Customer Reviews

The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity

5 star:		(35)
4 star:		(11)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

I found "Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Xtianity" to be the eye opener that a friend promised it would be. The edition I found is published by Barnes and Noble. So you won't find the current edition at Borders but they may carry earlier editions. While the book is about Paul and exploding the myths around him to see who he really was - what is most interesting is the look at the Jerusalem Xtians and JC in the context of Temple.

Maccoby did an excellent job of navigating Sadducee, Pharisee, and Pauline positions as well as carefully examining where JC's teachings fit in with each. Maccoby succeeds very well in demonstrating that Paul is the inventor of Xtianity as we know it today. He also goes into great detail in describing the Jerusalem sect, which is the inheritor of JC's ministry through his brother James. I think many Xtians may very well appreciate this aspect of the book. While common sense always told me that JC was a Rabbi teaching Torah, I really appreciate Maccoby's ability to look at JC's teaching with great care and demonstrate how they affirm Jewish values as well as looking at Jewish theological, political and (to a lesser degree) social trends of the day.

There are some limitations to "Mythmaker." The book is something of a well researched primer to Maccoby, not including references, is only 211 pages long. Some of the counterpoint as well some detail is lost for the sake of brevity. Of course this is aimed at a wider than typical audience. There is little appreciation for the possibility the Paul couldn't have really understood the anti-Semitism he was unleashing within Xtianity. I also think not nearly enough description was available to describe Gnostic anti-Semitism and its possible effect on Xtianity as Gnostic movements are absorbed or Gnostics are converted as Xtianity grows. This would have balanced Paul out a little bit.

I also think that any reader would have appreciated much greater detail on Pharisee thought since it relates so closely to JC's teachings. Maccoby does make all his major points well but this is such a rich pertinent vein that he could have been mined more. Especially for a book that intends a wide general circulation.

Mythmaker really demonstrated how hand in glove JC's teachings were to Judaism, including his claims of being the Messiah. I think it's a revealing look at a religion just before the first century CE. Perhaps best of all this work represents a door for Xtians back into the Torah, perhaps a means for Jews to find some common ground with the NT. Even Muslims might appreciate this kind of analysis of JC and comparing it to the Koran. Maccoby's perspective offers a good basis for dialogue. That's not to say that he doesn't take a tough look at Paul but it is a well reasoned and often well justified look at Paul.

The received wisdom is that Paul was a Pharisee and Jesus was not. Hyam Maccoby makes a solid case here that the exact reverse is the truth.

Maccoby's case about Jesus is made at greater length in _Revolution in Judea_, but there is a chapter here describing Jesus's cordial relationship with the Pharisees. Maccoby further contends, perhaps less plausibly, that the "Ebionites" ("poor ones") were the group which accurately received and transmitted the traditions of the historical Jesus himself.

Maccoby's account of Paul is nothing short of a thorough shredding. If Paul was a trained Pharisee, why don't his arguments have the sound logical structure he should have learned in Pharisee School? Isn't there something a little funny about the way Paul whipped out Roman citizenship papers whenever he got into trouble? And just what _was_ the nature of the famous disagreement between Peter and Paul?

Maccoby's Paul was, in short, a cunning rogue who pieced together a new religion from bits of this and that, and then dressed the whole thing up with a sprinkling of out-of-context Torah quotations.

I have yet to see a solid reply to most of Maccoby's case. Does he denigrate Paul too far? Perhaps. Does he fail to account adequately for the rise of Christianity? Perhaps. But can we ever read the letters of Paul the same way again after Maccoby has scrutinized them? Undoubtedly not.

Agree or disagree, Maccoby's volume makes a strong counterargument to those who, having reclaimed Jesus as a Jew, wish to extend the same courtesy to Paul. If this book becomes available again, grab a copy at once. And check out Maccoby's other books as well.

Hyam Maccoby's "The Mythmaker, Paul and the Invention of Christianity" is one of the most profound and important books I've ever read. It's sat on my bookshelf for years; I've read through it several times. I've had a long time to think about this book and its various conclusions before submitting this review, so here goes. Maccoby's argument, in a nutshell, is that Pauline-Christian Scripture (i.e. the so-called "New Testament") is a revision. The real inventor of what we now know as Christianity was not Jesus of Nazareth, but rather Paul of Tarsus. To use the analogy that Maccoby himself uses, Jesus was no more the inventor of Christianity than was the real Prince Hamlet of Denmark the author of the plays of Shakespeare. Maccoby invokes the explanation for Christian origins given by a group long ago dismissed as heretical by the Pauline-Church, the Ebionites. According to the Ebionites, the claims Paul made in his letters to have been a great Pharisee rabbi were bogus; indeed Paul's claim's to have been a true-born Jew were bogus as well: according to the Church father, Epiphanius, "They (i.e. the Ebionites) declare that he (i.e. Paul) was a Greek, born of a Greek mother and a Greek father..."
Now before you dismiss that out of hand consider this: there are a number of instances in Paul's letters where he uses the third-person plural pronoun "we" to comprehend both himself and the Gentiles (for example, Galatians 3:14, "...that in Christ the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles, that we might receive the promise of the spirit through faith.") Why would someone who was Jewish say "we" as in "we Gentiles"? How on Earth does that make any sense? But if Paul was himself a Gentile that otherwise-unsolvable problem would be immediately solved. "But what about Paul's great status as a Pharisee rabbi?" I hear you say. "Paul's masterful learning as a religious Jew is manifest throughout his letters" (or so we've been told). "That should be sufficient to refute the notion that Paul was really a Gentile", you say. This is where Maccoby really shines. As a modern expert in exactly the kind of wisdom in which Paul was claiming to be expert, there is no one in the world more authoritative to adjudicate whether or not Paul's claim's to have been a Pharisee were genuine. And Maccoby's analysis of Paul amounts to nothing less than a thorough shredding. Read chapter 7 of "The Mythmaker", "Alleged Rabbinical Style in Paul's Epistles". If you were raised to believe that Paul's letters evince a great mastery of Jewish law and religion, get set to have the most mind-blowing experience of your reading life: Maccoby successfully shows that Paul is muddled, illogical, innacurate - in short, the exact opposite of what you'd expect from a rabbi. To be sure there are times in Paul's letters when he is clearly trying to sound like a Pharisee rabbi ... and not succeeding. The idea that Paul was a great master of Jewish religion is, frankly, a myth promulgated by the Pauline Church and ultimately originated by Paul himself. Maccoby weaves all this together into a general theory of Christian origins: Paul, raised a pagan in his boyhood home of Tarsus, converted to Judaism as an adult, moved to Yeretz Israel and attempted a rise as a rabbi. But he had too much to learn. Paul eventually failed in his religious quest, essentially flunking out of Judaism. In desperation he took whatever job he could get: an enforcer for the Roman-appointed High Priest. On one mission Paul had infiltrated Nabatea and was heading to Damascus to arrest (kill?) members of a group of Jewish revolutionaries whose leader had been crucified as a rebel against Rome when he had what he later described as a "revelation". This revelation experience (however explained) was, according to Maccoby, the real origin of Christianity. In this one event, Paul fused the Greek paganism he knew as a child, notably Gnosticism and Mystery-Cult religion, with the understanding of messianic Judaism that he had picked up (however imperfectly) from his brief period as an adult convert. Paul re-imagined Jesus as a kind of Mystery-Cult Savior God along the lines of Attis and this is indeed the dominant image of Jesus that one encounters on the pages of the so-called, "New Testament". Paul's reworking of Jesus also had the effect of divorcing this anti-Roman revolutionary from all Earthly politics - which proved pretty convenient for the Church when Paul ultimately removed it to the capital of the Roman Empire. Maccoby's theory of Christian origins is a powerful one and should not be dismissed lightly. It explains alot. I have yet to meet anyone who can successfully explain away any of the myriad of good arguments that Maccoby makes in this book and still remain committed to the Pauline cause. It may be possible. I have yet to see it. At bottom, Maccoby's real strength is that his approach to New Testament studies is a genuinely scientific one. That's what's lacking in just about every other book you're ever likely to read on this topic. You might disagree with Maccoby in this or that detail, but the general thrust of his argument is undoubtedly true: Pauline Christianity is a myth and the man at the center of that myth is none other than Paul himself. Hyam Maccoby has done something very important: he has set a new benchmark for the study of Christian origins. Indeed, I daresay that "The Mythmaker" is the standard by which future works of this kind will be judged. Hyam Maccoby has written not just a great book but a historically-significant one. "The Mythmaker" is a book that will no doubt antagonize many; it is also a book that cannot be ignored.

After reading this book I simply asked myself: why not? Why is it so hard to believe that Paul was the real motivating force behind the creation of Christianity. Jesus wrote nothing himself. He never said anything about what anyone else should write. And the single verse referring to Peter as a rock can hardly be read as his wish to start a new religion. Jesus believed in Judaism, not Christianity. He came to fulfill the law not to destroy it. This does not sound like the inventor of a new religion.

Paul, on the other hand, was a megalomaniac that changed teams after he "had a vision." He never even met Jesus unless you believe Paul's vision! We have people today that are still having visions. One woman saw Jesus or his mom in her grilled cheese sandwich which she later sold for $70.000.

And to the reviewer below that gave this book one star, you would have been more convincing if you had shared even one of the elevn pages of notes you composed listing all the authors flaws, mistakes, etc.

Great job, Dr. Maccoby

I grew up in the Christian Church, and I've worked professionally in Christian denominations for a combined 17 years. How I wish I had had this scholarly resource long ago.

Maccoby's book identifies many legitimate NT difficulties concerning Paul and other issues too. This book provides an insight you won't get at church. It is honest, well researched, and does not shy away from the serious problems of the biblical documents.

You will not be able to read the NT the same way after reading Maccoby's book, and that will be a good thing for you!

It is true. Most of the conclusions this book offers about the origins of the "Jerusalem Church," the Roman Christian Church and Paul of Tarsus, are actually intuitive assumptions and speculations based upon circumstantial evidence and hearsay. Hyam Maccoby's case would therefore be thrown out of court, or dismissed by any other professional fact-finding panel.

This is the argument usually resorted to by Maccoby's critics and, as a matter of fact, they're quite right. His book actually "proves" nothing. However, this argument fails simply because the same can be said for any book written about the origins of the Christian faith, regardless of its author's purpose.

How pleasant it must be for fundamentalists who understand the Holy Bible as the literal and unquestionable word of God, given to us through inspired writers. Everyone else has to struggle with faith, drawing conclusions by reading between lines and parsing obscure passages originally written in the archaic vernacular and unfamiliar language of some ancient culture. Jesus, as far as we know, never wrote anything. Neither did anyone else, for the most part - no newspapers, magazines or books, not much in the way of carefully documented and archived official records. Therefore, the only research materials available are the scant offerings of people who usually wrote for a targeted audience, and without the journalistic or secretarial scruples we now understand as appropriate to such efforts. We therefore do Bible studies, peruse Bible commentaries, and read books like this one, attempting to figure out what we believe and why, never finding any truth, because there is none to find.

Most of us are persuaded by the religion of our birth; I am no exception. As Christian children, we are taught the fundamentals. I was no exception to that either. While fundamentalism suffices for children, increasing age and experience is likely to bring a decreasing willingness to accept the nebulous and obscure explanations traditionally offered for various aspects of our faith. Frankly, I began to think that some of it, including even the sacraments, was poppycock - hocus-pocus that Jesus himself might have found strange, irrelevant and/or inappropriate.

I admit that I was therefore favorably disposed towards Maccoby's book from the very beginning. In it, I found confirmation of my surmise that what we call "Christianity" is really based more upon what Paul thought than what Jesus taught. Whatever else he was, Hyam Maccoby was a highly respected scholar with impressive credentials. His intuitive assumptions and speculations therefore cannot be dismissed out of hand as the work of some charlatan, religious kook or bitter Jew. Furthermore, his explanations and ideas seem quite plausible in light of our understandings of human nature, politics, and the way things usually work out in the real world.

In this respect, Maccoby is a problem only for bible-believing fundamentalists and mainline churches intent on rigidly adhering to sixteenth century theology. A thoughtful reader is likely to finish the book wondering if the time has come for another reformation, this time to sort out the Paul vs. Jesus questions, towards developing a faith that makes sense to intelligent, thinking adults. Ideas that cannot stand this kind of review are not worth holding on to, since they are bound to fail us in times of trials and troubles. To this extent, Maccoby's work is of great value to serious Christians.

The express purpose of this book, however, is not to defame Paul of Tarsus or debunk the Christian faith, but to show how and why Paul's invention created anti-Semitism, vaguely hinting that Christian anti-Semitism was ultimately responsible for the holocaust. It is not his first attempt. In other works, he dances around the same accusation, without ever coming right out with it.

I do not buy Maccoby's "Christ-killers" explanation for anti-Semitism. By kicking that dead horse, I'd say he exhibits a very poor understanding of what practical Christians really think about. My religious upbringing taught that some Jewish higher-ups in Jerusalem were complicit with the Roman government in an affair that was otherwise mainly political and Roman. We were more apt to attribute that complicity to the usual corruption of people in high places, rather than to Judaism as a whole. Having said that, I must also admit that one of the things I have always found somewhat confusing is that while Christians are taught to revere the Old Testament's Israel as the foundation of our faith, the New Testament's Jews seem to somehow become the bad guys.

After reading Maccoby's arguments, I am willing to consider the possibility that a generally negative attitude, which I am not sure rises to the level of anti-Semitism, arises from the various defamatory comments about the Jews, which appear here and there in the New Testament. Maccoby lays the direct or indirect responsibility for these on Paul's doorstep. To that extent, his assertions seem to have merit.

However, I cannot remember ever encountering anyone, even among the most zealous radicals, who found in any of that reason enough for Christians to hate Jews. Like everyone else, I learned about what had happened to European Jews at the hands of the Nazis shortly after World War II ended, but I never heard of "anti-Semitism" until age fifteen, when a traveling lecturer speaking at a school assembly explained the meaning of the word "restricted," as used on signs in front of real estate developments.

Through common sense, practical people understand that there are always two sides to every story. For the case in point, it seems obvious that any group seeming to have a "better than thou" attitude is likely to encounter some backlash. Claiming a preferential status in the eyes of God, a reluctance to socialize outside their particular faith or ethnic group, discouraging offspring from marrying "outsiders", being quick to remind others of their particular faith or ethnicity whatever the occasion, and maintaining an allegiance to a country and culture other than the one they are sharing with their present countrymen - these are good ways to distance one's self from others.

This is not "anti" anything. It is, for better or for worse, just human nature. During my life, where I live, I have seen the same negative attitude arise with respect to others, and for the same reasons: the Christian Reformed Dutch ("Holanders"), the Catholic Polish ("Polacks") and the Catholic Bohemians ("Bo-hunks"). This accompanied the arrival of nineteenth century immigrants, lasted for a generation or two, after which the ethnic and religious differences giving rise to these feelings faded away, and the discriminatory feelings were gradually forgotten.

Maccoby does not address this reality at all. In view of that, one can only conclude that his opinion was that the sole source of anti-Semitism was Paul and the Christian religion he "invented." That, unfortunately, discredits the quality of his thinking by revealing as underlying bias.

Were it not for this, I would give this work a five-star rating. As it is, I give it a one-star rating for Jewish readers, since its premise is mostly invalid, and it probably will not otherwise teach them anything they do not already know.

For Christian readers, however, I think it merits at least a four-star rating, the above notwithstanding - the reason being that the book includes a lot of historical and other background information that has significant value as part of a well-rounded program of religious study and spiritual growth.

The DaVinci Code was a clever, fast-paced detective story. Maccoby's "The Mythmaker" is a better mystery. It presents expert literary analysis of scripture by a scholar of Jewish law and practice, who is also learned in the pre-Christiam mystery religions. Maccoby's analysis is well-informed and surprising. It will disturb people who are not ready to see and questions discrepancies in sacred text. He does offer some of his own hypotheses to settle certain problems. You don't have to accept these, there are plenty more dots connected with ineluctable logic. It made a lot of sense to me, and I have studied and taught comparative religion for many years.

This book is extremely enjoyable and well written. I had no problem finishing it in two days. Maccoby presents very compelling arguments for making his case, and his evidence comes mostly from the Bible itself. He presents very reasonable explanations for his conclusions: Jesus was a Pharisee, contrary to the presentation of the Gospels; Jesus and his first followers believed him to be the Jewish messiah in the traditional understanding thus the future king of Israel; that Jesus in no way abrogated the Torah and was in fact very Jewish; that Jesus was crucified not for religious blasphemy but for political sedition; and finally that Paul essentially created Christianity by transforming the historical person of Jesus into a savior God and mixing together elements of Gnosticism, classic mystery religions popular in the Greco-Roman world, and historical Judaism.

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.

Patience...I can't put it down. Schweitzer probably used a lot of BS to fill 1200 pages and Maccoby's 210 pages are hard to argue with. I'm not sure what this other reviewer was reading or what his 'credentials' as an expert on the origins of Christianity are, but I know the author's credentials and I found this book compelling and mind blowing. I'm not saying to is 100% fact and the whole truth, but put your 'faith' aside for a few hours and be open-minded about Maccoby's arguments, you might find a little truth in his words.

'The Da Vinci Code' inspired me to do more reading on the origins of Christianity and I stumbled on this in the bargain bin at my local book seller. In 'The Mythmaker', Maccoby explores Paul's role in the 'transformation' of Christianity from a political movement into a religion.

Maccoby is a Talmudic Scholar and uses his knowledge of Jewish law and history to explore the subject, using numerous sources to make the case that what we now consider the basic tenets of Christianity were of pagan origin (concepts that would have been foreign to the Jewish born Jesus and his Apostles) and incorporated into a religion by Paul (who was raised as a pagan) and his followers (who were primarily gentiles).

Fascinating stuff, especially since I was taught that Christianity evolved directly from Judaism. In some respects, I can see Paul as the Joseph Smith of his time.

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.