Customer Reviews

Revolution in Judaea: Jesus and the Jewish Resistance

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I was introduced to Hyam Maccoby with his book 'The Mythmaker. Paul and the Invention of Christianity'. In it I saw Paul and his letters through the eyes of someone who was thoroughy familiar with the Jewish culture of the times. 'Revolution in Judea' brings the same perspective to the life of Jesus. This book should be read by every Christian who seriously claims to study the Bible. As an example of some of the insights that I found, Maccoby suggests that while Jesus might have been crucified at the time of the Passover, it is more likely that he entered Jerusalem and held his Last Supper at the time of the feast of Tabernacles. The Passover is in Spring and the feast of Tabernacles is in the Fall. This suggestion suddenly makes all kinds of sense out of what are maybe trivial but puzzling events in the Bible narrative. Why would any rational person curse a fig tree for not having figs in the spring. An "upper" room was common for the feast of Tabernacles. How about the simple statement of Jesus dipping the sop into the wine? Have you ever tried to sop wine with unleavened bread? Since the Christian faith preaches that Jesus was the lamb of God, then why isn't there any reference to the lamb as part of the meal? Where did the crowds get their leafy branches to strew in his path so early in the Spring? All these anomalies are answered with a simple shift of venue. Maccoby presents a compelling case that Jesus was a 'passive' revolutionary. That is, he did not preach violent overthrow of the Romans by his followers. However he saw in the prophecies of Zechariah that God would send armies of angels to accomplish the task if there was sufficient righteousness. Zechariah writes "Then shall the Lord go forth and fight against those nations...and his feet shall stand on the mount of Olives...and the mount shall cleave in the midst thereof ....and ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains..." One wonders if this was why Jesus was praying so fervently on the mount of Olives the night of his arrest, and why when the prophecy was not fulfilled he called from the cross 'My God why hast thou forsaken me". Jesus preach the literal coming of the kingdom of God to replace the rule of the Romans and their quisling Jewish leaders and he was crucified as a revolutionary not for blasphemy. This is an uncomfortable book for many since it does not exactly fit orthodox Christian theology. Like the previous reviewer I would like to see this book reprinted and once more on bookstore shelves.

SYNOPSIS: The New Testament treats Pharisees unfairly. Pharisees were the religious liberals and reformers of their time. They were the founders of rabbinical Judaism. We know from independent sources what they taught, and it was consistent with what Jesus taught; in fact, Jesus probably was a Pharisee. The Sadducees were a puppet government that collaborated with the oppressive Romans; the Pharisees opposed them as hopelessly corrupt. Jesus was a Jew who believed he was the Messiah, and in accordance with orthodox Judaism, he saw this as a political office. Jews saw political oppression as punishment for sin; therefore, repentance was a necessary precondition for overthrow of the oppressors and establishment of a righteous government. Jesus meant his moral teachings as preparation for political revolution. Those who hoped to ingratiate themselves with the Romans expunged Jesus' political views from the NT. They distorted or changed facts to exonerate the Romans for the crucifixion and shift blame to the Jews while blurring the distinction between Jewish factions. Someone who did not understand Jewish law inserted the charge of blasphemy after the fact for this purpose. Jews had a narrow clear definition of blasphemy, and it did not include claiming to be the Messiah. Romans would not have cared whether a Jew committed blasphemy, and the Jewish punishment for blasphemy was stoning, not crucifixion. Only the Romans practiced crucifixion. They reserved it for political criminals and they did not need or seek Jewish consent to use it. OPINION: Maccoby's book is essential for a historical understanding of the origins of Christianity. Drawing on a thorough knowledge of Jewish sources, he corrects many distortions and omissions committed or accepted by Christian commentators.

This is the only book on the historical Jesus I know of (except for others by Maccoby himself) that gets the political dimension of Jesus's "kingdom of God" exactly right.

The two or three chapters that discuss this kingdom make up for quite a bit else. Maccoby's positive case is mostly very good and he excels at locating Jesus's words and deeds within the Pharisee movement of his time. But some of his more speculative reconstructions are . . . well, speculative.

Nevertheless Maccoby is at his strongest in getting straight just what the "kingdom" would have meant to Jesus and his hearers. Bottom line: Jesus expected God to intervene in history, and part of the result would be the end of Roman rule in the Holy Land. Thus Jesus's appeal to Zealots and revolutionaries -- and thus also an explanation for what some other historians (Paula Fredriksen, for example) have found so confusing: that the Roman authorities didn't come after Jesus's followers too. (It was sufficient to execute Jesus himself as an example.)

Too bad this book is out of print. It really belongs alongside E.P. Sanders's _Jesus and Judaism_ -- another book that goes a long way toward clearing up misinformation about Jesus's relationship to his own religion.

`Revolution in Judaea' was first published in London in 1973 by Ocean Books as a paperback original, then in the U.S. in 1980 by Taplinger in hardback.

Maccoby locates Jesus as a more-or-less mainstream Pharisee - a term which, to be properly understood, has to shed the pejorative accretions of the Gospels - who held quirky opinions on a few relatively insignificant doctrinal issues. The Pharisees, as explained in this book and in Maccoby's `Jesus the Pharisee' (2003), were men of religious stature; they were the antithesis of the `Establishment' Sadducees, who operated a policy of appeasement and accommodation with the Roman occupiers. The Pharisees, on the other hand, were the religious representatives of the mass of the Jewish people, and were as a matter of fact the party of resistance to Rome (the Zealots were Pharisees). Jesus, whose beliefs establish him as a Pharisee, advocated a "half-way-house" approach for expelling the Romans and paving the way for the kingdom of God on earth. He confidently expected God's intercession on behalf of the Jewish people, which would however only be forthcoming as a result of prayer and repentance (the presence of swords at Gethsemane was to be merely symbolic).

Jesus is plausibly portrayed by Maccoby as a somewhat manic, charismatic preacher (Rabbi) who first saw himself as a precursor figure (like John the Baptist). He then assumed the mantle of apocalyptic Prophet, and finally that of messiah, or anointed one, i.e. king of the Jews (not, strangely enough, "lord of the Christians"). In the capacity of king of the Jews he became a conspicuous threat to Rome, which crucified him.

I want to correct some factual errors in the review posted on April 2, 2004. The writer cites "two serious flaws"; here's the first: "1. Prof. Maccoby is slightly off his rocker when it comes to his hatred for Christians: " I do not blame the Germans for the Holocaust, I blame Christendom"". Now any reader would infer that Maccoby wrote the words in the reviewer's quotation marks; he did not. This is what Maccoby wrote: "In a civilization based on the Hebrew scriptures, a civilization whose languages are permeated with Hebrew idioms, the Jews have been treated with extraordinary hate, culminating in the Holocaust of 6,000,000 Jews during the second world war". And that is all Maccoby writes on the subject. Why the reviewer felt the need to lie, I do not know.

Later, though still under the heading of the first "flaw" (coherence is not a quality of the reviewer in question), he writes: "For example he [Maccoby] points out that in Luke Jesus appointed 72 followers, sent them ahead in pairs to visit places WHICH HE INTENDED TO VISIT HIMSELF. This, Maccoby argues, is an indication that Jesus did not intend to die in Jerusalem but instead to be crowned there and that the 72 were preparing for his Inaugural Procession as King, but he then ruins the argument by overkill, stating that another incident that 'slipped through Luke' was Jesus distributing swords to his followers before Gethsemene. This makes him sound like Wyatt Earp before the gunfight at the OK Corral; It's a ludicrous interpretation of that passage, which is contradicted by Luke's next sentence". End of quote. First of all, Maccoby points out 70 followers, not 72. Next, note how the reviewer connects the episode of the emissaries to that involving the swords at `Gethsemene' (sic). Maccoby allegedly "then ruins the argument by overkill"; here the reviewer is implying that these two arguments are connected by Maccoby. Not only are they not connected factually, they are separated in the book by thirteen pages (pp. 129 & 142)!! The reviewer totally fails to understand the point. As Maccoby explains, Jesus believed that, like Gideon and his "tiny band", the Jews would have to fight, in accordance with the prophecy of Zechariah: "And Judah also shall fight at Jerusalem". Thus it is written in Luke (22, 38), "And they said, Lord, behold, here [are] two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough" - i.e. God will intercede miraculously on our behalf. The reviewer continues "It's a ludicrous interpretation of that passage, which is contradicted by Luke's next sentence". Here's the next sentence from Luke: "And he came out, and went, as he was wont, to the mount of Olives; and his disciples also followed him"(22, 39). Anyone see the contradiction? I don't.

Revolution in Judaea is a masterpiece.

This book has opened my eyes. The author has done a supurb job, and is eminently qualified, of seeking first the truth: Jesus had no intention of dying on the cross. Nothing can be proven. But the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. Instead of being out of print, this book should be on the reference shelf and on the required reading list of every Church, Synagogue and Sunday School. Before this can happen there must be a reprint so its title "Revolution in Judaea" can be restored into the indices of Amazon.com and other libraries, from which it has been dropped.

Somehow,I stumbled onto this,years ago-and then went on to read several of Maccoby's other books.Maccoby makes a terrific case that Jesus was tried and executed for sedition against Rome-and if Hollywood is interestewd in making another 'Jesus' movie,this is the one.

This book provides an important antidote to the anti-Semitic message of Mel Gibson's film "The Passion." Gibson accurately expresses sentiments authors of the Gospel apparently intended for fundamentalist readers. Maccoby provides a counter to this fundamentalist view with an historical argument that these authors painted the Jews rather than the Romans as the bad guys because the Romans wanted it that way.

As Maccoby points out, the Disciples did not write the Gospels bearing their names. The Gospels were given disciple names to mislead pre-Guttenberg flocks into believing they were written by actual witnesses to the life of Jesus, which many Christians still tend to believe.

As Maccoby makes clear, intense Roman hostility against Judaism was the environment for the Gospel authors in the period of their writing some generations after Jesus, when the Romans were kicked out of Judea by a revolt led by Bar Kochba. The Romans responded by laying seige to the Holy Land for 7 years, then marching upon a demoralized people, ransacking their temple, and marching in chains what Jews weren't killed thru the streets of Rome in a triumphal parade. Thereafter the practice of Judaism was a capital offense throughout the Roman Empire.

Thus Christianity can be seen as shaped and promoted by Rome as part of their campaign to wipe out Judaism from the Roman Empire, why Christianity is the negation of so many Old Testament principles although claiming to be a fulfillment of their law, and why the Jews are presented as participating in the crucifixion in condemning terms, shouting with one voice, "Crucify Him!" and accepting blood guilt. Maccoby makes his case with clear and concise reasoning based on early historical sources.

Maccoby expounds a theory of the life and work of Jesus using the "historical" approach, i.e. he assumes no genuine miracles, accounts for contemporaneous events and assumes defensive dissembling by New Testemant authors in deference to established authority. Maccoby himself is very defensive of Phariseeism, which he regards as the forebearer of modern Judaism, and he possibly strains too much to present every dispute between Jesus and Pharisees as a falsification. He also represents Roman influence in Judaea at the time as abjectly evil and therefore develops a pro-Jesus thesis proposing anti-Semitic misrepresentation of an anti-Roman, traditionally Jewish Messiah. In his haste to deconstruct an anti-Semitic, pro-Roman revision of Jesus, Maccoby seems sometimes even to overstate the Gospels' pro-Roman (or oblivious to Rome) position. "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" has always seemed to me precisely what the author proclaims it to be, without any revisionism at all. The statement in Mark clearly asks Temple priests to remove a picture of Caesar from the Temple and little more. The incident seems anti-Roman on its face and can only be construed otherwise by taking the oft-cited verse out of context from the Gospel itself. Regarding the Temple Cleansing, I see little reason to attribute a pro-Roman intention to the author of Mark at all, only a healthy respect for Roman authority and an apparent effort to disguise anti-Roman intentions with clever rhetoric. In some respects, the Synoptic Gospels seem to me less a pro-Roman whitewash than an effort by their authors to protect something of Maccoby's Jesus from hostile authorities. Regardless, though Maccoby's account could no more be the last word on Jesus than the Gospels themselves, the account often rings true to me. The book confirms with scholarly rigor impressions I've germinated for years through reading the Gospels and understanding the similar theories of Jeremy Bentham, Thomas Jefferson and others. The book held my attention very effectively, and I offer no higher praise.

There is alot of good historical information in this book but it is clearly tainted by the author's biased attitude toward Christianity.

Maccoby is well versed in Josephus and the early Rabbinic writings. There is no doubt that Jesus' messianic movement was a protest of Roman tyranny and he was crucified for sedition against Rome. The Kingdom of God which Jesus proclaimed was the antithesis of the Roman Empire. The Jews should never have been libeled as "Christ killers". That term only pertains to the corrupt High Priest, and Pontius Pilate acting on behalf of Caesar. I would add that the Book of Revelation (which the author hardly touches on) is a veiled and scathing indictment of the Roman Empire which proves that Christianity was never pro-Roman in the very beginning.

I commend Maccoby for not trying to connect Jesus with the Dead Sea Scrolls or the violent Zealot movement. Jesus believed Rome would be defeated by Divine intervention according to the Prophets. Jesus saw his initial role as prophetic, to prepare Israel for the Kingdom of God through prayer and repentance. (I would add that if Jesus' followers were violent Zealots, they would not have been able to establish a community in Jerusalem). Maccoby makes the excellent point that the Zealots rejected the idea that Israel would be presided over by a kingly messiah which is a role that Jesus undoubtedly took for himself.

Maccoby also makes a convincing argument for Jesus being a Pharisee. His parables reflect the Pharisaic style of teaching. In addition, Jesus was allowed to teach in the synagogue and was referred to as a rabbi.

However, Maccoby arrogantly believes that by being a Rabbinic scholar he can teach us about Christianity. Therefore, he gets to pick and choose what is authentic in The New Testament.

If gentile Christians were mostly Jew-hating Greeks why would they exalt a Jewish messianic leader? If they were so clever and inventive, surely they could have created their own Greek god-man instead of deifying a crucified Jewish messianic leader. If the early church was so compromising with Rome, it's strange how so many Christians were martyred by the Romans prior to Constantine.

Another Rabbinic scholar, Daniel Boyarin, wrote in the introduction to his book about Paul, "A Radical Jew", that there is no definite connection between Rabbinic Judaism which started in the second century C.E. and the first century Pharisees. This is an assumption which Maccoby makes throughout his book. Boyarin also states that the Talmud does not necessarily reflect the beliefs of the Pharisees of Jesus' generation.

Maccoby suggests that the mystical elements of Christianity such as cosmic dualism and the spirit over the flesh found in Paul's letters which are so foreign to Rabbinic Judaism came from Hellenistic mystery cults...WRONG!!! The Dead Sea Scrolls, the Book of Enoch, and the Jewish Apocalyptic literature which were written long before Jesus are rampant with these ideas. If Paul was influenced by anything it was this form of Judaism which predates Rabbinic Judaism and the Talmud. You cannot use the early Rabbinic writings to define Jesus.

In pages 90-91, Maccoby states tht the books of Enoch and the Jewish Apcalyptic writings were on the lunatic fringe of Jewish life and were never accepted by the Pharisees. In that case, Jesus and his original followere were part of that lunatic fringe!!! Enoch was quoted by Jesus' brother Jude and was used by the earliest Christians.

Jesus radical ascetic teachings to break all ties to the present world, his passifism, and his nonchalant atitude about paying Roman taxes are better explained by Bart Ehrmann in his outstanding book, "Jesus, The Apocalyptic Prophet...". Jesus' radical teachings could not have been invented by an established church. The early monastic movement which started in Egypt was a veiled protest against the wordliness of the church and a return to the original teachings of Jesus.

Maccoby denies that Jesus predicted his own suffering and death and that his crucifixion was a salvationary atonement in preparation for the Kingdom. I believe that Jesus identified himself with Isaiah's "Suffering Servant" and believed that his death was an atoning sacrifice. This was the earliest core belief of the movement Jesus started which goes back to Jesus himself. Paul didn't invent this, it was given to him by those who knew Jesus before he was crucified.

Modern Rabbinic Jews like Maccoby may scoff at all of this, but...
JESUS WAS NOT A MODERN RABBINIC JEW!!!

A decent book, with some interesting arguments.

However, if you are open minded, then i would suggest "The Case for Christ", or if you are willing to delve deeply into this subject then "The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell as supplements to this book.