Readers Write
Essay 8/9/13: Jesus Christ!
Dr. Robin Meyers, Oklahoma City, OK: I read your essay with interest, of course, and agree that [Reza] Aslan's hypothesis is nonsense. A zealot would have advocated violent means to overthrow Rome (which if there is any veracity to the "approved" gospel accounts, some in his own disciples favored and Jesus emphatically rejected. The real zealots (the dagger people) moved among the crowds and sometimes took out client rulers of Rome and could escape in the confusion (a fatal stab and then wander off looking innocent). But I would make a distinction between zealots and determined but nonviolent anti-imperialists, and I agree with J. Dominic Crossan that Jesus was deliberately resisting the world according to Rome in ways that became increasingly obvious, and ultimately deadly. The "unparade" or "untriumphal" entry that lampooned the real military parade happening on the other side of town. And of course, the "cleansing" of the Temple, which Aslan attributes to Jesus' real zealotry, but I would guess had more to do with complete frustration at a religious establishment that brokered access to God and facilitated Roman oppression. Turning over tables and stabbing people to death are different tactics. The difference, of course, between a zealot and a non-violent revolutionary is in the methods used. And we have no evidence (zero) in or out of the canonical gospels, that Jesus ever advocated a violent overthrow of Rome -- correct? I could not agree with you more that the church quickly dispensed with the idea of nonviolence (and egalitarianism and redistribution of wealth, etc., etc.) as quickly as Constantine found it politically expedient to bring the church to the table of power. But what the church did with the message of Jesus is the fault of the church, not Jesus. Blayney Colmore, Jacksonville, VT: Doesn't it make sense that Jesus, about whom all physical evidence has disappeared, and who has been portrayed in as many different ways as there are portrayals, is a composite not only of all those who have written about him, but of the projections we all cast onto a figure for whom uncommon authority has been claimed? I have long been puzzled by those who say they "love" Jesus. Again, what they must mean is that they love whatever it is about their projection that makes them like themselves better. Fair enough, but hardly a reflection of an historical figure. Since we claim Jesus to be some sort of fleshed out icon of God, it should be no surprise that our claims for him should be grounded in some alternate reality no one has yet managed to define. We needn't look back into ancient obscurity for examples of how this happens. Che Guevara, who lived and died within my lifetime, decorates many a tee shirt and many a shrine. And his historical memory is nearly as diverse as those who invoke him.
Penelope Gruse, Honolulu, HI: What you are, sir, is a breath of fresh air. I had harbored such thoughts about my Sunday school Jesus for years, but was afraid to speak them. You have spoken them for me, only better I ever could. Fr. Tom Jackson, Tyler, TX: I give this essay a special "spot on" for "just about a perfect, concise summary of religious/biblical scholarship, vis-�-vis Christianity." My last test of the power of this document would be, of course, to carry it in my briefcase when going through "airport security" for next week's flight -- just to see if it is determined as "too dangerous" to have on my person. Danny Belrose, Independence, MO: Your essay "Jesus Christ!" was terrific! Your idea of several Jesuses is spot on. If there were a "singular" Jesus around which the New Testament is woven he would not recognize himself if he read it. Leonard Polger, Westland, MI: I thoroughly (as always) appreciated your "which Jesus" essay but want to add another example of the violence either initiated or supported by Christian churches. You mentioned the violent crusades, but let's not forget the Holocaust that involved untold thousands of Christians, either as perpetrators or bystanders. Julie Eliason, Royal Oak, MI: Thank you for sharing your brilliance and vast knowledge with us. I find your hypothesis of multiple Jesuses fascinating, and it makes a lot of sense. Thomas R. Mansell, Macomb, MI: I have been reading your essays for approximately two years. I have been remiss in thanking you for your use of words that are not, at least in the books and online articles I read, found used very much if at all. One of the few things I enjoyed in high school was the list of 12 words that our English writing and grammar teacher gave us every Monday. He would pronounce each one in a clear voice two times. It was up to us to ascertain