Rating: 
Summary: Completely confusing
Review: From the title I had the impression that we are going to know about James, but I was shocked to realize that the book is maily hidden critisim of christianity. The writer uses references from the Old Testemant which was written earlier and itself a result of oral tradition before being written. It is a simple fact that there would be changes and transformation in oral traditions written few years later after the actual events, so for sure those traditions written hundreds of years after. Then there is the problem with recurring names; in every age there are few names that are mostly used. He had this point he wanted to prove, and kind of utilized his concepts to prove them, these same points could be used by someone else with a different goal. Since religion and history are not like science, so many explanations are possible. I ended up completely confused.
Rating: 
Summary: A diamond in the rough
Review: To say that this book is slow going is to put it lightly, even for those of us with some enthusiasm for the subject. And to need a Bible, a translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls AND a copy of Josephus makes for a very crowded reading table! However, I believe the undertaking is worth it. Early Christian history is fraught with contradiction and gaps, that Eisenman goes to great lengths to try and clarify and fill- it is just that he could use a John Grisham as a cowriter. The book is heavy on the scholarly, and woefully lacking in the superfically entertaining. But soldier on, their are some treasures to be had, particularly if the subject facinates you as it does me. Who were the Essenes, and why is their base so close by Massada? And why does Paul play so vital a part in the birth of the Church, when he did not know Jesus, and made a career of persecuting Jews? Who are the 'Liar' and the 'Wicked Priest' in the Scrolls, and can we find evidence of them in the Bible and Josephus? And how did the preachings of a fanatical aboriginal sect, in a backwater of the Roman Empire become the most important words in the history of the world? And were the first Christians really devout Jews, who's dedication to the religion of their fathers became twisted into a new cult, the origins of which have been lost to myth and time? As radical and provocative as 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail', albeit heavier going, 'James, the brother of Jesus' is as thought provoking a book as I have read in years. But oh, if only Eisenman had used a ghostwriter- or at least an editor!
Rating: 
Summary: Fascinating thesis, but poorly written
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: A mystery wrapped inside an enigma
Review: This book is a mystery wrapped inside an enigma. The mystery is who were Jesus, James, and Paul, really? The enigma is what the author's argument is. The book is dense; it rambles and repeats itself horribly, but for all that it is nevertheless enjoyable and rewarding. It's fun trying to figure out not only your own answers to the questions the author poses, but also what, exactly, the author's own answers are. Forgive him -- he is obviously a professional academic, and writes like one. Forgive him also because his subject matter is, as he parses it, hopelessly complex. He has to raise one point only to leave it dangling in the air while he goes to deal with another related issue. His subject matter forces him to be a whirling dervish, or the intellectual equivalent of a plate spinner with too many plates. But the problems he poses are vital. Who were the people behind all those names we see in the New Testament, the Saul's and Paul's, Cephas's and Clopas's, and James 1 and James 2, and Simon Magus and Simon Peter? And what was the deal with Jesus's family that he could do so many wondrous things but could not get the respect of his own relatives? Can we find the answers in ancient texts outside the Bible? Was Paul a born Jew or a gentile convert? Was he a Herodian? Who did he know in Caesar's household and how did he know them? How come Peter had to have a vision (depicted in Acts) that all foods were clean to eat, when Jesus would have supposedly told him this very thing while he was on the Earth? The author covers all of this and more besides. Read it if you've got the time and the tenacity for a good mystery story and an enigmatic exposition, or you could save yourself a lot of time by reading "The Jesus Puzzle" by Earl Doherty. If you do you'll find that the confusion is replaced with clarity, the problems solved, and the answers provided. You will even find overwhelming reasons to believe that James wasn't the brother of Jesus at all.
Rating: 
Summary: obfuscations, juxtaposed, contrapuntal, etc.
Review: Beware!!! To those of you who read Robert Eisenman's 1000 plus pages! You will have to deal with words like, obfuscations, juxtaposed, contrapuntal, antinomian, and xenophobic. And that is just to get through the introduction! Obfuscate means to make (a subject) obscure, or bewilder. I selected this book for further insight into this particular time in history. I am sure that the insight is there, BUT, it is obfuscated, among thousands of words that make the fruit of the authors work seem like a game of Scrabble From Hell. This work, though it does contain truth seems to be written by one whose nose has been buried in history books, the stale air of the Dead Sea Scrolls and his own intellect. The world at large would benefit with Eisenman's thoughts on history but he has demonstrated that he is not capable of communicating with the very ones that need to be reached. This book could only be better than others on similar subject matter, if it were no be judged by it's size and weight. I for one would like to see someone with superior writing skills re write this book, cut it to a tenth, put a bright yellow cover on it and call the new creation DEAD SEA SCROLLS FOR IDIOTS.
Rating:
Summary: Please, next time, find an editor
Review: Don't pick up this book unless you already have a firm grasp of 'historical Jesus'-type scholarship, or you will be quite lost. Eisenman's thesis is as brilliant as his prose is repetitive and unreadable. As his thesis is laid out in other reviews, I won't revisit its substance except to say that he posits that the Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qmran in modern Israel represent documents from early Ebionite Christianity, "of the circumcision," to use St. Paul's phrase, and elaborates what that implies in the first century setting. Often Eisenman is on target, but just as often he supposes that linguistic similarities in ancient prose from, say,Paul and the Dead Sea Scrolls, should take on far more evidentiary value than most folks will be willing to grant them. Moreover, neither this reviewer nor most other readers have any basis, really, for evaluating his most detailed linguistic analyses. And repetitive. Did I say, and repetitive? Eisenman must retell his version of the stoning of Stephen ten times. This book is at least twice as long as it needed to be. Not only that but nearly every argument in this book has been published in his previous books. If you find yourself deep into 'historical Jesus' material, you may be ready for this book. Otherwise, one gets the sense of Professor Eisenman's thesis from the 1991 book by Michael Baigent, The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception, which examines its broad strokes quite clearly and comparatively briefly.
Rating:
Summary: important insights hide in too many words
Review: This could have been an extrordinary book had it been reduced to one quarter at the most of its enormous length. Given the small number of actual sources and facts available to us it is no wonder that most of the text consists of repetitions of the same arguments again and again. Furthermore, Eisenman's method does not stand up to standards of proof, relying as it does on themes rather than facts. His contempt and complete neglect of the scholarly world - there are no citations whatsoever of other researchers - as well as his lack of appreciation of physical methods with regard to the dating of the scrolls is doubtless a consequence of his monomaniacal obsession with his theme and a barrier to the acceptance of his thoughts. Saying this, I must emphasize immediately that this book does make a convincing case of a different and more realistic outlook on what really happened, and should be read despite of the terrible prose. Many of his points are well taken : the manipulative and antisemitic pro-Roman character of the gospels and the especially Lucas' texts; the exploitation of the unfamiliarity of the non-Jewish readers with Hebrew words ( e.g. instead of ‚Thomas' or ‚Thomas Didymos' one should really read „Jesus' twin brother" ; his actual name was probably Judas ), the removal of the family relationships and so on. A real eye-opener is his hint as to the Rehabite background of Jesus family. Finally, a few points of criticism of Eisenmans interpretations. Eisenmans restructuring of the family relations is too radical. I believe a more plausible construction would involve the carpenter Joseph Alphäus, married to Maria, and his brother Clopas married to her sister Maria Salome, with Simeon ben Cleophas as their son ( see Eusebius 2.23.17). Jesus was perhaps Joses, his brothers being also his disciples, including a brother Simon Zelotes and his son Judas the Sikarios; but there are also the sons of John the baptist from