Facts That Luke Gets Right, Which Show He Was a Careful Historian

Introduction

When evaluating ancient historical documents, credibility is forged in the details. A common test among historians is to examine whether an author accurately records the shifting political boundaries, obscure governmental titles, local dialects, and geographic realities of their time. Across the Book of Acts, Luke provides an extraordinary amount of testable data - from the proper designation of local magistrates to precise maritime conditions in the Mediterranean. Far from reading like second-century myth or legendary embellishment, Luke’s narrative displays the meticulous accuracy of an author with firsthand knowledge and exceptional historical precision.

Here are the facts that Luke the author of Acts, gets right regarding local places, titles, names, environmental conditions, customs, and circumstances.

🗺️ Facts on Geography, Travel, and Locales (Acts References)

Fact	Key Term/Detail	Acts Reference
Natural crossing between correctly named ports	Sailed to Cyprus, landed at Salamis and Paphos	Acts 13:4–5
Proper port along the direct destination	Sailed to Perga in Pamphylia	Acts 13:13
Proper location of Lycaonia	Fled to Lystra and Derbe, cities of Lycaonia	Acts 14:6
Unusual but correct declension of Lystra	Cities of Lycaonia: Lystra and Derbe (grammatical detail)	Acts 14:6
Correct language spoken in Lystra	Spoke in the Lycaonian language	Acts 14:11
Proper port for returning travelers	Went down to Attalia	Acts 14:25
Correct order of approach to Derbe and Lystra	Passed through Derbe and Lystra	Acts 16:1; cf. 15:41
Proper form of the name Troas	Came down to Troas	Acts 16:8
Sailors' landmark, Samothrace	Sailed from Troas, came with a straight course to Samothrace	Acts 16:11
Right location for the river (Gangites) near Philippi	Went out of the city by a river side (The Gangites is locally attested)	Acts 16:13
Proper locations for successive nights	Passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia	Acts 17:1
Sea travel convenient to Athens with winds	Paul departed to go by sea to Athens (implying the best route)	Acts 17:14–15
Correct sequence of places	Sailed from Troas, came to Assos, Mitylene, Chios, Samos, and Trogylium, arrived at Miletus	Acts 20:14–15
Correct name of the city as a neuter plural (Patara)	Came to Patara	Acts 21:1
Appropriate route favored by persistent winds	Sailed away from Cyprus... sailed across the sea of Cilicia and Pamphylia (suggests a northern route against northwest winds)	Acts 21:3
Suitable distance between these cities	Came to Caesarea (approx. 55 miles from Ptolemais)	Acts 21:8
Natural stopping point on the way to Caesarea	From Antipatris, they came to Caesarea (about 30 miles)	Acts 23:31
Best shipping lanes at the time	Sailed across the sea which is off Cilicia and Pamphylia	Acts 27:5
Common bonding of Cilicia and Pamphylia	Sailed across the sea which is off Cilicia and Pamphylia	Acts 27:4
Principal port to find a ship sailing to Italy	Came to Myra, a city of Lycia, and found a ship of Alexandria sailing to Italy	Acts 27:5–6
Slow passage to Cnidus against the northwest wind	Sailed slowly for many days and arrived with difficulty off Cnidus	Acts 27:7
Right route to sail in view of the winds	Sailed under the shelter of Crete (south side)	Acts 27:7
Locations of Fair Havens and Lasea	Came to a place called Fair Havens, near which was the city of Lasea	Acts 27:8
Fair Havens as a poorly sheltered roadstead	Because the harbor was not suitable to winter in	Acts 27:12
Rhegium as a refuge for southerly wind	The next day we came to Rhegium. And after one day the south wind blew	Acts 28:13
Appii Forum and Tres Tabernae as stopping places	Brothers came out to meet us at Appii Forum and Tres Tabernae	Acts 28:15

🏛️ Facts on Official Titles and Governance (Acts References)

