Killing Jesus: A History

Five Stars and Then SomeBill O'Reilly's Killing Jesus is a masterful history of the man Jesus of Nazareth, a scholarly examination his life which details his short, tragic existence. It is not a religious tome. The Roman despots then in power taxed Jews to the point that they lost their land and property, making them ripe for the teachings of Jesus and setting the stage for his final days. Jewish leaders saw him as a threat to their primacy in all matters religious as did the Roman rulers in all things secular. Neither would tolerate a challenge to their authority and as strange bedfellows joined ranks to neutralize this threat.Since the end is a foregone conclusion, the reader learns how political intrigue, decadence, debauchery, and theft by taxation made the peasants look to Jesus and his message of love as their hope for redemption. Church and political leaders feared Jesus' impact on the downtrodden and the possibility of open rebellion.The book is gripping. O'Reilly pulls out the stops to tell the story of one man's pathos in the most remarkable true story of all time--all historically documented. O'Reilly's straightforward reads-like-a-novel prose hooks the reader immediately and keeps his interest to the cruel, sad, and bitter end. If all history texts were written in such a style, perhaps we would see a resurgence of interest in history among young people and be able stem the tide of ignorance that has beset our nation.I found it fascinating to learn more about Jesus the man and the tumultuous times in which he lived. I am well versed in scripture and history and find both accounts compatible. Jesus is the single most influential man who ever walked the face of the earth. Jesus the Christ was first a man sent to live among us. Thus, he has an earthly history. There is existing historical data to support his time on earth, as well as the four Gospels which detail his teachings and ministry as he reveals himself to be the son of God. Witness his impact on the world. O'Reilly gives verifiable historical context into which the scriptures fit.The parallels between the fall of Rome and what is happening today cannot go unnoticed except by the most ignorant, uncaring, and jaded. The rise of violence and ever more cruel and dastardly methods of killing innocents by the crazy and depraved in our world is nothing new but simply a repeat of the past. The Romans were highly accomplished killing machines who showed no mercy and prided themselves in their cruelty and depravity.Our population has become functionally illiterate when it comes to what is happening in the world around us and how the past affects our future. Messages of peace, love, and harmony are drowning in hate speech, lies, and seas of blood. Man is visiting organized acts of violence upon his fellow man at alarming rates. Beginning with the Mayflower, many of my ancestors came to this country to avoid religious persecution. Never would I have imagined we could possibly face it in this country, but it is here, and the voices of ignorant intolerance grow louder each day, twisting truth into deceit. Killing Jesus is a timely history and should be a wakeup call for anyone who fears the loss of our rights and freedoms. What began as a slow creep has taken on a life of its own and is eroding the very fabric of our Constitution and everything we hold dear.I highly recommend this latest in the O'Reilly histories. We should praise Martin Dugard, too, for his excellent scholarship and for taking on such a daunting research project. O'Reilly and Dugard make a dynamite team.

Excellent reading about when he came about reaching the day of his crucifixion.Who and what it all came to be.The author Bill O'REILLY hit this one out the park.

