Forget what you think
you know about Bill O’Reilly. Forget about his right-leaning politics, his
top-rated television show, and the millions of dollars he makes annually in
books sales and entrepreneurial endeavors. And forget about his claim that God
inspired him to write a book about Jesus. These are all rabbit trails,
peripheral issues that will lead you away from the central issue regarding
O’Reilly’s newest book, Killing Jesus.
I
must admit, I had mixed reactions when I heard Bill O’Reilly was publishing a
new book in his “killing” series. On the one hand, his previous books
such as Killing Lincoln were readable, engaging, and renewed peoples’
exploration into important American historical events, which are all worthy
reasons to read and write a book. I was hopeful that Killing Jesus might
do the same for people interested in exploring the historical evidence for
Jesus’ physical death and resurrection. And after reading it I still think that
is true on many levels. Over all, it’s interesting, fast-paced, and could be
beneficial for the discerning reader.
But
on the other hand, I was and remain skeptical. How would a history teacher
turned political pundit handle the historical analysis of Jesus of Nazareth?
Having finished the book I find that my skepticism was not entirely put to
rest, but rather was alarmed on several occasions. I continue to contemplate
the following questions: Is this the kind of book I could hand to a skeptic
asking questions about the historical trustworthiness of the Gospels? Would
Christians find this book helpful in declaring and defending the Gospel? And
did O’Reilly write the book he initially set out to write?
All
of these questions revolve around the central issue of O’Reilly’s Killing
Jesus. So, what exactly is the epicenter of this book? Thankfully, O’Reilly
tells us in his own words.
This
is not a religious book...Martin Dugard and I are both Roman Catholics who were
educated in religious schools. But we are historical investigators and are
interested primarily in telling the truth about important people, not
converting anyone to a spiritual cause.[1]
And
on CBS’s 60 Minutes O’Reilly insisted, “There's no religion in the
book, nothing. It's all about history.”[2]
That
is the main issue with the book: historical content and verification of
evidence. The primary question I hope to answer is this: Did O’Reilly, in fact,
write a reliable historical account of Jesus of Nazareth? In order to answer
that question, I’ve organized my thoughts in a few broad categories.
Historical Methodology
When
I first listened to the audio book of Killing Lincoln (I also examined
its contents at a local book store), I noticed that the usual footnotes and
citations which are commonplace in well-researched history books were
noticeably lacking. Sadly, this writing style also pervades Killing Jesus.
There are no footnotes at the bottom of the page or in a bibliography in the
back of the book. In the opening pages the reader is greeted with the assertion
that this is a well researched historical book. Outside of a list of books
consulted, the authors provide no substantial means of verifying their research.
Granted,
there are various footnotes spread throughout the book. But these are mostly
explanations about dates, religious customs, biblical citations, and the like.
The only semblance of a bibliography comes at the end in the section titled Sources
which does little more than name many of the books that were influential in
their research. Among those works are some notable and respected names in
Christian apologetics such as, Michael Licona, Gary Habermas, and Craig Evans.
These men have all written outstanding books in defense of the Christian faith.
Aside from this brief source section, there are no citations as to where and
how these sources (or any others) were used throughout the book. Quite simply,
there is no evidence, no citation, and no documentation.
This
is a remarkable failure for a book that claims to be historical. One of the
fundamental principles in historiography is leaving a paper trail, and when you
do research, documenting that paper trail for others to follow. It’s like my
high school algebra teacher always told me, “Show your work.” O’Reilly and
Dugard may have done lots of research. Exactly how much they did during the
eight months it took to write is unknown. Therein lays the problem. There is no
way for the reader (scholarly or leisurely) to check out the facts for
themselves.
Of
course, I understand why citation is not popular in books in our culture. They
are tedious to read and write. It takes time for editors and consumers alike to
wade through them. Mainly, it takes up pages and adds to the final cost of the
book. All of this makes sense if we consider that this book was written for
entertainment value and meant to be a popular level book, which O’Reilly
virtually admitted in the following exchange on 60 Minutes:
Bill O'Reilly: I just want to write about
important things in a very entertaining way. That's the formula.
Norah O'Donnell: The title "Killing,"
using killing, a bit sensationalist?
