Why ΑΥΓΟΥΣΤΟΣ? A note to Luke 2.1

Abstract

Recent commentators on the works of Luke, the Gospel and Acts, make remarkably similar statements regarding the transliteration of the Latin title Augustus into Greek. All agree that Luke used Αύγοΰστο, in the Gospel as a personal name and all agree that in Acts 25.21, 25, he used the Greek form of the Latin title, Σεβαστός. Only one of these commentators, however, goes beyond this simple observation to deal with the questions that must arise from such selective use by Luke of Αὐγο⋯στος and Σεβαστ⋯ς. Colin Hemer attempts to go slightly beyond this to explain Luke's use of Σεβατός in Acts as the formal rendering of the imperial title. It is not clear what Hemer means by his use of the words ‘rendered formally’ because Σεβαστός is no more formal than Αὐγο⋯στος. The point is simply that the former is the correct form of the imperial title in Greek and the latter is the correct form in Latin. Unless Luke had an ulterior motive these words should not have been used in any other sense. Moreover, if one detects some new or special use of Αὐγο⋯στος by Luke, one certainly should ask what this means? Such a question is especially pertinent when one notes that, according to Blass and Debrunner, Luke was ‘inclined to remove Latinisms’.