Rating: 
Summary: The most important book I have read in years
Review: The study of religion has been an major part of my life, and I feel that Eisenman's book is an important part of this continuing interest. I have a BA in Comparative Religion from Earlham College, and I remember my classes in the New Testament and early Christianity as being informative, but always lacking in clarity and historical accuracy. Just who were the Pharisees, Saduccees, Essenes, Sicarii, and Nazirites? What was Paul's relationship to the development of the early Church and its shift in focus from Palestine to Rome? And what is the significance of the family of Jesus, mentioned many times in the Gospels and in the Book of Acts, but obviously in conflict with the dogma of the Catholic Church? After graduating I read The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception, which although more condensed and accessible to the non-acedemic, did not do the subject justice (no pun intended) like James the Brother of Jesus. This book provides exhaustive detail and literaly invites one to enter into Eisenman's reconstruction of what the first century AD was truly like and the many religious and political figures that lived at that time. It pointed out things that were simply not metioned during my time studying religion in college. The conflict between Paul and the Jerusalem Assembly led by James is of crucial importance. And most importantly in light of Eisenman's work, this was not a struggle over the Judiazation of the Church as some might contend, for the simple truth of the matter is that the Church was already Judiazed, most liikely by Jesus himself! As Eisenman points out, Paul attacks Peter in Galatians for siding with some men sent from James on the subject of circumcision and table fellowship with Gentiles, and according to the Acts of the Apostles, Peter had never eaten anything non-kosher until he has his Pauline revelation on a rooftop in Jaffa. One must face the possibility that if both Peter and James adhered to Jewish law until well after Jesus' crucifixtion, that maybe this was truly the teaching of Jesus, and not the Pauline rejection of "the curse" of the Mosaic Law. But there really is no coincidence as to why these things were never pointed out, for they upset the traditional picture of what was occuring during the time of Jesus and the formation of Christianity. Instead of having peaceful Christians beset by law-obsessed Pharisees and violent revolutionaries, (and the Dead Sea Scrolls written by monk-like peaceful Essenes separate from the revolt against Rome) we see the development of Christianity and Judiaism as we know them tied directly to the popular Messianic and apocalyptic revolt against Rome that was supported by the overwhelming majority of the inhabitants of Palestine. The main survivors of this struggle were either the Pauline Christian converts or Pharisaic proto-Rabbinical Jews, boths groups having renounced political and apocalyptic messianic devotion. Yet for those who did not, like James and others following his movement, their legacy wound its way through various "heretical" groups (Ebonites, Nestorians, Mandeans, etc) and even into Islam. Yes, the book is long, at times redundant, and even for someone with a strong background in the study of religion it can be a bit confusing. But I have always loved books that I can sink into, read for days on end and become thoroughly involved in their subject matter. James the Brother of Jesus is one of those books, and it's subject is so fascinating and of such incredible importance that I will be rereading it for years to come.
