Luke 3:22 footnote and Adoptionism

[manchester]

At Jesus's baptism, a voice from heaven said something to Jesus.

and the Holy Spirit descended on him in the form of a dove. And a voice from heaven said, "You are my Son; in you I am well pleased." (Luke 3:22)

The cross-reference is to Psalm 2:7, which says

He said to me, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father.

Obviously, the text is similar - similar enough that it's cross-referenced. Yet the second part of the verse is different ("today I have become your Father" has become "in you I am well pleased.")

There is a footnote to Luke 3:22, at least in some translations, noting that "3:22 Some manuscripts read and today I have become your Father."

There is scriptural evidence in favor of the footnote. In Hebrews, Paul is explaining to skeptics that Jesus is greater than the angels. At one point, he states, "For to which of the angels did He ever say: 'You are My Son, Today I have begotten You?'" (Heb 1:5). The implication is clear - somewhere, in a source that the readers of Hebrews would be familiar with, God the Father says to Jesus the wording of Psalm 2:7. The logical conclusion seems to be that the wording in the footnote was originally the main text.

(1) What manuscripts include the footnoted text?
(2) Is the footnoted text the original text?
(3) If not, how do you explain Hebrews 1:5?

 

[Ziggy]

>(1) What manuscripts include the footnoted text?"

D (Codex Bezae), 7 Old Latin MSS, Justin, (Clement) Methodius, Hilary, Tyconius, Faustus-Milevis, Latin MSS according to Augustine.

>(2) Is the footnoted text the original text?

Not unless you want to favor a single Greek MS over all others, and a single (OL) version over all others.

(3) If not, how do you explain Hebrews 1:5?

A quote not from the baptism account of Jesus, but from Ps 2:7 LXX.

>"somewhere, in a source that the readers of Hebrews would be familiar with, God the Father says to Jesus the wording of Psalm 2:7."

And that source would be the LXX, just as nearly every OT quotation in Hebrews is from the LXX.

 

[robycop3]

I don't know if Luke 3:22 is in reference to Psalm 2:7 or not, but Acts 13:33, Hebrews 1:5, & Hebrews 5:5 all are.

There's a silly KJVO argument about 'begotten' vs 'become your father'. Why is it so silly? All they need do is look up the definition of 'beget'!

 

[Liz Ward]

Roby, fancy meeting you here

Liz

 

[Dr. Bob]

Roby is a faithful poster on the BB, well appreciated for his comments. And you, Liz? I don't know you, but WELCOME.

 

[robycop3]

Hi, Liz!

There's something on this board for every Christian, especially Baptists. And there are some ole buddies from s'm other boards here too.

How's everything in your part of Great Britain?

And what's YOUR take on this thread?

Mine is...since JESUS existed before anything we can see, His 'begetting' is referring to His rising from the grave into His former state, having fulfilled all the Scriptures about His first coming.

 

[Liz Ward]

Thanks Bob. I only joined yesterday.

My take on this thread, Roby? off the top of my head I'd say the Luke 3.22 "today i have become your father" has to be an error.

I haven't thought it through or examined the evidence though ...

Liz

 

[KeithS]

The parallel gospel account in Matthew seems to go with the original reading rather than the footnote. Haven't checked to see if it also has footnotes - but that would seem to indicate the original reading is more accurate as well.

 

[Phillip]

Uh, maybe this sounds like a real dumb question, but where do the foot-notes themselves come from? Are they only on later manuscripts or are they also on the oldest manuscripts? Or, do they only appear in certain later translations?

 

[Ziggy]

Philip: "Uh, maybe this sounds like a real dumb question, but where do the foot-notes themselves come from? Are they only on later manuscripts or are they also on the oldest manuscripts? Or, do they only appear in certain later translations?"

Actually a good question. Footnoted variants in various MVs are based on manuscripts, but in most cases they fail to identify the manuscripts as to later/earlier or according to which texttype they may reflect. Only the NKJV seems to come close by identifying at least the NU text (Nestle/UBS) and M text (Byzantine/majority) in distinction from the base TR used in the NKJV. But it would serve the readers of all translations well if they were more specific instead of saying only "Some MSS read..." most of the time.