According to the Coptic Gospel of Philip, found in Egypt in 1945 as part of the Nag Hammadi collection, Jesus had three intimate woman named “Mary,” or Mariam, in his life, namely, his mother, his sister, and his “companion,” Mary Magdalene. However the passage that lists these three Marys is confusing, in that Jesus’ sister Mary is first called his mother’s sister–obviously an impossibility. Marvin Meyer and other translators have actually amended the Coptic text at this point, but I received this most thoughtful treatment of the passage from Jennifer Duba-Scanlan and pass it on with her permission. The Gospel of Philip, is the text that also contains the passage about Jesus loving Mary Magdalene more than the other disciples and kissing her often (Gospel of Philip 59). Several English translations are available on the Web, see the every helpful ECW site.
James Tabor

From Jennifer Duba-Scanlan:

“There were three who always walked with the Lord: Mary, his mother, and her sister, and Magdalene, the one who was called his companion. His sister and his mother and his companion were each a Mary.” Gospel of Philip 36

I was always confused about it, because it first states that the three who always traveled with Jesus were “his mother and her sister” and Mary Magdalene. But the next sentence claims that Jesus’ “sister” (not his mother’s sister, his aunt) along with his mother and companion “were each a Mary.”

As well, if Jesus’ sister Mary traveled with him, why isn’t she mentioned in the first sentence as regards those women who “always walked with the Lord”? Or did both of his sisters travel with him as well, Mary and Salome, but just aren’t mentioned? After all, in the NT it doesn’t even give Jesus’ sisters names. Just a mention of “sisters” on a couple occasions.

This passage in Gospel of Philip, due to it’s puzzling aspect, should tell us something. As you’d be apt to say, James, “something is definitely going on here.”

And now, due to your book The Jesus Dynasty, this passage makes sense to me after reading “The Mystery of the ‘Other Mary’ ” (pg.77-80)

It’s as though, in the Gospel of Philip, they left a ‘clue’, or rather a ‘riddle’ to try to figure out -maybe they (whomever wrote it), also knew that Mary, the wife of Clophas, was not the sister or cousin or sister-in-law of Jesus’ mother Mary, as many others thought, (and still think today), but that both Marys were actually Jesus’ mother, as they are one and the same person, which you wrote about in your very insightful book.

Why else would the Gospel of Philip write it in this puzzling way as regards the trio of Marys and Jesus’ maternal aunt?

It adds, in a sense, more weight to your argument, (which I find highly likely), that the two Marys were really one and the same – Jesus’ mother Mary married Clophas, the brother of Joseph, after Joseph died, ‘possibly’ leaving Mary with no children other than Jesus, whom he wasn’t the biological father of, and thus, the father of Jesus’ half-brothers and sisters would thus be Clophas.

As well, you’d wisely noted in The Jesus Dynasty (pg 79):
“Is it really likely that these two women, both named Mary, whether sisters or sisters-in-law, married to brothers and had three sons with the same names and born in the same order: James, Joses, and Simon?”

No, not likely at all. After all, how many sisters or brothers do you know of who have the same name? Whether today or way back in the days of Jesus and family. A father/son or a mother/daughter with the same name, is one thing, and quite acceptable, but two sisters/daughters or brothers/sons with the same name, no that’s a horse of a different colour, and isn’t something you ever hear of, really. (with the exception of Michael Jackson’s sons!)

The passage quoted here from Gospel of Philip at first leaves one with the impression that there were three Marys who constantly traveled with Jesus – yet his aunt isn’t mentioned in the second group of women named Mary in Jesus’ life, so she wasn’t a Mary, least not going by what is stated here, or she’d have been listed as such – shouldn’t it have thus said: “His sister and his mother and his aunt and his companion were each a Mary.”

Also, while it lists the three Marys in Jesus’ life whom he was close to – his mother, sister and companion – it doesn’t state that all three of them traveled with him. While we know his mother Mary and Mary Magdalene did, his sister Mary may or may not have traveled constantly with him.

John 19:25:
“Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary [the wife] of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.”

I think it’s ‘possible’ that Salome is the wife of Zebedee, mother of James and John, and though it’s not mentioned directly, is the sister of Jesus’ mother Mary. Salome was at the cross and went to the tomb to anoint the body, with Jesus’ mother Mary, and Mary Magdalene, so she was close to Jesus and family, likely a family member of some kind.

In the above quote from John you could add Salome:

“Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s sister Salome, Mary [the wife] of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.”

Or, add Salome (as Mary’s sister) to your “decrypted version of John” in your book (pg 80):

“Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother Mary wife of Clophas, his mother’s sister Salome, and Mary Magdalene.”

And while Jesus had a sister named Salome, I believe the Salome I’m writing of here has two sons who are perhaps close in age to Jesus’ brothers, as they’d be first cousins, so it wouldn’t be Jesus’ sister.

Mark 15:40:
“There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and of Joses, and Salome.”

So here it could be speaking about Mary Magdalene, Jesus’ mother Mary, and his aunt Salome – his mother’s sister.

The most intriguing passage, if Salome (though not mentioned by name here) is viewed as Jesus’ aunt, his mother’s sister, is from Matthew 20:21:

“Then came to him the mother of Zebedee’s sons, kneeling down, desiring a certain thing of him. And he said to her, What wilt thou? She said to him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left, in thy kingdom.”

Jesus gently rebukes them and in Matthew 20:23, Jesus notes “..to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give..” And in Matthew 20:24 it states “And when the ten heard it, they were moved with indignation against the two brethren.”

Though in Mark, they leave out “the mother of Zebedee’s children” and have the sons of Zebedee making the request of Jesus. (Mark 10:35)

This could be seen/interpreted to fit with your ‘Jesus Dynasty’, because she asks Jesus for special privileges for her sons (or else her sons do on their own, as per Mark), and if she’s Jesus’ mother’s blood sister, his aunt, she carries the same maternal royal bloodline as Jesus’ mother Mary, and thus her sons have the same bloodline as Jesus and his brothers and sisters, so they are part of the dynasty – a main branch of it.

Why else would she dare to ask Jesus such a thing? And she must have known Jesus well enough to be so bold. Not to mention, in those days, first off, women weren’t apt to speak to men unless they were part of the family in some way. Secondly, women at that time also weren’t likely to speak up like this, be so forward, and make such an (audacious) request of any man. Though if she’s of the bloodline of Jesus, as she’s his maternal aunt, it at least makes a bit more sense why she would ask this of her nephew, Jesus. Even if it wasn’t the ‘proper’ thing to do (thus the other apostles were annoyed. Perhaps some were actually envious?)

Mark 16:1:
“And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.” (i.e., Mary Magdalene, Jesus’ mother Mary, and her sister, his aunt Salome.)

Thus, on the hypothesis that Salome is the sister of Jesus’ mother Mary, we can add Salome to the passage in the Gospel of Philip, so it makes more sense, or at least it causes one to read the sentences as separate statements, and not mistakenly conclude that three Marys “always walked with the Lord.” (thus I’ll split them up here):

“There were three who always walked with the Lord: Mary, his mother, and her sister Salome, and Magdalene, the one who was called his companion.”

“His sister and his mother and his companion were each a Mary.”

This is an informal post sent to me by e-mail from Wendy Pond. I asked her for her permission to pass it on. This matter of sorting out the Marys in the three anointing scenes in our gospels (Mark/Matt; Luke, and John) is a complex one. I have shied away from identifying Mary “called Magdalene” with “Mary of Bethany” in John, and also leaned toward the idea of two pair of sisters named “Mary and Martha,” one in the Galilee and another in Jerusalem/Bethany (Luke 10 & John 11 being a different family) but I remain open and consider this matter unresolved. Here is Wendy’s take on things:
Luke seems purposefully to juxtapose the introduction of Mary Magdalene (as exorcised of 7 demons in 8:1-3) with the woman of the city identified as a sinner in 7:37-38 who washed Jesus’ feet with her tears, wipes them with her hair and anoints his feet – perhaps to cause intentional blurring/association of MM with the sinful woman of the city, i.e., to obscure/demote/sully any close relationship MM might have had with Jesus and thus her important status as part of Jesus’ inner circle of disciples.

Further to this, the act of washing and anointing the feet so intimately as done in Luke would be expected to be performed only by a man’s wife or servant/slave. It would have been considered sinful for any non-attached woman to do this to a man (especially in front of witnesses!). If the author of Luke was intentionally distancing MM from Jesus, he would have known this (whether he was Jewish or Gentile, I think!), so if, from Luke’s original knowledge or source, MM actually had performed this act and was close to Jesus such as wife/companion, but Luke did not wish to present her as such, Luke would have had to paint her as a sinner – even if he didn’t name her – therefore he made the association by juxtaposing 7:37-50 with 8:1-3. (“Woman from the city” could also be a true remnant from an early source descriptive of MM – from Magdala or another large, possibly Hellenized/pagan – “sinful” – city.)

