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.