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.

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.

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."

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.