Smoodock's Blog

It has been claimed by many critical scholars, and for this particular study I’m particularly interested in Dan McClellen’s point of view,[1] who claim, according to the Gospel of Matthew, Mary and Joseph’s hometown was in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:1), because it is the first city mentioned, after the two were named in the text (Matthew 1:18-25; 2:1). For all intents and purposes, if all we had was Matthew’s Gospel, we would probably believe Bethlehem was their hometown. The problem that critical scholarship faces however is that we have more than one witness to Jesus’ life, and the witnesses are supposed to be read alongside one another to establish the facts. While I might want to believe the testimony of one witness, according to the Mosaic Law, the matter isn’t established as factual without another witness.

Critical scholarship loves to compare two or more witnesses and tally up all the contradictions they find, and there would be many! However, what critical scholarship doesn’t tell their readers/listeners is a “contradiction” doesn’t demand an “either/or” response, according to Collins Definitions. A contradiction may simply mean a “difference” in the text, but not necessarily an opposing fact. A good example is found in the reading between Matthew and Luke’s nativities, as that pertains to Mary and Joseph’s hometown. Matthew begins his account, showing Mary’s pregnancy is a miraculous event (Matthew 1:19-25), but he says absolutely nothing about how that occurred (Matthew 1:18), but Luke elaborates (Luke 1:26-38). Matthew seems to indicate all this occurred in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:1), but he doesn’t explicitly say everything he mentioned occurred there; only the birthplace is specific, but Luke elaborates (Luke 2:1-21).

So, what do we have, so far? Scholars tell us that, if all we had was Matthew’s Gospel, we would assume Mary and Joseph’s hometown was Bethlehem. On the other hand, Luke says “No! Their hometown was, actually Nazareth. What does this mean? It means, according to the understanding of how a matter is established (Deuteronomy 19:15), one cannot be dogmatic over the testimony of a single witness. Dan and critical scholarship seem to want to be very dogmatic that Mary and Joseph’s hometown is Bethlehem, according to Matthew’s narrative. However, Luke denies their proclamation, and, as far as the Bible is concerned, he is the better witness to what Matthew concludes than they are.

Here’s the problem, but Dan isn’t telling his viewers this, it really doesn’t make any difference what one concludes about Mary and Joseph’s hometown, Bethlehem or Nazareth. The fact remains, all we have is Matthew as a possible witness that it is Bethlehem. Nevertheless, the fact that he doesn’t specifically identify Bethlehem as Mary and Joseph’s hometown muddies the waters for critical scholarship. Their argument for Bethlehem being the official hometown is pretty much like Dan puts it in his video: “it’s logically possible sure; it’s certainly not plausible, and it would be laughable to call it probable much less certain.”

On the other hand, how would we evaluate Nazareth as the official hometown for Mary and Joseph? Well, if all we had was Matthew’s Gospel narrative, we’d be in the same boat as critical scholarship: “possible… not plausible… laughable to call it probable…” and certainly not certain. On the other hand, we’d have to admit that critical scholarship’s “possible” would be more “plausible” than our “possible,” IF… all we had was Matthew’s narrative. However, we do have Luke’s testimony, so I believe anyone, who practices Deuteronomy 19:15 to establish a matter as factual in the Bible, would have to agree that such a person would be able to do better by comparing Luke’s account than critical scholarship’s “possible” in viewing only Matthew’s account. Luke is the better witness than we are, 2000 years after the compiling of the Gospel narratives. Luke was there, according to the text! Therefore, our argument for Nazareth probably rises up to either “plausible” or “probable” with Luke’s testimony. Still, Luke is only one witness, but he was there, according to the text. Therefore, he’s a credible witness, but one witness doesn’t establish it as fact (Deuteronomy 19:15), so we have to settle for something less than certain. Nevertheless, our faith in the accuracy of the text is vindicated with at least a “plausible.”

______________________________________________________________

[1] See Dan’s YouTube video: Luke 1 & 2 Were Likely Secondary Additions.