Fact	Key Term/Detail	Acts Reference
Philippi as a Roman colony	Roman colony (kolonia)	Acts 16:12
Correct designations for the magistrates	Magistrates (strategoi)	Acts 16:22
Proper term for magistrates in Thessalonica	Politarchs (politarchas)	Acts 17:6
Correct title for a member of the court	Areopagites	Acts 17:34
Gallio as proconsul	Proconsul (anthupaton)	Acts 18:12
Correct title for the chief executive in Ephesus	Town Clerk (grammateus)	Acts 19:35
Proper title of honor	Temple Keeper (neokoros)	Acts 19:35
Proper term for those holding court	Proconsuls (anthupatois)	Acts 19:38
Use of plural anthupatoi	Proconsuls (anthupatoi)	Acts 19:38
The "regular" assembly	Lawful assembly (ennomos ekklēsia)	Acts 19:39
Permanent stationing of a Roman cohort	Commander (chiliarchos) at Antonia Fortress (implied)	Acts 21:31
Common way to obtain Roman citizenship	Bought citizenship with a large sum	Acts 22:28
Tribune impressed with Roman citizenship	Free-born Roman citizenship	Acts 22:29
Felix being governor	Governor (hēgemona) Felix	Acts 23:34
Cilicia's jurisdiction	Paul transferred from Caesarea to Herod's palace in Cilicia (as a general area)	Acts 23:34
Provincial penal procedure	Trial and accusers/defendant present	Acts 24:1–9
Name Porcius Festus	Governor Porcius Festus	Acts 24:27
Right of appeal for Roman citizens	I appeal to Caesar	Acts 25:11
Correct legal formula	"The charges the accusers brought against him" (general sense)	Acts 25:18
Characteristic form of reference to the emperor	The Emperor (ho Sebastou)	Acts 25:26
Proper title in Malta	Chief man of the island (ho prōtos tēs nēsou)	Acts 28:7
Custody with Roman soldiers	Paul was allowed to live by himself with a soldier to guard him	Acts 28:16
Conditions of imprisonment	Staying at his own expense (hired his own dwelling)	Acts 28:30–31

---

🎭 Facts on Culture, Customs, and Religion (Acts References)

Fact	Key Term/Detail	Acts Reference
Gods associated with Lystra	Zeus and Hermes	Acts 14:12
Presence of a synagogue in Thessalonica	Where there was a synagogue of the Jews	Acts 17:1
Abundant presence of images in Athens	City full of idols (kateidōlon)	Acts 17:16
Reference to a synagogue in Athens	Debated in the synagogue with the Jews	Acts 17:17
Athenian philosophical debate	Debated daily in the marketplace (agora)	Acts 17:17
Athenian slang word for Paul	Seed-picker (spermologos) / Court: Areopagus	Acts 17:18–19
Characterization of the Athenian character	Spent their time in nothing else but either to tell or to hear some new thing	Acts 17:21
Altar to an "unknown god"	To an unknown God (Agnōstō Theō)	Acts 17:23
Greek denial of bodily resurrection	When they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked	Acts 17:32
A Corinthian synagogue	Went into the synagogue	Acts 18:4
The bema (judgment seat)	Judgment seat (bēma)	Acts 18:16ff.
Name Tyrannus attested in Ephesus	Hall of Tyrannus (Scholē Tyrannou)	Acts 19:9
Shrines and images of Artemis	Silversmiths who made silver shrines of Artemis	Acts 19:24
The "great goddess Artemis"	Great is Artemis of the Ephesians	Acts 19:27
Ephesian theater as meeting place	Rushed with one accord into the theater	Acts 19:29
Correct name to designate the goddess	Goddess Artemis	Acts 19:37
Use of precise ethnic designation	Beroian (beroiaios)	Acts 20:4
Employment of the ethnic term	Asian (Asianos)	Acts 20:4
Strategic importance of Troas	Paul stayed seven days in Troas	Acts 20:7ff.
A Jewish act of piety	Purify himself and pay the expenses of the men	Acts 21:24
Jewish law regarding Gentile use of the temple	They have brought Greeks into the temple and have defiled this holy place	Acts 21:28
The flight of steps	The steps (anabathmous)	Acts 21:31, 35
Ananias being high priest	Ananias, the high priest	Acts 23:2
Local people and superstitions of Malta	"No doubt this man is a murderer... a god"	Acts 28:4–6

🚢 Facts on Maritime and Environmental Conditions (Acts References)

Fact	Key Term/Detail	Acts Reference
Thyatira as a center of dyeing	Lydia, a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira	Acts 16:14
Danger of the coastal trip	Intended to sail past Ephesus because he would not spend time in Asia	Acts 20:13
South wind backing suddenly to a violent northeaster (Gregale)	A gentle south wind began to blow... not long after a tempestuous wind arose, called Euroclydon (a violent easterly wind)	Acts 27:13–14
Nature of a square-rigged ancient ship	Could not head into the wind, we let her drive	Acts 27:15
Precise place and name of this island (Clauda)	Running under the shelter of a small island called Clauda	Acts 27:16
Appropriate maneuvers for the safety of the ship	Secured the ship with ropes, lowered the gear, and let the ship drive	Acts 27:16–17
The fourteenth night	When the fourteenth night was come	Acts 27:27
Proper term of the time for the Adriatic	Were driven up and down in the Adriatic Sea	Acts 27:27
Precise term for taking soundings and correct depth	Took soundings (bolisantes)... found it twenty fathoms... found it fifteen fathoms	Acts 27:28
Position that suits the probable line of approach	Found a bay with a beach, where they intended to run the ship aground	Acts 27:39
Severe liability on guards who permitted a prisoner to escape	The soldiers’ plan was to kill the prisoners, lest any of them should swim away and escape	Acts 27:42

Conclusion

Getting high-level events right is relatively easy for historical novelists, but maintaining total accuracy across dozens of shifting regional titles, obscure municipal boundaries, and intricate nautical maneuvers is virtually impossible without direct access to the facts. The Roman Empire was a dynamic political landscape where titles like politarch, proconsul, or first man changed frequently depending on imperial status and local law. Luke’s consistent, flawless precision across eighty-four specific facts demonstrates that he was not inventing pious fiction centuries later. He was writing sober, trustworthy history anchored in genuine eyewitness testimony.

