My first post concerning this issue raised a lot of questions and spurred a lot of dialogue. Regardless of whether or not a concensus has been achieved amongst those who supported my opinions and those who did not, it did serve to create conversation, raise more questions, and better articulate and outline the salient issues that are involved in the act of interpretation. I believe this dialogue is important, especially in relation to texts that are shrouded in contexts which we will never be able to fully penetrate. Hopefully, this second post can move the conversation to other possibilities for thinking and reflection as well.As I have continued to study this issue, I have come across some interesting information. For example, consider the following data set:
Name /Age When Son Born / Remaining Years / Total Years ---------------------------------------------------------------------
- Adam / 130 / 800 / 930
- Seth / 105 / 807 / 912
- Enosh / 90 / 815 / 905
- Kenan / 70 / 840 / 910
- Mahalalel / 65 / 830 / 895
- Jared / 162 / 800 / 962
- Enoch / 65 / 300 / 365
- Methuselah / 187 / 782 / 969
- Lamech / 182 / 595 / 777
- Noah / 500 / 450 / 950
In the "genealogy" of Genesis 5, each listing follows a formula in which the patriarch's name is given, his age at the birth of his son is listed, the remaining years of his life are noted, concluding with a final "sum" of the total years of his life.
If one looks closely at the numbers, rather than the random number set which appears at first glance, there is actually a very specific theme which unites each entry. For example, each number from each category for each name ends in either the number 0, 2, 5, 7 or 9. As many who have studied this document in relation to Mesopotamian literature have concluded, the totals that are listed for each category are a combination of the Mesopotamian sacred number "60" (as months [5 years] and years [e.g., 60 years] ) and "7." For example, Enoch's data can be computed as follows:
65 [60yrs + 60mos] / 300 [60 x 60mos] / 365 [60 x 6yrs + 60mos] (or 1 solar year)
Following this pattern, never once in the antedeluvian or postdeluvian data sets do the numbers 1, 3, 4, 6, or 8 ever appear. As an actual dispertion of ages across 30 data sets (not to even consider the postdiluvian data sets) would predict that an even dispersion of end-numbers would attain, the fact that the end-numbers in the Genesis 5 data sets are restricted to a certain range of values so strongly suggests an underlying structure that Sparks insists that the probability of such a data range occuring is 4.5 x 10-11, less than one chance in a billion.
So what does this all mean? Clearly, there is strong evidence to suggest that the numbers in the genealogy are artificially generated and do not represent actual numbers. However, in anticipation of the obvious question about this information to an understanding of the "inspiration" of Scripture, I do not think this should create problems for the student of the Scriptures. In my previous post, I advocated that the fact that the genealogy of Genesis 5 is probably based upon a Sumerian king list does not mitigate "inspiration." Rather, it merely requires that one adjust what is potentially a too materialist conception of inspiration.
Concerning this additional information, I do not think it is surprising that the writers would utilize mathematical formulae to create numeric (or, more properly, numerological) meanings. After all, as any cursory reading of the Scriptures quickly reveals, the writings are plentiful with numerological devices (7 days of creation, 40 days of the flood, 70 nations, 12 tribes, 3 days and 3 nights, etc.). What the modern interpreter of the Scriptures must avoid, however, is reading modern conceptions of history and the strict "realist" usage of numbers into the text. Consequently, if the original writers meant to use these numbers in a more "sacred," numerological sense, and were not necessarily attempting to record "real" history, then we, as modern interpreters, actually do violence to the texts by assuming that our utility of numbers and their meaning are categorically applicable to every instance of numbers in Scripture.
If one looks closely at the numbers, rather than the random number set which appears at first glance, there is actually a very specific theme which unites each entry. For example, each number from each category for each name ends in either the number 0, 2, 5, 7 or 9. As many who have studied this document in relation to Mesopotamian literature have concluded, the totals that are listed for each category are a combination of the Mesopotamian sacred number "60" (as months [5 years] and years [e.g., 60 years] ) and "7." For example, Enoch's data can be computed as follows:
65 [60yrs + 60mos] / 300 [60 x 60mos] / 365 [60 x 6yrs + 60mos] (or 1 solar year)
Following this pattern, never once in the antedeluvian or postdeluvian data sets do the numbers 1, 3, 4, 6, or 8 ever appear. As an actual dispertion of ages across 30 data sets (not to even consider the postdiluvian data sets) would predict that an even dispersion of end-numbers would attain, the fact that the end-numbers in the Genesis 5 data sets are restricted to a certain range of values so strongly suggests an underlying structure that Sparks insists that the probability of such a data range occuring is 4.5 x 10-11, less than one chance in a billion.
So what does this all mean? Clearly, there is strong evidence to suggest that the numbers in the genealogy are artificially generated and do not represent actual numbers. However, in anticipation of the obvious question about this information to an understanding of the "inspiration" of Scripture, I do not think this should create problems for the student of the Scriptures. In my previous post, I advocated that the fact that the genealogy of Genesis 5 is probably based upon a Sumerian king list does not mitigate "inspiration." Rather, it merely requires that one adjust what is potentially a too materialist conception of inspiration.
Concerning this additional information, I do not think it is surprising that the writers would utilize mathematical formulae to create numeric (or, more properly, numerological) meanings. After all, as any cursory reading of the Scriptures quickly reveals, the writings are plentiful with numerological devices (7 days of creation, 40 days of the flood, 70 nations, 12 tribes, 3 days and 3 nights, etc.). What the modern interpreter of the Scriptures must avoid, however, is reading modern conceptions of history and the strict "realist" usage of numbers into the text. Consequently, if the original writers meant to use these numbers in a more "sacred," numerological sense, and were not necessarily attempting to record "real" history, then we, as modern interpreters, actually do violence to the texts by assuming that our utility of numbers and their meaning are categorically applicable to every instance of numbers in Scripture.
15 comments:
While I don't necessarily disagree that there is intentional numerological implementation, (since a correlating link to other near eastern numerological evidence appears strong) I am surprised that you would mention probability as a bolstering argument, since in other veins of discussion you would dismiss the argument of probability as an irrelevant argument. Perhaps the two are categorically different somehow. I realize your intention is to show intentionaliy as opposed to a random dispersion of ages, but couldn't the same argument be used concerning intentionality and randomity in other veins of discussion? Just curious.
Since the numerial values of the geneaologies are the actual data involved, assigning to a hypothetical deviance from this data set a factor of probability does not causally sustantiate intentionality anymore than if the data set was numerically dispersed would causally prove randomity, or, as would be the case here, random, actual dispersion of ages. Simply stated, although the factor of probability is high, that factor has no inherent determinence in regards to what is the actual data set; it is merely a speculatory device that conceives of potentialities that could exist if what was actual was not actual.
I am not a stats major, and also barely got through stats, but it seems to me that probability has no determining power, but merely makes comparisons between potentialities. I could be wrong.
holy crap- I am typo-ing all over the place.
deviant monk --
While I don't necessarily disagree that there is intentional numerological implementation, (since a correlating link to other near eastern numerological evidence appears strong) I am surprised that you would mention probability as a bolstering argument, since in other veins of discussion you would dismiss the argument of probability as an irrelevant argument.
This is quite true. However, I do not eschew probabilities or arguments from statistics categorically. Rather, my utilization of particular statistics and probability-based arguments will depend upon multifarious considerations, including but not limited to the topic under consideration, the way in which the statistics were gathered, the reasonableness with which one can determine probabilities, and the pertinence of probability/statistical arguments to the subject being discussed.
Perhaps you could provide an example of the reason for your “surprise” instead of making veiled and unsubstantiated accusations.
Perhaps the two are categorically different somehow.
Perhaps, but until you define what the other half of the “two” is, the issue is entirely speculative.
I realize your intention is to show intentionaliy as opposed to a random dispersion of ages, but couldn't the same argument be used concerning intentionality and randomity in other veins of discussion? Just curious.
Yes, of course. But until one actually defines what other “veins” may be under consideration, it is quite impossible to make a determination as to the reasonableness and/or legitimacy of either option.
Since the numerical values of the genealogies are the actual data involved, assigning to a hypothetical deviance from this data set a factor of probability does not causally substantiate intentionality anymore than if the data set was numerically dispersed would causally prove randomity, or, as would be the case here, random, actual dispersion of ages.
To begin, I do not understand what relevance “causality” has to do with substantiating (whether absolutely or by degrees of probability) intentionality. Besides, unless one posits that the texts were somehow created apart from the human author's hand scratching the symbols, intentionality is there, one way or the other.
Moreover, in the science of statistics, hypothetical data sets are, in fact, the means by which one determines a standard deviance in relation to actual data sets. Without positing the existence of hypothetical data sets, there would be no meaningful way in which to interpret real numbers, regardless of whether or not one is attempting to make claims about standard deviations.
Finally, I think you may be mischaracterizing what I am suggesting. I do not intend to give the impression that the deviation between hypothetical randomity and actual data sets somehow “causally proves” (again, I don’t understand the relevance of causality in this subject) the issue one way or the other. All I am saying is that given the actual data sets that are present in light of what one would expect to find as a random dispersion (the hypothetical data sets) across the 30 data sets, there is a high probability that the actual data sets do not represent a random dispersion in a statistically meaningful way.
Simply stated, although the factor of probability is high, that factor has no inherent determinence in regards to what is the actual data set; it is merely a speculatory device that conceives of potentialities that could exist if what was actual was not actual.
I don’t recall that the claim of “determinence” has been made, except by you as an unfounded accusation.
Tim--
Thank you for your comments. And I will be getting to your blog soon. Deviant Monk and I have been engaged in a pretty serious theological jihad with some Reformed blogs, but things are settling down. Therefore, I shall make yours a priority above all things.
Until then, my friend.
I feel like my complaint against the number of probability is justified now. In the end it is on some level arbitrary, there are so many variables in the mechanics of calculating it, and honestly, with or without the probability, you can argue strongly for the connection that is proposed. In fact, the number just makes it sound like someone is using stats to fast talk us.
Anyway, I don't protest against your point, just the use of that number.
I think your point is well made, and it pushes us to consider what exactly is the author attempting to say here? We take the time to translate from Hebrew to English, but also we need to translate from that era to this. It is the mystery of the incarnation in textual form. How does God reveal Himself in a certain time and space. That is the real question. Then, how does the church, filled with the Holy Spirit, interpret this text? You are railing against a modern presuppositional mindset. This is the problem with young earth creation theory, they are reading it with presuppositions.
Of course you realize your use of the term "real history" betrays a modern presupposition as to what it means to portray history. This dichotomy is a problem. If it is not a modern scientific historical approach then it is a platitude, made up story, fable, etc... I'm assuming that was part of your point. However, you limited the use of numbers to being either or. For example, the 12 disciples in my judgement were of the number 12 (at least that select group), which was the number as well as symbolic (and so too with the tribes of Israel). The Hebrews especially were fond of multilayered meanings in their stories, so there is room for both understandings at times. The question again is, "what is the text pointing us to?"
I like this approach to understanding this geneology. A couple of questions/points.
* Like Mofast said, what do the numbers "really" mean, then? I don't have a problem with them being symbollic, but what is the difference in the symbollism of each number?
** I have heard it said by some OT scholars that Genesis can be arranged as story lines that are introduced by geneologies, and that Gen 1 could perhaps be a geneology for the story line in Gen 2-4. Do you think that moving the other (or at least next) geneology(ies) out of the literal/realist interpretation might shed light on the literary form being used in Gen 1? Not history or mythology, but a symbolic preview/overview of what is to come (in Gen 2-4)? I've totally stepped into the deep end for me here, so i have nothing more to add.
*** Finally, using "eschewing" and "multifarious" in the same paragraph should get you punched in the kidney, you word glutton.
benj
Mofast--
Thank you for your comments. Please allow me to respond to that which I will quote in italics.
I feel like my complaint against the number of probability is justified now. In the end it is on some level arbitrary, there are so many variables in the mechanics of calculating it, and honestly, with or without the probability, you can argue strongly for the connection that is proposed. In fact, the number just makes it sound like someone is using stats to fast talk us.
Yes, I can understand your hesitancy to affirm the "number of probability" as many do you use statistics to "fast talk" others and present actually false information. I often get extremely frustrated with some of the statistics that AiG presents in support of their "conclusions" (many of which I feel are really "fast talking").
I think your point is well made, and it pushes us to consider what exactly is the author attempting to say here? We take the time to translate from Hebrew to English, but also we need to translate from that era to this. It is the mystery of the incarnation in textual form. How does God reveal Himself in a certain time and space. That is the real question. Then, how does the church, filled with the Holy Spirit, interpret this text? You are railing against a modern presuppositional mindset. This is the problem with young earth creation theory, they are reading it with presuppositions.
You are exactly right. Contrary to many's beliefs, there is quite a lot that is necessary in interpreting the Scriptures. This is not to say that interpretation should be an exclusive buisness in which only scholars can engage. Yet at the same time, as you point out there is much more in and behind the texts than simply what we take words (which have been translated by people with their own presuppositions) to mean.
Of course you realize your use of the term "real history" betrays a modern presupposition as to what it means to portray history. This dichotomy is a problem. If it is not a modern scientific historical approach then it is a platitude, made up story, fable, etc... I'm assuming that was part of your point.
Yeah, my quotation of "real" was meant to be somewhat subversive shot at modern conceptions of history. This is not to say that modern ideas about approaching history are wrong (in fact, I think they are quite helpful most of the time). However, the methodology is improperly utilized when we assume that the ancients approached, wrote about and conceptualized history in the same way we do. When we believe that "real" history is equivalent to that which aligns with our presuppositions, we will force the Scriptures to speak about history in the same way and, subsequently, find them completely absurd and meaningless.
However, you limited the use of numbers to being either or. For example, the 12 disciples in my judgement were of the number 12 (at least that select group), which was the number as well as symbolic (and so too with the tribes of Israel). The Hebrews especially were fond of multilayered meanings in their stories, so there is room for both understandings at times. The question again is, "what is the text pointing us to?"
This is a good point, and you are right in pointing out the inconsistency of my language. I think this pretty well illustrates how difficult it is to suspend one's conceptions about these issues.
Thanks for the discussion~!
Ben--
* Like Mofast said, what do the numbers "really" mean, then? I don't have a problem with them being symbollic, but what is the difference in the symbollism of each number?
Good question. I don't know! We might understand these numbers as "symbolic," but perhaps the writers saw them differently. As "symbolic" probably did not mean the same to them as it means to us, they may have viewed the numbers as "real," but just not "real" in the way we would think of a number as "real." Headache beginning...
** I have heard it said by some OT scholars that Genesis can be arranged as story lines that are introduced by geneologies, and that Gen 1 could perhaps be a geneology for the story line in Gen 2-4. Do you think that moving the other (or at least next) geneology(ies) out of the literal/realist interpretation might shed light on the literary form being used in Gen 1? Not history or mythology, but a symbolic preview/overview of what is to come (in Gen 2-4)? I've totally stepped into the deep end for me here, so i have nothing more to add.
I don't really have a good answer for this, but it would be interesting for someone to explore this way of thinking.
*** Finally, using "eschewing" and "multifarious" in the same paragraph should get you punched in the kidney, you word glutton.
*** Deservedly doubles over in pain ***
Exist,
You are right to say that the push to put more into interpretation does not make it exclusivist. I have been surprised a few times that when I talk to some elderly person who has read the Bible numerous times, that they somehow absorb some things that show a more complex understanding of scripture. However, this took every one of their 70 years and devout reading. Whether it is studying in seminary or reading some good literature on your own, or spending countless hours allowing the text to shape you, it can be done by clergy or laity. But, contrary to what americans want, it can't be done quick and dirty with any consistency.
This is a good point, and you are right in pointing out the inconsistency of my language. I think this pretty well illustrates how difficult it is to suspend one's conceptions about these issues.
It also illustrates how much easier it is to sit back and comment on individual strands of thought as opposed to the original posting that attempts to cover more ground in a consistent manner. Any easy way to boost my self esteem and I'm on it.
stephen--
Although much of the content of my blog is disputed, that claim is not one of them.
Mom always told me I was handsome, no matter what the other kids said, and other adults, and random people on the street...
Exist,
Does it matter that the "traditional" view claims that Moses wrote Genesis around the 15 century BC? This would seem to moot the point that no literature of the time of the persons, except for Mesopotamian, contained lists such as these...
If Moses did write Genesis then he was writing with an Egyptian education, which is no doubt familiar with this type of genealogy.
Just thinking out loud. What are your thoughts?
Have a great Lord's Day,
Austin
How about posting something besides math and garbage?
I hear the Viceroy is about to come under new management.
exist,
...on with the jihad! *lol*
Interesting stuff, now if we can just get a few folks to wrestle genuinely with these items, perhaps we could have a meaningful dialogue.
BTW, you're welcome to drop by and post your thoughts about "Christus Victor", etc. Just drop it in the comments somewhere, it doesn't matter, I'll tell the folks who come into the meta it's okay.
I would like for some of my readers to get an understanding of some of this stuff, they are still learning history, and I always like to hear all sides, if passionately and pointedly given, as well as being precise, which I believe you endeavor to do, so let 'er rip.
Post a Comment