Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

davidbrainerd wrote:

rakovsky wrote:Saying "not yet 50" if he is 30 years old sounded silly to me, but that's how it works.

To me it seems perfectly natural. The "You're not yet X so what do you know, whippersnapper?" argument puts your own latest mile marker in X. When I was in my 20s teenagers knew nothing because they hadn't reached 20. In my 30s, 20somethings know nothing because they haven't reached 30. Jesus' opponents were therefore the ones in their 50s.

Good explanation.

Well thanks for that illuminating 'meeting of the minds' here at the forum but clearly Irenaeus takes the passage to confirm that Jesus was the age of a magister and that's all that matters when having this discussion. Irenaeus thinks that Jesus was 49 when crucified. But for the record the Greek reads:

Πεντήκοντα ἔτη οὔπω ἔχεις

The variant in Chrysostom reads τεσσαράκοντα ἔτη οὔπω ἔχεις, adding, “so that Christ was now nearly forty years old.” The point is that you can't simply develop things from translation. The Greek speakers - despite difficulties - took the words as indicative of Jesus's age not those of his opponents. That makes you need to argue from your knowledge of Greek (which I am certain you have none so good luck) why you know better than two Greek speakers what the words mean or should mean.

Secret Alias wrote:Well thanks for that illuminating 'meeting of the minds' here at the forum but clearly Irenaeus takes the passage to confirm that Jesus was the age of a magister and that's all that matters when having this discussion. Irenaeus thinks that Jesus was 49 when crucified.

He does not really believe it. Its throw-away apologetics. Smack down the gnostics with a half-cocked theory you don't really believe, then go back to what you really believe. Like that one place in Adversus Marcionem where Tertullian actually argues against Paul's apostleship for a bit. Or like a Muslim attacking Christianity in youtube comments who at one point will argue Jesus wasn't crucifed but at another point Jesus was a pansy for letting himself be crucified. In throw-away apologetics any argument is great so long as it doesn't confirm the opponent's position. This is why the 'heresiologist' are so hard to follow.

He does not really believe it.

The more I discuss this with you the more I realize you don't know what you are talking about or better yet you project what you think the truth SHOULD BE on to the original sources. Irenaeus definitely believes that Jesus was old - much older than 30 the traditional age of Jesus - when he was crucified. He is apparently introducing a new opinion or one based on a new text which his opponents haven't considered or reject. No question about it. I don't have your problem with understanding what sources are saying when they conflict with my own beliefs. Don't know how I can help you. The text says what it says and you want it to say something else. Good luck again.

How on earth do you get around this statement in Irenaeus:

Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period. But to one who is only thirty years old it would unquestionably be said, "Thou art not yet forty years old."

He really doesn't believe that Jesus was nearly 50? Dazzle me with your brilliance ...

Secret Alias wrote:Well thanks for that illuminating 'meeting of the minds' here at the forum but clearly Irenaeus takes the passage to confirm that Jesus was the age of a magister

Yes, due to the resurrection and continued living in heaven when he appeared as an old man to John.

and that's all that matters when having this discussion. Irenaeus thinks that Jesus was 49 when crucified.

Nope. Check my quotation in the other thread.

But for the record the Greek reads:

Πεντήκοντα ἔτη οὔπω ἔχεις

The variant in Chrysostom reads τεσσαράκοντα ἔτη οὔπω ἔχεις, adding, “so that Christ was now nearly forty years old.”

"Nearly 40" is not 49 or "nearly 50" anyway. Big difference.
So Chrysostom was still not reading verse 57 as "past 40" like you have been reading it.

ALSO: "Chrysostom says elsewhere (xi. 381), 'Christ had not reached old age when He died'". This is also different than how you are reading things.
https://books.google.com/books?id=Q284A ... 9D&f=false

The point is that you can't simply develop things from translation. The Greek speakers - despite difficulties - took the words as indicative of Jesus's age not those of his opponents. That makes you need to argue from your knowledge of Greek (which I am certain you have none so good luck) why you know better than two Greek speakers what the words mean or should mean.

Translation issue is elementary enough.
"Not yet fifty" is not the same as "Nearly fifty", whatever translation one makes.

Regards.

The clues that he doesn't really believe it.

(1) he explicitely states 30 is the age of a master only to then argue that Jesus had to be 50 to be a master. Its a Freudian slip.

(2) he admits its all just theologically driven not historical: His Jesus had to go through every age, at least when he's opposing the gnostics because its the most convenient way to defend the birth.

Or like a Muslim attacking Christianity in youtube comments who at one point will argue Jesus wasn't crucifed but at another point Jesus was a pansy for letting himself be crucified.

I am not sure that I can follow you here either. I don't think you have read any Patristic literature. This is a problem when formulating opinions about ... Patristic literature. I find this to be true with many here at the forum who say that they've read this or that from this or that Patristic source (I doubt you've even opened up the original sources so you are at an even greater disadvantage).

But let's start with those who have bothered to open up a particular page on the internet that has a convenient passage from a Church Father. In order to get the true sense of an author you have to start from the beginning of his book and get a feel for his writing style. As such in this case - again assuming I was debating someone who even bothered to open up a page in Irenaeus rather than a nitwit - Irenaeus is WHOLLY UNLIKE some modern idiot on Youtube railing against another modern idiot.

Irenaeus is a very thorough writer. He labors points almost to distraction with details and detailed citation of sources. He comes across as a lawyer in a sense insofar as he is laying out a very complicated case with plenty of supporting evidence and for some reason he feels the need to provide endless amounts of supporting arguments.

Just correcting one of your many 'impressions' which are misguided, misguided by your lack of intelligence and familiar with the subject matter.

Secret Alias wrote:

He does not really believe it.

The more I discuss this with you the more I realize you don't know what you are talking about or better yet you project what you think the truth SHOULD BE on to the original sources. Irenaeus definitely believes that Jesus was old - much older than 30 the traditional age of Jesus - when he was crucified. He is apparently introducing a new opinion or one based on a new text which his opponents haven't considered or reject. No question about it.

Nope. He says in the passage about Jesus' age that he got his information about Jesus' age from the Gospels.

Irenaeus and the Four Gospels

Irenaeus writes in Adversus Haereses:

The Gospels could not possibly be either more or less in number than they are. Since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is spread over all the earth, and the pillar and foundation of the Church is the gospel, and the Spirit of life, it fittingly has four pillars, everywhere breathing out incorruption and revivifying men. From this it is clear that the Word, the artificer of all things, being manifested to men gave us the gospel, fourfold in form but held together by one Spirit. As David said, when asking for his coming, 'O sitter upon the cherubim, show yourself '. For the cherubim have four faces, and their faces are images of the activity of the Son of God. For the first living creature, it says, was like a lion, signifying his active and princely and royal character; the second was like an ox, showing his sacrificial and priestly order; the third had the face of a man, indicating very clearly his coming in human guise; and the fourth was like a flying eagle, making plain the giving of the Spirit who broods over the Church.

http://www.ntcanon.org/Irenaeus.shtml

I highly encourage you to very carefully read what I posted in the other thread, and do so with full openness and consideration to what I was saying, instead of reading Irenaeus to be in conflict with the "four gospels" as to Jesus' age and time of birth.

Yes, due to the resurrection and continued living in heaven when he appeared as an old man to John.

You realize that I have cited Irenaeus in order to make my case for my understanding of his writings and you haven't. That's sort of a sign that you aren't paying attention to the source material and replacing evidence with your own opinion. As fascinating as your speculation might be ... I really don't give a flying whatever about your opinions nor should I when we are having a discussion about Irenaeus and you haven't proved yourself to be an authoritative interpreter of Irenaeus. Humor me with proofs for your opinion ESPECIALLY WHEN discussing ancient writers like Irenaeus. No I don't think that Irenaeus believed anything of the sort you are suggesting here about the resurrection or John. But then again I like to follow ACTUAL EVIDENCE to develop my conclusions. Sort of puts me at a handicap when following your arguments and beliefs ...