Reza Aslan: Jesus as a zealot

[maryhelena]

Reza Aslan: Jesus as a zealot.

There have been a number of online critics of Reza Aslan’s book: Zealot. For instance: Larry Hurtado:
“Zombie Claims” and Jesus the “Zealot”

As an example of a critical refutation of this particular zombie claim, see Martin Hengel, Was Jesus a Revolutionist? (Fortress Press, 1971).
<snip>
So, before people get too lathered up about Aslan’s book, let’s all just take a breath. It isn’t new in its thesis. That thesis has been tried out a number of times previously, and it’s been judged in each case fatally flawed.

http://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2013/ ... he-zealot/

I found an interesting review of Hengel’ book:

Hengel’s closing discussion notwithstanding, the obvious parallels between Jesus and the Zealots was bound to be pursued.

That pursuit.......came to a head in 1967 when S.G.F Brandon published Jesus and the Zealots. ......In this book....Brandon virtually claimed that Jesus had been a Zealot...There were scores of rebuttals and frequently scathing reviews.......these contributed significantly to the burial of Brandon’s thesis. When he passed away in 1971, the issue died with him.

Sadly, however, if not surprisingly, the ‘Jesus and the Zealots’ issue killed ‘the Zealots’ as well. Hengel’s book had studies ‘the Zealots....the Jewish freedom movement....from Herod I..” But as part of the attack upon Brandon, scholars now discovered ....... that ‘the Zealots’ was not a generic name for all rebels, but rather the name of only one particular group of them, which is first used by Josephus in connection with the 60’s of the first century, long after Jesus was crucified. Moreover, as for “from Herod I’, scholars, taking their cue from Tactius’ ‘under Tiberius all was quite’, now even argued that there is little evidence for Jewish resistance to Rome under Pilate’s governorship: such resistance virtually began, they argued, in the late 40’s or in the 50’s. But if the rebels who were characterized by religious ‘zeal’ appeared not only after Jesus, but also after Paul, and if rebelliousness against Rome was not a major factor in Jesus’ day either, then the topic could be relegated, and was, to the back burner of Christian scholarship.

<snip>

Hengel, however, sticks to his guns: in the latest forward to his volume (pp.xiii-xv) he admits there were social difficulties, but nevertheless that the major problem, which alone was capable of making unrest turn into rebellion against Rome, was the politico-religious one, the “theocratic ideal and its especially pronounced eschatological expectation..” that is, the clash between Rome and the Kingdom of God in His holy land. The reviewer would agree with Hengel........It remains to be seen whether, in the absence of a Brandon to stir the pot and elicit across-the-board reaction, and with the new accessibility in English, such an intermediate opinion will be able to reassert itself.

Daniel R Schwartz

Israel Exploration Journal, Vol. 41, No. 1/3 (1991)

Martin Hengel: The Zealots: Investigations into the Jewish Freedom ‘Movement in the Period from Herod I until A.D. 70, translated by David Smith, T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1989.

“..a Brandon to stir the pot..”. Well, now, enter Reza Aslan!.. Interestingly, it’s been noted that:

(Mr. Aslan does not fall into the anachronism of making Jesus a member of the Zealot Party as described by Josephus. He knows that party did not exist in Jesus’ day but arose later. Mr. Aslan means zealot with a small “z.”)

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/06/books ... d=all&_r=0

Still a Firebrand, 2,000 Years Later

‘Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth’

By DALE B. MARTIN

Thus, the argument re Zealots only appearing after the execution of the gospel JC does not apply to the theory put forth by Aslan - as he uses a small ‘z’ when proposing that JC was a zealot.

As noted above, Schwartz makes mention of Tactius:

Under Tiberius all was quiet.

Tactius: The Histories. Book V

http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/histories.5.v.html

(Tiberius: 12/14 c.e. to 36/37 c.e.)

Thus, Tactius remains as an objections to Aslan' theory that zealots were active during the gospel JC timeline. Lena Einhorn proposes that ‘robbers’, zealots’ were not active during the time of Pilate.

