Harvard Divinity School

Mark and His Readers: The Son of God among Greeks and Romans
Author(s): Adela Yarbro Collins
Source: The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 93, No. 2 (Apr., 2000), pp. 85-100
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Harvard Divinity School
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1510198
Accessed: 18/05/2009 05:49

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cambridge University Press and Harvard Divinity School are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to The Harvard Theological Review.

http://www.jstor.org
MarkandHis Readers:The Son of
God amongGreeksandRomans
Adela Yarbro Collins
Universityof Chicago

In his influentialwork, Kyrios Christos,Wilhelm Bousset confessed that he had

vacillatedandwas still vacillatingon the questionof whetherthe creationof the title
u1bSeEOu ("Sonof God")as an epithetfor Jesusoughtto be attributedto the earliest
communityof his followers in Palestine.'He tentativelytook the position that the
oldest communityof followersof Jesusdescribedhim as the TrcfsOEou("Servantof
God") in a messianic interpretationof the servant-poemsof Second Isaiah. This
epithet,he thought,was in considerabletensionwiththe notionof Jesusas the Son of
God,makingit unlikelythatbothepithetsoriginatedin the same context.2He argued
thatthe statementof the divine voice in the scenes of baptismand transfiguration,
"You are my Son," is a traditionthatcirculatedin the earliestcommunitybut that
this addressis a farcry fromthe title"Sonof God."He was thusinclinedto conclude
thatthis title originated"on Greekground,in the Greeklanguage."3He arguedthat
the confession of Jesus as the Son of God by the Gentilecenturionin Mark 15:39
cannotbe understoodas a recognitionof Jesus as the Jewishmessiah.Rather,"Son
of God" was the formulachosen by the evangelistto express the identityof Jesus
Christfor the faithof the GentileChristiancommunity.4
A quite differentview has been expressedby MartinHengel, who, in his book
entitledTheSon of God, criticizedthe views of the historyof religions school with
which Bousset was associated.Hengel argued,on the one hand, that the Trac6ES

1Wilhelm Bousset, Kyrios Christos: Geschichte des Christusglaubens von den Anfangen des
Christentums bis Irenaeus (FRLANT; 4th ed.; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1935) 54.
2Ibid., 57.
3Ibid., 55-56; citation from 56: "auf griechischem Boden, in griechischer Sprache;" my
translation.
4Ibid., 55.
HTR 93:2 (2000) 85-100
86 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

Ai6s ("sonsof Zeus")in Greekreligionhave no link to the early Christianconfes-

sion of the one Son of the one God. On the otherhand,those who followed the Stoic
ideal, accordingto whichall humanbeings areby naturechildrenof Zeus, no longer
neededa "Sonof God"as mediatorand redeemer.5Hengel also concludedthatthe
expressionuibs-OEo("Sonof God")was relativelyrarein the Hellenisticworldand
thatit was neverused as a titleexceptas the Greektranslationof the Latindivifilius,
usually in the form oEO uisO. This title was adoptedby Octaviansoon after the
murderanddivinizationof Caesar.Hengel arguedthatthis usage of the official state
religionhadno seriousinfluenceon the conceptualityof earliestChristianity,devel-
oping in Palestineand Syria;it was at best a negativestimulus,not a model.6
It is somewhatironic thatHengel has taken such a position. As is well known,
he challenged the dichotomy made by the history of religions school and others
between Aramaic-speaking,Palestinian Judaism, on the one hand, and Greek-
speaking,"Hellenistic"Judaismof the Diaspora,on the other. He documentedin
detail the Hellenizationof the Jews of Palestinein his magnumopus, Judaismand
Hellenism.7In his conclusionconcerningthe imperialcult, the implied dichotomy
between Rome, on the one hand,andPalestineand Syria, on the other,is likewise
unjustified.The Palestineof the Herodianswas Romanizedto a significantdegree,
as was much of Syria. In this essay I shall suggest that there was a diversity of
meaningof the phrase"Sonof God"amongfollowers of Jesus in the early period
by focusing on the receptionof the Gospel accordingto Mark.In particular,I am
interestedin those members of Mark's audience who were more familiar with
Greek and Roman religious traditionsthan with Jewish traditionsand who pre-
ferred,whetherconsciouslyorunconsciously,to interprettheChristianproclamation
aboutJesus in Greekor Romanterms.Most of this essay will investigatehow such
membersof Mark's audience were likely to understandhis portrayalof Jesus as
the Son of God. I will returnto the questionof origins in the closing paragraphs.
It is not surprisingthatthe expressionub6sOEoUis relativelyrarein Greek,since
Greekmyths and cults were polytheistic.Greekgods had names and were usually
addressedand referredto with these names,ratherthanwith the generic termOESS
("god").Those familiarwith Greekpolytheistictraditions,however, were likely to
associatethe Jewish or Christianterm"Sonof God"with termslike "sonof Zeus"
and "son of Apollo." Zeus was honoredby the poets Hesiod and Homer as the
father of gods and human beings. The Olympian circle of gods was a family

5MartinHengel, The Son of God (London: SCM, 1976; German ed. 1975); ET reprinted in
The Cross of the Son of God (London: SCM, 1986); the views summarized above are found
on p. 22 of the reprint.
6Hengel, The Cross of the Son of God, 26-28.
7Martin Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine during
the Early Hellenistic Period (2 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974).
 ADELA YARBRO COLLINS 87

