¹ Quotation, including bracketed material, taken from Black, C. Clifton, Mark: Images of an Apostolic Interpreter (Studies on Personalities of the New Testament; Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1994) 139 Google Scholar. As Black clarifies, Clement's Adumbrationes are preserved in the 6^th-cent. Latin translation of Cassiodorus.

² It appears that John Chrysostom was the first church father to place Mark outside of Rome, claiming that he wrote in Egypt (Hom. Matt. 1.7). For a full discussion of the patristic evidence, see Black, Mark: Images, 77–182.

³ E.g., Hengel, Martin, Studies in the Gospel of Mark (London: SCM, 1985) 1–30 Google Scholar; Senior, Donald, “‘With Swords and Clubs . . . ’: The Setting of Mark's Community and His Critique of Abusive Power,” BTB 17 (1987) 10–20 Google Scholar; Incigneri, Brian J., The Gospel to the Romans: The Setting and Rhetoric of Mark's Gospel (BIS 65; Leiden: Brill, 2003) 59–115 Google Scholar; and Winn, Adam, The Purpose of Mark's Gospel: An Early Christian Response to Imperial Propaganda (WUNT 2/245; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008)Google Scholar.

⁴ See Marxsen, Willi, Mark the Evangelist: Studies in the Redaction History of the Gospel (Nashville: Abingdon, 1969) 54–116 Google Scholar; Myers, Ched, Binding the Strong Man (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1988) 53–54 Google Scholar; and Roskam, Hendrika N., The Purpose of the Gospel of Mark in its Historical and Social Context (NovTSup 114; Leiden: Brill, 2004) 75–114 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵ E.g., Kee, Howard Clark, Community of the New Age: Studies in Mark's Gospel (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1983) 77–105 Google Scholar; Theissen, Gerd, The Gospels in Context: Social and Political History in the Synoptic Tradition (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991) 235–89Google Scholar; Marcus, Joel, “The Jewish War and the Sitz im Leben of Mark,” JBL 111 (1992) 441–62Google Scholar; idem, Mark 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 27; New York: Doubleday, 2000) 28–37; and Schenke, Ludger, Das Markusevangelium: Literarische Eigenart—Text und Kommentierung (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2005) 41 Google Scholar.

⁶ For instance, Peterson, Dwight N., The Origins of Mark: The Markan Community in Current Debate (BIS 48; Leiden: Brill, 2000)Google Scholar, and Black, C. Clifton, Mark (ANTC; Nashville: Abingdon, 2011) 30 Google ScholarPubMed. Going one step further, Richard Bauckham argues that the gospels were not intended for specific communities, and concludes that the search for the Markan community is misguided (“For Whom Were the Gospels Written?” in idem, ed., The Gospel for all Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998] 9–48). Nonetheless, Mitchell, Margaret M. has provided compelling patristic evidence that even the earliest interpreters of the gospels thought that they were connected to specific communities (“Patristic Counter-evidence to the Claim that ‘the Gospels were Written for all Christians,’” NTS 51 [2005] 36–79)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷ de Mingo Kaminouchi, Alberto, “But it is Not So Among You”: Echoes of Power in Mark 10.32–45 (JSNTSup 249; London: T&T Clark, 2003) 161 Google Scholar.

⁸ Peppard, Michael, The Son of God in the Roman World: Divine Sonship in Its Social and Political Context (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011) 91 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Similarly, Winn, Adam, “Tyrant or Servant? Roman Political Ideology and Mark 10.42–45,” JSNT 36 (2014) 325–52Google Scholar, at 330 n. 14.

⁹ Peppard, Son of God, 86–131. See also, Collins, Adela Yarbro, “Mark and His Readers: The Son of God among Greeks and Romans,” HTR 93 (2000) 85–100 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰ See Evans, Craig A., “Mark's Incipit and the Priene Calendar Inscription: From Jewish Gospel to Greco-Roman Gospel,” JGRChJ 1 (2000) 67–81 Google Scholar.

¹¹ Although ms W reads λούτρον (ablution) instead of λύτρον (ransom), it is likely that this reading arose due to an unintentional scribal modification.

