Apparent Chronological Problems

[Ligurian]

Josephus is hardly infallible.
Ishmael is not the Father of the Arabs - markdurie.com
New Scientific Evidence for God: Debunking the Russia/War of Gog and Magog Myth

So then, we should disregard all extrabiblical accounts?

I would not want to be held responsible for what you decide to do. But I don't think Josephus is going to hell for me if his who's who is wrong... just in case who's who matters. Which it does, to me.

 

[Jonaitis]

That very night Belshazzar the Chaldean king was killed. And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old.
- Daniel 5:30-31

There is no figure found in any historical records of this "Darius the Mede," nor of any of the events described in the following chapters, such as the famous edict that sentenced Daniel into the lion's den. Cyrus the Great defeated Belshazzar during the Persian invasion of Babylonia in 539 BC. How do we explain this?

 

[EmethAlethia]

Interestingly, this was one of the 10,000 errors I had gathered back when I was an evangelical atheist. I even had a picture of an old Roman marker that listed when he was governor... years before when Luke says.

To make a long story short, I only had one marker. Another was unearthed that puts him as governor twice on the same marker with a time period in-between. The second marker lines up perfectly with Luke's account.

 

[Jonaitis]

Interestingly, this was one of the 10,000 errors I had gathered back when I was an evangelical atheist. I even had a picture of an old Roman marker that listed when he was governor... years before when Luke says.

To make a long story short, I only had one marker. Another was unearthed that puts him as governor twice on the same marker with a time period in-between. The second marker lines up perfectly with Luke's account.

Would you provide the source for this? Judea was ruled under an enthnarch between 4 BC to 6 AD under the Roman controlled Herodian dynasty before Augustus replaced Archealus with Publius Quirnius. Even if there were another time that Publius Quirnius governed that region, it would no more support the time frame for Christ's birth. There would have to be a census between 4 BC to 6 AD under Publius Quirnius' government. It is at a cross roads because Herod and Quirnius did not rule the same region at the same time.

 

[EmethAlethia]

Would you provide the source for this? Judea was ruled under an enthnarch between 4 BC to 6 AD under the Roman controlled Herodian dynasty before Augustus replaced Archealus with Publius Quirnius. Even if there were another time that Publius Quirnius governed that region, it would no more support the time frame for Christ's birth. There would have to be a census between 4 BC to 6 AD under Publius Quirnius' government. It is at a cross roads because Herod and Quirnius did not rule the same region at the same time.

Needless to say, my lists of the 10,000 errors and my floor to knee data that proved we evolved and weren't created along with the "other side" of the data was loaned out to a Christian group and was never returned. This might help some: Herod the Great and Jesus: Chronological, Historical and Archaeological Evidence

As might this:
https://www.museivaticani.va/conten...-dell-iscrizione-sepolcrale-di-quirinius.html

 

[Christian Gedge]

We find that in the synoptic gospels that after our Savior was baptized by John, "Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness for forty days, being tempted by the devil. And he ate nothing during those days. And when they were ended, he was hungry" (Luke 4:1-2). However, we find in the first chapter of the Gospel of John that the very "next day" after this event, Jesus calls and meets Andrew, Peter and possibly John (John 1:35-42), and the "next day" after that Jesus calls Philip and Nathanael (v. 43-51), and the "third day" they attended the wedding in Cana in Galilee (2:1-2), and after this they travelled to Capernaum with his mother and brothers and his disciples and stayed there for a few more days (v. 12). Here we have an apparent chronological problem.

Then there is an apparent chronological inconsistency of the narrative

The Gospel of John describes a scene where John the Baptist saw Jesus coming toward him and he made the following statement:

“Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! This is the one I meant when I said, ‘A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’ I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel.” Then John gave this testimony: “I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. And I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is the one.” (John 1:29-34)​

At first sight, it seems the writer was describing the actual baptism itself, as per Matthew’s account. However, the next few days finds Jesus choosing his disciples as you say – not going into the wilderness as the Synoptics relate it. So, in answer to your question, this scene is a ‘revisit’. Jesus is coming out of the wilderness, walking past John, at about Passover season, some months following his actual baptism. Therefore the Gospel of John is not recording the baptism event directly, but is recording John B’s testimony of that event. In other words, John B. sees Jesus returning, and calls out, "This is the man I baptised several months ago! This is the man the dove descended upon!"

Hope that helps.

 

[Neogaia777]

Would you provide the source for this? Judea was ruled under an enthnarch between 4 BC to 6 AD under the Roman controlled Herodian dynasty before Augustus replaced Archealus with Publius Quirnius. Even if there were another time that Publius Quirnius governed that region, it would no more support the time frame for Christ's birth. There would have to be a census between 4 BC to 6 AD under Publius Quirnius' government. It is at a cross roads because Herod and Quirnius did not rule the same region at the same time.

I don't know if this has anything to do with it, but the wise men or men from the east did not find Jesus until he was 2 years old, and Herod ordered all the children under two years of age to be killed also, etc...

Don't know if that would affect anything, but I'm just throwing it out there for you...

God Bless!

 

[jamiec]

There is no figure found in any historical records of this "Darius the Mede," nor of any of the events described in the following chapters, such as the famous edict that sentenced Daniel into the lion's den. Cyrus the Great defeated Belshazzar during the Persian invasion of Babylonia in 539 BC. How do we explain this?

By regarding the book as a fiction that is dressed in some accurate historical details. By regarding the book as inspired, but as neither history nor prophecy. It is a good book - that does not require it to be history or prophecy. The Jews have it as one of the Writings - not among the Prophets. Maybe Christians should accept it as Scripture, but not as a Prophetic book ?

The Jews regard Daniel as among the Writings, rather than as among the Prophetical books. Since Luther aspired to follow the Jewish canon, maybe Protestantism (which admits as OT Scripture only the books in the Jewish canon) should follow the Jews in this. There is, after all, no Biblical argument against doing so, and something of a Biblical argument for doing so.

Daniel seems to be a mixture of wisdom book, apocalypse, short story, and occasional pamphlet; written, it seems, to encourage persecuted Jews by insisting that all things, and all kings, are totally and always subject to God's Kingship. If that was its purpose, it seems to have fulfilled it splendidly. That theological message is eternally valid, regardless of whether the book is historically accurate, or is a prophetic book in the familiar, obvious, formal sense; or is neither. It can be regarded as prophetic in the sense that it proclaims the Kingship of God and of the son of man. That it does so, makes it a very valuable and enlightening preliminary to the gospel of Jesus, God's Chosen King & Son of Man; as well as to the rest of the New Testament.

 

[public hermit]

In light of my previous thread, I have been investigating more into apparent discrepancies that most non-believers have propagated in an attempt to disunify the whole fabric of the inspired, inerrant and infallible Scripture. In this research, I've found some unsettling passages that I haven't been able to reconcile. Some of you had great answers in my last thread for the confusion I had with the Savior's words. I believe the "sign of Jonah" was, as one poster replied, more or less a riddle that needed no actual, visible recognition to the adulterous generation that rejected what was already visibly evidence of his ministry and preaching. However, I want to continue asking in this forum about some more passages that have bothered me for quite some time. I have often gleaned through annotations of well-aged commentators and authors for answers, and have had discussions with my elders, but often was left in a state of dissatisfaction. If you are willing to avail me of this problem, it would be most edifying!

We find that in the synoptic gospels that after our Savior was baptized by John, "Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness for forty days, being tempted by the devil. And he ate nothing during those days. And when they were ended, he was hungry" (Luke 4:1-2). However, we find in the first chapter of the Gospel of John that the very "next day" after this event, Jesus calls and meets Andrew, Peter and possibly John (John 1:35-42), and the "next day" after that Jesus calls Philip and Nathanael (v. 43-51), and the "third day" they attended the wedding in Cana in Galilee (2:1-2), and after this they travelled to Capernaum with his mother and brothers and his disciples and stayed there for a few more days (v. 12). Here we have an apparent chronological problem.

Then there is an apparent chronological inconsistency of the narrative and historical events of Christ, which some of you may have heard before. In Matthew, "Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king" (Matthew 2:1), but according to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census of Quirinius, the governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). In extrabiblical records, more specifically the first-century historian Josephus, Publius Quirinius was appointed legate governor of Syria after Caesar Augustus disposed Archelaus, Herod's son and one of his successors, from that position in 6 AD. Publius Quirinius was assigned to carry out a census of the new province of Judea for tax purposes. This seems to be two entirely different periods in that timeline. Herod I died around 4 BC, that is at least a decade apart from Luke!

In the commentators I've read, as well as my elders have pointed out, that Quirinius may have been the governor of Syria before. Some even speculate that there were two different census carried out by Quirinius as governor of Syria by referencing Acts 5:37. However, there were only three "empire-wide" census (28 BC, 8 BC and 14 AD), and none of them happened when Quirinius was governor of Syria. Also, this particular census referenced by Luke is the same one that triggered a revolt by Judas of Galilee mentioned Acts 5:37, who encouraged Jews not to register and those that did had their houses burnt and their cattle stolen by his followers. So there was only one census, and the revolt happened during this one and the same census. Also, there was no such mandate for people to return to their ancestral place of origin for a census solely for taxes. Why would the Romans care about where your ancestors were from? Who would financially be able to travel to such great lengths? How do we resolve these apparent historical issues?

There are more apparent birth narratives problems I found, but I may spare that for another time. For example, when Joseph fled to Egypt being warned in a dream and then told to return, why did he want to return to Bethlehem but instead fled to his native home of Nazareth because of Archelaus (Matthew) if he was only there for the census (Luke)? Or how do we reconcile the the purification of Mary after the birth of Christ (Luke) with her fleeing with Joseph to Egypt (Matthew)?

I feel for you. I really do. These problems have always been there, most folks don't know their scriptures well enough to realize it. Why do you think Christians started producing harmonies of the gospels early on? They were trying to reconcile these very problems, which are inherent to the texts.

My word of guidance, quit expecting the scriptures to be perfect. The scriptures are a witness to the risen Christ and God's righteousness and mercy revealed in that Person. The witness does not have to be perfect. The perfection of the God is more than sufficient. If you put your faith in the notion of inerrancy, you have misplaced your faith.

We equivocate on the phrase "Word of God." The Word of God Incarnate is not identical to the written word of God. One bears witness to the other. If they were identical they would share exactly all the same properties, which they don't. Start with that simple distinction, and you will be free to honor the authority of the scriptures without being compelled to defend their inerrancy. The bible did not die and rise for you, and so on....

 

[pescador]

In light of my previous thread, I have been investigating more into apparent discrepancies that most non-believers have propagated in an attempt to disunify the whole fabric of the inspired, inerrant and infallible Scripture. In this research, I've found some unsettling passages that I haven't been able to reconcile. Some of you had great answers in my last thread for the confusion I had with the Savior's words. I believe the "sign of Jonah" was, as one poster replied, more or less a riddle that needed no actual, visible recognition to the adulterous generation that rejected what was already visibly evidence of his ministry and preaching. However, I want to continue asking in this forum about some more passages that have bothered me for quite some time. I have often gleaned through annotations of well-aged commentators and authors for answers, and have had discussions with my elders, but often was left in a state of dissatisfaction. If you are willing to avail me of this problem, it would be most edifying!

We find that in the synoptic gospels that after our Savior was baptized by John, "Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness for forty days, being tempted by the devil. And he ate nothing during those days. And when they were ended, he was hungry" (Luke 4:1-2). However, we find in the first chapter of the Gospel of John that the very "next day" after this event, Jesus calls and meets Andrew, Peter and possibly John (John 1:35-42), and the "next day" after that Jesus calls Philip and Nathanael (v. 43-51), and the "third day" they attended the wedding in Cana in Galilee (2:1-2), and after this they travelled to Capernaum with his mother and brothers and his disciples and stayed there for a few more days (v. 12). Here we have an apparent chronological problem.

Then there is an apparent chronological inconsistency of the narrative and historical events of Christ, which some of you may have heard before. In Matthew, "Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king" (Matthew 2:1), but according to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census of Quirinius, the governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). In extrabiblical records, more specifically the first-century historian Josephus, Publius Quirinius was appointed legate governor of Syria after Caesar Augustus disposed Archelaus, Herod's son and one of his successors, from that position in 6 AD. Publius Quirinius was assigned to carry out a census of the new province of Judea for tax purposes. This seems to be two entirely different periods in that timeline. Herod I died around 4 BC, that is at least a decade apart from Luke!

In the commentators I've read, as well as my elders have pointed out, that Quirinius may have been the governor of Syria before. Some even speculate that there were two different census carried out by Quirinius as governor of Syria by referencing Acts 5:37. However, there were only three "empire-wide" census (28 BC, 8 BC and 14 AD), and none of them happened when Quirinius was governor of Syria. Also, this particular census referenced by Luke is the same one that triggered a revolt by Judas of Galilee mentioned Acts 5:37, who encouraged Jews not to register and those that did had their houses burnt and their cattle stolen by his followers. So there was only one census, and the revolt happened during this one and the same census. Also, there was no such mandate for people to return to their ancestral place of origin for a census solely for taxes. Why would the Romans care about where your ancestors were from? Who would financially be able to travel to such great lengths? How do we resolve these apparent historical issues?

There are more apparent birth narratives problems I found, but I may spare that for another time. For example, when Joseph fled to Egypt being warned in a dream and then told to return, why did he want to return to Bethlehem but instead fled to his native home of Nazareth because of Archelaus (Matthew) if he was only there for the census (Luke)? Or how do we reconcile the the purification of Mary after the birth of Christ (Luke) with her fleeing with Joseph to Egypt (Matthew)?

Why do you insist that the accounts in the Gospels must be chronological? "But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." John 20:31

They are written to teach us spiritual truths; it's not modern journalism. It's important to read the Bible for its spiritual content, not to try to find journalistic discrepancies.

Mark 11:12-25, " The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. Then he said to the tree, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard him say it.

On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple courts and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts. And as he taught them, he said, “Is it not written: ‘My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations’? But you have made it ‘a den of robbers.’”

The chief priests and the teachers of the law heard this and began looking for a way to kill him, for they feared him, because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching.

When evening came, Jesus and his disciples went out of the city.

In the morning, as they went along, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots. Peter remembered and said to Jesus, “Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!”

“Have faith in God,” Jesus answered. “Truly I tell you, if anyone says to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and does not doubt in their heart but believes that what they say will happen, it will be done for them. Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive them, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins.”

Do you see that the fig tree represents the state of Judaism at the time: the temple and the associated practices of the Jews? It may appear to be flourishing but because it bears no spiritual "fruit" it is destined to die. It may not be chronological, but it's "the gospel truth".

Jesus contrasts the dying Judaism with living, powerful faith.

 

[Derf]

How do we reconcile these accounts?

What if Mary went to the tomb twice? Once just as the earthquake subsided, and then after telling the apostles the body had been stolen?

For example, did Mary Magdalene witness an angel descend from heaven and roll back the stone as Matthew states, or did she find it already rolled back upon arriving and thought the body of Jesus was stolen as John states?

Mary might not have been the source for the stone rolling and the guards falling. Maybe it was one of the guards, even, who told the Jewish leaders what happened, and Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathea might have heard the story and related it to the apostles. The different accounts aren’t contradictory, just different.

 

[klutedavid]

What about the Muslim who says Allah has shown them that the Quran is perfect in every way? I feel that if men look too deep into Scripture, they may begin to have a crisis of their faith and so they blind themselves from seeing that path again. Why would the Spirit allow this? No one wants to address any of this head on, but they want to address the problems of other writings of other religions. I'm pressing it because it deserves a rebuttal, especially in a time that is trying against the inspiration God's word!

Obviously, the resurrection event is described differently in each gospel account. That is a powerful testament to the reality of the resurrection event.

These different resurrection accounts which mainly differ in the finer detail, is what I would expect to see. These accounts were certainly based on different sources. I am guaranteed, that there was no copying involved. I am also guaranteed that the event was not a fictional event.

The next point is that the gospel accounts of the resurrection were not corrected by anyone. This is an astonishing fact. No one has ever altered the text to make them harmonious.

Surprisingly, we probably have four very accurate accounts of the resurrection. Though they were seen through the eyes of different witnesses.

What a powerful set of resurrection accounts we have, not one or two accounts. We have four different accounts. We have been spoilt. Give me more of that variation in the accounts.

The resurrections accounts are certainly not synoptic accounts.

 

[klutedavid]

However, when two authors reference a period specific to the reign of specific people, we can ascertain the time, can we not?

Not necessarily, it depends on the accuracy of the witnesses that the gospel account is using.

We observe time very accurately in the twenty first century. Two thousand years ago time was not observed very accurately. We are also relying on observations supplied by different witnesses, that recall the details somewhat differently.

It is far to demanding of first century witnesses that they be perfectly accurate. When they recall information from an event that occurred two or even three decades before.

If I asked ten older people who was the president of the United States in 1991, how many of the ten would be correct?

The gospels are as accurate as any accounts could be possibly be within the first century. These insignificant variations in the four texts are most welcome. I demand that variation, I expect differences in the accounts, that is how I know it is the real deal.

 

[jamiec]

Not necessarily, it depends on the accuracy of the witnesses that the gospel account is using.

We observe time very accurately in the twenty first century. Two thousand years ago time was not observed very accurately. We are also relying on observations supplied by different witnesses, that recall the details somewhat differently.

It is far to demanding of first century witnesses that they be perfectly accurate. When they recall information from an event that occurred two or even three decades before.

If I asked ten older people who was the president of the United States in 1991, how many of the ten would be correct?

I would have thought that anyone of sound mind who was a young adult in 1991 would know the answer. I’m not from the USA, & I know every President, plus years in office, since FDR. Most of them are pretty memorable, which definitely helps. And all of them can be recognised from their photographs. If the 10 older people were in their 50s or 60s, and in good mental health, ISTM that they would all know the names of the Presidents of the last 30/40 years.

The gospels are as accurate as any accounts could be possibly be within the first century. These insignificant variations in the four texts are most welcome. I demand that variation, I expect differences in the accounts, that is how I know it is the real deal.

 

[jamiec]

What if Mary went to the tomb twice? Once just as the earthquake subsided, and then after telling the apostles the body had been stolen?
Mary might not have been the source for the stone rolling and the guards falling. Maybe it was one of the guards, even, who told the Jewish leaders what happened, and Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathea might have heard the story and related it to the apostles. The different accounts aren’t contradictory, just different.

I instinctively distrust any attempt at harmonisation that has no other basis than the need to harmonise (supposedly, but perhaps not really) discrepant texts. And that appears (“appears” being the significant word) to be what this is.

The problem with harmonisation is, that it takes different accounts, and finds a way to make them agree, and puts forward its harmonised reconstruction as what (probably) happened. The problem with that is, that the harmonised reconstruction is nowhere stated in the Bible. Something not stated in the Bible is (by implication) presented as though it were.

