Have you read Reza Aslan's Zealot about Jesus of Nazareth?

[Pythagorean]

His doctorate did focus in "history of religions" which is an accepted term for comparative religious study and used commonly at University of Chicago with regard to sociology of religion. You do focus on one religion, but in the context of other religions (the breadth requirement) is still taught and history is unavoidable in that sense (since most religion is based almost completely on historical writings). It's just like being a physicist in quantum chromo dynamics. You still have to learn mechanics, thermodynamics, electrodynamics, etc, in addition to your focus.

It is the same as a general historian, though, so if he makes an claims to being a historian in general, then I would beg to differ.

 

[Evo]

His doctorate did focus in "history of religions" which is an accepted term for comparative religious study and used commonly at University of Chicago with regard to sociology of religion. You do focus on one religion, but in the context of other religions (the breadth requirement) is still taught and history is unavoidable in that sense (since most religion is based almost completely on historical writings). It's just like being a physicist in quantum chromo dynamics. You still have to learn mechanics, thermodynamics, electrodynamics, etc, in addition to your focus.

But based on the fact that, unlike the University of Chicago, his Uni had no such course and he admits in his dissertation that his course of study was Islam, I'd have to say, the religion he studied for his PhD was Islam. Nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't give him credibility in biblical studies or history of that time. Is he also an expert in Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, etc...?

I'm fine with him having studied Islam and writing outside his expertise, but it does make me take what he presents as facts a bit less seriously. That does seem to be the issue knowledgeable people have with his book. Just take what he says with a grain of salt, that's all.

 

[Astronuc]

I'm up to Chapter 8 in the book. I do notice that there are no notes or citations in the text, which I would expect in a 'scholarly' article/text, and which I find in texts like those of Karen Armstrong.

In Part II, Prologue, "Zeal for Your House,", Aslan states "To be clear, Jesus was not a member of the Zealot Party . . . ". Later, it is written: "Jesus was crucified by Rome because his messianic aspirations threatened the occupation of Palestine [as did similarly described aspirations of others], and his zealotry endangered the Temple authorities." p. 79.

The criticism herein should focus on 1. What is Aslan's thesis? and 2. does the text support that thesis.

I believe the thesis is stated on p. 79 as I indicated above.


Chapter 1 provides some historical background of the times in Roman-occupied Palestine and earlier. I think most civilizations (Rome, Greece, Persia, Egypt, . . . . ) were brutal back then. There was many messianic individuals, and it appears that the one known as Jesus is perhaps the most significant and famous, or infamous.

 

[Astronuc]

Basically, his PhD is in sociology of religions. His dissertation is on the sociology of jihadism.

But isn't the PhD or dissertation about sociology or sociological behavior or a sociological phenomenon rather than being about the religion? Also, would have to discuss the religion and it's texts and then explain how jihadists interpret and apply the texts in their jihadic behavior - and how the religious texts contradict the jihadist views/practices. Then the dissertation might be about religion, somewhat.

We may need to break out the discussion/posts on Aslan's credentials and other points not related to the content of the book into a separate thread. I'm concerned the author (and others) has become the focus of the thread, and not the content of the book.

 

[Pythagorean]

But based on the fact that, unlike the University of Chicago, his Uni had no such course

It's not a course, it's a specialization, and the college where he got his PhD does, in fact, have such a specializaiton for religious studies:

http://my.sa.ucsb.edu/catalog/Current/Documents/2013_Majors/Grad/Emphases/ANCIENT-MEDITERRANEAN-STUDIES-EMPHASIS-REQUIREMENTS-2013-14.pdf

It's clearly based on history (as most religious studies are, anyway, there's no modern prophets that theologists take seriously)

he admits in his dissertation that his course of study was Islam, I'd have to say, the religion he studied for his PhD was Islam.

Dissertations are not, whatsoever, an exhaustive display of the knowledge you accumulated during the course of graduate studies; dissertations are very specialized application of your general knowledge. Again, just because your dissertation is on quantum chromodynamics doesn't mean you neglected classical mechanics as part of your physics PhD.

 

[atyy]

Dissertations are not, whatsoever, an exhaustive display of the knowledge you accumulated during the course of graduate studies; dissertations are very specialized application of your general knowledge. Again, just because your dissertation is on quantum chromodynamics doesn't mean you neglected classical mechanics as part of your physics PhD.

History is part of physics too! http://books.google.com/books?id=oZhagX6UWOMC&dq=brief+history+of+time&source=gbs_navlinks_s

 

[Curious3141]

Atyy: I'm refreshing myself on my KJV, specifically Galatians (for the relevant part of Paul's version) and James (for James the Just's version). When I'm done, I'll formulate a reply. This is just a note to let you know I haven't forgotten our discussion!

 

[atyy]

Atyy: I'm refreshing myself on my KJV, specifically Galatians (for the relevant part of Paul's version) and James (for James the Just's version). When I'm done, I'll formulate a reply. This is just a note to let you know I haven't forgotten our discussion!

While you're reading Galatians, may I recommend my favourite part 5:12 :p

There are couple of weird details about the KJV (like an extra verse in 1 John 5:7), so it's worth seeing how the NRSV does things also.

 

[Curious3141]

Sorry 'bout the delay, I fear I may not be able to devote as much time to this discussion as I would like.

I think the hard nosed approach would that the miracles are embellishments,

Fair enough, but I think it depends on how much Jesus himself "played along" with it. If he was aware that people were trumping up ordinary events as "miracles" and he went along with it he was either a) sincerely (naively) deluded or b) a charlatan.

Yes, what I wanted to make clear was that there's a range of opinons, ie. there are large "error bars" on what we know of the historical Jesus.

No dispute there!

Circumcision was a big issue for Paul. If the Jerusalem church agreed that gentiles did not need to be circumcised, then essentially that shows that Paul did win agreement from them on a major issue.

No doubt, but there were compromises on both sides as I understand it. For instance, I've already mentioned Paul's lustration ritual where he is basically ordered to purify himself, along with 4 others in order to allay the doubts that have developed about Paul's disregard for Jewish law (Acts 21:23-24).

It was sort of a bargain, I guess, because immediately after this is mentioned, James seems to have made his compromise about exactly how observant a gentile covert of Paul need be. (Act 21:25)

Yes, I understood what you meant by the "celestial Jesus". My argument about Paul's conversion was that it is quite possible that there was no disagreement between the Jerusalem church and Paul on this issue. I'll repeat my arguments.

First, there is no sign at all of a disagreement in any of the New Testament documents on this issue. The disagreement about whether gentiles have to follow the Jewish law is easily read in the New Testament, so it's not as if signs of disagreement are absent. It's just that there is no sign of disagreement on the "celestial" Jesus.

Fair enough, I may have overstated this point. It does seem interesting to me that the Epistle of James only mentions "the Lord Jesus Christ" by name twice (at the beginnings of Chapters 1 and 2) but Paul really goes to town on this. But I don't think anything can really be inferred from this alone.

Second, Paul initially persecuted the Christians. Why? If at that time the Christians already believed in the celestial Jesus, that would be heretical to the Jews, and a reason for Paul's persecution of the Christians. This would be consonant with why although though there is plenty of evidence for other disagreements in the New Testament, the celestial Jesus seems to be a belief present at the very earliest stages of the church some time after Jesus's death.

I think the key thing is that, in the early history of Christianity, there were a hodgepodge of belief systems that were continually evolving. It's almost impossible to say where a "Jew" ends and a "Christian" begins for a person from that period. Even Paul (post-Damascus vision and conversion) refers to himself as a Jew e.g. in Galatians 2:15 ("We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles").

So, it is conceivable that the "degree" of belief in Jesus's celestial nature might also have differed, even among people considering themselves to believe in Christ.

Stephen's case is an interesting one. Remember that he was a Hellenised Jew before he started believing in Christ. The disdain he holds for the strictly-observant Jews is quite clear in Acts 7:51 - "Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in hearts and ears. If that isn't a zinger, I don't know what is. This was spoken during his speech before the crowd stoned him to death. Isn't it fair to say that James, even though he was Bishop of the first Church, was much more of a strict observer of Mosaic law than Stephen seems to be? I'm sure James would never have said such a thing to make light of the circumcision ritual (especially when you consider that this was one of the principal bones of contention between him and Paul).

There is also the weaker evidence that the Jews didn't exactly persecute the Apostles to anywhere near the same extent as they did Stephen (though they did lock them up in prison, but God jailbroke them, Acts 5:18-23). Subsequently, I guess the Jewish priests did want to do them in, but were persuaded otherwise by Gamaliel (Acts 5:34). Bottom line: the Jewish priests didn't really seem to have their hearts into killing off the Apostles (whereas the Jews killed Stephen pretty much without hesitation). I don't know if this can be attributed to James and Peter having a "less heretical" Christian outlook (with regard to the Celestial Jesus) or whether it's just a matter of the Jews being more afraid of the Apostles' popularity and following among the others in Jerusalem. I don't think it's a question of the Jews being afraid of direct Roman reprisals, since the Romans were not exactly fond of the Christian sect at this time (and it wouldn't have taken much for them to label the brother of the man they'd crucified a criminal in the same vein), whereas they did have a working relationship with the Jewish high priest.

At the end of the day, I can't find anything definitive in the NT to support the assertion that the Apostles had a different conception of the Celestial Jesus from Paul post-conversion. All I can find are weak inferences, which I mentioned above. So I'll concede the argument.

I've read the book quickly, not as thoroughly as you, and have library access to it, so if you need to quote from it at length you can just refer to the chapter, instead of working some miracles

Ah good, but as I said, I'm afraid I may not be able to devote all that much time to this thread. But your opinions are very enlightening, so please feel free to keep them coming.

BTW, your favourite from Galatians (5:12) - that was the "infamous" part about emasculation, wasn't it? My KJV just phrases it as "I would they were even cut off which trouble you." which is a very neutered (pardon the pun) rendition, but I'm aware there are some versions which talk about Paul telling the circumcised to go "all the way" and castrate themselves. Who says the Bible is not lurid and fun?

Not really related to this discussion, but could I just trouble you for your opinion on one particular thing that I came across in my reading?

Background from Genesis: I know about Abraham siring Ishmael first with his bondmaid Hagar. Subsequently, years later, Abraham's wife Sarah becomes preggers and bears Isaac. The Bible says that Isaac was the son that Abraham was supposed to sacrifice. (The Bible says this was his only son, but that's ambiguous because by this time, Hagar and Ishmael had been flung out by Sarah, so that effectively left only Isaac as Abe's son). The Quran doesn't mention which child was to be sacrificed, but it's presumed that it implies Ismail (Ishmael) since Isaac hadn't yet been born (and Isaac's birth gets explicitly mentioned later).

Of course, the Jews claim descent from Abraham through Isaac, whereas the Muslims claim descent from Ibrahim (Abraham) through Ismail (Ishmael), so it seems like they each glorify the son that's their direct ancestor. At any rate, God sort of placates both sons, or more accurately, their parents.

I know about the controversy here between the Christians and the Muslims (was it Isaac or Ishmael), but do you have an opinion on this?

Also, when Paul mentions this in Galatians 4:22 onward, he states that the story is merely an allegory (Galatians 4:24). Basically he's saying Agar (Hagar, I guess) is mount Sinai in Arabia, and is in subjugation to Jerusalem. What exactly is Paul driving at here? I thought the story of Abraham's sons was to be taken literally (by a believer)?

Also, I thought this part was interesting: In Galatians, Paul is basically making the argument that heathens (gentiles) would be justified (saved) by faith in God. But to justify this, he states in Galatians 3:8 - "And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed."

Paul seems to be interpreting this as God telling Abraham that (people of) all nations may be blessed through him, provided they have faith.

But if you look at what Paul is actually quoting, Genesis 22:18, "And in they seed shall all the nations of the Earth be blessed" - the implication here is that the seed of Abraham through Isaac (the Jews, basically) will spread throughout all nations of Earth. Essentially, the Diaspora.

Did Paul get a hold of the wrong end of the stick here in Galatians? Or am I misinterpreting something?

Thanks again!

 

[Curious3141]

We may need to break out the discussion/posts on Aslan's credentials and other points not related to the content of the book into a separate thread. I'm concerned the author (and others) has become the focus of the thread, and not the content of the book.

I couldn't agree more. I'd much rather focus on the content rather than getting knotted up with the credentials.

 

[atyy]

Sorry 'bout the delay, I fear I may not be able to devote as much time to this discussion as I would like.

Yeah, me too. After all there are much more controversial things to discuss on PF, like firewalls

I think we're roughly in agreement, and it's probably fun to talk about disagreements about second or third order terms, but one can say they are within the error bars.

No doubt, but there were compromises on both sides as I understand it. For instance, I've already mentioned Paul's lustration ritual where he is basically ordered to purify himself, along with 4 others in order to allay the doubts that have developed about Paul's disregard for Jewish law (Acts 21:23-24).

It was sort of a bargain, I guess, because immediately after this is mentioned, James seems to have made his compromise about exactly how observant a gentile covert of Paul need be. (Act 21:25)

Yes, I agree. I don't want to give the impression that I necessarily agree with Acts as being correct on so many historical details. But just that if one makes an argument from Acts that Paul compromised, then the same argument would seem to imply that Peter and James compromised too on the issue of gentiles following the Jewish law.

Fair enough, I may have overstated this point. It does seem interesting to me that the Epistle of James only mentions "the Lord Jesus Christ" by name twice (at the beginnings of Chapters 1 and 2) but Paul really goes to town on this. But I don't think anything can really be inferred from this alone.

I think the key thing is that, in the early history of Christianity, there were a hodgepodge of belief systems that were continually evolving. It's almost impossible to say where a "Jew" ends and a "Christian" begins for a person from that period. Even Paul (post-Damascus vision and conversion) refers to himself as a Jew e.g. in Galatians 2:15 ("We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles").

So, it is conceivable that the "degree" of belief in Jesus's celestial nature might also have differed, even among people considering themselves to believe in Christ.

Stephen's case is an interesting one. Remember that he was a Hellenised Jew before he started believing in Christ. The disdain he holds for the strictly-observant Jews is quite clear in Acts 7:51 - "Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in hearts and ears. If that isn't a zinger, I don't know what is. This was spoken during his speech before the crowd stoned him to death. Isn't it fair to say that James, even though he was Bishop of the first Church, was much more of a strict observer of Mosaic law than Stephen seems to be? I'm sure James would never have said such a thing to make light of the circumcision ritual (especially when you consider that this was one of the principal bones of contention between him and Paul).

There is also the weaker evidence that the Jews didn't exactly persecute the Apostles to anywhere near the same extent as they did Stephen (though they did lock them up in prison, but God jailbroke them, Acts 5:18-23). Subsequently, I guess the Jewish priests did want to do them in, but were persuaded otherwise by Gamaliel (Acts 5:34). Bottom line: the Jewish priests didn't really seem to have their hearts into killing off the Apostles (whereas the Jews killed Stephen pretty much without hesitation). I don't know if this can be attributed to James and Peter having a "less heretical" Christian outlook (with regard to the Celestial Jesus) or whether it's just a matter of the Jews being more afraid of the Apostles' popularity and following among the others in Jerusalem. I don't think it's a question of the Jews being afraid of direct Roman reprisals, since the Romans were not exactly fond of the Christian sect at this time (and it wouldn't have taken much for them to label the brother of the man they'd crucified a criminal in the same vein), whereas they did have a working relationship with the Jewish high priest.

At the end of the day, I can't find anything definitive in the NT to support the assertion that the Apostles had a different conception of the Celestial Jesus from Paul post-conversion. All I can find are weak inferences, which I mentioned above. So I'll concede the argument.

Yes, I agree. There were certainly different conceptions about the "celestial" nature of Jesus in the early church. The disciples did not have this idea while Jesus was alive, and so their understanding of the idea developed over time, and they are still developing. A fun difference between some eastern and western traditions is whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, or from the Father and the Son, or from the Father through the Son! I think the various understandings of the peculiar phrase "Son of Man" is especially intriguing. But basically at the time of Peter and Paul, the extent of the debate over this, if it existed, was minor compared to the issue about gentiles and the Jewish law.

BTW, your favourite from Galatians (5:12) - that was the "infamous" part about emasculation, wasn't it? My KJV just phrases it as "I would they were even cut off which trouble you." which is a very neutered (pardon the pun) rendition, but I'm aware there are some versions which talk about Paul telling the circumcised to go "all the way" and castrate themselves. Who says the Bible is not lurid and fun?

Will get to the rest of your post later.

 

[Curious3141]

Will get to the rest of your post later.

Thanks for the reply, and please take your time.