How Can the Gospels Be Reliable If They Are Interdependent

Introduction

A common objection to the historical reliability of the New Testament is literary interdependence: if Matthew and Luke drew upon Mark or shared source material, skeptics argue they cannot function as independent, trustworthy witnesses. However, evaluating the Gospels through the lens of ancient historiography turns this objection on its head. In the Greco-Roman world, utilizing reliable prior sources, interviewing eyewitnesses, and synthesizing established oral tradition was the gold standard of careful historical biography - not a sign of collusion. Far from undermining the text, the dynamic interplay of shared material and distinct, unique eyewitness perspectives demonstrates rigorous reporting anchored in historical reality.

Key arguments for the Gospels' reliability despite interdependence include:

Standard Ancient Practice: 

In the ancient world, it was standard practice for authors and biographers to utilize existing written and oral sources without modern-style footnotes or quotation marks. The Gospel writers were following the literary conventions of their time. Oral traditions were a primary means of transmitting stories and information for centuries before and alongside written texts. Authors like Herodotus and Thucydides explicitly mention traveling and interviewing local sources or eyewitnesses, ala Luke.

Focus on Information: 

The overlap demonstrates that the authors were interested in reporting information, and they believed their sources (like Mark and the hypothetical "Q" source, which many scholars believe contained Jesus' sayings) were information-based and trustworthy.

Independent Access and Unique Material: 

If Matthew and Luke used Mark and other common sources, each Gospel also contains significant material unique to its author, suggesting they had access to independent sources and eyewitness accounts. 

• Matthew - unique stories:

1. The visit of the Magi (the "Three Wise Men").
2. The flight into Egypt.
3. The Parable of the Pearl of Great Price and the Parable of the Talents.
4. The account of the temple tax being paid with a fish's mouth coin.

• Mark - unique stories:

1. the mention of a young man who flees naked when Jesus is arrested (Mark 14:51-52)

• Luke - unique stories:

1. The Parable of the Good Samaritan.
2. The Parable of the Prodigal Son.
3. The birth narrative from Mary's perspective, including the Magnificat and the visit of the shepherds.
4. Stories like the healing of the ten lepers. 
5. The encounter with the tax collector, Zacchaeus.

• John - unique stories:

1. The prologue about the Word (Logos) who became flesh.
2. Several extended discourses and private conversations of Jesus, rather than short parables.
3. Specific miracles (often called "signs") such as turning water into wine and the raising of Lazarus.

Eyewitness Vetting: 

The Gospels were written early enough (within living memory of the events) that eyewitnesses were still alive and could have vetted or disputed the accounts. See The Early Dating of the New Testament.

Complementary Perspectives: 

The different Gospels were written for different audiences with specific emphases. Their minor differences in circumstantial details are seen as complementary perspectives that provide a richer, more complete picture of Jesus' life, similar to how multiple biographies of one person today would each highlight different aspects.

• Matthew: Written for a Jewish audience, it emphasizes Jesus as the promised Messiah, connecting his life and teachings to Old Testament prophecies.
• Mark: Primarily for a Gentile (Roman) audience, it presents a fast-paced account that highlights Jesus's powerful deeds and action, portraying him as a servant.
• Luke: Written for a Greek-speaking audience, it focuses on Jesus's perfect humanity and compassion for all people, including the weak, suffering, and outcasts.
• John: Written for a more universal audience, it emphasizes Jesus's divine nature and eternal existence, using "signs" to prove he is the Son of God.

Undesigned Coincidences: 

Some scholars point to "undesigned coincidences" (subtle details in one Gospel that unexpectedly fit with a detail in another without seeming planned) as evidence that the accounts are rooted in real events and not a coordinated fabrication. See Undesigned Coincidences Between Gospels

In essence, the shared material points to a common core of information and tradition, while the differences indicate independent authorial control and additional, distinct sources

Conclusion

Ultimately, literary overlap and historical credibility are not mutually exclusive. The Gospel writers did what any responsible ancient biographers would do: they respected and preserved authoritative source material while integrating their own independent access, eyewitness testimony, and distinct theological emphases. The shared foundation reflects an unwavering commitment to a common historical core, while the unique narratives, differing audiences, and subtle undesigned coincidences confirm genuine authorial freedom. Interdependence does not weaken the testimony of the Gospels—it reveals a robust, multi-layered historical record rooted firmly in living memory.

