Rating: 
Summary: A book to be studied, not read...
Review: I am a general reader and do not have formal training in theologly or ealy Chistianities. As of today, I have read this book twice, and I expect to read it again. This should not be the first book that one reads about the historical Jesus, the writing of the New Testament, or early Christianities. Though it is a short book, and does not utilize technical language, it is very concise and a tremendous amount of information is packed into a small space.
Other reviewers have called this book "radical". That is true only if you believe that it is radical to bring the conceptual tools of the modern university (e.g. history, anthropology, archeology, literature, philosophy, sociology, etc.) to bear on the origins of Christianity. This book is no more radical than other books on the historical Jesus and perhaps those who make hisorical claims without doing the work of history are the real radicals.
That said, there are times when Mack speaks autoritatively and without references or explanatory endnotes. Though one can not doubt his intellectual stature or integrity, I would have found more endnotes helpful. For example, John Meier's three volume work on the historical Jesus contains as many pages of endnotes as it does text. This gives legitimacy to his positions and allows the interested reader to pursue the details of his references and arguements further.
I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in the how the New Testament evolved, early Christianities, and/or the historical Jesus. It should not be the first book you read in this area and the book deserves to be read, re-read, and studied. It is worth the effort.
Rating: 
Summary: Everyone should read this outstanding book.
Review: I am very selective about books I choose to buy and display; I prefer those that can really make a difference or illustrate a method or a new perspective. Mack's book does an excellent job of debunking and explaining the Christian myth and deserves widespread reading. If superstition and myth can be recognized and understood as such, society will be strengthened and enriched.It is like the Emperor's New Clothes - someone has pointed at the Emperor and written an accessible and enlightening book on the subject.
Rating: 
Summary: Forget It
Review: I'm not a Christian, but this book is implausible. For a fine introduction to the study of Jesus and the New Testament, search for works by Bart Ehrman. Whether you are a non-Christian or a devout Christian, you'll enjoy and benefit from Ehrman equally well. He's a serious scholar, an award winning professor, writes plainly for the ordinary person, and employs a non-controversial, non-speculative, "just the facts Ma'am" approach.
Rating:
Summary: Fascinating Alternative Chronology (Possible Fantasy)
Review: I'm not a historical scholar but i am fascinated with the Biblical tradition as an outsider (i am Buddhist). As a child i was Southern Baptist from age 10 to 18. "Who Wrote ..." was a thrilling review of the dogma i learned as a child and later discarded as insufficiently meaningful for me personally. I love to challenge my faith with deep study of paradox & contraversy. It was hard for me to do that kind of study of the Bible -- more out of personal temperament than any Biblical deficiency. "Who Wrote ..." engaged the part of me that wants to explore the New Testament, it's history & contraversy. I long since gave up trying to understand the meaning of the Bible & Christainity. "Who Wrote ..." pulled me into a deeper study as i let go of meaning in favor of the juxaposition of historical contexts. It led to several books on the historical origins of Christainity -- the books about St. Paul are also fascinating. "Who Wrote..." draws one into an exploration of the mysterious origins. I leave to the scholars the truthfulness of the historical data & interpretations. Mack may be to Biblical historical scholarship what Arp is to astronomy & astrophysics -- as spectator, i'm willing to listen to both sides of "Not true! True!" as long as there's intelligible discourse.
Rating:
Summary: Scholarship and Faith-centered polemics
Review: If one has a serious interest in Biblical scholarship, then this book is an excellent primer. It is accessible and comprehensive. I was particularly impressed w/the treatment of the Pastorals and the letters attributed to the Pauline school. However, his interpretation of the various document is by no means the reigning orthodoxy among scholarship. But what is presented is a provocative and cogent analysis of the subject matter. Yet, if the reader does not accept things like the dependency of the authors of Matthew and Luke on Mark or the Q hypothesis, then this is probably not a book you would enjoy. Otherwise, a fine read...
Rating: 
Summary: Not bad
Review: If we read the dialogues of Plato the person who is the mouth piece of his thought is a historical character Socrates. It is clear however that Plato is not simply writing down what Socrates has said, but he puts in his mouth ideas that he thinks are correct. Mack thinks that this was a common practice in Greek communities and that a large number of the sayings of philosophers like Diogeneses were constructed after the event to reflect the spirit of his philosophy. Mack is a biblical expert and has written previous works on the subject including one on the existence of a common source of sayings for two of the Gospels known as Q. In this book he uses as a tool of exposition the recent finding of the Gospel of Thomas. A manuscript written in Coptic which was found in 1945. Rather than being a Gospel which purported to tell Jesus life, this is a collection of his sayings. Mack believes that all of the Gospels have a similar background. A series of sayings which have been developed by different Christian communities to reflect their teachings over practical and theological issues. The interesting thing about the Gospel according to Thomas is that there are no miracles, there is no crucifixion and no physical resurrection, suggesting that these things became important somewhat later. He sees the writing of the Gospels as something akin to fiction writing. The authors of the Gospel wrote their stories to illustrate and to explain the doctrinal intricacies of their belief system. In much the same way that an ancient Greek may have developed a saying of Diogeneses to illustrate a point about his philosophy. Later these stories have become something else and have been seen as literal history. The book is interesting as an exposition of what is common knowledge about the study of the bible. I personally would have preferred more detail about some things such as the means of dating the Gospels. However the book is aimed to be an introduction to a complex field.
Rating:
Summary: Cutting Edge Scholarship
Review: If you want an honest, no-nonsense appraisal of the origins of the New Testament, then this book is for you. Unlike apologetic writers, who state absolute truths up front and then work backwards into a proof, Mack proceeds in a scholarly fashion to reconstruct who wrote the bible and when they actually did it.. This kind of scholarship is particularly difficult, because the earliest scrap of new testament we possess is a small piece of John's Gospel dated 125 CE(the Ryland fragment), and the earliest complete manuscripts are dated towards the end of the second century CE..Additionally, the only extrabiblical references to Christ in the century in which he lived are limited to one-liners from ancient writers and historians such as Tacitus, Josephus, Suetonius and Seneca. Given this to work with, Mack proceeds with a remarkable bit of detective work to develop a working hypothesis about the true origins of the New testament. Consequently, and in a manner not unlike the methodolgy employed by the Jesus Seminar, he unabashedly (but carefully)incorporates non-canonical works such as the Gospel of Thomas and the hypothesized "Q" document into his analysis, being aware that an over-arching factor in the early church's assessment of the canonical worthiness of any book lay in its conformity to accepted church orthodoxy and doctrine. As a result, modern scholarship is therefore correct in being suspicious of some canonical works and in accepting(provisionally) the inclusion of other non-canonical works in any analysis. Frankly, this is no different than a paleontologist accepting new fossil evidence, even if it invalidates or alters his or her own pet theories. I have noted that some reviewers have observed that Mack seems to be doing a lot of guessing, with a minimum of backup from other scholarly sources. I wonder if they read the same book I did, because mine contains a very thorough bibliography of both modern and ancient works.. Perhaps they reject Mack's sources because his rather unique use of them is in disagreement with their own preconceived notions of what constitutes credible research and/or biblical truth. No matter, this book is an excellent source for the general reader who appreciates honest scholarship from an uninhibited and acclaimed expert in this field.
Rating:
Summary: Circular, Presumptous Methodology
Review: In "Who Wrote the New Testament" Mack asserts a picture of New Testament history that lies significanyly beyond the evidence that is currently available. He imposes a sociology of Religions padagim, and analyzes the New Testament through that lens (in much the same way Crossan uses cross-cultural anthropology.) Unfortunately, many of his operations are procrustean, and the majority are unpersuasive. He equivocates with the word "myth" (in terms of a communities explanation for an event, and something false.) He also follows the standard Bultonian "Trajectories" interpretation relies too heavilly on too little evidence (i.e. Galations.) He asserts a "Q Community", asserts that it can be stratified (ala Kloppenberg) and asserts that we can know about the circumstances that caused the various "layers" to form. Unfortunately, the existance of Q itself is far from evident, even if it is currently the predominant padagim. Especially in regards to Q, his methodology is both weak and circular. Literary dependence is no longer an absolute in Biblical studies. Overall, Mack uncritically accpets the results of "critical" scholarship. His work reads like a conspiracy theroy - The evidence looks this way because the 4th century Christian chruch wanted it to look this way. The Acts of the Apostles is a late Myth, forging the idea of an Appostalic Age. Overall, I find his argument to be totally unconvincing.
Rating:
Summary: To Reitierate:
Review: it is ironic that the same way this author disects the authoral foundations of the NT, is the same way that his book will be disected in years to come: his ideas were just a product of the sinful culture of which he was a part. repent and put your faith in Jesus Christ if you hope to have any type form of salvation. the world is sin and it will remain that way until tribulation. if you aren't on board with Christ, you are much much worse off than you can possibly know.
Rating:
Summary: 1 Kings 8:61
Review: it is ironic that the same way this author disects the authoral foundations of the NT, is the same way that his book will be disected in years to come: his ideas were just a product of the sinful culture of which he was a part. repent and put your faith in Jesus Christ if you hope to have any type form of salvation. the world is sin and it will remain that way until tribulation. if you aren't on board with Christ, you are much much worse off than you can possibly know.
|
