Uh... What?

From ew.com:

David Heyman produced eight movies about the second-most-famous Christ figure in history, Harry Potter. Now, he’s making a movie about Christ himself.

The movie will be based on the bestseller Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth by historian Reza Aslan. Aslan’s book became the subject of controversy last summer when Fox News anchor Lauren Green questioned Aslan’s authority, as a Muslim, to write a book abut Jesus.

Not sure what FauxNews idiocy has to do with this (pointless reference).  My question is this:  Huh?

Though it has been many months since I read the book, from my memory Zealot is not a NARRATIVE.  There's no plot.  There's no 'story.'  It's an examination of the historical socio-political context of the time period.

As stated in the book, it's about history and there's little direct, cross-verified history  -- outside of the Bible -- of Jesus of Nazareth to be examined (more or less none except a possibly post-dated statement by Josephus about 'James brother of Jesus'), so what the book is about is the known, (unshocking) agreed-upon history of the era: its peoples, the economics of the Roman occupation, what happened in the coming years (leading to the Roman sacking of the area), and the social and political movements going on during that general time period, etc. with some speculation as to how Jesus of Nazareth's following may have existed within that context.  It's not a narrative story, nor does it make any effort to be.

Excerpt of what I posted in my "What Are You Reading Wednesday" post at the time I read the book:

The title was no doubt chosen to be a bit provocative, but when reading the book it's quite clear that it also encapsulates Aslan's thesis. He repeatedly returns to the idea of 'Zealot', not in the way that a modern audience interprets the word (Zealot: an extremist, fanatic, dogmatist, enthusiast) but in its quite specific -- and original -- historical context. (Zealot: a member of a sect arising in Judea during the first century a.c.e. opposing the Roman domination of Palestine) with some emphasis on Jesus having been specifically (repeatedly and consistently) associated with Nazareth, and the socio, political, and economic implications of that association. (From some of the historic material provided, it can be noted that Rome experienced a similar sense of bafflement and consternation that we sometimes currently feel over what appears to be unending political-religious strife in that corner of the world. In fact, one wonders whether the negative connotations associated with the term 'zealot' are in fact related to our Greco-Roman cultural roots of finding the area to be confounding...?) At any rate, Rome found itself in a situation not entirely dissimilar to the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanastan. The indigenous populace wants you to GTFO. {Of course the Roman answer was "enslave them all!" but that would come a wee bit later...})

{...}

It's actually somewhat interesting to have read this book in the immediate wake of the History of the Ancient World because there were interesting overlaps such as Aslan's focus on 'banditry,' with his noting that while English translations of the Bible usually say that Jesus was crucified alongside 'theives,' in the original Biblical Greek it was the same word the Romans used for "bandit." In History of the Ancient World there was a prolonged discussion of the Roman pre-occupation with 'bandits', stating that 'dealing with bandits' was THE primary concern of (functional) Roman Emperors (understanding that the period of time discussed in the Aslan book stretches not simply from the Caesars but through Caligula and Nero as well). The Roman populace considered 'dealing with badits' to be the Emperor's (and his armies') number one job, above even building roads, aqueducts, kicking ass, taking names, and decimating anyone standing in their way. Having just read this in an separate history book, it was interesting to see Aslan also bring up

{...}So, anyway, I appreciated the context of how Herod 'The Great' came to power in Judea through fortuitously siding with Julius Ceasar over Pompey (He bet on the right horse, it would seem. His son -- also Herod --also benefitted from this association as it was Marc Antony and Caesar Agustus who appointed him after dad shuffled the mortal coil.) and how the Herods subsequently made sure all government beuracrats were pro-Rome (thus pro-THEM).

Add the way that History of the Ancient World went into detail about the way that one of Rome's deliberate tactics when expanding their empire was to 'Romanize' the local elites of a conquerored territory, allowing the 'elites' to continue to rule their home populace but also making sure that the elites were beholden to and enamoured with Roman-derived privileges (while allowing the populace to continue whatever religion they had started with.

Traditionally, the Roman Republic and early Roman Empire had been religiously inclusive, as long as the conquerored people would pro-forma acknowlege the Empirical cult... which the Judean ruling class had, which anyone who knows anything about Judeo-Christian teachings knows is a big no-no... which was another point of conflict between the Jewish general populace, the aristocratic elites, and the occupying empire.)

Aslan's book points out that the Temple's top-rung priestly class was part-time and entirely hereditary, meaning that those in charge at the Jewish Temple were the privileged landed aristocrats who would then be the ones living in the new "Roman" cities, adopting more the more Hellenistic lifestyle, and in general becoming 'Pro-Rome' with all of this being anathema to the poor who, on top of being subjugated and increasingly homeless, viewed  Roman  occupation as an offense to God.  You can see Jesus' protest in the Temple as not only a religious protest but, in context with a rising grassroot resistance to the Romanization of the elite power structure...

Etc.   You get the impression.

It's not a narrative story.  It's a history thesis.

Meaning a narrative movie is basically sticking a best sellers title on something entirely different.

I can only imagine the proposed movie is basically yet another re-telling of the same old story with perhaps a bit more context.  But any NARRATIVE STORY is not taken from Aslan's book (which more or less assumes you know the contents of the gospels and thus references but does not specifically cover it) and isn't even bounded by the Biblical timeline or a Palestinian location.  It's got a more than a bit about the politics of Rome and various emperors from Julius Caesar to Vespasian. With substantial number of pages devoted to the Zealot movement that happened AFTER the period of Jesus and  eventually deals with the fall of Masada, etc.

Frankly, this just seems like using a title for a hot button response.    

American Doctor Who

Blasphame, I know.  But I have to say... a few of these choices work.