T>eus Lux Mea 
 
 The 
 
 Boyhood Consciousness of Christ 
 
 A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF LUKE ii. 49 
 dissertation 
 
 SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF SACRED SCIENCES AT THE 
 CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA IN PARTIAL FUL- 
 FILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR 
 THE DOCTORATE IN THEOLOGY 
 
 BY THE 
 
 REV. PATRICK JOSEPH TEMPLE, S.T.L. 
 
 OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW YORK 
 
 UC-NRLF 
 
 mew l^orfe 
 THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 
 
 1922 
 

 EXCHANGE 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2007 with funding from 
 
 Microsoft Corporation 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/boyhoodconsciousOOtemprich 
 
THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS 
 OF CHRIST 
 
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 
 
 NEW YORK • BOSTON • CHICAGO 
 DALLAS • ATLANTA • SAN FRANCISCO 
 
 MACMILLAN & CO., Limited 
 
 LONDON • BOMBAY • CALCUTTA 
 MELBOURNE 
 
 THE MACMILLAN CO. OP CANADA, Ltd. 
 
 TORONTO 
 
T>EUS Lux MEA 
 
 The 
 
 Boyhood Consciousness of Christ 
 
 A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF LUKE ii. 49 
 'Dissertation 
 
 SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF SACRED SCIENCES AT THE 
 CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA IN PARTIAL FUL- 
 FILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR 
 THE DOCTORATE IN THEOLOGY 
 
 BY THE 
 
 REV. PATRICK JOSEPH TEMPLE, S.T.L. 
 
 OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW YORK 
 
 » • • ii. ; •» . 
 
 »•• » * » . » ••• * -\ * 
 
 IRew Korfe 
 THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 
 
 1922 
 
mtbtl ©bstat 
 
 ABTHURUS J. SCANLAN, S.T.D. 
 
 Censor Librorum 
 
 •ffrnprimatur *<2rT ^ 
 
 4-PATRITIUS J. HAYES, D.D. y<t\ 
 
 Archiepiscopus Neo-Eboraci 
 
 New York, June 2, 19122 
 
 COPTHIGHT, 1922, 
 
 Bt the macmillan company. 
 
 Set up and printed. Published June, 1022. 
 
 ^^QX^kA^c^A^c 
 
 ■ 
 
 PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
PREFACE 
 
 Ever since Christianity presented itself for aeceptance 
 mankind, questions of Christology have held a foremost place 
 religious research and discussion, and necessarily so, since t 
 nature and personality of the Author of a religion claiming to 
 ecumenical and exclusive compel the attentive study of m 
 interested in religious thought and life. The present generati 
 has not been an exception in regard to the importance attach 
 to these fundamental questions. Rather, in this respect it has i 
 a new highwater mark. For while the fifth century is genera 
 regarded as the golden age of christological controversy, yet, fr< 
 the point of view of the number and variety of the scholars int 
 ested and of the individuality and diversity of the results reach 
 the last half century has had no parallel in the history of Chi 
 tianity. 
 
 In these questions of Christology the ultimate determina 
 the final test to which every student must come, is Christ's o 1 
 mind as expressed in His words and in His manner of actii 
 everything that He says or does, either directly or indirectly 
 reveal His self -consciousness, is of the first importance; whate^ 
 be the method pursued in attempting a solution of a christologi 
 problem, one cannot evade the query, What did He say about Hi 
 self? Then, closely connected with the questions of His s< 
 consciousness is that of its origin. When and how did it begi 
 Did He possess it from His earliest years? Or was there for Hi 
 as for every normal child, a gradual unfolding of reason and of \ 
 consciousness of His relation to God? Or was it only in mati 
 manhood, when on the threshold of His public career, that 1 
 consciousness of His mission and all that it implied flashed up 
 Him? Or was its coming rather like that of dawning day, at fi 
 dim, then steadily growing into fulness of light and culminati 
 in the brilliant clarity of the noonday? 
 
 v 
 
 T- 
 
vi PREFACE 
 
 These important questions constitute one of the most popular 
 of modern problems of the life of Christ. Speaking generally, in 
 non-Catholic circles it is held that Jesus began His life "ignorant 
 of His nature and destiny, an unthinking infant"; 1 that at a cer- 
 tain point, by no means agreed upon, His consciousness dawned 
 upon Him, and that it was subject to growth and development. 
 And many pages of modern works are given over to the attempt 
 to explain naturally the origin and to trace the development of 
 Jesus' consciousness. The result has been a great diversity of 
 opinion, as a glance at the chapter on the modern views will show. 
 Failure to agree on so important a question affecting, as it does, 
 our conception of Him for the first thirty years of His life, should 
 arouse grave concern, and any effort to eliminate diversity and to 
 establish the truth cannot be altogether unwelcome. 
 
 As in all questions of theological import, so regarding the pres- 
 ent one, the final court of appeal is for the Catholic, the authority 
 of the Church. But there is nothing to prevent him any more 
 than another student from envisaging the consciousness of Christ 
 as a scientific problem as well, to be treated according to the laws 
 of historical criticism; and when so approached the solution is 
 to be found along one path, the careful investigation of the his- 
 torical evidence. But, unfortunately we are confronted by the 
 fact that the historical data for the problem are meager, wherefore 
 there is all the more necessity for exceptionally careful scrutiny. 
 The canonical Gospels preserve only one saying of Christ outside 
 His public ministry. The only occasion when Jesus breaks the 
 silence of the first thirty years of His life is when in answer to His 
 mother's question, why He had tarried in Jerusalem and caused 
 the "parents" three days of anxiety and sorrow, He said in boyish 
 accent: "Why did you seek me? Did you not know that in the 
 (things) of My Father I must be?" (T( <kt ^tqtsits jjls; otix. ?)Bsits 
 ori iv tck<; tou Uwzpiq \lou 8st elvat (jls; Luke ii. 49.) This saying of 
 the twelfth year, in which His relation to God is expressed by the 
 phrase, "My Father," is the all-important one for the problem of 
 the origin and development of Jesus' consciousness. Views and 
 theories must be based on it. In addition to the fact that it fur- 
 nishes the saying in which a certain relationship to God is ex- 
 1 Ramsay, The Education of Christ, 31. 
 
PREFACE vii 
 
 pressed, the narrative of the "lost" Christ in the Temple deserves 
 close attention for other reasons. It not only represents Him 
 both in His words and in His actions as taking a certain attitude 
 towards His "parents," but as with a few strokes of a brush, it 
 also depicts an occurrence among the learned Rabbis of Jerusalem. 
 These, too, deserve close attention because they reflect the con- 
 sciousness of the twelve-year-old Christ. The present work is an 
 attempt to examine critically all the elements of the Gospel inci- 
 dent, in particular the words of the Boy Jesus, to see if they consti- 
 tute the solid basis for a theory of His consciousness. 
 
 Throughout the work a term is used which needs exact defini- 
 tion. Because of the variety of content given in the modern 
 world to the title "Son of God" as applied to Christ, and to the 
 corresponding term, Divine Sonship, I have decided for the sake 
 of clearness to use the term, real Divine Sonship, in the sense of 
 metaphysical Divine Sonship, that is, the identity of the ego in 
 Jesus with the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, the only- 
 begotten Son of God, the eternal Word made flesh. 
 
 There remains the pleasing duty to express sincere thanks to 
 all who have helped me; to Dr. Henry Schumacher, Professor of 
 New Testament in the Catholic University, who supervised the 
 work; to Dr. Franz Coeln, Professor of Sacred Scripture, and to 
 Dr. Charles F. Aiken, Professor of Apologetics, for valuable sug- 
 gestions; to Dr. Edwin Ryan of New York, for carefully reading 
 and correcting the manuscript before it reached the printer; 
 and to Mr. A. S. Freidus, Chief of the Jewish Division of the New 
 York Public Library, through whose kind assistance much im- 
 portant literature was procured. 
 
 The Author. 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
 SECTION I 
 EARLY PERIOD OF THE HISTORY OF THE QUESTION 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 I. The Fathers on Luke ii. 49 page 
 
 1. The Greek Fathers 3 
 
 2. The Latin Fathers 10 
 
 II. Other Evidence of the View of the Early Church 
 
 1. Further Evidence in the Fathers and Texts ... 13 
 
 2. The Apocryphal Gospels of the Childhood ... 18 
 HI. Conflicting Heretical Opinions 23 
 
 SECTION n 
 LATER PERIOD OF THE HISTORY OF THE QUESTION 
 
 IV. From the Fathers to the Rise of Modern Rationalism 
 
 1. From the Eighth to the Twelfth Century .... 29 
 
 2. From the Thirteenth to the Eighteenth Century . 32 
 
 V. The Modern Views 
 
 1. "Ordinary Israelitic Consciousness" 38 
 
 2. "Special Ethical Sonship" 41 
 
 3. "Mere Messianic Consciousness" 43 
 
 4. "Real Divine Sonship" 45 
 
 section m 
 
 PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS 
 
 VI. The Correct Text of Luke ii. 49 53 
 
 VH. The Historical Trustworthiness of Luke ii. 49 
 
 1. Luke's Early Chapters 60 
 
 2. The Temple Episode 65 
 
 VIH. The Historical Background of Luke ii. 49 
 
 1. Circumstances Leading to the Utterance of Jesus' 
 
 First Recorded Saying 73 
 
 2. Contemporary Jewish Conception of God's Relation 
 
 to Man 81 
 
 iz 
 
x TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
 SECTION IV 
 CHRIST'S CONSCIOUSNESS AS EXPRESSED IN LUKE n. 49 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 IX. Real Divine Sonship Expressed in the First Recorded 
 
 Words page 
 
 1. The Study of the Words "My Father'' ... 91 
 
 2. The Other Words of the Text 98 
 
 3. The Contrast with the Preceding Verse . . . 104 
 
 X. Messianic Consciousness Included in Christ's First 
 
 Self-Interpretation 114 
 
 SECTION V 
 JESUS' FIRST RECORDED WORDS AND THE IMMEDIATE 
 
 CONTEXT 
 
 XL The Scene Among the Doctors 
 
 1. Word Scrutiny of Luke ii. 47, 48 (a) 121 
 
 2. Explanation of Luke ii. 46 . . 128 
 
 XII. The "Parents" and the "Son" 
 
 1. Their Attitude towards Each Other 135 
 
 2. The Morality of the Temple Episode 143 
 
 XIII. The Christ Child's "Wisdom" and "Grace" 
 
 1. Study of Luke ii. 40 and 52 151 
 
 2. A Significant Silence in These Verses 161 
 
 SECTION VI 
 JESUS' FIRST RECORDED WORDS AND THE REMOTE 
 
 CONTEXT 
 
 XIV. The Whole Lucan Account of Christ 
 
 1. The Infancy Section 169 
 
 2. The Beginning of the Ministry 171 
 
 3. The Public Life . 177 
 
 4. The Acts of the Apostles 179 
 
 XV. The Whole New Testament Account of Christ 
 
 1. St. Matthew 182 
 
 2. St. Mark 183 
 
 3. St. John 185 
 
 4. St. Paul 187 
 
 5. Christ's Sonship in the New Testament .... 188 
 
 Conclusion 192 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS xi 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Bibliography 
 
 I. List of works quoted 199 
 
 II. Selected list on Christ's Consciousness in Boyhood 221 
 
 III. Treatises on the Infancy and Boyhood of Christ . . 222 
 
 List of Abbreviations for Periodicals and Collections . . 229 
 
 Scriptural Index 231 
 
 General Index 239 
 

 SECTION I 
 
 EARLY PERIOD OF THE HISTORY OF 
 THE QUESTION 
 
> J 5 1 
 
 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS 
 OF CHRIST 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 THE FATHERS ON LUKE ii. 49 
 
 1. THE GREEK FATHERS 
 
 The earliest Father whose writings contain a reference to the 
 episode of Christ's twelfth year is Irenaeus (►£#02). He com- 
 plains against Marcion for discarding the early section of St. 
 Luke's Gospel, 1 and mentions among the important things, with 
 which Luke has made us acquainted in regard to Christ, "that at 
 twelve years of age He was left behind at Jerusalem." 2 
 
 There is another reference of Irenaeus* of more importance. 
 He narrates that the Marcosians used a great number of apocryphal 
 and spurious writings, which they forged for the purpose of showing 
 that the Father of Jesus was unknown up to the time of Christ, 
 and was not the Creator of the Universe. And "among other 
 things they bring forward that false and wicked story which nar- 
 rates that Our Lord, when He was a Boy learning His letters, on 
 the teacher saying to Him, as is usual, 'Pronounce Alpha/ replied 
 (as He was bid) 'Alpha.' But when again the teacher bade Him 
 say, 'Beta,' the Lord replied, 'Do thou first tell Me what Alpha is, 
 and then I will tell thee what Beta is.' This they expound as 
 meaning that He alone knew the Unknown, which He revealed 
 under its type, Alpha." 3 Mark that Irenaeus labels the story 
 "false and wicked," but does not object to the view that at such 
 an early age Christ did know and reveal His Father. 
 
 1 Adv. Haer. III. 14, 4; cf. I. 27, 2. 
 8 Id. Haer. III. 14,3. 
 
 1 Adv. Haer. I. 20, 1, English Transl., A-NF I. 344-345. 
 8 
 
4 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 Irenaeus goes on to say that these heretics also colored some of 
 the Gospel texts with their views; such as the answer Jesus gave 
 to His mother when He was twelve years of age, and he adds, 
 ov oijx jjfSeicrav, <paai, Uaiiga xaTifJYsXXsv aikots. 1 According to 
 this statement we see that this very early sect understood that 
 Christ's words announced His Father, — for them the God un- 
 known and different from the creator of the universe. This con- 
 tention of theirs, Irenaeus opposes; but he does not censure them 
 for saying that Christ's words announced God to be His Father. 
 
 The three homilies (XVIII. XIX. and XX. in Luc.) of Origen 
 (►£#54), that have reference to Luke ii. 49 (excepting a few frag- 
 ments preserved in the original) have come down to us only in St. 
 Jerome's Latin translation. He uses the text to refute the heretics 
 who say that "the Law and the Prophets did not belong to the 
 Father of Jesus Christ." He argues thus: "Certe Jesus in templo 
 erat, quod a Solomone constructum erat, et confitetur templum 
 illud patris sui esse quern nobis revelavit, cujus filium esse se 
 dixit." If it is replied that one is a good and the other is a just 
 God, Origen rejoins "quia igitur Salvator Creatoris est Filius, in 
 commune Patrem Filiumque laudemus, cujus lex cujus et templum 
 est." 2 It is clear from this how Origen understood Christ's Son- 
 ship: Father and Son are equal: "in commune ..." 
 
 The same idea expressed above is contained in a Greek frag- 
 ment generally attributed to him, 3 where in an argument against 
 the contention of the Valentinians, that the Father of Christ was 
 not the Creator or God of the Law or of the Temple, Origen writes 
 that Jesus was in his own (rjv h (B(oi<; 6 Xgiatbc) when He said, 
 "Did you not know, etc." The Temple belonged to Jahweh, and 
 in it Christ could not be said to be "in His own," unless He was 
 really the Son of God; unless God the Creator was really the 
 Father of Christ, 6 sovftp tou Xpiorou. Therefore Origen under- 
 
 i M.PG VII. 653. 
 
 2 M.PG XIII. 1849 (also M.PL XXVI. 260). 
 
 » M.PG XIII. 1852 note. This has also been ascribed to St. Cyril of Alex, 
 (v. g. by St. Thomas, Catena aurea, ad loc. Corderius attributes it to Cyril 
 and Geometra, Catena LXV. Pat. Gr. 74). See M.PG LXXII. 509, note. We 
 give it under Origen because it agrees with his thought and applies to the 
 heretics against whom he was contending. Besides it is not at all like the style of 
 Cyril, and it is not given by J. Sickenberger in Fragmente des Cyrill von Alex, zum 
 Lukasevangelium, Leipzig (1909) (TU XXXI. B. Ht. I. p. 65 ff.). 
 
THE FATHERS ON LUKE ii. 49 5 
 
 stood Christ to express real Divine Sonship (we mean eternal, 
 natural, Divine Sonship). Hence it was that this text supplied 
 him with a powerful argument against those who denied that 
 Jesus' Father was the God of the Old Law and of the Temple. 
 So that he emphatically states (according to the Latin version) 
 "taking the text simply (simpliciter sentientes), we are thus armed 
 against all heretics who deny this. Behold, the Father is declared 
 to be the God of the Temple (ecce Pater Deus templi asseritur) 
 hence blush for shame all who accept the Gospel of St. Luke and 
 who despise what is written therein." 1 
 
 The great exegete goes on to give the typical sense, which was 
 characteristic of the school of Alexandria. He expresses the 
 opinion that what the "parents" did not understand in Christ's 
 words was what was typified by the material temple; namely, 
 every good and perfect man who is the possession of the Father 
 and has Jesus within him. 2 Even in this allegorical interpretation 
 he emphasizes the equality of Father and Son and attributes a 
 Divine self-consciousness to Christ. 
 
 Titus of Bostra (^374) is very clear and direct in his interpre- 
 tation. He paraphrases Jesus' words thus : "Dost thou not know, 
 mother, what has happened? Didst thou not conceive as a virgin 
 (ou xap8ivo<; o5aa auv£Xa/3e<;)? Why do you name Joseph My 
 Father?" 3 So he sees the words "My Father" in Jesus' reply, 
 contrasted with "thy Father" in Mary's question, and evidently, 
 referring to the contrast he goes on to say: xal etaafei Hcczigtx dvzl 
 Tzaczghs, ivut tou Gpetpa^iivou <jo)yiaTtxa)<; t&v c&T)6tv6v. This explicit 
 inference, "in place of His foster father, He brings forward the 
 true Father," places it beyond doubt that Titus understood 
 "Father" on Jesus' lips in the real sense of the word. He is of the 
 opinion, strange to say, that Jesus did not say, ofix o?8ore (in the 
 plural), for they all did not know; but He addresses only the 
 Mother who alone knew of the mystery of the Virgin Birth. 4 
 
 1 M.PG XIII. 1851-1852. 
 
 2 M.PG XIII. 1852. Cf . Schola in Lucam, Supplem., M.PG XVII. 324. 
 
 3 Titus von Bostra, edit, by J. Sickenberger, 152, given in TU (2d ser.) 6 (XXI). 
 
 4 Id. What is ascribed to Titus of Bostra in Magna Bibliotheca Veterum Patrum 
 (Colon. Agripp. 1618), and often quoted for him, does not belong to him. This is a 
 Catena-like compilation and "cannot be of an earlier date than the sixth century" 
 (Bardenhewer, Patrol. 271). The following is given under our text (Tom. IV. 343) : 
 "Deus et Dominus noster humana responsione, quam dare licebat repudiata, 
 
6 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 In his catechetical lectures, St. Cyril of Jerusalem (>^386), 
 takes up the different articles of the Creed; and in the seventh 
 instruction treating of "The Father," he says: "Let us adore the 
 Father of Christ, the Creator of the world, the God of Abraham, 
 Isaac, and Jacob, and to whose honor the temple was built. For 
 we shall not tolerate the heretics who sever the Old Testament from 
 the New, but shall believe Christ's saying concerning the temple, 
 "Did you not know that I must be in the (things) of My Father?" 
 With this, Cyril joins the text, "Take these things hence and make 
 not the house of My Father a house of traffic" (John ii. 16), and 
 concludes that in these words Christ "most clearly confessed that 
 the former Temple in Jerusalem was the house of His own Father" 
 (tou eauxou Ilaxp^c;). 1 This word "own" (ktxuzou) indicates that 
 the author considered the relationship to God, expressed by Christ, 
 to be special and peculiar; indeed the whole context of this entire 
 section on "The Father" is evidence that he held the view of real 
 Divine Sonship. 
 
 Didymus of Alexandria, (4-395) in quoting Luke ii. 49, has iv 
 Tip o¥x(pfor iv toi<; (De Trinitate, III. 20) . 2 He does not give any 
 comment; but the view of real Divine Sonship is implied by the 
 context; for treating here of Christ being subject to His parents, 
 Didymus points out it was done freely and that thereby Christ 
 did not lay aside His royal dignity but rather shows the sublimity 
 of His Deity (Betxvuq t6 uxipoyxov tyjs 6£6ttjt;o<;). 
 
 There is abundant evidence in the writings of St. Epiphanius 
 (►J403) to show his interpretation of Luke ii. 49. Like St. Cyril of 
 Jerusalem, he joins the text with the words "take these things 
 hence and make not the house of My Father a house of traffic," to 
 prove against heretics that the God of the Old Law is the Father 
 of Jesus; 3 like Irenaeus, he gives it as one of the passages into 
 
 divinam attulit minime obscure, per illam ostendens, se Deura esse came obtec- 
 tum. Nam cum Deipara Virgo Josephum qui vulgo parens illius habebatur, pa- 
 trem illius appellasset ipse sermonem ita excepit, ut templi Dominum hie 
 est Deum non autem Josephum patrem suum esse planum faceret. Quandoquidem 
 cum in Dei templo, Nesciebatis, inquit, quod in his . . ." In the quotation, the con- 
 trast in Christ's words is pointed out and the view of real Divine Sonship is clearly 
 interpreted. 
 
 1 M.PG XXXIII. 612. 
 
 2 M.PG XXXIX. 896. 
 
 3 Adv. Haer. Lib. II. Tom. 2, Haer. 63, M.PG XLII. 93. 
 
THE FATHERS ON LUKE ii. 49 7 
 
 which heretics read their doctrine that the Father of Christ was an 
 unknown God. 1 Refuting the doctrine of the Ebionites, that 
 "Christ" came upon the man Jesus only in His thirtieth year 
 when the Holy Ghost descended upon Him in the form of a dove, 
 Epiphanius brings forward many arguments from the infancy 
 narrative to show that "Christ was God and Man immediately 
 from His birth of the Virgin Mary." 2 In this argument he appeals 
 to what is narrated of the twelfth year about Christ sitting among 
 the priests and elders, and to His reply to His Mother. Concern- 
 ing the latter, he says it showed "that the Temple was erected to 
 the name of God (that is His) Father," GTj^atvwv, oti 6 vao<; £?<; 
 ovojia 0sou n<ZTp&<; q)xo8o(juf)6Y). "Hence" (he argues) "if from His 
 very infancy He knew the Temple and the Father (d xofvuv 
 ixo vtqx(ou oIBe tov vaov %al tov IlaTspa) Jesus was not born as mere 
 man (^tX6q av0po>xoq) nor (only) after His thirtieth year when 
 the form of a dove descended upon Him did He call Himself Son 
 and Christ, but straightway He teaches that in the (things) of His 
 Father He must be" (eu6u<; £v toT<; tou n<XTpo<; ataou Bstv ocutov elvat 
 iSc'Saaxev). 3 Epiphanius, thus, infers from Christ's words that He 
 was not born as mere man, and He called Himself Son (in the 
 real sense since He was not mere man) and Christ, before his thir- 
 tieth year. 
 
 The same stand is taken in another part of his work. In this 
 latter place Epiphanius employs Luke ii. 49 to refute the conten- 
 tion that the Holy Ghost came upon Jesus only at the time of 
 His baptism. He writes that since Jesus performed no prodigies 
 before the miracle of Cana, "lest occasion would be given to the 
 other heresies which say that at the Jordan Christ came upon 
 Him in the form of a dove, in His twelfth year, as Luke expressly 
 points out, disputing with the priests and elders, He said to 
 His mother, 'Did you not know . . . ,' so that there might be 
 excluded the opinion of those who say that the Holy Ghost 
 descended upon Him after the time of the baptism" (Yva %iaj] 
 b ~k6yo<; tgjv Xsy6vt(ov, oti dxo tou xP^vou t °u @axT(<j[jiaTOs xarifb] 
 e(<; ccutov to nveu^a t& aytov). 4 Here we have another indication 
 
 1 Adv. Haer. Lib. I. Tom. 3, Haer. 34, n. 18, M.PG XLI. 620. 
 
 2 Adv. Haer. Lib. I. Tom. 2, Haer. 30, n. 29, M.PG XLI. 456. 
 
 3 Id. 457. 
 
 4 Adv. Haer. Lib. II. Tom 1, Haer. 51, n. 20, M. PG XLI. 925. 
 
8 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 that Epiphanius understood Christ's words to express real Divine 
 Sonship. 
 
 The great defender of orthodoxy, St. Cyril of Alexandria 
 (►J< 144), commenting on Luke ii. 49, explicitly states that "here 
 for the first time He makes more open mention of His true Father 
 and reveals His Divinity," 'EvTauGa ouv xpwTGx; tou ak-qft&q Hazpbq 
 cpavepwTspov ymjuoveflsi, xal xapaYupivoT ttJv £auxou OsdTTQTa. 1 He 
 goes on to bring out the meaning of the contrast between Jesus' 
 reply and Mary's question. "His mother had said, 'Why hast 
 thou done this to us?' He answered, 'Did you not know that I 
 must be in the (things) of My Father?' showing He was more than 
 human (twv avOpwxIvwv £x£x.siva jjiiipwv £ocut&v ovtcc SstxvDq) and 
 teaching her that she had been made the handmaid of the dispen- 
 sation in giving birth to Him but that He by nature and in truth 
 was God and Son of the Heavenly Father" (<p6asc B£ xal dXiqOefty 
 Qzbq -rjv, xai Tlbq tou £v oupavoT? ovto<; Uaipbq). 2 
 
 There can be no question of this writer's position, which is also 
 expressed in his work, De recta fide ad Reginas. When proving 
 from St. Luke's Gospel that Christ is "the only Son and Lord," 
 St. Cyril appeals to Luke ii. 49 as an argument for his purpose, for 
 "Christ named the Father in heaven as His own Father," '*A0pei 
 8t?j o5v Sxwq T&tov kauiou Uaiipa tov iv Totq oupavot<; 6vo^a£ei. 3 In 
 real critical style Cyril argues, "If He was only man and considered 
 Himself no more than we are (vooujjisvog xa8' T)(xaq) should He 
 not have said,' Did you not know that I must be in the (things) of 
 the Father of all?' but He makes God His own Father (ccXV TBiov 
 auTou xoisTtoci), for He alone was divinely born of God according 
 to nature, and having become man He retained His own Father by 
 nature, God." 4 This writer, therefore, not only favors the view 
 that Christ expressed His real Divine Sonship and Divinity in 
 Luke ii. 49, but more than this, he appeals to this text as an excel- 
 lent argument in favor of his opinion. 
 
 Cyril's great opponent, Theodoret of Cyprus (►J458), seems to 
 hold that, in the first recorded words, the Boy Jesus rebuked His 
 
 1 In his explanation of St. Luke's Gospel, ad loc. M.PG LXXII. 509. 
 
 2 M.PG LXXII. 509. 
 
 3 M.PG LXXVI. 1320. 
 
 4 Id. 
 
THE FATHERS ON LUKE ii. 49 9 
 
 mother "as her Lord." l In a work on the Incarnation, towards 
 the end of a summary of the incidents of the Childhood account, 
 he writes, Christ "attends at the temple, puts to shame the Judaic 
 dullness, and this when only twelve years old. Having remained 
 behind He is found and blamed by His mother. He defends 
 Himself and quietly reveals His Divinity (r\p£\±<x %u<; xapaYu^vot 
 t^v 0e6TTQTa) ; 'Do you not know,' says He, 'that I must be in the 
 (things) of My Father,' showing that He is not alone what He 
 appeared to the eyes to be, but He is also God (hidden in what 
 was seen) who proceeded from the Father before all time and from 
 all eternity" (BstxvCx; ox; oti y.6vov iail ib 6pwyLsvov, dXka v.(xl 8s6c; 
 ivT(p 6p(i)tiiv<i>xpuTT6^svo<;, ux£pxpovo<; %od xpoatwvtoq ix tou Hoct- 
 pbq xpoeXGwv). 2 From these explicit expressions, "reveals His 
 Divinity," "showing He is not alone what He appeared to the 
 eyes to be, but is also God," there cannot be any doubt that 
 Theodoret infers from Christ's words strict Divinity and real 
 Divine Sonship. 3 
 
 To the question, then, what view the Greek Fathers hold con- 
 cerning the self-consciousness of Christ as expressed in Luke ii. 49, 
 it is to be answered that they are unanimous in understanding 
 them as a declaration of real Divine Sonship. More than this, 
 they nearly all employ these words to defend or demonstrate His 
 true Divinity. Origen and Cyril of Jerusalem make use of the first 
 recorded words to refute the heretics who contended that Jesus' 
 Father was not the God of the Old Law. Besides using them for 
 this purpose, Epiphanius also wields them against the Ebionites, 
 who said that " Christ " came upon Jesus at the baptism. By these 
 words, Cyril of Alexandria proves Christ's Divine self-conscious- 
 ness, pointing out that if He thought Himself no more than we are, 
 He would have used different words; and both he and Theodoret 
 explicitly state that in these words Christ revealed His Divinity. 
 
 » M.PG LXXXIII. 144. 
 
 2 M.PG LXXXIV. 73. This is found almost verbatim in a work on the Incarna- 
 tion ascribed to St. Cyril of Alex., M.PG LXXV. 1462; but the latter part of St. 
 Cyril's work has been shown to be spurious and to belong to Theodoret. Cf. 
 Bardenhewer, Patrol., 363. Here Christ's words are given differently. 
 
 3 Tischendorf (Oct. Maj. I. 439) mentions a reference to Theodoret as 5, 1063; 
 I have not been able to verify it. A spurious work " Dialogus contra Macedonianos' ' 
 (I. 19), attributed both to Theodoret and Athanasius, quotes Lk. ii. 49, without any 
 comment (M.PG XXVIII. 1324). The text is given, kv t<? oXk V . . . Likely, 
 this is the reference cited by Tischendorf . 
 
10 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 2. THE LATIN FATHERS 
 
 In the twenty-sixth chapter of his work, Adversus Praxeam, 
 when showing the agreement of Matthew and Luke with John in 
 respect to the distinct personality of the Father and the Son, 
 Tertullian (^250) mentions that Christ, by the first recorded 
 words, testified from His very boyhood that He was the Son of God : 
 "His itaque rebus quodcumque sunt, spiritu Dei et sermone et 
 virtute, collatis in virginem, quod de ea nascitur, Filius Dei est. 
 Hoc se et in istis Evangeliis ipse testatur statim a puero; Non 
 scitis, inquit, quod in Patris mei me esse oportet?" l From a 
 context of the Virgin Birth, and from the object of this chapter, it 
 is clear that Tertullian understood this Divine Sonship, to which 
 Jesus testifies from His boyhood, in the real sense. 
 
 Juvencus, who, in the year 330 or thereabouts, wrote a kind of 
 Gospel harmony in hexameter verse, renders Luke ii. 49 as follows : 
 
 Ille autem; Quid me tantum, quid quaeritis? inquit, 
 An nondum sentis, genetrix, quod iure paternis 
 Sedibus et domibus natum inhabitare necesse est? 2 
 
 Note that Juvencus uses the word "natum" which would not suit 
 moral Sonship but which points to real Divine Sonship as his view. 
 St. Ambrose (Vp397) sees in Jesus' words a reference to both the 
 Divine and the human element of Christ and implies the interpre- 
 tation of real Divine Sonship. After quoting the text he adds: 
 ' 'There are two generations in Christ, one paternal and the other 
 maternal; the paternal is the more divine (Paterna ilia divinior); 
 the maternal that which descended to our labor and usage, and so 
 those things which are performed above nature, above age, above 
 custom, are to be ascribed not to human powers but to the divine 
 powers . . . Here the mother is censured because she demands 
 what is human" (hie mater arguitur quia adhuc quae humana sunt 
 exigat) . 3 Ambrose goes on to point out that even at twelve years 
 of age Christ has disciples, for the mother learns from her Son: 
 "Sed cum hie duodecim describatur annorum, illic discipulos 
 
 1 M. PL II. 189. 
 
 2 Corp. Script. Lat. (edit. J. Huemer), XXIV. 18. 
 
 3 Corp. Script. Lat. (edit. Schenkl), XXXII. 75. 
 
THE FATHERS ON LUKE ii. 49 11 
 
 habere doceatur, vides matrem didicisse de filio, ut exigeret a 
 validiore ministerium quae stupebat in iuniore miraculum." * 
 
 In a homily (II. De concordia Evangelistarum Matthaei et 
 Lucae in generationibus Domini, chap. 10), Augustine (»^430) 
 writes concerning Jesus first recorded saying: "Hoc propterea 
 dixit, quia Filius Dei erat in templo Dei. Templum enim illud 
 non erat Joseph, sed Dei." 2 After this explicit interpretation of 
 Divine Sonship, further on (after again quoting the text) he says 
 He does not wish to be their Son in such a way as He would not 
 be understood to be the Son of God: "Non enim sic se volebat esse 
 filium eorum, ut non intelligeretur Filius Dei; Filius enim Dei, 
 semper Filius Dei creans illos ipsos. Filius autem hominis ex 
 tempore, natus de virgine sine semine maritali, parentem tamen 
 habebat utrumque." It is plain he here has in mind real Divine 
 Sonship. In chapter 12 he points out that Christ did not deny 
 Joseph the name of father ("Non sic indicat Patrem Deum, ut 
 neget patrem Joseph") nor did He mean to say "you are not My 
 parents. But they are his earthly parents, He the Eternal 
 Father " (Vos non estis parentes mei. Sed parentes illi temporali- 
 ter, pater ille sempiterne.) 3 
 
 Augustine again brings out the force of the contrast in Christ's 
 words in another work, De Nuptiis et Concupiscentia. He gives 
 the mother's question and thus introduces Christ's words: "At 
 ille ut ostenderet habere se praeter illos patrem, qui eum genuit 
 praeter matrem, respondit sic." 4 This certainly is a clear and em- 
 phatic interpretation of real Divine Sonship: that Christ uttered 
 this reply to Mary to point out that besides the parents He had a 
 Father who begot Him without a Mother. 
 
 In a letter (Epist. XVI. 2) to the bishops of Sicily, Leo the 
 Great (^461) says that Christ's earliest recorded saying signifies 
 "He was the Son of Him to Whom also belonged the Temple" 
 (significans ejus se esse filium cujus esset et templum). 5 This 
 indicates that Leo understands real Divine Sonship. 
 
 1 Erasmus, Biblia Critica, VI. 265 (cf. also Albertus Magnus, Comment, ad 
 loc; Opera omnia, VII. 256) interchanges "miraculum" and "ministerium" to suit 
 the sense. 
 
 2 M.PL XXXVIII. 342-343. 
 a M.PL XXXVIII. 343. 
 
 4 Corp. Script. Lat. (edit. Vrba and Zycha), XLII. 225. 
 6 M.PL LIV. 697. 
 
12 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 The conclusion from this patristic study is, that the Fathers 
 are unanimous in the view that Jesus at twelve years of age 
 revealed His real Divine Sonship; the Latin Fathers are clear 
 and explicit on the point, and the Greeks go beyond this, nearly 
 all using the text, Luke ii. 49, to defend or demonstrate Christ's 
 true Divinity. 
 
 It is to be noticed that those who understand fv toI<; as 
 "house," e.g., Origen, Juvencus, take the side of the common 
 opinion. And these Fathers quoted above represented different 
 times, different countries (Alexandria, Jerusalem, North Africa, 
 Rome, etc.), different schools, indeed hostile camps, e.g., Cyril 
 of Alexandria and Theodoret. Moreover, they use quite different 
 ways to express their views, thereby proving their independence 
 and indicating that they are voicing tradition. 
 
 The Fathers' explicit inferences of real Divine Sonship from 
 Christ's words become all the more remarkable in the light of 
 the fact, that but few of them had occasion to give more than 
 passing notice to the Gospel text. On account of this, we need not 
 expect to find brought out by them everything that is therein 
 implied. Yet at least three of them indicate that in Christ's words 
 is conveyed a contrast to the words His mother had just uttered; 
 Titus of Bostra sees "My Father" opposed to "thy Father"; 
 and Cyril of Alexandria and Augustine bring out the force of the 
 contrast between the heavenly Fatherhood and the earthly 
 parentage. 
 
CHAPTER II 
 
 OTHER EVIDENCE OF THE VIEW OF THE 
 EARLY CHURCH 
 
 1. FURTHER EVIDENCE IN THE FATHERS AND TEXTS 
 
 Besides the direct statements of the Fathers on Luke ii. 49, 
 given in the previous chapter, other evidence can be furnished 
 which would imply the view expressly taken by those already men- 
 tioned. How the Boy Christ's expression of Divine Sonship was 
 understood, would be implied by assertions of Christ's Divine 
 Sonship and preexistence. Such assertions can be found even in 
 the Apostolic and Sub-apostolic Fathers, linking up the first Father 
 who directly refers to this text (Irenaeus) to the time contemporary 
 with the Gospel writers. 
 
 The Didache (65-80) gives instruction "to baptize in the name 
 of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost " (VII.). 1 IEp. 
 Clement (96) refers to Christ as "the Son" and says that "con- 
 cerning the Son, the Master said thus : 'Thou art My Son, I today 
 have begotten Thee' " (XXXVI.). 2 Christ is called "Our God" 
 and "Son of God" by Ignatius (98-117) in the same breath as he 
 speaks of His Virgin Birth of the Holy Ghost (Ephes. XVIII. ; 
 Smyr. I. I). 3 He also mentions "in the Son and Father and in the 
 Spirit" (Mag. XIII.), 4 and says that Christ "was with the Father 
 before the world" (Mag. VI.). 5 TheEp. Barnabas (70-132) speaks 
 of the Son of God coming in the flesh (e.g. V.), and narrates that 
 Christ "manifested Himself to be the Son of God" (V.), that He 
 "said He was the Son of God" (VII.). 6 The Pastor of Hermas 
 (90-155) states that "the Son of God is older than all His creatures, 
 
 1 Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, 220. 
 
 2 Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, 73. Clement refers to Christ's preexistence, XVI. 
 
 3 Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, 141. 156; cf . Ephes. VII. 
 
 4 Id. 146. 
 
 5 Id. 144; cf. also VII. 
 
 6 Id. 273, 276. Christ's preexistence stated, v.g. VI. 12. 
 
 IS 
 
14 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 so that He became the Father's adviser in His creation" (III. 
 Sim. IX. 12). 1 Jesus is called God's "Beloved Son" in Epistle 
 to Diognetus (about 150). This work mentions a great and un- 
 utterable scheme conceived in God's mind which "He communi- 
 cated to His Son alone" (VIII.). 2 St. Justin Martyr (155-160) says 
 that the "Word of God is His Son" and mentions texts which 
 "were written" to prove "that Jesus the Christ is the Son of God" 
 (1 Apol. LXIII.). 3 He frequently uses the words "the Son," "the 
 Father," and his meaning is clear. Thus he says "and His Son, 
 who alone is properly called son, the Word who was with Him 
 and was begotten before the works" (II. Apol. VI.)- 4 
 
 That real Divine Sonship was expressed in the first recorded 
 words of Jesus would be implied by the Fathers, who refer to the 
 Child Christ as " God." Many Fathers said that the Magi offered in- 
 cense to the Christ Child "as to God": Irenaeus, 5 Origen, 6 Juven- 
 cus, 7 Ambrose, 8 Jerome, 9 Gregory of Nazianzus, 10 Chrysostom, 11 
 Gregory the Great. 12 Ephraim writes "God as a Babe," 13 and 
 Augustine states "from the time He began to be man, from this 
 time He is also God." 14 
 
 The Fathers, interpreting the scene of the Boy Christ among 
 the Doctors, Luke ii. 46-48, maintained it to have been miraculous, 
 thereby implying the view presented in the previous chapter. 15 
 
 More direct is the evidence from the statements of the Fathers 
 on the question of the increase of Christ's knowledge and their 
 
 1 Id. 469. This writer frequently uses "Son," "Son of God." 
 
 2 Id. 507. 
 3 A-NFI. 184. 
 *A-NFI. 190. 
 
 6 Adv. Haer. III. 9, 2, M.PG VII. 871. 
 
 6 Contra Celsus I. 60, M.PG LX. 772. 
 
 7 Harmon, line 250, Corp. Script. Lat. XXIV. 16. 
 
 8 Exposit. Luc. in Luc. ii, M.PL XIV. 1569. 
 8 Exposit. Matt, ii, M.PL XXX. 557. 
 
 10 Oration XIX. 12, M.PG XXXV. 1057; Oration XXXVIII. 17, M.PG XXXVI. 
 352. 
 
 11 Qedv kv caput irpoaKwov^vov. In Matt. Horn. VII. 4, M.PG LVII. 77. 
 
 12 Thus vero in Dei sacrificium ponebatur. Horn, in Evang. 1 10, 6, M.PL LXXVI. 
 1112. 
 
 13 Hymn I. in Nativ. N.P-NF (2d ser.) XIII. 223. 
 
 14 Ex quo homo coepit, ex illo est et Deus. De Trin. XIII. 17, M.PL XLII. 1031. 
 16 As a rule the Fathers refer to Christ as "disputing," and give the interpretation 
 
 that the scene was miraculous. See below, p. 132-3. Chrysostom says that when 
 Christ was twelve years old "He manifested Himself" (k£k<j>rivtv kavrdp), in 
 Matt. Horn. X. 2, M.PG LVII. 186. 
 
OTHER EARLY CHURCH EVIDENCE 15 
 
 explanations of Luke ii. 52, "and Jesus advanced in wisdom ..." 
 As to how "Jesus advanced in wisdom" the Fathers are divided, 
 some of them holding that the text merely has reference to external 
 manifestation of wisdom, 1 while others claim it means that Christ 
 increased * 'according to human nature." 2 But all insist that ac- 
 cording to His divine Nature He knew no increase. For instance, 
 Athanasius writes, "it was only His human nature that advanced; 
 Wisdom Himself did not advance, rather He advanced in Him- 
 self" (cxuibq £v £auT(p xpoixoxTs). 3 
 
 We have such assertions as that of Clement of Alexandria, 
 who says of Christ, "for Him to make any additions to His 
 knowledge is absurd, since He is God," 4 and that of John of 
 Damascus, who states that those who assert there was an increase 
 of wisdom and grace in Christ "deny that He enjoyed the Hypo- 
 static Union from the first moment of His existence." 6 
 
 That Christ had no development, but was perfect from the 
 beginning, is stated by some of the Fathers. Clement of Alex- 
 andria asks, "Will they not own, though reluctant, that the Perfect 
 Word born of the Perfect Father was begotten in Perfection, 
 according to economic fore-ordination?" 6 Explaining that 
 "wisdom and age" were only gradually evidenced, Gregory of 
 Nazianzus asks, "How could He become more perfect Who from the 
 beginning was perfect?" (toO &%* dpx?j<;TsXs(ou). 7 That Christ was a 
 perfect man already in the womb (perf ectus vir in ventro femineo) 8 
 was stated by Jerome. And he also states that His infancy was 
 not prejudicial to His Divine wisdom, "infantiam humani corporis 
 divinae non praejudicasse sapientiae." 9 Cyril of Alexandria says 
 that "a wonderful wisdom might easily have appeared (ixcp-fjvai) 
 
 1 V. g. Cyril of Alex. In Luc, M.PG LXXII. 507-8; Nilus, Epist. I. 288, M.PG 
 LXXIX. 188. 
 
 2 Ambrose, De Incaraat. VII. 72, M.PL LXV. 231: Proculus, Epist. XIV. 
 M.PG LXV. 869; Gregory of Nyssa, M.PG XLV. 735. For other references see 
 Schulte, Die Entwickelung der Lehre vom menschl. Wissen Christi. 
 
 3 Oratio III. Contra Ar., M.PG XXVI. 433. See also Epist. to Epict., M.PG 
 XXVI. 1060. Also Theodoret, De Incarnat., M.PG LXXXIV. 72; Vigilius, Contra 
 Eutych. V. 12-13, M.PL LXII. 143-144, etc. 
 
 « Paedag. I. 6, M.PG VIII. 279. 
 
 e De Fide orthod. III. 22, M.PG XCIV. 1080. 
 
 6 Loc. cit. 
 
 7 Oratio XLIII. in Laud. Basil. M.PG XXXVI. 548. 
 
 8 In Jerem. vi. 22, Corp. Script. Lat. (edit. Rieter), LIX. 398. 
 
 9 In Isaiam iii. 7, M.PL XXIV. 110. 
 
16 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 in the Babe," l but that it would be incongruous to the laws of 
 "the economy/ ' And Augustine holds that ignorance and mental 
 weakness were not in the Infant Jesus, "... quam plane ignoran- 
 tiam nullo modo crediderim fuisse in infante illo, in quo Verbum 
 caro factum est, ut habitaret in nobis, nee illam ipsius animi 
 infirmitatem in Christo parvulo fuerim suspicatus, quam videmus 
 in parvulis." 2 
 
 These Fathers, attributing no ignorance and no mental develop- 
 ment to the Christ Child, would imply the interpretation of real 
 Divine Sonship in the first recorded words. 
 
 This interpretation is also implied by other evidence in connec- 
 tion with words in the context of Luke ii. 49. In Luke ii. 33, 
 according to the correct text, Joseph is mentioned as 6 xorcf) p auxo ; 
 in both Luke ii. 41 and 43, Mary and Joseph are called o? yoveiq 
 aikou, and in the question which drew forth Christ's first words, 
 Mary refers to Joseph as 6 luornijp aou, Luke ii. 48. There is wide- 
 spread evidence of a distaste for the names "parents " and "father " 
 in these verses. 
 
 Frequently do we find the Fathers explaining why Mary 
 referred to Joseph as "Thy Father." Thus Origen, giving Luke 
 ii. 48 as an example, says that the word "father" is "granted" 
 to Joseph in Scripture on account of His faithful ministry, "Pro 
 fideli ministerio, patris ei vocabulum Scriptura concessit." 3 
 Epiphanius often repeats that Joseph was not father, but was only 
 in the place (£v td£ft) of a father. 4 The reason why Mary ca led 
 Joseph father was, according to St. Cyril of Alexandria, to avoid 
 the suspicion of the Jews. 5 Likewise, St. John Chrysostom assigns 
 the reason why the Virgin Birth was concealed, not only by Mary 
 but even afterward by the Apostles, "that the Virgin should be 
 preserved and delivered from all suspicion." 6 
 
 Both Augustine and Jerome explain the use of the words 
 
 1 Quod unus est Christus, 760, M.PG LXXV. 1352. 
 
 2 De PeccatoEum Meritiis et Remissione, II. 48, Corp. Script. Lat. LX. 119. 
 Commenting on Jerem. i. 6, "I do not know to speak, because I am a youth," 
 Origen (Horn. I. 8, in Jerem. M.PG XIII. 265) seems to attribute this passage 
 to the Logos before He assumed human nature. Hence He would not be an ex- 
 ception to the Fathers given above. 
 
 3 In Levit. Horn. XIII. M.PG XIII. 539. 
 
 « Twice in Adv. Haer. I. II. xxx.29M.PG XLI. 456-7; again, M.PG XLII. 686. 
 
 6 Explan. in Luc. Evang. ad loc, M.PG LXXII. 508. 
 
 «In Matt. Horn. III. N.P-NF (1st ser.) X. 15. 
 
OTHER EARLY CHURCH EVIDENCE 17 
 
 "parents" and 'father." Augustine says, because of their conju- 
 gal fidelity Mary and Joseph are called "parents," and Joseph is 
 Christ's father, being the husband of Mary but the "father in 
 purpose only." l St. Jerome states, that to preserve the reputa- 
 tion of Mary, Joseph was regarded by all as father; 2 and he men- 
 tions the fact of Joseph being called father by Mary, who had 
 conceived of the Holy Ghost, as an example of things referred to 
 in Scripture according to the opinion of the time and not according 
 to reality (non juxta quod rei Veritas continebat). 3 So, too, 
 Sophronius explains that Joseph was only thought to be father, and 
 it was Mary who "had not known man" who says "thy father." 4 
 
 And instead of quoting Mary's words correctly: "Thy father 
 and I," many early writers betraying their reverence for the Virgin 
 Mother invert the order giving "I and Thy father"; this is done 
 by Origen, 5 Jerome, 6 Epiphanius, 7 Sophronius, 8 and Chrysos- 
 tom. 9 
 
 This tendency to dislike the name father as applied to Joseph, 
 to dislike to include him under the name of parents is also evi- 
 denced in the manuscripts of the Greek texts and the versions. 10 
 
 First as to the Greek texts in Luke ii. 33 (for 6 iu<m?)p aikou 
 xat fj tAT)TY)p [Tisch. adds aurou] we find 'Ioxj^ip (or 6 'Iwa^tp) xal 
 IJUfjnQp aikou in AEGHKMSUVTAAII al pier go cop (dz recent) 
 syr (hard text); and in Luke ii. 43 (instead of *(ovziq) we find 
 'Iwa^ip xal y) tiTjTiqp auToO in ACXTAII unc 8 al pier go syr (hard 
 text) aeth. 
 
 The same thing is to be noticed in some of the Old Latin ver- 
 sions. For "pater ejus et mater" of ii. 33, we find "Joseph et mater 
 
 1 De Nuptiis et Concup. I. XIII. Corp. Script. Lat. XLII. 225. Cf. Concord. 
 Evang. Matt. Luc. serm. LI, M.PL XXXVIII. 342 ff. 
 
 2 Perpet. Virgin, of B. Mary, N.P-NF (2d ser.) VI. 33 ff. 
 
 3 In Jerem. proph. V. Corp. Script. Lat. (edit. Reiter), LIX. 345. 
 
 4 In S. apost. Pet. et Paul, IX, M.PG LXXXVII. 3364. 
 
 5 Loc. cit. 
 
 6 In the last place cited. In the other place Jerome quotes the text correctly. 
 
 7 In the three places cited. 
 
 8 Loc. cit. 
 
 9 Twice, cf. Teschendorf, Oct. Maj. ad loc. It is also done in later works: Dial. 
 Maced. (Tischendorf, op. cit.), Pseudo-Augustinus (Lib. Quaest. LXI. 3), Alcuin 
 (Adv. Fel. VII), Photius (Ad Amphil. CLVIII), and others. 
 
 10 Vogels, "Die Eltern Jesu," BZ XI (1913) 33 ff., has collected the texts. Here 
 we only indicate the changes, and refer to this article for the authorities for the 
 preferred reading. 
 
18 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 ejus" in a b c d f ff 2 g 1 q r; aur 5. The word "parentes" of ii. 41, 
 is changed into, "Joseph et Maria," by a b c ff 2 g 1 q r. And " pater 
 tuus et ego" of ii. 48, is left out in a b ff 2 g 1 r (aur. reverses the 
 order, "ego et pater tuus," and e has the reading, "propinqui tui 
 et ego"). 
 
 As to the Syriac versions, the Curetonian drops out "Thy father 
 and I" in ii. 48, the Sinaiticus has "kinsfolk" for "parents" in 
 ii. 41, 43. The Peschitto inserts "Joseph" instead of "father" 
 in ii. 33, "kinsfold" instead of "parents" in ii. 41, "Joseph and 
 His mother" instead of "parents" in ii. 43. 
 
 All these changes could not have been caused through error, 
 or through the "love of amplification." 1 Most scholars agree 
 that these changes were deliberately made on account of a dislike 
 to name Joseph as father. How early this evidence appears, is 
 seen from the fact that the changes are found not only in the 
 Greek manuscripts but also in the Old Latin and Syriac versions. 
 This objection to the name father when applied to Joseph, and to 
 having him included under the word "parents, " is evidence of first 
 rate importance, to the early belief in the Virgin Birth and is in- 
 direct evidence as to how the Early Church viewed the words "My 
 Father" on Christ's lips. It was for them the expression of real 
 Divine Sonship. 
 
 2. THE APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS OF THE CHILDHOOD 
 
 We shall have occasion to mention the Protevangelium of 
 James, the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, the Childhood Gospel of 
 Thomas, and the Arabic Gospel of the Childhood. The Prot- 
 evangelium of James "is very old" 2 ; some scholars date the 
 writing in the early decades of the second century, but most 
 scholars place it "in the second half of the century." 3 The Gospel 
 of Pseudo-Matthew is a recension of the Protevangelium and its 
 date lies between the fourth and the sixth century. 4 Of the Child- 
 hood Gospel of Thomas there are three forms, two in Greek and 
 
 1 Plummer (Comment, on St. Luke, 75) says: "the love of amplification or of 
 definiteness might suffice." 
 
 2 Hoffman, Apocrypha, Sch-HEnc I. 106. 
 
 8 Findlay, Gospels (Apocryphal), HDG I. 681. 
 
 4 Cf. Reid, Cath. Enc. I. 607. Findlay, HDG I. 682. 
 
OTHER EARLY CHURCH EVIDENCE 19 
 
 one in Latin. Irenaeus' citation from it (Adv. Haer. I. 20, 1) 
 would suggest it is a gnostic production of the second century; 1 
 but the forms in which it has come down to us bear but slight 
 evidence of this influence. The date of the recension by an ortho- 
 dox hand is placed about the third century. 2 The Arabic Gospel 
 of the Childhood is a translation of a lost Syriac original. 3 Its 
 date is comparatively late, though probably before the Moham- 
 medan era. 4 
 
 These Apocryphal writings may contain authentic material 
 in the additions to the narratives of the Gospels, but in this 
 respect their value remains problematic, and consequently slight. 
 The chief and great value of the Apocryphal Gospels is that they 
 reflect the views of the times in which they were written and 
 extensively read. Nearly all the Apocrypha were written with a 
 deliberate dogmatic purpose and even those which were not, are 
 "doctrinally significant." 5 The Childhood Gospels, as we have 
 them, were written in the interests of orthodoxy, and their value 
 is enhanced because of their remarkable popularity, especially in 
 the East. 6 The Protevangelium was translated into Syriac, 
 Coptic and Arabic; the Arabic Gospel of the Childhood enjoyed 
 a wide circulation not only in the Churches of the East, but also 
 in Mohammedan circles. 7 
 
 What do we find in these accounts of Christ's Childhood? 
 They most explicitly and emphatically testify to the Virgin Birth 
 of Christ. 8 They attribute wonderful innate miraculous power 
 to the Child Jesus, — having His "every word accomplished," 9 
 and ascribe great preternatural knowledge to Him. The Pseudo- 
 Matthew, the Gospel of Thomas, and the Arabic Gospel mention 
 
 1 Cf. Hoffman, Sch-HEnc I. 106. Tasker puts it 160-180 a.d. (HDB Extra vol. 
 433, Apocryphal Gospels). 
 
 2 Some place the present form before the third century (cf . Bardenhewer, Patrol. 
 74. Hoffman, loc. cit). Some place it after the third century (cf. Findlay DHG I. 
 683, Michel Textes et Documents, Evang. Apoc. I. XXXII). 
 
 3 Cf. Batiffol, fivang. Apoc. VDB II. 2116. Hoffman, op. cit. 106, Reid, Cath. 
 Enc. I. 607, Tasker, HDB Extra vol. 433. 
 
 4 Cf. Reid, Cath. Enc. I. 607, Tasker, HDB Extra vol. 433. 
 6 Findlay, HDG I. 673. 
 
 6 Cf . Findlay, HDG I. 674. 
 
 7 In the Koran Jesus is represented as working miracles in His Childhood. 
 
 8 E.g. Protevang. XIX (A-NF VIII. 365), Ps. Matthew, XIII (A-NF VIII. 
 374). 
 
 9 Gosp. of Thomas (both Greek forms), IV (A-NF VIII. 395, 
 
20 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 three occasions on which the Child Jesus was taken to school, but 
 on each occasion it was He who was the Master, giving evidence of 
 preternatural knowledge. They witness to Christ's real Divinity 
 as a child; they have this stated by others, 1 but what is more 
 significant for our purpose, they represent Him as testifying to His 
 Divinity and Divine Sonship. For instance, the Gospel of Thomas 
 (first Greek form), III.: "I am here from above — as He that sent 
 Me on your account has commanded Me" 2 ; (second Greek 
 form), VI. "I am before the ages" 3 ; (Latin form), VI. "and before 
 all I was Lord . . . and My Father hath appointed this . . . " 4 ; in 
 Pseudo-Matthew, XXI. "that one of thy branches be carried away 
 by My angels, and planted in the paradise of My Father." 8 
 According to the Arabic Gospel, I., Jesus says from the cradle, "I 
 am Jesus, the Son of God, the Logos whom thou hast brought forth 
 as the angel Gabriel announced to thee; and My Father has sent 
 Me for the salvation of the world." 6 So that if the Apocryphal 
 Gospels of the Childhood reflect the views of the times in which 
 they were circulated (and in regard to doctrine they certainly do), 
 then in these early centuries it was held that Christ as a Child was 
 conscious of His mission, Divinity and Divine Sonship. They 
 certainly do not reflect any tradition of a growth or development 
 of His Self -consciousness, or that at a certain stage of His life He 
 awoke to the consciousness of His Divine Sonship. They vividly 
 depict Him as wielding miraculous power and fully conscious of His 
 Nature and Personality, and this as a Child. The Apocryphal 
 Gospels with which we are dealing are concerned with Christ only 
 before His twelfth year and do not go beyond that. Two of them, 
 the Gospel of Thomas (first Greek form XIX.) and the Arabic 
 Gospel (L.-LIII.) end their accounts by narrating the Temple 
 episode. In describing the Gospel incident of the twelfth year, 
 
 1 E.g. Ps. Matthew, XXIV: "Unless this were the God of our Gods, our Gods 
 would not have fallen on their faces before Him" (A-NF VIII. 377); Gosp. of 
 Thomas, VII. "Assuredly He was born before the creation of the world" (A-NF 
 VIII. 396); Arabic Gospel, X. "A god has come here in secret who is God indeed" 
 (A-NF VIII. 406); etc. 
 
 2 A-NF VIII. 396. 
 
 3 A-NF VIII. 399. 
 
 4 A-NF VIII. 401. 
 
 6 A-NF VIII. 277; cf. Chs. XX. XXX. 
 6 A-NF VIII. 405. 
 
OTHER EARLY CHURCH EVIDENCE 21 
 
 the Gospel of Thomas represents Christ before the Doctors as 
 "shutting the mouths of the elders and teachers of the people, 
 explaining the main points of the Law and the parables of the 
 Prophets." l It gives His words in answer to His mother; 2 and 
 it represents the Scribes and Pharisees as then addressing Mary 
 thus: "Blessed art thou among women, for such glory, and such 
 virtue and wisdom, we have neither seen nor heard ever." 3 From 
 the context one can easily see that the writer of this Childhood 
 Gospel of Thomas understood Christ's reference to His Father in 
 Luke ii. 49 in the real sense. Indeed this work represents Christ as 
 previously divinely self-conscious, v.g. VIIL, "I am here from 
 above." 
 
 The Arabic Gospel of the Childhood is of comparatively late date, 
 but nevertheless important because it is a translation of a Syriac 
 original; because of its wide circulation, and the great emphasis 
 it places on the Child Jesus' Divinity and Divine self -consciousness. 
 As we mentioned, this work represents the Child Jesus shortly 
 after birth as proclaiming His Divinity and mission; it represents 
 the twelve-year-old Christ before the doctors discoursing on the 
 natural sciences and on questions of Scripture: "Things which 
 the understanding of no creature attains to." 4 It likewise gives 
 Christ's answer to His mother thus: "Why do you seek Me? 
 Do you not know that I must be in My Father's house?" 5 There 
 is no question (as is clear from the whole context of the work) 
 that this writer understands the words "My Father" on the Boy's 
 lips as expressing real Divine Sonship. 
 
 Since the Apocryphal Gospels of the Childhood cast sidelights 
 on what people thought of Christ in the early centuries, they cer- 
 tainly afford widespread evidence for the view that Christ as a 
 Child was fully conscious of His Divinity, for the view that in His 
 first recorded words He expressed true Divine Sonship. If there 
 is any one doctrine emphasized in these Apocrypha, it is the doc- 
 trine of a Child born of a Virgin, possessing Divine powers and 
 Divine knowledge, and this doctrine implies that the words "My 
 
 1 A-NF VII. 398. 
 
 2 Text given by Michel, Textes et Documents, Evang. Apoc. I. 188. 
 
 » A-NF VIIL 398. 
 
 4 A-NF VIIL 415. 
 
 6 For Arabic Text, see Thilo, Codex. Apoc. N.T. 128. 
 
22 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 Father," in which the Boy Jesus referred to God, were taken liter- 
 ally. 
 
 Now in regard to doctrine, these Apocrypha are orthodox. 
 They could not become so remarkably popular if they contained 
 fundamental doctrines opposed to the opinions of the time. As 
 Findlay says, "The Childhood Gospels stand in the main current 
 of ecclesiastical doctrine in their view of the Person of Christ." l 
 So that we have early and widespread evidence that the view of the 
 Early Church was that Christ did not undergo any development 
 in His Divine self -consciousness, that as a Child He was conscious 
 of His Divinity and Divine Sonship, and hence that His words, 
 given in Luke ii. 49, express real Divine Sonship. 
 
 The objection that the Apocryphal Gospels were rejected and 
 condemned by the Fathers does not touch what we have said. 
 The latter, it is true, recorded their antipathy for the "false and 
 wicked stories" 2 and "ludicrous miracles" 3 recounted in these 
 writings, but they do not object to the doctrine which shines 
 through almost every page of these writings, the Child Jesus' 
 Divinity and Divine self -consciousness. If this was false and 
 opposed to the received tradition, it would be the first thing the 
 Fathers would attack and condemn. 
 
 *HDGI. 674. 
 
 2 Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. I. 20, 1, M.PG VII. 653. 
 
 •Epiphanius, Adv. Haer. II. 1, Haer. LI. 20; cf. Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. IV. 36. 
 
CHAPTER III 
 CONFLICTING HERETICAL OPINIONS 
 
 There is no evidence, in the early centuries of the Christian 
 era, of any explicit denials of the view that Jesus, in the first 
 recorded words, expressed real Divine Sonship. A denial, however, 
 is implied in the various heresies of that period which denied the 
 Divinity of Christ and taught that Jesus, a mere man up to his 
 thirtieth year, was at baptism indued with a higher personality. 1 
 
 Cerinthus, a contemporary of St. John, held that Jesus was a 
 mere man born of Mary and Joseph, and professed the view that 
 "after His baptism, Christ descended upon Him in the form of a 
 dove from the Supreme Ruler, and that then He proclaimed the 
 unknown Father and performed miracles." 2 
 
 Likewise, maintaining Jesus to be the son of Joseph, Carpo- 
 crates (beginning of second century) thought that "a power 
 descended upon Him from the Father, that by means of it, he 
 might escape from the creators of the world." 3 We do not know 
 what Carpocrates' view was, as to when this power came on Jesus; 
 he may have held it was at the baptism. 
 
 According to Irenaeus, 4 the opinion of the Ebionites in respect 
 to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. 
 Epiphanius 5 says they held that Christ came upon Jesus, the mere 
 man, at His baptism, when the Holy Ghost, in the form of a dove, 
 descended upon Him. The Christology of the Elkesaites resembled 
 
 1 Cf. Bornemann, Die Taufe Christi, 41-49; Brandt, Die jlidischen Baptism en, 
 Zatl W XVIII (1910) 90 ff.; de PressensS, The Early Years of Christianity, Book I. 
 1-193; Duchesne, Early History of the Church, 112 ff. 
 
 2 Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. I. 26, 1 (A-NF I. 352), also Hippolytus, Refutation of all 
 Her. X. XVII. 
 
 8 Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. I. 25, I (A-NF I. 350). 
 
 4 Adv. Haer. I. 26, 2 (A-NF I. 352). 
 
 5 Adv. Haer. I. II. Haer. XXX. 29 (M.PG XLI. 465). Thus in the Gospel used by 
 the Ebionites (Epiphanius, Haer. XXX. 13, M.PG XLI. 429) in the account of the 
 baptism there are three voices from heaven, one addressed to Christ Himself, "I 
 have this day begotten Thee." 
 
 23 
 
24 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 that of the Ebionites and Cerinthus : Jesus, the son of Joseph and 
 Mary, became Divine after baptism, by union with the Aeon 
 Christ. 1 
 
 The work, Libellus adversus omnes Haereses, which most 
 probably belongs to Victorinus of Pettau, states that a certain 
 Marcus and a Colarbasus, composing a novel heresy out of the 
 Greek alphabet, said that "Jesus Christ descended, that is, that 
 the dove came down on Jesus." 2 For this meaningless expression, 
 "denique Jesum Christum descendisse, " there has been recom- 
 mended the reading, "in Jesum Christum descendisse," i.e., that 
 Christ descended on Jesus, 3 thus conforming in view to the heresies 
 previously mentioned. 
 
 According to Clement of Alexandria, 4 the followers of Basilides 
 (about 120-140) kept the anniversary of the baptism of Jesus "as 
 a festival, spending the night before in readings." From this, it 
 would seem to have been their view that, it was only at the baptism 
 that Nous, the first emanation of the Supreme Father, took upon 
 him in Jesus the semblance of humanity. 5 We know from Tertul- 
 lian 6 that the Valentinians (Valentinus died about 160) held that 
 upon Christ the natural Son of the Demiurge (born through the Vir- 
 gin, not of her) "Jesus descended in the sacrament of baptism, in the 
 likeness of a dove." Irenaeus tells us that the Ophites, holding 
 that Jesus, born of a Virgin, was more righteous than other men, 
 said, "Christ, united to Sophia, descended into him, and thus 
 Jesus Christ was produced." 7 That these heretics had in mind 
 the baptism, is plain from the fact that Irenaeus goes on to state 
 that "they strove to establish the descent and ascent of Christ, 
 by the fact that neither 'before His baptism, nor after His resurrec- 
 tion from the dead, do His disciples state that He did any mighty 
 works." 8 
 
 Marcion (born 110) mutilated for his purpose the Gospel 
 
 1 Cf. Bardenhewer, Patrol. 190. Duchesne, Early History of the Church, 96. 
 
 2 A-NF III. 653. Cf. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. I. 21, 3 (A-NF I. 346). 
 
 3 Cf . A-NF III. 653, note 2. 
 
 4 Strom. I. xxi. 45 (M.PG VII. 888). 
 6 Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. I. 24; 3, 4. 
 
 6 Against the Valent., XXVII. (A-NF III. 516). Cf. Arendzen, art. Gnosticism, 
 Cath. Enc. VI. 595. 
 
 7 Adv. Haer. I. 30, 12 (A-NF I. 357). 
 » Adv. Haer. I. 30, 14 (A-NF I. 357). 
 
CONFLICTING HERETICAL OPINIONS 25 
 
 according to St. Luke, and professed the view that "Jesus, being 
 derived from that Father who is above the God that made the 
 world, and coming into Judea in the time of Pontius Pilate, was 
 manifested in the form of a man to those who were in Judea." x 
 Rejecting the Gospel narratives of Christ's baptism and tempta- 
 tion, commencing his account of the God-Manifest with Luke 
 iv. 14, Marcion does not attach any importance to the baptism 
 account; yet his view implies a rejection of the Fathers' interpre- 
 tation of Luke ii. 49. 
 
 We know from many sources the position of Theodotus of 
 Byzantium (about 190). Hippolytus 2 says he appropriated his 
 notions of Christ "from the school of the Gnostics, and of Cerinthus 
 and Ebion," and he describes his view thus: Jesus was a mere man 
 yet was born of a virgin. He "at His baptism in the Jordan 
 received Christ, who came from above and descended (upon Him) 
 in the form of a dove. And this was the reason, according to 
 Theodotus, why (miraculous) powers did not operate within him 
 prior to the manifestation in him of that Spirit which descended 
 (and) which proclaims Him to be the Christ.' ' In the very next 
 chapter (XXIV.), there is described the view of another Theodotus, 
 a banker. He developed the Melchisedecian heresy, and holding 
 views similar to the adherents of the other Theodotus, asserted 
 "that Jesus is a (mere) man, and that, in conformity with the same 
 account (already given), Christ descended upon him." 3 
 
 According to an anonymous fragment "Against the heresy of 
 Artemon," 4 Theodotus' heresy was adopted by Artemon (or 
 Artemas, about 230). Whether the view in regard to Christ's 
 baptism was taken up, however, is not certain. A somewhat 
 similar situation is presented in the case of Paul of Samosata, 
 Bishop of Antioch (260-270). We are told in Malchion's letter 5 
 that he swaggered "with the abominable heresy of Artemas." 
 
 1 Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. I. 27, 2 (A-NF 352). Cf. Tertullian, Adv. Marc. IV. vii. 
 (A-NF III. 351). 
 
 Refutation of all Her. VII. xxiii. (A-NF V. 114-115). 
 
 8 A-NF V. 115. 
 
 4 Also called "The little Labyrinth" (Theodoret, Haer. Fab. II. 5). It is pre- 
 served by Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. V. 28), and it is attributed to Caius and to 
 Hippolytus. 
 
 6 Fragment preserved by Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. VII. xxx. 4 and 5 (A-NF 
 VI. 170-171). 
 
m THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 Paul held that the Son or Logos (merely the impersonal wisdom of 
 God) dwelt in the man Christ as we live in houses. The time when 
 the Son or Logos first came to the man Jesus was, he thought, not 
 at the baptism, but at His very birth. This opinion seems to have 
 been held also by Beryllus, bishop of Bostra (about 240), who, 
 denying Christ's preexistence, said that "He did not possess 
 Divinity, but that the divine paternity only took up its abode in 
 Him." I 
 
 All these early views, implying a denial of the Fathers' inter- 
 pretation of Luke ii. 49, were heretical. They were condemned by 
 synods; they were refuted by orthodox writers. 2 The fact that 
 the Church looked upon these views as heretical intimates that the 
 contrary view was regarded as orthodox. It is an indirect indica- 
 tion that the view of the early Church concerning Luke ii. 49, was 
 the one expressed by the Fathers in their comments on the passage. 
 
 1 Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. VI. xxxiii. Lucianus, presbyter of Antioch, is said by 
 Theodoret (Eccles. Hist. I. 3) to be the successor of Paul of Samosata. Another 
 man affected by Antiochean influence was Theodore of Mopsuesetia (428). In the 
 words of the II. Cone. Constantinople (553) which condemned Theodore, he held 
 that Christ "as a mere man was baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, 
 and of the Holy Ghost and obtained by this baptism the grace of the Holy Spirit, 
 and became worthy of Sonship" (n. XII.). Another man many centuries later, 
 Faustus Socinus (1539-1604), had many affinities with Paul of Samosata. To him, 
 Christ was a deified man but not God, and he taught that Christ in His baptism 
 was endowed with miraculous power. 
 
 2 Against the "falsely called Gnostics," Irenaeus, among other arguments, 
 triumphantly appeals to the annunciation of the angels to the shepherds that 
 "there is born in the house of David, a Saviour who is Christ the Lord," Luke ii. 11, 
 (Adv. Haer. III. 10, 3), and he refutes the contention that "Christ" or the "so- 
 called Superior Saviour descended upon Jesus at His baptism (Adv. Haer. III. 
 17, 18). St. John Chrysostom refutes the contentions of Marcion and Paul of 
 Samosata, pointing to the fact that the Magi worshipped the Child Jesus. "Let 
 Marcion be ashamed, beholding God worshipped in the flesh; let Paul be ashamed, 
 beholding Him worshipped as not being merely a man" (in Matt. Horn. VII. 
 5; cf. In. Phil. Horn. VII; Irenaeus Adv. Haer. III. 9, 2). Against the Ebionites' 
 view that "Christ" came to the man Jesus at His baptism, Epiphanius not only 
 appeals to the facts of Christ's Childhood, but in a special way appeals to Christ's 
 words given in Luke ii. 49. 
 
SECTION II 
 
 LATER PERIOD OF THE HISTORY OF THE 
 
 QUESTION 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 
 FROM THE FATHERS TO THE RISE OF MODERN 
 RATIONALISM 
 
 1. FROM THE EIGHTH TO THE TWELFTH CENTURY 
 
 The commentators who immediately followed the Fathers 
 are unanimous in inferring real Divine Sonship from Jesus' earliest 
 recorded words, Luke ii. 49, and nearly all of them see a contrast 
 between these words and the words of the Virgin Mother in the 
 preceding verse. 1 
 
 Bede (►^735) explicitly points out the force of the contrast in 
 Christ's words and the question of Mary. He writes: "He 
 (Christ) did not refuse to have Joseph as His parent, but simply 
 and clearly insinuated to us, as well as to them, who is His real 
 Father (simpliciter et aperte qui sit verus sibi pater, nobis pariter 
 et illis insinuat)." 2 Again he says, "Not because they sought Him 
 as their Son does He blame them, but He draws their attention 
 to what He owes Him, of Whom He is the eternal Son (sed quid ei 
 potius cui aeternus est filius debeat, cogit oculos mentis attollere)." 3 
 
 Bede in a sermon goes further in his deduction from Christ's 
 first words. Jesus' words are an indication of Divine majesty; 
 "Divinae majestatis indicium fuit, de qua alibi dicit: Omnia 
 quaecumque habet Pater mea sunt; atque ideo rectissime templum 
 non minus ad se quam ad Patrem pertinere testatur." 4 Evidently 
 he gives Iv toT<; a wider interpretation than any of the Fathers, 
 seeming to understand by it all the things (omnia quaecumque) of 
 the Father, and among others, the Temple which He testified also 
 
 1 This is done by works of uncertain date of this period. Catenae Graecorum 
 Patrum (edit. A. Cramer II. 27) has, "My Father is not Joseph but God, who is 
 Lord of the temple." An ancient treatise on Luke says, that Jesus' earliest words 
 were to "remove the suspicion caused by Mary's words" and to show "that His 
 Father is God and not Joseph" (M.PG CVI. 1189). 
 
 2 In Lucae evang. I., M.PL XCII. 348. 
 8 Id. 350. 
 
 * Homil. XII. in Dominica prima past Epiph., M.PL XCIV. 65. 
 
 29 
 
30 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 belonged to Him. Also besides "Temple" he mentions "majesty 
 and glory," for he adds, "Quia in his quae Patris mei sunt oportet 
 me esse; quia nimirum quorum una est majestas et gloria, horum 
 etiam una sedes ac domus est; nee solum materialis Dei domus, 
 sed etiam domus intellectualis." Thus this scholar branches off 
 into the symbolical interpretation, and says finally (expressing in 
 an emphatic way an interpretation of Divinity) that Christ's 
 words are a declaration of His eternal power and majesty, "decla- 
 ratio est consempiternae Deo Patri potestatis et gloriae." l 
 
 The contrast in Jesus' words and Mary's reference to Joseph 
 as "father," is recognized by Alcuin (^804), for he says the pur- 
 pose of the words was to point out that His Father is God rather 
 than Joseph ("ut ostenderet Patrem suum esse Deum magis quam 
 Joseph"). 2 
 
 Photius (^891) interprets iv toc<; symbolically, "the illustrious 
 people who are called the temple and house of the Father." He 
 continues (interpreting real Divine Sonship) "and while the Son 
 clearly proclaimed His own Father" (t&v T&tov liaiiga, aacpwq 
 avaxT)p6£avT0<; tou Ylou) clearly also were revealed the thoughts 
 of those who said He was not the son of a carpenter nor born of any 
 earthly man but of Him Who begot Him before all time." 3 In 
 another work, after quoting Luke ii. 49 Photius asks, "What is 
 clearer than this, or more efficacious for closing the mouths of the 
 impious?" and goes on to give a paraphrase of Christ's own words 
 thus: IlaTYjp i\kbq d)orj0to<;, wxep ccvc£pwTai t6 fep6v. Tec hk tou 
 IIaTp&<; xavTa iaily i[L<i. Ouxouv oux I8st I^tqtsTv aXXaxou, ££6v 
 eupiaxsiv £v Totq tou IlaTpoq. 4 So that this writer sees in Christ's 
 saying not only a declaration that God is His true Father, but also 
 a declaration that all the things of the Father are His. 
 
 The opposition in Jesus' words, "My Father" and "Thy 
 father" used in reference to Joseph, is brought out by Haymo of 
 Halberstadt (^895) in his comments: "quis verus pater ejus sit 
 ipse manifestat," again, "utramque suam naturam Dominus nobis 
 commendat." Besides he says, "the Temple, the prophets, and 
 the frequent meditation on Divine Scripture belong to His 
 
 1 Id. 66. 
 
 2 Adv. Felicem, IV. 1, 12, M.PL CI. 137. 
 
 8 Ad. Amphilochium, CLVIL, M.PG CI. 832. 
 « Contra Manichaeos, IV. 16, M.PG CII. B. 213. 
 
THE RISE OF MODERN RATIONALISM 31 
 
 Father," and "beautifully in these His works He demonstrated 
 that He was the Son of God," — pulchre in his suis operibus Filium 
 Dei se demonstravit. 1 
 
 Simeon Metaphrastes (^970) has a number of remarks on 
 Luke ii. 49; the following are a selection. "Mary had spoken of 
 Joseph as father; Christ, as it were, correcting what was said spoke 
 of One who was real Father" (6 Xpt<ru&s ftaiuep zb $t)Qh SiopOoujxe- 
 voq xspl toO ovtgx; Xiyet IlaTp&s). "He showed He was by nature 
 God, since a son has the same nature as his father" (outw Sebtvuatv 
 eocuT&v ovtoc <puast ©s6v, e'tyei ir^q ocuttjc; (puaswc; 6 xalq T(j> Tex6vn). 
 
 "He shows that the Father's house, evidently the Temple, 
 and besides, all the things of the Father, are His. He points out 
 it is rather they who are to be blamed for not knowing these things, 
 and for not saying or thinking the truth of things. Here for the 
 first time He makes more open mention of His true Father and 
 reveals His Divinity" (ivrauGa ^pwtox; tou iXiqOwc; IIaTp&<; 
 ^avepwTspov jJLVT)(Jiovs6et xal xapayu^vol auxou ty)v be6if]xa). 2 In 
 one statement after another, this writer most explicitly gives ex- 
 pression to his interpretation of Divinity and brings out the 
 significance of the contrast in Christ's words and the words of 
 Mary. 
 
 Another commentator, who infers Christ's Divine Sonship 
 from this contrast, is Theophylact (>£<1107). He writes, "Since 
 Mary had called Joseph 'father' He replied, 'He is not my true 
 father, otherwise I would be in his house; but God is My Father' " 
 (oux <ztk6<; !<jtIv 6 c«Xtq0tq<; [aou xaTirjp, ^ Y&p <2v £v Tcp oYxcp ocijtoO 
 i^v, dXk' b @s6<; iail ^jlo u xaTTQp.) 3 
 
 Euthymius Zigabenus (^1118) thus points out the contrast: 
 "His mother had spoken of His adopted father; He manifested to 
 her Him Who was Father by nature" (auzbq 8£ tocuth t6v <puaei 
 n<ZT£pa auTou iyvtoptae). 4 
 
 A reflection of Bede's exegesis is given by Zacharias Chryso- 
 politanus (►£<]. 155). After quoting the text, he writes: "Non 
 quod eum quasi filium quaerent vituperat, sed cogit eos attollere 
 mentis oculos ad quaerendum quid debeat aeterno Patri, ostendens 
 
 1 Homil. XVII., M.PL CXVIII. 124. 
 
 2 Vita sanctorum, etc., M.PG CXV. 548. 
 
 8 Ennaratio in evang. Lucae, M.PG CXXIII. 733. 
 4 Commentar. in Lucam, M.PG CXXIX. B. 897. 
 
32 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 et templum et omnia quae Patris sunt, non minus ad se quam ad 
 Patrem pertinere, quorum una est majestas." l The position of 
 the writers of this period, on Luke ii. 49, is epitomized in the above 
 quotation : the interpreting real Divine Sonship from the contrast 
 with the preceding verse, the taking a wide view of £v to!<;, "Tem- 
 ple and all the things of the Father, of which one is majesty." 2 
 
 2. FROM THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY TO THE EIGHTEENTH 
 
 A, The Medieval Theologians 
 
 John Scotus Erigena (ninth century), a forerunner of the 
 Scholasticism of the Middle Ages, held that as Christ was the 
 Wisdom of the Father to Whom nothing was hid, and as He had 
 accepted a stainless human nature (incontaminatam humanita- 
 tem), He never suffered the ignorance inflicted as a punishment 
 on fallen man; but from His very conception He knew Himself 
 and all things and could speak and teach (confestim, ut conceptus 
 et natus est, et seipsum et omnia intellexit, ac loqui et docere 
 potuit). 3 This doctrine presupposes the view of real Divine Son- 
 ship as expressed by Christ in His first recorded words. 
 
 The first writer of a Summa Theologiae incorporating Aristo- 
 telian philosophy, Alexander of Hales (^1245), maintains that 
 Christ did not assume ignorance, did not learn anything from 
 angels, but enjoyed a threefold knowledge: the Beatific Vision, 
 uncreated knowledge, and the knowledge of experience. In a 
 certain kind of the latter knowledge, Christ made advance; the 
 rest He had from the beginning. 4 
 
 1 In unum ex quatuor, I. 2, M.PL CLXXXVI. 88. 
 
 2 There are other writers of the twelfth century who refer to the Lucan text. 
 Bruno, in his commentary on St. Luke, interprets it symbolically: "An nesciebatis 
 quia in his quae Patris mei sunt, et inter eos qui Patris mei voluntaten faciunt, 
 oportet me esse" (M.PL CLXV. 365). Identical words are found in Anselm's Homil. 
 VII. in Evang. secundum Luc. (Opera, edit. Gerberon, p. 172). Aelredus has a 
 treatise, De Jesu Puero Duodenni; but concerning the Boy's words, he merely says, 
 "jam hie coelestium mysteriorum in quibus per triduum fuerat observatus incipit 
 reserare secretum" (M.PL CLXXXIV. 855). Isaac of Stella, in his second sermon 
 for the Sunday within the Octave of the Epiphany, has this in reference to the 
 passage: "excepta tamen hac unitate naturae, et naturali unitate Patris et Filii, 
 a qua non recessit, nee Pater, nee Filius: etiam in sua mineratione non recessit 
 Filius a Patre dum in ejus semper mansit obedientia et voluntate" (M.PL CXCIV. 
 1777). 
 
 « De Divisione Naturae, IV. 10, M.PL CXXII. 777. 
 4 Summa Theologiae, pars III. quest. XIII. 43-45. 
 
THE RISE OF MODERN RATIONALISM 33 
 
 That Christ had a manifold knowledge (cognitionem multi- 
 plicem) was held by Albert the Great (^1280). His division is 
 much the same as the previous writer, but he explains Christ's 
 advance in knowledge as according to manifestation (secundum 
 ostensionem). 1 Albert's pupil, St. Thomas of Aquin (►£1274), who 
 laid down the lasting lines of Catholic theology, has a treatise on 
 "The Perfection of the Child conceived" in which he states that 
 "Christ, in the first instant of His conception, had the fulness of 
 sanctifying grace, the fulness of known truth, free will and the bea- 
 tific vision." 2 In his treatise on Christ's knowledge St. Thomas 
 says, that as man Christ had a threefold knowledge, the Beatific 
 Vision, infused knowledge, and acquired knowledge; in the last 
 alone He made progress. 3 
 
 These views of the perfection of Christ's knowledge from the 
 beginning, imply the interpretation of real Divine Sonship from 
 the words of the Boy Jesus recorded by St. Luke. And other 
 writers of this period express much the same views, for they were 
 incorporated in systematized Catholic theology. Thus Dionysius 
 the Carthusian (^1471) taught, that from the first moment of His 
 conception Christ was a perfect man, that he was perfect "not 
 by reason of His age, but on account of the fulness of grace, the 
 eminent degree of virtues and the perfection of wisdom," and that 
 Christ made no advance in these excepting in regard to the exer- 
 cise of them (sed quantum ad exercitium). 4 
 
 B. Commentators of this Period 
 
 It may be said in general, that the commentators who lived 
 between the thirteenth and the nineteenth centuries follow in the 
 footsteps of the previous writers interpreting Luke ii. 49, in the 
 sense of real Divine Sonship, and recognizing a contrast between 
 these words and the words of Mary. Concerning the interpreta- 
 
 1 In Lib. III. Sent. dist. XIII. art. XI. XII. Opera (edit. Jammy, Lugduni 1651) 
 XV. 140-141. 
 
 2 Summa Theologica, pars III. quest. XXXIV. (transl. III. 2, pp. 96-104). 
 
 8 Summa Theologica, pars III. quest. IX.-XII. (transl. III. 1, pp. 145-184). For 
 other references to Christ's knowledge see Abelard, Sic et Non, LXXII, M.PL 
 CLXXVIII. 1444-7; John Duns Scotus, Lib. III. Sent. dist. XIV. quest. II.-IV. 
 Opera (edit. Weddingi, Parisiis, 1894) XIV. pp. 488 ff., etc. 
 
 4 Comment, in Ps. I. art. IX. Opera V. 409. 
 
34 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 tion of Divinity and Divine Sonship, it is sometimes stated 
 explicitly and emphatically, yet more often implied. As to the 
 contrast, we often find statements which point out the force of the 
 contrast such as : Christ as it were corrected His mother who had 
 called Joseph Father; He opposed the Person and claims of His 
 true Father, God, to those of the earthly parents; He states He is 
 more closely connected with God than with them, and hence they 
 should not wonder if He neglects or dismisses them for God. 
 
 Thus Bonaventure (^1274) paraphrases Christ's words: 
 "Unde non debet is mirari si vos dimisi propter Patrem aeternum. ,,1 
 And as a supplement to this is the paraphrase of Albert the Great 
 (already mentioned) : " Patris veri substantialis et aeterni, cui plus 
 debeo quam vobis." 2 Both of these ideas are found in Ludolphus 
 of Saxony (^1335), who besides says of the relationship of the 
 words of the Son and the Mother: " quasi corrigendo verbum 
 matris." 3 The line of thought of these writers is implied in 
 Nicholas of Lyra's (^1340) comment on passage: " magis enim 
 afficiebatur ad patrem naturalem et aeternum quam ad matrem 
 naturalem et patrem putativum." 4 
 
 The early Reformers made no change in the exegesis of Jesus' 
 first words. Thus Luther (^1546) says of them: "Als sollt er 
 sagen: Ich bin ja eur Sohn; aber doch also dass ich mehr jenes 
 Sonn bin, der im Himmel ist." 6 The same idea is expressed by 
 Melanchthon (^1560), 6 Hofmeister (^1562), 7 Calovius (>£<1686), 8 
 and J. C. Michaelis (wrote 1735). 9 As to Catholic writers Mal- 
 donatus (^1583) explicitly states that Christ opposed the Person 
 of God His Father to the person of Joseph: " Personam vero Dei 
 Patris personae hominis patris opponit . . . docet se alium 
 
 1 Comment, in Luc. ad loc. Opera omnia, VII. 68. 
 
 8 In Evang. Luc. ad loc. Opera omnia, XXII. 2551. 
 
 8 Vita Christi, 38(b). 
 
 4 Biblia latina cum postillis, IV. ad loc. 
 
 6 Luthers Werke (deutsche), I. 153. There is no doubt that Luther understands 
 real Sonship from what he adds: Offenbaret sich also umb unsertwillen, dass wir 
 ihn recht sollen kennen und einbilden lernen, dass er nit allein ein wahrer Mensch, 
 sonder auch wahrer Gott sei. 
 
 8 Sermon for Sunday I after Epiph. Opera omnia, XXIV. 368, he says: Discernit 
 patrem suum a Joseph. 
 
 T " Vides iam quis verus hujus pueri pater." In Evang. Luc. ad loc. 213. 
 
 8 "Partim ad Patrem verum propriumque revocat corrigens dictum Matris," 
 Biblia illustrata, ad loc. 
 
 •Christ signifies, "se quidem aeternum patris filium carne humana indutum" 
 Exercitatio theol.-philol. ad Luc. ii. 49, in Miscell. Gronig. I. 274. 
 
THE RISE OF MODERN RATIONALISM 35 
 
 veriorem cui magis obedire debeat patrem habere." l So does 
 Toletus (^1600) : "Opponit autem parentibus Patrem aeternum." 2 
 Lucas (^1619) too, interprets: " quod nonillum sed alium praestan- 
 tiorem ac sublimiorem Deum, inquam agnoscat Patrem.' ' 3 The 
 opposition of Christ's words to those of His mother is referred to 
 by Cornelius Jansenius Yprensis (^1638) : " Negotia Patris 
 negotiis humanis societati videlicet parentum opponit "; 4 and by 
 Sylveira (^1687) : " Recurrit ad praeceptum Patris naturalis quo 
 obligabatur." 8 
 
 There is no question then that these writers understand there 
 is a contrast between Jesus' reply and the question of Mary, and 
 that the contrast was equivalent to an assertion of Divine 
 Paternity. Indeed some of the writers of this period argue in 
 favor of the true Divine Sonship from the fact that Christ said 
 "My Father" and not "our Father." This is done by Stella 
 (*1571), 6 Cajetan (*1530) 7 and Cartwright (^1603) 8 and Sylveira 
 (already mentioned). 
 
 What is characteristic of this period, is the view of the writers 
 as to what is signified by iv toT<;. As we saw, the writers of the 
 previous period, speaking generally, understood "the Temple and 
 all things (of the Father)." Making a further development of 
 this matter, the commentators, with whom we are now dealing, 
 selected and emphasized from these "things" the Father's Will 
 or works, or (on the part of Christ) Jesus' mission, office, function, 
 Messiahship. Hugo de SJCaro! (►J<1263) may be referring to 
 Christ's mission when he explains iv toI<; as "in locis et templo et 
 in operibus." 9 Certainly, Bona venture (^1274) holds that 
 Christ referred to His mission, saying that Luke ii. 49 agrees with 
 John vi. 38. 10 That the Boy Christ mentioned He was doing the 
 
 1 Comment, in quat. Evang. ad loc. II. 123. 
 a Commentarii. ad loc. p. 217. 
 
 3 Comment, ad loc. Given in Migne, Cursus S. S. XXII. 465. 
 
 4 Tetrateuchus sive Comment, ad loc. II. 78. 
 
 5 Comment, in Textum Evang. ad loc. I. 352. 
 8 De Observantia in S. J. C. Evang. I. 151. 
 
 7 Comment, ad loc. III. 189. 
 
 8 Comment, in totam Historiam Evang., 110. 
 
 9 Postilla super IV. Evang. ad loc. Hugo well serves as a connecting link be- 
 tween the writers of this period and those of the previous one, reflecting the views 
 of the latter. 
 
 10 Comment, in Luc. ad loc. Opera omnia, VII. 68. 
 
36 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 works of His Father, is expressed by Ludolphus (^1335), J Cajetan 
 (*1535), 2 and Faber Stapulensis (*1536) . 3 
 
 By this time the view was widely adopted that the word to be 
 supplied in Christ's saying was "business"; and this word is 
 suggestive of and almost synonymous with mission. 4 We have a 
 clear interpretation of mission in Erasmus (^1536): "Did ye not 
 remember in your myndes that I muste nedes bee aboute my 
 Fathers business, as often as He calleth me to the office and func- 
 tion appoyncted unto me?" 5 There is a reference to this view in 
 Melanchthon (^1560): "Ita Christus erat vocatus ut fungeret 
 ministerio in isto populo, et scivit, se ejus rei specimen edere debere, 
 etiam in ilia sua aetate tenere." 6 Calvin is many times explicit 
 on the matter. For instance : Principium quoque finem designat, 
 cur in mundum missus fuerit, nempe ut munus impleat sibi a 
 patre coelesti injunctum. 7 
 
 Another step taken by the interpreters of Luke ii. 49 was to 
 say that this business or mission referred to by Christ was the 
 salvation of the world. Salmeron (^1585) does this: versari in 
 negotiis Patris Mei, et in procuranda salute hominum. 8 So does 
 Toletus (^1600): Opera quae . . . ut Redemptor, faciebat, 
 appellasse ea quae patris sunt. 9 The passage is explained in a 
 Messianic sense by Lucas (^1619) : In negotiis quae Pater Meus 
 Deus mihi injunxit, mandavit, ut Christo suo, ab ipso misso ad 
 hominum redemptionem ad salutem procurandum. 10 A some- 
 what different signification is given by Piscator (>£d.625): In 
 
 1 He gives as a paraphrase of Christ's words: "in templo, doctrina et in operibus 
 quibus manifestetur pater meus" (Vita Christi, 38). 
 
 2 Comment, ad loc. III. 189. 
 
 8 He has in his paraphrase: "in domo patris mei esse ut ilia facerem opera quae 
 patris mei sunt" (Comment, in quat. Evang. ad loc.). 
 
 4 This was only for a time. Very soon the controversy between the rival 
 claims of "house" and "business" arose to be continued to the present day. Many 
 commentators, such as Grotius, Hammond, Polus, devoted their remarks on the 
 Lucan text entirely to this controverted question. 
 
 6 Paraphrase of the Gospels, ad loc. fol. xxxix. In his Annotationes, Erasmus 
 also writes (referring to our text) : "Christus suum negotium quod totum e coelo 
 pendebat purem esse voluit ab humanis affectibus" (p. 169). 
 
 6 Sermon for Sunday I after Epiph. Opera omnia, XXIV. 368. 
 
 7 Comment, in Harm. Evang. Opera omnia, XLV. 106; cf . also Sermon XXXIX. 
 Opera omnia, XL VI. 476; Maldonatus, Comment, ad loc; Beza, J. C. D. N. Nov. 
 Test, ad loc. 86; Aretius, Comment. D. N. J. C. Nov. Test, ad loc. 304. 
 
 8 Comment, in Evang. Histor. ad loc. 
 
 9 Commentarii. p. 218. 
 
 10 Comment, ad loc. Given in Migne, Cursus S. S., XXII. 465. 
 
THE RISE OF MODERN RATIONALISM 37 
 
 negotiis quae Pater Meus mihi mandavit ad expediendum puta 
 ad docendum qui sim, et cujus rei gratia a patre missus sim in 
 mundum. 1 This view is also expressed by Sylveira (negotiis mei 
 Patris, seu saluti generis humani ad quam veni), 2 and by Cor- 
 nelius a Lapide (me negotia saluti generis humani ad quern a 
 Patre coelesti missus sum inchoando tractare). 3 
 
 Other writers who see in Christ's words a reference to His 
 Messianic mission are, Tirinus (^1636) : Patris sui negotia vocat 
 opera theandrica seu divino-humana Messiae propria, 4 and Cor- 
 nelius Jansenius Yprensis (^1638) : cogitandum vobis erat officii 
 illius mei causa in quo a vobis non dependio, me mansisse Jerosoly- 
 mis. 5 Along the same lines is the interpretation of Natalis Alex- 
 ander form) ; 6 while J. G. Michaelis (1736) states that Christ 
 showed He was not ignorant of His priestly office, "se immutabili 
 Patris consilio pontificem maximum constitutum ut pro hominibus 
 ea perageret, quae apud Patrem suum coelestem peragenda esse 
 non ignorat." 7 
 
 Concerning this period, therefore, it may be said that its 
 characteristic feature is the fact that its commentators saw in 
 Christ's words a reference to His mission, called by the later ones 
 the salvation of the world. But, be it noted, none of the writers 
 states that Messiahship alone was expressed by the Lord. 
 
 1 Comment, in Nov. Test, ad loc. 222; cf. also Corderius' own comments in 
 Catena, LXV. Patr. Graec., 75. 
 
 2 Comment, in Textum Evang. ad loc. I. 352. 
 
 3 Comment, in S. Script. VIII. 534. 
 
 4 In univers. S. Script. Comment, ad loc. IV. 199. 
 6 Tetrateuchus sive Comment ... ad loc. II. 78. 
 
 6 Exposit. litteralis et moralis S. Evang. ad loc. II. 137. 
 
 7 Loc. cit. This writer has a special section to show that Christ here gave a 
 prelude of His priestly office (op. cit. 276-282). Many of the writers of this period, 
 e. g. J. G. Michaelis, see The Boy Christ fulfilling the prophecy of Malach. iii. 1. 
 
CHAPTER V 
 THE MODERN VIEWS 
 
 Before the rise of modern rationalism, there was practically 
 only one view professed in regard to Christ's reference to His 
 Father in Luke ii. 49, — the view of real Divine Sonship. Now 
 there arises a variety of views; and among a certain class of 
 scholars there is a definite break with the past. The reason for 
 the great departure and the wide divergency of opinion is to be 
 found in the a priori rejection of miracles. This rejection led some 
 to deny the genuineness and historicity of the early chapters of St. 
 Luke, and the account of the Boy Christ; it led others to 
 explain the account and the first recorded words in a natural sense; 
 it occasioned the theory of a gradual growth or development in 
 Christ's view of Himself. 
 
 On account of these factors, the rejection of the miraculous, 
 the explaining Christ's first words naturally, the attempting to 
 trace a gradual development of His self-consciousness, there is 
 among modern scholars almost every shade of opinion in regard to 
 the degree of relationship to God that the Boy Christ expressed in 
 His words. They may, however, be classified under four main 
 headings. 
 
 1. "ordinary israelitic consciousness" 
 
 The most extreme view of Christ's first self-interpretation, is 
 the view of ordinary Israelitic Consciousness. Certain scholars 
 claim that Jesus' words could be said by any ordinary Jewish boy; 
 that they contain no hint that the speaker considers Himself the 
 Messiah; that they express no special relationship with God; 
 that the sense in which God was called "Father" is the sense in 
 which any ordinary Israelite of that day spoke of God as 
 "Father." 
 
 The first to attempt to trace a development in the self-con- 
 
 38 
 
THE MODERN VIEWS 39 
 
 sciousness of Jesus and thus to introduce this modern problem was 
 Karl Hase (Life of Christ, 1829). He held that in His childhood 
 Christ had no Messianic consciousness. 1 Being uncertain whether 
 Christ became fully aware of His mission before His Public Life, 
 he says that the first words indicate "an unpausing development" 
 showing "the same sense of the nearness of God in a purely human 
 and childish form which is the idea of His life." 2 Gess contends 
 that in no "exceptional sense" Jesus said "the God of Israel" is 
 His Father. 3 
 
 Explicitly denying to the twelve-year-old Boy any conscious- 
 ness of Divine Sonship or Messiahship, Schenkel sees in His 
 words "an early presentiment ... of His destined devotion to 
 the concerns of the Divine Kingdom, of His duty to subordinate 
 earthly duties to His eternal calling." 4 Even "this presentiment 
 or foreboding of His destiny" 5 is rejected by B. Weiss, who views 
 Luke ii. 49, as an "expression of a genuine Israelitic consciousness, 
 containing nothing contrary to the 'usus loquendi' of the Old 
 Testament." The same stand, in different words, is taken by 
 Oscar Holtzmann 6 and by H. Holtzmann. 7 This mode of ex- 
 plaining Christ's words as a predilection for things spiritual — 
 the word "Father" having only a religious sense — is also adopted 
 by Feine, 8 M. J. Weber, 9 and Kent. 10 Daab gives a slight 
 reference to Luke ii. 49, 11 and then goes on to indicate Christ's 
 religious development. 12 Much the same thing is done by 
 Stapfer. 13 
 
 *Life of J., 66. Schweitzer says about this author "Hase created the modern 
 historicco-psycholgical picture of Jesus." (Quest of the Historical J., 61.) 
 
 2 Idem, 51. In a later work, Geschichte Jesu (1876), 224, he admits that there is 
 expressed in Jesus' words, "sein ganzes Verhaltniss zur Gottheit," yet insists it is 
 only the saying of a pious child. 
 
 3 Christi Person und Werk, 271. 
 
 * Das Charakterbild J. 36, Eng. transl., 59. 
 
 6 Life of Christ, I. 279; cf. Comment, in New Test., R. 24-25. 
 
 6 Leben Jesu, 76, transl., 100. 
 
 7 Hand-Comment. I. 151. 
 
 8 Theologie des n. T., 104, 114. In another work casting doubts on the genuine- 
 ness of our passage, this writer says it denotes that Christ felt Himself a special man 
 with a special relation to God. (Eine Vorkanonische tJberlieferung d. Luk., 25.) 
 
 9 La methode d'education . . . , 12. 
 
 10 The Life and Teachings of J., 54. 
 
 11 Jesus von Naz., 48. 
 
 12 Id., 48-50. 
 
 13 J. C. before His Ministry, 39-127. 
 
40 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 With the exception of a few extremists 1 who hold that Christ 
 never announced that He was the Messiah, and with the exception 
 of a few 2 who hold that it was only toward the end of the Public 
 Ministry that profession of Messiahship was made by Jesus, the 
 bulk of negative scholars date the dawn of Christ's Messianic 
 consciousness at His baptism. 3 
 
 Placing the birth of His messianic consciousness at the baptism, 
 not a few of these scholars such as Martin, 4 Neumann, 5 Bousset, 6 
 reject Luke ii. 49 as unhistorical. Others such as Dickey, 7 and 
 H. Miller, 8 declare that the text may not be historical, "but it is 
 certainly in keeping with any inference that may be fairly drawn 
 from His later development." Others, in fact the majority of 
 these scholars, take for granted the unhistorical character of the 
 Temple episode and deliberately overlook Christ's first words when 
 treating of His self -consciousness; such as Harnack, 9 Wernle, 10 
 Guinebert, 11 Bacon, 12 Weinel, 13 Schweitzer. 14 This is also done in 
 some special treatises on Christ's self -consciousness, such as those 
 of Baldensperger, 15 E. Schurer, 16 H. Holtzmann, 17 Spaeth, 18 
 
 1 Wellhausen, Israelitische und jiid. Gesehichte (1885), 342, Einleitung in 
 die drei ersten Evang. (1905), 92. Wrede, Das Messias Geheimnis in den Evang. 
 (1901). Martineau, The Seat of Authority in Religion (1905), 357. Cf . Cairns, The 
 Self-assertion of Jesus, Contemp. Rev. LXXXV (1904) 362. Nat. Schmidt, The 
 Prophet of Naz. (1905), 261. Merx, Die vier kannonischen Evang. (1905-1911). 
 
 2 Such as Schenkel, op. cit., P. W. Schmidt, Jesus in Modern Criticism, 38-42. 
 For the wider view on Christ's Messianic consciousness see Faut, Christologie seit 
 Schleiermacher, 78-81. 
 
 8 Cf . R. Mackintosh, The dawn of the Messianic Consciousness, Exp. T. XVI 
 (1905) 157-158 and 211-215; also Dickey, The Significance of the Baptism of J. 
 BW XXXVII (1911), 359-368. 
 
 < Life of Jesus, 76, 84. 
 
 8 This writer says the text was formulated by a later hand, but "in any case, the 
 term Father is used here in a purely religious sense." Jesus, 47-48. 
 
 6 Jesus, 1, 8. 
 
 7 Significance of the Bapt. of J., BW XXXVII (1911) 366. 
 
 8 Our knowledge of Christ, 51, 56, 57. Cf. Life of Jesus, in the Light . . . , BW 
 XLIII (1914) 75 ff. 
 
 9 What is Christianity? 36, 149. 
 
 10 The Beginning of Christianity, 46. 
 
 11 Manuel d'hist. anc. du Chret., 179. 
 
 12 Christianity, Old and New, 156, 161. 
 18 Jesus in the Nineteenth Cent., 151. 
 14 Quest, of the Historical J., 370, 384. 
 
 16 Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu im Lichte der messianischen Hoffnungen seiner 
 Zeit. 
 
 16 Das messianische Selbstbewusstsein J. C; cf. p. 13. 
 
 17 Das messianische Bewusstsein J. 
 
 18 Die Entwickelung J., 6. 
 
THE MODERN VIEWS 41 
 
 O. Holtzmann, 1 von Sodon, 2 Volter. 3 Also a number of moderns, 
 when considering Jesus' earliest recorded sayings, hesitate and are 
 not willing to express an opinion, 4 and others according to their 
 interpretations see very little self -consciousness therein expressed. 5 
 
 2. 
 
 Somewhat different from the view just described is that held 
 by another class of modern scholars, who say: Christ's first words 
 would not be used by an ordinary Jewish boy; they indicate that 
 the Boy Christ had an exceptional self-consciousness, expressing 
 a very special relationship to God, a conception of personal sonship 
 without parallel in previous history. But this sonship was only 
 religious, moral, ethical, an intense feeling of love and devotion; 
 it was not real Divine Sonship, nor did it denote messianic con- 
 sciousness, which arose later. 
 
 In the first place there are two scholars belonging to this class, 
 O. Pfleiderer 6 and J. Weiss, 7 who see, in the text as it stands, an 
 expression of special ethical sonship, yet at the same time con- 
 tending that it is not genuine. 
 
 There are other scholars who, adhering to the genuineness of 
 the Lucan passage, derive therefrom the view of special ethical 
 sonship. Such is Keim, who thinks that in Christ's first words 
 "lay the inkling of an infinite claim on the near regard of the 
 heavenly Father, of a Divine Sonship, outbidding far the earthly 
 in enjoyment, in right, in duty." 8 Reinhard argues from the use 
 of the words "My Father" that Jesus here "expresses a clear and 
 
 1 Das Messiasbewusstsein Jesu und seine neueste Bestreitung. 
 
 2 Die wichtigsten Fragen im Leben Jesu, see 95, 98. 
 
 3 Jesus der Menschensohn oder das Berufsbewusstsein Jesu. 
 
 < Thus Farmer (Boyhood of J., HDG 1226), Anderson (The Man of Naz., 
 41-43), R. Mackintosh (Dawn of the Messianic Consc, ExpT XVI (1905) 212; cf. 
 215). 
 
 6 Abbott (Life of C, 80), Neander (Life of C, 31), Boardmann (The Divine 
 Man . . . , 225, 226), Hamyln (ExpT XXVII (1915) 43), Peabody (The Charac- 
 ter of J. C, HJ I (1903), 645), Fairbain (Studies in the Life of C, 59), Kilpatrick 
 (Character of C, HDC I. 284), Montefiori (Synoptic Gospels, II. 864), Carpenter 
 (Christianity ace. to S. Luke, 172, 173). 
 
 6 Primitive Christianity, II. 113. 
 
 7 Die Schriften des n. T., I. 430-431. 
 
 8 Jesus of Naz., II. 133. The view of Schleiermacher (Das Leben Jesu, 83-116) 
 is a special relation to God, yet a natural human development. 
 
42 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 full consciousness of His sustaining a higher relation to God than 
 mankind in general." l Dickenson calls the words "the first 
 human consciousness of the holy God as the Father of the indi- 
 vidual soul. ,, 2 Godet states that the word "My" in Jesus' reply 
 gives to His consciousness "of His filial relationship with God a 
 peculiar and, as it were, exceptional significance," 3 and in another 
 work he writes that "the words 'My Father' were the first revela- 
 tion of a relation which surpassed all that Judaism had realized." 4 
 Giving Luke ii. 49 as an instance, Beyschlag states that "the name 
 'Father' on the lips of Jesus is the expression of a purely personal 
 relation that has no equal." 5 Wendt infers from the text that 
 from His childhood Jesus "was clearly sensible of the fatherly 
 love of God and His filial relationship to God." 6 On the basis of 
 this Temple episode, too, Denny considers Christ's consciousness 
 of the Fatherhood of God "as something realized in Him as it was 
 in no other." 7 Sheldon declares that the words of Jesus were 
 "certainly quite foreign to the ordinary dialect of the Jewish 
 child and indicated the dawning of a peculiar sense of intimacy 
 with the Father in heaven." 8 The same ideas are emphatically 
 upheld by Nosgen. 9 The exceptional character of the saying is 
 pointed out by Reville, 10 and by Monnier. 11 Both Nebe 12 and 
 Bovon, 13 while denying the word "Father," in the Boy Christ's 
 reply, expresses the same signification that it had for Him after- 
 ward, yet affirm that it expresses a very special relation to God. 
 Something unique, but only in a religious way, is likewise seen in 
 
 1 Plan of the Founder of Christianity, 261 note. 
 
 2 The Perfecting of J., AndR XVII (1892), 342. This writer holds that the Boy 
 Jesus had not yet "the knowledge that His consciousness of God was peculiar to 
 Himself . . . not yet the thought of His sinlessness" (Idem, 343). Both of which 
 points are denied by the following scholars. 
 
 3 Life of J. prior to His Ministry, Think VII (1895), 398. 
 
 4 Comment, on Luke, 93. Godet's views on our passage are opposed by Brown, 
 Life of J. prior to His Public Minist., ExpT VI (1904-5), 415 ff. 
 
 5 N. Test. Th., I. 81. 
 
 6 The Teaching of J., 97. 
 
 7 Jesus and the Gospel, 184. 
 
 8 New Test. Theol., 63. 
 
 9 Geschichte J. C, 125. 
 
 10 Affirmation ingenue d' une relation de fils a pere qui V unirait a Dieu tres par- 
 ticulierement. (Jesus de Naz., 410.) 
 
 11 II se sent fils de Dieu de la facon la plus immediate (La Mission Historique 
 de J., 30). 
 
 12 Die Kindheitsgeschichte J. C, 417. 
 
 13 Theol. duN. Test., I. 236. 
 
THE MODERN VIEWS 43 
 
 the self-consciousness of the Boy Christ by H. Schmidt, 1 Schlat- 
 ter, 2 Gelpke, 3 Furrer, 4 Hess, 5 P. W. Schmidt, 6 Paterson, 7 Reuss, 8 
 Evans, 9 Hitchcock, 10 Gilbert, 11 Garvie. 12 
 
 3. "mere messianic consciousness' ' 
 
 Certain modern scholars claim that Jesus' earliest recorded 
 words express Messiahship, yet nothing more than Messiahship. 
 Some of those deny the genuineness of the words, others contend 
 that only the dawn or first glimpse of Messianic consciousness is 
 expressed, while others claim that full assurance of Messiahship 
 is expressed. 
 
 Certain modern scholars, while denying the genuineness of 
 Luke ii. 49, yet state that the text itself as it stands expresses 
 Messiahship. This is the view of Paulus, 13 Strauss, 14 Bruno 
 Bauer, 15 and Loisy. 16 
 
 1 Bildung und Gehalt des messianischen Bewusstseins Jesu, StKr LXII (1889), 
 429, 430. 
 
 2 Theol. des n. Test., I. 483. 
 
 3 Die Jugendgesch. des Herrn, 90. 
 
 4 Das Leben J. C, 51-58. 
 
 5 Jesus von Nazareth, 4-9. 
 
 6 Geschichte Jesu, 52-56. 
 
 7 Jesus Christ, HDB (sing. vol. 446). 
 
 8 Histoire Evangelique, 159. 
 
 9 Self-consciousness of J., AndthSB II (1891) 18. 
 
 10 Psychology of J., 102. Cf. Self-consciousness of J., OT-NTSt XIII (1891) 272. 
 
 11 Student's Life of J., 124-5. 
 
 12 Studies in the inner Life of J., 110-114. Cf. Gospel according to St. Luke, 76. 
 This writer confesses he is not able to tell when the consciousness of Sonship and 
 Messiahship came to Jesus, but thinks they came gradually in correspondence with 
 His development (op cit. 126, 309). Godet writes concerning the Boy Christ that, 
 "even now in a distance, a mission dawns before His gaze" (Life of J. prior to His 
 Ministry, Think VII (1895) 398). Monnier (loc. cit.) states that the Messianic 
 consciousness came after the twelfth year, not stating when. The coming of this 
 consciousness is placed after the baptism by P. W. Schmidt (Jesus in modern 
 criticism, 38-39). With these exceptions the scholars given in this section date the 
 birth of the Messianic consciousness at the baptism. Gore (Dissertation on Sub- 
 jects Connected with the Incarnation, 78 and note) is to be classed here, but he 
 expresses his view in a doubtful way. 
 
 13 Das Leben J., I. 18, Exegetesches Handbuch . . . , 280. He doubts the his- 
 toricity, 282. 
 
 " Life of J., 195. 
 
 16 Kritik der Evang., I. 293. 
 
 16 Les Evang. Synopt., I. 183. J. Hacker says he finds in the Temple episode 
 "nichts andres als eine Verherrlichung des Messiaskindes" (Die Jungfrauen 
 Geburt und das n. Test. ZwTh XLIX (1906) 56), thus implying a denial of the 
 genuineness. 
 
44 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 Other scholars attribute to the twelve-year-old Jesus the be- 
 ginning of Messianic consciousness. For instance, Edersheim 
 characterizes the state of mind of the twelve-year-old Boy "the 
 awakening of the Christ consciousness . . . partial, and perhaps 
 even temporary." 1 After seeing in Luke ii. 49, "the breaking 
 forth of the consciousness of Divine Sonship" Meyer adds in a 
 note, "at all events already in Messianic presentiment, yet not 
 with the conception fully unfolded.' ' 2 The passage is called by 
 Ramsay "a remarkable instance of the young Boy's awakening 
 consciousness of His own mission." 3 While de Pressense writes 
 that during this visit of Jesus to the Temple He "perhaps for the 
 first time became fully conscious of the greatness of His mission," 
 yet in the next breath he calls it a "great moment in the develop- 
 ment of Jesus, by revealing Him to Himself." 4 A. T. Robertson, 
 referring to Christ's saying "as the keyword to His after life and 
 teaching" and as expressing a most special relation with God, yet 
 attributes to the Boy Jesus a "dawning Messianic consciousness." 5 
 E. F. Scott uses the words "awakened" and "henceforth" and 
 this, after referring to the importance of Luke ii. 49, for the 
 question of the development of Christ's Messianic conscious- 
 ness. 6 
 
 Certain scholars hold that Christ in His first words manifested 
 full Messianic consciousness. For instance Briggs writes: "Jesus 
 here at the age of twelve years, makes it known to His parents 
 that He is assured of His Messianic calling." 7 From the Temple 
 episode, Thomson infers that "Jesus was already aware of His 
 mission and consciously preparing for it." 8 A "strongly devel- 
 oped Messianic consciousness" is the view of Baljon. 9 Wallis 
 mentions "the dawning consciousness of the youthful Messiah" 10 
 
 1 Life and Times of J., I. 249. 
 
 2 Comment, on New Test., I. 345. 
 
 3 Was Christ bom in Beth.? 80. 
 « Jesus Christ, 208. 
 
 6 Keywords in the Teaching of J., 13, The Teaching of J. concerning God the 
 Father, 47, Epochs in the Life of J., 6-8, Luke the historian, 158. 
 
 6 Father's House, HDG I. 583. 
 
 7 Messiah of the Gospels, 234. 
 
 8 Art.' Jesus Christ in SDB I. 164. This writer also holds that Christ's "con- 
 sciousness of His Divine nature and power grew and ripened and strengthened 
 until the time of His showing unto Israel." 
 
 9 Commentaar . . . Lukas, 72. 
 
 10 About My Father's business, Exp. 2d ser. vol. VIII. 23. 
 
THE MODERN VIEWS 45 
 
 and the deepening of "His assured sense of His Heavenly Father's 
 mission." x A view peculiar to himself is Malan's : that the words 
 of the Boy Jesus indicate the realization that His Father's Will is 
 His. 2 
 
 4. "real divine sonship" 
 
 There are modern scholars who interpret from Jesus' first 
 words that there is expressed the dawning or beginning of 
 consciousness of a real Divine Sonship. This Divine Son- 
 ship is variously viewed and is frequently diverse from ortho- 
 doxy. 
 
 The dawning consciousness of real Divine Sonship is the view 
 of Olshausen, who says that the event in the Temple was the 
 moment when Christ "became aware of His exalted Divine 
 nature," 3 that there His mental development ripened "into the 
 clear knowledge that He was the Son of God, and that God was 
 His Father." 4 Oosterzee calls Christ's saying the "expression 
 of direct and infallible self-consciousness, now gradually develop- 
 ing into higher knowledge," 5 and Lange, after saying it expressed 
 the whole idea of His nature, predicates of it "the dawning feeling 
 of that Sonship which was His alone." 6 Hartmann declares 
 that Christ "in holy presentiment expressed His oneness with the 
 heavenly Father." 7 In the first words of Jesus, -MacDermott 
 finds "the dawning consciousness of His unique relation to God," 8 
 and Plumptre finds "a germ that there comes out so fully in such 
 words as 'My Father worketh hitherto and I also work,' T and the 
 Father are one.' " 9 That it was in the Temple that His Divine 
 nature first dawned on Him is held by Davis, 10 Paynter, 11 
 
 1 Id., 24. 
 
 2 " Un rapport direct du principe m&me de sa libre volonte avec la volonte de 
 Dieu comme de son Pere." L'Av6nement, dans Jesus Enfant de la Conscience 
 religieuse, RThQr V (1896) 282. 
 
 3 Bible Comment, on Gosp., I. 149. 
 
 * Id., 150. 
 
 5 Comment, on St. Luke, 51. 
 
 6 Life of C, 324. 
 
 7 Das Leben J., 68. 
 
 8 Gospel accord, to St. Luke, 23. 
 
 9 St. Luke, Ellicott's Comment., I. 258-9. 
 
 10 The Story of the Naz., 60. t 
 
 n The Holy Life, 123. 
 
46 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 Geikie, 1 Keil. 2 Stier holds the view that from the very beginning 
 Christ possessed a consciousness of the object of His life, but as to the 
 knowledge of His nature, Mary's question was responsible for its 
 origin. "This great truth rises before Him out of Joseph's name of 
 father, that His own true Father is He whom no one in Israel had 
 ever addressed by that name, and Himself never till now." 3 Some- 
 what similar is the view of Steinmeyer. 4 Reubelt holds that 
 Jesus at twelve "had already some idea that God was in a peculiar 
 manner His Father," only later He acquired "full knowledge of 
 this." 5 Stanley Hall mentions that the Boy Christ "was already 
 on the way to a sense of Divine Sonship." 6 While holding that 
 Christ was destined for His mission "from the first conceivable 
 moment of His earthly existence," Ewald states that Luke ii. 49 
 allows us to take a glance "into an opening life of an infinite and 
 most exalted nature." 7 The opinion of Nolloth is that "the 
 consciousness of the nature of His Person and of His mission was 
 already awakened." 8 Such is the view also of Foxell. 9 Ebrard 10 
 and Brough u contend that in the Temple Jesus first recognized 
 His own nature and His personal relation with God, but He was 
 not yet conscious of His mission or Messiahship. A similar view 
 is expressed by Sweet, 12 Frederich, 13 Mackintosh, 14 and Robin- 
 son. 15 
 
 In the midst of a diversity and confusion of opinions, the view 
 
 I The Life and Words of C, 228. Adamson seems to hold a view on the same 
 lines as these scholars (Studies in the Mind of J., 154-155; cf. also 144). Hanna 
 (The Early Years of Our Lord's Life, 122) expresses this view in a doubtful way 
 using the word "perhaps." 
 
 2 Comment, liber . . . Mk. u. Lk., 244. Cf. also Kiihl, Das Selbstbewusstsein 
 J., BZSF (1907) III, Ser. N. II, p. 43. 
 
 3 Words of the Lord J., 23, 25. 
 
 4 Die Geschichte der Geburt des Herrn, 167. 
 
 5 Scripture Doctrine of the Person of Christ, 385. 
 
 6 Jesus the Christ in the Light of Psychology, I. 252, yet see p. 302. 
 
 7 History of Israel, VI. 188. Cf. Die drei ersten Evang., I. 230-231. 
 
 8 Rise of the Christian Religion, 183-184; he says Christ "is on the way to know 
 Himself." Cf. Person of our Lord and Recent Thought, 115-119, where he puts 
 Messianic consciousness at the baptism. 
 
 9 Temptation of J., 34, 103. 
 10 Gospel Hist., 191. 
 
 II The Early Life of Our Lord, 124-128. 
 
 12 Birth and Infancy of C, 13, 258, 259. 
 
 13 The Self-consc. of J., AndthSB II (1891) 2. 
 
 14 The Doctrine of the Person of J., 26, 27, 17, cf. 481. 
 "The Self-limitation of the Word of God, 68-71. 
 
THE MODERN VIEWS 47 
 
 that the Boy Christ expressed complete real Divine Sonship, 
 is held by not a few non-Catholic as well as by Catholic scholars. 
 As to the non-Catholic scholars, in a general way it may be 
 said that the view of conservative Protestants concerning Christ's 
 self -consciousness is as follows: Like everybody He was born an 
 "unthinking infant." As soon as He reached the age of reason, 
 that is, long before His twelfth year, He became conscious of His 
 Divine Sonship, and in the Temple He gave expression to this con- 
 sciousness. The following interpret real Divine Sonship from the 
 text — yet sometimes not exactly in the traditional sense : 
 Phelan, 1 Sadler, 2 Vallings, 3 Dorner, 4 Alfred, 5 Bengel, 6 Ellicott, 7 
 Barnes, 8 Clarke, 9 Jacobus, 10 Owen, 11 Foote, 12 Goulburn, 13 Ryle, 14 
 van Doren, 15 Besser, 16 Hahn, 17 Blunt, 18 Nevin, 19 Beet, 20 Doder- 
 lein, 21 Hall, 22 Schaff, 23 Riddle, 24 Homes, 25 Beecher, 26 Fleet- 
 wood, 27 Adeney, 28 Farrar, 29 Stalker, 30 Plummer, 31 Maclaren, 32 
 
 1 Discourse II. on Lk. ii. 49, Remains, I. 143. He holds that the Man Jesus 
 was united with the Supreme Intelligence "from the beginning." 
 
 2 Gosp. according to Luke, 68, 69. 
 
 3 The Divine Man, 51. 
 
 4 History of the Development of Doctrine of Person of C, Div. I. vol I. 54. 
 For similar view see Christology, McClinton and Strong, Enc. of Bib. Theol. II. 278. 
 
 5 Gr. Test., I. 419. 
 
 6 Gnomon of New Test., 401. 
 
 7 Hist. Lectures on ... J. C, 96-7. 
 
 8 Notes ... on the Gosp., II. 33. 
 
 9 New Test., I. 355. 
 
 10 Comment, on Mk. and Lk., 159. 
 
 11 Comment, on Lk., 44. 
 
 12 Lectures on Luke, I. 125. 
 
 13 Gospel of the Childhood, 166 ff. 
 
 14 St. Luke, 1.81. 
 
 16 Comment, on Lk., 73. 
 
 16 Evang. St. Luca, 96. 
 
 17 Evang. des Lucas, I. 234. 
 
 18 Lectures on the Hist, of Our Lord, 45. 
 
 19 Popular Comment, on Lk., 79. 
 
 20 The Father's Business, Homiletic Rev. XXXIV (1897) 242. 
 
 21 Das Lern. d. Jesusknaben, NJdTh I (1892) 618, cf. Think III (1893), 173. 
 
 22 The Kenotic Theory, 189; The Incarnation, 338. 
 
 23 Comment, on Lk., 361, 362. 
 
 24 Gosp. accord. St. Luke, 44. 
 
 26 Jesus Christ, Kit. EB II. 549. 
 
 26 Life of C, 74. 
 
 27 Life of C, 60. 
 
 28 St. Luke, 156. 
 
 29 Life of C, 36. Cf. Gosp. St. Luke, 78. 
 
 30 Christology of J., 101. 
 
 31 Comment, on Luke, 77, 78. 
 
 32 Gospel of Luke, 39. 
 
48 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 D'Arcy, 1 Sanday, 2 Hastings, 3 Dalman, 4 Box, 5 Stewart, 6 Nicoll, 7 
 Du Bose. 8 
 
 Catholic scholars of the modern period unanimously take ihe 
 position that, in His first recorded words, Jesus expressed the full 
 consciousness of His real Divine Sonship. Among them may be 
 mentioned, 9 Bisping, 10 MacEvilly, 11 Veuillott, 12 Didon, 13 Le 
 Camus, 14 Gigot, 15 Terrien, 16 Capicelatro, 17 Shanahan, 18 Bart- 
 mann, 19 Pohle-Preuss, 20 Brassac, 21 Schaefer, 22 Mangenot, 23 
 Les6tre, 24 Picard, 25 Ward, 26 Thiriet, 27 Lagrange. 28 In answer to 
 attacks on their view point, some scholars have dealt with the 
 question at considerable length, as for example, Lepin, 29 Fillion, 30 
 Seitz, 31 Felder. 32 
 
 1 Consciousness, HDG I. 361. 
 
 2 Life of C. in Light of Rec. Research, 133. 
 
 3 Great Texts of the Bible, St. Luke, 127-129. 
 
 4 Clearly implies this view, Words of J., 288; cf. 280-287. 
 
 6 Virgin Birth, 106-107. 
 
 8 The Temptation of J., 60, 68. 
 
 7 Incarnate Saviour, 49. 
 
 8 The Consciousness of J., 41, 42, 50, 51. 
 
 9 It is implied by the thesis defended in many theological works, that Christ 
 from the first moment of His conception enjoyed the infused knowledge, v.g. 
 Billot, De Verbo Incarnato, 201 ff. Pesch, Praelectiones dogmaticae, IV. 150 ff. 
 Coughlan, De Incarnatione, 153 ff., etc. It is implied by Knabenbauer (Comment, 
 in Luc. ad loc), 146, Curci (II. Nuovo Test., I. 321-322). 
 
 10 Erklarung d. Evang. Mk u. Lk., 206. 
 
 11 Comment, on St. Luke, 70. 
 
 12 La Vie de N. S. J. C, 117, 118. 
 
 13 Jesus Christ, 90. 
 
 " La vie de N. S. J. C, I. 190. 
 
 16 Virgin Birth in St. Luke, IthQ VIII (1913) 434. 
 18 La Mere de Dieu, I. 177. 
 
 17 La Vita di Gesu Cristo, I. 101. 
 
 18 Was the Son of man Brusque to His Mother? Cath. World CIV (1916) 346. 
 
 19 Christus ein Gegner des Marienkultus? 48-51. 
 
 20 Christology, 261. 
 
 21 Handbook to the New Test., 257. 
 
 22 Mother of J. in Script., 102, 227. 
 
 23 Les fivang. Synopt., 123-124. 
 
 24 Jesus Christ, VDB III 1444. 
 
 25 La Transcendance de J. C, 165. 
 28 Holy Gosp. of Luke, 35. 
 
 27 L'fivangile m£dite avec les Peres, I. 389. 
 
 28 Le Recit de l'Enfrancc, Rb. IV (1895) 181; La Conception surnaturelle du C. 
 Rb (1914) 201; fivangile selon S. Luc, 97. 
 
 29 Christ and the Gospel, 122, 250 ff., 258, 332, 471. 
 
 30 Le Developpement intellectuel et moral de J. in RCIFr for April 1, 1914, 
 15-17; cf. fCvang. selon S. Luc, 87. 
 
 81 Das Evang. von Gottessohn, 194-209. 
 
 82 Jesus Christus, I. 328-331; cf. 456-457. 
 
THE MODERN VIEWS 49 
 
 That in Christ's first expression of real Divine Sonship, there 
 is a reference to His Messiahship, is held by some Protestants, 
 such as Jacobus, Clarke, Foote, van Doren, Nicoll, Holmes, 
 Stalker, Hall, D. Smith; x while Catholic scholars of this period, in 
 harmony with those of the preceding one, understand that the Boy 
 Christ referred to the mission He received from His Father, such 
 as MacEvilly, Didon, Brassac, 2 LeCamus, Bartman, Lepin, Felder. 
 
 A brief outline of the history of the exegesis of Luke ii. 49, 
 which at the same time gives us the status questionis, is as follows : 
 
 The early Church saw in Jesus' first recorded words an expres- 
 sion of real Divine Sonship. This interpretation was supported 
 throughout the centuries, and is upheld by certain conservative 
 Protestant as well as Catholic scholars of the present day. 
 
 In modern times there have sprung up five other views; — the 
 beginning of real Divine Sonship, a mere Messianic consciousness, 
 the dawn of Messianic consciousness, a special ethical Sonship, an 
 ordinary Israelitic consciousness. With the exception of the last 
 mentioned, which would be implied by certain early heretical 
 opinions, these modern views have no precedents or parallels in 
 previous history. 
 
 1 The Days of|His Flesh, 23. 
 
 2 Handbook'of .N. T. 257. 
 
SECTION III 
 PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS 
 
CHAPTER VI 
 
 THE CORRECT TEXT OF LUKE ii. 49 
 
 In endeavoring to find out which is the Greek text representing, 
 as far as we know, the original, we shall examine all the variations 
 in detail. Our authority, unless otherwise indicated, is Tischen- 
 dorf, Novum Testamentum, editio octava major, II. 438-439. 
 
 1. (a) Syr. sch. and cu. omitt Kal. 
 
 (6) Instead of Kal elxev the codices 13, 49, 346 read elxe %k. 
 13 and 346 belong to the Ferrar group; but here D, which is gen- 
 erally in harmony with them, has the common reading Kal etiuev 
 which it is clear is to be preferred. 
 
 2. (a) For oti 59 has etc, which, being alone, must be regarded 
 as a mistake of the copyist. 
 
 (6) For «d ori, A (Greek) has x! ore (it is followed by ^tqteits 
 whose e was confused (ori s) into the preceding word), but it is 
 corrected in its Latin interlinear text 5 which has: quid est quod. 
 Childhood Gospel of Thomas x has simply tl. These are the 
 only exceptions, and it is clear that the correct reading is t£ 8tl 
 
 3. Concerning the next word matters are not so easy. 
 
 (a) We find the imperfect verb ItJQtww in K c ABCDLXrAn 
 unc. (five) it (nearly all) 2 vg. syr(utr) arm aeth go Origen, 3 Didy- 
 mus, 4 Epiphanius, 5 Cyril of Alexandria, 6 etc. 
 
 (b) However the present ^qtsTts is read in K* 346 b 7 cop syr cu - 
 also in the Childhood Gospel of Thomas 8 and St. Leo. 9 
 
 1 Cf. fivang. Apocryph. (edit. Michel), I. 188. 
 
 2 Cf. Sabatier, Bib. Sac., III. 2, p. 272. 
 
 3 Twice in Homil., XX. in Luc, M.PG XIII. 185. 
 
 4 De Trinit., III. 20, M.PG XXXIX. 896. 
 
 6 Two different times, Adv. Haer., I. ii. 30. Her. 50, M.PG XLI. 456; Id. II. ii, 
 Her., 66, M.PG XLII. 93. 
 
 6 Twice in his Comment., M.PG LXXII. 509, also in De Recta Fide, M.PG 
 LXXVI. 1520. 
 
 7 Cod. Veronensis, Oxford 1911, ad loc. 
 
 8 Cf. fivang. Apocryph. (edit. Michel), I. 188. 
 8 Ep. XVI. 2, M.PL LIV. 697. 
 
 53 
 
54 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 Mentioning that Westcott-Hort has done the same, Power 
 adopts the present ^tqtscts, as well as the present tense, in the 
 preceding verse, 48, ^tjtoOjuv. We give his argument in detail. 
 "In making the change Westcott and Hort, while fully alive to the 
 strength of the opposition represented by the Cod. A C D, the 
 Vulgate, Tischendorf and the English Versions of 1611 and 1881, 
 have been content to abide by the reading of N (prima manu) and 
 B. The truth is that the imperfects cannot be defended except by 
 those who have overlooked the force of the present and imperfect 
 'continuous' in Greek." 1 
 
 Power then points out that X£yw can have three differently 
 shaded time-concepts, "I speak," "I am speaking," "I have been 
 speaking." He contends that this last has been lost sight of; and 
 he goes on to say : " It becomes easy to understand how some 
 early copyists rejected the present ^QToupev in Luke ii. 48 and 
 substituted the imperfect ifycoGptv. All they say in the 
 ^Tou^ev, now happily restored by Westcott and Hort, was 'we 
 seek/ and how could Mary say, 'Son we seek thee' when she had 
 met Him in the Temple? Thus the imperfect 'we were seeking 
 thee' was dragged in, to the loss of the pathos of the phrase that 
 represents the pained greeting of the Mother, 'Son sorrowing we 
 have been seeking Thee (^tqtou^£v). How the Child took up the 
 phrase and turned it into a kind of verbal interjection, 'seeking,' 
 has been emphasized before, when the English construction was 
 said to be far more lifelike than the roundabout and inert substi- 
 tution for inverted commas, 8ti ^tqtoujxsv." 2 
 
 To this argument we answer as follows: (1) It is certainly too 
 much to suppose the copyists of the Greek Codices did not know 
 the value of the Greek present; it is also too much to suppose this 
 ignorance on the part of all the Greek Fathers, who are unanimous 
 in using the imperfect. (2) Power makes a mistake. Neither B 
 nor W-H give the present ^yjtsIts in verse 49. They both have the 
 present ^tou^sv in the previous verse, 48. In regard to this 
 verse 48, for the imperfect ^tqtou[jl£v there are N c AC DL XT A An 
 unc 3 al fere omnia it omn vg syr omn etc., etc., and for the present 
 ^t)toO(jl£v there are K* B 6 pevid . So that for verse 48, B has the 
 
 1 "Whojwere they, etc.," IThQ VII (1912) 444-451. 
 
 2 Id., pp. 450-451. 
 
THE CORRECT TEXT OF LUKE ii. 49 55 
 
 present, and W-H on account of their cult of this Codex adopted 
 this reading. But in spite of having the present in verse 48, both 
 B and W-H retain the imperfect in verse 49, which fact is a strong 
 point in favor of the imperfect in the latter verse. 
 
 (3) Comparing the two verses 48 and 49 in regard to the verb 
 "seek": If originally there were different tenses, the present in 
 one and the imperfect in the other, there is more authority for the 
 present in verse 48, for B has the present here and the imperfect 
 in 49, — which is the stand taken by W-H, Nestle, andB. Weiss; 
 on the other hand, if the verbs in both verses had originally the 
 same tense — the only authority for the present in both verses is 
 N (prima manu) which makes, it highly probable that the imper- 
 fect was in both verses. (4) It is also suggested from the meaning 
 that the verb "seek" in 49 had originally the same tense as the 
 verb "know" in the second half of the verse. Now it is fairly 
 certain, and Power here agrees with us, that the imperfect J 8 site 
 is to be preferred. 
 
 (5) All that Power's whole argument amounts to is that the 
 present tense would not be incongruous; he does not, cannot 
 claim that the imperfect continuous is incongruous. So that the 
 matter is to be settled on the question of the authorities. For the 
 present tense there are prima manu Sinaiticus (n), only one of 
 the Ferrar group (346), one syr. (cur.), and only one Old Latin (b). 
 The rest of these groups are in unison in giving the imperfect, 
 and this along with D and ABCLXTAII and all the Fathers except 
 a solitary Latin one, St. Leo. The evidence is clearly in favor of 
 the imperfect, the one exception in each of the aforesaid groups 
 being explicable by error of the copyist. 
 
 4. Instead of ^Ssits (imperfect) we find the present of dart in 
 D 225,282 49 ev abceffiMq syr cu . 
 
 The remarkable and much discussed fact is found here again, 
 viz., that here as in so many other points D, the Old Latin and 
 syr^J agree against the common reading. But it is to be noted 
 that syr utr and the Ferrar group are, here with the consensus of 
 authorities, for the imperfect, which fact lends great weight to 
 the view that the imperfect is the correct reading. 
 
 The Fathers are arranged on both sides. 
 
 (a) The following give the present tense: Childhood Gospel of 
 
56 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 Thomas, 1 Marcosians in Irenaeus, 2 Origen, 3 Cyril of Alexandria, 4 
 Theodoret, 5 Tertullian, 6 Juvencus, 7 Ambrose, 8 Gratiani. 9 
 
 (6) The imperfect is found in Origen, 10 Cyril of Jerusalem, 11 
 Didymus, 12 Epiphanius, 13 Cyril of Alexandria, 14 Dialogus contra 
 Maced, 15 Theodoret, 16 Photius, 17 Augustine, 18 Leo, 19 Victor, 20 
 Simeon Metaphrastes, 21 Greek catena (edit. Cramer). 22 It is a 
 curious thing that Titus of Bostra insists that not the plural but 
 the singular (olSaq) was used. This disagreement of the Fathers 
 may be explained by the fact that they frequently quoted from 
 memory. Thus we find Origen and Cyril of Alexandria using 
 both tenses. Hence this disagreement of the Fathers does not 
 impair our reason given above for preferring the imperfect, jj&ttTe. 
 
 5. In regard to the expression iv iolq, there are no variants in 
 the Greek Manuscripts, but we find some in the versions and 
 Fathers. 
 
 For iv toT<; tou Uazpiq jjlou, 
 
 (a) The Curetonian Syriac has "in the Father's house"; 23 
 
 1 fivang. Apocryph. (edit. Michel), 188. 
 
 2 Both Greek and Latin Adv. Haer., I. 20, 2, M.PG VII. 653. 
 
 3 Homil. XVII. in Luc, M.PG XIII. 1849. 
 
 4 De Rocta Fide, loc. cit., M.PG LXXVI. 1517. 
 «De Incarnat., M.PG LXXIV. 73. 
 
 6 Adv. Prax., XXVI., M.PL II. 189. 
 
 7 Gosp. Harm. ad. loc., Corp. Script. Lat., XXIV. 18 (edit. Huemer). 
 
 8 Comment, ad. loc, Corp. Script. Lat., XXXII. p. 75 (edit. Schenkel). 
 
 9 Accord, to Sabatier, III. 2, 272. 
 
 10 Origen has the imperfect in Homil., XXI. M.PG XIII. 1851. 
 
 11 Catech., VII. De Patre, VI. M.PG XXXIII. 612. 
 
 12 De Trinit, III. 20, M.PG XXXIX. 896. 
 
 13 Three times. Adv. Haer., II. i. Haer. 30 and 51, M.PG XLI. 456, and 925, 
 and Adv. Haer., II. ii. Haer., 66, M.PG XLII. 93. 
 
 14 Three times: once in De Recta Fide, M.PG LXXVI. 1517, and twice in his 
 Comment, in Luc ad loc, M.PG LXXII. 509. 
 
 "Nbr., 486, M.PG XXVIII. 324. 
 
 16 Cited by Tischendorf as 5, 1063, but which I could not verify. 
 "Twice: Ad Amphil., CLVIIL, M.PG CI. 832: and Contr. Manac, IV. 16, 
 M.PG CII.B 213. 
 
 18 Augustine uses the imperfect several times in Homil., LI. in Concord. Evang., 
 M.PL XXXVIII. 342 ff. He also uses it in De Nuptiis et Concup., Corp. Script., 
 Lat. XLII. 225 (edit. Vrba & Zycha). 
 
 19 Epist., XVI., M.PL LIV. 697. 
 
 20 Evangel. Harm. Interp., XII, M.PL LXVIII. 262. 
 
 21 Vitae Sanctorum . . ., M.PG CXV. 548. 
 
 22 Catenae Graecae, 27. 
 
 23 F. C. Burkitt, Evangelion da Mepharreshe, I., Cambridge 1904, 258-9, 
 "Abba" here and often in this version is used for "My Father," cf. Burkitt's 
 
 Work, II. 47. 
 
THE CORRECT TEXT OF LUKE ii. 49 57 
 
 the Peshitto: "in the house of My Father"; 1 the Sinaitic 
 Syriac: "in the house of My Father"; 2 the Armenian: "in 
 the house of My Father"; 3 the Persian: "in domo patris"; 4 
 the Arabic Gosp. of the Infancy: "in My Father's house." 5 
 
 (b) The Coptic (Boharic) has "in the things of My Father"; 6 
 the Coptic (Sahidic): "in the (things) of My Father"; 7 the 
 Aethiopic: "in his quae (sunt) Patris Mei"; 8 the Arabic: "in 
 iis quae Patris mei"; 9 the Old Latin: "in his quae Patris 
 mei"; 10 except Veronensis (b) u which has "in propria Patris 
 mei," and both Vercellensis (a) 12 and Rehdegeranus (l) 13 which 
 have "in Patris mei"; the Vulgate: "in his quae Patris 
 mei." 14 
 
 Concerning the Fathers, they are classified elsewhere 15 when we 
 dealt at length with the question as to what is to be understood 
 by this expression h toiq tou. It can be readily seen that the 
 versions are not at all at one in their renderings of the ex- 
 pression. They already raised the question as to what is to be 
 understood. 
 
 6. Instead of elvat jas we find the transposition, pe elvai in D 
 i, 13, 69, 118, 6^ it vg. 
 
 It is to be noted that D and the numbers of the Ferrar group, 
 13, 69, and the Old Latin are here again in agreement against the 
 general consensus of texts which have slvaf jus. 
 
 Here, too, the Fathers are naturally on both sides. 
 
 1 Tetraevangelium sanctum juxta, simpl. Syr. Vers. edit. P. E. Pusey, Oxonii 
 1891, 330. 
 
 2 The Four Gosp. in Syriac transcribed from the Sinaitic Palimpsest, Cam- 
 bridge, 1894. 
 
 3 Waltoni Bibl. Polyglotta, V. 258. 
 * Id. 
 
 6 Codex Apocryphus (edit. Thilo), 128. 
 
 6 The Coptic Version of New Test, in the North. Dial., II. (edit, from MS. 
 Huntington, 17, Oxford (1898), 32-33. 
 
 7 The Coptic Vers, of New Test, in South Dial., II., Oxford (1911), 44-45. 
 
 8 Transl. in Waltoni Bibl. Polyglotta, V. 259. 
 
 9 Transl. in same, V. 259. 
 
 10 In Sabatier, Bib. Sac. III., 2, p. 272. 
 
 11 Edit. Oxford, 1911. 
 
 12 Edit. Gasquet, Rome, 1914. 
 
 13 Edit. Vogels, Rome, 1913. 
 
 14 Novum Testamentum D. N. J. C. latine secundum edit. Hieron. (edit. J. 
 Wordsworth, Oxonii, 1899-1908). 
 
 15 In the IthQ for 1922, April and July. 
 
58 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 (a) For [is elvat, there are, Marcosians in Irenaeus, 1 Origen, 2 
 Didymus, 3 Cyril of Jerusalem, 4 Epiphanius, 5 Theodoret, 6 Dia- 
 logus contra Maced. 7 
 
 (b) And for ehai jie we have the Childhood Gospel of Thomas, 8 
 Epiphanius, 9 Cyril of Alexandria, 10 Theordoret, 11 Photius, 12 
 Simeon Metaphrastes, 13 Greek Catena. 14 
 
 The Fathers quoted freely, 15 a practice which renders a mistake 
 easy. The bulk of the texts put the fie last, which makes it clear 
 that this is the correct reading. This point may seem an unim- 
 portant matter, yet if jue is last, it is emphasized, and this is, as 
 we shall see, of some importance. 
 
 Summing up the matter of the text, the only serious difficulty 
 is the question of the tense of the two verbs, "to seek" and "to 
 know." In regard to these we have shown that it is most probable 
 that the imperfect represents the original. At any rate there is 
 nothing of great consequence involved. Whether the present or 
 the imperfect was used will not seriously affect anything we have 
 to say. 
 
 The resultant text as we take it (in agreement with Westcott- 
 Hort, Tischendorf, Nestle, von Sodon, Vogels, etc.) is: Kal sItusv 
 iup&<; auTOtj^* t( oti ^tqtscts ^e; oux fi&siTS 8ti £v to!<; tou IIaTp6<; 
 
 1 Both Greek and Latin Adv. Haer., I. 20, 2, M.PG VII. 653. 
 
 2 Homil., XX. in Luc., M.PG XIII. 1852. Yet the other reading is found in 
 another place, M.PG XVII. 324. 
 
 3 De Trinit., III. 20, M.PG XXXIX. 896. 
 
 4 Catech., VII, M.PG XXXIII. 612. 
 
 6 Twice Adv. Haer., I. ii., Haer., 51, M.PG XLI. 925 and Adv. Haer., II. ii. 
 Haer., 66, M.PG XLII. 93. 
 
 6 5, 1063, according to Tischendorf, Oct. Maj. ad loc. 
 
 7 486, M.PG XXVIII. 1324. 
 
 8 fivang. Apocr. (edit. Michel), 188. 
 
 9 He quotes twice the other way and once this way. Adv. Haer., I. ii., Haer., 
 30, M.PG XLI. 456. 
 
 10 De Recta Fide, M.PG LXXVI. 1317. Also Comment, ad loc, M.PG LXXII. 
 509. 
 
 » De Incarnatione, M.PG LXXXIV. 73. Cf. M.PG LXXV. 1462. 
 
 12 Twice, Contra Manac, IV. 16, M.PG CII.B. 213, also Ad. Amphil., CLVIIL, 
 M.PG CI. 832. 
 
 13 Vitae Sanctorum, M.PG CXV. 548. 
 M Edit. Cramer, 27. 
 
 18 Thus in one place in the Latin translation of Origen we find, "in his quae 
 sunt Patris mei me esse oportet" (Homil. XXI. in Luc, M.PG XIII. 1852). Ter- 
 tullian writes, "in Patris mei me esse oportet" (Adv. Prax. XXVI. M.PL II. 189). 
 Besides quoting correctly Augustine gives, "in his oportet me esse quae Patris mei 
 sunt" (Homil, LI. De Concord. Evang. X. M.PL XXXVIII. 343). 
 
THE CORRECT TEXT OF LUKE ii. 49 59 
 
 (aou SsT elvaf (xe; A literal translation would read thus: "And 
 He said unto them: Why 1 did you seek me? Did you not know 2 
 that in the (things) of My Father I must be?" 
 
 1 Tl 5ti is for tL ykyopev on as in John xiv. 22. It means "why." Cf. Robert- 
 son, Grammar of New Test. Greek, 739. Power, Who were they . . .? Ithq VII 
 (1912) 278-279. 
 
 2 Or "were ye not aware" (all the time). The present "wist ye not" of the 
 Authorized and Revised must be sacrificed. Cf. Power, op. cit. IthQ VII (1912) 
 451. 
 
CHAPTER VII 
 HISTORICAL TRUSTWORTHINESS OF LUKE ii. 49 
 
 1. luke's eably chapters as a whole 
 
 The first recorded saying of Jesus, spoken when a boy of twelve 
 years, is found only in the Third Gospel. The bulk of scholars 
 date this writing somewhere between 58 and 90 a.d. 1 and nearly 
 all scholars are agreed that the author is Luke the Physician, the 
 companion of St. Paul. 2 There is, however, not the same con- 
 sensus of opinion touching the range of its historical accuracy. 
 Even a scholar like Harnack charges St. Luke with "carelessness," 3 
 but he is sharply taken to task by Ramsay and others; 4 and 
 among a wide range of scholars the highest claims are made for 
 St. Luke as a historian. Plummer even maintains, "that Luke 
 is at variance with other historians has yet to be proven; and the 
 merit of the greater accuracy may still be with him, even if such 
 variance exists." 5 The physician and companion of St. Paul was 
 a most appropriate person for a historian, as his education and 
 profession, his literary ability, and his facilities for investigation, 
 are happy combinations and strong guarantees for historical 
 trustworthiness. In his classic introduction to the Gospel, he lays 
 claim to painstaking research, and he assures the reader that he has 
 written accurately and chronologically to the end that "thou 
 
 1 For the different dates assigned by writers, see Jacquier: Hist, des livres du 
 N. Test. II. 491. Conservative writers generally place the date between 60-70 a.d. 
 
 2 Col. iv. 14; Philem. 24. The authenticity of the Third Gospel is denied or 
 doubted by H. Holtzmann, Jiilicher, Schmiedel, Pfleiderer and Loisy. These 
 writers contend that an unknown gentile Christian (who made use of the memoirs 
 of Luke) was the final editor or redactor of the Acts and the Third Gospel. How- 
 ever, this view is generally losing ground, especially since the vindication by Har- 
 nack of the Lucan authorship of both the Gospel and the Acts (Luke the Physician, 
 especially 121-145). 
 
 8 Luke the Physician, 112. 
 
 4 Ramsay's work, Luke the Physician, is a criticism of Harnack. Likewise is 
 MacRory's; Professor Harnack and St. Luke's historical authority, IthQ. II (1907) 
 223 ff. Cf. Robertson, Luke the historian, 29-41. 
 
 6 Comment, on Luke, 6. 
 
 60 
 
TRUSTWORTHINESS OF LUKE ii. 49 61 
 
 mayest know the verity of those words in which thou hast been 
 instructed." s 
 
 It is in the Infancy section of the Third Gospel that the Tem- 
 ple episode is given. Since this section treats of the Virgin Birth 
 and the miraculous attending circumstances, it does not meet the 
 approval of those who reject miracles on a priori principles; and 
 in fact this portion has been the storm center of attack on the 
 New Testament; most radical scholars brand the first two chapters 
 of both Matthew and Luke as "something superadded to the main 
 body of Apostolic tradition," 2 and attach little or no value to them 
 historically. 3 But the fight has not been all one-sided. Since the 
 beginning of the present century, the historicity of the Infancy 
 narratives has had an ever increasing number of valiant cham- 
 pions, 4 and the result has been to bring into prominence the 
 remarkable evidence for the stand of conservative scholars. 
 
 The first two chapters of Luke are found in all the texts of 
 the Gospel that have come down to us. The Muratorian Canon 
 implies that the Gospel began with them. 5 True, they were 
 rejected by both the Ebionites and Marcion, but this was on 
 account of special christological theories to which the contents of 
 these chapters were opposed. Irenaeus (^202) defends these 
 
 1 Luke i. 1-4. Cf . Blass; Phil, of the Gospels, 7 ff. Plummer: Comment, on 
 Luke, 1-5. 
 
 2 Wellhausen (Das Evang. Luc.) drops these chapters without a word of expla- 
 nation; Schmeidel is confident that the Gospel of Luke "once was without the first 
 two chapters" (art. Mary in E. B., 2961); they "must come from quite other 
 hands" thinks Usener (art. Nativity E. B.); Loisy maintains that at least the 
 hymns and verses relating to the Virgin Birth must be attributed to the redactor 
 (Les ecrits des Luc, RHLr N. S. IV (1913) 367). Cf. also Lobstein (the Virgin 
 Birth, 41), Lester (the Historic Jesus, 57-58), Soltau (Birth of J. C, 49-50). 
 
 3 Cf. Conrady (Die Quelle der kanonischen Kindheitsgesch, J. 728); Bousset 
 (Jesus, 1), Harnack (What is Christianity? 30), Loisy (the Gospel and the Church, 
 39), Campbell (The New Theology, 101), Martin (The Life of Jesus, 54-55); J. 
 Weiss (Die Schriften des n. T., 412); O. Pfleiderer (Primitive Christianity, II. 
 109); Wernle (The Sources of Our Knowledge of the Life of Jesus, 100); Vblter 
 (Die Evang. Erzahlungen von der Geburt und Kindheit Jesu, 131). 
 
 4 Steinmeyer, Die Geschichte der Geburt des Herrn u. seiner ersten Schritte im 
 Leben; Sweet, The Birth and Infancy of Jesus Christ; Durand, The Childhood of 
 Jesus Christ; Steinmetzer, Die Geschichte der Geburt und Kindheit Christi; Orr, 
 The Virgin Birth of Christ; Box, The Virgin Birth. The man who has done the 
 greatest work in upholding and vindicating Luke's historical trustworthiness is 
 Ramsay in his works: Was Christ born at Bethlehem? Luke the Physician, 
 Luke's Narrative of the Birth of Jesus in Exp. ser. 8 vol. IV (1912) 481-507; The 
 Bearing of Recent Discoveries on Trustworthiness of New Testament. 
 
 6 The Muratorian Canon, I, says that Luke wrote in order and "began his 
 narrative with the nativity of John," A-NF V. 603. 
 
