aa5874

I find that interpretation erroneus. Irenaeus discusses how long Jesus lived not John, and it is irrelevant how long John lived. I mean, if Jesus died in the days of Pontius Pilate what sense does it make to say John was alive during the days of Trajan?

It is obvious to me that Irenaeus refers to a character named Jesus and that the passage deals with the refutation of Jesus having been a 'master' for only 12 months.

Not at all. I consider Jesus to be totally fictional, as described in the NT or any reference to such a character.

I am only pointing out that there is confusion about Jesus even in the 2nd century.

Ben C Smith

The relevant text is:

...sicut evangelium και παντες οι πρεσβυτεροι μαρτυρουσιν, οι κατα την Ασιαν Ιωαννη τω του κυριου μαθητη συμβεβληκοτες, παραδεδωκεναι τον Ιωαννην. παρεμεινεν γαρ αυτοις μεχρι των Τραιανου χρονων. quidam autem eorum non solum Ioannem, sed et alios apostolos viderunt, et haec eadem ab ipsis audierunt, et testantur de huiusmodi relatione.

...just as the gospel and all the elders, who had dwelled with John the disciple of the Lord in Asia, testify that John delivered. For he remained with them until the times of Trajan. But some of them saw, not only John, but also other apostles, and heard these same things from them, and testify concerning the previously related matter.

The he is obviously referring back to John, the closest antecedent, not to Jesus. And the ensuing clause, not only John, brackets the line about Trajan, confirming that it is John whom these elders saw during the principate of Trajan.

Irenaeus knows that Jesus died under Pontius Pilate (Against Heresies 3.4.2; 4.23.2; several other places) and that Pilate was procurator under Tiberius (1.27.2).

Ben.

Lógos Sokratikós

That would be a good (though not excellent) criteria for establishing the existence of an architect, not a "guru" (so to speak). By that criterion, in 1000 years no one would think an Osho ever existed.

That criterion tells me "absence of evidence" but not "evidence of absence". It also makes me conclude the absence of the "historicity of Jesus" but not the absence of a real, earth-treading, Roman-times "Jesus" or whatever his mom called him.

And here I'm merely dwelling in the realm of Logic, not the science of History (I am not a historian). I would like to add a reminder that logic precedes science.

aa5874

You completely ignored the passages about Jesus, i.e the preceeding passages.

But before I proceed, I would like you to read the sub-title of chapter 22 book 2 Against Hersies, it reads as follows: The thirty Aeons are not typified by the fact Christ was baptised in his thirtieth year. He did not suffer in the twelfth month after his baptism, but was More than FIFTY years old when He Died.

So, Irenaeus sets out to prove in book2 ch22 that Jesus was more than fifty years old when he died.

Look at section 4 of ch22, Irenaeus expounds, "He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants....a child for children.... a youth for Youths. So likewise he was a old man for old men, that he might be a perfect Master for all....Then at last he came unto death itself that he might be the first born from the dead..."

See Against Heresies by Irenaeus book 2 ch22 for the full details.

This where it gets very interesting. You will first have to find out what version of Jesus and and what version of Christ Irenaeus believed in. As you might have read, there were many versions of Jesus and many versions of Christ according to Irenaeus himself.

There was a version of Jesus and of Christ that can be crucified under Pontius Pilate and still have Jesus living until he is an old man. That is the Irenaeus version of Jesus and Christ.

Ben C Smith

I have it on one of my web pages. I know the passage well.

Well, at least in his late forties. I do not think Irenaeus commits to his actually having reached fifty.

The fact remains that the one who remained till the times of Trajan was John, not Jesus. John is the closest antecedent for the embedded pronoun, and John is the one confirmed in the next sentence.

Your reading is simply mistaken.

Ben.

spin

I haven't got these texts, Ben C, but I wonder, do they actually say "procurator" or epitropos, which after the time of Claudius was used for procurator. The word is just a generic term in origin for one who administers. It would have been appropriate for Pilate because he as prefect administered Judea. Calling Pilate a procurator because the Greek has epitropos would be an anacronism to me.


spin

aa5874

Ben, I cannot understand your thought process, I have just showed the sub-title of chapter 22 ... "He did not suffer in the twelfth month after his baptism, but was More than FIFTY years old when he Died.

I just showed you an excerpt from the passage of Against Heresies book 2 chapter 22 section 4 where Irenaeus claimed Jesus was an old man before he died.

Look at book 2 chapter 22 section 5, ...Now that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that extends on-wards to the forthieth years, everyone will admit, but from the forthieth and FIFTHIETH year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while he still fulfilled the Office of a Teacher......

What do you mean by Irenaeus did not commit himself? Ben, I just don't understand you!

Amaleq13

Except for the texts and logic, you are correct.

The texts (both biblical and extra-biblical) substantiate the signficance attributed to his death.

The texts and logic substantiate that he did something to impress those who initially attributed significance to his death.

The texts substantiate that he taught and appeared capable of magic.

You should avoid making blatantly false assertions or folks might get the impression you are being disingenous.

Unlike your mantra? At least mine relies on thoughtful consideration of the textual evidence. Yours is based on your refusal to engage in anything approximating a thoughtful consideration.

It is difficult to believe this level of ignorance is genuine.

To date, you have offered nothing to suggest this is true of his death.

Why do you ask questions to which you have already received an answer? I have already indicated how the magical aspects of the stories should be treated.

Ben C Smith

Unfortunately, I think this is one of the few spots in book 1 of Against Heresies that is extant only in the Latin translation. Here is the text:



It will be interesting to see what Richard Carrier has to say on the matter when he publishes his findings:

(i) Doherty repeats Wells' mistaken claim that "procurator...was the title of [Pilate's] post in Tacitus' day, but in the reign of Tiberius such governors were called prefect" (p. 202). A few years ago, correspondence with Wells on this point inspired me to thoroughly investigate this claim, and my findings will eventually be published. But in short, this sentence is entirely wrong. It seems evident from all the source material available that the post was always a prefecture, and also a procuratorship. Pilate was almost certainly holding both posts simultaneously, a practice that was likely established from the start when Judaea was annexed in 6 A.D.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

I believe the subtitles you are reading date to after Irenaeus; that is, they were added by somebody other than the original author to make navigation of the text easier. If I am mistaken on that, I will gladly withdraw my hesitation. My Latin text has very different subtitles, and the one for our chapter has nothing of what you are reading. It only says that the ministry of the Lord exceeded a year, and that he passed through all the different age groups.

He also says that from forty to fifty is the start of old age. Thus, Jesus could hypothetically be an old man at age 49. And a bit later Irenaeus adds that Jesus did not preach only for one year, since the period included between the thirtieth and the fiftieth year can never be regarded as one year. This makes it sound as if he preached from age thirty to age fifty, not as if he surpassed fifty.

But look. What does this detail matter to the issue at hand? Who cares if Irenaeus thought that Jesus was almost 50 or past 50 when he died? What matters here is that the closest antecedent of the embedded pronoun he in the phrase he lived until the time of Trajan is John, not Jesus.

Ben.