How “Undesigned Coincidences” Enhances The Reliability Of The Bible?

            Those interested in learning more about the reliability of the Bible should study the very interesting topic of “Undesigned Coincidences.”  

            Christian analytic philosopher Lydia McGrew, who has written a book entitled Hidden in Plain View, defines undesigned coincidences as, “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.”¹

            An article in Christianity Today further explains this, “In other words, an undesigned coincidence occurs when multiple passages of Scripture include details that at first seem unrelated but which, upon further reflection, fit together in a way that only makes sense if both accounts are based on the same underlying historical truth.”²

            How do undesigned coincidences enhance the reliability of the Bible? The same article states, “Undesigned coincidences are subtle enough that it would be pointless for a fabricator to make them up. But on analysis, they provide valuable internal evidence of the reliability of the New Testament histories. The only plausible explanation for their occurrence is that the authors were carefully recording real events.”³

            Consider two examples of undesigned coincidences from the New Testament:⁴

One of the simplest coincidences concerns Herod’s reaction to the commencement of Jesus’ ministry. Matthew 14 reports that Herod “said to his attendants, ‘This is John the Baptist. He has risen from the dead!’” (v. 1). But how would Matthew know what the king said to his servants in the privacy of his palace? A skeptic might conclude that he was taking liberties with the truth.

Unless, that is, the skeptic in question happened to notice an obscure phrase in the Gospel of Luke. On a totally different topic, Luke 8 lists a number of women who were following Jesus. One of them is named as “Joanna the wife of Chuza, the manager of Herod’s household” (v. 3).

The second passage explains the first. Matthew could have known about Herod’s comment to his servants because the wife of one of those servants was a follower of Christ. And yet the connection is incredibly oblique. If the Gospels were fabricated, Luke would have had no particular reason to invent this detail. The best explanation is that the pieces fit so well because they are both true.

Another coincidence is even more striking. In John 6, Jesus asks Philip where to buy bread just prior to the miraculous feeding of the 5,000 (v. 5). Why Philip? John gives no explanation. Yet elsewhere, in unrelated passages, he does mention something that turns out to be relevant: Philip was from Bethsaida.

There is no obvious connection between these two pieces of information until one turns to the Gospel of Luke. Luke 9 notes that the feeding of the 5,000 occurred near Bethsaida (v. 10). Jesus asked Philip where to buy bread because he was a local.

If the Gospels were fabricated, there would be no particular reason for John to report that Jesus asked Philip where to buy bread. There would be no particular reason for listing Philip as a native of Bethsaida. There would be no particular reason for Luke to situate the feeding of the 5,000 near Bethsaida. Further, the details are so randomly strewn through the accounts that they are obviously not an attempt at subtle harmonization. Once again, the best explanation as to why the puzzle pieces fit so well is that they are all true.

            Undesigned coincidences are not only found in the New Testament. They are found in the Old Testament also.

            Here is one such example from an article authored by Christian Apologist Jonathan McLatchie:⁵

Why Does Ahithophel Turn on David?

2 Samuel 15 details the story of King David’s son Absalom conspiring against his own Father. In verses 7-12, we read,

And at the end of four years Absalom said to the king, “Please let me go and pay my vow, which I have vowed to the Lord, in Hebron. For your servant vowed a vow while I lived at Geshur in Aram, saying, ‘If the Lord will indeed bring me back to Jerusalem, then I will offer worship to the Lord.’” The king said to him, “Go in peace.” So he arose and went to Hebron. But Absalom sent secret messengers throughout all the tribes of Israel, saying, “As soon as you hear the sound of the trumpet, then say, ‘Absalom is king at Hebron!’” With Absalom went two hundred men from Jerusalem who were invited guests, and they went in their innocence and knew nothing. And while Absalom was offering the sacrifices, he sent for Ahithophel the Gilonite, David’s counselor, from his city Giloh. And the conspiracy grew strong, and the people with Absalom kept increasing.

In verse 12, Absalom sends for Ahithophel, David’s counselor. Who is this man, Ahithophel? According to 2 Samuel 16:23:

Now in those days the counsel that Ahithophel gave was as if one consulted the word of God; so was all the counsel of Ahithophel esteemed, both by David and by Absalom.

Ahithophel, then, was the most trusted adviser to King David. Why, then, did Absalom count on Ahithophel to join him in conspiring against the King?

In 2 Samuel 23, in a completely unrelated part of the text, we have an important clue. Verses 24-39 list the thirty-seven body guards of King David. In verse 39, we have a familiar name – Uriah the Hittite, the husband of Bathsheba. Another individual mentioned is Eliam the son of Ahithophel the Gilonite (verse 34). This means that Ahithophel’s son was a colleague of Uriah the Hittite.

It gets even more interesting when we look over at 2 Samuel 11, in which we read of David’s adultery with Bathsheba and his murder of her husband, Uriah the Hittite. Here is what we read in verses 2-3:

It happened, late one afternoon, when David arose from his couch and was walking on the roof of the king’s house, that he saw from the roof a woman bathing; and the woman was very beautiful. And David sent and inquired about the woman. And one said, “Is not this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite?

Thus, it appears that Bathsheba was the the granddaughter of Ahithophel, David’s counselor, and her father Eliam himself was among the King’s body guards along with Bathsheba’s husband Uriah. This then explains why Absalom in chapter 15 expected Ahithophel to be ready to conspire against King David and why Ahithophel joined Absalom’s rebellion. He wanted revenge on David for what he had done to Bathsheba and Uriah.

But it gets even more interesting. Flip over to chapter 16 and verses 20-22:

Then Absalom said to Ahithophel, “Give your counsel. What shall we do?” Ahithophel said to Absalom, “Go in to your father’s concubines, whom he has left to keep the house, and all Israel will hear that you have made yourself a stench to your father, and the hands of all who are with you will be strengthened.” So they pitched a tent for Absalom on the roof. And Absalom went in to his father’s concubines in the sight of all Israel.

Why do they pitch a tent for Absalom on the roof so that he can sleep with his father’s concubines? It was on the roof that David’s eye first caught Bathsheba bathing, resulting in his adulterous affair and his murder of her husband Uriah. Her grandfather Ahithophel then seeks revenge, and so encourages Absalom to sleep with his father’s concubines on the roof of the palace.

Now, note that it was only by putting together different, seemingly unrelated, parts of the text that we were able to arrive at these explanations. Nowhere in Scripture is it explicitly spelled out that Ahithophel was the grandfather of Bathsheba. Rather, one has to do detective work in order to see beneath the surface what exactly is going on here.

This is not the sort of pattern that one might expect in stories of myth and legend. Rather, it is the hallmark of truth.

Endnotes:

¹https://seanmcdowell.org/blog/unique-evidence-for-the-new-testament-interview-with-lydia-mcgrew-about-unintended-coincidences-1

²https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2017/august-web-only/defending-accuracy-of-scripture-one-coincidence-at-time.html

³Ibid.

⁴Ibid.

⁵https://jonathanmclatchie.com/undesigned-coincidences-in-the-scriptures-an-argument-for-their-veracity-part-1-old-testament-examples/ 

Websites last accessed on 13^th June 2022.

Five Credible Reasons To Believe The New Testament

             Find below five credible reasons to believe the New Testament.

            1. Internal Evidence: The New Testament claims to be truthful and factual (Luke 1:1-4; 2 Peter 1:16; 1 John 1).

            2. External Evidence: Archaeology affirms the New Testament. There is ample evidence to corroborate the credibility of the New Testament. A recent discovery (in December 2021) of a 2000-year-old second synagogue that may have been visited by the Lord Jesus is a classic case in point.¹

            3. Confirmation by Eyewitnesses: Another instance is that of Apostle Paul’s affirmation of Jesus’ resurrection, “...historians trust that Apostle Paul preserved an oral tradition about Christ’s resurrection that goes back to the early Christian church or the Jerusalem apostles, who were eyewitnesses to Christ’s resurrection. Paul’s letter to the Corinthian church narrates Christ’s resurrection from the perspective of the eyewitnesses and also as a written record of Christ’s resurrection closer to the time of Christ’s resurrection, “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.” (1 Corinthians 15: 3-7, NIV, Emphasis Mine).”²

            4. Criterion of Embarrassment: “If a report in the Gospels provides data that would have been embarrassing to the early Christian movement, we can have more confidence that the event had occurred, since it is unlikely that the author would have invented content likely to detract from the cause for which he wrote. This is called the criterion of embarrassment. For example, Mark reports that Peter rebuked Jesus and that Jesus in turn rebuked Peter, calling him “Satan” (Mark 8:31-33). Since Peter was a leader of the Jerusalem church, it seems unlikely that the early Christians would have invented and preserved a tradition that casts him in such an unfavorable manner.”³

            5. Criterion of Unsympathetic Sources: “If a source that is unsympathetic or even hostile toward the Christian faith provides a report that agrees with the Christian reports, we can have more confidence that the event had occurred, since the unsympathetic or hostile source would not have the bias carried by the authors of the Christian reports. This is called the criterion of unsympathetic sources. For example, Tacitus referred to Christianity as an evil and mischievous superstition (Annals 15.44). This identifies him as an unsympathetic source. So, when he reports Jesus’s execution by Pontius Pilate, a report entirely compatible with what we find in the Gospels, historians can have more confidence that the event had occurred.”⁴

            “Unsympathetic or hostile non-Christian sources have affirmed the following about Jesus Christ:

            1. Christ’s miraculous birth.

            2. Christ’s claim to be God and the Messiah.

            3. Christ performed the miraculous.

            4. Jesus was persecuted by the Jews.

            5. Jesus’ gory death through crucifixion.

            6. The empty tomb.

            7. Jesus’ resurrection, postmortem appearances to HIS disciples, and ascension.

            8. Disciples’ martyrdom.

            9. Early Christians’ regular worship. 

            Does the skeptic need more proof than this to believe in the existence of Jesus Christ? If after learning this information, if the skeptic refuses to believe in the Historical Jesus, then it seems that the skeptic is dishonest in his search for truth.”⁵

Endnotes:

¹https://rajkumarrichard.blogspot.com/2022/01/five-significant-biblical.html

²https://rajkumarrichard.blogspot.com/2016/03/why-should-we-believe-christs.html

³https://rajkumarrichard.blogspot.com/2020/02/reasons-for-existence-of-historical.html

⁴Ibid.

⁵Ibid.

Websites last accessed on 27^th February 2022.

The Red Letter Words In The Bible Are Not The Words Of Jesus!

            For quite some time I believed that the red letter words are the words of the Lord Jesus Christ. But when I came to understand that these words may not be the exact words of Jesus, I was disappointed.

            Two questions are in order: (1) Is it certain that the red letter words are not the words of Jesus?  (2) If so, how does it impact our faith in the Lord Jesus?

            First, how do we know for certain that the red letter words may not be the words of the Lord Jesus?

            New Testament scholar, Daniel B. Wallace claims that the red letter words may not be the words of the Lord Jesus, “Scholars are not sure of the exact words of Jesus. Ancient historians were concerned to get the gist of what someone said, but not necessarily the exact wording. A comparison of parallel passages in the Synoptic Gospels reveals that the evangelists didn’t always record Jesus’ words exactly the same way. The terms ipsissima verba and ipsissima vox are used to distinguish the kinds of dominical sayings we have in the Gospels. The former means ‘the very words,’ and the latter means ‘the very voice.’ That is, the exact words or the essential thought. There have been attempts to harmonize these accounts, but they are highly motivated by a theological agenda which clouds one’s judgment and skews the facts. In truth, though red-letter editions of the Bible may give comfort to believers that they have the very words of Jesus in every instance, this is a false comfort.” ¹

            Dr. William Lane Craig believes that every serious student of the Gospels should avoid the use of the red letter editions of the Gospels. He writes:²

The Gospels were written in Greek, but Jesus taught in Aramaic. So even a red letter edition of the Greek New Testament would not give us the actual words of Jesus.

Granted, Jesus probably spoke Greek, at least enough to get by in his trade as a carpenter, since Greek was the common language of the Roman Empire, as a result of the pre-Roman conquests by Alexander the Great. Even though the Romans spoke Latin, in their dealings with Palestinians, they probably conversed in Greek—hence, the arresting centurion’s question to Paul: “Do you know Greek?” (Acts 21.37).

But in teaching his fellow Jews Jesus would naturally have spoken Aramaic. So what we have in the Gospels are Greek translations of what Jesus claimed and taught. Only rarely do we get glimpses of the original Aramaic words spoken by Jesus, as for example, Jesus’ words from the cross given in Mark: “At the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, ‘Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?’ which means, ‘My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?’” (Mark 15.34).

Moreover, we need to keep in mind that in a culture that lacked even the device of quotation marks, the distinction between direct and indirect discourse can be blurred. Read the account of Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus in John’s Gospel 3.10-21, ignoring the quotation marks introduced by the English translators, and ask yourself where John’s direct quotation of Jesus ends and John’s commentary begins. Or read Galatians 2.11-21 about Paul’s public dispute with Peter and ask yourself where Paul stops recording what he said at the time and begins his present reflections upon what happened. It’s not clear. So in a culture where the distinction between direct and indirect discourse is not always clear, giving a paraphrase or the gist of what a person said rather than his very words is perfectly acceptable.

The Gospel writers employed common techniques of their day in giving the teachings of Jesus, such as paraphrase, summary, omission, clarification, contextualization, and so on.

So it’s very misleading to print Jesus’ words in red, as though we have the original words of Jesus recorded there.

What we want to show is that the Gospel writers gave an accurate representation of what Jesus of Nazareth said and taught. This is where New Testament historical-critical scholarship can be helpful. Scholars will sometimes say that in a particular teaching attributed to Jesus, we hear the very voice of Jesus (ipsissima vox); that is to say, something that renders very closely (in Greek) what Jesus said. His teaching on the Kingdom of God would be a good example. Everyone recognizes that the proclamation of the coming of God’s Kingdom or reign lay at the heart of the teaching of Jesus. On other occasions, scholars think that we have the very words (ipsissima verba) of Jesus, that is, a Greek expression that translates almost verbatim what Jesus said. His use of the expression “the Son of Man” as a term of self-reference would be a good example. Instances of this sort would have the best claim to be printed in red; but then we artificially mar the Gospels by such a device...

The use of red letter editions of the Gospels ought to be shunned by serious students of the Gospels, since the device is fundamentally misleading as to the nature of the Gospel accounts.

            It is now clear that the red letter words need not necessarily be the very words of the Lord Jesus.

            Second, how does this impact my faith?

            Although I was disappointed that the red letter words may not be the very words of our Lord Jesus, I am thankful to the New Testament scholars for their integrity and honesty in reporting the truth.

            We may not possess the original writings of the Biblical authors (the autographs). But we possess an embarrassment of riches of the New Testament manuscripts. The field of Textual Criticism offers us a way to retrieve the writings of the autographs from the available manuscripts. Thereby, we understand that the Bible we have is the same as that of the autographs (99.5% pure and without any doctrinal distortion). Thus we are confident of the reliability of the New Testament.

            The fact that the Bible is reliable and that it records the very thoughts or the very voice of Jesus offers me the greatest confidence and comfort. The icing on the cake would have been the authenticity of the red letter words. But it does not matter!

Endnotes:

¹https://danielbwallace.com/2012/10/08/fifteen-myths-about-bible-translation/

²https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/red-letter-gospels

Websites last accessed on 13^th November 2021.

 

Newsweek Assaults the Bible – Understanding The Assault, God & Church’s Response

            If there are no tirades against Christianity during the days surrounding the Christian holy events – Christmas and Easter, we may as well wonder what’s happening in the opposite camp. However, these melodramatic rants against Christianity will gradually lose its impact, because it is old wine in a new bottle.

