Ongoing studies of Mark’s passion narrative reveal strong differences of opinion about the proper interpretation of Mk 15,39 and the use of the anarthrous ui(o_j qeou= there. Some recent examinations of the text support the traditional view that the words of the centurion constitute a true confessional statement¹, whereas other research utilizing grammatical, textual and historical evidence contend that the words before the cross cannot be taken as a crux interpretum for Markan theology². A re-examination of the Roman background of the centurion’s exclamation continues to demonstrate that his statement cannot be understood as a full confession of Jesus as the Son of God in Mark’s gospel³.

        1. It is argued, for example, that the Latin divi filius (also without an article) demonstrates how it is possible to understand Mark’s grammar in a definite sense as an acknowledgement of the divinity of Jesus. Mark’s gospel, it is contended, stands as a challenge to the Roman imperial cult, the centurion’s confession applying especially to Augustus, the emperor most likely to be worshiped as a god at the time Mark was written. ‘The background information available on 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 ui(o_j qeou= must have challenged the intended Markan readers who were probably familiar with the practices of the state cult’⁴. ‘[T]o 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’⁵.

        Examination of the texts of 1,1 and 15,39 demonstrates, however, that this supposed ‘double anarthrousness’⁶ cannot support the conclusion that

_____________________
407

both verses should be taken in the same light as Christian and confessional. If the grammatical basis for taking the confession in 15,39 as definite is shaky and uncertain since Mark’s usage of anarthrous nouns does not demonstrate that ui(o_j qeou= must be taken definitely⁷, the supposed corroboration of ‘son of God’ in 1,1 renders the interpretation even more untenable. In the UBSGNT, ‘son of God’ is only given a ‘C’ rating, indicating that the enclosed words in the text are those ‘whose presence or position [...] is regarded as disputed’. In a thorough study, P.M. Head⁸ carefully reviews the reasons for doubt about the traditional reading in 1,1. As he demonstrates, text-critical evidence indicates that the original text of Mark probably did not include the disputed words. Based on the external evidence in wide ranging manuscripts and patristic citations, as well as internal evidence (the shorter text, for example, is obviously the more difficult reading and can easily be explained as an addition to buttress the church’s Son of God theology), Head’s conclusions must be taken into account: The original, shorter form of 1,1 was supplemented by many MSS with ‘Son of God’ in two different forms, probably around 100 AD. ‘The scenario is more plausible than any other, it accounts for the other variants, and fits what we know of scribal habits and the tendency of gospel traditions’⁹. Without the support of the anarthrous ui(o_j qeou= in 1,1 the case for taking 15,39 as definite is weakened considerably. The appealing symmetry of declaring divine sonship at the very beginning, the middle and the end of the gospel is lost. Jesus is declared the Son by the bat qôl at the baptism (1,11) and at the Transfiguration (9,7) but in both cases the title is clearly defined by the definite article. For Mark the clearest definition of Jesus’ identity is provided only by the very voice of God, not by the author of the gospel in his introduction, and not by any character in the gospel. The confession of the centurion must be understood in some other way.

        2. The conclusion that Mark must have had divi filius (as a Roman description of the Emperor) in mind in 15,39 in order to challenge Roman Imperial theology and Roman belief in Augustus as a god is also highly questionable¹⁰. It cannot be assumed that the indefinite divi filius must have been taken over into Mark’s Greek. The Latin is an imprecise guide to Mark’s intentions: since Latin does not have definite and indefinite articles to correspond to those in Greek, the meaning must always be determined by context¹¹.

        Equally unconvincing is the contention that emperors after Augustus deliberately avoided the use of son of god to describe themselves, keeping that honor intact for the greatest emperor of them all, Divus Augustus. In fact, the Roman practice of granting divine status to the emperors was far more complex

_____________________
408

than the mere use of divi filius or related terms¹². ‘In most cases it is impossible now to reconstruct exactly how any individual emperor negotiated the delicate boundary between (god-like) humanity and outright divinity’¹³. Tiberius at times did accede to the urging of some to acclaim him a god, especially in the East¹⁴. A. Wardman demonstrates, moreover, that there were two distinct ways that deification could be accorded to emperors¹⁵. The Augustan Model (adopted by Augustus and Tiberius) sought to give the impression of being a reluctant ruler or recipient of divine honors. The Augustan, Wardman demonstrates, is modest about his own religious claims while being punctilious in securing divine honors for his own family or close relatives (as Augustus claimed them for Julius Caesar, his uncle, and Tiberius for Augustus). The Augustan Emperor makes it clear that he has a high regard for venerated Roman tradition and presents frequent sacrificial offerings on a royal scale. Normally these leaders were universally accorded divine status after their deaths. As Wardman points out, even Tiberius was not intentionally effective in his protestations, and he ended up receiving the titles he had first refused¹⁶. D. Fishwick further demonstrates the inconsistency of the Augustan. Tiberius and Claudius both relaxed their refusal of divine honors and allowed temples to be built in their honor when it suited their purposes and were worshiped as deities during their own lifetimes¹⁷.

        Wardman designates the second mode of emperor deification as the Antonian Model (influenced by the Egyptian concept represented by Mark Anthony and Cleopatra). In this form the emperor or leader appears as a god in public and makes divine claims intentionally obvious, like Caligula standing

_____________________
409

between his brother-gods Castor and Pollux, or Commodus dressing up as Hercules. The Antonian flaunts religious orders by destroying religious buildings or by refusing to have them repaired, by failing to observe the traditional religious calendars, or by having statues erected to his own honor in precious metals. As Wardman concludes, ‘It would be difficult to get complete agreement on a list of Antonians, but it would certainly include, for one reason or another, Caligula, Nero, Domitian, Commodus, Caracalla and Elagabalus. The tradition accuses nearly all of them of religious presumption, in claiming identity with a god’¹⁸.

        In both cases, the populace eventually views the emperor as divine. In Mark 15,39 the use of the indefinite ui(o_j qeou= provides little evidence and no certitude to substantiate the conclusion that this statement is a challenge to a particular emperor. It could have been to Augustus, Tiberius, Claudius, Nero, Caligula or even Vespasian or Titus (depending upon the date of composition); it could have been a challenge to all of them at once; or, as is more likely, to none at all.

        Supposing that Mark was trying to draw a contrast between the declaration of the emperor as a god and Jesus as the Son of God through the use of the soldier’s confession is made even more problematic when the complexity of Roman concepts of divinity in general is taken into account. An emperor could be worshiped as a son of god not only by being given the title but by being granted divine status through the worship of his Genius.

A deeply religious people, the Romans attributed their dominion over the world to their piety and care for the gods. The most Roman of these, and some of the most widely worshiped ones, were [...] the multitude of the more shapeless powers and spirits that held in their care every action and event, every person and every place. To these belong the Genii. Their cult was overwhelmingly popular [...]

A new major cult of the Genius in the public sphere emerged with the establishment of the Empire. The Genius Imperatoris or Genius Augusti was the key vehicle of emperor-worship, the religious acknowlegement of the imperial order. In this, the army was definitely to the fore — its monuments to the Genius of the Emperors are so numerous that they reflect a particular attachment of the army to their supreme commanders, even if one allows for the unusually rich documentation from the army camps¹⁹.

        Religion in the army, moreover, went beyond the worship of the emperor as a god.

        The cult of the standards, the use of the sacred oath (sacramentum), the importance of the military religious calendar²⁰, the veneration of various

_____________________
410

abstractions (virtues) such as Eirene, Themis, Pax, Concordia, Virtus²¹ and Victory²², as well as the importance of specific military Genii, demonstrates the multiplicity of images that the ‘confession’ of the centurion might have raised in the minds of readers who were familiar with Roman religious practices. An inscription cited by Hegeland is of particular interest. It is significant for its reference to the Deities of several emperors.

