Undesigned Coincidences Between Gospels

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. 

 

Exactly Identical Verbatim verses in the synoptic Gospels

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

All four Gospel authors wrote independent accounts. The differences are explained by a simple investigation which reveals that in genuine testimony which is truthful, multiple witnesses write a majority of the same accounts, with additions and omissions separate from the others. These differences are in accordance with individual memory and independent priority - writing for different audiences. The existence of these differences in recollection are precisely what experts look for in order to confirm truthful accounts.

By simply reading the text of all four Gospels, no "synoptic" theory is necessary. There are verbatim verses words that are easily explained by a Q source. A Q source is likely, since there would be a desire among early Christians to preserve the words of Jesus. 

The similarities in the Gospels are when the writers are recounting the actual words of Jesus, or an event that a particular Gospel writer thought was significant. Other writers either added their own details, or omitted the details other writers included because they were either not as important as other details for their audience.

If the writers had copied from each other, it is likely that we would find many, many more verbatim verses/words in all the Gospels. 

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. 

 

Slaves Obey your Masters

Why did Paul say in Colossians 3:22 "Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart" and not come out against slavery?

The first point, slavery in the Roman Empire was totally different from slavery in America. Slavery in America was based on race. Slavery in the Roman Empire was basically indentured servitude. Doctors were slaves. Lawyers were slaves. Business people were slaves. I became a slave if I owed you money and couldn't pay back my debts, then I became your slave. See my post here, where I argue that slavery in the OT was not chattel slavery

Slaves could work out of their slavery by earning money and paying the person back, and then they were no longer a slave. Not all slavery was like that in the Roman Empire - conquered people were at times enslaved and that was tragic but that majority of the Roman Empire at that time comprised debt slavery.

What is Paul doing in Colossians when he says "slaves obey your master" he's saying we're not going the Spartacus route - an armed revolt against Rome and free ourselves.

Instead, Paul writes in Galatians 3:28, "in Christ there is no longer Jew nor gentile slave nor free, but we are all one in Christ - There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." This verse emphasizes the unity found in Christ, transcending social, cultural, and gender-based distinctions. It highlights that in the spiritual realm, these earthly divisions hold no significance.

Then in the letter of Philemon, Paul writes this to Philemon to receive Onesimus back, not merely as a slave, but as a brother in Christ. In other words, Paul is laying the foundation for the abolition of slavery when he's doing it the same way Wilberforce did it in the English parliament to abolish the slave trade, which is we're gonna work in the system here.

We're not going to have an armed revolt. So if you're a slave, and you've put your faith in Christ don't prevail against your master, instead with your integrity, with your compassion, and your lifestyle point your master to Jesus Christ. Paul is saying, if you're a master - just remember that's not a slave, that's a brother in Christ. So let's forget this bit about master and slave and let's start accepting each other as brothers in Christ.

Roman Emperor Tiberias and Jesus

We have more evidence for Jesus from different writings in the ancient world, then we probably should have for someone of his stature because we have Matthew, Mark, and Luke and John these four biographies. There's really only one other person in around that time that can claim to have that much kind of independent testimony of their life.

And it's the Roman Emperor Tiberias. So he has. He also has four biographers he has. Cassius Dio, Suetonius, Tacitus, and Velleius Paterculus.  So the Roman Emperor, who's the most famous, most powerful person of the time, has a similar amount of historiographical evidence biographically for his, the events of his lifetime that Jesus does.

A.N. Sherwin White summarizes the historical evidence for Tiberius

“The story of [his] reign is known from four sources, the Annals of Tacitus and the biography of Suetonius, written some eighty or ninety years later, the brief contemporary record of Velleius Paterculus, and the third-century of Cassius Dio. These disagree amongst themselves in the wildest possible fashion, both in major matters of political action or motive and in specific details of minor events…But this does not prevent the belief that the material of Tacitus can be used to write a history of Tiberius” (p. 187-188).

So, it is astonishing that while Graeco-Roman historians have been growing in confidence, the twentieth-century study of the Gospel narratives, starting from no less promising material, has taken so gloomy a turn....that the historical Christ is unknowable and the history of his mission cannot be written. 

This seems very curious when one compares the case for the best-known contemporary of Christ, who like Christ is a well-documented figure—Tiberius Caesar. The story of his reign is known from four sources, the Annals of Tacitus and the biography of Suetonius, written some eighty or ninety years later, the brief contemporary record of Velleius Paterculus, and the third-century history of Cassius Dio. These disagree amongst themselves in the wildest possible fashion, both in major matters of political action or motive and in specific details of minor events. Everyone would admit that Tacitus is the best of all the sources, and yet no serious modern historian would accept at face value the majority of the statements of Tacitus about the motives of Tiberius. But this does not prevent the belief that the material of Tacitus can be used to write a history of Tiberius.(Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament A.N. Sherwin White, p186-187)

Was the Passion narrative Forged or Faked to Fulfill a Supposed Prophecy in Psalm 22

Here is a Reddit post by Opposed38 who put forth this argument:

The Passion of Jesus is first described in the synoptic gospels, where we have Jesus crying: "My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?". This is a reference to Psalm 22, in which that is the starting verse. If you look at the Psalm, you already start to see the parallels: "They pierced my hands and my feet" is the most characteristic, because of the crucifixion itself, but when you read the gospels, you see fragments of the Psalm copied exactly as they are!:

Psalm 22:7 - "They hurl insults, shaking their heads" Mark 15:29 - "Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads"

Psalm 22:8 - "He trusted on the Lord that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him" Matthew 27:43 - "He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’"

Is it coincidental that, specially in Mark, there would be such a strong parallel? It is not simply a description that fits, it's word for word copied.

As I understand it, there are five Psalm 22 verses that are alluded to in the Gospels. If I missed any, please let me know.

Preliminaries 

Greek and Hebrew belong to separate language families (Indo-European and Semitic respectively), their grammatical structures are naturally dissimilar in many respects. Why is that important? Because the way different languages are constructed, it would be difficult to have a "word for word" copying from what was written in the OT [Hebrew] and the NT [Greek] 

Greek, with its complex system of declensions, conjugations, and cases, relies heavily on word endings to convey grammatical function. The predominant word order is Subject-Verb-Object (SVO), similar to English. However, word order can be relatively flexible, and other orders like VSO (Verb-Subject-Object) are also possible.

Hebrew, while also having a complex verb system, is more dependent on word order and prefixes/suffixes for grammatical information. Biblical Hebrew, which is VSO (Verb-Subject-Object), is a common exception, particularly in narrative and poetic passages. 

This would seem to necessitate a change in Syntax - the rules governing the arrangement of words in a sentence to create grammatically correct and meaningful phrases and sentences

In English, a simple example of correct syntax is "The dog barked" (subject-verb), while an example of incorrect syntax would be "Barked dog the" (as it doesn't follow the typical word order).

So the Gospel writers reading this is Hebrew and writing in Greek would have to change, at least some, grammar of the Hebrew for it to make sense in Greek. 

The evaluation of the argument

So, as always, when someone makes an argument from the Scriptures ensure that you look to the data, the actual verses to see what it says. Read it in context to understand the author's point. As Greg Koukl says "...always read a paragraph at least..."  

I think the following will make it clear that the authors definitely did not copy Psalm 22 word for word.

1 . Psalm 22:18 —“they divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots.”

Jn 19:23–24 - When the soldiers had crucified Jesus, they took his garments and divided them into four parts, one part for each soldier; also his tunic. But the tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom, so they said to one another, “Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it to see whose it shall be.” This was to fulfill the Scripture which says, “They divided my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots.” So the soldiers did these things.

Mt 27:35 - And when they had crucified him, they divided his garments among them by casting lots.

Mk 15:24 - And they crucified him and divided his garments among them, casting lots for them, to decide what each should take.

Lk 23:34 - And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” And they cast lots to divide his garments.

2. Psalm 22:7 —“All who see me mock me; they make mouths at me; they wag their heads”

Mt 27:39 - And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads

Mk 15:29 - And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads and saying, “Aha! You who would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days

Analysis: None of the Gospel writers quote PS 22:18 word for word.  Matthew comes the closest. 

