HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Aug 6, 2003 I was aware that he lived just about everywhere men have trod. I heard he labored at almost every trade, and in most professions. Rumor has it that he knows cause and effect in many fields of knowledge. I never thought, however, that Bill O'Reilly was also an authority on the Scriptures and Bible History, but as of late he has moved in on this dicipline also. The issue of the Gospel Story and its veracity recently came to the fore because of the wild attacks on Mel Gibson's portrayal of Jesus' Crucifixion; and Bill rode in to set things aright. I'm often amused by persons who do not come from a Biblio-Centric background, but who nonetheless speak with utmost surety as concerns the lack of historical reliability of the New Testament. If one just approaches the Bible as one would any other piece of literature, the amount of related studies and material that should be employed in researching the New Testament would be enormous. Yet, some new 'experts' have sped up their Biblical Studies by simply assuming large portions of Scripture reflect mythical stories, and therefore save time by not looking into what has no historical veracity anyhow. This is called prejudice in any other field of study. In order to add gravitas to the Gospel Record, Bill cites Tacitus and Josephus, both of whom were born well after the Crucifixion. Tacitus was actually born in another land, and into another culture. Josephus gives two factually and materially differing accounts of his own actions in Galilee, while involved with the Romans. Bill failed to note this, if he is even aware of Josephus' severe short comings as an historian. Further, where in the world does Bill think that Josephus and Tacitus got the information about Jesus and His death? I would say they received it from people who either witnessed these events, or read the accounts recorded by such persons. If the Gospel Accounts are not historically accurate, then Tacitus and Josephus are highly suspect also. On the other hand, Bill approaches the Gospel Writers as people who just hobbled together myth and inference, despite the fact that they claim to have witnessed what they wrote about. Bill also overlooks the fact that some of the recipients of the Gospels were also eyewitnesses to the events recorded therein. Not only did the Gospel Writers have good reason to record the events faithfully, but they died for believing in what they recorded. Using Tacitus and Josephus to add gravitas to the Gospels is laughable. The murders of those who believed the record add plenty of gravitas, and a heap of sobriety to boot. If Bill-the-Bible-teacher said it once, he said it ten times, 'The Gospels are not history.' He said this to a number of persons who have done a tad more Bible research than he has, but not once did he ask for their opinions on this claim of his. Bill apparently knows without a doubt that the Gospel Record is not an historical account of the Life and Death of Jesus of Nazareth. As unacceptable as that conclusion is to me, Bill didn't stop there, but went on to say that 'no one' believes the Gospels are historically correct. Well, this 'nobody' believes the Gospel Accounts to be accurate beyond imagination. That is, even someone with an overactive imagination could not have captured the cultural and political setting with more exactitude than the Gospel Writers. By all measurments, they seem to have been eyewitnesses to what they recorded, and only outright prejudice would cause someone to ignore these factors. The Gospel Accounts are historically accurate and also interpretive. These are NOT mutally exclusive literary practices. All historians interpret history. I don't know how long Bill O'Reilly has studied the Scriptures, but I've spent close to 30 years researching them, and have never found a proven factual contradiction. While there are some things contained in the Gospel Record that we do not understand, nothing has been found that proves them historically unreliable. Bill, however, is a strange character in that he also calls on Americans to wake-up and take a stand against Secularism. I wonder if he realizes that it was the supposed unreliability of the Scriptures that gave the green-light to Western Secularists over 100 years ago. We are now witnessing the judgment on our Nation that comes after a century of rejecting the veracity of the Scriptures. This judgment is felt in the Courts, Schools, Neighborhood...and in the Episcopal Church. "What Judgment?", you ask. I will address that in my next column. As for Bill O'Reilly, I do not believe he can speak authoritatively or believably on the historical veracity of the Gospels. He, in my opinion, has to do much more unprejudiced research into the Bible and related subjects. He may want to start with correctly pronouncing Josephus' name. As any first-year Bible Student knows, Josephus is pronounced Jo SE phus, not Joseph US. Would you trust someone's knowledge of Impressionism who pronounced Renoir as Re no IR? ------------ About the author: Joe Magoo is trained as a Theologian and Church Historian. He resides on Long Island, N.Y. He's in love with Ann Coulter, but she's seven feet tall, and Joe is only Five-Five. Email: joe572001us@yahoo.com Comment on this column in the forum. Tell a friend about this site! ------------ |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
