“Overall
this is a very difficult problem.” Thus
wrote Wieland Willker, in his Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels, about the variation-units in Matthew 21:29-31,
to which he devoted eight pages of analysis before concluding that “a fully convincing solution is currently not available.”
“Verses 29-31 involve a rather complex and difficult
textual problem.” Thus begins the NET’s
note on the same subject – one of the longest notes in the NET.
But you wouldn’t know that there is a very tough textual
variant here from most of our English Bibles.
The CSB, ESV, NASB, NIV, NLT, EHV, MEV, NRSV, and NKJV all say that the
answer to Jesus’ question was “The first,” and they have no footnote here. (The EOB-NT is a rare exception; the EOB-NT
has “The first” in the text and a footnote says, “A few manuscripts, notably D,
read “the second” which is unlikely but presents the Jews as spoiling the
parable by giving (seemingly deliberately) the wrong answer.” The EOB’s note could be improved, though, by
replacing “the second” with “the last.”)
I think one has to go back to J.B. Phillips’
version to find, in English, anything other than “the first” (or, in the CEV, “the
older one”) as the answer that was given to Jesus’ question in Matthew 21:31. (In Phillips’ version, the answer is given as
“The second one,” echoing the variant δευτερω. A different reading, ὁ ὕστερος, was in the
text of the 25th edition of the Nestle-Aland compilation, and was
also adopted by Westcott & Hort and Tregelles. (The 1881 Revised Version reads “The
first.” Perhaps the Revision Committee
was unimpressed with Westcott and Hort’s divided opinion.) (The
Tyndale House GNT deviates from Tregelles’ compilation, adopting the usual
reading ὁ πρῶτος, with an exceptionally thorough apparatus-entry.)
Hort, in 1881, devoted over two full pages (in Notes on Select Readings) to Mt.
21:28-31, and mentioned the view of Lachmann that the Jews’ answer to Jesus in
Mt. 21:31 is “an early interpolation” (along with the four words which follow
it). Westcott inserted a note of his own
into Hort’s analysis, stating, “Considering the difficulty of the Western
combination of readings it seems not unlikely that Lachmann is substantially
right.”
The array of readings in this passage is
interesting: first comes a contest in
verse 29: οὐ θέλω, ὔστερον δέ μεταμεληθεὶς
ἀπῆλθεν is read by the Byzantine Text, and by C L M W Π 157 565 579; À* has almost the same reading but without the δέ). Codex Vaticanus has, instead, ἐγώ κε
καὶ οὐκ ἀπῆλθεν (“I go, lord, and did not go”).
Third, f13 and 700 (Hoskier’s
604) read ὕπαγω κύριε καὶ οὐκ ἀπῆλθεν.
Fourth, Θ (038) has ὕπαγω καὶ οὐκ ἀπῆλθεν. Fifth, Codex Bezae (05) reads οὐ θέλω ὔστερον
δέ μεταμεληθεὶς ἀπῆλθεν but adds εἰς τὸν ἀμπελωνα (repeating the words from v.
28).
There are other textual contests (Byzantine witnesses
have και before προσελθὼν; Alexandrian witnesses tend to have προσελθὼν δε, and
the scribe of À skipped ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς ειπεν
in v. 30), but the main contest near the beginning of v. 30 is between ἑτέρω
(another) and δευτέρω (second).
Δευτέρω (second) is supported by B L M S Ω and by most Greek manuscripts,
and by 28 33 700 892 and 1424. The
Byzantine Textform is somewhat split here, though: δευτέρω is in the text and ἑτέρω is in the
margin.
Ἡτέρω (the other) is supported by À*, D, Q, K, Π, W, Y, Δ, 157, 565,
579, et al. In Codex À, someone creatively changed ἑτέρω by putting δ in the left margin
and υ between the first ε and τ, thus
producing the variant δευτέρω.
Those two textual contests must be kept in mind as we
approach the main textual contest in verse 31, where we see (after another variation-unit
in v. 31: after λεγουσιν, most MSS have αυτω
but not B À L D Θ 33 f13 788) the answer that
Jesus’ listeners gave:
Codex B and some Ethiopic copies support ὁ ὕστερος (“the
later [one]”).
Almost all manuscripts support ὁ πρῶτος (“the first”).
Codex D and Θ 700 f13 and several Old Latin
copies (a, b, d, e, ff2, h, l) and the Sinaitic Syriac and the
Armenian version support ὁ ἔσχατος (“the last”).
Let’s remember one of the canons of textual
criticism: prefer the more difficult reading. The reading of Codex Bezae is the more
difficult reading here – but it also makes Jesus’ hearers appear idiotic; it is
obvious that the son who told his father that he would go, but did not go, did
not do what the father wanted him to do.
Jerome’s Vulgate supports ὁ πρῶτος. But in his Commentary
on Matthew, Jerome said something about the variant in verse 31: “one
should know that with respect to what follows: ‘Which of the two did the
father’s will? And they said, ‘the last,’ the authentic copies do not have ‘the
last’ but ‘the first.’” Jerome proposed that “If we want to read ‘the last,’ the interpretation is plain. We would say that the Jews indeed understood
the truth, but they are evasive and do not want to say what they think.” In other words, to Jerome, the reading ὁ ἔσχατος
(“the last”) makes the Jews seem not stupid, but duplicitous.
Bruce Metzger, in his Textual
Commentary, rejected the very difficult reading of Codex Bezae, stating
that “it is not only difficult, it is nonsensical” – and explained that the UBS
committee judged that D’s reading originated “due to copyists who either
committed a transcriptional blunder or who were motivated by anti-Pharisaic
bias.” Whatever the mechanism was, the
range of its effect must have extended not only to Codex D but to several Latin
copies, to the Sinaitic Syriac, and to Jerome’s “authentic” Latin manuscripts – most of which are major representatives of the Western Text.
[But not the Curetonian Syriac. As Willker notes, the Curetonian Syriac was erroneously cited in NA27 as if it supports ὁ ἔσχατος. Willker supplies Peter Williams’ rendering of the Curetonian Syriac, which concludes with “The first/former”.]
[Another oddity in the apparatus of NA27 is that Θ is assigned two readings in v. 31: ἔσχατος and ὕστερος.]
[A mistake might have been made by Kurt and Barbara Aland in their Text of the New Testament where they took a close look at this passage (beginning on p. 233), and they zoom in on Mt. 21:31 (beginning on page 235). The Alands stated that ὁ ὕστερος is supported by Codex Vaticanus “and other Greek manuscripts as well as in some Sahidic manuscripts and the whole Bohairic tradition.” What are the “other Greek manuscripts” here? The apparatus of NA27 lists B Θ f13 700 al; however, this seems to refer to the reading ὕστερον near the end of v. 30; Swanson gives ὁ ἔσχατος as the reading of Θ f13 700 in v. 31 before λέγει. If there are any other Greek manuscripts that read ὁ ὕστερος other than Codex Vaticanus, I do not know what they are. If anyone knows of any, please mention them in the comments.]
Now let’s apply another canon: prefer the variant which accounts for its rivals better than they account for it. The reading in Mt. 21:31 adopted in the UBS compilation – ὁ πρῶτος – does not explain ὁ ὕστερος. And ὁ ὕστερος can account for ὁ πρῶτος and ὁ ἔσχατος.
As as answer to Jesus’ question, ὁ ὕστερος is a somewhat
fluid answer; to someone whose first language was Latin, ὁ ὕστερος might be
misunderstood as if it means “the latter.”
And such a misunderstanding explains the origin of the Western reading;
there is no need to suppose that an “anti-Pharisaic bias” was involved here.
Ὁ ὕστερος also explains
ὁ πρῶτος: The answer “The later one”
refers to the first son, not initially (when he said that he would not go), but
later (after he changed his mind). An
early scribe who perceived that ὁ ὕστερος could be misunderstood as a reference
to the second son could easily avoid the misunderstanding that mars the Western
Text by making the wording clearer, and he did so, creating the reading ὁ πρῶτος.
This internal evidence – (1) ὁ ὕστερος is difficult but not nonsensical, and (2) ὁ ὕστερος accounts for ὁ πρῶτος
better than ὁ πρῶτος accounts for ὁ ὕστερος, and (3) ὁ ὕστερος accounts for ὁ
ἔσχατος – compels the adoption of ὁ ὕστερος.
NA 25 |
By the way, I adopted ὁ ὕστερος over a decade ago in my Equitable Eclectic English Edition of the Gospel of Matthew, rendered as “The later one.” EEEE Matthew, as I call it, is available as a Kindle e-book on Amazon for $1.99.
A minor note is that D actually reads ο αισχατος.
ReplyDeleteWayne,
ReplyDeleteNoted. Just a minor itacism.
You said the following:
ReplyDeleteὉ ὕστερος also explains ὁ πρῶτος: The answer “The later one” refers to the first son, not initially (when he said that he would not go), but later (after he changed his mind). An early scribe who perceived that ὁ ὕστερος could be misunderstood as a reference to the second son could easily avoid the misunderstanding that mars the Western Text by making the wording clearer, and he did so, creating the reading ὁ πρῶτος.
So is your personal interpretation that "the later one" actually refers to the first son, i.e. the one that "later" changed his mind? Or are you merely saying that some scribe understood it that way, whether accurately or not, and changed it to ὁ πρῶτος to clarify?
James, as you know, in text criticism it’s important to know what the MSS actually read, including cases of itacism. I forgot to mention that someone appears to have underlined αισχατος in Bezae. Dirk Jongkind noted the underlines in the Greek text in the ETC blog of May 14, 2014.
ReplyDeleteBrad Belschner,
ReplyDelete<< So is your personal interpretation that "the later one" actually refers to the first son, i.e. the one that "later" changed his mind? >>
Yes; exactly. And this was changed to ὁ πρῶτος to avoid the chance of a misunderstanding like the one we see in the Western Text.
Wayne Mitchell,
ReplyDelete<< it’s important to know what the MSS actually read, including cases of itacism. >>
Of course, but I didn't refer to what D reads; I referred to what D **supports**: "Codex D and Θ 700 f13 and several Old Latin copies (a, b, d, e, ff2, h, l) and the Sinaitic Syriac and the Armenian version support ὁ ἔσχατος (“the last”)."
Chrysostom, Jerome and Tatian's Diatessaron are all in favor of "the first". Hilary in his commentary on Matthew seems to work on the assumption that his manuscript read "the first". I don't have a reading from a father in Egypt in the first 500 years but the patristic evidence in our possession seems to favor "the first".
ReplyDeleteDemian: Fortunatianus cites the "later" variant in ~350 AD. James Snapp has a post mentioning that elsewhere on this blog.
ReplyDeleteHi Brad, thank you for mentioning that. When I find agreement between Jerome's textual criticism which was based on early and authentic Greek copies of the gospels (plus his access to Caesareans manuscripts, his acquaintance with theological works in Egypt, in the East and Ante-Nicene writings) and Chrysostom whose text used in his homilies was authentically Byzantine plus Ante-Nicene quotes all in agreement, I have a strong indication that this is the original reading that was preserved and available to the catholic church in the first 400 years. But let's look into this evidence that you cited. Would you be so kind and share with me that quote plus 2 paragraphs before and after?
ReplyDeleteDemian,
ReplyDeleteIf I may: you can read my notes about Fortunatianus at https://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2017/08/fortunatianus-speaks.html
and if you read carefully near the end, you should find some links embedded in the text, including one that is connected to
https://www.degruyter.com/
Search there (using the search bar at the top of the page) for "Hugh Houghton Fortunatianus". And then, "Download PDF".
Demian,
ReplyDeleteWait; that was not the proper file.
If you contact me via Facebook or email, I should be able to provide something more substantial.
That’s nice of you, James. I’m not on Facebook. Where can I find your email?
ReplyDeleteThank you!
Demian
James, that’s OK. You don’t need to contact me this time, brother. I’ve corrected my manuscript in countless places where I could see that your conclusion was correct. You have been a blessing to me and to many others who love the pure word of God. This is going to be one of those few times where I feel that I have to disagree with you and keep my manuscript untouched in this place. Thank you for your faithful ministry! Blessings!
ReplyDelete