Once again, using Zealot as an example, the purpose of this review is to share four common fallacies that lead to the re-writting of the life, person, and purpose of Jesus.
Allow me a couple thoughts before commenting on Aslan’s theory.
- The author says some important things in this book. The last several years of my life have been devoted to studying Second Temple Judaism as well as the social, religious, and political climate of Israel before the collapse of temple in 70 A.D. I have come to appreciate something that Aslan assumes: too many historians over the last couple of centuries have read late sources (post-70 A.D.) into the early first century. Aslan presents Jerusalem as a powder keg waiting to explode. Apocalyptic and political expectations were high. I think the book makes a good contribution in this regard.
- I do not reject Aslan’s theory because I am a Christian, and he is a Muslim. I reject it because he uses a flawed method to arrive at his conclusions.
Problem one: Cherry picking
Like many critics, Aslan cherry picks the verses and sources that support his theory while rejecting any evidence that may lead in a different direction. This being the case, he dismisses the majority of the New Testament as myth, the writings of virtually all of the Church Fathers as biased, and even many anti-Christian sources as jaded. Put simply, there is no good reason why a historian should focus exclusively on some sayings of Jesus versus others.
Additionally, source critics of the Bible are notorious for rejecting anything in the New Testament that does not find verification in a second, non-biblical source. For example, he rejects the story of Jesus and Barabbas as authentic since there is no other historical example of Pilate or any other governor bringing a decision such as this to the people. However, why limit this method to the New Testament. Josephus makes scores of unique historical references that are not verified outside of his own works; yet these are embraced as true. Some might say that the Bible alone should be treated this way since the authors were writing with an agenda. This is an anti-New Testament bias. Are we to assume that authors such as Josephus wrote without an agenda?