Any discussion of the evidence for the resurrection must first ascertain what the original apostolic witnesses claimed and whether those claims are best explained by the resurrection, or by some alternative hypothesis.
The Resurrection of Jesus: The Evidential Contribution of Luke-Acts Read More »
Jaros does not seem to appreciate the value of casualness. He fails to understand how an undesigned coincidence can occur in the same document, or how a writer might provide information that unintentionally corroborates (in a manner that can be detected) some fact that the said author is also aware of.
Defending Inter-Synoptic Undesigned Coincidences: A Response to Kurt Jaros Read More »
Since it is a fair assumption that Ehrman has chosen his best and, to his mind, most convincing examples of alleged contradictions in the gospels and Acts, the abject failure of Ehrman’s proposed contradictions should give us renewed confidence in the substantial trustworthiness of the Biblical accounts.
Finding Contradictions Where There Is None: A Review of Jesus, Interrupted (Part 3) Read More »
An unexplained allusion refers to when a source mentions superfluous details that are not relevant to the story. Typically, when inventing a story, one would want to minimize unnecessary details, especially if those unnecessary details are subject to investigation.
Unexplained Allusions and the Credibility of the Gospel Accounts Read More »
This category of evidence, though seldom discussed in contemporary apologetics literature, contributes to the cumulative case for the substantial trustworthiness of the gospel accounts.
Artless Similarities: Another Category of Evidence for the Reliability of the Gospels Read More »
With Bart Ehrman I regrettably have learned never to trust him to accurately represent his sources since, from past experience, I know him to be misquoting or misrepresenting his sources far more often than he accurately represents them.
The next time a scholar who holds a PhD and a professorship position at a major University, like Bart Ehrman, attempts to challenge your confidence in the reliability of Scripture, do not be intimidated. Instead tell him that you would like to read his sources for yourself.
An important feature of undesigned coincidences, which I think is all-too-often overlooked by critics, including Jaros, is the failure to understand the evidential significance of an appearance of casualness. This is what drives many to assume that the evangelists had to have no knowledge of each other’s work before we can argue for an undesigned coincidence.
Undesigned Coincidences and the Synoptic Puzzle: A Reply to Kurt Jaros Read More »
Nelson has not offered compelling reason to reconsider the use of undesigned coincidences in the cumulative argument for the substantial reliability of the gospels, and the Scriptures more broadly.
Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels: A Reply to John Nelson Read More »
In this article, I will consider three categories of undesigned coincidences in the New Testament – that is, examples between the gospels, examples between the book of Acts and the epistles of Paul, and examples involving the external secular sources that corroborate elements of the New Testament.