Читать книгу The Kingship of Jesus in the Gospel of John - Sehyun Kim - Страница 9

In the preceding chapter, I argued that the Johannine community was in conflict with the synagogue as well as with Roman imperial power. Accordingly, it is quite probable that the Gospel of John was written for the consolidation of the community in faith, although it does not seem that this is the only purpose of its composition, as I will argue further in this chapter. Then, I raised a significant question: why are so many christological titles employed in the Johannine Gospel? In my argument, I contend that John adapted a variety of the titles that were used to indicate the Jewish kingly Messiah and the Roman emperors in order to portray Jesus as the real king worthy of the audience’s lifelong allegiance in their complex and multicultural world.

In the present chapter, first, while regarding the Fourth Gospel as a product of a multicultural and hybridized society which accommodated multicultural features, I will argue that the Gospel was written for multiple purposes: it was written for multicultural readers in order to present Jesus as king; to make the readers believe in him whom they could follow for eternity; and to challenge them to live in the world according to the ruling ideology of the Johannine new world to overcome conflict and oppression. In order to do this, I need to begin by dealing with the purposes of the composition of this Gospel and to scrutinize the kingship motifs therin, because they are closely related to the identity of the Johannine Jesus.

In order to discuss this matter, in the first section of this chapter, I will present three major views of the purpose of the Gospel of John, including an investigation of the Johannine community as multicultural readers. In the second section, I will survey the kingship motif against the Jewish background and the Graeco-Roman to corroborate my research. In the last section, I will deal with postcolonialism as a major methodology of this book.

The Multiple Purposes of the Gospel of John

The Gospel of John may quite well have more than one purpose as well as a variety of intended recipients.44 The purposes of the Gospel have been described in various ways, and three major purposes, namely missionary, polemic, and parenetic,45 can be distinguished.

A Missionary Document for Various Groups and Individuals

The first suggested purpose of the Gospel of John is that it has a missionary aim. In it, we can find evidence of concerns about world mission: for example, references to the sending and coming motif;46 the emergence of the Greeks who seek Jesus (12:20); the Samaritans identifying Jesus as the Savior of the World (4:42); Jesus’ mention of other sheep which are not of this fold (10:16); most of all, God’s love for the world (3:16–17).47 In John 20:21, moreover, the sending motif could be applied to followers of Jesus, which then is a challenge to the Johannine readers. On this, Okure argues, “Thus the terminology of sending/coming not only focuses attention on the Father and Jesus, it emphasizes the intimate and exclusive relationship which exists between them in this missionary enterprise.”48 Segovia also argues that the Gospel of John, particularly the last two chapters,

[pursue] the proper and correct role of the disciples in the world, especially with regard to their assigned mission in and to the world . . . the section makes it very clear that the disciples must carry out their assigned role in and to the world and that they must do so under the guidance and direction of Jesus himself.49

We can read, therefore, in this Gospel that “the foundation of the fellowship of the Johannine community in the divine commission to continue the witness of the Johannine Jesus kept it oriented toward the world.”50 In this sense, mission seems to be the primary task of the Johannine community.51

From this position, some scholars regard the Gospel as a missionary document for Diaspora Jews or Christian Jews.52 However, the Johannine Gospel cannot be categorized in such a narrow way. There seem to be various inner-groups in the Johannine Community, suggesting a multicultural readership.53 The Johannine community might well consist of those groups whose origins were not simply defined by ethnicity or location.54 To define the Johannine community, therefore, various aspects of its origin must be considered: a variety of classes, ethnicities, and genders and of religious, cultural, political and economic backgrounds, because the descriptions in the Gospel show the complex aspects of relationships or conflicts between the Johannine community and others. For example, many groups and individuals, with which Jesus meets in the Gospel, show a variety of relationships: Individual Jews (Jesus’ disciples and followers; particularly, women (e.g., Mary and Martha, a Samaritan woman, etc), the sick (e.g., the invalid for 38 years; the man born blind, etc), and high-ranking individuals (Nicodemus, the royal official, and Joseph of Arimathaea, etc) and Jewish groups (e.g., the Jews of Jerusalem, the disciples of John the Baptist, and the crowds, etc), and non-Jewish people (e.g., a Samaritan woman and the Samaritans,55 Greeks, Roman governor and soldiers), and so on.

The characters and groups, which seem to reflect the reality of the Johannine community,56 show complicated and complex inter-relationships in the Gospel. From these relationships we may infer that it is highly possible that, within this multiple and hybridized society, the Gospel of John was written for the Johannine community which consisted of readers who were from multicultural environments.57 Accordingly, as a missionary document, this Gospel had not only the Jews in view.58 Its target readership must be wider. It is safe to say that the Gospel was written for a community that consisted of Greek-speaking readers including Jewish and non-Jewish people, and that, to them, the christological titles were mixed into one another to reveal the identity of the Johannine Jesus more clearly.

Polemic/Apologetic Purpose of the Gospel

The second suggested purpose of the Johannine Gospel is as a polemic.59 As I mentioned in the previous chapter, the Gospel was written to justify the Johannine community in the setting of contention with the synagogue, and to strengthen the faith of readers who were suffering persecution and martyrdom under Roman rule. This implicit conflict, for example, is revealed by the comments of the high priest in John 11:49–53, and in the passion narrative where the complicated conflict is revealed sharply: the conflict between the Jewish leaders and Jesus, between Pilate and Jesus, and between Pilate and the Jewish leaders.60

Accordingly, if there is a polemic in the Gospel, it is not simply against the Jews. The Gospel of John might attempt to dialogue with a variety of groups, even though the major group was the Jews. Thus, the purpose of the composition of the Gospel can be categorized as apologetic.61 It is quite probable that John was partly “writing for a pagan audience with a philosophical and cultural interest in Eastern religion.”62 Fiorenza says,

Jews as well as Christians appealed to the Greco-Roman world and used the means and methods of Hellenistic religious propaganda. . . . The appropriation of such missionary propagandistic forms was necessary if Judaism as well as Christianity were to succeed in the face of competition from other religions, especially those of Oriental origin, as well as competition from the philosophical movements of the time.63

In this respect, Johannine Christianity was not exceptional. Cassidy also argues that John was conscious of Roman realities and provided support for Christians under Roman rule.64 It may be safe to say, therefore, that the Fourth Gospel has some apologetic characteristics. In short, the polemic (toward other Christians) and/or apologetic (toward unbelievers) purpose has its own basis in the Gospel. It is probable that the Gospel of John was written for the promotion and defense of Johannine Christianity.

Consolidation of the Johannine Community

The last suggested purpose of the Gospel, which is widely accepted, is parenetic, namely, the need to strengthen the faith of the Johannine community. This last one is related to the historical situation with which the Johannine community was faced. Although the historical situation of the Johannine Jesus in the text was related to Judaism in Palestine, that of the Johannine community was related to a multicultural society if we accept that the Gospel was written in Asia Minor, particularly in Ephesus. In other words, it is likely that the author and the readers of the Gospel belonged to the colonial environment regardless of whether it was composed in Palestine or in Asia Minor.65 Accordingly, it is acceptable that the text describes a complex and hybridized society. It is reasonable to infer from this that the readership of the text has experience of such a society whether in Palestine or in Asia Minor.

Supposing the Gospel to have a closed metaphorical system (sectarian), Meeks argues that individuals or groups outside of the Johannine community could not understand it.66 However, the Gospel of John seems not to have been unreadable and not understandable to the outsiders of the Johannine community.67 Beutler argues that the Gospel was written to deepen the faith of the Christians, as well as to encourage them to confess this faith openly in the face of conflict and trials and even death.68 In addition, McKnight’s comment on the Bible is helpful for my argument: “The Bible is read in the context of continuing communities of faith, and even readers who do not share the faith of those communities are influenced by that fact.”69 In McKnight’s explanation, the Gospel was not only read by the Johannine community (the first recipients of the Gospel). Rather, it is probable that the Gospel would be spread to readers inside and outside the Johannine community in order to be read at the same time (at least, partly because of the missionary and apologetic purpose of the Gospel).70 Accordingly, even readers who were not in the same community could read the Gospel. Consequently, it is highly probable that the insiders of the Johannine community and even the outsiders of various backgrounds could understand what we being said about the identity of Jesus because of the variety of the Johannine christological titles and terms, which had been adapted from those of both the Jewish and the Graeco-Roman world.71

In short, the important point is that the Johannine metaphorical system is not only for the closed Johannine community72 (the Gospel as a closed sectarian document), but for the Johannine community which opened toward the world (the Gospel as an open document).73 Although it has a symbolic language of resistance against the center, the Gospel would be mainly given to the margins in the first century CE who longed for liberty from oppression.74 Lincoln comments exactly on this:

To all those who found their confession about the identity of Jesus in dispute and who suffered the consequences, this Gospel’s interpretation of his mission was meant to provide reassurance about the confession and about its being the means of experiencing the life and well-being of the age to come in the midst of present conflict and trials.75

Seeing the Johannine community in the larger environment, therefore, namely the Johannine community in the Roman world, opens a possibility of re-reading the Fourth Gospel with multiple purposes.

Purposes of the Gospel of John: A Synthetic Approach

Until now, we have discussed the possible purposes of the Gospel of John, missionary, polemic/apologetic, and parenetic. These three major possibilities must have their claim based upon proper grounds. In this sub-section, it is necessary to remark that the purpose of the Gospel is not categorized in an exclusive way. It is fairly acceptable that the Gospel “was intended to serve the needs of the community.”76 In terms of the needs of the community, it is quite probable that the Gospel was destined to meet a variety of apologetic, polemic, and parenetic needs in a multicultural and colonial society.77 I contend, therefore, that as a postcolonial text, the Johannine Gospel includes all these possible purposes in it, because it was written for first century readers who were in the colonial era in the process of the hybridization of culture. For that reason, it is appropriate to discuss a synthetic approach to the purpose of the composition of the Fourth Gospel.

As a synthetic approach, some scholars argue, “the purpose of the Gospel of John is to evangelize Jews, to evangelize Hellenists, to strengthen the church, to catechize new converts, to provide materials for the evangelization of Jesus and so forth.”78 On this matter, Okure’s question about the possibility of the interrelationship of the motives of the purpose(s) of the Gospel of John is appropriate.

The question raised, then, is whether these efforts to meet the various needs of the community can be considered as missionary work. In other words, do the apologetic, polemic and parenetic motifs serve a missionary purpose? Or does outreach to pagans constitute the exclusive meaning of missionary work?79

Fiorenza gives a sharp answer to the question: “apologetics and missionary propaganda functioned like two sides of the same coin.”80 While saying that “in whole or in part the Gospel was written with an apologetic, polemic, or missionary motif in regard to one or all of those groups,”81 Brown also argues that these goals are not mutually exclusive.82 Although Brown’s view on the purpose of the Gospel (that it was written to intensify people’s faith and make it more profound) is different from Okure’s (the Gospel was written for mission), their views on the interrelation of these motives for the writing of the Gospel meet in a common place. Furthermore, Segovia sees the Johannine community as the ideal/implied readers of the Gospel of John, which

is initiated, confirmed, or reinforced as children of God . . . who believe in Jesus and carry out his commands . . . should see itself as deeply estranged from and at odds with the world . . . are specifically warned thereby that an acceptance of the ways and values of God in the world implies and entails severe opposition from the world [as well as] a very privileged position indeed while in the world, ultimate victory over the world, and an abiding union with God in the world above . . . should expect nothing but hatred and oppression in and from the world [as well as] shall receive glory not only in the world of human beings but also in the world of God . . . are also urged thereby to carry on with their own mission in the world, regardless of dangers or consequences, in obedience to the plan of God and following the example of Jesus.83

Segovia’s view clearly shows that the Gospel of John is coincident with the multiple needs of the community.

In addition, these possible purposes have their own basis on a textual variant of John 20:31. At the textual level, this synthetic approach is closely related to a textual variant of John 20:31. Two possible translations of this verse from the Greek text could be proposed in relation to the tense of the main verb “you may believe” (πιστεύ[σ]ητε) because of different manuscript readings.84

Firstly, this verb can be parsed as the aorist tense85 of the subjunctive mood. In this case, the subject of the verb (second person plural) “you,” as the recipients of the Gospel stands for non-believers whether or not they were real historical figures. That is, the author of the Gospel wrote it for non-believers in order to make them believe in Jesus as the Christ and the Son of God through their reading of this Gospel; as a result of their belief in Jesus, they might have life in his name which they did not have before believing. In this case, the purpose of the composition of the Gospel might be missionary.

Secondly, the verb can be parsed as the present tense86 of the subjunctive mood. In this case, the subject could be interpreted as the believers who have not seen Jesus in the flesh. In this case, the purpose of the composition of the Gospel was to be for subsequent generations of believers who have not actually seen Jesus (you may continue to believe).87 In other words, John wrote it for believers in order to strengthen their faith that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God; in order to emphasize the fact that they already have life in his name, because they had already believed in Jesus so that they need to have no doubt of the facts of their faith in any circumstances. In this case, the purpose of the composition of the Gospel might be closely linked to the consolidation of the Johannine community in Christ.

According to Metzger,88 both readings have the support of early witnesses. The problem cannot be resolved on the basis of textual evidences alone but on the general suggestion of the Gospel.89 Because of the possibility of the motives (missionary, polemic/apologetic, parenetic) for the writing of the Gospel, these two possible variant readings of John 20:31 could give the possibility of the multifaceted purpose of the composition of the Gospel: the purpose of mission (missionary propaganda/apologetic), and the purpose of strengthening the faith of the Johannine Christians. On this, Carson says, “it can easily be shown that John elsewhere in his Gospel can use either tense to refer to both coming to faith and continuing in the faith.”90 On the one hand, John might write the Gospel to believers in order to consolidate their faith in the time of persecution and conflict, and in order to challenge them to evangelize the world, which was negative toward Jesus and his followers. On the other hand, to the non-believers, at least, it could be presented as an evangelistic document, which challenges them to have faith in the Johannine Jesus. Consequently, I argue that the Gospel functions as a multipurpose document.

If these two variant readings could be acceptable, in addition, how did those readers in the first century, “you” in John 20:31, understand Jesus? Lincoln sees that “you” of 20:31 “can be seen as embracing a wide variety of implied readers” in terms of different levels of understanding and knowledge of the Jesus story, of Hebrew or Aramaic terms, of Jewish customs, and of Scriptures and Synoptics.91 Lincoln’s comment exactly explains the reason why among many other titles and concepts employed to designate Jesus in the Gospel, John emphasizes Jesus as the Christ and the Son of God at the end of the Gospel to present clearly the purpose of its composition. In other words, the Johannine kingship motif is central to John’s purpose of introducing Jesus as king to first-century readers in a multicultural society.

Therefore, all the questions about the purpose of the Gospel can be explained in relation to the kingship of Jesus, because Jesus is described in terms, which indicate his kingship in the Gospel. Furthermore, the Johannine Jesus has already predicted in the Gospel that his followers will find themselves in situations where they will be treated harshly by the world (John 9:22; 12:42; 16:2). By adapting many christological titles and using them distinctively in the text, the Gospel on the one hand is simply giving maximum emphasis to the portrait of Jesus as king and its impact on its readers to encourage their faith. On the other hand, through representing Jesus as king and his kingly function, the Gospel challenges the readers to evangelize the world.

Therefore, the purposes of the Gospel could be summarised thus: The Johannine Gospel was written with multi-purposes for multi-recipients. It was written for the insiders of the community which consisted of people of many different backgrounds, in order to consolidate their faith in Jesus as king and to challenge them to live out that faith for the new world; simultaneously it was written for the outsiders of a multicultural society in order to lead them to believe in Jesus as king.

Backgrounds of the Gospel of John and Kingship

In the previous section, I discussed the different purposes of the composition of the Gospel for the multicultural readers in the Johannine community in order to explain the necessity of the identity of Jesus as king, because the kingship of Jesus gives answers to their various needs. In this section, I will survey the kingship of the Johannine Jesus in terms of multicultural backgrounds: Jewish and Graeco-Roman.

Two Pillars of the Background of the Gospel of John and the Kingship Motif

My argument is that the kingship of Jesus functions as one of the crucial characteristics of Johannine Christology, reflecting its multicultural features. In order to argue this, first, I have to say that specific terms, which conveyed royal concepts originating from the various cultures, are employed in the Gospel to designate the identity of Jesus as king. MacRae argues that many of the most striking elements of Johannine symbolism and literary technique are simply not paralleled in Jewish literature but in other more unmistakably Hellenistic types, both Jewish and non-Jewish.92 Smith also contends that although the origin of Johannine Christianity is to be understood as processes centering on Judaism and Jewish Christianity, the motifs in the Johannine literature go beyond Judaism and reflect a later stage in the development of the Johannine community.93 McGrath also concludes that “the paradox of Johannine Christology is an aspect of John’s development of traditions he inherited, utilizing motifs current in his day and age.”94 Horbury further argues that there was a strong relationship between Christianity and Judaism, emphasizing the significance of messianic hope within the Scripture and Jewish traditions in the Second Temple period.95 In addition, he argues that there was a close resemblance to contemporary Gentile cults of heroes, sovereigns, and divinities so that the cult of Christ was essentially a “Gentilized manifestation of Christianity.”96

It is not easy, therefore, to define the meaning of the christological terms employed in the Gospel to depict the Johannine Jesus without prior understanding of the terms in relation to the Jewish and the Graeco-Roman,97 or other cultural backgrounds.98 The meanings of the terms have been originated, developed, and changed in various different contexts through the hybridization of various cultures.99 It is important to know, however, that even though the terms in the different contexts could convey different nuances of meanings, there must be common meanings, which penetrate the terms in general.100

For example, the term “the Christ” is closely related to the kingship of Jesus in the Gospel, although it could be understood as having different meanings in different contexts.101 To begin with, the meaning of “the Christ,” namely “the Messiah” in Hebrew, might be defined slightly differently in Jewish society from that of other societies. In Jewish society after the Exile the political features of the term had been emphasized more and more. Under the oppression of foreign powers, the Jews had anticipated a Messiah as the descendant of King David, who would emancipate them from oppressive foreign powers.102 The concept of the Messiah had emphasized the kingly messiah of the Jews as a savior in Jewish society. In the Gospel of John, however, the term “the Christ” is not only an indicator of the Jewish messianic king, but also when the term is applied to Jesus it is used to describe Jesus as the universal king who could unite all the differences of the colonial world into one harmonious whole.103 The Johannine Jesus, therefore, rejects his earthly kingship but affirms his higher kingship in front of Pilate (18:33–38), and also that people such as John the Baptist (chapter 1), Andrew and Philip (1:41), the Samaritan woman (4:29), the crowds (chapter 7), and Martha (11:27) who meet Jesus and confess him as the Christ are not only the Jews in this Gospel. The more important thing is that they are mainly people on the margins of society who cannot go into the center of the colonial environment. It is important, therefore, to understand the kingship of the Johannine Jesus in a multicultural and hybridized society, rather than simply according to ethnic or religious backgrounds. In the Graeco-Roman world, on the other hand, the concept of the Christ had no special religious significance prior to the influence of ancient Jewish and Christian usage.104 To understand the proper meaning of the Christ in the Gospel of John, therefore, knowledge about the Jewish term “the Messiah” is needed.

In the Graeco-Roman background, however, “the Savior of the World” was used to designate kings and generals, including Roman emperors, who were victors in ancient wars.105 The term “the Savior of the World” (4:42), which is employed to confess the identity of the Johannine Jesus from the lips of the Samaritans,106 is closely linked to the term “the Messiah” in the context (4:29, 42). If this is accepted, therefore, those terms which point to the identity of the Johannine Jesus as king could be understood in relation to kingship.

In short, my argument is that the author presents Jesus as the universal king using terms the meaning of which a variety of readers from various backgrounds could understand when they read the Gospel of John. Therefore, to justify my argument, we need to survey two backgrounds of this Gospel: the Jewish and the Graeco-Roman.

The Kingship Motif and the Jewish Background

Among a variety of terms in the Johannine Gospel, which imply the kingship of Jesus, many of them might come from the Hebrew Bible and other Jewish sources.107 Particularly, Davidic royalty (cf. John 7:42) and the Jewish messianic expectation form a major area of research into the background of the kingship motif in Jewish literature.108 In Jewish literature, kingship is closely related to God and his representatives who ruled ancient Jewish society. Furthermore, this term was also used for the redeemer king.109 Although for nearly 500 years after the fall of Jerusalem there was no king, the Jews expected the emancipation of Israel from foreign power and looked to a leader to come, the Messiah, to be their king in the restoration of the nation. Predictions of the coming king, which includes that of a religious and political leader, are referred to in the Hebrew Bible and Davidic royal terms are employed in passages referring to Israel’s restoration.110 Consequently, the anticipated king would be the political and religious head of the people, as well as a representative of God in order to emancipate them. Some examples in the Hebrew Bible, particularly prophetic passages, are relevant to the discussion in my book.111

Firstly, in Isaiah 9:1–7 the king as the powerful and mighty ruler will establish his kingdom and will sit and reign on the throne of David over his kingdom forever.112 He is “a great light” who will come to the people who walk in darkness (Isa 9:1–2). He will deliver them from the oppression of their oppressor and will end war by destroying the instruments of war (Isa 9:3–4). The Johannine Jesus can be matched to this Davidic kingly figure. As “the light of the world,” Jesus comes to the world in darkness to rescue the people in darkness by non-violent means.113 The Johannine Jesus shows how to be free from oppression (8:32), promises peace which the world cannot give (14:27; 16:33; 20:19, 21),114 and will sit on the throne by glorification through the cross. Moreover, a Davidic Messianic figure in Isaiah 11:1–10 (a shoot from the stem of Jesse115 and a branch from his roots in Isa 11:1, the root of Jesse to whom the Jews and the Gentiles will resort in Isa 11:10) stands for the representative of an enormous social transformation.116 The utopian description in Isaiah 11:1–10 represents a reformed community and a true kingdom of God on earth which is reminiscent of the new world of the Johannine Jesus: the new world in which the center and the margins can live in harmony. Like the king of this utopian nation (the shoot, the branch or the root) who will unite both Jews and Gentiles, the Johannine Jesus comes to his world (1:10) to assemble his flock from among the Jews as well as from amongst other sheep (10:16), and will receive them into heavenly dwelling places (14:2–3).

Secondly, Haggai and Zechariah also describe the king as a religious and political leader.117 Haggai is concerned with the building of the temple by Zerubbabel who is a Davidic prince and the natural leader of the nation. Zerubbabel is made the signet of God (Hag 2:23) and foreign powers would be defeated. Similarly, in Zechariah a man called “the Branch” will build the temple of God and he will be a ruler (6:12–13; cf. 3:8118). The role of the Branch, Zerubbabel, is that of the king. In addition, the king, mounted on a donkey will come to Israel (Zech 9:9), speak peace to the Gentiles and rule the whole world (9:10). The coming king is also related to rescue from oppression and to bringing war to an end (9:8, 10). We can link the Johannine Jesus with the king in Zechariah 9:9–10. Jesus enters into Jerusalem riding on a donkey (John 12:12–19). The multitude welcomes him shouting “Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Blessed [even] the King of Israel.” The multitude regards and welcomes Jesus as the King of Israel. Those prophets who hoped for the restoration of the nation and saw the Branch as a decolonizing king have meaning in terms of the national emancipation. The concept of the king in the post-exilic period of Jewish society is linked to that of the political and religious leader as the decolonizer.119

Thirdly, in Micah 5:1–15 a ruler (מָשַׁל) of Israel (LXX: ἄρχοντα ἐν τῷ Ἰσραηλ) would come not only from Bethlehem Ephrathah but from the beginning (LXX: ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς) and even the days of eternity as well. He was a shepherd who will feed his flock, and bring peace to Israel. The ruler of Israel in Micah 5:1 is also related to the Johannine Jesus.120 In the Gospel of John, the origin of Jesus is “the beginning,” like the ruler of Israel in Micah 5:1, although his origin from Bethlehem is not revealed (cf. 7:41–42). Rather, his Galilean origin is employed in the controversy over his messiahship. His pre-existence in the Gospel might be linked to this verse. The ruler of Israel as a shepherd who will feed his flock foreshadows the Johannine Jesus in the good shepherd discourse in John 10:1–11, and the multitude’s attempt to force him to be their king after he fed them in John 6:1–15. Moreover, the prophecy that the ruler of Israel would bring peace to Israel is also suggestive of the message of Jesus about peace (14:17; 16:33) before his crucifixion and after his resurrection (20:19–23). Consequently, just as Lambert comments that the biblical concept of messianism has two main features (the Messiah as a descendent of King David and as an ideal king),121 it is also fair to say that some of the christological titles of the Johannine Jesus have these two features.

The Kingship Motif and the Graeco-Roman Background

The kingship of the Johannine Jesus is more deeply revealed when Johannine christological terms and titles are investigated in comparison with terms and titles in the Graeco-Roman world. Research into the relationship between the Gospel of John and the Graeco-Roman world122 reveals terms and titles which were popularly known in Graeco-Roman culture, and might be employed to reveal the identity of Jesus as king in the Fourth Gospel. For example, some specific terms, i.e., the Savior of the World, my Lord and my God, which are employed to confess Jesus as their king by the believers or the crowds might be used to reveal the kingship of Jesus.123 In this section, I will cite some references, which could elucidate the Graeco-Roman background of the kingship of the Johannine Jesus.

Firstly, it is interesting that the term, ἐυεργέτης (benefactor) was a favourite and striking title for the Hellenistic kings and Roman Emperors, whose funcion was linked with that of Jesus in the Johannine narratives (supplying new wine, feeding thousands, 10:1–18, and the passion narrative). The nature and task of the king is revealed clearly in the fact that he is a benefactor to the whole world.124 Danker demonstrates the Graeco-Roman documents, which attest “the consistency of thematic interest and formulaic patterns in language relating to the benefactor figure.”125 Particularly, inscriptions and documents to give honor to kings in terms of benefactor are likely to relate to the kingship of the Johannine Jesus. We can propose that the Gospel of John characterizes Jesus as the “benefactor” par excellence in terms of kingship.

Secondly, the Hellenistic idea of divine kingship originated with Alexander the Great,126 and was revived in the cult of the Roman emperor. In the time of Augustus (63 BCE–14 CE), the concept of the incarnation of divinity in the emperor took over this idea.127 The Johannine proclamation of Jesus as the incarnate form of God could be the cause of a crucial ideological confrontation with the Roman authorities and be the cause of the persecution of Christians in the period of the Early Church (Prologue; 10:30; 14:8–16:33).128

Thirdly, the stories of Vespasian’s miracles,129 the healing of a blind man and of a man with a withered hand, are reminiscent of the miraculous healings of the Johannine Jesus. In particular, the healing of a blind man by Vespasian is directly paralleled with the healing of the man born blind by Jesus in John 9:1–12. The healing of the blind man with his saliva is similar to that of the man born blind in John 9:6.

In addition, according to Eusebius, both Vespasian and Domitian ordered the hunting down of all who claimed to be a descendent of David.130 It is also possible that Domitian insisted on the title dominus et deus (“lord and god”), which is reminiscent of the confession of Thomas about Jesus, “my Lord and my God!” (John 20:28).131 If it is accepted that the Gospel of John was written during the period of persecution, the readers could read Johannine stories of miracles as a kind of resistance document against Imperialism. In addition, the Samaritans’ coming to welcome Jesus into their village (John 4:40), and the triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem and the rapturous welcome of the crowd (John 12:12–14) are reminiscent of the triumphal returns of the generals or the kings into the towns of the Graeco-Roman world.132 In short, as I have briefly pointed out concerning the relationship between the Graeco-Roman background and the Gospel of John, the kingship of the Johannine Jesus can be clarified more when giving due consideration to this Gospel in the wider context of the Graeco-Roman world.

The Necessity of the Combination of the Two

Nobody denies that the two main pillars of the background of the Gospel of John are the Jewish and the Graeco-Roman worlds. Consequently, reading the Fourth Gospel with knowledge of these two backgrounds throws a new light on interpretation.133 In order to combine the knowledge from research into these backgrounds, I attempt to discover the common meanings of the terms employed to designate the kingship of the Johannine Jesus.

A reading of this Gospel in the context of Jewish culture could provide an understanding of the text as a microscopic view of Jewish society. The historical subtle and complex relationships of various groups in Jewish society may be seen, namely the conflict between the Jews and the Christians, particularly that of the Jews and the Johannine community, the estrangement between them, and the necessity of a description of the identity of Jesus and their faith, and so on. However, this kind of reading without consideration of the Roman Empire restricts the view of the macroscopic perspectives to be found in the Gospel. In other words, when we consider the macro world relations into the reading of the Fourht Gospel, we could conclude that there were more subtle and complex relationships existing in the Johannine world. In the colonial situation, conflicts between the center and the margins, conflicts among marginal groups and the conflicts caused by the collaborators in the marginal society can be discovered in the Gospel. When we admit that the Johannine world was under colonial power, the identity of the Johannine Jesus can be newly identified in postcolonialism. Therefore, our reading does not imply a totally different manner of reading of the Gospel in relation to the Jewish background or in relation to the Graeco-Roman world. Because the Johannine group/readers and Jewish society were already in the Graeco-Roman world and because the Gospel was a product of the colonial world, we should read this Gospel with the combination of the main two backgrounds of a hybridized society.

Therefore, understanding the postcolonial perspective and its application in the reading of the Gospel is very useful. It is helpful in identifying individuals or groups from the perspective of colonial and postcolonial relations. In particular, the identity and function of the Johannine Jesus can be newly interpreted. The Johannine community, the Jews and the Jewish leaders can also be reinterpreted.

It also helps us to see the subtle relationships among the groups. In the light of power struggles, we can see the suffering and hope of the marginal groups and their pursuit of the ideal destiny by overcoming their oppressors. A reading of the Johnnine Gospel from a postcolonial perspective can throw new light on its interpretation. When we read the Gospel as a postcolonial text, in the conflicts between Jesus and the Jewish leaders, between the Johannine community and the Jews, between the Jewish leaders and Pilate who was the representative of the Roman Empire, and so on, Jesus is regarded as the solution to these conflicts. In this book, I shall offer a reading of the Gospel of John from a postcolonial perspective, particularly identifying the kingship in its portrait of Jesus.

Methods and Theories

In order to read the Gospel of John from a postcolonial perspective and to identify the Johannine Jesus as the universal king, I will now deal with methods and theories of this book with priority given to postcolonialism.134

To begin with, it is necessary to define the word “postcolonial.” The adjective, postcolonial, is defined as the frame of mind “that problematizes the imperial/colonial phenomenon as a whole, and in so doing, attains a sense of conscientization which pursues independence from imperialism.”135 Therefore, a postcolonial focus encompasses not only the discourses of imposition and domination but also the anti-discourses of opposition and resistance.136 In addition, Samuel defines postcolonial literature and discourse, referring to it as:

the literature and discourse that springs from a colonized population during or after the colonial experience, that critically scrutinizes and engages the colonial contacts and perceptions of power. Generally, it is a complex, ambivalent and incongruous discourse that accommodates and disrupts the colonialist perceptions and perspectives of domination.137

In terms of definitions, it is plausible to say that there is postcoloniality in the Gospel of John. The Fourth Gospel as a product of the Roman colonial world clearly presents a way of resistance and decolonization to its first century readers, who were mostly colonized and marginalized by the center, using the imperial language as well as that of the fringes. In this way, the Johannine Gospel is a kind of postcolonial text.

In this section, I will explore postcolonial theory as long as it is relevant to my book. First, I will deal with the relationship between ideological criticism and postcolonialism; with the relationship between postcolonial agenda in comparison with colonial imperialism; with the relationship between postcolonialism and literary criticism; and lastly, with the major concepts in a postcolonial approach: hybridentity and diaspora.

Ideological Criticism as a Basis for Postcolonialism

Postcolonialism has plural theoretical roots from Marxism, the pioneer of modern critical theory, to Post-structuralism in terms of critical theories. Particularly, “poststructuralist concepts of the political nature of the language of race, gender, and class have had profound effects on postcolonial writers preoccupied with subject-identity and oppositional discourses.”138 In addition, it is likely that in the broader category of critical theories, postcolonialism could belong to both a kind of reader-response and ideological criticism. Hence, through the diffusion of these roots, a plurality of application in postcolonial studies is possible. In this sub-section, for my argument I will explore the relationship between ideological criticism and postcolonial studies.

On the one hand, ideology reflects reality, on the other hand, there is no ideology, which corresponds to reality as it is.139 Moreover, reality affects ideology. Since this is so, ideology, particularly at the textual level, needs to be interpreted in order to comprehend reality in history.140

In the Gospel of John, there seems to be ideology, in particular Christology (whether or not it is regarded as a political issue), which reflects not only the real Johannine world but also that which could be employed to reveal the ideal world which the Johannine Jesus/John/the Johannine community might pursue. Hence, ideology in the Gospel needs to be interpreted at the textual level to discover the reality of the Johannine world with which the Johannine community was confronted. The Johannine reality also needs to be reconstructed to seek for the influential elements in the formation and development of ideology in this Gospel.141 In the case of the Fourth Gospel, for example, the author might put his ideology into the composition of the Gospel, reflecting the real world to which he and his community belonged, in order to describe the ideal world where Jesus as the king reigns using terms, concepts and literary devices which had developed through the mixture of the cultures of the center and the margins.142

As a result, no interpretation of ideology in the text can be done in a vacuum. The important thing in the interpretation of Johannine ideology and reconstruction of the Johannine world, therefore, is to discover the relationship of the Johannine community and the conditions of the world in which the community is represented.

The difference and gap between the reality of the Johannine world and the ideological Johannine world occurs and exists because ideology reflects reality and reality has an effect on ideology. Consequently, it might be true that a greater or lesser gap (description with different angles, hyperbole, maximization or minimization) of representation of the real world would occur in the author’s representation of ideology in the text. Furthermore, more twist and gap of representation of the real world would occur in the readers’ interpretation of the ideology. In spite of the series of twists and gaps, however, through interpretation of ideology in a particular text we can reconstruct a hypothetical world, which reflects the real world, as described in the text and can discover the factors that influenced the formation of the ideology, though an interpretation is dependent on the interpreter’s circumstances. We cannot help but being interpreted by our circumstances when seeking to interpret the ideology of the Gospel.143 Therefore, an analysis of the interpreter is necessary in order to interpret the ideology of this Gospel from a postcolonial perspective.144

Postcolonialism vs. Colonial Imperialism145

First, to read the Gospel of John from a postcolonial perspective, it is important to know that one of the main topics of postcolonial reading in biblical studies is a discourse on “identity matter.” In terms of identity, differences and similarities between the colonizer and the colonized have been recognized as one of the most important factors. That is, postcolonial theory has been employed to clarify various identities and the complex relations between them in colonial society. For example, Bhabha146 scrutinizes the matters of similarity and mixtures between the colonizer and the colonized, while Said147 describes differences and opposition between them in his colonial discourses.148 Likewise, the Fourth Gospel implies that the identities of the individuals and the groups in the Gospel perform their various and complex mutual relations with difference and similarity.149 In addition, the relationship between the center and the margins as encompassing both social and cultural reality from a number of different angles shows a range of disciplines within postcolonial studies.150 Among postcolonial themes, perspectives on the relations between the center and the margin and hybridized identities in the colonial society will be employed in my book. In short, clarifying their identities in a colonial society can be a key to postcolonial interpretation of the Gospel of John, particularly regarding the identity of the Johannine Jesus as decolonizer,151 knowing that difference and similarity between the colonizer and the colonized is a major contact point between postcolonialism and the Fourth Gospel.

Secondly, one of the topics of postcolonial reading in biblical studies is a discourse of resistance and emancipation. Segovia says,

The proposed postcolonial optic in biblical studies is obviously a discourse of resistance and emancipation. It takes as its reading lens the geo-political relationship between center and periphery, the imperial and the colonial, not only at the level of the text but also at the level of interpretation, of readings and readers of the text. It does so, moreover, with decolonization and liberation in mind, as it proceeds to highlight the periphery over the center and the colonial over the imperial.152

Sugirtharajah also says,

[Postcolonialism] is an active confrontation with the dominant system of thought, its lopsidedness and inadequacies, and underlines its unsuitability for us. Hence, it is a process of cultural and discursive emancipation from all dominant structures whether they be political, linguistic or ideological.153

In the Gospel of John, we can discover a discourse of resistance and liberation. By the employment of a variety of christological titles from the center as well as from the margins, the Gospel presents the identity of Jesus as king. It challenges its readers in the colonial world to believe and follow him as the real king who liberates the margins of the colonized world and eventually, from the darkness.

Thirdly, when “postcolonial studies engage in examining the complex web of desire and distantiation between the colonists and the colonized,”154 three major concepts, such as ambivalence, mimicry, and hybridentity, become “touchstones for debates over colonial discourse, anti-colonial resistance, and post-colonial identity.”155

1) Ambivalence is used to describe a continual interchange between both opposites, namely the center/the colonizer and the margins/the colonized. Therefore, it suggests both compliance and resistance in a colonial subject. In postcolonialism, it refers to a simultaneous attraction and repulsion, which marks the complex relationship between them.156 In this respect, collaboration and resistance in a colonial society become unavoidable. In addition, postcolonial ambivalence gives the margins room for collaboration with the central power and/or resistance against the center. As a result, “ambivalence decenters authority from its position of power” to that of the margins.157 For example, the Johannine readers as the margins could see a resistant tendency in the Gospel against this earthly Imperialism, but a collaborating tendency toward the heavenly kingdom (the Johannine new world), when they met its ambivalent usage of the Johannine christological titles, which could imply various definitions in different contexts.

2) Postcolonial mimicry is also used to describe the ambivalent relationship between the colonizer and the colonized. The phrase, “a difference that is almost the same, but not quite,”158 conveys the force of mimicry quite well. Mimicry requires simultaneous similarity and dissimilarity. It relies on resemblance, on the colonized becoming like the colonizer, but always remaining different. In addition, mimicry is related to the fear of loss. Van Bruggen remarks,

After the exile the Jews were not the only inhabitants of Palestine. They lived among all kinds of non-Jews, and this made it necessary for them to preserve a clear identity if they were to avoid being absorbed into the other cultures in Palestine. This potential loss of Jewish identity had been a real threat on several occasions.159

In postcolonialism, however, the fear of loss that had been a real threat to the colonized on the one hand, works as a kind of resistance against the colonial power on the other. “Mimicry, as a repetition that is ‘almost but not quite’ the same as an original, queries not only the definition but the self-identity of the ‘original.’”160 Therefore, mimicry also produces a disturbing effect on colonial rule.161

Mimicry is another ambivalent (re)assertion of similarity and difference and it therefore poses a challenge to the normalized knowledge of colonized and colonizer; not least by making one an imitation of the other while preserving differences of, for example, liberty, status, and rights. . . . The imitation must always remain distinguishable from the original and so poses two troubling questions. On the one hand, it asks what constitutes the “original” and preserves its difference from any “imitation.” . . . On the other hand, it asks what “deformation” of this original is visible in the imitation, which is never exactly a copy and therefore something more or less than the “original.”162

In this respect, we can see that John uses mimicry in the Gospel, particularly, in the christological titles in terms of kingship. We can regard the employment and adaptation of them for kingly identification of Jesus as mimicry in terms of resistance. The Gospel of John adapts many christological titles originating in and used by a variety of cultures to introduce Jesus as king, but more fully describes Jesus as a universal and ideal king than those described as king in various other contexts. For example, Jesus as Messiah in the Gospel is a more fully idealized Messiah (Christ)/king than is found in Jewish culture (1:49; 7:31; 11:27). Jesus is truly the Savior of the World (4:42) rather than the Roman emperors. Jesus is of a truth the Prophet like Moses (Deut 18:15)163 who is to come into the world (7:14). Jesus is a more fully personalized, dramatized Lord and God (My Lord and My God) than any other one, and so on.

To attempt a new reading of the Gospel of John from a postcolonial perspective, therefore, I will employ three major postcolonial subjects in my book: 1) identity issues of the characters, using differences and similarities between the colonizer and the colonized (mimicry as a colonial process as well as a kind of resistance);164 2) a discourse of resistance and emancipation; 3) the ambivalent relationship between the center and the margin in hybridentity.

Literary Criticism and Postcolonial Theory

In this sub-section, in order to discover some bases of postcoloniality in this Gospel, I will deal with the relationship between literary criticism and postcolonial theory, and as an example, I will discuss the matter of the genre of the Gospels.

First, it is necessary to indicate that both inside and outside biblical scholarship there is a growing variety of conflicting views on the subject of the value of the Bible, the difference between biblical texts, and between biblical texts and other literary texts. Without any clear consensus of definitions of terms, of critical/philosophical understandings of disciplines, and of methods of interpretations of biblical texts, various interpretations of the biblical texts flood the world.165

We can say that literary theory provides not only a means of dealing with differences of critical opinion, but also provides the basis for constructing a more rational, adequate and self-aware discipline of literary studies. Jefferson and Robey say that “[l]iterary theory is not something that has developed in a vacuum, but has arisen for the most part in response to the problems encountered by readers, critics, and scholars in their practical contact with texts.”166 Questions raised by the readers might be answered in a number of different ways and the established ways of answering them should not be taken for granted. These ways of answering might cover a range of possibilities only; all elements in them can be open to challenge, and in practice most theories seem to concentrate on some more than others do, or even exclusively to others.

Since the 1970s, trends of biblical interpretation have rapidly changed and developed, the main focus of it passing onto the reader especially onto the modern reader.167 This new trend has a tendency to ignore the ancient background of the texts because of its tendency to make a distinction between the intention of the original author and the meaning of the text.168 However, in order to interpret the biblical texts better, I believe, we need to consult the products of the various scholarly works including not only those of traditional critics, but also those of post-modern critics.

In this sense, postcolonialism has significant advantages for the interpretation of the biblical texts as well as serious shortcomings. Some scholars are alarmed that one of the effects of imperialism as a major force is to reflect and reproduce dominant cultural assumptions about the margins, which not only fail to represent the diversity in the lives of the marginal groups but also promote unrealistic expectations about normal marginal behavior.169 Hence, postcolonialism has provided a useful corrective to the imperial perspectives of the interpretation of the biblical texts and has promoted a new perspective, which reads the biblical texts with the eyes of the margins. To borrow Alcoff’s phraseology, John as a voice of the margins in the first century offers the Johannine community at the margins the new world of Jesus as “a positive alternative and a vision of a better future.”170 The new world of the Johannine Jesus can motivate the readers to sacrifice their time and energy toward its realization in the colonized world.

However, postcolonial theory has a tendency which has denied the uniqueness of the biblical texts when compared with other texts (generalization of the Bible),171 and has a methodological limitation because it is problematic that it applies a post-modern critical theory to interpret biblical texts. In addition, another problem is a tendency to regard the biblical texts as unhistorical (neglect of the historicity of the Bible), although it is not the only problematic assumption in postcolonial theory.

Secondly, while emphasizing the postcoloniality of the Gospel of John, I take the view that the New Testament Gospels are uniquely special literature,172 so that even though the Gospel is a hybridized product of the colonial, imperial world, and there is similarity to the ancient Graeco-Roman texts, particularly ancient Greek biography, yet the Gospel has a uniqueness of its own.173 Many scholars regard the Gospel as a modified form of ancient Greek biography, while others do not. While criticizing modern categories of genre, which “are misleading and even inimical to actual understanding” of the biblical texts, Osborne also points out that the characteristics of the ancient genres are a key to interpreting biblical texts.174

Hence, in order to interpret the Johannine Gospel better, we need to define the genre of the Gospels. I define the Gospels as a unique genre, which though similar to types of ancient literature which quickened, and grew in the first century owing to cultural mixture, yet it displays unique characteristics of its own.175 In other words, just as the Gospels display a mixing of genres176 (narrative, parables, proverbs, poetry, biography, teaching, and apocalyptic) and still function overall as Gospels (“like and yet not like”),177 the Gospel of John functions as unique literature and as a postcolonial text.178 While introducing the flexibility and various literary types of Hellenistic biography which continued to change and develop, Aune contends,

It is methodologically incorrect to try to link the Gospels rigidly only with that specific type of ancient biography. . . . The canonical Gospels then constitute a subtype of Hellenistic biography, one that exhibits the syncretistic insertion of a Judaeo-Christian message in a Hellenistic envelope.179

Aune concludes that the Gospels are on a par with the other forms of early Christian literature, which “reflect the complexities of the syncretistic world within which they arose.”180 I can endorse this description, but would prefer to substitute “colonial” for “syncretistic.” What we see in the evangelist’s adaptation of ancient biographical genres is a classic example of postcolonial “mimicry,” producing something that is “like and yet not like” other ancient genres.

A simple list of the possible genres of the Gospels suggested by modern scholars shows the potential for postcolonial mimicry in the Gospel of John. There is a variety of possible categories of scholarly views on the definition of the genre of the Gospels: 1) not a unique genre; 2) a unique literary type (kerygma, replacement for the Torah; an unliterary form of folk literature); 3) Hellenistic romance or popular fiction; 4) OT biographical narratives; 5) Jewish novel; 6) Greek comedy or tragedy; 7) Hellenistic biography (Bios); 8) a pool of genres and narrative devices; 9) an ancient revelatory biography.181 It is justifiable to say that scholars have been able to find partly the generic features of various ancient genres in the Gospel, but there is no exact fit with ancient genres and no consensus among scholars. This suggests that we should regard the Gospel as a hybridized text. The Gospel contains hybridized features of a variety of cultures in the Roman colonial world (e.g., the employment of variety of christological titles). The Fourth Gospel is a kind of postcolonial literature, not only as a mixture of a variety of culture and literature including mixing genres, and as a hybridized product of the multicultural society, but also as a unique writing about the life and death of Jesus. That is, there is no other text that describes the life of Jesus in more detail than the Gospels. It is important to acknowledge the uniqueness and rarity of the gospels concerning the life of Jesus.182 In this respect, therefore, I contend that in terms not only of genre but also of content, the Johannine Gospel is a product of hybridentity in a multicultural society.

In summary, the concept of hybridentity as a key concept of a postcolonial theory may be employed not only to denote the complication of the presence and absence of the colonial areas (Jewish society), but also to feature the discourse of power and resistance, of rejection and acceptance, with and against the dominance of the Imperial Roman culture.

Hybridization and Identity

One of the visions of postcolonialism is the pursuit of one world, in which all people have an equal right to benefits, material as well as cultural.183 To accomplish this postcolonial vision, to begin with, it is necessary to recognize individual, ethnic, and especially national identities, because self-identity is the starting point of the accomplishment of postcolonial visions.184 Generally speaking, postcolonialism draws and pays attention to problems of identity in relation to broader national histories and futures,185 because of this postcolonial vision.186 Therefore, it is said that we never reach one ideal world without any objective confrontation with colonial histories as well as postcolonial realities in the society.187 To reach one world by overcoming colonial histories, problems of identity should be pointed out.

In this respect, identity problems arising in the (post) colonial society must be complicated, because there exist delicate, complex, and not easily explained matters between the colonizer and the colonized.188 There must exist simultaneously “differences and opposition” and “similarity and mutual transactions” between the colonizer and the colonized. Attempts to identify individuals, groups, or a whole society in the (post) colonial environment often result in discovering in them different identities, which the colonized would never expect as their identities.

Hybridentity (= Hybrid Identity)

Hybridentity is a useful term which is employed to explain the intricate relationship between the colonizer and the colonized and ambivalent conditions in colonial societies. Most postcolonial writing, which has concerned itself with cultural exchange as a mutual process in the colonial and postcolonial societies, emphasizes the strength of the hybridized nature of postcolonial culture.

[Most postcolonial writing] lays emphasis on the survival even under the most potent oppression of the distinctive aspects of the culture of the oppressed, and shows how these become an integral part of the new formations which arise from the clash of cultures characteristic of imperialism. Finally, it emphasizes how hybridentity and the power it releases may well be seen to be the characteristic feature and contribution of the post-colonial, allowing a means of evading the replication of the binary categories of the past and developing new anti-monolithic models of cultural exchange and growth.189

Because the mutual transactions and influences generate hybridentity in both societies, the notion of in-between-ness or ambivalence in the concept of hybridentity gives some space for achievement of the postcolonial vision: globalization, one ideal world, or international welfare.

Some postcolonial critics’ works, however, tried/trended to “downplay the bitter tension and the clash between colonizer and colonized and therefore misrepresent the dynamics of anti-colonial struggle.”190 Although hybridentity, because of cultural transactions, occurred mutually in (post)colonial societies, it does not mean an equal-value-transaction among the cultures. Accordingly, when one group among culturally discrete groups has dominated the others and when this cultural domination of one group is linked with political and economic profits, it has produced huge suffering in those colonial societies; its side effects have been felt unceasingly in those colonial and postcolonial societies.

In addition, when the culture in the colonial society is manipulated by the dominant culture that influences or causes mutations in every area of the society, it breeds ambivalent and uncertain conditions, blurred cultural boundaries both inside and out, as well as an otherness within the society.191 Ultimately, the society experiences an alteration, a different society from that of its master but similar to its master’s. In the process of colonization, therefore, a problem of colonial identity arises between the colonizer and the colonized.

In many cases, the conflict and competition is generated radically and intensely in colonial resistance against the dominant culture. In these cases, the colonized society is in the negative but offensive mood, in suspense and in agitation. The hearts of the colonized are filled with emotions of oppression, exploitation, restriction, the absence of liberty, subordination, and so on. Painful experiences beyond description and negative images have been inscribed on the hearts of the colonized, no matter how tremendous the profits of colonization are. The more radical and intensive the feelings of oppression and bitterness, and the longer period of oppression they experience, the more negative emotions remain in the hearts of the colonized.

The opposite direction of influence, however, occurs spontaneously in the dominant culture.192 While the dominant culture has experience of modification of itself in some way by the influence of the colonial culture, a similar ambivalence and uncertainty, blurring of cultural boundaries and otherness are generated in that society. In many cases, this kind of transformation results in positive formations in the end, while supplementing the weakness of the dominant culture, strengthening their establishments, and increasing the wealth and benefits of the dominant society.

Diaspora

The term “diaspora,” with “hybridentity,” is effective when examining the mutual contagion and subtle intimacies between the colonizer and the colonized because of their remarkable analytic versatility and theoretical adaptability.193 Theoretically speaking, the concept of diaspora could be employed to elaborate “the notion of in-between-ness conjured up by the term hybridity.”194

Many of the colonized had to leave their original places for several reasons. In these difficult exilic situations, panic beyond imagination grew in the hearts of the diaspora. Their destinies were to be slaves or wanderers in foreign places. During their survival in foreign places, having lost their possessions the diaspora experienced on the one hand a loss of their original identities, although they attempted to keep them. On the other hand, they could not help accepting foreign influences, which caused a modification of their identities. The diasporic peoples, therefore, underwent modifications of their identities, with (no) relation to the ways in which they attempted to survive. In this kind of diasporic situation, their identities became more and more hybridized. Crucially, in this situation, the diaspora were sometimes not welcomed by either the colonizer or the colonized, like the Samaritans in Jewish society. Eventually, most of them could not return to their homeland after the emancipation of their home country from foreign power.

We can find a typical example of hybridentity and diaspora in the diasporic Hellenized Jews in the first century. One of the groups of readers of the Gospel of John might have been the diasporic Jews. In their hybridized identities, their reading of the Gospel might quite well have been different from that of the Palestine Jews. Supposing that John bore in mind not only the diasporic Jews, but also other readers whose origins were also very varied,195 it would have been acceptable for the author to adapt and employ many christological titles in order to identify Jesus as a universal king without any misunderstanding. John, with literal logic, seems to use various christological titles together, in a series, and simultaneously, in order to persuade the readers from a wide spectrum of origins.196

Postcolonial Reading of the Gospel of John

In early Christianity, the huge influence of the empire upon multiple cultures had permeated into marginal groups.197 Jewish society, which is the background of the story of the Johannine Jesus as well as the Johannine community, was no exception. From the time of the Babylonian exile, Jewish society had been a kind of hybrid society in various ways. For example, in Babylonia the diasporic Jews on the one hand made themselves comfortable and, apparently, accepted the rule of the Chaldeans and afterward of the Persians, with some degree of contentment. On the other hand, there had also been resistance movements against the foreign powers.198 For example, the relationship between Tyre and Sidon and Galilee could be an appropriate case of hybrid processing.199 In addition, more particularly, the significance of the Roman occupation of the cultivatable arc of territory in the Near East and its relation to the surrounding marginal areas underlines the possibility of the hybridizing of the culture.200 Consequently, there is no doubt that Jewish society had been a kind of hybridized society for a long time through a series of resistance movements and accommodation to foreign influence. In short, the society was already in the process of diaspora and hybridentity and had been for a long time, even though some groups within Jewish society had tried to protect themselves from foreign influences.201

In the time of the Johannine community, various groups were coexisting in society. Early Christianity, in particular, was a typical group marked by hybridentity and diaspora. For example, the description of the formation of the early Church in the book of Acts shows this feature of hybridentity and diaspora. The Johannine community would not be an exception. In this process, what was the direction of the pursuit of early Christianity, particularly that of the Johannine community? In the process of hybridentity and diaspora, their direction was neither a return to Judaism, nor submission to the Roman Empire, but the pursuit of a new world, in which Jesus reigns as the universal king. They had to pursue the new world where the various groups or individuals could live in harmony regardless of their origins. This vision of the Johannine community and that of postcolonialism reach each other at this point. In addition, the Johannine Gospel pursues not only the new world in which the various groups live together in unity and harmony, but also seeks to open larger and more extensive solidarities in the name of Jesus, the universal king. The globalization of postcolonialism reaches to the new universal world in the Fourth Gospel also at this point.

Postcolonialism and the Gospel of John

No texts were ever written in a cultural vacuum.202 That means texts should be read with an understanding of the backgrounds: when/ where/ how/ why/ by whom texts were written. However, because of the difficulty or impossibility of knowing the exact backgrounds of the text and the authorial purpose of its composition, because of the admitted value of the reader-oriented reading of the text, it is possible and valuable to read the ancient text with current reading perspectives.

1) Hybridentity: Some researchers of the possible historical situations of the Johannine Community have spoken of the conflicts between the Jews and the Johannine community and/or within the Johannine community.203 However, the Johannine community had a relation to not only the Jews in Palestine and the diaspora, but also to Samaritan and non-Jewish groups.204 In the Fourth Gospel, in fact, these various elements, which indicate the relationship of John and many other communities, seem to co-exist.205 Then, why is it that many scholars have found common places in which John and other religious groups could stand together? One of the reasons is John’s concern for the universal kingdom in which Jesus reigns as king. To describe the Johannine Jesus as the universal king whom every group could understand when they read or heard this Gospel, John borrowed, modified and used a number of terms from both Jewish and non-Jewish cultures, which included a kingship motif.

2) Mimicry: Jewish society in the first century was not only suffering under colonial power, but also pursuing it. After the failure of their attempts for independence through a long military resistance to the Roman power, it is most probable that Jewish society had gradually admitted the reality of the Roman Empire and had been in the process of hybridentity under Roman influence. Being under the foreign power for a long time, Jewish society had not been able to maintain its purity in every aspect. In particular, the process of hybridentity proceeded rapidly after the collapse of the temple of Jerusalem, which had always been an important symbol of Jewish identity.

For example, in the process of the hybridization of the Jewish society in the first century CE, a new leading group, namely the Pharisees, grasped political power after the collapse of the Jerusalem temple. They adjusted to Roman power and obtained ruling power in Jewish society. That is the reason why the Pharisees are the major opponents of Jesus in the Gospel of John.206 They worked hand in hand with the religious leaders, namely the high priests, and as members of the Sanhedrin, they yielded immense power in society. Possibly, there was friendly collaboration with the Roman authorities in order to grasp political power or maintain their position in peace under Pax Romana. Childs and Williams briefly describe this aspect:

One aspect of the contemporary imperialist dispensation is its hegemonic—rather than directly coercive—power, its ability to persuade the post-colonial world to adopt its priorities, imitate its styles, above all, perhaps, accept its inevitability.207

When we read the Gospel from this perspective, the subtle relationships among the groups of Jewish society and complexity of their power relations can be seen. The political situation of Jewish society described in the Gospel seems to indicate that the Jewish leaders ruled Jewish society with hegemonic power rather than with military suppressing power. The Jewish leaders had already accepted the Roman power as an inevitable reality (John 11:47–57). They adopted Roman priorities to maintain their power, and imitated its styles to eliminate their opponents, Jesus and his followers (18:3). The hegemonic power of the Jewish leaders functioned like an imperialist dispensation. They persuaded Jewish society to adopt the imperial priorities, which enabled them to keep their ruling positions, which included the authority to cast the Jews out of the synagogues (9:22). It is probable that the Gospel of John describes these politico-religious situations, which caused tremendous conflicts between them, to demonstrate the necessity of a solution, which could reduce or remove the conflicts. Therefore, the Johannine community might need to resist this compromising power in order to consolidate themselves and to accomplish their mission to overcome the conflicts.

3) Ambivalence: The world to which the Johannine community belonged was a hybridized one. Therefore, the Johannine literary strategy, which the author could adapt to resist the reality of the circumstances of their society, should be an effective one for the hybridized society. One effective strategy is an adaptation of multicultural elements, which are common in pluralistic societies. The adaptation of a variety of Johannine christological titles in the Gospel is a particular illustration of this. This Gospel adapted them to reflect the multicultural diversity of the Roman world, particularly in order to present Jesus as the king. The Fourth Gospel functions as a resistant literature in the hybridized society under imperial power.

While one of the best forms of resistance to this is the process of creolization itself, which combines diverse cultural elements, rather than holding up one culture as the model to be emulated by others. . . . Its cross-cultural transmission and fertilization represent the positive dynamic, processual becoming of Diversity, rather than the incorporative fixity of the being of Sameness.208

A literary strategy of resistance that combines various cultural elements into one category is mainly employed in the Gospel. In particular, in the part of the revelation of the identity of Jesus, a variety of cultural elements which indicate the kingship of Jesus exist as a complex combination, particularly the combination of Jewish and Graeco-Roman elements. It is therefore possible to describe the Gospel as a text of (post)colonialism,209 which utilizes hybridized cultures for its literary purpose. However, unlike the most obvious form of resistance in the colonial debates, namely violent resistance, the message of the Gospel rejects it. Rather, the Johannine Jesus throws himself into the colonial context to stop the violent and suppressive world, and to lead it into a new world where forgiveness, love, service, freedom and peace function as ruling apparatuses.

Since [the colonialists] do not want to give up power, “decolonization is always a violent phenomenon.” . . . In addition, violence has an effect on the colonized people both in general and as individuals. For the former, it overturns the divide and rule techniques of colonialism, and brings together regions, religious and ethnic groups in a united opposition. For the latter, violence is both cleansing and restorative; it purges feelings of inferiority and impotence, and restores self-respect.210

The Gospel of John presents a method of decolonization, but it never accepts that violence is the way to achieve it. While the Jewish leaders attempt to bring together regions and religious and ethnic groups in a united opposition so as to maintain their ruling position, the Johannine Jesus attempts neither. He does not attempt to overturn the colonial power, rather, he allows himself to be killed by its violence in order to deliver others from the violent techniques of colonialism. Moreover, the Johannine Jesus breaks down the walls between the oppositional groups to bring them into a new world where all will live in harmony without competition, struggle, and oppression. He never intends to bring together regions and religious ethnic groups in a united opposition; rather he teaches how to live a liberating life of forgiveness, service, freedom, peace and love. The Johannine Jesus combines the center and the margin into one by his life and message. In this sense, Jesus is the Universal King.

As Fanon says “Decolonization is the veritable creation of new men,”211 the Gospel of John presents a way to “the veritable creation of new men” through the life and teaching of Jesus.

Colonialism imposed its control of the social production of wealth through military conquest and subsequent political dictatorship. However, its most important area of domination was the mental universe of the colonized, the control, through culture, of how people perceived themselves and their relation to the world.212

If we read the Gospel of John as a literature of resistance against colonialism, we find that the Jewish leaders in the Gospel attempted to control society in order to keep their political and religious positions through collaboration with the imperial power. They sought to prevent Jesus’ resistance movement against colonialism in darkness. Their ambitions for power drove them to believe that the multitude, which followed Jesus, was stupid (John 7:49), and that they were the only elite group which could get rid of that kind of stupidity. Eventually, their political ambitions reached their climax when they sought to eliminate their opponent, Jesus.

The Jewish leaders in this Gospel were afraid that the world was breaking away from their political control as well as from their religious and spiritual domination because they saw the world following Jesus’ movement (John 12:19). Individuals from not only Jewish groups but also from many other groups follow Jesus. From this perspective, we may read of the Johannine Jesus as the decolonizer.213

Similarities and Differences (Mimicry): The “Collaborators”

It is not easy to determine the identity of the Jewish leaders in the Gospel of John because they are regarded as both victims of institutionalized oppression and are also allied with it.214 In Jewish society, the Jewish leaders had a mixed identity as the colonized and the colonizer. The term, “collaborator” is particularly appropriate to them. They had the discrete and pure identity neither of the colonizer nor of the colonized. Jewish society at the end of the first century CE was neither a pure nation nor did it maintain a society of a pure single race. It was colonized and had lost its identity as a single independent nation. They had to try to discover an answer to the problem of how to live with the present new empire, Rome. They were seeking a satisfactory alternative. In these circumstances, the Roman Empire emphasized her benefits to the colonized. Some of the Jews accepted the new ethics of the Empire and tried to enjoy gradually its benefits. For their own sakes, they collaborated with the Empire in the colonial society. They gained high positions and became rulers for the colonizer. As a result, they were both the colonized under the power of the Empire, and the colonizer as rulers of the colonial society.

While dominant power colonizes in the name of civilization, colonization results in de-civilization, brutal oppression and the degradation of the colonizer. Moreover, it reveals the buried instincts of the colonizer of covetousness, violence, race hatred and moral relativism.215 In the process of hybridentity, “internal” colonists can absorb these negative features. In the Gospel of John, these negative features of colonization can be found in the character of the Jewish leaders. They justify the use of violence to maintain their positions. Their covetousness drives them into de-civilization. They seek to kill Jesus without any hesitation and to justify their actions; they use their own judicial process as well as that of the Romans. Moreover, they put pressure on the Roman governor, Pilate, to sentence Jesus to death. They ask for the crucifixion of Jesus instead of releasing him. An example of their moral relativism is that they want to keep the Passover and the Sabbath according to the Law (19:31), but they are willing to commit the murder of an innocent man.216 The Jewish leaders in the Gospel act like the Romans who cruelly destroy their enemies by eliminating their opponent, Jesus. Their character is typical of collaborators who cooperate with the colonial power but who suppress the colonized in the colonial society.

Summary of the Chapter

In this chapter, I first discussed the textual features of the Gospel of John in relation to its purposes and its readership. I pointed out that as a postcolonial text the Fourth Gospel was written in a multicultural and hybridized society, and that it is highly possible that the purpose of the composition of this Gospel was for a variety of readers who were from multi cultural environments. Then, I described the two pillars of the background of the kingship of Jesus in the Johannine Gospel: Jewish traditions and Graeco-Roman traditions. Through a survey of the two major backgrounds to the Gospel, I clarified that the kingship of the Johannine Jesus is included in the use of various christological terms. The meanings of these titles could be understood by a variety of readers from varied backgrounds could understand in common when they read the Gospel. I also pointed out the importance of the combination of the two traditions in order to understand the kingship motif of Jesus in this Gospel. In the spiral of the mixture of the meaning of the christological titles from the two backgrounds, I demonstrated a common meaning of the terms, namely the kingship of Jesus. In particular, I have argued that the Gospel as a hybridized product of this multicultural society accommodates various multicultural aspects. This Gospel was written for multicultural readers in order to present the Johannine Jesus as king, to lead them to believe in him as the true king whom they would follow for eternity and to challenge them to live according to the ruling ideology of the Johannine new world. Therefore, the Johannine Gospel encourages its readers and seeks to consolidate their faith in Jesus, and challenges them to live/spread out the Johannine ideology of the new world in/to the world.

Secondly, I researched the methodology of this book, postcolonialism. Because the Johannine world was under colonial power, the identity of the Johannine Jesus as decolonizer could be newly identified in colonialism. Therefore, a very different manner of reading of the Gospel in relation to the Jewish background or in relation to the Graeco-Roman world is not necessary. I also argued that the Johannine Jesus is regarded as the solution to the conflicts among the various groups, when we read the Gospel as a postcolonial text. In order to attempt a postcolonial reading of the Gospel, particularly to identify the kingship motif in the Johannine Jesus, I surveyed 1) differences and similarities between the center and the margins (mimicry), 2) the subtle relationship between the center and the margins (ambivalence), 3) hybridentity and diaspora in postcolonialism, as major theoretical tools of postcolonialism. While I defined the Gospel as a discourse of resistance and emancipation, I pointed out the complex and subtle relationship between the center and the margins in the Gospel.

Finally, I argued that hybridentity and diaspora are in a sense unavoidable in a colonial society. Thus, it is necessary to admit that a postcolonial society is a hybridized and diasporic society. The postcolonial hope, therefore, is to make a new utopian society through mutual transactions of the center and the margin, thus overcoming institutionalized violence and suffering. The Johannine new world pursued in the Gospel is like this: entry into the new hybrid society, which overcomes institutionalized violence and sufferings means entering the new world of peace, forgiveness, service, freedom, and love. The postcolonial hope is linked to the Johannine Utopia where Jesus as the universal king reigns for all the people regardless of whether their origins were the center or the margin.

44. For more than one purpose and one potential audience, see Tanzer, “Salvation Is for the Jews,” 285–300, esp. 285–86.

45. Brown gives a clear definition of the terms, polemic, apologetic, and missionary: “The most virulent tract of one group of Christians against others usually wants to show how their position is wrong (apologetic), how they horrendously distort Jesus’ message (polemic), and how they can be brought to the truth represented by the writer of the tract (missionary)” (Brown, Introduction, 152).

46. In this Gospel, God the Father is presented as the one who sent Jesus the Son (5:23, 36, 37; 6:44, 57; 8:18; 12:49; 20:21), and Jesus as the one sent (3:34; 5:38; 6:29; 17:3), and as the one who has come into the world (5:43; 12:46; 16:28; 18:37; cf. 7:28; 8:42; see also 1:9, 11; cf. 1:5, 10; 1:15, 27, 30; 3:31; 3:2; 11:27; 7:27, 31, 41, 42; 6:14; 12:13, 15; 4:25–26). Particularly, although the term “mission” is not used in the Gospel, this motif using different terms, various forms of πέμπειν (5:37; 6:44; 7:28; 8:16, 26, 29; 12:49; 5:23; 7:33; 12:44, 45; 13:20; 15:21; 16:5; 5:24; 4:34; 5:30; 6:38, 39; 7:16; 9:4; 14:23) and ἀποστέλλειν (5:36; 20:21; 11:42; 17:3, 8, 18, 21, 23, 25; 3:17, 34; 5:38; 6:29, 57; 7:29; 8:42; 10:36), is insistently repeated in the text.

47. See Sheppard, “Gospel of John,” 2; Okure, Johannine Approach, 1–3.

48. Okure, Johannine Approach, 3.

49. Segovia, “Final Farewell of Jesus,” 178–79.

50. Nissen, “Community and Ethics,” 194–95.

51. Perkins, Love Commands, 106.

52. On the Gospel of John as a missionary document for Diaspora Jews, see Smith, Jesus in the Gospel; van Unnik, “Purpose of the Fourth Gospel,” 410; Robinson, “Destination and Purpose,” 117–31; Nicol, Semeia, 146; Moule, Birth, 136–37; Carson, “Purpose,” 639–51.

53. For example, Philip and Nicodemus are Greek names, while Simon and Nathanael are Jewish names in the Gospel of John. This employment of the Jewish and Greek names implies that this Gospel “seems best . . . to posit a mixed audience for the immediate group addressed, bearing in mind the undeniably cosmic dimensions and setting of the Gospel” (Okure, Johannine Approach, 280–81).

54. See Esler, Community and Gospel, 220. Esler sees that religious and socioeconomic positions are important to understand the identification of the community. He argues that the Gospel of Luke was written for legitimating Christianity to his audience, especially perhaps to the Roman readers among them. Esler’s argument gives a good application to understand the Johannine community as the audience or the readers of the Gospel in the multicultural societies of the Roman Empire. On this, Okure argues, “the Christians of the first century were not provincial in their outlook, movements or mentality, we have no reason to surmise that either the works or the problems addressed were restricted to the geographical area from which they originated” (Okure, Johannine Approach, 280–81).

55. On the relationship between Samaritan tradition and the Gospel, see chapter 3 of this book. Freed argues that John 4 was written to win Samaritan converts (Freed, “Did John Write His Gospel?,” 241–56). Meeks also contends that the secondary aim of the Gospel is to win Samaritan converts (Meeks, Prophet-King, 313–19; Meeks, “Galilee and Judea,” 159–69, esp. 169; Meeks, “‘Am I a Jew?’,” 163–86, esp. 178).

56. On the relationship between ideology and reality, see the section “Methods and Theories” of this chapter.

57. On this, Wind concludes, “It is therefore not improbable that the purpose of John’s Gospel is as broad as its universalistic character seems to suggest: ‘that you may believe’, that is the faith that saves and defeats the world (John iii 16 and I John v 5)” (Wind, “Destination and Purpose,” 69).

58. On the openness to Gentiles or Gentile Christians in the Gospel, see Dodd, Interpretation, 9; Hengel, Johannine Question, 123; Brown, Community, 55–58; Culpepper, Johannine School, 287–88; Wind, “Destination and Purpose,” 26–69. For example, insertions of Greek terms to clarify Aramaic phrases (1:41, 42; 4:25) show that the author considered Greek-speaking readers (Brown, Community, 57; Kysar, John, 44).

59. Polemic purposes against several groups, for example, Gnosticism, Docetists, the followers of John the Baptist, and so on, have been suggested by scholars. For good surveys on it, see Morris, Gospel, 30–34; Lindars, Gospel, 58–63.

60. See Rensberger, Johannine Faith, 87–134; Carter, John and Empire.

61. On the apologetic purpose of the Gospel of John, the defense of the faith of the Johannine community before unbelievers and/or other Christian groups, see McGrath, John’s Apologetic Christology, esp. 232; Fortna, Gospel of Signs, 224, 229–31; Nicol, Semeia, 145; Meeks, “Divine Agent,” 43–67, esp. 44; Geisler, “Johannine Apologetics,” 333–43; Brown, Introduction, 151–83; Alexander, “Acts of the Apostles,” 15–44.

62. Alexander, “Acts of the Apostles,” 17–18.

63. Fiorenza, “Miracles, Mission and Apologetics,” 2. Droge also gives a good explanation: “Apologetic in the New Testament comprises a study of the ‘act of persuasion’ employed by the early Christians. Such persuasion evolved in a context of Jewish and Hellenistic thought and laid a foundation from the second century apologists. . . . Much of early Christian literature, including the New Testament, was written to promote and defend the Christian movement. The early Christians attempted to appeal to the inhabitants and used methods of Hellenistic religious propaganda. The appropriation of such apologetic-propagandistic forms was essential if Christianity was to succeed in the face of competition from other religions” (Droge, “Apologetics,” 302–7, esp. 302).

64. See Cassidy, John’s Gospel.

65. The implicit expression of the persecution (9:22; 12:42; 16:2; cf. Domitian’s claim being “Lord and God” in John 20:28; Jesus’ death on the cross as a Roman execution; Peter’s martyrdom in 21:18–19) might show that the Johannine community had been struggling not only with the Synagogue but also with the Roman power (see chapter 3 of this book).

66. Meeks, “Man from Heaven,” 44–72; Meeks, “‘Am I a Jew?’,” 163–86; see also Fuglseth, Johannine Sectarianism; Segovia, “Love and Hatred,” 258–72; Culpepper, Johannine School, 287; Brown, Gospel, lxx–lxxv; Kysar, Fourth Evangelist, 149–65; Wind, “Destination and Purpose,” 31–32.

67. See chapter 6 of this book.

68. See Beutler, “Faith and Confession,” 19–32. The Fourth Gospel shows various examples of figures who confess Jesus as their object of faith: Nicodemus, the Samaritan woman, the man born blind, Peter, the beloved disciple, Thomas and the disciples, Mary Magdalene, and Joseph of Arimathea and the Crypto-Christians.

69. McKnight, “Reader-Response,” 239.

70. See also Burridge, “About People,” 113–45, esp. 144. On a fairly wide and rapid dissemination and circulation of the texts in the first century, see Thompson, “Holy Internet,” 49–70; Alexander, “Ancient Book,” 71–105; Bauckham, “John for Readers,” 147–71; Barton, “Can We Identify?” 173–94.

71. Nissen, “Community and Ethics,” 197.

72. On the rejection of the sectarian nature of the community, see Cullmann, Johannine Circle; Brown, Community.

73. On this, see chapter 5 of this book.

74. See Rensberger, Johannine Faith. Rensberger argues that John is a kind of liberation theologian. However, it does not mean that the Gospel of John is written only for the poor. It was also written for the rich, for example, the positive roles of Joseph and Nicodemus in the burial of Jesus (van Bruggen, Jesus). On this matter, see also chapter 6 of this book.

75. Lincoln, Gospel, 88.

76. Okure, Johannine Approach, 11–12.

77. Segovia proposes the five possible functions of the plot of the Gospel of John, which shows comprehensively the synthetic purpose of the Gospel (a very strong didactic function; a very strong polemical function; a very prominent admonitory function; a clear consolatory function; a very important exhortatory function). See Segovia, “Journey(s),” 47–49.

78. Carson, Gospel, 89; See also Beasley-Murray, John, lxxxviii–xc; Barrett, Gospel, 26; de Jonge, Jesus, 1–3.

79. Okure, Johannine Approach, 14.

80. Fiorenza, “Miracles, Mission and Apologetics,” 3; see also Alexander, “Acts of the Apostles,” 15–44, esp. 17–18, 39–40.