dynasty.8From the heroes of the iron age onward,Greeks were familiarwith the
idea that greatwarriorsand wise men were physically descended from individual
gods.9Dionysos was the son of Zeus by a mortalmother,yet he was consideredto
be a god from birth.'0Heracleswas also a son of Zeus by a humanmother,but he
lived a toilsome humanlife until his death and apotheosis,when he was received
intothe circleof the Olympiangods." Accordingto Diogenes Laertius,Speusippos,
a nephew and close friendof Plato, wrote abouta story, currentin Athens, which
narratedthat when Periktione, Plato's mother, was ready to bear children, his
fatherAristontriedbut failed to make her pregnant.Then, afterhe had ceased his
efforts, he saw a vision of Apollo. Thereforehe abstainedfrom any furthermarital
relationsuntil she broughtfortha child (from Apollo).'2
It is highly significantfor our purposesthatkings and otherrulerswere consis-
tently portrayedas descendedfrom gods or as "son of god," "son of Helios," "son
of Zeus."'3This was especially trueof Egypt in the Hellenisticperiod.At the oracle
of Ammon in the Libyandesert,Alexanderthe Greatwas called "son of Ammon,"
"son of Zeus" in Greek. From the beginning, the Ptolemies, the successors of
Alexander in Egypt, claimed the same title.'4And in the early Roman imperial
period,the title OEou uV6swas used for Augustus.Doubtless,residentsof the Medi-
terraneanworld familiar with the ruler cult would have associated the idea that
Jesus was the messiah, the king of Israel, with this usage.
With these remarksformingthe context, I would now like to turnto the text of
Mark and raise the question of how Greek and Roman interested parties or
converts would have understoodcertainpassages.'5Such readerswere likely to
understandthe accountof Jesus' baptismdifferentlyfrom those who preferredor
were unconsciouslyshapedby certainJewishtraditions.A featurethatled Bultmann
to define the accountas a legend is whathe called the miraculousmoment,the way

8Homer II. 1.544; Hesiod Theogony 47. Compare Peter Wiilfing von Martitz, "ulos,
ulo0Eoia, A. uios in Greek," TDNT 8 (1972) 336.
9Hengel, The Cross of the Son of God, 29.
'tHesiod Theogony 940-42; von Martitz, "uios, uio0eoia," 336; Petr Pokorny Der Gottessohn.
Literarische Ubersicht und Fragestellung (Theologische Studien 109; Zurich: Theologischer
Verlag, 1971) 11.
"Hesiod Theogony 943-44, 950-55; Homeric Hymns 1; 26; von Martitz, "uios, uio0Eoia,"
336.
'2Diogenes Laertius 3.2. Compare with the English translation in David R. Cartlidge and
David L. Dungan, Documents for the Study of the Gospels (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980) 129.
'3The tyrant Clearchus of Heraklea (4th century BCE) called himself "Son of Zeus"; see
Pokorny, Der Gottessohn, 15; Ludwig Bieler, 9EIO ANHP: Das Bilddes "gottlichenMenschen "
in Spatantike und Fruhchristentum (2 vols.; Vienna: Buchhandlung Oskar Hofels, 1935-1936)
1. 1, 10, 134; von Martitz, "uios, uioEaoia," 336.
'4von Martitz, "uios, uio0Eoia," 336; Pokorny, Der Gottessohn, 15.
"5Iam assuming here that many Greek and Roman converts, who would have been in-
structed in both Jewish and early Christian traditions, were likely to attempt to integrate Greek
88 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

in which divine charactersand power breakinto the world of humanexperience

and transformthe subjectof the narrative.'6Ancient biographiesof poets contain
similar accountsnear the beginningof the narrativeabout their main subjects. In
the popularbiographyof Aesop, he is portrayedas a slave, extraordinarilyugly,
and unable to speak because of a severe speech impediment.17 This low status is
somewhatmitigatedby divine power. Near the beginningof the narrative,Aesop
assists a priestessof Isis. As a rewardIsis grantshim the power of speech, and the
nine Muses bestow upon him the power to devise stories and the ability to
conceive andelaboratetales, as well as othergifts of excellent speech. A story was
told concerning the archaic lyric poet Archilochus, involving an extraordinary
experience revealing that he would be a poet. While he was leading a cow to
marketat night with the moon shining, he met a crowd of women who offered to
buy the cow. When he had agreedandthey had promisedto give him a good price,
both the women and the cow disappeared,and before his feet he saw a lyre. He
was overcomeandrealizedthatthey were the Muses.18Like Archilochus,the Jesus
of Mark has an experience that transformshim and prepareshim for his life's
work. Archilochusexperiencedan epiphanyor vision of the Muses, who enabled
him to be a poet; Jesus sees the heavens open and hears the divine voice address
him as beloved son. As Aesop was given gifts of wise speech by Isis and the
Muses, Jesus is endowed with the divine spirit on this occasion, the power that
enables him to teach with authority,to heal, andto cast out demons.19Those in the
audience of Markwho were familiarwith such traditionswere likely to interpret
this scene as an analogouslegend and to view Jesus as an heroic figure analogous
to the greatpoets and sages of Greektradition.

and Roman traditions with these new traditions, and, in any case, that they were likely uncon-
sciously to understand these new traditions in terms of the old.
'6Rudolf Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition (rev. ed.; New York: Harper &
Row, 1968) 247-48.
'7Forthe texts of the two Greek manuscripts and of a shorter Latin version, see Ben Edwin
Perry, Aesopica, vol. 1: Greek and Latin Texts (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1952);
for an English translation, see Lloyd W. Daly, Aesop without Morals (New York: Thomas
Yoseloff, 1961) or Lawrence M. Wills, The Quest of the Historical Gospel: Mark, John, and
the Origins of the Gospel Genre (London: Routledge, 1997) Appendix.
"8MaryR. Lefkowitz, The Lives of the Greek Poets (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
Press, 1981) 27-28. 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 Carl Werner Muller, "Die
Archilochoslegende," Rheinisches Museum fiir Philologie n. F. 128 (1985) 99-151, especially
100-110. For the Greek text and a German translation of the story, see Max Treu, Archilochos
(Munich: Ernst Heimeran, 1959) 42-45.
'9Forfurther discussion of the similarities of Mark to the ancient popular biographies, see
Adela Yarbro Collins, "Finding Meaning in the Death of Jesus," JR 78 (1998) 175-96.
 ADELA YARBRO COLLINS 89

Jesus is addressedby the heavenly voice as "mybeloved son" on the occasion

of his baptism, but the first time that he is actually acclaimed with the title "Son
of God" is the occasion of his withdrawal to the sea, when a great multitude
from Galilee, Judea, Jerusalem,Idumea, Perea, Tyre, and Sidon comes to him.
Jesus is so pressed by the crowd that he asks his disciples to have a boat ready in
case he is in dangerof being overwhelmed by them. The crowd is eager because
he has healed many, and many more are hoping to be healed. In this situationthe
unclean spirits fall down before him and cry out, saying, "You are the Son of
God!"Jesus,however,rebukesthemsternlyso thatthey will not makehim known.
The philosopher and miracle worker Empedocles lived in the fifth century
BCE in Sicily, and later in the Peloponnese. His fame, however, was far reaching
and long lasting, especially among educated Greeks. The scene just described
involving Jesus may have called to mind for those familiar with it a similar
traditionabout Empedocles, according to which he once said:
Friends,who live in the great city of the yellow Acragas, up on the
heights of the citadel, caring for good deeds, I give you greetings.
An immortalgod, mortalno more, I go about honouredby all, as is
fitting, crownedwith ribbonsand fresh garlands;and by all whom I
come upon as I enter their prosperingtowns, by men and women I
am revered.They follow me in their thousands,asking where lies the
road to profit, some desiringprophecies,while others ask to hear the
word of healing for every kind of illness, long transfixedby harsh
pains.20
Jesus' efforts to keep his identity secret contrastwith Empedocles' self-procla-
mation. Both, however, draw huge crowds and both are portrayed as healers.
Empedocles presents himself as a mortal who has become immortal.For Greek
and Roman members of the audience of Mark, the epithet "Son of God" would
imply at least potential immortality.
The combination of the motifs of healing and divine sonship also evokes a
comparisonof Jesus with Asclepius. According to Hesiod and Pindar,Asclepius
was the son of Apollo and a mortal woman. He was probably a hero in origin,
but was later considered to be a god.21In Greek and Latin sources, Asclepius or
Aesculapius is identified with Eshmun, the Phoenician god of health whose cult

20EmpedoclesKaeappol[("Purifications")frg. 112 (DK); frg. 102 in M. R. Wright, Empedocles:

The Extant Fragments (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981); and frg. 399 in G. S. Kirk,
J. E. Raven and M. Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers: A Critical History with a Selec-
tion of Texts (2d ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983); text and translation
from the latter (p. 313); the fragment is cited by Martin Hengel, The Charismatic Leader and
His Followers (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1981) 25.
2'Hesiod Catalogue of Women 63 = scholiast on Pindar Pyth. 3.14; see also Francis Redding
Walton, "Asclepius," in OCD (2d ed., 1970) 129-30.
90 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

is attested in Syria and Palestine from the eighth century BCEonward.22There

were shrinesdedicatedto Asclepiusin Epidaurus,Pergamon,Rome, Cyrene,Crete
and Cos. At Epidaurusvarious healings of Asclepius were commemoratedin
formal inscriptions,including the healing of a man with a lame hand, a woman
who was blind in one eye, a muteboy, two cases involving a blind man, two cases
involving a paralytic, and two cases involving a lame man.23There was also a
traditionthat the mortal Asclepius raised the dead Hippolytus and that, for his
audacity,Zeus punishedhim by killing him with a thunderbolt.24 Thus, the storyof
Jesus raisingJairus'daughterwould also elicit a comparisonwith Asclepius. The
secrecy motif in both Markanpassages could be interpretedby Greekand Roman
writers in terms of the mysterious,hidden characterof the divine. In Augustan
times, Straboexplainedthe practiceof secrecy as follows: "thesecrecy with which
the sacredrites areconcealedinducesreverencefor the divine, since it imitatesthe
natureof the divine, which is to avoid being perceivedby our humansenses."25
In Mark 5:7 the demon-possessed man addressesJesus, "Whathave I to do
with you, Jesus, Son of the most high God?"In Greek, "Son of the Most High
God" is uios TOU OEo6uTOUtVIOTOU. In the Greek translations of the Hebrew Bible,
l'brl ("Elyon") is always translated by (b) u'JIoToS, but in non-Jewish, non-
Christian Greek texts, the expression occurs as a divine name for Zeus. Zeus
Hypsistoswas reveredfromAthens,throughAsia Minor,Syria,andon intoEgypt.26
Thus, for members of Mark's audience familiar with this cult, the demon's
addressof Jesus is equivalentto "son of Zeus."
The account of the transfigurationof Jesus in Mark 9 must have had quite a
different impact on members of the audience more familiar with or inclined
toward Greek religious traditionsthan Jewish. Such listeners would be familiar
with the idea that gods sometimes walked the earthin humanform. This notion
finds expressionin the passage from the OdysseythatdescribesOdysseus's return
to Ithaca.He arriveshome disguised as a beggar and, when he is mistreatedby
Antinoos, one of the suitors,anothersuitorrebukeshim saying:

22S. Ribichini, "Eshmun," in Karel van der Toorn et al., eds., Dictionary of Deities and
Demons in the Bible (Leiden: Brill, 1995) 583-87, esp. 584.
23Epidaurusstele 1.3, 4, 5, 9, 15, 16, 18; 11.35, 37; see Emma J. Edelstein and Ludwig
Edelstein, Asclepius: A Collection and Interpretation of the Testimonies (New York: Arno,
1975) 221-37.
24OvidFasti 6.743-62; see also Edelstein and Edelstein, Asclepius, nos. 1, 3-5, 8, 66-67,
69, 72, 75, and 94.
25Strabo10.3.9; see Jan N. Bremmer, "Religious Secrets and Secrecy in Classical Greece,"
in Hans G. Kippenberg and Guy G. Stroumsa, eds., Secrecy and Concealment: Studies in the
History of Mediterranean and Near Eastern Religions (Studies in the History of Religions 65;
Leiden: Brill, 1995) 61-78; the passage from Strabo is cited on p. 72.
26CiliersBreytenbach, "Hypsistos," in van der Toorn et al., eds., Dictionary of Deities and
Demons, 822-30, esp. 822-23.
 ADELA YARBRO COLLINS 91

A poor show, that-hitting this famishedtramp-

bad business,if he happenedto be a god.
You know they go in foreignguise, the gods do,
looking like strangers,turningup
in towns and settlementsto keep an eye
on manners,good or bad.27
More strikinglyandconcretely,the HomericHymnto Demetertells how Demeter,
because of her grief and anger over the abductionof her daughter,"went to the
towns and rich fields of men, disfiguring her form a long while."28The queen
among goddesses disguised herself as an old woman, a stranger,exchanging her
divine name, Demeter,for a humanone, Doso.29When she reveals her identityto
her humanemployer, she is once again transformedto the divine state of being:
When she had so said, the goddess changedher statureand her form
(pEyeOos Ka'iEi6os apE14JE),thrusting old age away from her: beauty
spreadround about her and a lovely fragrancewas wafted from her
sweet-smellingrobes, and from the divine body of the goddess a light
shone afar, while golden tresses spreaddown over her shoulders,so
thatthe stronghouse was filled with brightnessas with lightning.30
To listenersfamiliarwith such traditions,the accountaccordingto which Jesus, in
the sight of the three disciples, was changedin appearancefrom an ordinaryman
to a being with white, shining clothing, would signify that he was a divine being
walking the earth in a modest disguise. Peter's proposal, that he and the others
establish three tents for Jesus and his similarly transfiguredcompanions, makes
sense in this culturalcontext.WhenDemeterreveals her identityto Metaneira,she
commandsthatthe people of Eleusis build her a temple and an altarand promises
to teach them her rites, so that they may performthem and win her favor.31In
Mark, the proposal is rejected, and Jesus does not identify himself as Demeter

27Homer Od. 17.485-87; trans. from Robert Fitzgerald, trans., Homer: The Odyssey
(Anchor Books; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1961; Anchor Books ed. 1963) 327. 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: Universitatsverlag;
Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988) 141-76, esp. 160.
28CXET EU' avepcoTrcov Troicrta KaciTrova Epya EI65o &paaA5uvouoa nroAv xpovov (Hymn to
Demeter 93-94); text and trans. from Hugh G. Evelyn-White, trans., Hesiod: The Homeric
Hymns and Homerica (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967) 294-95. See
the discussion in Zeller, "Die Menschwerdung des Sohnes Gottes im Neuen Testament und die
antike Religionsgeschichte," 160.
29Hesiod Hymn to Demeter 101, 118-22. The assumed name is similar to the divine one;
compare line 211, in which Aqrco(= Ar&piTTlp)is the goddess's (secret and true) name. She is
called EiV'Vr ("a stranger") in line 248.
30Ibid., 275-80; trans. from White slightly modified.
31Ibid., 268-74.
92 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

does, but is identified by the heavenly voice. Although certain conventions are
contradicted,the account of Jesus' transfigurationwould make sense to Greeks
familiarwith polytheistictraditionsas the self-manifestationof a deity. Similarly,
the motif of secrecy in Markhas an affinity with the notion of a deity disguising
himself or herself as a humanbeing. From the point of view of traditionalGreek
religion, the identificationof Jesus in this scene as God's son is equivalent to
identifyinghim as a divine being.
Jesusappearsas a prophetin Mark13. Althoughthe contentof his eschatological
discourse is Jewish in general and apocalyptic and eschatological in particular,
prophecy was a familiar phenomenonto Greeks and Romans. The main types
involved oracularshrinesthatpeople would visit with questions aboutthe future;
technical diviners, who interpreteddreams, the condition of sacrificial animals,
the flight of birds and other phenomenaas signs and symbols of the future;and
inspireddiviners,who utteredoracles or propheciesin a stateof divine inspiration
or possession.32Greeksand Romans would have found certainformalfeaturesof
Mark 13 familiar.The passageopens with a scene in which Jesus and his disciples
are walkingout of the Templeprecincts,andone of them commentson the beauty
of the buildings.In response,Jesuspredictsthe destructionof the Temple.Whereas
listeners well educated in the Jewish scriptureswould respond to this saying in
terms of the prophetictraditionof Israel, those more at home with Greek and
Roman religions would perceive it as an inspired prophecy or an oracle. The
setting also evokes the Hellenic and Hellenistic literaryform of the peripatetic
dialogueor strollingconversation.33 This initialconversationis then followed by a
seated dialogue set in full view of the Temple. The disciples ask Jesus a two-part
question:"Tellus when this will be and whatthe sign will be when all these things
areaboutto be accomplished."Jesusthengives a long responseto these questions.
The formal structureinvolving a question concerningthe futureand a prophetic
responsewould have evoked for membersof the audiencefamiliarwith Greekand
Roman religions the traditionof the oracularshrine, where knowledge about the
future was granted in response to questions, or the tradition of the inspired
diviner.34Fromthis perspective,Jesus' statement"concerningthatday or the hour,
no one knows, not even the angels in heaven,andnot even the Son; [no one knows]
except the Father,"contraststhe inspireddiviner with the oraculargod. Apollo
was most esteemed as an oraculargod, butZeus was also so recognizedand spoke
throughsigns at Dodona and Olympia.35

32Fordiscussion see David E. Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Medi-
terranean World (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1983) 23-48.
33Ibid., 186-87.
34Comparethe discussion by Aune, ibid.
35JosephEddy Fontenrose, "Oracles," OxCD (2d ed., 1970) 754.
 ADELA YARBRO COLLINS 93

The kingship of Jesus is a prominenttheme in the trial of Jesus before Pilate,

the mocking of the soldiers andthe crucifixion.36But when the centurionacclaims
Jesus afterhis death,it is not as the king of Israel,but as uios0Eoiu.The first thing
to notice about this acclamation is that these nouns lack the article.37It is not
immediatelyclear whetherthe phraseshouldbe translated"theSon of God"or "a
son of god."38In contrastto this phrase,the unclean spirits proclaim Jesus to be
6 uio6 TOU 6EOu, a phrasein which the nouns do have the article.It is usually trans-
lated "the Son of God,"but it could conceivably be translatedas "the Son of the
God," as Hengel formulatedwhat he claimed was the distinctive early Christian
confession. As is well known, however, the definite article in ancient Greek was
not used in the same way as in modernEnglish. Greek was flexible in this regard
and a phrasemay be definiteeven withoutthe article.The manuscriptsthatcontain
the words ulou 0EoUin the opening verse of Markdo not use the article with these
nouns. Further,E. C. Colwell argued that the noun-phrasein Mark 15:39, the
acclamationof the centurion,lacks the articlebecausea predicatenominativelacks
the article,even if it is definite, in orderto distinguishit from the subject of the
clause.39Consequently,he arguedthatthe statementof the centurionshouldbe trans-
lated "theSon of God,"not "a son of god."But EarlS. Johnsonhas rightlypointed
out that grammaralone cannot eliminate the possibility that the authorof Mark
intended the centurion's reference to Jesus' divine sonship to be indefinite.40
Anotherdifferencebetween the acclamationof the unclean spiritsand that of the
centurionis thatthe spiritssay "Youare(ie) the Son of God,"whereasthe centurion
says "Thisman really was (^Tv) the [or a] Son of God."The presenttense implies a
confession thatthe authorand audiencealso share;the imperfectdoes not.4'
Members of the audience who understood"Son of God" as a messianic title
would infer that the centurionrecognized thatJesus was the messiah, the king of
Israel.2 Membersof the audiencemore familiarwith GreekandRoman traditions
may well have understoodthis to be the primarydenotationof the acclamationin

36See Adela Yarbro Collins, "Mark and His Readers: The Son of God among Jews," HTR
92 (1999) 393-408.
3If 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.
38EzraP. 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 ac-
cording to St. Mark (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1896) 295.
39E.C. Colwell, "A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament,"
JBL 52 (1933) 12-21.
40EarlS. Johnson, "Is Mark 15:39 the Key to Mark's Christology?," JSNT31 (1987) 3-22,
esp. 6-7.
4"CompareJohnson, ibid., 7-8.
42See Yarbro Collins, "Mark and His Readers: The Son of God among Jews," 406.
94 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

light of the narrativecontext, but it would have a wider range of connotationsfor

them. In the narrativeof Mark,the centurionmakeshis acclamationin responseto
the signs or portentsthataccompanythe deathof Jesus, the darknessover the land
from noon until mid-afternoonand the tearing of the veil of the Temple. This
context suggests that he understoodJesus' death in terms of the apotheosis or
deification of a ruler. Virgil wrote ". . . the Sun shall give you signs: . . . He
expressed mercy for Rome when Caesar was killed; he hid his shining head in
gloom and the impious age fearedeternalnight."43Plutarchwrote that events of
divine design accompaniedthe deathof Caesar,includingthe blockingof the sun's
rays. "Forthroughoutthe whole yearthe sun rose pale, and it had no radiance;and
the heat which came from it was weak and effete, so thatthe air lay heavy, due to
the feebleness of the warmthwhich enteredit. The fruits,half-ripeand imperfect,
faded and decayed because of the chill of the atmosphere."44 Extraordinaryevents
also occurredwhenRomulus,the founderof Rome, departed."... Suddenlystrange
and unaccountabledisorderswith incrediblechanges filled the air;the light of the
sun failed, and night came down upon them, not with peace and quiet, but with
awful peals of thunderand furious blasts driving rain from every quarter,during
which the multitudedispersedand fled...."45 AlthoughRomulusdisappearsand,
it is implied, does not die, his disappearanceserves as a prototypeof the apotheo-
sis of the Roman emperor.46
Not only the portents,but also the centurion'sacclamationof Jesus as "Son of
God" links Mark's account of the death of Jesus with the imperial cult.47When
Julius Caesardied, he was deified and given the new name divus lulius. In origin
divus was nothing but anotherform of deus and thus meant simply "god." But
following the deification of Julius Caesar,it came to mean a god who had previ-
ously been a man.48In the GreekEast, divus was usuallytranslatedas 6E6s.49After

43VirgilGeorgics 1.463-68; trans. from Cartlidge and Dungan, Documentsfor the Study of
the Gospels, 163.
44PlutarchCaesar 69.3-5; trans. from Cartlidge and Dungan, Documents for the Study of
the Gospels, 164.
45PlutarchRomulus 27.6-7; trans. from Bernadotte Perrin, Plutarch's Lives (LCL; Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1914) 1. 177.
4See the discussion of the death and apotheosis of Augustus in Charles H. Talbert, "Bi-
ographies of Philosophers and Rulers as Instrumentsof Religious Propaganda in Mediterranean
Antiquity," ANRW 2.16.2 (1978) 1619-51, esp. 1634.
47Comparethe arguments of Philip H. Bligh, "A Note on Huios Theou in Mark 15.39,"
Expository Times 80 (1968) 51-53; Johnson, "Is Mark 15.39 the Key to Mark's Christology?,"
12-14; Tae Hun Kim, "The Anarthrous uibosBEo in Mark 15,39 and the Roman Imperial Cult,"
Biblica 79 (1998) 221-41.
48Stefan Weinstock, Divus Julius (Oxford: Clarendon, 1971) 391-92.
49See, 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 (6) OEOsIEPaoToS, "(the) god Augustus";
the papyrus was published by H. I. Bell in 1912; the Greek text and an English translation are
 ADELA YARBRO COLLINS 95

