Stephen said
There is a working principle in textual criticism that the more difficult reading is the stronger. It's not like the laws of physics or carved on stone tablets by the finger of God. But like Occam's Razor, it makes a lot of sense.  
The problem with "begotten",  however you parse it, is that it implies there was a discrete moment when Jesus became the Son of God.  Before that moment, he was not.  The composers of the Nicene Creed certainly knew they had to address it. 
It makes more sense to think Christians went from an Adoptionist view to an Incarnational view than the other way round.  My comment about Mark was pure speculation. Scholars have to follow the data.
  

I acknowledge the principle of "the more difficult reading", but that is not the sole principle or even the most important. We might think a variant difficult to explain, but that is based on our reconstruction of a period, a reconstruction based on scanty evidence.  As I pointed out, I can imagine copyists during the 5th c. finding Psalm 2:7 attractive, since Christology had by this point developed the technical language of Trinitarian terms.  The copyist, who had theological inclinations which he inherited from his context, receives a manuscript with the words "you are my son"... and he thinks, this is just like Psalm 2:7! (obviously he did not think in terms of chapters and verses, but you get my point.)  He's not at all thinking about the words "today" or "begotten" or any kind of adoptionist christology; no, he's thinking about how he might supply a received text with a scriptural quotation that he thinks more fitting.  We might add to his context.  If he were living at a time when "begotten" language had achieved divine status, as it does in the earliest Trinitarian creeds, the copyist might have additional reason for inserting the Psalm. 

But this is all somewhat subjective. A creative mind will always find some reason why some copyist might change x to y.  And so the principle of Occam's Razor actually works against such fancies. It demands we focus on data. And the data that we have before us is an overwhelming number of older manuscripts all in favor of no direct quote from Psalm 2 but matching more closely what we have in Mark, which we have good reasons to believe Luke consulted. 

To favor the minority view is to indulge in conspiracy theories.  It demands that we imagine some sneaky little history whereby Luke's original goes dark for centuries while some copyist's edit proliferates and dominates the transmission history; and then, at certain points in the 5th c., the original just "pops up" in a few manuscripts, then goes dark again.   

Have you looked at the witnesses behind the variants?  If not, you absolutely must.

The problem with "begotten",  however you parse it, is that it implies there was a discrete moment when Jesus became the Son of God.  Before that moment, he was not.  The composers of the Nicene Creed certainly knew they had to address it. 

It makes more sense to think Christians went from an Adoptionist view to an Incarnational view than the other way round.  My comment about Mark was pure speculation. Scholars have to follow the data.

Porphyry said
N-A appears to give "D it; Ju (Cl) Meth Hil Aug". I think that means Codex Bezae; Old Latin; Justin Martyr; Clement of Alexandria (with variation); Methodius of Olympus; Hilary of Poitiers; Augustine. 
  

Stephen said
One interesting question is what we would find in a truly early version of Mark.  We have no variant readings of Mark 1:11 but if the variant in Luke was the original reading as seems likely, you can't help but wonder. Luke looks just like an originally Adoptionist text that was modified to an Incarnational view.  Mark seems clearly Adoptionist in outlook. As Prof Ehrman points out in his book, quoting Psalm 2:7 would have become increasingly problematic to later generations of Christians.
  

I just found a free source (VarApp Step) that lists all the witnesses, and viewing them makes me wonder why we think the variant of Luke containing the word begotten is likely to be original?  The witnesses behind the other variants are overwhelmingly stronger in number, date, and provenance.  And it is not hard to work out why some later copyists would prefer an actual quote from a Psalm rather than the vague allusions presented to them in the received manuscripts, especially as the church became more liturgical.  Let's remember that there are only so many verses in the Hebrew bible that have "Son" and "God" in proximity to each other.  Psalm 2:7 is the obvious choice.  To make "begotten" the operative word seems a bit forced.  If there were numerous other options that that combined son (in a christological sense) and God but lacked begotten, then the choice of Psalm 2:7 would be significant; it would suggest that the quotation was chosen precisely bc it contained the word begotten.  But there aren't.  In fact, I can't recall any passage that relates the Christ to God in filial terms except Psalm 2:7 (and its echo in Samuel).  Let us also remember that the term "begotten" would not have been nearly as problematic in the later centuries of the church.  By that time the term had acquired a Trinitarian meaning completely compatible with a high Christology (begotten not made).  I propose we are reading way too much into a single word of the one verse that they had available to them. 

