In This Old Testament Book Is Written Thou Art My Son Today I Have Begotten Thee
Critics of the New Testament frequently traffic in conspiracy theories nearly how early scribes allegedly altered the words of the Scriptures to suit the whims of their theological positions. One of the more than interesting examples of this involves the words that the voice from heaven said during Jesus' baptism. According to these critics, Luke'south version of this event originally had the voice maxim "Yous are My beloved Son, today I have begotten You lot." Orthodox scribes are said to have been increasingly uncomfortable with this language, and eventually they inverse the words to match what is found in Mark, "You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased." This charge is demonstrably false, but looking at the reasons for the claim tin be a helpful example study in how to properly understand and bargain with textual variants.
The Poesy in Question
The verse at the middle of the claim reads as follows:
Luke iii:22, "and the Holy Spirit descended upon Him in bodily form like a dove, and a voice came out of heaven, 'You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased.'"
The critics affirm, however, that this is not actually Luke's original wording. Instead, they argue, the verse originally said:
Luke iii:22 variant, "and the Holy Spirit descended upon Him in bodily grade like a dove, and a voice came out of heaven, 'Yous are My beloved Son, today I accept begotten You.'"
The vast majority of scholars and translators reject this merits (fifty-fifty among those who are no friends of biblical Christianity), however, the statement does have some bookish defenders, such every bit the Academy of North Carolina at Chapel Colina'southward famous New Attestation critic, Dr. Bart Ehrman. 1 Besides, even the Roman Catholic "Jerusalem Bible" translation agrees with this conclusion (though possibly not for nevertheless reasons), rendering that portion of the verse equally "…And a voice came from sky, 'Yous are my Son; today have I fathered yous.'" So, what is the basis for this merits?
The manuscript show and the "begotten you" reading
The manuscript evidence in favor of the standard reading of Luke 3:22 (i.e., the familiar "in you I am well pleased") is quite vast. Indeed, information technology is affirmed past essentially the unabridged Greek manuscript tradition, including such early copies as P4 (which goes back to the 2d or early tertiary century), Codex א, B, and W (quaternary century), Codex A (fifth century), and all the countless other Greek copies from the sixth century forward. It is too found in some of the Old Latin manuscripts and in the Latin Vulgate. The Syriac and Coptic manuscripts likewise support the traditional reading, equally do the ancient Armenian, Georgian, Slavonic, and Ethiopic manuscripts. 2
So, what nigh the version advocated past the critics? Is there whatever manuscript support for the reading "today I have begotten Y'all"? As it turns out, yes there is. The reading is supported by the fifth-century Greek/Latin parallel manuscript known as Codex D, or Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis. This is the sole Greek witness to the reading, but it is also backed by just over half a dozen Old Latin manuscripts, one going dorsum to the fourth century and several others to the fifth. While this is still lilliputian more than a handful of manuscripts, only one of which is even in the original linguistic communication, that is not necessarily enough reason to dismiss the reading out of paw. These witnesses are quite early. Nosotros ought to at to the lowest degree ask why they exist and what they might tell u.s.?
The Quondam Latin manuscript tradition
The manuscripts that affirm the "today I have begotten you" reading are all a function of the One-time Latin manuscript tradition. Even Codex D, the sole Greek copy, is actually a Greek/Latin diglot text (with Greek on i side of each folio and the Old Latin text on the other). Thus, it is helpful to know something about the Old Latin copies. As it turns out, a distinctive feature in these manuscripts is their trend toward expanded readings and interpolated material. Merely a few examples might be helpful (many more could be added):
Codex Vercellensis, or ita, is a fourth-century Old Latin manuscript of the Gospels. Information technology is the oldest manuscript to contain the "today I have begotten you lot" reading in Luke 3:22. Yet, that isn't the simply revision it contains to the story of Jesus' baptism. In Matthew 3:15, at that place is an extra clause explaining that a brilliant light flashed out of the water of the Jordan, terrifying the crowds. 3 Codex Colbertinus, or information technologyc, not only contains the "begotten you" reading in Luke 3:22, merely besides adds a section to Luke 23:5 where a charge is brought confronting Jesus that "He alienates both our sons and our wives from us, and does non baptize as we practice," 4 and elsewhere (similar several other Old Latin manuscripts) adds names for the two men who were crucified next to Jesus. 5 Codex D displays this same quality, even in its Greek text. In Luke 6:5, for instance, it adds a cursory episode to Jesus' ministry:
"On the same 24-hour interval, observing 1 working on the Sabbath, He said to him O homo, if indeed grand knowest what grand doest, thou fine art blessed: but, if grand knowest not, thousand art accursed and a transgressor of the law." John James Stewart Perowne, Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges: The Gospel According to St. Luke (Cambridge University Printing, 1893) 179
Likewise, in Acts 15:20, half-dozen Codex D alters the instructions given for gentile believers, removing the injunction against "things strangled" and calculation instead a form of the golden rule (i.eastward., Matthew 7:12, Luke six:31), so that the verse reads:
"but that we enjoin on them to abstain from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from blood: and that whatever they would non should exist done to them ye exercise non to others." J. Thou. Wilson, The Acts of the Apostles, translated from the Codex Bezae with an Introduction on its Lucan origin and Importance (The Macmillan Co., 1923) 75
These are but two of countless examples. Equally Scrivener noted, "the most striking feature of Cod. D was its perpetual tendency to interpolation," by which he means the adding of passages "often of some length" which "are found in this certificate either alone or in company with very few others." seven Thus, when nosotros see a reading similar the "begotten" version of Luke 3:22 appearing in Codex D and the wider Old Latin tradition but not appearing anywhere else in the balance of the manuscript tradition, nosotros have good reasons to suspect that it is office of this distinctive interpolative tradition.
Justin Martyr and "today I have begotten you"
The critics will hither point out that these idiosyncratic Erstwhile Latin texts are non the only bear witness they take. They will merits that the "today I accept begotten yous" form of Luke 3:22 is cited by a diverse grouping of early church fathers, which proves (so they say) that it was originally a very widespread reading. So, let's take a expect at a few important examples:
The primeval Christian writer to whom these critics entreatment is Justin Martyr, writing in the eye of the 2d century AD. He references the story of Jesus' baptism multiple times, each fourth dimension with the same version:
"Then, when Jesus had gone to the river Hashemite kingdom of jordan, where John was baptizing, and when He had stepped into the water, a fire was kindled in the Jordan; and when He came out of the water, the Holy Ghost lighted on Him similar a dove, [as] the apostles of this very Christ of ours wrote…And when Jesus came to the Hashemite kingdom of jordan, He was considered to be the son of Joseph the carpenter; and He appeared without comeliness, equally the Scriptures declared; and He was accounted a carpenter (for He was in the addiction of working as a carpenter when among men, making ploughs and yokes; by which He taught the symbols of righteousness and an agile life); but then the Holy Ghost, and for man's sake, as I formerly stated, lighted on Him in the form of a dove, and at that place came at the same instant from the heavens a vocalism, which was uttered as well by David when he spoke, personating Christ, what the Begetter would say to Him: 'Thousand fine art My Son: this twenty-four hour period have I begotten Thee;' [the Father] proverb that His generation would accept place for men, at the time when they would become acquainted with Him: 'Thou art My Son; this 24-hour interval accept I begotten thee." (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 88)
"when [Jesus] went upwards from the river Jordan, at the fourth dimension when the vocalism spake to Him, 'One thousand fine art my Son: this twenty-four hour period have I begotten Thee,'" (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 103)
To our critics' indicate, Justin consistently cites the vox from sky as maxim "today I have begotten you lot." He also seems to attribute at least part of this business relationship to the writings of the apostles. Yet, at that place are several things worth noting here. First of all, Justin never specifically points to the gospel of Luke. Information technology is only by imputing the data from the afterward Old Latin tradition back onto Justin that 1 would assume he was citing Luke iii:22 here. Further, and more importantly, Justin attributes only the particular about the Holy Spirit descending as a dove to the "writings of the apostles," not the entire account. He goes on to reference "the Scriptures" every bit saying "he appeared without comeliness," an allusion to Isaiah 53:2. Even so afterward, when finally he comes to quoting the voice from heaven, he once more cites the Old Testament instead of the gospels, maxim "from the heavens a vox, which was uttered also by David when he spoke, personating Christ, what the Begetter would say to Him." Thus, rather than citing the gospels here, he points back to David's words in the Psalms as prophecy and quotes from Psalm 2:
"I will surely tell of the prescript of the Lord: He said to Me, 'You are My Son, Today I have begotten You lot," (Psalm ii:7).
Justin's "Dialogue with Trypho" (the work in which nosotros find both of these quotes) is filled with examples of creatively citing and fifty-fifty combining dissimilar Scriptures, often in means that run counter to mod sensibilities about when and how to cite sources. His purpose is to show that Jesus is the fulfillment of the Old Testament. Here, he seems to connect the words of the heavenly voice at the Hashemite kingdom of jordan with Psalm two, perhaps on the common basis of the address "yous are my son…", and to exploit this connection to indicate to Jesus equally the messianic fulfillment of Psalm 2. Information technology is a rhetorical device, a role of Justin's larger statement, and fits quite well with the way he argues elsewhere in the book. Thus, Justin may even inadvertently be the origin of this version of Jesus' baptism story, subsequently writers misunderstanding his clever statement every bit a straightforward business relationship.
Even so, since Justin's business relationship too contains other narrative expansions like the fire in the Jordan river (perhaps an early version of the "terrifying light" interpolation that would later appear in the Old Latin manuscripts), it seems likely that Justin is drawing on popular traditions about the episode of Jesus' baptism that are not recorded in the gospels. Thus, the thought that Psalm ii:7 was included in the declaration from heaven may have already existed amid many second-century Christians fifty-fifty before Justin'due south creative exegesis and, indeed, may have contributed to the evolution of his argument. Yet, this offers no evidence that Luke 3:22 originally independent that reading.
Survey of other Church Fathers
Having examined the earliest and most of import example, let's now briefly survey some of the other popularly cited early Christian writers who allegedly support the "begotten yous" reading. Clement of Alexandria (tardily 2d century) and Origen (early third century) both reference the words "this day have I begotten yous" being spoken at Jesus' baptism. However, as with Justin, they practise non cite them as coming from Luke. Indeed, when Origen preached directly on Luke 3, he said:
"The Lord was baptized, the heavens were opened and, 'the Holy Spirit came down upon him.' A voice from the heavens thundered and said, 'this is my love son in whom I am pleased,'" (Origen, Homily 27: Luke 18-22) Joeseph T. Leinhard, The Fathers of the Church: Origen's Homilies on Luke (The Catholic University of America Press, 1996) 114
His homily on the relevant passage makes no reference to the "begotten you lot" reading. These men knew the tradition that the vox from heaven spoke the words of Psalm 2:seven over Jesus at His baptism, but they do not connect that tradition with Luke'south gospel. Moving a little further forward in history, nosotros come up to Methodius and Lactantius (both later tertiary to early on fourth century), who wrote (respectively):
"At present, in perfect agreement and correspondence with what has been said, seems to be this which was spoken past the Begetter from above to Christ when He came to be baptized in the h2o of the Hashemite kingdom of jordan, 'Thou art my son: this day have I begotten thee;'" (Methodius, Banquet of the Ten Virgins, Discourse 8, Chapter ix).
"When He first began to reach maturity He was baptized by the prophet John in the river Jordan…Then a voice from sky was heard: 'Thou fine art my Son, to-day have I begotten Thee.' Which voice is establish to take been foretold by David. And the Spirit of God descended upon Him, formed later on the appearance of a white dove." (Lactantius, Divine Institutes, Book 4, Chapter 15).
Not only exercise we again notice no endeavor by these authors to identify these words in any particular gospel, but Lactantius besides includes another extrabiblical interpolation that the Spirit appeared not only as a dove but as a "white dove." This tradition would later appear in the Arabic Infancy Gospel likewise, simply is obviously a afterward expansion on the narrative of the biblical gospels.
On into the fourth century, Hilary of Poitiers notably wrote:
"Nor are we left in doubt how He was thus anointed with the Spirit of God and with power, when nosotros heed to the Father's voice, every bit information technology spoke when He came upward out of the Jordan, One thousand art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee," (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book 9, Section 13).