the official deification of Caesar in 42 BCE,Octavian began to call himself

officially divifilius, that is, "God's son" or "Son of a god."50From 27 BCEuntil 3
Kaioap 0Eou
CE,Augustus's official name in Greek documents was AUTOKpaTcop
ulbs IEpaoTo' ("EmperorCaesarAugustusson of god").5 Thereafter,his official
title was longer,but it continuedto begin withthe namesjust cited.52While Tiberius
was emperor, his adopted son Germanicus,at the time consul and commander
over all the easternprovinces,referredto himself in an edict as IEP3aoTouuios OEEOU
IEBaOToU vucovOS("son of the god Augustus [Tiberius] and grandson of
Augustus").53The earliest documentedtitle of the high priest of the imperialcult
in the Roman province of Asia is b dPXIEPEUs0Eas ' Pc&prs Kal AUTOKpaTopos
Kaioapos 6EOU vuo;uEpEaOTO^U("highpriest of the goddess Roma and of Emperor
CaesarAugustus son of god.)"54

given in John L. White, Lightfrom Ancient Letters (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) pp. 131-37, no.
88; the citation is from line 59.
50Weinstock,Divus Julius, 399; see also the bronze coin of Philippi, dated tentatively to 2 BCE,
which contains on the obverse the legend "Aug. Divif Divo lul(io)"; ibid., pl. 29, coin no. 12. See
also Harold Mattingly, 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); 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 [auTOKpacTopI Kaio]a[pi 0]EcjIOEou [uIC31]
ZEEPaOTC("to the
emperor Caesar, god, son of god, Augustus"); Victor Ehrenbergand A. H. M. Jones, Documents
Illustrating the Reigns ofAugustus and Tiberius (2d ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1955) no. 108 (p. 91);
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 BCEand 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 ui65seEOU (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 [AUToKPa]TcJP
Kciioap, EOcu' loui'ou ul6s("EmperorCaesar, son of the deified Julius"); Louis Jalabertand Ren6
Mouterde, Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie, vol. 3.1: Region de 1'Amanus,Antioche
(Bibliotheque Archeologique et Historique 46; Paris: Geuthner, 1950) no. 718, line 1 (p. 396). He
is also designated simply as eEouu6os ("son of god") in lines 73 and 85 (ibid., pp. 399, 400).
51W.H. Buckler, "Auguste, Zeus Patroos," Revue de Philologie 9 (1935) 177-88, esp. 179.
52Buckler,"Auguste, Zeus Patroos," 179-80. After the death of Augustus, his official name
was 0EOSIEpaOToS Kaioap ZEUSnaTpcos acUTOKpaTCOp Kai aPXIEPEUSiEYIOTOSTTaTripT1TS
TraTpi6osKaoTOUoupTravToS TCOV pvaepcorv y'Evous("God Augustus Caesar Zeus Patroos, em-
peror and high priest, greatest father of the fatherland and of the entire race of human beings");
Buckler, "Auguste, Zeus Patroos," 180-87.
53Ehrenbergand Jones, Documents Illustrating the Reigns of Augustus and Tiberius, no. 320
(b) line 31 (p. 147). Tiberius himself was named divifilius on coins from Rome; Mattingly, Coins
of the Roman Empire, nos. 65-94 (pp. 128-33); and on coins minted in Commagene; ibid, nos.
174-76 (pp. 144-45).
54Thistitle is documented for the period from 5 to 3 BCE;Buckler, "Auguste, Zeus Patroos,"
179. Compare S. R. F. Price, Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984) 76. In the period from 2 BCEuntil 14 CE,the title of the
high priest was longer, but it still began with these names; Buckler, "Auguste, Zeus Patroos," 180.
96 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

It is clear from a bilingualinscriptionfromAlexandriadatedto 10 or 11 CEthat

EoUiulos ("god's son" or "a son of a god")is a translationof the Latindivifilius.55
But this does not mean thatthe Greekphrasewas limited to the denotationof the
Latin expression and to its usage in Rome and the West. Rather,as Simon Price
has shown, the phrase0Eo6u uios as an epithetof the emperormust be understoodin
a Greekculturalframework.The fact thatthe living emperorcould be called OE6s
alreadyindicates a profounddifferencebetween the Latin and the Greekcultural
contexts. Divus could be applied only to a dead emperor, and thus OEos,when
applied to the living emperor,cannotbe a translationof divus.56The epithet OE0s
was addedto the name of the emperor,and on its own it could refer to a specific
emperor.Both practicesalso occur in contemporaryusage with regardto the tradi-
tionalgods. Callingthe emperorOESs was accompaniedby otherlinguisticpractices:
he was assimilatedto particularnameddeities; he, like the traditionaldeities, was
sometimes described as ETrTIcaviS("distinguished") and ETrrlavEOTcaTroTC3V Oecov
("themost distinguishedof the gods");anda whole system of cults was devised to
show Euoe3PEIa ("reverence"or "piety")towardthe emperors.57
The acclamationof the centurionin Markis ambiguous.It may be understood
as a definite referenceto the Son of God, as Colwell argued.But for those familiar
with the terminology of the imperial cult, the lack of the articles makes the
acclamationsimilarto the imperialepithet eouu'ib. The earliestrecoverablereading
of Mark's text has the nouns in the opposite order, ulos Oeou;but some manu-
scripts, including Codex Bezae and most of the Old Latin manuscripts,attest a
reading in which the phrasehas the same form as the imperialtitle: OEOv ul;s.58
Those members of the audience of Mark familiar with the imperial cult would
understandthatthe centurionrecognizedJesusas the truerulerof the known world,
ratherthan the emperor.59I cannot agree with Johnson that the statementof the
centurionis ironic in the same sense as the statementsof the chief priests, scribes

"See Franz Josef Dolger, IXe Y: Das Fischsymbol in frihchristlicher Zeit, vol. 1:
Religionsgeschichtliche und epigraphische Untersuchungen (Supplement to Romische
Quartalschrift; Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder; Rome: Spithover, 1910) 391.
56S.R. F. Price, "Gods and Emperors: The Greek Language of the Roman Imperial Cult,"
JHS 104 (1984) 79-95, esp. 79.
57price, "Gods and Emperors," 93.
58Theintroduction of the reading OEOuu'i6s 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
iXu6s ("fish") for' Iroous XPIOTOS OEOUYi;S CWTrip ("Jesus Christ God's Son Savior"); see
Dolger, IXe Y.: Das Fischsymbol in friihchristlicher Zeit, 1. 403-405.
9With 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.
 ADELA YARBRO COLLINS 97

and those who thinkthatJesus is calling Elijah.60Thatthe statementsof the priests

and scribes are ironic in the sense of mocking is clearly signaled by the participle
lpTraiovTEsin 15:31; the remarksof those who think that Jesus is calling Elijah
areclearly noted as based on a misunderstandingof whatJesus has said. The state-
ment of the centurion, however, has no marker indicating mocking or
misunderstanding.On the contrary,it follows immediatelyupon the portentof the
tearingof the veil of the Temple. In both the Jewish reading and the Greek and
Roman readingof the centurion'sstatement,anothertype of irony is deeply felt.
The trueking of Israel,the truerulerof the world,is whatappearsto be an ordinary
man who has died a shameful and horrifyingdeath on a cross. Yet the portents
mitigatethe irony by manifestinga divine responseto this death.
Anotherreasonwhy Boussetthoughtit unlikelythatthe title "Sonof God"origi-
natedin theearliestcommunityof the followersof Jesusin Palestinewas thatthistitle
was not attestedin the contemporaryJewishliteratureknownat the time. As I have
arguedelsewhere,thetitle"Sonof God"appliedto theexpectedmessiahof Israelnow
seemsto be attestedin theDeadSea Scrolls.61 TheusageatQumran,however,does not
seem to implythatthis messiah pre-existentor divine.The summaryof the gospel
is
givenby Paulatthebeginningof Romansmaybe a clueto theprocessby whichdivinity
was attributed to Jesusby thosewho believedhim to be the messiah.Paulsays thathe
was descendedfromDavidaccordingto the fleshanddesignatedSon of Godin power
accordingto the Holy Spiritby his resurrectionfromthe dead.62 This suggeststhatthe
ideathatJesushadbeenraisedfromthedeadandexaltedintoheavenwas closelyassoci-
atedwiththeideathathe was "Sonof God"in a divinesense.Thisideain turnis linked
to new exegesesof Psalm110andDaniel7. Itis clear,however,fromthehymnorpoem
in Philippians2 thattheideaof Jesus'pre-existenceis alsoveryearly.Thisideamayalso
be linkedto an exegesisof Psalm110.
The plot or Gestalt of the hymn or poem in Philippians2 taken as a whole
expresses a strikinglynovel perspectivein the contextof the historyof religions. It
involves a heavenly being undergoinga transformationinto human form, dying
and being exalted to heaven. No ancient text, Jewish, Greek, or Roman, either
contemporarywith or older than Philippians, contains this pattern as a whole.
Certainfeatures of the poem have analogies in Jewish tradition,but, as I have
arguedelsewhere, more complete and illuminatinganalogies are to be found in
Greek and Roman traditions.63 The poem ends with all creaturesworshippingthe

60Johnson,"Is Mark 15.39 the Key to Mark's Christology?," 16.

6'Yarbro Collins, "Mark and His Readers: The Son of God among Jews," 403-4.
62Rom 1:3-4.
63AdelaYarbro Collins, "The Worship of Jesus and the Imperial Cult," in Carey C. Newman,
James R. Davila, and Gladys S. Lewis, 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) 234-57.
98 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

heavenly figure who has been degradedand then exalted. CertainJewish texts,
mainlyDaniel 7 andthe Similitudesof Enoch,indicatethatthe eschatologicalagent
of God will receive obeisance, which may be understoodas worshipof a sort. But
the most strikingparallelis the worshipof the emperor,a humanbeing who is also
portrayedas the junior partnerand executive agent of the highest god.
Hengel was surely right to point out the difference between the many sons of
Zeus andthe distinctive,if not exclusive, divine sonshipof Jesus from the point of
view of many of his followers. When one considers, however, that some Greeks
were especially devoted to Asclepius and others to Dionysos, and that in some
culturalcontextsHeraclesplayedthe dominantrole,the differencelessens.Hengel's
argumentthat the usage of the title OEOu uVlOsin the official, state religion had no
serious influence on the conceptualityof the earliest Christianityis based on an
outdated view of the imperial cult. He cites with approval Fritz Taeger, who
arguedthatthe usage of oEOUu u0s in the imperialcult shouldnot be comparedwith
the Hellenistic and early Christianideas of the son of god.64Taeger's reasoning
was thatthe Hellenistic and early Christiannotions of divine sonship were mythi-
cal, whereasthe Romanimperialconceptof the divifilius was strictlyjudicial and
rationalistic,inasmuchas it rested upon a private legal act of adoption. He also
assumedthatthe significanceof the Greektranslationof this termwas determined
and limited by Roman, Latin usage. As indicatedabove, Price has demonstrated
that this was not the case. The Greek translationand usage were determinedby
Greekculturaltraditionsand contexts, not by the political constraintsand specific
culturaltraditionsof the city of Rome. Taegerhimself documentshow Augustus
was soon transformedfrom the Roman princeps to a Hellenistic god-king by
Asclepias of Mendes.65Hengel also cites StephanLosch, who in turncited with
approvalearlierscholars who had arguedthat the imperialcult was political and
not religious.66It is thus ironic thatPrice concludes, following Hengel, that "the
paganuse of 'son of god' probablyhas no bearingon early Christianusage."67He
therebyadopts a conclusion based on a view of the imperialcult that he himself
was in the process of demolishing.
Bousset was similarlyrestrainedin his assessmentof the impactof the imperial
cult on early Christianity.He statedthathe did not wish to interpretPaul's use of
the title "Son of God" in terms of the imperialformuladivifilius and its Greek
equivalentOEouuV1s,becausethe imperialcult was not as prominentin Paul's time
as it was later and because the imperial titles had a very concrete and limited

64Hengel, Cross of God, 28, n. 57; Fritz Taeger, Charisma: Studien zur Geschichte des
antiken Herrscherkultes (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1960) 2. 98.
65Taeger, Charisma, 211.
66Stephan Losch, Deitas Jesu und Antike Apotheose: Ein Beitrag zur Exegese und
Religionsgeschichte (Rottenburg a. N. [Wurtt.]: Adolf Bader, 1933) 66.
67Price, "Gods and Emperors," 85, n. 54.
 ADELA YARBRO COLLINS 99

meaning.68 He basedhis opinionon FranzDolger's study IX YI: Das Fischsymbol

in fruhchristlicherZeit. Dolger recognized that the descriptionof the emperoras
OEi6in the Greek-speakingpartof the empirewas a serious and sincereexpression
of religious feeling.69He also rightly recognized that the ancient conception of
"god" was different from the modem Christianunderstanding.70 But from these
observations he drew the unwarrantedconclusion that the description of the
emperoras OIEssignificantly devalued the ancient Greek conception of god and
thatthereforethe concept of the son of god (0EouulOs) became quite shallow. The
formerpolytheist,uponbecomingChristian,he argued,would perceive no contra-
diction between the designationof the emperoras son of god and the much deeper
confession of Christas the Son of God.71Dolger arguedthattherewere threesenses
in early Christianityin which Jesus was understoodto be the Son of God: in the
sense of the messiah; in the sense accordingto which Jesus became human,born
of the virgin Maryby the power of God withoutthe cooperationof a man; and in
the sense of the primordialemanationof the Logos from the Father.He concluded
that the descriptionof the emperoras son of god had so little significance that it
could not have evoked the designationof Jesus as Son of God in oppositionto it.72
Related to this argumentis Dolger's observationthat none of the early Christian
apologists objects to the designationof the emperoras "son of god," whereasthey
do object to his description as KUplos ("Lord").73
Thereare two problemswith Dolger's argument.One is thatthe designationof
the emperoras "god"or "son of god" in the easternpartof the Roman empire did
not degrade the concept of god so much as it served to recognize the analogous
status of the emperor.There were of course critics of the imperialcult, but there
were critics of the traditionalworshipof the gods also. The two issues areseparate.
The otherproblemis thatDolger evaluatedthe relevanceof the imperialcult to the
interpretationof Jesus from a late and harmonizingperspective.It is true that the
Gospel of John,especially the prologue,goes beyond the ideology of the imperial
cult, at least in its detailed and explicit claims, if not in its general implications.
But the other two understandingsof Jesus as Son of God mentioned by Dolger
certainlyhave their counterpartsin imperialideology. The messiah is a ruler,like
the emperor,and the virginal conception of Jesus has its counterpartin legends
aboutthe conceptionof Augustus.It seems likely thatthe apologistsdid not object
to the designation of the emperor as son of god because that epithet could be
appliedto any virtuoushumanbeing, both in Jewish and Greektradition.

68Bousset, Kyrios Christos, 151-52, n. 3.

69Dolger, IXOYI: Das Fischsymbol in friihchristlicher Zeit, 1. 394-95.
70Ibid., 395-96.
71Ibid.
72Ibid., 397-99.
71Ibid., 396.
100 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

The natureof Jesus in the Gospel of Markis ambiguous.The transfiguration

could well have evoked the conclusion that he walked the earthas a pre-existent
heavenly being or deity who revealedhis divine glory on thatoccasion. But there
is no explicit attributionof pre-existenceand no mentionof a virginalconception
in Mark.Jesus is portrayedas Son of God narratively,by recountinghis mighty
deeds, his authoritativeteaching, his prophecy, and his death for the benefit of
others. The members of the audience educated in Greek and Roman traditions
would associate the elements of this portrayalwith their traditions regarding
divine men:workersof miracles,philosophersandotherwise men, inspireddivin-
ers, andbenefactors,especiallyHeracles,who laboredfor the benefitof humankind
and died a noble death.74Those who still rememberedthat Augustus was known
throughoutthe empire as "son of god," or who could read the remaininginscrip-
tions in which he and some of his successors were given that title, would also
associate this portrayalwith the imperialcult.75The acclamationof the centurion
especially would evoke a comparisonof the emperorwith Jesus and suggest that
Jesus is the one whom the highestpower has establishedas the rulerof the world.
In spite of the criticismsof his position thatI have reviewed, withoutmention-
ing his name until now, Adolf Deissmann was correct in his assessment of the
descriptionof Jesus as the Son of God. Althoughthe title has a Jewish origin and
at first expressed the conviction thatJesus was the messiah, "GentileChristians"
in Asia Minor, Rome, and Alexandriamust have understoodthe expression in
terms of their own culturalcontexts and traditions.The gospel was understood
differently in Corinththan in Jerusalem,and differently again in Egypt than in
Ephesus. In the history of Christianitywe see after one anotherand beside one
anothera Jewish, a Roman, a Greek,a German,and, we might add, an American
formof Christianity.76 And today we would go furtherto say thatthereare actually
many forms of each of these.

74See Herbert Braun, "Der Sinn der neutestamentlichen Christologie," ZThK 54 (1957)
341-77; reprinted in idem, Gesammelte Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt (2d
rev. ed.; Tiibingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1967) 243-82; Hans Dieter Betz, "GottmenschII,"Reallexikon
fiir Antike und Christentum 12 (1982) 234-312.
75Forthe evidence from Egypt, see Paul Bureth, Les titulatures imperiales dans les papy-
rus, les ostraca et les inscriptions de l'1gypte (30 a.C. -284 p. C.) (Papyrologica Bruxellensia
2; Bruxelles: Fondation Egyptologique Reine Elisabeth, 1964).
76Adolf Deissmann, Bibelstudien: Beitrage, zumeist aus den Papyri und Inschriften, zur
Geschichte der Sprache, des Schriftums und der Religion des hellenistischen Judentums und
des Urchristentums (Marburg: Elwert, 1895) 166-68.