He was also Jesus's brother which made him a natural successor and leader. The presentation is anything but linear. Eisenman is a modern hero. Greek Christianity gives the Torah, and Jewish identity, the bum's rush, just like those allegorizing antinomians Philo argued against, just like Josephus. You would save a brother in Christ! Eisenman does not move on till he has figured it out.
He takes about the various rulers, political affiliations, and Jewish sects in great detail. 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. Copyright © Institute for Higher Critical Studies, 1997 Web version created May, 1998 Darrell J. Mustn't they originally have been the same? In sum, there is little to recommend Eisenman's work, much less to recommend it over consensus and mainstream works on the same issues. Like James, Acts' Judas is buried where he fell. It was only later made to refer exclusively to Jesus himself, as an individual.
Of course originally, a la Eisenman and Hugh J. James the Just called often by the Church, James the Lesser. Shortly before the day of Pentecost the group gathered to deliberate their situation. 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. And Galatians has the Three Pillars in Jerusalem: Peter, John son of Zebedee, and Jesus' brother James. Eisenman enhances his case by adducing the evidence for Paul's Herodian background, something we really do not have to read too far between the lines to see, given his Roman citizenship, his kinship to one Herodion and to the household of Aristobulus.
Detailed revelations of how the Bible was overwritten to conceal that fact that it was the Romans who killed Jesus, not the Jews. Eisenman identifies him with a magician named Simon of whom Josephus recounts that he helped Bernice convince her sister Drusilla to dump her husband King Azizus of Emesa, who had gotten circumcised to marry her, so she could take up with the uncircumcised Felix instead. This book is thick, almost 1,000 pages of text, but well worth it. Eisenman, though much more indigestible than need be, has certainly provided more food for thought along such lines. Although it is true that we know more about James than Jesus, it's not much more.
The difficult aspect of the book is the author's style and his way of presenting the material. As we will see, his role has been almost totally marginalized in our New Testament records, but the results are evident. However revered the messengers might have been, what they advocated and proclaimed lived on and was in no way destroyed or lost by their deaths. The author goes around and around, sometimes viewing the same topic from multiple perspectives in different chapters. Eisenmen situates James in the context of the Judaism of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Eisenman's originality at this point lies not in the technique but rather in his willingness to take seriously Luke's use of Josephus as a source. Eisenman a 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.
This is not a book of fluff. Eisenman is like the Renaissance scientists who had to hand-craft all the intricate parts of a planned invention. Therefore stand upon a wing of the Temple that you may be clearly visible from above and your words readily heard by all the people. Highly recommen An Absolutely Enthralling Read. Eisenman continues this discussion in his 2006 book The New Testament Code.
You may have a problem with authoritative figures. 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. And so he became con fused in the early Christian mind with a possibly contemporary Jewish healer named Yochana ben Zabda. As Hyam Maccoby recently reminded us in The Mythmaker , our conventional assumption that Paul died by Nero's command rests only on sketchy and manifestly legendary material in 1 Clement an anonymous digest of hortatory lumber of unknown date and the Acts of Paul. The overarching argument is that James was a central figure in the early Christian Church but was essentially written out of Acts and the Gospels by the Hellenized Paul Church. As Collingwood might have said, the variant readings turned out not to be evidence for the original text, but that didn't mean they weren't evidence for something else. Jesus, their Davidic ruler, had been removed from their midst.
Basically, this is a book about what occurred amongst the earliest followers of Jesus upon his death. This is such a book. And so on, and so on. About the Book Was James—rather than Peter—the true spiritual heir to Jesus? 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. This book is excellent for the added insights it Many reviews of this volume are brutal.
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. That said, I had a hard time reading it and I must admit that I have only read a little over a hundred pages. It is a kind of paganized, syncretic, diluted Judaism not unlike the Sabazius cult. Eisenman connects James' community to the community at Qumran. 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. In addition, his familiarity with the literature available on Acts is non-existent; there is no sign that he is familiar with the works of Hemer, Witherington, or any others whose conclusions drastically affect his own, and at the very least need to be dealt with before he can be given credence.