Moreover, the Biblical history occupied the place of national history, of ballad poetry, of folk-lore tales, and of all that, in ages before the invention of printing, took the place of our ' chil- dren's literature.'
In many cases, no doubt, perhaps in most, Haggadistic em- bellishments were made to the oT narratives, some of which have perhaps crept into one or both of our present Biblical re- censions, that of Palestine and that of the Dispersion. Ruth as a scarcely altered love-tale ; Judith and Jonah, allegorical fic- tions ; Esther, especially in its Greek form, a greatly amplified history, are instances of books which we now have in written forms, but which were once the 'fireside stories' (to use a Western phrase) of many Jewish homes. Here, rather than in a purjxiseful foolishness of the Rabbis, was probably the source of much that is strange and bizarre in Jewish literature.
Who would listen so attentively to the father or old grandfather telling his evening story when work was done as the young boys and girls in the outer part of the family circle ? The stoi-y-telling taste of the East is a well-known fact (witness the Arabian Nights) ; true history and the truth of God were probably taught orally in a somewhat analogous manner.
Religious instruction was aided in two other ways. No one can doubt that the historical Psalms (78. 81. 105. 106. 114) as Mell as the alpha- betical ones (9-10. 25. 34. 37. 111. 112. 119. 145) were well adapted for use by young people, even if they were not composed expressly for the pur- pose of assisting tho.se who were to leara them by heart. The ' Hymn of the Fathers ' (Sir 44-50) has apparently a similar object. It is far too long for liturgical use, of which besides there is no record.
And, lastly, the sjmagogne services, with the lections from the Law (Ac 15-'') and the Prophets (Lk 4"-™, Ac 13"^), filled their place in the training of a Jewish boy. It is in the highest degree un- likely that every household, even every pious household, possessed rolls of all the OT books. There was not perhaps a definite ' Canon ' in our modem sense. More families would possess the ' Law,' but expense would prevent even this being universal. The oral teaching at home, the reacling in school, and the hearing in the synagogue,— all had a share in producing that knowledge of the Jewish Bible which, as we see in the Gospels, was possessed even by working men like the hshers of Bethsaida (Lk 9^'' etc.). But the oral teaching, however and wherever it had been given, is clearly referred to in Utb-^-^-^^-^ {heard not read) 17'" (hearsay of Mai 4*-''). Our Lord constantly re- ferred to OT incidents (Mt62»8< 12"-"-«et<;.) as to facts well known by the multitudes. (Do all Mohammedan families possess a Koran ? Yet they know their faith). But then He also referred to haggadOth (Mt 8") and to the OT Apocrypha (Lk 6", cf. 1 Mac 2'2-") in much the same way. The contrasted phrase, 'Have ye never readV (Mt 2116. 42 22" etc. ), was said to the religious leaders, who would liave more advantages and opportuni- ties than the bulk of the population, and who were supposed to study the %i]r%Uen Revelation.
224
BOYHOOD
BOYHOOD OF JESUS
Up to the age of 12 or 13 a Jewish boy was called katan ('little') or tinok (cf. Ijoth words used of school children in passages quoted by Schiirer, II. ii. 49 ff.).
The second word is a form of piv ydnele^ suckling: (P^J to suck), which however is used of schoolboys in the Tilmud ; and this meaning: has clearly been reached by a lang^uage-change similar to that b.v which infant has come in English law to mean, in spite of its etymolo^, a person who may be twenty years old.
At the age mentioned above, the Jewish boy became bound to fulfil the Law. He was therefore called a ' son of the Law ' (har-niizvah), or a ' son of the Precept,' and the ceremony "in which he was recognized as such by the community was natur- ally regarded as important and interesting.*
Opinions difier as to how much of the Law and the Precepts a boy was bound to observe before this ceremony. Probably there was no uniformity. The practice for sons of Pharisees is naturally the one recorded for \is, rather than the popular one. And probably also the exact period when tlie fullest obligations fell on the boy was not fixed at first, but was settled individually (as Schiirer suggests) by the appearance of signs of approach- ing manhood. We must remember that Orientals attain physical maturity at an earlier age than we do.
when the age of 13 was fixed, the Rabbis found
2" with Ac 723). They taught that Samuel was began to prophesy (1 S 12* is followed by 219 21^ implying an interval of some years before 3*, at which' time Samuel 'was old enough to open the doors of the house of the Lord, S^s, The age isalso stated by Jos. Aiit. v. x. 4). Solomon was (absurdly enough) said to have been 12 years old when he gave his judg- ment (1 K 316-2p. The only instance which was not entirely founded on conjecture or tradition is that of Josiah's age when he carried out his reform, 2 Ch 343 (not in 2 K 223). These instances all look like attempts to date the origin of the Eabbinical rule further back into OT times.