Jesus the Zealot: The Inside Story
In 2007, my film “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” and companion book “The Jesus Family Tomb” were a front page story around the world. So it’s instructive to see what happens when someone says something that does not accord with the orthodox Christian view of Jesus.
Let’s start with Aslan’s book. I must confess that I haven’t read it yet. I’ve only read passages that have been published online and have watched various interviews with him. I’ve also seen summaries of his thesis. I will reserve full judgment until I’ve properly read his book. But, at first glance, there’s nothing new in his thesis. At least nothing new for people who have been studying the historical Jesus. As the title of his book suggests, it seems that what he’s arguing is that Jesus was a Zealot. The Zealots were a 1st century party of Jewish revolutionaries willing to risk everything in order to get the Romans out of Judea. To the best of my knowledge the idea that he was a Zealot was first articulated by a scholar named SGF Brandon in a wonderful book called “Jesus and the Zealots: A Study of the Political Factor in Primitive Christianity”. This was a seminal work that was published in 1967 and influenced me greatly when I was in graduate school during the ‘70’s. Brandon basically argued that everything that we know about Jesus points to him being a member of the Zealot party, not the peace party. After all, he was crucified for “sedition”. The Romans did this to revolutionaries, not to petty thieves, certainly not to pacifists. The two people who were crucified on either side of Jesus are called “thieves” in many translations. But in the original Greek they are called “lestai” (Matthew 27:38), which is properly translated as “brigand”. This is the adjective 1st century historian Josephus reserved for the Zealots. In fact, one of the twelve disciples is called “Simon Zelotes” i.e., “Simon the Zealot” (Luke 6:15). More than this, another of the twelve, the infamous “Judas Iscariot”, the man who allegedly betrayed Jesus, is probably called by this name because he was a member of the “Sicarii”, a group of Jewish revolutionaries that made the Zealots look moderate by comparison.
To my mind, Jesus must have been, or perceived to have been, a member of the Zealots for at least part of his activism. Maybe he changed his mind and maybe that’s why the Sicarii turned him over to the authorities, seeing him as a traitor. In any event, many Christian believers don’t like the association of Jesus and the Zealots. They see this as somehow contradicting their view of the Prince of Peace. A couple of years ago, I made a film for a major US broadcaster. Not only did they argue against my partial association of Jesus with the Zealots, they tried to stop me from associating Simon “the Zealot” with the Zealots. So here we come to the central problem.
When it comes to the historical Jesus, there is a conflict between those who are interested in the 1st century Galilean rabbi who ended up crucified by the Romans, and those who worship this same individual as a man-god called “the Christ”. The minute the first group – to which I belong – say anything that contradicts the latter group’s view of God, an army of naysayers are mobilized to discredit the individual and his/her message about the historical Jesus. By and large, the media slavishly follow the naysayers, they’re louder and they wrap themselves in the cloak of academia. Aslan is not the first to be abused, and not the last. When the legendary Israeli archaeologist Eleazar Sukenik – identifier of the Dead Sea Scrolls – pointed to a 1st century bone box with the name “Yeshu” i.e., Jesus on it, and suggested that it might be linked to the first Christians, he was universally attacked by his colleagues. Just a few years ago, a leading scholar in America suggested that Sukenik tried to make headlines so as to generate speaking engagements because his wife needed a new fridge. But Sukenik got off easily. The works of Bellarmino Bagatti, the Franciscan archaeologist who pointed to archaeological evidence of the 1st Christians, have been largely forgotten. The naysayers were quick to discredit and cover up his claim to have found the bone box of the apostle Peter in Jerusalem. After all, Peter is supposed to be buried under the Vatican. When in 1973 the leading New Testament scholar of the time, Morton Smith, published a lost fragment of a secret version of the Gospel of Mark that seemed to suggest that Jesus might have used Hellenistic mystery rituals involving nakedness for the initiation of followers, Smith was accused of being a homosexual who forged the fragment in order to rationalize his sexuality. I repeat, when a fragment was discovered that did not accord with the man god Christ of Christian theology, the leading scholar of his day was accused of nothing short of forgery. This libel was based – and continues to be based – on absolutely nothing that would ever hold up in a court of law. Recently, Karen King wanted to publish a 1600 year old Coptic fragment in which Jesus refers to Mary Magdalene as his “wife”. King is nothing less than the Hollis Professor of Divinity at Harvard’s Divinity School. That didn’t stop the naysayers from attacking her. Mercifully, they didn’t accuse her of being a forger. Instead, they accused her of being a fool who got taken in by a forgery. Her article, which was supposed to be published in the prestigious Harvard Theological Review, was spiked and King has gone totally silent.
