Last weekend Premier Radio in the UK aired a lively discussion between me and Reza Aslan (author of Zealot). If you've read the book and listened to the podcast, you'll notice that Dr. Aslan's thesis seems to be improving post-publication. My friend, the brilliant Ryan Hemmer, summed it up well with this comment, "It was pretty frustrating to listen to. His thesis is whatever it needs to be to deflect criticism."
Today (upon the news that his book might be turned into a film), I would like to highlight a very odd statement by Dr. Aslan. In our exchange, he said:
“If Rome deems you worthy of crucifixion, you probably were worthy of crucifixion.”
At this point I'm less concerned with the thesis that Jesus was a zealot. What is troubling here is the assumption that Rome was generally right about who was an enemy of the state. What is even more troubling is the assumption that the Roman practice of crucifixion (cruel and torturous by any standard) was justified at all! Can this be said with integrity about any regime?
thoughts?
-anthony
Brian LePort and I both expressed the same bewilderment on Near Emmaus that the two of you appeared to be discussing two different books. As Aslan continued to move the goal posts, I began to wonder why he even titled his book "Zealot" in the first place. Then I remembered, "Oh yeah—book sales."
ReplyDeleteAs to the main point of this post, I would say that I think you've got a new meme on your hands:
• If North Korea deems you worthy of the firing squad, you're probably worthy of the firing squad.
• If Saudi Arabia deems you worthy of beheading, you're probably worthy of beheading.
• If Iraq deems you worthy of hanging, you're probably worthy of hanging.
• If Amurca deems you worthy of lethal injection, you're probably worthy of lethal injection.
Etc.
Thanks Joshua,
DeleteI guess I was a bit shocked by the statement in retrospect. But my pacifist biases are at work here, I suppose.
-anthony
I think it would be wise to look at the context of Aslans quote. It was in the middle of a reaction against the apologetic he percieves some scholars (and the gospel writers) are using, to portrait Jesus as innocent scapegoat the Jewish leaders tricked Pilate into crucifying. The very next sentence of his is:
ReplyDelete"At the very least, if they saw you as a threat, if they percieved you as a threat."
So I read/hear him as saying: "If Rome deems you worthy of crucifixion, you probably messed in some way with their system or were at least percieved doing so."
Did Aslan express himself poorly in this case? Yes. Is there drama here? I think not. A little charity goes a long way.
In this case, I don't think that the context helps Aslan much, Dr. Zaius. His argument (indeed his strongest argument) is that the fact of the cross makes Jesus an insurrectionist (what makes the title "Zealot" warranted in Aslan's view). My point was that we need a bit more nuance here. His response was to boil it down to a simple claim. So the sentence "If Rome deems you worthy of crucifixion, you probably were worthy of crucifixion” represents a telling assumption.
Delete-anthony
I'm sorry if now it was me, who didn't express himself well. What I meant to say is, that the context of Aslan's quote helps us to understand his intended meaning, not that it helps his argument. I'm definitely seeing the need for more nuance regarding the crucifixion and the conclusions drawn from it. Aslan may very well going too quickly from the crucified Jesus to Jesus the Zealot. But I can't, for the life of me, see how Aslan is (even implicitly) justifying Rome's rightful punishment of its enemies by crucifixion.
DeleteI didn't listen to the podcast carefully, so I could miss something, but could you tell me why didn't he use the books about crucifixion which you mentioned? Did he answer this question?
ReplyDeleteThanks Tomek, his reply was that there are literally hundreds of thousands of historical Jesus scholars and that he couldn't possibly cite them all.
Delete-anthony
Reza Aslan, like Bart Ehrman, has learned the notes to sound which cause the mainstream media in America to dance...and he plays them well.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree. And maybe I'm wrong, but this is also why I think Candida Moss over-reaches when she relabels so many instances of Christian persecution as merely Roman prosecution.
ReplyDeleteThe following is a report of the Jewish revolt against Rome, taken from Josephus' "Jewish War", chapter 11, translation from James Tabor's web site:
ReplyDelete"[The Romans] caught every day five hundred Jews; nay, some days they caught more ... the [Roman] soldiers, out of the wrath and hatred they bore the Jews, nailed those they caught, one after one way, and another after another, to the crosses, by way of jest, when their multitude was so great, that room was wanting for the crosses, and crosses wanting for the bodies."
