What do you think?
Rate this book
Adoption as Sons of God: An Exegetical Investigation into the Background in the the Pauline Corpus
Born 1955; Dr. theol. at the University of Tübingen; since 1990 Professor of Religious Studies at Trinity Western University; 1992-93 Humboldt postdoctoral Fellow.
353 pages, Paperback
First published August 1, 1992
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
February 24, 2025
Scott's book was, in many ways, a game changer for understanding Paul's use of adoption terminology. Thirty years later, one of his central claims is still the dominant view, while the other has been taken up by only a small number of scholars.
The argument that still holds is the idea that Paul's use of "huiothesia" (adoption) can really only mean "adoption." Other arguments offered before Scott included proposals such as "sonship," but Scott's brilliant linguistic analysis has created a full consensus - something very hard to do in biblical studies.
The argument that has not found much support (aside from a few scholars, such as Keesmaat and Hafeman), is that Paul's use of the terminology can be set within the frame of the Exodus tradition in the Hebrew Bible. The thematic links are interesting, but the linguistic links probably are not strong enough.
Metaphor theory has recently been employed (by Erin Heim, among others) to demonstrate that, while Paul works within Jewish categories of sonship, the adoption terminology is still probably framed by Greek and Roman frameworks.
One note on style: some published dissertations are reworked enough to read like books. Others read like dissertations. This book is pretty far on the dissertationy side of the line, so that, while a quicker read than the page count might suggest (due to copious footnotes that can be skipped or skimmed), the technical nature of the prose makes is a bit of a chore to read. Still, a very helpful book.
The argument that still holds is the idea that Paul's use of "huiothesia" (adoption) can really only mean "adoption." Other arguments offered before Scott included proposals such as "sonship," but Scott's brilliant linguistic analysis has created a full consensus - something very hard to do in biblical studies.
The argument that has not found much support (aside from a few scholars, such as Keesmaat and Hafeman), is that Paul's use of the terminology can be set within the frame of the Exodus tradition in the Hebrew Bible. The thematic links are interesting, but the linguistic links probably are not strong enough.
Metaphor theory has recently been employed (by Erin Heim, among others) to demonstrate that, while Paul works within Jewish categories of sonship, the adoption terminology is still probably framed by Greek and Roman frameworks.
One note on style: some published dissertations are reworked enough to read like books. Others read like dissertations. This book is pretty far on the dissertationy side of the line, so that, while a quicker read than the page count might suggest (due to copious footnotes that can be skipped or skimmed), the technical nature of the prose makes is a bit of a chore to read. Still, a very helpful book.
February 11, 2015
Although I do not share some of his points it is definitely a notable work.
It is a must read work in order to research and go to a deeper level of understanding on Spiritual adoption.
Scott's view of the Pauline Huiothesia has almost an exclusive Jewish background regardless of the usage of Paul's use of an Hellenistic term and all the Roman legislation on the subject of Paul's days. Scott dislays a nice work on the subject. As I studied this subject I wrote:
'James M. Scott seems to attach an Old Testament background alone to hiouthesia :
Firstly, by insisting that in the Old Testament corpus there were many instances of adoption (e.g., Ephraim and Manasseh, Gen 48:5-6; Moses, Ex. 2:10; Esther, Esth. 2:7);
Secondly, by considering 2 Sam 7:11-16 text of David’s coronation as example of an ‘adoption formula’;
Thirdly, supporting his thesis by a particular exegesis of Gal. 4:1-7; lastly, by seeing it exclusively through a second exodus lenses, applying to it Egyptian typology whereby Israel’s redemption from slavery represents a type of the eschatological redemption in Christ.
Seeing an ‘adoption formula’ in a king’s coronation and using this only instance to support his argument of a Jewish background for the Pauline use of huiothesia is reading too much into a text reference.
Scott´s exegesis of Gal 4: 1-7 is very particular, not sustained and arguable by the majority of the New Testament Scholarship. A careful exegesis of Gal. 4 within its context will show that Paul is not referring to Egypt and subsequent exodus, but instead, to the bondage period which initiated with the introduction of the Torah.'
In my own BA Thesis and research Bruno Rebelo, 'Spiritual Sonship - Exploring Pauline metaphor of spiritual adoption' just submmited to (Mattersey Hall, University of Chester, Jan 2015).
Although Scott offers us strong points that must be taken in consideration, I came to the conclusion of quite the opposite. Paul's background for the metaphoric use of adoption is fundamentaly Roman- Greek with some Jewish smooth prints as I defend on my research.
Neverthless we do not agree in some pivotal areas, I do recommend strongly its reading as it is a marvelous research.
Bruno Rebelo
It is a must read work in order to research and go to a deeper level of understanding on Spiritual adoption.
Scott's view of the Pauline Huiothesia has almost an exclusive Jewish background regardless of the usage of Paul's use of an Hellenistic term and all the Roman legislation on the subject of Paul's days. Scott dislays a nice work on the subject. As I studied this subject I wrote:
'James M. Scott seems to attach an Old Testament background alone to hiouthesia :
Firstly, by insisting that in the Old Testament corpus there were many instances of adoption (e.g., Ephraim and Manasseh, Gen 48:5-6; Moses, Ex. 2:10; Esther, Esth. 2:7);
Secondly, by considering 2 Sam 7:11-16 text of David’s coronation as example of an ‘adoption formula’;
Thirdly, supporting his thesis by a particular exegesis of Gal. 4:1-7; lastly, by seeing it exclusively through a second exodus lenses, applying to it Egyptian typology whereby Israel’s redemption from slavery represents a type of the eschatological redemption in Christ.
Seeing an ‘adoption formula’ in a king’s coronation and using this only instance to support his argument of a Jewish background for the Pauline use of huiothesia is reading too much into a text reference.
Scott´s exegesis of Gal 4: 1-7 is very particular, not sustained and arguable by the majority of the New Testament Scholarship. A careful exegesis of Gal. 4 within its context will show that Paul is not referring to Egypt and subsequent exodus, but instead, to the bondage period which initiated with the introduction of the Torah.'
In my own BA Thesis and research Bruno Rebelo, 'Spiritual Sonship - Exploring Pauline metaphor of spiritual adoption' just submmited to (Mattersey Hall, University of Chester, Jan 2015).
Although Scott offers us strong points that must be taken in consideration, I came to the conclusion of quite the opposite. Paul's background for the metaphoric use of adoption is fundamentaly Roman- Greek with some Jewish smooth prints as I defend on my research.
Neverthless we do not agree in some pivotal areas, I do recommend strongly its reading as it is a marvelous research.
Bruno Rebelo
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews