Son of God in a Greco-Roman Context

This is the final section of my essay concerning adoptonism in earliest Christianity. This essay for my Early Christian literature class was a lot of fun to write and I greatly enjoyed researching for it. In many ways that was the most fun part of the whole process. 

So far I have established the use of the term ‘son of God’ in a Jewish context as referring to the king of Israel. The king of Israel was considered in some sense to be divine via his adoption by God at his enthronement. From here I shall begin to explore the Greco-Roman context for the term ‘son of God’ and adoption within the Roman imperial cult, and the symbolism of the dove at Jesus’ baptism.

The Ebionites understood Jesus’ baptism as an adoption by which the holy spirit entered Jesus, making him God’s son. As Epiphanius tells us in The Panarion, the Ebionites believed that the holy spirit entered him by taking the form of a dove, “And as he came up out of the water the heavens were opened, and he saw the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove which descended and entered into him.” For the Ebionites, the dove in effect, was the “Christ” and entered Jesus at this moment, making Jesus “the Christ.” Again, that Jesus was called by his followers ‘the son of God’ is not a unique feature to the world in which Jesus lived. While people such as Alexander the Great, Pythagorus, and Plato were considered to be sons of gods, perhaps the best example of the term ‘son of god’ being used in the Greco-Roman period [35], was its’ application to the Roman emperor.

Beginning with the deification of Julius Caesar, through which he became Divi Iulius, from there on his adopted son, Octavian (later Augustus), became known as Divi Filius, son of god. After Augustus’ death he was officially deified and thus his successor, and adopted son, Tiberias could call himself, ‘son of god Sebastos.’ Though Tiberius was never formally deified, he was called god on various coinage and inscriptions during his reign. Emperor Nero, the adopted son of Claudius was also called the son of God. It is important to note that Augustus, Tiberius, and Nero were all adopted sons, not biological. [36] The adoption of Augustus by Caesar, making him ‘son of God’ had vast ramifications throughout the empire. That the emperor was worshiped as a divine god has been long overlooked and in some instances dismissed by scholars. Mostly scholars did not believe that Roman citizens actually believed that the emperor was divine. However, as Keith Hopkins concludes in his chapter “Divine Emperors” whether or not Roman citizens actually believed the emperor was divine or not, they “certainly acted like it.” The religion of the ancient Greeks, and thereby extension that of the Romans, was more akin to an ‘orthopraxy’ rather than an ‘orthodoxy’ meaning that action was more important than belief. [37]

With the establishment of the imperial emperor cult by Caesar’s adoption of Octavian, the title ‘son of God’ was used to create a Roman imperial ideology similar to that of the ancient Israelites. The Roman emperor was thus literally made ‘son of god’ through his adoption. Following the relation of the son of God titular applied to Jesus and of that applied to the Roman emperor, Michael Peppard has argued that “the common understanding of imperial divine sonship among biblical scholars can be reframed and broadened by emphasising the importance of adoption in Roman society and imperial ideology.” [38] Thus far I have argued that the adoptionist view of the Ebionites can be traced back to the earliest days of Christianity. While some scholars such as Ehrman pose that early adoptionists consider Jesus’ baptism to be the moment of adoption, detractors assert that there is no attestation for this in the NT. [39] Peppard however, makes the case that when viewed through a Roman lens of imperial ideology, one must see the baptism of Jesus as an adoption. One point that Tony Costa, who argues against early adoptionism makes is that the very concept of Jesus being made divine via adoption at his baptism would point towards ‘low christology,’ when he says that the early worship of and attitudes toward Jesus all point to a ‘high christology.’ This, however need not be the case as in the Roman empire, adopted sons were not seen as lower than biological sons. To the contrary, legal and historical sources clearly indicate that the adopted son assumed the social position/status of his adopted father. [40]

Thus, to be the ‘son of god’ in the Roman empire literally meant to be the son of the emperor which in most cases meant the adopted son. Consider the fact that Caesar’s adopted son, Augustus, is one of the most well known figures in ancient history, while his biological son Caesarion is but a footnote in history. Peppard further drives home this point by stating that “the adopted son was really to become the son and agent of the adoptive father; he was not a substitute son, nor some kind of second-class son. The adopted son also exchanged his own status and took over the status of the adoptive father. Thus, as Caesar was divine, Octavian, through adoption by Caesar, also became divine. Through this system, one could be brought from the bottom of society, and elevated among the highest level of society, nobility.” [41] Further, that Jesus was adopted by God at his baptism, reflecting the adoptive nature of the Roman imperial cult, does not make Jesus any less divine than Octavian was by being adopted by Caesar. Jesus would have inherited the same divine nature of God through his adoption and an adoptionist christology is not a low christology, but a high one.

Returning to the imagery of the dove in the GoH used by the Ebionites, if one looks to Roman culture they will find vast evidence that birds were used as omens, abundant with meaning. Perhaps the most interesting for this particular instance is the use of the birds as omens in Suetonius’ Lives of the Caesars. In the years leading up to Mark, imperial power was handed down through adoption, the most notable being Caesar’s adoption of Octavian, but also, Octavian’s adoption of Tiberius. Suetonius describes, that in the days before the accession of Tiberius, an eagle descended and perched itself on the roof of his house. Here, a bird is used to symbolise the transition of power right before the adoption of Tiberius. The most direct parallel however, lies within Suetonius’ employment of a dove in relation to Caesar’s adoption of Octavian. Suetonius writes, “as the deified Julius was cutting down a wood at Munda and preparing a place for his camp, coming across a palm tree he caused it to be spared as an omen of victory. From this a shoot sprang forth […] moreover many doves built their nests there […] Indeed, it was that omen in particular they say, that led Caesar to wish that none other than his nephew [Octavian] should be his successor.” [42] With the dove being the determining factor that places Jesus’ adoption at his baptism as a parallel to Caesar’s adoption of Octavian, a line can be drawn to the theology of the Ebionites, who according to Epiphanius, held that “the Christ” descended upon Jesus in the form of a dove at his baptism. Though Suetonius does not place the doves at Octavian’s adoption, they are used as the device for finalising the adoption, giving precedence to the Ebionite concept which again could establish an early origin of their theology.

Conclusion:

Epiphanius of Salamis, an ardent defender of the proto-orthodoxy of his day, railed against the Ebionites for their Christological views of Jesus. He was repulsed by their assertions that Jesus was fathered by a human, and that he only became God’s son through his baptism when the holy spirit came into him in the form of a dove. Scholars have noted several instances in NT manuscripts where scribal redaction appears to have edited out references to Jesus’ “father” and his “parents” instead changing them to “Joseph and his mother.” The way in which Matthew renders the word parthenos in his gospel does not indicate that Mary was a virgin in the sense that one would think of today. Rather, Matthew likely took the term to simply mean a young woman. Further, the Greek makes clear that the conception has not yet happened, implying that the reading could also be taken to mean that the one who is a virgin now, will conceive later, once she experiences sexual intercourse.

There are curious variants of Luke 3.22 in which the voice from heaven declares “you are my son, today I have begotten you,” a direct quote of Psalm 2.7. This reading is attested in an early Greek MS and several Latin MS and was quoted frequently by early Church fathers. It is also curious that the same reading of Luke 3.22 can be found in the Gospel of the Hebrews, read by the Ebionites. This could imply that the alternative reading was in fact the original reading which was later changed by scribes. In either case, Mark’s use of “you are my son” likely stems from OT passages in reference to the king of Israel who was himself called ‘son of God’ and in Psalm 110, 45, was called ‘god.’ The king attained his divine status as son of God through his adoption by God. The Israelite theme itself is likely derived from Egyptian and Mesopotamian traditions whereby the god takes the king and makes him their son at their enthronement ceremony.

Adoption in the Roman empire was used to transfer power, inheritance, and to continue one’s dynasty. Caesar’s adoption of Octavian established the Roman imperial cult through which one literally became the son of god by being the son of the emperor. This imperial cult was in place during Jesus’ life time and likely was an influence when establishing Jesus’ as the son of God. That his baptism was seen as an adoption makes sense in light of Jewish scripture regarding the Israelite king, and in context of Roman emperor worship. Even the dove in Mark 1.11 may be a passing reference to the doves used in Suetonius which symoblised the transfer of power from Caesar to Augustus.

All these elements combine to create a very early origin of the themes that Epiphanius objects so strongly to. That Jesus was fathered by a human appears to have a very early origin and may very well have been believed by the earliest Christians. That Jesus was adopted as God’s son at his baptism also appears to have very early origins. Thus, although the Jewish– Christian sect known as the Ebionites are generally associated with the second century C.E., it appears that by extracting the Christological beliefs of the Ebionites as described by Epiphanius, one can trace the roots of their beliefs back to the earliest Christians. The implications of that lead to the logical conclusion that adoptionist christology was the earliest christology held by the followers of Jesus.

Sources:
[35] Cartlidge & Dungan, Documents for the Study of the Gospels, 129–136.
[36] Robert L. Mowrey, “Son of God in Roman Imperial Titles and in Matthew,” Biblica 83 no. 1 (2002) 100–110.
[37] Keith Hopkins, “Divine Emperors or the Symbolic Unity of the Roman Empire,” in Conquerors and Slaves: Sociological Studies in Roman History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978); 197– 242.
[38] Michael Peppard, “The Eagle and the Dove: Roman Imperial Sonship and the Baptism of Jesus (Mark 1.9–11)” New Testament Studies 56 (2010) 431–451.
[39] See Tony Costa, “Was Adoptionism the Earliest Christology: A Response to Bart Ehrman” American Journal of Biblical Theology 8 no. 28 (2007).
[40] Jack Goody, “Adoption in Cross-Cultural Perspective” Comparative Studies in Society and History 11 no. 1 (1969) 55–78; also see, Felix Infausto, “Perspective on Adoption” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 383 (1969) 1–12
[41] Michael Peppard, The Son of God in the Roman World: Divine Sonship in its Social and Political Context (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2011).
[42] J.C. Rolfe, trans., Suetonius’ Lives of the Caesars, (New York, NY: Barnes & Noble inc, 2004); 84

–M

Hypocrisy Everywhere

One of the reasons that the American people hate Washington so much is that politicians up on the hill have a habit of being hypocritical. Democrats will say one thing while they’re in power and complain about that same exact thing once Republicans do it when they’re in power and vice versa. 

Take for example the nuclear option for confirming cabinet members. Back during the Bush administration, Democrats were furious over Republicans in congress threatening to allow a simple 51 vote majority to be able to confirm federal appeals court seats in 2005. Then senator Joe Biden called it “naked power grab.”

Fast Forward eight years and it was Democrats in the senate who voted to eliminate the filibuster against all executive branch nominees and judicial nominees (except the SCOTUS). The same Democrats who 8 years prior raised hell over Republicans threatening to confirmed judicial nominees with a 51 vote majority, did exactly that. And likewise, Republicans who proposed the idea under president Bush now all of the sudden felt it was a bad idea.

The recent flip flop concerns the notion of ‘leaks vs content.’ Back in the summer and during the month of October during the 2016 presidential race, thousands of emails were leaked from the DNC and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. The emails revealed grotesque corruption by the DNC as they effectively rigged the Democratic primary to screw over Bernie Sanders. The Pedesta emails revealed further corruption within the Clinton campaign, including the revelation that then acting DNC chairwoman Donna Brazile had leaked a debate question to the Clinton campaign for the CNN primary debate. Brazile at the time was a contributor for CNN. The deflection from the Democrats over both the DNC and Podesta leaks were that the media and the American people should be more focussed on the fact that the emails were stolen and leaked rather than the actual content of said emails.When pressed on whether or not things revealed in the Podesta emails were true, Clinton surrogates simply repeated that the emails were leaked and that the leakage was a serious problem, not commenting on the actual contents of the emails. Republicans of course insisted that what was in the emails be the primary focus of the media and the American people.

Fast forward just a few months and just 25 days into the Trump administration, national security advisor, Michael Flynn resigned over revelations that we allegedly talked with Russian foreign officials over the phone about removing sanctions placed on Russia by Obama. The media became aware of this alleged conversation via leaks by members within the intelligence community. As you can expect, now that the tables have turned, both sides are now taking exactly the opposite position they did over the DNC and Podesta leaks. Now it’s Republicans and the Trump administration that are complaining about a leak problem, arguing that the fact that a private call was recorded by the government and then leaked to the press is more concerning than the contents of the actual phone call. And of course, Democrats are now the ones who are concerned about the contents of the phone call and argue that the concern over leaks is just a deflection, after months of deflecting on content and complaining about leaks over the DNC leaks.

Perhaps the American people would take Democrats more seriously on the issue of content over leaks had they not just spent months spouting off and insisting that it should be leaks over content. And Republicans may have a hand up on this leaks over content business had they not just spent months saying that focussing on leaks is just a deflection.

And you wonder why people hate Washington and don’t trust politicians. 

–M

Supergirl Vol. 2: Girl in the World–Review

Last night I finally got around to reading volume 2 of Supergirl New 52. I really enjoyed volume 1 despite hearing pretty mixed reviews from readers and staunch Supergirl fans. Overall I was quite pleased with this book and found it to be very engaging and a good follow up to the first volume.

Volume 2 picks up right where volume 1 left off with Kara having just defeated the World Killers. Exhausted from her fight and still not fully able to control her powers, military forces begin to approach Kara, unfamiliar with who she is, planning to detain her. In her fight wit the World Killers she inadvertently caused a lot of destruction and as such the authorities are not too pleased with her. Right as the military prepares to fire at her
a voice from the crowd stop them as a woman runs up in front of Kara and pleas with the military not to fire. She is then somehow able to speak perfect Kryptonian. The military fires anyway but Kara manages to fly away, taking
this new girl along with her. She lands on a rooftop and the girl identifies herself as Siobhan Smythe. 

From there Siobhan helps Kara adjust to being on earth. She tells Kara that she too is a bit of an outsider as she is on the run from her father and come to a new city in search of a new start. She teaches Kara the ropes on how to behave on earth and they become close friends. Eventually however, Siobhan’s past catches up to her and it is revealed that her father who she is trying to get away from is the Black Banshee. The curse of the Banshee runs in Siobhan’s family and by extension it is revealed that Siobhan is the Silver Banshee. Her father is thus the first villain Kara encounters in this book and she fights him trying to protect Siobhan. During the fight Kara ends up finding Siobhan’s long lost brother, Tom.

The second villain she encounters appears to be some kind of ‘hitman’ charged with the task of bringing Supergirl to his boss. It’s not really clear who he is but he’s given a nanobot suit capable of multiplying as well as creating some kind of tar substance to restrain Supergirl with. Kara, still unable to fully control her powers, manages to destroy the nanobot suit and rescues Tom who was also endangered in the incident. This was probably the weakest part of the story as it was not explained very well, seemed kind of random and more like filler than anything else. The fight scene was kind of downplayed and it just wasn’t written very well. From there Kara she can no longer stay with Siobhan and Tom as she fears that if she does she will only endanger them. She flies off and meets Superman looking for some answers.

Superman informs Supergirl that there is another piece of her pod that was located at the bottom of the ocean. Refusing Superman’s help, Kara plunges into the ocean in search of the missing piece from her pod. She is attacked by some sort of creature but she manages to defeat it. Then she begins to hear a voice calling out to her. She follows it to what appears to be her own fortress of solitude. There she is confronted by none other than Simon Tycho from volume 1 who Kara presumably believed was dead. That’s where the story ends and it will continue in volume 3. 

We also get issue #0 at the very end of this volume which collects Supergirl #8-#12. There we get more information on how and why Supergirl was sent to earth, her father Zor-El, and the fate of Krypton. 

All in all this volume, while significantly less action packed than the first volume, does a really good job of developing the plot and the characters. Through each issue we learn more about Kara as she struggles with
controlling her powers and coming to terms with her new situation. She still does not fully trust Superman nor does she fully believe that he is even who he says he is, her cousin. In this volume we see Kara start to mature and realise who she is, while simultaneously still searching for answers. The public also is coming to terms with the fact that there is a new mysterious superhero on earth. They are familiar with Superman, but remain sceptical about this new girl donning the same colours and symbol, mostly because she is not quite in control of her powers yet, which scares some people. In terms of growth and development, this volume succeeds. I do wish there was a bit more action however, but I fully understand why this was needed. The writing could have been a lot better in certain areas but the ending was solid and sets up volume 3 very well. In total, I enjoyed volume 2 and look forward to reading the next.

Rating. 7/10

-M