The "Stable Text" King James Version Argument

The "Young, Textless, and Reformed" author (Taylor DeSoto, I believe) is one of the folks associated with the misleadingly labeled "Confessional Bibliogy" group, which advocates a "Textus Receptus" position that seems to recognize the authority of the original languages of Greek and Hebrew, but which seems to conform to whatever Greek or Hebrew was followed by the translators/revisers of the King James Version.

One of Taylor's arguments is an argument centered on a perceived need for a "stable text."  We can see this argument in a variety of similar forms (emphasis is mine):

It is important to remember that the Comma Johanneum was seated at 1 John 5:7 until evangelical textual critics began deconstructing the Scriptures based on theories that haven’t succeeded in giving the people of God a stable text. (1 John 5:7 and Modern Criticism)

Further, if the text of the Reformation is corrupt, then we do not have now, and have never had, a stable text of Holy Scripture. (Absolute Certainty, The Received Text ...)

The King James Bible is not going to change like other Bible versions, because it is based on a stable text platform, and no publishing houses own the copyright, so nobody can profit on making light revisions every five years. (Six Reasons ...)

That is to say, that from the time of Hort’s text in the 19th century, the modern effort of textual criticism has yet to produce a single stable text. The printed editions of the modern critical text contain a great wealth of textual data, but none of these are a stable text that will not change in the next ten years. ... So why is there a discussion regarding which text is better? Up until this point in history, the alternative text, the critical text, has been thought to be much more stable and certain than it is now. (A Summary of the Confessional Text Position)

An important reality to consider when discussing variants from an MCT perspective is that the modern critical text is not finished, and the finished product is not claiming to be a stable or definitive text. (A Crash Course in the Textual Discussion)

That is why, in my blog, I focus so heavily on the doctrine of Scripture. The current efforts of textual criticism are not capable of producing a stable text. In fact, a stable or final text is not even the goal. The goal of modern textual criticism as it exists in the effort of the ECM is to construct the history of the surviving texts of the New Testament, not a final authorial text for all time. The only way the modern critical methods could produce a stable text would be to strip out all of the verses that are contested by variation. (Revisiting the Fatal Flaw Argument ...)

This is not a new argument.  It is the same argument that had to be addressed by the translators of the King James Version.  This was identified in their "Translators to the Reader" as a third cavil offered against their version (emphasis is mine - see this link for more context):

Yet before we end, we must answer a third cavil and objection of theirs against us, for altering and amending our Translations so oft; wherein truly they deal hardly, and strangely with us. For to whom ever was it imputed for a fault (by such as were wise) to go over that which he had done, and to amend it where he saw cause?

As you will glean from the context, their main objectors were the Roman Catholics of the time.  For example, Pope Clement VIII in Aeternus Ille (link to translation)

And since not only among heretics, but even among some Catholics, although with different intentions, there arose an excessive and not entirely praiseworthy zeal, almost a lust for interpreting the Scriptures into Latin, Satan, the author of all evil, used them, even if they were unaware, to create such confusion and diversity of versions that he tried to make everything doubtful. He endeavored to bring the matter to the point that, while different interpreters introduced different forms and appearances into the words of the Scriptures, nothing certain, nothing stable, and no inviolable authority could be found in them without great difficulty, so that it was greatly feared that we might return to that ancient chaos of editions about which St. Jerome said: "Among the Latins, there are as many versions as there are copies. Each one added or subtracted according to his own judgment, and certainly, what is inconsistent cannot be true."

Notice that Clement VIII's rationale is indistinguishable from Taylor's.  Clement VIII goes on to state:

In this search for the genuine text, it is generally agreed among all that there is no argument more certain and firm than the faith of old and approved Latin manuscripts, both printed and handwritten, which we have procured from various libraries. Therefore, in any reading where more and older and more corrected books agreed, we have decided that this should be retained as the words of the original text or as closest to them. Where assistance was needed to establish the genuine edition, the explanations of the holy Fathers and old expositors who illustrated various places and books of the Scriptures were of great help. Whatever was observed to be useful was included in this work. Finally, in those places where neither the manuscripts nor the doctors' great consensus seemed sufficient, we deemed it necessary to resort to Hebrew and Greek examples, not to correct the errors of the Latin interpreter but to provide something certain and undoubted in place of words that, although ambiguous among the Latins, could have been interpreted otherwise than necessary. Thus, what was inconstant, diverse, and manifold due to varying manuscripts was established uniformly, consistently, and in one manner, with the truth of the sources duly considered.

This is the same objective that Taylor values - a move from manuscripts to a single, stable text.

Ultimately, history repeats itself.  People sometimes value stability over truth, but this is the wrong priority.  As the KJV translators themselves taught, it is a mark of wisdom to revise when we discover errors.

-TurretinFan

A Third Cavil against the King James Version

In the letter to the readers, the translators of the King James Version provided the following defense of their translation against a contemporary cavil offered primarily by their Roman Catholic adversaries (source):

Yet before we end, we must answer a third cavil and objection of theirs against us, for altering and amending our Translations so oft; wherein truly they deal hardly, and strangely with us. For to whom ever was it imputed for a fault (by such as were wise) to go over that which he had done, and to amend it where he saw cause? Saint Augustine was not afraid to exhort S. Jerome to a Palinodia or recantation; the same S. Augustine was not ashamed to retractate, we might say revoke, many things that had passed him, and doth even glory that he seeth his infirmities. If we will be sons of the Truth, we must consider what it speaketh, and trample upon our own credit, yea, and upon other men's too, if either be any way an hindrance to it. This to the cause: then to the persons we say, that of all men they ought to be most silent in this case. For what varieties have they, and what alterations have they made, not only of their Service books, Portesses and Breviaries, but also of their Latin Translation? The Service book supposed to be made by S. Ambrose (Officium Ambrosianum) was a great while in special use and request; but Pope Hadrian calling a Council with the aid of Charles the Emperor, abolished it, yea, burnt it, and commanded the Service book of Saint Gregory universally to be used. Well, Officium Gregorianum gets by this means to be in credit, but doth it continue without change or altering? No, the very Roman Service was of two fashions, the New fashion, and the Old, (the one used in one Church, the other in another) as is to be seen in Pamelius a Romanist, his Preface, before Micrologus. the same Pamelius reporteth out Radulphus de Rivo, that about the year of our Lord, 1277, Pope Nicolas the Third removed out of the Churches of Rome, the more ancient books (of Service) and brought into use the Missals of the Friers Minorites, and commanded them to be observed there; insomuch that about an hundred years after, when the above name Radulphus happened to be at Rome, he found all the books to be new, (of the new stamp). Neither were there this chopping and changing in the more ancient times only, but also of late: Pius Quintus himself confesseth, that every Bishopric almost had a peculiar kind of service, most unlike to that which others had: which moved him to abolish all other Breviaries, though never so ancient, and privileged and published by Bishops in their Dioceses, and to establish and ratify that only which was of his own setting forth, in the year 1568. Now when the father of their Church, who gladly would heal the sore of the daughter of his people softly and slightly, and make the best of it, findeth so great fault with them for their odds and jarring; we hope the children have no great cause to vaunt of their uniformity. But the difference that appeareth between our Translations, and our often correcting of them, is the thing that we are specially charged with; let us see therefore whether they themselves be without fault this way, (if it be to be counted a fault, to correct) and whether they be fit men to throw stones at us: O tandem maior parcas insane minori: they that are less sound themselves, ought not to object infirmities to others. If we should tell them that Valla, Stapulensis, Erasmus, and Vives found fault with their vulgar Translation, and consequently wished the same to be mended, or a new one to be made, they would answer peradventure, that we produced their enemies for witnesses against them; albeit, they were in no other sort enemies, than as S. Paul was to the Galatians, for telling them the truth [Gal 4:16]: and it were to be wished, that they had dared to tell it them plainlier and oftener. But what will they say to this, that Pope Leo the Tenth allowed Erasmus' Translation of the New Testament, so much different from the vulgar, by his Apostolic Letter and Bull; that the same Leo exhorted Pagnine to translate the whole Bible, and bare whatsoever charges was necessary for the work? Surely, as the Apostle reasoneth to the Hebrews, that if the former Law and Testament had been sufficient, there had been no need of the latter: [Heb 7:11 and 8:7] so we may say, that if the old vulgar had been at all points allowable, to small purpose had labour and charges been undergone, about framing of a new. If they say, it was one Pope's private opinion, and that he consulted only himself; then we are able to go further with them, and to aver, that more of their chief men of all sorts, even their own Trent champions Paiva and Vega, and their own Inquisitors, Hieronymus ab Oleastro, and their own Bishop Isidorus Clarius, and their own Cardinal Thomas a Vio Caietan, do either make new Translations themselves, or follow new ones of other men's making, or note the vulgar Interpreter for halting; none of them fear to dissent from him, nor yet to except against him. And call they this an uniform tenor of text and judgment about the text, so many of their Worthies disclaiming the now received conceit? Nay, we will yet come nearer the quick: doth not their Paris edition differ from the Lovaine, and Hentenius his from them both, and yet all of them allowed by authority? Nay, doth not Sixtus Quintus confess, that certain Catholics (he meaneth certain of his own side) were in such an humor of translating the Scriptures into Latin, that Satan taking occasion by them, though they thought of no such matter, did strive what he could, out of so uncertain and manifold a variety of Translations, so to mingle all things, that nothing might seem to be left certain and firm in them, etc.? Nay, further, did not the same Sixtus ordain by an inviolable decree, and that with the counsel and consent of his Cardinals, that the Latin edition of the old and new Testament, which the Council of Trent would have to be authentic, is the same without controversy which he then set forth, being diligently corrected and printed in the Printing-house of Vatican? Thus Sixtus in his Preface before his Bible. And yet Clement the Eighth his immediate successor, publisheth another edition of the Bible, containing in it infinite differences from that of Sixtus, (and many of them weighty and material) and yet this must be authentic by all means. What is to have the faith of our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with Yea or Nay, if this be not? Again, what is sweet harmony and consent, if this be? Therefore, as Demaratus of Corinth advised a great King, before he talked of the dissensions among the Grecians, to compose his domestic broils (for at that time his Queen and his son and heir were at deadly feud with him) so all the while that our adversaries do make so many and so various editions themselves, and do jar so much about the worth and authority of them, they can with no show of equity challenge us for changing and correcting.

Pope Clement VIII - Aeternus Ille (1589) - a New Translation

The following is a new translation of the papal bull, Aeternus Ille, based on the public domain Latin Text (available here).

The eternal Creator and Governor of all celestial and terrestrial things, God, wonderfully planted and nurtured the Holy Church, as a Paradise of delights, with various plants and roots by His own hand, like a provident Farmer. At the same time, He irrigated it with the abundant source of the Holy Scriptures, spreading them like many rivers throughout the entire world, so that the holy mysteries and divine oracles contained in the sacred books, prepared for the salvation of all nations, would be proclaimed in those three languages which have been most widespread among all nations and consecrated by the title of the most Holy Cross. They declared the Kingdom of our Savior to the Hebrews, Greeks, and Latins.

But the cunning and wicked enemy of the human race, whose envy brought the sting of death and whose pride was the teacher of sin, left no stone unturned to suppress the heavenly seed of the divine word as much as possible. Whether by oppressing it at its birth, uprooting it when grown, or corrupting it when mature, he particularly tried by all means and devices to bring forth some most corrupt editions of the sacred Scriptures, so that impiety would hide under the guise of piety, and people would be offered dross instead of silver, dragon's bile instead of wine, and poison instead of milk.

And since not only among heretics, but even among some Catholics, although with different intentions, there arose an excessive and not entirely praiseworthy zeal, almost a lust for interpreting the Scriptures into Latin, Satan, the author of all evil, used them, even if they were unaware, to create such confusion and diversity of versions that he tried to make everything doubtful. He endeavored to bring the matter to the point that, while different interpreters introduced different forms and appearances into the words of the Scriptures, nothing certain, nothing stable, and no inviolable authority could be found in them without great difficulty, so that it was greatly feared that we might return to that ancient chaos of editions about which St. Jerome said: "Among the Latins, there are as many versions as there are copies. Each one added or subtracted according to his own judgment, and certainly, what is inconsistent cannot be true."

Likewise, St. Augustine said that the Latin interpreters of the Scriptures could not be numbered. For, as he says, in the early days of faith, anyone who got hold of a Greek manuscript and seemed to have some knowledge of both languages dared to translate it. Therefore, the holy Council of Trent, wishing to remedy this disorder, decreed that among all the Latin editions of the sacred books, the old and commonly used Vulgate, which had been approved by the long-standing use of so many centuries in the Church, should be held as authentic in public readings, disputations, sermons, and expositions, and that no one should dare or presume to reject it under any pretext.

However, although the Vulgate edition was one, it seemed to be divided into several by various readings. Although some of these readings were introduced by the authority of old manuscripts or the holy Fathers, many others crept in due to the injury of time, the carelessness of scribes, the ignorance of printers, the rashness of emenders, or the audacity of recent interpreters who, although they are sons of the Church, thought they should pay more attention to the Jewish Rabbis than to the doctors of the Church. Moreover, they infiltrated from the annotations of heretics and their deceitful tricks at the margins. And although nothing has been found in this great variety of readings that could cast a shadow over the causes of faith and morals, it was feared that, with the increasing boldness of adding and subtracting, this most approved edition of the Scriptures, which ought to be the bond of peace, the unity of faith, the link of charity, the consent of the dissenting, and the most certain rule in doubtful matters, might become the introduction of schism and heresy, the wave of doubts, the entanglement of questions, the seed of discord, and the multiple entanglement of pious minds.

This is what St. Jerome mentioned happened to the Greek edition of the seventy interpreters, and St. Augustine to the Latin one. So that this plague might not spread further and gradually contaminate our Vulgate edition, the same wise ecumenical Council of Trent decreed that this old and Vulgate edition should be printed as accurately as possible. But since it would have been of no use to decree the authority of this edition if its genuine reading were not known, and the sacred text were left open to the arbitrary will of disputants, so that what had been drawn against the perfidious enemy as a very sharp sword could also become a shield to cover the sides of the weakened and already defeated enemy, we, indignantly bearing this, and all the more so because in these past twenty-two years from the decree of the said Council of Trent to the beginning of our Pontificate, although such a work had sometimes been begun, it was nevertheless interrupted perhaps due to other occupations, and no remedy had been applied to this imminent evil. Therefore, considering it our duty to pursue this matter with greater care and diligence, as it is both sought by all the churches of God and feared by the synagogues of Satan, as soon as divine mercy called us to the Apostolic See of blessed Peter, although unequal to the merits, we had nothing more urgent than to undertake the desired correction of the Vulgate edition as soon as possible.

Thus, we selected and gathered many learned men who excelled in the knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, sacred Theology, many languages, and long experience in various matters, as well as in sharp judgment and skill when something needs to be discerned, so that they might work diligently in seeking the genuine and pure edition of the sacred text and assist us. For we, considering the magnitude of the matter and wisely reflecting on it, from the special and singular privilege of God, and from the true and legitimate succession of the Prince of the Apostles, St. Peter, for whom our Lord and Redeemer undoubtedly prayed to the eternal Father, out of His reverence, not just once but always, that his faith, not revealed by flesh and blood but by the same Father, might never fail, and to whom the Lord also enjoined to confirm the other Apostles in the same faith, and who, as we trust, does not cease to implore divine help for us until the end of the world, promised to the Catholic Church, and as God disposed, we have been established in the Chair of Peter, in which his power lives and his authority excels, believed that this whole judgment belonged properly and especially to us.

Invoking the help of Almighty God and relying on the authority of the Prince of the Apostles, for the public utility of the holy Church of God, we were not reluctant to undertake this considerable labor of accurate study among other occupations of Pontifical concern. We read through everything that others had collected or thought, considered the reasons for the different readings, reviewed the opinions of the holy Doctors, and judged which should be preferred, so that in this most laborious course of correction, in which we thought it necessary to devote daily effort for many hours, others' work was to consult, ours to choose what was best among many.

Nevertheless, we have entirely retained the old reading received in the Church for many centuries. Meanwhile, we have magnificently built a new printing press in our Apostolic Vatican Palace primarily for this purpose, and to its care, we have appointed a congregation of several Cardinals of the holy Roman Church and a distinguished college of very learned men from almost all nations of the Christian world and the most celebrated universities, endowed with ample and rich revenues, so that the corrected volume of the Scriptures might be printed there. This matter, to ensure it was done without corruption, we ourselves corrected with our own hand any errors that had crept into the press and distinguished those confused or likely to be confused by spacing, larger notes, and punctuation.

Moreover, so that the reasons for this our plan and undertaking may not be unknown, but rather very well known and testified to the whole Catholic Church and posterity, and that all may easily understand what order in this work was observed, what law and method were followed, and what rule of investigating the truth was kept by us: we wish it to be certain and clear to all that our labors and vigils never aimed to bring forth a new edition but to print the old Vulgate edition, as prescribed by the Council of Trent, corrected and restored as closely as possible to its original purity as it first came from the hand and pen of the interpreter.

In this search for the genuine text, it is generally agreed among all that there is no argument more certain and firm than the faith of old and approved Latin manuscripts, both printed and handwritten, which we have procured from various libraries. Therefore, in any reading where more and older and more corrected books agreed, we have decided that this should be retained as the words of the original text or as closest to them. Where assistance was needed to establish the genuine edition, the explanations of the holy Fathers and old expositors who illustrated various places and books of the Scriptures were of great help. Whatever was observed to be useful was included in this work. Finally, in those places where neither the manuscripts nor the doctors' great consensus seemed sufficient, we deemed it necessary to resort to Hebrew and Greek examples, not to correct the errors of the Latin interpreter but to provide something certain and undoubted in place of words that, although ambiguous among the Latins, could have been interpreted otherwise than necessary. Thus, what was inconstant, diverse, and manifold due to varying manuscripts was established uniformly, consistently, and in one manner, with the truth of the sources duly considered.

For the great Doctor St. Jerome wisely advised that, in explaining the sacred Scriptures, as in the New Testament, when a question arises among the Latins and there is variety among the copies, it is customary to refer to the Greek source from which the New Testament was written. St. Augustine also handed down this rule among others to those who handle the Scriptures. Therefore, we religiously followed the laudable custom of the holy Fathers by applying careful attention wherever something was ambiguously said or varied among the Latins. For we know that many think most of the words and expressions of this Latin edition could have been translated more properly, elegantly, clearly, briefly, or copiously by the Latin interpreter, measuring word for word. But such minute and narrow disputation seems trivial, and not of such importance that the reverence for the older Church and the authority of the most holy Fathers should not be rightfully preferred.

Indeed, as St. Gregory attests, it is entirely unworthy that the words of the heavenly oracle should be confined by the rules of Donatus. The authority and excellence of the Vulgate edition are so great that it seems utterly pointless to desire a greater one. For, as handed down to us by our ancestors, the books contained in it were partly retained from a certain common and very ancient Latin edition, which St. Jerome called the Vulgate edition, St. Augustine the Itala, and St. Gregory the old translation, which St. Augustine also considered preferable to the many others then in use because it was more tenacious of the words with clarity of meaning. Partly, they were adopted from the translation of St. Jerome, to whom the honor due is easily understood by anyone who recognizes the dignity of the interpreter.

For St. Jerome, as the same St. Augustine testifies, was learned in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew, and passing from the Western to the Eastern Church, he lived in the holy places and sacred letters until old age. He almost saw or read all who had written about Ecclesiastical doctrine before him from both parts of the world. Not only did Augustine, Chromatius, Paulinus, and other most holy Bishops consult him about the places of the Scriptures, but also Pope Damasus of Rome. He rightly achieved such great fame, especially in the knowledge of the holy Scriptures, that he spared no vigils, no pilgrimages to attain it. He listened to the most learned in Gaul, heard Gregory Nazianzen in Constantinople, Didymus in Alexandria, and sought out others elsewhere, using the most famous teachers of the Hebrew language. Not content with one teacher, he employed many and the most learned, being a diligent investigator not only of things but also of names.

He even inspected the places often mentioned in the Scriptures and testified that this greatly helped him understand the Scriptures. Therefore, anyone who considers the sanctity, genius, learning, diligence, teachers, labors, and the age in which he lived, when studies of all languages, especially Hebrew, flourished, will easily condemn the judgment of those who do not rest content with the works of such an eminent Doctor or believe they can produce better or equal ones. Much more rightly did St. Isidore, the venerable Bede the Presbyter, St. Remigius, Alcuin, Fortunatus, Rabanus Maurus, St. Anselm, St. Bernard, Haymo, Richard and Hugh of St. Victor, Peter of Cluny, Rupert the Abbot, and many other distinguished Doctors who shone in the Church for a thousand years, who used Jerome's version in all disputations, expositions, declamations, so that the others, which were almost innumerable, fell out of the hands of Catholic Fathers and became obsolete. Therefore, we read in St. Isidore that since St. Jerome alone translated the sacred Scriptures from Hebrew into Latin, all Churches everywhere generally use his edition because it is more truthful in meanings and clearer in words.

Before Isidore, St. Gregory the Great felt almost the same. Not only Latin Fathers, but also Hebrews and Greeks, although neglecting or ignoring other Latin interpreters, considered Jerome worthy of their highest testimony and honor. St. Augustine wrote about the Hebrews, and St. Jerome himself about the Greeks, that Sophronius, a very learned man, translated the Psalms and Prophets, which Jerome had translated from Hebrew into Latin, into Greek in an elegant style. Therefore, it is commendable to seek the help of foreign languages where our codes themselves cannot be reconciled or understood. But when this is not necessary, not to revere the sanctity, wisdom, consensus of our ancestors, and the very ancient custom of the Church, for the slightest reasons, must be considered sheer temerity and obstinacy. For this reason, St. Jerome, who advised consulting Hebrews and Greeks in doubtful matters, also thought that this should be done sparingly and as rarely as possible, so that things long accepted do not waver.

For this reason, although he was reluctant to translate the New Testament, calling it a pious labor but a dangerous presumption, he judged that it should be judged by others. To change the language of an old man and recall the already aging world to the beginnings of children seemed a perilous task. For who, learned or unlearned, taking up a volume in his hands and seeing it differ from what he has read, would not immediately cry out, calling the translator a falsifier and a sacrilegious person who dares to add, change, or correct anything in the old writings?

It is well known about the gourd of Jonah, which was read in the Old edition; when Jerome placed an ivy instead, such a tumult was raised among the people because of the disagreement over one word that the bishop who read Jerome's interpretation in the church was compelled, lest he be deposed from the priesthood, to condemn what he had read. Therefore, the sacred Council of Trent rightfully decreed that the books of the old Vulgate edition should be received as canonical, not otherwise than as they have been accustomed to being read in the Church.

To ensure that this old edition, now printed from our press, fully corresponds to the prescription of the same Synod, we not only preserved the old and received modes of speaking but also rejected apocryphal books, retaining the authentic ones. For the third and fourth books of Esdras and the third book of Maccabees, which the Synod does not enumerate among the canonical books, we have entirely excluded from this edition with the assent of the Cardinals of the Congregation appointed over the Vatican printing house. We have also rejected the prayer of Manasseh, which is neither in the Hebrew nor the Greek text, nor found in the older Latin manuscripts, but only in the printed editions appended after the second book of Chronicles, as something sewn on, added, and not holding a place in the text of the sacred books.

We have also deleted certain sentences sometimes inserted from elsewhere into the Vulgate edition but not found in the old manuscripts or the commentaries of the holy Fathers. Finally, we have accurately corrected and purified this edition from various errors that had crept in and restored it to its pristine truth with the greatest diligence.

No one should be surprised if some places in the sacred Scriptures are read differently in certain holy Doctors than in this edition. For Ambrose, Augustine, and many others generally followed the edition of the seventy interpreters. To the praise and glory of Almighty God, for the preservation and increase of the Catholic faith, and the utility of the holy universal Church, by this our constitution, which is to remain in force forever, with the counsel and assent of our venerable brethren the Cardinals of the holy Roman Church, appointed over the Vatican printing house, whose work and diligence we used in the more serious matters of this correction of the Vulgate edition, and from our certain knowledge and the fullness of Apostolic power, we decree and declare that the Vulgate Latin edition of the sacred pages, both old and new Testament, which was received as authentic by the Council of Trent, is to be considered without any doubt or controversy as the very one which, corrected as well as possible and printed in the Vatican printing house, we now publish to be read in the entire Christian Republic and in all the Churches of the Christian world, decreeing that it is confirmed, first by the universal consent of the holy Church and the holy Fathers, then by the decree of the General Council of Trent, and now also by the Apostolic authority handed down to us by the Lord, as the true, legitimate, authentic, and undoubted one, to be received and held in all public and private disputations, readings, sermons, and expositions.

We strictly forbid anyone ever in the future to print any new Vulgate edition of the Scriptures without express permission from the Apostolic See, or to compose any other edition according to their private or peculiar sense, or to print this old Vulgate, now restored by us as mentioned, anywhere else than in our Vatican printing house for ten years from the date of these presents, whether this side of or beyond the mountains. After the aforesaid decade has elapsed, we prescribe that no one should presume to print the holy Scriptures unless they have first received an edition printed in the Vatican printing house, signed with the Inquisitor's own hand of heretical depravity in that province, or, if there is no Inquisitor in that province, with the Bishop's hand of the same place, confirming that not the slightest particle has been changed, added, or subtracted from it. And after the books have been faithfully printed, they should not be sold or published unless, again, an edition signed by the Inquisitor, or, in his absence, the Bishop, has been reviewed to ensure they are printed correctly.

Because of the various readings hitherto written at the margins, it follows that when such variety is first presented to the eyes, it distracts the reader's mind from what he is then engaged in, leading him at an inappropriate time to compare the different readings in the manuscripts. It is not easy to read the Scriptures with an unoffending foot amidst such a variety of readings and to distinguish, in the forest of diversity, what should be preferred. We think it best and believe it will be agreeable to all pious people to free the children of the Church from these perplexities by the judgment of the same Church. Therefore, we command that henceforth only uniform Vulgate Bibles be printed, and nothing diverse from the text be written in the margin. Those printed hitherto in any places should be corrected word for word according to this our text.

In printed or to be printed Missals, Rituals, Pontificals, Ceremonials, and other ecclesiastical books, this should be observed only regarding those Scripture readings and words taken from the Vulgate edition and inserted in the same books. If any printer in any kingdoms, cities, provinces, and places, subject or not subject to our temporal jurisdiction, within the said decade in any way, or after the decade other than according to such an edition handed to him by the Inquisitor or, in his absence, the Bishop, with not even the slightest particle changed, added, or subtracted, or written at the margin or in the text, even by way of annotations, notes, or glosses, should presume to print, or to sell, or offer for sale, or publish such printed books, he, who in any of the above cases or their equivalents has not complied with our Constitution, shall incur not only the loss of all the books and other temporal penalties at discretion, but also the sentence of major excommunication, from which he cannot be absolved, except in the article of death, by anyone other than the existing Roman Pontiff.

If the Inquisitor or Bishop should approve an edition differing from what he handed over for printing, or approved as printed with his sign or subscription, which actually differs, then if he is a bishop, even if he holds an archiepiscopal, primatial, patriarchal, or other major dignity, he shall incur the sentence of interdiction from entering the church; if he is inferior, the sentence of excommunication ipso facto, and not to be absolved by anyone other than the Roman Pontiff. Moreover, the Inquisitor or Bishop who approved such books differing from the Vatican print, and the printer or bookseller who disobeys our expressed orders and prohibitions in any way, shall be bound to give an account of such actions in strict judgment before the Cardinals of the holy Roman and universal Inquisition against heretical depravity, or before a Judge or Judges deputed by the same Congregation, and shall be punished with severe penalties according to the measure of their fault.

If manuscripts or printed Bibles of this Vulgate edition are preserved for the beauty of their characters or some remarkable ornament of the codex, or for the excellence of the print, or for the notes written at the margin, and have not been corrected according to this our exemplar, they shall henceforth have no authority and no faith in matters where they differ from this our edition. We command all Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops, and other Prelates of churches and places, both regular and secular, throughout the entire world, to ensure that this present Constitution is perpetually, firmly, and inviolately observed by all in their churches, provinces, cities, dioceses, and jurisdictions, compelling the disobedient by ecclesiastical censures and other suitable legal and factual remedies, without any appeal, invoking also the aid of the secular arm if necessary. Notwithstanding any Apostolic constitutions and ordinances, general or provincial councils, statutes, and customs of any churches, orders, congregations, colleges, and universities, even if fortified by oath, Apostolic confirmation, or any other firmness, privileges, indulgences, and Apostolic letters granted to them, their prelates, superiors, and persons by any Roman Pontiffs, our predecessors, or by us and the aforesaid See, motu proprio, from certain knowledge, and from the fullness of Apostolic power, and other clauses, derogatory clauses, or any other decrees, whether general or specific.

All these, and each of them, even if they contain the explicit provision that they should not be derogated from in any way or without the consent of certain persons, or under certain manner and form expressed therein, and other derogations made to them be null and void, we derogate from to the effect of these presents alone, considering them as expressed in full, and not to be otherwise valid against the aforesaid.

If anyone claims it has been granted by the Apostolic See that they cannot be interdicted, suspended, or excommunicated by Apostolic letters, without full, express, and word-for-word mention of the indult, we will that these letters be published at the doors of the Lateran Basilica, and of the Basilica of the Prince of the Apostles in the city, and of the Apostolic Chancery, as usual, and within four months for those on this side of the mountains, and within eight months for those beyond the mountains from the day of publication, to bind and affect them as if each of them had been personally intimated.

We decree that transcriptions, even printed ones, signed by a notary public and sealed with the seal of an ecclesiastical prelate, should everywhere be given the same faith as these original letters exhibited or shown.

Therefore, let no one at all infringe this page of our statute, declaration, decree, will, prohibition, and derogation, or dare to contradict it with audacious intent. If anyone should presume to attempt this, let him know that he will incur the indignation of Almighty God and the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.

Given at Rome, at Saint Mary Major, in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 1589, on the Kalends of March, in the fifth year of our pontificate.

Mary's Purification in the Early Christian (and Christian-esque) Writers

Tatian (120 – 180) produced the Diatessaron as an early Gospel harmony, which ended up being widely used in certain Syriac-speaking churches, oddly enough apparently to the displacement (or substitution) of the actual gospels.  

Tatian's Diatessaron, Section II (as preserved in an Arabic translation) states:

And when the days of their purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they took him up to Jerusalem to present him before the Lord (as it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male opening the womb shall be called the holy thing of the Lord), and to give a sacrificial victim as it is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of doves or two young pigeons. And there was in Jerusalem a man whose name was Simeon; and this man was upright and pious, and expecting the consolation of Israel; and the Holy Spirit was upon him.  And it had been said unto him by the Holy Spirit, that he should not see death till he had seen with his eyes the Messiah of the Lord.  And this man came by the Spirit to the temple; and at the time when his parents brought in the child Jesus, that they might present for him a sacrifice, as it is written in the law, he bare him in his arms and praised God and said, "Now loosest thou the bonds of thy servant, O Lord, in peace, According to thy saying; For mine eye hath witnessed thy mercy, Which thou hast made ready because of the whole world; A light for the unveiling224 of the nations, And a glory to thy people Israel.

Irenaeus (130 – 202), Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter X, section 4:

4. And still further does Luke say in reference to the Lord: “When the days of purification were accomplished, they brought Him up to Jerusalem, to present Him before the Lord, as it is written in the law of the Lord, That every male opening the womb shall be called holy to the Lord; and that they should offer a sacrifice, as it is said in the law of the Lord, a pair of turtle-doves, or two young pigeons:” [Luke ii. 22.] in his own person most clearly calling Him Lord, who appointed the legal dispensation.

(Harvey's Latin)

Thus, Irenaeus (at least in the Latin translation that is extant) entirely omits the pronoun associated with the purification.

Tertullian (155-220) tells us that Marcion (85-160) entirely rejected and omitted Luke 1-2 and began at Luke 3:1 (Against Marcion, Book IV, Chapter 1 through, and especially, Chapter VI).  Tertullian's own focus is on Christ, not Mary, when he discusses (example 1, example 2).  

Hippolytus (170 – 235), Fragments on Luke at Luke 2:22 (caution: may be dubious or spurious)

22. When they brought Him to the temple to present Him to the Lord, they offered the oblations of purification. For if the gifts of purification according to the law were offered for Him, in this indeed He was made under the law. But the Word was not subject to the law in such wise as the sycophants fancy, since He is the law Himself; neither did God need sacrifices of purification, for He purifies and sanctifies all things at once in a moment. But though He took to Himself the frame of man as He received it from the Virgin, and was made under the law, and was thus purified after the manner of the first-born, it was not because He needed this ceremonial that He underwent its services, but only for the purpose of redeeming from the bondage of the law those who were sold under the judgment of the curse.

Notice that for Hippolytus or Pseudo-Hippolytus, it is Jesus who is purified.

Origen (185 – 253) , Homilies on Luke (Fathers of the Church, Vol. 94, trans. Joseph T. Lienhard from Jerome's translation), Homily 14 (pp. 56-61)

1. When Christ died, “he died to sin”[Romans 6:10] — not that he himself sinned; “for he did not commit sin, and treachery was not found in his mouth.”[1 Peter 2:22] He died so that, once died to sins, we who were dead might no longer live to sin and vices. Hence Scripture says, “If we have died with him, we shall also live with him.”[Romans 6:8] So, when he died, we died with him, and, when he rose, we rose with him. So too we were circumcised along with him. After the circumcision, we were cleansed in a solemn purification. Hence, we have no need at all for a circumcision of the flesh. You should know that he was circumcised on our account. Listen to Paul’s clear proclamation. He says, “All the fullness of divinity dwells in him bodily. You are filled in him, who is the head of every rule and power. In him you have been circumcised by a circumcision done without hands, when the body of the flesh was despoiled in the circumcision of Christ. We were buried with him in Baptism, and we have risen up with him through faith in the work of God, who raised him from the dead.”[Colossians 2:9-12] Therefore, his death, his resurrection, and his circumcision took place for our sake.

2. Scripture says, “When the days for circumcising the child had been fulfilled, his name was called ‘Jesus,’ which he had [p. 57] been called by the angel before he was conceived.”[Luke 2:21] The word “Jesus” is glorious, and worthy of all adoration and worship. It is “the name above every name.”'[Philippians 2:9] It was not fitting that this name should first be given by men or brought into the world by them, but by some more excellent and greater nature. The evangelist indicated this when he added, “His name was called Jesus,’ which he had been called by the angel before he was conceived in the womb.”[Luke 2:21]

3. Then the Gospel says, “When the days of their purification were fulfilled, according to the law of Moses, they brought him into Jerusalem.”[Luke 2:22] The passage says, on account of “their” purification. Who are “they”? If Scripture had said, “on account of ‘her’ purification” — that is, Mary’s, who had given birth — then no question would arise. [Cf. Homilies on Leviticus 8.2.] We would say confidently that Mary, who was a human being, needed purification after childbirth. But the passage reads, “the days of their purification.” Apparently it does not signify one, but two or more. Did Jesus therefore need purification? Was he unclean, or polluted with some stain? Perhaps I seem to speak rashly; but the authority of Scripture prompts me to ask. See what is written in the book of Job: “No man is clean of stain, not even if his life had lasted but a single day.”[Job 14:4-5] The passage does not say, “No man is clean of sin,” but, “No man is clean of stain.” “Stain” and “sins” do not mean the same thing. “Stain” is one thing, “sin” another. Isaiah teaches this clearly when he says, “The Lord will wash away the stains of the sons and daughters of Zion, and he will cleanse the blood from their midst. By the spirit of judgment he will purge the stain, and by the spirit of burning the blood.”[Isaiah 4:4]

4. Every soul that has been clothed with a human body has its own “stain.”[Cf. Homilies on Leviticus 9.6.4. Cf. also Tertullian, Against Marcion 3.7.6 and Against the Jews 14.7.] But Jesus was stained through his own will, because he had taken on a human body for our salvation. [p. 58] Listen to the prophet Zechariah. He says, “Jesus was clothed with stained garments.” [Zec 3.3. But the Greek translation, which Origen was reading, transliterated the Hebrew name "Joshua" as "Jesus," so Origen applies what the Scripture says of Joshua to Jesus.] Zechariah says this to refute those who deny that our Lord had a human body, but say that his body was made of heavenly and spiritual substance.[Origen probably means Gnostics like Marcion or Apelles.] They say this body was made of heavenly matter or, they falsely assert, of sidereal matter, or of some other more sublime and spiritual nature. Let them explain how a spiritual body could be stained, or how they interpret the passage we quoted: “Jesus was clothed with stained garments.” If this difficulty drives them to assume that the “stained garment” means the spiritual body, then they should be consistent and say this, that what is said in the prophecies has been fulfilled, that is, “an animal body is sown, a spiritual body rises.”[1 Corinthians 15:44] Do we thus rise soiled and stained? It is an impiety even to think this, especially when one knows what Scripture says: “The body is sown in corruption, but will rise in incorruption; it is sown in obscurity, but will rise in glory; it is sown in weakness, but will rise in strength; our animal body is sown, but a spiritual body will rise.”[1 Corinthians 15:43-44]

5. Thus, it was fitting that those offerings that, according to the law, customarily cleanse stain, should be made. They were made for our Lord and Savior, who had been “clothed with stained garments”[Zechariah 3:3] and had taken on an earthly body. Christian brethren often ask a question. The passage from Scripture read today encourages me to treat it again. Little children are baptized “for the remission of sins.”[Acts 2.38. On the baptism of  infants, cf. Homilies on Leviticus 8.3.5.] Whose sins are they? When did they sin? Or how can this explanation of the baptismal washing be maintained in the case of small children, except according to the interpretation we spoke of a little earlier? “No man is clean of stain, not even if his life upon the earth had lasted but a single day.”[Job 14:4-5] Through the mystery of [p. 59] Baptism, the stains of birth are put aside. For this reason, even small children are baptized. For, “unless a man be born again of water and spirit, he will not be able to enter into the kingdom of heaven.”[John 3:5]

6. The Gospel continues: “When the days of their purification were fulfilled. . . .”[Luke 2:22] Days are also fulfilled mystically. For a soul is not purified as soon as it is born, nor does it gain perfect purity in birth itself. It is written in the law, “If a mother bears a male child, she will sit for seven days in unclean blood, and then for thirty-three days in clean blood. At the end she and the infant will sit in the purest blood.”[Lv 12.2-4. The sense of Origen's text differs from the Hebrews here, especially in the last phrase. See Homilies on Leviticus 8.2-3.] But “the Law is spiritual”[Romans 7:14] and “has a shadow of good things to come”;[Hebrews 10:1] so we can understand that true purification will come about after time. I think that we shall need a sacrament to wash and cleanse us even after resurrection from the dead.[Cf. Hom. 24.1-2 on baptism in fire after death, and the corrections in Hom. 25.3. On purification after death, cf. also Hom. 3.3; Homilies on Numbers 25.4; Homilies on Leviticus 8.4.1; On First Principles 2.10; and Commentary on Matthew 15.23.] No one will be able to rise without stains, nor will any soul be found that immediately lacks all vices. So the rebirth of Baptism contains a mystery: just as Jesus, in the economy of the flesh, was purified by an offering, so we too are purified by spiritual rebirth.

7. “According to the law of Moses, they brought him into Jerusalem, to make an offering in the sight of the Lord.”[Luke 2:22] Where are those who deny the God of the Law, who say that not he, but another god, was proclaimed by Christ in the Gospel?[Origen clearly means the Marcionites.] “God sent his Son, born from a woman, subject to the Law.”[Galatians 4:4] Should we therefore suppose that the good God made his Son under the law of the creator god, and under the law of an enemy, a law that he himself had not given? No; rather, he was made under the Law “to redeem those who were under [p. 60] the Law”[Galatians 4:5] and to subject them to another Law. Scripture had already said of this Law, “Listen, my people, to my Law,”[Psalm 78:1] and so on. So “they brought him to place him in the sight of the Lord.”[Luke 2:22] What scriptural commands were they fulfilling? This one: “As it is written in the law of Moses, every male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord, ”[Lk. 2.23, formulated from Ex. 13.2 and Nm 8.16.] and, “Three times in the year every male shall appear in the sight of the Lord God.”[Exodus 34:23] Males were sacred because they opened their mothers’ wombs. They were offered before the altar of the Lord. Scripture says, “Every male that opens the womb. ...” This phrase has a spiritual meaning. For you might say that “every male is brought forth from the womb” but does not open the womb of his mother, in the way that the Lord Jesus did. In the case of every other woman, it is not the birth of an infant but intercourse with a man that opens the womb.[Cf. Ambrose, Exposition of the Gospel According to Luke 2.56.]

8. But the womb of the Lord’s mother was opened at the time when her offspring was brought forth, because before the birth of Christ a male did not even touch her womb, holy as it was and deserving of all respect. I dare to say something. At that moment of which Scripture says, “The Spirit of God will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you,” [Luke 1:35] the seed was planted and the conception took place; without an opening of the womb, a new offspring began to grow. Hence the Savior himself says, “But I am a worm, and not a man, reproached by men and rejected by the people.”[Psalm 22:6] In his mother’s womb he saw the uncleanness of bodies. He was walled in on both sides by her innards; he bore the straits of earthly dregs. So he compares himself with a worm and says, "I am a worm and not a man." A man is normally born from a male and female; but I was not born from a male and a female, according to nature and the ways of men. I was born like a worm. A worm does not get seed from outside itself.[The same theory is found in Augustine, Letter 140.8.21.] It [p. 61] reproduces in itself and from itself, and it produces offspring from its own body alone.” 

9. Because “every male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord,” he was brought “into Jerusalem,” to appear before the face of God; and also for the following reason, “that the gift might be offered for him that is prescribed in the law of the Lord: a pair of turtle-doves or two young pigeons.”[Luke 2:24] We see a pair of turtle-doves and two young pigeons offered for the Savior. I myself believe that those birds that were offered for the Lord’s birth are blessed. I marvel at Balaam’s ass [Numbers 22:25-35] and heap blessings on it, because it was worthy not only to see the angel of God, but even to have its mouth opened and break into human speech. Much more do I praise and extol those birds, because they were offered before the altar for our Lord and Savior. “To offer a pair of turtle-doves or two young pigeons for him.”[Luke 2:24]

10. Perhaps I seem to introduce something new and hardly worthy of the dignity of this matter. The new birth of the Savior came not from a man and a woman, but solely from a virgin. So too, that “pair of turtle-doves or two young pigeons” were not the sort that we see with fleshly eyes. They were the sort that the Holy Spirit is, who “came down in the form of a dove and settled”[Mt. 3.16; Mk 1.10; and Lk 3.22.] upon the Savior, when he was baptized in the Jordan. The pair of turtle-doves were also like this. Those birds were not like the ones that fly through the air. Something divine, and more majestic than the human mind can contemplate, appeared under the form of a pigeon and a dove. He who for the sake of the whole world was born and had to suffer was not purified in the Lord’s sight by such victims as purify all other men. Rather, just as he had arranged everything in a new manner,[Cf. Rv 21.5.] so too he had new offerings, according to the will of Almighty God in Christ Jesus, to whom is glory and power for ages of ages. Amen.

Origen's Homilies on Luke, Homily 18 (p. 76)

1. Jesus my lord has been born. His parents have gone up to Jerusalem to fulfill what was commanded in the law. They went to offer “a pair of turtle-doves or two young pigeons”[Luke 1:35] for him. Simeon held him in his arms, as was read earlier. He prophesied about him those things that the narrative relates. After everything was accomplished in the traditional way, his parents returned. How old was Jesus then? Certainly he was still but a small child. Yet “he grew and was strengthened, and he was filled with wisdom” and grace.[Luke 2:33] He had not yet completed the forty days of purification, nor had he come to Nazareth, but he was already receiving full wisdom. Scripture could say, “He grew and was strengthened, and he received the Spirit.”[Cf. Homilies on Leviticus 12.4.1.] “He had emptied himself by taking the form of a slave.”[Origen believed that Luke named Joseph in the genealogy of Jesus to establish Jesus' Davidic descent. Cf. Commentary on Romans 1.5.] But, as soon as a sacrifice was offered for his purification, he filled up what he had emptied out. It was not his body that was made greater at that moment. Something more sacred is manifested when Scripture reports, “The boy grew and was strengthened, and was filled with wisdom.”[Luke 2:33]

(Lienhard points out that Rufinus criticized Jerome's translation of these homilies by stating that Jerome added "and nature" where Origen had "substance" in Homily 4 (section 4), p. xxxvi)

Eusebius of Caesarea (260 – 339), Coptic Fragment 13, On Luke 2:22-23 (pp. 374-377)

6. Concerning the Circumcision of the Lord. ...

"And when the days were fulfilled for her purification according to the laws of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord according to what is written in the Law of the Lord, that every male that opens the womb of his mother shall be called 'holy to the Lord'." Eusebius.

"And although as being God He was all-pure and above every purification, nevertheless he submitted to this too for our sake, we who are polluted and stained through the sin of the Fall of our first father Adam, so that by this means he might purify us and make us worthy again by his Holy Spirit which has given to us the faithful through the bath of regeneration. And truly if we are (re-)born as little children--even if some are without sin because of the smallness of their age, and have not yet become stained according to the word of Job, (and) even if they have spent only a single day of their life upon earth--still if they have received the bath of regeneration they are altogether freed from every stain of the fall of Adam, and thereafter the soul and the body dwell in the purity of the passionlessness and incorruptibility of the second Adam, our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. Then again, 'Every male child which shall open the womb of its mother shall be called holy to the Lord, according to what is written in the law of Moses.' But there never was a male-child who could open the womb of its mother except Christ himself, because every womb of woman-kind is opened first of all by marital-intercourse, but it was Christ himself who opened the Virgin's womb without intercourse of marriage. "Whence this one was called the Nazorean, which in translation is 'hold to the Lord'." And also he said, "They made their offering, as is said in the law of the Lord, 'a pair of turtle doves or two young pigeons'." 

Athanasius (296–373), Letter to Epictetus, Section 5:

5. But this is not so, far be the thought. For he ‘takes hold of the seed of Abraham,’ as the apostle said; whence it behoved Him to be made like His brethren in all things, and to take a Body like us. This is why Mary is truly presupposed, in order that He may take it from her, and offer it for us as His own. And this Isaiah pointed to in his prophecy, in the words: ‘Behold the Virgin,’ while Gabriel is sent to her—not simply to a virgin, but ‘to a virgin betrothed to a man,’ in order that by means of the betrothed man he might shew that Mary was really a human being. And for this reason Scripture also mentions her bringing forth, and tells of her wrapping Him in swaddling clothes; and therefore, too, the paps which He sucked were called blessed. And He was offered as a sacrifice, in that He Who was born had opened the womb. Now all these things are proofs that the Virgin brought forth. And Gabriel preached the Gospel to her without uncertainty, saying not merely ‘what is born in thee,’ lest the body should be thought to be extraneously induced upon her, but ‘of thee,’ that what was born might be believed to be naturally from her, inasmuch as Nature clearly shews that it is impossible for a virgin to produce milk unless she has brought forth, and impossible for a body to be nourished with milk and wrapped in swaddling clothes unless it has previously been naturally brought forth. This is the meaning of His being circumcised on the eighth day: of Symeon taking Him in his arms, of His becoming a young child, and growing when He was twelve years old, and of His coming to His thirtieth year. For it was not, as some suppose, the very Essence of the Word that was changed, and was circumcised, because it is incapable of alteration or change. For the Saviour Himself says, ‘Behold, behold, it is I, and I change not,’ while Paul writes: ‘Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever.’ But in the Body which was circumcised, and carried, and ate and drank, and was weary, and was nailed on the tree and suffered, there was the impassible and incorporeal Word of God. This Body it was that was laid in a grave, when the Word had left it, yet was not parted from it, to preach, as Peter says, also to the spirits in prison.

While Athanasius is only tangentially addressing the issue, notice that he treats Jesus as himself a sacrifice in connection with what is described in Luke 2:22.

Fortunatianus of Aquileia (300 – 370), Commentary on the Gospels, Preface to Luke (pp. 95-96 of Houghton's translation)

L. praef. Luke, observing the rule of the Law, begins his explanation from the priesthood of Zechariah. Because this Gospel contains the reason for the two kingdoms, Judea and Israel, which were created after the death of Solomon, he makes mention of the two sons when the prodigal younger one returns and the father sacrifices a calf in his joy. He also mentions the tax collector and Pharisee praying in the Temple, and the request of one of the two crucified robbers, who is told: Amen I say to you that you will be with me today in Paradise. It is appropriate, therefore, that the tax collector is made righteous; it is also appropriate that the prodigal younger son who has used up everything is received with rejoicing. But Luke observes the rule of the Law with regard to the seventy-two who were sent out before his face, and the twelve apostles  〈…〉 the seventy palm trees and the twelve springs in Elim. But in addition, the circumcision in the flesh on the eighth day after the Lord was born and the sacrifice for the first-born is most evidently demonstrated. He also goes back through the genealogy upwards, beginning with the Saviour, making evident the Ascension. The Gospel according to Luke is therefore the face of a calf, because it is the instruction of the Law.

Ephrem the Syrian (306 – 373), Hymns on the Nativity of Christ, Hymn XIX, Section 13:

13. The All-Purifier Firstborn in the day of His purifying,—purified the purification of the firstborn and was offered, in the Presentation, in the Temple:—the Lord of offering needed offerings,—to make offering of birds.—In His Birth were fulfilled the types,—in His purification and circumcision the allegories.—He came and paid over debts in His coming down;—in His Resurrection He went up and sent down treasures.

Ephrem's Commentary on Tatian's Diatessaron, Book II, Section 8 (p. 64 of McCarthy's translation)

The virgin gave birth to her First-Born, but the signs of her virginity remained. He begot us too through baptism and made us first-born [children] by his [free] gift. For there is neither older nor younger in the womb of baptism, since we are all first-born in faith. For it is about us that [Scripture] is fulfilled, Every first-born that opens the womb is holy unto the Lord. While we are [still] corrupt in [our] sins baptism conceives us, and when we are sanctified from evil it gives birth to us from its inner depths.

Ambrosiaster (fl. 366 – 384) in his "Questions" on Luke does not address this particular issue.

Cyril of Jerusalem (313 – 386), Catechetical Lectures, On the words Incarnate, and Made Man, Section 32:

32. But thou wonderest at the event: even she herself who bare him wondered at this. For she saith to Gabriel, How shall this be to me, since I know not a man? But he says, The Holy Ghost shall came upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: wherefore also the holy thing which is to be born shall be called the Son of God. Immaculate and undefiled was His generation: for where the Holy Spirit breathes, there all pollution is taken away: undefiled from the Virgin was the incarnate generation of the Only-begotten. And if the heretics gainsay the truth, the Holy Ghost shall convict them: that overshadowing power of the Highest shall wax wroth: Gabriel shall stand face to face against them in the day of judgment: the place of the manger, which received the Lord, shall put them to shame. The shepherds, who then received the good tidings, shall bear witness; and the host of the Angels who sang praises and hymns, and said, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men of His good pleasure: the Temple into which He was then carried up on the fortieth day: the pairs of turtle-doves, which were offered on His behalf: and Symeon who then took Him up in his arms, and Anna the prophetess who was present.

Ambrose of Milan (339 – 397), Exposition of the Holy Gospel According to Saint Luke, Book II, Sections 55-57 (pp. 66-67 of Theodosia Tomkinson's translation):

Then, the Child is circumcised [cf. Saint Luke 2:21]. Who is the Child but He of Whom it is written, "A Child is born to us, a Son is given to us" [Esaias 9:6]? For He was made under the Law, that He should win those who were under the Law [cf. I Corinthians 9:21]. But why would I say that He is carried to Jerusalem to be presented to the Lord [Saint Luke 2:22], save that I had said before in the comments on Esaias; for having been circumcised of vices, He was adjudged worthy of the Divine gaze, because the eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous [Psalm 33:15]. Ye see that the whole sequence of the Old Law was an image of the future--for circumcision also signifies the cleansing of offences--, but since the weakness of the human body and the human mind, bent by the longing for sin, are entangled in inextricable vices, through the eighth day of the circumcision the future cleansing of all guilt at the Resurrection was prefigured by His age. For this is so because every male opening the womb shall be called holy to the Lord [Exodus 13:2; Saint Luke 2:23]; for the bringing forth of the Virgin was promised in the words of the Law. And truly holy, because undefiled. Then, the words repeated by the Angel in the same way declare that it is He Who is signified by the Law: "Because," it says, "the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God" [Saint Luke 1:35]. For no union with a husband unlocked the secrets of her Maidenhead, but the Holy Spirit poured unstained seed into her inviolate womb. For wholly alone of those born of woman was our Holy Lord Jesus, Who by the strangeness of His undefiled Birth has not suffered the pollutions of earthly corruption but dispelled them by heavenly majesty. For if we shall follow the letter, how is every male holy when it is not unknown that many have been very wicked? Surely, Ahab was not holy? Surely the false prophets were not holy? Those whom at Elias' prayer the avenging heavenly fire consumed for their wrongdoing [cf. IV Regnum 1:9-14]? But He was holy through Whom the pious precepts of the Divine Law indicated the form of the future mystery, insofar as He alone opened the Maidenhood of the undefiled fruitfulness of the Virgin of the Holy Church for the generation of the peoples of God. Therefore, He alone opened the womb for Himself. Nor is it strange; for He had said to the Prophet, "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and in thy mother's womb I sanctified thee" [Jeremias 1:5], He Who, therefore, sanctified an alien womb that the Prophet should be born; He it is Whole opened the womb of His Own Mother, so that He came forth undefiled.

Jerome (342 – 420), The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary, Section 12:

And, then, to take the case of John: we are agreed that he was an only begotten son: I want to know if he was not also a first-born son, and whether he was not absolutely amenable to the law. There can be no doubt in the matter. At all events Scripture thus speaks of the Saviour, “And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were fulfilled, they brought him up to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord (as it is written in the law of the Lord, every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord) and to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, a pair of turtle-doves, or two young pigeons.” If this law relates only to the first-born, and there can be no first-born unless there are successors, no one ought to be bound by the law of the first-born who cannot tell whether there will be successors.

Evagrius Ponticus (345 – 399) provided "Notes on Luke," but they don't seem to address this issue.

Augustine (350-430), Harmony of the Gospels, 

Book I, Chapter V, Section 15&17

15. With respect to the city of Bethlehem, Matthew and Luke are at one. But Luke explains in what way and for what reason Joseph and Mary came to it; whereas Matthew gives no such explanation. On the other hand, while Luke is silent on the subject of the journey of the magi from the east, Matthew furnishes an account of it. That narrative he constructs as follows, in immediate connection with what he has already offered: Behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, saying, Where is He that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen His star in the east, and are come to worship Him. Now, when Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled.60 And in this manner the account goes on, down to the passage where of these magi it is written that, "being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way."61 This entire section is omitted by Luke, just as Matthew fails to mention some other circumstances which are mentioned byLuke: as, for example, that the Lord was laid in a manger; and that an angel announced His birth to the shepherds; and that there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God; and that the shepherds came and saw that that was true which the angel had announced to them; and that on the day of His circumcision He received His name; as also the incidents reported by the same Luke to have occurred after the days of the purification of Mary were fulfilled,-namely, their taking Him to Jerusalem, and the words spoken in the temple by Simeon or Anna concerning Him, when, filled with the Holy Ghost, they recognized Him. Of all these things Matthew says nothing.

... 

17. ... And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return unto Herod, they departed into their town country another way.88 Then, after this account of their return, the narrative goes on thus:89 When the days of her (His mother's) purification, according to the law of Moses, were accomplished, they brought Him to Jerusalem, to present Him to the Lord (as it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord), and to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtle-doves, or two young pigeons. And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was in him.

Book II, Chapter XI, Section 24

24. Hereby also we see how another question is solved, if any one indeed finds a difficulty in it. I allude to the question as to how it was possible, on the supposition that the elder Herod was already anxious (to obtain information regarding Him), and agitated by the intelligence received from the wise men concerning the birth of the King of the Jews, for them, when the days of the purification of His mother were accomplished, to go up in any safety with Him to the temple, in order to see to the performance of those things which were according to the law of the Lord, and which are specified by Luke. For who can fail to perceive that this solitary day might very easily have escaped the notice of a king, whose attention was engaged with a multitude of affairs? Or if it does not appear probable that Herod, who was waiting in the extremest anxiety to see what report the wise men would bring back to him concerning the child, should have been so long in finding out how he had been mocked, that, only after the mother's purification was already past, and the solemnities proper to the first-born were performed with respect to the child in the temple, nay more, only after their departure into Egypt, did it come into his mind to seek the life of the child, and to slay so many little ones — if, I say, any one finds a difficulty in this, I shall not pause to state the numerous and important occupations by which the king's attention may have been engaged, and for the space of many days either wholly diverted from such thoughts, or prevented from following them out. For it is not possible to enumerate all the cases which might have made that perfectly possible. No one, however, is so ignorant of human affairs as either to deny or to question that there may very easily have been many such matters of importance (to preoccupy the king). For to whom will not the thought occur, that reports, whether true or false, of many other more terrible things may possibly have been brought to the king, so that the person who had been apprehensive of a certain royal child, who after a number of years might prove an adversary to himself or to his sons, might be so agitated with the terrors of certain more immediate dangers, as to have his attention forcibly removed from that earlier anxiety, and engaged rather with the devising of measures to ward off other more instantly threatening perils? Wherefore, leaving all such considerations unspecified, I simply venture on the assertion that, when the wise men failed to bring back any report to him, Herod may have believed that they had been misled by a deceptive vision of a star, and that, after their want of success in discovering Him whom they had supposed to have been born, they had been ashamed to return to him; and that in this way the king, having his fears allayed, had given up the idea of asking after and persecuting the child. Consequently, when they had gone with Him to Jerusalem after the purification of His mother, and when those things had been performed in the temple which are recounted by Luke, inasmuch as the words which were spoken by Simeon and Anna in their prophesyings regarding Him, when publicity began to be given to them by the persons who had heard them, were like to call back the king's mind then to its original design, Joseph obeyed the warning conveyed to him in the dream, and fled with the child and His mother into Egypt. Afterwards, when the things which had been done and said in the temple were made quite public, Herod perceived that he had been mocked; and then, in his desire to get at the death of Christ, he slew the multitude of children, as Matthew records.

Cyril of Alexandria (376–444), Commentary on the Gospel of Luke, Sermon III (Restored from Syriac manuscript and catena fragments):

VERY numerous indeed is the assembly, and earnest the hearer:----for we see the Church full:----but the teacher is but poor. He nevertheless Who giveth to man a mouth and tongue, will further supply us with good ideas. For He somewhere says Himself, "Open thy mouth wide, and I will fill it." Since therefore ye have all come together eagerly on the occasion of this joyous festival of our Lord, let us with cheerful torches brightly celebrate the feast, and apply ourselves to the consideration of what was divinely fulfilled, as it were, this day, gathering for ourselves from every quarter whatsoever may confirm us in faith and piety.

