Contradiction claim
In what order did the temptations of Jesus occur?
Matthew places the temple pinnacle second and the high mountain third. Luke places the high mountain second and the temple pinnacle third. The content of the temptations is closely parallel; the sequence differs.
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.
Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,
Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.
And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, and said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence:
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
The pinnacle of the temple came second and the high mountain third.
Matthew 4:5 · Matthew 4:8
Luke
The high mountain came second and the pinnacle of the temple third.
Luke 4:5 · Luke 4:9
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
position(temple_pinnacle) = 2 and position(high_mountain) = 3Proposition B
position(high_mountain) = 2 and position(temple_pinnacle) = 3| 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? | Yes |
| Same time | Do both describe the same time or time-window? | Yes |
| Same sense | Are the key terms used in the same sense? | Yes |
| Same scope | Are quantifiers, counting criteria and boundaries the same? | Yes |
| Same textual tradition | Are both readings secure in the same textual tradition? | Yes |
Every dimension resolves, which makes this the cleanest formal case in the seeded set — the two orderings cannot both be the historical sequence. It is nonetheless classified as a chronological discrepancy rather than a formal logical contradiction, because neither account claims to be reporting chronological order, and an ordering that is not asserted cannot be contradicted. That is a claim about what the texts assert, not a rescue of them.
Analytical questions
AnalysisWhat a researcher must answer to classify this record. Open questions are recorded, not resolved by preference.
- Does either account claim chronological sequence, or use connectives that permit topical arrangement?
- Does Matthew’s "again" and Luke’s connectives carry sequential force?
- Is one order shaped by a literary or theological pattern — for instance ending in Jerusalem?
- Would a topical arrangement in one Gospel count as a discrepancy at all?
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.
One account is topically arranged
One evangelist orders the episodes thematically rather than chronologically, a recognised feature of ancient narrative.
Premises this proposal must supply
- contextualAt least one account is not asserting chronological order.
Editorial Harmonisation Cost Heuristic
2 / 5 — Ordinary contextual inference
Luke’s ordering ends in Jerusalem, which matches that Gospel’s broader geographic movement, giving the topical reading contextual support.
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
- Chronological discrepancy
- What it means
- Accounts place the same event at different times or in different sequences.
- Requires formal analysis
- Yes
- Review status
- reviewed
- Categories
- Chronology & sequenceNarrative detail
- 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.