JSNT2ZA (2006) 415-442 Copyright © 2006 SAGE Publications

τΐϋϊ
(London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi) http://JSNT.sagepub.com
DOI: 10.1177/0142064X06065693

Jornalfo,AtSiukofAete*

Jesus, 'Son of God9 and 'Son of David9:

The 'Adoption9 of Jesus into the Davidic Line*

Yigal Levin
The Academic College of Judea and Samaria, Ariel 44837
and Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan 52900, Israel
Leviny 1 @mail.biu.ac.il

Abstract
The authors of both thefirstand third Gospels, by insisting on both Jesus' divine
paternity and his Davidic descent, pose a conundrum: if Jesus was not Joseph's
biological son, in what sense is he the Davidic Messiah? Most modern scholars
assume that Joseph must have adopted Jesus in some form or another, thus giving
him Davidic status, and many even point to such adoption as a 'Jewish custom'.
This article examines this assumption and shows that adoption was unknown in
Jewish law of the period. Furthermore, such adoption was well known in Roman
law, especially among the aristocracy. In the case of such emperors as Augustus,
whose adoptive fathers had been deified posthumously, this gave them the status
ofdivifilius, 'son ofgod'. The inclusion of such a Roman concept into the Gospels
may be an indication of the Gentile, rather than Jewish, cultural backgrounds of
the evangelists.

Key Words
Adoption, messianism, Son of God, Son of David, Davidic, deification.

Introduction
The author of the Gospel of Matthew, often thought of as 'the most Jewish
1
of the Gospels' (Saldarmi 1994: 1; Boice 2001:13), goes to great pains
to point out Jesus' Davidic heritage, presumably since he felt this to be a

* The research for this paper was conducted during my tenure as visiting research
fellow at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. I wish to thank Dr Irven Resnick,
UTC s Chair ofExcellence in Judaic Studies, and all of my colleagues at the Department
of Philosophy and Religion for making my stay a pleasurable one.
1. For recent summaries ofthe debate on Matthew's ' Jewishness', see Carter 1996:
20-24, Senior 2001: 7-12 and my own discussion below.
416 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 28.4 (2006)

prerequisite to his Messianic status. This is most immediately obvious, of

course, right at the start, where the author 'builds up' to his Annunciation
andNativity narratives with a carefully constructed, 41 -generation geneal­
ogy, beginning with Abraham, going through David and his royal descend­
ants (although some are omitted for various reasons) and culminating with
'Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called the
2
Messiah' (Mt. 1.16). In fact, the aim of the genealogy is made clear right
from the start: 'An account of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son
of David, the son of Abraham' (Mt. 1.1). This is further emphasized in
v. 20, in which the angel calls Joseph 'sonofDavid',3 and in seven additional
passages throughout the Gospel in which this title is used of Jesus (9.27;
12.3; 12.23; 15.22;20.30-31;21.9;21.15),nottomentionin Jesus' 'Christo-
logical debate' with the Pharisees in ch. 22.
On the other hand, practically in the same breath, the author of Matthew
goes on to proclaim that Mary, Joseph's betrothed and Jesus' mother, was
a virgin, precluding any notion of Joseph's being Jesus' 'real' father ( w .
16,18-24).
The same is also true of the author of the Gospel of Luke, who begins
his Annunciation story with the angel Gabriel appearing 'toavirgin engaged
to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David' (Lk. 1.26-27). In
v. 32 the future son is described: 'He will be great, and will be called the
Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his
ancestor David'. The next chapter tells how Joseph went from Nazareth
'to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was descended from
the house and family ofDavid' (2.4),andLuke, too, traces Jesus' genealogy
through Joseph to David (and then all the way to 'Adam son of God'),
though seemingly by a different genealogical route (on which see Fitzmyer
4
1981:488-98 and most any other commentary on Luke). However, Luke
also insists on Mary's virginity, explaining, through the angel, that, 'the

2. All biblical quotations arefromthe NRSV unless stated otherwise.

3. Although Davies and Allison (1988:207-208) following several other scholars
(e.g. Kingsbury 1976:591), consider this to be a later redactional addition to Matthew,
since 'son ofDavid' is elsewhere reserved for Jesus alone.
4. As pointed out by Bovon (2002:136), the term ευομίζετο, 'he was considered to
be (the son of Joseph)' in Lk. 3.23 could mean either 'he was considered to be Joseph's
biological son (but I, Luke, know this is not true)' or 'he wasrightfullydeclared to be
Joseph's son (and I, Luke, agree with this)'. Bovon prefers thefirstoption; to me this
seems to lose the whole point of the comment. In the opinion of Freed (2001:21), this
comment is a later editorial addition in any case.
 LEVIN Jesus, 'Son of God' and 'Son ofDavid' 417

Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will
overshadow you; and therefore the child to be born will be holy, and he
will be called Son of God' (Lk. 1.35).
The Jewish world of thefirstcentury CE had several different concepts
of the future Messiah, of which the Royal Davidic Messiah was but one.5
Nowhere in the Hebrew Bible is the word rrtöD used of a future Davidic
saviour. The earliest-known specific statement of this hope is in the first-
century BCE Psalms of Solomon (17.21-32), where, in v. 32, the future
6
Davidic saviour is called χριστός κυρίου. However, within the literature
of the New Testament, and hence within the early Christian community
that produced that literature, the concept of Jesus' Davidic descent was
apparently a given 'fact'. Besides its multiple attestation in Matthew and
in Luke-Acts, it is also affirmed by Mark (10.47-48; 12.35-37), by Paul
(Rom. 1.3), by the author of 2 Timothy (2.8) and by John of Patmos (Rev.
3.7; 5.5; 22.16), and implied elsewhere (see also Rowland 1998).
The concept of the Virgin Birth (or, more correctly, the Virgin Concep­
tion), however, is unique in the New Testament to the first chapters of
Matthew and of Luke.7 It is never referred to in the rest of those Gospels
or anywhere else in the New Testament. Paul seems not to have known of
it and in fact does not even mention Mary by name (Fitzmyer 1978:33). 8
But whatever its origin, for the authors of Matthew and of Luke it too
seems to have been a given.9 My purpose here is not to question the

5. The issues of the origins of Jewish messianism and its influence on early
Christianity are too vast to be even considered in this article. For a partial overview,
see Vermes 1973:130-40; Hanson 1992; Schiffinan 1992; Talmon 1992; Schniedewind
1994; Collins 1995; Pomykala 1995: 127-264; Strauss 1995: 35-57; Lenowitz 1998:
31-32; Horbury 1998; Brooke 1998; Oegema 1998; Knohl 2000; for a critical view of
this book, see Broshi and Eshel 2001.
6. Cf. Strauss 1995:40-43; Atkinson 1999; idem 2001, esp. pp. 329-76.
7. Assuming the validity of the commonly held 'two source' or 'Markan priority'
theory of the composition of the Synoptic Gospels on one hand, and considering the
vast literary differences between the annunciation, birth and infancy accounts in Matthew
and Luke on the other, I would posit that both drew their storiesfroma common oral
tradition, independent of Mark, 'Q' or each other, which each transformed into writing
in his own way, in accordance to his own purposes and style.
8. Despite claims by such scholars as Wenham (1995:339-41), based on Gal. 4.4
'God sent His son, born of a woman'. See Matlock 2000, who reads this as a simple
affirmation that Jesus was born in the natural manner.
9. Though both Johnson (1968) and Burger (1970: 72-91) have maintained that
Jesus' Davidic descent was not a part of the Jesus Movement's original claim. In their
418 Journalfor the Study of the New Testament 28.4 (2006)

historicity of either tradition.101 would like to focus on the way in which

the authors of Matthew and Luke could presume both doctrines without
even attempting to address the obvious contradiction between them—in
other words, how could Jesus be both the physical son of God, born of a
virgin, and be descended from David through his father? What were the
evangelists thinking?

'Son of God' in Israel, in the Ancient Near East

and in the Roman World

For a start, it seems important to point out that, from both Jewish and
Roman points of view, there is absolutely no reason that Jesus, as the
Anointed King, could not have been both 'Son of God' and a son of man.
The Jewish scriptures picture all humans as God's 'children' (as the author
of Luke emphasizes in 3.38), Israel as his 'firstborn son' (Exod. 4.22-23;
Jer. 31.8) and David especially so (Pss. 2.7; 89.26-27 [MT 27-28]). Luke

view it was added to the Jesus story by the author of Mark and then expanded upon by
Matthew and Luke. Tatum (1977) has claimed that both the birth narratives and the
genealogies are 'constructions' of Matthew and Luke meant to affirm Jesus' messianic
status. Cf. Vermes 1973: 213-22; Fitzmyer 1981: 335-42; Davies and Allison 1988:
221; Strauss 1995:77-85; Freed 2001:51-52; Meier 1991:220-22 and literature there.
Both Nolan (1979:149,154) and Meier (1991:216-19) also briefly entertain the notion
of Jesus' Davidic descent being a later theologoumenon, before stating that the many
and varied witnesses to this claim make it likely an original part of the Jesus movement.
Brown ( 1993:68) likewise considers it to be 'a pre-Matthean insight', while considering
the genealogy itself to have been composed by the author of Matthew. More recently
Byrne (2003:81) conveyed 'the impressionthatthis "messianic issue" was a confounded
nuisance with which the authors [of the Gospels - Y.L.] had to deal'. For a survey of
the problem and a critique on Burger's position, see Strauss 1995: 57-74.
10. Certainly enough has been written about both. As it would seem, the general
consensus among those scholars who do believe that Davidic descent was an integral
part of the earliest Jesus tradition is that (a) it is not implausible that Joseph's family,
like other Jewish families of the time and even many centuries later, did trace their
ancestry to the House of David and (b) that Davidic descent was not an important
enough trait of the expected Messiah to have been 'invented' by Jesus' early followers
(cf. Vermes 1973:156-57; Nolan 1979:64-71; Meier 1991:216-19; Brown 1993:505-
12). Also cf. Bauer 1995, who shows the centrality of the kingship motif in the first
Gospel. As for the Virgin Conception, it has been claimed that Mary's premature
pregnancy would have been far more 'convenient' to simply omit, unless it was also a
part of the earliest tradition or as an answer to Jewish and Pagan charges of illegitimacy
(cf. Vermes 1973: 213-22; Meier 1991: 220-30; Brown 1993: 517-42).
 LEVIN Jesus, 'Son of God' and 'Son ofDavid' 419

himself recalls Jesus promising the disciples that they will be 'children of
the Most High', if they are 'merciful, just as your Father is merciful'
(6.35-36). But this is never meant in the physical sense, to the exclusion
of human paternity. In fact, in 2 Sam. 7.12-14, God promises David of his
'offspring after you, who shall come forthfromyour body... I will be a
father to him, and he shall be a son to me'. In other words, God will be the
'father' of David's biological son!11 From a scriptural viewpoint, the
establishment of Jesus the Messiah as 'Son of God' did not necessitate his
being born of a virgin. The same is true within the early church. The writer
of Mark, for example, uses the term 'Son of God' repetitively, without any
need for a virgin birth to explain the concept. To him, the idea of a Royal
Messiah being God's adopted son seems quite natural (cf. Juel 1992;
Collins 1999).12
The idea of divine fatherhood or 'adoption' of kings is also well known
in the Ancient Near East (cf. Paul 1979-80; Knoppers 1998:98). Egyptian
Pharaohs, while inheriting their fathers' throne, were considered to be
'sons of Re' (cf. Baines 1998). Likewise in the Iliad{\ 0.144), Odysseus,
öioyeves Λαερτιάδη, 'Zeus-born son of Laertes', was heir to his father's
throne and at the same time 'born of Zeus' (Gordon 1977). A Neo-
Babylonian 'Akkadian Prophecy' speaks of a divine 'son of the king'
(Heintz 1992:64). But in none of these cases did such 'divine-born' rulers
ever deny their humanparents. While Plutarch, when telling of Alexander's
'becoming' the son of Amon/Zeus, attributes this 'pronouncement' to the
Egyptian priest's faulty Greek {Alexander 27.9), a sufficient number of
other sources make it clear that Alexander both enthusiastically accepted
the title, and continued to defend the honour of his human parents.13
The same would have been true in the Roman tradition. As shown by
Collins (2000) in connection with the Gospel of Mark, the term υχος θεού
would have been very familiar to the Gospel's Gentile readers. Several of

11. For additional biblical and post-biblical uses of this motif, see Brin 1971.
12. By stating this I in no way presuppose an 'adoptionist' Christology, but rather
that the idea of adoption served as part of the background for both Mark and Paul's use
of the term. In any case, the subject of this investigation is not Jesus' divine descent but
rather his human one.
13. See Aune 1992: 412. For a discussion of Alexander's 'adoption' by Amon-
Zeus, see Scott 1992: 16-19. Severalfiguresin the more distant Greek and Roman
legendary past, such as Achilles and Aeneas, were said to have had human fathers and
divine mothers. It is doubtful, however, that they would have had much influence on
first-century 'Christian' thought.
420 Journalfor the Study of the New Testament 28.4 (2006)

the early Roman emperors, most notably Julius Caesar, were deified after
their death, making their heirs into divifilius, literally 'son of the deified'.
Furthermore, in the provinces, especially the eastern ones, these emperors
were worshipped as gods in their lifetime (Mellor 1990:193). In 26 or 25
BCE a sanctuary to Σεβαστός (as Augustus was known in Greek) was
dedicated in Ephesus; a papyrusfromEgypt of the same year mentions the
sale of a red cow by the slave of a Roman citizen in 'the fifth year of the
dominion ofCaesar, son of a god' (Millar 1984:37-38). While both Sextus
Pompey, son of Pompey the Great, and Marc Anthony had already issued
military coins in the eastern Mediterranean with their portraits executed in
the likeness of Neptune and Sol, right after his victory at Actium in 31
BCE Augustus's coins, with himself in divine image and with the legend
divifilius, began to appear throughout the Empire (Pollini 1990:334-63).
When Augustus also became Pontifex Maximus, another title that would
become de rigueur for all future emperors, he had two obelisks with his full
title, Imp. Caesar divif. Augustus/Pontifex Maximus, erected in Rome,
with two more placed in front of his own shrine, the Caesareum, at
Alexandria in Egypt (Bowersock 1990:3 84). Augustus and his successors
had numerous images of themselves in the guise of Jupiter and other gods
placed throughout the Empire (for an in-depth treatment of this subject
see Zanker 1990).14 There were even such images in Judea. Herod the
Great built three temples to his patron Augustus: one in Samaria, which
he also renamed Sebaste for the emperor (Josephus, Ant. 15.296-98), one
at Caesarea Maritima, also named for him (Ant. 15.339) and a third at or
near Paneas, the later Caesarea Philippi (Ant. 15.363-64).15 And while the
Flavian Vespasian could not claim to be a Julio-Claudian by either descent
or adoption, he certainly made it clear to the inhabitants of Rome and of
the provinces that his Principate was no less divine, through omens,
oracles, temples and coins. And like Julius Caesar, Vespasian too was
deified posthumously, making his sons Titus and Domitian into divifilii
(K. Scott 1975:1-60). In fact, atop the famous Arch of Titus in Rome, on
which the spoilsfromthe Jerusalem Temple are depicted, is the inscription
Senatus Populusqe Romanus Divo Tito Divi Vespasiani F. Vespasiano
Augusto ('The Senate and People of Rome to the deified Titus Vespasian

14. The influence that this image, of the ruler as both (son of) god and high priest,
might have had on early Christology is a fascinating topic, but beyond the purview of
this article.
15. For the archaeological remains of all three, see Overman et al. 2003 and
references there.
 LEVIN Jesus, 'Son of God' and 'Son ofDavid' 421

Augustus, son of the deified Vespasian') (P.J.E. Davies 2000: 22, with
photograph on p. 20).
However, none of these Roman rulers ever denied his father's human
origins. The idea that divine descent precluded human parentage seems to
be unique to thefirstchapters of Matthew and Luke. Even within the New
Testament, the prevalent view seems to have been that Jesus only became
'Son of God' at either his baptism (cf. Mk. 1.9-11) or his resurrection
(Paul in Rom. 1.4 and even as quoted by 'Luke' in Acts 13.33!).
So how, according to Mathew and Luke, could Jesus have been both the
son of Joseph, descended from David, and the Son of God, born to a
virgin? The evangelists did not seem to concern themselves with this
apparent contradiction, and many scholars have just assumed that they and
their audiences were simply not perturbed by it. In their minds, Jesus
could obviously have been both.16 As put by Albright and Mann (1977:
6), 'both evangelists were faithfully recording the traditions which they
received, whatever the inconsistencies'.17

Joseph's 'Adoption ' of Jesus: A non-Jewish Concept

The problem did cross the minds ofmany ofthe more modern commentators,
especially on Matthew. Some, such as Milton (1962:177-78, followed by
Nolan 1979), have considered this to be the very 'paradox of the person of
Jesus Christ.. .which denies any attempt to reduce Jesus Christ to a mere
inspiredprophet, or to a pagan demigod, or to a phantom'. But the solution
that most commentators have suggested has been that Jesus was considered
Joseph's son by adoption, either simply through the act of marrying Mary
andraising Jesus ashisown(Mt. 1.24-25), circumcising him and presenting
him in the Temple (Lk. 2.21-24), protecting him from Herod (Mt. 2.13-

16. Cf. Hare 1993: 8; Strauss 1995:126-29; Flusser 1998: 25; Freed 2001: 21.
17. One notable exception is Saldarmi ( 1994:170), who does recognize the tension
and posits that Matthew's message, both here and in ch. 22, is that by being 'Son of
God' Jesus' status is actually higher than that ofDavid. Byrne (2003:84) reads a similar
message into Luke's Nativity story. An alternative, 'feminist', interpretation is that of
Schaberg (1987:34-77), who assumes that Matthew knew of and accepted Jesus' being
illegitimate (that is, that Mary had conceived by another man). The same is true, in her
opinion, for Luke, who 'indicates that he has taken over a tradition that Jesus was
fathered by some unnamed man' (p. 101 ). In her belief, both evangelists used 'the Holy
Spirit', not as an excuse, but as a theological statement: 'more profoundly than the
unnamed biological father, more profoundly than Joseph the legal father, God parents
the illegitimate Messiah' (p. 68).
422 Journalfor the Study of the New Testament 28.4 (2006)

14), travelling with him for the festivals in the Temple (Lk. 2.41-51) and
teaching him a vocation (Mt. 13.55), or through some unspecified legal
act.18 For Kingsbury, for instance, this is the very message ofthe Gospel:
'although Jesus is the son ofDavid by adoption, his ultimate origin lies in
God' (2001:164). In any case, the general assumption is that Jesus inherited
his Davidic status by means of adoption.19
But when pressed for either precedence or proof of such adoption, the
vast majority of commentators simply refer to 'Jewish custom' or 'Jewish
Law'. As early as 1930, Machen stated that in the Jews' 'Semitic way of
thinking', they looked upon 'adoptive fatherhood in a much more realistic
way than we look upon it' (Machen 1930: 129). Six decades later Meier
(1991: 217) still claimed that,
the Jewish milieu out of which the Infancy Narratives came regularly traced
a child's genealogy through his or her father, whether or not the 'father' was
actually the biological parent.. .in the eyes ofthe Old Testament, the legal
father is the real father, whether or not he physically procreated the child.

Or in Kingsbury's words,
Since in Jewish circles it was the acknowledgment of a male child by a man
that made that child his son and not the physical act of procreation as such,
the fact that Matthew depicts Jesus as being adopted into the line ofDavid
(1.20,25) does not mean that his Davidic lineage is in any sense questionable
(1976: 548).

Donfried, after a long explanation of Jewish marriage laws and the impor-
tance of a woman's remaining a virginfromher 'erusin (betrothal) to her
nisu'in (entrance to her husband's home, often up to a year later), then
states that Jesus 'is a true Davidid, for Joseph, "son ofDavid" (1.20),
acknowledged him by naming him' (1978: 83-85). Johnson (1969:185),
followed by Davies and Allison (1988: 185; 220) quote the Mishnah in

18. Cf. Waetjen 1976: 227; Beare 1981: 61; Davies and Allison 1988: 219-20;
Richard 1988:146; Barnett 1990:19; Green 1995: 55-56; Schnackenburg 1995:103;
Senior 1998: 38; Carter 2000: 65.
19. An alternative solution has been to assume that the genealogy in Luke is actually
that of Mary, who was therefore also of Davidic descent (Barnhouse 1952:45-47; Voss
1965:68; Boice 2001:17). Fitzmyer (1981:497) traces the popularity ofthis explanation
to the latefifteenth-centuryAnnius Viterbo. There is, however, no scriptural basis for
this theory and it in fact contradicts Lk. 3.23, which specifically states that Jesus 'was
the son (as was thought) oí Joseph son of Heli...' Such an assumption of inherited
status through Jesus' mother wouldhave also been extremely unusual in both the Jewish
and Roman cultural and legal milieus, which were totally patrilineal.
 LEVIN Jesus, 'Son of God' and 'Son ofDavid' 423

B. Bat. 8.6, 'If a man says "This is my son", he may be believed'. Others
20
point to the levirate marriage law of Deuteronomy 25.5-6 as a precedent.
The general hypothesis is apparently that since both evangelists, or at
least Matthew, were ostensibly Jews, writing at least in part to a Jewish
audience, their legal assumptions must have also been based on the Jewish
law ofthe time. In fact Brown (1993:139), after making the same assump­
tions, even goes on to claim that, 'legal paternity is not an easy concept
21
for the non-Semite'!
However, while adoption is known in some Ancient Near Eastern legal
22
codes, Jewish law, both in antiquity and in the modern era, has no such
legal institution. Though there are several biblical stories that would seem
to suggest something like adoption (e.g. Abraham complaining that
Eliezer 'son of my house' will inherit him [Yaron 1960: 7], Ephraim and
23
Manassehby Jacob, Moses by Pharaoh's daughter, Ruth's child by Naomi,
Esther by Mordecai and Raguel by his son-in-law Tobias), almost all of
these are cases of adoption within the existing family, often by women,
who had little, ifany, legal status to pass on, and in no case can it be shown
that such an 'adoption' had any legal consequences.24 As summarized by
Tigay, 'if adoption played any role at all in Israelite family institutions, it
was an insignificant one'. Also 'for the post-Exilic period...there is no

20. As early as c. 200 CE, Julius Africanus (as quoted by Eusebius, Hist. Eccl.
1.7.1-17) suggested that, while Matthew's genealogy traced Jesus' descent by νόμο$
(custom or law), Luke's traced it by <|>uois (nature) and that Joseph was the son of James
by levirate marriage with his brother Heli's widow. Taylor (1920:88) even went so far
as to state that the verb εγένυησευ ('begat' in the KJV; 'was the father of in NRSV)
'must clearly indicate legal parentage'. While this is still considered plausible by some
scholars even today (cf. Morris 1992:22), others (such as Johnson 1969:140-44; Brown
1993: 504; Hare 1993: 7; and Bovon 2002: 135-36) correctly reject any such notion.
21. Brown makes a similar claim when discussing the later tradition that Mary, too,
was a Davidid, writing: 'Gentile writers often did not understand how Jesus could be
truly a Davidid through Joseph who did not beget him... ' (Brown 1993: 288).
22. Cf. Roth 1997: 50,119,155.
23. Mendelsohn 1959. See also Donner 1969 and Greengus 1975. For a critique of
Dormer's thesis, see Scott 1992: 62-75. In Scott's opinion, Donner's definition of
'adoption' is too narrow, and should also include cases of'legitimization' and of'foster­
age'. He then goes on to list just those above-mentioned cases as examples of such
'adoption' in both the Hebrew Bible and in Second Temple Jewish sources.
24. Also see Feigin 1931, who supposed Jepthah to have been adopted by 'Gilead'
andread adoption into D"n lö-KH inEzra 10.44, but withno proof and with no awareness
of legal issues in either case.
424 Journalfor the Study ofthe New Testament 28.4 (2006)

reliable evidence for adoption at all' (Tigay 1971:300).25 Only one ofthe
Jewish papyri from Elephantine mentions something like adoption,
apparently of a manumitted slave (Yaron 1961: 40). 26 And while several
biblical passages, based apparently on Ancient Near Eastern terminology,
use the idea of adoption as a metaphor for the relationship between God
and either Israel or her king,27 these are only metaphors. In the case of
levirate marriage, the child remains with his birth parents, only assuming
his dead childless uncle's name.28 And while later Halakhah did recognize
therightofalegalguardian(epitropos, 'apotropos *) to designate his charge
as the heir to his property (for which see Falk 1978: 326-31), this was
never seen as creating ties that superseded those that the child had with
his natural parents (Schereschewsky 1971). The above-quoted Mishnah
actually deals with inheritance, under the assumption that a man would
know his real son, with no reference to adoption. In fact, Jewish Halakhah
has no word to even express the concept.29 While, presumably, a man's
taking in a foundling and raising him as a son would be considered 'a
good deed',30 such defacto adoption does not give the child any inherited
status. For example, the 'adopted' son of a priest would not be considered
a priest, and a boy and girl adopted by the same parents would be allowed
to marry each other without fear of incest (Gold 1987:443). And while a
child is expected to respect his adoptive parents, he is not supposed to

25. Once again, Scott (1992:75-88) shows that Hellenistic Jewish sources such as
Philo are aware ofthe concept, but fails to show that they considered it to have become
a part of normative Jewish practice.
26. Horbury and Noy ( 1992:74-78) also cite an epitaphfromLeontopolis, in which
a deceased Jesus beseeched a certain Dosetheus, in their opinion either an adopted son
or a manumitted slave, 'bewail me.. .you are my child, for I departed childless'. It is
doubtful whether this can be taken as proof of legal adoption, and in any case no
inheritance of status or property is involved.
27. Brin 1971; Paul 1979-1980; Malul 1990; Scott (1992:88-117) focuses mostly
on the way these texts were understood in Second Temple sources.
28. The property ofthe deceased would probably have gone to his surviving brother
(the child's birth father) in any case. Cf. Num. 27.8-9.
29. The term föK, used in modern Hebrew, is a recent innovation; cf. Gold 1987:
444; Elon 1994: 827; for an overview of modern Israeli adoption law, cf. Shifman
1989; for a view of other modern Jewish adoption issues, see Rosenberg 1998.
30. Cf. b. Sank. 19b: 'Whoever brings up an orphan in his home is considered by
Scripture as though the child had been born to him', though one should note that the
actual talmudic context of this oft-cited quote is a discussion ofthe assumed 'adoption'
ofthe children of David's wife Merab by her childless sister Michal, also a wife of
David, and thus even this refers to adoption by women within an existing household.
 LEVIN Jesus, 'Son of God' and 'Son ofDavid' 425

perform theritualsof mourning upon their death (Linzer 1970:80; cf. also
Gold 1994). In a nutshell, there is nothing in Jewish law, in either the
Hebrew Bible or in later Halakhah, which can be seen as the model by
which Jesus, Son of God, could have been considered the legal, but not
genetic, heir to the Davidic throne.31
How, then, could Jesus have been considered both the physical Son of
God and the legal son ofDavid? The answer must be found in the primary
legal system that was current in the Mediterranean world during the first
century CE and that the authors and audiences of Matthew and Luke
would have been most familiar with—that ofthe early Roman Empire.

Adoption in Roman Law and Practice

In stark contrast to Jewish law and, in fact, to that of most other ancient
societies, the Roman paterfamilias ofthe late Republic and ofthe early
Empire had almost unlimited power to define his own familial ties and
loyalties. He could marry almost whomever he wished (but only one at a
time) or choose not to marry at all (though this was frowned on), he could
form ties andalliances with other families through marriage of his children,
he couldrefuse to recognize his ownbiological offspring by either exposing
or selling them, and he could obtain offspring of his own desire through
adoption(Corbier 1991a).32 As Saller(1994:43) expressed it, 'The Romans

31. There have been very few New Testament scholars who have recognized this.
One of these was Lyall (1984: 70-81), when discussing adoption metaphors in the
Pauline epistles, but he did not apply this to the Nativity stories in the Gospels. Schaberg
has also admitted that 'Adoption was not known as a legal institution in Jewish law of
the period' (1987:217 n. 160), but then goes on to assume at least defacto adoption in
her analyses of both Matthew (p. 58) and Luke (p. 101 : 'Joseph assumes the public role
ofthe legal father of Jesus'.). Another resolution, suggested by Jones (1994), is that the
wholepointofthestoryistoshowthat Jesus is a 'Davidic-type' Messiah, by 'subverting'
the Jewish messianic ideal to the idea of Christ. In the view of Freed (2001: esp. 49-
51), Joseph's acceptance of Mary did not constitute a legal adoption of Jesus. Freed
points out that Matthew, as opposed to Luke, never refers to Joseph as Jesus' 'father'.
He assumes that the genealogies of Jesus were pre-existing documents, composed to
show Jesus' Davidic lineage, that were then incorporated into the narratives of Matthew
and Luke. None of these, however, solves the problem of how or why the evangelists
could have juxtaposed these Davidic genealogies with the Virgin Birth narratives—if
Joseph was not the father, and there was no such thing as legal adoption, then what was
the point in highlighting Joseph's Davidic descent?
32. For a description of Greek adoption practices, see Scott 1992: 3-7.
426 Journalfor the Study ofthe New Testament 28.4 (2006)

considered the bonds of family and kinship to be biologically based but

not biologically determined'.
The Roman legal systemhad an extremely well-defined concept ofadop-
tion; in fact, ithadtwo such concepts. Thefirst,more formal type of adoption
recognizedby Roman law was called adrogatio, and involved the adoption
of an adult male sui iuris by an older, usually married but childless adult
male.33 The adrogatio had tofirstbe approved by the Roman pontiffs, after
which ihepontifex maximus put the matter before the comitia curiata. If
approved, the adrogatio had far-reaching legal consequences: the person
being adrogated would formally abjure the status of his gens, in essence
causing his birth-family to become legally extinct.34
The less-formal type of adoption, called adoptio, could involve male
minors as well as females, and was not contingent upon their consent.35
The main effect of adoption was that the adoptee came into the
patriapotestas ofthe adopter, and cut off all legal obligations towards his
birth-family.36 He became a member ofthe gens and tribus of his adopter
andassumedhis status: apatricianadopted by a plebeian became a plebeian
and vice versa, a slave adopted by afree-borncitizen would be manumitted
(Watson 1971: 30-33). This does not mean that the adoptee had no ties
with his birth-parents; the law still recognized a connection (Dixon 1992:
112).Corbier(1991a: 142)evenmentionscasesoftheadopteeappropriating
both his natural and his adoptive ancestors.
We should recognize, however, the very basic difference between the
Roman concept of adoption and our modern one. Unlike modern adoption,
which is seen primarily as a humanitarian measure of providing a family

33. These rules, as spelled out by Cicero in De domo suo 13.34, were not absolute.
There is also literary evidence ofthe occasional adrogatio impúberis, the adoption of a
minor (Watson 1971: 32 n.l).
34. When Tiberius was adopted by Augustus, he gave up his Claudian name for
Augustus's Julian one and surrendered his financial independence to Augustus's
patriapotestas (Suetonius, Tiberius 15; Rawson 1986: 16).
35. A number of non-legal texts from the late republican and early imperial eras
mention a sort of'testamentary adoption' by means of a deceased adopter leaving a will,
bequeathing his status and requesting that the designee take the deceased's name.
Though the precise legal method by which this was done is not clear, it seems rather
different than the standard 'live' adoption process. For example, women, who could
not adopt, could designate their heirs in this manner (Watson 1967: 89-90; Corbier
1991b: 64; Salier 1994: 79 η. 15).
36. Even when, as in the case mentioned by Terence, Adelphoe 47 and 114, the
birth father was still alive (cf. Watson 1967: 88).
 LEVIN Jesus, 'Son of God' and 'Son ofDavid' ATI

for children that have been either orphaned or 'given up' by their birth-
parents, and secondarily as providing a 'solution' for childless couples,
for the Roman, adoption was intended for the adoptive father, as a means
ofensuring the continuity ofthe family's name, wealth andrites(hereditas
37
nominis pecuniae sacrorum) through an appropriate heir. One should
note that the wife ofthe adopter did not become the legal mother ofthe
adoptee (Corbier 1991b: 63).
Despite all of this legal freedom, it would seem that Romans did not
practice adoption as frequently as one might expect. Hopkins (1983:49)
cites 4 per cent of late republican consuls who are known to have been
adopted (also cf. Sailer 1994: 181 n. 1). During the reign of Nero, the
senatorial aristocracy practised adoptions of expediency in order to
advance their political ambitions (Corbier 1991b: 75-76). In general,
adoption was a strategy employed mostly by the upper classes (Dixon
1992:113), in the early Empire most famously by the Julio-Claudian family
(Corbier 1991a: 143). In fact, of all ofthe Roman rulers from Caesar to
Marcus Aurelius, only Claudius, Vespasian and Marcus Aurelius were
survived by natural sons, and Claudius's son Britannicus was murdered
by Nero, Claudius's adopted son (Rawson 1986:12). Adoption was only
possible between Roman citizens and not, for instance, between Romans
and JunianLatins (Gardner 1997:40). It was also not always advantageous.
If a free-born citizen was adopted by an ex-slavefreedman,his rights of
inheritance and his marriage prospects could be weakened (Gardner 1997:
40-41). The mostcommon type of adoption was actually between relatives,
often an uncle adopting a nephew, sometimes a grandfather and grandson
(Corbier 1991b: 67-74). Most famous of these adoptions was that of
Julius Caesar and his grand-nephew Octavian, later Augustus. Augustus
himself later adopted Gaius and Lucius, sons of his daughter Julia and of
his companion and ally Marcus Agrippa, 'buying them from their father
by a symbolic sale,38 and initiated them into administrative life when they
were still young, sending them to the provinces and the armies as consuls
elect' (Suetonius, Augustus 64.1 [trans. Rolfe 1951:221 ]). Both, however,

37. Although Hopkins (1983:49-50) does cite the 'cautionary tale' of twice-consul
L. Aemilius Paullus, who gave away two ofhis sons to be adopted by nobles, after which
both ofhis remaining sons died, leaving him legally childless!
3 8. The procedure of 'Coin and Scales' (per assem et libras emptos) accompanying
adoption (Gardner and Wiedemann 1991:103 n. 1). The form of purchase consisted of
touching a scale (libra) with a coin (as) three times in the presence of a praetor (Rolfe
1951: 220 η. a).
428 Journalfor the Study ofthe New Testament 28.4 (2006)

died while still in their teens, forcing Augustus to adopt his son-in-law
Tiberius, who was confirmed as his successor in 14 CE (Lacey 1996:227).
An additional aspect of Roman adoption law was the cultic one. Every
Roman family had its own genius, or family deity. In 44 BCE the Senate
awarded Julius Caesar, already Pontifex Maximus, the title Parens Patriae,
making him in effect the paterfamilias of all Rome. When Octavian/
Augustus claimed his heres to Caesar's titles as well as his property, he
also took control ofthe office ofPontifex Maximus, though he only took
the office for himself in 12 BCE. At this point people began taking oaths
by the genius of Augustus, as theirpaterfamilias. Ten years later Augustus
too was awarded the title of Parens Patriae (Lacey 1996: 181-87), thus
completing his 'inheritance' of Caesar's cultic status. Besides Caesar, this
title had been formerly used only of Romulus (Lacey 1996: 193).39
Augustus, however, went one step further by causing the Senate to
declare his late adoptive father a god in his ownright,building a temple to
the deified Julius and adopting for himself the title of divifilius.This was
an innovation, for while deification of rulers (Roman ones included) was
common in the East it was unknown in Rome itself. So Augustus set a
tradition by which an emperor underwent apotheosis (transformation into
a god) after his death (Mellor 1990: 193). By posthumously declaring
Caesar to have been a god, Augustus himself became the son of a god,
albeit adopted, while still very much alive.40

To what Extent Did Roman Law Influence Jewish Custom?

As already shown by Lyall (1969; 1984) and by J.M. Scott (1992), these
and other concepts of Roman law did have an enormous influence on the
writings of Paul. But this, perhaps, is to be expected. Paul himself, at least
according to Acts (16.37; 22.25-29; 25.10ff.), was a Roman citizen, and
most ofthe churches to which he wrote were in Roman colonies (such as

39. Even if, as noted by Lacey (1996: 193 n. 18), use ofthe title for Romulus is
historically dubious, the very idea is conceptually important; like Augustus looking
back to his adoptive ancestor's title, so does Jesus refer to David's title of 'thè Lord's
Anointed'.
40. It is important to understand that Roman adoption law was not static, but rather
changed over the centuries in keeping with changes in Roman society itself. After the
collapse ofRoman law in the west, legal adoption all but disappearedfromthe countries
of Western Europe until well into the modern age. For an overview, see McKnight
2001.
 LEVIN Jesus, 'Son of God' and 'Son ofDavid' 429

Corinth, Philippi and the cities of Galatia—not to mention the church at

Rome itself), where Roman law would have been in effect (Lyall 1984:
23-25).
However,Paul,asillustratedbyBarclay(1996:381-95),was 'ananoma­
lous Diaspora Jew', one who had a high degree of Jewish education and
who had made a conscious decision to forsake Jewish law as a way of
attracting Gentiles to his gospel. While he did travel among Jews and
preach in synagogues, he certainly would not have limited his associations
to those included in Jewish law.
Within the Jewish communities themselves, however, these Roman
concepts seemed to have had little or no influence. Generally speaking, the
Roman and Jewish legal systems were based on very different premises
(cf. Β. Cohen 1966: 29). 41 As put by Katzoff (2001: 157):
Though Roman law spread through the Empire and swept before it local
systems and practices.. .it appears to have had little impact on Jewish law.
In contrast to Greek law, from which important legal institutions were
adopted, one is hard put tofinda convincing instance of a particular Roman
legal institution which became part of Jewish law.42

In fact Applebaum (1989: 155-65) shows how the Jewish population of

Judea, even that part which had previously been essentially Hellenized,
rejected Romanization to a large degree. He particularly cites the fact that
in civil courts in Judea Greek law was preferred over Roman, and that
under the Severi, Jewish legal autonomy was actually strengthened.43 And
so, to a Judean ofthe first century CE, the very concept of legal adoption,
in which the adopted son inherits the adopter's legal status, would have
been totally foreign.

41. One example of this is the status of women, who under Jewish law had the
capacity to deal with their own inherited property (Yaron 1960: 138).
42. Katzoff then goes on to discuss what he see as the one exception: the recognition
of mere speech as binding in the constitution of a dowry, known in Hebrew as d'varim
haniqnim ba 'amira, 'things acquired by speech' and by the Roman term dotis dictio.
An additional case in which Jewish law may have been influenced by the Roman is in
the rabbinic statute of 'Matrilineal Descent' in determining the status of a child of
intermarriage, as stated in m. Qidd. 3.12 (B. Cohen 1966:134-45; S.J.D. Cohen 1999:
263-307, though he admits that there are other explanations for the similarities). One
case in which the Jewish and Roman legal systems started off with similar assumptions
and ended up with different rulings is that of intestate inheritance—cf. Yaron 2001.
43. For a summary of the impact of Greek culture on Judaism in general, see
Hengel 1980, though his survey stops short ofthe Roman Period.
430 Journalfor the Study ofthe New Testament 28.4 (2006)

However, we must remember that while Joseph, Mary and Jesus did
live in Judea, the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were presumably written
elsewhere. To what extent do the Jewish legal sources that I have cited
represent the lifestyles of Jews in Egypt, Antioch, Asia Minor or even
Rome? Could the evangelists have been portraying what would have been
customary in some ofthe Jewish communities ofthe Diaspora?
This question is a difficult one to answer, because of the paucity of
sources about the Diaspora during this period. This is especially true
when we attempt to examine if and how a particular aspect of law, in this
case that of adoption, was practised in the Diaspora and whether those
that did practise it considered themselves to be acting within the Jewish
tradition or the Roman.
Even going beyond this, the sources that we do have make it clear that
Diaspora Jewry was by no means monolithic in its degrees ofsocial assimi-
lation, linguistic and educational accult^^
(the terms are taken from Barclay 1996: 92-102). As shown by Barclay
and others, most communities ofthe Diaspora included some individual
Jews who were well assimilated, intermarried, Greek-educated and who
participated in pagan rites, others who largely adhered to their ancestral
customs and stayed awayfromGentile society, and many more who lived
quite comfortably in both worlds. A classic example of such a 'middle-of-
the-road' Jew who was well educated in both Greek and Jewish learning
was Philo of Alexandria (about whom cf. Barclay 1996: 158-80; Dyck
2002).
However, our sources also show us that most Jewish communities in the
Diaspora enjoyed a large measure of internal legal autonomy, centred on
the proseuchai or synagogue (cf. Fitzpatrick-McKinley 2002; Gruen
2002: 104-23; Rajak 2002). The community of early Roman Alexandria
had its own gerousia or 'senate' and a powerful ethnarch (Barclay 1996:
43-49)—privileges that were terminated during the reigns of Gaius and
Claudius and the 'Diaspora Revolt' of 115-17 CE (for more on the legal
and political status ofthe Alexandrian Jews, see Kasher 1985). Also, in
the northern Mediterranean communities such as those of Antioch, Asia
Minor and Rome, while there were Jews who abandoned their cultural
heritage in various degrees, the core ofthe Jewish community retained its
separate worship, ritual calendar,44 observed the Sabbath, practised

44. As recently emphasized by Sacha Stern (2002), the Jews were the only Mediter-
ranean people to hold on to their old lunar calendar rather than replace it with the
Roman solar one.
 LEVIN Jesus, 'Son of God' and 'Son ofDavid' 431

circumcision, preferred endogamous marriages and educated their children

to carry on their traditions. They also duly contributed to the Jerusalem
Temple (and later paid the Roman-imposed fiscus ludaicus). Barclay
(1996: 402) defines the Diaspora Jews as an 'ethnicity' defined by 'a
combination of kinship and custom, reflecting both shared genealogy and
common behaviour'.
My conclusion from all of this is that thefirst-centuryDiaspora Jewish
communities, as diverse as they were, did preserve a high degree of
adherence to the Jewish law and customs, and exhibited at least a nominal
attachment to Judea and its Temple (on which see Barclay 1996:418-23;
Gruen 2002:127-32). That there were many individuals of Jewish descent
who were quite comfortable in their Gentile surroundings and who did not
live their lives in adherence to Jewish law is undeniable; it is, however,
perfectly plausible to speak of a more-or-less consistent 'Jewish law'
throughoutthe Mediterranean communities. Not a single one ofthe sources
that we have from those communities mentions anything like the Roman
concept of adoption.

