I recently started reading (again) Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth. It’s been awhile since the last time I read it, and a friend asked my opinion, so I thought I’d pay it another visit.
It’s a good book; well written, full of stories about ancient Judaism that I had never heard. And man was it popular when it came out. We love a good book that challenges the roots and origins of Christianity, especially if there’s some kind of conspiracy involved.
And if there’s anything that needs to be challenged these days…
Author Reza Aslan argues that the Gospel accounts in your favorite Bible translations can’t possibly be relied upon for an accurate account of first-century Christianity, especially the life and times of Jesus. His fundamental point, from which everything spins, is that the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were written much later than the accounts they detail, so late that they couldn’t possibly have been written by anyone who walked with Jesus.
From there he concludes that these stories were invented by a Christian community that must’ve lived sometime in the 2nd century. But that’s OK, we don’t need the Bible to figure out what Jesus is like. We know, from the Jewish historian Josephus and one other archeological piece of evidence, that Jesus was real, and that He was crucifed for leading some form of insurrection against Rome. And we know a ton about first century Jewish culture. Armed with this, we don’t need the Bible, the story of Jesus tells itself.
The book’s fundamental weakness is that it is yet another modern reconstruction of Jesus that relies solely on a late dating of the Gospels. Having gotten these out of the way, Jesus can be whoever we want Him to be.
It’s irksome when scholars and authors only give us one side of the story, throwing in a fair bit of emotion to make their point. It’s one thing to attempt to tell the truth, it’s another thing entirely to package it.
In the author’s defense, there are plenty of erudite, well-heeled, PhD-level New Testament scholars who would date the book of John, for example, at or around 130 C.E. And because it’s en vogue to tell a “late date” story with regards to the Bible, or anything else that might cast a shade of doubt, you won’t have any problems researching this perspective.
But rest assured that there are plenty of other erudite, well-heeled, PhD New Testament scholars that give the Gospel accounts a much earlier date, so early in fact that it’s possible they were written by people who could’ve been alive in 30 C.E. But you have to dig a bit to find their stuff – resources that support the veracity of scripture, again, aren’t popular in our culture, nor is anything that lands in favor of Bible-believing Christianity.
One of the arguments for an early date revolves around something that happened in 70 C.E., a catastrophic event that would’ve reverberated through the hearts and minds of God’s people for hundreds of years to come.
At the time, Rome had riot fatigue, baffled by the zealous devotion of Israel’s religious folk and their willingness to die for God and country. Following the Jerusalem riots of 66, the Romans had their fill, destroyed Jerusalem, and, worst of all, razed the temple to the ground. This is problematic for a first-century Jewish mind because the temple was believed to be the very house of God. It didn’t merely serve as some kind of representation of God’s dwelling place, it was is, in very literal terms, His home.
How could God allow this? Is He not real? Does He care anymore? You can imagine the effect. Everything revolved around the temple and what it represented. Its destruction was the worst thing an ancient Jewish person could fathom.
How is it that this doesn’t make it into any part of the New Testament? Jesus warned his followers about the coming destruction, but nobody mentions it, including Luke in his account of the early Christian church. If the New Testament was penned post-70 C.E., by Jewish authors, this event would have to be mentioned somewhere. It doesn’t even make it into John’s book of “revelation.”
In addition, if the book of John was written sometime around 130 C.E., why is the oldest fragment of that book dated at or around the same time? It’s doubtful that this small fragment is part of THE original copy of John’s book, but rather a copy of a copy of a copy, and should by definition be much older if the author penned it in the middle parts of the second century.
See how I did that? I didn’t mention that there are multiple discussions about this fragment (P52), that the only thing scholars agree on is that it was written between the mid-second and third centuries C.E. I also used words like “much more,” and “doubtful” to leverage your emotions in concert with whatever trust I have with you. Folk who write this way, myself included, aren’t interested in you going off to further study the issue.
Aslan’s book is full of this.
As I said earlier, there’s more to the argument, plenty on both sides to think about. But the idea that the dating of the Gospel accounts has been laid to rest is false, as is the claim, in my opinion, that they can’t be relied upon for historical fact.
What irks me further is that the author of Zealot, having convinced us that the Gospels are completely unreliable, refers to them in multiple places throughout his book to make historical points about the life and times of Jesus, while simultaneously reminding his readers that these stories are mere fabrications. Which one is it?
Plenty has been written in the same vein, but this one’s at the top of my list of annoying Jesus reads. Take away the idea that the Gospels were written late, and Aslan’s portrait of Jesus falls apart, especially given the fact that he goes back into the accounts and cherry picks the stories that he likes the most.
To the dating of the Gospels, if this is an interesting topic for you, look into it. You might’ve heard plenty from the multitude of “late date” scholars, but until we can articulate the other side of any argument, we haven’t understood the issue, or had any meaningful dialogue with the truth.
To that, some resources. Always happy to debate in the comments below if you’d like to take the discussion further.
Reinventing Jesus by Dan Wallace
Who Change the Bible and Why? by Yours Truly
The Historical Reliability of the Gospels by Craig Blomberg
When Was Acts Written? by Darrel Bock
Photo Credit: Juli Kosolapova at Unsplash.com
I recently finished reading Zealot and came away with frustrations similar to yours. The way the book looked at Jesus as just one more rabble-rousing faux messiah was difficult for me to get through. On the other hand, though, what I did get from the book was detailed insight into the cultural, religious, and political machinery of the day that Jesus faced. As the book described brutish policies of the Romans and the treacherous strategies of the religious leaders, and the marriage they engineered to maintain their power, I more than ever appreciated the vision, behavior, and courage of Jesus. The Gospels convey the story of the Christ, but sometimes as believers we under-appreciate what He faced on our behalf. Thank you for today’s post!
I thought that aspect of it was great.
While the debate may go on indefinitely, I think it’s more importantly to focus on what was said in the Gospels as opposed to when it was said. In the West, albeit confused with contradictions, a common belief in the importance of the human person and his relationships has emerged that is unique on this planet. It not only has found its way into the most successful form of government on the planet, but has underpinned the emerging successes of governments around the world. (Johan Norberg, “Progress’). As Thomas Jefferson observes, these principles are not derived from empirical science or Greek philosophy, but flow directly from the ‘Teachings of Jesus’.
Agreed, but if I give the book of John a mid 2nd century date, It’s easier to make the claim that, for example, the earliest Christians didn’t call him messiah.