There Are Treasures In The Scripture Passages You've Neglected

Last week, I quoted a passage in John Chrysostom in which he comments on the significance of Paul's remarks in 1 Corinthians 16:9. People often neglect passages like 1 Corinthians 16, where there are references to the Biblical authors' travel plans, lists of names, farewells, etc. But there's a lot of valuable material in such passages, which we'll miss if we're not attentive enough.

In addition to the example of 1 Corinthians 16:9, think of what I wrote last Easter season about the implications of 1 Corinthians 16:20 for the objectivity and physicality of Jesus' resurrection appearances. Or the references to Mark and Luke close by each other near the close of some of Paul's letters (Colossians 4:10-14, 2 Timothy 4:11, Philemon 24), with implications for the authorship of two of the gospels, their relationship with each other, and Paul's knowledge of the issues addressed in those gospels. Or think of how many undesigned coincidences involve material in such portions of scripture. These are just some examples among many others that could be cited.

"As in gold mines one skillful in what relates to them would not endure to overlook even the smallest vein as producing much wealth, so in the holy Scriptures it is impossible without loss to pass by one jot or one tittle, we must search into all. For they all are uttered by the Holy Spirit, and nothing useless is written in them." (John Chrysostom, Homilies On John, 36:1)

Some Undesigned Coincidences Related To Peter's Names

Jesus gave Simon the name Peter (Mark 3:16, Luke 6:14, John 1:42), yet Jesus often refers to him as Simon (Matthew 16:17, 17:25, Mark 14:37, Luke 22:31, John 1:42, 21:15-17). In fact, Jesus refers to him as Simon more often than he refers to him as Peter in the records we have in the gospels. Why would Jesus give Simon a new name, yet keep reverting to the original name?

Only two of the gospels report that Jesus had a brother named Simon (Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3), but his having a brother with that name makes his interest in the name Simon, even when he had given the individual a new name, more coherent. And his use of the name Simon occurs in Luke and John as well, not just in the two gospels that name Jesus' brothers. Even in Matthew and Mark, the reference to a brother named Simon is brief and occurs in passing, and that brother didn't have the sort of later prominence that James and Jude had. So, Jesus' ongoing use of the name Simon in those two gospels has some significance accordingly. Jesus' tendency to keep using the name Simon, even after giving him a new name, seems best explained as something the historical Jesus did. Not only is it reported by all of the gospels, but his having a brother named Simon makes the ongoing use of that name more coherent.

It's also noteworthy that James referred to Peter as Simeon (Acts 15:14). Scholars often date Paul's letter to the Galatians close to the time of the events of Acts 15. Contrast how Paul never refers to the disciple as Simon in Galatians, but instead keeps referring to him as Cephas or Peter, with James' choice to refer to him as Simeon in Acts 15. So, we need to explain both Jesus' preference for Simon, even though Jesus is the one who gave that disciple his new name, and James' preference for Simeon, even though James was speaking at a time in church history when Peter was the more common way of referring to the disciple, as we see in Galatians. If both Jesus and James were drawing a connection to the name of one of their brothers, that's an efficient explanation for the use of that name by both Jesus and James when they address Peter.

One potential reason why the name Simon would stand out to Jesus and James is that Simon was their youngest brother. He's mentioned last in Mark 6:3, which may be because he was the youngest, though his being mentioned third instead of last in Matthew 13:55 complicates the situation. Youngest children often get treated differently because of their status as the youngest. Jesus may have had more affection for his brother Simon accordingly. And that may have been a factor not only in Jesus' referring to Peter as Simon so much, but also in his choosing Simon to begin with, giving him such a prominent position among the disciples, and giving him a second name.

It's also striking that the angel who appears to Cornelius in Acts 10 not only refers to Peter as Simon (verse 5), but does so in a context in which there was another Simon from whom Peter had to be distinguished (Simon the tanner). The angel refers to Peter as Simon, only to go on to add a qualifier to distinguish him, which could have been avoided by just referring to him as Peter. The angel didn't have a brother named Simon, as Jesus and James did. But who would have sent the angel? God, perhaps Jesus in particular. And an angel might have deference for Jesus' preferred way of referring to Peter even if Jesus hadn't been directly involved in the sending of that angel.

The situation is somewhat reminiscent of Jesus' frequent references to himself as the Son of Man, a title rarely applied to him by the New Testament authors. Those authors, with the exception of James, also seem to have not had as much interest as Jesus had in referring to Peter as Simon. The difference isn't as pronounced as in the Son of Man context, but there is a significant difference in both contexts.

Some Examples Of Undesigned Coincidences

A series of brief videos providing examples of undesigned coincidences was recently posted to Lydia McGrew's YouTube channel. It's a good introduction to the subject. You can click on each of the video links below. For a book-length treatment, go here.

One: What An Undesigned Coincidence Is
Two: Destroy This Temple
Three: Did Jesus Need GPS?
Four: Do You Love Me More Than These?
Five: How Did King David Lose One Of His Best Friends?
Six: I Am Among You As One Who Serves
Seven: So, You're A King?
Eight: The Feeding Of The 5000
Nine: The Nazareth Inscription
Ten: Was Paul A Slacker?
Eleven: Was Timothy Jewish Or Greek?
Twelve: What Happens When You Try To Lay A Trap For Jesus?
Thirteen: What Herod Said To His Servants
Fourteen: Why Is It Hard To Get Churches Interested In Apologetics?
Fifteen: Why Would Jesus Be Rude?

Are undesigned coincidences fabricated?

One objection to the Gospels as historical sources is the claim that these aren't four independent biographies. rather Matthew and Luke simply copy Mark for some of their material, while John invents other stuff. Likewise, that Matthew and Luke embellish Mark's stories. 

It is, of course, true, that Luke uses Mark as one of his sources while Matthew is very familiar with Mark. But there's more going on.

When two or more observers witness the same event, their respective accounts will sometimes dovetail in subtle ways. Between 23-26 min mark:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92QqWPcq8z0&t=5s

Peter Williams has a clear exposition. I'm going to piggyback on his exposition. The basic idea is that undesigned coincides reflect independent knowledge of the same event. 

Critics like Richard Carrier have responded by claiming that Matthew, Luke, and John invented the "undesigned coincidences" to give these accounts the appearance of factuality. In historical fiction, the author sprinkles his story with factoids to make it seem more true to the time and place.

However, a basic flaw in that response is that undesigned coincidences are far too subtle for the vast majority in the audience to catch. To begin with, most members of the original target audience for the Gospels didn't own personal copies of the Gospel. That's why the the public reading of Scripture is an ancient custom of the church. We're talking about listeners rather than readers. They heard the Gospels read aloud. Imagine mentally comparing and contrasting the Gospels at the level of undesigned coincidences. How realistic is that? 

But even when we get to the era in which many Christians have private copies of the Bible, the coincides are too oblique for the vast majority of Christians to notice. You must be an extremely attentive reader to pick up on the coincidences. If the purpose of undesigned coincidences was to make the accounts look factual, this is a completely ineffective method inasmuch as precious few readers are sufficiently observant to register the coincidences. What historical fiction authors do that? 

Rounding Off My Response to Richard Carrier On Undesigned Coincidences (Part 6)

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2020/04/rounding-off-my-response-to-richard.html

External Coincidences and Acts of the Apostles: Responding to Richard Carrier (Part 5)

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2020/03/external-coincidences-and-acts-of.html

Is Redaction Usually the Better Hypothesis? Responding to Richard Carrier (Part 4)

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2020/03/is-redaction-usually-better-hypothesis.html

Who Has Fabricated Data -- Lydia McGrew or Richard Carrier? (Part 3)

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2020/03/who-has-fabricated-data-lydia-mcgrew-or.html

Can Scribal Errors Account for Undesigned Coincidences? Responding to Richard Carrier (Part 2)

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2020/03/can-scribal-errors-account-for.html

Yes, Richard Carrier, There Are Undesigned Coincidences (Part 1)

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2020/03/yes-richard-carrier-there-are.html

Jesus' rejection at Nazareth and Miracles at Capernaum

http://whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2019/03/jesus_rejection_at_nazareth_an.html

Undesigned coincidence: A sword shall pierce through thine own soul

http://whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2017/12/a_sword_shall_pierce_through_t.html

The argument from undesigned coincidences

One of the nifty things about the argument from undesigned coincidences is that it's self-contained. All you need is the NT. You don't need extrabiblical corroboration. In that regard it's like a priori theistic proofs. 

Atheists love to put in the mouths of Christians "the Bible is the word of God because it says so", as an illustration of viciously circular reasoning. 

Mind you, I rarely if ever see atheists actually quoting Christians who say that. And if they did, it would likely be some Christian layman. 

However, using X to prove X isn't necessarily viciously circular. Appealing to Biblical authority to prove Biblical authority is viciously circular. 

But to take a comparison, there are probably many undesigned coincidences between The Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant and the Memoirs of General William Tecumseh Sherman. These are independent of each other, based on each man's firsthand experience.

You don't have to come to either autobiography with prior confidence in the credibility of the author. But if you systematically compare them, I expect they contain many cases where a statement in one memoir sheds light on a statement in the other memoir. That would be highly implausible if these were penned by writers lacking access to the actual events. 

Hidden In Plain View For $4.99

Lydia McGrew has written a good book on undesigned coincidences, Hidden In Plain View (Chillicothe, Ohio: DeWard, 2017), and you can preorder the Kindle version for $4.99. Here's her definition of an undesigned coincidence:

"An undesigned coincidence is a notable connection between two or more accounts or texts that doesn't seem to have been planned by the person or people giving the accounts. Despite their apparent independence, the items fit together like pieces of a puzzle." (12)

You can read about an example in the first paragraph of my post here.