Robert L. Mowery, «Son of God in Roman Imperial Titles and Matthew», Vol. 83 (2002) 100-110

The christological formula qeou= ui(o/j, which appears in the NT only in three Matthean passages (14,33; 27,43.54), exactly parallels the two-word Roman imperial son of god formula found in the titulature of Augustus, Tiberius, Nero, Titus, and Domitian. This formula occurred more widely in first century imperial titulature than has previously been reported; in addition, various three-word imperial son of god formulas also deserve notice. The Matthean formula qeou= ui(o/j would have evoked Roman imperial usage for at least some members of Matthew’s community.

While this formula occurs much more frequently in epigraphical references to Augustus than in epigraphical references to any other first century emperor, it occurs much more frequently in provincial coins whose legends refer to Domitian than in provincial coins which name any other first century emperor, including Augustus.

        Three-word son of god formulas based on the model qeou=-father’s name-ui(o/j also appear in references to Augustus, Tiberius, Nero, Titus, and Domitian. These three-word formulas explicitly identify the specific god (among the many Greco-Roman gods) whose paternity was being claimed. Matthew did not face such a problem, for he used the noun qeo/j only when referring to the one God proclaimed by his community ⁴³. Nevertheless, there are parallels between the two-word Matthean formula qeou= ui(o/j and the three-word imperial formula qeou=-father’s name-ui(o/j, for both have a prepositive genitive qeou=, both have the governing noun ui(o/j, and both are anarthrous.

        The Roman inscriptions and other sources containing these son of god formulas proclaimed the ‘good news’ that imperial power was being transferred in an orderly manner from deified fathers to their sons. The titles of the other first century emperors, however, do not proclaim this message. Although Gaius Caligula called himself ‘descendant of god Sebastos’ early in his reign, he eventually demanded divine honors. Claudius eschewed claims of divine sonship, and various inscriptions identify him as simply ‘son of Drusus’. Galba, Otho, Vitellius, and Vespasian, the emperors who ruled during the chaotic year of the four emperors (68-69 CE), were the sons of fathers who were never deified, and none of these emperors seems to have claimed that his father was a god, though Vespasian may have been called ‘son of Ammon’ in Alexandria. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the five emperors whose titulature contains the formulas qeou= ui(o/j and qeou=-father’s name-ui(o/j did not rule for an insignificant amount of time, for they reigned for a combined total of nearly one hundred years.

3. Matthean Contact with these Imperial Formulas

        The first section of this paper has shown that the christological formula qeou= ui(o/j occurs in the NT only in three passages in the Gospel of Matthew (14,33; 27,43.54), while the second section has shown that a prepositive genitive qeou= occurs in two types of Roman imperial son of god phrases: the two-word formula qeou= ui(o/j and three-word formulas like qeou= Sebastou= ui(o/j and qeou= Ou)espasianou= ui(o/j. This section will explore ways in which members of Matthew’s community could have learned about these imperial formulas.

        The imperial cult celebrated and promulgated the claims of Rome and her emperors. As early as 29 BCE, Octavian permitted Pergamum to erect a provincial temple dedicated to the goddess Roma and himself⁴⁴. He