What do you think?
Rate this book
Reading Mark's Christology Under Caesar: Jesus the Messiah and Roman Imperial Ideology
The Gospel of Mark has been studied from multiple angles using many methods. But often there remains a sense that something is wanting, that the full picture of Mark's Gospel lacks some background circuitry that would light up the whole.
Adam Winn finds a clue in the cataclysmic destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in AD 70. For Jews and Christians it was an apocalyptic moment. The gods of Rome seemed to have conquered the God of the Jews.
Could it be that Mark wrote his Gospel in response to Roman imperial propaganda surrounding this event? Could a messiah crucified by Rome really be God’s Son appointed to rule the world?
Winn considers how Mark might have been read by Christians in Rome in the aftermath of the fall of Jerusalem. He introduces us to the propaganda of the Flavian emperors and excavates the Markan text for themes that address the Roman imperial setting. We discover an intriguing first-century response to the question “Christ or Caesar?"
Adam Winn finds a clue in the cataclysmic destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in AD 70. For Jews and Christians it was an apocalyptic moment. The gods of Rome seemed to have conquered the God of the Jews.
Could it be that Mark wrote his Gospel in response to Roman imperial propaganda surrounding this event? Could a messiah crucified by Rome really be God’s Son appointed to rule the world?
Winn considers how Mark might have been read by Christians in Rome in the aftermath of the fall of Jerusalem. He introduces us to the propaganda of the Flavian emperors and excavates the Markan text for themes that address the Roman imperial setting. We discover an intriguing first-century response to the question “Christ or Caesar?"
204 pages, Paperback
First published September 18, 2018
About the author
Adam Winn
10 books13 followersAdam Winn (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) is assistant professor at the University of Mary Hardin-Baylor College of Christian Studies. He is the author of The Purpose of Mark's Gospel: An Early Christian Response to Roman Imperial Propaganda (Mohr Siebeck, 2008) and editor of An Introduction to Empire in the New Testament (SBL, 2016).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
September 1, 2026
According to Adam Winn’s quite probable interpretation, the Gospel of Mark was written in Rome shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in 70 CE as a counter-euangelion to the triumphalist propaganda of Vespasian and his new Flavian dynasty, presenting Jesus as an alternative and superior world-ruler to encourage the city’s gentile Christian community, reeling from the Neronian persecution of 64 and the defeat of the Jewish cult and polity; an event portrayed alternatively as the triumph of the imperial cult over the God of Israel or (according to Josephus) as the fulfillment by Vespasian of Jewish messianic prophecy. Mark’s Jesus, as “healer, benefactor, commander of legions, and master of the winds and waves,” who embodies more perfectly than Vespasian the authority, piety, largesse, courage, and public-spiritedness celebrated in statesmen of the Roman principate, turns Flavian propaganda on its head.
The postwar Roman provenance of Mark is well-evidenced by its abundant use of Latinisms, the ample attention it pays to the temple and its prospective destruction (the Roman army that razes the second temple is, in Mark’s portrayal, fulfilling a prophecy of Jesus and perhaps even doing his bidding; the same rhetorical strategy used during the Babylonian Captivity to explain the downfall of the first temple), and the theme of suffering for the sake of Jesus and his εὐαγγελίων—as opposed to that of Vespasian or Augustus. The audience for which Mark wrote would therefore have been familiar with the legend of Vespasian: the divinely-sanctioned ruler of the world and restorer of universal peace, whose coming was foretold by prophets and wise men from the east, who was divinely blessed with miraculous powers of healing—at one point, while waiting in Alexandria for fair winds to launch his gambit to depose Vitellius and seize power, he used his spittle to restore sight to a blind man (Tacitus, Hist. 4.81.1-3)—who saved the masses of Rome from starvation by importing grain from his private Egyptian domain, and who, despite all this, refused excessive public adulation like a true Roman.
Mark’s Jesus, of course, exceeds Vespasian and his imperial predecessors in every respect. His healings and exorcisms are far more numerous and dramatic than those attributed to Vespasian; he feeds hungry crowds not by importing existing reserves of food, but by miraculously multiplying loaves; he effortlessly calms the winds and waves of the sea (a feat attributed especially to Augustus, who secured the Mediterranean basin and ended the scourge of piracy); he commands a “legion” of demons to enter a herd of pigs and rush into the sea: a symbol of his authority over Roman military power and the usurpative cosmic forces behind it (Winn observes that the Legio X Fretensis, the legion stationed in Palestine that would later destroy the town of Gerasa—the setting of this exorcism—used the image of a boar on its shields and standards); and rather than trying to conceal his messianic identity—the premise of the “secrecy motif” prominent in twentieth century Markan studies—he often tells the beneficiaries of his deeds to keep mum in accordance with the Roman political virtue of recusatio, the avoidance of ostentatious popular acclaim associated with eastern tyrants.
The simultaneous power and suffering of Jesus, often a source of puzzlement for scholars, is in Winn’s view harmonized by interpreting the Gospel in light of the political ideology of the principate. The Julio-Claudian and Flavian emperors wielded monarchical power, but this power was not considered antithetical to the res publica so long as the emperors served the state rather than the other way around. The distinction between republicanism and tyranny was not defined so much by the formal division of powers and arrangement of offices as by whether the public good or private aggrandizement served as the center of gravity for political action. The Caesars were immensely powerful, but their power was perceived to flow from the state and was to be channeled for its benefit, not siphoned off for personal gain. Jesus, the counter-emperor, wields monarchical power over the cosmos; but this power is used exclusively for the benefit of God’s Kingdom, and his public-spiritedness goes further than that of Augustus or Vespasian in that he sacrifices his life for his people.