81. Brown, Introduction, 151–52.

82. Meeks also says that “the history of the Johannine mission and apologetics must have been far more complex” (Meeks, “Divine Agent,” 60).

83. Segovia, “Journey(s),” 47–49.

84. The witnesses for the first reading (πιστευητε; present subjunctive: “you may continue to believe”) given in NA27 include P66vid אּ* B Θ 0250. 892s. l 221 1; and for the second reading (πιστεύσητε; aorist subjunctive: “you may begin or to come to believe”), אּ2 A C D L W ψ 0100 F1.13 33, etc. (see Bruce, Gospel, 395; Metzger, Textual Commentary, 256; de Jonge, Jesus, 1–7; Okure, Johannine Approach, 9; Beutler, “Faith and Confession,” 19–20).

85. In Greek, the aorist form always expresses the perfect aspect of the verb, which describes the action as a complete event, without commenting on whether or not it is a process. Therefore, in ἵνα-clauses (purpose), aorist subjunctive means the action as a complete event in the future. It is, therefore, that πιστεύσητε can be translated as “you, who have not believed yet, may begin to believe.”

86. In Greek, the present form always expresses the imperfect aspect, which describes the action as a process. Therefore, in ἵνα-clauses (purpose), present subjunctive means the action as a process from the past. It is, therefore, that πιστεύητε can be translated as “you, who have believed, may continuously believe.”

87. Bryne, “Faith of the Beloved Disciples” 93. De Jonge also comments that the subjunctive sentence in the Johannine literature “reflects catechetical instruction within the Johannine communities rather than missionary practice” (de Jonge, Jesus, 2). See also Brown, Gospel, 1056; Schnackenburg, Gospel, 3:337–38; Fee, “On the Text,” 193–206.

88. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 256.

89. Kysar, Fourth Evangelist, 147–65; Kysar, John, 18–26.

90. Carson, Gospel, 662.

91. Lincoln, Gospel, 88. Culpepper also argues, “a distinctive group of readers . . . is in view, but it is not necessarily a homogeneous group,” through surveying all the data of five areas (persons, places, languages, Judaism, and events) to which the narrator refers (see Culpepper, Anatomy, 211–23).

92. MacRae, “Fourth Gospel,” 14–15.

93. Smith, “Johannine Christianity,” 222–48, esp. 47.

94. McGrath, John’s Apologetic Christology, 234.

95. See Horbury, Jewish Messianism.

96. Horbury, Jewish Messianism, 3.

97. For surveys of backgrounds of the Gospel of John, see Lindars, Gospel, 35–42; Barrett, Gospel, 27–41. Lindars argues that “the author derives his thought from the Jewish and Christian tradition; but it is altogether probable that he writes for Greeks, and duly takes their way of thinking into account” (Lindars, Gospel, 35). Some scholars see both possibilities of the perception of Jewish and Gentle influence on the Gospel (Casey, From Jewish Prophet, 11–14; Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 402–13; McGrath, John’s Apologetic Christology, 6–27).

98. About the relationship between the Gospel of John and the Samaritan traditions, see chapter 6 of this book.

99. For example, the influence of the Hellenistic culture on Judaism was extensive (see Engberg-Pedersen, “Introduction,” 1–16), but resistance of the Jewish people resulted in different situations in various regions and periods (Lindars, Gospel, 49; see also Barrett, Gospel, 27). Hengel argues that because of a smooth penetration of Hellenistic influences into Judaism for centuries, there was respect on both sides between Jew and Greek. However, he argues that a furious defensive reaction occurred when the Greeks tried to go too fast, make Hellenization obligatory and outlaw the Law (see Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism).

100. MacRae contends that because he and his readers were in the multicultural environment of Roman Hellenism, John “may have tried deliberately to incorporate a diversity of backgrounds into the one gospel message, precisely to emphasize the universality of Jesus, creating his own gospel “style,” and heaping up Christological titles” (MacRae, “Fourth Gospel,” 15, 17, 19). In my view, John exquisitely employed many Christological titles to reveal the universal kingship of Jesus. The titles were not “heaped up,” but arranged elaborately in the text by the author’s highly intended literary strategy. I will discuss this in chapter 3 of this book.

101. De Jonge, “Jewish Expectation,” 246–70; Fitzmyer, One Who Is to Come.

102. Strauss, Davidic Messiah, 35–57. See also Caragounis, “Kingdom of God/Kingdom of Heaven,” 418.

103. That is the reason why John describes Jesus fleeing the crowd’s attempt to make him king by force (6:15), while in other passage he affirms Jesus as the king (12:13; in the passion narrative). Moreover, the use of the phrase, “Jesus the Nazarene, the king of the Jews,” (19:19–20) on the cross written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin indicates, ironically, his universal kingship.

104. Hurtado, “Christ,” 106.

105. See chapter 3 of this book; Dodd, Interpretation, 238–39; Schneider and Brown, “σωτήρ,” 217; Koester, “Savior of the World,” 667.

106. Dodd comments that “the evangelist may even have been conscious of a certain dramatic propriety in putting it in the mouth of Samaritans, who in this gospel represent in some sort the Gentile world over against the Jews” (Dodd, Interpretation, 239).

107. See Fitzmyer, One Who Is to Come, 82–133; Horbury, Jewish Messianism; Day, King and Messiah; Collins, Scepter and the Star, 20–48; Neusner, Green, and Frerichs, Judaisms.

108. In the New Testament, Messiah bears this title “king” in close dependence on the Hebrew Bible and Jewish usage. For example, John 12:34 (the Messiah remains forever) is reminiscent of Ezek 37:25 (David my servant shall be their prince forever) and Ps 89:37 (David’s offspring shall endure forever). The remaining of the Messiah in John 12:34 is understood in terms of kingship. On the background of the Davidic Messiah, see Strauss, Davidic Messiah, 35–75; Fitzmyer, One Who Is to Come, 8–81; Schmidt, “βασιλέυς, βασιλεία,” 576).

109. Strauss, Davidic Messiah, 35. Von Rad describes the complex of religious and political ideas linked with the empirical king as forming the soil for Messianic belief and that the true point of connection or starting-point of the Messianic belief was the person of David and especially the Davidic covenant (2 Sam 7) (see von Rad, “βασιλέυς,” 566–68).

110. It is “with the collapse of the Davidic monarchy and the Babylonian exile” that “expectation for the restoration of the monarchy became a common feature—though not universal—within the more general hope for Israel’s renewal” (Strauss, Davidic Messiah, 38). On the very diversity of the development of the hope for their restoration before the Exile, see Barton, “Messiah in Old Testament Theology,” 365–79.

111. See Williamson, “Messianic Texts,” 238–70; Mason, “Messiah, 37–38.

112. Williamson emphasizes the nature of king as agent through whom God will work, which is reminiscent of the Johannine Jesus as God’s agent (see Williamson, “Messianic Texts,” 254–58).

113. See Prologue of the Gospel of John; John 8:12–59; 18:1–11, 35–37.

114. In the Qumran literature, as in rabbinic tradition, the branch, son of David, appears as a man of peace after the battle has been won (Johnson, “Davidic-Royal Motif,” 148).

115. This image as a favorite metaphor for the coming Davidic king was used by the exilic and post-exilic prophets (Strauss, Davidic Messiah, 38).

116. Klappert, “King, Kingdom,” 374. “The branch” in the Qumran literature as well as in the Hebrew Bible appears as the Messianic figure (see Collins, Scepter and the Star, 49–73; Fitzmyer, One Who Is to Come, 103–4; Johnson, “Davidic-Royal Motif,” 146–48). In 4QBt3 (4Q504), for example, God has chosen the tribe of Judah and made a covenant with David who was to be shepherd and prince of the people (see Johnson, “Davidic-Royal Motif,” 146); the Messiah of Righteousness is called the Branch of David (see Vermès, Complete Dead Sea Scrolls, 494; Allegro, “Further Messianic References,” 174–87). Particularly, in 4QSefM (4Q285) 7:1–6, which quotes Isa 10:34—11:1, the titles “scion of David” and “Prince of the congregation” indicates the same person, and “identifies ‘the shoot from the stump of Jesse,’ indirectly giving that passage of Isaiah a messianic connotation, which it did not have in preexilic times” (Fitzmyer, One Who Is to Come, 104).

117. See Mason, “Messiah,” 340–49; Toy, “King,” 157–60.

118. The concept of a fig tree (Zech 3:10) is linked to John 1:48. In that context, being called under a fig tree marked the arrival of the “Branch” (Zech 3:8), who was understood to be the Davidic Messiah foretold in the Law (Gen 49:10) and the Prophets (Jer 23:6; 33:16; Zech 3:8; 6:12–13) (Koester, Symbolism, 40).

119. In the book of Jeremiah, the concept of king stresses the political qualities of the king. That is, the function of the king in the book of Jeremiah is that of political ruler. The coming king as a branch of David in Jer 33:15–16 will rule on “the earth” with justice and righteousness, and Israel will be saved and safe under him. The king in Jeremiah also functions as a decolonizer.

120. Von Rad, “βασιλέυς,” 567, 569.

121. Lambert, “Kingship in Ancient Mesopotamia,” 69.

122. To consult recent research, see Cassidy, John’s Gospel; Koester, “Savior,” 665–80; Carter, John.

123. About “Savior” or “Savior of the World,” see chapter 3 of this book; about “My Lord and My God” see also chapter 3 of this book.

124. See Danker, Benefactor, 36–42, 202–36; Danker, “Benefactor,” 58–60; Kleinknecht, “βασιλεύς,” 565; Neyrey, “God, Benefactor and Patron,” 465–92, esp. 471–76.

125. Danker, Benefactor, 29.

126. To be exact, the divine kingship is rooted in the kingship of the Pharaoh in ancient Egypt and the kings in the Ancient Near East. For example, the Pharaoh was regarded as both a god and as the son of a god, the incarnation of god; in the Sumerian period in Mesopotamia, the king was deified and regarded as representative of the god (see Day, “Canaanite Inheritance,” 81–82; see also Rajak et al., Jewish Perspectives).

127. See chapter 1 of this book; Klappert, “King, Kingdom,” 372–73.

128. The Christian proclamation of the New Testament “Jesus is the Lord!” might be a crucial anti-language against Rome. On Christ’s challenge to the living Caesar, the polemical purpose of the term, Christ, see Fantin, “Lord of the Entire World,” 174–240. Fantin argues that “given the relational nature of κύριος and the exclusive nature of supreme lord, using the title for Christ with explicit features such as unique modifiers, creedal formulas, and praise hymns would be viewed by the original readers as challenging the default supreme lord” (Fantin, “Lord of the Entire World,” 240).

129. Johnson, “Davidic-Royal Motif,” 136–37; Tacitus, Hist. 4.81, 5.13; Dio Cassius, Hist. 65.8.1, 66.1.4; Josephus, Jewish War 3.399–404, 6.310–315; Suetonius, Vesp. 4.5. In Suetonius, Vesp. 7, the second man was lame.

130. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.12; cf, Eusebius Hist. eccl. 3.20, 1–6; Johnson, “Davidic-Royal Motif,” 150.

131. Ferguson, Backgrounds, 38; Barrett, New Testament Background, 20.

132. Josephus presents imperial connotations as examples of welcoming visiting rulers/emperors: Tiberius (J. W. 398); Vespasian (J. W. 741); Titus (J. W. 425; 752–3) (Koester, “Savior,” 665–80; Catchpole, “‘Triumphal’ Entry,” 319–34). In addition, in Israelite kingship ritual, we can find the ultimate precedents. Particularly, in 1 Kgs 1:32–40 (cf. Zech 9:9) a ceremonial entry with acclamation is described when the king-designate precedes a celebrating crowd. The king rides the royal animal and the crowd play on pipes and rejoice with great joy. This image seems to be “a more or less fixed pattern of triumphal entry” (Catchpole, “‘Triumphal’ Entry,” 319).

133. For good examples of this attempt, see Rajak et al., Jewish Perspectives; Moore, Empire and Apocalypse. Moore’s comment shows well the necessity of these backgrounds for the clarification of the Johannine Jesus’ kingship: “And whereas the principal topic of Jesus’ dialogues with ‘the Jews’ was his relationship to the God of Israel, the principal topic of his dialogue with the Roman prefect will be his relationship to that other, more proximate, god, the Roman Emperor” (Moore, Empire and Apocalypse, 55).

134. For an introductory reading on postcolonialism from non-biblical critics, see Césairé, Discourse on Colonialism; Sartre, “Preface”, 7–26; Moore-Gilbert, Postcolonial Theory; Childs and Williams, Introduction; Gandhi, Postcolonial Theory; Loomba, Colonialism; Ashcroft, Griffiths, and Tiffin, Postcolonial Studies; Ashcroft, Griffiths, and Tiffin, Empire Writes Back; Young, Postcolonialism.

For important readings on postcolonialism from non-biblical critics, see Memmi, Colonizer and the Colonized; Fanon, Wretched of the Earth; Said, Orientalism; Bhabha, Location of Culture; Spivak, Critique of Postcolonial Reason. Said, Bhabha, and Spivak are regarded as the major figures in postcolonial criticism (for a critical survey of them, see Moore-Gilbert, Postcolonial Theory, 34–151).

On critical approaches of postcolonialism in biblical studies, see Donaldson and Sugirtharajah, Postcolonialism; Sugirtharajah, Asian Biblical Hermeneutics; Sugirtharajah, Postcolonial Bible; Sugirtharajah, Bible and the Third World, 244–75; Sugirtharajah, “Postcolonial Biblical Interpretation,” 64–84; Fiorenza, Jesus and the Politics; Segovia, Interpreting Beyond Borders; Segovia, Decolonizing Biblical Studies; Samuel, “Postcolonial Reading”; Dube and Staley, John and Postcolonialism; Moore, Empire and Apocalypse.

135. Segovia, “Interpreting,” 12.

136. See Segovia, “Interpreting,” 13–14.

137. Samuel, “Postcolonial Reading,” 3.

138. See Samuel, “Postcolonial Reading,” 12–17, esp. 14.

139. On the relationship between reality and ideology in detail, see Althusser, “Ideology,” 294–304; Eagleton, Literary Theory, 169–89; Younger, Ancient Conquest Account, 47–51. Younger argues that “ideology embraces both normative and allegedly factual elements; and these elements are not necessarily distorted” (Younger, Ancient Conquest Account, 48). Hoskins also argues, “Yet distortion is by no means inherent to every definition of the term. It can be defined in a neutral way that does not necessitate distortion” (Hoskins, Jesus as the Fulfillment, 8). However, Culpepper argues, “the influence of the perspective, the culture, and the social location of the interpreter is being recognized. No text, no interpretation, is ever completely unbiased or neutral. Some interests are advocated, privileged, or defended, while others are denied or subjugated” (Culpepper, “Gospel of John,” 118). Therefore, “there is no basic or neutral literary language uncolored by perception and response” (McKnight, “Reader-Response,” 231).

140. If reality could be reconstructed through reading the text or historical research, ideology in the text could be revealed more clearly, because reality influences to key points of the formation and development of ideology. Conversely, if ideology could be read more clearly in the text level, reality could be inferred more exclusively as well through reading the text.

141. Just as the real world to which the author belongs could have an effect on the placement of ideology through creative written works of the text by the author, those of the readers as well could have an effect on the interpretation of ideology, and on the reconstruction of the real world through interpretation of ideology by the readers.

142. All the readers through all the generations might have interpreted ideologies in the Gospel of John to justify their own ideologies reflecting their real worlds, i.e., reading the Gospel in their own ideological contexts. For example, in the period of modern colonialism, the Gospel has been read as an advocate of colonialism. Ideological readings of the text produce very different interpretations.

143. Segovia, “Journey(s),” 23–54.

144. On an analysis of myself as an interpreter, see chapter 5 of this book.

145. According to Samuel, “imperialism” refers to “the authority/power of a state over another territory” and “colonialism involves consolidation of such power either by creating military and civilian settlements in such a territory or by exploiting its people and resources or by lording over its indigenous inhabitants” (Samuel, “Postcolonial Reading,” 3). He uses these terms interchangeably.

146. See Bhabha, “Of Mimicry and Man,” 33; Bhabha, Location of Culture.

147. Said, Orientalism; Said, Culture and Imperialism.

148. Childs and Williams, Introduction, 122.

149. On the hybridization of ideas, images, languages, and political and cultural practices between the center and the margins, see Alexander, Images of Empire; Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism; Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora; Horsley, Paul and Empire.

150. See Segovia, “Interpreting Beyond Borders,” 11. On the disciplinary range of postcolonial studies (the study of imperialism and colonialism; the complicated relationship between the center and margins; the study of imposition and domination as well as of opposition and resistance; the study of the different phrases or periods within imperialism and colonialism [pre, post, neo]), see also, Segovia, “Interpreting Beyond Borders,” 13–14. On the four models of postcolonial reading practiced in biblical studies, see Samuel, “Postcolonial Reading,” 23–44.

151. See chapters 5 and 6 of this book. On the recognition of the significance of postcolonial theory in the study of Roman imperialism, see Webster and Cooper, eds., Roman Imperialism; Mattingly, Dialogues; Goodman, Roman World, 100–56; Horsley, Jesus and Empire.

152. Segovia, Decolonizing Bible, 140; see also Sugirtharajah, Asian Biblical Hermeneutic, ix–x.

153. Sugirtharajah, “Postcolonial Exploration,” 93.

154. Samuel, “Postcolonial Reading,” 48.

155. Childs and Williams, Introduction, 123–24

156. See Ashcroft, Griffiths, and Tiffin, Postcolonial Studies, 12; Samuel, “Postcolonial Reading,” 50–51.

157. Samuel, “Postcolonial Reading,” 51; see also chapter 6 of this book; Thiong’o, Moving the Center.

158. Bhabha, Location, 86.

159. van Bruggen, Jesus, 36.

160. Childs and Williams, Introduction, 132.

161. Childs and Williams, Introduction, 130.

162. Childs and Williams, Introduction, 131.

163. However, Jesus is greater than Moses in the Fourth Gospel is (see John 6:32).

164. See chapter 3 of this book. In this section, I will deal with 2) and 3).

165. On the variety of the biblical methodology, see Haynes and McKenzie, To Each Its Own Meaning; Black and Dockery, Interpreting the New Testament. On attempts at a dialogue between the historical approach and the literary approach, see Barton, “Historical Criticism,” 3–15; de Boer, “Narrative Criticism,” 35–48; Motyer, “Method” 27–44.

166. Robey and Jefferson, Modern Literary Theory, 13.

167. Segovia, “Journey(s),” 23–54; Segovia, “Biblical Criticism,” 49–65. For example, Segovia remarks that there has been the development of biblical criticism as a process of “liberation” and “decolonization,” one with reference to a fundamental transformation “in theoretical orientation and reading strategy” as well as “in the ranks of the discipline” (Segovia, “Biblical Criticism,” 51–52).

168. The meaning of the text and the author’s intention are not automatically and completely the same. About “intentional fallacy,” the presupposition that one can find the meaning of the text exclusively through the intention of its author, see Barthes, “Death,” 167–72. About the “surplus meaning” of the text, that is, meaning that written texts acquire beyond the meaning intended by the author, see Ricoeur, Interpretation Theory.

169. These major forces, however, “including social discourses and social practices, are apparently not overdetermined, resulting as they do from such a complex and unpredictable network of overlapping and crisscrossing elements that no unilinear directionality is perceivable and in fact no final or efficient cause exists” (Alcoff, “Cultural Feminism,” 416).

170. Alcoff, “Cultural Feminism,” 419.

171. On the limitations of the method of reader-response criticism, which have analogies to those of postcolonial criticism, see McKnight, “Reader-Response,” 247–48.

172. On the variety of view of the genre of the Gospels, see Aune, “Gospels,” 205–06; Aune, New Testament, 17–115; Carter, John, 3–16.; Burridge, What Are the Gospels?, 26–54; Attridge, “Genre Bending,” 3–21 (Attridge focuses on diverse genres within the gospel but pays little attention to the gospel genre itself); Blomberg, “Diversity,” 272–95.

173. Aune, “Gospels,” 204–6; Carter, John, 9–10; Blomberg, “Diversity,” 275. There might be utterly no new creation from nothing in the material world. Therefore, the Gospel of John contains many features of the Jewish and the Graeco-Roman world. However, the New Testament, particularly the Fourth Gospel, came from the multicultural society, although the Gospels show formal parallels to other historical and biographical writings, materially they remain unique. For example, almost half of this Gospel (chapters 12–21) deals with the passion and resurrection of Jesus.

174. Osborne, Hermeneutical Spiral, 149.

175. See Aune, New Testament, 46–76.

176. Attridge, “Genre Bending,” 3–21.

177. Longman argues, “While it is true that the individuality of many compositions must be maintained, the similarities between the form and content of text must not be denied. That there are similarities between texts which can serve as a rationale for studying them as a group is especially true for ancient literature where literary innovations were not valued highly as they are today” (Longman, “Fictional Akkadian Royal Autobiography,” 3–4 [re-quoted from Osborne, Hermeneutical Spiral, 150]).

178. Kümmel argues that the Gospels are a new creation in terms of a literary form (Kümmel, Introduction, 37; see also Hurtado, “Gospel,” 276–82).

179. Aune, “Biography,” 81 (Italics are mine).

180. Aune, “Gospels,” 204–5.

181. Blomberg, “Diversity,” 273–77.

182. There are some different emphases and slightly different descriptions of the life of Jesus among the Gospels, because they were written for their own purposes for their own readers, and in their specific historical backgrounds. However, it is also probable that the authors of the Gospels used their contemporary literary devices, terms, genres, and so on in their compositions, but as a postcolonial text, the Gospel of John in particular was produced as a hybridized one, namely, a sort of the Christian literature, which was generated from the first century, in multicultural society. In addition, Blomberg comments, “more differences than similarities appear between the Gospels, and these various genres so that none of these identifications is widely held today” (Blomberg, “Diversity,” 274).

183. Young, Postcolonialism, 2; see also Gandhi, Postcolonial Theory, 122–40.

184. As Fanon writes, “[The consciousness of self] is not the closing door to communication. Philosophic thought teaches us, on the contrary, that it is its guarantee. National consciousness, which is not nationalism, is the only thing that will give us an international dimension” (Fanon, Wretched, 199).

185. Selden, Widdowson, and Brooker, Reader’s Guide, 226.

186. So, Ghandi says that “[p]ostcoloniality, we might say, is just another name for the globalisation of cultures and histories” (Gandhi, Postcolonial Theory, 126).

187. See Gandhi, Postcolonial Theory, 7.

188. Bhabha, Location, 1–2.

189. Ashcroft, Griffiths, and Tiffin, Postcolonial Studies Reader, 183.

190. Loomba, Colonialism, 181.

191. Young, Postcolonialism, 23.

192. The prime example of it is the spread of Christianity in the Roman Empire. As a result, Christianity became the national religion in 313 CE

193. Gandhi, Postcolonial Theory, 130.

194. Gandhi, Postcolonial Theory, 131.

195. The readers in Asia Minor, particularly in Ephesus, the traditional location for Gospel.

196. See chapter 3 of this book.

197. Van Bruggen remarks, “This dilemma is rather unproductive, however, because no clear dividing line can be drawn between Jewish and Greek culture due to the fact that there was a great deal of mutual influencing of cultures during the Hellenistic period” (van Bruggen, Jesus, 172).

198. Toy, “King,” 157. See also Horsley, Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs; Horsley, Jesus and Empire, 35–54.

199. Schmiz, “Sidon,” 17–18; Edwards, “Tyre,” 686–92.

200. Millar, Roman Near East, 16–23, 506–22.

201. See Fiensy, Social History; Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism.

202. We can admit that “a reading of the past in terms of the present, ‘contemporization,’ or ‘actualization,’ is an inevitable aspect of any translation” (Rajak, “Introduction,” 3).

203. On a new exegetical framework derived from social-scientific ideas relating to intergroup conflict and its reduction, see Esler, “Jesus and the Reduction,” 185–205.

204. See chapter 3 of this book.

205. See chapter 5 of this book.

206. Lindars, Gospel, 37; Bruce, New Testament History, 81; Ferguson, Backgrounds, 515.

207. Childs and Williams, Introduction, 48.

208. Childs and Williams, Introduction, 48.

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

210. Childs and Williams, Introduction, 54.

211. Fanon, Wretched, 28.

212. Thiong’o, Decolonialising the Mind, 16.

213. See chapter 6 of this book.

214. See chapter 5 of this book. They were victims of suppression by the Roman Empire as well as taking up a position of other new suppressors of Jewish society for the Roman Empire at the end of the first century CE.

215. Césaire argues that “colonization works to decivilise the colonizer, to brutalise him in the true sense of the word, to degrade him, to awaken him to buried instincts, to covetousness, violence, race hatred, and moral relativism” (A. Césaire, Discourse, 13).

216. See Orchard, Courting Betrayal.