The Rebel Jesus, in which I react to Reza Aslan's Zealot

This is not a book review. I don’t propose to spend an hour or two evaluating a book that Reza Aslan spent 20 years researching and writing. Neither will this be a questioning of Aslan’s nerve, being himself a Muslim, to deliver a treatise on Jesus. Fox News took care of that.

In Zealot, Reza Aslan explores the life of Jesus of Nazareth through an exclusively historical lens. I have to say that I thoroughly enjoyed the historical details Aslan provides. Reading Zealot was like a trip to the Holy Land, a trip I’ll probably never make. Of course, I could have learned all that from other sources, but I didn't so, thanks, Reza. Moreover, I always enjoy reading about Jesus. I enjoy talking about him and thinking about him, too. So on several levels, this book was right up my alley.

But of course, I have some issues with this book or I’d not be writing about it.

In the first place, Aslan points out how Jesus’ story does not perfectly fulfill all the Old Testament prophecies. He claims, and rightly I think, that many episodes in the Gospel accounts (the birth narratives, for example) were massaged to align with prophecies. It was the lack of sophistication of the disciples, he says, that accounts for incongruities between what is written about Jesus in the New Testament and what was prophesied in the Old.

But must everything fit exactly?

I would ask the author if he believes that the Old Testament prophecies were literally true. Does God, for Aslan, speak ver batim through his prophets? And wouldn't a messiah claimant who perfectly replicated all the Old Testament prophecies raise a few red flags? Wouldn't that be just a bit too slick?

My second complaint is about the author’s reverence for context.

Over-prizing context might be a common trap for the historian. When actual historical records about a particular individual are wanting, an historian can infer much about a person from a time and place by the context in which that person lived and the events that took place. Thus, someone writing about a World War II battle could imagine a typical soldier, his typical sweetheart at home, his favorite music, his sweater vests, his proud parents, his reaction to the horrors he sees, his fears, his courage. The key word here is “Imagine.”

Yes, Jesus lived in a context. We haven’t historical records about him specifically, but we do know about the society in which he lived. We know what historical events affected the people he lived with, and we know the religious practices of the Temple at the time. People were truly suffering under the Romans. The Temple priesthood was corrupt. The poor of the countryside were near to starving and were despised by the Romans. There was great injustice, great unrest.

And most importantly to Aslan’s purposes, at the time Jesus began his ministry, there had been, and then would be until 70 CE, many claimants to the title of Messiah. They all promised to restore Israel to its former Davidic glory. They were all violent. Without exception they were all captured and executed. These putative messiahs were Hezekiah, Theudas, Judas the Gallilean, Athronges, a man we know only as The Egyptian, one we know only as The Samaritan, Simon son of Giora, and Simon son of Kochba.

Reducing Jesus’ ministry to its barest basics, it would be easy (too easy?) to read him in the context of his time as just another rebel hoping to topple the established priesthood, kick Rome out of Palestine and perhaps himself be anointed king by a newly freed and eternally grateful people.

This works if you’re writing a novel, as with our World War II soldier. We could imagine a narrative for a typical boy in 1944 away from home fighting for freedom. Again, the key word is “imagine”. But Aslan isn’t writing fiction. He’s writing history and presuming too many things about Jesus based on context. He’s extrapolating from other stories to tell the story of Jesus.

Because a lot of country people were illiterate, Jesus was illiterate.
Because Jews at this time only cared about other Jews, Jesus only cared about other Jews.
Because the other claimants wanted to overthrow the Roman occupiers, Jesus wanted to overthrow the Roman occupiers.
Because these other claimants wanted to be king, Jesus wanted to be king.
Because these other claimants gathered armies and preached violence, Jesus was gathering an army and preaching violence.

And worst of all…
Because these others failed, Jesus also failed.

It is pardonable and even normal for a non-believer, or, tellingly, in Aslan’s case, a former believer, to view the life and ministry of Jesus as wasted. We as readers shouldn't expect a testament from this author.

With that in mind, Zealot was not a disappointment. It does not portray Jesus as the Son of God, but we can’t expect it to.  I sense the author does have an agenda with this book, but he is not hostile to Jesus. He makes an effort to debunk Jesus as the Christ, but it is a bit ham-handed in my opinion. His arguments have the sound of a schoolboy, trying to defend his research.

Aslan simply does not understand the kind of kingdom Jesus was establishing, but he’s not the first to miss the point and he won’t be the last. He may have demystified Jesus for some readers, but he didn’t do so for me. I don’t think he’ll ruin Christianity for anybody.

The portrayal of early Palestine was vivid and compelling. I liked gasping at the excesses of the priest caste and the cruelty of the Romans. I liked reading about Jesus and his disciples. I even enjoyed Aslan’s take on the “feud” between Paul and James. I also enjoyed shouting “No!No!” whenever the author missed some key theological or doctrinal point.

And Jesus looks very handsome on the cover.

That rebel Jesus? Here’s the real one. Have a listen… 

Coming Next Week: Shop 'Til You Drop