My Thoughts on Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth
When will the movie come out? “Zealot” by Aslan has provoked a tangled web of media attention and conversation. Unfortunately, much of this has been focused on the now famous – or infamous – Fox News interview and on Aslan as a person, a Muslim, an academic. This is not surprising given both the theatrical style of much of the book – we can see the movie scenes already – controversies surrounding Fox News. The real problem is that evidence seems clear that Jesus was not a Zealot.
But what about the context and credibility of the book itself? My own blog will focus on Jesus and Jesus and 1st century Palestine. Therefore I want to comment therefore on what Aslan actually says about Jesus of Nazareth, how he arrives at his conclusions and what I think about them. Bottom line? My position is:
- A Muslim can write a book about Jesus of course, and Aslan claims a strong interest in Jesus dating back to a childhood experience. Enough said.
- Placing Jesus within the context of the world in which he lived is very valuable. I myself have been studying and writing about 1st c. Palestine for years.
- Coming to a conclusion about the “historical Jesus” has been attempted by many and cannot be done. Aslan says this himself, although he then proceeds to do just that.
- I do not believe Jesus was a Zealot and shall explain why – very briefly.
We all come from somewhere and Jesus was a Jew living in 1st century Palestine – where the land and the temple were ruled by the Roman Empire and most of the people were trapped in poverty. Those who saw and heard him and those later responsible for the Gospels were also from this world. Understanding the political, religious, socio-economic realities adds enormously to our reading and understanding of the New Testament. Village scenes, parables, the Sermon on the Mount all come alive in new ways.
And it is very important to know that Jesus was crucified for crimes against the Roman Empire. Romans reserved crucifixion for those convicted of sedition. It is also true that he spoke about a very different kingdom where the first would be last and the last would be first. And Jesus definitely had a pivotal confrontation with both the Roman Empire and the priests they appointed when he entered the temple, drove out the money changers and called it a den of thieves. From that moment his fate was sealed. All of these things and many more make it clear that he opposed oppression, arrogance, greed and lording it over others.
But none of this means he was a revolutionary bent on violent overthrow of the Empire. Aslan’s claim is that the church made a peaceful, soft Jesus for political expediency. His argument that the church had reason to avoid a portrayal that would get them in big trouble is interesting. It bears thinking about. I can agree that the Christian church as generally preached a “nice” Jesus, avoiding Gospel passages that disturb this image. But still it seems clear that Jesus was not a Zealot.
But it seems Aslan greatly overreaches with his claims that Jesus was a revolutionary bent on ousting the Roman Empire and becoming king through “zeal” and the sword. In fact that would make him king of another empire founded, once again, on power and violence.
Jesus is complex and so are the gospels. We try to know him and about him; we ought to beware of claiming to contain him in a particular image, because that is sure to be our own image.
My blog will place Jesus within 1st century Palestine where Rome ruled, Jews were often bitterly divided about how to survive under Rome, and most of the people were poor and oppressed. I will invite readers to ponder Jesus’ very complexity. Indeed, he seems to love everyone and to take “pot shots” at everyone: priests, pharisees, essenes, zealots, villagers, the disciples themselves. This blog is written for all who are interested in wrestling with Jesus’ question: “Who do you say that I am?”