Citation

Ferziger AS. J. Relig. 2004; 84(1): 48-77.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2004, University of Chicago Press)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

The religious zealot has been described as possessing, among others, a "desire to expand the scope, detail and strictness of religious law." Such figures, then, assume for themselves the role of chief guardians of religious law against any challenges to its validity as God's word and to the basic legal principles upon which it rests. Despite claiming to display ideal religious behavior, however, in practice the goals of religious zealots do not always go hand in hand with the accepted juridical principles of their own faith traditions. Those who tend to claim a monopoly on divine truth often focus on achieving their present agendas at all costs. Indeed, this tendency will sometimes find expression in particularly strict interpretations and rulings. Yet religious law is predicated upon a canon that demands adherence to rules and procedures that may not necessarily be sympathetic to the particular aims of even the most seemingly loyal zealot.

Much has been written on how liberal theologians reinterpret texts and traditions in order to achieve their religious vision. But how do religious zealots who claim to be defending the authentic law deal with situations in which their agenda is not supported by accepted legalistic thinking? Reinterpretation is a particularly "slippery slope" for the religious enthusiast. For such an approach can compromise the overall aim of upholding and strengthening religious law. What are the options, then, available to the religious zealot for navigating this tension? The following examination seeks to achieve a clearer appreciation for the dynamic at work and the methods and strategies that may be employed in such cases, by analyzing an individual who achieved prominence both as a religious zealot and as a religio‐legal authority.