METHUSELAH’S AGE?

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 52, Issue 3756, 15 May 1936, Page 3

METHUSELAH’S AGE?

BIBLE STORIES IN NEW LIGHT. “MORE THAN ONE ABRAHAM.” The story that instead of the single Abraham of the Bible story there must have been at least two, and possibly three, separate individuals, is put forward by Sir Leonard Woolley, excavator of Ur of the Chaldees, in “ Abraham, Recent Discoveries, and Hebrew Origins,” published in London recently. Sir Leonard is deeply concerned to preserve the essential historical accuracy of the Old Testament narrative, at least as far back as the time of Abraham, reinforced as it is by a remarkable series of correspondences with the early history of Mesopotamia, as now revealed by excavation. It is from this point of view that his new theory is put forward. “ How,” Sir Leonard asks, “ are we to accept the 175 years of life allotted to Abraham, to say nothing of the years of Methuselah, and yet regard the Biblical dates as far back as Abraham as being substantially accurate ? ” Following are the main stages in his argument:— “ LONGEVITY ” EXPLAINED. 1. The early Biblical genealogies, with their name lists and preciselystated figures, are not the sort of material which may be plausibly supposed to have been handed down by oral tradition, but would most naturally be derived, from written records. 2. There is a parallel, in unnatural longevity, between these lists and the early king-lists of Ur. 3. In both cases destructive critics have urged such longevity as an argument against accuracy in respect of dates. 4. In the case of Ur lists, King Mes-anni-padda (circa 3100 8.C.) was supposed by many scholars to be mythical, on account of the great alleged length of his reign (80 years, followed by a reign of 36 years by his “ son,” Mes-ki-ag-Nannar). 5. Excavation has revealed a temple near Ur built by “ A-anni-padda, king of Ur, son of Mes-anni-padda, king of Ur, the said A-anni-padda not being mentioned in the king lists. 6. Conclusion: A-anni-padda was accidentally omitted from the lists on account of the resemblance'■in name, the length of his reign being at the same tim,e credited to his father in addition to the latter’s own. 7. With that historical precedent, may not the various cases of Biblical longevity be similarly explained ? NAMES HANDED ON. There still, however, remains a further difficulty. How is it, Sir Leonard asks, that in the relatively detailed Biblical history the same name came to be applied to what, on the above interpretation, were two or more different persons ? Sir Leonard believes that the “ second Abrahdm ” was the grandson of the first, and was called after him. Again, he can prbduce a parallel from Mesopotamia. “ At Ur,” he writes, “ were found clay documents dated to the reign of King Hammurabi, which bear the imprint of inscribed seals giving the names of three generations in a single family; the first man is called Ilshuibisha, his son is Siniqisham, and his grandson is Ilshu-ibisha again.” In addition, Abraham’s brother, Nahor, was named after his grandfather, Nahor, the father of Terah, so that there was a precedent in the family for the repetition of ancestral names.

Sir Leonard has given a most interesting and lucidly-written account of the manner in which recent excavations have, in many respects, corroborated and illuminated the background of the Bible story. At the same time, by the above speculations, he has given Biblical critics considerable food for thought.