John Ransom; Brigade Quartermaster of the Ninth Michigan Calvary; was only 20 years old when he became a prisoner of war in eastern Tennessee in 1863. He had everything to live for; and much to live with. A war was on; and he was in it; and things were happening that seemed worth putting down from day to day. The result is a straightforward diary; free of the embroideries and purple passages of many an author of the time. "One of the best first-hand accounts to come down to us from the Civil War; uncommonly rich in the love of life...a tale of adventure; of suspense; of fierce hate and great love. " --Bruce Catton
#1284672 in Books InterVarsity Press 2013-04-28Original language:EnglishPDF # 1 9.00 x .70 x 6.00l; .85 #File Name: 0830839917224 pages
Review
10 of 11 people found the following review helpful. Good Critique but Lacking.By Henry T ImlerOver the last 18 years anti-imperial and postcolonial readings of the New Testament have become fashionable. Formidable scholars like N. T. Wright advocate such readings. But how well do they hold up to scrutiny? Scot McKnight and Joseph Modica have edited together a book to answer that question.I found the book to be a helpful introductory work in the area of empire and postcolonial criticism. The first essay is a nice summary of Roman ideology; philosophy and theology. The second essay gives a helpful intro into the field of empire criticism of the NT. The rest of the book looks at certain books of the NT and evaluates the use of empire criticism.I agree with the consensus evaluation of the writers that the NT isn't so much anti-empire; specifically anti-Rome; but rather sees Jesus as the fulfillment of Old Testament eschatology and apocalyptic hope. The OT looked for Israel's God to return to Jerusalem and restore the Davidic monarchy and rule over the nations. In other words; God will defeat the pagan nations through his servant; the Messiah; and establish himself as king over all. The Gospels and Paul are trying to teach the Jew+Gentile church how to live out Jesus as God fulfilling this hope.The major setback of this book isn't so much what is says; but what it doesn't. The authors spend so much time talking about the shortcomings of anti-imperial readings that they fail to say how it is helpful. They look at specific passages to show how postcolonial doesn't work. But they will also say its helpful and then never get more specific than that. I would have liked to have seen a more evenhanded approach. In discussing the Gospels; they mention how the presentation of Pontus Pilate (the closest thing to a standin for Rome) isn't a negative presentation. The Gospels spend most of their time critiquing the Jewish leadership instead of Roman leadership. But they left out the Roman soldiers who mocked Jesus and cast lots for his clothes. How does this part of the story play into the Gospels' understanding of Rome?I liked the book and found it helpful in seeing the shortcomings of empire criticism. It was a good reality check to see N. T. Wright get critiqued for overreaching on his anti-imperial readings. But I found the book not as helpful as it could be because there could have been more said; in specifics; about how empire criticism is helpful--rather than just merely stating the fact.1 of 1 people found the following review helpful. Good But Understanding the NT Writers Lies Somewhere In BetweenBy Biblical ReaderJesus is Lord Not Caesar I gave this book 4 stars rather than 5 because it doesn’t provide a lot of new information. The basic thesis of the book is that the New Testament writers are not anti-imperial but rather simply saying that Jesus and God are above Caesar. While I think this perspective is closer to what the New Testament writers are emphasizing rather than the anti-imperialism expressed by Horsley; Elliott; and Georgi; it is probably better to see the New Testament in relation to the Roman Empire in terms of a continuum. The very fact that the New Testament writers are portraying Jesus and God with words that are used to describe the emperor is subversive too some extent as can be seen in how the community reacts to Paul in Acts 7.Can one be subversive without actively seeking to undermine and overthrow the government? I think so. Can passive resistance; (like turning the other cheek) be subversive precisely because it is so different from the methods of Rome? I think so. The very fact that Paul is lifting up faith; hope and love rather than the Emperor’s virtues of justice; peace; security; harmony and victory is subversive.One important point that none of the writers in “Jesus Is Lord; Not Caesar†mention is the reason why the writers of the New Testament don’t attack the Roman Empire more than they do. It is true that the New Testament writers see Satan and not the Roman Empire as their main enemy; but no mention is made of the fact that the NT writers believe that it is wrong to have a judgmental attitude toward those power. This point can be seen in Douglas Campell’s interpretation of Romans 1-3 found in “Deliverance.†It may also explain why slavery is not condemned. Colossians and Ephesians encourage masters to treat their slaves with compassion rather than command that they set their slaves free.0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. Good overview but repetitiveBy W. S. EhrhartGood evaluation and critical review of scholars who are pro-imperial in their perspective of the New Testament writers' approach. Highlights key texts in the Gospels through Revelation but is somewhat repetitive in each chapter's conclusion. It echoes the idea that there are legitimate imperial arguments for the writing of each book/letter; but they are never the main thrust behind the author's motive.Nystrom's tone in chapter one sets up the analysis well.
