Vorkosigan

There is also the matter of Cephas and Cleophas, which Eisenman likes to say are the same. They are really not very close in Greek or Hebrew, so it would have taken a lot to slip that one by their readers. The whole business of similarly named people actually being one person gets carried to such an extreme in his book that you begin to wonder if he's really serious.

Yes. A chart here with clear lines of relationship would have been nice. In fact, clarity of any kind would be nice.

He doesn't get from Cleopas to Cephas by a straight route, but through their link to the name "Simon." I think this is laid out on pages 761-771, but don't worry, if it is not there, it will be somewhere else, again and again, until you swear you will never have anything to do with name 'Simon' again.

On the other hand, the gospels really do have generous supply of Marys, Simons.....do you honestly believe that Mary had a sister named Mary? Eisenman is onto something there....

Finally, your complaint about the traditions is not quite fair. I think Eisenman does do a good job of excavation in the various texts to find what he needs. The plethora of same-named persons in the NT was a headache for the church fathers as well.

Eisenman fundamentally makes two assertions. First, that James was the rightful successor to Jesus and that he has been systematically written out of the christian texts, and his stories absorbed by the Jesus tradition. Second, hs asserts that the DSS relates to this period of time, and that the actors in some of the DSS scrolls are the same as in early Christianity.

Of the two assertions, the second is weaker than the first, but the first assertion does not depend on the second. He could be wrong about the DSS (probably is) but right about James' role in the early Church. I think it is important to separate those two.

Michael