Luke 2:33

The issue raised with Luke 2:33 by many KJV Only advocates revolves around the KJV's use of 'Joseph' where some newer translations use 'father.'

LUKE 2:33

KJV 1611 And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.

N I V The child's father and mother marveled at what was said about him.

KJV Only advocates claim that Jesus preached a gospel where God is the only father and that those who use 'father' are preaching a different gospel. An important point to note is that Jesus is not being quoted in Luke 2:33. In conflict with the above KJV Only position, a few verses later in the KJV we see Mary saying 'father' when referring to Joseph:

LUKE 2:48

KJV 1611 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.

N I V When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, "Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you."

The King James Only Controversy, James R. White, pg 218 -- Likewise, Luke 2:33 is a textual issue as well, though this time it is not a matter of "parallel influence" as it is at Matthew 1:25. Here the charge that is leveled is obvious: the use of "father" rather than "Joseph" lends itself to a denial of the virgin birth, making Jesus the son of Joseph. Yet, given the plain teaching of Luke's gospel that Joseph was not the natural father of Jesus (Luke 1:34-35), is it not much more natural to take this term as referring to the role of Joseph in Jesus' life? Was not Joseph the husband of Mary? Are we to believe that Jesus never referred to, or thought of, Joseph as His earthly father, the head of His family on earth? Could this not be a perfectly plausable explanation? Surely it is. Yet, KJV Only advocates are not likely to accept such an explanation. Their certainty that the "modern versions" are up to no good keeps most of them from allowing for such clarification. But in this case, they have no choice. Their own King James Version forces them to abandon Luke 2:33, if they are in the least bit consistent in their arguments: And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. (Luke 2:48) Here, from the very lips of Mary, no less, we have the use of the term "father" of Joseph with reference to the Christ child, and that in the Authorized Version of 1611! This use of "father" by Mary is perfectly consistent with the use of "father" at Luke 2:33, where both Mary and Joseph are in view as a family unit. Also, the KJV itself refers to Joseph and Mary as "his parents" in Luke 2:41. There is absolutely no reason to read into the use of the term "father" a denial of the supernatural nature of the birth of the Messiah. Surely no KJV Only advocate who is the least bit concerned about being fair and accurate and honest in one's arguments can use Luke 2:33 as an example of "heresy" on the part of the modern Greek texts or the modern Bible translations.

Back | Feedback