Waltzing Methuselah     No. 240

A popular tune in ancient times was Waltzing Methuselah” named after the Hebrew biblical patriarch. In his younger days he was quite adept, in fact famous, for his terpsichorean proclivities. 

I asked the learned authority on biblical lore, Carpiotti Clotts, of the School of

Ancient Rhymes & Reasons, why we do not hear this tune today? 

“One must keep in mind as Methuselah got older, his dancing days declined, and eventually ceased altogether, and the tune became forgotten.  You might recall that he lived for 969 years.” was the answer.  “And that represents some 36 generations (Gen.5.25-27). 

“Is it possible that the music might be written on stone tablets or parchment scrolls and might be a future archaeological find?” I asked.  “And why is it that we know anything about it at all?”

 “Reference has been made in various scrolls as to the existence of the dance, but no musical score has survived.  In fact, at that time, remember he was the grandson of Noah, music was passed down by word of mouth and lute, and not on parchment.  There are cave drawings that appear to depict a person dancing that is dated around the years in which Methuselah would have been a relatively young 200 or 300 years old”

 “Is it at all possible”, I inquired, “that the dating process has been misinterpreted so that Methuselah actually lived to be a more realistic, to us, 96 years and 9 months, putting his dancing days, as depicted in the drawings, in his 20s and 30s?” I asked.

 “You are assuming a great deal, to think that noted scholars down through the

generations have made mistakes as far as interpreting the old and new testaments.  Their word has lasted millenniums and have been believed totally by many

generations of people and you have the audacity to question their integrity and wisdom!” Professor Clotts stated.

 “I was only raising the question, based a reporters prerogative to do so in the

interest of authenticity and historical significance.” I answered.

 “Well, don’t let it happen again.  Reporter’s rights are limited to questioning ambiguous and obvious absurdities and not to question the statements of experts and true believers.  And, another thing, by who’s authority are you allowed to use such words as “terpsichorean proclivities”?

 [Inquiring Observers must be careful these days not to offend experts in their fields.]