Can the Christmas stories be reconciled?

[JohnClay]

I think technically the Christmas stories can maybe be reconciled (explain all of the contradictions), but the most straight-forward explanation is that they can't (and so at least one of them was invented).

I wrote a book about this in 2017 which can be read for free online.

Here is the main website:
An Uncensored Guide to the Christmas Stories

There are many aspects to this, but for now I'll just talk about the journeys and the genealogies.

The journeys:
An Uncensored Guide to the Christmas Stories

These involve two prophecies - that Jesus would come from Bethlehem and that Jesus would come from Nazareth.

In Matthew they start in a house in Bethlehem, then when Jesus is about two years old they flee to Egypt, then later they decide to go to Nazareth since Archelaus was reigning in Judea (Bethlehem).

In Luke they start in Nazareth, Mary goes to the Hill country, then Mary comes back to Nazareth, then Joseph and Mary go to Bethlehem because of a census. Then within the next few weeks they go to Jerusalem then soon go back to Nazareth.

I believe that Jesus might have historically come from Nazareth but maybe the stories about Bethlehem were added later.

Also:
"In John 7:41-42, people in a crowd say that Jesus isn't the Messiah because he comes from Galilee [Nazareth] rather than Bethlehem"
No-one, including the author of John corrects this belief that Jesus wasn't from Bethlehem.

About the genealogies:
The Genealogies of Jesus

This involves some prophecies:
Jesus would be a descendent of Abraham, King David, and governor Zerubbabel and his father Shealtiel.

The genealogies only agree that Jesus was a descendent of Joseph, Zerubbabel and his father Shealtiel, King David, Abraham, and the ancestors of King David (the OT would be their source)

But they completely disagree on the ancestors of Joseph, Shealtiel, and the descendents of David and Zerubbabel... in the diagram you can see that they have in common Joseph, Zerubbabel, Shealtiel, and David...

To me it seems like they started with those involved in the prophecies, then made it "historical" by filling in the gaps.

The most common explanation with Christians these days is that one was a genealogy of Mary... even though Elizabeth is a relative of Mary, and Elizabeth was related to Moses' brother, Aaron, who is not a relative of King David.

Also that doesn't explain Shealtiel's different fathers.

 

[JohnClay]

I think there was a flaw in my reasoning - I pointed out that Mary was a relative of Elizabeth (Luke 1:36). Some believe they were cousins which means they share some grandparents. Verse 5 says Elizabeth was a descendant of Aaron, who was a descendant of Levi. King David was from the tribe of Judah. It is theoretically possible that Elizabeth could also be a descendant of King David but it is more important to be a descendant of David than Aaron so David should have been mentioned. Even if Elizabeth is not a descendant of David, it's possible that her relative Mary could be though there is no evidence that Mary was except as part of the "it's Mary's genealogy" theory.

 

[Sanoy]

Did you animate this? If so that is some real talent man! The flow and theme were well crafted as well. I looked through two of the sections and you do a really good job of surveying the explanations.

I don't think "invention" should be a preferred explanation for perceived differences though. The main reason is that when we choose to apply "invention" to a difficult case here, it becomes inexplicable why the same process isn't used to avoid embarrassment elsewhere. For example John 7:40-53, where Jesus's eligibility is discussed. We must ask ourselves why a writer would leave the scene unresolved if he was willing to use invention to establish Jesus's identity. Basically, when we use this shortcut too hastily for the resolution of a conflict, it can create a greater problem for the text as a whole.

 

[JohnClay]

Did you animate this?

I outsourced the illustrations but the style and colours were my idea.

If so that is some real talent man! The flow and theme were well crafted as well. I looked through two of the sections and you do a really good job of surveying the explanations.

Thanks!

I don't think "invention" should be a preferred explanation for perceived differences though. The main reason is that when we choose to apply "invention" to a difficult case here, it becomes inexplicable why the same process isn't used to avoid embarrassment elsewhere. For example John 7:40-53, where Jesus's eligibility is discussed. We must ask ourselves why a writer would leave the scene unresolved if he was willing to use invention to establish Jesus's identity. Basically, when we use this shortcut too hastily for the resolution of a conflict, it can create a greater problem for the text as a whole.

