Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus by Reza Aslan

I know this thread is over a year old, but I was wondering if anyone else has read it since then, and remember your thoughts on it? Haha I just got it yesterday, then saw this thread so I figured I would ask.

I liked the interview - thanks for bumping the thread For a really good (in my opinion), in-depth primer on the life and times of Jesus I can strongly recommend this Open course from Yale University: http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-152#sessions
It's also available as a Podcast on iTunes (other podcast providers are available ) and it's free!

Albert Schweitzer stated that we cannot ever know the historical Jesus. I agree. From internal evidence, the letters of Paul were written in the generation after the death of Jesus while the Gospels two to three generations following. Aslan is correct in stating that none of them ever met Jesus. All of the writings of the New Testament have a theological purpose and cannot be used as an historical source. Their theological/ethical perspectives can be compared to other documents of the time but then we are comparing the theologies and ethical theories of writers and not those of Jesus. The most unique written format, one that doesn't appear in other first century documents, are the Parables. Perhaps the Parables are closer to the thoughts of Jesus, as rendered by the Gospel writers included in the Christian canon. There is a stronger case for Jesus the Jewish Ethical Reformer as the words attributed to him echo Rabbi Hillel more than those of either the Essenes or Zealots.

Alan wrote: Albert Schweitzer stated that we cannot ever know the historical Jesus. I agree. From internal evidence, the letters of Paul were written in the generation after the death of Jesus while the Gospels two to three generations following. Aslan is correct in stating that none of them ever met Jesus. All of the writings of the New Testament have a theological purpose and cannot be used as an historical source. Their theological/ethical perspectives can be compared to other documents of the time but then we are comparing the theologies and ethical theories of writers and not those of Jesus. The most unique written format, one that doesn't appear in other first century documents, are the Parables. Perhaps the Parables are closer to the thoughts of Jesus, as rendered by the Gospel writers included in the Christian canon. There is a stronger case for Jesus the Jewish Ethical Reformer as the words attributed to him echo Rabbi Hillel more than those of either the Essenes or Zealots.

thank you, ive never heard of Rabbi Hilel, im interested and am going to see what google has to say

i know this does not lend me much credibility in the larger scheme of things, but i just finished an "Intro to Religion" last semester, and my prof. made sure that the class understood that Jesus was likely a bit of a disappointment to the zealots

i drew the conclusion that the reason he lived and taught for as long as he did - which i was told was around three years - was because he never advocated any kind of overt opposition to rome

he did generate a lot of controversy and get a lot of attention

because of how many people were interested in what he had to say, had he offered even a hint of being a zealot, he would immediately have been taken and executed

i was taught that his ministry was especially challenging to the sadducee's, and that it was primarily they who eventually accused jesus of treason against rome

not so much because he was in any way treasonous

but because that was a charge that the roman empire would not want to hear had been treated lightly

and that was why pontius pilate relented, and ordered jesus to be crucified - he was essentially "maneuvered" by the nature of the sadducees accusations

---
EDIT
wow the source of the "golden rule", thats awesome

i thought the quote ""What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn" was familiar and i wondered if i hadnt embarrassed myself by admiting how much i DIDNT learn in my class, so i just checked my textbook (religions of the world, hopfe) and his name was not in the index

maybe thats a later course

Blue Star wrote:

Kaverael wrote: Has anyone read this book?

I read it, THOROUGHLY enjoyed reading it, and wrote a review of the book here:

http://theautarkist.wordpress.com/2014/05/17/zealot-how-a-muslim-found-jesus-and-what-he-did-to-him-when-he-found-him/

What an insightful review ... the kind of thing that could inspire a conversation lasting all night. Thanks for sharing your observations, Blue Star.

Thanks for the link Loudzoo! I'll definitely be listening to that. I really like what you said Alan, from what I have seen in studying this subject is pretty much what you have listed. I was wondering if you think the book Zealot gives reputable information on this topic or if it's not worth the read and there are better books you could recommend?

I highly recommend "how Jesus became God" by Dr. Bart Ehrman for anyone else interested in this topic, and if anyone has already read that book, what did you think?

Excellent posts.

