My article on Reza Aslan's Zealot,
the Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth,
published in the Minnesota Christian Examiner, 2007.
http://www.minnesota.christianexaminer.com/Articles/Nov13/Art_Nov13_oped3.html
Zealot,
the Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth by Reza Aslan is a New York Times bestseller, and for good
reason. Aslan is a brilliant story-teller. In Aslan’s story, Jesus grew up under
the oppressive rule of corrupt temple officials and brutal Roman overlords. It
was a time of numerous uprisings by Jewish rebels and would-be-messiahs who
sought to overthrow Rome by force. All this helped to foster Jesus’ resentment
and rage against the rich and powerful.
According to
Aslan, Jesus shared the anti-Temple feelings of other Galileans and his
preaching of the kingdom was “a call to revolution, plain and simple” (120). Armed
only with zeal, Jesus was welcomed as royalty as he rode into Jerusalem and
confronted the Temple authorities with his claim to be Jerusalem’s rightful
king. As a result, Jesus was arrested and executed by crucifixion, which the
Romans reserved for the most serious political crimes.
So if Jesus’
message was a call to revolution, why don’t the Gospels tell the story this
way? Aslan’s answer is that the Gospels were all written after the fall of
Jerusalem by Christians who didn’t know Jesus and were trying to distance
themselves from the rebellion. They, therefore, revised the story of Jesus to
remove the fact that he was a zealot.
I found
myself enthralled by the story and even agreeing in many cases. I agree with
much of Aslan’s historical background material (though not always with his
“spin”). I agree that most Jews in Jesus’ day opposed Roman rule and that some
actively sought to overthrow it. I agree that Jesus thought of himself as
Israel’s Messiah and that he envisioned a literal kingdom on earth. I also agree
that Jesus was crucified by the Romans on charges of sedition.
But while there
is much with which I agree, my disagreements are far more significant.
First, just
because Galilee was a violent province before and after Jesus’ lifetime does
not mean that Jesus grew up preaching a call to revolution. Imagine, for example, a book detailing all
the violence of the civil rights era and arguing that Dr. King, therefore, must
have been an advocate of violent revolution! Jesus’ peaceful message, like that
of Dr. King, was “radical” because it was so countercultural.
Second,
while I agree with Aslan that Jesus believed himself to be the Messiah, Aslan
seems to think that this fact must necessarily mean that Jesus was a zealot
intent on overturning Roman rule. Aslan seems unaware that many Jews in Jesus’
day thought the Kingdom of God would be established by the direct divine intervention,
not by human violence. They need only wait and be faithful until God acted.
Certainly
the Essenes were one such group. Interestingly enough, Aslan argued that Jesus
was a disciple of John the Baptist who may have been influenced by Essenes. Yet
Aslan doesn’t even entertain the possibility that Jesus agreed with the Essenes
in their view that the kingdom would come by divine intervention, not by
revolution.
Third, the
extreme skepticism Aslan brings to the Gospels is unwarranted. He argues that
the only two firm historical facts we can know about Jesus are that Jesus “was
a Jew who led a popular Jewish movement in Palestine at the beginning of the
first century C.E.”(xxvii), and that this resulted in his crucifixion by the
Romans. Aslan seems unaware that even most of the radically skeptical Jesus
scholars believe that the Gospels contain more historically reliable
information about Jesus than this.
More
significantly, however, although Aslan says “there are only two hard historical
facts about Jesus,” (xxvii) he builds his case on other facts in the Gospels
that he considers to be reliable. It appears that Aslan is very skeptical of
everything that undermines his theory but accepts everything that he thinks may
support his theory. Unlike many serious Jesus scholars, Aslan never sets forth the
criteria by which he determines what is reliable.
Fourth, Aslan’s
creative writing skill is one of the strengths of the book, but it is also one
of the most serious weaknesses. Many readers will no doubt find it impossible
to tell where the facts end and the creative storytelling begins. For example,
when Aslan describes Jesus’ followers as “hiding in Gethsemane, shrouded in
darkness, and armed with swords” and adds that they “will not be taken easily”
(147), the reader is led to imagine a well-armed band of resistance fighters hiding
out in wait for the Romans. This impression is pure fiction.
In Aslan’s
view the reason not one ancient source presents Jesus as a zealot is because
they were trying to cover up Jesus’ true identity. On the other hand, a second possibility might
be that the reason none of our ancient sources present Jesus as a zealot is
because Jesus—like the Essenes and other Jews of his time—was not preaching
rebellion against Rome but was proclaiming God’s direct intervention. Jesus was
warning people to repent in preparation for the day when God would directly
intervene in human affairs to set up his kingdom.
This second
option is precisely what the Gospels teach, it coheres well with what we know
about first century Jewish groups, and it does not require extensive, speculative
historical re-imagination.
