Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth

This was an engrossing read, chock full of information about the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth and its historical context. I learned a ton from this book; I actually wish it had been longer and gone into more detail, which is a credit to Aslan's engaging writing style. There were definitely topics in the book that I wanted to know more about; I suppose I'll have to keep reading books about early church history to satiate that

Almost gave this five stars, but for one major shortcoming: the lack of inline discussion of alternative theories or points of view. Aslan wrote a compelling, literary narrative, about Jesus' life, which was quite easy to read. But for a topic which is based so much on speculation, assumption, and interpretation, I would have preferred to see more discussion about competing theories in the narrative, rather than in the footnotes. My issue was not that he didn't cite sources - he does, both historical and biblical - but that he presented the story as “this is the way it was” when there are major points that historians and scholars disagree on.

I was surprised that there were major differences between this book and Bart Ehrman's “How Jesus became God”. Ehrman's book was much more theology and far less historical information - I feel like I learned much more from Aslan. I was surprised that Ehrman never mentioned the major differences of opinion in the early church, between Paul, preaching to the Jewish Diaspora, and Peter, James, and John, leading Jesus' disciples in Jerusalem. Paul's doctrine of Christianity eventually won out after Jerusalem was wiped out by Titus in 70 C.E., but, as far as I remember, Ehrman does not discuss this at all. Ehrman's thesis is that it took ~3 centuries before the majority of Christians thought of Jesus as a pre-existent god, but Paul was preaching that Jesus was God starting just two decades after his death, in the middle of the 1st century. Maybe Ehrman just wanted to devote more space to all the competing theories? Or just pad his book? It was difficult to reconcile these two books. I guess this just underscores how much this entire field is based on limited evidence.

I also really appreciate how Aslan didn't attempt to explain away the resurrection as Ehrman did with his lame “visions of the recently departed” theory. He left it at “a lot of people believed very strongly that Jesus rose from the dead, and that's very interesting”.

These are the topics in the book that were most interesting to me: - The depiction of Galilee and Jerusalem around the turn of the millennium (the historical context which Jesus was born into) - Aslan's theory about the early life of Jesus - that he would have been engaged in rebuilding Sepphoris, a nearby city - Alternate interpretations for many commonly cited gospel verses based on the historical Jesus, including the Beatitudes and the parable of the Good Samaritan - A discussion of what Jesus meant by the terms “Kingdom of God” and “Son of Man”, (i.e. Who did Jesus think that he was?) - The battle between Paul and James/Peter/John for what would be preached about Christ after his death