The Adoption of Jesus by Joseph, Roman Law and the Evangelists

Joseph's presumed 'adoption' of Jesus is not a precise cognate to the
adoption law ofthe Romans, nor would we expect it to be. Roman law
itself was in a state of constant fluctuation, and certainly the way it was
practised in the far-away provinces ofthe eastern Mediterranean, where
the first and third Gospels were composed, was not exactly what we find
in the written records of Rome itself.45 Of course, neither Joseph nor
Jesus, nor probably the authors of Matthew and Luke, were Roman
citizens ofthe aristocratic classes. Moreover, in their eyes Jesus' status
was far superior to that of any Caesar; he was Son of the Most High,
Anointed King of God's people.
Despite all that, the similarities are quite clear. First, the very idea of
legal adoption is foreign to Jewish law. Second, the adoption of a relative,
in this case ofthe son of Joseph's betrothed, would have been only natural
to a Roman. Third, the purpose ofthe adoption was not to give the child a
home, but rather specifically to make him an heir to the Davidic royal line.
Legally speaking, Joseph couldhave chosen not to recognize Mary's child

45. For a summary of some ofthe basic concepts of Roman law in general, cf. Lyall
1984:191-200.
432 Journal for the Study ofthe New Testament 28.4 (2006)

(Mt. 1.19). Fourth, there is the concept that something such as Davidic
royal/Messianic status evencowWbe transmitted through adoption. Finally,
there is the idea, expressed in both Gospels, that Jesus retained the lineage
of both his 'fathers': he remained 'Son of God', while also claiming the
status ofhis 'adopted' Davidic heritage.
What about the religious and cultural background ofthe people who
produced the first and third Gospels? It has often been presumed that
Matthew,andperhapsLukeaswell, were in fact Jewish Christians operating
in what was still a largely Jewish community. In the case of Matthew, it is
the Papias tradition, as cited by Eusebius, which claims that, 'Matthew
compiled the reports in the Hebrew language' (Hist. Eccl. 3.39.16). This
statement may be rooted in Matthew's many quotations from the Jewish
scriptures (albeit usually in their Septuagint form), the author's apparent
familiarity with contemporary Jewish thought and practice, and indeed his
very emphasis of Jesus' Davidic descent.46 Albright and Mann (1971:
clxxvi-clxxxvi), for example, considered the author of Matthew to be a
Jewish Lévite, who wrote independently of Mark. Nolan thought that, 'a
Jewish Christian, and probably Aramaic, tradition underlies the First
Gospel' (1979: 93); 'a Christian community in touch with first century
Judaism...Matthew was a Christian with a Jewish background, almost
certainly a Jew' (1979: 95-96). Davies and Allison (1988: 58, at the end
of a 51-page discussion ofthe matter!) also conclude: 'the author ofthe
First Gospel was a member ofthe Jewish people'. To Richard (1988:
130), 'the gospel exhibits a Jewish community.. .whose concern for the
Gentile mission is paramount'. Also W.D. Davies (1992:495): 'we take
Matthew to have been a Jew...a sophisticated sage, possibly a trained
Pharisee, rooted in Judaism... ' Likewise Brown (1993:45): 'the Gospel
[of Matthew, Y.L.] was written in Syria by an unknown Greek-speaking
Jewish Christian, living in the 80s in a mixed community with converts of
both Jewish and Gentile descent'. Saldarmi (1994: 120) considers the
Matthean group to be 'a new, deviant, Jewish group', which continued to
function as Jews, despite their belief in Jesus as Messiah and Son of God.
He even calls them 'a reformist Jewish sect' and affirms that 'the Gospel
of Matthew and its author are Jewish to the core' (1994:198; see also his
later comments on the subject in 2001). Carter (2004:259) assumes 'the

46. For a recent summary ofthe consensus, see Foster 2003: 310 and esp. n. 6
there. Foster goes on to counter the claim that the apparent 'mistakes' in Matthew's
quotation and interpretation of Scripture should be seen as proof of his lack of Jewish
background.
 LEVIN Jesus, 'Son of God' and 'Son ofDavid' 433

Jewish context of Matthew's Gospel'. David C. Sim (1998:215-56) even

went so far as to claim that Matthew's community was basically anti-
Gentile (for a critique on this view, see Senior 1999).
In recent years, however, some scholars have begun to suggest that
Matthew and his community had, indeed, already severed their ties from.
Judaism. Nolan (1979: 95-97) has taken the middle ground: 'a Christian
community in touch with.. Judaism', though 'not a member ofthe league
of synagogues.. .a Christian with a Jewish background, almost certainly a
Jew'. But already over a half-century ago Kenneth Clark (1947) argued
that the Gospel of Matthew is anti-Jewish and could only have been
written by a Gentile. A more recent advocate of this view has been Meier
(1979: 15-25 and references there; for an overview see Senior 2001: 7-
12).
Conversely, the usual assumption about the author of Luke-Acts, based
on his Hellenistic literary style and his 'universal' world-view, has been
that he was a 'Hellenistic Gentile, possibly proselyte or "God-fearer"'
(Richard 1988:164). According to Tyson (1992:36), the 'implied reader'
of Luke is a Gentile 'Godfearer', whose knowledge of Hebrew and of
Jewish scripture and law is very limited. Brown (1993:235) sees Luke as
a product of 'a church of the Gentile mission'. More recently Bovon
(2002: 8) has reached a similar conclusion (and see also Fitzmyer 1981:
41-47). Nonetheless, a minority of scholars has, in fact, come to consider
the authorofLuke to havebeen of Jewish background (for example, Strauss
1995:126-29, has emphasized the 'Jewishness' of theDavidic-Messianic
expectation in Luke).
Obviously, this dispute is farfromresolved. However, from the above
investigation it would seem to me that whatever the ethnicity ofthe writers
of Matthew and Luke may have been, their cultural and religious assump-
tions, at least in the matter of Jesus' Davidic heritage, were far removed
from those of contemporary Judaism. This should not come as a surprise.
As already shown by Watson (1998:58-70), ofthe three Synoptic Gospels,
that attributed to Mark seems to have the greatest knowledge of, and the
greatest hostility towards, Jewish law. The writers of Matthew and Luke,
who were apparently farther removed from Jewish tradition, often mis-
understood the legal points of Mark's portrayal of Jesus' words and deeds.
Cotter (2001) has already demonstrated the substantial influence that
Roman apotheosis traditions, especially those of Caesar and Augustus,
had on Matthew's distinctive post-Resurrection accounts. And as recently
shown by Mowery (2002), the New Testament 'Son of God' title that is
434 Journalfor the Study ofthe New Testament 28.4 (2006)

the closest to that used by the emperors Augustus, Tiberius, Nero and
Domitian is θεοί» uíós, which appears only in Matthew (14.33; 27.43,54).
It is not a big step forward to assume that in reconciling Jesus' Divine
Sonship with his Davidic descent, Matthew turned once more to the
system with which he was most at home.
In conclusion, it would seem to me that the authors of both Matthew
and Luke, faced with the dual traditions of both Jesus' Davidic Messianity
and his Divine Sonship, dealt with the obvious contradiction in the only
way that would have seemed natural to a subject ofthe Julio-Claudian and
Flavian Principate: by assuming that Jesus, Son of God, could have been
adopted into the royal line of Israel, all the while retaining his status as
θεού υιός.

Bibliography
Albright, W.F. and CS. Mann
1971 Matthew (AB; Garden City, NY: Doubleday).
Applebaum, S.
1989 Judea in Hellenistic andRoman Times: Historical and Archaeological Essays
(SJLA, 40; Leiden: E.J. Brill).
Atkinson, K.
1999 'On the Herodian Origin of Militant Davidic Messianism at Qumran: New
Light fromPsalm of Solomon \1\JBL 118: 435-60.
2001 An Intertextual Study ofthe Psalms of Solomon (Lewiston, NY: The Edwin
Mellen Press).
Aune, D.E.
1992 'Christian Prophecy and the Messianic Status of Jesus', in J.A. Charlesworth
(ed.), The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity
(Minneapolis: Fortress Press): 404-22.
Baines, J.
1998 'Ancient Egyptian Kingship: Official Forms, Rhetoric, Context', in J. Day
(ed.), King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East (JSOTSup,
270; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press): 16-53.
Barclay, J.M.G.
1996 Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora from Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE -
117 CE) (Edinburgh: T&T Clark).
Barnett, P.
1990 Behind the Scenes ofthe New Testament (Downer's Grove, IL: InterVarsity
Press).
Barnhouse, D.G.
1952 Man's Ruin: Expositions of Bible Doctrines, I (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
Bauer, D.R.
1995 'The Kingship of Jesus in the Marinean Infancy Narrative: A Literary
Analysis', CBQ 57: 306-23.
 LEVIN Jesus, 'Son of God' and 'Son ofDavid' 435

