(a)Ἀσὰ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰωσαφάτ – See 1Ch 3:10 :-
1Ch 3:10 אָסָא בְנֹו יְהֹושָׁפָט בְּנֹֽו׃
1Ch 3:10 … Asa his son, Jehoshaphat his son,
1Ch 3:10 … Aσα υἱὸς αὐτοῦ Iωσαφατ υἱὸς αὐτοῦΑσαφ is a very ancient scribal error for Aσα. The scribe was probably influenced by Ιωσαφατ, which stands immediately beneath Aσα.(b)Ἰωσαφὰτ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰωράμ – Ἰωράμ is the same as LXX form in 1Ch 3:11 Iωραμ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ.(c)Ἰωρὰμ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ὀζίαν – Greek form of Uzziah. See Ozias. Oχοζια in LXX (in Codex Alexandrinus it is Oζιας, in Codex Vaticanus it is spelled Ὀζείας). In the Vulgate = Ozias and in the Peshitta = ܥܽܘܙܺܝܳܐ. . Greek Matthew, LXX, Vulgate, and Peshitta agree that the אח in אחזיה should be pronounced as O. This pronunciation is more ancient than Masoretic Achaziah (אֲחַזְיָה). But in 2Ch 26:3, the LXX has Οζιας, the Peshitta ܥܘܙܝܐ, and the Vulgate Ozias for Hebrew עזיהו (Uzziah).Three kings, Ahaziah, Joaz, and Amaziah, are wanting between these. The common opinion is that of Jerome, that the omission was made for the sake of the three Tesseradecades. It is highly possible that an early scribe unintentionally omitted these names, e.g. see the omission of Ἑζεκίας and Ἀμὼν in Minuscule 186 in Matt 1:9-10.(d) The three kings in the line of the descent omitted in the Greek, Ahazia, Joash, and Amuzia, 1 Chron.iii.11, are added here. It appears that these names formerly existed in some ancient copies of the Syriac or Aramaic Gospel in use in the East; and the reason for their subsequent omission stated by Dionysius Bar Salibi seems to be not improbable. Indeed, long before I read the passage of Bar Salibi, which I am about to quote, this had suggested itself to my own consideration. In a treatise by Mar Yakub the Persian, entitled ܬܚܘܝܬܐ ܕܛܘܛܝܬܐ , and composed in the year of the Greeks 656, or A.D. 342, of which there are two copies in the British Museum—the one, 17,182, transcribed as early as the fifth century, and the other,*14,619, written about a hundred years later—these three names are found in the genealogy of Jesus, which he gives and makes to consist of sixty-three races from Adam to Christ. They are also found ill the book called the “Cave of Treasures, “r<‘v\___A\’»i»»j,*fol.37.Vi’eLave here, in the Greek,0^ia<;,like this S3’riac text, and not A^apia’i, as it is in the Septuagint and rr^nTy in the Hebrew, 1 Chron.iii.12. The Peshito, however, in that place reads r<^\eL^ Uzia. The variation has doubtless arisen from the similarity of the words rf^^’i^^andrT^I^S^.In 2 Kingsxv.1,30, we find the name written both ways; and in 2 Chron.xxv.the name of the king is given as Uzziah,and that of the priest Azariah. Various reasons have been assigned by different authors from very antient times to account for the omission of these three names.I will give hereonty such as I have found mentioned b Dionysius Bar Salibi, who compiled a commentary upon the Scriptures from earlierwriters inthe twelfth century. Assemani has cited apart of his commentary upon this place,with a Latin translation, in the second volume of his Bibliotheca Orientalis, p.160. Dudley Loftus, the friend, and afterwards successor, of the very learned Ussher in the Archiepiscopal see of Armagh, has also translated this passage into English;|but his translation has so many errors, that I have thought it better to supply another English version of my own.”But why did he omit Ahazia,and Joash, and Amuzia^ Some say that Africanus, bishop of Emmaus,*declares the reason that he omitted them to be because they were sinners and ofthe seed of Jezebel. To him we reply that they were not of the seed of Jezebel; for Jezebel was the wife of Ahab, but Joram took to wife Athalia, the daughter of Orari, the sister of Ahab,and of her he begat Ahazia. Nevertheless, in one place, according to the sense of the Septuagint, she is called the daughter of Ahab, on account of her wickedness being of the same kind, as St. Severus explains it. But the mother of Joash was named Zaubaf of Beersheba, and the mother of Amuzia was Jehoaddan of Jerusalem. They were not, therefore, of the seed of Jezebel; neither were they greater sinners than Solomon, Ahaz, and Menasse, whose