Tae Hun Kim, «The Anarthrous ui(o\j qeou= in Mark 15,39 and the Roman Imperial Cult», Vol. 79 (1998) 221-241

This article points up evidence by which the language of the Roman imperial cult might help make clearer what a reader of Mark's Gospel might understand when the centurion (Mark 15,39) refers to Jesus as ui(o\j qeou=. Knowing how an audience familiar with this cult language would react, Mark intentionally speaks of Jesus as ui(o\j qeou= at 1,1, as well as at 15,39.

suffice to show briefly that Mark uses the title with consistency throughout the Gospel to express Jesus’ divine sonship. There is little doubt that Mark took the anarthrous u(io\j qeou= in 15,39 as definite because the rest of the Gospel clearly and uniformly proclaims the title in the definite sense with the proper article. There is also no doubt that the early church and readers of Mark believed Jesus to be the Son of God and Savior and thus took the centurion’s confession as definite. The centurion’s confession that Jesus was "son of God" does not make him a Christian or convert, for mere recognition of Jesus’ divine sonship does not necessarily entail conversion. After all, demons and unclean spirits have done the same without converting (3,11; 5,7; cf. 1,24) ⁴². It is also impossible to determine what the centurion might have seen at the time of Jesus’ death and how it affected him physically and psychologically.

        Throughout the Gospel the readers of Mark have been repeatedly informed of the connection between the title "the Son of God" and Jesus well before the climactic conclusion in 15,39. In my opinion, therefore, the absence of the definite article in the centurion’s confession could not have had as great an impact on the Markan readers as Johnson implies. P. Davis has argued that the intended Markan readers probably read the centurion’s confession in the light of other references in Mark rather than searching out other anarthrous nouns which precede the verb to see if the anarthrous u(io\j qeou= really is definite ⁴³. It is also inappropriate to generalize how a centurion as an individual would have reacted to the death of Jesus in terms of how Roman centurions as a group would have. To anyone who has read the Gospel of Mark leading up to the crucifixion there would have been little doubt to whom the anarthrous title refers and what the title means.

        A study on the anarthrous u(io\j qeou= in the centurion’s confession suggests an interesting parallel with the language of the Roman imperial cult. The epithet u(io\j qeou= in Mark 15,39 can be related