While the Gospel of Luke’s portrayal of a questioning Jesus has largely been ignored by many (most) contemporary scholars, Origen at least recognized the fact that interrogation was part of Jesus’ pedagogy. Commenting on the young Jesus’ presence in the Temple in the Gospel of Luke (2:41-52), Origen explains:
Because he was a small child, he is found ‘in the midst of teachers,’ sanctifying and instructing them. Because he was a small child, he is found ‘in their midst,’ not teaching them but ‘asking questions.’ He did this because it is appropriate to his age, to teach us what benefits boys, even if they are wise and learned. They should rather hear their teachers than want to teach them and not show off with a display of knowledge. He interrogated the teachers not to learn anything but to teach them by his questions. From one fountain of doctrine, there flow both wise questions and answers. It is part of the same wisdom to know what you should ask and what you should answer. It was right for the Savior first to become a master of learned interrogation. Later he would answer questions according to God’s reason and Word. (Homilies on the Gospel of Luke 19.6)
Though unlike most contemporary exegetes Origen recognizes Jesus as a questioner, he makes the same mistake of disregarding Jesus’ questions as thinly veiled propositions (“He interrogated the teachers not to learn anything but to teach them by his questions…”). This is unfortunate, for—as Douglas Estes notes—when we read the questions of Jesus as questions, we begin to become less concerned with what they are saying and begin to notice instead what they are asking.
the archives near Emmaus 
Interesting focus. Reminds me of Tom Thatcher’s on Jesus “as riddler” in the Fourth Gospel.
-anthony
Reblogged this on Sunday School on Steroids-The Seminary Experience.
Looks like several things are working together here. As 100% man, Jesus the boy was learning in the standard manner. As 100% God, Jesus was fulfilling all righteousness by undergoing the educational program. It would not have seemed right had He merely stood on the sidelines with minimal participation. He certainly didn’t do that on the cross.
Thanks for commenting, Rick!
Yours is a perfectly reasonable theological answer. For my thesis, I plan to look more at the literary and rhetorical understanding of Jesus-as-questioner. For instance (as Brian and I have discussed in the past), why is it that Luke spends so much time building this image of Jesus as a powerful rhetorical figure and then undercut that image in the crucifixion?
Joshua wrote “Origen recognizes Jesus as a questioner …. … we begin to become less concerned with what they are saying and begin to notice instead what they are asking.
Joshua, while this observation is certainly insightful isn’t it more a question of dialectics then exegesis?
Even if it is true Jesus was taught by way of his questions, are you suggesting that people have missed the point because they’ve missed the manner in which the point was delivered?
Thanks Joshua Paul, now here is some background of a historical note regarding the timing of the incident at hand. Regarding Luke 2.42, the age of 12 was the last year of parental responsibility for a boy’s religious observance. At age 11 or 12, a boy was brought to the Temple to observe (Yoma 82a), and at age 13 he could become a member (Ab 5.21). I know the arguments about not relying on the Talmud in its entirety as a reliable historical source for pre-Fall times, but I think it’s safe to use passages such as this and the ones following as history.
A. Edersheim (“The life and times of Jesus the Mesiah,” Erdmans, reprinted 1984) relates that members of the Sanhedrin would come out to the Temple terrace between the morning sacrifices and the evening sacrifices (Sanh. 88b) on minor feast days (Moed Katan, between the second and last days of the week in discussion). There they publicly taught, allowing great liberties by their audiences to ask questions.
Regarding Luke 2.40-47, these verses may refer specifically to Jesus’ education. Sir. 51.28-30 seems to support education. At the end of the second c. BCE, Simeon ben Shetah inaugurated public education (M. Ket. 8.11, 32c). Previous to this, a child’s education was the responsibility of the father (M. Avot 1.4).
Regarding Luke 2.41-2.51. J. G. D. Dunn (“The thought world of Jesus,” Early Christianity, 1, 2010), calling upon M. Nidd. 5.6, states that “The story of Luke 2:41–51 suggests that (preparation for) Jesus’ transition to manhood would have been regarded as a particularly appropriate occasion for a pilgrimage.”
Andrew: I’m not particularly agreeing or disagreeing with Origen’s assertion. Just noting it. Also, I’m not sure that it has to be a matter of dialectics or exegesis. In this case, it’s more like “exegeting the dialectic.” My thesis will argue that Luke intentionally infused his characterization of Jesus with common Hellenistic rhetorical conventions, especially with regard to the process of interrogation/question. For more info on that, see my previous posts featuring a rough draft of my research proposal here and here.
Rick: All interesting information. But I’m actually focusing on the implication specifically of the questions/answer exchange in vv.48-49. Why did Jesus respond to Mary’s question with two more questions? What are the questions actually asking? Should we assume that he is just being sarcastic, or is it a genuine request for information? How do Jesus’ first words in the Gospel of Luke (“Why were you searching for me?”) compare to/differ from Jesus’ first words in the Gospel of John (“What are you searching for?”)?
Jesus at 12 in the ANE was ready for manhood( we tend to think of Him as a little boy) and His questions IMO to Mary and Joseph make it clear He was challenging them to think. Seems to me we learn more by inquiry than being preached to.
I take the view Jesus asked here for their benefit, not His.
What specifically about the question gives you that impression, Patrick? I don’t disagree with you, but I’m just curious why/how people take certain questions the way they do. For instance, I mentioned this above, but I’ll mention it again:
Take Jesus’ first words from John (1:38) and compare them to Jesus’ first words in Luke (2:49). They are almost (though not quite) identical in their syntax and word choice. So what is it about Luke 2:49 that we take to be a challenge while John 1:38 is seen as a genuine (loaded sequence) question?
Joshua,
It could be that I’m wrong.
I see where you’re going with the syntax. I just think highly of the view that God teaches us most when He can get us to inquire and wonder, so I am thinking Jesus here is challenging them to think more spiritually and less earthly about Him. Plus, the “tone” of this passage sure seems as if He is challenging them.
Might be as simple as Jesus just wanted to know the answer, too. Would He at 12 have been in a spiritual position to “teach” as I am suggesting?
Patrick: Good questions, and I do not think you are far from the truth at all, particularly regarding the “tone” of the passage. Nailing down that “tone” is where I’m heading with my thesis. What is interesting to me is that Origen even references the fact that Jesus asks questions. Most commentary authors (especially modern/contemporary scholars) ignore Jesus’ questions entirely! Joel Green, Luke Timothy Johnson, John Nolland, Francois Bovon—all of these highly respected scholars don’t even acknowledge Jesus’ questioning.
With regard to your final question about Jesus being in a “spiritual position to ‘teach'” at 12, my best best guess would be that any answer one might be able to give would be purely speculative—it is highly likely that this particular part of the Jesus narrative in Luke is apocryphal, and any attempt to pin the actual event on the historical child Jesus would lead one down quite the rabbit hole.