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

The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity | Hyam Maccoby | On "pidgeon" religion

books:

The Mythmaker: Pau...

	The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity Hyam Maccoby HarperCollins, 1987 average customer review:based on 49 reviews
	for more information click here

highly recommended

Forensic? No! Thought-provoking? Yes!

*Paul was not an ethnic Jew, but rather a convert.
*Paul was not a Pharisee; he impersonated that role.
*Paul and Peter were not co-workers but rivals and perhaps enemies.
*James the brother of Jesus was the key figure in Jewish Christianity and therefore in the first great schism of the Christian cults.
*Paul was the true founder of what "we" consider Christianity.

Those are my five stars for this provocative but very well reasoned examination of Paul, based on "evidence" drawn from the wiles and files of rabbinical wisdom. They're intended as teasers, to get you interested in reading Maccoby. Any correlation between them and my own opinions is purely insignificant.

Postscript: I should add that it's content rather than style that makes this book worth reading.

for more information click here

On "pidgeon" religion

A pidgeon language is what happens when two peoples who speak different languages exist in proximity and by dint of needing to communicate, develop a new language by combining parts of their previous tongues to create something wholly new.

Maccoby's book is one of many arguing that Christianity was just such a fussion between first century Judaism and gentile paganism.

In his view, St. Paul was the Christian mythmaker, single handedly forging a new synthesis between the two faiths. In the sense that Maccoby's arguments contemplate a cultural alchemy wherein two faiths were brought together, he advances easy to support points.

Where his thesis falters is in the singular credit it grants to Paul respecting the creation of Christianity.

As can be seen by reading Thomas Sheehan's The First Coming as well as Burton Mack's Who Wrote the Gospels and A Myth of Innocence, the process of cultural fussion was much more articulated than the one contemplated by Maccoby.

According to Sheehan and Mack, a number of competing sects combined to create what was -- by the end of the second century -- orthodox Christianity. While to be sure, Paul can rightly credited for his singular zealousness and eloguence he should more properly be viewed as riding a wave than creating it.

But then again, who knows: all too often in matters of historical origins we only see through a glass darkly and perhaps never face to face.

for more information click here

The creation of a religion

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.

for more information click here

Do Your Mind a Favor: Read This Book

I've just lent my old copy of the Mythmaker to a young friend, so I thought I'd see what the amazon crowd had to say about it. The Library Journal summary is quite fair, and Mr. John S. Ryan's review is ample and balanced. I have nothing to add except my enthusiastic endorsement.

Case Dismissed for Lack of Evidence

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.

for more information click here