What do you think?
Saint Saul: A Skeleton Key to the Historical Jesus
In Saint Saul , Donald Harman Akenson offers a lively and provocative account of what we can learn about Jesus by reading the letters of Paul. As the only direct evidence of Jesus we have that were composed before the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE forever altered the outlook of the Christian and Jewish faiths, Akenson claims that these letters are the most reliable source of information. He dismisses the traditional method of searching for facts about Jesus by looking for parallels among the four gospels because they were handed down to us as a unit by a later generation. Akenson painstakingly recreates the world of Christ, a time rich with ideas, prophets, factions, priests, savants, and god-drunk fanatics. He insistently stresses throughout the Jewishness of Jesus, referring to Jesus and Paul as Yeshua and Saul, as they were then known. As an eminent historian, Akenson approaches his subject with a fresh eye and a scholarly rigor that is all too rare in this hotly
disputed field.
disputed field.
364 pages, Paperback
First published July 17, 2000
About the author
Donald Harman Akenson
36 books10 followers[From book The United States and Ireland (1973):]
Donald Harman Akenson teaches history at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario. He was born in Minneapolis, took his degrees at Yale and Harvard, and taught and held administrative positions at both of those universities. He is the author of The Irish Education Experiment (1970); The Church of Ireland (1971); and Education and Enmity: The Control of Schooling in Northern Ireland (1973).
Donald Harman Akenson teaches history at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario. He was born in Minneapolis, took his degrees at Yale and Harvard, and taught and held administrative positions at both of those universities. He is the author of The Irish Education Experiment (1970); The Church of Ireland (1971); and Education and Enmity: The Control of Schooling in Northern Ireland (1973).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
May 23, 2013
The writer seeks - through an analysis of everything known about Paul - to "create a skeleton key to unlock the historical Jesus." But the author forgets or ignores one thing that undermines his thesis from the start - "Paul knows not Jesus." This lack of recognition led Alvin Boyd Kuhn to title one the chapters of his work "Who is this King of Glory," "'The Shout of Paul's Silence." If Paul were speaking about an historical Jesus Christ, his descriptions of his visits to Jerusalem would have been entirely different and completely reverential; something like, "...and the very brother of our Lord Jesus, James himself told me how our Lord cleansed..." There is nothing remotely like this in any of Paul's actual writings and he has no respect at all for Peter and is ambivalent towards the group in Jerusalem that identified itself as "the family of the Lord." This alone should make it clear that Paul's Christ is something other than a literal incorporated God named Jesus. Finally, no matter how you do the math, if one compares Paul's most probable date of birth with the likely dates for the "birth" of Jesus, they must have been alive at the same time - at least long enough for Paul to have heard something about Jesus while Jesus was still alive. This creates all sorts of problems doesn't it? In short, Mr. Akenson's knowledge is exceptional. However, its quality and his insights are marred by his assumption that there was a living Jesus who was the one Christ and God incorporate -- as a literal misinterpretation of the Gospels may imply. This blinds him to the implications of Paul's own writings - that the Jesus story is a form of a Hebrew "dying and resurrecting god-man allegory" in which it is believed that everyone may have a "Christ" within. Like it or not, Paul's actual writings (minus the later "modifications," corrections," insertions, and outright forgeries) show that he was indeed a, or the first, gnostic . Therefore one cannot take his writings and try to reverse engineer a Jesus from them. That is something that would be beyond even the brightest minds of Area 51 -- if they exist.
July 17, 2007
Easily the BEST book on the "historical Jesus" I've ever read (and as a once-upon-a-time grad student in theology, I read quite a few). Akenson is a genuinely delightful writer, electrifying the scholarship he surveys. Saint Saul is deliberately impartial as to matters of faith, but brims with zest and acid wit. His take on the Jesus Seminar is side-splitting, which (to say the least) is a compliment one rarely pays to works on Christology.
March 3, 2017
Short on scholarship, long on coprolite polishing
I really wanted to like this book, after seeing it at the local library. And parts of it, upon review, I do — above all, Akenson’s critique of the latest version of the search for the historic Jesus, especially as conducted by most of the fellows of the Jesus Seminar.
But, at the same time, Akenson gets a LOT wrong in this book — and, at the risk of concern-trolling for academics, I suggest that he might reconsider jumping from history to biblical studies with any more books.
Some of his errors, per that above, are whoppers.
The New Testament is NOT a “single artifact.” The theology of Paul is not the same as that of the Synoptic Gospels — which Akenson himself discusses!
Second, Yahwism does NOT go back to 1600 BCE. It’s no earlier than 1000 BCE, in all likelihood, and certainly no earlier than that in an organized state called Israel, if it’s even that old.
Now, some more specific errors.
Paul, in his passage in 1 Corinthians on marriage, was NOT giving halachic correction to Jesus’ “don’t get divorced and remarried” passage from Mark and softened parallels. First, Paul and Jesus were operating in totally different Sitz im Leben. Paul is speaking, I believe, in terms of the End Times, and thus, this passage is similar to his “neither Greek nor Jew, neither slave nor free” in Galatians. He’s telling believers don’t change your status in life. Second, he admits in 1 Corinthians 7 this is HIS teaching and not “from the Lord.” Jesus, on the other hand, if we call him a quasi-Pharaisee, WAS offering a statement of halakah.
Next, his accusation that “Questers” want to date Mark pre-70 just to have something before the destruction of the Temple is untrue. Rather, the Markan apocalypse is lacking some vaticinium ex eventu that are in Matthew and Luke, and thus, like Daniel, gives us a dating hook.
Next, claiming the Talmud has nothing historical, or nearly so, about this era? The “gardener protecting his cabbage” from the Toledoth Jeshu was knows to Tertullian, so it at least includes myth from the middle second century.
Soon after that, he is too credulous to Robert Eisenman.
Now, Paul “versus” James and other things. First, how do we know James only believed after Jesus’ death? Paul’s word plus Synoptic disparagement of his family. Now, I don’t believe in Eisenman’s earthly dynasty, but Akenson makes a statement with slim warrant.
Next, the food sacrificed to idols and blood, re 1 Corinthians and whatever council met on this. The meat sacrificed to ideas was not kosher, as he notes. But Akenson then commits either a big “oops” or a huge rewrite. The law on blood in meat is NOT Jewish; it’s Noahide. I’m sure he knows that, and thus is doing a deliberate rewrite, softening up Paul.
Next, if the Mishnah is not historically accurate, how do we know mitzvoth were numbered at 613 in the time of Paul and Jesus? Actually, the number 613 isn’t even mentioned until the Talmud. And, what they are isn’t itemized until Maimonides. Oops! More Judahism pseudo-authenticity by Akenson gets torpedoed!
On the criterion of embarrassment in the gospels, he ignores the variant “he was angry” reading in Mark 1 with the unclean man. Oops again, or deliberate rewrite again?
A bigger possible rewrite is ignoring the idea that Paul may have “invented” the Eucharist out of similar meals from pagan mysteries. Akenson here is bad in general.
Even worse, finally, is his claim that Mark may well have known about the Virgin Birth myth and deliberately discarded the idea. This underplays how oral tradition plays out and eventually becomes concretized, as shown in Mark, then the other Synoptics, then the Protoevangelium of James, etc.
The bottom line that Akenson seems to have, that Saul is a reliable witness to the historic Jesus, as well as a reliable anchor to a semi-unitary development of the move from Jesus to Christ, pretty much fails.
His smackdown of the Jesus Seminar and related issues are probably the primary things saving this from a one-star rating, which is ironic, because in his construction of Paul, he comes off as not a lot better than some of the Jesus Seminar fellows he excoriates.
And, I forgot to mention until now that he says he's going to use the KJV as his English text because of its poetic language or whatever, and he, first or second cite of it, talks about how it's a bad translation.
I really wanted to like this book, after seeing it at the local library. And parts of it, upon review, I do — above all, Akenson’s critique of the latest version of the search for the historic Jesus, especially as conducted by most of the fellows of the Jesus Seminar.
But, at the same time, Akenson gets a LOT wrong in this book — and, at the risk of concern-trolling for academics, I suggest that he might reconsider jumping from history to biblical studies with any more books.
Some of his errors, per that above, are whoppers.
The New Testament is NOT a “single artifact.” The theology of Paul is not the same as that of the Synoptic Gospels — which Akenson himself discusses!
Second, Yahwism does NOT go back to 1600 BCE. It’s no earlier than 1000 BCE, in all likelihood, and certainly no earlier than that in an organized state called Israel, if it’s even that old.
Now, some more specific errors.
Paul, in his passage in 1 Corinthians on marriage, was NOT giving halachic correction to Jesus’ “don’t get divorced and remarried” passage from Mark and softened parallels. First, Paul and Jesus were operating in totally different Sitz im Leben. Paul is speaking, I believe, in terms of the End Times, and thus, this passage is similar to his “neither Greek nor Jew, neither slave nor free” in Galatians. He’s telling believers don’t change your status in life. Second, he admits in 1 Corinthians 7 this is HIS teaching and not “from the Lord.” Jesus, on the other hand, if we call him a quasi-Pharaisee, WAS offering a statement of halakah.
Next, his accusation that “Questers” want to date Mark pre-70 just to have something before the destruction of the Temple is untrue. Rather, the Markan apocalypse is lacking some vaticinium ex eventu that are in Matthew and Luke, and thus, like Daniel, gives us a dating hook.
Next, claiming the Talmud has nothing historical, or nearly so, about this era? The “gardener protecting his cabbage” from the Toledoth Jeshu was knows to Tertullian, so it at least includes myth from the middle second century.
Soon after that, he is too credulous to Robert Eisenman.
Now, Paul “versus” James and other things. First, how do we know James only believed after Jesus’ death? Paul’s word plus Synoptic disparagement of his family. Now, I don’t believe in Eisenman’s earthly dynasty, but Akenson makes a statement with slim warrant.
Next, the food sacrificed to idols and blood, re 1 Corinthians and whatever council met on this. The meat sacrificed to ideas was not kosher, as he notes. But Akenson then commits either a big “oops” or a huge rewrite. The law on blood in meat is NOT Jewish; it’s Noahide. I’m sure he knows that, and thus is doing a deliberate rewrite, softening up Paul.
Next, if the Mishnah is not historically accurate, how do we know mitzvoth were numbered at 613 in the time of Paul and Jesus? Actually, the number 613 isn’t even mentioned until the Talmud. And, what they are isn’t itemized until Maimonides. Oops! More Judahism pseudo-authenticity by Akenson gets torpedoed!
On the criterion of embarrassment in the gospels, he ignores the variant “he was angry” reading in Mark 1 with the unclean man. Oops again, or deliberate rewrite again?
A bigger possible rewrite is ignoring the idea that Paul may have “invented” the Eucharist out of similar meals from pagan mysteries. Akenson here is bad in general.
Even worse, finally, is his claim that Mark may well have known about the Virgin Birth myth and deliberately discarded the idea. This underplays how oral tradition plays out and eventually becomes concretized, as shown in Mark, then the other Synoptics, then the Protoevangelium of James, etc.
The bottom line that Akenson seems to have, that Saul is a reliable witness to the historic Jesus, as well as a reliable anchor to a semi-unitary development of the move from Jesus to Christ, pretty much fails.
His smackdown of the Jesus Seminar and related issues are probably the primary things saving this from a one-star rating, which is ironic, because in his construction of Paul, he comes off as not a lot better than some of the Jesus Seminar fellows he excoriates.
And, I forgot to mention until now that he says he's going to use the KJV as his English text because of its poetic language or whatever, and he, first or second cite of it, talks about how it's a bad translation.
February 22, 2018
More arrogant than erudite. If there is a point to make, he takes as long as the exile to get to it, constantly quibbling over mundane trivialities along the way. I really wanted to like this book and was so excited to read it, but in the end it was a huge disappointment. It seemed nothing more than an extended and pedantic troll of the Jesus Seminar to me.
May 18, 2025
Good information, but much too verbose. The book could have been pared down by nearly half to avoid redundancy. Akenson, as a historian, writes very academically, resulting in many words said but often little additional information given.
March 30, 2012
Saint Saul: A Skeleton Key to the Historical Jesus was yet another unplanned rescue from Half Price Books (I grabbed a like new copy of Bart Ehrman's latest book, Forged: Writing in the Name of God--Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are, too). This book by Donald Harman Akenson is a marvelously detailed and compellingly argued assessment of what we think we know - and what little we can hope to know - about the early years of what became Christianity. Akenson reminds us that the only source of information actually written down during the period between the death of Yeshua of Nazareth and the Destruction of the Temple was Saul of Tarsus, and he guides our search for our clues there. In doing so he hews a path between traditional orthodoxy and reactionary fundamentalism and the wishful liberalism of the Jesus Seminar and what he calls the Q industry. Very interesting stuff. Akenson's earlier Surpassing Wonder sounds very interesting as well.
November 14, 2008
Opened up a whole world to me, the historical context of the christ fella, what was going on around him and would have influenced his development. Saul (Paul) is revealed as the gospel writer who lived most closely to this time (he didn't know Jesus, but he knew his brother!). He is a great character in his own right (rite?)--Akenson effectively portrays the man as a conflicted, complex man, a seeker, whose gospel is most reflective of the mood and realities of the times. This got to be hard work by about two thirds of the way through, as Akenson goes into the endless scholarly and non-scholarly debate about the gospels. Still, a fascinating read, in particular the revelations (no, not those ones) about the relatively new concepts of a heavenly afterlife and of one person sacrificing for another's sins which were being floated around the time that Jesus arrived.
February 3, 2011
I'm not a student. I enjoy reading books about historical eras that I like, although this is not really one of them. The book was very well written but the writing style was rather academic. It was full of words I had never seen before. I spent a lot of time looking things up in the built in dictionary on my Kindle. There were also a lot of words the dictionary had never seen before. I have a very large vocabulary, so finding words that even the dictionary had never seen before was rather funny. He also has the habit of explaining all of those new words in his text the first time he uses them. You don't really need the built in dictionary.
Still, this is a complicated subject, and the writer pulls you along so you understand it. He doesn't just tell you what happened. He tells you why and what both what happened and why it happened means. I enjoyed reading the book.
Still, this is a complicated subject, and the writer pulls you along so you understand it. He doesn't just tell you what happened. He tells you why and what both what happened and why it happened means. I enjoyed reading the book.
August 8, 2012
Akenson offers a fairly straight forward Christian premise, but one coming from a secular liberal tradition that is quite astounding: Paul offers a better glimpse of the historical Jesus than the gospels or other writings. Because Paul is writing from a pre-70 (i.e. before the destruction of the temple) time period, he has not been effected by the theological cataclysm that all other New Testament writers have. Akenson's book is a fantastic secular or historical critique of the Quest for the Historical Jesus, even if a few of his claims are fairly unstable. I do find it interesting, however, that, while engaging a great deal of moderate and liberal religious scholars, there is no mention of N. T. Wright. Still, a very interesting work of history.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews