I’ve mentioned “the Blow-Up in Baltimore” several times in the last few weeks. I’m sure readers of this blog are tired of it, but I’ve got good news, you no longer have to hear about it second hand. You can listen to it yourself here.
Also, Anthony Le Donne and Reza Aslan discussed Aslan’s thesis that Jesus was a Zealot on Premier Christian Radio in the UK. You can listen to their chat here.
the archives near Emmaus 
Holy smokes! That discussion between Aslan and Le Donne was intense!
I think I would find Aslan’s arguments much more appealing—albeit still not convincing—if his rhetoric wasn’t so annoyingly repulsive. He uses a lot of adverbs (a weird thing to notice, I know) and hyperbole, and it seems like his default setting is to refer to his “copious, copious amount of notes,” which is kind of red-herring-ish.
Also, what’s up with the host winding up Le Donne by claiming that Aslan is accusing him of “snobbery”?
I am about half way through the interview. I may need to read Aslan’s book, because this debate lost me as regards Aslan’s thesis. Le Donne continually aims to discuss what the book appears to address, and what it seems to be popularly understood as addressing, but Aslan seems to be saying he didn’t say these things. It leaves me wondering why he (or his publisher) titled the book “Zealot” other than to sell more copies if he doesn’t say anything conclusive about Jesus other than “Jesus is like other Jews of his time” and “Jesus’ political views are more complex than many have imagined”.
Also, it is quite odd hearing a professor of creative writing lecture a historian on what historians do.
Yeah, I came away with the same feeling.
Favorite part: When Anthony responds to one of Aslan’s questions with, “Because you’re not well read in the New Testament.”
I have the impression that Aslan thinks he is debating a conservative apologist. I wonder if he’s read any of Anthony’s work?
“I’m less concerned with the quantity of one’s notes and more concerned with the quality of one’s notes.” – zing.
Then again, as I finish listening, I think Anthony’s words are correct: there are other books more deserving of our time.
Oh, I agree. But the problem is that Aslan’s book is difficult to ignore. I am frequently approached by people from our congregation who ask me what I think of Zealot, and I find it hard to answer—I know the book is not worth picking up, but I also feel like I have the need to respond to the questions of my fellow churchgoers. My hunch is that my church—a very politically left-leaning congregation—got interested in Aslan’s book in the first place because he seems to be offering the anti-conservative (read: anti-FOX News) reading of the Gospels. I know that sounds a bit over-simplified, but I really think Zealot is a Kim Kardashian book—that is, it is famous for being famous, due in large part to the infamous FOX interview. So parishioners read about it, they hear about it on sensationalized news programs, and they decide it’s something they want to look into. Add also to the mix the suggestion that Jesus was a “zealot” or violent revolutionary (which apparently Aslan claims is never argued in the book), and you’ve got an intriguing mix for a liberal Anabaptist church.
This quarter I am leading our adult Sunday school class in a course on the historical Jesus, and we are using Le Donne’s Historical Jesus as our textbook. I’m tempted to just keep forwarding all of Le Donne’s critiques of Aslan to the other members of the class…
That’s a good point: it is in the public eye, and it is causing people to have questions, and these questions need to be addressed. Maybe I can find a copy at a local library and read through it over a weekend.
After listening to both audio clips, of the contributors, Dr. Paul Foster was the most articulate (and possibly efficient) in getting to the heart of the matter.
He noted that the study of the transmission of memory is not, strictly speaking, ‘historical Jesus research’, rather it’s Historical memory transmission research. It is a compelling argument. No one countered that observation, and in fact a number of people seemed to agree (one even going as far as to note that the purpose of memory studies isn’t designed to answer historical questions of fact!)
This leaves me wondering what all the hubbub was about, since if everyone seems to agree that memory studies don’t answer the type of questions historians are asking, why would historians of Jesus give these issues so much stage time (so-to-speak).
Dr. Foster’s point was progressed most effectively, and his logic sound. If anyone came away from that with credibility, he seemed to.