Leaving Anhedonia

Study of Hyam Maccoby’s The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity, Chapter 8, Paul and Stephen

HM begins by saying Paul must be represented as a Pharisee before his conversion to be consistent with the NT’s propaganda of the Pharisees being horrible people who were against Jesus. Secondly, if Paul was a Pharisee, then he has more credibility as the “great interpreter of Jesus.”

But for HM, the evidence shows that Paul was a hack working for Sadduccee High Priest, an opponent of the Pharisees. 

Furthermore, the Jesus Movement had no doctrines that would have brought persecution from the Pharisees (73). 

Yet Stephen was put to death before Paul’s conversion. But for HM, the death of Stephen “reveals many unhistorical features” contrived by the author of Acts “for the purpose of providing a link between Paul and Jesus” (73). 

In both the trial of Stephen and Jesus, once an old charge is “forgotten,” a new charge is made up, “ad hoc,” so that the defendant is found guilty on the new charge made up during trial, not the original charge. “This travesty of legal procedure” would not be tolerated by the Jews; rather, it’s fiction designed to demonize the Jews (77). 

In contrast, during Peter’s trial, he was defended by Gamaliel with fairness. “Why should those ‘trials’ have been so different from the trial of Peter that unanimous hostility and intolerance was shown toward Jesus’ Messianic claims, and Sephen’s trial degenerated into a lynching?” (78). 

In the trials of Jesus and Stephen, a political charge was history, but the biblical writers edited the charges to be religious for the sake of their anti-Jewish propaganda (78).

Study of Hyam Maccoby’s The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity, Chapter 7, Alleged Rabbinical Style in Paul’s Epistles

Maccoby makes the claim that Paul’s elevation of Jesus to divine status was for the Pharisees a “reversion to paganism” (62). 

The Jews saw their own anointed kings as humans. 

We read, “The religious outlook of Paul’s letters was thus shocking to Jews, but familiar to non-Jewish members of the Hellenistic culture” (63).

In this chapter, Maccoby argues that Paul’s uses sloppy syllogisms in his argumentation that does not reflect Pharisee training (64). 

In HM’s eyes, Paul is a hack using fraudulent, botched Pharisaic logic to appear to be a Pharisee scholar (68). 

In this regard, Paul is less a theologian and more of a “mythogogue,” a mythmaker. 

Study of Hyam Maccoby’s The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity,Chapter 6, Was Paul a Pharisee?

Maccoby begins: “It was Paul who detached Jesus from his mission of liberation and turned him into an otherworldly figure whose mission had no relevance to politics or to the sufferings of his fellow Jews under the Romans. This transformation had the effect of making the Jews, instead of the Romans, responsible for Jesus’ crucifixion.” This made the Jews “the pariahs of Christendom” (50). 

Paul’s portrait of Jews as enemies of God “would have filled Jesus with horror and dismay.” So for Maccoby, Jesus and Paul are not united in the creation of a religion; they are diametrically apart. 

Maccoby wants to show “fundamental accord” between Pharisees and Jesus. For one, in Acts the Sadducean party persecutes Peter and other Jesus followers, not the Pharisees (51). 

Further, a prominent Pharisee Gamaliel supports the apostles “as members of a Messianic movement directed against Rome” (52). 

Maccoby also asks if Gamaliel and other Pharisees were so “lenient” toward the Jesus apostles, why was Paul “breathing fire and thunder against the followers of Jesus and hauling them off to the prison from which Gamaliel wanted them released?” (54). 

The Nazarenes, we read, were orthodox Jews. 

We also read that Luke used historical sources for his biblical writings, so his narratives clash with the anti-Jewish ones found elsewhere (56). 

We also read that Paul worked for the High Priest, a job that could not be occupied by a Pharisee (59). 

We further read that the Ebionites didn’t see Paul as a Pharisee or even a Jew (60). 

Study of Hyam Maccoby’s The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity, Chapter 5, Why Was Jesus Crucified?

Maccoby begins: “If Jesus was a Pharisee, made no claim that was blasphemous, and never attempted to abolish the sabbath or any other accepted Jewish religious institution, why was he crucified?”

The biblical narrative of Jesus’ crucifixion is directed by Paul, the author argues. 

Salvation must be received by a blood sacrifice, prompted by the Jews, who Paul paints as an evil force, rejecting the light of Christ.

In truth, Jesus was considered a threat to the Romans. This threat is why others like Jesus were crucified (46). 

Only the gospel of John shows Jesus as being blasphemous, but the author argues John is the last and “least authentic” of all the gospels (48). 

We read that Jesus’ religious views could not be separated from political ones during that time, so the Romans perceived him as a threat. 

Study of Hyam Maccoby’s The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity, Chapter 4, Was Jesus a Pharisee

Reading Hyam Maccoby’s book is no joke, for me at least. I feel like my eternal soul is at stake: If Maccoby is wrong, I’m screwed, so to speak.

Maccoby is making significant claims against Christianity: Its founder, Paul, is a fraud who threw Jews under the bus to aggrandize and empower himself in part and to resolve his emotional conflicts. The New Testament writers also go back and edit the Jesus stories to make the Pharisees and the Jews in generals the evil force that forces the sacrifice of Jesus so that mankind can have a blood sacrifice and be okay with God, a salvific template, Maccoby argues, Paul borrows from other cults. 

If Maccoby is correct, then to follow orthodox Christianity is to follow a fake religion that is guilty of antisemitism. If he is incorrect and it is orthodox Christianity that is right, then one who is persuaded by Maccoby could be damning his soul.

So like I said, grappling with Maccoby’s book is no joke. 

Now let us proceed with Chapter 4. 

Maccoby says the NT is a fraud: Jesus did not criticize the Pharisees. They were “an enlightened, progressive movement.” Jesus was himself a Pharisee.

The author says the Gospels suffer from “re-editing” so that the Pharisees are demonized. As an example, a “friendly exchange” between Jesus and  a lawyer in Mark becomes chilly by the time it’s retold in Matthew. 

Furthermore, much of what Jesus teaches, such as Love thy Neighbor as thyself, is a Pharisee teaching. 

In Chapter 4, we arrive at a major contention: Jesus, painted as anti-Pharisee, is actually a Pharisee; and Paul, who portrays himself as a Pharisee, never was one (33). 

For Maccoby, the NT is a smear campaign against the Pharisees. The most probable enemies of Jesus, the author speculates, would be the Sadducees (35, 36). 

Maccoby points out that Jesus’ claim of being Messiah was not blasphemous for many prophets made such a claim, which meant the “anointed one” who claims the throne of Israel. 

That he was condemned by the High Priest evidences that his offenses were political, not religious. 

Maccoby goes on to observe that the law of love should be expressed in the context of rights, and that the Pharisees have been unfairly been painted as being anti-love to Jesus’ love gospel (37). 

Furthermore, Jesus preaching style, his allegories, and “elocutions” were of Pharisees and the Talmud. 

Study of Hyam Maccoby’s The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity, Chapter 3, The Pharisees

One of the most compelling themes throughout The Mythmaker is how New Testament writers, foremost Paul, demonized the Jews to make a new religion. Part of this demonization is a brutal and twisted portrayal of the Pharisees who are shown to be “the chief opponents of Jesus” and plotters to kill him. That the Pharisees are unfairly demonized in the NT speaks to how the Pharisees have been a stand-in for Jews in general, and this misrepresentation has contributed to anti-Antisemitism. 

Maccoby and others call this portrayal of the Pharisees propaganda. Pharisees were not severe and hateful biblical literalists; rather, they were “creative” and more benevolent than the NT would have us believe.

They were also tolerant of disagreement and resolved disagreements with majority vote (21).

In spite of their usual tolerance, they did have enmity with the Sadducees, especially their disagreement over the Oral Law, rejected by the Sadducees. Because of this rejection, the Pharisees considered them to be heretics. 

Maccoby paints the Pharisees as more democratic and taking wisdom from all economic classes and believing in “universal education” whereas the Sadducees are more rigidly focused on three things: “the Bible, the Temple, and the priesthood.” As such, the Sadducees were more elitist. They “regarded themselves as defending the status quo against the innovations of the Pharisees.”

We also read that during Jesus’ time, the High Priesthood was corrupt but not held in high regard by the Pharisees who saw the Priesthood as an insignificant part of their theology (27). 

