Boro Nut

It's English Jim, but not as we know it.

Boro Nut

JoeWallack

JW:
Interested in Sisters are we Toto.



Joseph

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

Toto

Just trying to figure out what you are saying. I see that you are assuming that the sisters would have been married off around the age of 13 and would have gone to live with the inlaws and no longer be part of the Joseph household. So if they were still living at home, Jesus could not have been close to fifty, assuming that he was the oldest child and that Mary continued to have children following the pattern of third world peasants.

On the other hand, if Jesus were 30, even a 12 year old sister would have been born 18 years after his birth, which seems a little improbable. Would you see this as a Markan oversight?

This is ignoring other possibilities. In a small village, while the sisters might have gone to live in their husband's households, they might live close enough to their mother to be recruited to pursue the crazy brother acting up again.

Of the whole thing may just be symbolic of The Family.

JoeWallack

JW:
Continuing the consideration of about how old Jesus was when he died according to "John" let's consider the Passovers. "Mark" gives a compact narrative with one Passover so presumably his Jesus, the greatest Teacher of all time, had a teaching career of less than one year. How, ahem, Ironic. "Matthew" and "Luke" follow "Mark's" career path of less than a year. "John" however has 3, yes, that's right, 3 Passovers for his Jesus:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/John_2:23

"Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, during the feast, many believed on his name, beholding his signs which he did."

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/John_6:4

Now the passover, the feast of the Jews, was at hand.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/John_12:1

"Jesus therefore six days before the passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, whom Jesus raised from the dead."

JW:
So it would appear that "John's" Jesus was at least two years older than "Mark's" when he died. "John" does look like a Reaction here to "Mark" with the thought being that a less than one year Ministry would simply not be enough to write about all the swell deeds of Jesus that someone else said someone else witnessed.

Subsequent Christianity ultimately gave Jesus' Tonyear.



Joseph

Tenure. The basic reward system of our entire Teaching system whereby the best and most promising teachers are treated as if they retired except they still receive their monthly paycheck.

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

neilgodfrey

Yet another topic that I've been blogging about throughout my absence from iidb --

I wrote up notes from Loisy's discussion of the age of Jesus in John's gospel and have copied the key section below. The fuller discussion was part of my post on Loisy on The Gospel of John, which was a spinoff from my tediously detailed review of Bauckham's book. But here's the section on Loisy's take on John's age for Jesus . . . .
Neil Godfrey

http://vridar.wordpress.com

Minimalist

They can't seem to agree on WHEN he was born. They can't seem to agree on WHEN he died. Now they can't seem to agree on how old he was at death.

At some point the proponents of an argument should be required to present some facts at a minimum, wouldn't you say?

neilgodfrey

And the Loisy argument in the previous post strongly suggests that the details of Jesus' life, in this case his age, are the outcome of a theological agenda, not a scrounging around for "the facts". And also to serve the agenda of finding a justification for the johnny-come-lately gospel.

JoeWallack

JW:
Brown points out that at this supposed time in "John" the Temple would have been about 46 years old. Since this is a clear reason to use "46 years" at this point in "John" I don't think the evidence is good enough as "John" stands to claim that 2:20 is evidence of the age of John's Jesus.

My guess though is that the original Source did intend this reference to be support for the age of his Jesus. "John" looks to have had an original Gnostic source that "John" bent into supposed history just as "Matthew" and "Luke" did with "Mark". "Mark" and "John's" source were both original compositions, not based on history, but on the authors' imaginations and that is why they are such good literature. This is why the Gnostics favored "Mark" and "John". In addition to the supposed Daniel support the Greek letters for "Adam" add up to 46. The Gnostics must have loved that! Irenaeus didn't use 2:20 to support the age of his Jesus because that was a Gnostic argument.



Joseph

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

neilgodfrey

This is the common explanation, but as Loisy observes, the author of the gospel clearly says that this is also the explanation of the Pharisees and it is wrong. The number is as mystical as every other number in the gospel of John: the 6 waterpots, the wedding on the 3rd day, the 12 baskets, the 153 fish (from the same johannine school even if not part of the original text) -- not that the numbers being mystical is in any way distinct from other verbal images throughout John being mystical. Brown's explanation jars with the entire mystical architecture of the gospel.

Further, compare the likelihood of a late first century or early second century anti-semitic and mystical author and his audience knowing the details of the time the temple had been in building and finding the magical 46 years in a prophecy of the Messiah in Daniel.

JoeWallack

JW:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/John_2

18 "The Jews therefore answered and said unto him, What sign showest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?

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."

Per "John" "The Jews" mistake is thinking that when Jesus said "temple" he was referring to Herod's Temple. Did Loisy mean that because "John" only corrected the Temple reference and not the 46 years there is an implication that the 46 years did refer to Jesus? This is possible, and I've already guessed that the Source made it clearer that Jesus was 46 here. But as it stands I don't think the implication by silence is strong enough to make it likely.



Joseph

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