1:20.47 of the video
Luke’s Baptism Story is a variant of Mark & Matthew which allude to Psalm 2 verse 7.
The Triumphant Messiah (titled by biblehub.com)
verse 6
“I have installed My King on Zion, upon My holy mountain.”
verse 7
I will proclaim the decree spoken to Me by the LORD: “You are My Son; today I have become Your Father.
[Psalm 2: 7 seems to have also been translated as I will declare the decree: the Lord hat said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I gotten thee.]
verse 8
Ask Me, and I will make the nations Your inheritance, the ends of the earth Your possession
Steefen
By Jesus’ temptation account, Jesus would not ask for nations to be his inheritance and the ends of the earth his possession.
Back to the Video
This is my Son in whom I am well pleased
versus
Today I have begotten you.
James Bradford Pate
M.Phil in History of Biblical Interpretation from Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati, OH
M.A. in Hebrew Bible from Jewish Theological Seminary
M.Div. from Harvard Divinity School
In this post, I will talk 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. …
One might ask if “today I have begotten you” in Luke 3:22 contradicts Luke’s virgin birth story, in which Jesus is born as the Christ (Luke 2:11). If that is the case, wouldn’t “in you I am well pleased” be the reading that makes more sense within Luke’s Gospel? Ehrman’s response to that appears to be that Luke contradicts himself, or at least appears to do so. On page 65, Ehrman states:
“According to Luke’s infancy narrative, Jesus was born the Christ (2:11). But in at least one of the speeches of Acts he is understood to have become the Christ at his baptism (10:37-38; possibly 4:27); whereas in another Luke explicitly states that he became Christ at his resurrection (2:36). It may be that in yet another speech (3:20) Jesus is thought to be the Christ only in his parousia. Similarly ‘inconsistent’ are Luke’s predications of the titles Lord and Savior to Jesus. Thus, Jesus is born the Lord in Luke 2:11, and in Luke 10:1 he is designated Lord while living; but in Acts 2:36 he is said to have been become Lord at his resurrection. So too, in Luke 2:11 he is born Savior, and in Acts 13:23-24 he is designated Savior while living; but according to Acts 5:31 he is said to have been made Savior at the resurrection. Nor does the title Son of God…escape this seemingly erratic kind of treatment: Jesus is born the Son of God in Luke 1:32-35, descended Son of God according to the genealogy of 3:23-28, and declared to be Son of God while living (e.g., Luke 8:28; 9:35); but Acts 13:33 states that he became the Son of God at his resurrection.”
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Dr. Daniel Wallace
In one instance, there is not a reference to Psalm 2: 7, in the other instance there is a reference to Psalm 2: 7.
Codex Bezae has, Today I have begotten you. Codex Bezae is a fifth century manuscript at Cambridge. I have begotten you comes from Ps 2. It does not mean God adopted Jesus on the day of his baptism. It means this is the day I am making it known in public that you are the king, the Messiah.
Steefen
A man is being baptized. Today I have begotten this man makes no biological sense. Today, when you decided to get baptized, I have turned that decision into giving you new life.
pick up at 1:24:30 / 2:11:11
Steefen
A man is being baptized. Today I have begotten this man makes no biological sense. Today, when you decided to get baptized, I have turned that decision into giving you new life (begotten works in this sense).
Dr. Daniel Wallace
I have begotten you comes from Ps 2. It does not mean God adopted Jesus on the day of his baptism. It means this is the day I am making it known in public that you are the king, the Messiah.
Steefen
Tell us about the succession, then.
Who was rejected? Was a pharaoh type or a King Saul type rejected. Was Pontius Pilate rejected in the story? Was Emperor Tiberius rejected in the story?
What were his duties as king?
David designed a temple built by Solomon. King Herod the Great had architectural plans, what was King Jesus’ architectural plan?
Augustus Caesar and King Herod the Great had succession plans: kings have succession plans. What was Jesus’ succession plan?
Kings have military endeavors. What were Jesus’ military endeavors?
Day of enthronement? There was no crown or thrown on his baptism day.
Is the baptism a declaration of kingship?
Prof. Bart D. Ehrman
Yes (the baptism is a declaration of kingship.)
Luke’s version of the voice does quote Psalm 2.
“Today I have begotten you” [at Ps 2] is very different from “Today I have declared that I begot you before.”
The voice says the former [Today I have begotten you.]
Steefen
Prof. Ehrman is saying Luke’s version is quoting Ps 2: 7.
I see an allusion with the phrase, You are my son, but I see that in Mark, Matt, and Luke.
Luke Chapter 3, verse 22
And a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.”
Matthew Chapter 3, verse 17
And a voice came from the heavens, saying,
This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.
Mark Chapter 1, verse 11
And a voice came from the heavens,
You are my beloved son; with you I am well pleased.
Why not Mark and Matt?
Is it only in Bezae but not modern translations?
Allow Ps 2: 7 to take precedence over Lk 3: 22, then Jesus is being enthroned at baptism.
As a believer Wallace recoils from the idea that the earliest Christology was a form of ** you do not have permission to see this link **. But the evidence is there.
Prof Ehrman has written a lot of fine popular books, entertaining and informative. But if you want to understand his real contribution to NT scholarship seek out ** you do not have permission to see this link **. As scholarly works they are naturally denser and more meticulous in their presentation. But don’t let that scare you off. Sometimes down in the weeds is where you want to be.
Stephen said
As a believer Wallace recoils from the idea that the earliest Christology was a form of ** you do not have permission to see this link **. But the evidence is there.Prof Ehrman has written a lot of fine popular books, entertaining and informative. But if you want to understand his real contribution to NT scholarship seek out ** you do not have permission to see this link **. As scholarly works they are naturally denser and more meticulous in their presentation. But don’t let that scare you off. Sometimes down in the weeds is where you want to be.
Enoch was “adopted” when, as the story goes, he, the Son of Man, was “adopted” into the family of archangels.
Steefen
Why not Mark and Matthew? Answer: Codex Bezae only goes to Psalm 2: 7 with Luke’s version.
Bart Ehrman’s Post Referenced by Robert
When one looks beyond the relationship of ** you do not have permission to see this link ** at Jesus’ baptism do not so much create an inadmissable inconsistency as highlight tensions otherwise found—indeed, consistently found—throughout Luke’s portrayal of Jesus.
An obvious example comes in Luke’s depiction of Jesus as the Messiah. According to Luke’s infancy narrative, Jesus was born the Christ (2:11). But in at least one of the speeches of Acts he is understood to have become the Christ at his baptism (10:37–38; possibly 4:27); whereas in another Luke explicitly states that he became the Christ at his resurrection (2:38). It may be that in yet another speech (3:20) Jesus is thought to be the Christ only in his parousia.
God actually did something at that moment, that he actually conferred a special status upon Jesus (“Today I have begotten you”).
AND that’s where I’ll pick up in the next post.
Steefen
Today, when you decided to get baptized, I have turned that decision into giving you new life (begotten works in this sense).
Religious ceremonies have significance.
Bart Ehrman Post (continued on the following day’s post)
It is commonly known that for Luke’s source, the Gospel of Mark, the heavenly voice at the transfiguration echoes the heavenly voice at the baptism. But whereas the first makes its pronouncement in the second person, apparently addressing only Jesus (“You are my beloved Son,” ** you do not have permission to see this link **). Luke of course used Mark’s account in creating his own, and no attempt to reconstruct the heavenly words of Luke’s baptism scene can afford to overlook the voice at the transfiguration. Here the textual situation is much clearer. Luke has changed Mark’s heavenly voice in the second instance, so that now rather than confirming to the disciples that Jesus is the “beloved” Son, it confirms that Jesus is the “elect” Son: “This is my Son, my chosen one” Luke 9: 35
** you do not have permission to see this link **
…34While Peter was speaking, a cloud appeared and enveloped them, and they were afraid as they entered the cloud. 35** you do not have permission to see this link **
– biblehub.com
Steefen
Reading 1 Enoch and 2 Enoch, the Son of Man was the Son of God, the Chosen, the Elect One.
Bart
If the voice in Luke’s transfiguration scene refers back to the scene of Jesus’ baptism and confirms to the disciples what was there revealed to Jesus, that he “has been chosen” (perfect tense), one is hardpressed to see how the more commonly attested text of ** you do not have permission to see this link ** could be original. For this reading (“You are my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased”) constitutes a mere identification formula in which Jesus is recognized as the Son of God. It is only in the variant reading, the one that is attested in virtually all the earliest witnesses (i.e. the Patristic sources of the second and third centuries), that God is actually said to confer a new status upon Jesus (“Today I have begotten you”). Only in the theologically difficult reading is God said to “elect” Jesus in a manner presupposed in 9:35, that is, through a quotation of the royal adoption formula drawn from the second Psalm.
Steefen
One goes to Psalm for This is my Son, but one could go to Enoch, for The Chosen, The Elect–and yes, the Son of Man figure in Enoch is also God’s Son.
Dr. Daniel Wallace
Plutarch could be writing about a historical character in two separate books but telescopes in the second book.
In one gospel the Roman centurion sends someone to Jesus to ask for a healing for the Roman centurion’s servant.
In another gospel that is telescoped to the Roman centurion approached Jesus for a healing of his servant.
Steefen
You want to open a can worms?
Stephen said
As a believer Wallace recoils from the idea that the earliest Christology was a form of ** you do not have permission to see this link **. But the evidence is there.Prof Ehrman has written a lot of fine popular books, entertaining and informative. But if you want to understand his real contribution to NT scholarship seek out ** you do not have permission to see this link **. As scholarly works they are naturally denser and more meticulous in their presentation. But don’t let that scare you off. Sometimes down in the weeds is where you want to be.
I found those books less intimidating than I expected given that they are considered ‘academic’ vs. for the ‘general public’. More in-depth and with a touch less humor, but still relatively easy reads.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)