What do you think?
Rate this book
Hidden In Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts
Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts revives an argument for the historical reliability of the New Testament that has been largely neglected for more than a hundred years. An undesigned coincidence is an apparently casual, yet puzzle-like “fit” between two or more texts, and its best explanation is that the authors knew the truth about the events they describe or allude to. Connections of this kind among passages in the Gospels, as well as between Acts and the Pauline epistles, give us reason to believe that these documents came from honest eyewitness sources, people “in the know” about the events they relate. Supported by careful research yet accessibly written, Hidden in Plain View provides solid evidence that all Christians can use to defend the Scriptures and the truth of Christianity.
248 pages, Kindle Edition
Published July 3, 2017
217 people are currently reading
586 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 40 reviews
January 25, 2019
[Finished reading on November 12, 2018.]
In her recent book, Hidden in Plain View, philosopher and Christian apologist Lydia McGrew seeks to breathe new life into an old defense of the historical reliability of the New Testament. That old argument focuses on the “undesigned coincidences” found within the text of the Gospels and the book of Acts (as well as the Pauline Epistles). These apparent coincidences are pieces of eyewitness testimony that fit together like pieces of a puzzle, providing information that at first glance might seem insignificant or even random but, when combined with other pieces of this puzzle, provide a full picture. To illustrate this concept, McGrew ask her readers to imagine two friends, Alan and Betty, who give statements regarding a “distressing conversation” with a third friend, Carl (11). Alan and Betty say that Carl confessed some serious wrongdoing in this conversation, but now Carl denies that he was involved in this conversation. In this hypothetical situation you, the reader, are the investigator, tasked with determining who is telling the truth. You talk with Alan and Betty separately. Alan says, “The place was so crowded that we could hardly find a spot for all three of us to sit.” Betty says, “While we were talking, Alan accidentally knocked his coffee into my lap.” McGrew explains why these differing statements are significant:
"Alan doesn’t mention knocking off the coffee, and Betty doesn’t mention that the coffee shop was crowded. But these two bits of detail fit together: If they are both telling about a real meeting, and if the coffee shop really was crowded, they would have been sitting close together with little extra space for themselves and their coffee. This would make an accident with the coffee more likely" (11).
The fact that Alan and Betty’s stories provide different yet complementary details gives their testimony a far greater level of credence than if they produced the same exact statement. The lack of contrivance in their words, spoken independently, does not make it appear as though they were trying to fill in the gaps of each other’s statements.
After providing that illustration, McGrew offers the following definition: “An undesigned coincidence is a notable connection between two or more accounts or texts that doesn’t seem to have been planned by the person or people giving the accounts. Despite their apparent independence, the items fit together like pieces of a puzzle” (12). McGrew claims that many such connections are in the New Testament, particularly in the Gospels.
While acknowledging that external evidences such as archaeological findings and extra-biblical literature affirm the historical reliability of the New Testament, McGrew draws our attention to internal evidence. “The occurrence of multiple undesigned coincidences between and among these documents [the Gospels, Acts, and Pauline Epistles] supports the conclusion that the Gospels and Acts are historically reliable and that they come from people close to the facts who were attempting to tell truthfully what they knew” (14). These coincidences, which “appear casual and unrehearsed” (15), are exactly the sort of details we would expect to find in memoirs. They are also what we would expect to find in eyewitness testimony, something that the former cold case detective, J. Warner Wallace, affirms.
McGrew explains that this type of argument was used by the Anglican priest and apologist William Paley in his Horae Paulinae (published in 1790) and in his View of the Evidences of Christianity (published in 1794). It was also used by another Anglican priest, John James Blunt, who published his book, Undesigned Coincidences, in 1847. Though this argument had fallen out of favor in the twentieth century, McGrew draws on these resources and others (including the work of her husband, Timothy McGrew) in the hope of reviving this argument for a new generation.
Hidden in Plain View is divided into two parts. The first part deals with the Gospels. McGrew begins by enumerating some of the advantages of her undesigned coincidence argument. One need not have access to extrabiblical arguments or know which Gospel was written first to access this argument. In other words, one need not be a specialist in the Gospels in order to understand and appreciate the argument. Other advantages are that the evidence from these coincidences would be difficult to fake and that such evidence shows that the Gospels didn’t evolve over time by accruing more and more elements, some perhaps legendary. The reader must decide whether such claims are warranted.
The first chapter of the book examines cases in which the Synoptic Gospels explain a detail in the Gospel of John. Since nine cases are presented, some choice examples shall suffice. On the night before he died, Jesus washed the feet of his disciples. (This episode is recorded only in John 13:1–15.) While it is clear that part of the reason for washing his disciples’ feet was to provide a lesson in humble service, it is not clear why Jesus chose that moment to provide such an example. While John does not give us the reason, Luke does. In Luke 22:24–27, it is reported that Jesus’ disciples were arguing over who would be the greatest in the kingdom of God. Jesus told them that while Gentile rulers boasted in their authority, his followers would act differently. In Jesus’ kingdom, leaders would serve. Jesus says, “I am among you as the one who serves.” As McGrew explains, “Once his piece of information is in place, it is difficult to doubt that this is the explanation for Jesus’ object lesson [recorded in John 13]” (49). Luke does not record the celebrated foot-washing (which occurred on the same night as the disciples’ argument), and John does not give a reason why Jesus demonstrated an example of humble servant leadership at that time. “Luke explains John; John explains Luke. . . . John does not mention the dispute among the disciples. Luke does not mention the foot-washing. Put together, they give us a more complete picture than either gives alone” (50).
A similar coincidence pertains to Jesus’ question, “shall I not drink the cup that the Father has given me?” (John 18:11). In John’s Gospel, the meaning of “the cup” is not explained. Yet all three Synoptic Gospels refer to Jesus’ prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane, when he speaks of “the cup” of God’s wrath that he will drink in his sacrificial death (Matt. 26:39–42; Luke 22:42; Mark 14:35–36). “Though John gives no version of this prayer at all, the Synoptics state that Jesus prayed that night in these very terms” (52). The different details presented in the Gospels fit together nicely. If the author of John were fabricating a story, he would probably make his Gospel more similar to the Synoptics, including some form of Jesus’ anguished prayer in Gethsemane and not providing a completely different prayer in John 17.
Yet another case also involves John 18. When Jesus is brought before Pontius Pilate, Pilate asks him, “Are you the king of the Jews?” (v. 33). This is strange, for, as McGrew explains, “Not a word is said in the account John gives of an accusation of sedition or any other political accusation against Jesus” (53). Yet such an accusation is presented in Luke 23:1–3. Once again, interlocking details that might raise questions on their own are explained by each other.
In the second chapter, McGrew reverses the direction of explanation, presenting six cases in which the Gospel of John explains details in the Synoptic Gospels. The first case involves a small comment made in Mark. Prior to the feeding of the five thousand, Jesus told his disciples to go to a desolate place to rest because “many were coming and going” (Mark 6:31). Mark does not explain what this means. John, however, states that this miracle occurred at the time of the Passover (John 6:1–4). Presumably, many were coming and going to and from Capernaum, where the feeding took place, on their way to and from Jerusalem, to observe the Passover. Neither Gospel writer presents a full picture of what was happening and why Jesus would urge his disciples to go to a “desolate place” (Mark 6:31) or why Jesus would go “up on the mountain” (John 6:3). McGrew observes that “the correspondence here is so indirect that there can be no question that it is undesigned. Mark does not mention the Passover, and John does not mention the general bustle on the western side of the Sea of Galilee” (65). Similarly, Mark tells us that those who were fed sat down on green grass (Mark 6:39), the color of grass one would expect to see at the time of Passover. Yet Mark doesn’t tell us the season and John does.
Perhaps a more compelling undesigned coincidence once again involves Pontius Pilate. In the Gospel of Luke, Pilate asks if Jesus is the “King of the Jews.” Jesus answers, “You have said so.” For reasons that are not at all clear, at least upon reading Luke alone, Pilate then says, “I find no guilt in this man” (Luke 23:3–4). If no light is shed on this passage from another source, it is puzzling, to say the least. Why wouldn’t Pilate find a man who claimed to be a rival king a threat to Roman rule? Though Luke gives no explanation, John does. The Gospel of John records these key words of Jesus to Pilate: “If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world” (John 18:36). These words led Pilate to believe that Jesus was not a political or military threat to Rome.
The other chapters deal with other issues in the synoptic Gospels and "undesigned coincidences" between Acts and the Pauline letters.
In the conclusion to Hidden in Plain View, McGrew criticizes some other recent attempts to validate the historical reliability of the Gospels. She believes that the minimal facts approach, which argues that the resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation of a core set of facts accepted by most New Testament scholars, undermines confidence in the historical reliability of the Gospels. If only a few facts form the “historical bedrock” of Christianity, one could assume that the “non-bedrock” propositions might not be true (222).
McGrew is also critical of the “criteriological” approach to the historical reliability of the Gospels. Scholars who use this method appeal to the criterion of embarrassment, the criterion of multiple attestation, and other criteria, which are alleged to demonstrate that individual passages are likely to be true. This method only supports the reliability of some of the passages in the Gospels and it might inadvertently lead people to believe that those passages which don’t fit such criteria are not reliable.
McGrew believes that other arguments should be used, such as her own argument from undesigned coincidences, as well as “the argument from unexplained allusions, the argument from unnecessary details, the argument from the restraint of the Gospel authors, and arguments from the unity of the characters of Jesus and Paul across various documents” (224). McGrew’s argument has the advantage of demonstrating that the Gospel authors attempted to report what they witnessed, or that they wrote their Gospels on the basis of eyewitness reports. Their histories are not contrived; instead, they are what you would expect from people attempting to tell the truth as they saw it. Yet their subtle, “coincidental” harmonies reveal a larger truth, and—though McGrew doesn’t expressly say this—the hand of one ultimate, divine Author.
My overall impression of this book is that McGrew’s argument is an important one. However, it is important to note the two caveats that she made in her general introduction (20). There, she stated that the argument is cumulative and varied in strength. One or two coincidences might not impress a skeptic. However, as the coincidences mount, that skeptic might not be able to maintain a posture of disbelief regarding the historical reliability of the New Testament. Furthermore, by McGrew’s own admission, each “coincidence” is not as compelling as others. Some of the cases could be explained away as coincidence or a contrivance. I certainly did not find each coincidence to be compelling. Yet, taken as a whole, the argument has merit and deserves a hearing.
In her recent book, Hidden in Plain View, philosopher and Christian apologist Lydia McGrew seeks to breathe new life into an old defense of the historical reliability of the New Testament. That old argument focuses on the “undesigned coincidences” found within the text of the Gospels and the book of Acts (as well as the Pauline Epistles). These apparent coincidences are pieces of eyewitness testimony that fit together like pieces of a puzzle, providing information that at first glance might seem insignificant or even random but, when combined with other pieces of this puzzle, provide a full picture. To illustrate this concept, McGrew ask her readers to imagine two friends, Alan and Betty, who give statements regarding a “distressing conversation” with a third friend, Carl (11). Alan and Betty say that Carl confessed some serious wrongdoing in this conversation, but now Carl denies that he was involved in this conversation. In this hypothetical situation you, the reader, are the investigator, tasked with determining who is telling the truth. You talk with Alan and Betty separately. Alan says, “The place was so crowded that we could hardly find a spot for all three of us to sit.” Betty says, “While we were talking, Alan accidentally knocked his coffee into my lap.” McGrew explains why these differing statements are significant:
"Alan doesn’t mention knocking off the coffee, and Betty doesn’t mention that the coffee shop was crowded. But these two bits of detail fit together: If they are both telling about a real meeting, and if the coffee shop really was crowded, they would have been sitting close together with little extra space for themselves and their coffee. This would make an accident with the coffee more likely" (11).
The fact that Alan and Betty’s stories provide different yet complementary details gives their testimony a far greater level of credence than if they produced the same exact statement. The lack of contrivance in their words, spoken independently, does not make it appear as though they were trying to fill in the gaps of each other’s statements.
After providing that illustration, McGrew offers the following definition: “An undesigned coincidence is a notable connection between two or more accounts or texts that doesn’t seem to have been planned by the person or people giving the accounts. Despite their apparent independence, the items fit together like pieces of a puzzle” (12). McGrew claims that many such connections are in the New Testament, particularly in the Gospels.
While acknowledging that external evidences such as archaeological findings and extra-biblical literature affirm the historical reliability of the New Testament, McGrew draws our attention to internal evidence. “The occurrence of multiple undesigned coincidences between and among these documents [the Gospels, Acts, and Pauline Epistles] supports the conclusion that the Gospels and Acts are historically reliable and that they come from people close to the facts who were attempting to tell truthfully what they knew” (14). These coincidences, which “appear casual and unrehearsed” (15), are exactly the sort of details we would expect to find in memoirs. They are also what we would expect to find in eyewitness testimony, something that the former cold case detective, J. Warner Wallace, affirms.
McGrew explains that this type of argument was used by the Anglican priest and apologist William Paley in his Horae Paulinae (published in 1790) and in his View of the Evidences of Christianity (published in 1794). It was also used by another Anglican priest, John James Blunt, who published his book, Undesigned Coincidences, in 1847. Though this argument had fallen out of favor in the twentieth century, McGrew draws on these resources and others (including the work of her husband, Timothy McGrew) in the hope of reviving this argument for a new generation.
Hidden in Plain View is divided into two parts. The first part deals with the Gospels. McGrew begins by enumerating some of the advantages of her undesigned coincidence argument. One need not have access to extrabiblical arguments or know which Gospel was written first to access this argument. In other words, one need not be a specialist in the Gospels in order to understand and appreciate the argument. Other advantages are that the evidence from these coincidences would be difficult to fake and that such evidence shows that the Gospels didn’t evolve over time by accruing more and more elements, some perhaps legendary. The reader must decide whether such claims are warranted.
The first chapter of the book examines cases in which the Synoptic Gospels explain a detail in the Gospel of John. Since nine cases are presented, some choice examples shall suffice. On the night before he died, Jesus washed the feet of his disciples. (This episode is recorded only in John 13:1–15.) While it is clear that part of the reason for washing his disciples’ feet was to provide a lesson in humble service, it is not clear why Jesus chose that moment to provide such an example. While John does not give us the reason, Luke does. In Luke 22:24–27, it is reported that Jesus’ disciples were arguing over who would be the greatest in the kingdom of God. Jesus told them that while Gentile rulers boasted in their authority, his followers would act differently. In Jesus’ kingdom, leaders would serve. Jesus says, “I am among you as the one who serves.” As McGrew explains, “Once his piece of information is in place, it is difficult to doubt that this is the explanation for Jesus’ object lesson [recorded in John 13]” (49). Luke does not record the celebrated foot-washing (which occurred on the same night as the disciples’ argument), and John does not give a reason why Jesus demonstrated an example of humble servant leadership at that time. “Luke explains John; John explains Luke. . . . John does not mention the dispute among the disciples. Luke does not mention the foot-washing. Put together, they give us a more complete picture than either gives alone” (50).
A similar coincidence pertains to Jesus’ question, “shall I not drink the cup that the Father has given me?” (John 18:11). In John’s Gospel, the meaning of “the cup” is not explained. Yet all three Synoptic Gospels refer to Jesus’ prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane, when he speaks of “the cup” of God’s wrath that he will drink in his sacrificial death (Matt. 26:39–42; Luke 22:42; Mark 14:35–36). “Though John gives no version of this prayer at all, the Synoptics state that Jesus prayed that night in these very terms” (52). The different details presented in the Gospels fit together nicely. If the author of John were fabricating a story, he would probably make his Gospel more similar to the Synoptics, including some form of Jesus’ anguished prayer in Gethsemane and not providing a completely different prayer in John 17.
Yet another case also involves John 18. When Jesus is brought before Pontius Pilate, Pilate asks him, “Are you the king of the Jews?” (v. 33). This is strange, for, as McGrew explains, “Not a word is said in the account John gives of an accusation of sedition or any other political accusation against Jesus” (53). Yet such an accusation is presented in Luke 23:1–3. Once again, interlocking details that might raise questions on their own are explained by each other.
In the second chapter, McGrew reverses the direction of explanation, presenting six cases in which the Gospel of John explains details in the Synoptic Gospels. The first case involves a small comment made in Mark. Prior to the feeding of the five thousand, Jesus told his disciples to go to a desolate place to rest because “many were coming and going” (Mark 6:31). Mark does not explain what this means. John, however, states that this miracle occurred at the time of the Passover (John 6:1–4). Presumably, many were coming and going to and from Capernaum, where the feeding took place, on their way to and from Jerusalem, to observe the Passover. Neither Gospel writer presents a full picture of what was happening and why Jesus would urge his disciples to go to a “desolate place” (Mark 6:31) or why Jesus would go “up on the mountain” (John 6:3). McGrew observes that “the correspondence here is so indirect that there can be no question that it is undesigned. Mark does not mention the Passover, and John does not mention the general bustle on the western side of the Sea of Galilee” (65). Similarly, Mark tells us that those who were fed sat down on green grass (Mark 6:39), the color of grass one would expect to see at the time of Passover. Yet Mark doesn’t tell us the season and John does.
Perhaps a more compelling undesigned coincidence once again involves Pontius Pilate. In the Gospel of Luke, Pilate asks if Jesus is the “King of the Jews.” Jesus answers, “You have said so.” For reasons that are not at all clear, at least upon reading Luke alone, Pilate then says, “I find no guilt in this man” (Luke 23:3–4). If no light is shed on this passage from another source, it is puzzling, to say the least. Why wouldn’t Pilate find a man who claimed to be a rival king a threat to Roman rule? Though Luke gives no explanation, John does. The Gospel of John records these key words of Jesus to Pilate: “If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world” (John 18:36). These words led Pilate to believe that Jesus was not a political or military threat to Rome.
The other chapters deal with other issues in the synoptic Gospels and "undesigned coincidences" between Acts and the Pauline letters.
In the conclusion to Hidden in Plain View, McGrew criticizes some other recent attempts to validate the historical reliability of the Gospels. She believes that the minimal facts approach, which argues that the resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation of a core set of facts accepted by most New Testament scholars, undermines confidence in the historical reliability of the Gospels. If only a few facts form the “historical bedrock” of Christianity, one could assume that the “non-bedrock” propositions might not be true (222).
McGrew is also critical of the “criteriological” approach to the historical reliability of the Gospels. Scholars who use this method appeal to the criterion of embarrassment, the criterion of multiple attestation, and other criteria, which are alleged to demonstrate that individual passages are likely to be true. This method only supports the reliability of some of the passages in the Gospels and it might inadvertently lead people to believe that those passages which don’t fit such criteria are not reliable.
McGrew believes that other arguments should be used, such as her own argument from undesigned coincidences, as well as “the argument from unexplained allusions, the argument from unnecessary details, the argument from the restraint of the Gospel authors, and arguments from the unity of the characters of Jesus and Paul across various documents” (224). McGrew’s argument has the advantage of demonstrating that the Gospel authors attempted to report what they witnessed, or that they wrote their Gospels on the basis of eyewitness reports. Their histories are not contrived; instead, they are what you would expect from people attempting to tell the truth as they saw it. Yet their subtle, “coincidental” harmonies reveal a larger truth, and—though McGrew doesn’t expressly say this—the hand of one ultimate, divine Author.
My overall impression of this book is that McGrew’s argument is an important one. However, it is important to note the two caveats that she made in her general introduction (20). There, she stated that the argument is cumulative and varied in strength. One or two coincidences might not impress a skeptic. However, as the coincidences mount, that skeptic might not be able to maintain a posture of disbelief regarding the historical reliability of the New Testament. Furthermore, by McGrew’s own admission, each “coincidence” is not as compelling as others. Some of the cases could be explained away as coincidence or a contrivance. I certainly did not find each coincidence to be compelling. Yet, taken as a whole, the argument has merit and deserves a hearing.
September 10, 2018
There are many different ways in which one can "reason from the scriptures" when witnessing to unbelievers (Acts 17:2). In "Hidden In Plain View" Lydia McGrew employs one way that apologists have reasoned from the scriptures. She resurrects (pun not intended) an old argument for the reliability of The New Testament called The Argument From Undesigned Coincidence. This argument is a cumulative argument in which the weight of various interlocking coincidences show that the writers of the New Testament were not "cleverly devising stories when [they] told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty." (2 Peter 1:16).
One of the primary examples of an undesigned coincidence is when someone is stated in one document that seems bizarre or raises a question, but makes perfect since when you read a paralelle account in one or the other gospels. The way the documents answer each other are so subtle, that it's beyond implausible to think that this was in anyway contrived on the part of the authors (hence the term "undesigned" coincidence). I can attest to its subltey for many of these never occurred to me until Dr. McGrew pointed them out to me in her book!
Here's just one example. In John 2:18-22, we read the following account: "The Jews then responded to him, 'What sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?' Jesus answered them, 'Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.' They replied, 'It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?' But the temple he had spoken of was his body. After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken."
In Mark 14:55-59, we read this account of Jesus before the Sanhedrin:
"The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death, but they did not find any. Many testified falsely against him, but their statements did not agree. Then some stood up and gave this false testimony against him: 'We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with human hands and in three days will build another, not made with hands.’' Yet even then their testimony did not agree."
Notice that the false witnesses, described by Mark, straw man Jesus' words. Jesus never said he would destroy the literal, physical temple. Instead, he had used the temple as a metaphor for his body (as we learn in the John 2 passage above). There is also a parallel for this passage in Matthew 26:59-61.
In Mark 15:27-30, we are told,
"They crucified two rebels with him, one on his right and one on his left. Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, 'So! You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, come down from the cross and save yourself!'"
There is also a parallel account in Matthew 27:38-40. Notice that neither Matthew, nor Mark, ever record Jesus saying anything like "I'll destroy the temple." They record the accusations, but they don't record anything that could even remotely be thought to be a threat against the temple. The only thing Matt and Mark record are the later witnesses at Jesus' trial and crucifixion. Moreover, John, while reporting Jesus’ original words, NEVER REPORTS THE ACCUSATIONS AT THE TRIAL. If you were an ancient reader who only had a copy of Matthew or Mark, you would probably scratch your head and go "Where on Earth did these guys get such an idea [that Jesus would destroy the temple]?". Only if you had John's gospel would that puzzling question be answered.
This is only one of a PLETHORA of examples. McGrew makes a strong, cumulative case WITHIN THE NEW TESTMENT TEXT ITSELF that the New Testament are reliable, eyewitness reports. This is an argument we should seek to master.
One of the primary examples of an undesigned coincidence is when someone is stated in one document that seems bizarre or raises a question, but makes perfect since when you read a paralelle account in one or the other gospels. The way the documents answer each other are so subtle, that it's beyond implausible to think that this was in anyway contrived on the part of the authors (hence the term "undesigned" coincidence). I can attest to its subltey for many of these never occurred to me until Dr. McGrew pointed them out to me in her book!
Here's just one example. In John 2:18-22, we read the following account: "The Jews then responded to him, 'What sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?' Jesus answered them, 'Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.' They replied, 'It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?' But the temple he had spoken of was his body. After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken."
In Mark 14:55-59, we read this account of Jesus before the Sanhedrin:
"The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death, but they did not find any. Many testified falsely against him, but their statements did not agree. Then some stood up and gave this false testimony against him: 'We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with human hands and in three days will build another, not made with hands.’' Yet even then their testimony did not agree."
Notice that the false witnesses, described by Mark, straw man Jesus' words. Jesus never said he would destroy the literal, physical temple. Instead, he had used the temple as a metaphor for his body (as we learn in the John 2 passage above). There is also a parallel for this passage in Matthew 26:59-61.
In Mark 15:27-30, we are told,
"They crucified two rebels with him, one on his right and one on his left. Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, 'So! You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, come down from the cross and save yourself!'"
There is also a parallel account in Matthew 27:38-40. Notice that neither Matthew, nor Mark, ever record Jesus saying anything like "I'll destroy the temple." They record the accusations, but they don't record anything that could even remotely be thought to be a threat against the temple. The only thing Matt and Mark record are the later witnesses at Jesus' trial and crucifixion. Moreover, John, while reporting Jesus’ original words, NEVER REPORTS THE ACCUSATIONS AT THE TRIAL. If you were an ancient reader who only had a copy of Matthew or Mark, you would probably scratch your head and go "Where on Earth did these guys get such an idea [that Jesus would destroy the temple]?". Only if you had John's gospel would that puzzling question be answered.
This is only one of a PLETHORA of examples. McGrew makes a strong, cumulative case WITHIN THE NEW TESTMENT TEXT ITSELF that the New Testament are reliable, eyewitness reports. This is an argument we should seek to master.
September 11, 2017
This book came on a recommendation from David Russell, friend and Bible study instructor (he is too well versed to be considered a mere SS teacher). The basis thesis of the book is that the gospels, Pauline letters, and Acts (being part 2 of Luke), should be given prime facie validity as to what they purport to be, to wit, contemporary, or near contemporary eye witness accounts of what the authors saw and heard, and that the authors were attempting to tell the truth. With these assumptions, the texts are then examined for interlocking, consistent, factual reports, and which could not have arisen by one text borrowing from the other. This technique yields an increased confidence that the authors were telling the truth and that what they reported actually happened.
While this approach is a form of apologetics, and has been around for at least 250 years in English scholars, it avoids, for the most part, debates on miracles vel non and inerrancy. However, this approach is a direct challenge to source criticism, especially if built on an assumption that the NT texts are late, are heavily redacted, and reflect more the opinion of the then politically ascendant Church than actual history. McGrew's approach could be said to support a form of evidentialist apologetics, such asJosh McDowell in The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict: Fully Updated, but might find its most value as an interpretative aid, if tied to the Bible texts in question. In fact Henry Alford D D, in Alford's Greek Testament, an Exegetical & Critical Commentary in 4 Volumes, indirectly makes some of McGrew's points by arguing that parallel accounts of the gospels show independence, increasing the chance the authors were eye witnesses, and were telling the truth.
An interesting side effect of McGrew's approach is that minor discrepancies (or what appear to be discrepancies) in the gospels actually strengthen the believability of the gospels because it supports a view that both writers were independent, did not conspire to create smooth texts, and thus are reporting accurately. This does not mean that the discrepancies cannot otherwise be explained (that is another field of inquiry; e.g., see Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible, by John W. Haley).
The book is a quick read and should be included in the background reading material of any Sunday School teacher (or instructor, as the case be.)
PS: I got a copy of this book on Kindle Unlimited, for which I had a 30 day free trial. I am cheap and the price was right.
While this approach is a form of apologetics, and has been around for at least 250 years in English scholars, it avoids, for the most part, debates on miracles vel non and inerrancy. However, this approach is a direct challenge to source criticism, especially if built on an assumption that the NT texts are late, are heavily redacted, and reflect more the opinion of the then politically ascendant Church than actual history. McGrew's approach could be said to support a form of evidentialist apologetics, such asJosh McDowell in The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict: Fully Updated, but might find its most value as an interpretative aid, if tied to the Bible texts in question. In fact Henry Alford D D, in Alford's Greek Testament, an Exegetical & Critical Commentary in 4 Volumes, indirectly makes some of McGrew's points by arguing that parallel accounts of the gospels show independence, increasing the chance the authors were eye witnesses, and were telling the truth.
An interesting side effect of McGrew's approach is that minor discrepancies (or what appear to be discrepancies) in the gospels actually strengthen the believability of the gospels because it supports a view that both writers were independent, did not conspire to create smooth texts, and thus are reporting accurately. This does not mean that the discrepancies cannot otherwise be explained (that is another field of inquiry; e.g., see Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible, by John W. Haley).
The book is a quick read and should be included in the background reading material of any Sunday School teacher (or instructor, as the case be.)
PS: I got a copy of this book on Kindle Unlimited, for which I had a 30 day free trial. I am cheap and the price was right.
July 30, 2018
This is quite an interesting book that seeks to buttress readers' belief in the historicity of the Scriptures, via a method that was common in the 19th century but rarely pursued today. An "undesigned coincidence" is a concurrence of facts subtle enough that an author seeking to fake the Gospel accounts would not include, either because they wouldn't think to do so or because it's so minor that you'd never find it unless you were searching earnestly for it and thus it wouldn't be worth it to fake, but that would make perfect sense and fit together with other facts if the Scriptural accounts were in fact accurate.
For instance, at the feeding of the five thousand, Mark mentions that the grass was green. Why on earth say this, unless it was accurate? But Mark gives no other indication of why this might have been the case. But when you flip to John and read his account, he does not mention grass, but he does happen to mention that the Passover "was at hand." That was the only time of year that grass was green in Israel. Too minor to be faked, yet a nice confirmation of historicity.
Another example: in Matthew 14, the apostle mentions that Herod remarked about the fame of John the Baptist "to his servants." How on earth would Matthew know what Herod says to his servants? There is no indication anywhere else in his Gospel as to a possible reason. And yet, in a totally unrelated passage in Luke, that Evangelist is mentioning the women who accompanied Jesus, and he mentions "Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod's household manager." There's no way Luke made this up just to support a very short aside in another Gospel. Instead, it has the ring of truth.
McGrew fills the book with such nuggets. I love them. Particularly interesting is how she uses Acts and Paul's epistles to piece together missing details about his journeys, or very specific times in Acts at which he must have written this or that epistle. It should be clear that the "coincidences" in her book (Reformed, aka Biblical, believers do not believe in "coincidences," of course) are not the primary, or even the secondary, line of argument for the historicity of the Gospels or Acts. But they provide a nice additional layer of support. Now, what she did NOT do, and which someone should, is look for coincidences that on the surface seem to DISprove the historicity of the Biblical documents. People have of course pointed out larger seeming discrepancies, but those have been well answered by many writers. But I wonder if something should be done at this level. It would seem to be the "scientific" thing to do.
For instance, at the feeding of the five thousand, Mark mentions that the grass was green. Why on earth say this, unless it was accurate? But Mark gives no other indication of why this might have been the case. But when you flip to John and read his account, he does not mention grass, but he does happen to mention that the Passover "was at hand." That was the only time of year that grass was green in Israel. Too minor to be faked, yet a nice confirmation of historicity.
Another example: in Matthew 14, the apostle mentions that Herod remarked about the fame of John the Baptist "to his servants." How on earth would Matthew know what Herod says to his servants? There is no indication anywhere else in his Gospel as to a possible reason. And yet, in a totally unrelated passage in Luke, that Evangelist is mentioning the women who accompanied Jesus, and he mentions "Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod's household manager." There's no way Luke made this up just to support a very short aside in another Gospel. Instead, it has the ring of truth.
McGrew fills the book with such nuggets. I love them. Particularly interesting is how she uses Acts and Paul's epistles to piece together missing details about his journeys, or very specific times in Acts at which he must have written this or that epistle. It should be clear that the "coincidences" in her book (Reformed, aka Biblical, believers do not believe in "coincidences," of course) are not the primary, or even the secondary, line of argument for the historicity of the Gospels or Acts. But they provide a nice additional layer of support. Now, what she did NOT do, and which someone should, is look for coincidences that on the surface seem to DISprove the historicity of the Biblical documents. People have of course pointed out larger seeming discrepancies, but those have been well answered by many writers. But I wonder if something should be done at this level. It would seem to be the "scientific" thing to do.
March 31, 2017
Lydia McGrew, Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts (Chillicothe, Ohio: DeWard, 2017).
Are the Gospels and the Book of Acts historically reliable? Its authors certainly thought so.
For example, Luke stated that his Gospel narrated “things … handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word” (Luke 1:1–2). Far from taking this eyewitnesses testimony for granted, however, he “carefully investigated everything from the beginning … so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught” (Luke 1:3–4).
Similarly, John’s Gospel ends with these words from its final editors: “This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true” (John 21:24). The “disciple” was an eyewitness, in other words, and his unnamed editors (“we”) vouched for his testimony. As in Luke, the purpose of the goal of this testimony was faith: “these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31).
In the modern era, skeptical Bible critics have challenged the historical reliability of the first five books of the New Testament. They allege that contradictions both within and between the Gospels and Acts — and what is known about the time from external sources — call the plot of New Testament history into question. The defense of the New Testament’s historical reliability has thus revolved around demonstrating that its accounts of Jesus’ life and of the history of the Early Church are internally coherent and externally corroborated by known facts.
Lydia McGrew offers a third line of defense in her new book, Hidden in Plain View. According to her, “undesigned coincidences” in the Gospels and Acts suggest that the events they report are historically accurate because they rest on eyewitness testimony. She defines undesigned coincidences this way:
"An undesigned coincidence is a notable connection between two or more accounts or texts that doesn’t seem to have been planned by the person or people giving the accounts. Despite their apparent independence, the items fit together like pieces of a puzzle."
McGrew outlines 47 such coincidences in the book. For brevity’s sake, let me focus on just one. Each of the Synoptic Gospels offers a list of the 12 apostles: Matthew 10:2–4; Mark 3:16–19; and Luke 6:14–16. These lists differ in some details, especially the order in which the writers present Andrew’s, Matthew’s, and Thaddeus’ names. And while Matthew and Mark refer to one disciple as Thaddeus, Luke refers to him as Judas, even though they’re most likely the same person.
The most interesting difference between these lists is grammatical. Mark and Luke connect each name using the Greek conjunction kai (“and”). So, “Simon and James and John and Andrew, etc.” in Mark and “Simon and Andrew and James and John, etc.” in Luke. This emphasizes the disciples as individuals. Matthew, on the other hand, uses kai to connect six sets of names. So, “Simon and Andrew, James and John, etc.” This emphasizes the disciples as pairs.
Matthew doesn’t explain why he lists the disciples as pairs, but Mark 6:7 offers a plausible suggestion: “Calling the Twelve to him, [Jesus] began to send them out two by two and gave them authority over impure spirits.” In other words, Matthew’s list most likely reflects the pairs of apostles that Jesus sent out in ministry, a pairing that only Mark mentions in an unrelated passage. We need both Gospels to see the whole picture.
Admittedly, this is a small detail. The historical reliability of the New Testament does not depend on this one undesigned coincidence. Still, the undesigned coincidences pile up, as McGrew demonstrates in her book. They revolve around incidental details, which suggests that they are not the results of a hoax, since hoaxers wouldn’t be so subtle. And while, theoretically, one could argue that such coincidences really are the result of pure luck, only the foolish gambler would place money on that table.
No, undesigned coincidences, taken cumulatively, suggest that the accounts of events in the Gospels and Acts have the ring of truth. They agree, not because a trickster designed them to agree (hoax) or because they just happen to agree (luck), but because they reflect the testimony of people who were there and whose reports of detail have made their way into the published narratives.
The argument from undesigned coincidences thus adds a third line of argument to those who would defend the Bible’s historical reliability: coherence, corroboration and coincidence. This third line of argument is not new, interestingly enough. It was pioneered in the 19th century by British apologists such as William Paley and J. J. Blunt. Lydia McGrew is to be congratulated for reviving it for use against the skeptical arguments of our day.
P.S. This review was written for InfluenceMagazine.com and appears here by permission.
P.P.S. If you found this review helpful, please vote "Yes" on my Amazon review page.
Are the Gospels and the Book of Acts historically reliable? Its authors certainly thought so.
For example, Luke stated that his Gospel narrated “things … handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word” (Luke 1:1–2). Far from taking this eyewitnesses testimony for granted, however, he “carefully investigated everything from the beginning … so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught” (Luke 1:3–4).
Similarly, John’s Gospel ends with these words from its final editors: “This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true” (John 21:24). The “disciple” was an eyewitness, in other words, and his unnamed editors (“we”) vouched for his testimony. As in Luke, the purpose of the goal of this testimony was faith: “these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31).
In the modern era, skeptical Bible critics have challenged the historical reliability of the first five books of the New Testament. They allege that contradictions both within and between the Gospels and Acts — and what is known about the time from external sources — call the plot of New Testament history into question. The defense of the New Testament’s historical reliability has thus revolved around demonstrating that its accounts of Jesus’ life and of the history of the Early Church are internally coherent and externally corroborated by known facts.
Lydia McGrew offers a third line of defense in her new book, Hidden in Plain View. According to her, “undesigned coincidences” in the Gospels and Acts suggest that the events they report are historically accurate because they rest on eyewitness testimony. She defines undesigned coincidences this way:
"An undesigned coincidence is a notable connection between two or more accounts or texts that doesn’t seem to have been planned by the person or people giving the accounts. Despite their apparent independence, the items fit together like pieces of a puzzle."
McGrew outlines 47 such coincidences in the book. For brevity’s sake, let me focus on just one. Each of the Synoptic Gospels offers a list of the 12 apostles: Matthew 10:2–4; Mark 3:16–19; and Luke 6:14–16. These lists differ in some details, especially the order in which the writers present Andrew’s, Matthew’s, and Thaddeus’ names. And while Matthew and Mark refer to one disciple as Thaddeus, Luke refers to him as Judas, even though they’re most likely the same person.
The most interesting difference between these lists is grammatical. Mark and Luke connect each name using the Greek conjunction kai (“and”). So, “Simon and James and John and Andrew, etc.” in Mark and “Simon and Andrew and James and John, etc.” in Luke. This emphasizes the disciples as individuals. Matthew, on the other hand, uses kai to connect six sets of names. So, “Simon and Andrew, James and John, etc.” This emphasizes the disciples as pairs.
Matthew doesn’t explain why he lists the disciples as pairs, but Mark 6:7 offers a plausible suggestion: “Calling the Twelve to him, [Jesus] began to send them out two by two and gave them authority over impure spirits.” In other words, Matthew’s list most likely reflects the pairs of apostles that Jesus sent out in ministry, a pairing that only Mark mentions in an unrelated passage. We need both Gospels to see the whole picture.
Admittedly, this is a small detail. The historical reliability of the New Testament does not depend on this one undesigned coincidence. Still, the undesigned coincidences pile up, as McGrew demonstrates in her book. They revolve around incidental details, which suggests that they are not the results of a hoax, since hoaxers wouldn’t be so subtle. And while, theoretically, one could argue that such coincidences really are the result of pure luck, only the foolish gambler would place money on that table.
No, undesigned coincidences, taken cumulatively, suggest that the accounts of events in the Gospels and Acts have the ring of truth. They agree, not because a trickster designed them to agree (hoax) or because they just happen to agree (luck), but because they reflect the testimony of people who were there and whose reports of detail have made their way into the published narratives.
The argument from undesigned coincidences thus adds a third line of argument to those who would defend the Bible’s historical reliability: coherence, corroboration and coincidence. This third line of argument is not new, interestingly enough. It was pioneered in the 19th century by British apologists such as William Paley and J. J. Blunt. Lydia McGrew is to be congratulated for reviving it for use against the skeptical arguments of our day.
P.S. This review was written for InfluenceMagazine.com and appears here by permission.
P.P.S. If you found this review helpful, please vote "Yes" on my Amazon review page.
June 18, 2017
Begeistret for denne! Veldig gledelig å se at nålevende apologeter gjennopplivet dette gamle argumentet for evangelienes troverdighet (stort på 1700-1800tallet). Anbefalt lesing! Også kan man jo alltid ta turen til veritaskonferansen hvor jeg skal ha foredrag om dette aspektet av argumenter for evangelienes troverdighet!
March 4, 2020
We read "Hidden in Plain View" as a study with our teenagers. It works well as a form of apologetics which is lighter than classic philosophy and therefore lends itself well to teaching younger students. I was shocked and grieved to find out that these topics were traditionally taught from the pulpit in former times but no longer are.
December 27, 2018
An excellent resource on the gospels.
July 11, 2020
I first heard of the "undesigned coincidences" argument in 2014 when Tim McGrew lectured at Texas A&M. At first, I was somewhat unimpressed yet intrigued at the same time. It's a nuanced argument and once it clicked in my head, it's really quite brilliant.
Lydia McGrew has taken this obscure line of argument and refurbished it for a 21st century audience. This short work covers just the historical books of the New Testament (John + Synoptics and Acts + Pauline Epistles). Old arguments are re-presented, updated with the latest NT research and new arguments are introduced. It's an easy read and well-formatted with each coincidence sorted by explanatory direction. The tables at the end of each chapter make for a handy reference to refresh your memory.
The strength of the arguments is variable. Some are close to knock-down, others are more conjectural. At some points, I thought McGrew relied too heavily on the psychology of the writers. E.g. "If he were making this up, he would've gone into more detail about XYZ". It wasn't so much as to detract from the work as a whole, but, a more robust defense of authorial intentions at the relevant points would've been preferred.
Formatting 4.5/5
Material 3.9/5
Cover art 5/5
Overall 4.1/5
Highly recommended
Lydia McGrew has taken this obscure line of argument and refurbished it for a 21st century audience. This short work covers just the historical books of the New Testament (John + Synoptics and Acts + Pauline Epistles). Old arguments are re-presented, updated with the latest NT research and new arguments are introduced. It's an easy read and well-formatted with each coincidence sorted by explanatory direction. The tables at the end of each chapter make for a handy reference to refresh your memory.
The strength of the arguments is variable. Some are close to knock-down, others are more conjectural. At some points, I thought McGrew relied too heavily on the psychology of the writers. E.g. "If he were making this up, he would've gone into more detail about XYZ". It wasn't so much as to detract from the work as a whole, but, a more robust defense of authorial intentions at the relevant points would've been preferred.
Formatting 4.5/5
Material 3.9/5
Cover art 5/5
Overall 4.1/5
Highly recommended
January 1, 2019
Clearly written book covering almost 50 specific undesigned coincidences in the New Testament. Undesigned coincidences are coincidences between the books of the New Testament that are not intended by the author, but can be seen on close reading.
She compares the Synoptics to John and provides good evidence for the testimonial intent of John. John is often seen as a literary creation with theological intent, but Lydia provide strong support for John as eye witness testimony. She also links the Synoptics together in a mutually reinforcing web of independent eye witness testimony.
She also looks at Acts and the letters of Paul. There are so many alignments that the historical nature of Acts is undisputed.
Overall, a simple, easy to read book that make a strong cumulative case for the eye witness based testimony of the New Testament historical books. A faith building read that reaffirms the reliability of the New Testament as a historical record.
She compares the Synoptics to John and provides good evidence for the testimonial intent of John. John is often seen as a literary creation with theological intent, but Lydia provide strong support for John as eye witness testimony. She also links the Synoptics together in a mutually reinforcing web of independent eye witness testimony.
She also looks at Acts and the letters of Paul. There are so many alignments that the historical nature of Acts is undisputed.
Overall, a simple, easy to read book that make a strong cumulative case for the eye witness based testimony of the New Testament historical books. A faith building read that reaffirms the reliability of the New Testament as a historical record.
December 25, 2017
Gospels as History
A quick read and very interesting. The concept of undersigned coincidences was unfamiliar to me. Obviously, eye witnesses see things differently. But that they can and do unintentionally explain vague statements from another witness is fascinating and actually quite convincing that the gospels are personal testimonies based on historical experiences and facts as the authors understood it.
A quick read and very interesting. The concept of undersigned coincidences was unfamiliar to me. Obviously, eye witnesses see things differently. But that they can and do unintentionally explain vague statements from another witness is fascinating and actually quite convincing that the gospels are personal testimonies based on historical experiences and facts as the authors understood it.
March 31, 2018
Have you heard the Gospels are unreliable? Have you wondered why they differ? Do you think these questions can only by
be answered by blind faith? I challenge you to read this book. McGrew has done an excellent job of bringing an old and powerful evidence to the modern audience. Read it and see, the Gospels are shown to be what they are; accurate testimony of eyewitnesses who are interested in the facts.
be answered by blind faith? I challenge you to read this book. McGrew has done an excellent job of bringing an old and powerful evidence to the modern audience. Read it and see, the Gospels are shown to be what they are; accurate testimony of eyewitnesses who are interested in the facts.
March 23, 2018
In this book Dr. Lydia McGrew (in contrast to her husband, Dr. Tim McGrew) discusses what she calls undesigned coincidences in the New Testament. The gospels consist of and document eyewitness testimony about the life and ministry of Jesus. The book of Acts does the same for key points in the history of the early church. Because eyewitness testimony of the same event can often differ greatly from witnesses to witness, there are often apparent contradictions that resolve themselves on closer inspection and reflection, and Christian apologists have spilled much ink about this issue. Instead of worrying about apparent contradictions, Dr. McGrew has chosen a different approach; rather, she points out undesigned consequences in which a point made casually in one account dovetails with or explains a hole in another account. Before reading this book, I would have characterized this as harmony of the gospels, but in an intellectual environment in which people claim the gospels and Acts to have been written centuries after the fact, undesigned coincidences consistent with eyewitness testimony have apologetic value. In fact, this very type of apologetics was in vogue about two centuries ago, with William Paley and J.J. Blunt as prominent practitioners. Many of the undesigned coincidences highlighted by Dr. McGrew had been previously identified by these two men, and others identified by Dr. McGrew herself or by her husband.
So, what exactly is an undesigned coincidence? I will use the different accounts of the feeding of the five thousand (Mt. 14:13-21; Mk. 6:30-44; Lk. 9:10-17; John 6:1-14) to explain it. Various undesigned coincidences associated with the different accounts include:
• Mk. 6:30-31 states that Jesus had the disciples away to a desolate place and rest because many were coming and going, and they were unable even to eat. What is meant by coming and going? John 6:4 explains that the Passover was at hand. Based on Mk. 6:1-6, it is reasonable to conjecture that Jesus and the disciples were on the western side of the Sea of Galilee prior to traveling by boat to the desolate place. There was a Roman road than ran north of and along the western side of the Sea of Galilee. Furthermore, in the days before the Passover, there would be a mass exodus of Jews from Galilee to Jerusalem. This would explain the coming and going, but it takes accounts from Mark and John as well as an understanding of contemporary geography and Jewish holy day practices to put it all together.
• Mt. 14:19, Mk. 6:39 and Jn. 6:10 mention the presence of grass at the feeding of the five thousand, but only Mark mentions its green color. As noted above, according to Jn. 6:4, the Passover was near. In other words, this was the spring, a time when the grass is green following the winter rains. At other times of the year, the grass in that region is not generally green. In other words, the time of year mentioned by John explains the green grass mentioned by Mark, and an understanding of the local climate is necessary to make the connection.
• In John 6:5, Jesus asks Philip where they should be bread to feed the people. Why Philip and not some other disciple? According to Lk. 9:10, the feeding of the five thousand takes place near Bethsaida, Philip’s home town (Jn. 1:43-44; 12:21). So, John tells how Jesus asked Philip where to buy bread and he states that Phillip is from Bethsaida, but it is Luke who clarifies that the event under consideration took place near Bethsaida. Again, it is necessary to look at two different gospel accounts to piece together the puzzle.
From these instances, I hope it is obvious that the accounts of the feeding of the five thousand represent eyewitness accounts of people who remembered and noted different aspects of the event, people who were familiar with the local climate and customs of the first century, not people who wrote the gospel accounts centuries later in other parts of the Roman world. Dr. McGrew brings up numerous other examples of undersigned coincidences to make the same point throughout the gospels. In like manner, she also discusses numerous undesigned coincidences between Acts and the Pauline epistles, although I will leave it up to the reader of this review to check them out. I have no idea why the use of undesigned coincidences as an apologetic tool fell out of favor, but I commend Dr. McGrew for her efforts to put them back into the toolbox of the Christian apologist. Well done.
So, what exactly is an undesigned coincidence? I will use the different accounts of the feeding of the five thousand (Mt. 14:13-21; Mk. 6:30-44; Lk. 9:10-17; John 6:1-14) to explain it. Various undesigned coincidences associated with the different accounts include:
• Mk. 6:30-31 states that Jesus had the disciples away to a desolate place and rest because many were coming and going, and they were unable even to eat. What is meant by coming and going? John 6:4 explains that the Passover was at hand. Based on Mk. 6:1-6, it is reasonable to conjecture that Jesus and the disciples were on the western side of the Sea of Galilee prior to traveling by boat to the desolate place. There was a Roman road than ran north of and along the western side of the Sea of Galilee. Furthermore, in the days before the Passover, there would be a mass exodus of Jews from Galilee to Jerusalem. This would explain the coming and going, but it takes accounts from Mark and John as well as an understanding of contemporary geography and Jewish holy day practices to put it all together.
• Mt. 14:19, Mk. 6:39 and Jn. 6:10 mention the presence of grass at the feeding of the five thousand, but only Mark mentions its green color. As noted above, according to Jn. 6:4, the Passover was near. In other words, this was the spring, a time when the grass is green following the winter rains. At other times of the year, the grass in that region is not generally green. In other words, the time of year mentioned by John explains the green grass mentioned by Mark, and an understanding of the local climate is necessary to make the connection.
• In John 6:5, Jesus asks Philip where they should be bread to feed the people. Why Philip and not some other disciple? According to Lk. 9:10, the feeding of the five thousand takes place near Bethsaida, Philip’s home town (Jn. 1:43-44; 12:21). So, John tells how Jesus asked Philip where to buy bread and he states that Phillip is from Bethsaida, but it is Luke who clarifies that the event under consideration took place near Bethsaida. Again, it is necessary to look at two different gospel accounts to piece together the puzzle.
From these instances, I hope it is obvious that the accounts of the feeding of the five thousand represent eyewitness accounts of people who remembered and noted different aspects of the event, people who were familiar with the local climate and customs of the first century, not people who wrote the gospel accounts centuries later in other parts of the Roman world. Dr. McGrew brings up numerous other examples of undersigned coincidences to make the same point throughout the gospels. In like manner, she also discusses numerous undesigned coincidences between Acts and the Pauline epistles, although I will leave it up to the reader of this review to check them out. I have no idea why the use of undesigned coincidences as an apologetic tool fell out of favor, but I commend Dr. McGrew for her efforts to put them back into the toolbox of the Christian apologist. Well done.
June 7, 2023
McGrew brings an older yet fantastic argument which supports the reliability of the Gospels and Acts. Some coincidences have more weight than others, and McGrew acknowledges this. One that blew myself away was the maiming of Malchus, and the testimony before Pilate that Jesus’ movement was peaceful. If the Sanhedrin had evidence (such as a person maimed by a member of Jesus’ ministry), why would they not use it? This point could be fleshed out into its own book, and I hope to see this some day.
I have a few critiques of McGrew’s analysis as well. She analyzes John well, but I believe she forgets that John presupposes Mark (and possibly the other two), and that is why John does not include some stories, such as the trail before Caiaphas, or the Institution of the Lord’s Supper. This being said, her arguments do support John’s intimate knowledge of the events which occurred, and illustrates John’s careful writing and attention to detail. This is damaging to those who claim John ‘sloppily’ contradicts with the Synoptics, thus John’s Gospel is unreliable.
McGrew has a habit of briefly covering huge topics, but not giving ample space to discuss them. I already mentioned one above. Others are the authorship of John, and the Resurrection of Jesus. She brings some interesting bits to the table which support historicity of the resurrection, and these bits also could be expanded into their own books.
A great point McGrew makes is this: just because we cannot prove a certain event is historical, doesn’t mean the event is not historical. She critiques some modern apologetic methods, and I appreciate that.
To summarize: There’s great information here, and I advise anyone interested to read it. There are some bits I disagree with or would have written differently, but the positives far outweigh the negatives.
I have a few critiques of McGrew’s analysis as well. She analyzes John well, but I believe she forgets that John presupposes Mark (and possibly the other two), and that is why John does not include some stories, such as the trail before Caiaphas, or the Institution of the Lord’s Supper. This being said, her arguments do support John’s intimate knowledge of the events which occurred, and illustrates John’s careful writing and attention to detail. This is damaging to those who claim John ‘sloppily’ contradicts with the Synoptics, thus John’s Gospel is unreliable.
McGrew has a habit of briefly covering huge topics, but not giving ample space to discuss them. I already mentioned one above. Others are the authorship of John, and the Resurrection of Jesus. She brings some interesting bits to the table which support historicity of the resurrection, and these bits also could be expanded into their own books.
A great point McGrew makes is this: just because we cannot prove a certain event is historical, doesn’t mean the event is not historical. She critiques some modern apologetic methods, and I appreciate that.
To summarize: There’s great information here, and I advise anyone interested to read it. There are some bits I disagree with or would have written differently, but the positives far outweigh the negatives.
November 18, 2020
If I were to describe what this book does I would say that it presents the opposite type of proof that answering alleged Bible contradictions does. This is a positive case approach to the reliability of the New Testament. Lydia McGrew defines an undesigned coincidence as "a notable connection between two or more accounts or texts that doesn't seem to have been planned by the person or people giving the accounts. Despite their apparent independence, the items fit together like pieces of a puzzle.”
This book presents a collection of these from the Gospels as well as Acts & the Epistles. The Gospel of John gets some love from a scholar finally and will be the subject of McGrew's next book. The benefits of identifying U.C.s is that it allows one to better layout a narrative or setting or subject background, especially from a western mind or literature perspective. Wherein we want clarification and details to something so important as the life and ministry of Jesus, 1st century Jewish and Greek authors don't really have that same desire - nor could they with the resources and technological hindrances they had compared to us today.
McGrew writes in such a way as to hold an interest but allows for skimming if one wants a general idea of what an identified UC is. However, she also provides the details for those of us to revel in such layouts. This is not an exhaustive list of UCs nor does it claim to be. The good thing about that is that McGrew writes about them in such an interesting way that it is very likely to inspire others to find more and write their own lists and/or books.
A fantastic book for those looking to add to their collection for positive proof of New Testament reliability (internally and externally). Final Grade - A-
This book presents a collection of these from the Gospels as well as Acts & the Epistles. The Gospel of John gets some love from a scholar finally and will be the subject of McGrew's next book. The benefits of identifying U.C.s is that it allows one to better layout a narrative or setting or subject background, especially from a western mind or literature perspective. Wherein we want clarification and details to something so important as the life and ministry of Jesus, 1st century Jewish and Greek authors don't really have that same desire - nor could they with the resources and technological hindrances they had compared to us today.
McGrew writes in such a way as to hold an interest but allows for skimming if one wants a general idea of what an identified UC is. However, she also provides the details for those of us to revel in such layouts. This is not an exhaustive list of UCs nor does it claim to be. The good thing about that is that McGrew writes about them in such an interesting way that it is very likely to inspire others to find more and write their own lists and/or books.
A fantastic book for those looking to add to their collection for positive proof of New Testament reliability (internally and externally). Final Grade - A-
October 30, 2020
Hidden In Plain View
A good book to pair with this reading might be - Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels, J. Warner Wallace
Lydia McGraw rejuvenates an old argument in a new light, that being the inter-connectivity of the New Testament, particularly the Gospels: that where one Gospel account mentions one situation and leaves out another, the other Gospel account provides that information in what is called an "undesigned coincidence".
Lydia starts by mentioning the undesigned coincidences in the Gospels, first by showing that the Synoptic Gospels can explain John's - the latest Gospel of them all. There is a lot of cross-references between the books. John's Gospel then can explain some of the content in the Synoptic Gospels, and in a further chapter the book explains how the Synoptic Gospels explain each other. What is noteworthy is that each Gospel was published independently of each other via oral proclamation and in written form, with close proximity in time of each other, distributed to the churches and for private use. When these Gospels were collected as a corpus in the late first-Century and second-Century it may have only been evident then that these cross-witness accounts of events answer each other and coincide with the undesigned coincidences.
A good book to pair with this reading might be - Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels, J. Warner Wallace
Lydia McGraw rejuvenates an old argument in a new light, that being the inter-connectivity of the New Testament, particularly the Gospels: that where one Gospel account mentions one situation and leaves out another, the other Gospel account provides that information in what is called an "undesigned coincidence".
Lydia starts by mentioning the undesigned coincidences in the Gospels, first by showing that the Synoptic Gospels can explain John's - the latest Gospel of them all. There is a lot of cross-references between the books. John's Gospel then can explain some of the content in the Synoptic Gospels, and in a further chapter the book explains how the Synoptic Gospels explain each other. What is noteworthy is that each Gospel was published independently of each other via oral proclamation and in written form, with close proximity in time of each other, distributed to the churches and for private use. When these Gospels were collected as a corpus in the late first-Century and second-Century it may have only been evident then that these cross-witness accounts of events answer each other and coincide with the undesigned coincidences.
April 7, 2021
Christians have long worked to harmonize the differences between gospels, Old and New Testaments, Paul and James, and Acts and the epistles. McGrew resurrects William Paley’s argument that our ability to harmonize distinct works—especially when details are apparently undesigned—works (counterintuitively) as a powerful support for historical accuracy and unity. Rather than being ashamed of our need for/desire to harmonize, undesigned coincidences make us confident that NT writers are not fabricating information, conspiring to create a religion, or hopelessly contradicting each other.
Each of the coincidences, on its own, produces a sort of mental shrug. It’s interesting but not compelling. Yet as the book progresses, I felt the continued force of so many convenient details that the power of the argument came home. McGrew defends John and shows how it is not a wild departure from the Synoptics. She redeems Acts as an extremely reliable history (despite modern assertions to the contrary). Her conclusion is a strong call to a different style of apologetics that acknowledges and contends for the reliability of the gospels as a whole instead of just “bare facts” that skeptics would agree to.
For those deep in these debates, strongly recommended.
Each of the coincidences, on its own, produces a sort of mental shrug. It’s interesting but not compelling. Yet as the book progresses, I felt the continued force of so many convenient details that the power of the argument came home. McGrew defends John and shows how it is not a wild departure from the Synoptics. She redeems Acts as an extremely reliable history (despite modern assertions to the contrary). Her conclusion is a strong call to a different style of apologetics that acknowledges and contends for the reliability of the gospels as a whole instead of just “bare facts” that skeptics would agree to.
For those deep in these debates, strongly recommended.
November 5, 2021
By itself, the argument in this book, with its copious examples, ought to give skeptics pause when it comes to the motives and accuracy of the Gospel writers and the writer of Acts. Combined with even one (out of a dozen or so) other lines of evidence for the reliability of these works, it makes it very very difficult, if not untenable, to write these works off as unreliable in any of the ways that skeptics usually claim.
I recommend this book, acknowledging that some of the examples in it will not be as convincing as others. As the author herself says at the end, when one has inspected the front, back, and many middle sections throughout a loaf of bread, the claim that we've just missed the moldy bits hiding therein and should still toss out the loaf to be safe becomes more and more ridiculous. And what are we to say, when the accounts involving a miracle are as well-attested as the non-miracle bits, and are woven right among them? To deny these while accepting the rest is either arbitrary or based on philosophical presupposition, neither of which is a rational way to approach history.
I think this is a great addition to anyone's study of this matter.
I recommend this book, acknowledging that some of the examples in it will not be as convincing as others. As the author herself says at the end, when one has inspected the front, back, and many middle sections throughout a loaf of bread, the claim that we've just missed the moldy bits hiding therein and should still toss out the loaf to be safe becomes more and more ridiculous. And what are we to say, when the accounts involving a miracle are as well-attested as the non-miracle bits, and are woven right among them? To deny these while accepting the rest is either arbitrary or based on philosophical presupposition, neither of which is a rational way to approach history.
I think this is a great addition to anyone's study of this matter.
August 30, 2019
It's not an easy read and I think I missed quite a bit in the final chapters because I didn't bother to keep all the names, places and timings straight in my head. You can't really read this book passively, you have to keep your head with it.
I recommend this book to everyone interested in actually believing the gospel. Not believing as in taking a leap of faith, but believing like the first Christians did, on the strength of the testimony of the eyewitnesses. This book points out a number of cases where one eyewitness raises a question that another incidentally answers.
This is not a perfect book. It wasn't as easy to read as I had hoped and all the references to contemporary theories on how and in what order the gospels were written seemed of limited interest to the ordinary Christian. That's pretty normal for this type of book, but I'm going to keep looking for an easier to understand book along the same lines, so I can give it as a present to some friends in need of it.
I recommend this book to everyone interested in actually believing the gospel. Not believing as in taking a leap of faith, but believing like the first Christians did, on the strength of the testimony of the eyewitnesses. This book points out a number of cases where one eyewitness raises a question that another incidentally answers.
This is not a perfect book. It wasn't as easy to read as I had hoped and all the references to contemporary theories on how and in what order the gospels were written seemed of limited interest to the ordinary Christian. That's pretty normal for this type of book, but I'm going to keep looking for an easier to understand book along the same lines, so I can give it as a present to some friends in need of it.
August 9, 2018
A unique and interesting approach to supporting the reliability of the New Testament documents. The author does an excellent job demonstrating how the Gospels, Acts, and the Pauline Epistles can be viewed as reliable accounts due to many instances of "undesigned coincidences"--small and oftentimes overlooked connections between many of these texts. Though the book isn't quite as engaging or easy to read as other books on apologetics, the author does an excellent job defending her central thesis that the similarities between many of the books of the New Testament are consistent with what would be expected in reliable firsthand historical accounts.
January 23, 2024
Informative reading for the serious Bible student. I'll admit, having grown up regularly attending Bible classes I took for granted a lot of these "undesigned coincidences". This book is beneficial in that it logically lays out often overlooked agreement between the gospels and between the epistles and Acts. This was a timely read for me as my congregation just finished reading through the gospels last year, and now we're moving on to the Pauline epistles.
While I'm still reading seasonally, I have scheduled at least one Biblically focused book a month for the remainder of this year as a part of my effort to clear my TBR as much as possible by the end of the year.
While I'm still reading seasonally, I have scheduled at least one Biblically focused book a month for the remainder of this year as a part of my effort to clear my TBR as much as possible by the end of the year.
March 8, 2020
The author presents a number of examples where a question raised by a detail given in one New Testament book is answered by an incidental detail mentioned in another. In this way the Gospels support each other, and the book of Acts and Pauline epistles support each other. Overall, she makes a strong case for the historicity of the New Testament, reviving for a new generation arguments originally presented by apologists of the 18th and 19th centuries---e.g., William Paley and J.J. Blunt---that deserve to be better known today. This is a valuable, faith-affirming book.
November 30, 2022
Now You See It…
This book increased my belief the Gospels, Acts, and Pauline epistles are fundamentally historical documents grounded in actual human events. The credibility of the approach is logically sound in that it correlates the most subtle of incidents and/or statements… ones which when brought to light… give the strong impression that the writers were witnessing the same events and consequently actually occurred. This in turn makes the documents in which the events are recorded more credible. The approach is subtle, profoundly simple, and astonishingly believable.
This book increased my belief the Gospels, Acts, and Pauline epistles are fundamentally historical documents grounded in actual human events. The credibility of the approach is logically sound in that it correlates the most subtle of incidents and/or statements… ones which when brought to light… give the strong impression that the writers were witnessing the same events and consequently actually occurred. This in turn makes the documents in which the events are recorded more credible. The approach is subtle, profoundly simple, and astonishingly believable.
September 9, 2025
A Strong Case for the Reliability of the Bible
There are statements in one book of the Bible that unintentionally support the statements in another book. Some will, no doubt, postulate that this is evidence of a grand conspiracy to substantiate the truth of the Bible when no substantiation exists. However, this absurd postulation amounts to an attempt to explain away sound evidence that is right in front of their eyes. These "undesigned coincidences" are clear evidence that the Bible can be trusted.
There are statements in one book of the Bible that unintentionally support the statements in another book. Some will, no doubt, postulate that this is evidence of a grand conspiracy to substantiate the truth of the Bible when no substantiation exists. However, this absurd postulation amounts to an attempt to explain away sound evidence that is right in front of their eyes. These "undesigned coincidences" are clear evidence that the Bible can be trusted.
September 17, 2025
McGrew revives old arguments for the reliability of the scriptures based on undesigned coincidences. “An undesigned Coincidence is a notable connection between two or more accounts or texts that doesn’t seem to have been planned by the person or people giving the accounts. Despite their apparent independence, the items fit together like pieces of a puzzle.” These types of coincidences are typical of truthful eyewitness accounts. Very interesting and helpful for building the reliability of many of the the NT texts.
December 28, 2020
Did you know that the best detectives view two different witnesses giving identical testimonies with more skepticism than those with some minor factual differences? This book uses that idea as a modern point of contact with what was (many years ago) a much-used method of Biblical apologetics. It doesn't try and go further and use other apologetics methods, just this one and meets the designed limited objectives wonderfully. It is also very readable. Well worth the read.
February 4, 2021
New to Apologetics
I am new into the apologetics, and I'm trying to learn as much as possible. I came across this book and it interested me greatly. I've read the whole Bible several times and it's incredible to learn so many things I never put attention to.
This book is mind-opening for those who believe and disbelieve. Denying these teachings is like denying the sun doesn't exist.
I am new into the apologetics, and I'm trying to learn as much as possible. I came across this book and it interested me greatly. I've read the whole Bible several times and it's incredible to learn so many things I never put attention to.
This book is mind-opening for those who believe and disbelieve. Denying these teachings is like denying the sun doesn't exist.
October 21, 2021
A lot of minute detail, but if you can follow it quite informative. The regular reader of the Gospels and the New Testament is likely so familiar with many of these interrelated elements they may likely not have considered how significant it is that they appear, often apparently at random, in different texts of the N. T. A great evidence for the historical and eyewitness nature of the New Testament texts.
September 3, 2023
Truly excellent. Loved every bit of this book.
Lydia seeks to revive apologetic methods from the 17th and 18th centuries that have largely been lost to the modern intellect. Undesigned coincidences show the Gospels and Acts are historically reliable, and help demonstrate Pauline authorship even to books that scholars have doubts that he wrote.
I recommend this book to anyone seeking to defend the historical reliability of the Gospels and Acts.
Lydia seeks to revive apologetic methods from the 17th and 18th centuries that have largely been lost to the modern intellect. Undesigned coincidences show the Gospels and Acts are historically reliable, and help demonstrate Pauline authorship even to books that scholars have doubts that he wrote.
I recommend this book to anyone seeking to defend the historical reliability of the Gospels and Acts.
July 22, 2021
Powerful evidence for the reliability of the Gospels and I highly recommend this to anyone interested in seeing that the Gospel accounts are based on eyewitness testimony. The arguments put forth are some of the most convincing refutations of the Jesus mythicist position as well. Overall, an excellent book.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 40 reviews