Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amaleq13 · 08-14-2007, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesABrown

How old would Jesus have to be in order for them NOT to be surprised that he has seen Abraham's reaction. In his sixties? Seventies?

I tend to agree that this was a setup for Jesus to make his "I AM" line.

Yes, I agree that the whole scene seems more likely to have come from the imagination of the author than any sort of historical record of an actual conversation.

In addition, I have a vague recollection of reading something about the notion of "seeing Abraham" and age from Jewish tradition but I haven't been able to find anything to support it so far.

ETA: More specifically relevant to your question, it is my understanding that "fifty" is specified because that was traditionally considered when one became an old man (Num 4:47). IOW, they were essentially saying "You aren't even an old man yet you claim to have seen Abraham?"

JoeWallack · 08-15-2007, 07:26 AM

JW:
A proper analysis of the offending line should start with Textual Criticism:

http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Jo...ter=8&verse=57

"8:57 εἶπον οὖν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι πρὸς αὐτόν πεντήκοντα ἔτη οὔπω ἔχεις καὶ Ἀβραὰμ ἑώρακας

The Jews therefore said unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? (ASV)"

http://www.zhubert.com/word?word=%CF...&number=644213

"πεντήκοντα (155) πεντήκοντα (157) Adjective fifty"

"ἔτη (354) ἔτος (726) Noun a year; κατ" ἔτος each year"

Metzger has no related Textual Variation. However:

http://www.zhubert.com/bible?source=...ef=John+8%3A57

"πεντήκοντα [fifty] Byz ς WH
τεσσεράκοντα [forty] (see Luke 3:23) Λ 239 262 1355 1555 Chrysostom Ps-Athanasius"

So there is Textual and Patristic evidence for "forty". This evidence is extremely weak though and it's Likely that the original was "Fifty" here.

Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Ben C Smith · 08-15-2007, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

So there is Textual and Patristic evidence for "forty". This evidence is extremely weak though and it's Likely that the original was "Fifty" here.

I agree. It suggests to me that some scribes and fathers saw the problem here and did something about it.

Ben.

James Brown · 08-15-2007, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

ETA: More specifically relevant to your question, it is my understanding that "fifty" is specified because that was traditionally considered when one became an old man (Num 4:47). IOW, they were essentially saying "You aren't even an old man yet you claim to have seen Abraham?"

So if Jesus had long white hair and a stoop, they wouldn't have asked this question? Would they have leaned forward and asked, "Okay, old man, what did Abraham say and do?"

How old would I have to look for you to not question me if I said, "Abraham Lincoln and I were having lunch once, and he told some off-color jokes"?

Amaleq13 · 08-15-2007, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesABrown

So if Jesus had long white hair and a stoop, they wouldn't have asked this question?

Obviously. If he was an old man, then they couldn't have questioned him on the basis of not even being an old man yet claiming to have seen Abraham.

They could have made the same point, however, by saying something along the lines of "You may be an old man but Abraham certainly died long before you were born".

Same argument and equally suitable set-up for Jesus' response.

TedM · 08-15-2007, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

A "natural," to follow Ben, reading....

I suppose there are worse things to be associated with than the natural reading.

For the record, I agree that the most natural, prima facie reading of this verse is that the author(s) thought Jesus was in his forties at the time; it is possible, but less natural, that the author(s) had some reason (unknown to me) for wishing to make it appear as if the Jews wrongly thought as much, or that the author(s) had some reason for using the number 50 other than as an approximation of actual age (I have not heard of any special connection between Abraham and the age 50, but that would be the sort of thing, if it existed, that would fall into this last possibility).

I happen to suspect for a variety of reasons that the author(s) of the fourth canonical gospel knew our second and third canonical gospels, and possibly our first; I also happen to suspect that the author(s) pointedly corrected some of the information he or they found in those previous gospels. If our author(s) knew of Luke 3.23, then John 8.57 could be a correction of that information. However, it is a far more subtle correction than I would have perhaps expected from this gospel.

For my money, the connection between the birth of Jesus and (A) the end of the reign of Herod the great or (B) the census is suspect to begin with. For all I know, John may be more correct than any of the synoptics; or they may all be wrong. But I am not at all committed to any particular reconstruction as yet.

I would also like to point out that, while Irenaeus has taken a lot of guff over the years for his discussion of the various age cycles of Jesus, his actual argument is not that bad. His reasons for using this argument are, to the modern mind, perhaps a little silly, but the argument itself, from John 8.57, is fairly good, is it not?

Ben.

Bernard Muller has a reconstruction of GJohn, and I see that he considers 8:56-7 to have been a later addition, after GLuke was known:

http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/jnadd.html#7:50

Chili · 08-15-2007, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

The Jews therefore said unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? (ASV)"

The meaning behind "seeing Abraham" is to be connected with the ancients by way of eternity such as in the Thousand Year Reign. For this to happen before 50 is rather unusual but not impossible. Thirthy eigth seems like a good time to start because most divine comedies I have read all seem to have started at that age or just a couple of years later. Add to this some time in purgatory

(galilee they called it), and 46 is about right. Fifty is old and not very intense. Hence the surprise that Jesus was not 50 yet.

Right, I hold that Jesus was 46 from John 3:20 where the temple that took 46 years to built will be destroyed and raised in 3 days. This, of course, was the mind of Jesus the Jew.

angelo · 08-16-2007, 02:37 AM

John's gospel is sometimes said to be so spaced out that it should not have been included in the N/T. He speaks of an exalted man-god who was God himself become human. [incarnation]So how do you separate the grass from the weeds so to speak. Whether he was 30 or 50 does not make any difference. It was more than likely B/S anyway. Remembering that the John's gospel was probably written in the early 2nd century according to most scholars, when the myth had by then had time to grow to the exaggerated proportions we see today.

angelo · 08-16-2007, 02:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

The Jews therefore said unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? (ASV)"

The meaning behind "seeing Abraham" is to be connected with the ancients by way of eternity such as in the Thousand Year Reign. For this to happen before 50 is rather unusual but not impossible. Thirthy eigth seems like a good time to start because most divine comedies I have read all seem to have started at that age or just a couple of years later. Add to this some time in purgatory

(galilee they called it), and 46 is about right. Fifty is old and not very intense. Hence the surprise that Jesus was not 50 yet.

Right, I hold that Jesus was 46 from John 3:20 where the temple that took 46 years to built will be destroyed and raised in 3 days. This, of course, was the mind of Jesus the Jew.

L. O. L.

spin · 08-16-2007, 04:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Why is this an "apparent huge problem for HJ"? A problem for inerrantists, perhaps, but why a HJ?

It's only a problem for people who want to play that they can extract history from the texts.

spin

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-15-2007, 07:26 AM	#12
JoeWallack Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Nazareth Posts: 2,357	JW: A proper analysis of the offending line should start with Textual Criticism: http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Jo...ter=8&verse=57 "8:57 εἶπον οὖν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι πρὸς αὐτόν πεντήκοντα ἔτη οὔπω ἔχεις καὶ Ἀβραὰμ ἑώρακας The Jews therefore said unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? (ASV)" http://www.zhubert.com/word?word=%CF...&number=644213 "πεντήκοντα (155) πεντήκοντα (157) Adjective fifty" "ἔτη (354) ἔτος (726) Noun a year; κατ" ἔτος each year" Metzger has no related Textual Variation. However: http://www.zhubert.com/bible?source=...ef=John+8%3A57 "πεντήκοντα [fifty] Byz ς WH τεσσεράκοντα [forty] (see Luke 3:23) Λ 239 262 1355 1555 Chrysostom Ps-Athanasius" So there is Textual and Patristic evidence for "forty". This evidence is extremely weak though and it's Likely that the original was "Fifty" here. Joseph http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

08-16-2007, 02:37 AM	#18
angelo Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 5,706	John's gospel is sometimes said to be so spaced out that it should not have been included in the N/T. He speaks of an exalted man-god who was God himself become human. [incarnation]So how do you separate the grass from the weeds so to speak. Whether he was 30 or 50 does not make any difference. It was more than likely B/S anyway. Remembering that the John's gospel was probably written in the early 2nd century according to most scholars, when the myth had by then had time to grow to the exaggerated proportions we see today.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.