Roland

If Irenaeus had access to all four gospels, how could he have gotten Jesus' age at the time of his death so wrong? That would suggest a ministry lasting over twenty years which none of the gospels even remotely suggest.

Irenaeus Against Heresies

"Chapter XXII.-The Thirty Aeons are Not Typified by the Fact that Christ Was Baptized 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."

Vinnie

Apparently he didn't correlate Matthew 2 (slaughtering two years and younger) with Luke 3:23 and the tenure of Pilate. Instead he misinterpreted another passage about not yet being 50. Certainly looks like an oversight on his part or maybe he had no idea when Pilate was governor or how long that tenure lasted? It may be anachronistic of me but knowing the date of the Birth of Jesus seems like it should be important. Maybe he thought Jesus could have been born in 15b.c. and died in 36 ad.?

At any rate, it shows the pitfalls of merely accepting certain traditions without corroborative support. Or maybe Irenaeus simply didn't adhere to verbal plenary inspiration? We might be anachronistically retrojecting contemporary Christian beliefs back onto Irenaeus.

Vinnie

spamandham

IMHO, the gospels as we know them did not exist until no earlier than 130 CE, based on evidence that they were a reaction to the Bar Kochba revolt.

...which fits nicely with what you just posted.

JoeWallack

JW:
See According To "John" About How Old Was Jesus When He Died?.

Per "John" Jesus was 50+ when he died.There is nothing in "John" to dispute this and the exorcism of contrary evidence from the Synoptics available to "John" confirms it. Irenaeus was most influenced by "John" because it was contemporary to him. Read through Against Heresies and see how poor Irenaeus' scholarship was. It would have been no problem for him to ignore/"harmonize" evidence from the Synoptics that Jesus'supposed Ministry was less than one to three years.

As I am starting to demonstrate in Irenaeus. 7 Firsts @ the XXX Olympiads. The Conversion of Revelation to Historical Irenaeus is the Christofour Codumblus of Christianity discovering all types of historical first Assertians. The 50+ is one that just never caught on.



Joseph

aa5874

Irenaeus did not correlate? It must be realised by now that the writer called Irenaeus is a fiction writer.

Irenaeus claimed Jesus was about thirty years old when he was baptised which correlates to gLuke's Jesus story. Irenaeus would add more than 20 years to the ministry of Jesus before his death.

Against Heresies 2.234. It must be noticed that no other Church writer corrected Irenaeus.

Now if Jesus did live and died at about 33 years of age and that his age at death was established for over 100 years and known throughout the ENTIRE habitable earth and all the churhes in the Roman Empire, then it is now confirmed that Irenaeus was a fiction writer.

It MUST be that the date of death was NOT known when "Against Heresies" was written.

Irenaeus claimed Jesus was an old man before he died, this is complete fiction based on the NT and other Church writers.

"Against Heresies" 2.23. Irenaeus could not even get his story straight about his Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the Messiah and Son of God.

What church did Irenaeus attend? Was Irenaeus a bishop? How is it that a bishop did not know how old Jesus was when he died?

Because Irenaeus was a fictitious bishop.


Perhaps Irenaeus used Papias and fell into the pitfall. It would appear that no live audience, not even the church writers, heard or read that Jesus was an old man before he died.

They never responded to Irenaeus.

"Against Heresies" may have been written when many of the Church writers were ALREADY dead.

"Against Heresies" is an anachronism.

Switch89

I read one explanation for that here:

http://www.tektonics.org/guest/irey50.html

Although I make no claim as to how accurate this is, I haven't checked its reliability for myself.

aa5874

Isn't it amazing?

A writer supposedly called Irenaeus wrote a book about heretics called "Against Heresies" where he describes many heresies and in that very book the writer called Irenaeus demonstrated that he too was a heretic and dedicated an entire chapter to his heresy.

It turned out that Irenaeus was an heretic and mutilated the NT to prove his heresy.

I am now convinced that no person read "Against Heresies" when it was purported to heve been written. "Against Heresies" was prepared precisely as propaganda by the Roman Church and simply stored as a supposed historical record.

