CONTROVERSIAL JERICHO

by

Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Although the city of Jericho is mentioned only seven times
in the New Testament, the passages in which the city is found
have been under heavy attack by critics for centuries. Perhaps
the most famous alleged geographical discrepancy surrounding
Jericho is found in Luke 10 where Jesus told His unforgettable
parable about the Good Samaritan. Jesus began the story
saying, “A certain man went down from Jerusalem to
Jericho” (10:30, emp. added). Many through the years have
assumed Jesus was implying that Jericho was south of
Jerusalem, since the man “went down” to get there. However, a
quick look at a map of first-century Palestine (which can be
found in the backs of most modern Bibles) shows that Jericho
is several miles northeast of Jerusalem. Without looking any
further into the geographical surroundings, one might assume
that this represents a genuine discrepancy. After all, how can
someone go “down” from point A to point B, if point B is north
of point A?

As always, once all the facts are established, Jesus’
statement reconciles itself with truth quite easily. Although
Jericho may be several miles north of Jerusalem, it is
more than 3,500 feet lower in altitude. (Jerusalem is
situated at an elevation of 2,550 feet above sea level,
whereas Jericho is about 1,200 feet below sea level.) There is
no way for a man to journey from Jerusalem to Jericho without
going down in elevation. Needless to say, the argument
which suggests that Jesus did not know His geography has been
expelled from most skeptics’ repertoires in modern times. I
only wish such could be said of the accusations surrounding
the miracle He worked near the city of Jericho.

The case of the healing of the blind men near Jericho
(recorded in Matthew 20:29-34, Mark 10:46-52, and Luke
18:35-43) has been highly criticized by skeptics. While both
Mark and Luke mention the healing of only one blind
man, Matthew records the healing of two men as Christ
made His way to Jerusalem for the final Passover. Also,
Matthew and Mark indicate that the blind men were healed as
Jesus was leaving Jericho whereas Luke suggests that a
blind man was healed as the Lord came near to the city.
Allegedly, these differences surrounding Jesus’ miracle in the
city of Jericho prove the fallacy of Bible writers.

In the first place, the fact that two of the Gospel
accounts mention only one blind man, while the other mentions
two, need not concern us. Just because Mark and Luke speak of
only one blind man does not mean that they have at the same
time denied that there were two blind men. Had Mark and Luke
stated that Christ healed only one man, while Matthew
then affirmed that more than one were healed, a
contradiction would be apparent. But such is not the case. If
one says, “Tim has a son,” he is not contradicted if someone
else says, “Tim has a son and a daughter.” His statement was
merely supplemented. [Matthew is the only one who recorded
that Jesus performed this healing by a touch (20:34), but he
does not give us the spoken words Jesus uttered as do Mark
(10:52) and Luke (18:42).] There is no conflict, therefore,
regarding the number of men involved. The accounts merely
supplement one another. [This same reasoning should be used
when dealing with the two demoniacs Matthew mentions
(8:28ff.), compared with the one that Mark (5:2ff.) and
Luke (8:27ff.) mention.]

Moreover, the fact that Mark mentioned by name one of the
blind men (Bartimaeus) and his father (Timaeus, 10:46) might
possibly indicate that Mark was centering on the blind man
that he knew personally. If you lived during the time of Jesus
and witnessed Him healing a number of people (with one of them
being someone you knew), it would be understandable that when
you returned home and spoke to your family you might speak
only of the friend that Jesus healed. In no way is this being
deceitful.

But how shall the second difficulty be resolved? Is there
any logical reason as to why Matthew and Mark indicate that
the blind men were healed as Jesus was leaving Jericho,
while Luke mentions that a blind man was healed as the Lord
came near to the city? Actually, there are at least two
realistic possibilities as to why the accounts are worded
differently. First, it is possible that three blind men
were healed in the vicinity of Jericho on this occasion. The
instance mentioned by Luke as occurring when Jesus approached
the city might have represented a different case than that
recorded by Matthew and Mark. This explanation is supported by
the fact that

Luke refers only to a “multitude” of people
being present as Jesus entered the city (18:36), but both
Matthew (20:29) and Mark (10:46) make a point to say there
was a “ great multitude” of people there by the time Jesus
left the city. If the word spread of the miraculous healing
on the way into the city, this would account for the
swelling of the crowd (Geisler and Howe, 1992, p.
353).

Though this suggestion about there being three blind men is
considered by many to be remote, it is at least possible—and
that is all that is required to negate an alleged
discrepancy.

Another possible way to harmonize these passages is to
understand that at the time of Christ there actually were two
Jerichos. First, there was the Jericho of Old Testament
history (Joshua 6:1ff.; 1 Kings 16:34) that was located at the
sight of Elisha’s spring. In the first century, however, that
city existed as a small village lying mostly in ruins, and
about two miles south of that site was the new Jericho built
by Herod the Great. The Lord, therefore, traveling toward
Jerusalem, would first pass through the Old Testament
Jericho, and then, some two miles to the southwest, go
through Herodian Jericho. Accordingly, the references
of Matthew and Mark to Jesus leaving Jericho would allude to
old Jericho, whereas Luke’s observation of Jesus drawing near
to Jericho would refer to the newer city. Hence, the miracles
under consideration may have been performed between the
two Jerichos (Robertson, 1930, 1:163).

When a person studies passages such as these that critics
allege are contradictory, one important fact should be
remembered: If there is any reasonable way of
harmonizing these records, no legitimate contradiction can be
charged to the accounts. Unless one can show that the same
thing is under consideration at the same time in the same
sense, then it cannot be considered a legitimate
contradiction. A mere difference does not make a
contradiction!

REFERENCES

Geisler, Norman L. and Thomas A. Howe (1992), When
Critics Ask (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books).

Robertson, A.T. (1931), Word Pictures in the New
Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman).

Copyright © 2002 Apologetics Press, Inc. All
rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the “Alleged
Bible Discrepancies” section to be reproduced in their
entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed:
(1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original
publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must
remain attached to the materials; (4) any references,
footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be
included with any written reproduction of the article; (5)
alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g.,
photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be
reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6)
serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in
several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the
material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable
length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be
offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and
(8) articles may not be reproduced in electronic form for
posting on Web sites (although links to articles on the
Apologetics Press Web site are permitted).

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery,
Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334)
272-8558
http://www.apologeticspress.org