Reza Aslan and ‘Zealot’ a few months later

Early in 2013, Reza Aslan published his book “Zealot” with a subtitle of “The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth.” Sales of the book were not especially good until Aslan was interviewed on national television. The book zoomed to the top of the best-seller lists. It looked like Aslan had hit a home run. A few months ago I wrote a bit about the book, but promised that I would return to the subject. I have taken a more thorough look. This is my return engagement.

Reza Aslan is an excellent writer. He knows how to get and hold a reader’s attention. I saw him interviewed on television. He is engaging and believable. Aslan has excellent academic credentials and teaches at University of California Riverside. His credentials encouraged me to purchase a copy of his book.

From the very first chapter I was aware that Aslan had written the book without footnotes. There are 50 pages of endnotes at the end of the book, but they are not tied to specific sentences or paragraphs in the book. I also became aware that he had mixed respected scholarship of the past 40 years with his own opinions without crediting research and without identifying his own opinions. I experienced the book as great reading, but more like a James Michener historical novel. I have since learned that some Bible scholars have not taken “Zealot” seriously as a scholarly work — with good reason.

Words do not have meanings, they have uses. I do not believe there is any good reason for Aslan to use the word “zealot” to describe Jesus. Zealots were dedicated to change through violence. Zealots as a political party did not emerge in Palestine until 30 years after the death of Jesus. It is true that Galilee, the area in which Jesus grew up, was a hotbed for poor, rebellious Jewish peasants who advocated violent overthrow of religious leaders, Roman rulers and anyone else who acted with oppressive authority. This was a part of the context in which Jesus declared the good news of the reign of God on earth. Some, if not most, of the disciples of Jesus were recruited from that pool of men. Typically, they probably carried long knives and were advocates of violence. Calling them zealots (with a small “z”) can probably be justified, but the organized party called Zealots was still 30 years away.

The word “zealot” does not accurately identify Jesus. Jesus more accurately should be called a passionate advocate of social, economic and religious change. He called for the establishment of the reign of God through justice, not the sword. I do not believe the word zealot can be used to describe Jesus from Nazareth.

One of the mysteries of Aslan’s book is how he could write the entire treatise without reference to any of the parables that Jesus taught. Today we know more about Jesus through the study of his parables than in any other way. The parables are identified as the most accurately transmitted information about Jesus that we have. Storytelling reveals the person telling the story and reflects quite clearly the cultural surroundings of the storyteller. There is a wealth of scholarly material available about the parables. However, Aslan never uses the parable material that is readily available.

Much of the case Aslan develops for identifying Jesus as a Zealot is the temple incident in the last week of Jesus’ life. That episode, mentioned in all four Gospels, describes Jesus overturning tables and driving animals out of the temple courtyard. Jesus used harsh language; however, I reject Aslan’s description of the temple incident as violent. Aggressive, yes. Violent, no. It was certainly attention-getting and disruptive. However, the incident is better compared to the civil rights marches led by Martin Luther King Jr., which were aggressive, disruptive and attention getting. King never initiated or practiced violence. The temple incident was effective street theatre, but hardly an example of zealot violence.

There are other flaws in Aslan’s book. One is his use of John’s Gospel. He quotes John’s Gospel very generously. John’s Gospel was written three generations after the death of Jesus and reflects the concerns of the Christian churches at the turn of the first century C.E. Aslan’s use of John material to try to establish zealot status for Jesus is questionable at best.

One last comment: The Bible, New Testament and Old, carries not one religious tradition, but two. The first is the great tradition. It is the Israelite tradition that calls for the establishment of the kingdom of God through power and violence if necessary. It is the tradition of rulers. The second tradition goes by a variety of names. Sometimes it is called the little tradition. Some would call it the prophetic tradition. Others might call it the servant tradition. It is loving and gentle. It is gracious and kind. It calls for the establishment of the reign of God through justice for all. It critiques the great tradition.

I insist that Jesus from Nazareth was a part of the second tradition, and that this is best revealed in the stories he told. In his book “Zealot,” Reza Aslan ignores established scholarship and distorts the life of Jesus beyond recognition. Aslan places Jesus into the tradition that Jesus in fact opposed so vigorously.

The Rev. Howard Bess is a retired American Baptist minister, who lives in Palmer. His email address is hdbss@mtaonline.net.

Opinions expressed on the Faith page are the author’s and are not necessarily those of the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman, its staff or its parent company, Wick Communications Co. To submit a column or other news for the Faith page, send email to news@frontiersman.com, or call 352-2250.