Coincidence III.1: The Paired Disciples
The Alleged Coincidence
Each of the Synoptic Gospels contains a list of the disciples. McGrew points out that in the Gospel of Matthew, the disciples are listed in pairs. We read:
First, Simon, also known as Peter, and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee and his brother John; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus and Thaddaeus; Simon the Cananaean and Judas Iscariot, the one who betrayed him. (Matt. 10:2–4; my emphasis) 1
However, in Mark an “and” separates all the disciples except Simon and James, and in Luke all the disciples are separated by “and”. 2 So the question McGrew asks is, Why does Matthew alone list the disciples in pairs?
At first McGrew acknowledges that “this point concerning the listing in pairs in Matthew might not seem to call for much explanation”. I agree. McGrew suggests that pairing the disciples might have been a stylistic choice or a mnemonic device: “Perhaps grouping the names into pairs was done simply because it sounded good and made the list easy to remember.” I agree. These two explanations easily explain Matthew’s pairing of the disciples, and are extremely plausible.
And yet McGrew claims “a more satisfactory explanation is forthcoming if we turn to a passage in Mark—not, I note, to Mark’s list of the disciples”. Mark tells us that when Jesus sent the disciples out on missions among the villages to preach repentance and to cast out unclean spirits, he sent them out “two by two” (Mark 6:7). “The fact that Jesus sent out the twelve two by two, found only in Mark, thus provides a reasonable explanation of the paired names in Matthew,” writes McGrew.
Thus, these passages coincide because Mark explains Matthew. Mark explains why Matthew lists the disciples in pairs.
First Failure: No Coincidence Necessary
McGrew’s explanation of the pairing of the disciples in Matthew could be right. But it could just as easily be wrong. As McGrew herself admits, there are other explanations for Matthew’s paired listing of the disciples. She mentioned two possibilities: perhaps it was done for style, or maybe it was how Matthew had memorized the names, by chunking them into pairs. I think a combination of the two makes the most sense. Although Mark lists the most prominent disciples first (Peter, James, and John), Matthew first lists the pairs of brothers—Peter and Andrew, James and John—and it makes sense to place an “and” between them. From there, he kept the pattern going, and paired up the remaining disciples.
However, McGrew dismisses these explanations as unsatisfying. But she doesn’t explain why they aren’t satisfying; she simply asserts it. We therefore have no reason to accept her explanation over any other, and thus we can reject the coincidence.
Second Failure: No Evidence for Reliability
But even if McGrew’s explanation is the correct one and there really is a coincidence between the passages in Mark and Matthew, there still wouldn’t be evidence for reliability.
McGrew argues that Matthew pairs the disciples in his list because he knew that Jesus paired the disciples for their missions, even though he doesn’t mention that. She writes:
If Jesus sent out the twelve in pairs, it is quite possible that the pair grouping in Matthew reflects knowledge of this fact. It may even replicate the actual pairings that Jesus set up, but the more important point is that it fits with the “two by two” pairing in the commissioning.
But this can be true even if Jesus didn’t send the disciples out in pairs. That Jesus paired the disciples could have been invented by Mark or by an earlier storyteller. Matthew hears about it—probably from Mark, one of his sources—and so lists the disciples in pairs. He then neglects to mention that Jesus had paired up the disciples.
However, McGrew discounts this explanation:
It might be argued that Matthew silently used the information about their being sent in groups of two from Mark 6.7 in deciding how to group his list of the disciples; this seems implausible given that Matthew does not include the statement that Jesus sent the disciples out in pairs in Matthew 10.1 (or anywhere else), even though Matthew 10.1 is quite similarly worded to Mark 6.7 in other respects and comes immediately before Matthew’s own list of the disciples. (Original emphasis) 3
But as I’ve pointed out with other coincidences, McGrew cannot object to such explanations because she relies on them too. In this case, as we saw above, she also argues that Matthew “silently used the information” that Jesus sent the disciples out in pairs to group his list of disciples in pairs. Her point that Matthew could have easily included Mark’s detail about the disciples going out “two by two” can also be applied to her explanation: If Matthew knew that Jesus paired up the disciples, he could have easily mentioned that when he paired the disciples in his list, or elsewhere in his Gospel.
Therefore, invention and oral and literary traditions can explain this coincidence. Which means it cannot provide evidence for reliability.
Third Failure: No Evidence for Eyewitness Testimony
As we’ve just seen, even if Mark’s and Matthew’s texts do coincide about the pairing of the disciples, the coincidence could be the result of invention and circulating traditions about Jesus. Thus, the coincidence cannot be evidence for eyewitness testimony.
But for argument’s sake, let’s say that Jesus did send his disciples out “two by two”, as Mark says, and that this is the reason why Matthew listed the disciples in pairs. Would we have evidence that these passages come directly from eyewitness testimony?
Of course not. The fact that Jesus sent the disciples out in pairs could have reached the authors of Mark and Matthew via oral and literary traditions. This information prompted Mark to mention the pairing for the missions but not to list the disciples in pairs, and prompted Matthew to list the disciples in pairs but not to mention the pairing for the missions. No eyewitnesses required.
McGrew cannot object to this explanation. Her own explanation entails that Mark and Matthew knew about the paired-up missions, but then, for whatever reasons, this information prompted Mark to mention the pairing for the missions but not to list the disciples in pairs, and prompted Matthew to list the disciples in pairs but not to mention the pairing for the missions.
Thus, the idea that Jesus sent the disciples out in pairs, whether true or false, could have reached the authors via circulating oral and literary traditions. Which means this coincidence cannot provide evidence for eyewitness testimony.
Fourth Failure: Evidence Against Reliable Eyewitness Testimony
This coincidence is another case where McGrew appears to be unwittingly and ironically providing evidence that the Gospels are not based on reliable eyewitness testimony.
The names of the disciples are the same in Mark and Matthew, but they are different in Luke and John. Luke includes a second Judas (a “son of James”) in place of a Thaddeus, who shows up in Mark’s and Matthew’s lists. 4 John doesn’t have a list of names, but he mentions a Nathanael, who doesn’t show up in the Synoptics. 5
Although these differences may seem slight, they are strong evidence that the Gospels are not based on reliable eyewitness testimony. How could the eyewitnesses forget the names of their closest companions, those with whom they shared the special distinction of being chosen by Jesus? If a Nathaniel were one of the twelve, why isn’t he mentioned in any of the Synoptics? If a Thaddeus were one of the twelve, why didn’t Luke’s eyewitness sources remember him, and instead remember a second Judas?
That these names are coming from eyewitnesses is simply implausible. It’s far more plausible that the different names come from circulating oral and literary traditions about Jesus and his followers.
Conclusion: A Failure in Plain View
And so, on multiple counts this alleged coincidence fails to be evidence for reliable eyewitness testimony. McGrew’s explanation of Matthew’s listing the disciples in pairs is not necessarily the correct one, and she provides no reason—apart from the subjective claim that it’s “more satisfying”—to prefer her explanation over any other. But even if there were a coincidence here, it can be explained as the result of invention and circulating traditions. Indeed, the coincidence can be better explained by invention and circulating traditions because the names of the disciples differ between Gospels, and it’s absolutely implausible that the eyewitnesses wouldn’t remember the names of their closet companions in Christ.
- Unless otherwise noted, I use the NRSVue for all biblical translations. ↩
- According to McGrew, “some texts” of Luke list the disciples in pairs as well. But she constructs this coincidence using Matthew and not Luke because the pairing is found in Matthew “regardless of the text family one follows”. These quotes, and all the others in this post, come from the Kindle version of McGrew’s book, Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts (DeWard, 2017), Chapter III, section “1. The Paired Disciples”. ↩
- McGrew, Hidden in Plain View, Chapter III, section “1. The Paired Disciples”, n.6 ↩
- For Judas “son of James”, see Luke 6:16. For Thaddeus, see Mark 3:18 and Matt. 10:3. ↩
- For Nathanael, see John 1:45; 21:2. ↩