|
Post by ignorantianescia on May 20, 2014 13:59:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sandwiches on May 20, 2014 21:55:48 GMT
An interesting post, thank you. Not an objective view of Jesus after all. Much good work has been done on Jesus by real scholars of whatever religious (or non-religious) backgound. But this chap has an axe to grind. His previous book was reviewed in The Guardian by one of an Islamic bacground who saw through him very quickly: www.theguardian.com/books/2005/oct/22/highereducation.islamAslan's account of early Islam is too literalist. The picture presented is that of an ideal Prophet and mostly unworthy successors.
Aslan and other reformers want a modern Islam that can compete in the west with Christianity and Judaism. It would be dishonest of me to wish any of them luck. It is a phase and it will pass. As for Islam, organic change will come from below.
|
|
|
Post by wraggy on May 28, 2014 6:40:48 GMT
Here is an interview on Australian TV ABC where Tony Jones discusses Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazereth with Reza Aslan. This page contains the video of the interview as well as a transcript (for those who do not understand Australian). Aslan clarifies a number of things that have alarmed some, such as Jesus as an illiterate man and the Jesus who was not a pacifist. www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2014/s4010319.htm
|
|
|
Post by sandwiches on May 28, 2014 8:32:52 GMT
Here is an interview on Australian TV ABC where Tony Jones discusses Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazereth with Reza Aslan. This page contains the video of the interview as well as a transcript (for those who do not understand Australian). Aslan clarifies a number of things that have alarmed some, such as Jesus as an illiterate man and the Jesus who was not a pacifist. www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2014/s4010319.htmThank you. That is interesting, though I am not sure I would see him as 'clarifying' matters there, but rather repeating assertions which have been trashed by better-qualified people like John Dickson in the article linked to earlier in the thread.
|
|
|
Post by wraggy on May 29, 2014 6:59:08 GMT
Here is an interview on Australian TV ABC where Tony Jones discusses Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazereth with Reza Aslan. This page contains the video of the interview as well as a transcript (for those who do not understand Australian). Aslan clarifies a number of things that have alarmed some, such as Jesus as an illiterate man and the Jesus who was not a pacifist. www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2014/s4010319.htmThank you. That is interesting, though I am not sure I would see him as 'clarifying' matters there, but rather repeating assertions which have been trashed by better-qualified people like John Dickson in the article linked to earlier in the thread. I have not followed this whole discussion closely, so I found Aslan's comments clarified some things for me. What he said about the non pacifist Jesus did not seem too different from what Tom Wright has said about proclaimed messiahs and the relationship to Rome. John Dickson has also revisited his post:
|
|
|
Post by sandwiches on May 29, 2014 19:58:35 GMT
Thank you. That is interesting, though I am not sure I would see him as 'clarifying' matters there, but rather repeating assertions which have been trashed by better-qualified people like John Dickson in the article linked to earlier in the thread. I have not followed this whole discussion closely, so I found Aslan's comments clarified some things for me. What he said about the non pacifist Jesus did not seem too different from what Tom Wright has said about proclaimed messiahs and the relationship to Rome. John Dickson has also revisited his post: Thank you. I would be interested to see the link to where John Dickson has revisited his post but it is to his credit if he has apologised for his tone (though not for the substance of his points). After all those who have academic knowledge are at greater fault for the manner in which they express themselves than those who would wish to have such knowledge and are tempted to try to pass themselves off as possessing it? But just to take a few of Aslan's points in the interview: " this poor, illiterate, marginal Jewish peasant" Does Aslan prove that Jesus was illiterate or a peasant? Does he even acknowledge or demonstrate an understanding that there is debate about such matters? Why Aslan's insistence about illiteracy? Why so important to Aslan to insist Jesus was illiterate and willing to counter violence? "we know for fairly certain that about 95 per cent of the Jews in Jesus' time could not read or write"Do we? and our evidence Jesus was one of this alleged 95%? (Jesus' brother Jesus eventually went on to assume leadership of "the Way" in Jerusalem. They seem to have been rather exceptional "illiterate Jewish peasants"?) "Jesus was a peasant. He would have had no formal education whatsoever." Evidence? Aslan says: "I mean, the conversations, the debates with the Pharisees are such an integral part of all the Gospel stories that the vast majority of scholars would say that they were probably historical."I thought Aslan disputed the reliability of The Gospels? (As the interviewer goes on to ask ' " The common depiction of Jesus is as an inveterate peacemaker who loved his enemies and turned the other cheek has been shown," - I'm paraphrasing a little bit here - "... has been shown to be a complete fabrication." What's your evidence for that?') "Crucifixion was a punishment that Rome reserved almost exclusively for crimes against the state - insurrection, rebellion, treason, sedition. These were the only crimes for which you could be crucified under Roman law. In fact Jesus' crime"So all those crucified were crucified for this, like all those Christians in Rome in the AD 60s crucified by Nero? They were never crucified as a deterrent or out of panic, or as a scapegoat? The interviewer asks: Let's look at one of the things that's got under the skins of Christian theologians in particular and it's the notion that he may not have been a pacifist. And you back up in a way your argument about this by quoting Matthew 10:34: "Do not think that I have come to bring peace on Earth. I have not come to bring peace, but the sword." Now, is that contextual?Do you think that is an indication that Jesus was a violent revolutionist or more typical of his metaphorical manner of expression and recognition that his attitude and criticism of the staus quo would cause argument and division? I really cannot begin to understand how anyone could take Aslan seriously. Aslan goes on to say : Probably the most uncomfortable fact for Christians to acknowledge is that every single word every written about Jesus was written by somebody who did not meet him - who never met him, who never spoke to him - and that includes all of the Gospels.
This is from someone who obviously wants to espouse Islam in The West. He is free to do so. But the letters of Paul and the Gospels are a lot closer to Jesus than our written sources of Mohammed. People in glasshouses? Unlike the idiotic Fox interviewer who gave this idiot his sales, this interviewer was rather better prepared and Aslan ends up on the written account looking a little more like the second-hand car salesman he is.
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on May 30, 2014 6:28:18 GMT
" this poor, illiterate, marginal Jewish peasant" Does Aslan prove that Jesus was illiterate or a peasant? Does he even acknowledge or demonstrate an understanding that there is debate about such matters? Why Aslan's insistence about illiteracy? Why so important to Aslan to insist Jesus was illiterate and willing to counter violence? Not his peasant status, but that is an unexceptional view. He discusses it on 25-26, n. 225-226 and 98-99. He deals with illiteracy on 35-36, n. 229-230 and 203-204. It clearly shows there is contention about this. "we know for fairly certain that about 95 per cent of the Jews in Jesus' time could not read or write"Do we? and our evidence Jesus was one of this alleged 95%? (Jesus' brother Jesus eventually went on to assume leadership of "the Way" in Jerusalem. They seem to have been rather exceptional "illiterate Jewish peasants"?) Yes, it's a rather common estimate for literacy in the Roman Empire and literacy was likelier lower in Palestine. Meir Bar-Ilan, 'Illiteracy in the Land of Israel in the First Centuries CE', Essay in the Social Scientific Study of Judaism and Jewish Society, Book 2, is used as a source by the book I use as a reference. "Jesus was a peasant. He would have had no formal education whatsoever." Evidence? Evidence for not having had formal education? Are you serious? Aslan says: "I mean, the conversations, the debates with the Pharisees are such an integral part of all the Gospel stories that the vast majority of scholars would say that they were probably historical."I thought Aslan disputed the reliability of The Gospels? (As the interviewer goes on to ask ' " The common depiction of Jesus is as an inveterate peacemaker who loved his enemies and turned the other cheek has been shown," - I'm paraphrasing a little bit here - "... has been shown to be a complete fabrication." What's your evidence for that?') He has a convenient method of picking and choosing what suits his pet theory. But he is never so general to "dispute the reliability of the gospels". "Crucifixion was a punishment that Rome reserved almost exclusively for crimes against the state - insurrection, rebellion, treason, sedition. These were the only crimes for which you could be crucified under Roman law. In fact Jesus' crime"So all those crucified were crucified for this, like all those Christians in Rome in the AD 60s crucified by Nero? They were never crucified as a deterrent or out of panic, or as a scapegoat? Aslan could appeal to a different context with some validity. The interviewer asks: Let's look at one of the things that's got under the skins of Christian theologians in particular and it's the notion that he may not have been a pacifist. And you back up in a way your argument about this by quoting Matthew 10:34: "Do not think that I have come to bring peace on Earth. I have not come to bring peace, but the sword." Now, is that contextual?Do you think that is an indication that Jesus was a violent revolutionist or more typical of his metaphorical manner of expression and recognition that his attitude and criticism of the staus quo would cause argument and division? Aslan gets that terribly wrong, like he gets so many things, but that saying is considered either an after-the-fact prediction or an apocalyptic expression. Or both. It's not a metaphor. I really cannot begin to understand how anyone could take Aslan seriously. Aslan goes on to say : Probably the most uncomfortable fact for Christians to acknowledge is that every single word every written about Jesus was written by somebody who did not meet him - who never met him, who never spoke to him - and that includes all of the Gospels.
This is from someone who obviously wants to espouse Islam in The West. He is free to do so. But the letters of Paul and the Gospels are a lot closer to Jesus than our written sources of Mohammed. People in glasshouses? Unlike the idiotic Fox interviewer who gave this idiot his sales, this interviewer was rather better prepared and Aslan ends up on the written account looking a little more like the second-hand car salesman he is. It's a very unclever tactic by Aslan, but still calling him an idiot surely is cross? Plus, you've questioned a lot of for the time being probably settled points. If you want to criticise Aslan, there really are much better things to focus on (and it may help to have read the book).
|
|
|
Post by wraggy on May 30, 2014 6:43:37 GMT
I have not followed this whole discussion closely, so I found Aslan's comments clarified some things for me. What he said about the non pacifist Jesus did not seem too different from what Tom Wright has said about proclaimed messiahs and the relationship to Rome. John Dickson has also revisited his post: Thank you. I would be interested to see the link to where John Dickson has revisited his post but it is to his credit if he has apologised for his tone (though not for the substance of his points). After all those who have academic knowledge are at greater fault for the manner in which they express themselves than those who would wish to have such knowledge and are tempted to try to pass themselves off as possessing it? Sangas, check out the comments below the article. www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2013/08/09/3822264.htm
|
|