It being Saturday, I went back over some of the earlier posts on these threads. Ran across something I missed.
Awareness cited this from Ehrman (where he was suggesting where I got my material):
But the manuscripts of Luke’s Gospel are divided concerning what exactly the voice said. According to most of our manuscripts, it spoke the same words one finds in Mark’s account: “You are my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased” (Mark 1: 11; Luke 3: 23). In one early Greek manuscript and several Latin ones, however, the voice says something strikingly different: “You are my Son, today I have begotten you.”
I read this, but was not paying attention to the details. I learned about a manuscript of
Mark that had the "Today I have begotten you" variant, but here Ehrman is mentioning that some copies of
Luke had this variant, and he did not mention the Mark variant.
(Update to post) I went back over my research and Ehrman is correct. It was a variant of Luke, not Mark, that I had run across in my research. The way the webpage was organized left me with the wrong conclusion.
This of course makes some of my previous claims incorrect. We have no version of Mark 1:11 that reads the way I described.
This misstep alone does not dissuade me from my general conclusion about the virgin birth. It just means that Mark 1:11 cannot be used to support John's gospel,
but neither does it challenge it, and it was a copy of Luke that had the alteration. According to the evidence this variant occurred after the original Luke was written.
Score one point for Ohio's team
Also to correct my previous posts: Justin Martyr had this copy of Luke, not Mark.
It remains to me a mystery then why Mark would quote Psalm 2:7 incorrectly. Maybe more research will one day lead to an answer to that question.
Surely the author of the Luke variant had Psalm 2 in mind when the "correction" was made.