One of the biggest hurdles to accepting the birth narratives as real history is the apparent conflict between them. However, harmonization is possible when considering the sources and chronological clues.

First, the events recounted by Matthew in chapter 2 (in Bethlehem) occurred some two years after the time of the events that took place in the entirety of Luke's narrative. This is determined from Matthew 2:16, where Herod orders the killing of boys two years old and under, in accordance with the time he learned from the Magi.

Second, the two authors likely relied on different sources. Luke, deriving his material from family sources, would have accurate records of the events from the family's perspective. On the other hand, Matthew was authored in Antioch, Syria, and his major sources for his birth narrative were likely the descendants of the Magi themselves.

This explains the differing perspectives. When the Magi found the child in Bethlehem, they would inquire of the family if he was born there, and the answer would be yes. The fact that the family actually lived in Nazareth, under normal circumstances, would not necessarily be a topic of conversation, especially to keep from alerting a jealous Herod. Thus, Matthew's source told him that Jesus was born in Bethlehem; but he knew Jesus and his family were from Nazareth, leading to the explanation of the relocation. Since Matthew does not explicitly state that the family did not originally come from Nazareth, we have a quite understandable tension that is easily resolved rather than an outright contradiction.

Regarding the census, the couple may have remembered their bad census experience and learned to secure lodging early by the time of the Magi encounter, or the events were simply not at a feast date. Furthermore, the census-takings were long, multi-stage affairs, allowing for gradual counting that would not disrupt major feasts.

According to the world’s most celebrated atheist, Richard Dawkins, “the gospels are ancient fiction” (2006, p. 97). They “[a]ll have the status of legends, as factually dubious as the stories of King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table”—full of “invented, made-up fiction” (pp. 96-97). Dawkins wonders why the “many unsophisticated Christians…who take the Bible very seriously indeed as a literal and accurate record of history and hence as evidence supporting their religious beliefs,” do not “notice those glaring contradictions” in the gospel accounts? (p. 94). What kind of “contradictions,” exactly? Consider the very first one that he mentions, regarding Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem.

Supposedly, Matthew, Luke, and John give conflicting information about where Jesus was born. Dawkins wrote:

> A good example of the colouring by religious agendas is the whole heart-warming legend of Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem…. John’s gospel specifically remarks that his followers were surprised that he was not born in Bethlehem…. Matthew and Luke handle the problem differently, by deciding that Jesus must have been born in Bethlehem after all (p. 93, emp. in orig.).

Exactly where did the apostle John indicate that Jesus was “not born in Bethlehem?” Dawkins quoted from John 7:41-42, wherein the apostle recounts how, “Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?” (KJV, emp. added). Does this passage teach that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem? Not at all. John merely pointed out that some in the crowd who were listening to Jesus asked if the Messiah would come from Galilee or Bethlehem? These individuals knew that Jesus had grown up in Galilee (just as all of the gospel accounts teach: Matthew 2:22-23; Mark 1:24; 10:47; Luke 2:39-40; 4:16; John 1:45-46; 7:27). This group simply made the assumption that, because Jesus had grown up in Galilee, he was born in Galilee. But, that simply was not true (Matthew 2:1; Luke 2:4). These individuals were ignorant of the place of Jesus’ birth.

Similarly, Richard Dawkins is ignorant of what constitutes a genuine contradiction, if he actually believes that this statement in John’s gospel account really contradicts what Matthew and Luke wrote. Were John to write that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem, or that Jesus was born in Galilee, only then would there be a contradiction. But John never wrote that he believed that Jesus was born in Galilee rather than Bethlehem. The apostle merely reported how some of those who listened to Jesus imagined that He was born in Galilee.

Although it sounds like an easy question, for a growing number of people it is becoming more and more difficult to answer: Where are you from? Ask the eighteen-year-old college freshmen who grew up in a military family where she is from, and you likely will hear her rattle off five or six different states (and perhaps even a few countries!). Ask the son of a Major League baseball player (who has played for eight different teams in his twenty-year career) where he is from, and you might hear him respond by saying, “I was reared in a lot of places.” Ask a preacher’s kid where he was reared, and you likely will hear the same response.

