Early thoughts on Bill O’Reilly’s ‘Killing Jesus’ – A Note to Readers #killingjesus

This is the third book penned by Bill O’Reilly and Martin Dugard. The previous two, Killing Lincoln and Killing Kennedy, both purport to be a factual account of the assassinations of two of the United State’s best known leaders. In actuality, they are both riddle with numerous historical and linear errors, so much so that some museums refuse to carry them. I expect nothing less for this book, especially when the ‘A Note to Readers’ includes the warning,

Much has been written about Jesus, the son of a humble carpenter. But little is actually known about him… In the writing of this fact-based book, Martin Dugard and I do not aim to suggest that we know everything about Jesus. But we know much and will you things that you might not have heard.

It gets worse. They admit there is not much evidence about Jesus, there are gaps in the life of Jesus, and historians do not add to this, but make the problem worse. Yet, somehow, they promise to give us more information. And of course, they seemingly take the Gospels as eyewitness accounts, allowing “those friends” of Jesus who had previously “paid much heed” to the “Jewish mans struggling to survive” passed along the oral traditions that became the narrative of the Gospels.

They end this note with more hubris enshrined in a few short words than I’ve seen before. “But the incredible story behind the lethal struggle between good and evil has not been fully told. Until now.”

Enhanced by Zemanta

You Might Also Like

5 Replies to “Early thoughts on Bill O’Reilly’s ‘Killing Jesus’ – A Note to Readers #killingjesus”

  1. The book may be less about Jesus than an attempt to resuscitate a divided, dying, and dysfunctional religion in an increasing secular world. In this regard, a dead Jesus is more useful than a living one. After all, he can be made into anything the author wishes. Nor is Jesus particularly unique.
    E-mails are currently circulating which portray both James Madison and Thomas Jefferson as staunch men of Christian faith. Words have been put into their mouth that they would repudiate if they were still alive and able to do so.
    Nor is any of this particularly new. In the world of entertainment, screen versions of the Cisco Kid and Zorro were vastly different from their original hardcopy predecessors. Hollywood even manged to clean up Wyatt Earp’s often unsavory reputation. Both film and television created a Western mythology far different from the reality.
    The bottom line is that apologists and propagandists often find dead men useful for their purposes.

Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.