To the Deities of the Emperors and the Genius of the Second Legion August, in honor of the eagle, the senior Centurion gave this gift²³.

        What the expression ui(o_j qeou= on the lips of the Markan centurion means cannot be determined with any precision.

        3. The traditional interpretation of the centurion’s statement at the foot of the cross as text critical to Markan theology has also been supported from another perspective. 15,39 is not only the interpretative key to Mark’s Christology, but is the narrative and Christological climax as well²⁴. The Markan Jesus fulfills the Christological paradox: through the gospel a man demonstrates what God can do. Appearing to dismiss grammatical concerns about the anarthrous ui(o_j qeou=, it has been argued that the intended reader of Mark would not search out other anarthrous predicate nouns which precede the verb in order to clarify the problem; rather he would read 15,39 consistently with previous references to Jesus’ sonship to God²⁵.

        Naturally it is not suggested that Mark’s readership was made up of grammarians. But language and the way it is used, precisely or imprecisely, is important. If nothing else, it impacts translation and the way the author’s interpretation is passed on to future readers. P. Harner indicates the difficulty which Mark’s grammar presents.

        It is doubtful whether any English translation can adequately represent the qualitative emphasis that Mark expresses in 15,39 by placing an anarthrous predicate before the verb. Perhaps the verse could best be translated, ‘Truly this man was God’s son’. This has the advantage of calling attention to Jesus’ role or nature as son of God. It minimizes the question whether the word ‘son’ should be understood as definite or indefinite. At the same time it leaves open the possibility that Mark was thinking of Jesus at this point as ‘a’ son of God

_____________________
411

in the hellenistic sense, or ‘the’ son in a specifically Christian sense, or possibly both. In all of these ways the translation ‘God’s son’ would reflect the various shades of meaning that may be present in Mark’s word-order²⁶.

        At some point decisions must be made for translation, unless a long footnote is to accompany the modern text. Is Jesus in Mark 15,39 ‘The Son of God’, ‘a son of God’ or ‘a son of god’? Is it likely that Mark meant all at once, as Harner implies?

        It is argued that it is clear throughout the gospel who Jesus is. If that is correct, one wonders if the confession of the centurion is so necessary at the end as it is often implied. There is little question among scholars that Mark’s is a Son of God theology²⁷; little question that Mark and the readers in his church believed him to be so; one hopes that there is little question about the faith of scholars who debate the significance of Mark 15,39. The question after all, is not whether Mark believes and demonstrates that Jesus is the Son of God, but if he does so in 15,39.

        Certainly there are other places where Jesus is designated the Son (with a definite article). But in every instance other than the bat qôl at the Baptism and Transfiguration, they are all false starts. The other references to Jesus’ sonship demonstrate who Jesus is not, rather than who he is, even if they are with the definite article. The demons, for Mark, are not ones who are worthy to make a definition of Jesus (1,24; 3,11; 5,7). Evil spirits are not the ones who confess the true nature of God’s Son; they are rebuked and silenced (1,25; 3,12)²⁸. Likewise, the High Priest’s statement about Jesus is also to be disregarded. Jesus may agree that he is the ‘Son of the Most Blessed’ (14,61), but he redefines it in the correct terms with citations of Ps 110 and Dn 7,13. Jesus, furthermore, is not ‘the King of the Jews’ either; certainly not as Pilate sarcastically defines the title (15,2.12.26), or the king the soldiers mockingly abuse in a parody of the salutation to the emperor (15,18). Jesus is not even ‘the Christ’, or ‘the King of Israel’ as his religious detractors sneer out at him (15,32).

