ὕστερον, or (the better to point out their reference to ὕστερον in ver. 29) ὁ τὸ ὕστερον. Why then prefer nonsense, for the mere purpose of carrying out Bengel’s canon to the extremity? The passage, precisely as it stands in Tregelles’ N. T., _is sanctioned by no critical authority whatsoever_. Cod. B indeed has ὕστερος (which is here followed by Westcott and Hort), Cod. 4 δεύτερος, Codd. 13, 69, 124, 346 (Abbott’s four), and 238, 262, 556, 604, perhaps others, ἔσχατος, one or other of which is in the Jerusalem Syriac and Bohairic, the Ethiopic (two manuscripts), the Armenian and two chief Arabic versions; but all these authorities (with _tol._ of the Vulgate _secundâ manu_, as also Isidore, the Pseudo-Athanasius, and John Damascene), transpose the order of the two sons in vv. 29, 30, so that the result produces just the same sense as in the Received text. The suggestion that the clauses were transferred in order to reconcile ὕστερος or ἔσχατος with the context may be met by the counter-statement that ὕστερος was just as likely to be substituted for πρῶτος to suit the inversion of the clauses. Against such inversion (which we do not pretend to recommend, though Westcott and Hort adopt it) Origen is an early witness, so that Cod. B and its allies are no doubt wrong: yet as that Father does not notice any difficulty in ver. 31, the necessary inference ought to be that he read πρῶτος(346). Hippolytus testifies to ἔσχατος in ver. 31, but his evidence cannot be used, since he gives no indication in what order he took the clauses in vv. 29, 30. The indefensible part of Tregelles’ arrangement is that, allowing the answers of the two sons to stand as in our common Bibles, he receives ὕστερος in the room of πρῶτος on evidence that really tells against him. The only true supporters of his general view are Cod. D αισχατος (i.e. ἔσχατος), the Old Latin copies _a_ _b_ _e_ _ff_1.2 _g_1 _h_ _l_, the best codices of the Vulgate (_am._ _fuld._ _for._ _san._ _tol._ _harl._*), the Anglo-Saxon version, and Augustine, though not the Clementine edition of the Vulgate. Hilary perplexes himself by trying to explain the same reading; and Jerome, although he says “Sciendum est in veris exemplaribus non haberi _novissimum_ sed _primum_,” has an expedient to account for the former word(347), which, however (if _am._ _fuld._, &c. may be trusted), he did not venture to reject when revising the Old Latin. On no true principles can Cod. D and its Latin allies avail against such a mass of opposing proof, whereof Codd. אCΦΣLX lead the van. Even the Curetonian Syriac, which so often favours Cod. D and the Old Latin, is with the _textus receptus_ here.