THE GOSPEL WRITERS PROVIDED UNINTENTIONAL EYEWITNESS SUPPORT
As we discussed in chapter 4, one of the most important tasks for a detective is to listen carefully when multiple eyewitnesses provide a statement about what they observed at the scene of a crime. It’s my job to assemble the complete picture of what happened at the scene. No single witness is likely to have seen every detail, so I must piece together the accounts, allowing the observations of one eyewitness to fill in the gaps that may exist in the observations of another eyewitness. That’s why it’s so important for eyewitnesses to be separated before they are interviewed. True, reliable eyewitness accounts are never completely parallel and identical. Instead, they are different pieces of the same puzzle, unintentionally supporting and complementing each other to provide all the details related to what really happened.
More “Unintentional Support”
There are many examples of “undesigned coincidences” in the gospel eyewitness accounts. Here are a few more:
Question: Matthew 8:16
Why did they wait until evening to bring those who needed healing?
Answer: Mark 1:21; Luke 4:31
Because it was the Sabbath.
Question: Matthew 14:1–2
Why did Herod tell his servants that he thought Jesus was John the Baptist, raised from the dead?
Answer: Luke 8:3; Acts 13:1
Many of Jesus’s followers were from Herod’s household.
Question: Luke 23:1–4
Why didn’t Pilate find a charge against Jesus even though Jesus claimed to be a King?
Answer: John 18:33–38
Jesus told Pilate that his kingdom was not of this world.
When I first read through the Gospels forensically, comparing those places where two or more gospel writers were describing the same event, I was immediately struck by the inadvertent support that each writer provided for the other. The accounts puzzled together just the way one would expect from independent eyewitnesses. When one gospel eyewitness described an event and left out a detail that raised a question, this question was unintentionally answered by another gospel writer (who, by the way, often left out a detail that was provided by the first gospel writer). This interdependence between the accounts could be explained in one of two ways. It may have been that the writers worked together, writing at precisely the same time and location, to craft a clever lie so subtle that very few people would even notice it at all. The second possibility is that the Gospels were written by different eyewitnesses who witnessed the event and included these unplanned supporting details; they were simply describing something that actually happened.
As someone who was new to the Bible, I began to investigate whether or not anyone else had observed this phenomenon and found that a professor of divinity named J. J. Blunt wrote a book in 1847 entitled Undesigned Coincidences in the Writings of the Old and New Testament, an Argument of Their Veracity; with an Appendix, Containing Undesigned Coincidences between the Gospels and Acts, and Josephus. This was one of the first books about the Bible I ever purchased. In his section related to the Gospels and the book of Acts, Blunt identified the very same inadvertent parallel passages I discovered when examining the Gospels forensically. Blunt described the phenomenon as a series of “undesigned coincidences” and identified over forty locations in the New Testament where this feature of unintentional eyewitness support could be seen on the pages of Scripture. Let me give you a few examples of what we are talking about here.
THE CALLING OF THE DISCIPLES
As someone unfamiliar with the Bible, the calling of Peter, Andrew, James, and John seemed odd to me when I first read it in the gospel of Matthew:
Now as Jesus was walking by the Sea of Galilee, He saw two brothers, Simon who was called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen. And He said to them, “Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men.” Immediately they left their nets and followed Him. Going on from there He saw two other brothers, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in the boat with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; and He called them. Immediately they left the boat and their father, and followed Him. (Matt. 4:18–22)
That’s it? Jesus walked up and said, “Follow Me,” and they dropped everything “immediately”? Who would do that? How did they even know who Jesus was or if anything about Him was worthy of that kind of dedication? If Matthew’s account was the only testimony available to us (and for many communities in the ancient world, it was the only testimony available, at least for a number of years), this would remain a mystery. I do believe there is a clue in Matthew’s version of events (the mending of the nets), but the questions raised by Matthew aren’t answered for us until we hear from Luke:
Now it happened that while the crowd was pressing around Him and listening to the word of God, He was standing by the lake of Gennesaret; and He saw two boats lying at the edge of the lake; but the fishermen had gotten out of them and were washing their nets. And He got into one of the boats, which was Simon’s, and asked him to put out a little way from the land. And He sat down and began teaching the people from the boat. When He had finished speaking, He said to Simon, “Put out into the deep water and let down your nets for a catch.” Simon answered and said, “Master, we worked hard all night and caught nothing, but I will do as You say and let down the nets.” When they had done this, they enclosed a great quantity of fish, and their nets began to break; so they signaled to their partners in the other boat for them to come and help them. And they came and filled both of the boats, so that they began to sink. But when Simon Peter saw that, he fell down at Jesus’ feet, saying, “Go away from me Lord, for I am a sinful man!” For amazement had seized him and all his companions because of the catch of fish which they had taken; and so also were James and John, sons of Zebedee, who were partners with Simon. And Jesus said to Simon, “Do not fear, from now on you will be catching men.” When they had brought their boats to land, they left everything and followed Him. (Luke 5:1–11)
The disciples didn’t just jump in with Jesus on a whim after all. Matthew was interested in describing how the disciples were called, but Luke was interested in providing a bit more detail. When the testimony of all the witnesses is considered in unison, we get the complete picture. The disciples heard Jesus preach and saw the miracle of the abundant catch of fish. This harvest of fish was so impressive and large that it broke their nets. Only after returning to the shore (and while James and John were mending their torn nets) did Jesus call them to follow Him. They left their lives as fishermen on the basis of the things Jesus taught and the miracle Jesus performed.
