Читать книгу The Kingship of Jesus in the Gospel of John - Sehyun Kim - Страница 7

Research Questions

The Gospel of John uses many ambiguous and complex concepts and motifs. Among them is the kingship motif as applied to Jesus. This Gospel also has intricately interconnected theological perspectives, such as its Christology. The Johannine Jesus might be designated as the king who came to liberate his people from the darkness, and to lead them into his new world. Particularly relevant for an exploration of the kingship motif are the Johannine christological titles, which were employed to show Jesus as king, i.e., the Messiah/Christ, the Son of God, the Son of Man, the Prophet, the Savior of the World, the Lord (My Lord and My God), the King of Israel/the Jews, etc.

In addition, the author of this Gospel (John) employs both christological terms and many literary devices to deepen the kingship of Jesus. A study of those terms and concepts in the Johannine Gospel, therefore, may well open a new horizon offering new perspectives on the Gospel. In particular, the terms and concepts employed to describe Jesus as king were used in contrast with the similar ones of the marginal groups and those of the center as well. Their meanings are significant, but indirect, suggestive, and implicational, so that there may be many interpretations concerning them. However, the kingship of Jesus could be easily recognized by its first century readers who had diverse origins, because the terms and concepts used to connote his kingship were historically developed and deep-rooted in their worldviews, and were adapted in the Fourth Gospel.

In the first part of this book, I will explore the kingship of the Johannine Jesus, which might be familiar to readers from diverse origins, to discuss whether the kingship motif might be a key to the interpretation of the Gospel. It is meaningful to do so, because the kingship has not been researched as the key to the interpretation of the Johannine Gospel. In part two, I will attempt a postcolonial reading of the Gospel of John in terms of kingship.

In order to do this, I will employ postcolonial theory as a major research methodology. However, I admit that it would not be useful to adopt postcolonial theory in interpreting the Gospel of John without an evaluation or criticism of its limits as a theory. To begin with, this theory needs to be modified adequately in order to attempt a new reading of the Fourth Gospel which sees the kingship of Jesus as not only a contemporary issue in the first century CE, but also as a current issue today. Finally, I will use this theory expecting to obtain good insights from it concerning three major areas of research: 1. the portrait of Jesus in the Gospel of John; 2. the identification of various groups and their relation and function in the Roman Empire; 3. the message of the Johannine Jesus to the (post)colonial world.

More specifically, concerning the portrait of the Johannine Jesus, I have these research questions: Does the Gospel of John describe Jesus as king? What kind of king was Jesus from the perspective of a variety of readers of the first century CE?

Concerning the second area of my research, the identification of various groups and their relation and function, we need to ask the following questions: Was the Roman Empire regarded as the center of the world? What was her particular relationship with other marginal groups? How are the Jews, particularly the Jewish leaders, described in the Gospel of John? What were their relationships with the Roman Empire and with Jesus? Can we deduce the essential characteristics of the Johannine community through reading the Gospel of John? Were they a marginal group? What were the purposes of the Gospel of John toward its readership?

Regarding the message of the Johannine Jesus to the postcolonial world, we should answer these questions: Why should we research the kingship of Jesus in the Gospel of John in the postcolonial era? What is the meaning of the kingship of Jesus in this world? What do the Johannine terms—love, forgiveness, freedom, service, and peace—mean in the postcolonial world? Can the message of the fourth Gospel provide an alternative vision of reconciliation and peace for society rather than the violence and conflict common in today’s world?

Before beginning to research these questions, it is first necessary to make some preliminary remarks concerning my research on the kingship motif with reference to the Johannine Jesus.

Preliminary Remarks

The Gospel of John is estimated to have been written in the late first century CE.1 This view has been widely accepted,2 although there are still debates over the date.3 Particularly, it is probable that the Gospel of John was written in the mid-nineties, during the reign of Domitian.4 Following Martyn’s argument, it is widely accepted that the Johannine community had been in conflict with the Jews from the middle of the first century CE and as a result were estranged from the Jerusalem Temple and the synagogues (John 9:22; 12:42; 16:2).5 This supports the view that the Fourth Gospel was written to consolidate the Johannine community in order to overcome its conflict with the Synagogue.6 However, this is not the only serious problem, which confronted the Johannine community. A more dangerous situation arose from Rome.7 The Roman Empire was persecuting Christians for several reasons. One of them seems to be related to Emperor-worship.8 The Roman Emperors were worshipped as supra human beings or gods.9 It is also probable that the Johannine community needed to consolidate itself with strong faith in order to prevent apostasy10 and to confront and overcome persecution.11 It was Domitian (81–96 CE) who claimed the title “lord and god”12 and was responsible for a major persecution of Christians due to his profound hostility toward any form of religious unorthodoxy,13 particularly, as the traditional provenance of the Gospel of John was in Ephesus.14 The imperial cult in Domitian’s time was a strong challenge to the Christians in Ephesus, who were the first possible readers of the Gospel of John. The fact that a gigantic marble statue of Domitian in the new imperial temple in Ephesus, the center of the imperial cult in Asia Minor, was dedicated to Rome and “the divine Julius,”15 implies the existence of religious conflict for the Christians in Ephesus. It is probable, therefore, that the Fourth Gospel was, at least, written to consolidate faith in the era of persecution for the Johannine community or the Christians, who experienced both estrangement from the Synagogue and harsh persecution from Roman rule.16 If it is probable that the Gospel of John was written against these religious-political backgrounds in an era of conflict and persecution, it is quite likely that John adapted several terms, which originally indicated the Roman emperors and applied them to Jesus, as the real king to be followed throughout life.17