Undesigned Coincidences - Hidden Connections That Authenticate the Gospels

Introduction

When skeptics analyze ancient texts, they often look for signs of collusion or literary fabrication. Yet one of the strongest hallmarks of authentic eyewitness testimony is something far more subtle: "undesigned coincidences." These occur when one writer raises a question or mentions a casual detail without explanation, and a completely different writer - writing independently and in a totally different context—effortlessly provides the missing piece. These connections aren't trumpeted or highlighted; they simply lock together naturally, revealing an underlying bedrock of real history rather than coordinated fiction.

An Analogy

Imagine two unrelated witnesses giving statements after a morning commute. The first mentions seeing a neighbor briskly walking on a road in a sharp business suit on a Saturday morning - an odd, unexplained detail. The second witness, a store manager in that same shopping plaza, happens to mention interviewing that very neighbor for a management position at 9:00 AM, who had mentioned that his car broke down on the way.

Neither witness coordinated their story, and neither set out to explain the other’s statement. Yet the pieces interlock seamlessly: the interview explains the suit, and the walk explains the timing. When historical accounts fit together like interlocking puzzle pieces that neither author consciously designed to match, it’s the unmistakable fingerprint of a shared reality.

Undesigned coincidences are subtle, unintentional points of connection between two or more Gospel accounts that suggest an underlying historical reality, rather than a fabricated or colluded story.

Undesigned coincidences are like when a glove fits a hand perfectly, except the person making the glove didn’t mean to make it for the person it fits. Two independent sources subtly help explain details from one another seamlessly.

It’s the sort of evidence you would expect to see when two sources are based on eyewitness accounts. One account of an event omits a piece of information which is filled in by another account in a seemingly unintentional fashion.

An Example of an Undesigned Coincidence 

Sarah says she saw Bob walking to the shopping center in a suit on a Saturday morning. Taylor, who works in the shopping center, tells you she interviewed Bob for a sales job on Saturday morning.

The distinct details each witness gives subtly help explain why Bob was wearing a suit and why he went to the shopping center. The more instances of these coincidences we have, the less likely intentional fabrication becomes.

Here are several examples of undesigned coincidences in the Bible:

MENDING NETS

James and John were mending their nets (Matt. 4:21) when Jesus called them to follow him. Luke explains Jesus’ miracle catch of fish was breaking their nets (Luke 5:6) before they left everything to follow Jesus (v. 10–11), yet Matthew does not mention this miraculous catch.

The Healing at Peter's House

Matthew 8:16 states that in the evening, people brought the sick and demon-possessed to Jesus to be healed.

Mark 1:21 and 29-32 clarifies why they waited until the evening: the event happened on the Sabbath, and the people would have waited until the Sabbath ended at sundown to bring their sick, as public healing was controversial on the Sabbath. Mark's casual mention of the Sabbath is not presented as an explanation for Matthew's timing, but it fits perfectly.

The Feeding of the 5,000

Mark 6:39 mentions that Jesus commanded the people to sit down on the "green grass", an seemingly insignificant detail.

John 6:4 casually notes, in a different context within his narrative, that the miracle occurred around the time of the Passover festival. Passover happens in the spring (March/April), the only time of year when the grass in that region would be green after the winter rains.

John 6:5 records Jesus asking Philip where they should buy bread. One might wonder why Philip was singled out.

Luke 9:10 (in the context of the same event) and John 1:44 (in an unrelated passage) provide the answer: the miracle took place near the town of Bethsaida, which was Philip's hometown. Jesus naturally turned to the disciple with local knowledge.

Herod Antipas' Information Source

Matthew 14:1-2 recounts Herod the tetrarch hearing about Jesus and telling his servants that Jesus must be John the Baptist raised from the dead, showing his anxiety. It raises the question of how Matthew would know what was said in Herod's private conversation.

Luke 8:3 provides a potential explanation in an unrelated list of Jesus' female followers: one of them was Joanna, "the wife of Chuza, Herod's household manager". Joanna could have been an internal source of information from Herod's palace.

The Dispute Among the Disciples and the Foot-Washing

Luke 22:24 describes a dispute among the disciples during the Last Supper about which of them was the greatest. Jesus uses this occasion to teach a lesson on humility and servant leadership.

John 13:4-15 describes the seemingly spontaneous event of Jesus washing his disciples' feet during the meal. John doesn't mention the dispute, and Luke doesn't mention the foot-washing, but together, the foot-washing serves as a powerful, practical demonstration of the exact lesson Jesus was teaching in response to their argument in Luke.

Mary and Martha

In Luke 10:38-42, we get the famous story of Jesus visiting Mary and Martha of Bethany. Martha, the practical sister, is trying to get the house in tip-top shape for Jesus and becomes annoyed at her sister Mary, the emotional sister, who is just sitting at Jesus’ feet. 

Over in John’s Gospel (ch. 11), Jesus comes to see the same sisters because their brother Lazarus has died. John says that Martha immediately ran to Jesus, while Mary “remained seated in the house” (John 11:20). Martha welcomes Jesus, while Mary sits. Martha tells Mary that Jesus is calling to her, and only then does she rise. 

But instead of going to weep at the tomb, as the others expect (11:31), she “fell at [Jesus’] feet” (11:32) in a striking parallel to Luke. Mary is recorded as weeping, while Martha is not. Once they get to the tomb, Jesus asks for the stone to be rolled away, and the ever-practical Martha points out that “by this time there will be an odor, for he has been dead four days” (11:39). 

In short, these two sisters show consistent character traits in two completely different stories that do not refer to each other. The most simple explanation for this is that both authors are writing about real women.

The Sons of Thunder

Mark 3:17 tells us that James and John, the sons of Zebedee, were nicknamed “the sons of thunder” by Jesus. Mark never explains why Jesus would give these two such a memorable sobriquet. However, Luke’s gospel tells the story of Jesus being rejected by the Samaritans because he is a Jew on his way to Jerusalem. Luke continues: “And when his disciples James and John saw it, they said, “Lord, do you want us to tell fire to come down from heaven and consume them?” But [Jesus] turned and rebuked them” (9:54-55). 

So just as Luke 9 helps illuminate characters from John’s Gospel, so does Luke 10 help explain a reference in Mark’s Gospel. It’s highly unlikely that Luke would have invented two different stories to explain the motivations of characters in two other gospels, especially since John was almost certainly written later. The simpler explanation is, once again, that both are talking about real incidents with real people.

The Transfiguration

Upon coming down from the mount of transfiguration, Luke’s gospel tells us that the disciples “kept silent and told no one in those days anything of what they had seen” (Luke 9:36). But why? Wouldn’t you tell somebody if the rabbi you were following starting glowing white and had a conversation with Moses and Elijah? Luke provides no answers. 

Thankfully, Mark does in his account of the transfiguration: “And as they were coming down the mountain, [Jesus] charged them to tell no one what they had seen, until the Son of Man had risen from the dead” (Mark 9:9). 

So the reason they were silent is that Jesus had commanded them to be (something Mark never fails to mention). Maybe Luke knew about Mark’s story and didn’t feel a need to repeat this tidbit. Perhaps, but that only goes to show that he was not just copying Mark’s account. He is providing independent verification of the same event.

Pilate's interrogation 

In Luke 23:1-4, Pilate asks Jesus whether he is a king, and Jesus gives an answer that is certainly not a denial and that many scholars take for a terse, idiomatic acknowledgement. Then Pilate declares that he finds him innocent. How can this be explained? Answer: Luke is giving only a summary of the interview. In a fuller account, we discover that Jesus told Pilate that His kingdom was not of this world. (John 18:36)

Also, in John 18:32, Pilate asks Jesus whether he is a king. What prompted that question? (Nothing earlier in the chapter indicates that this was a charge leveled against Jesus.) Answer: Though John does not record it, the Jews did make that very charge against Jesus. (Luke 23:1-2)

An Accusation at the Cross

Mark records that people who saw Jesus on the cross derided him by saying, “Aha! You who would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save yourself, and come down from the cross!” (Mark 15:29-30). Yet nowhere in Mark (or Matthew or Luke, for that matter) does Jesus make this claim. It seems to come out of nowhere. 

But in John, in a different context entirely, we see the Jews ask Jesus for a sign, and he replies, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (John 2:19). John goes on to explain that Jesus was speaking metaphorically about his body being resurrected, but the metaphor was obviously lost on the crowd. Again, John clearly did not put this story in his gospel to explain the crowd’s cries in the synoptic gospels, but it unintentionally does so.

Conclusion

These subtle interconnections, spanning different narratives and contexts, are viewed as powerful evidence that the Gospel writers were relaying accounts of real events they had witnessed or heard from reliable sources, rather than coordinating a fictional story.

It's highly unlikely that later fabricators from all different parts of the world, decades after Jesus, tie each other’s loose ends up so neatly in such a subtle fashion if the recorded narratives were completely disconnected from the historical events? It’s far more likely the Gospel authors were referring to eyewitness history, and not making up history. 

 

Beyond Literary Dependence: The Real Numbers Behind Synoptic Agreements

Did the Gospel Writers Really Copy Each Other? The Raw Data Says No

Introduction

Skeptics and critical scholars often assert that the Synoptic Gospels - Matthew, Mark, and Luke - are little more than a chain of literary copycats. However, placing the Greek texts side by side reveals a very different reality: exact verbatim agreement across all three accounts is vanishingly rare. When you look strictly at identical matches, the overlap shrinks to just 17 verses and 306 words - less than 0.1% of the entire Synoptic corpus, with the vast majority consisting of direct quotes from Jesus or the Old Testament. Rather than proving direct, word-for-word literary dependence, the data points to genuine independent testimony, rooted in strong oral tradition and shared historical memory.

