Why do you think this verse in Mat 4:17, Luke 3:22 never changed back to its original?

Question

It reads, "Then a voice from heaven was heard, "Thou art my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased." - Mat 17.

Most people turn a blind eye to this, but it is so important. Historical Church commentaries provide what this verse actually reads as, "Then a voice from heaven was heard: 'Thou art my Son, today have I begotten Thee'. Not only is this correct version shown in Hebrews 1:5, Psalm 2:7 but it is documented in nearly every early Christian writing by church fathers and just inspired Christians pre-Nicene (4th century A.D). Why do you think it was changed and why do you think it has never been corrected within our bibles?

The Early Christian writings as proof below----->

Clement of Alexandria in his 2nd century work, THE INSTRUCTOR,“For at the moment of the Lord's baptism there sounded a voice from heaven, as a testimony to the Beloved, 'Thou art My beloved Son, to-day have I begotten Thee" Methodtus (A.D. 260-312), in his works THE BANQUET OF THE TEN VIRGINS; OR, CONCERNING CHASTITY, he writes "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"

Lactantius (A.D. 260-330.), in his THE DIVINE INSTITUTES, he writes "Then a voice from heaven was heard 'Thou art my Son, today 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. From that time He began to perform the greatest miracles, not by magical tricks, which display nothing true and substantial..."

DIALOGUE OF JUSTIN WITH TRYPHO, A JEW, Justin writes about Jesus "He was in the habit of working as a carpenter when among men, making ploughs and yokes; by which He taught the symbols of righteousness and an active life; 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: `Thou art My Son: this day have I begotten Thee"

Answer 1

I think the answer is obvious to most. If the J man first became God's "Son" at the age of 30 then that would mean that the J man wasn't born as "the Son of God" but only got this title through baptism, something which is available to all of us.

So to keep the J man special and seperate from the average Joe the church needs to have the J man born as the "Son" of God and not become the "Son" of God later on in life.

John 3:16 is another verse you should look into if you are interested in how scripture is manipulated for the purpose of diefying the J man.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_3:16

Answer 2

The original manuscript of the Gospel of Matthew has never been discovered, and probably no longer exists. The author of Matthew was very familiar with the Jewish scriptures (at least in Greek translation) and makes frequent references to them - indeed drawing connections between the first century biographies of Jesus (such as Mark, "Q", and various oral tradtions) and the older prophetic literature was the whole point of the work. It was written in during the early period of Christianity and shortly after the destruction of the Temple, a period when Jews such as "Matthew" were scrambling to collect and make sense of their written heritage.

The differences between Matthew's text and those of the older Jewish scriptures may have been deliberate new interpretations on "Matthew's" part or may have been errors - but there is no reason to assume that the text we have now was substantially altered from what "Matthew" wrote originally.

Answer 3

The Bible stories of Jesus were ever-evolving and this is just plainly obvious by a simple comparison between Mark (the first one to be penned) and Matthew (basically a rewrite of Mark with edits and additional fiction). From Mark to Matthew, Jesus grows in power. In Mark, he can't do great miracles in his home town, in Matthew he merely CHOOSES not to do them. In Mark, he has to try TWICE to heal a blind man and spit on his eyes, in Matthew, no spitting and no trying twice. In Mark, Jesus curses a fig tree and it takes all night for it to wither. In Matthew, it withers instantly. I could go on and on like this but you get the idea. Then, AFTER the canonical gospels were in circulation (there were MANY other gospels written during this fiction writing frenzy), the desire to increase Jesus was always there and thus these "corrections" crept into the subsequent copies and thankfully, we have many of the earlier copies to compare with and this is just ONE example from hundreds.

The answer as to why the original or earlier form is not instated into modern translations is because you never go back. You never decrease Jesus' power. You never alter any modern translation like that because that would be admitting an error in the translation which would then bring up doubt about OTHER passages. At best, the translations SOMETIMES will put a footnote and say in a rather misleading way that "some authorities omit 'in whom i am well pleased". ? No, they don't "omit" it, they CHANGED it. And a manuscript is not an authority. :(

It was originally altered to combat adoptionism. It remains altered for obvious reasons. Bart Ehrman covers this and more in his "Misquoting Jesus" book.

Answer 4

In textual criticism New Testament manuscripts take precedent over quotations from Church fathers. To make a modern comparison, we would find actual quotes from a recognized translation more reliable than a preacher's quotation of what he or she thought a verse said. Another reason quotations from the church fathers take a back seat to Bible manuscripts is that we can not be sure what they are quoting from. It could be from faulty memory or corrupted manuscripts.Quotations from the church fathers are interesting and are used to a relatively small degree in determining which variant readings should be preferred. In the case of the verses you quote the textual evidence from ancient Bible manuscripts is conclusively in favor of the translation that all translators have agreed upon. There is no conspiracy. If you doubt this you should take the time to learn textual criticism. The bottom line is that the translation you suggest is not supported by the reliable ancient ancient manuscripts. In fact, there is conclusive textual evidence to the contrary. All reputable scholars agree on this. If you wish to argue to the contrary you should develop some credible reasons why. A few quotes from the church fathers definitely does not qualify as a credible reason to contradict the conclusive textual evidence and the unanimous consensus of the legitimate, scholarly community. Sorry.

Answer 5

I suppose the answer would be that the NT editors were embarrassed at the suggestion that Christ was "begotten" only during his baptism. I believe the orthodox view is that Christ is co-eternal with the Father, and eternally begotten of him. No idea about the details of what the NT editors would actually have believed back then, though. Bart D. Ehrman's books might have something on this.

Answer 6

The only difference I can see is "beloved son" v's "today I have begotton Thee"
But we know that He (Jesus) was born "of a virgin", and that God spoke to His mother and Josef in dreams about the child who they would call Jesus/yeshua and that he would be the Messiah, so God had begotton Him (Jesus) before birth

Answer 7

In the book of Matthew it also reads ( it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven but to them it is not given) not every body belongs to Jesus and their are examples in the Bible that tells us this also.

Answer 8

Perhaps you are just looking at a part of the big picture. There has been much evidence and many documents uncovered that perhaps could enhance the current forms of the scriptures.

Answer 9

Jesus was begotten in the beginning.....At Jesus' baptism he was anointed as Christ.
I have never seen the scripture you refer to so I only know the new one...but God could have been referring to the fact that this truly was Jesus his firstborn.

Answer 10

Because this book has lots of hidden power