the side of Maria's family, in particular Simon the Petrus or Kephas, and the sons of Zebedäus and Maria Salome from her second marriage. Jesus was probably married to the family of Simon Lazarus whom Eisenman identifies with a Jairus and whose descendants include Eleazar ben Ya'ir(=Jairus), the leader of the Sicarii in Masada. This would put Jesus' family in the center of the political, military and terrorist opposition to the Romans. That is clearly the conviction of Eisenman, and it is of course strongly supported by the gospels who tell that Jesus received the anointing making him king and tried to overthrow the Roman provincial government in a military coup. The weakest point in the book is the neglect of the Qmran sources, and in particular of the extraordinary 11Q13 concerning the Coming of Melchizedek and 4Q543 - 548 with the vision of Amran. This Qmran texts are published in the book of Wise, Abegg and Cook , The Dead Sea Scrolls. Melchizedek, originally the founder king of Jerusalem mentioned in the Old Testament, appears in these texts as a transcendental source of holy power and saviour who assumes some of the functions of Jahwe; actually functions that in Christianity are associated with the powers of Jesus the Saviour. The important point here is that Paul's letter to the Hebrews leaves no doubt that the Jewish Christian sect follows the leadership of the Priests of Melchizedek who in Paul's view are even more important than the usual Levitic priests. This Qmran texts together with Paul's letter then identify the Jewish Christian community for the first time cleary as the famous Qmran Jahad ! These has very strong implications : all the Qmran texts can be read as the texts of the original Jewish Christians, and the war scroll leaves no doubt as to the xenophobic and terrorist character of this group, strongly supporting Eisenmans interpretation of the historical situation. Furthermore, given the dating of the scrolls, it shows that Christianity existed before Jesus, and that Jesus was probably identified at some point with Melchizedek. When did the movement start ? In the Qmran-text the Melchizedek( „the Just King" ) has a dark enemy called Malki-resha. This, and the Qmran concepts of the sons of light and the sons of darkness, again emphasizes a kind of thought that we know from Zaratuschtra's theology, a theology developed at a time when the Jews were captives in Irak. They were freed by Kyros II who was a follower of Zaratuschtra, like all the Achaimenides, and rebuilt the temple under Persian rule. Since what we know from the Bible was compiled after the exile, we can safely assume that before the exile Judaism was essentially Canaanite, where the Jahwe cult resembled the Baal cult( both are gods of rain and storm ). After the exile, its religious character changed, and it is only sensible to assume that many ideas of the official religion of the greatest power at that time must have influenced and renewed the religious beliefs of the subdued peoples. Part of that renewal would have been a lose marriage between Jewish and Iranian ideas.( just think for example of Saoshyant in the Avesta who will come and lead the resurrection of the dead, etc ). Will we read more about this in Eisenman's next books ?
Rating: 
Summary: 5 stars for James the Lesser
Review: Why James, the Lesser, because he was smaller than James, the Greater. St. Paul was an amazing man, but St. James, the brother of Jesus, Eisenman's argument is wonderful, was the true heir. Christ picked him to continue. This book strengthens one's faith, because it makes sense.
Rating:
Summary: Creates a different perspective from which to read history
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Save your Money
Review: I eagerly awaited Dr. Eiseman's release of this book and read it over three years ago. I happen to enjoy the study of early Christianity and have much respect for Dr. Eiseman's accomplishments, especially with helping to force the release of the Dead Sea Scrolls. As I remember, I was disappointed in his book. As a writer, the work does not flow. I felt he had taken a series of separate articles and thrown them all together. In many cases he was very repetitive and did not present his arguments that well. The book, having been out for three years now, has made no revolution or change with most scholars opinions, and I have to admit I felt he was forcing many of the issues to fit his theories. He does, however, have a wealth of facts that are included in the book. If you study this topic for a living or for a hobby, you may enjoy a lot of the details that he has included, but if your looking for a well written book that lays things out very clearly, then save your money. I hope his follow up book has better editors.
|
