3 ms·

Same book says Methuselah lived to 969. Guess there were exceptions. Or, if we map 120 <== 969 that's ≃ a factor of 8 shorter life for other notables of that e

Same book says Methuselah lived to 969. Guess there were exceptions. Or, if we map 120 <== 969 that's ≃ a factor of 8 shorter life for other notables of that era.

Nition 8y ago
Methuselah was around earlier than that proclamation. He's in Genesis 5.
tzs 8y ago
I read some speculation that because of the importance of lunar calendars at the time, ages may have sometimes been tracked in months instead of or in addition to years, and that those very long Biblical ages may be due to an age in months accidentally getting mixed up with an age an years. That would, for example, put Methuselah at a much more plausible 80 years.
- jcranmer 8y ago
  That has been speculated, but it then means some of those people are giving birth at age 6, which is why it is not universally accepted as an explanation. There is another version of the text that adds another 100 years to age-of-fatherhood, which makes this explanation more plausible if the extra 100 year variant is the correct one, but there are still some ages which are way too young if measured in months and way too old if measured in years.
- olavk 8y ago
  That theory would assume the men from Adam to Noah are actually historical persons with recorded timespans, and there was just some mistake in interpreting the numbers. But consider that Noah is similar to a character known from much older Sumerian flood myths - except in the Sumerian version he is immortal. It is common to ascribe impossibly long lifespans to legendary figures from past ages - the Sumerian list of kings lists their early kings as having reign of tens of thousands of years. I think it is a fools errand to try to find rational explanations for implausibilities in mythology. After all, the length of lifespan is kind of the least problematic thing about the account of Adam, if you want to understand it as historical.

Same book says Methuselah lived to 969. Guess there were exceptions. Or, if we map 120 <== 969 that's ≃ a factor of 8 shorter life for other notables of that era.

Nition 8y ago

Methuselah was around earlier than that proclamation. He's in Genesis 5.

tzs 8y ago

I read some speculation that because of the importance of lunar calendars at the time, ages may have sometimes been tracked in months instead of or in addition to years, and that those very long Biblical ages may be due to an age in months accidentally getting mixed up with an age an years. That would, for example, put Methuselah at a much more plausible 80 years.

jcranmer 8y ago
That has been speculated, but it then means some of those people are giving birth at age 6, which is why it is not universally accepted as an explanation. There is another version of the text that adds another 100 years to age-of-fatherhood, which makes this explanation more plausible if the extra 100 year variant is the correct one, but there are still some ages which are way too young if measured in months and way too old if measured in years.
olavk 8y ago
That theory would assume the men from Adam to Noah are actually historical persons with recorded timespans, and there was just some mistake in interpreting the numbers. But consider that Noah is similar to a character known from much older Sumerian flood myths - except in the Sumerian version he is immortal. It is common to ascribe impossibly long lifespans to legendary figures from past ages - the Sumerian list of kings lists their early kings as having reign of tens of thousands of years. I think it is a fools errand to try to find rational explanations for implausibilities in mythology. After all, the length of lifespan is kind of the least problematic thing about the account of Adam, if you want to understand it as historical.