I've just finished reading Reza Aslan's ZEALOT:THE LIFE AND TIMES OF JESUS OF NAZARETH, and I'd encourage others to read and react to it. In short, Aslan paints Jesus as an illiterate peasant whose death proved he was not the messiah. He believes that Paul fought a theological war with Peter, John, and James the brother of Jesus who was the "bishop of bishops" in the early Church and essentially ran the Jerusalem assembly..Of course, Paul preached a gospel of salvation by faith, James of adherence to the law and thus, Aslan supposes, of "works." Paul won in large measure because the Christians remaining in Jerusalem were wiped out with the rest of the population when Rome leveled the city in 70 AD.
The crux (ignore the double entendre) of Aslan's argument comes when he asks why the apostles would not only preach the resurrection but stake their lives on it and due for it if the resurrection did not in fact happen. I've asked myself that exact question for nearly five decades now. But then Aslan dodges. He says, in effect, "that question belongs to the realm of faith, not history." Of course, by profession he's an historian, so he refuses to engage. But in fact, his whole book makes sense only if you've already answered by saying that the disciples were deluding themselves, or something along that line. Aslan simply assumes that the resurrection didn't happen. Of course, if it DID, then far from being ahistorical, the resurrection is the turning point of history, and many of Aslan's conclusions are called seriously into question.
I have neither time nor space to detail where I agree or disagree with Aslan, but I'll mention one thing: he makes a big deal out of Paul's discussion with the Jews when he arrives in Rome (Luke has it at the very end of Acts.) Aslan assumes (it fits his schema) that Paul is talking to Jews already converted to Christ by Peter. But that doesn't seem to be the case at all. Luke seems to be writing about Jews who perhaps are even hearing the Gospel for the first time.
One last thing: this book is part of the "quest for the historical Jesus" that some scholars are still pressing. The reason this "quest" was begun was because, growing outs of the Enlightenment, scientism had come to rival Christianity as the major belief system of the Western world. Theologians (and, naturally, historians) had come to believe that subjecting the data concerning the life of Jesus to the Scientific Method would yield a true picture of Jesus. And I think it's a useful approach; its insights can provide important details long overlooked. But it has severe limitations, which are very evident in this book. If the vision of the Sadducees of Jesus's day, who believed neither in the resurrections, not in angels or spirits were "right," then the quest for the historical Jesus would have long since revealed the "true" Jesus. But in fact, the much maligned Pharisees were far closer to the truth.
The crux (ignore the double entendre) of Aslan's argument comes when he asks why the apostles would not only preach the resurrection but stake their lives on it and due for it if the resurrection did not in fact happen. I've asked myself that exact question for nearly five decades now. But then Aslan dodges. He says, in effect, "that question belongs to the realm of faith, not history." Of course, by profession he's an historian, so he refuses to engage. But in fact, his whole book makes sense only if you've already answered by saying that the disciples were deluding themselves, or something along that line. Aslan simply assumes that the resurrection didn't happen. Of course, if it DID, then far from being ahistorical, the resurrection is the turning point of history, and many of Aslan's conclusions are called seriously into question.
I have neither time nor space to detail where I agree or disagree with Aslan, but I'll mention one thing: he makes a big deal out of Paul's discussion with the Jews when he arrives in Rome (Luke has it at the very end of Acts.) Aslan assumes (it fits his schema) that Paul is talking to Jews already converted to Christ by Peter. But that doesn't seem to be the case at all. Luke seems to be writing about Jews who perhaps are even hearing the Gospel for the first time.
One last thing: this book is part of the "quest for the historical Jesus" that some scholars are still pressing. The reason this "quest" was begun was because, growing outs of the Enlightenment, scientism had come to rival Christianity as the major belief system of the Western world. Theologians (and, naturally, historians) had come to believe that subjecting the data concerning the life of Jesus to the Scientific Method would yield a true picture of Jesus. And I think it's a useful approach; its insights can provide important details long overlooked. But it has severe limitations, which are very evident in this book. If the vision of the Sadducees of Jesus's day, who believed neither in the resurrections, not in angels or spirits were "right," then the quest for the historical Jesus would have long since revealed the "true" Jesus. But in fact, the much maligned Pharisees were far closer to the truth.
Comments
http://www.biblestudytools.com/blogs/the-good-book-blog/a-response-to-zealot-by-reza-aslan.html.html?utm_source=BibleStudyTools&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=080813