Beare, F.W.
1981 The Gospel According to Matthew: Translation, Introduction and
Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).
Boice, J.M.
2001 The Gospel ofMatthew. I. The King and his Kingdom, Matthew 1-17 (Grand
Rapids: Baker Books).
Bovon, F.
2002 Luke 1: A Commentary on the Gospel ofLuke 1.1-9.50 (Hermeneia; trans.
CM. Thomas; Minneapolis: Fortress Press).
Bowersock, G.W.
1990 The Pontificate ofAugustus', inK.A. Raaflaub andM. Toher(eds.), Between
Republic and Empire: Interpretations of Augustus and his Principóte
(Berkeley: University of California Press): 380-94.
Brin,G.
1971 'The History ofthe Formula "He Shall Be to me a Son and I Will Be to him
a Father"', in B. Uffenheimer (ed.) Bible and Jewish History: Studies in
Bible and Jewish History Dedicated to the Memory of Jacob Liver (Tel-
Aviv: Tel-Aviv University Press): 57-64 (Hebrew).
Brooke, G.J.
1998 'Kingship and Messianism in the Dead Sea Scrolls', in J. Day (ed.), King
and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East (JSOTSup, 270; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press): 434-55.
Broshi, M. and H. Eshel
2001 'Radiocarbon Dating and The Messiah before Jesus', RevQ 78: 311-17.
Brown, R.E.
1993 The Birth ofthe Messiah.A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the
Gospels ofMatthew and Luke (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, new updated
edn).
Burger, C
1970 Jesus als Davidssohn: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung
(FRLANT, 98; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
Byrne, B.
2003 'Jesus as Messiah in the Gospel of Luke: Discerning a Pattern of Correction',
CBQ 65: 80-95.
Carter, W.
1996 Matthew: Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).
2000 Matthew and the Margins: A Sociopolitical and Religious Reading
(Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books).
2004 'Matthew and the Gentiles: Individual Conversion and/or Systematic
Transformation?',^^ 26.3: 259-82.
Clark, K.W.
1947 'The Gentile Bias in Matthew', JBL 66: 165-72.
Cohen, B.
1966 Jewish and Family Law: A Comparative Study, I (New York: The Jewish
Theological Seminary of America).
Cohen, SJ.D.
1999 The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties
(Berkeley: University of California Press).
436 Journalfor the Study ofthe New Testament 28.4 (2006)

Collins, A.Y.
1999 'Mark and his Readers: The Son of God among Jews', HTR 92: 393-408.
2000 'Mark and his Readers: The Son of God among Greeks and Romans', HTR
93: 85-100.
Collins, J.J.
1995 The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs ofthe Dead Sea Scrolls and Other
Ancient Literature (ABRL; New York: Doubleday).
Corbier, M.
1991a 'Constructing Kinship in Rome: Marriage and Divorce, Filiation and
Adoption', in D.I. Kertzer and R.P. Sailer (eds.), The Family in Italy from
Antiquity to the Present (New Haven: Yale University Press): 127-44.
1991b 'Divorce and Adoption as Roman Familial Strategies (Le divorce et
l'adoption 'en plus')', in Β. Rawson (ed.), Marriage, Divorce and Children
in Ancient Rome (Canberra: Humanities Research Center; Oxford: Clarendon
Press): 47-78.
Cotter, W.
2001 'Greco-Roman Apotheosis Traditions and the Resurrection Appearances in
Matthew', in D.E. Aune (ed.), The Gospel of Matthew in Current Study:
Studies in Memory of William G. Thompson, S.J. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans):
127-53.
Davies, P.J.E.
2000 Death and the Emperor: Roman Imperial Funerary Monuments from
Augustus to Marcus Aurelius (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Davies, W.D.
1992 'The Jewish Sources of Matthew's Messsianism', in J.A. Charlesworth
(ed.), The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity
(Minneapolis: Fortress Press): 494-511.
Davies, W.D. and D.C Allison, Jr
1988 The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, I (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark).
Dixon, S.
1992 The Roman Family (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press).
Donfried, K.P.
1978 'Mary in the Gospel of Matthew', in R.E. Brown et al. (eds.), Mary in the
New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press; New York: Paulist Press): 73-
103.
Donner, Η.
1969 'Adoption oder Legitimation? Erwägungen zur Adoption im Alten Testament
auf dem Hintergrund der altorientalischen Rechte', OrAnt 8: 87-119.
Dyck, J.
2002 'Philo, Alexandria and Empire: The Politics of Allegorical Interpretation',
in J.R. Bartlett (ed.), Jews in the Hellenistic and Roman Cities (London:
Routledge): 149-74.
Elon, M.
1994 Jewish Law: History, Sources, Principles, Π (trans. B. Averbach and M.J.
Sycles; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society [1988]).
Falk,Z.W.
1978 Introduction to Jewish Law ofthe Second Commonwealth, II (Leiden: E.J.
Brill).
 LEVIN Jesus, 'Son of God' and 'Son ofDavid' 437

Feigin, S.
1931 'Some Cases of Adoption in Israel', JBL 50: 186-200.
Fitzpatrick-McKinley, A.
2002 'Synagogue Communities in the Graeco-Roman Cities', in J.R. Bartlett
(ed.), Jews in the Hellenistic and Roman Cities (London: Routledge): 55-87.
Fitzmyer, J.A.
1978 'TheBirthof Jesus in the Pauline Writings', in RE. Brown βία/, (eds.), Mary
in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press; New York: Paulist
Press): 33-49.
1981 The Gospel According to Luke (I-IX) (AB; New York: Doubleday, 2nd edn).
Flusser, D.
1998 Jesus (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2nd edn).
Foster, P.
2003 'Why did Matthew Get the Shema Wrong? A Study of Matthew 22.37', JBL
122: 309-33.
Freed, E.D.
2001 The Stories of Jesus' Birth: A Critical Introduction (St. Louis: Chalice

Gardner, J.F.
1997 'Legal Stumbling-Blocks for Lower-Class Families in Rome', in B. Rawson
and P. Weaver (eds.), The Roman Family in Italy: Status, Sentiment, Space
(Oxford: Clarendon Press): 35-53.
Gardner, J.F. and T. Wiedemann
1991 The Roman Household: A Sourcebook (London: Routledge).
Gold,M.
1987 'Adoption: A New Problem for Jewish Law', Judaism 36:443-50.
1994 'Adoption as a Jewish Option', in S. Bayme and G. Rosen (eds.), The Jewish
Family and Jewish Continuity (Hoboken: KTAV Publishing House): 173-
79.
Gordon, CH.
1977 'Paternity at Two Levels', JBL 96:101.
Green, J.B.
1995 The Theology ofthe Gospel of Luke (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press).
Greengus, S.
1975 'Sisterhood Adoption at Nuzi and the 'Wife-Sister' in Genesis', HUCA 46:
5-31.
Gruen, E.S.
2002 Diaspora: Jews amidst GreeL· and Romans (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press).
Hanson, P.D.
1992 'Messiahs and Messianic Figures in Proto-Apocalypticism', in J.A.
Charlesworth (ed.), The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and
Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress Press): 67-75.
Hare, D.R.A.
1993 Matthew (Interpretation; Louisville, KY: John Knox Press).
Heintz, J.-G.
1992 'Royal Traits and Messianic Figures: A Thematic and Iconographical
438 Journalfor the Study ofthe New Testament 28.4 (2006)

Approach', in J.A. Charlesworth (ed.), The Messiah: Developments in

Earliest Judaism and Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress Press): 52-66.
Hengel, M.
1980 Jews, Greeks and Barbarians: Aspects ofthe Hellenization of Judaism in the
pre-Christian Period (trans. J. Bowden; Philadelphia: Fortress Press [1976]).
Hopkins, K.
1983 Death and Renewal (Sociological Studies in Roman History, 2; Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press).
Horbury, W.
1998 'Messianism in the Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha', in John
Day (ed.), King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East (JSOTSup,
270; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press): 402-33.
Horbury, W. and D. Noy
1992 Jewish Inscriptions of Graeco-Roman Egypt (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press).
Johnson, M.D.
1969 The Purpose ofthe Biblical Genealogies: With Special Reference to the
Setting ofthe Genealogies ofJesus (Cambridge: At the University Press).
Johnson, S.E.
1968 'The Davidic-Royal Motif in the Gospels', JBL 87:136-50.
Jones, J.M.
1994 'Subverting the Textuality of Davidic Messianism: Matthew's Presentation
ofthe Genealogy and the Davidic Title', CBQ 56: 256-72.
Juel, D.H.
1992 'The Origin ofMark's Christology', in J.A. Charlesworth (ed.), The Messiah:
Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress
Press): 449-60.
Kasher, A.
1985 The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt: The Struggle for Equal Rights
(Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr).
Katzoff, R.
2001 'Oral Establishment ofDowry in Jewish and Roman Law: D 'Varim Haniknim
Ba'Amira and Dotis Dictio\ in J.W. Cairns and O.F. Robinson (eds.),
Critical Studies in Ancient Law, Comparative Law and Legal History
(Oxford: Hart Publishing): 157-71.
Kingsbury, J.D.
1976 'The Title 'Son of God' in Matthew's Gospel', JBL 95: 591-602.
2001 'The Birth Narrative ofMatthew', inD.E. Aune(ed.), The Gospel of Matthew
in Current Study: Studies in Memory of William G. Thompson, S.J. (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans): 154-65.
Knohl, I.
2000 The Messiah before Jesus: The Suffering Servant ofthe Dead Sea Scrolls
(trans. David Maisel; Berkeley: University of California Press).
Knoppers, G.N.
1998 'David's Relation to Moses: The Contexts, Content and Conditions ofthe
Davidic Promises', in J. Day (ed.), King and Messiah in Israel and the
Ancient Near East (JSOTSup, 270; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press):
91-118.
 LEVIN Jesus, 'Son of God' and 'Son ofDavid' 439

