and to confront and overcome persecution.11 It was Domitian (81–96 CE) who claimed the title “lord and god”12 and was responsible for a major persecution of Christians due to his profound hostility toward any form of religious unorthodoxy,13 particularly, as the traditional provenance of the Gospel of John was in Ephesus.14 The imperial cult in Domitian’s time was a strong challenge to the Christians in Ephesus, who were the first possible readers of the Gospel of John. The fact that a gigantic marble statue of Domitian in the new imperial temple in Ephesus, the center of the imperial cult in Asia Minor, was dedicated to Rome and “the divine Julius,”15 implies the existence of religious conflict for the Christians in Ephesus. It is probable, therefore, that the Fourth Gospel was, at least, written to consolidate faith in the era of persecution for the Johannine community or the Christians, who experienced both estrangement from the Synagogue and harsh persecution from Roman rule.16 If it is probable that the Gospel of John was written against these religious-political backgrounds in an era of conflict and persecution, it is quite likely that John adapted several terms, which originally indicated the Roman emperors and applied them to Jesus, as the real king to be followed throughout life.17
It is meaningful to say that just as the author and the audience or readers of this Gospel, regardless of whether they were Jewish or non-Jewish, lived in a world which was a melting-pot of cultures, the Gopsel is a multicultural melting-pot. That is, the Gospel of John was written in the context of an Empire, which had a multicultural, multilingual, multireligious, and multiethnic character.18 Therefore, we can recognize these multicultural features, which are absorbed into the Fourth Gospel. John belonged to a society “that constituted part of the ancient world, and in spite of the uniqueness of their message, still had much in common with their contemporaries.”19 It is natural that he used them in the composition of the Gospel for his readers. Thus, Hellenized readers would be able to understand this Gospel when they met the familiar terms during their reading.20 In short, the author used these terms to show Jesus’ identity so that the readers could easily recognize it by linking christological titles with imperial ones.21
In addition, several titles employed to designate the identity of Jesus as king are also closely linked to the Jewish traditions, particularly the Hebrew Bible.22 That is, among the Johannine christological titles, the Messiah, the Prophet, the Lamb of God, and the Son of Man (cf. the Son of God, the Son) are much rooted in the Jewish traditions. However, because the Gospel of John was written for Greek speaking readers including Jews and non-Jewish people, these titles were mixed into one another to reveal the identity of Jesus. The Johannine christological titles, therefore, have their own unique meanings in the Gospel, which reveal the identity of Jesus as king.
A Review of Literature
The topic of this book, the kingship as attributed to Jesus in the Gospel of John, is an attempt to read the Gospel from a postcolonial perspective. The Johannine Gospel has traditionally been approached from the perspective of Jewish traditions. Recently, new materials and perspectives, which reveal its close relation to the Graeco-Roman context, have stimulated Johannine scholars to see the Gospel in the Graeco-Roman context.23 Particularly, a gap, which research on the relation of the Johannine christological titles to those of Jewish traditions could not fill,24 seems to be more or less filled through the products of the new materials and perspectives. These two tendencies and academic research, however, have been paying little attention to the kingship motif of Jesus in John’s Gospel as one of the major themes of it.
The twentieth century saw a rapid development in the study not only of the Graeco-Roman world but also of the Hebrew Bible and Jewish traditions when investigating the texts of the New Testament. These studies have had a remarkable influence on the study of the Fourth Gospel. New perspectives have been developed and new approaches of interpretation have been suggested. Hence, no one can deny that research into the background of the New Testament is necessary when examining the kingship motif in the John’s Gospel.
Early in the twentieth century, a German scholar, Adolf Deissmann, in his book entitled Light from the Ancient East, shows how closely the world of the New Testament is connected to the Graeco-Roman world. In his book, Deissmann translates and interprets inscriptional evidence, which describes Roman emperors. Several concepts and titles ascribed to Roman emperors had developed as the result of Emperor-worship. This development was one of the major backgrounds of the formation of the Christianity. He emphasizes that the titles used for Roman emperors were adapted by Christians to magnify Jesus. He compares the titles of Roman emperors with those of Jesus to show similarity between them.25 He has opened a way of research on the King-Christology of the New Testament by presenting the similarity of titles between Roman emperors and Jesus. His broad research underlines the importance of the Graeco-Roman world for the study of the New Testament. In particular, his viewpoint throws light on the necessity of the study of Johannine Christology in association with the Imperial titles, because several titles attributed to Roman emperors are used to identify the Johannine Jesus.
A half century later, in 1967, Wayne A. Meeks published a book entitled The Prophet-King. In this book, Meeks puts his emphasis on the possible links between Mosaic traditions and Johannine Christology. He explores the kingship of “the Prophet” both in the Hebrew Bible and in Jewish traditions. He demonstrates Jesus as the Prophet, indicative of the King who was promised to come as the Prophet like Moses in the Hebrew Bible. Ten years later, in 1977, M. de Jonge in his book entitled Jesus: Stranger from Heaven and Son of God also argues for a relationship between Jewish Messianism and Jesus as the Prophet and king in the Gospel of John. According to Meeks and de Jonge, the kingship of Jesus in the Gospel of John is also in close relation to Jewish traditions.
In 1990, Craig R. Koester26 focuses on the title, “the Savior of the World,” which is confessed by the Samaritans in John 4:42, a term that was never used in Samaritan traditions. Rather, it used to be applied to Roman emperors only by the Romans. Koester argues that John used this term on purpose to reveal Jesus as the king through the lips of the Samaritans. He compares the scenes of triumphal entries into the towns of Roman emperors with those of the Samaritans’ reception of the Johannine Jesus. He suggests these two are very similar to each other.
In 1992, Richard J. Cassidy published a book entitled John’s Gospel in New Perspective. In this book, he researches three significant Imperial titles, which are employed to designate Jesus in the Gospel of John: “Savior of the World,” “Lord,” and “Lord and God.” He demonstrates how these three Imperial titles were employed in the process of the deification of Roman emperors. He comments that the intention to strengthen the position of emperors seems to lead to the deification of Roman emperors. He mentions, “so many political factors were intertwined with so many religious factors that it is extremely difficult to delineate the boundary between these two dimensions.”27 Cassidy indicates that the political and religious factors of Rome might well be a strong background for the Gospel of John.
M. É. Boismard in his book
