Jesus birth and childhood

I take it that you don't believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. I do. Matthew's and Luke's accounts are God-breathed Scripture. They're in perfect harmony with each other and never contradict one another. I was merely suggesting ways to interpret the chronology of events because I thought that's what you were requesting. Adios.

?? - They're two completely different accounts; how can they not contradict each other? How do you account for the discrepancy between the chronologies of Herod and Quirinius?

This is why am investigating the timing of events, was Jesus flight to egypt a brief one or a long one, how long did he stay there for, if we know when Herod died and when archelus came to the throne then we can figure out how long Jesus was there for. Because Jerusalem and Bethlehem are quite close to one another, it could be the family returned to Bethlehem and stayed a while before the magi visited.

Luke was saying they did all the things required for the law of the lord, but what would have been those things...a circumcision, a sacrifice...what else? Another poster said it would have taken 41 days. But maybe it was 2 years stay in Bethelehem. Its just seems a bit odd that the angels would tell Joseph in a dream to immediately leave Bethlehem if they just got there and were just passing through anyway. They could have gone back to Nazareth because Galilee wasnt at the time ruled by Herod as it was a separate state outside of Judea, Why Egypt? What was in Egypt. If someone was trying to kill your baby, you would leave the place IMMEDIATELY and it seems they did, by night. There would be no question of hanging round would there.

I am not criticising the Bible but asking these questions to further understand it. Why people get all huffy because they cant easily explain it to someone who needs to understand the timing of events I dont know.

Plus often when people tell the christmas story, especially to children, they conflate events and have the magi visit Jesus right as when he was born. But I notice while people are ok to draw or show the magi, often depicted as three (bible doesnt actually say how many) wise men bearing gifts to an infant Jesus many neglect to mention that Jesus childhood was not easy and that there was a mass infantcide.

If both accounts can be harmonised, then wouldnt it be good to explain it in chronological order so others can actually see what happened and how long it took? Instead of accusing people of thinking well you just cant see it, well show us by explaining it then!

If you're referring to the "Slaughter of the Holy Innocents" the numbers have been extremely exaggerated over time. Taking all parameters into consideration (e.g. approximate population of a small town like Bethlehem in the 1st century, number of families with children, number of those children male, number of those falling into the correct age bracket, etc., etc.), and taking into consideration it was Bethlehem and its environs, the actual number slain was likely not more than about 10 individuals (most place the number closer to 5 or 6). While the murder of even one child is an unspeakable crime, and I'm certainly not trying to downplay the incident, the actual number was virtually negligible given the average infant mortality rates for the time.

It sounds awful by today's standards, but under 10 young children slain would have hardly been newsworthy, which is why there are no records (save the Biblical account) of the incident.

Herod was a Jew as well a reason for the count, and It is better to be Herod’s pig than his son’ [Gr. huios]” (2.4.11; cited in Brown 1993:226)

Wonder what the population of Bethlehem was at the time, even if it was small, any number of killings would have been shocking. Also Matthew states 'in all the coasts thereof' is he referring to the dead sea or the mediterranean.

I dont know if the number was ' negligable' but then some people have funny attitudes toward children, like some people do condone abortions thinking oh too bad, wrong timing you can always have another. In Exodus it was only male children and they were thrown into the river. MAtthew doesnt mention what method was used by Herod.

In china its mostly girls who are abandoned if they are not aborted. By govt policies/decree.

What I'm getting at is that, for that period in time, the infant mortality rate was rather high. The death of five or six infants/toddlers in a small town would certainly have been tragic for those involved of course, but it wouldn't have been "shocking" or even "newsworthy" by any means - it was (unfortunately) all too common an occurrence, particularly in light of what else was going on around the area at that time.

Matthew's account is silent as to ow the crime was committed, but likely by the sword - sounds awful to even think about it, but one has to think it was something done quickly.

William Albright, who was considered a primary archaeologist of his era, did some extensive research on populations at the time of Jesus. His estimate is around 300 (men, woman and children) for a village the size of Bethlehem. About 5-7 males under the age of two.

It does say all the coasts as well as Bethlehem. Not sure if this is referring to all the coast along the dead sea or mediteranean, so it would have likely been more than just those in Bethlehem.

Am not sure why King Herod didnt just consult with Anna and Simeon..have there been any babies dedicated in the temple born in Bethlehem? Or maybe he did.

Lanolin suppose you do your homework. You had a pretty good lead from a saint here and you started debating it.
You seem to want to know but not study.

Can you be specific, I have no idea who you are talking about.

I am not a scholar sorry and its not a homework question. There is no prize for an answer.

I am just asking the people here who DO know, if they would care to share some knowledge or wisdom.
LIke yourself

Calling all wise men....