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.