King of Kings - by Malachi Martin - Reviewed by John L. McKenzie

Sep 28, 2026

Uploaded by Asher

Book reviews and literary commentary analyze Malachi Martin’s novel King of Kings and its approach to biblical history, historical verisimilitude, and theological representation. The review critiques anachronisms, narrative plausibility, and the construction of invented historical life for David and related characters. A second section reflects on the Catholic Press Association, recalling a lecture by Monsignor Thomas Fitzgerald, and discusses evolving labels for contemporary Catholic identity and practice.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryLiterature

FormatPDF

Pages7

Reading Time11 min

AccessFree to download

King of Kings Review

Historical fiction vs. biblical history

Theology, anachronism, and narrative credibility

Memories of the Catholic Press

Catholic Press Association conventions

Lecture by Monsignor Thomas Fitzgerald

Labels for modern Catholic identity

"At this rate we'll never get to Canterbury." | KING OF KINGS
by Malachi Martin
(Simon&Schuster,$15.95)
Reviewed by JOHN L.McKENZIE,
biblical scholar whose most recent
book is The New Testament without I-
lusion.
I HAVE learned to approach fiction
based upon biblical history with cau-
tion.It is usually loaded with scream-
ing anachronisms.it is likely to reflect
a theology which is so primitive as to
approach the pre-logical and its char-
acters as a rule address each other in a
bastardized King James English.I still
remember with horror a moving pic-
ture about Samson and Delilah and
with a different kind of horror a pic-
ture about David and Bathsheba,re-
deemed by competent performances by
Gregory Peck and Susan Hayward.
They portrayed those two lovely part-
ners in adultery who were just meant
for each other but whose love was for-
bidden by a nasty Yahweh whose
spokesman,Nathan.was given a role
which even the esteemed Raymond
Massey could not carry off.It was
good enough to be subversive,a qual- | ity which Samson and Delilah never
threatened to achieve.One could go on
with such classics as The Ten Com-
mandments(old and new)and The
King of Kings but why should we?
Malachi Martin has carried on in the
finest traditions of Hollywood.
On the other hand,how does one go
about writing a biblical novel whose
hero is David?I confess I do not know;
I have never tried it,and I am less like-
ly than ever to try it.Nor do I think I
am a very good judge of the novel;
some well known authors bore me
stiff,and I can lose myself happily in
junk.But the publishers present the
author to me not as a great story-teller
(a title which was worn by Charles
Dickens),but as a man with an aca-
demic pedigree as long as your arm,a
set of credentials which make me cover
my face in embarrassment.I suppose,
then,that I must with due reticence,
review this book,a novel of the life of
David,as a work of biblical scholar-
ship and not as a romance;presumably
that is where my competence lies.
A historical novel is fiction.The
usual practice of historical fiction im-
poses upon the author a certain degree
of verisimilitude in reconstructing the
past;thus,d'Artagnan and the three
musketeers are fictitious but they live | in the world of Louis XIII.David and
the men and women of King of Kings,
most of whom bear the names of per-
sons found in historical documents,
live in no recognizable world of the
past.It is not just a matter of ana-
chronisms;I drew up a list of bloopers,
such as the existence of parchment in
the tenth century B.C.,but it is far too
long for use.And it may be unfair.Ap-
parently Martin feels that the historical
novelist is free to create a world which
has no roots in historical reality;it is as
real as the world of Oz.But why call it
a novel of the life of David?It might as
well be called a novel of the life of
Smith.Martin's erudition contributed
nothing to the composition of the
novel precisely where one might look
for it.One may invert the usual dis-
claimer of responsibility and say that
here only the names have not been
changed.
In particular,the religion of the
Judahites of King of Kings is a hodge-
podge of every Jewish belief and prac-
tice from premonarchic times to the
Talmudic period.Martin may have
reasons for knowing that the Judahites
of the tenti:century did not pronounce
the name Yahweh and substituted the
title Adonai,but I think he should
share these reasons with his colleagues. | | --- | --- | --- | | MEMORIES of the Catholic Press:
Generally the var

FAQs

What does the review criticize about King of Kings?

It criticizes historical anachronisms, the lack of recognizable historical grounding, and a theology portrayed as overly primitive, with dialogue rendered in an altered King James style.

Why does the reviewer question calling the book a novel of David’s life?

The reviewer argues that the novel’s world has no real roots in historical reality and that its scholarly effort does not visibly improve the composition, making the premise misleading.

What memory is highlighted from the Catholic Press Association conventions?

The reviewer recalls a particularly well-attended lecture by Monsignor Thomas Fitzgerald on printed filth, whose reading of controversial materials drew a growing crowd.

Sep 28, 2026

Uploaded by Asher