Why Name Popularity is a Good Test of Historicity - a Summary

This paper, titled "Why Name Popularity is a Good Test of Historicity," by Luuk van de Weghe, Jason Wilson argues that the statistics of personal names found in the Gospels and Acts (GA) provide strong evidence for their historical reliability.

Here is a summary of the key points:

The central thesis presented by Luuk van de Weghe and Jason Wilson is that the authors of the Gospels and Acts did not arbitrarily invent names for their characters. Rather, they accurately reflected the specific naming reality of their time and place.

Every culture and time period has a unique statistical signature regarding names (e.g., how "Jennifer" or "Michael" were ubiquitous in the 1980s US but less so in the 1920s). The authors argue that the Gospels and Acts possess the exact statistical "fingerprint" of Palestinian Jewish society between 4 BCE and 73 CE.

The argument isn't just that the names sound Jewish; it's that the frequency of specific names in the New Testament mathematically correlates with the frequency of names found in independent archaeological records (ossuaries, manuscripts) from that era, specifically the Lexicon of Jewish Names by Tal Ilan. This correlation is significant because it is extremely difficult for a fiction writer—especially one writing decades later or in a different region—to unconsciously replicate the complex demographic data of a specific past era.

For example, the summary notes that fictional narratives often avoid repeating names to prevent reader confusion. Real history, however, is messy. In this period, Hasmonean names like Simon, Joseph, and Judah were massively popular. The Gospels reflect this "clumping" of popular names (which requires the text to use nicknames or descriptors like "Simon Peter" vs. "Simon the Zealot" to tell them apart), a pattern that realistic fiction rarely mimics successfully.

Because the name distribution in the text matches the real-world population so closely (and fits better than random chance or fiction), the authors conclude the narratives must be rooted in genuine eyewitness testimony or reliable records that preserved the true names of individuals.

The Debate

This section of the paper outlines an ongoing academic conversation regarding the historical reliability of the Gospels, specifically focusing on statistical analysis of names. The debate follows a clear "claim, counter-claim, and defense" structure:

The current study relies heavily on the groundwork laid by scholar Richard Bauckham in his book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. Bauckham was the first to utilize Tal Ilan’s Lexicon of Jewish Names to compare the names found in the Gospels with names found in historical records (like ossuaries and manuscripts) from the same period. He argued that the names in the Gospels accurately match the historical frequency of names in ancient Palestine, suggesting they are based on genuine eyewitness accounts rather than later fiction.

The Counter-Argument: Gregor and Blais

The paper specifically addresses and refutes a recent challenge from researchers Kamil Gregor and Brian Blais. They argued that the sample size of names in the Gospels is too small to be statistically significant, meaning the "match" Bauckham found could just be a coincidence.

 They further claimed that the name patterns in the Gospels are statistically indistinguishable from "anonymous community transmission". This implies that the names could have been generated by random oral tradition (stories changing as they are passed down) rather than by preserving specific historical facts.

Van de Weghe and Wilson's Rebuttal

The paper by Luuk van de Weghe and Jason Wilson acts as a defense of Bauckham's original thesis against the criticisms of Gregor/Blais

They use a "Chi-squared goodness-of-fit test" to provide a more rigorous statistical analysis than previous attempts. Their objective is to mathematically prove that the Gospel names fit the actual historical population (Ilan-1) far better than they fit the "random noise" of anonymous transmission or the patterns found in fiction

The core of Van de Weghe and Wilson’s methodology was the Chi-squared goodness-of-fit test. In simple terms, this statistical test measures how well "observed" data (the names in the Gospels) matches "expected" data (historical reality).

To determine the true nature of the names in the Gospels and Acts, the authors compared them against three distinct categories of data:

1. Real History

• Dataset: Ilan-1 (Palestinian Jewish names from Tal Ilan’s database).

• The Test: They treated the Ilan-1 database as the "control group" representing the actual population of 1st-century Palestine. The primary question was: Does the frequency of names in the Gospels mathematically mirror this real-world population?

2. The Alternative Explanations The authors tested the Gospels against scenarios that critics might propose to explain the names:

• The Telephone Game Model: They tested against a "uniform distribution" to represent "anonymous community transmission." This checks if the names are just random noise generated by oral tradition over time.

• The Fiction Model: They compared the Gospels to both ancient fiction (apocryphal gospels) and modern historical novels (Ben Hur and The Spear). This checks if the Gospels resemble the patterns of authors who are trying to sound historical but are actually inventing characters.

3. Comparative History

• Dataset: The writings of Josephus.

• The Test: They compared the Gospels to the works of Josephus, a known 1st-century historian. This served as a benchmark for what a genuine historical text from that era should look like statistically.

The Logic of the Method

By running these tests, the authors aimed to do more than just show a "match." They wanted to prove a negative: that the Gospels do not look like fiction and do not look like random noise. If the Gospels fit the "Real History" data better than they fit the "Fiction" or "Random" models, it scientifically supports the claim that they are based on accurate records or memory.

Key Findings

• 1. The Historical Match is Near-Perfect

  The primary finding is that the frequency of names in the Gospels and Acts (GA) aligns remarkably well with the actual population of 1st-century Palestinian Jews found in the Ilan-1 database. The authors found that the biblical texts accurately reflect the specific naming trends of that exact time and place, rather than generic "Jewish" names.

  2. Fiction Fails the Clumping Test

  The study showed that the Gospels performed significantly better than both ancient apocryphal gospels and modern historical novels.

  • The Clumping Phenomenon: In reality, a few names (like Simon, Joseph, Judah) were massively popular, while others were rare.

  • The Fiction Problem: Even meticulous authors, such as Louis de Wohl in The Spear, failed to replicate this pattern. Fiction writers subconsciously avoid repeating names to prevent reader confusion (e.g., they wouldn't have multiple characters named "Simon"), whereas the Gospels faithfully record these clumps of popular names.

  3. Rejection of the Telephone Game

  The statistical tests explicitly rejected the anonymous community transmission model. This suggests that the names in the Gospels are not the result of random noise or stories morphing over time as they were passed down orally, effectively countering the telephone game theory.

  4. Comparison with Josephus

  When compared to the writings of Josephus (the standard benchmark for history of that era), the Gospels performed just as well, and in one aspect, even better.

  • Name Origin: The Gospels fit the data better than Josephus regarding the origin of names. Josephus tended to Hellenize (Greek-ify) names to suit his literary audience, whereas the Gospels retained a more authentic Semitic/Aramaic distribution.

Conclusion The paper concludes that the Gospels and Acts accurately retain the specific naming patterns of Palestinian Judaism in a way that is highly unlikely to result from fiction or later invention. This supports the view that the narratives rely on eyewitness sources who correctly remembered the names of individuals.

Luke v Josephus on Census of Quirinius

Here is a summary of the academic paper "Josephus Misdated the Census of Quirinius" by John H. Rhoads (published in JETS, March 2011).

The Core Thesis

Rhoads argues that the famous contradiction between the Gospel of Luke and the historian Josephus regarding the date of the Census of Quirinius is real, but that Josephus is the one who is mistaken, not Luke.

Most historians assume Josephus is correct in dating the census to 6 AD (ten years after Herod the Great's death), which makes Luke’s claim that Jesus was born during the census and during the reign of Herod (c. 4 BC) historically impossible. Rhoads argues that Josephus accidentally "double-counted" a single event, placing it once in 4 BC and again in 6 AD.

We know the Luke was very accurate as a historian on many obscure details (titles of officials, geography, local customs) in the book of Acts, suggesting he should be given the benefit of the doubt here over the inconsistent Josephus.

Josephus has inaccuracy issues as a historian

Here are the most significant examples where historians (secular and religious) agree that Josephus likely got dates or timelines wrong.

1. The "Tobiad Romance" (Off by ~60 years)

This is considered one of his clumsiest chronological errors. Josephus tells the saga of the Tobiad family (influential Jewish tax collectors) and sets it during the reign of Ptolemy V (c. 200–180 BC).

The details of the story (tax farming system, political alliances) only make sense historically if they happened much earlier, under Ptolemy III (c. 240 BC). Historians believe Josephus was using a popular folk tale or "family romance" as a source and simply didn't know where to plug it into the official timeline, so he guessed—and missed by about 60 years.

2. Nehemiah and Xerxes (The Persian Mix-up)

In Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus dates the biblical governor Nehemiah to the reign of Xerxes (died 465 BC).

The Bible (and established Persian chronology) places Nehemiah under Artaxerxes I (reigned 465–424 BC). This creates a timeline compression that messes up the dates for the rebuilding of Jerusalem's walls. Josephus likely confused the Persian names (a common error in antiquity).