I will add that within that Jewish-Mediterranean culture, when women were traveling with men, it would have been assumed they were either wives, sisters, daughters or servants/slaves, i.e., attached to the men as family/household/property, and a man meeting a mixed group of travelers on the road would likely never even bother to ask another man about the relationships of women traveling with him. The fact that Jesus’ group had independent women traveling with them was probably highly unusual, and why Luke mentions it 8:3 – maybe he couldn’t avoid/omit it. Once again, Luke associates MM with these important, independent women (wealthy? and/or had left their families/husbands?) who provided for Jesus/the group from their means. But was MM truly independent – as in, unattached, no relation to Jesus at all other than spiritually/part of the movement? Luke has sandwiched MM between these two vignettes, and has painted her as a woman who was (at least formerly) ill/mentally unstable, on top of it all.

While Mark does not identify the woman, John identifies her as Mary, sister of Lazarus and Martha, and both annointing accounts take place in Bethany. In both accounts, “some” present (disciples? other guests?) or Judas Iscariot complain/s about the waste of the costly spikenard, but no-one complains about how sinful or shocking it would have been for a woman not related to Jesus to perform such an intimate act (any form of touching!), especially the case in John where, again, the act involves Mary wiping Jesus’ feet with her hair! Clearly the authors of both gospels wished to emphasize the act of anointing the Messiah, but I believe any close relation the woman/Mary had to Jesus was quietly omitted from the story – the fact that there is no shocked reaction from the men in attendance to this intimate act is the loud, red flag, and it seems to indicate that those in attendance either knew or just assumed the woman/Mary (especially Mary in John) was closely related to Jesus. (That, or Jesus’ disciples and friends just accepted the fact that Jesus had an unusually open, egalitarian and casual attitude/approach toward all women – which I do believe at any rate.) I think I pointed this out in an earlier email to you, but in contrast, in the account of the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well (John 4:27), the disciples are rather surprised to find Jesus talking to a strange woman; a man would never bother – a woman was unimportant or it wasn’t even proper. But in the annointing account with Mary, no surprise at all – why? Because Jesus’ and Mary’s relationship may have been omitted.

I believe Mary of Bethany in John is the same as the woman in Bethany in Mark 14:3-9 (clearly in that she wipes his feet with her hair – a memorable scene in deed!), and same as the woman in Luke 7:37-50, and she is Mary Magdalene. And she would have to have been Jesus’ wife or close/intimate companion. Luke unwittingly connects the dots with Mark and John, ID’ing her as MM, even though he tries to paint her in the worst light. Matthew doesn’t even mention her until the crucifixion! It’s why MM is at the tomb (with Jesus’ mother – the 2 most important women in his life, in that order!) to anoint Jesus’ body – she was his wife/companion, the first person to whom he appeared, and why none of the gospel authors could omit her completely from the story. Thus we have:

(A) Woman in Bethany – Mark
(B) Sinful woman of the City; wipes J’s feet with hair – Luke
(C) Mary of Bethany; wipes J’s feet with hair – John

Because A and C are the same (it’s doubtful 2 anointings took place in Bethany), and because B and C are also likely the very same, highly memorable story (intimate/sensual wiping of Jesus’ feet with the hair – again, it’s not likely to have happened twice with different women!), then A and B must also be the same woman. Luke connects the dots to Mary Magdalene. Luke also put the anointing story much earlier in Jesus’ mission and turns it into a moving story about forgiveness of sins rather than the anointing of the Messiah before his death – a way of downplaying Messianism vs. Son of God or the Jewishness of Jesus? What’s also amazingly odd is that Mark omits the woman’s name even tho’ he cannot erase/omit Jesus’ words about her – his proclamation that “what she has done will be told in memory of her.” A woman to be remembered the world over with no name….

There is a most intriguing stained glass window in the Kilmore church (“Church of Mary”) in the village of Dervaig on the Scottish Isle of Mull. The scene shows a Jesus figure in a most intimate pose with a woman named Mary who appears to be pregnant. Under the figures is a quotation from Luke 10:42 “Mary hath chosen that good part which shall not be taken away from her.” I want to thank Jennifer Duba-Scanlan, a colleague I know through e-mail, for pointing this out to me, as well as calling my attention to the Keith Akers post on the Talpiot tomb that I mentioned recently.The Web site to which I was referred understands the “Mary” in the image to be none other than Mary Magdalene, but Luke’s account (10:38-42) is set in an unnamed village, presumably in the Galilee, in the home of two sisters–Martha and Mary. It is a story unique to Luke in which the sister Mary is commended for her desire to “sit at Jesus feet” and listen to his teaching, presumably with the male disciples, while Martha attends to household serving.

**Wendy Pond just pointed out to me that the text actually says that “Martha welcomed Jesus into her house,” when “they,” namely the Jesus entourage, came to a certain village. It does not say that Mary lived there, but just that Martha had a sister called Mary. It is possible that this “Mary” has been traveling with the group, suggests they stop at her sister’s house for a meal and rest, and she has developed the practice of gathering and sitting with the men. Even though Luke introduces these women as if they are “new” to the story, it is clear from the way Jesus speaks to them in the core tradition that he knows them both well. The “good portion” that Mary has chosen appears to be her desire to hear and learn the words of the Teacher.

The scene raises a most interesting question. Who is this particular “Mary,” in Luke’s story and is she possibly to be identified with “Mary of Bethany,” in Jerusalem, mentioned only in the gospel of John, who also has a sister named Martha and a brother named Lazarus? This is the Mary who anoints the feet of Jesus (11:1-2). The answer is neither easy nor obvious, despite the similarity of names. Are there two pair of sisters named “Mary and Martha” or just one?

Other than Jesus’ mother Mary, there are two other intimate Marys in Jesus’ life about whom we have narratives–Mary Magdalene and Mary, sister of Martha. One of the most puzzling challenges in our New Testament gospel traditions is to sort through the various stories regarding these two (or three?) Marys, and the ways in which they intersect with the stories of Jesus being “anointed” before his death. Here are the bare facts in outline form:

• Mark (14:3-9) contains the core story of Jesus being anointed by an unnamed woman at Bethany two days before Passover while reclining at a meal in the house of “Simon the leper.” The woman pours an alabaster flask of expensive oil over his head. Jesus accepts her gesture, defends her against those to call it a waste, and says that “she has anointed my body beforehand for burial.”

• John (12:1-8) recounts that six days before Passover, also at Bethany, Mary, sister of Martha and Lazarus, anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped them with her hair. Jesus defends her in a similar manner but says that she should keep the ointment “for the day of my burial.”

• Luke (7:36-40) relates a separate story, much earlier in Jesus’ career, in which an unnamed “sinful woman” anoints Jesus’ feet with an alabaster flask of ointment, wetting them with her tears and drying them with her hair. Jesus tells this woman that her sins are forgiven. The story is strangely juxtaposed, in the immediate verses following, with Luke’s first reference to “Mary called Magdalene” from whom seven demons had gone out. Does Luke intend to imply that Mary Magdalene was a “street woman,” a sinner, and thus healed by Jesus of demonic influence?

These appear to be three separate scenes of anointing, with important differences in content and setting, yet somehow related or “intertwined.” Many scholars have suggested that behind the three accounts lies a single core story, but the consistent elements are rather bare: Jesus is anointed with a costly ointment by a woman; the woman is criticized by others, but defended by Jesus.

In subsequent Christian tradition Luke’s “sinful woman” was indeed identified with Mary Magdalene, who was in turn, quite often, identified with “Mary of Bethany,” sister of Martha. However, since we know of “Mary of Bethany” only in the gospel of John, and she seems clearly distinguished from Mary Magdalene, this identification does not seem to stand up–in John at least. But to further complicate matters, it is indeed Mary, known as Magdalene, who does go to the tomb early Sunday morning with the intention of “anointing” Jesus body for burial–so somehow that motif is connected to her, on one level or another.

The anointing stories in John and Mark are close enough, despite differences of details, to be related. The story in Luke seems to stand independently, and could well be a way of introducing Mary Magdalene. However, the Mary, sister of Martha, in Luke 10, is not so readily identified with Mary of Bethany–who clearly lives in Jerusalem. In fact, it seems hard to make such a case. She could be just “another Mary,” or it is possible, as in the stained glass window in the Kilmore church, that she was indeed the one known as Mary, “the one called Magdalene.” What most characterizes her in this story is that she is a woman among the male disciples, strong and confident of her place of “sitting at the feet” of the Rabbi. It is certainly interesting that this image of Mary as the one who conveys the message of Jesus is the dominant image one finds in subsequent non-canonical traditions about Mary Magadalene, as Jane Schaberg and others have so ably pointed out.

I remain convinced, for reasons I will soon explore in this Blog, that the ossuary inscription in the Talpiot tomb that Rahmani read as “Mariamene also known as Mara,” is the best interpretation of the names, however, as many are now suggesting, if it does indeed read “Mariam and Mara=Martha,” referring to two women, they would indeed most likely be sisters. Given the complexity of our evidence above it is entirely possible that Mary Magdalene did have a sister named Martha.

For some years now I have made the point to my students that the earliest Christian teaching about the “resurrection of the dead” was not so much about the dead “living” again in some state, but rather an affirmation about the participation of the dead, along with the living, in the events of the “last days.” In other words, it was a thoroughly “apocalyptic” subject and concept. It had to do with “whether” and in “what state” those in the community who had died would participate in the events of at the “end of the age,” when Jesus returned from heaven.

Today we might tend to associate “resurrection of the dead” more with the question of “life after death,” that is, the matter of whether death is the “end” or whether humans who die “exist” or somehow go on in another realm. That was not the issue among the early Christians, nor among many if not most Jews and Greeks in Roman times. In both Jewish and Greco-Roman culture it had become exceedingly common to affirm the life of the departed soul, either in Sheol or Hades, with either reincarnation or “resurrection of the dead” at the end as a way of “coming back” to the world of the living.

Last year I published here two fairly extensive Blog posts dealing with “What the Bible Says about Death, Afterlife, and the Future, that can be easily assessed, Part I and Part II, so I won’t repeat all of that dense history and exposition of biblical texts here. What I want to do here in this post is get at this matter of participation, as a way of clarifying what was at state for the earliest followers of Jesus in affirming “resurrection of the dead,” either that of Jesus, or of those of the community who had “fallen asleep,” to use Paul’s metaphor for death (1 Thessalonians 4:13).

This way of looking at resurrection of the dead would then distinguish it from the bare idea of resuscitation, that is a person who has recently died being revived. The Greek word translated “resurrection,” is anastasis and its literal meaning is “to stand up, to rise.” It does not necessarily refer to the dead, but it is used in Greek literature quite generally for anything from setting up a statue to literally standing up before one’s superiors. In contrast, in English today, “resurrection” means to revive something/someone that is dead, whether literally or metaphorically (e.g., the resurrection of a cause).

Anastasis then, in its most literal meaning, as applied to the dead, simply means that a corpse lying prone, “gets up,” i.e. is resuscitated, or comes to life. Thus Jesus speaks to the corpse of a twelve year old girl was has just died, “Little girl, get up,” and “the girl got up (Greek verb eigeiro) and walked about” (Mark 5:41-42). He encounters a funeral procession for a young man, son of a widow, in the Galilean town of Nain, touches the bier, and speaks to the corpse: “Young man, I say to you, rise” and the dead man sat up and began to speak (Luke 7:14-15). In the most dramatic case, that of Lazarus, who had been dead for three days, Jesus commands at the door of the tomb, “Lazarus come forth,” and the deceased walks out still clothed in his grave clothes (John 11:43-44).

But none of these cases of “resuscitation” really match what the earliest Christians came to affirm more generally about “resurrection of the dead.” After all, presumably, these three individuals, brought back to life, eventually died again, and their resurrection “bodies” were physical, mortal, and subject to corruption.

To understand this earliest Christian affirmation of “resurrection of the dead” we have to go to the writings of the apostle Paul. He clearly expresses his views in three extensive passages on the subject: 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18; 1 Corinthians 15; and 2 Corinthians 5:1-10. These passages and what they affirm predate our gospels by several decades.