¹² Some scholars argue that the saying goes back to the historical Jesus. See, for instance, Stuhlmacher, Peter, “Existenzvertretung für die Vielen: Mk. 10,45 (Mt. 20,28),” in Werden und Wirken des alten Testament: Festschrift für Claus Westermann zum 70. Geburtstag (ed. Albertz, Rainer et al.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980) 412–27Google Scholar; Gundry, Robert H., Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993) 588–89Google Scholar; and Evans, Craig A., Mark 8:27—16:20 (WBC 34b; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001) 114–15Google Scholar. Others, rightly to my mind, argue against its authenticity. See, for instance, Bultmann, Rudolf, The History of the Synoptic Tradition (trans. Marsh, John; New York: Harper & Row, 1963) 143–44Google Scholar; Pesch, Rudolf, Das Markusevangelium (2 vols.; HTKNT 2; Freiburg: Herder, 1976–1977) 2:162–67Google Scholar; and Roloff, Jürgen, “Anfänge der soteriologischen Deutung des Todes Jesu (Mk. X.45 und Lk. XXII.27),” NTS 19 (1972–1973) 38–64 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹³ For example, Jeremias, Joachim, “Das Lösegeld für Viele (Mk 10,45),” Judaica 3 (1947–1948) 249–64Google Scholar; Suhl, Alfred, Die Funktion der alttestamentlichen Zitate und Anspielungen im Markusevangelium (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1965) 114–20Google Scholar; Moulder, W. J., “The Old Testament Background and the Interpretation of Mark 10.45,” NTS 24 (1977–1978) 120–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gnilka, Joachim, Das Evangelium nach Markus (2 vols.; EKKNT 2/2; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1979) 2:104 Google Scholar; Stuhlmacher, “Existenzvertretung für die Vielen”; Grimm, Werner, Weil Ich dich Liebe: Die Verkündigung Jesu und Deuterojesaja (ANTJ 1; Bern: Lang, 1981) 255 Google Scholar; and Watts, Rikki E., “Jesus’ Death, Isaiah 53, and Mark 10:45: A Crux Revisited,” in Jesus and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins (ed. Bellinger, William H. Jr. and Farmer, William R.; Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1998) 125–51Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Marcus, Joel, Mark 8–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 27a; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009) 753 Google Scholar.

¹⁵ Although Isa 53:10 also uses the verb δίδωμι and the noun ψυχή, the verb is a second-person plural subjunctive, and the soul or life in view takes the second-person plural possessive.

¹⁶ See Marcus, Joel, The Way of the Lord: Christological Exegesis of the Old Testament in the Gospel of Mark (SNTW; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993)Google Scholar, and Watts, Rikki E., Isaiah's New Exodus and Mark (WUNT 2/88; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997)Google Scholar.

¹⁷ See Barrett, C. K., “The Background of Mark 10:45,” in New Testament Essays: Studies in Memory of Thomas Walter Manson (ed. Higgins, A. J. B.; Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1959) 1–18 Google Scholar; Hooker, Morna D., Jesus and the Servant: The Influence of the Servant Concept of Deutero-Isaiah in the New Testament (London: SPCK, 1959) 78 Google Scholar; Wilcox, Max, “On the Ransom-Saying in Mark 10.45c, Matt 20.28c,” in Geschichte—Tradition—Reflexion: Festschrift für Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag (ed. Lichtenberger, Hermann et al.; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1996) 173–86Google Scholar; and Dowd, Sharyn and Malbon, Elizabeth Struthers, “The Significance of Jesus’ Death in Mark: Narrative Context and Authorial Audience,” JBL 125 (2006) 271–97, at 283–85Google Scholar.

¹⁸ On volume as a test case for determining both whether an author intended to allude to a passage and whether informed readers would catch the allusion, see Hays, Richard B., Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989) 30 Google Scholar.

¹⁹ See the criticisms of Vieweger, Dieter and Böckler, Annette, “ ‘Ich gebe Ägypten als Lösegeld für dich’: Mk 10,45 und die jüdische Tradition zu Jes 43,3b–4,” ZAW 108 (1996) 594–607 Google Scholar. Admittedly, LXX translators elsewhere (e.g., Exod 21:30; 30:12; Num 35:31–32) translate the noun as λύτρον.

²⁰ Collins, Adela Yarbro, “The Signification of Mark 10:45 among Gentile Christians,” HTR 90 (1997) 371–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar; eadem, Mark: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007) 500; and eadem, “Mark's Interpretation of the Death of Jesus,” JBL 128 (2009) 545–54.

²¹ Yarbro Collins, “Signification of Mark 10:45,” 372.

²² Yarbro Collins, “Mark's Interpretation,” 548.

²³ Yarbro Collins, Mark, 502.

²⁴ Yarbro Collins, “Mark's Interpretation,” 549.

²⁵ See the more explicit citations of Dan 7:13–14 in Mark 13:26 and 14:62, as well as Allison, Dale C. Jr., Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010) 293–303 Google Scholar.

²⁶ See Horbury, William, “The Messianic Association of ‘The Son of Man,’” JTS 36 (1985) 34–55 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and VanderKam, James C., “Righteous One, Messiah, Chosen One, and Son of Man,” in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity (ed. Charlesworth, James H.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992) 169–91Google Scholar.

²⁷ Marcus, Mark 8–16, 749.

²⁸ Seeley, David, “Rulership and Service in Mark 10:41–45,” NovT 35 (1993) 234–50Google Scholar, at 234. See also Dowd and Struthers Malbon, “Significance of Jesus’ Death,” and Winn, “Tyrant or Servant?”

²⁹ On kingship discourses in Hellenistic Judaism, see Murray, Oswyn, “Aristeas and Ptolemaic Kingship,” JTS 18 (1967) 337–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mendels, Doron, Identity, Religion, and Historiography: Studies in Hellenistic History (JSPSup 24; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998) 325–33Google Scholar; Wischmeyer, Oda, “Herrschen als Dienen—Mk 10,41–45,” ZNW 90 (1999) 28–44 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Elledge, C. D., The Statutes of the King: The Temple Scroll's Legislation on Kingship (11Q19 LVI 12—LIX 21) (CahRB 56; Paris: Gabalda, 2004)Google Scholar. This ideal is not confined to Hellenistic sources. For the king as servant in Jewish scriptures, see 1 Kgs 12:7 LXX and the discussion of Weinfeld, Moshe, “The King as the Servant of the People: The Source of the Idea,” JJS 33 (1982) 189–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁰ Unless otherwise noted, non-Jewish Greco-Roman sources are quoted from the Loeb Classical Library.

³¹ Seeley, “Rulership,” 238. See also Volkmann, Hans, ENDOXOS DULEIA: Kleine Schriften zur alten Geschichte (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1975) 74–81 Google Scholar; Collins, John N., Diakonia: Re-interpreting the Ancient Sources (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990)Google Scholar; and Martin, Dale B., Slavery as Salvation: The Metaphor of Slavery in Pauline Christianity (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990) 42–49 Google Scholar. Martin contrasts what he terms the “populist model” of leadership, in which the ruler serves the common people, to the “benevolent patriarchal model,” in which the ruler governs benevolently, yet superiorly (Slavery as Salvation, 86–116).

³² Seeley, “Rulership,” 249.

³³ Ibid., 249. Early Christians picked up on this similarity between Paul and Mark, as noted by Yarbro Collins, Mark, 500 n. 116, and Edwards, Christopher J., “Pre-Nicene Receptions of Mark 10:45/Matt 20:28 and Phil 2:6–8,” JTS 61 (2010) 194–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For Mark's essentially Pauline perspective, see Marcus, Joel, “Mark—Interpreter of Paul,” NTS 46 (2000) 473–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁴ Yarbro Collins, “Signification of Mark 10:45,” 371.

³⁵ See Deubner, Ludwig, “Die Devotion der Decier,” Archiv für Religionsgeschichte 8 (1905) 66–81 Google Scholar; Versnal, H. S., “Two Types of Roman devotio ,” Mnemosyne 29 (1976) 365–410 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Janssen, L. F., “Some Unexplored Aspects of devotio Deciana ,” Mnemosyne 34 (1981) 357–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁶ Winn, “Tyrant or Servant?” 330. Citing the evidence of Suetonius Cal. 23–26, 38; Nero 32–35, Winn argues that, while most emperors presented “themselves as citizens who were subjects to Roman law,” Caligula and Nero “presented themselves as supra leges” (“Tyrant or Servant?” 337).

³⁷ This date is based upon Seneca's reference to the actions of the young Augustus when he “was the same age that you [i.e., Nero] now are, just past his eighteenth birthday” (Clem. 1.9.1). On the issue of dating, see the full discussions of Zwierlein, Otto, “Zur Datierung von Senecas De Clementia ,” Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 139 (1996) 14–32 Google Scholar, and Malaspina, Ermanno, L. Annaei Senecae: De clementia libri duo (Alexandria: Edizioni dell'Orso, 2002) 292–98.Google Scholar Unless otherwise stated, all translations of De clementia come from Braund, Susanna, Seneca: “De Clementia” (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009)Google Scholar.

³⁸ Braund, Seneca, 1.

³⁹ Ibid., 23.

⁴⁰ Kaster, Robert A., “On Clemency,” in Seneca: Anger, Mercy, Revenge (ed. Kaster, Robert A. and Nussbaum, Martha C.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010) 133–94, at 133Google Scholar.

⁴¹ On Roman views of clemency, see Bux, Ernst, “ Clementia Romana: Ihr Wesen und ihre Bedeutung für die Politik des römischen Reiches,” Würzburger Jahrbücher für die Altertumswissenschaft 3 (1948) 201–31Google Scholar; Adam, Traute, Clementia Principis: Der Einfluß hellenistischer Fürstenspiegel auf den Versuch einer rechtlichen Fundierung des Principats durch Seneca (Kieler Historische Studien 11; Stuttgart: Ernst Klett, 1970)Google Scholar; Griffin, Miriam T., “ Clementia after Caesar: From Politics to Philosophy,” in Caesar Against Liberty: Perspectives on His Autocracy (ed. Cairns, Francis and Fantham, Elaine; Papers of the Langford Latin Seminar 11; Cambridge, UK: Francis Cairns, 2003) 157–82Google Scholar; Konstan, David, “Clemency as a Virtue,” CP 100 (2005) 337–46Google Scholar; and Dowling, Melissa Barden, Clemency and Cruelty in the Roman World (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2006)Google Scholar.

⁴² Braund, Seneca, 210. See Malaspina, L. Annaei Senecae, 262.

⁴³ To be fair, Seneca can elsewhere say that God gave Caligula's father Germanicus and his grandfather Tiberius the authority to rule because, “instead of sacrificing the state to themselves, they have sacrificed themselves to the state” (Ben. 4.32.2). Nonetheless, this statement fits with his argument in De clementia that what the emperor does to the state he does to himself. For that matter, as Winn points out, “Clearly, Seneca is speaking figuratively here, referring to the emperor sacrificing his own power, glory and wealth for the good of the Roman state” (“Tyrant or Servant?” 346).

⁴⁴ Braund, Seneca, 207. See also Cicero Leg. 1.39.

⁴⁵ As Braund (Seneca, 208) notes, “By reserving the language of domination and slavery for the comparison [between body and mind/soul], Seneca keeps at arm's length the implication that the Roman people are Nero's slaves.”

⁴⁶ Winn suggests that Mark's initial readers may have understood πρ τος to allude to the Roman emperor's claim to be princeps—the “first citizen” (“Tyrant or Servant?” 344–45).

⁴⁷ The only evidence of its influence in the Roman period is its use in the late-first century play Octavia, which was erroneously attributed to Seneca. See the evidence of Manuwald, Gesine, “Der ‘Fürstenspiegel’ in Senecas De clementia und in der Octavia ,” MH 59 (2002) 107–27Google Scholar.

⁴⁸ It is possible that both Mark and his readers knew De clementia, if Mark and his community knew Latin, as argued by Van Iersel, Bas M. F., Mark: A Reader-Response Commentary (JSNTSup 164; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998) 34–35 Google Scholar, and Incigneri, Gospel to the Romans, 100–103.

⁴⁹ Griffin, Miriam T., Seneca: A Philosopher in Politics (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976) 141 Google Scholar.

⁵⁰ As Braund observes, De clementia “is the closest thing we have to a ‘kingship treatise’ in Latin literature from any period.” In part, this is because of Roman aversion to kings (Seneca, 19). See Wallace-Hadrill, Andrew, “ Civilis Princeps: Between Citizen and King,” JRS 72 (1982) 32–48 Google Scholar. On kingship treatises, see the seminal article of Goodenough, Erwin R., “The Political Philosophy of Hellenistic Kingship,” YCS 1 (1928) 55–102 Google Scholar, as well as Lund, Helen S., Lysimachus: A Study in Early Hellenistic Kingship (London: Routledge, 1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Samuel, A. E., “The Ptolemies and the Ideology of Kingship,” in Hellenistic History and Culture (ed. Green, Peter; HCS 9; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993) 168–210 Google Scholar; Gruen, Erich S., “Seleucid Royal Ideology,” SBL Seminar Papers, 1999 (SBLSP 38; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999) 24–53 Google Scholar; and Hahm, David E., “Kings and Constitutions: Hellenistic Theories,” in The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Political Thought (ed. Rowe, Christopher and Schofield, Malcolm; Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2006) 457–76Google Scholar.

⁵¹ Taken from Michael Gagarin and Paul Woodruff, eds., Early Greek Political Thought from Homer to the Sophists (Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought; Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1995) 24.

⁵² As scholars frequently note, Mark 10:45 also finds a parallel in 4 Maccabees's portrayal of Eleazar, who died for his faithfulness to the Jewish law. According to 4 Maccabees, at the point of death, Eleazar called out to God, saying: “Make my blood a purification for them, and take my life in exchange for theirs (ἀντίψυχον αὐτ ν λαβὲ τὴν ἐμὴν ψυχήν, 6:28–29; see also 17:20–21). Although 4 Maccabees lacks the precise ransom language that Mark uses, it nonetheless contains a similar idea: the life of one person can buy the lives of many others. See Williams, Sam K., Jesus’ Death as Saving Event: The Background and Origin of a Concept (HDR 2; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975) 165–202 Google Scholar, and van Henten, Jan Willem, The Maccabean Martyrs as Saviours of the Jewish People: A Study of 2 and 4 Maccabees (JSJSup 57; Leiden: Brill, 1997) 153 Google Scholar.

⁵³ See Isocrates, De pace 143: “those Spartans who are not ready to lay down their lives for their kings in battle are held in greater dishonour than men who desert their post and throw away their shields.”

⁵⁴ Philo makes a similar claim in Virt. 186: “In a ship the pilot is worth as much as all the crew, and in an army the general as much as all the soldiers, since if he fall, defeat results as certainly as it would if the whole force were annihilated.”

⁵⁵ Lee, Michelle V., Paul, the Stoics, and the Body of Christ (SNTSMS 137; Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2006) 9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also, Béranger, Jean, Recherches sur l'Aspect Idéologique du Principat (Schweizerische Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft 6; Basel: Reinhardt, 1953) 218–52Google Scholar; Kienast, Dietmar, “ Corpus Imperii: Überlegungen zum Reichsgedanken der Römer,” in Romanitas-Christianitas: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Literatur der römischen Kaiserzeit: Johannes Straub zum 70. Geburtstag am 18. Oktober 1982 gewidmet (ed. Wirth, Gerhard; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1982) 1–17 Google Scholar; and McVay, John K., “The Human Body as Social and Political Metaphor in Stoic Literature and Early Christian Writers,” BASP 37 (2000) 135–47Google Scholar. For primary evidence, see, for instance, Dionysius of Halicarnassus Ant. Rom. 6.83.2; Livy 2.32.8–12, Philo Praem. 114; Seneca Ep. 114.23–24; Curtius Rufus Historiae Alexandri 10.9.1; Dio Chrysostom Or. 3.68–69; Plutarch Galb. 4.3; and Tacitus Ann. 1.12.

⁵⁶ On the broad dissemination of Roman propaganda about emperors both in writing and in material culture, see Charlesworth, M. P., “The Virtues of a Roman Emperor: Propaganda and the Creation of Belief,” Proceedings of the British Academy 23 (1937) 105–35Google Scholar; Fears, J. R., “The Cult of Virtues and Roman Imperial Ideology,” ANRW 2.17.2 (1981) 827–948 Google Scholar; and Noreña, Carlos F., “The Communication of the Emperor's Virtues,” JRS 91 (2001) 146–68Google Scholar.

⁵⁷ Scott, Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990). See Adam, Clementia Principis.

⁵⁸ Scott, Domination, 18.

⁵⁹ Ibid., 54.

⁶⁰ Which specific rulers Mark has in mind, if any, is difficult to answer. Within the narrative, surely Herod (who was Idumean after all) stands out, since he puts John the Baptist to death in order to fulfill his rash oath (Mark 6). Since we are uncertain about when Mark wrote his gospel, we can only speculate about external referents. Nonetheless, readers would likely have thought of the Roman emperor first and foremost.

⁶¹ I am grateful to one of the anonymous reviewers for drawing my attention to the fact that Luke omits the ransom saying altogether. In light of my argument that we should understand the ransom saying within an imperial context, scholars might point to this omission as further evidence for a reading of an irenic Luke who, in the words of Johnson, Luke Timothy, portrays the Jesus movement as a “philosophically enlightened, politically harmless, socially benevolent and philanthropic fellowship” (The Gospel of Luke [SP 3; Collegeville, MN.: Liturgical Press, 1991] 9)Google Scholar. See also Conzelmann, Hans, The Theology of St. Luke (trans. Buswell, Geoffrey; New York: Harper, 1960) 86–87 Google Scholar. Yet Luke does retain and rework the negative statements about gentile rulers found in Mark 10:42–45a: “The kings of the gentiles ruler over them, and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But you are not like this; rather, the greatest among you must be as the youngest, and the leader as the servant. For who is greater, the one who reclines at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one reclining? But I am in your midst as one who serves” (Luke 22:25–27).

⁶² Kenneth W. Clark argues that κατακυριεύω should not be understood negatively, citing such passages as Gen 1:28. Nonetheless, both the context and Jesus's contrast of κατακυριεύω with what is to occur among his disciples demonstrates that it has a negative connotation for Mark (The Gentile Bias and Other Essays [NovTSup 54; Leiden: Brill, 1980] 207–12).

⁶³ Matera, Frank J., The Kingship of Jesus: Composition and Theology in Mark 15 (SBLDS 66; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982) 73 Google Scholar.

⁶⁴ E.g., Marcus, Joel, “Mark 14:61: ‘Are you the Messiah-Son-of-God?’” NovT 31 [1989] 125–41Google Scholar, at 136; idem, Mark 8–16, 847–51; Fredriksen, Paula, From Jesus to Christ: The Origins of the New Testament Images of Jesus (2nd ed.; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000) 45 Google Scholar; and Fletcher-Louis, Crispin H. T., “Jesus as the High Priestly Messiah: Part I,” JSHJ 4 (2006) 155–75Google Scholar, at 173.

⁶⁵ Marcus, Mark 8–16, 847.

⁶⁶ Marcus, Way of the Lord, 137–52.

⁶⁷ For instance, while Braund acknowledges that there is no Greek equivalent to clementia, she concludes that “the closest terms are φιλανθρωπία, πραότης, and ἐπιείκεια, the last of which is the usual Greek translation of the Latin word clementia in imperial times” (Seneca, 33). See Adam, “Clementia Principis”; Vasaly, Ann, “The Quality of Mercy in Cicero's Pro Murena ,” in Rome and Her Monuments: Essays on the City and Literature of Rome in Honor of Katherine A. Geffcken (ed. Dickison, Sheila K. and Hallett, Judith P.; Wauconda, IL: Bolchazy-Carducci, 2000) 447–63Google Scholar.

⁶⁸ Matera, Kingship of Jesus, 61. Although Jesus never claims to be a king, the fact that he does not reject the title demonstrates that, as Matera notes, “in some manner (understood by the evangelist and his community) Jesus is King of the Jews and King of Israel” (Kingship of Jesus, 64 [italics in original]). On the mockery within this chapter and its ultimate reversal, see Schmidt, T. E., “Mark 15:16–32: The Crucifixion Narrative and the Roman Triumphal Procession,” NTS 41 (1995) 1–18 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Marcus, Joel, “Crucifixion as Parodic Exaltation,” JBL 125 (2006) 73–87 Google Scholar.

⁶⁹ Matera, Kingship of Jesus, 5. Matera argues that “Mark has not [to this point] explicitly employed the title ‘King’ because he carefully reserves it for the moment when there can be no misunderstanding the nature of Jesus’ kingship” (Kingship of Jesus, 91).

⁷⁰ For the imperial context for the title “son of God,” see Kim, Tae Hun, “The Anarthrous υἱὸς θεο in Mark 15,39 and the Roman Imperial Cult,” Bib 79 (1998) 221–41Google Scholar; Yarbro Collins, “Mark and His Readers;” and Peppard, Son of God, 86–131.

⁷¹ Marcus, “Crucifixion,” 74, m notes the discussion of Juel, Donald H., Messiah and Temple: The Trial of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark (SBLDS 31; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977) 48 Google Scholar.

⁷² Peppard, Son of God, 90.

⁷³ See Griffin, Miriam T., who argues that Rome functioned as the governmental model throughout the empire (“ Urbs Roma, Plebs and Princeps ,” in Images of Empire [ed. Alexander, Loveday; JSOTSup 122; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991] 19–46, at 22)Google Scholar. In addition, Braund, David details how client kings would generally be educated in Rome, further demonstrating how Roman-style rulership could be ensured throughout the Empire (Rome and the Friendly King: The Character of the Client Kingship [London: Croom Helm, 1984] 9–21)Google Scholar.

⁷⁴ See Millar, Fergus, The Roman Near East, 31 B.C.–A.D. 337 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990) 27–79 Google Scholar.