Bill O'Reilly: Of course. Of course it's
sensationalist. That's who I am. I'm a sensationalist. I'm a big mouth. I get
attention. In this world you have to--if you want a mass-market presentation,
you have to get attention.[3]
Sensationalism
sells. Unfortunately, sensationalism masquerades as scholarship. Most
publishers and book stores have placed this book in the history section. And
I’ve debated as to what category it should be placed in. It’s not fiction but,
then again, it’s not entirely historical either, at least not in its current
format. Perhaps the best category would be that of historical paraphrase.
Now,
there are many things O’Reilly’s book does well. For example it includes maps,
helpful historical sidebars in the bottom margins, and the broad historical
context of the Roman Empire leading up to and during Jesus’ life and ministry.
But there are also glaring deficiencies. I’ve already mentioned the lack of
historical documentation.
However,
beyond the specific issue of citation there is a broader concept lacking in
O’Reilly’s book, namely, an overall explanation of his historical methodology.
To his credit, he mentions a number of sources in the back of the book. And in
his introduction he gives the reader a brief glimpse into some of the works
consulted.
…researching Killing Jesus required a plunge into classical
works such as the four Gospels and the Jewish historian Josephus…the historical
record may not have been as immediately accessible as that of more recent
times, but men who wrote the history of that period were very much concerned
with getting their facts straight and telling the story as completely as
possible.[4]
Yet,
something is missing. There is no clear explanation of how he arrives at the
historical conclusions he makes. That is what I mean when I use the phrase,
historical methodology. For example, if I were to assert that the Allied forces
crossed the English Channel on June 6, 1944 how would someone determine whether
or not this event actually occurred in history? Historical methods are
important in establishing the probability that any given event took place, and
that the retelling of the event is likewise a reliable report that later
readers should trust. This is similar to the process used in court rooms when
examining the evidence for a crime and rendering a verdict. As a side bar, in
apologetics I have often argued that whatever historical methods we use and
apply to other events in history, such as D-Day or the assassination of Julius
Caesar, should likewise be used and applied to the death and resurrection of
Jesus.
Sadly,
O’Reilly does not give the reader any criteria by which he judges sources to be
historically reliable or unreliable. Furthermore, he claims that, “We had to
separate fact from myth based on a variety of sources, some of which had their
own agendas.”[5] But he never cites any of those varieties of sources, nor the
alleged myths and facts contained therein.
One
of the great strengths of the book, at least in my estimation, was the first
third of the book where he addressed the socio-political climate of the Roman
Empire and Judean leadership surrounding the lifetime of Jesus. However, he
does not apply that same tenacity to the primary source documents of Jesus’
life, namely, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The irony here is
that the historical evidence for the reliability of Jesus’ life and ministry as
recorded in these four Gospels outweighs all other historical documents from
the ancient world. There are better manuscript and transmission records for the
New Testament than for the entire corpus of ancient writings, including sources
that historians readily accept as trustworthy witnesses, such as Seutonius,
Tacitus, and Pliny the Younger.[6]
One
of the greatest examples of historical methodology is found in the work of
apologist John Warwick Montgomery. In his apologetic tome, History, Law, and
Christianity Montgomery utilizes secular historical methods and applies
them to the four Gospels. In this methodology there are three basic tests used
to determine the historicity of the text in question and the events they
record. The three tests are briefly described as follows. There is 1)the
bibliographical test, which demonstrates how reliable the transmission
of the documents has been over time; 2) the internal evidence test,
which explores what the texts say concerning themselves and whether or not they
have internal consistency and reliability; and 3) the external evidence test,
which examines reliable secondary sources that either support or contradict the
text in question.
The
genius of this method is that its origin is in the field of military history.
So, there can be no skeptics’ cry of bias or padding the stats.
The
challenge, however, is that Montgomery’s books, such as his Tractatus Logico
Theologicus, are rather weighty in their content. For one who might be new
to reading Christian apologetics, a good place to begin would be with
Montgomery’s History, Law, and Christianity, or with a sort of
dumbed-down version of Montgomery’s Tractatus by the trial lawyer, Craig
Parton, entitled, Religion on Trial.