THE STRIKING OF JESUS
In the next example, let’s examine the description of Jesus’s beating that Matthew offered in chapter 26 of his gospel. In this scene, describing Jesus’s examination before Caiaphas, Matthew told us that the chief priests and the members of the council struck Jesus and slapped Him when he “blasphemed” by identifying Himself as the “Son of Man”:
Then they spat in His face and beat Him with their fists; and others slapped Him, and said, “Prophesy to us, You Christ; who is the one who hit You?” (Matt. 26:67–68)
More “Unintentional Support”
There are many examples of “undesigned coincidences” in the gospel eyewitness accounts. Here are a few more:
Question: Matthew 26:71
Why did the maid notice Peter?
Answer: John 18:16
A disciple spoke with her when he brought Peter inside.
Question: Mark 15:43
Why did Mark say Joseph of Arimathea acted “boldly” (NIV)?
Answer: John 19:38
Joseph was previously a secret disciple who was in fear of the Jews.
This question posed by members of the council seems odd. Jesus
’s attackers were standing right in front of Him; why would they ask Him, “Who is the one who hit You?” It doesn’t seem like much of a challenge, given that Jesus could look at His attackers and identify them easily. Luke told us more, however:
Now the men who were holding Jesus in custody were mocking Him and beating Him, and they blindfolded Him and were asking Him, saying, “Prophesy, who is the one who hit You?” And they were saying many other things against Him, blaspheming. (Luke 22:63–65)
Once again, one gospel eyewitness unintentionally supported the other in what J. J. Blunt called an “undesigned coincidence.” Matthew’s narrative makes sense once we read in Luke’s account that Jesus was blindfolded. Imagine for a moment that you are one of the earliest converts to Christianity, at a time and place in history where the gospel of Matthew was the only available account (in chapter 13, for example, we’ll hear a report of the gospel of Matthew used in the early days of Christianity to teach new believers east of Africa). This passage would be puzzling; it would raise a question that might never be answered unless you had access to the other eyewitness accounts. As a cold-case detective, I’ve experienced something similar to this a number of times. Often, questions an eyewitness raises at the time of the crime are left unanswered until we locate an additional witness years later. This is a common characteristic of true, reliable eyewitness accounts.
THE FEEDING OF THE FIVE THOUSAND
Perhaps the finest example of unintentional support is found in an episode described in all four gospels: the miracle of the “feeding of the five thousand.” Mark’s account of this miracle raises a question when considered without input from the other gospel writers. Mark wrote that just prior to this event, Jesus sent out the disciples to preach repentance in the local towns and villages. When they returned, they found themselves surrounded by a multitude of people:
The apostles gathered together with Jesus; and they reported to Him all that they had done and taught. And He said to them, “Come away by yourselves to a secluded place and rest a while.” (For there were many people coming and going, and they did not even have time to eat.) They went away in the boat to a secluded place by themselves. The people saw them going, and many recognized them and ran there together on foot from all the cities, and got there ahead of them. When Jesus went ashore, He saw a large crowd, and He felt compassion for them because they were like sheep without a shepherd; and He began to teach them many things. When it was already quite late, His disciples came to Him and said, “This place is desolate and it is already quite late; send them away so that they may go into the surrounding countryside and villages and buy themselves something to eat.” But He answered them, “You give them something to eat!” And they said to Him, “Shall we go and spend two hundred denarii on bread and give them something to eat?” And He said to them, “How many loaves do you have? Go look!” And when they found out, they said, “Five, and two fish.” And He commanded them all to sit down by groups on the green grass. They sat down in groups of hundreds and of fifties. And He took the five loaves and the two fish, and looking up toward heaven, He blessed the food and broke the loaves and He kept giving them to the disciples to set before them; and He divided up the two fish among them all. They all ate and were satisfied, and they picked up twelve full baskets of the broken pieces, and also of the fish. There were five thousand men who ate the loaves. (Mark 6:30–44)
According to Mark, many people were coming and going in the area, even before Jesus and His disciples became the focal point of this crowd. Why was this crowd in the area in the first place? Mark never said. The question Mark’s account raised isn’t answered until we hear John’s testimony:
After these things Jesus went away to the other side of the Sea of Galilee (or Tiberias). A large crowd followed Him, because they saw the signs which He was performing on those who were sick. Then Jesus went up on the mountain, and there He sat down with His disciples. Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was near. Therefore Jesus, lifting up His eyes and seeing that a large crowd was coming to Him, said to Philip, “Where are we to buy bread, so that these may eat?” This He was saying to test him, for He Himself knew what He was intending to do. Philip answered Him, “Two hundred denarii worth of bread is not sufficient for them, for everyone to receive a little.” One of His disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, said to Him, “There is a lad here who has five barley loaves and two fish, but what are these for so many people?” Jesus said, “Have the people sit down.” Now there was much grass in the place. So the men sat down, in number about five thousand. Jesus then took the loaves, and having given thanks, He distributed to those who were seated; likewise also of the fish as much as they wanted. When they were filled, He said to His disciples, “Gather up the leftover fragments so that nothing will be lost.” So they gathered them up, and filled twelve baskets with fragments from the five barley loaves which were left over by those who had eaten. (John 6:1–13)