            So we have a similar tirade against Christianity. This in the form of an 8,487 word article discrediting the Bible, ‘The Bible: So Misunderstood It's a Sin’ by Kurt Eichenwald and published by Newsweek, on December 23^rd 2014.¹ 

Realizing God’s Beauty During Assaults against Christianity

            When Newsweek’s article was published, a specific group of our non-Christian friends joyfully propagated the article in social media. Consider this please, why do they seize the liberty to joyfully discredit the Bible, while they, by the same token, do not allow the world to criticize their holy book?

            Isn’t this an interesting hypocrisy? This is akin to maligning our reputation at their will and pleasure but preventing others to examine their credentials despite it being in a questionable state altogether.

            Whatever the case may be, this is a wonderful opportunity to realize the beauty of the God of the Bible.

            If God has offered freewill to man, then by the same token, man could abuse God using that very freewill. In this context, it’s valid that God be at the receiving end of man’s disbelief and criticisms. Disbelief and abuse of the Creator God are the ramifications of man’s freewill especially in the context of a world inundated in evil and sin.

            God by virtue of granting freewill to man would necessarily invite abuses upon HIMSELF and would graciously understand the abuse. If God is loving and just, then HE would not prohibit the unbelieving man use his freewill to abuse HIM. (Prohibiting man to employ his freewill is a negation of freewill.)

            This is how God’s beauty is revealed. God would not obstruct man’s freewill, since salvation is predicated on man’s freewill. While man employs his freewill to abuse God, it is by the same freewill man could repent of his sins and believe in God.

            Therefore, if God silences man from abusing HIM, HE cannot be loving, just and salvific in this context. God, who prevents man from abusing HIM, albeit for a finite period of time, cannot be God. Instead, that god could only be a mere illusory figure concocted by man.

Motive Behind Assaults Against Christianity

            Newsweek’s allegations against Christianity are unscrupulously the same old. These so-called allegations have been adequately and reasonably answered a jillion times over and again by eminent Christian scholars.

            However, there is no scarcity of Christian response to Newsweek’s tirade against Christianity. Eichenwald’s allegations have been systematically debunked.² Although the most appropriate response would be that of Billy Madison’s:

            The motive of these assaults against Christianity is to rattle the faith of an immature Christian.

            The antagonist desires to prove the Bible as a fairytale. If the Bible is proven as corrupt and inherently false, then the Christian has nothing to anchor his faith on.

            If there is no Bible, then there is no triune God or the Lord Jesus, whom the Bible reveals. If there is no Jesus, there is no salvation through HIS sacrifice. Hence those who lose faith in Christ remain clueless; clueless as to their origin, purpose and destiny.

            Any Christian who has studied the Bible and the other theistic worldviews would conclusively assert the utmost coherency of the Christian worldview. In comparison, the other monotheistic and pantheistic worldviews remain largely incoherent, especially from within the realms of God & salvation, man’s origin, purpose and destiny. 

            So if one were to depart from faith in Christ, he would wallow under the weight of the incoherency of the other worldviews that he would be artificially incubated in an apparently peaceful situation that even a feeble impairment to his wellness would destroy his inner peace completely and thus his soul (Cf. Isaiah 48: 22).

            If one were to disbelieve the Bible, do we really think we can earn or work our way to our salvation? Do we think that chanting [sacred texts] and/or charity would fetch us heaven? No.

            Our sins in thoughts, words, and deeds far outweigh our potential and maximal goodness. Thus no amount of good works would fetch us heaven. That good works would fetch us salvation is an untenable state or a mere illusion.

            So if it’s not Jesus then its despair. Despair / hopelessness or illusion would be the mainstay of a person without Christ. This is precisely where the adverse propagandas against Christianity intend to drive the faltering Christians to.

            But the fact remains that outside of Christianity there is no truth, especially a coherent one at that.

Target Audience Behind The Assaults Against Christianity

            Who’s more likely to be rattled by such adverse propagandas against Christianity?

            Newsweek provides us the answer, “…Their lack of knowledge about the Bible is well established. A Pew Research poll in 2010 found that evangelicals ranked only a smidgen higher than atheists in familiarity with the New Testament and Jesus’s teachings. “Americans revere the Bible—but, by and large, they don’t read it,’’ wrote George Gallup Jr. and Jim Castelli, pollsters and researchers whose work focused on religion in the United States.”^C

            We should be aware of the aesthetic Christians. These Christians do not expend time or energy to wrestle with the biblical text to unravel and assimilate the timeless truths of the Bible. Their prayer is but a selfish rant meticulously devoid of listening to God. Instead they love to attend the church regularly in their best attire, so much so their focus is more on the regularity of attendance and in beautifying themselves for a mass acceptance than attending the church to increase their love for God by worshipping HIM in spirit and in truth.

            This group would indeed be rattled.

            But then there is a quantum of solace for this group. That quantum of solace is predicated on the age of the Christian belonging to this group. 

            Are these adverse propagandas aimed against the older Christians (e.g. in the age group of 50++ years)? I don’t think so. Majority of these older Christians wouldn’t possibly read these articles.

            Even if they read, they would discard these articles because their faith in historic Christianity is predicated upon fear and reverence for God. In other words, they would dare not question the Bible.

            These assaults then are aimed against the younger Christians. This group thinks through their heart and not their head. This is the feeling culture and not the thinking culture per se.

            The younger Christian is more likely to be impacted by the adverse propagandas against Christianity unless the contemporary Christian leadership offers reasonable answers to the questions of this age-group.

            Answers refuting these so-called allegations are available in the public domain, but the younger Christians either don’t believe in extensive reading and understanding or they read and strive to understand, but have questions for which they desire personal answers.

Is The Local Church Ready To Engage Objections Against Christianity?

            A few germane questions should be asked:

            A. Is [the leadership of] the local church able to answer the questions disputing Christianity?

            B. Is [the leadership of] the local church aware of the sources that debunk such adverse propagandas so to refer them to the seeking / questioning Christian? (It’s not to shoo away the questioning Christian to these public domains as if to release themselves from the responsibility or burden of answering these questions. But [the leadership of] the local church should handhold the seeking or questioning Christian through the process of solidifying his belief in Christ and in the Bible.)

            C. Would [the leadership of] the local church encourage questions about Christianity / Bible from their worshippers?   

            It’s OK to question the Bible albeit honestly so to earnestly seek God. In fact, Christians should utilize these assaults against Christianity to help motivate the younger generation Christians to be deeply rooted in Christ and the Bible.

            Perfect peace is only possible when a person is in Christ. Each day will have its troubles, and often these troubles appear in the guise of these assaults against Christianity.

            These attacks, as emphasized before, should motivate Christians to rely more on Christ, for it is only in Christ there is salvation and accompanying that salvation is the true, unhindered and everlasting peace. This is precisely what the Lord Jesus said, “…so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.” (John 16: 33, NIV, Emphasis Mine).

            It’s only in Christ we have salvation and true peace. So allow these assaults against Christianity to get you closer to the Lord Jesus and to God’s words in the Bible. The Spirit of Jesus will draw you closer to HIM, but only if you believe, love and follow HIM. I pray that Jesus would have HIS way in you. Amen.

Endnotes:

¹ http://www.newsweek.com/2015/01/02/thats-not-what-bible-says-294018.html

² Debunking Newsweek’s article: 

Please read these Christian responses that debunk Newsweek’s article:

http://danielbwallace.com/2014/12/28/predictable-christmas-fare-newsweeks-tirade-against-the-bible/

http://www.albertmohler.com/2014/12/29/newsweek-on-the-bible-so-misrepresented-its-a-sin/

http://michaeljkruger.com/a-christmas-present-from-the-mainstream-media-newsweek-takes-a-desperate-swipe-at-the-integrity-of-the-bible-part-1/

http://michaeljkruger.com/a-christmas-gift-from-the-mainstream-media-newsweek-takes-a-desperate-swipe-at-the-integrity-of-the-bible-part-2/

26 Mistakes in Newsweek's Article About the Bible: http://onyxkylix.blogspot.in/2015/01/the-bible-so-mispresented-its-sin-26.html