One of the themes I’ve discussed frequently is the way pseudo-historians and pop culture hucksters use the past to promote a modern agenda. We’ve seen it in Ancient Aliens’ promotion of religious revival, and in America Unearthed’s strange fixation on the politics of racial demographic change in America. That’s why I think it’s worth highlighting a similar theme in Bill O’Reilly’s latest work of historical pornography, Killing Jesus, which promiscuously uses and abuses facts in pursuit of a political agenda that just happens to coincide with O’Reilly’s own brand of conservative politics.
Earlier this week Aaron Adair and Joel L. Watts—who both know more than I ever will about early Christianity—delivered devastating critiques of the way O’Reilly and his coauthor, Martin Dugard, have diverged wildly from contemporary mainstream scholarship on a plethora of issues historical, scientific, and theological. They accept, for example, the untenable idea that the Star of Bethlehem was a comet from 5 BCE, but apparently misunderstand their own source. They routinely ignore or minimize mainstream interpretations of the Gospels—including going so far as to say that mainstream scholars increasingly support the historicity of the Gospels—and here is where Watts begins to outline the political agenda at work.
According to Watts, O’Reilly and Dugard have a preoccupation with emphasizing Roman tax policy by way of complaining about the unfair burden taxation places on the religious. “Galilean outrage against Rome has been building for decades. They have been levied with tax after tax after tax. Antipas is nothing if not ‘a lover of luxury,’ and he uses these taxes […] to finance his own lavish lifestyle”—just like a modern liberal Democrat! There are literally dozens upon dozens of references to taxation in the book (at least 37), almost as many as the 48 references to taxes in the entire Bible, a text nearly seven times the length. By comparison, the Bible has more than 190 references to the poor and poverty, while O’Reilly and Dugard have just 17, even counting when it’s used as an adjective for “bad.” There are “exorbitant taxes” and burdensome taxes, “exorbitant” interest rates on back taxes and punishments for unpaid taxes, “inevitable taxes” and “misappropriated” taxes used for government officials’ fun. One would easily be forgiven for thinking that Jesus’ ministry had nothing to do with the poor or the sick and everything to do with complaining about wasteful Roman government spending and protesting the imperial debt. Note, by the way, that those burdensome taxes modern historians calculate at between 1 and 3 percent of income.
The authors even take a moment to bash Caesar Augustus, the man who founded the empire that in time gave Christianity the power to become, by force, a global faith. According to O’Reilly and Watts, “Octavian has misappropriated vast public sums of money for his personal use, raised taxes, and decreed himself to be Divi Filius.”
In a single sentence, O’Reilly and Dugard reveal their ignorance of pretty much everything. They don’t seem to know how ancient governments worked—public money and private money were not distinct categories, and the head of government was the government; l’etat c’est moi, as another absolute monarch said. Corruption was the way Roman government operated; without it, the empire would not function. Augustus did not precisely “raise” taxes; among his acts was an end to tax-farming to avoid the endemic corruption and exorbitant taxation of which O’Reilly is such an opponent. However, Augustus ended the relatively progressive property tax system (only the rich had property) and replaced it with a fairer but more regressive income tax in which the poor paid rates similar to those of the wealthy (1-3%)—wait a minute; isn’t that what O’Reilly advocates? But Jesus hates Roman tax policy? Live by the Word, die by the word. Remember: Jesus hates the flat tax.
