Killing Jesus—a review

Killing Jesus

by Bill 0’Reilly and Martin Dugard

a review by John Haynes

Cover: The cross is not the traditional cross. I’m sure he’ll discuss that later. The titulus has only the Latin superscription. The Bible says it was in Aramaic, Latin, and Greek (John 19:20).

A Note to Readers

p. 2 “This is not a religious book. We do not address Jesus as the Messiah, only as a man. . . .” But, Bill, you say this is a history. It is a historical fact that he was called Messiah, Christ.

Who says the cross was made of finished wood? It could very well have been a tree. In fact in Acts 5:30 it says that Jesus was hanged on a tree.

Book I The World of Jesus

Chapter 1

p. 7 “The child with thirty-six years to live is being hunted.” What? The Bible says in Luke 3:23 that Jesus began his ministry at 30 years of age. His ministry lasted about 3 and a half years, so he was about 33 when he died, not 36. Not even close to 36.

pp. 1-2. He identifies the time of birth of Jesus as in the spring. He doesn’t know that. He doesn’t even make any explanation for this hypothesis.

p. 9 map He calls part of Jerusalem the “Lower City.” I’ve never heard it called that before. It’s always called the City of David in every Bible map I’ve ever seen.

p. 15 He talks about the Magi. He makes it appear that they came to visit Jesus shortly after his birth. But this is not possible. Jesus was born in all likelihood a cave where animals were kept. But when the Magi came, it says that they came to a house (Matt. 2:11). So it was some time later after his birth.

p. 16 “The Magi see through this deceit [to tell Herod where this new king is living]. They never come back.” Didn’t happen. Matt. 2:12 says that God warned them in a dream not to go back to Herod.

p. 17 footnote “The month of March coincides with Gospel descriptions of shepherds tending their flocks on the hillside, as [since—only idiots use “as” in this way] this is also lambing season.” So? He still doesn’t know when Jesus was born. And I’m not defending Dec. 25. The biblical text says nothing about lambing.

p. 18 “Two complete strangers, an old man and an old woman . . . saw him from across the crowded place of worship and went to him.” It is true that Anna was old, but nothing is said about the age of Simeon. Most people assume that he was old because of what Matt. 2:29 says about letting him now die since he’d seen the Messiah. But we don’t know that he was old. It’s better not to put words into the mouths of the writers of Scripture!

p. 18 footnote “Anna is referred to as a ‘prophetess’ in the Gospel of Luke. This makes her the only female in the New Testament so honored.” Not true. In Acts 21:9 says that a man named Philip (one of the original deacons) had four daughters who prophesied. So it doesn’t actually say that they were female prophets (although the NASB95 identifies them as “prophetesses”). Big deal. They were in fact female prophets. Also in Rev. 2:20 a woman named Jezebel is called a prophetess.

p. 21 footnote “The exact number of years that Jesus lived is widely debated. . . .” I don't think it’s widely debated. See my earlier comment on p. 7.

p. 22 About the apostle John, writer of the fourth Gospel: He “was also Jesus’s closest confidant among the disciples (‘the disciple whom Jesus loved,’ he boasts in John 20:2, in yet another example of the disciples grappling for prestige and power in the eyes of their leader) only adds to the power of his narrative.” Wow. Boasts? Grappling for prestige? I don’t think he gets John at all.

Chap. 2 to half of chap 3. pp. 23-57 This is all Roman history. Julius Caesar and Octavian (Caesar Augustus). What this has to do with Jesus, I don’t know. Finally he picks up Jesus’ earthly father Joseph on p. 57 at the bottom.

Chap. 5

p. 72 Jesus “is not an insensitive child, but his thirst for knowledge and his eagerness to share his insights are so great that it never crosses his mind that Mary and Joseph will be worried once they discover him missing.” I don’t think this is true at all. Jesus was God. He surely knew that they were worried. He had a greater mission to accomplish in the Temple, which he eventually told them about.

p. 73 The Temple in Jerusalem is “twice as big as the Forum in Rome. . . .” I don’t know why he uses this comparison. Joseph and Mary (and Jesus) never went to Rome, nor did most Jews who lived in Israel.

p. 74 “This is a holy, inviolate place, built . . . atop Mount Moriah where Abraham almost sacrificed Isaac, where King David chose to build the First Temple, and where God gathered dust to create Adam, the first man.” Many errors here. First, Abraham didn’t “almost” sacrifice Isaac. He planned to, but God stopped him. That’s not “almost.” Second, David didn’t chose this place to build the Temple. That was Solomon’s choice. I don’t think there’s anywhere in Scripture that says David chose the spot. Third, how does he know where the Garden of Eden was? He doesn’t. It is far from certain that Eden was on the spot of Mount Moriah.

“Lamp stands” should be styled solid.

p. 76 Jesus’ words: “‘Didn’t you know I had to be in my father’s house?” I don’t know why the word “father” isn’t capped. It should be. Jesus’ father was Joseph. He is talking about his heavenly Father. Should be capped. It is capped in the footnote.

p. 78 Again, need to cap “father.” Clearly heavenly Father is meant.

“Jesus is claiming that the one true God of the Jewish people is his rightful parent.” Parent? Are you kidding me? Why not just say Father? God never speaks of himself as a “parent.” Nowhere.

p. 79 footnote “Most other Christian sects. . . .” Sects? How about denominations? Sects always has a negative connotation.

Footnote: 0’Reilly has made it a big deal that this is a book about history, not theology. So why even mention the different views (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and other Christian “sects”) about who Jesus’ brothers and sisters were? That is a matter of faith, not history.

p. 79 This chapter is about when Jesus was 12, and he says, “Jesus is circumcised, in keeping with God’s covenant with Abraham.” You say that now? He was circumcised at 8 days old (Luke 2:21).

p. 80 footnote: Where is this Scripture reference from (Deut. 22:12)? Every modern version requires attribution. He doesn’t say at the beginning of the book, either. This is wrong.

pp. 85ff He talks a lot about a city called Sepphoris, which is just N-NW of Nazareth. He says that Joseph worked there (p. 86), but this city is never mentioned in the New Testament.

Book II Behold the Man

Chap. 6

p. 95 “They wait to experience the full immersion ritual that will cleanse them of their sins.” First, we don’t know that John the Baptizer baptized by immersion. Second, it was not for the cleansing of sin.

p. 96 “The end of the known world is coming, John preaches.” Where in the world does he get this? John didn’t preach anything of the sort.

p. 97 “‘I am not the Christ,’ John shouts back. The high priests know that he is referring to the new Jewish king, a man like Saul and David. . . .” No, that’s not true. “Christ” means “messiah,” or “anointed one.” It does not mean king.

“Elijah was a prophet who preached that the world would soon end.” Where does he get this? Elijah preached no such message.

p. 98 “A voice of one, calling in the desert, preparing the way for the Lord.” I don’t know if he’s quoting from some version of the Bible (which he never references), but it should be “a voice of one calling.” Comma is wrong.

Now he calls him “John the Baptist.” Earlier (p. 95) he called him “John the Baptizer.”

p. 101 “Caiaphas, the most powerful high priest in the Jerusalem Temple.” That makes it sound like there was more than one high priest. There was not. There was only one high priest. His father-in-law, Annas, had been high priest (John 18:13), but at this time Caiaphas was the high priest, not Annas.

p. 103 “Like the Baptist, Jesus of Nazareth has long hair and a beard.” We know Jesus had a beard, but we don’t know that he had “long” hair. Where does he get this?

“He [Jesus] looks younger than John, but not by much.” What? They were six months apart. That would show no noticeable difference. What is this all about?

p. 104 “He [Jesus] has memorized the Psalms and Scripture.” The Psalms are Scripture. He should have said “and other Scripture.”

“‘Son of God’ is a regal title indicative of one’s being a Messiah, a title attributed to King David.” Not sure about this. I do know that “Messiah” should be lowercased. Capping it is solely for Jesus.

pp. 104-05 “When the Messiah returns, he will be king of the Jews, in keeping with David, the perfect king.” First, I’m not sure that Messiah was thought of as a king. Second, what do you mean, “when the Messiah returns”? Returns from what? That would mean he had to have been there before. Third, David was never considered the “perfect king.” A great king, yes, but not perfect.

p. 105 “In order to make his [Jesus’] mind and body pure before publically preaching his message of faith and hope.” Jesus was always pure. He never sinned. This is a ridiculous statement.

“John is that rarest of all prophets: a man who lives to see his predictions come true.” Not exactly. Many prophets in the Old Testament saw their predictions come true. In fact, if any of their predictions did not come true, they were to be put to death (Deut. 13).

Chap. 7

p. 112 “The self-proclaimed son of god ordered Tiberius to divorce Vipsania after eight years of marriage. . . .” I’m confused. Who is the “self-proclaimed son of god”? Wikipedia says it was Augustus. Really? You make me consult Wikipedia?

p. 116 “The Jew Antipas. . . .” He wasn’t really any more Jewish than his father Herod the Great. The Jews of that day did not consider him a Jew.