In John 7, it says that Jesus' brothers were also at the festival (verse 10). I think the passage in question is also at the festival. Verse 5 says even Jesus' brothers didn't believe in him. In verse 42 the crowd is not only unaware of Jesus being from Bethlehem, they didn't think he was a descendent of David. So in John, the writer is aware of the prophecies involving Bethlehem and David, but he doesn't write a story that includes them - like how Matthew and Luke mention David and Bethelem in seemingly contradictory ways - in Matthew they begin in Bethlehem and stay there for years, and in Matthew the genealogies involving David are very different to Luke.

So that links back to the two problems I mentioned in the original post - about the journeys and the genealogies - is there a plausible way that all of mentioned journeys and genealogies can be historical without contradictions?

We must ask ourselves why a writer would leave the scene unresolved if he was willing to use invention to establish Jesus's identity

I'm saying that Matthew and Luke could have used invention. Maybe John is based on an actual event - I mean it seems a bit unlikely that the author of John would have the crowd not believe Jesus was from Bethlehem or David, and not mention Bethlehem or David otherwise - usually inventions would make Jesus look more like the Messiah, not less.

 

[Sanoy]

I outsourced the illustrations but the style and colours were my idea.


Thanks!


In John 7, it says that Jesus' brothers were also at the festival (verse 10). I think the passage in question is also at the festival. Verse 5 says even Jesus' brothers didn't believe in him. In verse 42 the crowd is not only unaware of Jesus being from Bethlehem, they didn't think he was a descendent of David. So in John, the writer is aware of the prophecies involving Bethlehem and David, but he doesn't write a story that includes them - like how Matthew and Luke mention David and Bethelem in seemingly contradictory ways - in Matthew they begin in Bethlehem and stay there for years, and in Matthew the genealogies involving David are very different to Luke.

So that links back to the two problems I mentioned in the original post - about the journeys and the genealogies - is there a plausible way that all of mentioned journeys and genealogies can be historical without contradictions?

Each Gospel includes an origin for Jesus, but John chooses a different origin from the synoptic Gospels. John places Jesus at the beginning of creation, and ties him to the "word of the Lord" found in the calling of Samuel and found in 2nd temple discussions of the "Memra". This is an important difference, because while the synoptic Gospels tie Jesus with Prophecy, Johns Gospel ties Jesus to a second Yahweh figure running throughout the Old Testament.

 

[JohnClay]

Each Gospel includes an origin for Jesus, but John chooses a different origin from the synoptic Gospels. John places Jesus at the beginning of creation, and ties him to the "word of the Lord" found in the calling of Samuel and found in 2nd temple discussions of the "Memra". This is an important difference, because while the synoptic Gospels tie Jesus with Prophecy, Johns Gospel ties Jesus to a second Yahweh figure running throughout the Old Testament.

John mentions that Joseph was Jesus' father and that Jesus has a mother... John is also aware of prophecies linked to Jesus - the prophecies about Bethlehem and David. It isn't just a case of that being left out, the crowd explicitly says that Jesus isn't from Bethlehem or David. Jesus himself could have corrected them (not sure how often he corrects incorrect statements). On the other hand in the other gospels Jesus initially doesn't want people to know he is the Messiah:
An Uncensored Guide to the Christmas Stories

 

[Sanoy]

John mentions that Joseph was Jesus' father and that Jesus has a mother... John is also aware of prophecies linked to Jesus - the prophecies about Bethlehem and David. It isn't just a case of that being left out, the crowd explicitly says that Jesus isn't from Bethlehem or David. Jesus himself could have corrected them (not sure how often he corrects incorrect statements). On the other hand in the other gospels Jesus initially doesn't want people to know he is the Messiah:
An Uncensored Guide to the Christmas Stories

Yes he doesn't avoid all messianic connections, that isn't what I'm trying to say. John chooses to focus on Jesus's Divinity for his origin rather than his birth origin, and that is an important and valuable aspect of Jesus to focus on. It would be improper to prefer invention when there are extraordinarily important reasons to have either origin.

The crowd in Johns Gospel does not tell us that Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem. They ask the question 'Has not the Scripture said that the Christ from Bethlehem?' We cannot take a question to mean a statement. There were no gospels at this time to inform the crowd that Jesus was born in Bethlehem due to the census. The crowd only knows where Jesus grew up - if that. It is odd that Jesus doesn't correct the crowd, which is exactly what becomes problematic when we solve conflicts by using invention. If the writers are inclined to invent their way out of problems, why would John include the problem, and not invent the census right here to resolve the problem. And of course if the Synoptic authors invented it, why do they exclude the public scene in John which it would solve? There is a lot to consider, a hasty solution of one problem can create worse and inexplicable problems elsewhere.