        One scholar concludes that ‘[t]he issue, after all, is not what Mark’s readers thought of the centurion and his faith; it is what they were to think of Jesus’²⁹. A good point and well stated. Yet, in Mark’s story, it is important how the readers regard characters around Jesus. How readers understand the witness of God, of John the Baptist, of King Herod, of Peter in Caesarea Philippi, of Bartimaeus, has a powerful impact on their definition of who Jesus

_____________________
412

really is. The centurion’s ambiguous statement does not lend itself to the final illumination of Jesus’ identity and his true relationship to God remains a mystery to the disciples, the bystanders at the crucifixion, and the women who seek him after his raising. God’s testimony alone provides the true answer (1,11; 9,7): Jesus is the beloved Son.

        4. Ched Myers provides important sociological insights which further weaken the insistence that Mark 15,39 must be interpreted as a full Christian confession of Jesus as the Son of God. Heretofore, his arguments have not been given the recognition they deserve. Myers argues (a) that to put such a realization on the lips of a Roman soldier, the very one presiding at Jesus’ execution³⁰ not only gives the man more credit than he deserves, it clearly betrays an imperial bias. It is an attempt to suppress political discourse in favor of theology. (b) There are no clues which indicate that the centurion has been converted (or represents the position of a converted Roman). The scene begins with the centurion ‘standing over against’ Jesus on the cross and such spatial tension usually indicates opposition (cf. 6,48; also I Thess 2,15) not solidarity. This same man reports back to his superior that Jesus is indeed dead (15,44-45.) and is not heard from again. (c) The centurion’s solemnity does not carry particular weight (a)lhqw=j) since Mark has previously put this same exclamation on the lips of Jesus’ enemies (12,14; 14,70). As is demonstrated in 3,11; 5,7; 6,3 and 14,61, the title the centurion uses does not represent a confession at all, but [may present] a hostile response to Jesus by those who are trying to gain power over him by naming him. (d) The only difference between the centurion’s statement about Jesus and that of the High Priest is that Jesus can no longer respond. So it is up to the reader to discern who Jesus really is. If we continue to insist that the centurion’s ‘confession’ is the correct one, then ‘we will have failed to learn one of the most salient lessons of the whole story, which is that those in power indeed ‘know who Jesus is’, and are out to destroy whereas those who follow him are often unsure who he is, but struggle to trust him nevertheless’.

*
* *

        The text of Mark 15,39 and the so called ‘confession’ of the Roman centurion has been given more weight that either can bear. Although it is true that Jesus is the Son of God to Mark it is not demonstrated in the introduction, by the demons or Jesus’ enemies. Jesus’ true identity is only revealed out of the mouth of God (1,11; 9,7) and in the hearts of readers who know what the gospel characters do not fully realize.

        The continuing debate about the proper interpretation of Mark 15,39 is reminiscent of the attempts over the years to force-feed an interpretation of the Messianic Secret into Markan theology. For more than 50 years scholars took some form of the Secret as a given. Now it is rarely even mentioned in the introductions of modern commentaries except perhaps as a hermeneutical curiosity. The sense that somehow Mark 15,39 must be interpreted as a full confession may spring from our own deep belief that Jesus is the Son, and fear

_____________________
413

that understanding it differently there will undermine that keystone of our faith.

        To say that the centurion serves as a symbol for the incipient promise of Jesus in 13,10 that the gospel will be preached to all the nations³¹ is to make of him a kind of deus ex machina or a rabbit out of a hat, who conveniently appears out of nowhere, ties up all of our questions and all of Mark’s loose ends. But the gospel does not allow itself to be interpreted or outlined in such a manner. Mark’s original text is the one which has no reference to the Son in 1,1; he provides the anarthrous ui(o_j qeou=; he is the one, as far as we know, who has written an unusual ending, completing his gospel with an enigmatic ga/r, pushing readers into the community of faith to find the answers to the riddles he poses. If that is where Mark goes, we have no choice but to follow him there.

SUMMARY

        Continuing examination of the grammatical, literary and historical evidence indicates that the centurion’s remarks about Jesus in Mark 15,39 cannot be understood as a full Christian confession of Jesus’ divine sonship, and cannot be taken as a direct challenge to any Roman emperor in particular. Jesus’ identity in the gospel is not revealed by the centurion, the demons, the disciples or in the introduction to the gospel. It is made clear by God’s declaration that he truly is the Son (1,11; 9,7), and in the faith of the readers as they search for Jesus’ presence in their own community.

© 2000 Biblica

________________________________

NOTES

¹ TAE HUN KIM, "The Anarthrous ui(o_j qeou= In Mark 15.39 and the Roman Imperial Cult", Bib 79 (1998) 221-241. S.K. STOCKKLAUSNER – C.A. HALE, "Mark 15:39 and 16:6-7; A Second Look", McMaster Journal of Theology 1 (2/1990) 34-44, argue for the traditional interpretation but argue that 16,7 is the true climax of the gospel.

² E.S. JOHNSON, Jr., "Is Mark 15:39 the Key to Mark’s Christology?", JSNT 31 (1987) 3-22.

³ For recent studies of the Imperial background of the gospels see C. BLACK, "Was Mark a Roman Gospel?", ET 105(1993) 36-41; W. CARTER, "Toward an Imperial Critical Reading of Matthew’s Gospel", SBL.SP (1998) I, 296-324; P.B. DUFF, "The March of the Divine Warrior and the Advent of the Greco-Roman King: Mark’s Account of Jesus’ Entry into Jerusalem", JBL 111(1992) 55-71; E.S. JOHNSON, Jr., "Mark 5:1-20: The Other Side", IBSt 20 (1998) 50-74; B. KINMAN, "Parousia, Jesus’ ‘A-Triumphal’ Entry, and the Fate of Jerusalem (Luke 19:28-44)", JBL 118 (1999) 279-294; T.E. SCHMIDT, "Mark 15:16-32: The Crucifixion Narrative and the Roman Triumphal Procession", NTS 41 (1995) 1-18.

⁴ KIM, "The Anarthrous", 240.

⁵ Ibid., 241.

⁶ This expression is used by R. GUNDRY, Mark. A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids 1993) 951.

⁷ JOHNSON, "Is Mark 15,39?", 3-22.

⁸ P.M. HEAD, "A Text-Critical Study Of Mark 1.1. ‘The Beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ’", NTS 37 (1991) 621-629.

⁹ Ibid., 629.

¹⁰ KIM, "The Anarthrous", 225,227.

¹¹ Thus Mark 1,1 is Iesu Christi Filii Dei; 1,11 is Filius meus dilectus; 9,6 [7], Filius meus carissimus; 15,39, Filius Dei. Cf. Jn 20,31 [30], Filius Dei.

¹² See, for example, D. CUSS, Imperial Cult and Honorary Terms in the New Testament (Freibourg 1974), esp. p. 31. ‘Even in its original form, the imperial cult was very much more complicated than would appear at first glance. Augustus was not divine in himself, and officially it was his Genius that was adored during his lifetime, but an absolute prohibition of the worship of the person of the emperor was not practical in the provinces or even in Italy outside of Rome, as Augustus was soon to discover [...] At Rome, Augustus was at pains to link up the newly-established emperor-cult with the traditions rooted in the Republican era, in order to supply an ideal for the masses while respecting those men who were wary of the innovations which were not firmly rooted in the past’.

¹³ M. BEARD – J. NORTH – S. PRICE, Religions of Rome (Cambridge 1998) I, 209. The authors warn against the general use of the expression ‘the imperial cult’, contending that there is no such thing (much as New Testament scholars would be reluctant to use the word ‘gospel’ to mean the same thing in regard to the first four books); ‘rather, there was a series of different cults sharing a common focus in the worship of the emperor, his family or predecessors, but [...] operating quite differently according to a variety of different local circumstances — the Roman status of the communities in which they were found, the pre-existing religious traditions of the area, and the degree of central Roman involvement in establishing the cult’ (ibid., 318). Also see 208-210; 252-253; 359-361.

