Scan barcode
emmacmitch's review against another edition
Cons of audiobook? I can’t tell if any sources were being cited other than the Christian Bible and bestie Josephus, so that, combined with my own lack of expertise on the subject, makes it way too hard for me to have much to say about this academically.
Pros of audiobook? Mr. Dr. Aslan put his whole heart and soul into that audiobook reading!! Maybe it was because it was read by the author himself but it was so clear to me how incredibly earnest this whole book is. Would I appreciate more nuance, especially while discussing particularly sensitive issues that the book mentions?? Yes absolutely. But overall, with the earnestness paired with the accessible language, it seems like Aslan wrote this book for his younger self, someone engaging with and digging deeper into religion and faith on the search for their own place in or between traditions, which I absolutely have to respect.
skimsdmb's review against another edition
4.0
Compelling comparison of the historic and theological Jesus.
bhnmt61's review against another edition
3.0
Zealot is an odd book. It has a reputation of being wildly controversial, but in reality, there are few surprises here. There's no way I could consider myself an expert on the early Christian church, but I've read some Bart Ehrman, Elaine Pagels, etc and the majority of the information Aslan presents was not new to me.
But his interpretation of that information is not always convincing. For example, the linchpin of his argument in the first half of the book is his statement that Jesus must have been a rebel with ambitions of establishing himself as ruler of a new Israel because he was crucified, and only political seditionists were crucified.
And yet as he also says, the Romans crucified thousands of Jews. Almost certainly the range of crimes was wider than kingly aspirations. You can be an enemy of the state without planning on establishing your own rule. That doesn't make Aslan's argument wrong, it just makes it considerably less airtight than he wants it to be. And since he "reverse engineers" the first half of a book from that one assumption (Jesus was crucified, therefore he had political ambitions), I wasn't really buying it.
Aslan's interpretation requires believing that the gospel writers toned Jesus down to make him more acceptable to their audience, but there is nowhere, anywhere in the NT, gospels or otherwise, where a writer encourages believers to tone it down, don't rock the boat, don't cause trouble, which is what you would expect if their goal was to render the nascent Christian faith "acceptable."
Aslan also sometimes plays both sides of the evidence, as when he downplays the reliability of the gospels because they were written so long after Jesus's death, then toward the end presents as evidence an account of an altercation between Paul and James written "only a couple of decades" after the gospel of John-- i.e., over a hundred years after the fact. He admits this time gap, but he still presents it as fascinating evidence for his theories about Paul. Again, it doesn't mean he's wrong, he's just playing a little fast and loose with the actual evidence.
As he also does when he mentions three or four times that Paul was "forced" by James to undergo a ritual of sanctification before he (Aslan) admits that Luke doesn't actually say that (Acts 21:20-26)-- according to what's actually in the text, Paul appears to go along with this willingly, or at least without protest. I was reminded of a guy I know who was heavily involved in concocting conspiracy theories after 9/11. He watched hours and hours of grainy, closeup video of the destruction of the towers to come up with elaborate theories of why this or that happened. And he might be right.
To sum up, it's way less controversial than its reputation (for example, unlike many/most historians, he doesn't question Jesus's miracles, and stops only just short of affirming that the resurrection happened, leaving the question open as a matter of faith). In fact, it's often less controversial than Aslan seems to think it is, as when he goes on at length to prove that James was the leader of the early church, an opinion which as far as I know is undisputed. But I wasn't always entirely convinced by some of his arguments.
He's an entertaining writer, and what he does really well is make the historical period surrounding Jesus's ministry come alive. So is Zealot worth reading? If you're interested in Jesus, definitely. Just don't expect to be won over. Often reading someone you disagree with helps you figure out what you do believe, and that's worth a lot.
But his interpretation of that information is not always convincing. For example, the linchpin of his argument in the first half of the book is his statement that Jesus must have been a rebel with ambitions of establishing himself as ruler of a new Israel because he was crucified, and only political seditionists were crucified.
And yet as he also says, the Romans crucified thousands of Jews. Almost certainly the range of crimes was wider than kingly aspirations. You can be an enemy of the state without planning on establishing your own rule. That doesn't make Aslan's argument wrong, it just makes it considerably less airtight than he wants it to be. And since he "reverse engineers" the first half of a book from that one assumption (Jesus was crucified, therefore he had political ambitions), I wasn't really buying it.
Aslan's interpretation requires believing that the gospel writers toned Jesus down to make him more acceptable to their audience, but there is nowhere, anywhere in the NT, gospels or otherwise, where a writer encourages believers to tone it down, don't rock the boat, don't cause trouble, which is what you would expect if their goal was to render the nascent Christian faith "acceptable."
Aslan also sometimes plays both sides of the evidence, as when he downplays the reliability of the gospels because they were written so long after Jesus's death, then toward the end presents as evidence an account of an altercation between Paul and James written "only a couple of decades" after the gospel of John-- i.e., over a hundred years after the fact. He admits this time gap, but he still presents it as fascinating evidence for his theories about Paul. Again, it doesn't mean he's wrong, he's just playing a little fast and loose with the actual evidence.
As he also does when he mentions three or four times that Paul was "forced" by James to undergo a ritual of sanctification before he (Aslan) admits that Luke doesn't actually say that (Acts 21:20-26)-- according to what's actually in the text, Paul appears to go along with this willingly, or at least without protest. I was reminded of a guy I know who was heavily involved in concocting conspiracy theories after 9/11. He watched hours and hours of grainy, closeup video of the destruction of the towers to come up with elaborate theories of why this or that happened. And he might be right.
To sum up, it's way less controversial than its reputation (for example, unlike many/most historians, he doesn't question Jesus's miracles, and stops only just short of affirming that the resurrection happened, leaving the question open as a matter of faith). In fact, it's often less controversial than Aslan seems to think it is, as when he goes on at length to prove that James was the leader of the early church, an opinion which as far as I know is undisputed. But I wasn't always entirely convinced by some of his arguments.
He's an entertaining writer, and what he does really well is make the historical period surrounding Jesus's ministry come alive. So is Zealot worth reading? If you're interested in Jesus, definitely. Just don't expect to be won over. Often reading someone you disagree with helps you figure out what you do believe, and that's worth a lot.
gadicohen93's review against another edition
5.0
I've already been interested in the period and place — the Jewish revolts, the internal divisions during the Second Temple, the political tumult and rebellious zeal of the time. The premise of the book is convincing: Jesus as political, a precursor to the Zealots, striving to bring a revolution against Rome and against the Jews who act as Roman proxies at the Second Temple. Aslan throws light on the conspiracy of the New Testament, those four gospels that seemed intended as propaganda to convince denizens of the Roman empire that Jesus wasn't purely a political radical but a Godly being, God's son, performer of miracles, betrayed by Jews and resurrected. A conspiracy theory for the ages.
I had very little conception of the structure of the New Testament or their historical provenance before this book. The tale of Paul the Apostle — neé Saul — was fascinating: How he began as an anti-Jesus Jew, approved the killing of Stephen, then through his travels became a Christ evangelist. Aslan excelled most in setting the milieu — the atmosphere of the end of days, the political and social climate of the era of Jesus and after, beginning the story en media res with the Sicariis who carried their sicas to stab colluders with Rome, and weaving in the stories of John the Baptist — a Jew with his own cultish following whose baptizing rituals have been adopted by Christians — and Masada. Many myths were discarded: Jesus's place of birth — a fabrication to tie him to King David from Bethlehem; his travels around Sipphoris, a city I'd never heard about but had a chance to visit after reading this book (highly encourage!) Of course, the book came off as pop religion, pop history — but as someone with a non-shallow understanding of Jewish religion and history I couldn't find any glaring errors.
I had very little conception of the structure of the New Testament or their historical provenance before this book. The tale of Paul the Apostle — neé Saul — was fascinating: How he began as an anti-Jesus Jew, approved the killing of Stephen, then through his travels became a Christ evangelist. Aslan excelled most in setting the milieu — the atmosphere of the end of days, the political and social climate of the era of Jesus and after, beginning the story en media res with the Sicariis who carried their sicas to stab colluders with Rome, and weaving in the stories of John the Baptist — a Jew with his own cultish following whose baptizing rituals have been adopted by Christians — and Masada. Many myths were discarded: Jesus's place of birth — a fabrication to tie him to King David from Bethlehem; his travels around Sipphoris, a city I'd never heard about but had a chance to visit after reading this book (highly encourage!) Of course, the book came off as pop religion, pop history — but as someone with a non-shallow understanding of Jewish religion and history I couldn't find any glaring errors.
kmcquage's review against another edition
3.0
Fascinating but idiosyncratic and somewhat dubious scholarship in places. Still very thought provoking.
savaging's review against another edition
5.0
This is not a perfect book. But it gave me something invaluable. I've read the womanist theologians and the queer radical anti-racist reclamations of Jesus, and all of that feels powerful ... but it doesn't feel completely real. This book gave me a Jesus who feels real -- and who is also beautifully irreconcilable with the religious tradition that took on his name.
It also made me a huge fan of James, I guess?
It also made me a huge fan of James, I guess?
mandyfish's review against another edition
4.0
Fascinating. Difficult to put down. This book blew open the historical time of Jesus for me and made it relevant, alive and electric. Makes me want to read more historiography about the life and times of Jesus the man. And I'm not even Christian. A compelling read.