From Boy to Man in Antiquity:

Jesus in the Apocryphal

Infancy Gospel of Thomas
REIDAR AASGAARD
University of Oslo

This article presents a survey of research on childhood in antiquity and describes briefly the position of children in late antiquity and early Christianity.
Special attention is given to the relationship between childhood and gender,
with a focus on boyhood. The article analyses the apocryphal Infancy Gospel
of Thomas, which tells the childhood story of Jesus from age five to twelve.
This brief story, which consists of miracle stories and discourses, originated
in Greek in the 2nd century CE and became widely popular. The article shows
that its depiction of Jesus conforms to current ideas of gender, gender relations,
and gender socialisation. A central claim in the article is that boys were not expected to show the same degree of self-restraint as were adult males, but that
as children they were allowed to behave more emotionally and unpredictably.
Rather than being literarily inferior or theologically aberrant, the Infancy of
Gospel of Thomas in its depiction of Jesus gives a lively and credible glimpse
into the world and development of a late antiquity or early Christianity male
child on his way from boyhood to male adult life.
Keywords: boyhood, childhood, early Christianity, Jesus, theology, apocrypha,
infancy, Infancy Gospel of Thomas, gender

What was it like growing up as a boy almost two thousand years ago in the era of
Greco-Roman antiquity and early Christianity? What were the basic living conditions
for a young boy? What was his place and role in the family and society? What kind of
prospects would he have had for his future? What ideas were associated with boyhood
at that time?
There are, of course, no easy answers to these questions, and we are faced with a
number of challenges in trying to answer them. One problem is the limited number and
fragmentary character of the sources. Another is that they usually reflect elite settings.
It is also problematic to speak of one specific kind of childhood in antiquity, since chilReidar Aasgaard, University of Oslo.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Reidar Aasgaard, IFIKK, Faculty of
Humanities, University of Oslo, P.O.Box 1020, Blindern, NO-0315, Oslo, Norway. Electronic mail:
reidar.aasgaard@ifikk.uio.no
THYMOS: Journal of Boyhood Studies, Vol. 3, No. 1, Spring 2009, 3-20.
2009 by the Mens Studies Press, LLC. All rights reserved. http://www.mensstudies.com
thy.0301.3/$14.00 DOI: 10.3149/thy.0301.3 Url: http://dx.doi.org/10.3149/thy.0301.3

AASGAARD
drens lives would differ a great deal depending on the cultural and geographical setting. For example, growing up as a Jewish peasant boy in Palestine was quite different
from a boys life among the urban poor in Rome or in a fishermens village of coastal
Spain.
It is nonetheless possible to say some fairly representative things about what it
was like growing up as a boy in this period. In this article, I will survey central insights
produced by research during the two last decades using the early Christian apocryphal
Infancy Gospel of Thomas as my basic text.1
Children and Childhood in Research on Antiquity
During the last twenty years, research on ancient childhood has flourished. Aris
(1960) has served as impetus for much of this research. His book painted a dark picture: Children in antiquity were badly treated and only valued for what they were to become. Childhood was not really recognised as a life stage with its own distinctive
characteristics. As will be clear, subsequent research has distanced itself much from
this view and succeeded in painting a far more nuanced picture, although Aris still
has some sympathizers.2 Research of a more thorough kind than his commenced in the
mid-1980s. Much of this dealt with the Roman world, with a focus on family life. Rawson (1986, 1991) includes chapters dealing especially with children. Central aspects of
research were summarised by Dixon (1992). From the early 1990s the focus on children was gradually strengthened in studies by Bradley (1991), Saller (1994), Rawson
and Weaver (1994), and Eyben (1993). As early as 1989, Wiedemann had produced
the first full monograph on children in early Rome, with books by Rawson (2003) and
Laes (2006) being more recent scholarly studies.
Less research has been done on the Greek era concerning children, although important contributions have been made by Golden (1990) and Neils and Oakley (2003).
Studies of the Jewish milieu has been quite meagre, with a few exceptions, particularly Cohen (1993) on Jewish family life, Perdue (1997) and Tropper (2006).
Somewhat surprisingly, research on early Christianity was fairly slow in taking
up interest in children, although this has now changed significantly. An important early
contribution was by Mller (1992) on children in the New Testament. Another more
popular contribution was Strange (1996). Balla (2003) has given a good presentation
of childrens place in the family, with an emphasis on parent-child relations. A valuable
book representing the status quo on research on children in the Bible is Bunge, Fretheim
and Gaventa (Eds., 2008), which covers both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. Studies dealing with children in the post-New Testament Christian tradition are

1
In Aasgaard (2009), I analyse this story in detail. The contibution contains the Greek text
and an English translation. See also Aasgaard (2006).
2
For a discussion and critique of Aris and a survey of the history of childhood, see Cunningham (2005).

