Since the books weren't historical in any modern sense, isn't the exercise in "when was Jesus born" or "the lost years of Jesus" just playing around? The gospeleers were engaged in "spreading good news," not recording anything they knew or would have known, especially in the two birth narratives... In fact, the earliest birth narrative (in Matthew) is written to amplify the Markan motif of Jesus as the new Moses. (The imagery of the Egyptian slaughter also fit Herod the Great, since he apparently slaughtered the remaining Maccobean "royalty" during his tenure.)

Here is another way to look at the Lukan fiction:

In the Lukan tale, written by a Gentile for Gentiles, we have Caesar Augustus' name at the beginning playing a mnemonic role... He supposedly fulfilled Virgils's prophecy of a child who would grow up to rule over an era of world peace and abundance" (Miller, Born Divine, p. 55). This "son of God" was said to be Augustus. The census date was not as much "inaccurate" as it was a reminder to the people who heard or read the gospel of the hardships the Roman government had placed on those they conquered... Luke forcing Mary to go to Bethlehem, which is incidentally unhistorical since women needn't "register" for the census and folks didn't go to their "ancestral homes" to register was one more stroke of brilliance for the author. Having her go through what would have been a hardship, through the rough area of Samaria, having the kid born in a trough, certainly filled the people who heard/read the story with animosity toward the Romans.  So, the purposes of the author in this are fairly clear and seem to be quite propogandic in nature...

The first three chapters probably were added to the original gospel. For the last hundred or so years, quite a few scholars have seen the original Luke as the gospel Marcion used. It came without this tale. In light of the research showing that Acts of the Apostles is fictive in nature, with similarities and even the use of Homer, Vergil, Josephus and others, written as a response to Marcionism, it is very possible that the canonical version of Luke we have is also a "tweaking," some major, some minor, to the gospel Marcion used. The birth narrative was a major tweaking. 

Dennis

Apr 8, 2010 -- 1:07PM, MarleneEmmett5 wrote:

Nov 28, 2007 -- 12:22AM, whatson2nd wrote:

. Matthew has Jesus born when Herod was King of Judea. Accordingly, the latest Jesus could have been born was 4BCE, that was the year that Herod died. Luke has Jesus born when Cyrenius was Governor of Syria. Cyrenius, who, in Roman history is Quirinius, became Governor of Syria ten years after Herod died. Therein lies a difference of ten years. So, when was Jesus really born? .

 

There's still some question as "To the exact date/year and MONTH as to when Jesus
Was born~ and it all has to do with the calendar.

From the Goseples,we know that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great,
And we know that he "ordered the Slaughter of the Innocents"~that all male childern
up to the age of two years old be put to the sword"

The above one wasn't the "First Slaughter of the Innocents".
in the old testament,Moses "had been put upon the Nile to escape Seti I's order
"to kill all the male Hebrew children~up to two years of age"

They go in order of like this:
Seti's that Moses his life
Ramses's pronouncement that led to "The First Passover"
Herod the Great's order that happened when Jesus was born.

Now as to when Jesus was born during the reign of Caesar Agustus aka Octavian it is he
"who calls for the census" that took place when Jesus was born~then Joseph and Mary
take the child away to Egypt~They only return when Herod dies and after Caesar Agustus
and his secessor Tiberius has died. When that was an how old Jesus was at the time is
somthing that is "part of the lost years of Jesus".

To see what the reign of Roman emperors are go to:
www.Roman-emperors.org/impendex