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

[arnoldo]

Memory was faulty. There is a reference to Luke in the material:

1. 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. Moreover, they affirm that He suffered in the twelfth month, so that He continued to preach for one year after His baptism; and they endeavour to establish this point out of the prophet (for it is written, "To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of retribution" Isaiah 61:2), being truly blind, inasmuch as they affirm they have found out the mysteries of Bythus, yet not understanding that which is called by Isaiah the acceptable year of the Lord, nor the day of retribution. For the prophet neither speaks concerning a day which includes the space of twelve hours, nor of a year the length of which is twelve months. For even they themselves acknowledge that the prophets have very often expressed themselves in parables and allegories, and [are] not [to be understood] according to the mere sound of the words.

2. That, then, was called the day of retribution on which the Lord will render to every one according to his works— that is, the judgment. The acceptable year of the Lord, again, is this present time, in which those who believe Him are called by Him, and become acceptable to God— that is, the whole time from His advent onwards to the consummation [of all things], during which He acquires to Himself as fruits [of the scheme of mercy] those who are saved. For, according to the phraseology of the prophet, the day of retribution follows the [acceptable] year; and the prophet will be proved guilty of falsehood if the Lord preached only for a year, and if he speaks of it. For where is the day of retribution? For the year has passed, and the day of retribution has not yet come; but He still "makes His sun to rise upon the good and upon the evil, and sends rain upon the just and unjust." Matthew 5:45 And the righteous suffer persecution, are afflicted, and are slain, while sinners are possessed of abundance, and "drink with the sound of the harp and psaltery, but do not regard the works of the Lord." Isaiah 5:12 But, according to the language [used by the prophet], they ought to be combined, and the day of retribution to follow the [acceptable] year. For the words are, "to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of retribution." This present time, therefore, in which men are called and saved by the Lord, is properly understood to be denoted by "the acceptable year of the Lord;" and there follows on this "the day of retribution," that is, the judgment. And the time thus referred to is not called "a year" only, but is also named "a day" both by the prophet and by Paul, of whom the apostle, calling to mind the Scripture, says in the Epistle addressed to the Romans, "As it is written, for your sake we are killed all the day long, we are counted as sheep for the slaughter." Romans 8:36 But here the expression "all the day long" is put for all this time during which we suffer persecution, and are killed as sheep. As then this day does not signify one which consists of twelve hours, but the whole time during which believers in Christ suffer and are put to death for His sake, so also the year there mentioned does not denote one which consists of twelve months, but the whole time of faith during which men hear and believe the preaching of the Gospel, and those become acceptable to God who unite themselves to Him.

Irenaeus could've also ponted out that the "day of retribution" hadn't occurred yet, contrary to what the Valentians claimed, since Luke writes that Jesus omitted reading that phrase of Isaiah 61.

Luke 4

And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.

And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,

To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.

And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=KJV

The "day of retribution" would've been in the next phrase in Isaiah 61.

Isaiah 61


61 The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;

2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance of our God. .

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=KJV

Justin Martyr also seems to concur that this particular day has not occurred yet during the first advent of Christ.

O Trypho," said I, "some have reference to the first advent of Christ, in which He is preached as inglorious, obscure, and of mortal appearance: but others had reference to His second advent, when He shall appear in glory and above the clouds; and your nation shall see and know Him whom they have pierced, as Hosea, one of the twelve prophets, and Daniel, foretold.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... rypho.html

[JoeWallack]

JW:
I think Peter will find this interesting even if it is a somewhat nebulous association between aged Jesus, "John" and Papias, but as that great 20th, 21st, and 19th century philosopher Doc said, "I just figured, whatthehell!".

From the site of Ben Smith (perhaps the best scholarship of any Christian who has ever graced FRDB):

Philip of Side

Papias in the second volume says that John the theologian and James his brother were done away with by Jews. The aforesaid Papias reported as having received it from the daughters of Philip that Barsabas who is Justus, tested by the unbelievers, drank the venom of a viper in the name of the Christ and was protected unharmed. He also reports other wonders and especially that about the mother of Manaemus, her resurrection from the dead. Concerning those resurrected by Christ from the dead, that they lived until Hadrian.

My interest here is the latter, as Raymond Brown would say, "fantastic", claim:

"Concerning those resurrected by Christ from the dead, that they lived until Hadrian"

Christian apologists assume that PoS (Philip of Side) is mistaken here about Hadrian since Hadrian reigned 117-138:

Hadrian

and Apologists hate to arrive late for the Last Supper. Sadly, the aforementioned Smith lowers himself from the lofty standards of this Forum and goes with the Apologist spew, ur, flow. The related Apologist thinking is that if PoS is quoting Papias' "they lived until Hadrian" this sounds like Papias wrote after Hadrian (138) (MM and aa look out!) and this just can not be because it is dating evidence which goes against their dating conclusion. It's possible though that PoS is not quoting Papias here, just summarizing that Papias indicated they lived until Hadrian (117).

Apologists have traditionally taken the offending verses of Papias above primarily as evidence of the fantastic but I believe (speculation) that Papias' primary motivation was to provide supposed historical witness to Jesus. In the offending verse:

"Concerning those resurrected by Christ from the dead, that they lived until Hadrian"

I have faith that Papias' emphasis here is not the supposed miracle of an extended life due to being resurrected by Jesus but the value of supposed historical witness to being resurrected that was close to Papias."

The nebulous associations here supporting that per "John" Jesus was fiftyish:

• 1) Patristics associate Papias with "John".
  
  2) Papias wrote that people resurrected by Jesus lived until Hadrian (117).
  
  3) Mathematically, if someone was 20 when they were resurrected and lived until 90, if they died c 120 than they were resurrected c 50.

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.

ErrancyWiki

[stephan happy huller]

Irenaeus could've also ponted out that the "day of retribution" hadn't occurred yet, contrary to what the Valentians claimed, since Luke writes that Jesus omitted reading that phrase of Isaiah 61.

Actually Arnoldo you just solved the problem. He DOES mention the day of retribution even though it doesn't appear in Luke. You have in fact solved the next layer in the argument. He isn't citing Luke at all. He is thinking Isaiah throughout. Thank you. Sometimes your adversary brings up an argument which decides the contest in your favor. Read what follows and see you have added another argument in favor of my proposition:

Moreover, they affirm that He suffered in the twelfth month, so that He continued to preach for one year after His baptism; and they endeavour to establish this point out of the prophet (for it is written, "To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of retribution"(4)), being truly blind, inasmuch as they affirm they have found out the mysteries of Bythus, yet not understanding that which is called by Isaiah the acceptable year of the Lord, nor the day of retribution. For the prophet neither speaks concerning a day which includes the space of twelve hours, nor of a year the length of which is twelve months. For even they themselves acknowledge that the prophets have very often expressed themselves in parables and allegories, and [are] not [to be understood] according to the mere sound of the words.

2. That, then, was called the day of retribution on which the Lord will render to every one according to his works--that is, the judgment. The acceptable year of the Lord, again, is this present time, in which those who believe Him are called by Him, and become acceptable to God--that is, the whole time from His advent onwards to the consummation [of all things], during which He acquires to Himself as fruits [of the scheme of mercy] those who are saved. For, according to the phraseology of the prophet, the day of retribution follows the [acceptable] year; and the prophet will be proved guilty of falsehood if the Lord preached only for a year, and if he speaks of it. For where is the day of retribution? For the year has passed, and the day of retribution has not yet come; but He still "makes His sun to rise upon the good and upon the evil, and sends rain upon the just and unjust."(5) And the righteous suffer persecution, are afflicted, and are slain, while sinners are possessed of abundance, and "drink with the sound of the harp and psaltery, but do not regard the works of the Lord."(6) But, according to the language [used by the prophet], they ought to be combined, and the day of retribution to follow the [acceptable] year. For the words are, "to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of retribution." This present time, therefore, in which men are called and saved by the Lord, is properly understood to be denoted by "the acceptable year of the Lord;" and there follows on this "the day of retribution," that is, the judgment. And the time thus referred to is not called "a year" only, but is also named "a day" both by the prophet and by Paul, of whom the apostle, calling to mind the Scripture, says in the Epistle addressed to the Romans, "As it is written, for thy sake we are killed all the day long, we are counted as sheep for the slaughter."(7) But here the expression "all the day long" is put for all this time during which we suffer persecution, and are killed as sheep. As then this day does not signify one which consists of twelve hours, but the whole time during which believers in Christ suffer and are put to death for His sake, so also the year there mentioned does not denote one which consists of twelve months, but the whole time of faith during which men hear and believe the preaching of the Gospel, and those become acceptable to God who unite themselves to Him.

In other words, the heretics don't have Isa 61:2 in their gospel, Luke doesn't have 'the day of retribution' but 'the year of favor' but most importantly when Irenaeus was writing this HE DIDN'T HAVE THE GOSPEL OF LUKE. It doesn't figure at all in the debate. The reference to Luke, added to a paraphrase of what the heretics say, was clearly now added later either by another hand or by Irenaeus when he was polishing up his original argument with the aid of this 'new text' Luke.

