Customer Reviews

The Brother of Jesus and the Lost Teachings of Christianity

5 star:		(11)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Butz book is so good on so many levels it's hard to know where to begin. Ostensibly it's a book about James the Just, the brother of Jesus. Yet on another level it is a book about the accuracy of the New Testament, not unlike Bart Ehrman's latest best selling book (though Butz is limited to the topic of James). As a bonus, Butz takes us into the rivalries among different sects in the early days of Christianity. Finally, it is a book about rapprochement between Jews and Gentiles, Arabs and Christians.

The book is well written and well documented. It progresses in a logical and systematic manner.

Though the book is excellent, it is not without issues that can be challenged:

·"...the revered Jewish historian Josephus." (p. 16). I'm not sure what texts Butz is reading, but generally speaking, Josephus is regarded in some circles as a coward, a traitor, and a man who made his living by slanting the truth in the direction of his Roman keepers.

·"...these positions [that Jesus had no brothers or sisters] were developed early on to uphold the emerging dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary." (p. 14). Since the positions emerged in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, and Mary's perpetual virginity is only proclaimed in 649 AD, this seems like a very looooong emergence. I suspect that there were other reasons for these positions (e.g., to avoid a dynastic succession through the Joseph/Mary bloodline).

· He appears to accept as authoritative all the apocryphal letters and books attributed to James, while many other scholars (e.g., Ehrman) question that he was the author of all of them.

These are all minor points. What is of importance is that Butz achieves some noteworthy results:

· He restores James to the forefront of post Jesus Christianity, where he apparently belongs.

·He challenges the traditional view that Jesus' family were not supportive, and in fact, shows clearly that they were heavily involved and very supportive.

·He gives us a window into Jewish Christianity that is both interesting and helpful.

·He provides one of the very best illustrations of biblical scholarship in dissecting Mark 3:21

Any serious scholar of Jesus or Christianity needs to have this book in his/her library. Beginning students will find value here, as will experienced scholars.

Mr. Butz states in this book that James is one of the most over-looked figures in the history of the church.That is an accurate assessment in my view.James is very important as he was a brother of Jesus, and even a casual reading of Acts 15:13-21 alludes to the fact that he was respected by Peter and Paul in particular.They respected James enough that he settled the dispute that is the subject of that chapter.
One of the subjects that the author deals with in detail is the family of Jesus.Mark 6:1-3 lists four brothers by name and sisters "here among us".He also takes the position that Jesus' family was not opposed to his mission.He's in good company in that Richard Bauckham shares that view.
Another idea that is seldom explored is whether or not there were conflicts in early church history.Human logic suggests that there probably were disagreements.(If you think that "religion" is always peaceful and non-confrontational read Foxe's "Book of Martyrs".)
The theory that James was more or less a "Bishop of the Jerusalem Church" makes sense.I see Peter as a missionary, not a Bishop or head of the church.
Mr.Butz references such early church historians as;Eusebius,Clement,Hegesippus,and Josephus.
He also looks at early church-age writings like gnostic writings and those that were used in early churches.While these books are not canonised they provide valuable insight into what early believers thought or believed.Some are way out there and others parallel Scripture very closely.
The death of James is controversial.The author gives a few different versions of how he was martyred.
If James did reside in Jerusalem after the Crucifixion and until his death that leads to the question..why?
I believe that he was the leader of the early church and maybe even a Pharisee also.He was jewish that is certain.The concept of "jewish christians" is a step forward in understanding the early history of the church and it's relationship to judaism.
One caveat about the book though...I am not at all convinced that Paul preached that grace replaced the law.It's more likely that greek words have different meanings depending on the context in which they are used.Did Paul and Peter have disagreements(or any of the Apostles for that matter)? Sure they did.I'm just not convinced that the subject matter is correct.
At any rate, if you are looking for a well-researched,open minded book about James or the beginnings of the church,this is a book worth reading.I recommend it.

This is not just another conspiracy book about the origins of Christianity, but rather a sober look at the evidence contained in the New Testament and other early Christian writings. With a refreshing absence of pandering to contemporary sensibilities, and drawing upon the research of other scholars, Butz argues not that Jesus was a Gnostic/feminist/gay-liberationist, but rather a Jew among Jews, indeed the Messiah of Jewish expectations, for whom a mission to the Gentiles was strictly secondary and to whom the idea of founding a new religion was utterly foreign.

Butz thus agrees with many critics that the message of early Christianity was quickly distorted, but in ways that are comprehensible without resorting to grandiose conspiracy theories. The primary architect of this transformation was Paul, who is depicted in the New Testament as being in conflict with the Jerusalem-based Christianity of James, the brother of Jesus. Butz sees the Christianity of James and Peter as the earliest and most authentic form of Christianity. This early Christianity was totally Jewish, revered the person of James, and viewed Jesus in "adoptionist" terms, i.e., not as God incarnate, but as God's elected Messiah, whose role was vindicated by the resurrection. Butz shows that the New Testament itself provides ample evidence of a struggle between Paul and James (and Peter) to define the Christian message, a struggle which on various fronts played out for centuries and indeed continues to this day.

As an antidote to the highly-publicized and speculative drivel which often passes for "research" into early Christianity, this book fills a great need. Butz suggests that it is perhaps time for a "second reformation," a reformation which takes into account the findings of modern scholarship and reexamines Christianity's relationship not only to Judaism and Islam, but to its own origins.

This book is interesting and well written. As a lay person I can't comment on the degree of scholarship demonstrated in the book, but Butz appears to have done his homework. I was especially interested in Butz' documentation of the ways in which the Bible was changed in order to fit the theology of the rival Christian groups.

I recommend this book to lay people (like me) and it would probably benefit scholars as well.

While browsing a favorite bookstore, I happened to find "The Brother of Jesus and the Lost Teachings of Christianity". I've read other books about James the Just previously, but this one put a lot of information into "easily digestible bits" for me. This may not be an easy read for some conservative and fundamentalist Christians, but its worth a try.

This book spotlights First Century Palestinian Jewish Christianity as led by James the "Brother of Jesus". Bütz introduces the reader to the writings of various scholars - some of them controversial - on the subject of James the Just. I had not known about the work of scholars such as Chilton and Painter previously. Thus, for me, it was a good way to be introduced to ideas put forth by these scholars, and how their ideas might interact with other scholars with whom I had more familiarity.

I would also recommend reading "The Lost Religion of Jesus: Simple Living and Nonviolence in Early Christianity" by Keith Akers (if one doesn't mind the writings of a scholar with a vegetarian agenda). Another good book that discusses the role of James the Just is "The Jesus Dynasty: The Hidden History of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity" by James D. Tabor. Lastly, if one would like to investigate the connection between early Jewish Christianity and early Islam and Sufism, I suggest reading "The Muslim Jesus: Sayings and Stories in Islamic Literature" by Tarif Khalidi.

'The Brother of Jesus and the Lost Teachings of Christianity' by Jeffrey J. Butz. Reviewed by Peter Senese, author of 'Cloning Christ'.


I want to begin my review by saying that I am a layman who continues to seek knowledge of the historical Jesus. I am by no means a scholar, but simply a man seeking a deeper relationship with Christ. I would consider my faith in Christ strong. This provides me with the strength and courage needed to explore historically the actual life of Jesus during his physical life. From what I have discovered thus far in my own quest, it has become important for me in my desire to become closer to Christ to understand the social structures, political agendas, and personal interactions of Jesus. This is by no means an easy task as many theological scholars today have claimed. Nevertheless, I think it is imperative that theological scholars continue to explore the various writings that share the life of Christ, and place this text (and the many revisions that have occurred over time) in the social, political, and personal intent of Jesus' life. In James, The Brother of Jesus, Lutheran minister Jeffrey J. Butz does a phenomenal job in presenting his research and cross references of various writings in order to portray a very understandable and credible set of scenarios of the early Church and its leadership, specifically, what was the true role of James, the brother of Jesus. In doing so Jeffrey J. Butz provides to the reader the opportunity to think through, by understanding James and his true role as one of if not the true leader of the Christ movement, what actually was occurring during the time immediately after the death of Christ, and, what Jesus was actually trying to share with the world.

Over the years in particular scholars have extended the divisionary arguments of the division between James and Paul, and the initial roots that have led to the direction of the present Christ following. In order to realize the differentiation between the immediate followings of Jesus, and how they changed over a rather short period of time, it is critical that we understand what was actually occurring socially and politically during the historical period immediately after Christ sacrifice. Carefully using canonical and Gnostic gospels, not to mention a wide assortment of writings by historians, Butz does a wonderful job clarifying a present void that is a part of the `Early Christ Movement'. In doing so, readers are forced to think through the wonderment of the life of Christ.

