I've just finished reading the historical book, "Zealot: The Life and times of Jesus of Nazareth," by Reza Aslan.
To summarize the book in a couple of sentences, Aslan has reviewed scores of documents and manuscripts about the history of the times, as well as source material originating with the Apostles and early church leaders, Paul (of course), the Romans, Greeks, and other cultures that wrote about the period and the following couple hundred years.
His historical speculations about Jesus' early life are fascinating and appear to be fact and reality based. For example, the town of Nazareth never had more than a couple hundred inhabitants, it had no synagogue, and there was certainly not enough population to support a family of "carpenters" or other craftsmen. Jesus spoke only Aramaic, and neither he nor any of the Apostles could read or write, nor could they speak Hebrew, Greek, or any other language besides Aramaic.
His conclusion is that Jesus and the Apostles remained "orthodox" jews for their entire lives, albeit jews who accepted Jesus as the Messiah (and not "a Messiah). The Christian faith that we now know was basically the invention of Saul/Paul, whose knowledge of Jesus' teachings arose out of mystical meetings and conversations - he never actually met Jesus.
Furthermore, James the Just (younger brother of Jesus) was the undisputed head of the Jerusalem-based sect, superior to Peter and all the others. Indeed, James called Paul "on the carpet" in Jerusalem after hearing for a decade or more about the conflicting teachings of Paul, and James ordered Paul to participate in a purification ritual at the Temple, to publicly affirm his being subject to the Laws of Moses.
The church of Paul was more oriented to the Roman and Greek audience, who had to be convinced that Jesus was NOT a rebel who promoted insurrection against Rome, but rather a God-man who preached a "Kingdom of God" that was not of this world. Had any of these details been different, the religion would have been quashed by the Romans immediately.
Anyway, interesting, thought provoking stuff.
One thing it does explain (among scores of other things) is the contrast which still sparks fights among Christians today, between Paul's "Christianity" in which faith (alone) can save you, and the more Apostolic view that faith necessarily includes good works.
To summarize the book in a couple of sentences, Aslan has reviewed scores of documents and manuscripts about the history of the times, as well as source material originating with the Apostles and early church leaders, Paul (of course), the Romans, Greeks, and other cultures that wrote about the period and the following couple hundred years.
His historical speculations about Jesus' early life are fascinating and appear to be fact and reality based. For example, the town of Nazareth never had more than a couple hundred inhabitants, it had no synagogue, and there was certainly not enough population to support a family of "carpenters" or other craftsmen. Jesus spoke only Aramaic, and neither he nor any of the Apostles could read or write, nor could they speak Hebrew, Greek, or any other language besides Aramaic.
His conclusion is that Jesus and the Apostles remained "orthodox" jews for their entire lives, albeit jews who accepted Jesus as the Messiah (and not "a Messiah). The Christian faith that we now know was basically the invention of Saul/Paul, whose knowledge of Jesus' teachings arose out of mystical meetings and conversations - he never actually met Jesus.
Furthermore, James the Just (younger brother of Jesus) was the undisputed head of the Jerusalem-based sect, superior to Peter and all the others. Indeed, James called Paul "on the carpet" in Jerusalem after hearing for a decade or more about the conflicting teachings of Paul, and James ordered Paul to participate in a purification ritual at the Temple, to publicly affirm his being subject to the Laws of Moses.
The church of Paul was more oriented to the Roman and Greek audience, who had to be convinced that Jesus was NOT a rebel who promoted insurrection against Rome, but rather a God-man who preached a "Kingdom of God" that was not of this world. Had any of these details been different, the religion would have been quashed by the Romans immediately.
Anyway, interesting, thought provoking stuff.
One thing it does explain (among scores of other things) is the contrast which still sparks fights among Christians today, between Paul's "Christianity" in which faith (alone) can save you, and the more Apostolic view that faith necessarily includes good works.
