Amlodhi

Hello All,

So as not to clutter or possibly even hijack an existing thread, I thought it might be best to present this request under a separate topic heading. It regards Roland's mention (from Robert Price's book) of a statement made by Irenaeus concerning the age to which Jesus lived.

I would be interested in input from the posters here regarding the implications of this statement in that it seems to clearly record a tradition that Jesus was (at least) above 40 yrs. of age at the time of his death. In my copy of the writings of the ante-Nicene Fathers ("Ante-Nicene Fathers", Alexander Roberts, D.D. & James Donaldson, LL.D., Hendrickson Pub.), the relevant passages are found in book 2, chapter 23, sections 4-6 in "Against Heresies".

One of my questions concerns Irenaeus' description of Jesus ministry in the passage immediately preceding those mentioned above (i.e. book 2, chapter 23, section 3). As mentioned, in sections 4-6, Irenaeus seems to be making a clear statement that Jesus was (at least) 40+ yrs. old at the time of his death. Yet, in section 3 of this same chapter, Irenaeus, drawing on the gospel of John, says:

2-23:3 ". . . they have not examined the gospels to ascertain how often after His baptism the Lord went up, at the time of the passover, to Jerusalem, in accordance with what was the practice of the Jews, from every land, and every year, that they should assemble in Jerusalem, and there celebrate the feast of the passover."

Note that passage #3 says "after His baptism". In the remaining text of passage #3, Irenaeus goes on to list 3 separate instances of Jesus attending the passover celebration. In describing the 3rd passover attendance (after his baptism), Irenaeus says, ". . .He there ate the passover, and suffered on the following day."

I am, therefore, having some difficulty in reconciling what seems to be back-to-back contradictory descriptions of Jesus' length of ministry. In summation, passage 3 seems to indicate a ministry of 3 - 3 1/2 years, whereas passages 4-6 seem to clearly indicate a tradition that Jesus lived beyond the age of 40.

The tradition related in passages 4-6 are made even more curious by the fact that, (as Roland also mentioned), Pilate's duration as procurator was from a.d. 26-36. Irenaeus, in passage 6, indicates that Jesus was not only past the age of 40 but actually closer to 50. But, of course, if this were the case, Pilate would, by this time, no longer be procurator in Judea. How could Irenaeus have been inconsiderate of the textual tradition that Jesus was executed under Pilate?

Since Irenaeus' statements regarding Jesus' more advanced age are attributed to direct apostolic tradition via John, and yet Irenaeus is not only familiar with the/a gospel of John which depicts a 3 - 3 1/2 year ministry, I have never heard a satisfactory explanation for this discrepancy.

There is an article posted at tektonics. org. which asserts that Irenaeus statement of Jesus' more advanced age was never really a church tradition. The assertion here is that Irenaeus was merely using a methodology termed "recapitulation" to rebut the agnostic claim that Jesus died at age 30 (and in the last month). I have reproduced some excerpts from the article here and (below) provided the link for those who wish to read it in its entirety:

And "recapitulation" is explained as:

Then this, somewhat (I think) disingenuous statement:

This tends to give the impression that, in passage 6, Ireneaus is merely indicating that Jesus was a few years older than 30. Indeed, at another point in the article, the author indicates that this age would be exactly 33. Yet, Irenaeus says, in this same passage, ". . . 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. . ." Note, mistaken by 20 years. The only way it could have been unreasonable for the people to have been mistaken by 20 years is if Jesus was close to 50 at this time. Irenaeus did not say that it would be unreasonable that these people could be mistaken by 3 years, which would be the case if Jesus was only 33 at the time.

Indeed, after all that, the author of this article even goes on to say:

And:

So, regardless of the apologetics, this is an explicit admission that Irenaeus is relating what he understands to be a tradition, (a tradition which he traces back to the apostle John himself), that Jesus lived to nearly 50 years of age.

However, the article has the further disclaimer:

I suppose this might depend on what one considered an "explicit Church tradition". As stated, Irenaeus (an early "Church father") "explicitly" writes of this "tradition" and "explicitly" indicates that the source of the tradition is from John and some of the other apostles themselves. What then does it take to qualify as an "explicit Church tradition"?

