R Evans, Genesis in Context - 7
← Index of Genesis in Context by Bro Roger Evans, 2021
7. Genealogies and Longevities: The Royal Line
| NB: not integrated into wiki |
Like beads on a necklace, the narrative sections of Genesis are linked together by genealogy, uniting the several accounts into a sequential continuum, thereby providing a sense of temporal continuity and of Divine purpose. These genealogies are picked up and continued throughout Scripture, culminating in the birth of Christ.
For the Bible reader, the long lists of names that make up the genealogies in Scripture are often seen as a stumbling-stone rather than as a blessing. When we are faced with a chain of ‘begats’, the first impulse is usually to move on to the next chapter. Yet the ‘begats’ are the links that bind the framework of Scripture, and define the royal line of salvation.
In Western society, we tend to value genealogies as absolutes, as continuous and unbroken chains of real and sequential descendants, whose verified ages and dates preserve an uninterrupted chronological record of the past. In some cases this holds for Scripture also; in the books of the Kings, the duration of kingly reign and the systematic transfer of the throne is a literal record of the royal administration and a verification of its continuity.
But in Hebrew genealogy, the main purpose is not absolute, but relative. Its purpose is not to establish an absolute genealogy, name by name, with recorded gaps where individuals are missing, but to establish a representative chain of connection in which the elision of individuals is accepted practice. Pattern and continuity are more important than literal accuracy. Whereas a Western reader approaching Genesis regards the genealogies as chronological yardsticks containing an accurate measure of descent and of years (and may make erroneous determinations of a “date” for Creation as a result), the Hebrew reader will look for patterns and connections.
This is not only evident in Genesis, but can be markedly shown in the genealogies of Jesus, recorded by the Gospel writers. Matthew records the royal line through Joseph (Jesus being His adopted son through the legal act of his marriage to Mary). Luke records the maternal line, first presenting him as the supposed (nomizo, legally acknowledged) son of Joseph, and thereafter following Mary’s paternal ancestry.
Matthew is up front about the structured pattern of his genealogy. “So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen; and from David to the Exile are fourteen; and from the Exile unto Christ, fourteen.” Three groups of twice seven (3, 2, 7) comprises an important numerical pattern in Hebrew spirituality. To achieve this pattern, he deliberately omits three kings in the royal line, as can be seen by comparing Matthew’s lineage with the record of the Kings; and while he actually lists only forty one names, his numerical intent is specific.
Matthew’s genealogy is a royal genealogy. It focuses on the royal line of Jesus, through David, back to the first ancestor of promise, Abram. Luke, in following the natural lineage, traces his human genealogy right back to God, the father of Adam at Creation. In doing so, he completes a list of 77 names (70 + 7, or 7x10 + 7, also an important numerical pattern).
Luke’s list, rather than omitting names, is inclusive. So much so, that it even includes an extra Cainan in the patriarchal genealogies, between Arphaxad and Sela, who is not recorded in the Masoretic Hebrew text of Genesis. (If he had been omitted by Luke, the numerical patterning of his genealogy would have been disrupted).
This extra Cainan first appears in some copies of the Septuagint Greek version of the Scriptures, about 200 BC, and appears to be a deliberate variation in the genealogy. The extra name occurs in two places (Gen. 10:24, 11:12-13), comes complete with appurtenant dates of siring and of decease; and is therefore unlikely to be a scribal mistake. By including him, Luke makes up the symbolic 77. Without him, the numerical pattern of his genealogy would be incomplete.
If this explanation is correct, then it shows that God works with imperfections. The elision of names from Matthew’s list, and the inclusion of a deliberate variation in Luke’s, shows that numerical patterning overrides the importance of technical detail, and confirms that the premise of literal inerrancy is not an indispensable facet of inspiration.
Pattern achieved by inclusions or exclusions is readily checked when there are comparative lists of recorded names as a basis for calibration. But the further we go back into history, the less certainty there is. When we come to the extended lifespans in Genesis, and the patterned genealogies recorded between Adam and Abram, we have no basis in Scripture for cross checking the names that we are given.
However, we do know that Ancient Near Eastern cultures used a form of exaggeration, which (for want of a formal term) we will call graduated hyperbole, to maintain a representative continuity of lineage while indicating degrees of uncertainty. The more incredibly long the life span, the greater the pre-historicity, or degree of uncertainty, and/or representativeness, of each identity recorded. This literary device enables a genealogical continuity to be maintained in the absence of hard fact. The more realistic the span, the closer in time and fact we come to normalcy. A striking example of this is the ancient Babylonian document known as the Sumerian King List:
| Alulim reigned: | 28,800 years |
| Alalngar reigned: | 36,000 years |
| En-men-luana reigned: | 43,200 years |
| En-men-gal-ana reigned: | 28,800 years |
| Dumuzid reigned: | 36,000 years |
| En-sipad-zid-ana reigned: | 28,800 years |
| En-men-dur-ana reigned: | 21,000 years |
| Ubara-tutu reigned: | 18,600 years |
| Then the flood swept over. After the flood had swept over, and the kingship had descended from heaven, the kingship was in Kish: | |
| Jushur reigned: | 1200 years |
| Kulassina-bel reigned: | 960 years |
| Nangishlishma reigned: | 670 years |
| En-tarah-ana reigned: | 420 years |
| Babum reigned: | 300 years |
| Puannum reigned: | 840 years |
| Kalibum reigned: | 960 years |
| Kalumum reigned: | 840 years |
| (After 17 more names with similar reign lengths, there is an abrupt decrease): | |
| Dumuzid reigned: | 100 years |
| Gilgamesh reigned: | 126 years |
| Ur-nungal reigned: | 30 years |
| Udul-kalama reigned: | 15 years |
| La ba’shum reigned: | 9 years |
| En-nun-tarah-ana reigned: | 8 years |
| Mesh-he reigned: | 36 years |
| (From here onward, the list continues, with reign lengths occasionally in the lower hundreds, but generally under a hundred years). | |
Are we intended to take these reign lengths literally? Or is the immediate impression that of a literary device designed to convey non-literality while maintaining continuity? Two striking changes occur in the list: a significant decrease in ages at the time of a remarked “flood”, and a rapid change to “normalcy” at the time of Gilgamesh (which may, perhaps, coincide with improved record keeping).
It would not be worth recording these archaeological lists here, were it not for a marked similarity in pattern with the genealogies recorded in the first chapters of Genesis.
- The first ten names of Adam’s line in Genesis are (except Enoch) in the high hundreds of years.
- Then there is a Flood.
- After Noah, the ages are all in the low hundreds.
- After Abram, the ages are all in the one hundreds.
Are we meant to take these ages literally? Or does the presence of numerical patterning suggest a non-literal reading?
The first recorded genealogical line is that of Cain. He is not of the royal line of the sons of God, and no ages are given. There are seven names: Adam, Cain, Enoch, Irad, Methujael, Methusael, Lamech.
- Lamech, as the seventh from Adam, claims a sevenfold immunity to justice.
He has two wives. They bear him three sons, with similar, symbolic names, all derived from the same root word:
- Jabal (draw along): the progenitor of nomadic agriculturalists
- Jubal: (draw along) the progenitor of musicians
- Tubal-cain (lead along + spear): the progenitor of metal work, and by inference, weapons.
The principal genealogical line, the royal line, is that of Seth. For the names before the flood, three numbers are recorded: age at first siring, lifespan after first siring, and total age; then the fact that each begat sons and daughters, and each died. Ten names are given from Adam to Noah: Adam, Seth, Enosh, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah.
As in Cain’s line, the seventh is noteworthy. Lamech was noted for his arrogance. Enoch is noted for his righteousness, and taken by God. There are seven until Enoch, and three after (note the similarity to Cain’s line; seven until Lamech, then three sons).
Noah is called out of the world and saved from the flood.
Noah has three sons.
The royal line begins with Shem. For the names until Abram, two numbers are recorded: age at first siring, and lifespan after first siring: and the fact that they begat sons and daughters; except for Terah, father of Abram, for whom we are given age of first siring, and total age, and the fact that he begot sons.
There are ten names from Shem to Abram: Shem, Arphaxad, Shelah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, Terah, and Abram.
Abram is called out of Haran to form a new nation.
We see throughout the patriarchal genealogies a recurring pattern of tens, sevens, threes, and twos. The pattern does not stop here. If we follow the royal line to David, we have three generations until the Servitude in Egypt: Isaac, Jacob and Judah. Their ages are scattered through the narrative record of Genesis. After the servitude, according to the book of Ruth, there are ten generations (for whom no ages are given): from Phares (son of Judah) to King David.
The actual ages of the patriarchs are often taken as literal, because they seem to have a numerical randomness. While there is an average trend for a decrease, the individual ages fluctuate; and manipulation of the numbers does not uncover any simple mathematical pattern. However it is noticeable that while the magnitude of the numbers provides the overall chronological trend, the final integers of each number show a marked preference for certain values.
All of the first set of ten ages, from Adam to Noah, including age to first siring, age after first siring, and total age, end in 0,2,5,7 (and in one case, 9). For the next ten ages, from Shem to Abram, the same final integers (0,2,5,7,9) predominate (also a couple of threes and a four).
Despite variations in siring age and in total age, both the Masoretic Hebrew text (on which our translations of Genesis are based) and the Septuagint text preserve virtually the same preferences for the values of the final integers. Conversely, many of the siring ages in the Septuagint are inflated by an extra 100 years, resulting in a compounding genealogical duration that, from Adam to Abram, exceeds the total duration recorded in the Masoretic text by an additional 1466 years. The consistency of numerical patterning between the two texts, relative to the considerable disparity in recorded ages, indicates a greater emphasis on the value of numerical patterning than on the value and accuracy of individual and total longevities.
The apparent longevity of the ancestral Hebrews persists until the time of the Kings. Abram is recorded as having lived to 175 years, Isaac to 180, and Jacob dies at 147. Joseph dies at 110.
The line of leadership via Moses, through Joseph’s brother Levi, records similar ages of death: Levi at 137y, Kohath at 133y, Amram at 137y (Exodus 6). Moses dies at 120y, and Joshua, his successor, at 110 years. Eli dies at 98, as a combination of old age and of accident (1 Samuel 4:14).
No lifespans are recorded through the period of the Judges. The royal line from Judah to King David is preserved in the last chapter of Ruth. No ages are given.
The first King, Saul, is crowned at the age of thirty and reigns for forty two years, dying (albeit in battle) at the age of 72 (1Sam. 13:1)
King David is crowned at the age of 30, reigns seven years in Hebron and thirty three in Jerusalem (a total reign of forty years), dying at age 70 (2 Samuel 5:4-5)
Discussion
All of these ages and periods, save for the life of Eli, also end with the integers 0,2,5 and 7. This is surely more than coincidence, pointing to artifice rather than a random literality.
The weighting in favour of certain integers deviates from the expected randomness of a natural, spontaneous chain of events, and indicates artifice. The implication is that, whatever the actual meaning of the numbers, they were not intended to be taken as literal, chronological ages. The weighting does not favour literal inerrancy, but strongly favours the pattern and artifice of a constructed chronology, and the literary device of hyperbolic emphasis.
Are the ages of the patriarchs from Abram to Joshua literal ages, or hyperbolic, royal ages? Did men live longer before the Jewish Kingdom was established, or shorter, harder lives as indicated by the sciences of gerontology and of palaeoanthropology? What was the expected age span of the common man? Scripture does not tell us outright. However an interesting inference can be drawn from the records of the Exodus.
We are told that Moses was forty years old when he had to flee Egypt (Acts 7:23), eighty years old when He confronted Pharaoh (Exodus 7), and 120 years old at his death (Deut. 34), three days before Israel entered the Promised Land (Joshua 1). Israel wandered in the wilderness forty years (Num.14:34)
As a consequence of rebellion, none of those who left Egypt at the age of 20 or over (save two) entered the Promised Land (Num. 32:10-13): “And the Lord’s anger was kindled at the same time, and he sware, saying, Surely none of the men that came up out of Egypt from 20y old and upward, shall see the land… And he made them wander in the wilderness forty years, until all the generation, that had done evil in the sight of the Lord, was consumed (tamam, =spent, finished).”
In Numbers 14:9 we are told that at Moses’ petition, God pardoned them, yet the consequence of their actions — the forty years wandering — remained. Had He wished to actively destroy them, it would not have taken Him forty years; nor would He have pardoned them first.
The implication of the context is that they died by attrition; that is, that God prolonged the wandering until all had died from natural causes. If this is so, then the maximum ordinary life span of men was about sixty years, and the average life span of men was in keeping with what we consider to be a “normal” age. Moses’ father’s longevity of 130 years under hard labour in Egypt, and Moses’ longevity of 120 years as a leader, are more likely to be “royal” ages. The same probably holds for the age of his successor Joshua, and for the ages of the antediluvian, and postdiluvian, patriarchs.
Fittingly, Psalm 90, ascribed in its caption to Moses, defines the expectation of longevity as being seventy, or at best eighty, years. This suggests that although he personally claimed the age of 120 years (Deut 31:2) he also recognised that normal life expectancy was significantly less. Either Moses’ life was miraculously prolonged, or the 120 years claimed, structured as it is in terms of four 40-year periods, may be symbolic rather than literal.
Summary
The Hebrew concept of genealogy is one of a patterned and representative record of continuous descent, as opposed to the Western concept of strict sequential chronology and temporal literality. Omission of generations, or inclusion of extra names, is not error, but is a sanctioned method of achieving requisite numerical patterns.
Comparison with contemporary ancient genealogical records indicates that the use of a literary mechanism of graduated hyperbole, for recording ancestral lineage, is a valid means of preserving patterned continuity while indicating magnitudes of uncertainty. Inflated ages can also indicate privilege, leadership, or royalty.
Hebrew genealogical patterning emphasises the use of the integers 0, 2, 3, 5, 7 and 10. The numbers 1, 4, 9, and 8 are less common, while 6 seems altogether absent.
The genealogies of Adam and Shem in Genesis 1-11, and the genealogies of the patriarchs and leaders of Israel up to the Kings, are constructed using these mechanisms, trends and patterns. The genealogies of Jesus employ the same numerical patterning to establish Christ’s royal and natural ancestry.
What evidence there is (in Exodus and in the Psalms) indicates that normal, everyday maximum life expectancies at the time of Moses (when royal ages were in the 130s) were in the range of 60 to 70, and at best 80, years.
There is no spiritual advantage to be gained in claiming literality for the longevities of the pre-diluvian patriarchs. According to Genesis 6, the world was no less corrupt at the time of Methuselah and Noah than in modern times, giving the lie to any claim of an inverse correlation between sinfulness and longevity.
The purpose of the primeval genealogies is to establish an unbroken chain of descent from Adam to Christ, verifying the descent of the promised Seed, tying in the national promises to Abram and the royal promises to David along the way and bringing them to their ultimate and collective fulfilment in Christ. A literal reading of the ages of the patriarchs is not only unnecessary; the literary style and context of the ancestral lists implies that a literal reading of the ages was never intended.
Palaeoanthropology, gerontology and archaeology also indicate that throughout all ages before the present, man has had a consistently brief expectation of life span, not exceeding 70 and 80, and usually less. The longevities of the Patriarchs in Genesis are more likely to be symbolic than literal.
