In this post I want to explain what an Undesigned Coincidence (UC) is and explain some of the important criteria for determining the strength or weakness of a UC candidate. As I see it, sometimes UC advocates will push too far outside the bounds of the criteria, so it can be helpful to get into the specifics of the criteria to avoid wandering off the path.
An Undesigned Coincidence is when one account appears to leave out missing information that is uniquely contained in another account. It is frequently described that the first account will raise a natural question (so to speak) and the second account would answer that question. Mind you, the raising of the question is completely on the end of the reader, not the author, and sometimes these sorts of questions are very natural to ask; other times, these sorts of questions are more forced (<— a clue or flag that the UC might not be too valuable). Undesigned Coincidences are sometimes compared to pieces of a puzzle that fit together. What makes them fit? Here are four factors to consider.
Unique Material
In order for a UC to be valuable, the second account must contain unique material not found anywhere else. The unique material indicates literary independence of the author from the other Gospel authors.
Within this scope, one ought to consider the extent of the unique material. An entire event in only one Gospel is a strong indicator of independence. Indeed, there is unique material in each Gospel; New Testament scholars have known this for a long time!
However, it should be distinguished that whole events unique to an author are a much stronger indicator of literary independence than small variations in accounts of non-unique parallel passages. This is because one author may have edited another author and have used different language (giving the impression of unique material when in reality it was not). The Synoptic Problem helps us to consider the evidence of copying and editing between Matthew, Mark, and Luke, even if we know not the order or extent of the copying. This concern does inevitably weaken the overall cumulative case for the Argument from Undesigned Coincidences (AUC) and those with an a priori commitment to fewer copying/editing between Mt, Mk, & L will find the AUC stronger than those who believe a stronger literary relationship exists between those three. Let’s take a look at a couple examples to illustrate this distinction.
Example 1: Mending of Nets – Why were James and John mending their nets (Matthew 4:21)? Because Jesus’s miracle of the large catch of fish broke the nets (Luke 5:4-6).
This account also appears in Mark 1:16-20 (albeit more briefly). Some version of it also appears in John 1:35-51 but that is a little different. The calling of the first disciples is Triple Tradition material likely indicating material existing from within the Christian community. That’s great, of course! It’s material which pre-dates the Gospels. What Luke 5:4-6 shows us, however, is that Luke received his material from somewhere/someone other than Matthew’s Gospel or Mark’s Gospel. No copying, no editing, no variation of sorts; it makes for a good case for an Undesigned Coincidence.
Example 2: Blindfolded & Bound – Why did Jesus have to prophesy who hit him (Matthew 26:67)? Because he had a blindfold on (Luke 22:64).
This material is found in Mt, M, and L, and a careful comparison with Mark 14:65 indicates that the blindfold reference is not unique material to Luke. If Mark wrote his Gospel first, then Matthew could have left out the detail of the blindfold and Luke could have copied that detail over. Thus, this means this candidate is a weak example for an Undesigned Coincidence. What this does demonstrate is that a good Undesigned Coincidence exists only when the second account contains unique material.
But not just any unique material as Example 3 will show …
Example 3: The Pairing of the Disciples – In Matthew 10:2-4, Matthew provides a list of the twelve disciples seemingly in pairs. Why does he do this? Because that’s how they were paired up for ministry work, being sent out “two by two” (Mark 6:7).
The commissioning of the disciples is a parallel passage between Matthew and Mark (i.e. it is a narrative of the same event). However, we have unique material in Mark (“two by two”) that does not exist in Matthew. Does this mean the two are literarily independent of each other on this account? Not necessarily or perhaps not even probably. If Mark wrote his Gospel first, then Matthew’s listing of the disciples could be a Designed Corroboration of Mark’s description. Or if Matthew wrote his Gospel first, then Mark summarizes Matthew’s list. This all assumes, of course, that what we have in Mt 10:2-4 is a ministry pairing list as opposed to a description of sets of brothers and a set of the rest. The point to note here is that the supposed throwaway remark so indicative of UCs is perhaps not a throwaway remark at all.
What this example demonstrates is that a good Undesigned Coincidence exists only when a second account contains unique material AND that that the unique material is unlikely to be a reworking of already existing Gospel material (assuming the author utilized an in-existence Gospel account).
Natural Questioning
One of the variables in considering whether there is a strong or weak example of a UC is the strength of the question that might arise for the reader. A good UC will have a natural question that arises whereas a weak UC will have a more forced/unnecessary question that arises.
Natural question: No Fault – In Luke 23 Pilate asks Jesus whether he is the king of the Jews. Jesus says, “You say so.” And then Pilate says that he finds no fault here. But why would Pilate come to that conclusion if Jesus just claimed to be an insurgent leader and threat to the authority of the Romans? John 18:33-38 provides greater insight to the conversation Jesus had with Pilate, specifically Jesus’s statement that his kingdom is not of this world.
In this example we have some details which do not make sense together, apart from the missing information. The question arises naturally how Pilate came to that conclusion.
Forced question: Peter’s Wife – Paul mentions that Cephas/Peter has a wife (1 Corinthians 9:5). How do we know Peter has a wife? Because Matthew says Peter has a mother-in-law (Matthew 8:14).
In this example we have no missing information from the first account. Paul’s writing in 1 Cor 9 makes sense; no gap of information. By some definitions such as Jonathan McClatchie’s (“Leaves out a bit of information”), this would not qualify as an Undesigned Coincidence because there is no missing information. So this example (from J. J. Blunt) is a weak example of a U.C., and one of the ways we can detect that is because the question asked of the first account is too forced or unnatural.
Different Contexts
Another factor for determining the strength of a UC candidate is whether the unique material is found in an entirely different context. Sometimes UCs (or their mere candidacy) will come from parallel accounts referring to the same event, but a strong UC occurs when an author is not referring to the same event.
Candidate example: Herod told his servants, “This is John the Baptist, who has been raised from the dead” (Matthew 14:1). How does Matthew know that Herod spoke to his servants? Answer: Luke mentions An early Christian woman named Joanna, the wife of Chuza, who was Herod’s household manager (Luke 8:3). Perhaps Chuza had a story to tell to Joanna over dinner one evening. The point here is that Luke mentions this information in a completely different context than his account of Herod and John the Baptist (Luke 9:7-9).
This factor wards off the concern of a Design Corroboration, which might exist if an author intentionally adds material to explain the missing information. If Mark provided a story and Matthew (writing after Mark) added material to explain what was in Mark, this would be a Designed Corroboration.
Bidirectional > Unidirectional
Sometimes two accounts will contain connecting pieces where it would not matter which account is the first that asks the question. These are called bidirectional Undesigned Coincidences.
Example: Why does Jesus stand up at that moment to wash the disciples feet (John 13:4)? Because they had been bickering about who would be the greatest in the kingdom (Luke 22:24). And why does Jesus teach “I am among you as one who serves” (Luke 22:27)? Because he dressed himself as a servant (John 13:4).
In this example we have an Undesigned Coincidence that goes both ways: John confirms Luke and Luke confirms John. Bidirectional UCs provide greater strength than a unidirectional UCs because of the multi-detailed crisscross of the narratives.
Conclusion
In this post we’ve looked at four features of possible Undesigned Coincidences: Unique Material, Natural Questioning, Different Context, and Bidirectional > Unidirectional. These are all qualities to consider when weighing the strength or weakness of candidates of Undesigned Coincidences. Sometimes a candidate may be strong in one factor, but weak in others; the weight placed upon those variables will affect whether one finds the candidate to have merit.
If you appreciate thoughtful remarks going deeper in issues of apologetics, theology, and Christian worldview formation be sure to subscribe to not miss a post.
Comments