Jesus' Father:
A key doctrine is affected by textual variants
Occasionally updated and edited.
Copyright © 2009
According to Christian apologists, there are no variants in the New Testament that affect Christian doctrine.
Consider Luke 2:33 as an exception.
The King James Version renders, "And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him."
The New International Version reads, "The child’s father and mother marveled at what was said about him."
Most scholars agree that the King James Version rendering is the product of tampered-with text; the objective was to protect the virgin birth of Jesus by changing "father" to "Joseph."
Recent translations prefer "father" rather than "Joseph."
The key doctrine affected by the variant is the virgin birth of Jesus.
Was Luke acknowledging Joseph's legal and de facto status as the adoptive father of Jesus? Was this a Freudian slip; a lapse into reality in which Luke inadvertently acknowledges subterfuge? Could it be that Luke didn't believe in the virgin birth; that the term "virgin" in 1:27 should be translated "young woman?" Should we note that Mary was a virgin at the time of the angelic visitation but not at the time of conception?
Most would assume Luke was referring to Joseph as the legal, though not necessarily natural, father of Jesus.
However, the key doctrine of the virgin birth is affected by a variant.
The argument is made that the reference to "father" is cancelled by references to the virgin birth in Matthew 1:23 and Luke 1:27. It could be argued that the reference to "father" cancels the references to the virgin birth and confirms that "virgin" should read "young woman."
It is that possibility that prompted the variant.
