I love watching partisan news stories play out. It’s fascinating to see the way everyone weaves as fast as they can so that each new fact can be nestled snugly into a pre-existing worldview before the next one. That’s one of the changes of the Internet-based news era, I guess. We all make our own spin now.
I’ll be honest, though, when the painful-to-watch Fox News interview of Reza Aslan hit my social networking feed, I thought this was a pretty cut-and-dry case of total cluelessness on Fox’s behalf. Here, you can spin up the video while you read the rest of the post if you like.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YY92TV4_Wc0
The way I saw this video introduced was simple: Fox doesn’t understand academia. They don’t understand that scholars must, by necessity, bracket their personal convictions (like religion) when they do their scholarly work. And Reza Aslan definitely plays into that hardcore starting with the first–awkward and foolish–question “Why would a Muslim write a book about Jesus?”
I will say, however, that it’s not necessarily an out-of-bounds question if it’s being asked in a kind of inviting, open-ended way (e.g. “What insights do you bring to this question?”) as opposed to a kind of apologist bent (e.g. “What business does a Muslim have writing about Jesus?”) At first it’s hard to tell which meaning was intended by the host, but Aslan definitely latches onto the latter and fiercely depends his right and duty as a scholar to investigate across religious divides. As the conversation progresses, the host seems to fall into the same narrative, and so by the end of it you feel sort of like you’re watching a physics professor try to explain relativity to middle school kid.
Thus the narrative is set, and Slate, the Washington Post, and the New York Times (among many others) fell over themselves to stick it to Fox.
And I have to admit, Fox sure left the door pretty wide open. And yet…
I wasn’t really expecting to find a dissenting view because it seemed so clear cut. I assume that the folks on the far right fringe are livid about it, but I’m not even interested in hearing what they have to say. (What does that say about me? I’m not sure.) But when I stumbled on a link to a piece from First Things, I was interested. In the piece Matthew J. Franck doesn’t bother defending Fox (it’s a lost cause, as far as this clip goes). Instead, he points out that Aslan’s banner-waving of the term “scholar” is predicated on some pretty obvious falsehoods. A sample of Aslan’s claism:
I am a scholar of religions with four degrees including one in the New Testament . . . I am an expert with a Ph.D. in the history of religions . . . I am a professor of religions, including the New Testament–that’s what I do for a living, actually . . . To be clear, I want to emphasize one more time, I am a historian, I am a Ph.D. in the history of religions.
As it turns out, almost none of those claims is actually true. He does have 4 degrees, but this is including his bachelor’s degree and also an MFA in Fiction. Don’t be me wrong, the MFA is from the University of Iowa and that’s impressive, but it doesn’t really qualify someone as an expert in the history of religions. Now, it turns out that Aslan also has a Master of Theological Studies from Harvard and a PhD from UC Santa Barbara, so it’s not like he’s waving around a diploma he bout from the Cayman Islands off of eBay. But the PhD is in sociology, not the history of religion, and his dissertation title is “Global Jihadism as a Transnational Social Movement: A Theoretical Framework.” That’s not actually relevant to religious history.
But what really matters more than any of this is that he claims that this (religious history) is “what I do for a living”. It’s not. As Franck writes:
He is an associate professor in the Creative Writing program at the University of California, Riverside, where his terminal MFA in fiction from Iowa is his relevant academic credential. It appears he has taught some courses on Islam in the past, and he may do so now, moonlighting from his creative writing duties at Riverside. Aslan has been a busy popular writer, and he is certainly a tireless self-promoter, but he is nowhere known in the academic world as a scholar of the history of religion. And a scholarly historian of early Christianity? Nope.
So there you have it. None of this excuses Fox’s ignorant and silly questioning and none of it invalidates Aslan’s claims in the book he’s promoting, but it definitely puts a whole new light on the picture. After all: what better way to promote your book then to go on Fox News, take umbrage at the first question, and spend your entire time creating a YouTube sensation featuring you standing up for truth, justice, and the Ivory Tower Way against the illiterate, reactionary barbarians at Fox News.
The lesson from Aslan is simple: If you’re willing to go through a few minutes of uncomfortable awkwardness in a venue that is ideologically anethma to your target audience, Internet celebrity (and book sales!) can be yours.
And what does any of this–from start to finish–have to do with Aslan’s book? Not. A. Damn. Thing. I hear it’s about Jesus or something?
UPDATE: Peter Enns has a good post at Patheos citing what two actual Biblical scholars have to say about the content of this book. They are Greg Carey and Anthony Le Donne. Carey is generous in his review and Le Donne isn’t, but both of them seem to come to similar conclusions. Which is that a lot of what Aslan reports is legitimate and familiar to anyone who is interested in Bible studies, but his key conclusions are based on either ignoring or fabricating evidence. In a nutshell: Aslan claims that the fact that the Romans crucified Jesus is enough (pretty much on its own) to conclude that Jesus was an armed insurrectionist. Which, you know, it kind of isn’t. I suggest reading Carey’s and Donne’s review for more info, but now you’ve got the gist of things.
