History

Bill O'Reilly and Jesus

There is a new book in the O’Reilly-centric world, “Killing Jesus: A History.”

As the title suggests, Bill O’Reilly would have us believe that he is a legitimate historian who has put his unequaled intellect to work explaining the death of Jesus of Nazareth.

Within the covers of the book itself, there are factual, dare I say historical, errors. Some are glaring, others are subtle—as if they were written to mislead and compel agreement from his readers, rather than enlighten minds or open dialogue. But there is a deeper problem.

Had O’Reilly titled his work “Killing Jesus: A Meditation”, or something else that suggests a spiritual reflection on the Crucifixion, his only problem would be the factual errors. As it is, O’Reilly’s title is self-defeating. It is not possible to write a history of Jesus in any true sense of the word. The writing of history depends upon verifiable factual evidence. The interpretation of that evidence often varies among historians. But the evidence, itself, is irrefutable.

However, we do not have such evidence when it comes to Jesus. The Jewish historian, Josephus, does make mention of him. However, the scant references that occur in non-biblical writings serve to prove only that Jesus of Nazareth existed and was executed. The gospels present a profound collection of stories about Jesus, but they do not provide a sound basis for history.

Like most of the Bible, the four canonical Gospels are books of faith. They are important and instructive for someone who already believes, and perhaps someone who is seeking faith. But they are not history. Sometimes the gospels agree with each other. Sometimes they do not. The writers were quite comfortable making up stories, or changing passages from the Old Testament to suit their purposes. That should not create consternation for anyone. These men were trying to explain their faith and give others a reason to believe in Jesus. As one scholar has said, “The Bible is the Word of God in the words of the men who wrote it.” The words used to convey
THE Word are utilitarian, meeting the needs of the author.

A good suggestion concerning the gospels, is to compare the evangelists to painters. If four artists each paint the exact same scene, the resultant works will all be quite different, because the scene is perceived through four different sets of eyes. So it is with the gospels. Each writer is telling the same story. But because they see Jesus through different eyes, their “pictures” of him are not the same. Ironically, the Crucifixion scene, or “killing of Jesus”, is a classic example. The image of Jesus in the first three gospels is of a man rejected and defeated. It is in his resurrection that he is vindicated. John’s gospel is quite different. While many elements are similar, the image John creates is not of a defeated man. Rather, Jesus is depicted as a king who ascends the cross of his own power and exercises authority from that cross.

Like the people of their time, the gospel writers were not concerned with facts. They were concerned with the meaning of events. In order to convey that meaning in all its depths, some events had to be created or altered. I am not suggesting that the bible is false. Rather, it is necessary for us to make the following distinction:

The opposite of fact is fiction; the opposite of truth is falsehood.

Both fiction and fact can convey truth. And in the bible we find many fictional stories that tell of God’s love, that challenge us to love one another and build a better world. These stories speak deep truth, but they are not factual and do not lend themselves to writing a history.

In the past, there have been attempts to write the story of Jesus, usually under such titles as “The Life of Christ”. Some of these books were moving testimonies of faith, but none were history.

I admire O’Reilly’s faith. Like him, I believe in Jesus. Let’s just not pretend to suggest that our faith is history.
Comments

Obama and Satan

It seems that every time a ray of hope dares to break the distant horizon, storm clouds sweep along and darken the landscape. Case in point: Just as every thoughtful person began to believe that not one more wasteful word of nonsense would escape the lips and empty mind of Glenn Beck, along comes the History Channel.

The History Channel? That bulwark of cable networks that proffers programs ranging from ancient civilizations to modern scientific advances? The network that investigates mysteries from Stonehenge to the Great Pyramid? That treks along the Great Wall of China and ascends the mountains of Machu Pichu? The very same. The History Channel.

A casual reader might think that I have abandoned myself to hyperbole. But no. The History Channel has broadcast a program entitled “The Bible”. Sounds innocuous enough. Except that Glenn Beck, among other ignoramuses, claims that the Moroccan actor who plays the role of the devil, Mohamen Mehdi Ouazzani, looks like President Barack Obama.

Where to begin? Let’s start with the fact that both the History Channel, as well as the program’s producer, calls the claim absurd. There is no resemblance, intended or otherwise. Still, there is a problem. And it does begin with the History Channel.

A program entitled “The Bible” can be elegantly produced, well cast and exceptionally directed. But it has no place on the History Channel. Even if only by implication, one is led to believe that the Bible is history. At the risk of alienating ill-informed and uneducated believers, the Bible is
not history. It is a book of faith, filled with truth and many inspiring stories. But it is not history.

A second problem occurs with the program’s script. As good as it may be, in terms of filmmaking, it neglects the reality that the devil—even within the Bible itself—is mere mythology. This may be difficult to grasp. Evil is very real and its effects are experienced daily by millions of people. Take violence, for example. We are a world of, and at, war. But the concept of a Satan is merely an oratorical tool to explain the existence of evil.

Thirdly, it is unfortunate that a dark-skinned actor, particularly one from North Africa, would agree to play the role of the mythical Satan. That decision perpetuates the stereotypes of good and evil as white and black. Further, it fuels a regrettably ignorant prejudice against Muslims, and Africans in general.

Having said all this, I realize that intelligent people will give no weight to Glenn Beck’s ramblings. I even have to admit an embarrassment at giving him more attention than he deserves. Beck refuses even to acknowledge President Obama by name, choosing instead “that guy”. And certainly, there is no way that my reflections can seep inside his ever-shrinking brain. He has already made a commitment to serve up stupidity on a regular basis. He cannot be taken seriously.

My concern is with those people who simply do not know better, and whose ignorance may not be their own fault. To them I say, read the Bible, watch the movie. Just remember. It is not history.
Comments