JoeWallack

JW:
The Objective of this Thread is to try and determine about how old Jesus was when he died according to the Gospel of "John". Personally I consider "John" a Reaction to the original Gospel narrative created by "Mark" and intended mainly to correct "Mark" rather than support it. I encourage Objective truth-seekers here to try and read "John" by itself without being overly influenced by the Sinopticks and pay extra special attention to any unique information provided by "John" that could effect John's Jesus' supposed age.

Probably the best such information in "John" is:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/John_8:57

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

The strong implication here is that Jesus was close to fifty at this point in the narrative. As Roger Pearse often says on these Holy Boards, "Why not just take the man at his Word?". Is there anything in "John" which clearly disputes this strong Implication that Jesus was close to fifty here? While I have cautioned the Wise to try not to use the Synoptics to solve this apparent huge problem for HJ (Mr. Doherty, look out!), Investigators should feel free to use any information within "John" that can be connected to verifiable History.

It's clear that the brave and influential Church Father, Irenaeus, thought that Jesus was an old man when he conquered death by dying and Irenaeus seems to favor "John" over the Sinoptics in general. So why wouldn't Irenaeus think that Jesus was an old man based on "John"? Gentilemen, start your Apologies!

Everyone is welcome to comment except for Harvey Dubish. Welcome back Spin!



Joseph

"Every woman I meet takes me for fifty." - Rodney Dangerfield

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

GakuseiDon

Why is this an "apparent huge problem for HJ"? A problem for inerrantists, perhaps, but why a HJ?

gstafleu

A "natural," to follow Ben, reading of the "not yet 50" remark would in most cases indeed point to an age close to 50. But isn't there a special circumstance here, in that there was a myth current at the time that people had, somehow, seen Abraham once they turned 50 (probbaly indicating a really long life for the times). Or is that myth derived from this passage in John?

Gerard Stafleu

Ben C Smith

I suppose there are worse things to be associated with than the natural reading.

For the record, I agree that the most natural, prima facie reading of this verse is that the author(s) thought Jesus was in his forties at the time; it is possible, but less natural, that the author(s) had some reason (unknown to me) for wishing to make it appear as if the Jews wrongly thought as much, or that the author(s) had some reason for using the number 50 other than as an approximation of actual age (I have not heard of any special connection between Abraham and the age 50, but that would be the sort of thing, if it existed, that would fall into this last possibility).

I happen to suspect for a variety of reasons that the author(s) of the fourth canonical gospel knew our second and third canonical gospels, and possibly our first; I also happen to suspect that the author(s) pointedly corrected some of the information he or they found in those previous gospels. If our author(s) knew of Luke 3.23, then John 8.57 could be a correction of that information. However, it is a far more subtle correction than I would have perhaps expected from this gospel.

For my money, the connection between the birth of Jesus and (A) the end of the reign of Herod the great or (B) the census is suspect to begin with. For all I know, John may be more correct than any of the synoptics; or they may all be wrong. But I am not at all committed to any particular reconstruction as yet.

I would also like to point out that, while Irenaeus has taken a lot of guff over the years for his discussion of the various age cycles of Jesus, his actual argument is not that bad. His reasons for using this argument are, to the modern mind, perhaps a little silly, but the argument itself, from John 8.57, is fairly good, is it not?

Ben.

gstafleu

In 8:57 the "not yet 50" bit is immediately followed by a reference to having seen Abraham. Given that Abraham was dead for a good while (as the "Jews" in the passage vociferously state themselves), we can clearly not take this as "seeing" in a "natural" way. That suggests we may not be able to take this "not yet 50" bit in the natural way either. In other words, in order to understand the whole verse we have to make sense of the "seeing Abraham" bit first.

8:57 looks like a bit of a non-sequitur. Jesus has just told the Jews that (8:51) "if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death." The Jews then say this is pretty snooty, as Abraham and the prophets all died, so does Jesus really think he is better than them? Jesus then answers that it is God, not Jesus himself, who is making him, Jesus, all big and shiny. Plus (8:56) "Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day." In other words, don't shoot the messenger.

I don't get the segue to 8:57. Maybe the not-yet-50 bit is meant to show that Jesus is too young for such big talk, but whence the seeing of Abraham? Or does the author just throw that in so he can have Jesus come back with (8:58) "before Abraham was born, I am"?

Gerard Stafleu

Amaleq13

Either that or his Jewish opponents were simply asking how, since he isn't even fifty, Jesus could possibly have seen Abraham's reaction to anything.

Vivisector

I'm delighted to find myself in rare agreement with Amaleq13. It certainly seems to be the most "natural" reading of the verse in context, at least to the degree that anything in John can be said to have a "natural" reading.

V.

Cege

Early church "father" Ireaneus wrote in his Against Heresies that Jesus was more than 50 years old when Jesus died.

Ireaneus made his argument from the gospel of John.

Chili

xx

James Brown

How old would Jesus have to be in order for them NOT to be surprised that he has seen Abraham's reaction. In his sixties? Seventies?

I tend to agree that this was a setup for Jesus to make his "I AM" line.