Tae Hun Kim, «The Anarthrous ui(o\j qeou= in Mark 15,39 and the Roman Imperial Cult», Vol. 79 (1998) 221-241
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 ui(o\j qeou=. Knowing how an audience familiar with this cult language would react, Mark intentionally speaks of Jesus as ui(o\j qeou= at 1,1, as well as at 15,39.
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 Marks 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 centurions 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 60s CE, when the Roman empire seemed to have reached its nadir shortly after Neros death, Marks 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-