Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JoeWallack · 09-02-2011, 03:24 PM

"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":

Quote:

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?

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

2) Irenaues 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.

Quote:

2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

2:20 The Jews therefore said, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou raise it up in three days?

2:21 But he spake of the temple of his body.

2:22 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.

In reviewing Ehrman's Forged, which I highly recommend, Ehrman points out that The Report of Pilate to the Emperor Claudius indicates that Jesus died under Claudius:

Quote:

Pontius Pilate unto Claudius, greeting.

There befell of late a matter which I myself brought to light (or, made trial of): for the Jews through envy have punished themselves and their posterity with fearful judgements of their own fault; for whereas their fathers had promises (al. had announced unto them) that their God would send them out of heaven his holy one who should of right be called their king, and did promise that he would send him upon earth by a virgin; he then (or this God of the Hebrews, then) came when I was governor of Judea, and they beheld him enlightening the blind, cleansing lepers, healing the palsied, driving devils out of men, raising the dead, rebuking the winds, walking upon the waves of the sea dry-shod, and doing many other wonders, and all the people of the Jews calling him the Son of God: the chief priests therefore, moved with envy against him, took him and delivered him unto me and brought against him one false accusation after another, saying that he was a sorcerer and did things contrary to law.

But I, believing that these things were so, having scourged him, delivered him unto their will: and they crucified him, and when he was buried they set guards upon him. But while my soldiers watched him he rose again on the third day: yet so much was the malice of the Jews kindled that they gave money to the soldiers, saying: Say ye that his disciples stole away his body. But they, though they took the money, were not able to keep silence concerning that which had come to pass, for they also have testified that they saw him arisen and that they received money from the Jews. And these things have I reported (unto thy mightiness) for this cause, lest some other should lie unto thee (Lat. lest any lie otherwise) and though shouldest deem right to believe the false tales of the Jews.

So again, we have external support for Jesus dying under Claudius which is evidence that he was old when he died. As I previously mentioned, the Legendary Dr. Carrier will be mentioning in his upcoming book on Jehistory, other evidence supporting an old, rather than young Jesus.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Iskander · 09-02-2011, 04:36 PM

The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible by Robin Lane Fox (Paperback - 6 Jul 2006) says that Jesus must have been in his late forties when he died.

aa5874 · 09-02-2011, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

...So again, we have external support for Jesus dying under Claudius which is evidence that he was old when he died....

Well, it was NOT the author of gJohn who claimed Jesus was about 50 fifty years old. It was a writer called "Irenaeus" in "Against Heresies".

But, what is most startling is that this writer seem NOT to know when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea even though he was AWARE of Luke 3 where it is claimed Jesus was about 30 years old in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius.

"The Proof of Apostolic Preaching" attributed to Irenaeus

Quote:

.....For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar, 206 came together and condemned Him to be crucified....

The "Proof of Apostolic Preaching" and "Against Heresies" have OPENED a can of worms.

In "Against Heresies" it would appear that Irenaeus was AWARE of Justin Martyr and the writings of Josephus based on Fragments attributed to him.

If "Antiquities of the Jews" 18.3.3 was original and AUTHENTIC then it should have been known by Irenaeus and the HERETICS that Jesus SUFFERED during the governorship of Pilate when TIBERIUS was Emperor.

In fact, in "Against Heresies" HERETICS were arguing that Jesus was about 30 years old when he suffered.

If Irenaeus was AWARE of the writings of Justin Martyr then HE should have known that Jesus suffered under Pilate when Tiberius was Emperor.

"First Apology"

Quote:

..... Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ..... and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judaea, in the times of Tiberius Caesar...

1. Heretics argued that Jesus about 30 years old.

2. Justin Martyr claimed Jesus was crucified under Pilate when Tiberius was Emperor.

3. "Antiquities of the Jews" 18.3.3 states that Jesus was crucified under Pilate when Tiberius was Emperor.

So, how is it even possible that "Irenaeus" could have made such a BLATANT mistake?

Now, Irenaeus claimed John did preach that Jesus was about 50 years old but upon examination of gJohn the claim is UTTERLY false.

In gJohn Jesus was crucified when

1.Pontius Pilate was Governor. John 19.6

2. Caiaphas was High Priest. John 18.13

Caiaphas was High Priest from 18-36 CE.

Pilate was governor until 37 CE.

In "Against Heresies" Irenaeus claims that Jesus was about 30 years old in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius.

The 15th year of the reign of Tiberius is about 29-30 CE.

In gJohn, Jesus could have only suffered no later than 36 CE or when Jesus was about 36 years old.

How could "Irenaeus" argue that Jesus was about 50 years old, appear not to know when Pilate was Governor and even FALSELY claimed the author of gJohn also confirmed his assertion?

We have before us what appears to be fraudulent writings, wholly or in part, both "Against Heresies" and the "Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching".

maryhelena · 09-03-2011, 04:04 AM

What are the options when dealing with gJohn 8:57 and its ‘not yet fifty years old’?

1) Take the not yet 50 years in gJohn literally, ie it’s JC figure is assumed to be historical and really was about that age when crucified.
2) Take the numerology approach - which Neil Godfrey did in the earlier thread; a theological agenda is in play. Indicating not history, not a historical JC, but a figurative or symbolic JC figure. gJohn being known for it’s interest in numerology.
3) Take an approach in which history, symbolism, allegory and numerology play a part i.e. the JC story is a mixed bag - so we should not be confining ourselves to either a specific time slot or just one particular interpretation.

Since all four gospels place the crucifixion of the gospel JC under Pilate - Pilate is a big deal. However, since we have to rely upon Josephus, a prophetic historian, for dating Pilate - we should not be surprised to find that the Josephan dating of Pilate is ambiguous.

(Daniel Schwartz: Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk) Pontius Pilate's appointment to office. )

Working from an earlier dating for Pilate, 19 c.e. and a crucifixion dated to the 7th year of Tiberius, in 21 c.e., the gJohn not year 50 years would put the date of the birth of the gJohn JC around 25 b.c. - the 15th year of Herod the Great. (the time slot of Slavonic Josephus) (Eusebius: Church History, Book 1. Chapter IX.—The Times of Pilate.) For convenience I’ll repost my earlier chart:

The developing JC storyboard.

Slavonic Josephus	gJohn	gMark	gMatthew	gLuke
Birth narrative around the 15th year of Herod the Great, 25 b.c.	-	-	No specific dating for JC birth narrative during the rule of Herod the Great. 40 b.c. to 4 b.c.	-
John the Baptizer and Herod Archelaus.(4 b.c. to 6 c.e) “And when he had been brought to Archelaus and the doctors of the Law had assembled, they asked him who he is and where he has been until then.”	Now this was John’s testimony when the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was.	King Herod (Archelaus 4 b.c. to 6 c.e.) The divorce of Archelaus and his marriage to his late brother’s wife, Glaphyra. (story later changed to Antipas and Herodias)	-	-
-	-	-	-	JC and JtB birth narratives in 6 c.e.
Wonder-doer crucified under Pilate. Pilate can be dated to 19 c.e. Eusebius mention of crucifixion in the 7th year of Tiberius, 21 c.e	JC, “not yet fifty. Wonder-doer is around 46/47 years old in 21 c.e. Crucified under Pilate	Crucified under Pilate	-	-
-	-	-	Herod the Tetrarch (Antipas 4.b.c. to 37 c.e.). The divorce of Antipas and his marriage to his brother’s wife, Herodias.	Baptism in the 15th year of Tiberius. 29/30 c.e. JC about 30 years old.
-	-	-	Crucified under Pilate - can be any date up until the last date given for Pilate 36 c.e.	Crucified under Pilate, about 30 c.e. – with a 1 year ministry. Or, in 36 c.e. if JC only 24 years old in the 15th year of Tiberius - and 30 years old in 36 c.e.

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....59#post6859259

If one wants to use the last dating for Pilate, 36 c.e. then the birth date for the gJohn JC would be 49 years earlier, in 13 b.c. Both these birth dates, 25 b.c. and 13 b.c. do not conflict with gMatthew, i.e. no indication in gMatthew when, during the rule of Herod the Great, it’s JC was born.
It is only gLuke that has upset the applecart with his 6.c.e. for the birth birth date for his JC, ie after the rule of Herod the Great.

As to the question of a JC crucifixion under Pilate in the reign of Claudius - 41 – 54 c.e. - the simple explanation would be that 19 years have been added on to gLuke’s about 30 years in the 15th year of Tiberius - arriving at 49 c.e. (within the rule of Claudius.) In other words; an attempt to move beyond gLuke's around 30 years in the 15th year of Tiberius. (rather than taking the option with gJohn of working backwards not forwards...)

But perhaps things are not so simple!

1) There was no historical gospel JC
2) The gospel JC stories that we have are contradictory.
3) The Toledoth Yeshu, Epiphanius, Slavonic Josephus, Infancy Gospel of James, Acts of Pilate, Eusebuis, The Report of Pilate to the Emperor Claudius, present problems that the conventional gospel JC story cannot resolve.
4) Melito of Sardis: From the apology addressed to Marcus Aurelius Antoninus. (d.160 c.e.) For the philosophy current with us flourished in the first instance among barbarians; and, when it afterwards sprang up among the nations under thy rule, during the distinguished reign of thy ancestor Augustus, it proved to be a blessing of most happy omen to thy empire.
5) Tertullian: Ad Nationes. (160-20 c.e.)This name of ours took its rise in the reign of Augustus; under Tiberius it was taught with all clearness and publicity; under Nero it was ruthlessly condemned.

Putting aside all the symbolism, allegory and numerology - we are left with history. What was the relevant history that inspired the gospel writers to place their JC story within a specific time frame?

1) Antigonus, the last King and High Priest of the Jews. Bound to a cross, crucified, flogged and beheaded by Marc Anthony in 37 b.c. Grandfather was Alexander Jannaeus - 103 – 76 b.c. If Antigonus was not yet 50 years old when he was executed - he would have been born around 86 b.c. (pretty close to the ahistorical story in the Toledoth Yeshu, dated to 90 b.c...)
2) Philip the Tetrarch, a ruler who lived, and died, around the time of the gospel timestamp of Pilate. 33/34 c.e. A man of peace as contrasted with Antigonus as a man of war.
3) Agrippa I. The Josephan man of the moment, ie Josephus has applied prophetic interpretations to Agrippa I. Agrippa I died in 44/45 c.e. Within the time of Claudius.

History repeats itself, nothing new under the sun. A historical crucifixion in 37 b.c., a symbolic retelling in 21 c.e, another in 30/33 c.e., or 36 c.e. - and echoes of another during the time of Pilate and the rule of Claudius. A continual repeating of the historical tape, a rewinding that picks up new historical figures, insights, as it brings the storyline up-to-date.

(If, as I think is the case, Philip the Tetrarch became Agrippa I - and leaving aside Josephus to his storytelling re Philip - Philip would have been a very old man when he died - far and away beyond those not yet 50 years of gJohn....)

Mix all this history up - interpret it though a messianic lens; add symbolism, allegory, numerology - and what you get is the gospel JC pseudo-historical, figurative, symbolic, mythological, story.
----------------------------
As for Pilate - was he historical? The Pilate Stone seems to indicate that he was - and in the rule of Tiberius. However, if that is so, it does not mean that he ruled from 19 c.e. to the end of the rule of Claudius in 54 c.e. All it means is that whatever are the number of years that Pilate was in office in Judea - that the gospel writers have simply been replaying the historical tape. If their JC crucifixion story is shifted from 21 c.e. to 30/33 or 36 c.e. - then Pilate has to move along with the story. As to Claudius and Pilate - another move along for the story - or perhaps Pilate came back for a second time in office - procurator this time instead of prefect. It’s only the assumption of a historical gospel JC that rules this out. Ditch that assumption and all the odds and ends of the JC story can be used to identify the bigger historical picture.

aa5874 · 09-03-2011, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

What are the options when dealing with gJohn 8:57 and its ‘not yet fifty years old’?

1) Take the not yet 50 years in gJohn literally, ie it’s JC figure is assumed to be historical and really was about that age when crucified.
2) Take the numerology approach - which Neil Godfrey did in the earlier thread; a theological agenda is in play. Indicating not history, not a historical JC, but a figurative or symbolic JC figure. gJohn being known for it’s interest in numerology.
3) Take an approach in which history, symbolism, allegory and numerology play a part i.e. the JC story is a mixed bag - so we should not be confining ourselves to either a specific time slot or just one particular interpretation.

Since all four gospels place the crucifixion of the gospel JC under Pilate - Pilate is a big deal. However, since we have to rely upon Josephus, a prophetic historian, for dating Pilate - we should not be surprised to find that the Josephan dating of Pilate is ambiguous.

(Daniel Schwartz: Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk) Pontius Pilate's appointment to office. )

Working from an earlier dating for Pilate, 19 c.e. and a crucifixion dated to the 7th year of Tiberius, in 21 c.e., the gJohn not year 50 years would put the date of the birth of the gJohn JC around 25 b.c. - the 15th year of Herod the Great. (the time slot of Slavonic Josephus) (Eusebius: Church History, Book 1. Chapter IX.—The Times of Pilate.) For convenience I’ll repost my earlier chart:

The developing JC storyboard.

