3 ms·

Ostensibly agree, but as someone who is far from a Biblical scholar, can't we "trace" at least to a limited degree the lineage of these translations? Said more

Ostensibly agree, but as someone who is far from a Biblical scholar, can't we "trace" at least to a limited degree the lineage of these translations? Said more simply: If the 120 years bit popped up first in the King James version then yes, that's only 420 or so years old so it makes sense that their expectations for maximum life expectancy might be closer to ours. But what if we have examples from 1000+ years back? Why is the oral tradition part so important? Wouldn't transcribed versions of "the Bible" (or at least this fragment) that are millenia+ years old be just as valid? Probably showing my Biblical ignorance here so apologies in advance if this is a poorly conceived question.

JBReefer 8y ago
The Book of Genesis is probably around 3000 years old - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Genesis#Composition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Genesis#Composition
gnulinux 8y ago
Oral tradition part is important because otherwise I don't think "people a few millennia ago thought that the maximum human lifespan was in the ballpark of 120yr" follows. You can say "the authors of Bible thought that the maximum human lifespan was in the ballpark of 120yr" or that they're influenced from the public, but that needs further evidence.