It is meaningful to say that just as the author and the audience or readers of this Gospel, regardless of whether they were Jewish or non-Jewish, lived in a world which was a melting-pot of cultures, the Gopsel is a multicultural melting-pot. That is, the Gospel of John was written in the context of an Empire, which had a multicultural, multilingual, multireligious, and multiethnic character.18 Therefore, we can recognize these multicultural features, which are absorbed into the Fourth Gospel. John belonged to a society “that constituted part of the ancient world, and in spite of the uniqueness of their message, still had much in common with their contemporaries.”19 It is natural that he used them in the composition of the Gospel for his readers. Thus, Hellenized readers would be able to understand this Gospel when they met the familiar terms during their reading.20 In short, the author used these terms to show Jesus’ identity so that the readers could easily recognize it by linking christological titles with imperial ones.21

In addition, several titles employed to designate the identity of Jesus as king are also closely linked to the Jewish traditions, particularly the Hebrew Bible.22 That is, among the Johannine christological titles, the Messiah, the Prophet, the Lamb of God, and the Son of Man (cf. the Son of God, the Son) are much rooted in the Jewish traditions. However, because the Gospel of John was written for Greek speaking readers including Jews and non-Jewish people, these titles were mixed into one another to reveal the identity of Jesus. The Johannine christological titles, therefore, have their own unique meanings in the Gospel, which reveal the identity of Jesus as king.

A Review of Literature

The topic of this book, the kingship as attributed to Jesus in the Gospel of John, is an attempt to read the Gospel from a postcolonial perspective. The Johannine Gospel has traditionally been approached from the perspective of Jewish traditions. Recently, new materials and perspectives, which reveal its close relation to the Graeco-Roman context, have stimulated Johannine scholars to see the Gospel in the Graeco-Roman context.23 Particularly, a gap, which research on the relation of the Johannine christological titles to those of Jewish traditions could not fill,24 seems to be more or less filled through the products of the new materials and perspectives. These two tendencies and academic research, however, have been paying little attention to the kingship motif of Jesus in John’s Gospel as one of the major themes of it.

The twentieth century saw a rapid development in the study not only of the Graeco-Roman world but also of the Hebrew Bible and Jewish traditions when investigating the texts of the New Testament. These studies have had a remarkable influence on the study of the Fourth Gospel. New perspectives have been developed and new approaches of interpretation have been suggested. Hence, no one can deny that research into the background of the New Testament is necessary when examining the kingship motif in the John’s Gospel.

Early in the twentieth century, a German scholar, Adolf Deissmann, in his book entitled Light from the Ancient East, shows how closely the world of the New Testament is connected to the Graeco-Roman world. In his book, Deissmann translates and interprets inscriptional evidence, which describes Roman emperors. Several concepts and titles ascribed to Roman emperors had developed as the result of Emperor-worship. This development was one of the major backgrounds of the formation of the Christianity. He emphasizes that the titles used for Roman emperors were adapted by Christians to magnify Jesus. He compares the titles of Roman emperors with those of Jesus to show similarity between them.25 He has opened a way of research on the King-Christology of the New Testament by presenting the similarity of titles between Roman emperors and Jesus. His broad research underlines the importance of the Graeco-Roman world for the study of the New Testament. In particular, his viewpoint throws light on the necessity of the study of Johannine Christology in association with the Imperial titles, because several titles attributed to Roman emperors are used to identify the Johannine Jesus.

A half century later, in 1967, Wayne A. Meeks published a book entitled The Prophet-King. In this book, Meeks puts his emphasis on the possible links between Mosaic traditions and Johannine Christology. He explores the kingship of “the Prophet” both in the Hebrew Bible and in Jewish traditions. He demonstrates Jesus as the Prophet, indicative of the King who was promised to come as the Prophet like Moses in the Hebrew Bible. Ten years later, in 1977, M. de Jonge in his book entitled Jesus: Stranger from Heaven and Son of God also argues for a relationship between Jewish Messianism and Jesus as the Prophet and king in the Gospel of John. According to Meeks and de Jonge, the kingship of Jesus in the Gospel of John is also in close relation to Jewish traditions.

In 1990, Craig R. Koester26 focuses on the title, “the Savior of the World,” which is confessed by the Samaritans in John 4:42, a term that was never used in Samaritan traditions. Rather, it used to be applied to Roman emperors only by the Romans. Koester argues that John used this term on purpose to reveal Jesus as the king through the lips of the Samaritans. He compares the scenes of triumphal entries into the towns of Roman emperors with those of the Samaritans’ reception of the Johannine Jesus. He suggests these two are very similar to each other.

In 1992, Richard J. Cassidy published a book entitled John’s Gospel in New Perspective. In this book, he researches three significant Imperial titles, which are employed to designate Jesus in the Gospel of John: “Savior of the World,” “Lord,” and “Lord and God.” He demonstrates how these three Imperial titles were employed in the process of the deification of Roman emperors. He comments that the intention to strengthen the position of emperors seems to lead to the deification of Roman emperors. He mentions, “so many political factors were intertwined with so many religious factors that it is extremely difficult to delineate the boundary between these two dimensions.”27 Cassidy indicates that the political and religious factors of Rome might well be a strong background for the Gospel of John.

M. É. Boismard in his book entitled Moses or Jesus suggests a new interpretation of the usage of “Son of Joseph,” which may relate to the Messianism of Samaritan traditions. According to Boismard, one of the backgrounds to John’s Gospel is the Samaritan tradition, in which two Messiahs are prophesied: “Son of David,” and “Son of Joseph.” “Joseph” in Samaritan tradition is the son of Jacob in Genesis, who was a savior of the Israelites.

Many scholars currently conduct studies on the Graeco-Roman background of the New Testament.28 They suggest that studies on Rome, Roman emperors and the Imperial cult could be quite closely related to the New Testament studies. In particular, Frederick W. Danker’s research29 on the benefactor, because the word, “benefactor,” was used as a title of Roman emperors and deities at that time. Danker uses data derived especially from Graeco-Roman inscriptions in which the benefactor-pattern is reasonably certain, to determine whether particular sections of the New Testament that suggest adoption of the Graeco-Roman benefactor model do in fact connote such to a reasonable degree of certainty. He examines particularly the ideas of ἀρετή (excellence), ἀνηρ ἀγαθός (good man), and καλοκἀγαθός. He proposes that the ideas are common in concept and meaning, and are synonymous alternative expressions of benefactor. The concept of benefactor seemed to be applied to the kingship of the Johannine Jesus.30

Some scholars31 convey the knowledge of the Jewish and Hellenistic background by conducting their research on the shepherd-king motif in the Gospel of John. The book entitled The Shepherd Discourse of John 10 and its Context32 edited by Beutler and Fortna is an important one to consider when studying the shepherd-king motif.

In addition, recently, some scholars have pursued a fuller understanding of Jesus in his religious, social, political, and economic context. David R. Kaylor attempts to delineate the political elements of Jesus’ ministry and teaching in his book entitled Jesus the Prophet. He intends to interpret the political dimensions of Jesus, not to reconstruct a political Jesus. An attempt to explore Jesus in a political context, which is closely connected with the religious one, in the Gospel of John has its usefulness, although the Gospel explains much more beyond the political dimension of Jesus. It is necessary, therefore, to have some understanding of the religious-political context to explore what the Fourth Gospel wants to reveal about Jesus.

David Rensberger, in his book Johannine Faith and Liberating Community, argues the possibility of such in relation to Christology and politics by the rediscovery of its social and historical settings. He intends to show “that in the late first century CE, when Jewish and Christian theology and politics could seldom be totally separated, the author of the Gospel had a distinctive conception of what those connotations were.”33 He, finally, argues that the Johannine Gospel seems to support a theology of liberation because of its overruling Christology. Accordingly, he remarks that this Gospel is “the product of an oppressed community.”34

Jerome H. Neyrey in his book An Ideology of Revolt focuses on the cultural system or perception of the cosmos reflected in the christological statements of the Gospel of John. He focuses also on the conflict and competition with other colonized Jewish groups and within the Johannine community itself.

In 2002, the book entitled John and Postcolonialism35 was published to examine the making and distribution of power on earthly spaces by tracing the journeys within the Johannine narrative. In this collection of essays, some authors show how the Gospel of John approves of certain travellers invading foreign spaces and how these foreign peoples can reread the Gospel to support decolonization.36 Some authors seek to identify the exclusive boundaries, while others seek to open up closed boundaries so that all travellers can descend from heaven to earth. Still others trace the journeys and places occupied by women in the Johannine story and in colonial settings. Some authors highlight how colonial history has changed the reading practices of certain communities, while others read this Gospel in order to understand the complex power relations that characterize readers as the colonizers, the collaborators, and the colonized.