But recently we saw the Immanuel lying as a babe in the manger, and wrapped in human fashion in swaddling bands, but extolled as God in hymns by the host of the holy angels. For they proclaimed to the shepherds His birth, God the Father having granted to the inhabitants of heaven as a special privilege to be the first to preach Him. And to-day too we have seen Him obedient to the laws of Moses, or rather we have seen Him Who as God is the Legislator, subject to His own decrees. And the reason of this the most wise Paul teaches us, saying, "When we were babes we were enslaved under the elements of the world; but when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem them that were under the law." Christ therefore ransomed from the curse of the law those who being subject to it, had been unable to keep its enactments. And in what way did He ransom them? By fulfilling it. And to put it in another way: in order that He might expiate the guilt of Adam's transgression, He showed Himself obedient and submissive in every respect to God the Father in our stead: for it is written, "That as through the disobedience of the One man, the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the One, the many shall be made just." He yielded therefore His neck to the law in company with us, because the plan of salvation so required: for it became Him to fulfil all righteousness. For having assumed the form of a slave, as being now enrolled by reason of His human nature among those subject to the yoke, He once even paid the half shekel to the collectors of the tribute, although by nature free, and as the Son not liable to pay the tax. When therefore them seest Him keeping the law, be not offended, nor place the free-born among the slaves, but reflect rather upon the profoundness of the plan of salvation.

Upon the arrival, therefore, of the eighth day, on which it was customary for the circumcision in the flesh to be performed according to the enactment of the law, He receives His Name, even Jesus, which by interpretation signifies, the Salvation of the people. For so had God the Father willed that His Son should be named, when born in the flesh of a woman. For then especially was He made the salvation of the people, and not of one only, but of many, or rather of every nation, and of the whole world. He received His name, therefore, on the same occasion on which He was circumcised.

But come, and let us again search and see, what is the riddle, and to what mysteries the occurrence directs us. The blessed Paul has said, "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing." To this it is probable that some may object, Did the God of all then command by the all-wise Moses a thing of no account to be observed, with a punishment decreed against those that transgressed it? Yes, I say: for as far as regards the nature of the thing, of that, I mean, which is done in the flesh, it is absolutely nothing, but it is pregnant with the graceful type of a mystery, or rather contains the hidden manifestation of the truth. For on the eighth day Christ arose from the dead, and gave us the spiritual circumcision. For He commanded the holy Apostles: "Having gone, make ye disciples of all nations, baptizing them into the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." And we affirm that the spiritual circumcision takes place chiefly in the season of holy baptism, when also Christ makes us partakers of the Holy Ghost. And of this again, that Jesus of old, who was captain after Moses, was a type. For he first of all led the children of Israel across the Jordan: and then having halted them, immediately circumcised them with knives of stone. So when we have crossed the Jordan, Christ circumcises us with the power of the Holy Ghost, not purifying the flesh, but rather cutting off the defilement that is in our souls.

On the eighth day, therefore, Christ is circumcised, and receives, as I said, His Name: for then, even then, were we saved by Him and through Him, "in Whom, it saith, ye were circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands in the putting off of the fleshly body, with Christ's circumcision, having been buried together with Him in baptism, wherein also ye were raised with Him." His death, therefore, was for our sakes. as were also His resurrection and His circumcision. For He died, that we who have died together with Him in His dying unto sin, may no longer live unto sin: for which reason it is said, "If we have died together with Him, we shall also live together with Him." And He is said to have died unto sin, not because He had sinned, "for He did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth," but because of our sin. Like as therefore we died together with Him when He died, so shall we also rise together with Him.

Again, when the Son was present among us, though by nature God and the Lord of all, He does not on that account despise our measure, but along with us is subject to the same law, although as God He was Himself the legislator. Like the Jews, He is circumcised when eight days old, to prove His descent from their stock, that they may not deny Him. For Christ was expected of the seed of David, and offered them the proof of His relationship. But if even when He was circumcised they said, "As for This man, we know not whence He is;" there would have been a show of reason in their denial, had He not been circumcised in the flesh, and kept the law.

But after His circumcision, the rite was done away by the introduction of that which had been signified by it, even baptism: for which reason we are no longer circumcised. For circumcision seems to me to have effected three several ends: in the first place, it separated the posterity of Abraham by a sort of sign and seal, and distinguished them from all other nations. In the second, it prefigured in itself the grace and efficacy of Divine baptism; for as in old time he that was circumcised, was reckoned among the people of God by that seal, so also he that is baptized, having formed in himself Christ the seal, is enrolled into God's adopted family. And, thirdly, it is the symbol of the faithful when established in grace, who cut away and mortify the tumultuous risings of carnal pleasures and passions by the sharp surgery of faith, and by ascetic labours; not cutting the body, but purifying the heart, and being circumcised in the spirit, and not in the letter: whose praise, as the divine Paul testifies, needs not the sentence of any human tribunal, but depends upon the decree from above. 

After His circumcision, she next waits for the time of her purification: and when the days were fulfilled, and the fortieth was the full time, God the Word, Who sitteth by the Father's side, is carried up to Jerusalem, and brought into the Father's presence in human nature like unto us, and by the shadow of the law is numbered among the firstborn. For even before the Incarnation the firstborn were holy, and consecrated to God, being sacrificed to Him according to the law. O! how great and wonderful is the plan of salvation! "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!" He Who is in the bosom of the Father, the Son Who shares His throne, and is coeternal with Him: by Whom all things are divinely brought into existence, submitted nevertheless to the measure of human nature, and even offered a sacrifice to His own Father, although adored by all, and glorified with Him. And what did He offer? As the firstborn and a male a pair of turtles, or two young doves, according to what the law prescribed. But what does the turtle signify? And what too the other, the dove? Come, then, and let us examine this. The one, then, is the most noisy of the birds of the field: but the other is a mild and gentle creature. And such did the Saviour of all become towards us, shewing the most perfect gentleness, and like a turtle moreover soothing the world, and filling His own vineyard, even us who believe in Him, with the sweet sound of His voice. For it is written in the Song of Songs, "The voice of the turtle has been heard in our land." For Christ has spoken to us the divine message of the Gospel, which is for the salvation of the whole world.

Theodoret (393 – 457), Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus”, The Unconfounded:

“But as being born of the Virgin He is said to have been made man of the woman, [Gal. iv. 4] so He is described as being made under the law because of His sometimes walking by the precepts of the law, as for instance when His parents zealously urged His circumcision, when He was a child eight days old, as relates the evangelist Luke, afterwards ‘they brought Him to present Him to the Lord,’ ‘bringing the offerings of purification’ ‘to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord a pair of turtle doves or two young pigeons.’ [Luke ii. 22, 24] As then the gifts of purification were offered on His behalf according to the law, and He underwent circumcision on the eighth day, the Apostle very properly writes that He was thus brought under the law. Not indeed that the Word was subject to the law, (as our calumnious opponents suppose) being Himself the law, nor did God, who by one breath can cleanse and hallow all things, need sacrifices of purification. But He took from the Virgin the members of a man and became subject to the law and was purified according to the rite of the firstborn, not because He submitted to this treatment from any need on His part of such observance, but in order that He might redeem from the slavery of the law them that were sold to the doom of the curse.”

Notice that Theodoret treats the purification as being of Jesus.

Bede (672 – 735), Homilies on the Gospel, Volume 1, Homily 1.18, pp. 179-192 of the translation by Lawrence T. Martin and David Hurst:

The sacred reading of the gospel tells us about the solemnity we celebrate today. We venerate it with proper offices on the fortieth day after the Lord's birth. It is dedicated especially to the humility of our Lord and Savior, along with that of his inviolate mother. [The reading] explains that they who owed nothing to the law made themselves subject to the fulfillment of its legal decrees in everything. For, as we have just heard when [the lesson] was read, After the days of [[her]] [[TF: the translators put here "his or her' (either the Lord's or his mother's)" and added a footnote, which states: "eius, which is ambiguous as to gender"]] purification were fulfilled according to the law of Moses, they took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord, as is written in the law of the Lord; every male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord.

Now the law commanded that a woman who had received seed? and given birth to a son was unclean for seven days, and on the eighth day she was to circumcise the infant and present him with a name. And then for another thirty-three days she was to abstain from entry into the temple and from her husband's bed, until, on the fortieth day after the birth, she was to bring her son with sacrificial offerings to the temple of the Lord. The firstborn of all of the male sex was to be called holy to the Lord, and for that reason all clean [beasts] were to be offered to God; unclean ones were to be exchanged for clean ones, or killed, and the firstborn of a human being was to be redeemed for five pieces of silver. If, however, a woman gave birth to a female, she was ordered to be [judged] unclean for fourteen days, and to be suspended from entry into the temple for sixty-six more days, until the eightieth day after the birth, which was called the day of her purification. On this [day] she was to come to sanctify herself and her child by sacrificial offerings, and thus at last she would be free to return to her husband's bed.

Dearly-beloved brothers, let us look more carefully at the words of the law which we have set before you, and we will see most clearly how Mary, God's blessed mother and a perpetual virgin, was, along with the Son she bore, most free from all subjection to the law. Since the law says that a woman who 'had received seed' and given birth was to be judged unclean, and that after a long period she, along with the offspring she had borne, were to be cleansed by victims offered to God, it is evident that [the law] does not describe as unclean that woman who, without receiving man's seed, gave birth as a virgin, [nor does it so describe] the Son who was born to her; nor does it teach that she had to be cleansed by saving sacrificial offerings. But as our Lord and Savior, who in his divinity was the one who gave the law, when he appeared as a human being, willed to be under the law, so that he might redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons?-- so too his blessed mother, who by a singular privilege was above the law, nevertheless did not shun being made subject to the principles of the law for the sake of showing [us] an example of humility, according to that [saying] of the wise man, The greater you are, the more you should humble yourself in all things.

And let them give a sacrificial offering according to what is written in the law of the Lord, a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons. This was the sacrificial offering of poor people. The Lord commanded in the law that those who could were to offer a lamb for a son or a daughter, along with a turtledove or a pigeon, but one who did not have sufficient wealth to offer a lamb should offer two turtledoves or two young pigeons. Therefore the Lord, mindful in everything of our salvation, not only deigned for our sake to become a human being, though he was God, but he also deigned to become poor for us, though he was rich, so that by his poverty along with his humanity he might grant to us to become sharers in his riches and his divinity."

But I would like to look briefly at why it was ordered that these birds in particular were to be offered as a sacrificial offering for the Lord. We read that long before the law the patriarch Abraham offered these [birds] in a holocaust for the Lord, and in very many ceremonies of the law one who needed to be cleansed was ordered to be cleansed by [offering] these [birds]. A pigeon indicates simplicity, and a turtledove indicates chastity, for a pigeon is a lover of simplicity and a turtledove is a lover of chastity— so that if by chance one loses its mate it will not subsequently seek another. Hence the Lord says in praise of the Church, Beautiful are your cheeks like a turtledove's.  And again, Behold, you are beautiful, my friend, behold, you are beautiful, your eyes are like those] of pigeons.  A soul which has guarded itself, so as to be chaste and exempt from every infecting source of unchastity, has cheeks like those of a turtledove. [And a soul] which, desiring to harm no one, gazes even on its enemies with simple love, has eyes [like those] of pigeons.

Both of the birds mentioned, because they are wont to bring forth a moaning sound in place of a song, indicate the lamentation of the saints in this world, is which the Lord speaks of when he says, 'Amen, amen, I say to you: you will wail and weep, but this world will rejoice; you will be sorrowful, but your sorrow will be turned into joy', And again, 'Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be consoled'. Therefore rightly are a turtledove and a pigeon offered to the Lord as a sacrificial offering, for the simple and modest way of life of the faithful is to him a pleasing sacrifice of justice, and one who labors in his grief and cleanses his couch with tears every night slays a sacrificial victim most acceptable to God. Although because of their inclination toward grieving, both of these birds designate the saints' mourning in this present life and their heavenly desires, they nevertheless differ in this way, that the turtledove is inclined to grieve as it wanders by itself, but the pigeon in a flock. On that account the first suggests the secret tears of [private] prayers, [while] the other suggests the Church's public gatherings.

It is good that the boy Jesus was first circumcised, and then after some intervening days he was brought to Jerusalem with a sacrificial offering. When still a young man, he first trampled all the corruption of the flesh under his feet by dying and rising, and then, after some intervening days, he ascended to the joys of the heavenly city, with the very flesh, now immortal, which he had made a sacrificial offering to God for our salvation. Each one of us is also first purged by the water of baptism from all sins, as if by a true circumcision, and thus advancing by the grace of a singular light to the holy altar, we go in to be consecrated by the saving sacrificial offering of the Lord's body and blood. Now also since the humanity of our Savior itself is uniquely simple and chaste, and since it is offered to the Father for us, it can fittingly be represented figurally by the immolation of a pigeon or a dove. But the entire Church too will, at the end of the world, first put off all blemish of earthly mortality and corruption in the general resurrection, and then be transferred to the kingdom of the heavenly Jerusalem, there to be commended to the Lord by the sacrificial victims, [her] good works.

Arabic Gospel of the Infancy of the Savior aka Arabic Infancy Gospel aka Syriac Infancy Gospel (No earlier than the 6th century and perhaps as late as the 9th century), Section 5: 

5.  And the time of circumcision, that is, the eighth day, being at hand, the child was to be circumcised according to the law.  Wherefore they circumcised Him in the cave.  And the old Hebrew woman took the piece of skin; but some say that she took the navel-string, and laid it past in a jar of old oil of nard.  And she had a son, a dealer in unguents, and she gave it to him, saying:  See that thou do not sell this jar of unguent of nard, even although three hundred denarii should be offered thee for it.  And this is that jar which Mary the sinner bought and poured upon the head and feet of our Lord Jesus Christ, which thereafter she wiped with the hair of her head. Ten days after, they took Him to Jerusalem; and on the fortieth day after His birth they carried Him into the temple, and set Him before the Lord, and offered sacrifices for Him, according to the commandment of the law of Moses, which is:  Every male that openeth the womb shall be called the holy of God.

The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew (Not earlier than the 7th century, and probably later), Chapter 15 has the following:

And on the sixth day they entered Bethlehem, where they spent the seventh day.  And on the eighth day they circumcised the child, and called His name Jesus; for so He was called by the angel before He was conceived in the womb. Now, after the days of the purification of Mary were fulfilled according to the law of Moses, then Joseph took the infant to the temple of the Lord.  And when the infant had received parhithomus,—parhithomus, that is, circumcision—they offered for Him a pair of turtle-doves, or two young pigeons.

Theophylact of Ohrid (1055 – 1107), The Explanation of the Holy Gospel According to Luke, at Luke 2:22 (pp. 32-34 of Christopher Stade's translation)

21-24. And when eight days were fulfilled for the circumcising of the Child, His name was called JESUS, which was so named by the angel before He was conceived in the womb. And when the days of their purification according to the law of Moses were fulfilled, they brought Him up to Jerusalem, to present Him to the Lord; (as it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;) and to offer sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons. Commandments were given in the law, and anyone who transgressed those commandments was under condemnation. The Lord therefore is circumcised, so that by having fulfilled the law even in this, and by omitting nothing which the law commanded, He might remove the condemnation from us. Let them here be put to shame who say that the Lord only seemed to take flesh. How could He have been circumcised if He had taken flesh in appearance only? Furthermore, it is foolish to question where that portion of His flesh might be that was circumcised. We ought not to ask questions concerning those things on which Scripture is silent, for those things are not for our benefit. But it could be said that when the portion of His flesh was cut away, it touched the earth and made it holy, as did the blood and water which flowed from His side. It may be that the Lord kept this portion of His flesh unharmed, and at the Resurrection He arose, taking back this portion, so that He would be perfect in every respect, even this. For we too at the general resurrection will receive back our bodies perfected. Take note that the Lord was not conceived at the very moment that the angel said, Behold, thou shalt conceive a son. Instead, the Lord was conceived afterwards, when He so wished. See what the Evangelist says here, which was so named by the angel before He was conceived in the womb. The very words themselves show that this is so. The angel did not say, "Behold, thou art conceiving," but rather, Behold, thou shalt conceive. From this it is understood that the Lord was conceived at that hour, not indeed at the very moment in which the angel spoke, but perhaps when he had completed his words. But we do not say this as dogma. And when the days of their purification were fulfilled according to the law of Moses.  The Evangelist spoke well when he said, according to the law of Moses.  In truth the Virgin had no need to await the days of her purification, that is, the forty days after the time that she gave birth to a male child. For it says in the law, Whatsoever woman shall have received seed and born a male child.' But the Virgin did not receive seed, but gave birth by the Holy Spirit. Therefore there was no necessity for her to fulfill the law, yet she wanted to do so, and she went up to the temple. Why is it that the law says that if a woman shall receive seed and bear a male child she shall be unclean for seven days, but if she bears a female child, she shall be unclean twice seven days?® This is so, because if she bears a male child, she has brought another Adam into the world. But if she bears a female child, the law considered that she has given birth to a second Eve, the weak and deceived vessel which shattered when cracked, and who was the first of mankind to disobey, after whom we all follow. The law said, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord. Only with Christ did this literally occur. He Himself opened the womb of the Virgin at His birth, while all other wombs which have borne a child have been first opened by a man. The law commanded that a pair of turtledoves be offered, to show that the child is the offspring of a chaste union. For it is said that the turtledove is a chaste animal, so much so that when one loses its mate, it does not mate a second time. But if one does not have turtledoves, two young pigeons are to be offered, as a prayer that the young boy, in his lifetime, would have many children, for the pigeon is an animal that has many offspring.

Saint Hildegard of Bingen (1098 – 1179), Homilies on the Gospels, Beverly Mayne Kienzle trans., Homily 20, The Feast of the Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary, 1 (p. 95 of trans.)

After the days of Mary’s purification were fulfilled according to the law of Moses; that is, when the rituals of the Old Testament were at their consummation, the old observance was changed for the better through the inspiration of the prophets who were speaking about the Gospel. For just as a woman is in silence after birth, until she brings the infant to the temple, so was the Old Testament hidden in secret until the New, when the Son of God was incarnated. They took Jesus to Jerusalem in order to present him to the Lord; namely, according to the Lord’s will, the holiness that was in the ancient law brought Jesus, that is, the Savior, to the vision of our peace, so that once incarnated he would appear as a human being in God. As it was written in the law of the Lord, ‘every male opening the womb will be called holy to the Lord’; in other words, as it was predestined by that inspiration, where it is said: And it will be just as a tree that is planted by a waterfall, Adam, the first male, ‘opening’ the earth, was sanctified through the breath of life. And as Adam rose up from the earth’s wholeness, so also Christ went out from Mary’s wholeness and was holy. In order to offer sacrifice according to what is said in the law of the Lord, ‘a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.’ In other words, he gave virtuous constancy by inspiration, as it is written: “He shall be called Emmanuel,” that is, fear and love of the Lord, the beginning and the end of good deeds.

Hildegard's Homily 21, The Feast of the Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary, 2 (p. 97 of trans.)

After the days of Mary’s purification were fulfilled according to the law of Moses they brought Jesus to Jerusalem in order to present him to the Lord. After the days were completed in truth, that she might be purified from every contagion of womanly union, she remained a virgin. Clearly, a man and woman are accustomed to be united by marriage; they were created from both earth and water. Those who vow virginity by good example brought virginity to the vision of true peace and salvation in order to fulfill the virginity they vowed. As it is written in the law of the Lord, ‘every male opening the womb will be called holy to the Lord.’ According to the example held from the Lord’s incarnation, which was without blemish, one would be able to open the womb, if one wished, but would close it in a manly way because virginity is virtuous and holy to God. And in order to offer sacrifice according to what is said in the law of the Lord: ‘a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons,’ that is, victory’s praise ‘according to what is’ promised in the Lord’s incarnation: innocence and chastity, or holy deeds, martyring themselves in battle with vices.

(Last updated May 18, 2024, may be updated as additional materials are found.)