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?

[Goat]

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.

Great. Then it shouldn't be hard for you to find evidence to support your claim that wikipedia is biased or lacking information on this particular subject.

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.

Why not? You provide no evidence, you appear simply to want to handwave away a source that clearly points out errors in your claims. Wikipedia is a fine source for basic facts about subjects such as the ones currently being discussed.

I am actually surprised that the claim of liberal bias in Wikipedia is being challenged, as I thought that was pretty much common knowledge. The two founders of the site are atheist/agnostic. The site has been accused of bias in the past. Conservapedia was launched in part as a response to the liberal bias of Wikipedia, especially with regard to Christianity.

Here is an article that proffers a different point of view about Wikipedia. I understand and acknowledge that it comes from a conversative source, so it will be likely be written off by those who don't mind and actually welcome liberal bias. But, nonetheless, it does make some really good points.

http://www.wnd.com/2008/12/83640/

The bottom line for me: any atheist on this board trying to defend a position using Wikipedia as their only source of information is really not going to be taken seriously. And this is especially true regarding ANYTHING in the realm of Christian scholarship, including this discussion that was supposed to be about Undesigned Coincidences but is actually about the Synoptic problem.

Uh, you mean, conservadpia, the group of people who want to re translate the bible because of it's 'liberal bias'??

You mean, that fraud run by Andrew Schlafly??? I am sorry, but the list of bigotry and errors on that site is enormous.

And using the 'World News Daily' as a source is .. hum.. well, I think it's slightly more reliable that the national enquirer, and a lot more biased than Fox News.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

I am actually surprised that the claim of liberal bias in Wikipedia is being challenged, as I thought that was pretty much common knowledge. The two founders of the site are atheist/agnostic. The site has been accused of bias in the past. Conservapedia was launched in part as a response to the liberal bias of Wikipedia, especially with regard to Christianity.

Here is an article that proffers a different point of view about Wikipedia. I understand and acknowledge that it comes from a conversative source, so it will be likely be written off by those who don't mind and actually welcome liberal bias. But, nonetheless, it does make some really good points.

http://www.wnd.com/2008/12/83640/

The bottom line for me: any atheist on this board trying to defend a position using Wikipedia as their only source of information is really not going to be taken seriously. And this is especially true regarding ANYTHING in the realm of Christian scholarship, including this discussion that was supposed to be about Undesigned Coincidences but is actually about the Synoptic problem.

Where is the evidence? You posted an article where someone complained about the wikipedia article on him. I am not sure how this gives you reason to handwave any evidence associated with wikipedia away without evidence or counterargument.

You claim that the article makes "some really good points" - I challenge you to list these points, and show how they support your position.

I'll ask again: where is your evidence that wikipedia is biased or lacking information on this particular subject? If you can't provide any, you are doing nothing more than handwaving away evidence to avoid actually addressing it.

[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.

[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. You do know that it is blatantly obvious to conservatives that you have a bias to the left? I can just as easily call of your tactics a trick to get people to think that anything conservatic is extreme. Give me a break.

[spayne]

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.

Great. Then it shouldn't be hard for you to find evidence to support your claim that wikipedia is biased or lacking information on this particular subject.

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.

Why not? You provide no evidence, you appear simply to want to handwave away a source that clearly points out errors in your claims. Wikipedia is a fine source for basic facts about subjects such as the ones currently being discussed.

I am actually surprised that the claim of liberal bias in Wikipedia is being challenged, as I thought that was pretty much common knowledge. The two founders of the site are atheist/agnostic. The site has been accused of bias in the past. Conservapedia was launched in part as a response to the liberal bias of Wikipedia, especially with regard to Christianity.

Here is an article that proffers a different point of view about Wikipedia. I understand and acknowledge that it comes from a conversative source, so it will be likely be written off by those who don't mind and actually welcome liberal bias. But, nonetheless, it does make some really good points.

http://www.wnd.com/2008/12/83640/

The bottom line for me: any atheist on this board trying to defend a position using Wikipedia as their only source of information is really not going to be taken seriously. And this is especially true regarding ANYTHING in the realm of Christian scholarship, including this discussion that was supposed to be about Undesigned Coincidences but is actually about the Synoptic problem.

Uh, you mean, conservadpia, the group of people who want to re translate the bible because of it's 'liberal bias'??

You mean, that fraud run by Andrew Schlafly??? I am sorry, but the list of bigotry and errors on that site is enormous.

And using the 'World News Daily' as a source is .. hum.. well, I think it's slightly more reliable that the national enquirer, and a lot more biased than Fox News.

I think it's absolutely laughable that you don't see the inherent contradiction in calling out the errors in conservative sources but exonerating those that are to the left. Yeah, you're not biased at all.

[spayne]

I am actually surprised that the claim of liberal bias in Wikipedia is being challenged, as I thought that was pretty much common knowledge. The two founders of the site are atheist/agnostic. The site has been accused of bias in the past. Conservapedia was launched in part as a response to the liberal bias of Wikipedia, especially with regard to Christianity.

Here is an article that proffers a different point of view about Wikipedia. I understand and acknowledge that it comes from a conversative source, so it will be likely be written off by those who don't mind and actually welcome liberal bias. But, nonetheless, it does make some really good points.

http://www.wnd.com/2008/12/83640/

The bottom line for me: any atheist on this board trying to defend a position using Wikipedia as their only source of information is really not going to be taken seriously. And this is especially true regarding ANYTHING in the realm of Christian scholarship, including this discussion that was supposed to be about Undesigned Coincidences but is actually about the Synoptic problem.

