Onomastics support the historical reliability of the Gospels

Onomastics studies the distribution of first names at a given period. Applied to the Gospels, this science provides a striking argument in favour of their historical reliability. Indeed, if we compare the frequency of first names used in the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles with the first names found on Palestinian tombs and ossuaries from that period, we find that the results coincide almost perfectly: the statistics of given first names are nearly identical!

Cover of Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, Richard Bauckham / © Amazon.com

Reasons to believe:

As the historian Richard Bauckham has shown (Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 2017), the first names that appear in the Gospels correspond, in terms of statistical frequency, to those given in Palestine in the first century.

If the evangelists had wanted to invent a list of first names in order to tell fictional stories, it is highly unlikely that they would have succeeded in producing such a credible list, i.e. one that corresponds perfectly to the statistical distribution of first names given in their time.

Indeed, without the help of Google or Wikipedia, it is very difficult to guess and produce a list of first names from one's own era. We generally have a very false intuition of the frequency of given first names.

Consequently, it is very unlikely that the evangelists invented the "characters" of the Gospels. On the contrary, it is very credible that they were real people with whom the evangelists had direct or indirect contact. If the New Testament texts had been written later by people who made up a story, the first names they invented would not have coincided at all and it would have been easy to see this discrepancy (as we can see when studying the apocryphal Gospels). This argument reinforces the idea that the Gospels are not myths or legends, but are rooted in reality.

Summary:

In Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, historian Richard Bauckham compares the first names used in the Gospels with those found on ancient Palestinian tombs and ossuaries. And, incredibly, the results coincide almost perfectly!

For example, according to the historical data, the two most popular first names at the time of Jesus were "Simon" and "Joseph". At the time, 15.6% of the population had one of these two first names. A statistical analysis of first names in the New Testament shows that around the same proportion (18.2%). As for men bearing one of the nine most popular first names, archaeological data shows a percentage of 41.5%, and the combination of what is reported in the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles gives a result of 40.3%.

This very fact is an incredible element of authenticity, as it is very difficult to guess the statistical distribution of first names given in one's own era. Generally speaking, our intuitions are very rarely correct on this subject.

Another striking detail is that the most common first names of the time ("Simon" for men and "Mary" for women, according to statistical data) are mentioned in the Gospel with an indication of the difference between them. Given that many people were called "Simon" and "Mary", they needed a distinctive sign to know who they were. And, as chance would have it, the Gospels always add a specific element to highlight this distinction: Simon the Zealot(Mk 3:18), Simon the Leper(Mk 14:3), and Simon of Cyrene(Mk 15:21). The same applies to the first name "Mary", which is followed by a clarification: Mary of Magdala and Mary the mother of James and Joseph(Mt 27:56).

The same applies to the apostles. Here are the names of the Twelve with their respective rankings according to the popularity of their first names: Simon (1) (Peter); Andrew (> 99); James (11), son of Zebedee; John (5), son of Zebedee; Philip (61); Bartholomew (50); Thomas (>99); Matthew (9), the tax collector; James (11), son of Alphaeus; Judas (4), son of James/Thaddaeus; Simon (1) the Zealot; and Judas (4) the Iscariot.

We can see that the most common first names each have a distinguishing feature. Conversely, the least common first names (below 49th place in the ranking), such as "Andrew", "Bartholomew", "Philip" and "Thomas", are not followed by a nickname.

As a result, all the names match the statistical distribution data. The only credible reason to explain the fact that the first names given in the New Testament correspond to those of the time is that the writers of the Gospels were actually there and were genuine eyewitnesses. Indeed, if the New Testament texts had been written later by people who were making up a story, these first names would not have corresponded at all and it would have been easy to realise this. It would be immensely difficult to invent all the Jewish surnames, insert them into a story and hope to obtain a perfectly accurate statistical list of names corresponding to the data of the time.

A writer's intuition is very poor when it comes to finding a distribution of contemporary names for fictional characters that ring true. We can see this in the apocryphal Gospels, which were written much later. For example, in the apocryphal Gospel of Judas, none of the first names, apart from "Jesus" and "Judas", correspond to the first names of the Jews of Palestine at the time: "Adamas", "Adonaios", "Barbelo", "Galial", "Nebro", "Yobel", etc.

The onomastic argument is therefore powerful in demonstrating the historical credibility of the canonical Gospels, unlike the apocryphal Gospels! The Gospels are not myths or legends, but accounts or narratives rooted in reality.

Matthieu Lavagna, author of Soyez rationnel, devenez catholique!