Thanks for pointing out at the end that there are too many leftover undesigned coincidences to dispute. I've known about Lydia and the concept, but was unaware of how they can be grouped the way you did it. That adds much more weight to the argument.
As a proponent of the Argument from Undesigned Coincidences and someone who has seen some of the horrible arguments skeptics have tried to bring to the table, I'm very excited for this, as you are always someone who brings great arguments.
At the 16 minute ish mark, (and again at the 30 minute ish mark) you make the point about why a purely literary explanation would suggest that there should be a clear pattern, such as John only adds to Luke who only adds to Matt who only adds to Mark. I guess I don't understand why we should think this? As in, why couldn't John add to all three previous Gospels? (assuming the generally accepted ordering with John being last) But all in all, I am actually on board with the "Undesigned Coincidence" project to a large extent. I am quite happy to say that the reason that the green grass UC exists is because that gospel stories of that sermon recount an actual event that happened at a time when the grass was really green. I don't think that this is such a crazy thing to admit. I haven't read anything by either McGrew, but I guess I'll ask you what you think: Do you think that UCs have any impact at all on the more supernatural claims in the Gospels? I ask becuase, while I am quite happy to say that I think that some sermon was really given during some season, I am less sympathetic to any argument that would say "UCs mean that the Gospels are literally 100% infallible an inerrant" - but I know that you don't make this argument! I don't know of any Christian who does, frankly. So, is it possible that the average skeptic is simply misunderstanding UCs? I feel like the goal of the UCs project is significantly more humble than a skeptic might expect. Do you agree or disagree here? Thanks as always - I always enjoy your work!
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was saying that the explanations would basically only run in one direction with later Gospels explaining earlier Gospels in the explanation was purely literary. I wasn't saying that John would only explain Luke or that Luke would only explain Matthew. I was saying that the earlier Gospels shouldn't, in general, be explaining the later Gospels. Not that you couldn't get a one-off case of that happening by chance. But that there should be a generally trajectory of later Gospels providing explanations for details in earlier Gospels. Well, it's a basic inductive argument for the historical reliability of the Gospels. If we pull 50 marbles out of a jar and they are all blue, then we have a good inductive reason to suppose that the next marble will also be blue. Similarly, if we can confirm 50 events in the Gospels as being historically reliable, we have a good inductive reason to suppose that the others are as well. Now inductive arguments are defeasible. If you also had evidence that certain portions were not historical, then the argument from UCs wouldn't count for as much. But in the absence of other considerations, a sufficiently high number of UCs provide a good inductive argument for the Gospels being historically trustworthy (and that includes their miraculous reports).
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 Oooh I probably misunderstood. I generally listen while I work so you probably said that very clearly and I just missed it! And for the second part, I suppose that this would reject the pericope by pericope approach that most scholars use today? For instance, I am not willing to grant that the Pericope Adulterae is historical, since we know it was a later addition. Taking the Gospels as an "all or nothing" type deal seems like a tough pill to swallow to me. As in, the pill that the grass really was green during that sermon is an easy pill to swallow. But Jesus's writing sins in the sand is harder, and Jesus's Resurrection is even harder to swallow that the story recounted in the Pericope Adulterae! I should probably ask for clarification here - is the point of the UCs not as humble as I wrote above? Is the point of the UCs supposed to be more bold, to bolster the idea that the supernatural elements within the Gospels are likewise real historical events?
@NontraditionalCatholic well perhaps I could put it this way: the argument from UCs is a modest plank in a larger argument for a bold conclusion. The pericope adulterae can be rejected because it's almost certainly not part of the original Gospel of John. However, rejecting a segment of the Gospels because it is not authentic is not the same thing as adopting the pericope-by-pericope approach to the Gospels.
They are using these minor details to suggest that the miracles actually happened. They just do a bit of hand waving about having a cumulative case whenever anyone points out how little undesigned coincidences actually gets them. Jesus did some shit on green grass. Ok. Does that mean he reanimated? Most skeptics already accept that the gospels are loosely based on memories of Jesus.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 I guess I'm cool with the UCs being one modest plank in a larger argument. Like, UCs by themselves would probably not convince you that the supernatural things happened, I assume? So, the UCs themselves maybe are as humble as I first guessed? But, isn't rejecting the Pericope Adulterae exactly the pericope by pericope approach, kinda by definition? The long ending of Mark too, if we reject that, then we are doing more "pericope by pericope" work again?
I am a skeptic that got her book about a week(?) sgo to get a bird's eye view of all of them and come up with a parsimonious alternate explanation, since the "cumulative case" thing keeps being brought up to alternate explanations of individual ones Thanks for the pointers! I was thinking of pretty similar things. See all of them, categorize them by how strong they actually are, reject at least some of them, and come up with a theory that explains multiple, not just specific ones. I'll work your advice in as I go through this over the next period of who know how long I have a rough idea of the "common source" just being a cinematic universe that is being constructed by the authors, and that illumination could be an illusion since it's not something actually being illuminated, but the reader just seeing a few datapoints and thinking of a likely scenario to fit them. This is similar to what you said about subconscious influence.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 yours too! Pretty new to your channel but i like the vibe overall. Was going to watch your thing about morality at some point
Good video. My thoughts: I keep hearing that the evidence is cumulative and that there are dozens and dozens of UCs. But virtually every time I watch a video about UCs, the same two or three examples are almost always given: Green grass/Passover, Philipp/Bethsaida, and Herod/Chuza ... So unless shown contrary evidence, I think it's fair to assume that these are the top UCs in terms of evidential force and that's why they are always referred. But if that's the case, then I don't think this argument is very strong... Do the other examples in Lydia's book have the same level of evidential force?
With all due respect, I must say you did not engage with any of the criticism skeptics brough up (which is ironically funny). The point was: what counts as "undesigned coincidence" is arbitrary. There is no objective metric to go by. This could have been easily addressed by pointing out statistical significance beyond contemporary, non-historical texts. It would be an objective, quantitative metric. Rock-solid evidence. But here's the problem. In order to do that, you need a baseline. But the author not only skipped the statistics, she doesn't even know what she's comparing to. So we are left with the author pointing out something seemingly marvelous, without knowing how unique this effect actually is. For all I know, maybe the same could be observed in variations of folktales (that is: elaborating details of a story seemingly by accident.) Without taking any sides, I'd wait with my conclusion after McGrew comes up with the statistical analysis.
I think you're applying the wrong form of science. History is more akin to a courtroom, where evidence can also be very diverse, difficult to define a singular 'metric' for, is weighed and can found to be convincing, even beyond reasonable without any maths involved.
@@TheLlywelyn Then this another case where someone starts with the conclusion and hunts for evidence supporting that conclusion, ignoring anything else. Presenting objective data would be *much more* professional. Historians recognize that too.
The argument from undesigned coincidences falls apart once you actually look at the so-called "undesigned coincidences." All the abstract notions of casual connections that mutually connect and corroborate dissolve when you look at the actual examples. To make an undesigned coincidence, take some details in two gospels and contrive a question about one detail whereby that is in some sense answered by the other, often only very indirectly, for the sake of having an example. But then you make a big deal out of it and present it as if it is astonishing and powerful. The goal is to have many examples, none of which is compelling on its own, but are somehow compelling when taken as a "cumulative case." Other times, "undesigned coincidences" are simply examples of multiple attestation or are simply hallucinated. In order to take these as interlocking details in independent testimonies, you need to assume that they are from independent testimonies, or even testimonies. Suppose instead "undesigned coincidences" are explained by interlocking details in different members in a growing and evolving family of oral traditions. The gospels are not "making up" anything but rather codifying the traditions in a community. Imagine that: Christianity before the gospels, yet still telling stories about Jesus (because of course they are). The phenomenon of one thing "explaining" something in another is most often purely imagined, and based on the underlying assumption that these texts are testimonies, like memoirs or reports. Anyone who has read the gospels knows they are, if nothing else, good literature, enjoyable to read, and well written (largely). Did a tax collector and a fisherman write these? I doubt it. The "greater whole" behind the Gospels is the whole of Christian history and pre-gospel traditions about Jesus, heavily influenced by Pauline theology. There is no need to "undercut" the "undesigned coincidences." Merely explaining them is often enough to see them fall apart before your eyes. The argument from "undesigned coincidences" is a check that bounces when you actually look at the account. But it sounds good on paper, no? Like puzzle pieces!
@@unsightedmetal6857 A "bad theory"? Yeah, just dismiss it out of hand. Go right ahead. You're only robbing yourself, and then fooling yourself that you're being "reasonable". How does a Jewish sect become a Gentile movement without evolving? Hint: before and after Paul, Christianity (or, rather, the Jesus Messianic following) was not the same.
The theory that the gospels are literature is dead since 1997, when Dirk Frickenschmidt released his monumental work "Evangelium als Biographie". The gospels aren't literature but ancient biographies and were always intended as such. Now that doesn't mean that every detail happened as described, since that wasn't what ancient biographies were about, so it's not really an apologist's argument. Just a simple fact. Also, there probably wasn't all that much of an oral tradition. Ancient Judaism was a book religion. They didn't have to invent reading and writing first. Yes, there are parts that were orally transmitted maybe for a short time. Also, the argument, fisherman and tax collectors couldn't write this is laughable, since Jesus's followers weren't just fishermen and tax collectors. But I also don't make the argument that the names on the gospels are the actual writers, more that they are based on the accounts of those people, possibly written by scribes. But they'd have had easy access to those. And the need for any written documents was arising because the apostles themselves couldn't reach all the communities that were founded after a certain time.
@@11kravitznah, the good old "Paul was the founder of Christianity". Nah, not really though. He simply applied some of the rules that already existed for the pagans that were friendly to Israel and its faith but didn't fully convert. It wasn't a big revolution, more baby steps. The apostles then went ahead and applied some of the noahide laws to gentile Christians. While Jesus himself only hinted at gentiles who had faith and maybe even more than anyone in the Jewish lands as the text says itself. It's a gradual development but the framework to integrate gentiles was already existing. It just had to be slightly modified and applied. What Paul did wasn't this big revolution that people make it out to be. I'd suggest reading up on some Jewish interpretations of Paul's work, like by Shalom Ben-Chorin.
@@MrSeedi76 Calling the gospels "biographies" is not entirely inaccurate, given that they describe, to some extent, the life and times of a given person. But to say they are not literature is ridiculous. Just read it for yourself. Can something be both literature and biographical? Exodus, for example, includes biographical information on Moses, so is that not literature, but biography? The gospels are not biographies in anything like the modern sense, in which we would tell about the full life, upbringing, influences, and broader context of someone's life, relying on primary sources wherever possible. The gospels are not that. To say there was no oral tradition is not even worth rebutting. I don't know how deep into confirmation bias you would have to be or what pet theory you must have to want to confirm with such a laughable and obviously false belief. The Bible itself describes the apostles as "unlettered" and that they went around preaching. Most people were illiterate and books were prohibitively expensive for almost everyone. Christianity has always been spread orally since Pentecost. The texts were later and secondary, and have only become objects of worship since the reformation (remember that the Bible was not translated into the common tongue until roughly that point). What you dismiss as a "short time" was the most critical period in Christian history, the first half century or so from 30-90, and even into the second century. I don't know where you're getting the bogus idea that Christianity was primarily textually based in that period. Matthew the Galilean tax collector allegedly is the author of the "the Gospel according to Matthew", and John son of Zebedee, the fisherman, is allegedly the author of "The Gospel according to John." Both of these are ludicrous, especially if you have actually read the documents for yourself. But only slightly less ludicrous, an obvious rescue hypothesis, is that these people dictated the gospels to scribes. You're about 300 years behind in your understanding of the NT.
One of McGrew's favorite UC's seems to be John 13 (Foot washing at the last supper) and Luke 22 (At the last supper, Jesus describes himself as being a servant). Based on the usual ordering with John last, the foot washing can be considered a fiction inspired by what John read in Luke. In an online interview with Sean McDowell about UC's, McGrew says the foot washing provides an explanation for Jesus describing himself as a servant in Luke, but there's another perfectly good explanation: Luke is closely following a passage in Mark/Matthew where Jesus responds to the famous request of James and John by saying "...just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve..." Luke has simply turned this into "I am among you as one who serves."
It would be great if apologists would stop asserting that grass in the Galilee is only green in the Spring. This is flatly, demonstrably, ovjectively false. That is but one among numerous problems with the whole argument from so-called "undesigned coincidences."
That's not really a problem with the argument per se. At best, that's just a problem with one specific example, which you may be right about BTW. I haven't actually verified this detail. 🙂
@@faithbecauseofreason8381I guess it is not a problem insofar as it substantially weakens the force of any supposed connection without breaking it. But, don't you think you should check this stuff out before publishing assertions in your videos?
@DrKippDavis I mean I suppose. The point of the video was to sketch the form of a successful response to the argument from UCs. I wasn't really trying to defend any particular examples of UCs. In other words, the specific examples that I used didn't need to withstand scrutiny for the purposes of this video. I hope that makes sense.
Yeah, I think so. But, I continue to believe that the entire model just misses the crucial points: 1) that so-called "undesigned coincidences" are formed through a poor understanding of the individual texts in their sociocultural, historical and religious settings, and 2) they detract from the inherent meaning of the four Gospels by positing an artificial harmonised version in their place.
@DrKippDavis well your first point actually comports with my proposed model. If you can show that a sufficient number of putative UCs aren't actually UCs, then you reduce the force of the argument proportionately. I understand why your second point would be a concern from your perspective. But from the perspective of someone who thinks that UCs provide evidence for the historical reliability of the Gospels, that's going to be question-begging if it is intended to function as an objection to the argument. The purpose of the Gospels is the very thing in question. And the argument from UCs is being leveraged to support a particular understanding of the intentions of the Gospel authors, namely that they are concerned with historical reportage.
Appreciate the video yet again. Question - i must be missing something here but can you explain how an earlier gospel can exclusively explain a later one? It seems that one could always just explain it back in the other direction?
What a unique video! While I am more a classicist than an evidentialist, I can't help but think that couching UDs as a cumulative case does a massive DISSERVICE to the force of the argument. It sets up for the trap of, "ok, well if you admit none of these evidences are compelling on their own, when precisely does adding one more become compelling enough to believe, and why not before that one more?" And this, at its most technical, leads to vomiting Baysian priors, which just turns nigh any ̶s̶e̶n̶s̶i̶b̶l̶e̶ non-rationalistically inclined person away. Much more compelling, I think, is not to view each UD as a small bit of snow to be added to an increasingly weighty snowball, but a brick that builds a unified tapestry of co-incidence. The difference is between arguing each UD as an evidence in itself (with each one piling on top of the previous), and making no argument at all from any of the UDs until the tapestry of co-incidence is constructed. The singular argument to be made, then, is that this tapestry integrates along the essentials of genuine co-incidence, and cannot be made to do so along any other criteria (the closest would be along the criteria of an Ur-Gospel, as you mentioned. But that is entirely arbitrary, as invoking such is arbitrary when a non-arbitrary explanation is already available). I'm not saying you or McGrew fail to see this tapestry. What I am saying is that because a culminative case and tapestry case are essentially different, this tapestry of co-incidence is often used as a multiplier or massive deposit of additional snow into the snowball after each individual UD is weighted, rather than as the singular, compelling, and decisive proof itself. The cumulative case is an accumulation of arguments for the sake of making heavier the weight of the evidential snowball. The tapesty case is an accumulation of data for the sake of a single rationally compelling argument. McGrew is a self avowed evidentialist, so she's, ofc, entitled to the cumulative case. Though, I think the tapestry case is far more common sensical. Unlike evidentialism, there is no invitation of Bayesian rationalism (which Skeptics detest (and I think so rightly)). You can tell even @Testify holds UDs in his own mind as a decisive tapestry (as any classicist (like Paley) might), but defaults to framing the issue as the evidentialist's cumulative case due to having inherited the arguments most robustly from the McGrews (who I adore btw!). I'd be very interested you know your thoughts on this!
I think you're describing a cumulative case, but with different words. The cumulative case basically means that all of the UD need to be explained as a whole as well as individually. Any skeptical approach (unless they deny the validity of the UD argument entirely) would still of necessity posit varying individual explanations for individual UD's that then in aggregate would explain all UD's as a whole, but this is significantly less plausible than the singular explanation of historical reportage as the explanation for each individual UD as well as the UD's as a whole.
@@truthmatters7573 Hi there; I still think a crucial distinction is to be made. There is a critical difference between saying, "x has a strong probability due to the sum weight of each added argument." And, "x can be known when applying the data to reason as the proper standard." The larger point is this: when it is said, "the argument for UDs is [only] cumulative," that is wrong. UDs work in non-evidentialist paradigms. The cumulative case is tool of Bayesian evidentialists, so when a non-Bayesian skeptic (as well as myself) hears that quote, he thinks, "If even the people making this argument admit that it is not rationally compelling, why should I think it stands any chance against my pre-existing compelling reasons for rejecting their conclusion?" I think most skeptics actually adopt a more classical perspective than an evidentialist one (you don't hear many of them go into Bayesian ̶g̶y̶m̶n̶a̶s̶t̶i̶c̶s assessments), and so I think a lot a ground is not when it is claim that UDs *are [only]* useful for a cumulative probabilistic case, rather than as a (single) compelling rational argument. In other words, if you assert it is only cumulative, it is to assert that it is admitted not to be compelling. And if it is admitted to not be compelling, the non-Bayesians checkout. But even if you are a Bayesian evidentialist, and wish to use UDs to persuade even non-Bayesians, it's important at the bear minimum not to imply that your argument is only relevant to fellow Bayesians. Otherwise apologists like @Testify should come outright and say to @Paulogia that, "Hey, I know UDs are a cumulative (and thus Bayesian, and thus evidentialist) case, and you're not a Bayesian evidentialist, so I know you won't find this compelling, so don't even bother trying to refute it because you reject the very evidentialist premise." Or, as @Paulogia so eloquently put it in his discussion with @Testify, "ok, so what's *the* [singular, one, compelling, non-Bayesian, non-probabilistically forceful but actually forceful] argument?" (approximate paraphrase).
@@BlackoutNearos Okay, so from what you just said, I think your issue is not so much the cumulative nature of the case, but rather the Bayesian (or more generally the probabilistic) nature of the case. I think you are trying to distinguish between logically deductive arguments and logically abductive arguments. Abductive arguments are inherently probabilistic because they seek to find the most plausible explanation among competing explanations each of which is at least logically possible and therefore cannot be ruled out completely. Questions regarding historical events are inherently probabilistic, because historical events are not repeatable. Hence I think that abductive arguments (whether you take a bayesian quantitative approach or a qualitative approach) are best suited for these types of questions. A deductive argument may rhetorically sound stronger because the conclusion is stated with more certainty, but eventually you will still get into a probabilistic discussion when the premises are called into question if the argument is logically valid. If the argument is not logically valid, because the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises, then that will simply be pointed out. I do agree with you that unfortunately a lot of people check out mentally when they are forced to think about these matters in a more nuanced / less black and white way. Unfortunately a lot of people ask one question and that is: "is the conclusion certain?" and if it is not then they reject the conclusion. That is anti-intellectual, however they feel like they can get away with it because anti-supernatural bias / humean epistemology carves out a special exception for supernatural hypotheses, making them unprovable by definition. This deserves to be pointed out. However, I don't agree that formulating the argument in a deductive way is better. A deductive argument is more easily rejected because it is all or nothing. An abductive argument requires you to assign some reasonable probability to the hypothesis in comparison to other hypotheses and that would lead nuanced thinkers to strongly consider the available options. I think the abductive case really shines in that regards, even though it's a pain if people simply aren't tracking with the argument. More generally, I also think that your conceptualization of the issue as competing approaches (classical versus evidential) is wrongly classified. I think it is more accurate to say that the deductive and abductive arguments are both tools in the arsenal of the classical theist who takes an evidentialist approach. The evidentialist approach is contrasted with the presuppositionalist approach.
@@truthmatters7573I see what you're saying, but I disagree. Classicism stands alongside evidentialism and pre-suppositionalism. Classicism agrees with evidentialism that data from reality is to be considered. Classicism agrees with pre-suppostionalism is that we can come to knowledge as opposed to just probabilities. Historical facts can, in principle, be known. For example, it is not merely probable that George Washington existed, but it is known that he existed. The classicst can argue that the data we possess from events 2,000+ years ago (such as UDs) is sufficient to bring one to knowledge. Even if evidentialists disagree, at least give the classicist the invitation, rather than declare, "UDs are cumulative (thus only of concern to evidentialism/Bayesiansism/abductive reasoning/probabilistic reasoning). The cumulativity refers to the accumulation of arguments rather than the accumulation of data points toward a single argument (otherwise, every argument with more than one data point could be said to be cumulative!). The evidentialist is welcome to use each data point as an argument. But that does not mean each data point is necessarily firstly and foremostly useful as an argument in a cumulative case of arguments. Also, and perhaps more importantly, I do not believe I am trying to distinguish between logically deductive arguments and logically abductive arguments, but the inductive from the abductive. Perhaps I ignored the historical trend of deductive rationalism when announcing myself a classicist, but I certainly champion induction over deduction. In fact, my position is that certainty on a whole array of topics can be achieved with inductive reasoning. Any notion that induction, by its nature, cannot achieve certainty but only probability, is brought about by an insufficient knowledge on the relationship between reason and knowledge. In the case of UDs, the classicist inductive case would be something like, "the particular data points found in UDs satisfy the criteria essential to incidental testimony. Having surveyed the evidential landscape, there are no data points outside of UDs that knowingly contradict this criteria, nor do the data points conform to the criteria of any alternative (non-arbitrary) explanation. There is, likewise, not any evidence that a new discovery evidencing the viability of the conceivable alternatives (such as the existence of an Ur-gospel or an outer-space alien conspiracy) will emerge, as to assume so is to assume so without evidence and is therefore arbitrary. Therefore, we attain true knowledge by reasoning from the particulars (ie. UDs) to the general (incidental testimony), and observing that all other available explanation are arbitrary (and so, properly off the table for rational consideration)."
@@BlackoutNearos // I see what you're saying, but I disagree. Classicism stands alongside evidentialism and pre-suppositionalism. // Thanks for the response. That made things a lot clearer. I'm not sure if that classification is officially recognized or just based on your understanding. If you have a source for it, that would be helpful. // we can come to knowledge as opposed to just probabilities. // This distinction between inductive / abductive, or, classical / evidential approaches I think is inaccurate. It is my understanding that the abductive approach also yields true knowledge, because we are justified in believing something is true if we reach a certain threshold of probability (where the evidence significantly favors the hypothesis over its negation). On any approach (de/in/ab-ductive) there exists the logical possibility of being wrong, which is true by virtue of the fact that we are not omniscient and therefore could fail to account for some relevant information. Hence none of the 3 approaches reaches Cartesian certainty, but I would argue that we don't need Cartesian certainty for knowledge and hence all three types of arguments potentially result in knowledge. Cartesian certainty exists when a conclusion is rationally undeniable. For most arguments (regardless of whether they are de/in/ab-ductive) there exists at least a hypothetical scenario in which the argument wouldn't hold. The reason we still consider the conclusions of these arguments as knowledge is because it cannot be rationally justified to affirm the reality of such a hypothetical scenario given the available evidence. // The cumulativity refers to the accumulation of arguments rather than the accumulation of data // Yes and no. At some point in the evaluation of abductive reasoning you do argue for the validity of each individual data point, but after that point you accumulate this data into a single argument. This is perhaps easiest to see in the qualitative approach of abductive reasoning which takes into account the following qualities of a hypothesis to assess it's fitness as an explanation: - Consistency with Evidence - Predictive Power - Simplicity (Occam's Razor) - Falsifiability - Consistency with Existing Knowledge - Scope and Breadth of Explanation - Independence of Evidence - Specificity - Coherence and Logic - External Validity - Parsimony - Statistical Support (if available) If we look at *Consistency with Evidence,* this is where a separate argument has to be made for each UD. We need to show that each instance is a valid example of a UD. If we look at *Scope and Breadth of Explanation,* i.e. the explanatory power of each hypothesis. Then we see that the best explanation should not only account for the observed phenomenon but also provide a comprehensive understanding of related phenomena or a wide range of observations. This is where UD data is cumulative. Once we know all of the UD's, the fact that the singular hypothesis of historical reportage explains all of them in one fell swoop, adds significantly to the plausibility of the hypothesis. If we look at *Simplicity,* we can see that when we look at the all of the data both separately and in aggregate, we make the fewest possible assumptions if we apply the reportage hypothesis to all data points. If we look at *Independence of Evidence,* it becomes clear that if multiple lines of independent evidence support an explanation, then it becomes more plausible. This is where other arguments using other data points come in, which are also best explained by reportage. So this is where arguments are cumulative. // we attain true knowledge by reasoning from the particulars (ie. UDs) to the general (incidental testimony), and observing that all other available explanation are arbitrary (and so, properly off the table for rational consideration)." // I think the problem that critics will have with that is that embellishment may sound arbitrary, but it is a real phenomenon nonetheless, so it still has to be considered. I guess I just don't see how the inductive version of the argument is any more compelling objectively, because at the end of the day, the same objections apply to each argument. I think atheists should be able to understand that abductive reasoning yields knowledge, because most atheists believe evolutionary theory, which is an example of abductive reasoning. The reason why a lot of people subjectively don't grasp the force of the abductive argument for reportage is because our thinking naturally doesn't accord well with probabilistic thinking. We prefer to do black and white thinking. And then there is bias as well.
It's suggested here that a skeptic must examine all the many UC's and find flaws in each one in order to defeat the overall argument. Divide and conquer. More reasonably, since McGrew clearly has a few favoites, maybe a reasonable person should simply hear her out half a dozen times and then decide how much more time to spend on UC's. In place of divide and conquer, sample and extrapolate. If McGrew's top 5 or 6 UC's leave you unimpressed, you're done.
I don't know why ones level of being impressed would be relevant to the evidential weight of the undesigned coincidences. They carry the same evidential value regardless of how impressed you are by them.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381If it were possible to objectively measure the evidential weight of a given UC, then you would have a point, but these things are extremely subjective. When two people examine the same proposed UC, they may as well be discussing whether a particular cloud does or doesn't look like a face.
Good video! I like that you laid out the macro-level argument. I think those that discuss the UC argument on TH-cam don’t always do a great job of precisely stating what their steps or what their conclusion is. Is it simply that Jesus existed, or that the gospel narratives are attempts at history or mostly true, or as far as the resurrection? As someone who hasn’t read the literature on this topic I can see how some skeptics might confuse their presentations. Many UCs seem to me to not have a clear direction of one text explaining the other. The green grass example is one, where the bits of info seem to point to something not mentioned in either text, namely that it’s Spring. Is there a well developed process of determining the direction?
Lydia says at the end of her book that it's really important to show that the Gospels and Acts are reliable to make a case for the resurrection. You get 40 days of bodily appearances if that's true.
Historical Accuracy and Context: The argument based on "undesigned coincidences" relies on the assumption that seemingly unrelated details across different Gospel accounts align to validate historical accuracy. However, it's crucial to recognize that the Gospels themselves were written with different theological and literary purposes, which may have influenced how events were narrated. In the case of the Herod and John the Baptist narrative, there are notable historical inaccuracies and imprecisions in the Gospel accounts. For instance, Mark referring to Herod Antipas as "king" instead of "tetrarch" while Mark and Matthew misidentify Herodias' first husband as Philip instead of Herod II raise questions about the historical reliability of these narratives. These inaccuracies do not align with the standards of precise historical recording. See Nathanael Vette’s ‘Was John the Baptist Raised from the Dead? The Origins of Mark 6:14-29’ pp. 342-43 Josephus' Account: Josephus (Ant. 18.116-119) provides an alternative and more detailed account of Herod Antipas and the events surrounding John the Baptist's death. Josephus' account is often considered to have a closer connection to the inner workings of the Herodian court and is seen as a more reliable historical source. The discrepancies between the Gospel accounts and Josephus' writings, including differences in emphasis and details, suggest that the Gospel narratives may not be the most accurate historical records of these events. Literary and Intertextual Elements: Some scholars suggest that the episode involving Herod, Herodias, and the young girl may have incorporated elements from earlier literary traditions, such as the story of Esther from the Old Testament. The parallelisms between the Herod narrative and the Esther story, including the language used in promises and banquets, indicate the possibility of literary influence rather than direct historical reporting. Again, see Nathanael Vette’s ‘Was John the Baptist Raised from the Dead? The Origins of Mark 6:14-29’ pp. 347-48 There is also a parallel with Herodotus Histories 9.109-112 which is about Xerxes and Artaynte. Thanks to John David Walters for pointing this one out. Theological and Symbolic Interpretation: It's important to remember that the Gospels often served theological and symbolic purposes, conveying deeper spiritual meanings beyond strict historical accuracy. The narratives may have been shaped to emphasize theological themes rather than to provide precise historical accounts. For example, the John the Baptist episode may have been created in order to foreshadow the execution, burial, and resurrection of Jesus.
I think getting things right (as shown by undesigned coincidences) outweighs getting things wrong due to the probabilities. People get things sincerely wrong all the time, and that doesn't mean they're lying; just mistaken. The rest of what they say can still be very true. Getting a fact right--especially when you're not focused on it, as the UCs aren't--is much more difficult to do and unlikely to occur. That is, unless it is a true story.