62 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 chapters against Marcion, 1 Justin Martyr (^160) shows his 
 opposition to Marcion 2 and quotes from the Infancy sections, 3 
 and an acquaintance with the early chapters of Matthew and Luke 
 is implied by Ignatius Martyr (^110-115), who frequently refers 
 to the Virgin Birth. 4 
 
 External evidence entitles one to trace these chapters back 
 to the beginning of the first century, thus favoring the view that 
 they belong to the original Gospel of Luke; but this is all but 
 superfluous, since the internal evidence is so plain and convincing. 
 That the early section "contains the same peculiarities of Luke 
 as are apparent in the other portions of the Gospel and in the Acts 
 of the Apostles," 5 cannot well be denied. In fact, as Hawkins 
 points out, although Luke i-ii is one ninth part of the whole Gospel, 
 it contains almost exactly one seventh of the characteristic words, 6 
 and even taking the Acts into consideration, the Lucan character- 
 istic words are most frequently used in the Infancy narrative. 7 
 
 Although the first two chapters form an integral part of the 
 Third Gospel; although the wording is Lucan and reveals Luke's 
 hand, yet strange to say the style is in great contrast to other 
 parts of his work, especially to the prologue. Semitic idioms and 
 expressions shine through the Greek clothing in almost every verse, 
 suiting the ideas expressed which are not such as we would expect 
 from a gentile like Luke, but are those of the Old Testament times 
 and of Palestinian origin. The ideas, thoughts and occurrences 
 are so Jewish and so Palestinian that there is little possibility that 
 they were invented by Luke, grant him what genius one may. 
 The poetic charm and the Israelitic spirit in the inserted psalms 
 
 1 Adv. Haer. I. 27, 2 ff; III. 14, 4, etc. Cf . Tertullian, Adv. Marcion, IV. 5 ff. 
 2 1. Apol. XXVI. LXVII. 
 
 3 Clearly, he was acquainted with both Mt. i.-ii and Luke, i.-ii., Dial LXXVIII. 
 C, etc. 
 
 4 Ephes. XVIII. XIX; Trail. XIX., etc. 
 
 6 Meyer, Comment, on Mark and Luke, I. 314. Harnack demonstrates that the 
 Infancy section contains Lucan characteristics (Luke the Physician, 97-101 and 
 199-219), but on account of the presence of the two non-Lucan words, he rejects 
 Luke i. 34-35. So, too, does Weinel (Ausleg. d. apost. Bekenntnisses u. ntl. For- 
 schung ZntlW II (1901) 37 ff.) Zimmermann (Evangelium des Luk. 1 u. 2, StKr 
 LXXVI (1903) 273 ff.), Loisy (RHLr N.S. IV (1913) 367), Hillman (JPrTh XVII 
 (1891) 224), and others. The genuineness of these verses is vindicated by Gigot 
 IthQ VIII (1913) 123 ff., Box, ZntlW VI (1905) 91-93, Bardenhewer, Maria 
 Verkttndigung, 6 ff. 
 
 6 Horae Synopticae, 24-25. 
 
 7 Id., 175. 
 
TRUSTWORTHINESS OF LUKE ii. 49 63 
 
 and narrative portion of Luke i. and ii, are comparable only to 
 the finest parts of the book of Samuel. To quote Zahn, they " could 
 not have been written by a Greek like Luke. They must have 
 originated in Palestine, where men and women of prophetic tem- 
 perament and prophetic gifts were closely associated with the 
 beginnings and progress of Christianity." 1 
 
 What were his sources for these first two chapters? First, as 
 to the language of St. Luke's source: it was not Greek. It had 
 been generally held to be Aramaic, 2 but Lagarde, 3 and after him 
 Dalman 4 have pointed out that the coloring throughout Luke 
 i.-ii. is distinctly Hebrew. Yet Dalman thinks that a Hebrew 
 source is unproven and that Luke himself may be responsible 
 for the Hebraisms, writing "with greater consistency than usual 
 in Biblical style." 5 Others contend, and it would seem with 
 good reason, that Dalman has gone too far in excluding a Hebrew 
 source from the composition of the first two chapters of the Third 
 Gospel. 6 Also scholars are not agreed as to whether the sources 
 were written or oral; a fair number think they were written, 7 
 while others (principally Ramsay 8 and Harnack 9 ) hold they were 
 oral. 
 
 Who then is St. Luke's authority for the facts that appear in 
 
 1 Introd. to New Test., Ill, 112. Cf. Bardenhewer, Maria, Verkiindigung, 28, 
 260; Machen, Origin of Luke i. ii., PrthR X (1912) 260; Sweet, Birth and Infancy 
 of J. C, 136-138; Sanday, Life of Christ in Recent Research, 165-166. 
 
 2 Thus Wright, Gospel of St. Luke, 2; Moffatt, Introd., 275, etc. 
 
 3 Mitteilungen, III. 345. 
 
 4 Words of Jesus, 39, and others. 
 
 5 Id. It is also the view of Lagrange, Evang. Selon S. Luc. lxxxvii. 
 
 6 Cf. Box (The VirgiD Birth, 43), Briggs (New Light on the Life of Christ, 64). 
 The latter holds there were original Hebrew poems, and Luke's Infancy section is 
 no more than a setting for them. More likely is the view of Torrey that Luke 
 translated into Greek a Hebrew document in which the poems were already set. 
 (Translations from the original Aramaic Gospels, in Studies in Hist, of Rel., pres. to 
 C. H. Toy, 290-295). Resch tried to reconstruct a Hebrew source at the basis of 
 the Infancy section of Matthew, and Luke (Das Kindheits Evang., T.TJ.X. (1897) 
 203, 215), but failed. Cf. Mangenot (Luc. in VDB.IV 398); Machen (The New 
 Testament Account of the Birth of Christ, PrthR III (1905) 649). Conrady's 
 fantastic theory (Die Quelle der kanonischen Kindheitsgesch. J., 728), that the 
 childhood narratives are based on the Protevangelium of James, is rejected by all. 
 Cf. Durand (The Childhood of Jesus Christ, 185). 
 
 7 E.g. B. Weiss (Introd. to New Test ., 297), Zahn (Introd. to New Test. Ill, 113). 
 Purves (The Story of the Birth, B.W. VIII (1896) 246), Plummer (Comment, on 
 Luke, 7), Loisy (Les fivang. synopt., I. 384), Briggs (New Light on the Life of. 
 Christ, 164), Torrey (op. cit. 295). 
 
 8 Luke the Physician, 13, Was Christ born at Bethlehem? 88. 
 
 9 Luke the Physician, 102, n. 3. 
 
64 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 the childhood account, facts such as the two annunciations, 
 which could be known only to the families of John and Jesus, 
 facts such as the very thoughts of Mary, which could be known 
 to herself alone? It was not according to ancient custom for one 
 to name his authority, but in such passages as i. 29; ii. 7, 19, 33, 
 50, 51, Luke plainly implies that Mary was at least his final 
 authority, as is held by most scholars. 1 Plummer 2 says that 
 Mary herself "may have been the writer of the documents used 
 by Luke" while Ramsay 3 and Sanday 4 hold that there was a 
 woman intermediary, the latter mentioning Joanna of Chusa. 
 On this point there may be a difference, but in any case it is not 
 necessary to suppose more than one document or intermediary 
 "between Luke's finished narrative and Mary's artless story." 5 
 
 About the year 57 a.d. St. Luke accompanied St. Paul to 
 Jerusalem where they met St. James the brother of the Lord and 
 the head of the church (Acts xxi. 17 ff.), and during the two follow- 
 ing years while St. Paul was a prisoner in Jerusalem and Caesarea 
 the Third Evangelist had an opportunity of learning the facts at 
 first hand, either from documents or from witnesses, and of be- 
 coming acquainted with the incidents which could originally have 
 been known only to Mary and the Holy Family. He had the quali- 
 fications necessary to avail himself of this opportunity, and that 
 he did so is shown in his work. 
 
 How are we, then, to regard these Hebraistic chapters of Luke? 
 The evidence strongly bears out the view of Plummer, "we have 
 here the earliest documentary evidence which may justly be called 
 contemporary"; 6 and as a consequence we have the further 
 
 *To mention a few: Renan (Les fivang., 280), Olshausen (Gospels, I. 82), 
 Godet (Introd.on New Test. II, 475), Harnack (Date of Acts and Syn. Gosp., 155), 
 Zahn (Introd. to New Test. III. 113), Knowling (Our Lord's Virgin Birth, 22), 
 George (The Gospels of the Infancy, OT-NT St X (1890) 282), Purves (The Story 
 of the Birth BW VIII (1896) 426, Wright Luke, HDG II. 89), Briggs (New Light 
 on the Life of Christ, 165), Nolloth (The Rise of the Christian Religion, 147), 
 Milner (St. Luke, ii), Harden (art. Mary the Virgin) HDG II. 141, etc. 
 
 2 Comment, on Luke, 7. 
 
 3 Was Christ born at Bethlehem? 74-78, Luke the Physician, 13. 
 
 4 The Virgin Birth, ExpT XIV (1902-3) 296 ff. Cf . art. Jesus Christ, HDB II. 
 644. 
 
 6 Sweet, The Birth and Infancy of Jesus Christ, 321. 
 
 "Comment, on Luke, 7. Sanday concludes, too, that these early chapters of 
 Luke "are essentially the most archaic thing in the whole New Testament, older 
 really in substance — whatever be the date of their actual committal to writing — 
 than 1 and 2 Thessalonians" (Life of Christ in Recent Research, 166). 
 
TRUSTWORTHINESS OF LUKE ii. 49 65 
 
 conclusion that the tradition contained in these chapters, to use 
 the words of Box, "has high claims to historical credibility." 1 
 
 2. THE TEMPLE EPISODE 
 
 The account of the episode of the Boy Christ in the Temple 
 comes at the end of the Infancy section. 2 At the outset it is sig- 
 nificant to note that negative scholars, as a rule, attribute far more 
 historical value to it than to what precedes. The previous portion 
 reflects the Virgin Birth which these men are unwilling to accept. 
 They claim that the section Luke ii. 40-52 does not contain, 
 rather is opposed to, this doctrine, 3 and that representing the Child 
 Jesus as submitting to the Law and developing in a human man- 
 ner, it is older and may truly be considered a fragment of Judaeo- 
 Christian literature which was inserted by the redactor without 
 being harmonized with its surroundings. 4 
 
 On the other hand, the genuineness or historicity of Luke ii. 
 40-52 is denied by B. Bauer, 5 Strauss, 6 Renan, 7 Loisy, 8 O. Pflei- 
 derer, 9 H. Holtzmann, 10 Jeremias, 11 J. Weiss, 12 Volter, 13 Monte- 
 
 1 The Gospel narrative of the Nativity, ZntlW VI (1905) 100. Ramsay does not 
 hesitate to say that Luke "should be placed along with the very greatest of his- 
 torians" and this on account of recent discoveries and vindications (The Bearing 
 of Recent Disc, on Trustworthiness of New Test. 222). From these same facts 
 Robertson also concludes, "Luke is shown to be the careful and accurate historian 
 that he professed to be" (The Romance of the Census in Luke's Gospel, Bib. Rev. 
 V (1920) 506). 
 
 2 The similarities of expression in verses 40 and 52 can be accounted for by the 
 fact that both summarize a number of years in Christ's life, and hence these verses 
 need not indicate a separate source. Cf. Schleiermacher, Essay on Luke, 41. 
 
 3 Cf. Lobstein (V. Birth, 49), Schmiedel (Art., Mary, EB), Loisy (Les Evang. 
 Synopt., 382), H. Holtzmann (Hand Comment., 51), Reville (Jesus de Naz., 409, 
 note), Barrows (Mythical and Legendary Elements in the New Test., NW VIII 
 (1899), 292), Soltau (The Birth of Jesus Christ, 28, 29), Neumann (Jesus, 47). 
 Conservative scholars on the contrary claim that this passage witnesses to and con- 
 firms Christ's supernatural conception. Cf. Gigot (The V. Birth in Luke ii. IthQ 
 VIII (1913) 429-433), Durand (The Childhood of Jesus Christ, 121). 
 
 4 Lobstein (op. cit., 49), Reville (op. cit., 409), Loisy (op. cit., 382), H. Holtzmann 
 (op. cit.), Barrows (op. cit.). Cf. on matter, Budham (The Integrity of Luke i. 
 and ii., ExpT VIII (1896-7), 177), Durand (op. cit., 120). 
 
 6 Kritik der Evangelien, I. II. 313. 
 
 6 Life of Jesus, 197-200. 
 
 7 Life of Jesus, 60. 
 
 8 Op. cit., 384. 
 
 9 Christian Origins, 230. 
 
 10 Op. cit., 51. 
 
 11 Babylonisches im n. T., 109. 
 
 12 Die Schriften des n. T., 430. 
 
 13 Die evang. Erzahlungen der Geburt., 75-81. 
 
66 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 fiore, 1 and A. Martin. 2 Others express doubts and hesitate to 
 say whether or not it is historical, such as Hase, 3 Reville, 4 Schmie- 
 del, 5 Schenkel, 6 Guignebert, 7 Miller. 8 And others ignore the 
 account altogether. 
 
 The reasons assigned for rejecting as unhistorical the episode 
 of the Boy Jesus in the Temple are drawn mostly fron analogies 
 and resemblances between the Gospel story and events related of 
 other personages, namely Buddha, 9 Josephus, 10 Moses, 11 Samuel, 12 
 Solomon, 13 David, 14 and Alexander the Great. 15 
 
 In the first place, in none of the cases brought forward is it a 
 historical fact that the occurrence which is supposed to be analo- 
 gous is connected with the twelfth year. 16 Secondly, the very fact 
 
 I The Synoptic Gospels, II. 863. 
 
 * Life of Jesus, 76-78. 
 
 3 Life of Jesus, 51. He treats the question at length in Geschichte Jesu, 224. 
 
 * Jesus de Naz., 410 ff. Cf. Birth and Infancy of J., NW I (1892) 721. 
 
 6 "Mary,"E.B.c.2966, also Die Haupt-probleme des Lebens Jesu-Forschung, 94. 
 
 6 Das Charakterbild J., 35 (trans. 58, 59). 
 
 7 Manuel d'Hist. anc. du Chret., 175. 
 
 « Our knowledge of Christ . . . 51, cf. BW LXIII (1914) 76. 
 
 9 Lalita Vistara, XI. The story is found in two forms. In the Pali form, Buddha, 
 an infant of five months, was left by his nurses under a jambu-tree which continued 
 to afford him shade despite the fact that the sun had gone round in the heavens. 
 In the form of the Northern school, as a young man he retired from his father who 
 after a search found him in a meditative trance in the arrested shade of the jambu- 
 tree. (Cf. Aiken, the Dhamma of Gotama, 246-247). The analogy supposing 
 dependence is held by Pfleiderer (Christian Origins, 230), Hase (New Test. Parallels, 
 31), Campbell (The New Theology, 101), Berg van Eysinga (Jtidische Einfliisse, 
 27), and others. 
 
 10 In his own life (11) Josephus tells that "when fourteen he was consulted by 
 the high priests and principal men of his city concerning points of the Law." Cf. 
 Strauss, Life of Jesus, 197, note), Hausrath (Jesus u. die ntl. Schriftsteller, II. 93), 
 Krenkel (Josephus und Lucas, 75 ff.). 
 
 II In his twelfth year Moses is said to have left his father's house and to be wise 
 above his years: Philo (De vita Moses, app. edit. Mangey II. 2, p. 83), and 
 Josephus (Ant. II. ix. 6). Cf. Strauss (op. cit.), Jeremias (op. cit., 109). Hase (Life 
 of J., 51). 
 
 12 Samuel is said to have prophesied in his twelfth year, Josephus (Ant. V. x. 4). 
 Cf. Strauss (op. cit.), Hase (op. cit.); and as a boy Samuel is left in the Temple, 
 I K. i. 22 ff. Volter, Die evang. Erzahlungen der Geburt, 76-77. 
 
 13 It is recorded in Ignatius' interpolated epistle AdMagnes.III.that at the age of 
 twelve David and Solomon gave expression to wise judgments. Cf . Strauss (op. cit.). 
 
 14 Id. 
 
 16 Young Alexander questioned the Persian Ambassadors to his father's court 
 concerning their mode of fighting, etc. Plutarch's Vit. Alex. 5 (II. p. s42, B), 
 Jeremias (op. cit.); O. Pfleiderer adds what Suetonius says of Augustus Octavius 
 (XCIV.). 
 
 16 Josias (according to 2 Paralip. xxxiv. 3) "in the twelfth year of his reign 
 cleansed Juda and Jerusalem." This account is not an analogy, for Josias was then 
 twenty years of age. 
 
TRUSTWORTHINESS OF LUKE ii. 49 67 
 
 that other great geniuses gave or were supposed to give in boyhood 
 a premonition of their greatness could not of itself account for St* 
 Luke's story. Why did this fact have no influence on the other 
 writers of the New Testament who pass over Jesus' boyhood? 
 Then there is the difficulty of explaining how these legends, or 
 occurrences, found their way into Palestine, were responsible for 
 the story of the Boy Christ, and were the reason why it was incor- 
 porated in the Gospel account, while some of the Apostles were 
 still alive and in the country where the Gospel events took place. 
 Some of the analogies mentioned are far-fetched and we need not 
 delay on them. 1 The one most frequently mentioned is that of 
 Buddha; yet to quote Aiken, "it is plain that with the single ex- 
 ception of the search for the young prince . . . this legend is quite 
 unlike the story of the lost Jesus." 2 The most striking analogy, 
 at first sight, is Josephus' account of His being consulted on the 
 Law as a boy of fourteen. But his work was written after the Third 
 Gospel, or at any rate not long enough previously to have any 
 influence on Luke; in any case, to use the words of O. Holtzmann, 
 "there is nothing at all in common between the perfect simplicity 
 of Luke's narrative and the vain self-glorification of Josephus." 3 
 
 The best analogy mentioned, the one that in any way may 
 have had an influence on the Gospel narrative is that of Samuel, 
 — not because he is said to have begun to prophesy at the age of 
 twelve which Josephus (Ant. V. x. 4) alone mentions. There are 
 striking resemblances (especially between I K. iii. 19; ii. 26) of 
 Samuel on one hand, and Lk. i. 66, 80 of John, and Lk. ii. 40, 52 
 of Jesus; also between Anna's Canticle I K. ii. 1-10, and Zachary's 
 Lk. i. 68-79 and Mary's Lk. i. 46-55), yet there are striking differ- 
 ences. Extrinsic or literary dependence 4 would account for the 
 facts. When St. Luke was writing the Infancy narrative of 
 Christ in Whom Jewish history reached its greatest climax, he may 
 have been influenced after a literary way by the childhood account 
 of the great prophet Samuel who also witnessed a climax in the 
 history of the Jewish people. The account of Anna and her " asked- 
 of-God" child, one of the most beautiful and most impressive 
 
 1 Cf. Meyer (Comment, on Mk. and Lk. i. 347), Keim (Jesus of Naz. 134-5), 
 Steinmetzer (Geschichte der Geburt u. Kindheit C. 202) and others. 
 
 2 The Dhamma of Gotamma, 247. 
 
 3 Life of Jesus, 100. Cf . also a similar judgment by Zahn (Introd. to New Test. 
 III. 134) and by Barth (Die Hauptprobleme des Lebens J., 269). 
 
 4 Literary influence does not militate against the Catholic doctrine of inspiration. 
 
68 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 narratives of the Old Testament, by its simplicity and realism 
 especially appealing to an artistic temperament, could not but 
 impress the author of "the most beautiful book ever written." 
 The effect would manifest itself in the Evangelist or the author of 
 the Hebrew original emphasizing certain points, recording certain 
 facts, omitting others, thus (whether intentionally or not) bringing 
 out resemblances interwoven in the accounts of John and Jesus. 1 
 Outside of this there is no influence and there certainly is no 
 dependence of facts; the boy Samuel is left at the Temple (I. K. i. 
 22, 28) whereas the Boy Jesus only visits the Temple at feast 
 time (Lk. ii. 42), living at Nazareth (ii. 39). In the Temple God 
 speaks to Samuel (I. K. iii. 4-14), whereas Christ stupefies the 
 doctors by His understanding and His answers (Lk. ii. 47). Samuel 
 calls God "Lord" and speaks of Himself as "servant" (I. K. iii. 10) 
 whereas Jesus refers to God as "My Father" (Lk. ii. 49). In 
 spite of any literary influence that the childhood account of Samuel 
 had on Luke's Infancy narrative, the facts recorded of the Boy 
 Jesus are quite different from these recorded of Samuel; this is 
 worth noticing, as it is an indirect argument for the historicity of 
 the Lucan episode. 
 
 Other objections against the historicity of St. Luke's account, 
 drawn from its alleged unlikeliness, namely, how the Boy Jesus 
 could get lost, 2 how the parents could be a whole day without 
 missing Him, 3 how they could be "three days" without finding 
 Him, 4 the Boy's unnatural and unfilial attitude, 5 such objections 
 are not serious ones and can be easily answered. 
 
 As to positive arguments for the genuineness and historicity 
 of the section Luke ii. 40-52, we can quote the same textual and 
 external evidence as we gave above to indicate that Luke i. and ii. 
 is an integral part of the Third Gospel. Besides, this section is 
 written in Luke's characteristic vocabulary; Harnack has gone 
 
 1 The LXX. had a certain literary influence on St. Luke. Even in the view, 
 which is very probable, that Luke merely translated a Hebrew original, a literary 
 influence is all the more likely. The literary influence of any similar account in 
 the Old Testament would probably tell on the writer of the classical Hebrew source. 
 
 2 He was not lost, He deliberately "remained." 
 
 3 Objection raised by Martin, Life of J., 76. But it shows what confidence they 
 had in their Son. 
 
 4 Martin, loc. cit. They had gone a day's journey, it took another to return, 
 and they found Him on the third. 
 
 6 Martin, op. cit., 77, 78, and others. But the attitude was not unnatural and 
 unfilial for One who transcended earthly relations. 
 
TRUSTWORTHINESS OF LUKE ii. 49 69 
 
 into each verse to demonstrate this. 1 Indeed there are words 
 and expressions here which are not found in the New Testament 
 outside of St. Luke, for instance, xoct' 2to<; (41), xaua t6 e0o<; 
 (42), utui^sivsv (43), ive£iJT0uv (44), 6Buvwyisvoi (48), 2 t£ Sti (49). 
 We may point out also other notable Lucan characteristics. The 
 verb uxoaTp!q>etv (43, 46) runs through the Third Gospel and Acts; 
 it is found elsewhere in the New Testament, only in St. Paul 
 (twice). 3 The Hebraic construction fy r<p, with the infinitive as in 
 43, is found 25 times in Luke, once in Matthew and once in Mark. 4 
 Another Hebraism xal fyfovro (42, 46) is found 42 times in the 
 Third Gospel, 21 times in Acts and only 5 times in Matthew, 4 
 times in Mark and not at all in John. 5 Another Lucan charac- 
 teristic is xal atk6<; (50) where aik6<; has no real intensive force 
 and where kol\ is merely copulative. Yet this Lucan Greek wording 
 is only a covering for the Jewish background; Hebrew style, 
 expressions, modes of thought betray themselves in every verse, 
 the whole picture of the "parents" and the "Boy" in the Temple 
 is intensely Hebraistic and Palestinian, the warm Jewish devotion 
 and respect for the Law is breathed forth at every step, the entire 
 background drawn in the text is most realistic for the early decades 
 of our era. 
 
 After the early Hebrew atmosphere that pervades the account, 
 the most striking feature of the narrative is its simplicity. The 
 tone is sincere and in no way artificial. Moreover, there are 
 points which the composer of a legend would not record, the Boy 
 Jesus remaining behind without the permission of His parents, 
 His abrupt words offering no apology, 6 yet His subjecting Himself, 
 the parents themselves being surprised at the scene before the 
 Doctors, their not understanding the saying Jesus uttered, — all 
 these are marks of "psychological truth," 7 and strong indications 
 
 1 Luke the Physician, 212-214; so have Zimmermann; Evangelium des Lukas. 
 StKr LXXVI (1903) 263; and Machen, the Origin of the First Two Chapters of Lk. 
 PrthR X (1912) 252-253. 
 
 2 This word is also one of Luke's medical terms. Cf. Vogel, Zur Charakteristik 
 des Lukas, 62. 
 
 3 Cf . Plummer's Comment., 35. 
 
 4 Cf. Dalman, Words of J., 33. 
 
 6 Id., 32; Zimmermann, op. cit., 250. 
 
 6 Schleiermacher sees in the "inexplicable indifference" on the part of Jesus a 
 sure pledge that the whole story is not fiction (Essay on Luke, 42). 
 
 7 Box, Virgin Birth, 108. 
 
70 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 of genuineness. Seeing "its unadorned simplicity and its internal 
 truth," Meyer 1 strongly defends its historicity; so does Keim, 
 who declares that the episode "cannot have been devised by human 
 hands which left to themselves were always betrayed into coarse- 
 ness and exaggeration as shown by the apocryphal gospels." 2 
 The historicity is upheld not only by Keim and Meyer, but also 
 by such men as Schleiermacher, 3 Tholuck, 4 Stapfer, 5 Furrer, 6 
 O. Holtzmann, 7 B. Weiss, 8 Nat. Schmidt, 9 Wendt, 10 Stein- 
 meyer. 11 
 
 The words of the Boy Jesus in Luke ii. 49 share the fate of the 
 rest of the episode in regard to the question of historicity. 12 These 
 scholars whom we have mentioned as denying or doubting the 
 genuineness of the episode include therein the first recorded say- 
 ing; and those who defend the historicity of the episode hold 
 likewise the historicity of Christ's words. We quote one of the 
 critics, Wendt, who regards it from his standpoint: "The calm 
 assurance with which He spoke of God as His Father and of His 
 sojourn in His Father's house as if it were a matter of course, and 
 the childish naivete and simplicity of judgment with which he 
 perceived it a necessary duty to tarry in His Father's house in 
 spite of His parents' departure and their anxious quest of Him, 
 all these traits bear evidently the stamp of truth." 13 Farrar, 
 from a more exalted point of view, says about it, "This answer, so 
 divinely natural, so sublimely noble, bears upon itself the certain 
 stamp of authenticity. The conflict of thoughts which it implies; 
 the half-vexed astonishment which it expresses that they should 
 
 1 Comment, on Mk. and Lk., I. 347. 
 
 2 Jesus of Naz., 136. 
 
 3 tJber die Schriften des Lukas, 38-41 transl., 42. 
 
 4 He defends the genuineness against Strauss (Die Glaubwiirdigkeit der Evang. 
 Geschichte, 211-221). 
 
 6 J. C. before His Ministry, 39 ff. 
 
 6 Leben Jesu Christi, 46. 
 
 7 Life of Jesus, 99. 
 
 8 Life of Jesus, I. 278. 
 
 9 The Prophet of Naz., 251 note. 
 
 10 The Teaching of Jesus, 95, 96. 
 
 11 Die Geschichte der Geburt des Herrn, 158-208. 
 
 13 This is speaking generally. There are exceptions, v.g. Neumann (Jesus, 47), 
 who calls Lk. ii. 40-52 a "very valuable old record " yet says about verse 49: "we 
 must simply concede that this answer of Jesus' was formulated by a later 
 writer." 
 
 13 The Teaching of Jesus, 99. 
 
TRUSTWORTHINESS OF LUKE ii. 49 71 
 
 so little understand Him; the perfect dignity, and yet the perfect 
 humility, which it combines, lie wholly beyond the possibility of 
 invention. It is in accordance, too, with all His ministry . . . " l 
 
 There is a remarkable conformity and harmony between 
 Jesus' earliest recorded saying and the sayings of His later life, 
 especially Mark iii. 21, 31-35; yet this fact should not warrant one 
 to cast suspicions on the historicity of the Boy Jesus' saying on 
 the ground that it was invented on the basis of other sayings, — 
 which is done by Loisy, 2 Pfleiderer, 3 Montefiore, 4 and Volter. 5 
 The uniqueness of the saying appears from the fact that the only 
 parallels that can be discovered are ones among Christ's own 
 words; 6 and can it not be argued that the harmony between the 
 first saying and those of the public ministry is rather a mark of 
 genuineness, since it is generally admitted that a great unity and 
 uniformity runs through all of Christ's teaching? Besides the view 
 of these writers requires deliberate deception and fraud on the 
 part of the author of the Third Gospel. If he was an impostor, 
 we say with Ramsay, "his work remains one of the most incom- 
 prehensible and unintelligible facts of literary history." 7 
 
 Luke had the capabilities and the opportunities of getting 
 approximately first-hand information; and it is incredible that 
 one who was brought into intimate fellowship with a Jewish 
 Christian group at Jerusalem "of whom a blood relative of Jesus 
 was a prominent member, would have accepted any important 
 item concerning His life without confirmation from the lips of 
 James." 8 At any rate, it seems clear that no less a person than 
 Mary is the final authority from whom directly or through an 
 intermediary the Evangelist learned the answer of the Boy Jesus. 
 The pithy abrupt saying was most strange and deep. Coming 
 
 1 The Life of Christ, 36. 
 
 2 Les fivang. Synopt., I. 381. 
 
 3 Primitive Christianity, II. 113. 
 
 4 Synoptic Gospels, II. 864. 
 6 Op. cit., 78, 79. 
 
 6 In spite of Pfleiderer's remarks (Early Christian Conception of Christ, 45), 
 there is very little resemblance between Christ's saying and that reported of 
 Buddha: "Cast aside thy ploughing, O my father, and seek higher." Volter is 
 certainly straining a point when he bases Christ's words on expressions of Anna, 
 I K. i. 22, 28, as well as on Mk. iii. 31-35 (op. cit., 79). 
 
 7 Was Christ born in Beth.? 19. 
 
 8 Sweet, Birth and Infancy of Jesus Christ, 321. 
 
72 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 as the climax to a period of great worry and anxiety, it must have 
 made a deep impression on the sorrowful mother; it could be 
 easily preserved (ii. 51) to a time when it was understood in all its 
 bearings (ii. 50). Such a saying, with such attending circum- 
 stances, could be without difficulty exactly remembered even 
 though many years had elapsed since its utterance. 
 
CHAPTER VIII 
 THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF LUKE ii. 49 
 
 1. CIRCUMSTANCES LEADING TO THE UTTERANCE OP JESUS' FIRST 
 RECORDED SAYING 
 
 After describing Christ's birth (ii. 7 ff.), His Circumcision, 
 when eight days old (ii. 21), and His Presentation in the Temple, 
 when about forty days old 1 (ii. 22 ff.), St. Luke writes concerning 
 the Holy Family: "and after they had performed all things 
 according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to 
 their own city Nazareth" (ii. 39). This statement is to be under- 
 stood in the sense that finally the "parents" and the Child 
 returned to Nazareth, not immediately but after some interval; 
 for in the meantime took place the flight into Egypt to escape 
 the murderous hand of Herod the Great (Matthew ii. 13-18). 
 As this king soon died the stay in Egypt was of short duration. 
 When the Holy Family returned to Palestine they heard that the 
 wicked "Archelaus reigned in Judea in the room of Herod his 
 Father" (Matthew ii. 22), and in fear they "retired into the quar- 
 ters of Galilee" (id.) "to a city called Nazareth" (Matthew ii. 23). 
 
 During the next nine years (b.c. 4-a.d. 6) under the sovereignty 
 of Caesar Augustus of Rome, Archelaus reigned as Ethnarch of 
 Judaea, Idumaea and Samaria. 2 He surpassed his father "in 
 cruelty, oppression, luxury, the grossest egotism and the lowest 
 sensuality, and that without possessing the talent or the energy 
 of Herod." 3 Nor was there political peace and contentment in 
 populous fertile Galilee, — where Jesus was growing up. The 
 accession of Archelaus' brother, the incestuous Herod Antipas 
 
 1 Other figures are suggested and there are various arrangements for the 
 chronology of the Infancy section and for harmonizing the accounts of Matthew 
 and Luke; cf. Maas, "Jesus Christ" in Cath. Enc. VIII. 378. Clemens, "Infancy" 
 HDG I. 823, Durand, The Childhood of Jesus Christ, 250-258. 
 
 2 Jo^ephus, Ant. XVII. xi. 1-4; B. J. II. vi. 3. 
 8 Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus, I. 220. 
 
 73 
 
74 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 (Luke iii. 19), the cunning "fox" (Luke iii. 32), as tetrarch (4 b.c- 
 a.d. 39) finds the country in revolt. The rebellion is quenched in 
 the blood of the patriots, yet is followed by another of similar 
 result 1 (cf. Luke xiii. 1, 2). 
 
 Having a large percentage of Gentile inhabitants and enjoying 
 considerable commerce, Galilee was to a great extent free from the 
 bigotry and fanaticism characteristic of the Southern Province, 
 and, even more than Judaea, it came under the influence of the 
 surrounding Graeco-Roman civilization. 2 It was Roman arms 
 that conquered the Holy Land, but it was not Roman but Greek 
 culture, language and ideas that held sway in the Empire. 
 
 The city (x6Xiq Matthew ii. 23; Luke i. 26; ii. 4, 39) of Naza- 
 reth must have been susceptible to this Graeco-Roman civilization, 
 situated as it was on a great route of traffic and intercourse that 
 led from the East to the sea. 3 Here it was that Christ passed 
 through the different stages of childhood and boyhood, stages for 
 each of which the Jews have appropriate names. 4 
 
 Was there an elementary school in Nazareth? According to a 
 later Jewish tradition (Baba Bathra 21a, which was taken to be by 
 no means incredible), Joshua ben Gamala (high priest from 63-65 
 a.d.) enacted that teachers of boys should be appointed in every 
 province and in every town, and that children of the age of six 
 or seven should be brought to them. 5 Holding that this measure 
 presupposes a somewhat longer existence of boys' schools, Schiirer 
 says "one may without hesitation transfer them to the age of 
 Christ, even though not as a general and established institution." 6 
 
 1 Josephus, Ant. XVIII. i. 1; cf. Edersheim, Life and Times of J., I. 241. 
 
 2 Cf. Galilee, HDG I. 634; Mathews, Hist, of New Testament Times, 149; 
 Mahaffy, Silver Age of the Greek World, 443-444. The ordinary inhabitants of 
 the towns spoke Aramaic Greek and perhaps Latin; cf. Mathews, Hist, of New 
 Testament Times, 160; Kennedy Education, HDB I. 451. 
 
 3 Cf. Edersheim, In the Days of Christ, 36, Galilee, in HDG I. 633; Bardenhewer: 
 Maria Verkiindigung, 63-67, Kent, Biblical Geography and History, 239-241. 
 
 4 Cf. Edersheim, In the Days of Christ, 103-104. See also Brough, The Early 
 Life of Our Lord. There is an excellent article on Boyhood (Jewish) and Boyhood 
 of Jesus, by Farmer in HDG I. 221-230. Careful and scholarly work is shown at 
 every step and apart from the "dogmatic conclusions" it is the best I have read on 
 the matter. For works on Jewish education, cf. J. Simon: Education et lTn- 
 struction des Enfants chez les anciens Juifs (Leipzig 1879), Feldman, The Jewish 
 Child, 275 ff. 
 
 6 Cf. Edersheim, In the Days of Christ, 134. Schiirer, Hist, of Jewish People, 
 vol. II. Div. II. 49. 
 
 6 Op. cit. vol. II. Div. II. 49-50. Also Kennedy (Education, HDB I. 450). 
 Other writers are not so positive, but hold the view to be probable; Edersheim 
 
THE BACKGROUND OF LUKE ii. 49 75 
 
 Whether or not there was one of these schools in Nazareth, indeed, 
 irrespectively of any education received elsewhere, the obligation 
 of instructing children remained with the parents. 1 The only 
 text book was the Bible, wherein the Jews found solace and 
 refuge from persecution and Hellenism and in which there was 
 contained a literature that has had no equal. Every opportunity 
 was used to make the child acquainted with the Sacred Scriptures. 
 There were little rolls of parchment hung up in the doorway, and 
 phylacteries were worn on the forehead and on the wrist containing 
 choice portions of Holy Writ, which the child read and repeated 
 as soon as he was old enough to do so. Hence Josephus could 
 boast, that "from earliest consciousness" the Jews "learned the 
 laws, so as to have them, as it were, engraved upon the soul." 2 
 
 It is certain that there was a synagogue at Nazareth 3 (cf Luke 
 iv. 16), with services "not only on Sabbaths and feast days, but 
 also on the second and the fifth days of the week." 4 These syna- 
 gogue services, with their lections from the Law (Acts xv. 21) and 
 the Prophets (Luke iv. 17-20; Acts xiii. 15), constituted an im- 
 portant factor in the training of Jewish boys. Indeed the Jewish 
 religion was a ritualistic and ceremonial religion, "teaching through 
 the eye in a way well adapted to the capacities of children." 8 
 And much of the ceremonial was for the home; thus in regard to 
 the Pasch or Passover most of the service was conducted in the 
 family circle. 
 
 According to the Law (Ex. xiii. 14, 17; xxxiv. 23, 24; Lev. xxiii. 
 4-22; Deut. xvi. 16) all male Israelites were obliged to appear 
 in the Temple thrice a year, namely, at the feast of Pasch, the 
 feast of Weeks and the feast of Tabernacles; though women and 
 children did not come under the obligation, they often went, like 
 
 (Life and Times of J., I. 230-233), Hollmann (The Jewish Religion in the Time of 
 Jesus, 10). Farmer says, "at least it is possible" (Boyhood, HDG I. 233). The 
 view of these writers seems to be confirmed by the fact that Philo (Ad Caium XVI.) 
 mentions "teachers and instructors" as well as "parents" who took part in training 
 the Jews "from their very swaddling clothes." 
 
 1 Numerous texts in Old Test. E.g. Ex. xiii. 8; Deut. vi. 20. 
 
 2 Ag. Apion, II. 18. He says in same work, I. 12: "Our principal care of all is 
 this, to educate our children well." Cf. Philo, Legatio ad Caium, XVI. 
 
 3 Besides, Nazareth was one of the gathering places or centers of priests of one 
 of the twenty-four courses whose duty it was to be on ministry in the Temple. (Cf . 
 Edersheim, In the Days of Christ, 36; also Cath. Enc. art. Nazareth). 
 
 4 Edersheim, In the Days of Christ, 277. 
 6 Farmer, HDG I. 223. 
 
76 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 Phenenna and Anna (I Kings i. 3, 4, 7, 21). Introducing the epi- 
 sode of the Temple visit with which we are concerned, St. Luke 
 states, that Christ's "parents went every year (xa-u* sto<;), to 
 Jerusalem at the feast of the Pasch (or Passover)" (Luke ii. 41). 
 Does this imply that Mary and Joseph went only once a year? 
 Farmer rightly thinks it probable that "the emphatic words of 
 the sentence are oE yoveTq. Joseph may have gone at other seasons 
 and Mary usually (£xopeuovuo imperfect of 'habit') accompanied 
 him." * 
 
 It is not recorded that the parents took the Child with them 
 each year to the feast of the Passover, but it may be implied from 
 the construction of the next verse, which begins the account 
 of the episode, xal oti £y£vsto £twv SwBsxa, dva^atv6vTG)v . . . (Luke 
 ii. 42). It would seem that Jesus went with them; the fact that 
 He was twelve years old — (the Evangelist says twelve years not 
 about twelve) 2 being mentioned to mark the time when the 
 episode occurred. 
 
 Lightfoot, 3 and after him Wetstein 4 and others represented 
 that the twelfth year is mentioned because then Christ "became 
 of age" in the Jewish sense; became a "son of the Law" or "son 
 of the Commandment" (HMD "D), this being His first fulfillment of 
 the law which He was henceforth bound to observe. This view 
 seems very doubtful for the following reasons culled from Eder- 
 sheim, 5 Schurer 6 and Farmer. 7 (1) We have no evidence that 
 in the time of Christ the term Bar-Mizvah was used for a boy reach- 
 ing his twelfth year; the term, although already found in the 
 Talmud (Aboth V. 21), was not generally used until the middle 
 
 1 Art. Boyhood HDG I. 225. 
 
 2 By stating the age definitely, Luke implied he is sure of it. He states a definite 
 time, e.g., i. 26, 59; ii. 21, 36, 37; iii. 1. At other times he used the word "about," 
 v.g. Christ was "about thirty," iii. 23; the daughter of Jairus was "about twelve," 
 viii. 42. Does St. Luke's statement imply that Christ was exactly twelve years? 
 In reference to the passage, St. Jerome says that Christ had completed twelve years 
 (duodecim annos Salvator impleverat, Letter to Paulius, LIIL, M.PLXXII. 543). 
 Yes, the gospel text implies that Jesus was fully twelve, yet if He was twelve and a 
 few months St. Luke's words would still be appropriate. If we could be sure that 
 the Evangelist meant that Christ was exactly twelve, we could know the exact 
 month of Christ's birth (Nisan). 
 
 3 Horae Hebracae, ad loc. 
 
 NnV r | V*q4- I rT*'M*P i\ ft I Of* 
 
 6 In the Days of Christ, 120; cf . Life and Times of J., I. 235-236. 
 
 6 Geschichte des jtidischen Volkes, II. 496^497, Transl. vol. II. ser. II. 51-52. 
 
 7 "Boyhood" HDG I. 224, also 225. 
 
THE BACKGROUND OF LUKE ii. 49 77 
 
 ages for a full grown Israelite. (2) Then this later authority 
 assigns not twelve years but thirteen as the legal age. 1 (3) Not 
 only are there no reasons for supposing that a child before he 
 reached twelve might not be present at the feast of the Pasch, 
 but we have indications to the contrary. 2 (4) Very likely it was 
 not any definite age, but signs of approaching puberty that marked 
 the boundary line for obligation and non-obligation. (5) The 
 current view is based on a very doubtful assumption that, in this 
 late Talmudic rule concerning the "Son of the Law," we find the 
 explanation for the mention of Our Lord's age. Now Luke ii. 42, 
 implies nothing as to whether Christ attended previous feasts or 
 not, and there are other reasons for the mention of the age, e.g., 
 to mark the time when the episode occurred. (6) Also the fact 
 that Christ remained behind on this occasion, "the parents not 
 knowing it," would seem to imply that it was not His first Passover; 
 if it was His first, the parents would be likely to have made sure 
 He was in the company before setting out. (7) Finally, the 
 silence of the Evangelist, who does not say that the twelve-year-old 
 Christ went to the feast to fulfil any law or custom. And certainly 
 the incident is not mentioned on account of the age, but the age 
 on account of the incident. 
 
 But even if this was Jesus' first attendance at the Passover in 
 Jerusalem, there is another reason besides age why it would be so. 
 Archelaus, whom the parents feared (Matthew ii. 22), no longer 
 reigned in Judaea; he had been sent into exile 6 a.d., which was 
 about the twelfth year of Christ's age, 3 and his banishment 
 ushered in a security and safety obtaining more political and 
 social improvement, — Roman law and justice ruling the land; 
 for Judaea with Samaria and Idumaea were incorporated in the 
 Roman province of Syria, under its governor or legate P. Sulpicius 
 Quirinius, the immediate governing of Palestine being directed by 
 the Procurator Coponius. 4 
 
 1 Thirteen and one day is the legal age. Farmer (HDG I. 224) points out that 
 when this age was fixed the Rabbis found reasons for it, or rather for that of twelve. 
 Obligations bound children before their thirteenth year; cf. Yoma, 82 A. Besides 
 Jewish authorities did not agree that full responsibility began at thirteen and one 
 day, some holding that responsibility for sin against God began later. Cf. Feld- 
 man, The Jewish Child, 364. For the Bar Mizvah Institution, cf. Low, Die Lebens 
 — alter in der jiidischen Literatur, 210-217. 
 
 2 Ex. xii. 3, 4. 
 
 3 Cf. Dates, HDG I. 415, Chronology, Cath. Enc, Ramsay, Luke the Physician, 
 235. 
 
 * Cf. Josephus, Ant. XVIII. i. 1. 
 
78 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 The Holy Land was ruled in this manner when Christ made 
 the recorded visit to Jerusalem in His twelfth year; Augustus 
 was still Emperor of Rome and the office of the High Priest was 
 filled by Annas of New Testament memory. Nature and season 
 were propitious, 1 as the Holy Family set out with the "company" 
 from Nazareth on their pilgrimage to Jerusalem. 
 
 As the eighty-mile journey (which took three days) progressed, 
 and they came nearer to the Holy City, festive bands choked in 
 greater numbers the roads, and the more fervently arose the chant- 
 ing of the Psalms of Ascent (Ps. cxix.-cxxiii.), especially the part 
 "we will go into His tabernacle; we will adore in the place where 
 His feet stood. Arise, O Lord, into thy resting place: Thou and 
 the ark, which Thou has sanctified" (Ps. cxxxi. 7, 8). How intense 
 a feeling must have been aroused in the breast of an Israelite, 
 especially if he were a youth from a country town, 2 when on these 
 occasions he mingled with his fellow countrymen, not only from 
 other parts of Palestine, but even from distant countries, all 
 assembled in their great historical city to worship the one true 
 God! What aspirations of intense fervor were stirred up as he 
 entered the great Temple where Jahweh's presence was to a great 
 extent localized, as He took part in the beautiful impressive services 
 of the Jewish feasts, especially this feast of Passover, 3 when the 
 Paschal lamb was slain and offered, when the great songs of praise 
 (the Hallel Ps. cxii. (cxiii.)-cxvii. and the Great Hallel cxxxv.) were 
 chanted by the Levites to the response of the whole people, and 
 when at the question of the youngest present, Why is this night 
 different from other nights? the national history of the Jews 
 was repeated and the symbols of the feast explained! A feast 
 which commemorated the deliverance and emancipation of the 
 nation, which acknowledged God's special care over His chosen 
 people, and whose ritual made so many allusions to the Messiah, 
 must have excited the most intense feelings of patriotism and 
 devotion. 
 
 1 The Passover was held from Nisan 15th to 21st (March- April). 
 
 2 See Edersheim's description of the festive crowds, The Temple, 183, 187, In 
 the Days of Christ, 108-109. 
 
 3 As to what the Paschal services precisely consisted of in the time of Christ, one 
 must heed the warning of Farmer (HDG I. 226) that they must have been some- 
 what different from the liturgy of later times, and also from that of the Egyptian 
 Passover. 
 
THE BACKGROUND OF LUKE ii. 49 79 
 
 As to what were the emotions of the twelve-year-old Boy from 
 Nazareth, history is silent. Whether He and the "parents" 
 remained the entire seven days of the feast, or left after the second 
 day, is a disputed question. Luke simply writes "when they had 
 fulfilled the days" (TeXsioxjavTcov Tag wzpaq Luke ii. 43). * But it is 
 recorded that when the parents set out for home, "the Boy Jesus re- 
 mained behind in Jerusalem (uxlpisivsv 'Iiqaou*; 6 xatq), the parents 
 not knowing it." It may have been in the crowds at the Temple, 
 to which all pilgrims used to go on the day of departure, that the 
 "Son" and "the parents" became separated. However it hap- 
 pened, such was the case, and the "parents" thinking, He was in 
 the company and that since He knew the time and place of depar- 
 ture, He was perhaps with the younger folk, they went a day's 
 journey to their first resting place. 2 Here they looked around for 
 Him among their relatives and acquaintances, and to their great 
 grief they found that He was missing. They made a thorough 
 search for Him along the road, all the way back to Jerusalem and 
 through the Holy City (iva^Y]TouvTe<;, vs. 45). It was only "after 
 three days" 3 that their sorrowful quest succeeded. The place 
 where the Boy was found was "in the Temple," and He was 
 "sitting in the midst of the Doctors both hearing them and asking 
 them questions." The word for Temple is the generic term for 
 the whole structure and leaves us in the dark as to the specific 
 part in which the "parents" and the "Son" met. An outward 
 part (porch or colonnade) of the Temple structure is rightly held 
 
 1 Cornelius a Lapide, Lucas, Jansenius, Polus, Lightfoot, said the parents 
 remained the seven days of the feast. On the other hand Simeon Metaphrastes 
 and Cajetan said they left on the third day of the feast. Edersheim (Life and Times 
 of J. I. 246-247) contends that it is "impossible" that on this occasion Mary and 
 Joseph remained for the whole feast. He bases his argument on the fact that 
 Christ is found among the Doctors three days after the parents' departure, and 
 according to the Talmud members of the Sanhedrin came out on the terrace and 
 taught during feast days; hence the feast was still going on. This Talmudical 
 argument of Edersheim is not acceptable to Farmer (HDG I. 226), who says that 
 while Luke's words are "perhaps compatible with Joseph and Mary having left 
 on the third day," he prefers "to think that they 'stayed to the end' of the Feast." 
 
 2 Different places are suggested. See Farmer, HDG I. 226, Edersheim, Life and 
 Times of J., I. 248. 
 
 3 This probably is to be considered from the time of departure from Jerusalem. 
 They had gone a day's journey, they passed another day in returning and after the 
 third day they found Him. For other ways of considering the matter, see Plummer, 
 ad. loc. "After three days" may mean "on the third day" as it does in Mt. 
 xxvii. 63; Mk. viii. 31; ix. 31. 
 
80 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 to be the likely place. 1 It is stated 2 that, on Sabbath days and 
 especially on feast days, the Doctors or great Rabbis were accus- 
 tomed to come out upon a terrace of the Temple and teach the 
 people. How popular were these free instructions can easily be 
 realized when one takes into account the Jewish reverence for 
 the Rabbis and their love and aptitude for speculation and dis- 
 cussion. As to the personnel of the Doctors on this particular 
 occasion one can only guess, the sacred record being silent. 3 The 
 part that Christ played will be examined in a later chapter where 
 we study the effect on all those who heard Him and on the parents 
 who discovered Him there. 
 
 Somewhat recovered from the surprise, and, it would seem, 4 
 before leaving the place where He was found, and while still in 
 the presence of the astonished Doctors, Mary gave expression to 
 the feeling of her heart in a question to Jesus, "Son, why hast 
 Thou done so to us? Behold Thy father and I have sought Thee 
 sorrowing." The intense mental anguish experienced by both the 
 Virgin Mother and the foster father is expressed by the strong 
 word 6BuvwiJL£voi (cf. Luke xvi. 24, 25), considered one of the 
 Lucan medical terms. 
 
 1 Lightfoot (Horae Hebr., 48) and Wolf (Curae Phil. et. Crit., 594) held there 
 was a synagogue in the Temple and the scene took place there. This is refuted by 
 Edersheim, Life and Times of J., 742-743. Cf. Wiinsche (Neue Beitrage . . . aus 
 Talmud und Midrasch, 419-420), Hausrath (Hist, of New Testament Times, I. 
 90), Schiirer (Hist, of Jewish People, vol. II. part II. 326), Lesetre (Le Temple de 
 Jerusalem, 150). 
 
 2 Cf. Edersheim, Life and Times of J., I. 247. Lagrange has a different view, 
 fivangile selon S. Luc, ad loc. 
 
 8 Shammai was probably dead; the mild Hillel may have been still alive (died 
 about 10 a.d.), his grandson Gamaliel, the teacher of St. Paul (Ac. xxii. 3), must 
 have been then flourishing. Cf. Coulburn, Gospel of the Childhood, 105 ff. Maas, 
 A Day in the Temple, 147. 
 
 4 Some authors have held that the words of Mary, and consequently the answer 
 of Christ, were uttered after leaving the assemblage of the Doctors; v.g. Salmeron, 
 Maldonatus, Cornelius a Lapide, Natalis Alexander. This view is not excluded by 
 the text. Yet when one reads vs. 48, "and seeing Him, they were surprised and His 
 mother said to Him," and after the words vs. 51, "and He went down with them," 
 and when one hears Mary's formal expression "Thy father and I," one receives the 
 impression that the first words were uttered in the presence of the Doctors and 
 bystanders. The Apocryphal Gospels of the Childhood (Gospel of Thomas, 
 First Greek Form (XIX.), Arabic Gospel (LIII.)) reflect this view, representing 
 the Doctors as afterwards speaking to Mary. There is something in the remark 
 of Ellicott (Historical Lectures 96, note 3) that the emphatic position of irpbs avrov 
 in verse 48, would suggest that the mother waited until they were alone before she 
 spoke, yet the reading of this text as a whole would suggest the other view. 
 
THE BACKGROUND OF LUKE ii. 49 81 
 
 2. CONTEMPORARY JEWISH CONCEPTION OF GOD'S 
 RELATION TO MAN 
 
 It would seem that in Pentateuchal times the Jews considered 
 that Jahweh their God was concerned with them, with their inter- 
 ests, their success. Whenever the term "Father" is applied to 
 Him, or "Sons" (or "Son" or "Children") to them, the relation 
 expressed is always in respect to the nation, never to the indi- 
 vidual, and the reason for this relation is frequently the fact that 
 God begot them by delivering them out of Egypt. Thus: "Israel 
 is My Son, My first-born" (Ex. iv. 22); "Be ye children of the 
 Lord your God. He chose thee to be His peculiar people of all 
 nations that are upon the earth" (Deut. xiv. 1, 2); "Is not He 
 thy Father that hath possessed thee, and made thee and created 
 thee?" (Deut. xxxii. 5, 6, 18, 19; cf. Num. xxi. 29; and "as a 
 Father" in Deut. i. 31; viii. 5). 
 
 In the last passage quoted, fatherly relation is expressed of 
 God because He is the Creator. This is also done in passages of 
 subsequent works, Is. xlv. 11; lxiv. 8; Malac. i. 6; ii. 10, 11; I 
 Paral. xxix. 10. In these post-Pentateuchal works God is con- 
 sidered in a closer relation to the Hebrew people, namely as the 
 husband, and since God is husband of the nation, individual Jews 
 may be called children of God, — of course in the Jewish idea of 
 husband, that is to say, with strong emphasis on the duty of the 
 espoused Israelites not to prostitute themselves in idolatry. 
 Thus: "And the bridegroom shall rejoice over the bride, and thy 
 God shall rejoice over thee" (Is. lxii. 5; liv. 6); "But thou hast 
 polluted thyself to many lovers; Return, Oh ye revolting children, 
 saith the Lord: for I am your husband." (Jer. iii. 1, 14, 19, 20, 22; 
 ii. 2; cf. Oseeii. 2; 19,20; Ezech. xvi. 8, 20). 
 
 In the same books we have the fatherly relation predicated of 
 God in the sense that He is the Protector of Israel. "I have 
 brought up children and exalted them: but they have despised 
 me ... A wicked seed, ungracious children" (Is. i. 2, 4; xxx. 9); 
 "Therefore at least from this time call to me : Thou art My Father, 
 the guide of my virginity" (Jer. iii. 4; cf. Osee xi. 1, 3). And we 
 also find the fatherly relation coupled with the idea of mercy and 
 
82 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 pity. 1 Thus: "and I will bring them back in mercy for I am a 
 father to Israel, and Ephraim is my first-born" (Jer. xxxi. 9, 20; 
 cf. Is. xliii. 6; lxiii. 8, 16; Wisdom (Father in the sense of Provi- 
 dence) xiv. 3, Tob. xiii. 4 ace. some MSS.). 
 
 In the prophecies of Jeremiah and Ezechiel it is clearly taught 
 that Jahweh is concerned not only with the nation as a whole but 
 also with its individual members. In the new covenant which 
 Jeremiah promises, as God had written the law on the heart of 
 the prophet, so He was to write it on the heart of the individual 
 Israelite (Jer. xxxi. 32, 34). This individualism was developed by 
 Ezechiel: "All souls are mine" (Ezech., xviii. 4). 2 
 
 A higher step was reached when the fatherly relation of God was 
 predicated of the individual. The book of Wisdom says that the 
 just man "boasteth that he hath the knowledge of God, and calleth 
 Himself the Son of God . . . and glorieth that he hath God for 
 His Father" (ii. 13, 16; cf. ii. 18; v. 5). And the Son of Sirach 
 addresses God thus: "Oh Lord, Father, and sovereign ruler of 
 my life," "Oh Lord, Father and God of my life" (Ecclesiasticus 
 xxiii. 1, 4). The original is not preserved but Dalman says that 
 xijptexaTspxal S^axoTa (vs. 4, 8e£) ^Gyrjq jjio u is to be traced to "OK ItW 
 **V1 i>N1. 3 It is said of this passage in Ecclesiasticus that it "certainly 
 witnesses to a real belief in the Fatherhood of God in regard to 
 the individual." 4 These few passages are the only ones in the 
 canonical books of the Old Testament where there is an expression 
 of God's fatherly relation to the ordinary individual. 
 
 In the Apocryphal books of the Old Testament 5 (which help 
 us to catch a glimpse of the religious conceptions of the Jews in 
 the centuries immediately preceding the advent of Christianity)* 
 God is addressed as "Father" in 3 Mac. v. 7 (prayer is implied); 
 vi. 4, 8; and the sense seems to be the merciful loving God of the 
 
 1 And this tender idea is also expressed in some of the later Psalms: cii. (ciii.) 
 13; cvi. (cvii.) 41; Ixvii. (lxviii.) 5. 
 
 2 Cf . Charles, Religious Development between the Old and New Testament, 
 106-107. 
 
 3 Words of J., 184-185. Dalman also says concerning Ii. 14, nvptov irarkpa nvp- 
 Lov nov that "the original may have had " , J1K1 *3K HliT "Jehovah my Father and 
 my Lord" (p. 185). 
 
 4 Box and Oesterley, in Introd. to Sirach, in Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of 
 Old Test., edit. Charles I. 304; cf. Toy, Judaism and Christianity, 84. 
 
 5 Texts are collected but not well assorted by Wicks: The Doctrine of God in 
 the Jewish Apocryphal and Apocalyptical Literature, London, 1915. 
 
THE BACKGROUND OF LUKE ii. 49 83 
 
 Jews "fighting on their side continually as a father for his children" 
 (vii. 6). It is said in Jubilees i. 23-25, that God will be Father. 1 
 He is referred to as "Father" in Test, of Levi xviii. 6; Test, of 
 Jud. xxiv. 2; 2 and the Jews are called "children," En. lxii. 11; 
 Ps. of Sol. xvii. 29; Test, of Levi xviii. 8. 
 
 Thus a hasty survey of the canonical and Apocryphal books 
 of the Old Testament would seem to suggest that among the 
 Jews, there was a development in the revelation of God's relation 
 to man: from acknowledging God's concern over the nation as a 
 whole, they came to recognize His interest in the individual, 3 and 
 from proclaiming God's fatherly relation to His chosen people they 
 finally confessed His fatherly relation to the individual Israelite. 4 
 
 We have been considering here only God's fatherly relation 
 to ordinary individuals. Divine Sonship has been attributed to 
 extraordinary individuals. Angels are called "Sons of God" in 
 Gen. vi. L-4; Job. i. 6; ii. 1; xxxviii. 7; Ps. xxviii. (xxix.) i.; 
 lxxxviii. (lxxxix.) 7; (cf. Septuag.); and many times in I En. Once 
 (Ps. lxxxi. (lxxxii.) 1-6, cf. John x. 34) Judges are called Gods, 
 synonymous with Sons of God and implying investment with God's 
 power. Concerning the theocratic king typifying the Messiah, 
 it is said in Ps. ii. 7, "Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten 
 thee." And in Ps. lxxxviii. (lxxxix.) 21, 27, 28, "I have found 
 David my servant, He shall cry out to Me: Thou art my Father, 
 my God, and the support of my salvation, and I will make him 
 my first born high above the kings of the earth." Again God said 
 in reference to David, "I will be to him a Father, and he will be 
 to Me a Son" (2 K. vii. 14). "Son" is applied to the Messiah in 
 I En. cv. 2; 4 Esd. vii. 28, 29; xiii. 32, 37, 52; xiv. 9. 
 
 A word as to the Greeks, whose civilization had enveloped 
 Palestine at the time of Christ and exerted an influence on the 
 Jews. In general it may be said that the polytheism of the Greeks 
 
 1 This passage is remarkable. It reads: "... I will create in them a holy 
 spirit, . . . and I will be their Father and they shall be My children, and they all 
 shall be called children of the living God and every angel and every spirit shall 
 know, yea, they shall know that these are My children and that I am their Father 
 in uprightness and righteousness." 
 
 2 Also in Sibylline Books (of uncertain date), V. lines 360, 498, 500. 
 
 3 Yet, as Dalman says, "the individual Israelite was aware that it was only as a 
 member of his people that he possessed the claim to and prospect of God's help 
 and patronage." Words of J., 189. 
 
 4 Cf. Candlish (HDB II. 217), who sees four successive stages in the Old Testa- 
 ment statements about sonship to God as applied to man. 
 
84 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 led to doubt and unbelief rather than to a conception of a close or 
 personal relationship with God. In the anthropomorphic theism 
 of Homer, Zeus, although given preeminence as "the Father of 
 Gods and of Men," is represented as having sons and daughters 
 among the Gods, as having brothers and even as having a father, 
 Kronos. In the religious system of the Greek poets of the sixth 
 and fifth centuries B.C., "the concepts of the Gods are essentially 
 the Homeric, except that Zeus plays a larger part in the divine 
 economy than in Homer." * Neither in the absolute, the "Ideas" 
 of Plato, nor in the "Mind" (the first cause) of Aristotle, nor in 
 the polytheistic pantheism of Stoicism, is there to be found any 
 conception of man's personal relationship with God. 
 
 One who more than anybody else tried to combine the Hebrew 
 and Greek Theosophies, Philo, almost a contemporary of Christ, 
 professed as his central doctrine (in which he was influenced by 
 Plato) the view that God the First Cause of all is so transcendent, 
 so widely separated from the world, that He is present in the world 
 only in His acts and that He accomplished creation through powers 
 or ideas, the chief being the Logos. In regard to God as Father, 
 thanks to Carmon (Philo 's doctrine of the Divine Father and the 
 Virgin Mother (AJTh IX (1905) 491-518)) we have his texts on the 
 matter collected and assorted. Philo uses the name of "Father" 
 for God very freely. He uses it in the sense of creator, 2 as is 
 seen from the fact that he often speaks of God as "the Father and 
 Creator " as " the Father of the universe, of the world, of all things " ; 
 and based on this sense, he uses the word figuratively (v.g. Father 
 of generic virtue). Indeed, far from holding there was a close 
 relation between man and God, Philo put God at a distance from 
 the world in his transcendental notion of Him. 
 
 Before the time of Christ, therefore, the name "Father" had 
 been applied to God by both Jews and Greeks, by the Jews in 
 mostly a national sense, by the Greeks in a vague and mostly 
 
 1 Moore, Religious Thought of the Greeks, 75. For an account of the religious 
 thought of the Romans see Dollinger, The Gentile and the Jew, etc., II. 9-6. Cf. 
 also Dill. S. Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius, London, 1905. For 
 social and religious conditions (and good bibliography) see Angus: The Environ- 
 ment of Early Christianity, 83 ff. See p. 99, for examples where God is called 
 "Father." 
 
 2 See especially, Ad. Caium, XVI. Bibl. S. Pat. Eccl. Graec. II. Phil, Jud. Opera 
 VI. 98, where he says that the Jews were taught to believe "that there was but one 
 God the (their) Father and the Creator of the world." 
 
THE BACKGROUND OF LUKE ii. 49 85 
 
 figurative sense; but the designation of God "My Father" is 
 not found on the lips of any ordinary individual, unless perhaps 
 in the case of Ecclesiasticus xxiv. 1, 4; and the only other 
 reference to God's fatherly relation to the ordinary individual 
 is Wisd. ii. 13, 16. It is indeed remarkable that any mention 
 of God's fatherly relation to the individual is almost absent 
 from the great religious literature of the ancient Jews, and 
 that it is not found in the Psalms, those outbursts of the intense 
 feeling and warm devotion of the Jewish heart. In them Jahweh 
 is frequently addressed as "My God," xv. (xvi.), 2; "My King," 
 v. 3; "My Shepherd," xxii. (xxiii.) 1; yet we never hear Him 
 called "My Father." Outside the Messianic passages we do not 
 find in the Psalms any reference to God's fatherly relation even to 
 the nation as a whole, and we must admit the inference of Green: 
 "If the religion of Israel had really attained to any clear concep- 
 tion of God as Father and of men as His children, it would most 
 naturally find utterance in these compositions, in which we have at 
 once the devoutest expression of the personal religious consciousness 
 and the chosen vehicle of the worship of the congregation." * 
 
 Not only is the term "Father" comparatively rarely used of 
 God by the Jews before the time of Christ but, as Dalman says, 
 "The Targums show that great care was exercised against the sin- 
 gle use of the word father, for God." 2 The examples which Dal- 
 man brings forward show that the word "Father" was avoided 
 and even "My Father" Oatf) was changed into "My Lord" (^mi). 
 
 Instances of "Our Father" in Jewish prayers are given by 
 Dalman (the earliest is 118 a.d.), 3 but in Jewish parlance the 
 usual designation of God was "Our Father in heaven," "the dicta 
 of the Rabbis from the end of the first Christian century onwards 
 are the earliest source of instances." 4 Dalman gives instances 
 from this time on showing the conception of the fatherly relation 
 of God to the individual Israelite. But as Beyschlag remarks, 
 
 1 HDB Extra Vol. 125. 
 
 2 Words of J., 191. When Jesus simply said, "My Father worketh until now; 
 and I work" (Jn. v. 17), St. John in the next verse tells us that the Jews therefore 
 "sought the more to kill Him, because He did not only break the Sabbath but also 
 said God was His Father, making Himself equal to God." Could we infer from this 
 that the expression "My Father" applied to God would be blasphemous in their 
 
 • Op. cit., 190-191. 
 « Op._cit., 186. 
 
86 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 "it may be asked whether its origin in these is not due — as so 
 many old Rabbinic sayings suggest — solely to the desire not to 
 lag behind Christian ideas and modes of expression." 1 
 
 The Targums (which throw light on theological views of con- 
 temporaries of Christ) not only show a dislike for the name Father 
 applied to God, but give other evidence of a widespread tendency 
 to exaggerate God's transcendence. Widening the chasm between 
 God and the world, the Targums remove or paraphrase away the 
 anthropomorphisms of the Old Testament; thus the creation of 
 man in the likeness of God is changed into his creation in the like- 
 ness of the ministering angels. 2 Changes and paraphrases of a 
 like nature are found even in the Septuagint (third century b.c.). 3 
 As Fairweather says in the post-exilic period "there was developed 
 a tendency to conceive God as dwelling in the distant heaven as 
 'afar off' and remote from the life of men." 4 A strongly marked 
 evidence of it is seen in names applied to God in quite general use. 
 Many kinds of evasive and precautionary ways were taken not to 
 refer to the name of God or to mention His Person. He was re- 
 ferred to as "most High," as "Heaven," as "Place," etc. 5 
 
 Yet side by side with this abstract and transcendental view of 
 God and inconsistently with it, there was another great charac- 
 teristic of Jewish theology contemporary with Christ, namely 
 the autocracy of the Law. The Law was exalted at the expense of 
 everything else, even to the extent of drying up spiritual energies, 
 of lowering spiritual ideas, of limiting religion to the traditional 
 interpretation of the law, and of making God Himself subject to 
 the Law. 6 At the time of Christ, then, there existed a tendency 
 
 1 New Test. Th. I. 80, note 2. This view is also taken by Bousset. Die Religion 
 des Judenthums in ntl. Zeitalter, 357. 
 
 2 Many other examples are given by Sanday, who has a very good treatment 
 of the "Tendencies of Contemporary Judaism" (HDB II. 203-208). 
 
 8 For examples see Sanday, HDB II. 206-207; cf . Fairweather, Development of 
 Doctrine, HDB Extra Vol. 279, also Background of the Gospel, 330, Gilbert, HDG 
 I. 582. 
 
 4 The Background of the Gospel, 208; cf. Maclean (HDG Sing. Vol. X, 301), 
 Gilbert (HDG I. 582). 
 
 « Cf. Dalman, Words of J., 194-232. Sanday, op. cit., HDB II. 206, Fair- 
 weather, op. cit., 281. 
 
 6 He was even represented as studying the Law, cf. Sanday, HDB II. 208, 
 Oesterley, Judaism in the Days of the C., 87 S. After mentioning tjie evils of this 
 Jewish worship of the Law, this writer (p. 94) says that one should not "overstate 
 their prevalence." And Herford contends that the exaltation of the Torah on the 
 contrary deepened the spiritual life of the ordinary Jew (Pharisaism, 72). 
 
THE BACKGROUND OF LUKE ii. 49 87 
 
 to put God further and further away from earthly things, to con- 
 sider Him as transcending them to make Him to a certain extent 
 uninteresting, unlovable. 1 
 
 Summing up, then, and reviewing all our evidence for the 
 Jewish conception of God at the time of Christ, we should think 
 that the prevailing view was the transcendental one of the Scribes 
 and Pharisees. Yet, as we indicated above, there seemed to be 
 a development and elevation of the notion of God's fatherly rela- 
 tionship through the centuries, until at a time, not many centuries 
 distant from the Christian era, God's fatherly relation to the in- 
 dividual was predicated. This was done only a few times; yet 
 there seems to be justice in the remark of Toy that "the conception 
 of God's fatherly relation to individuals existed therefore a couple 
 of hundred years before the beginning of our era, and we may 
 suppose that it gathered force and fulness as the increasing purity 
 and elevation of ethical ideas was transferred to the divine charac- 
 ter. Still it does not seem to have been a favorite conception; 
 the Jewish national feeling was strong enough to depress it. It 
 was probably held by a select circle of thinkers, but it was kept 
 out of general view by the circumstances of the time, the political 
 excitements and the religious-ethical tendencies thence resulting." 2 
 It was, then, only within "a select circle of thinkers" that God's 
 close, warm, fatherly relation to the individual could be preserved 
 amid prevailing views of Judaism relegating God to the distance, 
 making Him subservient to the Law. 
 
 1 When the Pharisees answered Christ: "We are not born of fornication: we 
 have one Father, even God," Jn. viii. 41, they employed the name Father for God 
 in the sense in which it is frequently found in the Old Testament: God was Father 
 of the Jews because they were children of a nation espoused to God. Cf. Mtt. xv. 
 26; Mk. vii. 27. 
 
 2 Judaism and Christianity, 84; cf. Green, Children of God, HDB Sing. Vol. 125. 
 
SECTION IV 
 
 CHRIST'S CONSCIOUSNESS AS EXPRESSED 
 IN LUKE ii. 49 
 
CHAPTER IX 
 
 REAL DIVINE SONSHIP EXPRESSED IN THE FIRST 
 RECORDED WORDS 
 
 1. THE STUDY OF THE WORDS "MY FATHER " 
 
 In Christ's first recorded saying: "Why did you seek Me? 
 Did you not know that in the (things) of My Father I must be? 
 (T( oti ^tqtscts tie; oux -pette 8xt e\ xolq tou IIaTp6<; {jlou Bet ehat \ie; 
 Luke ii. 49), the words that express His relationship to God are 
 "My Father." In this expression we immediately strike the core 
 of the problem we have in hand, we meet the whole issue and have 
 to decide it before going further. What will remain to be done, 
 will be only to reinforce the main argument outlined here. 
 
 (a) From the evidence brought forward in the previous chapter 
 one can safely conclude that at the time of Christ, the title of 
 "Father" was used of God. The usual way of referring to Him, 
 would seem to have been "Our Father in heaven," which had 
 gradually been adopted for the then obsolete tetragramaton. But, 
 for an individual to call God His Father was not at all popular, 
 as very few instances are to be found previous to the time of Our 
 Lord, and the prevailing conception of God was against it. So 
 that we straightway see that Christ's expression tou n<rup6<; (xou, 
 "My Father" for God was not the ordinary one. 
 
 In making this departure, there were no great precedents for 
 Christ to follow. Samuel, "the faithful prophet of the Lord" 
 (1 Kings iii. 20), as a boy referred to God as "Lord," and called 
 himself "servant," 1 Kings iii. 10. Although God told David 
 through the Prophet Nathan that He would be a Father to him, 
 and David would be to Him a son, yet David too cries "O Lord 
 God" and refers to himself as "servant," 2 Kings vii. 18, 19, 25, 
 etc. In prophecy the great Jewish mediator and saviour of the 
 Gentiles is called by Isaias, "My servant," Isaias xlii. 1 ff. 
 
 91 
 
92 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 According to St. Luke himself, priestly Zachary refers to God as 
 "the Lord God of Israel," Luke i. 68; and pious Simeon views 
 his relation to God as a "slave" to a "master" vuv chuoMeig tov 
 SouXov sou, BiaiuoToc, Luke ii. 29. 
 
 Certainly it was not on account of precedents, or by virtue of 
 custom and usage that "My Father" fell from Christ's lips. If, in 
 referring to God, He had used "Our Father in Heaven" which 
 according to Dalman seems to have been used by the Jews of that 
 time, He might be following usage and custom of the time, but 
 when instead of "Our" He used "My," Christ did something out 
 of the ordinary; not only have we but few examples of an indi- 
 vidual expressing filial relation to God, but the Targums (as 
 referred to in the previous chapter) show an aversion to the use 
 of the words "My Father" in reference to God; and there is an 
 evident indication of a prevailing view of God which is abstract 
 and diametrically opposed to the close warm conception of Him as 
 expressed by the words "My Father." When we see that this 
 expression making this departure is used, not by a man of mature 
 years, not after years of pious reflection and religious experience, 
 but by a boy of twelve it would seem to be very exceptional. And 
 when we see that the expression was uttered in all seriousness 
 (as the whole context presupposes), it would seem hard to explain. 
 
 (b) The words, "My Father," on the lips of the twelve-year- 
 old Jesus are not only the most important ones of His saying, but 
 they are the most emphatic ones, because with these words He 
 made a contrast with the words, "Thy Father," in the question 
 of Mary His Mother. She said "... Thy father and I sought 
 Thee sorrowing"; He said ". . . in the (things) of My Father 
 I must be." The contrast between "My Father" and "Thy 
 Father" is evident, and it is admitted by all scholars with the 
 exception of two, H. Holtzmann 1 and Meyer, 2 both of whom base 
 their opposition to it on the ground that it would be unnatural, 
 which is an a priori reason. 
 
