Scan barcode
A review by mediaevalmuse
Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth by Reza Aslan
4.0
I generally avoid reading pop history, pop philosophy, or pop religion books - as an academic, I tend to find these genres too simplistic or not well researched (I know, I’m a snob). I decided to give this book a try since I respect Aslan for all the work he did on CNN as well as his outspokenness on politics. I really like Aslan’s open approach to religions, and I think this book shows that he has a lot of insight and interesting things to say about first-century Palestine. Overall, there were some things I would have liked to see done more academically in this book - but that’s perhaps my personal taste. In general, this book is incredibly thought-provoking, regardless of your religious identity.
Things I Liked
1. Vivid Descriptions: Aslan’s way of describing the landscape and political climate of Jesus’ time are incredibly evocative. The description of the temple at Jerusalem particularly stands out - Aslan describes all the sights, sounds, and smells of the city as well as the political tension between the rich and poor, Jews and Romans.
2. History: I loved that Aslan brought in a lot of historical figures and sources to make his argument (rather than general overviews of what was happening at any given time). I learned a lot of new names that I didn’t know before, which made me eager to look them up and learn more about big players in the ancient world.
3. Political Thesis: I really liked that Aslan portrays Jesus’ life through a highly political lens. Too often, it seems like people want to divorce Jesus from politics, or see him as independent of the time in which he lived. Aslan’s thesis, therefore, that Jesus was a zealot (or at least appeared to be a zealot) is incredibly appealing to me.
4. Close Reading: Aslan’s strongest points are in his literary analyses, of all things. I felt really convinced by hist arguments when he was comparing passages from the Bible or dissecting the language of ancient writings - more so than when he simply related historical evidence. Perhaps this is because I’m a literary scholar, so I’m partial to literary analyses.
Things I Didn’t Like
1. Lack of Footnotes: Probably because this book is geared towards a popular audience - there are only end notes. As an academic, though, I wanted more notes on sources, further information, etc. so that when I came across a particularly interesting piece of information, I would know precisely where to look to learn more.
2. History vs Literary Studies: Aslan lays out his goal to recover a historical picture of Jesus and at one point explicitly says he wants to disregard literary flourishes in his primary source texts. But not soon after, he makes use of literary criticism to show how the way of writing/recording history has changed over time. While I don’t disagree with an analysis of how recording history has changed, I do find it odd that Aslan insists on ignoring literary flourishes but then proceeds to analyze them. Literature is indicative of culture, in my experience, so these flourishes can tell us a lot about beliefs and attitudes (as well as tastes, aesthetics, etc.) of a particular time period or culture.
3. Lack of Distinction Between Aslan’s Voice and Others: Aslan’s authorial voice tends to get lost so that most of the information presented appears like a statement of fact (rather than a statement of Aslan’s interpretation of sources). As a result, I think Aslan’s book can come off as incorrect to some readers, when really, it seems like it’s trying to do the work of making an argument - just without stating that it’s an argument.
Recommendations: I would recommend this book if you’re interested in history of Christianity, Jewish history, life of Jesus, ancient history (particularly Palestinian history, Middle Eastern history, and Roman history), politics, revolution, and colonialism/occupation.
Things I Liked
1. Vivid Descriptions: Aslan’s way of describing the landscape and political climate of Jesus’ time are incredibly evocative. The description of the temple at Jerusalem particularly stands out - Aslan describes all the sights, sounds, and smells of the city as well as the political tension between the rich and poor, Jews and Romans.
2. History: I loved that Aslan brought in a lot of historical figures and sources to make his argument (rather than general overviews of what was happening at any given time). I learned a lot of new names that I didn’t know before, which made me eager to look them up and learn more about big players in the ancient world.
3. Political Thesis: I really liked that Aslan portrays Jesus’ life through a highly political lens. Too often, it seems like people want to divorce Jesus from politics, or see him as independent of the time in which he lived. Aslan’s thesis, therefore, that Jesus was a zealot (or at least appeared to be a zealot) is incredibly appealing to me.
4. Close Reading: Aslan’s strongest points are in his literary analyses, of all things. I felt really convinced by hist arguments when he was comparing passages from the Bible or dissecting the language of ancient writings - more so than when he simply related historical evidence. Perhaps this is because I’m a literary scholar, so I’m partial to literary analyses.
Things I Didn’t Like
1. Lack of Footnotes: Probably because this book is geared towards a popular audience - there are only end notes. As an academic, though, I wanted more notes on sources, further information, etc. so that when I came across a particularly interesting piece of information, I would know precisely where to look to learn more.
2. History vs Literary Studies: Aslan lays out his goal to recover a historical picture of Jesus and at one point explicitly says he wants to disregard literary flourishes in his primary source texts. But not soon after, he makes use of literary criticism to show how the way of writing/recording history has changed over time. While I don’t disagree with an analysis of how recording history has changed, I do find it odd that Aslan insists on ignoring literary flourishes but then proceeds to analyze them. Literature is indicative of culture, in my experience, so these flourishes can tell us a lot about beliefs and attitudes (as well as tastes, aesthetics, etc.) of a particular time period or culture.
3. Lack of Distinction Between Aslan’s Voice and Others: Aslan’s authorial voice tends to get lost so that most of the information presented appears like a statement of fact (rather than a statement of Aslan’s interpretation of sources). As a result, I think Aslan’s book can come off as incorrect to some readers, when really, it seems like it’s trying to do the work of making an argument - just without stating that it’s an argument.
Recommendations: I would recommend this book if you’re interested in history of Christianity, Jewish history, life of Jesus, ancient history (particularly Palestinian history, Middle Eastern history, and Roman history), politics, revolution, and colonialism/occupation.