Ben Stevens
8/20/13
Reza Aslan’s Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth
Sensationalist writings are common in New Testament scholarship. Aslan’s work is no
exception. Aslan showed a modicum of knowledge in academic scholarship but asserted many
demonstrably false propositions few scholars accept. Though Aslan stressed he was a genuine
scholar who conducted “two decades of rigorous academic research into the origins of
Christianity,”1 Aslan wrote Zealot more as the creative writing professor he is than a real
historian. Aslan’s arguments were poorly defended and do not reflect genuine scholarship in
several claims.
Aslan’s thesis argued Jesus was a violent revolutionary whose mission was to overthrow
Rome.2 Aslan’s Jesus is not much different than the many Jewish revolutionary figures who
roamed the cities of Judea in the first century. Aslan narrated such a historical background of the
zealous rebels in the beginning of Zealot before turning to his argument. But before Aslan delved
into the details supporting his thesis, he posited several supposed facts concerning the
“consensus” opinions in New Testament scholarship.
Aslan never failed to emphasize his supposed credentials continuously in Zealot. Aslan
stated he went “delving back into the Bible not as an unquestioning believer but as an inquisitive
scholar.”3 Aslan attempted to reveal his scholarly credentials by naming several “consensus”
views among scholars in Zealot. Aslan contended the four New Testament Gospels were not,
“nor were they ever meant to be, a historical documentation of Jesus’s life.”4 The Gospels “are
not eyewitness accounts of Jesus’s words and deeds recorded by people who knew him.”5
Instead, the Gospels are merely “testimonies of faith…written many years after the events they
describe.”6 Aslan further asserted a “most widely accepted theory on the formation of the
gospels” is the “Two-Source Theory,”7 which contends the only independent sources for Jesus in
the four Gospels are Mark and the collection of mostly sayings shared between Matthew and
Luke called Q. Aslan also used the dating range of the Gospels after A.D. 70 as a primary piece
of evidence for his theory, claiming the dating of the Gospel of John is typically placed after
A.D. 100 and posited the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas is usually dated as early as the first
century A.D.8 Next Aslan argued “there are only two hard historical facts about Jesus of
Nazareth upon which we can confidently rely,” which are Jesus’s existence as a traveling Jewish
preacher in first century Palestine and his crucifixion.9 Finally, Aslan concluded, “Long gone are
the heady days of ‘the quest for the historical Jesus,’ when scholars confidently proclaimed that
modern scientific tools and historical research would allow us to uncover Jesus’s true identity.”10
According to Aslan, the quest for the historical Jesus among scholars is dead. One might ask
now: what evidence did Aslan produce in favor of his theory?
1
Reza Aslan, Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth, (New York: Random House, 2013), 21, iBooks.
Aslan, Zealot, 45.
3
Aslan, Zealot, 20.
4
Aslan, Zealot, 38.
5
Aslan, Zealot, 38.
6
Aslan, Zealot, 39.
7
Aslan, Zealot, 39.
8
Aslan, Zealot, 42, 719.
9
Aslan, Zealot, 44.
10
Aslan, Zealot, 54.
2
Aslan did not dedicate many pages for evidence supporting Jesus as a violent
revolutionary but narrated his story of Jesus accepting without argument any verse which
supported his thesis.11 Aslan stressed crucifixion was an execution Rome only used for those
deemed a threat to the state.12 Since Jesus was crucified, Aslan contended he also must have been
a violent troublemaker against the Roman government. Aslan defended his theory relying mostly
on the four Gospels throughout Zealot. Whenever Aslan encountered stories in the Gospels in
conflict with his theory he typically discounted them without proof as obvious Christian
embellishments. But Aslan did devote the end of Zealot to refuting one of the most crucial
arguments that could be used against his thesis: the early church.
If Jesus was just another common revolutionary of the time, why did a movement soon
after his death transform him into a humble, God incarnate, resurrected divine figure that
currently sits at the right hand of God? Aslan defended several minor arguments such as
asserting “every gospel story in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, was written by people
who…never actually knew Jesus when he was alive”.13 But ultimately Aslan argued Paul was the
primary cause that led to a radical shift in the church’s theology after Jerusalem’s destruction.14
Aslan did not simply assert Paul’s message is what changed the early Christian
movement. He contended James, the true leader of the early church and brother of Jesus, was in
conflict with Paul as a “bitter and openly hostile” adversary.15 Paul is what transformed the
zealous, revolutionary Jesus James believed to the God incarnate figure today. In other words,
Paul’s theology did not reflect what James and the original followers of Jesus accepted. Aslan
attempted to prove this point by offering interpretations of a few key passages in Acts and Paul’s
epistles where Paul and James supposedly clashed.
