Facts, Myths, and Gospel: Mikey Weinstein and author Reza Aslan discuss “Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth” 

Click here to read this Q&A at Truthout

Click here to read this Q&A at AlterNet


“And so, organizations like the Military Religious Freedom Foundation become enormously significant, become hugely important in trying to dial back, not from a position of attack, but from a position of respect; to dial back the kind of religious extremism that fosters the violence, the instability, the iniquity of the world in which we live.” – Reza Aslan, MRFF Advisory Board Member

Introduction by Mikey Weinstein

Within the too-often thinly populated landscape of American intellectualism and theological historiography, one extraordinarily talented author and great personal friend towers prodigiously above the rest: Dr. Reza Aslan. I’m also immensely proud to call Dr. Aslan a loyal and devoted comrade-in-arms who has fought alongside the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) as a crucial and active Advisory Board member of the Foundation for many years, through many battles to preserve the Constitutional separation of church and state in the United States armed forces. When he started with MRFF, we had a few hundred clients. We now have well over 34,000. And 96% of them are practicing, passionate and believing Christians.

Five years ago, Reza and I broke the scandalous news that the Department of Defense, in close collaboration with private evangelical fundamentalist organizations, was sending so-called “freedom packages” to U.S. military personnel in Iraq.  What did the packages contain? As we wrote in our joint article for the Los Angeles Times:

Not body armor or home-baked cookies. Rather, they held Bibles, proselytizing material in English and Arabic and the apocalyptic computer game “Left Behind: Eternal Forces” (derived from the series of post-Rapture novels), in which “soldiers for Christ” hunt down enemies who look suspiciously like U.N. peacekeepers.

The packages were put together by a fundamentalist Christian ministry called Operation Straight Up, or OSU… OSU is an official member of the Defense Department’s “America Supports You” program. The group has staged a number of Christian-themed shows at military bases, featuring athletes, strongmen and actor-turned-evangelist Stephen Baldwin. But thanks in part to the support of the Pentagon, Operation Straight Up has now begun focusing on Iraq, where, according to its website (on pages taken down last week), it planned an entertainment tour called the “Military Crusade.”

Apparently the wonks at the Pentagon forgot that Muslims tend to bristle at the word “crusade” and thought that what the Iraq war lacked was a dose of end-times theology.

Reza understands exceptionally well the terrible dangers posed by the faux-Christian evangelical fundamentalist bigots and supremacists who seek to effect a theocratic coup within the United States of America. These “dominionist” religious predators aim to take possession of our republic’s key strategic asset: our military, which constitutes the deadliest armed apparatus ever devised in the history of humankind. The mentality of the fundamentalist Christian extremist “American Taliban” absolutely mirrors that of the Islamic fundamentalist, Salafi-Jihadist Al Qaeda. To understand and fully grasp the truly fanatical commitment of the evangelical Dominionist fundamentalists to this “Crusade,” I heartily recommend Reza’s 2009 book How to Win a Cosmic War (paperback title: Beyond Fundamentalism: Confronting Religious Extremism in a Globalized Age).

Reza’s latest amazing literary work is just now out and available. Titled Zealot: The Life And Times Of Jesus Of Nazareth, it explodes the mythology of Jesus Christ that has been constructed by the latter-day imperial persecutors and would-be Pontius Pilates of our era. This stunning book reveals truths about Jesus Christ the man, not the cartoon character, and evaluates him within his proper historical context as a tenacious Jewish revolutionary fighting against the myriad complexities, iniquities, and brutal injustices of Roman-occupied Palestine. The below Question and Answer dialogue/interview between Reza and myself, based around a series of questions from MRFF servicemember clients stationed all over the world, will provide an enticing glimpse into the riveting subject matter of Dr. Reza Aslan’s invaluable new title.


Click the Play button above to listen to this 18 minute, 22 second audio clip

Mikey Weinstein:  Well, Reza, you’ve always been one of my heroes.  We met each other a number of years ago; I think it was on the set of a shoot for Chris Mathews’ “Hardball” and you helped connect me into the world of speech writing and giving speeches and eventually led to my first book which you were so kind to “blurb.”  You were one of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation’s first advisory board members.  You’ve been through thick and thin with us, running through hell in a gasoline suit.  This time with your incredible new book, “Zealot:  The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth,” you are really in dangerous territory.  I mean, you’ve pushed the envelope before with some of your other wonderful books.  But this one…frankly, you’re daring to tell the truth which is always a dangerous thing to do and you know, with our Foundation, when we started, when you first came on board, we could count the number of our clients in hundreds.  Well, now, we have over 34,000 [clients, and] staff, full time and volunteers of 150.  Our folks are all over the world, so we have a big audience for this.  In the short time I had to prepare for the interview, I reached out to a number of them, asking if they had any suggestions for questions regarding the new book.  So, our audience here is particularly, you know us well, you’re one of our earliest advisory board members.  So could you talk a little bit about two things that I’m getting a lot of support from to ask you from our sailors, soldiers, Marines, and airmen, cadets and midshipmen. What caused you to want to write the book and can you tell us a little bit about the book?

