Ben Stevens

8/20/13

Reza Aslan’sZealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth

Sensationalist writings are common in New Testament scholarship. Aslan’s work is no exception. Aslan showed a modicum of knowledge in academic scholarship but asserted many demonstrably false propositions few scholars accept. Though Aslan stressed he wasa genuine scholar who conducted “two decades of rigorous academic research into the origins of Christianity,”[1]Aslan wroteZealot more as the creative writing professor he is than a real historian.Aslan’s arguments were poorly defended and do not reflect genuine scholarship in several claims.

Aslan’s thesis argued Jesus was a violent revolutionary whose mission was to overthrow Rome.[2]Aslan’s Jesus is not much different than the many Jewish revolutionary figures who roamed the cities of Judea in the first century. Aslan narrated such a historical background of the zealous rebels in the beginning of Zealot before turning to his argument. But before Aslan delved into the details supporting his thesis, he posited several supposed facts concerning the “consensus” opinions in New Testament scholarship.

Aslan never failed to emphasize his supposed credentials continuously in Zealot. Aslan stated he went “delving back into the Bible not as an unquestioning believer but as an inquisitive scholar.”[3]Aslan attempted to reveal his scholarly credentials by naming several “consensus” views among scholars inZealot. Aslan contended the four New Testament Gospels were not, “nor were they ever meant to be, a historical documentation of Jesus’s life.”[4] The Gospels “are not eyewitness accounts of Jesus’s words and deeds recorded by people who knew him.”[5] Instead, the Gospels are merely “testimonies of faith…written many years after the events they describe.”[6]Aslan further asserted a “most widely accepted theory on the formation of the gospels” is the “Two-Source Theory,”[7] which contends the only independent sources for Jesus in the four Gospels are Mark and the collection of mostly sayings shared between Matthew and Luke called Q. Aslan also used the dating range of the Gospels after A.D. 70 as a primary piece of evidence for his theory, claiming the dating of the Gospel of John is typically placed after A.D. 100 and posited the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas is usually dated as early as the first century A.D.[8]Next Aslanargued “there are only two hard historical facts about Jesus of Nazareth upon which we can confidently rely,” which are Jesus’s existence as a traveling Jewish preacher in first century Palestine and his crucifixion.[9]Finally, Aslan concluded, “Long gone are the heady days of ‘the quest for the historical Jesus,’ when scholars confidently proclaimed that modern scientific tools and historical research would allow us to uncover Jesus’s true identity.”[10]According to Aslan, the quest for the historical Jesus among scholars is dead. One might ask now: what evidence did Aslan produce in favor of his theory?

Aslan did not dedicate many pagesfor evidence supporting Jesus as a violent revolutionary but narrated his story of Jesus accepting without argument any versewhich supported his thesis.[11]Aslan stressed crucifixion was an execution Rome only used for those deemed a threat to the state.[12] Since Jesus was crucified, Aslan contended he also must have been a violent troublemaker against the Roman government. Aslandefended his theory relying mostly on the four Gospels throughout Zealot. Whenever Aslan encountered stories in the Gospels in conflict with his theory he typicallydiscounted themwithout proof as obvious Christian embellishments. But Aslandid devote the end of Zealot to refuting one of the most crucial arguments that could be used against his thesis: the early church.

If Jesus was just another common revolutionary of the time, why did a movement soon after his death transform him into a humble, God incarnate, resurrected divine figure that currently sits at the right hand of God? Aslandefended several minor arguments such as asserting “every gospel story in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, was written by people who…never actually knew Jesus when he was alive”.[13] But ultimately Aslan argued Paul was the primary cause that led to a radical shift in the church’s theology after Jerusalem’s destruction.[14]

Aslan did not simply assert Paul’s message is what changed the early Christian movement. He contended James, the true leader of the early church and brother of Jesus, was in conflict with Paul as a “bitter and openly hostile” adversary.[15]Paul is what transformed the zealous, revolutionary Jesus James believed to the God incarnate figure today. In other words, Paul’s theology did not reflect what James and the original followers of Jesus accepted. Aslan attempted to prove this point by offering interpretations of a few key passages in Acts and Paul’s epistles where Paul and James supposedly clashed.

Aslan used the Council of Jerusalem story in Acts 15 and Paul’s version in Galatians 2[16] to expose the disputes between Paul and the original apostles of Jesus. Aslan stated:

Although Paul reveals little detail about the meeting, he cannot mask his rage at the treatment he says he received at the hands of “the supposedly acknowledged leaders” of the church: James, Peter, and John. Paul says he “refused to submit to them, not even for a minute,” as neither they, nor his opinion of his ministry, made any difference to him whatsoever (Galatians 2:1-10).[17]

Aslan pointed out in Acts 21 Paul is “summoned to Jerusalem to answer for himself.”[18] Here, “James confronts Paul directly, telling him that it has come to their attention that Paul has been teaching believers ‘to forsake Moses’ and ‘not circumcise their children or observe the customs [of the law]’ (Acts 21:21).”[19] Thus James promptly “forces Paul” to observe a ritual so that he may show his obedience to the Torah.[20] In conclusion, AslanproposedActs 21reveals James knew and denounced Paul’s gospel. Now the question becomes: How trustworthy are Aslan’s conclusions and credentials?

Although the New York Times defended Aslan arguing reviewers called Zealot a “‘coherent and often convincing portrait of who Jesus was and what he wanted,’”[21]

recent media articles have questioned some of Aslan’s credentials as a “historian of religion.” Even the liberal Washington Post jokinglysaid in one article, “The boy who posed as something that he was not [Mexican in the 1980s] has become the man who boasts of academic laurels he does not have.”[22]Aslan is not currently a professor of religion or history but creative writing.[23] He holds a doctorate in Sociology he claims focused in religion.[24] But “no such degrees exist at the university he attended.”[25] To be sure, Aslanacquired substantial coursework in religion to earn his doctorate and received an undergraduate degree in religion;[26] Sociology is also relatively related to History. Such qualifications might earn Aslan the title “quasi-scholar” of religion but certainly not a clear, academicreligious scholar or historian. One media article by Elizabeth Castelli that defended Aslan from attacks on his credentials admitted Aslan was not technically a scholar in the discipline, and he would have received less criticism if he announced he “was working as an outsider to the field”.[27]YetCastelli affirmed, “But his claims are more grandiose than that and are based on his repeated public statements that he speaks with authority as a historian.”[28]Hence, perhaps it is not surprising Zealotread closer to a movie script in several places than rigorous historical writing, as one would discover reading from truly renowned religious historians like Martin Hengel. Sophie Heawood described her surreal encounter with the handsome, eloquent, movie star scholar:
But then, as I discover when I arrive at Aslan's home in Los Angeles to interview him, the Iranian-American's life as an academic is already extraordinary. For a start, there's the Hollywood Hills location, not generally associated with Bible scholars. There's the smoothness of his manner when he enters the room, passing a Banksy book displayed on a miniature easel in his living room, flashing me a dazzling smile as he pats the family poodle, embraces his twin toddlers, "My beautiful boys!", and tells his wife he loves her. Twice.[29]
Despite his “dazzling smile,” Aslanproclaimed egregiously mistaken propositions in what most genuine scholars accept, perhaps reflecting his quasi scholarly credentials and certainly a Hollywood star’s profound knowledge.

E.P. Sanders affirmed, at least, eight undisputed facts about Jesus contrary to Aslan’s two.[30] Sanders also asserted even Jesus’ healings and their status as miracles to his contemporaries are not disputed much by scholars.[31] Furthermore, the Gospels are not generally considered works of faith with no interest in history, as Aslan posited, but Greco-Roman biographies.[32]Aslan also contended the Gospels are not eyewitness accounts of Jesus and were not written by the traditional authors the church ascribed to them. But such a contention distorts the debates over eyewitness authority behind the Gospels.

Though many scholars would agree one cannot know who authored the Gospels, many beyond apologetic Christian scholars accepttwo of the Gospel ascriptions Luke and Mark.[33]Most scholars also agree eyewitness testimonies were among the sources used by the Gospels regardless of the author’s identity.[34]Aslan committed additional mistakes in his dating for the Gospels, particularly John and Thomas.

