Rating: 
Summary: Self-indulgent, Undisciplined, Anti-Jewish
Review: This is perhaps the worst written book I have ever tried to read, and I am a 65 year old PhD who has had to read a lot of junk.
1076 pages, including Introduction and end notes. If the material were organized and if the repetitions and irrelevant excursions were removed, it would be no more than 250 pages.
The author is self indulgent, relentlessly repetitious, and undisciplined, chasing into any side issue he fancies regardless of relevance. Sentences often involve nested parenthetical statements on irrelevant minutiae.
The overall picture given of James and the early church is not mistaken, but neither is it new. The slightest acquaintance with the New Testament will disclose the major problems between Paul and the Jamesian Jerusalem community. The author could drop about 100 pages just by stating in one page that details of numbers and names of the Twelve Apostles and the Seventy Disciples are vague and inconsistent, as everyone knows already. As for the claim of the title, it too is obvious. If one does not want to believe that James and Jesus were blood brothers, one has to explain it away (cousins or half-brothers, etc.) or change one's Christology. This is not new material.
There is newer material in the book, much of which borders on "A Beautiful Mind." James the Brother of Jesus was actually also James the son on Zebedee, and the martyr Stephan, and Judas Iscariot! And possibly the Righteous Leader of Qumran. Under a bewildering network of deduced aliases, the author convinces himself that he knows for sure that one person is underneath five different names. He sees malevolent intent and devious connections even where there are none, an occupational hazard of Biblical criticism.
More importantly, the book is anti-Jewish, and must be recognized as such. It is anti-Jewish by his own definitions. The author notes that modern normative Judaism is based on the Rabbinic tradition begun at this same time by Hillel and influenced by Philo of Alexandria, and is the other side of the same coin as Pauline Christianity. The author contends, and I agree, that both are to be understood by contrast with the fundamentalist, legalistic, violent, uncompromising, intolerant, xenophobic Judaism of the Jamesian Jerusalem church, of Qumran, of the Zealots, and of the unsuccessful movement of Rabbi Akiba. The author longs for the good old days of terrorist forced circumcisions of anyone who dared speak about God, of Siccari assassinations of "back-sliding" Jews who marry foreigners, of sexism, of complete shunning of any who made the smallest infraction of the Law, of barring the blind and crippled from the Temple. This is not modern normative Judaism, except in certain corners of our suffering world plagued by them and other blood-thirsty religious egomaniacs.
Rating: 
Summary: Revolutionary
Review: Finally, a scholar has started to recognize that the ideology of the Jewish Revolt against the Romans was Messianic Judaism, the very Messianic Judaism that Paul and Co. transformed into a pro-Roman Mystery Cult. James WAS "the Righteous One" of the Scrolls (or at least one of the last to hold the title). James was an ideological leader of the revolt. James was also the "Jewish Christian" leader in Jerusalem obviously down-played and written-out of the Gospels and Acts. The debate referred to in the opening chapters of Galatians proves conclusively that the Jesus Seminar's "Jesus" of the pithy, Pauline variety is pure nonsense. IF Jesus exited (big IF), he was a Jewish zealot--and was crucified because of it--and he was a fanatic for "purity" and the Jewish Law just like the Qumran community--and just like his brother, James. Pathbreaking and excellent!!
Rating: 
Summary: Old Subject. Painful Reading.
Review: The subject is an old one. Top of my mind I can remember reading F. Nietzche with the same argument. Dr. Eisenmann provides a lot of evidence to conclude that in fact Christianism, as we know it, is Paul's re-creation. In fact, this book is short of stating that Jesus is a fictitious figure. The only problem is that our good Dr. does not say why Pauld did what he did. Why not creating a new religion altogether instead of altering every bit of the original Christianism? It would have been easier for Paul and we would have avoided the pain of reading this book.
Rating:
Summary: Read a novel based on this book
Review: Excellent study. Read also The Star of Apocalypse by Itamar Bernstein, a novel about James the brother of Jesus.
Rating:
Summary: Provocative Theories
Review: This is an important book. The fascinating theories presented have helped spur compelling historical novels like The Star of Apocalypse.
Rating:
Summary: Theories provide historical novelists with great material
Review: This in an important book in that it presents fascinating theories that have spurred compelling historical novels like The Star of Apocalypse.
Rating:
Summary: Please, Rob, get a co-writer!
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: Tedium, tedium, tedium
Review: The roots of early Christianity is a favorite topic of mine. James in particular as the first leader of the Church (not Peter) and the brother of Christ, fascinates me no end. Unfortunately, due to the Church's reluctance to face the fact that Christ had brothers and sisters, the history regarding James is at best obscured. As a result, not many books have been written on him, this being the only one I could find. Sadly, the author of this book has a tendency to go off on tangents that do not pertain to whatever topic he is currently attempting to discuss. I don't doubt that Mr. Eisenman has extensive knowledge on the subject, but he renders the information in such form as to be unbearable. I've tried to read his book several times and can not seem to make it beyond page 60!
Rating:
Summary: Facinating, confusing, and addictive
Review: This very long book is facinating, confusing, and addictive. Some readers object to the repetitiveness, but I find it helpful. Separating all of the characters and their pseudo names, and keeping track of the sources cited is a challenge, and the presention of the author's viewpoint isn't always convincing. But I keep returning to this study to speculate whether, in fact, James was the chosen successor of Jesus. The cunning evidence presented suggesting that the Gospels, Acts, and letters of Paul may have been subtly altered, turned about and overlaid in service of interests of persons misconstruing the early Christians'{sometimes referred to as Jewish Christians} beliefs and behaviors was thought provoking. Paul is portrayed as being more intent on espousing a Pauline doctrine than in availing himself of the teachings of those who were closest to Jesus. Admitting he had never been a disciple until his famous vision, his attitude implying that his mystical experience made him superior to Jesus'closest followers has profoundly affected the biblical records we refer to as the Word of God. Insisting that he was subject to no man,including,of course, James, the brother of Jesus, the book portrayed Paul as turning upside down Jewish traditions and taboos. One of the most flagrant ,the drinking of "the blood" of Christ, would have been anathema to devout Jews whose history of avoiding contact with blood is well documented. James, a zealous Jew whose death may have resulted in the distruction of the temple would have objected most strenuously to that doctrine. Not having the texts of Josephus and other historical references recommended is a limitation correctable by having them in hand nexttime. James, the Brother of Jesus , facinating, confusing, and addictive is luring me to return.
Rating: 
Summary: He writes like he teaches.
Review: I took a comparative religion class from Dr. Eisenman at CSULB right as the whole revealing of the Dead Sea Scroll thing was happening. We lived in Josepheus , the DSS and the bible and you will need all three to get though this book. As mentioned before, he really needs an editor, but if you have ever met him, this book is him in a nutshell. It is a really hard read, but if this is a topic you really have an interest in, you could not find a better book to make you reconsider your ideas on early christanity.
|
