Killing Jesus: A Fair and Balanced Review
“Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment” (John 7:24).
Bloviater Bill O’Reilly has enjoyed tremendous success in the past three years with the three books which he has co-written with Martin Dugard. Killing Lincoln was number one on the Non-Fiction bestseller list for weeks and remained in the Top Ten for nearly a year. Killing Kennedy was also an honest look at history; it too was at the top of the bestseller list and remained on the Top Ten list for several months. Both of these are well worth reading. In fact, the movie version of Killing Kennedy airs tonight (November 10, 2013) at 8:00 P.M. on the National Geographic Channel.
Currently atop the non-fiction bestseller list is his newest release, Killing Jesus (subtitled, A History). Comments of both praise and condemnation have been offered concerning the book, although no evidence has been shown that those who disagreed with it had actually read it. Many of those criticisms were based on what the author said about the book. This reviewer has read all three historical accounts and seeks to analyze Killing Jesus objectively, despite some of the unsettling comments made in advance by O’Reilly.
Dugard and O’Reilly do an excellent job of putting things in a historical perspective. That they took the time to research the historical setting of these remarkable events that occurred in the first century is evident from the inclusion of such information as the dimensions of the typical fishing boat on the Sea of Galilee (136) to the histories of Pilate, the various Herods, and the family of Caiaphas, including what happened to them after the events of the crucifixion week.
Quotes from Josephus and others are referenced and are also included in a list of historical sources that discuss Jesus (even if briefly). The value of having the names of Pliny the Younger, Cornelius Tacticus, Suetonius, Thallus, Phlegon, and the satirist Lucian (262) is that college students might present these names to their professors who are still telling them, “There’s no historical evidence that Jesus ever lived.” This is just one of the inaccuracies that college professors still get away with in trying to influence youths away from Christianity.
Documentation
On one program advertising the release of the book, O’Reilly mentioned that they included references in this book, which is true, but he does not document things the way graduate students must. What he does is list his sources at the end of the book (275-80). However, he generally does not tell the reader when he is using each source. For example, in this review, page numbers are cited so that the reader can find what is being referenced. In this way, one can find the page that contains the reference and make sure that the author was not misrepresented.
Most scholarly works cite the author, the title, and the page number to facilitate verification, but O’Reilly does not. Although he listed sources at the conclusion of the book, the reader has no idea which work is being cited most of the time, let alone what the page number might be. Perhaps the authors did not want readers to get bogged down in all that information, or they thought it would detract from the fast-paced readability of the book, but a brief mention would have been sufficient, and those who desired to look it up then could.
One time this would have been especially helpful was in the footnote on page 14. The following statement is made: “The northern portion of this kingdom fell in 722 B.C. to the Philistines, while the Babylonians later conquered the southern half.” Anyone who knows the Bible very well at all knows that this statement is inaccurate. The Assyrians took the northern kingdom captive in 722-721 B. C. (2 Kings 17). It was for this reason that Jonah did not want Nineveh to repent; he knew what they might one day do to his people.
Either someone inadvertently put Philistines for Assyrians, or whatever source was consulted was just plain wrong. The reader cannot make any determination here because no source is cited for this misinformation.
Readability and Recommendation
The historical sections will intrigue the reader. No matter how fond of history he might be, he will discover information that he did not know. The style holds the reader’s attention, and that has been the goal of all three historical books—to whet people’s appetite in learning about the past. None of the three books has been a forum for O’Reilly’s political views; even those who disagree with them will find these books fascinating.
Overall, the information about the crucifixion and what Jesus had to endure will probably increase the reader’s faith, but one should also be aware of its flaws. Some of these have to do with the handling of the Scriptures, and some of it pertains to O’Reilly’s personal theology.
Reliability
What Christians look for first and foremost is truth—not only in handling the Word of God but in our attitude toward the Scriptures, which are guaranteed to be given by inspiration of God (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Of course, one must allow an author a little poetic license, but the reader wonders about some of the comments. For example, O’Reilly says that Jesus had a thick Galilean accent (81). We know that Peter did (Matt. 26:73), but how do we know how thick the Lord’s accent was? Also, what gives us the idea that Jesus experienced panic (212, 223)? No one indicated such an emotion.
