Τί δὲ ὑμῖν δοκεῖ; ἄνθρωπος τις εἶχεν τέκνα δύο, καὶ προσελθὼν τῷ πρώτῳ εἶπεν· τέκνον, ὕπαγε σήμερον ἐργάζου ἐν τῷ ἀμπελῶνι μου.
But what do you think? A certain man had two sons, and he came to the first, he said, ‘Son, go work today in my vineyard.’
Matt 21:28 [Textus Receptus (Elzevir) (1624)]78
Τί δὲ ὑμῖν δοκεῖ; Ἄνθρωπος εἶχε τέκνα δύο, καὶ προσελθὼν τῷ πρώτῳ, εἶπε· Τέκνον, ὕπαγε, σήμερον ἐργάζου ἐν τῷ ἀμπελῶνι μου.
MSS: 43, 44, 438, 556 (f38v), 771
Matt 21:28 [Codex Sinaiticus (א or 01) (4th century)]q75f4vc4
Τι δε ϋμιν δοκει ανος ειχεν τεκνα Β ϗ προσελθων τω πρωτω ειπεν τεκνον ϋπαγε σημερον εργαζου εν τω αμπελωνι
Matt 21:28 [Codex Vaticanus Gr. 1209 (B03) (4th century)]17ac3
Τι δε υμιν δοκει ανθρωπος ειχεν δυο τεκνα και προσελθων τω πρωτω ειπεν τεκνον υπαγε σημερον εργαζου εν τω αμπελωνι μου
Matt 21:28 [Codex Ephraemi Syri Rescriptus (C04) (5th century)]38
Τι δε υμιν δοκει· ανος τις ειχεν τεκνα δυο· και προσελθων τω πρωτω ειπεν τεκνον υπαγε σημερον εργαζου εν τω αμπελωνι·
Matt 21:28 [Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis(D05) (5th century)]70v-71v
: Τι δε ϋμιν δοκει· ανθρωπος ειχεν τεκνα δυο και προσελθων τω πρωτω ειπεν τεκνον ϋπαγε σημερον εργαζου εις τον αμπελωνα
Matt 21:28 [Codex Seidelianus I (Harley MS5684) (G011) (9th century)]39vc1
τί δὲ ὑΜῖν δοκεῖ ἄνος εἶχεν τέκνα δύο καὶ προσελθὼν τῶ πρώτω εἶπεν τέκνον ὕπαγε σήμερον ἐργάζου ἐν τῶ ἀμπελῶνι μου.
MSS: G, S (f59rc1), Ω (p113c2-114c1)
Matt 21:28 [Codex Cyprius (Grec 63) (K017) (9th century)]60r
Τί δὲ ὑμῖν δοκεῖ· ἄνος εἶχεν τέκνα δύο· καὶ προσελθὼ- τῶ πρώτω εἶπεν· τέκνον· ὕπαγε σήμερον ἐργάζου ἐ τῶ ἀμπελῶνι·
Matt 21:28 [Codex Washingtonianus (W032) (5th century]78
Τι δε ὑμιν δοκει ανος ειχεν τεκνα δυο και προσελθων τω πρωτω ειπεν τεκνον ὑπαγε σημερον εργαζου εν τω αμπελωνι μου
Matt 21:28 [Codex Macedoniensis (MS Add 6594) (Y034) (9th century)]46r
τί ΰμῖν δοκεῖ· Ἄνος εἶχε τέκνα δύο· καὶ προσελθὼν τῶ πρώτω εἶπε· τέκνον, ὕπαγε, σήμερον ἐργάζου ἐν τῶ ἀμπελῶνι·
Matt 21:28 [Codex Sangallensis 48 (Δ037) (9th century)]86
Τι δε υμιν δοκει Ανος τις ειχεν τεκνα δυο Και προσελθων τω πρωτω ειπεν· Τεκνον υπαγε σημερον εργαζου εν τω αμπελωνι
Matt 21:28 [Minuscule 8 (Gr. 49) (11th century)]53vc2-54rc1
Τί δὲ ὑμῖν δοκεῖ· ἄνος εἶχε τέκνα δύο, καὶ προσελθὼν τῶ πρώτω εἶπεν· τέκνον, ὕπαγε, σήμερον ἐργάζου ἐν τῶ ἀμπελῶνι μου.
