Did Paul "steal" Christianity from Jesus' brother?

Robert Eisenman, an American biblical scholar, posits a highly controversial theory regarding the relationship between Saint Paul and James, the brother of Jesus. Eisenman argues that James, rather than Peter, was the true successor to Jesus and the leader of the early Christian movement. He claims that James was a key figure in Jewish Christianity, advocating for strict adherence to Jewish law, including circumcision for Gentile converts, which directly opposes the Pauline doctrine of salvation by faith alone, independent of Mosaic law. Eisenman suggests that this fundamental disagreement led to a significant rift between James and Paul, portraying Paul not as a legitimate apostle but as someone who corrupted the original message of Jesus. His theory is heavily influenced by his interpretation of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which he believes reveal a historical context of Jewish sectarianism that James was part of, contrasting sharply with Paul's Hellenistic approach.

Eisenman's examination of historical texts like the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Clementine Recognitions, and early Christian documents leads him to identify James with the 'Teacher of Righteousness' from the Scrolls, while he identifies Paul with the 'Spouter of Lies' or 'Man of Lies.' This connection is central to his argument that Paul was an antagonist to James. Eisenman sees Paul's mission to the Gentiles as a deliberate attempt to distance Christianity from its Jewish roots, thereby altering its essence. He argues that Paul's theology was shaped by his Roman contacts and his desire to make Christianity palatable to a broader, non-Jewish audience, leading to what Eisenman describes as the "Pauline corruption" of early Christianity. This narrative positions Paul not as a herald of the Gospel but as a figure who fundamentally altered the course of Christian doctrine for political and cultural reasons.

Further, Eisenman suggests that the New Testament, particularly the Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline epistles, have been edited or rewritten to diminish James's role and elevate Paul's. He contends that this was done to align Christianity more closely with Roman imperial interests and to marginalize the Jewish Christian faction led by James. According to Eisenman, the portrayal of James in these texts is selective and often negative, aimed at discrediting him and his followers, the Ebionites, who continued to uphold Jewish practices. This manipulation of scripture, Eisenman claims, is part of a broader effort to rewrite early Christian history, making it appear as if Paul's version of Christianity was the original and authentic one.

Eisenman's theory includes the notion that the Gospels and Acts were composed with an agenda to paint Paul in a more favorable light, often at James's expense. He points out discrepancies and contradictions within these texts, suggesting they were crafted to reconcile the theological differences between Paul and James, or more accurately, to favor Paul's theology. For instance, Eisenman highlights the story of Paul's confrontation with Peter in Antioch over the issue of dining with Gentiles as indicative of the broader conflict he believes existed between Pauline and Jamesian Christianity. He interprets these events as part of a power struggle within the early church where Paul's influence eventually overshadowed James's, leading to a Christianity that diverged significantly from its Jewish origins.

Eisenman's theories have stirred considerable debate and received sharp criticism from many scholars. Critics like John Painter, Philip R. Davies, Géza Vermes, and Bart D. Ehrman have refuted Eisenman's claims, arguing that there is insufficient evidence to connect James directly to the Qumran community or to cast Paul in such a negative light. They see Eisenman's interpretations as overly speculative and not well-supported by historical evidence. While I don't have the academic chops of these other writers, my reading of Eisenman's book leads me to respond: "Sure, well, sort of."

There was an immense amount of chaos in the early Christian community, as evidenced by the volumes of "heretical" works that are known to have existed -- many of which are still intact. That one "true" Christian theology emerged at the expense of many others is well documented, and it's pretty clear that an effort was undertaken to destroy all references to the remaining "heresies." It's also clear that one can mark divergences in theology even within the New Testament itself, and Paul himself attests to the disagreements he had with the Jerusalem Church. So, much of what Eisenman says seems demonstrably correct. But, in my opinion, he pushes some points too far; for example, he seems to be overly concerned about the significance of how people in the early documents were often described as "standing up" or "falling down", as though all of these references are somehow intertwined. To me, many of these examples are everyday sorts of things that happen that would reasonably be infused into any story.

My conclusion: Was Paul's theology at odds with the Jerusalem Church's? Certainly. Were there many difference versions of Christian believes within the first two centuries? Yes. Eisenman may have gone a little far with some of his examples, but the book is interesting and definitely worth a read. (Be forewarned: it’s over 1100 pages!)

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

Note that I might earn a small commission if you buy this book through this link.