Thanks. You will have to forgive me that I will not spend (waste) my time on Jewish and Christian metaphysics where historic fact, stories, philosophies, commentaries, interpretations and interpretations of interpretations all mix and run amok into a mushrooming library of the most intimate and brilliant... nonsense.Nonc Hilaire wrote:I have a BA in Biblical Studies and a M.Div., which are better qualifications than Aslan's MFA in fiction and Ph.D in Sociology with a thesis on Jihadism. Aslan does not even read Greek. Qualifications are not everything, but biblical literature is exceptionally nuanced with centuries of academic commentary. Koine Greek is peculiar. Its genitive case and the ease of confusing prepositions have caused numerous errors and disputes.Parodite wrote:Sources? It would be a good joke if a half-cooked conman comes closest to the truth re Jesus the resurrected Christ versus the historical Jesus. On the other hand...
Joking aside.. what he says is nothing new. Did you read his book(s)? What research did you yourself do on the historical Jesus, what are your sources, which books did you digest? Anything of Geza Vermes? From what position of authority does thou speak?
Aslan is like a mathematician writing about physics. Writing out of one's field can be treacherous, even if there are some similarities.
When an author cannot read the original sources, has no professional training in the field and does not even cite/consider previous academic work his output is going to be limited at best. I can't waste time on Aslan's amateur attempt just because Aslan finagled his book into a NYT best seller. N.T. Wright has 1700 pages on Paul and the Faithfulness of God on my desk. Wright gets my time when it comes to Jesus, not the Muslim sociologist.
I'm sure Aslan put together a believable story. He is a trained fiction writer; that is what they do.
Google reviews of Aslan's book and you will not find a qualified historian who takes him seriously. The search for a historical Jesus essentially ended with Schweitzer. There are a few token efforts, but the quality of ancient literature simply does not allow for it to be generally used as a modern history.
Selectively editing out explicitly Christian reviews:
http://jewishreviewofbooks.com/articles ... sus-wasnt/
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/a ... lan-review
But obviously most of the best New Testament scholars are Christian. Few non-Christians will devote a career to studying Christianity. You will find professional, academic, detailed and devastating criticism from Christian scholars on google.
Bart Ehrman, an outstanding biblical scholar and Christian apostate is a great source but most of his content is behind a paywall. However, Ehrman's free introductory remarks are enough to establish that Aslan is about as good as Dan Brown for accurate interpretation of Christian history.
http://ehrmanblog.org/aslans-zealot-start/
The distinction between the metaphysical resurrected Christ and Jesus the Man.... I would say is an important one, for starters. And it is quite telling that the amount of writing about the metaphysical one is a multifold much bigger.. than Jesus the Man. Jesus the Man has long been dehumanized into this celestial resurrected being... so anyone making an effort to bring him back into the fold of human normalcy is really welcome. Will continue later, holy food is on the table.