Our Daily Metzger – Asa or Asaph

Chris.Thomas Textual Criticism 2 Comments

This is the first in a series that will cover some of the more outrageous and foolish claims by Dr. Bruce Metzger in his Textual Commentary. The series will also show that Restorationist Textual Criticism’s underlying philosophy is at odds with Biblical Christianity. And those who affirm any variety of it (CT or MT), need to repent and choose between God and mammon.

In Dr. Bruce Metzger’s A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, he claims

“It is clear that the name “Asaph” is the earliest form of the text preserved in the manuscripts, for the agreement of Alexandrian (Aleph, B ) and other witnesses (f1, f13, 700, 1071) with Eastern versions (cop, arm, eth, geo) and representatives of the Western text (Old Latin mss. and D in Luke [D is lacking for this part of Matthew]) makes a strong combination. Furthermore, the tendency of scribes, observing that the name of the psalmist Asaph (cf. the titles of Pss. 50 and 73 to 83) was confused with that of Asa the king of Judah (1 Kgs 15.9 ff), would have been to correct the error, thus accounting for the prevalence of Ασα in the later Ecclesiastical text and its inclusion in the Textus Receptus…It is necessary, therefore, to suppose that Ασαφ is a very ancient [scribal] error. Since, however, the evangelist may have derived material for 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.”

What ungodliness Dr. Metzger espouses. For him to assert that Matthew, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost made an error is contradictory to the teaching of Scripture not only about inspiration, but also about infallibility. Since Scripture is given by inspiration and is infallible, then not only is Dr. Metzger wrong, but Dr. Metzger demonstrates the utter futility of man’s reasoning independent of Scripture. The correct reading is Asa. Anyone who claims it is Asaph is denying inspiration and infallibility. So much for the oft-stated, No doctrine of Scripture is affected by these differences. By changing the name, the kingly lineage of Christ is destroyed. This means that according to the textual critics and the translations that follow their GNT, Jesus is not the Messiah.

Comments 2

  1. Pingback: Our Daily Metzger – Amos or Amon | Confessional Bibliology

  2. Pingback: Do we correct the Textus Receptus with new discoveries? | Confessional Bibliology

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *