Saturday, April 17, 2021

C. John Collins on the Exorbitant Lifespans in Genesis 5

  

 . . . the life spans are exorbitant, from a high 969 to a low of 777, with the 365 years of Enoch being an outlier—“God took him” (Gen 5:24) rather than “he died.” One might guess that the text presents these as the actual lifespans of the figures; but there is reason to believe that some kind of symbolism is at work—even if we cannot be sure what it is. (See below for a proposed symbolism in the lifespan of Lamech.) This likely presence of symbolism (for all that no one knows for sure its details) tells against every effort to construct a chronology from these genealogies. Many think that the Sumerian King List is suitable background for this genealogy and its companion in 11:10-26. Although there are limitations to such comparisons, we can nevertheless find help in this one. For example, the King List has kings before the great flood with absurdly inflated lengths for their reigns of thousands of years. After the flood the numbers trend downward, much as those in 11:10-26. We might suppose, then, that the author of Genesis is by this means reinforcing to his audience that he is telling a tale that overlaps with others that they have heard about the far-off times—again always with the implication that Genesis is telling these tales the right way.

 

We should consider what effect these numbers would have on an ancient audience. Quite apart from whether there is some kind of symbolism and figure in these numbers, certainly on their face they create a sense of distance between the characters and the audience—for whom “three-score and ten” (Ps 90:10 AV) was a worthy achievement. Gordon Wenham mentions some explanations that have been proffered, which he counts as having some merit (and to be much better than the mathematical operations on the numbers, which entail their own problems). For example:

 

Cassuto . . . sees in the ages of the patriarchs, relatively low when contrasted with the enormous reigns of Sumerian kings, another aspect of anti-Mesopotamian polemic. The Hebrew writer was intent on scaling down the alleged ages of man’s earliest forbears. Though they lived a long time, none reached a thousand years, which in God’s sight is but an evening gone (cf. Ps 90;4). Gispen suggests that these figures are designed to show that though the narrative is dealing with very distant times, it is a sort of history, and that however long men lived, they were mortal. (Gordon Wenham, Genesis 1-15, WBC [Dallas: Word, 1987], 134)

 

These are helpful. We can take this with features of the text:

 

1. the overall trend downward in total lifespan (which perhaps signals the decline from man’s pristine condition);

2. the repetitive refrain “and he died” for each figure (except Enoch);

3. the location in a set of genealogies that lead eventually to Abram and therefore are in some sense intended as historically referential.

 

Thus, in addition to the literary function of speeding past numerous generations without much comment, the form of the genealogy shapes the story for Israel by strengthening the idea that the call of Abram is in the context of increasingly desperate human need.

 

The Adam entry gets more space than most of the other entries, probably since he is the headwaters of this line of descent. The detail on Adam connects this genealogy with the creation and fall stories of Genesis 1-4. Of the other figures in the genealogy. Only Enoch and Lamech get anything further said about them than the formula. Enoch is singled out for a commendable kind of piety: he “walked with God” (5:22, 24, Heb. התהלך, hithallek). This piety anticipates the Pentateuch ideals: see Noah in 6:9; Abram in 17:1; 24:40; 48:15; and the way that God will “walk” among his people (Lev 26:12; Deut 23:14). This piety led to Enoch’s earthly sojourn being cut short, “for God took him”; this would be odd if length of earthly life were an absolute good. Apparently, then, there are higher values and rewards than simply length of days, and the text assumes that there lies something worthwhile beyond the grave for the faithful (see also Elijah’s end, 2 Kgs 2:9-12) without saying much about it here, leaving us to wonder about those details and to draw inferences.

 

The details about Lamech make narrative sense, as they introduce Noah, the main human character of what follows. The hopeful note, however, stands in contrast to what happens: Noah is to “bring us relief” (5:29). The name “Noah” (HEB. נוּחַ, noah) sounds more like the word “to rest” (Heb. ינחמנו, yenahamenu), but even more, what kind of rest or relief does he bring? As is turns out, the relief applies only to a small number of humans—in other words, the “us” in Lamech’s speech appears narrowed down in its reference. However, in the perspective of Genesis, this narrowing yields hope for the ultimate end of the human family, which indicates that most of Noah’s contemporaries are excluded from participating in that hope (and the flood story will explain why). This notion finds support in the way that the terms “painful toil” and “the ground that the LORD has cursed” (5:29) pick up words form the divine sense in 3:16. Through Noah, as a fresh start on humankind, relief will come.

 

The length of Lamech’s life, 777 years, leads to a rhetorical conclusion . . . some finds a link between the genealogy descended from Cain (Gen 4:17-22) and that from Seth (5:6-32). Both lists end with a figure named Lamech (Heb. למך, lemek), and the contrast between them is stark. The first Lamech had taken God’s assurance of sevenfold vengeance on anyone who kills Cain (4:15) and multiplied it by eleven for even a blow—that is, vengeance was no longer in God’s hands, and it was fiercer (4:23-24). The Hebrew for “seventy-sevenfold” is שׁבעים ושׁבעח [shib’im weshib’ah], “seventy and seven” (4:24). In 5:31 the second Lamech’s lifespan in 111 times even years; in Hebrew, שׁבע שׁבעים שׁנה ושׁבע מאות שׁנה [sheba’ shib’im shanah asheba’ me’ot shanah], “seven and seventy years and seven hundred years.” The 77 part comes first, in opposite order to that of 4:24. The first Lamech speaks bluster and threat; the second Lamech speaks hope and faith. The first embraces humans’ descent into sin and departure from God; the second bemoans it and looks for the gracious act of God. Rhetorically, the contrast enlists the audience to approve of the second and to side with him so that they can be loyal to God’s purpose through Noah—of whom Abram, and thus Israel, are the proper heirs.

 

The passage ends with the sons of Noah: Shem, Ham, Japhet. This is the only entry in the genealogy that gives the names of anyone who is not in the direct line of descent that leads to Israel, and the narrative logic is clear. All three of these men will play a role with their father Noah in the next events—n the flood and its aftermath and in re-populating the earth with the families of the earth. (C. John Collins, Reading Genesis Well: Navigating History, Poetry, Science, and Truth in Genesis 1-11 [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2018], 182-85)

 

On D&C 107, see:


D&C 107 and the longevity of the Patriarchs

Blog Archive