Reza Aslan
 |
| Add caption |
Now I discovered this author after watching is very interesting discussion that he had with a Fox news reporter when he was promoting this book, she basically question why would a Muslim, faith the Aslan professes would write a book Jesus and sort of impaling ¿What gives him the right? or ¿Why would he Care? , and he very respectfully and intelligently just destroys her stupid argument. So after watching that exchange, I was left fascinated by some of Reza's ideas, so I set out to find this book and to my surprise I was able to by a copy here in Argentina. And before I got into the book I was really hoping it wasn't one those pseudo/history/speculation crap books that flooded book stores after Dan Brown books came out in the early 2000's ( note I know they are novels of fiction but they spawned a market of speculative history books that had no historic backing what so ever, and the sudden everyone was a Jesus expert with new crazy and unfounded ideas). But greatfully even though I'm not on the same page with Aslan on certain subjects presented in this book, from a academic point of view this book is very interesting, but it's not as good as his previous book about Islam, "No god but God". So guys enjoy my break down of this highly recommendable book that will make you think enjoy and go read it's a entertaining read.
· Review and Analysis:
Expectations with the book: I wanted to discover a bunch of new stuff that I didn't know about the New Testament.
Central Thymes and Concepts that Aslan presents the reader ( a least the stuff that I found most relevant):
A excellent observation of Aslan's is that after all the turmoil of the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, Mark started to write the first gospel about Jesus Greek, not in Hebrew or Aramaic, he wrote it in th langue of the oppressors Rome, and that from Aslan's point of view and mine it speaks volumes.
Very interesting point that Aslan makes about Jesus is that even though they were many exorcists and/or healers during his time, he didn't ask for any payment of any kind and this set him apart from the rest, this made people take notice and probably got him in trouble with the power that be.
Even though Aslan discards most of Jesus's miracles, he later in the book establishes that he most have had some type of capacity or ability of healing and exorcism because he did these acts in public this part of him was never in debate in contrast to the fact that was he a Messiah, the Son of God, God himself... , and one must not forget this issues didn't go away this in part leads to the separation with the Orthodox Church and even influenced early Islam.
Now the Author makes a bold affirmation which is pretty central to his thesis, that when Jesus is asked if it's legal for a person of Jewish faith to pay taxes to the Romans, he was actually being ask if he's a Zealot, which a big statement on part of the author, using just one passage. The author goes deeper into his affirmation that that become a big part of his thesis explaining that the coin that had Cesar's name most be given back to him because it was his property, not because it was a tax, and there for God has the right to be given back his lands. And for this for Aslan establishes that this is a Zealot for of reasoning.
Book illustrates that early Christians had a hard time defining Jesus as the Messiah, this lead early Christians to focus on Jesus's early life that was largely ignored in the first established gospels, he just didn't t fit the traditional Jewish description Messiah.
The book open up a `pretty interestin g debate in Chapter 7, ¿Who was more relevant Jesus or John the Baptist ? ¿Who needed who for spiritual legitimization? and he notes that the bible has a hard time with this issue. And Aslan makes the affirmation that its possible that Jesus actually could have started as one of John's disciples and references that part of Jesus's discourse had similarities with the Baptist.
The Kingdom of Heaven or Kingdom of God was Jesus's major religious and political statement of his time, but never was very well defined, now Aslan interpretation is that it's wrong to establish that he wasn't talking about a true Kingdom on Earth , errors of translation have made many scholars make this mistake of interpretation, he wasn't a metaphor, Reza affirms that Jesus when he talks about this subject he refers to a form of government that would be ruled by god and not only Israel, but the whole world, wealth would be redistributed and dept canceled (major issue during Jesus's times). Now Aslan establishes that this was a common view among the Zealots and Jesus was a straight up revolutionary and his view was that whole religious and political establishment of Israel had to go, the Jewish high priest and there was no room for a Roman occupation too.
Aslan establish that the Jewish people in the Roman Diaspora didn't want to be associated with the revolts in Jerusalem, and the writers of the gospels didn't want to be associated with the Jewish independence movements, so the author affirms they removed the revolutionary part of Jesus's message. The first Christians viewed the Roman crack down in Jerusalem as a omen of the end of times promised by their messiah. Now here's Reza's central argument with the temple destroyed to be a person of Jewish faith basically made you an outcast, so the first Christians decided to break with their Jewish origin transforming their messiah from a nationalist revolutionary into a pacifist preacher. And they did this by establishing the doctrine that the Jewish Religious establishment is more at fault of Jesus's death than the Roman authorities, and Aslan makes the point that the Roman official had the final word by being the one executing Jesus, but there was a need to down play this, to not seem anti Roman.
