According To "John" About How Old Was Jesus When He Died?

[JoeWallack]

John's" Jesus' (age) is Long, His Verse is Strong's, and he's down to get the religious friction on. Hell Yah(weh)!

JW:
I previously created a Thread:

According To "John" About How Old Was Jesus When He Died?

now fossilized in the FRDB Hall of Fame, which demonstrates that "John" supports Jesus being about 50ish when he bought the Potter's Form. This observation is important because it casts doubt on the quality of Christian witness to HJ. Per "Luke", Jesus was about 30 when he died and per "John", he was about 50. Irenaeus of Lyons (yes, "Lyons"), the most important early Church Father to the orthodox as supposed compiler of witness to HJ, assures us that Jesus was old when he died. This significant contradiction (young verses old man) has scope in that Irenaeus was standard reading for the Church yet as far as I know, no non-modern Patristic tried to demonstrate which was right. Presumably because they had no evidence outside of what Irenaeus had to pick an age.

At the start of the 2nd coming of this Thread I will list the previous evidence for Jesus being 50ish per "John":

The following are the key points for the argument that "John's" Jesus was close to fifty when he died:

1) John 8:57

Quote:

The Jews therefore said unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? (ASV)

The implication from this verse is that Jesus was close to fifty at the time.

2) Irenaeus claimed, primarily based on "John", that Jesus was an old man when he died.

3) There is some textual variation for "forty" instead of "fifty" indicating the Church realized that "fifty" was a contradiction with "Luke".

4) John omits evidence from the Synoptics that would support Jesus being fiftyish in Pilate's time:

• "Luke's" statement that Jesus was about thirty at the start of the Ministry.
  
  The infancy narratives which have Jesus born thirty something years before Pilate.
  
  In 7:5 "John" omits the mention of Jesus' sisters being included in Jesus' family going to look for Jesus. The implication is that they were grown and had their own families.

5) "John's" Jesus has three Passovers compared to one for the Synoptics.

6) John 2 might be a subtle reference to Jesus being forty-six.

John 2

• 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
  
  20 The Jews therefore said, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou raise it up in three days?
  
  21 But he spake of the temple of his body.
  
  22 When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he spake this; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

7) In Chapter 6 "John" refers to Jesus' father. In Chapter 7 "John" has Jesus' brothers go to Jerusalem but not Jesus' father. The implication is that Jesus' father is too old to travel.

8) John 21:25 claims that Jesus did a huge amount of deeds which would support a long career,

The argument for John's Jesus being about fifty falls into two main categories:

• 1) All of the related implications in "John" support an older Jesus.
  
  2) All of the supposed support for a younger Jesus in the Synoptics is exorcised.

There is other Patristic support for thinking Jesus was fiftyish based on 'John".

Our own Peter "The Young Wolf" Kirby has written an interesting related article:

Taking Irenaeus Seriously

Irenaeus was of sound mind when he wrote, in agreement with tradition and scripture. Instead of stifling his voice, it is necessary to elucidate the cultural context of the passage and witness that the five stages of life that he sees in Christ, culminating in an age of death near 50, is drawn straight from cultural assumptions about the stages of life and the prime of life that in his day would be commonplace, especially among those with an education in Greek. We need not suppose that his remarks are motivated by isolated, trifling musings gone wild or angry, exaggerated efforts to refute his opponents.

Instead we should see the statements about his Lord living to more than forty years as being part of the theology of Irenaeus that is integral to his understanding of the incarnation itself. His own words about Christ going through all ages of life in order to save all men impress upon us that we do so.

The Young Wolf astutely points out that regarding Irenaeus here, Christian Bible Scholarship (CBS) is caught in a Cathechism-22:

• 1) He is simply wrong = impeaches his credibility but his credibility is needed to prop up the assertion of witness behind the Gospels.
  
  2) He is not simply wrong = impeaches the credibility of the asserter trying to argue that 30 = 50 (the same person arguing that 3 = 1).

The standard Apologist argument is that Irenaeus' related context was arguing with Gnostics whose position was that Jesus made a relatively short appearance in The Production coming down from New Heaven El-Askya, having an expresso while getting his nails done and gospelling about his bride and than failing to show up at the Church. Irenaeus, as an orthodox historicist, has to argue that when Jesus was not spending all his time doing the impossible, he was just a regular guy. And the longer the time period, the more regular he appeared to be.

Peter counters that Irenaeus' related description of Jesus passing through the ages (so to speak) was an existing theology at the time and continued to be after Irenaeus and Irenaeus supplements this theology by claiming a supporting link of historical witness between The Big Cheesus and Irenaeus.



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[stephan happy huller]

Your point about John 2 is interesting. The difficulty I think is that Irenaeus (from memory) implies that there were more than three years of Jesus's ministry. I think that the key word in Irenaeus's discussion (from memory) is magister. Jesus needs to be a magister. The word comes up time and against in the Latin text of the gospels and in specific Tertullian's discussion of the Question of the Rich Man. The rich man addresses Jesus as 'magister' a term not used in any other known text (from memory). The argument from Irenaeus seems to be to me that because the text of the gospel identifies Jesus as a magister it would make no sense to see him as thirty years old especially given the insistence of the heretics (like Clement of Alexandria) who argued for (a) Jesus being thirty and (b) a one year ministry. Of course the other texts (i.e. Marcionite, heretical) might not have addressed him as such. Perhaps he was 'Lord' or some other term (as our texts now reflect). My guess is that magister or the Greek equivalent was the point of controversy in the debate with Irenaeus's opponents. It is important to note that Irenaeus goes so far in Demonstrations to identify Jesus as being crucified under Claudius which would contradict your reading of John 2 if read in conjunction with 'the fifteenth year' of Tiberius in Luke. Irenaeus mentions the dating elsewhere in Against Heresies (I think Adv Haer 1.27.2 from memory). The question then comes down to what Irenaeus meant, did he contradict himself, did he contradict himself because of the controversy over magister - i.e. that he was forced into a corner and changed his mind about how old Jesus was or when exactly he was 'forty nine.'

I think this is the number Irenaeus has in mind. Its origins come from the original date of the crucifixion 21 CE exactly 49 years (7 x 7) before the destruction of the Temple. I think the origin of Irenaeus's innovation is inverting the traditional assumptions about Jesus - i.e. that he was 30 in a forty-ninth year in the sabbatical cycle when crucified now becomes he was forty nine years old during the crucifixion. In other words, a 21 CE crucifixion has been totally transformed by way of Luke's 'fifteenth year of Tiberius' innovation.

[Peter Kirby]

It is important to note that Irenaeus goes so far in Demonstrations to identify Jesus as being crucified under Claudius which would contradict your reading of John 2 if read in conjunction with 'the fifteenth year' of Tiberius in Luke.

Irenaeus wrote,

For when He came to be baptized, He had not yet completed His thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about thirty years of age (for thus Luke, who has mentioned His years, has expressed it: "Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be thirty years old," when He came to receive baptism); and, [according to these men, ] He preached only one year reckoning from His baptism.

...

He did not then wont much of being fifty years old; and, in accordance with that fact, they said to Him, "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?" He did not therefore preach only for one year, nor did He suffer in the twelfth month of the year.

Irenaeus would agree that Jesus was baptized at 30 but would put a lot more years between that and his death. This is why he puts the crucifixion under Claudius.

[stephan happy huller]

Right. I don't believe he brings up Luke's 'fifteenth year' anywhere in the section which is interesting. But assuming that he knew Luke when he wrote this - this is a very important consideration - it would imply that he was 30 in 28/29 and then assumes Jesus was crucified 47/48. Thus John's early mention of "46 years" (presumably in 28/29) doesn't fit i.e. 46 + 19 gives a date of over 50.

[stephan happy huller]

We have to get away from assuming that Irenaeus's opinions were monolithic and unchanging. Assuming (as I do) that he introduced Luke and John and perhaps other canonical texts as we know them, his opinions and statement may have changed over time (i.e. he said one thing and it was written down and then after introducing Luke or John those opinions were no longer valid). For instance in Book Four he assumes that Mark contained the saying "no one knows/knew the Father except the Son."

I don't think that Irenaeus was responsible for the final editing of Adv Haer. Photius mentions 'lectures' of Irenaeus that we available to him in Constantinople in the 10th century. My point is that if you go through these discussion groups you could pull something that any of us wrote and find 'contradictions' in newer statements. I am wondering whether Irenaeus's statements cited here by Joe were written before the introduction of Luke - i.e. before the date of the 'fifteenth of Tiberius' were established. That way, if we assume a date of 21 CE, Irenaeus is saying, he was 30 in 20/21 CE (i.e. the start of his ministry assumed by the heretics to be a one year event) but that he ministered for many more years i.e. 19 ending up crucified 40/41 CE or something like that. The 49 reference year being more closely related to the 'forty ninth sabbatical year' than previously recognized.

[Peter Kirby]

Thus John's early mention of "46 years" (presumably in 28/29)

You seem to be assuming (wrongly) that this episode can't be after the baptism of Jesus.

[stephan happy huller]

But John 2 is at the beginning of the gospel. Surely the gospel was arranged chronologically.

[stephan happy huller]

I think somewhere else Irenaeus references (or maybe even in the same section from memory) Irenaeus references all Jesus's visits to Jerusalem and includes John 2 as the first.

[stephan happy huller]

Adv Haer 2.22.3

But it is greatly to be wondered at, how it has come to pass that, while affirming that they have found out the mysteries of God, they have not examined the Gospels to ascertain how often after His baptism the Lord went up, at the time of the passover, to Jerusalem, in accordance with what was the practice of the Jews from every land, and every year, that they should assemble at this period in Jerusalem, and there celebrate the feast of the passover. First of all, after He had made the water wine at Cana of Galilee, He went up to the festival day of the passover, on which occasion it is written, "For many believed in Him, when they saw the signs which He did,"(8) as John the disciple of the Lord records. Then, again, withdrawing Himself [from Judaea], He is found in Samaria; on which occasion, too, He convened with the Samaritan woman, and while at a distance, cured the son of the centurion by a word, saying, "Go thy way, thy son liveth."(1) Afterwards He went up, the second time, to observe the festival day of the passover(2) in Jerusalem; on which occasion He cured the paralytic man, who had lain beside the pool thirty-eight years, bidding him rise, take up his couch, and depart. Again, withdrawing from thence to the other side of the sea of Tiberias,(3) He there seeing a great crowd had followed Him, fed all that multitude with five loaves of bread, and twelve baskets of fragments remained over and above. Then, when He had raised Lazarus from the dead, and plots were formed against Him by the Pharisees, He withdrew to a city called Ephraim; and from that place, as it is written "He came to Bethany six days before the passover,"(4) and going up from Bethany to Jerusalem, He there ate the passover, and suffered on the day following. Now, that these three occasions of the passover are not included within one year, every person whatever must acknowledge. And that the special month in which the passover was celebrated, and in which also the Lord suffered, was not the twelfth, but the first, those men who boast that they know all things, if they know not this, may learn it from Moses. Their explanation, therefore, both of the year and of the twelfth month has been proved false, and they ought to reject either their explanation or the Gospel; otherwise [this unanswerable question forces itself upon them], How is it possible that the Lord preached for one year only?

4. Being thirty years old when He came to be baptized, and then possessing the full age of a Master,(5) He came to Jerusalem, so that He might be properly acknowledged(6) by all as a Master. For He did not seem one thing while He was another, as those affirm who describe Him as being man only in appearance; but what He was, that He also appeared to be. Being a Master, therefore, He also possessed the age of a Master, not despising or evading any condition of humanity, nor setting aside in Himself that law which He had(7) appointed for the human race, but sanctifying every age, by that period corresponding to it which belonged to Himself. For He came to save all through means of Himself--all, I say, who through Him are born again to God(8)--infants,(9) and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord. So likewise He was an old man for old men, that He might be a perfect Master for all, not merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age, sanctifying at the same time the aged also, and becoming an example to them likewise. Then, at last, He came on to death itself, that He might be "the first-born from the dead, that in all things He might have the pre-eminence,"(10) the Prince of life,(11) existing before all, and going before all.(12)

[stephan happy huller]

The reference clearly assumes that John 2 was Jesus's first visit to Jerusalem during a ministry that lasted for about nineteenth years:

When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16 To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!” 17 His disciples remembered that it is written: “Zeal for your house will consume me.”[c]

18 The Jews then responded to him, “What sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?”

19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”

20 They replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” 21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body. 22 After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.

23 Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Festival, many people saw the signs he was performing and believed in his name (text cited by Irenaeus above). 24 But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all people. 25 He did not need any testimony about mankind, for he knew what was in each person.