Slavonic Josephus	gJohn	gMark	gMatthew	gLuke
Birth narrative around the 15th year of Herod the Great, 25 b.c.	-	-	No specific dating for JC birth narrative during the rule of Herod the Great. 40 b.c. to 4 b.c.	-
John the Baptizer and Herod Archelaus.(4 b.c. to 6 c.e) “And when he had been brought to Archelaus and the doctors of the Law had assembled, they asked him who he is and where he has been until then.”	Now this was John’s testimony when the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was.	King Herod (Archelaus 4 b.c. to 6 c.e.) The divorce of Archelaus and his marriage to his late brother’s wife, Glaphyra. (story later changed to Antipas and Herodias)	-	-
-	-	-	-	JC and JtB birth narratives in 6 c.e.
Wonder-doer crucified under Pilate. Pilate can be dated to 19 c.e. Eusebius mention of crucifixion in the 7th year of Tiberius, 21 c.e	JC, “not yet fifty. Wonder-doer is around 46/47 years old in 21 c.e. Crucified under Pilate	Crucified under Pilate	-	-
-	-	-	Herod the Tetrarch (Antipas 4.b.c. to 37 c.e.). The divorce of Antipas and his marriage to his brother’s wife, Herodias.	Baptism in the 15th year of Tiberius. 29/30 c.e. JC about 30 years old.
-	-	-	Crucified under Pilate - can be any date up until the last date given for Pilate 36 c.e.	Crucified under Pilate, about 30 c.e. – with a 1 year ministry. Or, in 36 c.e. if JC only 24 years old in the 15th year of Tiberius - and 30 years old in 36 c.e.

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....59#post6859259

If one wants to use the last dating for Pilate, 36 c.e. then the birth date for the gJohn JC would be 49 years earlier, in 13 b.c. Both these birth dates, 25 b.c. and 13 b.c. do not conflict with gMatthew, i.e. no indication in gMatthew when, during the rule of Herod the Great, it’s JC was born.
It is only gLuke that has upset the applecart with his 6.c.e. for the birth birth date for his JC, ie after the rule of Herod the Great.

As to the question of a JC crucifixion under Pilate in the reign of Claudius - 41 – 54 c.e. - the simple explanation would be that 19 years have been added on to gLuke’s about 30 years in the 15th year of Tiberius - arriving at 49 c.e. (within the rule of Claudius.) In other words; an attempt to move beyond gLuke's around 30 years in the 15th year of Tiberius. (rather than taking the option with gJohn of working backwards not forwards...)

But perhaps things are not so simple!

1) There was no historical gospel JC
2) The gospel JC stories that we have are contradictory.
3) The Toledoth Yeshu, Epiphanius, Slavonic Josephus, Infancy Gospel of James, Acts of Pilate, Eusebuis, The Report of Pilate to the Emperor Claudius, present problems that the conventional gospel JC story cannot resolve.
4) Melito of Sardis: From the apology addressed to Marcus Aurelius Antoninus. (d.160 c.e.) For the philosophy current with us flourished in the first instance among barbarians; and, when it afterwards sprang up among the nations under thy rule, during the distinguished reign of thy ancestor Augustus, it proved to be a blessing of most happy omen to thy empire.
5) Tertullian: Ad Nationes. (160-20 c.e.)This name of ours took its rise in the reign of Augustus; under Tiberius it was taught with all clearness and publicity; under Nero it was ruthlessly condemned.

Putting aside all the symbolism, allegory and numerology - we are left with history. What was the relevant history that inspired the gospel writers to place their JC story within a specific time frame?

1) Antigonus, the last King and High Priest of the Jews. Bound to a cross, crucified, flogged and beheaded by Marc Anthony in 37 b.c. Grandfather was Alexander Jannaeus - 103 – 76 b.c. If Antigonus was not yet 50 years old when he was executed - he would have been born around 86 b.c. (pretty close to the ahistorical story in the Toledoth Yeshu, dated to 90 b.c...)
2) Philip the Tetrarch, a ruler who lived, and died, around the time of the gospel timestamp of Pilate. 33/34 c.e. A man of peace as contrasted with Antigonus as a man of war.
3) Agrippa I. The Josephan man of the moment, ie Josephus has applied prophetic interpretations to Agrippa I. Agrippa I died in 44/45 c.e. Within the time of Claudius.

History repeats itself, nothing new under the sun. A historical crucifixion in 37 b.c., a symbolic retelling in 21 c.e, another in 30/33 c.e., or 36 c.e. - and echoes of another during the time of Pilate and the rule of Claudius. A continual repeating of the historical tape, a rewinding that picks up new historical figures, insights, as it brings the storyline up-to-date.

(If, as I think is the case, Philip the Tetrarch became Agrippa I - and leaving aside Josephus to his storytelling re Philip - Philip would have been a very old man when he died - far and away beyond those not yet 50 years of gJohn....)

