The great grandfather of the biblical Jesus was Yehoshua/Jesus III ...
Where d'you get that from?
Thank you. Scripture thanks you, too.
In Luke 3: 22; Those who would have you believe that Jesus was a god who became a man, changed the original verse, to; “Thou art my beloved son in who I am well pleased.”
In Luke 3: 22 ... the following authorities of the second, third, and fourth centuries read, “This day I have begotten thee,” vouched for by Codex D, and the most ancient copies of the old latin (a, b. c. ff.I), by Justin Martyr (AD 140), Clemens Alex, (AD. 190), Methodius (AD. 290), among the Greeks. And among the Latins, Lactaitius (AD 300), Hilary (AD) Juvencus (AD. 330), Faustus (AD. 400) and Augustine.
Fair point. Let's take a look:
The
vast majority of scholars/translators
reject the claim that 'begotten thee' is the original text, although the Catholic Jerusalem Bible says: “…And a voice came from heaven, ‘You are my Son; today have I fathered you.'”
'in you I am well pleased'
The entire Greek manuscript tradition, including such early copies as P4 (which goes back to the second or early third century), Codex א, B, and W (fourth century), Codex A (fifth century), and the countless Greek copies from the 6th century forward.
It is also found in some of the Old Latin manuscripts and in the Latin Vulgate, Syriac and Coptic manuscripts likewise support the traditional reading, as do the ancient Armenian, Georgian, Slavonic, and Ethiopic manuscripts.
'today I have begotten thee'
The fifth-century
Codex D is the sole Greek witness to the reading. However, more than half a dozen Old Latin manuscripts, one going back to the fourth century and several others to the fifth.
So, textually, the standard reading is the older/stronger tradition.
The texts that affirm the 'today I have begotten you'
are all of the Old Latin manuscript tradition – Codex D, the sole Greek copy, is actually a Greek/Latin diglot text (with Greek on one side of each page and the Old Latin text on the other).
A distinctive feature in these Latin MS is a tendency to expand readings and interpolated material. Codex Vercellensis (fourth-century)
the oldest manuscript to contain the 'today I have begotten you' reading adds that a bright light flashed out of the water of the Jordan, terrifying the crowds. Codex Colbertinus adds a section to Luke 23:5. Elsewhere (like several other Old Latin manuscripts) adds names for the two men who were crucified next to Jesus. Codex D suffers the same, even in its Greek text. And so on ... these are well known and well-attested.
Scholars generally agree that passages found
only in Codex D and the wider Old Latin tradition suggest the work of the interpolative tradition.
+++
With regard to Patristic tradition, Justin Martyr (2nd century) cites the 'begotten thee' wording. Justin doesn't mention Luke in his commentaries on the baptism of Jesus. He does attribute the account of the descent of the Holy Spirit in the shape of a dove to the “writings of the apostles” – not the entire account. He goes on to reference “the Scriptures” as saying “he (Jesus) appeared without comeliness” – an allusion to Isaiah 53:2. When he comes to quoting the voice from heaven, he cites the Old Testament – not the gospels – saying “from the heavens a voice, which was uttered also by David when he spoke, personating Christ, what the Father would say to Him.” Thus, rather than citing the gospels here, he points back to David’s words in the Psalms as prophecy and quotes from Psalm 2: “I will surely tell of the decree of the Lord: He said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.”
Justin’s “Dialogue with Trypho” (the work in which we find these quotes), like all the Fathers, cites and even combines different Scriptures, often in ways we would consider dubious if not unacceptable by modern sensibilities. Justin's aim is to show that Jesus is the fulfillment of the Old Testament. Thus his dependence on Old Testament citations to validate the baptism. It's a rhetorical device that runs throughout the way he argues in the book.
Thus, Justin may even inadvertently be the origin of this version of Jesus’ baptism story, later writers misunderstanding his clever argument as a straightforward account.
However, it is more likely that Justin is drawing on popular traditions about the episode of Jesus’ baptism that are not recorded in the gospels. However, this is not in itself proof of a redaction of Luke 3:22.
Clement of Alexandria and Origen both reference 'this day have I begotten you' at Jesus’ baptism, but do not cite Luke as the source.
When Origen preached
directly on Luke 3, he said:
"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, Homily 27: Luke 18-22). No mention of 'begotten'.
Methodius and Lactantius (late third to early fourth century), wrote)
“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).
“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).
The same for Hilary of Poitiers and Augustine of Hippo (fifth century) – citations without direct attribution to any book or text.
On the other hand, in his “harmony of the gospels,” Augustine explains:
"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,’ these different methods of speech serve but to convey the same sense…furthermore now, with regard to the circumstance that the first of them puts the saying thus, ‘In whom I am well pleased,’ the second thus, ‘In Thee I am well pleased;’ and the third thus, ‘In Thee it has pleased me;'” (Augustine, Harmony of the Gospels, Book 2, Chapter 14).
He does here reflect textual variants in the version he is using, but one that still ultimately affirms the traditional reading. Thus, while Augustine shows familiarity with a version of the
story where the words “this day have I begotten you” occur at Jesus’ baptism, He never places that tradition in Luke’s gospel (or any gospel, for that matter).
So while a diverse group of early church fathers do display an intriguingly persistent tradition of connecting Psalm 2:7 with Jesus’ baptism over the first five centuries of the church, none of them place that tradition in Luke 3:22. Indeed, whenever they interact with Luke’s gospel directly, they always cite something very much like the traditional reading.
Finally, Luke himself, in Acts, connects Psalm 2:7 with Jesus’
resurrection rather than his
baptism:
“And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers, this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus, as also it is written in the second Psalm, ‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you,'” (Acts 13:32-33).
Thus, where ever the tradition of connecting this text with Jesus’ baptism came from, it did not come from Luke.
Some of these unique readings seem to reflect very old traditions, but they certainly do
not reflect the original wording of the gospels. This is the case with their distinctive version of Luke 3:22, wherein the words of Psalm 2:7 are spoken from heaven. This interpretive connection between Jesus’ baptism and Psalm 2:7 is known to many early Christian writers, but none of them claimed to find it in the gospels, nor did they quote it as the wording of Luke 3:22. It is an interesting ancient interpretation of the prophetic significance of Psalm 2, but it has nothing to do with what Luke or any other New Testament author actually wrote.
All these oldest manuscripts were changed completely. They now read, “This is my son in whom I am well pleased.” Whereas the original variant was, “Thou art my Son. This day I have begotten thee.”
No, that's wrong. In fact it's the other way round, as the evidence demonstrates.
... while the serious biblical student know that they were not written by Luke...
Nope. Flat wrong.