Now,
back to O’Reilly’s Killing Jesus. Had O’Reilly lived up to his own
famously ruthless standards of evidence and critical thinking in his book that
he demands of his guests on his television show, the book would’ve been far
better for it in the end.
And
the question remains, does O’Reilly’s book stand up to his own scrutiny and
demand for historical evidence? Does he back up this assertion about writing an
historical book with equally reliable historical verification? In other words…
Where’s the Evidence?
In
the chapter recounting Jesus’ early life O’Reilly claims Joseph, Mary, and
Jesus were eyewitnesses to the Passover rioting of 4 B.C. in Jerusalem along
with the ensuing punishment exacted by Archaelaus,
Mary, Joseph, and Jesus saw the bloodbath
firsthand and were lucky to escape the temple with their lives. They were also
eyewitnesses to the crucifixion of more than two thousand Jewish rebels outside
Jerusalem’s city walls when Roman soldiers moved in to quell further revolts.
[7]
Now,
this makes for an interesting parallel in Jesus’ life if it is true. But,
where’s the evidence? No citation is provided and his claim is not
substantiated. Later
in the book, when discussing the ministry of John the Baptizer, O’Reilly also
claims that the Jewish tax collectors were diverting money to Rome and that
John himself may have been guilty of tax evasion, at least in the eyes of the
Jewish religious authorities.[8]
It’s
no secret that the tax collectors were ill-received guests at any party. Their
greed and corruption is also well known and documented. And yet, O’Reilly cites
no evidence in support of his claim that these tax collectors – thieves though
they were – were also guilty of funneling money to Rome. The over-emphasis on
taxes and economics in this book is overtly anachronistic. Again, the reader is
left wondering, where’s the evidence?
But
the most grievous example of missing evidence is in O’Reilly’s introduction
where he states,
Much has been written about Jesus, the son of a
humble carpenter. But little is actually known about him. Of course we have the
Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but they sometimes appear
contradictory and were written from a spiritual point of view rather than as a
historical chronicling of Jesus’ life. [9]
These
are not original claims. Skeptics have been accusing the four Gospels of
alleged contradictions for centuries. Writers have also made the argument that
the Gospels are written from a religious or theological point of view and not
an historical one. Again, where’s the evidence? O’Reilly doesn’t cite or seek
to explain any of the alleged contradictions in the four Gospels. He simply
echoes a familiar assertion.
Many
authors (such as O’Reilly) have avoided calling the Gospels historical accounts
because they contain miraculous reports and events. However, this is
disingenuous to the text. If a miracle occurred it is an historical event, no
matter how unpopular or contradictory that may be to one’s worldview. Simply
calling the Gospels “religious writings,” and separating them from history is
problematic. If we remove Christianity from historical assertions, events, and
investigation, we have removed it from reality. Faith is founded on fact, not
fantasy. To say that a book about Jesus of Nazareth is purely historical and not
religious is erroneous and betrays the historical foundations of the Christian faith. Simply put, in Christianity you can’t separate the two.
Moreover,
there is no justification for placing the Gospels in this unknowable and
arbitrary category. The question that Christian apologetics seeks to answer is
this: is there reliable historical evidence that a miracle (e.g. the physical
resurrection of Jesus) actually occurred? Thankfully, a great deal of work has
already been done in this area. C.S Lewis handily dealt with David Hume and the
skeptics’ argument that miracles are not historical and that we can dismiss
them simply on principle (a priori) because there is uniform experience
against them. Writing history the way O’Reilly has done in Killing Jesus
has the negative effect of causing readers to overlook important and credible
criteria in investigating the information available that testifies to the fact
that the miracles recorded in the Gospels are reliable history and the
eyewitness accounts in them are likewise trustworthy. In other words, O’Reilly
is echoing the unsupported assumptions of Hume, which taints his entire
investigation of the Gospels’ claims.
This
fundamental problem is seen at the beginning of Killing Jesus, where
O’Reilly claims that the Gospel writers were not engaged in writing history,
but rather a spiritual account. Anyone who has read the New Testament, however,
should recognize that this directly contradicts the words of the Gospel writers
themselves. Consider Luke’s opening lines in particular.
