The AD 50s Paul is Outdated: The Post 70 AD Creation of the Biblical Paul! | John Andrew MacDonald

[Internet Infidels]

The AD 50s Paul is Outdated: The Post 70 AD Creation of the Biblical Paul! | John Andrew MacDonald

Watch on Youtube

---

---

In this nearly two hour interview, join History Valley Podcast host Jacob Berman as he interviews Internet Infidels President John MacDonald about his synthesis of the evidence from biblical scholarship supporting Nina Livesey’s thesis that the letters attributed to Paul were not written by Paul—and indeed that a historical Paul might have never have existed at all.

---

[ History Valley Podcast | The Post-70 AD Creation of the Biblical Paul | Author: John MacDonald | II Videos Catagory ]

 

[Swammerdami]

Watch on Youtube

In this nearly two hour interview, join History Valley Podcast host Jacob Berman as he interviews Internet Infidels President John MacDonald about his synthesis of the evidence from biblical scholarship supporting Nina Livesey’s thesis that the letters attributed to Paul were not written by Paul—and indeed that a historical Paul might have never have existed at all.

I didn't watch all 2 hours, but give me some credit: I watched 36 minutes at the end of which the following argument is made:
"Would the average reader have a clue what Paul was talking about [in the quote which follows] unless they had the gospels as a background?"

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

In ANY reconstruction which treats Jesus as historical, the myth -- if that's what it was -- of the empty tomb and resurrection began within a very few years of Jesus' crucifixion, and was central to the early church. Read Bishop Spong, for example, to see how the resurrection myth transformed a few scattered and demoralized disciples into a team of inspired proselytizers.

Stipulate for the sake of argument that "the canonical gospels were written several decades after Jesus' death" but it does NOT follow that the key facts or myths weren't known until after 70 AD.

Maybe the key facts and myths were related orally, maybe -- probably -- there were early accounts written on papyrus which have not survived, but it is quite far-fetched to imagine that these stories didn't exist at all until after 70 AD! In fact, we know, for example, that a Christian cult was active in Rome circa 60 AD: so active that Nero felt a need to persecute those "Christians."

I won't attempt any point-by-point summary of the YouTube (and I left 72 minutes unwatched) but this confusion -- that Jesus' story didn't exist until the "gospels" were written at least a half-century after his death -- caught my eye.

 

[Swammerdami]

I watched 36 minutes at the end of which the following argument is made:
"Would the average reader have a clue what Paul was talking about [in the quote which follows] unless they had the gospels as a background?"

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

In ANY reconstruction which treats Jesus as historical, the myth -- if that's what it was -- of the empty tomb and resurrection began within a very few years of Jesus' crucifixion, and was central to the early church. Read Bishop Spong, for example, to see how the resurrection myth transformed a few scattered and demoralized disciples into a team of inspired proselytizers.

Stipulate for the sake of argument that "the canonical gospels were written several decades after Jesus' death" but it does NOT follow that the key facts or myths weren't known until after 70 AD.

Maybe the key facts and myths were related orally, maybe -- probably -- there were early accounts written on papyrus which have not survived, but it is quite far-fetched to imagine that these stories didn't exist at all until after 70 AD! In fact, we know, for example, that a Christian cult was active in Rome circa 60 AD: so active that Nero felt a need to persecute those "Christians."

The Christian cult(s) spread very rapidly after Jesus' death, with stories in the Gospels -- especially the Resurrection myth -- central to that rapid growth. Knowledge of key facts (or fictions) in Jesus' story preceded the final edits of the canonical Gospels.

No refutation or counter-argument? I think therefore we should take it as a given that my argument is correct.

 

[Swammerdami]

I enjoy taking a look at historical mysteries. Often it is the minority position (the "conspiracy theory") which appeals to me. The fact that the works of Shakespeare were actually written by Edward de Vere is a fascinating conclusion reached by copious evidence. At some point the excitement that this mystery has been solved is drowned out by the wonder of WHY so many "scholars" remain willfully ignorant and refuse to accept the obvious.

So naturally I read with interest threads here that claim Jesus was purely mythical, or that Paul "the Evangelist" wrote his letters long AFTER the date of his alleged death. But I've yet to see anything that offers real support to these "conspiracy theories."

I've already disposed of the peculiar idea that Paul's knowledge (albeit skimpy) of Jesus' alleged biography implies that he read biographies (Gospels) in texts from after 70 AD. (And note that Paul never implies knowledge of the Temple's destruction, which is used to date the Gospels.)

Nobody has summarized the video cited in #1 of this thread, but I watched enough to know that the other major "evidence" used for the peculiar dating was a brief excerpt from the writings of Saint Jerome of Stridon (ca 345 - 420). Look at those dates! He lived about 3½ centuries AFTER Paul (or 3 centuries after Paul even with the peculiar chronology). Not exactly the sort of contemporary historian that scholars covet!

And anyway, Jerome's writings viewed in their totality do NOT adhere to the "conspiracy theory." Elsewhere he DOES connect Paul to the accepted chronology. IIUC the confusing passage about Paul of Gischala is just one example of self-contradictions and confused hearsay that abound in Jerome's writings.

What am I missing? I understand why some people have a vested interest in the Stratford Authorship myth. But whence cometh the need to reject the history of early Christianity?