Abstract
Whether or not the boy Jesus in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (IGT) is portrayed as an ‘idealized child’ or a true-to-life child is a question that, whether implicitly or explicitly, lies at the heart of some of the most recent contributions to this second-century supplement to the Gospel of Luke. However, the potential contribution of ancient conceptions of child development to this conundrum has remained thus far overlooked. This article addresses this lacuna by approaching the characterization of the boy Jesus in IGT from the perspective on ancient views of childhood development, tracing his age-specific acquisition of self-control and benevolence for others across the narrative. Cast in this light, IGT imagines what sort of child would develop into Luke’s Jesus and, in so doing, supplements what may have been perceived to be lacking in the third gospel.
Introduction
There is no question that, at least to modern readers, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (IGT) can appear both bizarre and confusing. 1 The capricious boy Jesus curses and withers his peers (IGT [Gs] 3.2-3), he disrespects (7.1-8.2) and even kills his elders (13.2). 2 But this same Jesus also restores life to children (9.1-3; 15.2; 16.1-3), including one of his earlier victims (14.4). Indeed, by the story’s end, he will be proclaimed as a savior who ‘will continue to save all the days of his life’ (16.3). 3 In this article, I argue that attention to ancient expectations of child development, when combined with other depictions of divine children in the Mediterranean world, offers a compelling explanation for both poles of Jesus’ behavior over the course of the narrative. In short, this divine child learns self-control and benevolence as he grows and develops toward adulthood in preparation for his role as the Lukan savior. 4
Recent Approaches to the Boy Jesus
In recent years, several scholars – most recently, Tony Burke (2010) – have suggested that the boy Jesus is presented in IGT as an ‘idealized child’, that is, as a juvenile instantiation of the author/compiler’s own views about the adult Jesus. 5 For Burke (2010: 276-81), this idealization is modeled after young Jewish holy men. Burke understands Jesus’ character as a static import based on the author’s conception of the adult version of Jesus; the fact that Jesus is a child is incidental and irrelevant to his portrayal and behavior. Yet this does not adequately explain the troubling behavior of the boy Jesus, whose remorseless destruction would be troubling whether carried out by an adult or a child (so also Litwa 2014: 72). Others, most notably Reidar Aasgaard (2009), have argued that the boy is actually portrayed as a true-to-life child, which explains IGT’s unique portrait of the often very disagreeable adolescent. 6 As a true-to-life child, Jesus transitions from a boy to a young man over the course of the story. However, while Aasgaard pays careful attention to many aspects of the development of Jesus (particularly his socialization), he does not offer a treatment of Jesus’ moral character development with regard to his self-control and benevolence, particularly as it plays out over the course of the narrative.
Most recently, David Litwa (2014) has registered his disagreement with both Burke and Aasgaard, instead drawing upon Mediterranean depictions of gods as children, such as Heracles, Hermes, Dionysius, as well as borrowing from popular Greco-Roman theology (see below). The result is that the impolitic behavior of the boy Jesus testifies to his innate and supra-moral desire to protect his divine honor. Litwa’s focus on divine children offers a helpful corrective to Burke and Aasgaard. Yet, as incisive as Litwa’s work is, it does not attend to the trajectory of development in Jesus’ behavior over the course of the narrative: he does not provide an explanation (nor does he claim to) for the difference in behavior between Jesus at age five (cf. Gs 1–9) and Jesus at age twelve (cf. Gs 17). 7
While much has been written recently on the boy’s behavior, little if any attention has been paid to what was expected of children in different stages of life and how that might relate to the behavior of the boy Jesus, especially in the context of moral character development over the course of the narrative. Therefore, in what follows, I add my own voice to the discussion by demonstrating that Jesus transforms over the course of IGT from an impetuous divine child to an adolescent ready to take on his role as savior as depicted in the Gospel of Luke. 8
Child Gods and Childhood in Antiquity
While a full discussion of child gods reaches beyond the scope of this article, it nevertheless seems prudent to outline the most basic framework of child divinity before discussing child development, since it is a child god whom we watch develop over the course of IGT.
Child Gods as a Backdrop for the Boy Jesus
Litwa (2014: 69-85) has recently and aptly demonstrated that the behavior of the boy Jesus fits snugly within the matrix of other depictions of child gods in the Mediterranean world. These gods ferociously defended their honor when challenged and seemed to live by an amoral (or supra-moral) ethic in which all was fair when his or her honor was being challenged. Take, for example, the capricious, young Hercules. This boy never showed any remorse for killing his teacher, but rather, ‘[a]s a god – in this case, a divine child – Heracles has simply defended his honor’ (Litwa 2014: 75), so also Jesus berates his teacher for striking him on the head (Gs 6.1-3). 9 Jesus even kills his second teacher, after which he is promptly quarantined by his parents (Gs 13 [14].1-2). Yet at no time in IGT does Jesus ever show any hint of remorse or awareness of wrongdoing; he simply seems to be defending his honor. 10
However, this child god does not only dole out curses over the course of the narrative, but also blessings (cf. Gs 10–16). 11 Indeed, while it is yet to be pointed out in scholarly reflection on IGT, one can plot a sort of development from cursing toward blessing as the story progresses: as he gets older (and thus closer to his debut in the temple at age twelve) he takes on a more self-controlled persona in which he is more apt to bless and less likely to curse. In other words, it will simply not do to characterize Jesus as a juvenile god and stop there. The development within that portrait must also be explained, especially since the narrative itself is linked so closely to the Gospel of Luke (cf. Gs 17.1-4). 12
In search of just such an explanation, we now turn to the most relevant data for childhood in antiquity at the ages of five, seven and twelve. 13 That these same years prove so important for Jesus’ development in IGT is not, I suspect, a coincidence.
Childhood and Child Development in Mediterranean Antiquity
Young children were supposed to play. Aristotle did not approve of manual labor for children before the age of five; instead he, and later Quintilian, held that children should enjoy play at this stage of life and learn moral lessons 14 through stories. 15 Relatedly, Plato held that the period where the greatest growth occurred was from birth to five years, 16 and, according to Oribasius, the fourth-century CE physician, children ought to be entrusted to a benevolent and empathetic educator beginning around the ages of six to seven; this is also the age when children began to receive severe punishment as a means of instilling discipline meant to cultivate these unpredictable and unfinished ‘humans in the making’ (Aasgaard 2009: 95). 17
Among all the virtues that children were to acquire as they progressed toward adulthood, self-control (ἐγκράτεια or σωϕροσύνη 18 ) often held pride of place. 19 Indeed, Xenophon considered it the very foundation of all virtue (Mem. 1.5.1-4). 20 Self-control dealt largely with one’s ability to resist both internal impulses and external cues from one’s environment; at the risk of tautology, ἐγκράτεια pertained to one’s ability to control oneself in any situation (Aristotle, Eth. nic. 1149b.32-35; Isocrates, Nic. 39). Lack of self-control was something that was tolerated in boys prior to seven years, although it was completely unacceptable for men. 21 For example, Plutarch praises Alexander as a small boy (παιδός) for his self-restraint (σωϕροσύνη) with regard to bodily pleasures, particularly at such a young age, but allows that Alexander was otherwise ‘rash and violent’ (Alex. 4.4). The rationale for this accommodation lies in gender socialization, which began in earnest around the age of seven and coincided with the gender-specific moral instruction that boys and girls received when they attended separate schools.
Prior to socialization into masculinity, boys were allowed a degree of impulsivity and general lack of self-control, qualities typically associated with women. But this changed when these boys started down the road to manhood, since, if a man were to fail to conduct himself with a high degree of self-control, he would be considered effeminate. 22 Thus, from the age of seven onward, boys were expected to have learned self-control, having mastered their impulses through discipline and the assistance of moralizing stories. This instruction usually came under the tutelage of a paedagogus, who often remained with a child from the ages of seven to twelve. 23 These tutors would help instruct children in the early years of education and were a staple of society regardless of social class (Cribiore 2001: 47-50; Laes 2011: 115).
While play was a significant and important part of infantia, at around seven years infantia drew to a close and children began to take on more ‘adult’ responsibilities as they began their transformation into adulthood. At this time, they were expected to take on greater responsibility in family matters, helping with chores and tending to family business. 24 Further, character tends to be viewed as relatively fixed by this point, although some, like Quintilian (Inst. 2.2.20-21), held that a variety of influences – not least education – could stimulate further development. 25 Moreover, it was at this time that children began to differentiate into social groups and take on gender identity, including adherence to societally determined gender norms. These responsibilities increased until puberty, which usually began at age 12 for girls and at 14 for boys. This age marked a significant transition for boys in terms of increasing social responsibility, including vocation and marriage. This ‘coming of age’ was not as significant for girls, whose primary rite of passage was marriage. 26
In sum, up to age five, it was paramount for children to enjoy play and to learn primarily through stories – these stories, inevitably, unconsciously inculcated moral teaching and helped children mature toward the end of infantia (age seven). Children had few responsibilities, and a lack of self-control was tolerated in boys with the caveat that, once gender differentiation began at age seven, they were expected to mature toward manhood. By the time they reached puberty, they were able to marry and were expected to begin their vocation in society.
In the Gs recension of IGT, the boy Jesus fits within this broad portrait of an ancient Mediterranean boyhood – once we allow for the exaggerated consequences (both for harm and benevolence) of his divinity.
Tracing the Character Development of Jesus in IGT
If we isolate his (lack of) self-control and growing benevolence, we will watch as the divine child develops toward maturity over the course of the story, such that, by the narrative’s end, he is ready to take the stage as Jesus’ early life is depicted in Lk. 2.41. We begin with Jesus at age five.
Jesus at Age Five: A Childish God without Self-Control (Gs 1–9)
When the audience first meets Jesus, he is a very small boy (age five), but clearly he is unique, even divine. 27 He purifies unclean waters and gathers them by his word alone (2.1), 28 then he animates 12 sparrows that he forms from clay (2.2). 29 But when Jesus’ water is ‘dried up’ (ἐξήρανεν) by the young son of Annas the High Priest, Jesus hurls a curse at the boy, who then is literally ‘desiccated’ (ἐξηράνθη) and dies (3.3). While this scene foreshadows Jesus’ encounter with the High Priest in the Gospel of John, the use of conduplicatio here suggests that the audience is meant to feel pity for the boy who is withered at the word of the child Jesus (cf. Jn 18.13-24). 30 To make matters worse, on his way home Jesus murders another boy for simply running into his shoulder (4.1). 31 This incident brings Jesus’ dangerous behavior into focus and elicits two responses that aid our understanding of Jesus’ character development in IGT; these responses form twin summary statements of the story as a whole and forecast his moral character transformation (cf. 4.1-2; 6.2).
When Jesus slays the boy with his spoken word, the spectators respond, ‘Where was this child born that even his words become deed?’ (4.1). The question is important because it draws the audience into the story since, in performance, it could easily be understood as a question posed to the audience. 32 By addressing the audience from the vantage point of a character within the story, audience members would be drawn in to experience the story – and Jesus’ development – more vividly. 33 The question also serves to heighten the grief of the dead boy’s parents since the spectators’ response is juxtaposed with that of the parents’ in 4.2.
The parents’ response echoes the opening words of the spectators, 34 but it also highlights the intense grief of their loss: ‘From wherever you have this child, you cannot live with us in this village. If you wish to be here, you must teach him to bless and not to curse!’ (4.2). As we shall see, the narrative itself is set up in such a way that Jesus moves from offering curses (3.2; 5.1; 6.2-3) to blessing others through miraculous deeds (10.2; 11.1-2; 12.1-2; 14.4; 15.1-2; 16.1-3). In this way, the line functions as a summary statement foreshadowing Jesus’ development. That this is the case is supported by (1) the prevalence of such summary statements in Christian and other Greco-Roman literature, (2) the narrative placement of the parents’ demands for change, (3) the intense emotions of the episode, which would move even the most stolid of audiences 35 and (4) the remaining content and flow of the story itself.
The use of aural signposts, such as summaries or plot synopses, was quite common in ancient novels, epics and dramas. 36 Indeed, in many ways, these features were tools required by the oral/aural context of ancient performance, where following an argument or plot without assistance could prove challenging. 37 From a narratival perspective, this is why Jesus begins to go to school only moments later 38 in story time (6.1–8.2; 13.1–14.4) – he needs moral instruction. In the words of his first teacher, Zacchaeus, Jesus needs to ‘learn to love those his own age, honor old age and revere elders’ (6.2). This summary statement reinforces the one in 4.2. The lines would occur only moments apart in a reading or telling of the story, and this proximity strengthens their rhetorical effect, previewing the structure of the text for the audience. Indeed, given that verbatim repetition was often discouraged in ancient rhetorical conventions, we may understand 6.2 as a restatement of 4.2. 39 The audience already knows that Jesus does not need to learn his letters (cf. 6.2b, 3), but it has now become self-evident that Jesus is very much in need of self-control and other aspects of moral character formation. While the audience sees a glimmer of hope when Jesus raises Zeno from the dead, even here his motives are selfish. He sends Zeno back to the grave after he testifies to Jesus’ innocence (9.3)! 40
Thus, at nearly the halfway point in the story, Jesus has yet to do any good for anyone at all. Even his first resurrection miracle ends in tragedy. The fact that ‘the parents of the child praised (ἐδόξασαν) God and worshipped (προσεκύνησαν) the child Jesus’ (9.3) does not mitigate the fact that Jesus’ behavior is inherently self-centered. While it was in his power to raise Zeno for good (as in the Ga, Gb and Gd recensions), in Gs his only concern is the exoneration of his honor. On the one hand, this is expected since he is cast as a child god, but it is still a far cry from the selflessness needed to fulfill a role like the one assigned him in the Gospel of Luke, a role Gs seems at pains to adopt at the story’s end (cf. 17 [19].1-4).
In sum, the characterization of Jesus as a rowdy five-year-old boy in Gs 1–9 fits within what was expected of young boys, and his tyrannical behavior is best understood by the fact that this capricious boy is also a god. But the stakes are higher when a god lacks self-control. Significantly, we find the narrative’s own promise for Jesus’ development in two summary statements embedded within the story: Jesus will learn to ‘bless and not curse’ (4.2); put another way, he will ‘learn to love those his own age, honor old age and revere elders’ (6.2). 41 These summary statements provide a promise of things to come.
Jesus around Age Seven: On the Road to Manhood (Gs 10–16)
The journey to manhood, as we have seen, began at age seven and involved the acquisition of new responsibilities around the house, including helping one’s parents while moving ever closer toward one’s vocation. Once Jesus turns seven, his mother starts recruiting him to fetch water for her (10.1); Joseph takes him into the fields to sow wheat (11.1) and later to his carpentry shop to work with wood at the age of eight (12.1). In each instance, Jesus not only participates as a developing child – that is, he actually fetches water, sows wheat, and assists in the making of a bed – but he does so as a developing child god, accomplishing the mundane tasks in a manner commensurate with his (more productively channeled) divine power as he moves along the road to manhood. Jesus miraculously carries the water in his cloak (10.2); then he supernaturally harvests a hundredfold wheat crop (11.2); finally, he magically extends a beam in order to construct the bedframe with his father (12.1-2). These divine actions foreshadow what hearers presumably already know: this child will one day become the savior of the world. Jesus is beginning to learn to bless and not to curse (4.2), by respecting his elders (6.2) and helping them with the necessities of life.
Moreover, it is narrativally significant that Jesus’ first action at the age of seven is to gather water miraculously in his cloak when the crowds break the jar (10.1-2). This episode calls to mind the earlier fiasco with Annas’s son, in which Jesus ‘dried up’ the boy for ‘drying up’ the waters he had gathered together (cf. 3.1-3). Why does the seven-year-old Jesus resort to miraculous provision, rather than smiting the crowds for interfering with his household chores? Given the expectations for greater self-control for boys after the age of seven, and the narrative signposts for promised development (4.2; 6.2), it seems that this child god is learning to ‘bless and not to curse’.
On the whole, then, as Jesus leaves infantia, he takes on new responsibility and shows greater self-restraint. 42 There is, of course, one notable setback in Jesus’ newly spotless record. When Jesus becomes frustrated with his second teacher, he curses him and the teacher falls down dead (13.2). The placement of this story is significant since it comes immediately after Joseph’s declaration of blessedness (12.2), underscoring that Jesus’ moral character formation is certainly still in process. At age eight, he would have been expected already to be making strides toward self-restraint – and strides he has made. Nevertheless, Jesus has lost his temper, and the result is a dead teacher. Yet even in the midst of this moral lapse, there is a silver lining: Jesus raises his second teacher from the dead on behalf of the righteousness of his third teacher (14.4). In this benevolence, the audience might well see glimmers of Jesus’ later vocation as a divine healer, recalling stories like the one found in Lk. 5.17-26 (cf. Mk 2.1-12; Mt. 9.1-8) where Jesus heals the paralytic on behalf of the faith of others. While the situation in IGT is skewed by Jesus’ initially destructive behavior, the roots are nevertheless present for a savior who will credit the work of others to a person in need.