Rating:
Summary: The way forward to find the true history of Christianity
Review: Eisenman's book 'James the Brother of Jesus' is an inspiration to those who seriously want to understand the true history of messianic Judaism and early Christianity. The author's hostorical methods and the way he thinks and writes are as important as the content. The form critics trace development of the text and the naturalists fabricate alternative histories for Jesus. As useful as they are, they leave you confused. Eisenman not only focuses on text but also on real people (like James) and real events (like the trial and execution of James by Ananus and Aggripa II). For evidence, he establishes whole frameworks of comparisons, relationships, allusions applied to words, people and events. He draws historical details from many sources. His work is a salutary reminder that the way forward is to use true historical method. His enthusiasm is infectious. I agree that the context of much of the Dead Sea Scrolls material is applicable to the time of James despite what some say about the radio carbon dating results (which can only be statistical).Eisenman's work inspired the amateur who has no knowledge of the original languages to undertake further research. For example, you can explore Josephus' works and compare them with the New Testament. In Josephus' 'Wars of the Jews', I was astonished to find that the names of the two principal Jewish heroes during the war of the Jews against Rome were Simon and John, the same names as the two principal apostles of Jesus. Towards the end of the war, Simon (possibly the same Simon who earlier had his own assembly/ congregation/church) was trapped and forced to surrender. After the war he was taken to Rome (with John and 700 captives), dressed-up to hide his emaciation, given the front position among the captives in the triumphal procession, drawn along by a rope around his head, and finally executed (probably crucified - may be upside down according to the tradition associated with Peter) (see War, Book 7). In John 21:18 and 19 we read: Jesus said (the the disciple Simon/Peter), 'I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.' The other leader John had surrendered more readily and was allowed to live as a prisoner for the rest of his life (see War, book 6). Compare that with John 21:22: Jesus answered (speaking to Simon/Peter), 'If I want him (referring to the disciple John) to remain alive until I return what is that to you?' An imaginative playwright seems to be at work. The gospel account is pure theatre. Why were the names of the two heroes chosen for two of the principal actors? For me, Eisenman is to early Christian history what Einstein is to relativity, or Max Planck is to the quantum theory. Physicists apply the ideas of relativity and quantum mechanics to find a theory for the origin of the universe, or even a theory of everything. Historians can apply true historical methods as Eisenman does to try to find the true history of early Christianity - a very complicated jigsaw puzzle. There is an amazing quantity of source material (as the references in Eisenman's book show) and there are plenty of unanswered questions. The historians in this field may have to modify their theories as new facts are discovered - a lesson to be learned from the physicists. In a world where religion (or the mis-use of religion) continues to be the root of so much war, hatred and suspicion (as it was 2000 years ago), the understanding of the foundations of all religions (Islam, Mormanism, whatever) must surely be important for future human relationships. Eisenman's book is a good contribution to the understanding process. I long for the day when everyone has the freedom to discover the foundation of thier religion openly without fear of ridicule, exclusion, discrimination or even of death.
Rating: 
Summary: Answers to questions you've always wondered about...
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: "Poorly" argued
Review: Eisenman's favorite word in James, the Brother of Jesus "tendentious" is just what this argument is. Eisenman's basic assumption--a conspiracy theory that orthodox Christianity has subverted the message of its Founder(s)--is not very original. These founders, according to Eisenman, are Jesus' brothers, in particular, James the Just, who Eisenman connects to the Essene community of Qumran, site of the Dead Sea Scrolls. This Christianity of James is primarily Jewish, anti-imperialist, and focused on personal purity. Peter is a patsy, the other disciples either didn't exist or were someone else. Paul is a subverter of this message, a member of Herod's family, a Roman sell-out, even guilty of unjustly battering poor James. The only people to have visions of the risen Christ were James and his brothers-Paul has his own vision in order to gain the power to subvert their righteous rule. The original church, nationalistic and anti-Roman, is wiped out during the Jewish revolt of 66 CE, an uprising that starts because James falls victim to state terrorism. The remnant of the church, Paul's warped creation, survives to write anti-Jewish propaganda to please their Roman masters and hide the early prominence of Jesus' brothers, principle players in the revolt. In order to prove all this, Eisenman dispenses with the gospels entirely, and in doing so ignores a lot of serious criticism of groups like the Jesus Seminar, who claim the Gospels contain collections of authentic utterances of Jesus, collections of sayings and signs, and who are hardly the establishment scholars Eisenman seems anxious to offend. He focuses on scattered references to James in the New Testament, mostly the early Pauline letters. The rest of his "evidence" he gathers by resorting to a strange game of conflating names and words. As you read this book, note how frequently Eisenman resorts to this latter method of proving his argument. Pluck but one of Eisenman's basic assumptions--that many different names in widely scattered writings refer to the same person, for instance, and not several-and you quickly realize that Eisenman really has no "evidence," only a tendentious method. I found this an interesting read, if ultimately unconvincing, despite its attempt to sally in all directions, several times, during its1000 page trot. Eisenman's emphasis of the distance between the Epistles of James and Galations brought my attention back to those dichotomies, faith vs. works, freedom vs. obligation, and ultimately, I appreciated that.
Rating:
Summary: A disturbing but enlightening trip
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Answers to questions you've always wondered about...
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Fascinating, Overly Complex, worth rereading
Review: The issues involved in the relationship Judiasm and the early Church are remarkable and not widely known. The role of Jesus's brother James, leader of the Jerusalem Church, who Josephus reports was loved and respected by Pharisees and all other Jews, is fascinating. There are many gems that can be discovered in this work (such as where the name Nazarene likely came from). Other arguments appear to be speculative leaps, such as making James the figure described in the Dead Sea Scrolls. On the other hand, Eisenmann knows the Dead Sea Scrolls better than anyone. Despite the comments by another reviewer, there is nothing anti-Jewish about this book. For those interested in this history, I would strongly recommend Hyam Maccoby's books on the Jesus, Judiasm, and the early Church. These are better written and the probing and analysis of the historical record, including the Gospels, are extraordinary, convincing, and a pleasure to read.
Rating:
Summary: Recovering the true history of early Christianity
Review: Many of the reviews posted are poorly informed, seemingly provided by orthodox Christian readers, many of whom appear not to have read the book, or at least understood it. Orthodox Christians are particularly interested in "James the Brother of the Lord", since we are starved for information about him in the canonised Bible. Many Churchgoers pick up Eisenman's book to find out more of this intriguing figure, but are soon horrified at the non-orthodox figure that emerges. My own second hand copy of "James the Brother of Jesus" is filled with the red pen criticisms of an angry Christian who writes that "Peter is standing aside the pearly gates, he is is not some sort of zealot"<..This is not light reading, it requires concentration and can be quite tedious through the middle section on James bathing and clothing, stick with it. Once Eisenman begins coverage of "James the first to see Jesus" the pages begin rapidly turning once again. One reviwer compared Eisenman to a "plate spinner" a fair analogy, Eisenman balances 15some arguments at once before joining them into a cogenescente whole at the end. The true beauty of this book for me, was discovering who the other brothers of Jesus: Simon, Judas and Joses really were, but I won't ruin the surprise. The book also provides deep insight into the deviousness and bizarre sense of humour of "Luke" author of Acts as Eisenman unsheaths the truth from the realm of obfuscation.
Rating: 
Summary: sensationalistic biased nonsense
Review: If the Apostle Paul was the enemy of James and the Jerusalem community, as this book asserts, why would he encourage his converts to collect tithes for "the Saints in Jerusalem"? Why would he submit to James' authority on a number of decisions and why would the New Testament even mention this?
Paul died over 200 years before Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. There was no way he could know that he would be cannonized as a saint hundreds of years later. Paul spent his last days in Roman chains and was executed by Rome. Eusebius and Clement both attest to this. He was hardly an agent of Rome as this book suggests.
The author is clearly a man with an agenda; to tear down something he doesn't like which is Christianity. The New Testament was written long before Christianity was "Romanized". The only way to understand it is to accept it for what it is instead of trying to rewrite it according to your own prejudices.
Rating:
Summary: Post modern garbage
Review: Anyone who is reading this book should understand that Dr. Eisenman operates on the far out fringe of Dead Sea Scrolls scholarship. The majority of DSS scholars, equally as or more competent than Eisenman, reject most of his findings. There are so many publicly available examples of how his opinions can not be reconciled to clear facts that there is no need to list them here - any serious and honest student of the DSS can find example after example of Eisenman's misguided beliefs (Charlesworth, Vanderkam, Cross, Schiffman, Evans, Uhlrich, Flusser, Fitzmeyer, Stegemann, Vermes, Abegg, Collins, Flint, etc., and etc., and etc., and etc.). In my opinion, Eisneman is a typical post modern destructionist, and not worth reading unless you want to read firsthand the writings of the nutty fringe, or if your worldview is just anti-anything that looks like informed mainstream or scholarly concensus.
|
