Buzzfeed: Is This The Most Embarrassing Interview Fox News Has Ever Done?

[techboy]

I think the point is that the book should be looked at based on the merits of its content rather than trying to disqualify it based on the religion or educational background of the author.

Well, to be fair, I'd argue that is is reasonable, for example, to ask a fundamentalist Christian who attempts to write about Jesus about that background, and whether or not a theological commitment to the literal inerrancy of Scripture is an impediment to properly analyzing the evidence.

And, as it happens, the one background that I can think of that might require similar scrutiny would be devout Muslim, given a similar theological commitment to things like the severe corruption of the Bible (which is how the various differences in the stories in the Q'uran and the same stories in the Bible are explained), or that Jesus wasn't crucified.

And, I'd suggest, that while it is true that anybody can write a well-researched book on any topic, it's fair to ask whether or not a person has the appropriate training or is just a hobbyist, especially in a field like Jesus studies which has a vast and technical body of literature one needs to properly interact with in order to do a good job.

Of course, Fox did not go about either of these questions in an appropriate manner, which is not "Why the heck would a Muslim write about Jesus? Just what are you up to here?", especially since as has already been noted, apparently he does have at least some training, and did not allow any theological commitments color his commentary on things like the Virgin Birth or the crucifixion.

 

 

This thread has lots of irony in it.

I believe in precision (which is what dragged me into this in the first place), so let's be precise:

1. I am not an historian, and have zero formal training in the field. I just read a lot. When I do comment, I try to make sure to cite the thoughts of an expert that actually does know the topic, preferably where a consensus of scholars exists. People here often ascribe too much authority to my opinion, actually, and extend my supposed "expertise" to areas I know even less about.

2. I was not attempting to "discredit" Dr. Aslan. I was merely attempting to clarify for Dan his position on the eminence of the scholar and the extent of his training. Further information indicates I was at least partially wrong, though as far as I can tell it's the first time he's ever published on this particular subject, and never in a peer reviewed journal. Dr. Aslan appears to have eclectic interests.

3. It's pretty clear Dr. Aslan is not "thumping" for the other "team", given that (as been commented on several times if you followed the thread more closely), he draws several conclusions in the book that are not consistent with the teachings of Islam.

4. It's equally ridiculous to suggest that taking a more critical approach to the text makes him part of some "extreme anti Christianity religious crowd". There are plenty of Christian scholars that tend to be more critical approach to the texts.

Actually, there are scholars of all backgrounds and theological commitments on all points of the spectrum.

[chipwhich]

I say he is part of the anti Christianity religious crowd more because he is trotted out by them on TV as an expert not because of any of his writings...which is the reason he was on Fox News in the first place.....hence the irony.  :-)

[grego]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/07/30/liberal-media-miss-reality-in-jabs-at-lauren-green-interview-with-zealot-author/

Liberal media miss reality in jabs at Lauren Green's interview with 'Zealot' author Aslan

There’s nothing the left likes better than attacking Fox News. Almost all liberal media “analysis” revolves around such activity, without ever noting the outlandishly liberal biases of the traditional outlets that outnumber Fox like the Persians outnumbered the Spartans. Throw in a chance to defend Islam and bash Christians and you get to light up the Internet like a Christmas (or Solstice) tree.

I agree with the premise of this article that the outrage is a bit overblown. I also agree that it's perfectly ok to question ones motives/credentials. So I'm in the minority on that one.

I just think she went too far and made that the whole interview, rather than moving on.

I also don't have a problem with a Muslim writing a book about Jesus. Jesus is an important figure in Islam (of course the Muslim Jesus is different from the Christian one, so Christians will likely disagree with the books conclusions).

[SkinsHokieFan]

In case you are too lazy to read the book, here is a good article about some of the more controversial claims.

 

Aslan also did the same thing in "No God but God" which is essentially a history of Islam. Many things he brought up were controversial and not in line with mainstream Islamic thought, which is generally why he is viewed much more as a very liberal, almost secular Muslim in the Muslim community (hence why he is never invited to conferences such as ISNA to speak)

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/07/30/speed-read-the-six-most-controversial-reza-aslan-claims-about-jesus.html

 

Perhaps the biggest mistake made by Lauren Green, the Fox News religious correspondent, was failing to challenge any of Aslan’s wilder assertions. He claims Jesus was not born in Bethlehem, was executed as a common criminal, and was more of a rabble-rouser than a man of peace.

 

What is Aslan saying about Jesus? How different is the historical Jesus of Nazareth from Christ the religious figure? What were the precise events that led to his crucifixion? And what about those three kings who traveled to Bethlehem to meet the son of God?

