Rating: 
Summary: Thorough
Review: It's a good title but the subtitle is actually what the book's about.The author traces the New Testament's sources from the earliest Jesus sayings,through various Jesus movements that grew up,to the gospel writers later on.There were many,often anonymous,hands at work;each writing within a particular social context,be it Jewish or Greek.The first Bible was then created for Constantine in the fourth century.'Who wrote the New Testament' was worth reading.While the style was wearing at times(too many sentences of the same length)I still learned a lot about how the New Testament was put together.I found myself noting Greek and Latin words explained in the book(e.g.,canon comes from the Greek word kanon,meaning 'measuring rod').It's educational in that respect.I would also like to read more about the early 'Q' sayings of Jesus,which I hadn't known about.So if you're curious about the Christ myth this is a good place to start.
Rating: 
Summary: It seems nobody wrote the New Testament!
Review: Mack demonstrates an amazing grasp of the material he is discussing. He paints many interesting and colorful images of how various figures in history actually decided what to put in their writings.
However, I am deeply puzzled and disturbed by this book. He makes much of the 'mythmaking' that he claims produced almost all the NT, yet he never defines what a 'myth' really is. Likewise he does not define 'fiction' although he terms the books of the NT as works of fiction.
Does he not realize how important these terms are? Most Christians in history became Christians, and remain so, based primarily on the conviction that the Bible (OT and NT) is substantially true-- that God was the real author of the Bible and that God was working in and though Jesus as recorded in the Bible. To state that the NT (and the Christian 'rewriting' of the OT)were works of fiction to support changed social conditions, seems to mean that the information about Jesus was not the way things really happened. If so, then why should any thinking intelligent person base his/her life upon the fictionalized ideas and doings of a 1st century wandering preacher? Is this the question Mack is really posing? Is Christianity a huge mistake? I think Mack's mythmaking is misleading to say the least.
Rating: 
Summary: Alternate history based on literary theory
Review: Mack says previous understanding of Bible authorship is wrong and presents a new account. This isn't based on new manuscript or historical discoveries, but on a way of manipulating literature that allows one to construe multiple authors with different purposes, smoothed together by editors (or redactors or mythmakers) who were trying to construct a myth for some purpose. The problem with this book (& approach) is it is based on a type of logical fallacy called circular reasoning. The conclusions one wants to obtain are built into the premises. He starts out assuming the Bible is purely a work of human imagination, not divinely inspired and written down by humans. This excludes any contrary evidence. The technique then proceeds by deciding there are X main themes, then goes through and groups those themes, deciding what odors and penumbras of word sequence denote the theorized authors, discarding those that don't fit (when the author talks about the clever editing, it's a red-flag his grouping criteria failed at that point), then announces (surprise) X sources have been "discovered". The only reason he doesn't end up with X+1, X+2 all the way up to X+n authors, etc., is because he doesn't consistently apply the technique, and/or the text is too short and baloney can't be sliced any thinner. The author identifies a predecessor book this way, called "Q" which, of course, undercuts Christianity. The author writes: Mack: "... since we did not have an independent manuscript of Q ... One would have to line up the sayings between Matthew & Luke in parallel columns and decide between them where the wording differed slightly... Voila. An entirely different world of Christian beginnings comes into view. Mack: "no other text or set of texts from the first century lets us fill in an entire history of an early Christian community-in-the-making this way.." (translation: there is no evidence for this alternate history beyond this method of selecting among verses in Matthew & Luke) Further study suggests to Mack and others, three distinct layers to this mythical earlier work (i.e. the theory had to be puffed up to crank out more commentary on it): Mack: "recent scholarship has found it possible to identify three layers of instructional material in Q....the earliest layer, Q1, consists largely of sayings about the wisdom of being a true follower of Jesus. Q2 ... introduces prophetic and apocalyptic pronouncements of judgement upon those who refused to listen to the Jesus people. And Q3 registers a retreat from the fray of public encounter to ... thoughts of patience and piety for the enlightened ones This type of gaming appeals to people of a speculative nature. One can fill papers, journals and books sniffing out new layers all without concern for it being valid. Labelling the texts as "Q1", "Q2", etc., also confers a sort scientific aura to the work, as if it was mathematical and precise when it is exactly the opposite. Burton Mack is professor of early Christianity at the School of Theology at Claremont and associate scholar at the Institute for Antiquity and Christianity in Claremont and has worked in the field for 40 years. Why work on a subject for so long if one has no respect for and automatically dismisses the truth of what one is studying? As I read this book, I realized the focus of admiration is the POWER of the Bible to influence people, not the truth. If one discounts divine inspiration one would surely seek to rewrite it to participate in that power. And, indeed, Mack's conclusion from this exercise in circular reasoning? The New Testament was written in response to the "multi-culturalism" of the Mediterranean in the first century. That is, he discovered the motive was just like the current fad sweeping his campus and faculty meetings in modern America. Circular reasoning cannot produce new information. It just superimposes familiar biases. This book is significant because it is repeated so often. But as I read through pages of unsupported assertions, I was most reminded of a book on phrenology, the science of reading the bumps on ones head to predict the future. Impressive account of the shape of skulls, but when all is done, you don't actually know anything except what the author thinks. So what?
Rating:
Summary: Fascinating much of the time, a bit overly written at others
Review: Mack's book is the first I've ever read about the origins of Christianity and it is quite eye-opening in parts, making a strong case that the legacy of Jesus was constantly embellished (from mere teacher to Lord of All Creation)over the years by followers with their own agendas and without supporting facts. no wonder so many "believers" are attacking the book with their one star reviews; this work poses hard questions about their most sacred beliefs; having said that, the book is a bit long-winded, dry, overly pendantic and off-point at times (for instance, the introduction is excellent and to the point, but the first chapter bogs down with unnecessary details about the clashing cultures at the time of the purported appearance of Jesus; it could have summarized in one or two pages). Overall, however, the book has made me realize that anyone who objectively examines the origins of Christianity (or Islam. Or Buddhism, etc. etc.) with his or her free-thinking mind, rather than blindly accepting it like obedient sheep, is likely going to come away having serious doubts about its legitimacy. Mack's book has inspired me to put about 10 other books on the subject in my cart; so it's a good start to what, undoubtedly, at least for me, will be a life-long study of the subject.
Rating: 
Summary: Finally, a totally cool Jesus in the image of Mack!
Review: Man, this book is so awesome! Mack shows us that New Testament scholarship is really an imaginative and creative art form. Mack, like some other NT scholars, hypothesizes that an underlying, pre-existing document may have existed that was used as a source for some passages common to both Matthew and Luke. We've no independent evidence of this hypothetical "Q" document, its content or source (assuming that it existed at all) except what is pulled from Matthew and Luke. This makes serious and judicious scholars (like John P. Meyer) reluctant to assert lots of crazy conclusions about hypothetical Q and the community that propagated it. Mack's genius is to show us how this total lack of any shred of historical data about Q is really liberating, allowing us to make up any conclusions we want about its content and source! Once you get as good as Mack at reading the hypothetical text of the hypothetical Q, you will even be able to identify hypothetical rough drafts (the "strata") of the hypothetical Q. Then you can really get creative! Dispensing with the annoyances of evidence and history, we can totally make up what we want about the hypothetical Q and the imaginary Q-ites--we can decide that the Jesus of our own hypothetical Q is the "real" Jesus, and our Hypothetical "real" Jesus can be a social worker, or a magician, or a socialist, or Dead head . . . you name it! Is that awesome or what!? Make Jesus in your own image! What's more, we can say that Q Jesus really only had a problem with authority figures and institutions and stuff-this is great!-we get to make up a Q Jesus who says that its really only religious guys in robes and stuff (like the Pope!) that are evil, but "real" Q Jesus didn't care so much if you or I sinned a lot-he just hated rules, man!
Even more cool-we can say that all of the other NT stuff that we don't like was just "myths" made up and added later by guys that were not as clued in as our Hypothetical Q-ites. In fact, we can dispense with EVERYTHING that ANYONE has ever said about Jesus before Mack came along. Check it out: It's only us moderns like Mack that have been so clever as to imagine the hypothetical beliefs of the hypothetical Q-ites, so we can say that throughout all of Christian history, everyone else got it wrong! From old guys like Augustine, Aquinas, and Dante, to Therese of Lisieux, Thomas Merton and even Mother Theresa-the whole rest of Christian history is rubbish cuz EVERYONE took a wrong turn right after Q-ites, and only WE have been clever enough to conger up what the Q-ites might have thought! Only Mack and us Q-ites know anything about Jesus, cuz we made him up from the hypothetical Q! And we can blame all that is wrong with human-kind on the wrong turn that Mack was not around to save us from until now!
