A Critique of Bart Ehrman’s the Orthodox Corruption of Scripture Ladewig

Evangelical Theological Society Broadmoor Hotel: Colorado Springs, CO National Conference November 15, 2001

1

A Critique of Bart Ehrman’s The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture1

Stratton L. Ladewig, Th.M. Dallas Theological Seminary

Bart Ehrman has written a book entitled The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture.2 In this book, he argued that “proto-orthodox scribes of the second and third centuries occasionally modified their texts of Scripture in order to make them coincide more closely with the christological views embraced by the party that would seal its victory at Nicea and Chalcedon.”3 In other words, the scribes who were copying the text of the NT were intentionally altering the text; they altered the text in an effort to make it more “orthodox.”4 The four christologically controversial heresies Ehrman addressed were adoptionism,5 separationism,6 docetism,7 and patripassianism.8

This paper will be limited in scope in two ways; both limits will be in place because of the time limitations of this presentation. First, this paper will be limited to a critique of Ehrman’s views in regard to the Christological heresy of adoptionism. Although Ehrman possesses significant discussions on three heresies—adoptionism, separationism, and docetism—the heresy of adoptionism has been chosen to be evaluated versus the other two because

1 The original form of this paper is from the third chapter of my thesis: Stratton L. Ladewig, “An

Examination of the Orthodoxy of the Variants in Light of Bart Ehrman’s The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture” (Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 2000); however, this paper has been slightly revised. I want to thank Dr. Daniel Wallace and Dr. Hall Harris for their input as readers of my thesis.

2 Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993).

3 Ibid., 275. 4 In previous versions of this paper, I erroneously included at this point what I perceived to be two

implications of Ehrman’s thesis. I thank Michael Holmes and Bart Ehrman himself for helping me to correct these misperceptions. I include in the following my corrected misperceptions in order to indicate what Ehrman did not say. “An implication of this argument is that the original text of the NT was unorthodox (heretical) in some of its parts. A second implication is that the NT was inconsistent because he found four different Christological heresies in it.”

5 Adoptionism is the belief 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” (ibid., 47).

6 Separationism stated that Jesus was an ordinary human, the biological son of Mary and Joseph. At Jesus’ baptism, he received the divine Christ into his person. The Christ enabled Jesus during his earthly ministry. Then, at the point of suffering prior to Jesus’ crucifixion, the Christ withdrew from Jesus; thus, Jesus was left to suffer alone (ibid., 119).

7 Docetism is the heretical belief that Jesus was completely divine and not human at all. Jesus only appeared to be flesh and blood, like an apparition (ibid., 181).

8 Patripassianism is a heretical view of the Trinity which emphasizes the unity of God, causing a confusion of the persons of the Trinity. Patripassianism states “Christ was God the Father himself, come down to earth in human flesh” (ibid., 262). As a result, it was the Father who suffered on the cross—patripassianism (ibid.).

Evangelical Theological Society Broadmoor Hotel: Colorado Springs, CO National Conference November 15, 2001

2

2

adoptionism can “rightly claim the oldest pedigree among christological heresies.”9 Therefore, adoptionistic corruptions, if valid, should be the earliest to detect. If this early “corruption” can be demonstrated to be lacking, then the other “orthodox corruptions” should likewise be able to be diminished.

The second limitation is to only interact with the most significant adoptionistic passages which Ehrman discusses. I have chosen to focus on Luke 3:22, Mark 1:1, 1 Tim 3:16, and John 1:18 because they appear to be the verses upon which he focuses.10

Presentation and Evaluation of Ehrman’s Evidence about Adoptionism

At the outset, it is important to carefully explain the implication of adoptionism, which holds that Jesus was not God and was not preexistent. Adoptionism has significant salvific implications. If Jesus were merely man and not God, then his sacrifice would only be efficacious for one person; his sacrifice would not have even been efficacious for all of the elect. If Jesus were merely man, then his sacrifice would only hold a one-to-one correlation; he would have only died for one person. So, the issue of adoptionism bears directly into the broader issue of the salvation of humans.

Texts

Ehrman deals with texts which are related to several adoptionistic issues: (1) the virgin birth, (2) Jesus as adopted, (3) Jesus being the Son of God before his baptism, (4) mere humanity, (5) divinity, and (6) Jesus not being an ordinary human. Of significant importance to his argument are the texts which deal specifically with Jesus as the Son of God before his baptism, Jesus as begotten, and Jesus as God. The following discussion will be intentionally limited to these texts according to the guidelines presented above.

Jesus, Son of God before His Baptism Mark 1:1

Ehrman’s argument with relation to Mark 1:1 is simple. “Given the adoptionists’ view that Jesus’ sonship dates from the time of his baptism, it is not surprising to find textual corruptions that speak of him as God’s son even before this revelatory event.”11 So, it is

9 Ibid., 181. 10 I wrote Ehrman and asked him which verses possessed his most critical arguments with regard to

adoptionsim. He responded with a brief correspondence on October 14, 2000. In his correspondence, he suggested his most significant texts, which are the ones with which I have chosen to interact: Luke 3:22, Mark 1:1, 1 Tim 3:16, and John 1:18.

Other less significant adoptionist passages he discusses which will not be discussed in this paper are Luke 9:35, Luke 23:35, Acts 10:38, 1 John 5:18, Rom 1:3–4, Luke 2:43, Luke 3:21, Matt 1:18, Eph 4:9, Mark 1:3, John 19:40, 1 John 3:23, John 12:41, Luke 1–2, Mark 3:11, Luke 7:9, Luke 8:28, Luke 8:40, Luke 20:42, 2 Pet 1:2, Gal 2:20, 1 Tim 1:1, 2 Tim 1:10, Titus 3:6, Heb 13:20, Acts 20:28, 1 Pet 5:1, 1 Cor 10:5, 9, Rom 14:10, Matt 24:36, Luke 2:40, John 19:5, 1 Cor 15:47, Heb 2:18, Heb 10:29, and Col 1:22.

11 Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 72.

3

Ehrman’s contention that the inclusion of the words in question indicate that an orthodox scribe intentionally altered the text at this point to refute adoptionism.

The issue surrounds whether or not the words ui`ou/ qeou/ are original. MSS �*, Q, 28c, al support the omission of these words. MSS D, B, W, al include the description of Jesus.12

Four arguments suggest that the inclusion of ui`ou/ qeou/ is original. First, the external evidence of the combination of D, B, W, al is very strong. Second, the omission of these words, which in the autograph would have been written as nomina sacra, may have been because of copying oversight due to the similarities in the endings of the nomina sacra.13 This argument is directly opposed to Ehrman, who claims that “the change was made deliberately.”14 Thirdly, � likely omitted uuqu in this string of nomina sacra (iucruuuqu). The consecutive upsilons could have easily contributed to an accidental deletion.15 Finally, the inclusion of ui`ou/ qeou/ forms a “Christological inclusio” with Mark 15:39. This literary emphasis would not be in effect if the words were omitted.16 Therefore, it is very likely that the words ui`ou/ qeou/ are authentic.

Mark 1:1 Critique In Mark 1:1, Ehrman has argued that an orthodox scribe intentionally altered the text

to include ui`ou/ qeou/ in order to refute adoptionism. Although this is an explanation of the data, it is not the only explanation. The second and third arguments above are strong evidence that this omission may have been accidental; thus, the inclusion of the words is not an orthodox corruption but the original reading. It seems that Ehrman here has affirmed an orthodox corruption of scripture where there is at least an equally valid interpretation of the data.17 He has turned possibility into probability.18 As a result, Ehrman’s contention that orthodox scribes intentionally altered the text to contain these words in order to combat adoptionism is invalid.

Jesus as Begotten Luke 3:22

One of the most “intriguing” texts which deals with Jesus being “begotten” is Luke 3:22. In this verse, Ehrman claims the text was intentionally altered by a scribe from evgw. sh,meron gege,nnhka, se to a parallel in Mark 1:11, evn soi. euvdo,khsa. Ehrman argues that the reason orthodox scribes altered the text in this way was to prevent an adoptionistic heresy. The

12 Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume to

the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (Fourth Revised Edition), 2d ed. (Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1994), 62.

13 Ibid. 14 Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 74. 15 Daniel B. Wallace, “Does Mark 1:1 Call Jesus ‘God’s Son’?: A Brief Text-Critical Note,”

(unpublished class notes in Mark NTS course, Dallas Theological Seminary, September 30, 1999), 1. 16 Ibid. 17 In my opinion, the reading which Ehrman calls an orthodox corruption is to be preferred as original. 18 The terminology from this sentence was taken from Gordon D. Fee, review of The Orthodox

Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament, by Bart D. Ehrman, in CRBR 8 (1995): 204.

4

adoptionistic heresy these scribes were attempting to prevent stated that Jesus was not God’s Son before Jesus’ baptism.19

Ehrman’s assessments of the textual evidence, both internal and external, are in need of more careful attention. Externally, the MS evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of evn soi. euvdo,khsa.20 The variant readings and their support are as follows:

1) Su. ei= o` ui`o,j mou o` avgaphto,j, evn soi. euvdo,khsa � 4 � A B L W ����� �070 0233vid f 1 f

13 28 33 157 180 205 565 579 597 (700 omit o` ui`o,j mou) 892 1006 1010 1071 1241 1243 1292 1342 1424 1505 Byz [E G H N] Lect itaur, e, q vg syrh copsa, bo(pt) armmss eth geo slav (Ambrose)

2) Su. ei= o` ui`o,j mou o` avgaphto,j, evn w-| euvdo,khsa X 1253 itf copbo(pt) armmss 3) Ou-to,j evstin o` ui`o,j mou o` avgaphto,j, evn w-| euvdo,khsa 1574 copbo(ms) 4) Ui`o,j mou ei= su,, evgw. sh,meron gege,nnhka, se D ita, (b), c, d, ff(2), l, r(1) Augustine21 Justin

(Clement add avgaphto,j after su,) Methodius; Hilary Tyconius Faustus-Milevis Latin mssacc. to Augustine

Charts of the external evidence for readings (1) and (4) are included because they are the most viable options. Readings (2) and (3) are not included in chart form because they are not likely to be original.

19 “One of the most intriguing [texts about Jesus’ baptism] occurs in early witnesses of Luke’s account,

in which the voice from heaven is said to proclaim ‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you’ (Luke 3:22). This is the reading of codex Bezae and a number of ecclesiastical writers from the second century onward. I will argue that it is in fact the original text of Luke, and that orthodox scribes who could not abide its adoptionsistic overtones ‘corrected’ it into conformity with the parallel in Mark, ‘You are my beloved Son, in you I am well pleased’ (Mark 1:11)” (Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 62).

20 At this point, I know my discussion suffers from the omission of the Greek Patristic evidence. I am indebted to Dr. Michael Holmes for his input with regard to the Greek Patristic evidence.

21 NA27 lists Augustine to support evgw. sh,meron gege,nnhka se (reading [4]). On the other hand, UBS4 lists Augustine to support evn soi. euvdo,khsa (reading [1]). I have followed NA27.

5

(1) Su. ei= o` ui`o,j mou o` avgaphto,j, evn soi. euvdo,khsa Byzantine Alexandrian Western Others

Papyri Ì 4(III)

Uncials

A(V) D(IX) Q(IX) E(VI) G(X) G(IX) H(VI) K/017(IX) N(VI) P/024(VI)

Q(V)

Í (IV) B(IV) L(IX) W(V)

Y (IX/X) 070(VI) 0233vid(VIII) f 1 f 13

Minuscules

Byz (IX-XVI) 565(IX) 579(XIII) 700(XI)-(omit o

ui`o,j mou) 1010(XII) 1241(XII)

1424(IX/X)

33(IX) 892(IX)

28(XI) 157(1122) 180(VII) 205(XV) 597(XIII) 1006(XI) 1071(XII) 1243(XI) 1292(XIII)

1342(XIII/XIV) 1505(XII)

LectionariesLect l 844(861/862)

l 2211(995/996)

Versions

itaur(VII),

e(VI),

q(VI/VII)

vg(IV/V)

syrh(VII) copsa(IV), bo(pt)(IX)

armmss(V) eth(VI) geo(V) slav(IX)

Church Fathers

(Ambrose[397])

(4) Uio,j mou ei= su,, evgw. sh,meron gege,nnhka, se Byzantine Alexandrian Western Others

PapyriUncials D(V) Latin mssacc. to Augustine

MinusculesLectionaries

Versionsita(IV), (b)(V), c(XII/XIII),

d(V), ff(2)(V), l(XIII), r(1)(VII)

Church Fathers

Clement(215) (add avgaphto,j

after su,)

Justin(165) Methodius(III); Hilary(367) Tyconius(390)

Faustus-Milevis(IV) Augustine(430)

Let us now evaluate the external evidence. Notice from the outset that readings (2) and (3) are variations of reading one. Since our concern here is reading evgw. sh,meron gege,nnhka, se versus evn soi. euvdo,khsa, the evidence for these readings could probably be combined with the evidence for reading (1); however, because only two Greek MSS are involved in these two readings, we will omit them from the discussion. The date and character are decidedly in favor of reading (1). Five Greek MSS are dated in the fifth century or earlier: �(IV), B(IV), W(V), A(V),

6

and Q(V). Three of these five MSS are of very strong character: �, B, and W. In contrast, reading (4) has only one Greek MS dating to the fifth century (D). Its date and character are good too, but its solitary stance is minimal in the shadow of reading (1)’s evidence.

With regard to genealogical solidarity, there are guidelines which help to determine the ancestors of the texttypes; thus, readings can be traced further into the early centuries with certain combinations of MSS. The relevant combinations will follow.

Let us begin with the genealogical solidarity of the texttypes for reading (1). For the Alexandrian texttype, two rules apply which indicate reading (1) can be traced to early in the second century. First, two major uncials from different streams or else without one being in direct lineage of the other indicates a reading in the early second century. Second, the combination of Copticsa with one major uncial or papyrus indicates a reading in the early second century.22 Reading (1) contains both of these combinations of readings. First, reading (1) has the support of two major uncials, � and B. Second, it also contains Copticsa and a major uncial, � or B. As a result, the Alexandrian texttype meets two different guidelines which indicate reading (1) can be traced into the early second century.

For the Byzantine texttype, genealogical solidarity is indicated by the presence of “Byz” in UBS4; this is an indication of, at best, a fourth century archetype.23 Reading (1) also possesses the support of “Byz.”

Finally, for the Western text, neither reading (1) nor reading (4) meets any of the conditions for genealogical solidarity.

The final line of evidence for the external evidence in Luke 3:22 is geographic distribution. The geographic distribution also favors reading (1). Reading (1) is represented by genealogically solid texttypes in the Byzantine and in the Alexandrian. The Alexandrian and Byzantine texttypes are therefore good representatives for reading (1). The Western texttype is also represented in the fourth century but only by Latin MSS. The Western texttype is not genealogically solid, and is therefore not a good representative with regard to geographic distribution. As a result, all three texttypes are represented for reading (1), but only the Alexandrian and Byzantine texttypes are represented as genealogically solid witnesses for reading (1). On the other hand, only the Western texttype is represented for reading (4), but it is not genealogically solid. It contains codex Bezae and Latin MSS. Codex Bezae does not date to the fourth century, but one Latin MS does date to the fourth century. Therefore, reading (4) is lacking in geographic distribution due to its lack of representation by a Greek MS in the fourth century or earlier and its lack of genealogical solidarity of the Western texttype.

