Robert H. Eisenman

(Both Volumes)

Presents an in-depth revisionist history of primitive Christianity so compelling that it was almost enough to drag me all the way through some of the most impenetrable prose I've ever had the misfortune of slamming my head into.

A translation of the dead sea scrolls, which suffers from a good deal of pedantry. It's interesting for what you can learn about religious history, but overall, many of the scrolls appear to be basically similar to the Hebrew Bible, with differences in wording in places from the books. The tedium of the Biblical begats is in this spot taken over by the tedium of the calendric scrolls, with endless lists of days and dates to explicate the complicated calendar the authors of the scroll were show more using, and also correlating it with the different calendar being used by other Jewish communities. Overall, it's interesting on the margins, and the authors included a transliteration of the scrolls, so readers could check their translations themselves (for those readers who can read Hebrew and/or Aramaic). It does raise the question of whether Pascal was right in saying there is nothing to lose in believing, since an awful lot of people spent an awful lot of hours on this, which really didn't do anything to improve the human condition at all (and the people I count here are not only the many modern researchers, but the ancient scribes who created and preserved these writings). Overall, not a bad read, but I wouldn't recommend it for casual readers. The jargon flows too freely for that. show less

Excellent review of some off the "Dead Sea Scrolls" and their nearness in time to the early Jesus movement. Somewhat obtuse, took me a year to read through it, but very rewarding.

James more important than Paul in the early Church? Eisenman's magnum opus, though I don't agree with much of his hypothesis, it is thought-provoking. Way too long, too dense, and a bit repetitive, and a bit repetitive.