![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2023\/02\/fractal-2067420_640.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nAtheist and prolix critic of Christianity and the Bible Bob Seidensticker<\/a> runs the popular and influential Cross Examined<\/em>\u00a0blog<\/a>. This is my 83rd critique of his articles<\/a> (no counter-reply as of yet). He was gracious enough to send me a free e-book copy of his new volume, 2-Minute Christianity:\u00a050 Big Ideas Every Christian Should Understand<\/em><\/a>\u00a0(May 2022),\u00a0which I critiqued point-by-point<\/a>. His words will be in\u00a0blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n This is a reply to portions of Bob\u2019s article, \u201cDefending the Bible with undesigned coincidences\u201d<\/a> (2-13-23). Bob will be informed in a personal letter of this response.<\/p>\n Searching for undesigned coincidences is an exciting new pastime within Christian apologetics. Well, maybe not new\u2014it\u2019s an exciting revived<\/em>\u00a0pastime.<\/span>\u00a0Undesigned Coincidences in the Writings Both of the Old and New Testament<\/em><\/a>\u00a0was published in 1854, and other books preceded it.<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s a fascinating and fruitful subject matter, for sure. My friend Lydia McGrew (traditional Anglican) has published the book, Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts<\/span><\/a><\/em> (2017).<\/span><\/p>\n More important, these two gospels don\u2019t tell the same story. In Matthew, the beating comes from members of the Sanhedrin, at the end of the trial. But in Luke, it\u2019s\u00a0guards<\/em>\u00a0who beat Jesus, and\u00a0then<\/em>\u00a0he\u2019s taken to the Sanhedrin.<\/span><\/p>\n Let\u2019s see if we can find actual proof one of the infamous \u201ccontradictions\u201d dreamt up by atheists, between Matthew and Luke. Matthew provides the story of Peter\u2019s denial of Christ immediately after<\/em> stating:<\/p>\n Matthew 26:67-68<\/strong> (RSV) Then they spat in his face, and struck him; and some slapped him, [68] saying, \u201cProphesy to us, you Christ! Who is it that struck you?\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Luke presents the same story of Peter right before<\/em> the same incident:<\/p>\n Luke 22:63-65\u00a0<\/strong>Now the men who were holding Jesus mocked him and beat him;\u00a0[64] they also blindfolded him and asked him, \u201cProphesy! Who is it that struck you?\u201d [65] And they spoke many other words against him, reviling him.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Clearly, both believe that Peter\u2019s denial occurred at roughly the same time as this \u201cbeating\u201d incident (during a portion of Jesus\u2019 kangaroo court trial). Neither specifically note that the Peter incident was before<\/em> or after<\/em> the other in time, so there is no undeniable contradiction. Nor is it necessary to even know<\/em> that detail. Witnesses (or Peter\u2019s own report) wouldn\u2019t have known exactly what<\/em> was happening inside the building or when<\/em> any given thing happened, since they were outside of it. Chronology in the Bible, in any event, was not viewed in a strictly linear fashion, like we do today (that\u2019s much more of\u00a0 Greek thing than a Hebrew \/ Semitic thing). Topical similarities are relatively more important.<\/p>\n Seidensticker claims there is a contradiction between guards beating Jesus in one account, and the Sanhedrin doing so in the other, and in the two chronologies presented. But is there, really<\/em>? Luke describes them as \u201cthe men who were holding Jesus.\u201d But earlier in his text, he reveals that the same men were \u201cthe chief priests and officers of the temple and elders, who had come out against him\u201d (Lk 22:52), who \u201cseized him and led him away, bringing him into the high priest\u2019s house\u201d (22:54).<\/p>\n Therefore, they weren\u2019t merely<\/em> \u201cguards\u201d (we know for sure). Matthew is less specific in the immediate context: \u201cthose who had seized Jesus led him to Ca\u2019iaphas\u201d (26:57). But earlier he, too, identifies them as, specifically, \u201cthe chief priests and the elders\u201d (26:47). Matthew mentions, in harmony with Luke, that there were \u201celders\u201d (Mt 26:57) and \u201cchief priests\u201d (26:59) at the trial. Luke likewise mentions those two categories of people at the trial (Lk 22:66).<\/p>\n Everything is exactly the same except that Luke added the non-contradictory additional category of \u201cofficers of the temple\u201d among those who seized Jesus. Neither uses the word \u201cguard.\u201d That is Bob\u2019s mere guess. But granted, these people were \u201cholding\u201d Jesus, and so that is guarding Him. In any event, it\u2019s the same groups of people in both accounts: those who were part of the council.<\/p>\n The harmonization of the two accounts seems clear and obvious to me: some of the \u201celders\u201d and chief priests\u201d who were among those present at the trial went out to seize Jesus, having obtained information as to His whereabouts from Judas. Matthew states that Judas \u201cwent to the chief priests\u201d (Mt 26:14) to betray Jesus. Luke reports that \u201che went away and conferred with the chief priests and officers how he might betray him to them\u201d (Lk 22:4). And so he noted that \u201cchief priests and officers\u201d (acting on this information) seized Jesus (22:52, 54).<\/p>\n We find the same in Mark. Judas went to the \u201cchief priests\u201d (Mk 14:10), and the ones who seized Jesus were \u201cfrom the chief priests and the scribes and the elders\u201d (Mk 14:43): the same three groups of people who were in the assembly (Mk 14:53). Mark does<\/em> say that \u201cguards\u201d struck Jesus (Mk 14:65), but there is no reason to not believe that they were from among the assembly. Furthermore, John states that Judas came with \u201ca band of soldiers and some officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees\u201d (Jn 18:3; cf. 18:12).<\/p>\n The same people were guarding Him \u2014 were close to Him \u2014 during the trial (while they were part of\u00a0 the deliberations) and struck him in mockery and hatred. They were part and parcel of the council. Thus, no inexorable contradiction whatsoever is present. Atheists like Bob are quick to claim \u201ccontradiction!\u201d But it\u2019s almost always a superficial analysis (nothing like what I have just provided). They don\u2019t demonstrate or prove how they can\u2019t possibly<\/em> be harmonious accounts. The analyses lack logical rigor, to put it mildly.<\/p>\n So what is an undesigned coincidence? Tim McGrew<\/span>\u00a0defines it this way<\/a>:<\/p>\n Sometimes two works written by different authors incidentally touch on the same point in a manner that cannot be written off as copying or having a copy made from some third source.\u2026 The two records interlock like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Yes; this happens all the time<\/em> in the Bible. I know, because I\u2019ve been defending it against\u00a0 innumerable atheist charges of contradiction, that invariably come to nothing. I hope that this will be my next officially published book: Anti-Bible: Refutations of XXX Alleged Biblical Contradictions.<\/em><\/a> My solution above will be added to it.<\/p>\n Sure, let\u2019s say that the books of the New Testament have omissions. That makes them look like ordinary books written with no supernatural oversight.<\/span><\/p>\n No; it makes them look like books written in the ordinary manner (and able to be interpreted by means of reason) before we get<\/em> to the question of inspiration or even their religious or theological nature, generally speaking. All of this analysis is of that sort. A supernatural inspired and infallible revelation would have to, by definition, be free from error, or at least significant<\/em> error (beyond an extra zero added, or likely mere manuscript transmission errors, etc.). That\u2019s why the discussion of alleged contradictions is important.<\/p>\n If and when the Christian apologist debunks<\/em>\u00a0these, he is showing that the Bible is accurate, which is consistent<\/em> with inspiration, but doesn\u2019t prove<\/em> it. If he doesn\u2019t<\/em>\u00a0succeed, then the doctrine of inspiration would be in significant trouble. We solve the alleged contradictions in order to prove biblical accuracy<\/em>, not inspiration<\/em>, which is a much more complex additional matter. Accuracy of hundreds of details confirms overall accuracy, by cumulative argument, and suggests<\/em> a possible<\/em> inspiration. And this is important in and of itself, as just explained.<\/p>\n This is like the<\/span>\u00a0Argument from Accurate Place Names<\/a>, which praises the Bible for recording the names for many places that are later confirmed by history or archaeology. Big deal.<\/span><\/p>\n Yes it is<\/em> a big deal, because the Bible has often been accused of getting these details wrong, because (so the skeptic claims) it\u2019s not<\/em> inspired. Demonstrating accuracy in this respect shows that the Bible has characteristics (accuracy of place names) which are consistent<\/em> with, and a prerequisite<\/em> to, inspiration. Both sides have to be aware of the logic and epistemology involved, and what is being claimed<\/em> for any given argument.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Practical Matters<\/em><\/strong>: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive \u201cone-stop\u201d Catholic apologetics site) or\u00a0fifty-one books<\/a>\u00a0have helped you (by God\u2019s grace) to decide to\u00a0become Catholic<\/a>\u00a0or to\u00a0return to the Church<\/a>,\u00a0or better understand some doctrines and\u00a0why<\/em>\u00a0we believe them<\/a>.<\/p>\n Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I\u2019m always in need of more funds: especially\u00a0monthly<\/em>\u00a0support. \u201cThe laborer is worthy of his wages\u201d (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a\u00a0full-time Catholic apologist<\/a>,\u00a0and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.<\/p>\n PayPal donations<\/a>\u00a0are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You\u2019ll see the term \u201cCatholic Used Book Service\u201d, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page:\u00a0About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong \/ Donation Information<\/a>.\u00a0Thanks a million<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0from the bottom of my heart!<\/p>\n<\/div>\n ***<\/p>\n Photo credit:<\/strong><\/span> darksouls1<\/a> [Pixabay<\/a> \/ Pixabay license<\/a>]<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Summary<\/em>: Atheist Bob Seidensticker says Matthew & Luke differ about who mocked and beat Jesus at His trial. I prove the contrary, and also the harmony of several related facts.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Atheist and prolix critic of Christianity and the Bible Bob Seidensticker runs the popular and influential Cross Examined\u00a0blog. This is my 83rd critique of his articles (no counter-reply as of yet). He was gracious enough to send me a free e-book copy of his new volume, 2-Minute Christianity:\u00a050 Big Ideas Every Christian Should Understand\u00a0(May 2022),\u00a0which […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":69927,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[124],"tags":[12775,2519,16821,16818,1043,16815,745,258,335,524,4126,329,775,1367,12497,1366,17097,3843,17103,17100],"class_list":["post-69924","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-atheism-agnosticism","tag-difficulties-arent-contradictions","tag-alleged-biblical-contradictions","tag-anti-bible-arguments","tag-anti-christian-arguments","tag-anti-theism","tag-anti-theist-arguments","tag-anti-theists","tag-atheism","tag-atheists","tag-bible-difficulties","tag-bob-seidensticker","tag-christian-apologetics","tag-clearness-of-scripture","tag-critiques-of-christianity","tag-faith-evidence","tag-faith-reason","tag-historical-trustworthiness-of-scripture","tag-historicity-of-the-bible","tag-undesigned-biblical-coincidences","tag-undesigned-coincidences-in-the-bible"],"yoast_head":"\n