In the inference to the best explanation section, you examine two hypotheses: either there was a text that was available to all the gospel authors, or there is a collection of real historical events that are being narrated. The first horn of the dilemma is relatively easy to dismiss as implausible -- however, it is not clear why you do not consider other candidates. An obvious such candidate would be an oral tradition -- a collection of stories that circulate in early christian communities, built around recollections of real events, and containing both embellishments and legendary elements. The existence of such stories does not strike me as improbable; and your argument against the ur-gospel is impotent here -- the gospels are exactly the effort by the community to protect the oral tradition from getting lost. Neither does it sound implausible that such stories would stray from the facts, especially when it comes to details such as the color of the grass or the exact time of the year when one event took place. In this context, the UCs are explained for free: people who fish in the same lake, catch similar fish -- and then cook them to their taste. Regarding your D&C strategy, it is, of course, reasonable -- but the counter-point is that, for most people who have no commitment to some form of bible inerrancy, all the UCs would belong to the first kind: connections that can be reasonably doubted. The examples you give definitely seem to be -- for example: it might be that people coming and going was because of the passover; or maybe the author of Mark is just saying that the apostles were super successful in casting out demons, so many people were coming and going around them; and the mention to the Passover by the author of John is completely unrelated; and there is no UC to be explained, as there is no C. Of course, as you say, if one wanted to be thorough, they would have to go through this process for all the UCs, and show (rather than declare, as I do here) that they are in fact of the first kind. But, for the purposes of a youtube comment (or, indeed, a video) one might just respond: if the first UC you decided to provide is that tenuous, then "what need we any further witnesses"?
I never really found undesigned coincidences compelling, just because I tend to take the Gospels as reliable history relative to other historical narratives of their time. It always feels like a long way to go just to get back where I started. But watching people try to refute undesigned coincidences always turns into such a collapse in bizarre, contradictory explanations that I realize that I'm just not the target audience.
I never understood how undesigned coincidences are supposed to make the entirely unverifiable miraculous stories of the gospels more likely to be true. We know that Luke and Matthew copied from the gospel of Mark… and it’s highly unlikely that John didn’t know the stories of the synoptic gospels. Even by the questionable traditional authorship all of the authors or at the very least the sources of the authors interacted with each other for decades before anything got written down. The gospels aren’t independent eyewitness accounts they are just stories that the authors collected after years of exaggeration and embellishment… so this undesigned coincidence stuff is dead from the start.
@@ramigilneas9274 Ah, someone who just looked for a comment to reply to and didn't even watch the video. You are the perfect example of what I'm talking about.
@@ShaunCKennedyAuthor The main takeaway was that the only people who still think that it’s a good argument are religious fanatics with no historical training whatsoever.😂 The argument doesn’t demonstrate that eyewitnesses were involved in the creation of the stories and it definitely doesn’t make any of the supernatural stuff more likely to be true… which explains why the vast majority of Apologists don’t use the argument. It isn’t convincing… and talking about how amazing it is that an author apparently knew (or just guessed) that the grass was green makes your whole position look pretty silly.
@@ramigilneas9274 If that's true, constructing a counter argument similar to what's laid out in the video should be easy. Demonstrate that and I'll believe you
@@ShaunCKennedyAuthor What argument? To explain why no serious historian takes UCs seriously or to explain why the gospels probably weren’t written by eyewitnesses?
If different accounts of the Feeding of the 5000 become more credible due to undesigned coincidences, don't they become less credible due to (undesigned) contradictions. And there are some pretty good ones: 1) Who got to the solitary place first? Jesus (as in John 6:5) or the crowd (as in Mark 6:33)? 2) Did Jesus preach to the crowd before feeding them (Mark 6:34) or did he proceed immediately to the feeding (John 6:5)? 3) Who first raised the question of feeding the crowd, the disciples (Mark 6:35) or Jesus (John 6:5)?
Meaningless details and memory gaps? People wrote this. Questions like, did you eat or preach first? Anybody would be confused or not remember it correctly. But if something supernatural happens, they remember it. And the gospels were written like 40 years after the fact. It's funny how everytime non-believers get proven wrong they find another thing to pick on. Thank you so much for your work. You're only making us stronger. And since we're telling the truth we can take any kind of scrutiny.
@@black-cross One of McGrew's favorite UC's is based on Jesus asking Philip how they're going to feed that big crowd. There's nothing supernatural about his asking Philip that question. It's just a meaningless detail and as you've just explained, we can't rely on the accuracy of meaningless details found in the gospels, so this UC is now unconvincing. You can't cling to details when they work for you and reject them when they work against you.
@@mytwocents7481 and how does one thing being meaningless affects the rest? And this does still works since it's proof that's related. And is still an UC.
@@mytwocents7481 you want God to not exist so badly is dumb. Do you realize that if we're right, you won't get to explore the new universe he'll make? And the gadgets and knowledge you use to insult him, you wont have them or have the joy of making new ones.
Mt. 14:1-2 At that time Herod the tetrarch heard the reports about Jesus, and _he_ said to his attendants, “This is John the Baptist; he has risen from the dead! That is why miraculous powers are at work in him.” Lk. 9:7 Now Herod the tetrarch heard about all that was going on. And he was perplexed because _some were saying_ that John had been raised from the dead Why is this an undesigned coincidence especially when they contradict one another on who actually said this? Also, why can't they both just be dependent on Mark 6:14 which says: King Herod heard about this, for Jesus’ name had become well known. Some were saying,* “John the Baptist has been raised from the dead, and that is why miraculous powers are at work in him.” * Some manuscripts have "he was saying" for Mk. 6:14 but he repeats the resurrection claim in v. 16.
The undesigned coincidence here does not occur in the parallel passage in Luke. It occurs in a completely separate part of Luke. I think you need to revisit this section of the video again.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 I know about the "servants" and "Joanna wife of Chuza, the head of Herod's household" connection but: 1. The accounts in Matthew and Luke contradict in regards to exactly who made the claim. Lk. 9:8-9 adds some other stuff not found in the other accounts. 2. Matthew and Luke could have just been using Mark while making their own edits. I don't see any reason to think this actually came from any of Herod's servants beyond that just being an appeal to possibility.
@counteringchristianity 1. No they don't. Show how a p and ~p is entailed by this. 2. So? And that's just ignoring the coincidence. The historicity hypothesis is actually explaining the coincidence.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 1. Yes they do. Matthew says Herod said it while Luke says others said it. So who actually said it? They also say different things so how do you know which one is accurate? Do you just combine both accounts and create your own version of events? Luke has to explicitly say _"some were saying this but Herod did not"_ in order to be justified in there being a contradiction? If you're doing that, then you could literally get out of almost any apparent contradiction within historical accounts. 2. Aside from exactly which version is correct, you don't actually have evidence Chuza or Joanna told anyone this story. None of the documents even claim that. It's a mere appeal to possibility when the smokescreen is removed.
@counteringchristianity 1. Luke does not say that Herod did not say this also. So no, they do not contradict. Again, a contradiction takes the form of p and ~p. You haven't shown how the texts entail a contradiction. So I could get out of almost all contradictions this way. And? What's the problem? Is there some rule according to which we should prefer contradiction over harmonization? I'm not aware of any argument for such a presumption. It is a possibility, but it's a possibility which has explanatory force. You're not explaining this fact, you're just ignoring it.
I have been using your video as a great example of a STRAW MAN ARGUMENT for my students! So the Straw Man here is the way you present the interdependence of the Gospels in way no Biblical schollar would recognise - it's a massive misrepresentation. Also idea that the Gospel writers were just 'making things up' is another SM. The real claim is that they used sources that were available within their tradition AND each other. Books that use common sources sometimes quote word for word (like Matthew and Luke do of Mark) and at other times embroider facts, perhaps because they have a second source. None of this makes the Gospels eye-witness testimony - in fact, why would eyewitnesses copy from another text? The only exception is John, writing some 90 years into the first century who records conversations for which there were no witnesses and who is clearly making things up.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 what's the point? We just get snotty responses like your video assuming that we just don't understand your brilliant arguments. Why don't you tell me how I should write my comments from now on? Jesus Christ!
@adamcosper3308 has it ever dawned on you that those "snotty responses" which say that you are misunderstanding the argument might be motivated by the fact that you are, in fact, misunderstanding the argument? Ever considered that possibility?
@@adamcosper3308 I have yet to see one person who is against the argument from undesigned coincidences in general, and who simultaneously could demonstrate that they knew what it even meant. It's not an assumption that opponents of it don't understand it. It's a repeated observation.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 Very Christ like of you. Here I am at risk of eternal damnation and you just want win the argument. Do you apologists even worship Jesus? Seems like you worship your own ego and Jesus is just something to be right about. Have you ever considered that people understand your argument and don't accept them or grant them the same weight that you do? Sort of dumb for a smart guy.
First! Excited for this.
Thanks for pointing out at the end that there are too many leftover undesigned coincidences to dispute. I've known about Lydia and the concept, but was unaware of how they can be grouped the way you did it. That adds much more weight to the argument.
Bruh, the content you've been putting out lately is 🔥🔥🔥!!!
Edit: your content has always been great but these ones recently... (Chefs kiss).
Well thanks!
As a proponent of the Argument from Undesigned Coincidences and someone who has seen some of the horrible arguments skeptics have tried to bring to the table, I'm very excited for this, as you are always someone who brings great arguments.
Thank you for making this video, addressing the criticisms of it really hits home. As always thanks for your great work!