Aslan used the Council of Jerusalem story in Acts 15 and Paul’s version in Galatians 216
to expose the disputes between Paul and the original apostles of Jesus. Aslan stated:
Although Paul reveals little detail about the meeting, he cannot mask his rage at the treatment he says he
received at the hands of “the supposedly acknowledged leaders” of the church: James, Peter, and John. Paul
11
Aslan, Zealot, 445-448. Aslan used verses to propose his interpretation of how Jesus viewed the Kingdom of God
without offering evidence such verses are authentic nor responding to any possible verses beyond John 18.36 that
show the Kingdom of God was more than simply a physical kingdom. Aslan quoted the phrase “the Kingdom of
God is in your midst” from Luke 17.21 in reference to his argument against a futuristic kingdom when the verse
affirms the Kingdom is not observable in direct contradiction to Aslan’s thesis: “The coming of the kingdom of God
is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God
is in your midst” (Lk. 17.20-21, NIV). Consider one verse most scholars agree is authentic, “But if I drive out
demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you” (Lk. 11.20, NIV). The kingdom in this
passage was already present in Jesus’ ministry of exorcisms and thus not purely a physical kingdom with a ruler as
Aslan contends. See scholars who accept the authenticity of Luke 11.20, Geza Vermes, The Authentic Gospel of
Jesus, (Penguin Books, 2004), 394; Robert Funk & the Jesus Seminar, The Acts of Jesus: What did Jesus Really do?
(Polebridge Press, 1998), 32-33.
12
Aslan, Zealot, 46-47.
13
Aslan, Zealot, 617. Yet Aslan strangely accepted the Gospels when they agree with his theory despite he asserted
this as a major reason to distrust what they say about Jesus against his theory. But why trust the Gospels in whatever
they might narrate confirmatory with his thesis?
14
Aslan, Zealot, 621.
15
Aslan, Zealot, 621.
16
Aslan never notes or responds to the debate among scholars on whether the story in Galatians 2 is the Council of
Jerusalem story or not. See also arguments for the “South Galatian Theory” in John Drane, Introducing the New
Testament, (First Fortress Press, 2001), 300; Thomas Lea & David Alan Black, The New Testament: Its Background
and Message, (2003), 367-369.
says he “refused to submit to them, not even for a minute,” as neither they, nor his opinion of his ministry,
made any difference to him whatsoever (Galatians 2:1-10).17
Aslan pointed out in Acts 21 Paul is “summoned to Jerusalem to answer for himself.”18 Here,
“James confronts Paul directly, telling him that it has come to their attention that Paul has been
teaching believers ‘to forsake Moses’ and ‘not circumcise their children or observe the customs
[of the law]’ (Acts 21:21).”19 Thus James promptly “forces Paul” to observe a ritual so that he
may show his obedience to the Torah.20 In conclusion, Aslan proposed Acts 21 reveals James
knew and denounced Paul’s gospel. Now the question becomes: How trustworthy are Aslan’s
conclusions and credentials?
Although the New York Times defended Aslan arguing reviewers called Zealot a
“‘coherent and often convincing portrait of who Jesus was and what he wanted,’”21 recent media
articles have questioned some of Aslan’s credentials as a “historian of religion.” Even the liberal
Washington Post jokingly said in one article, “The boy who posed as something that he was not
[Mexican in the 1980s] has become the man who boasts of academic laurels he does not have.”22
Aslan is not currently a professor of religion or history but creative writing.23 He holds a
doctorate in Sociology he claims focused in religion.24 But “no such degrees exist at the
university he attended.”25 To be sure, Aslan acquired substantial coursework in religion to earn
his doctorate and received an undergraduate degree in religion;26 Sociology is also relatively
related to History. Such qualifications might earn Aslan the title “quasi-scholar” of religion but
certainly not a clear, academic religious scholar or historian. One media article by Elizabeth
Castelli that defended Aslan from attacks on his credentials admitted Aslan was not technically a
scholar in the discipline, and he would have received less criticism if he announced he “was
working as an outsider to the field”.27 Yet Castelli affirmed, “But his claims are more grandiose
than that and are based on his repeated public statements that he speaks with authority as a
historian.”28 Hence, perhaps it is not surprising Zealot read closer to a movie script in several
places than rigorous historical writing, as one would discover reading from truly renowned
religious historians like Martin Hengel. Sophie Heawood described her surreal encounter with
the handsome, eloquent, movie star scholar:
17
Aslan, Zealot, 689-690.
Aslan, Zealot, 694.
19
Aslan, Zealot, 694-695.
20
Aslan, Zealot, 695.
21
Adam Kirsh quoted in Julie Bosman, “Odd Fox News Interview Lifts Reza Aslan’s Biography on Jesus,” The
New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/30/business/media/odd-fox-news-interview-lifts-reza-aslansbiography-on-jesus.html (accessed 16 August, 2013). Bosman said, “An investigation of the historical Jesus,
‘Zealot’ has been praised by many reviewers since its publication on July 16.” However, Bosman failed to note the
“many reviewers” who have challenged and questioned Zealot’s arguments. A Tablet magazine review by a
freelance writer does not qualify as a scholarly peer critique.
22
Manuel Roig-Franzia, “Reza Aslan: A Jesus scholar who’s often a moving target,” The Washington Post
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-08-08/lifestyle/41202446_1_reza-aslan-religious-studies-religion (accessed
15 August, 2013).
23
Roig-Franzia, “Reza Aslan: A Jesus scholar who’s often a moving target.”
24
Roig-Franzia, “Reza Aslan: A Jesus scholar who’s often a moving target.”
25
Roig-Franzia, “Reza Aslan: A Jesus scholar who’s often a moving target.”
26
Roig-Franzia, “Reza Aslan: A Jesus scholar who’s often a moving target.”
27
Elizabeth Castelli, “Reza Aslan—Historian?” the Nation http://www.thenation.com/article/175688/reza-aslanhistorian#axzz2c4qr8oAu (accessed 15 August, 2013).
28
Castelli, “Reza Aslan—Historian?”
18
But then, as I discover when I arrive at Aslan's home in Los Angeles to interview him, the Iranian-American's life as
an academic is already extraordinary. For a start, there's the Hollywood Hills location, not generally associated with
Bible scholars. There's the smoothness of his manner when he enters the room, passing a Banksy book displayed on
a miniature easel in his living room, flashing me a dazzling smile as he pats the family poodle, embraces his twin
toddlers, "My beautiful boys!", and tells his wife he loves her. Twice. 29
Despite his “dazzling smile,” Aslan proclaimed egregiously mistaken propositions in what most
genuine scholars accept, perhaps reflecting his quasi scholarly credentials and certainly a
Hollywood star’s profound knowledge.
E.P. Sanders affirmed, at least, eight undisputed facts about Jesus contrary to Aslan’s
two.30 Sanders also asserted even Jesus’ healings and their status as miracles to his
contemporaries are not disputed much by scholars.31 Furthermore, the Gospels are not generally
considered works of faith with no interest in history, as Aslan posited, but Greco-Roman
biographies.32 Aslan also contended the Gospels are not eyewitness accounts of Jesus and were
not written by the traditional authors the church ascribed to them. But such a contention distorts
the debates over eyewitness authority behind the Gospels.
Though many scholars would agree one cannot know who authored the Gospels, many
beyond apologetic Christian scholars accept two of the Gospel ascriptions Luke and Mark.33
Most scholars also agree eyewitness testimonies were among the sources used by the Gospels
regardless of the author’s identity.34 Aslan committed additional mistakes in his dating for the
Gospels, particularly John and Thomas.
Aslan nonchalantly skewed the dating of the Gospels throughout Zealot by placing John
squarely in the second century and Thomas as early as the first. Not only is John placed at the
end of the first century by the consensus of scholars, but a shift has occurred in recent
scholarship contending John is as reliable as the Synoptic Gospels (i.e. Matthew, Mark, and
Sophie Heawood, “Reza Aslan on Zealot, Fox News, and Richard Dawkins,” theguardian
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/aug/14/reza-aslan-zealot-fox-news-dawkins (accessed 16 August, 2013).
30
E.P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, (First Fortress Press, 1985), 10-11.
31
Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 157.
32
Even the agnostic skeptic Bart Ehrman said as much: “While it may be true that the Gospels differ from modern
genres like biography, they may not have differed from ancient genres. In fact, scholars of ancient literature have
found significant parallels between the Gospels and several ancient genres. Some of these investigations have
plausibly suggested that the Gospels are best seen as a kind of Greco-Roman (as opposed to modern) biography.”
Bart Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 4th ed. (New York:
Oxford University Press, 2008), 70-71. See also Richard Bauckman, The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the
Gospel Audiences, (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998).
