Jeffrey J. Bütz

I originally gave a higher rating for this book. Being one of those that Butz termed an 'outsider', that is someone who is not reading this from a practicing Christian point of view, I thought it was refreshing to read a work on the origins of Christianity, that to me was quite obvious. I am referring to the original teachings of Jesus, and the distortions contributed by the Pauline church.

Butz does many things well. For one, the book is very readable. He builds his arguments patiently, summarizes his points well, and is most willing to take some non-traditional stances. He makes abundant uses of third party scholarship and quotes directly.

However, I began to deduct stars as some things began to wear on me. For starters, Butz uses only Christian scholars and does not make use of those who have made substantial contributions to the field but are not Christian. As a result, Butz accepts much of the gospels and early Christian writings as factual. One point that particularly gnawed on me, was how he constantly repeated that Jesus predicted the destruction of the Temple while not once mentioning that the Temple was destroyed prior to the writing of any of the gospels. He also does not mention that the Books of James and Jude, and some of the later letters of Paul were forged, and the pseudonyms were commonly used during that period.

He also had a weak sense of the history of the time. He refers to the Catholic church in the 3rd and 4th centuries, a period where many scholars prefer the term 'proto-orthodoxy', and Rome was competing with other Christian centers, namely Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople for ascendency and was often on the outside. The council at Nicea did not confirm Christian doctrine, but was the start of 2 centuries of conflict within the church.

Lastly, after so much effort in pointing out the divergence between Christian Judiasm and Pauline Christianity, Butz bails in his conclusions, attempting to reconcile the two theologies, and stating that the latter still faithfully reports the original message of Jesus. I would have preferred Butz heading in the other direction. How did James view the resurrection of Jesus and his subsequent divinity? The conclusion there may be quite startling.

Still, despite my reservations, I would recommend this book as it does contain some good information. However, someone who is well read on the subject will get a different reaction than someone who is new to early Christian history.… (mere)