{"slug":"stoa0022.stoa022.opp-lat1","id":"latin:ogl-pl:stoa0022.stoa022.opp-lat1","title":"De Concordia Matthaei Et Lucae In Genealogia Christi","title_source":"De Concordia Matthaei Et Lucae In Genealogia Christi","author":"Ambrosius","genre":"treatise","date":"","tradition":"latin","coverage":"not-located","coverage_claim":{"status":"not-located","text":"No English translation could be identified: a language model asked twice could not name one, though it could not rule one out either. That is not proof that none exists — translations in dissertations, recent books and other modern languages are easily missed."},"publication":{"status":"machine-draft","reviewed_by":null,"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","generated":"2026-11-15T06:11:26Z","cost_usd":0.003424},"source":{"registry_id":"latin:ogl-pl:stoa0022.stoa022.opp-lat1","work_id":"stoa0022.stoa022.opp-lat1","edition":"ogl-pl","language":"","license":"Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License","url":"https://github.com/OpenGreekAndLatin/patrologia_latina-dev/blob/master/data/stoa0022/stoa022/stoa0022.stoa022.opp-lat1.xml"},"stats":{"passages":6,"english_words":1365,"coptic_letters":0,"source_letters":5881,"commentary_units":33,"commentary_kinds":7,"derived_notes":0,"ambiguities":8,"work_notes":4,"external_links":0,"timeline":6},"summary":{"work":"stoa0022.stoa022.opp-lat1","abstract":"De Concordia Matthaei Et Lucae In Genealogia Christi is a Latin treatise attributed to Ambrose of Milan (c. 339–397), likely composed in the 380s during his exegetical debates with Arian and Manichaean opponents. The work harmonizes the genealogies of Jesus in Matthew 1:1–17 and Luke 3:23–38, arguing that their structural divergence—Matthew descending from Abraham to Joseph, Luke ascending from Joseph to Adam—is a deliberate choice, not a contradiction. Ambrose introduces the concept of 'grace of adoption' (gratia adoptionis) to distinguish natural descent from spiritual incorporation into Christ, anticipating later adoptionist debates. The treatise survives only in medieval copies, with Carolingian manuscripts as the earliest witnesses, and was cited by later authorities like Peter Lombard and Thomas Aquinas.","historical_context":"The treatise was produced in Milan in the 380s, a period when Ambrose, as bishop, was deeply engaged in theological controversies with Arian and Manichaean groups. The work reflects the late fourth-century Latin Christian exegetical tradition, which sought to defend the coherence of the Gospels against critics who highlighted discrepancies. The genealogies of Matthew and Luke were a focal point for such criticism, as they differ in names, structure, and lineage. Ambrose's harmonization employs a principle that Scripture may contain different (diversa) accounts but never contradictory (adversa) ones, a common patristic axiom. The text survives only through a single medieval manuscript tradition, with Carolingian copies being the earliest extant witnesses; no autograph or contemporary manuscript exists. The edition (ogl-pl) lacks a critical apparatus or stemma, and variant readings among the few known manuscripts are not recorded, limiting certainty about the original text.","significance":"This treatise is a key patristic source for Gospel harmonization, influencing later medieval commentators such as Peter Lombard and Thomas Aquinas. Its concept of 'grace of adoption' anticipates later adoptionist Christology debates and Reformation discussions on divine filiation. The work exemplifies Ambrose's exegetical method and his role in shaping Latin Christian orthodoxy against heterodox challenges.","timeline":[{"date":"c. 339–397","event":"Life of Ambrose of Milan, to whom the treatise is attributed."},{"date":"380s","event":"Probable composition of De Concordia Matthaei Et Lucae In Genealogia Christi during Ambrose's episcopate."},{"date":"9th century","event":"Earliest surviving manuscript witnesses (Carolingian copies) of the treatise."},{"date":"12th century","event":"Peter Lombard cites the treatise in his Sentences, using it as a patristic authority on Gospel harmony."},{"date":"13th century","event":"Thomas Aquinas references the work in his Catena Aurea and Summa Theologiae."},{"date":"Undated","event":"The edition (ogl-pl) is produced without critical apparatus or stemma; variant readings among manuscripts are not recorded."}],"relations":[{"work":"Matthew 1:1–17","relation":"One of the two Gospel genealogies that the treatise harmonizes.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Luke 3:23–38","relation":"The other Gospel genealogy harmonized in the treatise.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Sentences by Peter Lombard","relation":"Cites this treatise as a patristic authority on genealogical discrepancies.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Catena Aurea by Thomas Aquinas","relation":"References the treatise in its commentary on the Gospels.","key":"","label":null,"url":null},{"work":"Summa Theologiae by Thomas Aquinas","relation":"Uses Ambrose's harmonization in discussions of Christ's genealogy.","key":"","label":null,"url":null}],"external_links":[],"cautions":["The attribution to Ambrose of Milan is traditional but not definitively proven; no autograph or contemporary manuscript survives.","The date of composition is uncertain; the 380s is a scholarly estimate based on Ambrose's exegetical activity.","The treatise survives only in a single medieval manuscript tradition, with Carolingian copies as the earliest witnesses; the textual history is poorly documented.","The edition (ogl-pl) lacks a critical apparatus or stemma, and variant readings among the few known manuscripts are not recorded, limiting confidence in the transmitted text."],"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor","provider":"Relace","cost_usd":0.000541,"generated":"2026-11-15T06:11:26Z"},"links":[{"kind":"source","label":"Open Greek and Latin Patrologia Latina","url":"https://github.com/OpenGreekAndLatin/patrologia_latina-dev/blob/master/data/stoa0022/stoa022/stoa0022.stoa022.opp-lat1.xml"}],"checks":{"work":"stoa0022.stoa022.opp-lat1","status":"pass","blocking":[],"warnings":[],"stats":{"passages":6,"translated":6,"commentary_passages":6,"commentary_units":33,"english_words":1365,"source_letters":5859,"commentary_kinds":7},"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash:floor"},"work_notes":[{"unit":"dating","kind":"chronology","basis":"external","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The treatise is attributed to Ambrose of Milan (c. 339–397) and likely dates to the 380s, when he was engaged in exegetical debates with Arian and Manichaean opponents.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"transmission","kind":"transmission","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The work survives in a single medieval manuscript tradition; the earliest witnesses are Carolingian copies. No autograph or contemporary manuscript is extant.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"external","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"This treatise was cited by later medieval commentators on the harmony of the Gospels, including Peter Lombard and Thomas Aquinas, as a patristic authority on the genealogical discrepancies.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The edition (ogl-pl) does not provide a critical apparatus or stemma; variant readings among the few known manuscripts are not recorded here.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"derived_work_notes":[{"kind":"coverage","severity":"info","text":"No English translation could be identified: a language model asked twice could not name one, though it could not rule one out either. That is not proof that none exists — translations in dissertations, recent books and other modern languages are easily missed."},{"kind":"limit","severity":"caution","text":"The English is a machine draft produced passage by passage from the transcribed Coptic; no human has verified it. The commentary is model-written and cites only keys the pipeline could resolve."},{"kind":"register","severity":"info","text":"Register: treatise in Latin; the English keeps the liturgical formulae and the vocatives rather than normalising them."},{"kind":"structure","severity":"info","text":"Passages: 6 narrative."},{"kind":"source","severity":"info","text":"Source edition: ogl-pl — Available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License"}],"derived_structure":{"narrative":6},"term_index":[],"citations":{},"segments":[{"i":1,"ref":"p1","source":"HE CONCORDIA MATTHÆI ET LUCÆ\n\nIN GENEALOGIA CHRISTI.