3. The Death of Herod (Internal Contradiction)

Josephus gives contradictory math regarding when Herod the Great died.

• In Antiquities: He says Herod reigned 37 years from his appointment by Rome (40 BC), which puts his death in 4 or 3 BC.
• In The Jewish War: He says Herod reigned 37 years from capturing Jerusalem (37 BC), which would put his death in 1 BC or 1 AD.
•  This internal conflict is the fuel for the debate over Jesus' birth year. If Herod died in 1 BC, the "1946/Quirinius" conflict might disappear entirely.

4. John the Baptist’s Execution (Chronological Shift)

Josephus records the execution of John the Baptist, but the context implies a date that conflicts with the Gospels.

• Josephus's Timeline: He links John's death to the defeat of Herod Antipas by King Aretas, which happened around 36 AD.

• The Problem: If John died in 36 AD, he would have died after Jesus (who was crucified c. 30–33 AD). The Gospels clearly state John was executed before Jesus died.

• The Likely Error: Most scholars think Josephus grouped John's death with the Aretas war legally/theologically (implying the defeat was God's punishment for the execution) rather than chronologically.

5. Impossible Numbers (The Exaggeration Habit)

While not a "date," this highlights his looseness with facts.

Josephus claims the rural region of Galilee had over 3 million inhabitants (modern estimates suggest fewer than 300,000).

Josephus claims 1.1 million people died during the siege of 70 AD. Tacitus (a Roman historian) estimated the total besieged population was only 600,000.

Conclusion

Josephus is generally reliable for the broad strokes of history (who was king, who fought whom), but he is notorious for being sloppy with specific years. He often "patches" different sources together without checking if the timelines match, leading to duplications and transpositions. and thus, it is historically probable that Quirinius conducted a census in 4 BC (under the nickname Sabinus or simply misdated by Josephus) and that the rebellion associated with it happened then. Therefore, Luke’s account of Jesus being born during a census under Herod the Great may be historically accurate.

Rhoads' Arguments

1. The "Three Judases" are One Person

Josephus describes three different rebellion leaders named "Judas" active around this time. Rhoads argues these are likely three differing accounts of the same man leading the same revolt in 4 BC.

• Judas, son of Sepphoris (4 BC): Raided the royal armory in Galilee.

• Judas, son of Saripheus (4 BC): Called for the removal of the Roman eagle from the temple; was burned alive by Herod.

• Judas the Galilean (6 AD): Led a famous tax revolt against the Census of Quirinius.

• The Evidence: Rhoads notes that it is historically improbable that three different revolutionary leaders with the same name, operating in the same regions, would all clash with the same High Priest (Joazar) at different times. He concludes these are duplicate records of a single tax revolt that occurred in 4 BC.

2. The Problem of High Priest Joazar

Josephus records that the High Priest Joazar was deposed (removed) by the Roman governor Quirinius after the census in 6 AD. However, Josephus also records that Joazar was High Priest when Herod died in 4 BC.

It is unlikely that Joazar was deposed in 6 AD if he had already been removed from power by Herod's son Archelaus in 4 BC.

]If the census actually happened in 4 BC, then Joazar’s removal by Quirinius and his removal during the transition of power after Herod’s death are the same event.

3. Sabinus = Quirinius

Josephus mentions a Roman official named Sabinus who was in Judea in 4 BC (right after Herod's death) to secure Herod's estate and conduct a financial accounting for Caesar.  Rhoads suggests that "Sabinus" is not a separate person but a nickname or cognomen for Quirinius. Quirinius was from the town of Lanuvium (a Sabine town) and had the nickname "The Sabine."

Thus, if Sabinus is Quirinius, then Josephus actually does place Quirinius in Judea in 4 BC, conducting a financial registration—exactly as Luke 2:2 claims.

4. Presence of Coponius

Normally, historians place Coponius in Judea starting in 6 AD, when he was appointed as the first Roman Prefect following the removal of Herod Archelaus. However, the video and the scholar John Rhoads argue that historical traces place him there much earlier, supporting the idea that the census occurred during the reign of Herod the Great (c. 5–4 BC).

The core of this argument relies on a textual detail in Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews (Book 17, Chapter 5). In roughly 5 BC, Herod the Great put his son Antipater on trial for treason before a Roman council. Some manuscripts and scholarly reconstructions of this passage mention a Roman official named Coponius being present at this trial.

