Deus Ex

Has anyone come across this argument for historicity concerning the gospel accounts? The gist of the argument is set out in J.J. Blunt's book on Undesigned Coincidences in Scripture where Blunt makes the claim that each of the original Evangelists often make offhand, casual remarks that reinforce the same story being told by one of the other Evangelist who omits that information in his account.

In Blunt's words:
The argument deduced from coincidence without design has further claims, because, if well made out, it establishes the authors of the several books of Scripture as independent witnesses to the facts they relate; and this, whether they consulted each other’s writings or not; for the coincidences, if good for anything, are such as could not result from combination, mutual understanding, or arrangement. If any which I may bring forward may seem to be such as might have so arisen, they are only to be reckoned ill chosen, and dismissed; for it is no small merit of this argument, that it consists of parts, one or more of which (if they be thought unsound) may be detached without any dissolution of the reasoning as a whole. Undesignedness must be apparent in the coincidences, or they are not to the purpose. In our argument we defy people to set down together, or transmit their writings one to another, and produce the like. Truths known independently to each of them, must be at the bottom of documents having such discrepancies and such agreements as these in question. The point, therefore, whether the authors of the books of Scripture have or have not copied from one another, which in the case of some of them has been so much laboured, is thus rendered a matter of comparative indifference. Let them have so done, still by our argument their independence would be secured, and the nature of their testimony be shown to be such as could only result from their separate knowledge of substantial facts.

Toto

J. J. BLUNT'S UNDESIGNED SCRIPTURAL COINCIDENCES (or via: amazon.co.uk), also on google books, was published in 1897, with the preface to the first edition signed in 1847.

The consensus of academics is that the "undesigned coincidences" in the gospels are the result of "editorial fatigue." Later gospel writers (and at times copyists) made mistakes in transmitting the stories in the gospels. These "coincidences" are not so unusual that the only possible explanation is that the gospel writers were eyewitnesses who each told part of a story.

I'm not sure that this out of date apologetics is worth spending too much time on, unless one is debating a Christian apologist who takes it seriously, as is Ed Babinski.

Babinsky on "undesigned coincidences"

It must be a sign of desperation or incredulity on the part of the Christian pastor using this text to go back to arguments that are over a century old, that have been examined and rejected by every later commentator, as if the last century of Biblical studies never happened.

bacht

Matthew, Luke and John probably copied Mark. The differences between them are not slips of the pen, they are deliberate revisions made for docrtinal reasons to address different audiences.

Maybe Blunt has a similar theory about the 'coincidences' between Kings and Chronicles. This is just naive or worse, disingenuous.

Toto

In fact, he does. The Historical Scriptures

Chili

While I can only speak on the NT, it is very obvious to me that the Gospel differences are there to compliment each other and make a coherent whole after the distinction is made that Mark and Matthew's Jesus is happier than a pig in shit to go back to Galilee which really is hell as seen from heaven above . . . which then is why Aquinas found them entertaining to say the least, while they in all earnesty think that they are Gods chosen ones and will sacrifies their life to prove that true, . . . while steadfastly proclaiming "that it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God" and more than often enough ended up as food for the stork so that he can bring new life that is wrapped the linnen whence they came.

spamandham

The author of Luke (the same author as Acts) tells us flat out he is recording what had been passed down to him. The "argument from coincidences" was apologetic nonsense wrapped up in a facade of scholarship, just like the "criterion of embarrassment" will someday be viewed.

sschlichter

Frankly, I am not sure what an apologist might be defending. Who cares if Matthew borrowed from Mark or from a shared oral tradition or from a third source. What is to defend?

These types of analysis always sound interesting but are less compelling when you actually read the text.

for example:

Herod's grief in Matt 14 is seen as a result of fatigue. However, that is only if you do not read the entire text.


this analysis ignores the actual text. He both wanted to kill John and grieved over his death because his death put Herod in a bad spot - the reason is underlined. His grief was not over John's head, it was over his own political loss.

Mark concurs on the reason that Herod was conflicted over John.

It takes little imagination to understand how he can both want John to be silenced yet grieve over the loss of him. this is no instance of fatigue.

bacht

I think the point is to assert multiple eyewitness accounts, or at least multiple second-hand accounts, rather than acknowledge that it all started with a single narrative (Mark).

The other apologetic tendency is to date everything as early as possible so as to preserve a chain of apostolic authority going back to Jesus. gMark probably didn't exist before the 2nd C, but there are still those who want to date it to 70 or even earlier.

sschlichter

I understand that, but borrowing from another narrative does not speak to that issue at all. One who contends that they are eye-witnesses to a single event should be the one most likely to accept a shared narrative (oral or otherwise).

It seems like you need to allow for this if you are dead set on Markan priority.

srsly

Dear me, what is this, Toto? Not enough coffee?
By the same logic, anyone today who reads Baur, Strauss or the Dutch radicals is 'desperate'/'incredulous' and ignoring a century of scholarship (oh noes!).
The catchcry of this forum - 'biblical studies today is mostly apologetics' - seems comprehensibly incompatible with your objection to ignoring the 'progress' of the field.
Can we have a retraction of this silliness, Toto? It's basically a perfect self-parody.
Cheers.