I finished reading this excellent book yesterday (took me a couple of days of careful reading). As an atheist who is nevertheless very interested in theology from a historical and mythological perspective, I was not disappointed. I cannot give a detailed review, but I'll summarise my thoughts on it and this thread briefly.
First of all, I think it's very ill-advised to presume to criticize a work without having actually read it (carefully, and in its entirety). I believe at least some of the posters casting aspersions on the author and his work haven't even done this most basic thing. I cannot imagine why Reza's Muslim background (especially given that it's a rather liberal, secular-influenced and reformist one) would even enter into the picture here. It smacks of
ad hominem. If his argument is a well constructed one and he's done his research diligently, then why should it matter whether he's a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist, an Atheist or even a Martian? So let's set aside the crass
ad hominem here, I really thought PF was better than this.
With regard to citing the opinions of other experts and scholars (self-proclaimed or otherwise) on his work, I think this is a little more excusable, simply because none of us are serious theological scholars. It's simply not humanly possible for any of us to personally sort through all the original sources (in their original languages!) and the published literature exploring every aspect of the work. It's therefore good to give a fair hearing to differing opinions from others who've engaged in serious scholarship in this field. But again, these "expert" opinions really should stop well short of
ad hominem, otherwise they should be disregarded. One should play the ball, not the man. And hearing from experts in the field still does not absolve us from the need to have read the work for ourselves before commenting upon it - otherwise, that commentary cannot be called intelligent or informed.
So what does Aslan really say? He sets out to try and dissect the historical Jesus away from the religious and mythological trappings that have surrounded the figure. His basic thesis is that Jesus the man is quite different from Jesus the religious persona. There should be nothing very surprising here - hagiography is a well-recognised phenomenon. So it's no mean task to sift through all the (understandably) coloured sources to try and distill the essence of historical fact, but Aslan has made a noble effort to do so.
Aslan paints a portrait of Jesus the man as probably being a rather committed social and political revolutionary, who wanted the poor and disenfranchised to be empowered at the expense of the rich and corrupt. He was a strict observer of Mosaic Jewish law, and his altercation at the Temple in Jerusalem was directly aimed at stopping the profiteering and defiling of the Jewish religion by the priestly class, whom he perceived as corrupt and profiteering. Aslan hints that while Jesus never openly exhorted violent overthrow of the status quo, he was not averse to militant action in defence of the Jews, hence the label "zealot". "Zealot", in this context, shouldn't be taken in a largely negative way. It signifies a strict adherence to religious law and a jealous guarding of its tenets against all opposition. Certain words used historically in scripture have acquired connotations quite different from their original intended usage - for instance, we almost always associate the word "jealous" with an irrational and destructive envy, yet this very word appears in most translations of the Christian Bible as the first or second commandment (depending on the source) in the context of "for I the Lord they God am a jealous God". So let's not get too hung up on the use of the word "zealot" - in my opinion, Aslan does enough to justify the label and explain its connotation in that period.
There are many other things said about Jesus - his own view on being the messiah, his opinion of the conversion of gentiles, and so forth. There's too much for me to go into here, and I strongly suggest you read the book. One thing that does bear mentioning is Aslan's emphasis that James the Just (the brother of Jesus) was actually the head of the church after Jesus's execution - in contrast to many accounts that Peter was actually superior to him. Moreover, Aslan is careful to point out that what modern Christians (of any denomination) consider orthodox Christianity is derived chiefly from Pauline thought, which was in many ways starkly different from the thinking of James the Just, and probably Jesus himself. Paul (originally Saul of Tarsus) had many disagreements and even violent altercations with James the Just about his "heretical" teachings and his lax policy regarding the conversion of gentiles.
As critical readers, we have to look at whether Aslan has "done his homework". After having scoured through his "Notes" section which takes up a sizeable chunk of the book, and is worth reading in its own right - I have to give a resounding "Yes!" He cites all his sources in full and freely gives all the conflicting and opposing opinions on almost every contentious topic. This solicitation of alternative viewpoints is, to me, the hallmark of true intellectual honesty, and Aslan has done a fine job here.
To be honest, I haven't watched any of the interviews where Aslan has been baited. Nor do I really want to - the work clearly stands on its own. Aslan has already done an exemplary job in being his own critic in the Notes section. And I don't think he'd react negatively (let alone rabidly) to a constructive challenge of his scholarship in this work. But inferring that his scholarship is suspect simply because he's a practising Muslim is NOT a constructive challenge, and deserves nothing but derision.
metacristi said:
Well given the fact that muslims demand imperatively 'respect' for their religion and people I think he has a point even here. Imagine that a Christian would publish a book, written in an elevated language, without insults, in which he hints that the prophet of islam was a bandit (actually a respectable stance in my view). The hypothesis that Aslan uses liberalism to actually promote islam (by hinting that Jesus himself held violence in great respect & the second temple jews were very intolerant with foreigners) is not that far fetched. I'm afraid that only a book where he applies the critical historical method to the Quran could clear him (there is a mountain to do there, read for example
The closing of the muslim mind, an excellent introduction into islamic theology, to understand how islam - even shiism, be it in a lesser way - is still in the Middle Ages).
How do you know that Aslan has not performed the same sort of detached historical analysis on Islam itself? I don't know whether you've even read the work that's being discussed here (in its entirety), let alone any of his other writings, so what entitles you to cast such aspersions?
For your information, Aslan actually has probed the life and times of Muhammad in an earlier book called "No god but God". I've only skimmed it, but even from a cursory reading, he's making a real effort to separate the man from the myth, just like he's done with Jesus in this new book. He's never said anything that can objectively be considered grossly disrespectful about either of these religious figures (Muhammad or Jesus) in any of his works, so I don't see why you're getting all worked up about it. At the very least, if you want to develop and harbour strong opinions on a work, read it first! Please don't rely on reviews from Amazon and hearsay evidence.
Let me end with a short, slightly tangential personal note. I am very grateful for the secular milieu in which I and most of the world live. Most theocracies place strict limits on freedom of speech. It is only the relaxation of the grip of formalised religion (of any sort) on the modern world, and the separation of church and state, that's allowed us to progress as a civilisation. Reza Aslan could not have written his works outside a secular framework that values free and unfettered discourse, even on "sensitive" topics. It would not be an exaggeration to state that none of us would be here sharing our opinions so freely on PhysicsForums without the strong influence of secular thought on the world (heck, Physics itself might not exist in the current highly developed form if we were under a theocracy). So let's recognise that while religion has its role in the modern world, we have even more to be grateful for towards secularism. As scientifically minded people (which I presume the majority of members of PF are), we are even more indebted to secularism than the average Joe.
