Oscar, yes, this makes more sense to me than the merging of James son of Zebedee and James brother of Jesus. Eisenman also thinks that the stoning of Stephen is dislocated in time and reflects the stoning of James brother of Jesus. Eisenman was going for maximum compression of Gospel characters, but he went a little too far. I still give him full credit for trying to make the case. It was the right thing to do!
Stephen would then be a Greek name of James brother of Jesus, and we are lacking one for him! I was also thinking that the papal epithet Anakletus might somehow be derived from the Greek/Herodian name of James.
Eisenman further connects Stephen to a minister of Caesar by that same name. That James, as a leading Herodian, had a Roman appointed office/function of some kind would be expected.
I think the main motivation for placing the stoning of Stephen early in the Book of Acts would have been to exonerate Paul. The event takes place before Paul's conversion and therefore he can be absolved of it. Or perhaps there was a second Stephen, also a Herodian, who was stoned before Paul's conversion, and it became convenient to associate Paul with that stoning rather than the later one (of Stephen-James).
The association of James/Jacob with the name Stephen also makes sense in terms of typecasting. If you recall from Part III of the book, Stephen (Setnakhte/Tefnakhte/Stephanites) of pharaonic times had the Hebrew epithet of Zadok (see Chart 26), and tried very hard to usurp the role of Melchizedek (Tao I/Apophis I), which was actually a Jacob role (after the earlier Sargon the Great/Pepi I). This role was however later taken away from him by force, first by Piye/Sargon II and then by Taharqa (see Chart 35).
The role of Jacob was a crucial one in terms of dynastic propagation, so it is not surprising that James brother of Jesus invited fierce opposition, and ultimately lost in his bid for it as did Stephanites.
© Charles N. Pope, US Library of Congress. All rights reserved.