The Development of Adoptionist Christology in Earliest Christianity

During the earliest days of Christianity there existed a wide array of Christological beliefs concerning the humanity and divinity of Jesus. Early Christians debated back and forth over whether Jesus was divine, in what sense he was divine, and at what point during his lifetime he became divine.[1] To get from Jesus to Christ took centuries of debates before the Church finally settled on one definitive creed in which they declared him both fully human and fully divine. [2] However, to arrive at this conclusion they had to weed out all the Christological beliefs that ran contrary to the Nicene Creed. One prominent view concerning Jesus’ divinity is called ‘adoptionism’ which was a form of Monarchianism. By this view, Jesus was a regular human who was conceived through human intercourse, and because of the righteous life that he lived, he was exalted by God during his life. [3] One Jewish–Christian group who subscribed to this belief were the Ebionites. Both Eusebius of Caesarea and Epiphanius of Salamis mention the Ebionites in their writings, both renouncing their views. In Eusebius’s Church History, he dismisses the Christological views of the sect as an “outrageous absurdity.” He writes that the Ebionites maintained, “low and mean opinions of Christ” because they regarded him as “a plain and common man.” [4] In this work, Panarion, Epiphanius dedicates an entire section to renouncing their beliefs and declares them heretical. [5] Here I will examine the Christological belief of the Ebionites as described by Epiphanius and explore the origins and development of adoptionism in early Christianity. Based on manuscript evidence as well as Jewish and Greco–Roman traditions of divine sonship, it can be reasonably concluded that adoptionism was the earliest Christological view regarding Jesus of Nazareth. Though the Ebionites are generally associated with the second century, adoptionism can be traced back to the earliest Christians of the Jesus movement.

When referring to Ebion, the founder of the Ebionites, Epiphanius describes him as someone who, “took any and every doctrine which was dreadful, lethal, disgusting, ugly, and unconvincing, thoroughly contentious, from every sect, and patterned himself after them all.” [6] H.T. Schoeps (1953) writes that Ebionites saw Jesus as, “the teacher and the pattern of perfect Chassiduth” and that “on account of the merit during his life they held, he was called by God to be the Christ.” [7] The Ebionite sect did not believe Jesus to be a pre-existent divinity but rather one who was conceived naturally by his parents; Mary and Joseph. Only for his merit and because of his righteous observance of the law did Jesus become divine as chosen by God. For the Ebionites, it was during his baptism when Jesus officially became divine. However, as I shall demonstrate later, there were other views for adoptionists concerning the exact moment at which Jesus attained divinity. The difference between this view and that of the proto-orthodox, is simply the idea that Jesus became divine as opposed to always having been divine. For the proto-orthodoxy, God did not make Jesus divine, but rather affirmed that he was divine. Because Christian writers such as Epiphanius were in the business of defending the proto-orthodox view, that meant they had to discredit any and all other competing views. It is for that reason that Epiphanius writes about the Ebionites in the manner that he does. In the very beginning of the Panarion, he establishes that it is his objective to refute all “divergent views” against what he perceived as the correct view. [8]

There were two main tenants of Ebionite christology that Epiphanius objected to; first, that he was conceived naturally by a man and a woman, making him a mortal human like any other, and second, that Jesus only obtained divine status via exaltation by God during his life, not prior to his conception. For Epiphanius, in order for Jesus to be fully divine he must have been fathered by God and thus could not have been a product of human intercourse. Yet Ebion maintained that, “Christ is the offspring of a man, that is of Joseph.” [9] Both Eusebius and Ireneus tell us that the Ebionites adhered to the translation of Theodition regarding Isaiah 7.14 and took what is commonly meant to mean “virgin” to mean “young woman” to further establish Jesus as a mortal man. [10]

Epiphanius dismissed the traditions shared by the Ebionites as “utterly false” and called them “imaginary stor[ies].” Epiphanius noted that the Ebionites, while rejecting the writings of Paul, accepted the Gospel of Matthew. However, he noted that they referred to it as the “Gospel of the Hebrews” and that it was not the same version that he was familiar with. Of that, he wrote, “Now in what they call a Gospel according to Matthew, though it is not the entire Gospel but is corrupt and mutilated...” When he talks about how the Ebionites saw Jesus as being “made the Christ” by God at his baptism he writes, “they maintain that Jesus is really a man, as I said, that Christ, who is descended in the form of a dove, has entered him–as we have already seen in other sects [...]” [11] For the Ebionites, the baptism described in Mark 1.9-11, Matthew 3.13-17, and Luke 3.21-22 is the moment at which God selected Jesus to be his son. While the Ebionites are typically associated with the second century, the concept of Jesus being fathered by Joseph and adopted by God at his baptism was around before that and can be observed in New Testament MS and in Pauline theology.

