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