Does the Gospel of Luke say begotten son

Does the Gospel of Luke say begotten son

At the baptism of Jesus, a voice from heaven speaks, but what exactly does it say? In almost every single translation the wording reads to a similar effect. beloved son, in who God is well pleased.

Luke 3:22 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. KJV

Luke 3:22 and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.” NIV

Luke 3:22 and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form, like a dove; and a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.” ESV

However, there is a textual variant at this point that some people do believe is actually the correct reading. The voice, it is claimed, actually said “You are My Son; this day have I begotten you.'” or maybe today rather than this day.

This is a reference back to Psalm 2 where we find these words.

Psalm 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

 

What is the evidence for the variant reading and which one is the more likely to be the correct reading. First off, we should note that most scholars reject the variant reading and it is not found in the critical text (NA/UBS text) or the textus receptus and so this is why no mainstream translation reads this way. This does not automatically mean that the variant is incorrect but it is important to note none the less.

Bart Ehrman, however, argues that the words are original to Luke 3:22. On his Blog, the Bart Ehrman blog he makes the following claims.

”

 The fifth century manuscript Codex Bezae is the *only* Greek manuscript that has the reading “You are my son, Today I have begotten you.” The Greek manuscripts that were produced before Bezae, and all those produced afterwards, have a different reading, the one you will find in most Bible translations, “You are my beloved son, in you I am well pleased.”

The point of my post was not to give conclusive evidence that the reading found in virtually all the manuscripts is the *wrong* one; it was to show that Patristic evidence is valuable because it shows that in the second and third Christian centuries, it was the *other* reading (the one that eventually came to be found in Codex Bezae) that was most widespread and popular. Unfortunately, virtually all the manuscripts that once had that reading no longer survive. This is demonstrated almost conclusively by the Patristic evidence (and principally by that evidence). That means that even though the reading is found in only one manuscript, it used to be very different, and that this reading is our best attested reading from the earliest period.”
More Arguments over Luke 3:22 – The Bart Ehrman Blog

We shall address these claims and see if the reading that is found in all major translations really is the “wrong” one.

 

The variant reading is found in Codex Bezae (D) as Bart correctly states. Codex Bezae is a diglot manuscript that contains a Greek and Latin text. On the left page it has the Greek text and on the right it has the Latin. In both the Greek and Latin Codex Bezae has the words (“You are my Son, today I have begotten you”).

• “σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱός μου, ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε”
• : “Filius meus es tu, ego hodie genui te.”

Codex Bezae is the sole Greek witness to this variant. All other Greek manuscripts that contain this portion of Luke read as per the traditional reading, including the old favourites of textual critics Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.  So when it comes to the Greek manuscript witness, the overwhelming evidence supports that of the traditional reading. It should also be pointed out that all other lineages of the text read as is found in the traditional text. It is primarily on the evidence of these two manuscripts that many scholars will assert a correct reading, even when they go against the majority of manuscripts and patristic evidence.

There are, however, a small number of Old Latin manuscripts that support the reading found in Codex Bezae (about 7)

These include

• Codex Veronensis (b): 5th Century
• Codex Corbeiensis  I (ff2): 8th-10th Century
• Codex Vercellensis (a): late 4th Century
• Codex Sangermanensis (g1): 10th Century

The old Latin texts often have a tendency of adding to the scriptures and paraphrasing the texts. They often have allusions to old traditions but not necessarily that these traditions were in scripture.

 

Codex Vercellensis, a 4th Century manuscript has an extra clause in Matthew 3:15 which has a bright light that flashed out of the riverJordan and terrifying the crowds.
In Codex Colbertinus, has a clause in Luke 23:5 “He alienates both our sons and our wives from us, and does not baptize as we do,”

 

 

Further to the manuscript evidence there is also some patristic evidence that supports the reading of Codex D. It is clearly on the patristic evidence upon which Bart bases his claim regarding the words being original to Luke, as he himself stated in the earlier quotation.

Justin Martyr stated that it was declared by the father with a voice from heaven at his baptism that “ ‘You are My Son: this day have I begotten You;'” In fact Justin states this on a number of occasions. 

but then the Holy Ghost, and for man’s sake, as I formerly stated, lighted on Him in the form of a dove, and there came at the same instant from the heavens a voice, which was uttered also by David when he spoke, personating Christ, what the Father would say to Him: ‘You are My Son: this day have I begotten You;’ [the Father] saying that His generation would take place for men, at the time when they would become acquainted with Him: ‘You are My Son; this day have I begotten you.’
Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho chapter 88

For this devil, when [Jesus] went up from the river Jordan, at the time when the voice spoke to Him, ‘You are my Son: this day have I begotten You,’ is recorded in the memoirs of the apostles to have come to Him and tempted Him, even so far as to say to Him, ‘Worship me;’ and Christ answered him, ‘Get behind me, Satan: you shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve.’ 
Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho chapter 103

Justin Martyr is mid 2nd Century and so is a very early witness to the words being said at the Baptism of Jesus.

But there is other patristic evidence that we must also take into account. Clement of Alexandria, a late 2nd early 3rd Century church father also stated the words were proclaimed at the Baptism of Jesus.

For at the moment of the Lord’s baptism there sounded a voice from heaven, as a testimony to the Beloved, You are My beloved Son, today have I begotten You.
Clement of Alexandria The Paedagogus (Instructor) book 1 chapter 6 

 

Methodius also stated this:

“Now, in perfect agreement and correspondence with what has been said, seems to be this which was spoken by the Father from above to Christ when He came to be baptized in the water of the Jordan, ‘Thou art my son: this day have I begotten thee;’”
(Methodius, Banquet of the Ten Virgins, Discourse 8, Chapter 9).

As did Lactantius:

“When He first began to reach maturity He was baptized by the prophet John in the river Jordan…Then a voice from heaven was heard: ‘Thou art my Son, to-day have I begotten Thee.’ Which voice is found to have been foretold by David. And the Spirit of God descended upon Him, formed after the appearance of a white dove.”
(Lactantius, Divine Institutes, Book 4, Chapter 15).

Hilary of Poitiers, a 4th Century church father stated the words were said at the Baptism a couple of times.

“Nor are we left in doubt how He was thus anointed with the Spirit of God and with power, when we listen to the Father’s voice, as it spoke when He came up out of the Jordan, Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee,”
(Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book 9, Section 13).

“I remember that a voice was heard from Heaven, which said, ‘This is My beloved Son, in Whom I have been well pleased; hear ye Him.’ How can it be said that they did not hear the voice of God, when the voice which they heard itself asserted that it was the Father’s voice? But perhaps the dwellers in Jerusalem had not heard what John had heard in the solitude of the desert,”
(Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book 9, Section 20).

 

The words being spoken at the baptism most certainly do have patristic support. However, what is also interesting to note is that not one of these patristic writers attribute to the words having been recorded by Luke. This in itself does not prove that the words were not recorded by Luke but it is a fact that not one patristic writer said that the words were found in the Gospel of Luke.

Origen does not make any mention of the words being from Luke in his Homilies on Luke but rather says beloved son.

“The Lord was baptized, the heavens were opened and, ‘the Holy Spirit came down upon him.’ A voice from the heavens thundered and said, ‘this is my beloved son in whom I am pleased,’”
(Origen, Homilies on Luke Homily 27

 

When Irenaeus refers to the voice from heaven he directly quotes Matthew and uses the traditional reading

3. And then, [speaking of His] baptism, Matthew says, The heavens were opened, and He saw the Spirit of God, as a dove, coming upon Him: and lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased
Irenaeus Against Heresies book3 chapter 9.3

What we need to note here is that Irenaeus, unlike the other church fathers directly quotes the specific Gospel it was stated in.

