Abstract
This chapter constructs the ambiguous otherness of Nicodemus (Jn 3:1–5; 7:45–52; 19:38–42) as resisting binary oppositions, engaging in Judith Butler’s theory of performativity. An elusive character, Nicodemus, crosses the borderlines among the Jewish, Christian, and Roman worlds in such a way that he undermines the hierarchy of powers. In turn, Jesus is transformed into a more fluid character by laying bare his double identity between heaven and earth, between a Galilean and a Jew, and between a ruled Jew and a ruling Jew. As a result, the otherness in-between as presented by Nicodemus disrupts the starkly dualistic worldview of John’s Gospel.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
On the complex character of Nicodemus, Jaime Clark-Soles, “Characters who count: the case of Nicodemus,” in Engaging with C. H. Dodd on the Gospel of John: Sixty Years of Tradition and Interpretation ed. Tom Thatcher and Catrin Williams (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013): 126–145.
- 2.
On the ambiguity of Nicodemus, see Wayne A. Meeks, “Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism,” Journal of Biblical Literature 91, no. 1 (1972): 44–72; Jouette M. Bassler, “Mixed Signals: Nicodemus in the Fourth Gospel,” Journal of Biblical Literature 108, no. 4 (1989): 635–646; Terence L. Donaldson, “Nicodemus: A Figure of Ambiguity in a Gospel of Certainty,” Consensus 24, no. 1 (1998): 121–124; Colleen Conway, “Speaking through Ambiguity: Minor Characters in the Fourth Gospel,” Biblical Interpretation 10, no. 3 (2002): 324–341; Raimo Hakola, “The Burden of Ambiguity: Nicodemus and the Social Identity of the Johannine Christians,” New Testament Studies 55, no. 4 (2009): 438–455; Susan Hylen, Imperfect Believers: Ambiguous Characters in the Gospel of John (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009).
- 3.
To be clear, I am using “Judaism” and “Christianity” as later readers of the Gospel of John have constructed them. I am not assuming that the Johannine community would have understood itself in these terms. My concern is not to reconstruct the history of the Johannine community as it relates to its self-understanding of separation from the “Jews,” but rather to analyze the text as it stands now.
- 4.
On the recent work on the transformation of Nicodemus, see Michael R. Whitenton, Configuring Nicodemus: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Complex Characterization (London: T & T Clark, 2019).
- 5.
Bassler, “Mixed Signals: Nicodemus in the Fourth Gospel,” 646.
- 6.
J. M. Servin, “The Nicodemus Enigma: The Characterization and Function of an Ambiguous Actor of the Fourth Gospel,” in Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel: Papers of the Leuven Colloquium, 2000, ed. R. Bieringer, Didier Pollefeyt, and F. Vandecasteele-Vanneuville (Assen, The Netherlands: Royal Van Gorcum, 2001), 368–369. On the other hand, some scholars evaluate the ambiguity of Nicodemus in a negative way: “In this reading, ambiguity in the character of Nicodemus points to his refusal to commit fully to Christian discipleship.” Now, it should be remembered that it is the binary category of belief or unbelief that leads to this negative assessment of Nicodemus’ ambiguity. Cf. Hylen, Imperfect Believers: Ambiguous Characters in the Gospel of John, 24.
- 7.
See R. Alan Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983); Paul D. Duke, Irony in the Fourth Gospel (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1985); Gail R. O’Day, Revelation in the Fourth Gospel: Narrative Mode and Theological Claim (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986).
- 8.
Duke , Irony in the Fourth Gospel, 40.
- 9.
Bassler, “Mixed Signals: Nicodemus in the Fourth Gospel,” 646.
- 10.
Conway , “Speaking through Ambiguity: Minor Characters in the Fourth Gospel,” 325.
- 11.
On Nicodemus’ ambiguity and his deconstruction of John’s dualism, see Hakola, “The Burden of Ambiguity: Nicodemus and the Social Identity of the Johannine Christians,” 438–455.
- 12.
On the dramatic elements of the Gospel of John with special reference to Greek tragedy, see Clayton Raymond Bowen, “The Fourth Gospel as Dramatic Material,” Journal of Biblical Literature 49, no. 3 (1930): 292–305; Charles Milo Connick, “The Dramatic Character of the Fourth Gospel,” ibid., 67, no. 2 (1948): 159–169; William Domeris, “The Johannine Drama,” Journal of Theology for Southern Africa, no. 42 (1983): 29–35; Jo-Ann A. Brant, Dialogue and Drama: Elements of Greek Tragedy in the Fourth Gospel (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004). Some scholars argue that the Fourth Gospel can be conceived of as a drama rather than a narrative within the traditions of Greek tragedy on the ground that dramatic techniques abound in the Fourth Gospel. In this vein, Jesus and other characters in John can be treated as actors in a drama. I am of the opinion that the Fourth Gospel contains dramatic elements. Among others, Nicodemus can be constructed as a character in the dramatic setting insofar as he shows up three times throughout the Gospel. Furthermore, I look upon Nicodemus as performing his identity in flux in a dramatic way.
- 13.
On the relation between performance, performativity, and theatricality in a political dimension, see Janelle Reinelt, “The Politics of Discourse: Performativity Meets Theatricality,” SubStance 31, no. 2/3 (2002): 201–215. In my judgment, the concept of theatricality refers to a lived-experience that is not necessarily restricted to the theater. The most important point to be noted here is that such theatricality creates a perception between the actor and the audience in a dynamic manner. One can go further and argue that the audience dynamically perceives the identity performed by the actor. This being the case, the theatricality of the Fourth Gospel leads the readers as audience to engage dynamically—or more precisely, dramatically—in the identities of the characters performed by the actor.
- 14.
Cf. J. L. Austin, How to Do Things with Words, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975); Judith Butler, Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative (New York; London: Routledge, 1997). Butler’s notion of performative identity derives from the speech act theory as advocated by J. L. Austin, who holds that performative discourse, in contrast to descriptive discourse, has the ability to enact or do what it says by means of repetition. Simply put, performative language is a language that produces the reality it names. Here, Austin suggests that speech can be construed not only as what one says, but also what one does. Consider the utterance “I now pronounce you husband and wife” in the wedding ritual. This statement works out to the extent that it produces the very social conventions or norms that are cited and reiterated. In this respect, performativity is an ongoing process of repetition of social norms and ideologies. Butler defines performativity thus: “Performativity is … not a singular ‘act,’ for it is always a reiteration of a norm or set of norms, and to the extent that it acquires an act-like status in the present, it conceals or dissimulates the conventions of which it is a repetition” (Judith Butler, Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of “Sex” [New York: Routledge, 1993], 239). This study is an attempt to look at Nicodemus’ identity based on performative theory as such.
- 15.
On Nicodemus’ ambiguity and his deconstruction of John’s dualism, see Raimo Hakola, “The Burden of Ambiguity: Nicodemus and the Social Identity of the Johannine Christians,” New Testament Studies 55, no. 4 (2009): 438–455.
- 16.
Gabi Renz, “Nicodemus: An Ambiguous Disciple? A Narrative Sensitive Investigation,” in Challenging Perspectives on the Gospel of John, ed. John Lierman (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 255.
- 17.
On the construction of Nicodemus as a representative of the Jews who believe Jesus to fulfill the Torah, see John N. Suggit, “Nicodemus: The True Jew,” in Relationship between the Old and New Testament (Bloemfontein, South Africa: New Testament Society of South Africa, 1981). Overall, I am of the opinion that Nicodemus still remains a Jew, while at the same time ceaselessly leaning toward Jesus. To take a step further, I will argue that Nicodemus’ performance with regard to Jesus has the effect of making Jesus more Jewish than ever.
- 18.
On the Christian Jews, see Sarah J. Tanzer, “Salvation Is for the Jews: Secret Christian Jews in the Gospel of John,” in The Future of the Study of Religion: Proceedings of Congress 2000, ed. Slavica Jakelic and Lori Pearson (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2004), 285–300.
