A Book Review on The Zealot by Reza Aslan
When it comes to Reza Aslan’s work “The Zealot” it
has been at the center of quite a bit of criticism. To
some the work itself being completely of base and out of touch with
reality. No better example comes to mind
than the Fox news interview with Lauren Green, Green frequently interjected,
quoting critics who questioned Aslan's credibility as an author of such a work
as Aslan is a prominent Muslim. Aslan noted he was "a scholar of
religions with four degrees, including one in the New Testament, and is fluent
in biblical Greek, and has been studying the origins of Christianity for two
decades. He also added that he also just
happens to be a Muslim." The interview was criticized immediately
after gaining notoriety on the Internet after a post on BuzzFeed headlined
"Is This The Most Embarrassing Interview Fox News Has Ever Done?"
Despite, however, the interview on Fox, many scholars have taken up issues with
the Aslan’s work and thesis. Aslan only holds to two truths or two hard historical facts
about Jesus’ – he was a Jew who led a popular movement and Pilate crucified him
for doing so.
The book is framed around the reader
being a “non-scholar” on the matter of Christ and his life and ministry. Aslan, being he is writing for non-scholars,
also gives the reader background history of Israel and the Jewish people
between the two testaments and explain zealotry. He looks a number of people who sought to overthrow King Herod or the Roman presence.
He places Jesus the Nazareth and his followers into this history and social
setting. With this indulgent, Jesus' proclamation of the coming kingdom of God
was a call for regime change, for ending Roman hegemony over Israel and ending
a corrupt and oppressive aristocratic priesthood. This being exactly what the zealot movement
was about. Aslan wants to date all four gospels later than most New
Testament scholars. He does however keep the priority with Mark and it coming
as one of the firsts gospels; but writes of the evangelist as simply ‘adding a
chronological narrative’ to a ‘jumble of traditions’ (p. 26). Seeing
Jesus as only a Zealot who is seeking a regime change, Aslan contends that the
regime change that was sought after did not take place. Jesus was taken in to Roman
custody and executed, along with two other rebels, I gathered being the two who
hung with Christ. Holding to the thesis that Jesus only being ‘a revolutionary Jewish nationalist’ (p. 30),
Aslan sites three further ‘hard historical facts’ (1) that he ‘cleansed’ the
Temple, (2) that Aslan’s political interpretation of what Jesus meant by paying
tribute to Caesar correctly reads what Jesus originally meant (pp. 73-78) and
(3) that Jesus entered into Jerusalem gloriously. As a way of making point that only certain truths
can be held of Jesus; Aslan points out that “all of
Jesus’” miracle stories were overstated overtime (p. 104). Aslan also points out that “there are numerous passages
in the gospels in which Jesus is accused of consorting with “loose women”’ (p.
246).
It was
awhile later, after the crucifixion that the followers of Jesus became
convinced that their Messiah was the God in which they thought and had been resurrected
and his mission was no longer a failure.
This scene can be seen in the gospel, in sorts, with the road to Emmaus
text. The two walking and being
depressed that what they had believed was not what was true and Jesus appearing
to them in the breaking of the bread. However,
unlike other zealot movements that ceased after the deaths of their respective
founders, the Jesus movement not only continued, even in the face of severe
opposition. It flourished, soon reaching large numbers of non-Jews.
Here is where in the book that
Paul, the apostle, is brought into the picture.
Aslan goes into explaining how Paul was the one who actually caused the rift
between the Jewish tradition and the new face of Judaism. For Aslan, it was the
new Judaism that won out and thus creating a new religion, one destined to have
the most followers around the world, Christianity. However, Aslan contends the Christianity
that was founded back then and has evolved into today is not what Jesus, the
founder, wanted or intended for.
Aslan
depicts a clash between James and Peter and the followers of Paul It was Paul
who ‘transformed Jesus from a revolutionary zealot into a Romanized demigod’
(p. 171). Aslan also contends that Paul
thought of himself not merely as equal to the other apostles but even as ‘the first apostle’ (p. 186; emphasis original) which
draws criticism and the other end of the argument stating 1 Corinthians 15:8-9
as a hole in this assumption of Asalan. Aslan also states that, “in the letters of Paul Jesus
is repeatedly described as “of the seed of David”’ (p. 227), and refers to
Romans 1:3 and 2 Timothy 2:8; but he agrees that 2 Timothy is not a letter of
Paul, so in fact he has only one example. Aslan asserts that the letters of
Paul ‘make up the bulk of the New Testament’ (p. 29). But, even if we go beyond
the seven letters that scholars normally acknowledge as authentic, Paul’s
letters make up considerably less than one third of the New Testament.
Given all of my personal, and non-scholarly, contentions with
the work, I did find it to be well written and a work that can hold your
attention even while stating things one might not agree with. I say that to say he wrote his objections of
the Jesus we know, eloquently and one that even if you disagree you can respect
the work. I can certainly see where some
Christians might take aim at this, however we have to keep in mind that Aslan
is writing this work as a historical theologian. That in itself, we know going in the miracles
and unproved stories are always going to be dismissed. Even our Christian historical theologians do
this, so the fact that he is Muslim means little to me on that note. I found myself liking this work and am curious
to read more of his works. Overall I am
happy with alternate picture Aslan allowed me to explore of the life and work
of Jesus.
