Revolution in Judaea: Jesus and the Jewish Resistance

by Hyam Maccoby

Book Overview

No Synopsis Available.

• Format: Hardcover
• Language: English
• ISBN: 080086784X
• ISBN13: 9780800867843
• Release Date: January 1980
• Publisher: Taplinger Publishing Company
• Length: 256 Pages
• Weight: 1.02 lbs.
• Dimensions: 1.0" x 5.8" x 8.5"

Customer Reviews

Solid scholarship supplemented by plausible speculation

`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 di

The political dimension restored

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.

The most plausible 'historical Jesus' that I have read

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.

An essential Jewish critique of the origins of Christianity.

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.