Onomastic congruence. Say that five times in a row without slipping on your tongue if you can! It's quite a mouthful, but what is it about?

So, if you've ever read the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, and/or the book of Acts, all found in the New Testament of the Bible, then you've probably noticed that there's quite a bunch of people being named. Disciples, people who got healed, tax collectors, specific Pharisees and what not. If the Gospels and Acts are historical, then they should reflect the naming patterns of first century Judaea.

Think about it like this. Ponder that you were going to write a novel about a German infantry division's life in the battlefields of the western front of the first world war. You could probably come up with some German names that would be reasonable to have that would fit the time. If you know a bit of history, then all the names you come up with would probably fit the time and the region. But would you know how many of the soldiers should be named Hans, statistically? How many Ernsts should there be, and how many of them should be called Otto? Would you sprinkle some rarer names in there, like Alexander, and would you be able to do that to the right degree? This is what onomastic congruance is - How well naming patters of an ancient author fits the actual naming patterns of the time and area.

This is what a 2024 statistical study by Luuk van de Weghe and Jason Wilson looked into, by comparing the male* names of the Gospels and Acts to a compilation of what names were prolific in Judaea in the first century, and to what degree. And the results were staggering.

They compared to well researched historical novels set in the time and region, and these did not even come close to getting it right. They also compared to the wrigings of the first century Jewish historian Josephus, and guess what? The New Testament names were a way, WAY better fit than even his history books!

Does this on its own prove that everything in the Gospels and Acts must be true? Of course not. But what it does prove is that it must be an account of real people that existed. Nobody could have come up with such a feat if they had tried, and a fictional writer of the time wouldn't even have thought of trying. The people you read about in Mark, Matthew, Luke, John and Acts were real people.

* There are too few female names in the Gospels and Acts to make statistically significant comparisons