The Daily Show - Reza Aslan

[A Cup Of Tea]

I don't know if I missed the initial context because I'm having a hard time connecting what I'm saying to what you are saying.

would you say that if a Catholic and Lutheran were discussing history according to the Bible, that the existence of God would debated first.

We are talking about a scholar writing an academic text. What is included in the academic texts are what can be shown. The existence of God is a matter of faith not academics so it's not really relevant. We can pick a specific example from the book if we want to further the discussion, like where Jesus grew up. If he wants to make an argument based on this he needs to show where Jesus grew up and "question something that lines up precisely with their view."

Scholars would not include the topic more than likely.

If a scholar wants to prove something that depends on the existence of God then the scholar needs to show this. If the existence of God is irrelevant to what the scholar is trying to say then it is not necessary. Again, Aslan isn't trying to prove there is a God, and nothing he is saying depends on there being a God so this example isn't great.

If an Atheist and a Muslim were scholarly debating about the existence of Allah, would it be prudent to explore the Egyptian Theology? Or would both sides agreeing that this is not true be sufficient to come up with a reasonable assertion from each side.

I don't understand what you're saying here, but I can see that you will probably object to my previous statement that the existence of God is a matter of faith.

 

[BigJoeNobody]

I can see that you will probably object to my previous statement that the existence of God is a matter of faith.

On the contrary I don't object, but rather see it for what it is, a Difference of Opinion. I would say that the Fact of God's existence in entirely relevant to a discussion of History when using the Bible (or any other religious text) as a source as without it certain events and decisions simply do not make sense. Why must always show objections to every statement that are not of any consequence when given in context though. I'm an Engineer, we would call this establishing scope. If you are building a structure, that is 10 ft high, wind load is there, but irrelevant to the overall scheme in general. Unless we are talking about a 120+mph wind. Winds over that speed are rare, and in places almost non-existent. But when building a structure 10 ft tall in an area that has never received higher than 100mph winds, is the fact that it will blow over at 400mph be of any consequence? Would you think it is reasonable to redesign to fit the unlikely event of 450mph winds in the off chance a bomb blows up 10 ft from the house in Montana?

Now you are probably asking how this example is related. In this case Reza is the engineer "designing" a book about explaining AN alternative view of the Bible, given the known aspects of the historical Geography and Society. One that "provides" an explanation of a "possible" interpretation of the Bible given its inconsistencies. Inside his scope he has included these givens for his theory: The Bible is not 100% accurate to the events that took place, The Bible is written by people several years after the events took place who had 3rd (or more) hand knowledge of the events, Jesus was born in Bethlehem (a debatable notion), and finally that he was the Messiah as many have claimed since. He is offering 1 example of how his Messiah-ship would have been established. Keep in mind that the book is for public sales, not necessarily a Scholars only source. So he is not writing about the 200+ other theories, he is "designing his book" for the scope given.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

I thought we were discussing if he was a scholar or not? If he writes his own book for the fun of it he is under no obligation to include anything. But if he is a scholar doing scholarly work. He can not take things as given. There are exceptions, but if he wants to show something as a scholar he can not.
What we're talking about here is not "question something that lines up precisely with their view." It's a very specific aspect of this. Scholars question, that is the essence of what they do. Their own assumptions the work of others. They do not take things as given and then try to convince others of this given.

And again, they include in the book what is relevant to the subject. They do not include Egyptian Theology or 200+ other theories, but they do "question something that lines up precisely with their view."

 

[Thomas]

I thought we were discussing if he was a scholar or not? If he writes his own book for the fun of it he is under no obligation to include anything.

Quite.

But if he is a scholar doing scholarly work. He can not take things as given.

Exactly. This is where his critics point out the flaws of his thesis. Again, if I made some of the statements he makes in one of my essay papers, I'd not be allowed to get away with it.

What is most notable is that Aslan says nothing new – we're no closer to 'the historical Jesus' than we ever were – and the issues he raises have been aired in other works, in greater depth and detail, with less assumption ... but those books don't hit the NYT best-seller list.

I though the most telling comment was 'this is a Jesus for contemporary America', and that seems to underpin so many of the best-seller books, they say more about massaging the prevailing ideology of the US than they do about their subject.

 

[BigJoeNobody]

http://www.christianpost.com/news/s...e-life-and-times-of-jesus-of-nazareth-101442/ a quick read, some valid points, but I do find it interesting that some of the "scholars" who are commenting on the inaccuracy admit to not having read the book.

ACOT, I'm sorry. I'm not disagreeing with you in a specific point. As a matter in fact I agree with a vast majority of your statements here, I just cannot seem to make an example of how I see things that you will relate to... guess I'm using too much extremes in my example (of which I use to hilight my point.

Thomas, (and ACOT as well), I believe you are trying to establish him as a non-scholar, based off of 1 or 2 of his books. It seems many Scholars do view him as a scholar, but do not consider some of his writing to be scholarly documents. The vast majority cite his academic teaching when referring to him as a scholar. When he teaches he teaches as a scholar. When he writes a book, he writes about a concise topic. It may not be fully scholarly, but it raises some points and discusses them. This is probably both to combat the wildly inappropriate Christian insertion into politics and such here in the states and to sell some books to a lot of people. As you stated, and if I'm not mistaken he said in his interview, there isn't anything new in this particular book. These theories and discussions have been covered many times, and he basically restructured it, re-established some points, and wrote a book about HIS conclusions which differed slightly than the others.

 

[Thomas]

I believe you are trying to establish him as a non-scholar, based off of 1 or 2 of his books.[]/quote]
Nope. Just a poor one. Well, probably a lot better off now, thanks to the Fox interview ...

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

I believe you are trying to establish him as a non-scholar, based off of 1 or 2 of his books.

Well, this all started with Thomas (he did, Thomas started!) finding peer reviews saying that

the problem with 'cherry-picking' – that Reza approaches the work with his conclusion (this book is an expansion of his PhD thesis), and then sifts the Scriptural texts to find the evidence supporting his claims. (And ignores contemporary scholarship that challenges his assumptions.)

I never assumed Thomas made these judgements himself since he doesn't appear to have read the books. As a response I stated generally that

sometimes a person is more believer than scholar. It all goes over my head either way.

I stated picking a fight with you with

I don't bring this up to dig up our debate on reason, reasons and logic, I just want to take the opportunity to point to this statement as something relating to tat discussion. This position is something I can't really understand and where much of our disagreement lies.

So this was not so much about Aslan for me as much as critical thinking, and that you and I have argued over that before. Now I genuinely wasn't looking for an actual debate, we didn't get any where last time (or this time), I just wanted to underline a position that was relevant to our previous disagreement.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

I thought we were discussing if he was a scholar or not?

We are? When did that happen. Musta made a left turn when I wasn't paying attention. Doing some quick back reading the argument seems to be made that he is or is not a scholar depending on whether one agrees or disagrees with the statements in this one book.

Well is he a 'scholar'?
Aslan holds a BA in religious studies at Santa Clara University, an MTS at Harvard Divinity School, an MFA at the University of Iowa's Writers' Workshop, and a PhD in sociology at the University of California, Santa Barbara.[6][7][8] His dissertation was titled "Global Jihadism as a Transnational Social Movement: A Theoretical Framework".[9]*

He has a Bachelor's degree in Religious studies from Santa Clara University. A Master of Theological Studies Degree from Harvard. And a Doctorate in Sociology degree from University of CA. Hmmmm. A quick look at the various definitions of scholar on the online dictionaries, he does seem to meet the definition.

Someone suggested he may be a scholar, but did not write his book from a scholarly standpoint. On the surface this seems a silly statement, unless I am misunderstanding what was meant.

It has also been suggested that his work cannot be considered scholarly because he cherry picks the points to serve his proposition. If cherry picking the Bible is unscholarly, about every writer in the field today can no longer be considered scholars. EveryOne cherry picks. Everyone.

Finally it has been suggested that this book is not a dissertation. Well, duh! Of course it isn't. It's a book written for a general audience. Nobody writes a dissertation for general consumption. A dissertation is a different beast entirely.

All this being said, is his book pure hokum? I certainly do not know. Not only have I not read it, I don't have the credentials to make that decision even if I did. Seems to me the debate is here, if anywhere though. Whether his arguments and conclusions can be considered reasonable and fair.


*From Wiki - with apologies for the generic reference.

 

[Thomas]

Someone suggested he may be a scholar, but did not write his book from a scholarly standpoint. On the surface this seems a silly statement, unless I am misunderstanding what was meant.

Well he defended himself as a scholar of religion in the Fox interview, so that states his case.

It has also been suggested that his work cannot be considered scholarly because he cherry picks the points to serve his proposition.

Yes.

If cherry picking the Bible is unscholarly, about every writer in the field today can no longer be considered scholars. EveryOne cherry picks. Everyone.

I think you're over-stating the case.

There's a fair review here

Perhaps not surprisingly, the claims in Zealot come with a fair degree of scholarly arrogance (which I acknowledge many scholars are prone to!). Aslan says that his goal is to “purge the scriptures of their literary and theological flourishes and forge a far more accurate picture of the Jesus of history… Everything else is a matter of faith.” ... The parts of the gospels that Aslan agrees with are historical; the parts that he doesn’t agree with are “literary and theological flourishes.”

So basically, strip Christianity out of the New Testament, and you're left with a reliable historical document.

It's a nonsense.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

I appreciate the link to the review. The review is well written, and at the same time it represents the issues I am having with the entire debate on this thread. This paragraph sums up what I have been saying from the beginning:

Zealot’s claim is essentially a conspiracy theory: Jesus was really a proclaimer of violent revolution, but the gospels and Paul covered up the evidence. Aslan then has a typical conspiracy-theory approach: any time the gospels present evidence against Aslan’s theory, they were making it up; any time the gospels present evidence in favor of Aslan’s theory, they were telling the truth. This is found countless times in Zealot, but a few examples will suffice.

This attitude is endemic throughout books on the bible. The bible itself in modern day is a tome that is full of contradictions according to most who speak of it. There are the portions that really happened, that are taken as 'history' and portions that are not meant to be taken literally. Those are 'metaphor'. Which is which is not consistent across the spectrum either. Sections taken as metaphor by one scholar can be considered to have really happened by another.

This is one of the charges aimed at Aslan, used to show his bias. Please note, I am NOT saying he does not do this. Absolutely he does. If he were the only one, or one of a minority doing so, it would be a fair criticism. But everyone does it. Read just about any book written in the past couple of decades (at least) and it is the same. Portions that support the author's case are accurate, those that do not are metaphor.

The entire concept of metaphor first raised its ugly head when science started showing that many portions of the bible are inaccurate from a realistic point of view. Before science came along, no one questioned that God made his creation in six literal days. It was only after science proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the earth is 4 ½ billion years old that we started getting the line "Well the bible didn't mean 'days' literally.

Again, I am making no claims on whether Aslan's thesis is reasonable or not. I am saying that the reasons used to call his book nonsense are the same ones used to justify other book's accuracy. As long as this issue is so prominent in biblical study, any reliability of a book's accuracy remains open to interpretation depending on the reader's particular biases on the bible.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

This attitude is endemic throughout books on the bible...

I don't really feel like spending much time on the subject, so I'll say my piece and bow out.
Academic work is academic work. You go through relevant sources and discuss contrary and complimentary positions. If you think that this is never the case in academic works concerning the Bible, then I guess that's your opinion. I don't know what to do with that. You will have to prove it, I think, if you want your position do weigh more than opinion-much.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

I have spent enough time attempting to defend a position that people have no intention of accepting. And I'm done. Especially when instead of offering counter arguments, you just post your disagreement over and over again. Believe it or don't. I really don't care.

 

[Thomas]

I appreciate the link to the review. The review is well written, and at the same time it represents the issues I am having with the entire debate on this thread. This paragraph sums up what I have been saying from the beginning:

Gotcha. Agreed.

The bible itself in modern day is a tome that is full of contradictions according to most who speak of it.

Not most, I think. Just the loudest. But ...

Sections taken as metaphor by one scholar can be considered to have really happened by another.

OK. But if we narrow the debate to the NT, then there is the text, which makes clear, according to itself, what happened and what is metaphor.

I've argued this with Wil until the cows come home. He doesn't believe in miracles, they're the exaggerations of old men telling tales. He doesn't believe Jesus is the Son of God, that's myth-making. But he does believe we are gods, that 'in him we live and move and have our being'. Why aren't they just more examples of exaggeration? More mythologising? More fictions?

Answer me that, and I'll accept he has a case. But 'because I think Jesus said/did this but not that' is, in itself, not a sufficient case. I can too easily use his argument against the texts he refutes to refute the texts he argues for. That's what the critics argue against Aslan.

 

[wil]

lol....love when folks tell me what I think.... Sure I believe Jesus is he son of G!d, don't think I ever said otherwise...but hell I'll bow to my autobiographer....he is the only begotten of the continually begotten... what you have issues with is me believing you also are the son of G!d...my brother we are all children of G!d... you are correct...I don't believe in miracles...I believe it is all a miracle!

 

[Thomas]

lol....love when folks tell me what I think....

LOL back atcha! You tell us often enough ...

...he is the only begotten of the continually begotten...

Now you're doing it again The Father is not 'the continually begotten'. The Father is the Unbegotten.

what you have issues with is me believing you also are the son of G!d...

LOL. 'love it when folks tell me what I think'.

Never said I didn't believe that, we are all God's creatures. We are created. Only He is begotten of the Father before the world was made, hence 'only begotten'. The light shines in us all, but we are not the light, but creatures of the light. He is the life, 'the life that is the light of men'. In Him is life by nature, in us by grace.

I don't believe in miracles...I believe it is all a miracle!

The trouble with oxymorons is their as clear as mud! I can't fathom why you believe in miracles in general, but not in particular!

 

[Thomas]

Adendum: Once again, I realised, you've avoided the Big Question ... no probs, tho. I've given up on that one.

 

[wil]

drum roll.... somewhere in there was 'big question' who knows where...is it on the side track of 'what wil believes' or is it on the topic...who knows...round and round the world goes...

 

[Namaste Jesus]

Don't knock-it Wil. The wife and I often check in with the neighbors to find out what we've been up to....lol! How others perceive our thoughts and actions is downright fascinating sometimes.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

OK. But if we narrow the debate to the NT, then there is the text, which makes clear, according to itself, what happened and what is metaphor.

How does it make it clear what is metaphor and what is not? If there is a key, It would help me to know!

OK. But if we narrow the debate to the NT, then there is the text, which makes clear, according to itself, what happened and what is metaphor.

There seems to be a growing trend for Christians to distance themselves from the Old Testament. To want to focus on the New; pretend the Old isn't there. I've seen this approach taken on a number of debates on various YouTube videos. When confronted with some uncomfortable quote from the OT, a Christian debater dismisses that quote and replaces a NT quote as the correction. The OT is in the Bible as much as is the NT. So is the OT the word O God, or not?

I can too easily use his argument against the texts he refutes to refute the texts he argues for. That's what the critics argue against Aslan.

I totally agree with that. It's what I've been hammering on - the only point I am trying to make in this discussion. Aslan's detractors are using the same tactic to use against him as he uses to justify his thesis. If there is a difference I am not understanding what that difference is?

 

[waggindraggin]

I don't really feel like spending much time on the subject, so I'll say my piece and bow out.
Academic work is academic work. You go through relevant sources and discuss contrary and complimentary positions. If you think that this is never the case in academic works concerning the Bible, then I guess that's your opinion. I don't know what to do with that. You will have to prove it, I think, if you want your position do weigh more than opinion-much.

True. The dedication required to be academic is impressive enough to give them some clout, or at least it should.