The Kingdom of God is, of course, the ideal republic: it is ruled by the creator and benefactor of all rather than by private interests—celestial or human. Mark probably shares the political outlook of Josephus, according to whom the Jews are as traditionally wary of kings as the Romans. For Josephus, the Israelites of the Exodus needed no human king because they were ruled by God Himself, the establishment of monarchy was at best a moral compromise and at worst an act of idolatry (though David and Solomon were of course superlative and appropriately reluctant rulers), and the decline of the Jews’ political fortunes that culminated with the cataclysm of 70 CE began when Aristobulus I became the first Judean leader since the exile to claim the title of king. It is fitting that though the Markan Jesus speaks often of the Kingdom of God, the title of Βασιλεύς is only applied to him by his opponents.
The story of Mark’s counter-imperial Jesus reaches its climax with an ironic Roman Triumph, recognizable in its basic structure to Mark's audience, some of whom may have seen the Triumph of Vespasian and Titus: Jesus is (mockingly) acclaimed by a full cohort of Roman soldiers, adorned in the purple robe and crown typically worn by a Triumphator, leads a procession through the city, is offered wine, refuses, is hailed as a son of God, and is at once enthroned and sacrificed on the cross. He is both the Triumphator and the sacrificial bull typically offered at the Triumph; Simon of Cyrene carries the cross just as the man who accompanied the bull would carry the double-bladed axe to be used for its slaughter. Just as the god of the Judahites grew to universal proportions in the face of earthly defeat and exile, so the execution of this subversive itinerant preacher was transformed in Mark’s theological vision into his glorious empowerment over the empire that crushed him under heel.
The postwar Roman provenance of Mark is well-evidenced by its abundant use of Latinisms, the ample attention it pays to the temple and its prospective destruction (the Roman army that razes the second temple is, in Mark’s portrayal, fulfilling a prophecy of Jesus and perhaps even doing his bidding; the same rhetorical strategy used during the Babylonian Captivity to explain the downfall of the first temple), and the theme of suffering for the sake of Jesus and his εὐαγγελίων—as opposed to that of Vespasian or Augustus. The audience for which Mark wrote would therefore have been familiar with the legend of Vespasian: the divinely-sanctioned ruler of the world and restorer of universal peace, whose coming was foretold by prophets and wise men from the east, who was divinely blessed with miraculous powers of healing—at one point, while waiting in Alexandria for fair winds to launch his gambit to depose Vitellius and seize power, he used his spittle to restore sight to a blind man (Tacitus, Hist. 4.81.1-3)—who saved the masses of Rome from starvation by importing grain from his private Egyptian domain, and who, despite all this, refused excessive public adulation like a true Roman.
Mark’s Jesus, of course, exceeds Vespasian and his imperial predecessors in every respect. His healings and exorcisms are far more numerous and dramatic than those attributed to Vespasian; he feeds hungry crowds not by importing existing reserves of food, but by miraculously multiplying loaves; he effortlessly calms the winds and waves of the sea (a feat attributed especially to Augustus, who secured the Mediterranean basin and ended the scourge of piracy); he commands a “legion” of demons to enter a herd of pigs and rush into the sea: a symbol of his authority over Roman military power and the usurpative cosmic forces behind it (Winn observes that the Legio X Fretensis, the legion stationed in Palestine that would later destroy the town of Gerasa—the setting of this exorcism—used the image of a boar on its shields and standards); and rather than trying to conceal his messianic identity—the premise of the “secrecy motif” prominent in twentieth century Markan studies—he often tells the beneficiaries of his deeds to keep mum in accordance with the Roman political virtue of recusatio, the avoidance of ostentatious popular acclaim associated with eastern tyrants.
The simultaneous power and suffering of Jesus, often a source of puzzlement for scholars, is in Winn’s view harmonized by interpreting the Gospel in light of the political ideology of the principate. The Julio-Claudian and Flavian emperors wielded monarchical power, but this power was not considered antithetical to the res publica so long as the emperors served the state rather than the other way around. The distinction between republicanism and tyranny was not defined so much by the formal division of powers and arrangement of offices as by whether the public good or private aggrandizement served as the center of gravity for political action. The Caesars were immensely powerful, but their power was perceived to flow from the state and was to be channeled for its benefit, not siphoned off for personal gain. Jesus, the counter-emperor, wields monarchical power over the cosmos; but this power is used exclusively for the benefit of God’s Kingdom, and his public-spiritedness goes further than that of Augustus or Vespasian in that he sacrifices his life for his people.
The Kingdom of God is, of course, the ideal republic: it is ruled by the creator and benefactor of all rather than by private interests—celestial or human. Mark probably shares the political outlook of Josephus, according to whom the Jews are as traditionally wary of kings as the Romans. For Josephus, the Israelites of the Exodus needed no human king because they were ruled by God Himself, the establishment of monarchy was at best a moral compromise and at worst an act of idolatry (though David and Solomon were of course superlative and appropriately reluctant rulers), and the decline of the Jews’ political fortunes that culminated with the cataclysm of 70 CE began when Aristobulus I became the first Judean leader since the exile to claim the title of king. It is fitting that though the Markan Jesus speaks often of the Kingdom of God, the title of Βασιλεύς is only applied to him by his opponents.
The story of Mark’s counter-imperial Jesus reaches its climax with an ironic Roman Triumph, recognizable in its basic structure to Mark's audience, some of whom may have seen the Triumph of Vespasian and Titus: Jesus is (mockingly) acclaimed by a full cohort of Roman soldiers, adorned in the purple robe and crown typically worn by a Triumphator, leads a procession through the city, is offered wine, refuses, is hailed as a son of God, and is at once enthroned and sacrificed on the cross. He is both the Triumphator and the sacrificial bull typically offered at the Triumph; Simon of Cyrene carries the cross just as the man who accompanied the bull would carry the double-bladed axe to be used for its slaughter. Just as the god of the Judahites grew to universal proportions in the face of earthly defeat and exile, so the execution of this subversive itinerant preacher was transformed in Mark’s theological vision into his glorious empowerment over the empire that crushed him under heel.
October 24, 2018
Mark’s Gospel has intrigued scholars for years. Or maybe it has confounded them. There’s a general consensus that Jesus is Messiah and that Mark is written against a Roman backdrop, but paths diverge from there. Adam Winn takes a stab at it arguing that Jesus as Lord directly counters Roman propaganda. He further posits that Christians would have read it as such in those days. Winn explains in his acknowledgments that this is his second pass on this subject. He wrote on the Christology of Mark in his doctoral dissertation and has since imbibed the contributions of his critics. To me, this work benefits from that mature reflection.