Augustine says the words are not found in the most established copies worthy of credit.

Augustine ( De Cons. Evang. 2.31):
Illud vero quod nonnulli codices habent secundum Lucam hoc illa voce sonuisse
quod in psalmo scriptum est: filius meus es tu, ego hodie genui te, quamquam in
antiquioribus codicibus Graecis non inveniri perhibeatur, tamen si aliquibus
fide dignis exemplaribus confirmari possit, quid aliud quam utrumque
intellegendum est quolibet verborum ordine de caelo sonuisse?
But once more, with respect to that rendering which is contained in some codices of the
Gospel according to Luke, and which bears that the words heard in the heavenly voice were
those that are written in the Psalm, “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten Thee” [Ps
2:7]; although it is said not to be found in the more ancient Greek codices, yet if it can be
established by any copies worthy of credit, what results but that we suppose both voices to
have been heard from heaven, in one or other verbal order?

We also have to take the parallel accounts in Matthew and Mark into account. Both Matthew and Mark read in the same way as the traditional reading in Luke does in their accounts of the Baptism.

Mark 1:11 And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Matthew 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Another point to make note of is that Luke actually attributes the words of Psalm 2:7 to the resurrection in Acts 13:33

Acts 13:33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

Thus, if Luke recorded that the words were said at the Baptism then he would have contradicted what he wrote in Acts or he would have the words being stated twice.

 

We must now also look at Bart Ehrmans argument regarding the words being said at the baptism.

We see that Bart is making an argument regarding Jesus being adopted by God and the words stated were recorded at the baptism because it was  believed by some that Jesus had been adopted by God at his baptism.  He believes that the words were said at the Baptism and this is evidence of an adoptionistic view of early Christianity.

“Other Christians, however, rejected this claim and argued that Christ was a flesh and blood human being without remainder, a man who had been adopted by God to be his Son and to bring about the salvation of the world. To be sure, these representatives of adoptionism constituted no monolith; they differed among themselves, for example, concerning the moment at which Jesus’ adoption had taken place. But by the second century, most believed that it had occurred at his baptism, when the Spirit of God descended upon him and a voice called out from heaven, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you.””
Bart Ehrman, Orthodox corruption of scripture page 47

It should not go unnoticed that Bart Ehrman states that it is at the resurrection of Jesus that Paul believes that Jesus received his sonship.

“Paul’s speech in Acts 13 reveals traditional material that has been incorpo¬ rated in a surprisingly unedited form. 12 Here Paul makes the following pro¬ nouncement: “What God promised to the [Jewish] fathers he has fulfilled to us their children, by raising Jesus from the dead—as it is written in the sec¬ ond Psalm, ‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you’” (vv. 32—33). The force of the final clause should not be minimized: it is on the day of his resurrection that Jesus receives his sonship.”
Bart Ehrman, Orthodox corruption of scripture page 48

It is not my argument that this is indeed when Jesus received his sonship, he is declared the son from his conception, but rather this is when God declared that he had begotten Jesus.

 

This most likely came from the tradition of the Ebionites who it is said by Epiphanius used a corrupted version of the Gospel of Matthew and in their version the words are said at the Baptism.

13,1 But I shall resume the thread of my argument against Ebion—
because of the Gospel according to Matthew the course of the discussion
obliged me to insert the whole of the knowledge which I had gained.
(2) Now in what they call a Gospel according to Matthew, though it is not
the entire Gospel but is corrupt and mutilated—and they call this thing
“Hebrew”!—

13,6 But the beginning of their Gospel is, “It came to pass in the days
of Herod, king of Judaea, < in the high-priesthood of Caiaphas >, that
< a certain > man, John < by name >, came baptizing with the baptism
of repentance in the river Jordan, and he was said to be of the lineage of
Aaron the priest, the son of Zacharias and Elizabeth, and all went out unto
him.”26 (7) And after saying a good deal it adds, “When the people had
been baptized Jesus came also and was baptized of John. And as he came
up out of the water the heavens were opened, and he saw the Holy Spirit
in the form of a dove which descended and entered into him. And (there
came) a voice from heaven saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am
well pleased,27 and again, This day have I begotten thee.28 And straightway
a great light shone round about the place.29 Seeing this,” it says, “John said
unto him, Who art thou, Lord?30 And again (there came) a voice to him
from heaven, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.31 (8)
And then,” it says, “John fell down before him and said, I pray thee, Lord,
do thou baptize me. But he forbade him saying, Let it alone, for thus it is
meet that all be fulfi lled.”32
https://gnosis.study/library/%D0%9A%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0/ENG/Epiphanius%20of%20Salamis%20-%20The%20Panarion,%20Book%20I%20(Sects%201-46).pdf

So we see that this statement being linked with the Baptism of Jesus at least seems to go back to the Ebionites but is connected to their Hebrew “Matthew” not Luke. Their version of Matthew also has many interpolated statements that are not found in the Gospel of Matthew today.

The Ebionites rejected the virgin birth and believed that it was at the Baptism that Jesus became the son of God and that the Christ, a distinct being from Jesus, came and dwelt within him.

Epiphanius accuses them of corrupting other books also

15,1 But they use certain other books as well—supposedly the so-called
Travels of Peter written by Clement, though they corrupt their contents
while leaving a few genuine passages. (2) Clement himself convicts them
of this in every way in his general epistles which are read in the holy
churches, because his faith and speech are of a different character than
their spurious productions in his name in the Travels. He himself teaches
celibacy, and they will not accept it. He extols Elijah, David, Samson and
all the prophets, whom they abhor.33
15,3 In the Travels they have changed everything to suit themselves
and slandered Peter in many ways, saying that he was baptized daily34 for
purifi cation as they are. And they say he abstained from fl esh and dressed
meat as they do, and any other dish made from meat—since both Ebion
himself, and Ebionites, entirely abstain from these.35 (4) When you ask one
of them why they do not eat meat, having no explanation they answer
foolishly and say, “Since it is a product of the congress and intercourse of
bodies, we do not eat it.” Thus, according to their own foolish regurgitations, they are wholly abominable themse

 

We also see that in an argument between Faustus and Augustine in the 4th Century, Faustus does refer to the words having been recorded in the book of Luke. Faustus argues that the Gospel of Matthew includes a generation of Jesus, the son of David, which he believes is a different Jesus thah Jesus the son of God. He does not believe that this Jesus became the son of God until his baptism. His argument will be to demonstrate this.

He tells us that the person of whom he spoke at the outset as the son of David was baptized by John, and became the Son of God on this particular occasion, when about thirty years old, according to Luke, when also the voice was heard saying to Him, “You are my Son; this day have I begotten You.” Luke 3:22-23 It appears from this, that what was born, as is supposed, of Mary thirty years before, was not the Son of God, but what was afterwards made so by baptism at Jordan, that is, the new man, the same as in us when we were converted from Gentile error, and believe in God. This doctrine may or may not agree with what you call the Catholic faith; at all events, it is what Matthew says, if Matthew is the real author. The words, You are my Son, this day I have begotten You, or, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, do not occur in connection with the story of Mary’s motherhood, but with the putting away of sin at Jordan.

Now we must notice that while Faustus does say that the statement was recorded in Luke, he says that the words in Matthew were either the same that are recorded in Luke, or as we have them today.

Faustus also argues that for Jesus to have been the son of David he must have been begotten by Joseph.