Thus, if Coponius was historically present in Judea in 5 BC assisting with Roman administrative/legal matters, it contradicts the idea that he first arrived in 6 AD.

The problem for Josephus is that he explicitly states that Coponius arrived alongside Quirinius to administer the province and conduct the census. Thus, it's likely that they both arrived in 6 AD to liquidate Archelaus's estate.

If the "Coponius" at the trial in 5 BC is the same man, it suggests the "Quirinius & Coponius" team was actually active in Judea during Herod's reign. This supports the theory that Josephus took a single event (the arrival of Quirinius/Sabinus and Coponius in 4 BC) and accidentally duplicated it, placing it ten years later in 6 AD.

Luke's account vindicated

Since Coponius was already in Judea in 5–4 BC acting as a Roman administrator (likely alongside Quirinius/Sabinus), then Luke’s claim that a registration happened before Herod died becomes historically plausible.  It suggests Rome was already managing Judean finances (via officials like Coponius) before they officially turned it into a province in 6 AD.

Conclusion

Rhoads concludes that Josephus, working from multiple conflicting sources, mistakenly split one event (the 4 BC tax revolt) into two separate events spaced ten years apart. Therefore, Luke’s account of a census under Herod the Great is historically plausible and likely accurate. 

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

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

How Can the Gospels Be Reliable If They Are Interdependent

The interdependence of the Gospels does not inherently make them unreliable; rather, it is often seen by scholars as evidence of the authors' diligent use and respect for available sources, including earlier written account, oral tradition, and eyewitness testimony. Far from being an attempt to deceive, this practice aligns with the historical methods of ancient biographers.

 
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

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. 

 

The discrepancies in the Resurrection accounts

The critics claim discrepancies in the Resurrection accounts and this should be cause for one to doubt the truthfulness of the Resurrection.

The argument usually goes something like this post found on Reddit — I'll post it here in full below in blue: 

These are not minor discrepancies, such as “which color was Jesus' cloak?”, “were there angels or shining men at the tomb?” or “did Jesus ride on a colt or a donkey?”, these are factual discrepancies, in sense that one source says X and the other says Y, completely different information.

Tomb Story:

1. When did the women go to the tomb?

Synoptics: Early in the morning.
John: Night time.

2. Which women went to the tomb?

Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, and Joanna.

Mark: Mary Magdalene, Mary of James, and Salome. [1]
Luke: Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James, and Joanna.
John: Mary Magdalene and an unknown person. [2]

3. Did the disciples believe the women?

Matthew: Yes.
Mark: No. [3]
Luke: No, except Peter.

4. Which disciples went to the tomb?

Luke: Peter.
John: Peter and Beloved disciple.

Sequence of Appearances:

5. To whom did Jesus appear first?

Matthew: The women as they fled.
Mark: Mary Magdalene while inside the tomb.
Luke: Two disciples (one of them Cleopas). [4]
John: Mary Magdalene while inside the tomb.
Paul: Peter.

6. Afterward, Jesus appeared to?

Matthew, Luke, and Paul: The Twelve. [5]
Mark: Two disciples (one of them Cleopas).
John: The Ten (Thomas wasn't there)

7. How many of the Twelve were present when Jesus appeared?

Synoptics and Paul: All of them. (11) [5]
John: The Ten (Thomas wasn't there).

Notes

1. the original Gospel of Mark says that multiple women went to the Tomb, but the Longer ending mentions Mary Magdalene alone.

2. At first seams like Mary Magdalene went alone to the Tomb, but in John 20:2 she says:

So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and “we” don’t know where they have put him!”

3. The original Gospel of Mark ends with the women silent, because they where afraid, but I considered the Longer ending in this case, where the Disciples didn't believe Mary Magdalene

4. When the Two disciples went to say to the Twelve that they've seen Jesus, Peter already had a vision of Jesus, Mark says that after Mary Magdalene Jesus appeared directly to the Two disciples, but Paul says that Peter got the vision first, I preferred to give priority to Mark, but that's another conflicting information.

They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together and saying, “It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon.”

5. The Twelve and “All of them” (as Paul says) in this case is the Eleven, cause Judas Iscariot was already dead, the Twelve described by Paul means the name of the group, it's like saying: “I met the Justice league” but Batman wasn't present. 

End of quoted post

Review and Response

What is a discrepancy? According to Webster's it is the quality or state of disagreeing or being at variance or an instance of disagreeing or being at variance.

This is closely related to the term “contrary”: either of two terms (such as good and evil) that cannot both be affirmed of the same subject; though both may be false they cannot both be true; incapable of  harmonious coexistence or are logically incongruent

Since the phrase “completely different information” is used, I assume that what is meant is these accounts are incapable of association of harmonious coexistence. 

So are these 7 discrepancies/contradictions incapable of harmonious coexistence or are logically incongruent?

1. When did the women go to the tomb?

Read the passages

Matthew 28:1-10
Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave. And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it. And his appearance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. The guards shook for fear of him and became like dead men. The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid; for I know that you are looking for Jesus who has been crucified. He is not here, for He has risen, just as He said. Come, see the place where He was lying. Go quickly and tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead; and behold, He is going ahead of you into Galilee, there you will see Him; behold, I have told you.” And they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy and ran to report it to His disciples. And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him. Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid; go and take word to My brethren to leave for Galilee, and there they will see Me.”

Mark 16:1-10
When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices, so that they might come and anoint Him. Very early on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen. They were saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?” Looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away, although it was extremely large. Entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting at the right, wearing a white robe; and they were amazed. And he said to them, “Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen; He is not here; behold, here is the place where they laid Him. But go, tell His disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.’” They went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid. Now after He had risen early on the first day of the week, He first appeared to Mary Magdalene, from whom He had cast out seven demons. She went and reported to those who had been with Him, while they were mourning and weeping.

Luke 24:1-10
But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared. And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. While they were perplexed about this, behold, two men suddenly stood near them in dazzling clothing; and as the women were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, “Why do you seek the living One among the dead? He is not here, but He has [a]risen. Remember how He spoke to you while He was still in Galilee, saying that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.” And they remembered His words, and returned from the tomb and reported all these things to the eleven and to all the rest. Now they were Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James; also the other women with them were telling these things to the apostles.

John 20:1-3
Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, while it was still dark, and saw the stone already taken away from the tomb. So she ran and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him.” So Peter and the other disciple went forth, and they were going to the tomb.

1 - When did the women go to the tomb, answered:

First note that John does NOT say “night” he says “dark”: Original Greek: σκοτία; Definition: Darkness - source

John 20 Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, while it was still dark,

Matthew 28 Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave. So it was still dark.

Mark 16 When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought aromatic spices so that they might go and anoint him. 2 And very early on the first day of the week, at sunrise, they went to the tomb.

So what is the difference between, “while it was still dark”, “as it began to dawn”, and “at sunrise” if they all have the idea of darkness or darkness breaking? Answer: None.

Excursus 

I just want to point out that here are differences in accounts of Alexander the Great's campaigns. Some historians like Plutarch and Diodorus providing more anecdotal and philosophical perspective. Arrian focused on a more factual military chronicle, often drawing from sources like Ptolemy's memoirs which could sometimes exaggerate his own role in events; this can lead to discrepancies in the portrayal of battles, motivations, and Alexander's character across different accounts. 

Some accounts might portray Alexander as having a more harmonious relationship with his commanders, while others could highlight tensions and conflicts, particularly with figures like Cleitus. Some accounts suggest Alexander was driven by a desire to conquer the known world, while others emphasize his pursuit of divine status and cultural unification.

Each account might present a slightly different perspective due to the author's emphasis, bias, geographical location, or social status. But no historian says these differences equate to contradiction, and the whole Alexander the Great story, or the bulk of it, is a myth.

If historians don't dismiss the  Alexander the Great story as myth, why do critics try to use this standard with Jesus? 

If the critic is unaware, they should educate themselves and judge the Resurrection accounts with the same historical standard.

If the critic is aware, then this is just a blatant double standard fallacy — Judging similar two situations by different standards when, in fact, you should be using the same standard. It invaldates their argument and seriously undermines their intellectual integrity. 

2 - Which women went to the tomb, answered

Matthew mentions two women by name. Mark mentions three by name. Luke mentions at least three by name but describes more. John only identifies Mary Magdalene. 

Note that Matthew doesn't say that there were only 2 women; Mark doesn't say that there were only 3 women; John doesn't say that there were only 1 woman.

