This book is quite thought-provoking, and written in an engaging fashion. Akenson is supremely confident in himself, and provocative in his assessments of the shortcomings of other authors' work. His scholarship is quite impressive, however.
He offers a number of interesting assessments:
1) Noting that the name 'Jesus' is a Romanized name that was adopted after long after the death of the person it was applied to, Akenson uses the Hebrew version of the name that he insists the person would have been called: Yeshuah.
2) He asserts that Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity really must be understood as coming from the destruction of the Second Temple, post-70 AD. In that respect, they are about the same age. Previous to the destruction of the Temple, Judaism was different, and fragmented enough, Akenson suggests, that he has adopted the name Judahism for it.
3) He takes umbrage with the idea of the 'Q' document which some scholars suggest forms the inspiration for the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John). He also intimates, though does not state as strongly as Wilson, that Acts is a suspect document in terms of its historical verity.
4) He suggests that the idea of the virgin birth comes from a mistranslation; that the original version of the story referred to a 'young girl', not a 'virgin' in the 'woman lacking sexual experience' sense.
Having reviewed what can be reasonably argued as texts actually written by Saul, Akenson summarizes whet he concludes are Saul’s central judgements (pg. 181):
1) Jesus was the Messiah, but this status began with his resurrection. This means, then, that Yeshuah did not see himself as the Judahist Moshiah.
2) “Yeshua’s transformation into Jesus-the-Christ was a product of the resurrection.” Saul “does not evince any belief in the physical resurrection” of Yeshuah.
3) Yeshuah is the ‘Son of Yahweh’. “Saul makes explicit statements which are incompatible with a belief in the Virgin Birth of Yeshuah,” however.
On 219, Akenson makes a provocative, intriguing claim: “there are only three clearly-labelled places where Saul and the Gospels agree even roughly about words Yeshuah used” (links are to KJV):
- 1 Cor. 11: 23-25 > concerning the Eucharist (23, 24, 25)
- 1 Cor. 7: 10 > concerning divorce
- 1 Cor. 9: 14 > concerning a belief that preachers should not have to depend on secular labour for their living needs
This is provocative because it is generally agreed, as many forget, that Saul’s letters predate the Gospels (see this link for a provisional timeline of NT book authorship). If the expectations of historical method are applied, the earlier documents are likely more trustworthy as testimony. At the same time, we must take even Saul’s testimony with a grain of salt, for as Saul described, he saw himself as the preacher to the Gentiles of the parallel mission Yeshuah had taken on for the Judahists. That their messages, and requirements for their constituencies was quite different is also something that many contemporary (and past) Christians forget, or willingly overlook.
Finally, Akenson also alerts readers to the significant break the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE meant for the Judahist faith(s), as well as the burgeoning Pauline Christianity. With the removal of the Temple as a focal point of religious learning and ritual, the ‘decentralization’ of Judahist practice could more easily facilitate a practice based on a spiritual, non-material focal point.
I think the following review, offered by Loren Rossen ( http://web.archiveorange.com/archive/v/kkipTpxJP3HYM7wNvZy7 ), captures well my sense of the book so far -
The book is relevant to both Paul- and Jesus-scholars, and it bridges the two fields by arguing that the apostle offers more of a
window onto the historical Jesus than commonly assumed.
I think the following excerpt from p. 173 adequately sums up the author’s position:
“[Saul] taught the historical story of the earthly Yeshua to his own disciples in person, and [in] writing his letters he took for granted that they had assimilated the basic facts and, perhaps, sayings. That he taught the Yeshua-history while he was in each community is not merely plausible, but has prima facie validity. However, it lacks explanatory robustness in relation to the matter at hand. . . [This] possibility (I think it is a probability) [is one] that most biblical scholars abhor: that Saul did indeed know the life of the historical Yeshua; that he had a full awareness of the miracle-stories, sayings, and of the various folk-beliefs about Yeshua, most of which are now forever lost; that he taught the most important stories and sayings to his own followers -- but that, when moments of spiritual crisis loomed, all the stories, all the sayings, and indeed the entire earthly life of the historical Yeshua did not count. Only the post-earthly Christ did. . . No wonder questors of the historical Yeshua dislike Saul. Yet, Saul actually tells us a lot about the historical Yeshua; however, he does so almost unintentionally...”
I won’t rehearse Akenson’s arguments..., except to say that throughout the book methodologies which have governed Jesus-studies are given sobering reappraisal (such as the limitations surrounding hypothetical documents like “Q”, in contrast to actual surviving letters). It’s refreshing, for a change, to watch a liberal academic pronounce that, “At the risk of being labelled a Luddite, I conclude that the most likely way to gain access to the historical Jesus is through the canonical New Testament” in general, and through Paul in particular (p. 116)."
No comments:
Post a Comment