Loading...I received my copy of Killing Jesus in the mail today and started to glance at it. I know I said I would read it, but I’m just not sure I can bring myself to do it.
The opening “Note to Readers” makes one’s heart sink. We are told that this will be a “fact-based book.” Oh, that’s good, the reader thinks: it won’t be biased but will be objective, based only on facts. Until you begin to read the opening page of ch. 1
“Heavily armed solders from the capital city of Jerusalem are marching to this small town, intent on finding and killing the baby boy. They are a mixed-race group of foreign mercenaries from Greece, Gaul, and Syria….”
Oh dear. So, for our FOX historian of antiquity writing this account – the Gospel according to Bill – who is giving us only “facts,” it turns out that the “slaughter of the innocents” in Bethlehem, taken from Matthew’s infancy narrative, is a factual, historical account. We not only know it happened, we know which soldiers Herod sent forth for killing the Christ-child (foreign missionaries: and we know which countries they came from! I’m surprised he doesn’t tell us how many there were and what their names, ranks, serial numbers, and dates of birth were!).
Anyway, back to the Note to the Readers. We are assured that Bill-and-buddy-co-“author” have based their information “on classical works.” That sounds good – no modern, biased accounts, but only ancient accounts will be used. And then we are told how that is possible. This is an actual quote (so are my other quotes, but this one is so hard to believe that I have to assure you, they say it!): “The Romans kept incredible records of the time, and a few Jewish historians in Palestine also wrote down the events of the day.”
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN NOW AND YOU WILL BLESS YOUR LUCKY STARS FOREVER AND EVER!!!!
Well, if their (and I use ‘their’ loosely since no one really thinks O’Reilly wrote any of this) book was based exclusively on non-canonical sources of Jesus, it’d be a damn short book. Far easier to fill in the blanks with your imagination and appeal to the uneducated, gullible masses who hav just as fanciful an imagination 😉
Like you, I can’t believe they actually cited Mere Christianity as a source for the book…I mean that HAS to be a joke, right?
– Daniel
I wish…
Thanks Bart for explaining. It’s just sickening to think that such a book can be published in this day and age, and worse, that millions of readers will take it as the truth — I mean, ‘as gospel’.
Egads! It makes one really trust the “no-spin” accuracy of Bill’s political tirades doesn’t it?
It had never occurred to me until your recent post that the star over the manger had to move across the sky from east to west every night just like the moon and stars move across the sky. No star stays in a fixed position in the sky. Thanks.
Dr Ehrman are you saying the the Gospel according to ‘Bill O’Reilly and buddy’, is as accurate as their historical sources? I feel heart-pain for the people who accept this book as Gospel truth. However God is so smart that He’ll even use this account of Jesus life, inaccurate as it is, to draw attention to the real Jesus. Just as He has used all the other apocryphal chronicles for almost two millenniums. Including Matthew and others. Will the real Jesus please stand up!
Sure people can get down on Bill, but how many of us who know next to nothing about NT history wouldn’t give our left testicle to be Bill’s next buddy-co-author on a future NT project of his? I’d totally love sitting in the bar all day hammering out historical information that I made up. Then if some scholar challenged me with a question, I would just smile and say the Holy Spirit told me so go ask him. I’d never say no to getting paid for a project like that.
I think the phrase you are looking for to describe this book is “Jesus wept.”
O’Reilly did an interview with Fox Business where he identified his other “sources” as historical documentation from the time. For example, he says he included the star of Bethlehem because it was documented in “Chinese and Islamic history” (I’m not sure how there is Islamic history from the First century but that’s what he says). He also says that he believes the Gospel of John to be the most reliable gospel because John was an eyewitness to the events described, and because it is “well documented” that John himself dictated his Gospel when he was about 85 years old. 2000 years of scholarly research and all we needed was O’Reilly to research the subject to figure out everything!
Bart,
What are your thoughts on the First Ammendment right of free speech, now that you know the consequences? Don’t we have a big problem, since any celebrity can write about any subject, and half the people in the country have less than average intelligence?
Ah, got to have freedom of speech. And if someone exercises it, then we have the right to say, in public, that the person is a bona fide idiot!
Bart…I think that there is one very good reason why you should read that kind of book….it let’s you know what the average non-academic person in the churches believe about Jesus and Christianity and the great majority of those who read that book will praise God for Bill setting the story straight.
But I’m sure you already know that….:D
Reza Aslan’s book I can understand, but I don’t understand why you would bother to read O’Reilly’s book no matter how many people have asked about it.
What else to expect from Bill O’Reilly!?
You wrote in response to a comment on Oct. 2: “I don’t think Bill O’Reilly wants an expert on his show to explain why he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.” This statement is disappointing because it makes me think that you don’t know what you are talking about. Even casual viewers of The Factor know that the one thing O’Reilly is actually pretty good about is bringing all sorts of people on to his show and letting them have their say (for the most part), including criticizing him to his face. Case in point: Candida Moss writes a critical review in The Daily Beast and then gets invited on his show (and gets a plug for her book and gets to criticize him to his face), and this sort of thing has happened countless numbers of times on all sorts of topics. Don’t just take what you hear about O’Reilly in the UNC faculty lounge for Gospel truth, maybe watch his show a couple of times too before you diss him. I don’t even like O’Reilly (except for his generous charitable work), but he still deserves to be treated fairly like I’m sure you’d want to be treated.
Just do what you did for the Da Vinci Code and write a book about “Who Really Killed Jesus” and get it out on the market asap, that’s the best way to counter ‘Killing Jesus’ numerous errors and invented “facts” and deliver it to a broad audience. Just a thought.
Don’t be disappointed! I don’t know anything about it!! (I’ve never seen the show and never will; that would be precious minutes that I would never get back….)
The only thing worse than being an idiot is arguing with one. You are right not to waste your time and talent on him! 🙂
Agreed. Sorry, this must be so frustrating for scholars like you to watch.
So we don’t have any SURVIVING official Roman records about Josephus, Jesus or Pilate. Does this mean that they didn’t exist? As an historian how would one know? I would appreciate even a short post on what we know about Roman and other early record keeping practices. This coomes up when dealing with apologists’ claims such as that Pliny the Younger mention of Jesus is historically useful because he would have consulted official records instead of relying on information from interviewing the Christians involved in incidents in his area.
Same thing goes for Tacitus
AH! That’s the problem I deal with in my book Did Jesus Exist? (Answer: yes. Evidence is overwhelming. Read the book!)
Yikes! And in addition to what you pointed out, that first sentence of his has the “heavily armed Roman soldiers” coming from Jerusalem – implying they were stationed there. And you’ve told us there *wasn’t* a military force permanently stationed there, at least when Jesus was an adult. I’m guessing there wouldn’t have been one thirty years earlier, either.
Interesting, though, if as one poster said, O’Reilly is a Catholic, and he seems to be portraying Jesus solely as a “man.” I hope you, or someone here, will tell us enough about the book’s ending to make clear whether he affirms or denies the Resurrection. Or maybe, “covers himself” by dealing only with the death, not speculating about what followed?
I can at least say I never read any book written by Bill. I have no idea why people read his books when there are so many other better books to read. I guess I never watched one of his TV shows either, so I don’t feel compelled to read his books.
While I am at it, one question for Mr. Ehrman. I thought I heard that there were more than one source (aside from Josephus) which mentions Jesus — some account by some soldier (Roman?). Is that reliable? In short, aside from the Bible, how many other sources specifically mention Jesus Christ in their writings in any form and manner? What about one argument that if the accounts in the Gospels were not true, many contemporary people would have disputed their accounts?
No, we have no other first century account apart from Christian source (virtually all in the NT).
Thank you for eviscerating that piece of garbage. I’ve seen him touting his book as historical fact and it really chaps my ass. I was pleased to see that you, a preeminent historian of that era, have taken a few moments to bring him down a peg. I can only hope he reads your review and is embarrassed about his book.
I have to say, after saving points on my amazon.com credit card your The Bible: A Historical And Literary Introduction came this afternoon.
Oh Happy Day!
Just to be legalistic, the gospels are “classical sources” and in at least some cases, “Jewish” ones. And if you consider that subjects of the Roman empire kept their records (ie the Gospel texts), largely faithfully from the time of their composition, then I could call that “incredible Roman record keeping.” Also, the epistles are classical sources, unless you are becoming a mythicist, Bart…..:-)
Picayune argumentation aside, there is something odd about Jesus’ crucifixion as recorded. The whole point of that form of execution was that it was extremely agonizing and it lasted a long time — days. Yet somehow he died within six hours. Never heard of a “chair” before, though.
The problem is that he doesn’t report on the sources: he just makes things up — most things, from what I can see.
Dr. Ehrman,
Please comment on how keeping up with a subject by writing subsequent editions of a textbook might make an expert better–as a scholar, writer, recognized authority.
Subsequent editions show:
1. new conclusions have been drawn (you have said one or more items have changed for you over the years)
2. new evidence has come up
3. an expert is still on top of his game (I’ve heard of at least one instance where a recognized authority was no longer relevant)
It may be wrong that I value your Jesus Interrupted as the most important book of yours for me. Since we’re on the topic of the historical Jesus, I doubt that you will come out with a second edition of that book because it’s more for the general reader and maybe not as high as a supplemental college textbook.
Maybe I would have bought from Jesus to Constantine if it were a book. I know the video course has some sort of text that comes with it but it isn’t a word for word text version of the lectures.
