55). In addition, Cassidy focuses on the final form of the Gospel, which was copied and circulated within the early Christian Community in the Roman Empire (See Cassidy, John’s Gospel, 1–5). However, it is hard to deny “Christian churches were . . . the primary intended readers of the Gospels. It is within the realms of possibility that any given Evangelist envisaged a broader readership, but these readers would have been very close to his own community in both geographical and theological terms” (Sim, “Gospels,” 27).
7. It is important to recognize that the Johannine community, i.e., the readers, lived under the Roman ruling power, which was harsh to the margins (see Rensberger, Johannine Faith, 15–36; Carter, John, 170–71). About the exercise of Roman power on the margins through a hierarchical social structure and economic, military, social, ideological, rhetorical, and judicial means, see Cassidy, John’s Gospel, 6–26; Cassidy, Christians and Roman Rule, 37–50; Carter, Matthew and Empire, 9–53; Lincoln, Gospel, 88–89; Lincoln, Truth on Trial, 265–307.
8. About the view of the imperial cult and Christian persecutions, see Price, Rituals and Power; Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution; Charlesworth, “Some Observations,” 26–42. Three emperors, Gaius, Nero, and Domitian, had been especially attracted to these practices (Cassidy, Christians and Roman Rule, 13).
9. It came from Augustus and his successors who were acclaimed as supra human (Cassidy, Christians and Roman Rule, 12). On the practice of emperor worship as a legitimate ancient religion and political phenomenon, see Price, Rituals and Power; Price, “Rituals and Power,” 47–71; Fantin, “Lord of the Entire World,” 70–134. Price says that “the imperial cult, along with politics and diplomacy, constructed the reality of the Roman empire” (Price, Rituals and Power, 248), while indicating most scholars’ “overemphasis” on the political dimension of the imperial cult, and providing detailed analyses of the rituals, sacrifices, and images of the cult in Asia Minor.
10. Smallwood says about the Jewish tax as a categorizing criterion of self-confessed Jews and proselytes: “The record of attempts made during Domitian’s reign to conceal one’s circumcision by the surgical operation of epispasm or by other means (Celsus, De Medic. vii. 25, suggesting that the operation was well known at the time of publication [before c. 90; the work is mentioned by Quintilian xii, 11, 24]) will concern apostates, who it is reasonable to suppose wanted to escape the tax as well as to pass as gentiles socially” (Smallwood, Jews, 376). This description shows one fragmentary example of the complex responses of the margins toward the center. It is likely that whether to survive, to keep one’s position, or to conceal one’s national identity for property, in the first century, there were various, complex relations among the groups under Roman rule. In addition, the remark below shows clearly a variety of Jewish attitudes to the Romans: “The Herodian rulers and their party were naturally pro-Roman. The High priests also generally favored cooperation, as did the Sadducees. The Essenes withdrew to the desert, while the Zealots worked for armed rebellion. The Pharisees saw as their first loyalty absolute adherence to the Mosaic Law and traditions. They refused to take an oath of loyalty to Herod (Josephus Ant. 17.42); some actively resisted Roman rule, but others were more acquiescent. The common people must have simply scraped a living in a society where there was great inequality between rich and poor and much scope for oppression” (Edwards, “Rome,” 713). It might be no exception for first-century Christians. In giving a thought of this complex historical background, it is quite probable that the Gospel of John was written to the first century readers in the Imperial world.
11. About the account of Roman persecution in the Gospel of John, see John 16:2 (a warning of persecution), more strikingly the passion narrative (death on the cross as a way of Roman execution), and 21:18–19 (Peter’s martyrdom).
12. Dominus et deus noster (Suetonius Domitian 13.2); domini deique nostril (Martial, Epigram 5.8.1; 8.2.6); deus praesens (Cuss, Imperial Cult, 139). Domitian appears to have persuaded himself that he was “Deus et dominus,” and ordered his courtiers and poets to greet him as such (Suetonius, Domitian, 4.4, 13.2; Dio Cassius, 68.7). In particular, “[i]t was under Domitian that the practices of taking an oath by the Emperor’s genius, of offering libation and incense before his statue, and addressing him as Dominus grew up” (Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution, 213). On Domitian having recognition as divine, see Martial, Epigram 8.21; Statius, Silvae 1.1 (cf. Jones, “Christianity,” 1033).
13. On abuses of imperial religion and Domitianic persecution, see Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution, 210–17, esp. 212–13; Sordi, Christians, 43–53; Fox, Pagans and Christians, 433; Wright, New Testament, 355–56; Jones, “Christianity,” 1033–35; Moore and McCormick, “Domitian (Part i),” 74–101; Moore and McCormick, “Domitian (Part ii),” 121–45.
Roloff upholds the systematic promotion of imperial cults throughout the empire during the reign of Domitian (Roloff, Revelation of John, 9–10). Boring argues that there was an increase in imperial cults under Domitian, which came from above as well as from the populace that led to this development (Boring, Revelation, 21). However, this view is disputable between scholars in the discipline of New Testament studies (not usually working with the archaeological artifacts) and those in Roman studies (not usually analyzing early Christian literature) because of their different research area (see Friesen, Imperial Cults, 3; Smallwood, Jews, 372–74, 376–85). Scholars in Roman studies argue that Nero and Domitian were no more offensive than others were. Particularly, Fantin says that the negative portrayal of Domitian seems to be exaggerated, and that there is little evidence for a major persecution under Domitian (Fantin, “Lord of the Entire World,” 123, 185; see also Smallwood, “Domitian’s Attitude,” 1–2, 7–9; Collins, Crisis and Catharsis, 69–73; Thompson, Book of Revelation, 104–7; Friesen, Imperial Cults, 147–51). Collins says that the evidence for the persecution of Christians as Christians under Domitian is rather slight in non-Christian texts. Smallwood also argues that the early Christian tradition about Domitian as the second persecutor is by its probable apologetic function doubtful.
In spite of their exaggeration about Domitian, it is reasonable that Domitianic persecution was laid to Domitian’s charge. On this, Frend argues with evidence from different sources that “when one discounts the senatorial prejudices of Tacitus and Suetonius, the Emperor stands out as a shrewd but jealous-minded ruler, a strong upholder of public right and the state religion, whose prejudices and fears for his own safety increased with age” (Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution, 213–14). In addition, according to Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 3.33.2), there were partial attacks in various provinces, although there was no open persecution. Because relations between the Jews and the majority of educated Romans went from bad to worse, the Christians regarded as Jews were not an exception (Smallwood, Jews, 381). In a letter written to the Corinthians by Clement of Rome (ca. 96) (I Clement 1:1, The sudden and successive misfortunes and accidents; 59:4ff, Rescue those of our number in distress . . . release our captives), Domitianic persecution is alluded to (see Jones, “Christianity,” 1033–34). Although he had not persecuted indiscriminately as Nero did, Domitian singled out individual Christians. Domitianic persecution was “a succession of short, sharp, assaults—a series of sudden and repeated misfortunes” as Clement wrote (see Barnard, “Clement of Rome,” 251–60). In addition, the Jewish tax (“didrachmon tax”) increased due to financial stringency might have become a heavy burden in psychological, religious, and economic terms as well (Domitian enforced stringent measures for its collection), and when in natural disasters the Christians were treated harshly by the Romans, they felt that they were under persecution. Moreover, under Domitian for the first time people in public documents began to swear by the genius of the living emperor. This shows that the time of Domitian rule was difficult for
