Saint Saul: A Skeleton Key to the Historical Jesus

Rating:
Summary: Second Half Redeems the First
Review: 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 lifetime -- apparently the surviving manuscript is far older than those of Paul's letters, if that were a persuasive factor (it's not).) The late Morton Smith takes it on the chin for concocting a gay hoax in the form of the Secret Gospel of Mark, and Crossan and others who treat that work seriously are lampooned as worse than country bumpkins. As his discussion progresses, Akenson gradually calms down and writes beautifully and convincingly about Paul (despite Akenson's criticism of neologisms (and then his use of them throughout the book -- "Judahism," etc.), he occasionally slips and calls Saul "Paul") and the glimpses his letters afford at the historic Jesus. The work ends with a discussion of the great Sermon on Love in 1 Corinthians 13, which Akenson believes closely reflects Jesus' own teachings. The fact that it also closely reflects the Last Supper sermon in John suggests again what may be the central flaw of Akenson's Gospel-dating. A very good read, all in all.

Rating:
Summary: Second Half Redeems the First
Review: 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 lifetime -- apparently the surviving manuscript is far older than those of Paul's letters, if that were a persuasive factor (it's not).) The late Morton Smith takes it on the chin for concocting a gay hoax in the form of the Secret Gospel of Mark, and Crossan and others who treat that work seriously are lampooned as worse than country bumpkins. As his discussion progresses, Akenson gradually calms down and writes beautifully and convincingly about Paul (despite Akenson's criticism of neologisms (and then his use of them throughout the book -- "Judahism," etc.), he occasionally slips and calls Saul "Paul") and the glimpses his letters afford at the historic Jesus. The work ends with a discussion of the great Sermon on Love in 1 Corinthians 13, which Akenson believes closely reflects Jesus' own teachings. The fact that it also closely reflects the Last Supper sermon in John suggests again what may be the central flaw of Akenson's Gospel-dating. A very good read, all in all.