When examining the number of women present at the tomb of Jesus, the four accounts could all be seen as accurate representations of what really happened if the group of women included the following people:

• Mary Magdalene
• Mary the mother of Jesus,
• Mary the Mother of James (and Joseph),
• Salome, and
• Joanna.

This group would account for the women mentioned by all four authors. All the authors speak of a group and some authors identify specific members of this group based on their personal perspective, purposes, and audience.

The Gospel authors (and the early Church) certainly had the opportunity to change the descriptions of the women to make sure they matched, but they refused to do so. As a result, we can have confidence in the reliability of these accounts.

Another factor for accuracy and authenticity: In a culture hesitant to accept the testimony of women in civil and criminal hearings, the authors of the Gospels offered women as the first witnesses of the empty tomb. 

Here is Josephus on the credibility of women: But let not a single witness be credited, but three, or two at the least, and those such whose testimony is confirmed by their good lives. But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex. . . . (Antiquities, 4:219)

If this is a late fictional account, one might wonder why the authors didn’t insert Peter and the other male disciples or at least Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathia. They would certainly have made the account more credible to the first hearers. Instead, all the authors describe women as the first eyewitnesses. This “negative information” makes the account more credible. Women weren’t described here to make the narrative more convincing (they actually hurt the account), but were instead described because they happen to be the true first witnesses.

Of course this isn’t in and of itself proof that the resurrection happened. It does, however, make it very unlikely the story was fabricated.

5. To whom did Jesus appear first?

Read the passages

Cleopas and another

13 That very day two of them were going to a village named Emmaus, about seven miles[a] from Jerusalem, 14 and they were talking with each other about all these things that had happened. 15 While they were talking and discussing together, Jesus himself drew near and went with them. 16 But their eyes were kept from recognizing him. 17 And he said to them, “What is this conversation that you are holding with each other as you walk?” And they stood still, looking sad. 18 Then one of them, named Cleopas, answered him, “Are you the only visitor to Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days?” 

19 And he said to them, “What things?” And they said to him, “Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, a man who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, 20 and how our chief priests and rulers delivered him up to be condemned to death, and crucified him. 21 But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel. Yes, and besides all this, it is now the third day since these things happened. 22 Moreover, some women of our company amazed us. They were at the tomb early in the morning, 23 and when they did not find his body, they came back saying that they had even seen a vision of angels, who said that he was alive. 24 Some of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but him they did not see.” 25 And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

28 So they drew near to the village to which they were going. He acted as if he were going farther, 29 but they urged him strongly, saying, “Stay with us, for it is toward evening and the day is now far spent.” So he went in to stay with them. 30 When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to them. 31 And their eyes were opened, and they recognized him. And he vanished from their sight.. Luke 24:13-31

Question: Where in the verse does it say that Jesus first appeared to Cleopas and another? 

Answer: It doesn't

Cephas

4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve 1 Corinthians 15:4-5

Question: Where in the verse does it say that Jesus first appeared to Cephas?

Answer: It doesn't

The two Marys

Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. 2 And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. 4 And for fear of him the guards trembled and became like dead men. 5 But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. 6 He is not here, for he has risen, as he said. Come, see the place where he[a] lay. 7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen from the dead, and behold, he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him. See, I have told you.” 8 So they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples. 9 And behold, Jesus met them and said, “Greetings!” And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him. Matthew 28:1-9

Note: Both Mary's met Jesus after they departed... from the tomb [vs 8-9] - but the text doesn't say anything about this being a first appearance; so was there a prior appearance? 

Mary Magdalene

9 Now when he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. Mark 16:9

Note: Here Mary Magdalene is clearly portrayed as the first to see Jesus post-Resurrection 

11 But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb, and as she wept she stooped to look into the tomb. 12 And she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had lain, one at the head and one at the feet. 13 They said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?” She said to them, “They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him.” 14 Having said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing, but she did not know that it was Jesus. John 20:11-14

Note: We get a little more detail about Mary Magdalene seeing Jesus prior to departing the tomb, she saw Him but didn't recognize Him. 

So Mary Magdalene first saw Jesus at the tomb, then after departing, both Marys saw Jesus. The other passages say that others saw Jesus but none say nor imply that they were first. 

Thus, there is no contradiction about whom Jesus first appeared to post-Resurrection 

*************************************************

Note: this is a work in progress, I will address all 7 "contradictions" in the near future.