the least, no historical evidence.62 But even if such had existed, the worship and
addresses of the Synagogue would not have offered any opportunity for the questioning
on the part of Jesus which the narrative implies. Still more groundless is the idea that
there was in the Temple something like a Beth ha-Midrash, or theological Academy, not
to speak of the circumstance that a child of twelve would not, at any time, have been
allowed to take part in its discussions. But there were occasions on which the Temple
became virtually, though not formally, a Beth ha-Midrash. For we read in the Talmud,63
that the members of the Temple-Sanhedrin, who on ordinary days sat as a Court of
Appeal, from the close of the Morning- to the time of the Evening-Sacrifice, were wont on
Sabbaths and feast -days to come out upon 'the Terrace' of the Temple, and there to teach.
In such popular instruction the utmost latitude of questioning would be given. It is in this
audience, which sat on the ground, surrounding and mingling with the Doctors - and
hence during, not after the Feast - that we must seek the Child Jesus.
58. Although comparatively few really great authorities in Jewish Canon Law lived at
that time, more than a dozen names could be given of Rabbis celebrated in Jewish
literature, who must have been His contemporaries at one or another period of His life.
59. So according to the Rabbis generally. Comp. Hoffmann, Abh. ii. d. pent. Ges. pp. 65,
66.
60. St. Luke ii. 43.
61. In fact, an attentive consideration of what in the tractate Moed K. (comp. also Chag.
17 b), is declared to be lawful occupation during the half-holydays, leads us to infer that a
very large proportion must have returned to their homes.
62. For a full discussion of this important question, see Appendix X.: 'The Supposed
Temple -Synagogue.'
63. Sanh. 88 b.
But we have yet to show that the presence and questioning of a Child of that age did not
necessarily imply anything so extraordinary, as to convey the idea of supernaturalness to
those Doctors or others in the a udience. Jewish tradition gives other instances of
precocious and strangely advanced students. Besides, scientific theological learning
would not be necessary to take part in such popular discussions. If we may judge from
later arrangements, not only in Babylon, but in Palestine, there were two kinds of public
lectures, and two kinds of students. The first, or more scientific class, was designated
Kallah (literally, bride), and its attendants Beney-Kallah (children of the bride). These
lectures were delivered in the last month of summer (Elul), before the Feast of the New
Year, and in the last winter month (Adar), immediately before the Feast of Passover.
They implied considerable preparation on the part of the lecturing Rabbis, and at least
some Talmudic knowledge on the part of the attendants. On the other hand, there were
Students of the Court (Chatsatsta, and in Babylon Tarbitsa), who during ordinary
lectures sat separated from the regular students by a kind of hedge, outside, as it were in
the Court, some of whom seem to have been ignorant even of the Bible. The lectures
addressed to such a general audience would, of course, be of a very different character.64