 

[JohnClay]

.....John chooses to focus on Jesus's Divinity for his origin rather than his birth origin, and that is an important and valuable aspect of Jesus to focus on...

I think Bart Ehrman said something like in Matthew and Luke, Jesus became God at his birth or conception, but in John, Jesus was God even before the beginning of time.

....The crowd in Johns Gospel does not tell us that Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem. They ask the question 'Has not the Scripture said that the Christ from Bethlehem?' We cannot take a question to mean a statement.

In John 7:40,
some of the people said, “Surely this man is the Prophet.”
verse 41:
Others said, “He is the Messiah.”
That is when people who thought that Jesus wasn't "the Prophet" or the Messiah objected and used the prophecy about Messiah being from Bethlehem AND David. There were multiple people there who believed that Jesus was the Messiah. Surely some of them would have known that Jesus was from Bethlehem and/or David and they could have mentioned it.
A little earlier, in verse 38 Jesus said:
"Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them"
If Jesus wanted people to believe in him he could have helped those who believed he was the Messiah to defend against the arguments of the non-believers.

There were no gospels at this time to inform the crowd that Jesus was born in Bethlehem due to the census.

In Matthew, Joseph and Mary already lived in Bethlehem before Jesus was born and stayed there until Jesus was one or two years old.

The crowd only knows where Jesus grew up - if that.

I thought those who believed he was the Messiah would have known that Jesus was from Bethlehem and/or David.... on the other hand, Zechariah's/Zacharias' 12 line song which was spoken once 30 years before Jesus' ministry was supposedly passed down accurately even though neither Mary or Joseph were present... see:
An Uncensored Guide to the Christmas Stories

It is odd that Jesus doesn't correct the crowd, which is exactly what becomes problematic when we solve conflicts by using invention. If the writers are inclined to invent their way out of problems, why would John include the problem, and not invent the census right here to resolve the problem.

I'm not saying that invention is always used, but when it is used, it tends to solve problems not create them, so I think the passage in John 7 could be at least partly historical.
BTW I think the process of invention is loosely like this: (I mean the author of Luke would probably be aware of the differences between Mark and Luke)

And of course if the Synoptic authors invented it, why do they exclude the public scene in John which it would solve? There is a lot to consider, a hasty solution of one problem can create worse and inexplicable problems elsewhere.

Well John was believed to be written years after the synoptic gospels with a lot of its own material so it isn't surprising to me that that passage about the unbelievers and Bethlehem/David isn't in the synoptic gospels. Also including it would introduce a problem and like that Youtube video about Luke, the writers sometimes eliminate problems if they can, by omitting things.

 

[JohnClay]

@Sanoy:

From the conclusion:
An Uncensored Guide to the Christmas Stories

....If you are committed to believing that every word of the Bible is true, then the differences must all be explained by the authors not being aware of things or deciding not to include them...

Another possibility is that some details aren't factual.

Theoretically you should be able to provide theories that explain away all of the apparent contradictions.

I was wondering about one of the biggest problems I'm aware of - the genealogies involving
governor Zerubbabel and his father Shealtiel:
The Genealogies of Jesus

In Matthew, Shealtiel's father is Jeconiah, while in Luke, Shealtiel's father is Neri. In Matthew there are 25 names between David and Joseph, while in Luke, there are 40 names. In Matthew, Shealtiel is 60% of the way down the list, while in Luke, Shealtiel is 53% down the list. Note that apparently Matthew omits some names when compared to Chronicles, perhaps to create a 14 name pattern. It seems probable that the Shealtiel and Zerubbabel are referring to the same people in both gospels. It is my belief that the reason why these people have different fathers and sons is because the two gospels simply invented the other names. Though Matthew is based quite closely on Chronicles.

So I was wondering why Shealtiel has a different father in each gospel. This looks like basically the same problem as the problem of Joseph's father - there are at least six theories about that:
Genealogy of Jesus - Wikipedia

 

[Sanoy]

I think Bart Ehrman said something like in Matthew and Luke, Jesus became God at his birth or conception, but in John, Jesus was God even before the beginning of time.


