>>22100802>why is this lineage different between Matthew and Luke? You can't say one is the lineage of Mary because they both end at Joseph's father.Real answer is probably different oral traditions
>if the birth of Jesus was so important, why is it not in Mark when it is in the other 3 gospels?Couple of possible answers to that.
One is that Mark was considered by an early source (forget who) to have been the text of a speech given by Peter, so possibly it was more focused on his teachings than other stuff about his life.
Another possibility is the virgin birth was a later misreading of prophecy that was included several decades after Mark was written. It's not in John either fwiw
> Matthew says the King was Herod but Luke says it was his son ArchelausThere are numerous cases of the evangelists getting historical details wrong. E.g. one interesting piece of textual criticism is the fact that Mark called the Herod that beheads John a king, when he was more like a prince in reality. Matthew corrects this, but forgets to correct it later on when copying from Mark in another bit, suggesting editor's fatigue
>why is the death of Judas completely different between Matthew and Acts?Two different traditions most likely
Remember that from what we can tell, Mark was written first, then Matthew and Luke copied from it and expanded it with extra info. It then gets very messy as no one theory explains the order they were written in, e.g. possibly there was a proto-Luke like Marcion that Matthew copied from, then current Luke also copied from Matthew or something, it's a mess.
But basically don't depend on the gospels for complete historical inerrancy because you're not going to get it. They were texts written by people decades after the fact, about events they didn't personally witness, often with incomplete or damaged manuscript sources (e.g. the Great Omission, where Luke leaves out a huge chunk of Mark, may be due to a page missing in his Mark copy)