Reza Aslan on the Move

Last updated on: July 31, 2013 at 1:59 am by Timothy Dalrymple

Reza Aslan on the Move 2013-07-31T01:59:04-04:00 Timothy Dalrymple

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

The video interview (which was only broadcast online) from Lauren Green of Fox News of Reza Aslan is a train wreck of an interview and it must have been painful for both the interviewer and the interviewee, much though it has benefited the latter. In case you missed it, a long-serving but relatively anonymous Fox News religion journalist, Lauren Green, had Reza Aslan on her show to discuss his new book, Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth. She cues up the interview by noting that Aslan was a Christian for a time, who converted back to Islam, “the faith of his forefathers.” She asserts that the book is controversial because it “calls into question some of the core tenets of Christianity.” (One must wonder at this, because a book from one of the Brahmins of secular academe would be controversial if it did not call into questions the core tenets of Christianity, as calling those into question is, by now, an exceedingly well worn route to media attention, pop-academic celebrity, perhaps even the cover of some once-respected newsmagazine, and therefore increased book sales.)

If the roles were reversed, and it were conservatives criticizing the beautifully dark-skinned Ms Green, then it would be a simple matter of accusing the conservatives of racism and moving on. (I keed, I keed.) Since this is not so, let’s roll tape…Green begins the interview by asking: “You’re a Muslim, so why did you write a book about the founder of Christianity?”

This was a question about motives and not about qualifications — and a perfectly legitimate question in itself (later questions were less so, in my view). Academics are certainly not above having their motives examined. It seems to me that any scholar of religion who’s seriously committed to intellectual integrity ought to examine her own motives openly and be transparent about how her own religious commitments (either for or against the tradition she is studying) might shape the outcomes of her scholarship. To his credit, Aslan discloses his Muslim faith at the outset of the book. But the very personal way in which he frames the book makes the entire book an exercise in fleshing out the reasons (or at least the intellectual justification) why he left Christianity and returned “home” to Islam — and this makes it even more peculiar that he should grow indignant at the question posed. To his discredit, then, Aslan responds to this question with repeated and very strongly emphasized references to his academic credentials.

Now, Reza and I have many things in common. We both studied religion as undergraduate students, as master’s students, and as doctoral students. Although he appears to be slightly older than I am, we both completed our doctorates (he at UCSB and I at Harvard) in 2009. We both believe that academics must do more to engage the public square. I’m sure I’d love to have a beer with him. So I want to give the benefit of the doubt: video interviews do not always present us at our best. But I found his huffing about his degrees inelegant and unbecoming.

Let’s imagine how he might have responded: “I chose to write this book because I find the founder of Christianity fascinating, inspiring and important. To be clear, yes, I am a Muslim, but I seek to be as objective as I possibly can, just as a Christian scholar writing about Islam would. But ultimately my conclusions stand or fall on their own merits and not on whether I’m Muslim or Christian or anything else.” But this was his response, as well as the followup (emphases in the original):

RA: “Well, to be clear, I am a scholar of religions with FOUR degrees, including one in the New Testament, and fluency in biblical Greek, who has been studying the origins of Christianity for two decades, who also just happens to be a Muslim…I am an expert with a PhD in the history of religions…”

LG: “It still begs the question, why would you be interested in the founder of Christianity?

RA: “Because it’s my job as an academic. I am a professor of religion, including the New Testament. That’s what I do for a living, actually.” “I’ve been studying his life and his work, both in an academic environment and on a personal level, for two decades.” “Anyone who thinks this book is an attack on Christianity has not read it yet…and to be clear, I want to emphasize this one more time. I am a historian. I am a PhD in the history of religions…This is an academic work of history.”

There are several things worth questioning here:

No, it’s not your job as an academic to be interested in the founder of Christianity. You can investigate and write on thousands of topics, but you chose to write a book on the founder of Christianity. It’s perfectly permissible to ask why. Muslims can write excellent books on Christianity, just as Christians can write excellent books on other traditions. But motives should be open to inquiry. And I think it’s facile to say that I “just happen to be a Muslim.” Your faith both shapes and is shaped by your research. To pretend otherwise is, I think, naive.
While it’s a permissible question, and I don’t think Aslan had to grow so indignant, I don’t think it’s an especially important question. Whatever his motive, whatever his own faith background, Aslan may be right. It’s the arguments and evidence that are important.
It’s not unreasonable at all to read this book as an “attack on Christianity.” In a recent interview, Reza previewed the conclusions in the book thus: “I’ve come to the conclusion, in twenty years of academic research, that there was absolutely nothing special, unusual, or extraordinary about Jesus of Nazareth. He was one of dozens of people who were saying the exact same things, doing the exact same things, performing the exact same miracles, in this incredibly turbulent time and place called first-century Palestine.” Or as he says in the opening of the book itself, he has come to the conclusion that the Evangelical Christianity he experienced in his youth is “patently and irrefutably false,” because “the Bible is replete with the most blatant and obvious errors and contradictions.” There is no serious engagement here with Christian responses to these kinds of arguments, which have been around for millennia. In fact, very conveniently, Reza in the Author’s Note at the beginning of the book relieves himself of the responsibility of discussing opposing viewpoints in the body of the book. There are much stronger attacks on Christianity, but I fail to see how no one could read the book and believe it’s an attack on Christianity.
Joe Carter at GetReligion raised the question of whether Reza is misrepresenting his credentials, because he calls himself “a historian” with a PhD in “the history of religions” but his PhD is in sociology and he wrote his dissertation on modern Islam and terrorism. Joe has gotten a lot of push-back from scholars of religion themselves, and I would echo some of their comments, but I think Reza is giving (at least) a self-serving gloss on his academic credentials. I’ll explain why in the next post. (For what it’s worth, there appears to be an old but also-self-serving description of his credentials in the “From the Author” portion of Reza’s author page at Amazon.) I would not regard Reza as an expert in New Testament or early Christian history, certainly not like a Peter Brown or an N.T. Wright — or a Ben Witherington or Scot McKnight or Mark D. Roberts, for that matter, all of whom confronted the same questions Reza did as an undergraduate, came to different conclusions than Reza did, and remained believers.

I’m going to examine the question of credentials and self-representation in the next post, mostly because it speaks to the position of religious studies within the modern university, but I’m still not sure his credentials are that important. He wrote a book. We have the book in front of us. Either it makes sound arguments, or it does not. For the most part, from what I’ve seen so far, it does not. We can examine the book’s merits directly in the post that follows.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQhMllQ-ODw

Previous Post

July 22, 2013

Royal Baby

Next Post

August 8, 2013 Out of Africa: First Impressions

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Abortion Abortion adoption Africa Aging AIDS America Worship American history Americolatry An Open Letter to a College Freshman animals Apologetics art Atheism Authors Barack Obama Bible Biblical Scholarship Billy Graham Blogging Bono Book Review Books That Change Lives Breakfast Links Bulletin Board Business Children Christian Approach to Politics Christian Media Christian Right Derangement Syndrome Christianity and Homosexuality Christians in Government Christmas Chuck Colson CLS v Martinez Comic Creation Creativity and the Arts Cross Examinations Cross Investigations Daily Fragment Daily Trinity Death debt Deep Thoughts on Fatherhood depression economy education Election 2012 entertainment Environment Epistemology Erik Campano Euthanasia Evangelicalism Evangelicals and Gays Everyday Transcendence evil evolution Facebook Jesus faith Faith and Politics Faith and Politics Faith and Politics Faith and Politics Faith and Politics Faith and Politics Faith and Politics faith and reason family Feminism foreign affairs Franklin Graham Future of Evangelicalism Galen D. gay marriage George W. Bush Guest Posts Guns Gymnastics Harold Camping Heaven Hell Holidays Hollywood Homosexuality iam2.org Illegal Immigration immigration Immigration Reform Injustice Inspiration Interviews Islam Jeremy Lin Jesus jesus christ John Mark Reynolds Johnnie Moore Judgment Day Just War Theory Killing Osama Link of the Day Lists of the Week Mark Goldblatt Marriage Military Missions Mitt Romney Modern Western Thought Monastic wisdom Mormonism Morning Hash Morning Report Motherhood Movies Obamacare Old Testament Orphan Care Palin Parenting Pastoral Resources Patheos Peace Between Religions PEPFAR Persecution Peter Wehner Peter Wehner Philosophy Political Quotes of the Day politics Politics and Economics Pornography Prejudice Prisoner Rape Question of the Week Race Radical Faith Rapture Ravi Zacharias Rick Santorum Russia Salvation Sarah Palin Scandals Science Science and Faith Separation of Church and State Series sex sex slavery social justice Social Justice Ministry Spiritual Disciplines sports Steven Tyler Suffering Suicide Sunday Funnies T. Dalrymple Tea Party Technology terrorism The Christian Media Files The Daily Trinity The Electorate The Ethics of Rhetoric The Future of Seminary Education The Middle East The Obama Presidency theological Theological Renewal Theology Uncategorized Understanding Evangelicalism Vocation war War and Peace With Distinction Word to the Wise Writers

Select a Month October 2015 June 2015 May 2015 March 2015 December 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz