Provides an excellent explanation of vegan nutrition. Tables compare the relative nutrient densities of common plant foods. Reviews the degenerative diseases and other risks associated with animal-based diets.

Please do not pursue this book as a source of Ebionite thought. The book is worth reading with a certain understanding. Firstly, it is an apologetic book for vegetarianism with a religious "seal of approval" applied. Secondly, it has a very useful bibliography (yet, Keith fails to heed the sources he cites). And thirdly, he does understand some pivotal subjects concerning early Christianity (as opposed to the Yeshuine movement(s)). Last, it ignores Ebionite belief and replaces it with what some late heresiologist (Epiphanius, and subsequent) labelled as "ebionite."

Yet the author's previous loyalty to vegetarianism and non-violence (not bad things in themselves which need no biblical coercion) makes him jump at questionable sources identified as "Jewish-Christian" which he lumps all together as "ebionite."

What he fails to understand is that over a period of 300 odd years the Pauline Christian Fathers did the same thing, progressively throwing any non-Pauline, Yeshuine Jewish group into a heretic stew they came to call Ebionite. To go into this stew one only had to be anti-Pauline, believe something positive about Yahshua bar Yosef (Jesus), maintain biblical ("Jewish") observances such as dietary prohibitions and covenantal circumcision, and resist the high christology of the gentile church.

In contrast, the actual Ebionites, also as reflected in earlier Pauline church fathers, were simply Jews following Yahshua's call for a spiritual and socio-economic reform as he interpreted Yahwistic justice in the Torah. He was an Isaiah or Amos of his day. Engaging in that reform would bring about the Reign of Yahweh. None of this required Hellenistic god-men, blood atonements (based on a bizarre gentile re-interpretation of the sacrifice system), virginal origins, or other mythological trappings, but simply doing what he asked his comrades to do.

But inevitably things change with new ingredients. There were gentiles throughout the Roman World (and the East) who had some contact and interest with Judaism. There were almost as many "christianities" as there were regions or cities each with unique ideas and histories. This often included a syncretististic combining of Judaism with paganism which created dozens of Christian and gnostic Christian cults. Pauline Christianity simply became the dominant form while competing views were declared heretics and summarily dispatched. Pagans and Jews were either absorbed or demonized. The anti-Judaism is still part of this ongoing demonization.

Some gentiles who were attracted first to Judaism and later Yeshuine reform veered toward gnosticism by the third century (just as most Christians did) while retaining some Ebionite "Judaic" ideas like the rejection of virgin birth, and a condemnation of Paul of Tarsus while embracing dualistic ideas of gnosticism. Among these ideas are included vegetarianism, and a dim view of anything physical like reproduction (which made its way into Pauline Christianity), and dueling deities (a God versus a Devil as in Zoroastrianism and related Mithraism). The most notorious among these Judaic groups were the Elchasites. Earlier scholars like Lipsius differentiate Ebionites from "Essene-like" Ebionite-Elchasites.

The gnostic Essenic Ebionites, or Elchasites, are fleshed out by Epiphanius and the Pseudo-Clementine literature. This is the source of Mr. Akers' vegetarian, anti-Temple, anti-sacrifice, gnostic, so called Ebionite "Lost Religion" of Jesus. It is from such a fabric that he cuts a very "new age" garment he hangs on "Jesus." In fact, Akers piles up evidence for this religion in an appendix full of quotes from Epiphanius. Yet his own scholarly sources, including the dissertation by Glen Alan Koch (A Critical Investigation of Epiphanius' Knowledge of the Ebionites, 1976), contends that Epiphanius was, to put it mildly, confused, overgeneralizing and borrowing information he did not understand.

Is Akers book worth reading? Perhaps, as long as one does not take it authoritative concerning Ebionites. Akers continues the misled loose categorization of centuries of Judaic, anti-Pauline, Yeshuine groups and thought into a convenient almalgam of "Ebionite" just as Epiphanius incorrectly did.

If one considers that the so-called "lost religion" he describes is a gnostic form of a group of people with some characteristics similar to Ebionites, and how it promoted gnostic vegetarianism, non-violence, non-sacrificial Judaism (a moot point in that post-destruction era), and even its relationship to the rise of Islam, then the book makes some interesting points. An understanding of Evyonut as a Jewish Yeshuine sect is best sought at ebionite.org.

This was an excellent book. I gave it 4 stars for only one reason...the author kept harping on the vegetarian aspect of Jesus and his followers. What's wrong with that? The author has already published another book on vegetarianism...he isn't objective. He used the word "vegetarian" so many times, it was beginning to irritate. If you're position is strong, there is no need to beat someone over the head with it, and that's the feeling I had while reading this book.

In his defense, he makes a very compelling argument for Jesus and his followers being vegetarian. You are going to have to decide for yourself whether you take that as "gospel" or not, no pun intended.

Otherwise, the book is wonderful. I am deep into the study of Jesus from a Jewish perspective, and this book illustrated that side very well. For those of you that study Jewish Christianity, it espouses an Ebionite position.

Overall, I highly recommend this book.

This is a well-researched, straightforward history about the beliefs and practices of the earliest Jewish Christians. The book is a quick and thought-provoking read, especially when dealing with the origins of the New Testament gospels and the motivations of competing groups and individuals to edit or rewrite the texts. There is, for my taste, an overemphasis on vegetarianism as one of the differences between the Jewish Christian groups and the Gentile Christian church established by Paul and others (The back cover lists a Vegetarian Sourcebook as this author's other credit), but this is not a book that strains to prove Jesus was a vegetarian. The author speculates often, but is careful to point out where the historical record is thin and clearly labels fact from hypothesis. Worth a look if you want to start learning what they didn't teach you in Sunday school.