Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Grog · 08-04-2013, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

I've been patiently following this thread as well as one on the Classics List (I keep forgetting to unsubscribe).

The impression I get is this:

Reza Aslan has published a popular level book (not a scholarly tome) that describes Jesus from a Muslim perspective, which has nothing whatsoever invested in his alleged divinity. I think he is correct when he says the only incontrovertible fact about Jesus is that he was crucified, and that this was the punishment the Romans put to those considered rebellious towards Roman hegemony, whether they called them "murderers (of masters)," "robbers," "evildoers," etc. All guerilla fighters have been called those things.

Almost every negative assessment has been because the message of a Jesus who was a failed anti-Roman rebel is inconvenient. Christians, whether conservative or liberal, as well as the non-believers brought up in Christian society, are not comfortable with that kind of Jesus.

Aslan's picture of Jesus is basically that of S G F Brandon (Jesus the Zealot) mixed in with a social perspective influenced by J D Crossan (Birth of Christianity, etc). It has long been established that the Greek term translated "Zealot" was not invented until the time just before the 1st Jewish rebellion. The idea that extreme economic exploitation of the subject peoples was the norm resonates with the POV of many Muslims (because they see the USA as modern day Romans).

I had an Iranian friend in college (late 1970s), who explained to me that in his country the US was seen as a creature with its tentacles in every developing country sucking their life juices from them leaving only the dry shell behind. This was before the Khomeini revolution that toppled the Shah Mohamed Reza Pahlavi, seen as an American puppet, and he made me swear not to tell anyone because the Shah had informants everywhere, and those informed against had a bad habit of disappearing, even from the USA.

Funny thing is, the Zealot Jesus of Brandon is incompatible with Crossan's social revolutionary counter cultural 1960s student radical Jesus. However, the inconvenience of the message that Jesus could have been reacting to good ol' American (and in general Western) style economic exploitation drives folks to "kill" (marginalize) the messenger (Aslan).

DCH

Other than your conclusion regarding the crucifixion, I think this observation is very astute.

outhouse · 08-04-2013, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Because Aslan is not a scholar

What do you mean? He is a scholar.

Only in the loosest sense.

His credentials lack in the history dpt.

Maybe I should have used the word historian.

Compare

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reza_Aslan
Aslan holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in religions from Santa Clara University, a Master of Theological Studies degree from Harvard Divinity School, and a Master of Fine Arts degree from the University of Iowa's Writers' Workshop, where he was named the Truman Capote Fellow in Fiction. Aslan also received a Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology, focusing in the history of religion, from the University of California, Santa Barbara.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dominic_Crossan
He was trained at Stonebridge Seminary, Lake Bluff, Illinois, then ordained a priest in 1957. Crossan returned to Ireland, where he earned his Doctor of Divinity in 1959 at St. Patrick's College Maynooth, the Irish national seminary. He then completed two more years of study in biblical languages at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome. In 1965 Crossan began two additional years of study (in archaeology) at the Ecole Biblique in Jordanian East Jerusalem.

After a year at St. Mary of the Lake Seminary in Mundelein, Illinois, and a year at Catholic Theological Union in Chicago, Crossan chose to resign his priesthood. In the fall of 1969 he joined the faculty of DePaul University, where he taught undergraduates Comparative Religion for twenty-five years until retiring in 1995. In 1985, Crossan and Robert Funk founded the Jesus Seminar, a group of academics studying the historical Jesus, and Crossan served as co-chair for its first decade. Crossan also served as president of the Chicago Society of Biblical Research in 1978-1979, and as president of the Society of Biblical Literature in 2012.

Grog · 08-04-2013, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

What do you mean? He is a scholar.

Only in the loosest sense.

His credentials lack in the history dpt.

Maybe I should have used the word historian.

Compare

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reza_Aslan
Aslan holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in religions from Santa Clara University, a Master of Theological Studies degree from Harvard Divinity School, and a Master of Fine Arts degree from the University of Iowa's Writers' Workshop, where he was named the Truman Capote Fellow in Fiction. Aslan also received a Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology, focusing in the history of religion, from the University of California, Santa Barbara.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dominic_Crossan
He was trained at Stonebridge Seminary, Lake Bluff, Illinois, then ordained a priest in 1957. Crossan returned to Ireland, where he earned his Doctor of Divinity in 1959 at St. Patrick's College Maynooth, the Irish national seminary. He then completed two more years of study in biblical languages at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome. In 1965 Crossan began two additional years of study (in archaeology) at the Ecole Biblique in Jordanian East Jerusalem.

After a year at St. Mary of the Lake Seminary in Mundelein, Illinois, and a year at Catholic Theological Union in Chicago, Crossan chose to resign his priesthood. In the fall of 1969 he joined the faculty of DePaul University, where he taught undergraduates Comparative Religion for twenty-five years until retiring in 1995. In 1985, Crossan and Robert Funk founded the Jesus Seminar, a group of academics studying the historical Jesus, and Crossan served as co-chair for its first decade. Crossan also served as president of the Chicago Society of Biblical Research in 1978-1979, and as president of the Society of Biblical Literature in 2012.

A sociology PhD awarded in the area of history of religion qualifies him to be regarded as a scholar of the history of religion. At any rate, your original statement was that he is not a scholar, which he is, as I stated. I would also say he is an historian of religion.

Are you saying that unless one has credentials equal to or greater than Crossan then one is not to be considered a scholar?

Toto · 08-04-2013, 04:31 PM

As I noted in another thread in another forum, Aslan is a cultural Muslim and a religious liberal.. He was an evangelical Christian for a while, then learned that this was not a coherent philosophy, and went back to his cultural roots. He has stated that all religions are paths to the top of the mountain if you follow them to their conclusions, which implies that all religious are equally true and equally false, except for fundamentalism which is always bad.

His Jesus has very little to do with the Muslim version of Jesus, which has a lot in common with some heretical Christian views of Jesus.

Toto · 08-04-2013, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Aslan has probably defined Jesus for the next generation of liberals. Interestingly, his book lacks the depth of analysis that Crossan's "Birth of Christianity" did, which overall, is far superior.

Because Aslan is not a scholar

Aslan is clearly a scholar, but his specialty has not been historical Jesus studies.

Toto · 08-04-2013, 07:41 PM

Charlotte Allen nails it: the Church of the Historical Jesus

Quote:

Aslan's book, which portrays Jesus as a Jewish-nationalist revolutionary with no divine self-conception, departs from the doctrine of both Islam and Christianity. Aslan may or may not be a devout Muslim in his private life, but his book is actually the latest installment in a vast body of literature reflecting the beliefs of a completely different religion: the Church of the Historical Jesus.

The aim of this church, which has been around since the Enlightenment and its worship of rationalism, is to peel away the Gospel stories, with their virgin birth, their miracles and their walking on water, to uncover the "real" Jesus, a demythologized, strictly human figure who didn't found Christianity and who stayed dead when he died. Its adherents tend to be non-Christians fascinated by Jesus, secular intellectuals in general and liberal Christians, including many clergymen and New Testament scholars, whose sensibilities are embarrassed by traditional Christianity's claim to supernatural origins and its extravagant assertions about Jesus' divinity, his atonement on the cross for human sin and his resurrection from the dead on Easter morning.

...

James The Least · 08-04-2013, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Reza Aslan, an Iranian-American who has a PhD in religious studies and now teaches creative writing, has written a biography of the "real" Jesus.

Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Aslan starts from the idea that the only sure fact about Jesus is that he was crucified, and that therefore he must have been a revolutionary zealot.

There is a good review on salon: The Real Jesus

NPR interview with Reza Aslan

It's interesting that in the Fox interview, Aslan states that he starts with the "one fundamental truth that everybody agrees upon" that Jesus was crucified.

That is Aslan's starting, foundational assumption. I don't think he questions that assumption. It sounds, methodologically like Crossan. As a grad student studying peasant rebellion, I was very interested in the idea that Jesus was an anti-Roman rebel. I abandoned that a long time ago, but not before, spending some time as a fan of Crossan.

I have Aslan's book now on my tablet, but when he has stated that the one "fact" that can be agreed upon is that Jesus was crucified, it is hard to get motivated to read this closely. I am hoping it is not just another "This is how Jesus must have been given the context of the times."

To me, the crucifixion is not well-attested. The accounts themselves are derived entirely from other sources.

The "fact" of the crucifixion is that it is based entirely on Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53. Matthew added a couple of additional "facts" from the Wisdom of Solomon. Nothing about the crucifixion can be explained as historical witness to an actual crucifixion.

outhouse · 08-04-2013, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

The "fact" of the crucifixion is that it is based entirely on Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53. Matthew added a couple of additional "facts" from the Wisdom of Solomon. .

Taking one phrase that may or may not have influenced the later NT unknown authors, IN NO WAY substantiates the claim that the crucifixion it is based entirely on Psalm 22.

That is as ridiculous as saying two books with the same title factually tell the same story.

Knowing that these OT verses could be cited by oral tradition alone, Im not altogether against influence. WE know the OT was the foundation for this new movement.

Quote:

Nothing about the crucifixion can be explained as historical witness to an actual crucifixion

Yep true, and of course this has absolutely nothing to do with the historicity of the crucifixion.

Toto · 08-04-2013, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

..

Quote:

Nothing about the crucifixion can be explained as historical witness to an actual crucifixion

Yep true, and of course this has absolutely nothing to do with the historicity of the crucifixion.

Could you explain what you mean by this? It doesn't make a lot of sense. Are there words missing??

outhouse · 08-04-2013, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

..

Yep true, and of course this has absolutely nothing to do with the historicity of the crucifixion.

Could you explain what you mean by this? It doesn't make a lot of sense. Are there words missing??

Only because of your biased views do you not understand the context in which I have replied.

The context and methodology I use follows modern scholarships and professors, not a fringe conspiracy minded bloggers.

"Yep True."

Everyone knows there was no historical witness who authored anything.

That was very clear, please try and follow.

And it does not change the historicity the crucifixion has.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-04-2013, 04:31 PM	#74
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	As I noted in another thread in another forum, Aslan is a cultural Muslim and a religious liberal.. He was an evangelical Christian for a while, then learned that this was not a coherent philosophy, and went back to his cultural roots. He has stated that all religions are paths to the top of the mountain if you follow them to their conclusions, which implies that all religious are equally true and equally false, except for fundamentalism which is always bad. His Jesus has very little to do with the Muslim version of Jesus, which has a lot in common with some heretical Christian views of Jesus.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.