When I was fifteen years old, I found Jesus.
I was told that two thousand years ago, in an ancient country called Galilee, a baby was born who was God. The child grew up and became a perfect person. And this man became Christ, the savior of all mankind. With his words and miraculous deeds, he challenged the Jews, who considered themselves God's chosen people, and they crucified him on the cross in revenge. Although he could have avoided such an inglorious end, he voluntarily chose death.
It was death that was the essence of everything that happened, because this sacrifice freed us all from the burden of our sins. But this is not the end of the story, because three days later he was resurrected again, exalted and divine, so now all who believe in him and accept in their hearts will also never die, but will gain eternal life.
Reza Aslan - Zealot - Jesus: biography of a fanatic
AST; Moscow; 2014
ISBN 978‑5‑17‑084040‑3
Original: Reza Aslan, “Zealot The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth”
Translation: Tatiana O. Novikova
Reza Aslan - Zealot - Jesus - Fanatic Biography - Foreword
For a child raised in a blended family of unreligious Muslims and staunch atheists, this was the greatest story ever heard. Until that moment, I had never felt the attraction to God so deeply. In Iran, where I was born, I was a Muslim insofar as I was a Persian. My religion and my nationality were intertwined. Like most people born in a society with religious traditions, my faith was as familiar to me as my own skin, and as indifferent. After the Iranian Revolution, my family had to leave the country. Religion in general, and Islam in particular, have become taboo topics in our home. The word "Islam" was a shorthand for all that we lost thanks to those who now ruled Iran. My mother continued to pray when no one saw her, and somewhere in the closet one could find a hidden Koran. But basically, all traces of God have been carefully removed from our lives.
It was quite normal for me. After all, in 1980s America, "being Muslim" meant much the same as "being a Martian." My faith was a mark, a symbol, that I was different; it had to be hidden.
On the other hand, Jesus and America were inseparable. He was a central character in the American national drama. Taking him into my heart, I felt like a real American. I don’t mean to say that my conversion was an act of conformity. On the contrary, I was burning with absolute devotion to my new faith. I was introduced to Jesus, who was not so much "Lord and Savior" as his best friend, someone with whom I could develop a deep personal relationship. As a teenager trying to comprehend an incomprehensible new world, I felt this as an invitation that cannot be refused.
Returning home from the camp, I immediately began to share the good news of Jesus Christ with my family, neighbors and classmates, with new acquaintances and passers-by on the streets: those who greeted this news with joy, and those who rejected it from themselves. But the more I read the Bible in order to fully meet the doubts of unbelievers, the more I felt the distance between the Gospel Jesus and the historical Jesus - between Jesus Christ and Jesus of Nazareth. In college, where I started studying the history of religions, this initial feeling of inner discomfort soon turned into full-fledged doubts.
The foundation of evangelical Christianity, at least in the form in which it was presented to me, is the unconditional belief that every word in the Bible is inspired by God, is authentic, true, and infallible. The sudden realization that such a belief is false, that the Bible is full of blatant errors and blatant contradictions (which is not surprising for a text that has been written by many people over several millennia), threw me into a state of confusion, embarrassment and spiritual restlessness. And so, like many people in such a situation, I angrily rejected my belief, as if it was a costly knock-off that I was tricked into buying. I began to rethink the faith and culture of my ancestors and, as an adult, I felt a much greater inner closeness to her than in those years when I was a child: it was like meeting an old friend after a long separation.
In the meantime, I continued my academic studies in the field of religion, delving into the text of the Bible no longer as an enthusiastic believer, but as a captious researcher. Unchained by the conviction that everything I read should be taken as literal truth, I began to realize a deeper truth in biblical texts, deliberately separated from the vicissitudes of history. The more I learned about the historical Jesus, about the troubled world in which he lived, about the brutality of the Roman government that he opposed, the more attractive this man became to me. Indeed, the Jewish commoner and rebel who challenged and lost the most powerful empire the world has ever known has become much more real and closer to me than the detached, unearthly being I met in church.
Today, I can confidently say that after two decades of diligent study of the origins of Christianity, I have become much more devoted to Jesus of Nazareth than I have ever been to Jesus Christ. Through this book, I hope to spread the good news of the historical Jesus, as I once shared the story of Christ with others.
Before diving into our research, there are a few points to make. For every well-documented, deeply researched, and extremely authoritative opinion of the historical Jesus, there is an equally well-founded, researched, and authoritative counterargument. Instead of burdening the reader with a retelling of lengthy discussions about the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth, I wrote my own story based on what I consider to be the most compelling and valid theory developed in twenty years of studying the New Testament and the history of early Christianity.
For those interested in the discussion, I provided the book with detailed notes and, where possible, gave the arguments of those who disagree with my interpretation of the topic.
All of the New Testament translations from Greek have been done by myself (with a little help from my best friends, Liddell and Scott). On the rare occasion that I do not include my translation, I rely on the 1989 New Revised Standard Version. All translations from Aramaic and Hebrew are by Dr. Ian Werrett, Adjunct Professor of Religious Studies at St. Martin University.
Throughout the book, references to the material of the source Q (material contained only in the gospels of Matthew and Luke) are marked as follows: (Matthew | Luke), with the first place indicating the gospel that I directly quote. The reader will note that in my account I rely mainly on the Gospel of Mark and the Q material as the earliest and therefore the most reliable sources of our knowledge of the life of Jesus of Nazareth. I deliberately did not delve too deeply into the so-called Gnostic Gospels. While these texts are incredibly important in understanding how diverse early Christians' opinions about Jesus and his teachings were, they do little to reconstruct the identity of the historical Jesus.
Reza Aslan - Zealot - Jesus: Biography of a Fanatic - Introduction
It is amazing that we know anything at all about a man who bore the name Jesus of Nazareth. A wandering preacher announcing the end of the world and wandering from village to village, accompanied by supporters in shabby clothes, is a typical sight for those times, and so typical that in the eyes of the Roman elite it took on a caricature. The Greek philosopher Celsus has a satirical sketch of just such a character. He writes about a “holy man” who wanders around Galilee and periodically proclaims, without addressing anyone in particular: “I am God, or the spirit of God, or the son of God. I have come. The world is dying, and you people are dying for your sins. I want to save you. And you will soon see me returning with the power of heaven. "
For the Jewish population of Palestine (the Roman name for a vast territory that included not only modern Israel / Palestine, but also large parts of Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon), the first century AD was an era of apocalyptic expectations. Countless prophets, preachers, and messiahs roamed the Holy Land, announcing the imminent and inevitable judgment of God. Many of these so-called "false messiahs" are known to us by name.
Some are even mentioned in the New Testament. According to the Acts of the Apostles, the preacher Fevda gathered around him four hundred supporters, but then he was seized by the Roman authorities and beheaded. The mysterious charismatic character, known only by the nickname "Egyptian", gathered an army of followers in the desert, but almost all of them were exterminated by Roman troops. In 4 BC. e. (most researchers consider this year to be the date of birth of Jesus of Nazareth) a poor shepherd named Afrong put a royal crown on his head and declared himself “King of the Jews”; he himself and his followers were mercilessly killed by the Roman legionaries.
Another contender for the title of messiah, referred to simply as "Samaritan," was crucified under Pontius Pilate, although he did not gather armed followers around him and did not challenge Rome: this suggests that the authorities felt an apocalyptic heat in the air, and reacted to any hint of incitement to mutiny. The bandit leader Hezekiah, Simon of Perea, Judas of Galilean, his grandson Menachem, Simon bar Giora and Simon bar Kochba - all of them proclaimed their goal to save Israel and all were executed by the Romans for this. Add to this list the Essene sect, whose members lived in isolation on the desert plateau of Qumran north-west of the Dead Sea, the Jewish political grouping of the Zealots who contributed to the unleashing of a bloody war against Rome, as well as the terrible robbers-assassins, whom the Romans called the Sicarii (“daggers ”), And the picture will be complete: in the 1st century, Palestine was swept by a wave of messianic energy.
It is rather difficult to fit the figure of Jesus of Nazareth into the framework of any of the religious and political movements of that time. He was characterized by deep contradictions: on one day he preached the idea of \u200b\u200bracial exclusivity ("I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel"; Matthew 15:24), on the other - a generous attitude towards all nations ("So go, teach all nations" ; Matthew 28.19); either he called for unconditional peace ("Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God"; Matthew 5. 9), then he supported violence and conflicts ("Sell your clothes and buy a sword"; Luke 22. 36).
The main problem for seekers of the historical Jesus is that outside of the New Testament we find almost no trace of this man destined to change the course of world history forever. The earliest and most reliable non-biblical testimony of Jesus comes from the 1st century Jewish historian Flavius \u200b\u200bJosephus (died 100 CE). In his Jewish antiquities, he casually mentions a cruel high priest named Anan, who, after the death of the Roman governor Festus, illegally sentenced a certain "James, the brother of Jesus, who is called the Messiah" to be stoned. It goes on to tell what happened to Anan after the new governor, Albinus, arrived in Jerusalem.
Despite the brevity and seeming insignificance of this reference (in the expression "who is called the Messiah" there is clearly a pejorative connotation), it is extremely important for those who seek any evidence of the life of the historical Jesus. In a society where surnames did not exist, it was necessary to add some special designation to any common name such as "Jacob", for example, by the place of birth or the name of the father, in order to distinguish a particular person from all other men named Jacob, who traveled in large numbers in Palestine. (hence - Jesus of Nazareth). In this case, the personality of Jacob is determined by the name of the brother, who, according to Josephus, was known to his readers. The passage serves as proof that "Jesus, who is called the Messiah" not only really existed, but that by 94 AD there was a BC, when Jewish antiquities were written, he was widely known as the founder of a powerful new movement
It was this movement, not its founder, that attracted the attention of second-century historians such as Tacitus (d. 118) and Pliny the Younger (d. 113). They both mention Jesus of Nazareth, but only talk about his arrest and execution - as we will see later, these testimonies are of great historical significance, but they do not clarify much in the biography of Jesus. Therefore, we are left with only the information that can be pieced together from the New Testament.
The first written testimony we have about Jesus comes from the epistles of the apostle Paul, one of the earliest followers of Jesus who died around 66 AD. e. (Paul's earliest epistle - “First Epistle to the Thessalonians” - can be dated between 48 and 50 CE, about two decades after Jesus' execution.) The problem here, however, is that Paul demonstrates a striking lack of interest in Jesus as a historical figure. Only three episodes from the life of Jesus are mentioned in the epistles of the apostle: the Last Supper (1 Cor. 11. 23-26), the crucifixion (1 Cor. 2. 2) and the most important resurrection for Paul, without which, as he believes, “our sermon your faith is vain, your faith is also vain ”(1 Cor. 15:14). Paul's writings can be an excellent source for those interested in the early history of Christianity, but for the student of the biography of Jesus, he is a poor guide.
We are left with the gospels, which have their own set of problems. To begin with, none of the gospels, with the possible exception of the Gospel of Luke, was written by the person whose name it is named after. In fact, this is true of most books in the New Testament. Such pseudo-epigraphs, that is, texts attributed to certain persons, but not written by them, were extremely common in antiquity and in no case should they be considered fakes.
The alien name in the title of the book spoke of the reflection in it of the views of this person or of belonging to a certain philosophical school. Regardless, the gospels are not historical documents of the life of Jesus, and were never conceived as such. These are not eyewitness accounts of Jesus' speeches and deeds, recorded by people who knew him. These are testimonies of faith, created among believers and recorded many years after the events they narrate. Simply put, the gospels tell us about Jesus Christ, not about a man named Jesus.
© public domain, Sant Apollinare Nuovo
Jesus was a rebel and a robber. What made him the Christian Son of God?
Reza Aslan's new book, Zealot, depicts a vivid and understandable portrait of Jesus as a Jewish nationalist.
The northern suburbs of New York in the early 19th century were known as the "parched area" due to the regular fires that engulfed it due to the religious enthusiasm of the masses. The area was revived and burned again, but one of the priests who appeared in the ashes was the founder of a new and strong Mormon faith, Joseph Smith. It was the same in Judea in the first century AD. The population of Judea, filled with hatred for the Roman invaders and for the new class of priests who collaborated with the empire, experienced an insatiable craving for prophets and preachers. The best source of information about the life of the Jews at that time and in that place was the book of Josephus Flavius \u200b\u200b"The Jewish War", which is similar to the roll call of self-proclaimed prophets. One of them, known only by the nickname "The Egyptian," led a march of 30,000 Jews to Jerusalem, threatening to seize power. Another, a rabbi named Judas, tried to convince the Jews to stop paying taxes and accept God as their sole ruler. But of all these charismatic figures today we remember only one: Jesus of Nazareth.
Although Reza Aslan's new biography of Jesus is called Zealot, the author admits that strictly speaking, Jesus was not a fanatic at all. The Zealots are a revolutionary political movement that arose in Jerusalem during the uprising against Rome in 66 AD, that is, much after the death of Jesus. But the very idea of \u200b\u200bfanatical commitment (in Hebrew it is called "kinah") has a long history in Judaism, originating in those distant times when the Israelites wandered in the desert. The first Zealot was Phinehas, the grandson of Aaron, who in the Book of Numbers pierces an Israelite and his pagan concubine with a spear. He earned God's praise for his murder. "Phinehas ... turned My anger away from the children of Israel, being jealous (ie, showing zeal, kinah) for Me among them." So to be a Zealot means zealously and passionately upholding the holiness of God and feeling a fierce desire to punish all his enemies.
In Judea at the time of Jesus, "kinakh" was both a religious and a political passion. God promised his people the land of Israel as an inheritance, and he promised it for ever and ever. But now it was ruled by the Romans. Their troops guarded the Jerusalem Temple, their tax collectors robbed the poor of the livelihood. In such circumstances, the desire for national independence was simultaneously a passionate desire to restore the sovereignty of God. These two motives were combined in the idea of \u200b\u200ba messiah - a figure who was supposed to be both a God-given deliverer and an earthly king. It was a fusion of worldly and otherworldly discontent, which made it very difficult for the Romans to rule in Judea. Whenever any legionnaire committed an offense, it was an insult to the Jews and to their God. There were so many such provocations that if you read Josephus, you get the impression that the catastrophic uprising of 66 was only a matter of time.
But Christianity has for thousands of years usually removed Jesus from this historical context. Christian teaching since the time of St. Paul has focused on Christ as an all-encompassing principle, as a symbol, as the Son of God, doing this to the detriment of Jesus as a man. And only with the beginning of the search for "Jesus as a historical person" in the biblical criticism of the 18th century, Christians began to admit that Jesus was a Jewish preacher, and he drew his ideas about God and about redemption from the general culture of that time.
Aslan writes in his book that in order to understand Jesus it is necessary to understand the culture and the zealous passion that underlies it. Relying on a solid baggage of scientific material, Aslan paints a lively and understandable portrait of Jesus as a Jewish nationalist, as "a zealous revolutionary who, like all Jews of that era, was swept by a wave of religious and political confusion in first century Palestine." He knows that even now this idea will be a real shock to many Christian readers. The real Jesus, writes Aslan, "bears little resemblance to the image of the gentle and meek shepherd created by the early Christian community."
Certainly, serious problems await anyone who wants to write about Jesus as a historical person. Like Moses, Buddha and Muhammad, Jesus is known to us not by objective documents (the first non-religious mentions of him can be found in another book by Josephus, written about 60 years after his death), but by biblical texts. And these religious texts - the Gospel, the lives of the saints, the letters of Paul - are the result of an internal Christian struggle to determine exactly how Jesus should be remembered. The goal here was not factual accuracy, but spiritual truth, which makes these texts very difficult to assess as historical evidence.
