Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - [b-hebrew] Isaac's Age at the Binding Incident

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: JimStinehart AT aol.com
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [b-hebrew] Isaac's Age at the Binding Incident
  • Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:48:43 EDT


Rev. Bryant J. Williams:

You wrote: “You have stated that ‘All ages in the Patriarchal narratives
are set forth in
terms of 6-month 'years.’ This has not been proved to anyone's satisfaction.


What you say is correct. Here is a representative sampling of scholarly
opinion on this subject:

1. "[P]rodigious life spans [are] attributed to the Patriarchs.” John J.
Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible (2004) at p. 84.

2. "The actual chronological place of this event [Isaac's death, reported at
Genesis 28: 29] is obviously considerably earlier in the narrative. The
biblical writers observe no fixed commitment to linear chronology, a
phenomenon
recognized by the rabbis in the dictum, 'there is neither early nor late in
the
Torah'." Robert Alter, Genesis: Translation and Commentary (1996), footnote
29 at p. 201.

3. "The over-all chronological scheme [of the Patriarchal narratives]
remains obscure." E.A. Speiser, Genesis (1962) at p. 126.

By contrast to modern scholars, the Hebrews understood the ages of the
Patriarchs. The Koran understands the ages of the Patriarchs. And the
medieval
Christian scribes who put chapter and verse numbers into the Bible in the
Middle
Ages understood the ages of the Patriarchs.

But you are right that modern scholars are totally baffled by the ages of the
Patriarchs. Although the internal timeline of the Patriarchal narratives in
fact makes perfect sense, without a single number being a “mistake” or not
fitting in perfectly, modern scholars have been unable to figure out that
internal timeline. Modern scholars also do not understand the way in which
each
character’s ages are set forth in the text.

The above scholarly quotations speak for themselves.

The scholarly view is that P put in all the numbers, and that P’s numbers are
unfathomable. But why would P take the time to put a whole series of numbers
into the Patriarchal narratives, where allegedly all characters’ ages are way
too old to be believable, and even worse, allegedly the internal timeline of
the Patriarchal narratives is incoherent to a fault? Though that is the
modern scholarly view of the case, is that scholarly view a rational
explanation
that is the slightest bit convincing?

Do you realize that not a single modern scholar has taken the time to figure
out that the reason why Abraham finds out about Rebekah at Genesis 22: 20-24,
after the binding incident and before Sarah’s death, is because that is when
Abraham’s father Terakh died? That’s straight mathematics, as shown in my
post. And it works regardless of how one interprets a “year”. No modern
scholar for the last 50 years has made a serious, sustained attempt to try to
figure
out how the internal timeline of the Patriarchal narratives works.

Modern scholars have not come up with any proposal for understanding either
(i) the stated ages of people in the Patriarchal narratives, or (ii) the
internal timeline of the Patriarchal narratives. You are right that modern
scholars
do not endorse the concept of a 6-month “year” being used for all people’s
stated ages in the Patriarchal narratives, or for periods of time the
Patriarchs spend in Canaan. But it is also true that modern scholars have no
alternative of their own to propose in this regard, other than to say that
the numbers
used in the Patriarchal narratives are “obscure”.

Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois




**************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for
fuel-efficient used cars.
(http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page