The entire tektonics article can be read here:

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

So, again, I've never read a satisfying explanation for these discrepancies. Why does Irenaeus seem to contradict himself regarding the length of Jesus' ministry between passages 3 and 4-6? If Irenaeus was familiar with the gospel writings, including John, why does he not seem to understand that this advanced age for Jesus would preclude Pilate being procurator at the time of the crucifixion?

Since many of you seem to be in possession of some indepth information concerning some of these issues, any input regarding this issue would be greatly appreciated.

Namaste'

Amlodhi

spin

Too tired to think but have you noted this:

Jn 8:57 The Jews therefore said to him, You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?

"Not yet fifty"? I might attempt to describe Leonardo di Caprio as not yet thirty, but at this moment never "not yet fifty".


spin

Amlodhi

Hi spin,

Indeed, and this is one of the arguments for a more advanced age that is used by Irenaeus:

But, yet again, this is very difficult to square with Irenaeus' preceding statement regarding Jesus, after his baptism, attending three passover celebrations before the crucifixion.

One would perhaps be inclined to consider that Irenaeus had simply made a huge gaff here without considering the implications of such an age for Jesus. This, however, would cast a very nasty profile on assertions of apostolic tradition.

I hope that, given time and rest, you will be able to shed some further light on this dilemma.

Namaste'

Amlodhi

Sauron

Unless the age of 50 had some sort of symbolic meaning, as a universally recognized benchmark in Jewish society of Palestine in the first century?

Was 50 years old equivalent to being considered a "wise man"? Sort of like reaching the age of 12 made you a son of the law (bar mitzvah)?

If there isn't any such precedent in Jewish society, then my suggestion here is baseless. But it might be useful to investigate the possibility.

Roland

Price also makes the point that Irenaeus thought Jesus was crucified in the time of Claudius, far later than the time of Pilate.

Amaleq13

Amlodhi,



A minor correction, the passage is in chapter 22 rather than 23.

Are the titles original to Irenaeus or added later by others as I've seen in some ancient texts? I ask because the title explicitly states:

"He Did Not Suffer in the Twelfth Month After His Baptism, But Was More Than Fifty Years Old When He Died."

Also, the text doesn't seem leave open any possibility that he was speaking symbolically:

"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, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord. So likewise He was an old man for old men, that He might be a perfect Master for all, not merely as respects 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." (emphasis mine)

Does anyone know the specific heresy against which he is arguing? It seems to be some sort of numerological interpretation/application relating to counting Aeons.

Toto

I don't have the patience or interest to follow gnostic thinking in that detail, but Valentinius has a scheme of 30 pairs of Aeons and speaks a lot about the Pleroma.

Wikipedia on Gnostics

Gnostics believed that the Christ did not go through childhood or other stages of life.

Amlodhi

Indeed it is. Thanks for the correction Amaleq13. That'll teach me the perils of not wearing my spectacles when making citations.

This came to my attention too late to edit in the proper chapter number in the OP. Sorry for any confusion this may have caused.

Namaste'

Amlodhi

Amlodhi

Hi Roland,

Does Mr. Price say this specifically in his book? The reason I ask is that I can recall no passage in the writings of Irenaeus where he makes this statement. Is this simply being deduced from the statements made by Irenaeus regarding Jesus' age?

That Irenaeus would actually think that Jesus lived into the reign of Claudius is precisely the point I can scarcely conceive of. According to the information I have, Irenaeus wrote his "Against Heresies" circa a.d. 182 - 188. The writing of Tacitus' Annals, by comparison, precedes this date by some 50+ years. Yet, at this earlier date, even Tacitus is apparently aware of the tradition that Jesus was executed in the time of Pilate under the reign of Tiberius.

And yet, neither does it seem to make sense that Irenaeus was merely referring to a euphemistic age for Jesus. In passage 6 Irenaeus says:

Irenaeus can certainly not have been speaking metaphorically if he thought it possible that these people may have actually ascertained Jesus' age from the public birth records.

Thus, I remain genuinely stymied as to how Irenaeus could have made such a statement, and worse, claimed that it was a tradition handed down from the apostles themselves.

Namaste'

Amlodhi

Roland

Amlodhi -

Check page 39 in Price's book. He says "Irenaeus figured that Jesus had died under the Emperor Claudius."