• Kurt Jaros
• July 04, 2020
• 1 Comment

The title of this presentation really should be called “The Synoptic Problem for Some Undesigned Coincidences,” because it only addresses a subset for alleged Undesigned Coincidences (UC): Inter-Synoptic UCs. This presentation was delivered at DEFEND 2020 at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary in New Orleans, LA in January of 2020.

If you want to know what Undesigned Coincidences are, and even what the Synoptic Problem is, then you should watch this video! And be sure to subscribe to my channel for future content.

This presentation looks at 4 alleged inter-synoptic UCs and cautions on the value that they have, contingent upon one’s view of the Synoptic Problem and source criticism. In the talk, I go so far as to explain that if one were to hold to Markan priority, then there are plausible explanations which could show that the 4 examples are not sufficient examples of UCs. Those four examples are: The pairing of the disciples, Herod speaks to his servants, woe to Bethsaida, and ownership of a new tomb.

The concern most likely to be critiqued is the one relating to Herod’s servants. Matthew’s account (14:1-2) mentions that Herod spoke to his servants, but how would Matthew know such a thing? The “question” of the UC is “answered” by Luke 8:2-3, who mentions “Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod’s household manager.” As I indicate in the presentation, there is a parallel account of Matthew 14:1-12 in Mark 6:14-29. So, if Mark wrote first and Matthew copied from Mark, then Matthew’s mentioning of the term “servants” could have been a deduction Matthew made from Mark’s “Some said.”

That evening after my presentation, I had a chance to speak with Tim McGrew (ardent defender of UCs), who argued that I had to count on the tooth fairy not once, but twice. First I had to get lucky with Matthew’s deduction about “servants,” but second I had to get lucky because in Matthew’s account, Herod is saying the very words of one of the other people in Mark’s account.

This ought not be a problem. First, in the parallel accounts of the Centurion’s servant (Matthew 8:5-13, Luke 7:1-10), in Matthew the Centurion speaks to Jesus but in Luke it is the Centurion’s emissaries. Likewise, perhaps Matthew is condensing the story for his reader by providing a shortened version and placing relevant details in the mouths of others. My friend, Mike Licona, refers to this literary technique as “transferral.” But if that term causes a red flag for someone, then just suppose that you have some real-world imagination. Consider Matthew composing his work and suppose that he had read Mark’s Gospel. Imagine now that he is trying to recall the details of the story he had previously read in Mark. Matthew recalls the important details of the story, that Herod had received news and that news was that Jesus was John the Baptist reincarnate, which explains how Jesus was performing miracles (“This is John the Baptist; he has risen from the dead! That is why miraculous powers are at work in him.”). Matthew’s composing that Herod said those words ought not be considered a historical error. Matthew provided a fair and accurate description of what transpired within Herod’s court.

Of course, I think we should go farther and say that Matthew had copied/edited material from Mark, but some Christians are unwilling to go that far. All of this to say, if Matthew had used Mark for this material then the example would not quality as an Undesigned Coincidence. Maybe the source of the material in Mark comes from Joanna, which is great(!), but I don’t think we can go so far as to say Matthew’s throw-away remark “servants” does the apologetic work that some want it to do.

What do you think? And what about the other three examples? Comment below and we’ll keep the conversation going.