We really have practiced reason to believe that Hilary is merely citing from his memory of the story rather than quoting a specific gospel text here. In the very same volume, merely a few sections later on, he wrote:
"I remember that a vocalization was heard from Heaven, which said, 'This is My love Son, in Whom I have been well pleased; hear ye Him.' How can it be said that they did not hear the vocalism of God, when the voice which they heard itself asserted that it was the Father'southward voice? But perchance the dwellers in Jerusalem had not heard what John had heard in the solitude of the desert," (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Volume 9, Section 20).
In this case, Hilary is actually confusing two stories. He quotes the words from Jesus' transfiguration, but he mistakenly cites them as the words from Jesus' baptism (i.e., "what John had heard in the confinement of the desert.") More importantly, he tells usa openly that he is cartoon on memory. Thus, again, Hilary demonstrates the existence of a tradition related to Jesus' baptism and the words of Psalm ii:vii, but he tells usa nothing most the written text of Luke 3:22.
Finally, we turn to Augustine of Hippo (fifth century). Augustine does refer to "that announcement of the Father which was heard after His baptism, 'This day have I begotten Thee,'" eight but again, without attributing information technology to any book or text. Notwithstanding, in his "harmony of the gospels," where he is actively engaging with particulars of the gospel texts and their differences, he explains:
"For although Matthew tells u.s. that the words were, 'This is my beloved Son,' while the other ii put them in this course, 'One thousand art my beloved Son,' these different methods of oral communication serve but to convey the same sense…furthermore now, with regard to the circumstance that the kickoff of them puts the saying thus, 'In whom I am well pleased,' the 2nd thus, 'In Thee I am well pleased;' and the third thus, 'In Thee it has pleased me;'" (Augustine, Harmony of the Gospels, Book 2, Affiliate 14).
Interestingly, he does here reflect a slight textual variant in the version he is using, but one that still ultimately affirms the traditional reading. Thus, while Augustine shows familiarity with a version of the story where the words "this twenty-four hours accept I begotten you" occur at Jesus' baptism, He never places that tradition in Luke'south gospel (or any gospel, for that matter).
And then while a diverse group of early on church building fathers do display an intriguingly persistent tradition of connecting Psalm 2:seven with Jesus' baptism over the first v centuries of the church, none of them place that tradition in Luke 3:22. Indeed, whenever they interact with Luke's gospel directly, they ever cite something very much like the traditional reading.
Letting Luke speak for himself
Finally, nosotros should notation that this tradition of connecting Psalm 2:7 with Jesus' baptism would not have come from Luke because Luke himself applies the text differently. In Acts (which is basically a second volume to the gospel of Luke, written past the aforementioned author), Luke conspicuously connects Psalm 2:7 with Jesus' resurrection rather than his baptism. Notation:
"And nosotros bring you the skillful news that what God promised to the fathers, this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus, as also it is written in the 2d Psalm, 'Yous are my Son, today I have begotten yous,'" (Acts thirteen:32-33).
Thus, where ever the tradition of connecting this text with Jesus' baptism came from, it did not come from Luke.
Conclusion: The "begotten you" reading is not original
Manuscripts similar Codex D and the Old Latin copies have a demonstrable habit of adding narrative interpolations and commentary into the text from outside the gospels themselves. Some of these unique readings seem to reflect very old traditions, only they certainly do non reflect the original diction of the gospels. This is the instance with their distinctive version of Luke 3:22, wherein the words of Psalm 2:7 are spoken from sky. This interpretive connection between Jesus' baptism and Psalm 2:7 is known to many early Christian writers, just none of them claimed to find it in the gospels, nor did they quote it as the wording of Luke 3:22. It is an interesting ancient interpretation of the prophetic significance of Psalm 2, but information technology has nothing to do with what Luke or any other New Testament author actually wrote.
Source: https://carm.org/about-the-bible/did-early-christians-change-the-words-to-luke-322/
0 Response to "In This Old Testament Book Is Written Thou Art My Son Today I Have Begotten Thee"
Post a Comment