Killing Jesus by Bill O'Reilly

Well, I'll tell you..... First of all, I hate the title. I know it's in line with his other "Killing _____" books, but I just did not like it. Ugh.

And. It almost seems silly when authors attempt to write "historical accounts" of religious figures since, without the religious component, there's very little that sets these folks apart from others of their time. And how can it be "accurate" to take only non-religious details from the same sources (e.g. the Bible) that include the religious details that are being discarded as--what? Myth? Superstition? Irrelevant to history? I think it's kind of useless to consider religious figures with their spiritual contributions stripped away no matter who they may be--Jesus, Buddha, Muhammed, etc. They are significant because they have been sources of passionate religious devotion for centuries so how can they really be separated from this part of their stories?

Well, we can see how Bill O'Reilly's attempt in this book went. It was interesting. I really enjoyed reading the historical context. I found that part pretty fascinating. I learned stuff about that time in history and about why Jesus in particular was crucified. I think I may finally understand the difference between the Sadducees and the Pharisees. Ha! :)

I did NOT like all the motivations, thoughts and simplistic explanations for his behavior that Bill O'Reilly (and Martin Dugard) assigned to Jesus. This is one thing I really dislike in books about history--the suppositions that are labeled as fact. You may perhaps have noticed my tendency to claim that all history is fiction. This is because ALL historical accounts are merely limited perspectives. They can never be more than that. You go to a crowded party and stand on one side of the room. I go to the same crowded party and stand on the other side of the room. The next day we tell our friends all about the party as we saw it. Meanwhile, the lady who spent most of her time at the party in the kitchen has a totally different perspective on the same party. Who can say what the party was "really" like? No one can. Each of us can only say what we saw and experienced and, of course, those accounts are all filtered through our personal collection of perceptions and previous experiences, our personal prejudices and judgments and our limited knowledge of things in general. Therefore all historical accounts--however personal they are--are just stories. And anyone who claims to have the "big picture"? Hm. I wonder if such a thing is really possible without a lot of guesswork taking place.

So. Was this book worth reading? Absolutely. It was just another interesting perspective on a story that has been told and retold many, many times. I like reading as many as I can because they add to my own little story that I carry around in my head as "reality". The details in this book were very interesting, not too gory and very engaging. It was a quick and worthwhile read.

Bad language: no
Sex: well, there are some accounts of very debased Roman sexual behavior presented in a factual fashion