Username: 
Password: 
   
 Forgot Password
 
     

Go to fullsize image

Jesus Was About 30 Years Old When He Died

CHURCH POSITION

"And Jesus himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years of age..." (Luke 3:23)
SCHOLARS
THE REALITY

The idea that Jesus was 30 years old when he died came about from a confluence of errors and mis-interpretations. The first error was the long standing belief that Jesus was born in the year 0 or 1, because that was the date at which BC - before Christ - and AD -the year of the lord - started. The second error was that Jesus started his ministry at age 30 and then died during the first year. All of this is incorrect.

  • With regard to Jesus' birthdate, unfortunately this was an error made by a 6th century Monk in dating the birth of Jesus, and most people now accept that Jesus was born in 6 BC when Herod was the King.
  • The next mistake is believing that when Luke says "about 30 years of age" he actually means that Jesus was 30. Not only does he say "about", Luke's work is notoriously inaccurate, so the phrase "about 30 years" leaves wide latitude.
  • The next mistake is the assumption that Jesus died during his first year or ministry, which the 2nd error places at the age of 30.

Thus, Jesus is born in the year 0, starts his ministry at age 30, and dies in the 1st year of his ministry = Jesus died at age 30.

So, if he wasn't 30 years old when he died, how old was he? There are claims that Jesus escaped his execution and lived to the ripe old ages of 106 and even 120. Putting these aside for the moment, if we accept the common theory that Jesus died as a result of his crucifixion or hanging, there are several ways to date his death. It can be dated with respect to the central players (i.e., Pilate, the High Priest Caiaphas, and John the Baptist) for whom there is a reasonable amount of historical information. Or it can be dated with respect to the Gospel text, or even with respect to other canonical publications. Hopefully, all three ways coincide.

 

Historical Data

 

The best way to date the death of Christ is to look for the key players in his death drama, about whom there is considerable information, and to establish the context surrounding Jesus’ death. We begin by acknowledging that Jesus’ death followed the death of John the Baptist, and occurred while Caiaphas was High Priest and while Pilate was Prefect. We have reason to believe that John the Baptist met his gruesome death in 35 A.D. [1], Caiaphas was deposed by Lucius Vitellius, the legate of Syria, in 36 A.D. and Pilate was recalled to Rome at the end of 36 A.D [2]. Ipso facto, Jesus must have been crucified in the year 36 A.D. Having been born in 6 B.C. and having died in 36 A.D. means that Jesus was in his 40s when he died, probably 42 years old.

 

The Gospel Record

 

Further proof that Jesus was in his 40s when he died comes directly from the Gospel of John. Jesus is discussing the destruction of the temple and he says: “Destroy this temple, and in 3 days I will raise it up.” The Jews then said, ‘This temple has been under construction for 46 years, and you will raise it up in 3 days?’ But he was speaking of the temple of his body (John 2:20-21).” John points out that later, when he is crucified, Jesus’ disciples remembered his prophecy of the 3 days; however, no one seems to recall the 46 years. Taken at his word, Jesus is clearly saying that he is 46 years old, and that when he dies, he will resurrect in 3 days. If Jesus was 46 years old when he died in 36 A.D., it means he was born in 10 B.C., which is theoretically possible, although 6 B.C. is a more probable date.

 

We find further proof that Jesus is in his 40s from the Gospel of John. Jesus is in a Temple, close to the Mount of Olives, talking to the Scribes and Pharisees. The subject turns to Abraham, and the “Jews” ask Jesus: “You are not yet 50 years old, and have you seen Abraham? (8:57).”Jesus answers: “…before Abraham was, I am”, but the important thing to observe here is that the questioners describe Jesus as not yet being 50. Were he in his 20s or 30s, they would have chosen a different year, but by saying that he is not yet 50, they clearly identify him as being in his forties.

 

Other Christian Sources

 

The noted Christian Irenaeus (130-202 A.D.) in Against Heresies (2:22:6) believed that Jesus was nearly 50 years old when he died.

 

All this evidence shows a significant divergence from the commonly accepted idea that Jesus was in his 30s when he died. All three methods indicate Jesus died in his 40s, between 42 and 46. It also suggests that Jesus’ ministry was significantly longer than the 1 to 3 years that are traditionally attributed to it, because if he began his ministry when he was about 30, and he died between 42 and 46, his ministry was 12 or more years, not 1 or 3.

[1] Schonfield, The Jesus Party, 1974, p.51

[2] Josephus, Antiquities, XVIII, 90, vol ix. P.65
EXPRESS YOURSELF
 
REVIEW SECTION

   Books

   Films

   TV

   Other
 
MOST COMMON ERRORS
     
READER'S FORUM    
Date:     2006-06-09 Username:   drj Helpful:   2 of 3
Quite a bit. For one thing, it explains how he was able to build up such a large following. For another, a middle aged weary Jesus is much more likely to have made the journey to Jerusalem.
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2006-06-25 Username:   drj Helpful:   3 of 3
Many scholars believe that Jesus' entrance into Jerusalem was with the self-conscious decision to be martyred. Such a decision is much more likely to be made by a middle aged man who already has tried for 12 years to bring the Kingdom, yet still is surrounded by disciples who don't understand him and followers who ask for his miracles and claim that his teachings are just too hard to follow. Death might appear to be a noble way out to a middle aged man.
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2006-09-24 Username:   DanUnterbrink Helpful:   0 of 0
The birth of Jesus has three different dates according to the New Testament. Luke placed the date at 6 AD, at the census (Luke 2:1-3) and at 2 BC per the calculation of John the Baptist's arrival less thirty years (Luke 3:1 and 3:23). Matthew placed the date at the end of Herod the Great's reign, or from 9-4 BC. As you have correctly noted, there is a problem in the Gospel accounts. However, you come to the conclusion that Jesus was born in 8 BC. This dating is dependent on the "star of Bethlehem" story. The only other account of the "star of Bethlehem" comes from the Slavonic Josephus. This account placed the birth in the early years of Herod, around 30-25 BC. This earlier dating is consistent with the purported age of James, the brother of Jesus. In addition, according to the Slavonic Josephus, John the Baptist came onto the scene during the reign of Archelaus, or in 6 AD. Thus, the earlier dating of Jesus' birth makes more sense than the three different Gospel dates. The death of Jesus could not have occurred after the death of John the Baptist, or post 36 AD. "Antiquities" and the Slavonic Josephus both confirm that the death of John occurred in 36 AD, some 3-5 years after the Gospel account. The Gospels claimed that John believed in Jesus from the beginning of John's ministry to the time when he languished in prison. If that is so, then why did John continue to have such a following? It seems as if John and his disciples would have become followers of Jesus. Yet, Josephus claimed that John had the power to "raise a rebellion" among the masses (Ant. 18.118). I believe John was still on the scene long after Jesus had been crucified. That is why many Jews followed the living John as opposed to the crucified Jesus. According to our current account of Antiquities, the spurious "Jesus" passage comes right after Pilate provoked the Jews at the beginning of his reign. In context, all other events described by Josephus surrounding the Pilate passages can be dated at 18-19 AD. This is the probable date of Jesus' death. This is further supported by the dating of Paul's argument with Cephas (Galatians). According to traditional dating, this argument took place around 55 AD. However, Josephus described a similar argument between Eleazar and Ananias concerning the conversion of King Izates. Like Cephas, Eleazar preached the necessity of circumcision (Ant. 20.43,44). This can be accurately dated at 43 AD. In all likelihood, Paul's argument was also in the early 40's. That being the case, Jesus must have been crucified around 19 AD. If Jesus was born around 25 BC and died in 19 AD, then he was in his middle 40's. This is consistent with your argument but the dates have been moved back a generation. This earlier dating also helps explain how this movement could have spread to so much of the world by the 50's. Suetonius claimed that in 50 AD, the Jews at Rome who were followers of "Chrestus" were causing disturbances and had to be expelled from the city (Twelve Caesars, Claudius 25). If Jesus died in 36 AD, then it is hard to imagine how his poorly organized group could spread to Rome and beyond in only a few years. No, only the earlier birth and death can explain all the facts.
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2006-09-26 Username:   drj Helpful:   1 of 1
Hi Dan. Thanks for your comments, but I think you have misread many sections of the website. Here are some reactions - (1) I never claimed that Jesus was born in 8 BC. My preferred date is 6 BC. (2) I believe the "star of Bethlehem" is mythic, not real. Were it real, there are a number of dates that could apply. In my book Jesus Who? I list 11-12, 6, 5, and 4 BC as possible dates. (3) My dates for the death of John the Baptist are 34/35 AD and Jesus 36 AD. Every scholar I know of dates Jesus' death after Johns', and I agree. (4) Jesus' group was not small nor poorly organized, as I note in one of the sections on the website, and hence he could die in 36 AD and have spread by mid 1st Century.
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2006-09-27 Username:   DanUnterbrink Helpful:   0 of 0
Hi drj, I apologize for incorrectly stating your date for the birth of Jesus. I must have been thinking about William Barclay's date of 8 BC. Barclay knew there was a problem with Luke's dating at the census. To explain this away, Barclay wrote that Luke might have meant a census some 14 years earlier, or about 8 BC. In addition, I fully agree with you that the "star of Bethlehem" may have been a Christian story, not an historical reality. This story may have had its origin in the Star Prophecy, where many Jews believed that a world ruler would come from Israel. (Josephus attributed the Star Prophecy to Vespasian.) We both place the birth of Jesus at the "star of Bethlehem" story. You follow Matthew, who placed the time towards the end of Herod the Great's rule (9-4 BC). I follow the Slavonic Josephus, which dates this story about 20 years earlier, from 30-25 BC. The earlier dating has the following advantages: 1. According to Epiphanius, James, the brother of Jesus, died at the age of 96 in 62 AD. This would have yielded a birth date of 35 BC. This advanced age may be an exaggeration as the same church historian stated that James died a virgin. According to Paul, James was a married man. So, it is very possible that 96 years old is a slight stretch. However, James was probably a very old man at his death (80-96?). The birth of Jesus in 30-25 BC fits in quite nicely with James' age. 2. The Slavonic Josephus placed the beginning of John the Baptist's ministry at 6 AD, during the reign of Archelaus. This John was very fiery, the same as in the Gospels. However, the Slavonic version stated that John preached a nationalism identical to Judas the Galilean. The placement of the John passage was right before Josephus claimed that Judas the Galilean was a preacher different than all the others. Josephus also called Judas a wise man and a clever rabbi. (Josephus never said a word about Jesus!) In addition, if Judas the Galilean was born about 25 BC, then he would have been approximately 30 years old at the census uprising (6 AD and the introduction of John). At least, the earlier scenario about Jesus' birth fits the other facts (James, John the Baptist and the age 30). I'll get to your points 3 and 4 tomorrow.
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2006-09-29 Username:   DanUnterbrink Helpful:   3 of 3
Hi drj, There are four historical figures which help explain the last days of Jesus: Annas, Caiaphas, Pilate and John the Baptist. Annas was appointed High Priest in 7 AD by the Roman governor, Coponius. This appointment coincided with Judas the Galilean's tax revolt. To put it mildly, Judas and Annas would have been mortal enemies. Annas remained High Priest until 15 AD, when he was replaced by a series of one year wonders, appointed by Gratus. The last of these appointments was Caiaphas, in the year 18 AD. (Caiaphas remained High Priest throughout the reign of Pilate.) According to John 18:13, "They bound him [Jesus] and brought him first to Annas, who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest that year." Interestingly, Jesus was first brought to Annas, the former High Priest. No one would have been more interested with Jesus (Judas the Galilean) than Annas. When Annas was through with Jesus, he was sent to Caiaphas. Note that if this had been at the end of Caiaphas' career (36-37 AD), then John would not have denoted Caiaphas as the "high priest that year." In addition, Annas may have been very old or dead by 36 AD. It does make sense that this occurred in 19 AD, because Annas would have only been 4 years removed from the High Priest position. The next piece of the puzzle is Pilate. According to the current text of Antiquities, Gratus served 11 years even though the text details 3 years. Thus, the traditional dating for Pilate is 26-37 AD. This dating is questionable because the text only covered 3 years of Gratus and the text surrounding the Pilate passages are all dated at 18-19 AD. This earlier dating is supported by Tacitus. Thus, the spurious "Jesus passage" in Antiquities can be dated at 19 AD. ( I believe this "Jesus passage" was originally about Judas the Galilean. Note that Josephus wrote about the life of Judas, claiming him to the founder of a new philosophy. Why would Josephus not tell of Judas' death? After all, Josephus did relate the deaths of Judas' two sons by crucifixion, another son in 66 AD and a grandson at Masada (73 AD). At each death, Josephus referred back to Judas the Galilean.) Using the star of Bethlehem story as placed by the Slavonic Josephus, Judas would have been between 43-48 years old in 19 AD. In addition, you state that John 2:20 referred to Jesus' age as being 46. "The Jews replied, 'It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days'". The Jews were referring to the physical Temple, not Jesus' age. (The Temple was rebuilt by Herod in 20 BC. Thus, the 46 years would bring this conversation to 26-27 AD. This is after my dating and before yours. I think the number 46 was used to get to the Pilate era as preached by the early church.) The last figure in this calculation is John the Baptist. According to Josephus, John died in 35-36 AD, many years after the traditional dating for Jesus' death (30-33 AD). You state that most scholars believe that John died before Jesus. If that is the case, then why do most hold to the traditional dating of 30-33 AD for Jesus' death? It must be a matter of faith! John introduced the earthly Jesus in 6 AD. The preaching of John as recorded in the New Testament may relate to John predicting the return of Jesus. That is why John talks of judgment (Matt. 3:11,12). Even though John was part of the Jesus movement after the death of Jesus, many disciples preferred this living prophet to a dead one. That is why John commanded so much power over the people, as related by Josephus (Ant. 18.118). As to the size of the movement: I believe that the fourth philosophy of Judas was known to every Jewish congregation throughout the Roman Empire. The same cannot be said for the movement as described by the Gospels. According to Acts 1:15, the number of believers after the crucifixion numbered only 120, a small group indeed. And you claim that this small nucleus moved throughout the Roman Empire in just a few years (post 36 AD). Not likely.
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2006-09-29 Username:   drj Helpful:   1 of 1
Hi Dan. The errors in estimating Jesus' age at 30 when he died are outlined above. In addition, scholars often throw in the Nisan discrepancies between the synoptic gospels and the GoJ, which allowed for the crucifixion to have occurred in 30, 33, or 36. Because of the errors noted in this article (e.g., Luke says "about 30", people believe his ministry was 1 or 3 years, Jesus' birth is dated from 1), they threw out the 36 date and concentrated on the 30 and 33 dates. This was a mistake. There was no reason to throw out the 36 date, especially with John the Baptist dying in 34 or 35 AD, then 36 is the only date that makes sense.
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2007-02-05 Username:   glass Helpful:   2 of 2
i see the debate is revolving around some of the hypotheses put forward by Dr. Eisler in the early 20th century. i too agree with DanUnterbrink in that the gospels substitue jesus for Judas the Galilean, or vice versa. it does make sense of the charges in Luke, for instance, that state that he is an advocate for not paying taxes. it does lead into the question of BarAbbas immediately. who, in Luke, was coming into a kingship? it would seem that somehow Judas was baited into an attack at the mount of olives, but it was an ambush. if BarAbbas is seen as an Herodian receiving the Judean kingship from the roman authorities, i am not clear on my chronology working from memory. it may have been that this person was a decoy, or a real person, who Judas and his followers meant to intercept and kill in the name of nationalistic principles--a motive of late all too prevalent and in the public consciousness, though without the context of understanding how basic and prevalent these very human motives are. by transforming judas into jesus, did this not push one more thorn into the crown of whomever it was who died on that day? did it not make a martyr's crown for countless untold souls who loved the truth more than life itself?
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2007-12-22 Username:   tall Helpful:   2 of 2
DRJ and DanUnterbrink can’t agree when John the Baptist was killed. I think you should look at this web site http://www.cursormundi.com/newtestament/jesus/death-john-the-baptist.php. He also has 35 AD, but does mention it might have been 31 AD. However it does not follow that Jesus was crucified after John the Baptist was killed. Mark couldn’t have added John’s death after the crucifixion as the crucifixion and resurrection are the climax of his gospel, therefore if he wanted the story he had to put it in before the crucifixion. I note that DRJ does not try to refute Dan when he states that Jesus was born around 30-25 he just states he thinks it could be 11-12, 6, 5, and 4 BC. Maybe it would help the debate to know that DanUnterbrink equates Jesus with Judas the Galilean (http://www.religioustolerance.org/unter01.htm). DRJ does not comment on Dan’s view that Pilate’s dating should be 18-37 AD. The idea that Jesus was really Judas the Galilean a Zealot is interesting, but it all rests on the Slavonic Josephus and I do not know anything about it compared with other versions.
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
Date:     2007-12-23 Username:   drj Helpful:   1 of 1
Hi Tall. Thanks for your input. Here are some responses. (a) I think almost everyone will agree that John was killed prior to Jesus. It is always listed that way. (b) As far as Pilate is concened, I agree that he was in power until late 36 CE and was removed and travelled to Rome in 37. (c) I think the gospel stories of Jesus were made from the oral stories of several people who lived between 100 BCE and 50 CE and it's entirely possible that stories about Judas the Galilean contributed to this. But there is no proof that Jesus = Judas even though stoires about Judas may have been woven into the gospel fabric. (d) I think the Slavonic Josephus is very interesting and offers an alternate viewpoint. It was subject to traditional Christian influences, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't subject to other influences.
Was this comment helpful to you?
   
 
Sort This Forum By

o Date    o Username    o Helpfulness
Refer This Page to a Friend
POST YOUR COMMENT - You must sign in to post comment    
     
 
Home           Links Page            Feed Back            Dateline            News            References