But what think all of you? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard. (KJV)
#
Greek
MAC & POS
Definition
5101
τίς, τί
I-ASN
who? which? what?
1161
δέ
CONJ
but, and, now, (a connective or adversative particle)
5213
ὑμῖν
P-2DP
ὑμῖν humin, hoo-min´; irregular dative case of G5210; to (with or by) you:—ye, you,
your(-selves).
1380
δοκέω
V-PAI-3S
to have an opinion, to seem
444
ἄνθρωπος, ου, ὁ
N-NSM
a man, human, mankind
2192
ἔχω
V-IAI-3S
to have, hold
5043
τέκνον, ου, τό
N-VSN
a child (of either sex)
1417
δύο
A-NUI
two
2532
καί
CONJ
and, even, also
4334
προσέρχομαι
V-2AAP-NSM
to approach, to draw near
3588
ὁ, ἡ, τό
T-DSM
the
4413
πρῶτος, η, ον
A-DSN
first, chief
2036
εἶπον
V-2AAI-3S
ἔπω épō, ep´-o; a primary verb (used only in the definite past tense, the others being
borrowed from G2046, G4483, and G5346); to speak or say (by word or
writing):—answer, bid, bring word, call, command, grant, say (on),
speak, tell. Compare G3004.
5217
ὑπάγω
V-PAM-2S
to lead or bring under, to lead on slowly, to depart
(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.S. P. Tregelles, An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament, pp. 106-108)
