10
What parental role was exerted upon the Son? Norval Geldenhuys suggests: "At
the time of His conception by the Holy Ghost it was a question of the forming and development
of His human nature, but at the baptism it is a question of the public declaration of His
Messiahship..."
39
Psalm 2 is a royal psalm. "It was favored by the apostles as scriptural
confirmation of Jesus' messianic office and his expected glorious return with power and
authority...From the perspective of the typology, Jesus is the fulfillment of the psalm."
40
As a
result, Luke 3:22 is not a statement of the Father adopting the Son; however, it is a public
declaration of his Messiahship and kingship. Jesus would have then been identified as the heir to
the throne of David by referring to Ps 2:7.
In addition, Ehrman's view of the implications of the alternative variant is fallacious.
He argues that the alternative variant was intended by scribes to combat adoptionism because
"today I have begotten you" means at that point Jesus became God's elect/Christ.
41
It is perfectly within the realm of orthodoxy for the Father to declare the Messiahship
and kingship of the Son. So, Jesus is the Son in two ways. First, he is the Son because of who he
is: the eternal, preexistent Son of God. Second, he is the Son because of the Father's
proclamation.
42
The proclamation does not indicate that he was not Son or Messiah before the
declaration. It is simply a public identification for all of exactly who Jesus is and his temporal
function on earth and for all eternity: Son, Messiah, King. Ehrman seems to have found
adoptionism where it does not necessarily exist. If adoptionism does not necessarily exist, then it
is likewise quite possible that the variant did not arise in an effort to counteract such a doctrine.
In summary, the text-critical evidence as well as the exegesis of the variant (reading
[4]) both challenge Ehrman's thesis. The better choice is that the scribes did not intentionally
alter Luke 3:22 in order to combat adoptionism.
Jesus as God
Ehrman uses 1 Tim 3:16 and John 1:18 to indicate that early scribes altered the text in
the direction of orthodoxy; he said they altered texts which emphasized Jesus' humanity. In both
texts, stronger statements about the deity of Jesus are made in the variant.
43
1 Timothy 3:16
Let us evaluate 1 Tim 3:16 first. Let me say at the outset that I agree with Ehrman's
determination of the original text; it is the implication of the variants with which I disagree.
Ehrman states that there are four reasons for suspecting an intentional change from the original
o[j
to qeo,j by a scribe.
44
Only his second argument will be addressed here because it is the only
39
Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke: The English Text with Introduction,
Exposition, and Notes, NICNT, ed. F. F. Bruce (1951; reprint, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing
Company, 1979), 14647 (page citations are to the reprint edition).
40
Willem A. VanGemeren, "Psalms," in Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary: Old Testament, ed.
Kenneth L. Barker and John R. Kohlenberger III (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 1:794.
41
Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 667.
42
VanGemeren, "Psalms," 795.
43
Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 7782.
44
Ehrman must validate his reasoning for arguing that the variant change was intentional because this