Particularly, Musa W. Dube, in her article entitled “Reading for Decolonization,”37 attempts to highlight some of the main imperial ideological constructions of the Johannine narrative. Her hypothesis on reading the Johannine texts for decolonization seems to be subjected to the hypothesis on “the Bible as imperializing texts.” She seems to admit a premise of postcolonial perspective on Imperialism: Imperialism pursues power, mostly violence and military power, to dominate foreign spaces. In addition, Dube, in her article “Savior of the World but not of This World,”38 points out where her reading of the Gospel of John differs, i.e., in refusing to ignore the Roman imperial setting in the Gospel, refusing to abstract the biblical texts from modern and contemporary international structures, and refusing to read the biblical text in isolation from other works of literature. Dube’s aim is to highlight colonizing strategies and their similarity to the Gospel of John. She argues, “the exalted space of Jesus as a savior of the world, who is not of this world, is shown to be a colonizing ideology that claims power over all other places and peoples of the earth—one which is not so different from other constructions in secular literature.”39 However, we need to ask if the Bible, in particular the Gospel of John, is, in fact, an imperializing text. The Johannine Jesus does not justify a colonizing ideology because he rejects the logic of power that contains violence. Rather, the Johannine Gospel describes Jesus as a decolonizer who attempts to liberate the world from the darkness with love, forgiveness, freedom, service, and peace.

Richard A. Horsley highlights in his book, Jesus and Empire, that it is important to recognize the relationship of the Gospels and the Roman Empire in order to research the identity of Jesus. That is, he highlights the political aspect in the study of Jesus. His remark has much in common with an academic trend of Johannine study, which emphasizes the relation of this Gospel and the Roman Empire. Horsley points out the similarity between Jesus’ movement of the kingdom of God and the postcolonial agenda, “recent and current anti-colonial (or anti-imperial) movements in which the withdrawal (or defeat) of the colonizing power is the counterpart and condition of the colonized people’s restoration to independence and self-determination.”40 Meaningfully, the judgmental aspect of the Kingdom of God and the eschatological teaching of Jesus indicate emancipation from the foreign power, the Roman Empire. His view is particularly linked with the Johannine new world where the Johannine Jesus reigns as the king. That is, the functions of the Kingdom of God, as Horsley points out, are those of the Johannine Jesus. The Fourth Gospel also implies emancipation of the people from the darkness. This emancipation from the darkness is linked to a constructive alternative, the Johannine new world where all people can live in love, forgiveness, freedom, service, and peace.

Most recently, Warren Carter surveys the central issues of the Gospel of John in his book, John: Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist. He introduces a consideration of the Gospel’s negotiation of the Roman imperial world. He notes that Jesus’ ministry reveals God’s life-giving purposes for all people, including those marginalized by the hierarchical imperial social structure.41 He also notes that in the inclusion of such people in John’s community, John thus interprets traditions about Jesus in relation to Rome’s world. He argues that the Johannine new world as God’s life-giving and just purpose is shown to be contrary to and resistant to the Roman Empire. Namely, the Roman Empire is revealed to be under judgment in the Gospel of John. In addition, he notes that the Fourth Gospel reveals to the community of Jesus believers, that is, the Johannine new world, that it participates in and anticipates a vastly different reality, namely, the life of God which is given through faith in Jesus. He highlights also that “this alternative community . . . reflected in, and shaped by, the gospel’s anti-language, is commissioned to continue to do the works Jesus did (14:12–17), to reveal God’s life-giving purposes even though it will be a tough and resisted work (15:18–25).”42 Furthermore, Carter explains that the Johannine meaning of life is “countercultural in that it is marked by love and service, not domination as in Roman imperial society, and material and physical, since it participates in God’s life-giving and just purposes of salvation.”43 Finally, Carter concludes that in John’s Gospel various christological titles, which are related to kingship, are used throughout the Gospel to emphasize the identity and tasks of Jesus as God’s agent.

Outline of the Research

This book consists of two major parts: the first part is about the identity of the Johannine Jesus (from chapter 2 to 4), and the second part the function of the Johannine Jesus (from chapter 5 to 6).

First, in chapter 2, I will discuss the textual features of the Johannine Gospel in relation to its purposes and recipients. Then, I will describe the two pillars of the background of the kingship of Jesus in the Gospel of John: Jewish traditions and Graeco-Roman traditions. Thirdly, I will discuss the importance of the combination of the two traditions to understand the kingship motif of Jesus in John’s Gospel. Finally, I will discuss the method of this book: postcolonialism.

From chapter 3 onwards, I will investigate christological titles, which present the kingship motif of Jesus and their distinctive usage in the Gospel of John. In chapter 3, I will point out important factors for understanding the Johannine christological titles: the Johannine christological titles as hybridized products of hybridized society, and their distinctive usage in mixture. Then, I will discuss the Johannine christological titles in terms of kingship, particularly, the Messiah, the Son of God, the Son of Man, the Prophet, the Savior of the World, and the Lord/ My Lord and My God.

In chapter 4, I will research the title, “the king of Israel/the Jews” which explicitly reveals the kingship of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel. To begin with, I will survey the meanings of “king” (βασιλεύς) in comparing with both Graeco-Roman and Jewish understandings of this particular office. Then, I will examine that title in the particular context of the Johannine Gospel.

In the second part of the book, I will research the function of the Johannine Jesus from a postcolonial perspective. To do so, in chapter 5, I will deal with “identity matters,” that is, the identities of the groups in the Gospel of John: the Roman Empire as the center, the Jews not the ordinary Jews but the Jews of Jerusalem as the collaborators, and the Johannine Group as the margins but also as a group to overcome the center. Then, I will deal with the subtle relationship between the center and the margins under the Roman Empire, and with the matter of collaborators with the Empire. In addition, I will research a complex and delicate conflict between the center and the margins.

Finally, in chapter 6, I will define the identity of the Johannine Jesus. I will discuss Jesus as space to identify him as a universal king, and his functions as a decolonizer, and his vision toward his new world where people live in harmony with love, service, peace, freedom, and forgiveness.

1. The date of the Gospel of John is important because “the dating . . . brings us to the question of the political ideology of the text” (Alexander, “Relevance,” 123).

2. Kümmel, Introduction, 246; Smalley, John, 82–84; Cassidy, John’s Gospel, 3; Brown, Introduction, 206–15; Keener, Gospel of John, 140–42; Lincoln, Gospel, 18.

3. Robinson, Cribbs, and Wallace propose an earlier date (in the late 50s or in the 60s) for the composition of the Gospel of John (Robinson, Redating, 254–311; Robinson, Priority, 67–93; Cribbs, “Reassessment,” 38–55; Wallace, “John 5,2,” 237–56). However, this view is not supported by many scholars (see Blomberg, Historical Reliability, 42–44). For example, the expulsion from the synagogue is not likely to have occurred much earlier than the eighties (Lincoln, Gospel, 18). Carson suggests tentatively a date in the early eighties (Carson, The Gospel, 82–86). However, supposing John knew the Synoptic Gospels, its date suggests an earliest date of 85 CE (Keener, Gospel of John, 140). In addition, because of the discovery of Papyrus Egerton 2 (P52, the two sides of a fragmentary leaf from a codex of the Gospel of John, written probably between 100 and 150, being the oldest known copy of any book of the New Testament) dates in the second century seem now to have lost their foundation (see Metzger, “Recently Published Greek Papyri,” 25–44, esp. 40; Keener, Gospel of John, 141–42; Carson, Gospel, 24, 82; Lincoln, Gospel, 17–18).

4. Domitianic persecution and the motif of ruler cult are important elements to date the Gospel of John to the reign of Domitian.

5. About the expulsion from the Synagogue, see Martyn, History and Theology; Brown, Gospel, xxxiv–xl, xcviii–cii; Brown, Introduction, 58–89; Meeks, Prophet-King; Meeks, “Man from Heaven,” 44–72; Lincoln, Gospel, 82–89; Kysar, “Community and Gospel,” 355–66; Smith, “Presentation of Jesus,” 367–78; Painter, “Farewell Discourses,” 525–43.

6. Many scholars follow Martyn’s view on the Johannine community (an attempt to reconstruct the historical context of the readers to whom the Gospel was first addressed). In this book, I also employ the term “the Johannine community” to develop my argument, because, in the textual level, we can reconstruct the Johannine community, which has a variety of backgrounds in the multicultural world, in conflict with other groups (on the reconstruction of the Johannine community as the ideal reader in the textual level, see chapter 5 of this book). However, it is impossible for us “to produce a portrait of the historical reader that is so complete that it guarantees the meaning of the text, and even as we gain some clarity about the first-century context we are still confronted with questions about how the text can speak to its twentieth-century readers in a compelling way” (Koester, “Spectrum,” 6). Accordingly, as Koester concludes, “The final form of the Gospel envisions a heterogeneous readership,” in other words, “the final form of the Gospel was shaped for a spectrum of readers” (Koester, “Spectrum,” 9, 19; see also Culpepper, Anatomy, 221, 225; Lincoln, Gospel, 88). I define, therefore, the Johannine community as the ideal reader, which had various origins and was in conflict with others in the text. In other words, in the presupposition that John bore in mind a variety of readers with a wide spectrum of origins, I contend that the Gospel of John was written to the Johannine community as the ideal/implied readers, which were marginal in the Empire (on the relationship between the implied readers and the Johannine community, see Segovia, “Journey(s),” 23–54, esp. 47–49; Sim, “Gospels,” 3–27).