Inasmuch as many have
undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished
among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers
of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having
followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for
you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the
things you have been taught. (Luke 1:1-4)
What
this amounts to is O’Reilly committing the cardinal sin of removing the primary
source documents from the realm of historical investigation and into a
spiritual nebula outside of time. Three main problems with this are
1)
The Gospel writers and the disciples clearly claimed that they were writing history.
2)
They were eyewitnesses or close associates of eyewitnesses. Concerning this
latter point, it should be noted well that the Gospels were written by people
who either saw firsthand many of the events they record, – or talked with
people who did. And the fact that their independent testimony agrees gives
weight and veracity to their claims. As a side note, the value of eyewitness
testimony should not be overlooked. The best sources we have on Jesus come from
people who either knew him directly, or interviewed those who did (like Luke).
“We were eyewitness of these things,” the disciples claim repeatedly. As
reliable eyewitness accounts, the Gospels should be treated with historical
credibility. This has recently been meticulously demonstrated by New Testament
scholar Richard Bauckham in his vital work, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses
The Gospel writers, in their different ways,
present their Gospels based on and incorporating the testimony of the
eyewitnesses. The literary and theological strategies of these writers are not
directed to superseding the testimony of eyewitnesses but to giving it a
permanent literary vehicle…
…Testimony, we will argue, is both the
historically appropriate category for understanding what kind of history the
Gospels are and the theologically appropriate category for understanding what
kind of access Christian readers of the Gospels thereby have to Jesus and his
history. It is the category that enables us to surmount the dichotomy between
the so-called historical Jesus and the so-called Christ of faith. It enables us
to see that the Gospels are not some kind of obstacle to knowledge of the real
Jesus and his history but precisely the kind of means of access to the real
Jesus and his history that, as historians and as believers, we need. [10]
3)
Jesus of Nazareth didn’t enter into spiritual history or a mythological
religious world, but as a real man in real time and real history in order to do
real things. Jesus was born in the days of Caesar Augustus. And he was
crucified under Pontius Pilate.
Remove
Christianity from history and you have to go all the way and say Jesus never
existed. But no credible historians say that these days. Because no matter what
one believes personally, the fact remains that these things did not happen in
never never land. Who Jesus was and what he did can and should be investigated
historically. Simply put, the Christian faith is founded on facts.
So
while claiming to write a history of Jesus, O’Reilly sabotages his own project
right from the beginning, cutting off the historical branch upon which he
claims to sit with an arbitrary saw that separates history and theology into
watertight compartments. Had O’Reilly spent additional time establishing the
case that the four Gospels are reliable primary source documents for the life
and ministry of Jesus, Killing Jesus could be labeled history rather
than a historical paraphrase.
Why was Jesus Killed?
One
of the other glaring problems I encountered with this book actually came from
O’Reilly’s interview on 60 Minutes. When asked why Jesus was killed –
which is the entire premise of Killing Jesus – O’Reilly responded with
perhaps the most outlandish claim of the book. Read the exchange carefully.
Bill O'Reilly: Well, when he went into the
temple and overturned those moneychangers he was absolutely livid. He was
personally insulted that the temple was being used as a place of commerce. And
not only that, but they were stealing from the folks.
Norah O'Donnell: He was upset with people of his
own faith.
Bill O'Reilly: Absolutely. He was, he was upset
that the Jews were taxing, overtaxing, and extorting the folks.
Norah O'Donnell: And that story is important to
tell because it explains why so many people wanted him dead?
Bill O'Reilly: That's the crux of the
"Killing Jesus" theme, is that there was a reason he was executed.
Not that he was saying he was God. Droves of people said they were God. But now
when you interrupt a money flow -- now you're into territory where they gotta
get rid of him. [11]
Once
again the anachronism of our modern political landscape – taxes, class warfare,
and all – entered into the analysis of the motivation for Jesus’ death on the
cross. More to the point, however, is O’Reilly’s blatant misunderstanding of
why the Jewish religious authorities wanted Jesus dead. Killing Jesus wasn’t
about financial grievances (though they may have had those), economic
hardships, or over taxation of the middle and lower class Israelites. If these
were, in fact, the religious authorities’ motivation there is no evidence for
it in the primary source documents.
