MP, sone observations regarding a few of your comments.
1. Regarding Simon taking the greek name Peter.
Remember that it wasn't Simon that renamed himself as "Peter". It was Jesus that gave him that name, a word play that would fit his role as a foundation stone of the new christian church [Jesus himself being the 'cornerstone']; At the same time, even if Simon personally had issues with overcoming his encrusted Jewish attitude towards gentiles, later in life he had to correct his attitude, even several times. To be called by a greek name would be a reminder that he had to broaden his views.
2. Regarding the death of Judas.
Why is it so far fetched that Judas could have hunged himself from a tree, and later either the branch or the rope collapsed and he fell down to a cliff or a rocky ground below and his belly bursted with the impact, especially if he had been under the sun for a few days, decomposing rapidly, before being discovered? This would lead to two hearsay versions: One, that he has hung himself; another, that he had fallen and bursted his guts out. It's evident that both Luke and Matthews weren't eyewitnesses to the fact, and each one relied on third party accounts from people who retrieved the body of Judas. In fact, it's entirely plausible that there were no eyewitnesses of the death of Judas. Only those who found and retrieved his corpse deducted the way he died, which lead to two versions of the story.
3. Regarding the different names of Judas / Thaddaeus.
Why is it such a problem? I would be concerned if the Bible would give different names for his father. As for being known for two different names, well, I got two surnames and two family names. Plus, I have two nicknames, depending on family endearing nick or schoolmates nick they gave me. What's so difficult that Judas could be nicknamed Thaddaeus [large-hearted] by his close ones?
-----
Also, regarding Luke being a competent 'historian' or not, why are people judging Luke, a physician of the 1st century, so harshly, because he didn't follow the rules of modern historiographical techniques ? Are you even serious? Modern historiography was brought about by Eward Gibbon (1737-1794), an english scholar, with his landmark work The History of The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire (1778). Luke is no less accurate than Herodotus or Thucydides, historians of the classic antiquity.
Actually, I find the whole notion of Luke as an 'historian' to be a false issue. At best, he was impelled by the Holy Spirit to write the chronicles of Jesus' life and the early years of the Christian congregation. That's all there is to it. There was a gap that needed to be fulfilled. The Holy Spirit didn't whisper in his ears all the information, otherwise there wouldn't be the need for him to research for information from eyewitnesses. I believe that his gospel was actually the last one to be produced, probably at the same time, and independently from the gospel of John.
Eden