The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity by Hyam Maccoby

by Hyam Maccoby

Maccoby, a Talmudic scholar from London's Leo Baeck College, will inflame many with his contention that Paul, not Jesus, was the true founder of Xianity. Despite impressive research, the author's needlessly pugilistic stance--he comes off as one defending the honor of Judaism against pagan insurgents--bleeds his argument of real force. In sum, these are his Paul, who claimed to be a Pharisee rabbi, was in fact "an adventurer of undistinguished background"; Jesus, portrayed by Gospel writers as opposing the Pharisees, was in fact one himself, a devout Jew who believed he'd been chosen by God to overthrow Roman rule & reign as King of Israel; the earliest Xians didn't preach the divinity of Christ until Paul rejected the Torah & replaced it with a pagan myth of a dying & resurrected god. When it comes to asserting the Jewishness of Jesus, he stands on firm ground alongside most contemporary scholars. His work will probably strengthen the belief that Jesus was to some extent an anti-Roman political revolutionary, Paul a Hellenistic interloper. However, it's difficult to take seriously the charge that Paul "sought fame by founding a new religion" because he "was disappointed in his hopes of advancement." By making Paul out as a sort of carnival huckster, he ignores the apostle's religious profundity; by making of Paul a spiritual Svengali who misled many of Jesus' closest followers, he'll seem to some to be promulgating his own religious myth. His arguments simply confirm the observation that when it comes to the early years of Xianity, documentary material is so scarce & fragmentary that the few available texts can, & have, been used to bolster every conceivable viewpoint. Like other debunkers, he sometimes lets polemic get in the way of prudence; many of his assertions stand unsubstantiated by quote or other reference. A historical brief of questionable reliability--but undeniably fascinating. Elegantly argued, this should ruffle feathers for years to come.--Kirkus (edited)

Genres: Religion, History, Christianity, Nonfiction, Theology, Judaism, Spirituality

Hardcover

First published January 1, 1986

About the author

Hyam Maccoby (1924-2004)

Reviews

[Charity · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'd like to give it 5 stars; it's very close, but since it made my mom cry, I'll leave it at 4. This is a fascinating history about something that so many people take for granted. It's not even taking for granted, so much as needing to believe it in order for their worlds not to crumble beneath them. Even if you don't believe what he says, I think it's an important book because it gives you something (very big) to think about. As someone who grew up resenting Paul for his misogynistic views, I was happy to read this. It allowed me to see that Paul, a man, was as flawed as we all are, and his words don't necessarily reflect God's stance. Unfortunately, this does throw a kink in the whole "Christianity" thing. See? A lot to think about.

[Maya Bohnhoff · Rating 1 out of 5]

I was impressed with Maccoby's attempts to manipulate the reader's perceptions, but disappointed in his scholarship. His book is full of what I refer to as "sleight of tongue." This is a rhetorical device by which the writer posits a hypothetical situation of what “might have happened,” then subtly changes the language from the conditional or theoretical (“might have,” “could have”) to the positive until they are speaking of the hypothetical incident or situation as if it had actually happened. The writer may then tell the reader what "we have seen" or what "I have shown" or what they may surmise. Having promoted an idea and assumed the reader has accepted it, the writer then proceeds as if the point has been proven rather than merely raised.

In "Mythmaker" Maccoby tells us that, according to Ebionite sources (which are not cited) Saul of Tarsus—later, the Apostle Paul—was not, as he claimed, a Pharisaical rabbi, but rather a Gentile, born of Gentile parents. Further, he is “an adventurer of undistinguished background.” We are asked to accept Maccoby's word that the adjective “undistinguished” is accurate—ditto, the descriptive noun “adventurer,” both of which are evocative.

Maccoby proceeds with the rest of his commentary on Paul as if he has proved that this is so, and so, later in the chapter, he says that “Even though Saul, after his conversion to Judaism, never actually became a Pharisee rabbi, the mere fact that he felt a strong urge in later life to represent himself as having been one must be significant. It means that ... this had been his dream. If his parents were indeed ‘God-fearers’ (i.e. Gentiles who lived as Jews), they must have told him about the famous Pharisees of Judea... The young Saul would have heard the names of the greatest Pharisee leaders ... he may have seen [them].”

Maccoby completes the hypothetical construct by asserting, in non-hypothetical terms, that “The young Saul, planning to be a full convert, would be impelled by his naturally ambitious nature to see himself as no ordinary convert, but ... to become ... a great Pharisee leader himself.” At the end of the chapter, Maccoby sums up what we may now “surmise” about Paul based on the foregoing: “We may surmise that he made an abortive attempt to rise in the Pharisee movement; that he enrolled with some Pharisee teacher for a while ... but proved a failure.” The finale: “Instead of his dream of respected status as a rabbi, the reality was ignominy as a member of the High Priest’s band of armed thugs.” (Maccoby’s Mythmaker pp98 & 99)

These two paragraphs are a case study in the attempted manipulation of the reader’s perceptions. After laying out a fabric of mixed conditional and unconditional assertions (must be, may have, must have, would have)—which are opinions about what Paul might have thought, been and done—Maccoby goes on to claim that based on these suppositions, we may surmise an entire chapter full of actions and attitudes on Paul’s part.

Let’s reverse engineer this. Two things stand out most starkly, to me: 1) in the entire passage, the author fails to offer one actual fact and 2) the one thing he actually labels a fact is something he would have to be Paul to know. This is “the fact that he felt a strong urge” to represent himself as being a Pharisee. In Maccoby’s case, I think it’s instructive to look at the depth of omniscience he claims. He says with certainty that Paul:

1. never became a Pharisee
2. wasn’t Jewish by birth, but a convert
3. felt a strong urge to be taken as a Pharisee
4. dreamed of achieving high status in the Pharisee movement
5. planned to be a full convert to Judaism
6. had a naturally ambitious nature
7. made an abortive attempt to rise in the Pharisee movement (especially difficult if he was never a member of the movement to begin with.)
8. proved a failure (at an unproven, hypothetical ambition).

It’s a mixed bag, but among the unsupported assumptions are three items that there can be no historical record of—Paul’s feelings, urges, plans and naturally ambitious nature. An unwary reader may emerge from the chapter believing that a scholarly treatise has uncovered an historical character’s true nature when it’s done nothing of the kind.

As a rhetorical device this assumption of omniscience can be very useful. It allows a writer to paint a picture of the individual that—unless the reader is aware enough to deconstruct it—can outlast any factual information the reader might glean. I’m uncomfortable with this usage, even from writers whose viewpoints I agree with. Maybe it’s because I’m primarily a writer of fiction, but even in the realm of non-fiction, I’m a firm believer that showing, not telling is the best way to communicate honestly.

[Daphna · Rating 2 out of 5]

In his impressive Kingdom, Emmanuel Carrère when referring to Paul states that he was not interested in Jesus the historical man, but only in Christ the son of God. He references The Mythmaker as a source to better understand Paul’s dominant role in the establishment of the Christian church.

I’m very interested in early Christianity and in the birth of the religion that in a very short time swept the western world and its areas of influence. I have read quite a few books on the subject and a recommendation from Carrère seemed like a good path to follow. Although The Mythmaker enlightened me on certain dynamics relating to the early sects of the followers of Jesus, all in all I found it quite disappointing.

Maccoby makes his case with much theorizing based on his subjective reading of the gospels and on his perception and analysis of the mindset of Paul the historical person. His basic premises:

• Paul, who grew up as a Pagan, not as a Jew, and not Jesus, was the founder of the Christian church. Jesus himself and those who followed him during his lifetime and immediately thereafter had no intention of founding a new religion. They were a Jewish messianic sect like many others of that time.
• Paul was an innovator who created a myth that had no roots in Judaism and even less so in the actual historical circumstances of Jesus’ life and teachings.
• Paul’s founding concepts, those of the divinity that is sacrificed as atonement and then resurrected, and of the Eucharist as the incorporation of the worshipper with the divinity, are a known aspect of the Pagan mystery cults on which he drew.

My knowledge in this area is infinitesimal, but if I were forced to choose a side based only on a comparison of this book to the form, methodology and referenced sources of other histories that I have read, I would lean more to the position of one of Maccoby’s main critics (John Gager) who slams The Mythmaker as “not good history, not even history at all.”

