Are there "undesigned coincidences" in the gospels

[Haven]

Western Michigan University philosophy professor and fundamentalist evangelical Christian apologist Tim McGrew has developed an interesting and, in his words, "compelling" argument for the veracity of the gospels that shows the documents have the "ring of truth."

In contrast to the prevailing views of Biblical scholarship on the authorship of the gospels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament#Authorship) and the methodology the authors used to gather information (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markan_priority), McGrew believes that the gospels were written by their traditional authors (John Mark, Luke the Evangelist, John the Apostle, and Matthew) as eyewitness accounts.

Among other things, he bases his views on "undesigned coincidences" between the four gospels, cases where one author reports a given event and another author provides additional details not present in the other's writing. McGrew feels that non-eyewitness authors working from common sources (Q and Mark) couldn't include such undesigned coincidences; only eyewitness accounts could produce such information. He also believes that individuals looking to fabricate mythical accounts from whole cloth couldn't possibly create such coincidences.

Although this is an unorthodox argument for, well, an orthodox view of the gospels, it seems (at least to my untrained mind ) to make some degree of sense in my opinion.

Here is the video with his argument (note, it's long):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wUcrwYocgM

Here is a "cliff notes" version of McGrew's argument:
http://thinkingmatters.org.nz/2011/08/t ... e-gospels/

Here's McGrew's response to an agnostic's critique of his hypothesis:
http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2011/ ... nskis.html

Here's a list of a few of the "undesigned coincidences:"
http://www.crossexamined.org/blog/?p=190

Debate question: What do you think? Is McGrew right? Are there undesigned coincidences in the gospels? Do such coincidences indicate eyewitness accounts, or can they be explained through the traditional two-source hypothesis? Are such coincidences really undesigned, or could the authors of the gospels have colluded to make them up?

[Slopeshoulder]

It's an old trick to label anything to the left of Hitler, Atilla the Hun, and Francis Schaeffer as "liberal," accuse if of "liberal bias", and create a ghettoized alternative. Think fox noiz.

Don't be fooled.

If wikipedia is "liberal" it is because it buys into and reflects the current realities that started with the rennaissance, picked up steam with the enlightenment, and represent what is commonly called civilization today. And while it is not the end all, it's articles on some of the fine points of religion and philosophy are usually quite well done and a good place to start. A night spent clicking through links is usually time well spent.

It's only "liberal" or "biased" from the perspective of extreme conservatism, and to call that common knowledge shows the extent to which the extremist gehtto confuses itself with life as we know it. To call it those things is to use language as violence, as all extremists regimes have done. Goebbels would be proud.

Surely you must realize that you are simply revealing your own bias here.

That is an utterly false move that I wholeheartedly reject. You are doing what I accuse you of doing. If I say that wikipedia has no liberal bias overall, except insofar as it buys into the main thrust of modern thought (the enlightenment saw the birth of the encyclopedia - it was an enlightenment idea), and tries to maintain standards of quality and objectivity (to the extent that that's possible, and a good article about which is likely to be found on wikipedia), you cannot argue against this without 1. buying into an anti-modern, anti-civilizing foundational philosophy, and 2. engaging in extremist rhetoric.

You do know that it is blatantly obvious to conservatives that you have a bias to the left?

I would hope so!! Of course I do (in a way). I freely admit it. I'm not an encyclopedia in fact or intent. Although define bias. I like to think I'm fair, balanced, reasonable, and objective when assessing facts and logic, then my conclusions and judgment calls tend to the left theologically and philosophically. That isn't bias per se. It's only bias when arguments aren't considered. I can usually dismiss a fundamentalist argument in seconds because I am intimately familiar with and have considered deeply the thoughts forms upon which it depends; I see the links, and so out comes the knife.
BTW and FWIW athiests think I'm conservative for having faith, defending religion, liking aspects of catholicism, etc. And progressives think I'm conservative for not being progressive. And identity politics types think I'm hatefully conservative because I'm white, male, tall, with dimples, a white collar gig and a glam wife: a walkin' talkin' symbol of the patriarchy. And get this: postliberal theologians think I'm conservative because I still like Schleiermacher and Tillich. And post-theists think I'm conservative because I'm theistic. And religious super-liberals think I'm conservative because I make every attempt to trace my thinking back to orthodoxy and defend its achievement and import. And modern bay area libertines think I'm conservative because I am absolutely and always teetotal, a drug-free zone, lacking tattoos, an anal virgin, anti-S&M, and completely monogamous. So it's all relative.
But I guess an extremist conservative might accuse me of "liberal bias."
Politically and economically I'm much more openly centrist.

If you mean to say that my informed and reflective refusal to buy into the foundational thought forms and conclusions of the modern american, dutch, and scottish fundamentalist calvinist protestant far right constitutes liberal bias, I would estimate that 90%+ of the world populace would then be so described, making the description and the label meaningless. Therefore, as I said, in this case "libveral bias" is pure rhetoric, an old trick, tainted propoganda.
(Try this: make a reasonable conservative case for anything, anything, and see how I respond. I can think of 10-20 off the top of my head where you'd find me friendly and amenable, at least centrist. Go ahead, try. See what happens if you can come out of the far right corner for a minute. I'm really quite centrist; I despise Marxism in all its forms; I despise messianic totalitarianisms of the left; I despise Madonna; I despise crunchy vermont smug angry progressivism).

BUT, we were discussing Wikipedia, not me. The topic is Wikipedia. And my view of it is neither left nor right, it is factual. Wikipedia is only "liberal" insofar as it buys into the mainstream currents of thought, and the roots and traditions of encyclopedia-making, and considers all arguments, while not cowtowing to the particular and peculiar positions of the far right. That's not bias properly so called, it's civilization. To call it bias is extremism and anti-civilization.
There are ways to decenter the enlightenment hegemony, and as a postmodern religionist I'm all for them. But saying that Wikipedia has a liberal bias is not one of them. Has a centrist ever said so, have they been prevented from calling out bias and making corrections? If so, please correct me. If you mean that wikipedia rules out magical thinking in assessing fact claims, then yeah I guess that's true and comes wuth the territory of encyclopedia making - a modern mindset. If that's bias I may petition to have my name legally changed to Slopeshoulder I. M. Bias.

I can just as easily call of your tactics a trick to get people to think that anything conservatic is extreme.

But I don't think anything that is conservative is therefore extremist. And I would never suggest such a thing. It's all relative. Instead, I only I think that anti-modern, magical thinking, anti-civilization, coulter-beck-rushdoony-hitler extremism is extremism. Do you see the difference? Or is only the latter what counts as conservative in your book? I gather there's been a movement toward that among some extremist conservatives. For example Rick ("we are the party") Santorum comes to mind vs. say Olympia ("see ya") Snowe.

Give me a break.

I've done better than that. I have given you arguments to consider and engage in good faith. But all you have provided is your repeated false move and rhetorical tactic. Consider yourself called out.

But if you wish to locate wikipedia within a credible and broader critique of post-enlightenment thought forms, I'm all ears. That would be a worthy argument. I'd end up saying I find Millbank's argument unpursuasive but do embrace the wittgensteinian and neo-pragmatic possibilities for theistic fideism. And perhaps we'd respectfully disagree somewhere in the center. But all this has been so far is me calling you out on far right rhetorical tactics.

You wanna give me a break and share any constructive thoughts that might be helpful? You might want to consult EduChris. He and I have different perspectives, and both can be kinda punchy, but the guy is good on recent center-right credible evangelical theology. And if you really want to see someone wipe the floor with me, see if you can coax theopoesis back to the forum. But I discuss with those guys rather than debate. The gloves don't come off, they get put down as they are not needed.

[Slopeshoulder]

Let me clarify by acknowledging that I'm sure there all all manner of bias from every perspective in Wikipedia. It's written by people after all.

But the issue is whether or not it is specfically and systematically biased to the left, and to the point where avowed conservative extremists need to, as per usual, create an alternative parallel universe rather than engage and work within the mainstream system.

And per the OP and thread topic, is this indicative of a pattern of psuedo-scholarship and propoganda? Yes, there is such as thing as a paradigm shift that dissembles a previous paradigm, like modernity. Perhaps people like John Millbank and Stanley Hauerwas are leading one in Christianity.
But Conservapedia and McGrew and all that don't have the smell of a paradigm shift; rather they reek of reaction, dissimilation, and obfuscation. Or, of you prefer, propaganda, shoddy thinking, and lies.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

And it seems obvious to me that you don't have any evidence to prove that I'm wrong. You're just reacting to what I'm saying but providing no counterevidence of your own other than your own biased opinion. I just now posted evidence of a person who suffered from "misinformation and lies" spoken about him on Wikipedia. You're getting it directly from one person's personal testimony. Doesn't that meet the criteria for source criticism that you are so fond of? Whether the misinformation is systematic or not, I don't know. But it's at least enough for me to question the veracity of the information that is posted on the site. Again, I wonder why that doesn't raise at least a small red flag in other people's minds. I can understand though why you are so threatened by any criticism of Wikipedia since it's typically your primary source material, at least in the dialogues I have had with you.

Here is what your argument is, to all appearances:

1) One conservative person complained that the wikipedia article on him contained misinformation and lies (which apparently have since been corrected).
2) Therefore wikipedia, a website created as a collaboration of thousands of different people, cannot be trusted when it comes to information on biblical scholarship, and any sources it references can be dismissed out of hand.

This is not a logical conclusion to make, and fails to excuse your handwaving.

I don't believe your analysis meets the standards of source criticism - do you think that showing one article to be mistaken says anything about a completely different article written by different people?

[spayne]

It's an old trick to label anything to the left of Hitler, Atilla the Hun, and Francis Schaeffer as "liberal," accuse if of "liberal bias", and create a ghettoized alternative. Think fox noiz.

Don't be fooled.

If wikipedia is "liberal" it is because it buys into and reflects the current realities that started with the rennaissance, picked up steam with the enlightenment, and represent what is commonly called civilization today. And while it is not the end all, it's articles on some of the fine points of religion and philosophy are usually quite well done and a good place to start. A night spent clicking through links is usually time well spent.

It's only "liberal" or "biased" from the perspective of extreme conservatism, and to call that common knowledge shows the extent to which the extremist gehtto confuses itself with life as we know it. To call it those things is to use language as violence, as all extremists regimes have done. Goebbels would be proud.

Surely you must realize that you are simply revealing your own bias here.

That is an utterly false move that I wholeheartedly reject. You are doing what I accuse you of doing. If I say that wikipedia has no liberal bias overall, except insofar as it buys into the main thrust of modern thought (the enlightenment saw the birth of the encyclopedia - it was an enlightenment idea), and tries to maintain standards of quality and objectivity (to the extent that that's possible, and a good article about which is likely to be found on wikipedia), you cannot argue against this without 1. buying into an anti-modern, anti-civilizing foundational philosophy, and 2. engaging in extremist rhetoric.

You do know that it is blatantly obvious to conservatives that you have a bias to the left?

I would hope so!! Of course I do (in a way). I freely admit it. I'm not an encyclopedia in fact or intent. Although define bias. I like to think I'm fair, balanced, reasonable, and objective when assessing facts and logic, then my conclusions and judgment calls tend to the left theologically and philosophically. That isn't bias per se. It's only bias when arguments aren't considered. I can usually dismiss a fundamentalist argument in seconds because I am intimately familiar with and have considered deeply the thoughts forms upon which it depends; I see the links, and so out comes the knife.
BTW and FWIW athiests think I'm conservative for having faith, defending religion, liking aspects of catholicism, etc. And progressives think I'm conservative for not being progressive. And identity politics types think I'm hatefully conservative because I'm white, male, tall, with dimples, a white collar gig and a glam wife: a walkin' talkin' symbol of the patriarchy. And get this: postliberal theologians think I'm conservative because I still like Schleiermacher and Tillich. And post-theists think I'm conservative because I'm theistic. And religious super-liberals think I'm conservative because I make every attempt to trace my thinking back to orthodoxy and defend its achievement and import. And modern bay area libertines think I'm conservative because I am absolutely and always teetotal, a drug-free zone, lacking tattoos, an anal virgin, anti-S&M, and completely monogamous. So it's all relative.
But I guess an extremist conservative might accuse me of "liberal bias."
Politically and economically I'm much more openly centrist.

If you mean to say that my informed and reflective refusal to buy into the foundational thought forms and conclusions of the modern american, dutch, and scottish fundamentalist calvinist protestant far right constitutes liberal bias, I would estimate that 90%+ of the world populace would then be so described, making the description and the label meaningless. Therefore, as I said, in this case "libveral bias" is pure rhetoric, an old trick, tainted propoganda.
(Try this: make a reasonable conservative case for anything, anything, and see how I respond. I can think of 10-20 off the top of my head where you'd find me friendly and amenable, at least centrist. Go ahead, try. See what happens if you can come out of the far right corner for a minute. I'm really quite centrist; I despise Marxism in all its forms; I despise messianic totalitarianisms of the left; I despise Madonna; I despise crunchy vermont smug angry progressivism).

BUT, we were discussing Wikipedia, not me. The topic is Wikipedia. And my view of it is neither left nor right, it is factual. Wikipedia is only "liberal" insofar as it buys into the mainstream currents of thought, and the roots and traditions of encyclopedia-making, and considers all arguments, while not cowtowing to the particular and peculiar positions of the far right. That's not bias properly so called, it's civilization. To call it bias is extremism and anti-civilization.
There are ways to decenter the enlightenment hegemony, and as a postmodern religionist I'm all for them. But saying that Wikipedia has a liberal bias is not one of them. Has a centrist ever said so, have they been prevented from calling out bias and making corrections? If so, please correct me. If you mean that wikipedia rules out magical thinking in assessing fact claims, then yeah I guess that's true and comes wuth the territory of encyclopedia making - a modern mindset. If that's bias I may petition to have my name legally changed to Slopeshoulder I. M. Bias.

I can just as easily call of your tactics a trick to get people to think that anything conservatic is extreme.

But I don't think anything that is conservative is therefore extremist. And I would never suggest such a thing. It's all relative. Instead, I only I think that anti-modern, magical thinking, anti-civilization, coulter-beck-rushdoony-hitler extremism is extremism. Do you see the difference? Or is only the latter what counts as conservative in your book? I gather there's been a movement toward that among some extremist conservatives. For example Rick ("we are the party") Santorum comes to mind vs. say Olympia ("see ya") Snowe.

Give me a break.

I've done better than that. I have given you arguments to consider and engage in good faith. But all you have provided is your repeated false move and rhetorical tactic. Consider yourself called out.

But if you wish to locate wikipedia within a credible and broader critique of post-enlightenment thought forms, I'm all ears. That would be a worthy argument. I'd end up saying I find Millbank's argument unpursuasive but do embrace the wittgensteinian and neo-pragmatic possibilities for theistic fideism. And perhaps we'd respectfully disagree somewhere in the center. But all this has been so far is me calling you out on far right rhetorical tactics.

You wanna give me a break and share any constructive thoughts that might be helpful? You might want to consult EduChris. He and I have different perspectives, and both can be kinda punchy, but the guy is good on recent center-right credible evangelical theology. And if you really want to see someone wipe the floor with me, see if you can coax theopoesis back to the forum. But I discuss with those guys rather than debate. The gloves don't come off, they get put down as they are not needed.

I seem to have struck a chord here. And to think, all I did was make a seemingly innocent comment about Wikipedia. I had no idea it was considereed to be so sacrosanct. My apologies for apparently ruffling the feathers a bit too much. I assure you I wasn't trying to kill the bird.

