 | |
| Author | |
|---|---|
| Subject | Crucifixion of Jesus |
| Publisher | Henry Holt and Co. |
Publication date | September 24, 2013 |
| Media type | Print (hardcover) |
| Pages | 304 |
| ISBN | 978-0-8050-9854-9 |
| Preceded by | Killing Lincoln |
| Followed by | Killing Patton |
Killing Jesus: A History is a 2013 book byBill O'Reilly andMartin Dugard about thelife andcrucifixion of Jesus, referred to in the book asJesus of Nazareth. It is the follow-up toKilling Kennedy andKilling Lincoln.Killing Jesus was released September 24, 2013,[1] throughHenry Holt and Company.
The book was a commercial success, debuting at number one onThe New York Timesbestseller list and remaining on the list for 52 weeks. Popular reviews of the book were mixed, with both Christian and non-Christian reviewers faulting the book for its tedious writing and its claims of historical objectivity. Scholars and historians have criticized the book for its inaccurate, politically-motivated portrayal of Jesus as a "Tea Party Son of God", its uncritical approach toprimary sources, its omission of some of Jesus's teachings, and its oversimplified, sensationalist portrayal of history.
Like both its predecessors, the book was adapted into atelevision film with the same name forNational Geographic Channel.
According toThe Washington Times, while writingKilling Jesus, O'Reilly and Dugard found that sources were far less plentiful than for the previous books in theirKilling... series.[2] They stated that the Internet was "a treasure",[2] but complained that the information on various websites was "contradictory",[2] that "hearsay was often quoted as truth",[2] and that information from one website was frequently shown to be unreliable when checked against information from more reliable sources.[2] Bill O'Reilly stated that he believes the book wasinspired by theHoly Spirit.[3][4]
The book begins with "A Note to Readers" by Bill O'Reilly, which promises, "...this is not a religious book. We do not address Jesus the Messiah, only as a man who galvanized a remote area of the Roman Empire and made very powerful enemies while preaching a philosophy of peace and love." After a lengthy quotation from the conservative journalistVermont C. Royster, the introduction concludes: "But the incredible story behind the lethal struggle between good and evil has not been fully told. Until now." The first chapter begins with anovelistic description of theMassacre of the Innocents fromMatthew 2 (Matthew 2:16–18). The remaining portion of the chapter focusses onHerod the Great, the king of Judaea, the politics of his reign, the visit of theMagi, and the birth of Jesus. A lengthy footnote at the end of the chapter defends the historical accuracy of thecanonical gospels and their traditional attributions toMatthew the Apostle,John Mark,Luke the Evangelist, andJohn the Apostle.
The second chapter describes the life of the Roman general and dictatorJulius Caesar, his conquests, his seduction by the EgyptianPtolemaic queenCleopatra, andhis eventual assassination. Chapter Three summarizes the aftermath of Caesar's murder, theBattle of Philippi, theSecond Triumvirate,Octavian's defeat ofMark Antony and Cleopatra in theBattle of Actium, and Octavian's ascension to the title ofemperor. The fourth chapter returns to the life of Jesus, describing his worried parents looking for him after he has gone missing during a trip toJerusalem for thePassover. It describes some of the politics ofRoman Judaea, heavily emphasizing the idea that the Jews were victims of Roman totalitarian oppression. Chapter Five describes thefinding in the Temple fromLuke 2 (Luke 2:41–52), the architecture of theTemple in Jerusalem,Nazareth, and the government and political background ofGalilee.
Chapter Six describes the preaching ofJohn the Baptist, the arrival ofPontius Pilate in Judaea, thebaptism of Jesus, and John the Baptist's arrest. Chapter Seven describes the alleged debaucheries of the Roman emperorTiberius atCapri, described by the Roman historianSeutonius, accepting all of them as historical. Chapter Eight narrates theCleansing of the Temple fromJohn 2 (John 2:13–16), Jesus's meeting withNicodemus fromJohn 3 (John 3:1–21), and the beginning of his ministry. Chapter Nine details the calling of the apostles, theSermon on the Mount, and theanointing of Jesus fromLuke 7 (Luke 7:36–50). FollowingCatholic tradition rather than the gospels, the authors identify the unnamed "sinful woman" in this passage asMary Magdalene. The chapter concludes with thebeheading of John the Baptist. Chapter Ten entails Jesus's conflicts with thePharisees andSadducees and concludes with a characterization ofJudas Iscariot.