"Against Heresies" was a very critical writing for the Roman Church, they would fabricate their Church History using "Against Heresies" as the core of their fabrication.

The fraudulent history of the Church reminds me of the invasion of Iraq where bogus information was used unknown to the general public, and only a small clique of people knew that the data was bogus.

The 2000 worded claim by Irenaeus that Jesus lived until he was over fifty is also very perplexing when he also claimed Jesus was crucified by Pilate. Irenaeus appear not to even know when Pilate was governor in Judaea.

Against Heresies 2.24.4 It is clear that "Against Heresies" was not seen or heard by a live audience or else he would have been deemed to be a heretic and a liar by the very heretics of that time.

Irenaeus was claiming Jesus was about thirty years old when he was baptised during the time of the governorship of Pilate and suddenly became over fifty years old in a matter of less than ten years, since Pilate was only governor for about 10 years.

"Against Heresies" was just propaganda.

DCHindley

Actually, the page is fairly accurate in many of the points it makes.

What Irenaeus is saying here can be summarized thus: youth lasts up to the age of thirty; from thirty to forty old age is approached, but youth is not yet completely left behind; and from forty onwards one enters the period of "old age". It is also interesting to note here that Irenaeus claims that, with regard to Jesus entering "old age", the "gospels testify" to it (alongside the "tradition" of the Church). We've already seen what the gospels say about this - they say only that there were three years of Christ's ministry (but, with respect and sympathy to Irenaeus, not "three and only three")-the conclusions that Irenaeus reaches beyond this have no explicit backing. This seems to back up the claim made above, namely, that Irenaeus isn't giving testimony to an actual and explicit Church tradition, but rather, that he is subverting the data which tradition offers to his doctrine of recapitulation for the purpose of blowing the Gnostic arguments sky-high. And also, it should be pointed out that Irenaeus never once claims that Jesus lived to be fifty-in point of fact Irenaeus claims that Christ was "between the thirtieth and the fiftieth year" (2:22:6). According to the above description of the "periods" of life, Irenaeus therefore thought Christ to have been between forty and fifty, though "not want[ing] much of being fifty years old".

The author of the page (who I do not think is Holding himself) explains Irenaeus' statement as the employment of the concept of "recapitulation":

Irenaeus speculations regarding Jesus' age, though taking their point of departure from the explicit data of Scripture and Tradition, are tied into and determined by his doctrine of recapitulation (2:22:4)-

Being a master, therefore, he also possessed the age of a master, not despising or evading any condition of humanity, nor setting aside in himself that law which he had appointed for the human race, but sanctifying every age, by that period corresponding to it which belonged to himself. For he came to save all through means of himself-all, I say, who through him are born again to God-infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age … So likewise he was an old man for old men, that he might be a perfect master for all, not merely as regards the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age, sanctifying at the same time the aged also, and becoming an example to them likewise. Then, at last, he came on to death itself, that he might be 'the firstborn from the dead, that in all things he might have the pre-eminence,' the Prince of life, existing before all, and going before all.

Those who support the idea that Jesus could actually have been between 40 & 50 years of age usually suggest that Irenaeus, like Tertullian (Against Marcion Book 4 19:1), read Luke's governor of Syria not as Cyrenius but as Sentius Saturninus, who was guv'nuh around 9 - 6 BCE.

But there is historical proof that at this very time a census had been taken in Judaea by Sentius Saturninus, which might have satisfied their inquiry respecting the family and descent of Christ.

I like to add here my bizarre and certainly wrong speculation that the star of Bethlehem was Hally's comet (Autumn 12 BCE), on the basis of inputing the orbital elements of Halley's comet into an old DOS astronomy program. Anyhow, if you count from 11 BCE to Nisan of 36 CE (latest possible date for Jesus' death if it was anything like the gospels say) then you have around 45-46 years, and thus "between forty and fifty, though 'not want[ing] much of being fifty years old.'"

The date of 36 CE for the crucifixion was advanced by popular writer Hugh Schonfield some years ago. Archeologist Nikos Kokkinos' 1989 article in Chronos, Kairos, Christos on the subject (including Hally's comet being the star) can be found here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=UCB...age&q=&f=false

DCH

aa5874

The Irenaeus declaration that Jesus was over fifty years old when he suffered destroys the credibilty of the writer. This writer seems to have no knowledge of historical figures and appear not to be able to count.

Irenaeus claimed Jesus was about thirty years old when he was baptised, and this correlates with Luke 3.23

Luke 3.23 Against Heresies So, Irenaeus appears to be in sync with gLuke, Jesus was about thirty years old when he was baptised. There is no need to push the birth of Jesus backwards at all, Luke and Irenaeus are in sync.

Now this is Eusebius in Church History Based on the Synoptics, Jesus would be about 31 years old when he was crucified since John the Baptist was imprisonned during the 40 days of temptation by Jesus just after he was baptised.

But Irenaeus, after appearing to be in sync with gLuke, made this statement.

Against Heresies Eusebius claimed the Synoptics covered the deeds of Jesus for only one year after the imprisonment of John the Baptist, but Irenaeus claimed it was twenty years.

But, Irenaeus must have completely forgotten that Pilate was only governor for about ten years but later he would remember that Jesus was crucified under Pilate.

Against Heresies Irenaeus appears to be totally confused, he cannot count.

Against Heresies Now earlier I said that Irenaeus and gLuke appeared to be in sync, but Irenaeus would contradict himself, although claimimg that Jesus was baptised at around thirty years of age, for some unknown reason, Irenaeus would reverse himself and claim Jesus was NOT thirty years old when he was baptised.

Against Heresies Against Heresies Irenaeus has no credibility whatsoever and he cannot count.

Against Heresies was propaganda fabricated by the Roman Church to manufacture their fraudulent history.

Vinnie

Here is what I wrote on Irenaeus and Jesus' Age:

Irenaeus and the Age of Jesus

There is another obvious example in the writings of Irenaeus that cautions one against merely accepting tradition at face value. In Against Heresies (2:22.4-6) he is apparently rebutting a sect which puts special significance on the number 30 and equates this with the age of Jesus at his death.

Irenaeus says that “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.” [ibid]

Irenaeus then goes on to quote an account from the Gospel of John in defense of his case. "You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!" (John 8:57 NIV) From this Irenaeus goes on to write:

"Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period. But to one who is only thirty years old it would unquestionably be said, “Thou art not yet forty years old.” For those who wished to convict Him of falsehood would certainly not extend the number of His years far beyond the age which they saw He had attained; but they mentioned a period near His real age, whether they had truly ascertained this out of the entry in the public register, or simply made a conjecture from what they observed that He was above forty years old, and that He certainly was not one of only thirty years of age. For it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they were mistaken by twenty years, when they wished to prove Him younger than the times of Abraham. For what they saw, that they also expressed; and He whom they beheld was not a mere phantasm, but an actual being of flesh and blood. He did not then want much of being fifty years old; and, in accordance with that fact, they said to Him, “Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?” He did not therefore preach only for one year, nor did He suffer in the twelfth month of the year. For the period included between the thirtieth and the fiftieth year can never be regarded as one year"

Many critical exegetes consider this a providential example of the danger of trusting mere tradition without corroborative support. Irenaeus may be correct in Jesus age but one thing is certain, his usage does not square with the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.

Matthew places Jesus birth during the reign of Herod which ended in 4 B.C. Since Herod, who had been outwitted by the Magi, furiously ordered the slaughter of those who were two years and younger in the account it should be read as placing Jesus’ birth ca. 6 B.C. or some time prior but not any earlier than 37 B.C. which Marked the beginning of Herod the Great’s reign. As Meier writes,

“Matthew never directly tells us how long the Christ child was kept in Egypt before Herod’s death, but the evangelist creates the general impression that it was not a great number of years. He uses the same diminutive word paidion (“little child”) to describe Jesus during the visit of the Magi (2:11), the flight into Egypt (2:13), and the return from Egypt after Herod’s death (2:20). The last verse of Matthew’s Infancy Narrative (2:23) might be taken to imply that so short was Jesus’ residence in both Bethlehem and Egypt and so long was his residence in Nazareth that he was naturally known as “the Nazorean” throughout his adult life.” (Meier, Marginal v 1 p 376)

Thus according to the material in Matthean infancy narrative, Jesus was born sometime around 6 B.C.

