Last week’s lectionary from Luke had Jesus staying over from the annual Passover celebration. After a day back on the road to Nazareth they noticed he was missing and found him in Jerusalem in the Temple, his “Father’s House”. Apparently there was an exchange of information and ideas. My question is why did the priest tolerate his presence and questions? Was he now of age and allowed to participate in these discussions? I have no idea of whether or not a Bar Mitzvah was practiced in the first century. The next question would be why did this happen only when he was 12, not before or after.
Ok, I just became a member here, so I’m not sure exactly what the decorum is, so if I do anything wrong, please let me know (I tried to read the rules, but for some reason, the links only got me to a blank page).
I just checked Wikipedia very quickly, and from what I understand, Bar Mitzvah wasn’t developed until the middle ages, but there are references to similar principles earlier, at least the late first century.
It seems to me unlikely that Jesus would’ve had one. It looks to me like the acknowledgement of a boy turning into a man was a bit more fluid at the start of the first century, and was being codified a little bit later.
I might be completely mistaken though.
My source: ** you do not have permission to see this link **
The likelihood of that scene being historically accurate is near zero. It occurs in none of the other gospels, for example. And no one would have even known who Jesus was when he was 12. He doesn’t start to attract any attention until he is somewhere around 30 years of age when, after leaving the Baptist’s group, he starts preaching his own ideas about the Kingdom of God and what God demands of his people. That scene, I think, is probably the creation of Luke, designed to convince the reader that Jesus is somebody really special. In that regard, it goes along with the story of how Mary (and Elizabeth) became pregnant. It’s a literary trope, in other words, playing a proleptic role in the gospel. It was a common enough meme, actually.
Yes, the story of Jesus in the temple at 12 is only found in Luke. It is also, I think, the last story in the narrative of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, but that author almost certainly got it from Luke. Its only function in Luke seems to be to show what a prodigy Jesus was even as a child. Its function in Thomas seems to be showing how Jesus’ has finally achieved full maturity after an entire childhood of using his divine powers in capricious and even harmful ways–like striking dead other children or teachers who anger or reprimand him. Instead of Matthew and Luke, who start their Gospels with obviously legendary stories about the young Jesus, I prefer approaches like Mark’s and John’s, who start with Jesus’ public ministry. Public life is generally where ancient biographies meant to be biographies begin anyway.
All, thanks for your replies. Good point about the Bar Mitzvah not being a practice in the first century. Also a good point that the 12 year old temple encounter may not have occurred. Still, there must have been a reason that the writer of Luke seemed fit to mention that Jesus was 12. This could be the coming of age, even before the advent of Bar Mitzvah. “Lukes” audience must have had some idea that Jesus was young and knowledgable early on from this episode. If he was listed as 5 years of age, the Luke narrative would lose all credibility. So why the age of 12 and why only one time?
Robert, thank you so much for that information. I had no idea. Samuel and Josiah were great references. Also, the idea that Josephus was a prodigy, albeit a couple of years off the mark is interesting. I am currently most of the way through Bart’s book “Did Jesus Exist” where Josephus is featured prominently as an extra Biblical source.
Bar Mitzvah or not {I agree that this tradition wasn’t yet established as such at the time} I’ve always loved the story of Jesus talking to the rabbis at age 12. I like to think it really happened too, although who knows? Imagine what would have happened if Mary and Joseph hadn’t dragged him back to Nazareth but had allowed him to stay and be instructed by the greatest Jewish minds of the age. It’s said that promising students were once taken in by people such as Hillel without payment. If you believe Jesus was God, of course, maybe he didn’t need instruction. But I think he did. Not only would he be helped by a good education, he’s make important contacts that could advise and protect him later on.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)