I initially was wondering about the politics of using Palestine
as the name of the region, considering it wasn’t until the 2nd
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 2nd
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment