Rounding Off My Response to Richard Carrier On Undesigned Coincidences (Part 6)

I have been reviewing a recent article by Dr. Richard Carrier where he provided a critique of the argument from undesigned coincidences in the gospel accounts put forward in Dr. Lydia McGrew's book Hidden in Plain View (please see part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4 and part 5). In this sixth and final installment, I round off my series by reviewing Carrier's analysis of what he calls "leading examples" of undesigned coincidences.

The Temple Not Made With Hands

Carrier turns his attention to a selection of what he calls "leading examples" of undesigned coincidences. The first one pertains to Jesus' resurrection prediction in John 2:18-22. He writes,

Mark 14:55-59 and 15:27-30 repeatedly depicts the Jews accusing Jesus of claiming to destroy the temple; John 2:18-22 “explains” that when Jesus said that, he was talking metaphorically about his body. This is obviously just John explaining his source, Mark. There is no undesigned coincidence here.

John, however, does not mention the later misrepresentation of Jesus' statement and its use as an accusation against Jesus. Furthermore, the false witnesses in Mark and Matthew don't accurately represent Jesus' words (since he said nothing about destroying a man made temple and rebuilding it but not by human hands). But nothing in either of those gospels gives even a hint of what Jesus actually said. Only John gives us the backstory. In fact, in Mark and Matthew the false witness statements are actually unexplained allusions. The reader is left hanging, wondering when Jesus made this statement. It is also alluded to by those mocking Jesus on the cross in Mark 15:29 and Matthew 27:40. This suggests that it was a widely known statement of Jesus (not something the false witnesses came up with out of whole cloth), even though Mark and Matthew do not supply the pretext, and even though Mark and Matthew make it clear that the witnesses at Jesus' interrogation were giving false testimony against Jesus by this accusation. We therefore have two interlocking accounts that point to their being independently grounded in truth.

External Coincidences and Acts of the Apostles: Responding to Richard Carrier (Part 5)

I have been reviewing a recent article by Dr. Richard Carrier where he provided a critique of the argument from undesigned coincidences in the gospel accounts put forward in Dr. Lydia McGrew's book Hidden in Plain View (please see part 1, part 2, part 3 and part 4). In this fifth installment, I discuss Carrier's dismissal of coincidences involving the gospels and external secular sources, and his dismissal of undesigned coincidences in the book of Acts.

External Coincidences

Carrier begins this section by stating,

I won’t bother, however, with what the McGrews call “external” coincidences, which are merely authors knowing things about their own history (like who ruled where and when, what titles they held, and what they were like). Authors knew those things about their history the same way we know those things about ours: they read books and inscriptions, listened to lectures and speeches, and absorbed longstanding cultural knowledge from their parents and peers. The only “coincidences” that have any chance of being “undesigned” are what the McGrews call “internal” coincidences, meaning from Gospel to Gospel, not from Gospel to pop history.

That is not a very accurate definition of what the McGrews mean when they talk about external coincidences. Rather, external coincidences function in a similar way to internal coincidences except they involve external secular sources rather than other New Testament accounts. In a similar way, the accounts interlock in a way that points to truth. For example, consider John 2:18-20, which recounts a dialogue between Jesus and some Jews following the cleansing of the temple:

18 So the Jews said to [Jesus], “What sign do you show us for doing these things?” 19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” 20 The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?”

Take note of the date given by the Jews -- "it has taken forty-six years to build this temple..." We can thus discern the approximate date at which this dialogue must have taken place, since Flavius Josephus helpfully tells us when Herod the Great began to rebuild the temple. It was in the 18th year of his reign, which landed in approximately 19 B.C (Antiquities of the Jews 15.380). Forty-six years on from 19 B.C. (bearing in mind there was no 0 A.D.) lands us in 28 A.D. Now, according to Luke 3:1, when did Jesus commence His public ministry? It was in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar. Augustus Caesar died in 14 A.D., but two years prior to that (the fall of 12 A.D.), according to the historian Suetonius, Augustus appointed Tiberius as co-emperor, in order to ensure a smooth transition of power. The 15th year of Tiberius, then, lands us in 27 A.D., corresponding to Jesus' baptism and ministry commencement. The cleansing of the temple would have taken place the following Passover (John 2:13), placing it in the spring of 28 A.D. Thus, by two independent methods, and using information drawn from John, Luke, Josephus, and Suetonius, we have been able to confirm the date on which Jesus cleansed the temple. This sort of coincidence is best explained by the sources being rooted in truth.

Is Redaction Usually the Better Hypothesis? Responding to Richard Carrier (Part 4)

I have been responding to Dr. Richard Carrier's interaction with the argument from undesigned coincidences in the gospels (please see part 1, part 2, and part 3). In part 4, I review Carrier's claim that "redaction is usually the better hypothesis." He writes,

Case in point. The McGrews are amazed that the early Gospels (Mark, Matthew, and Luke) don’t really explain why Pilate declares Jesus innocent, and lo and behold, John comes along and explains it by presenting a whole conversation between Pilate and Jesus no one had ever heard of before. McGrew calls this an undesigned coincidence. But there are two problems with this.

Who Has Fabricated Data -- Lydia McGrew or Richard Carrier? (Part 3)

I have been responding to Dr. Richard Carrier's critique of undesigned coincidences in the gospels and Acts (please see part 1 and part 2). In part 3, I continue my response by reviewing Carrier's allegation that McGrew has fabricated some of her examples. He writes,

Yet another cause of things McGrew lists as evidence is simply: there is nothing to explain. Some of McGrew’s “examples” are simply fabricated. For instance, she tries to argue that when Mark’s account of the “feeding of five thousand” speaks of the people “coming and going” he “must” mean this was the Preparation for the Passover, and they were “coming and going” because of that, so when John relates the same incident (in fact he is redacting Mark’s account) and adds in passing that “Passover was at hand,” this proves Mark and John must have been there—and Mark merely forgot to mention the Passover was near.

I do not know why Carrier puts quotation marks around the word "must" (since this isn't McGrew's word at all). Given that this section of his review is about fabrication, this is quite ironic. Carrier implies (falsely) that McGrew is saying that we "must" take the crowds in Mark to be caused by the Passover. McGrew's discussion of this is much more modestly worded. Furthermore, Carrier also makes no mention of Mark's casual allusion to the green grass (Mark 6:39), which further supports this coincidence, since the grass in Palestine is brown throughout the majority of the year save for a narrow window of time (because of elevated levels of rainfall) during the spring, around the time of Passover. Mark doesn't explicitly tell us that the event took place at Passover, but John 6:4 does. However, John doesn't mention the people coming and going or the green grass, alluded to in Mark. Therefore, we have an undesigned coincidence.

Can Scribal Errors Account for Undesigned Coincidences? Responding to Richard Carrier (Part 2)

In my previous article, I began a series of responses to Dr. Richard Carrier on the subject of undesigned coincidences in the gospels and Acts. In this article, I will consider Carrier's claim that undesigned coincidences can be adequately accounted for by scribal errors.

Carrier writes,

And yet, another obvious cause of one text omitting what McGrew would call a “detail” but the rest of us would call “a few words” is simply: scribal error. We actually have ample evidence of accidental scribal omissions in the textual transmission of the Gospels (as well as deliberate ones), which McGrew simply ignores as a competing explanation for which we actually have evidence. The frequency of omissions in scribal transmission of the Gospels is discussed by fellow Christian apologist Edward Andrews. Many examples are catalogued by Bart Ehrman in The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture and by Taylor Barnes in his dissertation Scribal Habits in Selected New Testament Manuscripts, Including Those with Surviving Exmplars (University of Birmingham 2017).

This time Carrier offers us particular examples where his theory might apply:

For example, in Mark’s account of the prophecy game played on Jesus, the soldiers spit on Jesus and cover his eyes and just say “Prophesy!” when they strike Jesus; but in Matthew’s account, the covering isn’t mentioned, instead they specifically “spit in his face,” and more fully say “Prophesy to us, Christ! Who struck you!” Those sentences begin identically. The loss of the rest of the sentence in Mark is exactly the kind of accidental omission we have many examples of in the manuscripts of the Bible. So we can’t be confident Mark actually omitted it himself. And indeed, the full line in Matthew exists in many manuscripts of Mark. Some also read identically to Matthew even in having the guards spit “in his face,” and a few even omit the face covering. So this whole thing could simply be a textual corruption, and the two texts originally identical. We have evidence for all of this in the parallel passage in Luke 22:64, which is similarly corrupted with various omissions across the manuscripts, but all to some extent combine the text of Mark and Matthew. Which means either Mark and Matthew originally contained the same text or there was no Q source and Luke chose to combine Mark’s text with Matthew’s. But even that would be consistent with Matthew and Mark originally saying the same things here, leaving nothing left to explain.  

Carrier further elaborates,

Of course, that Matthew deliberately changed Mark’s “spit on him” to “spit in his face” might instead indicate what really is going on here: Matthew doesn’t like Mark’s story precisely because it’s too colloquial (it assumes familiarity with a common children’s game of the time, possibly then even called Prophesy: Alan Dundes, Holy Writ as Oral Lit, pp. 112-13), so Matthew replaces the sack over “his face” with spitting in “his face” (identical words in both texts), thus efficiently collapsing two acts into one, signifying to blind him with spit, and then fills out the sentence, so everyone will get the point, even those who never played the Prophesy game as a child. This may even indicate the game was common among Gentiles, Mark’s audience, but not Jews, Matthew’s audience.

The problem here is that McGrew does not use this example in her book, and in fact states in chapter 3 her reason for not doing so. She states,

I have been careful not to use a single undesigned coincidence that could be plausibly explained by mere incomplete copying or elaboration of Mark on the part of Matthew or Luke.

In fact, in footnote 15 of chapter 3, McGrew specifically lists this very example as one she deliberately chose to omit because of its ability to be accounted for by incomplete copying. She writes,

There are three coincidences I have left out of my discussion for this very reason: The "who struck you" coincidence between Luke 22:63-64 and Matthew 26:67-68, since Matthew could have been merely including one piece of information from all the information contained in Mark; the "waiting until evening" coincidence between Matthew 8:16 and Mark 1:21, since Matthew may have merely included incomplete information from Mark; the coincidence concerning the command to the disciples to tell no one about the Transfiguration until after the resurrection, from Matthew 17:9 and Luke 9:36, since all of the information may be found in Mark 9:10, depending upon one's translation of the Greek in Mark. [emphasis added]

The fact that Carrier covers this example in a review of McGrew's book causes me to be skeptical about whether Carrier has actually read the book.

In part 3, we will consider Carrier's claim that McGrew has fabricated some of her examples. We will discover that, in fact, it is not McGrew, but Carrier, who has fabricated his data.

Yes, Richard Carrier, There Are Undesigned Coincidences (Part 1)

Dr. Richard Carrier is an ancient historian who is best known for championing the idea that Jesus of Nazareth is a mythical figure -- a view which to call it fringe would be to pay it an undue complement. I debated Dr. Carrier a couple of years back on Premier Christian Radio, and you can listen to the debate here. Carrier recently posted an article on his website discussing and critiquing the argument from undesigned coincidences, an argument which I have promoted in my articles, debates, and public lectures. Carrier specifically mentions Dr. Lydia McGrew's book, Hidden in Plain View -- Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts, which develops on the argument originally coined by William Paley and by his successor John James Blunt.

Unfortunately, Carrier's review only demonstrates that he has not read McGrew's book (since he claims McGrew uses examples which she does not in fact use -- in fact, she states explicitly in her book her reasons for not using them). He also never cites any of McGrew's blog posts where she deals in detail with many of the points he raises in his article. He also gets some of his facts simply wrong. With this blog post, I begin a series of responses to Carrier's critique of undesigned coincidences

Another Undesigned Coincidence: Unauthorized Fire, and Touching a Dead Body at Passover

In recent blog articles, I have been documenting various examples of undesigned coincidences throughout the Scriptures, particularly in the Old Testament. In this blog post, I will reveal another example. Turn with me to Numbers 9:1-8:

And the Lord spoke to Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in the first month of the second year after they had come out of the land of Egypt, saying, 2 “Let the people of Israel keep the Passover at its appointed time. 3 On the fourteenth day of this month, at twilight, you shall keep it at its appointed time; according to all its statutes and all its rules you shall keep it.” 4 So Moses told the people of Israel that they should keep the Passover. 5 And they kept the Passover in the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month, at twilight, in the wilderness of Sinai; according to all that the Lord commanded Moses, so the people of Israel did. 6 And there were certain men who were unclean through touching a dead body, so that they could not keep the Passover on that day, and they came before Moses and Aaron on that day. 7 And those men said to him, “We are unclean through touching a dead body. Why are we kept from bringing the Lord's offering at its appointed time among the people of Israel?” 8 And Moses said to them, “Wait, that I may hear what the Lord will command concerning you.”

There is a time stamp given for this Passover in verse 1. We are informed that it took place "in the first month of the second year after they had come out of the land of Egypt." Thus, this was the second Passover.

In verses 6 and 7 we read of "certain men who were unclean through touching a dead body." Someone, therefore, has evidently died among the camp of Israel. Here is where it gets interesting. According to Exodus 38:26, the number of men above twenty years of age -- excluding the Levites -- who paid a tax to the Tabernacle only a short time before its erection was 603,550. According to Numbers 1:46, the number just after the erection of the Tabernacle (at the beginning of the second month of the second year) is exactly the same -- 603,550.

This suggests that the dead body that we read was touched and hence defiled certain men in Numbers 9:6-7 was likely of the tribe of Levi.

Now turn with me to Leviticus 10, in which we read an account of the very same Passover. We know that Leviticus 10 takes place around the time of Passover, since in Exodus 40 we read of the erection of the Tabernacle on the first day of the first month and that at that same time Aaron and his sons were consecrated to minister as priests (Exodus 40:13). Leviticus 8 and 9 concern the particulars of their consecration. Thus, we pick up at Leviticus 10.

In verses 1-5, we read of the death of Nadab and Abihu:

Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it and laid incense on it and offered unauthorized fire before the Lord, which he had not commanded them. 2 And fire came out from before the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord. 3 Then Moses said to Aaron, “This is what the Lord has said: ‘Among those who are near me I will be sanctified, and before all the people I will be glorified.’” And Aaron held his peace. 4 And Moses called Mishael and Elzaphan, the sons of Uzziel the uncle of Aaron, and said to them, “Come near; carry your brothers away from the front of the sanctuary and out of the camp.” 5 So they came near and carried them in their coats out of the camp, as Moses had said.

No mention is made in Leviticus 10 of the defiling of certain men by touching a dead body or the instructions given as a result. No mention is made in Numbers 9 of Nadab and Abihu, of the tribe of Levi, who took a censer and offered unauthorized fire before the Lord, resulting in their deaths in judgment and their bodies being carried away out of the camp by Mishael and Elzaphan.

Thus, the "certain men" spoken of in Numbers 9 who had been defiled by touching a dead body was most likely Mishael and Elzaphan.

This sort of integration without design is the type of pattern we expect in genuine historical reports, not works of fiction.

Using Undesigned Coincidences to Corroborate Biblical History: King Hezekiah's Treasury

In past articles, I have been documenting many cases of undesigned coincidences throughout the Scriptures, particularly in the Old Testament, and showing how we can use them to corroborate various aspects of Biblical history. Here, I present yet another example of an undesigned coincidence in the Old Testament.

Turn with me to Isaiah 38, in which we read of King Hezekiah's illness and recovery. In Isaiah 39, we have an account of envoys coming from Babylon to congratulate King Hezekiah on his recovery. There is a parallel account of those events in 2 Kings 20 which appear to be textually dependent on Isaiah (or vice versa). Here is the account in Isaiah 39:1-2:

At that time Merodach-baladan the son of Baladan, king of Babylon, sent envoys with letters and a present to Hezekiah, for he heard that he had been sick and had recovered. And Hezekiah welcomed them gladly. And he showed them his treasure house, the silver, the gold, the spices, the precious oil, his whole armory, all that was found in his storehouses. There was nothing in his house or in all his realm that Hezekiah did not show them.

