Matthew 1:10 — Amon or Amos? A Second Genealogical Name under Review

Matthew’s next disputed name repeats the shape of the first. The Textus Receptus reads Amon, the king who fathered Josiah. The critical text reads Amos, the prophet. In Greek, a final sigma makes the change.

“Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias.” — Matthew 1:10

Second Kings and Second Chronicles leave the royal succession plain. Manasseh fathered Amon; Amon fathered Josiah. Amos preached centuries earlier and did not belong to this family.

The difficult reading argument

Amos appears in early witnesses that often carry weight in modern editions. Editors reason that scribes corrected a troubling prophet’s name to the historically expected king. The broad later presence of Amon is then explained as successful repair.

This argument resembles the case for Asaph at verses 7–8, and that resemblance matters. Two prophet names appear in the same critical genealogy where two king names belong. It is possible that Matthew made both errors and the church repaired both. It is also possible that a copying habit in an influential early line gave short royal names the more familiar endings of prophets.

The latter account requires no claim of malice. Genealogies strain the eye. Repeated names and formulas invite mechanical work, while familiar biblical names pull memory. A final letter can be supplied from habit before the mind checks the history.

The genealogy is selective. Matthew omits some generations to arrange three groups of fourteen. Selection is not falsehood. Biblical genealogies can use “begat” across more than one generation, but they cannot name an unrelated prophet as the son of Manasseh and father of Josiah.

The canonical source controls the identity. Second Kings 21:18 says, “Amon his son reigned in his stead.” Verse 26 says, “Josiah his son reigned in his stead.” Chronicles gives the same succession. Matthew’s royal line has the same man.

Amon has the broad and continuous Greek witness, exact Old Testament agreement, and full contextual sense. Amos chiefly has the age of a limited but influential stream and the appeal of being difficult. Difficulty may expose an original word; it may also expose an old fault.

Here it exposes a fault. Matthew wrote Amon, and the received text keeps the king on his throne.

The two name disputes should also be read together. Asaph and Amos are not random hard readings scattered across unrelated books. They appear within four verses of one another, and each changes a short royal name into the name of a well-known biblical writer. A theory that treats each as Matthew’s independent mistake has to explain why the same kind of mistake struck twice in the same compact list. A theory of copying needs only one habit within an early genealogical exemplar.

This does not identify the first faulty copy or the person who made it. The pattern is an inference from surviving forms. We know that both prophet readings circulated early; we do not know whether the first change arose by sight, sound, memory, or a damaged source. Stating that limit strengthens the argument because it keeps fact and reconstruction apart.

Amon’s reign was wicked, while Amos was a faithful prophet. The received reading is not chosen because the man is morally preferable. Genealogy records descent, not merit. The line of Christ passes through sinners and weak kings until it reaches the sinless King. The humble task of the text is to name each man truthfully.

Sources and further reading

• 2 Kings 21:18–26; 2 Chronicles 33:20–25; Matthew 1:10.
• Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, note on Matthew 1:10.
• Frederick H. A. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament.