Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 08-01-2013, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I do not do this. Please provide your examples of labeling scholars as apologetic, or withdraw that charge.

Here in this thread, in regard to Anthony.

Quote:

The writer claiming this is a fact is an admitted Christian believer and theologian.

Unless you can find bias in his work. your remark is unsubstantiated.

Why do you refer to scholars by their first names? It makes it even harder to follow what you are trying to say.

The man's name is Anthony Le Donne. I did not label him an apologist. He is not an apologist. But his training is in theology, and he is a committed Christian.

He has made the statement that the crucifixion is an absolute fact, when everyone knows that there is no evidence of Jesus' crucifixion outside of the New Testament. I posit that this is some evidence of bias or at least a blind spot in his view of history.

I generally do not label anyone as an apologist unless they themselves claim to be an apologist.

Toto · 08-03-2013, 03:15 PM

Review by Adam Kirsch

Quote:

In Judea at the time of Jesus, zeal was both a religious passion and a political one. God had promised the land of Israel as an inheritance for his people forever; yet now the Romans were in charge, their troops guarding the Jerusalem Temple, their tax-collectors feeding on the livelihood of the poor. In these circumstances, the desire for national independence was at the same time a longing to restore God’s sovereignty. The two motives combined in the idea of the Messiah, a figure who was supposed to be both a divine redeemer and an earthly king. It was this fusion of worldly and otherworldly grievances that made Judea such a difficult place for the Romans to govern: Every time a legionary misbehaved, the Jews were offended on God’s behalf. There were so many of these provocations that, reading Josephus, one has the impression that the disastrous rebellion of 66 was only a matter of time.

For thousands of years, however, Christianity tended to remove Jesus from this historical context. Starting with Saint Paul, Christian doctrine emphasizes Christ as a cosmic principle—the Logos, the son of God—at the expense of Jesus as a human being. It was only with the rise of the “quest for the historical Jesus,” in the biblical criticism of the 18th century, that Christians began to acknowledge that Jesus was a Jewish preacher, whose ideas about God and redemption were drawn from the common culture of his time.

To understand Jesus, Aslan argues in Zealot, it’s necessary to understand that culture and the zeal that was at its core. Drawing on a well-established body of scholarship, Aslan paints a vivid, accessible portrait of Jesus as a Jewish nationalist, “a zealous revolutionary swept up, as all Jews of the era were, in the religious and political turmoil of first-century Palestine.” He knows that, even now, this idea will come to many Christian readers as a shock: The real Jesus, he writes, “bears little resemblance to the image of the gentle shepherd cultivated by the early Christian community.”

aa5874 · 08-03-2013, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Review by Adam Kirsch

Quote:

In Judea at the time of Jesus, zeal was both a religious passion and a political one. God had promised the land of Israel as an inheritance for his people forever; yet now the Romans were in charge, their troops guarding the Jerusalem Temple, their tax-collectors feeding on the livelihood of the poor. In these circumstances, the desire for national independence was at the same time a longing to restore God’s sovereignty. The two motives combined in the idea of the Messiah, a figure who was supposed to be both a divine redeemer and an earthly king. It was this fusion of worldly and otherworldly grievances that made Judea such a difficult place for the Romans to govern: Every time a legionary misbehaved, the Jews were offended on God’s behalf. There were so many of these provocations that, reading Josephus, one has the impression that the disastrous rebellion of 66 was only a matter of time.

For thousands of years, however, Christianity tended to remove Jesus from this historical context. Starting with Saint Paul, Christian doctrine emphasizes Christ as a cosmic principle—the Logos, the son of God—at the expense of Jesus as a human being. It was only with the rise of the “quest for the historical Jesus,” in the biblical criticism of the 18th century, that Christians began to acknowledge that Jesus was a Jewish preacher, whose ideas about God and redemption were drawn from the common culture of his time.

To understand Jesus, Aslan argues in Zealot, it’s necessary to understand that culture and the zeal that was at its core. Drawing on a well-established body of scholarship, Aslan paints a vivid, accessible portrait of Jesus as a Jewish nationalist, “a zealous revolutionary swept up, as all Jews of the era were, in the religious and political turmoil of first-century Palestine.” He knows that, even now, this idea will come to many Christian readers as a shock: The real Jesus, he writes, “bears little resemblance to the image of the gentle shepherd cultivated by the early Christian community.”

Jesus was a "gentle shepherd" in the early Christian community? Where is the source for "Gentle Jesus".

In the early Jesus community Jesus was the Son of God--Not a "gentle shepherd" or a Zealot.

Grog · 08-03-2013, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Review by Adam Kirsch

Quote:

In Judea at the time of Jesus, zeal was both a religious passion and a political one. God had promised the land of Israel as an inheritance for his people forever; yet now the Romans were in charge, their troops guarding the Jerusalem Temple, their tax-collectors feeding on the livelihood of the poor. In these circumstances, the desire for national independence was at the same time a longing to restore God’s sovereignty. The two motives combined in the idea of the Messiah, a figure who was supposed to be both a divine redeemer and an earthly king. It was this fusion of worldly and otherworldly grievances that made Judea such a difficult place for the Romans to govern: Every time a legionary misbehaved, the Jews were offended on God’s behalf. There were so many of these provocations that, reading Josephus, one has the impression that the disastrous rebellion of 66 was only a matter of time.

For thousands of years, however, Christianity tended to remove Jesus from this historical context. Starting with Saint Paul, Christian doctrine emphasizes Christ as a cosmic principle—the Logos, the son of God—at the expense of Jesus as a human being. It was only with the rise of the “quest for the historical Jesus,” in the biblical criticism of the 18th century, that Christians began to acknowledge that Jesus was a Jewish preacher, whose ideas about God and redemption were drawn from the common culture of his time.

To understand Jesus, Aslan argues in Zealot, it’s necessary to understand that culture and the zeal that was at its core. Drawing on a well-established body of scholarship, Aslan paints a vivid, accessible portrait of Jesus as a Jewish nationalist, “a zealous revolutionary swept up, as all Jews of the era were, in the religious and political turmoil of first-century Palestine.” He knows that, even now, this idea will come to many Christian readers as a shock: The real Jesus, he writes, “bears little resemblance to the image of the gentle shepherd cultivated by the early Christian community.”

This book is based on analysis similar to Crossan's: What would Jesus really be like given the historical and cultural context in which he would have existed if indeed he did exist. So far, I have found it weak conceptually. There are some interesting notes where scholarly discussion is hinted at. Here is an example of what I mean:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aslan

But it is in the gospel of Luke, written by one of Paul's devoted disciples, that one can see the dominance of Paul's views, while the gospel of John is little more than Pauline theology in narrative form (p.220).

aa will appreciate the last clause. However, the assumption of authorship is astonishing given the state of scholarly debate on this topic, not hinted at in the text (maybe in the notes, but on my Nook, the notes are not referenced in the text, so I haven't read through entirely to see if he addresses this).

For all the controversy surrounding this book, it is standard fare and not on the cutting edge of what we know at all.

Here's another example:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aslan

That Jesus had brothers is, despite the Catholic doctrine of his mother Mary's perpetual virginity, virtually indisputable...There is no rational argument that can be made against the notion that Jesus was part of a large family that included at least four brothers...(p.58)

Aslan discusses the historical and cultural context well and for that the book is worth reading. For insight in to the character of Jesus of Nazareth, there is nothing earth shattering here. The handling of the source material is actually pretty shallow.

That being said, YES, a "Muslim" writer has every right to write a book about Jesus (and that's really why I bought the book anyway).

aa5874 · 08-04-2013, 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

This book is based on analysis similar to Crossan's: What would Jesus really be like given the historical and cultural context in which he would have existed if indeed he did exist. So far, I have found it weak conceptually. There are some interesting notes where scholarly discussion is hinted at. Here is an example of what I mean:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aslan

But it is in the gospel of Luke, written by one of Paul's devoted disciples, that one can see the dominance of Paul's views, while the gospel of John is little more than Pauline theology in narrative form (p.220).

aa will appreciate the last clause. However, the assumption of authorship is astonishing given the state of scholarly debate on this topic, not hinted at in the text (maybe in the notes, but on my Nook, the notes are not referenced in the text, so I haven't read through entirely to see if he addresses this).

I do not appreciate the last clause. My argument is that the Pauline Corpus is LATER than gJohn.

Based on your reference, Aslan book may be filled with logical fallacies like Ehrman's Argument for the Historical Jesus of Nazareth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Here's another example:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aslan

That Jesus had brothers is, despite the Catholic doctrine of his mother Mary's perpetual virginity, virtually indisputable...There is no rational argument that can be made against the notion that Jesus was part of a large family that included at least four brothers...(p.58)

What logical fallacies and absurdities!!! Aslan ought to know that the supposed EARLY Christians like Ignatius claimed Jesus was a God and born of a Ghost.

It is completely irrational to assume a character called the Son of God, born of a Ghost, did actually exist and had a real human family when the character was unknown outside the Bible and was NOT even seen or reported to be seen by the very authors of the stories except AFTER he was dead.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

...Aslan discusses the historical and cultural context well and for that the book is worth reading. For insight in to the character of Jesus of Nazareth, there is nothing earth shattering here. The handling of the source material is actually pretty shallow.

A Quest for an Historical Jesus Nazareth is a quest of futility. One cannot ever identify such a character because it is a Jesus of Faith that is found in the Bible.

If all that can be presumed to be factual is the crucifixion then there are probably thousands of candidates for an historical Jesus.

Toto · 08-04-2013, 08:33 AM

Return of the Jesus Wars by Ross Douthat

Quote:

It was Reimarus, writing in the 18th century, who basically invented the modern Jesus wars, by postulating a gulf between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith. The real Jesus of Nazareth, he argued, was a political revolutionary who died disappointed, and whose disciples invented a resurrection — and with it, a religion — to make sense of his failure.

In Reimarus’s lifetime these were dangerous ideas, and his argument was published posthumously. But within a few generations, historical-Jesus controversies inspired publicity rather than persecution. By the Victorian era, when the Earl of Shaftesbury attacked David Friedrich Strauss’s “Life of Jesus, Critically Examined” as “the most pestilential book ever vomited out of the jaws of hell,” he was just contributing to the book’s success.

Today there are enough competing “real Jesuses” that it’s hard for a would-be Strauss to find his Shaftesbury. Which is why every reinterpreter of Jesus not named Dan Brown is probably envious of Reza Aslan, the Iranian-born academic and author of “Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth,” who achieved Strauss-style liftoff thanks to 10 painful minutes on Fox News.

Grog · 08-04-2013, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Return of the Jesus Wars by Ross Douthat

Quote:

It was Reimarus, writing in the 18th century, who basically invented the modern Jesus wars, by postulating a gulf between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith. The real Jesus of Nazareth, he argued, was a political revolutionary who died disappointed, and whose disciples invented a resurrection — and with it, a religion — to make sense of his failure.

In Reimarus’s lifetime these were dangerous ideas, and his argument was published posthumously. But within a few generations, historical-Jesus controversies inspired publicity rather than persecution. By the Victorian era, when the Earl of Shaftesbury attacked David Friedrich Strauss’s “Life of Jesus, Critically Examined” as “the most pestilential book ever vomited out of the jaws of hell,” he was just contributing to the book’s success.

Today there are enough competing “real Jesuses” that it’s hard for a would-be Strauss to find his Shaftesbury. Which is why every reinterpreter of Jesus not named Dan Brown is probably envious of Reza Aslan, the Iranian-born academic and author of “Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth,” who achieved Strauss-style liftoff thanks to 10 painful minutes on Fox News.

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.

outhouse · 08-04-2013, 10:19 AM

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

DCHindley · 08-04-2013, 10:41 AM

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

Grog · 08-04-2013, 11:57 AM

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

What do you mean? He is a scholar.

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

08-04-2013, 10:41 AM	#69
DCHindley Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Mondcivitan Republic Posts: 2,550	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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.