Jesus and Me at Thirty Three.

My 33rd birthday has just gone by and that was a milestone birthday for me because that’s the Jesus birth day.  The age that Jesus got to before he kicked the bucket. Jesus, one of the most revered figures you know.  When I was 13, 33 seemed really old and a completely plausible age to figure out the ultimate mysteries of the universe. Of course, now that I’m there, I feel petty. I’m not looking to challenge the leaders of the world, starve myself in a desert for 40 days, or God forbid be drug off, beaten, and tortured to death. Quite frankly I’m not sure how challenging I would be. 30 year olds aren’t that old. It’s hard to imagine someone my age getting so much attention. Of course, if I had the magical powers… A few days ago was my 33rd birthday, which as I was always told was the age of the Christ when he died. Described, it would be hard for people not to notice. In which case the story is, why wait so late? He was smarter than the elders of the temple by 12. Maybe it was fun being human. Weddings, wine, and dinner parties. This brings me to why we think Jesus was 33 when he died. Luke 3:23 says Jesus was about 30 when he began his ministry. The Gospel of John records three Passover celebrations during Jesus’ ministry, roughly three years. Add these together and you have Jesus being about 33 when he died. Now what you have to keep in mind is that the gospel writers didn’t necessarily have the other Gospels in mind when they wrote theirs. Matthew and Luke were written as expanded edited editions of Mark. Looking at the way that they changed Mark, they didn’t view this first Gospel as the final word. Since they incorporated Mark with changes into their own works, they may have seen their works as replacements for Mark’s not supplements. John doesn’t use any of the other three as sources, so either he either didn’t know about them, or didn’t think they were as good as his own material. So, in John 6:4 Jesus clears the temple early in his career, and the other Gospels place it at the end and skip mention of an early clearing. John doesn’t mention the last clearing. He records many of the events the other Gospels do, so he’s not making a supplement. It’s a complete Gospel. We aren’t supposed to read about a clearing of the Temple on Jesus’ last Passover in Johns story. If it were so, I’m sure John would have mentioned it. The intention is that John either is unaware that such an event happened or he thinks it happened earlier, or he isn’t concerned with the order. But there wasn’t two clearings. The composite reading of the Gospels is very common. For example, in the movie The Nativity Story it used the old Christmas play plot. Matthew’s wise men meet Luke’s shepherds, who were sent by angels, at the manger. It’s a good story. I think it’s better than the original but it’s not what Luke or Matthew had in mind. It’s a new Gospel. It’s important to remember when reading the Gospels that each is telling it’s own story. I say all of this because Jesus’ age at the start of his ministry is given in Luke. The three Passover/long ministry is from John. Luke following Mark has only one Passover. It’s not a case of one vs. three. It may have been two, or four, or ten. The writers aren’t as concerned with an exact time table as they are a coherent message in a brief space. Luke may presume Jesus only had a 1 to1-½ year ministry because he doesn’t list Jesus’ age at death. Maybe we are supposed to take his earlier dates and work from there. Do any of the other gospels talk about Jesus age? Only indirectly. We can assume that he died during Pontius Pilate’s term of office (26-36 A.D.). All of the sources agree on that. Luke and Matthew agree that he was born during the reign of Herod the Great (37-4 B.C.). Luke says that he was born when a certain Quirinius, governor of Syria, took a census. There has been quit a bit of debate on this alone. According to the ancient historian Josephus, this happened in 6 A.D.. It caused a revolt in Galilee, and the start of the Zealot movement. That would have doubtlessly had an impact on Jesus’ life. But it’s ten years after Herod’s time. Hence the debate. Was Josephus wrong? or Luke (or whatever his name was, he didn’t sign his work)? Either way it’s not useful for my discussion. John has a few lines that do seem to address His age but in a roundabout way. First is at the clearing of the Temple. Jesus gives a riddle to the money changers when they ask for a miracle to prove his authority. “Jesus answered them, ‘Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.’” They replied “It has taken Forty-six years to build this temple and you are going to raise it in three days?” (John 2:19-20) The narrator tells us that the temple was his own body. The crowed is left wondering since he doesn’t explain himself. The next part is John 8:54. Here Jesus is debating about Abraham, saying that Abraham was glad to see Jesus. To this his interrogators quip “You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham?!” (John 8:57) Why fifty? To someone unacquainted with Luke, you would assume Jesus was forty something. It was an idea that circulated in the early days of Christianity. Irenaeus, in his book Against Heresy (c.180 A.D.) book II chapter 22, says that Jesus preached into his forties. Being a reader of Luke, he believed that Jesus was baptized at 30, but preached longer. It would be odd to say that a thirty year old was not yet fifty. Yeah, and he also isn’t 60 or 90 or 2000. Now back to the Temple. Other than Johns “Jews”, no one says the Temple took 46 years to build. Josephus gives 1-½ for the actual temple and 8 for the outer buildings. (Antiquity of the Jews book XV ,chapter XI, 1). Some say that there was work on the Temple Mount for decades up until the time of it’s destruction. But why cut off at 46 years? Dr. Nikos Kokkinos suggest that the rest of the riddle is that the 46 years aren’t the time the Temple was being constructed, but the time Jesus’ body was being constructed up to that point. Note the tense of the passage. The word is: taken not took, which is implying a work in progress. Also, 46 is not yet 50. Could this be a reference to the building still being built after 46 years? The Temple was started in 19 B.C.; 46 years elapsed by 28 A.D. It seems a little early for most calculations but not impossible. Kokkinos dates from the finishing of the Temple. Dates tend to vary. Kokkinos has 12 B.C., Josephus either 17 or 11 B.C. so year that the statement was made would be about 30-34 A.D. The exact dates around Jesus are tantalizingly vauge. We almost know, but probably never will with certainty. Anyhow, if John was right I have 13 more years to work on being hated by scribes and Pharisees. Wish me luck.   Good reads and work cited: Peter James and Nick Thorpe, “Ancient Mysteries” Josephus, “Antiquity of the Jews”