target="_blank" rel="nofollow" href="#ulink_6f8bc4a1-43bb-5e21-979e-e93e894e83a6">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).
