What do you think?
Rate this book
James the Brother of Jesus
Drawing on the Dead Sea Scrolls and on long overlooked early Church texts, Eisenman reveals in this groundbreaking major exploration the Christianity of Paul as a distortion of what James and Jesus preached. Whereas James and his followers, "zealous for the Law" of Moses, were nationalistic and apocalyptic, Paul's Hellenized movement promoted itself as pacifist, cosmopolitan, and faith-based.
In an argument with enormous implications, Eisenman identifies Paul as deeply compromised by Roman contacts, and James as not simply the leader of Christianity of his day, but the popular Jewish leader of his time, whose death triggered the Uprising against Rome. Creative rewriting of early Church documents has obscured this fact.
Eisenman shows that characters like "Judas Iscariot" and "the Apostle James" did not exist as such and details an actual physical assault by Paul on James in the Temple. By rescuing James from the oblivion into which he was deliberately cast, James the Brother of Jesus reveals one of the most successful historical rewrite enterprises ever accomplished.
In an argument with enormous implications, Eisenman identifies Paul as deeply compromised by Roman contacts, and James as not simply the leader of Christianity of his day, but the popular Jewish leader of his time, whose death triggered the Uprising against Rome. Creative rewriting of early Church documents has obscured this fact.
Eisenman shows that characters like "Judas Iscariot" and "the Apostle James" did not exist as such and details an actual physical assault by Paul on James in the Temple. By rescuing James from the oblivion into which he was deliberately cast, James the Brother of Jesus reveals one of the most successful historical rewrite enterprises ever accomplished.
1056 pages, Hardcover
First published December 1, 1996
93 people are currently reading
461 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 49 reviews
December 26, 2014
Every once in a while a book comes along that offers a complete paradigm shift and really makes you stop and think. This is such a book. As a piece of literature it is probably 4 stars because it does get tediously repetitive and dwells on a subject for a very long time, but this is somewhat necessary to connect all of the dots. The ideas presented more than make up for this, though. The book tires to discover the historical Jesus by discovering the historical James, Jesus' brother and the leader of the Jerusalem Church. The book demonstrates how many accounts in the book of Acts fly right in the face of the historical data of the time. Eisenman connects James' community to the community at Qumran. At first, I was skeptical, but his research has convinced me to read the Dead Sea scrolls in a new light. Essentially, he claims some of the Dead Sea Scrolls are arguing directly against the teachings of Paul. As a person trained in history, I appreciated his historical approach to the New Testament. He takes about the various rulers, political affiliations, and Jewish sects in great detail. This book is thick, almost 1,000 pages of text, but well worth it. I was consumed by this book for almost a full month, but it was well worth the time. It has really made me want to go read Josephus and the Dead Sea Scrolls. If you want to try to find the historical Jesus, read this book.
November 17, 2024
This is one of my favorite books and is well worth the trouble to understand. Bible scholars, even the ones who see Christianity as bogus often spend too much time within the confines of the harmonized and syncretic Bible itself. Sometimes more can be learned by understanding the milieu and connecting the pieces accordingly. The Book of Acts is fiction and where it came from makes for a better story than the one that is told by accepting it as inspired by the God that it defends.
I get bothered by the obvious harmonization and synchronism that’s within the Bible itself that gets used to defend the conclusions that were already sought for. “On the Resurrection” by Gary Habermas and “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” by McDowell each never got beyond their own special pleading for their sacred sources. Eisenman places everything around Jesus’ time within its own context, relations and meaning.
The Qumran community is part of that world as is Paul’s authentic letters, Josephus, Philo of Alexander, the fictional Book of Acts, the Gospels, the Letters of James, and some of the very early Church Historians and even the development of Islam. Eisenman gives a relevance to the beliefs of Islam and how it relates the early Christianity that most Christian scholars don’t include.
To read Josephus is to not like him. Eisenman mentions that Josephus stretches the truth when he flatters the Romans or made the Jews the enemy depending on when he published his works. I often lie and say I’ve read the complete works of Josephus, but I really am partly fibbing because I couldn’t finish his autobiography, because Josephus is so obviously duplicitous in his telling of his life story. In addition, I’m clearly under the impression that he lied about Masada and I think Eisenman should say that ‘according to Josephus Masada was a mass suicide,’ instead of taking Josephus at face value, while overall I understand that Josephus is necessary for understanding this period.
To read the New Testament is to recognize that there is a battle going on between Paul’s brand of Christians and the Jerusalem Christian Church led by James the brother of Christ. It’s in the New Testament, the early church fathers knew it, but it gets whitewashed over time to the point where Thomas Aquinas will call James a step-brother of Christ and defend the perpetual virginity of Mary, and the relevance of James gets marginalized for the sake of a sacrificial death of Jesus.
I do wonder why in the Book of Mark at the wedding feast the author notes that Jesus’ family thought he was crazy while in the other two synoptic gospels they don’t mention that Jesus was crazy. I have my speculations but Eisenman never commented on that.
The Dead Sea Scroll community are obsessed with purity and demanded obedience to their ideas of righteousness. Eisenman sees Paul as a compromiser with the occupiers and even says that a way to think about Pharisees is to see them as collaborators with the occupiers.
James was said to have calluses on his knees from excessively praying in the Temple and would have been a possible candidate for the righteous one the Qumran community was searching for. Messianic fever was rampant and a savior for the Jews was hoped for.
Much of Acts, the Gospels and Paul are inversions of what the Jerusalem Church would have wanted. Paul wants Gentiles to join his church, collaboration with the occupiers and no necessity for circumcision or dietary restrictions, while James disagreed.
The Book of Acts is a muddle pile of childish nonsense and is probably the most important fictional book ever written. Eisenman speculates that Stephen in the Book of Acts is a reworking the stoning of James. Without foundation those kinds of statements are just wild speculation, and Eisenman provides the foundation.
This book does get complicated at times but the arguments overall needed the complexity. Nothing is ever created in a vacuum and the development of the Christian church as handed down to us didn’t just happen with no reasons. Eisenman gives plausible explanations making the development of early Christianity more entertaining than the standard orthodox telling.
I get bothered by the obvious harmonization and synchronism that’s within the Bible itself that gets used to defend the conclusions that were already sought for. “On the Resurrection” by Gary Habermas and “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” by McDowell each never got beyond their own special pleading for their sacred sources. Eisenman places everything around Jesus’ time within its own context, relations and meaning.
The Qumran community is part of that world as is Paul’s authentic letters, Josephus, Philo of Alexander, the fictional Book of Acts, the Gospels, the Letters of James, and some of the very early Church Historians and even the development of Islam. Eisenman gives a relevance to the beliefs of Islam and how it relates the early Christianity that most Christian scholars don’t include.
To read Josephus is to not like him. Eisenman mentions that Josephus stretches the truth when he flatters the Romans or made the Jews the enemy depending on when he published his works. I often lie and say I’ve read the complete works of Josephus, but I really am partly fibbing because I couldn’t finish his autobiography, because Josephus is so obviously duplicitous in his telling of his life story. In addition, I’m clearly under the impression that he lied about Masada and I think Eisenman should say that ‘according to Josephus Masada was a mass suicide,’ instead of taking Josephus at face value, while overall I understand that Josephus is necessary for understanding this period.
To read the New Testament is to recognize that there is a battle going on between Paul’s brand of Christians and the Jerusalem Christian Church led by James the brother of Christ. It’s in the New Testament, the early church fathers knew it, but it gets whitewashed over time to the point where Thomas Aquinas will call James a step-brother of Christ and defend the perpetual virginity of Mary, and the relevance of James gets marginalized for the sake of a sacrificial death of Jesus.
I do wonder why in the Book of Mark at the wedding feast the author notes that Jesus’ family thought he was crazy while in the other two synoptic gospels they don’t mention that Jesus was crazy. I have my speculations but Eisenman never commented on that.
The Dead Sea Scroll community are obsessed with purity and demanded obedience to their ideas of righteousness. Eisenman sees Paul as a compromiser with the occupiers and even says that a way to think about Pharisees is to see them as collaborators with the occupiers.
James was said to have calluses on his knees from excessively praying in the Temple and would have been a possible candidate for the righteous one the Qumran community was searching for. Messianic fever was rampant and a savior for the Jews was hoped for.
Much of Acts, the Gospels and Paul are inversions of what the Jerusalem Church would have wanted. Paul wants Gentiles to join his church, collaboration with the occupiers and no necessity for circumcision or dietary restrictions, while James disagreed.
The Book of Acts is a muddle pile of childish nonsense and is probably the most important fictional book ever written. Eisenman speculates that Stephen in the Book of Acts is a reworking the stoning of James. Without foundation those kinds of statements are just wild speculation, and Eisenman provides the foundation.
This book does get complicated at times but the arguments overall needed the complexity. Nothing is ever created in a vacuum and the development of the Christian church as handed down to us didn’t just happen with no reasons. Eisenman gives plausible explanations making the development of early Christianity more entertaining than the standard orthodox telling.
July 13, 2022
The author recommends that you have copies of the Bible, the Complete Works of Josephus, Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History, and the Dead Sea Scrolls at hand to reference as you read this book. And that, pretty much, defines the select audience for this massive tome. If you have all those volumes already available in your personal library, you will likely find parts of this book fascinating. If you don’t, this book may not be for you.
I am in that select audience. I found portions of the book fascinating. I also found long sections stupefying and disorganized. The author did a poor job of organizing his thoughts throughout this thousand plus page tome, and because of this, his endless repetitions of certain themes became little more than a drone rather than an effective teaching device. This book could have been at least a third shorter had those repetitions been edited out.
The text is based on solid scholarship. Some of its claims, such as the intense and bitter rivalry between James and Paul, are well documented (even from a close reading of the New Testament). Yet some of its more fascinating leaps are intuited rather than proven, and are fated to remain in the realm of speculation, such as the claim that Paul was not actually a Jew, and was closely related to the Herodian Dynasty. In this sense, I enjoyed this book the way I enjoyed the old TV series In Search Of. The author presents fascinating, radical ideas, lays out an excellent case for why they could be true, but in the end, these claims remains unprovable from the evidence that remains.
I am in that select audience. I found portions of the book fascinating. I also found long sections stupefying and disorganized. The author did a poor job of organizing his thoughts throughout this thousand plus page tome, and because of this, his endless repetitions of certain themes became little more than a drone rather than an effective teaching device. This book could have been at least a third shorter had those repetitions been edited out.
The text is based on solid scholarship. Some of its claims, such as the intense and bitter rivalry between James and Paul, are well documented (even from a close reading of the New Testament). Yet some of its more fascinating leaps are intuited rather than proven, and are fated to remain in the realm of speculation, such as the claim that Paul was not actually a Jew, and was closely related to the Herodian Dynasty. In this sense, I enjoyed this book the way I enjoyed the old TV series In Search Of. The author presents fascinating, radical ideas, lays out an excellent case for why they could be true, but in the end, these claims remains unprovable from the evidence that remains.
September 18, 2017
Not for the faint of heart- It is a slog but a well researched if opinionated treatment of early Christianity after the death of Jesus.
March 13, 2015
I read about 50% of this massive tome. At first, I was very interested in it: little is known or written about James, the brother of Jesus, who seems from hints in the Bible to have played a very prominent role in the early church. But there was so much speculation crafted out of such a small amount of historical evidence, and it was written in such a dry academic tone, that I eventually gave up. The long and short of it seemed to be that Paul should not have been, in essence, the founder of Christianity, and that James was the true heir to Christ's ministry and teaching, and his place was suprressed and supplanted by Paul. Like so many of these academic works, too little distinction is made between fact and theory and outright speculation.
July 7, 2013
The title and jacket blurb piqued my interest, but the book is impossible to read. Apparently Jesus had brothers, one of whom led Jesus' followers after his death and was, naturally, very influential in the early years of Christianity. While Paul was out there preaching to the Gentiles, James was in Jerusalem. Within 300-400 years, though, James became a difficulty for those who'd decided that just being the son of God wasn't special enough for Jesus, Mary had to be a "perpetual virgin" as well (I smell Jerome in here), and he got mostly written out of scripture. I got most of that info from the dust jacket and the introduction. The text is virtually impenetrable; the author appears to have compiled over 1,000 pages of disjointed notes. The chapters are divided into numerous subheadings, each followed by only a page or two of text, but they don't exactly flow with narrative, and they do seem to presuppose scholarly knowledge in the reader. I gave up after my severalth attempt to make it past 30 or so pages.
July 22, 2008
A tortuous ride through mounds of evidence and strained connections that ends in one of the most mean-spirited theses of Christianity's origins that I have ever encountered.
November 2, 2012
Dry, dry, dry, and could have been about 800 pages shorter.
February 6, 2014
This rather lengthy first volume of a two-volume study of the early church was a very difficult read, not because the material was particularly difficult--one needn't know any Aramaic, Hebrew, Syriac, Greek or even Latin--but because of its organization and the author's writing style. The arguments being made are important, which makes the turgidity of the prose expecially unfortunate.
Basically, this is a book about what occurred amongst the earliest followers of Jesus upon his death. Eisenman associates those located in Palestine with the Ebionites ('the poor'), possibly with the people behind the Dead Sea Scrolls, and assigns their leadership to Jesus' brother James (Yeshua and Jacob being their names transliterated from the Hebrew) and, following him, to other blood relatives. James he tentatively associates with 'the Teacher of Righteousness' in the Scrolls and the movement as a whole he associates with the popular zealot movement which led the unsuccessful revolt against Rome in 66-73. Meanwhile, Eisenman associates some of those early followers who did not dwell in Palestine and who were a mix of Hellenized Jews and god-fearing Gentiles with Paul of Tarsus (Saul) and the authors and redactors of the four canonical gospels and the Book of Acts.
Between the two groups, according to Eisenman, there was great enmity, an enmity covered up, both as regards its basis and as regards its severity, in the accounts of the 'New' Testament. The basis for this conflict was, simply put, that the Hellenized and Gentile followers couldn't accept 'the Way' established by Jesus and his closest circle, including, of course, his immediate family. After the destruction of the Temple in 70, when the gospels and Acts were composed, this simply made political sense. The terrain had changed too much to allow a simple continuation of the early movement. Before the Roman War, however, and at the very root of the conflict's origins, there was Paul, the self-proclaimed 'apostle' who had never met Jesus but who, apparently, was quite influential in building a gentile movement in his name which, by being disassociated from primary identification with the Palestinian movement, was best able to weather the consequences of the end of temple-based Judaism and to influence the formation of what was eventually to become the Christian canon.
Irrelevant to the argument is the author's personally approbative support for James and denunciatory attitude towards Paul--and, for similar reasons, for Josephus. The reasons for these judgments are not entirely spelled out but they appear to include such as the following considerations. First, Eisenman himself has a Jewish background. Second, he identifies Paul and his ilk as being appeasers of Rome and, by extension, imperialism. Third, he (correctly, I think) sees Paul as an upstart turncoat and dissimulator--both he and Josephus being traitors to traditional Judaism. Fourth, he simply may have a proclivity to favor underappreciated historical underdogs which the Ebionites certainly were. Fifth, he may (again correctly) be aggrieved by how the Pauline writings, and the gospels and Acts, have been grist for the mills of anti-Semiitism through subsequent centuries. Whatever his reasons, Eisenmen does not hide his emotions, a practice I find objectionable in a scholarly work. Such motivations are, I think, most properly revealed in prefaces, not in the body of such a text.
As regards readability, I cannot recommend this book. Not only is it too personal, but it is overwhelmingly repetitive, the same points being made, often in the same words, again and again and again. Eisenman may be right in many of his speculations--and they are legion--but he hardly does his cause a favor by hammering at the same nails repeatedly after they have already been driven home.
It is also quite odd, when considering this book as a series of arguments, that Eisenman makes virtually no textual references to the work of other scholars. There are some in the endnotes, yes, but the text itself speaks with but one voice and is, as a result, less convincing than it might be.
Personally, I have long agreed with the primary thesis of this book, namely, that the Ebionites, so decried by the Patristics, originally led by relatives of Jesus, may most closely represent the teachings and practices of Jesus--teachings radically at odds with the Christian churches of today. Eisenman, though much more indigestible than need be, has certainly provided more food for thought along such lines. One just hopes he hires a competent editor and issues a much revised edition of this formidable, but very important, tome.
Basically, this is a book about what occurred amongst the earliest followers of Jesus upon his death. Eisenman associates those located in Palestine with the Ebionites ('the poor'), possibly with the people behind the Dead Sea Scrolls, and assigns their leadership to Jesus' brother James (Yeshua and Jacob being their names transliterated from the Hebrew) and, following him, to other blood relatives. James he tentatively associates with 'the Teacher of Righteousness' in the Scrolls and the movement as a whole he associates with the popular zealot movement which led the unsuccessful revolt against Rome in 66-73. Meanwhile, Eisenman associates some of those early followers who did not dwell in Palestine and who were a mix of Hellenized Jews and god-fearing Gentiles with Paul of Tarsus (Saul) and the authors and redactors of the four canonical gospels and the Book of Acts.
Between the two groups, according to Eisenman, there was great enmity, an enmity covered up, both as regards its basis and as regards its severity, in the accounts of the 'New' Testament. The basis for this conflict was, simply put, that the Hellenized and Gentile followers couldn't accept 'the Way' established by Jesus and his closest circle, including, of course, his immediate family. After the destruction of the Temple in 70, when the gospels and Acts were composed, this simply made political sense. The terrain had changed too much to allow a simple continuation of the early movement. Before the Roman War, however, and at the very root of the conflict's origins, there was Paul, the self-proclaimed 'apostle' who had never met Jesus but who, apparently, was quite influential in building a gentile movement in his name which, by being disassociated from primary identification with the Palestinian movement, was best able to weather the consequences of the end of temple-based Judaism and to influence the formation of what was eventually to become the Christian canon.
Irrelevant to the argument is the author's personally approbative support for James and denunciatory attitude towards Paul--and, for similar reasons, for Josephus. The reasons for these judgments are not entirely spelled out but they appear to include such as the following considerations. First, Eisenman himself has a Jewish background. Second, he identifies Paul and his ilk as being appeasers of Rome and, by extension, imperialism. Third, he (correctly, I think) sees Paul as an upstart turncoat and dissimulator--both he and Josephus being traitors to traditional Judaism. Fourth, he simply may have a proclivity to favor underappreciated historical underdogs which the Ebionites certainly were. Fifth, he may (again correctly) be aggrieved by how the Pauline writings, and the gospels and Acts, have been grist for the mills of anti-Semiitism through subsequent centuries. Whatever his reasons, Eisenmen does not hide his emotions, a practice I find objectionable in a scholarly work. Such motivations are, I think, most properly revealed in prefaces, not in the body of such a text.
As regards readability, I cannot recommend this book. Not only is it too personal, but it is overwhelmingly repetitive, the same points being made, often in the same words, again and again and again. Eisenman may be right in many of his speculations--and they are legion--but he hardly does his cause a favor by hammering at the same nails repeatedly after they have already been driven home.
It is also quite odd, when considering this book as a series of arguments, that Eisenman makes virtually no textual references to the work of other scholars. There are some in the endnotes, yes, but the text itself speaks with but one voice and is, as a result, less convincing than it might be.
Personally, I have long agreed with the primary thesis of this book, namely, that the Ebionites, so decried by the Patristics, originally led by relatives of Jesus, may most closely represent the teachings and practices of Jesus--teachings radically at odds with the Christian churches of today. Eisenman, though much more indigestible than need be, has certainly provided more food for thought along such lines. One just hopes he hires a competent editor and issues a much revised edition of this formidable, but very important, tome.
August 4, 2008
Eisenman is a really smart guy with a lot of information at his disposal. However, he can't write worth beans. This is really hard to get through. This book is interesting for early-Christianity geeks like me, but if you're looking for a light summer read, this isn't the place to start. Try Jeffrey Butz's book on "the Brother of Jesus" which IMHO is better.
September 23, 2012
The concept is interesting but without doubt this is one of the worst written books I have ever read - repetitive, hectoring, presumptuous and misguided.
September 16, 2018
I read this book to learn more about James, a fascinating historical and biblical person. Well, I did learn more, but I first had to slog through over 1,000 pages of Eisenman's poorly written text, filled with endless repetition and convoluted/meandering arguments, all of which could have easily been condensed to a few hundred pages. On top of that, among Eisenman's bizarre theories are those relating to the late dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and his argument that the New Testament was largely rewritten (based on the Scrolls) to disguise the history and contributions of James, theories which few (if any) reputable biblical scholars agree with. All in all, a very disappointing book.
Read
March 16, 2009if you are interested in hearing from the horses mouth what the dead sea scrolls have to say about early christianity - you will find here. James the brother of Jesus is a hero, and the essene community was the true early christians who followed Christ as well as followed the OT Laws...check out the bio on the author! he has the credentials to "go there" with this research
December 5, 2016
Many reviews of this volume are brutal. I enjoy this book.
Because Christianity is such a personal thing for Christians, a historical treatise on the early Christian Church will be harshly judged by the millions of individuals who feel they have a personal relationship with Jesus, as they understand him.
I enjoyed the facts presented here of the difficulties James and the other leaders of the Christian Church in Jerusalem were forced to deal with. This book is excellent for the added insights it gives into the history of the first Christians after the death of Jesus. I also enjoyed comments made about problems Christian leaders such as James, Paul, and even Peter had with each other.
I love this book and recommend it to everyone who wants to improve and expand their knowledge.
Because Christianity is such a personal thing for Christians, a historical treatise on the early Christian Church will be harshly judged by the millions of individuals who feel they have a personal relationship with Jesus, as they understand him.
I enjoyed the facts presented here of the difficulties James and the other leaders of the Christian Church in Jerusalem were forced to deal with. This book is excellent for the added insights it gives into the history of the first Christians after the death of Jesus. I also enjoyed comments made about problems Christian leaders such as James, Paul, and even Peter had with each other.
I love this book and recommend it to everyone who wants to improve and expand their knowledge.
September 5, 2021
Incredible. Jaw-dropping. Astounding. Profound.
Robert Eisenman - though admittedly badly in need of an editor - drops compelling argument after compelling argument, ripping open the holes in the Pauline New Testament to reveal the historical truth underneath. And the truth is oh so simple, it is astounding that we have only vaguely guessed at it before. But “now that we have Dead Sea Scrolls as controls,” as he says, we can see that the historical conditions of Palestine in the first century were very different from what is portrayed in the very Greek, very Gentile New Testament. “Whoever James was, so to, was Jesus.”
Robert Eisenman - though admittedly badly in need of an editor - drops compelling argument after compelling argument, ripping open the holes in the Pauline New Testament to reveal the historical truth underneath. And the truth is oh so simple, it is astounding that we have only vaguely guessed at it before. But “now that we have Dead Sea Scrolls as controls,” as he says, we can see that the historical conditions of Palestine in the first century were very different from what is portrayed in the very Greek, very Gentile New Testament. “Whoever James was, so to, was Jesus.”
November 20, 2017
This work is the singular most scholarly work highlighting who Jesus/Paul/James of the New Testament were. He proves, for me, the truth that Jesus had brothers, notably St. James the Just called often by the Church, James the Lesser. It highlights the impact of James and underscores his antagonism to Saul/Paul who worked so hard to undercut James's position and teachings. In order to understand the birth and early years of what came to be called Christianity, one must read Eisenman's seminal work.
March 10, 2019
An Absolutely Enthralling Read. EYE OPENING! Extensively researched and documented look into the beginning of the early church and it's unquestioned (at the time) leader, nope not Peter or Paul, James the Brother of Christ. Could only stop reading when my body told me too...lol It's a huge book but such an easy read that will open your eyes to the reality of the original Christianity (that is quite different from the Christianity of today) and its struggles against its corruption.
Highly recommended!!!!
Highly recommended!!!!
March 29, 2011
The story of how Paul, a Roman, horned his way in to the Christian church, which was a Jewish messianic sect. Detailed revelations of how the Bible was overwritten to conceal that fact that it was the Romans who killed Jesus, not the Jews. Explores the possibility that it was indeed Paul himself who crucified Jesus' brother.
Very thorough, and consequently somewhat tedious. I confess, I did not make it all the way through this book, but what I did read was quite interesting.
Very thorough, and consequently somewhat tedious. I confess, I did not make it all the way through this book, but what I did read was quite interesting.
June 6, 2020
I was rather disappointed. The author has definitely erudition, but the work is hardly organized, highly repetitive, and what I find most problematic is the excess of speculation and critical examining of hypotheses. Speculations may be very attractive, but building a whole theory on scant evidence and a huge amount of speculation is not history at all. Found some interesting stuff inside, but it could be easily concentrated to half of its pages. Just my two cents.
February 12, 2008
The author's writing style is very difficult.
October 4, 2019
This is an exhausting book. It's also exhaustive, so if you are looking for every available bit of information to support a thesis on James, called "the brother of the Lord" in the gospels, this is the one for you. It's definitely a valuable resource, and without doubt Eisenman knows his material. He has an encyclopedic knowledge of several languages, including Hebrew, Greek, and Arabic, and is incredibly well versed in the world of the Second Temple period. He frequently translates material from that era, including some of the Dead Sea Scrolls. But the key drawback to this volume is that Eisenman almost can't help telling you every single thing he knows about a subject--not all of which is terribly relevant--before moving on. If you are looking for a straightforward, readable survey of the basic picture of James that emerges from the totality of what was written long ago there are probably better sources to go to. For instance, The Brother of Jesus, by Jeffrey Butz, travels much of the same territory that Eisenman does, and comes to some of the same conclusions, but in a style that is far more readable. But if you want to know just how tricky it is to dissect what the writersof Acts or the gospels were up to, Eisenman might be for you. I fear, though, that some of his points become lost in the vast inundation of information we receive. I also suspect that his stance on traditional Christianity, Jesus himself, the letters of Paul, the gospels, and Acts, is going to rub readers the wrong way. Safe to say that he has an extremely different take on how those sources were written and why they were written as they were. He certainly backs up his claims with a great deal of information, and he must be taken seriously. But be warned.
January 19, 2021
Содержит довольно интересную информацию о Иакове ",брате Иисуса", казнённым в Иерусалиме, что достоверно известно. Вокруг этой личности рассказывается история первой (иудео)-христианской общины и её связи с Кумраном.
К сожалению: очень плохо написано. Огромный объём 1114 страниц мелкого текста связан не с объёмом материала, а с невероятной многословностью автора. По содержанию, книгу можно было бы уменьшить в 3-4 раза.
Eisenman не может сосредоточится на одном вопросе, а бесконечно перепрыгивает между несколькими темами, текстами, лицами. Так что, зачастую, сложно понять о чём он говорит в данном месте, что делает всё разбивку на главы этого громадного текста практически бессмысленной.
Книга по данному вопросу должна быть, но лучше бы её написал другой человек.
К сожалению: очень плохо написано. Огромный объём 1114 страниц мелкого текста связан не с объёмом материала, а с невероятной многословностью автора. По содержанию, книгу можно было бы уменьшить в 3-4 раза.
Eisenman не может сосредоточится на одном вопросе, а бесконечно перепрыгивает между несколькими темами, текстами, лицами. Так что, зачастую, сложно понять о чём он говорит в данном месте, что делает всё разбивку на главы этого громадного текста практически бессмысленной.
Книга по данному вопросу должна быть, но лучше бы её написал другой человек.
October 10, 2022
James the brother of Jesus is portrayed as having a minor role in the Early Church. One wonders why he was not selected to replace Judas as part of the 12. Nevertheless, James is considered to be an apostle and the leader of the Jerusalem assembly of followers of Jesus. James carried out a "theological feud" with Paul which is the subject of Robert Eisenman's book. Each chapter of the book reads like a lecture and likely were lecture notes at one time. The most impressive thing about the author is his vast knowledge of early Christian, Jewish, Gnostic, Greek and Latin and non-Christian documents including Qumran. The book includes some useful photographs, tables, maps and detailed footnotes.
February 11, 2023
Though I don’t regret reading this book I don’t know that I would recommend it. The writing style is very difficult, with the author returning again and again to the same points. I had the impression that he could have said the same things in half the pages or less. A more serious point is the author's parallelomania, some of the parallels being simply outrageous. Still, I learned a lot, hence two stars rather than one.
June 23, 2021
I found the book interesting and mostly enjoyed it. The author could have done the same thing in half the word count with plenty to spare. He should have. It became an act of will power after about 20 hours (audiobook). I’d read this guy again. I like the Dead Sea scrolls and gnostic gospels. Not sure what it all means, but I’m into it.
June 4, 2020
THE definitive work on Jesus' brother, James, leader of the Jerusalem Church for a few decades after the crucifixion, until his extrajudicial murder not long (relatively speaking) before the destruction of the Temple.
November 23, 2022
Such depth, very helpful as I'm writing fiction set in that tumultuous early period.
November 15, 2023
Eisenman's stamina for research his remarkable. No stone unturned.
And, unlike faith-based material he doesn't add filler with liturgy.
And, unlike faith-based material he doesn't add filler with liturgy.
March 3, 2025
Abbastanza dettagliato e ricco di informazioni e fonti, si perde un po troppo in collegamenti secondari e poco inerenti alla storia di fondo
August 11, 2025
An epic twisting and turning deep dive into impossible to untangle texts that claims to get to the real story, or at least part of it. Unconvincing.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 49 reviews