Saturday, August 03, 2013

More on Reza Aslan and the Foxnews Kerfuffle.

Brent Bozell writes:

Green’s first question? “This is an interesting book. Now, I want to clarify: You are a Muslim, so why did you write a book about the founder of Christianity?”

That’s hardly a ridiculous question. It is actually the necessary first question. I have written a book charging that the liberal press stole the 2012 election. Were I to appear on CNN, would it not be correct to establish from the start that I am a conservative?

But liberals sniffed “bigotry” in Green’s open-ended question (which she asked several times and couldn’t get a straight answer). They sensed she was saying Aslan and Muslims should somehow be banned from writing about Christianity.

In responding to Green’s question, Aslan arrogantly lectured Green like she was a little girl, dismissing her question as impudent. He claimed “I am an expert with a Ph.D. in the history of religions...To be clear, I want to emphasize one more time, I am a historian, I am a Ph.D. in the history of religions.” That is emphatically false. The Ph.D was in sociology, something entirely different.  He also has a Master of Arts in Fiction. That qualification seems more appropriate here.      

In an interview on NPR’s “Weekend Edition,” Aslan had another “cringeworthy” moment that even NPR felt pressed to correct on its website: “Our guest incorrectly says the first Gospel, the Gospel of Mark, contains no statement of messianic identity from Jesus. In fact, in Mark 14:62, Jesus responds affirmatively when asked if he is the son of God.”

NPR didn’t say “inadvertently.” Not “mistakenly.” The word they chose – “incorrectly” – speaks volumes. Aslan was pushing a falsehood.

Here is Mark 14:62

61 But he was silent and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him and said to him, “Are you the Messiah, the son of the Blessed One?”
62 Then Jesus answered, “I am; and
‘you will see the Son of Man
seated at the right hand of the Power
and coming with the clouds of heaven.’”
63 At that the high priest tore his garments and said, “What further need have we of witnesses?
64 You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?” They all condemned him as deserving to die.

Aslan is actually much worse in missing the "I am" statement - which is the name of God.  Aslan doesn't seem to get it.

Aslan writes:

Finally, the high priest Caiaphas stands and asks Jesus directly, “Are you the messiah?” It is here, at the end of the journey that began on the sacred shores of the Jordan River, that the messianic secret is finally peeled away and Jesus’s true nature seemingly revealed.

“I am,” Jesus answers.

But then immediately this clearest and most concise statement yet by Jesus of his messianic identity is muddied with an ecstatic exhortation, borrowed directly from the book of Daniel, that once again throws everything into confusion: “And you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven” (Mark 14: 62).

The first half of Jesus’s response to the high priest is an allusion to the Psalms, in which God promises King David that he shall sit at his right hand, “until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet” (Psalm 110: 1). But the phrase “coming with the clouds of heaven” is a direct reference to the son of man of Daniel’s vision (Daniel 7: 13).

Aslan, Reza (2013-07-16). Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth (Kindle Locations 2287-2295). Random House Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. //

But Aslan previoulsy conceded that the "Son of Man" is a divine figure. So, where is this confusion?  That Jesus wasn't saying that he was a human messianic figure?  Isn't that the point?

Wasn't that why the High Priest tore his clothes and said "blasphemy"?

After all, it wasn't blasphemous to claim to be a Messiah.

1 comment:

marian said...


.....from raising and mussing up kitty fur

and also from marshmallow FLUFF.

Who links to me?