Loading...This is the final post I made years ago on Bill O’Reilly’s bestselling book (listed as nonfiction) about Jesus.
******************************
I have decided not to provide a full and detailed review of O’Reilly’s Killing Jesus. It doesn’t really deserve it, and it mainly contains more of what I have indicated before – on which see my previous posts. I will say that the book is extremely well written and easy on the eyes. It is entertaining. A lot of human-interest material, which is both its strength and its very great weakness, as almost all of this, as I’ve mentioned before, is simply MADE UP, even though it is presented as if were historical fact. There is page after page after page of that kind of thing. This is not a research book written by a scholar and his writing buddy — with, for example, footnotes indicating where they got their information from. It can’t be that, since almost all of the details didn’t come from ancient sources but from their own fertile imaginations. And since that is the main source for the Gospel according to Bill, and since most of us know what Bill spends his time thinking about, you may not be surprised to find out what he understands Jesus’ principal interests to be (on which see below).
Albert Schweitzer wrote arguably the most famous book about the historical Jesus, and he claimed – and demonstrated – that each generation of biblical scholars managed to paint Jesus in its own image. We have continued to see that since Schweitzer’s times, and it applies not only to biblical scholars who should, but apparently do not, know better, but to popular writers about Jesus who don’t know better and so do, in fact, even worse.
And so biblical scholars who embrace good liberal values of social justice (often) portray Jesus as a proponent of good liberal values of social justice; those who do not believe in miracles (often) portray Jesus as a great teacher who did not (because he could not) do miracles; those who are children of the 60s (often) portray Jesus as a counter-cultural opponent of the status quo; those who are fundamentalists (often) portray Jesus as an early proponent of the Nicene Creed; and so on and so on. It is often enlightening to read how an author portrays Jesus and then to look at the biography of the author. It can often tell you a lot.
So what about Bill O’Reilly? What’s his Jesus like? I won’t lay out all the details here, but give a couple of examples and more important give you a link to the book review by my friend Candida Moss, who, on the basis of this review, was asked onto O’Reilly’s show, presumably so he could grill her. She argues in this review that what Jesus was most concerned about – in fact, this was ultimately his mission on earth – in O’Reilly’s presentation was (get ready for it!): TAXES!!! They were TOO HIGH. Jesus was opposed to HIGH TAXES, and, the corollary, (Roman) government involvement with the Jewish people, forcing itself up on them at every turn.
Here’s the link to read the review.
In case you don’t want to read the review, here’s the kind of thing O’Reilly tells us, in his own passionate words.
Joseph and Mary, as do most other Jews, live in fear of Herod Antipas [the ruler of Galilee in Jesus’ day]…a callow man who has never known want and who always expected to be given a kingdom….He pays homage to Caesar Augustus not only by taxing the Jews blind but also by ordering a Roman-style form of execution for any who would dare defy him…. Galilean outrage against Rome has been building for decades. The people have been levied with tax after tax after tax. Antipas is nothing if not a “lover of luxury,”…and the more luxury he needs, the higher the taxes climb…. Actual money is scarce… No men are more despised than the tax collectors, who do not only extort funds from people with very little but also publicly abuse and even torture those who fall behind on their payments. There is no leeway. Those who can’t pay must borrow grain or oil from the storage silos manned by Antipas’s men. The interest rates are exorbitant — 100% on oil and 25% on grain. And falling behind on these debts means ruin. Peasants are often forced to sell their children to creditors as debt slaves or to sell their home and work the land as sharecroppers…..
And so it goes, on and on. The problem was high taxes. And the corollary: governmental overreach. (I can’t read this without thinking of Monty Python’s “Life of Brian”: “What have the Romans ever done for *us*? 🙂 )
If this was indeed a work of non-fiction (as advertised) rather than a historical novel (fiction), the authors would provide *evidence* for their claims, at least in footnotes. They would indicate that this is what our sources indicate about taxes on Jews in Galilee. This is how they compare with taxes elsewhere. This is the percentage of income that went into taxes as a rule. Here are some examples of public protests against them, as documented in this source or that source. Here is some actual *evidence* that Joseph and Mary were concerned about taxes. Or that Jesus was. Or that this concern had anything to do with his message. That it had anything to do with his death.
But no, there is no evidence cited here. So how is a person supposed to evaluate these claims that the major problems Jesus had to deal with were big government and high taxes? Well, there’s no way to evaluate the claims unless you happen to be an expert in the period and know the sources yourself.
If you want to read a portrayal of Jesus as a card-carrying member of the Tea Party, this is the book for you.
If, on the other hand, you want a serious historical treatment of Jesus – and of Palestine in his time – I would suggest you read the books about Jesus by scholars who actually know what they’re talking about, including such figures as Geza Vermes, E. P. Sanders, Dale Allison, and Paula Fredriksen – for starters. Some modern scholars have indeed managed to paint Jesus in some image other than their own. These scholars are among those who have: their views of Jesus are not all the same, but they are at least *argued* and *documented* and are not simply the result of a person’s fertile imagination that truly wishes that the Son of God shared his own personal beliefs and prejudices. These are not scholars who have written a book to advance their own political agendas or to make millions of dollars. They are serious, but this book by Bill-and-Buddy is not.
It is worth watching when
O’Reilly had professor Moss on his
show and tried to present himself
as a historian. Professor Moss points
out, among other things, that
O’Reilly’s approach was anachronistic.
O’Reilly the historian then says :
”what does it mean?”
That sums it all up.
Mr. Ehrman, from these posts I’ve gotten the sense that you despise the co-writer more than O’Reilly himself.
With books like that it’s hard to know who contributed what. But I’m not a fan of either, and of course O’Reilly’s name is what dsold it.
I haven’t read the book, but it appears O’Reilly is wholly unaware that there *was* in fact a serious revolt in Judea over a census and taxes in 6 CE led by a figure named “Judas”, whom some apparently also thought was the Messiah, if we can believe Gamaliel’s speech in Acts. I guess if O’Reilly were to discuss this, he would then have to explain why Quirinius’s census was 1. a far more local affair than Luke claims, and 2. takes place more than a decade after the death of Herod the Great, thus making his whole re-imagining of the Massacre of the Innocents in Matthew anachronistic. And then there’s the Lazarus and the Rich Man parable, the whole “render unto Caesar” stuff, not to mention all the writings of Paul in which he admonishes Christians to submit to worldly authorities, including, one would presume, paying their taxes.
“Show Me the coin used for the poll-tax.” And they brought Him a denarius. And He said to them, “Whose image and inscription is this?” They said to Him, “Caesar’s.” Then He said to them, “Then pay to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s.” Matthew 22:19-21 Seems like he should have included the Gospels in his extensive research about Jesus.
Nah, too much work.
I thought Jesus said to render to Caesar, that is pay your taxes.
Ah, but that’s because you’ve actually read the New Testament. (!)
“I thought Jesus said to render to Caesar, that is pay your taxes.”
Surely at some point a far right winger evangelical has been asked this question and provided an answer. What might that sound like? Or do they just dodge it?
Possibly “pay your taxes because you have to, but hate the government for making you do it.”
The book is well-titled. If Jesus saw the book, it would certainly kill him.
Ha!!
Dr Ehrman,
Concerning the messianic secret, since Wrede’s hypothesis is no longer really subscribed to, what is the consensus view(if any exists) on why mark presents Jesus as trying to hide his identity? What is your view as well?
Also, what do scholars make of Mark presenting Jesus as speaking in parables so that the crowd will not understand?
The two questions go together. I’m not sure what the consensus is, since there are lots of views. Mine is that it ties closely in with Mark’s view that Jesus was the Messiah even though he wasn’t at ALL like the expected messiah; since he wasn’t expected he wasn’t understood, and the misunderstanding is closely related to Jesus’ own instructions to hush it up. People in Jesus’ own day didn’t “get it” (not even the disciples), but the reader does.
Ironically the Gospels give us only one comment by Jesus on Roman taxes “Render unto Ceasar…” and an indirect indication in accounts of Jesus associating with tax collectors, and no accounts of Him exhorting them to leave their jobs. One doesn’t need to be a historian to know that O’Reilly’s account is inaccurate. A casual reading of the gospels is enough.
One wishes he had read them, even if casually.
I just want to confirm since I don’t plan to the read the book: did O’Reilly and co. really make zero reference to “Render unto Caesar…” (Matthew 22:19-21) ?
I don’t remember off hand (and am out of town without my books….)
I am now hearing strange stories about some scholar doing a seminar on whether the Christmas Story really happened. Surely the Word of Bill must be good enough? We need a new historical criterion, “Word of Bill”.
This post motivates me to recommend Midnight Mass on Netflix, which I thought was one of the best pop cultural explorations of how people can use religious texts to basically justify any viewpoint.
Unrelated to that Dr. Ehrman, are there any books for a popular audience on Paul, his life and theology, that you would recommend?
YOu might start with the small introduction to Paul by E. P. Sanders.
Is there any indication of how or why Jesus came to think he was the messiah?
I”m afraid that would involve a kind of psychoanalysis that we simply donb’t have the resources to do. I suppose many peole feel called by God for a purpose, and he had that sense very strongly.
Thankyou for this post, which touches on some big ideas. This one in particular caught my attention :
“Albert Schweitzer wrote arguably the most famous book about the historical Jesus, and he claimed – and demonstrated – that each generation of biblical scholars managed to paint Jesus in its own image.”
And surely this observation – perhaps leaning towards a rule about human psychology & behaviour – extends back to the actual production of writings in biblical times & their arbitrary collection into orthodox canon?
A question : Do you place greater weight on some arguments than others which undermine the fundamentalist position that our current English translation of scriptures is word-perfectly recorded history of the happenings & sayings they describe? What are your top 3 arguing against this? For me, that time lag of 35 to 65 years before gospels were written is killer. Then the “copies of copies of copies”, and then active scribal interference. If the gospels cannot stand then that changes everything. It did for me.
re: Taxes, there have been a number of studies that define the tax (and other) pressures put on the lands in Judea. Jean-Pierre Isbouts did a high-level overview of some of that in the Great Courses History and Archaeololgy series and a number of books recommended by Bart in this blog that I have read also reference that the increased tax burdens by Herod during the early years of Jesus. So the theory that Jesus was against high taxes probably had validity if put in context with how tax money gets wasted on ‘things’ instead of being given to the poor/needy. These ‘fluff-history’ books like O’Reilly’s, where completely fabricated words, thoughts and actions are attached to historical figures in attempts to bias a viewer/reader into liking/dis-liking someone more than current facts can support is nothing new and is still very visible today in the blogosphere and literature. It is slander, but with nothing to defend us against it except our brains. When we get lazy in getting news, we raise up these types of ‘sources’ (O’Reilly, Jones, Maddow, Colbert, etc.) who are >95% entertaining and <5% factual.
What did most Jews in Jesus’ time think of the Romans? Were they happy to be part of the Roman Empire? Do we even know the answer to these questions? I know that there were Zealots who wanted the Romans out but I am not sure how popular their ideas were among the Jewish people at the time.
There was a huge range of opinion; the big mistake is thinking that everyone thought it was a horrible situation and a religious abomination. Many did, many others did not really — though probably most would have been quite happy to have their sovereign state back again.
Thanks for all your illuminating comments on O’Reilly’s misconceptions in ‘Killing Jesus’ Bart. I wish some Fox viewers who have read O’Reilly’s book could or ‘should’ read the review you posted from the Daily Beast.
Just for fun, a piece on how Satan was portrayed in literature came across my desktop this morning:
https://bigthink.com/high-culture/satan-devil-literature-representation/.
Apropos Rezubler’s question. As an Australian, I was horrified to read (in a Twitter conversation that was forwarded to me) where an American woman was adamant that “Jesus Christ was the greatest American who was ever born” and that He wrote the Holy Bible. And that He wrote it IN ENGLISH.
I remain completely at a loss where she got her information… Is there a congregation of Christians in the US that believe that?
No, just a lot of ignorant people.
Exactly – I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to say that the vast majority of folks who made this book an NYT bestseller are probably residents of the good ole US of A and regular viewers of O’Reilly’s show (when it aired).
Reminds me of the retort attributed once to someone defending – insisting upon – the use of the King James Version style of expression to some whipper snapper : “Well, young man, if it was good enough for Jesus to use then it’s good enough for me!”
I DO find it interesting that although there is much defence throughout Scripture of the weak, the poor, the marginalised, the oppressed, the childlike, & even the simple – there is never any defence or excusing of the stupid or foolish, intellectually or morally. Rather, scorn & mockery is heaped upon them. Everyone should think upon that. And what I find so liberating from Prof Ehrman’s work is that he insists upon engaging the mind in critical independent thought. His opponents rarely appear so.
I have recently written an article on Jesus’ incompatibility with libertarianism with most of its focus on Matthew 22:19-21, but also Mark 5:11. Some anarchochristians argued in response that he never explicitly tells the crowd to pay taxes, but only wisely avoids the question to avoid arrest. According to your expertise is the context in the original text quite clear that Jesus explicitly supports paying taxes? It seems to me he considers Ceasar an actual owner of the money, because he was imprinted upon it and therefore a tax is a just payment (something morally owed not extorted)? Secondly, I wonder if it could be a later attribution, never actually stated by Jesus and dismissed in that way? P.S. I really appreciate your book on heaven and hell. My Christian mother lost a bet with me on who would win the 2020 presidential election and now has to read it. (-;
Yes, I think the only sensible explanation si that Jesus is telling his followers to pay their taxes, since in the long run it doesn’t really matter for their relationship with God, and *that* is what matters.
Unfortunately, I bought and read the book years ago. It sits in my library. Nice to see your spin on it though. If I am not mistaken (don’t crucify me if I am) Reza Aslan’s book on Jesus the Zealot, states that when Jesus said to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s , he is actually implying that the land of Israel is the promised land belonging to God’s people, not the Romans.
Jesus is telling people to pay their taxes, but he doesn’t say what proportion of their income should go in tax. Donald Trump would say pay five per cent of your income in tax, Biden probably 25 per cent. Jesus leaves it up to you and your own conscience to decide. So, you are given free will to choose unlike, say, in Islam where you are told explicitly how much to give. The voluntary appeal of Jesus’ words is the essence of his message. Clever…and so few scholars see it!
At the end of the day, of course, you will have to explain to God why you are such a miserable creature being so tight with your money.
Scholars probably don’t notice it because in the ancient world, unlike today, it was never a matter of percentages. And it was also never a matter of your personal conscience, even for Jesus. You paid what they made you pay.
Mr. Ehrman, I’ve sure enjoyed the book and the first 7/24 Lectures, ‘The Triumph of Christianity’. What do you say to the idea that Jesus’ Kingdom was not political/physical, but ‘spiritual’ / a loose synonym for the ‘church’? Thanks a bunch!
I don’t think so — my sense is that he was talking about an actual kingdom here on eaeth, with a king.
I’m glad you’re enjoying the course!
Thanks a bunch…Can you explain a little more? I know certain groups definitely believe in this ‘invisible/spiritual kingdom’. “It is within you”, etc…and the ‘Ruler’ Jesus crushed was: Satan, in the lives of Christ-followers. Thanks, again, Mr. Ehrman. I’m up to Lecture 12 now, in ‘Triumph’.
Sorry — you’ll need to explain what you want me to explain. (Readers of your comment won’t inow the context of your question. And I don’t either since I don’t remember what I wrote you and I receive only your conmment, not my comment you’re commenting on!)
Hi Bart. I enjoy your blog and debates very much. I have also read and enjoyed a few of O’Reilly’s books; Killing Patton, Killing the Rising Sun and Killing England in particular. Given your commentary on the historical inaccuracies and pure fiction in his Killing Jesus, I will be taking a BIG pass on reading that one. It was disappointing to read that you felt he probably used similar fictional accounts in his other books.