MandM header image 2

Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels – Tim McGrew

April 14th, 2011 by Madeleine

Timothy McGrewIf we have a question on the historicity of the resurrection, Timothy McGrew is our first port of call; there is no one we would turn to before him on the subject. Tim is also highly regarded for his work on probability theory and on miracles – he is the author of “Miracles” for the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. We have previously linked to his Library of Historical Apologetics.

I mention all this because Tim recently gave an excellent talk, which is available free as an MP3 and is entitled “Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels.” Tim’s wife, Lydia McGrew, who first alerted us to this talk, writes:

Undesigned coincidences in the Gospels … is an argument that was well-known in the nineteenth century but has, for no really clear reason, simply been forgotten as time has gone on. It is a cumulative case argument that the Gospels reflect, to an important extent, independent knowledge of actual events. Please note that this argument is quite independent of one’s preferred answer to the synoptic question. That is to say, even if, e.g., Mark was the first Gospel and others had access to Mark and show signs of literary dependence on Mark, the argument from undesigned coincidences provides evidence for independent knowledge of real events among the Gospel writers. There are many more of such coincidences beyond those given in the talk.

Two of Tim’s other talks, which overlap the material in this talk but also extend it, “Beyond Minimal Facts, Part I: External Evidences” and “Beyond Minimal Facts, Part II: Internal Evidences” can be ordered for a small fee – details here. Matt and I have both of these and can highly recommend them.

Tags:   · · · · 28 Comments

28 responses so far ↓

  • […] about this at this moment is my dumbfounded reading last night of an article published by Timothy McGrew and Lydia McGrew, entitled “The Argument from Miracles: A Cumulative Case for the […]

  • It’s common knowledge and understanding that mankind adds mythology and elobrates on everything. So what makes you think the bible isn’t spun in mythology?

  • It’s common knowledge that if I have nothing to say about this argument, I can just completely ignore it and throw in a rather irrelevant red herring.

    I saw what you did Aquariums.

    I agree Mads, Tim is excellent on miracles, and his knowledge of historical apologetics is pretty stunning.

  • Tim McGrew has only begun studying this argument. He has not checked major bilbical commentaries to see what they have to say about each of these alleged “undesigned coincidences.” Most commentaries, including Evangelical ones these days, find a lot more to question concerning alleged “details” and “differences” between Gospels, questions that Paley and Blunt never asked.

  • Ed, my acquaintance with Tim suggests in the precesely opposite direction. He’s studied many, many texts relevant to historical apologetics, since high school, biblical criticism included. In 2009, he passed to me 30 GBs of some of these. It seems to me he’s gathered an impressive collection of the undesigned coincidences, even if not yet in a form ready for publication, though.

  • Undesigned coincidences cannot only be detected in the Gospels. In the following undesigned coincidences in connection with the two New Testament books Acts and 1 Peter are presented.

    The first set of undesigned coincidences in connection with Acts and 1 Peter might be provided by the passages in which the geographical names Pontus and Cappadocia appear, passages which we can only find in these two New Testament books. These passages are Acts 2,9, 18,2 and 1 Peter 1,1. Maybe the Jewish Christians in these areas came to faith in Christ by the sermon Peter delivered on the day of Pentecost as described in Acts 2,14-41. Maybe the pagan Christians that are addressed in 1 Peter came to faith in Christ by the witness of Jewish Christians just as according to Acts 11,20 it happened in Antioch.

    Acts 2,2 and 1 Peter 1,12 are the only places in Scripture where we can read that the Holy Spirit was sent “from heaven”, and it may well be that both places refer to the same event, namely the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. It could be that those who had preached the gospel to the addressees of 1 Peter were Jews from Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia who were present at Pentecost and later went back to their respective homelands and told their fellow citizens about their experience in Jerusalem. So we might have before us another case of undesigned coincidences in connection with Acts and 1 Peter.

    Acts 12,12 and 15,22 on the one hand and 1 Peter 5,12-13 on the other hand might provide undesigned coincidences pointing to the fact that Mark and Silas were members of the church in Jerusalem. This set of undesigned coincidences is based on the assumption that “Babylon” mentioned in 1 Peter 5,13 refers to Jerusalem and not to Rome. Very good arguments in favour of this view can be found in James Stuart Russell’s book “The Parousia: A Critical Inquiry into the New Testament Doctrine of Our Lord’s Second Coming” (London 1878) on pp. 346-350.

  • Tim McGrew has only begun studying this argument. He has not checked major bilbical commentaries to see what they have to say about each of these alleged “undesigned coincidences.”

    Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?

    Oh.

    It’s Ed.

    Some further exchange between McGrew and Babinski

    Tim McGrew replies to Ed Babinski’s Critique of his Discussion of Undesigned Coincidences

  • From Deane’s — well, not exactly a review — what the heck do you call a rant that starts with a fundamental misrepresentation right in the title and doesn’t offer the reader a clear enough view of the details to expose this fact? — anyway, from that:

    In this article, the McGrews utilize Bayesian probability in order to argue to the “scientific” conclusion that the probability of the resurrection of Jesus is a “staggering” 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1.

    There is a school of thought according to which any publicity is good publicity. Maybe so. But since Deane obviously didn’t understand the paper and cannot be bothered even to get the central numerical conclusion right, his whatchyamacallit is, to borrow a phrase, “deeply and unavoidably farcical.”

  • Is he the guy with the banana???

  • But seriously – as both a statistician and a biblical scholar (can I say that yet… heck why not other folk do…) I find the sort of rubbish doubly offensive.

  • Is he the guy with the banana???

    Who Deane? No, you are thinking of Ray Comfort.

  • Yes – you are right. I am not good with faces.

  • Weekly Apologetics Bonus Links (04/08 – 04/15)…

    Here are this week’s recommended apologetics links. Enjoy. Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels…

  • Tim, First you echo Shakespeare, comparing what I wrote to “nothing but sound and fury” signifying nothing. At least my account of your maudlin sermon on “undesigned coincidences” was accurate concerning the emotional tenor and superficiality of the arguments you employed, while your comparison of my piece to “fury” is nonsense. And now you cite a passage from the Bible about counseling without wisdom. You told me on Vic’s blog that you did not have time to engage so I let things be for the semester. But note that I will be taking up the rod and chastising you with it, citing biblical commentaries, to demonstrate the depths to which you have gone in your unsupportable assumptions of Gospel independence and eyewitness historicity. None of the commentators supports Paley and Blunt’s points as demonstrations of anything other than verbal/written redactions/retellings. They all recognize that changes have taken place concerning a host of discrete points in stories shared by two or more Gospels, and not changes in the sense of proving what Paley and Blunt attempted to prove. Such commentators do not resort to explaining such changes on the basis of varying independent eyewitness accounts [sic]. I suggest before my piece appears that you start reading up on the divergent “blindfold” stories as I did in various commentaries, and also begin studying and contrasting the feeding miracle stories in the Gospels. I can suggest some works for you to begin with: http://amzn.com/w/3RFGO5MDK2AXV

    And speaking of conservative Evangelical apologists seeing what they want to see in biblical writings, please note Thomas Stark’s devastating critique of the varied and superficial apologetic arguments amassed in Copan’s recent book. Apparently Copan is willing to let his readers know only enough about Old Testament sources, ancient Near Eastern law codes, and the meaning of Old Testament verses, as his Christian readers can handle, no more, Thom fills in Copan’s blanks. For Copan is indeed firing blanks just like Paley and Blunt in the past: http://thomstark.net/copan/stark_copan-review.pdf

  • Ed, we dont know each other and i havent been following your discussion with Tim. But…
    i am only up to page 11 of Thom Starks reply to Paul Copen’s book and already he has displayed such ignorance of the Koran and the history of Islam and the recorded actions of Mohamed that i wonder whether he is going to be remotely accurate about anything else. Just saying cause the guy has thoroughly shot himself in the foot with respect to his own credibility before he has even got on topic.

  • Ed/Jeremy,
    I only read the Canaanite sections, and once you get past Thom’s over-the-top rhetoric, it was a decent critique. I think he overstates and overuses consensus arguments, especially in the light of the constant use of his professor, Chris Rollston (who is a good epigrapher but outside of the mainstream on a lot of topics). He also seems to want to draw biblical criticism back into the thirties, instead of addressing the types of literary arguments Wolterstorff/Matt make…but he’s not addressing Matt, he’s addressing Copan.

  • Kyle, misusing consensus arguments seems to be a common error of Thom’s work. In fact its a common criticism many make of liberal theology in general.

  • […] found this lecture from philosopher Tim McGrew at MandM. Tim teaches at Western Michigan […]

  • Kyle,

    First, I only refer to Rollston twice in 303 pages. I’d hardly say that constitutes “constant” use of him.

    Second, I don’t make appeals to consensus. I just did a search for every instance of the word “consensus” in my review. All I ever do is state that this position is the consensus, but I then go on to offer arguments for the position. I never use “the consensus” as an argument in and of itself. Plus, I hardly make reference to the consensus; there are only a few instances. So I think you’re not being accurate there.

    Third, I do critique Copan’s abuse of the consensus on the dating of Deuteronomy. In support of one of his arguments, he references the fact that the “majority of scholars” date Deuteronomy after Exodus, but he uses this fact in support of his claim that Deuteronomy was written “within a relatively short period of time” after Exodus, which is not at all the consensus position. He doesn’t mention that fact, which is problematic, even if the consensus is wrong.

    I’ll reiterate: stating what the consensus says and that the consensus says it does not constitute an appeal to the consensus, as if I offer no additional arguments to justify my agreement (or disagreement) with the consensus.

    And you’re right. I’m responding to Copan, not to Matt. But I already articulated some of the problems I see with canonical hermeneutics in my book last year. That said, I have no real problems with Wolterstorff’s main argument in divine discourse; I just don’t see how his argument precludes there being errors or bad theology in the canon. I have argued in last year’s book that God still speaks through the texts, even when they’re wrong, and I argue for the preservation of the canon. So I think some here are making some assumptions about my hermeneutic that aren’t warranted.

  • I’ll just add that I offer these comments in a spirit of friendliness.

  • Thom,

    I don’t think Wolterstorff does precludes there being errors or bad theology in the canon. What he would say, I suspect is that, one cannot interpret these passages so that the divine author of the Canon is asserting them as true or appropriating them as his own speech act.

    So for example ( and this is just an example) suppose an early law allows human sacrifice. In its original context it expresses a theological and moral error. However, this passage is not authoritative in its original context, its authoritative only when its read as part of the biblical Canon, and here its followed by passages which demand a substitute instead of a literal sacrifice in such context, and passages which condemn human sacrifice in the Torah and prophet and historical denouncements of human sacrifice and so on.

    Hence one while the author of the original passage expresses error. God who is the author of the Canon appropriates it in a new context and asserts something different with it.

  • Thanks for your good response, Matt. We have much to agree on here.

    “One cannot interpret these passages so that the divine author of the Canon is asserting them as true.”

    I agree.

    “or appropriating them as his own speech act.”

    Here I could agree, but don’t think it’s necessary to say this. God could, for instance, issue a bad command or utter bad theology for God’s own reasons, but not to assert them as true. For instance, God told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. That was a divine speech act, but not one that reflected God’s actual desire. God sent a “lying spirit” to Ahab. This was a divine speech act, but God obviously did not intend the lie as true. In the same way, by analogy, one could say that there is some bad theology or bad laws in the Bible, even perhaps ones that are never amended, that are divine speech acts but are nonetheless not intended by God as true, even if that’s how they were intended by the human authors. This, at least, is my position. God uses these problematic texts to challenge us and to confront us with our own tendencies to make God into our own image in similar ways. I see no reason why divine discourse cannot intentionally include bad theology, for God’s own reasons. And that’s where I’m coming from.

    “So for example ( and this is just an example) suppose an early law allows human sacrifice. In its original context it expresses a theological and moral error. However, this passage is not authoritative in its original context, its authoritative only when its read as part of the biblical Canon, and here its followed by passages which demand a substitute instead of a literal sacrifice in such context, and passages which condemn human sacrifice in the Torah and prophet and historical denouncements of human sacrifice and so on.”

    I mostly agree with this, although all I want to do is insist that rather than allowing later denunciations of human sacrifice to be ran roughshod over the earlier texts which commend it, we allow that earlier voice to remain intact, but its value as scripture becomes that of a condemned text through which God speaks to remind us, and this is just an example of what God might be saying, of the ways we justify such atrocities in the name of God.

    “Hence one while the author of the original passage expresses error. God who is the author of the Canon appropriates it in a new context and asserts something different with it.”

    I don’t fully agree with this, for the reasons just stated. I don’t think the final redaction solved all of the problems with the text, and I don’t think it’s wise to choose to change the meaning of the text to accord with what later redactors have said. While what the later redactors (or later authors or prophets, what have you) might be authoritative where the early voice is not, I have argued in my book that the danger in reading the bad text in a different way is that we are at times unconsciously susceptible to its influence. Better to allow the text to speak in its original voice, and to confront it (with the aid of other texts if they are available—they aren’t always), and through a confrontational reading allow divine discourse to take place. This process, I argue, must take place within the Christian community, where the Spirit is present to offer discernment.

    I think we have more common ground than has been assumed, and I’ve suspected this for some time.

    Thoughts?

  • That is to say, we have common ground if in fact your presentation of Wolterstorff is amenable to you yourself, which I have assumed.

  • […] little while back we published a post linking to some talks by Tim McGrew on Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels. For some bizarre reason this post of ours prompted fellow kiwi blogger Deane Galbraith to write a […]

  • Thom, I don’t know that I can address all those in a short combox. I plan to write a post addressing those issues in the future.

  • Cool. Thanks, Matt. Me too. But I’ll wait for yours first.

    All the best,
    T

  • […] the parts that critique his work. He also intends to answer Stark’s questions put to him on this blog post. However, Matt has several publication, conference and marking commitments to meet first and Matt […]