Critics and skeptics often suggest that early Christian texts originally portrayed Joseph as the physical father of Jesus. Bart Ehrman gives an example of how early orthodox belief led to textual variations in the New Testament in order to "obviate the possibilities of misconstrual." We will consider one in particular related to adoptionism, at Luke 2:33:

> The child's father and mother marveled at what was said about him.

Now this verse as it stands reflects what was originally written by Luke, according to textual critics. However, later scribes altered the verse to read, "Joseph and his mother marvelled..." Why? Because adoptionists were taking the original version to mean that Joseph was Jesus' physical father.

It is curious that adoptionists interpreted the above verse as meaning that Joseph was Jesus' physical father, when Luke so clearly states that the conception was the work of the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:34-35), and Matthew elsewhere affirms the virgin birth. The tagging of Joseph as Jesus' "father" here is hardly in the genre of a doctrinal specification. Moreover, it is not as though we would expect Mary to say, especially in the hearing of others, "I and this man, who for convenience we call your father, though he was not, biologically..."

Certainly Joseph acted as a "father" to Jesus in the important role of guardian and protector, which more than earned him the title in a societal context; and if nothing else, the convenience of use would suggest that this is what Joseph would be called, even with full awareness of Jesus' divine origins.

Furthermore, adoptionism is refuted by the broader witness of Scripture, which makes it quite clear that God the Word became incarnate rather than adopting a mere human. Thus these textual alterations were well-intentioned attempts by early Christians to protect the truth, and we thus have a lesson in the need to read text in light of its broader context.