The truth is that the verbatim agreement between Matthew, Mark, and Luke isn’t much. I remember years ago reading the synoptics side by side and noting there was some agreement - but not enough that would make me say, “they’re copying one another”.


If one has ever read a parallel Bible, this is plainly obvious. One goes, page after page, without seeing any verbatim matches. Read through a portion of text that is found in three or all four of the Gospels - start here on page 22. You can flip the page to read it in landscape for easier reading - and carefully compare exactly what each writer is saying.


You will see the same story, but in a slightly different sequence, with slightly different statements where the author either added or omitted certain details. These details do not change the story, but they do tell us that we are reading four separate, independent accounts by four separate writers who all saw the same events or talked to those who did. Though there may be some evidence of a Q-like source of Jesus’s sayings. That would explain the .062% of the texts verbatim matches in the synoptics. If the writers had copied from each other, it is likely that we would find many more identical verses in all the synoptic Gospels.

In any case, I looked for a list of an exact verbatim agreement between the synoptic Gospels. It is thin gruel. 17 verses, 306 words. There are approx 49,131 Greek words in the first 3 Gospels. So the verbatim words are <.062% of the texts. Of these 17 verses 11 are quotes by Jesus. 3 are OT quotes. 3 are narratives; those 3 verse total 34 words. That comes to .007% of the texts. Or put another way, 2.7% of Mark's Gospel is verbatim in Luke/Matthew - 306 words out of 11,304. 

Either way, that is not a very compelling case for a literary only dependence.

Here is the list:

	Exact Verbatim Matches in the Synoptics
	Matthew	Mark	Luke	Words	Note
1	3:3b	1:3	3:4b	18	OT quote
2	15:9	7:7	---	12	OT quote
3	15:32b	8:2	---	22	Jesus quote
4	---	10:15	18:17	15	Jesus quote
5	---	11:15b	19:45	11	Narrative
6	22:44	12:36b	---	19	OT quote
7	10:22a	13:13a	21:17	10	Jesus quote
8	24:16	13:14b	21:21a	9	Jesus quote
9	24:19	13:17	---	17	Jesus quote
10	26:30	14;26	---	12	Narrative
11	7:7	---	11:9a	22	Jesus quote
12	7:8	---	11:10	22	Jesus quote
13	8:9	---	7:7	38	Jesus quote
14	12:30	---	11:23	16	Jesus quote
15	12:41	---	11:32	32	Jesus quote
16	13:42b	---	13:28a	20	Jesus quote
17	27:58a	---	23:52	11	Narrative
	Matches between Gospels			Content of the matches
	Mark Luke	2		OT quote	3
	Mark Matt	5		Jesus quote	11
	Matt Luke	7		Narrative	3
	Triple	3

Source of this NET Bible - Synopsis of the Four Gospels. Page 289 - same link as above.

There seems to be some equivocation going on when critics discus this data. Critics will say the verbatim verses as evidence for copying, but then go on to cite "nearly" verbatim verses/words. While I agree that a good argument could be made for a written source is the best explanation for verbatim verses/words, the same is not the case for "nearly" verbatim.

Best explanation for the verbatim verses/words

There likely was a Q source - a hypothetical, lost written document of Jesus's sayings. that had the words of Jesus. Not only do we have the testimony of Luke where he mentions where he obtained his info for his Gospel [see LK 1:1], but there is the likelihood that the earliest Christians would have recorded words/sayings of Jesus. And it’s likely that Matthew, Luke, and maybe even Mark used Q. 

Best explanation for the "near" verbatim verses/words

All the near verbatim matches are likely due to 

1) an oral tradition of Mark’s Gospel by Greek-speaking believers. 

2) Personal memories - Matthew certainly could have recalled the events, since he was one of the twelve disciples of Jesus and thus an eyewitness to Jesus' life and ministry.

3) Witness accounts - The "we" sections in the book of Acts is evidence that Luke was a companion of Paul and traveled to places like Jerusalem and Rome, where he had the opportunity to interview people like Peter, Mary, Joanna, and others who were eyewitnesses. Plus, Luke said he has "investigated everything carefully" to write an orderly account.

When we examine the four gospels, we see that very often each of the writers have slightly different recollections of the same event. The accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke (and John) are not perfectly matched, for good reason. Genuine independent accounts, that are written by eyewitnesses or those who talked to eyewitnesses, seldom have precisely the same details.

There are variations in the ordering of events and the details, which would be unlikely if one gospel writer had simply copied the other. These minor differences in their accounts, are evidence of four independent accounts, who used some of the same sources.

Is the oral tradition of Mark’s Gospel likely?

1) We know that there were 3 oral communities - the Romans, the Greeks, and the Jewish.

2) Mark was a disciple and companion to Apostles like Peter and Paul, thus his words would carry some weight. 

3) Greek-speaking Christian would most likely want to share Mark's Gospel, as this ties in their oral culture and their Christian faith.

Oral traditions were preserved with a high degree of care and accuracy within their cultural context. And remember, there was only 5-10 years between Mark's Gospel and Luke and Matthew's.

