Arabian Fables?

Reza Aslan

Since I haven't read Reza Aslan's latest book; Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth, I can't comment on the authenticity of his work. Thus, I'll leave that to others who've read the book.

Aslan, who's not shy about touting his academic credentials, claims that his book presents the clearest and most accurate portrayal of Jesus Christ that's ever been written.

However, several Christian scholars who've read Aslan's book strongly disagree. They claim that his book not only offers nothing new about Christ that's never previously been claimed, but that it merely recycles many historical canards about Jesus that were disproved long ago.

For example, Dr. Danny Burk, an associate professor of Biblical Studies at Boyce College, the undergraduate arm of the Southern Baptist Thelogical Seminary, claims that Aslan's book does little more than promote an "historically reconstructed Jesus, not the Jesus that appears on the pages of Scriptire." 
www.christianpost.com

Dr. Greg Carey, a professor of New Testament at Lancaster Theological Seminary states that Aslan's book "seems to have bought into an outdated model of Christian development." 

Perhaps the harshest criticism of Zealot comes from Baylor University Professor Alan Jacobs who dismissed the book as opinionated propaganda. Jacobs said this: "Aslan makes no new discoveries, and makes no arguments that haven't already been made--in some cases very long ago. In Zealot, he is writing well outside his own academic training. Reza Aslan is not a New Testament scholar."

But don't tell that to Aslan who has a very large ego. Aslan, who claims to have been a Christian before he converted to Islam, sounds more like a hardcore leftist than an academic religious scholar. He can be quite arrogant and profane, particularly with folks who disagree with him. His Twitter account provides the profile of a man who's narcissistic, crude, crass, foul-mouthed and self-promoting. Those aren't the sort of attributes you associate with people who claim to be Harvard University graduates.

As for Aslan, he claims that he converted to Islam after he discovered the Bible to be "replete with the most blatant and obvious errors and contradictions." And he also claims that the true Jesus Christ is historically unknowable and can't be found.

If so, then his book collapses under the weight of its own argument because it debunks the biblical account of the life, ministry, death and resurrection of Christ to offer a different account. In order to do that, you have to provide evidential proof that positively refutes the former source while supporting the latter. If Aslan claims that Christ is historically unknowable, then what's the point of his book?

If Aslan wants to talk about a holy book that offers numerous contractions and historical inaccuracies, then let's talk about the Koran. For example, the Koran provides four conflicting accounts of Mohammad's reception of the Koran. (Suras 53:2-18, 81:19-24, 16:102, 26:192-194, 15:8, 2:97) 

The Koran also offers two conflicting accounts of creation (Sura 41:9-12, Sura 7:51) and embarrassing historical inaccuracies such as claiming that Christ's physical mother Mary was also the sister of Moses and Aaron, (Sura 19:28) and that Alexander the Great was a Muslim who worshiped Allah. (Sura 18:89-98) That's impossible because Alexander lived during the 4th Century B.C. and Islam didn't appear until the 7th Century C.E.

However, the Bible provides over 300 verifiable prophetic sources in the Old Testament that validate the New Testament and the four gospels. For example, Christ's virgin birth, (Isaiah 7:14) life, ministry, death and resurrection, (Isaiah 53) birthplace of Bethlehem, (Micah 5:2) and his famous ride on a donkey into Jerusalem (Zechariah 9:9) were foretold hundreds of years before Christ appeared on earth.

Compare that to the Koran that contains not a single verifiable prophecy. I think you know what book is truly replete with blatant errors and contradictions.

I don't know whether Aslan is a phony who's doing the bidding of leftists by defaming Christianity or is just trying to make a living by writing books that he believes offer serious historical scholarship.

I'm inclined to believe the former. I do know that someone who gets extremely defensive when he's questioned and critiqued about his work generally has something to hide.

And that's usually the truth.