tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post1845579676467464352..comments2024-03-29T07:11:17.775+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: Asa or Asaph in Matthew 1: A Teaser for the THGNT Textual CommentaryP.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger80125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-62681933243038804242020-07-19T21:31:15.779+01:002020-07-19T21:31:15.779+01:00In an Alexandrian text stream for the genealogy in...In an Alexandrian text stream for the genealogy in Matthew 1 we also have the curious reading of Boes (p1 Aleph B lat(k) Sahidic and Bohairic Coptic) rather than Booz or Boos for Hebrew Boaz. <br /><br />In Sahidic Mss of Ruth 4:21 we also read Boes, only in Sahidic Mss. These Mss also read Iobed in v.17, 21 and 22, rather than LXX MT Obed. <br /><br />These readings suggest the possibility that a Sahidic copy of Ruth was consulted during the copying or editing of an early Greek manuscript copy of Matthew 1 in Alexandria.<br />Wayne Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08864307360972930964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-84871904909867803002020-07-19T21:20:26.431+01:002020-07-19T21:20:26.431+01:00In an Alexandrian text stream for the genealogy in...In an Alexandrian text stream for the genealogy in Matthew 1 we also have the curious reading of Boes (p1 Aleph B lat(k) Sahidic and Bohairic Coptic) rather than Booz or Boos for Hebrew Boaz. <br /><br />In Sahidic Mss of Ruth 4:21 we also read Boes, only in Sahidic Mss. These Mss also read Iobed in v.17, 21 and 22, rather than LXX MT Obed. <br /><br />These readings suggest the possibility that a Sahidic copy of Ruth was consulted during the copying or editing of an early Greek manuscript of Matthew 1 in Alexandria.<br />Wayne Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08864307360972930964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-46411417302403953972020-03-31T02:13:05.668+01:002020-03-31T02:13:05.668+01:00Also, would it not be logical that, in the title o...Also, would it not be logical that, in the title of the book at the beginning of this chapter, the spelling μαθθαιον is a corruption of ματθαιον, which in turn came from the Hebrew מתּתיהו? Why would it happen the other way around? The manuscripts Aleph, B, and D, with μαθθαιον, are old, but they were not the oldest, and there was evidently time for many corruptions to come in, some of which were not removed by the NU editors.<br />Ματθαῖος<br />Matthew Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13392983543124826157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-39766576779478588152020-03-28T19:57:47.308+00:002020-03-28T19:57:47.308+00:00The arguments that the Alexandrian readings of Amo...The arguments that the Alexandrian readings of Amos and Asaph in Matthew 1 are evident copyist corruptions of Amon and Asa under the influence of the familiar names of the prophet Amos and the psalmist Asaph are very compelling.<br /><br />This Alexandrian text stream in Matthew 1:5 also presents us with the reading Iwbed rather than Obed, as found in other manuscripts. The corruption of proper names that begin with an omega or omicron by the preceding addition of an iota can be found in many Greek manuscripts of the OT, e.g. Exodus 6:15 where Hebrew Ohad is Oad in the Gottingen LXX but corrupted to iwad in B 56’-129 120’ 799. In Genesis 10:29 Hebrew Ophir becomes iouphir in LXX 74 and ioupheir in 370. In Genesis 36:23 Hebrew Onam is iwnan in LXX 44. So the corruption from Obed to Iwbed is not unexpected in Greek.<br /><br />Text critics in the 19th century chose the readings Iwbed, Asaph and Amws on the basis of lectio difficilior because of suppositions they had concerning Alexandrian manuscripts.<br /><br />I think most here would agree that the results of text critical studies since then have been providing good reasons to reevaluate conclusions made over a century ago.<br />Wayne Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08864307360972930964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-77419571979633927722019-09-29T03:35:14.609+01:002019-09-29T03:35:14.609+01:00Anthony Pope's observation should have an impa...Anthony Pope's observation should have an impact; just citing Gesenius doesn't cut it; that's a runaround; one might as well say, "Someone somewhere has already proposed this hypocorism idea but we still do not have any clear evidence that the Hebrew king named Asa was also known as Asaph, nor do we have any explanation why Matthew, if he had a choice between "Asa" and "Asaph," would choose "Asaph." <br /> That's probably less persuasive, but more candid.<br />James Snapp Jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-45428057041859873112019-09-28T05:52:55.648+01:002019-09-28T05:52:55.648+01:00This is one of the most interesting discussions I ...This is one of the most interesting discussions I have ever encountered. Truly!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-50329493453026610362019-09-19T16:18:40.383+01:002019-09-19T16:18:40.383+01:00EH: "Gesenius, as cited"
"Gesenius,...EH: "Gesenius, as cited"<br />"Gesenius, as cited," means, of course, the 18th edition of the Gesenius lexicon. The entry for אָסָה starts with "(Hypok. < אסף + GN [IP Nr. 193]; n. anderen Wz. אסה, [Thes. 129] ..." This information does not derive from Gesenius himself, since the 17th edition (ed. F. Buhl, 1915) does not contain it. The abbreviation IP refers to Martin Noth's <i>Die israelitische Pronomennamen</i> (1928), while Gesenius' own opinion is apparently given in his <i>Thesaurus</i> (abbreviated Thes. in the lexicon entry). <br />In the <i>Dictionary of Classical Hebrew revised</i>, ed. Clines, Vol. 1 (2018) a more cautious opinion is given: "appar. a short form of an unattested theophoric name with אסה <i>heal</i> or perh. short form of אֲבִיאָסָף <i>Abiasaph</i>". <br />I even wonder whether it was actually Noth's opinion that אָסָה derived from אָסָף plus a divine name, as a quick look in the index of his book for number 193 led me to אסף but with no mention of אסא . But perhaps a proper hebraist can put me right on that. <br />In any case, it seems it would be prudent and more transparent for the editors of the Textual Commentary to indicate that there is more than one scholarly opinion as to the origin of the name אָסָה , rather than promoting one as "a legitimate interpretation" without giving more information. Anthony Popenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-90174181947705686692019-08-30T16:52:28.397+01:002019-08-30T16:52:28.397+01:00I'm having the same issues as Dr. Robinson. An...I'm having the same issues as Dr. Robinson. Another post has failed to reach the comment section. Hopefully a moderator can fix this.<br />Matthew M. Rosenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-1967500117778559752019-08-30T10:27:43.747+01:002019-08-30T10:27:43.747+01:00Asaph= P1(vid) Aleph B C f1(1,1582*) f13(788+?) 20...Asaph= P1(vid) Aleph B C f1(1,1582*) f13(788+?) 205 700 1071 L253,L185m.pt. L844 L2211 vulg.mss. it.aur.c.g1.k.q. copt.sa.boh. arm. eth. geo. Epiph.1/2 Ambrose <br /><br /><br />Asa= E K L M W Delta Pi Sigma 2c 28 33 118(f1) 124 180 565 579 597 828 892 1006 1009 1010 1079 1195 1216 1230 1241 1242 1243 1292 1342 1365 1582c(f1) Byz. Lect. L185m.pt. it.(a) f.ff1 vulg. slav. Epiph.1/2 Augustine Ps-Eustathius<br /><br />Now, the Asaph reading has more early evidence; P1vid Aleph B C it.e.k. copt. etc. but completely disappears from the greek tradition save for a handful of mss.<br /><br />The Asa reading also has early evidence; W Sigma it.(a)ff1 Vulg. Ps-Eust. Aug. and only increases in strength as the centuries pass by.<br /><br /><br />Now, the weight of the Asaph reading is stronger up to the 6th cent. in both number and geographic diversity. Yet the Asa reading is still very visible, very diverse and also has a considerable footprint on these early centuries. As we continue into the later centuries we see the Asaph reading vanish in the greek and only stay afloat in the "locked-in" versional suport. Meanwhile the Asa reading flourishes within the Greek Text (Paired with the Vulgate of Jerome).<br /><br />The Asa reading therefore has a much more consistent continuity and in the end amounts itself into an enormous advantage numerically. The question now arises; Can this type of traditional possession be overturned by B/Aleph P1vid C "a few others" the italic and a few lesser versions?<br /><br />Keep in mind that this is the same reading which caused the late Dr.Metzger to so flippantly grasp at an almost childish explanation. Well aware of the implications of Dr. Metzger's stance, Mr. Hixson has pivoted and produced a new theory. Yet this theory (hypocorism) in regards to Asa-Asaph is nowhere proved. Of whom the burden of truth is on here, is quite obvious.<br /><br /><br />As for internal evidence my final stance would be simply this. I believe that the views of Dr. Robinson and myself are complimentary. Asaph is somewhat more familiar than Asa, most would agree. This would only increase the chance of scribal error. If a copyist/scribe already has Asap on the brain (relatively speaking). What harm could be done by having ample opportunity for it to also be before his eyes. Meaning, it is a stronger case to have Asaph not only in the peripheral of the mind, but also in the peripheral of the eyes.<br /><br /> ACAACA<br />IWCAQAT<br /><br />The simple fact that P1, 1, 1071, 1582,i.e. nearly half of all the witnesses for Asaph line up this way generally.-And that B and Aleph also exibit an error conducive structure (although to a lesser degree). Would lead me to not trust these mss.. Not to mention the fact that Aleph in a singular act commits this same type of error in the very same verse (Matt.1:7), by transposing a sigma to the end of ABIA-via the Asaph below, thus making ABIAC.<br /><br />TONABIAABIAC<br /> TONACAQACAQ<br /><br />-And cod.B in Luke 3:23 makes a similar singular error when it transposed an "H" to the beginning of Levi, making Hlevei.<br /><br />TOY H/\EI<br />TOY MAθθAθ<br />TOY H/\EVEI<br />TOY ME/\XEI<br /><br />-And again ms.1 (yet another witness which furnishes the critical apparatus for the Asaph reading) commits the singular error of transposing an alpha from iakwB to isaak making iasaak in Lk.3:34.<br /><br />tou iouda tou iakwB tou iasaak<br /><br />-And again cod.Aleph and B along with 700 788 (all witnesses for Asaph in Mt.1:7-8) apparently commit this very type of scribal error when they read Iwda for Iouda.<br /><br />TOY IWCHX<br />TOY IWDA<br />TOY IWANAN<br /><br />-And finally in Matt.1(3),4 we have ms.1 788 & 1071 all witnesses for "Asaph" along with ms.118 collude in a sub-singular example of this very same scribal mishap. Although it is the name of Amminadab which is victimized this instance.<br /><br />TON APAM APAM DE EГENNHCEN<br />TON AMINADAM AMINADAM<br /><br />Transposing once again a letter "μ" from one line to the next, from Apaμ to AμivadaB.<br />Codex Sinaticus exhibiting;<br /><br />AMINADAB AMINADAM <br /><br />In this place, to it's own discredit and to a discount in the strength of its testimony in Matt.1:7-8. To put it mildly, I would not trust witnesses like these. -MMRMatthew M. Rosenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-704393022053476182019-08-30T05:16:09.514+01:002019-08-30T05:16:09.514+01:00E.Hixson, concerning the Syriac...In the Hebrew OT...E.Hixson, concerning the Syriac...In the Hebrew OT we have Asa, not Asaph. The Syriac (peshitta) also reads Asa in the OT, so there's no confusion here. Yet, in one place (I Chron.9:16) "Some Cod. w/ two early printed ed.(one marg.), and Syr., read "Asaph" -Bullinger. The reading "Asaph" in some witnesses is an obvious mistake, caused very likely by the same type of scribal error as I have previously explained above. Thus it appears that the Syriac is quite cognizant in this matter. For it follows the Hebrew in rendering Asa as Asa throughout the OT, but in one instance it reads Asaph (IChron.9:16), following a few mss. which suffer from corruption in this one location. That is walking a tight rope to put it one way. Although I respect Dr. Williams's caution and careful approach concerning his trust or distrust in the Syriac in regards to this, I would also respect equal caution and care when trying to disqualify it wholesale from the Critical Apparatus. Maybe the good Dr. Williams could touch on this a bit with his expertise?<br /><br />Now, if it's the fact that the Cureton Syr. and Lewis codex are in unison with the peshitta, harkl. & pal., (as well as the Greek Byzantine Text) and set against their normal allies Aleph/B.-And suspicions are raised in lieu of this awkward union, then I would hope that this would be expounded on (I'm thinking aloud here).Matthew M. Rosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16314585538959945496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-70619681119514999782019-08-29T21:46:49.039+01:002019-08-29T21:46:49.039+01:00My last attempted post didn’t go through or get ap...My last attempted post didn’t go through or get approved, for whatever reason; so I try again in more detail:<br /><br />To prevent misunderstanding, MMR's statement properly should be rendered as “The <i>interpretation </i> of the external evidences should have been hashed out before” internal considerations were discussed or applied. <br /><br />While Elijah correctly stated that “external evidence determines the text here . . . . The manuscript evidence is the primary basis for the text”, the approaches being discussed each depend on a <i>different</i> interpretation and evaluation of the weight and significance of the external data.<br /><br />Obviously, my (and MMR’s) view of the external data differs from that of Elijah, Dirk, and various critical text editors. As a result, we necessarily favor an alternate reading and evaluate and apply the internal criteria quite differently. As a result, I can agree with Elijah that “external evidence determines the text here” and that “the manuscript evidence is the primary basis for the text” — but obviously we interpret and evaluate the manuscript evidence quite differently.<br />Maurice A. Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05685965674144539571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-53540439205833917162019-08-29T05:07:04.343+01:002019-08-29T05:07:04.343+01:00Ryan, if by "blunder" you mean a text th...Ryan, if by "blunder" you mean a text that does not reflect the author's intention, does that mean that textual critics who practice conjectural emendation should emend the transmitted text to match?Stephen C. Carlsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12327519459656394690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-26617789334831565132019-08-29T00:11:26.905+01:002019-08-29T00:11:26.905+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Maurice A. Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05685965674144539571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-43659439032111641502019-08-28T20:21:03.738+01:002019-08-28T20:21:03.738+01:00Matthew, Thanks for this. As you said, "Hones...Matthew, Thanks for this. As you said, "Honestly, the external evidences should of been hashed out before such a robust discussion of the internal considerations." Clearly in the except from the textual commentary that I posted, I wrote that external evidence determines the text here. It's in the very first sentence. The manuscript evidence is the primary basis for the text, full stop. When you brought up external evidence you mentioned Syriac, but the Syriac expert said he wouldn't use the Syriac versions here. The Vulgate has Asa (though some manuscripts have Asaph), but more Old Latin witnesses have Asaph than Asa. On external grounds, I am happy to go with Asaph for the text, even when considering the versions. Fathers can be difficult at times, because we often have some of the same issues with transmission in manuscripts of the fathers as we have in manuscripts of the New Testament (for example, if we only have a 14th-century copy of some particular 4th-century Christian writer, do we have an actual citation from the 4th-century, or do we have a citation from the 14th-century? The only thing we can 'prove' is that we have a citation from the 14th-century with the possibility of something earlier)—this is why we need good editions with good apparatuses of the fathers and cannot always rely on what Burgon had for an accurate picture of the precise form of the text in the writings of various fathers.Elijah Hixsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05816323223305820788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-37483563272971472352019-08-28T19:03:02.181+01:002019-08-28T19:03:02.181+01:00E.Hixson, the core issue here is the way we are ev...E.Hixson, the core issue here is the way we are evaluating and weighing the external evidence. This is because we are following (and rather purely I may add) two different and opposing systems of theory and methodology. You friend, are what I would term Neo-Hortian (no disrespect is meant by this and please feel free to correct &/or modify my observation here). I, on the other hand, am a strict disciple of the school of Burgon and Scrivener. It's obvious that our initial leanings concerning which reading is authentic (which is obviously caused by how we weigh external evidence respectively) is setting us up to butt-heads if you will. Honestly, the external evidences should of been hashed out before such a robust discussion of the internal considerations. Considering the internal evidence has been thoroughly sifted, I think a step back and a further evaluation of the mss.,versions and Father's would do the most good. Other than that and as far as the internal probabilities are concern, if the many singular, sub-singular and rarely attested examples of this type of scribal error given above in yesterdays "Beowulf"(8/27) post do not convince you of the possibility<>probability of such a scribal glitch, I don't see how anything would. -And I apologize if my opposition has seemed too vigorous at times because I hold no ill will towards you in any way. -MMRMatthew M. Rosenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-88398181626253541692019-08-28T18:01:02.358+01:002019-08-28T18:01:02.358+01:00Maurice, just to be clear, my intent was to ask Ma...Maurice, just to be clear, my intent was to ask Matthew Rose, not you. I think you clarified in another comment somewhere. On Matt. 13:35, "Isaiah" doesn't have the versional support that we see at Matt. 1:7–8, but there is also the influence of the phrase "Isaiah the Prophet" occurring multiple times already in Matthew's Gospel for an OT quotation. I would see Matt. 13:35 as a harmonisation to usage.<br /><br />Matthew Rose, Thanks for clearing that up. I just wanted to ask in light of your vigorous opposition. At best, if we grant what you're saying, you will have shown that it is possible for a name in Matt. 1 to change to another name based on nearby letters. Still, this works both ways—αβια αβια immediately before could provide a formula for α[]α α[]α. Since iotas take up less width than other letters, αβια is not all that dissimilar in length than ασα, which might even make a better parallel than ιωσαφατ (I tried to go measure a few examples just now except the INTF's VMR seems to be down at the moment; at least, it's not leading for me).<br /><br />At the end of the day, the observation (that we know some copyists did make) that the person's name is spelled Ἀσά in 1 Kings would have been a much more powerful influence on the text to change from Ἀσάφ than an a format-based leap that also could have resulted in Ἀσά. Additionally, there is the tendency to omit prevalent in early manuscripts. Even without intentionality, the final φ could be left off even by accident.Elijah Hixsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05816323223305820788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-12227191540278058052019-08-28T16:53:53.840+01:002019-08-28T16:53:53.840+01:00That's not the way I'm looking at it. I su...That's not the way I'm looking at it. I suppose the best way to answer this is by referring to Luke 2:22. I do not follow the ultra minority reading found in ms.67 and later in the KJV. So in short, I don't bend logic, textual principles and/or methodology because such and such reading is easier to swallow theologically, historically or geographically. These things are important no doubt, but I believe they are secondary. Primarily because they would have a tendency to produce presuppositions and confirmation bias, which are obviously contrary to fair evaluation and judgment.Matthew M. Rosenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-89209066283639107762019-08-28T15:36:23.125+01:002019-08-28T15:36:23.125+01:00Let me counter with the example I cited earlier:
