I was reading the reviews while I was considering buying it. From the other reviewers comments, the book apparently has some similarity with Rudolf Augstein's Jesus Menschensohn and, therefore, suffers from a problem of anachronism. Unleavened bread at the time of Jesus was probably soft and not a cracker as today and could easily sop up wine. Even today Jews often keep the palm (lulab) branches from tabernacles so that they can be burnt before the start passover. It is not so inconceivable that Jesus could have been greeted with waving palms on entering Jerusalem before Passover. The New Testament, which is actually a good deal older than the final redaction of the Talmud, is probably preserving genuine indications of pre-rabbinic Judaism.

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.

This is the only book on the historical Jesus I know of (except for other 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.

Hyam Maccoby here continues his analysis of the origins of Christianity and the roots of antisemitism. This volume is probably his weakest attempt at history, but it is worth reading at least for its remarks on the nature and importance of myth.

Maccoby's historical thesis is that the traitorous Judas of the gospels was a sheer invention -- but one nevertheless "spun off" from a real person: the Judas of history was the brother of Jesus. And yes, Maccoby has to perform some remarkable hat tricks in order to pull this off.

Whether or not one accepts his historical reconstruction, though, Maccoby has helpful things to say about the role of myth in antisemitism. He does make a strong case that the character of Judas has served (as his name suggests) as a stand-in for the Jews in Christian thought and culture. And he makes some extremely pertinent remarks about the "fundamentalism" of certain writers on the nature of myth (e.g. Rudolf Bultmann, Joseph Campbell), noting well that myths are not beyond criticism either.

Not Maccoby's best book, then, but still very much worth reading.

As a Jew who has always retained a sidelong curiosity about Christianity, particularly Christian origins, I have found the works of Hyam Maccoby to be the most illuminating, of all the books on the topic I have read. It has always been a subject of intellectual curiosity for me how a religious community claiming to find its historical origin in my faith could have deviated so radically from the religious practices of Judaism and even become an institutionalized source of hostility against it. All those questions and more are answered in "Judas Iscariot and the Myth of Jewish Evil". This book is best seen as a concluding title in a sequence of books about Christian origins by Hyam Maccoby after "Revolution in Judaea: Jesus and the Jewish Resistance" and "The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Chrisianity". While I found Maccoby's writing to be stimulating and brilliant, I have no doubt there will be some pious Christians who take offense. One of the things I love about Maccoby's work is that unlike so very many other books I've read on the subject, Maccoby exhibits no apologetic reflex. As a non-Christian, Hyam Maccoby, is that rarest of rare birds: a brilliant, learned Biblical and Classical scholar who has no compunction about using that formidable intellect of his to dismantle the basic Christian story. How many books like that do you see on the market? Nevertheless, I can appreciate that what is so appealing to me may be very insulting to others. Dedicated Christians may not want to see their faith analyzed in so unsparing a way. At the last, Maccoby draws a red line between the character of Judas Iscariot in the Gospel Passion Play and the phenomenon of anti-semitism in history culminating with the Holocaust in modern times. I doubt if many Christians will appreciate being saddled with a burden of such extraordinary guilt. In "Judas Iscariot and the Myth of Jewish Evil" Hyam Maccoby has written a controversial book, perhaps deliberately so. He means to force to the surface, contentious issues, stemming from remote antiquity, which many of us might rather not discuss or even fancy don't constitute a problem anymore if ever they did. Many will undoubtedly view this book with hostility; all that can be reasonably asked of any potential reader is that he or she keep an open mind.

St Paul is traditionally thought of as a Jewish thinker, someone who was originally a Pharisee and whose ideas came out of his encounter with Jesus and a background of Judaism. In book the Jewish scholar Hyam Maccoby argues that Paul is best understood as someone strongly influenced by Greek religious ideas, in particular Gnosticism and the mystery religions. In addition it seeks to show that Paul had only a superficial understanding of Jewish ideas and often showed a fundamental misunderstanding of Jewish concepts.