¹⁴ As KIM,"The Anarthrous", 233, also admits.

¹⁵ A. WARDMAN, Religion and Statecraft Among The Romans (Baltimore 1982) 90-107.

¹⁶ Ibid., 93.

¹⁷ D. FISHWICK, "The Development of Provincial Ruler Worship in the Western Roman Empire", ANRW II.16.2 (1978), 1201-1253, see esp. 1211, 1217. For Tiberius’ somewhat contradictory attitude see CUSS, Imperial Cult, 33-35. Emperors and members of their families were usually given divine honors by vote of the senate after their deaths, usually based on a perception of merit. Almost all of the deified emperors had temples erected in their honor (following the precedent set for the divine Caesar). See BEARD – NORTH – PRICE, Religions of Rome, I, 209, 253.

¹⁸ WARDMAN, Religion and Statecraft, 92-93. See BEARD – NORTH – PRICE, Religions of Rome, I, 209.

¹⁹ M.P. SPEIDEL – A. DIMITROVA-MILCEVA, "The Cult of the Genii In the Roman Army and a New Roman Deity", ANRW II.16.2 (1978) 1542-1543.

²⁰ J. HELGELAND, "Roman Army Religion", ANRW II.16.2 (1978) 1471-1505.

²¹ See J.R. FEARS, "The Cult of Virtues and Roman Imperial Ideology", ANRW II.17.2 (1981) 827-947.

²² J.R. FEARS, "The Theology of Victory At Rome", ANRW II.17.2 (1981) 736-826.

²³ HELGELAND, "Roman Army Religion", 1477; CIL VII, 103. Also see CIL II, 6183, ‘To Juppiter Optimus Maximus, a vexillation of the legion VII Gemina Felix under the direction of Junius Victor a centurion of this same legion for the birthday of the eagle’. It is noteworthy that Roman soldiers also participated in more than the manifold worship opportunities connected with Imperial theology. Frequently local gods were worshiped as part of their strategy of conquest. As E. Birley notes, the worship of local gods may have been precautionary. If you get the gods on your side you may be able to overcome them. See E. BIRLEY, "The Religion of the Roman Army: 1895-1977", ANRW II.16.2 (1978) 1506, 1541, esp. 1525.

²⁴ P. DAVIES, "Mark’s Christological Paradox", JSNT 35 (1989) 3-18.

²⁵ DAVIES, "Mark’s Christological Paradox", 11. See a similar comment by R.E. BROWN, The Death of the Messiah. From Gethsemane to the Grave. A Commentary on the Passion narratives in the four Gospels (New York, 1993) II, 1148.

²⁶ P.H. HARNER, "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1", JBL 92 (1973) 81. BEARD – NORTH – PRICE, Religions of Rome, I, 359, ask an intriguing question about emperor worship. Noting the close connection between government and religion in Rome, they wonder if Roman religion had ‘real religious significance’ at all? The attempt to distinguish between Roman cults which were political and those which were genuinely spiritual might be entirely illusory.

²⁷ In the past The Son of Man has often been considered an important Christological title for Mark. Recent studies, however, reduce it to non-titular significance, GUNDRY, Mark 118-119; R.A. GUELICH, Mark 1-8:26 (WBC 34A; Dallas 1989) 89-91.

²⁸ The demoniac from Geresa is allowed to ‘preach’ because the demons have been driven out and destroyed, 5,19-20. For a recent examination of the Roman background of this pericope see JOHNSON, "Mark 5:1-20", 50-74.

²⁹ DAVIES, "Mark’s Christological Paradox", 15.

³⁰ Ch. MYERS, Binding the Strong Man. A Political Reading of Mark’s Story of Jesus (Maryknoll 1991) 393-394.

³¹ As BROWN, The Death of the Messiah, 1149, argues.