Aslan nonchalantly skewed the dating of the Gospels throughout Zealot by placing John squarely in the second century and Thomas as early as the first. Not only is John placed at the end of the first century by the consensus of scholars, but a shift has occurred in recent scholarship contending John is as reliable as the Synoptic Gospels (i.e. Matthew, Mark, and Luke).[35] Thomas is usually dated in the mid-second century and is not considered remotely reliable compared to the New Testament Gospels.[36]Aslanalso asserted the most common theory for the Gospel source origins in scholarship is the “Two-Source” theory, but this is again mistaken.
The most commonly accepted theory in scholarship for the Gospel sources is the “Four-Source” theory.[37] The “Four-Source” theory explains since Luke and Matthew ostensibly used sources in their Gospels such as Mark and Q then their unique material must have been based from earlier sources as well. In short, since they have proven themselves from Mark and Q, one should trust they used sources in their independent accounts of Jesus.[38] Therefore, this theory for the so-called “Synoptic Problem” shows four independent sources may be adduced from the first three Gospels: Mark, Q, M (i.e. material unique to Matthew), and L (i.e. material unique to Luke). The consensus among scholarsalso agrees John was wholly or mostly independent from the Synoptic Gospels.[39] Finally, Aslan’s proposition that the quest for the historical Jesus is dead in contemporary scholarship is fantastically absurd.

A plethora of books have been recently published by academic scholars in pursuit of the “historical Jesus.” The current quest begun in the 1980s and on-going today has been dubbed the “Third Quest” by Jesus scholars.[40] One of the renowned scholars and leading proponents in the Third Quest N.T. Wright pointed out, “Christianity appeals to history; to history it must go. The recognition that the answers we may find might change our views, or even ourselves, cannot and must not prevent us from embarking on the quest.”[41] Many books have been published detailing the results of the ever-growing pursuit by contemporary historians to discover the historical Jesus.[42] That Aslan is not familiar with such a quest today proves his “quasi-scholar” status. Therefore, one should not be surprised Aslanoffered serious misinterpretations of the verses he used to construct his theory on Paul and James’s relationship in the next argument.

Aslan strangely translated the phrases Paul uses to describe the apostles in Galatians 2 as the “supposedly acknowledged leaders” of the church. Yet if one reads the entire passage, the meaning could not be clearer:

Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preached among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain. Yet even Titus, who was with me, was not compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. This matter arose because some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you. As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message. On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter as an apostle to the circumcised. For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. James, Cephas, and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.[43]

Paul proclaimed James, Peter, and John did not dispute his message and even offered him fellowship. Notice the NIV also translates the phrase Aslan chose to “esteemed” leaders rather than Aslan’s mocking translation “supposedly.” Indeed, the context of the passage does not fit a mocking interpretation. Paul notes he returned to Jerusalem to ensure James and the other apostles agreed with his message thus giving them respect. Aslan oddly asserted Paul claimed he “refused to submit to them [James, Peter, and John], not even for a minute.” But clearly this passage came from Paul disputing with the “false believers” that are never connected to James. If they were, Paul’s friendly attitude displayed here towards them is nonsensical. Aslan deceives the reader by quoting this phrase in his argument about what Paul thought of James.

Aslan continued to deceive his readers by asserting James “forces” Paul to display his observance of the Law in Acts 21 because he accepted the reports that Paul was telling Jews to forsake the Torah. Yet again, one must return to the context:

The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present. Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. When they head this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, so do what we tell you….Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law.”[44]

James and the elders praise God for Paul’s ministry and tell him to go through the ritual so the reports about him may be disproved. In other words, James did not believe the reports about Paul and desired to refute them. He did not disprove of Paul’s message but encouraged it. This story is when Paul “sets the record straight” so to speak with James’s aid. Aslan’sproposition that James was suspicious of Paul from the reports and forced him to accept the ritual is a gross misinterpretation.

In conclusion, Reza Aslan’sZealot represents a quasi-scholar’s poor attempt to demonstrate Jesus was a violent and common revolutionary of his time. Zealot’s high sales from lavish media attention earned Aslan his sinecure position, but Aslan’s credentials as a scholar are questionable. His methodology was never stated clearly in Zealot. Most significantly, Aslan did not use any sort of citation via footnote or endnote in the entire book. Though Aslan included several pages of references and notes, he never demonstratedspecific use of them in the book. Therefore, that alone disqualifies Zealot of any “history” status, as such a method permitted Aslan to twist and distort data without a probable threat of being exposed by his desired laymen audience. Aslan showed some scholarly knowledge of majority views in the field but also included serious distortions of the true debates in scholarly circles. Aslan did not present adequate evidence for his thesis and merely assumed Gospel data friendly towards his thesis was authentic. Finally, Aslan concocted dishonest and distorted interpretations of Paul’s epistles to respond to the early church beliefs. Zealot is a book by a quasi-scholar who enjoys deceiving his readers with eloquent stories and writing so they do not receive the full picture of Jesus scholarship.Zealot is a book for the gullible.