Posted on 09/28/2013 7:58:06 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
This book is going to be big, a near-lock for the bestseller lists. First Bill O’Reilly and Martin Dugard teamed up to write a book about Killing Lincoln and it sold more than a million copies. They followed it up with Killing Kennedy and it sold briskly as well. And now they turn their attention to their greatest subject: Jesus of Nazareth. Killing Jesus: A History is a short biography of Jesus, focusing on the events leading to his death.
From the outset, the authors make it clear that though they are Roman Catholics, they are not writing a religious book. Rather, they are writing a historical account of a historical figure “and are interested primarily in telling the truth about important people, not converting anyone to a spiritual cause.” They necessarily rely on the four gospels for their source material and often tell their story by directly quoting the Bible.
They begin, though, by setting Jesus firmly in his historical context and skillfully telling about the rise and fall of Julius Caesar and the subsequent ascension of Caesar Augustus. They introduce a cast characters who each make an appearance in the pages of the Bible: King Herod who would hear of a potential challenger to his throne and order the slaughter of innocent children, Herod Antipas who would behead John the Baptist and later refuse to deal fairly with Jesus, and Pontius Pilate, who would cave to pressure and order the execution of an innocent man. Each of these men becomes a living and breathing character in the narrative.
As the authors begin to tell about the life of Jesus, they follow the biblical accounts quite closely. They tell his life skillfully and with all the narrative tension and interest they used to tell their compelling accounts of Lincoln and Kennedy. The reader is left with no doubt that Jesus’ whole life was leading to a cross and that Jesus knew he would end up there. The reader sees that the claims Jesus made about himself put him at odds with both the Jews and the Romans.
As they approach Jesus’ death, the authors slow the pace a little, showing the injustice of the trial, the torment of crucifixion, and the necessary conclusion that Jesus really and truly died.
They take some license along the way, of course. The gospel writers were selective when they wrote about the life of Jesus and any author must at times fill in or at least imagine certain details. But even then, O’Reilly and Dugard have done their homework and refrain from taking large or irrational leaps from their source material. And because they tell the account using the Bible as their source, they are able to tell the story as if it is true and as if they believe it. They do not say, “he supposedly did this” or is “reputed to have done this.” They simply tell it as the Bible tells it.
As a historical account of the life of Jesus, the story, though selective, is well told, well written, and very, very interesting. This is especially true when it comes to the historical and cultural contexts, details the biblical writers were able to assume and, therefore, not describe in great detail. I am no expert on this period of history, but spotted no major missteps and felt the authors were attempting to do justice to the historical facts the Bible presents. Their list of secondary sources is quite strong, leaning more toward conservative than liberal authors.
However, Jesus’ life is not mere history. Yes, he was a real man who lived a real life and died a real death, but that is not all he was and all he did. He also claimed to be God’s Son and his followers claimed that in his life and death he had done something unique and, literally, world-changing. The same Bible that describes Jesus’ life, also interprets and explains it. And this is the story the authors do not tell.
Any author who writes a narrative account of Jesus’ life will find it difficult to do justice to both his humanity and his divinity (and we saw, for example, in Anne Rice’s series on Jesus). These authors err far to the side of his humanity. It becomes quickly apparent they will not focus on Jesus’ miracles. While they mention a few of the wonders he performed, and especially the ones involving healings, they do not commit all the way and tend to present these as events Jesus’ followers believed had happened as much as events that had actually taken place.
The authors primarily portray Jesus as a rebel against Rome who threatened to destabilize the region and who, therefore, suffered the inevitable wrath of the empire. They show that through his life Jesus believed he was the Son of God and even suggest this must mean he was either a liar, a lunatic, or that he really was who he said he was. As the book comes to a close they state that Jesus’ followers soon claimed he had been raised from the dead and that his followers believed this to such an extent that they willingly gave up their own lives to his cause.
But O’Reilly and Dugard do not ever explain what happened there at the cross between Jesus and God the Father. Of all Jesus said on the cross, each word laden with meaning and significance, they mention only two. They do not explain the cross as substitution, where Jesus went to the cross in place of people he loved; they do not explain the cross as justice, where Jesus was punished as a law-breaker; they do not explain the cross as propitiation, where Jesus faced and emptied the Father’s wrath against sin; they do not explain the cross as redemption, where we now need only put our faith in Jesus in order to receive all the benefits of what he accomplished.
Killing Jesus is not a bad book as much as it is an incomplete book. As history it is compelling, but of all historical events, none has greater spiritual significance than the life and death of Jesus Christ. And this is the story they miss.
A brief aside before I wrap up: If you have read Killing Kennedy you may remember that the authors seem have a strange obsession with kinky sexuality. Both Kennedy and the Roman rulers give them a lot to work with in that regard, and in this account they are sure to point to the ugly sexual deviancies that marked the Roman rulers of that day. While they do not go into lurid detail and do not mean to excite lust, neither do they exercise a lot of discretion, making this a book you would probably not want to hand to a child.
As O’Reilly and Dugard begin this book they claim the story of Jesus’ life and death “has never fully been told. Until now.” That’s very dramatic but also ridiculous. This story has been told repeatedly over the past two millennia and it will be told again and again in the millennia to come. Killing Jesus is another account that will be here for a while and then disappear and be forgotten. In the meantime, it will take Jesus out of the realm of fantasy and place him squarely in history, but even as it does that, it will neglect to tell why his life, his crucifixion, his resurrection are of eternal significance, a matter of his life and death and our own.
....These authors err far to the side of his humanity. It becomes quickly apparent they will not focus on Jesus’ miracles. While they mention a few of the wonders he performed, and especially the ones involving healings, they do not commit all the way and tend to present these as events Jesus’ followers believed had happened as much as events that had actually taken place. The authors primarily portray Jesus as a rebel against Rome who threatened to destabilize the region and who, therefore, suffered the inevitable wrath of the empire. They show that through his life Jesus believed he was the Son of God and even suggest this must mean he was either a liar, a lunatic, or that he really was who he said he was. As the book comes to a close they state that Jesus’ followers soon claimed he had been raised from the dead and that his followers believed this to such an extent that they willingly gave up their own lives to his cause.
But O’Reilly and Dugard do not ever explain what happened there at the cross between Jesus and God the Father. Of all Jesus said on the cross, each word laden with meaning and significance, they mention only two. They do not explain the cross as substitution, where Jesus went to the cross in place of people he loved; they do not explain the cross as justice, where Jesus was punished as a law-breaker; they do not explain the cross as propitiation, where Jesus faced and emptied the Father’s wrath against sin; they do not explain the cross as redemption, where we now need only put our faith in Jesus in order to receive all the benefits of what he accomplished. Killing Jesus is not a bad book as much as it is an incomplete book. As history it is compelling, but of all historical events, none has greater spiritual significance than the life and death of Jesus Christ. And this is the story they miss.
See the related thread Going to Hell (Without a Handbasket).
“In the meantime, it will take Jesus out of the realm of fantasy and place him squarely in history, ..... “
If it achieves that, that’s a step in the right direction. Hopefully more people will become interested to learn more about Jesus.
That Bible series that was just done had a ton of errors in it. So we can expect the same from this effort.
Could it be that BOR helped to plant seeds of “evangelization” simply by writing this book?
But maybe in turn,like the Bible miniseries, this book could help plant the seeds in an indirect way, get folks interested in the Bible.
Could it be that BOR helped to plant seeds of “evangelization” simply by writing this book?
That’s my thoughts too.
As long as it doesn’t have inaccurate information, I have no problems with it.
If the book just offers an historical account, I have no problems with that either. There are other books that address spiritual issues.
Again, hopefully more people will become interested in learning about Jesus after reading this book. So many don’t know there is real historical evidence to support his life here on earth. This may be a stepping stone for them.
“They do not explain the cross as substitution, where Jesus went to the cross in place of people he loved; they do not explain the cross as justice, where Jesus was punished as a law-breaker; they do not explain the cross as propitiation, where Jesus faced and emptied the Father’s wrath against sin; they do not explain the cross as redemption, where we now need only put our faith in Jesus in order to receive all the benefits of what he accomplished.”
In other words they missed the whole story, the part that’s valuable to hopeless sinners in desperate straits before a righteous and thrice holy God “who will by no means clear the guilty.”
Well, it is Bill O'Reilly. You were expecting something different ... ?
John 19:33 But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34 Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water.
I always presumed this was some sort of miraculous sign but I recently read that it is not.
A medical examiner stated that when the heart has ceased while maintaining an upright position, the blood and the plasma separate in the sac that surrounds the heart.
When the Roman soldier stabbed Jesus in the heart producing (what appeared to their eyes as) blood and water, this was actually the separated plasma and blood. It proved two things: first that Jesus' body was truly dead as this separation does not happen without the heart stopping and, secondly, that the soldier hit the intended mark.
All the soldier was trying to do was see if Jesus' reacted to the pain of a stab in the heart. Since he didn't, the people of his time could surmise Jesus was dead.
But for those who claim that Jesus didn't actually die but merely fainted and was revived in the cool air of the tomb, this test proved the theory was not possible. There are other tidbits about the way the first century Jews were prepared for burial that also eliminate the "fainting" theory yet it still persists among some deniers.
Thanks for pinging me to this review. I’m not sure how you could not deal with some of the miracles, even if written as a third hand account. It was Christ’s miracles that caused Herod’s desire to see Jesus. When Jesus wouldn’t performed a miracle for Herod, he got angry and sent Him back to Pilate.
When I was flipping channels the other night, I came across O’Reilly talking about some interview he did in connection with this book. He showed a clip in which he said Jesus was just a regular guy who really didn’t want to get up on that cross.
Thanks for pinging me to this review. I’m not sure how you could not deal with some of the miracles, even if written as a third hand account. It was Christ’s miracles that caused Herod’s desire to see Jesus. When Jesus wouldn’t performed a miracle for Herod, he got angry and sent Him back to Pilate.
Since none of us have actually read the book, we don’t know if there are accounts for miracles in the book.
The resurrection was certainly a miracle. Was there an account of the resurrection in the book? We don’t know yet. Therefore, I will hold off on my critique of the book.
There are lots of other books about the historical Jesus. Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel are excellent choices. Hopefully people will become more interested in this person Jesus and will want to read more books about the subject.
Also, there are a lot of “all-knowing” atheists that thinki they know everything. Some don’t even know of a historical Jesus. This may also help some like new Christians that aren’t so good at defending their faith better know there is a historical Jesus.
I would disagree with the "regular guy" comment but Jesus did plead with the Father in the Garden of Gethsemane to "remove this cup" (i.e. betrayal and death) from him if there was any other alternative. He also relented by saying "not my way but Thy way be done", an example all of us should follow.
This example is also cited to portray Jesus' "humanness". He would have preferred not to have suffered on the Cross but chose to obey His Father.
Back in APR 2013, I think it was Sean Hannity on his FOX news show, interviewed author Stephen Mansfield about his upcoming book, also entitled Killing Jesus. It was published 5/07/2013. I read it and was absolutely transfixed by it. It really brought a deeper understanding of the events surrounding Jesus during that 1st Holy Week. I cannot recommend this book enough. Of the 2, my mother thought Mansfield's book was better.
Curiously, when I did the Amazon search, I found a 3rd book entitled Killing Jesus. It was written by Paul Marano and published in its paperback edtion on 2/23/2013.
Isn’t there already a book out about this.
I pray that you are correct.
Actually I think he pours reinforced concrete over those seeds.
Plenty of non-believers have no problem whatsoever with a "historical Jesus." It's the deity of Christ that is the problem for them. A book like this just confirms what they already think.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.