14. There is no ground whatever for the objection which Rabbi Löw (Lebensalter, p. 112)
raises again st 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.
For this twofold purpose the Holy Family went up to the Temple, when the prescribed
days were completed.15 The ceremony at the redemption of a firstborn son was, no doubt,
more simple than that at present in use. It consisted of the formal presentation of the child
to the pries t, accompanied by two short 'benedictions,' the one for the law of redemption
money was paid.16 Most solemn, as in such a place, and remembering its symbolic
significance as the expression of God's claim over each family in Israel, must this rite
have been.
15. The expression του καθαρισµου αυτων 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.
16. Comp. the rubric and the prayers in Maimonides, Yad haChaz. Hilch. Biccur. xi. 5.
As regards the rite at the purification of the mother, the scantiness of information has led
to serious misstatements. Any comparison with our modern 'churching' of wome n17 is
inapplicable, since the latter consists of thanksgiving, and the former primarily of a sin-
offering for the Levitical defilement symbolically attaching to the beginning of life, and a
burnt-offering, that marked the restoration of communion with God. Besides, as already
stated, the sacrifice for purification might be brought in the absence of the mother.
Similar mistakes prevail as to the rubric. It is not case, as generally stated, that the
woman was sprinkled with blood, and then pronounced clean b y the priest, or that prayers
were offered on the occasion. 18 The service simply consisted of the statutory sacrifice.
This was what, in ecclesiastical language, was termed an offering oleh veyored, that is,
'ascending and descending,' according to the mea ns of the offerer. The sin-offering was,
in all cases, a turtle-dove or a young pigeon. But, while the more wealthy brought a lamb
for a burnt-offering the poor might substitute for it a turtle-dove, or a young pigeon. 19
The rubric directed that the neck o f the sin-offering was to be broken, but the head not
wholly severed; that some of the blood should be sprinkled at the south-western angle of
the altar,20 below the red line,21 which ran round the middle of the altar, and that the rest
should be poured out at the base of the altar. The whole of the flesh belonged to the
priests, and had to be eaten within the enclosure of the Sanctuary. The rubric for the
burnt-offering of a turtle-dove or a young pigeon was somewhat more intricate.22 The
substitution of the latter for a young lamb was expressly designated 'the poor's offering.'
And rightly so, since, while a lamb would probably cost about three shillings, the average
value of a pair of turtle -doves, for both the sin-and burnt-offering, would be about
eightpence,23 and on one occasion fell so low as twopence. The Temple -price of the
meat-and drink-offerings was fixed once a month; and special officials instructed the
intending offerers, and provided them with what was needed.24 There was also a special