In presenting these arguments, he addressed several strange inconsistencies in the New Testament that in hindsight are obvious. Such as why would the Jews be clamoring for Jesus' crucifixion when he had purportedly done such great things among them? Why would the Romans care a wit about what the Jews wanted to do and carry through with it? Why would the Pharisees oppose Jesus but then show great leniency to his followers after his death? Why are there discrepancies between how Acts portrays the conflict between the Jerusalem church and Paul versus how Paul's epistles portray it? And why does Paul's complex theology show no traces of Jesus' earthly teachings and vice versa? It also always seemed a bit strange to me that Paul always talked about "my gospel". That claim makes sense in light of this book.
There are however a few points I was unconvinced on, or wished the author had spent more time explaining. His assertion that Paul single-handedly "created" Christianity seems a bit too simple and I don't see how one man with only a few cohorts could establish a religion so different from what Maccoby portrays Jesus' intentions as being. Even if he could, I don't see what Paul's motivation for doing so would be. His dramatic turn around after the Damascus vision requires a more thorough explanation than simply Paul's frustration with Judaism and subsequent desire for power. His presentation of Paul's trial in Jerusalem was credible, but not fully developed or analyzed. He also does not address the fact that Jesus' followers in Jerusalem apparently did believe that he had risen from the dead. What exactly was the nature of this belief; was it a quasi-spiritual resurrection such as Paul seems to indicate in 1 Corinthians, a flesh and blood resurrection as indicated in the Gospels, or was it not an actual resurrection but merely a return from heaven to take his place as King of Israel? It's hard to justify the latter, given that every messiah was discredited as inauthentic after his physical death. Why was Jesus different? Furthermore, how does one explain the epistle largely credited to Peter that has very Pauline ideas, from the resurrection to eschatology? Did Peter convert to Paul's Christianity? How did Peter come to be in Rome and become the first pope of Paul's church?
Despite my reservations and remaining questions, this book was an excellent read, highly stimulating, very illuminating. I recommend it heartily.
