(18 votes, average: 4.83 out of 5)
Loading...Here I continue my rather, uh, aggressive critique of Bill O’Reilly’s Killing Jesus.
******************************
OK, I know I promised to read and review Killing Jesus. But I’m not sure I can do it. It’s just so aggravating. Pointing out its flaws is like shooting fish in a barrel. I’ll make one general comment in this post and in the next one mention one of the leading themes of the book to show why its so problematic and then, unless I have a complete change of heart or people ask me pointed questions, I think I’ll just let it go. For now, a general comment.
I was one of the 4893 people who wrote a book *about* the Da Vinci Code (Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code: A Historian Reveals What We Really Know about Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and Constantine, 2004). The other 4892 people, so far as I know, were religious – usually religious scholars – who were afraid that Dan Brown might lead the faithful astray by his wild claims, and for religious reasons wanted to set the record straight. As an agnostic, that was nowhere near my concern. My concern was that of a historian.
Brown begins his book with a statement about how – even though it is a work of fiction – the fundamental historical claims of the book are factual. And so, on p. 1, before the Prologue, Brown states: “All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.” I didn’t deal with most of this in my book, just the documents. But that was enough, as Brown mangled just about every document (including the New Testament, other writings of early Christianity, accounts of the council of Nicea, and so on) he came within 200 feet of. And so that’s what my book was about. I was concerned as a historian that people not have a false notion about what happened in the past. Why should I care if people have a false idea about what happened in the life of Jesus, the life of Mary Magdalene, the life of Constantine? I don’t know, I’m a historian and I care about these things, and I think if we get history wrong, it tends to come back to bite us on the backside.
But in any event, Brown claimed to be writing a novel. The difference with Killing Jesus is that Bill-and-Buddy who wrote it do not claim to be writing a novel, with some historically accurate background thrown in. They claim to be writing a historical account. Fact based. Telling it like it really was. So what does one make of a passage such as the following (while the troops are going out to Bethlehem to kill all the young boys, to rid the kingdom of its future king Jesus):
Meanwhile, in Jerusalem, King Herod gazes out a palace window toward Bethlehem, anxiously awaiting confirmation of the slaughter…. Herod sighs. Back in his youth, he would never have stood in a window and worried about the future. A great king and warrior such as he would have ordered that a bridle be thrown over his favorite white charger so that he might gallop to Bethlehem and murder the child himself. But Herod is now a man of sixty-nine. His massive girth and incessant medical problems make it physically impossible for him to leave his palace, let alone mount a horse. His bloated face is wreathed in a beard that extends from the bottom of his chin to just below his Adam’s apple. On this day, he wears a royal purple Roman-style mantle over a short-sleeved white silk tunic. Normally Herod prefers soft leather leggings that have been stained purple. But today even the gentlest bristle of fabric against his inflamed big toe is enough to make him cry out in pain. So it is that Herod, the most powerful man in Judea, hobbles through the palace barefoot. But gout is the least of Herod’s ailments. The king of the Jews…is also suffering from lung disease, kidney problems, worms, a heart condition, sexually transmitted diseases, and a horrible version of gangrene that has caused his genitals to rot, turn black, and become infested with maggots – thus the inability to sit astride, let alone ride, a horse….
Is O’Reilly serious? Does he REALLY think that readers who know the least thing about our sources is going to think this is historical writing instead of fiction? That they won’t realize that it is virtually all made up?? But, alas, the frightening, or saddening, or aggravating, or upsetting thing is that most of his readers – the ones who watch his show on FOX –in fact will not know. They’ll think this is based on O’Reilly’s presumably intense eight months of research.
If I didn’t know better, if I had never heard of O’Reilly, if I just picked up this book out of the blue, I quite honestly would think that it was a schlocky “historical” novel, a work of fiction, kind-a like the Da Vinci Code.
Or that it was a spoof. If someone told me a TV personality wrote it, I would have put money on Stephen Colbert, written in character.
Could it be, Mr. Ehrman, that Mr. O’Reilly and his buddy-cowriter pulled off an amazing sarcastic joke by stating that they wrote a historical account, and you just didn’t get the joke?
I don’t think they’re that sophisticated, actually. But I could see them doing it to make a lot of money.
🤣🤣🤣🤣
😉
I’m listening to a series of lectures by you on the Historical Jesus, and was fascinated by David Strauss’s term “myth”. Would you say that Aesop’s fables are examples of myths in Straussian terminology – they teach important truths while not being literally true?
My sense is that he mainly used the term to refer to true stories involving gods or ultimate realities rather than good lessons about life; but it would be a very similar principle.
