The Longevity of the Biblical Patriarchs
.
Methuselah was 187 years old when he fathered Lamech; after fathering Lamech, Methuselah lived another 782 years and had sons and daughters. The entire lifespan of Methuselah was 969 years; then he died.Genesis, 5, 25-27
These are the words that made Methuselah famous, the longest-lived of the antediluvian patriarchs. The Bible tells us very little about this character: we only know that he was a descendant of Seth and Noah's grandfather. Although his ultra(nine)centenarian life is the most striking detail, it is far from abnormal for his lineage: of the ten antediluvian patriarchs whose ages the Bible records, as many as seven lived over nine centuries.
Up until a few centuries ago (and still so today in creationist circles), these figures were taken literally: they were even the basis for reconstructing the biblical chronology up to the date of Creation. But gradually, the idea that these were mere exaggerations took hold, and various interpretations have been proposed to bring them down to more plausible values.
We could also try to establish whether the figures diligently provided by the biblical author should be taken literally or otherwise. But, in my opinion, there is a far more crucial question to answer: is the existence of such long-lived characters theoretically possible? If the answer to this question were affirmative, the fact that the ages reported in the Bible might be exaggerated or even completely fabricated would become secondary: the belief (not just biblical, as we shall see) that people lived longer on average in a distant past might indeed have some truth to it. Therefore, our investigation will focus on the possibility of achieving such longevities.
Index
- Long-lived in the Bible... and not only
- What determines life span?
- Possible explanations for antediluvian longevities
Long-lived in the Bible... and not only
The fifth chapter of Genesis introduces us to the "book of the genealogy of Adam," where the ten generations of patriarchs from Adam to Noah are listed. The text indicates the age at which each of them had their first child, the years they lived afterward, and finally the total years. Thus, Adam lived 930 years, Seth 912, Enos 905, Kenan 910, Mahalalel 895, Jared 962, Enoch 365 (of whom the Bible says not that he died, but that "he was no more because God took him"), Methuselah 969, Lamech 777, and Noah (as we learn from Gen 9, 29) 950. All of them also fathered their first child at a relatively advanced age, from Mahalalel and Enoch at 65 years old to Noah at 500.
Shortly after this genealogy, we find the statement that human life "will be 120 years" (Gen 6, 3). In fact, even afterward, many characters will surpass this age. However, after the Flood, the longevities of the patriarchs will gradually decrease over the generations (Gen 11, 10-32): Shem, Noah's son, although also born before the catastrophe, will reach an age of "only" 600 years; Arpachshad will live 438 years, Shelah 433, Eber 464, Peleg 239, Reu 239, Serug 230, Nahor 148, and Terah, Abraham's father, 205. Additionally, unlike the antediluvian patriarchs, almost all will have their first child around thirty years old.
Abraham and his descendants will also reach more than respectable ages: Abraham will live 175 years (Gen 25, 7), Isaac 180 (Gen 35, 28), Jacob 147 (Gen 47, 28), Joseph 110 (Gen 50, 26), Aaron 123 (Nm 33, 39), Moses 120 (Dt 34, 7), and Joshua 110 (Josh 24, 29). In practice, all the characters born before the Exodus whose ages are provided by the biblical text surpass a century of life. But this era will soon come to an end: Psalm 89, traditionally attributed to Moses, states that "the years of our life are seventy, or even by reason of strength eighty" (v. 10). And during the monarchy period (from the 11th century BC), the average age has now settled on fully "human" values. It has been noted that the progressive reduction in the longevity of biblical characters is not irregular, but describable by a sigmoid curve (López, 2000).
But the idea that ancient humans lived much longer than they do today is not found only in the Bible. The "astronomical" figures of the Sumerian royal lists, which refer to the reigns of antediluvian sovereigns, are well known. According to one version, the WB 444, eight kings ruled for a total of 241,200 years; according to another version, the WB 62, ten kings ruled for 456,000 years. As in the Bible, there is also a progressive reduction in the duration of reigns after the Flood: where previously each sovereign reigned for 30-40,000 years, the kings of the first postdiluvian dynasties ruled "only" for a few hundred years, and as we approach the historical dynasties, the reigns become ever shorter.
A similar pattern is also observed in the Egyptian royal lists. Here too, we initially have very long reigns, those of the gods; followed by the demigods, with shorter reigns, and finally human beings. According to the Book of Sothis, cited by the early medieval monk George Syncellus in his Selection of Chronography and attributed to the Egyptian historian Manetho, six gods would have reigned for 11,985 years, while nine demigods for almost 2,600 years. Among the gods, in particular, Hephaestus (Ptah) would have reigned for 9,000 years, Cronus (Geb) for 1,000, and the subsequent ones from 700 to about 350 years. Another chronology, also mentioned by Syncellus, assigned a full 30,000 years of reign to Helios (Ra) alone.
Regarding India, the Bhavishya Purana (Pratisarga Parva, Section I) provides a list of all the kings who would have reigned from the beginning of the Manvantara (almost 4 million years ago!) until modern times. To the first of them, Ikshvaku (son of the Indian "Noah," Manu), 36,000 years of reign are assigned. The subsequent twelve will each reign 100 years less than the previous one, but afterward, the decline becomes irregular; the durations of the reigns remain multi-millennial for centuries and centuries. It should be noted that the Bhavishya Purana is a rather late text: the section with the royal lists, in particular, might even date back to the 18th-19th century. However, the figures it reports are consistent with older sources: according to the Mahabharata (III, 186), for example, before the Flood, Manu had practiced asceticism for a full 10,000 years!
Legendary rulers of the Far East are also credited with significant longevities. Jimmu, the first legendary emperor of Japan, is said to have died in 585 BC at 126 years old (136 according to other sources). Among his successors, several other centenarians are recorded: Kosho (reigning from 475 to 393 BC) lived 113 years; Koan (392-291 BC) 136; Korei (290-215 BC) 127; Kogen (214-158 BC) 115; Kaika (157-98 BC) 110; and so on. As with other royal lists, as we approach the historically documented emperors (from the 6th century onward) these longevities become rarer: the last emperor to surpass a century of life was Nintoku, who died in 399 AD at 109 years after a reign of 86.
Ancient Chinese chronologies are no exception. According to the Chronology of the Han Dynasty, from Creation to the time of Confucius, over 2,267,000 years had passed (curiously, the Chaldean historian Berossus asserted that documents preserved in the archives of Babylon covered a similar period: 2,160,000 years). This exceedingly long span of time was divided into ten epochs, called Kis. The chronology does not provide much information about the rulers of the various Kis, but considering the length of the period embraced, it is likely that their longevities were no less remarkable than those of the Sumerian kings. The tenth Kis roughly coincides with the "legendary period," which traditionally began in 2852 BC and ended in 2206 BC. During this period, eight sovereigns, also obviously very long-lived, would have succeeded each other: Huangdi (better known as the "Yellow Emperor"), for example, is said to have reigned for 100 years, from 2697 to 2597 BC.
In short, the belief that it was possible to live much longer in a more or less distant past is far too widespread to be ignored. In other words, there must be some truth to it.
What determines life span?
As we know, natural death (in humans as well as in animals) is always preceded by a more or less lengthy process of aging. It essentially consists of the progressive wear and tear of the organism: when it is no longer able to maintain vital functions, death occurs. To get an idea of how biblical patriarchs and other mythical figures of antiquity might have significantly slowed this process, it is useful to look at the animal world, which boasts some truly extraordinary longevity champions.
It is now clear, first of all, that both DNA and the environment contribute to aging. Several possible cellular and molecular mechanisms have also been identified, including the following (partially overlapping with each other):
- Telomere shortening. Telomeres are the ends of chromosomes, and each time DNA replicates, i.e., before each cell division, they shorten a bit. When they drop below a certain length, the cell can no longer divide. In stem cells, an enzyme, telomerase, is present that lengthens the telomeres again, allowing the cells to divide indefinitely. However, this enzyme is inactive in most cells of an adult organism, which therefore can only divide a limited number of times.
- DNA damage. In addition to telomere shortening, DNA is subject to many other damages (strand breaks, mutations, etc.). Some of these are caused by endogenous factors, such as free radicals, others by environmental factors, such as ultraviolet light, ionizing radiation, and various chemicals. The cell has mechanisms to repair DNA damage, but if these accumulate, it cannot cope. Their accumulation can lead to the development of various pathologies, including tumors.
- Oxidative stress. Oxidative stress occurs when free radicals can no longer be neutralized by the body's antioxidant systems (such as glutathione and vitamin C). Free radicals are harbingers of damage not only to DNA but also to other molecular constituents of the cell, and this negatively affects the entire organism. Not surprisingly, oxidative stress has been associated with numerous chronic diseases typical of advanced age (cardiovascular, neurodegenerative, etc.).
- Metabolism. The relationship between metabolism and aging is complex, but in general, a slower basal metabolism is correlated with greater longevity. This is probably because a faster metabolism also leads to a greater production of free radicals.
Some animal species achieve notable longevity (both absolutely and compared to similar species) by acting on one or more of these mechanisms. The first strategy consists of being large in size. Larger animals tend to have a slower metabolism and are therefore generally longer-lived (obviously, being less easy prey also has a positive influence in this regard).
Another strategy is to maintain the length of telomeres. For example, in the American lobster (Homarus americanus), which can live up to 100 years in captivity, the enzyme telomerase is active in all tissues. Other species instead focus on minimizing oxidative stress. This is the case, for example, with the Arctic clam (Arctica islandica), which can reach the impressive age of 507 years. In this mollusk, the activity of antioxidant enzymes is quite high and does not decline with age.
