I suggest that we have such ample evidence for the reliability of these documents that we should consider ourselves privileged rather than burdened when called upon to present it. We should welcome the opportunity to reclaim and maintain the forward position held by the older apologists, for their arguments have been not so much refuted as forgotten in the shifts of theological fashion. (McGrew, 192)
Drawing heavily on Paley's "Evidences of Christianity" and Blunt's "Scriptural Coincidences" (both free online due to their age), in Hidden in Plain View, Lydia McGrew presented a fresh and compelling argument on the historical reliability and accuracy on Scripture. Apparently this argument of (humanly) "undesigned coincidences" within Scripture traces back to the 18th and 19th centuries, but it mostly disappeared. Now, due to a cousin's recommendation and the fact that it was available on Kindle Unlimited, I have gotten to read and benefit from this really useful book and argument. Hidden in Plain View was helpful in four areas:
1. Reliability of Scripture (apologetics)
2. Dealing with Bible difficulties (apologetics and hermeneutics)
3. The 'Synoptic problem' in the Gospels (apologetics and hermeneutics)
4. Insight into New Testament Scripture (hermeneutics)
For the frequent reader or long-term student of the New Testament, the material in this book will probably be both extremely familiar and regularly surprising. This is particularly true of the first half, which deals with the Gospels. The reason for this is that as we have imbibed the different portions of the Scripture, we have often synthesized them in our understanding. This is obviously a good thing! However, it comes with the downside of not necessarily distinguishing the sources of the pieces of knowledge from each other. Therefore, we may not be fully aware of many of the cases of Scripture supporting Scripture in the nitty gritty details.
Again, this unawareness of specific links between is especially true in the four Gospel accounts, where the genres and narratives are so often read in parallel. On the other hand, I found that I was more aware of the subtle links between the accounts in Acts and the Pauline letters. I suspect that this is because each of these is more likely to be studied independently. Conversely, the Gospels, particularly the Synoptics (Matthew, Mark, Luke), are frequently studied as a whole.
It is in this connection that McGrew sheds light on the so-called 'synoptic problem', which she names 'the synoptic puzzle.' In fascinating details, she shows the independence of the four Gospel witnesses from each other. Most interestingly, as she points out, the details of independence often emerge at exactly the places where the accounts seem most harmonized (dependent?) at a surface level. This perspective also gives a clear response to the common question, 'Why are there four gospels (not just one)? (The apparently similar question of the later, Gnostic gospels such as the Gospel of Barnabas or the Gospel of Thomas, is quite separate actually.)
The providential provision of four Gospels gives us a three-dimensional view of the events. (p. 193)
It was also in the Gospel sections, that I felt like there were the most significant insights into passages allowing deeper understanding of the meaning of each passage. For example, the links between John 13 where Jesus washes his followers' feet and Luke 22 where he describes servant leadership and declares, "I am among you as one who serves" are particularly poignant. The strength of this connection will certainly inform my thinking going forward.
Anyways, this book is definitely worth reading, if not in all the details, at least to get the main argument. It is approachable in tone and, because she usually quotes the passages she is dealing with in their entirety, the argument has greater force as you see the coincidences in the details of the texts.
A few additional quotes to stir your interest (bold emphasis mine, italics original):
But it is particularly noticeable that the Gospel authors often seem to write with the lack of affectation that we find in a person whose primary purpose is getting important information out there, getting down what happened, making it available, rather than in one whose primary purpose is to fit together what he writes in a polished manner. The author of the Gospel of John is certainly theological, perhaps more so than any of the other Gospel writers. But again and again we find him including items in his Gospel without their full explanations, apparently just because he wanted his readers to know that they happened. (p. 44)
What one sees in undesigned coincidences, again and again, are points which “impressed themselves upon the eye” of the spectator and came thus into the accounts we now have. (p. 63)
It’s also worth noting that any intentional connection of this miracle with the earlier miracle could, if both occurred, be attributed to Jesus himself. [...] It’s important not to assume that, if there are resemblances between two events in the Gospels, this automatically implies a literary parallel created by the author. (p. 207)