33
Virtually all scholars agree the same author recorded Luke and Acts, yet Hemer states: “If we set aside for the
moment the pressure engendered by recent scholarly trends, we find that a surprisingly large number of the most
eminent names in Actaforschung [Acts] have maintained an early dating of the book and authorship by a companion
of Paul, traditionally the physician Luke. These traditional views are not necessarily intimations of historicity, but
they may tell strongly against some of the grounds on which historicity has often been denied.” Colin Hemer, The
Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 23. See also Hengel’s
arguments for Markan authorship in Martin Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark, (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and
Stock Publishers, 2003).
34
See especially Richard Bauckman, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, (William
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2006). James Charlesworth admitted one archaeological excavation near
Nazareth confirmed an eyewitness was behind a notable parable in Mark, James Charlesworth, The Historical Jesus:
An Essential Guide, (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2008), 90-91.
29
Luke).35 Thomas is usually dated in the mid-second century and is not considered remotely
reliable compared to the New Testament Gospels.36 Aslan also asserted the most common theory
for the Gospel source origins in scholarship is the “Two-Source” theory, but this is again
mistaken.
The most commonly accepted theory in scholarship for the Gospel sources is the “FourSource” theory.37 The “Four-Source” theory explains since Luke and Matthew ostensibly used
sources in their Gospels such as Mark and Q then their unique material must have been based
from earlier sources as well. In short, since they have proven themselves from Mark and Q, one
should trust they used sources in their independent accounts of Jesus.38 Therefore, this theory for
the so-called “Synoptic Problem” shows four independent sources may be adduced from the first
three Gospels: Mark, Q, M (i.e. material unique to Matthew), and L (i.e. material unique to
Luke). The consensus among scholars also agrees John was wholly or mostly independent from
the Synoptic Gospels.39 Finally, Aslan’s proposition that the quest for the historical Jesus is dead
in contemporary scholarship is fantastically absurd.
A plethora of books have been recently published by academic scholars in pursuit of the
“historical Jesus.” The current quest begun in the 1980s and on-going today has been dubbed the
See James Charlesworth, “The Historical Jesus in the Fourth Gospel: A Paradigm Shift?” Journal for the Study of
the Historical Jesus. 8.1 (2010): 3-46. “For most of the twentieth century, John’s gospel was viewed by critical
scholars as secondary to the synoptic—late, and not reliable historically. But in the last twenty years we have seen a
shift in emphasis. John is increasingly viewed as an independent (and trustworthy) recorder of events from Jesus’
life. Scholars who once viewed John as a Hellenistic rewriting of the gospel now recognize that John relies heavily
on rabbinic thinking, is accurate when using geography, and is faithful to the tradition. The best reconstructions of
Jesus’ life today take seriously John’s claim as an eyewitness to that life.” Gary Burge, Lynn Cohick & Lynn Gene
Green, The New Testament in Antiquity: A Survey of the New Testament within its Cultural Context, (Grand Rapids,
MI: Zondervan, 2009), 117. See Paula Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews, (New York: Vintage Books,
1999), 5.
36
“The Gospel of Thomas, discovered in Nag Hammadi, Egypt, around 1945, lacks the narrative story of the
Gospel. It clearly was not written by Thomas. Some of the sayings in the writing are altered versions of the
canonical Gospels. Still others are totally different from anything found in the New Testament. Scholars do not
believe these finds contribute reliable information about the life and teachings of Jesus.” Thomas Lea & David Alan
Black, The New Testament, 86-87.
“The canonical Greek New Testament contains four accounts of the life of Jesus: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
Since the 1980s much attention has been given to other sources for Jesus’ life and ministry, such as the Gospel of
Thomas. These works do have a role to play in the study of Jesus, but their role has been exaggerated in many
popular circles.” Darrell Bock, Studying the Historical Jesus: A Guide to Sources and Methods, (Grand Rapids, MI.
Baker Academic, 2002), 21. See also Nicholas Perrin, “Recent Trends in Gospel of Thomas Research (1991—
2006): Part I, The Historical Jesus and the Synoptic Gospels,” Currents in Biblical Research 5.2 (2007): 186-206.
37
Robert Funk & Roy Hoover & the Jesus Seminar, The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus,
(HarperCollins, 1993), 14-16.
38
As Ehrman elucidated: “There are some stories, though, that are found only in Matthew, and others found only in
Luke. It is generally assumed that the Gospel writers didn’t make up these stories whole-cloth (they certainly may
have; but given their use of other sources for their accounts, it seems somewhat unlikely). If not, then they must
have gotten them from someplace—either written documents that no longer survive or oral traditions that they had
heard. For the sake of convenience, scholars designate the special source(s) available to Matthew as ‘M’ and the
one(s) available to Luke as ‘L’….Since these sources also predated the Gospels into which they were incorporated,
they, too, could provide early access to the sayings and deeds of Jesus.” Bart Ehrman, Jesus Apocalyptic Prophet of
the New Millennium, (Oxford University Press, 1999), 82-83.
39
James Charlesworth, “The Historical Jesus in the Fourth Gospel: A Paradigm Shift?” 45-46.
35
“Third Quest” by Jesus scholars.40 One of the renowned scholars and leading proponents in the
Third Quest N.T. Wright pointed out, “Christianity appeals to history; to history it must go. The
recognition that the answers we may find might change our views, or even ourselves, cannot and
must not prevent us from embarking on the quest.”41 Many books have been published detailing
the results of the ever-growing pursuit by contemporary historians to discover the historical
Jesus.42 That Aslan is not familiar with such a quest today proves his “quasi-scholar” status.
Therefore, one should not be surprised Aslan offered serious misinterpretations of the verses he
used to construct his theory on Paul and James’s relationship in the next argument.
Aslan strangely translated the phrases Paul uses to describe the apostles in Galatians 2 as
the “supposedly acknowledged leaders” of the church. Yet if one reads the entire passage, the
meaning could not be clearer:
Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. I
went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them
the gospel that I preached among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been
running my race in vain. Yet even Titus, who was with me, was not compelled to be circumcised, even
though he was a Greek. This matter arose because some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on
the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. We did not give in to them for a moment, so
that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you. As for those who were held in high esteem—
whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my
message. On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to
the uncircumcised, just as Peter as an apostle to the circumcised. For God, who was at work in Peter as an
apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. James, Cephas, and John,
those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the
grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 43
Paul proclaimed James, Peter, and John did not dispute his message and even offered him
fellowship. Notice the NIV also translates the phrase Aslan chose to “esteemed” leaders rather
than Aslan’s mocking translation “supposedly.” Indeed, the context of the passage does not fit a
mocking interpretation. Paul notes he returned to Jerusalem to ensure James and the other
apostles agreed with his message thus giving them respect. Aslan oddly asserted Paul claimed he
“refused to submit to them [James, Peter, and John], not even for a minute.” But clearly this
passage came from Paul disputing with the “false believers” that are never connected to James. If
they were, Paul’s friendly attitude displayed here towards them is nonsensical. Aslan deceives
the reader by quoting this phrase in his argument about what Paul thought of James.
See Craig Evan’s article for current themes and consensus views among scholars participating in the Third Quest,
Craig Evans, “Assessing Progress in the Third Quest of the Historical Jesus,” Journal for the Study of Historical
Jesus 4.1 (2006): 35-54.
Bock pointed out the Third Quest sees the four canonical Gospels in a much more positive light: “In general, those
who participate in the third quest have tended to see far more historicity in the Gospels than either of the previous
quests, showing a renewed respect for the general historical character of the Gospels.” Bock, Studying the Historical
Jesus, 147.
41
N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God: Christian Origins and the Question of God, vol. 2, (Minneapolis, MN:
Fortress Press, 1996), 11.
42
See Mark Powell, Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee,
(Westminster John Knox Press, 1998); Ben Witherington III, The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of
Nazareth, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997).
43
Gal. 2.1-10 (NIV).
40
Aslan continued to deceive his readers by asserting James “forces” Paul to display his
observance of the Law in Acts 21 because he accepted the reports that Paul was telling Jews to
forsake the Torah. Yet again, one must return to the context:
The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present. Paul greeted them
and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. When they head this,
they praised God. Then they said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed,
and all of them are zealous for the law. They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live
among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according
to our customs. What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, so do what we tell
you….Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living
in obedience to the law.”44
James and the elders praise God for Paul’s ministry and tell him to go through the ritual so the
reports about him may be disproved. In other words, James did not believe the reports about Paul
and desired to refute them. He did not disprove of Paul’s message but encouraged it. This story is
when Paul “sets the record straight” so to speak with James’s aid. Aslan’s proposition that James
was suspicious of Paul from the reports and forced him to accept the ritual is a gross
misinterpretation.