This final exchange with his third teacher is significant enough to merit a few further comments. This third teacher is the final instructor with whom Jesus engages, and the outcome is much different with him than with the previous two. The five-year-old Jesus chastised his first instructor after his teacher struck him while presuming to teach him the alphabet (6.2f.). Later on, he killed his second teacher under similar circumstances (13 [14].1-2). Yet, the third teacher experienced a reprieve, despite the fact that he had a book on the lectern that was not God’s law (14 [15].2). Now, to be sure, the teacher flattered Jesus, encouraging him to continue speaking his awe-inspiring words once he began, but neither of the other teachers ever made it that far with the boy. Why? The reason seems to be that Jesus’ moral character has developed. On what basis? It seems that audience members were meant to infer that, as he aged, Jesus’ moral character had improved, particularly in terms of his control over his divine power. The mundane equivalent was expected of ordinary children; why should it be different with this child god? Not only do the summary statements in 4.2 and 6.2 predict this development, but Jesus’ age likewise cues the expectation of change, since children needed to begin to mature around the age of seven. 43 We have also seen that moral character formation was an important part of education. 44 This ancient notion of gleaning moral instruction through less explicit pathways is supported by modern psychological and cognitive scientific research, which suggests that moral development primarily happens through ‘unconscious parallel processing’ rather than through ‘conscious serial processing’ (Bargh 1997; cf. Narváez 2008: 311). Importantly, given the number of interactions the boy Jesus has with teachers in IGT, one of the dominant modes for moral character formation is interpersonal, mentoring relationships with an expert (Narváez 2008: 312-16). To be sure, the child did not ‘enjoy’ much time with Zacchaeus or his second teacher, but research now suggests that humans tend to ‘learn’ moral character formation through unconscious processing, and there is no reason to suspect that brain processing has significantly changed in the past two thousand years. 45 The significance of this point is that the moral character of the boy Jesus may well have been formed (via parallel processing) despite his protests to the explicit instruction (via serial processing). 46 In other words, the moralizing nature of education in antiquity – together with modern empirical research – suggests that the gap created by the change in Jesus’ behavior should be filled with the inference that, somehow along the way, the adolescent has begun to learn to control his divine power. While the story only makes explicit Zacchaeus’s (failed) instructions in letters, it also makes clear that his intent involved moral character formation (Gs 6.2). Whether Jesus (unconsciously) ‘learned’ anything from Zacchaeus and his second teacher, there can be no doubt of the growing influence of time with Joseph through the same processes. The result is a child god who gradually tends both to avoid destruction and find opportunities for benevolence (see further below).
If Jesus has now begun to take on new responsibilities and respect his elders, he has also learned to love those his own age (cf. Gs 6.2). For example, the young Jesus runs to James’s aid after a viper bites him while he is gathering sticks (Gs 15.1). This feature of the story stands in contrast to Jesus’ earlier behavior toward other children. Moreover, rather than simply calling for help, Jesus blows 47 on James’s hand and the boy is instantly healed (Gs 15.2). Again, this story would call to the audience’s mind Jesus’ miraculous deeds as recorded in the NT gospels, particularly from the Gospel of Luke. 48 Further, the line, ‘and James was saved’ surely foreshadows the salvation that the audience believed they themselves experienced. 49
Similarly, Jesus demonstrates love for others when he raises the young man who split (ἔσχισεν) his foot while splitting (σχίζοντος) wood and bled to death (Gs 16.1-2). 50 The scene is depicted in a way that is reminiscent of NT healing stories. The audience meets the man, already dead and surrounded by a crowd (16.1); Jesus runs to the uproar and forces his way through the crowd, takes hold of the split foot, heals it, and tells the dead man, ‘Go, split your wood’ (16.2). 51 The crowd is amazed 52 and proclaims him as savior in a way that foreshadows his adult career. They exclaim, ‘For he has saved many souls from death, and he will continue to save all the days of his life’ (16.3). Once more, Christian audiences familiar with the NT gospels (esp. Luke) could scarcely hear these words without the related traditions surrounding the adult Jesus likewise being activated. 53 Given the crowd’s climactic response and the fact that this particular healing miracle is the final blessing that Jesus performs in IGT, we are on solid ground in concluding that this miracle, with all of its similarities to NT healing stories, is designed to portray Jesus as nearly ready for his adult vocation as the (primarily Lukan) savior. Further support for this is found in the fact that, moments later in the story, we find Jesus at the age of twelve, amazing the ‘scribes and Pharisees’ and the elders in the temple (17.1-4).
Over the course of the story, Jesus has progressed from rowdy and unrefined boy god at age five to being an upstanding divine young man. Not only has he learned to control his impulse to protect his divine honor at all costs, but he has also replaced this destructive tendency with benevolent actions on behalf of others. Quantitatively speaking, Jesus is literally twice as ‘good’ (benevolent) in this stage of life as he was ‘bad’ (destructive/harmful) during infantia: while Jesus is guilty of three horrendous deeds – even if in defense of (purported) assaults on his divine honor – as a young child in Gs 1–9, he performs six miracles for the good of others on the road to manhood in Gs 10–16. Considering the strong ties that IGT has with the Gospel of Luke, these twin aspects of Jesus’ moral character formation are of the utmost narratival importance, since without them he cannot properly fulfill his role as the Lukan savior, embracing insult to his divine honor and giving his life in service of others. With all this ahead of him, Jesus stands at the doorway of adulthood, now ready for his role as presented in the Gospel of Luke. In the final chapter of the story, we end where Luke begins: in the temple with Jesus at age twelve.
Jesus at Age Twelve: Full of Wisdom and Virtue (Gs 17)
Jesus is now age twelve, which puts him nearing puberty and thus right at the cusp of adulthood. He has already performed chores for his mother (Gs 10.1-2) and has worked in the fields and in carpentry with Joseph (Gs 11.1; 12.1). Now, as with most boys around the age of puberty, he is ready to begin his vocation. 54 However, unlike other boys, Jesus will be the savior of the (predominantly) Lukan tradition.
Borrowing nearly entirely from Lk. 2.41-52, Jesus stays behind when his parents leave Jerusalem. Once they realize that he is gone (Gs 17.1), they return after three days to find him sitting among the teachers in the temple, listening to them and inquiring of them regarding the scriptures (Gs 17.2). While he resisted education as a small boy, we now find him thriving in the Temple; Jesus has truly come into his own. Although he worked with Joseph earlier in life, Jesus is far more at home as an apprentice here in his true father’s house. His brief time with Israel’s teachers functions narrativally as preparation for his true vocation. This is the case culturally, in that Jesus is nearing the age where a boy began his adult vocation, but also physically, in the actual performance of the story, where the scene seamlessly transitions into the Gospel of Luke before the audience’s eyes. The story world of IGT and the story world of Luke begin to blend together. While it was easy to tell apart the boy Jesus of IGT from the Lukan Jesus earlier in the story; now, the two have become essentially identical.
Perhaps it could be objected that this final episode demonstrates the remaining fault with Jesus – he lacked respect for his parents when he stayed behind in Jerusalem. However, at least five features of the story suggest otherwise. First, the narrative itself does not explicitly state that Jesus was deceitful, but rather that Jesus’ parents failed to realize that he was not with them when they turned back (Gs 17.1). Secondly, Jesus’ behavior while in Jerusalem and the characterization of the elders, scribes and Pharisees suggest that Jesus acted with the utmost respect and diligence during his parents’ absence (17.2, 4). Thirdly, Mary’s response to Jesus in 17.3 actually demonstrates her lack of understanding, rather than selfishness on the part of Jesus. Far from being childish, his response, ‘I must be in the place of my Father’ (17.3), demonstrates that Jesus had in fact not left his true Father; on the contrary, by staying in the Temple he remained obedient to his Father. Fourthly, the fact that the scribes and Pharisees praise Jesus for his unparalleled ‘wisdom of praise and glory of virtue’, rules decisively against a moral shortcoming on the part of Jesus. 55 Unlike the five-year-old Jesus that has created so many problems, at twelve years Jesus is the very paragon of virtue. Lastly, the story ends on a note of obedience and promise of further development. Once so instructed by his mother, Jesus was obedient to his parents, and the audience is told, ‘Jesus advanced in wisdom and in years and in grace before God and people’ (17.5). In other words, he continued to develop and grow into his role as the Lukan savior.
The story that began with Jesus as an unruly child god now draws to a close with a Jesus who has undergone the moral character development necessary for the Lukan task at hand. This journey has involved both the acquisition of self-control so prized by the ancients, but also the development of benevolence toward others. Given that he is a god, the stakes were much higher on both counts than they would have been with an ordinary boy. Self-control meant learning to master the impulse to control the urge to protect his divine honor at all costs, just as exercising benevolence included mundane tasks, such as helping with the family business, but also more divine behavior, such as performing miraculous healings and even raising a boy from the dead. Only after these crucial aspects of his moral character formation had been accomplished was Jesus ready to set out into the Gospel of Luke.
That IGT seamlessly dovetails with Luke’s Gospel suggests not only affinity with the Lukan narrative, but also an implicit suggestion that it has been found wanting (so also Chartrand-Burke 2008). 56 It was expected that encomiastic bioi in the Roman world would explain the origins of the subject, including miraculous occurrences at the person’s birth, his or her origins, relatives, upbringing, education and the like. 57 These common elements of bioi were designed to offer glimpses into the sort of person that the child would later become. For anyone familiar with these commonplace elements of good bios, Luke’s Gospel, while it drastically improved on Mark’s, 58 was nevertheless shockingly silent on the most formative years of the early life of the Christian god. Viewed from this perspective, IGT complements and supplements Luke’s Gospel, by imagining what sort of child would grow up to be Luke’s Jesus. 59 As we have seen, this meant that, as a child god, Jesus would need to learn to stop defending his honor at all costs and even replace this capricious cursing with generous blessing. 60
Concluding Remarks
The question of Jesus’ ‘missing years’ naturally invited speculation, even as early as the second century CE. This article has shown that IGT depicts Jesus as a child god who learns self-control and develops benevolence as he grows older. This project contributes to the study of IGT in several interrelated ways. It is now evident that the narrative of IGT is more sophisticated than some have allowed, not least because it shows signs of concerns for character development. Furthermore, the evidence above extends the work of Aasgaard (2009) 61 by demonstrating the marked connection between ancient expectations of child development and the moral progress of Jesus, even if the boy advances as a child god. Finally and relatedly, this article has provided further evidence for strong Lukan influence on the portrait of IGT’s Jesus, who – initially so far from the Lukan model – undergoes a metamorphosis that transforms him into the savior of the third gospel. For IGT, Jesus began his life as a mere boy – and, as the saying goes, ‘boys will be boys’.
Footnotes
1.
This article focuses particularly on the Gs recension of IGT. There are a total of 14 known Greek manuscripts for IGT, but only 8 have been made available thus far to the scholarly community. These manuscripts are all quite late, mostly from the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries (cf. Ehrman and Plêse 2011: 3). As 
: 127-44, 196-97) notes, there are four main recensions (in chronological order): Gs, Ga, Gd and Gb. The Gs recension is represented by one manuscript: H (Codex Sabaiticus 259; 11th c.); despite its late date, it is probably dependent on a c. fifth-century archetype. Gs reflects the shortest and oldest known form of IGT, but chs. 1 and 10 were added late in transmission (intermediate form). The Ga recension (long form) is most likely dated to the ninth century, at which point chs. 17–18 were added. Ga is represented by eight more or less complete manuscripts, though the main witness is W (14th–15th c.). Other mutually independent manuscripts include V (14th–16th c.), P (1422/23), and O (pre-1455). The final four manuscripts share a common Vorlage and are denoted as family α: B (15th c.), L (15th c.), M (15th c.) and D (16th c.). The Gd recension (11th c.) is characterized by long additions of prologues concerning Jesus and his family in Egypt, its attribution to James (rather than Thomas) and its considerably different language and syntax. Three manuscripts represent Gd: T (13th c.), R (15th c.) and A (15th c.), which are usually regarded as the main witnesses to Gd. The Gb recension (probably before the 15th c.) is shorter than Ga in both the sayings and dialogue episodes, and many scholars have viewed Gb as an abridgment of Ga; the narratives themselves are substantially reformulated. Two manuscripts represent Gb: S (14th–15th c.) and C (15th–16th c.), with S usually considered the best representative. In the cases of each of these recensions, the variant forms themselves probably go back much further than the date of the extant manuscripts (e.g., Gs with its fifth-century precursor).
2.
All references to IGT will hereafter be identified by its specific recension: Gs, Ga, Gd or Gb. Likewise, unless otherwise noted, all references to IGT refer to the Gs recension and utilize the numbering system for Gs found in Burke’s critical edition. The Gs recension is most likely the closest approximation of the earliest recoverable version of the story. For the most thorough description and classification of the Greek manuscripts and versions, see : 126-70, 196-205.
3.
4.
5.
See, most recently, Hock 1995: 96-97; van Aarde 2003: 266-302; Burke 2010: 268-88. For the most comprehensive and recent history of research on IGT as a whole, see Burke 2010: 45-126; see further : 1-13; Davis 2014: 3-19; Litwa 2014: 71-74. It was once thought that IGT was a gnostic text. For the ‘trace evidence’, see firstly Meyer 1904: 64-65, who argued that the boyhood years of Jesus were attractive to gnostic groups because they enabled them to extricate Jesus from the limits of his human existence: ‘Für die Gnostiker bestand der Wert der Kindheitswunder in dem Nachweis, der sich daraus führen ließ, daß Christus nicht zu dieser Welt gehöre, daß er schon als Kind menschlicher Entwicklung und Bedingtheit enthoben war’ (p. 64). Cf. Bauer 1909: 93-95. More recently, see de Santos Otero 1967: 172-84; Cullmann 1991: 453-54. Conversely, on ‘anti-docetic’ elements in IGT, see, e.g., Moehler 1844: 569-71; Bauer 1909: 99; Hock 1995: 99. With most scholars, I believe that IGT was most likely composed in Greek sometime in the mid-to-late second century CE (see further Aasgaard 2009: 183; Burke 2010: 200-12). I follow Aasgaard in finding a rural, middle/lower class origin for the story, though I find reason to question his conclusion that IGT was a children’s story. On the highly emotive nature of IGT, which supports a rural origin, see Aasgaard 2009: 171.
6.
7.
Relatedly, Lucie Paulissen (2004: 24) argues that IGT primarily drives at the recognition of Jesus’ divine nature. While this observation has a great deal of traction, her explanation that his benevolence ultimately outweighs his destructive acts leaves much to be desired, since it offers no compelling rationale for Jesus’ violent behavior. Taking a more eclectic path, attempts to situate the boy Jesus among various scripts of childhood, adulthood and divinity which are written upon a ‘palimpsestic Jesus’, who embodies something of an ‘embryonic “christology” in which the range of human (both childlike and adult), superhuman, and divine characteristics intersect in a tenuous balance’ (2014: 14). Davis offers an excellent treatment of the boy Jesus from the vantage point of ancient Greco-Roman, Christian, Jewish and Muslim cultural memories of the child. However, like Litwa, Davis does not entertain the potential for development in the boy’s behavior, particularly at the macro level over the course of the story as a whole.
8.
9.
10.
The narrative of IGT likewise supports the conclusion that Jesus is cast as a child god, with its consistent literary focus on the divine origins of the child and his godlike behavior. For example, he stirs the waters as Yahweh in Gen. 1 (Gs 2–3); people cry out, ‘Where was this child born that his word becomes deed?’ (4.1). The child also claims that he was present at the birth of his father in order to teach him a secret teaching that enabled him to bear the name of salvation (ὅτε ἐγεννήσω ὥν ἐγώ σοι παρειστήκειν) (6.2b; cf. 2d). Similarly, Zacchaeus exclaims that, ‘This child simply is not of this earth; he is even able to tame fire. Perhaps this child existed before the foundation of the world’ (7.2), and ‘the child is a great thing – whether a god or an angel or what I should say I do not know’ (ἤ θεὸς ἤ ἄγγελος ἤ τί εἴπω οὐκ οἶδα) (7.4).
11.
See further below.
12.
Gs 17.1-4 is a rewriting of Lk. 2.41-52, albeit with notable expansions and additions. See further Chartrand-Burke 2008: 109-16; : 481-505.
13.
For further discussion on the divisions of life in antiquity and their significance, see Huskinson 1999: 233-38; Rawson 1999: 205-32; Parkin 2002: esp. 1-89; : 50-149.
14.
See further Goody 1982: 262-63; : 127.
15.
16.
Plato, Leg. 7.788d.
17.
Oribasius, Lib. Inc. 39.3-5; 35.5; cf. : 83-84. The diverse and complex attitudes toward children resist a monolithic picture of either purely severe or completely empathetic (Aasgaard 2009: 95). Mortality rates were quite high, families were unstable, and nutrition and sanitation were amenities that often went unfurnished, while harsh physical punishment was often part of daily life. However, there are also compelling and endearing descriptions of parental love in antiquity. Cf. Statius, Silvae 2.1.102-105; Plutarch, De Amore Prolis 496; Satius, Silvae 4.8.25-44; Tacitus, Annals 15.23; Juvenal, Sat. 10.295-298; Seneca, Ad Helviam 18.3-5. See also Rawson 1986: 170-200; 2003: 82-88; Wiedemann 1989: 84-99; Aasgaard 2009: 95; Laes 2011: 79. Ariès’s seminal work on childhood (1960: esp. Part I) paints the most bleak portrait of the early years of children. Burke’s work (2010: 225-47) fits within Ariès’s trajectory; however, for most, research on children in antiquity has moved beyond this overly somber picture. See, most recently, Rawson 2003; Laes 2011.
18.
The two are often paired; see BDAG, s.v. σωφροσύνη, 2.
19.
20.
Xenophon writes, ‘Should not every man set self-control (ἐγκράτειαν) as the foundation of all virtue (ἀρετῆς), and establish this first in his soul?’ (Mem. 1.5.4).
21.
The importance of self-control and its relation to masculinity is ubiquitous in ancient literature; see, e.g., Cicero, Fin. 2.94; Off. 1.71; Livy 25.37.10; cf. Gleason 1995: 55-62; Williams 1999: 138-42; : 100.
22.
Malina 1993: 46-48, 78; Gleason 1995: 55-62; Williams 1999: 125-59; cf. Moxnes 1997: 263-84. See Polemo, Phys. 2.1.192F on gender assignment. On ancient conceptions of physiognomy, see Gleason 1995: 55-81; Amberger-Lahrmann 1996: 13-18; : 17-37.
23.
24.
See Cicero, Fin. 5.15.42. Cicero’s observation that early childhood ended around the age of six or seven, bringing on new responsibilities, is supported by modern ethnographic work. After surveying over 50 different cultures, Rogoff et al. conclude that, across cultures, children tend to be assigned greater responsibilities in the five to seven age range, along with increasing gender differentiation (1975: 353-69).
25.
Rawson 2003: 88-89, 139; cf. : 367. In contrast to Quintilian and others, ancient biographers typically seem to have viewed character as something that was basically fixed from birth (e.g., Tacitus’s portrayal of the Julio-Claudian emperors).
26.
27.
Throughout Gs 1–9, Jesus is depicted as playing recklessly with other children; as a result, things do not usually end well for his playmates. However, Jesus is not the only boy who lacks self-control; all the boys in Gs 1–9 are impetuous. They take things too far during play (Gs 3.1), do not watch where they are going (Gs 4.1) and ignore safety for the sake of fun (Gs 9.1). Yet the implications for Jesus’ lack of self-control are exacerbated by his divine power (e.g., Gs 6.2b; 7.2, 4). The result is a horrifying child deity, who acts on impulse and kills with little provocation. Even so, while he causes tremendous problems, he is extended a great deal of patience throughout this section. While he is punished for murdering children, his punishment hardly fits his crime: Joseph pulls Jesus’ ear for killing two boys and blinding an entire crowd (5.2)!
28.
29.
Cf. Gen. 1.24; 2.7.
30.
Combined with Jesus’ curse (‘your shoot [shall be] dried up [ξηρος]!’ [3.2]), the ξηρος word group occurs three times in three lines. On the use of conduplicatio as a figure that evokes pity, see Rhet. Her. 4.18.38.
31.
It is worth pointing out here that both children, Jesus and the other boy, lack self-control. The boy is running in the village without watching where he is going, and Jesus murders the boy instead of controlling his anger.
32.
That an audience might be intended to understand this spectator response as a question directed toward them is supported by at least four factors: (1) the broad nature of the subject matter of the origins of Jesus, which overlaps with the Christian audience’s religious commitments; (2) the fact that the line is not directed to anyone in particular within the story and is thus more easily transferred to the world of the audience; (3) the close confines of most performance spaces in antiquity, which would foster intimacy between the performer and the audience; and (4) gestures from the storyteller to the audience, as s/he asks, ‘Where was this Child born?’ (if used) would make the question unmistakably directed toward the audience. However, studies in cognitive science involving audience identification suggest that those in the audience identifying with the amazed spectators would be predisposed to hear the words as though directed toward them, without the lector needing to shift to an off-stage focus in order to include them directly (see further Oatley 1994: 53-74; Slater 2002). That this is the case is strengthened by the fact that both the performer and the audience know full well that this is a trick question. The child may be born from Mary (cf. 17.3), but he is also born from God (6.2b, d; cf. Ga 18.3). On gestures in ancient performance, see Shiell 2004: 34-101. On the role of performance space in the creation of meaning and development of performer–audience intimacy, see, e.g., McAuley 1999; cf. Wiles 1999: 1-22. While Hurtado (2014: 334-35) and : 70-72) have both challenged the use of gestures during public reading, the diversity of settings and modes of delivery make ruling gestures out entirely ill advised (cf. Ep. 9.34). Instead, the difference between lectors and actors/orators would seem to be one of degree rather than kind.
33.
On the use of direct address to draw an audience into a story, see Longinus, On the Sublime 26.1-3. For direct address in the story from the storyteller to the audience, see Gs 1 and 8.2. In the context of a storytelling event, there is a sense in which all of the lines from the storyteller, especially lines of narration, address the audience directly (e.g., note that 2.1ff. picks up as a continuation of 1).
34.
On the use of the repetition of opening words in a sentence, a figure known as anaphora (or epanaphora, repetitio), see Demetrius, Eloc. §59-62; Rhet. Her. 4.13.19; Quintilian, Inst. 9.3.30.
35.
While we cannot be sure of a particular performance setting for IGT, the propensity of ancient performers to communicate emotions appropriate to the story make it likely that a storyteller would emphasize the parent’s grief through his or her delivery in some way (perhaps through a facial expression or a change in voice intonation). Doing so would intensify the portrait of Jesus as an unruly child in need of reform and would also arouse similar feelings of grief and panic in the audience as they experienced the death of the boy along with the parents. On delivery and the emotions, see, e.g., Pliny, Ep. 9.26.1; Longinus, On the Sublime, passim (esp. 15.1-2; 16.2; 17.1-3; 18.2; 20.2; 22.1-2; 23.1; 27.1; 27.3; 29.2); Quintilian, Inst. 3.5.2; 4.5.6; 6.1.9-55; 6.2.7; 10.7.13, 15; 11.1.53, 56, 58-59. See further : 57-76.
36.
See Tolbert 1996: 104-108. On explicit prospective outlines, see Lucian, Hist. conscr. 23; Appian, Hist. Rom. 1.13-15; Diodorus Siculus, Hist. 2.1.1-3; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 7, praef., and Acts 1.8; cf. : 25-27.
37.
The same may be said for rhetorical figures, such as conduplicatio and anaphora. I have in mind here something akin to what Mary Ann Tolbert (1996: esp. 124-26) has argued for the Gospel of Mark, namely that the Parable of the Sower in Mk 4.3-9 serves as a summary statement for the gospel as a whole, providing interpretive direction for the audience. Apollo’s oracle at Delphi in Xenophon’s An Ephesian Tale (26-27) functions similarly. Cf. : 27, 89-90.
38.
All that intervenes between the response of the parents in 4.2 and Jesus’ first trip to school is Joseph’s rebuke and punishment of Jesus (5.1-2), followed by Jesus’ obstinate response, ‘You know to not make me upset’ (6.2).
39.
Cf. Rhet. Her. 4.42.54.
40.
We also find this same motif in the Ir. account of the resurrection of Zeno, which follows the motif of raising a victim simply for the purpose of revealing the killer or exonerating a party (cf. Apuleius, Met. 2.23-30). Similarly, see Arabic Gospel of the Infancy and Armenian Gospel of the Infancy. Cf. : 324 nn. 4-5. Interestingly, however, Zeno lives on in the Ga, Gb and Gd recensions.
41.
While character development in ancient literature (such as in Tacitus) is often contested, the fact that IGT uses summary statements to forecast the development of the main character should put to rest protests against character development in IGT.
42.
The fact that the narrative predominately presents the child god as responding to (perceived) affronts to his honor in Gs 1–9, while focusing more on his benevolent acts in Gs 10–17, only underscores the narrative trajectory.
44.
Cf. Quintilian, Inst. 2.2.20-21; Gs 6.2. On the role of social relationships in developing virtue, see Aristotle, Eth. nic. 4.6-8.
45.
I am not suggesting that the child Jesus is anything other than a literary character in IGT, but characters are typically cast in behavior and speech at least somewhat familiar to the author.
46.
While the ancients did not speak in the terms of modern cognitive science, the prevalence of moralizing tales strongly suggests that they understood the basic phenomenon.
47.
48.
E.g., Lk. 9.11; 9.42; 14.4; 17.15; 22.51; cf., e.g., Jn 4.47; 5.13; 7.23.
49.
While the notion of ‘salvation’ is common in all four NT gospels, it is particularly so in Luke (e.g., 1.47, 69, 71; 2.11; 6.9; 7.50; 8.12, 50; 9.24; 13.23; 18.26, 42; 19.10). The fact that both Eth and SyrWG lack this final statement, whereas SyrB reads ‘but James was healed and lived’, suggests that καὶ ὁ Ἰάκωβος ἐσώθη refers to more than James’s physical healing, but is meant to echo the notion of Jesus as savior that is so important for IGT’s characterization of the boy (cf. 16.3).
50.
Note once more the use of repetition (cf. 3.1-2). While not consummate conduplicatio, the wordplay nevertheless would likely intensify the scene or, at the very least, entertain the audience (cf. σχίζε in 16.2).
51.
This episode is reminiscent of the healing of Jairus’s daughter in Lk. 8.40-56 (cf. Mk 5.35-43; Mt. 9.18-26). In both, Jesus rushes to the scene of a dead person, pushes through the crowds, and then commissions the dead.
52.
On the Synoptic motif of amazement in response to Jesus’ deeds, see, e.g., Mk 1.27; 2.12; 5.20; Lk. 5.9; 11.14; Mt. 8.27; 9.33; 12.23; 15.31; 21.20.
53.
Once again, cf. Lk. 9.11; 9.42; 14.4; 17.15; 22.51. The similarity to Luke should not surprise us, since IGT will itself end where we find the young Jesus in Lk. 2.41-52.
54.
At 12 years, Jesus is clearly advanced for his age. Most children would be expected to enter adulthood at the age of puberty (age 14 for boys); but Jesus is not like most children, as the episode will make clear.
55.
We find further confirmation of Jesus’ transformation in a retrospective summary statement, forming an inclusio that calls to mind the summary statements in Gs 4.2 and 6.2 in the author/storyteller’s addition to the Lukan scene in the Temple. The scribes and Pharisees say to Mary, ‘Blessed (Μακαρία) are you, because the Lord God has blessed (ηὐλόγησεν) the fruit of your womb. For such wisdom of praise and glorious virtue we have never seen nor heard’ (Gs 17.4). The boy, so unrefined at first, has been transformed. Mary’s prayer for God’s blessing on her seven-year-old child has been heard (cf. 10.2) and the story is now complete; Jesus has been blessed and has learned to bless others in return (cf. 4.2; 6.2).
56.
To be sure, IGT need not only serve as a supplement to the Gospel of Luke, particularly in an oral context, in which it could simply serve to fill out Jesus’ ‘missing years’ before his adult ministry. In this case, however, the point would still stand that the boy had much to learn and develop before he would be recognizable to many in early Christian circles.
57.
This feature of encomium and encomiastic narrative is well established in the progymnasmata and rhetorical handbooks; see, for example, Theon, Prog. 109-12; Quintilian, Inst. 3.17.15; Menander, Treatise 2.371.10-15. Cf. Ps-Hermogenes, Prog. 14-18; Aphthonius, Prog. 37-38; Nicolaus, Prog. 47-58. See further Wiedemann 1989: 53-60; : 113-15.
58.
From the perspective of ancient bioi, Mark’s Gospel is particularly lacking in that it does not attend to either the birth or any of Jesus’s childhood years.
59.
60.
To be sure, cursing is itself not foreign to the Lukan narrative. For example, Jesus curses the disbelieving towns (Lk. 10.13-15), as well as the scribes and the Pharisees (Lk. 11.39-52). And these sorts of powers are even passed on to certain disciples (Lk. 9.5; 10.10-12). However, these curses are eschatologically based, as opposed to the real time destruction brought about by Jesus’ capriciousness in IGT. In other words, by the time he has developed into the Lukan Jesus, the child god of IGT has learned to save cursing (appropriate behavior for a deity) for eschatological contexts.
61.
*
I would like to thank the members of Baylor University’s New Testament Colloquium (2013) and the Second Century Seminar at Texas Christian University (2015) for their feedback on preliminary versions of this article.