Are the Gospels and Acts reliable and based on eyewitness testimony? In her book, Hidden in Plain View (DeWard Publishing, 2017), Lydia McGrew argues that they are. Specifically, she argues that the Gospels and Acts are “historical memoirs of real people and events, written by those in a position to know about these people and events, either direct eyewitnesses or friends and associates of eyewitnesses, who were trying to be truthful” (General Introduction, p. 20). (Since I’ve used the Kindle version of the book, I’ll cite the chapter a quote comes from along with the page number provided by Kindle.)
This conclusion is at odds with the consensus view of New Testament scholars, which is that the Gospels and Acts were written by people who were not and did not know eyewitnesses, and who based their accounts on oral and literary traditions that had been circulating for decades. These traditions changed as they were told and retold, which accounts for the similarities and the differences in the stories. The circulating traditions also explains why the Gospels and Acts contain nuggets of reliable historical information about Jesus and his followers, but why they also contain unhistorical details that are the product of literary artistry, imagination, and theological embellishments.
McGrew argues that this consensus view is wrong because within the Gospels and Acts there are “undesigned coincidences”. McGrew’s definition of an undesigned coincidence is the following:
An undesigned coincidence is a notable connection between two or more accounts or texts that doesn’t seem to have been been planned by the person or people giving the accounts. Despite their apparent independence, the items fit together like pieces of a puzzle. (General Introduction, p. 17)
The undesigned coincidences connect in such subtle and casual ways that they can be easily missed—they are “hidden in plain view”. McGrew’s argument is that “the occurrence of multiple undesigned coincidences” in the Gospels and Acts is evidence that these documents “are historically reliable and that they come from people close to the facts who were attempting to tell truthfully what they knew” (General Introduction, p. 18). Undesigned coincidences are evidence that the Gospels and Acts were not “written at many removes from the events that they chronicle”, that they are not “so full of contradictions that we cannot trust them”, that they are not “full of legendary accretions”, and that they do not “contain statements that are contrary to fact but that were included as literary or theological embellishments or alterations” (General Introduction, p. 18).
On this blog I’ll argue that it’s McGrew who is wrong. I agree with the majority of New Testament scholars that there are strong reasons to think the Gospels are based on oral and literary traditions and contain unreliable details. And because oral and literary traditions can explain the presence of undesigned coincidences as well as, and sometimes better than, eyewitness testimony, McGrew’s argument provides no reason for us to change our minds. The argument, therefore, fails.
I’ll be going through each one of McGrew’s examples of undesigned coincidences. For each one I’ll explain why it fails to be convincing evidence that the Gospels and Acts are based on on reliable eyewitness testimony.