Joseph investigates the historical circumstances of first-century CE Palestine that led to Jesus’ execution. He proposes that Jesus’ opponents killed him ultimately because Jesus had rejected animal sacrifice. Joseph bases his proposal on Jesus’ restoration theology. He argues that the historical Jesus could not have considered his death as a substitutionary atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world, and asserts that the concept of atonement developed only out of Jesus’ followers’ post-Easter theological conviction. Joseph sees the historical Jesus as “the man who lived and died for his vision of a redeemed Israel living according to the original Torah of creation” (244).

Joseph introduces the topic of his study in chapter 1. He examines Jesus’ relationship to the Torah in the gospels in chapter 2 and concludes, “If we want to understand the historical Jesus in his original Jewish context, we are going to re-locate Jesus within the inter-Jewish sectarian conflict(s) characteristic of Second Temple Judaism” (66). In chapter 3, Joseph surveys several biblical texts concerning the practice of ancient Israelite sacrifice (e.g., 1 Sam 15:22-23; Amos 5:21-24; Hos 6:6; Isa 1:11, 66:1-4; Jer 6:19-20, 7:21-22; Ezek 20:24-26, 44:6-9) and texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls, which portray the sectarian community as the Temple (e.g., 1QS 8.5–12; 1QS 9.1–5). Joseph suggests, “John and Jesus can be located along a social continuum of alternative-temple movements marked by deep undercurrents of suspicion and hostility toward the Temple's current administration” (104). He examines the New Testament portraits of Jesus’ relationship to the Temple in chapter 4 and concludes, “The New Testament evidence for the historical Jesus’ relationship to the Temple is inconsistent and ambiguous” (132). In chapter 5, Joseph suggests, “Jesus may indeed have envisioned himself ‘rebuilding’ a new temple-community in co-existence and competition with the present Temple. . . . It is this combination of opposition to the Temple cult, in conjunction with the formation of a new temple-community, which made Jesus’ ministry a direct threat to the Temple establishment” (166). In chapter 6, Joseph highlights the seventh fragment of the Gospel of Ebionites (Pan. 30.16.4–5), where Jesus rejects animal sacrifice. Joseph argues, “The Gospel of the Ebionites may be a harmony, but we cannot rule out the possibility that it is also using pre-Synoptic sources or traditions.” Joseph also lists the Pseudo-Clementine literature (the Homilies and the Recognitions), Epiphanius’ reports on the “Ebionites,” Elchasaite traditions, Hegesippus’ references to James, and the Didascalia as the pieces of evidence that Jewish Christians rejected animal sacrifice (181–82). He claims, “The cumulative weight of the converging lines of evidence for our proposal [Jesus rejected animal sacrifice] is substantial” (207). He concludes in chapter 7, “Our earliest evidence for the sacrificial identification of Jesus’ death is Paul, but the concept of vicarious atonement is alien to and forbidden in the Torah and Isaiah 53 is not a messianic prophecy. . . . Jesus’ death can indeed be described as a ‘sacrifice’ in so far as he offered his life to God” (240–41).

Overall, this is an insightful and original study about the historical context of Jesus’ death. On the one hand, I find Joseph's survey and investigation of background materials with respect to Jesus’ attitude to the Torah (chapter 2) and the Temple (chapters 3–4) both comprehensive and convincing. On the other hand, Joseph's thesis that Jesus’ rejection of animal sacrifice and vegetarianism ultimately caused his death (chapters 5–7) has some serious methodological difficulties, as the author himself admits. For example, he heavily relies on later historical sources, while dismissing earlier historical sources. The New Testament, despite its diversity, frequently identifies Jesus with the Servant of Isaiah 53 and his death as the atoning sacrifice for sins. This makes it difficult to suppose that Jesus’ death as a substitutionary atoning sacrifice for sins was only Paul's invention and had nothing to do with the historical Jesus himself. Nonetheless, this is an excellent scholarly work on the historical Jesus and an insightful resource for both undergraduate and graduate courses on the topic.