ТОП просматриваемых книг сайта:
The Kingship of Jesus in the Gospel of John. Sehyun Kim
Читать онлайн.Название The Kingship of Jesus in the Gospel of John
Год выпуска 0
isbn 9781498241762
Автор произведения Sehyun Kim
Жанр Религия: прочее
Издательство Ingram
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 the Christians. Collins says, “The practice of the ruler cult by those who wished to flatter Domitian seems to have been the occasion for John to call for intensified exclusiveness over against the surrounding Greco-Roman culture” (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