Killing Jesus: A History (Bill O’Reilly’s Killing Series): O’Reilly, Bill, Dugard, Martin: 9781250142207: Amazon.com: Books
A little excerpt of the material is available; double tap to view the complete excerpt. Double touch to view the abbreviated content if the full material is not accessible. Martin Dugard is the #1 New York Times1 bestselling author of the forthcoming novel Taking Paris, which will be released on September 7, 2021, by Penguin Random House. Additionally, he is the co-author of the multimillion-selling Killing series, which includes the novels Killing Lincoln, Killing Kennedy, Killing Jesus, Killing Patton, Killing Reagan, Killing England, Killing the Rising Sun, Killing the SS, Killing Crazy Horse, and Killing the Mob.
Amazon.com: Killing Jesus: A History (Bill O’Reilly’s Killing Series) eBook : O’Reilly, Bill, Dugard, Martin: Books
Double-tap to view the complete content if only a little excerpt is available. Double touch to view the abbreviated content if the full material is not displayed. In addition to his New York Times1 bestselling novel Taking Paris, which will be released on September 7, 2021, Martin Dugard is a published poet. Additionally, he is the co-author of the multimillion-selling Killing series, which includes the titles Killing Lincoln, Killing Kennedy, Killing Jesus, Killing Patton, Killing Reagan, Killing England, Killing the Rising Sun, Killing the SS, Killing Crazy Horse, and Killing the Mob.
Killing Jesus by Bill O’Reilly and Martin Dugard
Killing Jesus has a new trailer, which you can see on National Geographic: The anchor of the ship is now in place. The O’Reilly Factordescribes the circumstances that led up to the assassination of Jesus of Nazareth, the most important figure in history at the time. About two thousand years after this adored and controversial young revolutionary was cruelly murdered by Roman troops, more than 2.2 billion human people seek to follow his teachings and think he is the Son of the Living God. Killing Jesus will transport readers inside Jesus’s life, detailing the seismic political and historical circumstances that made his death inevitable—and changed the course of history for all time.
A groundbreaking television journalist, Bill O’Reilly has achieved extraordinary success on cable news and has written fifteen national bestselling nonfiction books. He is the host of Fox News’ “The O’Reilly Factor.” (There are more over seventeen million copies of theKillingseries in print at the time of this writing.) His daily podcast, The O’Reilly Update, can be found on BillOReilly.com, and his daily radio program, The O’Reilly Update, may be heard on hundreds of radio stations around the country.
Website of the organization Martin Dugard is the New York Times bestselling author of multiple historical novels, including theKillingseries, Into Africa, and The Explorers, which have all received starred reviews.
He and his wife, as well as their three boys, reside in southern California. Website of the organization
Killing Jesus (TV Movie 2015)
- All of the cast and crew may be found on IMDbPro, including the director and writers.
Crumbs from Gospels has one redeeming feature: the symbols and holy pictures that appear on the film’s credits. as well as several sins The script is disorganized and strangely written. There is no coherence in anything. Crumbs from the Gospels strewn about. A blend of a carpenter who discovers his mission and the Son of God, political intrigue, and the atmosphere of a region of the Roman Empire are shown in this film in bits, slices, and without a clear goal. It is only a display of good will with no realistic prospect of success.
because it does not convey a message, because its ambiguity yields only confusion, because not bad actors are only hangers-on for their roles, because the director’s, script writer’s, and novel’s authors’ political image remains contemporary, rather than an examination of the historical roots of the Jesus period because everything appears to be a cultural fast food.
Is it sufficient?
because it is a narrative told only for the benefit of the narrator and not for the benefit of his audience In truth, it was only one of a number of odd news/documentaries about Jesus that aired throughout the Easter season.
Contribute to this page
Anyone can make up a God in their own image, so it’s not unexpected that Fox television’s fiercely conservative down-home, let’s hear it for the regular guy talk show presenter would concoct a Tea Party son of God to represent the Tea Party movement. Jesus, the small person, is an opponent of the great corrupt tax-oppressing Roman empire, which is itself basically a venal and sexually depraved version of Washington, only much more venal and sexually depraved than the United States of America.
As a member of the populist right, he is, of course, opposed to redistribution: “Jesus does not urge the affluent to give away their money to the poor,” Bill O’Reilly’s Jesus says.
In contrast to this, the Jews had an unusually contentious relationship with the Romans – not because of taxes, but rather because of their monotheistic religious belief system.
However, they downplay the real reason: Jesus’s name had become fatally associated with that of the Messiah, the Christ, a long-awaited figure who had become increasingly politicised: he would not only be the anointed king, but he would also be the ruler who would liberate the Jews from the Romans before ushering in the reign of God.
When a preoccupied Herod sighs and looks anxiously out the window, when Mary and Joseph “gasp in shock” to see their young son holding his own among the temple elders, when the son whose ‘destiny must be fulfilled, even if his worried parents have no idea how horrific that destiny might be,” it’s easy to be snooty about this kind of bodice-ripping treatment of history (actually, as the authors themselves make clear, crucifixion was the usual fate of traitors and criminals across the Roman empire).
I had stopped counting the amount of chapters that ended on a cliffhanger after a certain point “The youngster, who has just a few years to live, is being sought for/is gone.
KILLING JESUS is a good read if you want a revved-up journalese version of the gospels that is stuffed with historical detail – which, while not always accurate, gives the reader a good sense of what life was like at the end of the first century BC; how soldiers were trained, how taxation worked, how the temple looked, and, of course, how soldiers crucified a man.
Both of these books were bestsellers, and Killing Jesus is now ranked third on the New York Times best-selling books list.
This is because they are incredibly easy to read: there are only two sides to every story: good guys and bad guys, with very little in between; there is a lot of juicy, salacious gossip that is straight out of the newspaper; and you learn quite a bit about the time period without having to think too hard about it.
- The film Killing Jesus is not a “History,” despite the label.
- Even though Killing Jesus is billed as a history, it would be unreasonable to anticipate too much in the way of nuance or fresh material.
- As a result, when the writers say that “the astounding narrative behind the terrible war between good and evil has never been recounted” – cue drumroll – “until now,” the reader has every right to believe that they have been duped.
- Killing Jesus is based almost entirely on the gospels, dismissing two centuries of persistent scholarly doubt regarding its historical authenticity with a glib remark that there is “increasing recognition of their general historicity” as a justification.
- The Romans are evil, corrupt, and “unrelentingly cruel” – especially when it comes to the imposition of taxes, which our authors consider to be a particularly heinous sin in their eyes.
- The Pharisees, on the other hand, are really awful.
- O’Reilly and Dugard have taken the gospel authors’ animosity for the Pharisees and accepted it all, hook, line, and sinker.
When the Jewish revolt against Herod and Roman rule erupted in 66-73/4 AD, many Jews felt forced to choose between being a good religious Jew and being a good Roman citizen – a choice that ended for many in the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and its temple – it was thanks to the Pharisees that many Jews felt forced to make this choice.
The difficulty for the Jews was precisely that they were unable to distinguish between Caesar and God.
The only thing that set them apart was that their god commanded adherence to his law, and that rule covered every aspect of life – from sexual relations, eating habits, and how you conducted yourself in business to loving your neighbor and worshipping the one and only god.
As a result, I believe it was this conflict between two identities that compelled Paul, a Roman citizen and one-time devoted Pharisee, to refashion the little Jewish worship of Jesus into a religion open to Gentiles as well as Jews, in which it would be able to be “neither Jew nor Greek.” Paul, on the other hand, receives no credit for the establishment and spread of Christianity; instead, all of the credit is given to Jesus, whose corpse, as the writers point out in their sonorous conclusion, “has never been found.”
Killing Jesus (Hardcover) Bill O’Reilly
In Regards to the Book Killing Jesus is the third book in O’Reilly’s popular history series, and it tells the account of Jesus’ crucifixion in a way that has never been recounted before. O’Reilly is the author of Killing Jesus. Synopsis of the book A million people have been enthralled by the books Killing Kennedy and Killing Lincoln, written by New York Times bestselling writers Bill O’Reilly and historian Martin Dugard. These page-turning works of nonfiction have transformed the way we think about history.
- Watch the video above to learn more.
- It will take readers inside Jesus’s life, describing the seismic political and historical events that made his death unavoidable – and transformed the world forever – and will transport them to the time of Jesus.
- He was the famous anchor of The O’Reilly Factor, which was the highest-rated cable news show in the country for 16 years in a row at the time of his death.
- His O’Reilly Updateis broadcast weekdays on more than 225 radio stations all across the country, including The First TV.
- Over the course of his career, O’Reilly has garnered a number of journalistic honors, including three Emmys and two Emmy nominations.
- Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University are among his accomplishments.
- His humanitarian endeavors have collected tens of millions of dollars for those in need as well as injured soldiers in the United States.
- He and his wife, as well as their three boys, reside in Southern California.
This was my first “read” in the Killing series, and I quite enjoyed it. Because I like the tale of Jesus, I’ve been eager to hear a more historical perspective on his life for quite some time. I believe Bill has hit the nail on the head. Throughout the book, he includes footnotes that explain where a particular piece of information or language comes from. However, I do have one concern; it is a type of test I use to evaluate religious experts, and Bill, in my opinion, failed. The remorseful prostitute washing Jesus’ feet with her hair, tears, and costly perfume was one of his most memorable stories.
NOOOOO, it is not true!
Pope Gregory the Great was the one who made the deduction that it was Mary.
Bill, on the other hand, claims that he did not create this book exclusively on the basis of the Bible, but also on the basis of historical writers and publications. I’ll give him a pass on this one. This was beneficial to 46 individuals.
The Jesus story in context
In your opinion, how does Killing Jesus compare to the other audiobooks you’ve listened to thus far? If you’re looking for a fresh perspective on the Jesus tale, look no further. You won’t find it on this page. (While not a religious work, the book is structured in the same way as the gospels.) Where it really shines is in putting the events in their historical and cultural setting. With the primary figure (Jesus) released from the constraints of purely gospel narrative and placed in the midst of the political upheaval, cultural diversity, and religious traditions of the period, the tale of Jesus becomes both more complicated and astonishingly simple.
- The majority of people are not aware of the political and theological traditions of the time that led to the chain of events described in the gospels, and they should be.
- What other novel do you think Killing Jesus is comparable to, and why?
- Which character – as played by Bill O’Reilly – was your favorite to watch on the show?
- This was one of those books that you wished you could listen to in one go.
- Do you have any other comments?
- Get the book to gain a greater understanding of the historical setting, Jewish law, custom, and historical politics, as well as how all of these factors worked together to guarantee the sacrifice was carried out successfully.
Entertaining but also O’Reilly’s interpretations
It is not all about the past. The meaning of the Bible is discussed in this book, and O’Reilly offers numerous of his interpretations of the text. One in particular that I didn’t care for was the one about Jesus’ dialogue with the disciples in John 3. Simply because some of Bill’s ideas of meaning within the Bible are included, I believe it is an amusing and well-written book. If you’re interested in Jesus, I’d still recommend adding it to your list.17 people found this article helpful.
Another home run from O’Reilly
I don’t care for Bill O’Reilly when he’s on television. There is far too much interruption. He’s fantastic both as an author and as a storyteller. The author, like with his other “Killing” works (Kennedy and Lincoln), was able to immerse me in the drama of the story. A fantastic novel, as well as a strong performance. This was beneficial to 52 individuals.
Historic view of a familiar story
In your opinion, how does Killing Jesus compare to the other audiobooks you’ve listened to thus far? Top of the heap. Good pacing, a strong voice, and a compelling tale from a historical perspective. In Killing Jesus, what do you think was one of the most memorable scenes? I particularly loved the point of view that was expressed through the use of historical and biblical examples.
Do you have any other comments? I agree with the majority of the other reviews. If you’re looking for a book that will transform your perspective on Jesus, go elsewhere. Check out this article to understand more about his life from the perspective of history. This was beneficial to 16 people.
Interesting Listening Experience
The book was a great listen, and I thoroughly loved it. Bill O’Reilly has an unique speaking voice, which is OK in my opinion. Nonetheless, the tale he recounted was masterfully put together, and I finished this book in a single day by listening to it from beginning to end. This was beneficial to 37 individuals.
Finally it all makes sense!
Would you listen to Killing Jesus again if the opportunity presented itself? Why? Yes, you will need to listen to it several times since there is a lot of material that is difficult to absorb in a single sitting. Did this book cause you to have a strong reaction to it? Did that bring you to tears or make you laugh? It prompted a great deal of reflection on my part. Do you have any other comments? It provided me with an understanding of the historical context. It was incredibly intriguing and provided me with a much clearer picture of what had actually transpired that day.
This is fantastic, and I adore history. God is still alive and well! Bill did a fantastic job on the project. This was found to be helpful by 1 person.
Worth listening to.
This book has given me a better understanding of Christ’s journey. Moreover, our Savior’s demise is described in depth. This was found to be helpful by 1 person.
Having read this book, I now have a better understanding of Christ’s journey on earth. Moreover, our Savior’s demise is described. This was helpful to 1 person.
Who Killed Jesus?
In 1965, as part of the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church issued the much-anticipated proclamation Nostra Aetate, which took a fresh look at the subject of Jewish blame for the execution of Jesus Christ. That modern-day Jews could not be held responsible for Jesus’ crucifixion, and that not all Jews who were alive at the time of Jesus’ execution were guilty of the crime, according to the arguments in the paper. In the history of Christian views toward Jews, this was a significant step forward, as Christian anti-Semitism has long been predicated on the assumption that Jews were responsible for Jesus’ crucifixion.
When Jesus was crucified, they thought that the Church would come out and claim that the Jews had had no role in his execution.
Jews Lacked A Motive for Killing Jesus
Indeed, most historians believe that it would have been more rational to place the responsibility for Jesus’ execution on the Romans. Crucifixion was a common form of punishment among the Romans, not among the Jews. At the time of Jesus’ execution, the Romans were enforcing a harsh and ruthless occupation on the Land of Israel, and the Jews had been rebellious at times throughout the occupation. The Romans would have had good cause to desire to silence Jesus, who had been dubbed “King of the Jews” by some of his disciples and was well-known as a Jewish upstart miracle worker at the time of his death.
The many factions of the Jewish society at the period — including the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and others — had numerous differences with one another, but none of the organizations orchestrated the death of the leaders of the other purportedly heretical sects.
READ: The History of the Land of Israel Under Roman Control Nonetheless, the notion that Jews murdered Jesus can be found in Christian foundational literature dating back to the early days of the Jesus movement, and it is unlikely that it will be readily abandoned simply because of historians’ arguments.
The New Testament Account
The notion that Jews assassinated Jesus is parodied in this 1896 cartoon, which substitutes Uncle Sam for the historical figure. (Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons) “The Jews who killed the Lord, Jesus,” Paul writes in his writings, which are considered by historians to be the earliest works of the New Testament (written 10 to 20 years after Jesus’ death), and he addresses them very briefly: “the Jews who slaughtered the Lord, Jesus” (I Thessalonians 2:14-15). While the idea that the Jews bear primary responsibility for Jesus’ death is not central to Paul’s understanding of Jesus’ life and death, the idea that the Jews bear primary responsibility for Jesus’ death is more prominent in the four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, each of which presents a slightly different account of Jesus’ life.
Eventually, the high priest comes to the conclusion that Jesus is guilty of blasphemy and petitions the Jewish council for guidance on how to punish him.
Matthew’s account of Jesus’ suffering and death on the cross (referred to by Christians as “Jesus’ “passion”) has served as the inspiration for numerous books, plays, and musical compositions over the years, and it is a prominent part of Christian liturgy, particularly during the celebration of Easter.
It is said that Pontius Pilate, the Roman ruler of Judea, was fundamentally sympathetic to Jesus, but that he was unable to overcome the pressure from the Jews, who demanded that Jesus be put to death.
When Pilate arrives, the gathering members of the Jewish community tell him, “His blood be on us and on our children,” which is the most contentious verse in all of the passion accounts (Matthew 27:25).
Church Fathers and Thereafter
An etching from 1845 portraying King Herod and Pontius Pilate exchanging handshakes. (Photo by F.A. Ludy courtesy of Wellcome Images/Wikimedia Commons) With even more clarity and power, this allegation emerges in the works of the Church Fathers, who are considered to be the most authoritative Christian theologians who lived after the New Testament period. After explaining to his Jewish interlocutor why the Jews had experienced exile and the destruction of their Temple, Justin Martyr (mid-second century) concludes that these “tribulations were justly placed on you since you have assassinated the Just One” (Jesus Christ) (Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 16).
- A historical King Solomon addresses the Jews in “The Mystery of Adam,” a religious drama from the 12th century that prophesies that they would eventually slay the son of God, as depicted in the play.
- This statement is subject to verification.
- The masters of the law will be the ones who do this.
- They’ll descend from a tremendous height, and may they be comforted in their bereaved state of affairs.
In recent times, passion plays — large-scale outdoor theater events that dramatize the end of Jesus’ life and frequently feature hundreds of actors — have continued to spread this notion, as have other forms of religious expression.
In the Talmud
It’s worth noting that the notion that the Jews assassinated Jesus may be found in Jewish religious literature as well. Against the evidence of theBabylonian Talmud, on folio 43a of tractateSanhedrin, aberaita (a doctrine dating back to before the year 200 C.E.) says that Jesus was executed by a Jewish tribunal for the crimes of sorcery and insurrection. For this reason, there is a blank area near the bottom of that folio in normal Talmuds from Eastern Europe — or in American Talmuds that simply copied from them — since the possibly offending text has been omitted.
- This section has been restored in a number of recent Talmudic versions.) When the Talmud claims that the incident occurred on the eve of Passover, it follows the timeline given in the gospel of John, which is supported by historical evidence.
- Responsibility for the killing of Jesus is also given to the Jews in Jewish folk literature, such as the popular scurrilous Jewish biography of Jesus,Toledot Yeshu (which may be as old as the fourth century), and in Christian folk fiction.
- From the first through the nineteenth century, the degree of hostility between Jews and Christians was such that both parties believed the accusation that the Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus.
- People who believe the tales of the New Testament (or of the Talmud) to be credible historical sources should not be shocked if this belief prevails.
Join Our Newsletter
It’s worth noting that the notion that the Jews assassinated Jesus may be found in Jewish religious literature, which is interesting. Against the evidence of theBabylonian Talmud, on folio 43a of tractateSanhedrin, aberaita (a doctrine dating back to before the year 200 C.E.) says that Jesus was executed by a Jewish court for the crimes of sorcery and subversion. For this reason, there is a blank area near the bottom of that folio in normal Talmuds from Eastern Europe — or in American Talmuds that have simply copied from them — since the possibly offending text has been omitted.
- This section has been restored in a number of modern Talmudic versions.
- Accordant to the talmudic narrative, the Romans played no involvement in his demise.
- In Christian Europe, it is probable that Jews held the belief that their forefathers had slain Jesus until at least the nineteenth century.
- Fortunately, it is not heard as frequently in our environment anymore.
People who believe the tales of the New Testament (or of the Talmud) to be credible historical sources should not be shocked if this belief continues. You may read this article in Spanish (leer en espaol) if you want to know “Who Killed Jesus?”
‘Killing Jesus’ is remarkable but doesn’t give the whole picture
“Killing Jesus” is a term used to describe the act of killing Jesus. 8:00 p.m. / 7:00 p.m. Sunday, March 29th, 5:00 p.m. Central A new episode of the National Geographic Channel’s “Killing Jesus” will premiere on Sunday. It is written by Oscar- and Emmy-winning screenwriter Walon Green and is based on the 2013 best-selling novel of the same name by Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly and co-author Martin Dugard. The title, on the other hand, is a little deceptive. It’s reasonable to expect anything along the lines of Jim Bishop’s 1957 novel and 1980 television drama The Day Christ Died.
The film starts with King Herod (Kelsey Grammer) in a state of crisis as a result of the predictions of Isaiah spreading across the land, and he is concerned about his kingdom.
When men from afar come to him and inform him about a remarkable infant, Herod orders his soldiers to go to Bethlehem and slaughter all of the young male newborns.
In addition, Herod Antipas (Eoin Macken) is aware of these predictions, and after his father’s death, he ascends to the position of Tetrarch of Galilee and Perea.
Generally speaking, the film follows the life of Jesus in broad strokes, but don’t expect to see any mention of the angel Gabriel or the Annunciation, any indication of Mary’s virginity, or the breaking of bread at the Last Supper, which would have been the Passover meal and as such necessitates some contemplative moments.
Scott Young, one of my colleagues, felt that there was one major omission from the list “”Killing Jesus” is a more authentic Jesus story, according to the author: “It did not include the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry, when he went to the synagogue and read the scroll from Isaiah and declared his mission to the poor.” Only a passing mention of the Golden Rule and the Beatitudes appears in the film, and there is no indication that Jesus is on his way to free people who are oppressed and restore justice to the social order in which they live.” The theological question that interests me the most is what Mary and Joseph knew about their son, Jesus, and when they knew it, as well as what Jesus understood about his own identity and purpose, and when he knew it, both before and after his birth.
As explained by Bill O’Reilly, it is John the Baptist (Abhin Galeya, who is, in reality, a practicing Muslim) who instructs and introduces Jesus (Haaz Sleiman, who is, in reality, a practicing Muslim) into the work of the Father.
In Young’s opinion, the picture was moving along at a good pace: “I became particularly engrossed in the high-drama scenes, such as Salome’s dance and the killing of John the Baptist, which I found very compelling.
There was a complexity to Pilate’s reluctance to sentence Jesus to death that some accounts of Jesus’ story might overstate in their depictions of his life.” Because it is being shown on the National Geographic channel and because Ridley Scott is one of the executive producers, spectators can expect outstanding performances, sharp language, and high production standards.
- If there is ever a conference here in Hollywood where Jewish professors demonstrate to film and television producers how Jesus and the Jews of his day would have dressed and what their religious and living practices would have been, I hope it will be held there.
- As religious Jews, these men were observant, and by removing the prayer shawl and the kippah from Jesus and the disciples, the film, like practically every other Jesus film, fails to capture the historical accuracy of the event.
- I was 12 years old when I discovered that Jesus was not a Catholic, but you’d think that with all of the Jesus movies that have come before and after, as well as the outcry from Jewish communities when representations of Jewishness fail, filmmakers would have figured it out by now.