The New Testament writers were motivated in part by the need to align the story of Christ with earlier Jewish expectations of the coming of the Messiah. By understanding this, we will be able to sort out some inconsistencies and contradictions in the four books of the Gospel. Aslan cites the problem of finding out the place of Jesus' birth as an example. Anyone who knows Christmas carols knows that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but he is also called Jesus of Nazareth, a small town in Galilee.
To explain this discrepancy, the Gospel of Luke gives the completely unlikely story that right before Jesus' birth, his parents traveled from Nazareth to Bethlehem for the Roman census. The details here are completely meaningless, but as Aslan explains, it doesn't matter. Jesus had to have roots in Bethlehem, he had to be born in the same city as King David - after all, the Messiah must trace his origin from the lineage of David.
The paradox when writing works about Jesus is that we can form our ideas and thoughts about him based on the available sacred books, but we can evaluate these sacred books only if we have an idea of \u200b\u200bhow he was in life ... Aslan boldly enters this vicious circle, guided by the belief that Jesus was primarily a Jewish Zealot. He was a figure like the "Egyptian" and Rabbi Judas, or, for that matter, John the Baptist: a religious virtuoso who played on familiar Jewish grievances to create a mass movement. “The new world order that he drew in his imagination,” writes Aslan in his characteristic sublime style, “was so radical, dangerous and revolutionary that the only possible reaction on the part of Rome was the arrest and execution of [his followers] for inciting to revolt. "
There is much to be said for this point of view, and Aslan's reading of the Gospel helps to clarify some uncertainties. Take as an example the moment when Jesus is asked, "Is it legal to pay tribute to Caesar or not?" In response, he takes a coin and asks who is depicted on it. “This is Caesar,” they answer him. “Give what is Caesar's to Caesar, but what is God's to God,” says Jesus. At least that's how his words are translated in the King James Bible. In this form, they are like a kind of political quietism. Jesus seems to be advising: keep paying taxes, obey the authorities, for money and worldly affairs are their concern. But entrust your soul - and this is the only thing that matters - to God.
However, Aslan shows that the same passage can be translated in a completely different way: "Well, then, return to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and return to God what belongs to God." If you interpret the words of Jesus in this way, then he is much more like a Zealot, demanding to return to God the land and people of Israel, which are God's property, and free them from the rule of Rome. Because of such statements, Aslan writes, Jesus began to be called a "robber." This is how popular revolutionaries of all sorts were called in Judea. When Jesus was crucified along with two "robbers", then we must understand that these were not thieves, and that the Romans did not want to offend Christ in this way. No, he was crucified alongside his fellow rebels, whose crime, like his, was that they campaigned for the independence of Judah.
All of this helps to paint a coherent and often convincing portrait of Jesus, explaining who he was and what he wanted. A problem that Aslan admits, although he does not fully address, is that Jesus of the Gospel is a much larger figure than a Jewish nationalist. If he were an ordinary fanatic, no one would remember him today, as they do not remember the "Egyptian". When Jesus spoke of God as his Father, when he called himself the Son of man or spoke about the coming of the Kingdom of Heaven, his words had a political impact, as Aslan shows us. But they also had a much broader and more mysterious application. It can be said that Jesus radicalized the language of the Jewish messiah in such a way that it can be turned against Judaism itself. This act of religious creativity, far more than religious zeal, transformed an unknown Jewish preacher and miracle worker into the Christian Son of God.
Adam Kirsch is a contributing editor for Tablet magazine and author of a biography of Benjamin Disraeli.
InoSMI materials contain assessments exclusively by foreign media and do not reflect the position of the Inosmi editorial board.
This book is dedicated to the earthly life of Jesus and here he appears as a fanatic and rebel who led the uprising against Rome. And maybe everything would not be so skeptical if the person who wrote this work was not a Muslim. And here I would like to say that such dissatisfaction takes place. Each believer is only for his religion, and the other can be condemned or not recognized at all. And here we have an author who studied Christianity only from sources. And so it turns out that in the Bible Jesus is a compassionate messiah, and in the book of Aslan he appears as a revolutionary. Thus, the book is in many ways simply contrary to what many Christians know. And you can, of course, say that after all, he is positioned as a historian, but only now the author was educated about theology and knowledge of the Greek language of the New Testament, which, again, cannot give confidence there that the author will rely only on historical facts as a professional and official documents. He is not a professional historian, and the topic of Christianity cannot be close to him at all.
One of the most famous Christian pastors in the United States, John Dickerson, wrote an article in which he refuted many of the positions on which Reza Aslan's book is based. John Dickerson explains: “As a journalist and Christian, I cannot even imagine a situation where I would write a supposedly“ impartial ”book about the Prophet Muhammad and at the same time denied any possibility of my personal interest in any particular coverage of the topic. In world history, there have never been and never are religions so opposed and hostile to each other as Islam and Christianity. Even peace-loving Muslims and Christians, such as Aslan and I, understand that we look completely differently at many phenomena - including the person of Jesus Christ ... The Fanatic was written with the self-confidence of a historian who allegedly made a brilliant discovery. In fact, this is the opinion of a religious person about Christ - an adherent of the very religion that has been in fierce opposition with Christianity for 1400 years. Aslan tells us that we cannot trust the Gospel of Mark based on the fact that it was written 40 years after the death of Christ. Instead, Reza Aslan suggests that we trust his new book, written almost 2 thousand years after the events described ... "Fanatic" is not the work of a historian. It is a sophisticated portrayal of how Muslims have viewed the person of Jesus Christ for over 1000 years. ”
So is it worth taking up reading it? If you just want to hear the opposite opinion. I do not consider it a terrible and tactless book, it is quite a place to be. Of course, sometimes you want to be indignant at some of the author's conclusions, but it is his right to look at our religion in this way. It just wasn't worth it to create it as a book and call it a historical debunking of myths about the image of Jesus.
But, despite all the negativity that the author and his book received, I would like to note that this did not prevent such a work from becoming the second in the list of bestsellers in the New York Times and Amazon.
To my wife Jessica Jekley and the entire Jackley family, whose love and approval has provided more knowledge of Jesus than all years of research and inquiry
Do not think that I have come to bring peace to earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
Mt. 10.34
When I was fifteen years old, I found Jesus.
I spent my summer vacations at an evangelical summer camp in Northern California, among the forested plains under the endless blue sky, in a quiet, calm and benevolent environment where it was difficult not to hear the voice of God. Among the transparent lakes and majestic pine trees, my friends and I sang songs, played games and exchanged secrets, rejoicing in freedom from household and school duties. In the evenings we gathered by the fireplace in the common room in the center of the camp. It was here that I heard a story that changed my life forever.
I was told that two thousand years ago, in an ancient country called Galilee, a baby was born who was God. The child grew up and became a perfect person. And this man became Christ, the savior of all mankind. With his words and miraculous deeds, he challenged the Jews, who considered themselves God's chosen people, and they crucified him on the cross in revenge. Although he could have avoided such an inglorious end, he voluntarily chose death. Death was the essence of everything that happened, because this sacrifice freed us all from the burden of our sins. But this is not the end of the story, because three days later he was resurrected again, exalted and divine, so now all who believe in him and accept in their hearts will also never die, but will gain eternal life.
For a child raised in a blended family of non-religious Muslims and committed atheists, this was the greatest story ever heard. Until that moment, I had never felt the attraction to God so deeply. In Iran, where I was born, I was a Muslim insofar as I was a Persian. My religion and my nationality were intertwined. Like most people born in a society with religious traditions, my faith was as familiar to me as my own skin, and just as indifferent. After the Iranian Revolution, my family had to leave the country. Religion in general, and Islam in particular, have become taboo topics in our home. The word "Islam" was a shorthand for all that we lost thanks to those who now ruled Iran. My mother continued to pray when no one saw her, and somewhere in the closet one could find a hidden Koran. But basically, all traces of God have been carefully removed from our lives.
It was quite normal for me. After all, in 1980s America, "being Muslim" meant much the same as "being a Martian." My faith was a mark, a symbol, that I was different; it had to be hidden.
On the other hand, Jesus and America were inseparable. He was a central character in the American national drama. Taking him into my heart, I felt like a real American. I don’t mean to say that my conversion was an act of conformity. On the contrary, I was burning with absolute devotion to my new faith. I was introduced to Jesus, who was not so much "Lord and Savior" as his best friend, someone with whom I could develop a deep personal relationship. As a teenager trying to comprehend an incomprehensible new world, I felt this as an invitation that cannot be refused.
Returning home from the camp, I immediately began to share the good news of Jesus Christ with my family, neighbors and classmates, with new acquaintances and passers-by on the streets: those who greeted this news with joy, and those who rejected it from themselves. But the more I read the Bible in order to fully meet the doubts of unbelievers, the more I felt the distance between the Gospel Jesus and the historical Jesus - between Jesus Christ and Jesus of Nazareth. In college, where I started studying the history of religions, this initial feeling of inner discomfort soon grew into full-fledged doubts.
The foundation of evangelical Christianity, at least in the form in which it was presented to me, is the unconditional belief that every word in the Bible is inspired by God, is authentic, true, and infallible. The sudden realization that such a belief is false, that the Bible is full of blatant errors and blatant contradictions (which is not surprising for a text that has been written by many people over several millennia), threw me into a state of confusion, embarrassment and spiritual restlessness. And so, like many people in such a situation, I angrily rejected my belief, as if it was a costly knock-off that I was tricked into buying. I began to rethink the faith and culture of my ancestors and, as an adult, I felt a much greater inner closeness to her than in those years when I was a child: it was like meeting an old friend after a long separation.
In the meantime, I continued my academic studies in the field of religion, delving into the text of the Bible, no longer as an enthusiastic believer, but as a captious researcher. Unchained by the conviction that everything I read should be taken as literal truth, I began to realize a deeper truth in biblical texts, deliberately separated from the vicissitudes of history. The more I learned about the historical Jesus, about the troubled world in which he lived, about the cruelty of the Roman government, which he resisted, the more attractive this man became to me. Indeed, the Jewish commoner and rebel who defied and lost the most powerful empire the world has ever known has become much more real and closer to me than the detached, unearthly being I met in church.
Today i I can confidently say that in two decades of diligent study of the origins of Christianity, I have become much more devoted to Jesus of Nazareth than I have ever been devoted to Jesus Christ. Through this book, I hope to spread the good news of the historical Jesus, as I once shared the story of Christ with others.
Before diving into our research, there are a few points to make. For every well-documented, deeply researched, and extremely authoritative opinion of the historical Jesus, there is an equally well-founded, researched, and authoritative counterargument. Rather than burdening the reader with a retelling of lengthy discussions about the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth, I wrote my own story based on what I consider to be the most compelling and valid theory developed in twenty years of studying the New Testament and the history of early Christianity. For those interested in the discussion, I provided the book with detailed notes and, where possible, gave the arguments of those who disagree with my interpretation of the topic.
All of the New Testament translations from Greek have been done by myself (with a little help from my best friends, Liddell and Scott). On the rare occasion that I do not include my translation, I rely on the 1989 New Revised Standard Version. All translations from Aramaic and Hebrew are by Dr. Ian Werrett, Associate Professor of Religious Studies at St. Martin University.
Throughout the book, links to source material Q (the material contained only in the gospels of Matthew and Luke) is marked as follows: (Matt | Luke), with the first place indicated that gospel that I directly quote. The reader will notice that in my story I rely mainly on the Gospel of Mark and the material Q as the earliest and therefore the most reliable sources of our knowledge about the life of Jesus of Nazareth. I deliberately did not delve too deeply into the so-called Gnostic Gospels. While these texts are incredibly important in understanding how diverse early Christians thought about Jesus and his teachings, they have little to do with reconstructing the identity of the historical Jesus.
