The gospel according to Matthew
Chapter 21
|
28. Τί δὲ ὑμῖν δοκεῖ; Ἄνθρωπος εἶχεν τέκνα δύο, καὶ προσελθὼν τῷ πρώτῳ εἶπεν,
Τέκνον, ὕπαγε σήμερον ἐργάζου ἐν τῷ ἀμπελῶνι μου. But what do you think? A man had two sons, and
coming to the first, he said, ‘Son, go work today in my[1] vineyard.’ |
|
29. Ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν, Οὐ
θέλω, ὕστερον δὲ μεταμεληθεὶς ἀπῆλθεν. And answering, he said, ‘I will not,’ but afterward
he changed his mind and went. |
|
30. Προσελθὼν δὲ[2] τῷ ἑτέρῳ
εἶπεν ὡσαύτως. Ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν, Ἐγώ, κύριε, καὶ οὐκ ἀπῆλθεν. And coming to the other[3], he said the same. And
answering, he said, ‘I go, sir,’ but he did not go. |
|
31. Τίς ἐκ τῶν δύο ἐποίησεν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ
πατρός; Λέγουσιν αὐτῷ, Ὁ πρῶτος. Λέγει αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι οἱ
τελῶναι καὶ αἱ πόρναι προάγουσιν ὑμᾶς εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ. Which of the two did the will of the father?” They said to
him[4],
“The first[5].”
Jesus said to them, “Truly I say to you that the tax collectors and the prostitutes are
entering kingdom of God before you. |
|
32. Ἦλθεν γὰρ πρὸς ὑμᾶς
Ἰωάννης ἐν ὁδῷ δικαιοσύνης, καὶ οὐκ ἐπιστεύσατε αὐτῷ, Οἱ δὲ τελῶναι καὶ αἱ πόρναι
ἐπίστευσαν αὐτῷ. Ὑμεῖς δὲ ἰδόντες, οὐ[6] μετεμελήθητε ὕστερον τοῦ
πιστεῦσαι αὐτῷ. For
John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him,
but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him. And yet even after
you saw it, you did not repent that you might believe him. |
[1] NA-Text omits “my” and renders “the vine”. Codex Vaticanus agrees with
the Byzantine text.
[2] NA-Text and Vg-St place the conjunction “and” (Gr.: “δε”) after the
verb (Latin equivalent: “autem”): א B D L Z Θ ƒ1 ƒ13 33
700 892 copmae copbo Jerome | TR: C W 0102 Byz it syrs syrc Diatessaron Chrysostom Theophylact
|| Both readings have good support in the manuscript tradition and the meaning
is the same, but the Nestle-Aland reading has been adopted mainly because this
conjunction may explain the copyist error that created the reading “the second”
in connection with the following words, which indicates that this conjunction
is earlier than “the second”.
[3] NA-Text, WPF35, M-TextHF and Vg-St read “the other”
(ετερω). “The second” (δευτερω) is supported by codices א2, B, C2, L, O, Zvid, Σ, 0233, family of manuscripts
ƒ1, some minuscules including 28, 33, 700, 892, 1424, 2174, part of
the Byzantine manuscripts, the Georgian version, the Bohairic and middle
Ӕgyptian Coptic versions, Ephraem the Syrian, Chrysostom and Theophylact. “The
other” is supported by codices א*, C*,
D, E, F, G, H, K, W, X, Y, Δ, Θ, Π, 0102, family of manuscripts ƒ13,
some minuscules including 157, 565, 597 and 1241, part of the Byzantine manuscripts,
the old Latin codices, the Peshitta, the Curetonian Syriac, the Harklean Syriac
and some manuscripts of the Palestinian Syriac, the Ethiopic, the Slavic, the
Armenian and some manuscripts of the Sahidic Coptic version, the Arabic Diatessaron,
Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, Hilary and Cyril of Alexandria. The reading “the
second” may have been created by a couple of factors working together. Firstly,
the firsts and seconds in chapter 22 indicating to scribes a possible pattern
in Matthew’s writings. There are two commandments, the first and the second
(Matt. 22:38-40) and there are seven brothers who died, the first, the second,
the third and the seventh (Matt. 22:25-26). Secondly, a natural tendency to
think that once a first is mentioned in a text where two people or two things
are mentioned, the next one should be the second. And thirdly, if we put
together the capital letters for “and the other” “ΔETWETEPW”, a scribe then
could have interpreted that there was an error in his copy that sounded close
to what in his mind would have been the correct reading as “TWΔEYTEPW”, thus
creating the reading “the second”. The letters are the same, except the “Y” in
the place of the “E” in the fifth position. The first four letters are the
same, just in reversed order (ΔETW versus TWΔE). We notice this tendency in
correcting “the other” into the “the second” in codices א and C. Therefore, the Greek
text has been corrected following the NA-Text.