The Good stuff about the Book:
In the first part of the book you have a map of Palestine ( that's the denomination that he uses, some readers can take this in particular and make it a political issue) during the times of Jesus, and it's interesting because it helps you understand, geographically where Jesus had preached, and as I went through this book I went back to this map several times.
Before the introduction author gives the reader a illustration of the Temple of Jerusalem(Note this is the Third and last construction of this building, author doesn't mention this in the book), with references in how it was structured, this comes in handy latter in the book when Aslan explains certain issues and grievance that people like Jesus had with the central Jewish religious authority and establishment.
Author establishes a fundamental point that I share with him, that when one studies scripture, in this case the Bible, one must take into account that they were written to transmit testaments of faith and were elaborated some time after Jesus's death by the community of faithful based mostly on oral tradition, one must understand that these scriptures did not have the finality of being a historical documents of Jesus's life, but a instrument spreading his teachings and beliefs . Now this doesn't mean that they had no regard to trying to tell things like they happened, they probably tried their best with what they had, but this fact does help understand some inconsistencies in the New Testament in the retelling of Jesus's life.
Author goes to great lengths to fundament his position, citing where he gets the information, in this aspect he take a pretty academic position, most of the time.
Aslan's style of writing is very fluid so the text never ways you down asa reader.
· He really dives into the mindset of that time, and I think that he nails it, giving the reader a very interesting perspective.
The Bad and some short comings:
Aslan affirms like most historians that Jesus has brothers and sisters, contrary to Catholic doctrine, he establishes that four brothers are mentioned in the Bible James/Santiago, Joseph, Simon and Judas, now me as a Catholic I need him to cite from where he can make this affirmation (that is probably true).
Reza also mentions Joseph Jesus's father which he explains probably died when he was a Child, but it's possible that he's a invention of Mathew and Luke, the only two that mention Joseph to justify the "invention" the virginal conception of Mary, again Aslan make assumptions without evidence, but it's possible that Jesus was born out of wedlock we just do not have enough information.
Note in this book Aslan almost automatically discards all of Jesus's miracles, but in his book on Islam he doesn't do the same with Prophet Mohammed.
When Jesus wasn't part of the group that was formally know a the Zealots, that rebelled 30 years after his death, and he wasn't a revolutionary prone to violence, but the author establishes that his views on violence were more complex, Aslan discards that Jesus was a pacifist. Now his definition of Zealot get pretty elastic at moments.
Expectations with the book: I wanted to discover a bunch of new stuff that I didn't know about the New Testament.
Central Thymes and Concepts that Aslan presents the reader ( a least the stuff that I found most relevant):
A excellent observation of Aslan's is that after all the turmoil of the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem, Mark started to write the first gospel about Jesus Greek, not in Hebrew or Aramaic, he wrote it in th langue of the oppressors Rome, and that from Aslan's point of view and mine it speaks volumes.
Very interesting point that Aslan makes about Jesus is that even though they were many exorcists and/or healers during his time, he didn't ask for any payment of any kind and this set him apart from the rest, this made people take notice and probably got him in trouble with the power that be.
Even though Aslan discards most of Jesus's miracles, he later in the book establishes that he most have had some type of capacity or ability of healing and exorcism because he did these acts in public this part of him was never in debate in contrast to the fact that was he a Messiah, the Son of God, God himself... , and one must not forget this issues didn't go away this in part leads to the separation with the Orthodox Church and even influenced early Islam.
Now the Author makes a bold affirmation which is pretty central to his thesis, that when Jesus is asked if it's legal for a person of Jewish faith to pay taxes to the Romans, he was actually being ask if he's a Zealot, which a big statement on part of the author, using just one passage. The author goes deeper into his affirmation that that become a big part of his thesis explaining that the coin that had Cesar's name most be given back to him because it was his property, not because it was a tax, and there for God has the right to be given back his lands. And for this for Aslan establishes that this is a Zealot for of reasoning.
The book open up a `pretty interestin g debate in Chapter 7, ¿Who was more relevant Jesus or John the Baptist ? ¿Who needed who for spiritual legitimization? and he notes that the bible has a hard time with this issue. And Aslan makes the affirmation that its possible that Jesus actually could have started as one of John's disciples and references that part of Jesus's discourse had similarities with the Baptist.
Aslan establish that the Jewish people in the Roman Diaspora didn't want to be associated with the revolts in Jerusalem, and the writers of the gospels didn't want to be associated with the Jewish independence movements, so the author affirms they removed the revolutionary part of Jesus's message. The first Christians viewed the Roman crack down in Jerusalem as a omen of the end of times promised by their messiah. Now here's Reza's central argument with the temple destroyed to be a person of Jewish faith basically made you an outcast, so the first Christians decided to break with their Jewish origin transforming their messiah from a nationalist revolutionary into a pacifist preacher. And they did this by establishing the doctrine that the Jewish Religious establishment is more at fault of Jesus's death than the Roman authorities, and Aslan makes the point that the Roman official had the final word by being the one executing Jesus, but there was a need to down play this, to not seem anti Roman.
Aslan affirms that Jesus's resurrection was the first acts of faith that the community had recognized, even before the Passion or Mary's virginal conception, and it really made a break with the traditional Jewish community beliefs, having Jesus coming back from death would be considered heresy. Now the resurrection in a way redefines the crucifixion, from a failure to a victory, something that his followers truly believed that happened, and Aslan does go into this aspect, and he explains that they know that they didn't see a ghost.
Now Jesus's movement was completely Jewish, most of his disciples maintained Jewish costumes till the end of their days, what deferred from traditional Jewish costume right of the bat was there inclination to missionary activities, and there message started to find eco in the Jewish Diaspora. Aslan atributes this that they lived in a more cosmopolitan context they were exposed to other ethnias, races, costumes, other religions and they openly question some aspects of their faith, I would add that the territorial aspect of their faith was put especially put into question, Judaism is a national religion tide to a territory, now these people where living ok lives outside of their homeland and their connection to their motherland was growing week. Now back to Aslan he mentioned that most of the Jewish Diaspora spoke in Greek , that's way the gospel were written in this language.
This Jewish Diaspora started to become a force in the movement and some level of conflict with the members that were established in Jerusalem. The Greek based members started to change the Jewish message of a national religion into a universal faith to be more attractive to the Greco-Roman world that they lived in. For example Saint Paul started to preach not to his fellow Jews but to people of other creeds, who had been mostly ignored be the missionaries. Paul had political grievances with the leaders of the Church in Jerusalem, the Mother Assembly: James, Peter and John (just to name some of the most important), and he found no need to infuse his teachings with Jewish tradition that was a big issue with the churches leaders. Aslan explains that Paul had no interests in the historical Jesus, referencing very little about his life or what he said in his writings, and Reza goes as far to say that Paul had no idea who was Jesus and didn't care. In what he had redefined Jesus into the Jesus Christ or just Christ, which is technically the Greek word for Messiah. His description of Jesus is more like celestial being that had great mystical powers. Things got so bad with Paul that he was ask by James to leave Jerusalem with his divergent teachings.
The Good stuff about the Book:
In the first part of the book you have a map of Palestine ( that's the denomination that he uses, some readers can take this in particular and make it a political issue) during the times of Jesus, and it's interesting because it helps you understand, geographically where Jesus had preached, and as I went through this book I went back to this map several times.
 |
| Add caption |
- Also before the Introduction there is a note from the Author, very similar to his previous book Aslan explains how this book affects him personally and explains when he was growing up he had become, in his words somewhat of a Bible Thumper, even though he was Iranian, his family moved to the US after the revolution, now he converted to Christianity in his early teens, but as grew up and started to study formally theology he fell disenchanted with his new faith and converted back to Islam but he explains that the historic Jesus has special place for him, and that this historic Jesus is who he will try to present to the reader, a man very different from Christian tradition.
Author goes to great lengths to fundament his position, citing where he gets the information, in this aspect he take a pretty academic position, most of the time.
Aslan's style of writing is very fluid so the text never ways you down asa reader.
· He really dives into the mindset of that time, and I think that he nails it, giving the reader a very interesting perspective.
The Bad and some short comings:
· The way he establishes his hypothesis about the true motives of Jesus Christ, it makes his analysis very rigged, he sort of boxes himself in one position that doesn't hurt the book in general, but he does lose objectivity at moments trying to prove his point, and this book is not as good as his previous book about Islam that was brilliant.
· The book isn't very well balanced Aslan at moments dedicates too much time to the historical context of Jesus's life more than to Jesus himself, you get the feeling if he didn't do this he would have had a very short book.
It takes a bit for the book to actual mention Jesus, this happens for the first time on page 60 and a little bit during chapter 6 but it takes Aslan to start to really talk about him on page 105 and to be able to start his main topic and one most note the book only has 240 pages. Even though Reza rights a lot about Jesus historical context and it's very interesting, it seem he need to linger on this issue to add more pages to the book, the title from The Zealot, Life and time of Jesus of Nazareth, it should be Change to The Zelalot, the Origins and Evolution of Early Christianity and its founders.
The book actually has three prologues, boy Aslan needs to fill pages.
If the author would have written exclusively about Jesus the book would be 50 pages long.
