Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T05:37:08.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mark and His Readers: The Son of God among Greeks and Romans

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2011

Adela Yarbro Collins
Adela Yarbro Collins
Affiliation:
University of Chicago
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In his influential work, Kyrios Christos, Wilhelm Bousset confessed that he had vacillated and was still vacillating on the question of whether the creation of the title υἱòς θɛo⋯ (“Son of God”) as an epithet for Jesus ought to be attributed to the earliest community of his followers in Palestine. He tentatively took the position that the oldest community of followers of Jesus described him as the παῖς θɛo⋯ (“Servant of God”) in a messianic interpretation of the servant-poems of Second Isaiah. This epithet, he thought, was in considerable tension with the notion of Jesus as the Son of God, making it unlikely that both epithets originated in the same context. He argued that the statement of the divine voice in the scenes of baptism and transfiguration, “You are my Son,” is a tradition that circulated in the earliest community but that this address is a far cry from the title “Son of God.” He was thus inclined to conclude that this title originated “on Greek ground, in the Greek language.” He argued that the confession of Jesus as the Son of God by the Gentile centurion in Mark 15:39 cannot be understood as a recognition of Jesus as the Jewish messiah. Rather, “Son of God” was the formula chosen by the evangelist to express the identity of Jesus Christ for the faith of the Gentile Christian community.

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 93 , Issue 2 , April 2000 , pp. 85 - 100
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Bousset, Wilhelm, Kyrios Christos: Geschichte des Christusglaubens von den Anfängen des Christentums bis Irenaeus (Frlant; 4th ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1935) 54Google Scholar.

2 Ibid., 57.

3 Ibid., 55-56; citation from 56: “auf griechischem Boden, in griechischer Sprache;” my translation.

4 Ibid., 55.

5 Hengel, Martin, The Son of God (London: SCM, 1976; German, ed. 1975)Google Scholar ; ET reprinted in The Cross of the Son of God (London: SCM, 1986); the views summarized above are found on p. 22 of the reprintGoogle Scholar.

6 Hengel, , The Cross of the Son of God, 26–28Google Scholar.

7 Hengel, Martin, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period (2 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974)Google Scholar.

8 Homer Il. 1.544 ; Hesiod, Tlieogony 47.Google Scholar Compare Peter Martitz, Wülfing von, “υίος, υίοθεσία , A. υίóς in Greek,” TDNT 8 (1972) 336Google Scholar.

9 Hengel, , The Cross of the Son of God, 29Google Scholar.

10 Hesiod, Theogony 940–42Google Scholar ; Martitz, von, “υίóς, υίοθεσία,” 336Google Scholar ; Pokorný, PetrDer Gottessohn: Literarische Übersicht und Fragestellung (Theologische Studien 109; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1971) 11Google Scholar.

11 Hesiod, Theogony 943-44, 950–55Google Scholar ; Homeric Hymns 1; 26 ; Martitz, von, “υίóς, υίοθεσία,” 336Google Scholar.

12 Diogenes Laertius 3.2. Compare with the English translation in Cartlidge, David R. and Dungan, David L., Documents for the Study of the Gospels (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980) 129Google Scholar.

13 The tyrant Clearchus of Heraklea (4th century BCE) called himself “Son of Zeus”; see Pokorný, , Der Gottessohn, 15Google Scholar ; Ludwig Bieler, , ΘElOΣ ΑΝΗΡ: Das Bild des “göttlichen Menschen” in Spätantike und Frühchristentum (2 vols.; Vienna: Buchhandlung Oskar Höfels, 1935-1936) 1. 1, 10, 134Google Scholar ; Martitz, von, “υίóς, υίοθεσία,” 336Google Scholar.

14 Martitz, von, “υίóς, υίοθεσία,” 336Google Scholar ; Pokorny, , Der Gottessohn, 15Google Scholar.

15 I am assuming here that many Greek and Roman converts, who would have been instructed in both Jewish and early Christian traditions, were likely to attempt to integrate Greek and Roman traditions with these new traditions, and, in any case, that they were likely unconsciously to understand these new traditions in terms of the old.

16 Bultmann, Rudolf, The History of the Synoptic Tradition (rev. ed.; New York: Harper & Row, 1968) 247–48Google Scholar.

17 For the texts of the two Greek manuscripts and of a shorter Latin version, see Perry, Ben Edwin, Aesopica, vol. 1:Google ScholarGreek and Latin Texts (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1952)Google Scholar ; for an English translation, see Daly, Lloyd W., Aesop without Morals (New York: Thomas Yoseloff, 1961)Google Scholar or Wills, Lawrence M., The Quest of the Historical Gospel: Mark, John, and the Origins of the Gospel Genre (London: Routledge, 1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar Appendix.

18 Lefkowitz, Mary R., The Lives of the Greek Poets (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981) 27–28.Google Scholar This story appears on an inscription discovered on the island of Paros and published by Nikolaos Kontoleon in 1954. The marble orthostates on which the text was inscribed belonged to the heroon of Archilochus that was built near the city of Paros in the third century BCE. For the Greek text and discussion, see Miiller, Carl Werner, “Die Archilochoslegende,” Rheinisches Museum für Philologie n. F. 128 (1985) 99–151Google Scholar , especially 100-110. For the Greek text and a German translation of the story, see Treu, Max, Archilochos (Munich: Ernst Heimeran, 1959)42–45Google Scholar.

19 For further discussion of the similarities of Mark to the ancient popular biographies, see Collins, Adela Yarbro, “Finding Meaning in the Death of Jesus,” JR 78 (1998) 175–96Google Scholar.

20 Empedocles Kαθαρψοί (“Purifications”) frg. 112 (DK); frg. 102 in Wright, M. R., Empedocles: The Extant Fragments (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981)Google Scholar ; and frg. 399 in Kirk, G. S., Raven, J. E. and Schofield, M., The Presocratic Philosophers: A Critical History with a Selection of Texts (2d ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983)Google Scholar ; text and translation from the latter (p. 313); the fragment is cited by Hengel, Martin, The Charismatic Leader and His Followers (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1981) 25Google Scholar.

21 Hesiod, Catalogue of Women 63Google Scholar = scholiast on Pindar Pyth. 3.14; see also Francis Redding Walton, , “Asclepius,” in OCD (2d ed., 1970) 129–30Google Scholar.

22 Ribichini, S., “Eshmun,” in Toorn, Karel van der et al., eds., Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (Leiden: Brill, 1995) 583-87, esp. 584Google Scholar.

23 Epidaurus stele 1.3, 4, 5, 9, 15, 16, 18; 11.35, 37; see Edelstein, Emma J. and Edelstein, Ludwig, Asclepius: A Collection and Interpretation of the Testimonies (New York: Arno, 1975) 221–37Google Scholar.

24 Ovid, Fasti 6. 743–62Google Scholar ; see also Edelstein, and Edelstein, , Asclepius, nos. 1, 3-5, 8, 66-67, 69, 72, 75, and 94Google Scholar.

25 Strabo 10.3.9; see Bremmer, Jan N., “Religious Secrets and Secrecy in Classical Greece,” in Kippenberg, Hans G. and Stroumsa, Guy G., eds., Secrecy and Concealment: Studies in the History of Mediterranean and Near Eastern Religions (Studies in the History of Religions 65; Leiden: Brill, 1995) 61–78Google Scholar ; the passage from Strabo is cited on p. 72.

26 Ciliers Breytenbach, “Hypsistos,” in Toorn, van der et al., eds., Dictionary of Deities and Demons, 822-30, esp. 822–23Google Scholar.

27 Homer, Od. 17. 485–87Google Scholar ; trans, from Fitzgerald, Robert, trans., Homer: The Odyssey (Anchor Books; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1961; Anchor Books ed. 1963) 327Google Scholar . See the discussion in Dieter Zeller, “Die Menschwerdung des Sohnes Gottes im Neuen Testament und die antike Religionsgeschichte,” in idem, ed. , Menschwerdung Gottes—Vergottlichung von Menschen (Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus 7; Freiburg, Schweiz: Universitätsverlag; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988) 141-76, esp. 160Google Scholar.

28 ωξετ επ σνøπωπσν και πιονα πιονα εþσα εισοσ αναλσντοτοα πολντ σþονοþ (Hymn to Demeter 93-94); text and trans, from Evelyn-White, Hugh G., trans., Hesiod: The Homeric Hymns and Homerica (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967) 294-95.Google Scholar See the discussion in Zeller, , “Die Menschwerdung des Sohnes Gottes im Neuen Testament und die antike Religionsgeschichte,” 160Google Scholar.

29 Hesiod, Hymn to Demeter 101, 118–22.Google Scholar The assumed name is similar to the divine one; compare line 211, in which πþω (= πνüντνþ) is the goddess's (secret and true) name. She is called εειντ (“a stranger”) in line 248.

30 Ibid., 275-80; trans, from White slightly modified.

31 Ibid., 268-74.

32 For discussion see Aune, David E., Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1983) 23–48Google Scholar.

33 Ibid., 186-87.

34 Compare the discussion by Aune, ibid.

35 Fontenrose, joseph Eddy, “Oracles,” OxCD (2d ed., 1970) 754Google Scholar.

36 See Collins, Adela Yarbro, “Mark and His Readers: The Son of God among Jews,” HTR 92 (1999) 393–408Google Scholar.

37 If a noun follows another and the second is in the genitive case, the second noun usually follows the first in having or lacking the article.

