Talking about undesigned coincidences in the abstract can take us only so far. There is nothing like seeing a few of them for oneself to make the idea clear.
We will start with an example from William Paley’s Horae Paulinae, the first work to explore this sort of argument in detail. Paley’s object is to show the numerous correspondences between the Pauline epistles and the book of Acts. The cluster of coincidences begins with two quotations from 1 Corinthians:
What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” (1 Corinthians 1:12)
I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. (1 Corinthians 3:6)
Both of these verses suggest that Apollos had been at Corinth; the second also suggests that Paul had preceded him there. Turning to the book of Acts, we find an explicit discussion of Paul’s travels and a few remarks about Apollos’s life that bear out these implications. After his first visit to Greece, Paul went from Corinth to Ephesus, where he left his companions Priscilla and Aquilla; he returned to Palestine, stopping in Jerusalem, and then went north into Asia Minor (Acts 18:19, 23), ultimately making his way back to Ephesus. It is during the period of these later travels that Apollos comes on the scene, being instructed in Ephesus by Priscilla and Aquilla (Acts 18:26) and passing from them over to Achaia, where “he greatly helped those who through grace had believed” (Acts 18:27). We might have inferred from this alone that Apollos went to Corinth on this trip, but we need not stop here, as we find that Paul came back to Ephesus at the very time that Apollos was in Corinth (Acts 19:1).
There is a further point of coincidence, equally indirect, between this passage of Acts and an expression Paul uses when remonstrating with the Corinthians in his second epistle. “Do we need,” he asks with evident exasperation, “as some do, letters of recommendation to you, or from you?” The question is rhetorical: “You yourselves are our letter of recommendation, written on our hearts, to be known and read by all” (2 Corinthians 3:1-2). As it happens, the book of Acts provides the clue to Paul’s language; for when Apollos, having been instructed by Priscilla and Aquilla, made his own trip to Corinth, “the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him” (Acts 18:27).
What should we infer from the way that the book of Acts interlocks with the Corinthian epistles? The examples we have looked at here offer us some evidence that the authors of each were well informed and habitually truthful. That falls short of a demonstration, of course, but all historical evidence falls short of mathematical demonstration. The case is a prima facie one, and it would be strengthened if we found other, similar arguments with respect to these texts. Paley gives a dozen for each of these epistles.
Paley stresses, in the first chapter of the Horae Paulinae, that the indirectness, the evident undesignedness, is what makes these coincidences significant. The information that makes the passages from the epistles interlock with the history is dropped casually and naturally into the narrative. By contrast, although there is a very close verbal parallel between Paul’s description of the last supper in 1 Corinthians 11:24-25 and the words of institution in Luke 22:17-20, this coincidence might easily be explained by the hypothesis that one of the sources copied from the other. That is not to say that either author actually did copy from the other. But when the points of coincidence are too obvious, the correspondence might have been forged after the historical work became well known, or vice versa.
If there were only a small number of undesigned coincidences, we might shrug them off as statistical noise. After all, in a large box of jigsaw puzzle pieces taken at random, one apiece, from many different puzzles, someone searching with great patience might find a few pairs that fit together (more or less) by sheer accident. But when a large number of pieces fit together, sometimes in clusters, the chance explanation rapidly becomes absurd. That is why, to appreciate the force of the argument from undesigned coincidences, we must have the patience to work through multiple examples. But the picture that emerges when we take the time to do this will amply repay us for the labor and study we bestow on the project.
It may be that not
only Acts and the Pauline epistles confirm each other but also Acts and 1
Peter. Acts and 1 Peter may be
two independent sources of the pouring out of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Acts 2,2 and 1 Peter
1,12 are the only places in the Bible where we can read that the Holy Spirit
was sent “from heaven”, and it may well be that the latter passage refers to
Pentecost as well.
It is also only in these two books that the geographical names Pontus and
Cappadocia appear (Acts 2,9, 18,2 and 1 Peter 1,1). It could be that those who
had preached the gospel to the addressees of 1 Peter were Jews from Pontus,
Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia who were present at Pentecost and later
went back to their respective homelands and told their fellow citizens about
their experience in Jerusalem. These Jewish Christians in these areas may have
come to faith in Christ by the sermon Peter delivered on the day of Pentecost
as described in Acts 2,14-41 and the pagan Christians that are addressed in 1
Peter by the witness of Jewish Christians, just as according to Acts 11,20 it
happened in Antioch.
Finally, if “Babylon” mentioned in 1 Peter
5,13 refers to Jerusalem 1 Peter and the Book of Acts would be two independent
sources of the fact that Mark and Silas were members of the church in Jerusalem
(Acts 12,12, 15,22, 1 Peter 5,12-13), which provides another argument for the
authenticity of 1 Peter.
As
for the idea that “Babylon” refers to Jerusalem and not, as is widely assumed,
to Rome, a number of arguments can be put forward. First, according to 1 Peter
2,13-14 the apostle Peter acknowledged the Roman government authorities. Therefore,
it seems questionable to me that in the same letter he would refer to the
capital Rome as to “Babylon”, thereby regarding the Roman Empire as being ripe
for God’s judgement. Second, according to Galatians 2,7-9 Peter was regarded as
“an apostle to the Jews” (NIV), who, at least around AD 50, lived in Jerusalem.
Third, if Jerusalem could be called “Sodom” (Isaiah 1,10, Revelation 11,8),
“Gomorrha” (Isaiah 1,10), and “Egypt” (Revelation 11,8) it is certainly not
unreasonable to assume that it could also be called “Babylon”.
Very
good arguments in favour of the view that “Babylon” refers to Jerusalem can be
found in James Stuart
Russell’s book “The Parousia: A Critical Inquiry into the New Testament
Doctrine of Our Lord’s Second Coming” (London 1878) on pp. 346-350. The
respective passage can be read in the following link:
http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/images/1878_russell_parousia/russell_parousia_ap2b.html
‘By contrast, although there is a very close verbal parallel between Paul’s description of the last supper in 1 Corinthians 11:24-25 and the words of institution in Luke 22:17-20, this coincidence might easily be explained by the hypothesis that one of the sources copied from the other.’
Well, yes and no.
It could be that a later scribe changed Luke 22:17-20 to make it more closely parallel 1 Corinthians 11:24-25.
As everybody knows, the Revised Standard Version has a footnote saying that ‘ancient authorities lack in whole or in part…. ‘And taking bread, giving thanks, saying ,’This is my body that is given for you. Do this in my remembrance. And the cup likewise after supper, saying ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood that is poured out for you’.
Why would early manuscripts leave out such important words?
Because they didn’t.
What probably happened is that later manuscripts put those words in.
Of course, this is a point of contention among textual critics and so not likely to disturb people who tell the marks that the text is undisputed, and then use disputed texts to ‘prove’ their apologetics…..
This is a rabbit trail; I explicitly noted that this is not an instance of an undesigned coincidence.
But since you seem unable to speak on any issue concerning the New Testament without slanting or muddling the facts, I will comment on this one briefly, lest anyone reading these notes come away with the misimpression that your conjecture is well grounded in the evidence.
The reason that the shorter reading from Codex Bezae is not taken by most textual critics to be original has nothing to do with apologetic motivation. Rather, the reason is that the longer text of Luke 22:17-20 has overwhelming external attestation, both from other representatives of the Western text family and from witnesses belonging to all other text families, including the proto-Alexandrian, Alexandrian, proto-Caesarean, Caesarean, Syrian, and Antiochan. Codex Bezae, which is notorious for its lacunae, leaves out the second mention of the cup.
Further, as Bruce Metzger writes:
“It is easier to suppose that the Bezan editor, puzzled by the sequence of cup-bread-cup, eliminated the second mention of the cup without being concerned about the inverted order of institution thus produced, than that the editor of the longer version to rectify the inverted order, brought in from Paul the second mention of the cup, while letting the first mention stand.”
And again:
“The similarity between verses 19b-20 and 1 Cor 11.24b-25 arises from the familiarity of the evangelist with the liturgical practice among Pauline churches, a circumstance that accounts also fro the presence of non-Lukan expressions in verses 19b-20.”
— Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 3rd ed. (1975), in loc.
‘What should we infer from the way that the book of Acts interlocks with the Corinthian epistles? ‘
Can we conclude that the author of the book of Acts had read the Corinthian epistles?
There are lots more ‘undesigned coincidences’ to be found in Acts.
Luke also seems to have based some of Acts on classical Greek literature, especially Euripides’ Bacchae.
In Acts 26:12, Luke says that Paul heard Jesus say , in Aramaic or Hebrew, ‘It is hard for you to kick against the pricks’. ‘Kick against the pricks’ (laktizo pros kentron) was a well known Greek saying, which first seems to appear in line 790 of Euripides’ Bacchae.
In Euripides’ Bacchae, line 447, we read the following ‘Of their own accord (autamato), the chains were loosed from their feet and keys opened the doors (thura) without human hand.’ In Acts 10:12, we read how doors opened for Peter of their own accord (automatos) and in Acts 16:26, we read how an earthquake loosed the chains from everybody and all the doors opened by themselves.
Did an earthquake really loose a chain from a prisoner, not a noted result of seismic activity? Or did Luke base his account of Peter’s on Euripides’ play about the persecuted followers of a persecuted and misunderstood deity, the son of Zeus and a young , mortal woman?
Luke often used the Greek Old Testament for his stories.
In Acts 10, Peter is told in a dream to eat unclean animals.
(Christianity was sometimes literally dreamed up…..)
In the Old Testament, Ezekiel 4 also has a story of somebody who is asked to eat unpalatable food.
According to Acts , Peter, an Aramaic-speaking Jew managed, in a moment of terror, to remember the exact phrase from the Greek translation of Ezekiel 4:14! Was it realistic for somebody described in Acts itself as ignorant (idiotes) and illiterate to bring to mind a Greek translation that he would not have known?
I think not.
I suspect Luke ‘borrowed’ words from the Greek translation of Ezekiel 4:14 to put into the mouth of Peter. It is not as though it is a common phrase which Peter might have hit on himself. ‘Medamos, Kyrie’ (By no means,Lord) is used only here and in Acts 11:8.
It is even more remarkable that Peter managed to reproduce the words of horror that Ezekiel said when he was also told to eat unclean foods, as Peter was supposed to have been present when Jesus declared all foods clean in Mark 7, long before Acts 10 ever took place.
Hey Steven Carr,
Guess how many prisoners escaped from jail in Port-au-Prince after the magnitude 7.0 earthquake in Haiti.
I dont know what Peter’s jail cell was like but its not hard for me to envisage bricks and mortar around a jail door crumbling during an earthquake. Or the place where a chain was anchored to the wall being the weakest point in the masonry.
BTW – if you get a chance I would love to hear more about your theory that a righteous Jew like Peter would never have heard Rabbinic admonishments from the Tanakh about ritual food cleanliness. Surely, Peter had heard Jewish religious leaders talking about the Law and the Prophets on this subject countless times – especially during the years he spent with Jesus.
I bet Jewish Rabbis proudly recited this part of Ezekiel often.
What? In Greek?
Still, all I can do is point out the plagariasms and frauds in the Bible.
I don’t expect mere evidence to be taken seriously by believers, who will simply make up anything to explain away the evidence of the Bible.
Why would Jewish Rabbis need to recite Ezekiel passages about ritual cleanliness in Greek?
You did not answer my challenge that Peter must have heard Jewish religious leaders talking about the Law and the Prophets on this subject countless times – especially during the years he spent with Jesus.Surely, Peter had heard Jewish religious leaders talking about the Law and the Prophets on this subject countless times – especially during the years he spent with Jesus.
Your claim is that Luke ‘verbals’ Peter with phrases from the OT that you inexplicably claim could not have been known by anyone but Greek speakers.
I contend that those recitations would have been very popular and well-known by observant Jews and that perhaps by some fluke of happenstance, maybe just maybe, Peter could have overheard the topic of ritual cleanliness come up in discussions Jesus is rumoured to have had with teachers of the law. DO YA THINK THATS POSSIBLE?
Gosh.
And there was Tim McGrew telling people that the disciples didn’t understand Jesus teachings and were slow on the uptake.
It turns out the disciples were all brilliant Bible scholars. who absorbed teachings and memorised the Bible
Still, who really cares if one answer made up by a Christian totally contradicts other answer made up by Christians?
The main thing is that there are answers.
The fact that the answers contradict each other is not as important as the fact that Christians can point to answers.
Peter is the one EXPLAINING ritual cleanliness / uncleanliness of foods to other followers.
Who better to do so than someone like Peter who went through the process of learning about dead letter legalism from Jesus?
Look at Peter’s dream. To me it seems obvious that he is re-telling a didactic dream which mirrors his own getting of wisdom. And he is talking to people who are at the same place where he used to be.
I don’t get your point.
In Acts 16:28 nobody escapes.
You wrote : “Did an earthquake really loose a chain from a prisoner, not a noted result of seismic activity?”
I mentioned the ”noted result” – a mass prison escape from Port-au-Prince jail in 2010 following seismic activity in Haiti – for your edification.
Why is it so hard for you to envisage bricks and mortar around a jail door crumbling during an earthquake? Or the place where a chain was anchored to the wall being the weakest point in the masonry?
Stephen,
These aren’t undesigned coincidences; they are a few parallel expressions scraped together. There is no interlocking there; there are no events or persons in common. If you think they are, you simply don’t understand what the argument from undesigned coincidences is about.
The parenthetical comment in Mark 7:19 is a gloss on Jesus’ teaching added with the benefit of hindsight; there is no particular reason to think that Peter would have understood this on the occasion of Jesus’ utterance. You may have noticed that the disciples are not particularly quick on the uptake when it comes to Jesus’ statements.
You mean Jesus didn’t understand his own teaching about food being unclean?
Or that the disciples saw Jesus eating unclean food and didn’t work out that it was unclean?
The disciples are indeed as dumb as a box of rocks in the Gospels.
Because they do not behave like real people, but like literary characters.
“You mean Jesus didn’t understand his own teaching about food being unclean?”
No, of course that is not what I mean.
“Or that the disciples saw Jesus eating unclean food and didn’t work out that it was unclean?”
There is no suggestion that Jesus is eating unclean food in this scene. You need to learn to read more carefully.
“The disciples are indeed as dumb as a box of rocks in the Gospels.
Because they do not behave like real people, but like literary characters.”
Steven, you are yourself living proof that a real person can indeed behave foolishly and miss the point, time after time.
Undesigned (biblical) coincidences go a long way towards providing the sort of corroboration without collaboration that many skeptics say is needed.
They highlight the “separateness” of the writers.
One wonders what the early Christians would have made of our modern-day attention to such small, inadvertent details in the text. “…why are you guys looking for needles in that big glorious haystack of writing?