TedM

You may be right. I have no desire to get into a long discussion, but will offer the following:

1. One of my pet peeves is the use of average lifespans. I don't know what the figures show, but I know that the much higher infant mortality rates back then make it appear that people who survived infancy died much younger than they really did. I recall that somewhere in the OT is a passage that refers to God giving man 70 years. A lot of people lived that long back then. How many? What pct? I have no idea, but it seems to me that the idea that any one man could have lived to be 80 or 90 isn't far-fetched at all.

2. Mark's passage may or may not be referring to death. It could be referring to persecution.

3. The passage in Mark could have been added after John's death.

4. Christian tradition has John living to a very old age. I don't know how strong the evidence is for it, but traditions sometimes have a basis in reality.
John 21:23 alludes to a rumor that the "disciple whom Jesus loved" wouldn't die. Such a rumor fits someone who may have lived longer than others. This might point to evidence for that early tradition.

ted

Julian

You are quite correct, of course. Average life expectancy is just that: Average. Due to many deaths during childbirth, high infant mortality rate and numerous nasty diseases which could not be cured at the time the odds of you living a long time were not all that great. However, if you managed to dodge all these obstacles there would be no reasons that you wouldn't live to a ripe old age, just as today. Many people would have had to have lived a long time and if we look through the history books we note that many people did, indeed, live until very advanced years.

That being said, I find it unlikely that Polycarp could have been a follower of John from the NT. John would have been close to 90 or more when that would have been possible. However, Irenaeus also believed that Jesus lived until middle age, if memory serves, which might put John somewhat later in his mind than he is in ours.

Julian

TedM

I just looked at some dates to check on the viability of Polycarp having known John, using traditional dates for the ministry of Jesus, of around 28AD.


First, could Irenaeus have known Polycarp? Irenaeus is quoted as having known Polycarp when he was a boy. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia there is a dispute about when Irenaeus was born, and the date ranges anywhere from 115 to 142 AD. Polycarp is believed to have died in 155AD. Assuming that Irenaeus was around 10 when he talked with Polycarp, this gives us a range for the date of discussion of anywhere between 125AD and 152AD, which is not inconsistent with Polycarp's lifetime. It seems very reasonable to conclude that Irenaeus could have known Polycarp.


The real question is whether Polycarp could have known John. Polycarp is considered to have been born in 69 or 70AD. What isn't known is when John was born or died. If John was 30 in 28AD, then he would have been 72 when Polycarp was born. When Polycarp was 10 he would have been 82. When Polycarp was 20 he would have been 92. What if John was only 20 in 28AD? Then, you can subtract 10 years from John's age relative to Polycarps: When Polycarp was 10 John would have been 72. When Polycarp was 20 he would have been 82.

I'm not sure then why you have written "John would have been close to 90 or more when that would have been possible." Is there something I don't know here? Maybe more is known about Polycarp and John that supports your position, but based on numbers alone that seem reasonable I see no reason to conclude that it is unlikely that Polycarp could have known John, had John lived into his 70s or 80s, and I see no reason to conclude that it is unlikely that one of the 12 disciples lived that long.

ted

Julian

It was based on John being about 30 in 30 or so. Assuming that Polycarp would have had to be older than 10 to have any real memory of polycarp, say 21, would put John at 90 or so.
Julian

TedM

90 is possible, but I'm more comfortable with something closer to 80. An age of 10 may be stretching it too much. An age of 15 for Polycarp and 25 in 30AD for John would put John at 80 or so. And, again I see no reason to put John even younger--except possibly the idea that he would not have been accepted as a "pillar" at a real young age..?...

Julian

We agree. It could have been more or less. No way to know, but we must conclude that it is, at least, possible. Not sure what to make of it all yet, seems like not enough reliable information, as usual.

Julian

TedM

Yeah, there is a fair amount of information, but so little that we know to be highly reliable.

(I meant to say "And, again I see no reason NOT to put John even younger--except possibly the idea that he would not have been accepted as a "pillar" at a real young age..?...), but the bottom line is that either we believe an account that requires us to put faith in at least 3 people we've never known who well may have had motives other than the truth, or innocently made a mistake, or we choose a lesser level of faith.

ted

Johnny Skeptic

Let me state my topic in a different way: Why should anyone believe that Jesus healed anyone? Today, millions of Christians disagree as to what constitutes a miracle healing. Why should anyone believe that it was any different back then?

TedM

Good questions. You are right--the topic as stated doesn't address these kinds of questions. One can always doubt when the evidence doesn't suit ones criteria.

Johnny Skeptic

What we need is for some Christians to reply to my questions. We also need for some Christians to tell us if there is any evidence that God performs miracle healings today. They should begin by defining what a miracle healing is. A few examples would be appropriate.