The issue:
I was preaching last Sunday through
the genealogy which begins the Gospel of Matthew and noted a textual variation
at Matthew 1:7-8.
The TR reads Asa, ασα, while the modern critical text
reads Asaph, ασαφ (Westcott
and Hort, NA 28, THGNT).
Translations
based on the TR, then, read “Asa” while those based on the modern critical text
read “Asaph” (see, e.g., the RSV/NRSV/ESV; though some, like the NIV, demur and
follow the traditional reading “Asa”).
In
spelling the difference is but one letter.
The external evidence:
The TR
reading is supported by:
K, L, W, Γ,
Δ, 33, 565, 579, 892, 1241, 1424, and the Majority text. It is also in the
Latin Vulgate and the Syriac.
The
modern critical text is supported by:
P1 (vid),
א, B, C, family 1, family 13, and 700. It is
also found in the Old Latin, in some mss. of the Harklean Syriac, and in the
Coptic.
The internal evidence:
Metzger’s
Commentary gives the modern critical text a {B} rating (17).
Metzger
begins by noting that “Asaph” is “the earliest form of text preserved in the
manuscripts” and that it comes from geographically diverse sources.
He adds:
“Furthermore,
the tendency of scribes, observing that the name of the psalmist Asaph (cf. the
titles of Pss 50 and 73 to 83), would have been to correct the error, thus
accounting for the prevalence of [Asa] in the later Ecclesiastical text and its
inclusion in the Textus Receptus.”
He cites
the scholar LaGrange’s demurral from the scholarly consensus, noting that the
author would not have drawn up this list “without consulting the Old Testament.”
Asaph then, must be “a very ancient [scribal] error.”
Metzger contrarily
concludes, “Since, however, the evangelist may have derived material from the
genealogy, not from the Old Testament directly, but from subsequent
genealogical lists, in which the erroneous spelling occurred, the Committee saw
no reason to adopt what appears to be a scribal emendation in the text of
Matthew.”
So, Metzger’s
theory is the following:
The original
author of Matthew derived his genealogical list not directly from the OT, but
from some later genealogical list, in which the name of Asa had been misspelled
(it was not even an alternative spelling for Asa but an error). In a footnote,
Meztger does not that Asa is spelled Asab in one ms. of the genealogy of
1 Chron 3:10 and that it is spelled Asanos in Josephus’s Antiquities,
viii.xi.3-xx.6 (and spelled Asaph in a Latin translation).
Conclusion:
This is a
minor variation (one letter), but it is significant.
Would the
Gospel of Matthew have included an erroneous spelling of the name of a king of Israel
(Asa), possibly confusing the name with a Psalmist (Asaph)?
Would
Matthew (a Jewish apostle, steeped in the OT) have included “Asaph” in a Gospel
that most scholars agree was likely aimed at a Jewish Christian audience?
The
traditional reading has ancient attestation. W is one of the earliest uncials.
Only one papyrus favors Asaph and its reading is unclear. The clear consensus
reading, confirmed by its appearance in the Majority of extant mss., was Asa.
There is
a plausible explanation for the brief appearance of Asaph in the tradition: an
early scribal error.
The
modern critical text’s preference for a historically incorrect reading is that
they are supposedly restoring the hypothetical original. This decision shows their
bias against historical accuracy in the original and in the consensus text.
Thus, it subtly undermines the historical reliability of Scripture.
Metzger’s
approach gives us insight into the mind of the modern reconstructionist text
critic. As David C. Parker so colorfully puts it, “The editor is the person who
confronts this terrifying anarchy of competing variants, [and] is in effect the
scholarly world’s exorcist who drives out the legion demons and leaves the work
sitting and clothed and in its right mind” (104).
So, the modern
scholar sees the traditional text as a demon possessed monstrosity, which he
must exorcized in order to restore the text to its “right mind.”
In this
case, however, it appears to be an anti-exorcism with the original and correct
Asa being removed and replaced by the corruption, Asaph!
How would
a preacher or teacher who uses a translation such as the ESV handle his
exposition of this passage? Would he say, “This reading is historically
inaccurate, appears only in a minority tradition, but we believe it was probably
the original and we are going to accept it in our Bibles even though (and perhaps
even because of the fact that) it is historically wrong.”?
The
traditional reading is to be preferred.
Note: A
very similar divergence appears in Matthew 1:10 where the TR reads “Amon,”
while the modern critical text reads “Amos.”
JTR
No comments:
Post a Comment