Chapter Eleven describes Pontius Pilate's governance of Judaea and Chapter TwelveJesus's entry to Jerusalem. In Chapter Thirteen, Jesus cleanses the Temple again andcurses the fig tree. In Chapter Fourteen, hegoes to the house of Mary and Martha, proclaims theGolden Rule, tells the Pharisees to "Render unto Caesar", weeps over Jerusalem, and predicts his own death. Chapter Fifteen has the betrayal of Judas and Chapter Sixteen has theLast Supper, theAgony in the Garden, and thearrest of Jesus. Chapters Seventeen through Nineteen describe Jesus'strial,crucifixion, andburial. Chapter Twenty-One has the account of thewomen at the tomb. The "Afterword" describesnon-Christian mentions of Jesus, thefates of the Apostles according to Catholic tradition, as well as what happened to Tiberius,Caligula,Caiaphas,Herod Antipas, Jerusalem, and theearly Christian movement.
Upon its publication,Killing Jesus debuted at number one onThe New York Times bestseller list,[5] and was on the list for 52 weeks.[6]Killing Jesus surpassed the sales of the bookZealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth byReza Aslan, a professor of creative writing, which had been published only a few months before.[7][8] Of its sales success,The Washington Post wrote, "The most popular titles in the Washington area have a distinctly biblical glow: for the second week in a row,Killing Jesus by Bill O'Reilly and Martin Dugard is No. 1. This is the third in their spectacularly successful assassination series, followingKilling Kennedy andKilling Lincoln."[9] Noting the concurrent popularity of other religion-related books, the article concludes, "Publishers have long known that religion sells. Even in Washington."[9]
In its fall books preview,USA Today called it "a suspenseful thriller."[10] A review of the book by Erik Wemple inThe Washington Post remarked thatKilling Jesus and its predecessors "may not advance the scholarship on their respective topics, but who'll take issue with millions of Americans getting a quick-read tutorial on history via O’Reilly?"[11] Nonetheless, Wemple complained that the book's writing was full of annoying verbaltics.[11] In particular, Wemple criticizes O'Reilly's constant countdown of how much time the person he is writing about has left to live[11] and his use of the phrase "so it is that..." at the beginnings of sentences.[11] Wemple calls the phrase a "a four-word clump of throat-clearing mumbo-jumbo"[11] and states that another reviewer counted roughly sixteen or so occurrences of it inKilling Jesus.[11] Wemple speculates that O'Reilly may have intended this phrase as "a retroactive cliché, a little riff that would sound impressive in a book about antiquity."[11]
In the book, O'Reilly and Dugard state that they are only including events that can be proven as historical fact,[12][13] a claim which has drawn criticism from both critics of Christianity and evangelical Christians.[12][13] A 2013 review by Dan Delzell forThe Christian Post criticizes this statement for implying that not everything in the gospels can be proven as historical fact.[13] Instead, the reviewer insists that everything in the gospel accounts is demonstrably factual and that O'Reilly's selective omission of stories found in the gospels from his book is tantamount to "cut[ting] Christ in half."[13] A review by Tim Chaffey fromAnswers in Genesis criticizes the book for deliberately omitting several ofJesus's miracles and glossing over others.[14] The same review criticized the book for its "graphic description of sexual activity"[14] and for portrayingMary Magdalene as a repentant prostitute, an idea that is not based on the Bible.[14]
In an article forSalon,Robert M. Price, an atheist theologian and self-identified fan of Bill O'Reilly, labelsKilling Jesus a work of complete fiction comparable toThe Da Vinci Code[15] and states,
There is no sign whatsoever that the authors of "Killing Jesus" have even begun to do their homework here. In the end notes, true, we find a number of book recommendations, but it is revealing that virtually every one of the New Testament and Jesus books mentioned are the work of evangelical/fundamentalist spin doctors dedicated to defending the proposition that the gospels are entirely accurate, miracles and all.[15]
A 2015 review of both the book and the television miniseries based on it by Brook Wilensky-Lanford inThe Guardian criticizes O'Reilly for accepting Jesus's alleged miracles as potentially historical[12] and remarks that, although O'Reilly claims to treat his subject objectively, he "can't be trusted not to confuse religious interpretation with historical fact."[12]
Candida Moss, a professor of New Testament and early Christianity at theUniversity of Notre Dame, criticizes the book for its many historical inaccuracies in two articles written in September and October 2013 forThe Daily Beast andCNN respectively.[4][16] Moss states that, although O'Reilly and Dugard do attempt to separate between fact and fiction, they do so inconsistently and accordingly to their previously held beliefs.[4][16] In herDaily Beast article, she states: "...without a method,Killing Jesus has all the critical rigor of your local church'sNativity play."[16] She notes that O'Reilly and Dugard accept late, unsubstantiated legends about the fates of the apostles after the period covered by the New Testament as historical fact.[16] They also uncritically accept the legend formalized in the fifth century byPope Gregory I about Mary Magdalene having previously been a prostitute, which is not supported by the New Testament or any early Christian writings,[16] but ignore the statement actually recorded in the gospels that Mary Magdalene was one of the people funding Jesus's ministry.[16] They include statements from John the Baptist accusing tax collectors of overcharging people,[16] but omit all reference to Jesus's repeated injunctions to "support the poor, orphans, and widows"[16] as well as to the saying, "whoever has two coats must share with anyone who has none; and whoever has food must do likewise" (Luke 3:11).[16]
In her CNN article, Moss cites the example of how they omit the line "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do", whichLuke 23:34 attributes to Jesusas he was being crucified, because, as O'Reilly later said in aCBS interview, it is impossible to speak audibly while a person is being crucified.[4] She then points out that they chosenot to omit the line "It is finished", also attributed to Jesus while he was on the cross, inJohn 19:30.[4] Moss suggests that perhaps "there [is just] something about the word 'forgiveness' that sticks in [their throats]".[4] She also criticizes them for taking everything written by Roman historians likeSuetonius andJosephus completely at face value, as though these writers were totally unbiased.[4] She also particularly criticizes O'Reilly and Dugard's portrayal of the Pharisees as "self-righteous bloviators",[4] stating that modern biblical scholars no longer view them this way,[4] and that this portrayal is, ironically, based more on the stereotype of Roman Catholics promoted byProtestants during theReformation andearly modern period than on actual ancient texts.[4]
Moss states thatKilling Jesus's description of the apostlePaul converting to "Christianity" isanachronistic[4] because, at the time, Christianity was still a Jewish sect and the wordChristian was not even coined until near the end of the first century.[4] Instead, she says "the first generation of Jesus' followers lived and died as Jews."[4] Moss also notes O'Reilly and Dugard's unusual interpretations of various passages,[4] such asLuke 3:17, which O'Reilly and Dugard apparently interpret to mean thatJohn the Baptist told the Pharisees that they will either "burnor be condemned to Hell."[4] She concludes: "Apart from the methodological problems, the entire book is written in the style of a novel, not a history book. We hear the thoughts of Herod as he orders the execution of the male children of Bethlehem, for instance. It's entertaining, but it's historical fan fiction, not history."[4]
In an article from November 2013, Joel L. Watts, author ofMimetic Criticism and the Gospel of Mark, callsKilling Jesus nothing more than "an attempt at agenda-driven drivel produced for the lowest common denominator."[17] He adds, "I wish I had my day back."[17] In addition to raising many of the same accuracy concerns as Moss, Watts also criticizes the book for imputing post-Enlightenment ideas ofindividualism to ancient Galileean Jews[17] and for referring to theSadducees (who believed that theTorah was the only authoritative scripture and opposed the more progressive theology promoted by the Pharisees) as "liberals".[17] He also criticizes a statement that the canon of theHebrew Bible had been established "500 years" before Jesus, when, in reality, many of the books in the Hebrew Bible were not written until after that point[17] and the canon of the Hebrew Bible was still debated long after Jesus's death.[17] Watts accuses the authors of being arrogant and dismissive of the opinions of actual experts.[17] He determines that "they destroy context and literary construction to, and I can only assume this based on the evidence of reading the book, hide the actual message of the Gospels."[17]
A December 2013 review inThe Guardian by Selina O'Grady, author ofAnd Man Created God: Kings, Cults, and Conquests at the Time of Jesus, remarks that,
Everyone creates God in their own image, so it's not surprising thatFox television's aggressively conservative down-home-let's-hear-it-for-the-ordinary-guy talk show host should have created aTea Party son of God. Jesus, the little guy, is an enemy of the big corrupt tax-oppressingRoman empire, which is itself just a version ofWashington, only even more venal and sexually depraved. This Jesus is a tax-liberating rebel who incurs the wrath of the Jewish and Roman powers by threatening their joint fleecing of the people. As a member of the populist right, he is not, of course, in favour of redistribution: Bill O'Reilly's Jesus does not tell the rich to give away their money to the poor.[3]
The same review criticizesKilling Jesus for its "bodice-ripping treatment of history",[3] stating that the book oversimplifies, sensationalizes, and misrepresents the historical events it purports to describe.[3] According to O'Grady,Killing Jesus presents the Romans, Jewish elites, and Pharisees as categorically "bad" and "ordinary Jews" as "good", without any background or nuance.[3] O'Grady also criticizes O'Reilly and Dugard for relying almost entirely on the gospels[3] and ignoring the centuries' worth of books written by biblical scholars about the historical Jesus.[3]
Bart D. Ehrman, James A. Gray Distinguished Professor ofreligious studies at theUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, particularly criticized the introduction's claim that the novel was historical and that "The Romans kept incredible records of the time, and a few Jewish historians in Palestine also wrote down the events of the day," with the implication thatKilling Jesus was based on such neutral records. Ehrman writes that this claim is false; surviving non-Christian classical records of Jesus's time are essentially just a single paragraph from Josephus, theTestimonium Flavianum, and that the authors should have been honest about writing a novel solely based on the gospels.[18] In his 2016 bookJesus Before the Gospels, Ehrman wryly noted that O'Reilly is "obviously... not a New Testament scholar."[8] In both his lectures and the book, Ehrman implicitly criticizes O'Reilly's portrayal of the historical Jesus as an advocate of "smaller government and lower taxes."[7][8] In the book, he adds, "It is easy to see how this view of Jesus might resonate with a wide swath of our population today."[8]
National Geographic picked up the television adaptation ofKilling Jesus, just as it had forKilling Lincoln andKilling Kennedy.[22] In March 2014, it was announcedKilling Jesus was being adapted into a four-hour miniseries, andWalon Green has been tapped to write and executive produce the project.[23] Also returning as executive producers areRidley Scott,David W. Zucker, and Mary Lisio, who previously producedKilling Kennedy. In August 2014,Christopher Menaul was attached to direct the miniseries.[24]
On its premiere airing, the film was watched by 3.7 million viewers, averaging a 1.0 rating among adults in the 25–54 demographic. The viewership surpassed the record previously held byKilling Kennedy.[20][25] A review onYahoo TV by Ken Tucker said of the film,
Rendered without much embellishment and acted with firmly controlled vigor,Killing Jesus, a TV adaptation of the bestselling book by Bill O'Reilly and Martin Dugard, is a fine retelling of the story of Jesus Christ as a historical figure.That last phrase is key. O'Reilly and his co-author sought to write only what they considered provable historical facts about Christ. Whether this has been accomplished I'll leave to historians and theologians ...[21]
A glowing review by Hannah Goodwin for theChristian Broadcasting Network praised the film for its authentic-looking set and costumes and called it "a conversation starter".[26] The review suggested, "Presenting Jesus' life and death from a largely historical perspective could open this religious history to wider audiences."[26]
A review by Neil Genzlinger inThe New York Times, however, panned the film,[19] declaring, "It's a costume pageant devoid both of the reverence that has made some previous film versions work and of the intrigue that might provide a secularGame of Thrones–like appeal. More effort went into the jewelry and headwear than into the storytelling."[19] The same review compared the miniseries unfavorably with the book, stating, "The book tried to put Jesus' story in the broader context of the politics and practices of the day, but here the account is largely pared down to the biblical rendition, with Jesus casting out a demon, preventing the stoning of a woman accused of adultery and delivering the touchstone teachings that all Christians know by heart."[19]