O’Reilly and Dugard want us to read “Divi Filius” as Son of God, equivalent to Jesus’ title, as an example of Augustus’ hubris; but Augustus meant it as “son of a god,” specifically his adopted father Julius Caesar, who had been declared a god. “Divi filius” was a truncated form of the full honorific “divi Iuli filius,” son of the Divine Julius. It’s important to note the difference between the Latin word “divus,” a minor divine figure, and “deus,” a full-fledged immortal Olympain Deity like Jupiter and Juno, though the distinction was not always perfectly maintained. Christians, pointedly, called Jesus Dei filius, or Son of God. Pagans imagined a range of divine figures, from heroes to minor gods to low-level Olympians to the Big Twelve. Christians, of course, are completely different in recognizing a hierarchy of saints, various orders of angels, Mary, Jesus, and God. A Roman emperor as divus was not a whole order of magnitude different from the Catholic process of canonizing saints to wield special power in heaven and receive special honors on earth. Incidentally, Augustus being the “son” of a god did not make him prima facie divine, no more that Perseus, son of Jupiter, could ever be more than a human hero; the idea that the emperor was divine in life was an affectation that post-dated Augustus.
But what takes the cake is the way O’Reilly and Dugard impose modern American political ideology onto first century Palestine to argue that liberals are hell-bound sinners. The authors claim that John the Baptist told his audience that the Christ would “punish” the unbaptized “in the most horrible manner possible.” This is their interpretation of John’s speech to the Pharisees and the Sadducees in which he warns them that the one to follow him would separate the wheat from the chaff and burn the chaff (Matthew 3:7-12; Luke 3:17). The authors, Catholics both, take a Protestant position that this represents the threat of hellfire and damnation, while other traditions represent this as a cleansing to purify the souls of the wayward, relating it back to John’s claim that Jesus will baptize with the fire of the Holy Spirit.
But what is disturbing is that the authors call the Sadducees “liberal”—though apparently unaware that this is both untrue (they were Mosaic fundamentalists and supplied priests for the Second Temple) and not quite what they meant it to mean (they seem to mean “permissive”)—and therefore create, rhetorically, the syllogism that if (a) Sadducees are going to hell and (b) Sadducees are liberals, then (c) liberals are going to hell. I’m not sure either author is clever enough to have planned this, but it reveals one of the underlying themes of O’Reilly’s work, the promotion of a capital-C Conservative (i.e. political) agenda, even above the small-c conservative position on theology. Pointedly, Watts notes that the two authors omit the text of Luke 3:11 in describing John the Baptist’s preaching. That verse, of course, is socialist propaganda in which John calls on his followers to share their material goods and their food.
It just goes to show what I’ve said many times: Popular history and pseudo-history are about the present, not the past, and reveal agendas and anxieties applicable to today, not yesterday.
9/26/2013 07:30:27 am
That is a shame. Like I mentioned before I worked on the KILLING LINCOLN doc with him and I was very impressed with his knowledge and wanting to present facts without speculation. I was very apprehensive working with him because of his on screen persona and politics but I found him a very intelligent and nice person.
9/26/2013 02:00:22 pm
Why not read it yourself and make your own judgements about it.
9/26/2013 02:23:56 pm
I will now it is on my library list. I just wont buy it
9/26/2013 07:37:11 am
In several places you say "O'Reilly and Watts..." but I think you mean "O'Reilly and Dugard". I don't think Joel Watts wants anything to do with O'Reilly's historical beliefs.
9/26/2013 07:39:25 am
Well that was a dumb mistake. Thanks for catching that. I fixed it.
9/26/2013 07:39:58 am
I'm a little disappointed by this one, Jason. Why stress your perception of the politics in this book? Why not judge it on its historic merits (of which there may not be many) like you do with the works of Scott Wolter and his ilk? The political leanings of other pseudo-history proponents are not usually discussed here.
9/26/2013 07:47:52 am
I have nothing to add on the historical merits of O'Reilly's book; Watts did a good job with that. I'm not sure, though, that I see a difference between complaining that O'Reilly is imposing conservative ideology on the Jesus story and complaining that Scott Wolter is imposing liberal feminist goddess-worship ideology on medieval history, or Ancient Aliens an ideology of neo-paganism. Recognizing that O'Reilly has imposed these beliefs does not mean that the ideology is wrong, only that it doesn't belong where he put it since it doesn't apply.
9/26/2013 12:43:42 pm
I hope this doesn't make me sound overly cynical, but I find this a lot less troubling than those H2 abortions you brought up. When people tune in to the History Channel and associated networks, they expect more than a modicum of truth and impartiality; nobody is looking for that when they open a Bill O'Reilly book. =P
9/26/2013 02:32:11 pm
Shane, I disagree after O'Reilly's great books on Lincoln and his book on Kennedy. He has proved himself a very well researched Historian (he does have a BA in History). Like I said working with him was a pleasure and at no time during the two months I worked with him was he the harsh abrasive man we see on TV and in his political writings. In fact he was very much the opposite. He (like most TV personalities) has two persona's one public and one private.
9/26/2013 04:26:20 pm
Matt, maybe I *was* being too cynical; my point was simply that a man of Bill O'Reilly's reputation (as a highly opinionated, often ill-informed political commentator) has limited credibility, and is likely to be second-guessed. If this outing is of lower quality than his previous efforts, then this is disappointing, but not entirely unexpected.
9/27/2013 11:58:55 am
Comparing Augustus to Hitler is a non starter. That is not a legitimate comparison, and it is quite obvious that the empire Augustus built became the vehicle for the spread of Christianity.
9/26/2013 07:40:02 am
Just FYI, at a certain point in the entry you start mixing up Watts and Dugard.
9/26/2013 07:48:40 am
Thanks, I fixed it.
The Other J.
9/26/2013 11:39:58 pm
So which came first, the ideology or the data set? I'm curious whether O'Reilly and Dugard set out to write a religious history text first and their ideology bubbled up, or if they decided to write an ideological screed and used religious history as their template. I think the same could be asked of the other alternative history outlets that get discussed on these pages.
9/26/2013 11:45:08 pm
Honestly, my guess is that O'Reilly and Dugard weren't intentionally doing it. I think that it's just part of their world view to see tax policy as more important than poverty. Most of the book is a straightforward retelling of the Gospel story.
9/27/2013 03:00:14 am
There's a saying in Jesus studies that looking down the well of the historical Jesus you only end up seeing your own reflection. O'Reilly and Dugard in many ways are having the same problems teasing out the historical Jesus as every scholar has for the last 200-some years. But they're also doing it without the content knowledge of Bible scholars and without any notable historical method (not to say historical Jesus scholars have a working method).
The Other J.
9/27/2013 06:54:47 am
Biblical studies as a Rorschach test. That makes a lot of sense.
9/27/2013 04:10:46 am
First, thanks for covering the review.
9/29/2013 06:31:15 am
The conversion of the Roman Empire may have been good for the Church, but not so much for Christianity. When government and religion become tools of each other, little good results from it. The best example is America where the founders made a conscious decision to form a republic based on a Judeo-Christian moral orientation, while at the same time make an equally conscious decision to not establish a state religion, not declaring America a Christian country. Unfortunately, we are fast approaching a point where America will have a state religion (right or left or other, we don't know yet), and then the usual mischief will ensue.
10/30/2013 12:09:31 am
Thanks, Jason, for keeping this in the archive. It was tremendously insightful.
10/30/2013 12:24:16 am
I addressed your concern in the very next day's blog post, in which I complained about Howard Zinn's abuse of history to support his liberal goals: http://www.jasoncolavito.com/1/post/2013/09/fair-and-balanced-howard-zinn-and-imposing-liberal-ideology-on-history.html
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply.
I am an author and researcher focusing on pop culture, science, and history. Bylines: New Republic, Esquire, Slate, etc. There's more about me in the About Jason tab.
Enter your email below to subscribe to my newsletter for updates on my latest projects, blog posts, and activities, and subscribe to Culture & Curiosities, my Substack newsletter.
Terms & Conditions
Please read all applicable terms and conditions before posting a comment on this blog. Posting a comment constitutes your agreement to abide by the terms and conditions linked herein.