[spayne]

And it seems obvious to me that you don't have any evidence to prove that I'm wrong. You're just reacting to what I'm saying but providing no counterevidence of your own other than your own biased opinion. I just now posted evidence of a person who suffered from "misinformation and lies" spoken about him on Wikipedia. You're getting it directly from one person's personal testimony. Doesn't that meet the criteria for source criticism that you are so fond of? Whether the misinformation is systematic or not, I don't know. But it's at least enough for me to question the veracity of the information that is posted on the site. Again, I wonder why that doesn't raise at least a small red flag in other people's minds. I can understand though why you are so threatened by any criticism of Wikipedia since it's typically your primary source material, at least in the dialogues I have had with you.

Here is what your argument is, to all appearances:

1) One conservative person complained that the wikipedia article on him contained misinformation and lies (which apparently have since been corrected).
2) Therefore wikipedia, a website created as a collaboration of thousands of different people, cannot be trusted when it comes to information on biblical scholarship, and any sources it references can be dismissed out of hand.

This is not a logical conclusion to make, and fails to excuse your handwaving.

I don't believe your analysis meets the standards of source criticism - do you think that showing one article to be mistaken says anything about a completely different article written by different people?

I'm not sure why this has gotten so complicated. I simply made the observation that I believe Wikipedia has a bias, and I have read things that support that. I then posted a link written by a journalist talking about some of the gaps in the system. I don't think any of this is that controversial. If you don't agree with me, fine.

[Slopeshoulder]

I seem to have struck a chord here. And to think, all I did was make a seemingly innocent comment about Wikipedia. I had no idea it was considereed to be so sacrosanct. My apologies for apparently ruffling the feathers a bit too much. I assure you I wasn't trying to kill the bird.

Spoken like a gentlemen sir.
Nothing's perfect, including wikipedia.
I for one like how Christianity has that insight baked in.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

I'm not sure why this has gotten so complicated.

I'll try to simplify it for you:

1) You have claimed that wikipedia is unreliable with regard to biblical scholarship.
2) You have provided absolutely no evidence that this is actually true.

This is because you don't have evidence. Instead of arguing against sources that disagree with you, you choose to ignore these sources based on convoluted accusations of bias.

Do you think that wiki is biased on biblical scholarship? Then prove it. Show some examples. Until then, you are simply handwaving and evading perfectly legitimate information for no reason other than it makes your position difficult to defend. You are going to need to come to terms with the fact that you are defending a fringe fundamentalist Christian position, one that the majority of biblical scholars (be they Christians, Jews or atheists) do not find tenable.

[spayne]

I seem to have struck a chord here. And to think, all I did was make a seemingly innocent comment about Wikipedia. I had no idea it was considereed to be so sacrosanct. My apologies for apparently ruffling the feathers a bit too much. I assure you I wasn't trying to kill the bird.

Spoken like a gentlemen sir.
Nothing's perfect, including wikipedia.
I for one like how Christianity has that insight baked in.

Well thank you! Have a blessed weekend.

[EdwardTBabinski]

McGrew keeps promoting this old hypothesis as if source criticism of the Gospels never existed . . . as if all source critical studies ended in the mid-1800s when Blunt wrote. I suggested to some of the folks who are promoting McGrew's hypothesis on the web that McGrew study some modern day commentaries on each of his so-called undesigned coincidences. I'll be publishing more on the topic on my blog in future.

Meanwhile, Dr. Robert M. Price has some comments on some of the so-called "undesigned coincidences"

22 minutes and 54 seconds into this free podcast:

[spayne]

McGrew keeps promoting this old hypothesis as if source criticism of the Gospels never existed . . . as if all source critical studies ended in the mid-1800s when Blunt wrote. I suggested to some of the folks who are promoting McGrew's hypothesis on the web that McGrew study some modern day commentaries on each of his so-called undesigned coincidences. I'll be publishing more on the topic on my blog in future.

Meanwhile, Dr. Robert M. Price has some comments on some of the so-called "undesigned coincidences"

22 minutes and 54 seconds into this free podcast:

Mr Price is a fellow of the Jesus Seminar. I don't think you are going to get many true Christians interested in that type of source material. I would certainly hope not at least. Can you provide some criticism that doesn't come from an ultra liberal theologian?

McGrew has made a compelling rebuttal to your criticism, and seems to believe that you don't understand his arguments.