FROM BOY TO MAN IN ANTIQUITY

relatively sparse and specialised. The most important is Bakke (2005). The chapters
on early Christianity in Bunge (2001) are also very useful.
Over the last few years research on children has become gradually more refined
and detailed. Scholars have become increasingly attentive to the issue of life course
developments. A good example of this is Harlow and Laurence (2002) on ancient Rome.
Scholars have also become more aware of geographical and, implicitly, cultural variation. This is characteristic of Cribiore (2001) on Greek education in Egypt, and also of
George (2005). Typical of much recent scholarship is that it takes a variety of sources,
not only literary, into consideration, including art, epigraphy and juridical material, and
is therefore more strongly interdisciplinary (Balch & Osiek, 2003; Cohen & Rutter,
2007; Grubbs, 2005; McWilliam, 2001; Uzzi, 2005).
Children and Childhood in Antiquity and Early Christianity
What picture of antique and early Christian childhood emerges from this research?
In spite of many nuances, some features are fairly common. Children were very much
left to the mercy of general living conditions, with a high infant and child mortality
rate. Malnutrition, bad sanitation and disease were the experience of many children, as
was maltreatment, including beating and child labour. Due to high death rates among
adults, many children lost one or both parents early, most commonly their father, since
men were often five to ten years older than women when they made a home. Frequent
divorces also contributed to changing family relationships for children. Although there
was much variation, families very often formed core units consisting of parents and
children, occasionally with other family members, slaves and non-family individuals
attached to the household. Usually, a family would have two or three children, with
half- and step-siblings being common (Aasgaard, 2004, pp. 37-40; Rawson, 2003, chs.
2-3).
A limited number of children received formal education. About 5-15 percent may
have attended primary school, with a very small number reaching the secondary and tertiary levels. The household was the fundamental educational institution for most childrens formation. Here children learned a craft, usually that of their parents. Girls were
often taught spinning and boys learned to assist in their fathers workshop. Within the
household, they would also experience emotional support, enjoy social contact, and
learn to adapt to social structures and cultural values. For children, as for others, the
family served as a social security net (Aasgaard, 2004, pp. 45-49; Rawson, 2003, chs.
5-6). Apart from a few who were adopted, without a family children would have to
serve as slaves, do heavy labour, or beg on the streets (Boswell, 1990; Laes, 2005).
Children had important tasks in the life of their family. They were to take care of
their parents in their old age and give them a proper burial and commemorations. They
would insure succession, which meant carrying on the family name, take care of their
material inheritance, and cherish their familys cultural and religious heritage. They
were also expected to safeguard the honour of the family and not in any way bring
shame upon it. Ideals of family harmony were held high, although this would often be
at odds with reality (Aasgaard, 2004, pp. 51-59; Dixon, 1991, 1997).
5

AASGAARD
Children had to find their place within a hierarchical family structure, with the
head of the household having considerable power and childrens obedience being a
central value. Early research often had a very negative view of this hierarchy, seeing
fathers as exerting power in brutal ways. This picture has been significantly revised. In
fact, there were a number of limitations to parents authority, and parents usually were
very fond of their children (Saller, 1994).
Early research often accused adults and parents in antiquity of having little psychological insight into and sensitivity to childrens development, feelings and needs
(Chartrand-Burke, 2001, chs. 7-8). Closer scrutiny of material as diverse as the orator
Quintilian (35-100 CE), the apostle Paul (ca. 1/10-ca.64 CE), the bishop John Chrysostom (ca.347- ca. 407 CE), and burial inscriptions reveals that adults were very much
able to understand and identify with children, show them affection, and mourn at their
death (Aasgaard, 2007, 2009, ch. 6; Bunge, 2001; Rawson, 2003). To be sure, we find
many examples of negative evaluations of children. They were often seen as weak, unstable, irrational and unfinished. There are many examples of harsh treatment, and sexual and physical abuse. But we also find much that is quite in contrast to this picture.
Sources frequently depict children at leisure and at play, and parents as displaying much
leniency and humour about their offsprings whims and pranks.
Children could also be highly appreciated for their childish features. They were
often seen as sweet and were often cuddled. Childhood was regularly sentimentalised
as a period of purity and innocence. In some contexts, children could even serve as
mediators between the human and the divine worlds (Rawson, 2003, chs. 1, 6-7; Horn,
2005).
Obviously, being a child in antiquity was not easy. Everyday life was demanding
in many ways, but it was that way for human beings of all ages. Other marginalised
groups were also in a vulnerable position, whether they were women, slaves, the disabled, or the elderly. Within such a setting, children seem not to have been worse off
than most others.
What happened to children with the growth of Christianity in the first centuries
CE? Did the period bring about changes in their lives and in peoples attitudes towards
them? The matter is debated. It seems likely, however, that over time there came about
a new evaluation of childrens worth as human beings created in the image of God.
More restrictive views on abortion, infanticide and child exposure, and sexual relations
between children and adults came to be held. In school curricula, Biblical material
gradually supplanted classical material, which probably effected some change in ethical thinking and the formation of value judgments. Christianity also seems to have put
more emphasis on parents responsibility for their childrens upbringing and made
stricter demands on the children themselves regarding their conduct. In the context of
the new movement, both parents and children were to live up to high moral standards.
As Christians they had to prove to be good citizens (Aasgaard, 2006, pp. 35-36; Bakke,
2005, pp. 280-286).

FROM BOY TO MAN IN ANTIQUITY

Childhood and Gender in Antiquity and Early Christianity
What place did gender have in the thinking and practices of antiquity? How did this
affect children? And what in particular can be said about boys? This will be the main
focus in the following.
For a long time issues of gender have received attention in research on antiquity
and early Christianity. Until recently, interest centred on women. Within Biblical studies this culminated in multi-volume works by Schssler Fiorenza (1993-94) and Levine
and Blickenstaff (2001- ). It is only since the early 1990s that attention has turned to
the issue of masculinity (Harlow, 2004; Larson, 2004; McDonnell, 2006; Roisman,
2005; Rosen & Sluiter, 2003).3 Interesting work has been done on the Greek-Hellenistic period (Moxnes, 1997), the Roman period (Gleason, 1995; McDonnell, 2006), the
New Testament (Moore & Anderson, eds, 2003), and late antiquity (Burrus, 2000, 2004;
Kuefler, 2001). Scholars have underscored the strong duality between what were considered female and male character traits (psychological life), female and male activities (kinds of work), and female and male social environments (private vs. public).
They have also shown the hierarchical nature of social and sexual relations among men
and women, and the importance of honour and shame as means to reinforce gender
separation and imbalance.
A fundamental feature of ancient masculinity seems to have been the notion of
control. In order to live up to the ideals of masculinity, men were to display dominance
and self-restraint, that is, control of others and of oneself. Males who did not conform
to these standards were considered effeminate and soft (Malina 2001, pp. 46-48, 78;
Moxnes, Endsj, & Brtnes, Eds., 2002; Williams, 1999).
Research on antiquity has focused on adults, with only occasional sidelong glances
at children as gendered beings. Over the last few years, however, scholars of childhood
in antiquity have taken issues of gender and gender socialisation more into account. But,
as with adults, more energy has been spent on the study of female children. Central
works that focus particularly on girls are Rawson (2003) and Osiek, MacDonald, and
Tulloch (2006). Both present a variety of issues related to girls gender roles, social relations and education.
As for boys, research has usually dealt with parent-son relations, and often only
adult sons. More rarely has boyhood been seen as a phase of life to be studied on its own
terms and with a view to the full spectrum of relationships in which boys were involved. Scholarship has not made age a variable of interest, but viewed masculinity
from the perspective of the adult male, without discussing to what degree ancient ideas
about maleness in children might differ from that of adults. However, Shapiro (2003)
and Eyben (1991) are examples of scholars who have done valuable work in the field.
Apart from these and a very few other studies (McDonnell, 2006, pp. 173-185), however, works on boyhood are limited. The following analysis may be seen as a contri-

For a valuable bibliography, see Anderson (2003).