Thus, we learn, King Hezekiah proudly showed the Babylonian envoys his great riches in his treasure house. Hezekiah's pride brings upon him a prophecy of judgment. In verses 3-7, we read,

Then Isaiah the prophet came to King Hezekiah, and said to him, “What did these men say? And from where did they come to you?” Hezekiah said, “They have come to me from a far country, from Babylon.” He said, “What have they seen in your house?” Hezekiah answered, “They have seen all that is in my house. There is nothing in my storehouses that I did not show them.” Then Isaiah said to Hezekiah, “Hear the word of the Lord of hosts: Behold, the days are coming, when all that is in your house, and that which your fathers have stored up till this day, shall be carried to Babylon. Nothing shall be left, says the Lord. And some of your own sons, who will come from you, whom you will father, shall be taken away, and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon.”

King Hezekiah selfishly is relieved at the prophecy, thinking to himself that at least "There will be peace and security in my days" (verse 8).

Both the account of this event that we read in Isaiah and that in 2 Kings imply that Hezekiah's fell ill at the time of the invasion by Sennacherib of Judah and before the outcome of that invasion. In both accounts, God promises Hezekiah that he will live and that God will deliver the city from the Assyrians (Isaiah 38:6; 2 Kings 20:6). Thus, the envoys arrived from Babylon after his recovery, and after the danger from Assyria had been averted.

Now let's consider another text in 2 Kings 18:13-16:

In the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah, Sennacherib king of Assyria came up against all the fortified cities of Judah and took them. And Hezekiah king of Judah sent to the king of Assyria at Lachish, saying, “I have done wrong; withdraw from me. Whatever you impose on me I will bear.” And the king of Assyria required of Hezekiah king of Judah three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold. And Hezekiah gave him all the silver that was found in the house of the Lord and in the treasuries of the king's house. At that time Hezekiah stripped the gold from the doors of the temple of the Lord and from the doorposts that Hezekiah king of Judah had overlaid and gave it to the king of Assyria.

Wait a minute. So Hezekiah has just made this humiliating tribute to the king of Assyria, having had to offer him "all of the silver that was found in the house of the Lord and in the treasures of the king's house" and even being reduced to stripping the gold from the doors of the temple and from the doorposts. How then was he able not long after this humiliation to show all of his riches of his treasury to the Babylonian envoys? One could write it off as a contradiction, or we could dig deeper to find the solution - and in so-doing uncover another remarkable undesigned coincidence.

For the solution, let us now turn to 2 Chronicles. 2 Chronicles contains the account of the destruction of Sennacherib's army by the miraculous intervention of the angel of the Lord (which is also found in Isaiah and 2 Kings albeit in different wording and terminology from the account in 2 Chronicles). After these events, 2 Chronicles throws in a unique detail in 32:23:

And many brought gifts to the Lord to Jerusalem and precious things to Hezekiah king of Judah, so that he was exalted in the sight of all nations from that time onward.

Therein lies our answer. This explains how Hezekiah came to have a full treasury to show off to the Babylonian envoys by the time the Babylonians learned of his recovery. No mention is made of the humiliating tribute to the Assyrians in 2 Chronicles. 2 Kings does mention the humiliating tribute and him showing off his treasury shortly thereafter to the Babylonian envoys, but makes no mention of the gifts that replenished the treasury. Isaiah makes no mention of the tribute or the gifts but mentions his display of his great wealth.

This undesigned coincidence corroborates the historical veracity of these events and also strongly suggests that one of our authors (i.e. either Isaiah or the author of 2 Kings) had access to the court of Hezekiah, and thus knew about the visit of the Babylonian envoys.

Corroborating Biblical History with Undesigned Coincidences: The Building of Solomon's Temple

In a previous article, I introduced an example of an undesigned coincidences relating to Mount Hermon. I discussed Moses' incidental mention in Deuteronomy 3:8-9 of the Sidonian name for the Mountain, which is Sirion (despite the fact that Mount Hermon is geographically very distant from Sidon). The solution, which I discern in my earlier article, is that at its foot there was dwelling a Sidonian colony, who spoke the Sidonian language, of which we read in Judges 18:7. The city was called Laish, but following the conquest of this city by Israel, its name is changed from Laish to Dan. I invite readers to go back and read my earlier article, in order to better make sense of the undesigned coincidence I lay out here.

Turn with me to 1 Kings 7, in which we read of the building of Solomon's temple. Let's zero in on verses 13-14:

And King Solomon sent and brought Hiram from Tyre. He was the son of a widow of the tribe of Naphtali, and his father was a man of Tyre, a worker in bronze. And he was full of wisdom, understanding, and skill for making any work in bronze. He came to King Solomon and did all his work.

There is a parallel account given in 2 Chronicles 2:13-14, in which we read of what the king of Tyre wrote in a letter to Solomon:

Now I have sent a skilled man, who has understanding, Huram-abi, the son of a woman of the daughters of Dan, and his father was a man of Tyre. He is trained to work in gold, silver, bronze, iron, stone, and wood, and in purple, blue, and crimson fabrics and fine linen, and to do all sorts of engraving and execute any design that may be assigned him, with your craftsmen, the craftsmen of my lord, David your father.

It is clearly the same individual being spoken of here that we read of in 1 Kings 7. However, there is an apparent discrepancy (which I have highlighted in bold font in our texts above) -- the text in 1 Kings asserts his mother to be a woman of the Tribe of Naphtali; the other, in 2 Chronicles, asserts her to be a woman of the daughters of Dan. Now, we could just simply dismiss this as a contradiction on the part of Scripture -- as many liberal critics would like to do. Or we could dig deeper to see whether there is a resolution.

As discussed in my earlier article, six hundred people from the tribe of Dan seized the city of Laish, which was a city of the Sidonians (see Judges 18). We also know that the Sidonians were subjects of the king of Tyre, since in 1 Kings 5:6 we read of Solomon sending to the king of Tyre for workmen, saying,

Now therefore command that cedars of Lebanon be cut for me. And my servants will join your servants, and I will pay you for your servants such wages as you set, for you know that there is no one among us who knows how to cut timber like the Sidonians.

As I showed in my previous article, Laish/Dan was close to the springs of Jordan. There is thus evidence to support that Dan/Laish stood in the Tribe of Naphtali, since we read in Joshua 19:32-34:

The sixth lot came out for the people of Naphtali, for the people of Naphtali, according to their clans. And their boundary ran from Heleph, from the oak in Zaanannim, and Adami-nekeb, and Jabneel, as far as Lakkum, and it ended at the Jordan. Then the boundary turns westward to Aznoth-tabor and goes from there to Hukkok, touching Zebulun at the south and Asher on the west and Judah on the east at the Jordan.

We are thus told that the outskirts of the territory of Naphtali is said to have been at the Jordan. Again, this implies that Dan/Laish stood in the Tribe of Naphtali.

This, then, makes sense of our apparent discrepancy between 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles. The woman is said to be of the Tribe of Naphtali since her hometown, according to 2 Chronicles 2:13, was Dan/Laish -- just as Jacob is also called a Syrian because he had lived in Syria (see Deuteronomy 26:5). By birth, she was of the Tribe of Dan -- the very tribe which had conquered and colonized the city of Laish, renaming it Dan (Judges 18). This also illuminates why her husband is said to have been a man of Tyre (since the Sidonians were subjects of the king of Tyre).

What at a superficial glance appeared to be a contradiction between 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles in fact, on closer inspection, reveals an undesigned coincidence that ends up corroborating the Biblical account. In future articles, I will continue to document cases of undesigned coincidences throughout the Scriptures, thereby further corroborating Biblical history.

Corroborating Biblical History Using Undesigned Coincidences: Isaac and Rebecca Revisited

In a previous article I posted at this site, I argued for the historical veracity of the story in Genesis 24, wherein Abraham sends out a servant to the city of Nahor in Mesopotamia in search of a wife for Isaac. I did so using a form of undesigned coincidence which I call the uniformity of expressive silence (please see my article for a full discussion on that). Here, I want to present an additional corroborating case of an undesigned coincidence.

According to our text in Genesis 24, who was Rebecca (the woman who would become Isaac's wife) in relation to Abraham? In verse 24, Rebecca tells the servant,

I am the daughter of Bethuel the son of Milcah, whom she bore to Nahor.

Who is Nahor? We find out in Genesis 11:26:

When Terah had lived 70 years, he fathered Abram, Nahor, and Haran.

Thus, we learn that Nahor is Abraham's own brother! We are also told this in Genesis 22:20. This information is not given to us in Genesis 24, although the servant does say in verse 27,

As for me, the Lord has led me in the way to the house of my master's kinsmen

The text then does tell us that Rebecca was one of Abraham's kinsmen. For the precise relationship, however, we have to go to Genesis 11:26.

This is rather strange, since it appears then that the grand daughter of Abraham's brother Nahor is to be the wife of Isaac, Abraham's son. Think about what this means. Someone of the third generation on the side of Nahor is to be married to someone of the second generation on the side of Abraham.

How can we make sense of this? Turn over to Genesis 18:11-12, in which we read of the response of Abraham's wife, Sarah, after God promises that “I will surely return to you about this time next year, and Sarah your wife shall have a son,”:

Now Abraham and Sarah were old, advanced in years. The way of women had ceased to be with Sarah. So Sarah laughed to herself, saying, “After I am worn out, and my lord is old, shall I have pleasure?”

In other words, Sarah had been for a long time barren, and she was now well past the age of child bearing. This makes sense of how someone of the third generation on Nahor's side could marry someone of the second generation on Abraham's side. But note that this is not spelled out in the text. It is only by putting these jigsaw pieces together -- from Genesis 24:24, Genesis 11:26 and Genesis 18:11-12 -- that we find illumination of what was going on. This is the sort of pattern we expect in a record of history, not a work of fiction.

Indeed, this case of undesigned coincidence corroborates a miraculous element of the narrative -- namely, that Sarah conceived Isaac when she was of old age, something she would naturally not be expected to do. There are many more cases of undesigned coincidences throughout the Scriptures. I will continue to document them on this blog.

Undesigned Coincidences in the Scriptures: An Argument of Their Veracity

Here is the recording of a presentation I delivered on Saturday to my Apologetics Academy webinar class. The topic is undesigned coincidences in the Scriptures and how we can use them to corroborate Biblical history in the gospels & Acts, as well as the Old Testament, and support the authenticity of the Pauline epistles. Enjoy!

Using an Undesigned Coincidence to Corroborate the Johanine Authorship of John's Gospel

Recently on this blog I have been showing how undesigned coincidences can be used to corroborate many aspects of Biblical history, as well as even the authorship of various books of the Bible. Here, I want to use an undesigned coincidence to corroborate John's gospel as having been written by John the apostle.

It is widely known that John's gospel omits the name of one disciple -- that of John the son of Zebedee, preferring instead to identify him by phrases such as "the disciple whom Jesus loved". At the end of the gospel, in John 21:24, the author of the gospel identifies himself as being the unidentified disciple. He writes,

This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true.

Is there any independent evidence to corroborate the author's claim to be this disciple? If so, then the argument for Johanine authorship rests on being able to demonstrate the identity of this disciple -- and I think a very convincing case can be made for him being John the son of Zebedee by a process of elimination.

That being the case, consider what we find in John 18:15-16:

Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. Since that disciple was known to the high priest, he entered with Jesus into the courtyard of the high priest, but Peter stood outside at the door. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the servant girl who kept watch at the door, and brought Peter in.

It makes sense to identify this other disciple as John -- first because he is unidentified (which is how John is treated consistently in John's gospel) and second because "the disciple whom he loved" (which I take to be the apostle John) was certainly present at the cross, since we read in John 19:26-27:

When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.

It is thus a reasonable inference to take the other disciple from John 18:15-16 to be John the son of Zebedee. What then is the significance of him being "known to the high priest"?

In John 18:10, we read,

Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's servant and cut off his right ear. (The servant's name was Malchus.)

How did the author of John's gospel come to know the name of the high priest's servant? Indeed, he is the only gospel author to give us this detail. This makes sense, however, if indeed John was someone who was known to the high priest. This corroborates the Johanine authorship of John's gospel. It is not by itself conclusive, but when taken in conjunction with other independent lines of evidence (both internal as well as external), one has a persuasive cumulative case to take John's gospel as penned by the disciple John.

Philemon and Onesimus, Residents of Colossae: An Undesigned Coincidence

On this blog I have been discussing quite a number of cases of undesigned coincidences. Here, I want to use a case of an undesigned coincidence to support the authenticity of one of the disputed Pauline epistles (Colossians) and also corroborate the historical veracity of the story we read of in the the epistle to Philemon concerning Paul's interaction with Philemon's run-away slave, named Onesimus.

Consider Colossians 4:7-9:

Tychicus will tell you all about my activities. He is a beloved brother and faithful minister and fellow servant in the Lord. I have sent him to you for this very purpose, that you may know how we are and that he may encourage your hearts, and with him Onesimus, our faithful and beloved brother, who is one of you. They will tell you of everything that has taken place here.

Why does Paul say of Onesimus that he "is one of you"? Presumably, this indicates that Onesimus himself was a Colossian. Do we have any independent evidence for Onesimus being a Colossian?

Turn with me to the book of Philemon. In this epistle, we learn that Onesimus had been a slave of Philemon, had run away and encountered the apostle Paul on his travels, who brought him to a saving knowledge of the gospel. Paul then wrote a letter to Onesimus's master, Philemon. Take a look at the epistle's address, given in verses 1-2:

To Philemon our beloved fellow worker and Apphia our sister and Archippus our fellow soldier, and the church in your house.

The text does not tell us where Philemon is from. However, there is mention made of a certain Archippus, who must be from the same city as Philemon (and by extension Onesimus). The epistle to Philemon nowhere tells us where Archippus is from either. However, when we turn back to Colossians 4, we find that there is an instruction given in verse 17:

And say to Archippus, “See that you fulfill the ministry that you have received in the Lord.”

Since Paul is writing to the church in Colossae, and since Paul gives his audience the instruction to pass on a message to Archippus, this indicates to us that Archippus was living in Colossae. Since the epistle to Philemon makes the connection of Onesimus to Philemon, and Philemon to Archippus, this indicates by extension that Onesimus is likewise from Colossae, thus illuminating Paul's words in Colossians 4:9: "Onesimus...who is one of you." This also indicates that Paul must have written the epistle to the Colossians and the epistle to Philemon at around the same time, while Onesimus was with him in Rome before returning to his master Philemon.

This undesigned coincidence supports the Pauline authorship of the epistle to the Colossians. It also corroborates the historical veracity of the story of which we read in the book of Philemon.

Geographical Coincidences in Scripture: Mount Hermon

In previous posts, I have been surveying some examples of undesigned coincidences in the Old Testament Scriptures (see here, here, here and here), and discussing their value in corroborating aspects of Biblical history. In this post, I want to introduce a geographical coincidence in Scripture.

Let us turn to Deuteronomy 3:1-9, which narrates Israel's defeat of Og, the king of Bashan:

"Then we turned and went up the way to Bashan. And Og the king of Bashan came out against us, he and all his people, to battle at Edrei. 2 But the Lord said to me, ‘Do not fear him, for I have given him and all his people and his land into your hand. And you shall do to him as you did to Sihon the king of the Amorites, who lived at Heshbon.’ 3 So the Lord our God gave into our hand Og also, the king of Bashan, and all his people, and we struck him down until he had no survivor left. 4 And we took all his cities at that time—there was not a city that we did not take from them—sixty cities, the whole region of Argob, the kingdom of Og in Bashan. 5 All these were cities fortified with high walls, gates, and bars, besides very many unwalled villages. 6 And we devoted them to destruction, as we did to Sihon the king of Heshbon, devoting to destruction every city, men, women, and children. 7 But all the livestock and the spoil of the cities we took as our plunder. 8 So we took the land at that time out of the hand of the two kings of the Amorites who were beyond the Jordan, from the Valley of the Arnon to Mount Hermon 9 (the Sidonians call Hermon Sirion, while the Amorites call it Senir)..."

Take careful note of verse 9, in which an incidental mention is made in passing of a certain Mount Hermon, which, we are told, is called Sirion by the Sidonians. This is a curious fact to mention, because Mount Hermon is very far away from Sidon. In fact, it doesn't even appear to have belonged to Sidon, but to the king of Bashan.

Let's flip over to Judges 18:1-7:

"In those days there was no king in Israel. And in those days the tribe of the people of Dan was seeking for itself an inheritance to dwell in, for until then no inheritance among the tribes of Israel had fallen to them. 2 So the people of Dan sent five able men from the whole number of their tribe, from Zorah and from Eshtaol, to spy out the land and to explore it. And they said to them, “Go and explore the land.” And they came to the hill country of Ephraim, to the house of Micah, and lodged there. 3 When they were by the house of Micah, they recognized the voice of the young Levite. And they turned aside and said to him, “Who brought you here? What are you doing in this place? What is your business here?” 4 And he said to them, “This is how Micah dealt with me: he has hired me, and I have become his priest.” 5 And they said to him, “Inquire of God, please, that we may know whether the journey on which we are setting out will succeed.” 6 And the priest said to them, “Go in peace. The journey on which you go is under the eye of the Lord.” 7 Then the five men departed and came to Laish and saw the people who were there, how they lived in security, after the manner of the Sidonians, quiet and unsuspecting, lacking nothing that is in the earth and possessing wealth, and how they were far from the Sidonians and had no dealings with anyone."

Following the conquest of this city by Israel, its name is changed from Laish to Dan.

Pay careful attention to verse 7, in which we learn that the people of Laish lived "after the manner of the Sidonians." This suggests that this city, in early times, in fact belonged to Sidon and was most likely inhabited by Sidonians.

Now, let's put the pieces together. Consider again the first text we looked at from Deuteronomy 3, in which we read the incidental remark about Mount Hermon. Hermon, we know, was close to the ancient Roman city of Caesarea Philippi, which lay at its southwestern base.

The famous fourth century church historian Eusebius of Caesarea, in his Ecclesiastical History (book 7, chapter 17), informs us:

"At Cæsarea Philippi, which the Phœnicians call Paneas, springs are shown at the foot of the Mountain Paneas, out of which the Jordan flows."

Thus, we learn that Caesarea Philippi was the modern name of Paneas. Eusebius also places Dan/Laish in the vicinity of Paneas, at the fourth mile on the route to Tyre.

Thus, it would seem, that while Mount Hermon was geographically distant from Sidon, at its foot there was dwelling a Sidonian colony, who spoke the Sidonian language. This in turn illuminates for us why mention is made in Deuteronomy 3:9 of the Sidonian name for the mountain, which was Sirion.

The distance and disconnectedness of the texts from which this conclusion may be drawn again suggests a narrative based on truth, rather than a fictionalized account.

Using the Principle of Undesignedness to Corroborate Biblical History: The Conquest of Jericho

In previous articles, I have written about the principle of undesignedness, and how we can use it to corroborate Biblical history. Philosopher Dr. Lydia McGrew recently published a whole book on undesigned coincidences in the New Testament (which you can and should purchase here), re-vitalizing an old 18th and 19th Century argument, originated by the famed Christian philosopher William Paley, and by J.J. Blunt.

There are also plenty of examples of undesigned coincidences in the Old Testament Scriptures, corroborating the historical veracity of the events in question. I have written on a few of them already (see here, here and here).

It did not escape my notice that Paul Williams posted a blog article at his website quoting from Raymond Brown's Responses to 101 Questions on the Bible. In the quoted section, Brown calls into question the destruction of Jericho executed by Joshua. In particular, it is asserted that while "in the initial excavations of Jericho, the uncovering of walls violently destroyed confirmed for many the biblical account of Joshua's destruction of the walls", more recent techniques "have dated the immense destroyed walls to a period much earlier than Joshua and seem to indicate that Jericho was not even occupied at Joshua's time." For a thorough discussion and examination of this claim, I refer readers to this excellent article, which makes the case that the date put forward originally by Biblical archaeologist John Garstang in the 1930's (approx. 1400 B.C.E., in harmony with the Biblical narrative) is to be preferred over Kathleen Kenyon's dating (approx. 1550 B.C.E.).

In this article, however, I want to offer a different approach, and argue once again from coincidence without design (readers unfamiliar with the argument from undesign should go back and read my earlier articles). Let's look at Joshua 3:14-17:

14 So when the people set out from their tents to pass over the Jordan with the priests bearing the ark of the covenant before the people, 15 and as soon as those bearing the ark had come as far as the Jordan, and the feet of the priests bearing the ark were dipped in the brink of the water (now the Jordan overflows all its banks throughout the time of harvest), 16 the waters coming down from above stood and rose up in a heap very far away, at Adam, the city that is beside Zarethan, and those flowing down toward the Sea of the Arabah, the Salt Sea, were completely cut off. And the people passed over opposite Jericho. 17 Now the priests bearing the ark of the covenant of the Lord stood firmly on dry ground in the midst of the Jordan, and all Israel was passing over on dry ground until all the nation finished passing over the Jordan.

At what time of year did this event take place? Verse 15 tells us that "the feet of the priests bearing the ark were dipped in the brink of the water", the reason given being that "the Jordan overflows all its banks throughout the time of harvest". It is clear that it is the barley harvest that is being alluded to here -- not the later wheat harvest, since in Joshua 4:19, we are told "The people came up out of the Jordan on the tenth day of the first month, and they encamped at Gilgal on the east border of Jericho." That is, four days before the Passover, at which time fell the barley-harvest.

Now, flip over to the account of the ten plagues of Egypt, narrated in Exodus 9. I want to draw your attention to the plague of hail, and in particular to an incidental comment in verses 31-32:

31 The flax and the barley were struck down, for the barley was in the ear and the flax was in bud. 32 But the wheat and the emmer were not struck down, for they are late in coming up.

Therefore, it seems apparent from this text that flax and barley were crops which ripened at the same approximate time in Egypt. Since Canaan's climate was essentially the same as that of Egypt, it is reasonable to suppose that this was also the case in the land of Canaan.

Here is where it gets interesting. Let us now flip back from Joshua 3 two chapters to arrive at Joshua 1, in which we are told that Joshua sent two spies into the land of Jericho -- spies who, as we learn in chapter 2, were hidden by the Canaanite prostitute Rahab in her own house. We read that, when the king sent to Rahab to ask for the spies who had been sent to spy out the land, who had come to her house, she lies and says she does not know where the men went. In Joshua 2:6, we are told that "she had brought them up to the roof and hid them with the stalks of flax that she had laid in order on the roof." Presumably these stalks of flax had just been cut down and had been spread on the roof of her house to season.

The mention of the stalks of flax here is very incidental. And yet it makes perfect sense, in view of our inference that the crossing of the Jordan took place at the Barley harvest, which we saw from a completely unrelated text in Exodus 9 coincided with the ripening of flax.

Just one more example of the remarkable undesigned coincidences that interweave throughout the Scriptures. In future articles, we will continue to explore yet further cases of coincidence without design throughout the Bible.

Using the Principle of Undesignedness to Corroborate Biblical History: The Rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram

In previous articles, I have been using the principle of undesignedness to corroborate aspects of Biblical history, both in the Old and New Testaments. For my previous posts on this subject, I refer readers to my articles here, here, here, here and here. I recommend reading my previous articles if you are unfamiliar with the principle of undesignedness. You may also want to consider purchasing and reading Dr. Lydia McGrew's recently-published book, Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts (available from Amazon).

Here, I want to discuss a particularly neat example from the book of Numbers.

Numbers 16 tells us of a rebellion which took place against Moses. In verses 1-3, we read,

Now Korah the son of Izhar, son of Kohath, son of Levi, and Dathan and Abiram the sons of Eliab, and On the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took men. 2 And they rose up before Moses, with a number of the people of Israel, 250 chiefs of the congregation, chosen from the assembly, well-known men. 3 They assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron and said to them, “You have gone too far! For all in the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them. Why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the Lord?”

The principle parties responsible for this conspiracy against Moses, we are told, were Korah of the family of Kohath and Dathan, Abiram and On, of the family of Reuban.