At the 16 minute ish mark, (and again at the 30 minute ish mark) you make the point about why a purely literary explanation would suggest that there should be a clear pattern, such as John only adds to Luke who only adds to Matt who only adds to Mark. I guess I don't understand why we should think this? As in, why couldn't John add to all three previous Gospels? (assuming the generally accepted ordering with John being last)
But all in all, I am actually on board with the "Undesigned Coincidence" project to a large extent. I am quite happy to say that the reason that the green grass UC exists is because that gospel stories of that sermon recount an actual event that happened at a time when the grass was really green. I don't think that this is such a crazy thing to admit. I haven't read anything by either McGrew, but I guess I'll ask you what you think: Do you think that UCs have any impact at all on the more supernatural claims in the Gospels? I ask becuase, while I am quite happy to say that I think that some sermon was really given during some season, I am less sympathetic to any argument that would say "UCs mean that the Gospels are literally 100% infallible an inerrant" - but I know that you don't make this argument! I don't know of any Christian who does, frankly. So, is it possible that the average skeptic is simply misunderstanding UCs? I feel like the goal of the UCs project is significantly more humble than a skeptic might expect. Do you agree or disagree here?
Thanks as always - I always enjoy your work!
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was saying that the explanations would basically only run in one direction with later Gospels explaining earlier Gospels in the explanation was purely literary. I wasn't saying that John would only explain Luke or that Luke would only explain Matthew. I was saying that the earlier Gospels shouldn't, in general, be explaining the later Gospels. Not that you couldn't get a one-off case of that happening by chance. But that there should be a generally trajectory of later Gospels providing explanations for details in earlier Gospels.
Well, it's a basic inductive argument for the historical reliability of the Gospels. If we pull 50 marbles out of a jar and they are all blue, then we have a good inductive reason to suppose that the next marble will also be blue. Similarly, if we can confirm 50 events in the Gospels as being historically reliable, we have a good inductive reason to suppose that the others are as well. Now inductive arguments are defeasible. If you also had evidence that certain portions were not historical, then the argument from UCs wouldn't count for as much. But in the absence of other considerations, a sufficiently high number of UCs provide a good inductive argument for the Gospels being historically trustworthy (and that includes their miraculous reports).
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 Oooh I probably misunderstood. I generally listen while I work so you probably said that very clearly and I just missed it!
And for the second part, I suppose that this would reject the pericope by pericope approach that most scholars use today? For instance, I am not willing to grant that the Pericope Adulterae is historical, since we know it was a later addition. Taking the Gospels as an "all or nothing" type deal seems like a tough pill to swallow to me. As in, the pill that the grass really was green during that sermon is an easy pill to swallow. But Jesus's writing sins in the sand is harder, and Jesus's Resurrection is even harder to swallow that the story recounted in the Pericope Adulterae! I should probably ask for clarification here - is the point of the UCs not as humble as I wrote above? Is the point of the UCs supposed to be more bold, to bolster the idea that the supernatural elements within the Gospels are likewise real historical events?
@NontraditionalCatholic well perhaps I could put it this way: the argument from UCs is a modest plank in a larger argument for a bold conclusion.
The pericope adulterae can be rejected because it's almost certainly not part of the original Gospel of John. However, rejecting a segment of the Gospels because it is not authentic is not the same thing as adopting the pericope-by-pericope approach to the Gospels.
They are using these minor details to suggest that the miracles actually happened. They just do a bit of hand waving about having a cumulative case whenever anyone points out how little undesigned coincidences actually gets them. Jesus did some shit on green grass. Ok. Does that mean he reanimated? Most skeptics already accept that the gospels are loosely based on memories of Jesus.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 I guess I'm cool with the UCs being one modest plank in a larger argument. Like, UCs by themselves would probably not convince you that the supernatural things happened, I assume? So, the UCs themselves maybe are as humble as I first guessed?
But, isn't rejecting the Pericope Adulterae exactly the pericope by pericope approach, kinda by definition? The long ending of Mark too, if we reject that, then we are doing more "pericope by pericope" work again?
I am a skeptic that got her book about a week(?) sgo to get a bird's eye view of all of them and come up with a parsimonious alternate explanation, since the "cumulative case" thing keeps being brought up to alternate explanations of individual ones
Thanks for the pointers! I was thinking of pretty similar things. See all of them, categorize them by how strong they actually are, reject at least some of them, and come up with a theory that explains multiple, not just specific ones. I'll work your advice in as I go through this over the next period of who know how long
I have a rough idea of the "common source" just being a cinematic universe that is being constructed by the authors, and that illumination could be an illusion since it's not something actually being illuminated, but the reader just seeing a few datapoints and thinking of a likely scenario to fit them. This is similar to what you said about subconscious influence.
I appreciate your thoughts 🙂
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 yours too! Pretty new to your channel but i like the vibe overall. Was going to watch your thing about morality at some point
@@Greyz174 I was rather proud of that video, although I've been taking hell for it from my apologist friends
Good video. My thoughts:
I keep hearing that the evidence is cumulative and that there are dozens and dozens of UCs. But virtually every time I watch a video about UCs, the same two or three examples are almost always given: Green grass/Passover, Philipp/Bethsaida, and Herod/Chuza ...
So unless shown contrary evidence, I think it's fair to assume that these are the top UCs in terms of evidential force and that's why they are always referred. But if that's the case, then I don't think this argument is very strong...
Do the other examples in Lydia's book have the same level of evidential force?
I mean go read the book if you want
It's not that difficult to get
Exactly my thoughts! Always the same two/three examples. And these aren’t persuasive at all! The others wouldn’t be that impressive too?
With all due respect, I must say you did not engage with any of the criticism skeptics brough up (which is ironically funny).
The point was: what counts as "undesigned coincidence" is arbitrary. There is no objective metric to go by.
This could have been easily addressed by pointing out statistical significance beyond contemporary, non-historical texts. It would be an objective, quantitative metric. Rock-solid evidence.
But here's the problem. In order to do that, you need a baseline. But the author not only skipped the statistics, she doesn't even know what she's comparing to.
So we are left with the author pointing out something seemingly marvelous, without knowing how unique this effect actually is. For all I know, maybe the same could be observed in variations of folktales (that is: elaborating details of a story seemingly by accident.)
Without taking any sides, I'd wait with my conclusion after McGrew comes up with the statistical analysis.
He said at the very beginning that this wasn’t a video to address skepticism.
I think you're applying the wrong form of science. History is more akin to a courtroom, where evidence can also be very diverse, difficult to define a singular 'metric' for, is weighed and can found to be convincing, even beyond reasonable without any maths involved.
@@TheLlywelyn
Then this another case where someone starts with the conclusion and hunts for evidence supporting that conclusion, ignoring anything else.
Presenting objective data would be *much more* professional. Historians recognize that too.
The argument from undesigned coincidences falls apart once you actually look at the so-called "undesigned coincidences." All the abstract notions of casual connections that mutually connect and corroborate dissolve when you look at the actual examples. To make an undesigned coincidence, take some details in two gospels and contrive a question about one detail whereby that is in some sense answered by the other, often only very indirectly, for the sake of having an example. But then you make a big deal out of it and present it as if it is astonishing and powerful. The goal is to have many examples, none of which is compelling on its own, but are somehow compelling when taken as a "cumulative case." Other times, "undesigned coincidences" are simply examples of multiple attestation or are simply hallucinated. In order to take these as interlocking details in independent testimonies, you need to assume that they are from independent testimonies, or even testimonies. Suppose instead "undesigned coincidences" are explained by interlocking details in different members in a growing and evolving family of oral traditions. The gospels are not "making up" anything but rather codifying the traditions in a community. Imagine that: Christianity before the gospels, yet still telling stories about Jesus (because of course they are). The phenomenon of one thing "explaining" something in another is most often purely imagined, and based on the underlying assumption that these texts are testimonies, like memoirs or reports. Anyone who has read the gospels knows they are, if nothing else, good literature, enjoyable to read, and well written (largely). Did a tax collector and a fisherman write these? I doubt it. The "greater whole" behind the Gospels is the whole of Christian history and pre-gospel traditions about Jesus, heavily influenced by Pauline theology.
There is no need to "undercut" the "undesigned coincidences." Merely explaining them is often enough to see them fall apart before your eyes. The argument from "undesigned coincidences" is a check that bounces when you actually look at the account. But it sounds good on paper, no? Like puzzle pieces!
I think he addresses a related theory at 20:01. So unless the "evolving" aspect of the oral tradition is important, it seems like a bad theory to me.
@@unsightedmetal6857 A "bad theory"? Yeah, just dismiss it out of hand. Go right ahead. You're only robbing yourself, and then fooling yourself that you're being "reasonable". How does a Jewish sect become a Gentile movement without evolving? Hint: before and after Paul, Christianity (or, rather, the Jesus Messianic following) was not the same.
The theory that the gospels are literature is dead since 1997, when Dirk Frickenschmidt released his monumental work "Evangelium als Biographie".
The gospels aren't literature but ancient biographies and were always intended as such. Now that doesn't mean that every detail happened as described, since that wasn't what ancient biographies were about, so it's not really an apologist's argument. Just a simple fact. Also, there probably wasn't all that much of an oral tradition. Ancient Judaism was a book religion. They didn't have to invent reading and writing first. Yes, there are parts that were orally transmitted maybe for a short time. Also, the argument, fisherman and tax collectors couldn't write this is laughable, since Jesus's followers weren't just fishermen and tax collectors.
But I also don't make the argument that the names on the gospels are the actual writers, more that they are based on the accounts of those people, possibly written by scribes. But they'd have had easy access to those. And the need for any written documents was arising because the apostles themselves couldn't reach all the communities that were founded after a certain time.
@@11kravitznah, the good old "Paul was the founder of Christianity". Nah, not really though. He simply applied some of the rules that already existed for the pagans that were friendly to Israel and its faith but didn't fully convert. It wasn't a big revolution, more baby steps. The apostles then went ahead and applied some of the noahide laws to gentile Christians. While Jesus himself only hinted at gentiles who had faith and maybe even more than anyone in the Jewish lands as the text says itself. It's a gradual development but the framework to integrate gentiles was already existing. It just had to be slightly modified and applied. What Paul did wasn't this big revolution that people make it out to be. I'd suggest reading up on some Jewish interpretations of Paul's work, like by Shalom Ben-Chorin.
