James the Brother of Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls I: The Historical James, Paul the Enemy, and Jesus' Brothers as Apostles

In this GREAT book, I think Robert Eisenman sees the Maccabeans as related to the DSS community. How close that relation is, in his mind, is not explicit, but it seems significant. He makes this incredibly important point: "The quotation attributed by Hegesippus to James, which we compared to throwing a lighted match into an excited mix of pilgrims, is both immediate and intense. When one grasps its aggressively apocalyptic Messianic character, it becomes the central proclamation of one of the most amazing episodes ever recorded in religious history. Not only are the words attributed to James paralleled almost word-for-word in the War Scroll from Qumran, they come precisely at the point where the Messianic "Star Prophecy" is being elucidated in that Document. . . . one should realize that the War Scroll is operating in exactly the same ideological and scriptural framework."The internal evidence in the War Scroll suggests it was written sometime in the 160s BCE. If you doubt that, make a comment here and I'll respond with the argument. Regardless, Eisenman's point is one that I have always suspected of the Jesus Movement--it connected directly to the early Maccabeans and the Bar Kochba revolts. Very directly.The following comment from Eisenman is one of the most significant in this wonderful book: "Whether James is to be identified with the Righteous Teacher at Qumran or simply a parallel successor is not the point---the Scrolls allow us to approach the Messianic Community of James with about as much precision as we are likely to have from any other source."On another major point, Adiabene clearly had a close relationship to James and the Jerusalem church, as Eisenman has so well documented here and elsewhere. That relationship resonates with the close connection with the Zealots who sought help from the Parthians and the Jews of Babylon, people who had in the past supported Antigonus II. Eisenman implies, tantalizingly, that Parthian collusion (indirectly?) initiated the Kitos War and that the series of revolts all occurring in Trajan's rear as he advanced on Ctesiphon were too closely conjoined not to have been coordinated. All of these connections have significant implications for the theory that Jesus was a Hasmonean on his mother's side, perhaps the grandson of Antigonus II. There are also implications about what "Christian ministry" really was. (Consider Elymas the Sorcerer in Acts.)Long ago (after reading the original "James"), I figured Eisenman was being mum on the likely connection to the Hasmoneans because he knew he was already pushing the academic envelope. I would not be surprised if in the future he has a book making some of the very same connections that Joseph Raymond does in Herodian Messiah (Jesus as a Herodian and Hasmonean, following Robert Graves). Looking at Tabor's latest book on the Talpiot tombs makes me think he too is verging in that direction. Anyway, it's almost as if they (Eisenman, Tabor, and a few others) have connected all but the last dots in the picture and are holding back for some reason (academics, religion, whatever).The comment above from Eisenman implicitly makes a direct link to a time and place that he says himself are "pro-Maccabean." It's a small (but controversial) step now to say that these people at Qumran were in fact the Maccabeans or followers of them. That leads us to James, and James leads to Jesus.

Eisenman deserves considerable credit as a political credit in making the Deep Sea Scrolls to the public, and providing some initial description of what is in them. This, and its sequel, total 800 pages in which Eisenman seeks to explain characters described by generic identifiers as specifically applying to James, the brother of Jesus Christ, and the Apostle Paul. Alhtough considered a Historian, Eisenman argument really qualify as comparative analysis, and time one is convinced that his arguments are completely flaky. To make things worse, he interprets everything through the lens of Anti-Semitism even for things which clearly are not. For his part, he repeated goes off on anti-Christian rants. His misrepresentation of Christian culture and belief makes one concerned that his representations of Jewish culture and belief is equally off base. Nevertheless, as a Jew, he provides what is clearly the best survey of Jewish writings as enlighten understanding of Christian writings. And for all the problem of his less than credible conclusions, the process of and vigor of his attacks against understandings which have been held for thousands of years incorrectly as settled, and not subject to challenge. He does not well end the debate, but he begin unapologetically an adversarial academic conversation which needs to be had and does, at least, shake your conviction that factual accounts that Christian have long accepted need to be reviewed and revised. At his worst, Eisenman completely loses professional objectivity, attacking the content of written accounts by asserting, with nothing more than a sarcastic mocking tone, that certain passages of the New Testament are complete nonsense. At this best, Eisenman gives insights that should shake your Christian world view. Of questionable weight, and at time obnoxious in the tone of his criticism the book still deserves a high rating, and should be considered a must read for the serious student of the history of the Intertestamental, and New Testament, periods.

The scholarship of Dr. Eisenman is obvious, and to be respected. There is a lot of very helpful information presented.It is also obvious that his opinion is that the biblical texts are to be interpreted in light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and in fact the Scrolls are to be preferred. It is a basic premise of "either / or" logic instead of a search for "both / and". There are many "...in fact..." and "...obviously..." and "...clearly..." statements made, when, in fact, some of those facts aren't given. Granted, those examples to which I'm referring center around observations of Jesus and Christianity - interpolations from the facts present in the Scrolls and other documents.For example, Dr. Eisenman cites that the Jesus you encounter in the biblical texts is not consistent with the James you find in the extra-biblical literature, and inconsistent with the mindset of all other examples of messianic personalities of the time. The conclusion is that the biblical texts must have been edited or contrived. Isn't it possible, though, that a messiah who came to save the world from sin instead of rescue a nation from foreign rule would be different than the traditional? And isn't it possible for siblings to have different worldviews, especially if your premise is that one of them was the Son of God?I recognize that Dr. Eisenman's premise is to present the historical James. But in the introduction he makes the statement that in doing so, you get a better view of the historical Jesus. The first (and main) purpose of the book is well handled. The second is not.If you are a non-Christian attempting to gain a greater understanding of the historical James, you've come to the right place. If you are a Christian, you will have to take some conclusions with a grain of salt. Definitely worth the journey, though. Looking forward to the second installment.

I like Dr Eisenmann's approach using primary sources such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, Josephus, Iranaeus, NT, etc., which he obviously has spend most of his life researching, although, to my mind, this type of endeavour is like attempting to elucidate who shot Kennedy or what sunk the Titanic? I especially like the author's method of linguistic targeting to date certain documents "internally" as opposed to total reliance on "external" methods such as palaeography and carbon dating. This is probably extremely irritating to those of the academic/scientific bent, but seems to me another rational alternative if the earlier methods are at variance with documentary content.Only criticisms of this work are the repetitive nature of certain ideas, which may be helpful or irritating according to your age and memory. The thrust of the book up to Chapter 7 (as far as I have presently read) towards establishing the reality of Jesus' family as Orthodox "movers and shakers" in the Palestine of that time. This seems like a logical assumption as the Gospel of John states that his brothers did not believe/ have faith in Jesus' message.I would suggest this type of approach by Dr. Eisenmann would be even be more meaningful if it was to focus more on Jesus' mission and his deeper teachings gleaned from the "less corrupted" epistles of the realized Paul, who appears in this present work to be railing against the restrictive Orthodox rites and rituals of James' Jerusalem leadership. A closer study of Thomas might also be fruitful as he appears to be one of the few apostles who seems to have gotten Jesus' message as indicated in the Gospel of John "Let us also go up and die (to our earthly lives) with him (Lazarus)".

Eisenman's books are always fascinating if a bit heavy to wade through. The only reason I didn't give it five stars is that it arrived with the first thirty-five pages missing. Not much point in returning it due to the time and cost involved, and since the missing pages consisted of the introduction.

It is going to take me a while to read it. I'm enjoying it - I have to do some research to prove the author's point of view, a challenging book.

Why wouldn't Jesus have the same anti-Roman, pro-circumcision, dietary restriction ideas as his virgin, vegetarian brother, James, and the other members of the extreme Jewish faction that he belonged to in Jerusalem? Why do we think the Jews killed Jesus, when crucifixion is the Roman penalty for rebels? Has it got anything to do with Paul's "version" of the truth? Don't forget, Paul used to persecute the Jews. Paul had never met Jesus, but he seems to have taken over the message. Jesus' real message died with the Jerusalem Church, which was led by Jesus' brother, James. The Romans did a thorough job at extinguishing everything about those rebellious Jews in Palestine.

Absolutely fascinating but his writing style is turgid, repetitive and often confusing. The punctuation is all over the place and don't talk about proof reading. Some paragraphs are justified followed by ranged left then back to justified which is disconcerting. The page size is large so one column per page is a very long line-length - so your eye will wander occasionally, which is poor design. Thousands of words are italicised for no reason I can fathom - sometimes ten per paragraph. Long winded and frequently saying "as I will discuss later" of "as discussed already" and you think 'did we?". Overall could and should be half the length but still very very interesting from an author who clearly knows a lot about his subject.