Maccoby ends the chapter by stating that in Chapter 4, he will argue that the NT misrepresents history and the Pharisees in this regard: “In particular, a flood of light can be thrown on the New Testament story by bearing in mind the deep antagonism between the Pharisee movement and the High Priest of that period, not only a Sadducee, but an appointee of the Romans and a quisling collaborator with the Roman power.” 

 

Study of Hyam Maccoby’s The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity, Chapter 2, The Standpoint of This Book

In Chapter 2, Maccoby wants to outline his objectives: explore the role of the Pharisees in the time of Jesus; he wants to contrast Jesus the Jewish Messiah with Paul’s notion of Jesus the Christ; he wants to contrast the early Church of Jerusalem with Pauline doctrine; he wants to explore the Ebionites and their antagonism toward Paul. 

He further outlines six propositions that are the grounds for his claim that Paul is a charlatan who created an anti-Semitic cult. 

Proposition One: Paul was not a Pharisee rabbi, “but an adventurer of undistinguished background” in search of a lofty status. He “deliberately misrepresented his own biography in order to increase the effectiveness of his missionary activities.” 

Proposition Two: Jesus and his followers, unlike Paul, were true Pharisees. They did not wish to create a new religion. This was Paul’s plan. 

Proposition Three: James and Peter were Nazarenes, and they held Pharisee beliefs, “except that they believed in the resurrection of Jesus in the purpose of fulfilling the Torah, not violating it. The Nazarenes and Paul had a rift, and Paul, so to speak, won. 

Proposition Four: Paul was the creator of Christianity by abolishing the Torah. Paul’s religion was a synthesis of Greek mystery cults, Gnosticism, and Judaism. 

Proposition Five: The Ebionites have valuable information about Paul that contradicts what we know about him in the New Testament. The Ebionates “testified that Paul had no Pharisaic background or training; he was the son of Gentiles, converted to Judaism, in Tarsus, came to Jerusalem when an adult, and attached himself to the High Priest as a henchman.”

Proposition Six: The church marginalized the Ebionites as heretics when in fact they are “the authentic successors of the immediate disciples and followers of Jesus, whose views and doctrines they faithfully transmitted, believing correctly that they were derived from Jesus himself.”

My thoughts are this: We can side with orthodox Christianity or Maccoby and find reasons to support our position, but in the end, we are dealing with speculations and faith in our speculations to prop a worldview, which is a reflection of our values. 

If we see Christianity as an anti-Semitic force that appropriates Judaism for its dominance, as Maccoby does, then we will be sympathetic to Maccoby’s analysis and speculations. 

Study of Hyam Maccoby’s The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity, Chapter 1, The Problem of Paul

I keep coming back to Hyam Maccoby’s The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity. For those of us with cognitive bias who cherry pick evidence to conform to our prejudices against the offputting, self-aggrandizing Paul, we have come to the right place in The Mythmaker. A Talmudic scholar, Maccoby sees Paul as an ambitious “adventurer” and “mythogogue” who appropriated Judaism, lied about his alleged Pharisee background, perverted the teachings of Jesus, synthesized Hellensistic religions, Gnosticism, and Judaism for his own personal designs, which he packaged for Rome, and is the inventor of the most widespread, virulent anti-Semitism in recorded history. 

If anyone has a visceral or intuitive dislike of Paul, they will have found a friend in Hyam Maccoby. 

But when a writer develops a narrative that confirms our prejudices, we have to step back and see if the evidence holds up to scrutiny. Is there manipulation being used? Overblown speculation? Unfounded bias? 

I want to explore these questions in a close reading of The Mythmaker to be fair to Paul and because since the age of 17 I’ve been afraid of eternal hell as described by orthodox Christianity. I can’t afford to be wrong, but nor do I want to rest on any faith as “hell insurance,” for such a position never lasts since it is not an authentic conversion. 

The conventional reading of Christianity is that Jesus is the founder and Paul is the interpreter of Jesus the founder. But for Maccoby this is a skewed representation. Paul does not so much interpret the life of Jesus as recreate it and in doing so he creates a schism with the other apostles who wanted to remain in the Jewish realm, as did Jesus. 