Chap. 8

pp. 123-25 Excellent description of Jesus driving out the money changers.

p. 125 I don’t think a money changer challenged Jesus by saying, “‘What miracles can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?’”

p. 126 footnote There are no discrepancies in the Gospels or anywhere else. God’s Word is true and without error.

p. 129 footnote He gives a bit of a biography of Nicodemus. It’s a shame that he doesn’t acknowledge that Nicodemus became a disciple (John 19:39).

p. 129 “Jehovah.” This is a made-up word, and it didn’t exist in the first century. Why not just use the more accurate “Yahweh”?

p. 130 “‘Today this Scripture was fulfilled in your hearing.’” Not accurate. Should be “this Scripture is fulfilled” (NIV).

p. 131 footnote The passages he cites do not show that Israel rejected Elijah and Elisha. Neither was rejected by Israel.

p. 132 “In the end, the mob parts and Jesus walks away unscathed.” Not what Luke 4:30 says. We don’t really know what happened. But Jesus did walk away, he walked “right through the crowd” (NIV). Nothing about a mob parting. Don’t add to Scripture.

p. 133 “But they will not convert the powerful men who currently hold the life of Jesus in their hands.” And who might they be? No one held Jesus life in his hands. No one.

Chap. 9

p. 137 Peter’s “commitment to Jesus has flagged.” Where does he get this? Nothing is ever said in Scripture to indicate this at all.

p. 139 “All of the children are from Galilee, except one.” Children? What?

p. 142 “Jesus is sitting, letting his powerful speaking voice carry his words out to the massive crowd.” It wasn't a massive crowd. This is the beatitudes (the Sermon on the Mount). Matthew makes clear that Jesus was speaking to his disciples (Matt. 5:2). There weren’t that many disciples. And there weren’t Pharisees among Jesus’ disciples.

“Our Father, who are in heaven, hallowed be your name.” I don’t know what version he’s using (he never once says), but this is grammatically incorrect. It should be “Our Father, who is in heaven.”

p. 143 “The Pharisee, Simon, does not like Jesus.” Nothing in Scripture says that. He’s assuming that because Simon didn’t have Jesus’ feet washed and because“Simon didn’t offer him a respectful kiss of greeting on the cheek or anoint him with olive oil upon his arrival.”

p. 144 “And that is threatening to the establishment, as the people of Galilee are eagerly listening to Jesus.” Bad grammar. Should be “because the people of Galilee.”

“So Simon the Pharisee has invited the Nazarene to a gathering of friends, to see if he can trap him into saying something blasphemous.” No indication of that in Scripture. I don’t care about your speculation, Bill!

“She has been invited by Simon as part of his elaborate plan to test the Nazarene.” Again, nothing in Scripture about this. It’s wild speculation!

“It is well known how Mary makes her living.” “Well-known.” Poor editing.

p. 147 footnote “Rahab helped bring about the Israelite victory over Jericho.” She did nothing of the sort. God did it all.

p. 152 “Antipas is still a Jew.” No, he’s not. He’s an Idumean, like his father, Herod the Great.

Chap. 10

p. 154 “Led by the Temple high priest Caiaphas. . . .” Since there’s only one high priest, this should be set off by commas: “high priest, Caiaphas.”

p. 160 “In the past few months, Jesus has debated the Pharisees about everything from eating barley on the Sabbath to hand washing, today’s debate, which seemed pointless to Peter.” Clumsy editing. Should be “today’s debate seem pointless.”

Chap. 11

p. 176 Lazarus “was four days dead and already laid in the tomb when Jesus is said to have healed him before a great crowd.” He wasn’t healed. You can’t heal a dead man.

p. 177 “At the age of thirty-six, Jesus is clever enough to act out any prophecy.” He’s not thirty-six. He’s thirty-three. Luke 3:23 states that he began his ministry at the age of thirty. His ministry lasted three and a half years.

Book III If You Are the Son of God, Take Yourself off This Cross

Chap. 12

pp. 183-84 “They have followed Jesus as a collective group for more than two years. . . .” No, it’s been about three and a half years.

“Peter . . . is making plans to purchase a sword.” Not in the Bible. Stop with the speculation!

p. 187 “Suddenly Jesus begins to weep.” At Palm Sunday? I don’t recall this in the Gospels.

p. 188 “He is the anointed one—Moses and David in the flesh, come to save them and lead them out of bondage.” I don’t think the authors grasp who Jesus is. He is not “Moses and David in the flesh.” Far from it. He is the Son of God—God the Son.

“But Jesus knows that while Moses and David are remembered for their great achievements, they were also cast out by society.” What society? Certainly not Israel! This is nonsense!

Chap. 13

p. 192 “It has been three years since Jesus turned over the money changers’ tables, but now he plans to do it again.” So why mention three years now? It’s correct, but it shows that Jesus was thirty-three years old, not thirty-six.

Chap. 14

p. 199 footnote “The legend of Jesus’s raising of Lazarus from the dead became so widespread that it was a main component in the Temple priests’ plotting against Jesus.” Two problems. It’s not “Jesus’s.” It’s just “Jesus’.” Like “Moses’.” See The Chicago Manual of Style. Second, who says it was a legend? The Bible says it happened, so it happened.

p. 202 “That grisly duty will be performed by high priest. . . .” There is only one high priest. It is improper to talk about “high priests.” There aren’t many “high priests.”

Chap. 15

p. 210 “Judas has lived the hand-to-mouth existence of Jesus’s disciples for two long years. . . .” No, it’s been three years. Jesus’ ministry was about three and a half years.

Chap. 16

p. 221 “Jesus once trusted Judas, appointing him treasurer of the disciples. . . .” I don’t think Jesus ever really trusted Judas. He knew he was the betrayer from the beginning (John 6:71).

p. 224 He never points out that those who came to arrest Jesus fell down. The Gospel writer makes this clear (John 18:6).

Chap. 17

p. 241 “The Roman governor calls the high priest and church elders together to announce this decision.” What church elders? There was no church until Acts 2.

Chap. 18

p. 242 The authors make clear that Jesus was crucified on Friday. But they never talk about the term “Good Friday” and how it came about. Nor do they even mention that many Christians hold to a Thursday (and a few a Wednesday) crucifixion. This is historical information that should not have been left out.

p. 246 A shame that the authors don’t mention Pilate’s wife. The Gospels make clear that Pilate’s wife told him, “Don’t have anything to do with that innocent man, for I have suffered a great deal today in a dream because of him.” (Matt. 27:19, NIV).

p. 247 He mentions the sign (called the titulus) on which the prisoner’s crimes were to be written. He does accurately say that Pilate had it say, “Jesus the Nazarene: King of the Jews.” But he fails to point out that it said this in Aramiac, Latin, and Greek (John 19:20). That is significant. He does point out that Caiaphas wanted Pilate to change it, but he doesn’t say what he wanted it changed to. Again, the Gospels are clear. They wanted it to say that Jesus claimed to be the King of the Jews (v. 19).

p. 250 A shame that the authors don’t cover all seven of Jesus’ words from the cross. This is important.

p. 251 “He is thirty-six years old.” No, he was thirty-three. I don’t know why he never tells how he gets this number. He’s just wrong, and the evidence is clear.

Chap. 21

p. 259 Interesting that the authors make it clear that Jesus was not in the tomb when the two Marys went to see it on Sunday. Is this history? Many would say the resurrection is not history but faith. You be the judge. There is certainly an element of faith to it.

Afterword

p. 262 “The crucifix, that iconic image showing the body of Jesus affixed to a cross, was not a part of the Christian culture until six centuries after his death.” And it still isn’t a part of Protestant Christian culture. The authors should have made clear that by “Christian” they mean Roman Catholocism.

p. 263 “The beheading of James made him the first disciple to be martyred.” If he means of the original twelve who became apostles, yes, that’s true. But he was not the first actual disciple. That was Stephen (Acts 7:59).

“Peter’s missionary work eventually took him to Rome, where he formalized the nascent Christian Church.” Where is his evidence for this? Nothing in the Bible ever says that Peter went to Rome. Maybe he did, but I want some evidence. And he certainly didn’t formalize the church. If anyone did that, it was James (Acts 15:13) and the apostle Paul. This kind of statement reflects the authors’ Roman Catholic beliefs and not any historical evidence.

“There is good evidence that Peter is buried beneath St. Peter’s Cathedral in Vatican City.” Okay, so where’s your proof? I think this is nothing more than Roman Catholic legend. Believe it if it makes you feel better, but you have no proof that it’s true.

p. 264 “Matthew’s Gospel and the first book of Acts attributes Judas Iscariot’s death to suicide.” So there is another book of Acts? What are they talking about? The Gospels say that Judas died by suicide (Matt. 27:5).

p. 265 “Mary, the mother of Jesus, is mentioned in the book of Acts and alluded to in the book of Revelation as “a woman clothed with the sun” [dubious reference to Mary], but her faith goes unrecorded. On November 1, 1950, the Roman Catholic Church decreed that her body had been “assumed into heaven.” Pope Pius XII noted that Mary, “having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.” This is Catholic “history,” not authentic history.

Footnote: All that is discussed in this footnote is Roman Catholic teaching. It is not at all history. Mary was not “free from sin from the moment she was conceived in the womb.” She died just like everyone else.

Sources

p. 277 Here he finally tells what version of Scripture he is using: “Zondervan’s New International Version Study Bible.” That information should be in the publication information at the beginning of the book. That is standard practice.