Affiliation:
1. The Academic College of Judea and Samaria, Ariel 44837 and Bar-Ilan
University, Ramat-Gan 52900, Israel
Abstract
The authors of both the first and third Gospels, by insisting on both Jesus' divine paternity and his Davidic descent, pose a conundrum: if Jesus was not Joseph' 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 of divifilius, ‘son of god’. 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.
Cited by
14 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. Taking a holistic view of the biblical perspectives on childlessness: Implications for Nigerian Christians and the church in Nigeria;HTS Teologiese Studies / Theological Studies;2021-04-01
2. The characterisation of the Matthean Jesus by the angel of the Lord;Verbum et Ecclesia;2020-03-19
3. Index;Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity;2020-01-09
4. Index Locorum;Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity;2020-01-09
5. Bibliography;Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity;2020-01-09