Here is the cool part. No fewer than thirteen chapters before this, in Numbers 3:29, it is mentioned in a completely different context and totally incidentally that,

The clans of the sons of Kohath were to camp on the south side of the tabernacle.

In the chapter previous to this one (Numbers 2:10), we are also told incidentally, and in a manner totally unconnected to the verse I just quoted from the following chapter, that,

On the south side shall be the standard of the camp of Reuben by their companies, the chief of the people of Reuben being Elizur the son of Shedeur,

It turns out, then, that the family of Kohath and the family of Reuben were camped on the same side of the Tabernacle, thus making them conveniently placed for taking secret counsel together against Moses!

Such a harmony between texts that are scattered around the book of Numbers might easily escape the notice of the reader. Indeed, this pattern is only detectable by putting together the various unconnected passages. It is this pattern which makes this example exhibit the property of undesignedness.

What was the fate of those rebels against Moses? Their fate is given in Numbers 16:31-34:

31 And as soon as he had finished speaking all these words, the ground under them split apart. 32 And the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up, with their households and all the people who belonged to Korah and all their goods. 33 So they and all that belonged to them went down alive into Sheol, and the earth closed over them, and they perished from the midst of the assembly. 34 And all Israel who were around them fled at their cry, for they said, “Lest the earth swallow us up!”

This gives rise to yet another undesigned coincidence. Compare this with what we read 10 chapters later, in Numbers 26:9-11:

9 The sons of Eliab: Nemuel, Dathan, and Abiram. These are the Dathan and Abiram, chosen from the congregation, who contended against Moses and Aaron in the company of Korah, when they contended against the Lord 10 and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up together with Korah, when that company died, when the fire devoured 250 men, and they became a warning. 11 But the sons of Korah did not die.

Wait a minute. The sons of Korah did not die? We just read in Numbers 16 that "all the people who belonged to Korah and all their goods" were swallowed up by the ground. Do we here have a Bible contradiction?

Take a closer look at Numbers 16:25-27:

25 Then Moses rose and went to Dathan and Abiram, and the elders of Israel followed him. 26 And he spoke to the congregation, saying, “Depart, please, from the tents of these wicked men, and touch nothing of theirs, lest you be swept away with all their sins.” 27 So they got away from the dwelling of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. And Dathan and Abiram came out and stood at the door of their tents, together with their wives, their sons, and their little ones.

Mention is made here of the wives, sons and little ones belonging to Dathan and Abiram (who were about to be the victims of the approaching calamity) standing at the door of their tents. No mention is made, however, of the sons of Korah.

How can we account for this? Korah was a Levite, and we know that the Levites pitched their camp closer to the Tabernacle than the other tribes. The Levites formed three sides of the inner square, whereas the other tribes would form the four sides of the outer square. Thus, the dwelling-tent of Korah would be a considerable distance from those of Dathan and Abiram, who were of the tribe of Reuben. This makes it plausible that the sons of Korah were a considerable distance from the catastrophe that befell the others -- a disaster that we know was of limited extent given that the congregation of Israel is instructed by Moses to "Depart, please, from the tents of these wicked men, and touch nothing of theirs, lest you be swept away with all their sins" (Numbers 16:26).

In conclusion, then, in this one event of the rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram against Moses we have seen there to be two independent cases of coincidence without design. The first was based on two independent and incidental mentions of the dwelling place of the family of Kohath and the family of Reuben (whom we are told dwelt on the same side of the Tabernacle), placing them conveniently for taking secret counsel against Moses. The second coincidence was based on the incidental mention in Numbers 26 of the survival of Korah's sons, the implicit omission in Numbers 16:27 of Korah's sons being present at the place of destruction, and our independent knowledge of where Korah's tent would have been relative to those of Dathan and Abiram.

As one continues to document case after case in the Scriptures of coincidence without design, we unearth more and more evidence for the substantial historical veracity of Scripture. In future posts, we will continue to document yet further cases, using the principle of undesignedness to yet further corroborate Biblical history.

Who Wrote the Pastoral Epistles? The Case for Pauline Authorship (Part 2)

In my previous article, I began to make a case for the traditional view concerning the authorship of the Pastoral epistles, namely, that they were in fact written by Paul the Apostle. My case is based primarily upon undesigned integrations between the Pastoral epistles and the book of Acts and/or undisputed letters of Paul. In this second installment, I continue that endeavor. In the previous article, the undesigned coincidences on which I hung my case were from the second epistle to Timothy. Here, I will present a couple more cases from 2 Timothy in order to clinch the case. I will then turn my attention to 1 Timothy and Titus.

Undesigned Coincidences (Continued from part 1)

Coincidence #3

In 2 Timothy 2:22, Paul instructs Timothy to "flee youthful passions and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart." This connects with 1 Timothy 4:12, in which Timothy is instructed to "Let no one despise you for your youth." It is thus fitting, given that Timothy was evidently a young man, that in the 2nd epistle Paul warns Timothy to flee from youthful lusts.

This also connects with what we read in 1 Corinthians 16:10-11:

"When Timothy comes, see that you put him at ease among you, for he is doing the work of the Lord, as I am. So let no one despise him. Help him on his way in peace, that he may return to me, for I am expecting him with the brothers."

The integration between those texts is only incidental. In his first epistle to the Corinthians, Paul instructs the Corinthian Christians not to despise Timothy when he comes, "for he is doing the work of the Lord", just as Paul was doing. Paul gives no indication of why the Corinthian Christians might despise Timothy. It is only when we read 2 Timothy that we learn that it was because of his youth.

Coincidence #4

In 2 Timothy 3:10-11, we read,

"You, however, have followed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness, my persecutions and sufferings that happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, and at Lystra—which persecutions I endured; yet from them all the Lord rescued me."

 The Antioch here mentioned was not Antioch the capital of Syria but rather Antioch in Pisidia, to which, as we read in Acts 13, Paul was sent along with Barnabas. The book of Acts tells us (13:50-51),

"But the Jews incited the devout women of high standing and the leading men of the city, stirred up persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and drove them out of their district. But they shook off the dust from their feet against them and went to Iconium."

 Acts 14:1-7 tells us what happened next:

"Now at Iconium they entered together into the Jewish synagogue and spoke in such a way that a great number of both Jews and Greeks believed. But the unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles and poisoned their minds against the brothers. So they remained for a long time, speaking boldly for the Lord, who bore witness to the word of his grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands. But the people of the city were divided; some sided with the Jews and some with the apostles. When an attempt was made by both Gentiles and Jews, with their rulers, to mistreat them and to stone them, they learned of it and fled to Lystra and Derbe, cities of Lycaonia, and to the surrounding country, and there they continued to preach the gospel."

In Acts 14:19-21, we read of what happened in Lystra:

"But Jews came from Antioch and Iconium, and having persuaded the crowds, they stoned Paul and dragged him out of the city, supposing that he was dead. But when the disciples gathered about him, he rose up and entered the city, and on the next day he went on with Barnabas to Derbe. When they had preached the gospel to that city and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch,"

It is thus evident that this account relates directly to the persecutions that Paul references in 2 Timothy 3:10-11, where he alludes specifically to his "persecutions and sufferings that happened to [him] at Antioch, at Iconium, and at Lystra."

What, then, do we have so far? We have a conformity between Acts and 2 Timothy in terms of his persecutions in those three cities of Antioch, Iconium and Lystra. There is also conformity of the fact that he suffered these persecutions in immediate succession and in the order in which Paul mentions the cities in his letter to Timothy. Another point that bears mentioning is that, in Acts, Lystra and Derbe are frequently mentioned together, whereas in the quotation from 2 Timothy, Lystra is mentioned while Derbe is omitted. And sure enough, in the book of Acts, we do not read of Paul facing any persecutions in Derbe. Rather, we are told in Acts,

"But when the disciples gathered about him, he rose up and entered the city, and on the next day he went on with Barnabas to Derbe. When they had preached the gospel to that city and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch."

Thus, there is perfect correspondence not only between the enumeration of the cities in which he faced persecution, but also where that enumeration stops, and the accounts of his persecutions as given in Acts.

