Shop top categories that ship internationally

ZEALOT: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth

3.9 en Goodreads
(70,823)
Elección de Goodreads Nominado al premio
Pulsa dos veces para ampliar
Ver todos los formatos
US$23.62 con 21 porcentaje de ahorro
Precio recomendado: US$30.00
Devoluciones internacionales gratis
Sin depósito de derechos de importación y US$13.92 de envío a Austria Detalles

Detalles de envío y tarifa

Precio US$23.62
Envío de AmazonGlobal US$13.92
Depósito de cuotas de importación estimadas US$0.00
Total US$37.54

Entrega el martes, 14 de enero. Realiza el pedido en 11 hrs 59 mins
O entrega más rápida el martes, 7 de enero
Sólo hay 20 disponible(s).
US$US$23.62 () Incluye las opciones seleccionadas. Incluye el pago mensual inicial y las opciones seleccionadas. Detalles
Precio
Subtotal
US$US$23.62
Subtotal
Desglose inicial del pago
Se muestran los gastos de envío, la fecha de entrega y el total del pedido (impuestos incluidos) al finalizar la compra
Enviado por
Amazon.com
Enviado por
Amazon.com
Vendido por
Amazon.com
Vendido por
Amazon.com
Devoluciones
Se puede devolver hasta el 31 de enero de 2025
Se puede devolver hasta el 31 de enero de 2025
En la temporada navideña de 2024, los artículos elegibles comprados entre el 1 de noviembre y el 31 de diciembre de 2024 se podrán devolver hasta el 31 de enero de 2025.
Devoluciones
Se puede devolver hasta el 31 de enero de 2025
En la temporada navideña de 2024, los artículos elegibles comprados entre el 1 de noviembre y el 31 de diciembre de 2024 se podrán devolver hasta el 31 de enero de 2025.
Pago
Transacción segura
Tu transacción es segura
En Amazon, nos esforzamos por proteger tu seguridad y privacidad. Nuestro sistema de seguridad de pagos encripta tu información durante la transmisión de datos. No compartimos los datos de tu tarjeta de crédito con vendedores externos, ni vendemos tu información a terceros. Más información
Pago
Transacción segura
En Amazon, nos esforzamos por proteger tu seguridad y privacidad. Nuestro sistema de seguridad de pagos encripta tu información durante la transmisión de datos. No compartimos los datos de tu tarjeta de crédito con vendedores externos, ni vendemos tu información a terceros. Más información
US$8.81
Devoluciones internacionales gratis
Sin depósito de derechos de importación y US$13.92 de envío a Austria Detalles

Detalles de envío y tarifa

Precio US$23.62
Envío de AmazonGlobal US$13.92
Depósito de cuotas de importación estimadas US$0.00
Total US$37.54

Used book in good and clean conditions. Pages and cover are intact. Limited notes marks and highlighting may be present. May show signs of normal shelf wear and bends on edges. Item may be missing CDs or access codes. May include library marks. Ships directly from Amazon.
Entrega entre el 7 - 23 de enero
O entrega más rápida entre el 3 - 14 de enero
US$US$23.62 () Incluye las opciones seleccionadas. Incluye el pago mensual inicial y las opciones seleccionadas. Detalles
Precio
Subtotal
US$US$23.62
Subtotal
Desglose inicial del pago
Se muestran los gastos de envío, la fecha de entrega y el total del pedido (impuestos incluidos) al finalizar la compra
No se pudo guardar el artículo. Inténtalo de nuevo más tarde. Este artículo no puede ser eliminado de tu lista. Por favor inténtalo más tarde.
{"mobile_buybox_group_1":[{"displayPrice":"US$23.62","priceAmount":23.62,"currencySymbol":"US$","integerValue":"23","decimalSeparator":".","fractionalValue":"62","symbolPosition":"left","hasSpace":false,"showFractionalPartIfEmpty":true,"offerListingId":"nTq%2BargIPnRsJqcA%2BOOVV94aP4H49P7gT%2BvYqEChau4i3vnY6GROYMUZwfrYZ863xvRGWY%2FEB%2Bc4wAh1h4EA3AZdp3tsZ%2F09QVWGZOTzntNx4XkcOuHbLLSHcjVvSeW0FVD3%2BnqZNWS0nioqdK27lg%3D%3D","locale":"es-US","buyingOptionType":"NEW","aapiBuyingOptionIndex":0}, {"displayPrice":"US$8.81","priceAmount":8.81,"currencySymbol":"US$","integerValue":"8","decimalSeparator":".","fractionalValue":"81","symbolPosition":"left","hasSpace":false,"showFractionalPartIfEmpty":true,"offerListingId":"nTq%2BargIPnRsJqcA%2BOOVV94aP4H49P7gaW7u%2Fyi%2BbqXZ%2Bl%2FitH1mnfEb7vDHyIxfWQpvAFjkZ2ng8T4FdkQ%2BZ1wuc7MLu6G7QIF7ZSWEpPFpR8caB736SjnVSj6xB9dunAw7hVD1NxNyBz0luX6btE2jDTUtTao%2Fo9A9trroysQokQ%2F3aBykHf2boSJo6xDU","locale":"es-US","buyingOptionType":"USED","aapiBuyingOptionIndex":1}]}
Brief content visible, double tap to read full content.
Full content visible, double tap to read brief content.
Brief content visible, double tap to read full content.
Full content visible, double tap to read brief content.

Detalles del libro

Brief content visible, double tap to read full content.
Full content visible, double tap to read brief content.
#1 NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER • “A lucid, intelligent page-turner” (Los Angeles Times) that challenges long-held assumptions about Jesus, from the host of Believer
 
Two thousand years ago, an itinerant Jewish preacher walked across the Galilee, gathering followers to establish what he called the “Kingdom of God.” The revolutionary movement he launched was so threatening to the established order that he was executed as a state criminal. Within decades after his death, his followers would call him God.
 
Sifting through centuries of mythmaking, Reza Aslan sheds new light on one of history’s most enigmatic figures by examining Jesus through the lens of the tumultuous era in which he lived. Balancing the Jesus of the Gospels against the historical sources, Aslan describes a man full of conviction and passion, yet rife with contradiction. He explores the reasons the early Christian church preferred to promulgate an image of Jesus as a peaceful spiritual teacher rather than a politically conscious revolutionary. And he grapples with the riddle of how Jesus understood himself, the mystery that is at the heart of all subsequent claims about his divinity.
 
Zealot yields a fresh perspective on one of the greatest stories ever told even as it affirms the radical and transformative nature of Jesus’ life and mission.
 
Praise for Zealot
 
“Riveting . . . Aslan synthesizes Scripture and scholarship to create an original account.”
The New Yorker
 
“Fascinatingly and convincingly drawn . . . Aslan may come as close as one can to respecting those who revere Jesus as the peace-loving, turn-the-other-cheek, true son of God depicted in modern Christianity, even as he knocks down that image.”
The Seattle Times
 
“[Aslan’s] literary talent is as essential to the effect of
Zealot as are his scholarly and journalistic chops. . . . A vivid, persuasive portrait.”Salon
 
“This tough-minded, deeply political book does full justice to the real Jesus, and honors him in the process.”
San Francisco Chronicle
 
“A special and revealing work, one that believer and skeptic alike will find surprising, engaging, and original.”
—Jon Meacham, Pulitzer Prize–winning author of Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power
 
“Compulsively readable . . . This superb work is highly recommended.”
Publishers Weekly (starred review)

Opinión de Amazon.es

Q&A with Reza Aslan

Q. Why did you title your biography of Jesus of Nazareth Zealot?

A. In Jesus' world, zealot referred to those Jews who adhered to a widely accepted biblical doctrine called zeal. These “zealous” Jews were strict nationalists who preached the sole sovereignty of God. They wanted to throw off the yoke of Roman occupation and cleanse the Promised Land of all foreign elements. Some zealots resorted to extreme acts of violence against both the Roman authorities and the Jewish ‘collaborators,” by which they meant the wealthy Temple priests and the Jewish aristocracy. Others refrained from violence but were no less adamant about establishing the reign of God on earth. There is no evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was himself a violent revolutionary (though his views on the use of violence were more complex than it is often assumed). However, Jesus’ actions and his teachings about the Kingdom of God clearly indicate that he was a follower of the zealot doctrine, which is why he, like so many zealots before and after him, was ultimately executed by Rome for the crime of sedition.

Q. Yours is one of the few popular biographies of Jesus of Nazareth that does not rely on the gospels as your primary source of information for uncovering Jesus’ life. Why is that? What are your primary sources?

A. I certainly rely on the gospels to provide a narrative outline to my biography of Jesus of Nazareth, but my primary source in recreating Jesus’ life are historical writings about first century Palestine, like the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, as well as Roman documents of the time. The gospels are incredible texts that provide Christians with a profound framework for living a life in imitation of Christ. The problem, however, is that the gospels are not, nor were they ever meant to be, historical documentations of Jesus’ life. These are not eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ words and deeds. They are testimonies of faith composed by communities of faith written many years after the events they describe. In other words, the gospels tell us about Jesus the Christ, not Jesus the man. The gospels are of course extremely useful in revealing how the early Christians viewed Jesus. But they do not tell us much about how Jesus viewed himself. To get to the bottom of that mystery, which is what I try to do in the book, one must sift through the gospel stories to analyze their claims about Jesus in light of the historical facts we know about the time and world in which Jesus lived. Indeed, I believe that if we place Jesus firmly within the social, religious, and political context of the era in which he lived, then, in some ways, his biography writes itself.

Q. You write in the book that you became an evangelical Christian in High School, but that after a few years, you abandoned Christianity and returned to the faith of your forefathers: Islam. Why did you decide to make this change and how did it affect how you understood the life and work of Jesus of Nazareth.

A. When I was fifteen years old I heard the gospel story for the first time and immediately accepted Jesus into my heart. I had what Christians refer to as “an encounter with Christ.” I spent the next five years as an evangelical Christian, and even spent some time traveling around the United States spreading the gospel message. But the more I read the Bible – especially in college, where I began my formal study of the New Testament – the more I uncovered a wide chasm between the Jesus of history and the Jesus I learned about in church. At that same time, through the encouragement of one of my professors, I began to reexamine the faith and traditions of my forefathers and returned to Islam. But the irony is that once I detached my academic study of Jesus from my faith in Christ, I became an even more fervent follower of Jesus of Nazareth. What I mean to say is that I live my life according to the social teachings preached by Jesus two thousand years ago. I take his actions against the powers of his time and his defense of the poor and the weak as a model of behavior for myself. I pray, as a Muslim, alongside my Christian wife, and together we teach our children the values I believe Jesus represents. The man who defied the will of the most powerful empire the world had ever known – and lost – is so much more real to me than the Jesus I knew as a Christian. So in a way, this book is my attempt to spread the good news of Jesus the man with the same passion that I once applied to spreading the good news of Jesus the Christ.

Q. What do you hope readers, especially religious readers, take away from your book?

A. My hope is that this book provides readers with a more complete sense of the world in which Jesus lived. We cannot truly understand Jesus’ words and deeds if we separate them from the religious and political context of his time. Regardless of whether you think of Jesus as a prophet, a teacher, or God incarnate, it is important to remember that he did not live in a vacuum. Whatever else Jesus was, he was, without question, a man of his time. This is true for all of us. The key to understanding who Jesus was and what Jesus meant lies in understanding the times in which he lived. That’s what this book does. It drops you in the middle of Jesus’ world and helps you understand the context out of which he arose and in which preached.

De Publishers Weekly

Starred Review. The person and work of Jesus of Nazareth has been a topic of constant interest since he lived and died some 2,000 years ago. Much speculation about who he was and what he taught has led to confusion and doubt. Aslan, who authored the much acclaimed No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam, offers a compelling argument for a fresh look at the Nazarene, focusing on how Jesus the man evolved into Jesus the Christ. Approaching the subject from a purely academic perspective, the author parts an important curtain that has long hidden from view the man Jesus, who is every bit as compelling, charismatic, and praiseworthy as Jesus the Christ. Carefully comparing extra-biblical historical records with the New Testament accounts, Aslan develops a convincing and coherent story of how the Christian church, and in particular Paul, reshaped Christianity's essence, obscuring the very real man who was Jesus of Nazareth. Compulsively readable and written at a popular level, this superb work is highly recommended. Agent: Elyse Cheney, Elyse Cheney Literary Associates (July)

From Booklist

*Starred Review* Aslan brings a fine popular style, shorn of all jargon, to bear on the presentation of Jesus of Nazareth as only a man. What’s more, as he pares the supernatural or divine away from Jesus, he refrains from deriding it. He isn’t interested in attacking religion or even the church, much less in comparing Christianity unfavorably to another religion. He would have us admire Jesus as one of the many would-be messiahs who sprang up during Rome’s occupation of Palestine, animated by zeal for “strict adherence to the Torah and the Law,” refusal to serve a human master, and devotion to God, and therefore dedicated to throwing off Rome and repudiating Roman religion. Before and after Jesus, such zeal entailed violent revolution, but Jesus proceeded against Rome in the conviction that zealous spirit was sufficient. It wasn’t, and Rome executed him. This depiction of Jesus makes sense, as we say, though many Christians will find holes in its fabric; indeed, Aslan grants one of the largest, the fact that no one who attested to the Resurrection recanted. But you don’t have to lose your religion to learn much that’s vitally germane to its history from Aslan’s absorbing, reader-friendly book. --Ray Olson

Críticas

“Riveting . . . Aslan synthesizes Scripture and scholarship to create an original account.”The New Yorker

“A lucid, intelligent page-turner.”
—Los Angeles Times
 
“Aslan’s insistence on human and historical actuality turns out to be far more interesting than dogmatic theology. . . . This tough-minded, deeply political book does full justice to the real Jesus, and honors him in the process.”
San Francisco Chronicle

“Aslan brings a fine popular style, shorn of all jargon, to bear on the presentation of Jesus of Nazareth. . . . He isn’t interested in attacking religion or even the church, much less in comparing Christianity unfavorably to another religion. He would have us admire Jesus as one of the many would-be messiahs who sprang up during Rome’s occupation of Palestine, animated by zeal for ‘strict adherence to the Torah and the Law,’ refusal to serve a human master, and devotion to God, and therefore dedicated to throwing off Rome and repudiating Roman religion. . . . You don’t have to lose your religion to learn much that’s vitally germane to its history from Aslan’s absorbing, reader-friendly book.”
Booklist (starred review)
 
“Be advised, dear reader, Sunday school this isn’t. Yet Aslan may come as close as one can to respecting those who revere Jesus as the peace-loving, turn-the-other-cheek, true son of God depicted in modern Christianity, even as he knocks down that image. . . . Aslan is steeped in the history, languages and scriptural foundation of the biblical scholar and is a very clear writer with an authoritative, but not pedantic, voice. Those of us who wade into this genre often know how rare that is. . . . Fascinatingly and convincingly drawn.”
The Seattle Times
 
“[Aslan’s] literary talent is as essential to the effect of
Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth as are his scholarly and journalistic chops. . . . A vivid, persuasive portrait of the world and societies in which Jesus lived and the role he most likely played in both. . . . Fascinating.”—Salon
 
“Accessibly and strongly presented . . . Readable and with scholarly endnotes, Aslan’s book offers a historical perspective that is sure to generate spirited conversation.”
Library Journal
 
“A well-researched, readable biography of Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus of Nazareth is not the same as Jesus Christ. The Gospels are not historical documents. . . . Why has Christianity taken hold and flourished? This book will give you the answers.”
Kirkus Reviews (starred review)
 
“[Aslan] parts an important curtain that has long hidden from view the man Jesus. . . . Aslan develops a convincing and coherent story of how the Christian church, and in particular Paul, reshaped Christianity’s essence, obscuring the very real man who was Jesus of Nazareth. Compulsively readable and written at a popular level, this superb work is highly recommended.”
Publishers Weekly (starred review)

“A bold, powerfully argued revisioning of the most consequential life ever lived.”
—Lawrence Wright, Pulitzer Prize–winning author of Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood, and the Prison of Belief
 
“The story of Jesus of Nazareth is arguably the most influential narrative in human history. Here Reza Aslan writes vividly and insightfully about the life and meaning of the figure who has come to be seen by billions as the Christ of faith. This is a special and revealing work, one that believer and skeptic alike will find surprising, engaging, and original.”
—Jon Meacham, Pulitzer Prize–winning author of Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power
 
“In
Zealot, Reza Aslan doesn't just synthesize research and reimagine a lost world, though he does those things very well. He does for religious history what Bertolt Brecht did for playwriting. Aslan rips Jesus out of all the contexts we thought he belonged in and holds him forth as someone entirely new. This is Jesus as a passionate Jew, a violent revolutionary, a fanatical ideologue, an odd and scary and extraordinarily interesting man.”—Judith Shulevitz, author of The Sabbath World

Biografía del autor

Reza Aslan is an acclaimed writer and scholar of religions whose books include No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam and Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth. He is also the author of How to Win a Cosmic War: God, Globalization, and the End of the War on Terror (published in paperback as Beyond Fundamentalism), as well as the editor of Tablet & Pen: Literary Landscapes from the Modern Middle East. He lives in Los Angeles with his wife and three sons.

Extracto. © Reimpreso con autorización. Reservados todos los derechos.

Chapter One

A Hole in the Corner

Who killed Jonathan son of Ananus as he strode across the Temple Mount in the year 56 c.e.? No doubt there were many in Jerusalem who longed to slay the rapacious high priest, and more than a few who would have liked to wipe out the bloated Temple priesthood in its entirety. For what must never be forgotten when speaking of first-century Palestine is that this land—this hallowed land from which the spirit of God flowed to the rest of the world—was occupied territory. Legions of Roman troops were stationed throughout Judea. Some six hundred Roman soldiers resided atop the Temple Mount itself, within the high stone walls of the Antonia Fortress, which buttressed the northwest corner of the Temple wall. The unclean centurion in his red cape and polished cuirass who paraded through the Court of Gentiles, his hand hovering over the hilt of his sword, was a not so subtle reminder, if any were needed, of who really ruled this sacred place.

Roman dominion over Jerusalem began in 63 b.c.e., when Rome’s master tactician, Pompey Magnus, entered the city with his conquering legions and laid siege to the Temple. By then, Jerusalem had long since passed its economic and cultural zenith. The Canaanite settlement that King David had recast into the seat of his kingdom, the city he had passed to his wayward son, Solomon, who built the first Temple to God—sacked and destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 b.c.e.—the city that had served as the religious, economic, and political capital of the Jewish nation for a thousand years, was, by the time Pompey strode through its gates, recognized less for its beauty and grandeur than for the religious fervor of its troublesome population.

Situated on the southern plateau of the shaggy Judean mountains, between the twin peaks of Mount Scopus and the Mount of Olives, and flanked by the Kidron Valley in the east and the steep, forebidding Valley of Gehenna in the south, Jerusalem, at the time of the Roman invasion, was home to a settled population of about a hundred thousand people. To the Romans, it was an inconsequential speck on the imperial map, a city the wordy statesman Cicero dismissed as “a hole in the corner.” But to the Jews this was the navel of the world, the axis of the universe. There was no city more unique, more holy, more venerable in all the world than Jerusalem. The purple vineyards whose vines twisted and crawled across the level plains, the well-tilled fields and viridescent orchards bursting with almond and fig and olive trees, the green beds of papyrus floating lazily along the Jordan River—the Jews not only knew and deeply loved every feature of this consecrated land, they laid claim to all of it. Everything from the farmsteads of the Galilee to the low-lying hills of Samaria and the far outskirts of Idumea, where the Bible says the accursed cities of Sodom and Gomorrah once stood, was given by God to the Jews, though in fact the Jews ruled none of it, not even Jerusalem, where the true God was worshipped. The city that the Lord had clothed in splendor and glory and placed, as the prophet Ezekiel declared, “in the center of all nations”—the eternal seat of God’s kingdom on earth—was, at the dawn of the first century c.e., just a minor province, and a vexing one at that, at the far corner of the mighty Roman Empire.

It is not that Jerusalem was unaccustomed to invasion and ­occupation. Despite its exalted status in the hearts of the Jews, the truth is that Jerusalem was little more than a trifle to be passed among a succession of kings and emperors who took turns ­plundering and despoiling the sacred city on their way to far grander ambitions. In 586 b.c.e. the Babylonians—masters of Mesopotamia—rampaged through Judea, razing both Jerusalem and its Temple to the ground. The Babylonians were conquered by the Persians, who allowed the Jews to return to their beloved city and rebuild their temple, not because they admired the Jews or took their cult seriously, but because they considered Jerusalem an irrelevant backwater of little interest or concern to an empire that stretched the length of Central Asia (though the prophet Isaiah would thank the Persian king Cyrus by anointing him messiah). The Persian Empire, and Jerusalem with it, fell to the armies of Alexander the Great, whose descendants imbued the city and its inhabitants with Greek culture and ideas. Upon Alexander’s untimely death in 323 b.c.e., Jerusalem was passed as spoils to the Ptolemaic dynasty and ruled from distant Egypt, though only briefly. In 198 b.c.e., the city was wrested from Ptolemaic control by the Seleucid king Antiochus the Great, whose son Antiochus Epiphanes fancied himself god incarnate and strove to put an end once and for all to the worship of the Jewish deity in Jerusalem. But the Jews responded to this blasphemy with a relentless ­guerrilla war led by the stouthearted sons of Mattathias the Hasmonaean—the Maccabees—who reclaimed the holy city from Seleucid control in 164 b.c.e. and, for the first time in four centuries, restored Jewish hegemony over Judea.

For the next hundred years, the Hasmonaeans ruled God’s land with an iron fist. They were priest-kings, each sovereign serving as both King of the Jews and high priest of the Temple. But when civil war broke out between the brothers Hyrcanus and Aristobulus over control of the throne, each brother foolishly reached out to Rome for support. Pompey took the brothers’ entreaties as an invitation to seize Jerusalem for himself, thus putting an end to the brief period of direct Jewish rule over the city of God. In 63 b.c.e., Judea became a Roman protectorate, and the Jews were made once again a subject people.

Roman rule, coming as it did after a century of independence, was not warmly received by the Jews. The Hasmonaean dynasty was abolished, but Pompey allowed Hyrcanus to maintain the position of high priest. That did not sit well with the supporters of Aristobulus, who launched a series of revolts to which the Romans responded with characteristic savagery—burning towns, massacring rebels, enslaving populations. Meanwhile, the chasm between the starving and indebted poor toiling in the countryside and the wealthy provincial class ruling in Jerusalem grew even wider. It was standard Roman policy to forge alliances with the landed aristocracy in every captured city, making them dependent on the Roman overlords for their power and wealth. By aligning their interests with those of the ruling class, Rome assured that local leaders remained wholly vested in maintaining the imperial system. Of course, in Jerusalem, “landed aristocracy” more or less meant the priestly class, and specifically, that handful of wealthy priestly families who maintained the Temple cult and who, as a result, were charged by Rome with collecting the taxes and tribute and keeping order among the increasingly restive population—tasks for which they were richly compensated.

The fluidity that existed in Jerusalem between the religious and political powers made it necessary for Rome to maintain close supervision over the Jewish cult and, in particular, over the high priest. As head of the Sanhedrin and “leader of the nation,” the high priest was a figure of both religious and political renown with the power to decide all religious matters, to enforce God’s law, and even to make arrests, though only in the vicinity of the Temple. If the Romans wanted to control the Jews, they had to control the Temple. And if they wanted to control the Temple, they had to control the high priest, which is why, soon after taking control over Judea, Rome took upon itself the responsibility of appointing and deposing (either directly or indirectly) the high priest, essentially transforming him into a Roman employee. Rome even kept custody of the high priest’s sacred garments, handing them out only on the sacred festivals and feast days and confiscating them immediately after the ceremonies were complete.

Still, the Jews were better off than some other Roman subjects. For the most part, the Romans humored the Jewish cult, allowing the rituals and sacrifices to be conducted without interference. The Jews were even excused from the direct worship of the emperor, which Rome imposed upon nearly every other religious community under its dominion. All that Rome asked of Jerusalem was a twice-daily sacrifice of one bull and two lambs on behalf of the emperor and for his good health. Continue making the sacrifice, keep up with the taxes and tribute, follow the provincial laws, and Rome was happy to leave you, your god, and your temple alone.

The Romans were, after all, fairly proficient in the religious beliefs and practices of subject peoples. Most of the lands they conquered were allowed to maintain their temples unmolested. Rival gods, far from being vanquished or destroyed, were often assimilated into the Roman cult (that is how, for example, the Canaanite god Baal became associated with the Roman god Saturn). In some cases, under a practice called evocatio, the Romans would take possession of an enemy’s temple—and therefore its god, for the two were inextricable in the ancient world—and transfer it to Rome, where it would be showered with riches and lavish sacrifices. Such displays were meant to send a clear signal that the hostilities were directed not toward the enemy’s god but toward its fighters; the god would continue to be honored and worshipped in Rome if only his devotees would lay down their arms and allow themselves to be absorbed into the empire.

As generally tolerant as the Romans may have been when it came to foreign cults, they were even more lenient toward the Jews and their fealty to their One God—what Cicero decried as the “barbarian superstitions” of Jewish monotheism. The Romans may not have understood the Jewish cult, with its strange observances and its overwhelming obsession with ritual purity—“The Jews regard as profane all that we hold sacred,” Tacitus wrote, “while they permit all that we abhor”—but they nevertheless tolerated it.

What most puzzled Rome about the Jews was not their unfamiliar rites or their strict devotion to their laws, but rather what the Romans considered to be their unfathomable superiority complex. The notion that an insignificant Semitic tribe residing in a distant corner of the mighty Roman Empire demanded, and indeed received, special treatment from the emperor was, for many Romans, simply incomprehensible. How dare they consider their god to be the sole god in the universe? How dare they keep themselves separate from all other nations? Who do these backward and superstitious tribesmen think they are? The Stoic philosopher Seneca was not alone among the Roman elite in wondering how it had possibly come to pass in Jerusalem that “the vanquished have given laws to the victors.”

For the Jews, however, this sense of exceptionalism was not a matter of arrogance or pride. It was a direct commandment from a jealous God who tolerated no foreign presence in the land he had set aside for his chosen people. That is why, when the Jews first came to this land a thousand years earlier, God had decreed that they massacre every man, woman, and child they encountered, that they slaughter every ox, goat, and sheep they came across, that they burn every farm, every field, every crop, every living thing without exception so as to ensure that the land would belong solely to those who worshipped this one God and no other.

“As for the towns of these people that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance,” God told the Israelites, “you must not let anything that breathes remain alive. You shall annihilate them all—the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites—just as the Lord your God has commanded” (Deuteronomy 20:17–­18).

It was, the Bible claims, only after the Jewish armies had “utterly destroyed all that breathed” in the cities of Libnah and Lachish and Eglon and Hebron and Debir, in the hill country and in the Negeb, in the lowlands and in the slopes—only after every single previous inhabitant of this land was eradicated, “as the Lord God of Israel had commanded” (Joshua 10: 28–­42)—that the Jews were allowed to settle here.
Great on Kindle
Una experiencia grandiosa. Por un mejor valor.
iphone con aplicación Kindle
Great on Kindle
Poniendo nuestro mejor libro al frente
Cada libro Great on Kindle ofrece un set completo de características Kindle, a un mejor precio para mantener a tu billetera feliz.

Explora tu libro y regresa donde quedaste gracias a Page Flip.

Ve increíbles gráficos, mapas e imágenes que te permiten acercarlas para mirar más de cerca.

Disfruta lo que hace que la lectura digital sea excelente - comienza a leer de inmediato, lleva tu biblioteca contigo, ajusta la fuente, haz notas y resalta, y más.

Encuentra detalles adicionales acerca de eventos, personas y lugares en tu libro gracias a X-Ray.

Obtén la aplicación Kindle gratis: Enlace a la página de la aplicación Kindle
La mejor experiencia de lectura para este libro está disponible en cualquier dispositivo con la aplicación gratuita Kindle. ¿Qué hace que este libro esté en Great on Kindle?

Sobre el autor

Sigue a los autores para recibir notificaciones de sus nuevas obras, así como recomendaciones mejoradas.
Brief content visible, double tap to read full content.
Full content visible, double tap to read brief content.

Dr. Reza Aslan’s bachelor’s degree is in religious studies, with an emphasis on scripture and traditions (which at Santa Clara University means the New Testament). His minor was in biblical Greek. He has a master of theological studies degree from Harvard University, in world religions, and a Ph.D. from the University of California, Santa Barbara, in the sociology of religions. UCSB’s doctoral program is an interdisciplinary one that draws from religion, history, philosophy, and sociology, among other fields. Aslan’s doctorate in the sociology of religions encompasses expertise in the history of religion. Reza also has a master of fine arts degree from the University of Iowa.

Dr. Aslan is currently professor of creative writing at the University of California, Riverside, with a joint appointment in the department of religion, and he teaches in both disciplines. He was previously Wallerstein Distinguished Visiting Professor at Drew University, where he taught from 2012 to 2013, and assistant visiting professor of religion at the University of Iowa, where he taught from 2000 to 2003. He has written three books on religion.

Brief content visible, double tap to read full content.
Full content visible, double tap to read brief content.
Brief content visible, double tap to read full content.
Full content visible, double tap to read brief content.

Comprados juntos habitualmente

ZEALOT: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth
+
God: A Human History
+
No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam

Comprados juntos habitualmente

ZEALOT: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth
Este producto: ZEALOT: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth
US$23.62
Brief content visible, double tap to read full content.
Full content visible, double tap to read brief content.
Precio total: $00
Detalles
Agregado al carrito
spCSRF_Treatment
Algunos de estos productos se envian antes que los otros.
Brief content visible, double tap to read full content.
Full content visible, double tap to read brief content.

Más información del producto

Jon Meacham says, One that believer and skeptic alike will find surprising, engaging, and original

Funciones y detalles

Características

  • NAMED ONE OF THE BEST BOOKS OF THE YEAR BY Good Housekeeping Booklist Publishers Weekly Bookish

Información de producto

Brief content visible, double tap to read full content.
Full content visible, double tap to read brief content.
Brief content visible, double tap to read full content.
Full content visible, double tap to read brief content.
Brief content visible, double tap to read full content.
Full content visible, double tap to read brief content.
Brief content visible, double tap to read full content.
Full content visible, double tap to read brief content.
Brief content visible, double tap to read full content.
Full content visible, double tap to read brief content.

Reporta una opinión

Algunas razones frecuentes por las que los clientes reportan opiniones:
  • Acoso, lenguaje ofensivo
  • Spam, publicidad, promociones
  • Otorgado a cambio de efectivo, descuentos
Cuando obtengamos tu reporte, verificaremos si la revisión cumple con nuestras pautas de la comunidad. Si no lo hace, lo retiraremos.
Lo sentimos, no pudimos cargar la opinión
Gracias por tus comentarios

Lo sentimos, se produjo un error

Inténtalo de nuevo más tarde.

Opiniones destacadas de los Estados Unidos

  • 5.0 de 5 estrellasCompra verificada
    Good read, thought provoking coherent and good ideas presented.
    Calificado en Estados Unidos el 1 de diciembre de 2013
    I was quite surprised as I was reading it that it was as short as it was. My Kindle only went to 60% when I suddenly found myself going over all of his research--kudos to Reza for doing his homework. I really was impressed with this guy’s approach to a very controversial... Ver más
    I was quite surprised as I was reading it that it was as short as it was. My Kindle only went to 60% when I suddenly found myself going over all of his research--kudos to Reza for doing his homework. I really was impressed with this guy’s approach to a very controversial figure. My own influence, education, indoctrination (my opinion) and knowledge is based upon a very loose knit “buffet” of catechism a smattering of Jesus Movement in highschool days and simple curiosity. At this point in my life it seems to have been simple curiosity all along (attached to a greater interest in church architecture), but that is not what I want to talk about. What I can say about Azlan’s book is that he has made in 216 pages a more cohesive and coherent story about the man Jesus than I ever got from any sermon, bible read or argument/discussion with anyone knowledgeable about this figure. I can recall that my reads through the New Testament never made sense. The Catholics were notorious for not wanting you to know the history, it was the message of faith in your god that made the import not trivial details like facts. ANNNNNNNDDDDDDD let me tell you the real eye opener of this book to me was the story of Saul/Paul. I knew of him and I also knew his story and his revelation and his zeal for spreading the message of the Christ(not Jesus)--(great drama for impressionable young Catholic children). But I never knew he was credited as the “writer” in the NT. For some reason I thought it was the apostle Paul, who really doesn’t figure in any of the writings in the NT! (yes I am quite aware that those credited with certain books of the bible are not necessarily the writers another trivial fact that seems downplayed by the Christians today). Boy I could have had a V8! It certainly clears the air of so many inconsistencies that I have /had about the Acts and Letters. The historical background of the charged environment of the day and the oppression's of the peoples, especially the poor, makes sense on the zeal that sent them looking for a new leader whether it be messiah or revolutionary leader-some things don't change I see this same phenomenon currently. There is always a group seeking to find someone to dig them out of their hole.

    Azlan’s theory of a dual Christian movement makes more sense to me on how it applies to the history of those times and concurrently illustrates how this new movement evolved (it actually was more like a big bang theory—I say this because if Rome hadn’t razed the Temple and decimated the Jews it would be a wonder if the Vatican would be Saint James and not Saint Peters ).This insiduous evolution to adapt itself to the changing times and appeal to the pagan and gentile masses (according to Azlan that was not the historical Jesus’ intention) without it becoming a victim of Romes disfavor and thus risk extinction was a very good move by the leaders of that faith—boy this situation would do Darwin proud. The picture of Paul’s zealotry carries still to this day; I can see that type of fervor in the Evangelicals and Fundamentalists –and they are as loopy as he seemed to be. One more thing I have to mention which the book makes very clear in it’s presentation; I have always known that historically the Catholic Church has practiced assimilation of beliefs into its own and simply makes things up as it goes along in order to get the followers (we know force is very effective as well and they certainly didn’t hold back on that one). It’s interesting to note that it was from the very beginning they had taken an idea and molded it to fit the times and people—I guess that continued up to the time of the Council of Nicea and then they they put a stop to it. Once that happened anything that went against the rules either you died as a saint or were burned as a sinner. Gee and I thought that actually was a practice that came much later with the Conquistatores.

    Good read. Its thought provoking. I know it wont make Christians happy, but he does a good job at trying to meld history and legend/myth together in a more coherent way. I couldn't discuss this book with my more fervently faithful friends, but I suspect they wouldn't read it anyway.
    I was quite surprised as I was reading it that it was as short as it was. My Kindle only went to 60% when I suddenly found myself going over all of his research--kudos to Reza for doing his homework. I really was impressed with this guy’s approach to a very controversial figure. My own influence, education, indoctrination (my opinion) and knowledge is based upon a very loose knit “buffet” of catechism a smattering of Jesus Movement in highschool days and simple curiosity. At this point in my life it seems to have been simple curiosity all along (attached to a greater interest in church architecture), but that is not what I want to talk about. What I can say about Azlan’s book is that he has made in 216 pages a more cohesive and coherent story about the man Jesus than I ever got from any sermon, bible read or argument/discussion with anyone knowledgeable about this figure. I can recall that my reads through the New Testament never made sense. The Catholics were notorious for not wanting you to know the history, it was the message of faith in your god that made the import not trivial details like facts. ANNNNNNNDDDDDDD let me tell you the real eye opener of this book to me was the story of Saul/Paul. I knew of him and I also knew his story and his revelation and his zeal for spreading the message of the Christ(not Jesus)--(great drama for impressionable young Catholic children). But I never knew he was credited as the “writer” in the NT. For some reason I thought it was the apostle Paul, who really doesn’t figure in any of the writings in the NT! (yes I am quite aware that those credited with certain books of the bible are not necessarily the writers another trivial fact that seems downplayed by the Christians today). Boy I could have had a V8! It certainly clears the air of so many inconsistencies that I have /had about the Acts and Letters. The historical background of the charged environment of the day and the oppression's of the peoples, especially the poor, makes sense on the zeal that sent them looking for a new leader whether it be messiah or revolutionary leader-some things don't change I see this same phenomenon currently. There is always a group seeking to find someone to dig them out of their hole.

    Azlan’s theory of a dual Christian movement makes more sense to me on how it applies to the history of those times and concurrently illustrates how this new movement evolved (it actually was more like a big bang theory—I say this because if Rome hadn’t razed the Temple and decimated the Jews it would be a wonder if the Vatican would be Saint James and not Saint Peters ).This insiduous evolution to adapt itself to the changing times and appeal to the pagan and gentile masses (according to Azlan that was not the historical Jesus’ intention) without it becoming a victim of Romes disfavor and thus risk extinction was a very good move by the leaders of that faith—boy this situation would do Darwin proud. The picture of Paul’s zealotry carries still to this day; I can see that type of fervor in the Evangelicals and Fundamentalists –and they are as loopy as he seemed to be. One more thing I have to mention which the book makes very clear in it’s presentation; I have always known that historically the Catholic Church has practiced assimilation of beliefs into its own and simply makes things up as it goes along in order to get the followers (we know force is very effective as well and they certainly didn’t hold back on that one). It’s interesting to note that it was from the very beginning they had taken an idea and molded it to fit the times and people—I guess that continued up to the time of the Council of Nicea and then they they put a stop to it. Once that happened anything that went against the rules either you died as a saint or were burned as a sinner. Gee and I thought that actually was a practice that came much later with the Conquistatores.

    Good read. Its thought provoking. I know it wont make Christians happy, but he does a good job at trying to meld history and legend/myth together in a more coherent way. I couldn't discuss this book with my more fervently faithful friends, but I suspect they wouldn't read it anyway.
    A 5 personas les resultó útil
    Compartir

    Reportar esta opinión

    Opcional: ¿Por qué denuncias esto?

    No es acerca del producto

    Irrespetuosa, con odio, obscena

    Pagada, no es auténtica

    Otra cosa

    Verificaremos si esta opinión cumple con nuestras normas de la comunidad. Si no las cumple, la eliminaremos.

    Reportar
  • 4.0 de 5 estrellasCompra verificada
    The Historical Jesus of Nazareth NOT Jesus the Christ
    Calificado en Estados Unidos el 11 de septiembre de 2013
    I never had any intention of reading Zealot. I probably would never have heard of it were it not for the cringe-worthy interview of the author by Fox News correspondent, Lauren Green. She is single handedly responsible for publicizing the book to an extent that any author... Ver más
    I never had any intention of reading Zealot. I probably would never have heard of it were it not for the cringe-worthy interview of the author by Fox News correspondent, Lauren Green. She is single handedly responsible for publicizing the book to an extent that any author or public relations firm could only dream about. The only things you could be sure of at the conclusion of the interview were that Aslan is a well-educated scholar and a class act and Green is a religiously-biased idiot who clearly had not read the book.

    After seeing the interview, I went out on Amazon to read the reviews. The first thing I noticed was that the older reviews tended to be serious, well-written, and generally clustered in the four to five star range. The newer reviews were mostly one star, clearly written by people who had not read Zealot, and were noteworthy for rehashing Fox talking points.

    I posted comments challenging the "reviewers" where it was obvious that he or she had not read the book and I tracked the responses. I challenged one reviewer, who took offense at the book's imagined attack on his deeply-held religious beliefs, to actually read the book and post a real review, which I promised to read with an open mind. He agreed to do so, and then challenged me to do the same. Fair enough. I bought my hard copy from Amazon the same day.

    I procrastinated reading the book, looking forward to it with the same level of enthusiasm I would have for a root canal. I'm sorry I did. It is an engaging and well-written book that makes history come alive for those of us who are not religious scholars. This book will keep your attention because it is interesting.

    I was sucked in by the first sentence and was happily surprised to find that in addition to being meticulously researched, this book is an enjoyable read. Zealot is a story about Jesus of Nazareth - not Jesus the Christ - placed in historical context. It debunks some oft-repeated beliefs that may make devout Christians uncomfortable, but is in no way an attack on their faith.

    Jesus was a Jew who was almost certainly born in Nazareth, not Bethlehem; he was dirt poor and probably illiterate; he had brothers and sisters; and he was baptized by, and was a disciple of John the Baptist. While there is every reason to believe he was crucified, that in no way made him special; at the time, crucifixion was a common punishment meted out by the Roman occupiers in staggering numbers. For that reason, the probability that he appeared before Pontius Pilate to be judged is vanishingly small.

    Jesus of Nazareth was just one more in a long line of rebellious "messiahs" railing against the Roman occupation of Judea and the corrupt high priests who controlled the temple in Jerusalem. Jesus wanted the Romans to leave, the corrupt priests out of the Temple, and the land returned to God (an earthly kingdom as opposed to the heavenly kingdom that later Gospels proclaimed). Jesus was crucified for sedition - for taking this message on the road, fomenting insurrection.

    This book places Jesus of Nazareth and his life and death in historical context. Little to nothing was written about him in his lifetime; the Gospels were written long after he had died. It is what happened after Jesus' death that is noteworthy. His brother, James the Just along with the apostles continued Jesus' message of Torah-based Judaism. Jesus never claimed he was the Son of God, but rather the Son of Man. Taken to its logical conclusion, this version of Christianity would have been just another Jewish sect that almost certainly would have disappeared over time.

    Modern Christianity (or at least the seeds of it) was a product of the repackaging of Jesus' life by Paul (Saul of Tarsus). He never met Jesus, had no use for Jewish tradition, and reinterpreted the story of Jesus' life and death making him appear to be a man of peace and love and more otherworldly - the Son of God. Paul's Christianity was a new religion that was less reliant on the laws of Moses, more palatable to Rome, and more likely to attract better-educated, non-Jewish converts. Despite the concerted efforts of James the Just, Paul's largely-fabricated version of the life and death of Jesus gradually became the accepted version.

    Devout Christians reading this book will find that it is not an attack on or a threat to their faith. This is a book about a famous man placed in context historically. It fleshes out and complements the stories in the Bible. As an example, Aslan makes no attempt to debunk the Resurrection, but rather says that it is a matter of faith. He does note that many people who claimed to have seen the resurrected Jesus were later executed just for saying so. They could have been spared their fate had they recanted. None did. They had everything to gain and nothing to lose by denying what they said they had seen, but they would not because it was something they had actually experienced and not just heard about secondhand. There is still room for mystery and you can make of that what you will.

    This was an excellent, well-written, thought-provoking book. If you want to learn something, read it.

    (By way of background, I was raised Catholic, attended Catholic schools through high school, and all of the colleges I attended were secular by choice. By the time I graduated high school, I considered myself agnostic on a good day and leaning atheist the rest of the time. Still do.)
    I never had any intention of reading Zealot. I probably would never have heard of it were it not for the cringe-worthy interview of the author by Fox News correspondent, Lauren Green. She is single handedly responsible for publicizing the book to an extent that any author or public relations firm could only dream about. The only things you could be sure of at the conclusion of the interview were that Aslan is a well-educated scholar and a class act and Green is a religiously-biased idiot who clearly had not read the book.

    After seeing the interview, I went out on Amazon to read the reviews. The first thing I noticed was that the older reviews tended to be serious, well-written, and generally clustered in the four to five star range. The newer reviews were mostly one star, clearly written by people who had not read Zealot, and were noteworthy for rehashing Fox talking points.

    I posted comments challenging the "reviewers" where it was obvious that he or she had not read the book and I tracked the responses. I challenged one reviewer, who took offense at the book's imagined attack on his deeply-held religious beliefs, to actually read the book and post a real review, which I promised to read with an open mind. He agreed to do so, and then challenged me to do the same. Fair enough. I bought my hard copy from Amazon the same day.

    I procrastinated reading the book, looking forward to it with the same level of enthusiasm I would have for a root canal. I'm sorry I did. It is an engaging and well-written book that makes history come alive for those of us who are not religious scholars. This book will keep your attention because it is interesting.

    I was sucked in by the first sentence and was happily surprised to find that in addition to being meticulously researched, this book is an enjoyable read. Zealot is a story about Jesus of Nazareth - not Jesus the Christ - placed in historical context. It debunks some oft-repeated beliefs that may make devout Christians uncomfortable, but is in no way an attack on their faith.

    Jesus was a Jew who was almost certainly born in Nazareth, not Bethlehem; he was dirt poor and probably illiterate; he had brothers and sisters; and he was baptized by, and was a disciple of John the Baptist. While there is every reason to believe he was crucified, that in no way made him special; at the time, crucifixion was a common punishment meted out by the Roman occupiers in staggering numbers. For that reason, the probability that he appeared before Pontius Pilate to be judged is vanishingly small.

    Jesus of Nazareth was just one more in a long line of rebellious "messiahs" railing against the Roman occupation of Judea and the corrupt high priests who controlled the temple in Jerusalem. Jesus wanted the Romans to leave, the corrupt priests out of the Temple, and the land returned to God (an earthly kingdom as opposed to the heavenly kingdom that later Gospels proclaimed). Jesus was crucified for sedition - for taking this message on the road, fomenting insurrection.

    This book places Jesus of Nazareth and his life and death in historical context. Little to nothing was written about him in his lifetime; the Gospels were written long after he had died. It is what happened after Jesus' death that is noteworthy. His brother, James the Just along with the apostles continued Jesus' message of Torah-based Judaism. Jesus never claimed he was the Son of God, but rather the Son of Man. Taken to its logical conclusion, this version of Christianity would have been just another Jewish sect that almost certainly would have disappeared over time.

    Modern Christianity (or at least the seeds of it) was a product of the repackaging of Jesus' life by Paul (Saul of Tarsus). He never met Jesus, had no use for Jewish tradition, and reinterpreted the story of Jesus' life and death making him appear to be a man of peace and love and more otherworldly - the Son of God. Paul's Christianity was a new religion that was less reliant on the laws of Moses, more palatable to Rome, and more likely to attract better-educated, non-Jewish converts. Despite the concerted efforts of James the Just, Paul's largely-fabricated version of the life and death of Jesus gradually became the accepted version.

    Devout Christians reading this book will find that it is not an attack on or a threat to their faith. This is a book about a famous man placed in context historically. It fleshes out and complements the stories in the Bible. As an example, Aslan makes no attempt to debunk the Resurrection, but rather says that it is a matter of faith. He does note that many people who claimed to have seen the resurrected Jesus were later executed just for saying so. They could have been spared their fate had they recanted. None did. They had everything to gain and nothing to lose by denying what they said they had seen, but they would not because it was something they had actually experienced and not just heard about secondhand. There is still room for mystery and you can make of that what you will.

    This was an excellent, well-written, thought-provoking book. If you want to learn something, read it.

    (By way of background, I was raised Catholic, attended Catholic schools through high school, and all of the colleges I attended were secular by choice. By the time I graduated high school, I considered myself agnostic on a good day and leaning atheist the rest of the time. Still do.)
    A 69 personas les resultó útil
    Compartir

    Reportar esta opinión

    Opcional: ¿Por qué denuncias esto?

    No es acerca del producto

    Irrespetuosa, con odio, obscena

    Pagada, no es auténtica

    Otra cosa

    Verificaremos si esta opinión cumple con nuestras normas de la comunidad. Si no las cumple, la eliminaremos.

    Reportar
  • 5.0 de 5 estrellasCompra verificada
    Finding Fresh Faith
    Calificado en Estados Unidos el 24 de septiembre de 2014
    In a most charming and incisive TED presentation, Chimamanda Adichie reminded her listeners of "The Danger of a Single-Story.” This is nowhere more true than in the cultural identity narratives created by religion and reactions to them. If one were to take an overview... Ver más
    In a most charming and incisive TED presentation, Chimamanda Adichie reminded her listeners of "The Danger of a Single-Story.” This is nowhere more true than in the cultural identity narratives created by religion and reactions to them. If one were to take an overview of these reactions we might come up with rough categories like:
    1. Those whose faith is part and parcel of their full culture and daily existence, an unquestioned identity narrative. “It’s life.”
    2. Those who consciously chose, commit to and practice a religion or spirituality inherited or chosen. "I believe… I practice...”
    3. Those who have religion in their inherited identity narrative but for whom it rarely invades every day life in a conscious way. "I'm not a practicing…"
    4. Those who are aware of it, but have no sense of belonging to it. “I know it's there, but I'm not involved in it.”
    5. Those who consciously reject any specific religious belief with a contrary belief system (atheism) about the nonexistence of a god and irrelevance of religion and either passively or militantly resist it. "There's no compelling evidence." Or, "It's a pack of lies.”
    6. Those who proclaim they cannot or do not know about the existence of a god or the validity of a religious belief system (agnosticism). "I dunno’.”

    Both commitment and resistance stemming from one or more of the positions stated above have complicated the hard work of the search for the historical Jesus. Aslan’s book takes us to a new level, perhaps a new perspective to add to the existing ones. This perspective is made by the most powerful unified presentation that I've seen to date, both scholarly and readable (even the endnotes are compelling) of the social, cultural, political, economic and religious context that Jesus was born into, how it evolved during his short life, and in which he carried out his activity. It is a context of military occupation, repression and oppression, social inequality, religious and financial elitism, popular and revolutionary movements, messiahs, gurus, magicians and charlatans. It is credible to the reader not only because of the historical evidence provided, but because it could be a description of times much like our own, testimony to the fact that human behavior has not changed a lot, if any. In other words Aslan’s detailed contextual account gives us a much better sense of the historical Jesus than we are likely to come by elsewhere.

    Jesus is not the sole subject of Aslan’s presentation. Rather, Jesus can be understood neither historically nor in his influence on history without a close look at the other figures both contemporary and subsequent. Thus there is incisive treatment of such characters as James the brother of Jesus, Paul the "Apostle to the Gentiles" and those Roman and Jewish figures who were actors in the context and affected the course of how the identity of Jesus was perceived and developed in subsequent generations and centuries.

    Is the Jesus of history less credible than the Jesus of faith? If history can show accretions and shifts, even the contradictions that have gone into the documents and built traditions of Christianity from the very outset, what then do we make of the Jesus of faith? Should we assume a naked scientific bias and declare that it is all poppycock? Or, should we be cynical about the historians like Napoleon who insisted that, "History is a set of lies that we all agree on," perhaps echoing Voltaire's view of history as, “the pack of lies we play on the dead.” Or, should we take a "true believer" perspective and dismiss the historians as somehow depraved and lost in the past, deprived of meaningful faith? Is there a peaceful, even enriching coexistence possible between the two?

    Perhaps the life story of the author, revealed in the opening pages of the book, provides a clue as to how we manage not just a religious identity, but the many cultural identities we bear that vacillate between data and aspiration. Born into a dispossessed Muslim heritage, Aslan became what one would describe as a "true believer" in a rather fundamentalist Christianity. When the logic of this was no longer tenable, he abandoned it, but later renewed his research into the meaning of this Jesus, who shaped so much of history, to discover how he himself and the Jesus of his research were shaped by history. In other words, our identity will, throughout a lifetime, travel like rivers merged from many streams. Our identity waters may become dammed up by contradictions in places and may cut paths through unfamiliar places to arrive at the sea of our current if not ultimate meaning and destination. Aslan’s closing line is both personal and reassuring: "… Jesus of Nazareth – Jesus the man – is every bit as compelling, charismatic, and praiseworthy as is Jesus the Christ. He is, in short, someone worth believing in.”

    Aslan’s Jesus-in-context will provide relief and new perspectives to many readers. It may appear blasphemous to others. Yet here, in both the author's story and the story he tells of Jesus, it seems to me that we have a clue into how we both develop and live out our cultural identities, religious ones as well as the many others we carry with us or enter into. Frederick Douglass (US Abolitionist, 1818-1895) insightfully remarked, “We have to do with the past only as we can make it useful to the present.” This is what both religious believers and historical researchers attempt to do while as practitioners they bear a common human propensity for deviations into dogmatism, possessiveness, power, pied pipers and dictators, corrupt practice and the dismissal or repression of others. Neither religious belief nor scientific assertions relieve the itch for fleeing complexity.

    Inevitably we are all, at our best, both believers and searchers. Whether searching for the truth in tradition or claiming that tradition is truth, we continue to build our identity narratives, inevitably shaped by the contexts we are immersed in. Conflict about these things can lead to further enlightenment as well deteriorate into violent jihad, crusades, and genocide. Both science and faith have shown their capacity for creating tools that can be used in either direction.

    Aslan thus confirmed for me that there can be a rich co-existence if not intermarriage between history and faith. In the case of Jesus, this belief led me to create a Christmas message last year for my friends, wedding both history and tradition, as I take meaning and inspiration from them. It read as follows:

    “Do you know this guy? He’s having a birthday soon and a lot of my friends are marking it. If you are making merry, enjoy the celebration and think a bit about the kind of guy he was...

    • He had impressive ancestry, but was born under suspicious circumstances into a small-town, working class family.
    • Lived in an occupied country, run by an insecure, ruthless puppet governor.
    • Was a child refugee in a foreign country, yet became a precocious student.
    • Followed an activist who was jailed and executed.
    • Achieved insight through meditation, discipline and self-denial.
    • Refused to be tempted by consumerism, lived on the road, advocated simple lifestyle.
    • Went by foot or used inexpensive, shared transportation.
    • Loved and admired by his friends, he could attract a crowd and hold their attention.
    • Demonstrated how sharing creates abundance, had a healing touch.
    • Protested the abuse of women, loved his buddies, was good with kids.
    • Partied with disreputable riff-raff, unflagging advocate of poor folk and the down and out.
    • Told great stories, delegated well to his team, calmed turbulent waters.
    • Prized humility, revolution and peacemaking, probity, transparency and generosity.
    • Respected tradition and decried its perversion and corruption.
    • Fished up enough money to pay his taxes.
    • Overcame ethnic bias, accepted and assisted outsiders and foreigners.
    • Opposed oppressive legislation and legalism, saddle burr of the rich and powerful.
    • Blew the whistle on hypocrisy, upset the high and mighty. Could hold his own in an argument.
    • Betrayed by a trusted friend for hard cash, condemned by a kangaroo court, tortured and executed as a political prisoner.
    • Down for the count of three, he made a comeback and lives on in those who share his spirit.”

    Aslan's book does not explain in any great detail why the movement initiated by Jesus of Nazareth succeeded in his times and why Christian identity narratives persistently morphed their way into the present, while those of so many Messianic and revolutionary activists before, during and after Jesus' life were short-lived and disappeared. This is another book, no doubt, but I want to read it when it is written.
    In a most charming and incisive TED presentation, Chimamanda Adichie reminded her listeners of "The Danger of a Single-Story.” This is nowhere more true than in the cultural identity narratives created by religion and reactions to them. If one were to take an overview of these reactions we might come up with rough categories like:
    1. Those whose faith is part and parcel of their full culture and daily existence, an unquestioned identity narrative. “It’s life.”
    2. Those who consciously chose, commit to and practice a religion or spirituality inherited or chosen. "I believe… I practice...”
    3. Those who have religion in their inherited identity narrative but for whom it rarely invades every day life in a conscious way. "I'm not a practicing…"
    4. Those who are aware of it, but have no sense of belonging to it. “I know it's there, but I'm not involved in it.”
    5. Those who consciously reject any specific religious belief with a contrary belief system (atheism) about the nonexistence of a god and irrelevance of religion and either passively or militantly resist it. "There's no compelling evidence." Or, "It's a pack of lies.”
    6. Those who proclaim they cannot or do not know about the existence of a god or the validity of a religious belief system (agnosticism). "I dunno’.”

    Both commitment and resistance stemming from one or more of the positions stated above have complicated the hard work of the search for the historical Jesus. Aslan’s book takes us to a new level, perhaps a new perspective to add to the existing ones. This perspective is made by the most powerful unified presentation that I've seen to date, both scholarly and readable (even the endnotes are compelling) of the social, cultural, political, economic and religious context that Jesus was born into, how it evolved during his short life, and in which he carried out his activity. It is a context of military occupation, repression and oppression, social inequality, religious and financial elitism, popular and revolutionary movements, messiahs, gurus, magicians and charlatans. It is credible to the reader not only because of the historical evidence provided, but because it could be a description of times much like our own, testimony to the fact that human behavior has not changed a lot, if any. In other words Aslan’s detailed contextual account gives us a much better sense of the historical Jesus than we are likely to come by elsewhere.

    Jesus is not the sole subject of Aslan’s presentation. Rather, Jesus can be understood neither historically nor in his influence on history without a close look at the other figures both contemporary and subsequent. Thus there is incisive treatment of such characters as James the brother of Jesus, Paul the "Apostle to the Gentiles" and those Roman and Jewish figures who were actors in the context and affected the course of how the identity of Jesus was perceived and developed in subsequent generations and centuries.

    Is the Jesus of history less credible than the Jesus of faith? If history can show accretions and shifts, even the contradictions that have gone into the documents and built traditions of Christianity from the very outset, what then do we make of the Jesus of faith? Should we assume a naked scientific bias and declare that it is all poppycock? Or, should we be cynical about the historians like Napoleon who insisted that, "History is a set of lies that we all agree on," perhaps echoing Voltaire's view of history as, “the pack of lies we play on the dead.” Or, should we take a "true believer" perspective and dismiss the historians as somehow depraved and lost in the past, deprived of meaningful faith? Is there a peaceful, even enriching coexistence possible between the two?

    Perhaps the life story of the author, revealed in the opening pages of the book, provides a clue as to how we manage not just a religious identity, but the many cultural identities we bear that vacillate between data and aspiration. Born into a dispossessed Muslim heritage, Aslan became what one would describe as a "true believer" in a rather fundamentalist Christianity. When the logic of this was no longer tenable, he abandoned it, but later renewed his research into the meaning of this Jesus, who shaped so much of history, to discover how he himself and the Jesus of his research were shaped by history. In other words, our identity will, throughout a lifetime, travel like rivers merged from many streams. Our identity waters may become dammed up by contradictions in places and may cut paths through unfamiliar places to arrive at the sea of our current if not ultimate meaning and destination. Aslan’s closing line is both personal and reassuring: "… Jesus of Nazareth – Jesus the man – is every bit as compelling, charismatic, and praiseworthy as is Jesus the Christ. He is, in short, someone worth believing in.”

    Aslan’s Jesus-in-context will provide relief and new perspectives to many readers. It may appear blasphemous to others. Yet here, in both the author's story and the story he tells of Jesus, it seems to me that we have a clue into how we both develop and live out our cultural identities, religious ones as well as the many others we carry with us or enter into. Frederick Douglass (US Abolitionist, 1818-1895) insightfully remarked, “We have to do with the past only as we can make it useful to the present.” This is what both religious believers and historical researchers attempt to do while as practitioners they bear a common human propensity for deviations into dogmatism, possessiveness, power, pied pipers and dictators, corrupt practice and the dismissal or repression of others. Neither religious belief nor scientific assertions relieve the itch for fleeing complexity.

    Inevitably we are all, at our best, both believers and searchers. Whether searching for the truth in tradition or claiming that tradition is truth, we continue to build our identity narratives, inevitably shaped by the contexts we are immersed in. Conflict about these things can lead to further enlightenment as well deteriorate into violent jihad, crusades, and genocide. Both science and faith have shown their capacity for creating tools that can be used in either direction.

    Aslan thus confirmed for me that there can be a rich co-existence if not intermarriage between history and faith. In the case of Jesus, this belief led me to create a Christmas message last year for my friends, wedding both history and tradition, as I take meaning and inspiration from them. It read as follows:

    “Do you know this guy? He’s having a birthday soon and a lot of my friends are marking it. If you are making merry, enjoy the celebration and think a bit about the kind of guy he was...

    • He had impressive ancestry, but was born under suspicious circumstances into a small-town, working class family.
    • Lived in an occupied country, run by an insecure, ruthless puppet governor.
    • Was a child refugee in a foreign country, yet became a precocious student.
    • Followed an activist who was jailed and executed.
    • Achieved insight through meditation, discipline and self-denial.
    • Refused to be tempted by consumerism, lived on the road, advocated simple lifestyle.
    • Went by foot or used inexpensive, shared transportation.
    • Loved and admired by his friends, he could attract a crowd and hold their attention.
    • Demonstrated how sharing creates abundance, had a healing touch.
    • Protested the abuse of women, loved his buddies, was good with kids.
    • Partied with disreputable riff-raff, unflagging advocate of poor folk and the down and out.
    • Told great stories, delegated well to his team, calmed turbulent waters.
    • Prized humility, revolution and peacemaking, probity, transparency and generosity.
    • Respected tradition and decried its perversion and corruption.
    • Fished up enough money to pay his taxes.
    • Overcame ethnic bias, accepted and assisted outsiders and foreigners.
    • Opposed oppressive legislation and legalism, saddle burr of the rich and powerful.
    • Blew the whistle on hypocrisy, upset the high and mighty. Could hold his own in an argument.
    • Betrayed by a trusted friend for hard cash, condemned by a kangaroo court, tortured and executed as a political prisoner.
    • Down for the count of three, he made a comeback and lives on in those who share his spirit.”

    Aslan's book does not explain in any great detail why the movement initiated by Jesus of Nazareth succeeded in his times and why Christian identity narratives persistently morphed their way into the present, while those of so many Messianic and revolutionary activists before, during and after Jesus' life were short-lived and disappeared. This is another book, no doubt, but I want to read it when it is written.
    A 19 personas les resultó útil
    Compartir

    Reportar esta opinión

    Opcional: ¿Por qué denuncias esto?

    No es acerca del producto

    Irrespetuosa, con odio, obscena

    Pagada, no es auténtica

    Otra cosa

    Verificaremos si esta opinión cumple con nuestras normas de la comunidad. Si no las cumple, la eliminaremos.

    Reportar
  • 5.0 de 5 estrellasCompra verificada
    I Can See Clearly Now
    Calificado en Estados Unidos el 19 de agosto de 2013
    I was raised in the Catholic Church and attended Catholic schools through my first year of high school. I also have read most of the popular works on the nature of Jesus the Christ and the historical Jesus of Nazareth published in the last thirty years, or so. I... Ver más
    I was raised in the Catholic Church and attended Catholic schools through my first year of high school. I also have read most of the popular works on the nature of Jesus the Christ and the historical Jesus of Nazareth published in the last thirty years, or so.

    I remember my religion classes in school as being confusing. The stories of Jesus seemed clear enough, but the motives, actions, sayings and interpretation of Jesus that was taught to me seemed disjointed, illogical and, to my young mind, incomprehensible.

    When I became an adult, began reading the Bible and books of scriptural and historical analysis (that included the Qumran material) seeking to clarify the story of Jesus. I have never completely abandoned this pursuit. However, the story of Jesus of Nazareth, his actual teachings, the encrustations and editing of it by the early church and the Roman Empire, have never presented to me a coherent whole.

    As presented by the Church, the story of Jesus just does not make sense. But I realize after years of study, that the story does not need to make sense. I know now that all religions are metaphorical, they all are an attempt to explain in words that which cannot be explained in words. The Divine cannot be encompassed by the mind of man nor his languages. So our choice of religion is in reality an aesthetic one. (Though, of course, most of us do not actually choose our religion. We inherit it and accept it uncritically.)

    Though I am no longer a Christian, I tell friends that I believe that Jesus is God and that I try to follow his teachings.

    That being said, let me get to Reza Aslan's excellent book.

    The story of the historical Jesus of Nazareth as told in, "Zealot," is the most cogent explanation that I have read. Whether or not the story is 100% correct, I find the historical analysis persuasive.

    In any reading of any version of Jesus' story, you come away with the impression that he was a dangerous radical in his day, otherwise, why crucify him? What Aslan has done is explain the various political and religious dynamics of first century Palestine that puts Jesus in an understandable context. The most telling detail is one that no one disputes, that Jesus was crucified. What I did not know until reading this book was that crucifixion was reserved by Rome exclusively for the crime of "sedition and rebellion." Jesus must have fallen into this category in order to be given this punishment.

    Jesus was a Jew who was motivated by opposition to corruption of Jewish law by an elite priesthood at the temple of Jerusalem who were at the top of a religio-financial pyramid that exploited Hebraic law in order to enrich a small hereditary aristocracy. Jesus wanted to overthrow the corrupt system for the benefit of the poor and downtrodden and chose as his vehicle a well-known messianic tradition.

    Aslan explains this tradition and explores the, "messiahs," that came before and after Jesus, how Jesus' ministry was different and more successful, and how his family members and followers kept his work alive and created a Jewish reform movement and anti-poverty ministry after his death.

    In addition, at the time of Jesus' ministry, the Temple leadership role of High Priest was a position that was purchased from Rome. So rebellion against the Temple priesthood in Jerusalem at that time was, in effect, rebellion against Rome.

    In laying out the known facts of Jesus' life, ministry and the actions of his followers after his death, Aslan also illustrates how the historical Jesus was abandoned by the Church as inconvenient (and in Paul's estimation, as irrelevant).

    Saul of Tarsus (Paul), the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate, the High Priests of the Jerusalem temple Joseph Caiaphas and Annanus, and the Roman Emperor Constantine all come off as villains of the piece as being the opponents of Jesus' message. Indeed Constantine turns the movement into an organ of control for the state, completely negating the work of the historical Jesus.

    There is much more in this well researched (the notes section is well worth reading), clearly written and witty book. I feel that, "Zealot," has completely demystified my understanding of Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus the Christ.

    If you've been scratching your head over the story of Jesus as presented in the Bible, Sunday school, church or other books, this book is the one for all Christians and non-Christians alike.

    Highly recommended.
    I was raised in the Catholic Church and attended Catholic schools through my first year of high school. I also have read most of the popular works on the nature of Jesus the Christ and the historical Jesus of Nazareth published in the last thirty years, or so.

    I remember my religion classes in school as being confusing. The stories of Jesus seemed clear enough, but the motives, actions, sayings and interpretation of Jesus that was taught to me seemed disjointed, illogical and, to my young mind, incomprehensible.

    When I became an adult, began reading the Bible and books of scriptural and historical analysis (that included the Qumran material) seeking to clarify the story of Jesus. I have never completely abandoned this pursuit. However, the story of Jesus of Nazareth, his actual teachings, the encrustations and editing of it by the early church and the Roman Empire, have never presented to me a coherent whole.

    As presented by the Church, the story of Jesus just does not make sense. But I realize after years of study, that the story does not need to make sense. I know now that all religions are metaphorical, they all are an attempt to explain in words that which cannot be explained in words. The Divine cannot be encompassed by the mind of man nor his languages. So our choice of religion is in reality an aesthetic one. (Though, of course, most of us do not actually choose our religion. We inherit it and accept it uncritically.)

    Though I am no longer a Christian, I tell friends that I believe that Jesus is God and that I try to follow his teachings.

    That being said, let me get to Reza Aslan's excellent book.

    The story of the historical Jesus of Nazareth as told in, "Zealot," is the most cogent explanation that I have read. Whether or not the story is 100% correct, I find the historical analysis persuasive.

    In any reading of any version of Jesus' story, you come away with the impression that he was a dangerous radical in his day, otherwise, why crucify him? What Aslan has done is explain the various political and religious dynamics of first century Palestine that puts Jesus in an understandable context. The most telling detail is one that no one disputes, that Jesus was crucified. What I did not know until reading this book was that crucifixion was reserved by Rome exclusively for the crime of "sedition and rebellion." Jesus must have fallen into this category in order to be given this punishment.

    Jesus was a Jew who was motivated by opposition to corruption of Jewish law by an elite priesthood at the temple of Jerusalem who were at the top of a religio-financial pyramid that exploited Hebraic law in order to enrich a small hereditary aristocracy. Jesus wanted to overthrow the corrupt system for the benefit of the poor and downtrodden and chose as his vehicle a well-known messianic tradition.

    Aslan explains this tradition and explores the, "messiahs," that came before and after Jesus, how Jesus' ministry was different and more successful, and how his family members and followers kept his work alive and created a Jewish reform movement and anti-poverty ministry after his death.

    In addition, at the time of Jesus' ministry, the Temple leadership role of High Priest was a position that was purchased from Rome. So rebellion against the Temple priesthood in Jerusalem at that time was, in effect, rebellion against Rome.

    In laying out the known facts of Jesus' life, ministry and the actions of his followers after his death, Aslan also illustrates how the historical Jesus was abandoned by the Church as inconvenient (and in Paul's estimation, as irrelevant).

    Saul of Tarsus (Paul), the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate, the High Priests of the Jerusalem temple Joseph Caiaphas and Annanus, and the Roman Emperor Constantine all come off as villains of the piece as being the opponents of Jesus' message. Indeed Constantine turns the movement into an organ of control for the state, completely negating the work of the historical Jesus.

    There is much more in this well researched (the notes section is well worth reading), clearly written and witty book. I feel that, "Zealot," has completely demystified my understanding of Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus the Christ.

    If you've been scratching your head over the story of Jesus as presented in the Bible, Sunday school, church or other books, this book is the one for all Christians and non-Christians alike.

    Highly recommended.
    A 9 personas les resultó útil
    Compartir

    Reportar esta opinión

    Opcional: ¿Por qué denuncias esto?

    No es acerca del producto

    Irrespetuosa, con odio, obscena

    Pagada, no es auténtica

    Otra cosa

    Verificaremos si esta opinión cumple con nuestras normas de la comunidad. Si no las cumple, la eliminaremos.

    Reportar
  • 5.0 de 5 estrellasCompra verificada
    Wide-Eyed, Respectful Historical Analysis
    Calificado en Estados Unidos el 25 de agosto de 2013
    This book concerns the Achilles' Heal of Christianity. There is no doubt that a historical Jesus existed; nor is there any doubt that he was crucified. This book explores the historical and logical implications of these undeniable facts. The ferocity of the... Ver más
    This book concerns the Achilles' Heal of Christianity. There is no doubt that a historical Jesus existed; nor is there any doubt that he was crucified. This book explores the historical and logical implications of these undeniable facts.

    The ferocity of the negative reviews of this book demonstrates that it has touched a deep nerve of traditional Christian practitioners. This judgment is unjustified, because Zealot is an incisive piece of hard, cold, historical analysis. Through this historical analysis, Azlan gives new meaning to the utterances attributed to the Christ in the gospels. Azlan notes that much of what is attributed to the Christ was never uttered by him. The statement carry an entirely new and different meaning when viewed according to the times in which he lived.

    Interest in this book peaked when the author, Reza Aslan, recently was interviewed on live television on Fox News. Soon after the interview began it was clear that the interviewer, Lauren Green, didn't have a clue about the subject and was debating a subject against someone who was clearly outside her league. As she stumbled through the interview, attempting to paint the author as a biased Muslim authoring a prejudiced book about Christianity, it soon became apparent that she had not even read the book, let alone was competent to debate the subject. The interview went viral. This is a good example of a Fox interviewee destroying a Fox host, instead of the other way around, and epitomizes the debate surrounding this book.

    This interview symbolizes the debate reflected in these book reviews. The interviewer on Fox, and the negative reviews of this book on this webpage, attempt to paint this book and its author as heretical, ideologically-driven, and historically flawed or incorrect.

    But try as Fox News might have you believe, this book DOES NOT have an agenda, hidden or otherwise; DOES NOT paint an unflattering portrait of Jesus Christ; and IS NOT disparaging or disrespectful of the Christian faith.

    Further, most negative reviews on this website, ostensibly because the Amazon audience is a notch above from the viewers of Fox, criticize the scholarship in this book. Again, this is unjustified, because Azlan supported his comments with a hundred pages of endnotes located at the second part of the book. (Detractors probably don't even know the book has endnotes.)

    As far as his historical or social conclusions, the points Azlan emphasizes about Jesus and Christianity which are hardly new. Of note:

    1. The Political Jesus.
    In the nascent days of Liberation Theology, this aspect of Jesus was emphasized, whose sayings and utterances were interpreted in their political aspect. Azlan makes an excellent historical analysis of this aspect viewed against the social conditions of Palestine under the Roman occupation. This interpretation of Jesus and his mission had gained some currency in the Sixties and Seventies. This interpretation emphasized social justice for the masses and the need for self-determination. In addition to providing the basis for a religious movement, Jesus' mission was revolutionary in that it ran against the interests of the Jewish ruing class, and the Roman occupiers, who served as a proxy for the Roman occupiers, a point made abundantly clear by Azlan's historical analysis. This aspect of Jesus' mission has direct application to the political world today. There are many contemporary and past examples of resistance to foreign occupiers.

    Jesus' mission was no different. What makes Azlan's gloss so controversial is that this interpretation is not popular in these Neoliberal times, and the foreign occupiers tend to be American more often than not.

    2. The schism between the followers of James and Paul.
    As Azlan notes in his endnotes there has been much commentary on the early divisions of Christianity following Jesus' death. Again, Azlan analyzes the words of the New Testament and notes how, despite their differences, Paul's commentary of Jesus and his mission significantly differs with the Gospels. The differences between James and Paul were significant. James, the brother of Christ, continued with Jesus' mission; Paul sought to transform the life and words of Christ to a Roman audience.

    3. The ascendancy of Paul's interpretation of Jesus.
    What is now known as Christianity is really Paul's interpretation of Jesus, his life and mission.

    Again, these main theses of the book are nothing new. While there is historical debate as to some aspects, described fully in the endnotes, these points are largely not disputed. Still, this is all very threatening for traditional believers of the doctrine, hence, the obstreperousness of the Fox interview and livid negative reviews of this book on this website.