Reza Aslan:  Let me start with what caused me to write it. When I was 15 years old, I heard the Gospel message for the very first time and it had a profound effect on me.  I immediately converted to Evangelical Christianity and began traveling the country missionizing, preaching the gospel as I had heard it.  And then when I went to college and began studying the New Testament from an academic perspective, I discovered this great chasm between the Jesus of history, this illiterate Jewish peasant who walked the hills of Galilee 2000 years ago, who took on the greatest empire the world had ever known on behalf of the poor and the weak, the dispossessed and the outcast and who was ultimately arrested, tortured and executed as a criminal of the state…that person became so much more real and interesting to me than the, sort of, celestial spirit that I had been taught about in church and ironically, I abandoned the Christian faith that I had been taught.,  When I was a teenager, I became an even more devout follower of the historical Jesus and what I wanted to do with this book was to preach the gospel of the Jesus of history with the same fervor that I used to preach the gospel of Jesus the Christ.

MW:  Well, that is, as I said before, always dangerous territory to talk about the truth and no one can do it better than you can.  You have the ability to write so beautifully where you don’t talk down to people; you don’t appear to be pejorative or pedantic.  I’m sure if I take you back about 5 and a half years ago, you remember a very raucous day when you and former ambassador, Joe Wilson and I, went to my alma mater, the Air Force Academy, to try to bring truth there with regard to religious respect and tolerance.  I think you were the first to speak and you greatly admonished an audience that I felt was quite rude with regard to a subject that is extremely controversial.  When I reached out to a fairly senior member of the U.S. military who supports this but is…I would describe him as an Evangelical Christian and not a Fundamentalist, meaning that the spreading of the gospel from his perspective must always be done in a time, place and manner that comports with our laws and our Constitution.  He was concerned that you were trying to take away all of the magic…you were trying de-deify Christ.  On one hand, I talked to another senior officer who’s an avowed Atheist, saying “well, even if Mr. Aslan talks about the historical Christ, there is such a small amount of extra biblical references or authorities with regard to the existence of Jesus.  How does he handle that dichotomy and you realize, of course, that in speaking to our audience, and you’ve been with us much longer than many of our clients have been, we’re dealing with Dominion or Fundamentalist Christianity, which is very literalist at its base.

RA:  Well, let me respond to the Evangelical Christian first.  I want to be clear:  this book is not an attack on Christianity.  My mother is a Christian, my wife is a Christian, [and] my brother-in-law is an Evangelical pastor.  I have no interest in bashing Christianity in the slightest.  In fact, to be perfectly frank, this book is not even about Christianity; it’s about Judaism, because Jesus was a Jew.  But even if you believe that Jesus was God incarnate, God-made flesh, you still believe that Jesus was also a man.  That’s the core of orthodox Christianity; that he was fully God and fully man.  Well, if you believe that, then as a man, Jesus lived in a specific time and place.  He confronted a specific set of social ills and his teaching, his work, his actions, must be understood in the context of that world in which he lived.  So if you truly call yourself a follower of Jesus, then shouldn’t you know something about the world in which the man that you follow, lived in?  Because that world, it turns out, was enormously influential in shaping who he was and the teaching that he espoused.  To answer the atheist,  if it’s true, outside of the New Testament, there is very little trace of the historical Jesus.  Essentially we are relying upon a throw-away line in a first century Jewish historian’s work called the Antiquity.  The historian who was named Flavius Josephus, who, while talking about far more significant historical figures, the Roman governor Albinus and the Jewish high priest Ananias, mentions how this Jewish peasant by the name of James, whose brother was Jesus, the one they call messiah, was unjustly put to death by the high priest in the year 62 CE. That’s it. That little tiny phrase, that clause, James, the brother of Jesus, the one they call messiah…the only evidence that we have outside of the gospel that Jesus actually existed.  My argument is that it’s enough because if all we know about Jesus is that he was a Jew who lived in first century Palestine, that he started a Jewish movement, the purpose of which was to establish the kingdom of god on earth, and that as a result of that movement, he was arrested, tortured and executed by Rome as a state criminal.  This is what I would say the vast consensus of scholars would agree upon…those three things.  If that’s all we know about this person, the argument of the book is that it’s enough.  That is, you take those three things and label that person’s friend, call him Joe, you don’t have to call him Jesus, and put that person in first century Palestine,  you would know everything you need to know about who this person was and what his life meant because while we know almost nothing about Jesus, we know almost everything about the world in which he lived.  So all you have to do is look at that world to take the claims of the gospel about Jesus and to analyze them according to the world in which he lived to find out who this person really was.

MW:  Reza, do you have any personal concerns; you know, at some of the interviews you’ve seen…I won’t say the names of some of the  people I’ve seen already interview you for this spectacular book on TV, who want to nail you down initially with regard to  what do you believe and are you trying to say that this stuff is, I think one commentator used the term “fiction”, you came back saying “no, there’s a difference between fiction and mythology”. Is that parsing too closely or could you tell our military audience what you mean by that particular dichotomy.

RA:  How we define history, in the modern world, as a collection of observable and verifiable facts, is wholly a product of the modern age.  That definition of history is a couple of hundred years old.  It would make no sense at all to the gospel writers or frankly to the ancient mind, for whom history was not about uncovering facts but about revealing truths.  This is, admittedly, a very difficult concept for modern people, not just Christians, but just modern people to understand that what they call history didn’t exist 300 years ago and so when I question some of the “historical claims of the gospel,” I think that people think that what I’m saying is that this is a lie.  That’s not what I’m saying.  What I’m saying is the gospel writers understood that what they were writing was not factually correct.  They wouldn’t even know what we talk about when we say factually incorrect.  They were interested in writing mythologies about Jesus, the purpose of which was to reveal the truth of who he was, not the facts of what he did.  Again, I recognize how hard it is for the modern mind to wrap its head around this complex idea but it is the foundation for understanding how to read the Scriptures.

MW:  I think that is incredibly profound.  A question from a senior enlisted Marine with multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan was that he is dealing with what he views as a Fundamentalist Christian or Dominionist Christian company commander.  He asks, “If I give this book as a gift to my commander, trying to get him to understand that he is currently in violation of his oath to the Constitution, how do you think he’ll respond?”  He wanted me to ask that of you and I said, “Well, I think I can probably answer that but I will go ahead and ask that to my good friend, Reza and so, back to you Reza.”

RA:  Look, there are going to be some Christians who, because they believe that Jesus is God, also believe that the context of the world in which he lived is irrelevant.  In other words, if Jesus is God, then who cares the time and place in which he lived?  Who cares about the social milieu out of which he arose.  His words are eternal, his actions are eternal and frankly there’s very little that you can say to someone who believes that, though I will say that it’s actually in contradiction to traditional Christian orthodoxy which believes that Jesus was not just God but also a man.  And I think that a lot of Christians who believe that, forget the second part, that the ‘Jesus is God’ part tends to subsume the ‘Jesus is man’ part.

MW:  Of course, the concept that…you’ve seen this phrase before, there are many bumper stickers, they’ve been on billboards, “The bible says that I believe it and that ends it.” That the concept of literalism is just impossible to try to fight; it’s very difficult…

RA:  By the way, let me just say something about that for a second if I may.  I know that there are many, many Christians out there who call themselves literalists; they’re lying.  There is no such thing as a biblical literalist.  Those people who claim that they believe every word of the bible is literal and   don’t actually believe that.  I’ll give you a perfect example of this.  I mentioned in a discussion with a Christian who believes that Jesus was an inveterate pacifist that Jesus said in the gospel of Matthew that “I have not come to bring peace on earth but the sword.” His response to me was “Oh, Jesus means the metaphorical sword.  The figurative sword.”  Do you see what I mean, Mikey?

MW:  Yes, yes I do.  If we look at Luke 19:27, the Parable of the Pounds, Jesus is telling a parable about a king who basically says “go out among my people and bring back before me, all those that will not bow to me and accept me as their king and slaughter them.”  There are many folks in Christianity, in the fringes that we fight in the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, that believe that Jesus is speaking about himself.  The problem is that you back to parsing words again.  I know we have limited time which is why I think this book is just so fetching and so fantastic.  I have a question from a  flag officer, meaning an admiral or a general, wanting to thank you for your long association with the Foundation and ask you why you’ve stuck with this for so long.

RA:  Well, look, even though I spend a lot of my time talking about historical issues, the rise of religions, origins of religious experience, prophetic figures who lived thousands of years ago, I understand that these theories that I espouse are lived in the real world.  That they have serious consequences to the world in which we live and, for those of us who want to live in a world of pluralism, and tolerance and respect; a world in which violence and extremism in the name of religion is overcome  by those who  espouse a moderate pluralistic vision of their religious faith, we have to be engrossed in the, as Jesus put it, the things of this world and, for me,  we are at a time, right now, of course,  where religion and militarism on all sides of the aisle, whether you’re a Jew in Israel or a Christian in the United States or a Muslim in Afghanistan have become perhaps the greatest threat to the safety and security of the world.  And so, organizations like the Military Religious Freedom Foundation become enormously significant, become hugely important in trying to dial back, not from a position of attack, but from a position of respect; to dial back the kind of religious extremism  that fosters the violence, the instability, the iniquity of the world in which we live.

MW:  Well, that is great, Reza, I very much appreciate the homage to our folks that are fighting to secure our ability to have a discussion like this and to be able to have the peace of mind to know that we can live in a wonderful nation where we can look at different views and look at the truth itself, and so obviously our foundation is going to be pushing “Zealot” as much as we can and we wish you all the best; I know you’re on a book tour that’s probably got a breakneck speed.  We have probably another one of these well over 400 cities in 40 minutes.  We wish you the best and we are so honored that you’ve been with us for so long and supported us and we’ll look forward to seeing the movie in a couple of years.

RA:  Awesome…I can’t wait.

MW:  All right, brother, thank you very much.  Be well!

Please Share This Page!

    Commenter Account Access

    • Register for a commenter account
      (Not required to post comments, but will save you time if you're a regular commenter)
    • Log in using your existing account
    • Click here to edit your profile and change your password
    • All comments are subject to our Terms of Use

    7 Comments

    1. vel

      As I understand it, the phrase in Josephus is largely thought of as a forgery, added much later. This would make it useless as a contemporary description of Jesus Christ.

      Also, I find the claim that the people writing back in 1 CE or so somehow would not understand the idea of “factually incorrect”, aka a false statement or a lie if intentional, to be ridiculous. We know that they had the concept of lying; even in the bible it says that lying is bad and that facts are what are important. Claiming that no one understood what a fact was seems to be only an attempt to avoid calling religions false so you don’t upset anyone.

      There is nothing to indicate that the people writing the bible knew they weren’t writing factual statements. They weren’t eyewitnesses so they had no idea if it was true or not. And JC’s actions are what he is. WE have one version of JC who is weeping so hard that he weeps blood. Another version has no problem with being cruxified. Two things that cannot happen at the same time, and two version of what this person supposedly “was”. Reading the scriptures shows that we have no evidence for even a historical Jesus since we have no idea of which version of this character is supposed to be correct. There’s nothing profound about at all, the idea that people could have made up the idea of JC wholesale and there is no magical truth to be found.

      As for the parable of the pounds (or minas), I see no reason to not think that all Christians should think of the prince as JC himself. I just have to laugh at Christians who insist that the prince is only a prince, ignoring that the entire story alludes to someone leaving, then getting more powerful and returning. Gee, that couldn’t be JC could it? And the last lovely bit about the “prince” saying that all who don’t accept him should be killed by those who do accept him, well, that’s right from Revelation. Mikey and Raza are certainly right when Christians make up what they want to believe from the bible. They all do it, all cherrypicking what they like (which is literal) and they don’t like (always metaphor). Considering that there is no evidence for any of it, there is no reason to think such nonsense is supported by some Omni-everything god.

      Zealot looks to be a very interesting book. And most Christians will be scared to death of it.

    2. frank

      First of all, Reza Aslan is a devout muslim. He makes claims stating that the writings of of the New Testament are not accurate because most were written 40 or more years after Jesus’s death. How can anyone make such a claim to know the truth more than 2000 yrs later. Also, the claims are that his writings are objective. That simply cannot be. His muslim beliefs are what he relies on to write this book. It’s not objective at all. The book is based on what he was taught to believe as a muslim.

    3. Rehmat

      On Friday, the FoxNews’s religious expert, Lauren Green interviewed Dr. Aslan to address his book Zealot. I’m affraid, Aslan wasted his time by stating his scholarly credentials instead giving her some blunt answers about what Islam think of Jesus and what educated Muslims know about Christianity.

      1. Christianity was established by St. Paul and not by prophet Jesus (as). Jesus’ 70 Hebrew disciples used to call themselves “Nazarenes”. And according to Jewish scholar, Benjamin Freedman, Jesus was not a Jew.

