Empires Peter and Paul

Now writer and producer Margaret Koval steps up to bat by selectively throwing out the historical record of the New Testament (which is arguably one of the most accurate historical records from antiquity, as ably argued in the book, "More Than A Carpenter"), and introduces some logical yet completely invented theories as to the rise and spread of Christianity by Jesus' early followers, most notably Peter and Paul. Mrs. Koval ignores various contents of Paul's own letters which would completely discredit some of the ideas presented in this program.

For example, the program's theme is the supposed transition of Christianity by Peter and Paul from an immediate expectation of God's kingdom on earth to a delayed expectation that rose into the 1970-yr-old Christianity that remains today. Let's compare some of the program's assertions point by point to the New Testament historical narrative which was obviously ignored:

COMPARISON #1:

PBS' PETER AND PAUL: States that Christianity started spreading because Jesus' followers saw a vision of him while fishing, and through their own logic and initiative decided that they must prepare for God's kingdom to literally come. And so they initiated the act of telling others about Jesus' resurrection and the imminent establishment of God's kingdom on earth.

BIBLICAL HISTORICAL NARRATIVE: States that Christianity's spread was a direct result of Jesus' commands to do so. Matthew 28:19-20 and John 21:15-16 recount how Jesus gave his followers an explicit command to go into all the world and make disciples, teaching them to observe everything that Jesus had commanded, and how after his resurrection, Jesus commanded Peter to take care of his followers ("feed my sheep"). Jesus also stated (as recorded in Acts 1) that hiw followers would be his witnesses not only to the Jews, but also to Samaritans and to the ends of the earth. Although Jesus' followers struggled with the transition of taking Jesus' message to the nations, Jesus' command is still clear.

COMPARISON #2:

PBS' PETER AND PAUL: States that Peter was not evangelistic-minded at first, and that the number of believers when Stephen was murdered in Jerusalem only numbered a few hundred.

BIBLICAL HISTORICAL NARRATIVE: States in Acts 1:1-9; 2:1-4,41 that Jesus told his followers to wait in Jerusalem until they were filled with the Spirit (so they would have power to be Jesus' witnesses). States that this occurred on the day of Pentecost (or 1 week after Jesus was taken into heaven). According to the Biblical account, on this day (the first day of spiritual "open season"), Koval's non-evangelistic Peter gave a sermon that won over 3000 converts. This was well before Stephen's murder, when Koval claims the # of converts was only a couple hundred.

COMPARISON #3:

PBS' PETER AND PAUL: Repeatedly states that Jesus' immediate followers and the early church were expecting the imminent coming of the literal rule of God on earth (the "apocalypse", as they termed it).

BIBLICAL HISTORICAL NARRATIVE: In Acts 1:6-8, Jesus' followers asked the resurrected Jesus about this specifically. Jesus responded that it was not for them to know the times or seasons that God had set, and that in the meantime they would become witnesses to the ends of the earth (kinda difficult to get that in if God's kingdom is being set up a week from Friday). Furthermore, Paul clearly was NOT expecting the imminent return of Jesus to set up his kingdom , as seen in 2 Thessalonians 2. Here, Paul says that Jesus won't return to earth until two things happen: First, the great apostacy (falling away from truth) must occur, and second, the man of lawlessness or son of perdition (a.k.a. the "antichrist) must be revealed. Paul flat out states that until you see these two recognizable signs, Jesus hasn't returned. And the New Testament narrative is clear that Jesus will set up his kingdom on earth, not during an initial return by Jesus to "catch away" his followers, but during a second return later on.

CONCLUSION:

I could continue with more examples, but I hope from these few that you see how the show's assumptions and theories-presented-as-fact rob it of historical value. What a blatant mockery of the historical narrative to present a story that ignores the very statements of the historical narrative on which the story is based! Though many of the program's statements are in line with, and derived from, the Biblical historical narrative, these are so completely interwoven with "Disneyland Imagineering" as to make the program a laughing stock among serious Biblical historians.