thunder_runner32, in reference to my mention of inconsistencies within the nativity narrative as set forth in the Gospels, wrote:Which would be....?
Matthew, in tracing Jesus' lineage back to King David, numbers 28 generations, while Luke makes the count 41. Matthew identifies Joseph's father, Jesus' grandfather, as a man named Jacob, Luke names the man Heli. While Matthew and Mark relate Jesus was born during Herod's reign, Herod 's death is known to have occurred in 4 BC. Luke goes to some effort to establish the birth as taking place during a census ordered by Augustus, at the time Quirinius was governor of Syria; first, Quirinius did not become governor of Syria untill 6 AD, second, no independent record of any such census exists.
The census subnarrative itself has other problems. As well documented by historic record, Roman census practice was to register persons at the town nearest their current place of dwelling or at the chief town of the local administrative district. No record of any Roman census ever conducted in the manner described in the Gospels exists; in fact, the disruption and mass movement of the civil population intimated would have been quite contrary to Roman prudence and sense of order.
Matthew has Joseph and Mary residents of Bethlehem, in Judea, while in Luke the couple are said to be residents of Nazareth, in Galilee. Matthew says Jesus was born in a house in Bethlehem, one illuminated by a peculiar star nowhere else mentioned in the annals of the times (not even in Luke), a star which guided The Magi to the nativity scene. Luke places the birth in a manger, or stable, and makes no mention of star or Magi, saying the birth was attended by shepherds who hade been told of the event by an angel. There is no corroborative secular account of the visit of the Magi - either to the nativity scene or to Herod. That Herod's chroniclers might overlook such a momentous embassy is improbable to the point of disbelief.
Matthew recount's the family fleeing to Egypt to avoid Herod's massacre of firstborn, which, in common with the census, is recorded in no independent secular source, nor is it mentioned in Luke, which has the family returning peacefully to Nazareth. Matthew has the family spending several years in Egypt, whereas Luke says Joseph and Mary presented Jesus at the temple in Jerusalem when he was 40 days old, and furthermore, Luke goes on to mention the family returned to the temple every year at Passover - impossible if the family were, as per Matthew, for several years refugees in Egypt.
The foregoing is by no means an exhaustive list of discrepancies, many more disagreements between the Gospel accounts exists, and in many other respects the Gospel accounts are at odds with the voluminously recorded secular contemporary accounts and later secular accounts of the history of the times, but serves well enough as a representative sample to illustrate that numerous discrepancies exist.
Now, any one of these disagreements taken alone amounts to no more than an oddity. Taken together, and in context, they pose significant obstacle to any attempt to reconcile the nativity narratives with one another. Either one account is true and the other is not, or the lot are untrue; in any event, the disparity of account exists.