...Let me counter with the example I cited earlier:<br /><br />Do you think the "Isaiah" reading in Mt 13.35 and supported by many of the *same* witnesses as in Mt 1.7-8 constitutes a factual error and cannot be the original text there?<br /><br />It would seem to me that, by definition, scribal blunders produce error, whether of grammar, syntax, history, fact, or "original text"--and this *without* being a result of anyone holding to a doctrine of biblical inerrancy. Maurice A. Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05685965674144539571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-64207791282014162932019-08-28T08:04:18.792+01:002019-08-28T08:04:18.792+01:00MMR, before we go on though, may I ask: Do you thi...MMR, before we go on though, may I ask: Do you think Asaph constitutes a factual error and as such cannot be the original text here?Elijah Hixsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05816323223305820788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-81287847792272517602019-08-28T08:01:44.834+01:002019-08-28T08:01:44.834+01:00This is a good question. I assume if someone wante...This is a good question. I assume if someone wanted to publish an article overturning the possibility of hypocorism, a good place to start would be Gesenius (as cited) and Hebrew manuscripts as you suggest.Elijah Hixsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05816323223305820788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-6657605964228956592019-08-28T08:00:33.919+01:002019-08-28T08:00:33.919+01:00I have no idea about allowing or disallowing comme...I have no idea about allowing or disallowing comments. I think I have the ability to turn off comments for a whole post if I write one, but going into an existing post and removing comments is above my access on this site. There was a post a while back about people having issues with different browsers. Could that be the problem?Elijah Hixsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05816323223305820788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-60573402453844690722019-08-28T03:53:08.975+01:002019-08-28T03:53:08.975+01:00Considering that the total number of examples I ga...Considering that the total number of examples I gave (P1 E W 1071 1216 1342 1365 1582 & let's add ms.1 for good measure) is nearly equal to the total number of Greek manuscripts that read "Asaph", I fail to see your point. Especially considering that several (P1 1 1071 1582) of these amount in total to nearly half of the apparatus for the "Asaph" reading (unless someone has more mss.info here?). Furthermore I included every type of manuscript, medium and writing form, i.e.; papyrus and parchment, uncial and minuscule.-And to be quite honest, I have no doubts whatsoever that I could find 50-100 mss. which line up exactly like the mss. already listed if needs be. <br /><br />E.Hixson wrote "That is especially the case in light of the observation that readings have been adopted with less external support than Aσάφ has here, so why such opposition to Aσάφ?"<br /><br />I would have serious reservations with any type of Textual Criticism done in this manner. "the soul that sinneth, it shall die." This place, as with all others, stands or falls on it's own merit. What difference would it make if someone somewhere has adopted readings with less external support than here? Is it not possible that those readings are in need of being reevaluated as well? Respectfully. -MMRMatthew M. Rosenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-13024622294603760872019-08-27T23:06:25.217+01:002019-08-27T23:06:25.217+01:00Hello, I was wondering why the moderator(s) disall...Hello, I was wondering why the moderator(s) disallowed an earlier post today?Matthew M. Rosenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-92191548599426087782019-08-27T19:59:09.293+01:002019-08-27T19:59:09.293+01:00Are there ever any hypocoristic variations of Asa ...Are there ever any hypocoristic variations of Asa as Asaph among the Hebrew MSS? If not, I would think the claim oversteppeth too much. Perhaps check Kennicott and Rossi.Maurice A. Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05685965674144539571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-74335773776321318482019-08-27T18:40:26.306+01:002019-08-27T18:40:26.306+01:00Dave, see Gesenius, as cited, but the hypocorism r...Dave, see Gesenius, as cited, but the hypocorism relationship goes in the opposite direction of what you describe. We could ask the question "why would a person with a knowledge of English think that Dave is a hypocorism of David?" Languages have patterns, and speakers know these patterns.Elijah Hixsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05816323223305820788noreply@blogger.com