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 journalist Vermont C. Royster, the introduction concludes: "But the incredible story behind the lethal struggle between good and evil has not been fully told.The second chapter describes the life of the Roman general and dictator Julius Caesar, his conquests, his seduction by the Egyptian Ptolemaic queen Cleopatra, and his eventual assassination.In Chapter Fourteen, he goes to the house of Mary and Martha, proclaims the Golden Rule, tells the Pharisees to "Render unto Caesar", weeps over Jerusalem, and predicts his own death.The "Afterword" describes non-Christian mentions of Jesus, the fates of the Apostles according to Catholic tradition, as well as what happened to Tiberius, Caligula, Caiaphas, Herod Antipas, Jerusalem, and the early Christian movement."[10] A review of the book by Erik Wemple in The Washington Post remarked that Killing 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] 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 in Killing Jesus.[14] The same review criticized the book for its "graphic description of sexual activity"[14] and for portraying Mary Magdalene as a repentant prostitute, an idea that is not based on the Bible."[12] Candida Moss, a professor of New Testament and early Christianity at the University of Notre Dame, criticizes the book for its many historical inaccuracies in two articles written in September and October 2013 for The Daily Beast and CNN respectively.[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)."[4] In an article from November 2013, Joel L. Watts, author of Mimetic Criticism and the Gospel of Mark, calls Killing Jesus nothing more than "an attempt at agenda-driven drivel produced for the lowest common denominator."[17] In addition to raising many of the same accuracy concerns as Moss, Watts also criticizes the book for imputing post-Enlightenment ideas of individualism to ancient Galileean Jews[17] and for referring to the Sadducees (who believed that the Torah was the only authoritative scripture and opposed the more progressive theology promoted by the Pharisees) as "liberals".[3]The same review criticizes Killing 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.Whether this has been accomplished I'll leave to historians and theologians ...[21]A glowing review by Hannah Goodwin for the Christian Broadcasting Network praised the film for its authentic-looking set and costumes and called it "a conversation starter".
Nineteenth-century illustration of
Mary Magdalene
as a repentant prostitute by
Gustave Doré
, which appears in
Killing Jesus
.
Candida Moss
criticizes the book for accepting this portrayal of Mary, which is not supported by the Bible or other early Christian writings.
[
16
]
Numerous scholars have criticized
Killing Jesus
for its anachronistic portrayal of Jesus as an advocate of "smaller government and lower taxes" similar to the supporters of the United States
Tea Party movement
(
protest pictured
), rather than the first-century Galilean Jew he really was.
[
3
]
[
7
]
[
8
]
[
16
]
[
17
]