Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth

Very interesting, quite a bit of pizzazz and gosh-darn shock for this lapsed Catholic. The first 12 years of my life were very, VERY Catholic, but I had NO IDEA Jesus had siblings. He had WHAT? James was his BROTHER?! WHAT!?!

Anyway, a lot of fun. Is it going to offend devout Christians? Oh gosh, maybe? I guess a devout Christian will just toss this out/ignore it. Because Reza Aslan's (revisionist?) book looks at the historical Jesus of Nazareth and richly contextualizes him (Him?!) in the hyper-violent, apocalyptic politics of the Middle East 2,000 years ago. Honestly, that context sounded brutal, and Jesus sounded a looot more hardcore, and completely unlike the rainbows and unicorns vibe the New Testament has had in my mind since Catholic school.

Because the context was this: Imperial Rome oppressing everyone, corrupt collaborator high priests/rich people, and apocalyptic Jewish “messiahs” calling for end times, the decimation of Rome and the unification of the twelve tribes of Israel. Apparently, there were lots of these folks: hating on Rome and the priests, and then ending up crucified for “sedition”. The ways Jesus fit into this pattern, and the ways he didn't, were super interesting. For example, the Old Testament/Torah/Jewish tradition had lots of attributes of the messiah, and the gospel writers spent a lot of time back-revising the Jesus biopic so that he either fit into them better or had a good reason for not fitting into them. (Apparently resurrection is NOT one of these attributes!)

So why do I, and many modern cultural Christians, have this peace-and-love vibe about Jesus and the New Testament? Apparently - and this blew.my.mind - the canny political genius of the late first century CE gospel writers had the forethought to revise Jesus's story so that it could be palatable and understandable to Romans and gentiles and little anxious girls in Pittsburgh PA. After the fall of Jerusalem (~40 years after Jesus died), the gospel writers knew that - for Jesus's ministry to survive - it had to become palatable, generic, apolitical. It had to lose all the “my Jewish God's gonna smite you, Roman bastards!!!” stuff. Hence you get a reluctant Pontius Pilate (who is a saint in the Coptic Church whaaaaat, but - historically - apparently executed so many people that his bosses back in Rome got complaints about it), a Jesus who preaches about the sick and suffering and MUCH PEACE AND LOVE, EVERYONE, and you get the evil, no-good, corrupt Jewish high priests. This political decision that the gospel writers made, in the light of Jerusalem's fall, yep, leads to 2k+ years of anti-Semitism. MADNESS!

The other madness, of course, is the wonderful, infuriating, crazy story of Paul. Would it be crazy to say that modern day Christianity owes as much (maybe more?!) to Paul as to Jesus? Because he certainly came on pretty strong following his conversion, and bent much of the church to his will - and then worked to spread that version - and changed a bunch of the story - etc etc. There's an interesting play about it by Howard Brenton. Eddie Izzard does a funny bit about his obnoxious letters. Anyway, Paul and Jesus's brother, James, apparently battled much for the soul (pardon the pun) of the church - and this section was v v interesting. So Paul was like, “screw this, I'm going to Rome!” where he found PETER - agent of James! I loved the in-fighting.

Sooo... Yeah. Read it! Lots of fun.

Wow. What a quick read. I sat down and just plowed through this book in a couple of hours. The main text comes in and right around 215 pages, but there are tons of notes.

I enjoyed the connections between the historical Jesus and the religious Jesus the Christ. I have been, amateur-ly, making and effort at breaking this down myself. For me, it was helpful to have the perspective of another person, an expert, who is looking back as a Christian religious scholar. The contrast between Paul and James was something that I hadn't really understood in other texts. Also, the author's understanding of the Aramaic and the Greek language is helpful for untangling translations.

I'd recommend this book to anyone interested in the historical Jesus. I think that all of those potential readers will have explored other related historical readings already, such as a focus on what the Torah says about the messiah, what the Roman empire looked like around 100 BCE to 100 CE, and what the new testament says about Jesus. Having that foundation, this book connects the dots. The dearth of actual historic text may frustrate some folks, but I don't know what we do about this problem.

Fascinating.

I'm not sure who the intended audience was. It wasn't written in a clear enough style for a non-academic, and definitely wasn't academic enough for a scholar. Overall, it was clunky and hard to read, so much so that I couldn't get into it and learned little from it.

Fascinating throughout. Most interesting might be the last chapters that discuss Paul and James in the early days of the church. Reminded me somewhat of Under the Banner of Heaven and struggles for the soul of a new religion.

I've found a few 2-star ratings that I would agree with. Much of the information Aslan provides about Jesus is old hat. I was interested in the bits of information about the time period itself, and this is a decent introduction. Even with my poor background in NT history, though, I was quirking eyebrows at some of the things he wrote, some of the things he just assumed (and there seemed to be a lot of assumption going on), and his very melodramatic writing style. Very melodramatic. So, in the end, interesting, quick to read, provides some useful background info, but not great. The search continues. I actually HAVE Crossan. I should probably read him now.

I suspect that if one is a Christian believer, this book would not be well received. It would, nonetheless, be worth reading, because it suggests an alternative view of Jesus–the historical Jesus–that is both rooted in research and logic. It's also very informative. For example, I knew nothing about the early Church and certainly nothing about the conflict between James (about whom I was only vaguely aware anyway) and Paul. Fascinating stuff.

Ever since I was told in Catholic school that Jesus was not likely born on December 25th, I have had an interest in knowing more about the historical Jesus of Nazareth. Obviously there is plenty to read about the religious figure, Jesus Christ, but there is next to nothing about the actual person. I found it interesting to break down the symbolism of the gospel writing. Mr. Aslan does a very good job of describing what Palestine was like from 100 BCE to 100 CE and explaining how that affected the narrative in the gospels. He also delves into all of the literature written about Christ, not just the canonized gospels. He describes who wrote them, when they were written and why they were written. I would not suggest this book if you believe history played out exactly like what was written in the New Testament and your mind cannot be changed. I would recommend this for anybody with an historical curiosity.