 |
|
| A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z |
The wordpatriarch as applied to Biblical personages comes from theSeptuagint version, where it is used in a broad sense, including religious and civil officials (e.g.1 Chronicles 24:31;27:22). In the more restricted sense and common usage it is applied to theantediluvian fathers of thehuman race, and more particularly to the three great progenitors ofIsrael:Abraham,Isaac, andJacob. In theNew Testament the term is extended also to the sons of Jacob (Acts 7:8-9) and toKing David (ibid., ii, 29). For an account of these laterpatriarchs see articlesABRAHAM;ISAAC;JACOB; etc. The earlierpatriarchs comprise theantediluvian group, and those who are placed between theFlood and the birth of Abraham. Of the former the Book of Genesis gives a twofold list. The first (Genesis 4:17-18, passage assigned by critics the so-called "J" document) starts with Cain and gives as his descendants Henoch, Irad, Maviael,Mathusael, and Lamech. The other list (Genesis 5:3-31, ascribed to thepriestly writer, "P") is far more elaborate, and is accompanied by minute chronological indications. It begins with Seth and, strange to say, it ends likewise with Lamech. The intervening names are Enos, Cainan, Malaleel, Jared, Henoch, andMathusala.
The fact that both lists end with Lamech, who is doubtless the sameperson, and that some of the names common to both are strikingly similar, makes it probable that the second list is an amplification of the first, embodying material furnished by a divergent tradition. Nor should this seem surprising when we consider the many discrepancies exhibited by the twofold genealogy of the Saviour in the First and Third Gospels. The human personages set forth in these lists occupy a place held by the mythical demi-gods in the story of the prehistoric beginnings of other early nations, and it may well be that the chief value of the inspired account given of them is didactic, destined in the mind of the sacred writer to inculcate the greattruth ofmonotheism which is so distinctive a feature of theOld Testament writings. Be that as it may, the acceptance of this general view helps greatly to simplify another difficult problem connected with the Biblical account of the earlypatriarchs, viz. their enormous longevity. The earlier account (Genesis 4:17-18) gives only the names of thepatriarchs there mentioned, with the incidental indication that the city built by Cain was called after his son Henoch. The later narrative (Genesis 5:3-31) gives a definitechronology for the whole period. It states the age at which each patriarch begot hisfirst-born son, the number of years he lived after that event, together with the sum total of the years of his life. Nearly all of theantediluvian fathers are represented as living to the age of 900 or thereabouts,Mathusala, the oldest, reaching 969.
These figures have always constituted a most difficult problem for commentators and Bible readers; and those who defend the strict historical character of the passages in question have put forward various explanations, none of which are considered convincing by modern Biblical scholars. Thus it has been conjectured that the years mentioned in this connexion were not of ordinary duration but of one or more months. There is, however, no warrant for this assumption in the Scripture itself, where the word year has a constant signification, and is always clearly distinguished from the minor periods. It has also been suggested that the ages given are not those ofindividuals, but signify epochs ofantediluvian history, and that each is named after its most illustrious representative. The hypothesis may be ingenious, but even a superficial reading of the text suffices to show that such was not the meaning of the sacred writer. Nor does it help the case much to point out a few exceptional instances ofpersons who in modern times are alleged to have lived to the age of 150 or even 180. For even admitting these as facts, and that in primitive times men lived longer than at present (an assumption for which we find no warrant in historic times), it is still a long way from 180 to 900.
Another argument to corroborate the historical accuracy of the Biblical account has beendeduced from the fact that the legends of many people assert the great longevity of their early ancestors, a circumstance which is said to imply an original tradition to that effect. Thus the first sevenEgyptian kings are said to have reigned for a period of 12,300 years, making an average of about 1757 years for each, andJosephus, who is preoccupied with a desire to justify the Biblical narrative, quotes Ephorus and Nicolaus as relating "that the ancients lived a thousand years". He adds, however, "But as to these matters, let every one look upon them as he thinks fit". (Antiq., I, iii,in fine). On the other hand, it is maintained that as a matter of fact there is no trustworthy historic or scientific evidence indicating that the average span ofhumanlife was greater in primitive than in modern times. In this connexion it is customary to citeGenesis 6:3, whereGod is represented as decreeing by way of punishment of the universal corruption which was the occasion of theFlood, that henceforth the days of man "shall be a hundred and twenty years". This is taken as indicating a point at which the physical deterioration of the race resulted in a marked decrease in longevity. But apart from the critical considerations bearing on this passage, it is strange to note further on (Genesis 11) that the ages of the subsequentpatriarchs were by no means limited to 120 years. Sem lived to the age of 600. Arphaxad 338 (Massoretic text 408), Sale 433, Heber 464 etc.
The one ground on which the accuracy of all these figures can be defended is the a priori reason that being contained in theBible, they must of a necessity be historically correct, and this position is maintained by the older commentators generally. Most modern scholars, on the other hand, are agreed in considering the genealogical and chronological lists ofGenesis 5 and11 to be mainly artificial, and this view seems to be confirmed, they say, by a comparison of the figures as they stand in the Hebrew original and in the ancient versions. TheVulgate is in agreement with the former (with the exception of Arphaxad), showing that no substantial alteration of the figures has been made in the Hebrew at least since the end of the fourth century A. D.
But when we compare theMassoretic text with theSamaritan version and theSeptuagint, we are confronted by many and strange discrepancies which can hardly be the result of mere accident. Thus for instance, with regard to theantediluvianpatriarchs, while theSamaritan version agrees in the main with theMassoretic text, the age at which Jared begot hisfirst-born is set down as 62 instead of the Hebrew 162.Mathusala, likewise, who according to the Hebrew begot hisfirst-born at the age of 187, was only 67 according to theSamaritan; and though the Hebrew places the same event in the case of Lamech when he was 182, theSamaritan gives him only 53. Similar discrepancies exist between the two texts as regards the total number of years that thesepatriarchs lived, viz. Jared, Heb. 962, Sam. 847;Mathusala, Heb. 969, Sam. 720; Lamech, Heb. 777, Sam. 653. Comparing theMassoretic text with theSeptuagint, we find that in the latter the birth of thefirst-born in the case of Adam, Seth, Enos, Cainan, Malaleel, and Henoch was at the respective ages of 230, 205, 190, 170, 165, and 165, as against 130, 105, 90, 70, 65, and 65 as stated in the Hebrew, and the same systematic difference of 100 years in the period before the birth of thefirst-born appears likewise in the lives of the postdiluvianpatriarchs, Arphaxad,Sale, Heber, Phaleg, Reu, and Sarug. For this list, however, theSamaritan agrees with theSeptuagint as against theMassoretic text.
As regards the list of theantediluvians, the Hebrew andSeptuagint agree as to the sum total of each patriarch's life, since the Greek version reduces regularly by a hundred years the period between the birth of thefirst-born and the patriarch's death. These accumulated differences result in a wide divergence when the duration of the entire patriarchal period is considered. Thus the number of years which elapsed from the beginning down to the death of Lamech is, according to the Hebrew, 1651, while theSamaritan gives 1307, and theSeptuagint 2227. These are but a few of the peculiarities exhibited by the comparison of the perplexing genealogical lists. That the divergences are for the most part intentional seems to be anecessary inference from their systematic regularity, and the implied manipulation of the figures by the early translators goes far to make probable the more or less artificial character of these primitive chronologies as a whole.
APA citation.Driscoll, J.F.(1911).Patriarch. InThe Catholic Encyclopedia.New York: Robert Appleton Company.http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11548a.htm
MLA citation.Driscoll, James F."Patriarch."The Catholic Encyclopedia.Vol. 11.New York: Robert Appleton Company,1911.<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11548a.htm>.
Transcription.This article was transcribed for New Advent by Sean Hyland.
Ecclesiastical approbation.Nihil Obstat. February 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor.Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address is webmasterat newadvent.org. Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads.