NOTES
1 T.H. KIM, "The Anarthrous ui(o_j qeou= in Mark 15,39 and the Roman Imperial Cult", Bib 79 (1998) 221-241; E.S. JOHNSON, Jr., "Mark 15,39 and the So-Called Confession of the Roman Centurion", Bib 81 (2000) 406-413. For recent attempts to interpret aspects of the canonical gospels in light of the Roman imperial background, see JOHNSON, "Mark 15,39", 406, n. 2.
2 Matt 26,63; Mark 3,11; Luke 4,41; 22,70; John 1,34.49; 5,25; 11,4.27; 20,31; Acts 9,20; Gal 2,20; Eph 4,13; Heb 4,14; 6,6; 7,3; 10,29; 1 John 3,8; 4,15; 5,5.10.12.13.20; Rev 2,18. Cf. also Matt 16,16; John 3,18.
3 Matt 4,3.6; 27,40; Luke 4,3.9; John 10,36.
4 Matt 8,29. Cf. Mark 5,7; Luke 8,28.
5 Commentators are curiously silent concerning the uniqueness of this formula within the NT.
6 This wording also occurs in Wis 2,18, and the same word order occurs in 4Q246, the ‘son of God’ text from Qumran.
7 For an overview regarding these issues, see W.D. DAVIES – D.C. ALLISON, Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew (ICC; Edinburgh 1988-1997) I, 7-9, 72-85, 138-147.
8 S. WEINSTOCK, Divus Julius (Oxford 1971) 364-410.
9 For reflections on this problem, see S.R.F. PRICE, "Gods and Emperors: The Greek Language of the Roman Imperial Cult", JHS 104 (1984) 79-95.
10 IGRR IV 7, 1718; SEG XXXVII 1007.
11 SIG III 768; SEG XXXII 833, 1128.
12 IGRR I 1109; IV 310; SEG XXXV 1256; R.K. SHERK, Roman Documents from the Greek East (Baltimore 1969) no. 61.
13 IGRR I 853; III 137; SEG XXXIX 1210; W.H. BUCKLER, "Auguste, Zeus Patroos", RPh 9 (1935) 177-188; V. EHRENBERG – A.H.M. JONES, Documents Illustrating the Reigns of Augustus and Tiberius (Oxford 21976) no. 99.
14 IGRR I 853; SIG III 778; SEG XXXIX 752.
15 IGRR I 1164, 1166; IV 207, 1042; SEG XXVIII 1205; A. BURNETT – M. AMANDRY – P. RIPOLLÈS, Roman Provincial Coinage (London – Paris 1992-) I, 3620, 4006.
16 IGRR I 853, 1150; III 845; IV 1288; SIG III 791A; SB 8317; SEG XXXVII 484. Since KIM, "Anarthrous", 233, was aware of only one of these inscriptions, he erroneously viewed it as an exception.
17 IGRR III 715; IV 144; SEG XXXVI 1092; BURNETT et al., Roman Provincial Coinage, I, 2344-2346.
18 IGRR I 659; III 933 = EHRENBERG – JONES, Documents, no. 134. Cf. IGRR III 721.
19 Augustus forced Tiberius to adopt Gaius’ father Germanicus. Though Tiberius designated Gaius and Gemellus as his joint-heirs, the Senate deprived Gemellus of his share.
20 IG VII 2711 = M. SMALLWOOD, Documents Illustrating the Principates of Gaius, Claudius and Nero (London 1967) no. 361.
21 A.A. BARRETT, Caligula. The Corruption of Power (New Haven – London 1990) 143-153. A damaged Attic fragment apparently called Gaius jArh[oj] ui(o/n (CIA III 444a), though this reading is not certain.
22 IGRR III 768 = M.P. CHARLESWORTH, Documents Illustrating the Reigns of Claudius & Nero (Cambridge 1939) Part I, no. 24; IGRR IV 1505; SEG XLIV 1205.
23 POxy 2555; SEG XXXVII 1221; SMALLWOOD, Documents, no. 135.
24 Note the striking words ‘by the grace of the god Claudius’ in IGRR I 1263. Claudius is simply called ‘Claudius’ in Acts 11,28; 18,2.
25 Both formulas occur in IGRR III 15; IV 1124 = SMALLWOOD, Documents, no. 412(b); SIG III 808; SEG IX 352 = CHARLESWORTH, Documents, Part II, no. 4b; SEG XLVI 2189. At least three of these inscriptions date from the early years of Nero’s reign.
26 K.K. CARROLL, The Parthenon Inscription (GRBM 9) (Durham, NC 1982) 16-17, 41-43. The other two inscriptions are on marble bases; see SEG XXXII 252.
27 BURNETT et al., Roman Provincial Coinage, I, 4174-4175. The name ‘Claudius’ in the genitive sequence Ne/rwnoj Klaudi/ou qeou= ui( Kai/saroj Seb on these coins is ambiguous, for it could refer to Nero’s adoptive father Claudius or to Nero himself as ‘Nero Claudius’. The latter interpretation is supported by the fact that the name ‘Nero Claudius’ appears in unambiguous legends on many coins issued during Nero’s reign; see BURNETT et al., Roman Provincial Coinage, I, Part II, 777-778.
28 SMALLWOOD, Documents, no. 64, 387; BURNETT et al., Roman Provincial Coinage, I, 2433-2434, 2923, 3107.
29 P. JOUGUET, "Vespasien acclamé dans l’hippodrome d’Alexandrie", Mélanges de philologie, de littérature et d’histoire anciennes offerts à Alfred Ernout (Paris 1940) 201-210. This reading and date are accepted by A. HENRICHS, "Vespasian’s Visit to Alexandria", ZPE 3 (1968) 59; B. LEVICK, Vespasian (London 1999) 69.
30 HENRICHS, "Vespasian’s Visit", 59; LEVICK, Vespasian, 69. This conclusion is rejected by JOUGUET, "Vespasien", 207-208.
31 K. SCOTT, The Imperial Cult under the Flavians (Stuttgart 1936) 33-34; P. BURETH, Les Titulatures impériales dans les papyrus, les ostraca et les inscriptions d’Égypte (30 a.C. – 284 p.C.) (Bruxelles 1964) 39; BURNETT et al., Roman Provincial Coinage, II, 726-729.
32 IGRR III 690; IV 211; M. MCCRUM – A.G. WOODHEAD, Select Documents of the Principates of the Flavian Emperors Including the Year of Revolution A.D. 68-96 (Cambridge 1966) no. 199. An expanded formula occurs in IGRR IV 845.
33 IGRR IV 1559.
34 IGRR III 724.
35 IGRR IV 846.
36 SEG XXXIX 1388; BURETH, Titulatures, 40; MCCRUM – WOODHEAD, Select Documents, no. 111, 138(b).
37 IGRR IV 211 = MCCRUM – WOODHEAD, Select Documents, no. 136.
38 SEG XXVII 1009-1010; MCCRUM – WOODHEAD, Select Documents, no. 121, 123, 463. Cf. also the expanded formula in IGRR IV 1393.
39 BURNETT et al., Roman Provincial Coinage, II, 1727-1728, 1746-1749, 1752-1756, 2598-2601, 2603-2605, 2610, 2615, 2619, 2657, 2667, 2671-2678, 2694-2713, 2721-2733, 2735, 2771-2774, 2777-2781; cf. also 2652, 2775-2776.
40 IGRR I 862; SCOTT, Imperial Cult, 96-98; BURETH, Titulatures, 44; MCCRUM – WOODHEAD, Select Documents, no. 121.
41 KIM, "Anarthrous", 225.
42 EHRENBERG – JONES, Documents, no. 136.
43 W. SCHENK, Die Sprache des Matthäus. Die Text-Konstituenten in ihren makro- und mikrostrukturellen Relationen (Göttingen 1986) 285.
44 S.J. FRIESEN, Twice Neokoros. Ephesus, Asia and the Cult of the Flavian Imperial Family (RGRW 116; Leiden – New York – Köln 1993) 7-15.
45 S.R.F. PRICE, Rituals and Power. The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (Cambridge 1984) 58.
46 H. HÄNLEIN-SCHÄFER, Veneratio Augusti. Eine Studie zu den Tempeln des ersten römischen Kaisers (Archaeologica 39; Rome 1985) 113-254.
47 For a survey of the locations proposed by forty scholars, see DAVIES – ALLISON, Matthew, I, 138-139.
48 Josephus, Bell. iud., 1.403, 404, 414; Ant., 15.298, 339, 363-364.
49 HÄNLEIN-SCHÄFER, Veneratio Augusti, 198-203; Z.U. MA‘OZ, "Banias", The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (ed. E. STERN) (Jerusalem – New York 1993) I, 136-143, esp. 140; L.C. KAHN, "King Herod’s Temple of Roma and Augustus at Caesarea Maritima", Caesarea Maritima. A Retrospective after Two Millenia (ed. A. RABAN – K.G. HOLUM) (DMOA 21; Leiden 1996) 130-145. All three of these temples were probably dedicated to both Roma and Augustus.
50 A. YARBRO COLLINS, "The Worship of Jesus and the Imperial Cult", The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism. Papers from the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus (ed. C.C. NEWMAN – J.R. DAVILA – G.S. LEWIS) (JSJSup 63.; Leiden – Boston – Köln 1999) 256-257.
51 G. DOWNEY, A History of Antioch in Syria from Seleucus to the Arab Conquest (Princeton 1961) 179-182, 183, 191, 196, 202, 206-207; W. CARTER, Matthew and the Margins. A Sociopolitical and Religious Reading (JSNTSS 204; Sheffield 2000) 36-38.
52 DOWNEY, History of Antioch, 167.
53 SEG XLIV 938. See also SEG XI 922-23; XXXVII 1007.
54 BURNETT et al., Roman Provincial Coinage, I, Part II, 773; II, Part II, 362.
55 FRIESEN, Twice Neokoros, 15-21.
56 PRICE, Rituals and Power, 58.
57 L. ROBERT, "Le culte de Caligula à Milet et la province d’Asie", Hellenica 7 (1949) 206-238; FRIESEN, Twice Neokoros, 21-26.
58 DAVIES – ALLISON, Matthew, I, 138, for example, conclude that "Matthew was almost certainly written between A.D. 70 and A.D. 100, in all probability between A.D. 80 and 95".
59 PRICE, Rituals and Power, 61-62.
60 CARTER, Matthew and the Margins, 37-38.
61 PRICE, Rituals and Power, 89.
62 PRICE, Rituals and Power, 266, 273; LEVICK, Vespasian, 75.
63 PRICE, Rituals and Power, 140, 178, 182, 187, and esp. 255; FRIESEN, Twice Neokoros, 29-75; G. Biguzzi, "Ephesus, Its Artemision, Its Temple to the Flavian Emperors, and Idolatry in Revelation", NT 40 (1998) 276-290.
64 PRICE, Rituals and Power, 183, 264, 272. The Flavian cult was also established in the West; see P. SOUTHERN, Domitian. Tragic Tyrant (Bloomington – Indianapolis 1997) 37-38, 46.
65 MCCRUM – WOODHEAD, Select Documents, no. 466.
66 SEG XXVII 1009-1010. Concerning Domitian’s possible use of the title dominus et deus noster, see L.L. THOMPSON, The Book of Revelation. Apocalypse and Empire (New York – Oxford 1990) 104-107; B.W. JONES, The Emperor Domitian (London – New York 1992) 108-109.
67 W. WRUCK, Die syrische Provinzialprägung von Augustus bis Traian (Stuttgart 1931) 17-18, 44, 178-181; BURNETT et al., Roman Provincial Coinage, I, 4006, 4087 (?), 4150, 4161, 4174-4175. Coins struck in Tarsus and Anazarbus, cities which had been part of the province of Syria prior to about 72 CE, call Domitian qeou= ui(o/j; see BURNETT et al., Roman Provincial Coinage, II, 1727-1728; 1746-1749, 1752-1756.
68 BURNETT et al., Roman Provincial Coinage, II, 2231, 2300-2303. A coin struck in Paneas even used the word diva when referring to Poppaea and Claudia. See BURNETT et al., Roman Provincial Coinage, I, 4846.
69 BURNETT et al., Roman Provincial Coinage, II, 2265-2266, 2269-2272.
70 Cf. Mark 15,32; Luke 23,35.
71 The fourth phrase is in Matt 27,33.
72 The fourth phrase is in Matt 13,55. Note, in contrast, the word order of the phrase ui(oi_ qeou= in 5,9. Cf. also 5,45.
73 R.L. MOWERY, "Subtle Differences: The Matthean ‘Son of God’ References", NT 32 (1990) 198-199.
74 Such a christological formula, if it existed, could have originally been modeled after an existing formula like the imperial son of god formula.
75 See KIM, "Anarthrous", 221-241; JOHNSON, "Mark 15,39", 406-413; and the other studies they cite.
76 YARBRO COLLINS, "Worship of Jesus", 257, though she claims that the royal and messianic use of this epithet in Jewish tradition represents ‘the best analogy and perhaps the source of its application to Jesus’ in Mark.
77 A rare exception occurs in IGRR IV 1173.
78 KIM, "Anarthrous", 240, concludes that Mark’s use of the language of the Roman imperial cult in 1,1 and 15,39 was ‘deliberate’. This conclusion is rightly rejected by JOHNSON, "Mark 15,39", 407-408. We are focusing not on Matthew’s intentions but on the likely response of some members of his community. Cf. CARTER, Matthew and the Margins, 537.