Apart from the Johannine community theory, Bauchkam contends the circular reading of the Gospel (see Bauckham, “For Whom,” 9–48). Just as Robinson’s criticism on Martyn’s view as “highly imaginative” (Robinson, Redating, 272–75), while denying the reality of the Johannine community, Bauckham argues that the Gospel was written for wide circulation among its first century readers (“a very general Christian audience”). Barton also argues the impossibility of the reconstruction of the Johannine Community (Barton, “Christian Community,” 279–301). In terms of the written place of the Gospel, Cribbs also says that “different scholars can find sufficient evidence so as to argue that such diverse centers as Alexandria, Ephesus, Antioch, or Jerusalem were the locale in which this gospel originated, suggests to us that John was a ‘circular gospel’ written from an influential center of Christianity during a period of crisis in the life of the early church” (Cribbs, “Reassessment,” 55). In addition, Cassidy focuses on the final form of the Gospel, which was copied and circulated within the early Christian Community in the Roman Empire (See Cassidy, John’s Gospel, 1–5). However, it is hard to deny “Christian churches were . . . the primary intended readers of the Gospels. It is within the realms of possibility that any given Evangelist envisaged a broader readership, but these readers would have been very close to his own community in both geographical and theological terms” (Sim, “Gospels,” 27).

7. It is important to recognize that the Johannine community, i.e., the readers, lived under the Roman ruling power, which was harsh to the margins (see Rensberger, Johannine Faith, 15–36; Carter, John, 170–71). About the exercise of Roman power on the margins through a hierarchical social structure and economic, military, social, ideological, rhetorical, and judicial means, see Cassidy, John’s Gospel, 6–26; Cassidy, Christians and Roman Rule, 37–50; Carter, Matthew and Empire, 9–53; Lincoln, Gospel, 88–89; Lincoln, Truth on Trial, 265–307.

8. About the view of the imperial cult and Christian persecutions, see Price, Rituals and Power; Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution; Charlesworth, “Some Observations,” 26–42. Three emperors, Gaius, Nero, and Domitian, had been especially attracted to these practices (Cassidy, Christians and Roman Rule, 13).

9. It came from Augustus and his successors who were acclaimed as supra human (Cassidy, Christians and Roman Rule, 12). On the practice of emperor worship as a legitimate ancient religion and political phenomenon, see Price, Rituals and Power; Price, “Rituals and Power,” 47–71; Fantin, “Lord of the Entire World,” 70–134. Price says that “the imperial cult, along with politics and diplomacy, constructed the reality of the Roman empire” (Price, Rituals and Power, 248), while indicating most scholars’ “overemphasis” on the political dimension of the imperial cult, and providing detailed analyses of the rituals, sacrifices, and images of the cult in Asia Minor.

10. Smallwood says about the Jewish tax as a categorizing criterion of self-confessed Jews and proselytes: “The record of attempts made during Domitian’s reign to conceal one’s circumcision by the surgical operation of epispasm or by other means (Celsus, De Medic. vii. 25, suggesting that the operation was well known at the time of publication [before c. 90; the work is mentioned by Quintilian xii, 11, 24]) will concern apostates, who it is reasonable to suppose wanted to escape the tax as well as to pass as gentiles socially” (Smallwood, Jews, 376). This description shows one fragmentary example of the complex responses of the margins toward the center. It is likely that whether to survive, to keep one’s position, or to conceal one’s national identity for property, in the first century, there were various, complex relations among the groups under Roman rule. In addition, the remark below shows clearly a variety of Jewish attitudes to the Romans: “The Herodian rulers and their party were naturally pro-Roman. The High priests also generally favored cooperation, as did the Sadducees. The Essenes withdrew to the desert, while the Zealots worked for armed rebellion. The Pharisees saw as their first loyalty absolute adherence to the Mosaic Law and traditions. They refused to take an oath of loyalty to Herod (Josephus Ant. 17.42); some actively resisted Roman rule, but others were more acquiescent. The common people must have simply scraped a living in a society where there was great inequality between rich and poor and much scope for oppression” (Edwards, “Rome,” 713). It might be no exception for first-century Christians. In giving a thought of this complex historical background, it is quite probable that the Gospel of John was written to the first century readers in the Imperial world.

11. About the account of Roman persecution in the Gospel of John, see John 16:2 (a warning of persecution), more strikingly the passion narrative (death on the cross as a way of Roman execution), and 21:18–19 (Peter’s martyrdom).

12. Dominus et deus noster (Suetonius Domitian 13.2); domini deique nostril (Martial, Epigram 5.8.1; 8.2.6); deus praesens (Cuss, Imperial Cult, 139). Domitian appears to have persuaded himself that he was “Deus et dominus,” and ordered his courtiers and poets to greet him as such (Suetonius, Domitian, 4.4, 13.2; Dio Cassius, 68.7). In particular, “[i]t was under Domitian that the practices of taking an oath by the Emperor’s genius, of offering libation and incense before his statue, and addressing him as Dominus grew up” (Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution, 213). On Domitian having recognition as divine, see Martial, Epigram 8.21; Statius, Silvae 1.1 (cf. Jones, “Christianity,” 1033).

