Patriarchs, Biblical

BIBLICAL PATRIARCHS. — Descendants of Adam down to Noah (antediluvian) and of Shem down to Thare (postdiluvian). Abraham (v.), Isaac (v.), Jacob (v.), other figures in the Septuagint (cf. I Par. 24, 31; 27, 22; II Par. 9, 8; 23, 20; 26, 12), and in Act. 7, 8, 9; 2, 29 the sons of Jacob and David are also called P. Perhaps Danel (cf. Ez. 14, 14-20; 28, 3) also lived at the time of the P. There are two genealogies of the antediluvians: Gen. 4, 17 ff. (the line of Cain); ibid. 5, 3-31 (the line of Seth).

According to some authors (e.g., Taylor, Chaine), these would be one and the same genealogy (Gen. 4, 17 ff. from J, or the Yahwist codex, and 5, 3-31 from P, or the Priestly codex); but confusion between Seth and Cain is wholly improbable; nor does the J list end with Noah, as does the P list. The mere similarity of the names Enoch, Lamech, Irad, and Methusael does not imply that the lists are identical. In the genealogy of the Sethites (Gen. 5, 3-31) and the Semites (ibid. 11, 10-32), a scheme is filled out for each P., recording the age at which he fathered his successor, how long he lived thereafter, the total length of his life, that he had other sons and daughters, and then, in the case of the antediluvians, his death, Enoch (v.), who “walked with God and was no more because God took him”; Lc. 3, 34-36 lists the Sethite and Semite P. among the ancestors of Christ (cf. also I Par. 1, 24-27). Of the Cainites, on the other hand, very important information is reported: Cain builds a city and names it Enoch (Iabushh = “to build”) after his son (the transition from nomadic to urban life?), Lamech (v.) introduces polygamy, and his three sons invent: pastoral life under tents (Jabal), musical instruments (Jubal), and the art of working copper and iron (Tubal-cain).

The postdiluvian P. in the Masoretic text number 9; in the Septuagint and in Lc. 3, 36 there are 10, through the addition of Cainan (cf. also I Par. 24, 27). In Gen. 11, 10-26 they are presented as the genealogy of Shem; in Gen. 10, 21 ff. another descent from Shem is given: Elam, Asshur, Arphaxad, Lud, Aram. From Arphaxad: Shelah, Eber, Peleg, Joktan. It follows that Gen. 11, 10-26 gives the genealogy of Shem through Arphaxad.

As for chronology, by calculating the years in which the P. fathered their successors, it can be reconstructed from the creation of man to Abraham. But the Masoretic, Samaritan, and Septuagint texts do not agree with one another (v. STABIA. a).

The Septuagint adds 100 years to the date of procreation, lengthening the period from Adam to the Flood and adjusting the remainder of life accordingly, so that it agrees in the total sum.

The Samaritan agrees with the Masoretic text except in the cases of Jared, Methuselah, and Lamech. According to the Masoretic text and the Samaritan, Methuselah died during the Flood (in 1656 according to the Masoretic text, in 1307 according to the Samaritan, and in 2262 according to the Septuagint), and Lamech would have died 5 years after the Flood, contrary to Gen. 6, 17; 7, 4. 21-24; I Pt. 3, 20; II Pt. 2, 5 (v. STABIA. b).

The alterations are more numerous than in the first list. The Samaritan and the Septuagint add 100 years to the age at which the successors were born, and 50 to Nahor. In the remainder of life, the Masoretic text increases and the Samaritan decreases. The Septuagint here too tends to increase.

From the Flood to Thare, 390 years elapsed according to the Masoretic text, 1040 according to the Samaritan, and 1170 according to the Septuagint; between the birth of Abraham and the Flood there were 290 years (Masoretic text). At that time nearly all the descendants of Shem should still have been alive. Shelah and Eber would have outlived him.

The historical value of the chronology is partly undermined by the divergence among the texts. Even if the higher figures are taken into consideration, they cannot be reconciled with the figures assigned by modern paleontologists to the same period (from 50,000 to 200,000 years).

Another difficulty is the longevity of the biblical P., which reaches its peak with Methuselah’s 960 years, then declines to 962 (Jared), 950 (Noah), 930 (Adam), 912 (Seth), 910 (Cainan), 905 (Enos), 895 (Malaleel), 753 (Lamech), and 365 (Enoch). Among the postdiluvian P., according to the Septuagint, it declines from 600 to 565, 460, 504, 339, 330, 208, and 205.