The Introduction possesses great value as a reflection on what’s been believed along with a perceptive analysis of trends found in the text of Mark itself. The secrecy motive, redaction studies, and other criticisms good and bad are well explained too. Fortunately, he unpacks his own approach, which gives you a good basis to take in what he will share over the course of the book.
In chapter one, he reconstructs the historical setting. That analysis is foundational as he sees Roman influence as a driving force in Mark. Chapter two develops the equally essential element of his approach as he explains Christological titles in Mark. You don’t have to agree with his conclusions about the individual titles to glean from the chapter.
The next two chapters trace this theme through the traditional lens of the powerful Jesus in Mark 1-8:21 and the suffering Jesus in Mark 8:22-10:52. In chapter five he returns to the secrecy motif through his Roman lens followed by one on Christology.
If you are familiar with volumes that attempt to provide a thematic analysis of a biblical book, you will find this book to be a good representative of the type. It may be a specialized subject, but it is one well done.
I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255.
The Introduction possesses great value as a reflection on what’s been believed along with a perceptive analysis of trends found in the text of Mark itself. The secrecy motive, redaction studies, and other criticisms good and bad are well explained too. Fortunately, he unpacks his own approach, which gives you a good basis to take in what he will share over the course of the book.
In chapter one, he reconstructs the historical setting. That analysis is foundational as he sees Roman influence as a driving force in Mark. Chapter two develops the equally essential element of his approach as he explains Christological titles in Mark. You don’t have to agree with his conclusions about the individual titles to glean from the chapter.
The next two chapters trace this theme through the traditional lens of the powerful Jesus in Mark 1-8:21 and the suffering Jesus in Mark 8:22-10:52. In chapter five he returns to the secrecy motif through his Roman lens followed by one on Christology.
If you are familiar with volumes that attempt to provide a thematic analysis of a biblical book, you will find this book to be a good representative of the type. It may be a specialized subject, but it is one well done.
I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255.
August 15, 2024
I deeply appreciated Winn’s book overall. While I do not embrace his later date for Mark it does not subtract from his overall thesis. Winn’s basic assumption is that since Mark is the most Roman of the Synoptic Gospels one must read the Roman Imperial cult as a background to Mark’s Christology. This reading is profoundly insightful in a world in which many leaders make the same imperial claims made in the Roman world.
July 7, 2024
I approached this with a fair amount of ignorance about the formal strains in Markan scholarship over the past couple centuries, outside of what I've absorbed from eclectic places. I'm aware of Markan priority, Q source theory, general things like the Markan Secret motif, and ofc Thiessen's treatment of several of the miracles and textual variants in the specific context of his Forces of Death book. As such this contained a pretty useful survey of how narrative criticism, redaction criticism, form criticism etc have engaged and often failed the text. Whatever my commitments, I often feel insane when I see what passes for scholarship in the NT field, and I think often about Lewis's (whatever his limitations) confusion at how someone so well regarded as Bultmann so obviously fails to read basic things about the text. Surprise surprise narrative criticism at least seems useful in not drawing contradictions (what???) out of side by side pictures of a powerful Jesus and a suffering Jesus.
I heard an interview about this book a while ago, and it seemed interesting. The central thesis is that Mark was specifically written as a response to Flavian propaganda during the reign of Vespasian. It shows how Vespasian claimed to be the Jewish Messiah, his specific claims and miracle claims, and then draws parallels to those in the text and attention to larger Roman parallels in the text. This includes showing how the Markan author is showing how Jesus one-ups Roman Imperial values in a radical way, and he draws upon Roman ideology to show how the Power/Suffering aspects can be synthesized. It's a book with a few really interesting ideas, asides, and a useful survey of the field, but is crippled a bit by the authors apologetic tone about his previous work. There a few sections I wish were longer, and a number of asides I appreciated but were out of focus of the ostensible purpose of the work.
I don't really have strong preterist or authorial commitments, and whether or not it would have implications I'm mostly indifferent about the specific historical reconstructions of the writing of the gospels. That we have even second century manuscripts is insane, but without much earlier findings I approach any reconstructions with a lot of doubt. The central thing that seems to be at stake is whether or not these texts that explicitly predict the destruction of the temple, were written before or after the actual destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. This alone has historical-critical scholars placing all of the gospels being written after 70 AD. And with respect for predictions I believe in and without hedging, even from a secular perspective it just seems like an apocalyptic, itinerant preacher calling Israel to repentance would 1000% say the temple will be destroyed if things don't change. It literally happened before! Explicitly in a past narrative for that reason!
Anyway, the reason I'm still interested in the book despite doubting the reconstruction from which his thesis follows, is I do believe the texts are divinely inspired, and thus it can "respond" to Flavian propaganda in a moment of crisis without it having yet occurred when it was written. The Spirit of God is alive and can use the text to respond to different crises and contexts. Also that Vespasian was a Messiah claimant is just not widely known information and I find enormously fascinating, as is most of Rome's general interactions with Judea in the early Christian era. You can easily even transform some of the parallels into displaying Vespasian's awareness of the early Jesus follower stories, though that is perhaps less likely from the perspective of historical methods. Also many of the parallels with Roman imagery are possibly extricable from any Flavian propaganda motivation.
Notes and quotes-
Thesis on the Markan secret as no secret at all rests on Jesus practicing an extreme form of recusatio. "This strategy involved resisting or protesting all realities that might convey one’s possession of absolute political power, but it did not involve the surrender of any true power." See Augustus refusing titles, honors, to some extent. Later talks about resisting honor owed from patron-client relationships post healing.
