Contradiction claim
How do Matthew’s and Luke’s genealogies of Jesus compare as a whole?
Beyond the single question of Joseph’s father, the two genealogies differ in direction, in starting and ending points, in structure, and across most of the names between David and Joseph. This record treats the comparison as a whole rather than any single disagreement.
1 source record · no review date recorded
How to read this record
Passages side by side
TextThe primary text, as seeded. Nothing here is summarised or paraphrased.
And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
Why they appear to conflict
AnalysisEach side states a proposition attributable to its passages. A claim is not assumed to have exactly two sides.
Matthew
Matthew traces a descending line from Abraham to Joseph, structured in three groups of fourteen generations.
Matthew 1:16
Luke
Luke traces an ascending line from Joseph back beyond Abraham to Adam, without a numerical structure.
Luke 3:23
Formal analysis
AnalysisA contradiction requires a proposition and its incompatible counterpart under materially equivalent conditions. Every dimension below must hold for the formal test to succeed.
No formal analysis has been recorded for this claim yet. Until one exists, the classification cannot be stronger than a descriptive category.
Analytical questions
AnalysisWhat a researcher must answer to classify this record. Open questions are recorded, not resolved by preference.
- What is the shared segment of the two lists, and where do they diverge?
- Does Matthew’s three-times-fourteen structure require omissions, and does it acknowledge them?
- Do the two genealogies serve different rhetorical purposes, and does that bear on their historical claims?
- Which differences are name-form variation and which are genuinely different individuals?
Hebrew / Greek relevance
LanguageNo original-language dependency has been recorded for this claim.
Textual variants
ManuscriptA variant is a transmission phenomenon, never in itself a logical contradiction.
No textual variant record is linked to this claim.
Manuscript evidence
ManuscriptManuscript evidence has not yet been curated for this record.
Narrator and speaker analysis
AnalysisWhat the narration establishes, distinguished from what would additionally establish that the reported event occurred.
No narrator or speaker analysis has been recorded for these passages yet.
Proposed harmonisations
InterpretationEach proposal records the premises it must supply that the text does not state. Premises are never injected silently.
No harmonisation has been recorded for this claim yet.
Critical responses
InterpretationArguments that the proposed reconciliations do not succeed, treated structurally the same way as the harmonisations.
No critical response has been recorded for this claim yet.
Analytical classification
Analysis- Classification
- Unreviewed
- What it means
- No editorial assessment has been made.
- Requires formal analysis
- No
- Review status
- in_review
- Source collections
- codextrace_research
Sources
SourceEvery externally-sourced claim on this page resolves to one of these records.
- [1]
CodexTrace. "CodexTrace editorial research". licence: CC-BY-4.0
Critical / scholarlyotherCC-BY-4.0
Related records
TextRelated claims
Parallel accounts
Community
CommunityCommunity discussion requires a configured Supabase project on this deployment. Research pages are unaffected.