JESUS AND THE “EGYPTIAN PROPHET”
Lena Einhorn,

λῃσταί are mentioned frequently also by Josephus. And in his writings, the term
usually refers to Jewish rebels (“Zealots”, in the wider meaning of the term).14 That this is the
intended meaning also in the Gospels is suggested by Mark 15:7: “Now a man called
Barabbas was in prison with the rebels who had committed murder during the insurrection.”
When Josephus writes about λῃσταί, however, he does so during two distinct
periods: from 63 B.C.E., when Roman occupation begins, until the census revolt under Judas
the Galilean was crushed, ca. 6 C.E. And then again with great frequency after 48 C.E., when
“all Judea was overrun with robberies”.15 This second eruption would eventually lead to the
Jewish War.

Importantly, however, Josephus never once records the presence of ”robbers”
during the time Jesus was active. In fact, there are no mentions of their activity between 6 C.E. and 44 C.E.

http://lenaeinhorn.se/wp-content/upload ... .11.25.pdf

The error in the thesis of Reza Aslan is that he has placed his zealot Jesus in the time of Pilate. This being the usual interpretation of the gospel Jesus story. However, gLuke 3:1, with it’s mention of Lysanias of Abilene, indicates that the Lukean time frame takes account of historical events from 40 b.c.

Lysanias was the ruler of a small realm on the western slopes of Mount Hermon, mentioned by the Jewish historian Josephus and in coins from c. 40 BCE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysanias

With a wider time frame, as indicated by gLuke 3:1 (its reference to Lysanias of Abiline in 40 b.c) the gospel writers had historical material from the end of the Hasmonean period upon which to draw details for their literary, composite, Jesus figure and their gospel story, Therefore, Reza Aslan’ thesis of there being a revolutionary/zealot reflection in the character of the gospel Jesus, can be demonstrated to have merit. The revolutionary/zealot historical figure of the years 40 b.c. to 37 b.c. was the last King and High Priest of the Jews, Antigonus II Mattathias. It is this historical figure that is reflected in the revolutionary/zealot character of the literary gospel figure of Jesus.

Josephus states that Marc Antony beheaded Antigonus (Antiquities, XV 1:2 (8-9). Roman historian Dio Cassius says he was crucified. Cassius Dio's Roman History records: "These people [the Jews] Antony entrusted to a certain Herod to govern; but Antigonus he bound to a cross and scourged, a punishment no other king had suffered at the hands of the Romans, and so slew him."[4] In his Life of Antony, Plutarch claims that Antony had Antigonus beheaded, "the first example of that punishment being inflicted on a king."[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antigonus_II_Mattathias

[maryhelena]

While mentioning a number of faults with Aslan' book, Greg Carey raises some interesting points.

First, Zealot has formidable strengths. Aslan has done a great deal of homework, offering material that will instruct many specialists from time to time. The most important thing Aslan accomplishes involves setting Jesus in a plausible historical and cultural context. Indeed, more of the book may involve Jesus' contexts than direct discussion of the man himself. Someone very like Jesus could easily have existed in Roman Galilee. Aslan's Jesus is thoroughly Jewish, passionately committed to Israel's welfare and restoration. Aslan appreciates how Jesus' activities amounted to resistance against Roman domination -- as well as against collaboration on the part of Jewish elites. Many scholars would agree.

Any respectable portrait of Jesus must take serious account of how Jesus died, as Aslan's does. Jesus dies as a convicted seditionist, a would-be king who finally got caught. This is a serious interpretation of Jesus' crucifixion. Perhaps Aslan most deserves credit for his openness to the possibility that Jesus really did see himself as Israel's messiah, or king. Far too many historians dismiss this possibility out of hand.

Reza Aslan on Jesus: A Biblical Scholar Responds

Greg Carey
Professor of New Testament, Lancaster Theological Seminary
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-care ... map=%5B%5D

[my bolding}

'Far too many historians dismiss this possibility out of hand. On what grounds could a wandering, possibly illustrate, preacher, make such a claim to being King of the Jew? Yes, it's possible - but as Aslan so often says regarding points of his theory - was it likely? When making such a claim amounted to defying Roman rule in Judea, only the foolhardy would make such a claim. And yet, the gospel Jesus does not deny that he is a King of the Jews.

They bound Jesus, led him away, and handed him over to Pilate. 2 Pilate asked him, "Are you the King of the Jews?" He answered him, "You say so." 3 Then the chief priests accused him of many things. 4 Pilate asked him again, "Have you no answer? See how many charges they bring against you." 5 But Jesus made no further reply, so that Pilate was amazed. Mark ch.15

The options: 1) either the gospel figure of Jesus was out of his mind to give his disciples, or anyone who listened to him, the idea that he was a messiah figure, that he believed himself to be King of the Jews. 2) the gospel Jesus figure is reflecting the history of a man who legitimately made a claim to being King of the Jews - and in fact, actually ruled for three years as such a King. (the length of the ministry of the gospel Jesus according to some interpretations of the Jesus story). A historical figure who paid the price for that claim - executed by the Roman, Marc Antony - after receiving a great deal of money from Herod.

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi MaryHelena,

This makes a great deal of sense to me. The development of the zealot movement as an outgrowth of an anti-Herodian/Pro Antigonus Hasmonian movement fits perfectly as a background to the gospel myths.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

[maryhelena]

Hi MaryHelena,

This makes a great deal of sense to me. The development of the zealot movement as an outgrowth of an anti-Herodian/Pro Antigonus Hasmonian movement fits perfectly as a background to the gospel myths.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

I like that - anti-Herodian....

Actually, I'm in the habit of translating, in the gospel story, "Jews" to "Herodians" i.e. Herod was half Jew (something like that) - explains much better, from a historical perspective, that it was the Herodian Jew, Herod, that wanted Antigonus executed....In other words; all the anti-Jew rhetoric in the gospel story is actually anti-Herodian rhetoric....

[Charles Wilson]

Hi MaryHelena,

This makes a great deal of sense to me. The development of the zealot movement as an outgrowth of an anti-Herodian/Pro Antigonus Hasmonian movement fits perfectly as a background to the gospel myths.

I like that - anti-Herodian....
Actually, I'm in the habit of translating, in the gospel story, "Jews" to "Herodians" i.e. Herod was half Jew (something like that) - explains much better, from a historical perspective, that it was the Herodian Jew, Herod, that wanted Antigonus executed....In other words; all the anti-Jew rhetoric in the gospel story is actually anti-Herodian rhetoric....

Josephus, Antiquities..., 14, 16, 4:

"...but Herod was afraid lest Antigonus should be kept in prison [only] by Antony, and that when he was carried to Rome by him, he might get his cause to be heard by the senate, and might demonstrate, as he was himself of the royal blood, and Herod but a private man, that therefore it belonged to his sons however to have the kingdom, on account of the family they were of, in case he had himself offended the Romans by what he had done. Out of Herod's fear of this it was that he, by giving Antony a great deal of money, endeavored to persuade him to have Antigonus slain, which if it were once done, he should be free from that fear. And thus did the government of the Asamoneans cease, a hundred twenty and six years after it was first set up. This family was a splendid and an illustrious one, both on account of the nobility of their stock, and of the dignity of the high priesthood, as also for the glorious actions their ancestors had performed for our nation; but these men lost the government by their dissensions one with another, and it came to Herod, the son of Antipater, who was of no more than a vulgar family, and of no eminent extraction, but one that was subject to other kings. And this is what history tells us was the end of the Asamonean family..."

Wars..., 2, 1, 2:

"They cried out that a punishment ought to be inflicted for these men upon those that were honored by Herod; and that, in the first place, the man whom he had made high priest should be deprived; and that it was fit to choose a person of greater piety and purity than he was..."

If Antigonus was the last of the royal blood and the last of the Hasmoneans then that should have been the end of it. It was not. At the death of Herod, there are those who demand the HP be of...what?!??..."greater piety and purity". "What could that POSSIBLY mean?" Obviously, the fight went on after the death of the Hellenizing Antigone...ummm...Antigonus.

As you know MH, I don't disagree with the basic idea you are promoting. I think it may be generalized - subject to correct historical analysis of course - with the focus on the only place where the opposition to the Herodians and Romans could grow. That would be in the Priesthood and the Citadels which were given to the Jannaeus fighters by Queen Salome.

The use of Antigonus would be seen in a Recursive manner. "The Lamb" - "Immer" believes that God will stand with them if they perform the Perfect Passover at the death of Herod. When they meet Death instead, they look to a Duplicate Passover in 12 years. Here is the Recursion: "I will return again". In the Semitic version, it would be a clear promise that a King from the House of Eleazar and the Hasmoneans would return.

The Romans will have nothing to do with that and rewrite and telescope the Stories. They "Prune" Eleazar and Graft the Flavians onto the Story. The Promises made to the Priesthood chosen by David gets replaced by the Caesars of the Roman Empire. Antigonus was the Last of the Hasmonean Kings and High Priests. He will come again.

Revelation 5: 13 (RSV):

[13] And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all therein, saying, "To him who sits upon the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might for ever and ever!"

CW

[maryhelena]

Hi MaryHelena,

This makes a great deal of sense to me. The development of the zealot movement as an outgrowth of an anti-Herodian/Pro Antigonus Hasmonian movement fits perfectly as a background to the gospel myths.

I like that - anti-Herodian....
Actually, I'm in the habit of translating, in the gospel story, "Jews" to "Herodians" i.e. Herod was half Jew (something like that) - explains much better, from a historical perspective, that it was the Herodian Jew, Herod, that wanted Antigonus executed....In other words; all the anti-Jew rhetoric in the gospel story is actually anti-Herodian rhetoric....

The Romans will have nothing to do with that and rewrite and telescope the Stories. They "Prune" Eleazar and Graft the Flavians onto the Story. The Promises made to the Priesthood chosen by David gets replaced by the Caesars of the Roman Empire. Antigonus was the Last of the Hasmonean Kings and High Priests. He will come again.

CW

OK - lets get one thing straight. I have no interest in theories about....." The Promises made to the Priesthood chosen by David gets replaced by the Caesars of the Roman Empire." So, please, if you want to discuss anything to do with these type of Roman conspiracy theories, do so in another thread. i.e. don't clutter this thread with Roman conspiracy theories....

[Charles Wilson]

OK - lets get one thing straight. I have no interest in theories about....." The Promises made to the Priesthood chosen by David gets replaced by the Caesars of the Roman Empire." So, please, if you want to discuss anything to do with these type of Roman conspiracy theories, do so in another thread. i.e. don't clutter this thread with Roman conspiracy theories...

Maryhelena:

Out of respect for your sensibilities, I will narrow my Posts or responses to your Posts. Please note, however, that I do not care in the least whether you have any interest in anything I might publish or not. If there is something that I deem necessary to illuminate here, I will do so. Get over it.

Josephus, Antiquities..., 17, 6, 3:

"[[Herod]] made them assemble in the theater, and because he could not himself stand, he lay upon a couch, and enumerated the many labors that he had long endured on their account, and his building of the temple, and what a vast charge that was to him; while the Asamoneans, during the hundred and twenty-five years of their government, had not been able to perform any so great a work for the honor of God as that was; that he had also adorned it with very valuable donations, on which account he hoped that he had left himself a memorial, and procured himself a reputation after his death. He then cried out, that these men had not abstained from affronting him, even in his lifetime, but that in the very day time, and in the sight of the multitude, they had abused him to that degree, as to fall upon what he had dedicated, and in that way of abuse had pulled it down to the ground. They pretended, indeed, that they did it to affront him; but if any one consider the thing truly, they will find that they were guilty of sacrilege against God therein..."

[[Edit: Please examine Josephus' last sentence: "...they will find that they were guilty of sacrilege against God therein." JOSEPHUS is telling us that the hacking of the Golden Eagle is against God!!! Josephus represents...WHO?]]

Remarkable, isn't it? Herod, days away from death, gives one last major speech in which he rails against...the Hasmoneans...of Jehoiarib...of Eleazar...from David.
No Conspiracy here. Nope. None. /Sarc

Have a wonderful day, Maryhelena.

CW

[maryhelena]

I mentioned in a previous post, that I'm in the habit of translating, in the gospel story, "Jews" to "Herodians" i.e. Herod was half Jew (something like that) - explains much better, from a historical perspective, that it was the Herodian Jew, Herod, that wanted Antigonus executed....In other words; all the anti-Jew rhetoric in the gospel story is actually anti-Herodian rhetoric....For instance:

Reza Aslan makes mention of the anti-Semitism that has often been asociated with John 19:1-16.

As Pilate hands him over to be crucified, Jesus himself removes all doubt as to who is truly responsible for his death: “The one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin,” Jesus tells Pilate, personally absolving him of all guilt by laying the blame squarely on the Jewish religious authorities. John then adds one final, unforgivable insult to a Jewish nation that, at the time, was on the verge of a full-scale insurrection, by attributing to them the most foul, the most blasphemous piece of pure heresy that any Jew in first-century Palestine could conceivably utter. When asked by Pilate what he should do with “their king,” the Jews reply, “We have no king but Caesar!” (John 19:1–16).

Thus, a story concocted by Mark strictly for evangelistic purposes to shift the blame for Jesus’s death away from Rome is stretched with the passage of time to the point of absurdity, becoming in the process the basis for two thousand years of Christian anti-Semitism.

Aslan, Reza (2013-08-08). Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth (Kindle Locations 2709-2712). Saqi. Kindle Edition.

A reconstruction of Aslan' paragraph, based on the idea that if one translates 'Jews', in the gospel story, to Herodian Jews, a very different picture emerges. A picture that could look like this:

"As Marc Antony hands him over to be crucified, Antigonus himself removes all doubt as to who is truly responsible for his death: “The one who handed me over to you (Herod) is guilty of a greater sin,” Antigonus tells Marc Antony, personally absolving him of all guilt by laying the blame squarely on the Herodian Jewish religious authorities. John then adds one final, unforgivable insult to a Jewish nation that, at the time, was on the verge of a full-scale insurrection, by attributing to them the most foul, the most blasphemous piece of pure heresy that any Jew in first-century Palestine could conceivably utter. When asked by Marc Antony what he should do with “their king,” the Herodian Jews reply, “We have no king but Caesar!” (John 19:1–16)."

Historically, it was the Herodian Jew, Herod I, who had the last King and High Priest of the Jews, Antigonus II, executed by paying the Roman, Marc Antony a great deal of money.

When Sosius had dedicated a crown of gold to God, he marched away from Jerusalem, bringing Antigonus with him in chains to Antony, 489 but Herod was afraid that Antony might only keep Antigonus in prison and that when he brought him to Rome to answer to the senate, he could prove that as he was of royal stock while Herod was just a private citizen, his sons should be kings, due to their stock, despite his personal offence to the Romans. 490 Fearing this, he paid Antony a large amount of money to kill Antigonus, for after that Herod's fear could be set aside. And so the Hasmonean rule ended, a hundred twenty six years after it began. Josephus: Antiquities Book 14, ch.16.

[my bolding]

footnote:
The above should not be read as though I am saying that Antigonus = the gospel JC. Obviously not. The gospel Jesus story is set within a different time frame from that of Antigonus. What I am saying is that the history of Antigonus has been used by the gospel writers in creating their literary, composite, figure of Jesus. A Jesus figure that reflects, in it's revolutionary/zealot characteristics, the history of the last Hasmonean King of the Jews.

[maryhelena]

A movie to be made from Reza Aslan's book on Jesus.......

http://variety.com/2013/film/news/reza- ... 200946482/

"Lionsgate has acquired the feature film rights to Reza Aslan’s book, “Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth.”

“Zealot” challenges long-held assumptions about Jesus by examining him through the lens of the tumultuous era in which he lived. Random House Publishing Group published the work in July.

Lionsgate has not set up the project with a producer. Aslan’s first book was “No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam.”

Production president Erik Feig, Gillian Bohrer and James Myers are overseeing the project for the studio.

“Reza Aslan has written a remarkable book that manages to bring the ancient world into contemporary relief and to make a timeless story very timely,” Feig said. ” We are excited to create this uniquely cinematic and immersive world for moviegoers to experience.”

Aslan said Lionsgate’s vision for “Zealot” is aligned with his objective in writing the book: “to illuminate the life of Jesus in a humanistic, as opposed to religious, context.”

[maryhelena]

Neil Godfrey has posted a link, on his blog, to a recent radio interview with Reza Aslan.

http://vridar.org/2014/05/20/interview- ... ment-67407

I posted the following on Neil's blog.

Daniel Schwartz, in his book, Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity, has a chapter called: Christian Study of the Zealots. In that chapter (pages 128-146) he goes over the academic study of the Zealots.

