Zealot. Jesus: fanatic biography

Dale Martin, professor of religious studies at Yulia University's Woolsey faculty specializing in New Testament and Christian history, in his review in The New York Times, writes that although Aslan is not a researcher of ancient Christianity and does not represent an “innovative or original idea,” the book is an entertaining and “serious presentation of one plausible portrait of the life of Jesus of Nazareth.” He blames Aslan for a too simplistic view of early Christianity. Martin says this repeats the theory that appeared in Germany in the 19th century, but which is now largely rejected. He also points out that recent theory has refuted Aslan’s opinion that it would be improbable that any person, such as Jesus, would be unmarried at that time or could be presented as a “divine messiah”. Despite criticism, Martin praises the book for maintaining a good rhythm, simple explanations of complex issues and an extensive list of notes and sources ^[2] .

Elizabeth Castelli, professor of religion Anne Whitney Olin at Barnard College and biblical studies and early Christian scholar who wrote a review in The Nation, claims that Aslan greatly ignores New Testament research and relies too heavily on text and authors. like Joseph , taking them more or less at face value (which no scientist of that period would have done). In conclusion, she writes:

Zealot is a cultural production of a special historical moment - a remix of existing science, selected and modified to create a culturally significant intervention in the world of the beginning of the XXI century, where religion, violence and politics are intertwined in a complex way. In this sense, the book is just another example in a long line of efforts by theologians, historians, and other interested cultural figures. ^[3]

Craig Evans, an evangelical scholar and professor of the New Testament at Acadia Divinity College, writing at Christianity Today, claims that Aslan made many mistakes in the geography, history, and interpretation of the New Testament. He points out that the author “relies on an outdated and discredited thesis”, does not attract relevant historical science and “abounds in dubious statements”. ^[four]

USA Today cited Stephen Protero, a professor of religion at Boston University , who said that writing was probably influenced by Aslan’s view as a Muslim, as he found that the description of Jesus in Zealot is more like a failed version of the prophet Muhammad than what he described in the bible. However, Protero agreed that the biographies of Jesus, citing alternative sources, are often controversial, because "there is not enough historical evidence outside the Bible to write about the modern biography of Jesus." While Darrell Gwaltney, dean of the School of Religion at the University of Belmont, agreed with this comment and commented: “Even the people who were present in Jesus' life could not decide who he was ... But they were eyewitnesses. " ^[5]

A review by Australian historian John Dickson at ABC Online cast doubt on Aslan’s experience in this area, stating that “Aslan has not submitted a single article peer-reviewed by experts,” and further said that “Aslan’s grand claims and his limited powers in history are striking almost every page, " ^[6] . During the question and answer session after the lecture in 2014 at the College of Dickinson on" Jesus and the historian " Bart D. Ehrman , professor emeritus of religious studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill , has also criticized Res Aslan for the lack of experience, ^[7] . Commenting that Aslan does not have any degrees in the study of the New Testament and the history of Christianity, and that his only academic degree - in the field of sociology of religion ^{[7] [8]} Herman said: " He is as qualified to write about the New Testament as I am qualified to write about the sociology of religion — I can assure you, you don’t want me to write a book on the sociology of religion. His book is full of errors and inaccuracies ... about Roman history, about the New Testament, about the history of early Christianity. " ^[7] Erman also states that although Aslan does not recognize this and may not know about it, his main argument actually goes back to To the 1770s ^{[7] [8]} and was first introduced in a book written by Herman Samuel Reymarus , one of the earliest modern Bible scholars. ^[7] Noting Aslan’s position as a professor of creative writing, Ehrman comments that the book is well written, ^[7] but “I don’t think she is trustworthy as toric report. " ^[7]