Stephen said

I think I'll take a look at Larsen's book, thanks. 

You should!  It is very well done.

Why don't you go over to Prof Ehrman's Recent Posts page and ask him?   I'd be interested in his response even though I'm pretty sure he won't agree.   
  

I'd have to wait for a daily topic that makes it relevant, right?

We're taught not to modify a text if we value it but that's thinking like moderns.  Luke and Matthew felt free to change Mark precisely because they valued it.  It was a living work.  As soon as a text is fixed you're forced to either accept it or reject it in toto.  It's only at that point fundamentalism becomes possible. 

sberry said
Just finished Gospels Before The Books (2018) by Matthew Larsen of Yale.  He has a perspective that was new to me, essentially that Mark was not a set-piece "book" but rather a constantly evolving collection of notes, stories, and sayings (possibly organized thematically like you would a recipe collection) with perhaps multiple authors.  The person who wrote "Matthew" did not write a different book but finished the same project that "Mark" was working on, if in fact they were different people or groups.  Thus, Luke had the older collection ("Mark") and complained about its organization when writing something different.
Professor Ehrman seems to think of the four gospel authors as separate people who wrote separate finished books.
Just wondering if Bart or other scholars have addressed Larsen's hypothesis?

In some ways it is similar, but on a much smaller scale, to what BruceRMcF has been describing here as Bilby's theory of the continuous growth of the gospel corpus. In theory, it's possible, but we would have to allow for the final redactor of Mark’s gospel stamping it with a definite shape, structure, and consistent style. To such an extent that he would deserve to be called a genuine author. And Matthew is clearly making definite changes in direction, not mere additions so I would attribute the role and title of author as well. That being said, there's no doubt that Matthew, Luke, John, as well as the authors of non-canonical gospels viewed the tradition and prior works as fluid and changeable to a very high degree. This should be expected as a common characteristic of storytelling, even in written works. Think of all the various versions of Greek and Roman myths, rewriting of traditional plays. Learning how to write and craft stories was largely an exercise in rewriting Homer, not just imitating but emulating earlier works. How might one improve upon a story or tell it from a different perspective. Shakespeare did this, rewriting the work of earlier playwrights. Screenwriters still do it today when making a movie out of a novel. 

Paul's view — God destroys the old tent and re-clothes the person in a new spiritual body — elegantly sidesteps all of the problems connected to 'resurrection of the old body':

• The cripple is not resurrected as a cripple because the new body is not the old body reassembled
• The baby is not resurrected as a baby for the same reason
• Cremation is irrelevant because God is creating something new
• The food chain problem dissolves entirely

Paul's view is not only more faithful to his own text — it is more theologically coherent and more philosophically defensible than the crude physicalism Wright insists on reading into him.

Wright's insistence on physical corpse resurrection as the only authentic Jewish and Pauline view actually creates more problems than it solves — philosophically, theologically, and exegetically.

Paul's actual view, read honestly, is:

• Still genuinely bodily — not a Greek escape into pure spirit
• Still compatible with Jewish resurrection hope
• Free from the absurdities of literal corpse reassembly
• Internally coherent with his own analogies and language

And it took no 700 pages to get there. Just an honest reading of what Paul actually wrote.

In this view the soma consists of three components, each composed of ever finer stuff.  There is the sarx, "flesh", the nous, "mind/soul" and pneuma, "spirit".  The problem for us as interpreters is that none of these terms meant for Paul exactly what they mean for us. For Paul even the "flesh" has a metaphysical aspect. 

Since only the pneuma can be transformed into the Resurrection Body, what happens to the sarx and the nous?   Paul is clear as mud, alas. Martin seems to believe that in the resurrection the sarx and the nous drop away.  In that case the disposition of Jesus' sarx would be secondary to Paul.  No tomb required. Prof Ehrman, on the other hand, thinks (I asked him) both the sarx and the nous are transformed into pneuma.   I'm content to observe the argument and not have an opinion. 

I think I'll take a look at Larsen's book, thanks. 

Why don't you go over to Prof Ehrman's Recent Posts page and ask him?   I'd be interested in his response even though I'm pretty sure he won't agree.