How old was Jesus according to Irenaeus?

[Christian2]

The basis for my questions is this document:

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01...m#P7011_1802900

I've read it many times and still don't understand it

Is Irenaeus claiming that Jesus was about 50 when He died?

Clip from document:

6. 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? "157 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 being158 of flesh and blood. He did not then wont much of being fifty years old;159 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, unless indeed, among their Aeons, there be so long years assigned to those who sit in their ranks with Bythus in the Pleroma; of which beings Homer the poet, too, has spoken, doubtless being inspired by the Mother of their [system of] error:-

Irenaeus is referring to the following Bible passages:

John 8: 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” 57 Then the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?”

Why did the Jews say "you are not yet fifty" when logically they should have said, "you are not yet forty"? Christians believe that Jesus was baptized at about 30 and preached for about 3 years--making Him approximately 33 when He died.

DC Carson, "The Gospel According to John," William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991, said the following:

"…Jesus was not yet fifty (a round figure, and no indication of Jesus' age at the time, despite the deductions made by a number of church Fathers)…."

Not much help.

What is Irenaeus trying to say?

[Canuckster1127]

Interesting.

First time I've been aware of the issue.

Seems to me that its explainable simply by noting that the Patristic Father's conjecture is just that.

Makes me wonder if there's a cultural context. There were some age threshholds for certain matters with regards to "Rabbi's" and their fitness to address certain issues. For example, addressing the Song of Song's or as it is commonly known, the Song of Solomon was reserved for those over 30.

While I'm not aware of anything directly related to this passage that I recall in past reading being offered as an explanation, I'd simply state that there is no reason to believe if Jesus was perceived to be older than he was or not. Someone who is not over 40 is also not over 50. For whatever reason, that's the age the speakers gave. The question of inspiration in this instance would be if the event and words of the speakers, not their thinking.

I woudl take this simply as a rambling series of thought. I don't see Iraeneus trying to say anything about the age of Christ.

He's just ruminating, thinking out loud if you will, and questioning the thinking of the speakers in the quoted passage.

My guess, and that is all it is, is that 50 years old would correlate to a cultural standard which attributed wisdom on the basis of years to a person. Or it could be as simple as their attaching an older age to simply amplify they're incredulity at the claim they were hearing Christ make in terms of his statement, which I recollect as having been, "Before Abraham was, I am"

Consider as well that that statement was provoking in and of itself, because God's name, "Yahweh" is actually a form of the Hebrew verb "to be."

Thus when Jesus made his several "I am" statements as recorded in the Gospel of John, there was an understood reference to divinity, that would not be lost on his audience at that time.

An attribute of divinity is eternal existence. The statement may well have been directly challenging that implication in which case, the use of 50 is just a good round number to try and express the ridiculousness of that implied claim when seen by those without knowledge of who Jesus really was, or who rejected his claim. In fact, in that case, using 50 is more effective than say, 40 because those hearing could look at him and readily know that he was still very much younger than 50.

My thoughts for what they are worth.

[Christian2]

Canuckster1127,

Thank you for your response.

Makes me wonder if there's a cultural context. There were some age threshholds for certain matters with regards to "Rabbi's" and their fitness to address certain issues. For example, addressing the Song of Song's or as it is commonly known, the Song of Solomon was reserved for those over 30.

I wondered about the same thing. I was wondering if it had anything to do with the "stages of life" or a method of determining when a Rabbi was considered a Master according to the calculations of the Jews in the first century. I don't know enough about that subject. Guess I need a Jew's opinion.

I wasn't aware that the Song of Solomon was reserved for those over 30. That could be a hint.

I am inclined not to think that Irenaeus thought that Jesus was about 50 for two reasons.

1. I could find nothing in church records of anyone countering his claim and there would be since Christians believe that Jesus died at the age of 33.

2. If Irenaeus thought that Jesus lived to be around 50, isn't he contradicting himself in the same document when he said that Jesus started his ministry at age 30 and preached for 3 years as the Gospels indicate?

