Craig A. Evans writes in “Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls in Qumran Cave 4” that,
“…there can be little doubt that the prominence in the New Testament of the epithets such as ‘Son of God’ and ‘Son of the Most High’ probably has something to do with their usage in the Graeco-Romans world. These and closely related epithets were everywhere applied to the Roman emperors. One inscription describes Julius Caesar (ruled 48-44 BCE) as “the manifest god from Mars and Aphrodite, and universal savior of human life” (SIG 760). In many inscriptions and papyri Augustus (30BCE-14 CE), who was emperor when Jesus was born (ca. 4-5 BCE), is frequently called “God” and “Son of God” (e.g., POxy 257; POxy 1266; POslo 26). Tiberius (14-37 CE), who ruled the Roman Empire when Jesus was crucified (ca. 30 or 33 CE), called himself the “Son of God” and the “Son of Zeus the Liberator” (SB 8317; POxy 240). Nero (54-68 CE, who ruled when the Gospel of Mark was being written, called himself “the Son of the greatest of the gods” (IM 157b) and “Lord of the whole world” (SIG 814). Similar language was used in reference to Emperor Vespasian (69-79 CE, who ruled the Roman Empire when the Synoptic Gospels were composed and began circulating among Christians.”
In Craig A. Evans and Peter W. Flint (eds), Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1997), p. 93.
Evans goes on to note that 4Q246 shows that this epithet was not exclusive to the Graeco-Roman milieu (p. 94). This text from Qumran mentions a king (likely Davidic) who will be called “Son of God” and “Son of the Most High.” This text mentions his kingdom as being everlasting, which again is Davidic.
We should recognize that “Son of God” has flexibility of definition. When used in a first century Jewish context it likely had to do with a Davidic heir who would restore Israel’s kingdom. But as the people of the empire heard it there is no way they could avoid comparing the claims to those of the Caesars and their supporters.
the archives near Emmaus 
OK, I agree with this post with the following qualifications. In the Hebrew/Masoteric text (according to John Collins), the Son of God language is usually associated with the Davidic royal lineage. But in the Greek, it has messianic implications, as the LXX can be more suited for messianic language and theologies. I think we should also look at the usage of Son Of God in Ancient Near Eastern contexts, those of Assyria and Egypt in particular. I wonder if there has been a comparative study on that topic.
Rod
I agree that we need to examine how the Jewish language regarding ‘Son of God’ was influenced by cultures like Egypt and Assyria. I presume that there are a variety of factors that came to form ‘Son of God’ identity, including deity-like ruler in other ancient near east cultures as well as the rise of the cult of Caesar. Also, it would be interesting to know if (old?) Egyptian culture had influence on the eventually deification of Roman rulers.
What of Margaret Barker’s interesting observation that what is translated as “son of God” in English is actually two separate things in the Old Testament? Son of God = Son of Yahweh/Elohim = human being with divine kingly anointing, whereas Son of God Most High = Son of El Elyon = Yahweh himself
To someone who had witnessed the death and resurrection of the the real ‘son of God’, the humble, righteous, pure lion of the tribe of Judah, the application of the moniker to one so foul as Tiberius or Nero must have seemed utterly blasphemous.
Brian, of course, Antony was worshipped as a God ( as Cleopatra’s consort and Roman Pharoah ), and certainly formalized the practice in Rome if not actually brought the practice back (indirectly) by being envied by Octavian. Good insight.
In light of this how do you understand what John wrote:
For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
In John 5:18?
Obviously the phrase ‘Son of God’ is not explicit in this passage, but it is implicitly there (i.e. Son of the Father etc.). It seems though to lend itself to a high christology of the sort that we might often attribute to the articulations of the later church councils. Nevertheless, there seems to be a Jewish/Hebraic belief present that held that if someone claimed to have a Father who was the God of the Old Covenant, that this person was claiming equality with God (which I’m sure we have all heard more than once being referenced in Sunday sermons). Do you think John was influenced more by this Graceo-Roman context you are highlighting in this post, or that he was more influenced by a Hebraic one that was also apparently present in this Second Temple Judaic period?
RodTRDH,
Oh yes, there have been studies of this. To take a famous 60 year old old example, Sigmund Mowinckel’s He That Cometh spent a good amount of time summarizing comparative views of royal ideology and its relationship to divinity among Egyptian, Mesopotamian and Israelite sources. Obviously some of the methods and conclusions of older works like this don’t hold up so well–but there’s still a lot to be learned from them.
Brian–
Deification of Roman rulers owes a lot to Hellenistic and Egyptian concepts. The influence of Alexander and the Ptolemies on the Caesars would be a key thing here–do you suppose that Julius Caesar and Mark Antony were unaware that Cleopatra as pharaoh was a god? Augustus made absolutely certain that title became his, just as Alexander had three centuries before.
I took an OT course last year and they always compare pagan literature to the text. One thing I learned was “cloud rider” was God to the Jews and pagans. The pagans had “most high gods” as we consider Yahweh El Elyon, so that would be their “cloud rider” . Ba’al was the could rider for example to pagans who worshipped him.
When Jesus told Caiaphas “you will see Me coming in the clouds” Caiaphas flipped out because the ancient near eastern Jews knew Jesus was saying, “I am the El Elyon of the OT text”. Whoever “rode the clouds” was the most high god in that region. Daniel 7 is the Jewish antecedent. Jews just knew Yahweh was the only El Elyon.
Knowing pagan literature helps explain why Caiaphas flipped out there. Caiaphas condemned Israel to destruction that moment. When he tore his high priestly robes, Israel was cooked. Don’t know where it is, but, part of Torah states that.
With pagans, a god wasn’t viewed as we reverence Yahweh. Their view of their gods was so weird compared to the Jewish view of Yahweh. The idea of various pagan humans becoming a “son of god/gods” just fits into their low view of the spirit gods, IMO.
Although I can see someone making a case that the Hebrew text does have “sons of God” and “Son of God” and in the case of Son of God it can be a regular human.
2 Samuel 7:14 “I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:” IMO, that verse has a double entendre meaning, David and Jesus.
I think it is best to stick with how the phrase is used in the biblical text by the biblical writers since there is a wealth of evidence. Not the least of which, is Psalm 2:6. That way the biblical authors can have sole control over the meaning of their words and phrases. When, of course, a word or phrase is quite rare in the Bible, then we can look to extra biblical contemporary sources for help.
Joe Justiss
Paul
I’m not familiar with Barker’s argument. Where would I find it?
Andrew and Adam
It makes sense that Rome would get it from Egypt. Adam, your point about Caesar grabbing this title from Cleopatra is an eye-opening one. Have you seen a study done on this anywhere?
Bobby
Good question. I think it is complicated since I presume John draws from his Jewish storyline and experience, but he is communicating to an audience that may have been very familiar with Roman claims. I think Michael Heiser has done some studies recently that do indicate that there was room in Jewish messianism for the Messiah to be viewed as a semi-divine figure. It could be that John took the title “Son of God” to its most logical conclusion = Son of Israel’s God, hence a deity. It appears Rome did this. Julius Caesar could be a child of Mars and a deity himself. Of course, John’s view is more nuanced in my opinion (i.e., “the Word was with God…the Word was God”).
Patrick
Indeed, I think you are correct that the “coming on the clouds” statement would have brought Daniel 7 to mind, but it would have come across as a claim to be like deity and this would have sounded like blasphemy.
Thank you, Brian.
Brian,
I haven’t seen a study on that specifically, no, though I’ve seen it mentioned before. But, e.g., this little article from a couple years ago:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/history/stele-names-roman-emperor-octavian-augustus-as-egyptian-pharaoh-1937308.html
You can fairly easily find Egyptian depictions of Augustus as pharaoh. That’s how he would have been regarded in Egypt–the question is how he came to be seen as a god outside of Egypt. But I think this is a multi-stage thing–there’s the office of pharaoh, and then there’s what Alexander did with it and the cult he established for himself well outside Egypt (that’s been studied quite a bit), what the successor kings did with that, and finally how Augustus used that legacy (I’m sure there’s plenty of literature on this). Not to mention the cult of Rome itself, the cult of the deified Julius Caesar, etc (note that something like the latter wasn’t a major stretch from standard Roman ancestor worship), etc.
Adam
Excellent, thank you for the article and the thoughts. I need/want to read more on this subject.
My problem with the whole imperial “son of god” debate is the assumption that it attributes divine status to who it used of, when actually it attributes divine status to the father of who it is use of. Surely, web used of Augustus, son of God is a statement of Julius’ divinity not Augustus’. There were other ways to talk about Augustus as god, e.g. Inscriptions where he is called god.
Not to deny that he was deified during his life and recieved worship through the cult, but why is this assumed to be denoted by the title “son of (a) God”?