The Anarthrous ui(o\j qeou= in Mark 15,39 and the Roman Imperial Cult

 

Introduction

In recent studies of the Gospel of Mark the centurion’s confession in 15,39 has become a topic of active discussion as a key to the understanding of Markan christology. The common line of interpretation seems to follow the earlier work of V. Taylor that Mark intended the centurion’s confession as a parallel to the same ephitet in the incipit (1,1) that confesses the deity of Jesus in the full Christian sense ¹. R. H. Gundry has suggested that the identification of Jesus as Christ and Son of God in 1,1 and 15,39 transformed the crucifixion from the shameful death of a common criminal into the awe-inspiring death of a divine being who is God’s appointed agent ². Mark 15,39, therefore, came to be viewed as the consummation of the development of Markan christology. J. D. Kingsbury has argued that the centurion’s acclamation is pivotal because it constitutes the first open confession of Jesus as the Son of God on the part of a human being in Mark ³. This line of interpretation that understands the confession as Christian is based on the reading of the anarthrous ui(o\j qeou= as definite, according to E. C. Colwell’s study of the Greek article ⁴.

        Recently, some have raised questions regarding the meaning of the anarthrous ui(o\j qeou= and the great emphasis placed on 15,39 as the kernel of Markan christology. Earl S. Johnson has argued that though Colwell’s rule does provide substantial supporting evidence, there are enough exceptions to the rule to leave the question open to debate ⁵. If Johnson were correct, it weakens the

 

_______________________
222

effectiveness of the statement as a confession of faith. Johnson has also pointed out that a nameless Roman soldier of a centurion’s rank, otherwise unknown in the Gospel, is an unlikely vehicle for a statement of faith so profound in Markan christology and Christianity as a whole. Johnson argues that it is unlikely Mark’s readers would find it believable that a professional soldier would risk his career in order to worship a crucified man, because it would be inconsistent with the image of a Roman centurion that Markan readers probably had ⁶.

        Although it is difficult to ascribe the whole of Markan christology to only two verses, I argue that 1,1 and 15,39 are quintessential statements of Mark’s christology that must have challenged Markan readers to reconsider who the real "Son of God" was to them. As Johnson argues, it is unlikely that a centurion would confess that a crucified Jew was "Son of God," but the terminology of the confession seems to agree with his supposed cultural and religious background as a Roman soldier. The purpose of the present study is to show that the anarthrous ui(o\j qeou= in Mark 15,39 is a title thoroughly consistent with the background of the Roman imperial cult and, in particular, that of Augustus. Inquiring into the absence of the definite article, therefore, appears to be of minimal significance. The meaning of the anarthrous phrase ui(o\j qeou= in the Gospel of Mark has to be assessed in the context of the Gospel and its christology in its entirety, and the supposed cultural background of the Roman empire. Although not limited to the issues raised by Johnson, several aspects of his study will be taken into account.

 

The question of the anarthrous ui(o\j qeou=

        Some have argued that ui(o\j qeou= should be understood as "a son of god" meaning the centurion saw Jesus as a demigod⁷. E.C. Colwell has suggested that the definite predicative nominative does not have the article when it precedes the verb ⁸. His rule seems to have persuaded most scholars to read the anarthrous ui(o\j qeou= as definite, "the Son of God," and this is the view most modern English versions follow. However, Johnson has argued that "a re-

 

_______________________
223

examination of Colwell’s rule and a consideration of the general reputation which a Roman soldier of a centurion’s rank may have had among Mark’s readers all demand a reconsideration of this widely accepted interpretation of Mark 15,39" ⁹. He goes on to argue that it is not likely that Mark’s readers understood the centurion’s remark christologically, given the grammatical evidence and the image they had of a Roman centurion, which was undoubtedly negative. It is my opinion, however, that Mark’s readers could immediately see the significance of the centurion’s confession. The confession was thoroughly consistent with the supposed cultural and religious background of a Roman centurion, because the titular epithet ui(o\j qeou= appears to echo diction widely known in the Roman imperial cult. Augustus was known from the beginning of his political career as divi filus, ‘son of god’, which in Greek was written as 'ui(o\j qeou=' or 'qeou= ui(oj' without the definite article. It seems plausible that the anarthrous ui(o\j qeou= in Mark 15,39 echoes this very title because of the absence of the definite article and the fact that the remark was ascribed to a Roman centurion. While the intention of the Roman centurion is still difficult to ascertain, the circumstances and diction in which his remark is presented in Mark appear to be consistent with features of the Roman imperial cult.

 

The difficulty of ascertaining the meaning of ui(o\j qeou=

        The recurring difficulty in interpreting the centurion’s confession seems to arise from approaching the anarthrous ui(o\j qeou= from a Christian messianic perspective. The Christian messianic expectation speaks of one Messiah who is the Son of the one and only God, and thus any designation which refers to the messiah has to be definite, for the messiah is an unique being. This innate necessity for definiteness in the messianic title requires ui(o\j qeou= to be definite if it is to have any validity as a messianic title from a Christian perspective. The problem is that the grammatical and textual background does not seem to warrant ascribing a definite sense to the anarthrous ui(o\j qeou=. In the case of Mark 15,39 the confessional status was superimposed with little regard to its controversial grammatical features, let alone to the question of its historical authenticity. Johnson’s arguments, therefore, penetrate into the issue of the historical

 

_______________________
224

authenticity of the centurion’s confession, because not only does he deny its validity as a full Christian confession but also because he questions the necessity of having such a confession at the conclusion of the Gospel. Johnson argues that, "a Roman soldier of a centurion’s rank and experience would be too sophisticated and would have been exposed to too many gods to make that kind of quick judgment at an execution, and Mark’s readers would have known it"¹⁰.

        Although Johnson’s argument on the cultural and historical background of the Roman centurions in general appears to be thorough, how each individual centurion would have reacted to Jesus’ crucifixion cannot be generalized by what the Roman centurions as a group would have done. The Gospels and Acts list a few Roman centurions who were receptive to the Gospel and the Jewish faith (Matt 8,10; Luke 7,9) and even one who himself became a Christian (Acts 10,1-48). Further, the image of a Roman centurion that Mark’s readers were likely to have should not compromise its claim to historical authenticity, because it is improbable that Mark would invent a saying that he knew none of his readers would find believable. It is also possible that the miracles and signs that occurred at the moment of Jesus’ death convinced the generally superstitious Romans and prompted the centurion to acknowledge Jesus’ divinity.

