Introduction. Part 2.

I initially was wondering about the politics of using Palestine as the name of the region, considering it wasn’t until the 2^nd Century that the title was used to refer to the region formally.   Palestine is such a politicized name that I would figure an author would avoid it—however, Aslan made his point in the notes about why he chose to call it Palestine.   Indeed, many Bibles have maps in the back that refer to “First Century Palestine” so I will leave it as is.  Plus, “Israel” has specific usage, and it would be irritating to refer to Roman Province Iudaea, Or Roman Province Galilee, etc.

So we have the tension of an occupied people—the Jews—under the thumb of Roman rule.    Jews want to practice their wonderful old religion:  stoning misbehaving children to death, killing false prophets, and killing people who worship idols.   The later would hypothetically be difficult in an empire with 56 million, most of whom worshiped  idols, and could hypothetically qualify for the worst human genocide ever.  

Aslan starts his introduction with a quote from Celsus to demonstrate the climate of life in Palestine in the first century, that of the Jewish sage/messiah, described the Jew almost like a character from Groo the Wonderer.   Celsus was a 2^nd Century Greek Philosopher, who was highly critical of Judaism and its offsprings, such as Christianity.   His work isn’t available directly anymore, but comes indirectly from Origen’s Contra Celsum.    This is all apropos, but Celsus described Jesus as having a Roman solider as a father, one Tiberius Iulius Abdes Pantera (d. 40 A.D.).   Yes, Pantera.  Like the metal band.   Celsus referred to Jesus as “son of Pantera.”   Celsus isn’t the only source of Pantera-as-father-of –Jesus, as one can find it referenced in Talmudic sources.    Furthermore, Celsus claimed Jesus practiced sorcery, which I am not sure if that means charlatan-like trickery, or did he believed that Jesus actually used magic.  I don’t know.   I’m just saying.   Ok…back to Aslan’s book.

Aslan sets the stage of a multitude of messiahs, rebels, and other trouble-makers have made their claim in this period of time.  I won’t bore you with a list here, but can direct you to a Wikipedia page that just lists them.  Here.  Aslan lists more than the Wikipedia page, including ominous figures such as “the Egyptian” and “the Samaritan.”   

So, it is not weird to have Jesus claim he is the Messiah during this period of time.  There are lots of people who did.  Jesus was just one of them.   Consequently, some of them are better known in writings of the time.   The only historical document we have is Titus Flavius Josephus (37 – c. 100) and his Antiquities of the Jews (c. 94), who mentioned in passing, the stoning of “James, the brother of Jesus, the one they call messiah.” (direct quote of Josephus from Aslan, p. xxv).    The Christian movement of course, is found in other histories, such as Tacitus’s Annals.  Which, as a distraction I will quote from, because it is my favorite.

Ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit, quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Chrestianos appellabat. auctor nominis eius Christus Tibero imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat; repressaque in praesens exitiablilis superstitio rursum erumpebat, non modo per Iudaeam, originem eius mali, sed per urbem etiam, quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque.

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.  (Tacitus, Annals 15 (40), translated by A. J. Church and W. J. Brodribb, 1876)

I can’t help but love Tacitus.  But this is all beside the point as I am attempting to talk about Aslan’s Book Zealot. 

So, Aslan describes the Josephus quote (about the execution of James) as proof of a person in history that was known as Jesus existed and was widely regarded as the founder of a movement that was becoming popular (and eventually come to Rome, where its hideous and shamefulness find its center and become popular!).    

Aslan dismisses Paul as a source of historical Jesus.  (Paul, aka, Saul of Tarsus, is believed to have written 14 Books of the New Testament books, including the earliest book of the New Testament, First Epistle to the Thessalonians, written in 52 A.D./C.E.   He also wrote Epistles to the Romans, Galatians, Philippians, First and Second Corinthians, and Philemon.   Although it is claimed to be by Paul, scholars disagree about the authorship of Epistles of Colossians, Ephesians, Second Thessalonians, First and Second Timothy, and Titus.  Oh, and also Epistle to the Hebrews.    It should be mentioned that Paul is the major character in Acts of the Apostles.    What the hell is an Epistle?  It is a letter.  So, Paul is writing a letter to some church in some area.   For example, the Epistle to the Galatians is a letter Paul wrote to the Christian community in Galatia, a place in the highlands of Anatolia, aka modern day Turkey, although then it was most Greek, hence why Paul wrote the letter in Greek.   Most of the New Testament is made up of these letters.  But as Aslan says, Paul cares little about the historical nature of Jesus, and cares more about promoting the Christian movement, and in my opinion, himself.  But enough of my opinion).

Without Paul, that leaves only the Gospels, according to Aslan.  If you are just coming into this discussion, this is all about (me and…) Reza Aslan’s book Zealot.    It is not about Aztlán, the name used by the Chicano movement for the ancestral homeland of the Nahua people.

So we have the Gospels.  The Good News.  Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.   The first three are referred to as Synoptic Gospels.   And their relationship to each other has been analyzed to death by scholars since their inception.    Mark is considered the oldest by most scholars and is believed to be written circa A.D./C.E. 70.   Matthew and Luke are written later, circa 90 to 100 CE, and probably use Mark as source for their writings as well as the hypothetical gospel Q, which is lost but was probably a book of sayings of Jesus.    Aslan doesn’t address why John isn’t include,  save that it is  written a tad later and being very different from the Synoptic Gospels.  In many many ways.

Killer infographic about the relationship of the Synoptic gospels is here.

To stop for a minute, the first book to address Jesus was written in 52 A.D.   That is, two decades after Jesus’s crucifixion.     And really, Thessalonians, has very little to do with the history of Jesus.   The first book to address a history of Jesus, is Mark, written in 70 A.D.   That is almost FORTY years later.   The first non-Biblical mention, in Josephus’s Antiquities, is 93 A.D., nearly 60 years later.   Imagine trying to write a history of Karl Ziegler, who was a chemist who developed a polymerization process, who died in 1973, without any other texts to refer to?   Today, we have newspapers, his Nobel prize, his own published works, published works by others, etc., adding together interviews with anybody who knew him that is still alive, to reconstruct a narrative of his life.   Now, imagine doing that in the frontiers of the Roman Empire, 1900 years ago?   Was there newspapers?  Other books that didn’t survive?   Was anybody still alive that witnessed any encounters with Jesus?   Just think about that for a few minutes. 

I will leave you with that meditation for homework.  More later.

Introduction. Part 1

There is a lot to say about the introduction!  Quick to read, takes some time write about it. These are my pre-thoughts. 

Whenever I try to think about the first century, I always have remind myself that Hollywood has created this enduring image of the period that makes me think Conan the Barbarian is going to show up.   The time of Jesus is not the time of Moses.

It was the time of Imperial Rome, the most powerful, advanced nation to exist in the West.   They had toilets.  They had running water.  Public baths.  Cookbooks.  Social security.  And they had literature.   

During the life of Jesus, some amazing literature was created.   And it wasn’t new in the first century; Literature and civilization dated back centuries with its predecessor Greek Civilization.   Ovid wrote Metamorphoses during Jesus’ life, a quote:

In the make-up of human beings, intelligence counts for more than our hands, and that is our true strength.

Greek geographer Strabo?  Or Greek historian Siculus?  Plutarch?  Literature was abundant!  Not to mention all past Roman and Greek works in circulation. 

So, here it is Imperial Rome of the First Century.  Books, toilets, and running water. 

Now we have Palestine, ruled by Rome.   Home of the Jews, who  had a religion that predated Greek and Roman civilization (on that I have taken to call "cave men" religion after reading the Old Testament).  However, their last five centuries were hard on them.   First the Babylonians, then the Greeks, finally they had gotten their freedom to practice their Ancient religion, when Rome marched over them and made them a client state and then a province of Imperial Rome.    The Jews were unhappy, but really had no realistic chance of defeating the Romans, and would remain a province until it was reorganized under the Byzantine Empire until the defeat of the Byzantines by Muslims in the 7^th Century.

Why wasn’t there anything written about Jesus, a Jewish rebel whose name would go on and become the foundation of one the largest religious movement to ever exist?

Author's Note

The Author’s note is sort of Dr. Aslan’s background into why he is writing about Jesus and he also drops his religious history, as well as some technical details about how to read the book.   

As a teenage Persian immigrant to America, he found Jesus at a Jesus camp in Northern California. Despite the fact that his conversation was authentic with a “personal” relationship with Jesus, it also served as a way to fit in America, as Jesus is an archetype of America’s culture.   Of course, one side of America.  I certainly wouldn’t be his friend, as I belong to the other side.  The side that believes in religious freedom and that pluralism is what makes America a great.  Plus, it really helps our food culture.

What befuddles me is how, at camp in Northern California, he did not discover something more compelling—nature?    Sure, the feeling of belonging to it makes you a victim of natural selection.  But in terms of understanding the universe around you, it can’t be beat.    I would be giving rimjobs to banana slugs and tasting poisonous mushrooms hoping to get high, not concerned about Jesus.   Plus, I hated those people who had some special club where you had to believe like them to belong.   Fuck them.  Anyways, I digress...

As he developed and got into college, he begin to delve deeper into the actual biblical texts, and not surprisingly, began to question his beliefs.   Here I totally agree.  Nothing makes non-believers more than actually reading the Bible.   In fact, I find that if people were forced to actually read the Bible, or whatever religious text they find holy (the Qu’ran, the Vedas, etc.), they soon would discover the vast, uncrossed gulf between what they believe and what the Bible (or whatever holy text) actually says.   So, Dr. Aslan seems to have reverted to the cultural Muslim of his upbringing, which is fair.  I consider myself culturally Catholic.   I am not sure what that means.  I like the Pope Francis.   I don’t go to church or care, but whatever.

The Note also includes a disclaimer that every one of his researched points has an equally researched counter point.   For me, this lends credibility to what I am about to read, since its smacks his critics right in the ass.    Yes, in scholarly research and science, there is no certainty.   Everything is iterative.   New hypotheses can replace old ones, and the entire content can change with new information.   He could be wrong.   He says it right there.  And he is ok with it.  I think it is worth quoting.

For every well-attested, heavily researched, and eminently authoritative argument made about the historical Jesus, there is an equally well-attested, heavily researched, and eminently authoritative argument opposing it.  (p. xx)

Indeed.    This position flies directly in the face of Fundamentalism, in any manifestation.   

The Greek translations are his own with some help, but he had help with Hebrew and Aramaic.   At this point he doesn’t refer to where he is translating from, but I suppose we will learn that soon.     He references Q, which is the hypothetic source for Matthew and Luke, which we will talk about later.    

There are no notes on the Author’s note, so I am on to the Introduction. 

As for my note, this will probably be the slowest I’ve ever read anything. 

Anatomy of a Zealot

If you are going to read this blog, at least buy the book.   Buy it here.  Or at your local bookstore.  Whatever.

Hardbound, with dusk jacket.  About 300 pages.   Book design was done by Caroline Cunningham, who I know nothing about.   The two illustrations in the book, one of a map of the First Century Palestine, the other an illustration of the Temple in Jerusalem, illustrated by Laura Hartman Maestro, who I believe has illustrated everything, from Anne Rice companion books to the Joy of Cooking.   The pages smell good. 

Besides the title page, copyright page, “Other books by Reza Aslan..”, there is a table of contents, author’s note, introduction, a time line (chronology), acknowledgments, notes, a bibliography and an index.    The contents are divided into three parts.

Liked the illustrations, the formatting looks good.   The problem I have is with the lack of embedded notes within the text itself.  This sort of bothers me, but I am eager to see what he did with placing extensive explanatory notes in its own section.   My initial angst is about reading the chapter, then reading the notes that apply to that chapter.   Is this how they do it in the humanities?   Or is this a requirement of the publishers to make the book less academic looking for wider audience appeal?  I don’t know.  We will see how it works as we go along.

Also, don't have oily fingers when handling the dust jacket.  Fingerprints easily.   

Manufactured Controversy

Of course, I cannot start this blog without giving a potential reader (myself) a little background.  It is important before you indulge me in this ego experiment that you visit and view the video on this Buzzfeed article.  It is called, “Is This The Most Embarrassing Interview Fox News Has Ever Done?”

It is here.

Now that you have seen this very painful interview, you must agree that Dr. Aslan handled the interview considerably well, considering the bizarre question of why a “Muslim” would write a book about Jesus.   Fox News whiners have complained about the media response to the interview, although it is difficult to justify it, since he answered her questions.    

I have always known Reza Aslan as a Muslim who has written about religion, so the fact that he wrote about Jesus comes as no surprise to me, nor do I think it disqualifies him as a scholar to write about Jesus.   Jesus is also a central figure to Islam as well as Christianity.   

Anyways, the interview caused an internet sensation and book sales went through the roof. And I purchased a copy. 

I suppose I don’t understand the issue.  Perhaps it is some level of insecurity that someone reading a book with divergent opinions about Jesus may cause someone to question their faith?   How retarded would you be if reading Zealot caused you to lose your faith?  To clarify, does it really require a meticulous written argument to question your religious belief?   Isn’t simply the question, “how do I know what I believe is real?” sufficient?  

To me, it is an uphill battle to believe in invisible gods, sea monsters, miracles, resurrections, and Metatron to begin with.

Introduction

If you are reading this, you are probably wondering what the hell this blog is about.   In essence, I thought it would be an interesting idea to just start a blog while reading Reza Aslan’s Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth.   Maybe it is like a detailed review?   More like a college discussion?  I am not sure.  The process will be completely organic and hopefully, transparent.  Will anyone read it?  I have no idea.  Do I care?  Not really.   Will I be embarrassed to read it later?  Probably.  Will I probably offend somebody?  It is certain.   

All I know for sure is that I have thoughts, and I need to get them out and I have nobody to discuss this topic with and why not just blog about it.   Plus, I will probably get more out of this book by blogging about it than not, and I will be probably learn a lot.   So there, it is about learning!

Of course, I have biases.  So, here they are:

• I lean toward the progressive side of the political spectrum, with a side of libertarianism.   
• I have a favorable impression of Reza Alsan.
• I was raised Catholic.  I suppose, since I have not been excommunicated, I am still Catholic.   Does Catholic doctrine influence how I think?   I would hope not, but I can’t be sure. 
• I am not ignorant of Biblical scholarship.
• I don’t really like Paul.
• I don’t really like Evangelical or Fundamentalist Christianity.  
• Most importantly of all, I believe in reason.

So that is how I will start for now.  Feel free to ask questions.