Saint Saul: A Skeleton Key to the Historical Jesus

by Donald Harman Akenson

Book Overview

The gospels, scholars agree, were written after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE. This catastrophic event, argues Donald Akenson, forever altered the outlook--and the agenda--of the Christian and Jewish faiths. Of all the New Testament writings, only Paul's letters were composed before 70 CE. Thus, Akenson says, they are the only direct evidence we have that is untainted by this profound and lasting shift in perspective. And yet this...

• Format: Hardcover
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0195141571
• ISBN13: 9780195141573
• Release Date: July 2000
• Publisher: Oxford University Press, USA
• Length: 360 Pages
• Weight: 0.05 lbs.
• Dimensions: 1.3" x 6.3" x 9.1"

Customer Reviews

Second Half Redeems the First

In brief, the author's thesis is that our only quasi-reliable source for the historic Yeshua (= Jesus) are Paul's letters, or at least the 7 which are most probably his. These date from 49-63 A.D., before the catastrophe of the Destruction of the Second Temple, and the four canonical Gospels post-date that event, at least in Akenson's view, and hence are not reliable sources regarding pre-Destruction proto-Christianity and its roots in the life and death of Yeshua. The importance of Paul as a periscope into the early decades following the Crucifixion is indeed a welcome insight, seemingly overlooked by the Historic Jesus authors. As Akenson reminds us, Paul attests to the Eucharist (communion), the Last Supper, the Crucifixion, and the Resurrection, within a short time after these events took place, and he believes Paul was certainly tutored in Yeshua "folklore" (his term) during Paul's fortnight stay with Peter and others who knew Yeshua intimately. The second half of the book, which is excellent and quite moving (particularly the final chapter), more than redeems the first half, which is cranky, sarcastic, and caustically unfair to Akenson's "opponents" - that is, Akenson displays an emotional range similar to many of Paul's letters, from the all-too-human to the celestial. As to the attack-dog sarcasm: Akenson's Big Insight is that Paul is the best (only) source for pre-Destruction proto-Christianity, and so any suggestion in competing authors that the Four Gospels (or any noncanonical gospel) may predate the Destruction of the Temple, is subjected to childish (and needlessly mean-spirited) ridicule rather than sober disputation - reminiscent of the bitter dogma wars that formed (and ruined) the early Church; Akenson would have been right at home in the 4th century. For a refreshingly different take on this, see Robinson's "Redating the New Testament," which argues, convincingly for me, that the chief basis for dating the Four Gospels after 70 A.D., Jesus' prediction that the Temple will be destroyed, is far from determinative: Jesus may well simply have predicted the Temple's fate. (Robinson notes that the Gospels do not make the sort of big deal out of this correct prediction that might be expected if it were written "after the fact," for example. If Robinson and others are correct, then the Four Gospels may well constitute largely first-generation accounts, a possibility which is anathema to those who are deeply uncomfortable with the miracle accounts and the Resurrection.) Akenson's fury at such heresy seems based principally in his characterization of the pre-70 daters as Fundamentalists (and no doubt their view of Akenson and the Jesus Seminar folks is reciprocally vituperative). But you certainly don't have to be a Fundamentalist to accept pre-70 dates for the canonical Gospels (and for that matter, there seems no good reason the Gospel of Thomas can't arguably be dated to just after Jesus' death, if not actually during his

A Fresh Examination of the Jesus/Paul Relationship

Akenson has done a good job of writing an informative, entertaining and accurate (inasmuch as the latter adjective can be at all meaningful here)book on Paul and Jesus for the lay reader. All in all, a very good hermeneutic reading of both concerned persons and a good illustration of their milieu. However, I have differences of opinion on several issues. First, the author is quick (and correct) to point out the highly suspect nature of Secret Mark. But he is also quick (incorrectly- this time) to proclaim it a forgery. While I certainly agree that Crossan and Koester have prematurely and somewhat naively antedated this document, there is, at the other logical extreme, no reason to insist that it is an obvious fabrication on the part of Morton Smith (its 'discoverer') or any other. Sure, its possible. But without real evidence, we can just as properly take the leap and say that the earliest fragments of Secret Mark come from C.E. 50. Not a very good approach, of course. Methodologically, the best response to this issue is a negative one; i.e. there is NEITHER evidence that Secret Mark should predate Canonical Mark, NOR any direct evidence that the former is a forgery rather than a very late and poorly documented piece of apocryphal literature. Second, Akenson seems to misunderstand the idea behind the Criteria of Multiple Attestation. Few biblical scholars (the Jesus Seminar included) believe that the extant Gospels are independent resources, in and of themselves. What they do believe is that there are strands of contradictory material within the Gospels that can be reasonably supposed to have come from a different source than that which they contradict. If some of these differing materials have thematically or theologically common elements, that constitutes a possible or probable independent attestation- not necessarily a definite one (though Akenson is quite right when he says that some scholars have too much faith in this device). Furthermore, Akenson does not delve sufficiently into the debate as to whether John ought to be considered dependent upon the synoptics. The concensus says no but, as Akenson points out elsewhere, others in biblical scholarship are only too willing to appeal to authority. In not dealing more fully with this issue, Akenson misses an important point that is pivotal in either making or breaking his case against the utility of the Criteria of Independent Attestation. Third, Akenson's treatment of Q seems to me to be too conservative (very much echoing other giants like John Meier and Richard Horsley). He does not seem to want to grant that Q is best explained as having been written in stages (or formative stratum, to use Kloppenborg's terminology). If Q were was orally transmitted, verbatim and near-verbatim agreements on Jesus' aphorisms in Matthew and Luke are hard to explain. If it was not written in various stages, its various thematic tendencies also become cumbersome. While it is clear to me that the 'Cynic

An excellent book for the lay reader

If you're looking for a broad historical overview that addresses all of the critical issues surrounding the quest to understand Jesus from an historical perspective, this is a great book. While some other reviewers found that the book dealt too much with the gospels and that the author over-focused on the destruction of the temple, I found that the emphasis was just right. Here's why:1. If the author is to make the case that Paul's writings present the clearest possible picture of Jesus, it is critical that we understand why it is that the gospels are inadequate to the task.2. That the gospels were likely written after the fall of the temple (or because of the fall of the temple) means that the content of the gospels were necessarily colored by this disaster -- the authors of the gospels are likely to have engaged in considerable reconstruction of the past in light of present knowledge. (Alas, such is human nature!)If the reader's intent is to picture Jesus as he really was (in as much as such a thing is possible), a clearer picture is likely to emerge from studies of writings that precede the destruction.The book is well-written, scholarly, and often entertaining. The author is clearly an iconoclast of some skill -- an excellent read, and whatever you do, don't miss the notes and appendices of this book!

Great for the Jesus Seminar-debunking alone

Akenson had a great idea here, to reveal the Historical Jesus through the oldest written documentation on him, the Epistles of Paul, but the best part of this book is in the early chapters, in which Akenson destroys the wacky notions of the Jesus Seminar. First, he proves Morton Smith's "Secret" Gospel of Mark to be an outright fraud - a fraud that the Jesus Seminar have yet to realize it for. Next he ridicules the attempts to backdate the writing of Gnostic texts such as the Gospel of Thomas to dates as early as Mark itself. This is something else the Jesus Seminar is quite fond of doing. Finally he tears into the overblown "Q Gospel" issue. Akenson writes with a great, biting wit throughout the book, and his debunking of current trends and myths in the Historical Jesus quest alone are enough to recommend the book. However, Akenson's writing also lacks a certain rhythm. Countless times he'll be writing about something, getting to the point, and then he'll go off into a tangent, either offering a short history lesson or a commentary on why he's come to believe what he does...then finally he will get to the point, several pages later. Also he stresses too much the destruction of Jerusalem's Second Temple; you only have to write that it was the equal of a nuclear blast once, Dr. Akenson. We get the point! Many scholars, Akenson included, believe that the Gospels are suspect because they were written after the Temple's destruction, which scattered the early Christians and no doubt affected their world-view. One thing I've never seen mentioned by any writer is that perhaps the Gospels were written precisely BECAUSE of the Temple's destruction; the early Christians realized that their flock was spreading, and so came to the decision that the life and lessons of their teacher needed to be written down, so that his word would be spread wherever his followers went. As for Akenson's actual dissection of Paul's letters, it takes him quite some time to get to it, and in all reality Akenson doesn't shed much new light on the Historical Jesus. Early First Century Jerusalem is a murky, far-away place, and we're never going to know all we want to about it, or the people who lived in it. But again, this book is recommendable not so much for the study of Paul's letters, but for Akenson's commentary on the problems with the current quest for the Historical Jesus.

A breath of life into a moribund field of scholarship

Akenson's premise seems simple enough: The apostle Paul tells us more about Jesus than usually assumed. But he goes beyond this, claiming that Paul is actually our best source for understanding the historical Jesus. This is news, especially coming from a secular liberal who might be inclined to loathe and distrust Paul to begin with. But Akenson enjoins academics to accept the obvious: "Paul taught the history of the earthly Jesus to the churches he founded, and in writing his letters he took for granted that they had assimilated the basic facts, miracle-stories, and sayings. . . Paul actually tells us a lot about the historical Jesus, but he does so almost unintentionally." Akenson minces no words with the academics who thrive on 2nd-century documents (Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Peter), hypothetical documents (Signs Gospel, Q), and an obvious forgery (Secret Mark) -- and who likewise have made a pseudo-science of "downward-dating" these documents so that they antedate 70 AD. Instead of dissecting Q, scholars would do well to consider that annoying apostle who preceded all of the above. According to the author, Paul believed the following about the historical Jesus: (1) He never declared himself to be the messiah, and he did nothing in his lifetime which certified his messiahship. The resurrection did that. (2) His transformation into the Christ (the resurrection) was a cosmic and not a physical event. There never was a physical, bodily resurrection of Jesus, for "flesh and blood could not inherit the Kingdom of God" (I Cor. 15:50). (3) The only valid way of understanding his life on earth is to see him as the Son of God, but in a way incompatible with later "virgin birth" theology. Admittedly, some of the author's arguments are hard to swallow. His understanding (of Paul's understanding) of the resurrection is only half correct, and it's curious that he doesn't engage Tom Wright, who has written much on the issue. He also overreacts against the criterion of multiple attestation: "In the entire New Testament there is no independent confirmation of anything. The New Testament is a single source, and by definition a single source cannot produce multiple attestations of anything." These statements are howlers. Akenson does offer a sobering reappraisal of some methodologies used by the "flaming liberal wing" of Jesus-questors, but he could stand a few lessons himself. Donald Akenson is an engaging writer, simply incapable of writing a dull sentence. He can make you laugh, he can make you angry, but hopefully, above all, he'll make you think and reconsider a lot of the nonsense being touted these days about Jesus. Hopefully, too, he'll get you interested in that guy who went around Asia Minor and Greece preaching the real historical Jesus.