Did they get it right??

Ben Witherington, in The Living Word of God, does more than just look at different types of literature that make up the New Testament. The next section of his book discusses the historical accuracy of a few disputed passages.

He starts with the differences of the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke. Some people say it appears that Bethlehem is the hometown of Jesus in the gospel of Matthew while Luke seems to say it is Nazareth. He notes that both accounts stress the Jesus was born in Bethlehem even though both authors realize Jesus was called "Jesus of Nazareth" and that his family lived there after his birth. He points out how much of both gospels tell the same story, especially the fact that Jesus came into this world through a miracle of a virgin birth. Matthew’s gospel does not give us an account of Jesus’ life before his birth; it does not tell the reader where the family lived before his birth. One other difference concerns the flight into Egypt, which Matthew mentions but Luke does not. This does not mean the flight did not happen. Different authors chose different elements to stress.

Witherington tackles Luke 2: 1-4, which some believe contains a problem. Those who doubt the accuracy of Luke say that the famous census of Quirinius took place at a later time than the gospel indicates and that the census described in Luke 2: 1-4 is highly improbable (families having to go to their ancestral hometowns to register). He starts his answer by indicating that Luke obviously knew when the famous census took place – check out Acts 5:37. In addition, the Emperor Augustus set out to get tax revenues from all his provinces, this would mean a census would be necessary. Luke 2: 1 might well mean that Augustus decreed that all the rest of the Empire be enrolled, some of the work already having been done. Another point has to do with the Greek language of Luke 2: 2. It could mean, "This was the first census which happened during when Quirinius was ruler of Syria," or it might read, "This enrollment was before when Quirinius was ruler of Syria." Finally, there is evidence from Egypt that people were forced to go to their ancestral homes for registration.

Then there are the questions that surround the slaughter of the innocents reported in Matthew. The author of this gospel describes a paranoid King Herod, who attempts to end any potential threat to his kingdom by killing all the babies in Bethlehem. How can it be, the skeptics ask, that a horrible event like this would not be written up in other historical accounts? But we need to realize that Bethlehem was a very small town in the time of Jesus, so no more than a handful of infants in that town would have been two years or younger. Plus we know from other sources that King Herod was fully capable of such nastiness since he killed several of his own wives and offspring.

Of course, critics have attacked many other parts of the Bible. But Witherington has demonstrated in the above examples that initial problems may simply be the case of misunderstandings or ignorance. There are plenty of good books devoted to tackling these issues of apparent biblical difficulties, so don't accept the statement of a skeptic without researching it carefully.