    The sad, inconvenient, truth is that much of what has come to be presently practiced and believed in the Christian faith, and particularly Christian dogma concerning the Christ, is not grounded in historical fact concerning Jesus the man. The present configuration of Christian dogma was developed centuries after the Christ died, after numerous Synods and Councils which formulated in an agreed dogma. Azlan discusses briefly those Synods. THOSE Synods and Councils were politically and ideologically driven and motivated by political convenience, with the ultimate aim to consolidate the Roman empire into a homogenous whole, united with one, agreed, faith. As a result, Christian dogma is not the result of the utterances of Jesus, the reliability of which Azlan notes are suspect, but a mish-mash of Greek philosophy, Patristic commentary, and folk traditions. And Jesus the man was no longer considered human and practitioners who believe that Jesus was human, such as the Arian, were ostracized as heretics. The dilemma is that there is no dispute that a person named Jesus lived and died in Palestine at this point in history. It is this last category that Mr. Azlan concentrates. Due to the paucity of reliable historical data, much of Christian dogma is fabrication. Not that this is bad. Mr. Azlan notes that much of what has been handed down and survive as ancient writings are fabrications.

    While there is no historical confirmation of the Resurrection, Azlan quite rightly has stated this is a matter of faith.

    What the book will do, guaranteed, is challenge all who read it. And it really doesn't depend on your point of view, whether you are a traditional believer, sceptic, non-believer, or anything in between. Azlan's re-interpretation puts the events in the New Testament in a modern context and in contemporary terms, easily understandable for modern readers or anyone who pays attention to news events in the Middle East. Reading this book will change your outlook on the Christian faith.
    This book concerns the Achilles' Heal of Christianity. There is no doubt that a historical Jesus existed; nor is there any doubt that he was crucified. This book explores the historical and logical implications of these undeniable facts.

    The ferocity of the negative reviews of this book demonstrates that it has touched a deep nerve of traditional Christian practitioners. This judgment is unjustified, because Zealot is an incisive piece of hard, cold, historical analysis. Through this historical analysis, Azlan gives new meaning to the utterances attributed to the Christ in the gospels. Azlan notes that much of what is attributed to the Christ was never uttered by him. The statement carry an entirely new and different meaning when viewed according to the times in which he lived.

    Interest in this book peaked when the author, Reza Aslan, recently was interviewed on live television on Fox News. Soon after the interview began it was clear that the interviewer, Lauren Green, didn't have a clue about the subject and was debating a subject against someone who was clearly outside her league. As she stumbled through the interview, attempting to paint the author as a biased Muslim authoring a prejudiced book about Christianity, it soon became apparent that she had not even read the book, let alone was competent to debate the subject. The interview went viral. This is a good example of a Fox interviewee destroying a Fox host, instead of the other way around, and epitomizes the debate surrounding this book.

    This interview symbolizes the debate reflected in these book reviews. The interviewer on Fox, and the negative reviews of this book on this webpage, attempt to paint this book and its author as heretical, ideologically-driven, and historically flawed or incorrect.

    But try as Fox News might have you believe, this book DOES NOT have an agenda, hidden or otherwise; DOES NOT paint an unflattering portrait of Jesus Christ; and IS NOT disparaging or disrespectful of the Christian faith.

    Further, most negative reviews on this website, ostensibly because the Amazon audience is a notch above from the viewers of Fox, criticize the scholarship in this book. Again, this is unjustified, because Azlan supported his comments with a hundred pages of endnotes located at the second part of the book. (Detractors probably don't even know the book has endnotes.)

    As far as his historical or social conclusions, the points Azlan emphasizes about Jesus and Christianity which are hardly new. Of note:

    1. The Political Jesus.
    In the nascent days of Liberation Theology, this aspect of Jesus was emphasized, whose sayings and utterances were interpreted in their political aspect. Azlan makes an excellent historical analysis of this aspect viewed against the social conditions of Palestine under the Roman occupation. This interpretation of Jesus and his mission had gained some currency in the Sixties and Seventies. This interpretation emphasized social justice for the masses and the need for self-determination. In addition to providing the basis for a religious movement, Jesus' mission was revolutionary in that it ran against the interests of the Jewish ruing class, and the Roman occupiers, who served as a proxy for the Roman occupiers, a point made abundantly clear by Azlan's historical analysis. This aspect of Jesus' mission has direct application to the political world today. There are many contemporary and past examples of resistance to foreign occupiers.

    Jesus' mission was no different. What makes Azlan's gloss so controversial is that this interpretation is not popular in these Neoliberal times, and the foreign occupiers tend to be American more often than not.

    2. The schism between the followers of James and Paul.
    As Azlan notes in his endnotes there has been much commentary on the early divisions of Christianity following Jesus' death. Again, Azlan analyzes the words of the New Testament and notes how, despite their differences, Paul's commentary of Jesus and his mission significantly differs with the Gospels. The differences between James and Paul were significant. James, the brother of Christ, continued with Jesus' mission; Paul sought to transform the life and words of Christ to a Roman audience.

    3. The ascendancy of Paul's interpretation of Jesus.
    What is now known as Christianity is really Paul's interpretation of Jesus, his life and mission.

    Again, these main theses of the book are nothing new. While there is historical debate as to some aspects, described fully in the endnotes, these points are largely not disputed. Still, this is all very threatening for traditional believers of the doctrine, hence, the obstreperousness of the Fox interview and livid negative reviews of this book on this website.

    The sad, inconvenient, truth is that much of what has come to be presently practiced and believed in the Christian faith, and particularly Christian dogma concerning the Christ, is not grounded in historical fact concerning Jesus the man. The present configuration of Christian dogma was developed centuries after the Christ died, after numerous Synods and Councils which formulated in an agreed dogma. Azlan discusses briefly those Synods. THOSE Synods and Councils were politically and ideologically driven and motivated by political convenience, with the ultimate aim to consolidate the Roman empire into a homogenous whole, united with one, agreed, faith. As a result, Christian dogma is not the result of the utterances of Jesus, the reliability of which Azlan notes are suspect, but a mish-mash of Greek philosophy, Patristic commentary, and folk traditions. And Jesus the man was no longer considered human and practitioners who believe that Jesus was human, such as the Arian, were ostracized as heretics. The dilemma is that there is no dispute that a person named Jesus lived and died in Palestine at this point in history. It is this last category that Mr. Azlan concentrates. Due to the paucity of reliable historical data, much of Christian dogma is fabrication. Not that this is bad. Mr. Azlan notes that much of what has been handed down and survive as ancient writings are fabrications.

    While there is no historical confirmation of the Resurrection, Azlan quite rightly has stated this is a matter of faith.

    What the book will do, guaranteed, is challenge all who read it. And it really doesn't depend on your point of view, whether you are a traditional believer, sceptic, non-believer, or anything in between. Azlan's re-interpretation puts the events in the New Testament in a modern context and in contemporary terms, easily understandable for modern readers or anyone who pays attention to news events in the Middle East. Reading this book will change your outlook on the Christian faith.
    A 12 personas les resultó útil
    Compartir

    Reportar esta opinión

    Opcional: ¿Por qué denuncias esto?

    No es acerca del producto

    Irrespetuosa, con odio, obscena

    Pagada, no es auténtica

    Otra cosa

    Verificaremos si esta opinión cumple con nuestras normas de la comunidad. Si no las cumple, la eliminaremos.

    Reportar
  • 3.0 de 5 estrellasCompra verificada
    Jesus and the Nature of History
    Calificado en Estados Unidos el 4 de octubre de 2013
    I'll say this up front: New Testament Studies is a hard discipline. Its difficulty comes from the wide range of academic departments involved in doing it well. To dig in for real, one must have some facility with ancient languages (preferably Aramaic as well as Koine... Ver más
    I'll say this up front: New Testament Studies is a hard discipline. Its difficulty comes from the wide range of academic departments involved in doing it well. To dig in for real, one must have some facility with ancient languages (preferably Aramaic as well as Koine Greek and Biblical Hebrew); a grasp of Roman, Seleucid, Ptolemaic, and Parthian histories; working familiarity with the rites and sacred texts of half a dozen worship-traditions, most of which are no longer extant; the ability to spot references to the Hebrew Bible at all turns; and a host of other skill-sets that most folks, myself included, simply do not have the drive to master. Beyond that, she must have the sort of philosophical mind that can situate a two-thousand-year tradition of Scriptural exegesis and theological commentary in some kind of relationship to what's going on in the text and in the reconstructed historical contexts around all the steps along the way, and doing all of those things in a way that's adequate to the ways that literary traditions work is just as difficult. In sum, the skillful New Testament interpreter is a true master of the liberal arts and a specialist, holding very particular bodies of learning in tension with the philosophical and rhetorical moves that the practice of synthesizing that learning requires. That's why I always look upon my teachers and colleagues who do New Testament studies with some deference and great respect.

    I note all of that because Reza Aslan does some of those things very well. Sometimes Zealot reveals a fairly strong grasp on the network of overlapping human phenomena that make New Testament Studies so difficult, and sometimes the book seems either unaware of or willfully ignorant of large and important arguments, bodies of knowledge, and traditions of inquiry. The essay that I'm going to attempt here is no complaint that the book isn't more than it is; it's more a call to Christian teachers to look at the assumptions that the book makes (under the cover ID of the historian who does not make assumptions) and to think hard about the ways that we teach the life of Jesus among the faithful.

    Roman-Occupied Palestine

    Aslan's book does an exemplary job of situating Jesus in a very particular historical moment, namely the region of Palestine, mostly in Judea but in the end Jerusalem, occupied by the Roman Empire and internally divided among mystics, militants, corroborators with the occupiers, and the masses of the poor who most acutely suffer from all of the above regimes. He's absolutely right to insist that, in every case, whether one examines the words or the deeds of Jesus, his followers or his enemies, the first task must be to situate them in that first-century, Roman-occupied-Palestine context, because their words and acts make the most sense as extensions of, reactions to, and other engagements with the historical forces that shaped that moment. Such is the practice of the best kinds of New-Testament-era history, and so Aslan proceeds. He leads off the book proper noting Pompey Magnus's conquest of Jerusalem, the presence of the Roman garrison on the Temple Mount, and other salient facts that give shape to the final days of Jesus in Jerusalem (10). Moreover he explains well the succession of foreign occupiers, from Babylon through to the Romans, interrupted only by a century of Hasmonean monarchy, a state of affairs sometimes indistinguishable from Greek hegemony (12). When Jesus shows up, the political scene is a complex one, and all of the sayings and acts of Jesus make more sense when one has a grasp of some of the overlapping political realities.

    Of particular interest for a relatively new student of the New Testament is Aslan's skillful treatment of the word "messiah." Noting its roots in the Hebrew verb for "to anoint," Aslan traces nicely the progression of the term from cultic and royal contexts in the monarchical period of Israel through the Cyrus oracle of Isaiah 45, which says as clearly as one could imagine that Cyrus the Great of the Persians is YHWH's messiah. He notes that the most common expectation for the Messiah in first-century Palestine was for a new Mosaic liberator and Davidic king, though certainly the Dead Sea Scrolls indicate expectations for two Messiahs, one a kingly figure and one a new and honest high priest for Jerusalem (19). Zealot also notes the connotations of several New Testament terms before Jesus comes along: "King of the Jews," before it's written on the titulus above Jesus's cross, is the title given to Herod the Great in the wake of Marc Antony's re-conquest of Palestine (20). And for good measure, Aslan notes that "son of God" has both Davidic roots (in texts like Psalm 2) and Roman roots because Caesar was often announced as "son of God" (23). In other words, this part of New Testament Studies is quite well done in Zealot, and Aslan's prose style is accessible and interesting.

    The Illiterate Diaspora

    Reza Aslan's historiography is fairly straightforward, even if it begins with some reductionism: whatever Jesus was, one should not posit that he strayed outside the possibilities offered by Second-Temple Judaism. The Jews of the Roman period expected a new king, so one should not expect that Jesus could have imagined himself as a "divine messiah" (32). Jewish nationalism of a violent flavor was rampant in Galilee, so the god who orders genocide in Joshua and inspires Psalms about shattering enemies' heads and children's heads-"that is the only God that Jewus knew and the sole God he worshiped" (122). Within the confines of this historiography, Jesus could not be other than a Galilean revolutionary, not much different from Theudas or Bar Kochba or any of the other half-dozen would-be messiahs of the early Roman Empire. Wherever the idea that Jesus loved all nations comes from, it's not from the historical person named Jesus of Nazareth.

    Where, then, did the nonviolent image of Jesus that we see in the gospels come from, then? Since Jesus himself was incapable of imagining things beyond the bounds of Galilean nationalism, it must have come from somewhere else, and in Aslan's account, that somewhere has to do with diaspora Jewry. According to Reza Aslan, the only Jews in the first century who really knew their Bibles were those in Jerusalem. Jesus and his fellow Galileans were more than likely illiterate (34), and Jews from outside of Jerusalem never had an opportunity to hear the Bible read out loud (166-one wonders what they were doing in their Synagogues, but that's for another conversation). If they had, they would clearly know what Reza Aslan no doubt picked up in his undergraduate religion classes, namely that the Torah and Psalms and Prophets do not really make reference to a Messiah in the way that Christians would come to understand the word, so their reading, which seems to alienate the Temple authorities before and after the crucifixion, must result from a lack of familiarity with the text, according to Reza Aslan.

    Here is where Zealot reveals just how difficult New Testament Studies can be. After all, Aslan has the Roman history down. He knows about the diversity of Judaic sects. He's got the modern-hermeneutics background to know that eisegesis ultimately runs risks of distortion. One of the only places where I disagree with his reading is in the area of the history of Biblical interpretation, and yet one difference out of four makes all the difference. Let me attempt to articulate how I differ.

    In the centuries immediately surrounding the life of Jesus, as an examination of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Rabbinic Midrash, the Mishnah, and other Jewish documents will reveal, hermeneutics was not the exact science that Aslan can't find among the diaspora Jews and the Galilean revolutionaries. The ways that people read things were not first and foremost to find a "literal" sense to stand alone (although that was also important, as a figure as late as Augustine will demonstrate) but to hear the text as a divine voice, something that can speak on a plurality of registers. So the moves that we moderns call allegorical, anagogical, typological, and visionary readings were not decorative frames that supplemented an otherwise self-contained sacred text; they were the modes by which one arrived at the sacred, with the text being the prime instrument. In other words, although Aslan nails most of the political and military history, he renders Bible-reading an ahistorical practice, one that people get "right" or "wrong" but which knows no real historical contingency.

    Adding the contingency and temporal particularity of Bible-reading to the historical mix, the transformation of Galilean nationalism into something like second-century Christianity does not require a mass delusion, a gigantic textual mix-up, or any such conspiracy. It only requires a human being something like the Jesus that one encounters in the synoptic gospels, someone whose interpretive moves, among other history-shaping moments, allow Jews to imagine Israel and Israel's God in registers that violent nationalism had made them forget. In order to move from second-temple Judaism into second-century Christianity, one does well to go through Jesus of Nazareth as presented in the New Testament. I did not come up with that thesis, of course; it's the main claim of N.T. Wright's magisterial book The New Testament and the People of God (a book that Aslan does not ever address, though he does mention that Wright wrote a book on the doctrine of resurrection (261)). In other words, given the same set of historical data, one can construct two very different accounts of how first-century Bible-reading and first-century political history related to one another. I would maintain that the one I was taught (by some very skilled New Testament professors as well as by Wright's books) is more adequate to the history of interpretation, but that claim does not stand alone as a "purely historical" perspective any more than Aslan's does; history remains an inherently rhetorical enterprise, and how one frames the data will always matter.

    No Room for Dialectic

    At stake when histories clash is not merely the history of hermeneutics, of course: on a larger scale, there's the question of how historical change happens in the first place. The way that the historians I'd read before tended to narrate the emergence of second-century Christianity out of second-temple Judaism followed roughly the outline that Wright articulates: the horizon of possibilities for Jewish traditions in the first century included, but was not limited to, the nationalist-revolutionary possibility, certainly, but that tradition, because of the inherent plurality of the Scriptures (especially those read in Synagogues, since those included the prophets) also involved texts like Genesis 12, in which God promises that Abraham's seed will bless all nations; Isaiah 2, in which the nations come to Jerusalem not as conquered prisoners but as seekers of wisdom; Jonah, in which a thoroughly wicked pagan city turns to YHWH in recognition of its own wretchedness; and Daniel 1-6, in which a succession of pagan monarchs, because of the faithfulness of exiled Jews, come to embrace the true God YHWH. Those currents of Biblical witness do not eliminate rabidly nationalist texts like Joshua and Ezra and Nahum; but neither do the nationalist texts nullify the universalist ones. Instead, according to Biblical theologians like Walter Brueggemann, that tension results in a dialectic tension between the two historical possibilities.

    None of those possibilities, unfortunately, shows up in Zealot. To read Reza Aslan's account of the Hebrew Bible, the entire text is nothing but Jewish nationalism, page after page of xenophobia without exception. If anything like the universality of John 3 or Matthew 28 or Acts 1 creeps into the story of Jesus, it must have happened because Diaspora Jews, eager to flatter their new Roman masters after the fall of Jerusalem, inserted those passages to falsify the true nature of Jesus. If Jesus used the phrase "kingdom of God," it was "a call to revolution, plain and simple" (120). Anything that suggests a more capacious (and philosophically complex) notion of the kingdom of God, especially one that isn't secured by armed force, must be a move to placate the Romans (150). Aslan's view of Jesus's reception is a zero-sum game: if the violent revolutionary is to diminish, it can only give way to philosophical schools (like those of the Diaspora Jews) that already existed. There is no room for the tensions inherent in the Biblical tradition, not to mention the broad international phenomenon of post-exilic Judaism, to blossom, with the help of a revolutionary figure (my pick would be Jesus of Nazareth) to take Judaism in directions that Judaism had trouble, in that moment, imagining.

    I prefer to think of history as inherently dialectical, that Jesus, considered in historical terms (I also confess Jesus as a Person of the Trinity, but one gets to the Trinity only through the Palestinian Jew on a cross, I'm inclined to think), might have been a figure who could grab hold of the universalist AND the nationalist strains of the Hebrew Bible, insisting that the ethics of the Kingdom would be an intensification rather than a nullification of the Torah (which also seems to be what Paul was doing, but more on that later) AND envisioning something like what Isaiah and Daniel set forth as coming to its fullness in his own moment, in his own person. Such a figure might look a fair bit like the Jesus that one finds in the synoptics, just as Wright indicates, and once again the strident opposition between the "Christ of faith" and the "Jesus of history" becomes an unfortunate missed opportunity to talk about both rather than dropping one or the other.

    A Fourth Guy Named John

    When I've taught the book of Revelation in churches (which has been all too frequently lately), one question that surfaces early is whether the same John who was the son of Zebedee is the one in exile on Patmos. In response, I usually ask a counter-question, namely how many people named John appear in the New Testament. It usually doesn't take long to generate at least three: John the Baptist, John the son of Zebedee, and John-Mark, who appears in Acts. There might be more, but those three suffice for the explanation. If there are three men named John that we can remember that fast, I ask, what's the probability that they were the only three men named John in the early church? The point is that I don't put much stock in questions of New Testament authorship (the contests over such things don't, in my own theology, matter nearly as much as questions of the history of the texts in their role as canon), and I'd say it's at least as probable that there's a fourth guy named John, who composed Revelation but neither the gospel nor the epistles, as it is that there were only three Johns affiliated with the New Testament.

    All of that is to note that early Christianity seems to have grown broad fairly quickly, encompassing people from all sorts of tribes inside of and outside the Roman Empire within a couple centuries. In order to account for that, Reza Aslan articulates a hypothesis regarding the career of Paul which seems to assume several difficult things. One must assume that there was only one group in early Christianity interested in the Torah of Moses, and that was the Christian assembly in Jerusalem. One must assume that any appearance of reconciliation between Antioch and Jerusalem in the New Testament is an act of deception. One must assume that James and Peter remained enemies of Paul for the course of all the men's lives. One must assume, again, that no new thought is possible, that any change must result from the zero-sum destruction of one community and the rise of another.

    Never in Reza Aslan's telling of the story is there room for two groups concerned with the Law, perhaps one with its base in Jerusalem and another in the synagogues of Galilee, or for that matter any other group anywhere else. If there were people trying to turn the churches in Galatia and Corinth towards adherence to circumcision and kosher-diet laws, they must have been agents of James, the brother of Jesus, according to Reza Aslan. Such does not have to be the case, of course. The way I was taught in New Testament studies classes and in my own previous reading, the book of Galatians, as well as passages from other Pauline epistles, arise as a response to a group that scholars have designated "the Judaizers" because little is known about them beyond their penchant for convincing converts from outside of ethnic Judaism to undergo circumcision and to eat kosher so that they can become "real Christians." (That makes them somewhat akin to the angel-cult referred to in the early verses of Hebrews and the proto-Gnostics against which 1 John seems to inveigh.) Paul, according to my own reading, does battle with this group because they defy the content of the gospel, which has emerged in the wake of the work of Jesus, and those folks are seeking to undo that. In the way that I learned, back in the mid-nineties, such groups are historically the "losers" of a grand contest but theologically those rough edges against which the early Church sharpened its own doctrines of Christ for the benefit of future generations. Either way, the historical speculation that there was only one Torah-concerned group of Jesus-followers in the entirety of the first century is an unnecessary narrowing of possibilities.

    Reza Aslan, for whom there is no historical dialectic, will hear none of it. In his version, the "Judaizers" can only be agents of James, the brother of Jesus, who tells Paul to his face, in Jerusalem in Acts 15, that Gentiles need not be bound by the Torah, save for those regulations governing resident aliens, but waits until Paul leaves Jerusalem to start sending agents into the cities where Paul has evangelized in order to do just what he promised not to do (192). Within the lifetimes of James and Paul, Jerusalem became ascendant among the new Jesus movement, so that James was the "uncontested leader" (200) of the first-century movement. But as Zealot tells it, the influx of Gentiles into the diaspora assemblies, along with the death of James and the destruction of Jerusalem, led to the ascendancy of Pauline Son-of-God worship-which is an entirely different religion from the Jesus-following of James and Peter (196)-and the eventual relegation of the true Christianity of James and Peter to the heresy-label of Ebionite (272). So in the story that Zealot tells, James, the good guy, eventually loses, posthumously, to that grand villain Saul of Tarsus. Never mind that Paul's ethical teachings, whether one looks at Romans or 1 Corinthians or Philippians, seem to be rooted intelligibly in Torah traditions, modified (not unlike in Acts 15) for the sake of unity among the faithful. James is the good guy, so what he does to Paul is because Paul hates the Torah. (Can I hear a me genoitai?)

    Considering the outright duplicity of James in Aslan's reading (he does, after all, crawfish on St. Paul), the final full chapter of the book is a bit surprising. Having established Paul as the great villain of early Christianity, Aslan turns back to James, the brother of Jesus, to establish him, at the end of the book, as the true hero of the story, perhaps moreso than Jesus himself. A man concerned with Israel and Israel only, Zealot paints him as someone who resists the Roman temptation of Stephen and Paul to maintain a truly local religious tradition until the same empire that so loves Christianity, Paul-style, crushes it underfoot. Aslan identifies himself as "a committed disciple of Jesus of Nazareth" (as opposed to Jesus the Christian figure) in the book's introduction (xx), but the last chapter shows that Jesus, for Zealot, is largely a cipher, a bit of blank space that precedes the real hero of the story, James the Just. Historical orthodox Christianity, in the story that Zealot tells, is an unfortunate usurper of the true Christianity, a Roman religion almost entirely unrelated to the teknon from Nazareth, and with the stoning of Stephen, the historical Jesus disappears from the religious world (169).

    A Manifesto of Sorts

    Aslan has protested in interviews that I've heard, but I still maintain that I for one would never have heard of him had his Fox News interview in July not gone viral. My hunch is that most of our readers would not have either. But that's beside the point now: Reza Aslan is, for the moment, a name that church folks have heard, and that presents an opportunity for Christian teachers. With a bit of reading (I recommend Wright's New Testament and the People of God, or The Challenge of Jesus for a briefer, more accessible read) and some research at a local library, we can take advantage of the increased awareness of and interest in the historical contexts of the New Testament, and with a book like Zealot in the spotlight as solidly as it is, the rhetorical character of his thesis is quite evident.

    Christianity, we must say and repeat and insist upon, has nothing to fear from responsible history. As I noted above, the military history, political history, and etymological work that Reza Aslan does is perfectly fine; the difference is not that the Christian faithful deny the historical data but that we insist on interpreting it in ways that acknowledge that they're interpretations. That's the real sticking point here: where historians deny that they're being rhetorical, we Christians need to be clear that our histories, their histories, and any history worth calling history is always interpretation, always the disciplined arrangement (that's one of the canons of rhetoric) of what investigations yield. That's what makes history so interesting, and when people try to cut out that part of things for the sake of scoring points with the credulous (or for book sales, let's be honest), then we must be on hand to offer a compelling alternative, one that reminds any with ears to hear that stories are always stories, and the true stories are true not because they stop being stories but because they disclose truth where other stories ignore what is true.

    If Reza Aslan remains visible for very long (which is never guaranteed, especially as prone to diversion as we are in 2013), I would recommend that Christian teachers get a copy of his book (the image above links to the amazon page for it) and prepare to have conversations about history, truth, and other reasons for our hope. My hunch is that such confidence in our confession could only stand to benefit the Way that we proclaim.

    Re-Posted from The Christian Humanist
    I'll say this up front: New Testament Studies is a hard discipline. Its difficulty comes from the wide range of academic departments involved in doing it well. To dig in for real, one must have some facility with ancient languages (preferably Aramaic as well as Koine Greek and Biblical Hebrew); a grasp of Roman, Seleucid, Ptolemaic, and Parthian histories; working familiarity with the rites and sacred texts of half a dozen worship-traditions, most of which are no longer extant; the ability to spot references to the Hebrew Bible at all turns; and a host of other skill-sets that most folks, myself included, simply do not have the drive to master. Beyond that, she must have the sort of philosophical mind that can situate a two-thousand-year tradition of Scriptural exegesis and theological commentary in some kind of relationship to what's going on in the text and in the reconstructed historical contexts around all the steps along the way, and doing all of those things in a way that's adequate to the ways that literary traditions work is just as difficult. In sum, the skillful New Testament interpreter is a true master of the liberal arts and a specialist, holding very particular bodies of learning in tension with the philosophical and rhetorical moves that the practice of synthesizing that learning requires. That's why I always look upon my teachers and colleagues who do New Testament studies with some deference and great respect.

    I note all of that because Reza Aslan does some of those things very well. Sometimes Zealot reveals a fairly strong grasp on the network of overlapping human phenomena that make New Testament Studies so difficult, and sometimes the book seems either unaware of or willfully ignorant of large and important arguments, bodies of knowledge, and traditions of inquiry. The essay that I'm going to attempt here is no complaint that the book isn't more than it is; it's more a call to Christian teachers to look at the assumptions that the book makes (under the cover ID of the historian who does not make assumptions) and to think hard about the ways that we teach the life of Jesus among the faithful.

    Roman-Occupied Palestine

    Aslan's book does an exemplary job of situating Jesus in a very particular historical moment, namely the region of Palestine, mostly in Judea but in the end Jerusalem, occupied by the Roman Empire and internally divided among mystics, militants, corroborators with the occupiers, and the masses of the poor who most acutely suffer from all of the above regimes. He's absolutely right to insist that, in every case, whether one examines the words or the deeds of Jesus, his followers or his enemies, the first task must be to situate them in that first-century, Roman-occupied-Palestine context, because their words and acts make the most sense as extensions of, reactions to, and other engagements with the historical forces that shaped that moment. Such is the practice of the best kinds of New-Testament-era history, and so Aslan proceeds. He leads off the book proper noting Pompey Magnus's conquest of Jerusalem, the presence of the Roman garrison on the Temple Mount, and other salient facts that give shape to the final days of Jesus in Jerusalem (10). Moreover he explains well the succession of foreign occupiers, from Babylon through to the Romans, interrupted only by a century of Hasmonean monarchy, a state of affairs sometimes indistinguishable from Greek hegemony (12). When Jesus shows up, the political scene is a complex one, and all of the sayings and acts of Jesus make more sense when one has a grasp of some of the overlapping political realities.

    Of particular interest for a relatively new student of the New Testament is Aslan's skillful treatment of the word "messiah." Noting its roots in the Hebrew verb for "to anoint," Aslan traces nicely the progression of the term from cultic and royal contexts in the monarchical period of Israel through the Cyrus oracle of Isaiah 45, which says as clearly as one could imagine that Cyrus the Great of the Persians is YHWH's messiah. He notes that the most common expectation for the Messiah in first-century Palestine was for a new Mosaic liberator and Davidic king, though certainly the Dead Sea Scrolls indicate expectations for two Messiahs, one a kingly figure and one a new and honest high priest for Jerusalem (19). Zealot also notes the connotations of several New Testament terms before Jesus comes along: "King of the Jews," before it's written on the titulus above Jesus's cross, is the title given to Herod the Great in the wake of Marc Antony's re-conquest of Palestine (20). And for good measure, Aslan notes that "son of God" has both Davidic roots (in texts like Psalm 2) and Roman roots because Caesar was often announced as "son of God" (23). In other words, this part of New Testament Studies is quite well done in Zealot, and Aslan's prose style is accessible and interesting.

    The Illiterate Diaspora

    Reza Aslan's historiography is fairly straightforward, even if it begins with some reductionism: whatever Jesus was, one should not posit that he strayed outside the possibilities offered by Second-Temple Judaism. The Jews of the Roman period expected a new king, so one should not expect that Jesus could have imagined himself as a "divine messiah" (32). Jewish nationalism of a violent flavor was rampant in Galilee, so the god who orders genocide in Joshua and inspires Psalms about shattering enemies' heads and children's heads-"that is the only God that Jewus knew and the sole God he worshiped" (122). Within the confines of this historiography, Jesus could not be other than a Galilean revolutionary, not much different from Theudas or Bar Kochba or any of the other half-dozen would-be messiahs of the early Roman Empire. Wherever the idea that Jesus loved all nations comes from, it's not from the historical person named Jesus of Nazareth.

    Where, then, did the nonviolent image of Jesus that we see in the gospels come from, then? Since Jesus himself was incapable of imagining things beyond the bounds of Galilean nationalism, it must have come from somewhere else, and in Aslan's account, that somewhere has to do with diaspora Jewry. According to Reza Aslan, the only Jews in the first century who really knew their Bibles were those in Jerusalem. Jesus and his fellow Galileans were more than likely illiterate (34), and Jews from outside of Jerusalem never had an opportunity to hear the Bible read out loud (166-one wonders what they were doing in their Synagogues, but that's for another conversation). If they had, they would clearly know what Reza Aslan no doubt picked up in his undergraduate religion classes, namely that the Torah and Psalms and Prophets do not really make reference to a Messiah in the way that Christians would come to understand the word, so their reading, which seems to alienate the Temple authorities before and after the crucifixion, must result from a lack of familiarity with the text, according to Reza Aslan.

    Here is where Zealot reveals just how difficult New Testament Studies can be. After all, Aslan has the Roman history down. He knows about the diversity of Judaic sects. He's got the modern-hermeneutics background to know that eisegesis ultimately runs risks of distortion. One of the only places where I disagree with his reading is in the area of the history of Biblical interpretation, and yet one difference out of four makes all the difference. Let me attempt to articulate how I differ.

    In the centuries immediately surrounding the life of Jesus, as an examination of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Rabbinic Midrash, the Mishnah, and other Jewish documents will reveal, hermeneutics was not the exact science that Aslan can't find among the diaspora Jews and the Galilean revolutionaries. The ways that people read things were not first and foremost to find a "literal" sense to stand alone (although that was also important, as a figure as late as Augustine will demonstrate) but to hear the text as a divine voice, something that can speak on a plurality of registers. So the moves that we moderns call allegorical, anagogical, typological, and visionary readings were not decorative frames that supplemented an otherwise self-contained sacred text; they were the modes by which one arrived at the sacred, with the text being the prime instrument. In other words, although Aslan nails most of the political and military history, he renders Bible-reading an ahistorical practice, one that people get "right" or "wrong" but which knows no real historical contingency.

    Adding the contingency and temporal particularity of Bible-reading to the historical mix, the transformation of Galilean nationalism into something like second-century Christianity does not require a mass delusion, a gigantic textual mix-up, or any such conspiracy. It only requires a human being something like the Jesus that one encounters in the synoptic gospels, someone whose interpretive moves, among other history-shaping moments, allow Jews to imagine Israel and Israel's God in registers that violent nationalism had made them forget. In order to move from second-temple Judaism into second-century Christianity, one does well to go through Jesus of Nazareth as presented in the New Testament. I did not come up with that thesis, of course; it's the main claim of N.T. Wright's magisterial book The New Testament and the People of God (a book that Aslan does not ever address, though he does mention that Wright wrote a book on the doctrine of resurrection (261)). In other words, given the same set of historical data, one can construct two very different accounts of how first-century Bible-reading and first-century political history related to one another. I would maintain that the one I was taught (by some very skilled New Testament professors as well as by Wright's books) is more adequate to the history of interpretation, but that claim does not stand alone as a "purely historical" perspective any more than Aslan's does; history remains an inherently rhetorical enterprise, and how one frames the data will always matter.

    No Room for Dialectic

    At stake when histories clash is not merely the history of hermeneutics, of course: on a larger scale, there's the question of how historical change happens in the first place. The way that the historians I'd read before tended to narrate the emergence of second-century Christianity out of second-temple Judaism followed roughly the outline that Wright articulates: the horizon of possibilities for Jewish traditions in the first century included, but was not limited to, the nationalist-revolutionary possibility, certainly, but that tradition, because of the inherent plurality of the Scriptures (especially those read in Synagogues, since those included the prophets) also involved texts like Genesis 12, in which God promises that Abraham's seed will bless all nations; Isaiah 2, in which the nations come to Jerusalem not as conquered prisoners but as seekers of wisdom; Jonah, in which a thoroughly wicked pagan city turns to YHWH in recognition of its own wretchedness; and Daniel 1-6, in which a succession of pagan monarchs, because of the faithfulness of exiled Jews, come to embrace the true God YHWH. Those currents of Biblical witness do not eliminate rabidly nationalist texts like Joshua and Ezra and Nahum; but neither do the nationalist texts nullify the universalist ones. Instead, according to Biblical theologians like Walter Brueggemann, that tension results in a dialectic tension between the two historical possibilities.

    None of those possibilities, unfortunately, shows up in Zealot. To read Reza Aslan's account of the Hebrew Bible, the entire text is nothing but Jewish nationalism, page after page of xenophobia without exception. If anything like the universality of John 3 or Matthew 28 or Acts 1 creeps into the story of Jesus, it must have happened because Diaspora Jews, eager to flatter their new Roman masters after the fall of Jerusalem, inserted those passages to falsify the true nature of Jesus. If Jesus used the phrase "kingdom of God," it was "a call to revolution, plain and simple" (120). Anything that suggests a more capacious (and philosophically complex) notion of the kingdom of God, especially one that isn't secured by armed force, must be a move to placate the Romans (150). Aslan's view of Jesus's reception is a zero-sum game: if the violent revolutionary is to diminish, it can only give way to philosophical schools (like those of the Diaspora Jews) that already existed. There is no room for the tensions inherent in the Biblical tradition, not to mention the broad international phenomenon of post-exilic Judaism, to blossom, with the help of a revolutionary figure (my pick would be Jesus of Nazareth) to take Judaism in directions that Judaism had trouble, in that moment, imagining.

    I prefer to think of history as inherently dialectical, that Jesus, considered in historical terms (I also confess Jesus as a Person of the Trinity, but one gets to the Trinity only through the Palestinian Jew on a cross, I'm inclined to think), might have been a figure who could grab hold of the universalist AND the nationalist strains of the Hebrew Bible, insisting that the ethics of the Kingdom would be an intensification rather than a nullification of the Torah (which also seems to be what Paul was doing, but more on that later) AND envisioning something like what Isaiah and Daniel set forth as coming to its fullness in his own moment, in his own person. Such a figure might look a fair bit like the Jesus that one finds in the synoptics, just as Wright indicates, and once again the strident opposition between the "Christ of faith" and the "Jesus of history" becomes an unfortunate missed opportunity to talk about both rather than dropping one or the other.

    A Fourth Guy Named John

    When I've taught the book of Revelation in churches (which has been all too frequently lately), one question that surfaces early is whether the same John who was the son of Zebedee is the one in exile on Patmos. In response, I usually ask a counter-question, namely how many people named John appear in the New Testament. It usually doesn't take long to generate at least three: John the Baptist, John the son of Zebedee, and John-Mark, who appears in Acts. There might be more, but those three suffice for the explanation. If there are three men named John that we can remember that fast, I ask, what's the probability that they were the only three men named John in the early church? The point is that I don't put much stock in questions of New Testament authorship (the contests over such things don't, in my own theology, matter nearly as much as questions of the history of the texts in their role as canon), and I'd say it's at least as probable that there's a fourth guy named John, who composed Revelation but neither the gospel nor the epistles, as it is that there were only three Johns affiliated with the New Testament.

    All of that is to note that early Christianity seems to have grown broad fairly quickly, encompassing people from all sorts of tribes inside of and outside the Roman Empire within a couple centuries. In order to account for that, Reza Aslan articulates a hypothesis regarding the career of Paul which seems to assume several difficult things. One must assume that there was only one group in early Christianity interested in the Torah of Moses, and that was the Christian assembly in Jerusalem. One must assume that any appearance of reconciliation between Antioch and Jerusalem in the New Testament is an act of deception. One must assume that James and Peter remained enemies of Paul for the course of all the men's lives. One must assume, again, that no new thought is possible, that any change must result from the zero-sum destruction of one community and the rise of another.

    Never in Reza Aslan's telling of the story is there room for two groups concerned with the Law, perhaps one with its base in Jerusalem and another in the synagogues of Galilee, or for that matter any other group anywhere else. If there were people trying to turn the churches in Galatia and Corinth towards adherence to circumcision and kosher-diet laws, they must have been agents of James, the brother of Jesus, according to Reza Aslan. Such does not have to be the case, of course. The way I was taught in New Testament studies classes and in my own previous reading, the book of Galatians, as well as passages from other Pauline epistles, arise as a response to a group that scholars have designated "the Judaizers" because little is known about them beyond their penchant for convincing converts from outside of ethnic Judaism to undergo circumcision and to eat kosher so that they can become "real Christians." (That makes them somewhat akin to the angel-cult referred to in the early verses of Hebrews and the proto-Gnostics against which 1 John seems to inveigh.) Paul, according to my own reading, does battle with this group because they defy the content of the gospel, which has emerged in the wake of the work of Jesus, and those folks are seeking to undo that. In the way that I learned, back in the mid-nineties, such groups are historically the "losers" of a grand contest but theologically those rough edges against which the early Church sharpened its own doctrines of Christ for the benefit of future generations. Either way, the historical speculation that there was only one Torah-concerned group of Jesus-followers in the entirety of the first century is an unnecessary narrowing of possibilities.

    Reza Aslan, for whom there is no historical dialectic, will hear none of it. In his version, the "Judaizers" can only be agents of James, the brother of Jesus, who tells Paul to his face, in Jerusalem in Acts 15, that Gentiles need not be bound by the Torah, save for those regulations governing resident aliens, but waits until Paul leaves Jerusalem to start sending agents into the cities where Paul has evangelized in order to do just what he promised not to do (192). Within the lifetimes of James and Paul, Jerusalem became ascendant among the new Jesus movement, so that James was the "uncontested leader" (200) of the first-century movement. But as Zealot tells it, the influx of Gentiles into the diaspora assemblies, along with the death of James and the destruction of Jerusalem, led to the ascendancy of Pauline Son-of-God worship-which is an entirely different religion from the Jesus-following of James and Peter (196)-and the eventual relegation of the true Christianity of James and Peter to the heresy-label of Ebionite (272). So in the story that Zealot tells, James, the good guy, eventually loses, posthumously, to that grand villain Saul of Tarsus. Never mind that Paul's ethical teachings, whether one looks at Romans or 1 Corinthians or Philippians, seem to be rooted intelligibly in Torah traditions, modified (not unlike in Acts 15) for the sake of unity among the faithful. James is the good guy, so what he does to Paul is because Paul hates the Torah. (Can I hear a me genoitai?)

    Considering the outright duplicity of James in Aslan's reading (he does, after all, crawfish on St. Paul), the final full chapter of the book is a bit surprising. Having established Paul as the great villain of early Christianity, Aslan turns back to James, the brother of Jesus, to establish him, at the end of the book, as the true hero of the story, perhaps moreso than Jesus himself. A man concerned with Israel and Israel only, Zealot paints him as someone who resists the Roman temptation of Stephen and Paul to maintain a truly local religious tradition until the same empire that so loves Christianity, Paul-style, crushes it underfoot. Aslan identifies himself as "a committed disciple of Jesus of Nazareth" (as opposed to Jesus the Christian figure) in the book's introduction (xx), but the last chapter shows that Jesus, for Zealot, is largely a cipher, a bit of blank space that precedes the real hero of the story, James the Just. Historical orthodox Christianity, in the story that Zealot tells, is an unfortunate usurper of the true Christianity, a Roman religion almost entirely unrelated to the teknon from Nazareth, and with the stoning of Stephen, the historical Jesus disappears from the religious world (169).

    A Manifesto of Sorts

    Aslan has protested in interviews that I've heard, but I still maintain that I for one would never have heard of him had his Fox News interview in July not gone viral. My hunch is that most of our readers would not have either. But that's beside the point now: Reza Aslan is, for the moment, a name that church folks have heard, and that presents an opportunity for Christian teachers. With a bit of reading (I recommend Wright's New Testament and the People of God, or The Challenge of Jesus for a briefer, more accessible read) and some research at a local library, we can take advantage of the increased awareness of and interest in the historical contexts of the New Testament, and with a book like Zealot in the spotlight as solidly as it is, the rhetorical character of his thesis is quite evident.

    Christianity, we must say and repeat and insist upon, has nothing to fear from responsible history. As I noted above, the military history, political history, and etymological work that Reza Aslan does is perfectly fine; the difference is not that the Christian faithful deny the historical data but that we insist on interpreting it in ways that acknowledge that they're interpretations. That's the real sticking point here: where historians deny that they're being rhetorical, we Christians need to be clear that our histories, their histories, and any history worth calling history is always interpretation, always the disciplined arrangement (that's one of the canons of rhetoric) of what investigations yield. That's what makes history so interesting, and when people try to cut out that part of things for the sake of scoring points with the credulous (or for book sales, let's be honest), then we must be on hand to offer a compelling alternative, one that reminds any with ears to hear that stories are always stories, and the true stories are true not because they stop being stories but because they disclose truth where other stories ignore what is true.

    If Reza Aslan remains visible for very long (which is never guaranteed, especially as prone to diversion as we are in 2013), I would recommend that Christian teachers get a copy of his book (the image above links to the amazon page for it) and prepare to have conversations about history, truth, and other reasons for our hope. My hunch is that such confidence in our confession could only stand to benefit the Way that we proclaim.

    Re-Posted from The Christian Humanist
    A 31 personas les resultó útil
    Compartir

    Reportar esta opinión

    Opcional: ¿Por qué denuncias esto?

    No es acerca del producto

    Irrespetuosa, con odio, obscena

    Pagada, no es auténtica

    Otra cosa

    Verificaremos si esta opinión cumple con nuestras normas de la comunidad. Si no las cumple, la eliminaremos.

    Reportar
  • 4.0 de 5 estrellasCompra verificada
    Jesus as zealot, but not a member of the Zealot Party
    Calificado en Estados Unidos el 28 de julio de 2013
    I've read the book (unlike so many of the "reviewers" who gave it one star) and here are some points. 1) This is a popularization of recent (late 20th-early 21st century) reputable scholarship regarding Jesus. There's nothing in this book that... Ver más
    I've read the book (unlike so many of the "reviewers" who gave it one star) and here are some points.

    1) This is a popularization of recent (late 20th-early 21st century) reputable scholarship regarding Jesus. There's nothing in this book that would surprise a person (like myself) who has read pretty much all of the accessible scholarship on Jesus published in the last 30 or so years. Just going through the (extensive!) notes and bibliography at the end indicates to me that Aslan has done his homework.

    2) Aslan takes the position that Jesus was a zealot for God and God's Temple, but (and this is repeated several times in the book) he was not a member of the Zealot Party, which wouldn't arise until over 30 years after Jesus' death. In this, Jesus was just one of a number of people who arose in the period from the reign of Herod the Great to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE and his fate was like those others. In short, Jesus was killed for his zealotry, which was perceived as a threat to the Roman authorities and particularly to the Jewish sycophants who ran the Temple (and profited nicely from it). This is not a position shared by many members of the religious scholarship fraternity, who have attempted to carve out a position for Jesus where he's a religious figure who did not delve at all into politics. It's an interesting argument that I can't do justice in a few short sentences. If you're interested, you'll have to read the book yourself and decide if Aslan makes his case.

    3) Aslan doesn't stop with the death of Jesus, and, as someone writing history, not hagiography, he carefully notes that he can't pass judgment on whether Jesus' resurrection occurred, because it is not a historical event but an event of faith. He then pushes on to a discussion of the earliest Christians and, in particular, the conflict between James the Just, described as the brother of Jesus and the head of the Jerusalem Christians, and Paul of Tarsus, the evangelizer of the Gentile world. This part is definitely worth the read, because it brings out the fact that the early Christians were not "in one accord" but were in fact fractiously divided over what Jesus taught and what it all meant.

    4) My only serious factual gripe about the book comes from the first paragraph of Chapter 15, where Aslan describes James the Just as follows: "He himself owned nothing, not even the clothes he wore--simple garments made of linen, not wool." The problem is that historically linen was an elite fabric, not the fabric of the poor. (For example, Luke 16:19 points out that the rich man in Jesus' parable of the rich man and Lazarus wore purple and fine linen and all four gospels are agreed that Jesus was buried in linen.) Making linen from flax took a lot of preparation as compared to wool, which can be spun practically straight from the sheep. But getting back to James the Just: The sources, by putting James in linen, were more likely comparing James to the Temple High Priest, who would have worn linen for the sacrifices.

    5) I'm knocking off one star for not being footnoted. Granted, there is an extensive set of chapter-based endnotes (and I strongly suggest reading them, they're as engaging as the book itself), but the lack of footnotes is a serious flaw. Even if the book is intended for a popular audience, it should have been footnoted.

    6) As for the assertion that the book is fatally flawed because it's influenced by Aslan's Muslim background: That is flatly false. Let me state again that there is nothing in this book that can't be read in the scholarship done by *Christians* published over the past several decades. Moreover, if Aslan was pushing Islam, you'd think that he'd make a point of saying, "Well, Islam considers Jesus a prophet," but he doesn't. Not at all. The reviews which make the assertion that the book is terrible, horrible and awful because of "OOOOH EVIL ISLAM!!!!" appear to have been influenced by Fox News' promotion of a screed by John Dickerson. As a former journalist for Phoenix New Times, Dickerson should know better, but perhaps that's why Dickerson is no longer a journalist but now pastors a church in Prescott, AZ and churning out inaccurate and inflammatory junk for the fearful faithful.
    I've read the book (unlike so many of the "reviewers" who gave it one star) and here are some points.

    1) This is a popularization of recent (late 20th-early 21st century) reputable scholarship regarding Jesus. There's nothing in this book that would surprise a person (like myself) who has read pretty much all of the accessible scholarship on Jesus published in the last 30 or so years. Just going through the (extensive!) notes and bibliography at the end indicates to me that Aslan has done his homework.

    2) Aslan takes the position that Jesus was a zealot for God and God's Temple, but (and this is repeated several times in the book) he was not a member of the Zealot Party, which wouldn't arise until over 30 years after Jesus' death. In this, Jesus was just one of a number of people who arose in the period from the reign of Herod the Great to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE and his fate was like those others. In short, Jesus was killed for his zealotry, which was perceived as a threat to the Roman authorities and particularly to the Jewish sycophants who ran the Temple (and profited nicely from it). This is not a position shared by many members of the religious scholarship fraternity, who have attempted to carve out a position for Jesus where he's a religious figure who did not delve at all into politics. It's an interesting argument that I can't do justice in a few short sentences. If you're interested, you'll have to read the book yourself and decide if Aslan makes his case.

    3) Aslan doesn't stop with the death of Jesus, and, as someone writing history, not hagiography, he carefully notes that he can't pass judgment on whether Jesus' resurrection occurred, because it is not a historical event but an event of faith. He then pushes on to a discussion of the earliest Christians and, in particular, the conflict between James the Just, described as the brother of Jesus and the head of the Jerusalem Christians, and Paul of Tarsus, the evangelizer of the Gentile world. This part is definitely worth the read, because it brings out the fact that the early Christians were not "in one accord" but were in fact fractiously divided over what Jesus taught and what it all meant.

    4) My only serious factual gripe about the book comes from the first paragraph of Chapter 15, where Aslan describes James the Just as follows: "He himself owned nothing, not even the clothes he wore--simple garments made of linen, not wool." The problem is that historically linen was an elite fabric, not the fabric of the poor. (For example, Luke 16:19 points out that the rich man in Jesus' parable of the rich man and Lazarus wore purple and fine linen and all four gospels are agreed that Jesus was buried in linen.) Making linen from flax took a lot of preparation as compared to wool, which can be spun practically straight from the sheep. But getting back to James the Just: The sources, by putting James in linen, were more likely comparing James to the Temple High Priest, who would have worn linen for the sacrifices.

    5) I'm knocking off one star for not being footnoted. Granted, there is an extensive set of chapter-based endnotes (and I strongly suggest reading them, they're as engaging as the book itself), but the lack of footnotes is a serious flaw. Even if the book is intended for a popular audience, it should have been footnoted.

    6) As for the assertion that the book is fatally flawed because it's influenced by Aslan's Muslim background: That is flatly false. Let me state again that there is nothing in this book that can't be read in the scholarship done by *Christians* published over the past several decades. Moreover, if Aslan was pushing Islam, you'd think that he'd make a point of saying, "Well, Islam considers Jesus a prophet," but he doesn't. Not at all. The reviews which make the assertion that the book is terrible, horrible and awful because of "OOOOH EVIL ISLAM!!!!" appear to have been influenced by Fox News' promotion of a screed by John Dickerson. As a former journalist for Phoenix New Times, Dickerson should know better, but perhaps that's why Dickerson is no longer a journalist but now pastors a church in Prescott, AZ and churning out inaccurate and inflammatory junk for the fearful faithful.
    A 4,959 personas les resultó útil
    Compartir

    Reportar esta opinión

    Opcional: ¿Por qué denuncias esto?

    No es acerca del producto

    Irrespetuosa, con odio, obscena

    Pagada, no es auténtica

    Otra cosa

    Verificaremos si esta opinión cumple con nuestras normas de la comunidad. Si no las cumple, la eliminaremos.

    Reportar
  • 5.0 de 5 estrellasCompra verificada
    More than "Fair and Balanced"
    Calificado en Estados Unidos el 3 de febrero de 2016
    Zealot, the Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth was written by biblical scholar Dr. Reza Aslan over two years ago. The book, which chronicles the historical Jesus (the man) rather than the religious Jesus (the Christ), would have probably quickly landed in the remainder... Ver más
    Zealot, the Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth was written by biblical scholar Dr. Reza Aslan over two years ago. The book, which chronicles the historical Jesus (the man) rather than the religious Jesus (the Christ), would have probably quickly landed in the remainder bins of some large book retailers if it had not been for the sudden boost in sales that it got through an awkward and very slanted interview on Fox News.

    Fox wheeled out one of its pretty blondes to interview Dr. Aslan, and it quickly became apparent that she likely had not read his book, and the focus of her interview was going to be on informing and reminding America that the author was a Muslim.

    It started off like this:

    Fox:

    "This is an interesting book. Now, I want to clarify: You are a Muslim, so why did you write a book about the founder of Christianity?"

    Reza Aslan:

    "I am a scholar of religions with four degrees, including one in the New Testament, and fluency in biblical Greek, who has been studying the origins of Christianity for two decades, who just happens to be a Muslim. So it's not just that I'm some Muslim writing about Jesus. I am an expert with a Ph.D. in the history of religions."

    Fox:

    "But it still begs the question: Why would you be interested in the founder of Christianity?"

    And from there it just went downhill!

    Dr. Azlan sold truckloads of his historical tome as a result of what some journalists dubbed the "most embarrassing" and "dumbest" interview in television history. Suddenly everyone wanted to read for themselves the history of Jesus as seen through the eyes of a (highly educated) Muslim. I bought my copy back during the controversy and finally got around to reading it last week.

    I was impressed.

    First, through Zealot, I got a feel for the turbulent times in which Jesus lived. His hometown of Nazareth was a small, impoverished community, many of whose residents worked as day laborers for wealthy Jews and Romans in the larger cities. There was dissension and some revolutionary fervor among the struggling masses, many of whom lived with the expectation a messianic intervention and the creation of God's kingdom on earth - a kingdom that would reunite the twelve tribes of Israel, drive the Romans from the holy land, and rid the temple of the corrupt priests. To that end, there were several individuals who called themselves "messiah" and traipsed across the countryside trying to bring about revolution prior to the arrival of Jesus.

    Most of the historical record regarding Jesus was written in the decades following his death, and much of that seems to have been penned with the purpose of codifying and clarifying the emerging religion. Jesus, as a young man, probably did work as a carpenter with his father, and, as such, got to see life beyond the small town of Nazareth. His involvement with religion seems to have begun when he was baptized by John the Baptist. Jesus, initially a follower and disciple of John, eventually took over the role of itinerant preacher himself after the Baptist was executed.

    As Jesus walked the dusty paths between the small towns of Judea, the number of his disciples increased and his following grew as word spread of his powers as a healer. By the time his traveling band made it into Jerusalem, his reputation as a healer and a defender of the poor and downtrodden had earned him enemies among the city's Jewish elite and its Roman overlords.

    While Dr. Azlan questions the biblical accounts of Jesus's birth - and even the location where it was reported to have occurred - he does see his eventual crucifixion as having actually happened. Rome, at that time, used crucifixion for crimes against the state, and Rome as well as the Jewish elite would have seen the foray of Jesus into the temple in Jerusalem (where he put the money-changers into such disarray) as being seditious in nature.

    Dr. Aslan also spends time in this volume discussing the formation of the religion following the death of Jesus. Much of that focuses on the struggle for control between Paul, the self-appointed apostle, and James (the Just), the younger brother of Jesus. James won that struggle in the short term as he managed to force Paul t recant much of his theology and ostracized him to Rome. But, in the long term, Paul's view of Jesus as the Christ, completely free of Jewish law and trappings, won out as Rome eventually adopted and shaped the growing religion.

    I'm admittedly not much of an expert on religion, but I did feel that Dr. Aslan presented his account of the life of Jesus in a manner that was both thorough and interesting. His work contained over fifty pages of end notes and a bibliography of more than twenty pages, leaving the reader able to quickly zero in on the scholastic and historic fundamentals of any claim which might foster controversy.

    Zealot is definitely a work of praiseworthy scholarship. Thank you, Fox News, for causing me to read it!
    Zealot, the Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth was written by biblical scholar Dr. Reza Aslan over two years ago. The book, which chronicles the historical Jesus (the man) rather than the religious Jesus (the Christ), would have probably quickly landed in the remainder bins of some large book retailers if it had not been for the sudden boost in sales that it got through an awkward and very slanted interview on Fox News.

    Fox wheeled out one of its pretty blondes to interview Dr. Aslan, and it quickly became apparent that she likely had not read his book, and the focus of her interview was going to be on informing and reminding America that the author was a Muslim.

    It started off like this:

    Fox:

    "This is an interesting book. Now, I want to clarify: You are a Muslim, so why did you write a book about the founder of Christianity?"

    Reza Aslan:

    "I am a scholar of religions with four degrees, including one in the New Testament, and fluency in biblical Greek, who has been studying the origins of Christianity for two decades, who just happens to be a Muslim. So it's not just that I'm some Muslim writing about Jesus. I am an expert with a Ph.D. in the history of religions."

    Fox:

    "But it still begs the question: Why would you be interested in the founder of Christianity?"

    And from there it just went downhill!

    Dr. Azlan sold truckloads of his historical tome as a result of what some journalists dubbed the "most embarrassing" and "dumbest" interview in television history. Suddenly everyone wanted to read for themselves the history of Jesus as seen through the eyes of a (highly educated) Muslim. I bought my copy back during the controversy and finally got around to reading it last week.

    I was impressed.

    First, through Zealot, I got a feel for the turbulent times in which Jesus lived. His hometown of Nazareth was a small, impoverished community, many of whose residents worked as day laborers for wealthy Jews and Romans in the larger cities. There was dissension and some revolutionary fervor among the struggling masses, many of whom lived with the expectation a messianic intervention and the creation of God's kingdom on earth - a kingdom that would reunite the twelve tribes of Israel, drive the Romans from the holy land, and rid the temple of the corrupt priests. To that end, there were several individuals who called themselves "messiah" and traipsed across the countryside trying to bring about revolution prior to the arrival of Jesus.

    Most of the historical record regarding Jesus was written in the decades following his death, and much of that seems to have been penned with the purpose of codifying and clarifying the emerging religion. Jesus, as a young man, probably did work as a carpenter with his father, and, as such, got to see life beyond the small town of Nazareth. His involvement with religion seems to have begun when he was baptized by John the Baptist. Jesus, initially a follower and disciple of John, eventually took over the role of itinerant preacher himself after the Baptist was executed.

    As Jesus walked the dusty paths between the small towns of Judea, the number of his disciples increased and his following grew as word spread of his powers as a healer. By the time his traveling band made it into Jerusalem, his reputation as a healer and a defender of the poor and downtrodden had earned him enemies among the city's Jewish elite and its Roman overlords.

    While Dr. Azlan questions the biblical accounts of Jesus's birth - and even the location where it was reported to have occurred - he does see his eventual crucifixion as having actually happened. Rome, at that time, used crucifixion for crimes against the state, and Rome as well as the Jewish elite would have seen the foray of Jesus into the temple in Jerusalem (where he put the money-changers into such disarray) as being seditious in nature.

    Dr. Aslan also spends time in this volume discussing the formation of the religion following the death of Jesus. Much of that focuses on the struggle for control between Paul, the self-appointed apostle, and James (the Just), the younger brother of Jesus. James won that struggle in the short term as he managed to force Paul t recant much of his theology and ostracized him to Rome. But, in the long term, Paul's view of Jesus as the Christ, completely free of Jewish law and trappings, won out as Rome eventually adopted and shaped the growing religion.

    I'm admittedly not much of an expert on religion, but I did feel that Dr. Aslan presented his account of the life of Jesus in a manner that was both thorough and interesting. His work contained over fifty pages of end notes and a bibliography of more than twenty pages, leaving the reader able to quickly zero in on the scholastic and historic fundamentals of any claim which might foster controversy.

    Zealot is definitely a work of praiseworthy scholarship. Thank you, Fox News, for causing me to read it!
    A 2 personas les resultó útil
    Compartir

    Reportar esta opinión

    Opcional: ¿Por qué denuncias esto?

    No es acerca del producto

    Irrespetuosa, con odio, obscena

    Pagada, no es auténtica

    Otra cosa

    Verificaremos si esta opinión cumple con nuestras normas de la comunidad. Si no las cumple, la eliminaremos.

    Reportar

Opiniones más destacadas de otros países

  • Klaus Merk
    5.0 de 5 estrellasCompra verificada
    Nueva experiencia en libros electronicos
    Calificado en México el 8 de septiembre de 2015
    Me encantó el libro electrónico y también el contenido del libro. Es apenas el segundo libro electrónico que leo, y encuentro que ofrece muchas posibilidades. Leo en mi PC o tablet, ajusto las letras a mis necesidades, puedo subrayar, hago anotaciones, cuento con...Ver más
    Me encantó el libro electrónico y también el contenido del libro. Es apenas el segundo libro electrónico que leo, y encuentro que ofrece muchas posibilidades. Leo en mi PC o tablet, ajusto las letras a mis necesidades, puedo subrayar, hago anotaciones, cuento con diccionario y traductor de palabras, etc. Busco títulos de libros que me interesan, puedo "hojearlos" y con un click los tengo al instante. ahora, específicamente referente al libro es un análisis del Cristo histórico para aquel que quiera entender un poco nuestra cultura occidental, creyentes o no, escrito por un autor de origen persa, que ha sido musulmán y fue educado en un medio cristiano. El punto de vista no es ni religioso ni ateo, sino histórico.
    Me encantó el libro electrónico y también el contenido del libro. Es apenas el segundo libro electrónico que leo, y encuentro que ofrece muchas posibilidades. Leo en mi PC o tablet, ajusto las letras a mis necesidades, puedo subrayar, hago anotaciones, cuento con diccionario y traductor de palabras, etc. Busco títulos de libros que me interesan, puedo "hojearlos" y con un click los tengo al instante. ahora, específicamente referente al libro es un análisis del Cristo histórico para aquel que quiera entender un poco nuestra cultura occidental, creyentes o no, escrito por un autor de origen persa, que ha sido musulmán y fue educado en un medio cristiano. El punto de vista no es ni religioso ni ateo, sino histórico.

    Reportar esta opinión

    Opcional: ¿Por qué denuncias esto?

    No es acerca del producto

    Irrespetuosa, con odio, obscena

    Pagada, no es auténtica

    Otra cosa

    Verificaremos si esta opinión cumple con nuestras normas de la comunidad. Si no las cumple, la eliminaremos.

    Reportar
  • BrianDiNazareth00
    4.0 de 5 estrellasCompra verificada
    Ottimo lavoro, arriva "quasi" fino in fondo.
    Calificado en Italia el 8 de mayo de 2016
    Una opera solida, di un accademico solido. Ben scritto, di sicuro interesse per gli amanti del genere storico, filosofico e religioso. L'argomento non necessita di presentazioni e l'autore procede con metodo serio e cauto, ma deciso, verso tesi e concetti che...Ver más
    Una opera solida, di un accademico solido. Ben scritto, di sicuro interesse per gli amanti del genere storico, filosofico e religioso. L'argomento non necessita di presentazioni e l'autore procede con metodo serio e cauto, ma deciso, verso tesi e concetti che presenta con la dovuta preparazione. L'articolato delle tesi, delle alternative interpretative proposte, non è monoliticamente accettabile: ognuno dei lettori potrebbe o meno essere d'accordo con alcuni differenti segmenti interpretativi della linea seguita dall'autore. Tuttavia, e questo è anche il bello dell'opera, essa non necessita nemmeno di essere monoliticamente accettata. Molto consigliato. Perché non 5 stelle? Ve ne accorgerete, dopo un interessantissimo e piacevole viaggio accanto alla figura di Gesù di Nazareth. Alla fine di quel viaggio c'era un ultimo passo da fare, nella mia modesta opinione, l'autore però non ha avuto il coraggio di imprimere nella strada della sua vita, prima che nel libro, quell'ultimo, inevitabile, passo.
    Una opera solida, di un accademico solido. Ben scritto, di sicuro interesse per gli amanti del genere storico, filosofico e religioso. L'argomento non necessita di presentazioni e l'autore procede con metodo serio e cauto, ma deciso, verso tesi e concetti che presenta con la dovuta preparazione. L'articolato delle tesi, delle alternative interpretative proposte, non è monoliticamente accettabile: ognuno dei lettori potrebbe o meno essere d'accordo con alcuni differenti segmenti interpretativi della linea seguita dall'autore. Tuttavia, e questo è anche il bello dell'opera, essa non necessita nemmeno di essere monoliticamente accettata. Molto consigliato. Perché non 5 stelle? Ve ne accorgerete, dopo un interessantissimo e piacevole viaggio accanto alla figura di Gesù di Nazareth. Alla fine di quel viaggio c'era un ultimo passo da fare, nella mia modesta opinione, l'autore però non ha avuto il coraggio di imprimere nella strada della sua vita, prima che nel libro, quell'ultimo, inevitabile, passo.

    Reportar esta opinión

    Opcional: ¿Por qué denuncias esto?

    No es acerca del producto

    Irrespetuosa, con odio, obscena

    Pagada, no es auténtica

    Otra cosa

    Verificaremos si esta opinión cumple con nuestras normas de la comunidad. Si no las cumple, la eliminaremos.

    Reportar
  • Bruce Huff
    5.0 de 5 estrellasCompra verificada
    Good thought provoking reading
    Calificado en Canadá el 17 de julio de 2014
    Good thought provoking reading. This study goes a long way towards understanding who Jesus really was and how he came to be perceived throughout history up to present times. I have always had curiosity about Jesus and the bible in general but with so many interpretations,...Ver más
    Good thought provoking reading. This study goes a long way towards understanding who Jesus really was and how he came to be perceived throughout history up to present times. I have always had curiosity about Jesus and the bible in general but with so many interpretations, all claiming to be the truth, I knew without a great deal of study I would never be at ease with Jesus and his legend. This book takes the reader from the old testament to the new. Along the way it explains why history has turned out the way it has. Incidentally, I became interested in this book because I watched the Youtube video of a Fox news anchor making a fool of herself trying to criticize this accomplished scholar and writer because he is Muslim and had the temerity to write about a Christian topic. Aslan has an impressive background in religious studies, he has written competently about many religions. Unlike Fox news Reza Aslan does research, he has done his homework.
    Good thought provoking reading. This study goes a long way towards understanding who Jesus really was and how he came to be perceived throughout history up to present times.
    I have always had curiosity about Jesus and the bible in general but with so many interpretations, all claiming to be the truth, I knew without a great deal of study I would never be at ease with Jesus and his legend.
    This book takes the reader from the old testament to the new. Along the way it explains why history has turned out the way it has.
    Incidentally, I became interested in this book because I watched the Youtube video of a Fox news anchor making a fool of herself trying to criticize this accomplished scholar and writer because he is Muslim and had the temerity to write about a Christian topic. Aslan has an impressive background in religious studies, he has written competently about many religions.
    Unlike Fox news Reza Aslan does research, he has done his homework.

    Reportar esta opinión

    Opcional: ¿Por qué denuncias esto?

    No es acerca del producto

    Irrespetuosa, con odio, obscena

    Pagada, no es auténtica

    Otra cosa

    Verificaremos si esta opinión cumple con nuestras normas de la comunidad. Si no las cumple, la eliminaremos.

    Reportar
  • Kindle Customer
    5.0 de 5 estrellasCompra verificada
    Rivetting page turner
    Calificado en India el 31 de octubre de 2013
    I like the book because it is as thrilling a page turner as a fictional Dan brown novel, while at the same time, it has a factual basis making it much more interesting. The logic used to understand the events that happened 2000 years ago keeping in mind the...Ver más
    I like the book because it is as thrilling a page turner as a fictional Dan brown novel, while at the same time, it has a factual basis making it much more interesting. The logic used to understand the events that happened 2000 years ago keeping in mind the socio-politico-religious situation in 1st century Palestine is fascinating to read about. It changed my perception about history as just stating the facts that had happened. Its not about how many clay artifacts Mohenjo-daro has or the bronze bust of a man found in excavations. Its about looking at events in context. A contextual reference is always needed to understand the things that happened and why they happened. It is incomprehensible to someone who thinks that world has always been like the one he lives in at present. I guess it might come as a shock for someone who had a certain understanding of origins of their religion but the book is not meant to hurt anyone's sentiments. Reza Aslan Handsomely praises and awes Jesus's greatness, His ideals, His courage, His charisma, His acts, His passion and His mission. He never looks down upon any aspect of the Great being. Its just that he gives a reasonable argument about what might have happened during his time and afterwards.
    I like the book because it is as thrilling a page turner as a fictional Dan brown novel, while at the same time, it has a factual basis making it much more interesting. The logic used to understand the events that happened 2000 years ago keeping in mind the socio-politico-religious situation in 1st century Palestine is fascinating to read about.

    It changed my perception about history as just stating the facts that had happened. Its not about how many clay artifacts Mohenjo-daro has or the bronze bust of a man found in excavations. Its about looking at events in context. A contextual reference is always needed to understand the things that happened and why they happened. It is incomprehensible to someone who thinks that world has always been like the one he lives in at present.

    I guess it might come as a shock for someone who had a certain understanding of origins of their religion but the book is not meant to hurt anyone's sentiments. Reza Aslan Handsomely praises and awes Jesus's greatness, His ideals, His courage, His charisma, His acts, His passion and His mission. He never looks down upon any aspect of the Great being. Its just that he gives a reasonable argument about what might have happened during his time and afterwards.

    Reportar esta opinión

    Opcional: ¿Por qué denuncias esto?

    No es acerca del producto

    Irrespetuosa, con odio, obscena

    Pagada, no es auténtica

    Otra cosa

    Verificaremos si esta opinión cumple con nuestras normas de la comunidad. Si no las cumple, la eliminaremos.

    Reportar
  • Thomas Moers
    5.0 de 5 estrellasCompra verificada
    Gut lesbares Buch für interessierte Nicht-Fachleute
    Calificado en Alemania el 29 de agosto de 2013
    Das Buch beschreibt zunächst die politische, wirtschaftliche und soziale Situation im Palästina des ersten Jahrhunderts. Im zweiten Teil wird die historische Figur des Jesus von Nazareth und seiner Bewegung beschrieben, soweit sich dies aus den verfügbaren Quellen ableiten...Ver más
    Das Buch beschreibt zunächst die politische, wirtschaftliche und soziale Situation im Palästina des ersten Jahrhunderts. Im zweiten Teil wird die historische Figur des Jesus von Nazareth und seiner Bewegung beschrieben, soweit sich dies aus den verfügbaren Quellen ableiten lässt. Der dritte Teil befasst sich dann mit der späteren Uminterpretation des Jesus von Nazareth zu Jesus Christus, also mit der Entstehung des Christentums. Dabei wird mit Ausnahme von Bibelzitaten und groben Quellenangaben auf eine Herleitung der einzelnen Fakten weitestgehend verzichtet. Dies holt dann der umfangreiche vierte Teil des Buches nach. Durch diese Aufteilung ist es dem Autor gelungen, ein in den ersten drei Teilen sehr gut lesbares und verständliches Buch zu schreiben. Es nicht unbedingt nötig, den doch sehr trockenen vierten Teil zu lesen. Der ist eher für diejenigen gedacht, die sich tiefer mit der Materie befassen wollen. Das Buch ist eine wissenschaftliche Abhandlung und hat mit Theolgie nur wenig am Hut. Die theologische Interpretation bleibt, wo sie über die historische Herleitung hinausgeht, weitestgehend außen vor. Ich kann gerade deswegen das Buch jedem empfehlen, der sich für die historischen Ursprünge des Christentums interessiert. Die englische Ausgabe erfordert jedoch gute Sprachkenntnisse. Ich habe sehr viele englischsprachige Bücher gelesen und musste trotzdem die Wöterbuchfunktion des Kindle hier sehr oft nutzen.
    Das Buch beschreibt zunächst die politische, wirtschaftliche und soziale Situation im Palästina des ersten Jahrhunderts. Im zweiten Teil wird die historische Figur des Jesus von Nazareth und seiner Bewegung beschrieben, soweit sich dies aus den verfügbaren Quellen ableiten lässt. Der dritte Teil befasst sich dann mit der späteren Uminterpretation des Jesus von Nazareth zu Jesus Christus, also mit der Entstehung des Christentums. Dabei wird mit Ausnahme von Bibelzitaten und groben Quellenangaben auf eine Herleitung der einzelnen Fakten weitestgehend verzichtet. Dies holt dann der umfangreiche vierte Teil des Buches nach.
    Durch diese Aufteilung ist es dem Autor gelungen, ein in den ersten drei Teilen sehr gut lesbares und verständliches Buch zu schreiben. Es nicht unbedingt nötig, den doch sehr trockenen vierten Teil zu lesen. Der ist eher für diejenigen gedacht, die sich tiefer mit der Materie befassen wollen.
    Das Buch ist eine wissenschaftliche Abhandlung und hat mit Theolgie nur wenig am Hut. Die theologische Interpretation bleibt, wo sie über die historische Herleitung hinausgeht, weitestgehend außen vor. Ich kann gerade deswegen das Buch jedem empfehlen, der sich für die historischen Ursprünge des Christentums interessiert.
    Die englische Ausgabe erfordert jedoch gute Sprachkenntnisse. Ich habe sehr viele englischsprachige Bücher gelesen und musste trotzdem die Wöterbuchfunktion des Kindle hier sehr oft nutzen.

    Reportar esta opinión

    Opcional: ¿Por qué denuncias esto?

    No es acerca del producto

    Irrespetuosa, con odio, obscena

    Pagada, no es auténtica

    Otra cosa

    Verificaremos si esta opinión cumple con nuestras normas de la comunidad. Si no las cumple, la eliminaremos.

    Reportar
Escribir una opinión

Cómo funcionan las opiniones y calificaciones de clientes

Las opiniones de clientes, incluidas las valoraciones de productos ayudan a que los clientes conozcan más acerca del producto y decidan si es el producto adecuado para ellos.Más información sobre cómo funcionan las opiniones de clientes en Amazon