“…scholars must, by necessity, bracket their personal convictions (like religion) when they do their scholarly work”
Why must they do that? It seems like this is only a necessity insofar as their peer-reviewers challenge the obvious manifestations of personal convictions. I’m not saying that some personal convictions are challenged and ferreted out, but to say that personal convictions don’t affect scholarly work seems a little separated from reality. And then there are other pressures beyond personal convictions, like economic and political pressures.
The animus imputed to this Fox News reporter has gone way beyond her language or tone of voice. She’s become a type of George Zimmerman, except instead of black/white, this is the rivalry between populist Christians and intellectual progressives. What matters is what she actually said and how she said it, not what past Fox News reporters have said or what Rick Santorum said in 2012. And yet it seems like all that has been imported into the debate. And that’s before we even get to the question of whether Dr. Aslan has been deceptive in describing his credentials (which you acknowledge) and religious background (not disclosing his religious background in other news interviews).
CeeJay-
I’d like to slightly modify my initial statement: scholars must, by necessity, be capable of bracketing their personal convictions. The reason for this is simple: if you’re going to engage with other people (which is a scholar’s job) you need to be able to empathize with their perspective. If you’re a devout Jew writing about the New Testament (or whatever) you need to be able to bracket your Jewish convictions in order to understand how to talk to an audience that doesn’t share them.
Please note that this doesn’t mean you’re denying or suppressing personal conviction. I would argue that bracketing your own beliefs is, in some cases, the best way to be true to them. (For example: you will be much more persuasive if you can bracket your beliefs in certain contexts.)
Now, whether or not there’s actually some kind of objective scholarly viewpoint that is secular and that everyone needs to embrace to do scholarship… I’m much more skeptical of that. But my only argument is that it’s necessary for scholars (and useful for everyone) to be able to distinguish between which of their beliefs are common and which are not.
“As it turns out, almost none of those claims is actually true.”
Does he have 4 degrees? Is he a scholar of religion? Does he have a PHD in the history of religion? Is he a professor of religion? His three books and all his research are on religion. If this doesn’t describe a scholar and professor of religions, I don’t know what does:
“Reza Aslan earned a Bachelor of Arts in Religion from Santa Clara University, a Master of Theological Studies from Harvard University, a Master of Fine Arts in Fiction from the University of Iowa, and is currently a Doctoral Candidate in History of Religions at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Until recently, he was both Visiting Assistant Professor of Islamic and Middle East Studies at the University of Iowa and the Truman Capote Fellow in Fiction at the Iowa Writers’ Workshop. He has served as a legislative assistant for the Friends’ Committee on National Legislation in Washington D.C., and was elected president of Harvard’s Chapter of the World Conference on Religion and Peace, a United Nations Organization committed to solving religious conflicts throughout the world.”
http://blogcritics.org/interview-reza-aslan-author-no-god/
As for his credentials, Franck, an academic himself, should really know better. His elision in referencing the New Testament (vs. what Reza said “including the New Testament” is pretty transparent and weak:
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/07/30/is-reza-aslan-off-the-hook/
Galen-
I actually think the answer to 3 out of 4 of those questions is “no”. The last two are mostly unambiguous: His PhD is in sociology, not the history of religion. He teaches creative writing, not religion.
As for the second,is he a “scholar” of religion? I don’t think that he is. My own definition–personal, I admit–is simply whether or not he:
1 – does he teach in that field? (no)
2 – does he publish peer-reviewed, academic literature in that field? (no)
I’m really not sure I understand your defensiveness. I’m not trying slam the guy. “Scholar” isn’t the same as the word “expert”. It has a particular connotation. If he said he was an “expert” in religious history, I wouldn’t begrudge him that, especially based on the new info about his specific coursework.
But he didn’t say he was an “expert”, he said he was a “scholar”, and in so doing he’s trying to cast himself in a certain light that simply isn’t true. I think there’s a lot of sadness behind that statement that has to do with the incredibly small number of PhDs who actually become scholars (e.g. get tenure-track positions in their field, although I’m willing to loosen the definition somewhat from that gold standard). All those PhDs are experts in their respective fields. They aren’t necessarily scholars.
But if you want to believe he’s a scholar: OK. It’s a subjective term.
The only reason people are fighting over it is as a proxy for another culture war (libs vs. cons, round 145,424, FIGHT!) and it’s sad.
The interview is potentially misleading because it does make Aslan seem like an expert in biblical scholarship, which he’s not. But sociology in religion does overlap with history of religion quite a bit. Rodney Stark is one of the most respected sociologists of religion and has done plenty in the field of the history of religion. For example,
– For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery
– The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success
– Cities of God: The Real Story of How Christianity Became an Urban Movement and Conquered Rome
– The Rise of Christianity: A Sociologist Reconsiders History
– Discovering God: The Origins of the Great Religions and the Evolution of Belief
– God’s Battalions: The Case for the Crusades
– The Triumph of Christianity: How the Jesus Movement Became the World’s Largest Religion
I’ve read several of these and while Stark is careful to acknowledge that he is making a sociological case, he obviously covers a tremendous amount of history and then gives it a sociological reinterpretation. So, I’m not bothered by Aslan’s claim that he is an expert in the history of religion.
I’m bothered more by what I’ve heard from readers. It sounds like rehashed Jesus Seminar, which isn’t altogether wrong, just woefully incomplete. It also ignores much of Second Temple Jewish beliefs (e.g. divine agency tradition, binitarianism, deification) in order to make Jesus solely into a political revolutionary and social reformer. Most scholars see Jesus in an apocalyptic and prophetic role. I’d love to see Aslan discuss and debate his findings with someone like N.T. Wright or Bart Ehrman.
What did you say about book sales?:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/books/2013/08/05/zealot-jesus-fox-news/2620159/
Sorry, but if someone has a PHD in Political Economy and took 3/4 of their work in the Econ Department, only a pedant would claim they weren’t an economist and jump on a claim of having a degree in economics. The good news is we don’t have to debate any of this since his adviser weighed in on the matter and his adviser trumps Franck’s silly attempts to divine the totality of Aslan’s work and acquired knowledge via the title of his thesis.
Franck completely beclowns himself by pointing to Aslan using 1 of his 4 non-religion degrees to teach a creative writing course *this semester* as some kind of proof he’s lying or otherwise deceiving viewers. Aslan’s talking as a normal human being in off the cuff remarks, and it’s completely reasonable for someone who has spent the majority of their working life teaching and studying religion to say they do so for a living.
Franck’s silliness brings us to the broader point: there is no “other side” of the story except as some kind of retroactive evidence that the anchor (ignorant at the time of everything Franc’s dug up via his sleuthing) was *right* to be suspicious of the subversive Mooslin spinning lies about Jeebus. Not right on the merits, but just right in general.
This is just part and parcel for an entertainment channel that is an integral part of a broader scam to keep a certain class of white christian nationalists angry and afraid via blood politics. On any given day you can, of course, tune into to hear some (on average) old, white man droning on about creeping Sharia, the inherent violent nature of Islam, etc. etc. Naturally, this person is not any kind of scholar of religion, probably has no exposure to American Muslim communities, and has likely never stepped foot in a middle eastern country save for Israel. But they’ll never be pressed by the host as to why they think themselves qualified to speak on the matter.
I don’t think it’s a fight over libs vs. cons so much as it is a fight over scammy know-nothings and people who reject the premises from which the know-nothing worldview springs.
“Franck completely beclowns himself by pointing to Aslan using 1 of his 4 non-religion degrees”
Err, should have read “Franck completely beclowns himself by pointing to Aslan using the 1 non-religion degree of his 4”
“I don’t think it’s a fight over libs vs. cons so much as it is a fight over scammy know-nothings and people who reject the premises from which the know-nothing worldview springs.”
I would find this a lot more credible if the majority of reactions actually came from people who knew something about the topic. Those who do seem to be somewhat critical of Aslan’s actual work, which makes it very hard to shake the impression that this isn’t another fashionable round of culture war.
“Franck completely beclowns himself”
What a ghastly neologism.
“I would find this a lot more credible if the majority of reactions actually came from people who knew something about the topic. Those who do seem to be somewhat critical of Aslan’s actual work, which makes it very hard to shake the impression that this isn’t another fashionable round of culture war.”
Yes, it’s very hard to shake that impression because none of the reaction has anything to do with the topic itself or Franck’s sloppy post hoc rationalizations for the interviewer’s ignorance. She spent all but 1:30 of a 10 minute interview peppering Aslan about his hidden biases and supposed duplicity in not prefacing every interview he’s ever given with an announcement that he is Muslim. This was indeed another round of culture war thanks solely to the designs of a notorious purveyor of said war.
“What a ghastly neologism.”
Not a neologism: http://www.volokh.com/posts/1172078375.shtml
“Not a neologism: http://www.volokh.com/posts/1172078375.shtml”
You are right, I missed that source, but guess what, it is a singular usage, and its meaning is rather different. Unless, of course, you were taking exception to his dress sense.
“Yes, it’s very hard to shake that impression because none of the reaction has anything to do with the topic itself or Franck’s sloppy post hoc rationalizations for the interviewer’s ignorance. She spent all but 1:30 of a 10 minute interview peppering Aslan about his hidden biases and supposed duplicity in not prefacing every interview he’s ever given with an announcement that he is Muslim. This was indeed another round of culture war thanks solely to the designs of a notorious purveyor of said war.”
Right, the issue has little to do with the scholarship itself. That is the problem.
“Right, the issue has little to do with the scholarship itself. That is the problem.”
Exactly. Those increased book sales will likely be among people who have never taken a crack at New Testament scholarship until now, yet they will emerge from Aslan’s book as suddenly “informed.”
Huh? Beclown’d is in no way an exclusively sartorial descriptive. From the year 1609:
http://books.google.com/books?id=d4uKXLfcODYC&pg=PA106&lpg=PA106&dq=beclown'd&source=bl&ots=VynmlHodFF&sig=6NSJLU199wGpASkSDFwePqa5tzk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=G-cHUq2jOtH8yAHa3oCADg&ved=0CEQQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=beclown'd&f=false
That’s a great description of Franck’s behavior!
“Right, the issue has little to do with the scholarship itself. That is the problem.”
Exactly! The issue is bigotry and thus Franck’s post-hoc rationalization is immaterial (as Nathaniel noted!) to said bigotry. Which, again, IS the issue because FOX knows its viewers and judges them (rightfully) to be too stupid and too incapable to consider the actualy content of Aslan’s book.
And how odd to worry that people who otherwise would never have researched this history might be ill informed by reading Aslan’s book. It’s replete with notes and references and any person whose interest is piqued can consult primary sources, read critical reviews and alternative histories, etc. etc.
Well, yes and no.
Yes – Frank’s post doesn’t have anything to do with bigotry. Which does exist.
No – Frank’s post was (in my opinion) to take some of the wind out of the sails of the usual Fox-bashers.
There’s a left vs. right cultural divide in this country that is at times sad, silly, or both. Was the Fox question tinged with bigotry and ignorance? Absolutely. Was it necessarily as bad as Aslan and his liberal allies have assumed? Not necessarily. It just conveniently fit a narrative that Fox (and their viewers) are ignorant, backwater, jingoistic hicks. Frank’s point was that it was in Aslan’s interest to play up that narrative for publicity, and that the Fox anchor may have been foolishly played in a way that made the bigotry / ignorance seem far worse than it was. I agree with that point of Frank’s. I think Aslan over-sold his credentials.
And I think it’s relevant to note that scholarly reviews of his work have been rather poor. This corresponds with the impression of Aslan shilling his book as opposed to standing for academic principle. It’s also important to note that your casual dismissal of any concerns is, itself, part of this over-hyped narrative. The reality is that the cloak of academic credibility is important, and if this is a work with major flaws (and it is, now that we’re talking about the actual content) then the perception that he’s some crusader (eh… icky culture pun unintended) for academic principle and freedom is going to provide cover for this flawed assertions that won’t be counteracted by the mere presence of endnotes. In fact, the mere idea that notes and references are some kind of self-interpreting truth-detector is the kind of overly idealistic dependence on academic stereotypes that really drives home the sillines of this entire social debate.
Frankly: people on the right and the left are BOTH led to say silly, absurd things (like “Why would a Muslim write about Christ?” or “But it’s replete with notes and references, so it can’t do any harm”) that they would never say if they weren’t obviously fighting a cultural turf war.
“And how odd to worry that people who otherwise would never have researched this history might be ill informed by reading Aslan’s book. It’s replete with notes and references and any person whose interest is piqued can consult primary sources, read critical reviews and alternative histories, etc. etc.”
My point is that it appears to be the controversy that is selling, not the content. And I’ll go out on a limb and speculate that a large number of readers are not going to start reading the Journal of Biblical Literature due to Aslan’s book.
“And how odd to worry that people who otherwise would never have researched this history might be ill informed by reading Aslan’s book. It’s replete with notes and references and any person whose interest is piqued can consult primary sources, read critical reviews and alternative histories, etc. etc.”
Is it really that odd to worry about knowledge in a discussion concerning an academic work? I’ve emigrated to the USA less than four years ago, I’m a socialist, and have disliked Fox News’s journalism style from the moment that I’ve encountered it, yet what bothers me most is that knowledge is considered important only in order to score cultural/political points. Yes, the Fox News article was ignorant and somewhat bigotted, but that doesn’t transform Aslan into a martyr for Truth and Reason(C). He is an author of a mediocre book, who, as Nathaniel has noted, has oversold his academic credentials. Bigotry is not the main issue here. The issue is scholarship as the pisspot boy in a blinkered Kulturkampf.
Devastating review of Aslan’s book as an academic work, and the damage that it can cause. http://mosaicmagazine.com/picks/2013/08/jesus-was-no-zealot/?utm_source=Mosaic+Daily+Email