Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 11.djvu/606

 PATRIARCH

548

PATRIARCH

part of the Apostolic Delegation of Athens. It con- tains from 8000 to 10,000 Catholics. The jiarish work is in charge of secular priests. There is a con- vent of Sisters of the Immaculate Conception of Ivrca.

Smith, Did. of Greek and Roman (leoiiraphi/, II, ,5.")7; Gerland, op. cit.; Thomopoulos, History of the town of Patras (Athens, 188S), in Greek.

S. VAILHfi.

Patriarch, TraTpidpxv^. — The word patriarch as applioii to Biblical personages comes from the Sep- tuagint vert^ion, where it is used in a broad sense, including religious and civil officials (e. g. I Par., xxiv, 31 ; xxvii, 22). In the more restricted sense and common usage it is ajiplicd to the antediluvian fathers of the hmnan race, and more particularly to the three great progenitors of Israel: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In the New Testament the term is extended also to the sons of Jacob (Acts, vii, 8-9) and to King David (ibid., ii, 29). For an account of these later patriarchs see articles Abraham; Isaac; Jacob; etc. The earlier patriarchs comprise the antediluvian group, and those who are placed between the Flood and the birth of Abraham. Of the former the Book of Genesis gives a twofold hst. The first (Gen., iv, 17-18, passage assigned by critics to the so-called "J" document) starts with Cain and gives as his descend- ants Henoch, Irad, Maviael, Mathusael, and Lamech. The other list (Gen., v, 3-31, ascribed to the priestly writer, "P") is far more elaborate, and is accompanied by minute chronological indications. It begins with Seth and, strange to say, it ends likewise with Lanioch. The intervening names are Enos, Cainan, Malaleel, Jared, Henoch, and JMathusala.

The fact that both lists end with Lamech, who is doubtle.ss the same person, and that some of the names common to both are strikingly similar, makes it probable that the second list is an amplification of the first, embodying material furnished by a divergent tradition. Nor should this seem surprising when we consider the many discrepancies exhibited by the two- fold genealogy of the Sa\-iour in the First and Third Gospels. The himian personages set forth in these hsts occupy a place held by the mythical demi-gods in the storj' of the i)rehistoric beginnings of other early nations, and it may well be that the chief value of the inspired account given of them is didactic, destined in the mind of the sacred writer to inculcate the great truth of monotheism which is so distinctive a feature of the Old Testament writings. Be that as it may, the acceptance of this general view helps greatly to simplify another difficult problem connected with the Biblical account of the early patriarchs, viz. their enormous longevity. The earlier account (Gen., iv, 17-18) gives only the names of the patriarchs there mentioned, with the incidental indication that the city built by Cain was called after his son Henoch. The later narrative (Gen., v, 3-31) gives a definite chronology for the whole periofi. It states the age at which each patriarch begot his first-bom son, the number of years he livetl after that event, together with the sum total of the years of his life. Nearly all of the antediluvian fathers are represented as living to the age of 900 or thereabouts, Mathusala, the oldest, reaching 969.

These figures have always constituted a most difficult problem for commentators and Bible readers; and those who defend the strict historical character of the passages in question have put forward various ex- planations, none of which are considered convincing by modern Biblical scholars. Thus it has been conjectured that the years mentioned in this connex- ion were not of ordinary duration but of one or more months. There is, however, no warrant for this assumption in the Scripture itself, where the word year has a constant signification, and is always clearly distinguished from the minor periods. It has also been suggested that the ages given are not those of

individuals, but signify epochs of antediluvian history, and that each is named after its most ilhistrious rep- resentative. The hypothesis may be ingcnidus, but even a superficial reading of the text sufiiccs to show that such was not the meaning of the sacred writer. Nor does it help the case much to jioint out a few exceptional instances of persons who in more modern times are alleged to have lived to the age of 1.50 or even 180. For even admitting these as facts, and that in primitive times men lived longer tlian at in-cscnt (an assumption for which we find no warrant in his- toric times), it is still a long way from 180 to 900.

Another argument to corroborate the historical accuracy of the Biblical account has been deduced from the fact that the legends of many people assert the great longevity of their early ancestors, a circum- stance which is said to imply an original tradition to that effect. Thus the first seven Egyptian kings are said to have reigned for a period of 12,300 years, making an average of about 1757 years for each, and Josephus, who is preoccupied with a desire to justify the Biblical narrative, quotes Ephorus and Nicolaus as relating " that the ancients lived a thousand years". He adds, however, "But as to these matters, let every one look upon them as he thinks fit". (Antiq., I, iii, in fine). On the other hand, it is maintained that as a matter of fact there is no trustworthy historic or scientific evidence indicating that the average span of human life was greater in primitive than in modern times. In this connexion it is customary to cite Gen., vi, 3, where God is represented as decreeing by way of punishment of the universal corruption which was the occasion of the Flood, that henceforth the days of man "shall be a hundred and twenty years". This is taken as indicating a point at which the physi- cal deterioration of the race resulted in a marked decrease in longevity. But apart from critical con- siderations bearing on this passage, it is strange to note further on (Gen., xi) that the ages of the subse- quent patriarchs were by no means limited to 120 years. Sem lived to the age of 600, Arphaxad 338 (Massoretic Text 408), Sale 433, Heber 464 etc.

The one ground on which the accuracy of all these figures can be defended is the a priori reason that being contained in the Bible, they must of a necessity be historically correct, and this position is maintained by the older commentators generally. Most modern scholars, on the other hand, are agreed in considering the genealogical and chronological lists of Gen., v, and xi, to be mainly artificial, and this view seems to be confirmed, they say, by a comparison of the figures as they stand in the Hebrew original and in the an- cient versions. The Vulgate is in agreement with the former (with the exception of Arphaxad), showing that no substantial alteration of the figures has been made in the Hebrew at least since the end of the fourth century a. d.

But when we compare the Massoretic Text with the Samaritan version and the Septuagint, we are confronted by many and strange discrepancies which can hardly be the result of mere accident. Thus for instance, with regard to the antediluvian patriarchs, while the Samaritan version agrees in the main with the Massoretic Text, the age at which Jared begot his first-bom is set down as 62 instead of the Hebrew 162. Mathusala, likewise, who according to the Hebrew begot his first-born at the age of 187, was only 67 according to the Samaritan; and though the Hebrew places the same event in the case of Lamech wlien he was 182, the Samaritan gives him only 53. Similar discrepancies exist between the two texts as regards the total number of years that these patriarchs lived, viz. Jared, Heb. 962, Sam. 847; Mathusala, Hcb. 960, Sam. 720; Lamech, Heb. 777, Sam. 6.53. Comparing the Massoretic Text with the Septuagint, we find that in the latter the birth of the first-born in the case of Adam, Seth, Enos, Cainan, Malaleel, and Henoch