When was Jesus born? - Contradiction between gospels

[screwtape]

By using geography, this is actually easier than you may suspect.  Here is a basic map of Nazareth's location: 

I agree that makes sense, but that would be a retcon.  Yes, if jesus H were real, and if he was born in 1CE[1], then your solution makes some sense.  But that is presumptuous.  For one, it assumes the date is correct.  It might not be.  If we are trying to date when a possible actual jesus H, who was just a loud mouthed trouble maker, existed, maybe he was around during Herod the Horrible's reign. 

Or, if jesus H is a legend based on stories of various loud-mouthed trouble makers, and the legend was assembled later, by multiple sources, then the discrepancy makes sense.

Plus Many (most?) xians think it was Herod the Great.  Why?  And why is he called Herod and not Archie? 

I may be missing something, but I don't think it is as simple as you've made it out to be. 

Let me know if that is enough information for you, I apologize for the Wikipedia sources, but I'm not terrific with website sources, as I'm an old man now.

wiki is mostly reliable.  Thanks for the info.

1.	most scholars don't think that, as I recall

[skepticlogician]

Now, to the point:
When you claim the bible contradicts itself here, you are doing what I personally call surface-level research.  You left no room for doubt after your original findings, to further investigate, and that can become a problem.  The truth is, the passage of Matthew is not linked to your Wikipedia article Harod.  This man, whom died in 4bc had I believe 3 sons, two of whom continued to use the name Harod as a sort of dynasty to their father.  By using your wiki link I found the correct Harod listed under, "successors" here:  http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_Archelaus

Uh... Am I missing something here? I believe you yourself quoted Matthew 2:13-23 in your very last post, didn't you? ... 

Did you overlook what is said in Matthew 2:19?
"After Herod died,..."
Is there a way to claim this is not Herod the Great?

... or did you also overlook what is said in Matthew 2:22?
"But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee..."

The OP contends that Jesus was born while Herod the Great was still alive (he gave the order to kill all the babies, remember? That's why they escaped to Egypt?)... And since Herod the Great died around 4BC, then according to Matthew's account Jesus must've been born 'just' before 4BC, which contradicts Luke and the 'Cyrenius' account.

In other words, according to Matthew:
1. Jesus is born.
2. Herod the Great knows about it and orders to kill all babies two years old or under.
3. Joseph, Mary and Jesus escape to Egypt.
4. The angel tells Joseph that the King Herod has died.
5. They return but they are afraid to go back to Bethlehem because they learn that Archelaus is reigning instead of his father Herod.

I hope I did not spoil anybody's fun with this, but I felt it necessary to provide correct information.  I doubt you will find many people who know this fact, and I hope you use the information!

I don't think anybody's fun has been spoiled. And indeed, the Bible itself mentions both Herods, Herod the Great and Herod Archelaus... I can't quite understand why this would be a not very known fact! 
Unless I'm clearly misreading something from your posts, the Biblical contradiction I originally posted still stands.

I'm not sure what the map links you provided later are supposed to prove. 

[SkyWriting]

Literally, I was a skeptic about everything except my religion... it's like a magic drug you are raised on and never bother to question. 

years after I realized I was an atheist, I dug deeper into why I didn't believe.  That rigorous skepticism and inwardly focused critical thought made me realize that I wasn't all that rational about other things in my life either.  You will probably find you have a lot of old beliefs that are not related to religion but are bullshit nevertheless.  It's not just about gods, but magical thinking in every aspect of your life.

You are the man.

[lux et veritas]

Both gospel accounts are correct .The birth of Jesus took place when Quiriinius was in office . The Magi arrived approximately 2 years after his birth ..   This is the reason Herod decreed that all males 2 years  and under be slaughtered.

[Graybeard]

Except there was no "Massacre of the Innocents." The nearest is either Herod the Great killing his own sons or Herod Archelaus killing 3,000 in the Temple.

From Wiki: Quirinius^Wiki

After the banishment of the ethnarch Herod Archelaus in 6 AD, Iudaea (the conglomeration of Samaria, Judea and Idumea) came under direct Roman administration with Coponius as prefect; at the same time Quirinius was appointed Legate of Syria, with instructions to assess Iudea Province for taxation purposes.[8] One of his first duties was to carry out a census as part of this.

We see that the census was after the reigns of both Herod the Great and Herod Archelaus (the former died 4BC and the latter was removed in 6AD.)[1] So that puts the census after any rule of any Herod.

The Gospel of Luke links the birth of Jesus to a "world-wide" census ordered by Augustus carried out while Quirinius was governor of Syria. This is thought to be a reference to the census of Judea in 6/7 AD; however, Luke also, like the Gospel of Matthew, dates the birth to the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BC, ten years before the census of 6 or 7 AD. According to Raymond E. Brown, most modern historians suggest that Luke's account is mistaken.[12] Scholars trying to reconcile the Biblical accounts have speculated about alternative explanations, such as a different census before Quirinius was governor.[13] The majority view, however, among modern scholars[14] is that there was only one census, in 6, and the author of the Gospel of Luke deviated from history in connecting it with the birth of Jesus.

1.	^ Erich S. Gruen, "The Expansion of the Empire under Augustus" in The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume X: The Augustan Empire, 43 BC – AD 69, (Cambridge University Press, 1996) pages 157

[skepticlogician]

Both gospel accounts are correct .The birth of Jesus took place when Quiriinius was in office . The Magi arrived approximately 2 years after his birth ..   This is the reason Herod decreed that all males 2 years  and under be slaughtered.

I assume you read the initial post in this thread?

As Graybeard and many others in this discussion have pointed out, the death of Herod the Great and the start of Quirinius "administration" are at least 10 years apart historically, yet Matthew claims that Jesus was born while Herod the Great was alive and Luke claims that Jesus was born during the time a supposed Census happened while Quirinius was governor of Syria.

Would you care to explain how can 'both gospel accounts be correct'? 

[Spinner198]

This article seems to provide a substantial response to the question posed.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2012/03/16/feedback-conservative-journalist-attacks-genesis-birth-of-christ

Yes, it's AIG, so some of you might have to hold your breath before taking the link.

[skepticlogician]

Answers in Genesis... come on...

Just for fun I started to read with the idea to choose a substantial claim and see what evidence or references they provided... so I found a good candidate. After a few paragraphs they say this:

"First, the Romans at the time conducted a census roughly every 14 years, and they often took years to complete. (3)"

That number between parenthesis is a reference to a book called "When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties" by Norman L. Geisler and Thomas A. Howe...

So I searched for that book and found a pdf version online (http://endtimedeception.org/books/when_critics_ask-a-popular-handbook-on-bible-difficulties.pdf). And sure enough, the book (on page 326 in the pdf version) says this:
"Second, periodic registrations of this sort took place on a regular basis every 14
years. According to the very papers that recorded the censuses, (see W.M. Ramsay,
Was Christ Born in Bethlehem? 1898),..."

... So I went ahead and searched for that other book... and found it online! (https://archive.org/details/waschristbornatb00rams). This book in turn has a lot of mentions about a "Fourteen Year Cycle" thing in various places but I couldn't find a place where this book itself references these claims... Maybe it's there somewhere, but I don't have the time to read the whole book...

My point is, why is AIG so lazy as to not give you the primary reference for this whole idea of 14 year cycles?? Their approach is just a variation of what people do when they say: "A friend of a cousin was told that a brother of their uncle said..."

Come on...

I don't know, there might be a real reference somewhere, but if so, why not provide that in the first place!??
Puhleeease!!