But Paul wants to take Jesus outside of Judaism into the Hellenistic mystery cults of sacrifice and atonement through blood. He is willing to demonize the Jews as rejecting his vision but then package his vision to more accepting gentiles, and he has no scruples in forwarding his plan and spreading it across the world. For Paul, his mission is less spiritual and more of an expression of personal power, vaunting ambition, and self-regard. 

Maccoby reminds us that Jesus never knew Paul, but Paul wants to be the primary apostle, towering over the others who actually knew Jesus in the flesh. 

Paul’s “personal inspiration” and visions, he would have us believe, make him the greatest of all the apostles. For all of Paul’s talk about humility and lowering oneself, his whole life is defined by lifting himself while castigating others. 

Maccoby observes that the book of Acts is “a propaganda exercise” which tries to conceal the rift between Paul and the other apostles. 

To be blunt, if Maccoby is correct in his assessment of Paul, then Christianity is a fraudulent religion fabricated by a malignant, ruthlessly ambitious personality who packaged his cult to the Roman world first and then to the world’s gentiles all of whom usurped the Jewish religion for their own customized faith while demonizing the people who evolved within the traditions of Judaism, a sensible spiritual orientation that contrasts deeply with the anti-life, anti-sex, anti-Semitic, pro-hell Pauline cult.

Such a claim must be examined closely.  

In Chapter 1, The Problem of Paul, Maccoby raises two questions: “what would Jesus have thought of Paul, and what did the Apostles think of him?”

Maccoby makes it clear that even though the New Testament begins with the Four Gospels about Jesus, it is actually Paul’s writings that dominate and that precede the Gospels. Paul is the director of the entire New Testament: “This means that the theories of Paul were already before the writers of the Gospels and coloured their interpretations of Jesus’ activities. Paul is, in a sense, present from the very first word of the New Testament.”

Paul’s influence, Maccoby points out, is at odds with other traditions and sources that remain “and give valuable indications of what the story was like before Paulinist editors pulled it into final shape.” 

There were rival interpretations, but they were dismissed as heretical by the orthodox establishment at the time. 

Paul’s dominance, Maccoby writes, accounts for “the puzzling and ambiguous role given in the Gospels to the companions of Jesus, the twelve disciples.” Paul has successfully become the main apostle while marginalizing others. He has even reshaped Jesus into a Greek myth, the Christos, a divine being much different than a Jewish messiah figure. 

In Chapter 1, Maccoby asks the question: “Who, then, was Paul?” He argues that the epistles and the book of Acts must be looked at with skepticism in light of all the information we have. 

Maccoby points out that Paul never cites in his letters his birthplace of Tarsus because he wants to downplay that he was born far from Jerusalem, a “powerhouse of Pharisaism.” Paul wants to create the impression that comes “from an unimpeachable Pharisaic background.” 

Maccoby argues that Paul is a fraud; he claims to be a Pharisee but is not. Maccoby is skeptical that Paul studies with the great Pharisee Gamaliel mentioned in Acts, and he raises the question: “was Paul ever really a pupil of Gamaliel or was this claim made by Luke as an embellishment to his his narrative?”

Maccoby also criticizes Paul for claiming to be a Pharisee who at the same time worked for the High Priest in his persecution of early Christians when in fact the High Priest worked for the Sadducees, who “were bitterly opposed to the Pharisees.”

Paul emphasizes his alleged Pharisee background to “stress the alleged continuity between Judaism and Pauline Christianity.” 

This of course is the great debate of Western History, and it is the final question of Chapter 1: “Did Paul truly stand in the Jewish tradition, or was he a person of basically Hellenistic religious type, but seeking to give a colouring of Judaism to a salvation cult that was really opposed to everything that Judaism stood for?”

What can we make of Maccoby’s skepticism of Paul’s self-portrait? On one hand, we can argue that Maccoby makes an acute observation of Paul’s inconsistencies and malignant personality profile and shows how Paul doesn’t square with the other apostles and with history. But as a rebuttal, we can argue that Maccoby doesn’t have any definitive proof. He is merely speculating based on his character assessment of Paul. 

In other words, his picture of Paul is subjective, colored by Maccoby’s intense dislike of a figure who Maccoby sees as a malignant force of anti-Semitism. 

Truth be told, the Pauline religion has done a great deal to demonize the Jews, so Maccoby stands on some firm ground here.