- 19.
Nicodemus’ performance in approaching Jesus is comparable to that of Nathanael, one of Jesus’ disciples, who proclaims Jesus to be “Rabbi” (ῥαββί), “the Son of God” (ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ), and “the King of Israel” (βασιλεὺς τοῦ Ἰσραήλ) (1:49).
- 20.
Here, the encounter between Jesus and Nicodemus is comparable to an act of searching for the light shining in darkness (John 1:5). In this vein, Nicodemus is no longer a figure of darkness, but rather a figure seeking the light shining in darkness. “Nicodemus comes out of the darkness into the light” (vv. 19–21). Brown, 130. Cf. symbol of night: light vs. darkness (vv. 19–21) as a negative description of darkness; cf. the light shining in darkness (1:5).
- 21.
Marinus de Jonge, Jesus: Stranger from Heaven and Son of God (Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1977), 30. Likewise, Jesus can be seen as a representative of the Johannine community vis-à-vis a representative of a Jewish community, Nicodemus. To illustrate, Jesus uses the first-person plural forms—(e.g., οἴδαμεν, λαλοῦμεν, ἑωράκαμεν, μαρτυροῦμεν, and ἡμῶν) in the conversation with Nicodemus (3:11). Simultaneously, Jesus employs the second-person personal forms—for example, ὑμᾶς (v. 7) and λαμβάνετε (v. 11). It follows, therefore, that Jesus retains his group identity as a representative of the Johannine community.
- 22.
Nevertheless, it should be remembered that Nicodemus, a representative of a Jewish community, but in favor of the Johannine community, takes an ambiguous stance on the Johannine community, as his secret visit to Jesus insinuates. It would be incorrect to construct the dynamics between Jesus and Nicodemus simply in a polarized manner toward Nicodemus’ identity. Rather, the point here is that Nicodemus reveals his insufficient understanding of Jesus’ understanding. First, Nicodemus confesses Jesus to be a teacher from God (v. 2). In accordance with Nicodemus’ description, Jesus truly comes from God, but he is more than simply a teacher (διδάσκαλος). Later in the conversation, Jesus emphasizes his identity as the one who both descends from heaven and ascends into heaven (v. 13). Compare Nicodemus’ perception with Nathanael’s perception of Jesus as “the Son of God” (ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ) and “the King of Israel” (βασιλεὺς τοῦ Ἰσραήλ) (John 1:49) as well as “Rabbi” (ῥαββί) equivalent to the teacher (διδάσκαλος) in Greek. First, Nicodemus partially recognizes the religious identity of Jesus, while Nathanael completely acknowledges the political as well as religious identity of Jesus. Second, even though Nicodemus observes that Jesus performs signs, it is the case that Jesus does not entrust himself to those believing in him by observing them (John 2:23–24). Third, Nicodemus is right that Jesus is with God. Yet, Jesus goes further by asserting his unity with God (John 1:1; 10:30, 38; 14:11, 20; 17:20–21). Thus, Nicodemus demonstrates his inchoate comprehension of Jesus’ identity within Jewish limits.
- 23.
The prologue stresses the fact that those who believe in the name of the Logos, enfleshed in Jesus, “are begotten from God” (ἐκ θεοῦ ἐγεννήθησαν), rather than “from blood” (ἐξ αἱμάτων), or “from the will of the flesh” (ἐκ θελήματος σαρκὸς), or “from the will of man” (ἐκ θελήματος ἀνδρὸς) (John 1:12–13). This implies that God, the heavenly Father, begets his children from above. As will be argued in Chap. 5, the Johannine theology also implies that Jesus plays a role in bearing God’s children through his death.
- 24.
It is controversial to whom the possessive “his” (αὐτοῦ) refers, whether the believer or Jesus. In light of Johannine theology, Jesus is more fitting to the context, because of the reference to living water for eternal life (John 4:14).
- 25.
Raymond Edward Brown, The Gospel According to John, 2 vols., The Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966), 1:323.
- 26.
Suggit , “Nicodemus: The True Jew,” 96.
- 27.
Warren Carter, John and Empire: Initial Explorations (New York: T & T Clark, 2008), 191–193.
- 28.
Ibid., 184. However, John’s Gospel frequently presents Jesus as “the Son of Man” in conjunction with the Greek verb ὕψουν in the sense that he is yet to be lifted up on the cross and to be exalted to the place where he comes from (John 3:14; 8:28; 12:38).
- 29.
Jacques Derrida and Alan Bass, Margins of Philosophy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978), 195; Stephen D. Moore, “Deconstructive Criticism: Turning Mark inside-Out,” in Mark & Method, ed. Janice Capel Anderson and Stephen D. Moore (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2008), 99. This analysis bears the influence of Jacques Derrida’s deconstructive project of challenging a binary way of thinking in Western philosophy—which is said to lie at the foundation of hierarchical dualism, suppressing the weaker of two terms—by showing that the boundary between binary oppositions is not clear-cut but porous and fuzzy. However, the deconstructive move seeks not merely to invert a hierarchical binary relationship, but rather to imagine an alternative, non-hierarchical, and, moreover, non-oppositional thinking on the grounds that the boundary per se involves an artificial construction.
- 30.
Seth Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society, 200 B.C.E to 640 C.E, Jews, Christians, and Muslims from the Ancient to the Modern World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002), 64.
- 31.
Ibid., 74.
- 32.
Francis J. Moloney, The Gospel of John (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998), 255.
- 33.
Severino Pancaro, “Metamorphosis of a Legal Principle in the Fourth Gospel: A Closer Look at Jn 7:51,” Biblica 53, no. 3 (1972): 340–361. Pancaro points out that, to his knowledge, there is no allusion to the phrase “finding out what they are doing” in the OT or Rabbinic literature. In regards to this phrase, he undertakes a Christological interpretation.
- 34.
Moloney, The Gospel of John, 255.
- 35.
Fernando F. Segovia, “Biblical Criticism and Postcolonial Studies,” in The Postcolonial Bible, ed. R. S. Sugirtharajah (London: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 61.
- 36.
As a result, Nicodemus deconstructs the stark dichotomy of center and periphery as represented by the Jewish leaders (well-acquainted with the law) and the crowd (ignorant of the law). Above all, the ambiguous character Nicodemus undercuts the dichotomy of center and periphery by his transgression of the social boundaries. From a social perspective, Nicodemus crosses the social boundaries between “a teacher of high rank within Judaism” and “one who, from a pharisaic perspective, is an uncredentialed, unlearned, would-be rabbi from Galilee (John 7:15, 45–52).” On this, see Winsome Munro, “The Pharisee and the Samaritan in John: Polar or Parallel?,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 57, no. 4 (1995): 710–728, esp., 714.
- 37.
Shaye J. D. Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999), 61.
- 38.
Catherine M. Bell, “Performance,” in Critical Terms for Religious Studies, ed. Mark C. Taylor (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998), 208–209. Here the question arises about the feature of performance in general: is it oppressive or subversive on earth? The answer would be yes and no. Repetition in performance could be both oppressive and subversive. In other words, performance is concerned with both a static status to maintain a preexisting system of social relations and a dynamic process of social change. My interest in this study leans toward this second feature of performance. Here, the emphasis is not on how human agency sustains the status quo by way of performance, but rather on how it endlessly creates and reproduces social structure. Thus, I stress that individual agents engage social systems in the dynamic mode of restructuring structured structure.
- 39.
On parody as a subversive performance, see Judith Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (New York: Routledge, 1990); Christina K. Hutchins, “Uncoming Becomings,” in Bodily Citations: Religion and Judith Butler, ed. Ellen T. Armour and Susan M. St. Ville (New York: Columbia University Press, 2006), 120–156. Judith Butler emphasizes the subversive nature of parody as a strategy of resistance against the hegemony of social structure. The individual agent, particularly in the realm of micropolitics rather than macropolitics, may manipulate and undermine social conventions through parody. Butler, however, insists on the significance of the specific context of parody in determining its meaning.
- 40.
Rachel Hachlili, Jewish Funerary Customs, Practices, and Rites in the Second Temple Period, Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2005), 479–483.
- 41.
Ibid., 480.
- 42.
On this interpretation, see Meeks, “Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism,” 55; Dennis D. Sylva, “Nicodemus and His Spices (John 19:39),” New Testament Studies 34, no. 1 (1988): 148–151; Duke, Irony in the Fourth Gospel, 110. Contra this, see Gail R. O’Day, “New Birth as a New People: Spirituality and Community in the Fourth Gospel,” Word & World 8, no. 1 (1988): 53–61. Interestingly enough, O’Day suggests: “The power of Jesus’ offer of new life, made available in the cross, will not be silenced by resistance, doubt, and fear. The epilogue to the Nicodemus story aptly demonstrates this (19: 39–42). At Jesus’ death, even doubting and resistant Nicodemus is empowered to act in faith. Nicodemus assists in the preparation of Jesus’ body for burial, anointing him with spices, binding the body, and laying Jesus’ body in the tomb. Jesus’ death opens Nicodemus to the possibility of new life. Grace and newness of life are made available even to those who try to say no. God’s possibilities will triumph and work transformation” (60).
- 43.
On this, see Raymond Edward Brown, The Gospel According to John, 1st ed., The Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966), 960; F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1983), 379.
- 44.
On the subversive nature of reiteration with a difference, see James W. Perkinson, “A Canaanitic Word in the Logos of Christ; or the Difference the Syro-Phoenician Woman Makes to Jesus,” Semeia, no. 75 (1996): 61–85, esp., 63–65.
- 45.
My argument is that Nicodemus’ subversive performativity targets mainly the Roman Empire, not Judaism. It should be remembered that his actions are grounded in his “fear of the Jews.” In response to Jesus’ crucifixion, Nicodemus has the boldness to ask publicly for his body, even with his fear of the Jews in mind. His action, therefore, is not to be understood as anti-Jewish, but anti-colonial.
- 46.
Butler, Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative, 11.
- 47.
E. Patrick Johnson, “Queer Theory,” in The Cambridge Companion to Performance Studies, ed. Tracy C. Davis (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 166.
- 48.
On this, see Munro, “The Pharisee and the Samaritan in John: Polar or Parallel?”
- 49.
Cf. Adele Reinhartz, “The Colonizer as Colonized,” in John and Postcolonialism: Travel, Space and Power, ed. Musa W. Dube and Jeffrey Lloyd Staley (London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 169–192.
- 50.
On identity trouble and its subversive character, see Timothy Kandler Beal, “Identity and Subversion in Esther” (PhD diss., Emory University, 1995), 89.
- 51.
Butler , Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative, 14. According to Butler, parodic performativity through the process of resignification contains the gap between the meaning at the beginning and the meaning at the end. This state of unfixedness and unfixableness creates indeterminacy of meaning in such a way that parody may become both colonial and anti-colonial at the same time, which, in turn, threatens the colonizers, by causing ambiguity. In Homi Bhabha’s view, hybridity can be seen as a liminal or in-between space in which cultural identity becomes all the more fluid in the diasporic context.
- 52.
Fernando F. Segovia, “Two Places and No Place on Which to Stand,” in Mestizo Christianity: Theology from the Latino Perspective, ed. Arturo J. Bañuelas (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1995), 26–40.
- 53.
Fernando F. Segovia, “Toward a Hermeneutics of the Diaspora: A Hermeneutics of Otherness and Engagement,” in Reading from This Place, Vol 1, ed. Fernando F. Segovia and Mary Ann Tolbert (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 66.
- 54.
On hybridity, cf. Homi K. Bhabha, The Location of Culture (London; New York: Routledge, 2004). Homi Bhabha defines hybridity as the “third space, though unrepresentable in itself, which constitutes the discursive conditions of enunciation that ensure that the meaning and symbols of culture have no primordial unity or fixity” (55).
- 55.
Cf. Fernando F. Segovia, “The Journey(s) of the Word of God: A Reading of the Plot of the Fourth Gospel,” Semeia 53 (1991): 23–54.
- 56.
Fernando F. Segovia, “The Gospel of John,” in A Postcolonial Commentary on the New Testament Writings, ed. Fernando F. Segovia and R.S. Sugirtharajah (London: T & T Clark, 2007), 174.
- 57.
On this, see Karl Olav Sandnes, “Whence and Whither: A Narrative Perspective on the Birth Anōthen (John 3:3–8),” Biblica 86, no. 2 (2005): 153–173, esp., 164. Interestingly enough, Sandnes points out the “above-below” pattern of Christology in relation to the identity of Jesus. Concurring with him, I believe that the hybrid identity of Jesus results in the Christology of the “above-below” pattern. More importantly, Jesus’ hybrid identity ironically reveals how ambiguous and blurry “the most sharply dualistic above/below theme” is in the Fourth Gospel. Cf. Meeks, “Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism,” 55.
- 58.
Robert Kysar, “The Meaning of Metaphor: Another Reading of John 3:1–15,” in What Is John?, ed. Fernando F. Segovia (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1996), 21–41.
- 59.
Ibid., 25.
- 60.
William C. Grese, “‘Unless One Is Born Again’: The Use of a Heavenly Journey in John 3,” Journal of Biblical Literature 107, no. 4 (1988): 677–693, esp., 691. William Grese also maintains that the Greek phrase γεννηθῆναι ἄνωθεν means both “born again” and “born from above.” The reason for this is that in a superficial level it means “born again,” while in a deeper level it means “born from above.” Even though I am of Grese’s opinion that there is a double meaning of the phrase, I can find a flaw in his argument. Instead, I believe that the double meaning derives from Jesus himself with the hybrid identity.
- 61.
According to Kysar, the ambiguity of “being born anōthen ” generates another ambiguity in the phrase “the kingdom of God” which could refer to the power of God, an ideal society, and a political transformation. An anōthen birth has to do with the experience of God’s dominion.
- 62.
Kysar, “The Meaning of Metaphor: Another Reading of John 3:1–15,” 26–27.
- 63.
Edwyn Clement Hoskyns and Francis Noel Davey, The Fourth Gospel, 2nd ed. (London: Faber and Faber, 1947), 215.
- 64.
Kysar, “The Meaning of Metaphor: Another Reading of John 3:1–15,” 28.
- 65.
Grese, “‘Unless One Is Born Again’: The Use of a Heavenly Journey in John 3,” 688–689. Also see Don Williford, “John 3:1–15−Gennêthênai Anôthen: A Radical Departure, a New Beginning,” Review & Expositor 96, no. 3 (1999): 451–461, esp., 458.
- 66.
Wayne Meeks, “Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism,” 47.
- 67.
On the relationship between Jesus and the Law, see Severino Pancaro, The Law in the Fourth Gospel: The Torah and the Gospel, Moses and Jesus, Judaism and Christianity According to John, Supplements to Novum Testamentum (Leiden: Brill, 1975).
- 68.
Cf. Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties, 69–106. Here, it is noteworthy to remark that the semantics of Jewishness is quite malleable and flexible. My contention is that the Greek term Ioudaios contains a broad spectrum of meaning: a Judean Jew, a Galilean Jew, and a diasporic Jew. As Cohen argues, Ioudaios signifies a Judean in racial/ethnic and geopolitical terms and a Jew in religious and cultural terms. However, I would go further to claim that the meaning of Ioudaios as a Judean may be overlapped with that of Ioudaios as a Jew; the latter is more fluid and flexible than the former. It is assumed that racial/ethnic and geopolitical Judean identity can be interlocked with religious and cultural Jewish identity. If this is the case, there is a good reason for Jesus to be presented not merely as a Galilean but also as a Jew.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lim, S.U. (2021). Reading the Otherness In-Between. In: Otherness and Identity in the Gospel of John. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60286-4_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60286-4_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-60285-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-60286-4
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)