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.
His knew God the Father was about to turn His (Father’s) back on Him. Jesus knew the wrath that was about to be poured out on Him. No person ever suffered so much. Being fully man He plead for another way. As God the Son he knew He had to fulfill this penalty, and did so.
He also knew that He would suffer for the sins of the world, He knew the penalty for those sins and He knew He would be forsaken by His Father as part of that price. Understand that He wasn't guilty of anything but would pay nonetheless. It should serve to remind us of the gravity of our own sin and the consequences due us were it not for Christ's sacrifice. The thief on the cross understood darkly that he and the other thief were getting what they deserved (death) for their crimes, yet saw Jesus as an innocent.
He [Bill O'Reilly] showed a clip in which he said Jesus was just a regular guy who really didn’t want to get up on that cross.This is Bill O'Reilly. [I usually can't watch him for more than 20 seconds.] As far as not wanting "to get up on that cross," it was Christ's desire to suffer for us that brings so many to the Cross, which allows us then to suffer for His peoples (with eventual joy and no grumbling).
Listening to audiobook version (and for some reason songs from Jesus Christ Superstar keep popping up in my mind; good Caiaphas, the council waits for you...)
In a new column BOR explains it’s a history book not spiritual (said same in introduction) and he got one email or letter from someone saying “Bill, what do you know about Jesus? You are Catholic and they don’t know anything about the Bible”
>>The book is pure history; there is no religion in it.
http://www.billoreilly.com/site/rd?satype=13&said=12&url=%2Fnewslettercolumn%3Fpid%3D41346
JCSuperstar doesn’t quite show a resurrection at the end.
An episode of All in the Family showed Archie in jail
(trying to find Mike, he wound up arrested) and sees some
hippies singing “Superstar” in the cell.
Hippie: They’re singing about Jesus...Don’t you dig Jesus?
Archie: Jesus Christ I dig...and I dug him a long time
before you weirdos turned him into a superstar!
In any other context, I would agree with you. But it’s O’Reilly, and I don’t trust that he understands any of that. He has said he likes going to church because it’s a place you can be quiet and peaceful; he’s spoken dismissively of “Bible thumpers” and stated that the Bible is just allegorical stories; and there was the recent thread detailing his claim that the book is an attempt to “correct” the Gospels.
I believe he should have stayed far away from the subject of Jesus, because he’s going to end up misleading people.
Same here. I haven't watched him in years, but when I caught that statement, it floored me.
" As far as not wanting "to get up on that cross," it was Christ's desire to suffer for us that brings so many to the Cross, which allows us then to suffer for His peoples (with eventual joy and no grumbling)."
Exactly. While on earth, Jesus was fully God and fully man, and the human part of Him prayed for another outcome, if it was possible. But the divine part of Him always knew His destiny---He wasn't killed, He willingly died for us.
Often though, the seeds will not sprout until there are events in the lives of the folks in question, be it a good event or a series of events, or a bad event or a series of bad events when even the most harden non-believer to start to get the “hint”.
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.
Sometimes those flippant remarks reveal a lot.
To me this is about $$$ , not respect and accuracy.
That could very well be.
Yes, and silly me, I always thought it was about worshiping God.
In God’s Plan, He provided His Son to be judged and to provide the Perfect Sacrifice for the penalty of sin.
Jesus Christ was only the 2nd person in all human history who had remained sinless up until His death. All others are born dead spiritually to God the Father from the consequences of Original Sin in mankind from the Garden.
The penalty of sin was death, which is a state of existence involving separation. In this case, a separation from God the Father, was the most violent death imaginable.
This is manifest by our Lord on the Cross, when He exclaimed, (Matt 24:36)`ELI, ELI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?’ (prophecied in Psalms 22:1 ELI ELI LAMA AZABTANI)(My God, My God (God the Father singular male), why have You(God the Father male singular) forsaken Me ?(first masculine singular suffix refers to God the Son uniquely)
The opposite of love is not hate, rather it is fear. God the Son loved God the Father and feared the consequences of sin imputed to Him and being judged on the Cross.
Since God the Father is Perfectly Holy, comprised of Perfect Righteousness and Perfect Justice, anytime He is exposed to sin, His Perfect Righteousness demands He Judge the Sin in Perfect Justice.
In His humanity, the soul of our Lord Christ Jesus was Judged on the Cross for the imputed sins of all humanity.
2Co 5:21
(21) For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
All of human history is His Story.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Anything we say about anything says something about everything in how we think.
Note the use of the past tense singular use of the action verbs. It assumes Jesus Christ isn't very alive today.
The more significant event was His Resurrection and now His Ascension and Session.
Christians are hopefully not going to buy this book
After Killing Jesus what is Left? I hope he can turn to other subjects like Killing Musolinni or Killing Stalin, or Killing Charles I. I fear his next book is Killing Allan Cooms.
Who was the first?
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.