Chapter 1 - Gnostic Antisemiticism

Maccoby begins by examining the phenomena of Gnosticism. He defines Gnosticism as a religion which sees the world as fundamentally evil, and salvation as a mystical escape to the higher realms beyond this world. Historically Gnosticism has identified the God of the Jews as the creator of the world, and hence the source of evil. The God of the Jews according to Gnosticism is a deluded God, as he believes none is greater than him, whereas there are numerous realms above this world which are greater than it.

The Jews in this scheme of things are essentially fools who have been taken in by this false God. The Jews themselves are not regarded as evil or dangerous, as much as laughable and to be pitied.

Gnosticism is interesting because of its links with Judaism - why did it fix on the God of the Jews as its evil God? Some believe Gnosticism came out of Christianity - Maccoby argues this is unlikely as there is plenty of Gnosticism which deals directly with Judaism with no mention of Christianity or Christian ideas. Some believe Gnosticism came out of Judaism. This Maccoby takes more seriously, but argues against it because there is so much in Gnosticism which is alien to Judaism. However it is true that some Gnostics show a great deal of knowledge of the Jewish scriptures, and often seek to identify alternative traditions within those scriptures - for example those who follow the teachings of Seth (son of Adam and Eve). Maccoby concludes that Gnosticism was the result of the spread of Jewish ideas into Greek thought by such writers as Philo, a Jewish thinker who sought to combine Greek philosophy and Judaism. These ideas aquainted Greeks with the Old Testament, and those who opposed links between Greek philosophy and Judaism then took what they had learned about Judaism and turned it around, arguing that the ultimate God, far from being the God of Israel, was in fact far higher and greater than the God of Israel.

Maccoby concludes that although Gnosticism opposed the Jewish religion, it had two characteristics which meant it was not as antisemitic as Christianity was to become. Firstly it never identified the Jews themselves with evil, only their God, so making the Jews at best duped by their God. Secondly the God of the Jews wasn't dangerous - he could never do any harm, as those higher than him could not be harmed by him.

Christianity turns this around. The God of the Jews is good, it is the Jews themselves who are evil - forever turning from God and killing his prophets. Even worse, the evil the Jews do is far from harmless, as they actively prevent the work of God, and indeed even kill God's Son.

Chapter 2 - Paul and Gnosticism

Paul identifies Satan as the "God of this world" (2 Cor 4:4), and views this world as being a place of evil. This is a concept very far from Judaism which sees the world as fundamentally a good place, created by God.

Paul argues that the Torah was given by angels, not God (Gal 3:19, Act 7:53, Heb 2:2), and indeed the phrase in Gal 3:19 is that the angels were the authors of the Torah, not simply the transmitters. This is done to justify Paul's claim that the Torah was temporary. Maccoby is particularly interesting on Colossians (p.45), where he argues against the traditional view that Paul's opponents are angel-worshipping Gnostics (as traditionally thought) but Jews who effectively worship angels because of their veneration of the Torah.

Although in 1 Cor 6:12-20 it appears that Paul is arguing against Gnostics, Maccoby argues Paul is being a moderate Gnostic against extreme Gnostics.

Chapter 3- Paul and the Mystery Religions

Maccoby argues that fundamental to the mystery religions is the God who dies and comes back again, to mystically redeem the morally hopeless condition of mankind.

Maccoby argues that Paul's moral pessimism (e.g. Rom 7:14-8:1) is alien to Judaism, where it is always claimed that God's law can be kept (e.g. Deut 30:11-14), but such pessimism is consistent with mystery religions.

Mystery religions are full of dying and rising Gods. Dionysus is torn to pieces by the Titans and brought back to life again by Rhea. Adonis is killed by a boar and raised on the third day. Baal is killed by Mot then comes back to life. Attis is dismembered and dies from his wounds then comes back to life and dances. Osiris is dismembered by Set then put together again and becomes a god. In Mithraism the bull killed by Mithras provides life through its body and blood for the whole universe.

Maccoby argues that the idea of a vicarious sacrifice is unknown in Judaism, but common in mystery religions, hence it is highly likely this is where Paul got the idea from. Maccoby also makes the connection here between Paul's view of the Jews as being the divine executioners in killing Jesus, and the fundamental anti-semitism of Christianity in making the Jews as a whole responsible for this evil act.