The authors of this book somehow got the impression Elijah had “preached that the world would soon end” (97). Isaiah supposedly made the same statement in conjunction with God appearing on earth (98). It would be nice if we had a Scripture reference for these claims. In some instances several Scriptures are cited to back up a point (126, 177), but in other cases none appear.
Jesus’ Baptism
In a footnote the authors report that Matthew, Mark, and Luke say that “the dove appeared after Jesus’s baptism. John has the bird landing on Jesus beforehand” (103). They are right with respect to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, but John needs to be read more carefully. Perhaps because John wrote his gospel last, and he knew that readers were familiar with key events, he does not record the baptism of Jesus at all! John 1:19-27 contains an exchange between John the Baptizer and those from the Jews sent to ask him certain questions. It concludes with John talking about the One Who was to come. Verse 28 identifies the location where John was baptizing.
The actual baptism of Jesus is omitted. What happens in John 1:29-34 occurs shortly after John baptized Jesus. He identifies Him as the Lamb of God, the One about Whom he had been speaking. Then he explained how that he knew Jesus was the One. He had seen the Spirit descending and remaining on Jesus (just as Matthew, Mark, and Luke report). Many may assume that John baptized Jesus at this time, but not a word indicates that he did. He had already done so and was recalling how he knew that Jesus was the Son of God. John 1:35-36 tells us that the day after that John pointed Jesus out again as the Son of God.
Luke 4:30; Matthew 11:5
O’Reilly and Dugard do well in describing Jesus’ reading of Scripture in the synagogue at Nazareth—after which He added that those present had just witnessed the fulfillment of Isaiah 61:1-2, but they include a curious sentence about the crowd taking Him to the brow of the hill to cast Him down from the cliff. They write: “The words he says next will never be written down…. In the end, the mob parts and Jesus walks away unscathed” (132). What makes these two sentences odd is that they cite Luke 4:30, which does not indicate that Jesus said any words at all at this point. Nor does it say the mob parted. Luke 4:30 records: “Then passing through the midst of them, He went His way.” How this occurred is not specified.
In reporting about John’s question to Jesus if He was the One they were expecting or did they need to look for another, the authors cite Matthew 11:5-6 but then add that Jesus “alluded to his own virgin birth.” Where and what that allusion is remains a mystery.
Judas
The Scriptures do not assign a motive for Judas betraying Jesus unless it be for money. Many have tried to find other reasons, such as to goad Jesus into action against the Romans. Killing Jesus does not belabor the point but tacitly agrees by saying, “So Judas had decided to force Jesus’s hand” (209).
Noon?
“It is getting close to noon,” is the statement made about time as Jesus is about to be crucified (247). Probably this information comes from John 19:14, but what is ignored is that John is using Roman time, which begins at midnight. The 6th hour refers to 6:00 A.M. By the time that Jesus actually arrives at Golgotha with His cross, it is actually almost 9:00 A.M., just as Mark writes in 15:25. Mark is using Jewish time which begins at 6:00 A.M. The first hour is at 7:00, the second hour is at 8:00, and the third is at 9:00.
Anna
The authors claim that Anna is the only female in the New Testament to be called a prophetess (18). Although New Testament principles are taught by Jesus, He lived and died under the Law of Moses. So did Anna. So she was a prophetess under the old covenant. Also, Philip the evangelist had four daughters who prophesied; they were prophetesses under the new covenant (Acts 21:8-9). They are not named, however.
This sentence concerning Anna is mystifying: “Then she made a most unusual claim, predicting to Mary and Joseph that their son would free Jerusalem from Roman rule” (19). Really? All that the text says is: “And coming in that instant she gave thanks to the Lord, and spoke of Him to all those who looked for redemption in Jerusalem” (Luke 2:38). Did some assume freedom from Rome? Perhaps, but that would be an inference—not something she said. Redemption usually is intended in a spiritual sense. On the other side of the coin, the authors do correctly state that Jesus “never planned to lead” the Jews in rebellion (222).