      2. Every Muslim is interested not only in Jesus, but all the other biblical prophets – because Holy Qur’an calls all of them Muslims (believer in One Allah). Moreover, Holy Qur’an has dedicated an entire chapter (Surah Mariyam) to Saint Mary and her son Jesus. Contrary to that, none of the 27 books of the New Testament is named after Jesus or Mary, while Geller’s holy Talmud call Jesus “a bastard” and his mother Mary “a whore”. The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) has called both Jesus and Moses “my cousins”.

      http://rehmat1.com/2013/07/29/foxnews-muslims-dont-understand-chritianity/

    4. Etaoin Shrdlu

      Dear Vel:

            Don’t be so sure that errors or inconsistencies in the Bible are the product of deliberate deception. Ever play the game of “telephone”? That’s where a message is whispered into the ear of a person at the head of a line, which then gets transmitted by whispering from person to person until the end. When the person at the front and the person at the end are asked to repeat out loud what they heard, the results vary wildly – almost completely different in some cases.

            This is part of what’s come to be known as the Rashomon Problem, after the great Japanese movie. In that film four witnesses give an account of a kidnapping, rape, and murder: the accused, the widow, a surprise eyewitness, and (through a medium) the dead man himself. But, their accounts differ so much that it is impossible to determine what actually happened, even if a rape and murder took place at all!

            And lest you think this is merely a game or fiction, consider the recent Zimmerman-Martin trial, and the conflicting evidence and testimony their. Lawyers experience this every day (it’s precisely why we have trials), and numerous studies reveal the same truth: people make very poor witnesses! Our memories are faulty, our perceptions are off, and even with the best of intentions we make mistakes.

            Given the turbulent and emotionally charged times in 1st Century Judea, it’s no wonder the accounts should differ. That doesn’t mean the “witnesses” were liars – but it does mean the Bible (itself) is a most unreliable witness!

      P.S. – Of course, that doesn’t mean the accounts are untrue. It just means we can’t prove whether they are true or false. (Unless you can borrow the Doctor’s TARDIS, and go back and look.)

    5. Etaoin Shrdlu

      Dear Frank:

            First, the Bible is filled with errors, inconsistencies, and contradictions. (If you doubt it, just tell me the name of Mary’s Father-in-law. Matthew and Luke can’t agree, on that and a lot of other things.) So it’s rather easy to say the accounts aren’t accurate (or, at least, necessarily accurate). It’s also simple truth.

            (That doesn’t mean the whole story is false, and I don’t believe the author claims that it is.)

            Second, why should a Muslim’s book about Jesus be anymore or less “objective” than a Christians? I’m sure you wouldn’t agree with the suggestion that we reject the entire New Testament because of the obvious religious bias of its authors!

            Third, of course, we Jews have been arguing that very thing (along with many of the claims the author makes in the book) for 2,000 years! One doesn’t have to be a Muslim (or a non-Christian) to see problems with taking the Gospels literally. Many of our Founders felt the same way. In particular Jefferson, who not only rejected claims of Jesus’ divinity, but believed Jesus never made such claims to begin with!

      See: Letter to Doctor Benjamin Rush (4/21/1803) – The Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Random House 1972) page 567.

            And John Adams (one of the most religious of the Founders) mocked the concept of the Trinity!

      See: Letter to Jefferson (Sept. 14. 1813) – The Adams-Jefferson Letters (The University of North Carolina Press, 1987), page 373.

            These, and other facts, are proof against the oft repeated lie that the United States was founded as a “Christian Nation”. At any rate, even if it had been, clearly these men subscribed to a very different form of that faith than did the likes of Pat Robertson, et. al.! And like Mr. Raza, they didn’t regard Jesus as divine – which means they didn’t regard the New Testament as “accurate”.

    6. Etaoin Shrdlu

      Dear Rehmat:

            Let me just add that Ms. Geller no more speaks for all Jews, all Americans, or all of either Judaism or America, than Bin Laden spoke for all Muslims or all of Islam. Sadly, bigotry in the name of religion is all too common no matter what faith is discussed.

            It remains for the rest of us to realize that to be true to the teachings of our various faiths, and to avoid the evils of religious persecution, requires practicing a virtue much praised, but seldom practiced: humility! No wars were ever fought, no pogroms or Inquisitions ever launched, no form of religious tyranny was ever established by people who stopped to say, “Then again, I might be wrong.”

    7. Danny

      I wonder how an illiterate can read from the Torah. If Aslan can explain that to me, I might even believe that he’s not attacking christianity. And, if, as he states, all we know about Jesus, is the one (side)line in Josephus book, where did he get all the information? By simply generalising? That seams to be a good recipe for accuracy. No, the more I ponder on this, the less I believe this even is an honest try at an objective approach. I’m looking forward to Aslan’s next book, about the illiterate, pedophile that started a religion of hatred in the Middle east and is now being revered as a prophet. Or does his objectivity not allow such writings?

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    *

    You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>