The two tables show that it is unfounded to suppose that the author intended to demonstrate the progressive decrease in the duration of human life, since Eber lived longer than Cainan and Shelah, Noah longer than Lamech, Malaleel, and so on. By Abraham’s time, the length of life was shorter. At 100 years for a man and 90 for a woman, it would have been absurd to think of having

Tab. a) ANTEDILUVIAN PATRIARCHS

Tab. b) POSTDILUVIAN PATRIARCHS

children (Gen. 17, 17) without a miracle (ibid. 18, 14); they already considered themselves old and advanced in years (ibid. 18, 10-13). Abraham at 175 is satisfied with days (ibid. 27, 7 ff.). Likewise, it is regarded as extraordinary that Moses, at his death, at the age of 120, had no dimness of sight and had not lost his vigor (Deut. 34, 7). It should nevertheless be observed that Abraham, who is unable to beget a child at 100, later marries Keturah and has children by her. The conduct of Ham toward his naked father would suggest a young man rather than a centenarian. The same may be said of Sarah, who at 65 causes Pharaoh and Abimelech to fall in love with her, whereas at 90 she is an infirm old woman. Shem, when the Flood ended, should have been 101 years old (Gen. 5, 31; 7, 6). Yet, according to Gen. 11, 10, two years after the Flood he was only 100 years old. Another striking fact is the advanced age at which the biblical P. father their successor (cf. also Noah, who had Shem, Ham, and Japheth only at the age of 500). The current rationalistic theories concerning the “mythical” biblical P. are presented by R. Kittel, Gesch. d. Volkes Israel, I, 7th ed., Stuttgart 1932, pp. 249-90.

The lists of the P. b. have been compared with the Babylonian ones, preserved in the two cuneiform documents W. B. 444 and W. B. 62 and in Berossus. But it is now clear that they are not parallel. They concern kings, not P.; they have Sumerian names, were compiled from various local catalogues, and assign much longer periods (64,800; 28,800; 43,200; 108,000; 241,000; etc.): according to tablet W. B. 444, 241,200 years elapsed before the Flood; according to W. B. 62, 456,000; according to Berossus, 432,000. However, the list in W. B. 444 has 8 kings, while the other, W. B. 62 together with Berossus, has 10 (Aloros 36,000, Alaparos 10,800, Amelon 46,800, Amenon 43,200, Magalaros 64,800, Daos 36,000, Evedorachos 64,800, Amempsinos 36,000, Otiastes 28,000, Xisuthros 64,800). Ten kings recall the Egyptians, ten P. the Persians, and nine successors of Brahma the Indians.

In view of the difficulties caused by the longevity of the P., affirmed by the numbers in Gen. 5 and 10, various solutions have been proposed: there would not be a complete genealogical series, since many intermediate members would have been omitted, given that jāladh (“begot”) and ben (“son”) could indicate a non-immediate generation; the years would not have had the duration of ours: 10 years would correspond to one year, that is, 36 days (cf. St. Augustine, De civ. Dei, XV, 12, 13; PL 41, 451, 453); biblical chronology would be symbolic or artificial: the latest of the various related systems is J. Schildenberger’s numerical symbolism; the texts would have been intentionally corrupted (B. Kennicott, Dissert. gener. in Vet. Test. Hebr., Oxford 1780, p. 32, n. 75); the author would cite the sources or popular legends from which he drew without guaranteeing their reliability; the dates would have been inserted into the Pentateuch at a later time; Moses would not have been explicit (P. Heinisch); the numbers would have had a mnemonic function.

The longevity of the P. b., although extraordinary, is not impossible. It may be explained by the vigor of the first men and by more favorable climatic and nutritional factors. Nor can divine intervention be ruled out, in order to give the P. b. the opportunity to transmit the primitive Revelation orally, with greater authority. The ancient traditions concerning the extraordinary longevity of the first men, found also outside Israel, may have a common basis. The years, moreover, in Gen. 1–10, have their normal duration, as is clear from the calculation of the duration of the Flood (ibid. 8, 4–14).

The purpose of the genealogies of the P. b. is not strictly historical or chronological, but rather religious, with a juridical-legal background—namely, to prove the legitimacy of Israel’s descent from Adam, through the line Seth–Noah–Shem–Terah–Abraham. The links in this descent represent the stages in the history of Revelation: the Adamic revelation, preserved until Noah; the Noachic, until Terah; the Abrahamic, until Jacob (Moses). Implicit, but evident, is the tendency to connect the “seed of blessing” of Abraham with the seed of the woman (Gen. 3, 15), insofar as it will be born from Israel. The names of the P. b. do not indicate the firstborn, since Seth was not Adam’s firstborn, nor was Arphaxad Shem’s.
PATRIARCHI BIBLICI - PATRIMONIO DI S. PIETRO

Sem, Sem di Noè (cf. s. Agostino, De civ. Dei, XV, 15). L'autore conosce altri figli e figlie avute prima e dopo di costoro. È evidente quindi che riferisce solo quei nomi, da cui risultava il diritto alla discendenza che rappresentavano. Questi nomi dovevano essere storici; ma si può supporre che la serie non sia completa nonostante l'apparente completezza: l'autore dice che Noè in un anno, cioè il 500° della sua vita, generò tre figli: Sem, Cam, Iapheth; se non si tratta di parto trigemino, la notizia è assurda. I Settanta e Luca riferiscono che Arphaxad generò Cainan mentre il testo masoretico (e la Volgata) gli attribuiscono Sale, omettendo Cainan.

Questi casi fanno intravedere che poteva esistere un genere letterario speciale che si potrebbe chiamare « genealogico », il quale seguiva delle regole particolari, ma che ancora non si conosce bene. Forse poteva comportare delle lacune anche nella forma in cui è, ad es., esposto per i P. antediluviani. Poiché i nomi dei P. b. sono ebraici, l'autore deve aver utilizzato fonti israelitiche conservate nelle famiglie di Sem-Tharc-Abramo.