CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 0Biblical Studies and InterpretationHistorical and Linguistic StudiesReligion, Theology, History, Judaism, Christianity

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 41 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

The Genealogies of Jesus: Matthew, Luke, Jewish Tradition, and the Apocryphal Gospels

Open access
DULE, Paul T. E. Cusack, BScE,·2026·International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science
DOI 10.47772/ijriss.2026.100800818
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The genealogies of Jesus in Matthew 1:1–17 and Luke 3:23–38 present one of the most persistent interpretive problems in the New Testament. Both genealogies seek to establish Jesus within the biblical history of Israel, yet they differ substantially in names, sequence, structure, and apparent relationships. Matthew traces Jesus from Abraham through David and Solomon to Joseph, while Luke traces Jesus backward from Joseph through a different branch of David's family and ultimately to Adam. The problem becomes more complex because both Matthew and Luke present Jesus' conception as occurring through the Holy Spirit rather than through ordinary biological fatherhood by Joseph. This paper examines these discrepancies in the context of Old Testament genealogy, Jewish concepts of lineage, inheritance, legal sonship, Davidic kingship, levirate marriage, and messianic expectation. It also considers the contribution of the apocryphal gospels, particularly the Protoevangelium of James, to later Christian understanding of Mary and Joseph. The paper argues that the genealogies should not automatically be interpreted as modern biological family trees. Ancient Jewish genealogies could communicate ancestry, tribal identity, inheritance, legal status, dynastic legitimacy, and theological purpose. Matthew appears particularly concerned with Jesus as the Davidic Messiah and legitimate heir to the royal promises, while Luke places Jesus within the broader history of humanity, extending the genealogy to Adam and God. The differences remain historically significant and cannot be completely harmonized from the surviving evidence, but they need not be regarded as fatal contradictions to the Christian theological claim. Their ultimate purpose is to establish Jesus within the biblical story of Abraham and David while the wider New Testament makes the much greater claim that the Davidic Messiah is also the Son of God.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

The paper argues that Matthew’s and Luke’s genealogies of Jesus differ genuinely—Joseph’s father is Jacob in Matthew and Heli in Luke, and the Davidic lines run through Solomon versus Nathan—so they should not be read as modern biological family trees. It concludes that ancient Jewish legal, dynastic, inheritance, and messianic conventions help explain the discrepancies, but surviving evidence does not allow complete harmonization.

Key findings

  • Matthew traces Jesus from Abraham through David and Solomon to Joseph, while Luke traces backward from Joseph through Nathan to David, Abraham, Adam, and God; Matthew names Joseph’s father as Jacob, Luke associates Joseph with Heli.
  • Ancient Jewish genealogies could establish ancestry, tribal identity, household membership, inheritance, legal fatherhood, royal succession, dynastic legitimacy, and covenant identity, so Joseph’s legal/dynastic relationship to Jesus could matter even within a virgin-conception narrative.
  • The traditional Marian interpretation—Matthew gives Joseph’s royal/legal genealogy and Luke gives Mary’s biological genealogy—could explain the Solomon/Nathan difference, but Luke explicitly names Joseph, so the paper says this remains uncertain.
  • The apocryphal gospels, especially the Protoevangelium of James, probably composed in the second century, add Joachim and Anna as Mary’s parents and portray Joseph as an older widower; they show later Christian tradition but do not definitively solve the Matthew/Luke problem.

Methods

  • Conceptual and biblical-theological analysis comparing Matthew 1:1–17 and Luke 3:23–38 with Old Testament genealogy, Jewish lineage, inheritance, legal sonship, Davidic kingship, levirate marriage, and messianic expectation.
  • The paper also examines apocryphal gospels—especially the Protoevangelium of James, Infancy Gospel of Thomas, and Gospel of Peter—as later witnesses to Christian tradition.
  • No empirical sample or quantitative analysis is reported; the main analysis synthesizes possible explanations and assesses their historical certainty.

Limitations

  • The paper states that no surviving evidence allows one explanation of the genealogical discrepancy to be established with complete certainty; neither Matthew nor Luke says Joseph’s genealogy resulted from a levirate marriage, and Luke does not explicitly identify his genealogy as Mary’s.
  • It states that the apocryphal gospels are later than the canonical Gospels and cannot automatically be used as a first-century historical correction; they are valuable for later Christian belief but less secure for the actual historical genealogy of Jesus.
  • Evident from the text: the argument is interpretive and depends on canonical texts, apocryphal traditions, and secondary scholarship rather than new primary data or quantitative testing.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.47772/ijriss.2026.100800818

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 41 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingcitation
    § The Apocryphal Gospels

    The Protoevangelium of James introduces Joachim and Anna as Mary's parents.

    “It introduces the names: Joachim and Anna as Mary's parents.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Protoevangelium of James

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Findingcitation
    § Levirate Marriage

    Neither Matthew nor Luke states that Joseph's genealogy resulted from a levirate marriage.

    “However, neither Matthew nor Luke states that Joseph's genealogy resulted from a levirate marriage.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Matthew 1:1-17

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Luke 3:23-38

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Findingown data
    § Abstract

    The genealogies of Jesus in Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38 differ substantially in names, sequence, structure, and apparent relationships.

    “Both genealogies seek to establish Jesus within the biblical history of Israel, yet they differ substantially in names, sequence, structure, and apparent relationships.”
    • Also stated in: § CONCLUSION · plain
      “The genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke contain genuine discrepancies.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Matthew 1:1-17

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Luke 3:23-38

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Findingcitation
    § The Apocryphal Gospels

    The Protoevangelium of James portrays Joseph as an older man and widower with children from an earlier relationship.

    “Joseph is portrayed as an older man and widower with children from an earlier relationship.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Protoevangelium of James

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Findingcitation
    § David → Nathan

    Luke does not explicitly say that his genealogy is Mary's.

    “The problem is that Luke does not explicitly say that his genealogy is Mary's.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Luke 3:23-38

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 37
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 51

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingcitation
    § INTRODUCTION

    Matthew says that Joseph was the son of Jacob, while Luke associates Joseph with Heli.

    “Matthew says that Joseph was the son of Jacob, while Luke associates Joseph with Heli.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Matthew 1:1-17

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Luke 3:23-38

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingcitation
    § Abstract

    Luke traces Jesus backward from Joseph through a different branch of David's family and ultimately to Adam.

    “Matthew traces Jesus from Abraham through David and Solomon to Joseph, while Luke traces Jesus backward from Joseph through a different branch of David's family and ultimately to Adam.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Luke 3:23-38

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingcitation
    § INTRODUCTION

    Matthew begins with Abraham, while Luke continues beyond Abraham to Adam and ultimately to God.

    “Matthew begins with Abraham, while Luke continues beyond Abraham to Adam and ultimately to God.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Matthew 1:1-17

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Luke 3:23-38

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Findingnone given
    § Abstract

    Both Matthew and Luke present Jesus' conception as occurring through the Holy Spirit rather than through ordinary biological fatherhood by Joseph.

    “The problem becomes more complex because both Matthew and Luke present Jesus' conception as occurring through the Holy Spirit rather than through ordinary biological fatherhood by Joseph.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingreasoning
    § Jewish Patrilineal Tradition

    Joseph is presented as Mary's husband and Jesus' legal father.

    “Joseph is presented as Mary's husband and Jesus' legal father.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingcitation
    § Abstract

    Matthew traces Jesus from Abraham through David and Solomon to Joseph.

    “Matthew traces Jesus from Abraham through David and Solomon to Joseph, while Luke traces Jesus backward from Joseph through a different branch of David's family and ultimately to Adam.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Matthew 1:1-17

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Findingnone given
    § The Importance of the Protoevangelium of James

    The Protoevangelium of James does not explicitly solve the Matthew/Luke genealogy problem.

    “The Protoevangelium of James does not explicitly solve the Matthew/Luke genealogy problem.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Protoevangelium of James

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Findingnone given
    § Matthew's Christological Purpose

    Matthew repeatedly presents Jesus as the fulfillment of Israel's Scriptures.

    “Matthew repeatedly presents Jesus as the fulfillment of Israel's Scriptures.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingcitation
    § Luke's Universal Purpose

    Luke's genealogy has a different endpoint; instead of stopping at Abraham, Luke proceeds to Adam.

    “Instead of stopping at Abraham, Luke proceeds to Adam.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Luke 3:23-38

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Findingnone given
    § INTRODUCTION

    Matthew and Luke both teach that Jesus was not conceived through ordinary biological fatherhood by Joseph.

    “At the same time, Matthew and Luke both teach that Jesus was not conceived through ordinary biological fatherhood by Joseph.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Findingnone given
    § The Messiah and the Son of David

    Throughout the Gospel tradition, people address Jesus as Son of David.

    “Throughout the Gospel tradition, people address Jesus as Son of David.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingcitation
    § INTRODUCTION

    Matthew traces the Davidic line through Solomon, whereas Luke traces it through Nathan.

    “Matthew traces the Davidic line through Solomon, whereas Luke traces it through Nathan.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Matthew 1:1-17

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Luke 3:23-38

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingcitation
    § It provides an early Christian tradition distinguishing:

    The Protoevangelium of James provides an early Christian tradition distinguishing Mary's family from Joseph's family and additional background about both.

    “It provides an early Christian tradition distinguishing: Mary's family from Joseph's family and provides additional background about both.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Protoevangelium of James

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingcitation
    § Apocryphal tradition

    The apocryphal literature expands the family story, particularly through Joachim + Anna → Mary → Jesus and through an expanded account of Joseph.

    “The apocryphal literature expands the family story, particularly through: Joachim + Anna → Mary → Jesus and through an expanded account of Joseph.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Protoevangelium of James

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingcitation
    § CONCLUSION

    Luke does not explicitly identify the genealogy as Mary's, so the interpretation remains uncertain.

    “Nevertheless, Luke does not explicitly identify the genealogy as Mary's, so the interpretation remains uncertain.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Luke 3:23-38

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Findingcitation
    § The Infancy Gospel of Thomas

    The Infancy Gospel of Thomas provides stories concerning Jesus' childhood.

    “The Infancy Gospel of Thomas provides stories concerning Jesus' childhood.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites The Infancy Gospel of Thomas

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingcitation
    § CONCLUSION

    Matthew identifies Joseph with Jacob and follows David through Solomon, while Luke associates Joseph with Heli and follows David through Nathan.

    “Matthew identifies Joseph with Jacob and follows David through Solomon, while Luke associates Joseph with Heli and follows David through Nathan.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Matthew 1:1-17

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Luke 3:23-38

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingcitation
    § Matthew and Luke

    Matthew and Luke independently place Jesus within this history but use substantially different genealogical structures.

    “Matthew and Luke independently place Jesus within this history but use substantially different genealogical structures.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Matthew 1:1-17

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Luke 3:23-38

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingreasoning
    § The Gospel of Peter

    The Gospel of Peter is primarily concerned with Jesus' Passion and resurrection and contributes little directly to the genealogy problem.

    “The Gospel of Peter is primarily concerned with Jesus' Passion and resurrection. It therefore contributes little directly to the genealogy problem.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites The Gospel of Peter

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § The House of David

    The covenant of 2 Samuel 7 concerns David's house, throne, kingdom, and continuing dynasty.

    “The covenant of 2 Samuel 7 concerns David's house, throne, kingdom, and continuing dynasty.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites 2 Samuel 7:12-16

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Matthew's Christological Purpose

    Matthew's genealogy should be read together with the rest of Matthew's Gospel.

    “Matthew's genealogy should be read together with the rest of Matthew's Gospel.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Premisereasoning
    § INTRODUCTION

    Genealogy is central to the Christian claim that Jesus is the Messiah.

    “The problem becomes particularly significant because genealogy is central to the Christian claim that Jesus is the Messiah.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation
    § Levirate Marriage

    Levirate marriage, described in Deuteronomy 25, allowed a brother to marry a widow and the resulting child could preserve the deceased man's name and inheritance.

    “Where a man died without a son, his brother could marry the widow and the resulting child could preserve the deceased man's name and inheritance.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Deuteronomy 25

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § The House of David

    The Messiah is associated with the Davidic royal house, not simply someone who happens to possess David somewhere in a biological family tree.

    “The Messiah is therefore not simply someone who happens to possess David somewhere in a biological family tree. He is associated with the Davidic royal house.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Davidic identity royal identity messianic identity

    Matthew's genealogy is the opening argument for Matthew's larger presentation of Jesus.

    “The genealogy is therefore the opening argument for Matthew's larger presentation of Jesus.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationnone given
    § Abstract

    Ancient Jewish genealogies could communicate ancestry, tribal identity, inheritance, legal status, dynastic legitimacy, and theological purpose.

    “Ancient Jewish genealogies could communicate ancestry, tribal identity, inheritance, legal status, dynastic legitimacy, and theological purpose.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § INTRODUCTION

    If Jesus is to be identified as the promised Messiah, his relationship to David becomes an important part of the argument.

    “If Jesus is to be identified as the promised Messiah, his relationship to David becomes an important part of the argument.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Levirate Marriage

    The levirate marriage explanation for the genealogical discrepancy is possible but speculative.

    “The explanation is therefore possible but speculative.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Luke names Joseph.

    The Marian interpretation is a traditional Christian explanation, but it should not be presented as an explicit statement made by Luke.

    “Consequently, the Marian interpretation is a traditional Christian explanation, but it should not be presented as an explicit statement made by Luke.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisenone given
    § Genealogy could establish:

    Ancient genealogy could establish ancestry, tribal identity, household membership, inheritance, legal fatherhood, royal succession, dynastic legitimacy, and covenant identity.

    “Genealogy could establish: • ancestry; • tribal identity; • household membership; • inheritance; • legal fatherhood; • royal succession; • dynastic legitimacy; • covenant identity.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Abstract

    The differences between the Matthean and Lukan genealogies remain historically significant and cannot be completely harmonized from the surviving evidence.

    “The differences remain historically significant and cannot be completely harmonized from the surviving evidence, but they need not be regarded as fatal contradictions to the Christian theological claim.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § The Problem of Joseph's Biological Father

    Jewish genealogical customs help explain why Matthew's genealogy is important, but they do not completely solve the discrepancy.

    “Jewish genealogical customs help explain why Matthew's genealogy is important, but they do not completely solve the discrepancy.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisenone given
    § The Apocryphal Gospels

    The Protoevangelium of James was probably composed in the second century.

    “The most important for this subject is the Protoevangelium of James, probably composed in the second century.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Protoevangelium of James

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Genealogy could establish:

    Two genealogies could potentially describe different aspects of an individual's family identity.

    “Consequently, two genealogies could potentially describe different aspects of an individual's family identity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Jesus is the expected Davidic ruler.

    The genealogy functions as a credential for messianic identity.

    “The genealogy therefore functions as a credential for messianic identity.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § The Messiah and the Son of David

    'Son of David' is not simply a genealogical observation; it is a messianic title.

    “This is not simply a genealogical observation. It is a messianic title.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Interpretationnone given
    § Legal and Dynastic Genealogy

    Ancient genealogies did not necessarily function as modern DNA-based family trees.

    “Ancient genealogies did not necessarily function as modern DNA-based family trees.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § The Central Christian Problem

    The Christian claim is that Jesus enters the human and Davidic story while possessing an identity that ultimately transcends ordinary human genealogy.

    “It is that Jesus enters the human and Davidic story while possessing an identity that ultimately transcends ordinary human genealogy.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Premisenone given
    § They are valuable evidence for:

    The canonical Gospels are generally earlier than the surviving apocryphal infancy traditions.

    “The canonical Gospels are generally earlier than the surviving apocryphal infancy traditions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The canonical Gospels are generally earlier than the surviving apocryphal infancy traditions.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § DISCUSSION

    The genealogical discrepancies are best understood as a combination of historical, literary, legal, and theological phenomena.

    “The genealogical discrepancies are best understood as a combination of historical, literary, legal, and theological phenomena.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § DISCUSSION

    It would be anachronistic to assume that Matthew and Luke were attempting to produce modern genealogical databases.

    “It would be anachronistic to assume that Matthew and Luke were attempting to produce modern genealogical databases.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § The Gospel of Peter

    The existence of different apocryphal writings shows that early Christianity contained a variety of narratives and interpretations.

    “The existence of these different writings shows that early Christianity contained a variety of narratives and interpretations.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Are Matthew and Luke Contradictory?

    If the genealogies are understood according to ancient Jewish conventions, the situation becomes more complex.

    “However, if the genealogies are understood according to ancient Jewish conventions, the situation becomes more complex.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § CONCLUSION

    The most important conclusion is theological rather than merely genealogical.

    “The most important conclusion is therefore theological rather than merely genealogical.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Interpretationnone given
    § Lord and Messiah

    The resurrection is the central event upon which the apostolic proclamation rests.

    “The resurrection is the central event upon which the apostolic proclamation rests.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationnone given
    § They are valuable evidence for:

    The apocryphal gospels are valuable evidence for early Christian beliefs, later traditions concerning Mary and Joseph, the development of Christian theology, and the way Christians interpreted gaps in the canonical narratives.

    “They are valuable evidence for: • early Christian beliefs; • later traditions concerning Mary and Joseph; • the development of Christian theology; • the way Christians interpreted gaps in the canonical narratives.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § CONCLUSION

    Jesus' relationship to Joseph can be understood in terms of legal and dynastic identity, while the virgin-birth tradition establishes a different understanding of Jesus' biological conception.

    “Jesus' relationship to Joseph can be understood in terms of legal and dynastic identity, while the virgin-birth tradition establishes a different understanding of Jesus' biological conception.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation
    § CONCLUSION

    The Davidic monarchy was fundamentally associated with the House of David, and the Messiah was expected to be connected with that royal tradition.

    “The Davidic monarchy was fundamentally associated with the House of David, and the Messiah was expected to be connected with that royal tradition.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites 2 Samuel 7:12-16

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § The Genealogy Is Not the Whole Christian Argument

    Christianity does not depend upon Matthew and Luke having identical genealogies.

    “Christianity therefore does not depend upon Matthew and Luke having identical genealogies.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § CONCLUSION

    Luke extends the genealogy to Adam, emphasizing Jesus' relationship to humanity as a whole.

    “Luke extends the genealogy to Adam, emphasizing Jesus' relationship to humanity as a whole.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Interpretationnone given
    § The genealogy establishes where Jesus belongs in human history.

    The genealogy establishes where Jesus belongs in human history.

    “The genealogy establishes where Jesus belongs in human history.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § CONCLUSION

    The broader New Testament makes the Christian claim that this descendant of David is also the Son of God.

    “The broader New Testament then makes the extraordinary Christian claim that this descendant of David is also the Son of God.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Romans 1:3-4

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Are Matthew and Luke Contradictory?

    The discrepancies remain real, but they need not represent careless writing.

    “The discrepancies remain real, but they need not represent careless writing.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation
    § The Gospel proclamation addresses the greater question:

    Romans 1:3-4 describes Jesus as descended from David according to the flesh and as the Son of God declared through the resurrection.

    “Figure: descended from David according to the flesh and as the Son of God declared through the resurrection.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Romans 1:3-4

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Romans 1:3-4

    The genealogies establish Jesus' relationship to David according to the flesh and the covenantal story.

    “The genealogies establish Jesus' relationship to David according to the flesh and the covenantal story.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § The texts really do provide different genealogies.

    Matthew's genealogy is particularly suited to establishing Jesus as the Davidic King and Messiah.

    “Matthew's genealogy is particularly suited to establishing Jesus as the Davidic King and Messiah.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § CONCLUSION

    The apocryphal gospels are valuable witnesses to the development of Christian tradition but do not provide a definitive historical solution to the genealogical problem.

    “They are valuable witnesses to the development of Christian tradition but do not provide a definitive historical solution to the genealogical problem.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Interpretationnone given
    § Lord and Messiah

    The genealogy establishes Jesus' place in the biblical history.

    “The genealogy establishes Jesus' place in the biblical history.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § CONCLUSION

    Matthew emphasizes Jesus as the Davidic Messiah and King of Israel.

    “Matthew emphasizes Jesus as the Davidic Messiah and King of Israel.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § How can the Messiah be David's descendant and simultaneously David's Lord?

    The Christian answer is that Jesus possesses two dimensions of identity: according to his humanity he belongs to the human and Davidic story; according to Christian theology he is the Son of God.

    “The Christian answer is that Jesus possesses two dimensions of identity. According to his humanity, he belongs to the human and Davidic story. According to Christian theology, he is the Son of God.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Romans 1:3-4

    The resurrection becomes the central Christian testimony concerning Jesus' divine identity.

    “The resurrection becomes the central Christian testimony concerning his divine identity.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § CONCLUSION

    The traditional identification of Luke's genealogy with Mary's ancestry provides a possible reconciliation, particularly because Matthew follows Solomon while Luke follows Nathan.

    “The traditional identification of Luke's genealogy with Mary's ancestry provides a possible reconciliation, particularly because Matthew follows Solomon while Luke follows Nathan.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisenone given
    § CONCLUSION

    Ancient genealogy could establish not only biological ancestry but also tribal identity, legal status, inheritance, household membership, and dynastic legitimacy.

    “Ancient genealogy could establish not only biological ancestry but also tribal identity, legal status, inheritance, household membership, and dynastic legitimacy.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § The Central Christian Problem

    Christianity answers the issue through legal sonship, Davidic dynastic inheritance, the virgin conception, Jesus' human descent, and the Incarnation.

    “Christianity answers through several related concepts: legal sonship Davidic dynastic inheritance the virgin conception Jesus' human descent the Incarnation”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § The Central Christian Problem

    The deepest issue is how Jesus can be the Son of David if Joseph is not his biological father.

    “The deepest issue is not actually the difference between Jacob and Heli. It is this: How can Jesus be the Son of David if Joseph is not his biological father?”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationcitation
    § CONCLUSION

    The apocryphal gospels, especially the Protoevangelium of James, contribute additional traditions about Mary and Joseph and demonstrate how early Christians attempted to fill the gaps in the canonical accounts.

    “The apocryphal gospels, especially the Protoevangelium of James, contribute additional traditions about Mary and Joseph and demonstrate how early Christians attempted to fill the gaps in the canonical accounts.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Protoevangelium of James

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § The Gospel proclamation addresses the greater question:

    Christianity's answer is that Jesus is simultaneously Son of David according to the flesh, Messiah according to the promises, and Son of God according to his divine identity.

    “Christianity's answer is that Jesus is simultaneously Son of David according to the flesh, Messiah according to the promises, and Son of God according to his divine identity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § The Gospel proclamation addresses the greater question:

    The apparent conflict between Matthew and Luke leads directly to the central question of Christian theology: not simply which genealogy is correct, but how the historical Jesus can simultaneously be understood as David's descendant, Israel's Messiah, and David's Lord.

    “The apparent conflict between Matthew and Luke therefore leads directly to the central question of Christian theology: not simply which genealogy is correct, but how the historical Jesus can simultaneously be understood as David's descendant, Israel's Messiah, and David's Lord.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
68 of 68

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Ancient Jewish identity was strongly associated with paternal lineage, and tribal affiliation was ordinarily traced through the father.

    “Ancient Jewish identity was strongly associated with paternal lineage. Tribal affiliation was ordinarily traced through the father.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Genealogical identity could determine tribal membership, property rights, family inheritance, priestly status, royal legitimacy, and membership within a particular household.

    “Genealogical identity could determine: • tribal membership; • property rights; • family inheritance; • priestly status; • royal legitimacy; • membership within a particular household.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The canonical Gospels are generally earlier than the surviving apocryphal infancy traditions.

    “The canonical Gospels are generally earlier than the surviving apocryphal infancy traditions.”
3 of 3

Citations

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Vermes, Geza. The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English. London: Penguin. Early Christian and Apocryphal Sources 23. The Protoevangelium of James. Especially chapters 1-25, concerning Mary, her parents, Joseph, and the circumstances surrounding Jesus' birth.
  2. Davies, W. D., and Dale C. Allison Jr. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew. Vol. 1. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988.
  3. Brown, Raymond E. The Community of the Beloved Disciple. New York: Paulist Press, 1979.

Metadata

Authors
DULE, P. T. E. C.
Affiliations
Physics, Independent Research
Venue
International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science
Publisher
RSIS International
Published
2026
Volume
10
Issue
8
Pages
12061-12076
ISSN
2454-6186 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.47772/ijriss.2026.100800818
OpenAlex
W7213638837
Semantic Scholar
3c79e2e531cb1fd84ffbde18fa2794fed43b1722
Cited by
0
References
0
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Open access
Locations
International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Religious studies › Biblical Studies and Interpretation
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Religious studies › Historical and Linguistic Studies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Religious studies › Religion, Theology, History, Judaism, Christianity
Keywords
genealogy of Jesus, Matthew 1:1-17, Protoevangelium of James, apocryphal gospels, Jewish genealogy, Davidic kingship, levirate marriage, messianic expectation, Joseph and Mary, dynastic legitimacy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-12, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-12 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review