Zealot?

Paul has been described as a person zealous about the Jewish religion, persecuting the sacrilegious and blaspheming sect of The Way (the early church) and turning that zeal instead towards sharing the gospel of Y'shua Meschach, when he would have, should have known. Reza Aslan has put forth a different picture of Y'shua in his latest book. It's an intriguing account of the first century life and political realities. However, it raises lots of questions:

How does Aslan's depiction of Jesus as a radical revolutionary in the ilk of the Maccabees get reconciled with the parables that Jesus teaches about the kingdom of God, like the Good Samaritan and the Return of the Prodigal Son?

Based on his lack of trust in the early church writings (epistles and gospels), how much evidence does he have for the other aspects of 1st century politics, including the career of Pontius Pilate? How many sources for each of his 'facts' are known and found reliable?

Especially if there are historic inaccuracies in the gospels (including Luke's), why did 1st century, 2nd century and 3rd century people, who'd know better, believe in and die for the faith and teachings found in those writings? What is it about this faith, easily disproved if Aslan and others are right, that thrived throughout persecution and charges of falsities, particularly in the 1st century when most people would have known someone who knew a person named in these writings or was in the same place as the events that occurred?

If Paul was a psychotic maniac personally creating the myth of Jesus' deity and resurrection, how would he have convinced so many throughout the Roman world, and particularly in Jerusalem among those who could refute his theological position?

Jesus hung out with sinners and tax collectors. One was his disciple (Levi called Matthew) and another became so (Zacchaeus), prominently named in the gospel accounts, and would have quickly been executed perhaps for their treason if it was found out they hung out with a known lestai (bandit, radical revolutionary intent on overthrowing Roman rule). He also dined with several Pharisees who may have had everything to lose if they provoked any suspicions among the Roman rulers. In an interview Aslan says that Pilate wouldn't have hesitated a bit to crucify anyone or 'slaughter them in their beds' when they 'disagreed in even the slightest of any of his decisions.'  Then there's the centurion or Roman officer or, as some think, an officer within Herod Antipas' army trained by the Imperial forces. How does Aslan's depiction square with the mention of these followers?

Why does a radical revolutionary send out his followers in pairs, without money or extra sandals (i.e. defenseless), seeking to stay in a household of peace (i.e. looking for a man of peace), and moving on if one is not found putting God's judgment on the village?

In an interview, Aslan said three things would be characteristic of the accounts of Jesus' life to make it more palatable to a Roman audience, which he claims is the target audience for the writings: downplay his Jewishness and make his teachings more universal; make him a little less revolutionary; and most importantly, remove all blame from Rome for Jesus' death. If Aslan found so much that doesn't square with what is supposedly known of those times, how did these accounts become so popular if they were so fictional? And not just fictional and worthy of discussion, but popular to instill dedication to the point of death? Any J.K. Rowling fans, Hunger Games Trilogy fans, da Vinci Code fans or conspiracists about JFK's assassination or 9/11 or the Illuminati or Federal Reserve brouhahas willing to die for some depictions found in their writings?