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?

[EduChris]

...Tim McMgrew...I just want to say that I believe this is awesome work and that you and Slopeshoulder are not giving it nearly the credit it deserves.

I am not at all familiar with Tim McGrew, but he does seem to have good credentials (PhD from Vanderbilt).

I can commend the work of Richard Baukham and N.T. Wright, both of whom are internationally respected biblical scholars with impeccable credentials:

Jesus and the Eyewitnesses

Testimony of the Beloved Disciple

The Resurrection of the Son of God

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

...Tim McMgrew...I just want to say that I believe this is awesome work and that you and Slopeshoulder are not giving it nearly the credit it deserves.

I am not at all familiar with Tim McGrew, but he does seem to have good credentials (PhD from Vanderbilt).

A PhD in philosophy, specializing in epistemology, philosophy of science, probability theory and history of science. I think "good credentials" in this context would have to be something to do with source or textual criticism. He seems to be discussing things outside his area of expertise (which might explain why so many experts disagree with him).

[spayne]

...Tim McMgrew...I just want to say that I believe this is awesome work and that you and Slopeshoulder are not giving it nearly the credit it deserves.

I am not at all familiar with Tim McGrew, but he does seem to have good credentials (PhD from Vanderbilt).

I can commend the work of Richard Baukham and N.T. Wright, both of whom are internationally respected biblical scholars with impeccable credentials:

Jesus and the Eyewitnesses

Testimony of the Beloved Disciple

The Resurrection of the Son of God

Tim McGrew is of course not going to get any respect on this board because he is not a liberal scholar in the style of people like Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan. Of course we already know what a huge double standard there is on this board with regard to academia. If one does not fall under the banner of acceptable liberal scholarship, then he/she is apparently not worthy of being called a real scholar.

[spayne]

Personally, my perspective is that the "undesigned coincidences" hypothesis is wrong. This is because the theory is based on -- and is essentially a reworked version of -- much older hypothesis popular in conservative Christian circles in the 18th and 19th centuries, which were soundly refuted by contemporary scholarship. Additionally, the "undesigned coincidences" can all be explained through Markan priority, the leading theory in Biblical scholarship today. Specifically, Markan priority states that the gospel of Mark was the first to be written, and that the authors of Matthew, Luke, and John all had access to and made use of Mark in the writing of their own accounts.


Read this article for more information on why McGrew's theory fails:

http://edward-t-babinski.blogspot.com/2 ... igned.html

Your one soure of criticism is from a blogpost written by a guy who, as far as I can tell, isn't doing scholarly work and doesn't even appear to be in academia. I'm wondering why it is that you think anyone should take this seriously.

[spayne]

I have listened to a couple of different presentations on undesigned coincidences, including a lengthy interview with Tim McMgrew in which he cited several examples of undesigned coincidences in the Gospels. I just want to say that I believe this is awesome work and that you and Slopeshoulder are not giving it nearly the credit it deserves.

I'm very familiar with McGrew's argument, and I have read it (and listened to his talks on it) on numerous occasions. I've seriously considered the argument, as I do with all new theistic arguments I run across. I reject it because the so-called 'undesigned coincidences' are best explained by Markan priority rather than multiple eyewitness accounts.

What are your reasons for rejecting the scholarly consensus on this subject and accepting this fringe theory?

Please share what the scholarly consensus is on this issue and why it would be considered fringe theory.

[Haven]

Your one soure of criticism is from a blogpost written by a guy who, as far as I can tell, isn't doing scholarly work and doesn't even appear to be in academia. I'm wondering why it is that you think anyone should take this seriously.

I provided Babinski's article because it's the only one that directly responds to McGrew's undesigned coincidences argument. As far as I know, McGrew hasn't published his argument in any of the scholarly journals, so I wouldn't expect scholars to respond because they don't typically address unpublished arguments.

[Haven]

Please share what the scholarly consensus is on this issue . . .

The scholarly consensus on the gospels is that they were not eyewitness accounts and were instead written by unknown individuals. According to the majority of scholars, the Mark was the first gospel to be written (around the year 70 CE), and its author used a document of Jesus' sayings -- known to scholars as "Q" -- as well as other secondary sources of information. The authors of the remaining synoptic gospels -- Luke and Matthew (written around 75-80 CE) -- used Mark and Q as sources. John (written around 90-100 CE) represents a more-or-less independent source written by an unknown individual, probably someone from a community of believers founded or influenced by the apostle John (or another disciple bearing that name).

. . . and why it [McGrew's hypothesis] would be considered fringe theory.

McGrew's hypothesis is considered "fringe" because it asserts a position that is far outside of the mainstream scholarly consensus on the authorship, time frame, and nature of the gospels. In addition to believing the gospels were eyewitness accounts, McGrew believes they were written by their traditional authors (Matthew the apostle, John Mark, Luke the evangelist, and John the apostle or John the elder) at dates much earlier than are accepted by mainstream scholars (50-60 CE for the synoptics, 90-100 CE for John). Additionally, McGrew believes Matthew, rather than Mark, was the first gospel to be completed, following the traditional view.

[spayne]

Please share what the scholarly consensus is on this issue . . .

The scholarly consensus on the gospels is that they were not eyewitness accounts and were instead written by unknown individuals. According to the majority of scholars, the Mark was the first gospel to be written (around the year 70 CE), and its author used a document of Jesus' sayings -- known to scholars as "Q" -- as well as other secondary sources of information. The authors of the remaining synoptic gospels -- Luke and Matthew (written around 75-80 CE) -- used Mark and Q as sources. John (written around 90-100 CE) represents a more-or-less independent source written by an unknown individual, probably someone from a community of believers founded or influenced by the apostle John (or another disciple bearing that name).

. . . and why it [McGrew's hypothesis] would be considered fringe theory.

McGrew's hypothesis is considered "fringe" because it asserts a position that is far outside of the mainstream scholarly consensus on the authorship, time frame, and nature of the gospels. In addition to believing the gospels were eyewitness accounts, McGrew believes they were written by their traditional authors (Matthew the apostle, John Mark, Luke the evangelist, and John the apostle or John the elder) at dates much earlier than are accepted by mainstream scholars (50-60 CE for the synoptics, 90-100 CE for John). Additionally, McGrew believes Matthew, rather than Mark, was the first gospel to be completed, following the traditional view.

That's not scholarly consensus. You're are simply stating some of the different theories of the so called synoptic problem and calling it consensus. Wikipedia is not acceptable source material here. It has an obvious liberal bias plus there are many gaps in what Wikipedia presents. The only way you can possibly argue that there is is scholarly consensus is if you provide a review of the research.

And how would you know that McGrew's writing on undesigned coincidences is fringe if you have already admitted that he has not published anything related to it? On what are you basing your assertion? I think the cart is getting a little bit ahead of the horse here.

I notice that in your initial review of the undesigned coincidences in your first post, you hardly even stated what undesigned coincidences are, but instead chose to present your issues with it as they related to the Gospels. These are best understood by providing examples in the Gospels, and in the Book of Acts as well. Seems like you had already made up your mind before you posted.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Wikipedia is not acceptable source material here. It has an obvious liberal bias plus there are many gaps in what Wikipedia presents.

What evidence do you have that wikipedia is biased or lacking information on this particular subject?

[spayne]

Wikipedia is not acceptable source material here. It has an obvious liberal bias plus there are many gaps in what Wikipedia presents.

What evidence do you have that wikipedia is biased or lacking information on this particular subject?

Not on this subject but every subject. It's not difficult to find information that supports the fact that Wikipedia has 1) a liberal bias and 2)leaves gaps in material. This is logical considering the way Wikipedia articles get put together.

I have said this before and I will say it again: the mass use of Wikipedia by atheists on this board is what suprsises me most about this site. It's just not a convincing primary source for someone who wants to present a convincing argument. And this is definitely true for the discussion of any Biblically based subject such as the Synoptic problem.