Opus1

An interesting feature of the New Testament which many Christians blissfully skip over is the multiplicity of identical names. There are Jameses, Judases, Simons, and Marys by the bucketloads. These were certainly common names (mainly due to the Maccabeans), but there's more to it than just that. Indeed, if we analyze the various characters closely, we find that many are the same person, or related in some way. I shall elaborate, but first, here is a brief list of all the important duplicate names in the NT:
These are not all the names, just the important ones. For example, there is a Simon the Tanner mentioned in Acts, Paul gives his thanks to a woman named Mary, etc. But these are tangential figures, unrelated to the interconnected web of NT figures.

Now, for the analysis. First, we notice lots of overlap. There is a Mary, the mother of Jesus. But there are also two mentions of a woman who is the mother of men named James and Joses. Is this the same woman who is Jesus' mother? It's likely, since Jesus had brothers by these names, and since there's no Joses mentioned elsewhere in the New Testament. But why not just call her Mary, the mother of Jesus?

In Jude 1:1, the author calls himself Jude, the brother of James. Why not call himself the brother of Jesus? Isn't this more significant?

Furthermore, many of the relationships seem quite bizarre. If Jesus was the first born son, then why does he have a brother with the same name as his father? Wouldn't Joseph want to impart his name to his first born son? And how is it that both Joseph and Judas can be called Barsabbas? Are these the Joseph (i.e., Joses) and Judas who are Jesus' brothers? We know from non-Biblical sources that Jesus' brother James was known as "James the Just." Are three of Jesus' brothers really the same person? Joseph is also called Barnabas: both of these names, Barnabas and Barsabbas, are similar to Barabbas, the criminal released instead of Jesus. In some NT manuscripts, Barabbas is known as Jesus-Barabbas! Thus, we have Jesus = Barabbas = Barnabas = Barsabbas = Joseph = Judas = Justus = James! What a mess!

Judas Iscariot's name is very similar to "Sicariot," a type of Zealot. A marginal note in one version of the NT tells us that Lebbaeus, called Thaddeus, is the same person as the good apostle Judas, whom the note informs us was also called "Judas the Zealot." Did Jesus have two apostles named Judas who were both zealots, or were they the same person? And what about Simon the Zealot? Was he the same Simon who was Judas Iscariot's father? Since Thaddeus is the same as Judas, is this the same as Theudas, which could be a combination of these two names? What about Thomas, which means "the twin"? Could Theuddas derive from Thomas- Judas, that is, Judas the twin? If so, the twin of whom? Jesus, perhaps?

As already mentioned in the discussion about James, things get even weirder when we go outside the Bible. Papias, for instance, tells us that Alphaeus is the same person as Cleophas (or Clopas), the husband of Mary. Is this the same as Cleopas, the disciple? Either way, this would mean that the Mary at Jesus' tomb was the mother of two of his disciples, James and Levi. But oddly enough, these two are never listed as brothers in the list of disciples, and Levi is called the son of Alphaeus only once. To top it off, it appears from John that this Mary, wife of Cleophas, was Jesus' mother's sister. How did Mary have a sister named Mary? And why did Jesus find Levi in a tax booth and recruit him as a stranger if he was his cousin? And to really top it off, is this Cleophas the same as Cephas, aka Simon Peter? And to really, really top it off, Papias also tells us that Alphaeus/Cleophas was the father of Simeon, James' successor as head of the Jerusalem church, and his brother to boot! So somehow, Mary, the mother of Jesus and wife of Joseph, was standing at the tomb with her sister Mary, wife of Cleophas, the mother of James, Simon, and Levi, the first two of whom were Jesus' brothers!!! Nice job of cloning yourself, Mary, and finding a good husband for your clone while you're at it!

We can sit around thinking up bizarre questions and observations like this all day. And I'm sure some inerrantist will come up with a brilliant explanation about how there were five of each person and there's really no problem. But I'm interested in truth, not apologetics. So here's an interesting theory, courtesy of Robert Eisenman, a famous Dead Sea Scrolls scholar, by way of a former student of his, who is now a history graduate student at my university.

Eisenman argues that Jesus originally had a small group of disciples, many of whom were his brothers. But then Paul came along, preaching a radically different version of Christianity than that practiced by James after his brother's death. As such, it became necessary to distance Jesus from his brothers. After all, it's awfully tough to sell your version of Jesus when the guy's own brothers are teaching a different brand, especially when you've never even met him! Thus, we get stories in the Bible about how Jesus dissed his brothers and was not welcomed in his hometown.

But, problems remain. All the early stories of Jesus have him doing things with people named Simon, James, Judas, etc. So the solution is obvious: Jesus had disciples by those names, but those disciples were not his brothers, who just happened to have those same names.

Things really get sticky when the doctrine of the virgin birth (and Mary's perpetual virginity) gets invented. Suddenly Jesus can't have brothers at all! So Mary, the mother of James and Joses, suddenly becomes a distinct entity, because she can't be the same Mary who is Jesus' mother.

Like a game of telephone, the changes spread, with each author making his own modifications, either intentionally or just out of outright confusion, until we arrive at the nearly indecipherable mess we have in the New Testament. Or, it could be the perfectly harmonious, unified, inerrant word of God. Your choice.

Different sources.

The gospel authors were relying on various earlier sources when they were writing their gospels. Matthew and Luke's reliance on Q is perhaps the best well known. But it is clear that Matthew, Mark, and Luke relied on various sources for their gospels.

While Luke was known for polished writing, and conforming the different styles of his sources into his own style, Mattew and Mark, in particular, are a bit clunky.

John also is drawing from independent source material. Very different than the synoptics.

These various sources knew, remembered or transmitted their respective stories independently of one another, and remembered or transmitted the various names differently than each other. The gospel authors did not always "smooth" out the differences. Indeed, in some cases they may not have been sure themselves.

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with Eisanman's theory. But I think it should be mentioned that Eisanman relies on some rather drastic, and unsupported, readings of the New Testament materials. All of which he puts in value behind the psuedo-clementines, written more than one hundred years after New Testament. No other scholar I have read has placed much, if any, historical value on the document.

[This message has been edited by Layman (edited April 17, 2001).]

Nice post Opus and just what we need to rationalize the bible and prove that it is the perfect harmonious word of God.

I'll print it, thanks.

Amos

Nice post Opus and can surely be used it to prove that it is the perfectly harmonious, unified, inerrant word of God.

You forgot Joseph the carpenter who came for the body of Jesus except here by a different name.

Amos

I started reading this post and knew immediately where the information was coming from. My suspicions were confirmed when I saw Robert Eisenman's name.

Eisenman is a radical scholar that many liberal scholars reject. To me at least, he's just about on par with Barbara Thiering. As a matter of fact, they both are a part of the Journal of Higher Criticism.

Interesting theories, but that's all they are.

Ish

Opus1

Ish,

Perhaps you have some actual rebuttal, instead of just calling Eisenman radical? IMHO, the best rebuttal you could provide would be to explain to me exactly who all these characters are, and how we can best sort out the relationships.

BTW, this is not from Eisenman. I've never read his book. As I mentioned, a former student of his told me about his ideas, which I then decided to research myself. I searched through the NT and non-Biblical sources for all the multiple names, and noticed all the confusing relationships myself. The explanation as to how things came to be this muddled is Eisenman's, but everything up to the paragraph that actually mentions him comes straight from me.

I don't see how this adds credence to Eisenman's widely rejected theory.

And, FYI, I did respond to you in a more substantive manner.

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Opus1: An interesting feature of the New Testament which many Christians blissfully skip over is the multiplicity of identical names. There are Jameses, Judases, Simons, and Marys by the bucketloads. These were certainly common names (mainly due to the Maccabeans), but there's more to it than just that. Indeed, if we analyze the various characters closely, we find that many are the same person, or related in some way. I shall elaborate, but first, here is a brief list of all the important duplicate names in the NT…

And your point is…?

There were four “Jenny’s” in my 9th grade math class out of 11 girls. I see no significance in multiple persons with the same name. One of them even occasionaly answered to the name "Jen", and another to "Jennifer". Oh my gosh !!! I once knew a guy by the name of Andy, but lo and behold his birth certificate says "James". What the... ?? I think these people may be involved in covert ops sponsored by the CIA in Central America.

There are about 12 guys with the name “Jesus” in the writings of Josephus. Chew on that one for awhile. I’m sure I could come up with a great Christian conspiracy involving Constantine and his buddies for this one.

There are about 10 “John’s” in Josephus’ works. When you’re done chewing on the name of Jesus you can have John as your main course.

There are about 8 “Judases” in Josephus. Have Judas for a side dish.

There are close to 20 “Simon’s” in Josephus. Are you getting full yet?

There are about 16 “Joseph’s” too. Mmmmm…. Joseph sounds like a delicious dessert.

Next conspiracy theory please… This one’s made Opus quite full.


Peace,

Polycarp

It is the year 7001 and all peoples of the world speak a common language.

An archeologist digs up a collection of old Bibles and finds the Gospel of John is written by Johann in Germany, Jean in France and John in the USA.

Internet messages declare an obvious conspiracy rendering the entire Bible a fraudulent collection of lies.

Blessings and Peace

Hilarius

[This message has been edited by Hilarius (edited April 17, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Hilarius (edited April 17, 2001).]

Opus1, sorry for the ad hominem, but I guess that's what comes out when you feel like something's not much worth your time (the others have responded substantively). Maybe I just shouldn't have responded.

I did provide more substance on Eisenman in another thread quite a while back and really don't care to repeat myself. He's a scholar, but not a very well accepted scholar. It's your prerogative to use his theories, directly or indirectly...

Ish