Luke also places the birth of Jesus during or near the reign of Herod (1:5) but as noted this is a broad time period. Since, under the two document hypothesis, Matthew and Luke wrote independent of one another, even while admitting the historicity of many of the details of their infancy narratives are problematic, Meier thinks this multiple independent attestation from these two diverging birth stories on this salient point supplies a vague historical memory of the time of Jesus’ birth. (pg 376) He then goes on to find confirmation that Luke, as did Matthew, put Jesus’s birth near the end of Herod’s reign and not in its beginning or middle period. (pg 377).

In Luke 3:23 we are told that Jesus began his public ministry when he was about thirty years old. Luke places the ministry of Jesus just after John the Baptist who is the one preparing the way for him (Luke 3). This is how Luke introduced John—I have introduced dates in brackets taken from Meier (ibid pg 374):

"In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar [A.D. 14-37]—when Pontius Pilate [A.D. 26-36] was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee [4B.C. – 39 A.D.], his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis [4B.C. – 33/34 A.D.], and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene— 2during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas [18-26 A.D.], the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the desert. 3He went into all the country around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. “ (NIV)

Meier writes, “Thanks to Josephus, with supplementary information supplied by Philo, Tacitus, Suetonius, Cassius Dio, and Eusebius, we can calculate that Pilate held his office from A.D. 26-36 (or very early in 37).” (ibid pg 373) Therefore, John’s ministry started sometime during the reign of Pilate (after 26 C.E.) and preceded Jesus’ ministry which ended before Pilate’s tenure ended (36 C.E.).

If Jesus was born in 6 B.C. he would have been 34 in the year 28 C.E. This data generally coheres with Luke’s statement of him being about 30 when he started his ministry and it shows that Luke 3:23 acts as corroborative support for the time found in Matthew’s infancy narrative. Namely, that both gospels independently place Jesus’ birth towards the end of Herod’s reign.
In addition to this, Meier cites very good reasons for supposing Jesus did not die at the end of Pilate’s reign (ibid 373). Using Paul’s letters, Acts and the extra-biblical Delphi inscription, Meier argues that Paul’s arrival in Corinth on his second missionary journey took place sometime between 49 and 51 C.E. He then writes of the number of things which happened before this abut after Jesus’ execution and I put them in list format for convenience:

• Christianity spread in Palestine
• The Hellensists were persecuted and scattered
• The Church of Antioch is founded
• Paul’s converts to Christianity
• Paul’s years of seclusion before joining the Antioch Church
• Paul’s first missionary journey.
• Council of Jerusalem

Meier seems correct in that a period earlier rather than later during Pilate’s tenure as governor is appropriate. Though this line of thinking should not be forced into the gospel accounts themselves, which do not say this. From this we see, however, that according to the independent and corroborative testimony of Matthew and Luke, Jesus was born some time around 6 B.C and died no later than 36 C.E.

The maximum age of Jesus from the gospels of Matthew and Luke is approximately 42 and he was probably executed by Rome no later than the very early 30s. Irenaeus is certainly at a disagreement with the two Gospels on this point. It is quite interesting that Jesus could have been 40, or more likely, almost 40 or at least appearing 40 during the time the question was asked of him in the Gospel of John. Thus, vindicating Irenaeus’s interpretation of the passage though it is uncertain as to whether or not this interpretation is correct or if it was simply a round number that scoffed at Jesus’ posited statement about Abraham seeing his day.

At any rate, if Jesus is pushed back to 8 B.C. and his ministry began ca. 27-28 then he would be 35-36 which strains Luke’s assertion that he was about thirty when his ministry began. In addition, Matthew's use of paidion (see above) also becomes strained. All of these writers cannot be correct. In order for Irenaeus to be correct points in Matthew and Luke must be incorrect

Vinnie