The New Testament: A Historical Introduction the Early Christian Writings, 4th Ed. by you and The Text of the New Testament: Its Translation, Corruption and Restoration, 4th Ed. by Bruce Metzger and yourself gets me excited as I was always impressed by Paul Samuelson (and William Nordhaus) having an 18th edition of their classic Economics textbook.
So, instead of me putting Jesus Interrupted at the top of my list of your work, wouldn’t you agree that it would be fair that I put the better 4th Edition of The NT: A Historical Intro to the Early Christian Writings. Perhaps, all that you’ve put into your tradebooks flows into your textbooks?
I’d disagree because Intro textbooks to a subject aren’t advanced. That’s like saying a Freshman textbook by a scholar is better than a Masters degree textbook.
So, that leaves me with the textbook where you get second billing: The Text of the NT: It’s Translation, Corruption…
Is that really the best repository of your best work (the field’s best conclusions: 1) newest evidence, 2) newest conclusions, 3) still relevant), especially since we get a little “peer review” by Metzger being tied-in as a co-author–two people agree (and the editor, makes three)?
Yes, these are all reasons for new editions. But they tend to happen only with textbooks, though sometimes with highly significant other books. As to what to read – it depends entirely on what you’re interested in!
What you presented here is just YIKES, The fact you attempted to read it makes you a better man than I Gunga Din !
Bart:
I appreciate your hard work and all the work of scholars since the Renaissance and especially 19th century to present. But Jesus is the great mirror. Everyone looks at Jesus and sees themselves. I am not trying to make any mystical claim about Jesus/ but rather/ that is the use to which Jesus is put in this (and many) cultures. The historical Jesus runs in a parallel line to the existential Christ. Perhaps they will meet in eternity. . .
Well, I have to say, when I look at Jesus, I absolutely do *not* see myself!!!
You see a historical person living in time defined by his cultural assumptions and revealed through the steady accumulation and careful analysis of historical clues. Yes? Maybe? Can we not make out the eyes of Bart Ehrman in this picture?
How we view the person of Jesus defines who we are as human beings in this world. I don’t believe that there is a universal and correct answer for how we should define ourselves. I don’t even know what objective criterion we could turn to for adjudicating that issue. If someone fashioned an idol and told me that the idol represented what God looked like/ well/ I might disagree but I don’t see how I would objectively disprove it.
Its not that I object to treating ancient texts or the character of Jesus in history with the historical-critical method/ but rather with the idea that we ought to use the historical method or that it is the only proper approach. . . I find that idea completely unhistorical. In some cultures/ when people don’t know what to do/ they go to the priest and he throws coconut shells. In this culture/ we randomly open the Bible and read a passage. This is one of the historical uses of the Bible. Is it wrong? Would it be more justified if we used Tolstoy or Kafka?
True history is myth and true myth is history/ yes?
Yes, I do not think history is the only game in town. But it’s a good game to play! (I don’t think there is such a thing as “objective” history though)
I just rejoined the blog and saw this post. I listened to Killing Jesus on audiobook and had the same impression. The first words should be: this fictional novel is based on a true story. The whole book was a selective restatement of the gospel narratives, in Bill’s colloquial ‘tell it like it is’ way, and I was quite aggravated by it. I wanted to quit after the first chapter, but my subconscious was telling me that I was afraid of the truth or something; so, I listened to the whole damn thing. Nothing changed. This book is not the product of any historical methodology. Bill pretends to know things he cannot prove and arbitrarily picks a side when there is a textual contradiction like Jesus’ last words. Thank you Dr. Ehrman for training me to look for these sort of things… I’m looking forward to another year of reading your posts!
This is what people like O’Reilly do: They first establish their conclusion, and then they “search” for the evidence and/or “facts” that support that conclusion. (They sometimes also just make things up!) By putting the cart before the horse, they seem to think and feel that they have done justice to their endeavor.
Dr. Ehrman’s comments on the O’Reilly book “Killing Jesus” are very interesting and informative. This tells me that O’Reilly is nowhere near the historian that Dr. Ehrman is, and I am not surprised to learn that. One could argue whether O’Reilly is being deceptive or is just out of his league in writing “history” books.
I am disappointed, though, by Dr. Ehrman’s comments that he would never rebut O’Reilly on his FOX News show, and has never watched the show even once. Because Dr. Ehrman does seem to imply that he has an opinion of the show, and forming an opinion of something without ever seeing it seems below Dr. Ehrman’s standards, even if he has seen other works by the host.
For the record, I enjoy watching O’Reilly’s show once or twice a week because it does give a view on many issues of the day, and the guests represent a large spectrum of opinion, experience, and thought. I certainly don’t take O’Reilly’s presentations or opinions as gospel, of course, any more than I would any other radio or television opinion host’s utterings.
I’ve never seen an entire episode, but I have certainly seen lots of O’Reillys interviews!