[stephan happy huller]

Indeed we already know what the gospel of the heretics looked like - for I have long argued that Clement of Alexandria and his tradition in Irenaeus's sights. Earlier he mentions the title of the Stromata implicitly and now we see echoes of Clement's position i.e.:

The three hundred and sixty bells suspended from the robe are the space of a year, 'the acceptable year of the Lord proclaiming and sounding the magnificent epiphany of the Savior.(Stromata V 37.4)

And again in a passage which reflects his connection with the heretical followers of Mark condemned by Irenaeus a generation earlier:

And again in the same book: "And Jesus was coming to His baptism, being about thirty years old," and so on. And that it was necessary for Him to preach only a year, this also is written: "He hath sent Me to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord." This both the prophet spake, and the Gospel. Accordingly, in fifteen years of Tiberius and fifteen years of Augustus; so were completed the thirty years till the time He suffered. (Strom 1:21)

or again elsewhere:

and thirty, or as in some, twelve, they say points out the preaching [of the Gospel]; because the Lord preached in His thirtieth year; and the apostles were twelve.(Strom 6:4)

"He hath sent Me to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord" is what was found in the heretical gospel. It was different from what was written in Isaiah. Irenaeus when he edited Luke made the passage into an exact citation of Isaiah leaving off the second part (because it wasn't there in the original heretical gospel - i.e. he was limited by the original form of the text. So Luke, the Catholic counterfeit of the original (Marcionite) gospel now like transforms the context (= a reading in a synagogue) and transforms the passing allusion to Isaiah into an explicit reading (ha, ha, ha, ha):

Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:

18 “The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”[f]

20 Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down.

But the key thing again is that when this reworked argument now found in Irenaeus Adv Haer 2 was written, i.e. when Irenaeus fights the heretical interpretation of the reading from the original gospel - i.e. "He hath sent Me to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord" - he has to labor bring in Isaiah 61 because it wasn't there in the original gospel text. Luke hasn't been created yet.

[arnoldo]

The following passage is where Irenaeus cites the 30 aeons which allegedly led the Valentians to their conclusions of the age of Christ.

Chapter XI.-The Opinions of Valentinus, with Those of His Disciples and Others.
Let us now look at the inconsistent opinions of those heretics (for there are some two or three of them), how they do not agree in treating the same points, but alike, in things and names, set forth opinions mutually discordant. The first of them, Valentinus, who adapted the principles of the heresy called "Gnostic" to the peculiar character of his own school, taught as follows: He maintained that there is a certain Dyad (twofold being), who is inexpressible by any name, of whom one part should be called Arrhetus (unspeakable), and the other Sige (silence). But of this Dyad a second was produced, one part of whom he names Pater, and the other Aletheia. From this Tetrad, again, arose Logos and Zoe, Anthropos and Ecclesia. These constitute the primary Ogdoad. He next states that from Logos and Zoe ten powers were produced, as we have before mentioned. But from Anthropos and Ecclesia proceeded twelve, one of which separating from the rest, and falling from its original condition, produced the rest of the universe.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... book1.html

However, doing the math, if Sophia was the aeon whose seperation caused both the existence of the universe and the demiuge, that would leave a remainder of 29 aeons. Perhaps the Valentians believed that Christ was the 30th aeon who was created after Sophia fell?

[andrewcriddle]

JW:
I think Peter will find this interesting even if it is a somewhat nebulous association between aged Jesus, "John" and Papias, but as that great 20th, 21st, and 19th century philosopher Doc said, "I just figured, whatthehell!".

From the site of Ben Smith (perhaps the best scholarship of any Christian who has ever graced FRDB):

Philip of Side

Papias in the second volume says that John the theologian and James his brother were done away with by Jews. The aforesaid Papias reported as having received it from the daughters of Philip that Barsabas who is Justus, tested by the unbelievers, drank the venom of a viper in the name of the Christ and was protected unharmed. He also reports other wonders and especially that about the mother of Manaemus, her resurrection from the dead. Concerning those resurrected by Christ from the dead, that they lived until Hadrian.

My interest here is the latter, as Raymond Brown would say, "fantastic", claim:

"Concerning those resurrected by Christ from the dead, that they lived until Hadrian"

Christian apologists assume that PoS (Philip of Side) is mistaken here about Hadrian since Hadrian reigned 117-138:

Hadrian

and Apologists hate to arrive late for the Last Supper. Sadly, the aforementioned Smith lowers himself from the lofty standards of this Forum and goes with the Apologist spew, ur, flow. The related Apologist thinking is that if PoS is quoting Papias' "they lived until Hadrian" this sounds like Papias wrote after Hadrian (138) (MM and aa look out!) and this just can not be because it is dating evidence which goes against their dating conclusion. It's possible though that PoS is not quoting Papias here, just summarizing that Papias indicated they lived until Hadrian (117).

Apologists have traditionally taken the offending verses of Papias above primarily as evidence of the fantastic but I believe (speculation) that Papias' primary motivation was to provide supposed historical witness to Jesus. In the offending verse:

"Concerning those resurrected by Christ from the dead, that they lived until Hadrian"

I have faith that Papias' emphasis here is not the supposed miracle of an extended life due to being resurrected by Jesus but the value of supposed historical witness to being resurrected that was close to Papias."

The nebulous associations here supporting that per "John" Jesus was fiftyish:

• 1) Patristics associate Papias with "John".
  
  2) Papias wrote that people resurrected by Jesus lived until Hadrian (117).
  
  3) Mathematically, if someone was 20 when they were resurrected and lived until 90, if they died c 120 than they were resurrected c 50.

Joseph

I think it is likely that Philip of Side is conflating two claims:
a/Papias wrote during the time of Hadrian
b/ Papias claimed that those resurrected by Jesus lived even to our day i.e. were still supposedly around when Papias was young.

Compare Quadratus

But the works of our Saviour were always present, for they were genuine:-those that were healed, and those that were raised from the dead, who were seen not only when they were healed and when they were raised, but were also always present; and not merely while the Saviour was on earth, but also after his death, they were alive for quite a while, so that some of them lived even to our day

Andrew Criddle

[JoeWallack]

JW:
Our own Roger Pearse has done it again, fearlessly creating an English translation of:

Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentary on the Nicene Creed

Theodore of Mopsuestia

Theodore the Interpreter (ca. 350 – 428) was bishop of Mopsuestia (as Theodore II) from 392 to 428 AD. He is also known as Theodore of Antioch, from the place of his birth and presbyterate. He is the best known representative of the middle School of Antioch of hermeneutics.

TM's (Theodore of Mopsuestia) writing here presents a number of problems for orthodox Christian assertians including the subject of this Thread = According To "John" About How Old Was Jesus When He Died?

I previously mentioned in this Right Said Thread that The Young Wolf has a fine related article on the issue of Jesus' issue here:

Taking Irenaeus Seriously

and talks mainly of the unholy Patristrinity of Papias/Ireanaeus of Lyons (yes, "Lyons")/Victorinus

we can now add TM to this list:

Chapter 5
...
Who for us children of men and for our salvation came down from heaven: what is His coming down and what is its aim? And what did [man] do that He humbled Himself to such an extent for him as to become like him, and to take upon Him the form of a servant, and to be a man for our salvation, and to make Himself manifest to all, and to assume upon Himself all that which belonged to the nature of that man, and to be exercised in all (human) faculties?
...
Chapter 6
...
And He who was assumed for our salvation bore upon Himself all things affecting mankind, and became worthy of perfection and a source of benefits for us through our communion with Him. |67
...
As a man He was born of a woman according to the law of nature, and although this happened to Him in a novel way, in the sense that He alone, to the exclusion of the rest of mankind, was fashioned in the womb by the Holy Spirit without any marital intercourse, yet all that which He did for us He did according to the law of our nature, so that He grew little by little, reached full age and performed also carefully the requirements of the law.
...
And as after He was born of a woman He increased little by little according to the law of humanity, and grew up fully,174 and was under the law and acted according to it, so also in the life of the Gospel He became an example as man to man.

JW:
TM has a theme that Gnostics have been mislead by the supposed brevity of Jesus' supposed life described in the earlier Gospels which leads them to think that this supports their position that Jesus only had an appearance of flesh which did not change. TM relies mainly on GJohn to argue that Jesus really had a much longer career. Everything that TM says in this commentary is consistent with a belief that Jesus was 50ish when he died/stopped living.

Related dates then:

• Irenaeus = c. 180
  
  Victorinus = c. 290
  
  Theodore = c. 380

The related question is, how significant was the Patristic belief that Jesus was 50ish when he died for this time period (200-400)?

And as always, for HJ, what parallel ancient is there who's witness is split between whether he was a young man or an old man when he died? (Point AJ -Agnostic Jesus).



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.

ErrancyWiki

[Secret Alias]

Interesting. But it would be nice to see the original Greek.

[outhouse]

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

YEC interpret much the same way.


How can you logically conclude not being 50, is close to 50, without perverting context ??????????????????????

[Secret Alias]

But Irenaeus does say that. There's no question about the fact that it had some traction. The question now is how much.