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

I've finally gotten around to reading this whole "James brother of Jesus" book.A couple of things that comes to mind are that Mr Eisenman describes much the same stuff from every linguistic angle he can get his hands on. He finds that there's a lot of name change-ups(he references one clear statement to the effect in the new testament; the rest he makes logical arguements for all these name changeups). And uses these decodings to try to figure out who said what, where and when. Another general point is how he spends a lot of time defining things. And he does so historically. I think a lot of people's patience with this book are stretched by this.Throughout, he's using lots of external literature to analyse even the most mundane passages(the bible midrashes lots of the most mundane stuff anyways; so, I don't see how people can complain!). Outside of all these logical deductions to decode peoples names, he shows how various herodians and a Queen of Helen are in the New Testament. He repeats these appearances with ever more details as you go through the book. Bottom line, Jesus Christ is for the most part an overwriting for James the Just. One is tempted to argue that James the Just is the historical Jesus. But, nothing can be concluded. The appearences of various herodians and their social-political standings with the Romans are always a tease. Nothing much can ever be proved on who wrote what. It's almost tempting to argue that Paul wrote the Gospel of Mark. I just have a couple of things to argue about whether Jesus Christ ever existed.James is the brother of Jesus Christ. Now, Robert points out that 'brother' can be taken as a kind of slang for 'fellow' or belonging to a club. Eisenman never wants to take this seriously; around pages 400, he notes that Origin more or less says exactly this! One could argue that Origin's statement to the effect is late in the game; but, look who's saying that James the Just is brother of Jesus Christ! Paul. Nobody else! Jesus Christ is not mentioned in the dead sea scrolls! And, what does the dead sea scrolls say of Paul? That he's a lier! What do the Jews say about Jesus Christ? That he never existed!I've argued to some that Paul is Josephus. I posted this here on amazon "James Brother of Jesus" review as well. Then, I erased it cause there's a few problems. A major weird piece of evidence that Paul is Josephus is that Paul considers an Epiphroditus to be an Apostle of Jesus Christ. Epiphroditus is also Paul's traveling companion. Epiproditus is also Josephus best friend when he turns roman and gets the roman imperial name "Flavius". But, this isn't much. Other things I noted was the correspondence between the dead sea scrolls, Pauline epistles, and Josephus's works which is much of what Eisenman writes up here. How does Josephus have such a photographic memory? Eisenam just says, "oh, he's a really smart guy!" Me? Seems to me that Josephus has this phenomenal memory of the events of James the Just because he's the one who killed him! Who else can get so close to James the Just? If not a person who was in with the Essenes at one time? Josephus as Eisenman stresses hates these messianic jews and believes they are the reason for his people's troubles. Josephus was more than willing to cut the throats of his fellow military radicals when he miraculously gets the right staw of who's going to cut each others throats and then commit suicide. Josephus must have been blown away that he plucked the right staw! I seem to recall more correspondences between the life of Josephus and his account of Paul and James the Just. But, all that is mere correspondence; but, now, I've found this,"Josephus: Shipwrecked on voyage to Rome"But when I was in the twenty-sixth year of my age, it happened that I took a voyage to Rome ... At the time when Felix was procurator of Judea there were certain priests of my acquaintance ... whom on a small and trifling occasion he had put into bonds, and sent to Rome to plead their cause before Caesar ...Accordingly I came to Rome, though it were through a great number of hazards by sea; for as ourship was drowned in the Adriatic Sea, we that were in it, being about six hundred in number, swam for our lives all the night; when, upon the first appearance of the day, and upon our sight of a ship of Cyrene, I and some others, eighty in all, by God's providence, prevented the rest, and were taken up into the other ship.And when I had thus escaped, and was come to Dieearchia, which the Italians call Puteoli."- Josephus, Life,3St Paul: "Shipwrecked on voyage to Rome""Felix, willing to show the Jews a pleasure, left Paul bound." - Acts 24.27."They talked between themselves, saying, This man doeth nothing worthy of death or of bonds. - Acts 26.31."It was determined that we should sail into Italy ... And entering into a ship of Adramyttium ... we came to Myra ... And there the centurion found a ship of Alexandria sailing into Italy ... they sailed close by Crete. But not long after there arose against it a tempestuous wind ... no small tempest lay on us ... But when the fourteenth night was come, as we were driven up and down in Adria ... And falling into a place where two seas met, they ran the ship aground; and the forepart stuck fast, and remained unmovable, but the hinder part was broken with the violence of the waves.The centurion ... commanded that they which could swim should cast themselves first into the sea, and get to land. And the rest, some on boards, and some on broken pieces of the ship. And so it came to pass, that they escaped all safe to land. And after three months we departed in a ship of Alexandria ...And landing at Syracuse ... and came to Rhegium: and after one day the south wind blew, and we came the next day to Puteoli."- Acts 27,28"Some have suggested that Josephus wrote the Gospel of Mark. I don't. Josephus would never have made the same linguistic and palistinian geography mistakes. He didn't write the pauline epistles either. Clearly whoever wrote those works were not of the same mind as the scientific Josephus. I would point to Clement of Rome and Alexandria and even others later. Those characters are pointed out by Eisenman as well to decode names and all the herodians in the Gospel of Mark and in the Pauline epistles- the first christians in Antioch were herodians as Eisenman points out. In my mind, he doesn't have to. There is no report of the death of Josephus - just that of his best friend Epiphoditus by Domitian. I'm figuring that Josephus just changed names and disappeared in the roman empire. Who knows where he went for protection. The Pauline epistles were clearly a recasting of Josephus's works as James the Just was written out of history as well. That is enough to explain why the Pauline epistles and the Josephus works are clearly two different people.The Paul character is probably many different characters. But, I think with the Epiphroditus reference in Phillipines 2:4 I do believe and the above Acts and Life of Josephus clearly shows that part of the write up of the Pauline Epistles is to integrate Josephus in the Christian fabrication to make one religion, one ring to rule them all, and to pacify the messianic jews as Josephus wished to. It's part honoring him and because Josephus partly started it with his ascribing to Titus as the annointed one to the Jews to pacify them.A further point about this Josephus/Paul correspondence; with the above correspondence between Josephus's boat sinking and paul's, well, if so, then Paul isn't a Herodian. This calls into question Mr Eisenman's "James Brother of Jesus". At least, it needs a rethink.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I found a remarkable book called "Daniel to Paul." I was reading "Who wrote the Gospels" by a Helm; it's o.k. It was showing the connections between the book of Daniel to the Gospel of Mark which is perhaps one reason why this book caught my eye at Grossmont college library. Pointing out Grossmont college library is key here. When I tried to look this book up on amazon and then googling it, I found it nowhere in sight! I found that this Daniel to Paul book, dated to 1960s says much the same stuff as Robert Eisenman's "James Brother of Jesus"! Only, it doesn't have Paul as a herodian, or that Jesus Christ is a hellenistic sungod overwright for James the Just. It does mention much of what Robert Eisenman says about James the Just being the true head of the Judaic-christian church and not Peter though!

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.

A must read book for history researchers. Eisenman is a rational person and I love the way he present history and liturature. I completed watching his luctures in youtube.. Great mind.........

This Eisenman work is not so easy to follow, especially for who is not so used in such kind of readings (and especially for me, because I'm not a native american speaker). Some passages are really complicated and required knowledges or at least a little bit of acquaintance of early church fathers materials, qumranian scripts and above all Flavius Josephus "Wars of the Jews" and "antiquities of the Jews". Eisenman links episodes, facts, characters of these different ancient manuscripts with gospels, acts, depicting an everblasting first century Palestinian scenario, where riots and anti-Romans movement were always present. What comes out is how the new testament was conceived and written puzzling and riddling characters and facts, bragging on stands-in and miracles for real. An essential essay book to have for who wants to have a clear image of what the christianity is today. Thanks Robert Eisenman.

JBJ was the very first book I purchased on Amazon in April 1998. It actually changed my perspective on the origins of Christianity and their connections with Rabbinic Judaism. The most valuable aspect of this work resides in its reference to sources, whereas endless works in this field of research have been conceived as essays summarising other essays.

If you are tired of the banal tram lines of evangelical teaching, this is a book that throws new light on James and opens up the door on the early church. At the time that I read this years ago I was complaining that all the great theologians were dead, as usual I was looking in the wrong place, they are alive and this book is fruit that is well worth eating, digesting and thinking about. To some evangelicals Jesus did his ministry in a vacuum of ethical, religious and devotional teaching, this book shows that the first century was more lively than just parables. If your pastor/vicar will not let you read this, do it anyway, you will not be disappointed.

A whirlwind of a book! Eisenman is refreshingly sceptical about a great deal of received wisdom, and often rightly so. I think he is right to look for the conflicts that made the New Testament text take the form it does today, and he's on to something when he argues that James was much more prominent in the Jerusalem church (and therefore the wider pre Roman-Jewish War church) than the gospels and Acts of the Apostles allow for. Whether he's always or often right in his various theories of name-changes and other historical recodings to obscure what actually happened, I find it hard to say. I'm not sure there's any empirical way of deciding one way or the other. But they are fun! On a more serious note, I think he takes the Jewish context of early Palestinian Christianity more seriously than many other scholars. In that way, he reminds me of E P Sanders, though he's far more speculative than Sanders.