Mix all this history up - interpret it though a messianic lens; add symbolism, allegory, numerology - and what you get is the gospel JC pseudo-historical, figurative, symbolic, mythological, story.
----------------------------
As for Pilate - was he historical? The Pilate Stone seems to indicate that he was - and in the rule of Tiberius. However, if that is so, it does not mean that he ruled from 19 c.e. to the end of the rule of Claudius in 54 c.e. All it means is that whatever are the number of years that Pilate was in office in Judea - that the gospel writers have simply been replaying the historical tape. If their JC crucifixion story is shifted from 21 c.e. to 30/33 or 36 c.e. - then Pilate has to move along with the story. As to Claudius and Pilate - another move along for the story - or perhaps Pilate came back for a second time in office - procurator this time instead of prefect. It’s only the assumption of a historical gospel JC that rules this out. Ditch that assumption and all the odds and ends of the JC story can be used to identify the bigger historical picture.

Your post is TOTAL confusion.

The facts are that in gJohn Jesus, the Word that was God and the Creator, was crucified when Pilate was governor and Caiaphas was High Priest.

And from the writings of Philo it is stated the Pilate was a Governor of Judea under Tiberius.

Philo's "On Embassy to Gaius"XXXVIII

Quote:

.... Pilate was one of the emperor's lieutenants, having been appointed governor of Judaea.

He, not more with the object of doing honour to Tiberius than with that of vexing the multitude, dedicated some gilt shields in the palace of Herod, in the holy city....

maryhelena · 09-03-2011, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

What are the options when dealing with gJohn 8:57 and its ‘not yet fifty years old’?

1) Take the not yet 50 years in gJohn literally, ie it’s JC figure is assumed to be historical and really was about that age when crucified.
2) Take the numerology approach - which Neil Godfrey did in the earlier thread; a theological agenda is in play. Indicating not history, not a historical JC, but a figurative or symbolic JC figure. gJohn being known for it’s interest in numerology.
3) Take an approach in which history, symbolism, allegory and numerology play a part i.e. the JC story is a mixed bag - so we should not be confining ourselves to either a specific time slot or just one particular interpretation.

Since all four gospels place the crucifixion of the gospel JC under Pilate - Pilate is a big deal. However, since we have to rely upon Josephus, a prophetic historian, for dating Pilate - we should not be surprised to find that the Josephan dating of Pilate is ambiguous.

(Daniel Schwartz: Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk) Pontius Pilate's appointment to office. )

Working from an earlier dating for Pilate, 19 c.e. and a crucifixion dated to the 7th year of Tiberius, in 21 c.e., the gJohn not year 50 years would put the date of the birth of the gJohn JC around 25 b.c. - the 15th year of Herod the Great. (the time slot of Slavonic Josephus) (Eusebius: Church History, Book 1. Chapter IX.—The Times of Pilate.) For convenience I’ll repost my earlier chart:

The developing JC storyboard.

Slavonic Josephus	gJohn	gMark	gMatthew	gLuke
Birth narrative around the 15th year of Herod the Great, 25 b.c.	-	-	No specific dating for JC birth narrative during the rule of Herod the Great. 40 b.c. to 4 b.c.	-
John the Baptizer and Herod Archelaus.(4 b.c. to 6 c.e) “And when he had been brought to Archelaus and the doctors of the Law had assembled, they asked him who he is and where he has been until then.”	Now this was John’s testimony when the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was.	King Herod (Archelaus 4 b.c. to 6 c.e.) The divorce of Archelaus and his marriage to his late brother’s wife, Glaphyra. (story later changed to Antipas and Herodias)	-	-
-	-	-	-	JC and JtB birth narratives in 6 c.e.
Wonder-doer crucified under Pilate. Pilate can be dated to 19 c.e. Eusebius mention of crucifixion in the 7th year of Tiberius, 21 c.e	JC, “not yet fifty. Wonder-doer is around 46/47 years old in 21 c.e. Crucified under Pilate	Crucified under Pilate	-	-
-	-	-	Herod the Tetrarch (Antipas 4.b.c. to 37 c.e.). The divorce of Antipas and his marriage to his brother’s wife, Herodias.	Baptism in the 15th year of Tiberius. 29/30 c.e. JC about 30 years old.
-	-	-	Crucified under Pilate - can be any date up until the last date given for Pilate 36 c.e.	Crucified under Pilate, about 30 c.e. – with a 1 year ministry. Or, in 36 c.e. if JC only 24 years old in the 15th year of Tiberius - and 30 years old in 36 c.e.

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....59#post6859259

If one wants to use the last dating for Pilate, 36 c.e. then the birth date for the gJohn JC would be 49 years earlier, in 13 b.c. Both these birth dates, 25 b.c. and 13 b.c. do not conflict with gMatthew, i.e. no indication in gMatthew when, during the rule of Herod the Great, it’s JC was born.
It is only gLuke that has upset the applecart with his 6.c.e. for the birth birth date for his JC, ie after the rule of Herod the Great.

