By Bill O’Reilly
An expanded view of the gospels, less the gospel's main point!
Bill O’Reilly and Martin Dugard labor to give us the historical Jesus, while distancing themselves from the Messianic Jesus.
But this is not a religious book. We do not address Jesus as the Messiah, only as a man who galvanized a remote area of the Roman empire and made very powerful enemies while preaching a philosophy of peace and love. (2),
To the extent such is possible, the authors achieved their point.
There is much appreciate about their work:
1. Historical mileu: The authors provide interesting insight into Roman history and its impact on the times of Christ. They also shed light on the interactions between Pilate and Caiaphas, the duplicity of the high priest, the intricacies of the Roman crucifixion, as well as the soldiers tasked with carrying it out. Those who read the gospels will benefit from this additional information. O'Reilly and Dugard provide great historical context.
2. Readability: While the authors aim to provide a history, in many places it reads like an expanded version of the Gospels, an historical Amplified Bible. The authors lean heavily on Scripture for their main story line. No problems there. They are also quick to note the passages/prophecies from which they draw their history. O’Riley and Doug provide an interesting mix of biblical chronology and historical backdrop that is a delight to read.
3. Sources: I would have preferred to see footnotes throughout or extensive end notes. What were provided in the text mostly referenced Scripture passages from which they drew. The authors gave a helpful explanation as to their research approach. They also provided a detailed list of sources by topic at the end of the book. This was highly beneficial.
4. Afterward: This brief look at Christ beyond the grave as well as "the rest of the story" of the disciples, Pontius Pilate, Caligula, Herod Antipas, and the tension between Rome and the Jewish people was very helpful.
I benefited from reading, Killing Jesus: A History. As the authors note, "This is a book that gives context to the life of Jesus" (278). I will turn to it again. That said, it left me a little disappointed in a few places:
1. References: As noted, the references were weak. I wanted more detailed referencing as one would expect in most works of history.
2. The historical Jesus less the Messianic Jesus. Perhaps Bill O’Reilly, a self–professed Catholic, felt he gained credibility by losing any "bias" he may have as a Catholic. However, to examine the life of Jesus apart from his claim as Messiah, to look at his death apart from his resurrection is to miss the point.
The central tenet of Christianity is not a historical Jesus, but a resurrected Jesus. It is not that Jesus lived, but that he lives! Having presented us with the other-worldly prophetic vindication of Christ throughout their work, O'Reilly and Dougard make this statement, reminiscent of Lewis:
To claim he is the Son of God would make Jesus one of three things: a lunatic, a liar, or a divinity who fulfills Scripture. Few in the crowd believe that Jesus is deranged or a charlatan. But will they make that incredible leap to believe that Jesus is God in the flesh? (189)
That is a great question. They simply do not answer it.
Yes, it is (as they note), a question each person must decide for himself/herself. But as Lewis points out in Mere Christianity, we run aground when we attempt to examine just the historical Jesus:
“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.” (C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity)
That goes for considering Jesus' death apart from his resurrection, every bit as much as it does for considering Jesus "the teacher" apart from Jesus, "the Lord."