John answered the question raised by Mark. The large crowd was the result of two circumstances: First, John alone told us that the people searched for Jesus because they knew He had been performing miraculous healings. Second, John alone said that it was nearly Passover, the holy Jewish holiday that caused thousands to travel through this area to arrive at Jerusalem for the celebration. While Mark mentioned the crowd, only John told us why it was there in the first place. But in unintentionally answering the question raised by Mark, John raised an unanswered question of his own. John’s account mentioned Philip and Andrew specifically. This stood out to me, only because the use of pronouns and proper names is an important focus of Forensic Statement Analysis. Andrew and Philip are not major characters in the Gospels; the gospel writers seldom mention them, especially when compared with Peter, John, and James. For this reason, their appearance here raises a couple of questions. Why did Jesus ask Philip where they ought to go to buy bread? Why did Andrew get involved in the answer? In addition to this, John also mentioned a detail that was not found in Mark’s briefer account. John said that the disciples fed the crowd “barley loaves.” John also repeated Mark’s testimony that there was “much grass” in the area. In order to make sense of the questions John raised and the role of the grass and the barley, let’s finish with an examination of Luke’s account:
When the apostles returned, they gave an account to Him of all that they had done. Taking them with Him, He withdrew by Himself to a city called Bethsaida. But the crowds were aware of this and followed Him; and welcoming them, He began speaking to them about the kingdom of God and curing those who had need of healing. Now the day was ending, and the twelve came and said to Him, “Send the crowd away, that they may go into the surrounding villages and countryside and find lodging and get something to eat; for here we are in a desolate place.” But He said to them, “You give them something to eat!” And they said, “We have no more than five loaves and two fish, unless perhaps we go and buy food for all these people.” (For there were about five thousand men.) And He said to His disciples, “Have them sit down to eat in groups of about fifty each.” They did so, and had them all sit down. Then He took the five loaves and the two fish, and looking up to heaven, He blessed them, and broke them, and kept giving them to the disciples to set before the people. And they all ate and were satisfied; and the broken pieces which they had left over were picked up, twelve baskets full. (Luke 9:10–17)
Luke is the only one who told us that this event occurred when Jesus withdrew to the city of Bethsaida. This revelation unlocks the mystery of Philip and Andrew’s prominence in John’s testimony; they were both from Bethsaida (according to John 1:44). We learned this detail not from Luke (who told us that the miracle occurred in Bethsaida) but from John (who mentioned it without any connection to the miracle). Jesus asked Philip about sources for the bread because He knew that Philip was from this part of the country. Philip and Andrew naturally tried their best to respond, given that they were uniquely qualified to a
nswer Jesus’s question.
What about the grass and barley? Why were these details included in the narrative? Are they consistent with what eyewitnesses might have actually seen or experienced? As it turns out, the Passover occurred at a time (in April) that followed five of the rainiest months for the area of Bethsaida. In addition to this, the Passover occurred at the end of the barley harvest.50 These meaningless details are just what I would expect to hear from eyewitnesses who were simply describing what they saw, including the details that don’t really matter in the larger narrative.
THE GOSPEL WRITERS REFERENCED NAMES CORRECTLY
When I interview eyewitnesses, I listen carefully to their descriptions of the suspect and the environment in which the crime took place. Their observations of the scene, if they are genuine, should reflect the true nature of the time and location of the crime. When Aimee told me about her observations of the suspect in 1982, she described a Journey concert shirt that promoted an album (Escape) that was released in 1981. The description of the shirt was consistent with the time frame of the murder. If Aimee had described a shirt that was unavailable until 1990, for example, I would have been concerned that her statement was either inadvertently inaccurate or deliberately false.
The Corroboration of Language
The gospel writers did more than correctly cite the popular names of first-century Palestinian Jews. They also appear to have written in a style that was similar to those who lived at that time. Nonbiblical scraps of papyrus and pottery from the first century provide us with samples of the form of Greek that was popular in the ancient Middle East. The Greek used by the gospel writers is very similar to the vernacular “common” Greek that was used by others who lived in this region at this time in history. (For more details, refer to The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? by F. F. Bruce.)
Cold-Case Christianity Page 20