Looking at textual variants of the New Testament manuscripts, Bart Ehrman (2012), has identified several spots in the NT where what appears to be adoptionistic language was edited out by scribes over the centuries to remove any possible areas that could be misconstrued as adoptionistic in nature. Ehrman notes two instances in Luke 2 where manuscripts contain different language concerning Jesus’ “parents” and “father.” In Lk 2.33 in which the text states, “his father and mother were marvelling…” some scribes changed the wording to “Joseph and his mother were marvelling…” Another example occurs just a few verses later in 2.48. While on their way to the Passover festival in Jerusalem, Jesus, unbeknownst to Mary and Joseph stayed behind. When they could not find him among their relatives they returned home to look for him. They eventually found him in the temple where Mary cried out, “Child, why have you treated us like this? Look, your father and I have been searching for you in great anxiety.” Again, in certain manuscripts, scribes have revised the text to read “we have been looking for you” rather than use the word “father.” The theological reasoning behind such a change is to avoid anything that veers close to portraying Jesus as a human son with a human father. Ehrman writes, “how could the text call Joseph, Jesus’ father if Jesus had been born of a virgin?” [12]

Other evidences of an adoptionist view in the NT can be found throughout Luke–Acts. However, as John Knox (1967) observes,

“the question is not whether the author of Luke–Acts held an adoptionistic christology but whether evidence for the primitive existence of such christology is to be found in his work.” [13]

Knox believes there is in fact indisputable evidence that early adoptionism can be extracted from the texts. Acts 2.36 states what appears to be a primitive creed that may have been recited by the early Christians; “Therefore let the entire house of Israel know with certainty that God has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified.” Knox takes this to be a clear indication that “the man Jesus, crucified simply as such, was at the resurrection exalted to his present messianic status.” [14] Knox also holds that through careful reading of the first chapters of Acts, the “original gospel” was that Jesus ‘the holy righteous one’ was killed by lawless men, after which God raised him up from the dead, exalting him to a position of Lordship. [15]

The concept of Jesus being a ‘righteous’ man who was killed and then exalted to a divine plane by God is very similar to Ebionite christology described by Epiphanius. It also bares strong similarities to the exaltation of the mythic founder of Rome, Romulus, who was said to been taken up to haven and was declared to be “a god, the son of a god” for his great valour. [16] Thus there was precedence for this motif in the ancient world that Jesus would fit into. This indicates that despite the Ebionite’s association with the second century, their theological motifs are much earlier and possibly stem from the first Christians who also would have been aware of such literary patterns.

One of the more curious textual variants in the gospels however, occurs in Luke’s account of Jesus’ baptism, the same place where according to Epiphanius, the Ebionites believed Jesus was made divine. In all the synoptic versions of the story, when Jesus is baptised, the skies open and the holy spirit descends onto Jesus taking the form of a dove — exactly how Epiphanius describes the Ebionite version of the story. Then a voice comes from the sky declaring Jesus to be God’s son. What Ehrman (1993) notes is that manuscript evidence from Luke’s account in 3.22 varies on what exactly the voice says. While most manuscripts and modern Bibles record the voice as saying, “you are my son, the beloved, with you I am well pleased” the same as what is said in Mark 1.11 and Matthew 3.17, in one early Greek manuscript and multiple Latin manuscripts the text instead reads, “you are my son, today I have begotten you,” alluding to Paslm 2.7. [17] The point of interest here, is the use of the word “today.” Simply speaking, the use of “today” would seem to imply that it was on that specific day that Jesus became God’s son and not any time prior. Though most manuscripts contain the Markan phrasing, it should be noted that the verse itself (Lk 3.22) was very popular and quoted frequently by Church fathers prior to the production of the manuscripts. In the vast majority of those quotations, the phrasing of Luke 3.22 is “today I have begotten you” not “with you I am well pleased.” This may indicate that the former phrasing precedes the latter. It should also be of note that scribes typically tried to harmonise texts and Ehrman concludes, “it is therefore the form of the text that differs from Mark that is more likely to be original to Luke” and that, “these arguments suggest that the less attested reading — “today I have begotten you” — is indeed the original.” [18]

