Boro Nut

I seem to recall reading somewhere that this was the original wording ascribed to God following Jesus' baptism, but I can't find a link to them. Am I barking up the creek?

Also, was the phrase 'Forgive them father ...' originally ascribed to someone else other than Jesus?

Boro Nut

Clouseau

Nobody's barking at IIDB. The phrases begin the same way. At Jesus' baptism:

'A voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased." Luke 3:22 NIV

Psalm 2:7 NIV: 'He said to me, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father."' (Or have begotten you)

The Psalm was quoted by Paul in Acts 13:33, and by the author of Hebrews in 5:5.

Not that I know of.

Ben C Smith

You are probably referring to the textual variant at Luke 3.22. Codex Bezae (D) reads:

Υιος μου ει συ· εγω σημερον γεγεννηκα σε.

You are my son. I today have begotten you.

(This variant is on one of my web pages; please note that the page is far from exhaustive.)

Justin Martyr is one church father who cites this form of the text instead of the more familiar in you I am well pleased. The Ebionite gospel may have had both phrases, according to Epiphanius. See my synopsis of the baptism and the accompanying notes and quotes page.

I do not know about originally, but similar (though not identical) words are also ascribed to the martyr Stephen in Acts 7.60.

Ben.

ETA: IIRC, Bart Ehrman argues for the originality of the today I have begotten you line in Luke.

Ray Moscow

The Psalm 2 reference is midrashic, and the psalm itself was an old coronoation hymn, in which the king was adopted as God's son upon ascension to the throne.

Boro Nut

Thanks for the replies. You've set mime hind a trest.

Boro Nut

JoeWallack

JW:
Ehrman explains starting on Page 62 Of The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture why "today I have begotten you" is likely original to Luke 3:22. The related discussion is representative of Ehrman's ascendancy over Metzger as a Textual critic:

Metzger:

JW:
While Metzger points out that the offending phrase was "widely current during the first three centuries" he neglects/fails to point out that the Orthodox phrase during this same period was rarer than Gordon Gecko's interest in Annacott Steal. And he concludes that the Orthodox phrase is almost certain. I leave it to the Objective Reader here to supply their own adjective for Metzger's scholarship.

Ehrman rightly points out that every Church Father who commented before the Byzantine time provides evidence that “This day I have begotten thee.” is original and along with the Manuscript evidence and Difficult reading principle is enough evidence to conclude originality:

Zhul!

http://www.zhubert.com/bible?source=...ef=Luke+3%3A22

"This day I have begotten thee"

Orthodox reading:

JW:
Of interest here is that some early Church Father writings such as Epiphanius' Panarion, which deal with Textual Criticism, are as difficult to get hold of as The Necronomicon, written by Eldritch Church Elders describing mysterious ancient rituals involving the drinking of blood and the eating of flesh. Classic translations of Panarion are freely available so Christian Bible scholars can feed from it when it suits their purpose, but the English translation is hidden from the Masses unless you are willing to pay the Price.

Ben, you can update your web site now I think.



Joseph

INTERPRETER, n.
One who enables two persons of different languages to understand each other by repeating to each what it would have been to the interpreter's advantage for the other to have said.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Boro Nut

But what earthly reason would anyone have have to remove the phrase 'This day I have begotten thee' and replace it with 'In whom I am well pleased'? It's not as if you were trying to make out later that you'd magicked them up in someone's womb all along or something is it? That would be silly. It just doesn't make any sense.

Boro Nut

Chili

Boro Nut, you should have quit when you were ahead just two posts back when your mind was put as easy (poor guy).

Let me add here that Luke is the omniscient writer who actually knows what 'begotton' means while Mark is the materialist who just says that 'God likes Jesus today.'

Toto

It's the heresy of Adoptionism. Adoptionists did believe in the virgin birth, however.

Ben C Smith

The begotten you phrase can imply adoptionism, the notion that Jesus was not the son of God from birth, but rather only became the son of God at some point during his life (or even after his death). Notice that the scene is the baptism. If God the father is saying that today, the day of his baptism, he has begotten Jesus (as son), then this casts doubt on any idea that Jesus was the (begotten) son of God from his own biological birth, or conception, or during some state of preexistence.

I recommend you read Ehrman (Joe provided the reference above) on the matter.

Ben.

ETA: My post crossed with that of Toto.