What do you think?
Rate this book
Jesus e o império: O reino de Deus e a nova desordem mundial (Bíblia e Sociologia)
Uma crítica fundamentada e convincente às abordagens predominantes do Jesus histórico que o descrevem como individualista, despolitizado, e que ignoram o contexto real em que ele exerceu suas atividades. Horsley apresenta fortes argumentos a favor do seu enfoque relacional-contextual, possibilitando uma compreensão mais apropriada do Novo Testamento e de outras evidências disponíveis. Mas o que considero mais estimulante é a exposição da crucial relevância dos estudos do Novo Testamento e da Teologia nas surpreendentes semelhanças que ele mostra existirem, no presente, entre as políticas do antigo Império Romano e as dos Estados Unidos. Na atmosfera atual fortemente carregada da política internacional, este é um livro muito importante - de fato, salutar - que deve ser lido não apenas por especialistas em Novo Testamento, mas especialmente por políticos. Desmond Tutu, Prêmio Nobel e Arcebispo Emérito, Autor de No Future without Forgiveness (2000).
246 pages, Kindle Edition
First published October 31, 2002
36 people are currently reading
348 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
February 13, 2013
I wanted to like this book more than I ended up doing. Horsley's overall point is well taken - that Jesus' teachings are too often co-opted by individualism and contemporary philosophical categories, including a split between religion and politics. He wants us to return to the covenantal, Jewish Jesus who was political and railed against power and empire. On these points Horsley is quite good. Unfortunately, his methodology is suspect. An acceptance of the supposed Q document source sours the good in the book, but the problems then begin to compound upon one another. He pits Jesus (as a peasant prophet) against the Jewish rulers, arguing that Jesus was relying not on the OT nor attempting to scrape away the encrustations of Pharisaical legalism from that Old Testament, but rather relying on a peasant "low village tradition" that was in competition with the Jewish rulers who maintained the "high tradition" of the Old Testament. He then pits Gospel against Gospel, trying to argue that the anti-imperial sections are of the authentic Jesus while the later "Kingdom" passages were added later to justify the Church's acceptance and compromise with imperial power. Heh. Just because somebody has a Ph.D doesn't mean they know what's up. This sort of chopping I have absolutely no time for. Yet there were a good number of insights scattered throughout, enough to warrant three stars, but definitely for the reader willing to pick through a book for gems.
July 27, 2020
A book both interesting and littered with poor reasoning and suspect methodology. Much of Horsley's historical reconstructions are apt, and helpful for the general reader, but I think he gets into a lot of trouble when he tries to fuse those reconstructions into arguments regarding an anti-Imperial outlook in the Gospels and in Jesus' teaching. I'll say, before a few criticisms, that I actually agree with Horsley's endgame: I agree that Jesus' teachings would direct his followers away from complicity, accommodation, and compromise with "the State." But, contra Horsley, I do not think this is because Jesus was explicitly anti-Rome, but because he found anything aside from his own kingdom to be a distraction from his greater goals.
A few issues:
1. Horsley relies upon Q far too much. To be honest, I actually agree that something like Q was, along with Mark, and early source for the Jesus movement and for Matthew and Luke. But I do not think we can be nearly as precise regarding Q (if it existed) as Horsley argues, so his reliance on a very precise construction of Q leaves a lot of holes and open questions.
2. Horsley's interpretations often angle towards confirming his aims, despite the fact that other, better interpretive options are available. For example, if I want to convince you that eating lots of red meat is good for you, but I only compare the health benefits with eating the same weight in sugar cookies, then of course my red meat will look good in comparison. Horsley presents certain aspects of Roman history, and a few examples of Second Temple Jewish texts that have some relevance, and attempts to paint a picture that is easily called into question when other relevant data is introduced.
3. Horsley often presents data from "around" Jesus, and assumes, without proper analysis of Jesus' actions and teachings, that those texts and events from "around" Jesus are relevant "to" Jesus. I think a lot of these assumptions are faulty and can be easily countered. For example, he presents data from the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple material that shows that the Jews had certain expectations, and then assumes that those are relevant, without taking into account the large amount of material from the Gospels that demonstrates that Jesus may very well have been purposefully subverting those expectations, not trying to confirm them.
4. Horsley often brings up Jesus' attacks on Jewish leaders, and then assumes, without strong evidence, that Jesus must have also lumped Rome into those critiques. There is evidence to the contrary. The Gospels seem to often go out of their way to actually absolve a lot of the roman complicity in his death while placing Jesus' critiques squarely on the Jewish leaders. It is the Jewish leaders who knew better, and those leaders who Jesus goes after strongly; it is the romans who "know not what they do."
I could go on. My critiques get quite lengthy and specific (I marked up the book extensively). Ultimately, I think the anti-Imperial interpretations of the Bible are half-baked, and I think that Jesus, and the other NT writers, were largely ambivalent to Empire(s). I agree with McKnight and Modica, when they wrote that to say "Jesus is Lord" is not really to say "Caesar is not," it's only to confirm that we cannot say "Caesar is lord." In other words, Jesus wasn't opposed to Rome because it was Rome, he just opposed anything that wasn't the kingdom he proclaimed, and if Rome gets wrapped into that, it's relatively incidental. I do not think Horsley proved otherwise.