[Rawan AbuAlia · Rating 3 out of 5]

كتاب جيد لو أنه ترجم كاملا
فالمترجمة قررت أن ترجمة الكتاب كاملا سيكون مؤذيا لمشاعر المسيحيين.. فإذا كان كذلك فكان الأحرى ألا تترجم أي شيء من الكتاب
ولكن ظني أنها بدأت الترجمة ولم ترد أن تكملها وقررت أن جهدها لن يذهب هباء حتى ولو كان ناقصا.. فلم لا ننشر ثلث الكتاب ولا داعي للباقي..
ذلك لأني لم أجد أن السبب التي ادعته في عدم ترجمة الكتاب كاملا (خوفا على مشاعر المسيحيين) سببا مقنعا

[أيمن قاسمي · Rating 4 out of 5]

بِسۡمِ ٱللَّهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ (1) ٱلۡحَمۡدُ لِلَّهِ رَبِّ ٱلۡعَٰلَمِينَ (2) ٱلرَّحۡمَٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ (3) مَٰلِكِ يَوۡمِ ٱلدِّينِ (4)
إِيَّاكَ نَعۡبُدُ وَإِيَّاكَ نَسۡتَعِينُ (5) ٱهۡدِنَا ٱلصِّرَٰطَ ٱلۡمُسۡتَقِيمَ (6) صِرَٰطَ ٱلَّذِينَ أَنۡعَمۡتَ عَلَيۡهِمۡ غَيۡرِ ٱلۡمَغۡضُوبِ عَلَيۡهِمۡ
وَلَا ٱلضَّآلِّينَ (7)

عند إنهائك لهذا الكتاب ستعلم معنى سورة الفاتحة
ستعلم لماذا اليهود هم المغضوب عليهم والنصارى هم الضالين
نفس النمط دائما يسير عليه اليهود نمط النفاق و الإفتراء على الله
و نفس النمط الذي يسير عليه النصارى هو الإتباع من دون دليل

سأعلق بإختصار عسى الله أن يوفقنى لأسجل مراجعة مرئية عن الكتاب
بولس أو شاؤول هو الرجل الذي اخترع النصرانية
هو رجل يهودي في الأصل لم يرى المسيح و لم يؤمن به بل بعد رفع المسيح عليه السلام
كان بولس يعمل شرطيا و كان يسوم الحواريين و أتباع عيسى عليه السلام
يسومهم أشد العذاب
لكن في طريقه إلى دمشق ادعى أنه رأى عيسى و أنه تلقى وحيا منه
و بذلك بدأ يخترع و يلفق و يكسب أنصارا له في كل مكان
و كان لا يتورع عن الكذب و مخادعة من يدعوهم إلى دينه فيظهر لهم دائما مدى تقاربه معهم
و كانت له ميزة و عقبة
أما الميزة التي امتاز بها
فهي كون رسائله كتبت قبل الأناجيل بثلاثين سنة تقريبا وبعد رفع المسيح عليه السلام ب50 سنة تقريبا
بينما كتبت الأناجيل بعد 80 سنة تقريبا
ما أعطاه تفوقا و هيمنة عليها نوعا ما
فالكثير مما هو موجود فيها مستوحى من أفكاره علما أن لوقا مثلا كان تلميذا لبولس
أما العقبة فهي كنيسة القدس و هذه الكنيسة ليست مبنى قائم بذاته بل إتجاه و جماعة
و هم أتباع المسيح الحقيقيون و حواريوه الذين عارضوا بولس أشد المعارضة و على رأسهم يعقوب الذي يقول الكاتب أنه أخ المسيح
و حاول بولس التحايل عليهم دائما مدعيا توبته و مدعيا عدم اختلافه معهم و تلفيقه لأحداث محاكمتهم له
و إظهار مظلوميته كعادة اليهود و استعمل في ذلك شتى الطرق من بينها أنه اشترى الجنسية الرومانية بمال أتباعه السذج لكي تكفل له تلك الجنسية الحماية من المسيحيين أتباع كنيسة القدس
و غيرهم من أعدائه .
و أما غايته فقد استمعت لمراجعة الاستاذ احمد دعدوش لكتاب الظاهرة القرآنية لمالك بن نبي
فبربط الأفكار ببعضها نجد أنهما لم تكن غاية بولس لوحده بل غاية اليهود ككل فهم لا يبشرون بيهوديتهم بل يريدون دينا يسهل معه التحكم في أتباعه و يقدس معتنقيه القائمين عليه كما يقدسون إلههم و هو ما يقوله بولس نفسه و نفس المنهج سار عليه عبد الله بن سبأ في محاولة تحريف الإسلام لتطويعه و اتبعه من اغتر به من الباطنية
والله المستعان

أما عن الترجمة فلا أدري صراحة لماذا لم تكمل المترجمة ترجمة باقي أجزاء الكتاب
و أجد حجتها في احترام مشاعر المسيحيين حجة واهية
وقد خطر لي في البداية أنه قد تكون تعرضت للتهديد أو ماشابه
لكن الله يعلم ما وراء ذلك
هذه مجرد خواطر عابرة لعلي إذا تيسر الأمر أن أكمل قراءة باقي الكتاب بالإنجليزي آملا أن يتم ترجمة ما تبقى إلى العربية

أما عن الكتاب فيعطيك فهما واسعا للمسيحية بشكلها الحالي
نسأل الله أن يثبتنا على دينه الحق و أن يهدينا الصراط المستقيم و أن يهد بنا
و لا غالب إلا الله

[Meen]

One reviewer said it made her mom cry (and not for warm-fuzzy reasons). Recommendations don't get much better than that!

[Anna · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Mythmaker is a profound book. Maccoby uses biblical and other ancient texts to support his argument that Jesus, a man who lead a group of political dissidents, was just a man, and that it was Paul who later infused pagan and gnostic mysticism into the story to create the Jesus myth. He provides a lot of evidence for his case, though I thought it was a bit too much when he started to explain Paul's motivations. I don't think the evidence exists to do that, one can only speculate. Perhaps he was a charlatan in search of greatness, or perhaps he was just delusional. The real point of this book, and what gave me pause, is that we have a Jew who thinks he is a king who will liberate Isreal from the Romans and create a new Jewish state in peace, and what he becomes is a god-figure in which his own people are blamed for killing him and have suffered the consequences of that blame for the last 2,000 years. No wonder this book made someone cry.

[Travis · Rating 4 out of 5]

What drew me to The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity was an interest in seeing how Christianity is viewed by an academic from another religion--in this case, a Jewish Talmudic scholar, Hyam Maccoby.

Maccoby utilizes the normal canons of contemporary New Testament scholarship to suss out the evolution of early Christianity and to analyze just who Paul really was.

One of Maccoby's major arguments--and one that has wide currency among non-dogmatic, non-fundamentalist scholars, even Christian scholars--is the idea that, for all intents and purposes, Paul was the founder of Christianity.

Jesus, Maccoby asserts, was an observant Jew; he was, in fact, a Pharisee, though the gospels attempt to set the Pharisees as his primary opponents, and Maccoby shows why and how the gospel writers made this attempt. Jesus did not see himself as God incarnate and did not see himself as coming to die for the sins of the world by serving as an atoning sacrifice. Maccoby thinks that Jesus did see himself as the messiah, but as the messiah in completely Jewish terms: the term messiah in Hebrew simply means "anointed one" and refers to one anointed by God to be king of Israel. Thus, Jesus saw himself as a king of Israel in opposition to Rome.

Unlike other messianic claimants, Jesus was not a violent revolutionary but thought that God himself would usher in the kingdom of God by overthrowing Israel's Roman oppressors through a miracle and then installing Jesus as king. Unfortunately for Jesus, his calculations about himself and God's performance of a miracle were wrong, and the Romans crucified him as a rebel. This entire line of thought is well reasoned and is, by and large, accepted by most scholars who don't have a theological ax to grind.

Where Maccoby strays into unusual territory is in his assessment of Paul. Initially, much of what he has to say is in the mainstream of contemporary scholarship: Maccoby points out that Paul never knew Jesus personally and developed his religious views not from any teachings of Jesus that he received from the leaders of Jesus's Jewish followers (Jesus's brother James and the disciples Peter and John), but rather Paul had visionary experiences of Jesus, from which he derived his views. From these mystical experiences and his reflection on these experiences and his understanding of Judaism, Paul developed the Christian religion; Paul, not Jesus, founded the Christian religion. Jesus would have been aghast at what Paul taught in his name. Still even here, Maccoby is on fairly solid ground among modern academic scholars of early Christianity.

It is only when Maccoby tries to develop a biography of Paul that he makes conjectures that would be rejected by mainstream scholarship. Drawing on non-canonical sources and his own reading of Acts and Paul's epistles, Maccoby concludes that not only was Paul not a Pharisee (as he claims in his epistles and as is claimed in Acts) but that Paul was actually not even Jewish. Maccoby argues that Paul was, as Acts asserts (though which Paul never mentions in any of his epistles), a native of Tarsus, but he was not among the Jewish diaspora living in Tarsus; rather, Maccoby claims that Paul was a Gentile who converted to Judaism. I won't go into all the arguments that Maccoby puts forward as the curious reader can read this book for that information, but I will say that, on the one hand, I find his argument that Paul was not a Pharisee to be moderately convincing. On the other hand, Maccoby's argument that Paul was a Gentile lacks good supporting evidence and is largely a matter of speculation on Maccoby's part.

Overall, this was a fascinating read, but there is not much in the way of scholarship that is new or unusual, and much of Maccoby's argument is standard fare in the academic community--apart from his startling claim that Paul was not actually Jewish.

[Katy · Rating 5 out of 5]

I will start off by saying I never much cared for Paul, nor for the fact that his writings - all dated decades after the death of Jesus - were the ones that made up most of the New Testament. His misogynistic teachings and dogmatic approach to the system of philosophy created by Jesus would undoubtedly cause that good man to shudder and be shamed.

I found this text to be most illuminating and it helped me to revise my opinions of Paul slightly - from a raving misogynistic fanatic to a very sad man who likely couldn't find anyone to love him and who wanted to raise himself to a level that fit his own inflated sense of self.

The Mythmaker shows how Paul took the teachings of the Nazarenes and combined them with the mystery cults and Gnostic teachings to create his very own new religion, completely revising the original teachings and twisting them to fit his own scheme. It is a very well-written and accessible book - Maccoby specifically states in the text that he wrote it for the layman and that he planned a more scholarly work subsequent to this one, which I plan to seek out. A strong recommend to anyone interested in history - whether it is regular history or religious history - and a work that MUST be read with an open mind.

[Erik Graff · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was given me as a gift by Chris Meyers when he was still working on his philosophy dissertation at Loyola University Chicago. For the most part it is old hat despite the author's treatment of familiar arguments as if they were new and earthshattering. The is no debate, excepting, of course, biblical inerrancists who stand outside of any scholarly pale, that Christianity as we think of it bears little resemblance to what Jesus and his brothers and the later Ebionites believed. Nor is there any reason to contest the predominance of Paul and Pauline thinking in the current Christian canons. What is contestable is what Maccoby claims about the character of Saul/Paul, all of which is highly interpretative. For instance, Paul claims and was claimed to be a Pharisee. Stronger arguments than Maccoby's are necessary to contest these assertions. Similarly, Maccoby's claim that Jesus, unlike Paul, actually was a Pharisee, all texts representing him as attacking them notwithstanding, also needs far stronger documentary evidence than this book provides. The fact that Jesus held many views in common with Pharisaic Judaism no more proves he was a member (whatever that might mean) than a similarity between the views of a social democrat and a liberal member of the Democratic Party would entail the former's membership in the latter. Still, overall, this book, like many others written for the general public, might be recommended to Jews and Christians interested in a taste of what contemporary scholars are talking about.

[Mohamed · Rating 2 out of 5]

ترجمة غير امينة للأسف

[Matt · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really enjoyed this book, but I think that there are many people who would not. This is a pretty trenchant critique of one of the founding figures of Christianity. It uses history and pragmatic literary interpretation to try to explain many of the inconsistencies that surround Paul in the biblical literature. I found its arguments clear and convincing, but I suspect that those devoted to the teachings of the Christian church might be more apt to find fault in its claims.

One of the main focuses of the book is how badly the New Testament misrepresents the Jews, not just that it implicates them as guilty for the death of Jesus, but even in the fact that it doesn't seem to be able to distinguish the Pharisees (rabbis) from the Saduccees (priestly class under the proverbial Roman thumb). There are other points throughout where Maccoby shows Paul misrepresenting the Jews, and these misrepresentations range from simple historical or theological inaccuracies to outright anti-Seminitism.

The argumentations starts out as a slow accumulation of discrepancies in the biblical accounts of Jesus and Paul. In the beginning, the arguments seemed less convincing, even tenuous at times, but as the book progresses the picture of Paul become clearer and the weight of the evidence becomes hard to displace.

This was a starter book for me in the topic of early Christianity. I like that it balances helpful exposition with a more critical stance. Since I don't have a horse in the race (I'm an atheist), I didn't mind the book's polemical stance about Paul. Ultimately, Maccoby doesn't completely condemn Paul, but merely thinks that Paul is less original and authoritative than he is given credit for. The book convincingly argues that Paul is more of a mythologist than a theolgian. For some, this is a damning claim, but it makes a lot more sense to me than most of the Christian hermeneutics that I have seen.

[Jengordon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Maccoby does a thorough, and mostly believable*, job of demonstrating that Paul was not the man he says he is in his New Testament writings, and that the Jesus of Christianity is a mythical figure made up by Paul out of whole cloth. He uses close analysis of the N.T. text itself, noting contradictions with other places in the text, with history, and with common sense, to suggest places that the text is corrupted by a Pauline editor. In the process, he builds an image of what the Gospel texts (synoptics) might have looked like before Pauline orthodoxy re-made the story of Jesus in Paul's image. Maccoby demonstrates Gnostic and Hellenistic influences, and re-interprets anti-Jewish biblical scenes to suggest that Jesus was a Pharisee, and Paul was not only not one, but a disappointed one, and not even necessarily fully Jewish. Lots in this book, and worth reading if you have any interest in where Christianity may have come from.

(*mostly believable: there are a few places where it really feels like he's stretching his argument beyond what he has solid evidence for)

[Andrew Lucas · Rating 4 out of 5]

Early Christianity is a topic most classical historians shy away from, the pool having been muddied by centuries of devotional presupposition. 'The Mythmaker' was my first exposure to the work of Macoby and I found it both accessible and enlightening. His particular Jewish perspective on Jesus, Paul and earliest Christianity was a revelation. Almost everything in this book runs counter to conventional wisdom; for instance, his conclusions that Jesus was probably a Pharisee or that Paul almost certainly wasn't a former Pharisee, and perhaps wasn't even Jewish.

Sometimes Macoby seems to follow the reasoning, "Paul can't have been X, so he must have been Y", without exploring other alternatives. However, this is a trade book that is a distillation of a scholarly work, so perhaps these issues are explored more fully in that other book.

'The Mythmaker' is a very useful addition to my knowledge base on early Christianity. It is written in a clear and direct style and I recommend it to anyone interested in the topic.

[Matt Martell · Rating 3 out of 5]

Maccoby makes some great points but fails to follow them up with good footnotes which makes his points dubious. His works cited list is impressive, but a little digging makes me wonder how much he actually uses his sources at all. In making an argument of such weight, I would have preferred he chose fewer points of contention and stuck to those he could backup easily with research.

Overall, this book seems to lack scholarly attributes, though raises important questions I would like to see handled by a more qualified researcher.

For a review that misses the point about as much as Maccoby seems to, read this Tektonics.org

[Dwight · Rating 2 out of 5]

The author does a decent job of breaking down prevailing beliefs, but then does a poor job of providing evidence to support his own different hypotheses. There are many questions about the author's methods and sources. The overall concepts are interesting, but the foundation for said concepts leaves something to be desired.

[RB]

How can this be chocking news? Doesn't everybody know that Christianity as we know it was primarily founded on his teachings and writings? Or is this common knowledge for those of us who actually bothered to study Religion at the university?

[Miste · Rating 2 out of 5]

I read as much as I wanted to read. It lacks any kind of scholarly backing to be believable at all. Conjecture and sketchy leaps by the author. Interesting premise but this book is not the one to prove it.

[Micah Larsen · Rating 1 out of 5]

So apparently Paul was never a pharisee or even a Jew, but just a guy on the fringes who was attracted to Judaism but couldn't get inside so he invented Christianity, which the real Jesus would never have dreamed of because his main goal was a political utopia, mmkay?

[Baraa · Rating 4 out of 5]

يعرض لمسيرة البدء بتحريف النصرانية ويثبت بالتواريخ والأدلة فساد بولس وإسهامه في هرطقة المسيحية، أرى أنه مهم لمن يعيش في المغترب أو يصادف نصارى أو مشككين في حياته، فهو يدعم حجّة المناظر في بطلان النصرانية وإثبات تحريفها بالسند التاريخي..

[Will Thorpe · Rating 3 out of 5]

I didn’t read all of this book. Much was sort of redundant and just him supporting aspects of his theory. Sometimes they were theories within theories that weren’t entirely relevant but were also “in your face” fringe theories that I feel detracted form his goal of his book.

He makes a clear case Paul invented what modern day Christianity stemmed from. Slam dunk. 100% agree. Paul does not, however, need to be a gentile nor Pharisee to make this case and that’s what over 1/3 of the book is about: that Paul was actually a gentile. It’s very fringe theory and not relevant to his conclusion. He commits a great deal of time claiming Jesus was a Pharisee. Again, interesting, but not relevant.

I learned a great deal about Jewish history and tradition that I don’t think I would have found in many other like minded books. Unfortunately, about half of this book is, in opinion, an unnecessary distraction from the other half.

[David Buhler · Rating 3 out of 5]

The author, a Jew and Talmudic scholar, gives an impressive show of imaginative scholarship in his account of Paul as a man of tremendous religious imagination himself having invented 'Christianity.'

It would have been a more convincing book if Mr. Maccoby did not so strongly give the impression that he carried a grudge against Paul and his new invention of this mystical Christianity which caused the Jews a lot of trouble.

I doubt if anyone understands the complicated apostle Paul; however, this book opened my eyes to a number of interesting possibilities. Look between the covers and be surprised! And now I wonder if Paul were living in this era: 'would he be under psychiatric care?' However, he did claim to be satisfied no matter what happened to him...in those days.

[Gianni WhiteBeard · Rating 1 out of 5]

كإنسان لا ديني شدني العنوان من النظرة الأولى، لا سيما و أنني كنت قد قرأت عن بولس و تأثيره على النصرانية الحقيقية التي تلت موت يسوع و قيامته الجدلية.
لكن الكاتب هنا حاول أن يلفت انتباه القارئ إلى ناحية أخرى من عمل بولس، و هو ربطه ربطاً مباشراً بالرومان و الديانات القديمة التي تدعو إلى الخضوع و الرضوخ، زاعماً أنه السبب الرئيسي الذي أدى إلى انتشار الديانة المسيحية بشكلها الحالي في أرجاء الامبراطورية الرومانية آنذاك.
الترجمة العربية للكتاب ناقصة، المترجمة تقول أنها عمدت إلى إلغاء صفحات بأكملها من الكتاب مراعاة لشعور المسيحيين، و الذي أعتبره عملاً غير أمينٍ في محاولتها لإيصال فكرة الكتاب.
الجدير بالذكر أن الكاتب يهودي و المترجمة مسلمة، و الإثنان يحاولان تفنيد أسس ديانة ثالثة ألا و هي المسيحية.
الكتاب كارثة بكل معاني الكلمة.

[Christina Maria · Rating 3 out of 5]

Starts off with an interesting premise, but then loses stem and the second half of the book seems like a rant. Paul is an interesting character because everything that contradicts between the Old and New Testament is connected to Paul (like telling women not to talk and throwing away the Kosher laws). He's the one whose story doesn't add up historically compared to the other apostles. It is impossible to read the New Testament and take Paul seriously after finishing this.

[Susan · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great clarification of Paul's role in myth making of the Christian religion which is vastly different from the Judaism Jesus and James were part of. Jesus never defined himself as a god; he understood Messiah in the normal terms of someone who would restore the Jewish monarchy, drive out the Roman invaders and establish a Jewish state. This book echoes other books I have read particularly Zealot and The Evolution of God.

[Andreas · Rating 4 out of 5]

Maccoby is obviously pursuing an agenda of his own (i.e. proving that anti-semitism is deeply rooted in the very origins of Christianity, while also argumenting that Christianity is based on the delusions of a fraud/failed Pharisee), but in doing so he builds up his argumentation in a superb manner.

You should appreciate this book like you would appreciate the work Freud - not for its claims of holding truth, but for the sake of the argument and the author's inventiveness and erudition.

[Matt · Rating 4 out of 5]

Mythmaker provided some interesting and necessary context to the world of first century Middle East. Maccoby's hypothesis is that Christianity as a separate religion didn't exist until Paul invented it; that Jesus himself never intended to found a church separate from Judaism. He writes in narrative style and provides plenty of research to back up his claim. I thought it was well worth the read.

[Charles · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very interesting premise that Paul created christianity to fulfill his own religious desires and shortcomings.

excellent scholarship, presenting a new and unique view of the current mythos of christianity.

[Wolf · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you want to know how Saul completely changed what we call Christianity, and why it isn't what Joshua of Nazareth started, find a copy of this work. In other words, don't read the New Testament past the Gospels.

[Terelyn · Rating 5 out of 5]

Talmudic scholar has Pharisee bias: he argues that Rabbi Jesus was Pharisee, that Paul was an ambitious converted Gentile priest thug, & New Testament authors disguised truth for Roman political gain.