Bart Ehrman on Luke 3:22 and Anti-Adoptionism
this post, Is about Bart Ehrman’s discussion of Luke 3:22 in his book, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament.
The context of Luke 3:22 is Jesus’ baptism by John. The King James Version for that verse reads: “And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.” Ehrman’s argument is that “in you I am well pleased” is actually an attempt to theologically correct an earlier reading: “today I have begotten you.” Why was this attempt made, according to Ehrman? Essentially, there were adoptionists who believed that Jesus became the Son of God and Christ at his baptism, when God anointed Jesus with the Holy Spirit. But there were Christians who disagreed with the adoptionists, believing instead that Jesus was God’s son before his baptism. The Christian scribes who believed that Jesus was God’s son prior to his baptism changed the text to read “in you I am well pleased” instead of “today I have begotten you,” since the latter reading implied that Jesus became God’s son when he was baptized. The change made Luke 3:22 say that God was acknowledging Jesus as his son, not making Jesus into his son at that time.
Ehrman offers text-critical grounds for his view that “today I have begotten you” was an earlier reading than “in you I am well pleased.” In the second-third centuries C.E., Ehrman argues, “today I have begotten you” was the predominant (maybe even the only) reading. Ehrman mentions such names as Justin, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and others, but I’ll quote Justin Martyr. Justin says the following in Dialogue with Trypho 88, when discussing Jesus’ baptism:
(Hebrews 1:5)
------------------------
Just want to add another part to barts discussion :
(Biblical resurrection tampering!)
but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. (Luke 24:3)
In Luke 24:3,Codex Bezae and most of the Old Latin texts do not have the phrase 'the Lord Jesus' in 'they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus' Clearly, the phrase 'the Lord Jesus' was added by a scribe to make sure that the Gospels recorded that the women went to the right tomb. The phrase 'the Lord Jesus' only occurs in the Gospels here and in Mark 16:19 (another addition by a scribe!) and it is hard to see why the phrase would have been dropped if it were original to Luke's Gospel.
-----------
He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: (Luke 24:6)
In Luke 24:6,Codex Bezae and most of the Old Latin texts do not have the phrase 'He is not here, but has been raised'. Clearly, this phrase was added by a scribe to make sure that the women knew that Jesus had been raised It is hard to see why the phrase would have been dropped if it were original to Luke's Gospel.
-----------
When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. (Luke 24:40)
Codex Bezae and many Old Latin texts do not include Luke 24:40 - 'having said this, he showed them his hands and feet'. Either some scribe added this verse, or some scribe dropped it. It is hard to see why any scribe would drop the verse. It is easy to see why a scribe would add the verse, basing it on John 20:20. He would have had to alter it as John 20:20 mentions 'hands and side' and there was no spear-thrust in Luke's Gospel, but that would only be a small change. It would all help to show that the Gospels 'recorded' a physical resurrection.
--------------------------
There you go We have clear evidence that Christians tampered with the text of the Gospels to make them better evidence for the Resurrection. How much tampering went on that we don't have evidence of?
No comments:
Post a Comment