 To Mary's reference to Joseph as father, Jesus opposes a 
 reference to God as His Father. The opposition or contrast is 
 equivalent to a decisive correction of Mary's words, it is tanta- 
 
 1 Hand Comment. I. 51. 
 
 2 Gospel of Mk. and Lk. i. 336. 
 
REAL DIVINE SONSHIP EXPRESSED 93 
 
 mount to a denial that Joseph was His father, and, what is of 
 special importance, it is a reminder of the Virgin Birth. According 
 to the Lucan account Jesus had been miraculously conceived by 
 the Holy Ghost, which was, so to speak, a physical reason why the 
 "Holy One born" of the Virgin Mary would be "the Son of God" 
 (Luke i. 35) . By the words " My Father " as a designation of God, 
 in opposition to the imputation of fatherhood on the part of 
 Joseph, the Boy Christ shows that He was conscious of His miracu- 
 lous conception of the Holy Ghost and indicates that these words, 
 "My Father" are to be understood in accordance with this super- 
 natural conception. This contrast, therefore, points to the view 
 of real Divine Sonship. "In place of the foster father," says Titus 
 of Bostra, 1 "He brings forward the true Father," or as Theophyl- 
 act 2 interprets the contrast, "since Mary had called Joseph 
 'father.' He replied 'he is not My true father otherwise I would 
 be in his house, but God is My Father and for this reason I am in 
 His house that is in His temple.' " 
 
 (c) The occasion of the twelfth year was not the sole time that 
 Jesus used the expression "My Father" in reference to God. He 
 did it frequently during His Public Life. Not being an isolated 
 instance, we can determine that it was not by accident that He 
 uttered it in His twelfth year. In Christ's later life no other name 
 of God was more frequently on His lips than that of "Father." 
 And nowhere does Our Lord's teaching appear in sharper contrast 
 to current religious ideas than in relation to the Divine Fatherhood. 
 To avoid repetition we have reserved the study of Christ's refer- 
 ences to God's Fatherhood to a closing chapter (page 188). We 
 now refer the reader to it, and we here avail ourselves of the 
 results. We can determine this certainly from His later usage, 
 that His departing from the usual way of referring to God was 
 deliberate and intentional. Indeed, He told all others, even His 
 disciples to say "Our Father," yet He deliberately made a depar- 
 ture when He Himself was concerned, using "My Father." As 
 Dalman remarks, "Jesus never applied to Himself the title 'Son 
 of God' and yet made it indubitably clear that He was not 
 
 1 Titus von Bostra (ed. Sickenberger), 152. 
 
 8 M.PG CXXIII. 733. Cf. Stanley Hall, Jesus the Christ in the Light of Psy- 
 chology I. 430, etc. 
 
94 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 merely V but 'the' Son of God. The position assumed shows 
 itself in the preference He manifested for the designation of God 
 as 'His' Father in the use of which He never includes the disciples 
 along with Himself . . . The unique position assumed by Jesus 
 also follows in other passages from the invariable separation be- 
 tween 'My Father' and 'Your Father/ " 1 
 
 A unique or special Divine Sonship is signified by the use of 
 the term "My Father" certainly in the evangelical narrative of 
 the Public Life, this nobody can deny. Now, when we hear this 
 expression fall from the lips of Jesus for the first time, and this 
 when only twelve years of age, what are we to think? The sacred 
 historian who records this here without explanation or comment in 
 the same work wherein he represents Christ as using "My Father" 
 to distinguish His Sonship from even His disciples, would certainly 
 seem to attribute to the youthful Saviour a consciousness of a special 
 Divine Sonship. To contend that it is not allowed to argue this 
 way, that the "childishness" of the twelve-year-old Christ forbids 
 the taking any great or deep meaning from His words, to contend 
 this is to argue a priori, is to argue independently of the records. 2 
 
 1 Words of Jesus, 280-281. 
 
 2 A number of modern writers appeal to the "childishness" of the saying in 
 favor of their view. Hase does this (Geschichte Jesu, 224). A "childish limita- 
 tion" is mentioned by Keim (Jesus of Naz., II. 133). Lange refers to the saying as 
 a "feeling still enveloped in the bud of childishness" (Life of Christ, 324). Reville 
 sees in the Gospel episode "beaucoup de candeur et d'illusion juvenile" (Jesus de 
 Naz., 410). Neander holds that Christ's words "contain no explanation beyond 
 His tender years" (Life of Christ, 31). According to Dickenson (The Perfecting of 
 Jesus, AndRXLII (1912) 278) the childishness of His answer "forbids us to inter- 
 pret the words, ' My Father,' in any other but a purely human sense of Sonship to 
 the Father . . ." To do so, says Barth, would be "roh und unkindlich" (Die 
 Hauptprobleme des Lebens J., 270), etc. In answer we say in the first place that 
 an oriental boy of 12 is not a child. In any case there are no indications in the Gos- 
 pel that Lk. ii. 49 is to be considered a childish saying. For the parents, it was no 
 childish saying; it contained something so great and deep that they could not 
 understand it (vs. 50), it contained something of such value that the Mother care- 
 fully preserved it (vs. 51). As we shall later see, the Evangelist previously narrates 
 that the Boy Jesus displayed most extraordinary understanding (vs. 47) and that 
 as a child He was filled with wisdom (vs. 40). He had previously described Christ's 
 miraculous conception of the Holy Ghost and the miracles that attended His birth. 
 This context, and besides the same serious tone that attends all the narrative of this 
 Third Gospel — these are sufficient indications that the words may be taken for 
 all they stand for, that one may adopt the interpretation that best suits. Finally, 
 is not the distance between child and man lost in the interval that separates both 
 from the Deity? And if a child's consciousness could not contain a divine meta- 
 physical element, neither could a man's (cf. Owen, Comment on Gospel of St. Lk. 
 44). The claiming that the childishness of Jesus' saying precludes any great or 
 deep meaning is an a priori argumentation. 
 
REAL DIVINE SONSHIP EXPRESSED 95 
 
 This special Divine Sonship in the first words of Jesus is 
 admitted by Keim, Godet, Nosgen, Reville, Beyschlag, Wendt and 
 other such scholars. 1 These men admit that in Jesus* first saying 
 "the words 'My Father' were the first realization of a relation 
 which surpassed all that Judaism had realized," to quote Godet, 2 
 or to quote Beyschlag, 3 "the name of 'Father' on the lips of Jesus 
 is the expression of a purely personal relation that has no equal." 
 Yes, these admissions are required by the historical evidence, but 
 how explain them naturally? "From what," we have to ask with 
 H. Schmidt, 4 "is Christ's consciousness of His peculiar quality?" 
 Even if one agree with these men that the special Sonship ex- 
 pressed by the youthful Christ is only ethical, we would look in 
 vain for a natural explanation. Special ethical Sonship, or the 
 conviction of an ethical relation above all others, might be arrived 
 at by a person who had spent many years of prayer and missionary 
 experience, namely after knowing the spiritual experiences of 
 others and comparing them with one's own. A special ethical 
 relation must necessarily be the result or fruit of growth and devel- 
 opment in the mental and moral faculty of man, and according to 
 the laws of Psychology it would be difficult to explain how the 
 consciousness of a relation to God more special than that of any- 
 body else would be found in a boy of twelve. No amount of natural 
 precociousness, no natural ingenuity, no depth or strength of 
 religious feeling could explain it; he must necessarily lack expe- 
 rience or the knowledge of how others view their relation to God. 
 The unnaturalness of the natural explanation is confirmed by this 
 fact, that both J. Weiss and O. Pfleiderer, while admitting that the 
 text as it stands signifies special Divine Sonship, on this account 
 reject it as not genuine. 5 
 
 The conviction of a most special relation to God is expressed 
 by Jesus in the words "My Father," and this conviction at such 
 a tender age would indicate that for Him development was pre- 
 cluded, the ordinary laws of humanity were not observed, a preter- 
 natural explanation was to be looked for. 
 
 1 The modern scholars who hold to a special ethical Sonship are given above, pp. 
 41 ff. 
 
 2 Comment, on Luke, 93. 
 8 New Test. Th. I. 81. 
 
 4 Bildung und Gehalt d. messianisch. Bewusstsein J. StKr LXII (1889) 428. 
 6 See above, p. 41. 
 
96 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 (d) Not being able naturally to account for the words "My 
 Father" in the first recorded saying of Jesus, we are compelled to 
 seek an adequate explanation somewhere even if it should be in the 
 realms of the supernatural. An adequate explanation is readily 
 and as it were naturally suggested to us by the usage of this self- 
 same expression, "My Father," by Christ during the Public Minis- 
 try. 
 
 According to the representation of the Evangelist, not only 
 unique but even real Divine Sonship is signified by Christ when He 
 uses the term "Father" or "My Father." For instance: All 
 things are delivered to Me by My Father; and no one knoweth 
 who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the 
 Son and to whom the Son will reveal Him (Luke x. 22). Certainly 
 real Divine Sonship is expressed here, for Christ indirectly states 
 that His nature is such that it could be known only by God the 
 Father, which is equivalent to saying that He had Divine Nature. 1 
 We refer the reader to the last section of this work, where is 
 adduced accumulative evidence to show how the Saviour of the 
 Public Life understood His Divine Sonship, to show that His use 
 of the expression "My Father" corresponds to the expressions 
 "the only Son," "the only begotten Son," to show that this ex- 
 pression "My Father" on His lips is fraught with the significance 
 of metaphysical relation to God, — this is according to the repre- 
 sentation of the Third Evangelist and the whole New Testament 
 (pages 188 sq.). 
 
 In the light of this meaning, how is tou IIaTp6<; (jlou in the say- 
 ing of the twelve-year-old Christ to be interpreted? We ask with 
 Fillion 2 why not attribute to the word "Father" here the signifi- 
 cance it so often receives in the course of the Gospel narratives? 
 This should be done, if the canon is observed that an obscure 
 passage is to be explained by a clear one. Would it not be a mis- 
 take to extract it from the book in which it is written and consider 
 it apart from the representation of the writer? According to 
 ordinary methods, it is not allowed to do so unless we have a 
 statement to the effect from the Evangelist. Where is there even 
 
 1 This is admitted by a member of the negative school. See a work on this 
 passage by Schumacher. Die Selbstoffenbarung Jesu bei k Mat. xi. 27 (Luc. x. 22). 
 
 2 Le developpement intell. et. moral de Jesus RClfr April (1914) 16. Cf. Felder, 
 Jesus Christus, I. 328. 
 
REAL DIVINE SONSHIP EXPRESSED 97 
 
 an intimation of this? By not informing us on the matter Luke 
 would be deceiving us if the term has not the same meaning in 
 the second as in any later chapter. Since there is no warrant 
 whatsoever for saying that the title used of God, "My Father," 
 changed in meaning for Jesus, and since He expressed real Divine 
 Sonship in other passages where this title is used, would not one 
 naturally expect that real Divine Sonship is likewise expressed in 
 ii. 49? 
 
 The words "My Father" were Christ's most common name 
 for God and hence did not drop accidentally from the lips of the 
 youthful Saviour. Although a Jew of Christ's time, especially if 
 he belonged to a select class, might speak of God as his Father — 
 this is true, despite a few authorities to the contrary l — yet Jesus' 
 employment of the title for God was something quite characteris- 
 tic of Him alone. He even went beyond the usage in reference to 
 the theocratic king. Not only did He make use of the name "My 
 Father" more frequently and in a more confident manner than 
 was ever previously done, 2 but the way He reserved it for Him- 
 self alone, and the content He gave it surpass anything of the 
 sort that we know of any historical personage. Seeing that 
 Jesus at the tender age of twelve does not say "Our Father," but 
 deliberately uses "My Father," appropriating God as His own 
 special Father, St. Cyril of Alexandria draws this inference: He 
 makes God His own Father, for He alone was divinely born of 
 God according to nature, and when He became man He retained 
 His own true (by nature) Father, God. 3 This is our conclusion: 
 The use of the term "My Father" for God was not at all ordi- 
 nary; from the contrast with the words "Thy Father" recalling 
 the Virgin Birth, and from His usage, of which this is only one 
 instance, we are led to expect that the term was fraught with the 
 meaning of real Divine Sonship. 
 
 ! A few have said that Christ's words "My Father" were altogether foreign 
 to the ordinary Jewish dialect of His time, v.g. Sheldon' New Test. Theol. 63, 
 Stier (Words of the Lord J., 25), Brough (Childhood and Youth of Our Lord, 124). 
 These'writers are not precisely correct, as is indicated in the last chapter. 
 
 2 Cf/Hollmann, "But apart from the fact that use of this name in Jewish litera- 
 ture is not very frequent, the glad confident child-like feeling which the name of 
 Father on the lips of Jesus implied is nowhere to be found." The Jewish Religion 
 in the time of J., 51. Furrer writes: Mit seinem Sohnsbewusstsein steht Jesus ganz 
 einzig da in seiner Zeit, in seiner Welt (Das Leben J. C, 55). 
 
 3 M.PG LXXVI. 1320. 
 
98 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 2. THE OTHER WORDS OF THE TEXT 
 
 (A) In Jesus' first recorded saying: T£ 8ti itjjrttxt \ls; oi3x {Beits 
 8xt £v toi? tou IIaTp6<; (jlou Set elva( (xe; the last word is yie. Christ 
 does not say that man must be in the things of His Father, like 
 the answer He returned to the tempter, "Man liveth not by bread 
 alone," Luke iv. 4; no, He does not use an indefinite pronoun, 
 but mentions Himself alone. The \ie by being placed last is em- 
 phasized as has been remarked by Doderlein. 1 This little word 
 appears twice; what is asserted in the saying is centered in Him; 
 there is no mistaking that. 
 
 (B) Eivaf iv toI<; tou. In another place I have discussed the 
 question: what is to be understood by £v Totq, and although to 
 some extent favoring there the view of "business" as against 
 that of "house," I shall here leave the question open. 
 
 (a) If "business" be taken as the meaning, then Christ says 
 that He must be in the business of His Father. "To be in," etvat iv, 
 would signify "to be completely taken up with," 2 as in the case 
 of 1 Tim. iv. 15, &v toijtok; YaGt, which the Revised translates, 
 "give thyself wholly to them." 3 Mary had asked: Why did 
 you do this to us? Making a slight contrast, the Son replied, not 
 that He must do the business but that He must be completely 
 taken up with, immersed in the affairs of His Father. To explain 
 this assertion as merely the outcome of intense religious feeling 
 requires attributing a certain amount of unnaturalness to the 
 twelve-year-old Christ as well as arguing independently of the 
 text and context (as will be shown). On the other hand, accord- 
 ing to the view that takes "My Father" in the literal sense, this 
 expression is most fitting and natural for the Boy Jesus. The 
 right and duty of a true son is to be taken up with his Father's 
 business. 
 
 (6) What is the meaning, in the view that "house" is to be 
 understood for £v toi<; tou? In the first place, be it noticed that 
 in Jewish usage the Temple was not called "the Father's house"; 
 there is not a single instance either in the canonical or apocryphal 
 
 1 NJdTH I (1892) 617. 
 
 1 As has been remarked by Pricaeus (in Biblia Critica, ad loc.) and also by Stier 
 (Words of the Lord J., 23). 
 
 8 Cf. a similar use in Rom. xii. 7 (where elvtu is omitted) and in Philip iv. 11. 
 
REAL DIVINE SONSHIP EXPRESSED 99 
 
 works of the Old Testament. By David, by Solomon, in the 
 Psalms and even in the Psalms of Ascent, the Temple is desig- 
 nated as "the house of the Lord." Not only this departure, but 
 the Boy Christ, using the plural article, not even using the word 
 "house," refers to the Temple as His Father's house in a very 
 familiar manner, Iv to!<; tou IIaTp6<; [kou. The Temple of Jerusa- 
 lem was the center of Jewish thoughts and aspirations, where 
 Jahweh's presence was to some extent localized (3 Kings viii. 13), 
 where His eyes and heart were to remain perpetually (3 Kings ix. 
 3; 2 Paralip. vii. 16); it is this Temple that Christ in a familiar 
 manner spoke of as "His Father's house." He afterwards again 
 called it His Father's house, tov olxov tou n<zxp6<; ^ou (John ii. 
 17) when forcibly ejecting the money changers who were defiling 
 it. According to the account of the cleansing described by the 
 Synoptics 1 (Matthew xix. 12, 13; Mark ix. 13-17; Lukexix. 45- 
 46) Christ quotes the text "My house is the house of prayer." 
 Christ always associated Himself with the Temple 2 and as He 
 felt called upon to "cleanse" it in after life, so even at the age of 
 twelve (if the view of house for £v toc<; be correct) He felt He 
 must be there. Why must He be there any more than anybody 
 else, any more than Mary or Joseph for instance? A very close 
 connection with Jahweh, a very exceptional self-consciousness of 
 His relation to God is clearly expressed — and this, be it always 
 remembered, in spite of a strong abstract transcendental view of 
 God prevailing at His time. 
 
 As the real Son of God Christ would naturally, and as a mat- 
 ter of course, be intimately associated with the Temple and re- 
 gard it as His Father's house where He must be, as is stated in 
 Heb. iii. 6 (but where house is not taken as a material building) 
 Xgiuibq Ik. ox; ulbq £%l tov olxov ataou. Or, as Juvencus para- 
 phrases our passage, "... quod jure paternis sedibus et domibus 
 natum inhabitare necesse est." 3 Yes, by right a son should be in 
 
 1 The Synoptics seem to be describing a different cleansing from that described 
 by John. Their account comes towards the end of the Public Ministry, while his is 
 at the beginning. These are two different occasions, as is pointed out by Chrysos- 
 tom (Horn, xxiii. on St. John NP-NF XIV. 80). 
 
 2 Indeed as Schaefer points out "the, self revelations of Jesus as the Son of God 
 are connected especially with the Temple in Jerusalem," Mother of Jesus in Script. 
 234. 
 
 'Corp. Script. Lat. XXIV. 18. 
 
100 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 his father's house, and to a great extent he has a right to call the 
 father's house his house. Hence it is that Origen says that Christ 
 was in His own (Iv Ihioiq) l when He declared: "I must be in 
 the house of My Father." If one would not be ready to admit 
 that Christ claimed the Temple as His own house by calling it 
 His Father's, at least one has to admit, that by referring to the 
 Temple in a familiar way as His Father's house, He very closely 
 associated Himself with Jahweh's great house and with Jahweh 
 Himself, and this is best explained in the light of the real rela- 
 tionship of "Son" to the "Father." 
 
 (C) The Boy Jesus does not say it is proper, or it is becoming 
 that I be in the (things) of My Father, but He says it is neces- 
 sary, Bet. Let the usage of the Evangelist be our criterion for ar- 
 riving at the exact significance of this word. 
 
 Christ uses this word Bet when telling Zacchaeus that He must 
 abide in his house, Set ^e yieTvat (Luke ix. 5.) He uses it when 
 telling the people of Capharnaum who wished to detain Him 
 there, that in other cities as well must He preach (iu<XT{ekia<x<:Q(xi) 
 the kingdom of God, and the reason of the necessity was because 
 for this was He sent (Luke iv. 43) . 
 
 Referring again to His work, and vaguely alluding to His 
 passion, Christ again uses this word when in answer to the Phari- 
 sees who warned Him to depart and go into Judaea for Herod had 
 a mind to kill Him, He said ironically it cannot be (oux hZi%9xm) 
 that a prophet be put to death outside of Jerusalem, howbeit it 
 is ordained by Divine decree that I go on my way hence (xX^jv Bet 
 pie) as Herod desires, not however, because you suggest it, but 
 because My work at this time requires it. (Luke xiii. 33.) 2 To 
 express the necessity there was on Him to suffer many things, to 
 die and rise again, the Son of Man used this word Bet in Luke ix. 
 22, and again in Luke xvii. 25. 
 
 Christ felt and expressed that He must go to His sufferings 
 and death as it was part of a Divine decree, as it was determined 
 for Him (xoctoc to wpta^xlvov, Luke xxii. 22) and He uses the word 
 we are considering to designate the necessity of His fulfilling the 
 text of Scripture: He was reckoned as a malefactor (Bet TeXea0Tjvat 
 £v I[jlo(, Luke xxii. 37). And the Risen Saviour makes use of it in 
 dispelling the misunderstandings of the Apostles and disciples 
 
 1 Given in M.PG XIII. 1852, note. 
 
 2 We are giving here Plummer's paraphrase of the verse (Comment, ad loc., 354). 
 
REAL DIVINE SQNSHlP SXFBrtSSEp. \ 101 
 
 explaining how according to Moses, the prophets and the Psalms, 
 it was necessary for Him to have acted and spoken as He did, to 
 have died, risen and entered into His glory, Luke xxiv. 26, 44, and 
 again in vs. 46, — where the same idea is expressed but where the 
 best texts leave out the Set. 
 
 We may add that besides this use of the word by Christ in 
 reference to Himself, we find it on the lips of St. Peter when 
 preaching that the heaven must receive Christ, 5v Bet oupav&v 
 (iiv Se^aaOat, Acts iii. 21, and on the lips of St. Paul "declaring 
 and alleging that Christ must needs have (t6v XptaT&v IBet) suffered 
 and risen from the dead," Acts xvii. 3. St. Paul writes this word 
 when referring to the necessity of Christ in reigning (Bet yap aik&v 
 paatXeuetv) "till He had put all his enemies under His feet," 
 1 Cor. xv. 25. 
 
 From the usage of Bet in the New Testament, we see the jus- 
 tice of the remark of Gigot that according to the Third Evangel- 
 ist this word in the language of Christ "invariably refers to the 
 Divine decree according to which Jesus had to carry out His mis- 
 sion on earth," x and likewise we see the justice of the inference 
 of Plummer from this word concerning Christ, "His work and 
 His sufferings are ordered by Divine decree. The word is thus 
 used of Christ throughout the New Testament." 2 Christ with 
 this word expresses the necessity of His doing something because 
 "for that He was sent," because "it was so determined," because 
 "the Scriptures must be fulfilled." Now when we hear this "sa- 
 cred must" 3 among the first words of Jesus, we can see that 
 those commentators, who held that here Christ referred to His 
 mission or even those who explain the "business" that Christ al- 
 ludes to, as the Redemption, were only arguing from the usage 
 of this word, as represented by our Evangelist. However this 
 may be, one thing is certain, this word put by St. Luke in the 
 mouth of Christ is a very strong word, it expresses His "absolute 
 constraint " 4 to be taken up with His Father's business or in 
 His Father's house. By this expression of absolute constraint 
 
 1 The Virgin Birth in Lk. ii. IthQ VIII (1913) 433. 
 
 2 Comment. 140. 
 
 3 So called by Stier, Words of the Lord J., I. 23. H. Schmidt calls it "das 
 gbttlichen del (Bildung und Gehalt des messianisch. Bewusstsein J., St. Kr. LXII 
 (1889) 429); so does Baljon (Commentaar, 72). 
 
 * Vincent, Word Studies, I. 279. 
 
102 teS "boyhood consciousness of christ 
 
 Jesus indirectly claims a very close association and relation with 
 God, claims, as Briggs * points out, that His mind is ethically one 
 with the will of God. And this as a boy of twelve, how explain 
 it? Why should He feel this way more than any other boy who 
 ever lived? Who can explain how He should arrive at this frame 
 of mind, lacking experience as a boy necessarily does? We are 
 not going beyond what the usage of the word allows us, when we 
 say that the expression indicates a self-consciousness unique in 
 history, indicates (as similarly we found in the case of the words 
 "My Father") that at twelve Christ's mind had already reached 
 the maturity of His public years, that development in His self- 
 consciousness is excluded. When we learn from the text that the 
 saying was received by the parents not with ridicule but with re- 
 spect (as shall be later referred to), we are led to an explanation 
 in harmony with the conclusion we arrived at from the study of 
 the words "My Father," namely that the obligation, the neces- 
 sity which Jesus felt, arose out of His very nature, because He 
 was the real Son of God. The obligation was natural, the word 
 "must" being in keeping with the words "My Father." At any 
 rate, this much can be concluded with absolute safety, that Jesus 
 expressed a Sonship with God closer and more binding than any- 
 body else in history. 
 
 (D) The strong word Set intensifies the elvat £v toT<;, and they 
 both, together with the (is and the tou n<zTp6<; ^ou, are intensified 
 and strengthened by the governing phrase, oux. JjBetTs; did you 
 not know, or were you not aware? These words reflect the spon- 
 taneity and assertiveness of Jesus' reply. Besides they imply 
 that the reason for remaining which He assigns was known or 
 should have been known to Mary and Joseph. 2 For instance, 
 when St. Paul wrote, "know you not (oux o'l Bores) that you are 
 the temple of the Holy Ghost" (1 Cor. iii. 16), or "know you not 
 (otix, otBate) that they that run in the race, all indeed run but one 
 receiveth the prize" (1 Cor. ix. 24), he was only drawing attention 
 to a fact, for he was conscious that the people he addressed 
 knew that they were the temples of the Holy Ghost, and that 
 
 1 The Ethical Teaching of Jesus, 34. Cf. Keil. Comm. Evang. Mk. u. Luc. 
 243-244. 
 
 2 The obK of course requires the answer "yes-" 
 
REAL DIVINE SONSHIP EXPRESSED 103 
 
 only one wins the prize. So the words of Jesus express that the 
 parents should know that He must be in the things of His Father 
 God. How could they know this? Judging from the Gospel nar- 
 rative the only way they could know this was from His super- 
 natural conception of the Holy Ghost and the miracles that at- 
 tended His coming into the world. These He is evidently recall- 
 ing to their minds by His words "did you not know?" 1 Here 
 again we come to a suggestion, an intimation which is most im- 
 portant for the understanding of the relationship with God ex- 
 pressed by "My Father" in Jesus' words. There is here a refer- 
 ence to the Virgin Birth previously described by St. Luke. Mary 
 and Joseph ought to know that Christ was in the things of God, 
 His Father, for they knew that He was supernaturally born of 
 God, that without a human father, He was born through the 
 power and operation of the Holy Ghost, in which birth, there is, 
 as we have said, a certain physical reason and basis for the real 
 Divine Sonship of Jesus. And it is strict exegesis to interpret the 
 Boy's words "My Father" in the light of this supernatural Di- 
 vine Birth, which He indirectly recalls. 
 
 (E) Finally, we reach the even more assertive and matter-of- 
 course question, tl 8ti ^tqtscts pie; According to Adamson, 2 
 Mason, 3 Plummer, 4 and Robinson, 5 this question, "Why did 
 you seek me?" implies that Christ did not know that his parents 
 were seeking for him and hence implies ignorance as well as per- 
 plexity on His part. But these words need not have been ut- 
 tered in a tone of surprise, and even if they were, it could be done 
 to make the answer more emphatic. Any ordinary boy, who was 
 absent from his parents for three days, could scarcely but advert 
 to the fact that they were looking for him, much less a boy of the 
 "understanding" (Luke ii. 47) of Jesus. There is no ignorance 
 implied in Christ's words. The words are explicable in the light 
 of what follows: "Did you not know," where there is given the 
 reason why the parents should not have searched for the missing 
 
 1 This was early seen by Titus of Bostra, who paraphrased Jesus' words, "didst 
 thou not conceive as a virgin" (Titus von Bostra, 152). 
 
 2 Studies of the Mind in C, 11, 12. 
 
 3 The Conditions'of OurjLord's Life, 148. 
 
 4 The Advance of Christ, Exp. ser. 4, IV., p. 5. 
 6 The Self-limitation of the Word of God, 72. 
 
104 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 Boy. In her question, Mary had pointed out that Joseph and 
 she had "sought Him sorrowing." To make His answer more 
 emphatic He took up her "long-drawn-out word * seeking' " l and 
 as the first part of His answer, He points out the uselessness of 
 what they had done, and this He did in the form of a question, 
 Why did you seek me? It is to be remarked that Christ not only 
 objects to their seeking Him with sorrow but to their seeking 
 Him at all. From the ordinary and natural point of view these 
 "parents" had a right to seek for Him on missing Him, yet by 
 His rhetorical question He indirectly points out that they should 
 not have sought for Him; that it was needless, and that they 
 would not have done so, if they had attended to what they should 
 know, viz., His Divine origin and nature, on account of which 
 there was an obligation (by Divine ordinance) to be in the (things) 
 of his Divine Father. In presence of this relation with God, 
 which they should know, His relation with them and their claims 
 on Him were of minor importance, — this is what is insinuated 
 by Him, as shall be brought out in the following pages. 
 
 3. THE CONTRAST WITH THE PRECEDING VERSE 
 
 Jesus' first recorded saying was not a moral dictum or a 
 generalization; it was intended as a reply to His mother, the 
 Evangelist introducing it thus: And He said unto them. 
 
 VS. 48, (b) VS. 49 
 
 Kod efxsv xpo<; ataov *?) pnfJTYjp Kal elxev xpo<; aiko6<;* 
 
 ataou* t£xvov, %l £%o{-q<jaq r}\iiv t( 8ti ^tqtscts [lb; oi3x flosrus 
 
 o5tgx;; looo 6 xarfjp aou xiyti) oti iv lolq tou n<zTp6<; jjlou 
 
 68uvwiJLevot ^TQTQuyiiv ae. 8si elvaf yie; 
 
 As has been referred to, the words tou naTp6<; p.ou in the Son's 
 reply mark a contrast to 6 xanfjp aou in the Mother's question, 
 and this contrast is equivalent to a denial that Joseph is father 
 and a reminder of the Virgin Birth. 
 
 In Jesus' reply there is more than a disavowal of Joseph. 
 Mary in her question had appealed not only to the claims of 
 
 1 As Power says, "All He did was to take up her long-drawn-out word 'seeking' 
 and show it was not entirely appropriate." Who were they . . . ? IthQ VII 
 (1912) 279. 
 
REAL DIVINE SONSHIP EXPRESSED 105 
 
 Joseph, but also to those of herself. Reminding Him of His re- 
 lation to her, she calls Him Son (t£xvov), She was His true and 
 real mother; Joseph though only foster father had all the rights 
 of fathers according to Jewish law. According to the Jewish law 
 and custom the "Son" was bound to obey, respect and please 
 them in all things. Why is it then, what could be the reason, 
 that He surreptitiously remained behind after the " parents" ' de- 
 parture and caused both of them the great anxiety and weariness 
 of the three days of sorrowful searching? Mary's question is a 
 plea for her violated parental rights; and she could scarcely 
 have put the matter more emphatically than she did with her 
 question of "why," "why did you do so to us (fjjjuv)?" 
 
 What does Jesus say to this charge? Does He admit a culpa- 
 bility, a forgetfulness, a lack of dutifulness? He does not. He 
 does not even "express sympathetic regret at His parents' sor- 
 row on His behalf." l In a short succinct reply He justifies His 
 action. The reason that He assigns is His relation to God. In 
 opposition to Mary's parental claims (tIxvov ... 6 xaTifjp aou xccy^) 
 He points to God who has a relation to Him not less than Father- 
 hood (tou non;p6q ^o u), with a claim on Him that by necessity 
 (indeed by Divine ordinance), He be in His house or about His 
 business; rather than be with them returning home, He must be 
 in God's house, or rather than be employed in their affairs, He 
 must be employed in God's affairs. This higher relation and 
 claim, and what they entailed for Him, the parents should have 
 known and adverted to; if they had done so, they would not 
 have searched for Him. To the mother's question He replies 
 with a double question. To the mother's emphatic "why" (t(), 
 He rejoins with an emphatic why (t( <kt)> "Why did you seek 
 me?" Her reason was grounded on "Thy father and I." His 
 was, "My Father and I." She was insistent and emphatic on the 
 human parental rights, He was more insistent and emphatic on 
 His duty arising from the parental right of God. This justifying 
 Himself by setting the claim of His Father, God, over against the 
 claims of His earthly parents with the implication that the for- 
 
 1 Wilkinson: Concerning J. C, the Son of Man, 42. Also Maclaren (Gospel 
 of Luke, 40) says " the answer might well startle her. It has not a word of regret 
 nor of apology." 
 
106 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 mer stringently bound Him even to the sacrifice of the latter, 
 this certainly lays most remarkable emphasis on His Divine re- 
 lation. From the human point of view the obligations of a child 
 to his parents are the most binding on earth; could Jesus there- 
 fore lay greater emphasis on His relation to God than by saying 
 that in comparison with it His relation to His earthly parents 
 was of little concern? The Boy "knew God as His Father, and 
 this in a manner so intimate and so peculiar that ordinary human 
 relationships are as nothing in comparison with the relation to 
 God." 1 Since He is making a contrast or comparison between 
 two relations, it is clear that the one on the side which He justi- 
 fies Himself would have to be the closer and stronger. To be 
 closer and stronger than the one that binds a child to his parents, 
 it would seem we would have to postulate a supernatural relation 
 to God. As Felder says, the "tertium comparationis " is not eth- 
 ical but physical fatherhood, 2 and so real Divine Fatherhood is 
 to be understood on the side of God. 
 
 The significance of the contrast*or comparison between Jesus' 
 words and the words of Mary, is brought out by Cyril of Alexandria, 
 who says that, in His reply, Christ showed "He was above human 
 measure" and taught that His human mother "had been made the 
 handmaid of the dispensation; . . . but that He was by nature 
 and truth God and the Son of the Heavenly Father." 3 It is done 
 by Ambrose who, commenting on our passage, writes: "There 
 are two generations in Christ, the one paternal, the other mater- 
 nal, the paternal the more Divine" and that "here the mother is 
 censured because she demands what is human." 4 It is more 
 clearly done by Augustine, who writes that Christ in His words 
 to Mary and Joseph did not mean "you are not My parents, but 
 you are My parents temporarily, He My Father eternally; you, 
 the parents of the Son of man, He the Father of the Word and 
 Wisdom." 5 It is done by Theodoret, who, referring to Mary's 
 question, says that Jesus was "blamed by His mother," and 
 referring to the Son's reply says, "He defends Himself (axoXoyeTTat) 
 and quietly reveals His Divinity." 6 But especially is it done by 
 
 1 D'Arcy, art. Consciousness, HDG I. 361. 
 
 2 Jesus Christus, I. 330. 
 
 3 M.PG LXXII. 509. 
 
 4 Corp. Script. Lat. XXXII. 75. 
 6 Corp. Script. Lat. XLII. 225. 
 6 M.PG LXXXIV. 73. 
 
REAL DIVINE SONSHIP EXPRESSED 107 
 
 Simeon Metaphrastes, who says explicitly that Christ "corrected 
 the saying of His mother, recalled the truth to their minds and 
 pointed out that rather the parents were to be blamed for not say- 
 ing or thinking the truth of things." l The significance of Christ's 
 words as considered as a reply to His mother, is held by all those 
 who paraphrased Christ's words; "I dismiss you on account of 
 the eternal Father," or who say that He opposed the business of 
 God His Father, to the business of His parents; the significance 
 is recognized by those who cast doubt on the historicity of the 
 passage, on the plea of its strangeness and unnaturalness; Bruno 
 Bauer is a good example. 2 
 
 As we have seen, Meyer and H. Holtzmann deny that there 
 is a contrast on the ground that it would be unnatural. Having 
 only this a priori reason to offer, they imply that the contrast is 
 there, and at the same time bear witness to its force. It is un- 
 natural; it is not what we would expect from a natural point of 
 view, namely if Christ was not conscious of being the true Son of 
 God. It is supernatural, and from the point of view of His strict 
 Divine Sonship this taking up and applying to God the term 
 "Father" and this setting His relation to God over against His 
 relation to the "parents" were perfectly natural. 
 
 How gratuitous is the assumption of Lange 3 and Loisy 4 that 
 the contrast, which is in the text, was not intended ! What is their 
 foundation for this? Where is there anything to this effect stated 
 in the text? There is not the slightest hint in the narrative that 
 words are set down which are not intended. On the contrary, the 
 context warrants us in taking Christ's words for all they are worth, 
 as will be evidenced in subsequent chapters. 
 
 In the words of Jesus there is a contrast with the words of 
 Mary. Is there more than this? Is there a reprehension or re- 
 proof or rebuff? The affirmative seems to be held by Ambrose, 5 
 Nilus, 6 and Theodoret. 7 Impelled by theological bias Erasmus 
 
 1 M.PG CXV. 548. 
 
 2 Kritik der Evang. I. 293-294. 
 
 3 Life of Christ, 324. 
 
 4 Les fivang. Synop. I. 88. 
 
 6 "Hie mater arguitur," Corp. Script. Lat. XXXII. 75. 
 
 6 In two different places Nilus writes that Christ reprehended (kTiTifj&VTOs) 
 Mary for seeking Him among His relatives, M.PG LXXIX. 229 and 776. 
 
 7 In the passage "at one time He gives honor to His mother as to her that gave 
 Him birth, at another time He rebukes (&riri/i£) her as her Lord" (M.PGLXXXHI. 
 144). 
 
108 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 and many of the early Reformers loudly advocated this view, but 
 nowadays there is scarcely any scholar * who holds it. 
 
 Whether Christ was brusque or not to His parents on this oc- 
 casion, 2 would depend on the tone in which He uttered the words. 
 This has not been preserved for us, but we would judge it to be 
 mild from the way the words were received; they were received 
 with reverence by Mary (51). Was there need of a reprehension? 
 Mary was insisting on her natural rights, was appealing to custom 
 and the way of action followed by everybody. Jesus reminded her 
 of another claim that was on Him, a supernatural one which nul- 
 lified all natural claims; hence He recalled to her something to 
 which she was not adverting; He corrected her thoughts concern- 
 ing Him; this could be done in a quiet but decisive manner and 
 not brusquely, which would seem out of harmony with the con- 
 text. 
 
 It was not a rebuff but a certain correction in this antithesis 
 which on the lips of a Semite need not sound brusque. In what 
 did this correction precisely consist? Considering that it was 
 Mary herself who heard the explicit announcements of the angel 
 Gabriel (Luke i. 26-38), considering that she was personally ac- 
 quainted with all the facts concerning her Son's conception and 
 birth, no one knew better than she His miraculous origin, His 
 supernatural relation to God, indeed His claim and right to be 
 called "the Son of God" (Luke i. 35). Mary had not to be re- 
 minded of this Divine origin and His relation of "Son" to God, 
 but she had to be reminded of what this relation to God entailed. 
 It entailed the obligation and responsibility of being concerned in 
 His Father's work at all costs; it entailed that in His life's work, 
 the end for which He came into this world, He was independent 
 of everything earthly, even of maternal relationship. Mary should 
 have known this, and if she reflected on the matter she would 
 realize it; that is why He says: "Did you not know that I must 
 be in the (things) of My Father?" But she was accustomed to 
 
 1 He writes that Christ in His words "imo plene objurgat objurgantes," Annota- 
 tiones, ad loc. in Biblia Critica, VI. 275. 
 
 2 Wallis mentions "rebuke" but says it was "in the gentlest form" (About My 
 Father's business. . . . Exp. 2d ser. VHI. 26); Farmer mentions "a slight touch 
 of rebuke" (HDG I. 238); Wilkinson sees "a certain sweet and gracious reflection 
 of reproach" (Concerning J. C. the Son of Man, 44). 
 
REAL DIVINE SONSHIP EXPRESSED 109 
 
 seeing her Boy generally acting as an ordinary boy, and she was 
 adopting the ordinary attitude herself; her complaint in her 
 question is according to the rights of parents, namely her "Son" 
 should have remembered the ties of relationship that bound Him 
 to Joseph and herself, and should have advised them concerning 
 His tarrying in the Temple. In an emphatic way, yet by simply 
 pointing to His obligation of being in the (things) of His Father, 
 Jesus intimates that this closest tie on earth for Him, not only 
 did not count, but must be sacrificed; that the responsibilities 
 arising from His great relation to His Father He must fulfil, 
 "even though at the cost of some severance from the tender ties 
 of home, yea, even at the cost of some pain to the mother whom 
 He loves so dearly." l This then was the correction of the moth- 
 erly point of view of Mary; she is to learn that she is not to be 
 consulted, that the spiritual end will be followed by Christ, "what- 
 ever the cost to human emotion, whatever the price affection 
 would have to pay, even a mother's and a son's." 2 
 
 Christ's self -consciousness would receive all the more force 
 and emphasis in the view that He administered a rebuke to Mary 
 and Joseph; but, as D'Arcy says, the contrast in Christ's words 
 was more "the inevitable reaction of His consciousness than as a 
 deliberate correction of His mother. If so it is all the more im- 
 pressive. It shows how fundamental was the position in His 
 mind of the filial relation to which He stood to God." 3 Christ 
 did not reprehend His mother, but by not excusing Himself or 
 offering an apology for the neglect of parental rights, more than 
 this, by His emphatically announcing to His parents that He was 
 independent of and superior to any relation to them, in this He 
 revealed a superhuman, a supernatural self-consciousness. The 
 neglect, the sacrifice of the closest ties on earth, that of mother 
 to son, is insinuated by Christ's words and this when they simply 
 raise the parents' mental vision to what He owes Him of whom 
 
 1 Hastings, The Great Texts ... St. Luke, 108. As Bartmann (op. cit., 48) 
 says, "So selbstverstandlich als es der Mutter erscheint, dass ihr Sohn mit ihnen 
 die Heimreise antreten musste, so selbstverstandlich ist es dem Sohne, dass er- 
 zuriichblieb." 
 
 2 Shanahan "Was the Son of Man brusque to His Mother?" Catholic World, 
 CIV (1916) 354. 
 
 8 Art. Consciousness, HDG I. 361. 
 
110 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 He is the eternal Son. 1 How could this Sonship be more empha- 
 sized, or conceived to be of a more special quality? We have 
 here indirectly, and hence all the more strongly, a confirmation of 
 the conclusion we arrived at from the individual words of the 
 first saying, that they contain an expression of real Divine Son- 
 ship. 
 
 This first lesson Christ teaches His parents is in perfect agree- 
 ment with the sentiment of all the later sayings in reference to 
 His earthly relations. When at the marriage feast of Cana, the 
 mother, by pointing out there was no wine, indirectly asked her 
 Son to supply miraculously the deficiency, He replied, "Lady! 
 What is that to Me and to thee? My hour is not yet come" 
 (John ii. 4). He thus intimates that in regard to His work Mary's 
 maternal rights are not to count (this is what His words ex- 
 press, though as a matter of fact, at her request, He did advance 
 "His hour"). 2 Again, when according to the synoptics (Matthew 
 xii. 46-50; Mark iii. 31-35; Luke viii. 19-21), His mother and 
 His brethren came to Him "while He was yet speaking," He said 
 in answer to a voice in the crowd which advised Him of the ap- 
 proach of His relatives (here again making a contrast with words 
 already used), "Who is My mother and who are My brethren? 
 whosoever will do the will of My Father Who is in heaven, he is 
 My brother and sister and mother," — intimating that besides 
 the natural there was another bond which was to be preferred, 
 the spiritual one or that relation having reference to God, His 
 Father. 3 Similarly, on the occasion that a woman in the audi- 
 ence raised her voice in praise of His mother, "Blessed is the 
 womb that bore thee . . . ," not denying or contradicting what 
 was said, the Saviour makes a transition to emphasize a spiritual 
 point, 4 "yea, rather blessed are they that hear the word of God 
 
 1 As Bede writes: "Non quod eum quasi filium quaerunt, vituperat, sed quid ei 
 potius cui aeternus est filius debeat, cogit oculos mentis attollere." M.PL XCII. 
 350. 
 
 2 As Gregory the Great paraphrases the passage: "In the miracle which I 
 have not of thy nature, I do not acknowledge thee" (Ep. xxxix. NP-NF XIII. 49). 
 
 3 Comparing Lk. ii. 49 with this passage, Streatfeild says, "truly the Child was 
 father of the man" (The Self -Interpretation of J. C, 128). 
 
 4 Cf. what Chrysostom says concerning this passage, "for the answer was not 
 that of one rejecting His mother, but of one who should show that her having borne 
 Him would have nothing availed her had she not been very good and faithful" 
 (Horn. XXI. on St. John, NP-NF XIV. 75). 
 
REAL DIVINE SONSHIP EXPRESSED 111 
 
 and keep it" (Luke xi. 27, 28). Lastly Christ intimates this usual 
 stand, when from the cross addressing Mary, He does not call her 
 mother, "Lady, behold thy Son" (John xix. 26). 
 
 So that the position that Christ assumed to His relatives in 
 Luke ii. 49, is the one He took in their regard during His later 
 years. In His first words He "strikes the keynote of all His after 
 life." J He outlines a policy He was always to follow. He is 
 clear and emphatic on the matter, more explicit and more em- 
 phatic than in His later utterances. This certainly affords a 
 strong confirmation of our view that Christ expressed real Son- 
 ship; that Jesus at the tender age of twelve should outline a pol- 
 icy He was to follow all His life, this policy one which is contrary 
 to the ordinary mode of action of mankind, particularly contrary 
 to the habits and instincts of youth, and this done in an unhesi- 
 tating matter-of-course fashion, there would be clearly evidenced 
 that He was in possession of a supernatural self-consciousness, for 
 such a strange attitude, already determined on so early, could not 
 be the result of meditation or experience and would exclude the 
 workings of the laws of human development and psychology. 
 
 To summarize briefly the matter inversely from the order we 
 have followed: In answer to His mother, who complained of 
 parental rights violated, not in an apologizing attitude but with 
 emphasis, Christ mentions a parental right binding Him even to 
 the neglect and sacrifice of earthly connections. Making a cor- 
 rection of Mary's words, He insinuates that Joseph is not "father," 
 mentioning another, God. That His relation with God goes back 
 to His origin, to His "Virgin Birth," is recalled to the parents' 
 minds by the words: "Why did you seek me? Did you not 
 know?" It was a relation that bound Christ by absolute neces- 
 sity, indeed by Divine ordination that He be in God's house 
 (mentioned in a familiar manner), or that He be entirely en- 
 grossed in God's business. His relation and all that it implies is 
 expressed in the crowning words of the saying, "My Father." 
 This expression — a great departure from the usual Jewish way 
 of referring to God, and of considering God, an expression which 
 specifies God as His own individual Father, is uttered by the 
 
 1 Smith, The Days of His Flesh, 23. Cf . Robertson, Keywords in the Teaching 
 of J., 13. 
 
112 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 twelve-year-old Saviour in the same self-confident off-hand mat- 
 ter-of-course manner as was Christ's wont during His whole life; 
 judging from this we are directed and led to the view of real Di- 
 vine Sonship. 
 
 These words that fell from the lips of the Boy Jesus show that 
 there was no growth in His self-consciousness and no growth in 
 His outlook on big questions of His life. At the tender age of 
 twelve His mind is decidedly made up on His special characteris- 
 tic title for God, "My Father," for expressing His special rela- 
 tion to Him, — indeed this was the most characteristic of all 
 Christ's teachings. He is emphatic with His "must," for ex- 
 pressing His responsibility and obligation arising from His Divine 
 origin and relation; He is clear and explicit in enunciating His 
 attitude towards His earthly relations who are to be always sac- 
 rificed when God and God's work are concerned. Fundamental 
 attitudes and policies that are characteristic of His later life, and 
 that mark Him off from every other historical person, Christ em- 
 phatically announces as a boy. The laws of human develop- 
 ment and psychology were certainly outwitted and frustrated by 
 Him. 
 
 We wish to draw attention to the fact that our conclusion in 
 this chapter is based on the study of the words of the text, is ar- 
 rived at from the evident reading of what is before us, is deduced 
 from the representation of the Evangelist. We are not concerned 
 with the question how Christ's words appealed to the Doctors 
 and bystanders who probably heard them; most likely they did 
 not understand them to express real Divine Sonship, although 
 the special and close relation to God that the Boy Jesus an- 
 nounces must have astonished the Doctors and bystanders just as 
 much as His understanding and answers had previously done. 
 Nor are we so much concerned with the question how Mary and 
 Joseph understood Christ's words, although with the knowledge 
 that they possessed, they could hardly have taken the relation to 
 God He expressed in any other sense than the metaphysical. But 
 what we are concerned with, and what we wish to insist on, is 
 that the text as it stands, the words in the setting given by the 
 Evangelist, would clearly point to the view that Jesus expressed 
 real Divine Sonship. A strong confirmation of this is found in 
 
REAL DIVINE SONSHIP EXPRESSED 113 
 
 the fact that even members of the negative school hold this view. 
 Usener, who rejects the historicity of the episode of the twelve- 
 year-old Jesus, says it is introduced "for the purpose of allowing 
 the consciousness of Divine Sonship to receive its first manifesta- 
 tion (vs. 49)." l 
 
 1 Art. Nativity, EB III. 3344. 
 
CHAPTER X 
 
 MESSIANIC CONSCIOUSNESS INCLUDED IN CHRIST'S 
 FIRST SELF-INTERPRETATION 
 
 In Jewish tradition it was held that when the Messiah would 
 come, He would stand in a very close relationship to Jahweh, 
 and frequently this relationship was declared to be that of "Son" 
 to "Father." For instance, in Ps. ii. 7 (and there is no doubt 
 that the Jews held this passage to be Messianic), we read, "The 
 Lord hath said to me: Thou art My Son, this day have I be- 
 gotten Thee." Here is certainly designated a most special per- 
 sonal relation to God. Frequently in the Old Testament Apoc- 
 rypha (which reflect Jewish ideas in the centuries immediately 
 preceding the Christian era), do we find this designation of "Son" 
 of Jahweh applied to the Messiah. In 1 En. cv. 2, we find "For 
 I and My Son will be united with them forever," in 4 Esd. vii. 
 28, "For My Son the Messiah shall be revealed," etc. This 
 fact seems clear, then, that the Jews had expected that their 
 "Anointed One" would enjoy a very close relationship with God, 
 and many of them considered this relationship as that of Son. 
 
 Now, when as a Boy of twelve years, Jesus expressed a rela- 
 tionship with God that was far closer than that expressed by any 
 of the Prophets or great leaders of Old Testament times, 1 when 
 he claimed a unique relationship, declaring special Divine Son- 
 ship, then in the light of the Jewish hope and expectation, it is 
 clear that He claimed Messiahship; in the light of Jewish writ- 
 ings this title of "Son" designating a very special relation with 
 God would be nothing else than another name for "Messiah." 
 Indeed most of the modern liberal scholars take Christ's title 
 "Son of God" as meaning only Messiahship; and almost all of 
 them understand the references to Divine Sonship in the ac- 
 
 1 As we referred to above, even Samuel and David took the attitude towards 
 God as that of "servant" towards "Lord." 
 
 114 
 
MESSIANIC CONSCIOUSNESS 115 
 
 counts of Christ's baptism (Thou art My beloved Son, Luke iii. 
 22) and temptation (If Thou be the Son of God, Luke iv. 3, 9), 
 as signifying Messiahship. Why should one not similarly under- 
 stand Jesus' own statement of His Divine Sonship, when in His 
 first words He said "My Father"? There is no reason except an 
 a priori one, why one should not. In declaring Himself to be the 
 special Son of God, Christ assumed the characteristic name given 
 to the Messiah in promise and prophecy; furthermore He gave a 
 fuller and truer designation of whom He was, besides Messiah, the 
 real Son of God. 
 
 According to the hope of the Jews, the Messiah was to be 
 privileged with a special relationship to God, but he was pri- 
 marily one sent to do a certain work for God, to fulfil a certain 
 mission. If there is reference to His mission in Jesus' first words, 
 then there would be conclusive proof that He reflected there 
 Messianic self -consciousness. We think there is this reference in 
 the first recorded saying. Broadly speaking, Christ's mission was 
 to preach the Kingdom of God, to suffer and finally to die. 
 Now whenever He refers to the mission for which "He was sent," 
 which was "ordained" for Him, which was according to the 
 "Scriptures," He generally uses the word 8el to express His obli- 
 gation to fulfil His Mission, hence it would seem that He does 
 likewise in the first words. This inference would seem to be all 
 the more safe for two reasons: first, in Luke ii. 49, the Bet is con- 
 nected with or rather flows from Christ's very special relation to 
 God (My Father), secondly, considering the passage in relation 
 to Mary's question, the Set here has an extraordinary force, signi- 
 fying Jesus' obligation to be in the (things) of God at the sacrifice 
 of His earthly parents. Now as to the first reason, Jesus' obliga- 
 tion arising from His great relation to God, here He would ex- 
 press His Messiahship just as much as if He said He must do 
 something because He was sent therefor, or because He must 
 fulfil a Scriptural text. His Mission could flow from His origin 
 and nature just as much as from mandate or ordinance. As to 
 the second consideration, the obligation from Christ's relation to 
 God causing anxiety and sorrow to the parents, this anxiety and 
 sorrow would not be caused if there was no question of special 
 work to be done for God. When the people of Capharnaum 
 
116 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 wished the Saviour to remain with them, He said, "to other 
 cities must I also preach the Kingdom of God, for this am I 
 sent" (Luke iii. 32), using "must" in a parallel sense to being 
 "sent" and hence referring to His Mission. He would seem to 
 have also referred to His mission, to special work for God, when 
 in answer to the "parents" who had considered that He should 
 have accompanied them on their way home and should not have 
 remained behind, Jesus replied, "I must be in the (things) of My 
 Father," here designating the necessity ("must") as springing 
 from His relation to God ("My Father"). If "business" is to 
 be understood for iv toT<;, then the meaning of Luke ii. 49 is that 
 Christ feels that as "Son" of God He must be engaged in His 
 Father's affairs, and here then would be a clear reference to His 
 mission or Messiahship. If rather it is "house" that is meant, 
 then this center of Jewish devotion, this great national shrine of 
 Jahweh is styled by Jesus, "My Father's house," and this in a 
 familiar way which one would a priori expect from the Messiah. 
 When all is considered, especially the most special relation to 
 God as "Son," and the use of Set expressing His obligation flow- 
 ing from this relation, and this considered in the light of the Old 
 Testament, in the light of Christ's later life, in the light of the 
 following verse (50) which states that the parents "did not un- 
 derstand," intimating that the full scope of Christ's words was 
 only understood afterwards (as we shall later see), when all is 
 considered it seems clear that in Luke ii. 49, Christ expressed 
 with His Divine Sonship, Messianic self-consciousness. A strong 
 confirmation is afforded by the fact that a number of the nega- 
 tive scholars hold that the text as it stands (although they object 
 to its historicity) signifies Messiahship. Giving it a kind of para- 
 phrase, Paulus interpolates in the text: The Messiah, "the Son 
 of God." * Strauss very explicitly states that Christ's words 
 "must have a special meaning which can here be no other than 
 the mystery of the Messiahship of Jesus, who as Messiah was 
 [i\6q ©sou in a special sense." 2 In his comments on our passage 
 Bruno Bauer calls Christ, "the Messianic Child." 3 Loisy is most 
 
 1 Das Leben Jesu, I. 18. Cf. Exegetisches Handbuch, 280. 
 
 2 Life of Jesus, 195. 
 
 8 Kritik der Evangelien, I. 293. 
 
MESSIANIC CONSCIOUSNESS 117 
 
 emphatic on the matter; "the reply of Jesus is full of signifi- 
 cance, because He was already conscious of being the Messiah; 
 to see there the simple expression of precocious piety is to com- 
 promise the economy of the account." 1 But these men just 
 quoted will not accept the genuineness of the passage on the plea 
 that one could not naturally account for this Messianic conscious- 
 ness in a twelve-year-old boy. Strauss particularly has pointed 
 out this: That there are certain vocations or callings in life of 
 which exceptional men might early give evidence of being aware, 
 but there are other vocations such as that of statesman for which 
 only experience and knowledge of facts can excite even an incli- 
 nation. Strauss rightly says that the calling of Messiah belongs 
 to the latter class and he concludes concerning the twelve-year- 
 old Christ that the Messianic consciousness "could not be so 
 early evident to the most highly endowed individual because for 
 this a knowledge of contemporary circumstances would be requi- 
 site, which only long observation and mature experience can con- 
 fer." 2 
 
 This is clear, then, that one cannot naturally explain how 
 Jesus at twelve could possess consciousness of being the Messiah. 
 It is clear, too, and also acknowledged by these scholars that the 
 first recorded words do contain Messianic consciousness. Instead 
 of resorting to the extreme of rejecting the historicity (in favor of 
 which we have abundant evidence as shown above, pp. 60-72) 
 we look for an explanation more than the merely natural. In 
 seeking for this we are led back to the source from which Christ's 
 mission flowed, on account of which He felt the great obligation 
 to be engaged in God's special work, namely to His great rela- 
 tionship with God, toO IIaTp6<; pou, His real Divine Sonship. 
 This Sonship is not only the basis, but also the perfection of 
 Messiahship; it certainly affords an explanation why Jesus at 
 twelve could be conscious of being the Messiah; so that we do 
 not agree with Edersheim, 3 Briggs 4 and the other scholars who 
 assert that in the first words nothing more than Messiahship is 
 expressed. Besides a mission, Jesus also expressed a relation to 
 
 1 Les fivang. Synopt., I. 183. 
 
 2 Life of Jesus, 195. 
 
 3 The Life and Times of J., I. 249. 
 
 4 Messiah of the Gosp., 234. 
 
118 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 God; indeed, as Harnack points out, it is "impossible to imagine 
 how Christ would have arrived at the conviction that He was the 
 future Messiah without first knowing Himself as standing in an 
 unique relationship to God." l At any rate in Christ's first re- 
 corded words there is expressed the consciousness of both real Di- 
 vine Sonship and Messiahship, the first giving rise to and ex- 
 plaining the supernatural occurrence of Messianic consciousness 
 of a boy of twelve. 
 
 The Fathers did not mention that Messiahship is expressed in 
 Jesus' first words, because it would seem that they had no 
 reason to do so. From the thirteenth century onward, many 
 writers have interpreted Messianic consciousness in the first re- 
 corded saying, holding that Christ expressed consciousness both 
 of Divine Sonship and Messiahship. 2 Many of those scholars 
 who hold that Christ expressed the consciousness of His Messi- 
 anic mission, refer to this mission as the salvation of the world or 
 Redemption; they have a twofold reason; first, Christ referred 
 to a mission, and as a matter of fact His mission was to suffer 
 and die for mankind; secondly Christ used the "must" which 
 He so frequently employed in regard to His sufferings and death. 3 
 This remarkable fact that at such an early age Jesus gave evi- 
 dence of His full conviction of His mission, — we say "full" for 
 Christ's explicit and emphatic words give no room for the view 
 of a "doubting" or "budding" self -consciousness, is another con- 
 firmatory reason for the conclusion in the previous chapter. This 
 full conviction of His Messiahship at the age of twelve, inexplic- 
 able on natural premises, as is pointed out by negative scholars, is 
 conclusive evidence that here, too, Jesus had no development in 
 His self-consciousness, and was not subject to the laws of psy- 
 chology. 
 
 1 Sayings of J., 301. 
 
 2 See especially Calvin, Comment, in Harm. Evang. Opera Omnia, XLV. 106; 
 Lucas, Comment, ad loc. given in Migne, Cursus S.S XXII. 465; Cornelius a 
 Lapide, Comment, in S. Script. VIII. 535; Fillion, Art. in RClfr April I (1914) 15; 
 and Felder, Jesus Christus, I. 278-281. 
 
 3 As Steinmeyer expresses the matter: Wer jedoch dieses, -nrarrip /xov in dem 
 einzig moglichen Sinne fasst, der erkennt auch an dem del den Heiland und den 
 Erloser der Welt (Die Geschichte der Geburt des Herra, 168). 
 
SECTION V 
 
 JESUS' FIRST RECORDED WORDS AND THE 
 IMMEDIATE CONTEXT 
 
CHAPTER XI 
 
 THE SCENE AMONG THE DOCTORS 
 
 Although the sacred record does not inform us in what part 
 of the Temple Mary and Joseph found the missing Boy Jesus, it 
 lets us know something about His position and what He was 
 doing when found; "sitting in the midst of the (teachers or) doc- 
 tors," hence in a sitting posture, and "hearing and questioning 
 them." The present participle of both verbs is used (axouovxa, 
 ixepwTwvra), denoting continuous action; listening to them and 
 asking them questions, not merely asking a question. This verse 
 (46) must be understood in the light of the effect produced by 
 the twelve-year-old Boy which we immediately proceed to ex- 
 amine. 
 
 1. WORD scrutiny of luke ii. 47, 48 (a). 
 
 47 'E?(<jTavTo 81 xavusq ol dxouovre*; auiou M 
 xfj auvlaet xal tofiq axoxpiasaiv auTOu. 
 
 48 (a) — Kod (B6vts<; ocut&v ^sxXaiprjaav. 
 
 What is the meaning of i%\ T75 auvlcet %od 'zofiq axoxpfaeciv? 
 The last word, dxoxpfaeatv, signifies "answers." The question of 
 the meaning of c6v£ac<; is not so easy. The Curetonian Syriac 
 and Armenian render it by "wisdom," the Vulgate by "pru- 
 dentia," the Douay by "wisdom," and the Revised by "under- 
 standing." l Since there is no general agreement in the versions 
 concerning the precise meaning of this word, and since its verb 
 guvitq^i in Luke ii. 50 is diversely interpreted, a summary of the 
 usage of the noun and the verb in the New Testament will doubt- 
 less be useful. 
 
 Now, first, as to the use of the verb auv(T)[Ai in the New Testa- 
 ment; it is used in Mtt. xii. 19, 23, 51; xv. 10; to signify "bring 
 
 1 The Old Latin Codex Palatinus (e) has "prudentia et os et responsa." Tyn- 
 dal's — the first English translation from the Greek — has "witt." 
 
 121 
 
122 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 home to oneself," or "realize" (a parable). In Mtt. xvii. 13, it 
 signifies, "understand the connection or reference" and with 
 much the same meaning it is found in Mtt. xvi. 12; Mk. viii. 17; 
 in both of which it is identified with voiw. In the same sense, 
 Mark uses it another time, vi. 52; and in vii. 14, he employs it to 
 express "realize, bring home to oneself." 
 
 The meaning of Lk. ii. 50 will be treated in the next chapter. 
 In Lk. xviii. 34, cuvtyyii is identified with yiYvwcxw and seems to 
 bear the signification "to realize the contents, or see the whole 
 bearings of a saying." Again in Lk. viii. 10, ytYvwaxo) is used 
 synonymously with auvfyyu; here as well as in Acts xxviii. 27, 29; 
 Mtt. xiii. 14, 15; and Mk. iv. 12; this latter verb is employed to 
 translate the Hebrew verb pa of Is. vi. 9, 10 (rendered in Jn. xii. 
 40, by volw), and in these passages auvfrj^t has the force of "to be 
 convinced of a thing." We find our verb closely connected with 
 vouq, the intellect, in Lk. xxiv. 45, and here means to have a proper 
 insight into, to rightly interpret. Twice in Ac. vii. 25, this verb we 
 are considering is used in the sense of to have sufficient insight or 
 foresight so as to know. 
 
 St. Paul uses cuvdq^i in Rom. iii. 11, to translate fc»jf of 
 Ps. liii. 3, with the meaning to be possessed of or convinced by 
 spiritual knowledge. In Rom. xv. 21, he uses it to translate pi 
 of Is. Iii. 15, with the meaning to be convinced or believe in. We 
 have the sentence ^ YfveaOe &ppove<;, dXkb cjuv(sts t( t6 OiXiQiia 
 tou Kup(ou, in Eph. v. 17; the last part is opposed to, &ppovs<;, 
 imprudent, and means, to realize and try to live up to, what is the 
 will of God; so that here auvfym contains a reference to action. 
 Also in 2 Cor. 12 auvfir^t has a reference to action and means to be 
 prudent. 2uvst6<; is used in Mtt. xi. 25, Ac. x. 21, 1 Cor. i. 19, in 
 sense of worldly wise, yet in Ac. xiii. 7, in sense of spiritually wise. 
 'AauveToq is used in Mtt. xv. 16, and Mk. vii. 18 with meaning, 
 without understanding; in Rom. i. 14, and 22, it has meaning of 
 spiritually foolish. In Rom. i. 31, this word is used for one who 
 has a sinful lack of spiritual knowledge and in Rom. x. 19, without 
 proper spiritual knowledge. 
 
 As to the noun a6veat<; outside of Lk. ii. 47, it is found six times 
 in the New Testament. Only once, Ephes. iii. 4, it means knowl- 
 edge; all other times, understanding. Twice, understanding in 
 general, Col. i. 9; Mk. xii. 33 (by metonymy, mind) twice, spiritual 
 understanding or insight, Col. ii. 2; 2 Tim. ii. 7, and once worldly 
 understanding, intelligence, 1 Cor. i. 19. 
 
THE SCENE AMONG THE DOCTORS 123 
 
 The New Testament usage would create the presumption that 
 in Luke ii. 47, a u vests has the meaning of understanding. The 
 fact that it is mentioned that the Child was found hearing and 
 asking questions and the fact that auvsai^ is connected with 
 "answers," is proof enough that this word is not to be taken as 
 prudence (namely, containing a reference to action), and would 
 indicate that the meaning is either wisdom or knowledge or un- 
 derstanding. In a few verses previous, verse 40, and a few verses 
 subsequent, verse 52, St. Luke uses 90?fa to signify "wisdom." 
 The combination i%\ Tfj guvIjsi xal xat<; acicoxptasatv would indi- 
 cate that auveatg here means understanding, that is, insight, dis- 
 cernment, intelligence (in primary sense, to read between), which 
 amazed the doctors as well as the product of this insight or dis- 
 cernment, the answers. 1 
 
 Now the question is, of what kind was this discernment or 
 combinative insight which the Boy Jesus displayed? Was it or- 
 dinary, was it remarkable, or was it more than remarkable? In 
 the Gospel narrative, understanding is not qualified by an ad- 
 jective, but it is stated that the Boy's understanding (or insight) 
 and His answers produced an effect which of course reflects the 
 cause. 
 
 First of all there is a little difficulty in regard to the general 
 meaning of the passage under consideration. The phrase xdcvTe? 
 o!dxouovTS<; is very general, referring to all who heard Him; of 
 them the verb ££texavT0 is predicated. As to v.<xl ?86vts<; aik&v. . . 
 Campbell tried to make this phrase refer to the bystanders. He 
 constructed the sentence this way, "and all who heard Him were 
 astonished, but they who saw Him were amazed at His under- 
 standing and His answers." 2 He admits that the text is sus- 
 ceptible of the common interpretation, and indeed his view has 
 had very few followers. It would require a gratuitous transposi- 
 tion of the text, and the construction of the sentences beginning 
 with the verb ££(<jTavuo gives the impression that the phrase 
 which it covers is, as it were, parenthetical, after which Luke 
 
 1 It is also the view of most scholars. Cremer (Biblisch. Theol. Worterbuch de 
 ntl. Gracitat., 501). Preuschen (Vollstandiges Handworterbuch zu den Schriften 
 des n. T., 1059). Vincent (Word Studies, I. 278). Edersheim (The Life and 
 Times of J. (new edit.) 1,247, and note). Carr (Gospel St. Luke, 44). 
 
 2 The Four Gospels, ad loc., p. 116. 
 
124 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 continued his narrative, *al SB6vts<;, referring back to the subject 
 of e5pov (vs. 46) which was mentioned in vs. 43, o\ yovsT?. 
 
 Now, there are two different verbs used: $£{<jtocvto to express 
 the emotions of all who heard the Boy Jesus, at His understand- 
 ing and His answers, and l^exXay-qaav, to describe the feelings of 
 the parents coming on the scene. We shall have to investigate 
 the usages of these words in the New Testament before we can 
 decide what are their exact meanings or whether they are syn- 
 onymous. By having a correct idea concerning the signification 
 of these words, we shall be able to form a correct idea of the un- 
 derstanding and the answers of the Boy Jesus. 
 
 First as to i^faxavTO which is used of all those hearing Him. 
 In one case, Mk. iii. 21, this verb is used in a very strong sense and 
 seems to mean, to be out of one's senses, to be beside oneself — 
 the literal meaning, as in the parallel passage John (x. 20), has 
 (xa(v£Tac. In a very strong sense, too, it seems to be used in 2 Cor. 
 v. 13, but here the meaning is not agreed upon. In all other New 
 Testament instances, i^i^wi represents the state of mind of 
 persons in the presence of miraculous inexplicable events. In the 
 active transitive it is thrice used by St. Luke to describe the effect 
 of a wonderful occurrence, namely, twice (Ac. viii. 9 and 11), the 
 effect of the sorceries of Simon Magus on the people (miracles for 
 them), and once (Lk. xxiv. 22), the effect on the downcast disciples 
 of the women's account that they saw at the tomb of the Crucified 
 a vision of angels who said He was alive. The active second aorist 
 intransitive form of the verb is employed by Mark, namely in v. 42, 
 to express the effect, on those who witnessed it, of the wonderful 
 miracle of the raising to life of Jairus' daughter, and thrice by Luke, 
 namely, once in his Gospel (viii. 55) to describe the effect just 
 mentioned (he does not add ixaxaast [LeydX-fi as is found in Mark 
 and we can easily give the former more credit for knowing the 
 value of Greek words), and twice in his Acts, in x. 45, to depict the 
 emotions of the Jews who were present when the Holy Ghost came 
 upon Gentiles — indeed wonderful and inexplicable to them, and 
 in xii. 16, to depict the emotions caused by Peter's sudden appear- 
 ance after his miraculous delivery from prison. 
 
 The imperfect middle of iiiwq^i (as in Lk. ii. 47) is found 
 once in Mtt. xii. 23 to represent the state of mind of the crowd who 
 witnessed the curing of one possessed of a blind and dumb devil, 
 and twice in Mark, namely, in ii. 12, to express the effect of the 
 
THE SCENE AMONG THE DOCTORS 125 
 
 cure of the man sick with the palsy, in vi. 51, to describe the feelings 
 of the Apostles at the double miracle of Christ walking upon the 
 water and His calming the tempest. 
 
 Likewise, in this same form, this verb is used by Luke four times 
 outside of ii. 47, namely, Ac. ii. 7, and 12, to signify the state of 
 mind of those Jews from every country under the sun who heard 
 the Apostles speak different languages at once; Ac. viii. 13, to 
 describe the feelings of Simon, magician, as he was, at seeing 
 "the miracles and great works" of Philip, and in Ac. ix. 21, to 
 express the emotions of the Jews of Damascus, also confronted by 
 a miracle of the moral order, namely, when they heard Paul, 
 previously the fanatic persecutor, preach that Christ is the Son 
 of God. 
 
 So that, the verb {£tanQiM expresses the feelings of those who 
 are brought face to face with a miraculous, inexplicable occur- 
 rence in every New Testament passage in which it is used outside 
 of Mark iii. 21; 2 Cor. v. 13, where it has a much stronger sig- 
 nification. Is there any reason why we should not adopt the 
 same meaning for the verb in Luke ii. 47? We do not see any. 
 Luke unhesitatingly uses the verb here of those who heard the 
 Boy Jesus, as he uses it (unqualified) concerning those who were 
 present at the raising to life of Jairus' daughter. At least, we 
 cannot see any reason why this verb in ii. 47 does not express the 
 same degree of astonishment and bewilderment as in the cases 
 where this Third Evangelist uses the very same form: when the 
 Jews witnessed the miracle of tongues, or when Simon Magus 
 saw the great miracles of Philip, or when the Jews of Damascus 
 were confronted with the miraculous change in Paul. According 
 to the New Testament usage, therefore, and according to the use 
 of the writer of the Third Gospel, this verb !££<jtczvto predicated of 
 those standing around the twelve-year-old Jesus, should repre- 
 sent, on their part, such emotions and feelings as are emitted 
 by those who are in front of a miraculous inexplicable occur- 
 rence. 1 
 
 What caused these feelings? The Boy's understanding and 
 
 1 This agrees with the meanings given by Knabenbauer (Comment, ad loc., p. 
 144) :" quasi extasi capti et sui prae obstuperfactionejam non compotes" ;Preuschen, 
 Op. cit., 404, "kamen aussersich"; Plummer (Comment, ad loc., p. 76), this is 
 "a strong word expressing great amazement." 
 
126 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 answers. Keeping the proportion of effect to cause, we must say- 
 that to cause the degree of astonishment expressed by ^((jtocvto 
 Christ's insight and answers were miraculous and inexplicable as 
 far as "all those hearing Him" were concerned. So that in an- 
 swering our inquiry, as to what kind were the understanding and 
 the answers of the youthful Nazarene, from a study of the word 
 used to express the effect on the audience who were no less than 
 the learned Jurists of Jerusalem, we are brought to the conclu- 
 sion that the talents displayed were most extraordinary and in- 
 explicable, indeed (New Testament usage leads us to say), mirac- 
 ulous. 
 
 We have another opportunity of endeavoring to ascertain 
 what was the nature of His actions and His displayed ability 
 from a word expressing wonder applied to the parents coming on 
 the scene, who, it would seem, are not included under the expres- 
 sion, iSforovfo. A different word, ^exXayiqaav (48) is used to 
 express the wonder of the parents, and their wonder was not be- 
 cause of "hearing Him," but because of "seeing Him," hence 
 because of His position among the Doctors, of what He was 
 doing, and, it would seem, of the effect He was causing, that is, 
 taking the passage literally. As to this word ££siuXa*j"r](jav, its 
 literal meaning, as Warfield points out, 1 is "to be struck out (of 
 the senses) by a blow." An examination of its usage reveals the 
 following : 
 
 Of the twelve times this word is used in the New Testament, 
 six times it has for object the doctrine (8t8ax^) of Christ: Mat- 
 thew vii. 28; Mark i. 22; Luke iv. 32; Matthew xxii. 33; Mark 
 ix. 18; Acts xiii. 12; twice the emotions depicted were on ac- 
 count of a strange inexplicable saying of Christ; Matthew xix. 
 25 ; Mark x. 26, and two other times the effect which it expresses 
 was caused by the wisdom and miracles of Jesus; Matthew xiii. 
 54; Mark vi. 2 (where it means "perplexed"); three times, Mat- 
 thew xix. 25; Mark x. 26; Mark vii. 37 it is qualified with a 
 strong adverb to express very strong emotions, from which fact it 
 is legitimate to infer that the verb itself would not express these 
 feelings. So that we can conclude that according to the New 
 Testament usage of the word, it signifies amazement or per- 
 1 Astonishment, HDG I. 131. 
 
THE SCENE AMONG THE DOCTORS 127 
 
 plexity, very great, but, it would seem, not always exceedingly 
 great. 
 
 Coming back to the verb as used in Luke ii. 47, what mean- 
 ing has it here? It is used of the "parents" coming on the scene 
 where Christ is sitting in the midst of the Doctors, who in their 
 looks and bearing were wearing an air of stupefaction and great 
 amazement at His intelligence and answers. This meaning, great 
 wonder, that £xxXif]cr<jo[Aai has in every other passage of the New 
 Testament, seems to suit also this passage. This verb, however, 
 would seem not to express the same degree of wonder and bewil- 
 derment as £ Start] (it used of the Doctors, which fact may account 
 for the reason why St. Luke used different words, for as we have 
 seen ££tat)[j.t is always used to describe the emotions resulting from 
 the performance of a miracle and sometimes from a very great 
 miracle, whereas, whenever IxTuXtjaao^oct is used to express very 
 strong feelings a qualifying adverb is added, seemingly to give it 
 strength. 1 The Doctors were stupefied beyond measure, the par- 
 ents were greatly astonished, rather were greatly surprised, be- 
 cause, for the only time in the New Testament there is used the 
 first aorist of the verb, which brings out the suddenness and non- 
 continuity of the wonder, especially, and all the more so, since 
 the verb of itself has the idea of suddenness of access and lack of 
 continuity. 2 
 
 What was it at which the parents were greatly surprised or 
 awe-struck? The text does not say that hearing Him they won- 
 dered or that they wondered at His intelligence and His answers, 
 but "seeing Him they wondered." What was He doing when 
 they saw Him? Sitting in the midst of the Doctors hearing and 
 interrogating them and stupefying them by His combinative in- 
 sight and answers. If there was nothing extraordinary about 
 
 1 What Warfield intimates (HDG I. 47, 48), what Nebe (Kindheits Geschichte 
 . . . 408) states, and what Power (in art. in IthQ VII (1912) 455) says, that 
 ePeir\6.yri<rap is a good deal stronger than e^icrraPTo is so according to the uses 
 of the classics but does not seem so according to New Testament usage. Cf. what 
 Erasmus writes (Biblia Critica, VI. 275). Farmer (HDG I. 227, note) supports 
 our view that the latter verb "may be the weaker of the two" for the reason that 
 we have assigned, that in Mtt. xix. 25; Mk. x. 26; vii. 37, it needs an adverb to 
 strengthen it. 
 
 2 In giving the meaning of this word in the New Test. Warfield mentions that 
 it contains the element of "alarm," that it signifies a sudden access of fear, to be 
 "awestruck," HDG I. 48. 
 
128 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 Him, if He was among the Doctors in the mien and posture of 
 any ordinary Jewish boy who was there to listen to and be in- 
 structed by the learned Rabbis, or, if "seeing Him," is taken as 
 referring to the effect He was causing, if this was not great, aris- 
 ing from His "intelligence and answers," why should Mary and 
 Joseph greatly wonder? In this assumption we could not explain 
 this statement of St. Luke. Their surprise and wonder makes 
 the extraordinary character of Jesus' action stand out in bold 
 relief; they were His parents who knew His everyday actions and 
 who knew the exact amount of education He had received, if any; 
 indeed, if He had learned to read they had helped Him to do so. 
 This being the case, then, from the fact that they were struck 
 with surprise and wonderment at the scene that met their eyes, 
 we must infer that their Son's action was most extraordinary; a 
 display of natural talents no matter how brilliant, no matter how 
 exceptional, would seem not to explain the situation, for the 
 Son's qualification could not have escaped the notice of the par- 
 ents. 
 
 2. EXPLANATION OF LUKE ii. 46 
 
 The parents were greatly surprised when they saw their Son ; 
 verse 46, to which we now return to examine, states that they found 
 Him "sitting in the midst of the Doctors, hearing and question- 
 ing them." This verse, as we said above, is to be explained in 
 the light of the verse which follows, wherein is described the ef- 
 fect produced. "Sitting in the midst of the Doctors," whether He 
 was among the learned Rabbis as a disciple, or whether He oc- 
 cupied the place of one of them, is not made clear in the text, nor 
 is it agreed upon among scholars. 1 
 
 1 First as to the question, were the Doctors also sitting, John Lightfoot had 
 pointed out that from Moses to Gamaliel, the Rabbis instructed while standing, 
 but from the latter 's death they sat (Horae Heb. 48). This view, says Schiirer, is 
 only "according to later Talmudic tradition," and he holds that the custom was for 
 the pupil to sit upon the ground and the teacher in an elevated place (Hist, of Jew. 
 People, Div. II., v. II., p. 326 and note). The matter had been previously stated 
 by Wetstein. This view is held by many: Hausrath (History of N. T. T. I. 90), 
 Felten (Ntl. Zeitgesch. I. 345). In the second place, what is the meaning of " sitting 
 in the midst of the Doctors" or rather what is the force of "in the midst of" kv nkcru>? 
 In Lk. xxii. 27, it means "among" and in Ac. iv. 7 it signifies presence in a central 
 conspicuous position. The fact that Luke writes that Jesus was in the midst of the 
 Doctors and not of the listeners, added to the fact of the "surprise" to the parents 
 
THE SCENE AMONG THE DOCTORS 129 
 
 "Hearing and asking questions." Is not hearing emphasized 
 by being placed first? And is not this phrase written for the pur- 
 pose of drawing attention to the fact that Christ was among 
 the Doctors of Jerusalem to obtain information impelled by a 
 sense of His own ignorance and a thirst for knowledge? This is 
 not only a possible interpretation, but is the view of a number of 
 scholars. 1 
 
 Let us first take up the last part of the phrase, "asking ques- 
 tions." The present participle of the verb ^TuepWTao) has the force 
 of not merely asking a question, but asking questions. This verb 
 is sometimes used in the New Testament to signify the asking of 
 a captious question, e.g., Matthew xii. 10; xxii. 35; Luke xx. 40. 
 More than this, in John xvi. 30, to ask (£pa)T<jc) has the meaning 
 of "to teach." In what sense is the verb used in Luke ii. 46, 
 
 coming on the scene, led many to understand that Christ was in the place of the 
 Doctors. On the other hand the fact that the Boy was "hearing" and "asking 
 questions" has led others to hold He was among the Doctors in the role of a disciple. 
 That He was given a place amongst the admiring Doctors is held by Bossuet 
 (Elevations sur les Myst. S. XX. 4, p. 337), Trollope (Analecta Theologica, 485), 
 Schleiermacher (Das Leben J. . . . 81), Tholuck (Die Glaubwtirdigkeit der 
 Evang. 216), Ewald (History of Isr. V. 188), Ellicott (Historical lectures, 95), 
 Whitefoord (Exp. ser. v. II. 69-70). Matt. Henry (Gospel of Luke, ad loc., 350), 
 Picard (La Transcendance de J. C, 105), Power (Who were they, etc., IthQ VII 
 (1912) 455), Strauss (although denying historicity of the account, Life of J., 193). 
 On the contrary, the following hold that Jesus was among the Doctors in the rdle 
 of a disciple: Maldonatus (Comment, in Quat. Evang. II. 122), Cornelius a Lapide 
 (Comm. ad loc., transl., 132), Menochius (Totius S. Script. Comment, ad loc.), 
 Lucas (Annotationes, etc., ad loc), Natalis Alexander (Expositio litteralis et moralis 
 S. Evang. IL, p. 137), Patritius (De Evang. III., p. 411); in fact, most present-day 
 writers take this view. Yet Lagrange (fivangile selon S. Luc, 95) points out, 
 what seems to have been overlooked, that Christ was not among a group of disciples, 
 for then He would have had only one master. 
 
 1 Here are the express statements of some of them. O. Holtzmann refers to the 
 Boy as "consumed by a thirst for knowledge" (Life of Jesus, 100, note). Olshausen 
 points to Christ's "receptivity" and states (what is frequently quoted) "an in- 
 structing demonstrating child would be a contradiction which the God of order 
 could not possibly have placed in the world" (Comment, on Gosp. I. 151). Like- 
 wise, H. Holtzmann says that the Boy "is to be imagined as searching and asking, 
 not as teaching and preaching" (Hand-Comment., 51). Kent contends that Jesus 
 improved this opportunity to gain satisfactory answers to the many questions that 
 were already stirring in His mind (The Life and Teachings of J., 53). Keim, 
 "There is no question of a superior wisdom that could brook no further instruction" 
 (Jesus of Naz. II. 135). Reville thinks that Christ's ingenuity showed itself in the 
 "idee naive qu'il se fait de la science profonde de ses docteurs" (Jesus de Naz., 
 411). Doderlein holds, "He wished to learn what He did not yet know" (The 
 learning of the Boy, Think. Ill (1893) 173). Plummer says that Christ went 
 through the form of asking questions because of "ignorance" (The Advance of 
 Christ, etc., Exp. IV. ser. vol. 4 (1901) 4; Comment.. 76) ; cf . Adeny, St. Luke, 
 155, etc. 
 
130 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 asking for information's sake or asking captious questions? One 
 thing is certain, if there is question here of mere asking questions 
 to obtain information, we cannot explain verse 47, namely, we 
 cannot explain the very strong word iJjfoTavxo — a verb used by 
 Luke and the other writers of the New Testament always in con- 
 nection with a miraculous and marvelous occurrence, nor can we 
 explain His intelligence, which must be in proportion to the effect 
 caused. 
 
 We cannot say that previously He had been giving answers 
 and displaying intelligence, but when the parents came on the 
 scene, He was merely hearing and questioning. They found Him 
 "hearing and questioning," and "all those hearing Him were in 
 amazement at His intelligence and His answers. He could not be 
 listening and asking questions at the one time; nor at the same 
 time was He asking questions and giving answers. The text does 
 not say precisely that the Doctors were stupefied at His questions 
 but at His intelligence and His answers. This might mean either 
 the intelligence displayed by His questions and His answers, or 
 the intelligence of His questions, besides this, His answers, or 
 His intelligence as seen from His answers alone, i.e., His intelli- 
 gent answers, which seems preferable. But must not His intelli- 
 gence have also appeared in His questions? As Origen remarks, 
 "Ex uno quippe doctrinae fonte manet et interrogare et respon- 
 dere sapienter: et ejusdem scientiae est scire quid interroges 
 quidve respondeas. Oportuit primum Salvatorem eruditae inter- 
 rogations magistrum fieri, ut postea interrogationibus respon- 
 deat. 1 In another place, he explains Christ's procedure: "In- 
 terrogabat magistros et quia respondere non poterant, ipse his, 
 de quibus interrogaverat, respondebat. . . . Interdum interro- 
 gat Jesus, interdum respondet, sicut supra diximus. Quamquam 
 mirabilis ejus interrogatio sit, tamen multo mirabilior est re- 
 sponsio. ,, 2 This explains the text very well. In the text it is not 
 only said that the Doctors were amazed at His understanding and 
 His answers; but it is also said that the Boy asked questions. 
 Now, is it not likely that He who showed such miraculous com- 
 binative insight, asked questions that were intended to draw out 
 
 1 Horn. XIX. in Luc, M.PG XIII. 1850. 
 
 2 Id., 1848. 
 
THE SCENE AMONG THE DOCTORS 131 
 
 the Doctors and elicit from them queries which He could wonder- 
 fully answer? The questions themselves, although wisely selected, 
 are not mentioned as being wondered at, which is true to life, for 
 this reason that, although great combinative insight is required 
 for such questions, 1 yet not in the deep unsuspected question, 
 but in the clear witty reply, is it seen in its dazzling brightness. 
 
 This mode of procedure would correspond to Christ's usual 
 way of teaching, as when the Pharisees were watching Him to 
 see if He would heal on the Sabbath day, seeing their thoughts, 
 He said to them, "I ask you a question: 'is it lawful on the 
 Sabbath day to do good or to do evil?' " Luke vi. 9. This weapon, 
 the pointed question, so serviceable in His after life, Jesus wielded 
 even in His twelfth year. 2 
 
 The intelligence displayed certainly was most extraordinary 
 to bewilder these Doctors; and to express this bewilderment, 
 Luke not only uses a very strong word, f£(oTavto, he also empha- 
 sizes this word. About this there is no doubt, for he makes it the 
 first word of the sentence, "and they were all amazed, hearing 
 Him." . . . The amazement of the Doctors is certainly the sali- 
 ent and striking point in the text; in its light must everything else 
 be explained. The phrase "hearing and asking questions" seems 
 to be emphasized too, and the "hearing" being given first seems 
 to have special emphasis; so that in this we agree with the objec- 
 tion advanced. But, if there is question here of an ordinary boy 
 and an ordinary action, why is hearing emphasized? Is it not to 
 
 1 Photius connects "insight" with the questions, Cont. Manich. IV. 16, M.PG 
 CII. 212, also Melanchthon says, "est autem magnae artis, questiones proponere" 
 (in Sermon for 1st Sunday after Epiphany, Opera Omnia, XXIV., p. 367). 
 
 2 This view has many supporters. Beecher: "His questions were always like 
 spears that pierced the joints of the harness. It seems that even so early He began 
 to wield this weapon" (Life of Christ, 73). Blunt: "Doubtless some of His ques- 
 tions would be of that searching character which He used afterwards to instruct 
 those who would learn from Him and silence those who opposed Him" (Comment. 
 Lk. ad loc.). Cajetan: " Monstrabat enim magnam intelligentiam . . . formando 
 interrogationes" (Comment, ad loc. III. 188). Hofmeister: Non dubium est quin 
 Jesus pregnantes questiones Legisperitis proposuerit et tales, quae Judaeos ad cogni- 
 tionem messiae perducere potuerint, quas quidem cum -illi non intelligerent ipse 
 explicuit et interpretatus est prudenter (in Evang. Lucae, 212). St. Jerome, "in 
 Templo senes de quaestionibus legis interrogans magis docet dum prudenter inter- 
 rogat" (in a letter to Paulius, M.PL XXII. 543). Origen: "Interrogabat, inquam 
 magistros non ut aliquid disceret sed ut interrogans eruderet," and again, "eos quos 
 interrogare videbatur docuit, in medio eorum loquens, et quodammodo concitabat 
 eos ad quarenda, quae usque ad id locorum, utrum scirent, an ignorarent, nosse, non 
 poterant," Horn. XIX. xx. in Luc, M.PG XIII. 1851. 
 
132 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 be supposed? Why is it even mentioned in this context where 
 the greatest emphasis is laid on the amazement of the bystanders? 
 Is not the impression given something like the following? The 
 twelve-year-old Boy was evidencing such intelligence as as- 
 tounded those who spent their lives in weighty discussions, yet 
 He was not monopolizing the conversation; when the Doctors 
 had a mind to speak, He gave them an opportunity to do so, and 
 listened attentively. Hence the text depicts the Boy not as one 
 who is excited over the stupefaction of those around Him which 
 by chance He has caused, but as a submissive, docile, modest 
 Boy, one who has Himself under control, one who is self-com- 
 posed, self-conscious, deliberate. To quote Erasmus, "Para- 
 phrase," "also the party es that stode roundeabout . . . were 
 veraye muche astouned, not onely for respect of the chylde's 
 wisedome (being suche as had not afore bene hearde of ) . . . but 
 also for the rare and syngulare sobrenesse of hys countenaunce, of 
 hys gesture, and of hys tongue, whiche thynges gave a more fer- 
 ther grace of acceptacyon unto hys understandyng." ! If this 
 soberness and modesty is emphasized, then there is emphasized a 
 very remarkable trait, seldom found among precocious boys, — a 
 trait which was a characteristic of Jesus in the Public Ministry. 
 
 In the eyes of the Doctors the "hearing and questioning" does 
 not detract from the extraordinary character of the affair, rather, 
 for them and for us, this rare combination of modesty and intelli- 
 gence makes the extraordinary character shine out all the more 
 strongly and brilliantly. 2 
 
 1 Paraphrase upon the Gosp. and Acts, ad loc. fol. XXXVII. Cf. also J. G. 
 Michaelis, Exercitatio theol. Phil. op. cit., 268; also van Doren: Comment, on 
 Luke, 72. 
 
 2 The scene has been interpreted supernaturally all down the ages. Knaben- 
 bauer, "aliquid naturae suae altioris manifestasse" (Comment, ad loc, p. 145); 
 Campbell, "Those whose eyesight convinced them of His tender age, were con- 
 founded as persons who were witnesses of something preternatural" (Notes on St. 
 Luke, 117); Schottgenius, "Professi ergo sunt illo tempore Judaeorum doctores, 
 adesse aliquem, qui ipsos docere posset, et extraordinario isthoc honoris genere 
 Jesu exhibito, se divini quid apud ipsum deprehendere " (Horae Heb. et Talmud. 
 II. 886); Calvin says these proud Doctors would not listen to Him, "nisi vis aliqua 
 divina ipsos coegisset" (Opera Omnia, XLV. 105); Photius, . . . <hs kxaraalv 
 re xal dap,(3os avrols <pCK66eov ififiockeZp . . . evpiaxovat de irparTovra, &nep re y\v 
 Trp6.TT€i,v, tixos, rijv acorrjpiav tov xoa/xov xal bbj~ctv tov I(rpai)X, xal 6 \6yos 
 7rpoa7rrJ77eiXey,Cont.Manich.,IV. 16, M.PG CII. 212-213; Bede, "Divinam lingua 
 sapientiam proderat . . . quasi Deus quae seniores et docti mirantur respondet" 
 (Comment, in Luc, M.P1 XCII. 350); Leo the Great, "Sedens cum senioribus et 
 
THE SCENE AMONG THE DOCTORS 133 
 
 In all sober history, there is no parallel to the account of the 
 Boy Jesus in the midst of the Doctors, and those who compare it 
 with examples of precociousness in youthful artists and genuises 
 do not attend to what is written in the text. 
 
 On account of Jesus' preaching during His Public Ministry, it 
 is recorded that His listeners "were amazed (i^sxX-rjaaovTo) at His 
 teaching, for His word was with power" (Luke iv. 32; cf. Mat- 
 thew vii. 28, 29; Mark i. 22). Yet St. Luke uses a stronger word 
 to express the astonishment of, not an ordinary audience, but the 
 learned Doctors of the Temple, in face of the " understanding and 
 answers" of the twelve-year-old Christ; and he uses the same 
 word to express the surprise to the parents at the scene. The 
 question that came to men's minds during His later years (Mat- 
 thew xiii. 54; Mark vi. 2) is of more consequence in regard to 
 His twelfth year: how came Jesus by this wisdom? That He 
 should display a wonderful, indeed supernatural, understanding 
 before the Doctors is a confirmation of the conclusion that when 
 shortly afterwards He uttered His reply to Mary, He evidenced a 
 wonderful and supernatural self-consciousness. 
 
 Before turning away from the text, 1 now that we have en- 
 inter admirantes disputans invenitur" (Letter to Bishops of Sicily, M.PL LIV. 697); 
 Theodoret, irpoaeSpebet t$ lepui t^\v 'lovSalx^p £Xeyx« TraxvrrjTa (M.PG LXXXIV. 
 73); Cyril of Alex., TSUrad avpa£6p,evov ciri reus epajrrjaeaiv bird it&vtojv xai reels 
 AiroXoyiais (Comment, in Luc. M.PG LXXII. 508); Chrysostom, rcav diSao-x&kwv 
 tXxpoupevos, xai 5td rrjs kpwTrjaeus eSoxei davp-acrrds elvcu (M.PG LIX. 130); 
 Augustine applies to Jesus among the Doctors the words of Ps. cxviii. 99. 
 "I have more understanding than my teachers" (M.PL XXXVII. 1565); 
 Augustine also writes "disputabat cum senioribus, et admirabantur super doctrina 
 ejus" (Serm. LI., M.PL XXXVIII. 342); a few lines farther, he also uses "dispu- 
 tantem." We have already quoted Jerome; Epiphanius, in reference to Christ's 
 action, uses the word disputing 8ia\ex0rjvat, M.PG XLI. 500; Tcpo<r5ia\ey6uevos 
 (M.PG XLI. 925); he also says, kpeoreev avrovs xai trjT&v p,er' c&t&v xai 
 kl-eir\aTTOPTO kwl t<o \oyaj rrjs x&PiTOS, tcJj kxTropevopkvq ex rod (rrSpaTOS avrov and 
 this he uses as an argument that Christ received the Logos before the baptism 
 (M.PG XLI. 456); Athanasius, kvkxpive wepl tov vopov (M.PG XXVI. 433); Juven- 
 cus, "Invenit insertum legumque obscura senili tractantem coetu" (Corp. Script. 
 Lat. XXIV. 18); quotations from Origen, we have already given. Opposed to this 
 consensus of the Fathers is Gregory the Great, who says Christ Was found not 
 teaching but asking; he even adds, "puer doceri interrogando voluit" (Regula, 
 Past., III. 25, M.PL LXVII. 98; cf . in Ezech. i and ii. 3, M.PL LXXVI. 796; Simeon 
 Metaphrastes also says Christ did not teach the Doctors, Comment, ad loc, M.PG 
 CXV. 548). But Gregory only wishes to point out that Christ did this as an example 
 for us. 
 
 1 It has not been recorded what was the theme of the questions and answers. 
 Commentators as a rule suggest either the Law, or the Messiah, or paschal topics. 
 Farmer (HDG I. 227) thinks that specimens are given in Mtt. ii. 4-6; Mk. ix. 11; 
 Jn. vii. 42; Lk. xx. 22, 28-33. Would Lk. ii. 49 itself be an example? 
 
134 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 deavored to ascertain its exact meaning, we wish to point out 
 how baseless and purely conjectural are such opinions, as, for in- 
 stance, that of Ebrard, that Jesus while among the Doctors "rec- 
 ognized with joy His Father's holy nature and His own," 1 or 
 that of Stier, "in the course of this questioning, which is but the 
 asking after Himself. . . . He makes the discovery of Himself, 
 in the first consciousness, not yet mature, but now truly com- 
 mencing — I am He!"; 2 or Godet's, that He learned to know 
 more "intimately than before the God of His Father and His 
 mother as His God and His Father"; 3 or Edersheim's reference 
 to His being "absorbed by the awakening thought of His Being 
 and mission." 4 Where in the Gospel account of the scene be- 
 fore the Doctors is there an intimation to warrant these views? 
 "There is no evidence," truly says Plummer. 6 
 
 Neither is there in the Gospel narrative of all that Jesus did in 
 the Temple during the visit of the twelfth year, the slightest ref- 
 erence to any influence the Temple service or anything that hap- 
 pened in the Temple might have on His knowledge and self-con- 
 sciousness. What is written in many works concerning the effect 
 of the festal devotions, what is asserted concerning the effect of 
 contact with the learned Doctors, what is contended that during 
 this visit Mary for the first time informed her Son of His Virgin 
 Birth and its attending circumstances, all this is imaginative, has 
 no foundation in the text, and hence, as far as history is con- 
 cerned, does not account for Christ's self -consciousness. The 
 view that Jesus' self -consciousness arose during His visit to the 
 Temple has no evidence in the historical record; it would seem 
 to be excluded. Christ's first recorded action and His first rec- 
 orded words, far from betraying any doubting or dawning atti- 
 tude towards Himself, manifest supernatural understanding and 
 self -consciousness. The origin of Jesus' knowledge and self -con- 
 sciousness must be sought elsewhere than the Temple episode. 
 
 1 Gospel Hist., 191. 
 
 2 The Words of the Lord J., I. 20. 
 
 3 The Life of Jesus prior to His Minist., Think. (1895) 397. 
 
 4 The Life and Times of J., I. 248; cf. Hitchcock (The Self -consciousness of J., 
 OT-NTSt XIII (1891) 272), and others. 
 
 6 Comment., 76. 
 
CHAPTER XII 
 THE "PARENTS" AND THE "SON" 
 
 1. THEIR MUTUAL ATTITUDE 
 
 Twice in the narrative of the episode (41 and 43), Mary and 
 Joseph are called the "parents" (yoveZ<;), of Jesus, and once (48) 
 Mary refers to Joseph as "Thy father" (6 xoctyjp <jou). Outside 
 of those who knew the secret of the Virgin Birth and in the eyes 
 of the Law, from the very fact that Jesus was born of Mary the 
 betrothed (ii. 5) of Joseph and that they continued to live to- 
 gether, the latter would be regarded as father, even if he was not 
 really so. Luke here employs the terms that are actually used* 
 "parents," "father," and there is no contradiction to the account 
 of the Virgin Birth in the previous chapter. 1 In the presence of 
 those who were not acquainted with this mystery, it would be 
 very awkward to use a term in reference to Joseph which would 
 indicate that he was not the real father. As St. Jerome writes: 
 Non quod vere pater Joseph, fuerit Salvatoris, sed quod ad 
 famam Mariae conservandam pater sit ab omnibus aestimatur. 2 
 
 These "parents" are described as faithful Jews, each year 
 traveling to Jerusalem at the feast of the Pasch. On the occa- 
 sion of the twelfth year, after they had celebrated for either two 
 days, as was customary for pilgrims, or for seven days, as was 
 prescribed by the Law, Mary and Joseph set out for home; and it 
 was only after they had gone a day's journey, and after institut- 
 ing a search among the relatives and acquaintances of their com- 
 pany, that they discovered their Son had not accompanied them. 
 How was He left behind? Was it by neglect or by accident or by 
 design on His part? St. Luke seems to excuse the mother and 
 
 1 Cf. Gigot, The Virgin Birth in Lk. ii, IthQ VIII (1913) 412-434. 
 
 2 In a treatise on the Perpetual Virginity of B. V. M.PL XXIII. 188. See other 
 remarks of Fathers, p. 16 ff. 
 
 135 
 
136 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 foster-father from culpable neglect, 1 stating that "the parents did 
 not know" (oflx Hyvoxjocv, vs. 43), and they thought He was in the 
 company (voyitaavTe*; hk ctfcbv ... vs. 44). From this fact that 
 they did not make sure that Jesus was with them, we can catch 
 a glimpse of their attitude towards Him, for "this shows," says 
 Plummer, " what confidence they had in Him, and how little they 
 were accustomed to watch Him. . . . They were accustomed to 
 His obedience and prudence and He had never caused them 
 anxiety." 2 The sacred writer, likewise, excludes the view that 
 it was by accident that the Boy was left behind, for he makes it 
 clear that the remaining behind was deliberate and intentional. 3 
 This is shown from the active verb "stayed" or "remained" 
 (ux^sivev, vs. 43), is reflected in Mary's question, "why hast 
 Thou done to us so?" and is far from being denied in Christ's 
 words. This deliberately separating Himself from His natural 
 mother and foster-father (taken in connection with other points 
 in the episode), indicates the very exceptional consciousness of 
 the twelve-year-old Boy and is an argument in favor of our con- 
 clusion above. 
 
 The sorrowing "parents" retraced their steps to Jerusalem in 
 search of their missing Son and to their great surprise and alarm 
 they stumbled upon a scene of which he was the central figure. 
 Considering what these parents previously knew, their astonish- 
 ment certainly casts illuminating rays on the most extraordinary 
 character of Christ's position or action. It might imply that He 
 usually did not act in a preternatural manner, but not necessarily 
 that He never did a preternatural act before. 
 
 Jesus being perfectly human and ordinarily acting in a human 
 
 1 That Mary showed negligence was held by Melanchthon (Mary sinned " per 
 ignorantiam," in Serm. I. Dom. Epiph. Opera Omnia, XXIV. 367), Luther (in 
 Serm. I. Dom. Epiph. Werke, I. 153), Calvin (Comm. in Harm. Evang., Opera 
 Omnia, XLV. 106), Erasmus (Biblia Critica, VI. 276), Strauss (Life of Jesus, 192). 
 This is said to be unwarranted by Meyer (Comment. I. 343). Early Suarez had 
 pointed out that the Evangelist excuses the parents of neglect (De Myst. Disp. IV. 
 quest XXVII. art. VI., n. 4, Opera omnia, XIX. 60). Also Canisius (Comment, 
 de Verbi Dei corruptelis, II. 673-681). 
 
 2 Comment, ad loc. 275; cf. also Olshausen, Comment, on the Gospel, I. 152, 
 yet previously (p. 150) he says that Mary "sinned" through "neglect." 
 
 3 Origen (M.PG XIII. 1850), and S. Metaphrastes (M.PG CXV. 547), hold that 
 Christ hid from His parents miraculously. There is no word in the text for "lost" 
 or "left behind" often used in this connection. The compound verb occurs only 
 here and in Ac. xvii. 14. 
 
THE "PARENTS" AND THE "SON" 137 
 
 manner, the parents were not always looking for supernatural 
 feats from Him and supernatural interventions on His behalf; so 
 that not only can we easily understand why they were surprised 
 on this occasion, 1 but also we can readily understand how, when 
 He was missing, they sought for Him and sought for Him with 
 sorrow. "Behold Thy father and I sorrowing have been seeking 
 Thee." 2 When they could not find their treasure, it was per- 
 fectly human that apprehension and grief should take possession 
 of them, should blind them to the real facts of the case, should 
 lead them on in their sorrowful and anxious search. 
 
 However, the interpretation of Origen, 3 and after him Theo- 
 phylact, 4 Maldonatus, 5 Estius, 6 Cornelius a Lapide, 7 and Ber- 
 nadini, 8 that the "parents" sorrowed after their Child, not think- 
 ing that something might have happened to Him, but fearful lest 
 He had left them to go to others, etc., is not excluded by the text, 
 and might have a foundation in Mary's question, "Son, why hast 
 Thou done to us so?" Of course, the tone in which this was ut- 
 tered would count a great deal in its understanding, but coming 
 from one who was just recovering from astonishment at a preter- 
 natural action of her Son (47), from one who took care to pre- 
 serve in her heart all that happened on this occasion (51), com- 
 ing from one in such a frame of mind, we can judge that the tone 
 was not one of harshness and reprehension. 9 She draws atten- 
 tion to the fact that Joseph and she had been sorrowfully seeking 
 Him, and in a motherly way, asks why He had done this to them. 
 
 Mark, she does not say what one would expect a mother to 
 
 1 Cf. Lagrange: Le recit de 1'enf ranee de Jesus, Rb IV (1895) 181. Durand, 
 The Childhood of J. C, 141. 
 
 2 "Relatives" is mentioned in Codex Ephraemi, Syr. harcl. and Palatinus (e). 
 To "sorrowing" is added "sad" (Xvirovpievoi, tristes) in Dgr and the Old Latin 
 a d e ff 2 g 1 q v got Syr. Cur. Ambr. L. (M.PL XVII. 364), Pseud-August. (Corp. 
 Script. Lat. L. 125); cf. Vogels, BZ XI (1913) 42. 
 
 8 Comment. M.PG XIII. 1850; cf. Scholia Vetera, M.PG CVI. 1189. 
 * Comm. M.PG CXXIII. 733. 
 6 Comment, ad loc. 
 
 6 Comment, ad loc. 
 
 7 Comment, ad loc. 
 
 8 Comment, ad loc. 
 
 9 That Mary administered a rebuke is held by Haymo (Serm. for First Sunday 
 after Epiphany, M.PL CXVIII. 124), Bonaventure (Comment, in Luc, ad loc.) 
 and Erasmus (cf. Biblica Critica, VI. 275). But this is generally denied, v. g. 
 Maldonatus, Comment, ad loc. Bartmann, Christus ein Gegner des Marienkultus? 
 47. 
 
138 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 say, who has found her son after three days of anxiety and solici- 
 tude, namely, "How were you lost? What happened to you? 
 How did you fare in the meantime? Her words, "Why hast Thou 
 done to us so?" would indicate that at least when she was utter- 
 ing them she knew that He had not been lost by chance or acci- 
 dent, for she credits Him with deliberately remaining behind and 
 deliberately doing all this. 1 Her words have about them a cer- 
 tain amount of reserve; they imply that the Son must have a 
 great reason for what He did; they breathe a certain amount of 
 respect and deference for Him. As Farmer writes, "No doubt 
 they were proud of Him in their hearts but Mary thought it 
 necessary mildly to chide Him for having caused them so much 
 anxiety. We say * chide' as the nearest expression of our thought, 
 but few parents in the East or anywhere else would speak of what 
 they deemed to be a child's error so courteously and with such an 
 absence of * temper.'" 2 
 
 As we referred to above, no objection against the Virgin Birth 
 can be drawn from the fact that she mentions Joseph as 
 "father." 3 An argument in favor of this doctrine is found in 
 the fact that it is Mary who speaks and not Joseph, in whom, if 
 he were the father, would repose all authority according to Jew- 
 ish custom and law. To quote the last mentioned writer: "If 
 Joseph had been the natural father of Christ, he would have 
 spoken to a son of that age at least in addition to the mother." 4 
 The argument would be especially strong if the question was 
 asked in front of the wondering Doctors, as the formal words 
 "Thy father and I" would suggest. 
 
 Mary's plea was a plea for parental rights disregarded, and 
 thus she began by addressing Jesus as, t£xvov, "child" or "son." 
 He does not deny she is His mother, although not calling her so 
 in His reply, but He takes up the word "father" which she had 
 
 1 Cf. Saurez, De Myst. Disp., IV., quest., XXVII., art. VI., n. 4, Opera Omnia, 
 XIX. 60. 
 
 2 HDG I. 227-228. 
 
 8 Or from the fact that she places Joseph before herself "Thy father and I"; 
 as Augustine says, "Non attendit sui uteri dignitatem; sed attendit ordinem con- 
 jugalem." (Serm. LI, M.PL XXXVIII. 343.) The order is reversed in a few ver- 
 sions and Fathers (p. 17, 18). The first person is put first in Mtt. ix. 14; Jn. x. 30; 
 1 Cor. ix. 6. 
 
 « HDG I. 228. 
 
THE "PARENTS" AND THE "SON" 139 
 
 used of Joseph and referred it to God, thus correcting her and re- 
 calling His Virgin Birth. Over against the claims of the earthly 
 parents He places the claim of His Heavenly Parent; the obliga- 
 tion arising from His relation to God binds Him to the sacrifice 
 of all things else, and this the parents should have known if they 
 had reflected on the information they already possessed concern- 
 ing Him. 
 
 When Jesus answered first the latter part of Mary's question 
 ("Behold Thy Father and I sorrowing have been seeking Thee"), 
 by pointing out that there was no reason for seeking Him at all, 
 and then the first part ("Why hast Thou done to us so?") by re- 
 calling what they knew, that He must be in the (things) of His 
 Father, it is recorded that "they did not understand the word 
 that He spoke to them" (50). The text gives the impression, 
 and it is the opinion of most scholars, that the non-understand- 
 ing refers to the parents. 1 
 
 What is it that the parents did not understand? Is it that 
 Christ referred to God as His Father? 2 The text does not state 
 this, and if it was intended it would have been made clear, as, for 
 instance, at a later period when the Jews did not understand that 
 Christ referred to God as His Father, St. John (viii. 27) makes 
 it clear that "they understood not that He called God His 
 Father." 3 The non-understanding of the parents does not refer 
 
 1 It is not the opinion of all scholars. The Catenae Graecae (edit. Cramer, p. 
 27), Geodfridus (in sermon for Sunday after Epiph., M.PL CLXXIV. 107), Aelredus 
 (De Jesu Puero Duodennis, M.PL CLXXXIV. 855), and Faber (Comment, ad 
 loc.), think that ctuToi refers to the bystanders. Cajetan (Comment, ad loc., torn. 
 III. 189), holds it refers to either Joseph or the bystanders but not to Mary. Bour- 
 daloue says it was Joseph who did not understand (Sermons pour le premier 
 dimanche apres Epiph. 6.); Power ("Who were they who understood not," 
 IthQ VII (1912) ) defends the contention that it is the bystanders who are meant. 
 The view is not favorably received, cf. Gigot, The Virgin Birth in Lk. ii. IthQ VIII 
 (1913) 432. 
 
 2 That the parents did not understand the relation to God expressed by Christ's 
 words is the opinion of most of the negative school. Cf. B. Weiss, Life of Christ, I. 
 283; Zahn, Das. Evang. des Luk. ad loc. The non-understanding of the parents is 
 opposed to the Virgin Birth, thinks Usener (Art., Nativity EB III. 33-44). On 
 account of the parent's non-understanding, Strauss calls the whole matter "a 
 marvelous legend" (Life of J., 197). Meyer says "It is altogether incomprehensible 
 how the words of Jesus would be unintelligible to the parents" (Comment. I. 346). 
 Concerning this negative position, Alford rightly says, "It is a remarkable instance 
 of the blindness of the Rationalistic commentators to the richness and debt of 
 Scripture" (Gr. Test., 420). 
 
 3 Cf. Gigot, The Virgin Birth in Lk. ii., IthQ VIII (1913) 432; Jn. xvi. 16 is 
 even a better illustration. 
 
140 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 to any single word in Lk. ii. 49; "the word" t6 pfj^ia signifies 
 Christ's saying taken as a whole. 
 
 A possible explanation which suits the text and context is 
 that the parents did not understand the appropriateness of the 
 saying. We have given already a summary of the New Testa- 
 ment usage of the word auvdqtu. We have shown that it some- 
 times means, to see the connection. The parents did not under- 
 stand the connection between Christ's words and His remaining 
 to astound the Doctors by His understanding. 1 The weak point 
 in this explanation is that in verse 50 there is no reference to the 
 scene before the Doctors. 
 
 A better explanation and one which is in keeping with the use 
 of <7uv(y)[ju, as well as in harmony with the context and the whole 
 Gospel narrative, is as follows. Every word in Christ's saying 
 was intelligible to the parents. In His words taken as a whole 
 He referred to a mission. They understood the reference to His 
 mission but they did not realize the bearing and scope of this 
 mission, why it should entail sorrow, what should be the conse- 
 quences in the future. To state it briefly, the words they heard 
 did not sufficiently instruct and convince their Jewish minds con- 
 cerning the nature of Jesus' Messianic career. 
 
 How do we get this far-reaching signification from the simple 
 words ou cuvYJxav? We are going no further than New Testament 
 usage would guarantee. As was pointed out according to the New 
 Testament, this verb has often the meaning of "realize" (v. g. a 
 parable), as Matthew xiii. 19; Mark vii. 14. It sometimes means 
 to see the bearing or connection or consequences. A good example 
 is Mark vi. 52, namely when Jesus performed the double miracle 
 of walking on the water and calming the tempest, the Apostles 
 were amazed beyond measure, and this reason is added, ou yap 
 cuvqxav £%l toi<; apiot<;; the meaning is they did not realize the 
 bearing and consequences of the miracles of the loaves or they 
 would bear in mind that Christ could perform very great miracles. 
 A very strong confirmation of our view is the use of auviTQ^t in 
 Acts vii. 25, in the sense of "to be sufficiently instructed so as to 
 
 1 This view has not a few supporters: Jansenius (Comment, ad loc.); Farrar 
 (Life of Christ, 78); Rice (Comment, on S. Luke, 59); Ryan (Gospels of the Sun- 
 days, 130); Fillion (fivang. selon. S. Luc., 87); F. Field (Notes on Trans, of New 
 Test., 50). 
 
THE "PARENTS" AND THE "SON" 141 
 
 foresee," but especially in illustration of our view do we point to 
 Luke xviii. 34, when the same Evangelist who wrote ii. 50 states 
 that the Apostles did not understand Our Lord saying that He 
 must go up to Jerusalem and be scourged and crucified. The non- 
 understanding of the parents is no more a matter of surprise than 
 the non-understanding of the Apostles. The latter understood 
 every word in the saying of Jesus that He must go up to Jerusalem 
 and be scourged, etc., but the reasons, bearing and consequences, 
 they did not realize. They had hoped that the Master would 
 establish His kingdom without suffering or death (Luke xxiv. 21) ; 
 and His expression to the contrary was not allowed (naturally or 
 supernaturally) ' to prepare them for what was to come, so that 
 when the fatal day which He clearly foretold did come they were 
 scandalized in Him. This is the force of the statement that the 
 Apostles did not understand Christ saying He must be scourged 
 and crucified. 
 
 Likewise, although every word in their Son's saying was intelli- 
 gible to the parents, it did not bring home to them the nature and 
 the consequences of the mission to which He referred. It did not 
 enlighten them as to why the mission of His Father should entail 
 suffering for them, and, no more than Simeon's prophecy, did it 
 prepare them for what was to come. This is the force of the 
 parents not understanding that Christ must be in the (things) of 
 His Father at the expense of bringing sorrow and grief to them. 2 
 
 This non-understanding, as we have explained it, was indeed 
 very natural. The fact that it is mentioned shows the his- 
 toricity of the whole account, suggests that Mary at least was the 
 final author, and also indicates that the words became "intelli- 
 gible" afterwards. Yes, as in the case of the Apostles so in the 
 case of the parents, the unfolding of events cleared up matters. 
 Only when the shadow of the cross had passed over her life did 
 the mother realize what her Son's mission involved; and when 
 giving the account to St. Luke or an intermediary she recalled 
 that at the time they were uttered, the words of the Boy were in- 
 
 1 Cf. Wright (Gosp. St. Luke, 19). 
 
 2 This view is substantially in harmony with the views of Maldonatus (Comment, 
 ad loc.); Nat. Alexander (Comment, ad loc.); Cornelius a Lapide (Comment, ad 
 loc.); Polus (Comment, ad loc.); Canisius (op. cit., pp. 681-694); Lagrange (Le 
 Recit de l'Enfance, Rb IV (1895) 182); Steinmeyer (Die Geschichte der Geburt, 
 180-181); Terrien (La Mere de Dieu., II. 63); Gigot (The Virgin Birth in Lk. ii., 
 IthQ VIII. (1913) 432-433); Plummer (Comment., 78); Farmer (HDG I. 229); 
 Box (Virgin Birth, 107), Bartmann (Christus ein Gegner des Marienkultus? 52-54). 
 
142 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 deed not understood, they did not bring home to her, nor prepare 
 her for the realities which resulted from His necessity of His being 
 in the (things) of His Father. 
 
 This non-understanding by those who should know all about 
 Him, brings out in bold relief the mysterious depth of Christ's 
 prophetic words, 1 and hence we have again in this reference to 
 the attitude of Mary and Joseph, another reflection of His most 
 extraordinary character. This non-understanding is also evidence 
 of the strongest kind that it was not the parents who implanted 
 in Jesus' heart the knowledge of His mission and relation with 
 God. 
 
 Although the mother and foster-father did not realize all that 
 their Son's words implied, His reference to His mission and His 
 mentioning His true Father seems to be enough to satisfy them, for 
 far from there being any evidence of their insisting on and de- 
 manding another explanation, far from there being any hint that 
 they subjected Him to chastisement, far from there being any in- 
 dication that they considered His answer trivial and frivolous, in 
 the text there is given positive proof of the high value that Mary 
 attached to the first recorded words as well as to the other inci- 
 dents of the episode, namely, Kai $ ^tqttqp aikou Stexirj pet xavxa t<z 
 pYjtiaTa iv Tfj xapSt? ocutyji; (51). The word StsTifjpst "expresses care- 
 ful and continual keeping." 2 The mother's carefully preserving 
 "all the things spoken of" heightens our appreciation of all that 
 happened; it throws more light on the preternatural character of 
 Christ's action, and it gives additional strength and force to the 
 other arguments that His first words expressed real Divine Son- 
 ship. 3 
 
 A final reference to Christ and His parents and one which 
 contains an epitome of the nature of their relation is given in the 
 sentence, "and He went down with them and came to Nazareth 
 
 1 On account of the non-understanding of the parents, both Strauss (Life of Jesus, 
 195), and Loisy (Les fivang. Synopt., 383) see in Christ's words a declaration of 
 Messiahship. It certainly .shows that Lk. ii. 49 is not to be interpreted as a mere 
 childish saying and is a strong indication that "business" is to be understood by 
 iv rots tov. 
 
 2 Plummer, Comment, ad Ioc. 78. 
 
 8 As Origen says, " Plus aliquid quam homine suspicatur, unde et custodiebat 
 omnia verba ejus in corde sua, non quasi pueri qui duodecim esset annorum sed 
 ejus qui de Spiritu Sancto conceptus fuerat" (ad. Ioc. M.PG XIII. 1852); cf. S. 
 Metaphrasetes, M.PG CIX. 549. 
 
THE "PARENTS" AND THE "SON" 143 
 
 and was subject to them." The last phrase reads literally "and 
 He was subjecting Himself to them" (xal rjv 6xoTaa<j6tievoq 
 auTotq). As Edersheim has pointed out, the present participle 
 middle brings out the "voluntariness of His submission," 1 and 
 as Plummer remarks, "the analytic tense gives prominence to the 
 continuance of the subjection." 2 The form of this verb excludes 
 the idea that Luke wishes to bring out a contrast between Christ's 
 obedience at Nazareth and His disobedience at Jerusalem during 
 the memorable visit. Besides it would be against the reverential 
 tone of the whole narrative. Why does Luke mention Christ's 
 subjecting Himself, which would seem superfluous, if Jesus was 
 an ordinary boy? The Evangelist is aware that He acted in the 
 Temple not like an ordinary boy, he is aware that His words are 
 not the words of an ordinary boy, that they are a declaration of 
 strict Divine Sonship. Realizing, then, what a great act of con- 
 descension it was, he records that though conscious of His Divine 
 dignity and nature, Jesus subjected Himself to the earthly par- 
 ents. Thus the relation that existed between them is fitly de- 
 scribed. Being born through the operation of the Holy Ghost, 
 being truly the Son of God and conscious of this fact, this God-man 
 did not owe obedience to any human person. When He subjected 
 Himself to Mary and Joseph, it was a great act of condescension 
 on His part and a fact worthy of recording. He was breaking 
 no moral precept if He did not obey them, 3 especially, as in the 
 episode, when He must be in the (things) of His true and real 
 Father. 
 
 2. MORALITY OF THE EPISODE 
 
 As to the relation of parents and children among the Jews we 
 need only to quote Edersheim, "What Jewish fathers and moth- 
 
 1 The Life and Times of J., 250, note. 
 
 2 Comment., 78. 
 
 8 As Didymus Alex, says concerning Christ's subjection to His parents : ixcop 
 8k 8ii\ov 8ti, xal ohx kvkxrj, De Trin. III. 20, M.PG XXXIX. 893. Jerome 
 writes: Venerabatur matrem cujus erat ipse pater, colebat nutricium quern nutrierat. 
 (Epist. cxvii., Corp. Script. Lat., LV. 425, edit. Hilberg.) We find in the Constitu- 
 tiones Apostolicae, "He who had commanded to honour our parents, was Himself 
 subject to them" (VI. 23, M.PG I. 971). Ambrose points out that Christ's subjec- 
 tion is not a subjection of infirmity but of piety; and deference and piety are not 
 weakness (Exp. Evang. Luc. ad loc. Corp. Script. Lat. XXXII. 4 , p. 75); cf. Cyril 
 of Alex. (De Trin., V., M.PG LXXV. 993-6). 
 
144 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 ers were; what they felt towards their children; and with what 
 reverence, affection and care the latter returned what they had 
 received, is known to every reader of the Old Testament. The 
 relationship of father has its greatest sanction and embodiment 
 in that of God towards Israel; the tenderness and care of a 
 mother is that of the watchfulness and pity of the Lord over 
 His people. The semi-Divine relationship between children and 
 parents appears in the location, the far more than outward duties 
 which it implies in the wording of the Fifth Commandment. No 
 punishment more prompt than that of its breach (Deut. xxi. 18- 
 21); no description more terribly realistic than that of the ven- 
 geance which overtakes such a sin (Prov. xxx. 17)." * 
 
 Jesus in His first words was giving an answer to Mary's in- 
 quiry: Why He had remained in Jerusalem and caused His par- 
 ents three days of intense sorrow. Does the saying suit the 
 purpose? Does He give a sufficient reason to account for His 
 action? Or must His action be considered immoral? Wallis re- 
 marks, "A vague feeling of dissatisfaction, however consciously 
 subdued, is apt to rise in the minds of many readers, at what 
 may be called the moral character of the episode. In plain terms, 
 the ordinary acceptation of the story makes it difficult to recog- 
 nize the dutifulness or the consideration of our Lord's conduct, 
 when we remember His youthfulness and His acknowledged rela- 
 tion to Joseph and Mary. 2 On account of the "revolt against 
 paternal authority" 3 which he sees in the episode, Renan con- 
 demns the narrative as mythical. Martin also rejects the ac- 
 count, asking, "Is there not a touch of the unfilial in the tone of 
 this reply . . . ?" 4 Certainly for an ordinary boy of twelve, it 
 would be at least implicit disobedience for him to remain behind 
 after his parents had set out for home, and thus cause them 
 anxiety and sorrow, and ordinarily on finding him the parents 
 would justly chastise their son. 
 
 To give the reason why this is not so in His case, to account 
 for, to justify His actions, Jesus merely mentions that, as they 
 
 1 The Life and Times of J.. I. 227. 
 
 2 The Father's business, etc., ExpT ser. 2, vol. VII. (1884) 20. 
 
 3 Life of Jesus, 60; cf . Art., Nativity in E.B. 
 * The Life of Jesus, 75. 
 
THE "PARENTS" AND THE "SON" 145 
 
 should know, He must be in the (things) of His Father, God. 
 His reason for not fulfilling the highest of obligations, obedience 
 to parents, was sufficient only in the explanation that He held a 
 most extraordinary and superhuman relation to God, in other 
 words, the view of real Divine Sonship or something very near it. 
 In any other explanation His saying would be "mockery," x as 
 Riddle points out, and, as Felder states, His action would be 
 "immoral"; 2 His deliberately separating Himself from His par- 
 ents without even informing them, thus causing them seemingly 
 unnecessary grief of heart, certainly would not be in accordance 
 with the laws of ethics, 3 and this act of immorality could hardly 
 be explained. But for the Boy Jesus, it was not an act of immo- 
 rality. Far from this being the case, He rather was fulfilling His 
 filial obligation, He rather was obeying His real and true Father. 4 
 The claims of this true Father are most immediate and pressing, 
 and, in comparison with them, the claims of Mary and Joseph are 
 negligible. Carrying out His Father's will, He condescends to 
 obey those whom He has given the privilege of being His earthly 
 parents, — the verb employed, fjv uxoT<zaa6^.evo<;, bringing out 
 the voluntariness of the action — but when the Father's will and 
 mission which he must carry out require, these parents are to be 
 sacrificed now, as Mary was afterwards sacrificed at the foot of 
 the cross. 
 
 If anything short of a superhuman and preternatural relation 
 to God is expressed by Christ, His words would not explain His 
 action, neither would they satisfy His earthly parents. Far from 
 the text giving us indications that the parents justly chastised 
 their Son, it depicts them as receiving the saying, although not 
 understanding it, in a respectful, reverential attitude, Mary even 
 thinking it worth while to preserve in her mind the whole account 
 — sufficient indication that for the parents, Christ's reply carried 
 
 1 Comment, on St. Luke, 361. (Gospel . . . Luke, 43.) 
 
 2 Jesus Christus, I. 330. 
 
 3 And this no matter how strongly one should feel a religious vocation. In the 
 case of Christ it is clear that there is not question of merely a religious calling, as 
 he immediately goes back to Nazareth to obey His parents. 
 
 4 As Bartmann (op. cit., 50) says, "Aus diesem Umgange mit der Gottheit 
 entstanden fur ihn oft Situationen und Verpflichtungen, die in keinem Sittenkodex 
 fur Kinderpflichten, gebucht waren." Cf. Sylveira: Comment, in Text. Evang., I. 
 353. 
 
146 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 more than sufficient explanation for this seeming disobedience 
 and injustice towards them. 1 
 
 The morality of the episode on the part of Christ is explained 
 in the view we have been led to adopt in regard to the self-con- 
 sciousness He expressed. Any abruptness, any lack of filial con- 
 sideration seen in His action, any air of superiority interpreted 
 from His words, all would be explicable and not unbecoming in 
 one who had the conviction of being the real Son of God. This 
 knowledge of being in such a wonderful relation to God explains 
 the "Son's" attitude towards the "parents" during His whole 
 life, namely when He uttered such sayings as "What is that to 
 Me and to thee? " " Who is My mother, and who are My breth- 
 ren?" He voluntarily subjected Himself to them, but He always 
 made it clear that He was superior to their claims, that in His 
 Divine obligation the ties of flesh and blood did not count. He 
 was above the claims of the natural; He had a supernatural self- 
 consciousness. 
 
 How explain the attitude of the "parents"? How is it that 
 they were struck with astonishment at seeing Jesus among the 
 Doctors? How explain that they sought for Him with sorrow 
 and anxiety? How is it that they did not understand His words? 
 For the better understanding we will examine their attitude in 
 its perspective. Mary heard the angel announce that she would 
 conceive a son who "shall be called Son of the Most High, and 
 who shall reign in the house of Jacob forever" (Luke i. 31, 32; 
 cf. Matthew i. 18, 20, 21, 23, 25), and although the angel ex- 
 plained how this Virgin Birth would take place, he did not inform 
 her how the Son's kingdom would be established, nor what the 
 nature of this kingdom would be, nor what it entailed for Him 
 and for her. In these matters, consequently, she shared the con- 
 temporary Jewish views. 2 Knowing the fact of the Virgin Birth, 
 knowing her Child to be the long-looked-for Messiah (Luke i. 
 35, 48), when the shepherds came to the newly born Babe, relat- 
 
 1 Also from the fact that Christ was sinless we are obliged "to seek an expla- 
 nation of His deportment on the present occasion," Wilkinson: Concerning J. C, 
 the Son of Man, 42. 
 
 2 Concerning Mary's knowledge, see Terrien: La Mere de Dieu, II. 4-66, Bart- 
 mann (op. cit., 21, 42, note). She was supernaturally endowed with intellectual 
 gifts befitting her great position and association. 
 
THE "PARENTS" AND THE "SON" 147 
 
 ing what they had seen and heard, Mary did not share the won- 
 der of those who heard these things "but kept all these things 
 pondering them in her heart" (Luke ii. 18, 19). 
 
 The secret of the Virgin Birth and the other parts of the An- 
 nunciation lay in her heart, being known only to Joseph, and 
 hence when the "parents" heard the inspired Simeon proclaim 
 the Child to be the Messiah, they wondered, they marveled at 
 what he said (Luke ii. 25-33). Neither did holy Simeon's an- 
 nouncement of the career of "light" and "glory" of their "Son" 
 impress them in such a way as to influence their every action, no 
 more than his prophecy that Jesus would be set up "for a sign 
 which shall be contradicted" and for the transpiercing of the 
 mother's soul (Luke ii. 34, 35). 
 
 Accustomed to Christ's acting somewhat like an ordinary 
 child (at least in regard to bodily requirements vs. 40), the par- 
 ents would treat Him as such during the next twelve years that 
 rolled by. The lapse of this period may have somewhat weak- 
 ened the impressions made by the circumstances of Christ's con- 
 ception and birth, but not necessarily weakened the faith of the 
 parents. 1 Their conduct during the memorable incident of the 
 twelfth year clearly shows that the facts stored away in their 
 minds were not kept vividly in view. They acted like ordinary 
 parents on this occasion. They set out for home without mak- 
 ing sure that Jesus was with them, thinking that He was acting 
 as usual, thinking that like an ordinary boy He was in the com- 
 pany. They expected nothing, and when they missed Him they 
 became nervous and sought for Him with sorrow and anxiety. 
 They thought of themselves only as ordinary parents, whose 
 rights were to be respected. They did not reflect on the knowl- 
 edge which they possessed, they did not consider that their Son 
 tarried behind because of something which they already knew, 
 His great relationship to God and His special work for His Heav- 
 enly Father in which He was not subject to their jurisdiction. 
 Indeed the last place where they looked to find Him was the 
 Temple, searching a whole day through the Holy City before 
 
 1 Explaining why Mary did not "understand" Plumptre (Comment., 952), 
 and Wilkinson (Concerning Jesus Christ the Son of Man, 45, 46), say that the 
 lapse of years dulled the impressions of the annunciation and weakened Mary's 
 faith. 
 
148 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 going there. Thus expecting nothing, they were greatly surprised 
 on discovering Him "sitting in the midst of the doctors." Yet 
 Mary's "trouble overpowered her amazement." * Being Jesus' 
 true mother, her motherly heart had experienced the keenest af- 
 fliction during the three days of searching, and she could not 
 quickly forget this intense sorrow; she refers to it, asking her Son 
 why He had done this, feeling He must have a valid reason. She 
 heard the Boy giving a great reason; she heard Him mentioning 
 His true and only Father, and citing His obligation to be taken 
 up with God's business or to be in God's house. She understood 
 every one of the words that He uttered, but in these words there 
 was enunciated a policy of Jesus suiting not only the present but 
 also the future, and this policy neither she nor the foster-father 
 realized. They did not see in the perspective the words and the 
 occasion that drew them forth, and thus did not understand them 
 as the first fulfillment of Simeon's prophecy, as having themselves 
 a prophetic signification — the sword of sorrow was to go deeper 
 into the mother's heart, all owing to the obligation and mission 
 to which He referred. 
 
 Jesus' subjecting Himself to the "parents," His living as "one 
 of the many," 2 although it accustomed the mother to the role 
 of an ordinary mother, yet did not make her lose sight of the 
 memorable events of the twelfth year. These were added to the 
 circumstances of Jesus' early childhood in the storehouse of 
 Mary's heart. Frequently she took care to revolve in her mind 
 all that she knew; once (it is recorded) she made use of the in- 
 formation she possessed, when, to save the bridal couple of Cana 
 from embarrassment, her charity moved her to point out to her 
 Son, "they have no wine" (John ii. 3). Taking the natural atti- 
 tude of mother, she asked the miracle, irrespective of His "hour" 
 or Divine obligation. The natural attitude of "mother" is again 
 taken, when with "brethren" of the Lord she came to interrupt 
 Him in His preaching, in His performing the Father's business, 
 and finally she takes a true mother's place standing at the foot of 
 the cross; the "Son" was fulfilling the obligations of His mis- 
 sion and the "mother" was again a sufferer. What had been 
 
 1 Farmer, HDG I. 227. 
 
 a Words of St. Chrysostom, Horn. XXI.. on St. John, N.P-NF XIV. 74. 
 
THE "PARENTS" AND THE "SON" 149 
 
 hinted at and referred to, not only to the Apostles but also to the 
 mother, not only during the Public Ministry but also during the 
 Hidden Life, was now accomplished. It was not only the Apos- 
 tles who heeded not the prophetic warnings of the Master that 
 He must go the Way of the Cross, but also Mary herself acted as 
 a mother generally does act, paying little or no attention to 
 warnings or forebodings, overlooking prophetic utterances which 
 could have prepared her for what the sad future had in store for 
 herself and her Son. In spite of His pronouncements of the obli- 
 gations of His nature and mission, she persistently assumed the 
 attitude of an ordinary mother. Chrysostom, giving the reason 
 why Jesus said "Who is My mother and who are My brethren?" 
 writes, "because they did not yet think rightly of Him, and she, 
 because she had borne Him, claimed according to the custom of 
 other mothers, to direct Him in all things, when she ought to 
 have reverenced and worshiped Him." * Mary's action bears 
 about it all the marks of naturalness and historicity. 2 
 
 Indeed when we compare the mutual attitude of the "Son" 
 and the "parents" we are struck both at the natural mode of ac- 
 tion of the "parents" and the preternatural mode of action of 
 the "Son," at the natural attitude of the "parents" and the pre- 
 ternatural attitude of the "Son." Especially verse 50, "they did 
 not understand ..." reflects the preternaturalness of Jesus as 
 well as the naturalness of the "parents." It was necessary for 
 the "Son" to have acted as He did, for to quote Chrysostom 
 again, "otherwise He could not have led up her thoughts from 
 His present lowliness to His future exaltation had she expected 
 that she should always be honored by Him as by a son and not 
 that He should come as her Master." 3 
 
 What an appropriate setting for the first recorded words as 
 herein interpreted is the Evangelical account of the mutual atti- 
 tude of the "Son" and the "parents." It was not they who in- 
 
 1 Loc. cit. Christ greatly respected His mother, for as Chrysostom (op. cit.) says, 
 "He was subject to her and had forethought of her at the very season of the cruci- 
 fixion." Although He honored her, yet "He cared more for her soul, and for the 
 doing good to the many, for which He took upon Him the flesh." 
 
 2 Sweet (Birth and Infancy of Jesus Christ, 192) says of Mary, "The uniqueness 
 of her experience only serves to emphasize the naturalness of the portraiture of her 
 character." 
 
 8 Loc. cit. 
 
150 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 stilled into Him His idea of Himself or His mission; they did not 
 even understand Him. What a contrast between Him and them; 
 and they were those nearest to Him in all human respects, they 
 were those from whom He received most, who should have known 
 Him best. How inexplicable, then, appears His mental attitude, 
 in other words, His self-consciousness. 
 
CHAPTER XIII 
 THE CHRIST CHILD'S "WISDOM" AND "GRACE" 
 
 1. STUDY OF LUKE ii. 40 AND 52 
 
 St. Luke envelops the narrative of the Boy Christ in the 
 Temple with two somewhat similar verses, each containing a ref- 
 erence to physical growth, wisdom and grace; in fact these verses 
 belong to the episode, being connected with it by Kal. It is 
 claimed that here Christ is represented as undergoing not only a 
 bodily but also "a normal psychical development" ' and hence 
 there is a serious objection to our conclusion above. 
 
 Verse 40 reads, t 6 &t«at8(oyi)5£ovivxai ixpaxaiouTo xAT)po6^evov 
 ao<p(<y, xal %dgnq 0eou fjv i%* aifc6. First, as t6 xatBfov. In the 
 preceding verse, St. Luke finishes the account of the Presentation 
 in the Temple, "according to the law of the Lord." Jesus then 
 was forty days old and this is why He is referred to as t6 xai8(ov, 
 "the child." 
 
 Concerning this child, the Evangelist says "He grew" and 
 "he got strong," 2 bringing out the fact that He got taller and 
 stronger physically. 
 
 St. Luke next gives a phrase in opposition, xAiqpou^svov 
 <joq>fqc. 3 The last word is taken in a general sense of wisdom. 4 
 What is the meaning of xAiqpou^evov? Plummer gives the mean- 
 ing "being filled day by day"; 5 this has in its favor the fact 
 
 1 Harris, Wisdom of Christ, HDG II. 830. Others make similar statements. 
 
 2 TTPebfiOTt is added by Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Purpureus, but crept in 
 probably on account of the resemblance of our verse with I. 80. 
 
 3 Weymouth and Teschendorf have the genitive. 
 
 4 Between his Gospel and his Acts, Luke used the word in all ten times. It is 
 personified in Lk. vii. 35, and it seems it is used in the same manner in xi. 49. In 
 a restricted sense it is used in Ac. vii. 10, "wisdom in the eyes of Pharao," in Ac. 
 vii. 22, "wisdom of the Egyptians," and in Lk. xi. 31, "wisdom of Solomon"; 
 while in Ac. vi. 3, 10, it is used in a general but good or spiritual sense; and in 
 a like sense in Lk. ii. 40, 52. 
 
 6 Comment, ad loc, p. 74; Farmer also says the words "imply a gradual pro- 
 gressive filling" (HDG I. 225). 
 
 151 
 
152 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 that the present participle is used and is closely connected with 
 two imperfects. On the other hand the Vulgate has the rendering 
 "plenus," followed by the Douay "full of"; and the revised has 
 much the same meaning, "filled with." 
 
 There are instances where this same present participle is used 
 in a completed sense, that is with the meaning "filled" or "kept 
 full" and not "being filled." In Ephes. i. 23 — the only other 
 New Testament passage which has this present participle, we 
 read: t& xXiqpw^a tou xavxa £y xaatv xXiQpou^svou, "the fullness 
 of Him who is filled all in all," the literal translation (as Douay), 
 or according to meaning (as Rev.) "the fullness of Him that fill- 
 eth all in all." Here on account of the word "fullness" the parti- 
 ciple must have a completed sense. A completed sense is also 
 found in Dan. viii. 23, xXtqpou^Ivwv tg>v a^ocpTwv auTwv, "after 
 their iniquities are completed" or "are come to the full," and in 
 Martyr. S. Polycarpi 15, 2: "Like a sail of a ship filled by the 
 wind 0x6 xv£6(jLaT0<; xXYjpoupiivif). 1 In Justin's Dialogue 87, 2 
 xX-qpouTtxt 2 is to be rendered "is filled," not "is being filled," and 
 in 93.2 xXY]poG<r0ai 3 "to sum up," "to fulfil." 
 
 From these examples, it is clear that there is a foundation for 
 the rendering of the present participle xXtqpoujjlsvov in Luke ii. 
 40, by "filled." In its favor, too, is the fact that the word is 
 placed in opposition, and also the fact that it is connected with 
 the following statement, "and the Grace of God was in Him," 
 expressive of state. But apart from the tense used, this word 
 xXiQpouv of itself has a completed sense; to quote Farmer, it 
 means "to fill a thing full, so that it lacks nothing." 4 And even 
 if the translation here be "being filled with wisdom," the mean- 
 ing of the text is that the Child Jesus did become full of wisdom, 
 — that is according to the strict letter of the text. 
 
 In the concluding phrase of this verse 40, x<xpc<; has the signi- 
 fication, good- will, favor, grace, and £%' <zut6, "in Him." It is 
 not said that the Child found favor in the eyes of God, as is said 
 
 1 M.PG IV. 1040. The pres. part. ir\r\povixkvrjv is also found in Athenagoras' 
 Legatio pro Christianis 5, 2, M.PG VI. 900, but here the meaning of the passage is 
 disputed. 
 
 2 M.PG VI. 684. 
 
 3 M.PG VI. 697. The use here is analogous to Gal. v. 14, where D E ms. have 
 the present tense. 
 
 <HDG 1.226. 
 
CHRIST CHILD'S "WISDOM" AND "GRACE" 153 
 
 of Mary (Luke i. 30), and of David (Acts vii. 46), nor that the 
 Child was full of grace, but absolutely and with a note of finality 
 "the Grace of God was in Him." 
 
 The meaning, then, of verse 40 is: The Child (referring to 
 Jesus who was previously mentioned as forty days old) grew 
 and got strong, filled with wisdom (or being filled with wisdom) 
 and the grace of God was in Him. It is ordinary to say of a 
 child that he grew and got strong; but is it ordinary to say of a 
 child that he was filled with wisdom (or became filled with wis- 
 dom) and the grace of God was in him? Was this said of any 
 other child? Compare verse 40 with a somewhat similar state- 
 ment made by the same writer concerning the growth of the 
 Baptist, Luke i. 66, 80. It is said of both John and Jesus that 
 they grew. It is stated that John got strong in spirit, while Jesus 
 got strong, filled with wisdom or being filled with wisdom. That 
 the hand of God was with him is asserted of John, while of Jesus, 
 that the Grace of God was in Him. Strong in spiritual zeal, — 
 this characterizes the early years of John's life as well as the 
 later; as a Child, Jesus is filled with wisdom and has in Him the 
 Grace of God. Luke brings out a marked contrast between the 
 two, indicating the superiority of Christ. 
 
 St. Paul states that in Christ are "all the treasures of wis- 
 dom and knowledge," Col. ii. 3, and (Col. ii. 9) in Him "dwelleth 
 all the fulness of the Godhead corporally." And St. John de- 
 clares the word made Flesh to be "full of grace and truth" (i. 14). 
 Closely corresponding to these, 1 is the statement of Luke that 
 Jesus as a Child was "filled with wisdom and the Grace of God 
 was in Him." This is by no means an ordinary thing to say of a 
 child. Whether we read "filled with wisdom" or "being filled 
 with wisdom" in this verse, it is a most extraordinary thing, and 
 cannot be explained naturally, for men have to spend years of 
 hard study before they can hope to be filled with wisdom. As 
 Origen says, "Aliud est partem habere sapientiae aliud est sa- 
 pientia esse completum. Non ambigimus ergo divinum aliquid 
 in carne Jesu apparuisse . . . *et gratia Dei erat super eum.' 
 Non quando venit ad adolescent iam, non quando manifeste doce- 
 bat, sed cum adhuc esset parvulus habebat gratiam Dei; et quo- 
 1 As was early pointed out by Bede, M.PL XCII. 247. 
 
154 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 modo omnia in illo mirabilia fuerant, ita et pueritia mirabilis fuit 
 ut Dei sapientia compleretur." l 
 
 This verse 40, delineating the Christ Child as very extraordi- 
 nary in regard to "wisdom" and "grace," is in perfect harmony 
 with the representation a few verses further, that Jesus at 
 twelve years manifested preternatural knowledge before the doc- 
 tors (47), and expressed real Divine Sonship in His answer to His 
 parents (49). 
 
 At the end of the episode of the "lost" Boy, after telling how 
 He went down to Nazareth and was subject to Mary and Joseph, 
 Luke adds: Kal 'It) jo 0<;xpolx.oxT£v ivzfi ao^tqc xa! ^Xtx(<? k<*1 x«P^t 
 xapa 0ecp xa! iv0pwxotq. The Evangelist mentions Jesus by name, 
 whom he had called a Boy ('ItqcjoGs 6 xat<;) in vs. 43, a child 
 (xatB(ov) in vs. 40, and a Babe (Ppifoc) in vs. 16 of this same chap- 
 ter. Concerning Jesus at twelve years, the inspired writer predi- 
 cates, xpolxoxTsv, "He advanced." The important question is, 
 here, does this word necessarily include the idea of internal in- 
 crease or acquisition to the subject? 
 
 The metaphor expressed by this word, xpox6xTa>, is taken 
 either from pioneers cutting in front — felling trees to enable an 
 army to advance, or from lengthening by hammering — the beat- 
 ing out of metals. 2 In either case this word would have the idea 
 of advancing, going forward, but in neither, the idea of internal 
 acquisition of the subject. 
 
 As to the usage of the word (found elsewhere in the New 
 Testament, only five times in St. Paul), it sometimes has the idea 
 of real internal acquisition and it sometimes has not. It has the 
 meaning of internal increase in Gal. i. 14, where St. Paul uses it to 
 express his advance in Jewish tradition and observance, xpolxoxio 
 iv Tcp 'IuBata^tp. It seems to have this idea too in 2 Tim. ii. 
 16; iii. 8, where the apostles use the verb with M xXsTov, "more," 
 and in iii. 13, where he uses it with M to xzipov, "worse." 
 
 On the other hand St. Paul uses xpoxoxTw to denote the night 
 is passed, Rom. xiii. 12, $ vu£ xpoixo^sv, y) hk. Yj^iipa fJYYixev. We 
 find a similar usage in Josephus' Jewish Wars, IV. iv, 6, ty)<; vuxt&<; 
 xpoxoxTouaYJq 3 (the context indicating that it was near morning), 
 
 1 Homil. in Loc. ad loc. in M.PG XIII. 1849. 
 
 2 Cf. Liddell and Scott, Greek Lexicon; Carr: Gospel accord. Luke, 97. 
 
 3 Edit. Bekkero I.-IV., p. 318. In another place (Vita, 2) Josephus uses it 
 with the idea of internal increase. 
 
CHRIST CHILD'S "WISDOM" AND "GRACE" 155 
 
 and in Justin's Dialogue, 56, 16, r) ts fiiiipa xpox6iuTei.i But 
 now the day or night does not really increase in itself; in fact 
 during the last half of the day or night they wane away. So that 
 from this use of xpox6xTG> it can be argued that this verb expresses 
 the advance or proceeding of something, without necessarily 
 including real internal increase or positive acquisition. The justice 
 of this inference is confirmed by the fact that we find xpogdtvw 
 used to express the same idea; in the Septuagint we find in Jud. 
 xix. 11, f) ^)[iipa xpoge^Tjxst and in Job ii. 9, £p6vou $k xoXXou 
 xpogegTjxdToq. A somewhat similar usage is that of Justin, Dial. 
 II. 5, xpoxoxt6vtg)v f^tv twv X6ft«>v, "as the words proceed for 
 us"; 2 II. Clement 17, 3, xpox6xT£tv h xat<; IvToXalq, "to go forward 
 in the commandments"; 8 Symmachus, xpox6xTS (where the LXX 
 has xaTsuoSou) to render rbt "proceed prosperously" of Ps. 
 xliv. (xlv.) 5. 4 There are cases therefore where xpox6xTO) means 
 simply "to go forward," being used synonymously with xpogatvo), 
 and increase of the subject is not implied. 
 
 Coming back to Luke ii. 52, before we decide what is the force 
 of xpox6xT(o here, we shall have to consider in what was the ad- 
 vance and what is required by the context. We shall first take 
 up •fjXixfqc. This word was used to signify both "age" and "stat- 
 ure," "in classical Greek more frequently age, in biblical, stat- 
 ure"; 5 in the Greek of the Papyri always age. 6 It certainly 
 means "stature" in Luke xix. 3, and it certainly means "age" in 
 John ix. 21, 23; Heb. xi. 11. Scholars do not agree as to which 
 meaning is signified in Matthew vi. 27, Luke xii. 25, and Ephes. 
 
 1 M.PG VI. 601. 
 
 2 M.PG VI. 500. In Dial. 2, 6, Justin also uses this verb to describe his advance 
 in Platonic philosophy, but he uses another verb with it, so that we cannot make a 
 definite decision as to his usage. 
 
 3 Lightfoot: Apostolic Fathers, 51. 
 
 4 Cf. Field, Origines Hexaplorum, II. 162 (Oxonis, 1875). In a papyrus from 
 Fayum (mentioned by Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, transl. by Strachan, 
 New York, 1911, p. 170, note 13), TrpoKoxf/ai is used in the sense "to be promoted." 
 A non-committal example of the first century B.C. is Syll. 325, 18 edit. Ditten- 
 berger, vit earrjo ard re -tiXuclq. vpoKbirroiv nal Trpoa.y6p.evos els rd deoaefieiv 
 (Moulton and Milligan, Texical Notes from the Papyri, Exp. vol. VII., ser. 7 (1909) 
 470. The noun irponoirii is used a few times in Scripture. In Phil. i. 12, "further- 
 ance (of the Gospel)," and in verse 25 "furtherance (of faith)," it has the idea of 
 progress without increase; but in 1 Tim. iv. 15, the idea of increase is included and 
 the meaning is "profiting." The same idea seems to be expressed in Sir. Ii. 17; 
 it would seem to have the meaning of success or goal in 2 Mac. viii. 8. 
 
 6 Field: Notes on Transl. of New Test., 6. 
 
 6 Moulton and Milligan, Texical Notes from the Papyri Exp., vol. VII., ser. 7 
 (1909) 470. 
 
156 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 iv. 13; neither do they agree in regard to the meaning in Luke 
 ii. 52. Plummer holds it is not "age" which "would be rather 
 an empty truism here." l Yet to express "advanced in life" St. 
 Luke uses the perfect participle of lupo^aivw, "to go forward" 
 (i. 7, 18; ii. 36). Indeed we find xpo^acvw used with rfkiy.iq. where 
 the latter word certainly has the meaning of "age," namely, 2 
 Mac. iv. 40, also vi. 18. On account of this last mentioned fact, 
 and on account of the imperfect xpolxoxTsv signifying continual 
 advance, I would take tjXixcc? in Luke ii. 52, to mean "age." An 
 incident of Christ's twelfth year had just been recorded; when 
 He is next mentioned He is about thirty, in the meantime He 
 was advancing in "age" but not in "stature." 2 But whether 
 "age" or "stature" be understood, the Evangelist wishes to ex- 
 press the idea that Christ was advancing physically, He was con- 
 tinuing to be the subject of physical development. St. Luke 
 does not use the word "increase"; the force of xpox6xTG) is: He 
 continued to make advance or headway along the road of age or 
 stature. 
 
 Next, as to the concluding phrase, %dpiq is used in the same 
 sense as it was in vs. 40; xapa with the dative signifies place 
 where and is best rendered in English by "with." "He ad- 
 vanced in grace with God and men;" i.e. His good and beneficent 
 actions won the esteem and good will of those around Him; each 
 good act also was meritorious or had merit with God. 
 
 Lastly we come to what is more to our concern, xpolxoxTev Iv 
 Tfj aocpfqc. Here ao<pfqc is taken in the same sense as it was in vs. 
 40, "wisdom." Advance in wisdom would ordinarily imply the 
 acquiring of new wisdom. Does it here? What is the force of 
 the word "advanced" here? 
 
 In the first place, as we have said, it is clear that this verse 52 
 is intimately connected with the immediately preceding Temple 
 episode, which in its turn is connected with verse 40. The im- 
 perfects running through the principal verses from 40 to 52 mark 
 them off from what precedes and what follows; besides, the %a\ 
 at the beginning of both 41 and 52 serves as a connecting link, 
 so that this very difficult verse 52 is not to be taken out of 
 
 1 Comment, ad loc., 79. 
 
 2 Farmer agrees with this (HDG I. 229). 
 
CHRIST CHILD'S "WISDOM" AND "GRACE" 157 
 
 its context but should be understood in the light of what 
 precedes. 
 
 What St. Luke has previously written in verses 40, 47 and 
 49 seems clear enough. He states that Jesus as a little Child was 
 filled with wisdom, or was being filled with wisdom, and the 
 grace of God was in Him. He says that Jesus as a Boy of twelve 
 by His answers and His understanding exceedingly astonished all 
 who heard Him and created a scene which struck His own par- 
 ents with amazement. He records the first words of Jesus, men- 
 tioning God as His metaphysical Father, and referring to His 
 mission. He utters a reply to His mother which was of so far- 
 reaching a significance that it was understood only in the light of 
 after years. With this context we must understand verse 52, which 
 literally means : And Jesus continued to advance in (or proceed in or 
 make headway in) wisdom and age and favor with God and men. 
 
 Now the Evangelist does not use the word to "increase' ' or 
 " develop " but employs a word which means to advance, to pro- 
 ceed, and which in itself does not imply intrinsic increase to the 
 subject. Then it should be remarked that he does not say "in 
 His wisdom, in His age, in His favor with God and men," but he 
 uses these words generically suiting the idea expressed by iupox.6xTw. 
 An incident of Jesus' twelfth year had just been described and 
 St. Luke, wishing to span eighteen years of Christ's life, writes 
 that He advanced in age. "He continued along the road of age" 
 is the concept brought out by this verb, "to advance," and this 
 concept of continuing along is brought out whether TjXixfqt be 
 taken for "age" or "stature." 
 
 Xapiq is also used generically, no possessive pronoun being em- 
 ployed. On the occasion of the visit to the Temple, Jesus had 
 responded to the obligation He felt to be in His Father's house 
 or about His Father's business even to the sacrifice of His earthly 
 parents; how great was His favor with God; even as a little 
 Child the favor or grace of God was in Him. Does "advance in 
 the favor of God" mean that the amount was added to every 
 day? Evidently not, 1 nor does it mean that as His age or stat- 
 
 1 All Catholic theologians are agreed that Christ did not intrinsically increase 
 in grace, v. g. Pohle-Preuss (Christology, 237); and the Fathers and theologians 
 explain Lk. ii. 52, "merely as an outward manifestation of sanctifying grace." 
 Christ yet unborn was "holy" according Lk. i. 35. 
 
158 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 ure increased, so His favor with God and men increased. He al- 
 ready possessed the favor of God (40) ; the verb employed, mean- 
 ing simply to advance, expresses this idea (and need not express 
 any more), that as Jesus continued along the way of age or stat- 
 ure, so He continued along the way of favor with God and men; 
 He continued to perform acts which won the approval of God 
 and men. 
 
 Coming to "wisdom," we again remark that in this case too, 
 a possessive pronoun is not used, and whether we read the article 
 or not, a generic sense is expressed as in verse 40. It should be 
 borne in mind that "wisdom" is not synonymous with "knowl- 
 edge" but includes it. In His first recorded words Jesus had ut- 
 tered a saying which the parents "did not understand." He re- 
 vealed the knowledge of His Divine Sonship and His mission. In 
 the scene before the Doctors He displayed most extraordinary 
 (indeed we were led to believe preternatural) understanding. 
 Even as a little child Christ was filled with (or was being filled 
 with) wisdom. Does, then, the expression "advanced in wisdom," 
 in verse 52, signify that Christ continued to increase His amount 
 of wisdom? Since Jesus already displayed wonderful understand- 
 ing and knowledge, to hold that His wisdom increased daily would 
 necessarily require one to hold that He became more wonderful 
 every day — a view which is rejected by all. St. Luke does not 
 write "Jesus increased in wisdom," but "Jesus proceeded in wis- 
 dom." He continued along the road of wisdom, in other words, 
 He continued to do wise acts. 
 
 Very many writers interpret verse 52 to mean that Christ in- 
 creased in wisdom and age pari passu; as His age increased so 
 His wisdom. 1 These writers make the mistake of considering 
 this text in itself apart from its context; they should take up the 
 whole text, not only wisdom and age, but wisdom, age, and grace 
 with God and men, and consider it in the light of verses 40, 47 
 and 49. From His twelfth year just mentioned, Christ continued 
 along in age, He continued to win the favor of God (possessing 
 it as a little child), and to win the favor of men. He continued 
 
 1 Many conservative writers say this, and some even understand verse 52 to 
 mean that Christ just had the wisdom appropriate for His age at each step. How 
 then explain the great wisdom of the Public Life? 
 
CHRIST CHILD'S "WISDOM" AND "GRACE" 159 
 
 along in wisdom with which even as a little Child He was filled 
 and of which He gave a wonderful example in His twelfth year. 
 Briefly, verse 52 means, as Christ grew up He performed wise 
 and gracious acts, He grew up in wisdom and grace. 
 
 Employing the figure of speech known as zeugma, St. Luke 
 could use a verb signifying real increase in age or stature, yet not 
 entailing this in regard to wisdom and grace. 1 The verb that he 
 uses means simply "going forward" and does not in itself in- 
 clude increase to the subject. 
 
 Another point that is deserving of consideration: In vs. 52, 
 the Evangelist spans a number of years of Christ's life as he did 
 in vs. 40. When we allow for his love of variation of wording and 
 style, it will be seen that he expresses the same ideas in both 
 verses: Christ grew physically, He advanced in age or stat- 
 ure; He was filled with wisdom, He continued according to wis- 
 dom; the Grace of God was in Him, He continued to do gra- 
 cious acts. If one contends that a different condition existing in 
 the term after Christ's twelfth year explains St. Luke's change of 
 wording, still one cannot oppose our method of explaining vs. 52 
 in the light of vs. 40 without accusing St. Luke of inconsistency. 
 To say that real increase in wisdom and grace is expressed in vs. 
 52 is to say that the Evangelist contradicts what he had already 
 written. 
 
 The imperfect of the verb "to proceed" does not require the 
 meaning that Christ continued to display wonderful wisdom. 
 But this imperfect connected with the Temple episode might 
 imply that He continued to show wisdom. Doubtless He could 
 advance in wisdom without showing it, but Luke's authority for 
 the early chapters, Mary, could relate only what she saw or knew. 
 He showed that He was proceeding in age and in favor with God 
 and men, and He showed that He was proceeding in wisdom. St. 
 Cyril of Alexandria writes concerning Christ's display of knowl- 
 edge before the Doctors, "see how He advanced in wisdom through 
 His becoming known to many to be such." 2 We also hear such 
 
 1 Luke does use Zeugma in i. 64, "His mouth and tongue were opened," prob- 
 ably because he was translating from a Hebrew original. Cf. Torrey, Translation 
 made from Aramaic Gosp., 293. 
 
 2 M.PG LXXII. 508. In another place (Quod unus est Christus, 760 M.PG 
 LXXV. 1352) Cyril well says, "He economically allowed the measures of humanity 
 
160 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 explanations of vs. 52 as that of Ward, who says that "advanced" 
 means "not that His knowledge intrinsically increased, but that 
 it gradually declared itself more and more to those among whom 
 He lived." x In this quotation exception may be taken to the 
 "more and more," as is clear from what has been stated above, 
 for Christ had already shown wonderful knowledge; we would 
 confine ourselves to the meaning that His wisdom continued to 
 declare itself, or rather, He continued to act wisely. 
 
 The purpose here is not to formulate or prove any theory in 
 regard to Christ's increase in knowledge, but to endeavor to 
 reach the exact meaning of the texts with which we are con- 
 cerned. Certainly we hold that Jesus' experimental knowledge 2 
 increased since He was truly man and had human faculties, but 
 we wish to point out that this is not stated in Luke ii. 52. An 
 account of any of Christ's experiences or actions which repre- 
 sents Him as using His mental faculties would be as serviceable 
 for indicating His increase in experimental knowledge, as this 
 text which merely says that He proceeded in wisdom. 3 
 
 to have power over Himself." Some of the Fathers (perhaps on account of the con- 
 flict with Arianism) explain Lk. ii. 52, that Christ advanced according to human 
 nature. Theodoret, one of the latter explaining Christ's advance in wisdom, uses 
 Lk. ii. 49, as we have done. (De Incarnatione, M.PG LXXIV. 73.) 
 
 1 Saint Luke, 36. 
 
 2 Christ possessed a threefold knowledge: (1) that derived from the Beatific 
 Vision of God, (2) infused knowledge, and (3) acquired or experimental knowledge. 
 Concerning the first two kinds it has always been held that there was no increase, 
 concerning the last theologians have not been unanimous. St. Thomas at first 
 (III. Sent. Dist. XIV.) held there was no increase, but afterwards he changed his 
 mind and explained the matter thus: "Both the infused knowledge and the beatific 
 knowledge of Christ's soul were the effect of an agent of infinite power which could 
 produce the whole at once; and thus in neither knowledge did Christ advance, 
 since from the beginning He had them perfectly. But the acquired knowledge of 
 Christ is caused by the active intellect which does not produce the whole at once, 
 but successively; and hence by this knowledge Christ did not know everything 
 from the beginning, but step by step and after a time, i.e. in His perfect age: and 
 this is plain from what the Evangelist says, viz., that He increased in knowledge and 
 age together" (Sum. III. Q. xii, Art. 2 ad 1). This view is taken by many present- 
 day writers: Janssens (Tractatus de Deo Homine, I. 473), Hurter (Theologiae 
 dogmaticae Compendium, II. 461, Maas (Knowledge of J. C., Cath.Enc), Vonier 
 (Personality of Christ, 95 ff.), Pohle-Preuss (Christology, 247-277), Coughlan 
 (De Incarnatione, 146-167), Lepicier (De Incarnatione Verbi, 395-472). 
 
 3 This verse, Lk. ii. 52, was the main reason for the explanation of Jesus' increase 
 in human knowledge by some of the Fathers, and for the explanation of the increase 
 in experimental knowledge by later theologians. If our interpretation of the pas- 
 sage be accepted, it would seem that these explanations are not required; especially 
 no pari passu explanation is needed. 
 
CHRIST CHILD'S "WISDOM" AND "GRACE" 161 
 
 2. A SIGNIFICANT SILENCE IN THESE VERSES 
 
 The twelve verses, Luke ii. 40-52, which we have examined 
 were intended by the Evangelist to cover thirty years of Christ's 
 life. He first spans nearly twelve years in one verse in which he 
 refers to the Child's physical growth, remarking in opposition 
 that He was filled with wisdom (or being filled with wisdom), and 
 that the Grace of God was in Him. Then he gives an incident of 
 the twelfth year, in which the Boy gave evidence of preternatural 
 insight and consciousness of His mission and real Divine Sonship. 
 He ends the account of the episode and the account of Jesus' early 
 years by the reference to His proceeding or advancing in wisdom, 
 age and favor with God and men, — in one verse bridging over 
 eighteen years. 
 
 These twelve verses contain the only evangelical account of 
 nearly thirty years of the Master's Life. It must be said that 
 they are far from being an ordinary way of describing the growth 
 of a child to manhood; there is not the slightest attempt to ac- 
 count for the Great Person Who, in so short a time, left such an 
 impression on the world; there is not even an attempt to account 
 for His great knowledge and divine self-consciousness either of 
 His public life or His twelfth year. Whence came this knowledge 
 and self -consciousness? One should be able to account for it 
 if Christ was merely human. How is it that Luke does not tell 
 us that Jesus received his knowledge under the guidance of some 
 great philosopher? In this regard Luke is not silent concerning 
 other men about whom he wrote; for example, about the wise 
 Joseph, who from being a slave became the governor of all Egypt; 
 "and (God) gave him favor and wisdom in the sight of Pharao," 
 Acts vii. 10; about the great Lawgiver, Moses, "and Moses was 
 instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians" (Acts vii. 22); 
 about Paul the orator and apostle to the Gentiles, "brought up 
 in this City, at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the truth 
 of the law of the fathers, " Acts xxii. 3. Christ is never mentioned 
 as having received instructions at the feet of any Gamaliel; it is 
 not mentioned in the Gospels that He even went to any school. 
 
 The Synoptics seem to imply that Christ did not receive His 
 great knowledge in any school. They tell us that the people of 
 
162 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 the town "where He was brought up" could not account for His 
 wisdom, Mtt. xiii. 54; Mk. vi. 2, 3; Lk. iv. 22; nor can Lk. iv. 16 
 be cited as proving that Jesus had attended school, for as Plummer 
 (Comment, ad loc. p. 118) states, "it is best to confine xaTa t6 
 eEw0&<; to the clause in which it is imbedded and not carry it on 
 to av£<JTT) ivayvwvac." In any case it only refers to Christ's custom 
 on Sabbath days. The Fourth Evangelist makes Christ's hearers 
 state that He was unschooled xw<; o5to<; f pdft&aca oISsv ^ 
 ^s^aOiQxwc; (vii. 15), and makes Christ Himself explain in the fol- 
 lowing verse (16), "My doctrine is not Mine, but His that sent 
 Me"; again viii. 28: "as the Father hath taught Me, these 
 things I speak" (cf. also viii. 19, 20, 26). This same Evangelist" 
 who has it that Christ was unschooled, mentions His writing on the 
 ground, viii. 6, 8; and twice (xvi. 30; xxi. 17) represents an 
 apostle as saying that He knew all things. Cf. also Jn. iii. 2; 
 xviii. 37. The Messiah was to know all things, cf. Jn. iv. 25; Is. 
 Iv. 4. In all tradition there is not the slightest implication that 
 Jesus learned from any human being; the Apocryphal Gospels 
 contain curious stories about His being brought to school, but 
 they always make it clear that on the first day He knew more than 
 His teacher. St. Thomas holds that Christ's human knowledge 
 came by discovery, not by teaching, for he writes, "it was more 
 fitting for Christ to possess a knowledge acquired by discovery 
 than by teaching" (Summa, Part III. Q. ix, Art. 4 ad i), and in 
 Q. xii. art. 3, he shows that Christ did not learn anything from 
 men. An objection may be brought from Heb. ii. 17, "it behooved 
 Him in all things (wzb xtzvTa) to be made like unto His breth- 
 ren ..." We know from St. Paul himself that sin is excepted 
 (v.g. Heb. iv. 15) ; from the Gospel narrative, we know that miracu- 
 lous power is excepted, and we know too that there is excepted a 
 miraculous knowledge and a peculiar self -consciousness; could not 
 the manner of receiving His knowledge be excepted also? It is not 
 required by the context of the passage of Hebrews; it would 
 suffice that Christ merely take our flesh "that He might become a 
 merciful and faithful high priest before God, that He might be a 
 propitiation for the sins of the people." In this same epistle, v. 8, 
 "He learned obedience by the things which He suffered" is not a 
 serious objection; it signifies He practiced obedience, and is much 
 similar to the thought, "He was obedient unto death even unto 
 the death of the cross" (Philipp. ii. 8). Most Protestant theolo- 
 gians in explaining the Kenosis think it necessary to admit Christ's 
 ignorance and His need of learning like an ordinary child, but as 
 
CHRIST CHILD'S "WISDOM" AND "GRACE" 163 
 
 Vonier says, "it is a very strange phase of thought in our own days 
 to look for moral progress to ignorance instead of to knowledge, 
 as does the older theology" (Personality of Christ, 105). 
 
 As has previously been stated, there probably existed at the 
 time of Our Lord, a primary school at Nazareth; Edersheim * 
 and others say that Jesus probably attended it. There is not the 
 slightest reference to this in historical documents, which rather 
 create a presumption against this view. But whatever view one 
 may take of this matter, it is certain that Jesus did not attend 
 any higher school. All evidence shows that He "never studied 
 at any of the scribal colleges." 2 It is important to note that 
 Christ, who afterwards (v.g. Matthew xix. 1-12; Luke xx. 20-47) 
 showed His superiority over those trained in rabbinical discus- 
 sion, who as a Boy of twelve in the midst of the Doctors as- 
 tounded all byrHis understanding and His answers, did not re- 
 ceive any rabbinical education; He did not live in a theological 
 atmosphere; He was not an inhabitant of the land famed for its 
 Rabbis, Judea, nor of Jerusalem, the City of the Chief Priests 
 and Doctors. He belonged to Galilee, a by- word among the 
 Southerners for ignorance and uncouthness (cf. John vii. 52), and 
 was a citizen of the town of Nazareth, from which nothing good 
 was expected (John i. 46). St. Luke explicitly stated He was 
 brought up there (^v Te0payipi£vo<;, iv. 16), and all historical evi- 
 dence bears this out. 3 
 
 How then shall we account for Christ's great knowledge and 
 self -consciousness? Since no teacher is responsible, the only 
 other natural explanation that could be offered is Jesus' surround- 
 ings, His own meditations on nature and Sacred Scripture, and 
 this is the explanation which is offered by many modern writers. 
 Stapfer 4 and others go through several pages describing the 
 natural beauties of Nazareth, the historical surroundings, the im- 
 
 1 Life and Times of J., I. 233. 
 
 2 Smith, Education, HDG I. 508. Even Harnack says, "It is improbable that 
 He went through any rabbinical school" (What is Christianity, 31). 
 
 3 Lk. ii. 39, 51; Mtt. ii. 23; iv. 13; Mk. i. 9; vi. 1; Jn. i. 45, 46; Ac. x. 
 38. As to His profession Christ was a carpenter, Mk. vi. 3; Justin (Dialogue, 88), 
 and "Gospel of Thomas" (1st Gr. Form, XIII.) add "making ploughs and yokes" 
 — but these were then made of wood. 
 
 4 J. C. before His Ministry, see especially 35-7. Mere possible influences 
 occupy Farquhar, The Schools and Schoolmasters of Christ, London, 1901. 
 
164 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 pressive Jewish ceremonial, the inspirations likely to be awakened 
 from familiarity with the Old Testament writings, contending 
 that these externals gave birth to and developed in Christ His 
 peculiar self -consciousness. But represent these as one will, were 
 they not at the disposal of every Israelite? And how answer the 
 pointed question: Why did a cause so common and so general 
 produce in Christ and in Him alone a result altogether excep- 
 tional and special? If the causes were sufficient to produce such 
 knowledge and self-consciousness in Jesus, why did they not pro- 
 duce the like in other children of Israel? Why was Christ an ex- 
 ception to His contemporaries and the companions of His youth? 
 These questions come to one's mind and require to be answered 
 by those who put forward Christ's historical surroundings and 
 His Jewish bringing up as an explanation of His great knowledge 
 and self -consciousness. Besides, the explanations brought for- 
 ward are devoid of historical foundation, they are even excluded 
 by historical evidence. St. Luke preserves a strange and signifi- 
 cant silence, recording only the facts; but these facts exclude any 
 natural explanation, for the Evangelist represents Christ as hav- 
 ing exceptional knowledge and self-consciousness, not only in His 
 thirtieth year, but also in His twelfth, and records that as a Child 
 He was filled with (or kept full or being filled with) wisdom, and 
 that the grace of God was in Him. There was no time or room 
 for natural causes to produce naturally an effect in Him. St. 
 Luke gives no explanation; he does not state any cause for or 
 record any origin of Christ's knowledge and self-consciousness. 
 The argument of silence is of value here, the silence is highly sig- 
 nificant; it implies that the origin of Christ's knowledge and self- 
 consciousness is to be sought in Christ's own origin and nature, 
 which had previously been described by the Evangelist. 
 
 From the above considerations we can easily see that scholars 
 who wish to follow the Gospel records can find no natural ex- 
 planation for Christ's knowledge and self-consciousness. Even 
 Wendt in his explanation has to postulate "a miraculous Divine 
 endowment." 1 After describing the training of Jewish boys, 
 Brough confesses that "the growth, in such an atmosphere, of an 
 individual so unique is the work of something that is more than 
 1 The Teaching of J., 94. 
 
CHRIST CHILD'S "WISDOM" AND "GRACE" 165 
 
 human." ! Ewald explicitly states that "Jesus would never have 
 become what He subsequently became in the light of the great 
 public history of His life, if His mind had not from the first re- 
 ceived the Divine designation and power needful for it," 2 and 
 he refers to the matter as "superhistorical," and after saying that 
 he could not find anywhere any signs of the origin of Christ's self- 
 consciousness, Dalman rightly argues that "if Jesus was con- 
 scious of no beginning in His peculiar relationship to God, it 
 must, of course, have had its genesis with His birth; and fur- 
 ther, God must have so participated in assigning that position, 
 that the human factors concerned fell entirely into the back- 
 ground." 3 
 
 The silence then in these two verses, 40 and 52, which cover 
 nearly thirty years of Christ's Life is fraught with significance 
 implying that the origin and explanation of the wisdom with 
 which Jesus was filled and in which He proceeded are to be sought 
 in Christ's own origin and nature, and are supernatural; the fact 
 that Jesus as a Child was filled with wisdom is itself supernatural; 
 verse 52 offers no objection to the conclusion in our main chap- 
 ter, as it can and should be explained in its context; and finally 
 verse 40, far from opposing, rather strongly confirms our conclu- 
 sion, — the fact that Jesus as a Child was filled with wisdom adds 
 weight to the other arguments for the full and real meaning of 
 the words "My Father" on His lips in His twelfth year. 4 
 
 1 Early Life of Our Lord, 46. 
 
 2 History of Israel, VI. 189. 
 
 3 Words of J., 86. 
 
 4 Condemned propositions ex deer. S. Off. Lamentabile, 3 Julii 1907 (Denzinger, 
 Encheridion, p. 541): XXII. Conciliari nequit sensus natural is textuum evangeli- 
 corum cum eo quod nostri theologi docent de conscientia et scientia infallibili Jesu 
 Christi, XXXIII. Criticus nequit asserere Christo scientiam nullo circumscriptam 
 limite nisi facta hypothesi, quae historice haud concipi potest quaeque sensui morali 
 repugnat, nempe Christum uti hominem habuisse scientiam Dei et nihilominus 
 noluisse notitiam tot rerum communicare cum disciputis ac posteritate. XXXV. 
 Christus non semper habuit conscientiam suae dignitatis messianicae. 
 
SECTION VI 
 
 JESUS' FIRST RECORDED WORDS AND THE 
 REMOTE CONTEXT 
 
CHAPTER XIV 
 THE WHOLE LUCAN ACCOUNT OF CHRIST 
 
 1. THE INFANCY SECTION 
 
 The Angel of the Annunciation foretells the great contrast 
 that exists between Christ and John the Baptist. To Zachary he 
 says, "Thy wife Elizabeth shall bear thee a son" (i. 13); but to 
 Mary, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee and the power of 
 the Most High shall overshadow thee" (i. 35). He prophesies 
 that John "shall be great before the Lord" (i. 15), Jesus simply, 
 "shall be great" (i. 32); John "shall be filled with the Holy 
 Ghost" (i. 15); Jesus is to be conceived of the Holy Ghost (i. 35) ; 
 and while John "shall convert many of the children of Israel to 
 the Lord their God, and he shall go before Him in the spirit and 
 power of Elias" (i. 16, 17), Jesus "shall be called 1 the Son of the 
 Most High; and the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of 
 David His Father; and He shall reign in the house of Jacob for- 
 ever, and of His Kingdom there shall be no end" (i. 32, 33). 
 What a contrast between Jesus and John do these texts bring 
 out! Jesus is far superior; He is even to be conceived of the 
 Holy Ghost, hence the reason why He is to be in reality "the Son 
 of the Most High" (i. 32), "the Son of God" (i. 35)! 
 
 Zachary himself said of his son, "Thou, child, shall be called 
 the prophet of the highest, for thou shalt go before the face of 
 the Lord and prepare His ways" (i. 76); while Mary sang, "From 
 henceforth all generations shall call me blessed, because He that 
 is mighty hath done great things to me" (i. 48, 49) — appropri- 
 ate words on the lips of the mother of God. She is declared to 
 be such in reality, by Elizabeth, for while the unborn Baptist did 
 homage to the unborn Saviour (i. 41), she cried in joy and amaze- 
 
 1 "Shall be called" is equivalent to "is," cf. Bardenhewer, Maria VerkUndigung, 
 113, 151. 
 
170 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 ment, "Whence is this to me that the mother of my Lord, 
 (tj ^iy)ty]ptou xuptou jjlou) should come to me? " (i. 43). Christ is again 
 called "Lord" by an "angel of the Lord" (ayyeXo*; xupfou, ii. 9), 
 proclaiming to the shepherds that there was born to them a 
 Saviour who is Christ the Lord (Xgiwbq Kupioq, ii. 11). It is to 
 be noticed that the same word, x6pco<;, which is applied to Al- 
 mighty God in ii. 9, is applied by the angel to the new-born Babe 
 (ii. 11), and was applied by Elizabeth to the unborn Babe (i. 43). 
 His birth, too, was signaled by a multitude of the heavenly army 
 filling the air with their song, "Glory to God in the highest; and 
 on earth peace to men of good will" (ii. 14). The Child was not 
 many weeks old, when holy Simeon who had been informed by 
 the Holy Ghost that he would not die till he should see the Christ 
 of the Lord (Xpicrr&v Kuptou, ii. 26), blessing God for the fulfill- 
 ment of the promise, said, "My eyes have seen Thy salvation 
 ... a light to the revelation of the Gentiles and the glory of 
 thy people, Israel" (ii. 30, 31). Also the prophetess Anna ac- 
 knowledged God 1 and "spoke of Him to all who looked for the 
 redemption of Israel" (ii. 38). 
 
 In harmony with all this, and crowning it all, comes the next 
 episode described by the Evangelist in which Christ as a Boy of 
 twelve displayed supernatural understanding and referred to God 
 as His true Father about whose concerns He must be (or in whose 
 house He must be). Must not Jesus' words be interpreted in the 
 light of the Virgin Birth previously described, of which it is a 
 confirmation? The angel had foretold that Christ would be the 
 Son of God because of His supernatural conception through the 
 Holy Ghost (i. 32, 35), and as Dalman points out "the words of 
 the angel, i. 35, explain for the readers the meaning of 6 ulbq to 0so u 
 by expressed reference to the unique nature of the birth of 
 Jesus." 2 The words "My Father" on the lips of the Boy Jesus 
 are co-relative to the angel's words "the Son of God" and are to 
 be understood in accordance with the supernatural conception by 
 the Holy Spirit, namely real Divine Sonship. Since the Evangel- 
 ist had described this divine origin of Jesus, he felt no need of de- 
 
 1 Some MSS. have xvpios here. Here as in ii. 50, is an example of St. Luke's use 
 of a pronoun whose reference is ambiguous. 
 
 2 Words of J., 288, cf. Sweet. The Birth and Infancy of Jesus Christ, 258-9, 
 Felder, Jesus Christus, I. 286 ff. Box, Virgin Birth, 107. 
 
THE WHOLE LUCAN ACCOUNT OF CHRIST 171 
 
 fining the meaning of the words "My Father" in ii. 49 and he 
 felt no need of giving explanations of Christ's extraordinary wis- 
 dom and grace in ii. 40 and 52. 
 
 2. THE BEGINNING OF THE MINISTRY 
 
 The scene opens with John the Baptist, who prepares the way, 
 "preaching the baptism of penance for the remission of sins" 
 (iii. 3). He made such an impression on the people that they 
 thought in their hearts "that perhaps he might be the Christ" 
 (3.15). The great Forerunner, the greatest among those born of 
 woman (vii. 28), who, with his thundering denunciations was 
 making Israel tremble, unhesitatingly answered in the negative 
 and generously pointed to another, to one far superior to him- 
 self, "There shall come one mightier than I, the latchet of whose 
 shoes I am not worthy to loose; he shall baptize you with the 
 Holy Ghost and with fire" (iii. 16). This other was to be so 
 closely connected with God that He was to baptize with the 
 Holy Ghost. 
 
 One day, among the crowds who flocked to the banks of the 
 Jordan, Jesus Himself appeared and was baptized. This is how 
 St. Luke describes the event (iii. 21, 22): "Jesus also being bap- 
 tized and praying, heaven was opened; and the Holy Spirit de- 
 scended in a bodily shape, as a dove upon Him; and a voice 
 came from Heaven: "Thou art My beloved Son; in Thee I am 
 well pleased" (au el 6 ui&q ^ou 6 dya%r\':6q, iv aol euS6xT)cra). 1 This 
 
 1 D a b c ff 2 1 r Justin (Dial, 88, M.PG VI. 688), Clement of Alex. (Paed. I. 6, 
 M.PG VIII. 279), and the Gospel of the Ebionites (cf. Epiphanius Adv. Haer. Lib. 
 I. 5, ii. 30, n. 13, M.PG XLI. 429; three voices from heaven are here given: Thou 
 art My beloved Son, etc. This is My beloved Son, etc., and I have this day begotten 
 Thee) and others (cf. Sanday H D B IV. 572), in giving these words have a reflec- 
 tion of Ps. ii. 7, namely, uios fiov el av, iyu) arnxepov yeyepvrjxti. <re. This is claimed 
 to be the primitive reading by those who contend that Christ only became con- 
 scious of His Divine Sonship at His baptism. But as Dalman remarks, "This 
 reading may equally well have arisen as an after-thought, because, apart from the 
 doctrinal preconception, it was only too probable that the Divine words which re- 
 called Ps. ii. 7, should be made to agree to the terms of the psalm" (Words of J., 
 277) . Sanday (op. cit.) with other arguments points out the presumption against 
 the originality of this reading. Justin, who uses this reading, explains it: Not that 
 Christ became the Son of God then, but that "His generation would take place for 
 men, at the time when they would become acquainted with Him" (Dial. 88 PG VI. 
 688). The Gospel of the Hebrews has it, "That the Holy Ghost resting upon 
 Christ said to Him: Fili mi, in omnibus prophetis expectabam te, ut venires, et 
 requiescerem in te. Tu es enim requiea mea, tu es Fihus meus primogenitus, qui 
 
172 £ THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 baptism account deserves our close attention on account of views 
 and inferences, opposed to our conclusion from the study of Luke 
 ii. 49, views held by certain early heretics who attached Christo- 
 logical importance to Christ's baptism, inferences drawn by nearly 
 all modern non-conservative scholars, when they contend that the 
 baptism marks the awakening of Christ's Messianic conscious- 
 ness; that on the banks of the Jordan, Jesus first got the idea of 
 His being the Son of God, — the heavenly voice being only the 
 internal voice of His consciousness assuring Him of the fact. 1 
 Concerning the views of the early heretics, we need only to quote 
 Irenaeus: "It certainly was in the power of the Apostles to de- 
 clare that Christ descended upon Jesus, or that the so-called Su- 
 perior Saviour (came down) upon the dispensational one, or He 
 who is from the invisible places upon him from the Demiurge; 
 but they neither knew nor said anything of the kind, for, had 
 they known it, they would have also certainly stated it. But 
 what really was the case, that did they record (namely) that the 
 Spirit of God as a dove descended upon Him." 2 
 
 Now as to the modern theories: In the first place, may the 
 descent of the Holy Ghost and the heavenly voice be considered 
 an internal experience? This is directly opposed to the represen- 
 tation of St. Luke, who explicitly states that the Holy Ghost 
 came in bodily shape (awyiaTixq) elBst) as a dove (iii. 22). And 
 St. Luke's account is confirmed by the Fourth Gospel, according 
 to which John says, "I saw the Spirit as a dove from heaven and 
 He remained upon Him" (i. 32). It is true that neither Matthew 
 
 regnas in sempiternam (Jerome in Isa. xi. 4; in his Comment. Lib. IV. c. XI., M.PL 
 XXIV. D. 145). This implies the contrary to the modern view. In the other quota- 
 tion of this Gospel preserved by Jerome (Adv. Pelag. III. 2, M.PL XXIII. 570-571), 
 when in answer to His parents, who asked Him to go up and be baptized by John, 
 Jesus replied: "When have I sinned that I should go up and be baptized by Him, 
 except perchance, this very thing which I have said is ignorance?" "Ignorantia" 
 does not refer to self-consciousness. Augustine (Harmony of the Gospels II. 14, 
 N.P-NF (1st ser.) VI. 120) refers to the fact that some codices of St. Luke have the 
 reading: " This day have I begotten Thee," and he explains the matter on the ground 
 that there was more than one voice from heaven. We may add that St. Paul 
 applies Ps. ii. 7 to the Resurrection of Christ, Ac. xiii. 33; Heb. i. 5; v. 5. 
 
 1 The modern view concerning the origin of Christ's self-consciousness at the 
 baptism is not found among the views of the early heretics. The early views were 
 all objective, with no reference to Christ's self-consciousness as such. Besides, 
 unlike the modern view, they were not based on the heavenly voice, "This is My 
 beloved Son." 
 
 * Adv. Haer. III. 17, 1. A-NF I. 444. 
 
THE WHOLE LUCAN ACCOUNT OF CHRIST 173 
 
 (iii. 16) nor Mark (i. 10) refer to the bodily form of the dove, 
 but they both say that the Holy Ghost came "as a dove"; and 
 while stating that Jesus saw the dove, they do not affirm that 
 He alone saw it. As to the heavenly voice, if as radical scholars 
 contend it is the all-important part of the account, symbolizing 
 Jesus' consciousness arriving at assuredness, how is it that John 
 does not give this at all? All the three Synoptics have "a voice 
 from the heavens" (Luke writing "heaven"), implying that it 
 was external; none of them mentions the fact that Christ heard 
 it; indeed, Matthew intimates that it was intended for the by- 
 standers, for he gives the words thus, "This is (not, 'Thou art') 
 My Beloved Son in whom I am well pleased" (iii. 17). In the 
 Fourth Gospel the Baptist states that the descending of the dove 
 was a sign for him (i. 33, 34), "He who sent me to baptize with 
 water said to me: He upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit de- 
 scending . . . and I saw, etc." From all these indications it is 
 clear that the descent of the Holy Ghost and the heavenly voice 
 were external. To explain them by an internal experience is to 
 argue subjectively and to disregard the text. 1 
 
 We go on to the further question: Did the baptism mark a 
 crisis in Christ's conscious life? Did it mark the awakening of 
 His Divine self -consciousness, or its arrival at assuredness? Those 
 who hold the affirmative point to the heavenly voice, "Thou art 
 My beloved Son in whom I am well pleased" — the voice of His 
 consciousness, they claim, telling Him He is God's Son. Accord- 
 ing to the Gospel narrative, as we have shown, the heavenly voice 
 as well as the coming of the Holy Ghost in the form of a dove, 
 must be understood as external manifestations. More than this, 
 in none of the inspired accounts, is there a single reference to 
 Christ's self-consciousness, much less a statement of any crisis or 
 development. St. Matthew even implies that before the baptism 
 Jesus was conscious of His dignity, for according to this Evangel- 
 ist, to John who expostulated, "I have a need to be baptized by 
 Thee, and comest Thou to me" (iii. 14), the Saviour acknowl- 
 edging the truth of John's remark replied: "Suffer it now, for 
 
 1 Cf. Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. III. 9, 3, A-NF I. 423); Origen (Adv. Celsus, I. xli ff. 
 A-NF IV. 413 ff.), St. Thomas (Summa Theol. III., Q. XXIX. 8), Bomemann 
 (Die Taufe Christi), Lepin (Christ and the Gospel, 251), Felder (Jesus Christus, I. 
 262, 275). 
 
174 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 thus it becometh us to fulfil all justice" (iii. 15). » Finally, if the 
 heavenly voice "Thou art My Beloved Son, in Thee I am well 
 pleased" is only an indication of Christ's arrival at full self -con- 
 sciousness, how is it that we again hear this voice uttering the 
 same words on the Mount of Transfiguration (Matthew xvii. 5; 
 Mark ix. 6; Luke ix. 9, 35; cf. 2 Peter i. 17)? In the theory of 
 non-conservative writers, this cannot be explained. And this 
 theory has not only to explain the voice, but also the coming of 
 the Holy Ghost in the form of a dove, which could have no in- 
 ternal signification for Jesus, who is described as born of the Holy 
 Spirit in the records of both Matthew and Luke. We may add 
 that if for the Evangelists, the baptism witnessed Christ's awak- 
 ening to self -consciousness, it is hard to explain how so impor- 
 tant an event is not plainly described by them, how they do not 
 refer to it, how they create the very opposite impression. 2 
 
 Judging from the sacred narratives the incidents at the bap- 
 tism were external, they marked no change in Christ's idea of His 
 Messiahship and Divine Sonship, rather they were a confirmation 
 of these intended not for Jesus Himself but for John and the by- 
 standers, as is made clear in the accounts of Matthew ("This is," 
 iii. 17), Luke ("In bodily shape" iii. 22), and John ("I saw and 
 gave testimony" i. 34). As Dalman 3 rightly concludes, "the 
 Evangelists give an account of the voice, not on account of any 
 importance which the reception of such a divine voice might pos- 
 sibly have for Jesus, but in the sense of impressive testimonies 
 that Jesus really was what His disciples before the world pro- 
 
 1 Cf. D'Arcy (HDG I. 362). This is implied too by the Gospel according to the 
 Hebrews .which represents Christ as saying to his mother and his brethren that He 
 had not any need to be baptized (Jerome Adv. Pel. III. 2, M.PL XXIII. 570). 
 An anonymous Tractatus de Rebaptismate (XVII), written by a contemporary 
 of St. Cyprian, says that a book called the Pauli Praedicatio represents Christ 
 "confessing His own sin — although He alone did not sin at all — and almost com- 
 pelled by His mother Mary unwillingly to receive John's baptism" (A-NF V. 677) . 
 
 2 Against the modern view of Christ's baptism we have confined ourselves to 
 the reasons drawn from the Gospel account; there are other reasons, for instance, 
 the silence of St. Paul; as Sanday says, "There is not a single reference in the whole 
 of his writings to our Lord's baptism, as a landmark or turning point in His career" 
 (Life of Christ in Recent Research, 133). Besides the modern views cannot boast 
 that they are according to the principles of psychology. Why should the baptism 
 have the effect they claim, on Jesus, and not on anybody else? Was not Christ 
 just emerging from private life, having no experience as a teacher or preacher? What 
 was the relation of the coming of the Holy Ghost to Christ's self-consciousness? 
 
 8 Words of J., 280. 
 
THE WHOLE LUCAN ACCOUNT OF CHRIST 175 
 
 claimed Him to be." So that instead of containing anything 
 derogatory to the result in Section IV, the baptism account 
 brings a confirmatory argument; the resting on Jesus of the Holy 
 Spirit, and the Heavenly Father intervening so far in Jesus' be- 
 half as loudly to proclaim Him as His beloved Son, are a further 
 confirmation of the view that when the latter in His twelfth year 
 called God, "My Father," He signified metaphysical relation. 
 
 St. Luke goes on to remark that when Jesus began His minis- 
 try He was about thirty years of age and was supposed (w<; 
 ivo^eTO, iii- 23) to be the son of Joseph; the Evangelist thus in- 
 dicating that he bears in mind the Virgin Birth which he had 
 previously described. In the genealogy which he subjoins the 
 disciple of St. Paul mentions seventy-two members, — the sym- 
 bol of universality; x and contrary to the previously universal 
 custom, he enumerates the members backwards, placing Jesus the 
 Saviour of all at the head and ending with the climax, tou 6sou 
 (iii. 38). This expression, coming after the proclamation of the 
 Heavenly Father, coming after the episode in the Temple, after 
 the account of the Virgin Birth, is truly the keystone proclama- 
 tion of Divine Sonship. It is in perfect harmony with what pre- 
 cedes, tracing as it does Jesus' human lineage back to God. 
 
 The sacred historian then resumes the account of Christ's life 
 which he had brought to the baptism, and tells us that Jesus re- 
 turned from the Jordan "full of the Holy Ghost" (iv. 1). This 
 same Holy Spirit leads Him into the desert where He was tempted 
 by the devil (iv. 2, 13). Three temptations are described, 2 and 
 in two of them Satan addresses Christ thus, "If Thou art the Son 
 of God" (Luke iv. 3, 9; cf. Matthew iv. 3, 6). 
 
 In the first place, these temptations are not mere internal ex- 
 periences. To hold this one must entirely disregard the Gospel 
 narrative, which contains accurate references to places — a real 
 desert (Luke iv. 1; Matthew iv. 1; Mark i. 12), a real mountain 
 (Luke iv. 5, which supposes Matthew iv. 8), a real temple (Luke 
 iv. 9; Matthew iv. 5) — and which describes real actions, e.g., 
 
 1 Cf . Heer, Die Stammbaume Jesu, 53 ff. 
 
 2 The order of the last two is different in St. Matthew (iv. 5-10). Although 
 Luke is generally more careful in chronological details, yet Matthew's order is 
 preferable. Cf. Gigot, Studies in the Synoptics, NYR I (1905) 3, pp. 365-366; Har- 
 nack, The Sayings of J., 43-44. 
 
176 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 Satan conducting Him (Luke iv. 5, 9; Matthew iv. 5, 8), the 
 dialogue with the Old Testament quotations (e.g., Luke iv. 4; 
 Matthew iv. 4). 
 
 And secondly: Since these temptations are not internal, by 
 no means do they signify that Christ was struggling in His self- 
 consciousness, and that the voice of the tempter, "If thou be the 
 Son of God" indicated that He had not yet the full conviction of 
 His Messiahship and Divine Sonship. The Second Gospel, which 
 the negative school gives the credit for being the most primitive, 
 allows only one verse for the account of the temptation, omitting 
 altogether the dialogue with Satan. In none of the sacred ac- 
 counts is there mention of His self-consciousness, nor are any of 
 the temptations bearing directly on His nature or mission; in 
 fact, His replies to the devil show assertiveness and conviction, 
 — the contrary of doubt or hesitation. 1 
 
 The temptation was a real occurrence, in which a personal 
 tempter appearing in bodily form made outward suggestions to 
 Jesus. Placed at the beginning of His Public Life it is meant to 
 emphasize the fact that He discarded human means and the 
 worldly Messiah (along which lines the temptations run) and to 
 show that His manner of life was deliberately willed by Him. 
 How appropriate this self-conscious way of acting is for one who 
 realizes He is the Son of God! It is to be remarked that while 
 Satan in two of his suggestions says, "If Thou art the Son of 
 God," referring back to the words of the heavenly voice at the 
 baptism, 2 Christ does not answer "No" to this part of the 
 tempter's question. His mode of procedure implies that He 
 knew He was the Son of God. 
 
 When all the temptation had been ended, Jesus began His 
 Public Ministry. He "returned in the power of the spirit into 
 Galilee and the fame of Him went out through the whole coun- 
 try" (Luke iv. 14). We see that immediately on His first ap- 
 pearance, He makes a deep impression, winning widespread fame 
 and receiving the applause of all for His teaching, as the next 
 verse tells us: "And He taught in their Synagogues, and was 
 magnified by all" (iv. 15). As examples, Luke describes His first 
 
 1 Cf . D'Arcy, Consciousness, HDG I. 362. 
 
 2 Cf. Dalman, Words of J.. 275; Robertson: Epochs in the Life of J., 20. 
 
THE WHOLE LUCAN ACCOUNT OF CHRIST 177 
 
 visit to Nazareth where He was brought up (iv. 16-30), and an 
 early visit to Capharnaum, the city which He afterwards so much 
 loved (iv. 31-44). In the former place Christ applied to Himself 
 a Messianic prophecy; in the latter place He spoke "with power" 
 and cured diverse diseases, and said to those who wanted to de- 
 tain Him there "to other cities also I must preach the Kingdom 
 of God, since for this end am I sent" (Luke iv. 43). 
 
 The account of the opening of Christ's Public Ministry, there- 
 fore, does not inform us that, during it, He got the idea either of 
 His divine mission or nature. There is not the slightest hint to 
 that effect. There is here asserted that the Heavenly Father pro- 
 claimed Him as His "beloved Son," that Satan addressed Him, 
 "If thou art the Son of God," that devils recognized Him as the 
 "Son of God," and there is given no denial on His part, nor 
 is there given even an intimation that He doubted about His 
 mission or nature. On the contrary, there are brought out His 
 unwavering conviction and His full realization of His calling, 
 during His first appearance at Nazareth, where He applied to 
 Himself the Messianic prophecy of Isaias, and in His early visit 
 to Capharnaum, where He announced that He must preach the 
 kingdom of God. It is to be remarked that there is nowhere de- 
 scribed, nor is there even any reference to, any beginning of His 
 Divine self-consciousness. The impression directly and indi- 
 rectly created by the Gospel record is that Christ came to His 
 public career fully self-conscious. 
 
 3. THE PUBLIC LIFE 
 
 According to the Third Gospel, Christ, in His Public Life, 
 both directly and indirectly declared He was the real Son of God. 
 St. Luke not only represents Christ as reading the very hearts of 
 men (e.g., v. 21, 22; vii. 39, 40; xi. 39), as foretelling future 
 events (e.g., ix. 22, 44; x. 14, 15; xxi. 20-24) and as performing 
 many and great miracles (cf. vi. 19); but he also represents 
 Christ as acting the part of God, for he describes how He worked 
 miracles in His own name and authority (e.g., vii. 14; viii. 24, 
 54; ix. 43), how He imparted to His disciples the power of work- 
 ing miracles by His authority and in His name (ix. 1, 2, 6; x. 9, 
 
178 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 17; cf. Acts iii. 6, 16; iv. 10, 30; ix. 34; xvi. 18), and how He 
 claimed the power of forgiving sins (v. 20, 24; vii. 48; xix. 10). 
 St. Luke represents Christ as taking the place of God, for he in- 
 forms us that He set Himself up in the place of Jahweh as the 
 spouse of immortal souls (v. 34), that He declared that for His 
 sake one must hate one's relatives and even one's life (xiv. 26), 
 and assured His fellowmen that "he that shall lose his life for My 
 sake, shall save it" (ix. 24). 
 
 The Third Evangelist represents Christ as assuming preroga- 
 tives which presuppose Him to be God, for he depicts Him as 
 announcing He is "Lord also of the Sabbath" (vi. 5), as claim- 
 ing to be the Great Judge of all men at the last day (ix. 26; xii. 
 8, 9; xxi. 27; xxii. 69), as possessing authority to send the Holy 
 Ghost (xxiv. 49; cf. Acts i. 4, 8), as allowing Himself to be 
 adored (xpocxuvifjcravTsq) by His apostles and disciples (xxiv. 52), 
 as rising from the dead and manifesting Himself to His disciples 
 during a period of forty days (xxiv. 26, 31, 34, 36 ff; Acts i. 3), 
 and as ascending into heaven (xxiv. 51; Acts i. 9). 
 
 In this Gospel, by His pointed question as to how David 
 should call His son Lord (xx. 41, 44; cf. Matthew xxii. 41, 46; 
 Mark xii. 35, 37) Christ adverts to the fact that the Messiah is in 
 reality Son of One more exalted than David, that is, the Son of 
 God. 1 According to this same evangelical record, Jesus fre- 
 quently calls God His Father (ix. 26; x. 21, 22; xxii. 29, 42; 
 xxiii. 34, 46; xxiv. 49) , 2 thus distinguishing His own Sonship 
 from the sonship of all others (cf. xi. 2); and in the parable of 
 the wicked husbandmen (xx. 9, 19; cf. Matthew xxi. 33, 46; 
 Mark xii. 1, 12), sharply distinguishing from the whole series of 
 servants the "beloved son" as the sole heir, He indirectly says 
 He is the true and only Son of God. In this Gospel, too, we find 
 the famous declaration "All things are delivered to Me by My 
 Father; and no one knoweth Who the Son is, but the Father; 
 and Who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son 
 
 1 Cf. Dalman, Words of J., 286. 
 
 2 It makes no difference whether the Greek has iraryp or 6 irarrip "for in each 
 case the word to be presupposed on the testimony of Mark xiv. 36 (cf. Rom. viii. 
 15; Gal. iv. 6) is &0@a (N3N). This is just the definite form and means strictly the 
 Father; but during the obsolescence of the form with the pronominal suffix (*3H 
 still to be seen in Dan. v. 13) it became the regular form for "my Father." Dalman, 
 op. cit., 191, 192. Cf . Burkitt, Evangelion Da-Mepharresha, p. 47. 
 
THE WHOLE LUCAN ACCOUNT OF CHRIST 179 
 
 will reveal Him" (x. 22; cf. Matthew xi. 27). Here Christ claims 
 to be the only revealer of the Father and, besides, explicitly 
 states that no one can know Him but the Father; by thus signi- 
 fying that His nature is such that it can be known only by God, 
 He unmistakably expresses that His nature is truly Divine, as 
 everyone who accepts this passage must admit. 1 Finally accord- 
 ing to this same inspired writer, Jesus openly declared both His 
 Messiahship and His Divine Sonship on the very solemn occasions 
 of His trial, when, His very life being at stake, He was ques- 
 tioned by the official representatives of Israel, "the ancients of 
 the people and the chief priests and scribes" (xxii. 66). The lat- 
 ter first asked Him if He was the Messiah, "If thou be the 
 Christ, tell us." As in His answer, "hereafter the Son of Man 
 shall be sitting on the right hand of the power of God" (xxii. 
 69), He directly associated Himself with God, they immediately 
 asked Him the further question, "Art thou then the Son of God?" 
 and He said, "You say that I am" (xxii. 70), — which is the way 
 of saying: You speak the truth; I am in very deed. 2 
 
 4. THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 
 
 In the Acts of the Apostles St. Luke continues to represent 
 Christ on the lines found in the Third Gospel. The Risen Sa- 
 viour has the same name for God on His lips, "the Father" (i. 
 4, 7), as the Boy Jesus had in the first recorded words. And 
 Christ too is conscious of His great dignity and His great value 
 for mankind, for He declares that the disciples shall be witnesses 
 unto Him, even to the uttermost part of the earth (i. 8). Begin- 
 ning this witnessing, in the first sermon St. Peter mentions Christ 
 in the same sentence as "the Father" and "the Holy Ghost" 
 (ii. 33), and declares emphatically, "Let all the house of Israel 
 know most certainly that God hath made both Lord and Christ, 
 this same Jesus whom you have crucified" (ii. 36). On other oc- 
 casions St. Peter called Christ "Lord of All" (x. 36), "Author of 
 
 1 See the confession of Harnack (The Sayings of Jesus, 302). Some critics try 
 to cast doubts on the genuineness and integrity of passage; concerning these 
 points see Schumacher, Die Selbstoffenbarung Jesu, 33-100. 
 
 2 Cf. Dalman, Words of J., 314 ff. Luke xviii. 19 offers no objection; it can be 
 explained that Christ would not accept the title of "good" unless He were recog- 
 nized as God. 
 
180 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 Life" (iii. 15), "Judge of the living and the dead" (x. 42). His 
 words "Jesus of Nazareth; how God anointed Him with the 
 Holy Ghost and with power" (x. 38), offer no serious objection 
 to our conclusion in this study. If these words have reference to 
 the scene at Christ's baptism they do not attach any Christolog- 
 ical importance to it, given as they are by the same historian, 
 Luke, who represents Christ as conceived through the operation 
 of the Holy Ghost. Likewise St. Paul's words at Antioch "... 
 raising up Jesus, as in the second psalm also is written: Thou 
 art My Son, this day have I begotten thee" (xiii. 33), do not 
 offer any objection, do not imply that Christ was not Son of 
 God before His resurrection, which was a great approval and 
 confirmation of Christ's Divinity. According to this chronicle, 
 shortly after his miraculous conversion St. Paul preached that 
 Christ "is the Son of God" (ix. 20). Indeed the Christ de- 
 picted in the Acts is "the Christ — Son of God, intimately 
 sharing the powers and privileges of God, the wholly Divine 
 Christ of the Synoptics." l 
 
 The whole Lucan account of Christ confirms the conclusion 
 from the study of the first recorded words. Christ was conceived 
 through the power of the Holy Ghost, hence He was in reality 
 and truth the Son of God. He clearly expresses this in His Pub- 
 lic Life; He never betrays the least indication that He had 
 doubts about Himself and His mission, much less that there was 
 a time when He was ignorant of these facts. Reading the Gospel 
 in which are found the words of the Boy Jesus, seeing the words 
 "My Father" in such a context, one is naturally led to accept 
 them in the light of the supernatural conception of the Holy 
 Ghost, in the same sense as that in which they were used in later 
 life. In so doing, everything in the whole Lucan account falls 
 into place, — everything harmonizes. As the true Son of God it 
 was perfectly natural that in His first words Jesus should refer to 
 His great relation to God, calling Him "My Father," as He did 
 in His last words on the Cross, "Father into Thy hands I com- 
 mend My Spirit" (Luke xxiii. 46), as He does in His last words 
 before the Ascension, "And I send the promise of My Father 
 upon you" (Luke xxiv. 49; cf. Acts i. 7). 
 
 1 Lepin, Christ and the Gospel, 383. 
 
CHAPTER XV 
 THE WHOLE NEW TESTAMENT ACCOUNT OF CHRIST 
 
 St. Luke is the only writer of the New Testament who re- 
 cords the episode of the twelve-year-old Christ in the Temple. 
 This fact can be easily explained for the reason that the Gospels 
 were not intended to be complete biographies of Christ, but sim- 
 ply a brief account of the "good news"; they preserve "only a 
 few stray flowers thrown over the wall of an ample garden." * 
 St. Luke is the only sacred writer who professes to present facts 
 in order, and to make investigations concerning all things from 
 the beginning (Luke i. 2, 3) ; most of the matter preserved in the 
 Infancy Section is peculiar to the Third Evangelist and can be 
 attributed to his special sources. 
 
 If the point be pressed that the other writers of the New 
 Testament must not have known of the episode of Christ's twelfth 
 year, since if they had known His words, which, we claim, ex- 
 press real Divine Sonship, they would surely have given them as 
 too important to be omitted, we say in answer that since modern 
 writers have raised the problem of Christ's self -consciousness the 
 first words are very important, but in the early years of Chris- 
 tianity this problem was hardly raised. Jesus had been put to 
 death on account of what He said He was; His claims seem to be 
 clearly known. The first preachers of Christianity had only to 
 emphasize the fact that Christ was "approved of God" by "mira- 
 cles and wonders and signs" (Acts ii. 22) — the principal one of 
 these being His fulfilling the Old Testament prophecies and adum- 
 brations. Although St. Luke alone gives Christ's first words, the 
 other inspired writers do not exclude the fact that Christ ex- 
 pressed real Divine Sonship in His twelfth year; they are in har- 
 mony with our conclusion in the main chapter of this work. 
 
 1 Stalker. Son of God, HDG II. 656. 
 181 
 
182 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 1. ST. MATTHEW 
 
 St. Matthew does not refer to the episode of Christ's twelfth 
 year, yet he too, like St. Luke, has an Infancy section. He be- 
 gins his Gospel with a genealogy whose purpose is to show that 
 Christ is the Messiah (i. 1-17). He represents Christ as con- 
 ceived by the Holy Ghost (i. 18, 20). He gives the angel's an- 
 nouncement that Jesus "shall save His people from their sins," 
 and that He shall be called "Emanuel" which the Evangelist 
 himself interprets as "God with us" (i. 21, 23), implying that 
 Jesus is God Incarnate. 1 He also narrates other miraculous ap- 
 paritions of an angel in the interests of the Child (ii. 13, 19) ; and 
 he describes a very strange and miraculous event, that wise men 
 were miraculously led by a star to the crib of the Child Jesus, 
 that they adored Him (ii. 2, 11) and offered Him gold, frankin- 
 cense 2 and myrrh (ii. 11). This adoration of the Magi offered to 
 Jesus as a little Babe would help to strengthen the conclusion 
 previously reached; so would the applying to Christ in Egypt of 
 the words of Osee xi. 1, "out of Egypt have I called My Son" 
 (ii. 15); all the miraculous accounts in the first two chapters of 
 St. Matthew do likewise, but especially the account of Christ's 
 Virgin Birth and conception by the Holy Ghost. As we said re- 
 garding this point in St. Luke, the supernatural and divine origin 
 of Jesus is a very strong argument in favor of the opinion that 
 when He called God His Father He meant this word in the real 
 true sense. 
 
 According to St. Matthew, when Christ came to St. John to 
 be baptized the latter "stayed Him, saying, "I ought to be bap- 
 tized by Thee, and comest Thou to me?" And Jesus answering 
 said to Him: "Suffer it to be so now ..." (iii. 14, 15). Here 
 Christ's consciousness of His own sinlessness and His superiority 
 is clearly reflected, and this, it is to be noted, is done prior to the 
 baptism scene, prior to the Public Ministry. St. Matthew's ac- 
 count of the Public Life coincides substantially with that of St. 
 Luke. He, too, has the so-called Johannine passage, xi. 27, upon 
 which so much emphasis has been laid. A saying of Christ, given 
 by this Evangelist alone, "where there are two or three gathered 
 
 1 Cf. Box, The Gospel Narrative of the Nativity, ZntW VII (1905) 87. 
 
 2 The frankincense is said by the Fathers to be offered "because Christ was God." 
 
THE WHOLE N. T. ACCOUNT OF CHRIST 183 
 
 together in My name, there am I in the midst of them" (xviii. 
 20), 1 is said to show the "most exalted Christology" and to sup- 
 ply "a well attested basis for the doctrine of the abiding Christ 
 as given in John." 2 Christ expressed exalted Christology, too, 
 according to the closing verses of the First Gospel in which is 
 given the command to baptize "in the name of the Father, and 
 of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (xxviii. 19). We can safely 
 conclude, therefore, that in the light of St. Matthew's Gospel, 
 there is implied our conclusion from Christ's use of the words 
 "My Father" in His twelfth year. 
 
 2. ST. MARK 
 
 In St. Mark's Gospel there is no account of the Boy Christ, 
 nor is there any Infancy section at all; yet these would seem to 
 be presupposed. The first reference 3 to Christ is the prophecy 
 of John that there cometh one mightier than himself, one who 
 shall baptize with the Holy Ghost (i. 7, 8). Immediately follows 
 Christ's baptism which we have previously examined, and we can 
 sum up our results in the words of Sweet, "the miraculous birth, 
 and the story of the youthful visit at Jerusalem are necessary to 
 any intelligible explanation of the baptism." 4 
 
 At Capharnaum Jesus teaches "as one having power" (i. 22). 
 He shows His power over spirits (i. 26, 34), and divers diseases 
 (i. 34), and He said to His followers, "Let us go into the neigh- 
 boring towns and cities that I may preach there also; for to this 
 purpose am I come" (i. 38). This last saying corresponds to 
 Luke iv. 43 and at least suggests Christ's preexistence. This 
 seems also to be done in i. 24; ii. 17; ix. 36; x. 45. 5 These inti- 
 mations that Christ was aware of His preexistence would confirm 
 the conclusion that He expressed real Divine Sonship in His 
 twelfth year, for would it not be natural for a person who was so 
 extraordinary as to have preexisted to be always aware of this fact? 
 
 1 Cf. Mtt. xxviii. 20, "behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation 
 of the world." 
 
 2 Stokes, What Jesus Christ Thought of Himself, 101. 
 
 3 According to many texts the Gospel of Mark commences thus: The beginning 
 of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. 
 
 * Birth and Infancy of J. C, 83. 
 
 B These have parallel passages in the other two Synoptics. 
 
184 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 This result from the study of Christ's first words would be 
 confirmed by St. Mark's account of the Public Life, where sub- 
 stantially the same claims are made for Jesus 1 as those found in 
 the Third Gospel. Although Mark does not give the Johannine 
 passage, he gives a saying which even radical scholars declare to 
 be certainly authentic, "of that day or hour no man knoweth, 
 neither the angels in heaven nor the Son, but the Father" (xiii. 
 32) . 2 If this saying signifies a deficiency in Christ's knowledge 
 with regard to the last day, it certainly does not signify a defi- 
 ciency or limitation in His knowledge with regard to Himself as 
 "Son" and God as "the Father"; and this placing Himself as 
 "Son" above the angels is admitted even by certain negative 
 scholars 3 to imply metaphysical relation to God. Christ speaks 
 along similar lines again in viii. 38, "he that shall be ashamed of 
 Me . . . , the Son of man shall be ashamed of Him, when He 
 shall come in the glory of His Father with the holy angels." But 
 particularly in iii. 31, 35, we have an attitude assumed by our 
 Lord which is parallel to the attitude He took towards His par- 
 ents in Luke ii. 49. Here as in the first words Jesus emphasizes 
 the spiritual; here as there, He states that it is God's Will that 
 counts for Him, that it is God that determines the time and 
 place of His work for mankind, that other authorities even those 
 of flesh and blood He considers not. 4 The same principle was 
 stated and followed in the Public Life as well as in the twelfth 
 year, so that there is in Mark a text to a great extent parallel to 
 Luke ii. 49, and there is an indirect confirmation of our conclu- 
 sion therefrom. 5 
 
 1 Christ puts Himself in the place of God for the individual soul, ii. 19, 20; viii. 
 35, 38; xiii. 13; xvi. 15, 16. 
 
 2 Basing their view on this text and Jn. xi. 34, the Agnoetae (6th-8th century) 
 put a limit to Christ's knowledge. Gregory the Great argues against them, "For 
 with what meaning can one that confesses that the very Wisdom of God was incar- 
 nate say that there is anything that the Wisdom of God is ignorant of?" Ep. x. 
 xxix. N.P-NF (2d Ser.) XIII. 48. See the answers to three propositions given by 
 the Holy office June 5, 1918 (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 1 Jul. (1918) 282). 
 
 3 Concerning this passage Holtzmann writes, "This is the single passage in which 
 the Son while opposed along with the angels to the Father, appears to become a 
 metaphysical magnitude" (Lehrbuch der ntl. Theol. I. 268, note 2). 
 
 4 Cf. Bartmann: Christus ein Gegner des Marienkultus? 104. 
 
 6 In Mark iii. 21, it is said that Christ's friends wanted to lay hold on Him saying 
 He was mad. This shows that they could not account for His miracles and wisdom, 
 and that neither His education, nor meditation, nor the natural means which they 
 know, accounted for them. Thus it agrees with Lk. ii. 50. 
 
THE WHOLE N. T. ACCOUNT OF CHRIST 185 
 
 3. ST. JOHN 
 
 Like St. Mark, the Fourth Gospel has no Infancy section, but 
 it begins with a profession of Christ's preexistence and Divinity: 
 "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, 
 and the Word was God x . . . and the Word was made flesh 
 . . . the only begotten of the Father" (i. 1, 14). According to 
 this Gospel Christ in clear and explicit terms makes reference to 
 the fact of His preexistence (vi. 63; viii. 58; xvi. 28; xvii. 5, 24, 
 etc.), and in clear and explicit terms (terms which were not mis- 
 taken by the Jews) He teaches His Divinity and expresses real 
 Divine Sonship, — a fact universally recognized. 
 
 But St. John says that the changing of water into wine at the 
 marriage feast of Cana was "the beginning" of Jesus' miracles 
 (ii. 11). At first sight this might seem to imply that either the 
 scene in the Temple (Luke ii. 41-51) did not really occur or that, 
 if it did occur, it was not outside the natural order. But logically 
 St. John's statement does riot demand either of these conclusions. 
 In the first place, this miracle at Cana is not the first miracle de- 
 scribed by the Fourth Evangelist; He narrates others previously; 
 for instance, he previously gives Christ's recognition and char- 
 acterization of Nathaniel, with Nathaniel's confession (i. 47, 51), 
 and the miraculous coming of the Holy Spirit in the form of a 
 dove at the baptism (i. 32), etc. If these miraculous occurrences 
 are not excluded by St. John's statement in ii. 11, surely the say- 
 ing of the Boy Christ and His preternatural display of knowledge 
 are not excluded. 
 
 Now as to the meaning of this verse of the Fourth Gospel 
 (ii. 11), Christ had told His mother that His hour — the time of 
 His manifesting Himself had not yet come. He had probably 
 intended to begin His public manifestation of Himself in the Tem - 
 pie of Jerusalem at the feast of the Pasch which He attended a 
 few days later (ii. 12 ff) ; 2 but at the mother's request He per- 
 formed the great miracle, and thereby He "manifested His glory 
 and His disciples believed in Him" (ii. 11). The meaning of ii. 11, 
 is then, that it emphasizes the fact that it was at Cana of Galilee 
 
 1 Here Christ is called "God" as in Jn. xx. 28; Apoc. xix. 10; xxii. 9. 
 
 2 Schaefer, The Mother of Jesus in S., 241, 242. Bartmann, Christus ein Gegner 
 des Marienkultus? 73 ff. 
 
186 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 and not elsewhere that Jesus began the public manifestation of 
 Himself. 
 
 This account of the miracle at Cana does not, therefore, ex- 
 clude St. Luke's narrative of the Boy Christ (as we have ex- 
 plained it); rather a close examination would suggest that one 
 implies the other. What put it into the mother's head to ask a 
 great miracle of her Son? St. John Chrysostom answers that it 
 was suggested to her by the witness of John the Baptist and es- 
 pecially "the conception itself and all its attending circum- 
 stances." 1 And St. Ambrose rightly says that Mary, being 
 astonished at the miraculous occurrence of Christ's twelfth year, 
 learned thereby to ask a favor from her Son when He was grown 
 up. 2 Not only this, but as previously referred to, in the words 
 in which Jesus replies to His mother at Cana, the same stand is 
 taken as in the first recorded saying at twelve. Replying to her 
 appeal, He said, "Woman what is it to Me, and to thee? (t( i[Lo\ 
 Y.al <jo(, y6vat); My hour is not yet come" (ii. 4). The expression 
 "what is it to Me and to thee" signifies that ties of flesh and 
 blood did not count in regard to a public manifestation of His 
 power, in regard to His Messianic work. For this reason He 
 does not call her, Mother, but Lady (ytivai), both here and at 
 the foot of the cross (xix. 26). 
 
 Immediately after the narrative of the feast of Cana, St. 
 John gives another account of Christ (ii. 13 ff.) which is in har- 
 mony with the episode of the twelfth year. The scene was again 
 the Temple, and again it was the feast of the Pasch, the very 
 next one the sacred records inform us that Christ attended. He 
 was not the same; He was now grown to man's attire and being 
 angered at the sight of dealers and money changers within the 
 sacred precincts, He lashed them out of the Temple, making 
 havoc among their wares. And to the dove sellers He said, 
 "Take these things hence, and make not the house of My Father 
 a house of traffic" (ii. 16). Here, as in Luke ii. 49, Jesus calls 
 God "My Father." He calls the Temple the house of His 
 Father; He may have done the same in the first recorded words 
 (Iv to!<;). Then He felt His relation to God to be so close that 
 
 1 In Joann. Horn. XXI. N.P-NF (1st. Ser.) XIV. 74. 
 
 2 In Luc. II. Corp. Script. Lat., XXIV. 18. 
 
THE WHOLE N. T. ACCOUNT OF CHRIST 187 
 
 He must remain in the Temple; now He feels that the relation 
 obliges Him to incur the anger and hatred of these profaners of 
 the Temple. He certainly is about His Father's business now. 
 He was carrying on the same policy that He followed as a boy; 
 He "took up the thread where He had dropped it on His first 
 recorded appearance in the Temple." l 
 
 4. ST. PAUL 
 
 Although St. Paul's epistles are only occasional letters written 
 for specific purposes, yet it is clear that the Christ that is referred 
 to there is the Christ of the Synoptics. It is expressly stated that 
 Christ was "made under the law" (Gal. iv. 4), which is said to 
 have reference to Jesus' circumcision, presentation in the Tem- 
 ple, and attendance at the feasts, as St. Luke records in the sec- 
 ond chapter of his Gospel. 2 
 
 St. Paul's Christology would imply our conclusion from Luke 
 ii. 49. His most frequent name for Christ is "the Son" and 
 "Lord," and he makes mention of Him as the only Son (t6v 
 lauTou ul&v) Rom. viii. 3, (toO IMou ulou) Rom. viii. 32. He refers 
 to Him as "the one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all 
 things and we through Him" (1 Cor. viii. 6); he calls Him "the 
 image of God" (2 Cor. iv. 4; Col. i. 15); indeed He seems to 
 call Him "God blessed for ever" (Rom. ix. 5). 3 
 
 St. Paul implies that Christ was always conscious of His Di- 
 vinity and Divine Sonship, teaching as he does that He preex- 
 isted. Thus he writes to Timothy that "Christ Jesus came into 
 the world to save sinners" (1 Tim. i. 15), and in other places he 
 speaks of God sending His Son in the likeness of flesh (Rom. viii. 
 3; Gal. iv. 4). This doctrine is taught more clearly in 2 Cor. 
 viii. 9, where the Apostle says that Christ who was rich became 
 poor for men's sake, and most clearly in Philip ii. 5-8, where St. 
 Paul expressly states that Christ preexisted "in the form of 
 God" and "considered it no injustice to be equal to God." The 
 
 1 Edersheim, Life and Times of J., I. 373. 
 
 2 V. g. Streatfeild: The Self-interpretation of J. C, 24. 
 
 3 According to the construction of the sentence that most readily suggests itself. 
 Cf. Bruce, St. Paul's Conception of Christianity, 340. 
 
188 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 doctrine of preexistence and Divine self-consciousness is clearly 
 expressed here. 1 
 
 The Apostle (in this last mentioned passage) goes on to say 
 that Christ "emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, 
 being made to the likeness of man." This expression would not 
 require the meaning that Jesus emptied Himself of His Divine 
 self -consciousness. St. Paul is merely referring to Christ's as- 
 suming human nature and does not touch the question of Jesus' 
 knowledge of Himself; that this is so is seen from another place 
 where he says that in Christ are "all the treasures of wisdom and 
 knowledge" (Col. ii. 3). The Pauline references to Christ's self- 
 humiliation, to His taking the form of man, to His assuming the 
 likeness of sinful flesh, do not include Christ's knowledge and self- 
 consciousness. 
 
 5. Christ's sonship in the new testament 
 
 At twelve years of age Jesus referred to God as "My Father." 
 This name "Father" was His most frequent name for God. It 
 occurs 45 times in Matthew, 5 times in Mark, 17 times in Luke, 
 and about 90 times in John. As Sanday says, "no name of God 
 was more constantly on the lips of Christ; and no name so domi- 
 nated the whole thought of God, as He not only cherished it for 
 Himself, but bequeathed it to His disciples." 2 Jesus teaches a 
 threefold grade in God's Fatherhood: He is Father of all men, 
 He is especially Father of the disciples, He is in a very special 
 manner Father of Jesus Himself. 3 
 
 In regard to the Synoptics, there is no doubt that Jesus re- 
 served a peculiar use of the word "Father," as a name of God, 
 for His own case. Nowhere does He include Himself along with 
 His disciples under the title "Our Father" — the Lord's Prayer 
 not being an exception since it was prescribed and constructed 
 for them. Many times (over a score of times in Matthew, thrice 
 
 1 Cf . Schumacher, Christus in seiner Praexistenz und Kenose nach Phil. ii. 5-8. 
 Drum interprets from passage, "He was conscious that He was God by nature, and 
 not by usurpation, — not by a Modernistic evolution of the Messianic conscious- 
 ness." Homil. and Pastoral Rev. XXI. (1920) 13. 
 
 2 Art. God, HDB II. 209. 
 
 * Cf. Stephens, Theol. of New Test., 54, Robertson, The Teaching of Jesus con- 
 cerning God the Father, 43-69. 
 
THE WHOLE N. T. ACCOUNT OF CHRIST 189 
 
 in Mark, nine times in Luke), Christ referred to God as His 
 Father; on several occasions (six times in Matthew, once in 
 Mark, thrice in Luke), He denominates Himself "the Son" in 
 such a way as to prove unmistakably that He regards Himself 
 as "the Son of God." 1 On many other occasions where the 
 title "Son of God" is applied to Him, He treats the title in such 
 a manner as to show He adopts it. 
 
 As in the Synoptics, so in St. John, Christ refers to His Spe- 
 cial Divine Sonship; the same stand is taken, the difference being 
 that in St. John it is taken more explicitly and more frequently. 
 Very frequently He calls Himself "the Son," and very frequently 
 He calls God "My Father." Indeed in St. John, Christ refers to 
 Himself as "the Son of God" (v. 25; ix. 35, 37; x. 36; xi. 4). 
 He teaches He preexisted in Heaven with the Father before the 
 foundation of the world (xvii. 5, 24); He indicates the great 
 uniqueness of His Sonship by declaring Himself to be the only 
 begotten (jaovoy^vy^) 2 Son of God (iii. 16, 18; cf. i. 14, 18); the 
 climax is when He claims His Sonship involves equality with the 
 Father: I and the Father are one (x. 30; cf. v. 17; x. 38). 
 
 Not only did Christ Himself claim to be Son of God, but we 
 find this title accorded to Him by others. Announcing His miracu- 
 lous conception of the Holy Ghost (thus giving a physical basis 
 for the title) the angel Gabriel foretold He would be called "Son 
 of the Most High," "Son of God" (Luke i. 32, 35). From Heaven 
 the Eternal Father proclaimed Him His beloved Son at the bap- 
 tism (Matthew iii. 17; Mark i. 11; Luke iii. 22) and at the Trans- 
 figuration (Matthew xvii. 5; Mark ix. 6; Luke ix. 35; cf. 2 Peter 
 i. 17). Demoniacs addressed Him as Son of God (e.g. Mark iii. 
 12; v. 7); Satan, too, mentions the title (Matthew iv. 3, 6); St. 
 John the Baptist testified He was the Son of God (John i. 34); 
 Peter (Matthew xvi. 16; John vi. 70), Nathaniel (John i. 49), 
 and the disciples (Matthew xiv. 33) are on record as confessing 
 this fact; so did Martha (John xi. 27); so did the centurion at 
 the foot of the cross (Matthew xxvii. 54; Mark xv. 39). Christ's 
 enemies, who had Him put to death, claimed that He said He was 
 the Son of God (Matthew xxvii. 40, 43; John xix. 7). 
 
 1 Cf. Stalker, Son of God, HDG II. 654. Christology of J., 86. 
 
 J According to Mark xii. 6, the Son, the sole heir distinguished from the whole 
 series of servants is called Iva viov byaicriTov. As Dalman (op. cit. 281) says, 
 there is no difference between this and St. John's "only begotten Son." 
 
190 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 As to the evidence for the period after Christ's death, the 
 Acts tells us that the Ethiopian eunuch professed before being 
 baptized "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God" (viii. 
 37; cf. 16), and that immediately after his conversion St. Paul 
 preached that Jesus is the "Son of God" (ix. 20). Writing in his 
 epistles only a few decades afterwards, St. Paul very frequently 
 gives to Christ the name "the Son," at once contrasting and as- 
 sociating Him with God "the Father," and he mentions Him as 
 "the Son of God" (Rom. i. 4; v. 10; 1 Cor. i. 9; Gal. iv. 4). 
 
 As Christ had distinguished, so St. Paul too distinguishes be- 
 tween Christ's Sonship and the sonship of others; indeed (Rom- 
 viii. 3, 32) he calls Jesus God's own Son sent into the world on 
 man's behalf. This use of the word "own" corresponds to 
 Christ's usage of the expression "My Father" and the word 
 "only-begotten," l and thus there is expressed a Christ ology 
 equivalent to that of the explicit pronouncements of the Fourth 
 Gospel. Especially is this the case in Hebrews which frequently 
 applies to Christ the title "Son of God" (e.g. iv. 14; v. 8; vi. 6; 
 vii. 3; x. 29), which while referring to Moses as "a faithful ser- 
 vant" calls Christ "a Son over the household" (iii. 5, 6), and 
 which begins by saying that God never applied Ps. ii. 7, "Thou 
 art My Son," etc. to anyone else, not even to the angels, but re- 
 served it for Christ (i. 5; v. 5). The first Epistle of St. John fol- 
 lows these same lines, with its frequent use of titles "Son," "the 
 Son of God," its use of the expression " only begotten Son," and 
 its clear pronouncements on Christ's preexistence (e.g. 1 Jn. iii. 
 8; iv. 9, 14, 15; v. 5, 7, 13) . 2 This epistle of St. John bears 
 testimony that the confession of Jesus as the Son of God was the 
 cardinal point in the Christian Faith. 
 
 1 As Bruce (op. cit. 338) explains the expression "His own Son," "not merely 
 the first begotten in a large family, but the only-begotten in some sense." 
 
 2 We find in the Apoc. iii. 5, "My Father"; God is called "Father of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ," 1 Pet. i. 3; He is mentioned as "Father" 1 Pet. i. 17; Jam. i. 17, 27; 
 Jude i. 1. This Testimony to Christ's Divine Sonship and preexistence can be con- 
 tinued through the Apostolic and sub- Apostolic Fathers, see p. 13. About the mid- 
 dle of 2nd century the Marcosians (whom Irenaeus mentions) were using Christ's 
 first words (Lk. ii. 49) in support of their contention that the Father whom Jesus 
 announced was not the God of the Old Testament and was till then unknown. 
 Irenaeus implies that he understood the Boy Jesus' reference to His Father in the 
 metaphysical sense. In the following generation, Origen clearly interprets real 
 Divine Sonship, and this view has been held all down the ages to the present day, 
 almost exclusively so till the rise of modern Rationalism. 
 
THE WHOLE N. T. ACCOUNT OF CHRIST 191 
 
 From the facts presented, it is clear that the attributing to 
 Christ of a unique Divine Sonship can be traced back (almost 
 through every decade) to St. Paul. As Sanday says, "if the use 
 of 'the Father' and 'the Son' as theological terms belongs to the 
 early Church, it at least goes back to the very first moment at 
 which we possess contemporary evidence for the vocabulary of 
 that Church, and indeed to a date which is not more than twenty- 
 three years from the ascension (see 1 Th. i. 1)." 1 From that 
 time on the Christian writings abound in references to God as the 
 Father of Jesus and to Him as "the Son," "the Son of God," 
 "God's own Son," "God's only begotten Son," "The Logos Who 
 was with the Father before Creation." What is the origin of this 
 vocabulary? How are we to account for "the rapid growth 
 within some twenty-three years of a usage already so fixed and 
 stereotyped?" 2 Knowing the Jewish conception of God and the 
 expressions employed for it in the time of Christ, we cannot ac- 
 count for it if Christ Himself is not its cause and author. Yes 
 Jesus Himself was the authority for this vocabulary. He fre- 
 quently announced He was the most special Son of God. He an- 
 nounced this even in His first recorded words. 
 
