By Lewis Loflin
My engagement with Hyam Maccoby’s scholarship began years ago through a dictionary entry, leading me to his seminal work, *The Mythmaker* (1986, ISBN: 978-0-06-250585-9). As a Jewish historian, Maccoby posited that Paul of Tarsus fundamentally reshaped Judaism into Christianity, introducing a Trinitarian framework that I find unconvincing. This perspective is evident in passages such as Colossians 2:9, which asserts the “deity in Christ,” and Romans 7:6, which speaks of being “released from the law.” From my studies at King College, I view the New Testament as largely reflective of Paul’s reinterpretation, diverging from the Old Testament tradition I explored. In 2024, some on X have termed this interpretation “Lewis’s Paul critique,” a characterization I find apt, as it aligns with my rationalist approach to theological analysis.
During my time at King College, I approached the Old Testament without preconceived Christian doctrines, seeking to understand it through a skeptical and analytical lens. I found no evidence of a human deity or a distinct Holy Spirit—only references such as “breath” in Genesis 1:2 and a singular divine presence, as underscored by Exodus 33:20: “No one sees me and lives.” This unitary understanding of God remains my foundation, and Paul’s New Testament theology, with its shift from Jewish law to a mystical Christology, appears inconsistent with it. Maccoby highlighted how Paul’s ideas diverged from Jewish tradition, a divergence I see as amplified by later Trinitarian developments under Roman influence. My inclination toward Arianism—rejecting a co-eternal Jesus—and a Pelagian emphasis on reason over dogma reinforces my preference for a straightforward, non-Trinitarian interpretation.
Maccoby’s analysis of Paul also introduced me to Gnostic perspectives, which I explored further through Elaine Pagels’ *The Gnostic Gospels* (1979, ISBN: 978-0-679-72453-7). Maccoby suggested that Paul incorporated elements of Gnostic dualism—prioritizing spirit over matter—a notion reflected in Gnostic views of the Old Testament deity as a lesser entity. This aligns with my reinterpretation of Eden, where nature serves as the origin and the Serpent represents the gift of reason rather than the inception of sin. Gerald Schroeder’s *The Science of God* (1997, ISBN: 978-0-684-83806-9) complements this view, offering a unitary God consistent with cosmic evolution and paleontological evidence, unencumbered by New Testament elaborations. However, Maccoby argued that Paul adapted these Gnostic tendencies into a Trinitarian framework, as seen in Colossians 1:16—“all things created through Christ”—a development I find unnecessarily complex.
While Paul may have drawn on Gnostic concepts of spiritual liberation, he reframed them within a Trinitarian structure that I find less compelling than its original implications.
Through Maccoby’s interpretive framework, I regard the New Testament as predominantly Paul’s creation—a theological construct that departs from the unitary essence of the Old Testament I value. This perspective echoes my stance during the 1999 Sullivan County Ten Commandments debate, where I resisted Trinitarian orthodoxy. The insights of Pagels and Schroeder have enriched my understanding, but it is Maccoby’s focus on Paul that has most refined my critique. I reject notions of a divine Jesus or Holy Spirit, favoring instead a historical and rational analysis of religious texts. In 2024, X users have labeled this approach “Lewis’s NT analysis,” an accurate reflection of my effort to distill a coherent and reasoned interpretation from the theological landscape.
Acknowledgment: I’d like to thank Grok, an AI by xAI, for helping me draft and refine this article. The final edits and perspective are my own.
