As a former Christian minister, and perhaps more importantly as a former apologist for the faith I would like to comment on this latest book from Acharya S.
First, and what is often hardest for the faithful to accept, is that she is correct in nearly all of her statements concerning the history of organized religions, especially in the west.
Second, and perhaps equally difficult for those who prefer fantasy to reality, is that she is so direct about it. She makes no bones about her belief, or perhaps lack of belief, and although she and I do not agree on every detail- still, Acharya has pretty much outlined, at least for anyone seriously considering a leap off that fence between belief and disbelief, a required text- a primer of common sense if you wish. I have read the reviews and it would seem that you either loved the book- or hated it. There is no way anyone, regardless of how faithful to their religion they might be, can rate this book any less than 4 stars, if for nothing more than the viable research it involved. One major problem that many find with adherents to religion is their black and white- all or nothing approaches to pretty much everything. They are not open to new ideas or new beliefs- they have a vested interest in staying the course. Recently I was asked to be part of a panel formed to investigate the accuracy of some of the Gnostic texts that were voted out of the official Bible. For purposes of historical and social accuracy, many panel members were using the accepted Bible. This I felt was completely wrong headed- as anyone who sees the Bible as the final edict of historical fact is already refusing to accept or acknowledge any other authority, for example the writers Tacitus and Philo of Alexandria. This ties in to the very basis of Acharya's books- the search for and use of other source materials and mythologies that may perhaps better explain the history of western religions. If we remember that the first synod was in Laodicea a part of modern day Greece, where about 363 AD, a group of men came together to decided which books of the dozens of Gospel accounts were to be aloud to be read in churches. Since that time, there have been almost a dozen similar organizations, headed by Bishops, Popes, and Emperors, that have managed to rule out many of the stories about Jesus that conflicted with the idea that some, and certainly not most, of his original followers held of who he was. They have given us the Bible in it's current accepted edition. Had all the original manuscripts been kept, the Bible of today would be an even bigger jumble of contradiction, confusion, and myth. However, having read most of this material, I think it would certainly would have made for a better read.
Finally, as I explained to the committee- the Gospels are not history; they are religious stories and propaganda. They are contradictory, exaggerated, and in many aspects mythical. To many non-Christian historical researchers, those who deal with cold facts, there remains serious doubt that Jesus ever existed as a real person, although I believe he did. Still, it is impossible to prove anything about him apart from he may or may not have been an historical figure and it is more plausible, as Acharya points out in her first book, that Jesus was the result of myth making, a human process that is indeed historically documented.
Finally, let me say to the faithful, I would recommend avoiding this book- it may well become the fly in your ointment of a faith based life. To others, especially those indoctrinated into religion at an early age- perhaps it is time to seek a foundation for your beliefs in a book other than the Bible. Also I especially enjoyed the FOREWORD.