Killing
Jesus was primarily about his claim to be God Almighty in human flesh who had
come to die for the sins of the world on the cross and rise again. In the minds
of the religious authorities, both his utter disregard for their man-made
attempts to save themselves (and others) and his clear proclamations of
blasphemy (e.g. claiming to be God in himself) were the reasons Jesus had to be
put to death.
Contrary
to O’Reilly, the primary sources on Jesus (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) say
he was crucified precisely for claiming to be God in the flesh. For example,
read the Holy Week accounts in the Gospels or even just this snippet from John:
The Jews picked up stones again to stone him.
Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for
which of them are you going to stone me?” The Jews answered him, “It is not for
a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you,
being a man, make yourself God.” (John 10:31-33)
Again,
O’Reilly makes a remarkable assertion about the true nature of the central
event in the New Testament without substantiating a single claim.
Conclusion: The Apologetic Import
As
I mentioned in the introduction, I had mixed reactions both prior to and after
reading O’Reilly’s latest book, Killing Jesus. Even after writing this
review, I am still conflicted.
I
had hoped this would be a book I could use with skeptics, a good work of
history by a popular level writer. However, I think any skeptic would ask the
same questions I have posed of this book and its content. Where’s the evidence?
How does O’Reilly corroborate his claims, especially when some of them directly
contradict the primary source documents? Does O’Reilly really think he’s a
better historian (2000 years later) than multiple eyewitnesses to the same
events 2000 years ago?
The
real crux of the problem revealed in this book (and in subsequent interviews)
is that O’Reilly fails to grasp both the central event of the Gospels – the
death and resurrection of Jesus – and the methodology used by scholars and
historians to establish the veracity of historical events as well as the
reliability of the four Gospels as primary source documents.
The
one thing that O’Reilly does well, and that I appreciate about this book, was
the narrative, storytelling-style he and his co-author wrote it in. I simply
wish he would've combined the compelling forms of historical narrative that he
does so well with the compelling substance of historical facts. Simply because
an author tells a story doesn't mean it is unhistorical. In fact, the most
exciting stories are those that are based on the facts and yet sound too good
to be true. The Gospels are that kind of story. Jesus’ death and resurrection
is that kind of story, one that sounds too good to be true and yet takes place
in real human history.
In
the end, I won’t be handing this book to a skeptic who might be asking tough
historical questions about the Christian faith because O’Reilly doesn't take
the time to build a positive case for the trustworthiness of the Gospels and
the physical death and resurrection of Jesus. And I’m not blaming O’Reilly for
that. That simply wasn't the kind of book he set out to write. I do, however,
think that is exactly the kind of book that is needed.
Endnotes --
[1]
Bill O’Reilly and Martin Dugard. Killing Jesus: A History. New York:
Henry Holy and Company, 2013. P. 2-3.
[3]
Ibid.
[4]
Bill O’Reilly and Martin Dugard. Killing Jesus: A History. New York:
Henry Holy and Company, 2013. p. 275-276.
[5]
Ibid, p. 273.
[6]
For example, the earliest copy of Seutonius’s Life of Caesar dates to
950 A.D. and the earliest copy of Pliny the Younger’s Letters date to
850 A.D. In both accounts there is over an 800 year time span between the
earliest known copy of the manuscript and the date it was written. Both are
considered by classical scholars to be reliable documents and a valuable part
of our knowledge of ancient history. When comparing these Roman historical
manuscripts to those of the four Gospels, the difference is monumental. The
time span between the dates when the Gospels were written (60-90 A.D.) verses
our earliest known manuscript copy is between 140-265 years. Moreover, the
sheer volume of manuscript evidence available for the four Gospels far
outweighs that of anything else in antiquity (in excess of 15,000 copies to be
precise). Craig Parton. Religion on Trial. Eugene: Wipf and Stock. 2008,
p. 47-48.
[7]
Bill O’Reilly and Martin Dugard. Killing Jesus: A History. New York:
Henry Holy and Company, 2013. p. 66.
[8]
Ibid, p. 96, 102.
[9]
Ibid, p. 1.
[10]
Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness
Testimony. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2006. p. 472-473.
