Customer Reviews

James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls

5 star:		(38)
4 star:		(19)
3 star:		(13)
2 star:		(9)
1 star:		(9)

 

 

Theology and bibical study has a tradition of tough-mindedness and intellectual rigor that makes extreme demands on the modern reader who has grown up with Sesame Street and Chicken-Soup For The Lazy. Eisenman cuts the reader no slack.

This volume should be read with the understanding that any commentary on the Dead-Sea Scrolls published more than perhaps 5 years ago was warped into meaninglessness by the pious orthodoxy of the guardians of those scrolls. Any reader of the King James version of the New Testement must acknowledge that James was the brother of Jesus and the designated leader of the church after Jesus departed the scene. Orthodoxy has never explained how the theology of Paul came to dominate the Christian tradition and the little letter of James is taken with such a large grain of salt. Eisenman is a giant step in that direction and deserves a respectful counter-argument from the orthodox tradition

John P. Meier's 2 vol work "A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus" is a good supplement to Eisenman. Meier has more extensive footnotes with good expanding remarks on Josephus where Eisenman only cites his sources. Eisenman makes good use of "the normal canons of historical argument and literary analysis" particulary as they have developed in redaction criticism of the bible. The reader need not have a degree in bible studies to slog through this difficult intellectual swamp. But the reader will drown if they depend on a traditional Christian fundamentalist life jacket to keep their faith afloat while making this journey.

Eisenman's "James" is the BEST work of non-fiction I have EVER read. It should be required reading for anyone who makes ANY claim to (Western) Religious Knowledge -- theological, historical, or spiritual. It is not for the faint of heart: It is both physically massive and conceptually dense. In my case, six months, cover-to-cover. My wife called it the "Omnipresent Tome." To pick it up is a true investment -- But boy does it pay.

Though deep scholarship, Eisenman's tale is nonetheless gripping. He outlines his premises, then weaves and connects them with meticulous care. His book reads like a detective story. But "James" is much more -- a monumental struggle to recover lost memory. A Deleted History, to which each of us has a real and important relation. It is a story of intrigue and transcendence, of subterfuge and conflict.

For some readers, the book must imply a dark, unspoken theme. Dark, because there is the most Insidious and Ironic Purpose behind our forgetfulness. Eisenman is not just reproducing the shattered. He is not merely recreating processes of undirected time. He is helping us to name the Culpable, the Robbers of Self-Memory, the Perpetrators of the Shattering. "James the Brother of Jesus" shines a very direct light on the shadowy foundations of Western religious assumption.

I was fascinated by the principal personalities of Eisenman's story -- James, Josephus, and Paul -- as well as the dozens of fragmentary echoes of voices that were silenced long ago. One is left wondering at the Systematic Erasure of early witness. So much history (yet so little) exists only as attributed quotes, eviscerations which appear in others' writings, as if they had crawled there to be hidden, like the Treasures of the Copper Scroll... Eisenman gathers a thousand such fragments and very carefully plots the implications. Separately, the pieces are puffs of air; together, they constitute a secret, essential, and yet sad, Forbidden Gospel.

The major points the author makes are:
James was the undisputed successor to Jesus;
Early Christianity was very Jewish and very messianic;
Early Christianity was stronly allied with the Qumran-Essene population;
Paul's philosophy of inclusion is antithetical to the real tenets of early Christianity;
Luke was the quintessential propagandist;
The New Testament is corrupted by forgeries, which Authorities even now use to justify themseleves;

... and goodness, a thousand other things....

If you want to understand Christianity, "James" is a giant first step.

The reader is not a scholar, but enjoys reading scholarship concerning early Christianity. Eisenman's book produces so much detail it is hard to keep it all in mind. Yet after 400 pages this reader, through meticulous repetition on the part of the author, was able to make sense of what the author was trying to say. And that is: that James is the blood brother of Jesus; James was the one who succeeded Jesus; and very importantly, if James Messianic version of what would become Christianity had succeeded, there probably would have been no Christianity because it would have died in the ruins of Jerusalem.

Eisenman's work challenges current mythologies of Jesus in the Gospels as well as the Pretine succession. But a faithful Christian need not fear his conclusions, because one can see how important tradition is. Tradition interprets events and scripture.

