Interesting question. Perhaps, Genesis 6:5 might hold a clue? Genesis 6:5 says,
The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.
It would seem that the time of Noah marks the point when total depravity becomes total. Not only in that sin effects humanity as a whole but also that also in that it taints everything they do. Even good deeds in the eyes of their peers are no longer good in the eyes of God.
I have considered that also, and I think it’s a good thought. One would think that the consequence of the flood was the main response, however, Reduction in lifespan as a judgment could well be in view. The passage about man’s years being 120 do certainly seem to be in connection with God’s displeasure of humanity.
Seems odd to me that after the flood, you still have generations upon generations, throughout Genesis, that lived well past 120 though, even so, God does tend to delay his judgments often enough. I think of, “the day you shall eat it you shall surely die.“
One complication, is that many have interpreted the 120 years as essentially the countdown to the flood, Not a new upper limit on human lifespan. Man has 120 years left until judgment comes, not unlike Jonah’s 40 days until Nineveh is destroyed. And this is not a modern interpretation to try to solve this current difficulty, I noticed John Calvin took this approach in his commentary 400 years ago. I honestly don’t know what to make of the 120 year comment in genesis six, I could go one way or the other on that one.
Just so I followed your thought, is it that due to man’s wickedness hitting its maximum, that is when God’s judgment in decreasing lifespan began? The other difficulty with that, now that I think about it, is that in theory, all the population of the world that was so depraved would have been drowned, and it seems a bit odd that God would go forward on this Decreasing life span judgment on righteous Noah and his descendants, right after he had drowned all the people that were in fact so deprived. Thoughts?
Well, with increasing life spans in the last century or so, does that mean we are more righteous?
That is half tongue in cheek, but half serious in that it points out the problem with linking it to righteousness. Plus, in pre-flood days, things were so bad God wiped them all out, so why did he let them live that long in the first place? Of course, you have to have a literalist interpretation to really enter the conversation, as that is a pre-supposition of the discussion, so I am probably out of line to comment.
The environmental change with the flood lowering lifespans does not fly with me either, as no plausible mechanism is present for that sort of change. Ultimately, I think we have to accept that the account is more mythical than historical or else is clothed in miracle and outside our understanding.
I agree. It doesn’t take higher math or a geiger counter to make a series of numbers that plots a curve. Take a number and keep halving it and – presto – perfect decay curve!
In an artificial series of decreasing numbers, it’s quite reasonable for the size of the drop to depend on the scale of the number, showing bigger drops with bigger numbers and smaller drops when the numbers get smaller. No special math required, just awareness of how 900 to 800 seems about as significant a change as 90 to 80.
Yes, I know. What I’ve been trying to point out, perhaps poorly, is that setting aside reality and focusing on the way Genesis presents the numbers is the best way to make sense of them. For others (not you!) who wonder about a natural cause to the numbers, it doesn’t make sense to start with Noah (for the reasons mentioned before), and it doesn’t make sense to treat Moses and Joshua’s ages as reflective of their generation when the Bible tells us otherwise. This in itself is a strong point in favour of literary explanations, since the easiest way to explain the numbers we’re given in the context they’re placed is to set aside reality and focus on literary reasons.
If we’re looking for patterns and symbolism, it makes sense to measure the drop of a cliff from the roof of a lighthouse built at its edge. When it’s exactly 100 metres from roof to base of the cliff, it’s probably intentional. But if we’re looking for a natural mechanism for the cliff (and Daniel, I know you are not), the roof of the lighthouse is no longer a good starting point.
Back to the literary explanation. Between Noah and Abraham there’s generally a stairstep decline by hundreds, but those whose ages are given outside the genealogy (Noah, Terah, Abraham) receive significant numbers that are a bit higher (lighthouses, if you will) while still fitting the overall decline. There are two dramatic drops to indicate the importance of the two key events in these chapters: the flood and the division at Babel. While the second drop is actually bigger as a percentage than the first, it’s smaller as an absolute number. After the genealogy, the later numbers also show a decline, but rather than decreasing by hundreds like the genealogy, they decrease at a scale appropriate to the smaller numbers.
One other cool thing is that the two sharp drops create two gaps in the total ages after the flood. There’s nobody who lives in the 700–800 range, and nobody who lives in the 300–400 range. If we go back to Genesis 5, the two exceptions to its 900-ish lifespans are 365 and 777, neatly filling both gaps. So, the Genesis 5 genealogy creates a kind of flipped negative image where the two figures deviating from its pattern of uniformly high lifespans coincide with the two gaps in the Genesis 11 genealogy’s pattern of ages decreasing by hundreds.
One could speculate all sorts of reasons for such a pattern, all of which would be only guesses, but it’s one more way it looks like these numbers have been arranged and massaged over long periods of time to embed all sorts of intriguing patterns and symbolism. Like the many wordplays in Genesis, the numbers seem to be one more tool used to bolster themes already stated in the surrounding narrative.
Absolutely not! are you
Just jerking my chain, or am I really communicating so poorly?? Somehow, my intent in this discussion is continually being misunderstood, I’m beginning to doubt my communication skills…!
I am particularly interested in understanding what other explanations there are for the originally long, then declining, lifespans, anything but a literal Interpretation.
In other words, presuming that the ages are not literal, they must have been invented or contrived for some other reason, They must have some other significance.
Assuming that an ancient author did not simply roll dice and invent the numbers that way, and they just happened to decline (or perhaps, as he was proceeding with this method, he gradually lost more and more dice?)…
But presuming that his method was not simply random, he must have had some reason to portray those numbers as declining, even if in his own mind it represented nothing literal. I am trying to gather and explore any and all possibilities…, what could those reasons have been?
Sorry if I mis-communicated. I was looking at the discussion and was referring to the idea of life span relating to the the level of righteousness of man. As I reflect on these ideas however, It does solidify in my mind that the changes in ages is indicative of a transition from a more mythical narrative to a more historical account, and probably had that meaning to the original audience as well.
Dear Randy,
The Sumerian Kings List brings an interesting perspective to Genesis.
To understand Genesis, you need to understand the images in Revelations: A guided tour from Jesus through the history of Heaven. There are 24 Elders around the throne of God and the dragon has 10 horns. 10 of the 24 Elders of Heaven followed Lucifer, and became part to the beast that destroyed the peace in Heaven. There are also 24 knops on the Menorah’s arms, under the seven Spirits of God, that represent these 24 elders. We have 24 ribs, 14 of which are connected directly to the sternum and 10 that are the floating or false ribs. These 10 ribs represent the ten horns of the beast.
Two of these ten fallen Elders are Adam and Eve. (Gen 2:21) The remaining eight Elders show up in the Sumarian King List as the predynastic antediluvian rulers, each ruling over Earth (and the underworld) for hundreds of centuries each. But these are not humans who lived this long, rather they are demons who ruled over unenlightened humanity before the prophets came.
that is especially fascinating. I’d heard of this but never bothered to look it up, I never knew there was a similar decline, I’d only heard about the extremely long ages. Thanks for this.
I glanced at that, and it almost seems in some ways for a while to reflect the same pattern as in Genesis, only exponentially greater… Antediluvian ages in the ~20,000s, then immediately after the flood, ages of ~ 1,200-600 or so.
I have no idea what these are referencing specifically, but the ages reflected in the First rulers of Uruk reflect a similar exponential decline as the kind I’m seeing in genesis 11… first 3 are still extraordinarily large (324,420,1200), then two at a huge but not ridiculously extraordinary 100 and 126, then all of a sudden numerous reigns with very realistic numbers… 30, 15, 9, 8, 36, 6, 36…
So the high beginning and then exponential decline in ancestor/early ruler ages is not unprecedented, it is paralleled here. I’d be curious, then, or further thoughts… why do either of these lists reflect a decline in ages, gradually moving from the extraordinary to the commonplace?
Yes, it is sad that so many centuries went by after the composition of a Genesis where people were unable to understand it as a Revelation had not yet been written.
This is fascinating, yes, and is certainly I think the most plausible hypothesis I have noted. Perhaps there was the tradition of very long ages, and an author or redactor felt like adjusting the ages gradually downward to more common place numbers. However, it still baffles me why he would specifically make the precipitous drop after Noah and then move it to a more gradual decline, or, as Marshall describes it, the “steps“.
Was the author trying to say that Noah was part of the previous mythical epoch, Arphaxad, Shelah, and Eber occupied a certain distinct stage that was half-mythical or something, and Abraham’s immediate descendents occupied an epoch that was only 1/4 mythical?
I still wouldn’t do expect a relatively gradual and linear, or perhaps haphazard d Cline if this was the ancient author’s intent. Why the sudden decline. Marshall’s protestations notwithstanding, my scientific minds still sees something approximating a decay curve, and I would have to suspect this would have been intentional on the part of the author.
I think that progression is what is happening, but do not think it can be quantified that distinctly. We got from stories with truly bizarre and other worldly images such as talking snakes and rivers with a common origin, magic trees and such, and move to Noah with a fantastic story but within the realm of human experience as far as the principals (it is a big boat, but it is still a boat), to Babel with a fully human endeavor, to Abram who is totally believable historicaly except for the age, and even that is not far from human experience. Was Abraham historical? I think he was, though I know many scholars do not, thinking him to be a King Arthur like legend.
Yes and no. I think in the flow of the narrative the reasons the ages begin decreasing straight after Adam is to indicate the increasing influence of wickedness even in the chosen line of Adam. The reason the ages begin to drop off dramatic around the flood might then be because wickedness became total. Total in the sense that there was no longer any natural righteousness left in humanity and that every action was tainted by sin. In other words, the flood generation marks the point when humanity could not qualitatively speaking, become more sinful.
Again, a great question. My answer is going to take a little explaining so bear with me.
Personally, I would argue that the Gen 6:5 description includes Noah in its damning assessment of humanity. This I think makes the best sense of the description of Noah in the following verses.
Firstly, after talking about the Lord’s grief and resolution to bring a purging justice on evil humanity, the writer adds, v7:
But Noah found favour in the eyes of the LORD.
I think we should understand this ‘favor’ to mean that Noah experienced God’s grace. In other words, it is not that Noah was somehow a bastion of purity in a debauched generation. Rather, Noah was a sinner who was chosen by God by God’s favour alone to carry out his task and be the one through whom the blessing and promise would continue.
This is certainly how future generations understood the verse. For example, Jerome’s Latin Vulgate reads
“Noë vero invenit gratiam coram Domino”
“Noah found grace before the Lord”
. Also, the LXX has
“Νωε δὲ εὗρεν χάριν ἐναντίον κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ.”
But Noah found grace before the Lord God"
If Noah received God’s unmerited favour, then what are we to make of v9, which says:
Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God.
Well, one thing of interest is that the Hebrew word for ‘righteousness’ in v9 denotes an objective reality not ethical action. In other words, the writer is not necessarily describing Noah’s behaviour (he did the right thing when everyone else didn’t) but rather his standing before God (how God chose to view him). God declared Noah righteous precisely because Noah found favour/grace in the Lord’s sight. Noah was blameless because God had graciously forgiven him and so was able to declare him blameless. This appears fits with the enigmatic final clauses too “Noah… walked with God.” I think this phrase is supposed to describe the result of this encounter with the Lord. Noah receives God’s grace and so obeys God’s ways. But I also believe the phrase is supposed to bring to mind Enoch from Gen 5:24. He “Walked faithfully with God” and so receives a special blessing from the Lord. Just as Noah walked with the Lord and was rescued from God’s justice by God’s grace.
To conclude then, I think Genesis 6:5-9 introduce us to sinful humanity’s desperate state, the Lord’s reluctant resolution to administer justice, and his singling out of one sinful human, in particular, Noah, to be the custodian of the promise made to Eve and the channel of creation blessing to humanity. However, the ages of his offspring continue to decrease because like the father they too are wicked sinners in desperate need of grace. Again I think the text indicates this point as Noah (in perhaps a PTSD like episode) gets drunk and naked and Ham comes along leers over his father like a voyeur.
In short, Noah is chosen for the job not because Noah is so good, but because God is so good to Noah. Its not a perfect solution but it is the best I have right now
Okay, I have too much time on my hands, but I think this might come in handy for a chapter in a project I’m working on. Anyway, here are three charts, the first two to expose some of the patterns, and the third to show what the data looks like as actual lifespans over time.
In the charts, I’ve drawn each person using two numbers, their age when their son is born (feet to loins), and their age afterward (loins to head). The first chart zeroes each person at their birth so it’s easy to compare total ages, while the second zeroes each person at their son’s birth so that both numbers given can easily be seen.
In this third chart, you can see total age on the y axis, while the x axis shows the progression in time. By looking down each vertical line, it’s easy to see who would all be alive at the same. This also shows how the ages change over time (rather than over numbered generations).
I admire it from afar. Like C S Lewis, I have trouble making a column of 4 figures come out the same way each time I tot them up (at least in long addition; calculus was fun).
There are some interesting thoughts here about the symbolic dimensions of some of the numbers. That probably has to do with them on some level.
I classify these ages as a subset of the problem of large OT numbers. Such inflated or hyperbolic numbers cannot be given too restrictive an explanation because they occur in such varied circumstances. The number of Israelites that came out of Egypt would form a column so long it would stretch from the Nile Delta to the promised land. But look also at the weight of quail meat each Israelite was supposed to have gathered in Numbers. Or the weight of the crown David wore after the capture of Rabbah. Or the weight of Absalom’s hair.
The height of Goliath grows from 6-1/2 feet in the Dead Sea Scrolls (which indeed was a giant in a time of low protein consumption) to a little over seven feet in the LXX to over nine feet in the MT.
The wall of the minor Iron Age town of Aphek fell and supposedly killed ten times as many people as died in the collapse of the World Trade Center. There were single battles that are said to have killed more men than the US lost in WWII. So, this problem of unrealistic numbers has many expressions.
Rather than moving forward from early Genesis, look at it the other way around–as ages lengthening as we peer back in time. This may have conveyed to early readers a sense of “deep time,” of a dim past so full of years that they must be counted on a scale other than the one we employ for the affairs of daily life.
In a similar way, the Deluge in Genesis marked for the ancients something like the boundary we draw between civilization and prehistory or between the Neolithic and the Bronze Age. The comment in Genesis about the earth being filled with violence must have had a correspondence to collective memory, since one in ten skeletons from the Neolithic shows signs of violent death.
We have only speculation to go on in explaining the problem as a whole. The long ages in the Torah serve a spiritual purpose of some kind, if only to make clear that in the first chapters of Genesis we are in a cultural setting far removed from our own.
Those inflated numbers do make for a problem with some definitions of inerrancy. I think Enns states that they were essentially propaganda, along with the stories of genocidal killing that are problematic. Basically, they were telling themselves and those around them how big and bad they were.
Now, how do we integrate that view with Biblical truth and divine inspiration. Truthfully, it gives me pause, as it is hard to deal with.
Maybe one way for Christians to begin to process it (and I think this is basically Enns’ approach) is to take those accounts not so much as God directly revealing his heart as it is a record of God’s people revealing theirs in their relationship to that God they dimly begin to know.
That is a very interesting observation, but it would present a very different take on the numerical difficulty. Assuming the DSS number was oldest, LXX transitional, and MT the late development, it would suggest that the original author (dare I say autograph) was perhaps more faithful or reasonable with the original estimation of G’s height, but it was only later copyists that further exaggerated the number.
(Even so, while I’m hardly an expert on OT Textual criticism, I do know determining the original is not simply a matter of deferring to the oldest, as sometimes the oldest extant manuscripts were nonetheless themselves copied less faithfulLY than what is preserved in the MT)
I do recall numerals are perhaps the most difficult and corrupted/corruptible part of textual transmission. Perhaps much of what we have extant today is either intentional exaggeration on later copyists part, or misunderstanding of more ancient conventions for numbering, as was discussed over on the thread re the size of the exodus.
