The Genesis Genealogies in their Cultural Context

Faith & Science Conversation
, , , ,
1

So, the ages in Genesis. There’s a lot of debate on how they should be understood. Are the ages literal? Did the patriarch Methusaleh actually live to be 969 years old? One angle of this discussion that is often ignored is how the ANE context of Genesis affects the genealogies.

John Walton calls attention to an old Sumerian king list, which gives the length of the reigns of the first eight (Probably mythical) kings of Sumer. If you think the ages assigned to the patriarchs in Genesis are extravagant, wait until you see these numbers:

Alulim — Reigned for 28,800 years
Alalgar — Reigned for 36,000 years
Enmenluanna — Reigned for 43,200 years
Enmengalanna — Reigned for 28,800 years
Dumuzi — Reigned for 36,000 years
Ensipazianna — Reigned for 28,800 years
Enmeduranna — Reigned for 21,000 years
Uburtutu — Reigned for 18,600 years

Did the ancient Sumerians actually think their kings reigned for this long? It’s possible, but it’s more likely these numbers were understood as symbolic and theological rather than literal. Genealogical numbers were used symbolically this way all the time in the ancient world. Matthew does the same thing with his genealogy, switching around the generations to get a certain number so as to connect Jesus to the Davidic line and make a point about his Messianic status.

Cultural context considered, it’s most likely the numbers assigned to the patriarchs in Genesis weren’t literal, either. There are plenty of examples of where the ages are clearly symbolic. For instance, Joshua and Joseph were both said to have died at the age of 110 - a number that is represented in Egyptian texts (For instance, the Instruction of Ptahhotep) as being an ideal age that represents divine favor and prosperity. Should it really be taken as coincidence that the two patriarchs who had the heaviest correlation to Egypt died at the ideal age in Egyptian culture?

image
image768×432 47.7 KB

Perhaps the most telling hint the genealogies aren’t literal is when Abraham laughs at the idea of a man having a child past the age of 100 in Genesis 17:17. Taken at face value, the Genesis genealogies would suggest this was a perfectly normal thing - in fact, Abraham’s own father Terah would have given birth to him at the age of 130.

Based on this, numerous ANE scholars argue the genealogies ought not be taken literally.

“The long lifespans of the patriarchs in Genesis can be understood as reflecting a literary and theological motif rather than a literal historical reality. They serve to emphasize the extraordinary nature of these figures and their closeness to the divine.”
John Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One p.76

“The ages of the patriarchs in Genesis are best understood as symbolic. They convey theological truths about the nature of humanity and the relationship between God and creation rather than providing a precise chronological record.”
Bruce Waltke, Genesis: A commentary p.58

“The biblical chronologies of the patriarchal age are not intended to be accurate historical records in our sense of the term. The numbers used are an expression of the biblical interpretation of history as the unfolding of the divine plan on the human scene.”
Nahum Sarna, Understanding Genesis 84

This is especially significant because a literal reading of the genealogies forms the basis for young earth creationist estimates of the age of the earth. The 6000 year estimate was first popularized by James Ussher, although evidence of similar estimates can be seen as early as the fourth century (See Julius Africanus). In either case, it’s based on a literalistic reading of the genealogies. If the genealogies aren’t literal, young earth creationism has no leg to stand on.

3 Likes
2

So Ussher’s lesser known Sumerian cousin probably got busy and concluded the earth could have been little more than two hundred thousand years old then! We could give that a fancy name like… Middle-aged earthism.

4 Likes
3

28.800 / 365 days = 78 years :smirk:

4

Not sure I follow your math there. The European decimal point comma I get.

But larger point taken. Who knows in what all ways moderns are clueless about ancient literature!? Especially if we’ve already decided they all could have done nothing other than think just like we do.

1 Like
5

There’s a list from a rival city that reads like a “My dad is tougher than your dad!” sort of thing; it has similar numbers but they’re all larger by a factor of ten.

Yay – I didn’t know this! the number symbology makes sense, though; 10 x 10 stood for a life lived very well, so toss in another 10 for the truly superlative lives.

I agree that this is the most telling since the text clearly expects the reader to agree that having kids at age 100 is ludicrous.

I tend to agree. As I recall Walton wrote that book before he went off the edge with some of his claims (e.g. that the opening Genesis Creation account has nothing to do with material items).

What bothers me about Waltke’s conclusion is that I have yet to see any consistent symbolism worked out for the various given ages. Of course someone may unearth a tablet later this year or so that provides a key to understanding the specific symbolism – that would be a fun and useful find!

2 Likes
6

That’s one of the awesome things about biblical scholarship over the last several decades; we are discovering so much so fast, and a great deal of it is mind-bogglingly mind-stretching.

A very odd notion, however naturally human it may be.

3 Likes
7

The fact that all of the ages (pre- and post- children, not their sums) end in 0, 2, 5, or 7 looks like something non-literal is going on with the numbers. Also the fact that that the most prominent people are the ones with the most round-looking numbers (Adam, Enoch, Lamech, and Noah having mostly multiples of 100, e.g.).

2 Likes
8

I was half serious, hence the smiley, maybe they confused years with days? If so the math starts to makes sense.

1 Like
9

Doh! I feel like an idiot . . . .

Now I’m going to have to look at those numbers in chart form; it strikes me that a writer could have been creative enough to make some symbolism show up if you read down the columns.

< thirty minutes later >

Well, if there’s a pattern there I sure don’t see it. Oh, well!

Though I did notice that if you take Lamech’s age at the time of death and subtract the age when his first son was born, you get 595, which just happen to be the non-zero digits of the ages given for Noah: first son born at 500, died at 950 – and interestingly, if you add Lamech’s age at time of death to the age when his first son was born you get 959, a sort of inverse of 595. Combine that with the stark symbolism of 777 and it sure looks like someone was playing around with numbers!

I wish I still had the knowledge I got from taking two university terms of probability; I could calculate the odds of only the digits 0, 2, 5, and 7 occurring in a list that long

2 Likes
10

Even if that’s true, it would still imply Enmenluanna ruled for 118 years, which is clearly not literally true. But seeing as how this symbolic usage of numbers was common in ANE texts (That and the biblical genealogies are just two examples, Walton points out the Babylonians do it too) I doubt it’s an accident.

11

InspiringPhilosophy has an interesting youtube video on Gen. 5 in which he gives a pretty thorough breakdown of the symbolism in the genealogies.

1 Like
12

It’s (0.4)^22 (two ages each for 11 generations, Adam to Shem), which is about 1 in 570,000,000.

2 Likes
13

Great video! I especially liked the point that back then they had a different concept of what it meant to write history. People talk about worldviews and generally have no clue what a worldview even is; that how to write history is not seen as the same shows one aspect that makes up a worldview.

It’s fascinating that the numbers rest on base sixty.

1 Like
14

this is interesting and related to the topic. 10 pre flood Patriarchs.

Also as the flood relates to this and is often overlooked.

2 Likes
15

Let me ask you this…

What actual evidence do you have the proves anyone should believe Christian faith?

Im pre empting your answer will be the New Testament Gospels.

My next question is, if Christs ministry was largely his own words, what proofs did he have that he was who he claimed to be?

How can Christ claim to be a saviour if he has zero historicity to support his claims?

Ok, so now we have established that dilemma, i have to challenge, wasnt it Christ who read from Isaiah and then claimed to all listening that he was the fulfillment of the reading from Isaiah…?

Ok, so now explain this, in Matthew 24 Christ talks of salvation by saying:

“Just as it was in the days of Noah…a flood came and swept them all away”

Clearly Christ believed that Noah was a real person. We dont normally talk about historical figures in that manner without them being real. Given the apostle Luke, who researched the genealogy of Christ back to Adam also lists Noah as a relative of Christ, this means Noah was according to Luke, a real man.

Finally,

Go and read 1 chronicles 5 and tell me that the genealogies listed there are fake and not to be read literally! Its a straw plucking argument to try to isolate some genalogies in the bible as metaphorical and others literal…its absolutely obvious which way hebrew genealogies are recorded and read…they are considered literal history.