O’Reilly’s Comments
Although these errors detract from the book, the reader must realize that out of hundreds of facts that are included, only a very small percentage of details can be challenged. Compared with the 5-part miniseries on The Bible that aired earlier this year (which was riddled with error), this book comes out pretty well.
Some of the hostility O’Reilly received did not come from the contents of the book but rather from a few of the things He said prior to the book’s release. When asked where he got the inspiration for doing the book, he mentioned that he sometimes has ideas in the middle of the night; so he said, “From the Holy Spirit.” Immediately, many took offense, and rightly so—if he had meant what they thought he did. He did not, however, mean that he was inspired or given orders by the Holy Spirit. He intended it in a providential way.
However, he did misspeak clearly on the following matters. He attributed the crucifixion more to the attack on the moneychangers than to His profession of Deity. To be sure, those associated with the temple did not appreciate what He did, but they already felt threatened by His popularity, and professing oneself to be God is blasphemy—unless it is true (Mark 14:61-62). One expects emperors to make such declarations, but not a Jew who follows Jehovah.
When asked why the authors did not include, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do,” he answered, “We don’t put in things we don’t think happened.” When asked how he knew that those words did not belong, O’Reilly gave this explanation.
Because you couldn’t say something like that audibly that people would hear. You die on the cross from being suffocated—that your lungs cannot take in any more air. You can hardly breathe. We believe Jesus said that, but we don’t believe he said it on the cross because nobody could have heard it (from an interview on 60 minutes, 9-29-13).
O’Reilly is inconsistent in choosing this explanation. He omitted the very first statement Jesus said from the cross but included the one He spoke at the end, “It is finished.” Would not Jesus have had more breath at the outset than at the end? Second, it would not have mattered if no one heard Him say anything. The Holy Spirit knew what He said and inspired the Scriptures to be written. Third, people specifically heard Jesus say, “Eloi, eloi, lama sabachthani.” Those standing by did hear it; in fact, he cried out with a loud voice (Mark 15:34-37). They also heard Him when He said, “I thirst” (John 19:28). If they heard Him those two times, why could they not have heard Him the first time? O’Reilly should drop this explanation.
When asked what he thought people would find surprising to learn about Jesus in the book, O’Reilly answered, “That He was a regular guy. Very afraid.” Jesus was anything but regular, and nothing indicates fear—especially before the high priest or Pontius Pilate (Mark 14; John 18).
Then there is “the out” that O’Reilly takes when people disagree with him about the Bible. “If you want to take the Bible literally, that’s your right to do that.” He says that because he was probably taught that as a child. The Catholic Church tries to accommodate evolution, and they do so in that way. In fact, many try to placate evolutionists by saying that Genesis 1-11 is not intended to be taken literally. All who make this foolish explanation ought to reread the Bible. While it is the case that some verses contain metaphors, God also used literal passages, and Genesis 1-11 is one of those. Nothing indicates it might be figurative language.
O’Reilly also commented on oral tradition and the New Testament being written 30 years after the events. Yes, but the Holy Spirit was to bring all that Jesus said to their remembrance (John 14:25-26). Matthew and John did not have to rely on their faulty memories. Mark and Luke were also inspired of the Holy Spirit.
A Final Thought
O’Reilly’s upbringing can be seen in his statement that Peter means “rock” and that Jesus built the church on him, which is a Catholic (and false) interpretation of Matthew 16:13-18 (263), but he does an excellent job in describing baptism as John practiced it (and as the Roman Catholic Church does not). It should not be called a “ritual,” but he appropriately describes it as “full immersion” that cleanses the people of their sins (195). He even provides a complete description of the way that John immersed people (97).
One other interesting and accurate feature was this description: “Jesus is not a prince like Moses or a warrior like David. He is an intellectual. He deals in logic” (188). Wow! In an era when many religious groups are appealing primarily to the emotions, it is certainly refreshing to see this truth stated. Yes, God appeals to us on every level, but He expects us to study, to learn, to listen, to think, and to reason—properly.