The present article attempts to study the text types of Matthew 21:28-32 (the parable of the two sons) and its Korean translation history, and to put forward a suggestion for the upcoming revision of the New Korean Revised Version (NKRV). There are mainly three text types of Matthew 21:28-32. The first type represented by the Codex Sinaiticus portrays the first son as the naysayer but fulfilling his father’s will. The second type as in the Codex Vaticanus favors the second son as being obedient in the end. The third type as appears in the Codex Bezae describes the first son as repentant to answer his father’s request, but it features Jewish leaders who give Jesus a perverse answer that ironically commends the second.BR The current NKRV provides a translation based on the second type of the text. In contrast, the Korean New Testament (KNT, 1900), the first full NT translation in Korea considered the first type to be the original. At that time, the Board of Official Translators used Chinese bibles to draft the Korean translation, which then was emended and improved based on the KJV, the ERV, and the Palmer’s Greek New Testament (1881). They also referred to the three critical commentaries written or edited by Charles J. Ellicott, Heinrich A. W. Meyer and Henry Alford. It is interesting to note that all these resources prefer the first type as the original for Matthew 21:28-32. This can explain why the translation in the KNT (1900) is different from the present NKRV.BR This difference was, in fact, occasioned by the KRV (Korean Revised Version, 1938). Since the Korea-Japan Annexation Treaty in 1910, Koreans got used to Japanese bible. Thus, the revision committee used not only the NTG12 (1923) but also the Taisho Revised Version (1917) as its source text. It should be noted that these two Greek and Japanese bibles show Matthew 21:28-32 in accordance with the second type. This gave rise to the change of the text type in the KRV. From this revision onward, its translation has been passed down to the current NKRV with no great change in its content. However, the majority of the Matthean scholars and textual critics now consider the first type closer to the original for Matthew 21:28-32. Accordingly, it is necessary to reconsider its text type for the future revision of the NKRV.
Read full abstract