A few issues:
1. Horsley relies upon Q far too much. To be honest, I actually agree that something like Q was, along with Mark, and early source for the Jesus movement and for Matthew and Luke. But I do not think we can be nearly as precise regarding Q (if it existed) as Horsley argues, so his reliance on a very precise construction of Q leaves a lot of holes and open questions.
2. Horsley's interpretations often angle towards confirming his aims, despite the fact that other, better interpretive options are available. For example, if I want to convince you that eating lots of red meat is good for you, but I only compare the health benefits with eating the same weight in sugar cookies, then of course my red meat will look good in comparison. Horsley presents certain aspects of Roman history, and a few examples of Second Temple Jewish texts that have some relevance, and attempts to paint a picture that is easily called into question when other relevant data is introduced.
3. Horsley often presents data from "around" Jesus, and assumes, without proper analysis of Jesus' actions and teachings, that those texts and events from "around" Jesus are relevant "to" Jesus. I think a lot of these assumptions are faulty and can be easily countered. For example, he presents data from the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple material that shows that the Jews had certain expectations, and then assumes that those are relevant, without taking into account the large amount of material from the Gospels that demonstrates that Jesus may very well have been purposefully subverting those expectations, not trying to confirm them.
4. Horsley often brings up Jesus' attacks on Jewish leaders, and then assumes, without strong evidence, that Jesus must have also lumped Rome into those critiques. There is evidence to the contrary. The Gospels seem to often go out of their way to actually absolve a lot of the roman complicity in his death while placing Jesus' critiques squarely on the Jewish leaders. It is the Jewish leaders who knew better, and those leaders who Jesus goes after strongly; it is the romans who "know not what they do."
I could go on. My critiques get quite lengthy and specific (I marked up the book extensively). Ultimately, I think the anti-Imperial interpretations of the Bible are half-baked, and I think that Jesus, and the other NT writers, were largely ambivalent to Empire(s). I agree with McKnight and Modica, when they wrote that to say "Jesus is Lord" is not really to say "Caesar is not," it's only to confirm that we cannot say "Caesar is lord." In other words, Jesus wasn't opposed to Rome because it was Rome, he just opposed anything that wasn't the kingdom he proclaimed, and if Rome gets wrapped into that, it's relatively incidental. I do not think Horsley proved otherwise.
October 13, 2020
Imagine trying to understand Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address without understanding the context of the Civil War and everything that led up to it. Or, imagine trying to understand Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech without understanding the circumstances that led to the Civil Rights or King’s objectives.
My guess is that most of us would be wary of any interpretation of either of those speeches if someone didn’t understand the time in which they were given.
But, this is exactly what happens in biblical interpretation all the time. Instead of understanding the cultural, political, economic, and religious context of 1st-century Palestine, we replace it with our own contemporary contexts and view the Bible through that lens. This, unfortunately, corrupts scripture.
But, Jesus and Empire: The Kingdom of God and the New World Disorder by Richard A. Horsley helps us stay rooted in the New Testament world.
He describes the devastating effects as well as the social, economic, religious, and cultural implications of the Roman Empire on both Galilea and Judea. By understanding this context, we see how Galilean and Judean peasants were crushed by the Roman Empire, struggling to survive.
Horsley goes on to ruminate on how Jesus fits into this world and how we should understand his teachings, parables, miracles, and, ultimately, his death and resurrection.
Be warned, however. In the 1st-century, there was no such thing as a division between state and religion. There was no way to separate out economics, private life, and what one believed. It was all tied together. Horsley does a very good job explaining the crushing effects of the Roman Empire in Palestine but also giving us modern parallels. This will, most likely, be shocking to us as we come to realize that Jesus’s critique of earthly power still applies to us and to America.
But, for the reader who is willing to struggle with the text, it can be a very powerful book.
My only criticism is that I wish Horsley didn’t rely so much on Q, a source scholars say was the basis for Matthew, Mark, and Luke. I think it would have strengthened his book if he had shown how the text, as we have it today, fits into the 1st-century. In other words, I don’t think anything was gained by discussing Q, nor do I believe anything would have been lost by leaving it out.
Overall, this is a great resource for the preachers, the biblical student, the practicing Christian, or anybody who wants to understand Jesus in his context better.
I look forward to reading more of Horsley’s writings.
My guess is that most of us would be wary of any interpretation of either of those speeches if someone didn’t understand the time in which they were given.
But, this is exactly what happens in biblical interpretation all the time. Instead of understanding the cultural, political, economic, and religious context of 1st-century Palestine, we replace it with our own contemporary contexts and view the Bible through that lens. This, unfortunately, corrupts scripture.
But, Jesus and Empire: The Kingdom of God and the New World Disorder by Richard A. Horsley helps us stay rooted in the New Testament world.
He describes the devastating effects as well as the social, economic, religious, and cultural implications of the Roman Empire on both Galilea and Judea. By understanding this context, we see how Galilean and Judean peasants were crushed by the Roman Empire, struggling to survive.
Horsley goes on to ruminate on how Jesus fits into this world and how we should understand his teachings, parables, miracles, and, ultimately, his death and resurrection.
Be warned, however. In the 1st-century, there was no such thing as a division between state and religion. There was no way to separate out economics, private life, and what one believed. It was all tied together. Horsley does a very good job explaining the crushing effects of the Roman Empire in Palestine but also giving us modern parallels. This will, most likely, be shocking to us as we come to realize that Jesus’s critique of earthly power still applies to us and to America.
But, for the reader who is willing to struggle with the text, it can be a very powerful book.
My only criticism is that I wish Horsley didn’t rely so much on Q, a source scholars say was the basis for Matthew, Mark, and Luke. I think it would have strengthened his book if he had shown how the text, as we have it today, fits into the 1st-century. In other words, I don’t think anything was gained by discussing Q, nor do I believe anything would have been lost by leaving it out.
Overall, this is a great resource for the preachers, the biblical student, the practicing Christian, or anybody who wants to understand Jesus in his context better.
I look forward to reading more of Horsley’s writings.
June 3, 2022
Much better than I thought it might be. Horsley clearly knows his history and his primary argument holds true. He does get a bit one-sided on occasion and I felt that there was quite a bit of needless repetition from chapter to chapter, so organizationally this could have been cleaner. The epilogue was particularly interesting, especially after having noted some of those same parallels in Tom Holland's 'Rubicon'. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QiuS...
June 27, 2019
Richard Horsley's well-written book is for all Christians, academics, and regular readers alike. He promotes a contextual understanding of Jesus' proclamation of the Kingdom of God unimpeded with modern accretions of philosophical ideals and ideologies such as the American love affair with separation of Church and State that would not be present in the Ancient Near Eastern theatre in which Christ operated.
He does a good job explaining the Kingdom of God in its own context and the Roman imperial context of occupied Israel. This is mostly a "dis"order in contrast to the righteousness of the Kingdom. The message of Jesus cries for a radical change that impacts both the individual, the family, and the community. Political change is also a natural result of such a movement. In an interesting segment, Horsley spends time comparing the modern American system against the Kingdom of God, and it, not surprisingly, does not end up passing the bar, forming a disorder with many similarities with the Roman one of Jesus' day.
I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in learning about the message Jesus bore in the gospels and its original contextual meaning as well as the extrapolation/application involving contemporary American society.
He does a good job explaining the Kingdom of God in its own context and the Roman imperial context of occupied Israel. This is mostly a "dis"order in contrast to the righteousness of the Kingdom. The message of Jesus cries for a radical change that impacts both the individual, the family, and the community. Political change is also a natural result of such a movement. In an interesting segment, Horsley spends time comparing the modern American system against the Kingdom of God, and it, not surprisingly, does not end up passing the bar, forming a disorder with many similarities with the Roman one of Jesus' day.
I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in learning about the message Jesus bore in the gospels and its original contextual meaning as well as the extrapolation/application involving contemporary American society.
April 1, 2019
Genuinely Thought-Provoking
Wait. Are We the baddies??
Finally, a work that slices through generational theology and gives voice to that uncomfortable lingering feeling I’ve had floating about. Excellent read.
Wait. Are We the baddies??
Finally, a work that slices through generational theology and gives voice to that uncomfortable lingering feeling I’ve had floating about. Excellent read.
June 23, 2022
Interesting point of view. Provided an alternate view of the historic Jesus.
July 15, 2022
A really good summary of Horsley's other work which touches on these topics. Too brief to really go into much depth, which is a shame, because this is a topic which deserves a lot of reflection.
July 22, 2010
Horsley brings an interesting spin on Jesus' stance towards the Roman empire. Horsley goes to great lengths arguing that Jesus was confronting and condemning the currupt Roman system of power. Often his reasoning is a bit of a stretch. I loved the chapter on the founding father's two metaphors for the new world.
July 29, 2012
An incredibly important book, it should be required reading for all Christians interested in understanding the historical Jesus in his social context. It provides effective critiques of both conservative and liberal views on the historical Jesus, plus a chapter outlining the damning parallels between America and Rome vis-à-vis militant imperialism and economic exploitation.
January 17, 2008
It was ok. I think he assumed everything Jesus said was about social or political relations. I think this was because he believed Jesus was a prophet unlike Moses and Elijah.
February 17, 2009
Highly recommended as an introduction to a social critical understanding of Jesus. It is pretty readable, short and life-changing.
May 31, 2011
Good analysis of the Roman context of Jesus, but nothing very new for me and quickly overshadowed by the next book I read.
December 12, 2013
It was good and inspiring, but unfortunately very theoretical. So there was a part in the middle where reading was very tiring...
November 29, 2016
After the historical Jesus follows the political Jesus.
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews