Aslan has two major purposes in Zealot.
One is to present a historical picture the conflicts in the Holy
Land at the beginning of the First Century CE. The second is to use
the historical perspective and the gospels to tease out the
historical figure of Jesus of Nazareth.

The second purpose, to find the
historical Jesus by searching the available documents,
was less
satisfactory. Aslan seems to have made a decision in the beginning
that the gospels were primarily propaganda written to enhance the
Jesus myth. In his analysis, he uses only the Synoptic Gospels and Q.
He discarded John's Gospel feeling that it tracked Paul's view of
Christ's teachings rather than the Jewish version. For the Jewish
version, he relies on James' letter believing that Jesus' brother
would have a clearer idea of what he stood for than the other gospel
writers who hadn't known him.
I found the book very readable and
would recommend it to anyone wanting to understand the political
climate in the Holy Land before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70
CE. However, I would recommend taking Aslan's pronouncement about the
historical Jesus with a grain of salt. Jesus is presented in a
variety of ways in the gospels. Aslan's portray of a rabble rouser
who had designs on becoming King of the Jews is one way to read the
gospels and does make sense in light of the political situation, but
it is only one interpretation. I recommend additional reading about
the time and some of the scholarly work on the gospels before
embracing Aslan's interpretation wholeheartedly.
I reviewed this book for Net Galley.