The rewrites, overwrites and omissions in the New Testament are a teastment themselves of how what would become the prevailing understanding would see the impact of Jesus' life, death and resurrection. Eisenman at the beginning of the study warns the reader to beware of what comes from the predominant view of any particular time.

Eisenman being a scholar does not always write things directly because he is working with material that has shifting meaning. Several languages are involved and studies from the first several centuries did not understand Hebrew and Aramaic languages. Yet there were times when the reader would have wished for a statement about where he was going.

There is to be volume II, hopefully shorter. But this reader is looking forward to seeing it.

This book is long. The author is somewhat tedious in his explanations. BUT... if you have questions like:
- Was "Jesus" the first person of that name?
- Did he have biological brothers?
- What happened to the "Christians" in Jerusalem?
- Why would the Sanhedrin meet at midnight during Passover?
- Why did the Romans crucify Jesus?
- Why is Judas Iscariot the only "apostle" with a surname?
- How did the "apostle" Paul get Roman citizenship?
- Why is so much New Testament material written by Greeks, by people who never met Jesus?
- Where is the material written by those who met him face to face?
- and more....
Then this is THE book for you. Mr. Eisenman is a creditable source, a central researcher of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Palistinian antiquity. I won't say it's an easy read, but the points he makes are consistent and have the ring of truth. Those entrenched in blind faith may find themselves challenged.
Those concerned about the recent movie, "The Passion Of Jesus The Christ", may find that it no longer matters.
I found this book life-changing, though I expect to challenge some of it's tenets by reading the Dead Sea material myself.

The book "James, the Brother of Jesus," is one of the most poorly-written I have ever read, but the central idea is so compelling that I finished all one thousand pages. The text is extremely repetitive and could easily have been edited down to five or six hundred pages. Sentences often run over one hundred words, and multiple conventions for italics and capitalization emphasize every other word and make it impossible to understand many sentences on the first read-through. The author also assumes the reader has a knowledge of not just the bible, but the works of the Roman historian Josephus and the Dead Sea Scrolls as well. The author's premise relies heavily on early church writings and recently-discovered Gnostic gospels, but the lack of quotations make it hard to evaluate many of the author's linguistic arguments in context, and it would have been much easier to trust him if he hadn't made so many sloppy errors. For instance, he suggests that Alphaeus and Clopas could be the same person because scribes could have confused the greek alpha for a kappa, and backs up his assertion with a reference to a scholarly article on the observed confusion of alphas with lambdas (a capital lambda looks like an A without the central bar, a far more likely mistake). Sometimes this linguistic analysis is revelatory, as when the author suggests that "Nazorean" or "Nazirite," a member of a sect devoted to spiritual cleansing through ritual bathing in the wilderness, may have been corrupted to "Nazarean," one from the town of Nazareth. Other times, as when he suggests that Simeon and Simon and Peter and Cephas (the equivalent of the Greek "Peter" in Aramaic) and maybe even Clopas are all the same person, this analysis is more of a stretch. The author finds ways to negate any contrary evidence, saying that the New Testament was written by pro-Roman followers of James' bitter adversary Paul, and the histories of Josephus, similarly pro-Roman, likewise should not be trusted on any subject that might have offended Rome. As the author suggests that James (and by association, Jesus) would have been a member of a sect zealously opposing Roman influence, much of what we know about Christianity is thus set aside. This leaves the author to rely heavily on apocryphal gospels, some of which are quoted second- or third-hand, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, which he himself has translated and has a book to sell you. He also uses the well-known inconsistencies in the bible to throw the whole canon into doubt. The result is that the author can pick and choose the facts he needs to support his argument and rationalize away those that don't fit. This puts him more in the mold of an Erik von Daniken, author of the "Chariots of the Gods" books (although without the breezy readibility), or of director Oliver Stone's movie "JFK." In other words, this book works well as entertainment, and undoubtedly contains some previously unacknowledged elements of truth, but can only be considered as one interpretation of a hoplessly contradictory set of writings. Even if the reader is not convinced of the truthfulness of every part of the argument, there are plenty of insights into politics and religion at the time of Jesus. As this is the first book on the subject that I have read, I can not say if other books exist which could be recommended more highly. However, for anyone capable of critical analysis and wanting to know more about the Jewish origins of Christianity, looking for a more objective description of the Jerusalem Church, or seeking a connection between Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls, this book can be recommended.

