Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Archaeologists believe they've found cross of Jesus of Nazareth [View all]FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)108. .....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/book-review-zealot-the-life-and-times-of-jesus-of-nazareth-by-reza-aslan/2013/08/02/029f6088-f087-11e2-bed3-b9b6fe264871_story.html
...Aslan is more a storyteller here than a historian. Throughout Zealot, he refers to selected New Testament passages as preposterous, fanciful, patently fictitious and obviously contrived. But Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are not the only ones spinning Jesuses out of fertile imaginations.
...
Aslans accounts of efforts by early Christians to diminish the status of John the Baptist and James the brother of Jesus are compelling. So is his reading of the iconic Good Samaritan story as a critique of priests and the Temple cult. Moreover, Aslans overarching argument that the early Christian movement depoliticized Jesus to make nice with Rome after a failed Jewish revolt left Jerusalem in ruins makes a lot of sense, assuming that Jesus really was a failed revolutionary. But how do we know that?
Unfortunately, there isnt much new here other than Aslans slick writing and cinematic sensibilities. In a now-notorious Fox News interview that propelled the book toward the top of the bestseller lists, Lauren Green questioned whether a Muslim should be writing about Christianitys founder. But the real problem is that Aslan, like thousands of historical Jesus experts before him, refuses to say I dont know with anything near the frequency required for the task. He, too, purports to be an intrepid archaeologist for historical truth, excavating the real Jesus out of the propagandistic legend that has grown up around him. But he, too, remakes Jesus in his own image.
...
In short, Jesus was a frustrated Muhammad a man who, like Islams founder, came to revolutionize the world by force yet, unlike Muhammad, failed. This makes for a good read. It might even make for a good movie. Just dont tell me its true
...Aslan is more a storyteller here than a historian. Throughout Zealot, he refers to selected New Testament passages as preposterous, fanciful, patently fictitious and obviously contrived. But Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are not the only ones spinning Jesuses out of fertile imaginations.
...
Aslans accounts of efforts by early Christians to diminish the status of John the Baptist and James the brother of Jesus are compelling. So is his reading of the iconic Good Samaritan story as a critique of priests and the Temple cult. Moreover, Aslans overarching argument that the early Christian movement depoliticized Jesus to make nice with Rome after a failed Jewish revolt left Jerusalem in ruins makes a lot of sense, assuming that Jesus really was a failed revolutionary. But how do we know that?
Unfortunately, there isnt much new here other than Aslans slick writing and cinematic sensibilities. In a now-notorious Fox News interview that propelled the book toward the top of the bestseller lists, Lauren Green questioned whether a Muslim should be writing about Christianitys founder. But the real problem is that Aslan, like thousands of historical Jesus experts before him, refuses to say I dont know with anything near the frequency required for the task. He, too, purports to be an intrepid archaeologist for historical truth, excavating the real Jesus out of the propagandistic legend that has grown up around him. But he, too, remakes Jesus in his own image.
...
In short, Jesus was a frustrated Muhammad a man who, like Islams founder, came to revolutionize the world by force yet, unlike Muhammad, failed. This makes for a good read. It might even make for a good movie. Just dont tell me its true
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
207 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
widespread scholarly agreement from biblical scholars- who study "bible history"
Warren DeMontague
Aug 2013
#125
History- and Science- as conveyed by the Bible are inherently suspect.
Warren DeMontague
Aug 2013
#134
If ALL the evidence is coming from Christianity, which incorporated this narrative into its
Warren DeMontague
Aug 2013
#183
Josephus is invariably referenced because it's the ONLY one. And considered suspect.
Warren DeMontague
Aug 2013
#193
The bible is not a historical document. It contains some real history mixed up
kestrel91316
Aug 2013
#182
Virtually all serious historical scholars of that era agree that a historical Jesus existed.
pnwmom
Aug 2013
#133
"Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that a historical Jesus existed"
pnwmom
Aug 2013
#132
That article said the author of the book was inventing aspects of the man,
WilliamPitt
Aug 2013
#111
What historians 'agree'? What evidence do they agree upon to prove Jesus existed?
sinkingfeeling
Aug 2013
#34
I asked about his contempoaries writings. You said his Apostles were his contemporaries
notadmblnd
Aug 2013
#181
Really? First one listed is a bunch of essays about using the Gospels, language,
sinkingfeeling
Aug 2013
#48
You aren't. There is however, a veritable mountain range of evidence created by and for
Egalitarian Thug
Aug 2013
#75
(crickets chirping) - There IS none. What they have has been found not reliable or accurate.
kestrel91316
Aug 2013
#54
There is no legitimate, verifiable evidence that Jesus existed. There is one
kestrel91316
Aug 2013
#53
I have seen no provable evidence that Jesus existed. However, I think that there was a charismatic,
Arkansas Granny
Aug 2013
#103
In the same way as putting "bloggers" in the same sentence with "journalists"?
cherokeeprogressive
Aug 2013
#172
Reza Aslan just stated recently, Romans reserved crucifixion for traitors and rebels
Brother Buzz
Aug 2013
#140
Wow.. and I've seen the rock that Mary rested on during her trip to Bethelem!
JustFiveMoreMinutes
Aug 2013
#33
The same ditwits who go off climbing Mt Ararat to "prove" Noah's Ark is up there.
Archae
Aug 2013
#50
It's not surprising to hear that people who follow a religion would believe this bunk.
Walk away
Aug 2013
#59
I hope it is the real thing. It would be a blessing if it was the real cross.
hrmjustin
Aug 2013
#61
If it were a part of the true cross we would have something of our faith to touch with human hands.
hrmjustin
Aug 2013
#79
Wouldn't that rather be like someone in the Kennedy fmaily snuggling up to a rifle though?
truebrit71
Aug 2013
#80
No! Remember we believe Jesus was raised and by his death on the cross we believe we are redeemed.
hrmjustin
Aug 2013
#82
Personally I don't think he would mind because I believe he is in heaven. But I can not speak for
hrmjustin
Aug 2013
#86
the concept of martyrdom is key to the faith...... without it, people wouldn't allow others
bettyellen
Aug 2013
#137
the old saying goes 'there have been enough pieces of the 'True Cross' sold to build Noah's Ark and
Bluenorthwest
Aug 2013
#78
It can't be found, just like the "proof" that he existed at all...that's my point...
truebrit71
Aug 2013
#96
This has to be one of the worst examples of journalism (and archaeology).
Behind the Aegis
Aug 2013
#69
You would be hard pressed to find non "Biblical" historians who agree that Jesus objectively existed
Warren DeMontague
Aug 2013
#121
...or THE Holy Colander used to strain the Flying Spaghetti Monster! n/t
backscatter712
Aug 2013
#179
There's no evidence outside the gospels. And there were several similar mystery cults at the time.
Warren DeMontague
Aug 2013
#152
Fundamentalist creationists don't believe in carbon dating, so won't convince them. Oh, wait-
AlinPA
Aug 2013
#151
Helen, mother of Constantine, claimed to have found the cross in the 4th Century
Sanity Claws
Aug 2013
#177
First, we have to establish if there's any wood involved at all, or just stone
muriel_volestrangler
Aug 2013
#202
Yes, that's my point - the first report is just a stone with a cross on it
muriel_volestrangler
Aug 2013
#204