 1 Son of God, HDB IV. 573. 
 
 2 Sanday, op. cit. 
 
CONCLUSION 
 
 The frequent use of the name "Father" as applied to God 
 goes back to the Saviour. It was His most frequent epithet for 
 God. He speaks of Him to His followers, "your heavenly 
 Father"; He bade them repeat "Our Father." Terms for God 
 such as, "the blessed One," "the Holy One," "the Place" — 
 common to the synagogue of His day, He does not use at all. 
 He sparingly uses the title "Lord." Christ strictly followed the 
 religious custom among the Jews in respect to the use and avoid- 
 ance of the name God, but, "in such a manner that, in conform- 
 ing to it, He preserved a peculiar position of His own by His 
 marked preference for the appellation of God as Father." * He 
 breaks with contemporary usage and with all previous usage in 
 His employment of this name Father, sparingly used before the 
 time of Christ, and hardly ever in an individualistic sense by an 
 ordinary individual. But the great difference between the usage 
 ushered in by Our Lord and what had previously been in vogue 
 consists not alone in the frequency of the title but also, and espe- 
 cially, in the content. In comparison with that of the Old Testa- 
 ment, it is well said that Christ's doctrine of God's Fatherhood 
 "assumes such proportions as to amount to a new revelation." 2 
 The history of the question warrants our saying that St. Paul 
 (Rom. viii. 14-17; Gal. iv. 4-7; cf. John i. 12) also is witness 
 that "it was Jesus who first introduced into the world the re- 
 ligious spirit whose characteristic cry Godwards is Father." 3 
 Christ uttered the last word on the question of God's Fatherhood 
 to men; this conception is a salient characteristic of His teaching; 
 some even consider it the essence of Christianity. 
 
 In this special doctrine of Christ, God's Fatherhood to man- 
 kind, there is something still greater, still more characteristic, 
 
 1 Dalman, Words of J., 233. 
 
 2 Sanday, God, HDB II. 208. 
 
 3 Bruce, St. Paul's Conception of Christianity, 199. 
 
 192 
 
CONCLUSION 193 
 
 still more special, namely God's special Fatherhood to Jesus Him- 
 self. Christ teaches He is a very special Son of God, according 
 to many of His recorded sayings, and it is clear that real Divine 
 Sonship is meant. To use the words of Sanday, "a scientific ex- 
 amination of the Gospels, whatever else it brings out, brings out 
 this, that the root element in the consciousness of Jesus was a 
 sense of Sonship to the Divine Father, deeper, clearer, more inti- 
 mate, more all embracing and all absorbing, than ever was vouch- 
 safed to a child of man." l Christ's followers have always con- 
 sidered and called Him "the Son of God" because He expressed a 
 consciousness of being such, because not putting Himself under 
 the same grade of God's Fatherhood that He taught for others, 
 not including Himself under the "Our Father" that He bade 
 His disciples use, He appropriated a very special degree of God's 
 Fatherhood for Himself, calling Himself "the Son," "the Son of 
 God" and using the phrase "My Father." 
 
 In regard to Himself, Christ always used the word "My" and 
 never "our" when calling God "Father." It is a fact worth 
 noting that although in the writings of the Synoptics the Saviour 
 does not appear as laying claim to the actual title of Son of God 
 in the same direct way as is recorded in the Fourth Gospel, yet 
 according to the former the title "Son of God" was applied to 
 Christ and Christ's enemies alleged He said He was the Son of 
 God. We find in the Synoptics no basis for such a charge other 
 than Christ's use of the phrase "My Father" which the Jews 
 took to imply His Divine Sonship. In the eyes of His contempo- 
 raries therefore, Christ's use of the words "My Father" for God 
 was equivalent to His applying to Himself the title "Son of God." 
 The word "My" signifies the distinctive quality of His Sonship 
 and "it would be difficult to exaggerate its importance as an ex- 
 pression of the Messianic consciousness and as implying a tran- 
 scendental origin." 2 The "My" in Christ's expression for God, 
 "My Father," stands for what is special in God's Fatherhood to 
 Him, it represents His special real Divine Sonship, it corresponds 
 to the words "well beloved," "own," "only begotten," in the 
 terms of this Sonship. And this expression "My Father" is fre- 
 
 1 Son of God, HDB IV. 575. 
 
 2 Streatfeild, The Self-interpretation of Jesus Christ, 84. 
 
194 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 quently on Christ's lips both in the Synoptics and in St. John, it 
 appears among the last words and it appears among the first 
 recorded words. 
 
 The first saying of Jesus does not merely enunciate the doc- 
 trine of God's Fatherhood to man — a doctrine which originated 
 an epoch in the religious thought of the world, and which at once 
 marked Christ as the great religious teacher of the human race — 
 but over and above this, the saying contains an expression of 
 God's special Fatherhood to Jesus Himself. He says "My Fa- 
 ther," words which correspond to His applying to Himself the 
 title of "Son of God," words which express all that is special in 
 His Sonship. As D'Arcy says, "Jesus from His youth possessed 
 a consciousness of God as His Father, which was utterly different 
 from the faith to which others attain through teaching and the 
 influence of religious surroundings." l That Jesus at the age of 
 twelve when yet only a mere Boy should thus already reach the 
 highest point, the climax of His teaching, should announce what 
 is distinctive in His special characteristic teaching of God's Fa- 
 therhood, this cannot be explained naturally, but clearly shows 
 that Christ was not the subject of merely natural development 
 and growth. 2 
 
 In His youth Jesus referred to His special Divine Sonship in 
 the same way as He did in after life. The words "My Father" 
 in the first recorded saying are uttered as a matter of course and 
 in as emphatic a manner as He ever did utter them; indeed here 
 they are in contrast to the closest of human ties, that of parents 
 to children, and are reinforced with the sacred "Must." Christ's 
 expression of His Sonship in His twelfth year corresponds to all 
 His references to His Sonship as found in the New Testament. 
 Nowhere is it said that at any time Christ was not aware of Di- 
 vine Sonship, nowhere is it intimated that He grew in the knowl- 
 edge of His Sonship, rather the contrary opinion is everywhere 
 implied. After examining Christ's sayings and not being able to 
 find anywhere what idea He entertained in regard to the genesis 
 
 1 Consciousness, HDG I. 363. 
 
 2 As Reinhard asks, "Tell me how a common indigent lad of Galilee who had 
 never enjoyed any of those advantages calculated to fill the mind with great con- 
 ceptions and mighty resolutions could have struck upon a thought to which the 
 greatest men before Him had never approached?" Plan of the Founder of Christ. 263. 
 
CONCLUSION 195 
 
 of His Divine Sonship, Dalman confesses that the utterances "ap- 
 pear to imply that Jesus had shown no cognizance of any begin- 
 ning to this relationship. It seems to be an innate property of 
 His Personality/ ' * The meaning of the words "My Father" did 
 not change for Jesus; they are given by St. Luke in ii. 49 with- 
 out comment, and there is no reason why one should not attach 
 the same meaning to them here as in other places of the sacred 
 record, because one should consider them in the context of this 
 Third Gospel, and in the context of the New Testament, — it being 
 a foremost canon of interpretation that a matter be decided ac- 
 cording to the context and according to the spirit of the whole 
 work. 
 
 The main arguments for the interpretation of real Divine Son- 
 ship from Jesus' first recorded words are: (1) The Virgin Birth 
 previously described, suggesting that the words "My Father" in 
 Luke ii. 49 are fraught with metaphysical meaning. (2) Christ's 
 later preaching describing the nature of His Divine Sonship as 
 real Divine Sonship. (3) Unbroken tradition that Jesus' decla- 
 ration of Divine Sonship in His twelfth year and His later decla- 
 rations express real Divine Sonship. These arguments require 
 that Jesus expressed in His first recorded words more than mere 
 Messianic consciousness. They require that the Sonship he an- 
 nounced was more than a mere ethical relationship to God. 2 The 
 view of "ordinary Israelitic consciousness" is rejected even by 
 the very facts of the Temple episode itself, the Boy's overriding 
 ordinary duties to parents, His word "must" and His word 
 "My." There is no historical evidence whatsoever for any view 
 of "dawning consciousness." There is no hesitation or self -limi- 
 tation in Christ's words. He is as emphatic and matter-of-course 
 about His Sonship as He ever was. His special term for God 
 "My Father" is fully uttered. Entire conviction, complete con- 
 sciousness of Divine Sonship is expressed. In the light of the 
 whole New Testament, in the light of Christ's own expressions in 
 
 1 Words of J., 285. 
 
 2 Dalman writes: "Nowhere do we find that Jesus called Himself the Son of 
 God in such a sense as to suggest a mere religious and ethical relation to God." 
 (Words of J., 287.) Besides, as Stalker (Son of God, HDG II. 654) says: "The 
 closeness of the ethico-religious relation may be such as to demand a metaphysical 
 relationship of an intimate and peculiar kind between Father and Son." If this is 
 true anywhere, it is true in the text in hand. 
 
196 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 regard to His Divine Sonship, in the light of the tradition of this 
 Sonship going back to St. Paul, in the light of the history of the 
 exegesis of Luke ii. 49, the only consistent view is that of real 
 Divine Sonship. 
 
 This is why the first recorded saying, Luke ii. 49, is of great 
 importance for modern scholars, namely on account of its bear- 
 ing on the modern problem of tracing the growth and develop- 
 ment of Jesus' self-consciousness. The view and theories that are 
 not based on the first words are not according to the historical 
 documents. The theories widely held in the non-Catholic world 
 of a gradual and as it were natural development of Christ's self- 
 consciousness, of the awakening of His Messianic consciousness 
 at the baptism, of doubts and crises in His self -consciousness that 
 existed even during the Public Life, these views are entirely ex- 
 cluded by the Gospel text. At least according to Luke ii. 49, 
 Christ at the age of twelve was fully aware of His real Divine 
 Sonship. His expression of this fact is made with such calmness 
 and indeed emphasis that there is left no ground or basis for any 
 view that His self-consciousness was then awakening. Jesus was 
 fully self-consciousness then, and there are no signs or hints in 
 His saying or in any text of the Scripture of any dawning con- 
 sciousness or of any time when His self-consciousness of Divine 
 Sonship was wanting to Him. The inspired records thus imply, 
 what is handed down in tradition, that there never was a moment 
 when Christ did not know exactly the nature of His filial relation 
 to God. 1 
 
 Christ's self -consciousness or, to speak more correctly, His 
 own testimony to Himself, is one of the chief supports of the be- 
 lief in His Divinity — the other being the performance of mira- 
 cles in confirmation of what He said. Hence for this question 
 also the words of the Boy Jesus are important. Indeed the mere 
 fact that contrary to all ordinary laws of development and ex- 
 
 1 Tradition has it that Christ's knowledge had its source and principle in the 
 Hypostatic Union and dated from the first moment of this Union, i.e., His con- 
 ception. Owen (Comment, on Gospel of Luke, 44) had already argued with force 
 against Olshausen's theory of a gradual development of Christ's consciousness. 
 See the able statement of Dalman: Words of J., 286. Du Bose says, "There was 
 never a time in the history of His consciousness when His divinity was wholly latent 
 or lay completely beneath the activities of His human mind." (The Consciousness 
 of Jesus, 29.) 
 
CONCLUSION 197 
 
 elusive of every natural explanation Christ at a tender age should 
 declare His real Divine Sonship, is in itself a strong argument for 
 His Divinity. There can be no question here of His not being in 
 His proper senses, of His being deceived, or of His wishing to de- 
 ceive; such theories are excluded by the preternatural knowledge 
 previously displayed, by the sincerity of the reply, by the occa- 
 sion which drew it forth, and by its reverential acceptance on the 
 part of the parents. 
 
 Certainly He could not be deceiving; at His age one could 
 hardly be capable of such a deception; to be deluded into the 
 belief in His own Divine Sonship would presuppose years of 
 thought and experience and would be wofully out of keeping with 
 the character of a pious Jewish lad come from a country town on 
 a pilgrimage to the Holy City to celebrate with beating heart and 
 warm affection Jahweh's feast in Jahweh's house. That the 
 most sincere, the most humble, the most saintly Person who ever 
 lived, the "Man approved of God ... by miracles and wonders 
 and signs" (Acts ii. 22), should as a mere Boy, and in opposition 
 to the claims of His earthly parents, declare that He was the Son 
 of God, a claim unique in history, would seem to have only one 
 explanation: that He was compelled to do so by the greatest of 
 realities — the Divine Nature which was in Him and which must 
 proclaim itself. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 I 
 LIST OF WORKS QUOTED « 
 
 Abbott, Lyman, A Life of Christ, 2 ed. New York, 1882. 
 Adamson, Thomas, Studies of the mind in Christ, Edinburgh, 
 
 1898. 
 Adeney, W. F., The transcendental element in the conscious- 
 ness of Christ, AmJTh III (1889) 99 ff. 
 
 , St. Luke, in the New Century Bible, New York, 1914. 
 
 *Aelredus, Abb. Revallis, Tractatus de Jesu Puero duodenni, 
 
 M.PL CLXXXIV. 830-870. 
 *Aiken, Charles F., The Dhamma of Gotama the Buddha and 
 
 the Gospel of Jesus the Christ, Boston, 1900. 
 *Albertus Magnus, In Evangelium Lucae, Opera omnia, ed. 
 
 Borgnet, vol. 22, Parisiis, 1894. 
 *Alcuin (or Albinus), B. F., Adversus Felicem, lib. VII. 1, n. 12. 
 
 M.PL CI. 137. 
 *Alexander, Natalis, Expositio litteralis s. Evangelii Jesu 
 Christi secundum Marcum, Lucam et Joannem, torn. 2, 
 Venetiis, 1782. 
 *Alexander of Hales, Summae theologiae pars tertia, Venetiis, 
 
 1575. 
 Alford, Henry, The Greek Testament, New York, 1859. 
 Anderson, Frederick L., The Man of Nazareth, New York, 
 
 1914. 
 Andrews, S., The Life of our Lord upon the earth, New York, 
 
 1892. 
 Angus, S., The environment of early Christianity, New York, 
 
 1915. 
 *Anselm, Saint, Homilia VII. in Evangelium secundum Lucam, 
 
 Opera ed. D. G. Gerberon, 2 ed. Lutetiae Parisiorum, 1721. 
 Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (ed. 
 Charles), Oxford, 1913. 
 
 1 Catholic authors are marked with an *, The Fathers are not given here. 
 
 199 
 
200 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 *Aretius, Benedictus, Commentarii in Domini nostri J. C. 
 
 Nov. Testamentum cum indicibus locupletissimis, Parisii, 
 
 1607. 
 Bacon, Benjamin W., Christianity old and new, New Haven, 
 
 1914. 
 Baldensperger, Wilhelm, Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu im 
 
 Lichte der messianischen Hoffnungen seiner Zeit, 2 ed. 
 
 Strassburg, 1892. 
 Baljon, J. M. S., Commentaar op het Evangelie van Lukas, 
 
 Utrecht, 1908. 
 *Bardenhewer, Otto, Patrology, the lives and works of the 
 
 Fathers of the Church, 2 ed. transl. by T. J. Shahan, 
 
 Freiburg im Breisgau, 1908. 
 , Maria Verkundigung, ein Kommentar zu Lukas I. 
 
 26-38, BSt X (1905). 
 Barnard, D. Mordaunt, Business, HDG I. 243. 
 Barnes, Albert, Notes, explanatory and practical on the Gos- 
 pels, designed for Sunday school teachers and Bible classes, 
 
 vol. 2, New York, 1851. 
 Barrows, Samuel J., Mythical and legendary elements in the 
 
 New Testament, NW VIII (1899) 272. 
 Barth, Fritz, Die Hauptprobleme des Lebens Jesu, Giitersloh, 
 
 1911. 
 *Bartmann, Bernhard, Das Himmelreich und sein Konig, 
 
 Paderborn, 1904. 
 , Christus ein Gegner des Marienkultus? Jesus und seine 
 
 Mutter in den heiligen Evangelien, gemeinverstandlich dar- 
 
 gestellt, Freiburg, Breisgau, 1909. 
 Barton, W. E., Jesus of Nazareth, Boston, 1904. 
 *Batiffol, P., Evangiles Apocryphes, VDB II. 2114. 
 Bauer, Bruno, Kritik der Evangelien und Geschichte ihres 
 
 Ursprungs, erster Theil, 2 ed. Berlin, 1851. 
 *Bede, Venerable, In Lucae Evangelium expositio, lib. I., 
 
 M.PL XCII. 348-350. Also Homil. XII. Dominica prima 
 
 post Epiphaniam, M.PL XCIV. Q5 ff. 
 Beecher, Henry Ward, The Life of Jesus the Christ, New York, 
 
 1871. 
 Beet, Joseph Agar, The "Father's Business," Homiletic Rev. 
 
 XXXIV (1897) 242-243. 
 
 , Christology, HDB I. 386-389. 
 
 Bengel, John Albert, Gnomon of the New Testament, transl. 
 
 by C. F. Lewis and M. P. Vincent, Philadelphia, 1860. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 201 
 
 Bergh van Eysinga, Indische Einflusse auf evangelische Erzah- 
 
 lungen, Gottingen, 1914. 
 *Bernardinus a Picinio, Sanctus Lucas et sanctus Joannes, 
 
 Opera omnia, torn. 2, Parisiis, 1872. 
 Berthe, Augustine, Jesus Christ; His life, etc., transl. from 
 
 the French by E. Girardy, St. Louis, 1914. 
 Besser, M. F., Das Evangelium St. Luca in Bibelstunden fur 
 
 die Gemeinde ausgelegt, 3 ed. Halle, 1854. 
 Beyschlag, Willibald, New Testament Theology, transl. by 
 
 Neil Buchanan, Edinburgh, 1895. 
 Beze, Theodor, Jesu Christi D. N. Novum Testamentum . . . 
 
 Londini, 1587. 
 *Billot, Ludovicus, De Verbo Incarnato, Comment, in III., S. 
 
 Thomae, Romae, 1900. 
 *Bisping, Aug., Erklarung der Evangelien nach Markus und 
 
 Lukas, 2 ed., Minister, 1863. 
 Blass, Friedrich, Evangelium secundum Lucam, sive Lucae ad 
 
 Theophilum liber prior, Lipsiae, 1897. 
 
 , Philology of the Gospels, London, 1898. 
 
 Bleek, Freidrich, Synoptische Erklarung der drei ersten 
 
 Evangelien herausgegeben von H. Holtzmann, vol. I., Leip- 
 zig, 1862. 
 Bloomfield, S. T., The Greek Testament with English notes, 
 
 critical, philological, and exegetical, IV., Philadelphia, 1854. 
 Blunt, Henry, Lectures upon the history of our Lord and 
 
 Saviour J. C, Philadelphia, 1857. 
 Blunt, John Henry, The annotated Bible, being a household 
 
 commentary upon the Holy Scriptures, London, 1882. 
 Boardman, George D., The Divine Man from the Nativity to 
 
 the temptation, New York, 1887. 
 Boehmer, Julius, Das Lukas Evangelium in religiosen Betrach- 
 
 tungen fiir das moderne Bedurfnis, Gutersloh, 1909. 
 *Bolo, Henri, Histoire de L'Enfant Jesus, 2 ed., Paris, 1896. 
 *Bonaventura, S., Commentarius in Lucam, Opera omnia, 
 
 torn. 7, ed. Collegio A. S. Bonaventura Quaracchi, ex 
 
 Typographis Colleg. S. Bon. 
 Bond, John, The Gospel according to St. Luke, London, 1900. 
 Bornemann, Johannes, Die Taufe Christi durch Johannes in 
 
 der dogmatischen Beurteilung der christlichen Theologen 
 
 der vier ersten Jahrhunderte, Leipzig, 1896. 
 Bossuet, Jacques, filevationes sur les Mysteres, oeuvres com- 
 pletes, ed. J. Tachet, Paris, 1862. 
 
202 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 Bousset, Wilhelm, Jesus, transl. by J. Penrose Trevelyan, New 
 
 York, 1908. 
 , Die Religion des Judentums im neutestamentlichen 
 
 Zeitalter, Berlin, 1903. 
 *Botjrdaloue, Louis, Sermon pour le premier dimanche apres 
 
 Epiphanie, oeuvres completes, Lyon-Paris, 1906. 
 Bovon, Jules, Theologie du Nouveau Testament, 2 ed., torn. I., 
 
 Lausanne, 1902. 
 Box, G. H., The Virgin Birth, HDG II. 804 ff. 
 , The Gospel narratives of the Nativity and the 
 
 alleged influence of Heathen ideas, ZntlW VI (1905) 
 
 80-101. 
 -, The Virgin Birth of Jesus, a critical examination of the 
 
 Gospel narratives of the Nativity, London, 1916. 
 Brassac, A., Manuel Biblique, 3 ed., torn. 3, Paris, 1910. 
 , The Gospels-Jesus Christ, transl. by J. Weidenham, 
 
 London, 1913. 
 Briggs, C. A., The Messiah of the Gospels, New York, 1894. 
 
 , New Light on the Life of Jesus, New York, 1904. 
 
 Brotjgh, J., The early Life of Our Lord, London, 1897. 
 Brown, David, The Life of Jesus prior to His Public Ministry, 
 
 ExpT VI (1894-5) 415. 
 Bruce, Alexander, St. Paul's conception of Christianity, New 
 
 York, 1894. 
 *Bruno, S., Episc. Signensis, Comment, in Lucam, M.PL CLXV. 
 
 365. 
 Bucer, M., Enarrationum in Evangelia Matthaei, Marci et 
 
 Lucae, lib. I., Argeniorati, 1527. 
 Budham, F. P., The integrity of Luke i. 5-11, ExpT VIII (1896- 
 
 7) 116 ff. 
 Burkitt, William, Exposition, notes and practical observa- 
 tions on the New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour J. C, 
 
 vol. I., Philadelphia, 1849. 
 Burnside, W. F., The Gospel according to St. Luke, Expositor's 
 
 Bible, 3 ed. London, 1908. 
 *Caietanus, Thomas de Vio, Commentarii in Script uram S., 
 
 torn. III., Lugduni, 1639. 
 *Calmet, Augustinus, Commentarius litteralis in omnes libros 
 
 Novi Testamenti, transl. by J. D. Mansi, torn. II., Wirce- 
 
 burgi, 1787. 
 Calovius, Abraham, Biblia illustrata Novi Testamenti, Dresdae 
 
 et Lipsiae, 1710. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 203 
 
 Calvin, John, Commentarius m in harmoniam Evangelicam; also 
 
 Sermons sur l'harmonie Evangelique, 38, 39. Opera quae 
 
 supersunt omnia, vols. 45, 46. Edit, by Baum, E. Cunitz 
 
 and E. Reuss (Corp. Reform), Brunsvigae, 1891. 
 Campbell, George, The four Gospels, transl. from the Greek 
 
 with preliminary dissertation and notes critical and explan- 
 atory, Philadelphia, 1796. 
 Campbell, R. J., The new theology, New York, 1907. 
 Candlish, J. S., Children (sons, daughters) of God, HDB II. 
 
 215-221. 
 *Canisius, Peter, Commentariorum de Verbi Dei corruptelis, 
 
 torn. 2, de sacrosancta Virgine Maria Deipara, Parisiis, 
 
 1584. 
 *Capecelatro, Alfonso, La Vita di Gesu Cristo, vol. I., Roma, 
 
 1887. 
 Cappellus, Lud., In Biblia Critica, vol. 6, 286. 
 Carman, Augustini, S., Philo's doctrine of the Divine Father 
 
 and the Virgin Birth, AmJTh IX (1905) 491-518. 
 Carpenter, S. C, Christianity according to S. Luke, London, 
 
 1919. 
 Carr, Arthur, The Gospel according to St. Luke, London, 1875. 
 Cartwritus, Thomas, Commentaria practica in totam historiam 
 
 evangelicam ex quatuor evangelistis harmonice c«n-cinna- 
 
 tam, Londonini, 1630. 
 *Catenae Graecorum Patrum, Edit. J. A. Cramer, torn. 2, 
 
 Oxford, 1844. 
 Charles, R. H., Religious development between the Old and 
 
 New Testament, New York, 1915. 
 *Chateillon, Sebastian, Biblia interprete Sebastiano Castalione 
 
 una cum ejusdem annotationibus, Basileae, 1551. 
 Clarke, Adam, The New Testament, text with comment., 
 
 Baltimore, 1836. 
 Clemens, John S., Childhood, the Childhood of Jesus, HDG I. 
 
 298 ff. 
 *Coghlan, Daniel, De Incarnatione, Dublini, 1910. 
 Conrady, L., Die Quelle der kanonischen Kindheitsgeschichte 
 
 Jesu, Ein wissenschaftlicher Versuch, Gottingen, 1900. 
 Cooke, R. J., The Incarnation and recent criticism, New York, 
 
 1907. 
 *Corderius, Balthasar, Catena sexaginta quinque graecorum 
 
 patrum in s. Lucam . . . et annotationibus illustrata, 
 
 Antwerpiae, 1628-47. 
 
204 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 Cremer, Hermann, Biblisch-theologisches Worterbuch der ntl. 
 Gracitat, Gotha, 1902, transl. by W. Urwich, Edinburgh, 
 1892. 
 Critici Sacri, sive annotata doctissimorum virorum in Vet. et 
 
 Nov. Test., Amstelodami, 1698. 
 *Curci, Carlo M., II Nuovo Testamento volgarizzato ed exposto 
 
 in note esegetiche e morali, Roma, 1879. 
 Daab, Jesus von Nazareth, wie wir ihn heute sehen, Leipzig, 1907. 
 Dalman, Gtjstaf, The Words of Jesus considered in the light of 
 post-biblical writings and the Aramaic language, transl. by- 
 Kay, Edinburgh, 1909. 
 D'Arcy, Charles F., Consciousness, HDG I. 361 ff. 
 Davis, N., The Story of the Nazarene in annotated paraphrase, 
 
 New York, 1903. 
 Delitzsch, Franz, Hebrew New Testament, 13 ed., Berlin, 1904. 
 Denney, James, Jesus and the Gospel, Christianity justified in 
 
 the mind of Christ, New York, 1909. 
 *Denzinger, Henricus, Enchiridion symbolorum definitionum 
 et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum, 12 ed. Freiburgi, 
 1911. 
 Dickenson, C. H., The perfecting of Jesus, in And R XVII 
 
 (1892) 339-360. 
 Dickey, Samuel, The significance of the baptism of Jesus for 
 His conception of His authority, BW (N.S.) XXXVII 
 (1911) 359-368. 
 *Didon, Rev. Father, Jesus Christ, Our Saviour's Person, mis- 
 sion and spirit, transl. by B. O'Reilly, New York, 1891. 
 *Dionysius Cartusianus, Opera Omnia, V., Monstrolii, 1898. 
 Doderlein, Jul., Das Lernen des Jesusknaben, NJdTh I (1892) 
 
 606-619; cf. Think. Ill (1893) 171-174. 
 Dods, Marcus, Baptism, in HDG I. 170. 
 
 Dollinger, John J., The Gentile and the Jew in the courts of the 
 Temple of Christ, vol. 2, transl. by N. Dorrell, London, 
 1906. 
 Doren, W. H. van, A suggestive commentary on St. Luke with 
 
 critical and homiletic notes, vol. I., New York, 1868. 
 Dorner, J. A., History of the development of the doctrine of the 
 Person of Christ, transl. by W. L. Alexander, Edinburgh, 
 1872. 
 *Drum, Walter, The Consciousness of the preexisting Christ, a 
 study of Philip, ii. 6, Homiletic and Past. Rev. XXI (1920) 
 11-15. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 205 
 
 Du Bose, Horace M., The consciousness of Jesus, New York, 
 
 1917. 
 ♦Duchesne, Mgr. Louis, Early history of the Church, from its 
 foundation to the end of the third century, transl. from the 
 4th French ed., New York, 1909. 
 *Durand, A., The Childhood of Jesus Christ, according to the 
 Canonical Gospels, transl. by J. Bruneau, Philadelphia, 1910. 
 
 Ebrard, J. H. A., The Gospel History, A Compendium of criti- 
 cal investigations in support of the historical character of 
 the Four Gospels, transl. by A. Bruce, Edinburgh, 1876. 
 
 Edersheim, Alfred, The life and times of Jesus the Messiah, 
 8 ed., New York, 1912. 
 
 , The Temple, its ministry and services as they were at 
 
 the time of Christ, New York, n. d. 
 -, In the days of Christ, Sketches of Jewish social life, 
 
 New York, n. d. 
 Ellicott, C. J., Historical lectures on the Life of Our Lord J. C, 
 
 with notes critical, historical and explanatory, Boston, 1864. 
 Erasmus, D., Novum Testamentum . . . cum annotationibus 
 
 . . . Basileae, 1541. Quoted in Biblia Critica, torn. VI., 275. 
 
 , Paraphrase upon the Gospels and Acts, London, 1548. 
 
 *Estius, Guilielmus, Annotationes aureae in praecipua ac diffi- 
 
 ciliora Sacrae Scripturae loca. Coloniae Agrippinae, 1622. 
 *Euthymius, Zigabenus, Commentarius in Lucam, M.PG 
 
 CXXIX. 897. 
 Evans, Daniel, The self-consciousness of Jesus, AndthSB II 
 
 (1891) 16-19. 
 Ewald, Heinrich, Die drei ersten Evangelien und die Apostel- 
 
 geschichte ubersetzt und erklart, 2 ed. Gottingen, 1871. 
 , The History of Israel, vol. VI., transl. by J. F. Smith, 
 
 London, 1883. 
 *Fabrus, Jacobus Stapulensus, Commentarium initiatorium 
 
 in quatuor Evangelia, Coloniae, 1541. 
 Fairbain, A. M., Studies in the Life of Christ, New York, 1897. 
 Fairweather, William, Development of doctrine, HDB Ex. 
 
 vol. 272-308. 
 , The background of the Gospels; or Judaism in the 
 
 period between the Old and New Testaments, Edinburgh, 
 
 1908. 
 Farmer, George, "Boyhood," "Boyhood of Jesus," HDG I. 
 
 221-230. 
 Farrar, Frederic W., The life of Christ, New York, 1888. 
 
206 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 Farrar, The Gospel according to St. Luke, Cambridge, 1912. 
 Faut, S., Die Christologie seit Schleiermacher, ihre Geschichte 
 
 und ihre BegrUndung, Tubingen, 1907. 
 Feine, Paul, Eine vorkanonische tlberlieferung des Lukas in 
 
 Evangelium und Apostelgeschichte, Eine Untersuchung, 
 
 Gotha, 1891. 
 
 , Theologie des Neuen Testaments, Leipzig, 1912. 
 
 *Felder, Hilarin, Jesus Christus, Apologie seiner Messianitat 
 
 und Gottheit gegeniiber der neuesten unglaubigen Jesus- 
 
 Forschung, vol. I., Das Bewusstsein Jesu, Paderborn, 
 
 1911. 
 Feldman, W. M., The Jewish Child, Its history, folklore, biology 
 
 and sociology, London, 1917. 
 Felton, Joseph, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte oder Juden- 
 
 tum und Heidentum zur Zeit Christi und der Apostel, 
 
 Regensburg, 1910. 
 Field, Frederick, Notes on the translation of the New Testa- 
 ment, being the Otium Norvicense (Pars Tertia), Cam- 
 bridge, 1899. See also a review in ExpT X (1898-9) 484. 
 *Fillion, Cl., Evangile selon S. Luc. Introduction critique et 
 
 Commentaires, Paris, 1882. 
 , Le developpement intellectuel et moral de Jesus. In 
 
 Rclfr, April 1 and April 15, 1914. 
 Findlay, A. F., Gospels (Apocryphal), HDB I. 671-685. 
 Fleetwood, John, The Life of Our Lord and Saviour J. C, 
 
 Philadelphia, 1855. 
 Foote, James, Lectures on the Gospel according to St. Luke, vol. 
 
 I., Edinburgh, 1858. 
 Foxell, W. J., The Temptation of Jesus, a study, London, 1920. 
 *Fouard, Constant, The Christ the Son of God, 5 ed., transl. by 
 
 Griff eth, New York, 1891. 
 Frederick, Henry Alfred, The self-consciousness of Jesus, 
 
 AndthSB II (1891) 19-22. 
 Furrer, Konrad, Das Leben Jesu Christi, 3 ed., Leipzig, 1905. 
 Garvie, Alfred E., Studies in the Inner Life of Jesus, London, 
 
 1907. 
 , The Gospel accord, to St. Luke, Westminster New Test., 
 
 vol. III. 
 Gates, Herbert Wright, The life of Jesus, A manual for 
 
 teachers, Chicago, 1907. 
 Geikie, Cunningham, The life and words of Christ, New York, 
 
 1902. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 207 
 
 Gelpke, Ernst Friedrich, Die Jugendgeschichte des Herrn; 
 ein Beitrag zur hoheren Kritik und Exegese des neuen 
 Testaments, Bern, 1841. 
 
 George, E. A., The Gospels of the Infancy, in OT-NTSt X 
 (1890) 281 ff. 
 
 Gess, Wolfgang E., Christi Person und Werk nach Christi 
 Selbstzeugniss und den Zeugnissen der Apostel, Basel, 1887. 
 
 *Gigot, Francis, The Virgin Birth in St. Luke's Gospel, IthQ 
 VIII (1913) 412-434. 
 
 , Studies in the Synoptic Gospels, NYE, I (91895) 3. 
 
 Gilbert, George Holley, The student's life of Jesus, Chicago, 
 1896. 
 
 , Father, Fatherhood, HDG I. 579-582. 
 
 Godet, F., A commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke, 2 ed., 
 transl. by E. W. Shalders and W. D. Cousin, New York, 1881. 
 
 , The Life of Jesus prior to His Ministry, Think. VII 
 
 (1895) 390-404. 
 
 Gore, Charles, Dissertation on subjects connected with the 
 Incarnation, New York, 1895. 
 
 Goulburn, Edward M., The Gospel of the Childhood, a practi- 
 cal and devotional commentary on the simple recorded inci- 
 dent of O. B. L.'s Childhood, Lk. ii. 41-52, New York, 1873. 
 
 Gould, Ezra P., The biblical theology of the New Testament, 
 
 New York, 1900. 
 *Grimm, Joseph, Das Leben Jesu nach den vier Evangelien. 
 Geschichte der Kindheit Jesu, Regensburg, 1906. 
 
 Guignebert, Charles, Manuel d'histoire ancienne du Chre- 
 tianisme, les origines, Paris, 1906. 
 
 Guyse, John, The practical expositor, or an explanation of the 
 New Testament in the form of a paraphrase, vol. 2, Glas- 
 gow, 1792. 
 
 Hacker, Johannes, Die Jungfrauen — Geburt und das neue 
 Testament Exeg. Untersuchung, ZWTh XLIX (1906) 18-61. 
 
 Hahn, G. L., Das Evangelium des Lucas, vol. I., Breslau, 1892. 
 
 Hall, Francis, The kenotic theory consid. with ref. to its an- 
 glican forms and arguments, New York, 1898. 
 
 , The Incarnation, New York, 1915. 
 
 Hall, G. Stanley, Jesus, the Christ in the light of psychology, 
 New York, 1917. 
 
 Hanna, W., The earlier years of our Lord's life on earth, New 
 York, 1870. 
 
 Harden, J. M., Mary, the Virgin, HDG II. 140. 
 
208 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 Harnack, Adolf, What is Christianity? transl. by T. Saunders, 
 
 London, 1901. 
 , Luke the Physician, the author of the Third Gospel and 
 
 the Acts of the Apostles, transl. by Wilkinson, New York, 1908. 
 , The Sayings of Jesus, The second source of St. Matthew 
 
 and St. Luke, transl. by Wilkinson, New York, 1908. 
 -, The Date of the Acts and of the Synoptic Gospels, transl. 
 
 by Wilkinson, New York, 1911. 
 
 Hartmann, Julius, Das Leben Jesu nach den Evangelien 
 geschichtlich dargestellt fur gebildete Leser, Stuttgart, 1839. 
 
 Hase, Carl, The Life of Jesus, a manual for academic study, 4 
 ed., transl. by J. F. Clarke, Boston, 1860. 
 
 , Geschichte Jesu nach akademischen Vorlesungen, Leip- 
 zig, 1876. 
 
 Hase, Karl A., New Testament parallels in Buddhistic litera- 
 ture, New York, 1907. 
 
 Hastings, James, The great texts of the Bible, St. Luke (edit, 
 by J. Hastings), New York, 1913. 
 
 Hausrath, Adolf, A History of the New Testament times, the 
 time of Jesus, transl. by C. Poynting and P. Quenger, vol. I., 
 London, 1878. 
 
 , Jesus und die neutestamentlichen Schriftsteller, Band II., 
 
 Berlin, 1909. 
 
 Hawkins, J. C, Horae Synopticae, Oxford, 1909. 
 *Haymonis, Halberstat, Episc, Homilia 17 Dominica prima 
 
 post Epiphaniam, M.PL CXVIII. 120-126. 
 *Heer, M., Die Stammbaume Jesu nach Matthaus und Lukas, 
 BSt XV Freiburg i. B., 1910. 
 
 Henry, Matthew, An exposition of the Old and New Testa- 
 ment, vol. 8, London, 1866. 
 
 Herford, R. Travers, Pharisaism, its aim and its method, 
 New York, 1912. 
 
 Hess, Wilh., Jesus von Nazareth, Tubinger, 1906. 
 
 Hilgenfeld, Adolf, Die Geburts — und Kindheitsgeschichte 
 Jesu, Luc. i. 5-ii. 52. ZWTh XLIV (1901) 177-235. 
 
 Hillmann, Johannes, Die Kindheitsgeschichte Jesu nach Lucas, 
 JprTh XVII (1891) 192-261. 
 
 Hitchcock, Albert W., The self -consciousness of Jesus in its 
 relation to the Messianic hope, OT-NTSt XIII (1891) 
 209 ff. and 270 ff. 
 
 , The psychology of Jesus, A study of the development 
 
 of His self -consciousness, Boston, 1907. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 209 
 
 Hoben, Allen, The Virgin Birth, AmJTh VI (1902) 473 ff. 
 Hofmann, Chr. K. V., Die heilige Schrift neuen Testaments 
 
 zusammenhangend untersucht, vol. VIII., Nordlingen, 1878. 
 Hofmann, R., art. Apocrypha of the New Testament, in Sch- 
 
 HEnc I. 105-107. 
 Hofmeisterus, Joannes, Commentarium in evangelium Lucae, 
 
 Lovanii, 1562. 
 Hollmann, L. The Jewish Religion in the time of Jesus, transl. 
 
 by E. W. Lummis, London, 1909. 
 Holmes, Peter, Jesus Christ, Kit. EBL I. 541 ff. 
 Holtzmann, H. J., Hand-Commentar zum Neuen Testament, I., 
 
 Freiburg i. B., 1892. 
 , Lehrbuch der neutestamentlichen Theologie, Freiburg 
 
 i. B., 1897. 
 
 Das messianische Bewusstsein Jesu, Ein Beitrag zur 
 
 Leben-Jesu-Forschung, Tubingen, 1907. 
 Holtzmann, Oscar, The life of Jesus, transl. by Bealby and 
 Cenney, London, 1904. 
 
 , Das Messiasbewusstsein Jesu und seine neuste Be- 
 
 streitung (Vortrag), Giessen, 1902. 
 *Hugo, Cardinalis de Sancto Caro, Postilla super IV. Evan- 
 
 gelia, Basil, 1482. 
 Humphrey, W. G., A commentary on the Revised Version of 
 
 the New Testament, London, 1882. 
 *Hurter, Hugo, Theologiae dogmaticae compendium, II. Oeni- 
 
 ponte, 1891. 
 *Isaac de Stella, Homilia (duo) in Dominica infra octavam 
 
 Epiphaniae, M.PL CXCIV 1715-1719. 
 Jacobus, Melancthon W., Notes on the Gospels, critical and 
 
 explanatory, Mark and Luke, New York, 1867. 
 *Jacquier, B., Histoire des livres du Nouveau Testament. 
 
 6 ed., vol. 2, Paris, 1910. 
 *Jansenius, Cornelius, Tetrateuchus sive commentarius in 
 
 sancta Jesu Christi Evangelia, torn. 2, Avenione, 1835. 
 *Janssens, J., Tractatus de Deo Homine, I. Friburgi, 1901. 
 Jeremias, Alfred, Babylonisches im Neuen Testament, Leipzig, 
 
 1905. 
 *John Scotus Erigena, De divisione naturae, IV. 10, M.PL 
 
 CXXII. 777. 
 Jones, Maurice, The New Testament in the twentieth century. 
 A survey of recent christological and historical criticism of 
 the New Testament, London, 1914. 
 
210 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 Keil, C. F., Comment ar uber die Evangelien des Markus und 
 
 Lukas, Leipzig, 1879. 
 Keim, Theodor, The history of Jesus of Nazara, transl. by G. 
 
 Goldart, London, 1876. 
 Kennedy, A. R. S., Education, HDB I. 346 ff. 
 Kent, Charles F., The Life and Teaching of Jesus according 
 
 to the earliest records, New York, 1913. 
 
 , Biblical geography and history, New York, 1911. 
 
 Kilpatrick, T. B., Character of Christ, HDG I. 281 ff . 
 
 , Incarnation, HDG I. 796 ff. 
 
 Klostermann, Erich, Lukas, Tubingen, 1919. 
 *Knabenbauer, Joseph, Commentarius in Quatuor S. Evangelia 
 
 Domini N. Jesu Christi., vol. 3, in Lucam, Paris, 1896. 
 Krenkel, Max, Josephus und Lucas, der schriftstellerische 
 
 Einflus des jiidischen Geschichtschreibers auf den Christ- 
 lichen Nachgewissen, Leipzig, 1894. 
 Kuhl, Ernst, Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu, BZSF ser. III. nbr II 
 
 (1907). 
 *Lagrange, M. J., Le recit de l'enfance de Jesus dans S. Luc, Rb 
 
 IV (1895) 160 ff . 
 
 , Les sources du Troisieme Evangile, Rb IV (1895) 5 ff. 
 
 , La Paternite de Dieu dans l'ancien Testament, Rb 
 
 (N. S.) V (1908) 481 ff. 
 , La Conception surnaturelle du Christ d'apres Saint Luc, 
 
 Rb (1914) 67-71 and 188-208. 
 -, Evangile selon Saint Luc, Paris, 1921. 
 
 *Lamy, Bernardo, Commentarius in harmoniam sive con- 
 
 cordiam quatuor Evangelistarum, Venetilis, 1869. 
 Lange, J. P., The life of Christ, transl. by Taylor and Rylud, 
 
 vol. I., Edinburgh, 1872. 
 *a Lapide, Cornelius, Commentaria in Sacram Scripturam, 
 
 editio Xysto Riario Sfortiae, torn. 8, Niapoli, 1857. Transl. 
 
 into English by Mossman and Ross, 1882. 
 *Lebreton, Jules, Les origines du dogme de la Trinite, Paris, 
 
 1910. 
 *Le Camus, La Vie de N. S. Jesus Christ, vol. I., Paris, 1883. 
 *Lepicier, Alexio M., Tractatus de Incarnatione Verbi, Parisiis, 
 
 1905. 
 *Lepin, Marius, Christ and the Gospel, or Jesus the Messiah and 
 
 Son of God, authorized English version, Philadelphia, 1910. 
 *Lesetre, H., La Vierge Mere, RCLfr (1907) 113-130. 
 , La methode historique de S. Luc, Rb I (1892) 171 ff. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 211 
 
 *Lesetre, H., Jesus Christ, VDB III. 1444. 
 
 , Le Temple de Jerusalem, Paris, 1912. 
 
 Lester, C. S., The historical Jesus, a study of the synoptic 
 
 Gospels, New York, 1912. 
 Lightfoot, John, Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae or Hebrew 
 
 and Talmudical exercitations upon the Gospel of St. Luke, 
 
 edit, by R. Gaundel, Oxford, 1859. 
 Lightfoot, J. B., The Apostolic Fathers, ed. by Harmer, Lon- 
 don, 1912. 
 Lobstein, Paul, The Virgin Birth of Christ, an historical essay 
 
 transl. by V. Leutiett, London, 1903. 
 Loisy, Alfred, Les fivangiles Synoptiques, vol. I. 278-384. 
 
 Ceffonds, 1907. 
 , Les ecrits de Saint Luc, a propos d' un livre recent, RHLr, 
 
 N. S. IV (1913) 352-368. 
 Low, Leopold, Die Lebensalter in der jiidischen Literatur von 
 
 psychologischen rechts — sitten — u. religions — geschicht- 
 
 lichen Standpunkte betrachtet, Szegedin, 1875. 
 *Lucas, Franciscus Brugensis, Comment arius in Sanctum Jesu 
 
 Christi Evangelium, torn. 2, Antuerpiae, 1619; found also 
 
 in Migne, Cursus Completus, S. S. 
 *Ludolphus Saxonius, Vita Christi ex Evangeliis et scriptoribus 
 
 orthodoxis, Paris, 1534. 
 Luther, Martin, Werke, vol. I.-III. and X.-XII. Edit. E. 
 
 Ludwig Enders, Frankfurt am Main, 1862. 
 *Lyra, Nicolas de, Biblia latina compostillis, vol. 4. Wornberg, 
 
 Koberger, 1487. 
 *Maas, A. J., The life of Jesus Christ according to Gospel history, 
 
 St. Louis, 1891. 
 
 , Jesus Christ, Cath. Enc. VIII. 374 ff . 
 
 , A Day in the Temple, St. Louis, 1908. 
 
 MacDermott, G. M., The Gospel according to St. Luke, Lon- 
 don, 1916. 
 *MacEvilly, Rev. Dr., An exposition of the Gospel of St. Luke, 
 
 3 ed., New York, 1888. 
 Machen, J. Gresnan, The New Testament account of the 
 
 birth of Jesus, PrthR III (1905) 64 ff. and IV (1906) 
 
 38 ff. 
 , The origin of the first two chapters of Luke, PrthR X 
 
 (1912) 212-277. 
 Mackintosh, H. R., The doctrine of the Person of Jesus, New 
 
 York, 1912. 
 
212 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 Mackintosh, Robert, The dawn of the Messianic consciousness 
 
 ExpT XVI (1905) 157-158 and 211-215. 
 Maclaren, Alexander, The Gospel of St. Luke, New York, 1894. 
 McLaughlin, G. A., Commentary on the Gospel according to St. 
 
 Luke, Chicago, 1912. 
 Maclean, Arthur J., God, HDB, sing. vol. 299-303. 
 *MacRory, J., The authorship of the Third Gospel and the Acts, 
 
 IthQ II (1907) April. 
 , Professor Harnack and St. Luke's historical authority, 
 
 IthQ II (1907) 223 ff. 
 Mahaffy, John P., The silver age of the Greek world, Chicago, 
 
 1906. 
 Malan, C, L'avenement dans Jesus enfant de la conscience 
 
 religieuse, RThQr V (1896) 269-283. 
 *Maldonatus, Joannis, Commentarius in Quatuor Evangelistas, 
 
 ed. J. M. Raich, torn. 2, Moguntiae, 1874. 
 *Mangenot, E., L'Evangile de Saint Luc, two articles in RClfr, 
 
 Sept. and Nov., 1910. 
 , Les Evangiles Synoptiques, Conferences apologetiques, 
 
 Paris, 1911. 
 Martin, Alfred W., The life of Jesus in the light of the higher 
 
 criticism, New York, 1913. 
 Mason, Arthur James, The conditions of our Lord's life on 
 
 earth, New York, 1896. 
 Matthews, Shailer, The Messianic hope in the New Testa- 
 ment, Chicago, 1905. 
 — , A history of New Testament times in Palestine, 175 b.c- 
 
 70 a.d., New York, 1914. 
 Melanchthonis, Philipp, Opera quae supersunt omnia, Bret- 
 
 schneider, ed. by Bindseil, vol. 24, Brunsvigae, 1856. 
 *Metaphrastes, Simeon, Oratio de Sancta Maria, 13 and 14, 
 
 M.PG CXV. 447-8. 
 Meyer, H. W. W., Critical and exegetical commentary on the 
 
 New Testament, transl. rev. and ed. by Dickenson and 
 
 Stewart, Edinburgh, 1880. 
 Michaelis, Johann David, Uebersetzung des Neuen Testa- 
 ments, vol. I., Gottingen, 1790. 
 Michaelis, Johanns Georg, Exercitatio Philologico-theologica 
 
 de Christo ONTI EN TOIS TOY IIATPOS ad Luc. 
 
 ii. 49, in Miscellanea Groningona, in miscellaneorum Duis- 
 
 burgensium continuationem publicata, I. fasc. II. 262-282 
 
 (ed. D. Gerdes) torn. I, Amstelodami et Duisburgi, 1736. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 213 
 
 Michel, Charles, fivangiles Apocryphes, Paris, 1911. 
 Miller, Lucius Hopkins, Our knowledge of Christ, an historical 
 
 approach, New York, 1914. 
 , The Life of Jesus in the light of modern criticism, BW 
 
 XLIII (1914) 75-85. 
 Milner, G. E. J., The Gospel according to St. Luke, ed. with 
 
 introduction and notes, London, 1916. 
 Moffatt, James, An introduction to the literature of the New 
 
 Testament, New York, 1911. 
 Monnier, Henri, La Mission historique de Jesus, 2 ed., Paris, 
 
 1914. 
 Montefiore,C. G.,The synoptic Gospels, ed. with introduction 
 
 and a commentary, with a series of additional notes by I. 
 
 Abrahams, vol. 2, London, 1909. 
 Moore, Clifford H., The Religious thought of the Greeks from 
 
 Homer to the triumph of Christianity, Cambridge, Mass., 
 
 1916. 
 Morus, Sam. Fried, Nathan, Praelectiones in Lucae Evangelium, 
 
 ed. C. A. Donat, Lipsiae, 1795. 
 Moulton, James Hope, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, I. 
 
 Edinburgh, 1908. 
 Moulton and Milligan, Texical notes from the Papyri, Exp. 
 
 vol. VII., ser. 7 (1909) 470. 
 Murray, Potter, The Legendary Story of Christ's Childhood, 
 
 NW VIII (1889) 648. 
 Neander, Augustine, The Life of Jesus Christ, 4 ed., transl. 
 
 and ed. by J. Clintock and C. E. Blumanthal, New York, 
 
 1850. 
 Nebe, A., Die Kindheitsgeschichte unseres Herrn Jesu Christi 
 
 nach Matthaus und Lukas ausgelegt, Stuttgart, 1893. 
 Nevin, Alfred, Popular Commentary on the Gospel according 
 
 to Luke, Philadelphia, 1868. 
 Neumann, Arno, Jesus, transl. by M. A. Canney, London, 1906. 
 Nicoll, W. R., The Incarnate Saviour, a Life of Christ, New 
 
 York, 1882. 
 Nolloth, Charles F., The Person of our Lord and recent 
 
 thought, London, 1908. 
 , The rise of the Christian Religion, a study in origins, 
 
 London, 1917. 
 Nosgen, E., Geschichte Jesu Christi, Miinchen, 1891. 
 Oesterley, William, Judaism in the days of Christ, in "The 
 
 Parting of the Roads," ed. by F. Jackson, London, 1912. 
 
214 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 Olshausen, Hermann, Biblical commentary on the Gospels, 
 
 adapted especially for preachers and students, transl. by S. 
 
 Lowe, Edinburgh, 1847. 
 Oosterzee, J. J. van, The Gospel according to Luke, 4 ed., 
 
 transl. by Schaff and Starbuck, New York, 1867 (in Lange's 
 
 Comment.). 
 Orb, James, The Virgin Birth of Christ, London, 1908. 
 Owen, John J., A commentary, critical, expository and practical 
 
 on the Gospel of St. Luke, New York, 1859. 
 Paterson, W. P., Jesus Christ, HDB (sing. vol.). 
 *Patritius, Franciscus Xaverius, De Evangeliis, lib. 3, Fri- 
 
 bourgi-Brisgoviae, 1853. 
 Paulus, H. E. G., Philologisch-kritischer Commentar Uber die 
 
 drei ersten Evangelien, vol. I., Liibeck, 1800-1802. 
 , Das Leben Jesu, als Grundlage einer reinen Geschichte 
 
 des Urchristentums, Heidelberg, 1828. 
 -, Exegetisches Handbuch Uber die drei ersten Evangelien, 
 
 Heidelberg, 1842. 
 Paynter, A. W., The Holy Life, a contribution to the historical 
 
 development of, and a critical exposition, Chicago, 1886. 
 Peabody, Francis, The Character of Jesus Christ, HJ Jul. 
 
 (1903) 641 ff. 
 *Pesch, Christian, Praelectiones dogmaticae, IV., De Verbo 
 
 Incarnato, de B. V. Maria, de cultu sanctorum, 3 ed. Fri- 
 
 burgi, 1909. 
 Pfleiderer, Otto, The early Christian conception of Christ, its 
 
 significance and value in the history of religion, New York, 
 
 1905. 
 , Christian Origins, transl. by Huebach, New York, 
 
 1906. 
 
 Primitive Christianity, its writings and teachings in 
 
 their historical connections, transl. by W. Montgomery, 
 
 New York, 1909. 
 Phelan, William, The remains of William Phelan, D.D., with a 
 
 biographical memoir by John Bishop of Limerick, vol. I., 
 
 London, 1832. 
 Philo Judaeus, Works, transl. by C. D. Yonge, London, 1855. 
 *Photius, Constantinopolitani Patriarcha, Ad. Ampilochium, 
 
 quest, 157, M.PG CI. 832; Contra Manichaeos, IV. 16 M.PG 
 
 CII B. 233. 
 *Picard, Louis, La transcendance de Jesus Christ, torn. I., La 
 
 vie et la psychologie de Jesus Christ, Paris, 1905, 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 215 
 
 *Piscator, John, Commentarii in omnes libros Novi Testamenti, 
 
 ante hac separatim editi nunc vero in unum volumen col- 
 
 lecti, 3 ed. Herbornae Nassoviorum, 1638. 
 Plummer, Alfred, A critical and exegetical commentary on the 
 
 Gospel according to St. Luke, 7 ed., New York, 1906. 
 , The advance of Christ in 2o#(a. In Exp. ser. 4, vol. 
 
 IV. 1-14. 
 Plumptre, E. H., The Gospel according to St. Luke (in Ellicott's 
 
 New Test. Comment. L), London, 1884. 
 *Pohle, Jospeh, Christology, a dogmatic treatise on the Incarna- 
 tion, transl. by A. Preuss, 2 ed., St. Louis, 1916. 
 *Power, Matthew, Who were they who "understood not"? 
 
 IthQ VII (1912) July and Oct. 
 de Pressense, Edmond, Jesus Christ, His times, life and work, 
 
 2 ed., transl. by A. Harwood, New York, 1868. 
 , The early years of Christianity, transl. by A. Harwood, 
 
 New York, 1872. 
 Preuschen, Erwin, Vollstandiges griechisch-deutsches Hand- 
 
 worterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der 
 
 ubrigen urchristlichen Literatur, Giessen, 1910. 
 Pricaeus, Joannes, Commentarii in varios novi Testamenti 
 
 Libros, Londini, 1681, also in Biblia Critica VI. 304. 
 Purves, George T., The story of the Birth, BW VIII (1896) 
 
 423 ff. 
 Ramsay, W. M., Was Christ born at Bethlehem? a study in the 
 
 credibility of St. Luke, New York, 1898. 
 
 , The education of Christ, 2 ed., New York, 1902. 
 
 , Luke the Physician. And other studies in the history 
 
 of religion, London, 1908. 
 -, The bearing of recent discovery on the trustworthiness 
 
 of the New Testament, 2 ed., London, 1915. 
 Reinhard, F. V., Plan of the Founder of Christianity, transl. by 
 
 Oliver Taylor, New York, 1831. 
 Renan, Ernest, The Life of Jesus, transl. by Brentano, New 
 
 York, 1863. 
 , Les Evangiles et la seconde generation chretienne, 3 ed., 
 
 Paris, 1877. 
 Resch, A., Das Kindheits Evangeliumnach Lucas und Matthaeus 
 
 T. U. Leipzig, 1897. 
 Reubelt, J. A., The Scripture doctrine of the Person of Christ, 
 
 based on the German of W. F. Gess, 2 ed., Andover, 
 
 1871. 
 
216 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 Reuss, Edouard, Histoire Bvangelique, synopse des trois pre- 
 mieres evangiles, Paris, 1876. 
 Reville, Albert, Jesus de Nazareth, etudes critiques sur les 
 
 antecedents de l'histoire evangelique et la vie de Jesus, vol. 
 
 I., Paris, 1897. 
 
 , The Birth and Infancy of Jesus, NW I (1892) 695-723. 
 
 Rhees, Rush, The Life of Jesus of Nazareth, a study, New 
 
 York, 1900. 
 Rice, Edwin, Popular commentary on the Gospel according to 
 
 St. Luke, 4 ed., Philadelphia, 1894, 
 Riddle, M. B., The Gospel according to Luke, New York, 
 
 1822. 
 Robertson, A. T., The teaching of Jesus concerning God the 
 
 Father, New York, 1904. 
 
 , Keywords in the teaching of Jesus, Philadelphia, 1906. 
 
 , Epochs in the life of Christ. A study of development and 
 
 struggle in the Messiah's work, New York, 1908. 
 , A grammar of the Greek New Testament in the light 
 
 of historical research, London, 1914. 
 , The romance of the census in Luke's Gospel. Bib. 
 
 Rev. V (1920) 491. 
 -, Luke the historian in the light of research, New York, 
 
 1920. 
 Robinson, Forbes, The self-limitation of the Word of God as 
 
 manifested in the Incarnation, London, 1914. 
 *Ryan, Cornelius, The Gospels of the Sundays and Feasts, 2 ed., 
 
 vol. 2, New York, 1906. 
 Ryle, J. C, Expository thoughts on the Gospels for family and 
 
 private use, St. Luke, vol. 1, New York, 1867. 
 Sadler, M. F., The Gospel according to St. Luke with notes 
 
 critical and practical, London, 1888. 
 *Salmeron, Alphonsus, Commentarii in Evangelicam historiam 
 
 et in Acta Apostolorum, Coloniae Agrippinae, 1612. 
 Sanday, William, The Virgin Birth, ExpT XIV (1902-3) 296- 
 
 303. 
 
 , God (in New Test.), HDB II. 205-215. 
 
 , Son of God, HDB IV. 570-579. 
 
 , The Life of Christ in recent research, Oxford, 1907. 
 
 , Outlines of the Life of Christ, 2 ed., New York, 1908. 
 
 *Schaefer, Aloys., The Mother of Jesus in Holy Scripture, 
 
 biblical theological addresses, 2 ed., transl. by F. Brossart, 
 
 New York, 1913. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 217 
 
 Schaff, Philip, A popular commentary of the New Testament, 
 
 by English and American scholars of various evangelical 
 
 denominations, Edinburgh, 1879. 
 *Schanz, Paul, Commentar iiber der Evangelium des heiligen 
 
 Lucas, Tubingen, 1883. 
 *Schegg, Peter, Evangelium nach Lukas, I. Miinchen, 1861. 
 Schenkel, Daniel, Das Charakterbild Jesu, Weesbaden, 1879, 
 
 transl. by W. H. Furness, Boston, 1866. 
 Schlatter, D. A., Die Theologie des neuen Testaments, vol. I., 
 
 Das Wort Jesu, Stuttgart, 1909. 
 Schleusner, Joh. Fried., Novum Lexicon Graeco-Latinum in 
 
 N. T. cum variis observationibus philologicis, London, 1829. 
 Schleiermacher, Frederick, Ueber die Schriften des Lukas, 
 
 Berlin, 1817. 
 , A critical essay on the Gospel of St. Luke, transl. from 
 
 German, London, 1825. 
 -, Das Leben Jesu (ed. K. A. Rutenik), Berlin, 1864. 
 
 Schmidt, Hermann, Bildung und Gehalt des messianischen Be- 
 
 wusstseins Jesu, StKr LXI1 (1889) 423-507. 
 Schmidt, Nathaniel, The Prophet of Nazareth, New York, 1905. 
 Schmidt, P. Wilh., Die Geschichte Jesu I. erzahlt II. erlautert, 
 
 Tubingen and Leipzig, 1900-1904. 
 Schmiedel, P. W., Arts., Mary and Luke in E. B. 
 , Jesus in modern criticism, — A lecture transl. by M. A. 
 
 Canney, London, 1907. 
 Schoettgenius, Christianus, Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae 
 
 in theologiam Judaeorum dogmaticam antiquam et ortho- 
 
 doxam, torn. 2, Dresdae, 1742. 
 Scholia Vetera in Lucam, M.PG CVI. 1189. 
 *Schulte, P. Elzear, Die Entwickelung der Lehre vom men- 
 
 schlichen Wissen Christi bis zum Beginn der Scholastik, 
 
 Paderborn, 1914. 
 *Schumacher, Heinrich, Die Selbstoffenbarung Jesu bei Mat. 
 
 11, 27 (Luc. 10, 22), ein kritisch-exegetische Untersuchung, 
 
 Freiburg i. B., 1912. 
 , Christus in seiner Praexistenz und Kenose nach Phil. 2, 
 
 5-8 Rom., 1914. 
 Schurer, Emil, Geschichte des judischen Volkes im Zeitalter 
 
 Jesu Christi, 4 ed., Leipzig, 1907; English transl. by S. 
 
 Taylor and P. Christie, New York, 1891. 
 , Das messianische Selbstbewusstsein Jesu Christi, Gbttin- 
 
 gen, 1903. 
 
218 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 *Schwaiger, J., Leben Jesu, Innsbruch, 1860. 
 Schweitzer, Albert, The quest of the historical Jesus, a criti- 
 cal study of its progress from Reimarus to Wrede, transl. by 
 
 Montgomery, London, 1910. 
 Scott, E. F., Father's house, HDG I. 582. 
 
 *Seitz, A., Das Evangelium vom Gottessohn, Freiburg i. Br. 1908. 
 *Shanahan, Edmund T., Was the Son of Man brusque to His 
 
 mother? Catholic World CIV (1916) 342 ff. 
 Sheldon, Henry C, New Testament theology, New York, 1911. 
 Sickenberger, Joa., Titus von Bostra, Studien zu dessen Lukas- 
 
 homilien, Leipzig, 1901. 
 Smith, David, Education, HDG I. 507 ff. 
 , The days of His Flesh, the earthly life of our Lord and 
 
 Saviour J. C, New York, 1905. 
 Sodon, Hermann von., Die wichtigsten Fragen im Leben Jesu 
 
 (Vortrag), Berlin, 1904. 
 Soltau, Wilhelm, The Birth of Jesus Christ, transl. by M. A. 
 
 Canney, London, 1903. 
 Spaeth, H., Die Entwickelung Jesu (Vortrag), Berlin, 1872. 
 Spitta, Friedrich, Die chronologischen Notizen und die 
 
 Hymnen in Lc. i. u. 2, ZntlW VII (1906) 281-317. 
 Stalker, James, The Life of Jesus Christ, New York, 1909. 
 
 , Son of God, HDG II. 654 ff. 
 
 , The Christology of Jesus, being His teaching con- 
 cerning Himself according to the Synop. Gosp., London, 
 
 1899. 
 Stapfer, Edmond, Jesus Christ avant son Ministere, Paris, 1896, 
 
 transl. by S. G. Houghton, New York, 1900. 
 Steinbeck, Joh., Das gottliche Selbstbewusstsein Jesu nach 
 
 dem Zeugnis der Synoptiker, eine Untersuchung zur Christo- 
 
 logie, Leipzig, 1908. 
 *Steinmetzer, Franz, Die Geschichte der Geburt und Kindheit 
 
 Christi und ihr Verhaltnis zur babylonischen Mythe, 
 
 Minister i. E., 1910. 
 Steinmeyer, F. L., Die Geschichte der Geburt des Herrn und 
 
 seiner ersten Schritte im Leben, in Bezug auf die neueste 
 
 Kritik, Berlin, 1873. 
 *Stella, Didachus, De Observantia in Sanctum Jesu Christi 
 
 Evangelium secundum Lucam doctissima pariter et purissima 
 
 commentaria, L, Lugduni, 1592. 
 Stephens, George Barker, The theology of the New Testa- 
 ment, New York, 1903. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 219 
 
 Stewart, A. Morris, The temptation of Jesus, a study of our 
 
 Lord's trial in the wilderness, 2 ed., New York, 1903. 
 Stier, Rudolf, The Words of the Lord Jesus, 2 ed., transl. by 
 
 W. Pope, I., Edinburgh, 1894. 
 Stokes, Anson Phelps, What Jesus Christ thought of Himself, 
 another outline study and interpretation of His self -revela- 
 tion in the Gospels, New York, 1916. 
 Strauss, David Friedrich, The Life of Jesus, critically ex- 
 amined, 4 ed., transl. by M. Evans, New York, 1855. 
 Streatfeild, G. S., The Self -interpretation of Jesus Christ, a 
 study of the messianic consciousness as reflected in the 
 Synoptics, New York, 1906. 
 *Suarez, R. D. Franciscus, De myst. disp. iv. quaest. 27., art. 
 
 6, Opera omnia, torn. 19, Paris, 1860. 
 Sweet, Louis M., The birth and infancy of Jesus Christ accord- 
 ing to the Gospel narrative, Philadelphia, 1907. 
 *Sylveira, Joannis, Commentariorum in textum evangelicum, 
 
 torn. I, Lugduni, 1655. 
 Tasker, John G., Apocryphal Gospels, HDB Ex. vol. 431 ff. 
 *Terrien, T. B., La Mere de Dieu et la Mere des hommes d'apres 
 
 les peres et la theologie, Paris, 1900-2. 
 Theophylactus, Bulgariae Archiep., Ennaratio in Evangelium 
 
 Lucae, M.PG CXXIII. 733. 
 Thilo, Codex apocryphus Novi Testamenti, Leipzig, 1832. 
 Thiriet, Th. M., L'evangile medite avec les peres, I., Paris, 1905. 
 Tholuck, A., Die Glaubwlirdigkeit der evangelischen Geschichte, 
 zugleich eine Kritik des Lebens Jesu von Strauss fiir theolo- 
 gische und nicht theologische Leser dargestellt, Hamburg, 
 1858. 
 Thomas Aquinas, St., Summa Theologica, literally transl. by the 
 Fathers of the English Dominican Province, New York, 1913. 
 Thomson, William, Jesus Christ, SDB I. 1039 ff. 
 *Tirinus, Jacobus, In universam S. Scripturam commentarius, 
 
 torn. 4, Taurini, 1883. 
 *Toletus, Franciscus, Commentarii in sacrosanctum Jesu 
 
 Christi D. N. evangelium secundum Lucam, Parisiis, 1600. 
 Torrey, Charles C, The transl. made from the original Ara- 
 maic Gospels (in Studies in the hist, of relig. pres. to C. H. 
 Toy), New York, 1912. 
 Toy, C. H., Judaism and Christianity, a sketch of the progress 
 of thought from Old Testament to New Testament, Boston, 
 1891. 
 
220 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 Usener, H., Nativity, EB III. 3340-3352. 
 
 Vallings, J. F., Jesus Christ, the Divine Man, His life and 
 
 times, New York, 1889. 
 *Veuillot, Louis, La vie de notre Seigneur Jesus-Christ, 14 ed., 
 
 Paris, 1900. 
 Vincent, Marvin R., Word studies in the New Testament, vol. 
 
 L, New York, 1887. 
 Vogel, Theodor, Zur Charakteristik des Lukas nach Sprach 
 
 und Stil, Leipzig, 1899. 
 *Vogles, H. F., Die "Eltern" Jesu, BZ XI (1913) 33 ff. 
 Volter, Daniel, Die evangelischen Erzahlungen von der Geburt 
 
 und Kindheit Jesu kritisch untersucht, Strassburg 1911. 
 , Jesus der Menschensohn oder das Berufsbewusstsein 
 
 Jesu, Strassburg, 1914. 
 *Vonier, Dom Anscar, The Personality of Christ, London, 1915. 
 Wallis, Robert E., "About My Father's Business," a plea for 
 
 a neglected transl., Luke ii. 49, Exp. ser. 2, vol. VIII. 17-23. 
 Walpole, A. S., The Gospel according to St. Luke in the revised 
 
 version with introduction and notes, London, 1910. 
 *Ward, Mgr., The Holy Gospel according to St. Luke, with 
 
 introduction and notes, London, 1905. 
 Warfield, Benjamin B., Amazement, HDG I. 47 ff. 
 
 , Astonishment, HDG I. 131. 
 
 Weinel, Heinrich, and A. E. Widgery, Jesus in the nineteenth 
 
 century and after, Edinburgh, 1914. 
 Weiss, Bernard, The life of Christ, transl. by J. W. Hope, vol. 
 
 I., Edinburgh, 1883. 
 , Biblical theology of the New Testament, 3 ed., transl. 
 
 by E. Dugnid, vol. 2, Edinburgh, 1893. 
 
 A commentary on the New Testament, transl. by 
 
 Schodde and Wilson, New York, 1906. 
 Weiss, Johannes, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, I. die 
 
 drei alteren Evangelien, die Apostolgeschichte, Gottingen, 
 
 1907. 
 Wellhausen, Julius, Das Evangelium Lucae, Berlin, 1904. 
 
 , Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien, Berlin, 1905. 
 
 Wendt, Hans Heinrich, The teaching of Jesus, transl. by J. 
 
 Wilson, vol. I., Edinburgh, 1892. 
 Wernle, Paul, The beginnings of Christianity, transl. by G. A. 
 
 Beinemann and edit, by W. D. Morrison, London, 1903. 
 , The sources of our knowledge of the life of Jesus, transl. 
 
 by E. Lummis, London, 1907. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 221 
 
 Wette, W. M. L. de, Kurze Erklarung der Evangelien des Lukas 
 
 und Markus, Leipzig, 1846. 
 Wettstenius, Joannis J., Novum Testamentum Graecum, torn. 
 
 I., Amstelaedami, 1751. 
 Whitefoord, B., Christ and popularity, a study of St. Luke ii. 
 
 52. Exp. ser. 5, vol. II., pp. 69-76. 
 Wilkinson, William C, Concerning Jesus Christ the Son of 
 
 Man, Philadelphia, 1918. 
 Wolfius, Jo. Chbistophorus, Curae philogicae et criticae in 
 
 quatuor S. Evangelia et Acta Apostolorum, 3 ed., Hamburgi, 
 
 1739. 
 Wright, Arthur, The Gospel according to St. Luke in Greek, 
 
 London, 1900. 
 , A Synopsis of the Gospels in Greek, with various readings 
 
 and critical notes, 3 ed., London, 1906. 
 *Zacharias, Chrysopolitanus, In unum ex quatuor seu de con- 
 cord, Evang., M.PL CLXXXVI. 88. 
 Zahn, Theodor, Introduction to the New Testament, 3 ed., 
 
 transl. under direction of M. E. Jacobus, Edinburgh, 1909. 
 
 , Das Evangelium des Lucas, vol. I., Leipzig, 1913. 
 
 Zimmermann, Hellmuth, Evangelium des Lukas Kap. 1 und 2, 
 
 ein Versuch der Vermittlung zwischen Hilgenfeld und Har- 
 
 nack, StKr LXXVI (1903) 247-290. 
 Zockler, Otto, Jesus Christ, SchHEnc II. 1170. 
 
 II 
 
 SELECTED LIST ON CHRIST'S CONSCIOUSNESS 
 IN BOYHOOD 
 
 St. Epiphanius, Adv. haer. lib. I. torn. 2, haer. 30, M.PG XLI. 
 
 456-457. 
 St. Cyril of Alexandria, Explanation of St. Luke's Gospel ad 
 
 loc, M.PG LXXII. 509; also De recta fide, M.PG LXXVI. 
 
 1320. 
 St. Augustine, Serm. LI. De concord Evang., Matt, et Luc. in 
 
 generationibus Dom. C. II., M.PL XXXVIII. 342-343. 
 , Also de nuptiis et concup. Corp. Script. Lat. (edit. 
 
 Vrba and Zycha) XLII. 225. 
 Simeon Metaphrastes, Vita sanctorum, oratio de S. Maria, 
 
 M.PG CXV. 548. 
 
222 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 Maldonatus, Ioa, Comment, ad loc. 
 
 Sylveira, Jo., Comment, in text, evang. I. 352-354. 
 
 Stier, Rudolf, Words of the Lord Jesus, 23 ff . 
 
 Goulburn, E. M., The Gospel of the Childhood, 162-171. 
 
 Steinmeyer, F., Geschichte der Geburt des Herrn, 167 ff. 
 
 Schmidt, H., Bildung und Gehalt des messianischen Bewusst- 
 
 seins Jesu, StKr LXII (1889) 429-430. 
 Nebe, A., Die Kindheitsgeschichte J. C, 417. 
 Malan, C, L'avenement dans Jesus enfant de la conscience 
 
 religieuse, RThQr V. (1896) 269-283. 
 Furrer, K., Das Leben J. C, 51-58. 
 Garvie, A., Studies in the inner Life of Jesus, 110-114. 
 Bartmann, N. B., Christus ein Gegner des Marienkultus?, 43-61. 
 Seitz, A., Das Evangelium vom Gottessohn, 194-209. 
 Fillion, CL, Le developpement intellectuel et moral de Jesus, 
 
 RCIfr (April 1, 1914), 15 ff. 
 Felder, H., Jesus Christus, I. 278-280, 328-331. 
 
 Ill 
 
 TREATISES ON THE INFANCY AND BOYHOOD 
 OF CHRIST 
 
 Aelredus, Abb. Revallis, Tractatus de Jesu Puero duodenni, 
 M.PL CLXXXIV. 830-870. 
 
 Chiefly of a moral and religious value. 
 Bede, Venerabilis, Homil. XII. in Dominica prima post 
 Epiphaniam, M.PL XCIV. 65 ff. 
 
 A sermon dwelling mostly on the moral aspect. 
 
 Beet, Joseph A., The "Father's Business," Homiletic Rev. 
 
 XXXIV. (1897) 242-243. 
 Brief and in the homiletic line. 
 
 Berg, Emil P., Our Lord's preparation for the Messiahship, a 
 
 study on the early life of Jesus Christ, London, 1909. 
 Rather odd, certainly not composed on the Gospel records. 
 
 Bernard, Thomas D., The Songs of the Holy Nativity, London, 
 
 1895. 
 Boardman, George D., The Divine Man from the Nativity to 
 
 the Temptation, New York, 1887. 
 From the negative standpoint. 
 
 Bolo, Henri, Histoire de 1' Enfant Jesus, 2 ed., Paris, 1896. 
 Simple explanatory exposition of the Gospel account.jj 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 223 
 
 Bough, J., The early life of Our Lord, London, 1897. 
 
 Box, G. H., The Gospel narratives of the Nativity and the 
 
 alleged influence of heathen ideas, ZntlW VI (1905) 80-101. 
 
 Afterwards enlarged into his work: The Virgin Birth, 
 
 London, 1916. 
 
 A good critical presentment of the arguments for the historical trust- 
 worthiness. 
 
 Brooke, S. A., The early life of Jesus, London, 1870. 
 
 Brough, J., The early life of Our Lord, London, 1897. 
 
 A good treatment of the historical background. 
 
 Brown, David, The life of Jesus prior to his public ministry. 
 (Exp. T VI (1894-5) 415 ff.) 
 
 An answer to points raised by Godet. 
 
 Budham, F. P., The integrity of Lk. i. 5-ii, Exp. T VIII. 
 (1896-7) 116 ff. 
 
 A critical study of the question. 
 
 Calthrop, Gordon, On Lk. ii. 49 in Quiver, Dec. 1889. 
 Carter, T. T., Our Lord's early life, London, 1887. 
 
 , Meditations on the hidden life of Our Lord. 
 
 Chauvin, C, L'Enfance du Christ, Paris, 1901. 
 
 Clemens, John S., Art. The Childhood of Jesus, HDG I. 298 ff. 
 
 Good from the historical point of view. 
 Conrady, L., Die Quelle der kanonischen Kindheitsgeschichte 
 Jesu, ein wissenschaftlicher Versuch, Gottingen, 1900. 
 Phantastic and with results rejected by all. 
 
 Durand, A., The Childhood of Jesus Christ according to the can. 
 Gospels, transl. by J. Bruneau, Philadelphia, 1910. 
 
 Good answer to the criticisms of the negative school. 
 
 Farmer, George, Art. Boyhood, Boyhood of Jesus, HDG I. 
 221-230. 
 
 Good historical background and literal meaning of the Gospel text. 
 Fillion, Cl., Le developpement intellectuel et moral de Jesus. 
 *RCIfr April 1 and 15, 1914. 
 
 A good exposition of this question. 
 
 Gelpke, Ernst F. Die Jugendgeschichte des Herrn, ein Beitrag 
 zur hoheren Kritik und Exegese des neuen Testaments. 
 Bern, 1841. 
 
 Good conservative exposition of the Gospel narratives. 
 
 George, E. A., The Gospels of the Infancy, OT-NTSt X (1890) 
 281 ff. 
 
 Weighing the arguments for and against the historicity. 
 
 Godefridus, Ven Abb. Admontensis, Homilia 14-15 in Domin- 
 ica infra Oct. Epiphaniae, M.PL CLXXIV. 95-108. 
 
 He occupies himself mostly with the accommodative sense. 
 
224 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 Godet, F., The Life of Jesus prior to his ministry, Think VII. 
 (1895) 390-404. 
 
 A brief account, not conservative. 
 
 Goulburn, Edward M., The Gospel of the Childhood. A prac- 
 tical commentary on St. Luke ii. 41 to the end, New York, 
 1873. 
 
 An excellent sympathetic exposition. 
 Gray, James, A sketch of the life of J. C. from His Birth to the 
 commencement of His public ministry (in dissertation on 
 the concordance between the priesthoods of J. C. and 
 Melchisedeck, 123-158) Philadelphia, 1845. 
 A good exposition following the Gospel lines. 
 
 Greg, David, The Boy Christ. In the Treasury of Religious 
 thought (New York) XIII (1896) 839-850. 
 
 Mostly concerned with Christ amidst the Doctors. 
 
 Gressmann, Hugo, Die Weihnachts — Evangelium auf Ursprung 
 und Geschichte untersucht, Gottingen, 1914. 
 
 A negative explanation of the Gospel account of Christ's Birth. 
 Hanna, W., The earlier years of our Lord's Life on earth, New 
 York, 1870. 
 
 A fairly conservative presentment. 
 Hansen, T., Aus d. Jugendjahren Jesu. Transl. into Ger. by 
 
 Gleis, 1896. 
 Haymo, Bishop of Habberstat, Homilia XVII. in Dominica 
 prima post Epiphaniam M.PL CXVIII. 120-126. 
 A good sermon, keeping mostly to the literal sense. 
 
 Hess, Johan Jakob, Erste Jugendgeschichte Jesu, Frankfurt, 
 M. 1773. Published as vol. I. in work, Geschichte der drey 
 letzten Lebensjahre Jesu. 
 
 Just an exposition of the Gospel text. 
 
 Hilgenfeld, Adolp, Die Geburts — und Kindheitsgeschichte 
 Jesu, Luc. i. 5-ii, 52, ZWTh XLIV (1901) 177-235. 
 
 A good critical exposition of the section, yet evidencing a negative tend- 
 ency in many points. 
 
 Hillmann, Johannes, Die Kindheitsgeschichte Jesu nach Lucas, 
 
 JprTh XVII (1891) 193-261. 
 
 A critical treatment from the negative standpoint. 
 
 Irons, W. J., The first recorded words of Christ, an epiphany to 
 
 the Blessed Virgin and to us. Epiph I. in Sermons (1844). 
 
 Isaac of Stella, Homilia (duo) in Dominica infra Oct. Epi- 
 
 phaniae. M.PL CXCIV. 1715-1719. 
 
 Mostly concerned with the accommodative 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 225 
 
 Kitto's Mag., Vol. XII. 351 ff. and XIII. 420 ff. Birth and 
 
 Infancy of Christ. 
 Knowles, Archibald C, The holy Christ-Child, a devotional 
 
 study of the Incarnation of the Son of God, New York, 1905. 
 A reverential treatment of the Gospel account. 
 Kohler, Zu den kanonischen Geburts — und Jugendgeschichte 
 
 Jesu in Schweiserische theologische Zeitschrift, VI. (1902) 
 
 221 ff. 
 Lagrange, M. J., Le recit de l'Enfance de Jesus dans S. Luc. Rb 
 
 IV (1895) 160 ff. 
 
 A forcible vindication of the conservative side. 
 
 Machen, J. Gresham, The New Testament account of the birth 
 of Jesus, PrthR III (1905) 64 ff. and IV (1906) 38 ff. 
 
 , The origin of the first two chapters of Luke, PrthR X 
 
 91912) 212-277. 
 
 Good conservative treatises, the latter especially critical and scholarly. 
 
 Malan, C, L'Avenement, dans Jesus Enfant, de la conscience 
 religieuse, RThQr V (1896) 269-283. 
 
 A discussion of Christ's religious consciousness in development. 
 
 Mayerus, B., Disp. de Jesu 12. 
 
 Michaelis, J. G., Exercitatio philol. theol. de Christo ... ad 
 Luc. ii. 49. 
 
 A very conservative treatise of this passage, mostly dealing with the 
 question of kv rols. 
 
 Monod, Adolphe, Enfance de Jesus, ou Feducation chretienne, 
 Paris, 1860. 
 
 More a treatise on method. 
 
 Morgen, G. Campbell, The hidden Jesus at Nazareth, New 
 York, 1898. 
 
 Short and popular, dealing mostly with term from 12th to 30th year. 
 
 Mulleady, Berthold, Devotion to the Divine Infant, Am. Ec- 
 clesiastical, Rev. lxii. (1917) 593-606. 
 
 The author deals mostly with the history of this subject. 
 
 Murray, Potter, The legendary story of Christ's Childhood, 
 NW VIII (1889) 648 ff. 
 
 Contrasting the apocryphal with the gospel account. 
 Nebe, A., Die Kindheitsgeschichte unseres Herrn Jesu Christi 
 nach Mattaus und Lukas ausgelegt, Stuttgart, 1893. 
 
 A good explanatory treatise of the Gospel accounts. 
 
 Phelan, William, Christ in the Temple in "Remains" I., Lon- 
 don, 1832. 
 
 A good sermon from the theological standpoint. 
 
226 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 Prideaux, Bp., De Christi Adolescentia in Lectiones; consciones, 
 
 II. 
 Purves, George I., The story of the Birth, BW VIII (1896) 
 
 423 ff. 
 
 Defending the historical trustworthiness of narrative. 
 
 Ramsay, W. M., Was Christ born at Bethlehem? A study in the 
 
 credibility of St. Luke, London, 1898. 
 , Luke's narrative of the Birth of Jesus, Exp. ser., 8 vol. 
 
 IV. (1912) 481-507. 
 
 Excellent vindication of St. Luke's historical trustworthiness. 
 
 Resch, A., Das Kindheits Evangeliumnach Lucas und Matthaeus, 
 TU Leipzig (1897). 
 
 An unsuccessful attempt to reconstruct the Hebrew basis of the accounts. 
 
 Reuterdahl, Observationes criticae in priora duo Evang. Lucae 
 
 capita, London, 1823. 
 Reville, Albert, The Birth and Infancy of Jesus, NW 1(1892) 
 
 695-723. 
 
 Sweeping and negative in results. 
 
 Robertson, A. T., The romance of the census in Luke's Gospel, 
 Bib. Rev. V (1920) 491 ff. 
 
 A summary of Ramsay's arguments. 
 
 Sanday, William, A paper on the origin and character of the 
 
 first two chapters of St. Luke. 
 Schubert von, De Infantiae J. C, historiae a Matt, et Luc. 
 
 exhibitae authentia et indole, Gripeswald 1815. 
 Simeon, C, Christ's early habits, in "Works," XII. 268. 
 Smith, Thornley, The holy Child Jesus, the early life of Christ 
 
 viewed in connection with the hist, chronol. and archaeol. 
 
 of the times, London, 1868. 
 Spitta,Friedrich, Die chronologischen Notizen und die Hymnen 
 
 in Luc. i. u. 2, ZntlW VII (1908) 281-317. 
 Negative in its conclusions. 
 
 Stapfer, Edmond, Jesus Christ avant son Ministere, Paris, 1896. 
 Eng. transl. by S. G. Houghton, New York, 1900. 
 
 Much of it is imaginative. 
 
 Steinmetzer, Franz, Die Geschichte der Geburt und Kindheit 
 
 Christi und ihr Verhaltnis zur babylonischen Mythe, Miin- 
 
 ster, I E., 1910. 
 A good treatment of this question from the conservative point of view. 
 
 Steinmeyer, F. L., Die Geschichte der Geburt des Herrn und 
 seiner ersten Schritte im Leben, in Bezug auf die neueste 
 Kritik, Berlin, 1873. 
 
 A good complete critical treatise. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 227 
 
 Sweet, Louis M., The Birth and Infancy of Jesus Christ accord- 
 ing to the Gospel Narrative, Philadelphia, 1907. 
 
 A thorough and scholarly book, answering all objections to the Virgin 
 Birth. 
 
 Usener, H., Art. Nativity, E. B. III. 3340-3352. 
 
 , Geburt und Kindheit Christi, ZntlW IV (1903) 1-21. 
 
 Both radical and destructive. 
 
 Van Dyke, Henry, The Childhood of Jesus, Harpers New 
 
 Monthly Mag. LXXXVII. (1893) 723-730. 
 , The Childhood of Jesus Christ with 20 illustrations from 
 
 paintings of great masters, New York, 1905. 
 Both from the art point of view. 
 
 Volter, Daniel, Die evangelischen Erzahlungen von der Geburt 
 und Kindheit Jesu kritisch untersucht, Strassburg, 1911. 
 Negative and sweeping in its conclusions. 
 
 Wallace, Lew, The Boyhood of Christ, illustrated, New York, 
 1888. 
 
 Popular treatment, very well done. 
 Wallis, Robert E., "About My Father's business," A plea for 
 a neglected translation, Lk. ii. 49, Exp. ser. 2, vol. VIII. 
 17-23. 
 
 Dealing mostly with the question in hand. ' ' 
 Wandel, Die Kindheitsgeschichte Jesu Christi nach Nosgen und 
 Nebe, in Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift V. (1894) 286-315, 
 449-465. 
 Zenos, A. C, The Birth and Childhood of Jesus, BW VI (1895) 
 433-443. 
 
 An account of the Gospel narrative to the flight into Egypt. 
 Zimmermann, Hellmtjth, Evangelium des Lukas, Kap. I. u. 2, 
 ein Versuch der Vermittlung zwischen Hilgenfeld und Har- 
 nack. StKr LXXVE (1903) 247-290. 
 A good critical treatment. 
 
 See also the excellent list in S. G. Ayres': Jesus Christ our 
 Lord, an English bibliography of Christology. New York, 
 1906, pp. 124-128, and the early sections of the Lives of 
 Christ, Commentaries on first two chapters of St. Matthew 
 and St. Luke, etc. 
 
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS FOR PERIODICALS AND 
 COLLECTIONS 
 
 AmJTh American Journal of Theology. 
 
 AndR Andover Review. 
 
 AndthSB . . .Andover Theological Seminary Bulletin. 
 A-NF Ante-Nicene Fathers. 
 
 BSt Biblische Studien. 
 
 BW Biblical World. 
 
 BZ Biblische Zeitschrift. 
 
 BZSF Biblische Zeit- und Streit-Fragen. 
 
 Cath. Enc . . Catholic Encyclopedia. 
 
 EB Encyclopedia Bibliotheca. 
 
 Exp Expositor. 
 
 ExpT Expository Times. 
 
 HDB Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible. 
 
 HDG Hastings' Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels. 
 
 HJ Hibbert Journal. 
 
 IthQ Irish Theological Quarterly. 
 
 JewEnc .... Jewish Encyclopedia. 
 
 JprTh Jahrbiicher fiir Protestantische Theologie. 
 
 Kit.EBL Kitto's Encyclopedia of Biblical Literature. 
 
 M.PG PL. . . Migne, Patrologia Graeca, Patrologia Latina. 
 
 NJdTh Neue Jahrbiicher fiir Deutsche Theologie. 
 
 N.P-NF Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. 
 
 NW New World. 
 
 NYR New York Review. 
 
 229 
 
230 THE BOYHOOD CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST 
 
 OT-NTSt.. .Old and New Testament Student. 
 
 PrthR Princeton Theological Review. 
 
 Rb Revue Biblique. 
 
 RClfr Revue du Clerge Frangais6. 
 
 RHLr Revue d'Histoire et de Literature Religieuse. 
 
 RThQr Revue de Theologie et des Questions Religieuses. 
 
 Sch-HEnc . . Schaff-Herzog, Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge. 
 
 SDB Smith's Dictionary of the Bible. 
 
 StKr Theologische Studien und Kritiken. 
 
 Think The Thinker. 
 
 TU Texte und Untersuchungen. 
 
 VDB Vigouroux's Dictionnaire de la Bible. 
 
 ZntlW Zeitschrift fur Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft. 
 
 ZwTh Zeitschrift ftir Wissenschaftliche Theologie* 
 
SCRIPTURAL INDEX 
 
 Genesis — 
 vi. 1-*.. 
 
 OLD TESTAMENT 
 
 Tobias — 
 xiii. 4.. 
 
 Leviticus — 
 xxiii. 4-22. 
 
 Exodus — 
 
 iv. 22 
 
 xiii. 8 
 
 xxiii. 14, 17.. 
 xxxiv. 23, 24. 
 
 Numbers — 
 xxi. 29 
 
 75 
 
 81 
 75 
 75 
 75 
 
 81 
 
 Deuteronomy — 
 
 i. 31 81 
 
 vi. 20. 75 
 
 viii. 5 81 
 
 xxxii. 5, 6, 18, 19 81 
 
 xiv. 1,2 81 
 
 xvi. 16 75 
 
 xxi. 18-21 144 
 
 Judges — 
 xix. 11. 
 
 155 
 
 1 Kings — 
 
 i. 3, 4, 7, 21 76 
 
 i. 22 68-71 
 
 i. 28 68-71 
 
 ii. 1-10 67 
 
 ii. 26 67 
 
 iii. 4-14 68 
 
 iii. 10 68-91 
 
 iii. 19 67 
 
 2 Kings — 
 
 vii. 14 83 
 
 vii. 18, 19, 25 91 
 
 3 Kings — 
 
 viii. 13. 
 ix. 3. 
 
 99 
 
 1 Paralipomenon — 
 xxix. 10 81 
 
 2 Paralipomenon — 
 
 vii. 16 
 
 xxxiv. 3 , 
 
 99 
 
 82 
 
 Job — 
 i. 6. 
 ii. 1 
 
 83 
 
 83 
 
 ii. 9 155 
 
 xxxviii. 7 83 
 
 Psalms — 
 
 ii. 7 83, 114,171,172, 190 
 
 xv. (xvi.) 2 85 
 
 xxii. (xxiii.) 1 85 
 
 xxviii. (xxix.) 1 83 
 
 xliv. (xlv.) 5 155 
 
 liii. 3 122 
 
 lxxxviii. (lxxxix.) 7 83 
 
 Ixxxviii. (lxxxix.) 27, 28 83 
 
 lxxxi. (lxxxii.) 1-6 83 
 
 cii. (ciii.) 13 85 
 
 cvi. (cvii.) 41 85 
 
 lxviii. (lxviii.) 5 85 
 
 cxix.-cxxxiii 78 
 
 cxii.-exviii 78 
 
 cxxxi. 7, 8 78 
 
 cxxxv 78 
 
 Proverbs - 
 xxx. 17. 
 
 144 
 
 Wisdom — 
 
 ii. 18 82 
 
 v. 5 82 
 
 ii. 13, 16 82-85 
 
 xiv. 3 82 
 
 Ecclesiasticus — 
 
 xxiv. 1, 4 
 
 Ii. 14 
 
 Ii. 17 
 
 .82-85 
 .. 85 
 .. 155 
 
 Isaias — 
 
 i. 2, 4 81 
 
 iii. 7 15 
 
 vi. 9, 10 122 
 
 xxx. 9 81 
 
 xiii. Iff 91 
 
 xliii. 6 82 
 
 Ixiii. 8, 16 82 
 
 xlv. 11 81 
 
 Hi. 15 122 
 
 231 
 
INDEX 
 
 Isaias — 
 
 lv. 4 162 
 
 Ixii. 5 81 
 
 liv. 6 81 
 
 Jeremiah — 
 
 i. 6 16 
 
 ii. 2 81 
 
 iii. 1,4 81 
 
 iii. 7 15 
 
 iii. 14, 19,20,22 81 
 
 xxxi. 9, 20 82 
 
 xxxi. 32,34 82 
 
 Ezechiel — 
 
 xvi. 8, 20 81 
 
 xviii. 4 82 
 
 Daniel — 
 
 v. 13 178 
 
 viii. 23 152 
 
 Osee — 
 
 ii. 2, 19, 20 81 
 
 xi. 1 81,182 
 
 xi. 3 81 
 
 Malachi — 
 
 iii. 1 37 
 
 i. 6 81 
 
 ii. 10, 11 81 
 
 2 Maccabees — 
 
 iv. 40 156 
 
 vi. 18 156 
 
 viii. 8 155 
 
 OLD TESTAMENT APOCRYPHA 
 
 3 Maccabees — 
 
 
 Psalms of Solomon — 
 
 
 v. 7 
 
 . . . . 82 
 
 xvii. 29 
 
 83 
 
 vi. 4,8 
 
 .... 82 
 
 
 
 vii. 6 
 
 .... 83 
 
 1 Enoch — 
 
 
 
 
 lxii. 11 
 
 83 
 
 
 
 cv. 2 
 
 ....83,114 
 
 i. 23-25.... 
 
 .... 83 
 
 4 Esdras — 
 
 
 
 
 vii. 28 
 
 114 
 
 Testament of Levi — 
 
 
 vii. 28,29 
 
 ...... 83 
 
 xviii. 6, 8 
 
 .... 83 
 
 xiii. 32,37 
 
 83 
 
 
 
 xiv. 9 
 
 83 
 
 Testament of Juda — 
 
 
 Sibylline Books — 
 
 
 xxiv. 2 
 
 .... 83 
 
 v. 360,480,560 
 
 83 
 
 NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 Matthew — 
 
 i.-ii 62 
 
 i. 1-17 182 
 
 i. 18 146,182 
 
 i. 20 146, 182 
 
 i. 21 146, 182 
 
 i. 23 146, 182 
 
 i. 25 146 
 
 ii. 2 182 
 
 ii. 4-6 133 
 
 ii. 11 14,26,182 
 
 ii. 13-18 73,182 
 
 ii. 19 182 
 
 ii. 22 73,77 
 
 ii. 23 73,74, 163 
 
 iii. 14 173, 183 
 
 Matthew — 
 
 iii. 15 173, 183 
 
 iii. 16 173 
 
 iii. 17 174,189 
 
 iv. 1 175 
 
 iv. 3 175, 189 
 
 iv. 4 175, 176 
 
 iv. 5 175, 176 
 
 iv. 6 175, 189 
 
 iv. 8 175,176 
 
 iv. 13 163 
 
 vi. 27 155 
 
 vii. 28 126,133 
 
 vii. 29 133 
 
 ix. 14 138 
 
 xi. 27 179 
 
INDEX 
 
 Matthew — 
 
 xi. 25 122 
 
 xii. 10 129 
 
 xii. 23 124 
 
 xii. 46-50 110 
 
 xiii. 14. 122 
 
 xiii. 15 122 
 
 xiii. 19 121, 140 
 
 xiii. 23 121 
 
 xiii. 51 121 
 
 xiii. 54 126, 133, 162 
 
 xiv. 33 189 
 
 xv. 10 122 
 
 xv. 16 122 
 
 xv. 26 , 87 
 
 xvi. 12 122 
 
 xvi. 16 189 
 
 xvii. 5 174, 189 
 
 xvii. 13 122 
 
 xviii. 20 183 
 
 xix. 1-12 99,163 
 
 xix. 13 99 
 
 xix. 23 127 
 
 xix. 25 126 
 
 xi. 27 183 
 
 xxi. 33-46 178 
 
 xxii. 33 126 
 
 xxii. 35 129 
 
 xxii. 41-46 178 
 
 xxvii. 40 189 
 
 xxvii. 43 189 
 
 xxvii. 54 189 
 
 xxvii. 63 79 
 
 xxviii. 19 183 
 
 xxviii. 20 83 
 
 Mark — 
 
 i. 7 183 
 
 i. 8 183 
 
 i. 9 163 
 
 i. 10 173 
 
 i. 11 189 
 
 i. 12 175 
 
 i. 22 126, 133, 183 
 
 i. 24 183 
 
 i. 26 183 
 
 i. 34 183 
 
 i. 38 183 
 
 ii. 12 124 
 
 ii. 17 183 
 
 ii. 19 184 
 
 ii. 20 184 
 
 iii. 12 189 
 
 iii. 21 71, 124, 125, 184 
 
 iii. 31-35 71, 110, 184 
 
 iv. 12 122 
 
 v. 7 189 
 
 Mark — 
 
 v. 42 124 
 
 vi. 1 163 
 
 vi. 2 126, 133, 162 
 
 vi. 3 162, 163 
 
 vi. 51 125 
 
 vi. 52 122, 140 
 
 vii. 14 122, 140 
 
 vii. 18 122 
 
 vii. 27 87 
 
 vii. 37 126,127 
 
 viii. 17 122 
 
 viii. 31 79 
 
 viii. 35 184 
 
 viii. 38 184 
 
 ix. 6 174, 189 
 
 ix. 11 133 
 
 ix. 13-17 99 
 
 ix. 18 126 
 
 ix. 31 79 
 
 ix. 36 183 
 
 x. 26 126, 127 
 
 x. 45 183 
 
 xii. 1-12 178, 189 
 
 xii. 33 122 
 
 xii. 35-37 178 
 
 xiii. 13 184 
 
 xiii. 32 184 
 
 xiv. 36 178 
 
 xv. 39 189 
 
 xvi. 15 184 
 
 xvi. 16 184 
 
 Luke — 
 
 i. 1-4 61 
 
 i. 2, 3 181 
 
 i. 7, 18 156 
 
 i. 13 169 
 
 i. 15 twice 169 
 
 i. 32 169 
 
 i. 35 twice 169 
 
 i. 16-17 169 
 
 i. 32 169 
 
 i. 32, 33 169 
 
 i. 35 169 
 
 i. 26 74, 76, 108 
 
 i. 29 64 
 
 i. 30 153 
 
 i. 31..... 146 
 
 i. 32 146, 170, 189 
 
 i. 34 62 
 
 i. 35. 62, 93, 108, 146, 157, 170, 189 
 
 i. 38 108 
 
 i. 43 170 
 
 i. 46-55 67 
 
 i. 48 146 
 
 i. 59 76 
 
234 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Luke — 
 
 i, ii 60, 65, 'passim 
 
 i. 64 159 
 
 i. 66 67, 153 
 
 i. 68 67,92 
 
 i. 76 169 
 
 i. 48, 49 169 
 
 i. 41 169 
 
 i. 79 67 
 
 i. 80 67, 153 
 
 ii. 4 74 
 
 ii. 5 135 
 
 ii. 7 64 
 
 ii. 7ff 73 
 
 ii. 9 twice 170 
 
 ii. 11 26, 170 
 
 ii. 14 170 
 
 ii. 16 154 
 
 ii. 18 147 
 
 ii. 19 64,147 
 
 ii. 21 73, 76 
 
 ii. 22 ff 73 
 
 ii. 25-33 147 
 
 ii. 26 170 
 
 ii. 29 92 
 
 ii. 30, 32 170 
 
 ii. 33 ..16, 17, 64 
 
 ii. 34, 35 147 
 
 ii. 36 76, 156 
 
 ii. 38 170 
 
 ii. 39 68,73,74, 163 
 
 ii. 40 65, 67, 70, 94, 123, 147, 
 
 151, 154, 156, 157 
 
 ii. 41-51 185 
 
 ii. 41 16, 17, 18, 69, 76, 135, 185 
 
 ii. 42 68,69,76,77 
 
 ii. 43. . 17, 18, 69, 79, 124, 135, 136, 
 
 154 
 
 ii. 44 69, 79, 136 
 
 ii. 45 79 
 
 ii. 46 69, 79, 124, 128ff. 
 
 ii. 46^8 7-9,14 
 
 ii. 47. . . .68, 94, 103, 137, 153, 157 
 
 ii. 47-48(a) 121ff. 
 
 ii. 48 8, 16, 17, 18, 31, 54, 69, 
 
 80,92 
 
 ii. 48 104ff . 
 
 ii. 48 137ff. 
 
 ii. 49 passim 
 
 ii. 50. .5, 64, 69, 72, 94, 116, 121, 
 
 139ff., 149, 170 
 ii. 51.. 64, 72, 80, 94, 108, 137, 
 
 142ff., 143, 163 
 
 ii. 52. .15, 65, 67, 123, 154ff„ 158, 
 
 161, 165, 171 
 
 iii. 1 76 
 
 iii. 3 170 
 
 Luke — 
 
 iii. 15 171 
 
 iii. 16 171 
 
 iii. 21,22 171ff. 
 
 iii. 22 115,174,189 
 
 iii. 23ff 76, 175 
 
 iii. 32 116 
 
 iii. 38 175 
 
 iv. 1 175 
 
 iv. 2-13 98, 100, 115, 175, 176 
 
 iv. 14 25, 175, 176 
 
 iv. 15 175, 176 
 
 iv. 16 75,162,163 
 
 iv. 17-20 75 
 
 iv. 22 162 
 
 iv. 31-44 126, 133, 177 
 
 iv. 39 74 
 
 iv. 43 177, 183 
 
 v. 20 178 
 
 v. 21 177 
 
 v. 22 177 
 
 v. 24 178 
 
 v. 34 178 
 
 vi. 5 178 
 
 vi. 9 131 
 
 vi. 19 177 
 
 vii. 14 177 
 
 vii. 28 171 
 
 vii. 35 151 
 
 vii. 39 177 
 
 vii. 40 177 
 
 vii. 48 178 
 
 viii. 10 122 
 
 viii. 19-21 110 
 
 viii. 24 177 
 
 viii. 42 76 
 
 viii. 54 177 
 
 viii. 55 124 
 
 x. 1 177 
 
 x. 2 177 
 
 x. 5 100 
 
 x. 6 177 
 
 x. 22 100 
 
 x. 22, 44 177 
 
 x. 24 178 
 
 x. 26 178 
 
 x. 35 174, 189 
 
 x. 4(3 177 
 
 x. 9, 17 177 
 
 x. 14, 15 177 
 
 x. 21,22 96,122,178, 179 
 
 xi. 2 178 
 
 xi. 27 Ill 
 
 xi. 28 Ill 
 
 xi. 31 151 
 
 xi. 39 177 
 
 xi. 49 151 
 
INDEX 
 
 235 
 
 Luke — 
 
 xii. 6, 9 178 
 
 xii. 25 155 
 
 xiii. 33 100 
 
 xiv. 26 178 
 
 xvi. 24, 25 80 
 
 xvii. 25 100 
 
 xviii. 19 179 
 
 xviii. 34 122, 141 
 
 xix. 3 155 
 
 xix. 10 178 
 
 xix. 45H16 99 
 
 xx. 9-19 178 
 
 xx. 20-17 133, 163 
 
 xx. 40 129 
 
 xx. 41-44 178 
 
 xxi. 20-24 177 
 
 xxi. 27 178 
 
 xxii. 22 100 
 
 xxii. 27 128 
 
 xxii. 29 178 
 
 xxii. 37 100 
 
 xxii. 42 178 
 
 xxii. 66 179 
 
 xxii. 69 178, 179 
 
 xxii. 70 179 
 
 xxiv. 21 141 
 
 xxiv. 22 124 
 
 xxiv. 26 101 
 
 xxiii. 34 178 
 
 xxiv. 44 101 
 
 xxiv. 45 122 
 
 xxiii. 46 101, 178, 179 
 
 xxiv. 49 178-180 
 
 xxiv. 51 178 
 
 xxiv. 52 178 
 
 John — 
 1. 
 12 
 i. 14 
 
 185 
 
 192 
 
 153,185,189 
 
 18 189 
 
 32 172,185 
 
 33 173 
 
 ! 34 '.7.7.7.7. ...... 173, 174, 189 
 
 .45 163 
 
 .46 163 
 
 .47 185 
 
 .49 189 
 
 .51 185 
 
 i. 3 148 
 
 i. 4 110,186 
 
 11 185ff. 
 
 12ff 185 
 
 13ff 186 
 
 ii. 16 6, 186 
 
 17 99 
 
 John — 
 
 iii. 2 162 
 
 iii. 16, 18 189 
 
 iv. 25 162 
 
 v. 17 85, 189 
 
 v. 25 188 
 
 vi. 38 35 
 
 vi. 63 185 
 
 vi. 70 189 
 
 vii. 15, 16 162 
 
 vii. 42 133 
 
 vii. 52 163 
 
 viii. 6, 8 162 
 
 viii. 19, 20, 26 162 
 
 viii. 27 139 
 
 viii. 28 162 
 
 viii. 41 87 
 
 viii. 58 185 
 
 ix. 21, 23 155 
 
 ix. 35, 37 189 
 
 x. 20 124 
 
 x. 30 138, 189 
 
 x. 34 83 
 
 x. 36 189 
 
 x. 38 189 
 
 xi. 4 189 
 
 xi. 27 189 
 
 xi. 34 184 
 
 xii. 40 122 
 
 xiv. 22 59 
 
 xvi. 16 139 
 
 xvi. 28 185 
 
 xvi. 30 129, 162 
 
 xvii. 5, 24 185, 189 
 
 xviii. 37 162 
 
 xix. 7 189 
 
 xix. 26 111,186 
 
 xx. 28 185 
 
 xxi. 17 162 
 
 Acts — 
 
 i. 4 178-179 
 
 i. 7 178-179 
 
 i. 8 178-179 
 
 i. 9 178 
 
 ii. 7, 12 125 
 
 ii. 22 181-197 
 
 ii. 83 179 
 
 ii. 86 179 
 
 iii. 6,16 178 
 
 iii. 15 179 
 
 iii. 21 101 
 
 iv. 10,30 178 
 
 iv. 7 128 
 
 vi. 8, 10 151 
 
 vii. 22 161-181 
 
 viii. 16,37, 190 
 
236 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Acts — 
 
 vii. 10 151 
 
 vii. 10 151-161 
 
 vii. 22 151-161 
 
 vii. 25 122-140 
 
 vii. 46 153 
 
 viii. 9, 11 124 
 
 viii. 13 125 
 
 ix. 20 179-190 
 
 ix. 21 125 
 
 ix. 34 178 
 
 x. 36, 42 179 
 
 x. 38 163-178 
 
 x. 45 i 124 
 
 xii. 16 124 
 
 xiii. 3 172 
 
 xiii. 7 122 
 
 xiii. 12 126 
 
 xiii. 15 75 
 
 xiii. 33 179 
 
 xv. 21 75 
 
 xvi. 18 178 
 
 xvii. 3 101 
 
 xvii. 14 136 
 
 xxi. 17ff 64 
 
 xxii. 3 161 
 
 xxviii. 27. 29 122 
 
 Romans — 
 
 i. 4 190 
 
 i. 14, 22, 31 122 
 
 iii. 11 122 
 
 v. 10 190 
 
 viii. 3 187-190 
 
 viii. 32 187-190 
 
 viii. 14-17 192 
 
 viii. 15 178 
 
 ix. 5 187 
 
 x. 19 122 
 
 xii. 7 98 
 
 xiii. 12 154 
 
 xv. 21 122 
 
 1 Corinthians — 
 
 i. 9 190 
 
 i. 19 122 
 
 iii. 16 102 
 
 viii. 6 187 
 
 ix. 6 138 
 
 ix. 24 102 
 
 xv. 25 102 
 
 2 Corinthians — 
 
 iv. 4 187 
 
 v. 13 124-125 
 
 viii. 9 187 
 
 x. 12 122 
 
 Galatians — 
 
 i. 14 154 
 
 iv. 4 187,190,192 
 
 iv. 6 178 
 
 iv. 7 192 
 
 v. 14 152-154 
 
 Ephesians — 
 
 i. 23 152 
 
 iii. 4 122 
 
 iv. 13 155 
 
 v. 17 122 
 
 Philippians — 
 
 i. 12 155 
 
 ii. 5 187 
 
 ii. 8.. 162-187 
 
 iv. 11 98 
 
 Colossians — 
 
 i. 9 122 
 
 i. 15 187 
 
 ii. 2 122 
 
 ii. 3 153-188 
 
 ii. 9 153 
 
 iv. 14 60 
 
 1 Thessalonians — 
 i. 1 191 
 
 1 Timothy — 
 
 i. 15 187 
 
 iv. 15 98-155 
 
 2 Timothy — 
 
 ii. 7 122 
 
 ii. 16 154 
 
 iii. 8 154 
 
 iii. 13 154 
 
 Philemon — 
 
 24 60 
 
 Hebrews — 
 
 i. 5 172-190 
 
 ii. 17 162 
 
 iii. 5 190 
 
 iii. 6 99-190 
 
 iv. 15 162 
 
 iv. 14 190 
 
 v. 5 172-190 
 
 v. 8 162-190 
 
 vii. 3 190 
 
 x. 29 190 
 
 xi. 11 155 
 
 James — 
 i. 17, 27 190 
 
INDEX 
 
 237 
 
 Jude — 
 i. 1 
 
 190 
 
 1 Peter — 
 i. 3, 17 
 
 190 
 
 2 Peter — 
 i. 17 
 
 174.189 
 
 1 John — 
 iii. 8 
 
 190 
 
 iv. 9,14,15 
 
 v. 5, 7, 13 
 
 190 
 
 190 
 
 Apocalypse — 
 
 iii. 5 190 
 
 xix. 10 185 
 
 xxii. 9 185 
 
 NEW TESTAMENT APOCRYPHA 
 
 Protevangelium of James — 
 xix 
 
 19 
 
 Childhood Gospel of Ps. Matthew — 
 
 Childhood Gospel of Thomas — 
 
 iv.. 
 
 vi. 
 
 vii. 
 
 viii. 
 
 xiii. 
 
 19 
 20 
 20 
 
 20 
 19 
 20 
 20 
 21 
 163 
 
 Childhood Gospel of Thomas — 
 
 xix 20,21,80 
 
 xix 53,56,58 
 
 Arabic Gospel of Infancy — 
 
 i 20 
 
 x 20 
 
 l.-liii 20,21,22 
 
 liii 57,80 
 
 Apocryphal Gospel of the 
 Hebrews 171, 174 
 
 Gospel of Ebionites 23 
 
 Gospel of Marcosians 3-4 
 
GENERAL INDEX 
 
 Abbott, 41 
 
 Abelard, 33 
 
 Adamson, 46, 103 
 
 Adeney, 47, 129 
 
 Aelredus, 32, 139 
 
 Agnoetae, 184 
 
 Aiken, 67 
 
 Albert the Great, 11, 33 
 
 Alcuin, 17, 30 
 
 Alexander of Hales, 32 
 
 Alexander the Great, 66 
 
 Alford, 47, 139 
 
 Ambrose, 10, 11, 14, 15, 56, 106, 107, 
 137, 143, 186 
 
 Anderson, 41 
 
 Angus, 84 
 
 Annas, 77 
 
 Anselm, 32 
 
 Aoculus, 15 
 
 Apocryphal : Gospel of the Childhood, 
 18 ff., 162; Protevangelium of James, 
 18-19; Pseudo-Matthew, Gospel of, 
 18, 19, 20; Childhood Gospel of 
 Thomas, 16, 19, 20, 21, 53, 56, 80, 163; 
 Arabic Gospel of the Childhood, 19, 
 20, 21, 22, 80 
 
 Apocryphal Gospels: Gospel of the 
 Hebrews, 171, 174; Gospel of the 
 Ebionites, 23; Gospel of the Marco- 
 sians, 3-4 
 
 Archelaus, 73, 77 
 
 Arendzen, 24 
 
 Aretius, 36 
 
 Aristotle, 32-84 
 
 Artemon, 25 
 
 Athanasius, 9, 14, 133 
 
 Athenagoras, 152 
 
 Augustine, 10, 14, 16, 17, 56, 58, 106, 
 133, 138, 172 
 
 Augustus, Emperor, 77 
 
 Augustus, Octavius, 66 
 
 Bacon, 40 
 
 Baldensperger, 40 
 
 Baljon, 44, 101 
 
 Bar-Mizvah institution, 76-77 
 
 Bardenhewer, 4,5,9, 19, 24, 62, 63,74, 169 
 
 Barnabas, Ep. of, 13 
 
 Barnes, 47 
 
 Barrows, 65 
 
 Barth, 67, 94 
 
 Bartmann, 48, 49, 109, 137, 141, 145, 
 
 184, 185 
 Basilides, 24 
 Batiffol, 19 
 
 Bauer, Bruno, 43, 65, 107, 116 
 Bede, 29, 31, 110, 153 
 Beecher, 47, 131 
 Beet, 47 
 Bengel, 47 
 
 Berg, van Eysinga, 66 
 Bernadinus, 137 
 Beryllus of Bostra, 26 
 Besser, 47 
 Beyschlag, 42, 95 
 Beza, 36 
 Billiot, 48 
 Bisping, 48 
 Blunt, 47, 131 
 Boardman, 41 
 Bonaventure, 34, 35, 137 
 Bornemann, 23, 173 
 Bossuet, 129 
 Bourdaloue, 189 
 Bousset, 40, 61, 86 
 Bovon, 42 
 
 Box, 48, 61, 62, 63, 64, 69, 141, 170, 182 
 Box and Oesterley, 82 
 Brandt, 23 
 Brassac, 48-49 
 Briggs,44, 63, 64, 102, 117 
 Brough, 46, 74, 97, 164 
 Brown, 42 
 Bruce, 187, 190, 192 
 Bruno, 32 
 Buddha, 66,67 
 Buddham, 65 
 Burkitt, 56, 178 
 "Business" or "house." For h> toU 
 
 . . . , 56, 57, 98, 99 
 
 Cairns, 40 
 Caius, 25 
 
 Cajetan, 35, 36, 79, 131, 139 
 Calovius, 34 
 
 Calvin, 36, 118, 132, 136 
 Campbell, 61, 123, 132 
 Candlish, 83 
 Canisius, 136, 141 
 Capicelatro, 48 
 Cannon, 84 
 I Carpenter, 41 
 239 
 
240 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Carpocrates, 23 
 
 Carr, 123, 154 
 
 Cartwright, 35 
 
 Catenae Graecar, 29, 56, 58, 139 
 
 Cerinthus, 23-25 
 
 XApis, meaning of, 152-153 
 
 Charles, 82 
 
 Christ Child: a God, 14; miraculous 
 power of, 19, 20, 153 
 
 Christ: "Son of the Law," 76-77; 
 whether stayed to end of feast, 79; 
 remained behind, 79, 136; among the 
 Doctors, 14, 21, 79, 80, 121ff. 
 
 Christ, Virgin Birth, 5, 10, 18, 19, 61, 
 103. 104, 135, 138, 147, 169, 170, 171, 
 175, 189, 195: at Feast of Cana, 185; 
 at Nazareth and Capernaum, 177; 
 perfect from the beginning, 15, 16, 33, 
 196; no growth in consciousness, 20, 
 97, 112, 134, 135, 195, 196; never suf- 
 fered ignorance, 15, 16, 32, 103, 104; 
 whether attended school, 3, 20, 74, 
 75, 161, 162, 163; on God's Father- 
 hood, 188ff., 192ff.; and His Mother, 
 186; and the "parents," 110-111, 
 149, 184; and Samuel, 67-68; and 
 John the Baptist, 153,169; Gen- 
 ealogy of, 175 
 
 Christ's Birth, month of, 70 
 
 Christ's, subjection to parents, 143; first 
 recorded saying, historicity of, 70-72: 
 uniqueness of, 71, 72; harmony with 
 later ones, 110-111; not childish, 94; 
 contrast in, 92, 104ff . ; reprehension in, 
 107ff.; morality of, 144ff.; baptism, 
 7, 23, 40, 43, 171ff., 182, 185; tempta- 
 tion, 175-176; second scene in the 
 Temple, 186; Divinity, 7,8,9,12, 
 20, 22, 196, 197; preexistence, 13, 14, 
 185; real Divine Sonship, 96, 97, 178, 
 188ff., 195; Divine Sonship in Sub- 
 apostolic Fathers, 13ff.; real Divine 
 Sonship explains morality of episode, 
 145ff.; Messianic consciousness, 35, 
 37, 43, 142, 173; consciousness, as 
 modern problem, 38, 47; Kenosis, 162, 
 188; knowledge, 14, 15, 32, 33, 155ff., 
 163,184; grace, 157ff.; use of "My 
 Father," 97, 193ff. 
 
 Christ's Infancy: historicity of narra- 
 tives, 6 Iff.; Lucan wording, 62; 
 Semitic colouring, 62-63; circum- 
 stances of, 73; political influences, 
 73-74; social influences, 74-75; reli- 
 gious influences, 75-77; in St. Luke, 
 169; in St. Matthew. 182 
 
 Chrysostom, 14, 16, 17, 26, 99, 110, 133, 
 
 148, 149, 186 
 Clarke, 47, 49 
 Clemens, 73 
 Clement, First Epistle of, 13: Second 
 
 Epistle, 155; of Alexandria, 14, 171 
 Colarbasus, 24 
 Conrady, 61-63 
 
 Constantinople, Second Council of, 26 
 Constitutiones Apostolicae, 143 
 Coponius, 77 
 Corderius, 4, 37 
 Coughlan, 48, 160 
 Cremer, 123 
 Curci, 48 
 Cyprian, 174 
 Cyril, of Alexandria, 4, 8, 9, 12, 15, 16, 
 
 24, 53, 56, 58, 97, 106, 133, 159: of 
 
 Jerusalem, 6, 9, 22 
 
 Daab, 39 
 
 Dalman, 48, 63, 69, 82, 83, 85, 86, 91, 
 
 93, 94, 165, 170, 171, 174, 176, 178, 
 
 179, 189, 192, 195, 196 
 D'Arcy, 48, 106, 109, 174, 176, 194 
 David, 66 
 Davis, 45 
 Deissmann, 155 
 Denny, 42 
 
 Set, in New Testament, 100-101 
 Dialogus contra Macedonianos, 9, 17, 
 
 56, 58 
 Dickenson, 42, 94 
 Dickey, 40 
 Didache, the, 13 
 Didon, 48 
 Didymus of Alexandria, 6, 53, 56, 58, 
 
 143 
 Dill, 84 
 
 Diognetus, Epistle to, 14 
 Dionysius the Carthusian, 33 
 Doderlein, 47, 98, 129 
 Dollinger, 84 
 Doren, van, 47, 49, 132 
 Dorner, 47 
 Drum, 188 
 Du Bose, 48, 196 
 Duchesne, 23 
 Durand, 61, 63, 65, 73, 137 
 
 Ebionites, 7, 9, 23, 25, 26, 61, 171 
 Ebrard, 46, 134 
 
 Edersheim, 44, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 79, 80, 
 , 117, 123, 134, 143, 163, 187 
 EKTrXrjaaonai, in the New Testament, 
 
 127 
 riXiKla, meaning of. 155 
 
INDEX 
 
 241 
 
 Elkesaites, 23 
 
 Ellicott, 47, 80. 129 
 
 e£l<rTijni, in the New Testament, 124- 
 
 125 
 Ephraim, 14 
 Epiphanius, 6, 9, 16, 17, 22, 23, 26, 53, 
 
 56, 58, 133, 171 
 Erasmus, 11, 36, 107, 127, 132, 136, 137 
 Estius, 137 
 Eusebius, 25-26 
 Euthymius Zizabenus, 31 
 Evans, 43 
 Ewald, 46, 165 
 
 Faber, Stapulensis, 36, 139 
 
 Fairbain, 41 
 
 Fairweather, 86 
 
 Farmer, 41, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 127, 
 
 133, 138, 141, 148, 151, 152, 156 
 Farquahar, 163 
 Farrar, 47, 70, 140 
 Faustus Socinus, 26 
 Feine, 39 
 
 Felder, 48, 49, 96, 118, 145, 170, 173 
 Feldman, 74, 77 
 Felton, 128 
 Field, 140, 155 
 Fillion, 48, 96, 118, 140 
 Findlay, 18, 19 
 Fleetwood, 47 
 Foote, 47, 49 
 Foxell, 46 
 Frederich, 46 
 Furrer, 43, 70, 97 
 
 Galilee, 74 
 
 Gamaliel, 80 
 
 Garvie, 43 
 
 Geikie, 46 
 
 Gelpke, 43 
 
 Geodfridus, 139 
 
 Geometra, 4 
 
 George, 64 
 
 Gess 39 
 
 Gigot, 48, 65, 101, 135, 139, 141, 175 
 
 Gilbert, 43 
 
 Gnostics, 19, 24, 25, 26 
 
 God's Fatherly relation to man, in Old 
 Testament, 81-82: in Apocryphal 
 books of the Old Testament, 83-84; 
 to special individuals, 83; among the 
 Greeks, 83-84; in New Testament, 
 188-190 
 
 God, Jewish conception of, 81ff.: an- 
 thropomorphisms of Old Testament 
 changed, 85; tendency to transcen- 
 
 dental view of, 86; names of, 86, 192; 
 
 subject to the Law, 86 
 Godet, 42, 43, 64, 95, 134 
 Gore, 43 
 Goulburn, 47, 80 
 Gratiani, 56 
 Green, 87 
 Gregory, of Nazianzus, 14-15: of 
 
 Nyssa, 15; the Great, 14, 110, 133, 
 
 184 
 Grotius, 36 
 Guignebert, 66 
 Guinebert, 40 
 
 Haecker, 43 
 
 Hahn, 47 
 
 Hall, Stanley, 46, 47, 93 
 
 Hammond, 36 
 
 Hamyln, 41 
 
 Hanna, 46 
 
 Harden, 64 
 
 Harnack, 40, 61, 62, 63, 64, 118, 163, 
 
 175, 178 
 Harris, 151 
 Hartmann, 45 
 Hase, Karl, 39, 66, 94 
 Hastings, 48, 109 
 Hausrath, 66, 80, 128 
 Hawkins, 62 
 
 Haymo of Halberstadt, 30, 137 
 Heer, 175 
 Henry, Matt, 129 
 Heretics, the early, 23, 172 
 Herford, 86 
 
 Hermas, the Pastor of, 14 
 Herod the Great, 73-74 
 Hess, 43 
 Hillel, 80 
 Hillman, 62 
 Hippolytus, 23, 25 
 Hitchcock, 43, 134 
 Hoffman, 18-19 
 Hofmeister, 34, 131 
 Hollmann, 75, 97 
 Holy Office, condemned propositions, 
 
 165, 184 
 Holtzmann, H., 39, 40, 60, 65, 92, 107, 
 
 129, 184 
 Holtzmann, Oscar, 39, 41, 67, 70, 129 
 Homer, 84 
 Homes, 47, 49 
 Hugo de S. Caro, 35 
 Hurter, 160 
 
 Ignatius, Martyr, 13, 62 
 Irenaeus, 6 
 
242 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Irenaeus, St., 3, 4, 6, 13, 14, 19, 22, 23, 
 
 24, 26, 56, 58, 61, 173, 190 
 Isaac of Stella, 32 
 
 Jacobus, 47, 49 
 
 Jacquier, 60 
 
 James, St., 71 
 
 Jansenius, Yprensis, 35, 37, 79, 140 
 
 Jansens, 160 
 
 Jeremias, 65, 66 
 
 Jerome, 14, 15, 16, 17, 76, 131, 135, 143, 
 
 152, 172, 174 
 Jewish Child: names for, 74; schools for, 
 
 74-75; training left to parents, 75; 
 
 religious training, 75ff. 
 John Duns Scotus, 33 
 John of Damascus, 15 
 John Scotus Erigena, 32 
 Joseph, only in the place of a Father, 
 
 16, 17, 18, 104, 135 
 Josephus, 66, 67, 73, 74, 154 
 Joshua ben Gamala, 74 
 Josias, 66 
 Jtilicher, 60 
 
 Justin Martyr, 14, 62, 155, 163, 171 
 Juvencus, 10, 12, 14, 56, 100 
 
 Keil, 46, 102 
 
 Keim, 41,67,70,94,95,129 
 
 Kennedy, 74 
 
 Kent, 39, 74, 129 
 
 Kilpatrick, 41 
 
 Knabenbauer, 48, 125. 132 
 
 Knowling, 64 
 
 Koran, 19 
 
 Krenkel, 66 
 
 Kuhl, 46 
 
 idtpios, applied to the infant Jesus, 170 
 
 Lagarde, 63 
 
 Lagrange, 48, 63, 80, 129, 137, 141 
 
 Lange, 45, 94, 107 
 
 aLapide, Cornelius, 37, 79, 80, 118, 129, 
 
 137, 141 
 LeCanus, 48-49 
 
 Leo the Great, 11, 53, 55, 56, 132 
 Lepicier, 160 
 Lepin, 48, 49, 173, 180 
 Les&re, 48, 80 
 Lester, 61 
 
 Lightfoot, John, 76, 79, 80, 128, 155 
 Lobstein, 61, 65 
 
 Loisy, 43, 60, 61, 62, 65, 71, 107, 116, 142 
 Low, 77 
 
 Lucas, 36, 79, 118, 129 
 Lucianus, 26 
 Ludolphus of Saxony, 34, 36 
 
 Luke, literary dependence, 67, 68 
 Luke, the author of the Third Gospel as 
 
 a historian, 60, 61 
 Luther, 34, 136 
 
 Maas, 73, 80, 160 
 
 MacDermott, 45 
 
 MacEvilly, 48, 49 
 
 Machen, 63, 69 
 
 Mackintosh, 40, 41, 46 
 
 Maclaren, 47, 105 
 
 Maclean, 86 
 
 MacRory, 60 
 
 Magi, 14 
 
 Mahaffy, 74 
 
 Malan, 45 
 
 Malchion, 25 
 
 Maldonatus, 34, 36, 80, 129, 137, 141 
 
 Mangenot, 48, 63 
 
 Marcion, 24, 25, 26, 61 
 
 Marcosians, 3, 4, 56, 58, 190 
 
 IVT&rcus 24 
 
 Martin,' 40, 61, 66, 68, 144 
 
 Martineau, 40 
 
 Martyr, S. Polycarpi, 152 
 
 Mary, Mother of God, 170: handmaid 
 of the dispensation, 8; Luke's author- 
 ity for Infancy narrative, 64,71,72; 
 Luke's authority, 159 
 
 Mary's, preserving all, 142; Question, 
 80, 105ff., 138; motherly point of 
 view, 108; words and action, ex- 
 planation of, 147ff. 
 
 Mason, 103 
 
 Matthews, 74 
 
 Melanchthon, 34, 36, 131, 136 
 
 Melchisedecian heresy, 25 
 
 Menochius, 129 
 
 Merx, 40 
 
 Messiah, the, 83 
 
 Meyer, 44, 62, 67, 70, 92, 107, 136, 139 
 
 Michaelis, J. C, 34, 37 
 
 Michel, 19-21 
 
 Miller, H., 40, 66 
 
 Milner, 64 
 
 Moffatt, 63 
 
 Monnier, 42, 43 
 
 Montefiore, 41, 66, 71 
 
 Moore, 84 
 
 Moses, 66 
 
 Moulton and Milligan, 155 
 
 Muratorian Canon, 61 
 
 Natalis, Alexander, 37, 80, 129, 141 
 Nazareth, 74 
 Neander, 41, 94 
 Nebe, 42, 127 
 
INDEX 
 
 243 
 
 Nestle, 55, 58 
 Neumann, 40, 65, 69 
 Nevin, 47 
 
 Nicholas of Lyra, 34 
 Nicoll, 48, 49 
 Nilus, 15, 107 
 Nolloth, 46, 64 
 Nosgen, 42, 95 
 
 Oesterley, 86 
 
 Olshausen, 45, 64, 129, 136 
 
 Oosterzee, 45 
 
 Ophites, 24 
 
 Origen, 4, 5, 9, 12, 14, 16, 17, 53, 56, 58, 
 
 100, 130, 131, 133, 136, 137, 142, 153, 
 
 173, 190 
 Owen, 47, 94, 196 
 
 "Parents" of Christ, 16, 17, 18, 75, 
 135ff., 146ff.: no negligence on their 
 part, 136; surprised at scene, 137; 
 non-understanding, explanations of, 
 139ff.; significance of, 140, 142 
 
 Pasch, Ritual of , at time of Christ, 78: 
 pilgrims to, 78; fervour at, 78; 
 Psalms sung at, 78 
 
 Paterson, 43 
 
 Patritius, 129 
 
 Paul of Samosata, 25-26 
 
 Pauli Praedicatio, 174 
 
 Paulus, 43, 116 
 
 Paynter, 45 
 
 Peabody, 41 
 
 Pesch, 48 
 
 Pfleiderer, O., 41, 60, 61, 65, 66, 71, 95 
 
 Phelan, 47 
 
 Philo, 75, 84 
 
 Photius, 17, 30, 56, 58, 131, 132 
 
 Picard, 48, 129 
 
 Piscator, 36 
 
 Plato, 84 
 
 TrXrjpobfiepov, meaning of, 151-152 
 
 Plutarch, 66 
 
 Plummer, 18,47, 63,69,79,101,103,106, 
 125, 129, 134, 141, 142, 143, 151, 155. 
 162 
 
 Plumptre, 45, 147 
 
 Pohle-Preuss, 48, 157, 160 
 
 Polus, 36, 79, 141 
 
 Power, 54, 55, 59, 104, 127, 129, 139 
 
 de PressensS, 23, 24 
 
 Preuschen, 123, 125 
 
 Pricaeus, 98 
 
 TrpoKoicTO), meaning of, 154, 155 
 
 Pseudo-Augustinus, 17, 137 
 
 Purves, 63,«64 
 
 Quirinius, P. Sulpicius, 77 
 
 Rabbis, the, 80, 125, 126, 128, 129 
 
 Ramsay, vi, 44, 60, 61, 63, 65, 71, 77 
 
 Reid, 18, 19 
 
 Reinhard, 41, 194 
 
 Renan, 64, 65, 144 
 
 Resch, 63 
 
 Reubelt, 46 
 
 Reuss, 43 
 
 Reville, 42, 65, 66, 94, 95, 129 
 
 Rice, 140 
 
 Riddle, 145 
 
 Robertson, A. T., 44, 60, 65, 111, 188 
 
 Robinson, 46, 103 
 
 Ryan, 140 
 
 Ryle, 47 
 
 Sadler, 47 
 
 Salmeron, 36, 80 
 
 Samuel, 66, 67, 68 
 
 Sanday, 48, 63, 64, 86, 172, 174, 188, 
 
 191, 192, 193 
 Schaefer, 48, 99, 185 
 Schaff, 47 
 Schenkel, 39, 40, 66 
 Schlatter, 43 
 
 Schleiermacher, 41, 65, 69, 70, 129 
 Schmeidel, 60, 61, 65, 66 
 Schmidt, H., 43, 95, 101 
 Schmidt, Nat, 40, 70 
 Schmidt, P. W., 40, 43 
 Scholia Vetera in Lucam, 29 
 Schools at time of Christ, 74ff. 
 Schottgenius, 132 
 Schulte, 15 
 
 Schumacher, 96, 179, 188 
 Schiirer, 40, 74, 75, 76, 80, 128 
 Schweitzer, 39, 40 
 Scott, E. F., 44 
 Seitz, 48 
 Shammai, 80 
 Shannahan, 48, 109 
 Sheldon, 42, 97 
 Sickenberger, 4, 5 
 Simeon Metaphrastes, 31, 56, 58, 79, 
 
 107, 133, 136, 142 
 Simon, 74 
 Smith, D., 49 
 Smith, 111, 163 
 Sodon, von, 58 
 Solomon, 66 
 Soltan, 61, 65 
 Sophronius, 17 
 Spaeth, 40 
 
 Stalker, 47, 49, 181, 189, 195 
 Stapfer, 39, 70,|163 
 
244 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Steinmetzer, 61, 67 
 
 Steinmeyer, 46, 61, 70, 118, 141 
 
 Stella, 35 
 
 Stephens, 188 
 
 Stewart, 48 
 
 Stier, 46, 97, 101, 134 
 
 Stoics, Greek, 84 
 
 Stokes, 183 
 
 Strauss, 43, 65, 66, 116, 129, 136, 139, 
 
 142 
 Streatfeild, 110, 187, 193 
 Suarez, 136, 138 
 Suetonius, 66 
 
 abv&ns, in the New Testament, 122 
 arvvl-nni, in the New Testament, 121- 
 Sweet, 46, 61, 63, 64, 71, 149 
 
 122 
 Sylveira, 35, 37, 145 
 Symmachus, 155 
 
 Talmud, Baba Bathra 21a, 74: Aboth 
 V 21,76; Yoma 82A, 77; Megilla 
 21A, 128 
 
 Targums, 85, 91 
 
 Tasker, 19 
 
 Temple: part in which Christ was 
 found, 79, 80; episode, silence of 
 other Gospels on, 181; historicity of, 
 65ff. 
 
 Terrien, 48, 141, 146 
 
 Tertullian, 10, 24, 25, 56, 58, 62 
 
 Theodore, of Mopsuesetia, 26 
 
 Theodoret, 9, 13,. 15, 25, 26, 56, 58, 106, 
 107, 133, 160 
 
 Theodoret of Cyrus, 8, 9 
 
 Theodotus, of Byzantium, 25 
 
 Theodotus the banker, 25 
 
 Theophylact, 31, 93, 137 
 
 Thiriet, 48 
 
 Tholuck, 70, 129 
 
 Thomas, St., 4, 160, 162, 173 
 
 Thomas of Aquin, 33 
 
 Thomson, 44 
 
 Tirinus, 37 
 
 Teschendorf, 9, 17, 53 
 
 Titus of Bostra, 5, 56, 93, 103 
 
 Toletus, 35, 36 
 
 Torrey, 63, 159 
 
 Toy, 63, 87 
 
 Tractatus de Rebaptismate, 174 
 
 Trollope, 129 
 
 Tyndal, 121 
 
 Usener, 61, 113 
 
 Valentinians, 4, 6, 24 
 Vallings, 47 
 Veuillott, 48 
 Victor, 56 
 
 Victorinus of Pettau, 24 
 Vigilius, 15 
 Vincent, 101, 123 
 Virgin Birth, 62, 65 
 Vogels, 17, 58, 69, 137 
 Volter, 41, 61, 65, 66, 71 
 Von Sodon, 41 
 Vonier, 160, 162 
 
 Wallis, 44, 108, 144 
 
 Ward, 48, 160 
 
 Warfield, 126, 127 
 
 Weber, 39 
 
 Weinel, 40, 62 
 
 Weiss, B., 39, 55, 58, 63, 70, 139 
 
 Weiss, J., 41, 61, 65, 95 
 
 Wellhausen, 40, 61 
 
 Wendt, 42, 70, 95, 164 
 
 Wernle, 40, 61 
 
 Westcott-Hort, 54, 55, 58 
 
 Wetstein, 76, 128 
 
 Whitefoord, 129 
 
 Wicks, 82 
 
 Wilkinson, 105, 108, 146, 147 
 
 Wisdom, word in the New Testament, 
 
 151 
 Wolf, 80 
 
 Wordsworth, J., 57 
 Wrede, 40 
 Wright, 63, 64, 141 
 WUnsche, 80 
 
 Zacharias, Chrysopolitanus, 31, 32 
 Zahn, 63, 139 
 Zeugma, in Luke, 159 
 Zimmermann, 62, 69 
 
UNIVERSITAS CATHOLICA AMERICAE 
 Washingtonii, D. C. 
 
 S: FACULTAS THEOLOGICA. 
 
 1921 — 1922 
 
 No. 19 
 
 THESES 
 
DEUS LUX MEA 
 
 THESES 
 
 QUAS 
 
 AD DOCTORIS GRADUM 
 
 IN 
 
 SACRA THEOLOGIA 
 
 Apud Universitatem Catholicam Americae 
 
 CONSEQUENDUM 
 PUBLICE PROPUGNABIT 
 
 PATRICIUS IOSEPH TEMPLE 
 
 SACERDOS ARCHIDKECESIS NEO-EBORACENSIS 
 SACRAE THEOLOGIAE LICENTIATUS 
 
 HORA IX A. M. DIE IX IUNII A. D. MCMXXII 
 
THESES 
 
 i 
 
 In spite of linguistic peculiarities the integrity of the first two 
 chapters of the Third Gospel must be maintained on the strength 
 of the evidence drawn from the manuscripts and from the writings 
 of the Fathers. 
 
 II 
 
 From such indications as found in Luke i. 29, 34, 35; ii. 7, 19, 
 33, 50, 51, it is rightly held that the Virgin Mother herself was 
 St. Luke's final authority for what he relates in the Infancy section. 
 
 in 
 
 From the supposed analogous accounts told of Samuel, Buddha, 
 Alexander the Great and Josephus, no objection can be raised 
 against the historicity of the episode of the Boy Christ in the 
 Temple. 
 
 IV 
 
 It is not because Jesus became a "Son of the Law" at the age 
 of twelve that He made His memorable visit to the Temple and 
 we have recorded what transpired there. The term "Bar Miz- 
 wah" does not occur in Jewish writings until the Middle Ages, 
 and then it was applied to one who had reached the thirteenth 
 year. 
 
 V 
 
 In regard to the question, what is to be understood by iv toi<; 
 toO in Luke ii. 49, the weight of authorities and both Greek 
 classic usage and the Greek of the Papyri are in favor of "house"; 
 on the other hand the context and the Semitic mode of speech 
 are on the side of "business." 
 
 VI 
 
 The history of the exegesis of Jesus' first recorded saying 
 creates a presumption in favor of the interpretation of real Divine 
 Sonship. 
 
 1 
 
2 THESES 
 
 VII 
 
 In the context of the Virgin Birth and in the light of the whole 
 New Testament setting, the words "My Father" on the lips of the 
 twelve-year-old Saviour must be understood as expressing real 
 Divine Sonship. 
 
 VIII 
 
 Messiahship is included in Christ's first self-interpretation 
 according to the text and the context. 
 
 IX 
 
 The force of the words IJterovro, i^exXaYYjaav employed in 
 the description of the scene of the Boy Christ among the Doctors 
 tells in favor of the view that the "understanding" displayed on 
 the occasion was preternatural. 
 
 X 
 
 Neither the surprise of the "parents" at seeing their "Son" 
 among the Doctors, nor their perplexity at His earliest recorded 
 words, are irreconcilable with their knowledge of the Virgin 
 Birth. 
 
 XI 
 
 The great crux interpretum, Luke ii, 52, is not to be under- 
 stood in the sense that Jesus increased in wisdom and grace by 
 real internal acquisition; this is not required by the verb xpo£xox- 
 tsv and is excluded by the context. 
 
 XII 
 
 The meaning of "age" rather than "stature" is to be given to 
 Y)Xtx.(a in Luke ii. 52, being more in harmony with the verb with 
 which it is coupled and in accordance with the usage of the Papyri. 
 
 XIII 
 
 Neither education or any other natural influence whatsoever 
 could account for Christ's great knowledge and self -consciousness 
 manifested according to Luke ii. 49. 
 
THESES 3 
 
 XIV 
 
 The heavenly voice and the descent of the Dove during Jesus' 
 baptism have not the significance ascribed them by modern 
 critics who take them to represent merely a crisis in the inner life 
 of Our Lord. Rather those incidents were an external confirma. 
 tion of Christ's Messiahship and Divine Sonship intended not 
 for Himself but for the Baptist and the bystanders. 
 
 XV 
 
 In opposition to the false theories advanced on the matter, 
 it is to be maintained that the temptation of Christ was a real 
 occurrence in which a personal tempter appearing in bodily form 
 made outward sug gestions to Jesus. 
 
 XVI 
 
 Mark xiii. 32 can be explained in the sense that Christ did not 
 know the last day for the purpose of revealing it; no deficiency 
 of knowledge is, therefore, announced in this verse. 
 
 XVII 
 
 In the parable of the Wicked Husbandmen (Matthew xxi. 
 33-46; Mark xii. 1-12; Luke xx. 9-19) sharply distinguishing 
 from the whole series of servants the only beloved son as the sole 
 heir, Christ indirectly states that He is the real Son of God. 
 
 XVIII 
 
 In the use of the appellation, Father, for God, Christ con- 
 formed to the Jewish religious custom of avoidance of the name 
 of God; at the same time He preserved a peculiar position of His 
 own, by the marked preference for this title and especially by the 
 content He gave it, — teaching a three-fold grade of God's Father- 
 hood. 
 
 XIX 
 
 The several words of Our Lord with reference to His Blessed 
 Mother (Luke ii. 49; Mark iii. 33-35; Luke xi. 28; John ii. 4; 
 xix. 26) do not contain anything derogatory to the Blessed Virgin 
 or inconsistent with the Catholic doctrine of her position and of 
 the veneration due her. 
 
4 THESES 
 
 XX 
 
 The two-source theory so widely accepted among modern 
 scholars does not offer a satisfactory solution of the Synoptic 
 problem, i.e. the resemblance and differences existing in the first 
 three Gospels (Bib. Comm. 26 iunii 1921). 
 
 XXI 
 
 A priori considered, the application of the sound principles 
 of historical criticism to the Bible should redound to the vindi- 
 cation of the Church and her doctrine of inspiration; and as a 
 matter of fact the now so-called Higher Criticism has been used 
 by Origen, Dionysius of Alexandria, Eusebius, Jerome, with 
 valuable results, positive as well as negative. 
 
 XXII 
 
 While the legendary accounts of the origin of the Septuagint 
 are to be rejected, there can be no doubt (1) that the Septuagint 
 was begun about the beginning of the third century before Christ, 
 (2) that it is the work of many authors, (3) that it was used as an 
 authentic text of the Old Testament. 
 
 XXIII 
 
 While the Syriac Peshitto of the Old Testament was probably 
 the work of Judaeo-Christians, the Peshitto of the New Testament 
 is a Gospel revision made by Rabbula, bishop of Edessa (411-435) 
 as a substitute for the Diatesseron. 
 
 XXIV 
 
 The chief requisite for the proper interpretation of a given 
 passage of Sacred Scripture is the consideration of the context and 
 the spirit of the whole book in which that passage is found. 
 
 XXV 
 
 The similarity between the biblical narrative of the creation 
 and that found in Babylonian sources is to be explained, not on 
 the theory that the former is dependent on the latter, but rather 
 as an indication of a common tradition coming from a more re- 
 mote source. 
 
THESES 5 
 
 XXVI 
 
 A comparison of the Mosaic legislation and the Code of Ham- 
 murabbi on the punishment of thieves, runaway slaves and those 
 who harbor them, as well as on the innocent children of culprits, 
 clearly shows that while a superior economic stage is reflected in 
 the Code, the laws of Moses evidence a far higher stage of humane 
 and religious thought. 
 
 XXVII 
 
 The Hebrew # seems to be a particle corresponding in its ety- 
 mology and usage to the Assyrian sa and not an abbreviated form 
 of ">?!$. The Assyrian and especially the Babylonian captivity 
 together with the influence of an Aramaic particle *| of similar 
 meaning seem to have been instrumental in promoting its general 
 use by Hebrew writers; so that its frequent and flexible employ- 
 ment in Ecclesiastes is rightly considered one of the indications 
 that the Hebrew of this book is to be dated after the Babylonian 
 captivity. 
 
 XXVIII 
 
 The differences between the Hebrew decree of Cyrus (1 Esd. i. 
 2-4) and the Aramaic one 1 Esd. vi. 3-5) are best explained by the 
 supposition that there were two distinct decrees with distinct 
 purposes and destinations. 
 
 XXIX 
 
 Judging from the canonical and apocryphal books of the Old 
 Testament there was a development in the Jewish conception of 
 God's fatherly relation to man. From professing God's fatherly 
 relation to the nation as a whole, the Jews came to acknowledge 
 His fatherly relation to the individual. 
 
 XXX 
 
 The many and striking resemblances between St. Luke's In- 
 fancy section (Luke i.- ii.) and the childhood account of Samuel 
 in the early chapters of the first book of Kings, are to be explained 
 by a merely literary dependence in no way militating against the 
 historicity of the Lucan narrative. 
 
6 THESES 
 
 XXXI 
 
 The objections raised by Howison, 1 Wilson, 2 and other scholars, 
 first, against the possibility of man's receiving with certainty a 
 divine positive communication, and secondly, against the ability 
 of any body of men to transmit unchanged through succeeding 
 generations such a revelation once received, do not avail to dis- 
 prove the fact of Christian revelation, viewed as a positive ob- 
 jective communication from God. 
 
 XXXII 
 
 In the pure Greek diction of the Third Gospel, and in its skilful 
 use of medical terms, we find strong evidence in favor of the voice 
 of tradition that it was composed by St. Luke, the Greek physician. 
 
 XXXIII 
 
 While the divinity of Christ is especially emphasized in the 
 Fourth Gospel, the same truth is substantially set forth in the 
 Synoptics. 
 
 XXXIV 
 
 The attempts of modern radical critics to account for the 
 belief of the primitive Church in the bodily resurrection of Jesus 
 apart from its objective reality, all fail to do justice to the re- 
 corded evidence. 
 
 XXXV 
 
 There is abundant evidence in the New Testament to show 
 that an ever living infallible magisterium is an essential feature 
 of the true Church of Christ. 
 
 XXXVI 
 
 A hasty survey of the history of heresy reveals the fact that 
 the Divinity of Christ has always been the central point of attack 
 on the part of the heterodox. 
 
 1 The Limits of Evolution, New York, 1905; pp. 232 ff. 
 
 2 The Idea of Revelation, Essay VI in Cambridge Theological Essays, New 
 York, 1905. 
 
THESES 7 
 
 XXXVII 
 
 The christ ological errors and heresies of the first three Christian 
 centuries were not less drastic and sweeping in their nature than 
 were those of the centuries immediately following; indeed most 
 of the latter were only modified forms of the former. 
 
 XXXVIII 
 
 The baneful influence of Theodotus the Tanner against the 
 Divinity of Christ is reflected in Artemon, Paul of Samosata and 
 Theodore of Mopsuestia. 
 
 XXXIX 
 
 Modern rationalistic scholars, and certain heretics of the early 
 centuries, agree in regarding the event of Christ's baptism as a 
 crisis of great christological importance; they fundamentally 
 disagree in regard to the precise nature of the crisis. 
 
 XL 
 
 While it is true that the Homilies of Aphraates, though post- 
 
 Nicene, do not reflect Nicene controversies; it is not true, as has 
 
 been contended, that his so-called "Creed," in his Homily on 
 
 Faith (Horn. I. 19), is co-extensive with his Creed or the Creed 
 
 of the Eastern Church. 
 
 XLI 
 
 Reiicienda omnino est opinio quae statuit: Conciliari nequit 
 sensus naturalis textuum evangelicorum cum eo quod nostri 
 theologi docent de conscientia et scientia infallibili Jesu Christi. 
 Merito proinde hanc opinionem reprobavit Pius Decimus in decreto 
 Lamentabili, 3 iulii, 1907 (prop. XXXII). 
 
 XLII 
 
 Firmiter tenedum est Christum ab initio semper habuisse 
 conscientiam suae Divinitatis suaeque dignitatis messianicae. 1 
 
 XLIII 
 
 In Christo homine triplex erat scientia, nempe visio beatifica, 
 scientia infusa, scientiaque acquisita. 
 
 1 Cf . prop. XXXV. damn, in deer. Lammentabili, 3 iulii 1907. 
 
THESES 
 
 XLIV 
 
 In sola scientia experimental! Christi verus progressus admitti 
 
 potest. 
 
 XLV 
 
 Christ us nihil ab homine didicit. 1 
 
 XLVI 
 
 Contra Anabaptistas et Baptistas contendendum est validum 
 esse baptismum sive per immersionem sive infusionem sive per 
 aspersionem collatum. 
 
 XLVII 
 
 Sola consecratio ad essentiam, communio vero ad integritatem 
 et perfectionem sacrificii Eucharistiae pertinere videtur. 
 
 XLVIII 
 
 Quidquid a civili auctoritate de usu vini ex uvis fermentati 
 statuatur, haec materia sola, nempe vinum fermentatum, in sacro 
 Eucharistiae sacrificio licite adhiberi potest. 
 
 XLIX 
 
 Christus Ecclesiae contulit potestatem remittendi et retinendi 
 omnia peccata post baptismum commissa et quidem actu iudiciali. 
 
 L 
 
 Quaedam sunt causae ab integritate confessionis excusantes. 
 
 LI 
 
 Filii tenentur per se sub gravi obedire parentibus in omnibus 
 quae honesta et licita sunt; de vocatione autem clericali aut 
 religiosa eorum consensum petere sufficit, quern si negent, obligatio 
 obedientiae non coget. 
 
 LII 
 
 Bellum offensivum si adsint debitae conditiones ex natura 
 licit um est. Conditiones haec potissimum sunt tres: Auctoritas 
 publica, causa iusta, intentio recta. 
 
 *St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, pars III, q. XII., art. 3. 
 
THESES 9 
 
 LIII 
 
 His in regionibus opinio quae tenet furtum septem dollarorum 
 constituere materiam absolute gravem peccati contra iustitiam 
 tuto defendi potest. 
 
 LIV 
 
 Heri seu domini tenentur adulto operario illam mercedem 
 solvere quae ad familiam alendam necessaria est. 
 
 LV 
 
 Operistitia quibus plures operarii simul ex condicto a labore 
 cessant, licita sunt dummodo quaedam conditiones verificentur. 
 Difficile tamen est iustificare quoslibet casus in quibus cooperantes 
 operarii vi usi sunt in excludendis iis operariis quos domini aliunde 
 invitaverunt. 
 
 LVI 
 
 De iis quibus competit nonnulla crimina graviora reservare 
 (Can. 893-896). 
 
 LVII 
 
 De reservationibus ab ordinario statutis earumque cessatione 
 in quibusdam casibus (Can. 897-900). 
 
 LVIII 
 
 De impedimento disparitatis cult us (Can. 1070-1071). 
 
 LIX 
 
 De privilegio Paulino eiusque conditionibus (Can. 1120-1127). 
 
 LX 
 
 De obligatione parochi nomina baptizati, confirmati, necnon 
 in matrimonium conjunctorum in praescriptis libris adnotandi 
 (Can. 777, 798, 1103). 
 
VITA 
 
 Patrick Joseph Temple, son of Patrick Temple and Mary 
 O'Neill, was born at Shannon Harbour, Offaly, Ireland, on June 
 1st, 1889. He received his primary education in the National 
 Schools of Shannon Harbour and the neighboring town, Banagher. 
 On September 1st, 1903, he entered St. Mel's College, Longford, 
 the diocesan preparatory seminary, and was graduated in 1908. 
 After a course of two years of philosophy pursued at All Hallows' 
 College, Dublin, he began his theological studies in St. Joseph's 
 Seminary, Dunwoodie, New York, where he was ordained Septem- 
 ber 20th, 1913. For the next three years he pursued a post-graduate 
 course in the School of Sacred Sciences at the Catholic University 
 of America, specializing in the study of Holy Scripture, and ob- 
 taining the degrees of S.T.B. and S.T.L. In 1916 he was appointed 
 assistant to the pastor of St. Bernard's Church, New York City, 
 and after two years of service was transferred to the parish of the 
 Holy Family, New Rochelle, New York, where he still holds the 
 office of assistant. 
 
 li 
 
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY, 
 BERKELEY 
 
 THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
 
 STAMPED BELOW 
 
 Books not returned on time are subject to a fine of 
 50c per volume after the third day overdue, increasing 
 to $1.00 per volume after the sixth day. Books not in 
 demand may be renewed if application is made before 
 expiration of loan period. 
 
 7 1927 
 
497198 
 
 TTszs 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY