Have you read Reza Aslan's Zealot about Jesus of Nazareth?

  • Thread starter Greg Bernhardt
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Book
In summary: Reza Aslan to reconstruct the historical Jesus is Josephus, the first century Jewish historian who also wrote about the Galilean rebellion against the Romans. This is significant because Josephus was writing about the time after the events he describes and is therefore more likely to be accurate than someone writing about the events from the perspective of, say, Jesus' apostles.In summary, the book is dense and difficult to read, but it is very informative and provides a different perspective on the historical Jesus than what is presented in the gospels. It is a great book for anyone interested in Jesus or the Roman occupation of Judea.
  • #1
19,412
9,962
I just finished Reza Aslan's Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth. It takes the view of examining the life and times of historical Jesus rather than gospel Jesus. This was something I could really appreciate. Obviously there is plenty of information missing about his life so Aslan does a fantastic job of examining the era in which Jesus was relevant too. This can help derive possibilities about him. This period of time for me was extremely hazy and learning all about religious, cultural and politics of the region was fascinating. The whole roman occupation was so tragic but again very interesting. I wholly recommend this book for anyone who is interested in learning more about the historical Jesus and the events that took place around when he alive. It's an extremely dense read with tons of names, dates and technical terms, but it's so worth it. I'm to chapter 3 in my second read through!

https://www.amazon.com/dp/140006922X/?tag=pfamazon01-20
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Greg Bernhardt said:
I just finished Reza Aslan's Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth. It takes the view of examining the life and times of historical Jesus rather than gospel Jesus.

Why do you say "rather than"? Is there strong evidence that the historical Jesus is significantly different from the gospel Jesus? I ask about "significant" differences, because there are obvious places in the gospels which are unlikely to be correct (such as the nativity stories) and many passages which are difficult to take literally (such as the miracles). However, are there major differences? Or could one say that the "historical Jesus" is complementary to the view presented in the gospels?
 
  • #3
atyy said:
Why do you say "rather than"? Is there strong evidence that the historical Jesus is significantly different from the gospel Jesus?

In a way yes, but I wouldn't say strong evidence. There are few "strong" evidences for anything about Jesus. The Bible was never meant to be a historical document. It's a book of teachings where the authors were ok with being creative. Facts were not important if it furthered the "truth". One example off the top of my head is that in the Bible Jesus was born in Bethlehem. It was written so as a message that Jesus was connected to King David, which the prophecy said the true Messiah would be. Anyway, given the facts about the era in which he lived, it's much more likely he was a type of revolutionary rather than the softened Bible version.

I can't do the book much justice. Half the book is just setting the stage of the events in the era (~30BCE-100CE) and it really helps fill in the whos, what's and whys of what happened between the Jews, Romans, and Jesus (extremely tumultuous). It's jammed packed and Alsan is an absolute pro. Pick the book up :)
 
  • #4
Back in the 1990s (IIRC) there was a TV series on PBS called "From Jesus to Christ". Several scholars were involved in reconstructing the social and historical context, with some filming in the relevant landscape and at archeological sites, some architect models. But mainly it was about re-imagining the social environment, personality and life of the historical Jesus of Nazareth.

Elaine Pagel was one of the scholars.

As I recall they drew some similar conclusions to what I found in the book. Amazon let's you sample most of the first 50 pages free. You miss a few pages now and then but the first big gap in the online sample is at page 51.

It is very interesting reading, that's for sure. I didn't feel like stopping until I had read most of the first 50 pages.

The stark ruthlessness of oppression by the Roman Empire coupled with the grim resistance to assimilation on the Jews' part---repeated messianic mutinies, repeatedly and bloodily crushed---is too gruesome a story for me to want to comment.

But it is an important part of history and from what I saw I too could recommend the book to someone wishing to understand that time.
 
Last edited:
  • #6
atyy said:
Is there strong evidence that the historical Jesus is significantly different from the gospel Jesus?

Keep in mind that there was more or less continuous debate about what documents comprised the "official" Christian bible, starting a few hundred years after the historical events took place and continuing for more than 1000 years. There were many other documents titled "gospels", etc, which were widely circulated (and there are quotations from some of them in the text of the current standard bible) but eventually rejected. The decision making processes were not always objective and rational by modern standards of historical and/or literary criticism.

Interestingly, one of the main contemporary sources ("The wars of the Jews" by Josephus - there are translations on the web) has no mention at all of Christianity or Jesus, except for one passing reference - and arguably that was added by a copyist long after the book was first written.

IMO you can't begin to understand the current situation in the middle east without knowing something of this period of history.
 
  • #7
AlephZero said:
Keep in mind that there was more or less continuous debate about what documents comprised the "official" Christian bible, starting a few hundred years after the historical events took place and continuing for more than 1000 years.

I find it astonishing that the books of the Bible differ so much in their stories. For example in the Book of Mark which is the oldest John the Baptist plays a very important role in Jesus's "development". In the Book of John, the oldest, John the Baptist is basically a nobody.

AlephZero said:
IMO you can't begin to understand the current situation in the middle east without knowing something of this period of history.

Totally agree, I am blow away with how many important events that took place at the turn of the millennium. None of which are told in bible school. You just get the usual standard 10 page coloring book style story. For some good reason, but ironically in the end I am drawn much closer to the historical Jesus than gospel Jesus.
 
  • #8
Greg Bernhardt said:
In a way yes, but I wouldn't say strong evidence. There are few "strong" evidences for anything about Jesus. The Bible was never meant to be a historical document. It's a book of teachings where the authors were ok with being creative. Facts were not important if it furthered the "truth". One example off the top of my head is that in the Bible Jesus was born in Bethlehem. It was written so as a message that Jesus was connected to King David, which the prophecy said the true Messiah would be. Anyway, given the facts about the era in which he lived, it's much more likely he was a type of revolutionary rather than the softened Bible version.

I can't do the book much justice. Half the book is just setting the stage of the events in the era (~30BCE-100CE) and it really helps fill in the whos, what's and whys of what happened between the Jews, Romans, and Jesus (extremely tumultuous). It's jammed packed and Alsan is an absolute pro. Pick the book up :)

I think there at least two distinct issues. The problems with the nativity stories are well known. Starting with the gospels themselves, the large scale structure of the stories in Matthew and Luke are different. In one the original home town of Jesus's parents is Bethlehem, in the other it is Nazareth. There is also plenty of solid evidence that the account in Luke is wrong. He talks of a major census, and we know when these happened, and we also know enough of who was governor when, and that in none of these was there a requirement to return to move to another city to rule out the Lukan account. These are all consensus points, and you can read an uncontroversial but popular account (the whole book, not just the discussion of the nativity stories, is basically consensus scholarship) in Robin Lane Fox's "Unauthorized version" https://www.amazon.com/dp/0394573986/?tag=pfamazon01-20.

On the other hand the view that Jesus was a revolutionary in a way substantially different from that presented in the gospels is controversial, with regards to the literature before Aslan's book. There is essentially no agreement on this point. For a modern view that I do not necessarily agree with, but can recommend because it is well argued, is John Meier's "Marginal Jew". You can get his 4-volume work if you're a serious weight trainer and MTW has become too light, otherwise there's this video http://www.uctv.tv/shows/John-P-Meier-Jesus-the-Jew-But-What-Sort-of-Jew-5984. I'll have to read Aslan's book to see if he says anything new. Wikipedia gives a broad account of the various views of the "historical Jesus": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quest_for_the_historical_Jesus and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes 1 person
  • #10
Greg Bernhardt said:
I just finished Reza Aslan's Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth.
I just started the book. It is an interesting read for me, particularly in the context of other texts.

I think it is valuable from the standpoint of comments about Jesus, but also from the discussion of the peoples and history of the period.
 
  • #11
Astronuc said:
I think it is valuable from the standpoint of comments about Jesus, but also from the discussion of the peoples and history of the period.

Indeed! It's been said before, but he doesn't uncover any new startling information, but rather frames and compiles the best known data into an interesting read. I really enjoy his writing style. Let me know what you through when you are done! :)
 
  • #12
I don't have a dog in this fight, since I'm a Hindu, but here's a critical view of Aslan's book. There are actually quite a few serious critiques of his book (and some not-so-serious ones)..
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
  • #13
lugita15 said:
I don't have a dog in this fight, since I'm a Hindu, but here's a critical view of Aslan's book. There are actually quite a few serious critiques of his book (and some not-so-serious ones)..

Greg Bernhardt said:
In a way yes, but I wouldn't say strong evidence. There are few "strong" evidences for anything about Jesus. The Bible was never meant to be a historical document. It's a book of teachings where the authors were ok with being creative. Facts were not important if it furthered the "truth". One example off the top of my head is that in the Bible Jesus was born in Bethlehem. It was written so as a message that Jesus was connected to King David, which the prophecy said the true Messiah would be. Anyway, given the facts about the era in which he lived, it's much more likely he was a type of revolutionary rather than the softened Bible version.

In lugita15's link Alan Jacobs says that Aslan's thesis is similar to Crossan's. I thought Crossan's proposal was that Jesus was some sort of cynic philosopher, rather than a revolutionary - or did I misunderstand "revolutionary" (I was naively thinking of Les Miserables) in Greg Bernhardt's post? Does Aslan largely agree with Crossan that Jesus was a cynic philosopher?
 
Last edited:
  • #14
atyy said:
In lugita15's link Alan Jacobs says that Aslan's thesis is similar to Crossan's. I thought Crossan's proposal was that Jesus was some sort of cynic philosopher, rather than a revolutionary -
I don't know what you misunderstood.

Aslan is more prone to see Jesus as a consciously political revolutionary than Crossan'
? I guess you need to read that again? Hmmmm?
 
  • #15
I took a quick look at Aslan's book. His writing is certainly engaging, and reading is very easy going. It's a bit hard for me on a quick read to know how different Aslan's view is from Crossan's. On the one hand, Aslan says Jesus was a "politically conscious revolutionary", whereas Crossan's view is quite apolitical. One of Crossan's major points is that Jesus was much more peaceful than Christians later were. On the other hand, Aslan explicitly says that Jesus seems to have never explicitly advocated violence.

I guess Aslan must be saying that Jesus implicitly advocated violence against the Romans. If I correctly understand that to be his thesis, then it is different from Crossan's in a major way. What I don't understand about Aslan's thesis (assuming I'm interpreting it correctly) is how it explains the formation of the church after Jesus's death without a "literal" resurrection in which the body got up and walked in a way that was verifiable by believers and nonbelievers. If Jesus had advocated an "earthly" kingdom, then how could the movement survive without a literal resurrection? On the other hand, if Jesus had advocated a "heavenly" kingdom, then it seems more plausible to me that the movement could survive without a literal resurrection.

Aslan does adddress this in Part III of his book. He does say that the concept of resurrection in the early church is without parallel in the thought of the time. Most of Part III seems to be about how Paul's views may have differed from those of the church in Jerusalem. However, as Aslan agrees, the Jerusalem church existed before Paul, and had its belief in the resurrection before Paul. So whether or not Paul's Christianity is largely discontinuous from the Jerusalem church's seems irrelevant to this question.

marcus said:
I googled "from jesus to christ" and got this:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/
apparently you can still watch the half-a-dozen episodes of the series.

That's a useful link. There's a short excerpt of Crossan's view there, and that of two others, Shaye Cohen and L. Michael White. So one can see the range of scholarly opinion.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/ministry.html
 
Last edited:
  • #16
Greg Bernhardt said:
I just finished Reza Aslan's Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth. It takes the view of examining the life and times of historical Jesus rather than gospel Jesus. This was something I could really appreciate. Obviously there is plenty of information missing about his life so Aslan does a fantastic job of examining the era in which Jesus was relevant too. This can help derive possibilities about him. This period of time for me was extremely hazy and learning all about religious, cultural and politics of the region was fascinating. The whole roman occupation was so tragic but again very interesting. I wholly recommend this book for anyone who is interested in learning more about the historical Jesus and the events that took place around when he alive. It's an extremely dense read with tons of names, dates and technical terms, but it's so worth it. I'm to chapter 3 in my second read through!

https://www.amazon.com/dp/140006922X/?tag=pfamazon01-20


I haven't read the book but from the reviews I saw* it seems that he's doing a very poor job. So I think it's unlikely that his book will have any impact on Academia (zealot?, only this was missing in the Jesus Studies academic departments where we have already a long series of competing Jesuses :), did he use the criteria of authentication to derive that conclusion?).

Bart Ehrman is a much better alternative, personally I agree with him (writing in the tradition of Albert Schweitzer) that Jesus can be best understood as an apocalyptic prophet. Anyway I find much more interesting these days the debate between historicists and mythicists following the publication of Ehrman's book 'Did Jesus exist?' (whose argument is not so weak as Richard Carrier claim, let's see what can Carrier produce pro mythicism in his forthcoming book, due to appear early next year, the first peer reviewed book pro mythicism in the last 60 years :) ).


*http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2013/08/09/3822264.htm
http://historicaljesusresearch.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/a-review-of-reza-aslans-zealot.html
 
Last edited:
  • #17
metacristi said:
I think it's unlikely that his book will have any impact on Academia

Your right because that was not it's purpose. It's for general audience. Not for introducing new discoveries.
 
  • #18
The problem is that he claims Jesus was a zealot. And that's not an old discovery (accepted or at least tolerated in academia). He can be easily accused of at least misleading the general public.
 
  • #19
metacristi said:
The problem is that he claims Jesus was a zealot. And that's not an old discovery. He can be easily accused of at least misleading the general public.

Why is that a problem?
 
  • #20
I am interested by Truth. If Aslan labeled his book 'fiction' there is no problem of course. But I think it's otherwise, he makes an epistemological claim. Which totally fails it seems.
 
  • #21
metacristi said:
I am interested by Truth. If Aslan labeled his book 'fiction' there is no problem of course. But I think it's otherwise, he makes an epistemological claim. Which totally fails it seems.

I make no claims, but you haven't read the book, so how can you make that statement?
 
Last edited:
  • #22
Because others (some holding degrees in the relevant field) have reviewed it (I don't think they misquoted aslan). And since I've read enough on the subject before it's no rocket engineering to see some egregious mistakes in his book. Aslan doesn't really know what he says, that's the reality (I can even suspect that, as a muslim, he tries to finish off Christianity; in his place I would try to be the first one to introduce the historical critical method to the quranic studies, we still wait for that in that field). I'll stop here for it is not my intention to change your mind. I only said my point of view. Really one does not have to eat all the apple to realize that it is altered. The reviews are enough.
 
  • #23
metacristi said:
The problem is that he claims Jesus was a zealot. And that's not an old discovery (accepted or at least tolerated in academia). He can be easily accused of at least misleading the general public.
I think you are unfairly harping too much on the title. Given the definition of zealot is "a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals." it is tough for me to see that as an inaccurate description of someone who chose to die for his religious beliefs. Yes, the word has a provocative connotation, but that doesn't make it inaccurate.

Worse, in your last post you make some of the same slanderous claims about Aslan that come from the high-bias Christian reviewers, such as the highly highly misleading ad hominem about his religious motivation.
 
  • #24
metacristi said:
I am interested by Truth. If Aslan labeled his book 'fiction' there is no problem of course. But I think it's otherwise, he makes an epistemological claim. Which totally fails it seems.

Part of pursuing "Truth" is being intellectually honest. Russ makes a great point: while the word "zealot" has a negative connotation, surely you see how it fits?

I don't know of any historical scholar who labels his/her work as "fiction" or "nonfiction". Scholarly works don't fit into that spectrum.
 
  • #25
lisab said:
Part of pursuing "Truth" is being intellectually honest. Russ makes a great point: while the word "zealot" has a negative connotation, surely you see how it fits?

I don't know of any historical scholar who labels his/her work as "fiction" or "nonfiction". Scholarly works don't fit into that spectrum.
He's not actually a historical scholar. He has degrees in religion, sociology and creative writing.
 
  • #26
Evo said:
He's not actually a historical scholar. He has degrees in religion, sociology and creative writing.
Disagree. "Religion" is a multidisciplinary major/topic that includes history as a primary component. A sample description of the major at a randomly (google) chosen school:
Around the globe, choices motivated by religion affect political campaigns, voting habits and election outcomes. The religious studies program recognizes religion as both a fundamental dimension of human experience and as a practical concern in today’s world. Studying religion through the prism of multiple disciplines – history, philosophy, psychology, sociology and political science – provides a broad focus to understand culture and geopolitical events. [emphasis added]
http://www.sju.edu/majors-programs/undergraduate/majors/religious-studies-major

Aslan's bio:
Aslan holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in religions from Santa Clara University, a Master of Theological Studies degree from Harvard Divinity School, and a Master of Fine Arts degree from the University of Iowa's Writers' Workshop, where he was named the Truman Capote Fellow in Fiction. Aslan also received a Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology, focusing in the history of religion, from the University of California, Santa Barbara.[7][8][9] His dissertation was titled "Global Jihadism as a Transnational Social Movement: A Theoretical Framework".[10]

In August 2000, while serving as the Truman Capote Fellow at the Iowa Writers’ Workshop, Aslan was named Visiting Professor of Islamic Studies at the University of Iowa, becoming the first full-time professor of Islam in the history of the state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reza_Aslan

So even his sociology phd is history focused; history of religion that is. He is more than adequately qualified to write a scholarly work on one of the religions he studied in both his BA degree and phd. He is most definitely an historical scholar.
 
  • #27
As I indicated in an earlier post, I find it hard to pin down exactly what Aslan says about Jesus. On a quick read, I feel that Aslan's thesis is open to interpretation, and it's only one end of possible interpretations that I would argue strongly against. His clearest statements are about Paul, and I think his statement that Paul and Peter were from different religions is highly debatable - I'd point to Paul's first letter to the Corinthians and the letter to the Galatians that Paul himself did not believe that to be the case.

I would like to ask this forum's opinions about his concluding sentence. What do you think Aslan means by the following?

"... Jesus the man - is every bit as compelling, charismatic, and praiseworthy as Jesus the Christ. He is, in short, someone worth believing in."
 
Last edited:
  • #28
russ_watters said:
Disagree. "Religion" is a multidisciplinary major/topic that includes history as a primary component. A sample description of the major at a randomly (google) chosen school:
http://www.sju.edu/majors-programs/undergraduate/majors/religious-studies-major

Aslan's bio:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reza_Aslan

So even his sociology phd is history focused; history of religion that is. He is more than adequately qualified to write a scholarly work on one of the religions he studied in both his BA degree and phd. He is most definitely an historical scholar.
From your link

Some outlets, though, have also questioned Aslan's academic claims. During the interview, Aslan made a number of references to his PhD and stated, "to be clear, I am a scholar of religions with four degrees, including one in the New Testament." He called himself "an expert" with a doctoral degree "in the history of religions," and identified himself as "a professor of religion...that’s what I do for a living, actually." While The Washington Post observed Green had asked "astonishingly absurd questions," it also dubbed Aslan a "moving target" and described him as being "eager — perhaps overeager — to present himself as a formidable academic with special bona fides in religion and history" and "boast[ing] of academic laurels he does not have." The piece noted one of Aslan's four degrees was in creative writing and that his descriptions of his doctorate as being in 'the history of religions' or a doctorate in 'the sociology of religions' were imprecise. It also observed that Aslan was an associate professor in the creative writing department of the University of California at Riverside, and it noted a discrepancy in Aslan's claims to be a "cooperative faculty member" at UCR's Department of Religious Studies.[16]

Similarly, while The Nation called the interview "not just embarrassing but downright offensive," it also noted "Aslan’s broader claim to working as a historian, however, is another matter." The article argued it would be more accurate to describe Aslan as "an outsider to the field, interested in translating work by scholars of early Christianity for a broader audience. But his claims are more grandiose than that and are based on his repeated public statements that he speaks with authority as a historian. He has therefore reasonably opened himself to criticism on the basis of that claim." [17]
 
Last edited:
  • #29
Yes, and...? You didn't comment on those quotes. I'm aware of the Fox interview - that's pretty much what we are discussing! I assume you posted it because you agree with the Fox interivew's tack. I'm sure you are aware though that the reporter was widely criticized for it, aren't you? My response anyway is that I'm in a meeting and a person falsely attacks my credentials as a preface to every question, then I'm going to respond to the attack with every answer. You can't let something like that go otherwise you appear to tacitly approve of the framing of the question. My take on the interview is that it was a disgrace by the reporter. She repeated the same factually inaccurate statement over and over again in a way that made it malicious/disrespectful/dishonest/inethical. That Aslan remained calm and/or didn't walk out is remarkable to me.
 
  • #30
russ_watters said:
Yes, and...? You didn't comment on those quotes. I'm aware of the Fox interview - that's pretty much what we are discussing! I assume you posted it because you agree with the Fox interivew's tack. I'm sure you are aware though that the reporter was widely criticized for it, aren't you? My response anyway is that I'm in a meeting and a person falsely attacks my credentials as a preface to every question, then I'm going to respond to the attack with every answer. You can't let something like that go otherwise you appear to tacitly approve of the framing of the question. My take on the interview is that it was a disgrace by the reporter. She repeated the same factually inaccurate statement over and over again in a way that made it malicious/disrespectful/dishonest/inethical. That Aslan remained calm and/or didn't walk out is remarkable to me.
No, I'm referring to the Washington Post and other sources cited which were what my post concerned. It seems he perhaps tends to overstate his credentials. Now, he might write great books because that is his occupation, Associate Prof of Creative writing.
 
Last edited:
  • #31
Matthew Franck holds on to the idea that Reza Aslan misrepresented himself by claiming that he is a historian. After all, argues Franck, Aslan’s Ph.D. was in sociology, not history. Leaving aside the fact that the Ph.D. was in the sociology of religion, Reza Aslan’s dissertation adviser, Prof. Mark Juergensmayer, weighed in:

"Since i was Reza’s thesis adviser at the Univ of California-Santa Barbara, I can testify that he is a religious studies scholar. (I am a sociologist of religion with a position in sociology and an affiliation with religious studies). Though Reza’s PhD is in sociology most of his graduate course work at UCSB was in the history of religion in the dept of religious studies. Though none of his 4 degrees are in history as such, he is a “historian of religion” in the way that that term is used at the Univ of Chicago to cover the field of comparative religion; and his theology degree at Harvard covered Bible and Church history, and required him to master New Testament Greek. So in short, he is who he says he is."

It is not unreasonable for a person who majored in the sociology of religion to consider himself a historian of religion if his emphasis during study was in history. There is a very large overlap between the fields, especially since “most of his graduate course work was in the history of religion in the dept of religious studies.”

Yes, he is a professor of creative writing, but he also teaches courses–as a professor–on religion.


The crux of the matter is that Reza Aslan is a scholar of religion (which includes the history of religion). Aslan has hefty academic qualifications and did not misrepresent himself. But, just as the Fox News interviewer was guilty of projection, so too is Robert Spencer guilty of projection when he accuses Aslan of misrepresenting his scholarly credentials.

http://www.islamophobiatoday.com/20...the-same-credentials-as-reza-aslan-oh-really/
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
  • #32
Thanks Pythagorean. And flip it over: is someone with a history degree qualified to write such a book? Not necessarily, except of a specifically focused course of study. In general, I would say that a religious studies major is likely to be more qualified to write such a book than a history major. A religious studies major includes more history than a random history course does religious studies.

And this is all setting aside the fact that this is all irrelevant to whether the book has quality content. There are no submission requirements for a book and I doubt most journals would scrutinize his credentials like this, much less judge them as insufficient.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes 1 person
  • #33
russ_watters said:
I think you are unfairly harping too much on the title. Given the definition of zealot is "a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals." it is tough for me to see that as an inaccurate description of someone who chose to die for his religious beliefs. Yes, the word has a provocative connotation, but that doesn't make it inaccurate.

Worse, in your last post you make some of the same slanderous claims about Aslan that come from the high-bias Christian reviewers, such as the highly highly misleading ad hominem about his religious motivation.
I'm not sure if you try to be the devils advocate here or you sincerely believe that. Anyways I don't think you can save Aslan. There is little evidence to none that Jesus was a lonely zealot (I mean the zealots from Jesus time, who went well beyond your definition), in fact he has much more in common with the Essenes (in his disapproval of the Temple priests, the Saducees, from here the episode with the overturning the tables) than with the zealots.

Aslan tries to sell us the old, but deeply flawed, idea (often heard from muslim apologists, I debated one or two so I know) that Jesus teaches violence when he says that 'I have not come to bring peace...' and so on (in a context referring to family values, in fact those passages are much better understood in 'Jesus the apocalyptic prophet' paradigm, if you believe that the kingdom of God is very near the family values mean indeed zero; not surprising that he said what he said, the sword is symbolic for cutting off his followers from their families).

Even the cardinals of the Pope Urban II did not use these passages to legitimize the first Crusade. Finally as Bart Ehrman put it well (referring to the idea that Jesus was a zealot, said before Aslan book appeared):

Yes indeed. The entire “Quest of the Historical Jesus” began in the late 18th century with the writings of Reimarus, who thought something very much along these lines. Scarcely anyone holds to it today, but there are always a few holdouts!

The book may be appealing to some, may even be well written from a literary standpoint, but from a purely historical standpoint (in spite of Carrier I'd say that we can in fact say a few things about Jesus using the criterions of authenticity) it means exactly zero. If you want knowledge try elsewhere, Aslan book is largely fiction, not far from 'The Da Vinci code'. Aslan should better introduce the critical historical method to Islamic studies, they are still at the level of the Middle Ages there.
 
Last edited:
  • #34
metacristi said:
I'm not sure if you try to be the devils advocate here or you sincerely believe that. Anyways I don't think you can save Aslan. There is little evidence to none that Jesus was a lonely zealot (I mean the zealots from Jesus time), in fact he has much more in common with the Essenes (in his disapproval of the Temple priests, the Sadducees, from here the episode with the overturning the tables) than with the zealots.

The confusing thing is that, if I read him correctly, Aslan says Jesus was not a zealot (yes, the title seems misleading, especially if one knows that zealot is a somewhat technical term in this literature like "Essenes". He claims Jesus was a zealot that was not a zealot. But as to specific claims as to what a this zealot was that was not a zealot, I find it quite hard to pin down. So I don't think he is using the word zealot in the technical sense that one may use it. My thinking is that Aslan's thesis is vague, so that one can find obvious fault with it if one reads him as saying that Jesus was like a zealot (in the technical sense), while it's possible that he meant almost nothing in particular and can thus hardly be faulted.
 
  • #35
As far as I understand from the reviews at amazon he claims that Jesus was a lonely zealot, albeit not being part of the Zealot Party. That implies that he was not too far from their conceptions. Everything is a castle of cards which fall easily apart once the alleged 'violence of Jesus' is debunked (why on Earth to say 'give the Caesar...' if you are at least a quasi-zealot).
 
Last edited:
<H2>1. What is Reza Aslan's Zealot about Jesus of Nazareth?</H2><p>Reza Aslan's Zealot is a book that explores the historical context of Jesus of Nazareth and his role as a political and religious figure in first-century Palestine.</p><H2>2. Is Zealot based on historical evidence or speculation?</H2><p>Zealot is based on historical evidence gathered from various sources, including biblical texts, historical documents, and archaeological findings. Aslan also incorporates his own interpretations and analysis of this evidence.</p><H2>3. How does Zealot differ from other books about Jesus?</H2><p>Unlike many other books about Jesus, Zealot focuses on the historical and political context of his life rather than his theological significance. It also examines Jesus as a human figure rather than a divine one.</p><H2>4. What makes Zealot controversial?</H2><p>Zealot has sparked controversy due to its unconventional interpretations of Jesus and its criticism of traditional Christian beliefs. Some have also questioned Aslan's qualifications as a religious scholar.</p><H2>5. Is Zealot considered a reliable source for information about Jesus?</H2><p>Zealot is one source of information about Jesus, but it is not considered the definitive or authoritative source. As with any historical text, it is important to consider multiple perspectives and sources when studying a subject.</p>

1. What is Reza Aslan's Zealot about Jesus of Nazareth?

Reza Aslan's Zealot is a book that explores the historical context of Jesus of Nazareth and his role as a political and religious figure in first-century Palestine.

2. Is Zealot based on historical evidence or speculation?

Zealot is based on historical evidence gathered from various sources, including biblical texts, historical documents, and archaeological findings. Aslan also incorporates his own interpretations and analysis of this evidence.

3. How does Zealot differ from other books about Jesus?

Unlike many other books about Jesus, Zealot focuses on the historical and political context of his life rather than his theological significance. It also examines Jesus as a human figure rather than a divine one.

4. What makes Zealot controversial?

Zealot has sparked controversy due to its unconventional interpretations of Jesus and its criticism of traditional Christian beliefs. Some have also questioned Aslan's qualifications as a religious scholar.

5. Is Zealot considered a reliable source for information about Jesus?

Zealot is one source of information about Jesus, but it is not considered the definitive or authoritative source. As with any historical text, it is important to consider multiple perspectives and sources when studying a subject.

Similar threads

Replies
50
Views
25K
Replies
8
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
16
Views
4K
Back
Top