Jesus and Augustus
Essay I
Jesus and Augustus (Kierra Rowan):
Harper Lee once said, “The book to read is not the one which thinks for you, but one which makes you think. No book in the world equals the bible for that” (“Bible Quotes”). The bible can be a difficult text to read, not only because of the steps away from contextual understanding modern society has taken, but also because of the less mentioned fact that the bible was written by an array of authors, each of whom told different stories in different ways according to the happenings and needs of their current surroundings. For this reason, the Gospels must be read with a critical eye; their ideas cannot simply be handed to you in direct page to person format. They must be perceived according to their context and understood in the light of their author’s agenda, and it is only with such an eye that the Bible and its significance can be understood to its full extent.
Under such a prelog, we can now take a look at a couple of gospel passages in the hope of coming to see them in the full light of their historical, cultural, and thus overarching biblical and Christian significance. We begin with Mark 1:9-11. In this passage, Jesus is introduced to the reader via an encounter with the well known John the Baptist. This is the very beginning of the book of Mark, and it is the first time the reader meets Jesus. John the Baptist, who is currently living in the wilderness as what seems like kind of a wild man “clothed with camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist,” has spent time baptizing various people in the Jordan River, all of whom came from “the whole Judean countryside and… Jerusalem” (Levine 2011). John consistently warns the people that there will come a time when a man greater than he will come, one who “will baptize (the people) with the Holy Spirit.” In verse 9, such a man appears, and he is introduced as Jesus. At this point, Jesus is baptized by John, whereupon Jesus is then proclaimed as the Son of God by a voice descending from the sky “like a dove” (Levine 2011).
The second passage worth noting is Luke 2:41-52. In this passage, Joseph and Mary (Jesus’ parents) lose track of Jesus at a festival for the Passover in Jerusalem. In their search for him, they end up finding him in the temple, “sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions.” The teachers were amazed at Jesus’ wisdom in understanding their teachings and were equally impressed by Jesus’ answers to their own questions. When his parents ponder into Jesus’ reason for being in the Temple, Jesus responds simply by asking how he could be anywhere else besides his “Father’s house” (Levine 2011).
In examining these two passages of Biblical scripture, Michael Peppard and Bradley Billings present unique analysis and arguments regarding their historical significance according to the context of the Gospels’ time period. Billings and Peppard both base their arguments around the idea that the passages summarized above in Mark and Luke were written in such a way that were aimed at magnifying the authority and divinity of Jesus by appealing to the Roman ideas of divinity at that time. The Gospels, as argued by Billings and Peppard, are often understood to have been written in such a way that consistently allude back to the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament references), consequently amplifying the authority of Jesus’ proclamation as Lord by ingraining profuse amounts of what would have been considered “proof texts” by Jewish readers into the passages of the New Testament (Billings 2009, Peppard 2010). The problem with this, however, is that many of these references wouldn’t have been understood, appreciated, or even noticed by many of the readers at the time the Gospels were written. What with the Christian movement taking place in much of Asia Minor (modern day Turkey), which at the time was influenced and very much ingrained in Roman culture and routes of understanding, divinity wasn’t understood in the context of Hebrew proclamations of Messianic prophecy. Instead, much of divinity was understood as in relation to the anointing of many emperors and kings to the status of god (particularly referring to Augustus Caesar and Julius Caesar). With that being said, both Peppard (pointing to the passage in Mark) and Billings (pointing to the passage in Luke) argue that the author’s of the gospels of Mark and Luke crafted their writings in such a way to appeal to the understandings of divinity as perceived according to Roman tradition, not just Jewish tradition, though Jewish tradition is still definitely utilized. Specifically, Peppard focuses on the parallelisms between Augustus’ divinity as established via his being adopted by Julius Caesar; granting him room to declare himself “Son of God” with the passing of Julius, since Julius was held at the level of the gods (Peppard 2010, 434). Augustus’ divinity then was not dependant upon begottenness, as was typical for many supposed god equivalent rulers at that time. Instead, his divinity was established through being adopted as Julius’ son, and was only later attributed to possible descent from Apollo (as his adopted father Julius’ divinity stemmed from a genealogy tracing back to Venus) (Peppard 2010, 435). By crafting the baptism of Jesus in such a way that a voice descends from heaven proclaiming Jesus “Son the the most High” plays into this understanding of divinity as passed down according to adoptive principles.
Similarly, Billings points out Luke’s author’s mimic of typical Roman biographical writing format in depicting the life of various rulers deemed gods and worshiped as such throughout their lifetime. Such a format usually includes a section in the biography whereupon the author illustrates the sanctity of the subject by describing his early childhood in such a way that deems him extraordinary in wisdom and understanding, admired even by the most high teachers of the time (the typical biography consisting of a Miracle Birth/ancestry, early childhood and education, words and deeds, and lastly death and afterlife). Billings also uses Augustus as a reference, describing how Suetonius details the extravagant aptitudes, knowledge, and abilities of Augustus at the age of 12 when he delivered a funeral oration (Billings 2009, 74). Just like Augustus, Jesus’ divinity is attested to via a young aged story which places Jesus above most other people in his comprehension and wisdom. This is following a Roman tradition of divine understanding, not that of the Jews.
Historically speaking, it is undeniable that the authors of the gospels had a variety of people with sporadic understandings and ideas of what divinity looks like and how it is established that they wanted to appeal to. As discussed in the New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Volume 5, even the concept of “Son of God” takes on multiple meanings and dimensions depending on from which perspective you are looking into. In the old Testament alone, “Son of God” is used to refer to the council of God in the heavenly realm, as well as in reference to kings and emperors such as David and Joseph, Israel personified, along with individuals simply close to God, such as Enoch and Adam (Donaldson 2009, 336). The gospel authors would have to be careful, aware, and intentional in the way they utilize the term, and would need to be crafty in the way they handled the multitude of opinions surrounding each concept.
Academically, Billings and Peppard’s theory that much of the story in Mark and Luke (when it comes to the baptism and young life of Jesus) would have needed to be crafted in such a way that they exemplified Jesus’ divinity to all readers, including those who would not catch Hebrew references. This manifests itself all throughout the New Testament, even in the various references and attitudes toward emperors and emperor cults. As discussed in The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Volume 2, Emperors, who were highly admired, revered, and often worshipped according to Roman tradition, were not condemned in their supposed divinity for much of the New Testament, aside from John’s Revelation (Harland 2007, 255-257). Such paradoxical articulations of the treatment and the attitude one is to have toward the Emperors and the Emperor cults illustrates the very idea that Billings and Peppard are trying to argue: the gospel authors worked to craft their gospels in such a way that appeals to both the understandings and perspectives of the Roman culture as much as the Hebrew/Jewish culture.
For example, in 1 Peter 2:13, the author instructs the reader to “accept the authority of every human institution, whether of the emperor as supreme, or of the governors, as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right” (Levine 2011). Peter relates this as the will of God, and is clearly playing into the rather Roman tradition of viewing the emperor with a type of reverence and veneration. On the other hand, as referenced in the NIDB Vol 2, Revelations 14:10 says, “There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast (referring to the Roman empire and Emperor rule) and its image and for anyone who receives the mark of its name” (Levine 2011). This shows the objection showed toward the Roman empire, and the passion with which it was sometimes condemned in the New Testament. It could be argued that the apocalyptic writings of Revelation were not meant to be referring to Roman rule specifically, but toward a future authoritative ruler. This is entirely possible, however the point remains that in this writing, the author is alluding to the Hebrew/Jewish historical battle that persisted throughout the old testament between Israel and aggressive, tyrannical rulers, again appealing to the Jewish perspective of divinity and the balance between the power of God and the power of man, as compared to the different picture presented in 1 Peter.
Even that which one would assume would remain rather constant seems to shift according to the varying perspectives and ideas surrounding it. Baptism, for example, in the old testament was meant as a purification method mainly revolving around the body’s cleansing (Taylor 2006, 390-395). However, in the depiction of John the Baptist, a sudden shift emerges in the purpose behind a baptism and even the methods through which it should be performed. According to the NIDB Vol 1, Baptisms in the Old Testament were self performed and didn’t require the aid of an outsider. It was only with the emergence of John that that idea began to shift. The Baptism of Jesus combines this new perspective of baptizing (resembling and thus appealing to Hebrew tradition, yet straying away from it slightly in the hope of redefining it according to new Christian theology) while also uniquely pulling in events proclaiming Godly adoption which alludes back to Augustus, as he was adopted into his divinity (and thus appeals to Roman readers).
We cannot presume to know the realities of the events surrounding or within the life of Jesus, nor can we claim to know all of the intricacies and dynamics existing in the situations and lives of the Gospel writers, but we can grow to appreciate the multifaceted dimensions the Gospels take on. Though reality is hard to muster, one must at least see the artistry conjured by the Gospel writers as they pondered over and sifted through telling the story of their Lord to an audience who had a multitude of understandings regarding what it even meant to be Lord. Billings’ and Peppard’s presentation of the Gospels as thinking in terms of their many-sided audiences introduces a new realm of appreciation for the Gospel writers and the thought process that went into their presentation of ideas. One can see the way a simple baptism can shift the way baptisms are supposed to be interpreted and performed from then on (calling a deviation from tradition) yet at the same time drawing on an audience that is attracted to allusions to an emperor-god they were so used to worshipping. The Bible holds in it so many of these here artistic utilizations of situations and word interpretations that attests to the majesty of the Bible as a whole, and further amplifies my own personal appreciation for it.
Bibliography:
- “Bible Quotes.” BrainyQuote. Accessed February 10, 2015. http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/bible.html.
- Billings, Bradley S. “‘At the Age of 12’: The Boy Jesus in the Temple (Luke 2:41-52), the Emperor Augustus, and the Social Setting of the Third Gospel.” Journal of Theological Studies 60 (2009): 70-89.
- Carter, Warren. “Augustus.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 1, edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 349-351. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2006.
- Donaldson, Terence L. “Son of God.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 5, edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 335-341. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2009. (sections A; C.1, 2.a)
- Harland, Phillip A. “Emperor Worship.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 2, edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 255-257. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2007.
- Levine, Amy. The Jewish Annotated New Testament: New Revised Standard Version Bible Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
- Taylor, Joan E. “Baptism.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 1, edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 390-395. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2006. (sections A; B; C)
- Peppard, Michael. “The Eagle and the Dove: Roman Imperial Sonship and the Baptism of Jesus (Mark 1.9-11).” New Testament Studies 56 (2010): 431-451.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Essay II
“Sons of God”: Jesus and Augustus
Alex Henry
In Roman literature as well as in the gospel writings, “son of God” is a term that has referred to many different individuals as well as groups of people (Donaldson 2009, 335). One point of contention is how the authors of the gospel narratives, specifically in Mark and Luke, were able to portray Jesus as the “son of God” while their audiences were heavily embedded in the imperial cult of the Roman Empire. Both writers had to be very careful with the way they portrayed Jesus and relied on symbolism and parallels to Roman biographies of emperors who were considered divine men, in order to show that Jesus was coming into a position of power. The use of these literary devices allowed the gospel writers to present Jesus in a familiar fashion to their respective audiences, while also showing that Jesus is the “true” “son of God”.
In Mark 1:9-11, the author of Mark explains the baptism of Jesus that pulls on the symbolic meaning behind the dove to emphasize the ascension of Jesus into a position of power in contrast to the Roman Empire. Mark explains the baptism scene as Jesus being baptized by John, with very little explanation of why Jesus needs to be baptized in the first place if he is the “son of God”. In later gospels, this scene is expanded upon in order to justify why it is necessary for Jesus to be baptized (Taylor 2006). Many historians read this, as well as later stories in Mark as a low Christological view (Levine et al. 2011). A counter argument to this can be seen by examining the meaning behind the dove and what it signified to Mark’s audience in a time where the imperial cult was powerful and highly influential (Preppard 2010, 434).
Mark describes the baptism of Jesus by saying that he saw “the heavens torn apart and the Spirit descending like a dove on him” (Mk1:10). He then states that a voice came from heaven that said, “You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.” (Mk 1:11). This statement from God draws from two different passages in the Hebrew Bible, Psalm 2:7 and Isiah 42:1-2. While Psalm 2:7 speaks of God talking to his “son” that he has “begotten”, Isaiah 42:1-2 talks of God putting his “spirit upon him”.
Psalm 2:7 is specifically referring to royal adoption within the context of Davidic kingship (Levine et al. 2011, 58). Once anointed, the king would become a “son of God”. Although this verse alludes to “son of God” representing the Davidic dynasty, Mark has incorporated it to highlight that Jesus’ baptism is seen as a point where divine adoption has occurred (Donaldson 2009, 336).
This divine adoption is most likely a comparison that Luke is making to how Augustus gained his power in the Roman Empire (Preppard 2010, 441). By having this parallel to the imperial cult through the baptism of Jesus, Mark is able to present Jesus as an adopted “heir of power”, similar to how Augustus rose to power through royal adoption (Preppard 2010, 450). Mark does not stop at just alluding to Augustus though; he goes further by including the imagery of the Spirit descending on Jesus like a dove. The dove that is mentioned may not seem like a key piece of information, but for Mark’s audience, the dove was a counter symbol to the eagle that was often seen representing the Roman Empire (Preppard 2010, 431).
Mark’s audience was most likely varied and diverse, while also versed in Jewish scripture and Roman culture (Preppard 2010, 433). Taking into account that the readers would view this story through a Roman cultural lens, baptism would be seen as prestigious and as ascension to power (Preppard 2010, 440). Readers could interpret this baptism scene to be similar to the ancient practice of adoption, which is how Augustus came into power (Preppard 2010, 440). By interpreting the text this way, Jesus could be seen as the “new” “son of God”, who has come as a counter-emperor to the Roman imperial cult (Preppard 2010, 450).
Augustus used his royal adoption status to Caesar, who was considered a god, in order to call himself the “son of God” (Preppard 2010, 435). Considering that Mark was writing to an audience that was steeped in the Roman culture, it is no surprise that he would want to use symbolism counter to the imperial cult in order to show that Jesus was going to be more powerful than previous emperors. The Roman Empire viewed omens as a way to “interpret and explain their experience of the world in analogous ways to how Jews used scriptures to interpret and explain their experience of the world” (Preppard 2010). Specifically, symbolism surrounding birds were seen often in Roman culture in the form of omens (Preppard 2010, 443). Eagles were often used to signify the rise to imperial power, such as Suetonius depicting an eagle omen early and late in the life of Augustus (Preppard 2010, 443). With this correlation, eagles were further associated with the Roman military might of the time, victory, and imperial ideology (Preppard 2010, 447). It is likely that Mark and his audience were well aware of this symbolism that permeated Asia Minor and used the dove as opposition to this symbol of Roman power (Harland 2007, 256).
The most prominent mention of doves in the Roman culture was used when juxtaposing them against the eagles might and power (Preppard 2010, 446). Doves were often portrayed as peaceful and gentle, which made for many stories referring to eagles hunting and preying on doves. By having the symbol of the dove during Jesus’ baptism, Mark is able to play upon this deep-rooted symbolism and show that Jesus is coming into power and will rule as “pure, gentle, peaceful, and sacrificial” (Preppard 2010, 450). Due to the bird omens that were prominent, Mark’s audience would see this bird characterizing the ascension of Jesus into a state of power, while also recognizing that he would be the “counter- emperor” to the imperial throne (Preppard 2010, 450). Additionally, the first 15 verses of the first chapter of Mark are written in a chiastic structure that highlights Jesus’ baptism at the center of the chiastic structure. This inverted parallel structure of writing emphasizes the empowerment of Jesus and works to elegantly present the baptism story as a pivotal point in history.
By drawing heavily on the imperial cult, Mark was able to define Jesus as the “son of God”, separate from the emperor, and more powerful than the emperor. Furthermore, the other gospel writers are seen employing similar tactics by creating stories that strongly parallel Roman emperor biographies (Billings 2009, 74). Four key aspects are seen in the biographies of divine men which outline ancestry, childhood, words and deeds, and death or afterlife. In Luke 2:41-52, the author includes an account of Jesus at the age of 12 that is not seen in any of the other gospels. If the reader looks at who the audience of the gospel of Luke was at the time, they may be able to gain more insight as to why this story would be included in Luke in order to show Jesus’ divine nature as the “son of God”.
Most historians believe that Luke was written to predominantly Gentiles in the late first century in Asia Minor (Billings 2009, 70). Keeping this audience in mind, the readers of the time were most likely very knowledgeable about the imperial cult and were quite likely to be partaking in it on some level, due to the power and efficacy the Roman Empire possessed during the first century (Harland 2007). Similar to Mark’s audience in this regard, the audience would know of Augustus’ title as a “son of God” and the stories of his divine development. The writer of Luke would want to draw upon these stories to establish Jesus within the Greco-Roman imperialism to make his writing culturally relevant, but also taking heed of the power that the Roman Empire had and wanted to maintain (Billlings 2009, 84).
Taking a closer look at these passages in Luke, the reader sees that Luke has located Jesus within a very Jewish environment, by referencing the Passover after previously mentioning other aspects of Jewish culture within the first two chapters of the gospel (Lk 2:41). Although later in this gospel, Luke depicts Jews who have not become Christians as having “fallen short of God’s intentions”, this specific story of Jesus at the age of 12 sets the scene for Luke’s Gentile audience, who may have not been familiar with the Jewish traditions and culture (Levine et al. 2011).
Jesus is depicted at the temple for three days before his parents, are able to locate him. Once they do find him, they find out that Jesus has been “amazing” “all who heard him” with his “understanding and his answers” (Lk 2:46-47). This description falls in line with the characteristics seen in other biographies of divine men during their early childhood (White 2010, 57). We see that Jesus not only is treated with amazement by his audience at the temple, but also by his mother, who is said to treasure “all these things in her heart” (Lk 2:51). The scene ends with Jesus continuing to gain wisdom over the years and increasing in “divine and human favor” (Lk 2:52). Ludwig Bieler, who compiled a list of repeating characteristics seen in “divine men” during this period in time, mentions how the mother, during early childhood, is often seen recognizing the precociousness of her “divine” child and gives the child “special treatment” to some degree (White 2010, 57). This verse about Mary treasuring “all these things in her heart” could be placed here by Luke in order to further bolster Jesus’ image of being a divine man.
This characterization of Jesus at a young age seems to act as a bridge between Luke’s infancy narrative and the narrative to come of Jesus’ adult years (Billings 2009, 88). This story, coupled with the birth narrative that Luke gives in the first chapter of his gospel integrates Jesus’ life with that of Augustus, which the author most likely uses in order to lessen the ostracized relationship seen between Christians and the Roman Empire (Billings 2009, 89). Although Luke lessens this distance, he does make an effort to characterize Jesus as the “son of God” through subtle allusions to Roman biographies of divine men.
In its entirety, the Gospel of Luke draws on a significant portion of “L” material (White 2010). As mentioned before, this story of Jesus at the age of 12 is not seen in any of the other gospels, making it unique “L” material. By working in this story to the beginning years of Jesus’ narrative, Luke is able to bring in a story that feels familiar to his audience, who is potentially partaking in the imperial cult, while also presenting a character that is associated with Augustus (Billings 2009). By setting the stage of chapter 2 with “In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus”, Luke associates Jesus’ birth with Augustus, while later using various titles that are associated with Augustus for Jesus during the opening of this chapter (Billings 2009). The motivation for Luke to be making so many parallels and references to Augustus is thought to be steered by the fact that the main danger to Christianity at the time was how other communities perceived Christians.
One of the most detrimental things that could happen to Christianity would be for outside communities to view Christianity as “anti-Roman” (Billings 2009). If this were to happen, not only would the Roman Empire be seeking to rid its empire of Christians, but others, who were devout imperial cult followers would be opposed to joining in this “illicit” cult of Christianity (Billings 2009). Therefore, Luke is very calculated in his language in order to not come across as “anti-imperial nor disparaging of the emperor’s memory” so as to not create any unnecessary tension between followers of Christ and the imperial cult (Billings 2009). Furthermore, by drawing on language that is used to describe Augustus and writing of stories that are similar to those found in Augustus’ biography, Luke is able to present Jesus as a successor to Augustus in an alluring way that is also found in the imperial cult following (Billings 2009). Presenting Jesus in this way allows Luke to cater to not only current followers of Christ, but also those who may not be part of the cult.
Through both the stories of Jesus’ baptism in Mark and the story of Jesus at the temple when he was 12, the reader is able to see how both gospel authors were able to tactfully present Jesus as the “son of God”, while not posing as a threat to the Roman Empire, at least out rightly so. One of the main ways this was achieved was by incorporating imperial cult language and history into these narrative stories in order to present both gospel writers’ audiences with information that was familiar to them. Specifically, Mark drew on the dove to juxtapose the eagle that symbolized Roman power and victory. By doing so, Jesus was presented as an upcoming counter-emperor who opposes the militaristic warfare of Roman emperors. Luke incorporates an early childhood story of Jesus that is reminiscent of similar stories found in the biographies of divine men, such as Augustus. By creating this association, he is able to draw upon previous knowledge of his audience about divine men and further expound upon the story that he presents of Jesus being not only a divine man, but also the “son of God”.
By critically analyzing these two passages along with the accompanying articles, I have been able to gain a stronger appreciation for the subtle nuances, symbolism, and stories that the gospel writers have incorporated into the narrative they have created for Jesus. I have been able to gain more understanding about how the gospel writers of Mark and Luke were catering to an audience who were not necessarily ready to follow the cult of Jesus while they were so integrated in the imperial cult during that time. By gaining this insight, I feel much more confident in my knowledge and understanding of the history behind why Jesus was referred to as the “son of God” and why it was so important for Mark and Luke to show that Jesus was a successor to Augustus. Before this class and specifically this review, I have not had the opportunity to critically analyze any specific passage of the Bible with a historical viewpoint. It has been very refreshing to appreciate and understand the rationale behind why the authors used specific phrasing and why they included or excluded stories in order to portray Jesus in a way that they thought their audience would be most receptive to. I hope to continue learning more about the gospels and the literature in the first century that correlates to Jesus to further this appreciation.
References
1. Billings, Bradley S. “‘At the Age of 12’: The Boy Jesus in the Temple (Luke 2:41-52), the Emperor Augustus, and the Social Setting of the Third Gospel.” Journal of Theological Studies 60 (2009):70-89.
2. Carter, Warren. “Augustus.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 1, edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 349-351. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2006.
3. Donaldson, Terence L. “Son of God.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 5, edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 335-341. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2009. (sections A; C.1, 2.a)
4. Harland, Phillip A. “Emperor Worship.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 2, edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 255-257. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2007.
5. Levine, Amy-Jill, and Marc Zvi Brettler, eds. The Jewish Annotated New Testament. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.
6. Peppard, Michael. “The Eagle and the Dove: Roman Imperial Sonship and the Baptism of Jesus (Mark 1.9-11).” New Testament Studies 56 (2010): 431-451.
7. Taylor, Joan E. “Baptism.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 1, edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 390-395. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2006. (sections A; B; C)
8. White, L. Michael. Scripting Jesus: The Gospels in Rewrite. New York: HarperOne, 2010.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Essay III Justin Kambak
Caesar Augustus or Octavian as he was known as before his assumption of imperial power, was seen as the savior of the Roman Empire. He brought prosperity, expansion, and glory to the Empire during both the first century BCE and the first century CE. Jesus of Nazareth was called the king of the Jews, the messiah, and the Christ. He brought nothing to the Jewish people other than a message and a hope. Augustus was extremely influential and in fact almost impossible to ignore during his life, Jesus seems to have been not much more than a bit of a distraction and his influence did not truly show itself until after his death. There are comparable aspects of these two men. Both were called saviors, both have divine connections (because there was almost no such thing as secularity), and both had an immense and lasting impact that shaped the world we know today. In this essay, I will attempt to argue that the comparison stops there and that the gospel writers of Mark and Luke did not borrow language from the imperial court to discuss Jesus. I would argue that the author of Mark wrote to a primarily Jewish audience and purposely creating the connection to the pagan Romans would not have been beneficial. The author of Luke, however, wrote to more of a Roman audience and it is more reasonable that his gospel was crafted to appeal to a pagan audience however his main objective, as is consistent with Mark, is to tie Jesus to the prophecies and writings in the Old Testament. First I will examine two passages from two of the synoptic gospels, Mark and Luke and discuss the implications of the language and stylistic choices made by the authors. Secondly, I will discuss and examine two secondary articles focusing on the two verses that I will study henceforth, one by Michael Peppard discussing the baptism of Jesus found in Mark and the other an article by Bradly S. Billings covering the Lukan youth narrative of Jesus as a young boy in the temple. Next I will incorporate the brilliant resource that is The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible and try to reconcile some differences between my argument and the articles using the historical context and other useful material I found. Lastly I will conclude by offering some final interpretations of my own and some reflective thoughts on this project as a whole. But first, to the Bible…
The passage I will start with is from Mark and is commonly known as the incarnation. It reads: “In those days, Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. And just as he was coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens torn apart and the Spirit descending like a dove on him. And a voice came from heaven, “You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.”” (Mark 1:9-11, NSRV). What exists here in Mark’s account of the incarnation is Jesus being baptized, coming up out of the water, having the Holy Spirit land on him in the form of a dove, the heavens being ripped open, and God announcing that Jesus is His Son and He is pleased with Him. The question at hand is how this particular instance of holy son-ship would have been received in its historical context. A modern Christian tradition would say that Jesus at this moment was God incarnate, not God the Father, but God the Son, part of the holy trinity. The details of this are extremely complex and not worth diving into in the paper but suffice it to say that Jesus the Son of God is considered as coexisting with God the Father in contemporary Christianity. This idea seems to spring from the gospel of John, which would be finished almost fifty years after the gospel of Mark and present the highest Christology of the gospels. Assuming that this high level of Christology was not in fact common at the time Mark was written, how then would God claiming Jesus as His Son be received? There are many references to “the Son of God” in the Bible and other literature of the time concerning leaders and “divine men” or Hellenistic heroes, including Augustus that can give us clues as to how this would strike the audience. Firstly, it is important to understand that the majority of early readers of this gospel would be Jewish and would most likely have a substantial knowledge of the Old Testament of the Bible (obviously not called the Old Testament then). An important distinction to make is the difference between a singular and entitling: “The Son of God” and the idea of the plural “Sons of God.” The Sons of God are referred to often in the Old Testament. They are sometimes angels, sometimes followers of God, sometimes Israel, and sometimes even fallen angels who rape women and make giant babies who roam the earth and force God to flood it (Genesis 6). This idea of “a Son of God” or “Sons of God” does not imply godhood or anything of the sort; only that the individual in question “stands in a particular and unique relationship with God” (Donaldson, New Interpreter’s…). This instance in Mark is not simply another one of these unique relationships with God. Mark writes that the audible voice of God is heard, claiming Jesus as his Son. Clearly Mark is separating what happens to Jesus from a relatively common Old Testament occurance. In a Hellenistic tradition, the Hebrew God certainly is not present so there would not be such a thing as either of these ideas but there would be the idea of the divine man or divinely chosen man, sometimes referred to as a child of the gods or a son of the gods. Later on, as the Empire became Christianized after Constantine, perhaps Christians would look back and say that Augustus was chosen by God but not that he was “The Son of God.” The distinction I am trying to make is the difference between the language used by the author of Mark in saying that Jesus was “The Son of God,” and that Augustus would have been chosen by the gods and possibly come to be seen as a god himself. Because monotheism was not the norm of the Empire during this time, nor would it be for hundreds of years, the language they used would not be applicable to Jesus who is being proclaimed as part of a Trinity that is one, and more importantly a part of a strictly monotheistic religion. Admittedly, I have no knowledge of ancient Greek, Latin, or Hebrew but it seems to me that these authors would believe that they were talking about an extremely different subject from the imperial cult and would in fact prefer not to borrow language that connected their “God/Son of God” with the earthly emperor and pagan religion of the Romans. If this particular passage and telling of the incarnation was found in Matthew or Luke which are written later and for different purposes, there would be reason to think that they would use language that is relatable to the Romans in order to win them over and gain new followers but for the author of Mark, Romans were not his intended audience, Jews were. It was not wholly decided that gentiles should even be pursued with the gospels as we can tell from Paul’s letters and additionally, the empire was persecuting Christians during this time. Possibly with less severity than is commonly assumed, judging by Pliny’s letter to Emperor Trajan but nonetheless, why would a cause looking to gain support and numbers associate its language with that of their enemies? Surely it would only function to drive would-be followers away. True, this argument is based on the intended audience and the author of Mark’s agenda therein, when obviously the gospel of Mark would be read by different audiences throughout history and it is valid to discuss the impact of these words on a primarily Roman audience (as the Peppard article does as I will explain in the next paragraph). I cannot agree though that writing to a Roman audience and borrowing language from the imperial cult were intentioned and preconceived by the author.
Peppard’s article makes some very convincing arguments and points concerning the allegory of the incarnation scene in Mark and its relation to Roman symbolism and culture. Peppard states that the symbol of the dove that lands on Jesus is typical of Roman symbolism and additionally that the concept of the adoptive son, in reference to Augustus and his use of adoption, should be thought about in a different light. Peppard argues that because the adoption of Augustus by Julius Caesar had brought about such prosperity for the realm and was a relatively common practice, that readers of Mark who were aware of Roman traditions would think of the incarnation scene as this sort of official adoption which is similar to an official transfer of power. Peppard goes to lengths to say that he does not wish to reject the idea that readers of Mark would be aware of the Hebrew scripture and would, rather than associate Jesus with the Emperor, associate Jesus as the “new anointed one” or something like that, but also suggests that the adoption aspect as well as the presence of the bird certainly lend themselves to the Roman side of interpretation. Augustus himself was adopted by Julius Caesar, who came to be thought of as a god thus furthering the connection between Jesus and Augustus as both were referred to as son of god. The bird too is a common presence in Roman lore and omens. Often, it is the image of an eagle that presents itself as the omen, representing victory through arms and also rising to power. The eagle and the dove are traditionally depicted as opposites, one achieving victory through violence and power, the other a symbol of peace, yet again setting the stage for Jesus to oppose the emperor. Ultimately, these arguments present a well detailed and researched point of view that says a contemporary of the author of Mark would associate the incarnation of Jesus as Mark presents it as a new emperor or at least an emperor of a different kind and in the same discussion. I would have to agree that a reader who is aware of Roman tradition and culture would associate Jesus with the emperor, and even specifically Augustus, in this way. Peppard’s argument leaves very little for debate and I would support his claims. I do not believe though that the author’s aim was to achieve this association. I think the author’s aim was to fulfill Hebrew scripture and prophecy to prove Jesus as messiah.
The next verse comes from the gospel of Luke, which was written after Mark and drew much of its information from Mark but also was aware of a Roman readership at the time. The verses come from the second chapter and start at verse forty one until the end. I will not copy them out here but I will assume a familiarity with the story of Jesus as a young boy being accidentally left in Jerusalem by his parents only to be found four days later in the temple with the teachers. I will highlight important textual elements in detail when it is appropriate from the NSRV. Because of the later date at which this particular gospel was written, I believe that it is more reasonable to assume that at least more of the intended audience was pagans and gentiles. Following that assumption, it makes sense to present Jesus as a contemporary figure and even a rival of the greatest emperor in recent memory, Augustus. At the end of this story, the very last line, Luke almost word for word quotes an Old Testament verse in 1 Samuel saying “And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature/years, and in divine and human favor.” (Luke 2:52, NSRV). My point in highlighting this is as follows: the idea of a brilliant youth who is able to teach his elders and amazes everyone with his wisdom of law and wit is common device used in Roman literature to express the greatness of heroes and respected individuals, it is known as a “divine man” trope. Luke accesses this and certainly uses it to project Jesus in a certain light and it would be impossible for this to not set Jesus as a parallel to Augustus and others seen as divine men. By adding a quote from the Old Testament, he positions Jesus as greater than all of these. He plays by the conventional rules of the divine man, then recalls his reader’s attention to his real aim, that Jesus is a fulfilment of prophecy in the Old Testament. This is a simple literary technique: foreshadowing. It would follow that Luke wished his story to be thematic and entertaining so as to garner more followers, hence the additions and expansions of Mark’s gospel. We call this an Easter egg in media today and I would suggest that this is indicative of the author of Luke’s motivation to present Jesus as a fulfilment of Old Testament scripture.
The article written by Bradley S. Billings suggests that the entire aim of the Lukan author is to present Jesus in a favorable light to gentiles. Billings suggests that the author wishes to connect Jesus to the imperial cult insofar as the imperial cult was such an integral and important part of daily life. He finds that there is very little written about the imperial court and it was not a common subject for discourse yet it was an extremely common practice to sacrifice at the cult of the emperor to grant the empire prosperity. He suggests that the Lukan author invokes the divine man theme and also invokes Augustus specifically to set up the parallel between Jesus and Augustus. He suggests that the imperial cult was more prominent in the East, which is where the gospel of Luke was primarily distributed. This popularity of the imperial cult led to the persecution of Christians in many cases which would be another reason to parallel the Jesus story with those of the emperors. In this case, the parallel and story would create the parallel but the Old Testament quote, hidden in a sense at the end, would highlight the true purpose of the gospel. In theory, Billings would suggest, the gospel of Luke is tailored to fit a Roman pagan understanding of the Jesus story. It wants to take the good times of the Roman Empire and place the narrative alongside the prosperity and positivity connected mostly with Augustus.
Both of these passages present the author shaping a story in order to highlight a particular element or argument, favorable to their respective audiences and aims. It remains clear to me however that the purpose of both of these works is not to convince, but to prove. Assuming that the gospel writers take the Old Testament for truth, they do craft their arguments to fit different understandings and perhaps even do it unconsciously because of their immersion in that particular culture, but their constant return to the Old Testament shows that while bits and pieces are crafted, the goal is to prove the Old Testament prophecies as fulfilled.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thomas McMillian
Son of God
Jesus and Augustus Caesar are two very influential men in history. Arguably both were the most influential men of their time, great leaders, idealists, and both were known as “sons of God” but in different contexts. To explore these differences and similarities we have to start with a review of the biblical references to Jesus as the Son of God.
In the New Testament gospels, Mark and Luke go into immense detail on Jesus being the Son of God. In Mark 1:9-11 the four main themes are of repentance, forgiveness, the kingdom of God and the fact that Jesus is the Son of God. Mark is one of the main sources for the story of Jesus, however Mark does not include the birth of Jesus. Mark begins the story with people coming to see John the Baptist when he was baptizing people in the Jordan River. They asked John if he was the Son of God and if he was the one that was prophesied, the one that would save them from the Roman Empire. John the Baptist, although having major significance in this Bible story, would not be the one to save the people; instead he replied to them saying “I have baptized you with but water, He will baptize you with the spirit[1]”. In the Christian religion it is believed that the spirit of God would come upon you after you were baptized and you would be saved. Baptism is a form of spiritual purification through water that is still practiced by Christians. It isn’t until after John says these things to the people, that Jesus comes into the narrative. John the Baptist, standing in the Jordan River would then baptize Jesus from Nazareth.
In the first part of the book of Mark, it is also said that Jesus is the messiah. The Messiah title could be applied to the king of Israel, high priest, and/or a prophet. The Messiah title, strangely enough, was even used to describe a king of Persia when he enacted God’s plan for his people. The Messiah title, although coveted by many, was not used for one of the most influential men in Old Testament history, King David. So the use of this term is varied.
The phrase “son of god” is applied in the Roman Empire to Augustus. The main theme that the article addresses is how would a Roman citizen, living in the Roman Empire, interpret Augustus being called “son of god”? Julius Caesar, Augustus’ adopted father, was viewed as divine and holy during his lifetime. The inscription to Julius Caesar in Macedonia states “To the Emperor Caesar, God, Son of God, Augustus. He had been declared a god of the roman state, “Divus Julius[2]”. If Julius Caesar was declared to be divine god by the roman state the logic would follow that his son would also then be divine. However it would seem that Augustus and his “divine state” began when he was a young boy, before his adoption by Caesar. It was believed by the Romans that Augustus was the son of Apollo himself. Therefore Augustus was a son of god by Caesar’s adoption of him and divine begetting through being the son of Apollo. Augustus only received the title of god ship through his adoption by Caesar. Augustus being the adopted son of Caesar posed a problem in ancient antiquity. In the Greco-Roman world, adopted sons were viewed as being lesser to natural born sons. This caused great tension across the Roman Empire between adopted and natural born sons.
The Eagle and Dove narrative is one where it compares the roman ruler Augustus (Octavian) as a noble war-like eagle and the docile dove of the Jewish people, Jesus Son of God. Both of these men were addressed in that way for similar and different reasons. The eagle stands for the Roman Empire, standing for divine favor, election, and the ascension to power. The dove is the peaceful counter symbol to the eagle. The omens both bird and dove, held significance in ancient antiquity. Bird’s were very important, influential, and had multiple meanings. Birds helped sailors navigate the waters, they marked the season’s change, and finally birds were messengers. This article uses a common comparison between a predator bird and a bird of prey. The reason these two distinctions are important is due to their relevance to the ritual of baptism.
In the discussion during the time of the biblical writings and references we also see some other similarities. For example, Baptism is the immersion of someone in water for the sake of purification. Immersion in the biblical sense was viewed as a full body ritual that would leave the person clean in the eyes of God. The act of baptism and purification was used as a way of being made clean and accepted into heaven. There were many different ways to be purified but there were certain things that had to be abstained from such as corpses, people with skin disease, and bodily discharges. Example, with Jesus’ baptism, John immersed Jesus in the river Jordan and he came out alive again in God. The encounter between Jesus and John was awkward due to the fact that John recognized Jesus as the son of God and he felt unworthy to baptize God’s son.
Baptism in the New Testament was a mission that Jesus gave to his disciples. Jesus told his disciples to try and baptize as many people as they possibly could as well as baptizing people in the name of God, Jesus, and the Spirit of God. Jesus stressed the fact that people had to be baptized to receive entrance into heaven. The laying of hands however would also suffice; through this method whole households could be mass baptized and converted. All of these people were adopted into God’s family.
Baptism was viewed as a form of adoption. Here lies another similarity. Jesus, through his baptism by John the Baptist, gained notoriety. God adopted Jesus though his baptism and after Jesus’ baptism a voice from heaven proclaimed Jesus’ divine son ship from the God of heaven. There is a similar story in the Roman Empire, when Caesar himself entered the forum an eagle, flew down and landed on Augustus’ shoulder. In the Imperial Roman Empire power could be transmitted through an adoption. The eagle landing on Augustus’ shoulder was an omen from heaven, the eagle relating to the point when Caesar would adopt him into his royal family.
During Second Temple Judaism, unlike in the New Testament, Gentiles were viewed as unclean and evil and they needed to be purified. Some overt measures could be taken to help purify the non-Jews. For example “Adam and Eve stood in the river Jordan for forty days to beg God for forgiveness[3]”. Other instances of purification would call for standing in living water, pools, or any other body of water that was moving. Some groups such as the Essenes and Pharisees would take extra precautions with purity, including taking many and frequent purification baths to ensure that they were clean in the eyes of God.
Another similarity is that both Jesus and Augustus, at the age of twelve, showed tremendous knowledge and understanding of religion, cultural norms, and political affairs that they should have had no prior knowledge of. When Jesus was twelve, he traveled with his family to Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover. After the Passover ceremony had come to an end all of the families headed back to their respective homes. It was a day or two before Joseph and Mary noticed that Jesus was missing. They returned to Jerusalem to try and find him. His parents found him at the temple, speaking with the Pharisees and Sadducees about the law. Jesus’ knowledge of the Law was so deep that the teachers were utterly amazed. This quote shows Jesus’ profound knowledge“What is astounding about Jesus at the age of 12 is his extraordinary knowledge, and it is this which makes him exceptional[4]”. Luke was the only writer to record these events. Luke’s message was not meant for the Jews, but for every non-Jew. However the temple scene was primarily Jewish with many Jewish undertones. It can also be understood that this is a transitional scene from Jesus’ infant life to his adulthood.
There is a very familiar feeling of the story of Augustus and Jesus at the age of twelve. Just as in the temple story of Jesus speaking with the officials, there is an account of Augustus himself addressing the court. When Augustus was a young boy of twelve, he gave an oration at his grandmother’s funeral to honor her memory. Before that, when he was only nine years old, he gave a speech in which he proved his great knowledge of public affairs and the natural order of things.
Analyzing the aspect of being a son of god is quite a tricky matter, let alone just being a son. The term “son” is one of the most commonly used words in the Old Testament, both in a literal and figurative sense. Biologically, the word son refers to natural born offspring. Plural, however refers to both male and female descendants on a mass scale. During the ancient times it was pivotal to have a son, not only would a son pass on the family lineage, but also a son would take care of you when you were too old to work. You needed a son to carry on your life’s work and legacy.
Although the term son is used as a biological relationship in the Old Testament, in the New Testament however it refers to the relationship that Jesus had with God. But, there were more uses of the word son as well. Paul tends to refer to many Christians in a broad sense as sons. It could be easily accepted that believers in Christ were all God’s sons, as even angels were referred to with the phrase.
In reference to Jesus, a Roman centurion was one of the first people in history to acknowledge Jesus as being a true and divine Son of God. God declares Jesus’ divine kingship during his Baptism in the Jordan River in Mark 1:11. God is not the only divine being to acknowledge Jesus as his own, it also happened at the transfiguration (Jesus performing miracles) in Mark 1:11, and demons recognized that Jesus was the son of God in Mark 3:11 “Whenever the unclean spirits saw him, they fell down before him and shouted “You are the Son of God![5]” and Mark 5:7“and he shouted at the top of his voice, “what have you to do with me, Jesus, Son oft he Most High God[6].“
In Matthew, it is already known that there is a birth story. Unlike Luke, Matthew accounts for the birth of Jesus. Matthew recognized that Jesus, although being born of the Virgin Mary, is the Son of God. In Matthew, unlike Luke, Peter is the first person to recognize that Jesus is the Son of God. Even though Matthew receives influence in his writing from both Mark and Q in his own accounts regarding Jesus, he establishes that God has called Jesus to be His own, to take over the kingdom of heaven.
Luke and Acts both have very similar accounts of Jesus divine kingship and God calling Jesus to be his own. In Luke, the demons and angels recognize Jesus as God’s own. The most compelling evidence in favor of Jesus is that demons that he has been exorcising cry out to him. They say that they know who he is, he is the Son of God, and in recognizing Jesus’ power the demons cower in fear because they know they are powerless in the eyes of the Son of God, the most powerful being in existence.
Augustus himself was one of the most powerful rulers of the Roman Empire and how he claimed his divine kingship/being a son of god. First Augustus was not his birth name but was the name given after his adoption into the royal family. Augustus’ birth name was Octavian. He is the adopted son of Julius Caesar and the natural born son of Apollo. The reason Caesar adopted Octavian into his family was due to the fact that the only way to transfer power was through adoption. Because August was considered essentially the son of god, it gave him the authority to govern the roman people. He was viewed as the chosen one, the bringer of truth and unity. Augustus gained the titles of Truth and Unity by re-establishing widespread religious festivals, and since he himself was viewed as a god in a roundabout way he made it so the people worshipped him on a yearly bases making sure to recognize his divinity. The people in worshipping Augustus gave him the title “Illustrious One”, giving him definite and ultimate dominion over the Roman Empire as a whole. Other reasons why Augustus was so widely loved as a son of god was that he ended civil wars within Rome, he expanded the empire to the farthest ends of the earth, he not only addressed social problems but he solved them as well by fixing the food and water supply, improving taxation, and instilling civil order across the land. The Roman people viewed Augustus as a God and justly so, he was named the savior of the people. Augustus help expand and improve Rome in more ways than one “He restored the republic, established monarchy, ended civil war, refurbished Rome, expanded its territory, elevated the provinces, and ensured peaceful succession[7]”. Augustus became widely acknowledged and religions bean opping up to honor and worship the Caesars as gods. These religions became known as Imperial Cults.
There was a widespread propaganda religion around the empire of Rome known as Emperor Worship. Emperor worship could be best described as referring to the royal family receiving gifts, offerings, and praise that would most likely be addressed to a god. This propagandistic religion could otherwise be known as an Imperial Cult. The nature in which imperial cults acted was not unlike any other religion around the time of antiquity. The imperial cults would hold special ceremonies to honor the life of the dead emperors, temples were erected in their honor, and there would be priests that were devoted to honoring the memory of the dead emperor. The main point was that the Romans wanted all people to participate in worship. They wanted the young, old, poor, and rich to all pay homage to their gods. “So worship of the emperors could be thoroughly integrated at the local level[8]”. Within the Pauline literature Paul addresses the threat of Imperial Cults to Christianity.
Imperial Cults were one of the major threats to the growth and spread of Christianity that is excluding the entity that is the Roman Empire. Paul in his letters addresses how the people should react to Roman Rule, that is who to pay homage to, if they should respect Rome and Caesar himself or not. Paul makes it painfully clear that Christians are living under the iron first that is the Roman Empire and they are required to pay to Rome what is Rome’s due. Paul doesn’t condemn the Roman Empire per say, his objective is to keep the new Christians safe while dealing with Romans. In Revelations however toleration of Rome is a different story. Rome is compared to Satan and John characterizes Rome as a demon rising out of a lake of fire, tempting and torturing the people in hell. John thus urges Christians to not associate themselves or even have a confrontation with Rome for fear of their lives.
This project has given me a greater understanding of my faith in Christianity and a more firm foundation in not only what I believe but how I choose to believe it. This project has helped me analyze what term “son of god” and what it means in antiquity and how Jesus wasn’t the only man to receive this title, but Augusts received it as well. By examining all of these works I now have a greater understanding, love, and appreciation for ancient Jewish and Roman views of religion, language, interpretation, texts, and social norms.
“The son of god” is a term used to describe historical figures in history such as Jesus and Augustus. Writers such as Mark and Luke relate Jesus to God by giving Jesus not only the title of “son of god” but of Messiah which means “anointed one” the one set a part for God’s son. In Roman antiquity Augustus receives the title due to being the adopted son of Julius. Being the adopted son of Julius Caesar gave Augustus human and divine authority of the entire Roman Empire. Both men held great influence, they were anointed, held power, and started religions and both claimed the title “son of god”.
Donaldson, Terence L. “Son of God.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 5, edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 335-341. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2009. (sections A; C.1, 2.a)
Carter, Warren. “Augustus.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 1, edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 349-351. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2006.
Harland, Phillip A. “Emperor Worship.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 2, edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 255-257. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2007.
Taylor, Joan E. “Baptism.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 1, edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 390-395. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2006. (sections A; B; C)
Peppard, Michael. “The Eagle and the Dove: Roman Imperial Sonship and the Baptism of Jesus (Mark 1.9-11).” New Testament Studies 56 (2010): 431-451.
Billings, Bradley S. “‘At the Age of 12’: The Boy Jesus in the Temple (Luke 2:41-52), the Emperor Augustus, and the Social Setting of the Third Gospel.” Journal of Theological Studies 60 (2009): 70-89.
[1] Mark 1:8
[2] Inscription from Macedonia
[3] At the Age of 12 Page 39
[4] At the Age of 12 Page 37
[5] Mark 3:11
[6] Mark 5:7
[7] Son of God Vol. 5 Page 350
[8] Augustus Vol. 1 Page 256