As to the question of a JC crucifixion under Pilate in the reign of Claudius - 41 – 54 c.e. - the simple explanation would be that 19 years have been added on to gLuke’s about 30 years in the 15th year of Tiberius - arriving at 49 c.e. (within the rule of Claudius.) In other words; an attempt to move beyond gLuke's around 30 years in the 15th year of Tiberius. (rather than taking the option with gJohn of working backwards not forwards...)

But perhaps things are not so simple!

1) There was no historical gospel JC
2) The gospel JC stories that we have are contradictory.
3) The Toledoth Yeshu, Epiphanius, Slavonic Josephus, Infancy Gospel of James, Acts of Pilate, Eusebuis, The Report of Pilate to the Emperor Claudius, present problems that the conventional gospel JC story cannot resolve.
4) Melito of Sardis: From the apology addressed to Marcus Aurelius Antoninus. (d.160 c.e.) For the philosophy current with us flourished in the first instance among barbarians; and, when it afterwards sprang up among the nations under thy rule, during the distinguished reign of thy ancestor Augustus, it proved to be a blessing of most happy omen to thy empire.
5) Tertullian: Ad Nationes. (160-20 c.e.)This name of ours took its rise in the reign of Augustus; under Tiberius it was taught with all clearness and publicity; under Nero it was ruthlessly condemned.

Putting aside all the symbolism, allegory and numerology - we are left with history. What was the relevant history that inspired the gospel writers to place their JC story within a specific time frame?

1) Antigonus, the last King and High Priest of the Jews. Bound to a cross, crucified, flogged and beheaded by Marc Anthony in 37 b.c. Grandfather was Alexander Jannaeus - 103 – 76 b.c. If Antigonus was not yet 50 years old when he was executed - he would have been born around 86 b.c. (pretty close to the ahistorical story in the Toledoth Yeshu, dated to 90 b.c...)
2) Philip the Tetrarch, a ruler who lived, and died, around the time of the gospel timestamp of Pilate. 33/34 c.e. A man of peace as contrasted with Antigonus as a man of war.
3) Agrippa I. The Josephan man of the moment, ie Josephus has applied prophetic interpretations to Agrippa I. Agrippa I died in 44/45 c.e. Within the time of Claudius.

History repeats itself, nothing new under the sun. A historical crucifixion in 37 b.c., a symbolic retelling in 21 c.e, another in 30/33 c.e., or 36 c.e. - and echoes of another during the time of Pilate and the rule of Claudius. A continual repeating of the historical tape, a rewinding that picks up new historical figures, insights, as it brings the storyline up-to-date.

(If, as I think is the case, Philip the Tetrarch became Agrippa I - and leaving aside Josephus to his storytelling re Philip - Philip would have been a very old man when he died - far and away beyond those not yet 50 years of gJohn....)

Mix all this history up - interpret it though a messianic lens; add symbolism, allegory, numerology - and what you get is the gospel JC pseudo-historical, figurative, symbolic, mythological, story.
----------------------------
As for Pilate - was he historical? The Pilate Stone seems to indicate that he was - and in the rule of Tiberius. However, if that is so, it does not mean that he ruled from 19 c.e. to the end of the rule of Claudius in 54 c.e. All it means is that whatever are the number of years that Pilate was in office in Judea - that the gospel writers have simply been replaying the historical tape. If their JC crucifixion story is shifted from 21 c.e. to 30/33 or 36 c.e. - then Pilate has to move along with the story. As to Claudius and Pilate - another move along for the story - or perhaps Pilate came back for a second time in office - procurator this time instead of prefect. It’s only the assumption of a historical gospel JC that rules this out. Ditch that assumption and all the odds and ends of the JC story can be used to identify the bigger historical picture.

Your post is TOTAL confusion.

The facts are that in gJohn Jesus, the Word that was God and the Creator, was crucified when Pilate was governor and Caiaphas was High Priest.

And from the writings of Philo it is stated the Pilate was a Governor of Judea under Tiberius.

Philo's "On Embassy to Gaius"XXXVIII

Quote:

.... Pilate was one of the emperor's lieutenants, having been appointed governor of Judaea.

He, not more with the object of doing honour to Tiberius than with that of vexing the multitude, dedicated some gilt shields in the palace of Herod, in the holy city....

Your post has not dealt with the issues raised in the OP.

Check out the OP......re gJohn 8:57.
Check out the reference in the OP re Irenaeus.
Check out the OP re the quote from Pontius Pilate to Claudius.

aa5874 · 09-03-2011, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Your post has not dealt with the issues raised in the OP.

