Matthew, in his Genealogy, may not have omitted any king of Judah

by Damien F. Mackey “Had Matthew included all these names, the generations would have numbered twenty instead of fourteen. Fourteen, for Matthew’s purposes, was very important (cf. Matt 1:17)”. Mitch Chase A typical assessment of Matthew the Evangelist’s list of the Kings of Judah (1:7-11) – and one with which I would fully have agreed some time ago – is clearly laid out in this short piece (2013) by Mitch Chase: https://mitchchase.wordpress.com/2013/12/07/why-are-there-missing-kings-in-matthew-1/ Why Are There Missing Kings in Matthew 1? Matthew’s genealogy is edited, and by that I mean he has omitted certain kings in the second section (Matt 1:6b-11). Here are his fourteen generations represented by names: Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah, Asaph, Jehoshaphat, Joram, Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Manasseh, Amos, Josiah, and Jechoniah. In 2 Kings, it is clear that between the reigns of Joram and Uzziah are three other kings: Ahaziah (2 Kgs 8:25-29), Jehoash (2 Kgs 12:1-21), and Amaziah (2 Kgs 14:1-22). Matthew condenses the genealogy by omitting these three rulers. This is not historical ignorance or oversight. Matthew explains in 1:17 that he has a numerical design to the genealogy of 1:2-16. And since he wants to show fourteen generations, some kings have to be left out. Ahaziah, Jehoash, and Amaziah were all evil kings, so we’re not missing anything edifying. They were a trinity to ignore! Then between Josiah and Jechoniah (aka Jehoiachin), Matthew omits Jehoahaz (2 Kgs 23:31-34) and Jehoiakim (2 Kgs 24:1-2). Again the reason appears to be his literary design. The last reigning king in the Davidic line before the exile was not Jechoniah, however. It was Zedekiah, Jechoniah’s uncle. Zedekiah, then, is another Matthean omission. Why leave out the last king of Judah? Grant Osborne is probably right: Matthew believed the Babylonian exile began under Jechoniah’s reign and so focused on him (Matthew, ZECNT, 66-67). In summary, what were the omissions Matthew made in the second section of his genealogy (Matt 1:6b-11)? (1) Ahaziah (2) Jehoash (3) Amaziah (4) Jehoahaz (5) Jehoiakim (6) Zedekiah Had Matthew included all these names, the generations would have numbered twenty instead of fourteen. Fourteen, for Matthew’s purposes, was very important (cf. Matt 1:17). [End of quote] I would no longer accept this method of appraisal. Firstly, I have by now written several articles identifying Mitch Chase’s (2) Jehoash, and (3) Amaziah, as, respectively, Uzziah and Jotham. For example: Early prophet Zechariah may forge a link with Joash, Uzziah of Judah (7) Early prophet Zechariah may forge a link with Joash, Uzziah of Judah | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu And Mitch Chase’s (5) Jehoiakim, I have identified with Manasseh. For example: Matthew’s Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah far from straightforward (7) Matthew's Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah far from straightforward | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu As for Mitch Chase’s (1) Ahaziah, (4) Jehoahaz, and (6) Zedekiah, I have until very recently given very little consideration to these names. But that has now changed, with a recent article of mine being about (4) Jehoahaz, appearing in Matthew’s list, so I suggest, under two alter ego names: Amon and Jehoiachin. Thus: Whatever did happen to King Jehoahaz of Judah? (7) Whatever did happen to King Jehoahaz of Judah? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu And I hope shortly to do a similar type of resuscitation with Mitch Chase’s (1) Ahaziah. As for Mitch Chase’s (6) Zedekiah, only a few days ago I had written this about him: I am not interested, since Matthew appears to have deliberately omitted him. For, as Mitch Chase himself has rightly noted: “Why leave out the last king of Judah? Grant Osborne is probably right: Matthew believed the Babylonian exile began under Jechoniah’s [Jehoiachin’s] reign and so focused on him (Matthew, ZECNT, 66-67)”. As in the cases of Jehoahaz and Ahaziah, I am now having serious second thoughts as well about Zedekiah - that he may, in fact, be a duplicate of Manasseh (= Jehoiakim). While I am well aware that any attempt to identify Zedekiah as Manasseh/Jehoiakim will encounter some awkward chronological difficulties, there initially do appear to be certain promising points of comparison. For instance: - Original name, Manasseh, Mattaniah (for Zedekiah) has phonetic (if not meaning) similarity; - Jehoiakim, Zedekiah reigned for 11 years; - Jehoiakim, Zedekiah had Egypt as an ally; - Jehoiakim, Zedekiah fully wicked; - Jehoiakim, Zedekiah revolted against King Nebuchednezzar and went into captivity. So, rather than lean on the latter part of the quote above: “Matthew believed the Babylonian exile began under Jechoniah’s [Jehoiachin’s] reign and so focused on him”, I may now be more inclined to lean on its first part: “Why leave out the last king of Judah?” [Meaning Zedekiah – but who may not have been the last]. I am now disinclined, as well, to think that the number 14 was important to Matthew, as Mitch Chase thinks: “Had Matthew included all these names, the generations would have numbered twenty instead of fourteen. Fourteen, for Matthew’s purposes, was very important (cf. Matt 1:17)”. I now think that this may have been an artificial gloss later attached to the Genealogy. Whilst I am now inclined to believe that no Kings of Judah may have been omitted from Matthew’s genealogical list, I am of the opinion that there are some unwarranted duplications in the text as we now have it: (Tentatively) I think that Abijah was the same as Asa; (Confidently) I think that Hezekiah was Josiah; and that Amon (Haman) was Jehoiachin.