Study Version of Edwin Johnson's "The Pauline Epistles

Home (theory of the ego death and rebirth experience)

The Pauline Epistles - Re-Studied and Explained

Edwin Johnson, M.A., 1894

Formerly Professor of Classical Literature in New College,
S. Hampstead: Author of "Antiqua Mater: A Study of
Christian Origins," "The Rise of Christendom," and others.

Study Version

Updated presentation and editing by Michael Hoffman, 2003.

Why everyone should read this book

This 100-page book from 1894 shows that:

· The Paul figure was a literary invention from the 1500's

· The purportedly early Church Father writings were literary inventions of the 1500's

· Eusebius' Church History was written in the 1500's.

· The Gospels were written in the 1500's.

· No Cathedrals are ancient; they are from the early part of the modern period, such as 1400.

· We don't know how many centuries actually lie between the time of Augustus Caesar and the modern era -- the time of the Roman Empire is likely several centuries closer. The Radical Critic Hermann Detering pointed out to Uwe Topper that Johnson anticipates Illig, Topper, and the New Chronology. The New Chronology holds that the Dark Ages -- the years 600-900 -- didn't exist; for example, the year 911 is the year 614, relabelled, with later historians projecting fantasy events into the phantom 300-year period that never existed, as though I claimed there were 300 years between now and now, filled with all sorts of literary inventions. Johnson goes even further, writing "It has been said that Greek letters were silenced in Italy during about the period "700-1400" of our chronology. The statement is really without meaning, for the period is imaginary." Uwe Topper was amazed to discover the present book, which made his own would-be radical New Chronology look like a mere leap-year calendar adjustment.

· I survey many radical theories of Christian and religious origins, but this book is the most extremely paradigm-shifting theory I've found. Most excited books putting forth a new earth-shattering theory are really pretty narrow, accepting the great bulk of the received liberal-critical paradigm, proposing to shift just a couple of aspects.

· Prior to this book, Johnson wrote the more conventionally radical book Antiqua Mater. The present book is a sequel that leaps even beyond the excellent Antiqua Mater in terms of amount of deep paradigm shifting.

Many of Johnson's points are revolutionary, even if some might turn out to need repositioning such as in light of the Nag Hammadi library and Dead Sea scrolls. How would Johnson interpret these finds? What adjustments do we make to the paradigms of Johnson and Erman to integrate Johnson's findings with Bart Ehrman's 2003 book "Lost Christianities: The Battle for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew"?

Resources and printing

About this version