What Paul affirms is that since Jesus was “raised from the dead,” all those who “belong to him” will experience a similar resurrection at his appearance or “2nd coming” when he returns in the clouds of heaven at the end of the age. He makes it absolutely clear that the “body” Jesus has, as a result of his resurrection, is heavenly, spiritual, and incorruptible, that is, it is not “flesh and blood” (1 Cor 15:42-50). He understands that those who have died will experience a similar “resurrection,” in that they will be raised with incorruptible, spiritual bodies–not flesh and blood. Paul is not the least concerned with locating or otherwise preserving the rotting or decayed corpses of the dead, so they can be somehow revived like ghouls in the Michael Jackson video “Thiller.” He sees death as a “naked” state, in which one has shed the physical body like an old pair of clothes, only to be “reclothed” in a new heavenly “garment” or body that is incorruptible, non-physical, and has nothing to do with corruptible body that turns to dust” (2 Corinthians 5:1-4).

Christians later expanded this early affirmation of Paul to include all the dead, both good and bad, who would be brought forth from the realm of the dead (Hades/Sheol) to face the final last Judgment and a separation between those entering the heavenly Kingdom and those cast out into Gehenna. Thus we get texts such as the following:

Jesus declares that “the hour comes when all who are in their graves will come out–those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation” (John 5:28-29).

Paul affirms with the Pharisees according to the book of Acts that he has “a hope in God that there will be a resurrection of the dead; both of the righteous and the unrighteous” (Acts 24:15).

The book of Revelation pictures a final scene at the end in which “the sea gave up the dead that were in it; and Death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and all were judged according to what they had done” (Revelation 20:13).

This idea is based on the clear affirmation in the book of Daniel, that at the end of the age, “Multitudes of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt” (Daniel 12:2).

In none of these early affirmations of “resurrection of the dead” is there a view of “resurrection” that would require the gathering of physical “dust” or decayed flesh or bones in some literal fashion, in order for God to raise the dead. In fact, that very absurdity is what caused Epicureans and Sadducees to scoff at the notion of “resurrection of the dead.” But as Paul makes clear, the objection of “How can God raise the dead?,” or “In what kind of body could they come?” is a foolish one, that limits the power of God as Creator. Paul’s answer is a simple one–God will give the dead an appropriate heavenly body as it pleases him (1 Corinthians 15:35-38).

The language about coming out of graves, Hades, or even the “sea,” is clearly metaphorical, not literal. It is a way of affirming the participation of those who have died in the events of the end.

This has important implications in understanding how the affirmation, first found in Paul, that “Jesus was raised from the dead” developed into the “empty tomb” scenarios, with appearances of Jesus’ resuscitated physical body as found in Luke and John, where Jesus eats, drinks, and is described as “flesh and bones.” Mark, know none of this, Matthew begins to move down that road, but not in any heavily apologetic way. There are historical and apologetic reasons that Luke begins to cast things in this “literalist” direction, early in the 2nd century CE.

Scholars are aware of the rich and diverse ways in which the term “Son of God” is used in the Hebrew Bible, in subsequent Jewish literature, and in the New Testament writings themselves, not to mention various non-Jewish texts (including inscriptions and coins) of the Greco-Roman period. Most of us who teach in the field of Christian Origins get asked from time to time by students or in public lectures, “Professor, do you believe Jesus was X.” Sometimes X is “Messiah,” other times it is “Divine,” but in my experience, most often, the question is “Do you believe that Jesus was the Son of God.” In good Socratic fashion one is tempted to reply, “Well what do you mean by the term ‘Son of God,’ and such a counter question is certainly more than subterfuge.

1) In the Hebrew Bible the precise phrase “son of God” does not occur, although the plural phrase “sons of God” (b’nai ‘elohim) occurs five times in the Masoretic text (Genesis 6:2,4; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7), likely referring to a group of “angelic” beings who comprise God’s heavenly court and are charged with the responsibility of overseeing, ruling, and reporting on human affairs. In Psalm 82:6 this group is directly addressed: “You are Gods, sons of the Most High all of you.” In the Dead Sea Scroll copies of Deuteronomy, the phrase “sons of God,” occurs two more times in the “Song of Moses,” also likely referring to these heavenly custodians of human affairs (Deut 32:8; 43), and these two additional references are also found in the Greek Septuagint, a translation of the Hebrew from the 2nd century BCE. There is also an Aramaic reference (bar ‘elahin) to such a heavenly being who is said to be like “a son of the Gods” in Daniel 3:25.

2) The anointed kings of ancient Israel were referred to as “son of God.” Samuel tells David that God has promised to make a covenant with him and his royal descendants will rule as kings forever. Yahweh declares, according to Samuel, “I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me” (2 Samuel 7:14). According to a later Psalm, the Davidic ruler will cry “You are my Father, my God, and the Rock of my salvation” and God will make him “the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth” (Psalm 89:26-27). This is the background of Psalm 2, where Yahweh says to the king, “You are my son; today I have begotten you.” Some scholars are convinced that this language was used in some kind of coronation ceremony, and various Psalms are classified as “royal Psalms,” in that they celebrate the reign of Israel’s King as Yahweh’s direct human agent (Psalm 45, 72, 110).

3) The people of Israel are called “God’s son.” Moses tells Pharaoh of Egypt “Thus says Yahweh, Israel is my firstborn son” (Exodus 4:22), and the prophet Hosea, looking back to that time, has God declare, “when Israel was a child I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son” (11:1).

4) In late 2nd Temple Jewish writings one who devoutly follows God is said to be his “son” (Wisdom of Solomon 2:16-18; 5:5; Sirach 4:10). For example, the various patriarchs such as Noah, Lamech, and Shem are addressed as “my son” regularly in 1 Enoch.

5) Julius Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, and subsequent Roman emperors were regularly referred to as “son of God” (divi filius), on coins and inscriptions, as were a host of Greco-Roman “heroes” whom were called “divine men.” Some of these were said to have been “fathered” by a God, while others were honored for their extraordinary deeds. However, the terms “Lord,” “Son of God” and “Savior,” in the time of Jesus, was used rather widely in Greco-Roman materials to refer to such legendary, political, philosophical, or religious figures.

6) Adam, and by extension, all humankind, is called the “son of God” on the basis of being created in God’s image and likeness (Luke 3:38; Acts 17:26-29). This is akin to the general notion of God as Creator being “Father” of humankind.

7) Jesus at his baptism hears a voice from heaven that declares “You are my Son, the beloved, with you I am well pleased” (Mark 1:11). Mark records no birth narratives of Jesus at all. Matthew follows Mark here but there were versions his gospel in Hebrew that added the phrase “Today I have begotten you,” based on Psalm 2:7. This interpretation was referred to as “adoptionism,” meaning that Jesus was made and declared to be God’s son at his baptism when the Holy Spirit came upon him. Apparently such a view was held by some early Jewish followers of Jesus, associated with James the Just, the brother of Jesus, who came to be labeled in later years as “Ebionites.” We are told that they used the gospel of Matthew in Hebrew, but in a version that lacked the virgin birth story of chapters 1-2, that they believed Jesus had a human mother and father, and that he was designated (“adopted”) as God’s son at his baptism as an indication of being chosen and favored as Messiah.

8) Jesus is said to be the “son of God” based on his mother Mary becoming pregnant through the Holy Spirit, with no human father, as explicitly stated in Luke 1:35. This idea of no human father is found in both Luke and Matthew. Even though the gospel of John has no explicit account of the “virgin birth,” his statement about the “Word (Logos) becoming flesh and dwelling among us” likely reflects this same idea of incarnation–the Son of God born in the flesh (John 1:14).

9) Jesus declared to be the “Son of God” by his resurrection from the dead. This idea is most explicitly stated by Paul in Romans 1:3-4, where he says Jesus is a descendant (“seed”) of David in the flesh, but a “Son of God” in the Spirit. The same idea, including the quotation from Psalm 2:6, “You are my son, this day have I begotten you,” is applied to Jesus through his resurrection from the dead in Acts 13:33. We have no indication that Paul thought Jesus was born without a human father, indeed, he says that he was of the “seed” or lineage of king David, but his status as “Son of God” was, according to Paul, based on his resurrection from the dead.

10) According to Paul those followers of Jesus who have received the Holy Spirit are made “sons of God,” and indeed, Paul says that Jesus is “firstborn of many brothers” (Rom 8:14-17; 29-30). Paul uses the term “adoption” to describe this idea that one becomes a “son of God” and calls God Father upon receiving the Holy Spirit. The writer of Hebrew speaks explicitly of these “many sons of God” who are to come (Hebrews 2:10). John expresses a similar idea of an extended family of “sons of God” based on a new spiritual “birth” for those who united with Jesus (1:12-13).

Given this complexity and diversity what one might mean by calling Jesus the “Son of God” could range from an affirmation of Jesus as God’s favored choice as Israel’s anointed king, to ideas of a preexistent Divine being who is born of a woman with no human father, and thus “becomes flesh” (Incarnation), with ranges of views in between.