Just in case you didn't get enough two weeks ago on unnecessary clumps and disambiguators, here are two more: If the other Judas among the twelve were not historical, why did John go to the trouble of awkwardly attributing a unique question to him in the farewell discourse, which required John to distinguish him from Judas Iscariot by calling him Judas, not Iscariot?

And then there's Joseph Barsabbas aka Justus. He's just the other candidate besides Matthias for being elected to the twelve (in place of Judas Iscariot) in Acts 1. Luke gives him three different names--Joseph, Barsabbas, and Justus. If Luke didn't distinguish him, he might have been confused with Joseph Barnabas, whom Luke introduces several chapters later. But why call him Joseph at all? Why not just call him Justus and avoid the possible confusion in the first place? Most likely because Luke really did have evidence that there was a second candidate and that he had all these names, which Luke decided to report.

These touches of realism are worth taking account of in evaluating the Gospels and Acts.