In Panarion, Epiphanius provides his version of the Ebionite, “Gospel of the Hebrews” which he holds to be a bastardised version of Matthew. In the GoH, the writer includes an account of the baptism which Epiphanius records as reading;

“Jesus came also and was baptised by John. And a as he came up out of the water the heavens were opened, and he saw the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove which descended and entered into him. And (there came) a voice from heaven saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased, and again, This day I have begotten thee.” [19]

The Ebionite gospel thus clearly contains not just the Markan reading of Luke 3.22 but also the variant reading of Luke observed by Ehrman which quotes Psalm 2.7.

I will now take a moment to explain the difference in adoptionism described by Knox and Ehrman. According to Knox, the earliest “gospel” maintained that Jesus was selected by God to be his son at his resurrection. Yet Ehrman holds based on manuscript evidence that the earliest “gospel” maintained that Jesus was chosen to be God’s son at his baptism, matching the view of the Ebionites. In his groundbreaking work, Birth of the Messiah, Raymond Brown (1993) lays out his argument for the development of christology. Brown states that prior to the gospels, Paul attests that the resurrection was the “chief moment associated with the divine proclamation of the identity of Jesus.” Brown looks to Romans 1.1-4 which has been established as a pre-Pauline creed to demonstrate this. [20] The key passage is Romans 1.4 which reads;

“and [Jesus] was declared to be son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead.”

This creed clearly takes the resurrection to be the event by which Jesus became exalted as God’s son. Other verses that contain similar Christological themes include Acts 2.32; 2.36; 5.31, 13.32-33, and Philippians 2.8-9 which reads, “[Jesus] became obedient unto death, even death on the cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name.” By this ‘development’ theory from Brown, the earliest Christians came to understand that Jesus had been made divine at his resurrection. From there, a more developed position came about by which Jesus was already the son of God during his ministry and that it was only revealed to the public at his resurrection, when in fact Mark makes it clear that Jesus was made God’s son back at his baptism (MK 1.11). By this, a clear trajectory, can be observed where in Jesus’ divine status is pushed back earlier and earlier. Thus the original moment of divine adoption occurred at the resurrection and then was subsequently moved back to the baptism in Mark. From there Jesus’ obtainment of divine status was pushed further back to the conception in Matthew and Luke and from there, John’s gospel depicts Jesus as a pre-existent divine being. [21]

It should also be noted that even though Luke seems to depict all three moments as being the definining moment of Jesus’ exaltation (resurrection, baptism, and conception) throughout his gospel, this may have been a literary strategy to parallel to that of the Greek and Roman heroes and sons of gods. By creating multiple paths to divinity, Luke is in a way mirroring the Greco-Roman stories which also had multiple areas from which the individuals in question could draw their divinity. For example, Octavian was said to be the son of Apollo who had sexual intercourse with his mother, making him a demigod by birth. [22] Yet he also was considered ‘son of god’ (divi filius) via his adoption by Julius Caesar who was deified by the Roman senate, and who also traced his divinity back to Venus. [23] From there, Octavian was also deified by the Roman senate upon his death in 14 AD, creating three ways from which he claimed divinity. This suggests that perhaps the development of christology from resurrection all the way to pre-existence may not have been as clear cut as Brown had us believe.