 

Here are the most controversial claims from Zealot:

 

 

 

[Jumbo]

Well "secular"....there ya go...no wonder he can't do history. Sure seems like he may have the wrong wrong ideas.

 

 

 

 

 

I am not just looking for trouble. I am just funny.

[Riggo-toni]

Christ not being born in Bethlehem is hardly a groundbreaking theory. You will find the same claim in nearly every secular historical treatise on Jesus. The Bethlehem connection was necessary to provide a link to OT writings about a new messiah to emerge from the Davidic line from David's ancestral home. The 2 gospels which give details on the birth give different reasons entirely for the occurence - one says it is the result of a census, the other a need to flee to Egypt to avoid Herod's slaughter of the innocent, and neither of these 2 events has any historical evidence outside of the New Testament. It's always struck me as odd how certain authors can rehash established arguments and get tons of exposure and book sales, while original researchers go overlooked. There are some scholars who provide meaningful, worthwhile revisions of existing theories - Friedman's reworking of Wellhausen's documentary hypothesis, for example; but what I've seen/heard/read about this book so far it doesn't strike me as anything noteworthy...rather, something dumbed down for mass consumption.

[Corcaigh]

Don't be too harsh on TB. His attack on Aslan was a requirement of him keeping his membership in the William Lane Craig fan club.

[Larry]

I agree with the premise of this article that the outrage is a bit overblown. I also agree that it's perfectly ok to question ones motives/credentials. So I'm in the minority on that one.

But the purpose of the article isn't "the outrage is a bit overblown". Nor is it that it's not OK to question one's motives/credentials.

The purpose of the article is "We got caught doing an 'interview' in which we spent like four minutes of airtime saying 'this guy is a Muslim, ignore whatever it is that he says', and this proves that the vast liberal conspiracy is attacking us because they're all anti-Christian".

In fact, the basis for the article is:

1) Guy writes a book.

2) The book's title implies that maybe Jesus doesn't quite fit the childrens-book image.

3) Fox brings the guy on the air to be 'interviewed'

4) In the interview, Fox completely ignores every point the author made, and simply attacks the author.

5) People point out how dumb Fox looks, and how obvious it is that they're doing this

6) Guy writes an article about item 5, in which he . . . ignores every point that was made, and attacks the authors.

[techboy]

In case you are too lazy to read the book, here is a good article about some of the more controversial claims.

What's funny is that none of those six claims are particularly controversial, at least in academic circles.

[CrabR]

Here he is on CNN talking about Fox interview

 

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2013/07/30/pmt-intv-reza-aslan.cnn.html

 

BTW biggest joke of a interview i on fax was about 3 yrs ago at this time. on Fox and friends they interviewed a 5yr old who was not allowed to pray in Kindergarten so his rights were violated. It was obvious his parents put words into his mouth. It was more than painful to watch as the 3 tired to take it seriously and keep the kid on point.  The only reason i was watching was because we were at a motel eating breakfast and they had TV tuned to it

[Riggo-toni]

In case you are too lazy to read the book, here is a good article about some of the more controversial claims.

What's funny is that none of those six claims are particularly controversial, at least in academic circles.

Yeah, that was the point I was trying to make. All he's apparently done is compile a Reader's Digest version of existing books...Jesus A Life, Jesus a Revolutionary Biography, Scripting Jesus, The Historical Jesus, etc....can't believe this is on the bestseller list...

It's like when that girl group remade the LAs There She Goes and scored a huge hit with an inferior watered down version.

[Jumbo]

 

In case you are too lazy to read the book, here is a good article about some of the more controversial claims.

What's funny is that none of those six claims are particularly controversial, at least in academic circles.

Yeah, that was the point I was trying to make. All he's apparently done is compile a Reader's Digest version of existing books...Jesus A Life, Jesus a Revolutionary Biography, Scripting Jesus, The Historical Jesus, etc....can't believe this is on the bestseller list...

It's like when that girl group remade the LAs There She Goes and scored a huge hit with an inferior watered down version.

 

Riggo...I got the same general review from the academics (a generally usable sample for such a shady lot ) I asked. They describe the guy as "lightweight" and "knows how to sell."  Making money is making money.

[techboy]

Probably the best piece I've read on the credentials issue is now Did Reza Aslan Lie about His Credentials? - Le Donne, by Anthony Le Donne, who is an editor of the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus. A couple of relevant excerpts:

If by "tougher interview" Matthew Franck means "unprofessional, Islamophobic farce", I would agree. It pains me to say this, but both the interview and this First Things article seem to be motivated by religious distrust.

However...

A more considered line of questioning comes from Stephen Prothero. Prothero writes on Facebook:

I think the "credentials" issue here is a legitimate one. Part of it turns on the term "historian of religions," which IS used (as Aslan uses it) as a generic term for "comparative religions." But then there is also the issue of what makes one an expert in New Testament/Christian origins. This is a highly specialized field, and entry into it is usually conferred by a PhD in it. I have a PhD in Religious Studies. I would never claim it authorizes me to write as an expert on the New Testament or early Christianity. Then again, Aslan did study the New Testament as an undergraduate and as a master's student at Harvard, where he learned New Testament Greek.

He then relates the response from Dr. Aslan's advisor I quoted earlier, but then continues that...

What Prothero says about his expertise in NT Studies still stands. I have now read the book and I can say (without question) that Zealot is not written by an author conversant with the field of NT studies or Second Temple Judaism more generally. More on this point in the coming days.

Perhaps because...

As to the credentials issue, where Aslan might be in the biggest danger of falsehood is in his claim to be a teacher of religious studies, or that he does this "for a living". He is not a religious studies instructor in the traditional sense of that title. A colleague of his from Riverside has confirmed this for me.

As I noted, this area is highly technical and requires interaction with a great many sources. It'd be pretty difficult for someone who doesn't do this for a living to keep up with everything. I think this is an important note too, though...

No doubt, he overplayed his credentials, but there is a difference between setting the record right and tearing a colleague to shreds.

I have no doubt that some will continue to see this as "attacking" somebody that draws some conclusions I disagree with, but this is an area of study that is important to me, and these things do matter.

[techboy]

Riggo...I got the same general review from the academics (a generally usable sample for such a shady lot ) I asked. They describe the guy as "lightweight" and "knows how to sell."  Making money is making money.

Well, sure, but you just went and polled the local chapter meeting of the Faculty Commons for Campus Crusade for Christ, didn't you?

[Jumbo]

 

Well, sure, but you just went and polled the local chapter meeting of the Faculty Commons for Campus Crusade for Christ, didn't you?

 

 

Laugh it up, Alter Boy (get it? ), but those girls know how to crunk.

[The Evil Genius]

 

 

Well, sure, but you just went and polled the local chapter meeting of the Faculty Commons for Campus Crusade for Christ, didn't you?

 

 

Laugh it up, Alter Boy (get it? ), but those girls know how to crunk.

 

You mean get crunk? Or were you trying for twerk?

 

So..basically (summarizing from other people's posts) this guy isn't a historian, his qualifications are in question, and he wrote something that is watered/dumbed down that rehashes some other people's writings.

 

Is that about right?

[Jumbo]

Who are you calling a twerk? Don't make me start sending twits out to my perps or talking about this injustice on Facespace. 

[visionary]

A parody of the interview....

 

 

 

(Why isn't anything showing from recent posts?)

[Botched]

Serious question from somebody who watches no cable news:

 

I have seen clips of several interviews like this from Fox. Are the interviews on other networks (CNN, MSNBC, etc) just as bad?

[Mad Mike]

The Top Five Times A Fox Guest Debunked Fox

 

must see TV   

 

 

[Tulane Skins Fan]

The last one is still classic...

 

Tom Ricks, thanks for joining us today.

 

You're welcome.

[Rocky21]

That sure was fun.  I laughed throughout that whole clip but the look on Reza Aslan's face when he gets asked that ignorant question about his faith is priceless.  Plus he delivers the smack down.  

[s0crates]

techboy, classic case of belief perseverance.

[Riggo-toni]

Serious question from somebody who watches no cable news:

I have seen clips of several interviews like this from Fox. Are the interviews on other networks (CNN, MSNBC, etc) just as bad?

Anderson Cooper of CNN does the best/most fair of interviews like this. Erin Burnett of CNN is also good. Piers Morgan, on the other hand, is awful. Dude should have stuck w/ reality TV.

I don't watch CNN during the day, but the glimpses I have caught are not particularly inspiring. And too too way too much of what passes for objective TV journalism these days is getting a shill from each side of the aisle to argue over an issue, which ultimately degenerates into spouting their party's latest talking points memo.

Also, far too many "Court TV" segments presented as news.

[GibbsFactor]

So Fox News, like most Christians I know, have no idea that Jesus is a prophet in Islam.

 

SMH, not surprised really.  Most of America lives in a bubble.