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,”
