(Collins, Crisis and Catharsis, 77). It cannot be denied, therefore, that under Domitian, who was called a living god on earth (see Moore and McCormick, “Domitian (Part i),” 74–101), and for whose divine worship temples were already being built during his lifetime, that many Christians suffered martyrdom, and that anti-language, symbolism, and apocalyptic mood were intensified.
14. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.1.1; Irenaeus, Haer. 3.1.2. There is no other location, except Ephesus, which the church Fathers supported as the provenance of the Gospel of John (see Carson, Gospel, 86–7). Harris sets out as evidence a higher rate of literacy than other Greek cities of the Roman Empire on the basis of observation of the massive production of catalogued inscriptions by the Ephesians (Ancient Literacy, 274). In addition, van Tilborg illustrates “how John’s text . . . could have been read in first century Ephesus” (Tilborg, Reading, 3). On other possible provenances, Alexandria, Antioch, or Jerusalem, see Barrett, Gospel, 128–31; Brown, Gospel, ciii–civ; Cribbs, “Reassessment,” 38–55; Johnson, “Early Christianity,” 1–17; Carter, John and Empire; Tilborg, Reading.
15. Jones, “Christianity,” 1034; Caird, Commentary on the Revelation, 29; Koester, History, Culture, and Religion, 1:316.
16. On the purpose(s) of the composition of the Gospel of John, see chapter 2 of this book.
17. About various forms of the title used for Roman rulers, see Deissmann, Light; Koester, “Savior,” 667.
18. See Carter, John, 188–93.
19. Edwards, “Hellenism,” 316–17. Because John lived in an era of persecution, he was “very aware of the Roman world and of the challenge that Jesus presents to it. It is part of the complex, multicultural world in which they lived and to which they attempt to address the good news” (Carter, John, 193).
20. Terms and concepts, e.g., logos, life, light, truth, rebirth, descending and ascending savior, dying and rising deity, mystic knowledge of God, sacramental communion, new life, and immortality through partaking of the flesh and blood of a deity in the Gospel of John, were familiar to the readers in the Hellenistic world. See Gunther, “Alexandrian Gospel,” 583–84; Carter, John, 190; Barrett, Gospel, 101; Dodd, Interpretation, 8–9. In addition, on similarities between Philo and the Gospel of John (the concepts of Logos, a heavenly man, and the symbols of light, water, and shepherd), see Dodd, Interpretation, 54–73; Gunther, “Alexandrian Gospel,” 584–88.
21. Cassidy emphasizes this point in terms of John. He argues, “[I]n depicting Jesus’ identity and mission within his Gospel, the evangelist John was concerned to present elements and themes that were especially significant for Christian readers facing Roman imperial claims and for any who faced Roman persecution.” He also argues that John “consciously chose to include and even to emphasize particular elements and themes” to depict the identity and mission of the Johannine Jesus (Cassidy, John’s Gospel, 1, 28). In addition, Carter, in his attempt at an anti-imperial reading in the Gospel of Matthew, emphasizes a similar concept about “that of historical context of the Gospel (to use conventional language),” namely, “the audience’s knowledge or experience that the Gospel text assumes,” or “authorial audience.” He sees “this authorial audience playing an active part in interpreting the text” (See Carter, Matthew and Empire, 3–6).
22. On the use of the Hebrew Bible (Graphe) in the Gospel of John, see Beutler, “Use of ‘Scripture’,” 147–62; Freed, Old Testament Quotations; Hanson, Prophetic Gospel; Brown, Introduction, 132–38. On the relationship with other backgrounds, see chapter 2 of this book.
23. Cassidy, John’s Gospel, 1–2.
24. Mainly, the Gospel of John presents Jesus as king using the prevailing Roman titles such as “Lord,” “Savior of the world,” and “Lord and God,” while Jewish titles such as “Son of Man,” “King of Israel (the Jews),” “Messiah,” definitely are used to identify Jesus as king. In addition, the expression, “friend of Caesar” in John 19:12, shows that the Gospel is related to the Roman key terms that appeal the kingship of the Johannine Jesus.
25. Deissmann, Light, 346.
26. Koester, “Savior,” 665–80.
27. Cassidy, John’s Gospel, 11.
28. See Brent, Imperial Cult; Koester, History, Culture, and Religion, 366–73; Carter, Matthew and Empire; Carter, Roman Empire; Novak, Christianity; Cassidy, Christians and Roman Rule; Aune, “Roman Emperors,” 233–35; Edwards, “Hellenism,” 312–17; Edwards, “Rome,” 710–15; Reasoner, “Emperor,” 321–26.
29. Danker, Benefactor; Danker, “Benefactor,” 58–60.
30. On the relationship between the kingship motif of the Johannine Jesus and the good man in the Gospel of John, see Kim, “Jesus as ‘Good Man’.”
31. Manning, Echoes of a Prophet; Johnson, “Shepherd, Sheep,” 751–54; Keener, “Shepherd, Flock,” 1090–03.
32. Beutler and Fortna, Shepherd Discourse of John 10.
33. Rensberger, Johannine Faith, 90.
34. Rensberger, Johannine Faith, 110.
35. Dube and Stanley, John and Postcolonialism.
36. This book shows “how the Johannine text was used to justify the invasion of others’ land, and how the same text can be read for decolonization and emancipation” (Sugirtharajah, “Postcolonial Biblical Interpretation,” 71).
37. Dube, “Reading for Decolonization,” 51–75.
38. Dube, “Savior of the World,” 118–35.
39. Dube, “Savior of the World,” 132.
40. Horsley, Jesus and Empire, 14.
41.
