From the beginning, Boteach wants us to see his book as totally revolutionary. Yet parts of it are, in fact, totally unoriginal, and that those parts that are most original put forward rather questionable suggestions. One of the supposedly original theses of this volume is that Jesus can only be understood by Jews and Christians if placed in the context of Second Temple Judaism. But actually, this is an axiom of all contemporary New Testament scholarship and nothing that Boteach has just discovered.One clarification:
What is unfortunate is that an entire world of scholarship on Second Temple Judaism, much of it the result of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, makes absolutely no appearance. This research has shown us the background of the apocalyptic messianism of Jesus and his disciples, and has revealed that the movement he created cannot simply be seen as a Pharisaic, proto-rabbinic movement in spite of some similarities in interpersonal ethics. The messianic teachings and numerous terms and symbols of early Christianity are derived from a world of Second Temple Judaism that included sects that followed an alternative system of Jewish law and extremely apocalyptic messianic teachings that do not accord with later rabbinic teaching.
Boteach argues that the descriptions of Jesus in the Gospels do not represent in any way an accurate picture of him. In his view Jesus was a rabbi who did not deviate from the observance of Jewish law, and was a heroic revolutionary opponent of Roman rule. This view has been suggested before, but it has failed to be accepted, precisely because there is absolutely no real evidence for it in the New Testament. Such claims represent speculation devoid of any kind of historical basis, driven by Boteach’s attempt to reconstruct history in the image of his own beliefs.
Boteach’s also asserts that Jesus did not consider himself divine. This is probably correct, specifically because the Gospel accounts do not in any way impute this point of view to him. However, shortly thereafter in the Pauline Epistles (c. 50-60 CE) and the Gospel of John (c. 90-100 CE), this identification is made explicitly.The Synoptic Gospels were written some time after Paul's death, so the letters of Paul are our earliest source for information on Jesus and what the earliest Jesus community believed about him. Whether or not Jesus considered himself "divine" is a very difficult question, as is what it meant for a human being to be "divine" in first-century Judaism. I think it is likely that Jesus thought of himself as the glorified or angelic "one like a son of man" of the book of Daniel, but many New Testament scholars would disagree with me. He may have applied the angelic theology of Melchizedek to himself as well, although this too is quite open to debate. Both possibilities are compatible with the theology of the Synoptic Gospels. Schiffman's position is one that is widely accepted, although many New Testament specialists would also disagree.
Professor Schiffman is a Vice Provost at Yeshiva University and one of the premier authorities on Second Temple Judaism. His review deals both with the scholarly issues and the implications of Rabbi Boteach's book for Jewish-Christian dialogue. Read it all.
Another review is here.