In John 7:40,
some of the people said, “Surely this man is the Prophet.”
verse 41:
Others said, “He is the Messiah.”
That is when people who thought that Jesus wasn't "the Prophet" or the Messiah objected and used the prophecy about Messiah being from Bethlehem AND David. There were multiple people there who believed that Jesus was the Messiah. Surely some of them would have known that Jesus was from Bethlehem and/or David and they could have mentioned it.
A little earlier, in verse 38 Jesus said:
"Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them"
If Jesus wanted people to believe in him he could have helped those who believed he was the Messiah to defend against the arguments of the non-believers.


In Matthew, Joseph and Mary already lived in Bethlehem before Jesus was born and stayed there until Jesus was one or two years old.


I thought those who believed he was the Messiah would have known that Jesus was from Bethlehem and/or David.... on the other hand, Zechariah's/Zacharias' 12 line song which was spoken once 30 years before Jesus' ministry was supposedly passed down accurately even though neither Mary or Joseph were present... see:
An Uncensored Guide to the Christmas Stories


I'm not saying that invention is always used, but when it is used, it tends to solve problems not create them, so I think the passage in John 7 could be at least partly historical.
BTW I think the process of invention is loosely like this: (I mean the author of Luke would probably be aware of the differences between Mark and Luke)

Well John was believed to be written years after the synoptic gospels with a lot of its own material so it isn't surprising to me that that passage about the unbelievers and Bethlehem/David isn't in the synoptic gospels. Also including it would introduce a problem and like that Youtube video about Luke, the writers sometimes eliminate problems if they can, by omitting things.

I don't know what Bart Ehrman means when he says Mat/Luke made Jesus become God at his birth. To make that claim one would have to parallel something in those birth accounts to an OT messianic expectation of a divine Messiah.

This entire depiction in the latter part of John 7 is over questions raised in the crowd. Why would John include a statement for us to consider as a fact that would exclude Jesus from being the prophesied messiah? Well he didn't, John does not present any of this as factual statements about Jesus, but questions the crowd considers. There is just no exegetical means to make these questions statements of fact about where Jesus was born. Jesus didn't want everyone to believe, because believing He is the messiah doesn't lead to salvation. In fact believing Jesus is the Messiah and still rejecting Him leads to greater condemnation (Matthew 11:21-24)

The gospels were written after Jesus died. The book of Matthew was not available to describe Jesus peculiar birth to the crowd. They would not know this fact about Jesus unless they were personally informed. Think of any famous person today. How many of them can you say you presently know where they were born. I can think of none, even in the internet age. However they might have heard the stories of "Jesus of Galilee".

It is clear from the multitude of questions that this is a diverse crowd rather than a monolithic group. So we can treat them as if they are, nor can we consider that this section is all that transpired before they dispersed. This is just a summary of what occurred, not a dictation of it.

The issue with invention is that if it's summoned for one conflict it becomes inexplicable why it is not employed for other, greater, conflicts like that in John 7. If we decide to make an author a thief or a liar in one location, it becomes a plot hole when that author fails to act on his character when he is most needed to. And if John was written after the synoptics, and is known to employ invention, you would think he would invent a conversation that has Jesus fulfilling his candidacy as the Messiah to the crowd, especially when the synoptics were known when John wrote. So the author seems very declined to invent things that didn't happen, even if it embarrasses the narrative.

Lets focus on this first. And when you feel satisfied, then lets move to the Genealogies. That subject is not something I will be able to speak on from my own ability, so I will go to Tim McGrew for that if you want to see his view ahead of me.

 

[JohnClay]

I don't know what Bart Ehrman means when he says Mat/Luke made Jesus become God at his birth....

He also says something about Jesus becoming God later in his life ("adoptionism") in Mark. It isn't really relevant though.

As far as John 7 goes, it seems I'm unable to explain why I think complete invention could have been used in some places while not being used in other places - so we can end that topic.

About the genealogies - I'd like to restrict it to being about governor Zerubbabel and his father Shealtiel and maybe the sons of David, but not about the fathers of Joseph and Mary.

 

[BigV]

I'm of the opinion that any contradiction can be reconciled.
For example, take the following options:

1. Jesus was born.
2. Jesus was not born.

Contradiction? Sure, but it can easily be reconciled.

Maybe they are talking about different Jesus'? Different meanings of being 'born'? Perhaps different periods, where the 2nd one refers to an earlier time frame vs the 1st one, etc....

The issue with reconciliations, of course, is that the reconciler creates their own account without (in a religious context) necessarily being inspired to do so.

 

[Sanoy]

@Sanoy:

From the conclusion:
An Uncensored Guide to the Christmas Stories

Another possibility is that some details aren't factual.

Theoretically you should be able to provide theories that explain away all of the apparent contradictions.

I was wondering about one of the biggest problems I'm aware of - the genealogies involving
governor Zerubbabel and his father Shealtiel:
The Genealogies of Jesus

In Matthew, Shealtiel's father is Jeconiah, while in Luke, Shealtiel's father is Neri. In Matthew there are 25 names between David and Joseph, while in Luke, there are 40 names. In Matthew, Shealtiel is 60% of the way down the list, while in Luke, Shealtiel is 53% down the list. Note that apparently Matthew omits some names when compared to Chronicles, perhaps to create a 14 name pattern. It seems probable that the Shealtiel and Zerubbabel are referring to the same people in both gospels. It is my belief that the reason why these people have different fathers and sons is because the two gospels simply invented the other names. Though Matthew is based quite closely on Chronicles.

So I was wondering why Shealtiel has a different father in each gospel. This looks like basically the same problem as the problem of Joseph's father - there are at least six theories about that:
Genealogy of Jesus - Wikipedia

This reflects my own observations. Matthew appears to be a family tree "The father of". Luke appears to a blood line "X of Y" (son isn't actually in the text). As a blood line women silently enter the mix and slide into the same father for example.

Neri had a daughter, that daughter was one of Shealtiels wives and through other silent daughters the blood line finds it's way again to Zerubbabel.​

To me that makes sense, but really someone with some expertise in both Greek and Jewish custom, as well as the Greek language would have to substantiate what I said.

This is Tim McGrew's observations regarding the short Matthew list. Matthew does something peculiar by separating the genealogies into groups of fourteen. The Zohar does the same type of division but with 15. 14 is also the numerical value of David. So there is both a Jewish trope and a gematria reason to condense the genealogy into divisions of 14.

 

[A_Thinker]

I think that one must been careful to note that the Gospels )Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) ... are OBSERVATIONS of the life and ministry of Jesus, with various INSIGHTS.

We see this in practice as some OBSERVATIONS which are recorded are corrected by the writer's knowledge (or INSIGHT), while other observations are not.

Therefore, John can record that the people thought that Jesus did not have the necessary heritage in Bethlehem, but expressed their OBSERVATIONS that Jesus had grown up in Nazareth.

Consideration must be given to ... the probable source of the information, etc. Of course, Matthew could have gotten his information for the birth narrative directly from Jesus, himself, ... and it is speculated that Luke got his information directly from Mary, Jesus' mother.

The truth that is ferreted out ... is that Mary and Joseph were from (and married) in Nazareth, but traveled to Bethlehem under order from the Roman government for purposes of the Roman census.

While they were in Bethlehem (for the census), Jesus was born, after which the family traveled back to their home in Nazareth.

A few years later, the magi arrive in Jerusalem to see the one who is born King of the Jews (alerting Herod to Jesus' birth), ... and are rerouted to Nazareth by the star. In the meantime, Herod gives an order that all baby boys under two years of age in Judah are to be killed, but Joseph is warned in a dream to flee with his family to Egypt, where they would be safe from Herod.

When Herod is dead, Joseph is told by an angel in a dream that it is safe to return to Israel, and Joseph takes his family back to Nazareth.

So ... Jesus is, both, of Bethlehem and Nazareth. He grew up in Nazareth, but he was born in ... and his family lineage (of David) is from Bethlehem. Bethlehem is the city of David.

 

[BigV]

The truth that is ferreted out ... is that Mary and Joseph were from (and married) in Nazareth, but traveled to Bethlehem under order from the Roman government for purposes of the Roman census.

Of course, this travel to Bethlehem from Nazareth for census really makes no sense, because the purpose of a census is taxation and it would be a bureaucratic nightmare for the Romans to have people from Nazareth register in Judea.

Another historical issue, is that the census shows a Roman rule of law in the region. Quirinius and not Archelaus. As my earlier post shows, Christians do come up with reconciliation stories but in creating their own reconciliation account, yet another Gospel is created.

Here is a Christian source trying to reconcile the accounts. Note, they are not addressing the issue of a Census in Judea of people from Nazareth.
Does the Roman Census Prove Luke is Wrong About Jesus' Birth?