Lacey, W.K.
1996 Augustus and the Principóte: The Evolution ofthe System (ARCA, 35;
Leeds: Francis Cairns).
Lenowitz, H.
1998 The Jewish Messiahs: From the Galilee to Crown Heights (New York:
Oxford University Press).
Linzer, N.
1970 The Jewish Family: A Compendium (New York: Commission on Synagogue
Relations, 2nd edn).
Lyall, F.
1969 'Roman Law in the Writings of Paul—Adoption', JBL 88:458-66.
1984 Slaves, Citizens, Sons: Legal Metaphors in the Epistles (Grand Rapids:
Académie Books).
Machen, J.G.
1930 The Virgin Birth of Christ (New York: Harper & Brothers).
Malul, M.
1990 'Adoption of Foundlings in the Bible and Mesopotamian Documents—A
Study of Some Legal Metaphors in Ezekiel 16.1-7', JSOT 46: 97-126.
Matlock, R.B.
2000 'The Birth of Jesus and why Paul Was in Favour of it', in G.J. Brooke (ed.),
The Birth of Jesus: Biblical and Theological Reflections (Edinburgh: T&T
Clark): 47-57.
McKnight, J.W.
2001 'The Shifting Focus of Adoption', in J.W. Cairns and O.F. Robinson (eds.),
Critical Studies in Ancient Law, Comparative Law and Legal History
(Oxford: Hart Publishing): 297-331.
Meier, J.P.
1979 The Vision of Matthew: Christ, Church and Morality in the First Gospel
(New York: Paulist Press).
1991 A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, I (ABRL; New York:
Doubleday).
Mellor, R.
1990 From Augustus to Nero: The First Dynasty of Imperial Rome (East Lansing:
Michigan State University Press).
Mendelsohn, I.
1959 Ά Ugaritic Parallel to the Adoption of Ephraim and Manasseh', IEJ9:180-
83.
Millar, F.
1984 'State and Subject: The Impact of Monarchy', in F. Millar and E. Segal
(eds.), Caesar Augustus: Seven Aspects (Oxford: Clarendon Press): 37-60.
Milton, H.
1962 'The Structure ofthe Prologue to St Matthew's Gospel', JBL 81:175-81.
Morris, L.
1992 The Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; London: Inter-
Varsity Press).
Mowery, R.L.
2002 'Son of God in Roman Imperial Titles and Matthew', Bib 83: 100-10.
440 Journalfor the Study ofthe New Testament 28.4 (2006)

Nolan, B.M.
1979 The Royal Son of God: The Christology ofMatthew 1^-2 in the Setting ofthe
Gospel (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
Oegema, G.S
1998 The Anointed and his People: Messianic Expectationsfrom the Maccabees
to BarKochba (JSPSup, 27; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press).
Overman, J.A., J. Olive and M. Nelson
2003 'Discovering Herod's Shrine to Augustus—Mystery Temple Found at
Omrit', BAR 29.2: 40-49, 67-68.
Paul, S.
1979-80 'Adoption Formulae: A Study of Cuneiform and Biblical Legal Clauses',
Maaravl: 173-85.
Pollini, J.
1990 'Man or God: Divine Assimilation and Imitation in the Late Republic and
Early Principate', in K.A. Raaflaub and M. Toner (eds.), Between Republic
and Empire: Interpretations of Augustus and his Principate (Berkeley:
University of California Press): 334-65.
Pomykala, K.E.
1995 The Davidic Dynasty Tradition in EarlyJudaism: Its History andSignificance
for Messianism (Atlanta: Scholars Press).
Rajak, T.
2002 'Synagogue and Community in the Graeco-Roman Diaspora', in J.R. Bartlett
(ed.), Jews in the Hellenistic and Roman Cities (London: Routledge): 22-38.
Rawson, B.
1986 'The Roman Family', in B. Rawson (ed.), The Family in Ancient Rome: New
Perspectives (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press).
Richard, E.
1988 Jesus: One and Many—The Christological Concept of New Testament
Authors (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier).
Rolfe, J.C
1951 Suetonius (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London:
Heinemann, rev. edn).
Rosenberg, S.K.
1998 Adoption and the Jewish Family: Contemporary Perspectives (Philadelphia:
Jewish Publication Society).
Roth,M.T.
1997 Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor (Atlanta: Scholars
Press, 2nd edn).
Rowland, C
1998 'Christ in the New Testament', in J. Day (ed.), King and Messiah in Israel
and the Ancient Near East (JSOTSup, 270; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press): 474-96.
Saldarmi, A.J.
1994 Matthew's Christian-Jewish Community (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press).
2001 'Reading Matthew without Anti-Semitism', in D.E. Aune (ed.), The Gospel
of Matthew in Current Study: Studies in Memory of William G. Thompson,
S.J. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans): 166-84.
 LEVIN Jesus, 'Son of God' and 'Son ofDavid' 441

Sailer, R.P.
1994 Patriarchy, Property and Death in the Roman Family (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press).
Schaberg, J.
1987 The Illegitimacy of Jesus: A Feminist Theological Interpretation ofthe
Infancy Narratives (San Francisco: Harper & Row).
Schereschewsky, B.-Z.
1971 'Adoption—Later Jewish Law', EncJud, Π: 301-303.
Schifrman, L.H.
1992 'Messianic Figures and Ideas in the Qumran Scrolls', in J.A. Charlesworth
(ed.), The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity
(Minneapolis: Fortress Press): 116-29.
Schnackenburg, R.
1995 Jesus in the Gospels: A Biblical Christology (trans. O.C Dean, Jr; Louisville,
KY: Westminster John Knox Press).
Schniedewind, W.M.
1994 'King and Priest in the Book of Chronicles and the Duality of Qumran
Messianism',/./?45: 71-78.
Scott, J.M.
1992 Adoption as Sons of God: An Exegetical Investigation into the Background
ο/ΥΙΟΘΕΣΙΑ in the Pauline Corpus (WUNT, 48; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr/
Paul Siebeck).
Scott, Κ.
1975 The Imperial Cult under the Flavians (New York: Arno).
Senior, D.
1998 Matthew (ANTC; Nashville: Abingdon Press).
1999 'Between Two Worlds: Gentiles andJewish Christians in Matthew's Gospel',
GBg 61: 1-23.
2001 'Directions in Matthean Studies', in David E. Aune (ed.), Ute Gospel of
Matthew in Current Study: Studies in Memory of William G. Thompson, S.J.
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans): 5-21.
Shifman, P.
1989 'Kinship by Adoption: Where Adoption Differs from Natural Affinity',
Israel Law Review 23: 37-76.
Sim, D.C
1998 The Gospel of Matthew and Christian Judaism: The History and Social
Setting ofthe Matthean Community (Edinburgh: T&T Clark).
Stern, S.
2002 'Jewish Calendar Reckoning in the Graeco-Roman Cities', in J.R. Bartlett
(ed.), Jews in the Hellenistic and Roman Cities (London: Routledge): 107-
16.
Strauss, MX.
1995 The Davidic Messiah in Luke-Acts: The Promise and its Fulfillment in
Lukan Christology (JSNTSup, 110; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press).
Talmon, S.
1992 'The Concepts of Mâsîah and Messianism in Early Judaism', in James A.
Charlesworth (ed.), The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and
Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress Press): 79-115.
442 Journal for the Study ofthe New Testament 28.4 (2006)

Tatum, W.B.
1977 "The Origin of Jesus Messiah" (Matt 1.1, 18a): Matthew's Use ofthe
Infancy Traditions', JBL 96: 523-35.
Taylor, V.
1920 The Historical Evidence for the Virgin Birth (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Tigay,J.H.
1971 'Adoption', EncJud, Π: 298-301.
Tyson, J.B.
1992 Images of Judaism in Luke-Acts (Columbia: University of South Carolina
Press).
Vermes, G.
1973 Jesus the Jew: A Historian's Reading ofthe Gospels (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press).
Voss, G.
1965 Die Christologie der Lukanischen Schriften in Grundzügen (Paris: Desclée
de Brouwer).
Waetjen, H.C.
1976 'The Genealogy as the Key to the Gospel According to Matthew', JBL 95:
205-30.
Watson, Α.
1967 The Law of Persons in the Later Roman Republic (Oxford: Clarendon

1971 Roman Private Law around 200 BC (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University

Press).
1998 Ancient Law and Modern Understanding: At the Edges (Athens: University
of Georgia Press).
Wenham, D.
1995 Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans).
Yaron, R.
1960 Gifts in Contemplation of Death in Jewish and Roman Law (Oxford:
Clarendon Press).
1961 Introduction to the Law ofthe Aramaic Papyri (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
2001 'Basics of Roman and Jewish Intestacy', in J.W. Cairns and O.F. Robinson
(eds.), Critical Studies in Ancient Law, Comparative Law andLegal History
(Oxford, OR: Hart Publishing): 201-10.
Zanker, P.
1990 The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus (trans. Alan Shapiro; Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press).
 ^ s
Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author ofthe article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions ofthe copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property ofthe American
Theological Library Association.