Matt 21:28 [Minuscule 201 (Add MS 11837) (1357)]54v
τί δὲ ὑμῖν δοκεῖ· ἄνος τϊς Εἶχε τέκνα δύο· καὶ προσελθὼν τῶ πρώτω, εἶπε· τέκνον· ὕπαγε σήμερον ἐργάζου ἐν τῶ ἀμπελῶνϊ μου·
MSS: 7, 157, 201
Matt 21:28 [Minuscule 700 (Egerton MS 2610) (11th century)]65r
τί δὲ ὑμῖν δοκεῖ· ἄνος Εἶχε τέκνα δύο· καὶ προσελθὼν τῷ πρώτῳ εἶπεν· τέκνον, ὕπαγε σήμερον ἐργάζου ἐν τῷ ἀμπελῶνι·
Matt 21:28 [Lectionary ℓ339 (4th day/10th week) (Egerton MS 2163) (12th century)]58r-v
Εἶπεν ὁ κς τὴν παραβολὴν ταύτην· ἄνος τις εἶχε τέκνα δύο· καὶ προσελθὼν τῶ πρώτω εἶπε· τέκνον· ὕπαγε σήμερο- ἐργάζου ἐν τῶ ἀμπελῶνι·
Matt 21:28 [Peshitta]
ܡܳܢܳܐ ܕ݁ܶܝܢ ܡܶܬ݂ܚܙܶܐ ܠܟ݂ܽܘܢ ܓ݁ܰܒ݂ܪܳܐ ܚܰܕ݂ ܐܺܝܬ݂ ܗ݈ܘܰܘ ܠܶܗ ܒ݁ܢܰܝܳܐ ܬ݁ܪܶܝܢ ܘܰܩܪܶܒ݂ ܠܘܳܬ݂ ܩܰܕ݂ܡܳܝܳܐ ܘܶܐܡܰܪ ܠܶܗ ܒ݁ܶܪܝ ܙܶܠ ܝܰܘܡܳܢܳܐ ܦ݁ܠܽܘܚ ܒ݁ܟ݂ܰܪܡܳܐ܂
Matt 21:28 [Vulgate]
quid autem vobis videtur homo habebat duos filios et accedens ad primum dixit fili vade hodie operare in vinea mea
Critical Apparatus :
(1) δε : א, B, C, D, E, G, K, L, M, S, W, Δ, Ω, 7, 8, 22c, 33, 43, 44, 157, 201, 438, 556, 700, 771, 892, ℓ339 (iii),
(2) δαι : 1, 22*, 1582
(3) OMIT δε : Y, 4, 13
(4) ανθρωπος : א, B, D, G, K, L, S, W, Y, Ω, 4, 8, 43, 44, 438, 556, 700, 771, 892, Vulgate
(5) ADD τις : C, E, M, Δ, 1, 7, 13, 22, 33, 157, 201, 892mg, 1582, ℓ339, ℓ339 (iii), Peshitta
(6) ειχε : Y, 4, 7, 8, 13, 22, 43, 44, 157, 201, 438, 556, 700, 771, 892?, ℓ339, ℓ339 (iii),
(7) ειχεν : א, B, C, D, E, G, K, L, M, S, W, Δ, Ω, 1, 33, 1582
(8) τεκνα δυο : א, C, D, E, G, K, L, M, S, W, Y, Δ, Ω, 1, 4, 7, 8, 13, 22, 33, 43, 44, 157, 201, 438, 556, 700, 771, 892, 1582, ℓ339, ℓ339 (iii),
(9) δυο τεκνα : B
(10) και προσελθων : א¹, B, C, D, E, G, K, M, S, W, Y, Δ, Ω, 1, 4, 7, 8, 13, 22, 33, 43, 44, 157, 201, 438, 556, 700, 771, 892, 1582, ℓ339, ℓ339 (iii),
(11) OMIT και : א*, L
(12) πρωτω : א, B, C, D, E, G, K, L, M, S, W, Y, Δ, Ω, 1, 4c, 7, 8, 13, 22, 33, 43, 44, 157, 201, 438, 556, 700, 771, 892, 1582, ℓ339, ℓ339 (iii),
(13) προτω : 4*
(14) ειπε : Y, 7, 43, 44, 157, 201, 438, 556, 771, ℓ339
(15) ειπεν : א, B, C, D, E, G, K, L, M, S, W, Δ, Ω, 1, 4, 8, 13, 22, 33, 700, 892, 1582, ℓ339 (iii)
(16) εν τω αμπελωνι : B, C, E, G, L, M, S, W, Y, Δ, Ω, 1, 4, 7, 8, 13, 22, 33, 43, 44, 157, 201, 438, 556, 700, 771, 892, 1582, ℓ339, ℓ339 (iii),
(17) εις το αμπελωνα : D*
(18) εις τον αμπελωνα : D1
(19) ε τω αμπελωνι : K
(20) μου : B, E, G, S, W, Ω, 4, 7, 8, 43, 44, 157, 201, 438, 556, 771, ℓ339 (iii), Vulgate
(21) OMIT μου : א, C, D, K, L, M, Y, Δ, 1, 13, 22, 33, 700, 892, 1582, ℓ339, Peshitta
ΜΘ : Περὶ τῶν δύο ὑιῶν παραβολή
CΙΗ / Ι :
D (f70v-71v), E (f67v), L (f47vc1-2), M (f67vc2-68rc1), S (f59rc1), Ω (p103c2-104c1), 4 (f44v), 7 (f54v), 157 (f79r), 556 (f38v), 892 (f81v), 1582 (f57v)
A Textual Commentary On Matthew 21:28
(a) Matt. xxi . 28-31 affords an illustration of the importance of not hastily condemning a reading as unintelligible. In the parable of the two sons bidden by their father to work in his vineyard, Lachmann retains the common order of the answers and actions , that is , the first son refuses to work, but afterwards repents and goes ; the second son says that he will go, but does not : but in the answer of the Jews to the inquiry of Christ, “ Which did the will of his father ?” — the answer in Lachmann’s text is ὁ ὕστερος, instead of the ὁ πρῶτος of the common text. This was deemed by De Wette to deprive the passage of all meaning ;* and Tischendorf, who adopted it in the first edition which he published , afterwards turned to the common reading. In examining the authorities in this passage , considerable discrepancies will be found ; several have ὕστερος (or an equivalent) in the latter part, while they avoid all difficulty by inverting the order of the answers , etc., of the two sons. Origen,** however, is an explicit witness, that in the early part of the third century, the answers and actions were in the same order in which we now have them, —the second son professing a willingness and not going , the first refusing and afterwards going. Hippolytus , an elder contemporary of Origen, is an equally explicit witness, that the answer of the Jews to our Lord was the latter, not the former.*** Now, I fully believe that Lachmann gives the true reading of the passage, and that in some documents the order of the answers has been changed so as to avoid a supposed difficulty, and that, in others , the word πρῶτος has been introduced instead of ὕστερος, for a similar reason . Transcribers felt persuaded , that the answer of the Jews must have been that the son who really went into the vineyard was he who did the father’s will ; when, however , documents avoid a difficulty in different paths, they give a very plain hint as to the true state of the case as a matter of evidence. Jerome appears to have translated “novissimus,” a rendering which elsewhere answers to ὕστερος : this, too, had been the Latin reading prior to the time of Jerome (as shown in the Codices Vercellensis, Veronensis, Corbeiensis, and the Evangelium Palatinum, published by Tischendorf) ; the best copies of Jerome’s translation (such as the Codices Amiatinus, Fuldensis, and Forojuliensis) also retain it. Jerome, in his Commentary, seems to have felt the difficulty, and he appeals to other copies which read “primus” (such as the revised text contained in the Codex Brixianus) : he seems, however, to have had but little confidence in the copies that read differently ; for he tries to explain his own reading, novissimus, by attributing this answer to the obstinacy of the Jews.
But what is to be said to this seemingly contradictory reading? The youngest son professed his readiness to obey, and then does not act according to his father’s will, and yet the answer is ὁ ὕστερος. I believe that ὁ ὕστερος refers not to the order in which the two sons have been mentioned, but to the previous expression about the elder son, ὕστερον δὲ μεταμεληθεὶς, ἀπῆλθεν, “afterwards he repented and went.” “Which of the two did his father’s will ? ” ὁ ὕστερος. He who afterwards [repented and went]. This answers the charge that the reading of Lachmann is void of sense.
Lachmann, indeed, in the Prolegomena to his second vol., p. v., suggests that this clause not being noticed in the Commentary of Origen on St. Matthew, as it has come down to us, was unknown to that father, and that therefore it was not in his copy : and thus, though Lachmann thought that the words might be very well explained in that manner just stated, he considered it more probable that the clause, λέγουσιν, Ὁ ὕστερος. λέγει αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς was an after-insertion : probably he would not have thrown out this suggestion had he taken into consideration the statement of Hippolytus, to say nothing now of the combined evidence of MSS. and versions.
* He asks, “ Was soll der Exeget mit dem blossen Lachmannschen Texte anfangen iu Stellen , wo er sinnlos ist, wie Matt . xxi . 28-31 ? ” – Einleitung ins N. T., ed . 5 p. 80.
** Ed . De la Rue , iij . 770 .
*** The words of Hippolytus are, και εν τω ευαγγελιω τον ποιησαντα το θελημα του πατρος ειπεν ο εσχατος. (Ed. Fabric., tom . ii., p. 30.) εσχατος is the equivalent for ύστερος in some MSS. of this passage.
S. P. Tregelles, An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament, pp. 106-108)