Millions of people have thrilled to best-selling authors Bill O'Reilly and historian Martin Dugard's Killing Kennedy and Killing Lincoln, works of nonfiction that have changed the way we view history. Now the anchor of The O'Reilly Factor details the events leading up to the murder of the most influential man in history: Jesus of Nazareth. Nearly 2,000 years after this beloved and controversial young revolutionary was brutally killed by Roman soldiers, more than 2.2 billion human beings attempt to follow his teachings and believe he is God. Killing Jesus will take listeners inside Jesus' life, recounting the seismic political and historical events that made his death inevitable and changed the world forever.
© Bill O'Reilly and Martin Dugard (P)2013 Macmillan Audio
If you are searching for a different take on the Jesus story... You won't find it here. (While NOT a religious book, the book follows the gospels.) Where it excels, is placing the events in historical and cultural context. By freeing the main character (Jesus) from the restraints of strictly gospel and putting him amid the political chaos, cultures, and religious traditions of the time; the story of Jesus simultaneously become more complex and yet amazingly simple. Most Christians are aware of the life and death of Jesus. Most are NOT aware of the politics and religious traditions of the day that led to the series of events chronicled in the gospels.A book aimed at the history buff more than the religious zealot.
Killing Lincoln, Killing Kennedy
Why: We know how it ends.
It was more about how all the characters work together to form the context of the death of Jesus that is most compelling.
Don't get the book to be inspired to believe nor to find some amazing nugget of faith. Get the book to better understand historical context; Jewish law, tradition, and historical politics; and how those things worked together to ensure the sacrifice.
Conservative Musician. Not many of of out there.
I don't care for O'Reilly on TV. Too much interrupting. As an author and narrator, he's great. As with his other "Killing" books (Kennedy and Lincoln), the author was able to put me in the action. Great book and a solid performance.
Only someone who is interested in 1st century life... not the life of Jesus from a religious perspective.
O'Reilly makes a lot of assumptions theologically that ultimately negate the possibility (as outlined in his own faith's canon) for salvation and clearly views Jesus as a man who discovers he is God's son rather than Gods soul assuming the flesh of a mortal and subject to its pains. That aint too Catholic Billy.
I do very much like the historical background of the time period. The politics, historical heroes forgotten in Jewish culture. He lays a great ground work for an understanding of the politics and time of Jesus. BUT, then again is not all that original either because all he is doing is rehashing Josephus in a more modern tone. Actually, the Jewish War is pretty compelling. and this book (in parts) is the abridged form of that book.
sure...for background history. There is another book on audible that does a great job too...Life in 1st century Jerusalem...or some similar title. It did a better job for giving me a visual feel for the place. Again though, just pay attention to the history and cultural aspects. The religious stuff is all fodder for anyone who has spent a great measure of time studying with scholars and archeologists. For example, Asserting Mary Magdalene was a poor woman and was a prostitute cannot be backed up. We only know that she was cleansed of 'several demons'... that could have been insanity. Assuming history is not writing history. This is were Bill falls short. When he does not have Josephus or or a Roman scholar like Tacitus to fall back on to prove his outlooks... he is writing fiction. Shallow fiction. He treats Mary and Joseph, when Jesus is lost in the temple, as though they, at that point, do fully understand the magnitude of who their child is. This again is a far jump from what any real scholar of the bible would call legit. Its the worst part of the book... and its what the book strives to be about.
Stick to the facts you can back up Bill. You do a great job with documented history, and culture. Theologically... I am sorry man... you're a 'pin head.' Just my 2 cents and I am welcome to them.
Bill O'Reilly has a real talent for narration! Like a pace-car in a NASCAR race he sets a pace for the listener that doesn't waste time but pushes the listener through the book at an amazing rate.
The historical content was solid with insights into Roman and Jewish cultures that complimented the main story of the life of Jesus quite well.
While I enjoyed O'Reilly's other historical non-fiction books (Lincoln and Kennedy) more, Killing Jesus is very much worth tearing through in a couple days.
Did this review help? if so, please click YES below. Thanks
The Real BW
I will listen to this book many times. For extreme fundamentalists, there may be some issues, none of which are significant. Mostly because the put the historical evidence in line with what the bible states. Also, most Christians feel the Jesus started his public life at 30, but this references starts his public life at 33. It also puts many of the events into some contect. For everyone else, this is an amazing historical reference to align the biblical life of Jesus on earth with the historical evidence available. In many respects it reminds me of Og Mandino's "The Christ Commission." On the other hand, having a historical alignment makes understanding the times and the events even more prolific.
I'd suggest The Christ Commission by Og Mandino (regretfully not availablel here). Mr. Og was a pen pal of mine before his passing. We first communicated when I just wanted to thank him for my favorite book (The Greatest Miracle In The World). When I read The Christ Commission, it gave me a great understanding of the faith of those that followed Christ in the times immediately following his time physically here. I have strove to do the same ever since.
Perhaps the inflections of the author, also a historian and public figure.
Bill O'Reilly claims to be writing history here, but he really isn't. What he presents is an awkwardly harmonized (and often lightly fictionalized) retelling of the Gospel story, decked out with tidbits gleaned from history and archaeology (for example, the kind of sandals that would have been worn by the Syrian mercenaries who carried out Herod's slaughter of the innocents).
The scholarship on display here is shallow at best. One key example is O'Reilly's discussion of the authorship of the Gospels. Matthew was written by the tax collector, he says; Mark by John Mark, Luke by the physician Luke, and John by the "beloved disciple," the brother of James son of Zebedee. O'Reilly claims that there is "growing agreement" among scholars as to these attributions. But he couldn't be more wrong, and you needn't go any further than the discussion of the same subject in the notes to the recent revision of the (Catholic) New American Bible to see how wrong he is.
As a harmonizer of the Gospels, O'Reilly leaves something to be desired. A prime example here is the cleansing of the Temple. In three Gospels, it appears at the end of Jesus' ministry, and helps precipitate the final crisis; in John, the last to be written, it appears at the beginning, and seems to be Jesus' way of launching his challenge. The solution, for O'Reilly? Jesus cleanses the Temple twice. This unlikely version of events is a direct result of his insistence on taking John not as a spiritual meditation on the meaning of Jesus, but as a literally true account by an eyewitness who, in O'Reilly's view, should be given "the last word" about chronology. This flies in the face of virtually every scholar who has written on the historicity of the Gospel of John in the last hundred years.
Some of his historical digressions are baffling. One of the longer sections in the book is an account of the reigns of Julius, Augustus, and Tiberius Caesar. O'Reilly is clearly in his element here, and relishes the stories of the financial, political, and sexual corruption of Rome. As fascinating as this material is, it feels like padding: really, in a book about Jesus, the point could have been made in a couple of paragraphs.
As a narrator, O'Reilly is brisk and engaging. He uses his years of experience hectoring people on TV to good purpose. But does he deliver what he claims to deliver in this book? Not by a long shot. He seems blissfully unaware of the massive amounts of scholarship that have focused on how to use the Gospels as historical sources - some of it by eminent Catholic scholars like the Jesuit priest John Meier - and chooses instead to take the Gospels at face value as historical accounts.
(I know that many people of faith will take issue with my opinion on this. But I think what I've said fairly characterizes recent scholarship on the Gospels. For an authoritative account, check out Bart Ehrman's lectures on "The Historical Jesus" in the Great Courses lecture series.)
If O'Reilly admitted that he was writing a faith-based account, I wouldn't argue with his approach. But he doesn't; he claims to be following the scholarship, and he isn't.
Someone once said to Alexander Pope, regarding his translation of The Iliad: "It is very pretty, Mr Pope, but you must not call it Homer." This is very pretty, Mr O'Reilly, but you must not call it history.
Bill focuses A LOT on the weird sexual perversions of the Romans from Julius to Tiberius. Then makes a big deal about Mary Magdalene being a prostitute -- so he should read his Bible or go back to Catholic School and stop reading Dan Brown. It made me think that he's still kind of a perv.
But I'll give this to him. I was always confused as to why the Jews had cheered Jesus on entering Jerusalem on Palm Sunday and yelled Crucify Him six days later. Bill puts forth an interesting and plausible explanation....
He isn't a superb narrator, but I did like that he read his own book. Most don't.
Retelling of one of the worlds greatest stories.
There was the issue, there was nothing new or enlightening.
Depending on who wrote the screen play.
O'Reilly may be interesting at short burst, but for a whole boo, never again!
I was expecting a historically accurate depiction of Jesus' life however the "story line" was contrived in ways that are simply not creditable and historically incorrect. As an example, the "conversation" between Pilot and the crowd and the ridiculous "tradition" of releasing a prisoner on Passover has been clearly discredited by historians. I am a major O'Reilly fan and have read Killing Lincoln and Killing Kennedy previously but the historical flaws in this story now cause me to question Lincoln and Kennedy.
Enjoy Killing Jesus for what it is, a well written an performed religious history, not a historical view of the life of Jesus.
Strong Passionate Crisp
The Pilot scene is not credible.
There are no listener reviews for this title yet.
Report Inappropriate Content