38 Ezra P. Gould interpreted the statement of the centurion in its context to mean that the portent(s) accompanying the death of Jesus convinced him that Jesus was “a son of God, a hero after the heathen conception;” idem , Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Mark (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1896) 295Google Scholar.

39 Colwell, E. C., “A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament,” JBL 52 (1933) 12–21Google Scholar.

40 Johnson, Earl S., “Is Mark 15:39 the Key to Mark's Christology?,” JSNT 31 (1987) 3–22, esp. 6-7Google Scholar.

41 Compare Johnson, ibid., 7-8.

42 See Collins, Yarbro, “Mark and His Readers: The Son of God among Jews,” 406Google Scholar.

43 Virgil, Georgics 1.463–68Google Scholar ; trans, from Cartlidge, and Dungan, , Documents for the Study of the Gospels, 163Google Scholar.

44 Plutarch, Caesar 69.3–5Google Scholar ; trans, from Cartlidge, and Dungan, , Documents for the Study of the Gospels, 164Google Scholar.

45 Plutarch, Romulus 27.6–7Google Scholar ; trans, from Perrin, Bernadotte, Plutarch's Lives (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1914) 1. 177Google Scholar.

46 See the discussion of the death and apotheosis of Augustus in Talbert, Charles H., “Biographies of Philosophers and Rulers as Instruments of Religious Propaganda in Mediterranean Antiquity,” ANRW 2.16.2 (1978) 1619–51, esp. 1634Google Scholar.

47 Compare the arguments of Bligh, Philip H., “A Note on Huios Theou in Mark 15.39,” Expository Times 80 (1968) 51–53Google Scholar ; Johnson, , “Is Mark 15.39 the Key to Mark's Christology?,” 12–14Google Scholar ; Kim, Tae Hun, “The Anarthrous υίòς θεοÛ in Mark 15,39 and the Roman Imperial Cult,” Biblica 79 (1998) 221–41Google Scholar.

48 Weinstock, Stefan, Divus Julius (Oxford: Clarendon, 1971) 391–92Google Scholar.

49 See, for example, the letter of the emperor Claudius to the Alexandrians, which dates to 41 CE, in which the deified Augustus is referred to as (ó) θεÒς ΣεβαστÓς, “(the) god Augustus”; the papyrus was published by H. I. Bell in 1912; the Greek text and an English translation are given in White, John L., Light from Ancient Letters (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) pp. 131–37Google Scholar , no. 88; the citation is from line 59.

50 Weinstock, , Divus Julius, 399Google Scholar ; see also the bronze coin of Philippi, dated tentatively to 2 BCE, which contains on the obverse the legend “Aug. Divif. Divo Iul(io)”; ibid., pl. 29, coin no. 12. See also Mattingly, Harold, Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum, vol. 1: Augustus to Vitellius (London: British Museum, 1923) mint of Rome: no. 275 (p. 50)Google Scholar ; coins from the East: nos. 589–616 (pp. 97-101); mint of Ephesus: nos. 691–93 (p. 112). An inscription from Acanthus in Macedonia is dedicated to Augustus as [αύτοκράτορι Καίσ]α[ρι θ]εώι θεού [υίώι] (“to the emperor Caesar, god, son of god, Augustus”); Victor Ehrenberg and Jones, A. H. M., Documents Illustrating the Reigns of Augustus and Tiberius (2ded.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1955) no. 108 (p. 91)Google Scholar ; compare no. 115 (p. 93). The original form of the latter uses the same language as no. 108 and was dedicated to Augustus between 9 BCE and 2 CE; it was reinscribed using the same epithets and dedicated to Tiberius between 19 and 23 CE. The latter inscriptions come from Cyprus. Tiberius is also designated υίòς θεού (son of god) on another inscription from Cyprus dating to 29 CE; ibid., no. 134 (p. 96). In the great inscription of Octavian found at Rhosus, he is designated [Αύτοκρά]τωρ Kαîσαρ θεού' loυλίου υίóς (“Emperor Caesar, son of the deified Julius”); Jalabert, Louis and Mouterde, René, Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie, vol. 3.1:Google ScholarRégion de l'Amanus, Antioche (Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique 46; Paris: Geuthner, 1950) no. 718Google Scholar , line 1 (p. 396). He is also designated simply as θεού υίóς (“son of god”) in lines 73 and 85 (ibid., pp. 399, 400).

51 Buckler, W. H., “Auguste, Zeus Patroos,” Revue de Philologie 9 (1935) 177-88, esp. 179Google Scholar.

52 Buckler, , “Auguste, Zeus Patroos,” 179–80.Google Scholar After the death of Augustus, his official name was øεøσ Εεβαοτοσ καιααþ Ζενσ πατþΏν αντοκα τωþ και σþΞιεþεüσ üελιοτοσ πατνþ τνσ πατþιþισ και οννπαντοσ των ανøþωπων λενονσ (“God Augustus Caesar Zeus Patroos, emperor and high priest, greatest father of the fatherland and of the entire race of human beings”) ; Buckler, , “Auguste, Zeus Patroos,” 180–87Google Scholar.

53 Ehrenberg, and Jones, , Documents Illustrating the Reigns of Augustus and Tiberius, no. 320 (b) line 31 (p. 147).Google Scholar Tiberius himself was named divi filius on coins from Rome ; Mattingly, , Coins of the Roman Empire, nos. 65–94 (pp. 128–33)Google Scholar ; and on coins minted in Commagene; ibid, nos. 174–76 (pp. 144-45).

54 This title is documented for the period from 5 to 3 BCE ; Buckler, , “Auguste, Zeus Patroos,” 179.Google Scholar Compare Price, S. R. F., Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984) 76.Google Scholar In the period from 2 BCE until 14 CE, the title of the high priest was longer, but it still began with these names ; Buckler, , “Auguste, Zeus Patroos,” 180Google Scholar.

55 See Dölger, Franz Josef, lXΘΥΣ: Das Fischsymbol in frühchristlicher Zeit, vol. 1: Religionsgeschichtliche und epigraphische Untersuchungen (Supplement to Romische Quartalschrift; Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder; Rome: Spithöver, 1910) 391Google Scholar.

56 Price, S. R. F., “Gods and Emperors: The Greek Language of the Roman Imperial Cult,” JHS 104 (1984) 79-95, esp. 79CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

56 Price, , “Gods and Emperors,” 93Google Scholar.

58 The introduction of the reading θεού υίóς may be explained in either of two ways: it could be influenced by the usage of the imperial cult or it could be due to the use of the acronym ίΧθύς (“fish”) for' ιησûς Xριστòς θεοÛ γίÒς Σωτήρ (“Jesus Christ God's Son Savior”); see Dölger, , lXθγΣ: Das Fischsymbol in frühchristlicher Zeit, 1. 403–405Google Scholar.

59 With regard to the question of verisimilitude, it seems to be sufficient for the author of Mark to link this insight with the portents surrounding the death of Jesus. The author is not concerned with the centurion as a character in the narrative, and thus the fact that he is not portrayed as joining the group of disciples is irrelevant. The acclamation of the centurion is meant to affect the audience; for this purpose a high degree of verisimilitude is unnecessary.

60 Johnson, , “Is Mark 15.39 the Key to Mark's Christology?,” 16Google Scholar.

61 Collins, Yarbro, “Mark and His Readers: The Son of God among Jews,” 403–4Google Scholar.

62 Rom 1:3-4.

63 Collins, Adela Yarbro, “The Worship of Jesus and the Imperial Cult,” in Newman, Carey C., Davila, James R., and Lewis, Gladys S., eds., The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers from the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus (Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplements 63; Leiden: Brill, 1999) 234–57Google Scholar.

64 Hengel, , Cross of God, 28Google Scholar , n. 57 ; Taeger, Fritz, Charisma: Studien zur Geschichte des antiken Herrscherkultes (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1960) 2. 98Google Scholar.

65 Taeger, , Charisma, 211Google Scholar.

66 Lösch, Stephan, Deitas Jesu und Antike Apotheose: Ein Beitrag zur Exegese und Religionsgeschichte (Rottenburg a. N. [Württ.]: Adolf Bader, 1933) 66Google Scholar.

67 Price, , “Gods and Emperors,” 85, n. 54Google Scholar.

68 Bousset, , Kyrios Christos, 151–52, n. 3Google Scholar.

69 Dölger, , lXΘγΣ: Das Fischsymbol in frühchristlicher Zeit, 1. 394–95Google Scholar.

70 Ibid., 395-96.

71 Ibid.

72 Ibid., 397-99.

73 Ibid., 396.

74 See Braun, Herbert, “Der Sinn der neutestamentlichen Christologie,” ZhK 54 (1957) 341–77Google Scholar ; reprinted in idem, , Gesammelte Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt (2d rev. ed.; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1967) 243–82Google Scholar ; Betz, Hans Dieter, “Gottmensch II,” Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum 12 (1982) 234–312Google Scholar.

75 For the evidence from Egypt, see Bureth, Paul, Les titulatures impériales dans les papyrus, les ostraca et les inscriptions de I'Égypte (30 a.C. -284 p.C.) (Papyrologica Bruxellensia 2; Bruxelles: Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth, 1964)Google Scholar.

76 Deissmann, Adolf, Bibelstudien: Beiträge, zumeist aus den Papyri und Inschriften, zur Geschichte der Sprache, des Schriftums und der Religion des hellenistischen Judentums und des Urchristentums (Marburg: Elwert, 1895) 166–68Google Scholar.