\n\nIn Christi generatione Matthæus et Lucas dissentire videntur, propterea qnod cnm alter, id cst, Matthæus descendendo: alter, id est, Lucas ascendendo, ejusdem generationis seriem texat. Matthæus quidem ab Abraham exordium narrationis sumens, et ad David usque descendens, deinde per Salomonem usque ad Joseph lineam deducit: Lucas Vero a Joseph incipiens, per Nathan ad David, et a David usque ad Abraham, postremo ab Abraham usque ad Adam generationis ordinem revolvendo ascendit. Unde contingit ut a David deorsum, cum ille per Natlian, iste per Salomonem generationis tramitem deducat, totus pene computationis ordo dissideat. Sed qnia Scriptura sacra diversa quandoqne recipit, adversa autem omnino non admittit; dum non permittimur credere contrarietatem, latentem cogimnr quarere veritatem. Matthæus igitur generationem Christi descendendo computat, ostendens Fllium Dei per carnis susceptionem factum esse Filiun hoMinis: Lucas eamdem ascendendo texit, demonstrans filios hominum effici filios Dei per gratiam adoptionis.","english":"The Concord of Matthew and Luke\n\non the Genealogy of Christ.\n\nIn the generation of Christ, Matthew and Luke appear to disagree, because one—that is, Matthew—descending, the other—that is, Luke—ascending, weaves the series of the same generation. Matthew, indeed, taking the beginning of his narrative from Abraham and descending as far as David, then through Solomon leads the line down to Joseph: Luke, on the other hand, beginning from Joseph, through Nathan to David, and from David as far as Abraham, finally from Abraham as far as Adam, ascends by revolving the order of the generation. Hence it happens that from David downward, since the one traces the path of generation through Nathan, the other through Solomon, almost the entire order of the computation is at variance. But because sacred Scripture sometimes admits different things, but never admits contradictory ones; while we are not permitted to believe in contrariety, we are compelled to seek the hidden truth. Matthew, therefore, computes the generation of Christ descending, showing that the Son of God, through the assumption of flesh, became the Son of Man: Luke weaves the same ascending, demonstrating that sons of men become sons of God through the grace of adoption.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"descendendo ... ascendendo","severity":"info","text":"Ambrose contrasts Matthew's descending genealogy (Abraham to Joseph) with Luke's ascending one (Joseph to Adam), framing the apparent discrepancy as a structural choice rather than a contradiction.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"gratia adoptionis","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'grace of adoption' (gratia adoptionis) echoes Pauline language (e.g., Rom 8:15, 23) and Ambrose's own theology of spiritual rebirth, distinguishing natural descent from salvific incorporation into Christ.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Matthæus ... Lucas","severity":"info","text":"The passage refers to the genealogies in Matthew 1:1–17 and Luke 3:23–38, which Ambrose harmonizes by noting their different directions (descending vs. ascending) and lines (through Solomon vs. Nathan).","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"diversa ... adversa","severity":"info","text":"Ambrose applies a principle of scriptural interpretation: Scripture may contain different (diversa) accounts but never contradictory (adversa) ones, a common patristic axiom for resolving apparent discrepancies.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"filios hominum effici filios Dei","severity":"info","text":"Ambrose's conclusion that Luke's ascending genealogy shows 'sons of men become sons of God through grace of adoption' anticipates later medieval and Reformation debates on adoptionist Christology and the nature of divine filiation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text does not specify which biblical manuscripts or textual variants Ambrose used for the genealogies; the reference to 'Nathan' (Luke 3:31) is assumed from the Vulgate tradition."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":2,"ref":"p2","source":"Propterea etiam Matthaeus generationis seriem usqne ad Christum natum ducere VOlenS, noh a primo parente Adam, sed ab Abraham exorsus est; ut ostenderet qnod susceptio carnis in Fllio Dei non fuit primæ conditionis institutio, sed promissionis postmodum factæ impletio. Lucas vero a Christo baptizato incipiens, non in David vel in Ahraham, sed nec in Adam finem fecit: sed per David et Abraham atque Adam transiens, ad Deum ascendit; ut aperte daret intelligi, quod ii qui per generationem carnis filii sunt hominum, per regenerationem baptismatis in adoptionem transeunt deitatis. Idco Matthaeus in genealogia non hist naturales filios computare voluit: Lucas vero inter naturales etiam adoptivos ascrihit; ut ostendatur et in Christo nascente vera fuisse carnis susceptio,et in nobis renascentibus non per naturam, sed per gratiam provenire adoptio. Hæc ergo fuit causa quare in generationis serie alios Matthæus, et alios Lucas patres posuit; quia ille, sicut diximus, solos naturales: iste Vero naturalibus etiam adoptivos connumeravit. Quod ut melius patere possit, utrorumque narrationem conferamus.","english":"Therefore, Matthew, wishing to lead the series of generation up to the birth of Christ, did not begin from the first parent Adam, but from Abraham, in order to show that the assumption of flesh in the Son of God was not an institution of the original condition, but the fulfillment of a promise made afterward. Luke, however, beginning from the baptized Christ, did not end with David or Abraham, nor even with Adam, but passing through David, Abraham, and Adam, ascended to God, so as to make it clearly understood that those who are sons of men through generation of the flesh pass, through regeneration of baptism, into the adoption of divinity. For this reason, Matthew in his genealogy wished to count only natural sons; Luke, however, includes among the natural also the adoptive, in order to show that in Christ being born there was a true assumption of flesh, and in us being reborn adoption comes not through nature but through grace. This, therefore, was the reason why in the series of generation Matthew placed some fathers and Luke others: because the former, as we have said, listed only natural ones; the latter, however, counted even adoptive ones together with the natural. So that this may be more clearly evident, let us compare the accounts of both.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Propterea etiam Matthaeus generationis seriem usqne ad Christum natum ducere VOlenS, noh a primo parente Adam, sed ab Abraham exorsus est","severity":"info","text":"The passage explains the structural divergence between Matthew and Luke: Matthew descends from Abraham to Christ, while Luke ascends from Christ to God.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"regenerationem baptismatis","severity":"info","text":"Regenerationem baptismatis (regeneration of baptism) is a key term contrasting natural generation with spiritual rebirth, central to Ambrose's argument about adoption through grace.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"adoptivos","severity":"info","text":"Ambrose's mention of adoptive sons reflects Roman legal practice and early Christian debates on whether genealogies included adopted figures, as seen in Luke's list.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Matthaeus in genealogia non hist naturales filios computare voluit","severity":"info","text":"Ambrose alludes to Matthew's genealogy (Matt 1:1-17) and Luke's (Luke 3:23-38), interpreting their differences as intentional: Matthew lists natural sons, Luke includes adoptive.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Hæc ergo fuit causa quare in generationis serie alios Matthæus, et alios Lucas patres posuit","severity":"info","text":"This harmonization of the genealogies was influential in patristic exegesis, later cited by authors like Augustine in De Consensu Evangelistarum.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The Latin text has minor spelling variants (e.g., 'usqne' for 'usque', 'noh' for 'non', 'VOlenS' for 'volens'), but these do not affect the sense. The reading follows the standard edition."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":3,"ref":"p3","source":"Ordo generationis Christi secundum Matthæum talis est: Abraham genuit lsaac, Isaac genuit Jacob,, Jacob genuit Judam, Judas genuit Phares, Pharet genuit Earon, Esron genuit Aram, Aram genuit aminadab, Aminadab genuit Naason, Naasaon genuit Salmon, Salmon genuit Booz, Boox genuit Obed, Obed genuit hai, vel Jesse, Jesse genuit David, David genuit Salomonem, Salomon genuit Roboam, Roboam genuit Abiam, Abia genuit Asa, Asa genuit Josaphat, Jotaphat genuit Joram, Joram genuit Oziam (Matth. I, i et.eq.). Tres hic intermisit Evangelisla, id est, Otiam sive Ochosiam, et Joas, et Amasiam; Joram enim primo loco genuit Ochoziam, et Ochosias genuit Joas, et Joas genuit AmaSiam, et Amasias demum genuit Oziam, de quo nunc dicilur: Joram genuit Oziam. Quod ita intelligendum est, genuit videlicet mediantibus supradictis; quia per illos de semine ejus processit. Hos autem Evangelista vel ideo prætermisit, ut numerus tesseræ decadis aequaretur: vel Ideo, quia Joram generi se miscuit Jezabel; et dictum erat per prophetam de domo Achab non esse quemquam regnaturum, nisi in quarta generatione: et ideo memoria ejus tollitur, eo usque a sancta generatione. Ozias ergo, qui et Azarias, genuit Joatham, Joatham genuit Achaz, Achaz genuit Ezechiam, Ezechias genuit Manassen, Manasses genuit Amon, Amon genuit Josiam, Josias genuit Jechoriiam, Jechonias genuit Salathiel.","english":"The order of Christ's generation according to Matthew is as follows: Abraham begot Isaac, Isaac begot Jacob, Jacob begot Judah, Judah begot Phares, Phares begot Esron, Esron begot Aram, Aram begot Aminadab, Aminadab begot Naason, Naason begot Salmon, Salmon begot Booz, Booz begot Obed, Obed begot Jesse, or Jesse, Jesse begot David, David begot Solomon, Solomon begot Roboam, Roboam begot Abiam, Abia begot Asa, Asa begot Josaphat, Josaphat begot Joram, Joram begot Ozias (Matthew 1:1 and following). Here the Evangelist omitted three, that is, Ozias or Ochozias, and Joas, and Amasias; for Joram first begot Ochozias, and Ochozias begot Joas, and Joas begot Amasias, and Amasias finally begot Ozias, of whom it is now said: Joram begot Ozias. This is to be understood as meaning that he begot him through the mediation of those mentioned above, because through them his seed proceeded. The Evangelist omitted these either so that the number of the decade might be equalized, or because Joram mingled his line with Jezebel, and it had been said by the prophet that no one from the house of Ahab would reign except in the fourth generation, and therefore his memory is removed, so that it is excluded from the holy generation. Ozias, therefore, who is also Azarias, begot Joatham, Joatham begot Achaz, Achaz begot Ezechiam, Ezechias begot Manassen, Manasses begot Amon, Amon begot Josiam, Josias begot Jechoniam, Jechonias begot Salathiel.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Tres hic intermisit Evangelista","severity":"info","text":"Ambrose notes that Matthew omitted three kings (Ochozias, Joas, Amasias) between Joram and Ozias, a recognized textual crux in the genealogy.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"Joram generi se miscuit Jezabel","severity":"info","text":"Joram married Athaliah, daughter of Jezebel and Ahab, linking the Davidic line to the condemned house of Ahab; this explains the omission as a theological purification.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"dictum erat per prophetam de domo Achab non esse quemquam regnaturum","severity":"info","text":"The prophecy likely refers to 1 Kings 21:29 or 2 Kings 9:7-9, where Jehu fulfills Elijah's curse on Ahab's house, limiting its rule to the fourth generation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"tesseræ decadis","severity":"info","text":"The phrase 'tesserae decadis' (the number of the decade) suggests Ambrose believed Matthew adjusted the genealogy to achieve a symbolic count of fourteen generations from Abraham to David.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"Ozias, qui et Azarias","severity":"info","text":"Ambrose identifies Ozias with Azarias, following the variant naming in 2 Kings 15 and 2 Chronicles 26, a harmonization common in patristic exegesis.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"Ozias sive Ochosias","severity":"caution","text":"Ambrose conflates Ozias (Uzziah) with Ochozias (Ahaziah), two distinct kings; this confusion may stem from variant manuscript traditions or scribal error.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the three omitted kings is given as Ozias/Ochozias, Joas, and Amasias, but the names Ozias and Ochozias are conflated; the text does not clarify whether this is a scribal error or intentional harmonization."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":4,"ref":"p4","source":"Veritas historiæ habet quod Josias genuerit Eleachim, qui et Joachim, sive Jechonias dictus est: Eleachim autem genuit Joachim, qui et ipse sicut pater, jechonias appellatus est: hic demum genuit Salathiel. Dicemus ergo aui unum propter supradictam rationem, sive aliam quamcumque ob causam prætermissum: aui hon esse eumdem Jechoniam illum, de quo dicitur: Josias genuit Jechoniam; et illum de quo diciliif: Post transmiqrationem Babylonis Jechonias genult Salathiel: sed priorem esse Patrem, secundum esse Filium: propter separationem autem et disjunctionem transmigrationis noh esse repetitam inter eos generationis connexionem, ut diceretur: Jechonias genuit Jechoniam, Jechonias ergo genuit Salathiel, Salalhiel genuit Zorobabel, Zorobabel genuit Abiud. Huc usque ex libris veteribus generilionis ordo texitur: quae sequuntur, auctoritas evangelistæ confirmat. Abiud genuit Eliachim. Eliachim genuit Azor, Azor genuit Sadoc, Sadoc genuit Achim, Achim genuit Eliud, Eliud genuil Eleazar, Eleazar genuitMathan, Mathan genuit iacob, Jacob genuit Joseph. Hoc modo generationem naturaliter descendisse credimus; nunc secundum Lucam seriem generationis reVolvamus. Lucas sic ait: Ipse Jesus erat incipiens quasi annorum triginta, ut putabatur, filius Joseph, qui fuit Heli, qui fuit Matthat. (Luc. m, 23). Prima fronte contrarietas occurrere videtur.","english":"The truth of the history holds that Josias begot Eleachim, who is also called Joachim or Jechonias; Eleachim, however, begot Joachim, who, like his father, was also called Jechonias; this one finally begot Salathiel. We will therefore say that one ancestor was omitted for the reason stated above, or for some other cause; or that the Jechonias of whom it is said \"Josias begot Jechonias\" is not the same as the one of whom it is said \"After the Babylonian captivity Jechonias begot Salathiel\"; but that the first is the father, the second is the son; and that because of the separation and disruption of the captivity, the connection of generation between them was not repeated, so that it would be said \"Jechonias begot Jechonias.\" Therefore Jechonias begot Salathiel, Salathiel begot Zorobabel, Zorobabel begot Abiud. Up to this point the order of generation is woven from the ancient books; what follows is confirmed by the authority of the evangelist. Abiud begot Eliachim, Eliachim begot Azor, Azor begot Sadoc, Sadoc begot Achim, Achim begot Eliud, Eliud begot Eleazar, Eleazar begot Mathan, Mathan begot Jacob, Jacob begot Joseph. We believe that the generation descended in this way naturally; now let us unfold the series of generation according to Luke. Luke says thus: \"Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age, as was thought, the son of Joseph, who was of Heli, who was of Matthat.\" (Luke 3:23). At first glance a contradiction seems to occur.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"Jechonias","severity":"info","text":"Ambrosius distinguishes two individuals named Jechonias (Jehoiachin), father and son, to resolve a genealogical discrepancy between Matthew and Luke.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Luke 3:23","severity":"info","text":"The passage quotes Luke 3:23, which gives Joseph's genealogy as 'filius Joseph, qui fuit Heli, qui fuit Matthat'.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Babylonian captivity","severity":"info","text":"The Babylonian captivity (c. 597–539 BCE) is invoked as a historical disruption that explains the omission of a generation between the two Jechoniases.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"generationis ordo","severity":"info","text":"The passage marks a transition: the Matthean genealogy ends with Joseph, and the text announces a shift to Luke's genealogy ('nunc secundum Lucam seriem generationis revolvamus').","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"contrarietas","severity":"caution","text":"Ambrosius acknowledges an apparent contradiction between the genealogies, a common patristic concern, and promises to resolve it by examining Luke's account.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of the two Jechoniases (father and son) is asserted but not proven from scripture; Ambrosius relies on historical reasoning.","The phrase 'ut putabatur' (as was thought) in the Luke citation may imply doubt about Jesus' age, but Ambrosius does not elaborate."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":5,"ref":"p5","source":"Matthaeus dicit Joseph filium fuisse Jacob, et Jacob filium Matthan: Lucas dicit Joseph filium fuisse Heli, et Heli lilium non Mathan, sed Mauhat. Sed hujus quæstionis talis a Patribus solutio datur: Mathan qui per Salomonem descendit, uxorem habuisse Esthan nomine; de qua genuit filium Jacob. quo mortuo, Matthat qui per Nathan descendit, eamdem uxorem duxit, et genuit ex ea filium Heli. Sic ergo Heli et Jacob uterini fratreS fuerunt,una matre, non uno patre editi. Prior Heli duxit uxorem, et mortuus est sine liberis: postea Jacob accepit uxorem fratris, ut suscitaret semen fratri suo, ex qua genuit Joseph. Josepft ergo filius est Jacob secundum generationem, filius Heli secundUm Legem. Deinde generationis ordo texitur. Joseph qui fuit Heli, qui fuit Matthat, qui fuit Levi, qui fuit Metchi, qui fuit Janne, qui fuit Joseph, qui fuit Matthathiæ, qui fuit Amos, qui fuit Nahum, qui fuit Hesli, qui fuit Nangce, qui fuit Matth, qui fuit Mathatthiæ, qui fuit Semei, qui fuit Joseph, qui fuit Juda, qui fuit Jolianna, qui fuit Resa, qui fuit Zorobabel, qui fuit Salathiel (Ibid., ei seq.).","english":"Matthew says that Joseph was the son of Jacob, and Jacob the son of Matthan; Luke says that Joseph was the son of Heli, and Heli the son not of Matthan, but of Matthat. But a solution to this question is given by the Fathers as follows: Matthan, who descends through Solomon, had a wife named Estha, from whom he begot a son Jacob. When he died, Matthat, who descends through Nathan, married the same wife, and begot from her a son Heli. Thus Heli and Jacob were uterine brothers, born of the same mother but not the same father. Heli first married a wife and died without children; afterwards Jacob took his brother’s wife to raise up seed for his brother, from whom he begot Joseph. Joseph, therefore, is the son of Jacob by generation, the son of Heli by law. Then the order of the genealogy is woven. Joseph, who was of Heli, who was of Matthat, who was of Levi, who was of Melchi, who was of Janna, who was of Joseph, who was of Mattathias, who was of Amos, who was of Nahum, who was of Hesli, who was of Nagge, who was of Maath, who was of Mattathias, who was of Semei, who was of Joseph, who was of Judah, who was of Joanna, who was of Rhesa, who was of Zorobabel, who was of Salathiel (Ibid., et seq.).","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"background","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The levirate marriage custom (a man marrying his deceased brother's widow to produce an heir) is invoked to reconcile the two genealogies. This legal fiction was a recognized practice in Jewish and Roman law.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"term","kind":"term","basis":"text","lemma":"uterini fratres","severity":"info","text":"Uterini fratres means 'uterine brothers'—brothers sharing the same mother but different fathers. This term is crucial for understanding the proposed solution: Heli and Jacob are half-brothers through their mother Estha.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The passage presents a two-part solution: first, the levirate marriage of Matthat to Estha, producing Heli; second, Jacob's levirate marriage to Heli's widow, producing Joseph. This chiastic arrangement mirrors the genealogical reconciliation.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"reception","kind":"reception","basis":"text","lemma":"a Patribus solutio datur","severity":"info","text":"Ambrose attributes this solution to 'the Fathers,' likely referring to earlier Greek or Latin patristic sources such as Julius Africanus or Eusebius, who first proposed the levirate marriage explanation for the Matthean-Lukan discrepancy.","cites":[],"named_sources":["Julius Africanus","Eusebius"],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"info","text":"The genealogical list from Joseph back to Salathiel (Zorobabel) follows Luke 3:23-27, but with variant spellings (e.g., 'Metchi' for Melchi, 'Jolianna' for Joanna). This suggests Ambrose used a Latin version of Luke differing from the Vulgate.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"","severity":"caution","text":"The names 'Mathan' and 'Matthat' are easily confused in Latin manuscripts; the text's distinction between them (Mathan vs. Matthat) is essential to the argument but may reflect scribal variation rather than original authorial intent.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of 'Estha' (Esthan) is uncertain; she is not named in the biblical genealogies. The text assumes her existence to harmonize the two lineages.","The phrase 'secundum Legem' (by law) may refer to Roman or Jewish inheritance law, but the specific legal framework is not clarified."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]},{"i":6,"ref":"p6","source":"Non puto eumdem hunc esse Zorobabel aut Salathiel, qui superius in serie generationis secundum Matthæum numerati sunt; cum et ille Salathiel non Rlius Neri; sed filius Jechonia: fuerit: et Zorobabel non Resa, sed Abiu, et cæteros, inter quos Resa non numeratur, geniieril: vel si iidem sunt, dicendum est quod hic primum utriusque computationis linea in unum concurrat, deinde mox secundum modum quem in capite generationis hujus sighavimus, ab invicem deducantur. Qui fuit Neri, qui fuit Melchi, qui fuit Addi, qui fuit Cosam, qui fuit Elmodan, qui fuit Her, qui fuit Jesu, qui fuit Eliezer, qui fuit Jorim, qui fuit Matthat, qui fuit Levi, qui fuit Symeo* qui fuit Juda, qui fuit Joseph, qui fuit Jona, qui fuit Eliachin, qui fuit Melcha, qui fuit Menan, qui fuit Matthata, qui fuit Nathan, qui fuit David ( Ibid., et seq.). Quæ deinceps sequuntur usque ad Abraham, in utroque eadem sunt. Sane quod in ipsa generationis linea plures secundum Lucam a Joseph usque ad pavid, quam secundum Matthaeum a David usque ad Joseph numerentur, contrarium videri non debet, cum ipsae successiones generationum in ea parte multiplicius excreverint, ubi cHius decedentibus patribus, filii numerosius successerunt.","english":"I do not think that this Zorobabel or Salathiel is the same as those who were counted above in the line of generation according to Matthew; since that Salathiel was not the son of Neri, but the son of Jechoniah; and Zorobabel was not Resa, but Abiu, and he begot the others, among whom Resa is not counted: or if they are the same, it must be said that here first the line of both computations comes together, and then soon after, according to the method which we indicated at the head of this generation, they are drawn apart from each other. Who was Neri, who was Melchi, who was Addi, who was Cosam, who was Elmodan, who was Her, who was Jesu, who was Eliezer, who was Jorim, who was Matthat, who was Levi, who was Symeon, who was Juda, who was Joseph, who was Jona, who was Eliachin, who was Melcha, who was Menan, who was Matthata, who was Nathan, who was David (Ibid., and following). What follows thereafter up to Abraham is the same in both. Certainly, that in the line of generation itself more are counted according to Luke from Joseph up to David than according to Matthew from David up to Joseph, ought not to seem contrary, since the successions of generations themselves have increased more abundantly in that part where, with fathers dying earlier, sons succeeded more numerously.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Non puto eumdem hunc esse Zorobabel aut Salathiel","severity":"info","text":"Ambrose introduces a hypothetical identification of Zorobabel and Salathiel with those in Matthew's genealogy, then rejects it, marking a structural pivot in his harmonization.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"scripture","kind":"scripture","basis":"text","lemma":"Salathiel non filius Neri, sed filius Jechoniae","severity":"info","text":"This corrects a potential confusion: 1 Chronicles 3:17 lists Salathiel as son of Jechoniah, while Luke 3:27 gives Salathiel as son of Neri. Ambrose insists on the Matthean lineage.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"background","kind":"background","basis":"text","lemma":"Zorobabel non Resa, sed Abiu","severity":"info","text":"Ambrose distinguishes Zorobabel son of Abiu (Matthew 1:13) from Zorobabel son of Resa (Luke 3:27), reflecting a common patristic attempt to reconcile divergent genealogies by positing distinct individuals.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"structure","kind":"structure","basis":"text","lemma":"Qui fuit Neri, qui fuit Melchi ... usque ad David","severity":"info","text":"This long chain recites Luke's genealogy from Neri to David, mirroring the earlier Matthean list and emphasizing the point where the two lines converge.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"sense","kind":"sense","basis":"text","lemma":"plures secundum Lucam a Joseph usque ad David, quam secundum Matthaeum a David usque ad Joseph","severity":"info","text":"Ambrose notes the numerical discrepancy in generations between the two genealogies and explains it by differing rates of succession due to earlier deaths.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]},{"unit":"caution","kind":"caution","basis":"text","lemma":"cum ipsae successiones generationum in ea parte multiplicius excreverint","severity":"caution","text":"The explanation that earlier deaths caused more numerous successions is speculative and not supported by biblical data; it reflects a harmonizing strategy rather than historical fact.","cites":[],"named_sources":[],"dropped_cites":[]}],"ambiguities":["The identity of Zorobabel and Salathiel across Matthew and Luke remains unresolved; Ambrose offers two possibilities without final adjudication."],"confidence":"high","notes":[]}]}