Reza Aslan begins his book Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth, a case when the title and subtitle is quite telling, with an account of his passionate belief in Christianity as a teenager. The book ends with a discussion how Jesus, the man, not Jesus the Christ, is "worth believing in," though it is unclear to what degree is deemed warranted. The two are not the same; in fact, the book argues that the moment the basic origins of the current view of Jesus Christ, the one put forth by Paul, came about, the historical Jesus largely disappeared. Paul in fact had little interest.
My question would be why exactly. I understand, up to a point, why Jesus, the zealous reformer put forth in the book is worth believing in. Someone concerned about following "the law" of God (good?), reforming its corruptions and the injustices of the society he lived in and willing to risk his life to promote what he believed in. But, it is a sort of limited vision, one focused on a particular group (the Jews), labeling others akin to "dogs." And, apparently, the person was confused on what exactly would occur, that the end of days would come in the time of some who then was alive. The whole demon stuff also seems a tad bit off.
I would move to support a more universal prophet, which is not surprising, since this is ultimately what Jesus was said to be. Take his very crucifixion, argued to be a grand sacrifice. But, others were "messiahs," and risked death. If he actually knew his death was to save mankind, it would be a grand thing, but others risked death for a lot less with much less expectation of survival. The understanding here has a sort of primitive flavor, a "sacrifice" that continues to this day in some ways (e.g., the death penalty is seen by some as a just retribution, life for life).
Also, as the book notes in its third section, after he died, nothing really appeared to change. The change was later taken to truly have occurred in a supernatural plane, the final judgment to occur after we die, but this is not a "historical" thing to believe in, is it? Finally, as with miracles, the book cheats -- the Resurrection is not supposed to be "historical," but the people thought it as such. The gospels had Jesus rise and eat, Thomas sticking his finger into the very holes where the nails were drilled into, even a vision something that occurs historically. To the degree some died because of their beliefs, it is a belief in what they thought actually happened.*
Aslan moves past the problematic issue of the Resurrection to address how the after Jesus leaves the scene (one assumes the normal way?), the apostles staid in Jerusalem (though other than Peter and John, the latter only briefly showing up, they basically disappear -- the first martyr is actually Stephen, a Hellenic convert) and were basically Jews who thought Jesus was the Messiah. Jesus' brother (probably Joseph/Mary's son) James took control and opposed Paul when he decided (by direct inspiration) Jesus Christ didn't actually think followers had to follow the Law.
Paul might not have ever won that battle (Acts, with an apparent historical reference to help date it, has him clash with James until right before he made his trip to Rome ... by the way, James was the "first pope" -- to the degree that meant the head of the community of believers -- the "on this rock" business probably a late edition), but time was on his side. First, the Jewish Wars made Jesus, Jewish Zealot not exactly an ideal model. Second, numbers-wise, gentile Jews and pagans provided a much more sizable base of converts. The idea of a "son of god" would be a lot easier for them to accept than firmly monotheistic Hebrew Jews.
Paul, not concerned with the historical Jesus, in effect was the Father of Christianity. But, the book is concerned with the historical Jesus. Not that Jesus promoted in that evangelical youth camp when the author was fifteen. Both are of interest -- it is valuable to learn about the origins of the movement, including the "life and times" of its founder. It also is important to learn about how it developed into the movement it is today, which also helps determine just how to understand and worship today and judge those who do so. Today is ultimately what we need to worry about the most.
This book helps this effort, if taken with a grain of salt.
---
* The book cites "one after another" who died for this belief at the time, but we only are told of a few who actually directly saw Jesus rose from the dead that were martyrs. This would include the likes of Peter, James the Just and Paul, the last not seeing any sort of physical Jesus akin to the later gospel accounts, but clearly some sort of vision of Jesus.
The book also in passing suggests "John" the evangelist is the Apostle John and the "beloved disciple," but that doesn't appear to be the case. It also at times hedges and cites events mentioned in the New Testament, other times without comment assumes (like the agreement set forth in the Apostolic Council in Acts) did occur, when it is unclear that it actually did.
My question would be why exactly. I understand, up to a point, why Jesus, the zealous reformer put forth in the book is worth believing in. Someone concerned about following "the law" of God (good?), reforming its corruptions and the injustices of the society he lived in and willing to risk his life to promote what he believed in. But, it is a sort of limited vision, one focused on a particular group (the Jews), labeling others akin to "dogs." And, apparently, the person was confused on what exactly would occur, that the end of days would come in the time of some who then was alive. The whole demon stuff also seems a tad bit off.
I would move to support a more universal prophet, which is not surprising, since this is ultimately what Jesus was said to be. Take his very crucifixion, argued to be a grand sacrifice. But, others were "messiahs," and risked death. If he actually knew his death was to save mankind, it would be a grand thing, but others risked death for a lot less with much less expectation of survival. The understanding here has a sort of primitive flavor, a "sacrifice" that continues to this day in some ways (e.g., the death penalty is seen by some as a just retribution, life for life).
Also, as the book notes in its third section, after he died, nothing really appeared to change. The change was later taken to truly have occurred in a supernatural plane, the final judgment to occur after we die, but this is not a "historical" thing to believe in, is it? Finally, as with miracles, the book cheats -- the Resurrection is not supposed to be "historical," but the people thought it as such. The gospels had Jesus rise and eat, Thomas sticking his finger into the very holes where the nails were drilled into, even a vision something that occurs historically. To the degree some died because of their beliefs, it is a belief in what they thought actually happened.*
Aslan moves past the problematic issue of the Resurrection to address how the after Jesus leaves the scene (one assumes the normal way?), the apostles staid in Jerusalem (though other than Peter and John, the latter only briefly showing up, they basically disappear -- the first martyr is actually Stephen, a Hellenic convert) and were basically Jews who thought Jesus was the Messiah. Jesus' brother (probably Joseph/Mary's son) James took control and opposed Paul when he decided (by direct inspiration) Jesus Christ didn't actually think followers had to follow the Law.
Paul might not have ever won that battle (Acts, with an apparent historical reference to help date it, has him clash with James until right before he made his trip to Rome ... by the way, James was the "first pope" -- to the degree that meant the head of the community of believers -- the "on this rock" business probably a late edition), but time was on his side. First, the Jewish Wars made Jesus, Jewish Zealot not exactly an ideal model. Second, numbers-wise, gentile Jews and pagans provided a much more sizable base of converts. The idea of a "son of god" would be a lot easier for them to accept than firmly monotheistic Hebrew Jews.
Paul, not concerned with the historical Jesus, in effect was the Father of Christianity. But, the book is concerned with the historical Jesus. Not that Jesus promoted in that evangelical youth camp when the author was fifteen. Both are of interest -- it is valuable to learn about the origins of the movement, including the "life and times" of its founder. It also is important to learn about how it developed into the movement it is today, which also helps determine just how to understand and worship today and judge those who do so. Today is ultimately what we need to worry about the most.
This book helps this effort, if taken with a grain of salt.
---
* The book cites "one after another" who died for this belief at the time, but we only are told of a few who actually directly saw Jesus rose from the dead that were martyrs. This would include the likes of Peter, James the Just and Paul, the last not seeing any sort of physical Jesus akin to the later gospel accounts, but clearly some sort of vision of Jesus.
The book also in passing suggests "John" the evangelist is the Apostle John and the "beloved disciple," but that doesn't appear to be the case. It also at times hedges and cites events mentioned in the New Testament, other times without comment assumes (like the agreement set forth in the Apostolic Council in Acts) did occur, when it is unclear that it actually did.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!