Conclusion

If Matthew and Luke were merely copying Mark at their desks, the pages of a parallel Bible would overflow with massive blocks of identical Greek text. Instead, we see the natural fingerprint of authentic, independent testimony: multiple witnesses recalling the same core events with varying details, unique emphases, and distinct wording. The handful of exact matches are easily explained by preserved sayings of Jesus, while the narrative freedom across all three accounts confirms their autonomy. The Gospels don't read like colluding copyists - they read like real history.

The Argument from Divine Hiddenness is Very Flawed

This is from a Reddit post:

Thesis: is the Proponents of the is not very well-thought-out and has too many flaws to be a serious argument against God

The Argument from Divine Hiddenness [ADH] is presented, roughly speaking, like this:

1) If God existed, He would (or would likely) make the truth of His existence more obvious to everyone than it is.

2) Since the truth of God’s existence is not as obvious to everyone as it should be if God existed (obvious enough so non-belief would not occur or not be nearly as common)

3) Thus God must not (or probably does not) exist.

Problem One 

A) Depending on what data one looks at, The world population shows about 10-15% atheist/agnostic and 75-85% theist. Across the countries surveyed, most people say they believe in God. Indeed, a median of 83% across the 35 countries analyzed say this.

So, it seems that God's existence is obvious to the vast majority of the world population. An 85/15 split is 5.5 to 1, or 11 to 2. Given those numbers, why think the critic is correct?

It seems God's existence is obvious to the majority of humans.

Pushbacks for one

1) Most of the world doesn’t believe in the Christian god, that 85% figure is much lower.

Reply: That's why I said problem 1 and 2 were for Theism in general and not the Christian God in particular.

2) This is an argument from popularity

Reply: I never argued that Theism is true because most people believe in God. Instead, it was a direct counter to premise 1 - if God existed, His existence would be more obvious. How can one claim that God's existence isn't obvious when the vast majority of people believe?

3) No way percentage of theists is even close to 75-85%

Reply: Check the link...

4) It doesn't mean that the existence of god is obvious to believers.

Reply: How does one measure obviousness? Proponents of the ADH never how they measure it, so why ask me? Seems like a double standard fallacy.

5) The data in my link isn't a representative of the world's population

Reply: The countries listed represent about 2/3 of the world population. Google the most populous countries it doesn't list Pakistan, Russia, Ethiopia, Egypt, Congo and they are said to be 80-99% theist. China is the lone exception at 50%

Excursus: missing the obvious - a case study

Even though I clearly stated that the first two problems were for theism in general, about 1/2 the responses to my post had an objection along the lines of "Most of the world doesn’t believe in the Christian god, that 85% figure is much lower."

Since it was obvious that I was addressing Theism, how could so many miss the "obvious"?  Missing the obvious seems to be quite common!

Problem Two

How can we find a sincere unbeliever or a non-resistant non-believer?

The existence of non-resistant non-believers is unprovable, since a nonresistant non-belief is a thought of the mind only known to that person [or only the person themselves can know their level of sincerity] If I were to state, “I was thinking about taking my daughter out for a ride on my motorcycle” how would I go about proving that I thought about that? I cannot prove that I am thinking such a thought, for the mind cannot be observed in such a way. Thus, those whom I share this information with must simply take it as true despite a lack of evidence.

Furthermore, it seems likely that a non-believer would be biased towards thinking that they are non-resistant, since this proves their stance that God doesn’t exist or that they are justified in their non-belief. Thus, the non-believer cannot prove they are non-resistant, and they have every reason to be biased in their assessment of their non-resistance

This crucial foundation of the ADH, the existence of a sincere unbeliever or a non-resistant non-believer, cannot be proved to be true.

Pushbacks for two

1) this is just an argument from incredulity.

Reply: Pointing out that there is no evidence is not an argument from incredulity

2) The existence of theists is also unprovable, according to this logic.

Reply: Most [all?] theists will argue from the evidence - i.e. the existence of the universe, the fine-tuning of the universe, the origin of DNA. Not "I have a sincere belief"

3) Whether the existence of sincere unbelievers or non-resistant non-believers can be proven empirically has no bearing on whether or not they exist.

Reply: So, you admit that there is no evidence that there are any sincere unbelievers or non-resistant non-believers? Then why expect anyone to give any credence to the ADH?

4) Points 2, 3 and 4 are all destroyed by my existence since I am a sincere unbeliever/non-resistant non-believer

Reply: I await the evidence/argument that you are/were sincerely and non-non-resistantly seeking God.

5)  We don’t need to “prove” with 100% certainty that at least one person is genuine about their disbelief.
 Why would a person who is genuinely convinced that god is real and that they might go to hell pretend to be an atheist? Nobody who believes in hell wants their own unending torment.