Mack's method further breaks down the ugly dividing line between scholarship and imagination, and he strikes a great blow for academic freedom-freedom from rigor, judicious analysis, facts, and stuff.
Just one thorny problem. Maybe one of you rave reviewers can explain this to me: We do have evidence both within and outside of the NT that in the years immediately following Jesus' execution a bunch of dudes really did go around proclaiming the "myths" of Jesus' resurrection and divinity-and they suffered ridicule, hardship, torture and death for it. How to explain the behavior of James and Peter and Steven and Paul and others? Why would they make up a Christ "myth" that would just make them greater enemies of the ruling Jewish and Roman elite and gain them even more lively humiliation, torture and execution than if they just said Jesus was a reforming Essene with strong public speaking skills? People make up stories for gain, not for ridicule, torture, and execution. (Ouch!) So, these cats must have actually believed their own rap. So . . . let's add it up. On the one hand we have a historical record of first-generation martyrs loudly proclaiming their beliefs regarding the divine nature of Jesus, and on the other hand we have no historical record of the Q-ites whose beliefs in the hip anti-establishment kind of Jesus just happen to match perfectly those of the ever creative Burton Mack. I wonder . . . who's generating the myths here-an early lunatic conspiracy of guys with an inexplicable death wish, or Mack?
Help me out! How can I invent my own Jesus when Paul and Peter and those guys that were around at the time got martyred for proclaiming their Jesus? Can we make up Q-ites that were prior even to Jesus, or maybe a Jesus who was prior to Jesus? The "real Jesus" unknown even to Jesus and his followers? Well, I am sure we can think of something. After all, there are so many who have devoted their lives to the task of coming up with a cool Jesus-like, a Jesus who says it's okay to do whatever seems cool, like sleep around even. (After all, isn't that about the main source of everyone's beef today with the Jesus we've had for the last twenty centuries?) Well, with so much at stake, I am sure some of Mack's buddies out at Claremont will come up with something.
Rating:
Summary: Too Many Conclusions and too Little Evidence
Review: Most of Mack's book deals with the question of when early Christian documents first appeared, who wrote them (individual or community of origin), (sometimes) why the author wrote the book, and how the person or community of origin understood, thought about, and used the document. This had the potential to be a book of great utility, but Mack states very definitive conclusions about controversial topics, often on the basis of limited evidence. Moreover, he generally fails to inform the reader of the wide range of scholarly opinions on the subjects at issue. These shortcomings detract from the book. For example, Mack dates the four Canonical Gospels as follows: Mark (~75 CE), Matthew (~85 CE), John (~100 CE), and Luke (~120 CE). Aside from a detailed, and non-controversial, presentation on why Mark was the earliest of the four, Mack provides only a limited basis for understanding either his relative or absolute dating of the other three. Similarly, he fails to mention that most scholars date John as the latest of the four and that a few date Matthew as being later than Luke. He also fails to mention the wide range of dates assigned to each of the four Gospels by various scholars. For example, many Christian scholars date Luke to about 60 CE, whereas secular scholars assign dates of anywhere from 75 to 130. Moreover, most Christian scholars date all four Gospels to 90 CE or earlier, whereas some secular scholars think that all four of them appeared after 90 CE. I think that Mack also concludes far too much, and too strongly, about the communities of origin for the four Gospels. It gets worse with regard to some non-Canonical books. For example, Mack spends a fair amount of time on "Q", the hypothetical "sayings source" allegedly used by the authors of Matthew and Luke. (The theory here is that Matthew and Luke had two primary sources, Mark and Q.) According to Mack, Q originated around 50 or 55 CE (before any surviving Christian documents aside from some of Paul's letters). He then proceeds to draw very strong conclusions about the contents and organization of Q, about the nature of the community that produced it (e.g., how they thought of Jesus), and about how they used Q. Mack also asserts that Luke was much more faithful to the structure of Q than was Matthew. Wow! To begin with, some reputable scholars, although a minority, think that Q never existed. No fragment of Q has ever been found, and no surviving ancient document makes any reference to it. However, let us assume that Q once existed. If we further assume that: 1) Matthew and Luke each had exactly two written sources, namely Mark and Q, and 2) Matthew and Luke both incorporated all of Q, then it would be possible to conclude that Q consists of material found in both Matthew and Luke, but not in Mark. However, this putative Q material appears in somewhat different order in Matthew and Luke. It is hard to see how one could determine which of the two was more faithful to the structure of Q. It is also hard to see how one could determine whether Q originated before or after Mark. Moreover, suppose that Matthew and Luke each used 90% of Q. In this case, it would be possible for 85% of Q to appear in both Matthew and Luke, 5% to appear only in Matthew, 5% to appear only in Luke, and 5% to be lost. There is some Matthew-only and some Luke-only material. Maybe this consists in part of Q extracts that did not make it into both Matthew and Luke. One could list numerous other examples of this sort.
Rating:
Summary: The author is too dogmatic with his views.
Review: Mr Mack has his views but doesn't allow for differing opinions. It is his belief that the authors of the Gospels tailored their writings for their audience and copied from earlier authors. It just may be possible that the Gospel author's individuality and writing style was the determinant. Mack never allows for the possibilty that the stories about Jesus might be true and not myths.
Rating:
Summary: The book is speculative but plausible.
Review: Mr. Mack is certainly willing to state his opinions, and let the chips fall where they may. I have to admire that. The smallest clues are all that we have to how these books were writen, and Mr. Mack has done a fine job of combing the texts, and the few other sources, for these clues, and builds an impressive and self consistent ediface upon them. There are a lot of rather frail twigs supporting it here and there, but it is still better than an unexamined assumption of divine dictation. As well as a healthy dose of opinion, I found a lot of facts here I haven't come across elsewhere.
Rating:
Summary: Pseudo-scholarship, but interesting
Review: Richard Elliot Friedman's "Who Wrote the Bible" was a masterpiece of scholarship that painted a vibrant portrait of the political intrigue that resulted in the creation of the Old Testament. Despite a similar title, Mack's "Who Wrote the New Testament" is none of those things.
One problem is that Mack's interpretations of Paul's writings seem incredibly unfounded. Paul's writings are the earliest we have, so they should give us the best insights. For example, Paul's description of the ritual of Communion indicate that the idea of a Last Supper existed early in the church. Mack dismisses this notion by claiming Paul's description is symbolic of a basic meal. Paul also indicates that Jesus was a martyr. Mack ignores this and claims Mark developed the whole crucifixion idea. Based on Paul's disagreements with church leaders, Mack claims that Paul circumvented them and created his own theology--despite the fact that some of Jesus' original followers were still alive and able to dispute him! And speaking of church leaders, Mack makes the claim that Peter was not a member of "the twelve" (apostles) that Paul mentions. This is a valid if highly debatable theory, but Mack simply ASSUMES it as if it were on par with the idea that men need air to breathe!
But the biggest problem is the hypothetical document of Q. Mark's Gospel, the first written, contains very little of Jesus' teachings. Matthe and Luke used Mark's story line but included teachings in their Gospels. The teachings they included are so similar that scholars believe the writers must have shared a common source. This source has been nicknamed Q. There is no hard evidence that Q ever existed--it is merely the most logical conclusion.
That Q is a hypothetical document doesn't faze Mack. He actually claims that the material in Luke should be viewed as a virtual copy of the original material in Q. He assumes that Luke copied the ENTIRE document, IN ORDER, and WITHOUT ADDING OR MODIFYING ANYTHING. He either realizes the weakness of this contention or views it as obvious, because he certainly doesn't bother to explain it in any detail. (Even "The Lost Gospel" is lacking in this regard.) With that settled, though, Mack claims it is possible to dissect Q and define several separate stages in the original "Jesus movement." It is this movement that Mack uses as a basis for all his other assertions in the book. (It should also be noted that Mack does not spend much time discussing Q, as he wrote a previous book on the subject: "The Lost Gospel". That book however, does little to support Mack's theories.)
Does this sound pretentious? Ben Witherington thought so. In his book "The Jesus Quest" he rightly blasts Mack and his contemporaries for treating the known Gospels so flippantly while elevating documents such as Q to a status on par with the writings of Josephus.
To be sure, "Who Wrote the New Testament" has some fascinating theories, but that's all they are: theories. And it doesn't help that Mack's prose is occasionally dull enough to put a mummy to sleep. In fact, the first thirty pages or so make for an awfully hard read for someone just wondering who actually wrote the Gospel of Luke. (Actually, anyone looking for a list of names in answer to the title question will be sorely disappointed.)
All in all, this isn't a BAD book; it just isn't a very good one. It's fine for getting a new perspective, and it will surely be embraced by those seeking to destroy Christianity, but the arguments aren't strong enough to hold up against Mack's opponents, so apologists need not worry about losing any of the faithful because of this.
Anyone caught in the middle, wondering if this Jesus business is for real, will probably find this and Mack's other books a waste of time. Maybe there simply isn't enough information available to answer the burning questions. But if the answers are out there, waiting to be found, it seems almost certain that Mack is not the person who will make the discovery.
Rating: 
Summary: Fabulous fables and garbled Gospels
Review: Since the Higher Criticism efforts in the late 19th Century, biblical researchers have probed deeply into the origins of Scriptural texts. Contributions from archaeology and other disciplines have added new information on the times and places dealt with in biblical texts. Burton Mack, in a sweeping study of the foundations of the Christian myth, offers an in-depth analysis of the progress of the movement. He also broadens the scope of view by placing its growth in a wider social context. Not a "serious" academic tome, Mack has produced a study for a wide readership. He gives us a better understanding of the roots and development of the book considered so fundamental in many people's lives. With astute insights presented in lively style, he has offered much for reflection.
Wisely side-stepping the historical validity of Jesus, Mack follows the foundation and likely development of the way one man's teachings became a global movement. Whether Jesus actually lived is insignificant beside how stories of his life and ideas were promulgated. Mack carefully depicts the socio-political scenario in which the Jesus story took root. Palestine's population had undergone severe disruptions in recent times. At the time of Jesus, the Jews, either exiled or conquered, had suffered various dislocations, although the worst was yet to come. During the period under Alexander's domination, many Greek ideas permeated Palestine, including various scholastic practices. These, Mack points out, would have strong impact on how the Jesus story was developed and spread. It also increased the toil of scholars struggling to understand who wrote what and when they did it. Students often composed essays in the name of some emminant scholar as a means of demonstrating their comprehension of the material.
From an analysis of text styles, Mack derives the existence of a series of "Jesus movements", several being located in northern Palestine. These "Q" documents are teachings attributed to Jesus, with no biographical description. They could be the ideas of one or more thinkers of the time and locality, but are generally accepted as being from one teacher. The "Q" texts were incorporated into the Mark account, then embellished - the earliest of the Christian "Gospels". Mack notes that unlike the "Q" writings which were closer in time to any actual events, the later "Gospel" authors implied they were witnesses to them. This, of course, along with the many "miracles" related by these writers, was pure fiction, as Mack stresses.
The progressive writings making up the "Gospels" transformed the "Jesus movements" into the "Christ cults". Instead of merely an inspired teacher, Jesus now becomes a divine being. The level of divinity - "from" the deity, "of" the deity, or actually the deity was different according to the author[s] location and proclivities. This disparity is the foundation for the multitude of "heresies" arising in later centuries. The various "Christ cults" were adapted to suit the locality Christians inhabited. In seeking converts, a different approach might be used for Jews than for gentiles, Romans than for Greeks. Making Christianity attractive to its foundations, the Jewish epic, was a particularly daunting task. Calling a man who had no discernible record of godly manifestations a "messiah" outraged Jews. Another tack had to be found. The scheme adopted was the projection of Jesus as the reason for creation. These strategies relied on different writings for authority. Mack traces the changes in outlook with patient skill - it's an immense task. Writers, teachers, historians and philosophers are thoroughly intermixed in creating and modifying the "Holy Book". Unravelling is a challenge to the finest intellect.
The admixture of so many contributions of such varying basis demanded unravelling. It is unlikely there would be a "bible" or even such singular Christianity as there is without the accident of Constantine. His "conversion", incomplete as it was, came with his elevation to Emperor. That immense power led him to quell the continuing internecine dissent among his Christian population by having one scholar, Eusebius, collect and merge the existent writings into one volume. The result was the bible available today. With the stamp of Imperial approval, Mack notes, Christianity was free to follow where Rome led.
One place it led to, of course, is Mack's North American audience. In his conclusion, he urges all who revere this book to look at it realistically. He is scathing in his description of those who "turn the crank 'round and 'round" to justify actions or policies with citations from the book. This "quoting scripture" for selfish purposes has a special role in America, he notes. Using Christian mythology to justify actions in a multicultural world is fallacious and dangerous, he feels [the irony of recent events fulfilling this stance is staggering]. This book is a true resource and will stimulate further research and discussion for years. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]
|