the spelling and definition of each one and be prepared to take a test every Friday when he would pronounce 10 of the twelve words. We would then write down the chosen words and their definitions. Penalties for any mistakes were steep. I never failed to spell and define each word correctly. This was not due to a fear of punishment for failure but to a joy of learning and a determination to broaden my vocabulary. As life turned out in my case, I usually found myself among people who had a tenuous grasp on basic English let alone the proverbial "50-cent words." So thank you, sir, for stimulating my mind every Friday and giving me a reason to look up long forgotten words. Brian McHugh, Silver City, NM: "Banana republics of ecclesiastical power." What an absolutely fabulous phrase!! How I wish that I had said it! And, I absolutely love the idea of Jesus as a Mediterranean peasant. Of course you know that I agree with you that Jesus is a composite of various ideas. However, in my old age -- and yes, I know you're older than I am -- I have come to the conclusion that God is completely an invention of the human need to deal with the fear of dying, etc. and with the need to get on with the daily living and not huddle in the back of some cave. I think I am going to start being a little bolder and expressing this view. After all, I should catch up with you on the path of being reviled! We'll see how long it is before the bishop inhibits me! Joel Pugh, Dallas, TX: I haven't read Aslan's book yet, but from the reviews I do not agree with Aslan. In fact, historical Jesus might have figured out what I did -- Roman rule was a pretty good deal for ancient Palestine. Hell, between Persia, Syria, and Babylon, the Jews had self-rule for maybe only a hundred years or so of the 800 years before Rome finally burned 'em out. What Rome wanted was 4% of the gross for protection and free trade -- a better deal then the other conquerors gave. The real villains here were King Herods 15% tax (he died the first Jewish billionaire) and the rich folks in Jerusalem who sold wine, olive oil and wheat to Rome for silver, and ignored the starving peasants. Jesus' rebellion, like that of Amos, was against the fat cats and the priests that these cats had in their pockets, not against Rome. (Remember that famous inheritance tax that Joseph traveled to Bethlehem for? It didn't happen. Caesar's estate tax idea didn't work because the bulk of the land had be foreclosed on and those farmers still hanging on didn't have much, if any, left in the warehouse after that 15% of the gross tax.) Fred Fenton, Concord, CA: You quote Pagels' conclusion:" The church chose John's Jesus." She is right. The Jesus variously depicted in the [Mark, Matthew and Luke] would never have made statements like, "The Father and I are one." (John 10:30 NRSV) Thus we are given a pre-existent Word of God instead of the Jewish peasant who was a prophet or sage or zealot, but never himself claimed to be divine. Your argument that we are dealing with a composite figure rather than a single individual seems entirely reasonable and in keeping with the evidence. Cynthia Chase, Laurel, MD: Interesting to read that [Reza] Aslan was an evangelical Christian for a little while. I just finished reading Middlemarch for the third or fourth time and cackled with glee over George Eliot's treatment of the evangelicals. Another point she makes is that poor old Casaubon was doggedly pursuing biblical scholarship without bothering to learn German. The poor guy was still mucking around in the 18th century.
Mike Crosby, Milwaukee, WI: I have been following the reviews of Reza Aslan's book on Jesus with great interest. Yesterday's Washington Post attacked his academic claims in a very long piece. Among these was last weeks NYT piece by Ross Douthat. I also once made a list of all the titles different authors gave Jesus for the title of the books, such as Crossan. But I don't think, as you do, that any one suffices. If I had to give any title to Jesus it would be "Challenge to the Violence of Entrenched Religious Systems." Aslan can't find scriptural warrants to justify his "zealot" attribution of Jesus because it's quite clear from Pilate (at least in the telling) that he really didn't know who Jesus was. So he could not have been that much of a challenge. What intrigues me is how much of a threat Jesus was to his own religious leaders; it is they who, to save their system, had Jesus delivered to the Roman system. They manipulated the Roman leaders. True, the Creed says that he "suffered under Pontius Pilate," but he never would have gotten near the praetorium had he not gotten to be such a threat to the Temple. Thanks for your continued insights. |