Reply: Perhaps, but the question is, why would an atheist pretend to be an honest, sincere seeker of God who was ignored by God?  Simple. Because this unfalsifiable, unverifiable claim greatly bolsters their argument vs the Christian God.

The first two problems were for Theism in general, the following two deal with the Christian God in particular.

Problem Three

God pursue us.

God has pursued us from the very beginning. After Adam and Eve sinned, they ran away, but God pursued them: “The Lord God called to the man, ‘Where are you?’” (Gen 3: 8-9). From the very start, God sought out His lost creatures. God has always had a heart of reconciliation. Jesus used the parables of the lost sheep and the lost coin (Luke 15:3–10) to teach that God pursues us to draw them to repentance. Jesus’ mission on earth was to “seek and to save that which is lost” (Luke 19:10). To seek something is to pursue it.

Pushbacks for three

1) The third and fourth are both just claims about your god

Reply: Since this is an argument against the Christian world view, then that is important info. We get our info about God from the Bible, so you don't want to just cherry-pick data, do you?

2) Though God did many miracles in the past, God doesn't perform miracles today

Reply: So you admit that we have the Bible, which serves as God's primary way of revealing His purpose and power.

Problem Four

Hebrews 11:6, says God is a "rewarder of those who diligently seek Him". Also Matthew 7:7-8 says "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.”

So, it is difficult to see how there can be a sincere unbeliever who is unsuccessful in seeking God when 1) God is seeking us and 2) rewards those who diligently seek Him.

Of course, the critic might say that the Christian God does not seek us nor does He reward that who diligently seek Him. But at that point they have stopped examining the Christian faith and are examining a strawman - a mis-representation of someone's view, which makes it much easier to your own position as being reasonable.

Conclusion

When one considers all the data, they must conclude that the Divine Hiddenness Argument fails miserably. 

• If God's existence isn't obvious, then why are 75-85% of the world population Theists?
• The unbeliever's sincerity of one's seeking God cannot be shown, since it's a thought in one's head.
• They do not account for the fact that God seeks us 
• They do not account for the fact that God rewards those who diligently seek Him.

See also The non-Problem of Divine Hiddenness

For he is his property (Ex. 21:20-21)

“If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. 21 If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property” (Ex. 21:20-21).

This is the verse that critics point to that show the Bible, Christianity, and God allows for, or even promotes, the ownership of one human being by another. Thus proving the utter immorality of the Bible, Christianity, and God.

Two issues 

Hebrew word meaning for keceph 

The Hebrew word translated "property means “silver” or “money.” [it's rendered "money" in some translations]  Of course, the person wasn’t literally made of “silver” or “money.” Rather, because the person was paying off their debt, they were equivocated with money, because they financially owed their employer. 

For example, let's say one had a debt of X amount, and sold themselves into indentured servitude, that would take 2 years to pay off.  The employer would have paid off that debt and the 2 years would be needed to repay that debt in addition to the room/board. This person is his money since he has a financial interest in him and would suffer if the 2 years work was not done.   

So it doesn't look like we are talking about one human being as the literal property of another.

Here is the conundrum with the property understanding 

If these people were considered property and could treat them as he pleased, then why is the owner punished for too harsh a beating? 

After all, there would be no reason to punish an owner for taking the servant’s life if the servant was his own “property.”  If you were to take a chain saw to your dining room table, no one could say you can't do that or that someone else must be compensated for it. [other than your spouse, but that's a different story]

Yet, owners were punished for killing their servants: “If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished” (v.20). Later in the passage, the slave masters were punished for brutality—such as knocking out a tooth or harming an eye (see vv. 26-27), which was unknown in the ancient Near East. 

“These laws are unprecedented in the ancient world where a master could treat his slave as he pleased.” [Walter C. Kaiser Jr., “Exodus,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: p433.]

The context shows that the servant was not considered mere property (i.e. chattel slavery). 

The mention of recovering after “a day or two” relates to the context of two men fighting (vv.18-19). If one man was beaten to the point of missing time from work, then the offender needed to “pay for his loss of time” (v.19). But what should an owner do with a servant if they get into a fight? Is the owner supposed to pay for his time off? No. 

The indentured servant already owed the man money through the form of work. This is why the law states that “he is his property.” Stuart writes, “-*There was, in other words, no point in asking the servant’s boss to compensate himself for the loss of his own servant’s labor. If the servant had been too severely punished, however, so that the servant took more than a couple of days to recover completely or was permanently injured, some combination of the terms of the prior law (vv. 18-19) and the law in vv. 26-27 would be used to make sure the employer did not get off without penalty*. [Douglas K. Stuart, Exodus, vol. 2, The New American Commentary, p490-491.]

Objection:  The verse says "for he is his property"! It's right there in the text! You are twisting words.

Reply: My mother used to say, "it's raining cats and dogs". Yet no cat or dog fell from the sky.  Why, because it's a figure of speech that, for rhetorical effect, refers to one thing by mentioning another.  We are supposed to take metaphors literally.