I am wavering a good bit between 3 stars and 4. I easily give it a 4 just as being an entertaining book about a subject I love and study a lot. I particularly enjoyed all of the unexpected history thrown in about Julius Caesar up in Germany as well as Tiberius on Capri and Caligula. That was good stuff and I don't know enough about that to easily recognize errors or debatable issues. Just like when I read his book on Patton, I really have no way of knowing if he is making an error, I don't know enough about it and am pretty much going to accept his word on it. But in this book about Jesus, the errors piled up. Some of these errors are based on a conflict with the Bible, and I don't feel he has any more reliable source available to him regarding Jesus than the eye witness reports given in the Gospels. Other errors are just plain old secular history errors, although admittedly I could be the one who is wrong. Though in the case of this subject, I doubt it.For one example from the bible, on page 171 Bill says, from John 7:4 per his end note, : " The disciples are so eager for Jesus to come with them and publicly announce that he is the Christ that they give him a piece of advice, something they have never done before. ' Go to Jerusalem' they beg before setting out. 'No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world'".But, John 7 actually says "1 After these things Jesus was walking in Galilee, for He was unwilling to walk in Judea because the Jews were seeking to kill Him. 2 Now the feast of the Jews, the Feast of Booths, was near.3 Therefore His brothers said to Him, "Leave here and go into Judea, so that Your disciples also may see Your works which You are doing. 4 For no one does anything in secret when he himself seeks to be known publicly. If You do these things, show Yourself to the world." 5 For not even His brothers were believing in Him.".His BROTHERS, who did NOT believe in Him, not His disciples who did believe in Him, wanted Him to go. This was either said sarcastically by His unbelieving brothers, or just because they wanted Him out of their home area, either because they were jealous of Him or worried that He would bring trouble down on their heads as well as His own. They would be happy for Him to go to Jerusalem and be killed. His disciples actually wanted Him to stay out of Jerusalem because they knew the Jewish religious leaders wanted to kill Him, as was clearly stated a few pages later in John Chapter 11:7 "Then after this He said to the disciples, "Let us go to Judea again." 8 The disciples *said to Him, "Rabbi, the Jews were just now seeking to stone You, and are You going there again?" "So folks, that is a pretty big mistake, confusing what His unbelieving brothers wanted Him to do with what His believing followers wanted Him to do. It shows a basic lack of understanding of the Bible, which is by far our #1 source of info about the life of Jesus.But "wait" you say? This is just me making some faith based or theological claim, and O'Reilly is only dealing with known facts. Well 1st I will ask you "just where did O'Reilly get such info as the above?". He could get it nowhere but the Bible which he has misquoted or incorrectly paraphrased. If he got it somewhere else, then THEY would have to get it from the first source, the Bible. The only original source for that bit of info is the Bible. At 1st I just wrote that off to Bill's Catholic bias(though of course he is not supposed to have any such bias as he is trying to write pure history). But later- in his notes on page 273, he says the Gospels clearly state Jesus had 4 brothers and names them, and then Bill clearly states that the doctrine of Mary's being eternally a virgin- thus no other children but Jesus- was first put forth 4 centuries after Jesus lived by an early leader in the church named Simon. So, I don't know why he called Jesus' brothers His disciples. (EDIT: since, despite his Catholicism, he states the Gospels clearly say Jesus had brothers and names them and that the eternal virgin doctrine comes 4 centuries later- so, he likely did not make this error because of his personal belief that Jesus had no brothers) Because Jesus' brothers were not at all disciples until after Jesus' resurrection. This is a pretty major misquote of the Bible.So, what about secular errors? O'Reilly often writes about/quotes the famous Jewish historian Josephus, who was mainly famous for being an eye witness to the destruction of Jerusalem and burning of the same Temple Jesus worshipped in 40 years after the crucifixion of Jesus and just as Jesus had prophesied 40 years earlier. If I understand it correctly, Josephus witnessed this destruction in the year 70AD, and wrote about it roughly 5+ years later in Wars of the Jews, about 75. Then he wrote Antiquities of the Jews about 95AD, which is( I'm fairly sure) the one in which he wrote about Herod Antipas and John the Baptist. John the Baptist would have been executed between AD26-36, a short time before Jesus was executed, most likely close to 29 or 30AD. But on page 152, O'Reilly writes that TEN years after the Baptist is executed, Josephus wrote that Herod Antipas lost his kingdom because God punished him for beheading John the Baptist. So that means Josephus would have written this about 40AD, about 10 years after the Baptist's death. Since the history books say that Josephus would have been about 3 years old in 40AD, and since he did not author Wars for another 30 years or Antiquities for another 55 years, I seriously doubt what O'Reilly says there. Please correct me if I am wrong.So OK, maybe that is just a typo like I make all the time, a proof reading failure. Maybe he meant 30 or 50 years later, and hit the 1 key rather than the 5 by mistake. But I swear it seems like I see some error like that about every 30 pages or so at least. Or at least way too many. EDIT: How about one more(or maybe actually two) for the road? In note #3 on Kindle page 273, he writes "The Jewish homeland was first known as Israel, a "promised land"........the northern part of the Kingdom fell in 722 B.c. to the Philistines.......". Ok, the part about the land first being called Israel is correct if he means it was called this after the Israelites invaded under Joshua after being freed from Egypt and roaming in the desert for 40 years. But of course it was first called Canaan and or any number of other names according to the tribes who held it- places clearly named in the Bible and secular history- before the Israelites arrived in about 1400 B.C. or thereabouts. (and who knows what it was called before Canaan?) OK, so that is a technicality, maybe Bill meant "called Israel AFTER the Israelites took it". But the part about falling to the Philistines in 722 B.C. is simply not correct. The date is correct, but Israel(the northern kingdom) fell to the Assyrians, not to the Philistines.But most of these errors- as numerous as they are- are pretty minor and few if any of them change the essential message of the Gospels, even though O'Reilly tries to approach the subject from a neutral ground, that of a historian. And again, all the info about Rome and Pilate and the debauched emperors was extremely interesting. So despite the many- but mostly minor- errors- I still found the book an entertaining read and recommend it. But for accurate and true details about the life of Jesus, use the Gospels and the rest of the Bible as your first source. Of course! And after that, maybe Josephus if you are up for the task of another LONG read!Bill

KILLING JESUS is a brilliant work of historical analysis without the filters of religion. The author argues that Jesus was killed for economic reasons, that is, Jesus threatened the flow of income from the masses—primarily the poor—to the political and religious authorities of his day.

As the title says, this is a history book, not a Bible addendum. I will probably read it again. It has excellent maps and drawings that help bring the scale of events into focus. It does cover many personalities from the Bible and The Roman Empire. If the only reference to a statement is the Bible, then Mr. O'Reilly and Mr. Dugard explain why that is the case. Foot notes are displayed on the same page as text. You will discover many current uses of language that began during this time period. This book is explicit when describing Roman and Jewish customs for crime and punishment.

It's an epic read for ones interested in history and context of important events. The story line is also well narrated.

Killing Jesus was not really what I expected but it was very informative and profound… now when I read the Bible the context of some of Jesus’ actions and responses to people and situations gives me better insight.

I must say I wen into this book with a guard up,fearing the Gospels were going to get 'trashed' with hearsay and writer's liberties. I was surprised.Quality book on the history of the period and age of Christ Jesus.Because majority of the source material is from the Holy Bible you learn a great deal of the Bible or refreshed in a newer outlook but not heresy.

Fantastic read at a great price. All of the Killing series by Martin Dugard and Bill O'Reilly are easy historical reading that leaves you craving their next book.

Libro di divulgazione storica di stile "montanelliano": inquadramento ambientale e descrizione dei personaggi, descrizione di persone e luoghi, tutto appare coinvolgente e interessante per il lettore medio