Check out the OP......re gJohn 8:57.
Check out the reference in the OP re Irenaeus.
Check out the OP re the quote from Pontius Pilate to Claudius.

You don't know what you are talking about.

I have dealt with the OP with respect to Irenaeus and gJohn.

Check out gJohn 18 and 19 which I have ALREADY dealt with.

John 18

Quote:

12Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him, 13and led him away to Annas first; for he was father-in-law to Cai'aphas, which was the high priest that same year.

John 19:6 -

Quote:

When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him....

So the timeline for the crucifixion of the Johanine Jesus is when Caiaphas was high priest and Pilate was governor.

Caiaphas was high priest up to 36 CE and Pilate was governor up to 37 CE.

gJohn does NOT support the claim that Jesus was crucified during the reign of Claudius.

Please check out "Against Heresies" 2.22, Irenaeus claimed Jesus was about 30 years when he came to be baptized based on gLuke.

"Against Heresies" 2.22

Quote:

.....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...

"Irenaeus" in "Against Heresies" LOCKS the birth of Jesus to about 1 BCE OR 1 CE.

Once Irenaeus claimed Jesus was NOT yet 30 years old in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius as found in gLuke then NT Jesus could NOT have been about 50 years old NOR crucified under Claudius since Jesus was crucified when Caiaphas was high priest and Pilate was governor.

1. Caiaphas was high priest up to 36 CE.

2. Pilate was governor up to 37 CE.

3. 29-30 CE is the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius.

4. Irenaeus claimed Jesus was NOT yet 30 years old when he was baptized in gLuke.

5. Jesus was NOT yet 30 years old at around 29-30 CE.

6. Jesus of gJohn was crucified when Caiaphas was high priest and Pilate was governor.

7. Jesus of gJohn was CRUCIFIED no later than 36 CE.

8. Jesus of "Against Heresies" was BORN 1 BCE -1CE.

9. Jesus of gJohn was no more than 36-37 years old when he was crucified.

10. Claudius was Emperor 41-54 CE.

11. Jesus of gJohn was NOT crucified under Claudius based on the EXTANT written evidence of antiquity.

12. Jesus of gJohn was NOT about 50 years old based on the EXTANT written evidence from antiquity.

maryhelena · 09-03-2011, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Your post has not dealt with the issues raised in the OP.

Check out the OP......re gJohn 8:57.
Check out the reference in the OP re Irenaeus.
Check out the OP re the quote from Pontius Pilate to Claudius.

You don't know what you are talking about.

I have dealt with the OP with respect to Irenaeus and gJohn.

Check out gJohn 18 and 19 which I have ALREADY dealt with.

John 18

Quote:

12Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him, 13and led him away to Annas first; for he was father-in-law to Cai'aphas, which was the high priest that same year.

John 19:6 -

Quote:

When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him....

So the timeline for the crucifixion of the Johanine Jesus is when Caiaphas was high priest and Pilate was governor.

Caiaphas was high priest up to 36 CE and Pilate was governor up to 37 CE.

gJohn does NOT support the claim that Jesus was crucified during the reign of Claudius.

Please check out "Against Heresies" 2.22, Irenaeus claimed Jesus was about 30 years when he came to be baptized based on gLuke.

"Against Heresies" 2.22

Quote:

.....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...

"Irenaeus" in "Against Heresies" LOCKS the birth of Jesus to about 1 BCE OR 1 CE.

Once Irenaeus claimed Jesus was NOT yet 30 years old in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius as found in gLuke then NT Jesus could NOT have been about 50 years old NOR crucified under Claudius since Jesus was crucified when Caiaphas was high priest and Pilate was governor.

1. Caiaphas was high priest up to 36 CE.

2. Pilate was governor up to 37 CE.

3. 29-30 CE is the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius.

4. Irenaeus claimed Jesus was NOT yet 30 years old when he was baptized in gLuke.

5. Jesus was NOT yet 30 years old at around 29-30 CE.

6. Jesus of gJohn was crucified when Caiaphas was high priest and Pilate was governor.

7. Jesus of gJohn was CRUCIFIED no later than 36 CE.

8. Jesus of "Against Heresies" was BORN 1 BCE -1CE.

9. Jesus of gJohn was no more than 36-37 years old when he was crucified.

10. Claudius was Emperor 41-54 CE.

11. Jesus of gJohn was NOT crucified under Claudius based on the EXTANT written evidence of antiquity.

12. Jesus of gJohn was NOT about 50 years old based on the EXTANT written evidence from antiquity.

aa5874 - if you are going to be using gLuke in order to interpret, to understand, gJohn 8:57, then I'm really not interested in debating this issue you. i.e. discarding gJohn 8:57 because of what gLuke has to say.....

Quote:

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

There is no historical gospel JC - as you so often make mention. Consequently, there is no need to attempt to reconcile the contradictions between gJohn and gLuke.

The not yet 50 year old statement is in gJohn - it is as much a part of the gJohn storyline as anything else in that story. And yes, this not yet 50 year old JC in gJohn works much better with the crucifixion story set in 21 c.e. than it does with the crucifixion story in gLuke. (the 7th year of Tiberius as mentioned by Eusebuis - and it's JC would have a birth narrative around the 15th year of Herod the Great, 25 b.c., as in Slavonic Josephus).

With the Claudius and Pilate story - perhaps Irenaeus had this story in mind as well as gLuke - and was attempting to work out some solution. Well, at least he made any effort rather than simply dismissing gJohn's not yet 50 years for his JC.

For dating Pilate and dating Joseph Caiaphas we are having to reply upon the prophetic historian, Josephus. On Pilate, Josephus is ambigious - was Pilate really in office in Judea for something like 17 years - or only part of that time? And, with the move from a 21 c.e. crucifixion story to gLuke's 30 or 36 c.e. crucifixion story - dating Pilate had to become ambiguous in order to make this move possible. (and Josephus obliged....)

Whatever the idea behind the Pilate and Claudius material - Irenaeus wanted to move forward from gLuke's JC being about 30 years old in the 15th year of Tiberius. Irenaeus chose not to go backwards to the 21 c.e. crucifixion story. The question is why - what was it about the time of Claudius that was of interest...

aa5874 · 09-03-2011, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

...aa5874 - if you are going to be using gLuke in order to interpret, to understand, gJohn 8:57, then I'm really not interested in debating this issue you. i.e. discarding gJohn 8:57 because of what gLuke has to say.....

What!!!! You USED gLuke, gMatthew and gMark.

Can't you even see your own post?

Now, It was Irenaeus who claimed Jesus Christ was about 50 years old and USED gLuke and gJohn in his argument.

"Against Heresies" 2.22

Quote:

.....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, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years,(1) and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information....

The author of gJohn did NOT claim Jesus was about 50 years old. It was Irenaeus who made the ridiculous argument.

The NT Jesus was NOT YET 50, he was no older than 36-37 based on the EXTANT written evidence in the very sources which Irenaeus PRESENTED.

John 8.57

Quote:

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

A character who is claimed to be NOT yet 30 in the 15th year of Tiberius and was crucified when Pilate was governor up to 37 CE and Caiaphas was high priest, up to 36 CE, was NOT yet 50 years old when he suffered.

Iskander · 09-03-2011, 05:44 PM

Lane Fox says that John the Baptist was imprisoned by Herod Antipas, ruler of Galilee, because John had criticized the marriage of Antipas to Herodias, his sister-in-law. It was after the imprisonment of John that Jesus’ ministry began.

He dates the marriage of Antipas to Herodias to 33/34 and this means that Jesus began to teach early 34. The fourth gospel mentions three Passovers during Jesus’ ministry, on the third of which Jesus was arrested. Jesus, Lane Fox concludes, was crucified on Friday, 30 March AD 36 .

How old was he at the time? Lane Fox asks.

Lane Fox says that Jesus was probably born between the years 14 and 10 BC. We are left with an uncertain birth-date, Lane Fox says.

View Poll Results: How old was Jesus when he died according to "John"?
About 50 years	6	33.33%
About 30 years	4	22.22%
About 3,801 years, 11 months, 26 days, 6 hours, 6 minutes and 6 seconds	0	0%
About 15 billion years	2	11.11%
Don't know	1	5.56%
Whatever age spin says	3	16.67%
Almost as old as JW's jokes	2	11.11%
Voters: 18. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-02-2011, 04:36 PM	#2
Iskander Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 3,619	The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible by Robin Lane Fox (Paperback - 6 Jul 2006) says that Jesus must have been in his late forties when he died.

09-03-2011, 05:44 PM	#10
Iskander Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 3,619	Lane Fox says that John the Baptist was imprisoned by Herod Antipas, ruler of Galilee, because John had criticized the marriage of Antipas to Herodias, his sister-in-law. It was after the imprisonment of John that Jesus’ ministry began. He dates the marriage of Antipas to Herodias to 33/34 and this means that Jesus began to teach early 34. The fourth gospel mentions three Passovers during Jesus’ ministry, on the third of which Jesus was arrested. Jesus, Lane Fox concludes, was crucified on Friday, 30 March AD 36 . How old was he at the time? Lane Fox asks. Lane Fox says that Jesus was probably born between the years 14 and 10 BC. We are left with an uncertain birth-date, Lane Fox says.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.