Rating: 
Summary: A perspective worthy of consideration.
Review: The author makes no secret of his views on the accuracy and validity of the New Testament as we know it. This is not a casual commentary, as his views are well thought out and documented. Whether one chooses to agree with Mack's conclusions or not, it provides valuable information and insight on how the Bible may have become what it is. He puts social issues, motives, personalities, and human nature on the table -- something that Christians are not normally subjected to in religious training. While those of us who are Christians may bristle at his conclusions, many of them will be difficult to discount. This is a must-read for those Christians who can be enriched by opposing views, rather than shun and discount them out of hand.
Rating: 
Summary: Big Disappointment
Review: The subtitle of Who Wrote the New Testament? is "The Making of the Christian Myth." OK, I said, I'm ready to deal with a doubter, as long as he provides some good scholarship on the subject. What a disappointment; in no way is this good scholarship. With nary a footnote, Mack spins an entire book of scenarios and suppositions out of thin air. He has written a work of fiction, not of history or theology.Burton Mack opens his book by saying that he will not address the history of Jesus' life because almost nothing is known about him. He thus ignores the great volume of work that draws on sources outside the New Testament itself that indicate in the strongest terms that Jesus really lived and that the gospels are essentially true. See for example The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ by Gary R. Habermas, in which the author demonstrates that aside from the Roman emperors, no life of the period is better documented than that of Jesus. Mack's reason for avoiding the evidence soon becomes clear. The book is of the "postmodern" genre that says there is no such thing as objective truth, that every "text" just reflects the economic and social interests of the writer. Mack never says so, but it is clear from page 1 that he is an atheist who immediately discounts any possibility that God exists, or that Creation, miracles, or any other "supernatural" events have ever occurred. Needless to say, Mack scoffs at the very idea of Jesus's resurrection. Mack looks at Christianity as might an anthropologist who finds an odd cult among some remote tribe in the Amazon. He pays no heed to the immense history and scholarship that is available on the subject. He never comes to grips with the real issues. Mack's final chapter is a diatribe about how modern white Americans use Christianity to enslave and dominate the rest of the world. The fact that most non-white Americans are active Christians, as well as hundreds of millions of people in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, not to mention many civilizations over the past 2,000 years - none of this matters when Mack's preconceptions are at work. Read something else instead of this book.
Rating:
Summary: Anti-Christian but plausible
Review: The writer gives his view of what he believes the scenario that took place in the making of the New testament. It is clear that the writer has certain convictions. However, his view shows the weakness in the historical information of that period , which enabled him to make an alternative scenario of that period of history (depending on the available information,) for what some might imagine as the "gospel truth."
Rating: 
Summary: Who died and made you Quelle?
Review: There are inspiring books for Christians, extremely well reasoned books for atheists and stunning works of scholarship. This is none of the above. Mack is intelligent, unlike his unintelligible prose but he's one of the lesser luminaries of Higher Criticism and not without cause. The book falls apart on page 47--assuming you can stay awake till then--when Mack begins his thesis, or rather his proclamations based on 'Q' . In case anyone's not aware,'quelle' (source) or as most commonly called 'Q', is a hypothetical document which most scholars believe existed, and from which Matthew and Luke took all the material they agreed upon--some of it verbatim--that does not coincide with the Gospel of Mark. (There are passages in Mark that are also found in Matthew and Luke,-they're not called synoptic for nothing-- but that's another story.) Although the segments assumed to be from 'Q' in Mathew and Luke are ONLY PART of their gospels; they are the only reliable and legitimate portion of their gospels, indeed of The New Testament. The rest is fabrication according to Mack and I wish he'd tell us why, but he doesn't bother. He aserts, he doesn't reason.
He goes on about Q1, Q2 and Q3 with little explanation. The reader might be left with the impression that these were actual archeological findings (EXTRA! Q3 found beneath Troy 5!) rather like the Gospel of Thomas--which Mack mixes in with Q as well along with "the community of Q"--whoever they were or may be. As usual, he's not clear. However, he does present his philosophy with some lucidity, though we have to wait for the final chapters to hear it. Briefly: 1. The Bible is so malleable to interpretation that anyone can quote scripture to prove any far fetched nonsense without additional support. (True enough, he got through doing just that for 300 pages) 2. The Bible has been misused to rob less technologically advanced (He can't bring himself to say 'primitive'--not PC enough) peoples of their culture-- which presumably was quite ethical --Mack is particularly miffed at his own people being 'converted at the point of a sword.' (Given that his people are Swedes and I can't think of 3 notable Swedes off the top of my head, I guess I have to to concur as to their primitive and exploited status) 3.Contradicting himself by rhapsodising about the wonders of The Enlightenment while bemoaning the horror of Western Civilisation (Well, I thought The Enlightenment began in France, guess it must have been Madagascar) Mack ends by making a plea for multiculturalism. Which is Ok by me, though I'm uncertain what that has to do with Biblical scholarship. This is not atheism or agnosticism , it's Rousseau's 'Noble Savage' from a patronizing Scandanavian, no less. Did I say Roussau? Make it Rousseau Lite.
Rating:
Summary: a must for any student of religion
Review: this book is an absolute must for anyone interested in religion and for those who question the validity of christianity's claim of infallibility. It reveals the making of the christian myth. highly recommended...sam wein
Rating:
Summary: It works for the simple minded
Review: This book would be laughable were it not for an audience of extraordinary ignorance that laps it up.
Rating:
Summary: Enthralling! Highly persuasive and very informative.
Review: This is a first rate scholarly analysis of the origins of the Christian myth. It is, however, accessible to the lay person. The arguments are presented in a dispassionate, intelligent and logical manner. For those who are not the prisoners of fanaticism, this is a very enlightening discussion. I personally did not need to be convinced, but the book gave me a wealth of information that I did not possess. NOTA BENE: Not for the fundamentalist. I am looking forward to reading other works for the author. Kudos!
Rating: 
Summary: A Good Read But....
Review: This is a well researched book. However, one must really be interested in this subject for at times it reads more like a textbook. Overall, a good read.
Rating: 
Summary: Eye opener...
Review: To me, the prologue is a great summary of the details given later in the book. After reading it, it dawned on me that the New Testament wasn't written by God, Jesus, or, for the most part, by the apostles. It was written by mere mortals years (and in some cases centuries) after the event.
It's a wonder that our culture makes so much of something that was written by men and their interpretation of "the word of God". Is it that it's presented to the masses as having been faxed from heaven ?
By the way, why didn't Jesus write his teaschings himself ? Why depend on mortal beings with their agandas and petty jealousies ?
Rating:
Summary: To Reitierate:
Review: To quote one reveiwer here: "Certainly, as the number of publications emerging from Jesus Seminar draw attack from conservative seminaries, such apparatus will become essential, popular audience or no. Nonetheless, this is an important book; a must-read for any student of the New Testament." While a few of the author's assertions raised my eyebrows, never the less it is a well thought out piece and a worthy read. As for critics of the dating sequence of the gospels, etc.; well, there is hardly a consensus among scholars on that issue. What is important about this read is the historical backdrop of the Greek and Roman world and the info related concerning the intellectual climate of the time period and how literature was written and devised by scholars of the ancient world ... Mack's knowledge in this area provides elucidating material to say the least.
| 
