[965] 1 Cor. xii. 3.
[966] Ber. R. 44, ed. Warsh. p. 81 b.
[967] St. John viii. 56.
[968] St. Luke ii. 19, 51.
[969] Numb. xviii. 16.
[970] So Lundius, Jüd. Alterth. p.621, and Buxtorf, Lex. Talmud. p. 1699. But I am bound to say, that this seems contrary to the sayings of the Rabbis.
[971] This disposes of the idea, that the Virgin-Mother was of direct Aaronic or Levitic descent.
[972] Bechor viii. 7.
[973] Lev. xii.
[974] Archdeacon Farrar is mistaken in supposing, that the thirty-three days' were counted after the circumcision.' The idea must have arisen from a misunderstanding of the English version of Lev. xii. 4. There was no connection between the time of the circumcision of the child, and that of the purification of his mother. In certain circumstances circumcision might have to be delayed for days, in case of sickness, till recovery. It is equally a mistake to suppose, that a Jewish mother could not leave the house till after the forty days of her purification.
[975] Comp. Sifra, ed. Weiss, p. 59 a and b; Maimonides, Yad haChaz. Hal.Mechusre Capp., ed. Amst., vol. iii. p. 255 a and b.
[976] Comp. Kerith. i. 7.
[977] Jer. Sheq. 50 b.
[978] There is no ground whatever for the objection which Rabbi Löw (Lebensalter, p. 112) raises against the account of St. Luke. Jewish documents only prove, that a mother need not personally attend in the Temple; not that they did not do so, when attendance was possible. The contrary impression is conveyed to us by Jewish notices.
[979] The expression to katharismo atn cannot refer to the Purification of the Virgin and her Babe (Farrar), nor to that of the Virgin and Joseph (Meyer), because neither the Babe nor Joseph needed, nor were they included in, the purification. It can only refer to their' (i.e. the Jews') purification. But this does not imply any Romish inferences (Sepp, Leben Jesu, ii. 1, p. 131) as to the superhuman condition or origin of the Blessed Virgin; on the contrary, the offering of the sin-offering points in the other direction.
[980] Comp. the rubric and the prayers in Maimonides, Yad haChaz. Hilch. Biccur. xi. 5.
[981] So Dr. Geikie.
[982] So Dr. Geikie, taking his account from Herzog's Real-Encykl. The mistake about the mother being sprinkled with sacrificial blood orginated with Lightfoot (Horæ Hebr. on St. Luke ii. 22). Later writers have followed the lead. Tamid v. 6, quoted by Lightfoot, refers only to the cleansing of the leper. The prayers' supposed to be spoken, and the pronouncing clean by the priests, are the embellishments of later writers, for which Lightfoot is not responsible.
[983] According to Sifra (Par. Tazria, Per. iv. 3): Whenever the sin-offering is changed, it precedes [as on ordinary occasions] the burnt-offering; but when the burnt-offering is changed [as on this occasion], it precedes the sin-offering.'
[984] But this precise spot was not matter of absolute necessity (Seb. vi. 2). Directions are given as to the manner in which the priest was to perform the sacrificial act.
[985] Kinnim i. 1. If the sin-offering was a four-footed animal, the blood was sprinkled above the red line.
[986] Sebach. vi. 5.
[987] Comp. Kerith. i. 7.
[988] Sheq. iv. 9.
[989] Sheq. v. 1.
[990] Comp. St. Matt. vi. 2. See The Temple and its Services,' & c. pp. 26, 27.
[991] Comp. Shekal. vi. 5, the Commentaries, and Jer. Shek. 50 b.
[992] Tosepht. Sheq. iii. 2.
[993] According to Dr. Geikie, the Golden Gate at the head of the long flight of steps that led to the valley of the Kedron opened into the Court of the Women.' But there was no Golden Gate, neither was there any flight of steps into the valley of the Kedron, while between the Court of the Women and any outer gate (such as could have led into Kedron), the Court of the Gentiles and a colonnade must have intervened.