Irenaeus on the date of the Crucifixion

[andrewcriddle]

Irenaeus says

For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar, came together and condemned Him [Jesus] to be crucified.

Given the further claim of Irenaeus that Jesus lived to well over 40 years old this would appear to be what Irenaeus genuinely believed and not a copyist's error.

I'm suggesting a possible explanation for the idea that Jesus died in the reign of Claudius. There is an early tradition that the apostles only went out from Jerusalem to preach the Gospel 12 years after the death of Jesus. (Apollonius according to Eusebius Preaching of Peter according to Clement of Alexandria etc). This implies that they went out from Jerusalem early in the reign of Claudius. However Irenaeus uses Acts to argue that the apostles were sent out on the Day of Pentecost following the crucifixion. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103301.htm

For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God.

Irenaeus may be trying to combine the idea of the apostles being sent out at the beginning of the reign of Claudius with the idea of the apostles being sent out on the Day of Pentecost.

Andrew Criddle

[JoeWallack]

Irenaeus says

For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar, came together and condemned Him [Jesus] to be crucified.

Given the further claim of Irenaeus that Jesus lived to well over 40 years old this would appear to be what Irenaeus genuinely believed and not a copyist's error.

I'm suggesting a possible explanation for the idea that Jesus died in the reign of Claudius. There is an early tradition that the apostles only went out from Jerusalem to preach the Gospel 12 years after the death of Jesus. (Apollonius according to Eusebius Preaching of Peter according to Clement of Alexandria etc). This implies that they went out from Jerusalem early in the reign of Claudius. However Irenaeus uses Acts to argue that the apostles were sent out on the Day of Pentecost following the crucifixion. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103301.htm

For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God.

Irenaeus may be trying to combine the idea of the apostles being sent out at the beginning of the reign of Claudius with the idea of the apostles being sent out on the Day of Pentecost.

Andrew Criddle

JW:
"John" did not have the respect for the Synoptics that you do. As has already been demonstrated here, according to GJohn Jesus was fiftyish when he died. Irenaeus, as an orthodox Christian, favored GJohn over the Synoptics as it was the most orthodox of the Gospels and completed their conversion from revelation/Gnostic to supposed historical/orthodox. GJohn did not give a supposed historical beginning to its Jesus so Irenaeus was free to use the Synoptic dating of start of first century. Add fiftyish years and you get to Claudius. Not complicated. The evidence for "John's" Jesus being fiftyish:

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

JW:
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 thirtyish 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.

9) Early Patristic commentary supports Irenaeus:

• Victorinus = c. 290
  
  Theodore = c. 380

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.

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

Taking Irenaeus Seriously

There's no reason from GJohn to think that Jesus was thirtyish when he died. The only reason to think so is from the Synoptics.

Skeptics should understand that GJohn was not written to supplement the Synoptics, it was written to attempt to correct them.
This is an important piece of information in evaluating supposed historicity of the Synoptics and GJohn. GJohn does not help confirm
historicity of the Synoptics, it does the opposite.



Joseph

Church Tradition, N,V = A mysterious entity which unlike Jesus who apparently was only able to incarnate once, can be repeatedly incarnated at the whim of an Apologist as solid, contemporary, undisputed evidence maintained by a credible institution in order to support Christian assertion but can just as easily be dissincarnated as evidence which is only the opinion of man/men and not Gospel, when it goes against Christian assertion.

Skeptical Textual Criticism

[Charles Wilson]

John 2: 19 - 21 (RSV):

[19] Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."
[20] The Jews then said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?"
[21] But he spoke of the temple of his body.

Note for record keeping purposes:
9 CE + ( - 46 years) = (- 37) => 37 BCE => Death of Antigonus, last of the Hasmonean Rulers.

The 9 CE Marker is 12 years after the Temple Slaughter of 4 BCE (with Bilgah and Immer on Duty), 2 Complete Mishmarot Cycles. This 9 CE Passover finds Bilgah and Immer on Duty for a "Duplicate Passover and Feast" where Jairus has given a Priest one more "Call to Glory" to eliminate the Herodians and Romans.

Roman Transvaluation at its finest...

CW

PS: Where's maryhelena when you need her?

[Secret Alias]

Irenaeus AH 2.21 on the number of Passovers in John.

[maryhelena]

Skeptics should understand that GJohn was not written to supplement the Synoptics, it was written to attempt to correct them.
This is an important piece of information in evaluating supposed historicity of the Synoptics and GJohn. GJohn does not help confirm
historicity of the Synoptics, it does the opposite.

I'm not so sure about GJohn being written to correct the Synoptics.
Perhaps the writer of GJohn had more up his sleeve then attempting to make his Jesus figure 'not yet fifty'.

The number 49 is not 'yet fifty. Once a 7 x 7 number is in play one is not dealing with the age of some man. One is dealing with an OT time frame. A time frame that has multiple variations. 7 x 10, 7 x 70, 7 x 62 and also a simple 7 years.

All the writer of GJohn is doing is indicating that the Jesus story - whether it is his version or a synoptic version - is dealing with specific time frames. i.e. the Jesus story is, as it were, encased within very specific time frames. Ancient interpreters of GJohn, attempting to place their historical JC crucifixion in the time of Claudius, have simply made a choice between, to them, contradictory gospel stories.

Whether GJohn is an early or a late gospel does not change the fundamental JC storyline. The context is Pilate and Tiberius not Claudius. If GJohn is early then that writer has simply set out the framework for the JC story - variations on a theme of the number 7. If GJohn is late then the writer is simply confirming what can be observed in GLuke's gospel. For instance:

If the gospel crucifixion story is set in 30 c.e. then it's 70 years back to 40 b.c. when the Hasmonean Antigonus began to rule in Jerusalem.

If the gospel crucifixion story is set in 33 ce. then it's 70 years back to 37 b.c. when Herod laid siege to Jerusalem and had Antigonus executed in Antioch by Marc Antony.

If the gospel crucifixion story is set in 36/37 c.e. then it closes, as it were, a 7 year time frame from 30 c.e. (That date is of course very significant for Hasmonean history being 100 years from 63 b.c. and the siege of Jerusalem by Pompey - hence Roman occupation of Judaea.)

All these dates are not optional or moving dates for a historical JC crucifixion. They are dates that relate to historical events in Hasmonean history. Dates that indicate that the gospel JC story is a political allegory and not the story of some unknown wandering preacher guy.

[Secret Alias]

I'm not so sure about GJohn being written to correct the Synoptics.

That's nice. It's pretty much taken for granted by research today. Nice to ignore everything you have to say after making a stupid statement like that.

[Charles Wilson]

All these dates are not optional or moving dates for a historical JC crucifixion. They are dates that relate to historical events in Hasmonean history. Dates that indicate that the gospel JC story is a political allegory and not the story of some unknown wandering preacher guy.

That's why we're paying you the Big Bucks, mh.

Wish we hadn't gotten off on the wrong foot...

[maryhelena]

All these dates are not optional or moving dates for a historical JC crucifixion. They are dates that relate to historical events in Hasmonean history. Dates that indicate that the gospel JC story is a political allegory and not the story of some unknown wandering preacher guy.

That's why we're paying you the Big Bucks, mh.

Wish we hadn't gotten off on the wrong foot...

Sometimes I think the source of early christian origins is, as it were, staring us in the face - we just refuse to acknowledge it's rather bloody history. That history is not about some nice guy wandering around and telling fanciful stories that beguile his followers and upset those in positions of authority - resulting in him hanging on a cross. A simple story but a story that could be told of many a man. People die for hare-brained ideas. Ideas enslave as much as they liberate - that's the story of human intellectual evolution.

It is the context of the gospel story that is relevant - not the story itself. The story is only the vehicle created to delivery the history of early christian origins. In other words - the story is an allegory. Primarily an allegory of Hasmonean history. It's that history that contains the seeds, the historical origin, of early christian history.

[TedM]

Here are a few thoughts I have that may or may not be relevant about GJohn and Jesus' age:

1. His ministry in GJohn doesn't seem to span very many years. If he was almost 50, the ministry would have begun when he was in his mid 40s.

2. His brothers travelled with him. Would that be more or less likely if they were in their 40s than if they were in their 20s?

3. <<They were saying, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?>> If someone is almost 50, referring to somoene in this way seems less likely than if he were younger since by age 50 a person would be recognized by his own accomplishments moreso than who his parents are.

4.<<Making a whip of cords, he drove all of them out of the temple, both the sheep and the cattle. He also poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables>> This is an action more likely to be performed by a younger man.

[Giuseppe]

My 2 cents to explain why John (= Catholic corruption of the marcionite proto-John) has so much interest to insist that Jesus was 50 years old and not 30 years old:

. I have shown that the number thirty fails them in every respect; too few Æons, as they represent them, being at one time found within the Pleroma, and then again too many [to correspond with that number]. There are not, therefore, thirty Æons, nor did the Saviour come to be baptized when He was thirty years old, for this reason, that He might show forth the thirty silent Æons of their system, otherwise they must first of all separate and eject [the Saviour] Himself from the Pleroma of all.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103222.htm