 

[A_Thinker]

Of course, this travel to Bethlehem from Nazareth for census really makes no sense, because the purpose of a census is taxation and it would be a bureaucratic nightmare for the Romans to have people from Nazareth register in Judea.

And, of course, human governments are not known to create bureaucratic nightmares, eh ? I'm sure that even the Romans made a few mistakes ...

 

[BigV]

And, of course, human governments are not known to create bureaucratic nightmares, eh ? I'm sure that even the Romans made a few mistakes ...

Of course governments cause bureaucracies but we are talking about a story here without any historical evidence. So, one issue is Romans writing in people from Galilee for Judean census. Second issue, is we find that Joseph and Mary travel to Judea because they had to go to a place of their ancestor thousand+ years earlier! Were Romans this insane to make a census based on where your ancient ancestor lived?

And then, do you, in a 21st Century, know who your great-great-grandfather was? I'm guessing your probably don't know his name and yet, Joseph knew exactly who his ancestors were all the way down to David himself (albeit there is a confusion about which son of David, in Matthew's Gospel we are tracing Joseph to Solomon and Luke traces to Nathan)

Matthew only traces in 14 Generations but Luke goes through every name. Amazing stuff.

 

[JohnClay]

....The truth that is ferreted out ... is that Mary and Joseph were from (and married) in Nazareth, but traveled to Bethlehem under order from the Roman government for purposes of the Roman census.

That's true in Luke, but you need to also consider Matthew - see:
The Bible's two Christmas stories told in parallel
In Matthew they begin in Bethlehem in a house. Later in Matthew 2 it seems when they go to Nazareth it is for the first time, meaning that Mary and Joseph were from and were married in Bethlehem.

While they were in Bethlehem (for the census), Jesus was born, after which the family traveled back to their home in Nazareth.

A few years later, the magi arrive in Jerusalem to see the one who is born King of the Jews (alerting Herod to Jesus' birth), ... and are rerouted to Nazareth by the star.

The star is over their house in Bethlehem, not Nazareth.... I know you're trying to resolve contradictions though. Also the distance from Jerusalem to Bethlehem is about 6 miles while Jerusalem to Nazareth is about 80 miles.

In the meantime, Herod gives an order that all baby boys under two years of age in Judah are to be killed, but Joseph is warned in a dream to flee with his family to Egypt, where they would be safe from Herod.

When Herod is dead, Joseph is told by an angel in a dream that it is safe to return to Israel, and Joseph takes his family back to Nazareth.

In Matthew they don't return Nazareth - they go there for the first time. They had been planning to return to their home in Bethlehem but I guess in the story they had to move to Nazareth.

So ... Jesus is, both, of Bethlehem and Nazareth. He grew up in Nazareth, but he was born in ... and his family lineage (of David) is from Bethlehem. Bethlehem is the city of David.

Yes both of the gospels agree with that.

 

[JohnClay]

This reflects my own observations. Matthew appears to be a family tree "The father of". Luke appears to a blood line "X of Y" (son isn't actually in the text).

Why then does the NIV and KJV say "the son of"? Shouldn't translations use the most accurate words? Maybe the reason why people don't want to translate it as "the son of" is because it messes with their explanations for why the genealogies differ.

As a blood line women silently enter the mix and slide into the same father for example.

Neri had a daughter, that daughter was one of Shealtiels wives and through other silent daughters the blood line finds it's way again to Zerubbabel.....​

Is there any hard evidence about Neri having a daughter? Or is it just a hypothesis? So then there are two ancestors of Shealtiel - Solomon and Nathan - I thought they'd include the most impressive ancestor - Solomon....
edit: on the other hand there is a theme in Matthew where Jesus is the King of the Jews (including Solomon) while Luke is very humble, so it makes sense not to be from Solomon.... see:
An Uncensored Guide to the Christmas Stories

 

[JohnClay]

@BigV:
Also about the census - though like you said, "any contradiction can be reconciled"
https://www.stcatherinercc.org/sing...w-long-is-the-trip-from-Nazareth-to-Bethlehem

.....The distance “as the crow flies” from Nazareth to Bethlehem is about 70 miles.....my guess is that the one-way trip took at least a week or ten days, and perhaps much longer

All of that, just for a census... then they would have needed money for accommodation... though they didn't have enough money for a lamb sacrifice - see:
An Uncensored Guide to the Christmas Stories