Well, not so much. Because the bible doesn’t mention the dates of life and rule of the two figures, so you have to go outside the bible to find the problem - so it’s not a contradiction in the bible but a contradiction between the bible and other sources.
(And for biblical literalists, there is no contest of course!)
It’s not really about “what should be year 0,” it’s that the gospels can’t both be right. The date ranges they give do not even come close to overlapping. Either one of them is wrong, or both of them are.
Well, not so much. Because the bible doesn’t mention the dates of life and rule of the two figures, so you have to go outside the bible to find the problem - so it’s not a contradiction in the bible but a contradiction between the bible and other sources.
(And for biblical literalists, there is no contest of course!)
It’s not really about “what should be year 0,” it’s that the gospels can’t both be right. The date ranges they give do not even come close to overlapping. Either one of them is wrong, or both of them are.
And how do you know that, without referring to anything except the Bible itself, and pure reason?
I fully agree with your point, but there’s a difference between that and the kind of logic a literalist uses.