16

In his true Humanity. He also believed the Mustard seed was the smallest seed on earth given his local Human experience. Was Christ truly human as the scriptures say (sin excepted) do we confuse the natures here, claiming he did not divest himself of divinity while on earth, especially his complete divine omniscience. Scriptures say He laid aside his divinity as a “thing not to be grasped” but became a servant.

My current thoughts… Is the bible Hypostatic ?

2 Likes
17

Some of the numbers for the patriarchal ages are astronomically significant as well.

The numbers of years vary considerably between the Masoretic, Septuagint, and Samaritan versions. It illustrates the difficulty of copying a bunch of numbers, and also suggests that God’s priorities in preserving the text did not extend to absolute certainty on the numbers.

Noah being a real person does not mean that we should therefore believe all the stuff that young-earthers have claimed about him and the Flood. I don’t think anyone in this discussion would give much credence to the claim by an Islamic creation science advocate that Noah and his sons must have had cell phones to coordinate their animal roundup. Jesus and His audience would have been familiar with poppy seeds being smaller than mustard seeds; He did not announce “Botany trivia time! What’s the smallest seed in the world? A plant you’ve never heard of from a continent that you don’t know exists!” Mustard proverbial grew from a small seed into a sizeable bush, the largest garden plant. But we know that it is hyperbole by comparing that with the evidence that we can observe by studying God’s creation. Likewise, we can tell that the flood covered the land, not the whole globe, by observing the evidence that God provides in His creation.

3 Likes
18

I never said the people mentioned in the genealogies weren’t real people, only that the ages associated with them weren’t literal. I think Noah was a real person (Although I don’t think the flood necessarily covered the whole world, because Genesis never says that - the references to whole land (kol ha’ares) and “All flesh under the heavens” are used elsewhere to refer to regional phenomena, i.e. the famine in Egypt or Moses’ defeat of Heshbon).

2 Likes
19

David I recognise that you have a far greater knowledge of science than i do and i realise that knowledge leads you to the belief you have.

However,

when i summarise your above statements the following is what i get:

  1. minor numerical differences (which form part of the less than 1% of recognised biblical differences that many call errors)
  2. a group of Islamics suggest mobile phones were used by Noah and his sons to round up the animals that entered the ark
  3. Christ apparently calling the mustard seed the smallest of all seeds (remembering Christ is the Son of God right…you believe that He’s deity don’t you?)
  4. we can tell that the flood covered land… (i haven’t a clue where you are going with this???)

Is my summary above pretty much correct?

You rationalise you world view by then saying, “we can observe Gods creation…by observing the evidence that God provides in his creation”

Now here’s the thing David,

The idea that you reason your theological beliefs on the ridiculous idea that Noah and his sons used cellular phones in order to “round up sheep” and heard them into the ark, when the Bible clearly says

Genesis 7:

13On that very day Noah entered the ark, along with his sons Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and his wife, and the three wives of his sons— 14they and every kind of wild animal, livestock, crawling creature, bird, and winged creature. 15They came to Noah to enter the ark, two by two of every creatureb with the breath of life. 16And they entered, the male and female of every living thing, as God had commanded Noah. Then the LORD shut him in.

Please explain to me how it is that you with all the scientific wisdom and intellectual capabilities that enable you to “observe Gods Creation” you can come to the conclusion that the Inspired words with which you obtain your knowledge of God by using normal reading of language, do not actually mean what i have highlighted in bold above and that instead Muslims and others like them, have corrupted writings that we know from the Dead Sea Scroll study are more than 2500 years old, through “Chinese Whispers”?

Add to the above Christs own words recorded in Matthew 24

37As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark. 39And they were oblivious, until the flood came and swept them all away. So will it be at the coming of the Son of Man.

then the record in 2 Peter 2
5if He did not spare the ancient world when He brought the flood on its ungodly people, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, among the eight;

I have to seriously question the notion that modern criminal investigative techniques are valid when its pretty clear that a scientist like yourself is suggesting the recorded evidence trail in the bible be completely ignored because whilst it is internally consistent, it does not agree with suppositions from individuals who have never witnessed any of the events recorded in the bible or how what we see today may align with the bible record?

Now if you could provide me with eyewitness testimony to the million/billions of years…

oh hang on, we do have an eyewitness right…Jesus Christ. Funny thing is, he says Noah really existed and a flood wiped out ALL LIFE ON EARTH, and yet you in your scientific wisdom say the only eyewitness we have is wrong or that the scribes succumbed to Chinese whispers.

So, which scribes got it wrong…Moses scribes, Matthews scribes, or Peters Scribes and,
given these scribes all lived in different places, had no access to the internet (or cellular phone networks to herd sheep), you argument is never going to pass the stink test. F

Moses writings clearly predate the others by hundreds of years.

If you want to claim that Jesus Christ simply COPIED Moses errant writings??? (that would be intellectual suicide in a debate Christianity v atheism)

Add to the above, bible concordances i didn’t write also just so happen to link all of the above references i provided to you together as a single related event…honestly, that’s a theological problem that I am yet to see resolved using the very text that Christians derive their world view from!

Now lets address the translation issue…how would you explain that differences between all of the translations do not affect ANY BIBLICAL THEOLOGY OR DOCTRINE? Your claim above about numerical issues…that has absolutely no relevance to whether or not criminal investigations deny that an event occurred. The irony of this is, the very idea that fossils are found in sedimentary layers (usually as a result of water deposition) supports the biblical account of a flood. So I really dont think the flood is being denied in your post above, i think you are attempting to explain away when it occurred and for how long with the Mulsim claim of cellular phone networks being used
to herd animals into an Ark!

My argument above is not intended to insult you btw, i genuinely hope you read it all and that you carefully consider the impossible theological implications of your statements for any Christian when defending their faith against atheism. I do not mind if Christians wish to differ in their theology, however, when that difference challenges the very foundation of the Christian faith itself eroding away the notion of an Almighty God by suggesting he is incapable of ensuring the protection of biblical theology and doctrine and its internally consistent history, we are turning our faith into one which to an atheist is nothing more than its own version of Santa Clause!

I note that Kirt Wise is mentioned at times on these forums…the erosion of pages of the bible in this way is exactly the reason he is convinced and convicted that as a Christian scientist he must be YEC. Personally, when i comes to Gods writings we either do or we don’t agree with them. Its kinda funny that when it comes to the law of our lands, we are expected to keep them all and yet some Christians seem to not apply this same universal principle to the origins of their own beliefs.

20

You don’t seem to have understood my points very well; no doubt my explaining could be improved.

  1. The fact that astronomically significant numbers appear in the ages (e.g., 365) suggests, along with the many other points already raised, that the ages given for the patriarchs are not calendar years but involve some symbolism and perhaps a different math system.
  2. The fact that there is variation between the numbers for the ages here (and in other numbers where we have multiple copies, e.g., how many people returned from Exile in the tallies in Ezra, Nehemiah, and I Esdras) shows that copying errors limit our ability to know precisely what the original numbers were. God has preserved the text; as you point out, these variations are not something which any theologically responsible group has made the basis for significant doctrines (e.g., not considering snake handlers as exemplifying sound theology). Given the variations, it is reasonable to conclude that the exact numbers are not the point of the inclusion of the passages in Scripture. But young-earth creationism insists that calculating a fairly precise date of creation is an important theological issue.
  3. Although there are some highly symbolic aspects of the pictures early in Genesis, I do not know of any good reason to doubt that Noah was a real person who survived a large flood. But, as the ridiculous claim that he was using cell phones illustrates, that does not mean that we must accept everything that modern writers claim relating to Noah’s flood. You keep bringing up the fact that Jesus and Peter refer to Noah as if that proved that young-earth creationism and flood geology were true. But Noah’s existence does not tell us how extensive the Flood was. Using the scientific data to understand how widespread the Flood might have been, like using the scientific data to determine whether “the mustard seed is the smallest of seeds” is meant as a scientific fact or as a literary image, is a sound approach to exegesis; it is not forcing the Bible to fit a naturalistic bias but rather is trusting God to provide accurate information in His creation and in His word.
3 Likes