Johnnyboy

Are you sure?

"When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with [a] man forever, for he is mortal [b] ; his days will be a hundred and twenty years."

For me it seems pretty clear, that the "spirit of god" is linked to the sons of god. Otherwise it wouldn't make any sense in that context. Besides of this: 120 years were the time god gave them on earth, that doesn't mean, that it was the time when he told noah about the flood.

GenesisNemesis

Wow. Now I'm fascinated.

Cege

Include the entire context of Gen 6, verses 1-4, and maybe the 120 years was supposed to apply to the "Nephilim" born to human women impregnated by the "sons of God".

1 When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal ; his days will be a hundred and twenty years."
4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown. (NIV)

Notsri

For what it's worth, WILLOWTREE's interpretation is actually a rather ancient one, and is apparently of Jewish provenience. Already the Targum Onkelos to Genesis 6:3, for instance, has:

Now the LORD said: "This wicked generation shall not endure before me forever, because they are flesh and their deeds are evil; let an extension be granted to them for 120 years (to see) if they will repent."

(For those who may be interested, essentially the same interpretation is found elsewhere in the rabbinic literature: e.g., Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Shirata 5.39; Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Genesis 6:3; Avot de-Rabbi Nathan [Version A] 32; Midrash Tanchuma [Printed Edition], Noah 5, Beshallach 15.)

So far as I can tell, the problem raised by John Kesler is variously dismissed by the ancient commentators, Jewish and non-Jewish alike. Rashi in his commentary to Genesis adopts the chronology already given in a midrash (Seder Olam 28), suggesting:

If you will say, "From the time that Japheth was born until the flood is only a hundred years," [the answer is that] there is no earlier or later [i.e., no precise chronology] in the Torah. The decree had already been decreed 20 years before Noah begot progeny ...

Jerome takes a somewhat different tack in his Hebrew Questions on Genesis:

Because they [the generation of the flood] made light of doing their penance, God was unwilling to wait for the time which He had decreed; but the time was cut short by the space of 20 years, and He brought in the flood in the hundredth year appointed for their doing penance.

Steven Avery

Thanks, Notsri.
Excellent backdrop and references.

Genesis 6:3
And the LORD said,
My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh:
yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

The "no precise chronology" note looks like a commentator and I wonder if that is the accurate representation of the Rashi sense, which from another source gives the phrase "sequence of".

http://www.chabad.org/library/articl...showrashi=true
and his days shall be Until a hundred and twenty years
I will delay My wrath towards them, but if they do not repent, I will bring a flood upon them. Now if you ask: from the time that Japheth was born until the Flood are only a hundred years, [I will answer that] there is no [sequence of] earlier and later events in the Torah. This decree had already been issued twenty years before Noah begot children, and so we find in Seder Olam (ch. 28). There are many Aggadic midrashim on the words לֹא יָדוֹן, but this is its clear, simple explanation.

John Gill accords most with Rashi.

John Gill
http://eword.gospelcom.net/comments/...l/genesis6.htm
yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years: meaning not the term of man's life, reduced to this from the length of time he lived before the flood; but this designs the space that God would give for repentance, before he proceeded to execute his vengeance on him; this is that "longsuffering of God" the apostle speaks of in the afore mentioned place, "that waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was preparing"; and so both the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan interpret it of a space of an hundred and twenty years given them to repent: now whereas it was but an hundred years from the birth of Japheth to the flood, some think the space was shortened twenty years, because of their impenitence; but it is more probable what Jarchi observes, that this decree was made and given out twenty years before his birth, though here related, by a figure called "hysteron proteron," frequent in the Scriptures.

Shalom,
Steven

John Kesler

Oh, I'm aware that apologists, both Jewish and Christian, have offered various "explanations" for inconsistencies in the Bible, but what I care about is what the text says, and as I clearly demonstrated, the text does not allow for a 120-year period between the promise of a flood and the flood. Ad hoc assertions like those offered by Rashi and Jerome don't eliminate the problem; to the contrary, they show an acute awareness of it.

Johnnyboy

You don't have to be an apologist, to have a diffrent opinion here. The text simply doesn't promise the flood, but says that there will be 120 years before god will take away his spirit from mankind. There can be some time beteween he tells noah about the flood. And even if there were a clear is a contradiction, it's obvious that the text is not talking about the lifespan of men. Sorry for my bad english.

Notsri

Hey, Steven.

The "no precise chronology" note was my own.

I'm not sure that it misrepresents Rashi's sentiments, though I could very well be wrong.

This principle adduced by Rashi of "no earlier or later in the Torah" actually derives, as you may know, from a previously established rabbinic hermeneutic, which, if I understand correctly, in effect asserts that biblical materials, at least insofar as the Pentateuch is concerned, are generally not organized on the basis of a strict chronology. In a midrash in Sifre Numbers 64, for example, one finds (following Neusner's translation): "Scripture … serves to teach you that considerations of temporal order do not apply to the sequence of scriptural stories [lit.: there is no earlier or later in the Torah]." (The same principle is spelled out in Bavli Pesachim 6b as well.)

In any case, what are your thoughts? Have I missed something, perhaps?

Notsri

My apologies, John, if you thought that I meant to dispute your statements. I quoted your post, in addition to Julian's and Pervy's, merely to help contextualize the whole of my own comments, which were ultimately intended only to provide some historical background to WILLOWTREE's interpretation.

As a matter of fact, I would tend for the most part to agree with your assessment of things, although, admittedly, I do find Rashi's interpretation to be somewhat plausible, at least more so than Jerome's. Certainly there are instances in the Pentateuch in which a rigid chronological sequence has not been maintained. (Numbers 9:1 perhaps provides the locus classicus. 9:1 is supposed to begin the telling of events from the first month of the second year of the Israelites' journey in the wilderness, while earlier in the narrative Numbers 1:1 starts from the second month of the second year.)

Steven Avery

Perhaps contextually more plausible. I am thinking of Ninevah .. the day of judgment on the city was stayed (or cancelled) due to their repentance. This could be the reverse, per Jerome .. if we had a scriptural support, a strong enough hint. Hmmm.. can we see that in the text ? And does any other exegesis go with Jerome ? (Is Jerome known for giving unique interpretations ? .. I am actually a bit surprised that his idea is not in rabbinics, afawk .. he likely got it from 400 A.D. rabbinics.)

Maybe you can quote a source or two from the other post about non-chronology.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Notsri Certainly there are instances in the Pentateuch in which a rigid chronological sequence has not been maintained. (Numbers 9:1 perhaps provides the locus classicus. 9:1 is supposed to begin the telling of events from the first month of the second year of the Israelites' journey in the wilderness, while earlier in the narrative Numbers 1:1 starts from the second month of the second year.)

Ok, when I get home I will look at that. Thanks.

Shalom,
Steven