Contradiction claim
How much did the molten sea hold?
Kings and Chronicles describe the same bronze basin in the temple with nearly identical wording, including the same handbreadth thickness and lily-work brim, but give different capacities: two thousand baths in Kings, three thousand in Chronicles. Chronicles adds the phrase "received and held".
2 source records · 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 it was an hand breadth thick, and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies: it contained two thousand baths.
And the thickness of it was an handbreadth, and the brim of it like the work of the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies; and it received and held three thousand baths.
Why they appear to conflict
AnalysisEach side states a proposition attributable to its passages. A claim is not assumed to have exactly two sides.
1 Kings
The molten sea contained two thousand baths.
Two thousand baths
1 Kings 7:26
2 Chronicles
The molten sea received and held three thousand baths.
Three thousand baths
2 Chronicles 4:5
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.
Proposition A
capacity(molten_sea) = 2000 bathsProposition B
capacity(molten_sea) = 3000 baths| Dimension | Question | Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Same subject | Do both propositions predicate of the same subject? | Yes |
| Same referent | Do the referring expressions pick out the same individual? | Yes |
| Same event | Do both describe the same event token, not merely the same event type? | Not applicable |
| Same time | Do both describe the same time or time-window? | Uncertain |
| Same sense | Are the key terms used in the same sense? | Uncertain |
| Same scope | Are quantifiers, counting criteria and boundaries the same? | Uncertain |
| Same textual tradition | Are both readings secure in the same textual tradition? | Uncertain |
Subject and referent are secure: the surrounding description is near-verbatim in both books. What is unresolved is whether the two capacity verbs are being used in the same sense and with the same measuring criterion, which is exactly what the proposed harmonisation turns on.
Analytical questions
AnalysisWhat a researcher must answer to classify this record. Open questions are recorded, not resolved by preference.
- Does "contained" in Kings describe ordinary working capacity and "received and held" in Chronicles maximum capacity?
- Is the bath a fixed unit across both books?
- Is either numeral secure in the textual tradition?
- Does the near-verbatim agreement of the surrounding description constrain how much semantic distance the two capacity verbs can carry?
Hebrew / Greek relevance
LanguageThe difference may turn on the Hebrew verbs rendered "contained" and "received and held". Evaluating the proposed distinction requires the Hebrew, not the English.
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.
Working capacity versus maximum capacity
Kings gives the volume normally held and Chronicles the volume the basin could hold when filled to the brim.
Premises this proposal must supply
- textualThe two verbs are being used technically, to distinguish working from maximum capacity.
Editorial Harmonisation Cost Heuristic
3 / 5 — One substantial unstated premise
The Chronicles wording is genuinely fuller, which gives the reading a textual foothold, but neither book signals a technical distinction and the surrounding description is otherwise near-verbatim. One substantial unstated premise.
Reviewed by CodexTrace Editorial Board on 2026-09-07. This is an editorial heuristic, not an objective measurement.
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
- Numerical discrepancy
- What it means
- Parallel passages report different quantities for what appears to be the same measured thing.
- Requires formal analysis
- Yes
- Review status
- reviewed
- 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 - [2]
King James Version (Authorised Version)
"King James Version (Authorised Version)". licence: public-domain-us
Primarytranslationpublic-domain-usLink unverified
Related records
TextRelated claims
Parallel accounts
Community
CommunityCommunity discussion requires a configured Supabase project on this deployment. Research pages are unaffected.