AASGAARD
bution to research in this area. I aim to show that the Infancy Gospel of Thomas gives
us a plausible picture of what boyhood and attitudes to boyhood were like in the era of
Greco-Roman late antiquity and early Christianity.
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas
Briefly, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (IGT) tells the childhood story of Jesus from
age five to twelve.4 The story, which is about 6-7 pages long, consists mainly of alternating miracle stories and discourses. In the former, Jesus performs healing and natural miracles, about ten in number. In the discourses, he and other characters give short
speeches, most of which are related to Jesus being taken to school. The story ends with
a retelling of the New Testament story of Jesus as a twelve-year-old in the temple (Luke
2:41-52) (See the Appendix for an outline of the text.)
The author, time and provenance of IGT are unknown and have been matters of
much debate (Aasgaard, 2009, ch. 1; Chartrand-Burke, 2001, ch. 2). The text probably
originated in a Greek-speaking context in the middle of the second century CE. Although it has no value as a source on the life of the historical Jesus, it proved very popular and enjoyed wide circulation far into the medieval period. Within the later tradition,
it developed in different directions. The individual episodes were often reshaped and
sometimes combined in various ways. It was also translated into a number of languages,
including Syriac, Latin, Georgian, Ethiopic, Arabic, and Slavonic. On Irish soil, the
story was put into verse.5
The infancy gospel has not been studied very much. One reason for this is its very
complex textual history. Much scholarly energy (Chartrand-Burke, 2001; Gero, 1971;
Hock, 1995; Otero, 1967; Rosn, 1997; Voicu, 1998) has been expended to trace its
many variants in an attempt to establish an original text. In spite of the textual problems,
it is nonetheless possible to analyse the contents of the story more closely. ChartrandBurke (2001) serves as a basis for such an analysis. In the following, I take as my point
of departure the IGT manuscript which he considers to be closest to the original.6
Another important reason for the limited study of IGT is related to its contents,
especially its depiction of Jesus. On the one hand, he is described as a divine figure
equal to God in power and knowledge. For example, in addition to performing miracles, he proclaims to his father, Joseph, that when you were born, I existed and came
to you so that you, father, could be taught a teaching by me which no one else knows

For a Greek text and an English translation, see Aasgaard (2009).

For surveys of the Greek manuscripts and versions, see Chartrand-Burke (2001, pp. 101-133)
and Aasgaard (2009, chs. 2 and 11, and Appendix 5).
6
Chartrand-Burke (2001, pp. 260-264) favours Codex Sabaiticus 259, the earliest Greek manuscript (11th c.) of the text, which he regards as reflecting a no later than 5th-century text. Although I rely on this specific manuscript, the differences from other variants are not great as
concerns matters of gender. I follow Chartrand-Burkes chapter and verse numbering.
5

FROM BOY TO MAN IN ANTIQUITY

or is able to teach (6:4). He declares to amazed bystanders that I have come from
above in order to rescue those below and call them to what is above, just as the one who
sent me to you ordered me (8:1). On the other hand, however, he behaves in ways that
appear all-too-human. He runs and jumps and laughs. He sometimes even seems inhumane. He curses some of his adversaries so that they fall dead. Thus, the Jesus of IGT
emerges as a seemingly odd combination of a divinity and an enfant terrible.
Several scholars have found this portrait strange and offensive, and for this reason
have considered the story literarily inferior and even theologically aberrant. It has, for
example, been labelled as banal Kleinliteratur and as having gnostic leanings (Aasgaard, 2009, ch. 1). During the last decade, however, there has been growing recognition among scholars that the story is neither inferior nor aberrant (Chartrand-Burke,
2001; Hock, 1995). According to this view, which I support, IGT represents traditional
theological thinking, but of a popular, non-elitist kind. In fact, its Christology does not
deviate significantly from that of the New Testament. Its portrait of Jesus as a fully
human and at the same time divine being has much in common especially with the
Gospel of John.
A main difference from the New Testament, however, is that Jesus in IGT is not
only portrayed as true God and true human; rather, he is depicted as true God and true
child. Even though IGT clearly sees him as having extraordinary qualities, Jesus is at
the same time described as an ordinary boy, as my analysis below will indicate. In fact,
the special features of IGTs Jesus are better understood if they are viewed as reflecting his boyish human side rather than his divine side. What characterises Jesus in IGT
is that he makes use of his divinity much the way a child would.
Many scholars have understood his special traits to be part of his divine nature, and
on this basis labelled IGTs Christology heretical; however, the crudeness of IGTs
Jesus should rather be seen as coming from his human nature as a boy. These matters
are discussed at length in Aasgaard (2009, chs. 6, 10 and 12). The child-like picture of
Jesus in IGT throws into relief the tension between his human and divine sides even
more than is the case with the description of him as adult and divine in the New Testament.
In what follows, I will focus primarily on how Jesus is portrayed as a human boy
in IGT, and interpret this within the context of ancient notions about childhood and
gender. This will be done in ways similar to what has also been done in analyses of the
New Testament Jesus as an adult male (Conway, 2003). Even though my focus will be
on his human side, this does not mean that the divine element should be disregarded.
The IGT portrait of Jesus is clearly informed by its perception of him as a deity. In my
view, however, the human and divine elements of the IGT Jesus should not be played
off against one another, since the ways in which his divinity is described are very much
like ancient notions of gender and how maleness should be displayed.
The issue of gender has so far not been taken up in studies of IGT. However, it
looms large in the story, for example, in the ideas and values reflected in the figures involved, not least in Jesus, its main character. My emphasis will be on the depiction of
him.
9

AASGAARD
What notions are reflected in him concerning male qualities? To what degree is
maleness ascribed to him as a boy? Do any changes related to gender occur from his
early childhood as a five-year-old until he enters his next stage of life, as a twelveyear-old adolescent?
The story will be analysed from two complementary perspectives. First, the characterisation of Jesus and his social relations will be addressed. Here, I take as my point
of departure the masculine notions of dominance and self-restraint. I then divide the former into the more specific categories of strength, violence, persuasive speech, honour,
and female marginalisation. In this, I have adapted and adjusted some of the categories
of Clines (2003, pp. 181-182). Although these categories are somewhat anachronistic,
I find them useful primarily as heuristic tools. Second, I analyse the narrative as regards how gender socialisation takes place. Even though my analyses will be methodologically unassuming, they may nonetheless be sufficient in order to reveal basic ideas
about gender and boyhood in the IGT.
Jesus Character and Social Relations
I now turn to the characterisation of Jesus and his social relations. We will see that
many of antiquitys expectations about maleness are fulfilled in the Jesus figure.
First, the category of strength. Typical of Jesus in IGT is that he is described as
strong. Like the Jesus of the Gospel of John, he is portrayed as the one in charge, the
one to take control of what happens. He cannot be dominated (6:3, 7), he knows everything (6:6), and he has the power to do everything, even to waken people from the dead
(8:2; 9:3). When violated by others, he does not complain, but takes action and repays
offences. He curses children and teachers, and reprimands his own father (3:2; 4:2).
His strength is also evident in the emotions ascribed to him. When hit by his first
teacher, he becomes angry (6:8-9). He laughs at him and others (8:1) and has a severe
look (7:2). Although such emotions are far from the antique ideal (Gleason, 1995),
they emerge as very masculine in character. In her analysis of the Gospel of John,
Conway (2003) argues that emotional outbursts can be seen as signs of proper anger
on the part of a wise man (pp. 166-67, 173). The immoderate outbursts in IGT, however, are unlikely to have been those of such a proper kind.
One aim of strength is to prevent others from threatening ones personal integrity
or social position. The most manifest expression of such strength is violence. A striking characteristic of the IGT Jesus is his violent behaviour. When as a five-year-old he
is playing on a river ford, the son of Annas, the high priest, destroys the pools of water
he has made. As a result the boy is cursed so that he withers away (3:3). When a boy
running by bumps into Jesus, he suffers the same grim fate (4:1). When a teacher hits
his disobedient pupil on the head, he, too, is cursed to death (13:2). Thus, Jesus appears as violent, and to a degree that is manifestly inconsistent with the kind of offences carried out against him. Although the gravity of his reactions is problematic, the
point to note is that his behaviour emerges as distinctively masculine. For the more
tender souls among us, it is a consolation that he later on raises all the cursed persons
10

FROM BOY TO MAN IN ANTIQUITY

from the dead! We should note, however, that Jesus violence is always defensive. He
is first provoked and does not use his strength to offend the integrity or position of others.
A less physical, but still unmistakable expression of strength is rhetorical power.
In antiquity this was a universally acknowledged value, and a masculine value. This is
also a prominent feature in the IGT description of Jesus, who emerges as an unusually
able speaker. His rhetorical power is manifestly demonstrated in the three teacher
episodes. When Zacchaeus, his first teacher, wants to teach him the alphabet, Jesus
with his erudition and speaking ability drives his teacher and the spectators to silence
(6:7, 9), and finally forces Zacchaeus to despair (7:1-2). The second teacher displays
even less understanding than the first, which leads to his death (13:2). The third teacher,
however, is presented as an ideal. He does not try to teach Jesus, but acknowledges his
gifts by listening to his holy words (14:2). By the end of the story, Jesus rhetorical
power is endorsed in his encounter with the learned in the temple. Although nothing is
related of the conversation, it is clear that they are left awe-inspired, as is his mother
(17:3-5).
Jesus rhetorical power is most conspicuous in the miracle stories. As appropriate
for a being of divine origin, his words turn into reality. Clay sparrows come alive and
fly away at his command (2:4). Wicked boys are cursed to death (4:2), but he revives
the child Zeno, who had fallen from a roof, by saying his name (9:3).
Honour was regarded a fundamental masculine value in ancient Mediterranean societies (Malina, 2001, pp. 27-57, esp. 52-56). Accordingly, Jesus is presented as an honourable person. He protects what is his property, for example, when the high priests
son destroys his pools of water, his area of dominion (3:1-3), and when his physical
boundaries are violated by the bumping boy (4:1-2). When accused of causing Zenos
death, he defends his reputation by resuscitating the boy so as to invalidate the accusation (9:2). Jesus honourable status is most explicitly voiced in the first teacher
episode. As a result of the confrontation between the two, the teacher is shamed. He describes himself in typical honour and shame language:
Dear me! Dear me! I am totally baffled and miserable. I have caused
and brought shame upon myself ... he outdoes me ... I wanted to have
a student and ended up having a master ... I am troubled, friends,
about my shame, since I am an old man who has been overcome by
a child. (7:1-3)
As a consequence, the teacher must be thrown out and die, or flee from this village because of this child (7:3). Thus, to the same degree that the teacher is shamed
in the honour competition, Jesus is elevated as winner. His claim to honour is eventually confirmed in the temple story: We have never known nor heard ... such glory of
virtue (17:4).
The notion of female exclusion refers to the fact that relationships between males
are highlighted, with the focus on loyalty, exclusivity, and mutual commitment. Cross11

AASGAARD
sex relationships are minimised and female figures marginalised. Although Jesus in
IGT is not an adult but a boy, such patterns are largely reflected here. Indeed, the characters to whom Jesus relates throughout the story are almost exclusively male, at least
as far as can be judged from indications of gender in the text. All children singled out
are boys (3:1; 4:1; 9:3). Joseph, Jesus father, has a prominent role (2; 5-6; 11-14). The
teachers, who are all central characters, are male. Other figures, too, are male, such as
a Pharisee (2:3-5), the high priest (3:1), a rich man (12:1), and Jesus brother, James
(15). In fact, out of the fifteen individuals mentioned in IGT, fourteen are male. The
only exception to this male-dominated cast is Mary. She has a central position, to which
I return below. However, we should note that her role in IGT is more modest than in
the canonical gospels, notably Luke and John. Other female characters appear only
twice, namely, as mothers in parental couples (4:2; 9:2-4).
On one point, however, the Jesus of IGT deviates from ancient masculinity standards, namely in the boys limited self-restraint. He becomes vexed (6:8-9), seems to
be capricious and unreliable (6:7), and repays offences in ways dramatically out of proportion with their severity (3:3; 4:1; 13:2). Although this behaviour can be justified to
some extent as an expression of strength (see above), it nonetheless conflicts with ancient attitudes about moderation and predictability of conduct as masculine qualities.
The question is how this deviation can be accounted for. One explanation is that such
behaviour was acceptable for one particular group of males, namely young males, that
is, boys. As already noted, children (including boys) were regarded as unstable and irrational. Even though such features were often negatively valued, they were acknowledged as typical of children and as something to be indulgent about and even
understanding of (Aasgaard, 2009, ch. 6). Thus, what was not accepted in the case of
adult masculinity could be approved in boys. In fact, this can be seen as a central differentiating factor, a factor that made boys masculinity look different from that of their
adult counterparts. Interpreted this way, the Jesus of IGT emerges as a very true-to-life
figure.7
Jesus Age and Gender Socialisation
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas has often been held to be incoherent, a loose
stringing together of individual stories, and thus lacking a narrative nerve (ChartrandBurke, 2001, p. 262). Although it is true that the story is literarily not very advanced,
it has far more narrative sophistication and coherence than has been granted it (Aasgaard, 2009, ch. 3). For the current argument, however, it is not the literary merits of
IGT that are important but how gender is reflected within its plot. I shall concentrate

7
On similar differences between male youths and adults, see Harlow & Laurence (2002, pp.
69-71) and Laes & Strubbe (2008, ch. 8 and p. 199). For contrasting views of my interpretation,
see Hock (1995) and Chartrand-Burke (2001), who see in the IGT Jesus only an adult clothed in
a boys body.

12

FROM BOY TO MAN IN ANTIQUITY

on two of its elements: Jesus ongoing socialisation as he grows older and the depiction of his relations to his parents. Although the material is limited, certain features become visible.8
In IGT, a development in Jesus activities and relationships occurs as he grows
older. In the first episodes he is five years old, at play building pools of water and forming clay birds (2:1-2). At this age he is taken to school for the first time (6:1-2), which
would make him an early starter, since the customary age would be about seven (Rawson, 2003, pp. 158-160). The point seems to be to show his precocity, since his young
age is repeatedly stated (5:1; 6:5). The startling nature of his precocity is also underscored through the despair of the first teacher. He, an old man, has been overcome by
a child (7:3). Then, probably still at the same age, we again encounter Jesus playing,
this time on a roof together with other children (9:1). At age seven, he is sent off by
Mary to fetch water (10:1). An unspecified time later he is together with Joseph sowing in the field (11:1). In the next episode Jesus, now eight years old, has joined his father in his work as a carpenter fixing a bed (12:1). Now Joseph also thinks it high time
to take Jesus to school again, with considerably more success than on the first occasion.
Thus, with increasing age there occurs a slow transformation in the life of Jesus.
As a five- and six-year-old, he is playing together with other children. At seven, he is
under the wings of his mother on his way to fetch water, a task typical of the sphere of
females and children (Wiedemann, 1989, pp. 153-154). After this, play is not mentioned any more. Instead, Jesus gradually becomes involved in household duties. The
age of seven was often viewed as a time for children to take on more responsibility
(Wiedemann, 1989, pp. 152-154). At this point, Joseph, a representative of the world
of men, begins to take action by performing the public task of taking Jesus to school.
Although schools were also open to girls, learning the skills of reading and writing was
viewed as more necessary for boys.9 After that, step by step, Joseph introduces Jesus
to mens activities, first sowing in the field and then engaging him in his own profession, carpentry, which was a kind of work only men did.10
In the following sections, adaptation to the mens world is brought to completion.
In the two last miracle episodes, Jesus assists his brother, James, in fetching wood in
the forest (15), and he heals a young man who is performing the mans activity of splitting wood (and his foot!) (16). The adaptation is confirmed in the temple episode, where
Jesus as a youth on the threshold of manhood displays his social and religious maturity in his discourse with the learned (17).

On gender socialisation and the life cycle, see Rawson (2003, pp. 134-145). On general notions about age stages in childhood, see Wiedemann (1989, pp. 143-170) and Rawson (2003, pp.
134-145).
9
For a good presentation of the Roman educational system, see Rawson (2003, pp. 146-209).
10
For a description of childrens introduction into artisan work, see Wiedemann (1989, pp.
155-164).

13

AASGAARD
What takes place as Jesus grows older in IGT is gradual gender socialisation. From
being occupied with small boys activities, such as playing or performing simple household duties, up to the age of about seven he is led into the male adult sphere by going
to school and accompanying Joseph and other male family members to their male-gendered environment. Jesus develops from a less differentiated or female-coded state of
being to one that is markedly male-coded. The picture given clearly reflects what would
be common notions in late antiquity of gender relations and development.
Jesus Relations to His Parents
In IGT, Jesus parents emerge as the main dialogue partners in his process of maturation. Joseph is present as paterfamilias throughout the story. When Jesus is accused
of breaking Sabbath regulations and cursing a child to death, his father is made responsible for mediating between him and his opponents, defending him (2:3; 4:2), or
defending others against him (6:2-4; 7:4; 13:3; 14:3). Joseph is also the one to correct
and punish him (2:4; 5:1-2). In addition, he is the one who leads Jesus when they appear in public (4:1; even by hand, 6:8), at important turning points such as his first
school day (6:8; also 6:2-4) and at work on the field and in the workshop (11; 12). Finally, Joseph is present in the temple episode, though only in the periphery (17:1, 4).
Joseph, then, plays a prominent part as father. His role is, however, ambiguous. He
is depicted as occasionally uncomprehending and critical of Jesus, siding with opponents (2:4; 5:1-2; 6:3-4; 14:3) and seeing Jesus as falling short of him (for example, as
a carpenter, 12:1). But he also manages to see Jesus potential. He takes him to school
because of his wise way of thinking (13:1), and when witnessing one of his miracles,
he embraces and kisses him and exclaims: Blessed am I, since God gave me this boy
(12:2). Thus, Joseph is presented as a nuanced figure, able to express emotions, understand and misunderstand, and react in various ways. In short, he emerges as a very
lifelike figure. Probably, this is very much on a level with general notions of the character of the fathers role in late antiquity. A father was expected to display authority and
firmness, but also to be understanding and relate positively emotionally to his children
(Eyben, 1991, pp. 112-143).
Mary plays a far less visible part than Joseph. She appears only in the last half of
the story when she sends Jesus to fetch water (10:1). She is mentioned a second time
when Joseph commands her to confine Jesus to the house (13:3). In both cases, Mary
takes on the traditional female role within the private household sphere and is in a position inferior to her husband. Her final, and major, appearance in IGT is in the temple
episode. Here, her role goes beyond the expected, and she does what IGT elsewhere ascribes to Joseph; namely, she corrects Jesus and represents him in public (17:3-4).
Like Joseph, Mary is depicted as not fully understanding their son (10:2). Both
she and Joseph are concerned about Jesus well-being (10:2; 17:3). This concern is expressed in different ways, however, which reflect their respective gender roles. Whereas
Josephs perspective is that of the public spherehe is anxious lest Jesus cause harm
(14:2)Mary sees the matter from the private sphereshe is afraid that someone may
do him wrong (10:2).
14

FROM BOY TO MAN IN ANTIQUITY

Mary and Joseph alike are presented as believing figures. They ask for Gods blessing of Jesus (10:2; 12:2). In this way they serve as figures of religious identification,
both for Jesus (within the narrative) and for IGTs implied audience (Aasgaard, 2009,
chs. 11-12). Different from Josephs, the role of Mary in the story is passive. She is
obedient and does not respond to others except when being directly addressed (10:2;
17:4). Mary therefore leaves a much more faint impression than Joseph. Only at one
point does she excel in comparison to him. She does not (at least not explicitly) display
doubts about Jesus or side against him. Instead, her reaction concerning his singularity is one-sidedly positive. Seeing his miraculous power, she kisses him, exclaiming:
Lord, my God, bless my child (10:2). In the temple episode, she is said to treasure
up the words about Jesus, pondering them in her heart (17:5). Consequently, Mary
appears as a more idealized figure than Joseph. She is the one who reacts adequately
vis--vis their son. However, this is her only point of prominence. In all other respects,
the focus is on Joseph.
In sum, the roles of Mary and Joseph have their distinctive profiles, which mirror
the ancient culture. In modern terminology, Mary has the role of a supporting and protecting mother while Joseph is an advising and controlling father. Even though Marys
trust in Jesus is stressed, Joseph emerges as far more important for the boys socialisation and for the male coding of IGT in general.
Reflections and Conclusions
My analysis of Jesus character and his relations to others has revealed the Infancy
Gospel of Thomas masculine focus. Its depiction of his personality, words and actions
clearly conforms to conventional patterns of masculinity in antiquity, exemplified in
particular by values such as strength, honour, and female exclusion. To a surprising degree, this can be seen in the prevalence of male figures, with men (except for Mary) taking on all of the important roles. This very likely reflects the gender-segregated social
life of antiquity and its preoccupation with the mens world.
This impression is confirmed by the changes the Jesus figure undergoes and by
his parents roles as catalysts of socialisation. Here, the direction is from the open, less
explicitly gender-coded activity of childs play, to the childs female activities in the
household, and, finally, to clearly masculinity-marked tasks in the workshop and temple. I note that Jesus becomes less unpredictable and more adapted to his social surroundings as he grows older. It is primarily as a small boy that he curses and behaves
emotionally. At the end of the story, as a nearly adult male he is said to be full of wisdom (17:4-5). This development can also be interpreted narratively and theologically,
in that there is in IGT a growing recognition of Jesus divine origin (Aasgaard, 2009,
ch. 3 and 10). Neither interpretation need exclude the other, of course.
Jesus parents act according to the then current gender expectations, taking different roles. Interestingly, the prominent place of Mary in Luke 1-2 is in the IGT taken by
Joseph, who is made the main figure in the boys socialisation. In this respect, IGT mirrors antiquitys male-oriented gender patterns.
15

AASGAARD
The infancy gospel is evidence of conventional ideas about masculinity in antiquity as presented in the research history surveyed at the beginning of this essay. At the
same time, the picture given is not of a single-track mans world. IGT is more nuanced
than that. First, there is in the story an awareness of the distinctive character of childhood as a phase. For example, Jesus and other children are given room for play by the
river, in the village, and even on a house roof. Tasks and obligations emerge only little
by little.
Second, there is in the story a sensitivity to processes of human maturing and social adaptation. This is very clear in the manner in which Jesus development is described. Both elements appear to reflect realistic glimpses into boys lives in late
antiquity.
Finally, IGT bears witness to an openness as to how the mans role was construed
in antiquity. This is visible in the description of the teachers, but even more so in the
characterisation of Joseph. He is far from being a stereotype of a man or of masculine
values. Rather, in his relation to Jesus he is depicted as a well-rounded character, who
moves within much of spectrum of the role available to a man at the time. He can be
stern and angry, tender and concerned, and even weak and bewildered. Thus, it can in
fact be argued that in some respects he falls short of the expected male standards and
puts himself to shame (Aasgaard, 2009, ch. 7).
A similar openness can be seen in the Jesus figure, although he very much lives up
to the ancient ideals of manliness. The only exception is that he does not appear to
show the self-restraint appropriate for a man. This can be accounted for, however, by
the fact that Jesus in IGT is portrayed as a boy. Although he possesses several adult
characteristics, such as wisdom and strength, he is in his activities and reactions depicted very much a true-to-life boy of his time. Whereas self-control was required from
adult men, it was not expected to the same degree of boys. In my opinion this is a major
insight to be gained from an analysis of IGT in relation to the study of boyhood, manhood and masculinity in the ancient world.
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, then, gives us a picture of Jesus very much in accordance with what was likely to have been the life conditions and the process of maturing and gender adaptation for a boy in late antiquity and the early Christian era.
There should be little if anything in the story to surprise us. In fact, this is one of the
most important points that emerges from my analysis. Except for Jesus divine origin
and powers, there is nothing special, enigmatic or aberrant about him. He is quite simply portrayed as an ordinary boy of his time. The storys values are those of a male-centered culture. Jesus social context is that of a male-dominated world, and his boyhood
reflects the customary development of a male. From being a small boy belonging to a
less differentiated or female-coded sphere, with growing age and at appropriate times,
Jesus is gradually socialised into the adult male world. Step by step, from age five to
twelve, the boy Jesus makes it. He becomes a man.
References
Aasgaard, R. (2004). My beloved brothers and sisters! Christian siblingship in Paul. London/New York: T&T Clark Int./Continuum.

16

FROM BOY TO MAN IN ANTIQUITY

Aasgaard, R. (2006). Children in antiquity and early Christianity: Research history and central
issues. Familia (Salamanca, Spain), 33, 23-46.
Aasgaard, R. (2007). Paul as a child: Children and childhood in the letters of the apostle. Journal of Biblical Literature, 126, 129-159.
Aasgaard, R. (2009). The childhood of Jesus: Decoding the apocryphal Infancy Gospel of
Thomas. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock.
Anderson, J. with Moore, S. D. & Kim, S. H. (2003). Masculinity studies: A classified bibliography. In S.D. Moore & J.C. Anderson (Eds.), New Testament masculinities (pp. 23-42). Atlanta, GA: SBL.
Aris, Ph. (1960). Lenfant et la vie familiale sous lancien rgime. Paris: Plon. Translated (1962)
as Centuries of childhood.
Bakke, O.M. (2005). When children became people: The birth of childhood in early Christianity. Minneapolis: Fortress.
Balch, D.L., & Osiek, C. (Eds.) (2003). Early Christian families in context: An interdisciplinary
dialogue. Grand Rapids, MI/Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans.
Balla, P. (2003). The child parent relationship in the New Testament and its environment. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Boswell, J. (1990). The kindness of strangers: The abandonment of children in western Europe
from late Antiquity to the Renaissance. New York: Vintage/Random.
Bradley, K.R. (1991). Discovering the Roman family: Studies in Roman social history. New
York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bunge, M.J. (Ed.) (2001). The child in Christian thought. Grand Rapids, Mi./Cambridge, UK:
Eerdmans.
Bunge, M.J., Fretheim, T. & Gaventa, B.R. (Eds.) (2008). The child in the Bible. Grand Rapids,
Mi.: Eerdmans.
Burrus, V. (2000). Begotten, not made: Conceiving manhood in late antiquity. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Burrus, V. (2004). The sex lives of saints: An erotics of ancient hagiography. Philadelphia, PA:
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Chartrand-Burke, T. (2001). The Infancy Gospel of Thomas: The text, its origins, and its transmission. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Toronto.
Clines, D.J.A. (2003). Paul, the Invisible Man. In S.D. Moore & J.C. Anderson (Eds.), New Testament masculinities (pp. 181-192). Atlanta, Ga.: SBL.
Cohen, A. & Rutter, J.B. (Eds.) (2007). Constructions of childhood in ancient Greece and Italy.
Princeton, NJ: The American School of Classical Studies at Athens.
Cohen, S.J.D. (Ed.) (1993). The Jewish family in antiquity. Atlanta, GA: Scholars.
Conway, C.M. (2003). Behold the man! Masculine Christology and the Fourth Gospel. In S.D.
Moore & J.C. Anderson (Eds.), New Testament masculinities (pp. 163-180). Atlanta, GA:
SBL.
Cribiore, R. (2001). Gymnastics of the mind: Greek education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt.
Princeton/Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Cunningham, H. (2005). Children and childhood in western society since 1500 (2nd ed.). Harlow:
Pearson Longman.
Dixon, S. (1991). The sentimental ideal of the Roman family. In B. Rawson (Ed.), Marriage, divorce, and children in ancient Rome (pp. 99-113). Canberra/Oxford: Humanities Research
Centre/Clarendon.
Dixon, S. (1992). The Roman family. Baltimore/London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

17

AASGAARD
Dixon, S. (1997). Conflict in the Roman family. In B. Rawson & P. Weaver, (Eds.), The Roman
family in Italy: Status, sentiment, space (pp. 149-167). Canberra/Oxford: Humanities Research Centre/Clarendon.
Eyben, E. (1991). Fathers and sons. In B. Rawson (Ed.), Marriage, divorce, and children in ancient Rome (pp. 114-143). Canberra/Oxford: Humanities Research Centre/Clarendon.
Eyben, E. (1993). Restless youth in ancient Rome. London/New York: Routledge.
George, M. (Ed.) (2005). The Roman family in the Empire: Rome, Italy, and beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gero, S. (1971). The Infancy Gospel of Thomas: A study of the textual and literary problems.
Novum Testamentum, 13, 46-80
Gleason, M.W. (1995). Making men: Sophists and self-presentation in ancient Rome. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Golden, M. (1990). Children and childhood in classical Athens. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Grubbs, J.E. (2005). Parent-child conflict in the Roman family: The evidence of the code of Justinian. In M. George, (Ed.), The Roman family in the Empire: Rome, Italy, and beyond (pp.
93-128). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Harlow, M. (2004). Clothes maketh the man: Power dressing and elite masculinity in the later
Roman world. In L. Brubaker & J.M.H. Smith (Eds.), Gender in the Early Medieval World:
East and West, 300-900 (pp. 44-69). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Harlow, M., & Laurence, R. (2002). Growing up and growing old in ancient Rome: A life course
approach. London/New York: Routledge.
Hock, R.F. (1995). The Infancy Gospels of James and Thomas. Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge.
Horn, C.B. (2005). Childrens play as social ritual. In V. Burrus (Ed.), Late ancient Christianity:
A peoples history of Christianity (pp. 95-116). Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress.
Kuefler, M. (2001). The manly eunuch: Masculinity, gender ambiguity, and Christian ideology
in late antiquity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Laes, C. (2005). Child beating in Roman antiquity: Some reconsiderations. In K. Mustakallio, J.
Hanska, H.-L. Sainio, & V. Vuolanto (Eds.). Hoping for continuity: Childhood, education
and death in Antiquity and the Middle Ages (pp. 75-89). Rome: Institutum Romanum Finlandiae.
Laes, C. (2006). Kinderen bij de Romeinen: Zes eeuwen dagelijks leven [Children among the
Romans: Six centuries of daily life]. Leuven: Davidsfonds.
Laes, C. & Strubbe, J. (2008). Jeugd in het Romeinse Rijk: Jonge jaren, wilde haren? [Youth in
the Roman Empire: Years of Sturm und Drang?]. Leuven: Davidsfonds.
Larson, J. (2004). Pauls masculinity. Journal of Biblical Literature, 123, 85-97.
Levine, A.J., & Blickenstaff, M. (Eds.) (2001-). Feminist companion to the New Testament and
early Christian writings. London: Sheffield Academic Press.
Malina, B.C. (2001). The New Testament world: Insights from cultural anthropology. 3rd rev.
and exp. ed. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox.
McDonnell, M. (2006). Roman manliness: Virtus and the Roman Republic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McWilliam, J. (2001). Children among the dead: The influence of urban life on the commemoration of children on tombstone inscriptions. In S. Dixon (Ed.), Childhood, class and kin in
the Roman world (pp. 74-98). London/New York: Routledge.
Moore, S.D., & Anderson, J.C. (Eds.) (2003). New Testament masculinities, Semeia Studies, 45.
Atlanta, GA: SBL.

18

FROM BOY TO MAN IN ANTIQUITY

Moxnes, H. (1997). Conventional values in the Hellenistic world: Masculinity. In P. Bilde, T.
Engberg-Pedersen, L. Hannestad & J. Zahle (Eds.), Conventional values of the Hellenistic
Greeks (pp. 263-284). rhus: Aarhus University Press.
Moxnes, H.; Endsj, D. .; & Brtnes, J. (Eds.) (2002). Naturlig sex? Seksualitet og kjnn i den
kristne antikken [Natural sex? Sexuality and gender in Early Christianity]. Oslo: Gyldendal
Akademisk.
Mller, P. (1992). In der Mitte der Gemeinde: Kinder im Neuen Testament [In the middle of the
community: Children in the New Testament]. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener.
Neils, J., & Oakley, J.H. (Eds.) (2003). Coming of age in ancient Greece: Images of childhood
from the classical past. New Haven/London: Yale University Press.
Osiek, C., MacDonald, M.Y., & Tulloch, J.H. (2006). A womans place: House churches in earliest Christianity. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress.
Otero, A. de S. (1967). Das kirchenslavische Evangelium des Thomas. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Perdue, L.G., Blenkinsopp, J., Collins, J.J. & Meyers, C. (Eds.) (1997). Families in ancient israel. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox.
Rawson, B. (2003). Children and childhood in Roman Italy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rawson, B. (Ed.) (1991). Marriage, divorce, and children in ancient Rome. Canberra/Oxford:
Humanities Research Centre/Clarendon.
Rawson, B. (Ed.) (1986). The family in Ancient Rome: New perspectives. London/Sydney: Croom
Helm.
Rawson, B. & Weaver, P. (Eds.) (1997). The Roman family in Italy: Status, sentiment, space.
Canberra/Oxford: Humanities Research Centre/Clarendon.
Roisman, J. (2005). The rhetoric of manhood: Masculinity in the Attic orators. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Rosen, R.M., & Sluiter, I. (Eds.) (2003). Andreia: Studies in manliness and courage in classical
antiquity. Leiden: Brill.
Rosn, Th. (1997). The Slavonic translation of the apocryphal Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell Int.
Saller, R.P. (1994). Patriarchy, property, and death in the Roman family. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Schssler Fiorenza, E. (Ed.) (1993-94). Searching the scriptures. 2 vols. London: SCM.
Shapiro, H.A. (2003). Fathers and sons, men and boys. In J. Neils, & J.H. Oakley (Eds.), Coming of age in ancient Greece: Images of childhood from the classical past (pp. 85-111). New
Haven/London: Yale University Press.
Strange, W.A. (1996). Children in the early church: Children in the ancient world, the New Testament and the early church. Carlisle: Paternoster.
Tropper, A. (2006). Children and childhood in light of the demographics of the Jewish family in
late antiquity. Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods, 37, 299-343.
Uzzi, J. (2005). Children in the visual arts of ancient Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Voicu, S.J. (1998). Verso Il Testo Primitivo Dei Paidika Tou Kyriou Iesou Racconti Dell Infanzia
Dell Signore Gesu [On the ancient text of the Paidika Tou Kyriou Iesou, Stories of the Infancy of the Lord Jesus]. Apocrypha, 9, 7-95.
Wiedemann, Th. (1989). Adults and children in the Roman empire. London: Routledge.
Williams, C.A. (1999). Roman homosexuality: Ideologies of masculinity in classical antiquity.
New York: Oxford University Press.

19

AASGAARD
Appendix
Outline of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas
1
2-3

4-5

6-8

10-12

13-14

15-16

17

Heading/Prologue
Three miracles
2:1 Cleaning of pools of water
2:2-5 Vivification of sparrows
3
Curse on Annas son
A miracle and the responses to it
4
Curse on careless boy
5
Joseph rebukes Jesus
Teacher discourse
6-8 First teacher
6 Dialogue
7 Lament
8 Exclamation
A miracle and the responses to it
9:1 Raising of Zeno
9:2-4 Parents dialogue with Jesus
Three miracles
10
Carrying water in cloak
11
Miraculously great harvest
12
Miraculous repair of bed
Teacher discourses
13
Second teacher
14
Third teacher
Two miracles
15
Healing of James snakebite
16
Healing of injured foot
Final discourse (epilogue)
17
Jesus in the temple

20