One of the most important aspects of critical thinking is carefully formulating questions, avoiding the common practice of lumping together ones that have different answers.
Most have probably heard some of the story of Reza Aslan already. There are stories all over the news. For the history of the discussion on his site, here is my initial diary from last Sunday morning. A front-page story followed that night as the story continued to develop.
Jump for the first question.
1) Is it legitimate for a Muslim to write a book about Jesus and/or Christianity?
This is an important question and an easy one. It became the immediate focus because of the attitude and assumptions of of the Fox interviewer. The question was addressed directly and well in an open-thread story and the related link on this site last night. Scholars from different perspectives and backgrounds write books about religions traditions all the time. It is perfectly legitimate for Dr. Aslan to write such a book.
2) Is this a good book, from a popular perspective? This is a more difficult question and will take longer to answer. While the book takes up an academic question, the historical reconstruction of the life of Jesus of Nazareth, and it takes a primarily academic approach, it seems to be aimed primarily at a popular audience in terms of style. This is not unusual in the "historical Jesus" area. The big name scholars in that area have often written their books in pairs, one more popular and one more academic. It is not uncommon to hear the phrases "big Crossan" and "little Crossan", or "big Sanders" and "little Sanders". Aslan's book more closely matches the "little" ones in style. Therefore, it has received reviews of a popular nature (Booklist, Kirkus Reviews, Publisher's Weekly, and various newspapers) and many of these have been positive. The book succeeds in terms of style, readability, interest, etc. The answer here seems to be a qualified "yes." The qualification comes from the next question.
3) Is this a good book from an academic perspective?
It is somewhat early to answer this because academic book reviews take longer. I write a lot of them. I usually don't get the book until it has been out for six months to a year, then I spend a few months reading it and writing the review, then it goes off to an editorial process that can take a few months. Some of these reviews are in quarterly journals, which can then add up to another year before they are published. Because of the media attention, the book has received some academic reviews (though they are written more in the style of essays than strictly academic book reviews) more quickly than usual, and they are mixed.
Greg Carey, a highly respected New Testament Scholar, wrote this review for the Huffington Post. Here are a couple of quotations that give a sense of his evaluation.
First, Zealot has formidable strengths. Aslan has done a great deal of homework, offering material that will instruct many specialists from time to time. The most important thing Aslan accomplishes involves setting Jesus in a plausible historical and cultural context. Indeed, more of the book may involve Jesus' contexts than direct discussion of the man himself. Someone very like Jesus could easily have existed in Roman Galilee. Aslan's Jesus is thoroughly Jewish, passionately committed to Israel's welfare and restoration. Aslan appreciates how Jesus' activities amounted to resistance against Roman domination -- as well as against collaboration on the part of Jewish elites. Many scholars would agree.
but...
At the same time, I have some serious reservations about Aslan's portrait of Jesus, and I suspect that most professional biblical scholars will share some of them. First, the book contains some outright glitches, things a professional scholar would be unlikely to say. Aslan suggests there were "countless" revolutionary prophets and would-be messiahs in Jesus' day. Several did appear, but "countless" is a bit much. Aslan assumes near-universal illiteracy in Jesus' society, an issue that remains unsettled and hotly contested among specialists. At one point Aslan says it would seem "unthinkable" for an adult Jewish man not to marry. He does mention celibate Jews like the Essenes, but he seems unaware that women were simply scarce in the ancient world. Lots of low-status men lacked the opportunity to marry. Aslan assumes Jesus lived and worked in Sepphoris, a significant city near Nazareth. This is possible, but we lack evidence to confirm it.
My prediction is that when the heavy-duty academic reviews come out, they will be largely negative. This leads to a fourth question.
4) Did Aslan misrepresent his academic credentials in the Fox interview?
This is a tough one and may depend on predisposition. It has been discussed at length in place like this.
None of these degrees is in history, so Aslan’s repeated claims that he has “a Ph.D. in the history of religions” and that he is “a historian” are false. Nor is “professor of religions” what he does “for a living.” 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.
In one case, the imprecision may depend upon punctuation. If Aslan says, "I am an expert, with a Ph.D., in the history of religions," then this may be correct. He is an expert to some degree in the history of religions, and he does have a Ph.D. Take the commas out, though, and the statement is not correct. His later claim in the interview is more direct about the subject area of his Ph.D, and if the the standard is precise academic language, then he was incorrect. On the other hand, he was speaking in a popular forum, under some duress, so holding him to such a standard seems unfair.
5) Finally, is Aslan qualified to write this book, form an academic perspective?
Aslan's academic background qualifies him to write a book like this, but not in an ideal way. It is clear from reviews, for example, that he mishandles some ancient source material, particularly the writings of Flavius Josehphus. This is somewhat understandable, as Josephus is notoriously difficult to handle. He is our best historical source for the period, but he was biased, and his Greek is sometimes impenetrable for modern readers.
In review, the answers to the five questions are:
1) yes
2) qualified yes
3) probably not
4) maybe
5) yes, but minimally so
I welcome repsonse to any of these.