In conclusion of the external evidence, the MS evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of reading (1). Its genealogical solidarity points to an early second century date. Its date and character are earlier. Its geographic distribution is found in the Alexandrian and Byzantine texttypes. Reading (4) is found wanting in each of these categories of external evidence. Reading (1) is vastly superior in every area of the external evidence which was examined.

22 Daniel B. Wallace, New Testament Textual Criticism (Dallas Theological Seminary: Class Notes,

Spring 1999), 19. 23 Ibid.

7

Let us now evaluate the internal evidence.24 Either reading could be attributed to scribal harmonization: reading (1) may have been harmonized with Ps 2:7; reading (4) may have been harmonized with Mark 1:11.25 But is one of these options a better understanding of the background to the textual variation in this verse?

Ehrman uses two arguments to demonstrate that reading (4) is superior based on transcriptional probabilities. The first is presented below.

(1) Which is more likely, that a scribe will harmonize a Gospel text to a parallel in another Gospel or to a passage in the Old Testament? Gospel harmonization is virtually ubiquitous in the manuscript tradition of the Synoptics, occurring in nearly every pericope of the double or triple tradition. Furthermore, a scribe who copies Luke will likely have Matthew and Mark on the brain, so to speak, in most cases having recently transcribed them. All things being equal, harmonization to the closest parallel is to be preferred, so that on this score the earliest attested reading appears to be original.26

The problem with Ehrman’s first argument lies in the assumption he brings with it: all things are equal in the transmission process. All things are not equal in the transmission process. “Unlike a list of numbers, the New Testament is capable of being corrupted (in the process of transcription) in countless predictable ways that are unlikely to be reversed by a later scribe.”27 This quotation does not serve to prove Ehrman’s first point was absolutely invalid but to question whether there may be other valid explanations of the rise of the variant. As Wallace said in the quotation, there are countless ways the NT may be corrupted, and we must be careful not to lock onto one reason for corruption without giving proper attention to other reasons. What other possible interpretation can explain the alteration of Luke 3:22? Is there another explanation which would explain the rise of reading (4)? Is it possible that only a portion of our textual variation was affected by one of these verses? These questions will be addressed in response to Ehrman’s second point.

(2) Which is more likely—that a scribe will create a reading that is doctrinally offensive, or that he will ameliorate a theological problem?…The variant reading preserved by the majority of earliest witnesses, the one that has no parallel in the other Gospel accounts,

24 “This preliminary judgment [that evgw. sh,meron gege,nnhka, se is original based on external evidence]

is rendered more plausible by several pieces of internal evidence. The transcriptional issues are clear and straightforward…These transcriptional probabilities become particularly compelling when we recognize how well the reading attested in codex Bezae coincides with the theological agenda of Luke himself, even though his agenda may not have been shared by later proto-orthodox scribes. Here there is a powerful confluence of factors, for the reading that proved such an obvious embarrassment for orthodox Christians of later times shows remarkable affinities with Luke’s own view of Jesus’ baptism” (Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 63–4). It seems to Ehrman that the internal evidence demonstrates overwhelmingly that the reading of codex Bezae is original.

25 This is the argument which Ehrman uses (ibid., 65). 26 Ibid., 63. Ehrman’s assumption about transcriptional probability breaks down with reference to W.

W contains the Gospels in the Western order, where Mark comes after Luke, and John stands between Matthew and Luke. Therefore, when the scribe copied W, did not necessarily “have Matthew and Mark on the brain” (ibid.).

27 Daniel B. Wallace, “Some Second Thoughts on the Majority Text,” BSac 146 (July 1989): 281, n. 52.

8

also appears to support a christological view that became anathema in the early Christian centuries. Is it likely that a scribe would have created it?…If Luke 3:22 was changed by scribes in order to conform its text to the wording of Psalm 2, how is it that the same motivation was never at work in the transmission of the texts of the other Gospels? As common as this explanation of the textual situation might be, no one has ever been able to explain why this particular harmonization occurred in the transcription of Luke, but never in that of Matthew or Mark.28

It is true that a scribe would be more likely to resolve a theological problem than to create one, but given the possibility of various sources of textual corruption, it is highly possible that there is another explanation of the rise of reading (4). Bock gives us a nice explanation of the sources of material found in Luke 3:22.29 Three arguments demonstrate that it is likely that D alone altered the text to reading (4); thus, D would contain the spurious reading.

First, D is claimed by some to have adoptionistic tendencies which some suggest the citation of Ps. 2.7 alone implies…Second, D could defensibly assimilate just the Lucan text, since Luke alone of all the Synoptic writers cites Ps. 2.7 explicitly later in his work (cf. Acts 13.33)…Third, D often assimilates NT quotations to the OT text. Thus, in D we could merely have a stylistic alteration of Luke 3.22 in harmony with the OT text, as occurs in Mark 15.34 with Ps. 22.1, and in Acts 13.33 with Ps. 2.8.30

Another important internal argument has to do with the parallel between the voice from heaven here in the baptism narrative and in the transfiguration narrative. Citing Ps 2:7 fully in Luke 3:22 would disrupt the parallel virtues between the two incidents. The structure in these two narratives is threefold: (1) sonship, (2) appositional or adjectival description, and (3) further description. If Ps 2:7 is followed in its entirety, then that parallel structure no longer is valid.31

So what is the text or texts which lie behind Luke 3:22? “[T]he reference to ui`o,j comes from Ps. 2:7 and the reference to God’s being pleased from Isa. 42:1. Only the source of avgaphto,j is disputed.”32 Although a couple of verses present themselves as options, “it seems best to tie the reference to avgaphto,j, if it has OT origin, to Isa. 41:8.”33

In summary, Bock has provided evidence for the authenticity of reading (1). He has answered Ehrman’s second argument with regard to transcriptional probability. It seems that Ehrman is only partially correct in identifying Luke 3:22 with Ps 2:7. The first portion of the

28 Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 63–4. 29 Ehrman claimed that no one has adequately explained the reason for the harmonization to Ps 2:7

only in Luke and not in Matthew or Mark. Bock has provided a very valid explanation. It seems that either Ehrman was not convinced by Bock’s arguments or was not aware of them. Given the fact that Bock is not even listed in Ehrman’s bibliography, it appears that he was not aware of Bock’s arguments. This may explain why Ehrman had not found a sufficient explanation—because he had not read Bock.

30 Darrell L. Bock, Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern: Lucan Old Testament Christology, JSNTSup 12 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1987), 101.

31 Ibid. 32 Darrell L. Bock, Luke: Volume 1: 1:1–9:50, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament,

no. 3, ed. Moisés Silva (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 341. 33 Ibid., 342.

9

sentence does derive from Ps 2:7 but not its entirety. The other portions of the text were derived from Isa 42:1 and 41:8. Whereas reading (4) has been called the harder reading for theological reasons,34 it seems that reading (1) is actually the harder reading based on structural reasons. It is easier to understand Luke beginning a reference to Ps 2:7 and continuing that same thought to the end (reading [4]). On the other hand, it is more difficult to follow the background of the verse according to the structure promoted above, where multiple verses are referenced (reading [1]). It is probably best to say that these two readings cancel each other out with regard to which is the harder reading since they are both difficult readings. As a result, the external evidence is strongly in favor of reading (1). The internal evidence likewise satisfactorily explains the rise of reading (4), indicating that reading (1) is original. The external and internal evidences together form a chord which is not easily broken. Taken together, it is clear that reading (4) is not the original reading, and Luke 3:22 is not an example of “orthodox corruption of Scripture.”

Luke 3:22 Critique Ehrman argues that reading (4) is original and that orthodox scribes intentionally

altered the text in an effort to prevent adoptionism. It seems that he has been too hasty in identifying an intentional orthodox corruption in Luke 3:22. There are two lines of reasoning behind such a criticism. First, there is an equally viable explanation for the rise of the variant if reading (1) is assumed. Second, the exegesis of reading (4) does not necessitate adoptionism.

With regard to an alternative viable explanation of the rise of reading (4), the above discussion provides Bock’s viable explanation. So text-critically, reading (1) contains the support of both internal and external evidence. Externally, evidence appears to be strongly in favor of reading su. ei= o` ui`o,j mou o` avgaphto,j, evn soi. euvdo,khsa (reading [1]) as original. ui`o,j mou ei= su,, evgw. sh,meron gege,nnhka, se (reading[4]) is not even represented well among the Greek MSS. Internally, Bock has provided a reasonable alternative to the rise of reading (4). Therefore, it again appears that Ehrman has turned possibility into probability.35

In addition, the exegesis of ui`o,j mou ei= su,, evgw. sh,meron gege,nnhka, se (reading[4]) does not necessitate an adoptionistic interpretation. Does Jesus being “begotten” mean he was not God’s Son/elect/Christ before his baptism? First, it will be very helpful to study the word begotten (gege,nnhka). The lexical form, genna,w, has more than one meaning. In its first listed meaning in BDAG there are two subcategories of usage. genna,w means to “become the literal parent of, beget.”36 In its second subcategory of usage under its first meaning, it refers to someone becoming the parent of “by exercising the role of a parental figure.”37 This second meaning is the meaning of the word assigned by BDAG in Luke 3:22.38 As a result, the meaning of gege,nnhka in the context of Luke 3:22 is the Father exercising the role of a parental figure on the Son.

34 Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 63. 35 The terminology was taken from Fee, review of The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 204. 36 BDAG, 193. 37 Ibid. 38 Ibid.

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), 146–47 (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, 66–7. 42 VanGemeren, “Psalms,” 795. 43 Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 77–82. 44 Ehrman must validate his reasoning for arguing that the variant change was intentional because this

11

one which I would modify. He said that the variant qeo,j indicated for the orthodox scribe “a clear affirmation of the doctrine that God became incarnate in the person of Jesus Christ. This certainly is the orthodox ‘mystery’: it was ‘God’ who was ‘manifest in flesh, justified in spirit,’ etc.”45 This is true, but Ehrman failed to state the significance of the reading o[j.

The rhythmic patterns of this text are obvious: six lines of parallel passive verbs, followed by parallel (evn +) dat. constructions. These features, coupled with an introductory o[j, are signatures of poetry. Among other things, the implications of such an identification are the following: (1) To seek outside the hymn for an antecedent to o[j…is an unnecessary expedient, which in fact, misreads the genre and misunderstand[s] the force of to. th/j euvsebei,aj musth,rion. (2) The textual variant qeo,j in the place of o[j, has been adamantly defended by some scholars…Not only is such a reading poorly attested, but the syntactical argument that “‘mystery’ (musth,rion) being a neuter noun, cannot be followed by the masculine pronoun (o[j)” is entirely without weight. As attractive theologically as the reading qeo,j may be, it is spurious. To reject it is not to deny the deity of Christ, of course; it is just to deny any explicit reference in this text.46

As a result, although this may have been an intentional alteration by the scribe,47 the alteration is more likely attributed to the original being a misunderstood introduction to poetic material rather than a wholesale alteration to combat a heresy. Ehrman has overstated his case. To say that this text affirms the humanity of Christ is in perfect harmony with orthodoxy.48 So, the variant here does not prove the variants contain orthodox doctrine which was intended by scribes to combat heresy.

change could easily be viewed as an accidental alteration. os (who) could easily be mistaken for qMs (God) by a scribe.

45 Ibid., 78. 46 Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament

(Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996), 341–42. 47 There is some doubt that this was an intentional change at least in every tradition. See n. 38. 48 This is what the Definition of Chalcedon articulated.

12

John 1:1849 Now let us turn to John 1:18. Ehrman himself gives a good summary of the textual

choices:

(1) o` monogenh.j qeo,j, � ����c 33 copbo Orpt (2) monogenh.j qeo,j, � ��* B C* L syrp. h(mg) and a range of fathers, including most of the Alexandrians (3) o` monogenh,j, vgms Diatesseron and other fathers (4) o` monogenh.j ui`o,j, A C3 K X D Q P Y f1. 13 565 700 892 1241 Byz Lect OL syrc. h. pal arm ethpp geo and most fathers (5) monogenh.j ui`o.j qeou/, Irenpt [sic] and Orpt

(6) monogenh.j ui`o.j qeo,j, copsa 50

The three most viable options are (1), (2), and (4). Readings (3), (5), and (6) all have minimal MS evidence. In addition, reading (3) appears to be derived from a scribe, who having both qeo,j and ui`o,j before him, dropped them both in an effort to assimilate 1:18 with 1:14. Readings (5) and (6) are both conflations opposite of (3); a scribe, who having both qeo,j and uio,j before him, included them both rather than choose between them. Therefore, it is fairly clear that readings (3), (5), and (6) have no viable claim to authenticity.

The decision boils down to reading qeo,j versus ui`o,j; then, if qeo,j is chosen, there is a further decision to be made—articular versus anarthrous monogenh,j. What then are the implications of each of these readings theologically?

There are three significant implications which impact the intrinsic probabilities’ arguments.51 The first implication regards reading (4), uio,j. The second and third implications both relate to monogenh,j (either reading [1] or [2]), but the article does not change the implications.

49 The ground work for the information in this discussion on John 1:18 was laid out in a previously unpublished research paper: Stratton L. Ladewig, “Monogenh,j in John 1:18: The Adjective Immediately Followed by a Noun Which Agrees in Gender, Number, and Case,” 28 April 2000 [Research Paper for Advanced Greek Grammar at Dallas Theological Seminary], unpublished. Furthermore, no substantial discussion of the external evidence will be included because Ehrman and I both agree that the external evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of readings (1) and (2); thus, this discussion is primarily one of internal evidence.

Ehrman has received some heavy criticism with regard to his treatment of John 1:18. Fee said, “Ehrman rightly anticipates (p. 275) that colleagues will disagree with his conclusions in many specific instances (as I do, e.g., on John 1:18; 1 Cor 10:9; Luke 22:19b–20, to name but a few)…” (Fee, review of The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 204.). Likewise, Birdsall said about Ehrman’s use of John 1:18, “His argument is however tortuous and betrays inherent problems” (J. Neville Birdsall, review of The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament, by Bart D. Ehrman, in Theology 97, no. 780 [November/December 1994]: 462). By way of additional support to Birdsall’s comments, Metzger indicated in a letter to me dated July 2, 2000 that he preferred to follow Birdsall’s treatment of Ehrman.

50 Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 112, n. 158. 51 There is a fourth implication, but it is not dealt with here because its argument is rather weak and

Ehrman successfully deals with it. Furthermore, a similar implication will be dealt with in implication three. This implication states monogenh,j intrinsically possesses the idea of sonship; thus, the meaning would be “the unique Son, namely God” (ibid., 80–1). Notice that this reading takes monogenh,j appositionally to qeo,j.

13

First, there is a significant difference between reading qeo,j and ui`o,j.

It was not simply the only Son (o` monogenh,j ui`o,j) who knew and revealed the Father. It was an only Son (monogenh,j) who himself possessed deity (qeo,j) and therefore both knew the Father and was qualified to make him known.52

o` monogenh.j ui`o,j basically affirms that Jesus was the unique Son of God without comment on his deity, which is the problem some perceive with this reading. Calling Jesus the Son of God without respect to his deity has given rise to adoptionism. Such a conclusion is one which Ehrman endorses wholeheartedly.53

The second implication is with relation to that which renders (o) monogenh,j as an attributive adjective modifying qeo,j. “The problem, of course, is that Jesus can be the unique God only if there is no other God; but for the Fourth Gospel, the Father is God as well.”54 For Ehrman, this is an irreconcilable problem, and the reading (o) monogenh.j qeo,j is nonsensical.55

Third, a significant theological implication is revealed by understanding monogenh,j in apposition to qeo,j. This syntactical arrangement avoids at first glance the nonsensical understanding of (o) monogenh.j qeo,j as described by Ehrman (implication two). Also, this syntactical arrangement allows for the construction which possesses the best attested MS evidence.

With this syntactical understanding, the verse would then be translated “no one has ever seen God; the unique one, God, who being in the bosom of the Father, he has explained him.” (o) monogenh.j qeo,j then comprise the first two of three appositional elements: (1) the unique one, (2) God, and (3) the one who is in the bosom of the Father. Understanding (o) monogenh.j qeo,j as a substantival, appositional relationship allows John 1:18 to stand as a strong affirmation of the deity of the second person of the Trinity. Jesus is affirmed as unique, deity, and the revelation of the Father.

The appositional understanding of (o) monogenh.j qeo,j appears at the surface to best resolve the issues raised by the grammatical and textual issues in John 1:18, especially in light of the external evidence. By Ehrman’s own admission, the external weight is generally considered by textual critics to be overwhelmingly in favor of reading qeo,j (reading [1] or [2]).56 Then, on what basis does Ehrman choose reading (4)? Legitimate grammatical conventions of the ancient author are at issue here. Is the appositional understanding of (o) monogenh.j qeo,j valid? Would the author of the Fourth Gospel have used (o) monogenh,j in a substantival, appositional relationship with qeo,j? Some, like Ehrman, vehemently deny that the appositional reading is valid. He argues:

But the proponents of this [appositional] view have failed to consider that it [the adjective] is never used in this way when it is immediately followed by a noun that agrees with it in gender, number, and case. Indeed one must press the syntactical point: when is an adjective

52 Harris, Jesus as God, 82. 53 Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 78. 54 Ibid., 80. 55 Ehrman here is defining monogenh,j as “unique” rather than “only begotten” (ibid.). 56 Ibid., 79.

14

ever used substantivally when it immediately precedes a noun of the same inflection? No Greek reader would construe such a construction as a string of substantives, and no Greek writer would create such an inconcinnity. To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever cited anything analogous outside of this passage.57

Based on intrinsic probabilities, Ehrman uses two arguments to support reading (4). First, uio,j agrees with Johannine use of o` monogenh.j ui`o,j elsewhere. Second, (o) monogenh.j qeo,j is difficult to understand within Johannine literature.58 A significant portion of his argumentation is based on the idea that monogenh,j cannot function substantivally in this context. However, Ehrman has a faulty understanding of grammar.

If Ehrman is correct in his assessment, then (o) monogenh.j qeo,j can be ruled out as the best choice for the interpreter based on internal evidence. Likewise, implications two and three will have been determined to be incorrect understandings of John 1:18. On the other hand, if it is demonstrated that Ehrman’s assessment is incorrect, then (o) monogenh.j qeo,j will have been determined to be the better reading internally; implication three will be the best understanding of John 1:18.59

I have provided an exhaustive search for analogous passages. I have investigated the NT for the adjective immediately followed by a noun which agrees in inflection. Is it possible for the adjective in such a construction to function substantivally, in apposition to the following noun? It is my contention that the adjective immediately followed by a noun which agrees in gender, number, and case may function other than attributively with the noun and may even function substantivally in apposition to the noun; however, let us not be hasty in this decision. We now turn to an exhaustive examination of the evidence from the Greek NT. First, the adjective immediately followed by a noun with the same inflection will be examined. Then, a similar construction is examined. Third, the use of monogenh,j in the NT will be briefly surveyed. Finally, conclusions will be made and applied to John 1:18.

The exhaustive search60 found that the vast majority of the uses of the adjective immediately followed by a noun which agrees in gender, number, and case are attributive, either the first attributive position or the anarthrous first attributive position. It might be said that it is normal for the adjective to function attributively in such constructions. This find would at first appear to support Ehrman’s contention. However, upon a thorough examination of the use of the adjective in such constructions, twenty-seven exceptions have been positively identified.61 The

57 Ibid., 81. 58 Ibid., 79–82. 59 I agree with Ehrman’s assessment of implication two; thus, implication two appears to be invalid and

will not be assessed in depth. 60 This study was a classification of every congruent adjacent adjective-noun construction in the NT

with a few exceptions. The total number of these constructions sums 1,376 and is found in 1,136 verses. The total number of constructions should probably be revised to approximately 1,368 because Accordance recognized one adverb as an adjective: nu/n. The field was limited by not evaluating certain adjectives: pa/j, polu,j, o[loj, possessive pronouns, and numbers.

61 These statistics have been revised from the original edition of this paper in light of insights from Dr. Daniel B. Wallace. The twenty-seven hits are as follows: Matt 15:19, 28:2; Luke 14:13, 18:11; John 1:41, 6:70; Acts 2:5, 4:25, 16:37; Rom 1:30 (two hits), 10:19; Gal 3:9; 1 Tim 1:9; 2 Tim 3:2; 1 Pet 1:1, 1:19; 2 Pet 2:5; Titus 1:10,

15

only such construction not positively identified was the current verse under examination: John 1:18. I was able to classify the use of the adjective into one of seven possible alternate uses when an adjective is immediately followed by a noun which also agrees in gender, number, and case. These seven uses of the adjective are, however, legitimate variations of the use of the adjective in such constructions.62 It should be noted here in the outset that a list is a significant key in identifying the use of the adjective as a variant use.63 Let us now survey the seven categories of alternate usage of the adjective.

First, in Rom 10:19, the adjective is used as an adverb. This does not prove that the adjective can be used substantivally, but it does demonstrate that the adjective can be used in a way other than attributively.

Second, the use of the adjective in Acts 2:5 is significant. The construction in this verse is VIoudai/oi( a;ndrej. VIoudai/oi is the subject to the preceding clause and also in apposition to the immediately following noun; a;ndrej is in the Fourth Attributive Position with the following word, euvlabei/j. VIoudai/oi and a;ndrej are in an appositional relationship. This use demonstrates that the adjective which is immediately followed by a noun in congruence can function both substantivally and attributively.

The third variant use of the adjective is similar to the second; it is significant. In John 6:70, the adjective (ei-j) is used as the subject, and thus as a substantive; the noun (dia,boloj) is used as the predicate nominative to the adjective-subject. Therefore, the adjective can function substantivally in the congruent adjective-noun construction.

Fourth, in Matt 28:2, the adjective is found in the fourth attributive position64 with the preceding noun. This simply demonstrates that the adjective in the congruent adjective-noun construction does not necessarily function attributively with that following congruent noun.

The fifth construction is similar to the preceding variant use; only the context differs. In its use, the adjective is used five times in the fourth attributive position (with the preceding noun, not the noun following): Matt 15:19; Acts 4:25, 16:37; Titus 2:14, and 1 Pet 1:19. In each of these verses, the suspect adjective occurs in a list. Like use four, this simply demonstrates that the adjective in the congruent adjective-noun construction does not necessarily have to function attributively with that congruent following noun.

Sixth, the adjective is used in the second attributive position with a preceding noun on three occasions: John 1:41; Rev 9:14, and 18:10. Notice that John (in the fourth Gospel and in the Apocalypse) appears especially apt to using such a construction immediately before a congruent noun, since he is the only NT author who utilizes it. Again, this use does not

2:14; Rev 9:14, 18:10, 21:19 (two hits), 21:20 (three hits) (Ladewig, “Monogenh,j in John 1:18,” 14). Each of these verses is listed in the appendix with identification.

62 Two of the variations are actually the same use, but the context is different. In one context, the use is found in a list; in the other context, the use is not in a list.

63 Many of the variant uses are found in lists or in appositional constructions. 64 “When it has been determined from the context that an adjective in a noun-adjective construction

expresses an attributive relation to the noun, such a construction is in the fourth attributive position…Thus to say that an adjective is in the fourth attributive position is to say that the article does not occur in the construction at all…” (Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 310–11).

16

demonstrate the substantival use of the adjective but does indicate that the adjective can function other than attributively with the following congruent noun.

The final category consists of eleven verses with fifteen hits. This category of usage is where the adjective is used substantivally in a list or appositional construction65 (Luke 14:13; 18:11; Rom 1:30 [two hits]; Gal 3:9; 1 Tim 1:9; 2 Tim 3:2; Titus 1:10; 1 Pet 1:1; 2 Pet 2:5; Rev 21:19 [two hits]; 21:20 [three hits]). Seven out of the fifteen here are substantival uses of the adjective and are also appositional to the following congruent noun. This is the precise construction which Ehrman indicates does not exist in John 1:18. Evidently this construction is legitimate since it is found seven other times in clear examples. The remaining eight are identical constructions to the previously described seven with one exception; they are used in a list rather than appositionally.66 I would contend that apposition is a type of list. The difference between the two is the referent. If the items in the list refer to the same referent, typically it is called apposition. If the two items in the list do not refer to the same referent, typically it is called a list. Therefore, the remaining eight uses in this group also oppose Ehrman’s denial of this syntactical understanding of John 1:18.

Three examples will serve to illustrate the point in the seventh category. In Gal 3:9, tw/| pistw/| VAbraa,m is an example; this phrase is universally translated “the believer, Abraham,” where tw/| pistw/| is a substantival adjective. Second, in 1 Tim 1:9, there is a list in which bebh,loij( patrolw,|aij (“godless, those who kill their father”) occurs. These words fit the criteria established by Ehrman; however, bebh,loij is a substantival adjective. Finally, 2 Pet 2:5 provides the words o;gdoon Nw/e (“eighth, Noah”). This is an excellent example because if o;gdoon is not taken substantivally, then the words would have to mean that there were eight Noahs, which obviously is not the meaning.67

As a result, of the most significant variant uses of the adjective (uses two, three, and seven), there are seventeen significant hits of variant uses.68 This means seventeen out of the twenty-seven clear variant uses utilize the adjective substantivally. Of these seventeen, six of the uses were written by John, both in the Fourth Gospel and in the Apocalypse.69 Therefore, John was undoubtedly familiar with this construction. Likewise, notice that the largest group of variant uses is composed of fifteen variant uses which directly oppose Ehrman’s thesis. Five (one-third) of the fifteen are attributed to John. What does all this mean? It all overwhelmingly

65 The list appears to be a significant key to identifying the semantic situation of the adjective in

congruence with an immediately following noun which functions substantivally. 66 “An appositional construction involves (1) two adjacent substantives (2) in the same case, (3) which

refer to the same person or thing, (4) and have the same syntactical relation to the rest of the clause” (Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 48). Wallace here is not commenting on the ‘Genitive of Apposition.’

67 Daniel B. Wallace, “John 1:18 and Ehrman,” 23 May 1999 [obtained directly from Wallace], 1–3, unpublished.

68 It is because these three categories are the most significant that they have more fully developed discussions of their verses. All of the verses contained in the seven categories are listed in the appendix with discussion.

69 Although I understand that not all evangelicals agree that the apostle John wrote both the Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse, such is my understanding.

17

demonstrates that it is legitimate for the adjective immediately followed by a noun which agrees in gender, number, and case to function substantivally and/or appositionally to that noun.

Although the evidence we have examined thus far appears to prove the appositional use of monogenh,j in John 1:18 is legitimate, there is still more evidence to consider. Next, a similar construction will be examined. Then the uses of monogenh,j in the NT will be examined.

The similar construction to that which Ehrman discusses also illustrates the fallacy in Ehrman’s thinking. In Col 1:2, the string of words, toi/j…a`gi,oij kai. pistoi/j avdelfoi/j, are found. It is true that there are intervening words between a`gi,oij and avdelfoi/j; nevertheless, a`gi,oij is a substantival adjective. Theoretically, kai. pistoi/j could be removed from the phrase, leaving the exact construction Ehrman is dealing with, and a`gi,oij would still be a substantival adjective. Agi,oij is best understood as substantival. “[I]n light of the well worn substantival use of a`gi,oj in the NT generally (cf., e.g., Acts 9:13, 32; Rom 8:27; 12:13; 1 Cor 6:1–2; Eph 2:19; 3:8; Phil 4:22; 1 Tim 5:10; Heb 6:10), in the Pauline salutations more particularly (e.g., Rom 1:7; 1 Cor 1:2; 2 Cor 1:1; Phil 1:1), and in the parallel in Ephesians especially (1:1), a`gi,oij here is probably substantival…”70

Finally, the substantival use of monogenh,j only four verses previously in John 1:14 lends strong contextual support for reading monogenh,j substantivally in 1:18.71 It is clear that monogenh,j functions substantivally in the NT (Luke 9:38, John 1:14, and Heb 11:17). If Ehrman is wrong about the overall construction of the Greek, and if John, both in the Fourth Gospel and in the Apocalypse, is especially apt to use this “unusual” construction, then we might expect him to give a clue to the meaning of monogenh,j in John 1:18. This is exactly what our author does. The fact is that monogenh,j is used substantivally only four verses previously. The author of the Fourth Gospel is providing a clue in the context that indicates how monogenh,j is functioning. The use of monogenh,j in John 1:14 supports the contention that in 1:18 it likewise functions substantivally.

As a result, this study of the uses of monogenh,j has demonstrated that its use in John 1:18 is probably substantival based on its substantival use in other places in the NT, especially its substantival use only four verses prior. Because there is good reason to accept the qeo,j reading internally, then a person is also freed to place more weight on the external evidence which likewise supports qeo,j. “[T]he internal arguments against monogenh.j qeo,j in John 1:18 simply are not sufficient to overturn the strong external evidence in its favor.”72 Therefore, the best reading in John 1:18 is (o) monogenh.j qeo,j. In this construction, monogenh,j functions substantivally as nominativus pendens in a string of three appositional elements. Therefore, the text should be translated, “No one has seen God at any time; the unique one, God, the one who is in the bosom of the Father, he has explained him.”

Now that it has been firmly established that (o) monogenh.j qeo,j was the original reading, a further decision must be made. Was monogenh,j originally articular or anarthrous?

70 Daniel B. Wallace, “The Article with Multiple Substantives Connected by Kaí in the New

Testament: Semantics and Significance” (Ph.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, April 1995), 145, n. 155. 71 Daniel B. Wallace, “The Text and Grammar of John 1:18,” 16 May 2000, 4, unpublished. 72 Ibid.

18

Anarthrous monogenh,j appears to be the better reading. This decision has two bases. First, the external MS support for this reading is slightly stronger than the articular reading. Second, on internal grounds, it is easy to understand why a scribe who was faced with anarthrous monogenh,j would change it to articular—because the article would substantize monogenh,j. In other words, the scribe would have been attempting to clarify what was already understood in the text, that monogenh,j was substantival, by adding the article.

Consequently, because it seems best that monogenh.j qeo,j (reading [2]) was original, a scribe did not alter the text to say qeo,j in an effort to make the text more orthodox. The substantival, appositional view of monogenh,j is legitimate and even most likely in the context. The text actually originally read qeo,j.

1 Timothy 3:16 and John 1:18 Critique In any event, what do 1 Tim 3:16 and John 1:18 say of orthodoxy? Ehrman asserts

that

[o]f all the anti-adoptionistic corruptions of Scripture, by far the most common involve the orthodox denial that Jesus was a “mere man” (yilo.j a;nqrwpoj)…But the textual variations I will now discuss [1 Tim 3:16 and John 1:18] are, generally speaking, opposed to the basic conception of the adoptionists rather than to their specific doctrines. In these variant readings one finds the stark expression of the orthodox belief that Jesus is far more than a man, that he is in fact divine. In the orthodox tradition, especially as it developed toward the formulations of Nicea and Chalcedon, this divinity was not something that had been bestowed upon Jesus at some point of his earthly existence; it was a divinity that he had shared with God the Father from eternity past. Thus, two kinds of variation can now come under scrutiny: those that heighten Jesus’ divine character (he is “God”) and those that minimize his human limitations (he is not a “mere man”).73

If these texts (as Ehrman asserts) speak of Jesus’ humanity rather than his divinity, then there is no problem in relation to orthodoxy. Ehrman indicates in the above quotation that verses which emphasize Jesus’ deity are of necessity corruptions because the orthodox scribes were uncomfortable with describing Jesus as a human. However, this is a presumption which Ehrman has allowed to affect his judgment. He has prejudiced his decision from the outset. Therefore, orthodoxy is not jeopardized by saying that the original text emphasizes the humanity of Jesus. Even assuming Ehrman’s argument that the original text emphasizes Jesus’ humanity, there is no violation of orthodoxy because orthodoxy affirms such a belief about Jesus. Orthodox scribes, who believed that Jesus was fully human, would have no need or motivation to alter the text intentionally in order to preserve orthodoxy because such a belief was in line with orthodoxy. Therefore, to call 1 Tim 3:16 and John 1:18 orthodox corruptions of Scripture appears to be another case where Ehrman has turned possibility into probability.74

73 Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 77. 74 The terminology was taken from Fee, review of The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 204.

19

Summary and Conclusions

In summary, Bart Ehrman has articulated that “proto-orthodox scribes of the second and third centuries occasionally modified their texts of Scripture in order to make them coincide more closely with the christological views embraced by the party that would seal its victory at Nicea and Chalcedon.”75 Although his basic premise is undoubtedly true, it seems that Ehrman has overstated his case. Fee made condemning statements about Ehrman’s discussions in his chapter on adoptionism with which I agree:

In going back over the discussions in chap. 2 and keeping a ‘box score,’ I found myself convinced as to the reasons for variation in only about one-third of the instances—even though I quite empathize with Ehrman’s basic concerns…his tendency to isolate one cause as primary against all others in the variants he discusses fails to persuade. Unfortunately, Ehrman too often turns mere possibility in probability, and probability into certainty, where other equally viable reasons for corruption exist.

This study also illustrates our need for precision regarding the “causes of corruption. For Ehrman there are two: accidental (= “mindless”)—the majority for Ehrman—and deliberate. But that seems far too sanguine. The majority of variants were much more likely “deliberate,” in the sense that they are not the result of mere inadvertence. But there are degrees of deliberation (the mind, after all, adds an article or a subject, but not always “thoughtfully”), so that not all “deliberate corruptions” are as purposeful as Ehrman would make them out to be.76

Birdsall likewise has provided a perceptive critique of Ehrman:

It is to be regretted that Professor Ehrman has presented his argument in a rather one-sided and exaggerated way. There were probably some instances where theological purposes affected the text; but this reviewer’s impression is that this book…exonerates them [orthodox scribes] of the general charge…Ehrman may convince us of the correctness of his hypothesis in some instances, but weakens his endeavour by the attempt to prove his case over too wide a range.77

As a result, although Ehrman’s general thesis is undoubtedly true, it seems that he has attempted to make the evidence say more than it can be made to say. In each of the verses examined above, it seems that he has turned possibility into probability. The arguments in the verses (Mark 1:1, Luke 3:22, 1 Tim 3:16, and John 1:18) which lend the heaviest support to Ehrman’s thesis have been demonstrated to have glaring weaknesses. If these verses, which are his largest support in his most significant heretical chapter (adoptionism), do not support his thesis, then it can be generalized that other verses which support the other of his heretical discussions (separationism, docetism, patripassiansim) are likewise insufficient. That is not to

75 Ibid., 275. 76 Fee, review of The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 204–05. 77 J. Neville Birdsall, review of The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 462.

20

say that he is incorrect in every verse in every discussion, but it is to say that he has exaggerated evidence to support his thesis in a one-sided way.

In conclusion, the principles of NTTC are valid, and when applied skillfully, they lead one to a relatively certain ascertainment of the original text. After applying modern-day textual criticism to the text of the NT, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed and the Definition of Chalcedon still stand, strongly affirmed by the NT, and it is the NT in its autographs which partially78 serves to define evangelicalism.

78 I have indicated that the NT partially defines evangelicalism because other factors also play into the

its definition: OT, history, and theology.

21

21

Appendix

Alternate Congruent Adjective-Noun Constructions

The following is a list of verses where an adjective immediately followed by a noun which also agrees with that adjective in gender, number, and case exists. This list is not the exhaustive list, but rather the list of verses which contain the twenty-seven variant uses of the adjective. (Notice that some of the verses have multiple hits.) In the exhaustive list (which is not included), the vast majority of these adjectives functioned attributively, either in the first attributive position or the anarthrous first attributive position. This particular list contains those uses of the adjective which are not attributive to the following congruent noun. Matthew 15:19 evk ga.r th/j kardi,aj evxe,rcontai dialogismoi. ponhroi,( fo,noi( moicei/ai( pornei/ai( klopai,( yeudomarturi,ai( blasfhmi,aiÅ For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders. Ponhroi, is in the Anarthrous Fourth Attributive Position with the immediately preceding word, dialogismoi.; thus, it does not modify fo,noi. Matthew 28:2 kai. ivdou. seismo.j evge,neto me,gaj\ a;ggeloj ga.r kuri,ou kataba.j evx ouvranou/ kai. proselqw.n avpeku,lisen to.n li,qon kai. evka,qhto evpa,nw auvtou/Å And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it. Me,gaj is in the Anarthrous Fourth Attributive Position with seismo.j; thus, it is not modifying a;ggeloj at all. Luke 14:13 avllV o[tan doch.n poih/|j( ka,lei ptwcou,j( avnapei,rouj( cwlou,j( tuflou,j\ But when you give a reception, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, Ptwcou,j is an adjective used substantivally in a list. Luke 18:11 o Farisai/oj staqei.j pro.j eauto.n tau/ta proshu,ceto\ o qeo,j( euvcaristw/ soi o[ti ouvk eivmi. w[sper oi loipoi. tw/n avnqrw,pwn( a[rpagej( a;dikoi( moicoi,( h' kai. wj ou-toj o telw,nhj\ The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. ;Adikoi is a substantival adjective used in a list. John 1:41 euri,skei ou-toj prw/ton to.n avdelfo.n to.n i;dion Si,mwna kai. le,gei auvtw/|\ eurh,kamen to.n Messi,an( o[ evstin meqermhneuo,menon cristo,jÅ He found first his own brother Simon and said to him, “We have found the Messiah “ (which translated means Christ). To.n i;dion is in the Second Attributive Position with the preceding to.n avdelfo.n. Note that to.n i;dion is not in an attributive relationship to Si,mwna because it is in apposition to Si,mwna. John 6:70 avpekri,qh auvtoi/j o VIhsou/j\ ouvk evgw. uma/j tou.j dw,deka evxelexa,mhnÈ kai. evx umw/n ei-j dia,bolo,j evstinÅ Jesus answered them, “Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is the devil?” Ei-j is the Subject; dia,bolo,j is the Predicate Nominative.

22

Acts 2:5 +Hsan de. eivj VIerousalh.m katoikou/ntej VIoudai/oi( a;ndrej euvlabei/j avpo. panto.j e;qnouj tw/n upo. to.n ouvrano,nÅ Now Jews were there living in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under heaven. VIoudai/oi is the subject; a;ndrej is in the Fourth Attributive Position with the following word, euvlabei/j. VIoudai/oi and a;ndrej are in an appositional relationship. Acts 4:25 o tou/ patro.j hmw/n dia. pneu,matoj agi,ou sto,matoj Daui.d paido,j sou eivpw,n\ inati, evfru,axan e;qnh kai. laoi. evmele,thsan kena,È who by the Holy Spirit, through the mouth of our father David Your servant, said, ‘WHY DID THE GENTILES RAGE, AND THE PEOPLES DEVISE FUTILE THINGS? vAgi,ou is in the Anarthrous Fourth Attributive Position with pneu,matoj; a list is involved here. Acts 16:37 o de. Pau/loj e;fh pro.j auvtou,j\ dei,rantej hma/j dhmosi,a| avkatakri,touj( avnqrw,pouj ~Rwmai,ouj upa,rcontaj( e;balan eivj fulakh,n( kai. nu/n la,qra| hma/j evkba,llousinÈ ouv ga,r( avlla. evlqo,ntej auvtoi. hma/j evxagage,twsanÅ But Paul said to them, “They have beaten us in public without trial, men who are Romans, and have thrown us into prison; and now are they sending us away secretly? No indeed! But let them come themselves and bring us out.” vAkatakri,touj is in the Anarthrous Fourth Attributive Position with hma/j. These are in a list. Romans 1:30 katala,louj qeostugei/j ubrista.j uperhfa,nouj avlazo,naj( evfeureta.j kakw/n( goneu/sin avpeiqei/j( slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, These four are in a list; the adjectives are substantival. Romans 10:19 avlla. le,gw( mh. VIsrah.l ouvk e;gnwÈ prw/toj Mwu?sh/j le,gei\ evgw. parazhlw,sw uma/j evpV ouvk e;qnei( evpV e;qnei avsune,tw| parorgiw/ uma/jÅ But I say, surely Israel did not know, did they? First Moses says, “I WILL MAKE YOU JEALOUS BY THAT WHICH IS NOT A NATION, BY A NATION WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING WILL I ANGER YOU.” “Although the adjective is not substantival, it is adverbial, and thus fits into the ‘impossible’ category that Ehrman says does not exist. The proper form would have been prwton (since accusative neuter adjective[s] can regularly function adverbially).”79 Galatians 3:9 w[ste oi evk pi,stewj euvlogou/ntai su.n tw/| pistw/| VAbraa,mÅ So then those who are of faith are blessed with the believer, Abraham. Tw/| pistw/| is used substantivally in apposition to VAbraa,m. 1 Timothy 1:9 eivdw.j tou/to( o[ti dikai,w| no,moj ouv kei/tai( avno,moij de. kai. avnupota,ktoij( avsebe,si kai. amartwloi/j( avnosi,oij kai. bebh,loij( patrolw,|aij kai. mhtrolw,|aij( avndrofo,noij realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers Bebh,loij is used substantivally in a list; it does not modify patrolw,|aij. 2 Timothy 3:2 e;sontai ga.r oi a;nqrwpoi fi,lautoi fila,rguroi avlazo,nej uperh,fanoi bla,sfhmoi( goneu/sin avpeiqei/j( avca,ristoi avno,sioi For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, Fila,rguroi is used substantivally in a list; it does not modify avlazo,nej.

79 Daniel B. Wallace, “John 1:18 and Ehrman,” 23 May 1999 [obtained directly from Wallace], 1,

unpublished.

23

Titus 1:10 Eivsi.n ga.r polloi. Îkai.Ð avnupo,taktoi( mataiolo,goi kai. frenapa,tai( ma,lista oi evk th/j peritomh/j( For there are many rebellious men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, vAnupo,taktoi is used substantivally in a list; it does not modify mataiolo,goi. Titus 2:14 o]j e;dwken eauto.n upe.r hmw/n( i[na lutrw,shtai hma/j avpo. pa,shj avnomi,aj kai. kaqari,sh| eautw/| lao.n periou,sion( zhlwth.n kalw/n e;rgwnÅ who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds. (1) Periou,sion modifies the preceding word—Anarthrous Fourth Attributive Position. It is found in a list. (2) Anarthrous First Attributive Position. 1 Peter 1:1 Pe,troj avpo,stoloj VIhsou/ Cristou/ evklektoi/j parepidh,moij diaspora/j Po,ntou( Galati,aj( Kappadoki,aj( VAsi,aj kai. Biquni,aj( Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen vEklektoi/j is used substantivally in a list; it does not modify parepidh,moij. 1 Peter 1:19 avlla. timi,w| ai[mati wj avmnou/ avmw,mou kai. avspi,lou Cristou/( but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ. (1) Anarthrous First Attributive Position, (2) avspi,lou does not modify Cristou/ but rather avmnou/—Fourth Attributive Position. It is in a list. 2 Peter 2:5 kai. avrcai,ou ko,smou ouvk evfei,sato avlla. o;gdoon Nw/e dikaiosu,nhj kh,ruka evfu,laxen kataklusmo.n ko,smw| avsebw/n evpa,xaj( and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved an eighth, Noah, a preacher of righteousness, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; (1) Anarthrous First Attributive Position, (2) o;gdoon is used substantivally in a list. “The adjective ‘eighth’ stands in apposition to Noah; otherwise, if it modified Noah, the force would be ‘an eighth Noah’ as though there were seven other Noahs!”80 Revelation 9:14 le,gonta tw/| e[ktw| avgge,lw|( o e;cwn th.n sa,lpigga\ lu/son tou.j te,ssaraj avgge,louj tou.j dedeme,nouj evpi. tw/| potamw/| tw/| mega,lw| Euvfra,th|Å one saying to the sixth angel who had the trumpet, “Release the four angels who are bound at the great river, Euphrates.” (1) First Attributive Position, (2) Tw/| mega,lw| is in the Second Attributive Position with the preceding noun, tw/| potamw/|. Tw/| mega,lw| is in apposition to Euvfra,th|. Revelation 18:10 avpo. makro,qen esthko,tej dia. to.n fo,bon tou/ basanismou/ auvth/j le,gontej\ ouvai. ouvai,( h po,lij h mega,lh( Babulw.n h po,lij h ivscura,( o[ti mia/| w[ra| h=lqen h kri,sij souÅ standing at a distance because of the fear of her torment, saying, ‘Woe, woe, the great city, Babylon, the strong city! For in one hour your judgment has come.’ Second Attributive Position to the preceding noun; H mega,lh is in apposition to Babulw.n. Revelation 21:19 oi qeme,lioi tou/ tei,couj th/j po,lewj panti. li,qw| timi,w| kekosmhme,noi\ o qeme,lioj o prw/toj i;aspij( o deu,teroj sa,pfiroj( o tri,toj calkhdw,n( o te,tartoj sma,ragdoj( The foundation stones of the city wall were adorned with every kind of precious stone. The first foundation stone was jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, chalcedony; the fourth, emerald; Both adjectives are in apposition to the following noun.

80 Ibid., 3.

24

Revelation 21:20 o pe,mptoj sardo,nux( o e[ktoj sa,rdion( o e[bdomoj cruso,liqoj( o o;gdooj bh,rulloj( o e;natoj topa,zion( o de,katoj cruso,prasoj( o ende,katoj ua,kinqoj( o dwde,katoj avme,qustoj( the fifth, sardonyx; the sixth, sardius; the seventh, chrysolite; the eighth, beryl; the ninth, topaz; the tenth, chrysoprase; the eleventh, jacinth; the twelfth, amethyst. All three are in apposition to the following noun respectively.

25