How does one explain the ten year gap for the birth of Jesus in Luke vs Matthew?

Another answer from our community:

Both Matthew and Luke employ the common ancient practice of using a known historical event as a 'time marker'.

Matthew uses the coming of the wise men to Herod in a round about way, since it is known that Herod died in 4 BC, as verified by a lunar eclipse that occurred around the time of his death. He also indicates that the wise men, when asked of Herod stated that the star had appeared as much as nearly two years before, which is why Herod killed the young children up to that age. This means Jesus could have been born as early as 6 BC.

Luke uses a different marker, the census which was conducted when Cyrenius (Quirinius) was governor of Syria. see Luke 2:2. It is commonly assumed that Luke is referring to the well-known and controversial census conducted in 6 AD by Quirinius. This makes for a ten year time-gap if one assumes that an argument from silence is a valid argument.