Overall, this is a must read for anyone who seeks a closer relationship with Christ. In understanding the historical movements of the early Church, I believe we can all develop a closer relationship with Christ. I would also like to add that I believe it took a great deal of courage to write this book since there are contradictions to the present structures that comprise organized Christendom. I would like to thank the author for showing the courage and the stamina required to write and share with the world what I believe to be a historically accurate story of James, and in doing so, sharing a new dimension to the life of Jesus Christ.

This book supports the fact that early Christians observed the 613 Laws. Everything from Sabbaths (Saturday) To the seven Holy Days. Nor did they believe the soul of a person goes to Heaven or Hell, nether a trinity. Anyways this book among others shows much proof that the early Christians were indeed Judaism, and nothing more. They accept the Messiah for the most part as the King and high priest. The Temple became an assemble point rather then the House of God after Christ died. A very good book, a very good read!

Rev Butz has here made a decent tour of the historical phenomenon of "Jewish" or "primitive" Christianity, and how it appears to have been smothered by Saul/Paul's Greek mystery religion. Although this is written for the educated layman, it does help to have a grasp of the sources available concerning Jakob ha Tzaddok, James the Righteous, James the Lesser, James the Greater, and James of Jerusalem; it helps the argument considerably if you suspect that Stephen the Protomartyr was actually James, the early church fathers finding too much import in the holiness of James, yet unwilling to discard as noncanonical the tale of his death at the hands of Saul and the "Libertines" at the steps of the Temple.
Missing, and a whole new can of worms already radically addressed by Dr Robert Eisenman, is whether James actually domiciled in Jerusalem or was the leader of the camp at Qumran. This is perhaps the reason for another book, and will lay out for the future several avenues of research which will only be completed once that copy of Hegesippus is found on Patmos. I am unsure that the religion of James *was* salvationist Christianity, seeming rather to be an evolution of Judaism. 'Justification by Work' has been criticized almost since it was expounded in the Epistle of James (which contains only three specific Christian references which *might* have been Lukan/Pauline interpolations in an authentic document), yet has an intuitive logic which many find lacking in the 'Justification by Faith <alone?>' of Paul (see Kay Shelemay's theory on the origins of the Falasha Jews of NW Ethiopia). It seems unlikely that James was not the leader of a discrete population of piety which viewed the Law of Moses as their guide to life.
One might expect such a community to end its devotion with an exhortation to "do good unto all, while we recommend it more especially to the household of the faithful"
-except that comes from the Closing Charge FreeMasons must recite before leaving lodge.
hmmm, perhaps the 'lost teachings' DID survive the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE.

In a scholarly, yet highly accessible book, Butz reveals that Early Christianity was a normative Jewish sect. He discusses the paramount importance of James the brother of Jesus. He clearly views Paul as at odds with the early Church before 63 CE (AD). Most of the core of Eisenman's "James..." is in this book, but with < 20% the number of pages. The last chapter falters a bit with romantic dreams. I recommend this to all who want to understand the historical Jesus, James, and Paul. cypress showley

I was especially impressed with Butz's comments on the biblical data.

In summary:

1 - Paul believed the Judaizers deserved nothing more than scorn and cursing (Galatians 1:6-9). If James agreed with Paul, we would expect James to refuse to give Judaizers the time of day, still less a fair hearing in the most doctrinally important "Council of Jerusalem" in Acts 15. The very fact that James felt the need to let Judaizers have their theological say-so in a formal meeting of Christianity's finest, at least proves he did not think Paul's arguments against them were as air-tight as today's fundamentalist Christians think they are. James would have even known better than Paul, as James interacted with the real historical pre-resurrection Jesus, while Paul was limited solely to visions. Unless somebody wishes to say that Jesus forgot to educate the apostles on what Gentiles need to do to be saved, the dispute in Acts 15, if historical at all, implies that Jesus never intended Gentiles to be part of his gospel ministry. This logic is so good, many Christians have become "dispensationalist" (i.e., thinking that the way of salvation as Paul expressed it after Jesus' death, was different from the way Jesus taught it before his death.)

2 - In Acts 10, God thought Peter needed a divine vision to be "reminded" that salvation goes to the Gentiles too. This is not believable as Peter was a disciple of Jesus from the beginning. The implication is that Jesus did not originally preach that salvation goes to Gentiles, and that this "vision of Peter" in Acts 10 is a lie from Luke in his quest to show harmony between Paul's law-free gospel, and the views of Jesus' original apostles. Since this is Acts 10, the stupidity of Peter as known from the gospels doesn't apply anymore, Peter was transformed at Pentecost in Acts 2, into a fearless wonder-working preacher who possessed the ability to know things before they were made known naturally (see Acts 5). Therefore Peter's need for a vision to be "reminded" that Gentiles may also partake of salvation, cannot be explained by simply carping that Peter was a general idiot and needed such otherwise unnecessary shove. The text seems to scream out that Jesus didn't ever preach a Gentile ministry, and so the Acts-author creates this story about Peter needing a "reminder" in his quest to harmonize the original apostles, who didn't preach a Gentile ministry, with Paul, who did.

3 - In Galatians 2:2, Paul feels compelled to travel to Jerusalem to present his gospel to James. Why? After all James and Paul always agreed on the gospel, right? Wrong, keep reading. Paul next admits that he presented his gospel in private, for fear that he might be proven to have "run in vain". No conservative Christian has ever explained how Paul could "fear running in vain", yet this expression by Paul indicates that it was NOT entirely certain, at least in his own mind, that James would necessarily agree with his Gentile-gospel. This is in stark contrast to the high confidence of today's fundamentalist Christians, who are sure beyond all doubt that James and Paul agreed with each other on the gospel. It's a dam shame that Paul himself doesn't share thier confidence at this critical juncture in his life. Now where would Paul get the silly idea that perhaps James might not agree with the Pauline gospel? Ok...maybe that idea isn't so silly after all? Maybe Paul, as inspired by God, had excellent reasons to fear such possible disagreement from James? Paul's later admission that James ended up agreeing with him, doesn't help conservatives explain how Paul can have entertained second thoughts on the matter before the meeting took place. Why didn't Paul think it was obvious that James would agree with him as today's fundamentalists do? The James described in the patristic literature would never give Paul the right hand of fellowship, yet conservatives who declare otherwise, have never demonstrated how that patristic evidence fails standard tests of historiograpy. They simply deny it for no more reason than their prior belief in Paul's honesty.

4 - Galatians 2:12-13, In spite of the fact that Barnabas was Paul's right-hand man in his Gentile-ministry, Barnabas is convinced by the arrival of "men from James" to cease assocations with Gentiles and start acting more legalistically. Those Judaizers sure must have had some good arguments and carried high authority, to change the views of such a friend of Paul as Barnabas.

5 - Galatians 2:14 - Did you notice that Paul says Peter began "compelling Gentiles to live as Jews"? Yeah, you never knew that Peter became a Judaizer until I reminded you of what Paul admitted in Galatians 2:14 just now, eh? Wow, those Judaizers must have had some powerful arguments and carried high authority, to make an original disciple of Jesus violate the knowledge he gained from Jesus personally, eh? Like maybe....he knew the Judaizers represented Christ's gospel more accurately than Paul did?

6 - In Acts 21:18 ff, James admits that his congregation of Jewish Christians, numbering in the tens of thousands, remain "zealous for the Law". How could they remain zealous for the law, if the gospel they converted to, said "Christ is the END of the Law for righteousness", as Paul's gospel says in Romans 10:4? The obvious implication is that James's converts remain zealous for the Law, because the gospel James preached said nothing about Jesus' death "fulfilling" or "abolishing" the law. James appears to have preached a version of the gospel that was entirely in harmony with the continuing validity and divine significance of temple ceremonies as commanded by Moses.

In short, Butz does an excellent job of showing that apostle Paul is the true heretic, and that the original form of the Gospel, as taught by Jesus, was legalistic. Careful bible readers should have already noticed that Paul twisted the Old Testament to support his gospel. Careful bible readers should have already asked themselves how such a pretended apostle as Paul could so totally fail to quote Jesus in his efforts to explain the gospel. Paul's preference for using the Old Testament, instead of the literal words of Jesus, to justify his theological views, screams out for explanation. The explanation is: Jesus clearly taught a legalistic salvation that would surely be scoffed at by Gentiles. Paul needed therefore to make the gospel more palatable for Gentiles, and of course, that meant zero dependence on the words of the historical Jesus. Not exactly the procedure of an honest man.

Even shorter, Butz makes a solid case that James was the leader of the Judaizers. The patristic evidence alone, which says James became no less than Jewish High Priest (can't get more legalistic than that!) passes historical tests of criteria of embarassment and multiple attestation, so the reader is inexoribly driven to the conclusion that Paul's dominance in the New Testament only works to hide how legalistic Christianity originally was. Let's talk about it, shall we? skepticdude@hotmail.com