Chapter 4 - Paul and the Eucharist

Maccoby has two main points to make on the Eucharist. Firstly, the original sources point to Jesus making 'apocalyptic' remarks at the passover prior to his death. Jesus states that he will not eat or drink until he comes again. The bread and wine referred to are part of the traditional Jewish meal, not the Eucharist. Maccoby argues these sources gradually became corrupted by Paul's view of the "Lord's Supper" as a mystery rite instituted by Jesus prior to his death. Secondly Maccoby seeks to show that these original 'apocalyptic' remarks are understandable as part of traditional Judaism, whereas Paul's remarks on the Lord's Supper - with its "eat my body drink my blood" remarks - only make sense against a mystery religion background. Even the term "Lord's Supper" is common in mystery religions, and Maccoby argues the Jewish term "Eucharist" was used instead by Christians to distance the rite from the mystery religions of the same name.

What Maccoby is saying is that Paul had a vision in which he was shown that Christians need to keep the Eucharist, for by eating Christ's body and drinking his blood they will participate in his death. The Gospel writers then tried to add this back into the gospel account. The fact that the gospels contain such discrepancies in their account of the Last Supper indicate that there was no agreement about how Paul's account of the Last Supper should be mixed with the original, historical account.

This chapter goes into a great deal of detail, as a lot of scholarship has argued against Paul creating the Last Supper, and argued that it was indeed instituted by Jesus. Maccoby takes issue with the various scholarly arguments, but his basic points remain those described here.

Chapter 5 - Paul and Pharisaism

Paul often claimed that he had been brought up a Pharisee. Maccoby argues that the evidence is against this. First he does not follow the literary style of the Pharisees. Second, he does not observe the rabbinical rules for their arguments, instead using the imprecise, rhetorical style of Hellenistic literature. Third, he muddles his analogies which would be unthinkable for rabbinic legal thinking. Fourth he always quotes from the Greek translation of the Old Testament, a Pharisee would use the original Hebrew. Fifth his quotes from the Old Testament ignore the original context - something a Pharisee would never do. Sixth he is illogical - his conclusions do not follow from their premise, which is highly untidy by rabbinic standards. Seventh Paul often uses phrases from the Old Testament in a Greek or Gnostic context, showing he is more at home in Hellenism than the Old Testament.

Chapter 6 - The Gaston-Gager-Stendahl thesis

In recent years (in the 1970s and 1980s) a view has arisen that Paul believed in two covenants. He was to convert the Gentiles, but the Jewish Torah was sufficient for the Jews. This is known as the Gaston-Gager-Stendahl thesis. It is clear from the work of the scholars who propose this thesis that it is done in the context of better relations between Christianity and Judaism, and the attempt to make Judaism a valid religion from a Christian viewpoint.

These scholars take the various passages in which Paul appears to attack the Jewish covenant and argue that the meaning is not how it appears. For example 2 Cor 3:6-18 is actually an attack on Jewish opponents in Corinth, Gal 4:21-31 is attacking the myth that God made other covenants with the gentiles. Maccoby argues that this interpretation of the New Testament is incorrect - Paul does not believe in two covenants, only one. Maccoby also

In this more in-depth sequel to _The Mythmaker_, Hyam Maccoby continues to mount his case that Paul was not a Pharisee at all but something of a rogue who patched together a new religion out of Gnostic elements and a superficial smattering of Torah quotes.

One of the highlights of this volume is Maccoby's analysis of Paul's claim to have received his information on the "Lord's supper" by direct revelation rather than from any of the apostles. There may be treatments of this topic that respond adequately to Maccoby's claims, but I have not seen them.

Another highlight is a full-chapter rebuttal of the well-intended but arguably wrongheaded views of Lloyd Gaston, John Gager, and Krister Stendhal, who think Paul was merely offering a new way of salvation to non-Jews but didn't really mean to supersede the Torah for Jews. Here again, I do not know of any adequate reply to Maccoby's merciless dissection of this claim.

Maccoby is also the author of _Revolution in Judea_, highly recommended as well. If either of these books returns to print (or any of Maccoby's other out-of-print books, for that matter), grab them at once.