Harmonisers seem to be so keen to preserve the inerrancy of the Bible, that (irony of ironies) they sacrifice what the texts say, in order to preserve it. I don’t think that any lover of what the Bible says can be really satisfied with such a result.

 

[klutedavid]

I would have thought that anyone of sound mind who was a young adult in 1991 would know the answer. I’m not from the USA, & I know every President, plus years in office, since FDR. Most of them are pretty memorable, which definitely helps. And all of them can be recognised from their photographs. If the 10 older people were in their 50s or 60s, and in good mental health, ISTM that they would all know the names of the Presidents of the last 30/40 years.

I said the president in 1991.

Anyone can recognize a famous face but as soon as you name a year, the wheels fall off.

It's the finer details that will vary from one person to another.

Witnesses are never 100% accurate.

 

[jamiec]

I said the president in 1991.

Anyone can recognize a famous face but as soon as you name a year, the wheels fall off.

It's the finer details that will vary from one person to another.

Witnesses are never 100% accurate.

George W. Bush was POTUS in 1991 - if that is the year you want.

I don’t know what you mean by “Anyone can recognize a famous face but as soon as you name a year, the wheels fall off.”

 

[jamiec]

There is no figure found in any historical records of this "Darius the Mede," nor of any of the events described in the following chapters, such as the famous edict that sentenced Daniel into the lion's den. Cyrus the Great defeated Belshazzar during the Persian invasion of Babylonia in 539 BC. How do we explain this?

A possible solution, or part-solution, is to ask “Why are these kings described as doing those things, to those people ?”. Maybe accurate history was not as important for the author(s) of Daniel, as it for many Christians today.

The main lesson of all 12 chapters is, that kings may come & kings may go, but God the King is always in charge, no matter what. The twofold vision of the Ancient of Days & the all-ruling Son of Man makes this explicit. The book begins with the ruin of the kingdom of Judah, then it traces the changing fortunes of some Jews under successive kings of different dynasties. The unfailing Kingship of God is what ties all these different things together - and it is why the persecuted Jews stand fast in their exclusive worship of Him.

 

[Derf]

I instinctively distrust any attempt at harmonisation that has no other basis than the need to harmonise (supposedly, but perhaps not really) discrepant texts. And that appears (“appears” being the significant word) to be what this is.

The problem with harmonisation is, that it takes different accounts, and finds a way to make them agree, and puts forward its harmonised reconstruction as what (probably) happened. The problem with that is, that the harmonised reconstruction is nowhere stated in the Bible. Something not stated in the Bible is (by implication) presented as though it were.

Harmonisers seem to be so keen to preserve the inerrancy of the Bible, that (irony of ironies) they sacrifice what the texts say, in order to preserve it. I don’t think that any lover of what the Bible says can be really satisfied with such a result.

I have two purposes in my attempts, which are mainly just speculation on my part at this time.
1. To show that there are options that don’t lead to contradictions, and
2. Because the different accounts, if they are true, actually do exactly what you said you don’t want—provide more information—but of the kind that IS in the Bible, but it requires study to tease it out.

 

[Acts29]

Hello. I am new here so please forgive me if I don't do the multi quote function correctly.

In light of my previous thread, I have been investigating more into apparent discrepancies that most non-believers have propagated in an attempt to disunify the whole fabric of the inspired, inerrant and infallible Scripture. In this research, I've found some unsettling passages that I haven't been able to reconcile. Some of you had great answers in my last thread for the confusion I had with the Savior's words. I believe the "sign of Jonah" was, as one poster replied, more or less a riddle that needed no actual, visible recognition to the adulterous generation that rejected what was already visibly evidence of his ministry and preaching. However, I want to continue asking in this forum about some more passages that have bothered me for quite some time. I have often gleaned through annotations of well-aged commentators and authors for answers, and have had discussions with my elders, but often was left in a state of dissatisfaction. If you are willing to avail me of this problem, it would be most edifying!

We find that in the synoptic gospels that after our Savior was baptized by John, "Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness for forty days, being tempted by the devil. And he ate nothing during those days. And when they were ended, he was hungry" (Luke 4:1-2). However, we find in the first chapter of the Gospel of John that the very "next day" after this event, Jesus calls and meets Andrew, Peter and possibly John (John 1:35-42), and the "next day" after that Jesus calls Philip and Nathanael (v. 43-51), and the "third day" they attended the wedding in Cana in Galilee (2:1-2), and after this they travelled to Capernaum with his mother and brothers and his disciples and stayed there for a few more days (v. 12). Here we have an apparent chronological problem.

Jesus came to John at the Jordan more than once. The first time was in the fall before the 40 days of fasting as recorded in Luke. Jesus returned to John after the fasting just before spring. That is when Simon, etc. followed Jesus back to Galilee as recorded in John. John the Baptist, bearing witness over a two day period, then recounted the testimony as written in John 1. John spoke about Jesus many times, but not every time needed to be recorded.

Then there is an apparent chronological inconsistency of the narrative and historical events of Christ, which some of you may have heard before. In Matthew, "Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king" (Matthew 2:1), but according to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census of Quirinius, the governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). In extrabiblical records, more specifically the first-century historian Josephus, Publius Quirinius was appointed legate governor of Syria after Caesar Augustus disposed Archelaus, Herod's son and one of his successors, from that position in 6 AD. Publius Quirinius was assigned to carry out a census of the new province of Judea for tax purposes. This seems to be two entirely different periods in that timeline. Herod I died around 4 BC, that is at least a decade apart from Luke!

In the commentators I've read, as well as my elders have pointed out, that Quirinius may have been the governor of Syria before. Some even speculate that there were two different census carried out by Quirinius as governor of Syria by referencing Acts 5:37. However, there were only three "empire-wide" census (28 BC, 8 BC and 14 AD), and none of them happened when Quirinius was governor of Syria. Also, this particular census referenced by Luke is the same one that triggered a revolt by Judas of Galilee mentioned Acts 5:37, who encouraged Jews not to register and those that did had their houses burnt and their cattle stolen by his followers. So there was only one census, and the revolt happened during this one and the same census. Also, there was no such mandate for people to return to their ancestral place of origin for a census solely for taxes. Why would the Romans care about where your ancestors were from? Who would financially be able to travel to such great lengths? How do we resolve these apparent historical issues?

This is pretty easy actually. Quirinius was governor of Syria from 9-1 BC. He lost the job for a while and then got it back several years later. The same thing happens all the time in politics even today. It was during the 8 BC census that Mary was pregnant with Jesus. The 8 BC census is when the order was sent out though it took until the spring of 7 BC before they got to counting in far off Judea. Thus Jesus, the perfect Lamb, was born on the 10th day of the 1st month (Exodus 12) in 7 BC, exactly 62 sevens (Daniel 9) after Artaxerxes order to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem came in his 25th year (Nehemiah, Josephus), 441 BC, just as prophesied in scripture.

The requirement for Jews to return to their home land was for two reasons. One, to exert control over an unruly people. Two, to have records to identify the location of agitators in Judea. It was like today's mask mandates. It is all about control to intimidate the righteous.

There are more apparent birth narratives problems I found, but I may spare that for another time. For example, when Joseph fled to Egypt being warned in a dream and then told to return, why did he want to return to Bethlehem but instead fled to his native home of Nazareth because of Archelaus (Matthew) if he was only there for the census (Luke)? Or how do we reconcile the the purification of Mary after the birth of Christ (Luke) with her fleeing with Joseph to Egypt (Matthew)?

Check the original Greek on this. The word used in Luke is of an infant. In Matthew a different word is used which means a toddler around 2 years old. The wise men and Herod's pursuit of Jesus came well after His birth. That is why he ordered all males 2 years old and under to be killed. He wasn't looking for a newborn. Hope this helps.