The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity

In beautiful condition, no missing or ruined pages, at a great price!

The most compelling hypothesis on the genesis of Christianity I have come across.

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

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.

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!

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.

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.