If the author would have written exclusively about Jesus the book would be 50 pages long.
Aslan flat out establish that in 2 passages: Luke 2:42-52 and 4:16-22, in the New Testament where Jesus Is shown to be able to read and possibly write, are false, but the author does do much to prove this point other than explain that a person like Jesus didn't have accessed to any type of education that would allow him to read and write. This is plausible at best but not impossible that he could read we do not know details from his early life, so it's sloppy on Reza's part of making that kind of assumption without presenting the reader how did he reach that conclusion.
·
The Debatable stuff and other weak arguments:Aslan affirms like most historians that Jesus has brothers and sisters, contrary to Catholic doctrine, he establishes that four brothers are mentioned in the Bible James/Santiago, Joseph, Simon and Judas, now me as a Catholic I need him to cite from where he can make this affirmation (that is probably true).
Reza also mentions Joseph Jesus's father which he explains probably died when he was a Child, but it's possible that he's a invention of Mathew and Luke, the only two that mention Joseph to justify the "invention" the virginal conception of Mary, again Aslan make assumptions without evidence, but it's possible that Jesus was born out of wedlock we just do not have enough information.
Note in this book Aslan almost automatically discards all of Jesus's miracles, but in his book on Islam he doesn't do the same with Prophet Mohammed.
· The author sustains that there is no reason to believe that Jesus had got married, now it wasn't normal for a man like him to stay unmarried and celibacy wasn't practiced in general exception for people in certain monastic sects, but the author establish that there is no evidence what so ever that Jesus could have been married or had children, I'm on same page with Aslan on this issue, but I know people do question this, but the author manages this debatable issue very well, but this isn't the standard norm of this book.
When Jesus wasn't part of the group that was formally know a the Zealots, that rebelled 30 years after his death, and he wasn't a revolutionary prone to violence, but the author establishes that his views on violence were more complex, Aslan discards that Jesus was a pacifist. Now his definition of Zealot get pretty elastic at moments.
Now a revolutionary Jesus sort of goes against the Christian Jesus, who was a pacifist and apolitical and Aslan makes this observation, and basically establishes that Jesus was very pragmatic referring to violence, he didn't preach openly to be violent but he goes on that the verse in the bible that he preaches pacifism are out of social religious context, which was between people of Jewish faith.
First and for most Jesus was Jewish and his plan is for Israel, this affirmation of the author sort of contradict was he affirmed early that the Kindom of Heaven was thought on a global scale on page 149, unless the he being figuratively or Jesus had plan for everyone to become Jewish.
It interesting to see the author so opposed and discrediting most of Jesus's miracles, but his healing capabilities and his resurrection are not put into question, he establishes that they happened, probably with a rational explanation but they took place. The author affirms the resurrection isn't a historical event, but it does have historical effects, that falls outside of the cipher of history and belong to the domain of faith. And this position right that a investigator should take on these issues but he doesn't take his own medicine during most of the book that just simply discards certain aspects of Jesus's life without proving his position or citing where he can demonstrate his point.
Look I'm no one to question a investigation of a author that seems to have gone the extra mile trying to uncover such important Biblical secrets, my grievances with this book are basically truck sized wholes in his arguments that appear at moments, his Thesis put him in complicated places with so little information, but the book does make you think and sheds some light on some interesting subject. Aslan has a interesting perspective of things and this enriches this book he presents us with a very political Jesus, and I don't side with him on the Zealot thesis I do think Jesus was politically and socially very aware, so I'll give a 7 out of ten.
First and for most Jesus was Jewish and his plan is for Israel, this affirmation of the author sort of contradict was he affirmed early that the Kindom of Heaven was thought on a global scale on page 149, unless the he being figuratively or Jesus had plan for everyone to become Jewish.
It interesting to see the author so opposed and discrediting most of Jesus's miracles, but his healing capabilities and his resurrection are not put into question, he establishes that they happened, probably with a rational explanation but they took place. The author affirms the resurrection isn't a historical event, but it does have historical effects, that falls outside of the cipher of history and belong to the domain of faith. And this position right that a investigator should take on these issues but he doesn't take his own medicine during most of the book that just simply discards certain aspects of Jesus's life without proving his position or citing where he can demonstrate his point.
Look I'm no one to question a investigation of a author that seems to have gone the extra mile trying to uncover such important Biblical secrets, my grievances with this book are basically truck sized wholes in his arguments that appear at moments, his Thesis put him in complicated places with so little information, but the book does make you think and sheds some light on some interesting subject. Aslan has a interesting perspective of things and this enriches this book he presents us with a very political Jesus, and I don't side with him on the Zealot thesis I do think Jesus was politically and socially very aware, so I'll give a 7 out of ten.