In conclusion, Reza Aslan’s Zealot represents a quasi-scholar’s poor attempt to
demonstrate Jesus was a violent and common revolutionary of his time. Zealot’s high sales from
lavish media attention earned Aslan his sinecure position, but Aslan’s credentials as a scholar are
questionable. His methodology was never stated clearly in Zealot. Most significantly, Aslan did
not use any sort of citation via footnote or endnote in the entire book. Though Aslan included
several pages of references and notes, he never demonstrated specific use of them in the book.
Therefore, that alone disqualifies Zealot of any “history” status, as such a method permitted
Aslan to twist and distort data without a probable threat of being exposed by his desired laymen
audience. Aslan showed some scholarly knowledge of majority views in the field but also
included serious distortions of the true debates in scholarly circles. Aslan did not present
adequate evidence for his thesis and merely assumed Gospel data friendly towards his thesis was
authentic. Finally, Aslan concocted dishonest and distorted interpretations of Paul’s epistles to
respond to the early church beliefs. Zealot is a book by a quasi-scholar who enjoys deceiving his
readers with eloquent stories and writing so they do not receive the full picture of Jesus
scholarship. Zealot is a book for the gullible.
44
Acts 21.18-24 (NIV).
Bibliography
Aslan, Reza. Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth. New York: Random House, 2013.
Drane, John. Introducing the New Testament. First Fortress Press, 2001.
Lea, Thomas and David Alan Black. The New Testament: Its Background and Message. 2003.
Vermes, Geza. The Authentic Gospel of Jesus. Penguin Books, 2004.
Funk, Robert W. and the Jesus Seminar. The Acts of Jesus: What did Jesus Really do?
Polebridge Press, 1998.
Bosman, Julie. “Odd Fox News Interview Lifts Reza Aslan’s Biography on Jesus.” The New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/30/business/media/odd-fox-news-interview-lifts-reza-aslans
biography-on-jesus.html (accessed 16 August, 2013).
Roig-Franzia, Manuel. “Reza Aslan: A Jesus scholar who’s often a moving target.” The
Washington Post. http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-08
08/lifestyle/41202446_1_reza-aslan-religious-studies-religion (accessed 15 August,
2013).
Castelli, Elizabeth. “Reza Aslan—Historian?” the Nation.
http://www.thenation.com/article/175688/reza-aslanhistorian#axzz2c4qr8oAu (accessed
15 August, 2013).
Heawood, Sophie. “Reza Aslan on Zealot, Fox News, and Richard Dawkins.” theguardian.
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/aug/14/reza-aslan-zealot-fox-news-dawkins
(accessed 16 August, 2013).
Sanders, E.P. Jesus and Judaism. First Fortress Press, 1985.
Ehrman, Bart. The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. 4th
ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Bauckman, Richard. The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences. Grand
Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998.
Hemer, Colin. The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. Winona Lake, Indiana:
Eisenbrauns, 1990.
Hengel, Hengel. Studies in the Gospel of Mark. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers,
2003.
Bauckman, Richard. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. William
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2006.
Charlesworth, James. The Historical Jesus: An Essential Guide. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press,
2008.
Charlesworth, James. “The Historical Jesus in the Fourth Gospel: A Paradigm Shift?” Journal
for the Study of the Historical Jesus. 8.1 (2010): 3-46.
Burge, Gary, and Lynn Cohick and Lynn Gene Green. The New Testament in Antiquity: A Survey
of the New Testament within its Cultural Context. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009.
Fredriksen, Paula. Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews. New York: Vintage Books, 1999.
Bock, Darrell L. Studying the Historical Jesus: A Guide to Sources and Methods. Grand Rapids,
MI. Baker Academic, 2002.
Perrin, Nicholas. “Recent Trends in Gospel of Thomas Research (1991—2006): Part I, The
Historical Jesus and the Synoptic Gospels.” Currents in Biblical Research 5.2 (2007):
186-206.
Funk, Robert W. and Roy Hoover and the Jesus Seminar. The Five Gospels: The Search for the
Authentic Words of Jesus. HarperCollins, 1993.
Ehrman, Bard D. Jesus Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. Oxford University Press,
1999.
Evans, Craig. “Assessing Progress in the Third Quest of the Historical Jesus.” Journal for the
Study of Historical Jesus 4.1 (2006): 35-54.
Wright, N.T. Jesus and the Victory of God: Christian Origins and the Question of God. Vol. 2.
Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1996.
Powell, Mark. Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee.
Westminster John Knox Press, 1998.
Witherington III, Ben. The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth. Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997.