I wonder if you’ve been taken in by an ancient conceit of fiction writers going back centuries–i.e. to pretend, with sworn oaths in the prefatory matter, to be writing the gospel truth while spinning bald-faced whoppers left and right. This has been going on since Robinson Crusoe purported to be Crusoe’s factual account of his years as a castaway (with Crusoe being named on the cover as author, and Defoe’s name appearing nowhere). Of course you’re right to point out that O’Reilly is scamming modern readers who have clearer standards of journalistic honesty but when someone is so blatant in his falsehoods, you’ve got to wonder who he thinks he’ll be fooling with his detailed descriptions of Herod’s big toe.
The problem is that in our own context so many people actually do belief this kind of fluff — I’ve known hundreds of them and know of millions of them. Given O’Reilly’s other writings, I don’t think he probably did this one any differently from the others.
Yes, I know what you are saying Dr Ehrman. I read a ‘historical’ account (a few years ago) of the life and times of Tutankhamun by James Patterson which certainly blurred the lines between history and historical fiction. My personal bugbear is biased history. There have been a couple of articles I’ve read over the years in Religious (Christian) magazines effectively praising the Spanish conquistadors because they were Christians and their opponents were pagans who practiced human sacrifice. No mention (or very little) is made of the savagery on the European side nor the subsequent establishment of the trans-Atlantic slave trade by the Spanish and Portuguese.
Do you know of any biblical historical novels that actually have a (at least mostly) true historical backdrop? Every one I’ve ever seen is just a dramatic rewording of the gospels, without much of any concern for real history.
I loved James Michener’s The Source.
Read that massive book as a teen! I still remember the part that suggested that the slaughter of the innocents by Herod didn’t happen. I was concerned when I read tat at the time, but now I see it as an example of Michener really did check his sources!
Off topic: in the NRSV Acts 22:9 says “Now those who were with me saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who was speaking to me. “οἱ δὲ σὺν ἐμοὶ ὄντες τὸ μὲν φῶς ἐθεάσαντο ⸆ τὴν δὲ φωνὴν οὐκ ἤκουσαν τοῦ λαλοῦντός μοι.” But in other modern versions such as the NIV it says “My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me.”
Translating it as “understood” conveniently avoids a contradiction with Paul’s previous conversion story in acts 9:7 “The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone.” “οἱ δὲ ἄνδρες οἱ συνοδεύοντες αὐτῷ εἱστήκεισαν ἐνεοί, ἀκούοντες μὲν τῆς φωνῆς μηδένα δὲ θεωροῦντες.”
Question: When you were working on the NRSV, was there any serious discussion about translating the word as “hear” vs “understood” in Acts 22:9? Other than theological motivations, is there any contextual or grammatical explanation that would justify translating the word differently when retelling the same story in the same context (accusitive vs genetive, etc)?
Yes, becuase the object of the verb in this case is in the genitive, which often means something like “hear and understand” as opposed to “hear sounds coming out of someone’s mouth.” But they decided that actually stressing the understanding part of the equation missed the point in the context, which is clearly trying to indicate what they heard but did not see.
Thanks Bart. Your answer regarding Act 22:9 was “But they decided that actually stressing the understanding part of the equation missed the point in the context, which is clearly trying to indicate what they heard but did not see.” The verse I was asking was Act 22:9 “Now those who were with me saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who was speaking to me.” I am not simply trying to point out a typo, but is what you meant “what they saw but did not hear”?
I thought you quoted it with the word “understand” instead of “hear”? Maybe I got that wrong. Now I’m not sure what you’re asking: the way you’re quoting it they SAW the light but did not HEAR the voice. IN the other passage they HEARD the voice but did not SEE anything.
If I understand your answer correctly, in Acts 22:9, even though the use of the genitive case can mean “understand”, in this particular instance it is the contrast of seeing but not hearing that determines the translation of the word as “hear” rather than “understand.” Is that right?
Yup.
Yikes!
Stephen Colbert in purple leather leggings, that goes way beyond spoof. That’s like a crime against humanity.
The description of Herod reminds me of Papias’ description of the death of Judas. A detailed account of maladies so graphic and horrible that it’s (very) hard to take at face value.
Of course Papias could claim access to second- and third-hand oral accounts of the actions of Jesus and the apostles. As you pointed out in the previous post, O’Reilly’s historical sources are less clear.
You have my respect for even picking it up to review, people need to know it is in no way historical. I don’t envy you and I would fully understand if you decided to use it as a door stop. That said, people are fooled by this rubbish and someone needs to take it down; I just think you have better things to do with your time.
It’s a shame on all of America that a book like this can hit the NYT bestseller list, and be taken as gospel truth by millions of people. Then again, I’ve never bet on the intelligence of the American public, and never would.
I was shattered – then embarrassed that I had been so naive – when I found out how “bestseller” lists work. In short, they’re yet another scam! You BUY your way onto them! See https://scribemedia.com/get-best-seller-list/ and https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/280520 – and more sites. Is nothing “sacred” any more??
