From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

It was earlier this year, maybe late last year, when I clicked on to the
fact that the birth stories in Matthew and Luke contradict each other.

Matthew has Jesus going to Bethlehem (presumably where Joseph was born),
and then hiding in Egypt for two years to stop Herod murdering Jesus.

Luke has him come back to Jurusalem for the purification then back to
Galilee, probably within a timeframe of 40 days.

And now I've discovered another anomaly

According to Matthew the birth happened during the reign of Herod, who
died approximately 4BC, but according to Luke it happened when Quirinius
was governor of Syria, which began approximately 6AD. There was a
census around that time, but Roman census's didn't require travel to the
town of birth.

So was Matthew wrong, or Luke, or possibly both?



--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 10/07/2026 15:58, John wrote:

Luke has him come back to Jurusalem for the purification then back to Galilee, probably within a timeframe of 40 days.

As Luke does not specify the timeframe, it is possible to fit the exile
in Egypt into the story.

And now I've discovered another anomaly
According to Matthew the birth happened during the reign of Herod, who
died approximately 4BC, but according to Luke it happened when Quirinius
was governor of Syria, which began approximately 6AD.

Herod died in 4 BC. He ordered the massacre of boys two years old,
indicating that Jesus was born in 5 or 6 BC (or earlier). Before his
death, Augustus Caesar wrote his own epitaph and had it erected in Rome. Copies were subsequently erected in other places and the best preserved
is on the temple of Augustus in Ankara in Turkey. Titled "Res Gestae" or "Things Done" it records all the significant events and achievements of Augustus' reign.

The Res Gestae mentions three censuses, 28 BC, 8 BC and AD 14. The 8 BC
census is the one which affected Jesus, particularly if we accept the possibility that it actually happened a year after Augustus ordered it
in Rome, so 7 BC, which would fit very nicely with the birth date on the
basis of the massacre of the innocents.

Luke, who is always very careful to give people their correct titles,
does not refer to Quirinius as "legate" - which was his official role in
Syria in AD 6. Instead he uses the term "hegemon" In 8 BC Quirinius was
legate in Turkey.

Th legate in Syria was Gaius Sentius Saturninus, who was a bit too
friendly with Herod. It has been suggested that Saturninus jibbed at
imposing an unpopular census on his old mate Herod and so Quirinius was
sent as "hegemon" to oversee it. Tertullian states that Jesus was born
when a census was taken in Judaea by Saturninus (Adversus Marcion IV.xix)

The Lapis Tiburtinus, a badly damaged inscription found on the outskirts
of Rome, mentions someone who fought in Galatia and was give the
legateship of Syria "again". We know that Quirinius fought in Galatia,
so it is not impossible that he is this unnamed individual.

There was a
census around that time, but Roman census's didn't require travel to the town of birth.

Papyrus P.London 904 Alexandria (British Museum 1905) preserves a decree issued by Gaius Vibius Maximus, prefect of Egypt between AD 103-107. In
it he orders:
The census by household having begun, it is essential that all those who
are away from their nomes be summoned to return to their own hearths so
that they may perform the customary business of registration and apply themselves to the cultivation which concerns them. Knowing, however,
that some of the people from the countryside are required by our city, I desire all those who think they have a satisfactory reason for remaining
here to register themselves before Boulus Festus, the Cavalry Commander,
whom I have appointed for this purpose, from whom those who have shown
their presence to be necessary shall receive signed permits in
accordance with this edict up to the 30th of the present month Epiphi...

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 10/07/2026 19:17, Kendall K. Down wrote:

On 10/07/2026 15:58, John wrote:

Luke has him come back to Jurusalem for the purification then back to
Galilee, probably within a timeframe of 40 days.

As Luke does not specify the timeframe, it is possible to fit the exile
in Egypt into the story.

And now I've discovered another anomaly
According to Matthew the birth happened during the reign of Herod, who
died approximately 4BC, but according to Luke it happened when
Quirinius was governor of Syria, which began approximately 6AD.

Herod died in 4 BC. He ordered the massacre of boys two years old, indicating that Jesus was born in 5 or 6 BC (or earlier). Before his
death, Augustus Caesar wrote his own epitaph and had it erected in Rome. Copies were subsequently erected in other places and the best preserved
is on the temple of Augustus in Ankara in Turkey. Titled "Res Gestae" or "Things Done" it records all the significant events and achievements of Augustus' reign.

The Res Gestae mentions three censuses, 28 BC, 8 BC and AD 14. The 8 BC census is the one which affected Jesus, particularly if we accept the possibility that it actually happened a year after Augustus ordered it
in Rome, so 7 BC, which would fit very nicely with the birth date on the basis of the massacre of the innocents.

Ok, so we have around 7-6 BC when Jesus was born, that's fine.

Luke, who is always very careful to give people their correct titles,
does not refer to Quirinius as "legate" - which was his official role in Syria in AD 6. Instead he uses the term "hegemon" In 8 BC Quirinius was legate in Turkey.Quirinius

The legate in Syria was Gaius Sentius Saturninus, who was a bit too
friendly with Herod. It has been suggested that Saturninus jibbed at imposing an unpopular census on his old mate Herod and so Quirinius was
sent as "hegemon" to oversee it. Tertullian states that Jesus was born
when a census was taken in Judaea by Saturninus (Adversus Marcion IV.xix)

How would Tertullian know? We only have the biblical record to go on.

The Lapis Tiburtinus, a badly damaged inscription found on the outskirts
of Rome, mentions someone who fought in Galatia and was give the
legateship of Syria "again". We know that Quirinius fought in Galatia,
so it is not impossible that he is this unnamed individual.

You were previously arguing that Quirinius was legatus in 6 AD not h-ogemoneuontos, now you're suggesting he may have been legatus in Syria previously, I'm not sure what bearing that has on the issue, but whilst
we're on the subject, are there any references to Quirinius being h-ogemoneuontos within Matthews timeline.

There was a census around that time, but Roman census's didn't require
travel to the town of birth.

Papyrus P.London 904 Alexandria (British Museum 1905) preserves a decree issued by Gaius Vibius Maximus, prefect of Egypt between AD 103-107. In
it he orders:

The census by household having begun, it is essential that all those who
are away from their nomes be summoned to return to their own hearths so
that they may perform the customary business of registration and apply themselves to the cultivation which concerns them. Knowing, however,
that some of the people from the countryside are required by our city, I desire all those who think they have a satisfactory reason for remaining here to register themselves before Boulus Festus, the Cavalry Commander, whom I have appointed for this purpose, from whom those who have shown
their presence to be necessary shall receive signed permits in
accordance with this edict up to the 30th of the present month Epiphi...

Apart from the fact this was 100+ years later, were would Joseph's
hearth have been? Clue: it doesn't say his dad's hearth, or his grandads
etc.



--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 11/07/2026 17:47, John wrote:

How would Tertullian know? We only have the biblical record to go on.

1. Tertullian lived much closer to the events.
2. Tertullian may have had access to records now lost to us.

You were previously arguing that Quirinius was legatus in 6 AD not h-ogemoneuontos, now you're suggesting he may have been legatus in Syria previously, I'm not sure what bearing that has on the issue, but whilst we're on the subject, are there any references to Quirinius being h-ogemoneuontos within Matthews timeline.

Hardly, seeing as Matthew doesn't mention Qurinius.

I won't claim to be an expert on the Roman legates in Syria, but the
number of men who could claim to be legates in Syria "again" must be
pretty small. In any case we know nothing about this particular
inscription, which has lost beginning and end and large portions of each
line, so its authority has to be uncertain. It could be that it used the
more familiar term "legatus" even though one period was as "hegemenos".

Apart from the fact this was 100+ years later, were would Joseph's
hearth have been? Clue: it doesn't say his dad's hearth, or his grandads etc.

Yes, it is 100 years later, but at least it shows that your claim that
the Romans never required people to return to their ancestral homes is
not true.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 11/07/2026 17:47, John wrote:

On 10/07/2026 19:17, Kendall K. Down wrote:

On 10/07/2026 15:58, John wrote:

Luke has him come back to Jurusalem for the purification then back to
Galilee, probably within a timeframe of 40 days.

As Luke does not specify the timeframe, it is possible to fit the
exile in Egypt into the story.

How so? Luke has Joseph and Mary returning to Jurusalem for the
purification, which is 33 days after the birth. Luke then says they
returned to Galilee.

matthew has them going to Egypt for around 2 years.



--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 11/07/2026 22:05, John wrote:

How so?-a Luke has Joseph and Mary returning to Jurusalem for the purification, which is 33 days after the birth. Luke then says they
returned to Galilee.

But he doesn't say *when* they returned to Galilee.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 12/07/2026 07:14, Kendall K. Down wrote:

On 11/07/2026 22:05, John wrote:

How so?-a Luke has Joseph and Mary returning to Jurusalem for the
purification, which is 33 days after the birth. Luke then says they
returned to Galilee.

But he doesn't say *when* they returned to Galilee.

Yes it does

"And when they had performed everything according to the Law of the
Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth" Luke
2:39 ESV



--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 13/07/2026 21:32, John wrote:

But he doesn't say *when* they returned to Galilee.

Yes it does
"And when they had performed everything according to the Law of the
Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth" Luke
2:39 ESV

Did they return to Galilee ten minutes after? Ten hours after? Ten days
after?

My son went to university after he finished high school. That statement
is absolutely correct and factual and true. It doesn't tell you anything
about his gap year.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 14/07/2026 06:13, Kendall K. Down wrote:

On 13/07/2026 21:32, John wrote:

But he doesn't say *when* they returned to Galilee.

Yes it does
"And when they had performed everything according to the Law of the
Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth" Luke
2:39 ESV

Did they return to Galilee ten minutes after? Ten hours after? Ten days after?

Well, if you believe Matthews timeline to be true, the answer is two
years later.

I also have questions about the murder of the innocents. If Matthew's
story is to believed, that means God sactioned the murder of hundreds (possibly thousands) of innocent children, are you ok with that?

If it happened it would have caused major concern through Judea. Why is
there no external record of it happening, I would imagine it being
something Josephus would have picked up on.

My son went to university after he finished high school. That statement
is absolutely correct and factual and true. It doesn't tell you anything about his gap year.

His first year was a gap year?



--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 14/07/2026 10:33, John wrote:

Well, if you believe Matthews timeline to be true, the answer is two
years later.

But that still fits Luke's statement.

I also have questions about the murder of the innocents. If Matthew's
story is to believed, that means God sactioned the murder of hundreds (possibly thousands) of innocent children, are you ok with that?

Why does it mean that God sanctioned the massacre? Herod committed many murders and massacres during his reign; why single out the massacre of
the innocents?

If it happened it would have caused major concern through Judea. Why is there no external record of it happening, I would imagine it being
something Josephus would have picked up on.

Bethlehem was a smallish village. Once the census was over (and over by
nearly two years) how many male children under two would there have
been? And even fewer if the bazaar rumour mill was as effective then as
it is now and the parents of Bethlehem were warned in advance. Compared
with the other things Herod got up to in the last year or two of his
life, the murder of a few children outside the capital city was pretty
small beer. After all, Herod killed his own sons when he suspected them
of plotting against him, so that Augustus is supposed to have quipped,
"better to be Herod's oios than his huios." (Better to be Herod's pig -
which as a Jew he wouldn't kill and eat - than his son.)

His first year was a gap year?

He had a year-long gap between ending high school and starting university.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 14/07/2026 18:06, Kendall K. Down wrote:

On 14/07/2026 10:33, John wrote:

Well, if you believe Matthews timeline to be true, the answer is two
years later.

But that still fits Luke's statement.

I also have questions about the murder of the innocents. If Matthew's
story is to believed, that means God sactioned the murder of hundreds
(possibly thousands) of innocent children, are you ok with that?

Why does it mean that God sanctioned the massacre? Herod committed many murders and massacres during his reign; why single out the massacre of
the innocents?

Because this is supposedly the birth of the Messiah, which Herod was
afraid of. God would have known that bringing forth the birth of Jesus
at that time would resut in innocent children being killed. Why not
simply choose a different timeline?

If it happened it would have caused major concern through Judea. Why
is there no external record of it happening, I would imagine it being
something Josephus would have picked up on.

Bethlehem was a smallish village. Once the census was over (and over by nearly two years) how many male children under two would there have
been? And even fewer if the bazaar rumour mill was as effective then as
it is now and the parents of Bethlehem were warned in advance. Compared
with the other things Herod got up to in the last year or two of his
life, the murder of a few children outside the capital city was pretty
small beer.

Well it does say Bethlehem and the surrounding area. Maybe not the
number of those killed I thought but still, innocent children lost their
lives because of it.

I've just spotted another anomaly between the two accounts. The Matthew account reads as if Joseph went to Galilee for the first time after
returning from Egypt, wheras Luke has him setting off from Galilee and
ending up back there.



--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 14/07/2026 22:24, John wrote:

Because this is supposedly the birth of the Messiah, which Herod was
afraid of. God would have known that bringing forth the birth of Jesus
at that time would resut in innocent children being killed.-a Why not
simply choose a different timeline?

Why God chose that time I do not know. I am not convinced that any other
ruler of those days would have been any better.

I've just spotted another anomaly between the two accounts.-a The Matthew account reads as if Joseph went to Galilee for the first time after returning from Egypt, wheras Luke has him setting off from Galilee and ending up back there.

Luke may make it explicit, but there is nothing in Matthew that would contradict Luke. Joseph was a craftsman[1], there was plenty of work in Jerusalem where the temple was being built, so having been forced back
to his ancestral land, Joseph stays and enjoys the boom. Then, after the
stay in Egypt, he realises that Archelaeus was as bad as his father and
heads for Nazareth.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

Note 1: It has been claimed that the Greek word translated as
"carpenter" is "tekton", which simply means "craftsman" without
specifying the craft. It is also true that Jesus spoke several times of masonry but never of carpentry. So the suggestion is that Joseph - and
Jesus after him - was a stone mason, not a wood worker.

If this is correct, it would explain even more why Joseph stayed on in Bethlehem. The temple was built of stone, as were its outbuildings and courtyard, so the demand for masons was there. The demand for a mason in Nazareth must have been very much smaller!
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2