The Greater Miracle

The long ages in Genesis 5 and the latter part of chapter eleven create a question mark in any postmodern Bible Study.  They seem to be more fiction than fact.  Seldom do we see one who graces the world over a century old, definitely not three quarters of a millennia. 

There are several theories.

• Genesis was written during the Babylonian captivity.  These ages are just a vestige of the Sumerian Kings who were reported to have lived for several millennia.
• The Hebrew people were heavily influenced by Sumerian mythology at the time of the writing of Genesis.  The Patriarchs again are merely a vestige of polytheism and the millennia old Sumerian Kings.*
• The world shaneh really means “revolution or repetition of time.”  The word does not demand the rendering of “year”.  The word could simply be rendered “month” meaning a revolution of the moon instead of the earth around the sun.  One would simply divide the ages by twelve, since the average Hebrew year was twelve months.**
• The ages are an accurate portrayal of pre-flood lifespans.  Man lived longer before the flood and then after the flood his lifespan gradually declined.***

The first and second views are the common viewpoints that liberal scholars agree upon.  This does not necessarily, dismiss a global flood or Adam being the first man, but one would hard pressed to find any theologian that believes in the vestigial theories that would hold to any literal interpretation of Genesis.  Do not take my word for it, do the reading and try to contradict this understanding. 

This being said a relation with a text does not automatically imply a common source.  For example, almost all mythologies around the globe contain a flood myth.  Liberal scholars tend to believe that the Jewish culture rewrote the Sumerian/Chaldean myth of Gilgamesh along with the Sumerian Kings.  They would not hold to a Mesopotamian influence on the Australian aborigines who also hold to a detailed flood myth.  The source for Genesis did not have to come from Babylon.  The two accounts could have had a common source or two different sources.  Genesis 5:1 cites a source for its relay of the history of the Patriarchs. 

The third view is the simplest of the four to understand.  It is easy to present and easy to remember.  At first it seems to make sense.

These ages seem more reasonable, even though incredibly old for the ancient world.  The average lifespan in the ancient world was 40.  This does not mean that everyone lived this long.  These may have been the exceptions to the rule.  The problem with this position comes when one tries to divide the age of the Patriarchs became fathers of their sons in the genealogies. 

.

If shaneh really is being rendered month in Genesis 5 and 11 then it probable the Patriarchs were boy fathers.  In women this in modern times has been the exception not the rule.  At least one five year old girl has had menarche, but this is not common.  One would have to question whether such a young girl could carry a child to term.  The question here, though is whether spermarche can occur before the age of nine consistently, hence the title “The Greater Miracle”. Is it more probable to believe in century old men than kindergarten fathers.  The word cuwph  can be rendered “reed” instead of “Red”.  Which is more probable?  God parted the sea or that Pharaoh’s army drowned in ankle deep water.  This third position seems to be a moderate position.  It is liberal enough to explain half of what seems to be improbable, but so conservative that it creates more improbable conclusions. 

Here are my personal thoughts on the most reasonable conclusion.  The fourth view seems to be the most logical.  One, the best solution for the presence of a flood myth in almost every society is the reality of a common source.  The source of a global mythology seems to be a global flood.  This common source seems to be represented most accurately in the monotheistic book of Genesis, which for several reasons is a peculiar book in the ancient world.  This “book of Adam” or “history of Adam” seems to give accurate information on the flood, so it also seems to give accurate information on the creation of the human race and the Patriarchs.  Also, archeology has uncovered different renderings of the story of Gilgamesh.  Over time we can see the evolution of the story.  No such renderings have been uncovered in relation to Hebrew texts.

Second, the rendering of shaneh as year seems to be the most reasonable.  I do not believe that the human body matured this much faster than it does today.  Even if it did, one would have to think that the village raised the children, because their parents were too young to do so.  If one wishes to dismiss the fathering ages, then one needs to demonstrate historical grounds to do so.  Merely that they are improbable does not seem intellectually honest.

Last, obviously there is more information on this subject and the first two views presented did not receive ample discussion.  This has been mostly a response to the third view, because I feel this is the most illogical of the four.  Also, to my knowledge there is no archeological basis for it.  I believe that the Patriarchs lived as long as they did and if anything I would allow gaps in the genealogies.  This would give the “book of Adam” more time to record the deaths of Shem and other Patriarchs who died, if you take the record concretely literally, a hundred years or so after Abraham.  It is not uncommon for a genealogy in the Bible to have gaps and Jacob seemed to have no knowledge of Shem’s recent death in his discussion with the Pharaoh, Genesis 47:9.  Again my view would add time not subtract it.  This may not be necessary considering there is a 400 year gap between Genesis and Exodus.  They could have received the “book of Adam” during that time or Moses could have found it in the Egyptian library or while he was in Midian.

* This view and the one before it commonly present that Hebrew people were polytheist long before they were monotheist.  This is due the peculiarity of monotheism in the ancient world.

** The Hebrew year was twelve thirty day months, with the exception of every third year when they added a thirteenth month.  One of my youth told me that there is a view that the Patriarch’s year was seven months, but so far I have been unable to find it and it will not be represented here.

*** The ages that will be presented here are those found in the Masoretic text.  There is also the LXX and the Samaritan text.  There is a great disagreement between the three of them.  This is being noted here for intellectual honesty and prevention of angry emails.  My view on the inspiration of the three texts needs to mature before it is presented in any other format, but an annoying question to my professors.  Also noted here is that is not an indepth study on the issue.  This is more of a blog for the purpose of making a point.  I am willing to discuss further by email or some other forum.