Hey, I should try that. (But you should realize, it almost NEVER happens. Some politicians do it though)
“Pointing out its flaws is like shooting fish in a barrel. ” How could you fit that many fish in a barrel? Guppies?
Unusually big barrel.
Just out of curiosity…
Have you ever read a really good historical book about Jesus actually written by a non-specialist?
Do you have any favorite historical novels about Jesus?
thanks
No, I’m afraid not. When it comes to Jesus, I prefer films to novels. Superstar! Last Temptation! Jesus of Montreal! But not, well, the Gospel according to Mel (Gibson).
I liked a review that called Mel Gibson’s effort the Christian Chainsaw Massacre. Gibson appears to have serious issues.
This stuff is written for the same people who think Thomas Kinkade paintings are the pinnacle of artistic sublimity. And for the same reason — it’s history of religion as a comfy afghan in a cozy chair by a warm, glowing fire in a thatched-roof cottage. Nothing to disturb you, challenge your mind, or cause you to question anything. Reassuring. Non-threatening. Of course it’s utter bs, but, judging by the size of both O’Reilly’s and (the late) Kinkade’s bank accounts, dressing bs up in nostalgic tinsel and banal pieties is a surefire formula for turning a steaming pile of it into lots and lots of $$.
Sorry about the off-topic comment here, but I would be fascinated to see a blog post about that old Popular Mechanics article that claimed to show what Jesus actually looked like. Looks to me like it’s long on salesmanship and short on data—yet still less wildly inaccurate than 99% of the portraits of Jesus we have! It would be fun to hear your take.
Ha! Not much to say. Completely bogus. All we can say is that he would have looked familiar to other ancient Palestinians (as opposed to modern Californians)
Huh! And I grew up thinking Jesus was a blue-eyed blond of Swedish extraction….
Bill O’Reilly makes his money by keeping the ignorant rubes angry and telling them what they already want to hear. He isn’t in the business of peddling real information. The Bible is an important book with a fascinating history, but deep study of it provides no comfort. Much like the actual process of governing, it all gets very messy if one starts to look behind the curtain.
Unfortunately, “Killing Jesus” appeals to those who know virtually nothing about the evolution and development of Christianity but blindly practice a set of religious doctrines which provide spiritual comfort. I was once a product of the ‘Baltimore Catechism’, a book which attempted to indoctrinate one with the basic tenets of the ten commandments until I became exposed to critical historical analysis of the Bible.
Biblical academic scholarship is the key to properly understanding how the teachings, doctrines and errors of Christianity evolved within the political, economic and social context of the time. O”Reilly’s narrative fails to recognize this development and presents a simplistic life of Jesus with source events taken from the New Testament. The book is not history.
Dr. Ray Rogowski
Really seems like this Herod guy has bigger problems to worry about than baby jesus.
Speaking of egregious takes on Jesus, have you watched the Jesus miniseries called “The Chosen”? It’s by Dallas Jenkins, son of Jerry Jenkins, who wrote the “Left Behind” series with Tim LaHaye. The series claims more than 200 million views, and it is true that all of my evangelical Christian friends rave about it. I watched two parts, and the narrative is based primarily on John’s gospel with only occasional references to the Synoptic Gospels.
Yeah, I haven’t been abel to bring myself to do it….
Bill O’Reilly had been fired from FOX some years ago.
I don’t see how people can read such a book. I can see your point on why you don’t want to read the book. But anyway, my question to you is, base on the reading of your book, I have come conclusions that Paul, the adopted apostles of Jesus never had a vision of Jesus in the first place. Would say that Paul was making things as he when about his preaching work?
Paul did think that the followrs of Jesus saw him alive after the resurrection, a long time before Paul himself did. See 1 Cor. 15:3-8.
General comment. I haven’t read any of the O’Reilly stuff yet. But I’m finding myself resistant to reading it in a cringing way. I want to know, but I’m afraid to look. 🙂
It’s ridiculous. I stopped getting angry at O’Reilly because it’s like getting angry at someone for MAKING me angry. I GOT ANGRY. It was what I did. Not what he MADE me do. Once I realized it was my choice. I started ignoring O’Reilly like I would any other irritation such as the odor of feces, or vomit. When I consider his comments that way, I don’t get angry any more, I just avoid them. If I choose to indulge in the fragrance of vomit or bullshit ?
It’s my own fault.
Definitely a da vinci code like essence to it. Seems like a money grab to me. Please don’t waste your time writing a book arguing against it. Your probably better off doing a short YouTube response video…lol
Man I can’t stand O’Reilly. If he wants to attack Christianity he should at least be a little more serious about it. His sardonic tone just comes off like he has an “axe to grind” rather then telling history as it really is.