24–28, where Hannah offers the child Samuel for sanctuary services. The law further stipulated (Nm 3:47–48) that the firstborn son should be redeemed by the parents through their payment of five shekels to a member of a priestly family. About this legal requirement Luke is silent.

Acum ca am incercat sa lamurim ca cel mai probabil e vorba de Fecioara Maria si Iosif, 2. de unde vine, si 3. cum se explica pluralul atunci?

Aici se vede de ce o Biblie precum The New English Translation isi merita renumele in ciuda pretul modic. Diferenta de calibru si bogatia de informatii "bate" la scor "concurenta" :

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 itpt 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 (autēs) 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.

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, katharismos) 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”).

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 (Exo_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.

* tc- text-critical notes ; tn - translators’ notes ; sn- study notes ( mai exista si sn - map notes )

Asa cum deja am vazut ca semnaleaza notele de mai sus , unele manuscrise au modificat pentru armonizare "lor" din Luca cu "ei" din Levitic 12 iar unele traduceri se duc dupa aceasta fenta pe o pista eronata (inclusiv celebra KJV si pe urma ei si Biblia Trinitariana a baptistilor reformati oradeni). NET mai vine si cu o precizare de bun simt, coerenta logic : pe langa motivatia rascumpararii primului nascut , un Iosif neprihanit si scrupulos ar fi considerat ca si el are nevoie de purificare in virtutea "manjirii" prin ajutarea la nastere a Fecioarei Maria. Eu am si o banuiala ca dincolo de asta, revelarea  catre Iosif de catre ingerul Domnului ca Cel Nascut din Maria, va fi un Sfant , caruia el , Iosif, ii va fi resposabil pentru protectie, crestere ,educare, l-a facut sa se simta neajutorat, in nevoie de sfintenie, de puritate.

Cam despre acest salt calitativ si cantitativ vorbim cand studiem serios cu o Biblie de studiu precum NET.