Yes, sorry about that. I get carried away sometimes! I've always enjoyed studyinghistory, though I wouldn't have the gall to call myself an historian. Professionally, I was an analyst. My hobby is writing stories.

What I did here was to take information from the Christian Bible and a couple of other sources, deconstruct it, and reconstruct into a narrative that made sense to me. Clearly, it is not the only possible or even plausible narrative - I've explored others myself. So what I was presenting was a speculative scenario, based on the information available, and interpreting it in a particular way.

As a further point of interest, Matthews' gospel strongly implies that Jesus was born in Bethlehem to a family who lived there, and thus makes Jesus' Davidian descent more likely. Luke gives us the census (which may or may not have happened) and the unpleasant spectacle of Joseph dragging his heavily-pregnant wife on a seven-day trip from Nazareth to Bethlehem. Now it is arguable that Luke was trying to make his story fit the prophecies, but if so, we are left with the possibility that his Jesus was actually born in Nazareth, and thus not a Davidian. Which makes me wonder, again, if we are not deaing with two different people here. A headstrong Judaean noble turned Resistance fighter, and an itinerant preacher from backwater Galilee.

Only wonder, mind you. Verifiable facts are thin on the ground here!

One can draw a parallel with the Shakespeare Problem, which argues that no real connection exists between William Shakespeare, Esq, merchant and landowner, of Stratford-upon-Avon, and Master William Shakespeare, actor, playwright (and possibly spy), of London.

As to the matter of impenetrability, I've always favoured the application of Occams' Razor wherever possible.