Messianism waxes and wanes in Judaism and in first century Jerusalem there were other interpretations in addition to the official one of the scholars and elders at the Second Temple. Also, the theme of an expectant divine savior’s imminent return can be found in a variety of forms in those religions present in Roman Jerusalem, for example, both Mithraism, and its parent religion, Zoroastrianism. Christianity never got over the need for a Messiah. Jesus is theologically transformed into the end-of-time Messianic Judge. Judaism took another path. The idea seems to have become marginalized in the face of more dire threats in the Diaspora. Councils met during the first century to adopt a scriptural canon for dissemination throughout the Diaspora and to figure out what kind of Judaism there was to be now without a temple in Jerusalem.

I imagine Jerusalem's elite being deeply divided. There were multiple religious and economic factions, and that there was a common enemy was not enough to reduce the tension. Herod and his family were the local royals. Old family. Hellenistic ties. There other capital was Damascus. Money flowed into the city with Herod flush splitting the taxes with Rome. I presume there was a wealthy elite (foreigners, as well as, locals) who were more or less independent from the temple and collaborating with Rome. Bribery was rife. It is conceivable that Jerusalem's competing ancient families funded proxy militants. The merchant elite already had armed guards for security of caravans and agricultural sites: Pax Romana Godfather-Meets-Game-of -Thrones. Zealots had to wait to reap what they sowed. The Siege of Jerusalem ended with Herod’s temple razed in 70 C.E. by the general and next emperor, Titus. Rome again kept the peace there until the Bar Kokhba Revolt, 132-135 C.E. By the end of the first century Christianity was flourishing in the cities of the eastern Roman Empire except Jerusalem.

Rick D wrote: Has anyone read this book?

Yes. It's astounding.

That is fantastic info Alan! Thank you! How did you come about learning all or that? Did you take a course or just independent study and reading? Also, you end with Christianity flourishing, do you think the time it took for the Jews to fight Rome and reconstruct it's doctrine aided Christianity in its ability to grow in some way?

Disclaimer: I have not read Aslan.

Funny, how my academic work often coincides with Jedi topics of discussion here. Preparing for next semester’s course on World Mythology, I stumbled upon an article related to this discussion. The new textbook is The Myth and Ritual Theory, a book of readings edited by Robert A. Segel. This is the first semester I’ve used this book in class (having previously required Campbell’s The Hero with a Thousand Faces and Mircea Eliade’s The Myth of the Eternal Return) and so I’m reading many of the articles in this collection for the first time though I’ve long been an advocate of the concept of the relationship of myth and ritual. The article in question is The Myth and Ritual Position Critically Examined by historian of religion, S.G.F. Brandon (1907-1971). Brandon points out an overlooked event in the first generation of Christianity regarding two radically different interpretations regarding the person and mission of Jesus. Paul writes to the churches in Galatia and Corinth about this serious challenge to his interpretation. Brandon writes, “On further investigation there can be little doubt that these exponents of the rival gospel were none other than the emissaries of the Church of Jerusalem, which means that their teaching represented the interpretation of the status and role of Jesus held by those original apostles and ‘eye-witnesses’ who constituted the Urgemeinde of Christianity” (404). Urgemeinde refers to the original community of the first Christians in Jerusalem.

Brandon posits that this community thought of Jesus as the Messiah of Israel; a being with supernatural power who will come in glory to restore the Kingdom of Israel. Clearly, a political/military Messiah whose imminent return was expected to redeem Israel’s captivity to Rome. This is not the messianic savior, whom Paul identifies with the historical Jesus, who is to deliver universal salvation. The Church of Jerusalem possessed indisputable authority and prestige from the support of Jesus’ original disciples. Paul’s claims were meaningful only to those small congregations in the scattered cities and towns of the Roman Empire. Paul’s execution occurs about the same time as the Jewish nationalist revolt in 66 C.E. The destruction of the Second Temple four years later seems to have also resulted in a synthesis of the Church of Jerusalem’s version of Jesus the Royal Messiah restoring the Kingdom of Israel with Paul’s concept of the divine savior, the incarnation of God in the person of Jesus who redeems all mankind from sin. This synthesis can be detected in the Gospel of Mark (written in the early 70’s) and Matthew (about the mid-80’s).