3. For our part, while no one can alter our conviction that the Son of God comes from God, we might indulge a credulous disposition, to the extent of admitting the fiction, that Jesus became the Son of God at Jordan, but not that the Son of God was born of a woman. Then, again, the son said to have been born of Mary cannot properly be called the son of David, unless it is ascertained that he was begotten by Joseph. You say he was not, and therefore you must allow him not to have been the son of David, even though he were the son of Mary. The genealogy proceeds in the line of Hebrew fathers from Abraham to David, and from David to Joseph; and as we are told that Joseph was not the real father of Jesus, Jesus cannot be said to be the son of David. To begin with calling Jesus the son of David, and then to go on to tell of his being born of Mary before the consummation of her marriage with Joseph, is pure madness. And if the son of Mary cannot be called the son of David, on account of his not being the son of Joseph, still less can the name be given to the Son of God.

He also argues that Mary was not of the tribe of Judah but rather from Levi.

4. Moreover, the Virgin herself appears to have belonged not to the tribe of Judah, to which the Jewish kings belonged, and which all agree was David’s tribe, but to the priestly tribe of Levi. This appears from the fact that the Virgin’s father Joachim was a priest; and his name does not occur in the genealogy. How, then, can Mary be brought within the pale of relationship to David, when she has neither father nor husband belonging to it? Consequently, Mary’s son cannot possibly be the son of David, unless you can bring the mother into some connection with Joseph, so as to be either his wife or his daughter.

Augustine gives a reply to Faustus

 

Again, He who was called, even from the Virgin’s womb, God-with-us, is said to have heard, when He was baptized by John, a voice from heaven, saying, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” Will Faustus say that to be called God is less than to be called the Son of God? He seems to think so, for he tries to prove that because this voice came from heaven at the time of the baptism, therefore, according to Matthew, He must then have become the Son of God; whereas the same evangelist, in a previous passage, quotes the sacred announcement made by the prophet, in which the child born of the Virgin is called God-with-us.

7. The voice from heaven at the Jordan should be compared with the voice heard on the Mount. Matthew 17:5 In neither case do the words, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased,” imply that He was not the Son of God before; for He who from the Virgin’s womb took the form of a servant “was in the form of God, and thought it no robbery to be equal with God.”

Augustine Contra Faustum, Book XXIII
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/140623.htm

 

It is clear that Augustine was aware of Greek manuscripts that contained the reading but that he understood that it was not in the older manuscripts.

But once
more, with respect to that rendering which is contained in some codices of the Gospel according
to Luke, and which bears that the words heard in the heavenly voice were those that are written in
the Psalm, “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten Thee;”811 although it is said not to be found
in the more ancient Greek codices, yet if it can be established by any copies worthy of credit, what
results but that we suppose both voices to have been heard from heaven, in one or other verbal
order?
Augustine Chapter XIV.—Of the Words or the Voice that Came from Heaven Upon Him When He Had Been
Baptized
https://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/0354-0430,_Augustinus,_De_Consensu_Evangelistarum_Libri_Quatuor_[Schaff],_EN.pdf

 

It is clear that theer was no reference in Matthew to these words

31. Thereafter Matthew proceeds thus: “And Jesus, when He was baptized, went up straightway
out of the water; and, lo, the heavens were opened unto Him, and He saw the Spirit of God
descending like a dove, and lighting upon Him; and, lo, a voice from heaven saying, This is my
beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” This incident is also recorded in a similar manner by
two of the others, namely Mark and Luke. But at the same time, while preserving the sense intact,
they use different modes of expression in reproducing the terms of the voice which came from
heaven. For although Matthew tells us that the words were, “This is my beloved Son,” while the
other two put them in this form, “Thou art my beloved Son,” t

Hypothesis:

It is my postulation that there was an oral tradition regarding the words being spoken at the Baptism that was in play at the time of Justin Martyr. Justin and the other church fathers pulled on the tradition rather than the scripture when they made their statements. The words were then later added to the Gospel of Luke in certain old Latin manuscripts in order to reconcile the tradition with the Gospel narrative.

 

 

If you liked this study please subscribe here

You can buy my books on Amazon there is a link here 

Join our Patreon membership here or you can buy me a coffee through paypal