Where is the evidence? You posted an article where someone complained about the wikipedia article on him. I am not sure how this gives you reason to handwave any evidence associated with wikipedia away without evidence or counterargument.

You claim that the article makes "some really good points" - I challenge you to list these points, and show how they support your position.

I'll ask again: where is your evidence that wikipedia is biased or lacking information on this particular subject? If you can't provide any, you are doing nothing more than handwaving away evidence to avoid actually addressing it.

That article was written by a journalist from another popular website who was a victim of misinformation and lies on Wikipedia, in part because of his conservative positions. Is that not enough to even raise a small little red flag in your eyes? Let's turn it the other way around. Let's say a conservative based website told a bunch of lies about a well known person that you happen to really enjoy. Would you not be outraged and would you not accuse that website of some sort of either bias or bending of the truth? If you say no then you're not being honest.

[Goat]

I think it's absolutely laughable that you don't see the inherent contradiction in calling out the errors in conservative sources but exonerating those that are to the left. Yeah, you're not biased at all.

I am sure you do. However, I can list the errors in Conservedia when it comes to science , to politics , to religion. I mean, even a lot of conservative sources think they are totally off the wall.


Let's look at the ocmments that a conservative forum said about it's articles when the one person advertised it..

Extracts from http://archive.redstate.com/blogs/deaco ... servapedia

he problem with ideologues writing objective pieces is that some things are assumed.

For example, on the Giuliani page:
"Guiliani's biggest supporter is the New York media, who like his liberal stance on social issues and Guiliani's devotion to the media."

Yeah, the NYT loved Giuliani. And if that isn't enough, they can't even spell his name right.

And

And I actually thought it was a satire site. Sort of like the Stephen Colbert of wikis.

It's so over the top it is hard to believe it is serious.

and

I can't say that the stuff I have seen has done Conservatism any favors.

And, Let's take a look at an article from Conservedia.. Oh. let's say on "E=MC2"..

from MC2 on Conservapedia

E=mc² is a meaningless though working, almost nonsensical though often applied, e.g., in nuclear physics, statement that purports to relate all matter to energy and light.[1] In fact, no theory has successfully unified the laws governing mass (i.e., gravity) with the laws governing light (i.e., electromagnetism). Simply put, E=mc² is liberal claptrap.

Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge predicts that a unified theory of all the laws of physics is impossible, because light and matter were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the Book of Genesis.

"liberal claptrap"?? I mean.. give me a break. And you want to use this site as a source??

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

That article was written by a journalist from another popular website who was a victim of misinformation and lies on Wikipedia, in part because of his conservative positions. Is that not enough to even raise a small little red flag in your eyes? Let's turn it the other way around. Let's say a conservative based website told a bunch of lies about a well known person that you happen to really enjoy. Would you not be outraged and would you not accuse that website of some sort of either bias or bending of the truth? If you say no then you're not being honest.

Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, including those with a grudge or bias against someone. Do you have any evidence that there is a systemic occurrence of misinformation and lies against conservative people on wikipedia? And if you do, how about evidence that this particular academic topic is also so replete with "misinformation and lies" that you can handwave anything it says or cites away without counterargument?

It seems obvious that you don't have counterevidence to that presented on this subject by wiki and its sources, and have to resort to accusations of bias.

[spayne]

I think it's absolutely laughable that you don't see the inherent contradiction in calling out the errors in conservative sources but exonerating those that are to the left. Yeah, you're not biased at all.

I am sure you do. However, I can list the errors in Conservedia when it comes to science , to politics , to religion. I mean, even a lot of conservative sources think they are totally off the wall.


Let's look at the ocmments that a conservative forum said about it's articles when the one person advertised it..

Extracts from http://archive.redstate.com/blogs/deaco ... servapedia

he problem with ideologues writing objective pieces is that some things are assumed.

For example, on the Giuliani page:
"Guiliani's biggest supporter is the New York media, who like his liberal stance on social issues and Guiliani's devotion to the media."

Yeah, the NYT loved Giuliani. And if that isn't enough, they can't even spell his name right.

And

And I actually thought it was a satire site. Sort of like the Stephen Colbert of wikis.

It's so over the top it is hard to believe it is serious.

and

I can't say that the stuff I have seen has done Conservatism any favors.

Why is it not okay for me to cite an article by someone who has an opinion about Wikipedia and have that article be taken seriously yet you can can post a whole range of opinions about Conservapedia and nobody bats an eyebrow?
Double standard anyone?
Also, you do realize my point wasn't about Conservapedia, right? I'm not sure why you are self selecting that out when I was simply stating that Wikipedia has indeed been cited for it's bias.

[spayne]

That article was written by a journalist from another popular website who was a victim of misinformation and lies on Wikipedia, in part because of his conservative positions. Is that not enough to even raise a small little red flag in your eyes? Let's turn it the other way around. Let's say a conservative based website told a bunch of lies about a well known person that you happen to really enjoy. Would you not be outraged and would you not accuse that website of some sort of either bias or bending of the truth? If you say no then you're not being honest.

Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, including those with a grudge or bias against someone. Do you have any evidence that there is a systemic occurrence of misinformation and lies against conservative people on wikipedia? And if you do, how about evidence that this particular academic topic is also so replete with "misinformation and lies" that you can handwave anything it says or cites away without counterargument?

It seems obvious that you don't have counterevidence to that presented on this subject by wiki and its sources, and have to resort to accusations of bias.

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.