Chili

Could be true and is really irrelevant here but he is the one who went to Patmos and his name was John.

JoeWallack

JW:
While the only reference in "John" to Jesus' approximate age seems to be 8:57, "not yet fifty", let's look at what may be missing from "John":

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/John_1

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made.
In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness apprehended it not.
There came a man, sent from God, whose name was John.
The same came for witness, that he might bear witness of the light, that all might believe through him.
He was not the light, but [came] that he might bear witness of the light.
There was the true light, [even the light] which lighteth every man, coming into the world.
He was in the world, and the world was made through him, and the world knew him not.
He came unto his own, and they that were his own received him not.
But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:
who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth.
John beareth witness of him, and crieth, saying, This was he of whom I said, He that cometh after me is become before me: for he was before me.
For of his fulness we all received, and grace for grace.
For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him].
And this is the witness of John, when the Jews sent unto him from Jerusalem priests and Levites to ask him, Who art thou?
And he confessed, and denied not; and he confessed, I am not the Christ.
And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elijah? And he saith, I am not. Art thou the prophet? And he answered, No.
They said therefore unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?
He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said Isaiah the prophet.
And they had been sent from the Pharisees.
And they asked him, and said unto him, Why then baptizest thou, if thou art not the Christ, neither Elijah, neither the prophet?
John answered them, saying, I baptize in water: in the midst of you standeth one whom ye know not,
[even] he that cometh after me, the latchet of whose shoe I am not worthy to unloose.
These things were done in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing.
On the morrow he seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold, the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world!"


JW:
Note that "John" has no Infancy Narrative, like "Matthew" and "Luke" have. While I think that the Virgin Birth stories are second century and may have been added after "John" was written I do think the Infancy Narratives without a Virgin birth were written before "John". Therefore I think that "John" has deliberately omitted any Infancy Narrative and one of the reasons may have been that the Infancy Narratives connect Jesus' birth to 4 BCE - 6 CE and thus a Jesus crucified by Pilate would be thirtyIsh.

Probably the main reason "John" didn't have an Infancy Narrative is because the Birth emphasizes the Flesh and "John" wanted to emphasize the Spirit. A close second is there was no Historical Infancy Narrative.



Joseph

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

JoeWallack

JW:
So what else might "John" have exorcised from the Synoptics in order to support that his Jesus was FiftyIsh?:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Luke_3

1 "Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene,

2 in the highpriesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.

3 And he came into all the region round about the Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance unto remission of sins;"

23 "And Jesus himself, when he began [to teach], was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the [son] of Heli,"


JW:
Note that "Luke" appears to be assigning her Jesus an age of about 30 when he supposedly died. She Explicitly gives an age of about 30 at the start of Jesus' ministry and simply inherits "Mark's" Contrived, one-time, limited, Jews Brothers Mission from God story that instead of a Career, Jesus had a Journey that ended in a year. Thus Luke's Jesus would be around thirty when he died.

Presumably "John" would have been familiar with "Luke" and/or the thirty years old Tradition at the time he wrote and not to use what subsequent Christianity Confesses to us was such a valuable peace of Jesus History indicates that "John" Intentionally did not want any such information which would potentially conflict with his FiftyIsh Jesus.



Joseph

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

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

Chili

Luke would tell you that from the age of accountability Jesus was 30. Add 12 is about 42 and if about 30 is 33 he was 45 when he began to preach and 46 when crucified. But maybe not.

angelo

If there really was an historical Jesus, most modern scholars agree he was about 33 when crucified. And was probably born in 4bc.

JoeWallack

JW:
I haven't seen any polls but I would guess that most Christian Bible scholars would guess that Jesus was born around 4 BCE. As to the Omegone, Christianity has traditionally had a range of 29 - 33 CE with Irenaeus being a huge, huge, exception.

A better question though than what do Christian Bible scholars think about the date of Jesus' supposed birth is what should they think. The Christian Bible has two main sources of direct evidence to date the supposed birth of Jesus, the Infancy narratives of "Matthew" and "Luke". "Matthew" clearly dates Jesus' birth to about 4 BCE while "Luke" clearly dates Jesus' birth to about 6 CE.

Point Doherty! Score, "Luke's" Jesus 30, Historical Jesus Love (one another).



Joseph

"No one can enter Heaven unless he is born again." - "John's" Jesus

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

Chili

There was a historical Jesus but he was the imposter that was identified when Joseph-the-Jew was reborn. Paul knows him: "But if, in seeking to be justified in Christ we are shown to be sinners . . ." (Gal.2:17), Jesus becomes the repenting Joseph now trying to get back into Eden. Until that time, Joseph was the enterprizing Jew, slowly but surely going further West until he found the end of his world and there did a 180 to get his ass out of Purgatory (Galilea they called it). Paul called it "enter the race" and as runner you are given a new name so you can die to it and walk away from it, such as Joseph here who happen to have this cave in his own back yard that he had hewn as if out of rock with his own hands.

So when they called him Jesus they were giving Joseph a new name because Christ was born to him.

Chili

Born from above instead of below. The difference is in completing the race in 42 months instead of 40 years and die nonetheless and that is how 40 years of purgation as Galilean becomes hell on earth.

Luke is written from the 'interior' where age as such is not known until the age of reason begins. He was 46 if John says so because he is the insurrectionist that walked away from it.

JoeWallack

We Are Family

JW:

"Mark"
http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_3

31 "And there come his mother and his brethren; and, standing without, they sent unto him, calling him.

32 And a multitude was sitting about him; and they say unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.

33 And he answereth them, and saith, Who is my mother and my brethren?

34 And looking round on them that sat round about him, he saith, Behold, my mother and my brethren!

35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother."


Textual Criticism

Zul!

http://www.zhubert.com/bible?source=...ef=Mark+3%3A32

"σου καὶ αἱ ἀδελφαι σου A D E F H Γ 180 700 1006 1010 1195c 1216 1230 1242 1243 1253 1344 1646 Byzpt l184 l185 l292 l514 l1761 (l1552) ita itb itc itd itf itff2 itq vgmss syrh(mg) goth slavmss NR CEI Riv"


The Metz

"3.32 σου [καὶ αἱ ἀδελφαί σου] {C}

A majority of the Committee considered it probable that the words καὶ αἱ ἀδελφαί σου were omitted from most witnesses either (a) accidentally through an oversight in transcription (the eye of the scribe passing from σου to σου), or (b) deliberately because neither in ver. 31 nor ver. 34 (nor in the parallel passages) are the sisters mentioned. Had the words been interpolated, the addition would probably have been made already in ver. 31. Nevertheless, in view of the weight of attestation for the shorter text, it was thought best to enclose the disputed words within square brackets.

[The shorter text should be adopted; the longer reading, perhaps of Western origin, crept into the text through mechanical expansion. From a historical point of view, it is extremely unlikely that Jesus’ sisters would have joined in publicly seeking to check him in his ministry. B.M.M.]

{C} {C} The letter {C} indicates that the Committee had difficulty in deciding which variant to place in the text.
Metzger, B. M., & United Bible Societies. 1994. A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition; a companion volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) . United Bible Societies: London; New York"


JW Translation:
"καὶ αἱ ἀδελφαί σου" = "and the sisters of him". A minority of Text have this addition to 3:32. Metzger's committee decided this was original. Metzger gives the minority opinion that it's not.

With Apologies to Nazaroo, Metzger is blissfully unaware of possibly the best category of evidence to consider, the Internal evidence of Chiastic Structure:

31 "And there come his mother and his brethren; and, standing without, they sent unto him, calling him.
[Mother and Brothers Look for Jesus]

-----32 And a multitude was sitting about him; and they say unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren and thy sisters without seek for thee.
-----[Crowd identifies Mother and Brothers and Sisters for Jesus]

----------33 And he answereth them, and saith, Who is my mother and my brethren?
----------[The Pivotal question]

34 And looking round on them that sat round about him, he saith, Behold, my mother and my brethren!
[Jesus Looks at Mother and Brothers]

-----35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother."
-----[Jesus identifies Mother and Brothers and Sisters for Crowd]

Thus the combination of some Textual evidence for "Sisters" and the usefulness in balancing the Chiastic structure make it likely that Sisters is original to 3:32.

Assuming than that "sisters" is original to 3:32 this serves to Limit the age of "Mark's" Jesus at this point in the Narrative as the related implication is that Jesus' sisters have also come along because they still live with their mother.

"John" appears to inherit a Theme of "Mark" that Jesus' own family did not believe him to some extent but in the only traveling Jesus' family story in "John", 7:5, there is no mention of sisters.

So once again "John" appears to have exorcised something from "Mark" that would potentially limit the age of "John's" Jesus.



Joseph

WOMAN, n.

An animal usually living in the vicinity of Man, and having a
rudimentary susceptibility to domestication. It is credited by
many of the elder zoologists with a certain vestigial docility
acquired in a former state of seclusion, but naturalists of the
postsusananthony period, having no knowledge of the seclusion,
deny the virtue and declare that such as creation's dawn beheld,
it roareth now. The species is the most widely distributed of all
beasts of prey, infesting all habitable parts of the globe, from
Greeland's spicy mountains to India's moral strand. The popular
name (wolfman) is incorrect, for the creature is of the cat kind.
The woman is lithe and graceful in its movement, especially the
American variety (felis pugnans), is omnivorous and can be
taught not to talk.

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

Toto

OK - how does the existence or not of Jesus' hypothetical sisters have any bearing on his age?