Collins, "Messiah and Son of God in the Hellenistic Period," part 1

In Chapter 3 of King and Messiah as Son of God, John Collins turns to a consideratio of "Messiah and Son of God in the Hellenistic Period." Upon his death Alexander's empire was split into two branches, as is well known, divvied up by the late Macedonian's generals. During his lifetime, Alexander had "demanded proskynesis, the Persian form of obeisance, which was offensive to many Greeks"; the emergent Ptolemaic and Seleucid empires developed their own unique ways of projecting divinity upon their rulers.

Collins contends that the Ptolemaic empire, headquarted in Egypt, managed to combine "Greco-Roman and pharaonic traditions" in its idealization of the ruler. Such a ruler assumed the status of divinity based on his position of king as well as the "traditional association of the pharaoh with the sun god and with Horus."  

The Seleucid characterization of the ruler, while different, similarly found ways of exalting this figure. Because of their benefactions, "kings were sometimes hailed as divine." Especially noteworthy is the coloring of the genealogy of the king in Seleucid rendering. He is often said to be the direct descendant of god(s). An important qualifier, however, is "that divinity was a status that could be conferred and that stories about divine birth had only a confirmatory role," that is, were only applied retrospectively, after the individual assumed the position of ruler. Collins makes much of this latter point throughout his essays. I wonder, though, how significant this fact really is. Is it that surprising that one doesn't hear or read about the divine status and/or exploits of an individual--even if he were likely to become king--prior to his assuming the mantle of leadership? At that point there is another ruler and it still remains a question who next will be thrust into that role. Political common sense dictated a hesitation I would think. But I digress.

Collins notes that with the rise of the Roman Empire, many of these Hellenistic views of kingship were incorporated into the Imperial cult. Representing an "escalation," though, is the "favorable comparison of the emperor with the Olympian gods."  While Jews living under the new Roman rule were more circumspect in their adulation of the emperor, it is interesting that the luminary Hellenistic Jew Philo, in his reflection, still felt it appropriate that gentiles accord the dominant ruler of the Mediterranean world "divine honors." Did Jewish views about the messiah in any way mirror the more general Greco-Roman ideas about the emperor?

We'll see when we next look at Collins' assessment of Jewish messianic speculation in the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls.