“Why did the people in Genesis live to be hundreds of years old?” is a question that surely everyone who ever took the Bible seriously has asked. Those who have moved on from their childhood (or childish) adherence to a literal interpretation of Genesis are still generally curious about the ages and if there is any symbolism to the numbers that the Bible records with such tedious exactitude.
Some of the typical answers provided by biblical scholars are less than satisfying, and the fact is that most of the numbers themselves may simply be meaningless on their own. However, some odd facts concerning the ages of the patriarchs have recently been analyzed in biblical studies journals, adding to our knowledge of the Bible’s composition history in the process. There are two issues of particular interest: the numbers in the genealogies taken as a whole, and a problem introduced by the Flood story, which required some tampering with the genealogies by the Bible’s editors.
The Ages of the Patriarchs: A Brief Overview
The biblical characters we’re concerned with here are the 26 patriarchs from Adam to Moses. Their lifespans and the ages at which they beget the next male child in Israel’s ancestral lineage are given in several passages, all apparently by the Priestly writer. Genesis 5 lists the first ten, from Adam to Noah. Genesis 11 lists the next nine, from Shem to Terah. The last seven are found scattered through Genesis, Exodus, and Deuteronomy.
In Genesis 5, we are given the age of each patriarch when he begat the next son in line (A), and the age of his death, i.e. total lifespan (B). In Genesis 11, the age of begetting and remainder of years after begetting are given, requiring us to add the two numbers to determine total lifespan.
So here’s the first interesting fact: if you add the lifespans of all 26 patriarchs as given in the Masoretic Text, you get exactly 12,600 years, which surely is not an accident. The first person to notice this, as far as I can tell, was Jeremy Northcote in a 2007 paper (see bibliography). Edit (Jan. 9, 2023): It has recently come to my attention that Richard Johnson made the discovery earlier in his 1989 MA thesis (see bibliography).
12,600 is significant because it is 10 times 1,260, and a period of 1,260 days has important eschatological connotations in apocalyptic literature, particularly Daniel and Revelation. 1,260 days is equal to exactly 3½ years in the luni-solar calendar (a 360-day calendar), or 42 months. In both these two apocalyptic books, a period of 3½ years signifies a tumultuous period leading up to the eschaton.
He shall speak words against the Most High,
shall wear out the holy ones of the Most High,
and shall attempt to change the sacred seasons and the law;
and they shall be given into his hand
for a time, two times, and half a time [3½ years].
He shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week [3½ years] he shall make sacrifice and offering cease; and in their place shall be an abomination that desolates, until the decreed end is poured out upon the desolator. (Daniel 9:27)
And I heard him swear by the one who lives forever that it would be for a time, two times, and half a time, and that when the shattering of the power of the holy people comes to an end, all these things would be accomplished. … From the time that the regular burnt offering is taken away and the abomination that desolates is set up, there shall be 1,290 days. (Daniel 12:7, 11)
(In counting the number of days in 3½ years, the author has added an intercalary month of 30 days to make his total 1,290 instead of 1,260, but the same period of time is intended.)
[The court outside the temple] is given over to the Gentiles, and they will trample over the holy city for forty-two months. And I will grant my two witnesses authority to prophesy for 1,260 days, wearing sackcloth. (Revelation 11:2-3)
But the woman was given the two wings of the great eagle, so that she could fly from the serpent into the wilderness, to her place where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time. (Revelation 12:14)
The beast was given a mouth uttering haughty and blasphemous words, and it was allowed to exercise authority for forty-two months. (Revelation 13:5)
Outside the Bible, the famous War Scroll (1QM) from Qumran, dated to the first century BCE, says that the Sons of Light will fight the Sons of Darkness for a period of 35 years in the last days. 35 years in the luni-solar calendar equals 12,600 days.
Despite these examples, it’s not at all clear why the scribes of the Masoretic Test chose to encode this number into the lineage of Israel.
Alternate textual traditions must also be considered. The Samaritan Pentateuch and Septuagint both vary from the MT in the ages of some patriarchs and do not add up to precisely 12,600. Does the MT alone somehow preserve the original ages established by the Priestly writer, or were they altered later? If this chronology is original, it would suggest that the Hebrew text of Genesis was completed in the second century BCE or later, contemporaneous to other apocalyptic literature.
More on that below.
Three-and-a-Half, a Curious Biblical Motif
As we’ve seen, these apocalyptic numbers — 1,260 days, 42 months, etc. — are derived from the motif of 3½ years. Why that number?
The 3½ motif might originate as a symbol of drought. 1 Kings 17-18 tells a story in which Elijah starts and then ends a drought in Samaria. The length of the drought is not mentioned, but Yahweh tells Elijah of its impending end “in the third year”.
After many days the word of Yahweh came to Elijah in the third year, saying, “Go, present yourself to Ahab; I will send rain on the earth.” (1 Kings 18:1)
For some reason, a tradition developed that the drought had lasted exactly three-and-a-half years. This belief is attested in the New Testament in both Luke and James:
But the truth is, there were many widows in Israel in the time of Elijah, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, and there was a severe famine over all the land. (Luke 4:25)
Elijah was a man like us, and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth. (James 5:17)
Did this 3½-year interpretation of Elijah’s drought lend that number eschatological significance with the rise of apocalyptic literature? Or was it the other way around — did apocalypticism cause interpreters to assign Elijah’s drought a period of 3½ years?
Another explanation was proposed by the German scholar Gunkel over a century ago. He believed it originated with the three-and-a-half months from the winter solstice to the festival of Marduk — the period in which Tiamat, the Babylonian sea monster of chaos, reigns supreme until her defeat by Marduk. (Gunkel, Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit [Goettingen 1895], pp. 309ff. Cited by Northcote, p. 247.) It might be relevant that in the Babylonian flood epic Atrahasis, the time span between Creation and the Flood was 3,600 years, or one saros¹. (Kvanvig, p. 37) Multiply that by 3½ and what do you get, but our magic biblical number, 12,600. Unfortunately, the biblical flood takes place in 1656 A.M.² rather than 3600, so, the connection with Atrahasis is weak.
Noah’s Flood and Chronological Adjustments
The three major surviving textual traditions of Genesis — the Masoretic Text (MT), Samaritan Pentateuch (SP), and Septuagint (LXX) — do not agree completely on the chronologies of the patriarchs. Three patriarchs differ between the MT and SP: Jared, Methuselah, and Lamech. All the pre-Noah patriarchs differ in the LXX from the MT (except Jared) and SP. When we look at SP in particular, it becomes fairly obvious what the reason for these variations is. Jared Methuselah, and Lamech — the three that differ from the MT — all die in 1307 A.M., the year of the Flood. The Flood is the key.
As I have remarked in previous articles, it is fairly well-understood that the story of the Flood was a later insertion into a patriarchal foundation story that didn’t have it. (For a recent paper on this, see Derschowitz 2016.) In an earlier text, Cain, the eponymous founder of the Kenite (Cainite) tribe, was the ancestor of an unbroken genealogy that included the founders of various industries practiced by the tribe — shepherding, metalworking, etc. His genealogy was replaced with Seth’s by the Priestly author, and precise lifespans were assigned to each patriarch from Adam to Noah and beyond.
According to research by Old Testament scholar Ronald Hendel among others (Hendel 2012), the insertion of the flood story in Noah’s day created a problem that later scribes couldn’t overlook: if you did the math, the long-lived patriarchs Jared, Methuselah, and Lamech all survived for many years past the Flood, even though the Flood story made it clear that all outside the Ark had perished.
The editors of the LXX, SP, and MT had basically two ways to solve the problem: either delay the year of the Flood by delaying the age at which the patriarchs begat sons, or have the patriarchs in question die sooner. Here’s what each of them did:
The LXX’s editor methodically added 100 years to the age at which each patriarch begat his son. Adam begat Seth at age 230 instead of 130, and so on. This had the result of postponing the date of the Flood by 900 years without affecting the patriarchs’ lifespans, which he possibly felt were too important to alter. Remarkably, however, the editor failed to account for Methuselah’s exceptional longevity, so old Methuselah still ends up dying 14 years after the Flood in the LXX. (Whoops!)
The editor of the SP adopted a simpler method. He just altered the lifespans of the three patriarchs that posed a problem. Adjusting their ages as little as possible, he had them die in the same year as the Flood.
The editor of the MT chose to keep the lifespans untouched (like the LXX), and he altered the age of begetting only for the three patriarchs affected, pushing back the Flood date as a result. He first added 100 years to Jared’s begetting, and then 120 years to Methuselah’s. This reduced the overlap to 94 years. By adding 94 to Lamech’s begetting, he completed the fix, placing Methuselah’s year of death in the year of the Flood.
If that’s clear as mud, maybe this table will help:
This explanation accounts so well for the differences between the MT, SP, and LXX, that it is almost certainly correct, at least in its broad strokes. A few other observations must be made:
- The original age of Lamech was 753, and a late editor of the MT changed it to the schematic 777 (inspired by Gen 4:24, it seems, even though that is supposed to be a different Lamech: If Cain is avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy-sevenfold). (Hendel 2012: 8; Northcote 251)
- If, as Hendel argues, 88 was the original age of Lamech’s begetting, then the SP’s 53 must be a scribal error that anticipates the 53 in his age total (653). In my opinion, if there was such an error, it occurred before the SP became a separate text, since the SP’s flood date is calculated from that number.
The only other detail that bothers me slightly is the fact that SP was able to subtract exactly 100 from Lamech’s original age (753) to have him die the year of the flood. That nice round number could just be coincidence, or there might have been another step involved somewhere.³
Apocalypticism and the Masoretic Text
If the Masoretic editors did not alter the ages of the patriarchs when they fixed the chronology of the Flood, it is possible that the magic number of 12,600 existed in the archetypal text. That would arguably place the writing of Genesis in the period of apocalyptic literature — say, the last two centuries BCE. Alas, it appears that the lifespan of Lamech was changed from 753 to 777. Additionally, the age of Eber was apparently changed from 404 (as it is in the LXX) to 464 (see Hendel, 1998, pp. 72–73). Presumably, these tweaks were made after the MT diverged from other versions of the text, in order to obtain the magic number 12,600 described above.
We do not then need to date the authorship of Genesis to the era of apocryphal literature — the last two centuries BCE (though it is not out of the question!). However, the Masoretic Text — which is the definitive and “inspired” version of the text in Protestant Christian tradition — was clearly still open to changes at that late date.
¹ One saros equals 60 times 60, a large number in Babylonian mathematics that was associated with “totality” and was written as a circle. (Kvanvig, Primeval History, p. 58, n. 146)
² A.M. = Anno Mundi, or the year after Creation
³ Alternatively, if 53 was the original age of Lamech’s begetting, then the LXX’s editor should have adjusted it to 153, resulting in a flood date of 2207 — exactly the same year as Lamech’s death. This might seem like an unlikely coincidence. However, both this “coincidence” and the one above (the SP being able to subtract exactly 100 from Lamech’s age to match the date of the flood) are mathematically derived from the archetypical age of begetting, either 88 or 53, and are not independent.
Jeremy Northcote, “The Lifespans of the Patriarchs: Schematic Orderings in the Chrono-Genealogy”, Vetus Testamentum, 57(2), 2007, pp. 243-257.
Richard I. Johnson, The Genealogies of Genesis: A Study of Their Structure and Function (MA dissertation), London Bible College, 1989, p. 54.
Ronald Hendel, “A Hasmonean Edition of MT Genesis?: The Implications of the Editions of the Chronology in Genesis 5”, HeBAI 1, 2012, 1–17.
Ronald Hendel, The Text of Genesis 1-11: Textual Studies and Critical Edition, 1998.
Idan Dershowitz, “Man of the Land: Unearthing the Original Noah”, ZAW 128(3), 2016, 357–373.
Helge S. Kvanvig, Primeval History: Babylonian, Biblical, and Enochic. An Intertextual Reading, 2011.
29 thoughts on “Some Curious Numerical Facts about the Ages of the Patriarchs”
If the 3.5 year period is used to describe a period of tribulation reaching its peak, could that in and of itself be a reason to want to come out to 12600? Could it be to put a narrative, eschatological spin on the Exodus story? From Adam forward, Israel is in travail that reaches a peak in the slavery in Egypt, then Moses interrupts it.
Yes, it’s possible that that is the case. Numbers 33 lists 42 stages between Egypt and the Promised Land, and LXX Joshua 5:6 says Israel spent 42 years wandering in the wilderness.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Reblogged this on Talmidimblogging.
Fascinating. Thanks. I hope you keep it up.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks! We just bought a new house and moved, so I haven’t had time for blogging lately.
The Jewish Study Bible makes the observation that Abraham’s life span of 175 years and Isaac’s of 180 suggest a pattern: 175 is 7 X 5 squared; 180 is 5 X 6 squared. And sure enough, Jacob’s of 147 is 3 X 7 squared.The man taken by God, Enoch, lived for 365 years–suggesting a connection with the solar cycle, according to TJSB.
Interesting, although the more complicated mathematical theories get, the more skeptical I become. You can find relations like that in any random group of numbers, and the numbers have to mean something if we’re going to learn something about the text from it.
Enoch seems to be the only patriarch whose age was schematic and significant right from the start.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Did you happen to spend any time looking at the possible explanations for the longevity numbers in the first place? I ran across an interesting theory some time ago (previously hosted by the now defunct flood-myth.com site) which could have implications for the ideas here. It noted that the beget-to-lifespan ratio in the LXX is proportional to actual beget-to-lifespan ratios and then postulated a mechanism of mistranslation from the Sumerian number system that would produce the results in the LXX from reasonable ages in the Sumerian original. I’m not sure how much credence to give the theory, but I found it intriguing and think that the ratio observation is worth consideration.
In this case (where the LXX is the archetype) then it explains why the supposed LXX redactor didn’t adequately correct for Methuselah – there just wasn’t a correction being made. The MT would be redacted from the LXX to subtract 100 from the beget ages so that Methuselah dies the year of the flood and the beget ages are less divergent from ‘normal’ expectations – except where the original was needed to make it work out. Then the SP redacts from that to put all the beget ages in a common range while dropping the lifespans to avoid living through the flood.
Travis, those kinds of theories seem so speculative and hard to prove, I didn’t spend much time on them. Sumerian culture is far removed (by millennia) from the context in which Genesis was written. Nevertheless, I’ll have a look at your link.
Off the top of my head, part of the problem is that the SP is generally not seen as a revision of the MT, but a revision of an earlier Vorlag and sibling to the MT.
There’s no doubt that these kinds of theories include a lot of speculation, but it does offer an explanation for the form and existence of the tradition of exceptionally long antediluvian lifespans. And to your points:
1) The intention is not that the proto-Genesis author was translating from Sumerian, but rather that some distant precursor to the tradition which ended up in Genesis produced those lifespans via mistranslation. It is certainly true that Genesis borrows from ancient Mesopotamian traditions up through the flood, so the connection is not without precedent.
2) The bit about the SP modifying the MT was my own attempt at integrating the theory with the differences you noted, and was not intended to suggest a strict chronology. The redaction I assigned to the MT may very well have been a redaction to a common precursor to what we now identify as the MT and SP.
I also forgot to mention that the 3 1/2 year motif appears to me to have originated with Daniel as a reflection of the period between the murder of Onias and Antiochus IV desecration of the temple, and from that to the restoration of the temple, with the whole period being 7 years that is roughly divided into two 3 1/2 year periods. Revelation then borrows from this. I find it hard to imagine that all the Genesis versions post-date this origin.
So when you see in Genesis 6, that God decides to limit the length of human life, are you saying that this sentence was added to explain the difference between the earlier long lives and the subsequent shorter ones? If so, do you think that was within the authority of the scribes to do so? It seems like quite a stretch for a scribe to go from mistaking or modifying a number to literally misquoting God. — Gen. 6:3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”
The statement limiting human life at 120 years is part of the non-P source that was probably earlier than the P rewrite of Genesis and did not include the long lifespans we now see. Biblical editors combining contradictory material into a single passage is nothing new, of course.
Thanks, Paul. What do you suppose the purpose for adding a statement regarding limiting their ages to 120 years and them being mortal, after all, if there were no references to extremely long lives mentioned in the text prior to that? It wouldn’t seem to be contradictory, but rather completely out of place. Unless I’m misunderstanding your comment above. Thanks, Mike
Glad to see you’re still here! I was a little worried when you didn’t post for a while. (Not that you owe us anything, of course.) I do very much enjoy learning about the processes that put ancient stories together.
Thanks! I’m hoping to get back into my schedule of writing something every few weeks.
Fingers crossed for some epic Halloween appropriate post this month!
Does this have any clout regarding a variant textual reading’s originality regarding Methuselah’s age in the LXX?
Looking over Wikipedia, it seems that the 187 Years reading at least exists, preserved in Alexandrinus.
Thanks for your time.
Yes, Alexandrinus alone of the LXX manuscripts has 187 years for Methuselah. Most scholars consider it to be a correction based on the Masoretic Text, meant to fix the date of Methuselah’s death. Josephus is thought to have used an LXX manuscript similarly corrected in Antiquities 1, but his numbers vary from both MT and LXX in other places, and he has a completely different chronology in Antiquities 8 that is closer to the MT (1662 years to the flood), and yet another in Antiquities 10 (1556 years to the flood), not to mention some differences between different manuscripts of Josephus.
The Demetrius fragment (which survives only as a quotation of a quotation) is interesting, but the link you gave overstates their case. The fact that Demetrius dates the flood to 2264 years from Adam does not make it a “witness” to a 187-year begetting for Methuselah. He has 22 years (not 20) more than the standard LXX chronology, but where he puts them we don’t know.
Pseudo-Philo’s numbers (surviving only in Latin translation) are a real mess, and seem to be a combination of MT and LXX dates with numerous scribal errors. He puts the date of the flood at 1652, and some scholars think his genealogies were modified to agree with LXX chronology later.
Interestingly, the relevant fragment of Julius Africanus’ Chronographiae exists only in quotations by Syncellus, who states Africanus puts Methuselah’s begetting at 187 years instead of the usual 167 and has him die at 989 instead of 969, which Syncellus himself emphatically disagrees with.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The book of Jubilees agrees with the Samaritan Chronology for Genesis 5. I find that curious and is part of why I think the Samaritan may be the original here.
Odd that you say the Hebrew text would make Methuselah live past the flood. I did the math, several times to see if I was correct and Methuselah always ends up having died either in the flood or just prior to it. So all your talk of the Septuagint having to add 100 to the the numbers in the genealogies in order to make it so those people died in or before the flood is all nonsense.
I guess you didn’t read my article carefully. There was an original Hebrew version in which Methuselah lived past the flood. The Hebrew version you checked (the Masoretic Text) has, like the Samaritan Pentateuch and Septuagint, been altered to fix the math. That’s why the ages related to the patriarchs Methuselah, Lamech, and Jared differ between the three major textual traditions. They’ve all been altered from the original text to solve this problem.
What original Hebrew version, how do you determine it was written earlier than say the Masoretic? There is a lot o speculation in your article. Yves P.
I explain it in the article, based on research by Ronald Hendel. Essentially, is it the most parsimonious explanation as to why the ages of the patriarchs in the MT, LXX, and SP differ in the way that they do. If you have some other model that explains the data better, by all means share. Or better yet, publish a paper.
The sum of the oldest and the youngest is 969 + 120 = 33 * 33.
Arent the post-flood patriarchs a problem for this idea? The LXX and the SP agree against the MT on their begetting from Cainan to Nahor.
Can you explain what you mean a bit more? Cainan (if you mean the one that follows Arpachshad) is only in the LXX, not the MT and SP.
I’m referring to the ages at which the post-flood patriarchs bear their children. In the LXX & SP, the sequence goes 135, (Cainan not in SP), 130, 134, 130, 132, 130, ane 79. The MT deducts a century from each of these and half a century from the last age.
This isn’t necessarily problem for the proposal you lay out. It only needs to raise the question of why the Masoretes wanted to deflate their Genesis 11 chronology by 650 years.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s an interesting observation, and maybe a good topic for another article.
If you add up the post-diluvian begetting ages in Genesis 11, the LXX adds up to exactly 1,000 years, and the MT adds up to exactly 365 if you include the age at which Abram leaves Haran (75). It seems that the editors were making deliberate adjustments to the timespan between the flood and Abram’s arrival in Canaan. These observations come from Philippe Guillaume in Land and Calendar: The Priestly Document from Genesis 1 to Joshua 18.