I follow a blog called "Stylos" written by pastor Jeff Riddle of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Virginia. He is one of the few proponents like myself for the Traditional Text of the New Testament. I think there is good reason that the Reformers and others in that area surrounding it held to the Traditional Text. Vatacanus was known to them yet they didn't use it. Anyway, I digress. Pastor Riddle recently posted a blog on Luke 9:35 that I think is informative. The link to the post is below in the title, and I highly recommend his blog to follow. Have a good day!
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 27, 2013
When the divine voice speaks from the cloud at the transfiguration, what does it say?
According to the traditional text, the voice says, “This is my beloved Son: hear him” (KJV; cf. NKJV)).
According to the modern critical text, the voice says, “This is my Son, my Chosen One; listen to him!” (ESV; cf. RSV).
The difference here is whether or not the text reads agapetos (the adjective “beloved” modifying the noun “son”) or ho eklelegmenos(a participle acting substantively as “the chosen one” in apposition to the noun “son”).
The traditional reading is supported by codices A, C (original hand), R, W, family 13, and the vast majority of Greek manuscripts. Among early writers of the post-apostolic Christian era, the reading is found in Marcion and Clement.
The modern critical text is supported by p45, p75, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and a few others.
Metzger argues that the traditional text is a “scribal assimilation” to the other Synoptic transfiguration accounts (cf. Matthew17:5: “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.”; Mark 9:7: “This is my beloved Son.”) and to the Lukan baptism account (Luke 3:22: “Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.”) (see Metzger, Textual Commentary, p. 148). Metzger also notes that eklelegmenos “occurs in a quasi-technical sense only here in the New Testament” (Ibid).
Is it possible, however, that the modern critical reading reflects a lack of comfort with the view of Jesus as the “beloved” Son of God? That is, might it reflect an attempted Christological correction? One might also argue that the fact that this term does not appear in this manner in Luke (or the rest of the NT) is a sign of its lack of authenticity. Furthermore, if the traditional text is an assimilation to Luke 3:22, why does it not follow the second person singular (“Thou art my beloved Son.”) but instead shifts to the third person (“This is my beloved Son.”)?
The traditional reading has early and wide attestation. One can see how Christological controversies might have affected the reading. It is also clear that the modern critics usually assume that such agreements among the Synoptic Gospels is due to harmonization, rather than it being an accurate reflection of what actually took place (e.g., the traditional text of Matthew, Mark, and Luke all read, “This is my beloved Son,” because this is precisely what the voice said). Thus, there remain valid reasons for maintaining the traditional reading.