The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity [Hardcover]

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.