13. On abuses of imperial religion and Domitianic persecution, see Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution, 210–17, esp. 212–13; Sordi, Christians, 43–53; Fox, Pagans and Christians, 433; Wright, New Testament, 355–56; Jones, “Christianity,” 1033–35; Moore and McCormick, “Domitian (Part i),” 74–101; Moore and McCormick, “Domitian (Part ii),” 121–45.

Roloff upholds the systematic promotion of imperial cults throughout the empire during the reign of Domitian (Roloff, Revelation of John, 9–10). Boring argues that there was an increase in imperial cults under Domitian, which came from above as well as from the populace that led to this development (Boring, Revelation, 21). However, this view is disputable between scholars in the discipline of New Testament studies (not usually working with the archaeological artifacts) and those in Roman studies (not usually analyzing early Christian literature) because of their different research area (see Friesen, Imperial Cults, 3; Smallwood, Jews, 372–74, 376–85). Scholars in Roman studies argue that Nero and Domitian were no more offensive than others were. Particularly, Fantin says that the negative portrayal of Domitian seems to be exaggerated, and that there is little evidence for a major persecution under Domitian (Fantin, “Lord of the Entire World,” 123, 185; see also Smallwood, “Domitian’s Attitude,” 1–2, 7–9; Collins, Crisis and Catharsis, 69–73; Thompson, Book of Revelation, 104–7; Friesen, Imperial Cults, 147–51). Collins says that the evidence for the persecution of Christians as Christians under Domitian is rather slight in non-Christian texts. Smallwood also argues that the early Christian tradition about Domitian as the second persecutor is by its probable apologetic function doubtful.

In spite of their exaggeration about Domitian, it is reasonable that Domitianic persecution was laid to Domitian’s charge. On this, Frend argues with evidence from different sources that “when one discounts the senatorial prejudices of Tacitus and Suetonius, the Emperor stands out as a shrewd but jealous-minded ruler, a strong upholder of public right and the state religion, whose prejudices and fears for his own safety increased with age” (Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution, 213–14). In addition, according to Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 3.33.2), there were partial attacks in various provinces, although there was no open persecution. Because relations between the Jews and the majority of educated Romans went from bad to worse, the Christians regarded as Jews were not an exception (Smallwood, Jews, 381). In a letter written to the Corinthians by Clement of Rome (ca. 96) (I Clement 1:1, The sudden and successive misfortunes and accidents; 59:4ff, Rescue those of our number in distress . . . release our captives), Domitianic persecution is alluded to (see Jones, “Christianity,” 1033–34). Although he had not persecuted indiscriminately as Nero did, Domitian singled out individual Christians. Domitianic persecution was “a succession of short, sharp, assaults—a series of sudden and repeated misfortunes” as Clement wrote (see Barnard, “Clement of Rome,” 251–60). In addition, the Jewish tax (“didrachmon tax”) increased due to financial stringency might have become a heavy burden in psychological, religious, and economic terms as well (Domitian enforced stringent measures for its collection), and when in natural disasters the Christians were treated harshly by the Romans, they felt that they were under persecution. Moreover, under Domitian for the first time people in public documents began to swear by the genius of the living emperor. This shows that the time of Domitian rule was difficult for the Christians. Collins says, “The practice of the ruler cult by those who wished to flatter Domitian seems to have been the occasion for John to call for intensified exclusiveness over against the surrounding Greco-Roman culture” (Collins, Crisis and Catharsis, 77). It cannot be denied, therefore, that under Domitian, who was called a living god on earth (see Moore and McCormick, “Domitian (Part i),” 74–101), and for whose divine worship temples were already being built during his lifetime, that many Christians suffered martyrdom, and that anti-language, symbolism, and apocalyptic mood were intensified.

14. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.1.1; Irenaeus, Haer. 3.1.2. There is no other location, except Ephesus, which the church Fathers supported as the provenance of the Gospel of John (see Carson, Gospel, 86–7). Harris sets out as evidence a higher rate of literacy than other Greek cities of the Roman Empire on the basis of observation of the massive production of catalogued inscriptions by the Ephesians (Ancient Literacy, 274). In addition, van Tilborg illustrates “how John’s text . . . could have been read in first century Ephesus” (Tilborg, Reading, 3). On other possible provenances, Alexandria, Antioch, or Jerusalem, see Barrett, Gospel, 128–31; Brown, Gospel, ciii–civ; Cribbs, “Reassessment,” 38–55; Johnson, “Early Christianity,” 1–17; Carter, John and Empire; Tilborg, Reading.

15. Jones, “Christianity,” 1034; Caird, Commentary on the Revelation, 29; Koester, History, Culture, and Religion, 1:316.

16. On the purpose(s) of the composition of the Gospel of John, see chapter 2 of this book.

17. About various forms of the title used for Roman rulers, see Deissmann, Light; Koester, “Savior,” 667.

18. See Carter, John, 188–93.

19. Edwards, “Hellenism,” 316–17. Because John lived in an era of persecution, he was “very aware of the Roman world and of the challenge that Jesus presents to it. It is part of the complex, multicultural world in which they lived and to which they attempt to address the good news” (Carter, John, 193).

20. Terms and concepts, e.g., logos, life, light, truth, rebirth, descending and ascending savior, dying and rising deity, mystic knowledge of God, sacramental communion, new life, and immortality through partaking of the flesh and blood of a deity in the Gospel of John, were familiar to the readers in the Hellenistic world. See Gunther, “Alexandrian Gospel,” 583–84; Carter, John, 190; Barrett, Gospel, 101; Dodd, Interpretation, 8–9. In addition, on similarities between Philo and the Gospel of John (the concepts of Logos, a heavenly man, and the symbols of light, water, and shepherd), see Dodd, Interpretation, 54–73; Gunther, “Alexandrian Gospel,” 584–88.

21. Cassidy emphasizes this point in terms of John. He argues, “[I]n depicting Jesus’ identity and mission within his Gospel, the evangelist John was concerned to present elements and themes that were especially significant for Christian readers facing Roman imperial claims and for any who faced Roman persecution.” He also argues that John “consciously chose to include and even to emphasize particular elements and themes” to depict the identity and mission of the Johannine Jesus (Cassidy, John’s Gospel, 1, 28). In addition, Carter, in his attempt at an anti-imperial reading in the Gospel of Matthew, emphasizes a similar concept about “that of historical context of the Gospel (to use conventional language),” namely, “the audience’s knowledge or experience that the Gospel text assumes,” or “authorial audience.” He sees “this authorial audience playing an active part in interpreting the text” (See Carter, Matthew and Empire, 3–6).

22. On the use of the Hebrew Bible (Graphe) in the Gospel of John, see Beutler, “Use of ‘Scripture’,” 147–62; Freed, Old Testament Quotations; Hanson, Prophetic Gospel; Brown, Introduction, 132–38. On the relationship with other backgrounds, see chapter 2 of this book.

23. Cassidy, John’s Gospel, 1–2.

24. Mainly, the Gospel of John presents Jesus as king using the prevailing Roman titles such as “Lord,” “Savior of the world,” and “Lord and God,” while Jewish titles such as “Son of Man,” “King of Israel (the Jews),” “Messiah,” definitely are used to identify Jesus as king. In addition, the expression, “friend of Caesar” in John 19:12, shows that the Gospel is related to the Roman key terms that appeal the kingship of the Johannine Jesus.

25. Deissmann, Light, 346.

26. Koester, “Savior,” 665–80.

27. Cassidy, John’s Gospel, 11.

28. See Brent, Imperial Cult; Koester, History, Culture, and Religion, 366–73; Carter, Matthew and Empire; Carter, Roman Empire; Novak, Christianity; Cassidy, Christians and Roman Rule; Aune, “Roman Emperors,” 233–35; Edwards, “Hellenism,” 312–17; Edwards, “Rome,” 710–15; Reasoner, “Emperor,” 321–26.

29. Danker, Benefactor; Danker, “Benefactor,” 58–60.

30. On the relationship between the kingship motif of the Johannine Jesus and the good man in the Gospel of John, see Kim, “Jesus as ‘Good Man’.”

31. Manning, Echoes of a Prophet; Johnson, “Shepherd, Sheep,” 751–54; Keener, “Shepherd, Flock,” 1090–03.

32. Beutler and Fortna, Shepherd Discourse of John 10.

33. Rensberger, Johannine Faith, 90.

34. Rensberger, Johannine Faith, 110.

35. Dube and Stanley, John and Postcolonialism.

36. This book shows “how the Johannine text was used to justify the invasion of others’ land, and how the same text can be read for decolonization and emancipation” (Sugirtharajah, “Postcolonial Biblical Interpretation,” 71).

37. Dube, “Reading for Decolonization,” 51–75.

38. Dube, “Savior of the World,” 118–35.

39. Dube, “Savior of the World,” 132.

40. Horsley, Jesus and Empire, 14.

41. The low-status poor, lacking power, honor, and resources, such as the man who has been sick for thirty-eight years (5:1–9) and the man born blind (9:1–8), a child (4:46–54), a woman and a Samaritan (ch. 4), low-status Galileans (ch. 6), and those who habitually ignore the law (7:49).

42. Carter, John, 172.

43. Carter, John, 53.