the Great,126 and was revived in the cult of the Roman emperor. In the time of Augustus (63 BCE–14 CE), the concept of the incarnation of divinity in the emperor took over this idea.127 The Johannine proclamation of Jesus as the incarnate form of God could be the cause of a crucial ideological confrontation with the Roman authorities and be the cause of the persecution of Christians in the period of the Early Church (Prologue; 10:30; 14:8–16:33).128
Thirdly, the stories of Vespasian’s miracles,129 the healing of a blind man and of a man with a withered hand, are reminiscent of the miraculous healings of the Johannine Jesus. In particular, the healing of a blind man by Vespasian is directly paralleled with the healing of the man born blind by Jesus in John 9:1–12. The healing of the blind man with his saliva is similar to that of the man born blind in John 9:6.
In addition, according to Eusebius, both Vespasian and Domitian ordered the hunting down of all who claimed to be a descendent of David.130 It is also possible that Domitian insisted on the title dominus et deus (“lord and god”), which is reminiscent of the confession of Thomas about Jesus, “my Lord and my God!” (John 20:28).131 If it is accepted that the Gospel of John was written during the period of persecution, the readers could read Johannine stories of miracles as a kind of resistance document against Imperialism. In addition, the Samaritans’ coming to welcome Jesus into their village (John 4:40), and the triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem and the rapturous welcome of the crowd (John 12:12–14) are reminiscent of the triumphal returns of the generals or the kings into the towns of the Graeco-Roman world.132 In short, as I have briefly pointed out concerning the relationship between the Graeco-Roman background and the Gospel of John, the kingship of the Johannine Jesus can be clarified more when giving due consideration to this Gospel in the wider context of the Graeco-Roman world.
The Necessity of the Combination of the Two
Nobody denies that the two main pillars of the background of the Gospel of John are the Jewish and the Graeco-Roman worlds. Consequently, reading the Fourth Gospel with knowledge of these two backgrounds throws a new light on interpretation.133 In order to combine the knowledge from research into these backgrounds, I attempt to discover the common meanings of the terms employed to designate the kingship of the Johannine Jesus.
A reading of this Gospel in the context of Jewish culture could provide an understanding of the text as a microscopic view of Jewish society. The historical subtle and complex relationships of various groups in Jewish society may be seen, namely the conflict between the Jews and the Christians, particularly that of the Jews and the Johannine community, the estrangement between them, and the necessity of a description of the identity of Jesus and their faith, and so on. However, this kind of reading without consideration of the Roman Empire restricts the view of the macroscopic perspectives to be found in the Gospel. In other words, when we consider the macro world relations into the reading of the Fourht Gospel, we could conclude that there were more subtle and complex relationships existing in the Johannine world. In the colonial situation, conflicts between the center and the margins, conflicts among marginal groups and the conflicts caused by the collaborators in the marginal society can be discovered in the Gospel. When we admit that the Johannine world was under colonial power, the identity of the Johannine Jesus can be newly identified in postcolonialism. Therefore, our reading does not imply a totally different manner of reading of the Gospel in relation to the Jewish background or in relation to the Graeco-Roman world. Because the Johannine group/readers and Jewish society were already in the Graeco-Roman world and because the Gospel was a product of the colonial world, we should read this Gospel with the combination of the main two backgrounds of a hybridized society.
Therefore, understanding the postcolonial perspective and its application in the reading of the Gospel is very useful. It is helpful in identifying individuals or groups from the perspective of colonial and postcolonial relations. In particular, the identity and function of the Johannine Jesus can be newly interpreted. The Johannine community, the Jews and the Jewish leaders can also be reinterpreted.
It also helps us to see the subtle relationships among the groups. In the light of power struggles, we can see the suffering and hope of the marginal groups and their pursuit of the ideal destiny by overcoming their oppressors. A reading of the Johnnine Gospel from a postcolonial perspective can throw new light on its interpretation. When we read the Gospel as a postcolonial text, in the conflicts between Jesus and the Jewish leaders, between the Johannine community and the Jews, between the Jewish leaders and Pilate who was the representative of the Roman Empire, and so on, Jesus is regarded as the solution to these conflicts. In this book, I shall offer a reading of the Gospel of John from a postcolonial perspective, particularly identifying the kingship in its portrait of Jesus.
Methods and Theories
In order to read the Gospel of John from a postcolonial perspective and to identify the Johannine Jesus as the universal king, I will now deal with methods and theories of this book with priority given to postcolonialism.134
To begin with, it is necessary to define the word “postcolonial.” The adjective, postcolonial, is defined as the frame of mind “that problematizes the imperial/colonial phenomenon as a whole, and in so doing, attains a sense of conscientization which pursues independence from imperialism.”135 Therefore, a postcolonial focus encompasses not only the discourses of imposition and domination but also the anti-discourses of opposition and resistance.136 In addition, Samuel defines postcolonial literature and discourse, referring to it as:
the literature and discourse that springs from a colonized population during or after the colonial experience, that critically scrutinizes and engages the colonial contacts and perceptions of power. Generally, it is a complex, ambivalent and incongruous discourse that accommodates and disrupts the colonialist perceptions and perspectives of domination.137
In terms of definitions, it is plausible to say that there is postcoloniality in the Gospel of John. The Fourth Gospel as a product of the Roman colonial world clearly presents a way of resistance and decolonization to its first century readers, who were mostly colonized and marginalized by the center, using the imperial language as well as that of the fringes. In this way, the Johannine Gospel is a kind of postcolonial text.
In this section, I will explore postcolonial theory as long as it is relevant to my book. First, I will deal with the relationship between ideological criticism and postcolonialism; with the relationship between postcolonial agenda in comparison with colonial imperialism; with the relationship between postcolonialism and literary criticism; and lastly, with the major concepts in a postcolonial approach: hybridentity and diaspora.
Ideological Criticism as a Basis for Postcolonialism
Postcolonialism has plural theoretical roots from Marxism, the pioneer of modern critical theory, to Post-structuralism in terms of critical theories. Particularly, “poststructuralist concepts of the political nature of the language of race, gender, and class have had profound effects on postcolonial writers preoccupied with subject-identity and oppositional discourses.”138 In addition, it is likely that in the broader category of critical theories, postcolonialism could belong to both a kind of reader-response and ideological criticism. Hence, through the diffusion of these roots, a plurality of application in postcolonial studies is possible. In this sub-section,