Difference, Similarities, & Undesigned Coincidences - Evidence of Reliability (Part 5 of 8)

Imagine a detective just arrived on the scene of a murder where a man killed the boyfriend of his ex-wife in a bar. There are four different witnesses to the event, and each is questioned. If, after taking the statements of the four individuals, each gave the exact same story with the exact same details, the detective would likely be suspicious. Identical eyewitness testimony strongly indicates collusion. Natural eyewitness testimony, on the other hand, typically involves varying levels of agreement, disagreement, and amount of detail. In our example, if the eyewitnesses had not gotten together to iron out their stories, we could imagine something like the following. One eyewitness claims to have heard the killer say “I love you.” Another eyewitness claims he heard the killer scream “I hate you.” So which is it? Well, in our example, perhaps the killer said I love you to the ex-wife and I hate you to the boyfriend. The real story helps makes sense of the difference, but the differences indicate that real eyewitnesses are observing varying pieces of reality as it unfolds.

As it pertains to the gospel accounts, New Testament scholar Peter Williams has remarked that similar but different testimony is what we find in the gospels. The authors agree on the broader story, they differ in the middle, and they corroborate each other in the minute details. This is precisely what one would expect from credible eyewitness testimony. If we look at the grand story, the gospel authors agree on a whole lot. Jesus was a Jew, born and raised in a small town. He preached a message of good news to his people, performing miracles along the way. He chose twelve disciples to learn under him and appoint for future ministry. He loved sinners, opposed religious hypocrites, died by crucifixion, and rose from the dead. But there are also differences. The gospels appear to report differing numbers of angels at the tomb of Jesus, different times of the day for the crucifixion, and different wording for various things Jesus said among others. Most of these differences can be resolved fairly easily, but others are harder. However, the point remains. The combination of similarity and difference is a marker for truth, especially when the differences can be resolved plausibly. But what about the corroboration in the little details?

J Warner Wallace, a cold-case homicide detective, said regarding different testimonies of an event: “True, reliable eyewitness accounts are never completely parallel and identical. Instead, they are different pieces of the same puzzle, unintentionally supporting and complementing each other to provide all the details related to what really happened.” Undesigned coincidences are the unintentional details of different accounts that just happen to interlock with one another. The first account will raise questions left unanswered that another account answers accidentally. However, the interlocking details are so subtle, no author could have fabricated it. This line of argumentation is actually very old, but was recently reintroduced by Lydia McGrew in her book titled Hidden in Plain View. We will look at only one example, but know that such coincidences can be found everywhere.

In John’s account of the feeding of the five thousand (John 6), Jesus turns to Philip and asks him where to buy bread. Now think for a moment about how odd it is that Philip is the one asked. Why was this minor figure asked this question? Well, a partial clue is found in the earlier chapters of John where we learn that Philip is from the town of Bethsaida (John 1:44). But this still doesn’t answer our question of why Philip. However, when we turn to the parallel account in the gospel of Luke, we learn that the feeding of the five thousand happens near Bethsaida. Even more interesting, in Mark’s account of this miracle, we learn that many people were coming and going and were hungry. But why were they coming and going? The answer is back in John’s account where he says this event happened around Passover. In this one brief example, we can see how three of our gospels interlock in the minute details of this one miracle account. This incidental corroboration is just one more strand in the rope of gospel reliability. Granted, the average reader may have a more difficult time finding undesigned coincidences, but the evidence exists for the careful reader.