Coincidence III.4: Got a New Tomb Handy?
The Alleged Coincidence
Luke and John say that Jesus was placed in a tomb that had never been used (Luke 23:53 and John 19:41). John further says that Jesus was laid in this new tomb because it was nearby, in the same garden where the crucifixion occurred (John 19:41). However, McGrew wants to know how Joseph had permission to use this new tomb. She writes:
Joseph would presumably not be allowed the use of someone else’s previously unused tomb merely because it happened to be conveniently located! How did Joseph of Arimathea come to have access to a new tomb that had never been used before? (Original emphasis) 1
The answer allegedly comes from Matthew, who tells us that the new tomb belonged to Joseph of Arimathea (Matt. 27:60).
The passages allegedly coincide, then, because Matthew explains how it is that Joseph had access to this new tomb where he could lay Jesus: He owned it.
First Failure: No Coincidence
There’s no coincidence here. All that’s happening is that Mark, Luke, and John don’t explain how Joseph had access to a tomb, but Matthew does. But since this observation doesn’t result in a coincidence, McGrew has to fabricate the appearance of one by selecting details in some Gospel(s) other than Matthew. And the details from Luke and John that she chose to highlight—that the tomb was new and that it was in the same garden as the crucifixion site—aren’t pertinent, because Matthew’s detail—that Joseph owned the tomb—doesn’t explain them.
Hence, there’s no coincidence between Matthew’s account and Luke’s and John’s.
Second Failure: No Evidence for Reliability
Even if Matthew’s detail about Joseph’s owning the tomb did explain the details in Luke and John, the coincidence doesn’t provide evidence for reliability. The idea that Joseph owned the tomb could easily have been invented by a storyteller precisely to explain how Joseph has access to the tomb. Moreover, the details don’t support one another. That Joseph owned the tomb doesn’t make it more likely that the tomb was new or that it was in the same garden as the crucifixion site, and that the tomb was new or in the garden doesn’t make it more likely that Joseph owned the tomb.
Hence, these details, even if they coincide, aren’t evidence for reliability.
Third Failure: No Evidence for Eyewitness Testimony
All the details under discussion—that Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea, that the tomb was new, that the tomb belonged to Joseph, that the tomb was in the garden—could easily have been invented and circulated as oral and literary traditions before being written down by Gospel authors. That the different Gospel accounts have different details can easily be explained as the authors hearing different traditions.
Worse, let’s say the details are historically accurate: Joseph really did bury Jesus in his own new tomb in a garden. These details still could have reached the Gospel writers via oral and literary traditions. Matthew heard that the tomb was new and belonged to Joseph, Luke heard it was new, and John heard that it was new and in the same garden where the crucifixion took place.
Hence, these details, even if they coincide, aren’t evidence for eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion: A Failure in Plain View
This presentation of an alleged coincidence is pathetic.
First, McGrew highlights details from Luke and John—that the tomb was new (Luke and John) and that the tomb was in the garden near the crucifixion site (John)—that turn out to be completely irrelevant. Second, what she claims is a coincidence is really just the observation that Matthew is the only Gospel that provides a detail that can explain how Joseph has access to a tomb in which to lay Jesus. But this detail doesn’t explain any particular detail in Luke or John, or even Mark; it just explains Joseph’s access to the tomb. And third, even if there were a coincidence here, it doesn’t provide any evidence for reliable eyewitness testimony. All the details can easily be explained as inventions that reached the Gospels authors via oral and literary traditions.
- I’m using the Kindle version of McGrew’s book, Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts (DeWard, 2017), making page numbers useless. Unless otherwise noted, all quotations from McGrew in this post come from Chapter III, section “4. Got a New Tomb Handy?” A tiny criticism: This alleged coincidence appears in a chapter titled “The Synoptics Explain Each Other”. And yet McGrew is using John to help inspire the question that will be answered, allegedly, by a coincidence in another Gospel. ↩