Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: tc-list Mt 21:28-31

Expand Messages
  • Jean Valentin
    ... About this important passage, a very important article is: Ch-B Amphoux, Les contextes de la parabole des deux fils, LOAPL 3 (1991) pp. 215-248 (LOAPL
    Message 1 of 4 , Dec 31, 1969
    • 0 Attachment
      >4) Anyone have a good explanation why and how
      >came this variation?
      >
      About this important passage, a very important article is:

      Ch-B Amphoux, Les contextes de la parabole des deux fils, LOAPL 3 (1991)
      pp. 215-248

      (LOAPL stands for Langues Orientales Anciennes - Patrologie et
      Linguistique)

      If you read french and have difficulties in finding it, I can send you a
      copy of this article by post, just send me your address.

      Hope this helps,

      Jean V.

      Jean Valentin - 34 rue du Berceau - 1000 Bruxelles - Belgique
      e-mail : jgvalentin@...
    • dd-1@juno.com
      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
      Message 2 of 4 , Jan 12, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        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]
      • Maurice A. O'Sullivan
        ... 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
        Message 3 of 4 , Jan 12, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          At 06:08 12/01/99 -0600, you wrote:
          >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?
          <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]
          mauros@...

          " With computers we can now mistinterpret Scripture at speeds never before
          possible"
        • Francisco Orozco
          Regarding the question about Mt 21:28-31, I have before me the NASB updated NT (which was given to me by one of the translators, it is dated 1997). In ...
          Message 4 of 4 , Jan 12, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            Regarding the question about Mt 21:28-31, I have before me the NASB updated
            NT (which was given to me by one of the translators, it is dated 1997). In
            this "update" the "~normal~ progression" is followed:

            >>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

            FWIW,
            Francisco Orozco
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.