“Where all this leaves us, however, is at the somehow unsatisfying position
that Jewish rebels against Rome were really not primarily anti-Roman, nor
were Jesus and his followers. But Jesus was executed by Rome’s
representative in Judaea, and the rebels fought Rome. Was this really all a
result of misunderstanding? Or of some unfortunate misdirection of hostility,
by one side or the other, or by both? Somehow, it seems much more likely
that, whatever the complexities, so many antagonists couldn’t have been
wrong. Rather, current views on the topic seem only to be laboring under the
burden of an understandable but overdone backlash to an overdone case, and
it is possible that recognition of this will allow for correction.

After I completed the preparation of this paper, it came to my attention that
Hengel’s Die Zeloten (1976^) had just been published in English translation
{The Zealots [1989]).** It may be assumed that this will occasion a renewed
discussion of the issues involved, and, in the absence of Brandon to stir the
pot, it may be that a redressing of the balance may be possible. However, you
never know. It is much simpler to determine what extraneous events and
scholarly fashions impacted upon debates of the past than how they will impact
upon debates of the future.

Nevertheless, I will conclude by hazarding a guess, and use it to put our
question into a somewhat broader context. Until now, as perhaps is to be
expected from someone like me, I have portrayed Christian interest in the
Zealots as if this Christian study of a Jewish topic proceeded only from
Christian attention to such Jewish affairs as the Holocaust, the State of Israel,
and anti-Semitism. And there is much truth in that; Christian interest in the
Zealots before World War II is virtually nil. However, there is a much broader
background. Jews, the Holocaust, the State of Israel and anti-Semitism are all
real, flesh and blood, in the world. But there has always been, and must always
be, a tension in Christianity between the point of view — term it monastic,
gnostic, docetic, or the like — which denies the world, and views it as a
problem to be avoided as best as possible, and the opposite point of view
which affirms the world as a positive arena for Christian life and action”.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Background-Chri ... r+schwartz

Someone to stir the pot? Perhaps that person is Reza Aslan…

Methinks the ahistoricists/mythists should not give cold shoulder to Reza Aslan treatment of Jesus as a zealot – ie because there was no historical Jesus (of whatever variety is conceived by its proponents) therefore, there is nothing to gain from considering what Aslan is saying. If the gospel JC is a composite literary figure, then, how that figure has been created should be of interest, in and of itself. A zealot characteristic of that composite gospel JC can be discerned – hence needs to be addressed by the ahistoricists/mythicists.

=================

As Aslan repeatedly says in his interviews - the Jesus figure is set within a Jewish religious - and political - setting. The Jesus figure is Jewish. A Jesus figure set within a time of Roman occupation of Judea.

The Temple authorities also recognize Jesus’s zeal and hatch a clever plot to trap him into implicating himself as a zealot revolutionary. Striding up to Jesus in full view of everyone present, they ask, “Teacher, we know that you are true, that you teach the way of God in truth, and that you show deference for no man.

Tell us: Is it lawful to pay the tribute to Caesar or not?” This is no simple question, of course. It is the essential test of zealotry.

“Show me a denarius,” Jesus says, referring to the Roman coin used to pay the tribute. “Whose image is this and whose inscription?” “It is Caesar’s,” the authorities reply. “Well, then, give back to Caesar the property that belongs to Caesar, and give back to God the property that belongs to God.” It is astonishing that centuries of biblical scholarship have miscast these words as an appeal by Jesus to put aside “the things of this world”—taxes and tributes—and focus one’s heart instead on the only things that matter: worship and obedience to God. Such an interpretation perfectly accommodates the perception of Jesus as a detached, celestial spirit wholly unconcerned with material matters, a curious assertion about a man who not only lived in one of the most politically charged periods in Israel’s history, but who claimed to be the promised messiah sent to liberate the Jews from Roman occupation.

<snip>

In other words, according to Jesus, Caesar is entitled to be “given back” the denarius coin, not because he deserves tribute, but because it is his coin: his name and picture are stamped on it. God has nothing to do with it. By extension, God is entitled to be “given back” the land the Romans have seized for themselves because it is God’s land: “The Land is mine,” says the Lord (Leviticus 25:23). Caesar has nothing to do with it. So then, give back to Caesar what is his, and give back to God what belongs to God. That is the zealot argument in its simplest, most concise form. And it seems to be enough for the authorities in Jerusalem to immediately label Jesus as lestes. A bandit. A zealot.

Aslan, Reza (2013-08-08). Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth (Kindle Locations 1534-1540). Saqi. Kindle Edition.