        It also seems highly unlikely that the definite article in 15,39 is lost due to authorial negligence or scribal error. Other Markan references to "the Son of God" (1,11; 3,11; God’s "My Son" and "the Son of the Blessed" 1,11; 5,7; 9,7; 14,62) all have the definite article except 1,1¹¹. The context of the confession would have been clearer had the Roman centurion spoken in Latin instead of Greek and the Gospel had preserved the original Latin. If this was the case, the association of the confession with the Roman imperial cult, or the lack thereof, would have been obvious, because the Latin ephitet divi filius would immediately direct one’s attention to the Roman imperial cult. Latin, of course, does not have a the definite article.

 

_______________________
225

However, this is not to say that the centurion was not fluent in Greek and thus omitted the definite article due to Latinizing influence, because there is a reasonable possibility that the confession was made originally in Greek. Although by law only Roman citizens could serve in the legions, shortage of manpower in Italy made it necessary for the legions to recruit locally. There were ever increasing numbers of non-Roman citizens enrolling in the legions with the promise of Roman citizenship at the end of their service. Among others, the eastern legions stationed in Asia Minor and Syria were almost entirely composed of Greek-speaking locals ¹², and these were the legions responsible for the defense and administration of Judea at the time of Jesus. So there appears to be a fair chance that the Roman centurion in Mark 15,39 was not a Latin-speaking Roman national but a Greek-speaking native and thus made the confession in Greek. It seems plausible, therefore, that the absence of the definite article in Mark 15,39 was deliberate and not accidental on the part of either the centurion himself or the Markan author.

 

Divi filius (or qeou= ui(o\j) in the context of the Roman imperial cult

        The relationship between some of the literary features in Mark and the languages of the Roman imperial cult has been investigated by a number of scholars, and some have argued that the anarthrous ui(o\j qeou= in Mark 15,39 refers to the emperor. P. Bligh has argued that at the scene of the crucifixion the centurion gave the final verdict concerning Jesus in the words of the imperial title: ‘This man, not Caesar, is the Son of God!’¹³. In my opinion, however, the evidence seems to suggest that the title ‘son of god (ui(o\j qeou=)' was unique to Augustus, a title with which no other emperor, with the possible exception of Tiberius, could be associated, and thus it cannot be loosely applied to the Roman emperors in general as the object of state cult. Any Roman emperor could claim to be a god of some sort and was hailed by his subject as one, especially in the Eastern provinces; but the name ‘son of god’ was reserved only for Augustus because it was a personal name, not a mere title, that he assumed when he succeeded his deified father Julius Caesar.

 

_______________________
226

        It is widely known that the Romans deified and worshipped their emperor and took religious oaths to swear their allegiance to the emperor. It has to be noted, however, that at the time of Augustus and Tiberius the Romans did not readily associate the name of their emperor with the state religion. Their focus of worship was the Genius of the emperor, which was divine to begin with, not the person of the emperor. The Romans did not have a tradition of having a god-king as the head of their state, whereas it was customary in the East and Egypt where an ancient and strong tradition of absolute monarchy prevailed¹⁴. Although Augustus was hailed as the divine-king pharaoh in Egypt after he had defeated the Antony-Cleopatra coalition, no such honor for him could be produced in Rome and he knew it well. Knowing that the Romans were not accustomed to dictatorship (divine kingship as it was in the East) and the consequence that had been brought upon his uncle, in Rome Augustus strenuously refused to accept any autocratic and/or divine honor associated with dictatorship. He styled himself as the defender and restorer of the Republic, hence the name princeps. In the words of L.R. Taylor, "the princeps senatus was also princeps civitatis; the title expressed admirably the position of Octavian as the foremost citizen for whose welfare magistrates and priests offered sacrifice"¹⁵. However, this is not to say that Augustus was sincerely interested in the restoration of the Republic. He appears to have planned to create a monarchy that was modeled after the god-king monarchy in the East, notwithstanding that it would not be realized in his lifetime. Having no son of his own, he carefully prepared his grandchildren as his heirs to the Principate only to see them die young, which resulted in his adopting Tiberius as his son and heir at the last moment¹⁶. But Augustus also did not prevent

 

_______________________
227

deification and worship of himself and/or his Genius in the provinces, for it was customary in the East to honor its ruler as god-king. A majority of inscriptions that praise Augustus and his successors as gods are in fact Greek documents produced in or attributed to the Hellenistic East. Augustus himself also appears to have been looking forward to achieving divine honor after his death¹⁷. As time passed the Roman public was gradually imbued with the tradition of ruler-deification — Gaius Caligula is usually credited with the promiscuous introduction of Eastern culture and religion to Rome, something which was never appreciated under his rule—and it eventually became customary for the Romans to hail their emperor as divine. What concerns this study is that the way people understood and looked at their emperor must have differed between the reign of Tiberius, when Jesus’ ministry and crucifixion occurred, and the reign of Vespasian, when the Gospel of Mark went into circulation. Although it is a difficult question to answer, it seems reasonable for the purpose of this study to assume that the ephitet divi filius was more closely associated with the person of Augustus during the reign of Tiberius while it was associated with his divinity, Divus Augustus, during the reign of Vespasian. The intended readers of the Gospel of Mark, therefore, fall into the latter period, and it should be safe to assume that most of the intended Markan readers were familiar with the custom and terminology of the Roman imperial cult in full force and saw Augustus as a god rather than a political figure.

        Gaius Julius Caesar, the founder of the Julian dynasty, is thought to have initiated, though posthumously, the custom of imperial deification. He was given the title of demigod in state worship during his lifetime and was officially deified posthumously by a senatorial decree on 1 January 42 BCE that conferred on him the name of Divus Iulius¹⁸. Some argue that Caesar received the divine honor

 

_______________________
228

before his death, because Cicero in the second Philippic, which was probably written around October of 44 BCE, calls Antony "the priest (flamen) to divine Julius (divo Iulio)" referring to a decree made before Caesar’s death¹⁹. Others have associated the first use of the title with the games which Octavian gave in honor of Caesar in July of 44²⁰. In either case it seems obvious that Gaius Julius Caesar was deified shortly after his death and this provided Octavian (later known as Augustus) the ground to claim that he was "son of god", being the heir and adopted son of the divine Julius. Divine epithets given to Gaius Julius call him "savior," "benefactor," and "god," but it is remarkable that neither qeou= ui(o\j nor divi filius can be found among them. On one occasion, Gaius Julius was praised as be to\n a)po\   1Arewj kai\    )Afpodei/th\j qeo\n e)pifanh\j kai\ koino\n tou= a)nqrwi/nou bi/ou swth/r (SIG 760) = "the manifest god from Mars and Aphrodite, and universal savior of human life." It is interesting that Gaius Julius was never called "son of god" even though he claimed that his family descended from Venus²¹. Since his father Gaius Caesar was never deified, perhaps he could not have had the title even if he had wanted it. The complete absence of the epithet divi filius which was later made so popular by his adopted son-nephew is remarkable nonetheless, because it strongly implies that the title was not present in the tradition of the Roman state cult prior to the time of Augustus.

        Gaius Julius Octavianus Caesar (Octavian) who succeeded Gaius Julius as his heir quickly started to sign his name Caesar divi filius, which means "Caesar son of god." It came to be so closely associated with Octavian that it became part of his name rather than a title. In the competition for supremacy against the more experienced and better financed Mark Antony the greatest weapon Octavian had was the memory of Gaius Julius whose great deeds still captivated the people of Rome, and he had every reason to emphasize his filial relationship with Gaius Julius. He was still a young man of nineteen when he learned of his uncle’s assassination and had held no significant public office or military post partly due to his youth and partly to his weak health. Mark Antony, on the other hand, was a famous general and a long-time

 

_______________________
229

associate of Gaius Julius and was consul with him in 44 BCE when Gaius Julius was murdered. After the Ides of March, according to Cicero, Mark Antony was said to have stolen the papers of Gaius Julius and produced fraudulent handwriting of Caesar to give orders of his own²². He also claimed to be Gaius Julius’ de facto heir, being senior member of Caesar’s staff. It is not surprising, therefore, that Octavian was quick to seize upon the name and reputation of Gaius Julius by styling himself as Caesar’s legitimate son — adopted or not — and the rightful heir²³. Octavian started using the name in 41 BCE when he was first recorded, as a member of Triumviri Rei Publicae Constituendae, Imp. Caesar Divi f.²⁴. Therefore, name very early in his political career Octavian started call himself the heir of Gaius Julius. The significance of the title is evident, because thereafter Octavian was called Caesar divi f. in every inscription and legend, long before and even after he was given the honorable name of Augustus by the Senate. It is also probable that the motivation for his adopting the title as part of his name was more political than religious, even though in ancient times offices of religion and politics were intertwined. If this was the case, it would be safe to assume that the name divi filius was not a pre-existing element of the Roman state cult but was an invention of Augustus due to the special political and religious circumstances under which he was placed.

 

 

_______________________
230

        The significance of the name divi filius is well-attested in a vast number of inscriptions and legends of Augustus that bear the name even well into the common era and after his death²⁵. The following

 

_______________________
231

is a collection of inscriptions and legends that contain the name and office of Augustus. The basic form of the Latin inscriptions attributed to Augustus is as follows: IMP CAESAR DIVI F AVGVSTVS (ILS 113; CIL XI 0367; 21 CE). This was the standard form of the name and title of Augustus but it varied slightly to accommodate his other titles and office that the occasion called for. The following is one of the longer examples: IMP CAESARI DIVI F AVGVSTO PONTIFIC MAXIMO PATRI PATRIAE AVG XV VIR S F VII VIR EPVLON COS XIII IMP XVII TRIBVNIC POTEST XXX (ILS 107; 7-8 CE). The name of the person is Caesar divi f(ilius) Augustus (Octavian) and his titles and office as shown here are imperator, pontifex maximus (‘chief priest’), pater patriae (‘father of the state’)²⁶,

 

 

_______________________
232

augur, consul and tribunicia potestas²⁷. The word Augustus is not a title or office but a name, meaning ‘worthy of praise/honor,’ but it became customary for later emperors to call themselves Augustus. It is remarkable that the other name of Octavian, divi filius, does not appear to have the same range of application. It is to the exclusivity of this title divi filius (or qeou= ui(o\j) that I wish to direct our attention. Greek incriptions and legends of Augustus also have a similar structure, but the honors attributed to him appear to be more Hellenistic in nature than Roman. For instance, Augustus is mentioned in a letter of Tiberius as: … qeou= Kai/s [ a ] | roj qeou= ui(ou= Sebastou= Swth=roj )Eleuqepi/ou … (SEG XI 922-3)²⁸ = "god Caesar son of god, Augustus, savior of freedom." Most other Greek references to Augustus seem to be in the same style. Augustus was widely referred to as: h( kai/saroj kra/thsij qeou= ui(ou) (PRyl 601; PSI 1150) = "The mastery of Caesar son of god"; kai=sar qeou= ui(o\j Au)tokra/twr (PTeb 382) = "Caesar son of god, Emperor"; Kai/saroj au)tokra/twr qeou= ui(o\j Zeu\j e)leuqe/rioj (POslo 26; SB 8824) = "Emperor Caesar son of god, Zeus the liberator, Augustus"; Au)tokra/twr Kai=sar Sebastoj swth\r kai\ eu)erge/thj (SB 8897) = "Emperor Caesar Augustus, savior and benefactor."

        The next emperor was Tiberius, about whom opinions vary among people. He was a good general and administrator and did his best to keep the rules and policies laid down by his great predecessor. He pursued a policy of maintaining the status quo of Augustan rule and mindfully avoided changing anything that Augustus had established. But his personality did not have the graciousness and tact in dealing with people that Augustus had possessed in so supreme a degree, and, according to Suetonius, Augustus often tried to defend Tiberius before the Senate and people by saying that his signs of arrogance were natural failings and not intentional²⁹. Without the presence of Augustus to mitigate the relation between Tiberius and the Senate, however, Tiberius gradually came to despise the incompetence and hesitancy of the Senate, and the Senate his odd habits and the lack of social aptitude which was seen by the populace

 

_______________________
233

as austerity and arrogance. For his contemporaries his retirement to Capreae was only a cowardly desertion of his post ³⁰. Although Gaius Germanicus (better known as Caligula), who succeeded Tiberius, asked for divine honors on his behalf, the Senate was unable to grant it due to its incompetence and dislike of Tiberius ³¹. Therefore, divine ephitets attributed to Tiberius were small in number compared to those of Augustus, and his titles seem to be concerned more with politics than religion. Unlike many other Roman emperors, he does not officially claim to be a new god or a descendant of one. Inscriptions and legends attributed to Tiberius are also very similar in form to those of Augustus. The following are some notable examples: TI CAESARI DIVI AVGVSTI F AVGVSTO PONTIF MAXIMO COS V TRIB POTEST XXXIIII (ILS 159; 9 CE) = "Tiberius Caesar Augustus, son of Augustus, chief priest"; … tou= au)tokra/toroj Tiberi/ou Sebastou= ui(ou= Sebastou= (Ilium; IGRR IV 206)³² = "of the Emperor Tiberius Augustus, son of Augustus"; [Tibe/rw Kai/saroj] Seba/stw pai=da (From Lesbos; IG XII 2540) = "[Tiberius Caesar] child of Augustus"; [Tibe/rioj Kai=sar qeou= Seb]astou= ui(o\[j S]ebasto\j a)rxiereu\j (Decree on Imperial cult and letter of Tiberius, Gytheion (Laconia); SEG XI 922-3) = "[Tiberius Caesar, god, Au]gustus, so[n of A]ugustus, chief priest"; Tibe/rioj Kai=sar Sebasto\j qeou= ui(o\j au)tokra/twr (SB 8317) = "Emperor Tiberius Caesar Augustus, son of god"; Tibe/rioj Kai=sar ne/oj Sebasto\j au)tokratwr qeou= Dio\j e)leuqeri/ou (POxy 240) = "Emperor Tiberius Caesar, new Augustus, son of Zeus the liberator." It is evident that Tiberius emphasizes his relationship with Augustus by asserting that he is the "son of Augustus" or a "new Augustus." This appears to have been a necessary measure for consolidating his power, considering that the influence of Augustus was so supreme even during the reign of Tiberius. However, it is remarkable that he does not openly call himself divi filius or qeou= ui(o\j³³. Tiberius did not

 

_______________________
234

appear to have officially used the title for himself and the evidence available seems to support the view ³⁴. Therefore, it appears safe to assume that Tiberius did not officially use the title for himself or did so very rarely.

        The titles and divine honors of other emperors up to Vespasian will be treated briefly. The inscriptions listed here are all in Greek so that they may clarify the connection between divi filius and qeou= ui(o\j. What is noteworthy about the titles of other emperors is that none of the following emperors officially claimed to be called divi filius (or qeou= ui(o\j). Although they lavished upon themselves the utmost praise and honor possible, none of the emperors officially

 

_______________________
235

used the name divi filius (or qeou= ui(o\j) and this seems to support the view that divi filius (or qeou= ui(o\j) was not a title that could be applied to Roman emperors in general.

        Gaius Caligula (37-41 CE): ne/wi qew=i (IGR IV 1094) = "new god"; 1Arhoj ui(o/n (CIA III 444a) = "son of Ares"; Sebastou= ui(o\n ne/on 1Arh (CIA III 444) = "son of Augustus, a new Ares" ³⁵.

        Claudius (41-54 CE): Tibe/rioj Klau/dioj ku/rioj (SB 4331) = "Tiberius Claudius lord"; Tibe/rioj Klau/dioj Kai=sar Sebasto\j au)tokra/twr o( ku/rioj (GOA 1038) = "Emperor Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus, the lord"; qeo\j Klau/dioj (PSI 1235; POxy 713) = "Claudius god"; qeo\j Kai=roj (POxy 808; POxy 1021) = "Caesar god"; qeo\j Sebasto/j (PMich 244) = "Augustus god"; o( ku/rioj (OPetr 209) = "The lord."

        Nero (54-58 CE): Ne/rwn o( ku/rioj (PLond 1215; POxy 246; GOA 1038) = "Nero the lord"; Ne/rwn Kai=sar o( ku/rioj (OPetr 288; POxy 246) = "Nero Caesar the lord"; Ne/rwn Klau/dioj Kai=sar... o( swth\r kai\ eu)erge/thj th=j oi(koume/nhj (OGIS 668) = "Nero Claudius Caesar… the savior and benefactor of the inhabited world"; )Agaqo\j Dai/mwn th=j oi)koume/nhj a)rxh\ w1n te pa/ntwn a)gaqw=n (POxy 1021) = "The good god of the inhabited world, the beginning of all good things"; to\n uio\n tou= megi/stou qew=n (IM 157b) = "the son of the greatest of the gods"; o( tou= panto\j ko/smou ku/rioj Ne/rwn (SIG 814) = "Nero Lord of the whole world."

        Vespasian (69-79 CE): Ou)espasiano\j o( ku/rioj (POxy 1439; SB 1927) = "Vespasian the lord"; Ou)espasiano\j au)tokra/twr o( ku/rioj (GOA 439; SC 3563) = "Emperor Vespasian, the lord"; qeo\j Ou)espasiano\j (POxy 257; POxy 1112) = "Vespasian god".

        Considering the philological and archaeological evidence presented, therefore, it seems plausible that the name divi filius (or qeou= u(io\j was unique to Augustus and was probably not used by any other emperor beside himself ³⁶. Johnson has argued that

 

_______________________
236

Augustus was hesitant about being called a god or a son of God during his lifetime ³⁷, but the evidence presented seems to indicate

 

_______________________
237

that Augustus was eager to promulgate his title divi filius (or qeou= u(io\j from early on in his political career. Having said that, the relationship between the anarthrous u(io\j qeou= in Mark 15,39 and the title of Augustus becomes interesting, because now we cannot dismiss the anarthrous u(io\j qeou= as a grammatical mistake or a mundane praise for Roman emperors in general. Augustus was the greatest emperor (and/or head of state) the Romans ever had. As he himself mentions with pride in his Res Gestae ³⁸, he put an end to the disorder and civil war and created a great empire in which people could live in peace and prosper, the likes of which they had not known, spanning most of the known world in this period.

        Though Gaius Julius had created the foundation upon which Augustus built his empire, its making was entirely due to his own years of unrelenting labor. It was not mere flattery when people called Augustus savior, lord, god, benefactor, etc. To the minds of ordinary people he was every bit what they called and praised ³⁹. If this anarthrous Greek phrase u(io\j qeou= in Mark 15,39 was in any way related to the title of Augustus divi filius (or qeou= u(io\j), then the absence of the definite article would not have mattered to any Markan reader who was contemporary to the Roman imperial cult because anyone would have found it obvious to whom this Greek

 

_______________________
238

phrase u(io\j qeou= refers. It would also invoke special attention in any Markan reader, because the title was reserved for Augustus only: the greatest emperor who ever lived and now was a god.

        The challenge Mark poses to the Roman imperial cult, therefore, becomes conspicuous through the centurion’s confession. Mark’s use of diction not only echoes that of the Roman imperial cult but also it challenges the most revered figure of the cult — the emperor Augustus himself. C. Evans has suggested that the features and terminology used in both the incipit and the centurion’s confession echo the language particular to the Roman imperial cult ⁴⁰. His argument has merit considering the verbal similarity between those two passages. The unique feature in both verses seems to be the absence of the definite article, because the other title of Jesus in the incipit, Xristou=, does not have the definite article either (cf. 9,41). Gundry has argued that its double anarthrousness stresses the quality of Jesus’ divine sonship ⁴¹. Therefore, Mark’s use of anarthrous u(io\j qeou= to express Jesus’ divine sonship at the very beginning and near the end of the Gospel seems to suggest strongly that both occurrences should be taken in the same light as Christian and confessional.

 

Markan treatment of the title "Son of God"

        Investigating how the title "Son of God" is used in the Gospel of Mark will surely go beyond the scope of this study. Here it will

 

_______________________
239

suffice to show briefly that Mark uses the title with consistency throughout the Gospel to express Jesus’ divine sonship. There is little doubt that Mark took the anarthrous u(io\j qeou= in 15,39 as definite because the rest of the Gospel clearly and uniformly proclaims the title in the definite sense with the proper article. There is also no doubt that the early church and readers of Mark believed Jesus to be the Son of God and Savior and thus took the centurion’s confession as definite. The centurion’s confession that Jesus was "son of God" does not make him a Christian or convert, for mere recognition of Jesus’ divine sonship does not necessarily entail conversion. After all, demons and unclean spirits have done the same without converting (3,11; 5,7; cf. 1,24) ⁴². It is also impossible to determine what the centurion might have seen at the time of Jesus’ death and how it affected him physically and psychologically.

        Throughout the Gospel the readers of Mark have been repeatedly informed of the connection between the title "the Son of God" and Jesus well before the climactic conclusion in 15,39. In my opinion, therefore, the absence of the definite article in the centurion’s confession could not have had as great an impact on the Markan readers as Johnson implies. P. Davis has argued that the intended Markan readers probably read the centurion’s confession in the light of other references in Mark rather than searching out other anarthrous nouns which precede the verb to see if the anarthrous u(io\j qeou= really is definite ⁴³. It is also inappropriate to generalize how a centurion as an individual would have reacted to the death of Jesus in terms of how Roman centurions as a group would have. To anyone who has read the Gospel of Mark leading up to the crucifixion there would have been little doubt to whom the anarthrous title refers and what the title means.

 

 

Conclusion

        A study on the anarthrous u(io\j qeou= in the centurion’s confession suggests an interesting parallel with the language of the Roman imperial cult. The epithet u(io\j qeou= in Mark 15,39 can be related

 

_______________________
240

to the Latin name divi filius (or qeou= u(io\j in Greek) which Augustus used to promulgate his filial relationship to Gaius Julius Caesar, which was vital to establish his authority as the son and the legitimate heir of Gaius Julius. In the light of background information concerning how the name divi filius (or qeou= u(io\j was used in the context of the Roman imperial cult it seems reasonable to assume that the similarity in diction and the circumstances under which the confession was made are more than mere coincidence or grammatical error on the part of the Markan author. The background information available about the diction employed in the incipit of the Gospel of Mark seems to suggest that the usage of the phrase that echoes the language of the Roman imperial cult in both 1,1 and 15,39 was deliberate and the phrase u(io\j qeou= must have challenged the intended Markan readers who were probably familiar with the practices of the state cult.

        Imagining what assumptions Mark’s readers were likely to have had about a Roman centurion is a moot point that cannot settle the question why this centurion reacted the way he did. Speculating about the course of action of one individual centurion on the basis of generalized data about Roman centurions as a whole does not appear to be a sound method. It also seems improbable that Mark would fabricate a saying as important as the confession in Mark 15,39 and yet credit it to a figure so insignificant and unlikely as a nameless Roman centurion. I agree with Johnson, however, that studying the cultural disposition of New Testament readers toward key characters in the Gospel stories might help us to understand the assumptions behind them in new and fresh ways.

        Considering the possible connection between the anarthrous u(io\j qeou= and divi filius (or qeou= u(io\j), the name of Augustus, the centurion’s confession comes across as a statement even more daring than it did previously. As Evans has argued, to those who read the Gospel of Mark in the late 60’s CE, when the Roman empire seemed to have reached its nadir shortly after Nero’s death, Mark’s use of the title u(io\j qeou= must have had a great impact upon them, because not only did the name echo the language of Roman emperor worship but it also directly challenged the most revered figure of the cult — the emperor Augustus himself — in contrast to the dismal reality at the time. It is probable that the centurion did not have a clear grasp of the full implications of his simple yet significant statement as, for example, Caiaphas did not (John 11,49-

 

_______________________
241

52). But to the author of the Gospel of Mark there was no doubt that the centurion confirmed the divine sonship of Jesus, marking the climax of the narrative.

 

7600 Glover Road Langley British Columbia V2Y 1Y1 Canada

Tae Hun Kim

 

SUMMARY

This article points up evidence by which the language of the Roman imperial cult might help make clearer what a reader of Mark's Gospel might understand when the centurion (Mark 15,39) refers to Jesus as u(io\j qeou= . Knowing how an audience familiar with this cult language would react, Mark intentionally speaks of Jesus as u(io\j qeou= at 1,1, as well as at 15,39.

 

NOTES:

 

¹ V. TAYLOR, The Gospel according to Mark (London ²1966) 597.

² R. H. GUNDRY, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids 1993) 4.

³ J. D. KINGSBURY, The Christology of Mark’s Gospel (Philadelphia 1983) 132; cf. Mark 3,11 where Jesus is acknowledged as "the Son of God" by the unclean spirits.

⁴ E. C. COLWELL, "The Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament", JBL 52 (1933) 12-21.

⁵ E. S. JOHNSON, "Is Mark 15.39 the Key to Mark’s Christology?", JSNT 31 (1987) 3-22.

⁶ E.S. JOHNSON, "Is Mark 15.39 the Key", 13.

⁷ E. P. GOULD, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Mark (Edinburgh 1896) 295.

⁸ COLWELL, "Definite Rule", 13.

⁹ E.S. JOHNSON, "Is Mark 15.39 the Key", 4.

¹⁰ E.S. JOHNSON, "Is Mark 15.39 the Key", 15.

¹¹ Mark 5,7 does not have the definite article either but it is in the vocative. Also note that Mark routinely presents the "Son of Man" ephitet with the article (Mark 2,10.28; 8,31.38; 9,9.12.31; 10,33.45; 13,6; 14,21.41.62).

¹² The Cambridge Ancient History (eds. S. A. COOK, et al.) (vol. 10; Cambridge 1966) 227.

¹³ P. H. BLIGH, "A Note on Huios Theou in Mark 15:39", The Expository Time 80 (1968-69) 53.

¹⁴ A. H. M. JONES, Augustus (New York 1970) 150.

¹⁵ L. R. TAYLOR, The Divinity of the Roman Emperor (Middletown 1931) 156.

¹⁶ In the cenotaph for Lucius Caesar who was a grandson and one of the heir-designees of Augustus but died early — when he died in 2 CE Lucius Caesar was only nineteen — he is described as an augur, consul-designee, entrusted with the provinces in the West, and princeps iuventutis: L CAESARIS AVGVSTI CAESARIS PATRIS PATRIAE PONTIFICIS MAXIMI TRIBVNICIAE POTESTATIS XXV FILI AVGVRIS CONSVLIS DESIGNATI PRINCIPIS IVVENTVTIS PATRONI COLONIAE NOSTRAE (ILS 139; CIL XI 1420). His brother Gaius was also given the same honor in 5 BCE. The only difference between the two brothers was that Gaius was made pontifex and was given a commission in the East whereas Lucius received the augurate and a commission in the West . But Gaius also died in 4 CE at the age of 24. For how they were first made princeps iuventutis, see RG 14. cf. TAC. Ann. I, 3.

¹⁷ According to Dio, Augustus is said have commented on his own divinity as follows: "As for immortality we could not possibly achieve it, but by living nobly and by dying nobly we do in a sense gain even this boon. Therefore I, who already possess the first requisite and hope to possess the second, return to you the armies and the provinces, the revenues and the laws" (L. R. TAYLOR, Divinity, 157).

¹⁸ COOK, CAH, 10.22.

¹⁹ M. T. CICERO, Cicero – Philippics (trans. W. C. A. KER) (vol. 15; Cambridge 1926) 172.

²⁰ V. TAYLOR, Divinity, 69.

²¹ V. TAYLOR, Divinity, 63.

²² Cicero, Philippics, 162.

²³ According to Dio, in 34 BCE Anthony formed a coalition with Cleopatra and tried to make her son Ptolemy, the alleged son of Gaius Julius, the king of the East, if not the entire Roman empire, by undermining Octavian’s position as the heir of Caesar. "He (Anthony) commanded people that Cleopatra should be called Queen of Kings, and, Ptolemy, whom they named Caesarion, King of Kings (basile/a basile/wn). He declared that in very truth one was the wife and the other the son of the former Caesar (Gaius Julius), and he professed to be taking these measures for Caesar’s sake, though his purpose was to cast reproach upon Caesar Octavianus because he was only an adopted and not a real son of his" (Dio XLIX 41, 1-2). (See Dio Cassius, Roman History (trans. Earnest Cary) (vol. 5; Cambridge 1917) 425.

²⁴ On 19 August of 43 BCE Octavian was announced as a consul suffecti when both consuls Pansa and Hirtius had died in battle, yet he was not named divi filius then but simply C. Iulius C. f. Caesar, whereas in 40 BCE when he was honored with a triumph he was named imp. Caesar divi f. See T. R. S. BROUGHTON, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic (vol. 2; Cleveland 1952) 371; V. EHRENBERG - A. H. M. JONES, Documents Illustrating the Reigns of Augustus & Tiberius (Oxford 1976) 32.

²⁵ There appear to be a number of variations to the formula used to display an emperor’s relationship to his deified predecessor. They all stem from a common origin, i.e., IMP CAE DIVI F used by Augustus, and in fact each variation simply adds the names of the deified predecessors in succession, as many as necessary. Therefore, there can be as many formulae as needed, but at least two distinct patterns have emerged. One is the basic pattern, "A DIVI F (DIVI X)" [X is the deified predecessor of A]. This formula appears to be early and quite rare, and it was primarily associated with Augustus. The usual form is "IMP CAESAR DIVI F DIVI IVLI." One such example is found on a coin dated around 32 BCE (American Numismatics Society Call No.1944-100-78385). Instead of dividing "DIVI F" in half and inserting the name of Gaius Julius in the middle as later emperors did, "DIVI IVLI" is suffixed to "DIVI F." It seems to conform to the nature of "DIVI F" considering that it was not a title but a name and thus was indivisible.
    The other is the most popular and numerous pattern, i.e., "A DIVI X F" [X is the deified predecessor of A]. This formula was widely adopted by Tiberius and his successors and became the standard formula used in all inscriptions attributed to the Roman emperors. The enormous amount of evidence supporting this formula shows its wide acceptance by later emperors. The "A DIVI F DIVI X" formula, on the other hand, does not seem to occur frequently, if at all, in the titles of later emperors. "A DIVI X F" formula became the standard after the reign of Augustus, and it is also to be noted that even Augustus is later described as using this formula. An inscription that can be dated around 184 CE carries a legend, "IMP CAESAR DIVI IVLI F AVGVSTVS" (ILS 98; AE 1992 79). All other known variations of the formula are based on the "A DIVI F DIVI X" formula. One variation of the pattern is "A DIVI X F DIVI Y NEPOTI (DIVI Z PRONEPOS)" [A is the successor of deified X, who also succeeded deified Y, who had in turn also succeeded deified Z]. An example of this formula is "TI CAESARI DIVI AVG F DIVI IVLI NEPOTI AVGVSTO IMP PONT MAXVMO TRIBVN POTEST XXVI COS IIII" (ILS 155; 21-22 CE; Also see ILS 113; CIL XI 0367). Also note that this title was given to heirs to the throne as well as to emperors. "DRVSO CAESARI TI AVG F DIVI AVG N DIVI IVLI PRON COS PONTIFICI" (CIL V 5121). Another notable example of this formula belongs to Antoninus Pius who had the fortune of having a series of deified emperors before him. "IMP CAES DIVI HADRIANI F DIVI TRAIANI PARTHIC NEP DIVI NERVAE PRON T AELIVS HADRIANVS ANTONINVS AVG PIVS PONT MAX TR POT XXI IMP II COS IV PP" (ILS 2005; 158 CE). [Also see ILS 113, 156, 177, 178, 193, 228, 309, 2006 for more examples.] There are also Greek versions of this formula. Compare these two: "IMP CAESARI DIVI TRAIANI PARTHICI F DIVI NERVAE NEPOTI TRAIANO HADRIANO AVG" (ILS 309) and "AUTOKRATWR KAISAR, QEOU TRAIANOU PARQIKOU UIOS, QEOU NEROUA UIWNOS, TRAIANOS ADRIANOS SEBASTOS" (IGEyst: Prusa 1002). Further variations of the pattern that trace an emperor’s lineage as far as five generations have also been identified. They are quite the same as above, however, but simply add ABNEPOS and ADNEPOS as the fourth and fifth generation of deified predecessors. These are mostly dated in the late second century CE and afterwards, and thus of little interest to the present study. It will suffice to introduce for the sake of completeness a few examples of the formulae in question. This bilingual inscription, written in 58 CE to commemorate the repair of the road from Nikaia to Apameia by C. Julius Aquila, who was a proconsul in Pontus and Bythnia in 57/58, is also of some interest in that here Nero, the reigning emperor, is described as the son of Claudius and traces his lineage, not physical, of course, back to Caligula, Tiberius and Augustus. This inscription traces Nero’s descent back four generations. The Greek part reads, "NERWN KLAUDI[OS], QEOU KLAUDIOU UIOS, GERMANIKOU KAISAROS UION[OS], TIBERIOU KAISAROS SEBASTOU EGGONOS, QEOU SEBASTOU A[POGONOS], KAISAR SEBASTOS GERMANIKOS, ARKIEREUS MEGISTOS, DHMARXI[KHS EXO]USIAS TO D=, AUTOKRATWR TO E, UPATOS TO G." The Latin part reads, "[NERO CLAUDIUS DIVI CLAUDI FILIUS GERMANICI CAESARIS NEPOS TI. CAESARIS AUG.] PRONEPOS, DIVI AUG. ABNEPOS, CAESAR [AUGUSTUS GERMANICUS PONT. MAX.] TRIB. POT. IIII, [IMP. V,] COS. III" (IGEyst: Nikaia 0021; Also see ILS 5883 = IGRR III 83 and CIL III 12226). Commodus employs the same formula, tracing his lineage as far back as Nerva, "IMP CAESAR M AVRELIVS COMMOD ANTONINVS PIVS FELIX AVG SARMATICVS MAXIMVS BRITTANICVS PONTIFEX MAXIMVS TR POTESTATIS XI IMP VIII COS V P P DIVI M ANTONINI PII FILIVS DIVI PII NEPOS DIVI HADRIANI PRONEPOS DIVI TRAIANI PARTHICI ABNEPOS DIVI NERVAE ADNEPOS" (186 CE; ILS 397; CIL VIII 10307; Also see CIL X 6654; CIL V 4055). Septimus Severus also employs the same formula but he does not claim to be the son of the deified Commodus, for obvious reasons. [For inscriptions attributed to him see AE 1978, 1979, 1984; CIL VI 01031.]

²⁶ V. TAYLOR, Divinity, 200.

²⁷ A new form of tribunitial power focusing on the inviolability of the tribune that Gaius Julius first assumed in the year 48 BCE it is a sign of the Republic that Augustus claimed to uphold ( V. TAYLOR, Divinity, 134).

²⁸ EHRENBERG - JONES, Documents, 87.

²⁹ Suetonius, The Lives of the Caesars (trans. J. C. Rolfe) (vol. 1; Cambridge 1913) 391.

³⁰ COOK, CAH, 10.652.

³¹ COOK, CAH, 10.653.

³² Many of these inscriptions and legends may be found in EHRENBERG - JONES, Documents, 75-76, 89.

³³ The semantic difference between "DIVI F AVG" and "DIVI AVG F" seems trivial but the meaning is completely different. The former is the name of Augustus, "son of god, Augustus" and the latter is the title of Augustus’ successor, "son of deified Augustus." It may be confusing because both contain the same words and only the word order is different, but the difference in meaning is clearly seen when the title was used to refer to a son of Augustus during his lifetime, when he was not yet officially deified. In this case, Augustus is still described as "DIVI F AVG", but his sons cannot be called "DIVI AVG F" but simply "AVG F." Therefore, it should be clear that DIVI in the name of Augustus is not a sign of divinity in Augustus himself but refers to the deified Gaius Julius, his adopted father. Note how the two grandnephews of Augustus, Gaius and Lucius, officially adopted as his heirs, are described in this inscription in relation to Augustus himself: "C CAESARI AVG F D(IVI) N(EPOTI) PONTIF COS DESIGN PRINCIPI IVVENTVT IMP CAESARI DIVI F AVG PONT MAXIM COS XII TRIB POTESTAT XX IMP XIIII L CAESARI AVG F DIVI NEP …" (3 BCE; ILS 106; CIL XI 3040). [Also see ILS 107; AE 1992, 771; ILS 139; CIL XI 1420] Note that in this inscription Gaius Julius is not specifically named but simply referred to as a "god" and thus is consistent with the name of Augustus. Instead of calling himself "DIVI IVLI F" as later generations did, Augustus called himself "DIVI F" and there was no doubt whom "DIVI" refers to during his lifetime and well after his death. If it ever needed clarification "DIVI IVLI" was suffixed to "DIVI F" instead of making it "DIVI IVLI F". Therefore, the difference between "DIVI F AVG" and "DIVI AVG F" should be recognized, because it is with the inherent peculiarity of the name "DIVI F" and its Greek counterpart "qeou= ui(o\j" that the present study is primarily concerned.

³⁴ There is very little philological or archaeological evidence to support Tiberius’ use of the "DIVI F" name. At least two Roman coins have been found bearing the legend "TI DIVI F AVGVSTVS TR POT XX" (American Numismatics Society Coin Number 1001-1-22257 and 1001-1-22211). These are dated around 18-19 CE, early in his reign. Coins that feature both Augustus and Tiberius have also been found, and these two particular coins bear the legend, "CAESAR AVGVSTVS DIVI F PATER PATRIAE" on the front and "TI CAESAR AVG F TR POT XV" on the back (American Numismatics Society Coin Number 1944-100-39116 and 1944-100-39115). These can be dated around 13-14 CE, probably shortly after the death of Augustus, and here Tiberius is called "(DIVI) AVG F" as he was usually named. The amount of evidence supporting Tiberius’ use of the name "DIVI F" is, therefore, so small that it is almost inconsequential. The majority of currently available philological and archaeological evidence strongly argues for the prevalence of "TI AVG F."

³⁵ The association with Mars was not novel at the time of Caligula. The very title was also given to Gaius Caesar, the grandnephew of Augustus. An inscription from the theater of Dionysus in Athens records that Gaius Caesar was proclaimed ne/oj 1Arhj, the new Ares (IG II2 3250). For a more detailed discussion about Gaius Caesar and the honors bestowed to him in the East, especially in Athens, see Caesar Augustus: Seven Aspects (eds. F. MILLAR - E. SEGAL) (Oxford 1984) 171-5.

³⁶ This position requires further qualification. From the holdings of the American Numismatic Society at least 308 coins were found to contain a legend DIVI F attributed to four different emperors. Among these coins with the DIVI F legend only 5 belong to Tiberius, 28 to Domitian, and 4 to Nero, which leaves Augustus with at least 271 references. Therefore, it can be argued that attempts were made under the rule of Tiberius, Nero, and Domitian to associate the honorable name divi filius with the reigning emperors, and thus the name was not necessarily exclusive to Augustus. It is also suggestive that the name divi filius was current as late as 80 CE when the coins attributed to Domitian were minted. However, a more careful study reveals new facts. The majority of coins minted under Tiberius consistently display "DIVI AVGVSTI F," and there are very few that show "DIVI F." The latter are dated between 13 and 16 CE, "IMP VII," and this is very early in the reign of Tiberius because he officially became the emperor on August 19, 14 CE. The majority of coins minted under Nero also consistently display "NERO CLAVD DIVI CLAVD F," and there are very few that show "NERO CLAVD DIVI F." The interesting parallel to the coins of Tiberius is that those rare Neronian coins that bear "NERO CLAVD DIVD F" are all dated around 55-58 CE, which is very early in the reign of Nero, because his accession was on October 13, 54 CE. The case of Domitian is even more interesting that he used both "DIVI F" and "DIVI AVG VESP F", but the former before his accession and the latter after. The Domitian coins that bear "DIVI F" were all minted before the accession of Domitian, because they show "COSVII (80CE)" and "PRINCEPS IVVENTVTIS," which was a title customarily given to the heir of an emperor. [For more on the origin of the title and iuvenes, see Millar and Segal, 16-17.] Those coins of Domitian that display "DIVI AVG VESP F" were probably issued in the same period, but after his accession. Considering the Domitian’s accession was on September 14 of 81 CE, these coins either predate Domitian’s official reign or are located at its very beginning. Therefore, there appears to be a pattern of sorts. These could be accession coins, specially issued to commemorate the accession.
    It also has to be noted that the official titles of Tiberius, Nero and Domitian at the time of their deaths did not include "DIVI F." Those of Tiberius were "Tiberius Caesar Divi Augusti Filius Augustus, Pontifex Maximus, Tribuniciae potestatis XXXIIX, imperator VIII, Consul V." At the time of his death, Nero’s full titles were "Imperator Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, Pontifex Maximus, Tribuniciae potestatis XIV, Imperator XIII, Consul V, Pater Patriae." In the case of Domitian, the official titles were "Imperator Caesar Domitianus Augustus Germanicus, Pontifex Maximus Tribuniciae potestatis XVI, Imperator XXIII, Consul XVII, Pater Patriae." It seems that the name Divi filius was never part of the official titles of Tiberius, since he used Divi Augusti Filius (son of deified Augustus) instead. This title emphasizes the sonship of Tiberius to Augustus, not the divinity of Tiberius, and should not be confused with divi filius, which only Augustus used. This type of honorific was also used by several other emperors who wished to secure public support based on the respectable reputation of their deified predecessors. The same applies to both Nero and Domitian. They apparently used the title on the coins as propaganda early in their reign, but did not go as far as including the honorific in their official titles. Trajan, however, inserted the phrase "Divi Nervae Filius" (son of deified Nerva) in his official title in the memory of his deified adopted-father Nerva. He did not claim in his lifetime the divinity on his own, though it was promptly granted by the Senate posthumously. In the case of Nero and Domitian, it is possible that they presumptuously claimed the name divi filius on their own when they were alive, but it is unlikely. The Senate would have annulled the name after their deaths in any case, because of the disrepute of the deceased emperors. Therefore, it seems plausible that the name divi filius was probably exclusive to Augustus, and the formula "DIVI X F" has to be distinguished from the name of Augustus.
    Having said that, "DIVI F" does occur in small number of inscriptions and legends attributed to other emperors, for instance, "IMP T CAESAR DIVI F VESPASIANVS AVGVSTVS PONTIFEX MAXIMVS TRIBVNIC POTESTATE X IMPERATOR XVII PATER PATRIAE CENSOR COS VIII" (ILS 269; 81 CE). However, their number is very small compared to the overwhelming amount of evidence attributed to Augustus, and there are indications that suggest lack of consistency in later inscriptions using "DIVI F" alongside of "DIVI X F" formula. Having considered all other variants, therefore, it still seems plausible that the name "DIVI F" was unique to Augustus.

³⁷ JOHNSON, "Is Mark 15.39 the Key", 12.

³⁸ TAYLOR, Divinity, 156.

³⁹ Cf. TAYLOR, Divinity, 229.

⁴⁰ Cf. C. A. EVANS, Mark (WBC 34B; Dallas forthcoming): "It is important to view the history of the Julian emperors from Christianity’s perspective in the late 60’s, when in all probability the Gospel of Mark was written. ……In the face of what then would have appeared as a steep decline in the respect for and prospects of the Roman emperorship, with one murderer and manipulator after another trying to gain the throne, Mark’s opening words, "The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the son of God," would have had the ring of a competitor’s claim on the devotion and loyalty of the people of the Roman Empire. …… In my view, the Markan evangelist presents Jesus as the true son of God and in doing so deliberately sets Jesus over against Rome’s quest to find a suitable emperor, savior, and lord. All of the features that made up the emperor cult and the various customs associated with the office and title of emperor in various ways find expression in New Testament theology. …… It is clear that early Christians full well understood that their confession that Jesus was "Lord," "Savior," and "son of God" directly competed with and challenged the Roman Emperor and the cult that had grown up around the office" (59).

⁴¹ GUNDRY, Mark, 951.

⁴² GUNDRY, Mark, 975.

⁴³ P. G. DAVIS, "Mark’s Christological Paradox", JSNT 35 (1989) 3-18, esp. 11.