- Not at this time.
- Due to its conventional approach to the tale, it has the appearance of being a documentary in several ways.
It also suffers from a profound absence of the sacramental and mystical features of religious belief.
Join the Conversation
Send your views and opinions to the Letters to the Editor section of the website. More information may be found here.
3 ways tosupport NCR
EXAMPLE OF A BOOK
A conservative theology professor unearths mistruth after mistruth in “Killing Jesus” and calls a pinhead a pinhead
Bill O’Reilly is a television host (Fox News) The following is an excerpt from “Killing History: Jesus in the No-Spin Zone.” Bill O’Reilly is a one-of-a-kind phenomenon. He is the host of the highly rated “The O’Reilly Factor” and the co-author of a number of popular historical novels, including “Killing Lincoln” and “Killing Kennedy.” He was born in New York City and raised in Pennsylvania. He has lately added “Killing Jesus: A History,” which he co-authored with Martin Dugard, to his list of accomplishments.
Please understand that this is something I want you to know from the beginning because I want it to be apparent that I am not one of the man’s enemies who looks for every opportunity to bring him down.
According to my observations, Bill O’Reilly and Martin Dugard are writing far beyond their areas of expertise, and they simply do not understand the principles of critical historiography, let alone the distinction between a historical and religious treatment of the same topic, as they have done in the past.
- However, it does not function.
- And the plot of “Killing Jesus” is predicated largely on ignoring this distinction.
- It’s simply that it’s not the same thing in the least.
- In order to appreciate and understand the gospel tales according to the criteria that were established by the writers of the gospels, one does not come out on the other side of the fence as O’Reilly and Dugard do.
- To draw any comparison between writing about JFK and writing about Jesus, we might have to compare utilizing the gospels for a detailed narrative to assembling “Killing Kennedy” from the smorgasbord of conspiracy ideas accepted by Dale Gribble’s “Killing Kennedy” conspiracy theory.
- Any biographer of Kennedy or Lincoln must get familiar with the earliest accessible source material (albeit the gospels are not quite as old or as trustworthy as our authors assume) and then conduct a thorough review of past work in the topic before beginning his or her own research.
- It is critical not to ignore the history of scholarship lest one end up generating a wheel that is much inferior to others that are currently accessible as a result of being anxious to reinvent the wheel.
True, there are a number of book recommendations in the end notes, but it is instructive to note that virtually every one of the New Testament and Jesus books mentioned is the work of evangelical/fundamentalist spin doctors dedicated to defending the proposition that the gospels are completely accurate, miracles and all.
- And it is not the case that O’Reilly and Dugard engage in a substantive discussion of the arguments advanced by these authors.
- O’Reilly has argued on several occasions that “Killing Jesus” is a documentary that adheres to the facts and avoids pushing religious ideology.
- It is not sufficient to refrain from referring to Jesus as “Christ.” That does not imply that the book represents an objective history.
- Both are devout Roman Catholics with a lot of pride.
Brown (whose magisterial work “The Death of the Messiah,” thankfully, our authors recommend in the end notes) was also a novelist, but Father Brown understood the difference between historical research and proof-texting, and between writing a narrative novel with a few pedantic digressions and the writing of a scholarly work.
- Brown, Joseph A.
- Brodie, Herman Hendrickx, and Jon Sobrino, and none of them would ever be found with their names on a book like this one.
- “The Passion of the Christ,” directed by Mel Gibson and released in 2004, is practically a carbon copy of this new picture.
- This is somewhat different to the job played by the countless End Times films and novels, such as “Left Behind,” “Image of the Beast,” and “A Distant Thunder,” among others.
- They don’t have any.
- So End Times fiction is the next best thing, a game of pretending that takes place at the end times.
- It’s all a ruse, albeit Gibson, O’Reilly, and Dugard are apparently fooling themselves as well as the rest of us.
A similar approach to Brown is used by O’Reilly and Dugard, who reassure the reader that the fast-paced historical tale that is going to be read is founded on historical truth.
The reader of each book will almost certainly be led astray, but in quite different paths from one another.
They are similar to Jay Carney in that they are bald-facedly disseminating the inflexible talking points of an institutional party line, in this case, the conservative Christian position on issues.
However, when it comes to religion, he is completely blind to the truth.
Given that political liberalism is, as David Mamet asserts, fundamentally a fact-proof, dogmatic religious faith, it is a tragedy that Bill O’Reilly is able to see through such illusions but not those of Christian apologetics and vice versa.
Bill O’Reilly’s “The Factor” frequently features evolutionary biologist and militant atheist Richard Dawkins, and I’m sure many of my readers cringe at the flimsy arguments Bill employs in an attempt to put Dawkins straight (which is a great deal to Bill’s credit, by the way).
In all seriousness, he is completely out of his depth.
Furthermore, the book that you are about to read is an attempt to put things right, to correct the disinformation that has resulted in the phenomenon known as “Killing Jesus.” In other words, the spinning has come to an end.
The following is an excerpt from “Killing History: Jesus in the No-Spin Zone” (Prometheus Books, 2014). The publisher has granted permission for this reprint.
Robert M. Price
If you’re a follower of a certain religion, it’s likely that you don’t want the tale that underpins the entire belief system to be given by someone whose credibility is being called into question. But it isn’t even the most serious flaw in ” Killing Jesus,” a National Geographic Channel documentary that premieres Sunday and is based on a book by Martin Dugard and Bill O’Reilly, who is currently embroiled in a scandal of his own. The biggest problem is that this three-hour event is unrelentingly dismal for the majority of the time.
- In 2013, Mr.
- Dugard published “Killing Jesus: A History,” which became a best-seller as part of a franchise that has seen them kill Presidents Abraham Lincoln and John F.
- George S.
- Recently, Mr.
- The book “Killing Jesus” had its opponents as well, who argued that it included falsehoods and was superficial and prejudiced in its analysis.
- As a result of the television version, what was once referred to as “The Greatest Story Ever Told” has become one of the snoozier stories ever told.
A large part of the book was devoted to situating Jesus’ story within the larger political and social context in which it took place, but here the story is largely reduced to its biblical counterpart, with Jesus casting out demons, stopping the execution of an adulteress, and delivering the touchstone teachings that all Christians are familiar with.
- It has been modified for screens large and small so many times by this point that every new attempt must explain why it was necessary to be developed and what it brings to the work that hasn’t been done previously.
- It is telling that in a drama about Jesus, Pontius Pilate (Stephen Moyer), the Roman prefect, can be the most compelling figure.
- Having failed to persuade him that Jesus had broken the commandment in the “cast the first stone” episode, the priests try to get him worked up over the fact that Jesus has been stirring up people’s feelings about taxes as a substitute.
- However, for those who are in the mood to play, there is a game in which they must locate Kelsey Grammer.
- The jewelry and hat took a lot more time and effort to create than the narrative itself.
- When the time comes, there will be slaughter and misery in abundance.
This version of the narrative maintains loyal to the story’s original title. Once Jesus has been crucified, the proceedings come to a close with only a glimpse of the part of the tale that should have been the entire point of the whole thing.
Who was responsible for Christ’s death? Who killed Jesus?
In most cases, when you are a follower of a specific religion, you do not want the tale that underpins the entire belief system to be given by someone whose credibility is being called into question. “Killing Jesus,” which premieres Sunday on the National Geographic Channel and is based on a book by Martin Dugard and the beleaguered Bill O’Reilly, does not have a major flaw, and it isn’t even the most significant one. Most of the issues stem from the fact that this three-hour event is unrelentingly dull.
- In 2013, Mr.
- Dugard published “Killing Jesus: A History,” which became a best-seller as part of a franchise that has seen them kill Presidents Abraham Lincoln and John F.
- George S.
- Over the last few months, Mr.
- Detractors of the book “Killing Jesus” stated that it included errors and was superficial and prejudiced in its presentation of the events.
- As a result of the television version, what had been dubbed “The Greatest Story Ever Told” has become one of the snoozier stories ever told, according to a previous film adaptation of the novel.
A large part of the book was devoted to situating Jesus’ story within the larger political and social context in which it took place, but here the story is largely reduced to its biblical counterpart, with Jesus casting out demons, stopping the execution of an adulteress, and delivering the timeless teachings that all Christians are familiar with.
Every adaptation of the narrative has been done so many times for screens large and small by this point that every fresh attempt must explain why it was necessary to be created and what it brings to the endeavor that we haven’t seen before.
It is telling that in a program about Jesus, Pontius Pilate (Stephen Moyer), the Roman prefect, may be the most compelling figure to follow.
Having failed to persuade him that Jesus had broken the law in the “cast the first stone” episode, the priests try to get him worked up about the fact that Jesus has been stirring up people’s feelings about taxes as well as about the law.
The nature of his crime must be an attack against our monarch and our authority.” The intrigues that push Jesus toward the cross, with the exception of Pilate’s scenes, aren’t well-developed enough to be compelling, and neither are characters like Judas (Joe Doyle), whose tales ought to be brimming with psychological tension.
- The fact that he’s the best-known actor in the enormous ensemble doesn’t mean you’ll be able to recognize him under all the hair unless you know who he’s portraying (King Herod).
- Grammer’s outfit illustrates, the problem with this three-hour film is that it is too long.
- The jewelry and hat took a lot more time and effort to create than the tale.
- When the moment comes, there is gruesome carnage and sorrow.
It is true to the title that this adaptation of the narrative is presented in. As soon as Jesus is slain, the tale comes to a close, leaving just a hint of what should have been the entire meaning of it all to ponder.
Subscribe to the
Get our Question of the Week emailed to your inbox every weekday morning! Got Questions Ministries is a trademark of Got Questions Ministries, Inc., registered in the state of California in the year 2002. All intellectual property rights are retained. Policy Regarding Personal Information The information on this page was last updated on January 4, 2022.
Killing Lincoln, Killing Kennedy, Killing Patton, Killing Reagan, and Killing the Rising Sun are all books written by Bill O’Reilly and Martin Dugard that have achieved New York Times best-selling status. Ms. O’Reilly graduated from Marist College with a bachelor’s degree in history, followed by a master’s degree in broadcast journalism from Boston University and a master’s degree in public administration from Harvard University. In the past, he was the host of The O’Reilly Factor, which was once the most watched cable news show in the country.
He specializes in documenting the determination of great persons to achieve their full potential.
Despite the fact that both O’Reilly and Dugard are Catholic, they acknowledge that their goal in writing this book is not to convert anyone to the Christian faith: “We are.historical investigators and are interested primarily in telling the truth about important people, not converting anyone to the Christian faith” (3).
Part 1 discusses Jesus’ life before his public career, concentrating in particular on the massacre of innocents and his pilgrimage to the temple at the age of twelve.
Part 2 begins with Jesus’ baptism and then follows him through his public career.
His agony and death are described in detail in Part 3 of this book, which is the last installment.
A number of vignettes that assist the reader better grasp Jesus’ world are interspersed throughout the narrative to help the reader stay focused on Jesus’ story.
Both Parts 2 and 3 examine the political maneuverings that took place between Tiberius and Pilate as well as Herod and the Jewish leaders of the time.
Although they attempted to do so, their efforts fell short of their declared purpose of “speaking the truth” (3).
It is said that Jesus’ family saw a slaughter in Jerusalem in 4 B.C.
There are “significant gaps in Jesus’ life,” the writers concede, and at times they have had to “deduce what occurred to him based on the best available evidence,” as they state in the introduction (3).
Their aim to write in an engaging, narrative style was most likely one of the factors that led them to present hypothesis as truth.
For example, they assert that Jesus was 33 years old when he began his ministry and 36 years old when he died (7).
Many of the facts of Jesus’ baptism are misrepresented by them (103).
But this is not something that should come as a surprise.
It should come as no surprise that they have such a poor opinion of Scripture and approach the biblical evidence with such skepticism.
Among the things they write are that Peter was the first disciple (137), that Mary Magdalene was previously a prostitute (144), and that it was his disciples, rather than his brothers, who told him to go up to the Feast of Tabernacles and make himself known (171).
The women clothed with the sun in Revelation 12 is also said to be Mary (265) — a view that is consistent with traditional Catholic teaching.
When the writers reveal some insight into the biblical record, it is a welcome development.
A greater significance, perhaps, might be found in the descriptions of the political and social environment in which Jesus lived.
All of these elements help to establish a vivid historical picture of Jesus’ life and to provide a better understanding of the events that led up to his crucifixion and death.
As do a couple more glaring blunders: It has been asserted that the Philistines, rather than the Assyrians, were the ones who invaded the Northern Kingdom in 722 BCE (14).
There is one final point of contention: The authors set out to give the whole truth about Jesus.
They purposefully omit out Jesus’ miracles, relegating them to the status of mere stories in their account of his life.
How can they explain the truth about Jesus if the most important facts about him are left out of their presentation?
An effective pastor might benefit from reading this book with judgment and prudence in order to have a greater understanding of the society and politics of Jesus’ day, including both the secular and spiritual realms.
In preparation for Good Friday, it is also recommended that you read their portrayal of Jesus’ agony and crucifixion.
In conclusion, Killing Jesusis a quick and enjoyable book that is difficult to put down once you get started.
They were unsuccessful in their endeavor.
At other times, they made wild guesses and declared them to be reality.
Despite its flaws, the book does contribute to a deeper knowledge of the period and location in which our Savior carried out his mission, as well as the individuals with whom he engaged, than would otherwise be possible.
This, along with the book’s overall readability, are the book’s redeeming characteristics.