@Carson, your question is why did Matthew place Asaph, the psalmist and Amos, the prophet in the genealogy of Jesus? Appreciate the different perspectives you have provided. As I have looked over this the past few days, I am drawn to James Snapp’s commentary because of the manuscript evidence that the earliest manuscripts that modern bibles rely on use ‘Asaph”, but the later manuscripts or Textus Receptus, the base-text for KJV bible reads ‘Asa’.
If Matthew’s intent in tracing the genealogy in three sets of 14 generations from Abraham to king David, from David to Babylonian exile, and finally from the exile to Jesus, is to prove the fulfillment of the promise of the messianic king in Jesus, one would expect the second section of the genealogy contain only the names of kings. Having the name of a psalmist and a prophet would be inconsistent with the likely intention of Matthew. If Asaph and Amon are the words Matthew used, then Asaph could have been another way of writing Asa or Matthew may have actually written Asa with a very early scribal error of Asaph.
A helpful commentary I have seen is, “Asa or Asaph in Matthew 1: A Teaser for the THGNT Textual Commentary” – Elijah Hixson.
Evidence for textual variants in manuscripts-
The Tyndale House edition, UBS, NA and SBL editions all go with Ἀσάφ. The earliest manuscripts support Ἀσάφ, as well as much of the Old Latin tradition, all of the Coptic tradition, and most of the ‘minor’ versions. On the other hand, the majority of Greek, Latin and Syriac manuscripts support Ἀσά, as it is supported by the Byzantine Greek text and the Vulgate, as well as some Old Latin and most Syriac versions.
Copyists were not unaware of this difference—in GA 1582 (which is close to the archetype of fam. 1), the text has Ἀσάφ, but a marginal note mentions that “Ασα” is the name according to 1 Kings (see Amy S. Anderson, The Textual Tradition of the Gospels: Family 1 in Matthew. NTTS 32. [Leiden: Brill, 2004], 62.)
The reason for including “Asaph” –
The text is adopted on the basis of its early evidence. The king’s name is given as Ἀσά thoughout 1 Kings 15, which could have led scribes to think the reading Ἀσάφ is an error, even as some modern scholars have suggested.[1] The similarity of the names Ἀσάφ (also note the Psalmist of the same name) and Ἀσά could have led to confusion as well.
The name used in the Hebrew text of 1 Kings 15 is אָסָא (Asa), and a legitimate interpretation of this name is that it is a hypocorism (a shortened name)—an alternative form of the same name,אָסָף (Asaph).[2] An alternative explanation for the use of Ἀσάφ might be that Matthew knows Hebrew better than his later copyists, and for the king who is called Asa in 1 Kings 15, Matthew uses the longer form of his name, Asaph.
Bruce Metzger explains why the committee rejected the idea of early scribal error in his commentary, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.). London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1-2, 1994.
Although most scholars are impressed by the overwhelming weight of textual evidence supporting Ἀσάφ, Lagrange demurs and in his commentary prints Ἀσά as the text of Matthew. He declares (p. 5) that “literary criticism is not able to admit that the author, who could not have drawn up this list without consulting the Old Testament, would have taken the name of a psalmist in place of a king of Judah. It is necessary, therefore, to suppose that Ἀσάφ 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 1:10 Ἀμώς, Ἀμώς {B}
The textual evidence for the reading “Amos,” an error for “Amon,” the name of the king of Judah, is nearly the same as that which reads Ἀσάφ in verses 7 and 8.
In 1 Chr 3:14 most manuscripts present the correct Ἀμών (or its near equivalent Ἀμμών), but Ἀμώς is read by A B (B* and one minuscule read Ἀμνών). In the narrative account concerning King Amon in 2 Kgs 21:18–19, 23–25; 2 Chr 33:20–25 several Greek witnesses erroneously read Ἀμώς.
Despite Lagrange’s preference for Ἀμών, the Committee was impressed by the weight of the external evidence that attests Ἀμώς.
I find the shortened name perspective if true preserves the idea that original manuscripts were inerrant in line with claims of scripture and thus more acceptable.
This raises the question about the trustworthiness of scripture when there are so many textual variants in the manuscripts. This can be another long discussion, but Daniel Wallace’s article may ease some concerns.
This discussion opened my eyes to the world of textual criticism, something we don’t usually encounter at church. Thanks for starting the thread!