Many of the longest-lived vertebrates, in addition to their large size, also share efficient DNA repair systems. The African elephant (Loxodonta africana), which can live up to 80 years, possesses as many as 20 copies of the TP53 gene, involved in the "quality control" of the genome. This makes elephants, in addition to being long-lived, almost immune to cancer. Duplications of genes involved in DNA repair have also been found in the Greenland whale (Balaena mysticetus), the longest-living existing mammal (it can live over 200 years), and especially in the Greenland shark (Somniosus microcephalus). The latter, with its average lifespan of nearly 400 years, ranks first among the "Methuselahs" of vertebrates. Additionally, it reaches sexual maturity extremely late, around 150 years: curiously, this is roughly the average age at which the antediluvian patriarchs would have fathered their first child.
There are also some potentially immortal animals, the most famous of which is undoubtedly the Turritopsis nutricula jellyfish (scientifically also known as Turritopsis dohrnii, and commonly as the "immortal jellyfish"). This tiny jellyfish (4-5 mm in diameter) is capable of reversing its life cycle, transitioning from the adult stage back to the juvenile polyp stage. It is very unlikely that in nature this cycle could repeat indefinitely, but theoretically, it could happen. A comparison between its genome and that of a related but "mortal" species has revealed numerous differences: in particular, various genes involved in DNA repair, reducing oxidative stress, and maintaining telomeres are present in a greater number of copies in the immortal jellyfish, constituting a real "arsenal" against aging.
Possible explanations for antediluvian longevities
Let's then attempt to advance an explanation for the extreme longevities found in the Bible and other ancient texts. First of all, we note that some sources (Genesis, Sumerian royal lists) associate the reduction of longevity with the Flood (we are not concerned here with establishing which flood this refers to: for simplicity, we'll speak of the "Flood" – understood to be Universal – in the singular). Perhaps, therefore, following such an event, the environment underwent changes such that they accelerated the aging process. This scenario is suggested not only by the Bible but also – for example – by the analysis of fossil oysters, from which it can be deduced not only that these mollusks were also much longer-lived in the past compared to today, but also that the reduction in their longevity followed a pattern similar to that of the biblical patriarchs.
But what exactly would have changed? Some creationist scholars have hypothesized that before the Flood, the Earth was enveloped by a vapor canopy (the waters "above the firmament" mentioned in Gen 1, 7), which would have filtered ultraviolet radiation much more efficiently than the current atmosphere, thus reducing the possibility of DNA damage. However, this hypothesis presents several critical issues, so much so that it now enjoys little consensus even among creationists themselves.
Another possibility is that it was a greater quantity of oxygen (which during the era of the dinosaurs constituted about 30% of the atmosphere, compared to 21% today) that acted as a "longevity elixir". It has been observed, in fact, that hyperbaric oxygen therapy is capable of increasing the length of telomeres in white blood cells, reducing the number of senescent cells. More oxygen, however, can also cause greater oxidative stress (since free radicals are usually produced in the presence of oxygen), so it's not certain that an atmosphere very rich in this gas would have had only positive effects on longevity. The influence of the environment, in short, while probable, is not easy to establish, nor easy to quantify.
Another explanation is that a genetic change occurred. The Bible, after all, assigns Noah a lifespan of 950 years, completely in line with that of his ancestors despite over a third of it being lived after the Flood. It seems, therefore, that Noah was "genetically programmed" to reach such longevity. But then why did his son Shem, also born before the Flood, live "only" 600 years?
A clue comes from the Egyptian royal lists, which show a reduction in lifespan in the transition from gods to demigods. Perfectly logical, after all: the demigods (children of the "gods" united with "normal" human beings) lived less because they had only 50% "divine DNA". Genesis (6, 1-4) also speaks of unions between the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men", but does not tell us whether Shem, Ham, and Japheth were also the result of such a union. However, the hypothesis (supported by Father Guido Bortoluzzi) that Noah was the last genetically pure "Son of God" and therefore his lineage was "hybrid" (or in other words, "semi-divine") could very well explain the progressive postdiluvian decrease in longevity.
It is therefore very likely that the longevity of the biblical patriarchs (as well as the mythical Sumerian, Egyptian kings, etc.) was only in small part due to environmental conditions different from those of today. Far more important was their DNA, among whose peculiarities might have been the same ones we find in the genomes of the longest-living animal species. However, it is difficult to determine how many years the carriers of these "special genes" could actually live. Hundreds? Thousands? Tens of thousands? Or even a potentially unlimited number like the Turritopsis nutricula?
A definite answer, clearly, is not possible. However, we can suppose that "minor" modifications of the genome, especially those involving genes responsible for DNA repair, would be sufficient to reach an age comparable to that of the antediluvian patriarchs. After all, the ratio between the average lifespan of these (about 912 years, excluding Enoch) and ours (about 80 years) is more or less the same as between the average lifespan of the Greenland shark (almost 400 years) and that of most sharks (20-30 years). However, a lifespan of tens or hundreds of thousands of years (or even "pseudo-immortality" like that of the Turritopsis nutricula) would undoubtedly require much deeper changes, perhaps difficult not only to establish but even to imagine. But after all, if the original Man was "superior to every living creature" (Sir 49, 16), there's nothing to prevent us from thinking that he was also superior in longevity.
Note
This article is an english translation of https://merlobianco.altervista.org/le-longevita-dei-patriarchi-biblici/