And they were all probably worthy of it.
*drops mic*
DeleteIf Jesus of Nazareth spoke of a "kingdom" that challenged Rome's claim of absolute authority, his message would almost certainly have been considered treason. Thus, if Rome deemed him worthy of crucifixion, he WAS worthy of crucifixion [in their eyes, at least]; and, of course, to them that's all that really mattered.
ReplyDeleteWe see the same thing today, and not just in North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, or "Amurca." If U.S. leaders deem that it is in the "national interest" to wage preemptive war, to wiretap citizens without a warrant, or to torture suspected terrorists, they invariably do so.
Can reasonable people challenge that perspective? Of course, and they do so passionately every day. Does that make any difference? Only rarely.
To return to Aslan's comment: Although I can't quote him verbatim, Dominic Crossan has said, in effect, "From Rome's perspective, Pilate got it right." If that's what Aslan is suggesting, I would agree with him on that point.
Let's not confuse good scholarship with what Aslan wrote.
DeleteA lot of good scholars argue that any construct of the historical Jesus has to make sense of the fact of Jesus' crucifixion. Per this line of thought, Jesus' ministry must have been of the kind that would have led to crucifixion, or Jesus must have committed some act during his ministry that was "worthy" of crucifixion. So, some scholars argue that Jesus could not have been only a teacher of peace and love, because someone who did nothing more offensive than teach peace and love was not a candidate for crucifixion.
I agree with this line of thinking, but at best it leads us only to plausible conclusions. If the only fact we're considering is Jesus' crucifixion, then other conclusions are also plausible. Rome crucified tens of thousands of Jews, perhaps hundreds of thousands. Not all of them were "zealous" revolutionaries. Some of them may have resisted Roman rule in wholly nonviolent ways. Some may have been guilty of non-political crimes. Some may have been killed to demonstrate Roman might. Some may have been killed (as my quote from Josephus shows) as part of the Roman reign of terror, or out of "wrath and hatred". Doubtless, many were innocent. No trial was required. There was no due process, not even a body of criminal law to refer to.
Aslan argues that Jesus was crucified because he was a violent revolutionary, and that we know he was a violent revolutionary because he was crucified. This is circular reasoning. Even if Jesus was a violent revolutionary, he might have been crucified for other reasons. And even if Jesus was crucified because he was accused of being a violent revolutionary, that doesn't make the accusation true.
I have no illusions about Aslan's book being "good scholarship." Indeed, his book reminds me of the statement a former professor wrote on more than one term paper each semester: "Your paper is both original and interesting. Unfortunately, the parts that are original aren't interesting, and the parts that are interesting aren't original." As you rightly note, Aslan's argument that if Jesus was crucified, then he must have been a violent revolutionary is entirely unpersuasive.
DeleteMy only point concerned Aslan's statement quoted above and Anthony's response. Any regime that uses a punishment such as crucifixion as a deterrent doesn't worry about whether its actions are "justified" by anyone else's standards; its own standards are all that matter. So, instead of Aslan's argument that Jesus' crucifixion proves he MUST have been a violent revolutionary, I would argue that Jesus' crucifixion proves that Rome viewed his public activity as a threat to its authority. History cannot say whether that was really the case or not because we have insufficient evidence.
living, I would say instead that Rome used crucifixion as part of a wider strategy to maintain public order. I think that Jesus might have been crucified "as a threat to Roman authority", but he could have been crucified merely for a breach of the peace (see cleansing, Temple), or because he was viewed as a potential threat to breach the peace. Or he could have been crucified as an act of terror, just because Rome figured that it was always good to have a dead Jew to display on a Jerusalem cross during Passover.
ReplyDeleteIf we're looking for the most plausible explanation for Jesus' crucifixion, I'd rest it on the "public order" thing and not the "threat to authority" thing. And we'd still have to acknowledge that there are alternative explanations with some (lesser) plausibility, such as the NT explanation that Jesus was set up by jealous Jewish leaders who manipulated Rome into the crucifixion.
When I encounter students arguing for the “just”-ness of capital punishment from the Bible (typically citing Paul’s discussion of worldly powers established by God in Rom 13), I enjoy pointing out that Jesus’ crucifixion was “just” since he was executed for sedition (hence “INRI” on the cross), even though he may not have himself, ever claimed to be a king or the Messiah.
ReplyDeleteJack