names are written in the genealogy. St. Severus saith that Joram,the son of Jehosaphat, married Athalia, the daughter of Ahab, and of her he begat Ahazia, Joash, and Amuzia; and Matthew omitted tlliem because the Hebrews hated the idolatry of the house of Ahab, and therefore he made no mention of these, who were born of an idolatrous marriage, calling to mind the words, / punish the sins of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generations of them that hate me.To him some reply, that Athalia, the wife of Joram and mother of Ahazia,was not the daughter of Ahab, but Omri’s daughter, and Ahab’s sister; and if it were out of regard to the Hebrews that he abstained from making mention of those who were descended from Athalia, how comes it to pass that he has mentioned Uzia who was a leper, and more abominated by the Jews than these? Origen says that he omitted them in order thatthe generations from David to the captivity might be so arranged as to malve the number fourteen, because three times fourteen amount to forty-two generations; and this was a type shewing, that as, at the end of forty-two encampments, the people of Israel entered upon the inheritance of the land of promise, so at the end of forty-two generations Christ arose and conferred the inheritance of this temporal earth upon the saints. George of the Gentiles* says that Matthew did not omit these three persons, nor did he change the number of the generations, and say fourteen instead of seventeen; but in as much as he wrote his Gospel for the Jews, and many of them were learned in the Greek language, when they desired to translate into the Greek from the Hebrew, in as much as the Greek language was notable to express the letters n,JT, and 2 like the Hebrew and Syriac tongues, nor indeed has it at all in its alphabet deep guttural letters,when the translators came to Joram, and it is said that he begat Ahazia, and he Joash, and he Amuzia, and Amuzia Uzia, and wanted to express these in Greek, they wrote their names thus, Icopafi begat Oxo^mv, and Oxo^ia<;Icoav, and IcoaiO/^oaiav, and Ofioa-ia^Oaiav. But others afterwards, desiring to copy the Gospel in the Greek language, when they began from hence that Joram begat Oxoi^iav, wrote ”Joram begatO^tai^,”on account of the similitude of the names, and their variation in the single letter Caph. This, perhaps, they did unintentionally; or they might have done it on purpose to accommodate the series of generations to fourteen, because the septenary number was much cherished by those who had embraced Christianity from among the Jews; and by such means corrupted copies were transmitted to the Gentiles.—To him we reply that this is not correct; for had it been an error or a blunder of the transcriber, and Matthew himself had not omitted them, then Matthew ought to have said, that from David to the Captivity there were seventeen generations; but in as much as Matthew wrote fourteen generations, we therefore perceive that Matthew himself did not omit them.””Others say that the Christians of the Hebrews removed these three, in order to accommodate the generations from David to the Captivity to the number fourteen, because this number was cherished by them; for there is found occasionally a Syriac ccopy made out of the Hebrew, which inserts these three kings in the genealogy; but that it afterwards speaks of fourteen and not seventeen generations is because fourteen generations has been substituted for seventeen by the Hebrews,on account of their holding to the septenary number, which is much cherished by them, because on the fourteenth they were delivered from the bondage of the Egyptians.”” Others again say that Matthew omitted these names because they were abominable in the eyes of the people: for Ahazia connected himself with the house of Ahab when he sent ships to fetch gold; and he went up with Ahab to Eamoth Gilead, and the prophet rebuked him, and he was afterwards slain by Jehu: and Joash, because he put to death the sons of Jehoiada the priest: Amuzia also was slain in rebellion, having stirred up the king of Israel to war with him; and on his account, and by his hands, the wall was broken down and the Sanctuary violated; and for this reason Matthew omitted them. Let the reader, however, choose that which pleases him.”
(William Cureton, pp. vii-xi)(e)But Joram begat Ozias — Ahaziah (who is the same as the Joahaz of 2 Chron. xxi . 17 , and xxii . 1 ) , Joash, and Amaziah (1 Chron. iii. 11, 12), are here passed over : so that the word begat must be under stood mediately , like the word son , in the first verse . So too six generations are left out in Ezra vii. 3 , between Azariah and Meraioth . Comp . 1 Chron. vi. 7 , 8 , 9. Matthew omitted these three , not be cause he was ignorant of them , since the whole context proves the contrary, but because they were well known to all : nor did he do it fraudulently , since , by increasing the number of generations, he would have strengthened the proof that the Messiah must already have appeared. Nor did he omit them on account of their impiety, for he has mentioned other impious men , as Jechonias , whom indeed he no tices particularly, and he has passed over pious men. But, as in describing roads and ways, especial care is needed where forks occur, whereas a straight road may be found of itself, so does Matthew in this genealogy point out particularly those who had brothers, and who, in preference to them, became ancestors of Messiah. He has carried this so far that, having reason not to name Jehoiakim, he as signs his brothers to his only son (see 1 Chron. iii. 15, 16. Comp. Jer. xxii. 30] ; whilst he passes quietly over Joash, who was the only link of his race, together with his father and son. Furthermore , as in geography the distances of places are, without any violence to truth, described sometimes by longer, sometimes by shorter stages, so with the steps of generations in a genealogy ; among the Hebrews, as well as others. The language of the New Testament usually rather implies than asserts matters already well known from the Old Testament , and not liable to be mistaken, with a brevity suited to its earnest spirit, (see Acts vii. 16,) as well as desirable on other grounds. [ Some suppose that these three kings were omitted, because descended from the heathen Athaliah ; by marrying whom Jehoram corrupted his race to the third and fourth generation. Ebrard. ] Oziah was previously called Azariah, but by the omission of one Hebrew letter ( ר R ) his name becomes Oziah.
(Johann Albrecht Bengel, Gnomon of the New Testament, pp. 52-53)(f) Now Joram begat Ozias – not directly, but with three generations intervening ; for Joram was really the father of Ahaziah, Ahaziah of Joash, Joash of Amaziah, Amaziah of Azariah or Uzziah, for he had both names. (See i Chron. iii. 12, & c.) It is asked why S. Matthew here omits these three links in the genealogy. S. Jerome answers, because the Evangelist wished to form three exact series of fourteen generations each, on which see ver. 17. And because Jehoram had allied himself to the most wicked Jezebel and to Ahab, in taking Ahab’s sister, the impious Athaliah, to wife ; for God had sworn that, on account of Ahab’s impiety and idolatry, He would blot out all his posterity. (1 Kings xxi. 21, & c.) Posterity in Scripture is reckoned to the fourth generation. Here, then, it is blotted out, forasmuch as it is omitted and obliterated by S. Matthew, Thus S. Hilary, S. Thomas, Jansen, & c. Gaspar Sanchez gives another reason. He conjectures that Matthew actually wrote as follows : “Joram begat Ochoziah, Ochoziah begat Joash , Joash begat Amaziah, Amaziah begat Oziah ;” but that the copyist, misled by the similarity between Ochoziah and Oziah, as the names are written in Greek, by a slip of his eye passed over from Ahaziah to Uzziah. Thus Gaspar. But this would be an enormous blunder, and though one copyist might fall into such an error, it was scarcely possible that all could. All extant MSS. and Versions are alike here – Greek, Syriac, Latin, Arabic, & c. “Joram begat Ozias,” not Ahaziah. Besides, if these three generations were inserted, they would make seventeen generations, whereas S. Matthew says expressly there were fourteen generations.
(Cornelius A Lapide, The Great Commentary, vol. 1, pp. 7-8)
