Robert H. Eisenman, "James, the brother of Jesus"

[AudioArtist]

Hi,

This book has really damaged my faith. In it, Robert H. Eisenman takes evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls and basically turns Christianity inside out-threatening our common understanding of the gospels, who Jesus was, who Paul was, and who James was and how his works were silenced (among lots of other things.)

Apparently, the Church added a lot of stuff to the Bible and removed a lot (which from my Church history lessons doesn't seem at all surprising.)

What I'd really like is knowledgeble people here to tell me that this is all conspiracy nonsense and offer refutations of this book and others which threaten the Cannon of Scripture and the validility of the authors who wrote it, as well as specific issues in the book. You would save a brother in Christ!

Thanks.

[julian the apostate]

do a search through google
he is not exactly universally agreed with
i am by no means an expert, but one review mentioned real problems with some of his basic ideas,especially regarding the dead sea scrolls

[Rev. Smith]

And was not at all troubled. His work has all the hallmarks of conspiracy writing (although he did avoid the urge to blame it all on the Masons :D ) - He lays out suppositions, thinly supported and then without proving them uses those suppositions to "prove" even more suppositions. Just one example, if you look at the first four chapters, Eisenman does not want to concede that Jesus even existed (using phrases such as "the supposed Jesus" or "Jesus, if there was such a person") - except when he wants to prove that James was the brother (as opposed the the "ever virgin" crowd that wants to believe that James was a cousin so they can maintain the dogma that Mary never knew Joseph) then he insists on an historical Jesus, and that James was his brother. Pick one Bob.

I found the book valuable for its telling of history, and for its reminders that the early Church was truly devided into Jewish and Gentile camps, with James' Church of Jerusalem leading the Jewish camp. I also found his supporting sources for the doctrine hinted at in Acts, that James and not Peter was the first leader of the nascent Christian faith.

As valuable as it is for historical referance, the continious use of circular logic, hypothoses as proof of theory and resting on the least likely explanation for a set of facts as the basis of conjecture made the book collapse under the weight of its own fabrications.

Certainly keep an open mind and study history, scripture and tradition, but as a source of insight into any useful truth - Esienman falls short of the mark.

[AudioArtist]

So Paul can be trusted then? ;)

[Rev. Smith]

Paul does have the advantage of being in the Canon, whereas Robert Eisenman is simply trying to understand it....