Vorkosigan

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

This amazing book is the culmination of a lifetime’s familiarity with the textual and historical evidence surrounding early Christian history, particularly Josephus, the apocryphal writings, and the works of the early church historians. It is at once exhaustive, relentless, brutal, clever, perceptive and completely convincing.

James the Brother of Jesus is not an easy book to summarize. At 1074 pages it contains a whole world between its covers, with maps, genealogies, footnotes and an extensive and useful index. So let’s begin, not with Eisenman’s conclusions, but with his methods, which are the major focus of this massive work..

Eisenman, like many scholars from non-orthodox perspectives, begins with the idea that all sources are on an equal footing as far as their ability to convey useful information. He rejects the establishment position regarding the Dead Sea Scrolls, and dates them firmly, by language and content, to the first century. To him, they are intimately bound up with the history of early Christianity. Indeed, he identifies the “Teacher of Righteousness” in the Scrolls with James, and the “Liar” with Paul.

Point by point he builds a case for his conclusions, sifting through scores, if not hundreds, of references, stories, narratives and snippets, and relating them, not event by event, nor chronologically, but by common vocabulary. To him the early Christian writings, the DSS, and the letters of Paul represent a giant dialogue carried on between competing groups, each sharing an identical symbolic, ideological and theological vocabulary, but modifying, twisting and transmuting it as their purpose demands. A typical Eisenman passage looks like this:

• One should also not that Hippolytus’ ‘Nassenes’ – whom he seems to think are an earlier group of ‘Priests’, following the teachings of James, have more or less this same doctrine of ‘the Perfect Man’. They call him either ‘Man’ or ‘Adam’ – the ‘Primal Adam’ ideology delineated in the Pseudoclementines again – even sometimes, ‘the Son of Man’. For the Psuedoclementines, which appear to think that Simon Magus – together with another Samaritan named Dositheus – learned this doctrine from John the Baptist, ‘the Standing One is the Exalted Power which is above the Power of the High God [‘that is, in others, the Christ’] superior to the creator of the world’.
  
  Not only do these doctrines peer through the Gospels even in their present form, for instance, in the references to ‘the Great Power’ and the repeated allusions to ‘standing’, but their antiquity is attested to by Paul himself, who knows that Adam is ‘the First Man’ (that is, ‘the Primal Adam’) and that Jesus, ‘the Son of Man’ or ‘the Lord out of Heaven’, is ‘the Second Man’ and ‘Heavenly’ or ‘a Heavenly One’ – what he also refers to as ‘the Last Adam’ (1 Cor 15:45-49). This, in turn, means that the knowledge of these doctrines and their identification with ‘the Christ’ comes before the Gospels in their present form and, true enough, reflections of the “Primal Adam’ ideology and the ‘standing’ vocabulary are to be found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The power of this method is obvious and profound. It renders pointless the interminable debates about the date of this or the authenticity of that. Authenticity and dating are only a concern when the documents in question offer some promise of historicity. There is no mention of which gospel came first, or who is dependent on who. In his treatment, the various writings of Paul, the patristic fathers, the gospel writers, the authors of Acts, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the apocryphal writings are not terribly concerned with historical truth. They all know what happened, and to who. Rather, those writers are caught up in (and in later years, duped by) an intense and bitter ideological struggle over the meaning and direction of early Christianity. Such history as can be uncovered in their writings is there only in obscured form, “like pebbles seen at the bottom of a stream,” as Eisenman puts it.

Nevertheless, sifting through the debates between James and Paul over what Christianity meant, and refracting them through Josephus and later historians, much becomes clear. The current NT represents an attempt by Paul and supporters of Pauline history to write James, the most important leader of early Christianity, out of the movement. For example, sorting through the references in Acts and in apocryphal sources, Eisenman shows how the martyrdom of Stephen in Acts is really an overwrite of a physical attack on James by Paul in the 40s. He believes that Paul probably appears in Josephus’ writings as the mysterious ‘Saulus’ who is a member of the Herodian family (a grandson of Herod the Great). Eisenman concludes that Paul’s mission is to redirect Jewish messianism, its violent, anti-Roman, nationalistic, xenophobic ideology represented, and led, by James, into a peaceful, spiritual messianic religion presided over by a Christ-figure who is as apolitical as Santa Claus. Pauline Christianity, then, represents the struggle for “hearts and minds” that complemented Roman military and political initiatives against Jewish messianic nationalism. In this Pauline Christianity was almost completely successful, for as Eisenman demonstrates, many of the ‘James” traditions have been absorbed into ‘Jesus’ traditions, and transformed thereby. Whether Jesus existed in his own right, or is simply one of the many NT transformations of people into their own relatives (the way Mary has a sister also named Mary), Eisenman is unable to say.

Thus, in Eisenman’s view, the least historically reliable documents regarding the origins of Christianity are in the current NT. The canonical gospels he simply dismisses as Hellenistic romantic fictions, Acts as a fantasy. The Jesus we have is a composite figure, with a few traditions and terminologies going back to his Palestinian nationalist roots, but most of it Pauline overlay attempting to obscure the true origins of Christianity as an anti-Roman cult.

Another advantage of Eisenman’s method is the way it unites the disparate bodies of first century literary, religious and historical writings into a whole that can be profitably mined for historical understanding. Again and again he is able to show that Josephus was foundational for the later NT writings, especially Acts, but there are hints that Mark must have been familiar with at least The Jewish War. Parallels between events widely separated in time and space reveal authors intimately familiar with the semiotics of the struggle in early Christianity.

In his introduction Eisenman recommends that one have at hand an NT, a copy of the Scrolls in translations, and a complete Josephus. These would be nice, but they are not necessary; the relevant quotes are generally given. In any case Eisenman ranges over so much material that only the resources of a major university would enable one to have at hand all the requisite texts. Fortunately much is available over the internet. Eisenman also supplies maps and a genealogy of the Herodians, without which the book makes absolutely no sense. This reviewer must confess to completely losing track of who is who in that much-married, fecund dynasty. At times it seemed nearly everyone in Palestine was named either “Herod” or “Judas.”

Reviewers have complained about several aspects of James the Brother of Jesus. Foremost is the book’s repetitiveness and circularity. Eisenman is not writing a straightforward literary exposition of an idea. Rather, he jumps from place to place, gradually revealing the whole idea. Reading the book is like watching a computer screen light up one random pixel at a time. After several hundred pages the general outlook finally emerges. He waits until the final sentence of the work, however, to announce his conclusions (which the reader by then will have grasped).

As a consequence, James the Brother of Jesus is incredibly repetitive. It is no exaggeration to say that this might well be the most repetitive book I have ever read. Considerable commitment and staying power are required. Partly this seems to be to keep the reader apprised of the accumulating data set, and partly it seems to be necessary to help the reader imbibe the atmosphere of the terminology as the first century writers might have dealt with it. They breathed it literally from the womb. After the umpteenth time one sees a reference to the “standing” imagery, one grows the right antenna. Critics of Eisenman will argue that the repetition is there to convince, in lieu of a more developed argument, a charge I cannot wholly deny. Many readers have complained that James the Brother of Jesus is badly in need of an editor, and I cannot wholly disagree with that either. The level of detail is so thick, and the references so copious, that it seems Eisenman often loses track of the thread of an argument in his joy at ferreting out yet another nugget from the unyielding earth of an obscure, cryptic reference. Finally, Eisenman often descends into unjustified hyperbole – although sometimes this is a welcome relief from the soporific effects of the two hundred and eighty-fifth example of the “Power” imagery, or the one hundred and tenth reference to “linen.”

Nevertheless, despite the uneven, often polemical standpoint of James the Brother of Jesus, there is no denying that this is a great work in every sense of that much-abused word. Those who set aside the time to read and reflect on this wonderful book will not find that investment wasted.

Michael

[ January 07, 2002: Message edited by: turtonm ]</p>

John the Atheist

Mike,

Good book review. I couldn't even write a half a page on what I know about James, and that's having the Bible by my side since he's hardly mentioned in the NT, let alone 1,074 pages. And I don't see how Eiseman got any information from Josephus concerning James. I also remember Allegro coming to the conclusion that the Jesus Christ we were looking for in that particular time period is not even mentioned in the entire DSS, and he figured in all probability that it was loosely based on an earlier figure in the Essene community. I know there were many critics of Allegro, but even his colleagues agreed that the historicity of the Jesus we were looking for was not going to be resolved with the DSS. So, if they had trouble finding Jesus, I'm puzzled of how Eisenman could come up with that many pages on James. Of the 1,074 pages, how many pages could actually be devoted to James biography? Does 99% of the book pertain mostly to early Christianity without much mention of James?

John (Good to see some familiar names still around.)

[ January 07, 2002: Message edited by: John the Atheist ]</p>

Kosh

Thanks for taking the time to read and summarize
this for us, Michael.

It is certainly interesting. We all love a good
conspiracy theory, but this one finally gives
motive to Paul concerning his testimony. Nomad et al
are so fond of pointing out that he had no reason
to lie regarding the witnesses to the resurection
etc. It appears that this theory gives him just
such a motive.

Toto

Thanks for the helpful review. You should post it on Amazon, or at least in the SecWeb book review section. (You might also mention that the book is in the <a href="http://www.secweb.org/bookstore/bookdetail.asp?BookID=624" target="_blank">II bookstore</a>, and that there are a number of used copies on Amazon.)

Vorkosigan

Well, the book starts out by reviewing history and background, and that goes on for a hundred pages. To Eisenman James is important because of the tradition, recorded in earlier editions of Josephus, that the Jewish war was touched off by the execution of James. Both Origen and Eusebius know of this passage in Josephus, but it is gone now.

Eisenman needs about 700 pages for his task -- if had to count, I'd say a third of the book is repetition. What he does is reconstruct the history of James by comparing references in hundreds of sources to the gospel stories. He discovers that the traditions currently ascribed to Jesus actually once belonged to James. For example, Jesus goes up to a pinnacle or to the Temple Mount, where he is tempted by the devil. In history as far as Eisenman can make it out, this story actually happened to James, who spoke to the crowd from the Temple mount and was cast down from there by pro-Roman representatives of the Herodian family led by Paul, breaking his legs in the fall. Apparently Paul attacked James. Note the reversal, Jesus is asked to cast himself down by the devil, but James is cast down. In that particular example, Eisenman traces, over scores of pages, the use of "casting" language in the gospels and in other writings, especially the DSS.

Another example is the use of "Net" language. In the DSS this appears as the 3 snares or nets of Belial, which tempt one to sin. These are actually political fulminations against the behavior of the Herodians. In the gospels once again we have a reversal, the "nets" are full of fish and the disciples become fishers of men. The politics is gone. Again and again such reversals occur between the fervent anti-Herodian, anti-Roman jewish nationalism of the DSS and the placid pro-Roman gospels.

In Paul, one can eat whatever foods one wants. Hence in Acts, Peter has a vision in which he is told he can eat whatever he wants (if Peter actually knew Jesus, why is a vision necessary?). But James was, among other things, a vegetarian who scrupulously followed the food laws. So the discussions over food are really Paul's way of subverting James fierce insistence on the letter of the law, on doing, on works. When Paul says "I am not a liar" he is responding to specific language in the DSS where the community has labeled him "the spouter of lies." And so on.

Thus, the James references in the gospels, Acts, Pauline epistles and other writings are numerous IF you can figure out how to read them, and see what has happened as the vocabulary and stories are reconfigured. You could easily get a multi-hundred page book out of them, as Eisenman has done.

In fact, he has another multi-hundred page volume coming.

Michael

Vorkosigan

We have a book review section? I thought that idea never came off! Sure, I'd love to post it there. There are 37 reviews at the Amazon site, so there is really no need for mine.

Sorry! Forgot about making a link to Amazon.

Michael

Toto

At least there is a button that invites you to add your review. I haven't tried it yet.

John the Atheist

Mike,

He discovers that the traditions currently ascribed to Jesus actually once belonged to James. For example, Jesus goes up to a pinnacle or to the Temple Mount, where he is tempted by the devil. In history as far as Eisenman can make it out, this story actually happened to James, who spoke to the crowd from the Temple mount and was cast down from there by pro-Roman representatives of the Herodian family led by Paul, breaking his legs in the fall. Apparently Paul attacked James. Note the reversal, Jesus is asked to cast himself down by the devil, but James is cast down. In that particular example, Eisenman traces, over scores of pages, the use of "casting" language in the gospels and in other writings, especially the DSS.

All of this is interesting. They would have to do some serious editing with any future book, before I would consider reading it though.

I know that Allegro thought that the "Teacher of Righteousness" being referred to in DSS was an Essene leader that was crucified over a century before the biblical Jesus. You mentioned that Eisenman considers the "Teacher of Righteousness", James.

We have a book review section? I thought that idea never came off! Sure, I'd love to post it there.

We used to have one. I haven't been around much lately to know if it is still there or not. There wasn't much activity when I was visiting months ago. It might have went belly up.

John

Vorkosigan

John

I am aware of several theories that posit the Teacher of Righteousness (hereafter ToR) was the model for Jesus. Eisenman actually demonstrates that they are correct. The ToR was James, and James was the ToR, and the model for Jesus. Whether or not he existed, Jesus absorbed the Jamesian traditions.

I had an Eisenman "jolt" today as I was walking around one of the missionary schools in Southern Taiwan today (we;re searching for a school for my son). Posted on one wall was the quote from John: The Truth Will Set You Free. When one thinks over how "freedom" works in James and Paul.....one sees why Eisenman thought the Gospel writers really dug cynical humor. In James, freedom has a straightforward political meaning, while in Paul, it is (as always) subverted to mean "freedom" from the Law -- the opposite of Jame's fierce insistence on the Law. John seemed to be making a sly, cynical comment on this -- if you knew the truth about what the gospels are REALLY saying...

More digressions....

I was reading a post by Brian/Nomad on XTALK today that discussed the origin of the virgin belief. Both Matt and Luke have Mary being a virgin. However, this is popularly assumed to be due to Matt's misreading of Is 7:14, but Luke did not read Matt so how did he know of this tradition? Obviously, he is referring to an earlier tradition. In conventional scholarship, this "earlier" tradition is "closer to the truth" but in Eisenman this tradition is no closer to the truth. Mary's virginity actually absorbs a tradition about James, who is said in many sources to have abstained from fornication and died a virgin (no doubt this accounts for his short temper). Eisenman is causing me to rethink how I think about all these traditions, and question many of my assumptions and arguments.

John, I have never read Allegro, so can't comment. But it is hard to read about the ToR without seeing the Jesus tradition, at least to me.

Michael

CX

It seems to me that the virgin birth is taken over from an earlier tradition. That AMt mistakenly ties it to the prophecy in Isaiah is part and parcel of his program. AMt's gospel is strongly midrashical in flavor and certainly thoroughly Jewish in character. It starts right up front with his genealogy's focus on having Jesus descend from the Davidic line, but he makes numerous allusions to OT scripture throughout hsi gospel that the other 2 synoptics and GJn do not. It would be, it seems to me, naive to think the virgin birth originates with GMt, unless one supports either the notion of an aramaic proto-Matthew as described, possibly, by Papias or a "Mark Without Q" version of the 2 source hypothesis. It is possible that ALk was familiar some Greek version of GMt, but that he was not as concerned with Jesus' messianic pretensions and recognized the error of linking the Isaiah prophecy to the virgin birth tradition.