I have found Prof. Eisenman's work extremely valuable. His critics are right when they point out that the book is long, repetitious, and difficult. This is why I consider the book falls a star short of a 5 star winner. But perhaps the detail of the book is necessary. In Prof. Eisenman's profession "proofs" do not exist. Only interpretations. The more detail you have, perhaps the better the interpretation. I am not sure Eisenman is always right, but he is, nevertheless, enlightening. And he, trying to recover the true story of early christianity, is closer to the truth than those who look for "Jesus, the son of God" rather than "the historical Jesus". For many, the mere fact that Jesus had a brother will be a revelation. But it is equally valuable to consider that the "Ecclesia" James (and, by extension, Jesus) had in mind was a nationalistic, apocalyptic, fanatic movement against the Empire of the time. Paul, being accomodatitious with power, rejecting the local aspects of early Christianity, and transforming Jesus into a supernatural figure, made Him universal. No mean feat, but is chilling to consider that that was not the original intention. Serious work, made by an open mind. You will require one too to painfully read it. But, when you are in pain, you must remember that the author took greater pains to write it: he had to argue against orthodoxy, even Divinity, and he was mostly successful.

To anyone raised on ideas of swearing on the Bible, gospel truth, and sermons taking biblical narratives as factual events, this book will be very disturbing. It literally sets traditional notions about Jesus and the early church on their heads, but to those who already find the biblical record unbelievable, the New Testament will become clear for the first time. First, the history of the first century of the common era as presented in the gospels and Acts is shown to be fatally flawed. Josephus is relied on for the larger framework, Paul's letters, rather than Acts, are relied on for the period 40-60CE, and all extant references to James fill in the details of the views of the first Christians. Extensive use is made of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Eisenman advances a controversial, but compelling case, at least to me, that the earliest, Jewish followers of Jesus were Essenes, who held the same hyper-observant, anti-establishment, eschatological views that prevailed at Qumran, and that the Teacher of Righteousness was, in fact, James, and that Paul was the Man of the Lie. To make his case, Eisenman analyses biblical materials minutely, on a year by year, name by name, sometimes word by word basis. This can be both exhausting and repetitious, but for me it worked. I spent a very long time reading this book, because I looked up every reference the author made to the Bible, Dead Sea Scrolls or Josephus (which he recommends the reader do), to be sure he wasn't misrepresenting the materials. It was worth it. This year, as I heard the Passion according to Luke read on Palm Sunday, for the first time in my life, I understood what I was hearing.

Over the years, I have read at least a dozen books on the historical Jesus. None comes close to this one for its exhaustive research into all availabe sources. This book or thesis could not have been written in any other less scholarly style because Dr. Eisenman's conclusions demand to be supported exhaustively. And so he does. The thousand pages go by in a whiz even with my patient re-reading of many sections to get it right. Exciting stuff.

Man alive, is this book poorly written. I was drawn to it by its scholarly pose and its revolutionary subject matter, but now rather than call him a rebel or a scholar I'd just say he's a long-winded crank.

I was prepared to do some heavy slogging, understand. I wasn't put off by dense prose. But the man can torture sentence structure like nobody's business. I even bookmarked one page, which had a sentence I couldn't find a verb in for the life of me. I would show it to friends, asking them, "It's not just me, right? That sentence has no verb?" They all agreed. Usually, though, while he may lead a precarious trail through innumerable clauses and parenthetical phrases, he does construct actual sentences; that's not the main problem. The main problem is that he feels the need to repeat himself incessantly. Let me give an example. Here's a simple story: I needed grapes. I went to the store. I had to use a credit card because I didn't have cash. I came home and ate my grapes. Now, here's that story the Robert Eisenman way: I needed grapes. Needing grapes, I went to the store where they sold grapes, which I needed. The need for grapes prompted an understandable need for cash for the needed grapes, but cash for needed grapes was not to be had, and, needed or not, needed grapes were of paramount importance, and I needed them, the grapes, which I needed. Thus, inevitably, the need for grapes being on my mind, I found myself using a credit card for the purchase (the purchase the importance of which centered on grapes) of grapes, which I had sought to buy earlier with cash, out of a need that has been previously stated but cannot be stressed enough, which was a need for grapes. Since I could not eat grapes in the store no matter how much I needed them, I took the grapes to my home, and, having passed the episode of needing grapes and initiated the epoch of actual grape consumption, I could only reflect on the need I had had, the grape need, the need for grapes, the grapes which had become posessed by me through the process of a feeling attached to grapes, a feeling related to grapes but not a feeling I could call "grape," inasmuch as that would be confusing a feeling with the object of that feeling, which may appeal to some Eastern perspectives but in a Judeo-Christian context is out of place, therefore the grape-centric emotionality had to be named a non-grape name, and I called it need.

...except he's worse. Anyway, it's a darn shame, because the subject matter is fascinating. The approach makes a lot of sense: since we can assume everything said about Jesus to be biased, we may be able to learn more about him by looking at the writings on his brother, James, as historical accounts of him would be less under pressure to conform to dogma. The book made me want to sit down and re-write it, because I enoyed the original thinking I encountered every fifth page. Seriously, without all the repetition, this book would be the size of Cat's Cradle.

I would wait for someone else to synthesize his views and read that. I tried to push myself through this book, but after about halfway, I started using it as a mousepad.

The author gravely needs to have someone else organize his writing. His points, when I could see them through the tangled syntax, were compelling, but if he wishes to communicate, he must find a love of brevity.

As Eisenman makes clear, Christianity today only fractionally relates to the historical Jesus. The Jesus of modern X-tianity is a dim reflection of James found in a hodge-podge of Arthurian-like rememberances of the political movement to kick Rome out of Palestine.

The implications of Eisenman's book for X-tianity are legion: The moral content of Jesus's philosophy, admirable as it is, is a Hellenistic smoothing over of Mithraic and Zoroastrian mystery cults from the border legions. Jesus was no more than a political marionet of the Parthian empire (read between the lines in both the redacted "New Testament" and Josephus), and he and his family represented a front against both the Herods and Rome. He was an anti-establishment icon that only in the 4th century took on the other-worldly dogma the religion holds today. His historical greatness rests in the Parthian attempt to set up a buffer state against Rome in place of the Idumean Herodian line that was joined at the hip with the empire. What X-tianity is today is no more than the by-product of a political cult surrounding the legend of Jesus that could tolerate no other interpretations of his life because they threatened the power of those who claimed divine knowlegde. The first suppression of the Gnostics in the 4th century is one example. Later heretics suffered the same cruelties. That is always the way it goes with Abrahamic religions: It boils down to politics and eradication. Like an old worn coin, we cannot see it 2000 years later for what it originally was when minted. Jesus was a political figure at a time when religion and politics were the same thing: "the king of the Jews" who was killed in a manner reserved for political rebels.

Eisenman has done the world a tremendous service with this work, as so many reviews note. My only observation beyond what others have said is that there is no reason to unhinge the book's main logic on the point of Paul's unlikely ability to have had a long range Roman political agenda, as some critics of the work have tried to do (in an apparent effort to discredit the mass of evidence Eisenman arrays). The argument, a red herring if I ever smelled one, is that Eisenman can't be right because Paul could have had no view of the future of Christianity, and therefore no motive to invert and emasculate the "fourth philosophy" of the anti-Roman Jerusalem Christians under James. Suppose we grant that point--it changes only one thing: Paul's likely motivation. All we need do is look to Paul's own writings for his motives, to see that he constantly seeks money from his overseas communities, all in the name of being saved, while boasting of his special relationship with Jesus. Sound familiar? Paul was clever, and merciless, and he knew he could get tithe money easier by defrauding people spiritually than by demanding it as a Roman tax farmer. So maybe he wasn't a Roman agent, although the evidence suggests he was, yet he still convicts himself out of his own mouth--a close reading of his letters will show that to any reader who cares to look beyond the hocus pocus and the scare tactics. Eisenman brings history into focus.