F
Fox
Guest
Can anyone tell me the age Jesus was when he was crucified/died? I have read its anywhere from 33 to mid 40s!!!
- Status
E
EasterJoy
Guest
Having been born in obscurity, the exact date of Jesus’ birth can’t be verified in the way historians would like, or even estimated independently of the scriptural account. His age can only be estimated from the known dates regarding those recorded in scriptures as having been the sovereigns in Judea and Galilee when he was born and when he died. I think there is a better idea of the year in which he was crucified, but as far as I know, there isn’t a direct historical recording even of that event. There were a lot of Jews being crucified by the Romans in those days, many for political reasons whose exact nature did not concern the Romans as much as one might suppose.
B
bpbasilphx
Guest
Traditionally, around 33.
E
Eliza10
Guest
Tradition ays 33. And that is thought of as being the perfect age. So the Perfect One made the perfect sacrifice at the perfect age.
R
redrosetea
Guest
I have always heard 33
T
thistle
Guest
Luke 3:23 “When Jesus began his ministry he was about thirty years of age.”Can anyone tell me the age Jesus was when he was crucified/died? I have read its anywhere from 33 to mid 40s!!!
As his ministry lasted 3 years he would be about 33 years old when he died. To me the word about could mean plus or minus a couple of years. Anyway his exact age is irrelevant.
P
palmas85
Guest
Depending on which Gospel is more accurate we can assume His ministry lasted from about a year and a half to three years. So His death would be anywhere from about 31 1/2 to 33 or so.
But that is just conjecture on my part.
But that is just conjecture on my part.
E
ElectricMayhem
Guest
True, but the 3 year ministry is only evident in John, not Luke. According to Luke, if Jesus was about 30, he died in less than one year because he went to jerusalem once and died (and it was a long journey for him in Luke). Only in John do we have Jesus in jerusalem three times (actually 4) and dying on the last- hence three years. Does it matter, though- not really. But it will win you money on jeopardy!
I find this thread interesting because a while back I was perusing a book called “Ancient Mysteries” by Peter James and Nick Thorpe, and in it, they explore the story of the Star of Bethlehem. They conclude that the “star” HAD to have been a comet (based on a study by Dr. David Hughes of Sheffield University, U.K.) and that Halley’s Comet would be the likeliest candidate, except for the date of its appearance (if Christ, indeed, was 33 at the time of his death.)
They cite research done by Dr. Nikos Kokkinos, a scholar from Athens trained in theology, Roman archaeology, and ancient history:
Detailed study of the Roman and New Testament evidence shows that Christ would have been crucified in A.D. 36… This date, now widely accepted by other New Testament scholars, provides the first step toward dating Christ’s birth.
The next step, of course, is to work out how old Christ was when he was crucified. The most common view accepts that Christ was quite a young man, in his thirties. As Kokkinos points out, this does not ring true. To be considered a rabbi (religious teacher) in ancient Jewish society, one normally had to have reached the age of fifty… For example, Bishop Irenaeus stated in the second century A.D. that Jesus was about fifty years of age when he taught (Irenaeus was a pupil of Polycarp, who knew people who claimed to have actually seen Christ.) Most intriguing of all are the precise indications offered by the Gospel of St. John, which states at one point (8:57) that Christ was “not yet fifty.” Another passage in John (2:20) relates a curious story in which Christ compares his body–indeed his life–to the temple in Jerusalem, which was “forty and six years in building.” None of Jerusalem’s three successive temples took forty-six years to build, and the best interpretations of this riddling anecdote is that argued by Kokkinos: that Christ was saying tha the was the same age as the temple–i.e., forty-six years. The temple that stood in Jerusalem during Christ’s lifetime was that completed by King Herod in 12 B.C. Forty-six years brings us to A.D. 34, the first year of Christ’s ministry, according to Kokkinos. It would follow that Christ was forty-eight when hew as crucified in A.D. 36, agreeing with all the other indications that he was nearly fifty.
(continued in next post)
They cite research done by Dr. Nikos Kokkinos, a scholar from Athens trained in theology, Roman archaeology, and ancient history:
Detailed study of the Roman and New Testament evidence shows that Christ would have been crucified in A.D. 36… This date, now widely accepted by other New Testament scholars, provides the first step toward dating Christ’s birth.
The next step, of course, is to work out how old Christ was when he was crucified. The most common view accepts that Christ was quite a young man, in his thirties. As Kokkinos points out, this does not ring true. To be considered a rabbi (religious teacher) in ancient Jewish society, one normally had to have reached the age of fifty… For example, Bishop Irenaeus stated in the second century A.D. that Jesus was about fifty years of age when he taught (Irenaeus was a pupil of Polycarp, who knew people who claimed to have actually seen Christ.) Most intriguing of all are the precise indications offered by the Gospel of St. John, which states at one point (8:57) that Christ was “not yet fifty.” Another passage in John (2:20) relates a curious story in which Christ compares his body–indeed his life–to the temple in Jerusalem, which was “forty and six years in building.” None of Jerusalem’s three successive temples took forty-six years to build, and the best interpretations of this riddling anecdote is that argued by Kokkinos: that Christ was saying tha the was the same age as the temple–i.e., forty-six years. The temple that stood in Jerusalem during Christ’s lifetime was that completed by King Herod in 12 B.C. Forty-six years brings us to A.D. 34, the first year of Christ’s ministry, according to Kokkinos. It would follow that Christ was forty-eight when hew as crucified in A.D. 36, agreeing with all the other indications that he was nearly fifty.
(continued in next post)
(continued from previous post)
The other fallout is that Jesus wold have been born in 12 B.C. The cutoff point of 8 B.C. accepted by many scholars as the earliest date for Jesus’ birth has been shown by Kokkinos to rest on very weak grounds. There is no good evidence of a Roman taxation census in that year–the earliest Roman census in Judaea was actually in A.D. 6, too late for any Nativity chronology. More likely, Joseph and Mary wen to Bethlehem in 12 B.C. to be registed for a local tax census organized by King Herod… It was only after arguing the 12 B.C. date on other grounds that Kokkinos noticed the coincidence with the appearance of Halley’s Coment in 12-11 B.C. (Ancient Mysteries, “The Star of Bethlehem”, pp.153-165)
Of course, this could all just be a load of nothing, but it’s gratifying to see scientists taking a serious look at what so many may dismiss as “sentimental fantasy” or “myth”. As far as I know, there is no dogma concerning the age of Christ at His death, so I don’t think it really matters. The book actually does a great job of debunking a lot of theories put forth by “ancient astronaut” theorist Erich von Daniken (who believes the Easter Island statues were built by “intelligent beings” from another world and that the Nazca lines in Peru were actually landing strips for aliens ships) so I was surprised to see that they seemed to take the research on the Star of Bethlehem seriously.
If you can find the book, check it out. The whole section on the star of Bethlehem is fascinating.
The other fallout is that Jesus wold have been born in 12 B.C. The cutoff point of 8 B.C. accepted by many scholars as the earliest date for Jesus’ birth has been shown by Kokkinos to rest on very weak grounds. There is no good evidence of a Roman taxation census in that year–the earliest Roman census in Judaea was actually in A.D. 6, too late for any Nativity chronology. More likely, Joseph and Mary wen to Bethlehem in 12 B.C. to be registed for a local tax census organized by King Herod… It was only after arguing the 12 B.C. date on other grounds that Kokkinos noticed the coincidence with the appearance of Halley’s Coment in 12-11 B.C. (Ancient Mysteries, “The Star of Bethlehem”, pp.153-165)
Of course, this could all just be a load of nothing, but it’s gratifying to see scientists taking a serious look at what so many may dismiss as “sentimental fantasy” or “myth”. As far as I know, there is no dogma concerning the age of Christ at His death, so I don’t think it really matters. The book actually does a great job of debunking a lot of theories put forth by “ancient astronaut” theorist Erich von Daniken (who believes the Easter Island statues were built by “intelligent beings” from another world and that the Nazca lines in Peru were actually landing strips for aliens ships) so I was surprised to see that they seemed to take the research on the Star of Bethlehem seriously.
If you can find the book, check it out. The whole section on the star of Bethlehem is fascinating.
- Status