[4] NA-Text and Vg-St omit “to him”. The vulgate of Stuttgart is not
reflecting the Latin tradition very well by omitting this article here. Jerome,
the old Latin codices and the Clementine vulgate included it in the text. The Diatessaron
which reflects the western text also included it in the text. In Egypt, the
Sahidic Coptic, the middle Ӕgyptian Coptic and some manuscripts of the Bohairic
Coptic version support the inclusion of the article. The Alexandrian codex C
and codex W which was found in Egypt also support the inclusion of the article.
Besides, I could not find any instance of this verb “to say” used in the
present active indicative third person plural in a dialogue without a pronoun
or an indirect object in the gospel of Matthew where he is clarifying who are
those who are speaking and to whom (see Matt.
9:28, 13:51, 14:17, 15:33, 19:7, 19:10, 20:7, 20:22, 20:33, 21:31, 21:41,
22:21, 22:42 and 27:22). Therefore, the omission of the article here has
likely not come from Matthew’s pen.
[5] Vg-St reads “the last” (Latin: “novissimus”, codex D: “εσχατος”): ita
itaur itb itd ite itff1
itff2 itg1 ith itl itr1.
The Clementine vulgate and the Latin (as well as the Greek) column in the
Complutensian Polyglot disagree with the vulgate of Stuttgart by reading “the
first” (Latin: “primus”). Jerome reads “Quis ex duobus fecit voluntatem patris?
Et dicunt: Primus”, commentary on Matthew 21:28-31)
and goes on to say that “the authentic manuscripts do not read “the last”, but “the
first” (Latin: “Sciendum est in veris exemplaribus non haberi ‘novissimum’, sed
‘primus’”, commentary on Matthew 21:32), but he did not oppose one who wanted
to accept “the last” as the correct reading as it seems to have been a popular
reading in the Latin manuscripts of his time. Metzger explained that this
reading crosses the line of a hard reading to a non-sensical reading. A note in
the NET bible agrees that this is a non-sensical reading by stating: “But the
reading is so hard as to be nearly impossible. One can only suspect some
tampering with the text, extreme carelessness on the part of the scribe, or
possibly a recognition of the importance of not shaming one’s parent in public.
(Any of these reasons is not improbable with this texttype, and with codex D in
particular.)”. Following codex Vaticanus, Lachmann adopted “the [one] afterward”
(Gr.: “υστερος”) in his Greek text and was criticized by De Wette as having deprived
the passage of all meaning. Scrivener thinks that this is the genuine reading for
the passage and with him agrees von Soden. Scholz, Griesbach, Wordsworth and
Baljon rejected this reading from codex Vaticanus in their Greek compilations. Tregelles
and Hort adopted “the [one] afterward” that has been overturned by the NA-Text
(currently in the 28th edition), which now reads “the first”. And
rightly so. It is always more prudent to select the reading that is more
widespread to not run the risk of adopting local errors. The “the other (vs.
30) / the first (vs. 31)” is supported by א* C* E F G H K W X Y Δ Π 0102 157
565 579 597 1006 1010 1071 1079 1195 (1216 υπαγω κυριε) 1230 1241 1253 1546 Byzpt
itc itf itq vgcl vgww
(syrc syrp syrh syrpal(mss)) (copsa(mss))
ethpp ethTH slav Diatessarona Diatessaroni
Diatessaronn Irenaeus Origen Eusebius Hilary Cyril. And “the second (vs.
30) / the first (vs. 31)” is supported by א2 C2 L
O Zvid Σ ƒ1 28 33 180 205 892 1009 1242 1243 1342 1292
1342 1344 1365 1424c (1424*) 1505 1646 2148 2174 Byzpt syrpal(mss)
(copmae) ethro? ethpp? Chrysostom.
[6] NA-Text reads “ουδε” (“not even” instead of “not”). Codices Sinaiticus and Ephraemi agrees
with the Byzantine text.
----
Notes:
1. Text in red letters are places where the original reading in the Textus Receptus has been revised and corrected;
2. The English translation used as a reference is the WEB brought to conformity as literal as possible to the Textus Receptus. The end product though is not the WEB or a revised WEB and it should not be called WEB. The content of this post is freely available to everyone and it is not supposed to be copyrighted;
3. TR: Textus Receptus. This text is not copyrighted;
4. NA-Text: Nestle-Aland text commonly known as critical text;
5. M-Text: Majority Text;
6. M-TextRP - Majority Text compiled by Maurice Robinson & William Pierpont;
6. M-TextHF - Majority Text compiled by Zane Hodges & Arthur Farstad;
7. Vg-St: Vulgate of Stuttgart;
8. WPF35: Wilbur Pickering-family 35;
9. P-Text: Patriarchal Text, also known as Patriarchal Greek New Testament, published by the ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.
10. The creator of the variant apparatus available in the VarApp kindly gave me permission to freely use the information contained in the material he put together.
---
To God all the glory for the preservation of the scriptures! He reigns!
No comments:
Post a Comment