His argument is against people who said that Jesus preached for only one year and he goes on to explain that cannot be and counts the Passovers that Jesus attended as proof and said it was noted in the Gospels.

This part is also difficult to understand:

Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years,154 and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth andfiftieth 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.155 And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan.156 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?

Unless I am misinterpreting, it seems that the paragraph above is saying that John and some other apostles agreed with Irenaeus.

This has to be the most poorly written document I've ever read.

Thanks again.

[Kurieuo]

I do admire some Irenaeus' thinking, but this is one area where he didn't consider an alternative possibilities. For example could it be the Pharisees thought Jesus older, or there is some significance in Jewish culture about age 50. I went looking and found in Matthew Henry's commentry:

[2.] The Jews cavil at this, and reproach him for it (Joh_8:57): Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Here, First, They suppose that if Abraham saw him and his day he also had seen Abraham, which yet was not a necessary innuendo, but this turn of his words would best serve to expose him; yet it was true that Christ had seen Abraham, and had talked with him as a man talks with his friend. Secondly, They suppose it a very absurd thing for him to pretend to have seen Abraham, who was dead so many ages before he was born. The state of the dead is an invisible state; but here they ran upon the old mistake, understanding that corporally which Christ spoke spiritually. Now this gave them occasion to despise his youth, and to upbraid him with it, as if he were but of yesterday, and knew nothing: Thou art not yet fifty years old. They might as well have said, Thou art not forty; for he was now but thirty-two or thirty-three years old. As to this, Irenaeus, one of the first fathers, with this passage supports the tradition which he says he had from some that had conversed with St. John, that our Saviour lived to be fifty years old, which he contends for, Advers. Haeres. lib. 2, cap. 39, 40. See what little credit is to be given to tradition; and, as to this here, the Jews spoke at random; some year they would mention, and therefore pitched upon one that they thought he was far enough short of; he did not look to be forty, but they were sure he could not be fifty, much less contemporary with Abraham. Old age is reckoned to begin at fifty (Num_4:47), so that they meant no more than this, "Thou art not to be reckoned an old man; many of us are much thy seniors, and yet pretend not to have seen Abraham." Some think that his countenance was so altered, with grief and watching, that, together with the gravity of his aspect, it made him look like a man of fifty years old: his visage was so marred, Isa_52:14.

Hope this helps.

Kurieuo

[puritan lad]

Ireneaus also taught that Jesus had a public ministry of over 15 years. He was a great church father, but a poor historian.

This has ramifications for those who use his work as evidence for the late date of the writing of Revelation (96 AD). He is the only one who held to such a date, whereas pretty much all others support the early date (66 AD).

[Canuckster1127]

Ireneaus also taught that Jesus had a public ministry of over 15 years. He was a great church father, but a poor historian.

This has ramifications for those who use his work as evidence for the late date of the writing of Revelation (96 AD). He is the only one who held to such a date, whereas pretty much all others support the early date (66 AD).

That would obviously have great implications as to the significance of the symbology in Revelations looking forward to the actual (in hindsight) events of 70 AD. (Hardly surprising given your known Preterist position

Isn't there significant internal evidence based upon the presumed authorship of John and known circumstances in situations referenced or inferred in the text?

[puritan lad]

Isn't there significant internal evidence based upon the presumed authorship of John and known circumstances in situations referenced or inferred in the text?

Yes, and they support an early date.

There is tons of evidence to support this, but I'll highlight the two most obvious.

1.) The Temple was still standing in Jerusalem when John wrote Revelation (Rev. 11:1-8). This would not have been the case in 96 AD.

2.) Nero, the sixth Roman emperor (54-68 AD), was ruling when John wrote Revelation (Rev. 17:10)

There is also the state of the churches themselves, as well as the tons of Jewish themes throughout the book.

You may want to read Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation by Kenneth Gentry.