With Aslan, it’s the same story. Rather than look at his arguments, reviewers are trying to discredit his credentials and focus on the fact that he’s a Muslim. I’ve never seen any of these naysayers attack a book about Jesus because it’s been written by a priest or a minister. No one suggests that being a Christian can lead to an agenda. In fact, many of the naysayers are clerics with Ph.D.’s. They refer to themselves as professors, masking their theological agendas.
I feel for Aslan. It’s been the same for me since 2007. When I came out with my film and book, the first question in interviews usually focused on the fact that I’m a Jew. I never tried to deflect this truth. Rather, I embrace it. In Paris, a priest pointed out to a radio audience that “Mr. Jacobovici is a Jew”. My answer; “yes, like Jesus”. In Quebec, in front of a live television audience, the interviewer said “Simcha you’re a Jew. Why are you interested in Jesus?” I said; “I was born in Israel. So was Jesus. To the best of my knowledge, he lived and died in Judea, he was crucified in Jerusalem, the capital of the Jewish people. He didn’t speak French or English. He spoke Hebrew, like me. So I know why I’m interested in him, but since Jesus never made it to Quebec, why are you interested in him?” The interviewer changed the subject. If you think I’m exaggerating, watch this video with Aslan focusing exclusively on his religion:
What is most remarkable about all this is that people are arguing about Jesus as if his tomb has not been found. It has. I’ve made two films and co-written two books about it (“The Lost Tomb of Jesus”, “The Jesus Family Tomb”, “The Jesus Discovery: The New Archaeological Find That Reveals the Birth of Christianity” and “Resurrection Tomb: The Jesus Discovery”). He was buried in modern day Talpiot, just outside of Jerusalem. His name appears on an ossuary, a 1st century limestone coffin. In the same tomb there were two Mary’s, a Joseph, and a Matthew. 60 meters away there is another tomb that is sealed under a modern a building. In 2010, my team and I inserted robotic cameras into this tomb. We found an ossuary that had on one side a cross, and on another side the “Sign of Jonah” – a fish spitting out a stick figure onto the land. The “Sign of Jonah” is the earliest and most prevalent Biblical Christian symbol in the catacombs of Rome. The “Sign of Jonah” that we documented is 200 years earlier! It dates to the time of Jesus! On an ossuary nearby, there’s the only inscription attesting to resurrection faith ever found in Jerusalem.
So what do the sleeper agents of Christian theology say? They say that the Jesus buried in the Talpiot tomb is not Jesus of Nazareth; this was a “common” name, this is another Jesus. The two Mary’s are not the mother and the Magdalene. According to the naysayers, Mary was the most “common” name for Jewish women in the 1st century. These are not the Mary’s of the gospels, they say. The Joseph buried in the tomb is neither the father nor the brother, it’s another Joseph. It seems that according to the naysayers, all Jewish males who were not called Jesus must have been called Joseph. And, besides, the cluster of names doesn’t matter, it’s just a coincidence. As for the symbols and the inscription nearby; the statement of resurrection faith is not meaningful because it’s not linked to early Christians. Many Jews believed in resurrection, not just Jesus followers. The cross is not a cross, it’s a door. And the fish is not a fish, it’s a vase. Good grief!
So, my dear Aslan, compared to what my colleagues and I have gone through, you have it easy. Also, the present criticism of you is so over the top and politically incorrect that your critics will probably help boost your sales. At the end of the day, this is a good thing because this intellectual inquisition has to stop. People should be able to study Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, for that matter, without being threatened, marginalized, demonized or abused. People should believe what they want to believe and allow their neighbours to pursue history in an atmosphere of intellectual freedom. I’m sure that the God that we all worship wants this.
BTW, on a more personal note, I noticed Mr. Aslan that you are trying to be politically correct when referring to the land that Jesus lived in by its “Roman designation” i.e., Palestine. This is incorrect. The Romans did not refer to Judea as Palestine before Hadrian in 135 CE. After the defeat of the Jewish revolutionaries under Bar Kochba, the Romans renamed the land of the Jews “Palestine” in memory of the Aegean Philistines that had disappeared some 700 years earlier. They wanted to “stick it to the Jews” and renamed their land in memory of their Biblical enemies. During the time of Jesus, the land was not called Palestine. Since you’re focusing on Jesus as a Zealot i.e., a Jewish revolutionary, you should stick to the name that Jesus would have used for his country – Judea. It’s important to keep politics out of history. It works both ways.
Finally, to my mind, the best books on Jesus are: “Jesus the Magician” by Morton Smith, “The Jesus Dynasty” by James Tabor, “How Jesus Became Christian” by Barrie Wilson, “Paul and Jesus: How the Apostle Transformed Christianity” by James Tabor, “The Jesus Family Tomb” by Simcha Jacobovici and Charles Pellegrino and “The Jesus Discovery: The New Archaeological Find That Reveals the Birth of Christianity” by James Tabor and Simcha Jacobovici.
