Roland

Given what Irenaeus says about Jesus' age at his death (he seems to imply that Jesus died around 50), how can we assume he had familiarity with the Gospel of Luke we know today which clearly pinpoints Jesus' death in the early 30's?


Irenaeus, Ad Her. II:22:5:

"For how could He have had disciples, if He did not teach? And how could He have taught, unless He had reached the age of a Master? For when He came to be baptized, He had not yet completed His thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about thirty years of age (for thus Luke, who has mentioned His yea, has expressed it: Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be thirty years old, when He came to receive baptism); and, [according to these men,] He preached only one year reckoning from His baptism. On completing His thirtieth year He suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced age. Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but 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. And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan. Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity of] the statement. Whom then should we rather believe? Whether such men as these, or Ptolemaeus, who never saw the apostles, and who never even in his dreams attained to the slightest trace of an apostle?"

Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be thirty years old, when He came to receive baptism); and, [according to these men,] He preached only one year reckoning from His baptism. On completing His thirtieth year He suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced age.

Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years [ages 1-30], and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year [31-40], every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year [40+] 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;"


But, besides this, those very Jews who then disputed with the Lord Jesus Christ have most clearly indicated the same thing. 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?' 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.' "

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 ...."

Peter Kirby

Roland, read your quote again. Irenaeus clearly pinpoints where Luke clearly pinpoints the ~30 year age of Jesus at his baptism by John. But Irenaeus denies that the ministry of Jesus lasted one year (12 months), as some of his Gnostic opponents were saying. Irenaeus would deny that Luke describes a ministry that lasted only a year (there really are no indications of the periods of time between many of the episodes in the Gospels). And Irenaeus appeals to the "not yet fifty" comment in John to support his view of Jesus achieving some kind of age of a Master. A curious opinion, to be sure.

best,
Peter Kirby

Roland

Thanks for the response, Peter.

So did Irenaeus think that 20 years passed between Jesus' baptism and His death? Wouldn't that create a problem, since Pilate was no longer in power at that time?

I guess I just find Irenaeus' argument too convoluted to follow. :huh:

Roland

I've also heard that Irenaeus thought Jesus died in the reign of Claudius but haven't been able to find any quote backing that up. Is anyone familiar with this?

Peter Kirby

I don't know how Irenaeus would explain the chronological disparity. Here is one person's uh, problem? what problem? oh, and Skeptics Suck! spiel.

best,
Peter Kirby

spin

Peter, if Irenaeus knew the Josephus passage about the death of John the Baptist during the period of Vitellius which he could read with GJohn, would you think it strange that he could think of Jesus as over forty, hence "not yet 50?


spin

Peter Kirby

Apparently, Lucius Vitellius, formerly a consul, was governor of Syria from 35 to 38 CE.

Since Vitellius steps in without great delay, this places the war of Herod and Antipas at circa 35 CE.

Pilate was prefect of Judea from 26 to 36 CE. Caiaphas was high priest from 18 to 36 CE. Herod Antipas was tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea from 4 BCE to 39 CE.

Mark says that Herod's motive in taking John prisoner was his criticism of the marriage of Herod Antipas. Josephus gives a different reason.

John 3:24 implies Jesus had a ministry before John was in prison. Matthew 11:2 indicates that Jesus was teaching while John was in prison. Luke 20:4-6 implies that John died before Jesus did. And Mark 1:14 says that Jesus went to Galilee to proclaim the Gospel after John had been arrested.

According to Luke 3:1, the word of God came to John in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar (this could be 27, 28, or 29 CE).

The Gospels agree that Jesus was taken off the cross on the day before the sabbath. The Synoptics have Jesus crucified on Nisan 15, while John has it on Nisan 14. I have heard it said that Nisan 14 was Friday only on 30 CE and 33 CE within the rule of Pilate over Judea.

Then there are some infancy stories in Matthew and Luke (note Luke 2:2).

Anyone have any thoughts about this? Not in order to harmonize it, but to have an idea as to how this mix of data came to be.

(And, perhaps, a guess as to what Irenaeus was thinking--if he was thinking consistently.)

best,
Peter Kirby


Mark 6

17 For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife; for he had married her.
18 For John said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife.
19 And Herodias set herself against him, and desired to kill him; and she could not;
20 for Herod feared John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and kept him safe. And when he heard him, he was much perplexed; and he heard him gladly.
21 And when a convenient day was come, that Herod on his birthday made a supper to his lords, and the high captains, and the chief men of Galilee;
22 and when the daughter of Herodias herself came in and danced, she pleased Herod and them that sat at meat with him; and the king said unto the damsel, Ask of me whatsoever thou wilt, and I will give it thee.
23 And he sware unto her, Whatsoever thou shalt ask of me, I will give it thee, unto the half of my kingdom.
24 And she went out, and said unto her mother, What shall I ask? And she said, The head of John the Baptizer.
25 And she came in straightway with haste unto the king, and asked, saying, I will that thou forthwith give me on a platter the head of John the Baptist.
26 And the king was exceeding sorry; but for the sake of his oaths, and of them that sat at meat, he would not reject her.
27 And straightway the king sent forth a soldier of his guard, and commanded to bring his head: and he went and beheaded him in the prison,
28 and brought his head on a platter, and gave it to the damsel; and the damsel gave it to her mother.
29 And when his disciples heard thereof, they came and took up his corpse, and laid it in a tomb.

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/t...hus/ant18.html
Antiquities Book XVIII, Chapter 5

1. About this time this time Aretas (the king of Arabia Petres) and Herod had a quarrel on the account following: Herod the tetrarch had, married the daughter of Aretas, and had lived with her a great while; but when he was once at Rome, he lodged with Herod, who was his brother indeed, but not by the same mother; for this Herod was the son of the high priest Sireoh's daughter. However, he fell in love with Herodias, this last Herod's wife, who was the daughter of Aristobulus their brother, and the sister of Agrippa the Great. This man ventured to talk to her about a marriage between them; which address, when she admitted, an agreement was made for her to change her habitation, and come to him as soon as he should return from Rome . . . and she soon came to her father, and told him of Herod's intentions. So Aretas made this the first occasion of his enmity between him and Herod, who had also some quarrel with him about their limits at the country of Gamalitis. So they raised armies on both sides, and prepared for war, and sent their generals to fight instead of themselves; and when they had joined battle, all Herod's army was destroyed by the treachery of some fugitives, who, though they were of the tetrarchy of Philip, joined with Aretas's army. So Herod wrote about these affairs to Tiberius, who being very angry at the attempt made by Aretas, wrote to Vitellius to make war upon him, and either to take him alive, and bring him to him in bonds, or to kill him, and send him his head. This was the charge that Tiberius gave to the president of Syria.

2. Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure to him.

3. So Vitellius prepared to make war with Aretas, having with him two legions of armed men; he also took with him all those of light armature, and of the horsemen which belonged to them, and were drawn out of those kingdoms which were under the Romans, and made haste for Petra . . .

Clivedurdle

Peter, very interesting link! Reading it, my immediate reaction, with this recapitulation stuff, is we are talking about a mythical, platonic ideal type human.

Which raises an interesting question, what exactly was Iraneus arguing with the gnostics about? It might only have been there over emphasis on numbers - for example thirty. It is very interesting that the response from the academic only discusses "Christ"!

Clivedurdle

Because if you accept the concept of an ideal type human who sorts out all life's problems, as a good Platonist you understand life to be a shadow. If you start with an ideal type you must invent a real "historical" Jesus to be logically consistent!