@@MrSeedi76
Calling the gospels "biographies" is not entirely inaccurate, given that they describe, to some extent, the life and times of a given person. But to say they are not literature is ridiculous. Just read it for yourself. Can something be both literature and biographical? Exodus, for example, includes biographical information on Moses, so is that not literature, but biography? The gospels are not biographies in anything like the modern sense, in which we would tell about the full life, upbringing, influences, and broader context of someone's life, relying on primary sources wherever possible. The gospels are not that.
To say there was no oral tradition is not even worth rebutting. I don't know how deep into confirmation bias you would have to be or what pet theory you must have to want to confirm with such a laughable and obviously false belief. The Bible itself describes the apostles as "unlettered" and that they went around preaching. Most people were illiterate and books were prohibitively expensive for almost everyone. Christianity has always been spread orally since Pentecost. The texts were later and secondary, and have only become objects of worship since the reformation (remember that the Bible was not translated into the common tongue until roughly that point). What you dismiss as a "short time" was the most critical period in Christian history, the first half century or so from 30-90, and even into the second century. I don't know where you're getting the bogus idea that Christianity was primarily textually based in that period.
Matthew the Galilean tax collector allegedly is the author of the "the Gospel according to Matthew", and John son of Zebedee, the fisherman, is allegedly the author of "The Gospel according to John." Both of these are ludicrous, especially if you have actually read the documents for yourself. But only slightly less ludicrous, an obvious rescue hypothesis, is that these people dictated the gospels to scribes. You're about 300 years behind in your understanding of the NT.
One of McGrew's favorite UC's seems to be John 13 (Foot washing at the last supper) and Luke 22 (At the last supper, Jesus describes himself as being a servant). Based on the usual ordering with John last, the foot washing can be considered a fiction inspired by what John read in Luke. In an online interview with Sean McDowell about UC's, McGrew says the foot washing provides an explanation for Jesus describing himself as a servant in Luke, but there's another perfectly good explanation: Luke is closely following a passage in Mark/Matthew where Jesus responds to the famous request of James and John by saying "...just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve..." Luke has simply turned this into "I am among you as one who serves."
It would be great if apologists would stop asserting that grass in the Galilee is only green in the Spring. This is flatly, demonstrably, ovjectively false.
That is but one among numerous problems with the whole argument from so-called "undesigned coincidences."
That's not really a problem with the argument per se. At best, that's just a problem with one specific example, which you may be right about BTW. I haven't actually verified this detail. 🙂
@@faithbecauseofreason8381I guess it is not a problem insofar as it substantially weakens the force of any supposed connection without breaking it. But, don't you think you should check this stuff out before publishing assertions in your videos?
@DrKippDavis I mean I suppose. The point of the video was to sketch the form of a successful response to the argument from UCs. I wasn't really trying to defend any particular examples of UCs. In other words, the specific examples that I used didn't need to withstand scrutiny for the purposes of this video. I hope that makes sense.
Yeah, I think so. But, I continue to believe that the entire model just misses the crucial points: 1) that so-called "undesigned coincidences" are formed through a poor understanding of the individual texts in their sociocultural, historical and religious settings, and 2) they detract from the inherent meaning of the four Gospels by positing an artificial harmonised version in their place.
@DrKippDavis well your first point actually comports with my proposed model. If you can show that a sufficient number of putative UCs aren't actually UCs, then you reduce the force of the argument proportionately. I understand why your second point would be a concern from your perspective. But from the perspective of someone who thinks that UCs provide evidence for the historical reliability of the Gospels, that's going to be question-begging if it is intended to function as an objection to the argument. The purpose of the Gospels is the very thing in question. And the argument from UCs is being leveraged to support a particular understanding of the intentions of the Gospel authors, namely that they are concerned with historical reportage.
Appreciate the video yet again.
Question - i must be missing something here but can you explain how an earlier gospel can exclusively explain a later one? It seems that one could always just explain it back in the other direction?
Great thoughts!
What a unique video! While I am more a classicist than an evidentialist, I can't help but think that couching UDs as a cumulative case does a massive DISSERVICE to the force of the argument. It sets up for the trap of, "ok, well if you admit none of these evidences are compelling on their own, when precisely does adding one more become compelling enough to believe, and why not before that one more?" And this, at its most technical, leads to vomiting Baysian priors, which just turns nigh any ̶s̶e̶n̶s̶i̶b̶l̶e̶ non-rationalistically inclined person away.
Much more compelling, I think, is not to view each UD as a small bit of snow to be added to an increasingly weighty snowball, but a brick that builds a unified tapestry of co-incidence. The difference is between arguing each UD as an evidence in itself (with each one piling on top of the previous), and making no argument at all from any of the UDs until the tapestry of co-incidence is constructed. The singular argument to be made, then, is that this tapestry integrates along the essentials of genuine co-incidence, and cannot be made to do so along any other criteria (the closest would be along the criteria of an Ur-Gospel, as you mentioned. But that is entirely arbitrary, as invoking such is arbitrary when a non-arbitrary explanation is already available).
I'm not saying you or McGrew fail to see this tapestry. What I am saying is that because a culminative case and tapestry case are essentially different, this tapestry of co-incidence is often used as a multiplier or massive deposit of additional snow into the snowball after each individual UD is weighted, rather than as the singular, compelling, and decisive proof itself. The cumulative case is an accumulation of arguments for the sake of making heavier the weight of the evidential snowball. The tapesty case is an accumulation of data for the sake of a single rationally compelling argument. McGrew is a self avowed evidentialist, so she's, ofc, entitled to the cumulative case. Though, I think the tapestry case is far more common sensical. Unlike evidentialism, there is no invitation of Bayesian rationalism (which Skeptics detest (and I think so rightly)). You can tell even @Testify holds UDs in his own mind as a decisive tapestry (as any classicist (like Paley) might), but defaults to framing the issue as the evidentialist's cumulative case due to having inherited the arguments most robustly from the McGrews (who I adore btw!).
I'd be very interested you know your thoughts on this!
I think you're describing a cumulative case, but with different words. The cumulative case basically means that all of the UD need to be explained as a whole as well as individually. Any skeptical approach (unless they deny the validity of the UD argument entirely) would still of necessity posit varying individual explanations for individual UD's that then in aggregate would explain all UD's as a whole, but this is significantly less plausible than the singular explanation of historical reportage as the explanation for each individual UD as well as the UD's as a whole.
@@truthmatters7573 Hi there; I still think a crucial distinction is to be made. There is a critical difference between saying, "x has a strong probability due to the sum weight of each added argument." And, "x can be known when applying the data to reason as the proper standard."
The larger point is this: when it is said, "the argument for UDs is [only] cumulative," that is wrong. UDs work in non-evidentialist paradigms. The cumulative case is tool of Bayesian evidentialists, so when a non-Bayesian skeptic (as well as myself) hears that quote, he thinks, "If even the people making this argument admit that it is not rationally compelling, why should I think it stands any chance against my pre-existing compelling reasons for rejecting their conclusion?" I think most skeptics actually adopt a more classical perspective than an evidentialist one (you don't hear many of them go into Bayesian ̶g̶y̶m̶n̶a̶s̶t̶i̶c̶s assessments), and so I think a lot a ground is not when it is claim that UDs *are [only]* useful for a cumulative probabilistic case, rather than as a (single) compelling rational argument.
In other words, if you assert it is only cumulative, it is to assert that it is admitted not to be compelling. And if it is admitted to not be compelling, the non-Bayesians checkout. But even if you are a Bayesian evidentialist, and wish to use UDs to persuade even non-Bayesians, it's important at the bear minimum not to imply that your argument is only relevant to fellow Bayesians. Otherwise apologists like @Testify should come outright and say to @Paulogia that, "Hey, I know UDs are a cumulative (and thus Bayesian, and thus evidentialist) case, and you're not a Bayesian evidentialist, so I know you won't find this compelling, so don't even bother trying to refute it because you reject the very evidentialist premise." Or, as @Paulogia so eloquently put it in his discussion with @Testify, "ok, so what's *the* [singular, one, compelling, non-Bayesian, non-probabilistically forceful but actually forceful] argument?" (approximate paraphrase).
@@BlackoutNearos Okay, so from what you just said, I think your issue is not so much the cumulative nature of the case, but rather the Bayesian (or more generally the probabilistic) nature of the case. I think you are trying to distinguish between logically deductive arguments and logically abductive arguments.
Abductive arguments are inherently probabilistic because they seek to find the most plausible explanation among competing explanations each of which is at least logically possible and therefore cannot be ruled out completely. Questions regarding historical events are inherently probabilistic, because historical events are not repeatable. Hence I think that abductive arguments (whether you take a bayesian quantitative approach or a qualitative approach) are best suited for these types of questions.
A deductive argument may rhetorically sound stronger because the conclusion is stated with more certainty, but eventually you will still get into a probabilistic discussion when the premises are called into question if the argument is logically valid. If the argument is not logically valid, because the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises, then that will simply be pointed out.
I do agree with you that unfortunately a lot of people check out mentally when they are forced to think about these matters in a more nuanced / less black and white way. Unfortunately a lot of people ask one question and that is: "is the conclusion certain?" and if it is not then they reject the conclusion. That is anti-intellectual, however they feel like they can get away with it because anti-supernatural bias / humean epistemology carves out a special exception for supernatural hypotheses, making them unprovable by definition. This deserves to be pointed out.
However, I don't agree that formulating the argument in a deductive way is better. A deductive argument is more easily rejected because it is all or nothing. An abductive argument requires you to assign some reasonable probability to the hypothesis in comparison to other hypotheses and that would lead nuanced thinkers to strongly consider the available options. I think the abductive case really shines in that regards, even though it's a pain if people simply aren't tracking with the argument.
More generally, I also think that your conceptualization of the issue as competing approaches (classical versus evidential) is wrongly classified. I think it is more accurate to say that the deductive and abductive arguments are both tools in the arsenal of the classical theist who takes an evidentialist approach. The evidentialist approach is contrasted with the presuppositionalist approach.
@@truthmatters7573I see what you're saying, but I disagree. Classicism stands alongside evidentialism and pre-suppositionalism. Classicism agrees with evidentialism that data from reality is to be considered. Classicism agrees with pre-suppostionalism is that we can come to knowledge as opposed to just probabilities.
Historical facts can, in principle, be known. For example, it is not merely probable that George Washington existed, but it is known that he existed. The classicst can argue that the data we possess from events 2,000+ years ago (such as UDs) is sufficient to bring one to knowledge. Even if evidentialists disagree, at least give the classicist the invitation, rather than declare, "UDs are cumulative (thus only of concern to evidentialism/Bayesiansism/abductive reasoning/probabilistic reasoning). The cumulativity refers to the accumulation of arguments rather than the accumulation of data points toward a single argument (otherwise, every argument with more than one data point could be said to be cumulative!). The evidentialist is welcome to use each data point as an argument. But that does not mean each data point is necessarily firstly and foremostly useful as an argument in a cumulative case of arguments.
Also, and perhaps more importantly, I do not believe I am trying to distinguish between logically deductive arguments and logically abductive arguments, but the inductive from the abductive. Perhaps I ignored the historical trend of deductive rationalism when announcing myself a classicist, but I certainly champion induction over deduction. In fact, my position is that certainty on a whole array of topics can be achieved with inductive reasoning. Any notion that induction, by its nature, cannot achieve certainty but only probability, is brought about by an insufficient knowledge on the relationship between reason and knowledge.
In the case of UDs, the classicist inductive case would be something like, "the particular data points found in UDs satisfy the criteria essential to incidental testimony. Having surveyed the evidential landscape, there are no data points outside of UDs that knowingly contradict this criteria, nor do the data points conform to the criteria of any alternative (non-arbitrary) explanation. There is, likewise, not any evidence that a new discovery evidencing the viability of the conceivable alternatives (such as the existence of an Ur-gospel or an outer-space alien conspiracy) will emerge, as to assume so is to assume so without evidence and is therefore arbitrary. Therefore, we attain true knowledge by reasoning from the particulars (ie. UDs) to the general (incidental testimony), and observing that all other available explanation are arbitrary (and so, properly off the table for rational consideration)."
@@BlackoutNearos // I see what you're saying, but I disagree. Classicism stands alongside evidentialism and pre-suppositionalism. //
Thanks for the response. That made things a lot clearer. I'm not sure if that classification is officially recognized or just based on your understanding. If you have a source for it, that would be helpful.
// we can come to knowledge as opposed to just probabilities. //
This distinction between inductive / abductive, or, classical / evidential approaches I think is inaccurate. It is my understanding that the abductive approach also yields true knowledge, because we are justified in believing something is true if we reach a certain threshold of probability (where the evidence significantly favors the hypothesis over its negation). On any approach (de/in/ab-ductive) there exists the logical possibility of being wrong, which is true by virtue of the fact that we are not omniscient and therefore could fail to account for some relevant information. Hence none of the 3 approaches reaches Cartesian certainty, but I would argue that we don't need Cartesian certainty for knowledge and hence all three types of arguments potentially result in knowledge.
Cartesian certainty exists when a conclusion is rationally undeniable. For most arguments (regardless of whether they are de/in/ab-ductive) there exists at least a hypothetical scenario in which the argument wouldn't hold. The reason we still consider the conclusions of these arguments as knowledge is because it cannot be rationally justified to affirm the reality of such a hypothetical scenario given the available evidence.
// The cumulativity refers to the accumulation of arguments rather than the accumulation of data //
Yes and no. At some point in the evaluation of abductive reasoning you do argue for the validity of each individual data point, but after that point you accumulate this data into a single argument.
This is perhaps easiest to see in the qualitative approach of abductive reasoning which takes into account the following qualities of a hypothesis to assess it's fitness as an explanation:
- Consistency with Evidence
- Predictive Power
- Simplicity (Occam's Razor)
- Falsifiability
- Consistency with Existing Knowledge
- Scope and Breadth of Explanation
- Independence of Evidence
- Specificity
- Coherence and Logic
- External Validity
- Parsimony
- Statistical Support (if available)
If we look at *Consistency with Evidence,* this is where a separate argument has to be made for each UD. We need to show that each instance is a valid example of a UD.
If we look at *Scope and Breadth of Explanation,* i.e. the explanatory power of each hypothesis. Then we see that the best explanation should not only account for the observed phenomenon but also provide a comprehensive understanding of related phenomena or a wide range of observations. This is where UD data is cumulative. Once we know all of the UD's, the fact that the singular hypothesis of historical reportage explains all of them in one fell swoop, adds significantly to the plausibility of the hypothesis.
If we look at *Simplicity,* we can see that when we look at the all of the data both separately and in aggregate, we make the fewest possible assumptions if we apply the reportage hypothesis to all data points.
If we look at *Independence of Evidence,* it becomes clear that if multiple lines of independent evidence support an explanation, then it becomes more plausible. This is where other arguments using other data points come in, which are also best explained by reportage. So this is where arguments are cumulative.
// we attain true knowledge by reasoning from the particulars (ie. UDs) to the general (incidental testimony), and observing that all other available explanation are arbitrary (and so, properly off the table for rational consideration)." //
I think the problem that critics will have with that is that embellishment may sound arbitrary, but it is a real phenomenon nonetheless, so it still has to be considered. I guess I just don't see how the inductive version of the argument is any more compelling objectively, because at the end of the day, the same objections apply to each argument.
I think atheists should be able to understand that abductive reasoning yields knowledge, because most atheists believe evolutionary theory, which is an example of abductive reasoning. The reason why a lot of people subjectively don't grasp the force of the abductive argument for reportage is because our thinking naturally doesn't accord well with probabilistic thinking. We prefer to do black and white thinking. And then there is bias as well.
It's suggested here that a skeptic must examine all the many UC's and find flaws in each one in order to defeat the overall argument. Divide and conquer. More reasonably, since McGrew clearly has a few favoites, maybe a reasonable person should simply hear her out half a dozen times and then decide how much more time to spend on UC's. In place of divide and conquer, sample and extrapolate. If McGrew's top 5 or 6 UC's leave you unimpressed, you're done.
I don't know why ones level of being impressed would be relevant to the evidential weight of the undesigned coincidences. They carry the same evidential value regardless of how impressed you are by them.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381If it were possible to objectively measure the evidential weight of a given UC, then you would have a point, but these things are extremely subjective. When two people examine the same proposed UC, they may as well be discussing whether a particular cloud does or doesn't look like a face.
@@mytwocents7481 I disagree that it is subjective. Disagree alone is insufficient to establish this.
Great job!
Good video! I like that you laid out the macro-level argument. I think those that discuss the UC argument on TH-cam don’t always do a great job of precisely stating what their steps or what their conclusion is. Is it simply that Jesus existed, or that the gospel narratives are attempts at history or mostly true, or as far as the resurrection? As someone who hasn’t read the literature on this topic I can see how some skeptics might confuse their presentations.
Many UCs seem to me to not have a clear direction of one text explaining the other. The green grass example is one, where the bits of info seem to point to something not mentioned in either text, namely that it’s Spring. Is there a well developed process of determining the direction?
Lydia says at the end of her book that it's really important to show that the Gospels and Acts are reliable to make a case for the resurrection. You get 40 days of bodily appearances if that's true.
Historical Accuracy and Context:
The argument based on "undesigned coincidences" relies on the assumption that seemingly unrelated details across different Gospel accounts align to validate historical accuracy. However, it's crucial to recognize that the Gospels themselves were written with different theological and literary purposes, which may have influenced how events were narrated.
In the case of the Herod and John the Baptist narrative, there are notable historical inaccuracies and imprecisions in the Gospel accounts. For instance, Mark referring to Herod Antipas as "king" instead of "tetrarch" while Mark and Matthew misidentify Herodias' first husband as Philip instead of Herod II raise questions about the historical reliability of these narratives. These inaccuracies do not align with the standards of precise historical recording. See Nathanael Vette’s ‘Was John the Baptist Raised from the Dead? The Origins of Mark 6:14-29’ pp. 342-43
Josephus' Account:
Josephus (Ant. 18.116-119) provides an alternative and more detailed account of Herod Antipas and the events surrounding John the Baptist's death. Josephus' account is often considered to have a closer connection to the inner workings of the Herodian court and is seen as a more reliable historical source.
The discrepancies between the Gospel accounts and Josephus' writings, including differences in emphasis and details, suggest that the Gospel narratives may not be the most accurate historical records of these events.
Literary and Intertextual Elements:
Some scholars suggest that the episode involving Herod, Herodias, and the young girl may have incorporated elements from earlier literary traditions, such as the story of Esther from the Old Testament.
The parallelisms between the Herod narrative and the Esther story, including the language used in promises and banquets, indicate the possibility of literary influence rather than direct historical reporting. Again, see Nathanael Vette’s ‘Was John the Baptist Raised from the Dead? The Origins of Mark 6:14-29’ pp. 347-48
There is also a parallel with Herodotus Histories 9.109-112 which is about Xerxes and Artaynte. Thanks to John David Walters for pointing this one out.
Theological and Symbolic Interpretation:
It's important to remember that the Gospels often served theological and symbolic purposes, conveying deeper spiritual meanings beyond strict historical accuracy. The narratives may have been shaped to emphasize theological themes rather than to provide precise historical accounts. For example, the John the Baptist episode may have been created in order to foreshadow the execution, burial, and resurrection of Jesus.
I think getting things right (as shown by undesigned coincidences) outweighs getting things wrong due to the probabilities. People get things sincerely wrong all the time, and that doesn't mean they're lying; just mistaken. The rest of what they say can still be very true.
Getting a fact right--especially when you're not focused on it, as the UCs aren't--is much more difficult to do and unlikely to occur. That is, unless it is a true story.
In the inference to the best explanation section, you examine two hypotheses: either there was a text that was available to all the gospel authors, or there is a collection of real historical events that are being narrated. The first horn of the dilemma is relatively easy to dismiss as implausible -- however, it is not clear why you do not consider other candidates. An obvious such candidate would be an oral tradition -- a collection of stories that circulate in early christian communities, built around recollections of real events, and containing both embellishments and legendary elements. The existence of such stories does not strike me as improbable; and your argument against the ur-gospel is impotent here -- the gospels are exactly the effort by the community to protect the oral tradition from getting lost. Neither does it sound implausible that such stories would stray from the facts, especially when it comes to details such as the color of the grass or the exact time of the year when one event took place. In this context, the UCs are explained for free: people who fish in the same lake, catch similar fish -- and then cook them to their taste.
Regarding your D&C strategy, it is, of course, reasonable -- but the counter-point is that, for most people who have no commitment to some form of bible inerrancy, all the UCs would belong to the first kind: connections that can be reasonably doubted. The examples you give definitely seem to be -- for example: it might be that people coming and going was because of the passover; or maybe the author of Mark is just saying that the apostles were super successful in casting out demons, so many people were coming and going around them; and the mention to the Passover by the author of John is completely unrelated; and there is no UC to be explained, as there is no C. Of course, as you say, if one wanted to be thorough, they would have to go through this process for all the UCs, and show (rather than declare, as I do here) that they are in fact of the first kind. But, for the purposes of a youtube comment (or, indeed, a video) one might just respond: if the first UC you decided to provide is that tenuous, then "what need we any further witnesses"?
Second, but more excited for this. 🙂
I never really found undesigned coincidences compelling, just because I tend to take the Gospels as reliable history relative to other historical narratives of their time. It always feels like a long way to go just to get back where I started. But watching people try to refute undesigned coincidences always turns into such a collapse in bizarre, contradictory explanations that I realize that I'm just not the target audience.
I never understood how undesigned coincidences are supposed to make the entirely unverifiable miraculous stories of the gospels more likely to be true.
We know that Luke and Matthew copied from the gospel of Mark… and it’s highly unlikely that John didn’t know the stories of the synoptic gospels.
Even by the questionable traditional authorship all of the authors or at the very least the sources of the authors interacted with each other for decades before anything got written down.
The gospels aren’t independent eyewitness accounts they are just stories that the authors collected after years of exaggeration and embellishment… so this undesigned coincidence stuff is dead from the start.
@@ramigilneas9274 Ah, someone who just looked for a comment to reply to and didn't even watch the video. You are the perfect example of what I'm talking about.
@@ShaunCKennedyAuthor
The main takeaway was that the only people who still think that it’s a good argument are religious fanatics with no historical training whatsoever.😂
The argument doesn’t demonstrate that eyewitnesses were involved in the creation of the stories and it definitely doesn’t make any of the supernatural stuff more likely to be true… which explains why the vast majority of Apologists don’t use the argument.
It isn’t convincing… and talking about how amazing it is that an author apparently knew (or just guessed) that the grass was green makes your whole position look pretty silly.
@@ramigilneas9274 If that's true, constructing a counter argument similar to what's laid out in the video should be easy. Demonstrate that and I'll believe you
@@ShaunCKennedyAuthor
What argument?
To explain why no serious historian takes UCs seriously or to explain why the gospels probably weren’t written by eyewitnesses?
If different accounts of the Feeding of the 5000 become more credible due to undesigned coincidences, don't they become less credible due to (undesigned) contradictions. And there are some pretty good ones:
1) Who got to the solitary place first? Jesus (as in John 6:5) or the crowd (as in Mark 6:33)?
2) Did Jesus preach to the crowd before feeding them (Mark 6:34) or did he proceed immediately to the feeding (John 6:5)?
3) Who first raised the question of feeding the crowd, the disciples (Mark 6:35) or Jesus (John 6:5)?
Meaningless details and memory gaps? People wrote this. Questions like, did you eat or preach first? Anybody would be confused or not remember it correctly. But if something supernatural happens, they remember it. And the gospels were written like 40 years after the fact.
It's funny how everytime non-believers get proven wrong they find another thing to pick on. Thank you so much for your work. You're only making us stronger. And since we're telling the truth we can take any kind of scrutiny.
If we can respond to any and every objection shouldnt you just already give up and accept the truth?
@@black-cross One of McGrew's favorite UC's is based on Jesus asking Philip how they're going to feed that big crowd. There's nothing supernatural about his asking Philip that question. It's just a meaningless detail and as you've just explained, we can't rely on the accuracy of meaningless details found in the gospels, so this UC is now unconvincing. You can't cling to details when they work for you and reject them when they work against you.
@@mytwocents7481 and how does one thing being meaningless affects the rest?
And this does still works since it's proof that's related. And is still an UC.
@@mytwocents7481 you want God to not exist so badly is dumb.
Do you realize that if we're right, you won't get to explore the new universe he'll make?
And the gadgets and knowledge you use to insult him, you wont have them or have the joy of making new ones.
I'm a new Christian, can I ask something ?
Mt. 14:1-2
At that time Herod the tetrarch heard the reports about Jesus, and _he_ said to his attendants, “This is John the Baptist; he has risen from the dead! That is why miraculous powers are at work in him.”
Lk. 9:7
Now Herod the tetrarch heard about all that was going on. And he was perplexed because _some were saying_ that John had been raised from the dead
Why is this an undesigned coincidence especially when they contradict one another on who actually said this? Also, why can't they both just be dependent on Mark 6:14 which says:
King Herod heard about this, for Jesus’ name had become well known. Some were saying,* “John the Baptist has been raised from the dead, and that is why miraculous powers are at work in him.”
* Some manuscripts have "he was saying" for Mk. 6:14 but he repeats the resurrection claim in v. 16.
The undesigned coincidence here does not occur in the parallel passage in Luke. It occurs in a completely separate part of Luke. I think you need to revisit this section of the video again.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 I know about the "servants" and "Joanna wife of Chuza, the head of Herod's household" connection but:
1. The accounts in Matthew and Luke contradict in regards to exactly who made the claim. Lk. 9:8-9 adds some other stuff not found in the other accounts.
2. Matthew and Luke could have just been using Mark while making their own edits.
I don't see any reason to think this actually came from any of Herod's servants beyond that just being an appeal to possibility.
@counteringchristianity
1. No they don't. Show how a p and ~p is entailed by this.
2. So?
And that's just ignoring the coincidence. The historicity hypothesis is actually explaining the coincidence.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381
1. Yes they do. Matthew says Herod said it while Luke says others said it. So who actually said it? They also say different things so how do you know which one is accurate? Do you just combine both accounts and create your own version of events? Luke has to explicitly say _"some were saying this but Herod did not"_ in order to be justified in there being a contradiction? If you're doing that, then you could literally get out of almost any apparent contradiction within historical accounts.
2. Aside from exactly which version is correct, you don't actually have evidence Chuza or Joanna told anyone this story. None of the documents even claim that. It's a mere appeal to possibility when the smokescreen is removed.
@counteringchristianity
1. Luke does not say that Herod did not say this also. So no, they do not contradict. Again, a contradiction takes the form of p and ~p. You haven't shown how the texts entail a contradiction.
So I could get out of almost all contradictions this way. And? What's the problem? Is there some rule according to which we should prefer contradiction over harmonization? I'm not aware of any argument for such a presumption.
It is a possibility, but it's a possibility which has explanatory force. You're not explaining this fact, you're just ignoring it.
I have been using your video as a great example of a STRAW MAN ARGUMENT for my students!
So the Straw Man here is the way you present the interdependence of the Gospels in way no Biblical schollar would recognise - it's a massive misrepresentation. Also idea that the Gospel writers were just 'making things up' is another SM. The real claim is that they used sources that were available within their tradition AND each other. Books that use common sources sometimes quote word for word (like Matthew and Luke do of Mark) and at other times embroider facts, perhaps because they have a second source.
None of this makes the Gospels eye-witness testimony - in fact, why would eyewitnesses copy from another text?
The only exception is John, writing some 90 years into the first century who records conversations for which there were no witnesses and who is clearly making things up.
He answered all your affirmations in other videos.
I'd encourage you to watch my videos on the Synoptic Problem and the authorship of the Gospels. Most of your criticisms are answered there.
What do you think of lydia mcgrew overall?
I'm a fan
After watch video and read the comment , u will understand more about UC
Awesome channel and video. God bless.
I love how the McGroupies are all basically lawn care specialists now. You aren't convincing anyone with the green grass. Thanks for the laughs.
I love how McGrew haters consistently fail to interact with the substance of our arguments.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 what's the point? We just get snotty responses like your video assuming that we just don't understand your brilliant arguments. Why don't you tell me how I should write my comments from now on? Jesus Christ!
@adamcosper3308 has it ever dawned on you that those "snotty responses" which say that you are misunderstanding the argument might be motivated by the fact that you are, in fact, misunderstanding the argument? Ever considered that possibility?
@@adamcosper3308 I have yet to see one person who is against the argument from undesigned coincidences in general, and who simultaneously could demonstrate that they knew what it even meant.
It's not an assumption that opponents of it don't understand it. It's a repeated observation.
@@faithbecauseofreason8381 Very Christ like of you. Here I am at risk of eternal damnation and you just want win the argument. Do you apologists even worship Jesus? Seems like you worship your own ego and Jesus is just something to be right about. Have you ever considered that people understand your argument and don't accept them or grant them the same weight that you do? Sort of dumb for a smart guy.