The reason I give Kosher Jesus by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach three stars is that one the one hand it deserves five stars for seeking to be a bridge in understanding for Jews and Christians and on the other it deserves one star for being a disappointingly un-studied portrait. That is to say, I agree with Rabbi Boteach in many of his aims, but not in his methods and conclusions about the historical Jesus. Like Rabbi Boteach, I think that Jews and Christians can find much common ground in the actual Jesus, who was and is Jewish through and through. Like him I think that the Jesus of history has been distorted — but in my opinion the culprits are not Peter, Paul, and the alleged “Lucan editors” of the gospels. The culprits are the early Greco-Roman leaders of the Jesus-movement who followed behind Peter and Paul and James and the early leaders.
Instead of building my own case for who Jesus was (which you can read in my book, Yeshua in Context) or referring to the numerous historical Jesus studies that exist and which build a much more accurate portrait than Rabbi Boteach’s (Dale Allison, N.T. Wright, Richard Bauckham, Markus Bockmuehl, Scot McKnight, Richard Horsely, John Meier, E.P. Sanders, and even Maurice Casey, to name a few), I will highlight some key points in Kosher Jesus, why in short I think they are wrong, and then proceed to some admirable qualities of the book.
Rabbi Boteach largely (almost exclusively) bases his depiction of Jesus on the work of one scholar: Hyam Maccoby (Jesus the Pharisee, The Mythmaker: Paul and His Invention of Christianity). Those who read historical Jesus studies do not find numerous references to Maccoby’s work because his methods and conclusions are not very sound. He is, simply put, not a major figure in the ongoing scholarship about who Jesus was in his context. And the difference between Maccoby’s Jesus and that of other scholars is not that only Maccoby’s is a Jewish portrait. It is now commonplace (except for those like John Dominic Crossan) to depict Jesus completely within Judaism. Rabbi Boteach, following in many cases Maccoby’s conclusions, makes the following claims:
- Jesus was an anti-Roman zealot who urged his followers to start an armed resistance like the Maccabean revolt against the Syrians in 167 BCE (pg. xvii).
- Jesus died a martyr in his attempt to start a revolution against Rome (ibid.).
- Jesus never claimed to be Divine or the Messiah (ibid.).
- The gospel stories still have traces of the original Jewish, anti-Roman Jesus, but were later edited by anti-Jewish, pro-Roman redactors (pg. xx).
- Jesus’ death did not completely break up the movement of his followers, but years later a small group of discouraged disciples remained (pg. 9).
- Paul entered into the picture from Damascus claiming that these disciples needed to change their view of Jesus and Judaism, to reject Judaism, to stop keeping Torah, and become followers of a deified Jesus who was clearly the Messiah (pg. 10).
- In short, Paul invented Christianity.
- After Paul’s influence and through the Jewish war of 66-70, the disciples moved out into the empire and sought to re-create Jesus as the pro-Roman, anti-Jewish Divine Messiah calling Jews and Romans to a new religion (pgs. 12-13).
- The gospel stories were edited by redactors in the school of Luke who managed only to remove some traces of the Jewish Jesus, but who were fortunately unsuccessful in completely erasing who Jesus really was (pg. 13).
- Jesus never claimed to be Divine — statements where he speaks for God as the “I” are simply a form of prophecy (pgs. 47ff.).
- The reason the Romans are hardly mentioned at all in the gospels is that the redactors removed most of the references (after all, claims the author, the Romans had a huge presence on the streets of Jerusalem, pgs. 49-50).
- In Mark, Matthew, and Luke, Jesus is a victim; in John a volunteer martyr — a change calculated to draw more Roman converts who would not follow a weakling-martyr (pg. 65).
- Peter was a coward who became a turncoat to his Jewish people to gain popularity in the Romanized Christian movement (pgs. 70-71).
- Judas is a fictitious character fabricated to blame the Jews for Jesus’ death and exonerate the Romans (pgs. 72ff.).
- Paul was incapable of reading Hebrew and could not have been a student of the proto-rabbi Gamaliel (pg. 112) and was probably, as the later Ebionites claimed, as non-Jew who converted to Judaism (pgs. 117-118).
Where did Rabbi Boteach go wrong in his historical reconstruction? First, he followed a very narrow scope of scholarship and either dismissed or possibly did not even read in the broader world of Jesus studies and Pauline studies. Second, he proposes that the gospels are revised history but that the modern reader can find the conspiracy in the gospels and filter it out to see behind this alleged conspiracy to the real Jesus. Third, in keeping with the second, he discounts evidence against his view by saying all contrary evidence is later editing (a convenient form of circular reasoning which is actually hard to avoid and so the good Rabbi is not completely to be blamed for this). Fourth, he has not examined the genre of the gospels very closely, seeing that they are written in the mode of Greco-Roman biographies, and he never considers the many signs of oral history constantly being revealed within the gospel accounts. Fifth, he imagines a scenario in which the gospels developed during a generation that knew eyewitness accounts and yet offered no resistance to the fabricated Jesus alleged to be contained therein.
Although Rabbi Boteach’s book will be popular, it will not cause a stir in the world of historical Jesus studies (which, I should point out, is not some bastion of traditional Christian interpretation, but an innovative field of research).
Where is Rabbi Boteach’s book admirable, so that it invites good discussion between Jesus-believers, Jews, non-Jews of other faiths, and even skeptics of the Divine, Messianic Jesus but who might appreciate the teaching and example of a man like Jesus? My favorite point in Rabbi Boteach’s book is on page 150, where he says that we should see the person and teaching of Jesus “as a bridge and not a wedge between Christians and Jews.” I would add: and others. He rightly declares that Jews should not be “afraid” to read the gospels and appreciate Jesus as a Jew. He rightly declares that all Christian depictions of Jesus as anti-Judaism are passe and should pass out of existence (hurriedly, please!). He helps Christians understand why Jews will have a hard time seeing the Divinity of Jesus (but Rabbi Boteach is a Hasidic Jew and should know better that the supposed limitations he declares on the ability of God to manifest himself are not good Jewish theology at all, but a reaction against Christianity). He rightly calls Christians and Jews to something that, in my opinion, is at the heart of what Jesus really taught: the calling of human beings under God is to repair the world while waiting for the world to come. And many Jews and Christians and others are finding common ground in the task of repairing the world. The historical Jesus did not oppose any movement which practiced love, justice, and mercy.
I believe Jesus (Yeshua) was and is the Divine Man. I believe in Judaism. I see no contradiction. I would encourage people to read Kosher Jesus, but not to stop there. Read Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John also. And, read a book by a competent scholar (I have mentioned several) giving a view of the historical Jesus as Messiah, as the Divine Man, and as a Jew.
Derek:
Thanks for reviewing this book which i probably would have not wanted to read myself, you saved me the trouble; probably at some time this book would have come up in conversation and at least i will be ‘clued in.’
the points on which the rabbi is mistaken about Jesus are listed on pages early in his book. perhaps the biggest errors occur because the rabbi comes to the Gospels with his own prescription of eyeglasses, kind of designer-shades, tinted…..
If only we would let our Master speak for Himself and not re-designed by us.
and oh yes, Christians do the same exact thing. they have the same tinted glasses on all too often and cannot see Yeshua in Context at all.
Francis Schaefer yrs. ago urged us to regard the person we are engaged in ‘spiritual’ conversation with as our mission field, our neighbor. at all times we have to be ready and eager to present out Saviour honestly, and let Him speak for Himself.
I requested a review copy yesterday, but have yet to hear back from the publisher (so I may or may not ever receive it). Having scanned a few other Jewish publications on Paul over the years, I don’t know if Rabbi Boteach’s view of him (as you describe in your bullet point above) is all that radical. Paul tends to be viewed with much less esteem by Orthodox Judaism than by Christianity and is typically blamed for “creating Christianity” by twisting the teachings of Jesus. One Jewish woman once told me that Jesus was “a nice Jewish boy” who Paul turned into a false Messiah.
It will be interesting to see how “Kosher Jesus” speaks to the average reader, such as myself, since Boteach is really writing to the masses and not to scholars (who will no doubt have a view of his work similar to your own).
Thanks for the look ahead.
After the initial firestorm of controversy, this book will probably lead to much good dialogue and help Jews and Christians re. However, its “scholarship” deserves even less than three stars; the good Rabbi was clearly out of his depth here, and biased as all hell. No, Jesus was not a Pharisee or, for goodness sake, a Zealot.
* and help Jews and Christians reconcile.
At the same time, I understand that this is about the only way an Orthodox Rabbi is allowed to write about Jesus positively and (semi)candidly and still remain an Orthodox Rabbi.
I particularly hate it when Orthodox Jewish ax-grinders like the good Rabbi want to make out the gospels to be corrupted appeasement-of-Rome tales in which the historical strain barely shows through, but wouldn’t dare apply the same critical lens to their own sacred texts. I sort of wonder how much he has actually read the source texts, because I for one find them immeasurably more inspiring than what comes either before or after in the Bible.
Good review. Thanks. That way I don’t have to buy this book of a mere seeker of sensationalism.
I like Shmuley, but I think he’s smart enough to know that his chosen depiction of Jesus is not terribly factual/scholarly, and tailored to his own Modern Orthodox agenda. Well, it will certainly provoke (and already has).
Terrible cover.
Boteach sounds like he would be pals with Funk (d.) and Crossan. You’ve got more pertinence than I do, reading this stuff. Brought home three vols. of “A Marginal Jew” from the library today to prove to myself once again why it isn’t worth reading. Historical Jesus stuff is pretty low octane. The ration of words to substance isn’t high enough to keep my attention.
Well, you seem to have very discriminating taste in scholarship. I think historical Jesus research is a net plus, but you will struggle mightily with what to believe. But choosing R. Boteach’s book for that is like picking a Ford Pinto instead of a Lamborghini.
A quick question, because I may never find a better person to answer it. Book of Matthew: first manuscript in Greek or Hebrew?
Andrew,
“first manuscript in Greek or Hebrew?”
I think the current consensus is that Papias was wrong. Consensus doesn’t count for much. Not too long ago (50+ years) it was popular to see Aramaic idioms all over the NT. Ann Nyland (Aussie Greek Scholar) used to contest ever time anyone on b-greek would cite Nigel Turner or M. Zewrick or Matthew Black all of whom were into NT Aramaic idioms. Matthew’s (the Gospel) syntax appears to be no more semitic than than the other gospels and unlike some portions of the LXX, it doesn’t look like translation greek. More telling yet, we don’t have any NT manuscripts in Aramaic, except for versions. How do we know the versions are translations of a Greek vorlage? Good question, I don’t have a quick answer.
BTW, I am not totally down on Jesus lit. Currently reading Michael Bird an relatively young NT scholar who looks promising.
Andrew:
I agree with C. Stirling. Matthew was not composed in Hebrew and then translated into Greek. In many cases his wording is identical to Mark’s.
This doesn’t necessarily mean Papias was wrong. Consider that there is so much we do not know. We don’t know that someone named Matthew wrote the book we call Matthew. It is a tradition. And we don’t know what writings about Yeshua used to circulate that may have become lost. It is possible that Papias never actually saw “Hebrew Matthew.” Somewhere around the year 80 CE, Papias was collecting and writing down whatever words of Yeshua he could collect from eyewitnesses (people who heard the eyewitnesses speak). Papias’s collection was lost to us. But perhaps someone told him that in their younger days, in the land of Israel, they had seen a Hebrew collections of sayings or sayings and deeds of Yeshua written down by Matthew. It is likely that some written Aramaic gospel stories existed (Aramaic would have been called Hebrew).
I’ve encountered another theory, which integrates what Papias wrote in addition to the obvious lack of extant semitic manuscripts and lack of evidence that Greek Matthew is a translation: “Matthew” composed two versions, maybe around the same time, one semitic (in Aramaic, Syriac, or maybe actually Hebrew, and maybe this is the hypothetical “Gospel According to the Hebrews”), for fellow Jewish believers in the Land, and the other Greek, to be circulated to the wider Christian world. Obviously, it’s all speculation.
Excellent review, Derek.
I am interested in where he found out that “Paul was incapable of reading Hebrew” as I have always been taught that he was a Pharisee the son of a Pharisees (Acts 23:6). Did he find out some new information that wasn’t available before? Do you know how I can find out where he got his information from?
“I am interested in where he found out that “Paul was incapable of reading Hebrew” as I have always been taught that he was a Pharisee the son of a Pharisees (Acts 23:6).”
Gordon, if I had to guess as to why Boteach believe this to be the case is because there’s evidence that Paul was quoting directly from Septuagint (a Greek translation of the Bible) in his writings, instead of relying on Hebrew scripture directly (i.e. translating them himself).
On the other hand, it’s possible that Paul was quoting Septuagint BECAUSE this is the version that his Greek-only audience had access to, and not because his own Hebrew was lacking.
“Consider that there is so much we do not know. We don’t know that someone named Matthew wrote the book we call Matthew. It is a tradition. And we don’t know what writings about Yeshua used to circulate that may have become lost. “
I wish I could get everyone who has criticized me over suggesting that the Bible isn’t 100% literally true in every single detail to read your comments. More than once, I’ve been accused of believing God is a “liar” by proposing that there is something of the human authors of the Bible along with the inspired words of God.
Here’s R. Shmuley capably defending himself against the haters: http://www.shmuley.com/news/details/n_the_discussion_of_jesus_jews_should_go_on_offense/
If his scholarship in Kosher Jesus deserves one star, the rabbis who are attacking him and the book deserve zero.
And, TBQH, all this inter-religious bickering is disillusioning to people that live life with both eyes wide open. R. Shmuley writes something that doesn’t contravene any known Jewish doctrine, and rabbis still cry heretic (even violating their own religion by circulating illegal bootleg copies). Straining out a gnat…
Everyone sees preserving the defined boundaries of their religion as more important than what, in all likelihood, God really cares about.
Save your money for Daniel Boyarin’s The Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ due April !st!
Another question, because I won’t be reading this book: does R. Shmuley ever point out that Jesus’ semitic name was Yeshua? Maybe just once? It seems like these days an Orthodox Rabbi can get away with calling him Jesus in the context of explaining why he’s not prophet/Messiah/divine, but never Yeshua.
Pingback: Discipleship – Is the Problem Jesus or Me? | Digging with Darren