Ira Chernus reviews Rabbi Shmuley Boteach’s Kosher Jesus:

But this is not a typical “any friend of right-wing Israel is a friend of mine” argument. Boteach has a more complex case to make, parts of which we’ve heard plenty of times before, most notably from Hyam Macoby (the scholar to whom Boteach acknowledges his biggest debt). Jesus was a patriotic Zealot, “calling his men to arms. An armed insurrection against Rome was his battle cry.” “I did not come to bring peace, but a sword,” was his true motto.

When I read this, I found it hard to believe someone would make such a ridiculous claim. If there’s one thing Christ never did, it was fomenting insurrection against Rome. Evidently, Boteach missed the part where the Lord said, “My Kingdom is not of this world.” I checked the book, and sure enough Chernus’ quotes from the text are accurate. Elsewhere on the same page, Boteach writes, “But he wanted to show his followers they must be prepared to resist evil with force.” This is a preposterous interpretation, not least since Christ specifically taught the opposite of this in the Sermon on the Mount: “But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” (Matt. 5:39) The passage on bringing a sword has nothing to do with armed resistance, but concerns the division from others that following Christ requires.

Apparently, Boteach’s entire argument hinges on arguing that the “real” Jesus was a political rebel whose anti-Roman agenda was carefully purged from Scripture:

The editing done to purge the crimes of the Romans and to delete references to Jesus’ rebellion against them was an intricate and difficult job. Part of it was left incomplete. Remember, thousands of manuscripts were circulating around. Not all could be completely purged. Flashes of accuracy remain….This statement in Luke indicates that corrupt priests delivered Jesus to his oppressors, the Roman administration, because he was a rebel against Roman rule pure and simple. Because it is so different from the rest of the statements in the Gospels, which take great pains to make Jesus non-political, it is an obvious piece of real history that has slipped through, contrary to the intent of editors pushing Paul’s concept of a strictly spiritual Jesus. (p. 51)

Never mind that the accusation of rebellion was a false one. The “real history” seems to be whatever Boteach can twist to suit his argument. So Boteach’s argument relies on completely ignoring what the Gospels say whenever it contradicts his nonsensical thesis, and to account for the lack of supporting evidence he posits a conspiracy theory so extensive and implausible that it makes Dan Brown’s novels seem realistic.