3. Psalm 22:8 —“He trusts in the Lord; let him deliver him; let him rescue him, for he delights in him!”

Mt 27:43 - He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him. For he said, ‘I am the Son of God.

4. Psalm 22:1—“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, from the words of my groaning?”

Mt 27:46 - And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

Mk 15:34 - And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me

5. Psalm 22:31—“they shall come and proclaim his righteousness to a people yet unborn, that he has done it.”

Jn 19:30 - When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, “It is finished,” and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.Psalm 22:31— For dogs encompass me; a company of evildoers encircles me; they have pierced my hands and feet

Luke 24:39 - See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.

Analysis:  Not once was there a word for word quote in the NT of and PS 22 verse.  

This was to fulfill the Scripture which says, “They divided my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots.”

Note: Some say that that Psalm 22:16 should read, “like a lion, they are at my hands and feet.” However "like a lion," and "they have pierced" are very similar in Hebrew: כּארי verses כּארוּ. And the older Hebrew manuscripts, and manuscripts in other languages that predate most of the Hebrew manuscripts, strongly argue for “pierced” being the correct reading.

Conclusion: As I said, there is no instance where PS 22 was copied word for word in the Gospels. The ideas in PS 22 verses were certainly used by the Gospel authors in their own words.

So is there a better explanation for the use of PS 22 other than some sort of fakery?

Yes. Jesus knew the OT and taught it to the Apostles, who also mostly likely read the Scriptures daily. And most likely Jesus taught this Psalm in regard to his death. So, the Gospel writers had that teaching blazing in their hearts and minds when they realized what happened and was said during the crucifixion, thus fulfilling PS 22. So, they wrote down what they heard and saw. No fakery or forgery needed to explain the allusions to PS 22 in the Gospels.

Addendum

There are Jewish writings which associate this Psalm with a future event and Messiah.

Commenting on this Psalm, Rabbi Rashi [Shlomo Yitzchaki] says, ‘They (meaning the Jewish people) are destined to go into exile and David recited this prayer for the future.’ So this would mean that the Psalm does have a future application.

Rashi’s commentary on this verse was: “Why have You forsaken me?: They are destined to go into exile, and David recited this prayer for the future.”

The famous Midrash from the eighth-century, Pesikta Rabbati, places some of the words of Psalm 22 on the lips of the suffering Messiah. In fact, the Midrash explicitly states that: “it was because of the ordeal of the son of David, that David wept, saying: “My strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to my jaws; you lay me in the dust of death.” (Ps. 22:16)

According to this Rabbinic Midrash, King David described the future suffering and death of Messiah Son of David in this Psalm.

The following rabbinic Midrash which was written prior to the Masoretic text:

“During the seven year period preceding the coming of the son of David, Iron beams will be brought low and loaded upon His neck until the Messiah’s body is bent low. Then He will cry and weep, and His voice will rise to the very height of heaven, and He will say to God: Master of the universe, how much can my strength endure? How much can my spirit endure? How much my breath before it ceases? How much can my limbs suffer? Am I not flesh and blood? …During the ordeal of the son of David the Holy One, blessed be He, will say to him: Ephraim, My true Messiah, Long ago, ever since the six days of creation, thou didst take this ordeal upon thyself. At this moment, thy pain is like my pain. At these words, the Messiah will reply: ‘Master of the Universe, now I am reconciled. The servant is content to be like his Master.'” [Midrash Pesikta Rabbati, 36:2]

The Midrash goes on to clarify:

“Ephraim, our true Messiah, even though we are thy forbears, thou art greater than we, Because thou didst suffer for the iniquities of our children, and terrible ordeals befell thee. For Israel thou didst become a laughingstock and a derision among the nations of the earth; And didst sit in darkness, in thick darkness, and thine eyes saw no light and thy skin cleaved to thy bones, and thy body was as dry as a piece of wood; and thine eyes grew dim from fasting, and thy strength was dried up like a potsherd (Psalm 22:16), All these afflictions on account of the iniquities of our children.” [Pesikta Rabbati 37:137]