¹ tn Or “promised in marriage.”

² tn Grk “Joseph, of the house of David.”

sn The Greek word order here favors connecting Davidic descent to Joseph, not Mary, in this remark.

³ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “now” to indicate the transition to a new topic.

⁴ 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.

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”).

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.

⁵ tn Grk “they”; the referents (Joseph and Mary) have been specified in the translation for clarity.

⁶ tn Grk “him”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

⁷ map For location see Map5 B1; Map6 F3; Map7 E2; Map8 F2; Map10 B3; JP1 F4; JP2 F4; JP3 F4; JP4 F4.

⁸ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “so” to indicate the conclusion of the topic.

⁹ tn Grk “when they”; the referents (Joseph and Mary) have been specified in the translation for clarity.

¹⁰ tn Or “completed.”

¹¹ sn On the phrase the law of the Lord see Luke 2:22-23.

¹² tn Or “city.”

¹³ map For location see Map1 D3; Map2 C2; Map3 D5; Map4 C1; Map5 G3.

¹⁴ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “so” to indicate the summary nature of the statement.

¹⁵ tn The words “his ministry” are not in the Greek text, but are implied. Direct objects were frequently omitted in Greek when clear from the context, but must be supplied for the contemporary English reader.

¹⁶ tn Grk “of age, being.” Due to the length and complexity of the Greek sentence, the participle ὤν (wn) has been translated as a finite verb with the pronoun “he” supplied as subject, and a new sentence begun in the translation at this point.

¹⁷ sn The parenthetical remark as was supposed makes it clear that Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus. But a question still remains whose genealogy this is. Mary is nowhere mentioned, so this may simply refer to the line of Joseph, who would have functioned as Jesus’ legal father, much like stepchildren can have when they are adopted by a second parent.

¹⁸ tc Several of the names in the list have alternate spellings in the ms tradition, but most of these are limited to a few mss. Only significant differences are considered in the notes through v. 38.

tn The construction of the genealogy is consistent throughout as a genitive article (τοῦ, tou) marks sonship. Unlike Matthew’s genealogy, this one runs from Jesus down. It also goes all the way to Adam, not stopping at Abraham as Matthew’s does. Jesus has come for all races of humanity. Both genealogies go through David.

¹⁹ tn Grk “And all.” Here καί (kai) has not been translated because of differences between Greek and English style.

²⁰ tn Grk “And they.” Here καί (kai) has not been translated because of differences between Greek and English style.

²¹ sn The form of the question assumes a positive reply. It really amounts to an objection, as Jesus’ response in the next verses shows. Jesus spoke smoothly and impressively. He made a wonderful declaration, but could a local carpenter’s son make such an offer? That was their real question.