But it gets even cooler than that. Paul seems to imply that Timothy witnessed these persecutions that happened to him in these cities, or at the very least is very well acquainted with them and can bring them to mind. Could this provide to us another coincidence? Let's turn back to the book of Acts to find out.

According to Acts, Paul made a second missionary journey through the same country. The purpose for this trip is given in Acts 15:36:

"And after some days Paul said to Barnabas, “Let us return and visit the brothers in every city where we proclaimed the word of the Lord, and see how they are.”"

Thus, we learn, that the purpose of the journey was to check on those who had been converted during the first journey to see how they were doing.

In Acts 16:1-2, we further learn,

"Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. A disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek. He was well spoken of by the brothers at Lystra and Iconium."

We thus are informed that either Derbe or Lystra was Timothy's hometown. It is clear from the text that Timothy had already been converted by the time of this visit. And Paul himself refers to Timothy as "my true child in the faith" (1 Timothy 1:2) and "my beloved child" (2 Timothy 1:2). This indicates that Timothy was most likely Paul's own convert. It then follows that Timothy was almost certainly converted upon Paul's previous journey through these cities, at just the time when the apostle had undergone the persecutions alluded to in his letter to Timothy.

Conclusion

This concludes my positive case for the Pauline authorship of 2 Timothy. In what follows in future posts, I turn my attention to the authorship of 1 Timothy & Titus, two letters which are fairly unanimously agreed to come from the pen of the same author as one another. We will then turn to the popular objections and show why I find them to be unconvincing.

Who Wrote the Pastoral Epistles? The Case for Pauline Authorship (Part 1)

Among the New Testament letters, few have come under as immense fire as the pastoral epistles (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus). Although they purport to be written by the Apostle Paul, many Biblical scholars today are convinced that the letters are pseudonymous and in fact written after Paul's death. It is generally thought, however, that at least 1 Timothy and Titus are written by the same author. Thus, these two letters may be taken as a unit. Evidence that one of these letters comes from the hand of Paul is also evidence that the other likewise comes from Paul's hand. In a series of articles, I am going to present the case that the traditional view -- namely, that the author of these three letters really was Paul the Apostle -- is correct. More than that, I will show that the denial of Pauline authorship of these epistles is very difficult to reconcile with the evidence. In future posts I will also examine some of the objections to Pauline authorship and assess how convincing they are.

Why Does It Matter Who Wrote the Pastorals?

Establishing the Pauline authorship of the Pastorals is significant for a few reasons. For one thing, the author of 1 Timothy regarded Luke's gospel as Scripture (1 Timothy 5:18). Thus, if 1 Timothy was written before Paul's death in the 60's A.D., Luke's gospel (probably the latest of the synoptic gospels to be written) must pre-date the writing of this epistle by long enough to be regarded as authoritative Scripture by the time of Paul's writing. This places the date of the gospels way back. Second, 1 Timothy 6:13 mentions Jesus bearing witness before Pontius Pilate, which provides testimony independent to that given in the gospels for that scene -- also refuting some of the Jesus Mythicists who maintain that Paul's view of Jesus did not entail Jesus actually living upon the earth. Thirdly, the Granville Sharp construction in Titus 2:13 ("our great God and Savior Jesus Christ") affirms the deity of Christ, adding to the body of evidence from the non-disputed Pauline letters for Paul's high Christology. 1 Timothy 3:16 also affirms the Deity of Christ, where Paul speaks of God being "manifest in the flesh".

Commonalities with Paul's Works

One interesting consideration is certain commonalities with the letters of Paul. For example, 1 Corinthians 6:9 contains the first utilization in Greek literature of the term ἀρσενοκοῖται (arsenokoitai). This expression literally means man bedder, and is used by Paul to refer to homosexuals. It is derived from a conjunction of two Greek words found in the Septuagint translation of Leviticus 20:18. The exact same term is also used in 1 Timothy 1:9.

Another interesting similarity that is worth mentioning is that 1 Timothy 5:18 quotes from Deuteronomy 25:4 (“You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain”), which is exactly the same Scripture quoted by Paul in 1 Corinthians 9:9.

These similarities, however, are at best suggestive and certainly do not clinch for us Pauline authorship. How, then, can we demonstrate convincingly that the author of the Pastoral epistles was indeed Paul the Apostle?

Undesigned Coincidences

In previous articles, I have written on the subject of the principle of undesignedness. For those readers who are unfamiliar with the concept, I suggest reading my previous articles on the topic (here, here and here). An undesigned coincidence arises when one has two different historical accounts that interlock in a way that is unexpected it (a) the story is being made up out of wholecloth; (b) one account is borrowing from the other; (c) both documents are copying the story from a common source.

In addition to helping us to corroborate Biblical history (as shown in my previous articles), cases of undesignedness can also often help us to corroborate the authorship of a letter. This is the case with the epistles of Paul, which often dovetail with incidents which we read of in the book of Acts.

Coincidence #1

One simple example of where the pastorals dovetail with the book of Acts is the statement in 2 Timothy 3:14-15:

"But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus."

We also read in 2 Timothy 1:5,

"I am reminded of your sincere faith, a faith that dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice and now, I am sure, dwells in you as well."

This means that either one, or both, of Timothy's parents must have been Jewish. When we flip over to the book of Acts, we read (16:1),

"Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. A disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek."

Sure enough, the verses from 2 Timothy fit like a hand in glove with what we read in Acts. Notice also that Acts makes mention of the mother alone being a believer. Acts suggests that the father was not a believer. Likewise, in the epistle, Paul praises Timothy's mother Eunice for her belief (even making mention of her name, which is not given in Acts). But he makes no mention of the father.

Coincidence #2

Another, somewhat more compelling, example of an undesigned coincidence can be found in 2 Timothy 4:20: "Erastus remained at Corinth, and I left Trophimus, who was ill, at Miletus." Paul here mentions his solitude, and urges Timothy, "Do your best to come before winter," (verse 21).

We know from the book of Acts 19:22 that Timothy and Erastus were "two of his helpers", which means Timothy and Erastus evidently knew each other well (hence it is fitting that Erastus should be mentioned in a letter to Timothy). It seems also a fair presumption that the city of Corinth was Erastus' home, hence why Paul mentions to Timothy that "Erastus remained at Corinth." It is fascinating, then, that when we turn to the epistle to the Romans (16:23), we read, "Erastus, the city treasurer, and our brother Quartus, greet you." Now it turns out that Erastus was the city treasurer for the city from which Paul was writing his epistle to the Romans. If, then, we can establish a firm case, on completely independent grounds, that the epistle to the Romans was written in Corinth, this then would explain why Paul at the close of his letter specifically mentions Erastus' greeting of the Roman church -- and it would be a coincidence too subtle to be the product of design.

How, then, can we be sure that Paul was writing his epistle to the Romans from Corinth? In 1 Corinthians 16:1-4, we read,

"Now concerning the collection for the saints: as I directed the churches of Galatia, so you also are to do. On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that there will be no collecting when I come. And when I arrive, I will send those whom you accredit by letter to carry your gift to Jerusalem. If it seems advisable that I should go also, they will accompany me."

Here, we learn of a collection that was going on in the city and Paul wants the collection to be ready by the time he arrives in Corinth. In Romans 15:28, we read,

"When therefore I have completed this and have delivered to them what has been collected, I will leave for Spain by way of you."

Paul mentions here that the collection is ready and that he intends to deliver it. This implies that he was in fact writing from Corinth. This then explains why he mentions in 2 Tmothy 4:20 that "Erastus remained in Corinth" and in Romans 16:23 mentioned Erastus as the city treasurer.

Notice that it is only by putting together the pieces from different sources that we can arrive at a coherent picture. These patterns are not at all what would be expected from a forgery.

Conclusion

As seen in the above examples, we have a powerful argument for Pauline authorship of the pastorals from undesigned coincidences found in them. In future posts, I will document other cases of undesigned coincidences supporting the Pauline authorship of the pastorals. Finally, I will refute some of the popular objections to the pastorals having been written by the Apostle Paul. The reason that I have decided to present the positive case first, and then answer popular objections is that I want to present first a context, lest we miss the forest for the trees.

The Uniformity of Expressive Silence and Corrboration of Biblical History: The Case of Rebecca and Bethuel

In a previous article, I showed how the principle of undesignedness can be used to corroborate Biblical history, giving the specific example of its application to the story of David, Absalom and Ahithophel the Gilonite. For those unfamiliar with the principle of undesignedness, I suggest reading my earlier two articles on the subject (here and here) for a discussion of it.

Another sort of undesignedness can sometimes arise when we examine cases where information is assumed by the author although not explicitly spelled out -- this may be called the uniformity of expressive silence -- repeated omissions that have a meaning. Here, I give an example of this from the book of Genesis.

Genesis 24 narrates the story of Abraham's servant's journey to the city of Nahor in Mesopotamia in search of a wife for Isaac. He encounters "Rebekah, who was born to Bethuel the son of Milcah, the wife of Nahor, Abraham's brother", who "came out with her water jar on her shoulder." Abraham's servant requests a drink of water from the jar. Rebekah gives him some water and also some for his camels to drink. In verses 22-28, we read what happened next:

22 When the camels had finished drinking, the man took a gold ring weighing a half shekel, and two bracelets for her arms weighing ten gold shekels, 23 and said, “Please tell me whose daughter you are. Is there room in your father's house for us to spend the night?” 24 She said to him, “I am the daughter of Bethuel the son of Milcah, whom she bore to Nahor.” 25 She added, “We have plenty of both straw and fodder, and room to spend the night.” 26 The man bowed his head and worshiped the Lord 27 and said, “Blessed be the Lord, the God of my master Abraham, who has not forsaken his steadfast love and his faithfulness toward my master. As for me, the Lord has led me in the way to the house of my master's kinsmen.” 28 Then the young woman ran and told her mother's household about these things.

The point to which I wish to draw attention is the consistent insignificance of Bethuel throughout the narrative. Bethuel was the father of Rebekah, and thus it is reasonable to expect that the terms of a marriage contract would be stipulated by him. Indeed, in the case of Laban in Genesis 29 in regards to his disposing of a daughter in marriage -- a daughter who, like Rebecca, had brothers (see Genesis 31:1) -- the active party throughout the account is the father, Laban.

Contrast this with the case of Bethuel in our current text in Genesis 24. Abraham's servant had asked her, “Please tell me whose daughter you are. Is there room in your father's house for us to spend the night?” (verse 23). We are then told, however, that "the young woman ran and told her mother's household about these things," (Genesis 24:28). Notice we are not told that she ran to her father's household (as Rachel did in Genesis 29:12 after meeting Jacob), but rather she ran to her mother's household. Verse 29 further informs us, "Rebekah had a brother whose name was Laban. Laban ran out toward the man, to the spring."

After having been invited in to the house by Laban, the servant explains the purpose of his visit (verses 34-49). In verse 50, we read,  "Then Laban and Bethuel answered and said,.." The mention of Bethuel constitutes the only proof that he was alive at the time of this incident. It is agreed that the servant may "take her and go, and let her be the wife of your master's son, as the Lord has spoken," (verse 51).

The servant then gives gifts, we are told, "to Rebekah" and "to her brother and to her mother," (verse 53). Curiously, no gifts are given to Bethuel, it would seem. In verse 55, we read, "Her brother and her mother said, “Let the young woman remain with us a while, at least ten days; after that she may go.”" It would seem expected that such a proposal would be made by her father. Instead, it is made by her mother and brother. After inquiring of Rebekah, it is decided that she would leave with the servant after all (verses 58-61).

Abraham's son Isaac marries Rebekah, and together they have a son called Jacob (Genesis 25:26). After Jacob deceives his father Isaac into blessing him rather than Esau, the eldest (Genesis 27), Rebekah counsels Jacob to flee because Esau planned to kill him,  Along his journey, he encounters some shepherds and asks them “Do you know Laban the son of Nahor?” (Genesis 29:5). This is strange, because Laban was the son of Bethuel and only the grandson of Nahor. Yet, again, we see Bethuel passed over as an individual considered of no importance among his own family. Bethuel's own son, therefore, is identified by the name of his grandfather rather than his father.

We can not state the specific circumstances surrounding Bethuel or explain exactly why he was a man considered of no note. Who knows? Perhaps he was considered incapable of managing his own affairs due to age or imbecility. Whatever the reason, Scripture does not tell us. However, the lack of concurrence in a positive fact but silent presumption of that same fact suggests that the author knew something more than we do about the circumstances than he discloses in his account thereof. It is the sort of pattern we expect in real history, but not the sort of pattern we should expect from works of fiction.

Is Mark "Confused" About the Location of the Feeding of the Five Thousand?

Muslim YouTube polemicist Yahya Snow recently excerpted a clip from one of my apologetics webinars, in which Dr. Mike Licona, the guest speaker that week, stated that the most difficult apparent discrepancy between the gospels is the location of the feeding of the five thousand miracle, and on this point Mark seems to be "confused".

According to Luke 9:10, the event of the feeding of the five thousand took place in Bethsaida. However, according to Mark 6:45, following the feeding of the five thousand miracle, Mark tells us,

Immediately he made his disciples get into the boat and go before him to the other side, to Bethsaida, while he dismissed the crowd.

This presents an apparent contradiction. If Jesus and the disciples were already in Bethsaida, why does he tell his disciples to get into the boat and go to the other side of the lake, to Bethsaida? At first glance, it looks like a contradiction between the accounts. A closer inspection, however, reveals that it is no such thing.

The first thing to note is that we have independent confirmation that the event occurred in a deserted area near Bethsaida. In John 6:5, Jesus turns to Philip to ask where they should go to buy bread. John 1:44 and 12:21 tell us that Philip was from Bethsaida. It is Luke's account that tells us that the event took place in Bethsaida, thus explaining why Jesus turned to Philip in John's gospel. Luke does not tell us that Jesus turned to Philip, but rather that he turned to "the disciples" (Luke 9:14). This hand-in-glove fit, or undesigned coincidence, provides an independence of attestation.

Thus, there is good reason to believe that the feeding of the five thousand miracle took place in Bethsaida.

Moreover, in Matthew 11:21, Jesus says,

"Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes."

This is paralleled in Luke 10:13. It is thus among the Q sayings of Jesus (those sayings of Jesus that are attested in Matthew and Luke but are absent in Mark, suggesting that they go back to an early source). There is no other record of mighty works in or near Bethsaida, but the feeding of the five thousand is said to have occurred after a day of healing miracles as well.

The greek text says that the disciples were to enter into the boat and προάγειν εἰς τὸ πέραν πρὸς Βηθσαϊδάν (proagein eis to peran pros Bēthsaidan). The greek word pros can mean "over against." Another possibility is that, in going over to the other side (to the Capernaum side) they were going to pass Bethsaida--that is, that the actual location of the feeding was slightly to the east of Bethsaida itself. Hence, when they left in Mark to go to the other side, they could have been going "toward" Bethsaida. Either of those interpretations of pros will work in Mark.

There is yet further confirmation of the location of the miracle as being somewhere "across the top" of the Sea of Galilee from Capernaum. It is Mark himself who says that they didn't even have leisure to eat before the feeding, because there were "many coming and going" (Mark 6:31), and that they got into the boat to get away from the crowds. That fits well with their being in the region of Capernaum prior to going away. There is still a further undesigned coincidence involved there which connects Mark and John. It was just before the Passover (John 6:4), and there would have been crowds coming through Capernaum, travelling down to Jerusalem. Thus, the picture is well-explained by their going from the Capernaum region (on the top west coat of the Sea of Galilee) across the top of the region around Bethsaida, and then, when they returned "to the other side", returned to the northwest side. In fact, Mark explicitly says (Mark 6:53) that they landed at Gennesaret when they had crossed over! Thus, this actually, far from contradicting, confirms the idea of which direction they were going. If they were really crossing over "to Bethsaida" as if to land at or near Bethsaida, they couldn't have landed at Gennesaret!

Thus, pros Bēthsaidan, even within Mark itself, cannot be taken to mean that the feeding of the five thousand occurred in a radically different location from the region of Bethsaida named explicitly in Luke and otherwise confirmed by undesigned coincidencces.