show_no_mercy

Do you think the Parable of the Sower, and Jesus' explanation of it, is him (or the author) subtly predicting Peter's lack of character?

Peter is still called "Simon" right up to when Jesus starts speaking in parables, where the author states that Jesus renamed Simon "Peter".

Vinnie

Short ministry. John would be 90 in 100 C.E.

Not saying its true but Papias could have been born ca 70 c.e. He may have heard him in his youth as Ireneaus heard Polycarp in his youth. We don't know or sure.

Roger Pearse

About 90, actually. But our opinions aren't important; this is what the ancient evidence says.

Well, you may not know that Antigonus One-Eyed, one of Alexander's generals, led his army into battle at Ipsus at the age of 81.

Average age isn't really relevant; the question is what the maximum age is, and I don't think that has altered significantly. (What has pushed average age up, if I understand correctly, is the drop in infant mortality).

There is no reason, therefore, to doubt the testimony of the ancient authors.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

jakejonesiv

Hi Roger,

You and Vinnie both doubt Ireneaus when he stated that Jesus lived to be fifty years old and had a ministry of twenty years.

"Short ministry?" Vinnie?

"For when the Lord said to them, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad," they answered Him, "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?"(4) 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(5) of flesh and blood. He did not then wont much of being fifty years old;(6) 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" Irenaeus, AH 2.22

jakejonesiv

Good points!

PhilosopherJay

Hi Roger,

There seems to be quite a bit of variance as to average life expectancy in the Roman Empire. Considering that the life expectancy in 1900 in the United States was age 50, I would be amazed if the life expectancy was anywhere near that in the Roman empire. As you correctly point out though, the life expectancy is not the issue, but neither is the maximum age. Rather, we should be asking what were the chances of an adult male living to specific ages.

In looking at the Roman emperors from Augustus to the fall of Rome in 480, 82 emperors in total. I found that no emperor lived to be 80 years old. Apparently, 7 lived into their 70s and 14 lived into their 60's. So under 10% lived into their 70's, while about 25% lived into their 60's. In most cases, the emperors were already quite advanced in age, when they became emperors, so this should be considered. We may assume that the emperors generally got the best health care of anybody in the empire. On the other hand, they did face dangers from assassination more than the average.

From this, I would assume it reasonable to suggest that of twelve apostles, it would be quite possible that 3 or 4 lived into their 60's, while one may have lived into his 70's. Unfortunately this does not help us much as we have no idea of the ages of any of the apostles. If we assume that they were all in their 30's and 40's, then it is unlikely that any were alive at the time of the war from 67-73. On the other hand, if most were in their 20's, it is possible that one may have survived as late as the 80's.

But when Eusebius tells us (Church History 3:23) that John was alive after Hadrian (died 98 C.E.) and suggests that Phillip too also lived that long, we have some grounds for putting it into the category of myth.

Sincerely,

Philosopher Jay

show_no_mercy

What was the life expectancy of a aristocrat or someone generally affluent in 1st century Rome? Someone with access to first rate medical care, education, and a very "luxurious" life?

What was the life expectancy of an illiterate "blue-collar" worker in 1st century Rome? Someone without education, no medical care, and a hard "of the Earth" life?

Can we use the same analogy for the modern world? What's the life expectancy of a rich Republican who grew up in affluent suburbia over the life expectancy of an uneducated minority growing up in poverty?

All this talk about "life expectancy" needs to take into account distinct populations who live in very different environments; environments which have a huge impact on mortality rates.

Vinnie

Re Irenaeus and Long ministry of Jesus

Without responding to what you actually quoted I will simply say that I have no issues in disagreeing with Irenaeus on certain issues. He, after all, said Matthew was written before Mark and I have been convinced by arguments for Marcan priority. Therefore, he was incorrect on this point. No Church Father is infallible. But without significant evidence to the contrary, or reason to doubt their statements, I generally give them the benefit of the doubt depending on the issue at hand. If Irenaeus said my friend Papias could fly using his faith the skeptic in me would be unleashed. But if he says (ca. 180) that a Phrygian Bishop, sometime in the first half of the second century wrote five books outlining the oracles or the Lord I have no reason to doubt his claim.

Vinnie

angelo

The evidence for a historical Jesus is no different to a historical evidence for Snow White.
Both have no historical evidence that they existed. In the case of Jesus, all the evidence we have is in a word salad of a book we call the N/T. Outside of this book, the evidence is very slim indeed. Any mention of the historical man around the end of the century is hearsay, myth or legends. Had it not been for Paul, I doubt christianity would have survived past the first century.

jakejonesiv

I agree with your comments with one small difference.

Actually, the Church at Rome relied very little--if at all-- on Paul before the second half of the second century. We see, for example, that our friend Papias mentioned Paul not all, but emphasized Peter/Mark and Matthew for apostolic authority. Likewise, Justin relied on gospel material and did not mention Paul or his alleged epistles. In other words, the proto-orthodox relied primarily on gospel traditions, although not in the current form.

By way of contrast, the heretics relied on the authority of Paul. Indeed, the Marcionites relied on him exclusively.

One might ask about Ignatius. Didn't he mention Paul? The answer is yes he did, but he showed sure knowledge of only 1 Corinthians! And the earliest version of the Ignatians was written by a Marcionite, or perhaps as Roger Parvis argues most persuasively in his book, by an Apellean. (Apelles had been a student of Marcion). In any case, the Iganatian epistles were then heavily redacted by a proto-orthodox editor in the second half of the second century.

Best,
Jake