Concerning the belief held by the Ebionites that Jesus was fathered by Joseph, scholars have made several interesting points. While Epiphanius deems this concept as “utterly false, lame, crooked” and “not right anywhere” there is actually some reason to doubt whether Matthew actually intended to suggest that Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus. As I have previously stated, the Ebionites translated the term ‘virgin’ in Isaiah 7.14 to mean ‘young woman’ giving room for Jesus to have a human father and a human mother. In the Septuagint (LXX) the term ‘virgin’ did not necessarily mean ‘virgin’ as we think of it in English. Simply, there was no word for ‘virgin’ in ancient languages. While it may mean ‘one who has not yet experienced sexual intercourse’ in ancient languages, it was not clear by the word alone and required additional context to express that meaning. Both Matthew, which was accepted by the Ebionites, and Luke use the Greek word parthenos, which generally means in Greek; a young mature woman. As Robert J. Miller (2003) points out, in the rare instances in the LXX where parthenos means virgin as we think of it in English, it is qualified as follows, “a Parthenos who has not known a man.” In Hebrew, the words of interest are betulah and almah, neither of which means ‘virgin.’ Both mean ‘a young woman’ and when virginity is implied, betulah, like parthenos, is qualified with “who has not known a man.” Almah just means a ‘young woman.’ Simply using parthenos does not imply that one has never had sexual intercourse and further context clues are required. However, Matthew only, refers to Mary as a parthenos in context of Isa 7.14. The question then becomes, how did Matthew understand parthenos in Isaiah, as a virgin or as a young woman?

Miller notes that “the ancient scholars who produced the [LXX] thought parthenos meant “young woman” because they consistently used it to translate the Hebrew almah.” Since Matthew is making a clear parallel to Isaiah, it is likely he took parthenos to mean “the young woman will conceive” since no Jewish sources read it to mean ‘virgin.’ [24] Miller also questions Matthew’s true interest in quoting Isa 7.14. Since almah in Isa 7.14 was not taken to mean ‘virgin’ but ‘young woman’ then presumably any time a young woman gives birth to a child that prophecy would be fulfilled. Something else must have caught Matthew’s attention. Miller proposes that it was not parthenos that Matthew was stressing, but rather the meaning of Jesus’ name. Matthew 1.21 was written to mirror the prophecy from Isaiah which he quotes in 1.23. The difference is after “and you will name him…” and thus, according to Miller “Matthew’s primary interest in Isa 7.14 was the rich symbolism of the name Emmanuel, not the word parthenos.”

Of this, Brown offers another possibility for which to interpret the use of parthenos in Isaiah 7.14. According to Brown;

“while the Hebrew is vague about whether the conception had already taken place or would take place in the future, the Greek is not vague and the conception is definitely future.”

This would indicate that the emphasis in the LXX translation is not the word ‘virgin’ but the word ‘will.’ By that the meaning would be, ‘the woman who is currently a virgin will by natural means give birth to a child.’ Matthew’s use of Isaiah was also a mechanism for placing Jesus within the Davidic line, which would strengthen the argument that Matthew did not see Mary as a ‘parthenos who had not known a man.’ [25]

Though the Ebionites rejected the teachings of Paul [26], it should be briefly mentioned that there is also no evidence of a ‘virgin’ birth in the epistles either. The only times Paul mentions Jesus’ birth, it’s always by a natural process. In Romans 1.3–4 Paul says that Jesus was descended from David through the flesh. In Galatians 4.4 Paul explicitly says that Jesus was born of a woman. This indicates that for Paul and thus the early Christians prior to Paul’s letters, Jesus had a biological father who was descended from the Davidic line (i.e. Joseph). Paul also makes a point of distinction when he says that Jesus’ birth was “through the flesh” but that his resurrection was “through the spirit.” Given that both Matthew, Paul, and by extension pre- Pauline communities appear to have understood Mary as a young woman and Jesus as being born by natural causes, it is easy to see where the Ebionites got the idea that Jesus was just a man, fathered by God. It also further suggests earliness of Ebionite christological views.

The rest of my argument will now transition to focusing on the second point of contention for Epiphanius regarding Ebionite christology, that being the notion that Jesus was adopted by God through his baptism. The Ebionite’s believed that during Jesus’ baptism, the holy spirit descended upon him the form of a dove and at that moment, God adopted Jesus to be his son. To fully understand this concept of divine adoption it is necessary to review divine sonship in ancient Judaism and also, adoption and divine sonship within the Roman empire, especially within the Roman imperial cult.

Though some have argued that the title ‘Son of God’ is distinctly unique when applied to Jesus and that nothing pre-Pauline or within the Old Testament uses it in a messianic sense [27], the divine declaration at Jesus baptism in Mark 1.11 directly correlates with the Israeli royal ideology found Psalm 2.7 and Isa 42.1. This among other passages in the Old Testament demonstrates the fundamental tenant of royal ideology among the Israelites; that the king of Israel was thought to be a superhuman divine being, who was not just the son of God, as reflected in Psalm 2.7, but that he was considered a God in his own right. [28] This is depicted in Psalm 45.6– 7 which is part of a larger set of verses dedicated to the king for a royal wedding. There the text explicitly calls the king of Israel a God,

“Your throne, O God, endures forever and ever. Your royal scepter is a scepter of equity; you love righteousness and hate wickedness. Therefore God, your God, has anointed you.”

There is great evidence from ancient Near Eastern cultures which employ similar ideology concerning kings and rulers as being the sons of gods and being ‘fathered by god,’ most notably, Egyptian and Mesopotamian. As Adela Yarbro Collins (1999) writes, “The Canaanite and Israelite notions of kingship were more similar to the Mesopotamian.” [29] The language used in Nathan’s oracle to David in 2 Samuel 7.14, “I will be his father, and he shall be my son” does not imply either a physical, nor a metaphysical son, but rather that God will adopt David’s son as his own, thus making him the Son of God. Thus, the king of Israel will always be God’s son, which in turn will make the king of Israel also a God, per Ps. 45.

Furthermore, John and Adela Collins (2008) takes the declaration in Mark 1.11 to reflect an ancient Near Eastern enthronement ceremony for a king. The two argue that

“it seems very likely that the Jerusalemite enthronement ritual was influenced, even if only indirectly, by Egyptian ideas of kingship. At least as a matter of rhetoric, the king was declared to be the son of God, and could be called elohim, a god.” [30]

Egyptian evidence provides direct references in which the deity specifically refers to the king as his ‘son.’ [32] Thus, Mark’s use of Psalm 2.7 in his baptism scene, “you are my son,” can be understood to model the enthronement ceremony of the king of Israel and where God officially adopted Jesus as his son. This again stresses why it was so important for Matthew to establish Jesus as being descended from the Davidic line. [32]

In Judaism, the term ‘messiah’ is generally restricted to (though not always) a figure who would restore the Davidic line and return Israel to prominence after the Babylonian exile. [33] The Israelites were anticipating a ruler or king who would emerge and defeat the occupiers (during Jesus’ time, the Romans) and reestablish the Davidic throne. During the Second Temple period, the Hebrew word designated for kings, took on a more eschatological meaning, referring to a future king. Son of God in this context simply refers to the promise by God to David in 2 Sam 7.14, that the king of Israel would be God’s son. Psalm 110 and 45 attribute divinity to the king, but it must be stressed for that this level of divinity was attained only through adoption, the king was not pre-existent. [34]

So far I have established the use of the term ‘son of God’ in a Jewish context as referring to the king of Israel. The king of Israel was considered in some sense to be divine via his adoption by God at his enthronement. From here I shall begin to explore the Greco-Roman context for the term ‘son of God’ and adoption within the Roman imperial cult, and the symbolism of the dove at Jesus’ baptism.

The Ebionites understood Jesus’ baptism as an adoption by which the holy spirit entered Jesus, making him God’s son. As Epiphanius tells us in The Panarion, the Ebionites believed that the holy spirit entered him by taking the form of a dove, “And as he came up out of the water the heavens were opened, and he saw the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove which descended and entered into him.” For the Ebionites, the dove in effect, was the “Christ” and entered Jesus at this moment, making Jesus “the Christ.” Again, that Jesus was called by his followers ‘the son of God’ is not a unique feature to the world in which Jesus lived. While people such as Alexander the Great, Pythagorus, and Plato were considered to be sons of gods, perhaps the best example of the term ‘son of god’ being used in the Greco-Roman period [35], was its’ application to the Roman emperor.

Beginning with the deification of Julius Caesar, through which he became Divi Iulius, from there on his adopted son, Octavian (later Augustus), became known as Divi Filius, son of god. After Augustus’ death he was officially deified and thus his successor, and adopted son, Tiberius could call himself, ‘son of god Sebastos.’ Though Tiberius was never formally deified, he was called ‘god’ on various coinage and inscriptions during his reign. Emperor Nero, the adopted son of Claudius, was also called the son of God. It is important to note that Augustus, Tiberius, and Nero were all adopted sons, not biological. [36] The adoption of Augustus by Caesar, making him ‘son of God’ had vast ramifications throughout the empire.

That the emperor was worshiped as a divine god has been long overlooked and in some instances dismissed by scholars. Mostly scholars did not believe that Roman citizens actually believed that the emperor was divine. However, as Keith Hopkins (1978) concludes in his chapter “Divine Emperors” whether or not Roman citizens actually believed the emperor was divine or not, they “certainly acted like it.” The religion of the ancient Greeks, and thereby extension that of the Romans, was more akin to an ‘orthopraxy’ rather than an ‘orthodoxy’ meaning that action was more important than belief. [37]

With the establishment of the imperial emperor cult by Caesar’s adoption of Octavian, the title ‘son of God’ was used to create a Roman imperial ideology similar to that of the ancient Israelites. The Roman emperor was thus literally made ‘son of god’ through his adoption. Following the relation of the son of God titular applied to Jesus and of that applied to the Roman emperor, Michael Peppard (2010) has argued that “the common understanding of imperial divine sonship among biblical scholars can be reframed and broadened by emphasising the importance of adoption in Roman society and imperial ideology.” [38]

Thus far I have argued that the adoptionist view of the Ebionites can be traced back to the earliest days of Christianity. While some detractors of scholars like Ehrman who pose that early adoptionists consider Jesus’ baptism to be the moment of adoption, assert that there is no attestation for this in the NT, [39] Peppard makes the case that when viewed through a Roman lens of imperial ideology, one must see the baptism of Jesus as an adoption. One point that Tony Costa, who argues against early adoptionism makes is that the very concept of Jesus being made divine via adoption at his baptism would point towards ‘low christology,’ when he says that the early worship of and attitudes toward Jesus point toward a ‘high christology.’ This, however need not be the case as in the Roman empire, adopted sons were not seen as lower than biological sons. To the contrary, legal and historical sources clearly indicate that the adopted son assumed the social position/status of his adopted father. [40] Thus, to be the ‘son of god’ in the Roman empire literally meant to be the son of the emperor which in most cases meant the adopted son. Consider the fact that Caesar’s adopted son, Augustus, is one of the most well known figures in ancient history, while his biological son Caesarion is but a footnote in history.

Peppard (2011) further drives home this point by stating that;

“the adopted son was really to become the son and agent of the adoptive father; he was not a substitute son, nor some kind of second-class son. The adopted son also exchanged his own status and took over the status of the adoptive father.”

Thus, as Caesar was divine, Octavian, through adoption by Caesar, also became divine. Through this system, one could be brought from the bottom of society, and elevated among the highest level of society and nobility. [41] Further, that Jesus was adopted by God at his baptism, reflecting the adoptive nature of the Roman imperial cult, does not make Jesus any less divine than Octavian was by being adopted by Caesar. Jesus would have inherited the same divine nature of God through his adoption and thus an adoptionist christology is not a low christology, but a high one.

Returning to the imagery of the dove in the GoH used by the Ebionites, if one looks to Roman culture they will find vast evidence that birds were used as omens, abundant with meaning. Perhaps the most interesting for this particular instance is the use of the birds as omens in Suetonius’ Lives of the Caesars. In the years leading up to Mark, imperial power was handed down through adoption, the most notable being Caesar’s adoption of Octavian, but also, Octavian’s adoption of Tiberius. Suetonius describes, that in the days before the accession of Tiberius, an eagle descended and perched itself on the roof of his house. Here, a bird is used to symbolise the transition of power right before the adoption of Tiberius. The most direct parallel however, lies within Suetonius’ employment of a dove in relation to Caesar’s adoption of Octavian. Suetonius writes,

“as the deified Julius was cutting down a wood at Munda and preparing a place for his camp, coming across a palm tree he caused it to be spared as an omen of victory. From this a shoot sprang forth […] moreover many doves built their nests there […] Indeed, it was that omen in particular they say, that led Caesar to wish that none other than his nephew [Octavian] should be his successor.” [42]

With this, the dove used in Mark at the adoption of Jesus can be taken as a parallel to the doves in Suetonius which persuaded Caesar to adopt Octavian. From there, a line can be drawn to the theology of the Ebionites, who according to Epiphanius, held that “the Christ” descended upon Jesus in the form of a dove at his baptism. Though Suetonius does not place the doves at Octavian’s adoption, they are used as the device for finalising the adoption, giving precedence to the Ebionite concept which again could establish an early origin of their theology.

Epiphanius of Salamis, an ardent defender of the proto-orthodoxy of his day, railed against the Ebionites for their Christological views of Jesus. He was repulsed by their assertions that Jesus was fathered by a human, and that he only became God’s son through his baptism when the holy spirit came into him in the form of a dove. Scholars have noted several instances in NT manuscripts where scribal redaction appears to have edited out references to Jesus’ “father” and “parents” instead changing them to “Joseph and his mother.” The way in which Matthew renders the word parthenos in his gospel does not indicate that Mary was a virgin in the sense that one would think of today. Rather, Matthew likely took the term to simply mean a young woman. Further, the Greek makes clear that the conception has not yet happened, implying that the reading could also be taken to mean that the one who is a virgin now, will conceive later, once she impregnated through natural intercourse.

There are curious variants of Luke 3.22 in which the voice from heaven declares “you are my son, today I have begotten you,” a direct quote of Psalm 2.7. This reading is attested in an early Greek MS and several Latin MS and was quoted frequently by early Church fathers. It is also curious that the same reading of Luke 3.22 can be found in the Gospel of the Hebrews, read by the Ebionites. This could imply that the alternative reading was in fact the original reading which was later changed by scribes. In either case, Mark’s use of “you are my son” likely stems from OT passages in reference to the king of Israel who was himself called ‘son of God’ and in Psalm 110, 45, was called ‘god.’ The king attained his divine status as son of God through his adoption by God. The Israelite theme itself is likely derived from Egyptian and Mesopotamian traditions whereby the god takes the king and makes him their son at their enthronement ceremony.

Adoption in the Roman empire was used to transfer power, inheritance, and to continue one’s dynasty. Caesar’s adoption of Octavian established the Roman imperial cult through which one literally became the son of god by being the son of the emperor. This imperial cult was in place during Jesus’ life time and likely was an influence when establishing Jesus’ as the son of God. That his baptism was seen as an adoption makes sense in light of Jewish scripture regarding the Israelite king, and in context of Roman emperor worship. Even the dove in Mark 1.11 may be a passing reference to the doves used in Suetonius which symoblised the transfer of power from Caesar to Augustus.

All these elements combine to create a very early origin of the themes that Epiphanius objects so strongly to. That Jesus was fathered by a human appears to have a very early origin and may very well have been believed by the earliest Christians. That Jesus was adopted as God’s son at his baptism also appears to have very early origins. Thus, although the Jewish– Christian sect known as the Ebionites are generally associated with the second century C.E., it appears that by extracting the Christological beliefs of the Ebionites as described by Epiphanius, one can trace the roots of their beliefs back to the earliest Christians. The implications of that leads to the logical conclusion that adoptionist christology was the earliest christology held by the followers of Jesus.

References:
[1] Ioan P. Couliano, The Tree of Gnosis: Gnostic Mythology from Early Christianity to Modern Nihilism (San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco, 1992); 14–15
[2] “Nicene Creed” Encyclopedia Britannica, accessed 25 November 2016, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Nicene-Creed
[3] Some strands of adoptionism still maintained a belief in divine conception. Theodotus taught such a view near the end of the second century. See: “Monarchianism” Encyclopedia Britannica, accessed 25 November 2016, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Monarchianism
[4] C.F. Cruse, trans., Eusebius Ecclesiastical History (United States: Merchant Books, 2011); 101-102.
[5] Frank Williams, trans., The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis (Boston, MA: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2009; 131-165.
[6] Williams, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, 131
[7] H.T. Schoeps, “Ebionite Christology,” The Journal of Theological Studies 4, no. 2 (1953) 219-224.
[8] Williams, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, 13
[9] Ibid., 133
[10] Sharron Watters Coonrad, “Adoptionism: The History of a Doctrine” PhD diss., (University of Iowa, 1999); 80.
[11] Ibid., 141–142.
[12] Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (United States: HarperCollins, 2005); 158.
[13] John Knox, The Humanity and Divinity of Christ: A Study of Pattern in Christology (United States: Cambridge University Press, 1967); 7.
[14] Ibid., 6.
[15] Ibid., 8.
[16] Benjamin Oliver Foster, trans., Titus Livy’s The History of Rome (United States: Tufts University, 1985). The motif of an individual being taken up into heaven on account of their merit or actions is not unique to Christianity and was widespread throughout the Mediterranean. Other examples include; Adapa, Enoch, Herakles, and Elijah.
[17] Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, 159. Specifically, see the Greek MS, Codex Bezae (D) which houses two columns, one in Greek and one in Latin. Ehrman lays out this case more extensively in The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1993); 71.
[18] Ibid., 160
[19] Williams, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, 142.
[20] Bart D. Ehrman, How Jesus Became God (New York, NY: HarperOne, 2014); 220–221. Here Ehrman thoroughly demonstrates the literary pattern of this creed as being set up into two sections, each with three lines; A1 Who was descended A2 from the seed of David A3 according to the flesh and B1 who was appointed B2 Son of God in power B3 according to the spirit by his resrruection.
[21] Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (New York, NY: DoubleDay, 1993); 29-31. Also see the discussion in Miller (2013); 230-235.
[22] Suetonius “The Lives of the Caesars” in Documents for the Study of the Gospels, ed. David R. Cartlidge & David L. Dungan (United States: Fortress Press, 1994); 132-133.
[23] Ehrman, How Jesus Became God, 27-28
[24] Robert J. Miller, Born Divine: The Births of Jesus and Other Sons of God (United States: Polebridge Press, 2003); 189-192.
[25] Raymond Brown, the Birth of the Messiah, 149-150. Brown also draws parallels between Luke 1.32-33 and 2 Samuel 7 as an attempt to link Jesus as God’s son to the promise by God to the King of Israel, also called ‘God’s son’ which would further establish Jesus as the Davidic Messiah see. pp. 310. Similarly, Dennis MacDonald has noted a stark parallel between the announcement of Jesus’ birth in Luke, to the Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite line 190-200; see Mythologizing Jesus (2015).
[26] Sharron Watters Coonrad, “Adoptionism: The History of a Doctrine” 78.
[27] Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “4Q246: The ‘Son of God’ Document from Qumran” Biblica 74 (1993) 153–74.
[28] ‘Son of God’ was also given to other figures in the Bible. Angles are called ‘sons of God’ in Gen 6.2; Job 1.6, 2.1. A “righteous individual” can be called the son of God as seen in Wis 1.10–20; Sir 4.10. The nation of Israel is also called God’s son by God in Ex 4.22–23; Hos 1.11.
[29] Adela Yarbro Collins, “Mark and his Readers: The Son of God among Jews” Harvard Theological Review 29 no. 4 (1999); 393-408.
[30] Adela Yarbro Collins and John J. Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdman’s Publishing Co., 2008); 15.
[31] See inscription of Amenophis III, the inscription at the coronation of Haremhab, and the blessing of Ptah from the period of Rameses II.
[32] In both ancient Near Eastern and Hellenistic traditions, stories of divine paternity emerged retroactively, after the heroic achievements of the life the story is depicting have been revealed. Thus it makes sense that Matthew adds an infancy story Mark didn’t have. See: Miller (2013); 133–153.
[33] Collins and Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God, 42.
[34] Ibid., 1–2.
[35] Cartlidge & Dungan, Documents for the Study of the Gospels, 129–136.
[36] Robert L. Mowrey, “Son of God in Roman Imperial Titles and in Matthew,” Biblica 83 no. 1 (2002) 100–110.
[37] Keith Hopkins, “Divine Emperors or the Symbolic Unity of the Roman Empire,” in Conquerors and Slaves: Sociological Studies in Roman History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978); 197– 242.
[38] Michael Peppard, “The Eagle and the Dove: Roman Imperial Sonship and the Baptism of Jesus (Mark 1.9–11)” New Testament Studies 56 (2010) 431–451.
[39] See Tony Costa, “Was Adoptionism the Earliest Christology: A Response to Bart Ehrman” American Journal of Biblical Theology 8 no. 28 (2007).
[40] Jack Goody, “Adoption in Cross-Cultural Perspective” Comparative Studies in Society and History 11 no. 1 (1969) 55–78. Also see; Felix Infausto, “Perspective on Adoption” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 383 (1969) 1–12.
[41] Michael Peppard, The Son of God in the Roman World: Divine Sonship in its Social and Political Context (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2011).
[42] J.C. Rolfe, trans., Suetonius’ Lives of the Caesars, (New York, NY: Barnes & Noble inc, 2004); 84.