Maccoby goes with relish after inconsistencies in NT writing and makes a well-argued case that Paul was not a Pharisee and basically founded Christianity as a new religion of his own design, incorporating elements of gnosticism, mystery religions and Judaism. The other, corresponding hypothesis (viz. that Jesus was, indeed, a Pharisee) is less well developed in this volume, but a previous book has taken care of it.

This book is written for a lay audience, but even non-theologians would at times prefer a little more in-depth source material. Maccoby's style is a bit shoddy: It is surprising how many awkward sentence structures and poorly chosen words have crept into this book. For this reader, that weakness detracted somewhat from the pleasure of reading an otherwise absolutely captivating narrative, and raised the question: Where was the publisher's copy editor?

This really should be required reading for anyone who considers themself a Christian or is interested in the orgins of Christianity or of anti-semitism.

In truth, I could not put it down and read it enthusiastically in one go; I found it so stimulating. By the way, I’m just an ordinary lay reader of no particular religion, with no particular axe to grind, except that my readings be well-written, intelligent and worthwhile!

Firstly, Maccoby provides a fascinating description of Jewish religious life during the time of Jesus to argue that Jesus was a vigorous contemporary Jew and that what little we can know about his life, his followers and his sayings are quite understandable seen in this background.

I’d contrast this with the research presented in “The Lost Gospel; The Book of Q & Christian Origins” by Burton L. Mack which has a wonderful chapter on recent research into the Galilee of Jesus’ time, and presents an intriguing Cynic influence in what are identified as Jesus’ most genuine sayings...P>Anyway, on to Paul! I can assure you that what we can know about the historical Paul is much more fascinating and revealing than even the saintly Catholic version, which is interesting enough!

Maccoby closely analyzes the evidence to argue persuasively that Paul personally, radically and very creatively re-interpreted the life of the historical Jesus in order to have a foundation for a brand new mystery religion he himself conceived, heavily influenced by contemporary ancient mystery religions such as the cult of Baal-Taraz after whom Paul’s hometown of Tarsus was named.

This then is the kernel of the book, but I assure you one brief paragraph does not give you enough time or material for all the consequences of this to sink in, let alone the pleasure of reading such a well-written and important expose.

If this does not then lead you to think deeply about many things, I fear nothing will!

Unfortunately Maccoby then ran out of space, funding or his own area of specialty and it is up to us to go off, inspired, and do our own research about the histories and meanings of these mystery cults, one of which has been so influential.

I agree with other reviewers on three counts. First, Maccoby speculates a little too often for my liking. Second, though he refers to the Jewish Mythology, this work comes across as far too anti-Christian while seeming accepting everything about ancient Phariseeism as good and true. (Nevertheless) third, this is one of the most profound books I have ever read.

Having spent a few years thinking about the influence of Zoroastrianism on exhilic and post-exhilic Judaism, I turned to New Testament and origins of Pauline Christianity. I'm slowly piece-mealing where the various myths surrounding Christ originated. However, as Paul is undoubtedly responsible for the bulk of the Greco-Roman mythologizing of the Jesus story, I was anxious to find a possible explanation of the mechanics and/or psychodynamics of it all. The Mythmaker presents one possibility. That Maccoby's assertions may not all prove to be true is a given; but his synthesis is the best I've seen so far.

For example, considering the account of Paul's undertaking the purity vow (Acts 21:18-25) --- no one has ever adequately explained why Paul would do such an about-face. Saying he "became a Jew to the Jews" is too simplistics for my liking considering the gravity of the moment. Unencumbered by notions of Pauline apostolicity and convinced of the Princehood of James in the earthly Messianic kingdom awaited by the Jerusalem church, Maccoby offers a reasonable explanation of the interpersonal dynamics that lead to Paul's self-contradictory actions.

I would especially like someone to pick up where Maccoby left off and list all the ancient myths or cultic beliefs that were likely incorporated into the Christian mythology. For example was the story of Bellerophon and Pegasus the basis for the Road to Damascus conversion story? Or was it a combination of elements from multiple myths? Or was it all simply Paul's dreams and imaginative thinking?

Again, do get the book if you can. I'm passing it around to all my thinking friends.