It seems like the longer I live, the more problems I have telling people “where I’m from.” I was born in Macon, Georgia, then lived in Tennessee for five years, back to Georgia for two, in Oklahoma for the next twelve, and then back to Tennessee (in three different cities) for the next six years. I now live in Alabama. Today, when someone asks me, “Where are you from?,” I must confess that I sometimes do not know what to say. “The last move I made was from Tennessee. I spent most of my “growing-up years” in Oklahoma. I was born in Georgia….” Where am I from? Take your pick.

Some critics actually think they have a legitimate Bible contradiction on their hands by pointing out that different passages sometimes speak of the same person being from two (or more) different places. For example, in Mark 1:21-29 Simon (Peter) and his brother Andrew are said to have lived in (or very near) Capernaum. The apostle John, on the other hand, recorded that “the city of Andrew and Peter” was Bethsaida (1:44). Are these two accounts contradictory? No. Peter and Andrew were living in Capernaum at the beginning of Jesus ministry, however, they were known as being “of” Bethsaida, which is probably where they first learned a trade, got married, and made a name for themselves. The writers are simply referring to two different times in the lives of Peter and Andrew.

A similar “controversy” surrounds whence Jesus came. Well-known skeptic Dennis McKinsey had the audacity to ask, “Why would Jesus be called ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ when He was born in Bethlehem of Judea” (2000, p. 133). Obviously, Mr. McKinsey is not willing to give the Bible writers the same freedom we have today when we talk about our “ hometown” and our “birthplace.” The fact is, Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:1), but grew up in Nazareth (Matthew 2:23; cf. Acts 22:8).

Remember, for something to be a legitimate contradiction, the same person, place, or thing must be under consideration at the same time in the same sense. If not, then it is impossible to know that two things are contradictory.

REFERENCE

McKinsey, C. Dennis (2000), Biblical Errancy (Amherst, NY: Prometheus).

---

In a 2021 critical
article
on whether
Jesus
was actually born in Bethlehem, one of the most telling statements by the author is this:
The Gospels’ different views might be hard to reconcile. But as a scholar of the New Testament, what I argue is that the Gospels offer an important insight into the Greco-Roman views of ethnic identity, including genealogies.
Today, genealogies may bring more awareness of one’s family medical history or help uncover lost family members. In the Greco-Roman era, birth stories and genealogical claims were used to establish rights to rule and link individuals with purported ancestral grandeur.
The Accounts of Jesus’ Birth Are Nearly Impossible to Reconcile?
The author then quotes from another scholar who also holds a low view of inerrancy.
The differences between Matthew and Luke are nearly impossible to reconcile, although they do share some similarities. John Meier, a scholar on the historical Jesus, explains that Jesus’ “birth at Bethlehem is to be taken not as a historical fact” but as a “theological affirmation put into the form of an apparently historical narrative.” In other words, the belief that Jesus was a descendant of King David led to the development of a story about Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem.
Taking this last quote first, the two accounts are not “nearly impossible” to reconcile, especially when accurately viewed as sequential, not both describing the exact same event at the same time. The article clearly shows that the accounts can easily be harmonized and that the Yahoo! news author is letting his preconceived biases slip.
Misunderstanding the Sequence of Events
Secondly, Matthew’s account stresses that
Jesus
was a descendant of King David, and since he was writing to a primarily Jewish audience, this is both accurate and also most appropriate. Luke, of course, does record
Jesus
’ genealogy through Mary’s line, so there is still a direct tie-in to David. But Luke’s genealogy goes not through Solomon but Nathan. However, contrary to the article writer’s claim, Matthew doesn’t just “develop his story” to fit the narrative of
Jesus
’ descent from David, he uses genealogies to document this and utilizes massive amounts of Old Testament prophecy to show that this is true, in addition to recording the actual events of
Jesus
’ birth.
But to look at the issue logically, let’s say (for the sake of argument) that you read two eyewitness account books on the history of the Battle of Midway (from WW2). Would you expect them to be identical? Of course not—one author may have been in the Navy and another in the Marines. They would have been attached to different squadrons and attacked different targets, or perhaps one was on the island of Midway when the attacks came, etc. Assuming they were both true and accurate, they would not contradict each other, but they would offer vastly different perspectives, timelines, and sequences of events due to their observations. One may not care to relate how many ships he hit or how many planes he downed but focuses more on overall strategic plans; whereas the other may go into intricate detail on those aspects. A ground-based observer may relate how the soldiers reacted to the initial assault and what plans were made next. It would be foolish (and extremely presumptive) to tell these two eyewitness authors that they “cannot get their story straight” and assume that one must be embellishing (or lying) because both accounts do not relate the exact same material. How much more foolish is it to assume that the Holy Spirit cannot tell an event from different perspectives through two different authors, especially when the events surrounding
Jesus
’ birth and the visit of the magi may be separated by anywhere from months to a year or so in time?
The Gospel Writers Were Unaware or Unconcerned About Where Jesus Was Born?
Another red-herring statement in the Yahoo! article is that “The Gospels of Mark and John reveal that they either had trouble linking Bethlehem with
Jesus
, did not know his birthplace, or were not concerned with this city.” First of all, Mark’s
Gospel
commences with the ministry of
Jesus
, starting with his baptism by John the Baptist. John’s
Gospel
starts with
Jesus
as the preexistent Son of
God
who created all things “in the beginning,” but then quickly moves to
Jesus
’ baptism and first miracle. Both Mark and John are starting their
Gospel
accounts when
Jesus
was about thirty years old, so they are not concerned with relating the events of
Jesus
’ birth.
Both Mark and John are starting their Gospel accounts when Jesus was about thirty years old, so they are not concerned with relating the events of Jesus’ birth.
Again, for a comparative analogy, you could look at hundreds of books on Abraham Lincoln, and most will identify him as an Illinois senator who became president. Some may even mention his youth in Indiana. But only a select few even mention that he was born in Hodgenville, Kentucky. In fact, it is not uncommon to read accounts with this main intro text: “Lincoln was born in poverty in a log cabin and was raised on the frontier primarily in Indiana. He was self-educated and became a lawyer, Whig Party leader, Illinois state legislator, and U.S. Congressman from Illinois.”
1
Yet Lincoln’s birthplace and his first six years were spent in Kentucky. Illinois may be called the “Land of Lincoln” but only because the time he spent in his birth state was short and not well-known to others. However, I’m not suggesting that the
Gospel
writers did not know
Jesus
was born in Bethlehem—Mark and John just saw no reason to mention it directly.
A Prophet Greater than Jonah Is Here
John (7:42) documents a debate where people argue concerning Jesus being from Galilee and not from Bethlehem. What is often mentioned here (as in the Yahoo! article) is that John does not correct this by editorially commenting on this point.
But they miss the fact that he does do so in a very subtle way.
Also consider that Mark consistently relates accounts where people call Jesus “son of David” and in Mark 12:35–37, Jesus relates that although the Messiah is the son of David, David calls him “Lord” in Scripture, signifying that this son of David is God. And John (7:42) documents a debate where people argue concerning Jesus being from Galilee and not from Bethlehem. What is often mentioned here (as in the Yahoo! article) is that John does not correct this by editorially commenting on this point.
But they miss the fact that he does do so in a very subtle way.
In John 7:52, he records the Pharisees’ answer to Nicodemus: “They replied, ‘Are you from Galilee too? Search and see that no prophet arises from Galilee.’” Yet they were wrong, because in 2 Kings 14:25, we read: “He [Jeroboam II] restored the border of Israel from Lebo-hamath as far as the Sea of the Arabah, according to the word of the Lord, the
God
of Israel, which he spoke by his servant Jonah the son of Amittai, the prophet, who was from Gath-hepher.” In this verse, John records their own statement and uses it against them as a mocking jab at the Pharisees who neglected to remember that Jonah was from Galilee (Gath-hepher is in western Galilee just a few miles north of Nazareth).
If they couldn’t be correct about where a prophet whose birthplace was recorded in their written Scripture was from, how could they be so sure
Jesus
was not born in Bethlehem but raised in Galilee? Ironically, who did
Jesus
link his prophetic ministry to the most? Jonah—as recorded in Matthew 12:39–41:
But he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here.”
And again, in Luke 11:29–30:
When the crowds were increasing, he began to say, “This generation is an evil generation. It seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah. For as Jonah became a sign to the people of Nineveh, so will the Son of Man be to this generation.”
Conclusion
The Yahoo! news article is full of willful blindness in order to meet the author’s a priori assumption that Scripture is not the inspired and inerrant Word of
God
. This author and other “critical scholars” (sadly, mostly New Testament university professors) attempt to downplay divine inspiration and try to force a narrative of men concocting stories to develop their own ideology. But Scripture itself debunks this idea: “All Scripture is breathed out by
God
and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16) and “For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from
God
as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21).