Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Ussher III · Φιλολoγικά / Philologica: Numeric Symbolism in Genesis 5 Patriarchs? · HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS: Number Symbolism in Genesis 5? · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Ages or Names Symbolic?
In responding to T Michael Lutas, I make the observations, it's up to him to do a search for any possible symbolism in Genesis 5 ages.
Also, that modern numerology (going far beyond simple gematria) is a thing Jews developed well after splitting from Christianity, not a tradition that as it stands could be taken as a possible inspiration for Genesis 5. I decided to take a go anyway, just out of curiosity.
I make a search on duckduckgo with the key words "symbolism in Adam dying at 930 years" and I find exactly one hit, which is not Jewish, but which is made by one James or Jim Stump for BioLogos, who is on the search for excuses against taking Genesis 5 literally:
Long Life Spans in Genesis: Literal or Symbolic?
By Jim Stump on October 05, 2017
https://biologos.org/articles/long-life-spans-in-genesis-literal-or-symbolic
The supposed symbolic value is, you add up multiples of 60 years multiples of 7 years, and to make it work, you also use multiples of five years, since five years = 60 months. There are 30 numbers in Genesis five, for each of the ten patriarchs three, a) when he had the relevant son, b) how long he lived after that, c) the total.
There are two problems, even here, first:
We may never know for sure what significance the numbers had for the ancient Hebrews who wrote the text.
This is a very candid admission there is no Jewish traditional numerological interpretation of these ages.
Then, three of the numbers get their total from such things in a very roundabout way, explicitated for footnotes 2 to 4:
2. 912 = [(60+60+60 years) x 60 months] + 60 months + 7 years. That is, 180 years x 5 years (=900 years) + 12 years.
3. 782 = (60+60+60+60+60+60+60+60+60+60+60+60 years) + (60+60+60+60 months) + (7+7+7+7+7+7 years). That is, 720+20+42 years.
4. 963 = [(60+60+60 years) x 60 months] + (7+7+7+7+7+7+7+7+7 years).
The first and third of these are a no no, since it would involve squared years.
A third problem: this does not seem to go very well for Genesis 11 ages.
100 + 500 = 600
35 + 303 = 338 ...
A fourth problem, in his reasoning, the Sumerian King List has 8 pre-Flood kings, with reigns that simply multiply Genesis 5 ages (rounded to nearest 5 or 10) with 60, and also omit Adam and Noah, probably because Cain to Tubal-Cain are only 8, actually was pretended as being historical. Now, Jim Stump says:
Different versions of the Sumerian King List are found in several ancient documents, and these use outlandishly large figures for the number of years some kings supposedly reigned in various Mesopotamian city-states (e.g., in Eridug, Alulim ruled for 28,800 years!). The numbers there came to have a role in legitimizing certain dynasties, and no one thinks they are simply historical reports of true numerical values. So, since there are clear examples of numbers being used numerically and of numbers being used numerologically, when we see some numbers in literature from the ancient Near East (like in Genesis), we must consider in which way they were being used.
As a matter of fact, both I and CMI believe the Sumerian King list is a tampered historical report, with faked numeric values. Due to deifying pre-Flood patriarchs, or perhaps simply misreading positional arithmetic systems without place holders (some Mesopotamian ones had, some hadn't). Here is CMI:
The antediluvian patriarchs and the Sumerian King List
by Raúl Erlando López
First published in: Journal of Creation 12(3):347–357, 1998
https://creation.com/the-antediluvian-patriarchs-and-the-sumerian-king-list
Other blunder in the Sumerian king list is instead of patriarcal lives overlapping, they are interpreted as regnal years and serialised.
But the first problem for Stump is actually also a fifth one:
We may never know for sure what significance the numbers had for the ancient Hebrews who wrote the text.
I can live with the real divinely meant sense of a literal thing in the OT being a symbolic one. Here is a symbolism for some food laws of Moses:
1) The animal that chews the cud and has a divided hoof, is clean in signification. Because division of the hoof is a figure of the two Testaments: or of the Father and Son: or of the two natures in Christ: of the distinction of good and evil. While chewing the cud signifies meditation on the Scriptures and a sound understanding thereof; and whoever lacks either of these is spiritually unclean. 2) In like manner those fish that have scales and fins are clean in signification. Because fins signify the heavenly or contemplative life; while scales signify a life of trials, each of which is required for spiritual cleanness. 3) Of birds certain kinds were forbidden. In the eagle which flies at a great height, pride is forbidden: in the griffon which is hostile to horses and men, cruelty of powerful men is prohibited. The osprey, which feeds on very small birds, signifies those who oppress the poor. The kite, which is full of cunning, denotes those who are fraudulent in their dealings. The vulture, which follows an army, expecting to feed on the carcases of the slain, signifies those who like others to die or to fight among themselves that they may gain thereby. Birds of the raven kind signify those who are blackened by their lusts; or those who lack kindly feelings, for the raven did not return when once it had been let loose from the ark. The ostrich which, though a bird, cannot fly, and is always on the ground, signifies those who fight God's cause, and at the same time are taken up with worldly business. The owl, which sees clearly at night, but cannot see in the daytime, denotes those who are clever in temporal affairs, but dull in spiritual matters. The gull, which flies both in the air and swims in the water, signifies those who are partial both to Circumcision and to Baptism: or else it denotes those who would fly by contemplation, yet dwell in the waters of sensual delights. The hawk, which helps men to seize the prey, is a figure of those who assist the strong to prey on the poor. The screech-owl, which seeks its food by night but hides by day, signifies the lustful man who seeks to lie hidden in his deeds of darkness. ...
In other words, I need to divide the Testaments (completely, not squeezing them together like a camel's semi-cloven hoof), I need to meditate, I need to have a contemplative life and I need to have trials, I need to avoid certain vices, like pride, cruelty and so on.
If I do not need to keep the Kashroot, and indeed do not do so, I certainly don't need to disbelieve God's former command of them, since God made the ancient Israelites practise a live charade for certain spiritual principles.
But Jim Stump wants me to disbelieve the letter of Genesis 5 in favour of a symbolism that is unknown and therefore lost.
ὅτι οὐκ ἀδυνατήσει παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ πᾶν ῥῆμα.
The usual translation in context is, "with God no word is impossible" "quia non erit impossibile apud Deum omne verbum." - but if we go to the Greek, now, my Greek has rusted since 1993, but it seems to be reasonable for Berean Study Bible to say "For no word from God will ever fail." Or For American Standard Version to say "For no word from God shall be void of power." - since "ἀδυνατήσει" seems to mean "become powerless" ... but that would be the case with Genesis 5 genealogies if Jim Stump were right.
Especially in context of instruction.
All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice,
Except Genesis 5, which neither teaches facts, being purely symbolic, in ages, nor teaches principles, since the ones meant are actually forgotten? I don't think so.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
13th Lord's Day after Pentecost
27.VIII.2023
No comments:
Post a Comment