Subject: tc-list Mt 21:28-31

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 06:08:33 -0600

Denny Diehl here with a question about Mt 21:28-31

There is a textual variant concerning Jesus' question
to the Pharisees about a man having two sons.  The
~normal~ progression is:

Father says go work in the field.
1st son said "I will not" but then went
2nd son said "I will" but then didn't

The NASB follows another line:

Father says go work in the field
1st son said "I will" but then didn't
2nd son said "I will not" but then went

1)  I've checked a few translations, and they, except 
the NASB, follow the first order.  NASB follows the
second.  Are there other translations besides the
NASB that follow the second order of events?

2)  Why would the NASB follow the second order
of events?

3)  According to Metzger's "A Textual Commentary
On The Greek New Testament", Jerome knew of
another variant which has the Pharisees answering
a non-sensical answer that the son who said he
would go, but then didn't, was the son who did the
will of his father.  Are there extant manuscripts which
provide that scenario?

4)  Anyone have a good explanation why and how
came this variation?

Thank you!
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

---

From: "Maurice A. O'Sullivan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 15:05:59 +0000

>2)  Why would the NASB follow the second order
<SNIP>

Denny:

If you check the N/A27 cirtical apparatus, you will find no fewer than 8
lines devoted to the textual variants for vv. 29-31 , and then turn to UBS3
to find 18 lines !

In their Anchor Bible translation and commentary, Albright and Mann 
explain that:
"The manuscripts have considerable variation as to which comes first in
this saying, the obedient or the disobedient son. We have chosen to follow
the reading of Codex Sinaiticus and other early  authorities ....... "

So there you are, basically an editorial decision.

What lies behind such an editorial decision is extremely well illustrated
by Robert H. Gundry  in his " Matthew: A  Commentary on his Literary and
Theological Art" (Eerdmans 1983 ).
On p. 421, he exmaines the nature of Matteean parallelism and then on the
basis of this  prefers the Sinaiticus reading.
In addition, he relies on the Matthean preference for hETERWi as against
the "unMattean DEUTERWi".
"The latter goes with the variant reading which may have arisen out of the
later application of the parable  to Jews and Gentiles. That application
demanded a reversal in the order of the sons to agree with the historical
order of Jewish disobedience followed by Gentiles' repentance".

One more sad example of the use of scripture for ideolgoical purposes. If I
were to use the NASB ( which I don't ) I would want to know more about the
agenda  lying behind the choice made here in this parable.  I think i am
right in saying that the NASB was published in 1963, and was the work of 60
_anonymous_ -- so there's not much chance of finding out what lay behind
their choice. Compare this with the use of extensive notes in other
translations, which often explain their choice; in the case of the NRSV,
the translation committee even published a book giving the reasons behind
some of their decisions.

BTW, what intrigues me much more about this Matthean passage is why this
was one of the few occasions when Matthew chose to use the expression
"Kingdom of God" rather than his usual circumlocution "kingdom of heaven".
Any ideas, Denny?

Hope this is of help,
Maurice

Maurice A. O'Sullivan
[Bray, Ireland]
[email-masked]

" With computers we can now mistinterpret Scripture at speeds never before
possible"