Genealogical Gaps and the Ages of the Patriarchs

[dga471 (Daniel)]

I asked @jongarvey a similar question on this here (Sons of God and the Daughters of Men: Approval or Disapproval? - #5 by jongarvey), and this is what he said:

@dga471

Secondly, and perhaps more peripheral, I would be curious to know what you think about the old but not crazily old ages of the patriarchs (e.g. people having an average age of 120 years, or Abraham dying at 175 years). We can think of Adam’s 930 years of age as not being literal, but that’s a more difficult argument to make with Abraham.

@jongarvey

As too the patriarchal ages, as you’ll read further on, it remains a matter in question. The text itself (barring one of the interpretations of 6:3) says nothing about the significance of any of its ages, but simply records them. As readers, we note that the ages are less further on, but as point out in Generations , the Table of Nations shows that Adam’s line came to include most of the ANE at a time when ages are still recorded as being impossibly high by today’s standard. yet there is no archaeological or historical evidence that life expectancy in bronze age Asia and Africa was any greater than now - in fact, it’s universally agreed to be far less. Remember that, apart from his election, Abraham’s genealogical heritage from Noah was no different from someone in Put or Libya or Gomer.

For this and other reasons, I take the patriarchal ages to be either literary device of forgotten significance, or (preferable to me) a set of transmission errors possibly occasioned by transferring ancient Mesopotamian traditions to newer numbering systems.