There's an early focus on the Christological titles, and how "Son of Man" is not common in liturgical tradition. It's speculated that this is because it's only used as a self reference by Jesus (non gospel exceptions Acts 7:52; Heb 2:6; Rev 1:13; 14:14) and that was just being preserved. It seems to me natural and Christ would affirm his humanity, even as his followers affirm his power, authority and honor.
palm tree (the Roman symbol for Judea); there are coins commemorating the destruction of the Temple as it was part of Flavian propaganda
Εὐαγγέλιον (Evangelion, Gospel, Good News) was a word regularly associated with Roman emperors. It was often used to describe their birth, political ascension, and military victories.
"Three different Roman historians claim that Jews rebelled against Rome because of misguided expectations that a world ruler would arise from among them, expectations that find their origin in the prophecies of Jewish Scripture. All three of these historians claim that the true fulfillment of such prophecies was the political rise of Vespasian, who became ruler of the world while in the Roman East." (Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius)
"While the Markan narrator continually directs attention to Jesus, Jesus continually directs attention away from himself to God"
"Vespasian was in Alexandria, prior to taking up his duties as Principate in Rome...The first individual was blind, and Vespasian applied his own spittle to the man’s eyes, which resulted in the man’s sight being restored. The second man had a disfigured hand, which was restored after Vespasian touched it with his foot."
"“You are my Son, the beloved; with you I am well pleased” (Mk 1:11); and “This is my Son, the Beloved; listen to him!” (Mk 9:7). These divine affirmations of Jesus’ sonship seemingly echo Psalm 2:7, a royal coronation psalm"
claimed divine sonship - Augustus, Tiberius, Germanicus, Nero
"This pattern of providing signs that explain and illustrate Jesus’ messianic power and identity, followed by examples of responses and interpretations of Jesus’ identity, continues throughout the Galilean ministry."
"While some might suggest that this reference to “Legion” is innocuous and merely a colloquial way of saying “many,” there are many details in the pericope that suggest an intentional reference to Roman military power.21 The word άγέλη, a word often used to describe military forces, is used to describe the herd of pigs.22 Similarly, the word ὁρμάω, a word commonly used to describe the charge of soldiers, is used to describe the pigs rushing over cliffs and into the sea (e.g., see Josh 6:5; Judg 20:37; 2 Macc 9:2; 12:22). It is noteworthy that the demons do not request to remain in the man, but they request not to be driven out of the “territory.” Such a request evokes the image of military units occupying a particular region. The prominent role played by pigs in this pericope also finds a striking parallel with Roman military power, as the tenth Roman legion, the legion stationed in Palestine, carried the image of a boar on its shields and banners. It was in fact this tenth legion that, in response to the Jewish revolt, destroyed the city of Gerasa and its surrounding villages."
"As noted above, it was under the banner of a boar that the tenth legion of Rome destroyed the city of Gerasa during the Jewish Revolt. The general in command of these legions was Vespasian himself, whom Nero put in charge to put down the revolt. Thus Mark is not simply presenting Jesus as commanding and defeating powerful legions, but he has created a reversal or perhaps even an avenging of Vespasian’s victory in the region of Gerasa"
"Jesus instructs that all who desire to be “first” (πρῶτος) must become the “slave” (δοῦλος) of all. The language of this statement is of particular importance. The common title of the Roman emperor was princeps (“first citizen”), which was derived from the Princeps Senatus (“first or primary member of the Senate”)...However, Mark’s combination of “first” (πρῶτος) with “slave” (δοῦλος) would have been jarring"
"Mark may be radicalizing Roman political ideals by taking them to their extreme but logical conclusion: a ruler who sacrifices his own power, glory, and wealth for his people is good, but a ruler who would sacrifice his very life for his people is even better."
Jesus is portrayed as Royal but not with the title King, as Roman ideology was opposed to that.
Mark 11/12. Dichotomy in the temple scene cleansing/condemning it. Also I question the need to only condemn sellers in a purificaiton context, why is it odd to think He judged it an inappropriate place for economic activity wholesale, not just cheating by sellers. Long explanation of Jeremiah 7 condemning the wicked hiding behind the Temple. "the fig tree was a common symbol in the Hebrew Bible for Israel and its temple." Postulates "move this mountain" refers to the Temple Mount/Mount Zion. No hidden message in Wicked Tenants. Mk 12:35-37 Jesus is claiming Solomonic authority over the Temple via a riddle.
"Rather (my note: both) than illustrating an ideal for true giving that should be imitated by others, the story actually functions to illustrate the wicked behavior of the scribes. The pericope presents in living color what Jesus has just accused the temple authorities of doing—devouring the possessions of widows.22 Thus the story illustrates the perversion of God’s will (i.e., the care of widows outlined in the Torah)"
Parallel the entrance on a donkey and the passion with a Roman Triumph scene, including numbers of soldiers present (a cohort, 600), purple garment, crown of thorns has a laurel parallel. "The detail of Simon of Cyrene carrying Jesus’ cross (Mk 15:21) creates a further parallel with a Roman triumph. In a triumph a bull that was to be sacrificed was led in the procession. Next to the bull walked a Roman official who carried a double-bladed ax, the instrument of the bull’s death, over his shoulder." In Mark 15:23 Mark offers a detail that is unique in the canonical passion narratives. Jesus is offered wine mixed with myrrh, but he refuses the wine. This detail finds a striking parallel in Roman triumphs, as at the end of the procession the triumphator would have been offered wine, which he would have refused. Immediately after he had refused the wine, the bull would have been sacrificed. Strikingly, immediately after Jesus refuses the wine, the Markan text reads, “and they crucified him.” "At the end of a Roman triumph the triumphator was often elevated above the ground. While at times the triumphator was alone, many examples exist in which he was flanked by two men, one on his right and left. The emperor Tiberius was seated between his two consuls.19 Claudius was seated between his two sons-in-law.20 And Vespasian was seated between his sons, Titus and Domitian." Centurion recognizes the Triumph scene.
Trinitarian appendix.
"Walking on the sea (not through the sea) is a function attributed to Yahweh alone in Hebrew Scripture. In describing the Yahweh of Israel, Job 9:8 (LXX) says, “Who alone has stretched out the heavens, and walks on the sea as on firm ground.” With this detail Mark depicts Jesus doing something that Jewish Scripture claims only Yahweh alone can do." Passing By as language used in OT theophanies.
Useful references to other books on Vespasian and Roman parallels in the text in the Notes.
Message "Reading Mark's Christology under Caesar"
I heard an interview about this book a while ago, and it seemed interesting. The central thesis is that Mark was specifically written as a response to Flavian propaganda during the reign of Vespasian. It shows how Vespasian claimed to be the Jewish Messiah, his specific claims and miracle claims, and then draws parallels to those in the text and attention to larger Roman parallels in the text. This includes showing how the Markan author is showing how Jesus one-ups Roman Imperial values in a radical way, and he draws upon Roman ideology to show how the Power/Suffering aspects can be synthesized. It's a book with a few really interesting ideas, asides, and a useful survey of the field, but is crippled a bit by the authors apologetic tone about his previous work. There a few sections I wish were longer, and a number of asides I appreciated but were out of focus of the ostensible purpose of the work.
I don't really have strong preterist or authorial commitments, and whether or not it would have implications I'm mostly indifferent about the specific historical reconstructions of the writing of the gospels. That we have even second century manuscripts is insane, but without much earlier findings I approach any reconstructions with a lot of doubt. The central thing that seems to be at stake is whether or not these texts that explicitly predict the destruction of the temple, were written before or after the actual destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. This alone has historical-critical scholars placing all of the gospels being written after 70 AD. And with respect for predictions I believe in and without hedging, even from a secular perspective it just seems like an apocalyptic, itinerant preacher calling Israel to repentance would 1000% say the temple will be destroyed if things don't change. It literally happened before! Explicitly in a past narrative for that reason!
Anyway, the reason I'm still interested in the book despite doubting the reconstruction from which his thesis follows, is I do believe the texts are divinely inspired, and thus it can "respond" to Flavian propaganda in a moment of crisis without it having yet occurred when it was written. The Spirit of God is alive and can use the text to respond to different crises and contexts. Also that Vespasian was a Messiah claimant is just not widely known information and I find enormously fascinating, as is most of Rome's general interactions with Judea in the early Christian era. You can easily even transform some of the parallels into displaying Vespasian's awareness of the early Jesus follower stories, though that is perhaps less likely from the perspective of historical methods. Also many of the parallels with Roman imagery are possibly extricable from any Flavian propaganda motivation.
Notes and quotes-
Thesis on the Markan secret as no secret at all rests on Jesus practicing an extreme form of recusatio. "This strategy involved resisting or protesting all realities that might convey one’s possession of absolute political power, but it did not involve the surrender of any true power." See Augustus refusing titles, honors, to some extent. Later talks about resisting honor owed from patron-client relationships post healing.
There's an early focus on the Christological titles, and how "Son of Man" is not common in liturgical tradition. It's speculated that this is because it's only used as a self reference by Jesus (non gospel exceptions Acts 7:52; Heb 2:6; Rev 1:13; 14:14) and that was just being preserved. It seems to me natural and Christ would affirm his humanity, even as his followers affirm his power, authority and honor.
palm tree (the Roman symbol for Judea); there are coins commemorating the destruction of the Temple as it was part of Flavian propaganda
Εὐαγγέλιον (Evangelion, Gospel, Good News) was a word regularly associated with Roman emperors. It was often used to describe their birth, political ascension, and military victories.
"Three different Roman historians claim that Jews rebelled against Rome because of misguided expectations that a world ruler would arise from among them, expectations that find their origin in the prophecies of Jewish Scripture. All three of these historians claim that the true fulfillment of such prophecies was the political rise of Vespasian, who became ruler of the world while in the Roman East." (Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius)
"While the Markan narrator continually directs attention to Jesus, Jesus continually directs attention away from himself to God"
"Vespasian was in Alexandria, prior to taking up his duties as Principate in Rome...The first individual was blind, and Vespasian applied his own spittle to the man’s eyes, which resulted in the man’s sight being restored. The second man had a disfigured hand, which was restored after Vespasian touched it with his foot."
"“You are my Son, the beloved; with you I am well pleased” (Mk 1:11); and “This is my Son, the Beloved; listen to him!” (Mk 9:7). These divine affirmations of Jesus’ sonship seemingly echo Psalm 2:7, a royal coronation psalm"
claimed divine sonship - Augustus, Tiberius, Germanicus, Nero
"This pattern of providing signs that explain and illustrate Jesus’ messianic power and identity, followed by examples of responses and interpretations of Jesus’ identity, continues throughout the Galilean ministry."
"While some might suggest that this reference to “Legion” is innocuous and merely a colloquial way of saying “many,” there are many details in the pericope that suggest an intentional reference to Roman military power.21 The word άγέλη, a word often used to describe military forces, is used to describe the herd of pigs.22 Similarly, the word ὁρμάω, a word commonly used to describe the charge of soldiers, is used to describe the pigs rushing over cliffs and into the sea (e.g., see Josh 6:5; Judg 20:37; 2 Macc 9:2; 12:22). It is noteworthy that the demons do not request to remain in the man, but they request not to be driven out of the “territory.” Such a request evokes the image of military units occupying a particular region. The prominent role played by pigs in this pericope also finds a striking parallel with Roman military power, as the tenth Roman legion, the legion stationed in Palestine, carried the image of a boar on its shields and banners. It was in fact this tenth legion that, in response to the Jewish revolt, destroyed the city of Gerasa and its surrounding villages."
"As noted above, it was under the banner of a boar that the tenth legion of Rome destroyed the city of Gerasa during the Jewish Revolt. The general in command of these legions was Vespasian himself, whom Nero put in charge to put down the revolt. Thus Mark is not simply presenting Jesus as commanding and defeating powerful legions, but he has created a reversal or perhaps even an avenging of Vespasian’s victory in the region of Gerasa"
"Jesus instructs that all who desire to be “first” (πρῶτος) must become the “slave” (δοῦλος) of all. The language of this statement is of particular importance. The common title of the Roman emperor was princeps (“first citizen”), which was derived from the Princeps Senatus (“first or primary member of the Senate”)...However, Mark’s combination of “first” (πρῶτος) with “slave” (δοῦλος) would have been jarring"
"Mark may be radicalizing Roman political ideals by taking them to their extreme but logical conclusion: a ruler who sacrifices his own power, glory, and wealth for his people is good, but a ruler who would sacrifice his very life for his people is even better."
Jesus is portrayed as Royal but not with the title King, as Roman ideology was opposed to that.
Mark 11/12. Dichotomy in the temple scene cleansing/condemning it. Also I question the need to only condemn sellers in a purificaiton context, why is it odd to think He judged it an inappropriate place for economic activity wholesale, not just cheating by sellers. Long explanation of Jeremiah 7 condemning the wicked hiding behind the Temple. "the fig tree was a common symbol in the Hebrew Bible for Israel and its temple." Postulates "move this mountain" refers to the Temple Mount/Mount Zion. No hidden message in Wicked Tenants. Mk 12:35-37 Jesus is claiming Solomonic authority over the Temple via a riddle.
"Rather (my note: both) than illustrating an ideal for true giving that should be imitated by others, the story actually functions to illustrate the wicked behavior of the scribes. The pericope presents in living color what Jesus has just accused the temple authorities of doing—devouring the possessions of widows.22 Thus the story illustrates the perversion of God’s will (i.e., the care of widows outlined in the Torah)"
Parallel the entrance on a donkey and the passion with a Roman Triumph scene, including numbers of soldiers present (a cohort, 600), purple garment, crown of thorns has a laurel parallel. "The detail of Simon of Cyrene carrying Jesus’ cross (Mk 15:21) creates a further parallel with a Roman triumph. In a triumph a bull that was to be sacrificed was led in the procession. Next to the bull walked a Roman official who carried a double-bladed ax, the instrument of the bull’s death, over his shoulder." In Mark 15:23 Mark offers a detail that is unique in the canonical passion narratives. Jesus is offered wine mixed with myrrh, but he refuses the wine. This detail finds a striking parallel in Roman triumphs, as at the end of the procession the triumphator would have been offered wine, which he would have refused. Immediately after he had refused the wine, the bull would have been sacrificed. Strikingly, immediately after Jesus refuses the wine, the Markan text reads, “and they crucified him.” "At the end of a Roman triumph the triumphator was often elevated above the ground. While at times the triumphator was alone, many examples exist in which he was flanked by two men, one on his right and left. The emperor Tiberius was seated between his two consuls.19 Claudius was seated between his two sons-in-law.20 And Vespasian was seated between his sons, Titus and Domitian." Centurion recognizes the Triumph scene.
Trinitarian appendix.
"Walking on the sea (not through the sea) is a function attributed to Yahweh alone in Hebrew Scripture. In describing the Yahweh of Israel, Job 9:8 (LXX) says, “Who alone has stretched out the heavens, and walks on the sea as on firm ground.” With this detail Mark depicts Jesus doing something that Jewish Scripture claims only Yahweh alone can do." Passing By as language used in OT theophanies.
Useful references to other books on Vespasian and Roman parallels in the text in the Notes.
Message "Reading Mark's Christology under Caesar"
October 1, 2018
Commonly in biblical studies, as in other academic disciplines, a scholar arrives at a genuine insight and proceeds to interpret everything through that lens, seeing it as the key to the whole. The problem is that such ancient texts defy easy modern categorization or simple unifying themes. Adam Winn admirably avoids this trap.
In Reading Mark's Christology Under Caesar he combines his own distinctive ideas on the Roman background of Mark with a well-rounded narrative understanding of the text that often emphasizes Old Testament background. In this way Winn renders to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's.
Winn agrees with most scholars that Mark was written in Rome for Roman Christians. How then did this affect the writer and the readers?
Winn argues the gospel was written just as Vespasian was attempting to legitimize his position as emperor by propaganda of his defeat of the Jews and destruction of their temple, of miracles, of being a generous benefactor, and by accepting certain titles with divine significance. All this posed problems for Mark's original readers which the evangelist sought to alleviate. It also lends insight into several knotty questions scholars have struggled with over the last century.
Why, for example, does Jesus sometimes tell people not to spread the news of his miracles or his identity as the Christ? The case for this "Messianic secret" is hard to maintain, however, when at other times Jesus embraces public recognition such as when he heals the paralytic with four friends, the man with the withered hand, the woman who was sick for twelve years, as well as in stilling the storm and feeding the masses.
The solution, Winn proposes, is by seeing these episodes in an honor-shame context and how Roman leaders handled public acclaim. While vilified emperors like Nero and Caligula created envy and opposition by excessively accumulating such tributes, those held up as models, like Augustus and Tiberius, accepted a few but regularly rejected many. Jesus, Winn says, is not acting inconsistently but in concert with the highest ideals of Roman leadership.
Winn offers other valuable insights regarding, for example, the apparent conflict between a powerful Messiah and a suffering Messiah as well as the place of the temple in the gospel. I highly commend all this to readers.
As someone who has written a book on Mark using a particular lens, I value Winn's book since even in my own Mark Through Old Testament Eyes I acknowledge that other approaches and background information are needed. With a multidimensional approach, we draw closer to a fuller understanding.
----------------------------------------------
Disclosure: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher. The opinions I have expressed are my own.
In Reading Mark's Christology Under Caesar he combines his own distinctive ideas on the Roman background of Mark with a well-rounded narrative understanding of the text that often emphasizes Old Testament background. In this way Winn renders to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's.
Winn agrees with most scholars that Mark was written in Rome for Roman Christians. How then did this affect the writer and the readers?
Winn argues the gospel was written just as Vespasian was attempting to legitimize his position as emperor by propaganda of his defeat of the Jews and destruction of their temple, of miracles, of being a generous benefactor, and by accepting certain titles with divine significance. All this posed problems for Mark's original readers which the evangelist sought to alleviate. It also lends insight into several knotty questions scholars have struggled with over the last century.
Why, for example, does Jesus sometimes tell people not to spread the news of his miracles or his identity as the Christ? The case for this "Messianic secret" is hard to maintain, however, when at other times Jesus embraces public recognition such as when he heals the paralytic with four friends, the man with the withered hand, the woman who was sick for twelve years, as well as in stilling the storm and feeding the masses.
The solution, Winn proposes, is by seeing these episodes in an honor-shame context and how Roman leaders handled public acclaim. While vilified emperors like Nero and Caligula created envy and opposition by excessively accumulating such tributes, those held up as models, like Augustus and Tiberius, accepted a few but regularly rejected many. Jesus, Winn says, is not acting inconsistently but in concert with the highest ideals of Roman leadership.
Winn offers other valuable insights regarding, for example, the apparent conflict between a powerful Messiah and a suffering Messiah as well as the place of the temple in the gospel. I highly commend all this to readers.
As someone who has written a book on Mark using a particular lens, I value Winn's book since even in my own Mark Through Old Testament Eyes I acknowledge that other approaches and background information are needed. With a multidimensional approach, we draw closer to a fuller understanding.
----------------------------------------------
Disclosure: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher. The opinions I have expressed are my own.
July 3, 2021
Quarantine-Book #18:
I just finished "Reading Mark's Christology Under Ceasar: Jesus the Messiah and Roman Imperial Ideology," by Adam Winn.
I believe the first thing that caught my eye, which I would love to see more of, is Winn's humility. In his previous work on Markan material his peers critiqued it and offered suggestions to enhance it, hence this work. He is not shy admitting this in appreciation. More humility would do us all well.
The intro shows us the structure of Mark (power/suffering, etc.) before introducing modern Markan scholarship/Markan Christology, and the criticism (form, redaction, narrative) applied to them. He concludes by telling his methodological approach: narrative and historical criticism.
Ch. 1 sets out to reconstruct the date and provenance of Mark and based on that the historical setting. I dont want to give away too many nuggets but the book is predicated on at least the date--post 70 ad--and the provenance--Rome. His reasoning and argumentation are very good. (My only thought here has to do with Markan priority and Acts not covering the destruction of the temple. The only easy answer has to be Luke ran out of scroll at the end of Acts.) His coverage of Roman history circa the Flavian Dynasty was phenomenal, though I was surprised Vespasian's dying words were left out.
Ch. 2 deals with titles of Jesus, Christological or not, and if they point to Rome. Ch. 3 gets into the text beginning with Mk 1-8, the power Jesus chapters. The parallels betweek the Markan Jesus and the Caesars (Augustus and Vespasian) are striking. Ch. 4 covers the suffering Jesus of Mk. 8:22--10:52. This was very good. While many argue for a Markan Christology that leaves tension between power and suffering, using the Roman political force of Mk. Winn shows how they are not in tension but unified in a single Christology. Ch. 5 takes us to the Markan secrecy motif. Why was Jesus playing his being the Messiah so quietly?--this too is playing off of the Ceasars with the difference being that the virtue the Ceasars were fronting Jesus actually had. Ch. 6 covers Jesus and the temple in light of Flavian propaganda. This is very good because it takes passages like the widows mite and the mountain moving saying and recontextualizes them in anti temple light. The temple was a Flavian sign of defeat; Mk said tis but a flesh wound because it's not about that temple. Ch. 7 speaks to Jesus' passion narrative and shows its parallels to a Roman triumph procession. The appx. is if Mk is contending for a low or high Christology. A low Christology is seen as most prominent though the rays of a high Christology can be seen. How he gets to the high Christology is quite beautiful and in keeping with the theme of the book.
More like this, please.
#Christology #HigherCriticism #IVP #IVPacademic
I just finished "Reading Mark's Christology Under Ceasar: Jesus the Messiah and Roman Imperial Ideology," by Adam Winn.
I believe the first thing that caught my eye, which I would love to see more of, is Winn's humility. In his previous work on Markan material his peers critiqued it and offered suggestions to enhance it, hence this work. He is not shy admitting this in appreciation. More humility would do us all well.
The intro shows us the structure of Mark (power/suffering, etc.) before introducing modern Markan scholarship/Markan Christology, and the criticism (form, redaction, narrative) applied to them. He concludes by telling his methodological approach: narrative and historical criticism.
Ch. 1 sets out to reconstruct the date and provenance of Mark and based on that the historical setting. I dont want to give away too many nuggets but the book is predicated on at least the date--post 70 ad--and the provenance--Rome. His reasoning and argumentation are very good. (My only thought here has to do with Markan priority and Acts not covering the destruction of the temple. The only easy answer has to be Luke ran out of scroll at the end of Acts.) His coverage of Roman history circa the Flavian Dynasty was phenomenal, though I was surprised Vespasian's dying words were left out.
Ch. 2 deals with titles of Jesus, Christological or not, and if they point to Rome. Ch. 3 gets into the text beginning with Mk 1-8, the power Jesus chapters. The parallels betweek the Markan Jesus and the Caesars (Augustus and Vespasian) are striking. Ch. 4 covers the suffering Jesus of Mk. 8:22--10:52. This was very good. While many argue for a Markan Christology that leaves tension between power and suffering, using the Roman political force of Mk. Winn shows how they are not in tension but unified in a single Christology. Ch. 5 takes us to the Markan secrecy motif. Why was Jesus playing his being the Messiah so quietly?--this too is playing off of the Ceasars with the difference being that the virtue the Ceasars were fronting Jesus actually had. Ch. 6 covers Jesus and the temple in light of Flavian propaganda. This is very good because it takes passages like the widows mite and the mountain moving saying and recontextualizes them in anti temple light. The temple was a Flavian sign of defeat; Mk said tis but a flesh wound because it's not about that temple. Ch. 7 speaks to Jesus' passion narrative and shows its parallels to a Roman triumph procession. The appx. is if Mk is contending for a low or high Christology. A low Christology is seen as most prominent though the rays of a high Christology can be seen. How he gets to the high Christology is quite beautiful and in keeping with the theme of the book.
More like this, please.
#Christology #HigherCriticism #IVP #IVPacademic
August 2, 2022
Winn does an excellent job bridging the chasm between redactional- and narrative-critical approaches to the Gospel of Mark. His historical background is well depicted, and he makes a tight argument for his reconstruction as he works through the Marcan narrative, which greatly illuminates the Marcan depiction of Jesus--a suffering Jesus who is simultaneously a powerful Jesus--and its impact on early Christian readers. While Winn covers a lot of ground with thoroughness, keeping the macro-level in mind while giving appropriate attention to the micro-level details, I would have appreciated a remark on Mk. 16:1-8. How does this conclusion contribute (if at all) to a depiction of Jesus as suffering yet powerful, and how does the conclusion of the book fit with the historical background that has been developed throughout the book? This is a relatively small gripe for such a well argued book. Additionally, Winn demonstrates great humility in addressing the shortcomings of his previous work; he works with great transparency, always letting the reader know where he has modified his views.
March 16, 2026
Excellently combines aspects of historical reconstruction with narrative criticism to throw light on a much debated discrepancy of Mark’s Gospel: the struggle for priority between a powerful Jesus and a suffering Jesus.
Winn convincingly argues that much of Mark’s rhetorical purpose lies in responding to and combating Flavian propaganda, especially Emperor Vespasian’s claim to be the fulfillment of Jewish messianic prophecy due to his destruction of the Temple.
A downside to this thesis is that Winn might go too far at times. He often tries to explain Jesus’ more astounding moments (such as his declaration that “the Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve”) as an imitation of Roman political ideology, casting Jesus into the mold of a good (but typical) Roman Emperor.
Winn convincingly argues that much of Mark’s rhetorical purpose lies in responding to and combating Flavian propaganda, especially Emperor Vespasian’s claim to be the fulfillment of Jewish messianic prophecy due to his destruction of the Temple.
A downside to this thesis is that Winn might go too far at times. He often tries to explain Jesus’ more astounding moments (such as his declaration that “the Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve”) as an imitation of Roman political ideology, casting Jesus into the mold of a good (but typical) Roman Emperor.
June 25, 2024
Best book on Mark this year so far, it answered so many questions I have through diving into the Roman cultural and political context. Excellent scholarship, and very accessible!
November 13, 2019
first let's talk about the author Adam Winn.
Who shall we liken him too? Jesus Christ? Nay, that's too much, but how about an NFL quarterback instead. I liken Winn to Brett Favre. Like Favre, Winn got his critical education from a non-power 5 academic seminary. Fuller. This led many institutions to pass by him in the draft. But boy are they eating a bowl full of "oh shit, we missed that one" now. Winn, has emerged as a heavy hitter in the New Testament world who wakes up and pisses excellence.
First there was a "The Purpose of Mark's Gospel"
then there was "Mark and the Elisha/Elija Narrative"
then, just cause he was like, "why the hell not?" Winn edited an entire introduction to the New Testament.
then one day Winn woke up and said, "I'm sick of kicking everyone's ass in the world of new testament, that's getting too easy." So this MF'er stares JK Rowling right in the face and says, "I'm going to write some fiction that would make Harry Potter weep," and rolls out "Killing the Messiah" in January 2020. I've read a chapter. It's already better than Lord of the Rings.
I know a little bird who told me he might be working on another book on Yahweh Christology in the gospels and the early church with none other than the God of the Thunder and early church African Christianity, Rev. Dr. David Wilhite. I'd say more about that book, but this review might rip your face off with sheer intensity.
But that's to say nothing of this book.
In, "Reading Mark's Christology Under Caesar," Winn argues pretty compellingly for a narrative hermeneutical reconstruction in light the Markan community living under the Flavian dynasty. This guy basically uses 162 pages point out how Jesus puts on Caesar's jockstrap and has to turn it back in because it's too small. This particular reading puts Mark on par with Revelation as some of the best anti-assimilation literature out there.
I'd recommend this book for anyone who's serious about Markan Studies and anyone who gives a shit about the Bible being relevant and interesting. This book will do for Mark what the Matrix did for sci-fi in the late 90s.
Who shall we liken him too? Jesus Christ? Nay, that's too much, but how about an NFL quarterback instead. I liken Winn to Brett Favre. Like Favre, Winn got his critical education from a non-power 5 academic seminary. Fuller. This led many institutions to pass by him in the draft. But boy are they eating a bowl full of "oh shit, we missed that one" now. Winn, has emerged as a heavy hitter in the New Testament world who wakes up and pisses excellence.
First there was a "The Purpose of Mark's Gospel"
then there was "Mark and the Elisha/Elija Narrative"
then, just cause he was like, "why the hell not?" Winn edited an entire introduction to the New Testament.
then one day Winn woke up and said, "I'm sick of kicking everyone's ass in the world of new testament, that's getting too easy." So this MF'er stares JK Rowling right in the face and says, "I'm going to write some fiction that would make Harry Potter weep," and rolls out "Killing the Messiah" in January 2020. I've read a chapter. It's already better than Lord of the Rings.
I know a little bird who told me he might be working on another book on Yahweh Christology in the gospels and the early church with none other than the God of the Thunder and early church African Christianity, Rev. Dr. David Wilhite. I'd say more about that book, but this review might rip your face off with sheer intensity.
But that's to say nothing of this book.
In, "Reading Mark's Christology Under Caesar," Winn argues pretty compellingly for a narrative hermeneutical reconstruction in light the Markan community living under the Flavian dynasty. This guy basically uses 162 pages point out how Jesus puts on Caesar's jockstrap and has to turn it back in because it's too small. This particular reading puts Mark on par with Revelation as some of the best anti-assimilation literature out there.
I'd recommend this book for anyone who's serious about Markan Studies and anyone who gives a shit about the Bible being relevant and interesting. This book will do for Mark what the Matrix did for sci-fi in the late 90s.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews