I don't follow you. Bible isn't written through oral tradition. It's probably written/revised by bunch of people. It needs more assumptions to think that that prediction would reflect what people a few millenia ago thought that to be maximum lifespan. It'd be more interesting to find that information in a legend/ballad etc which are written through oral tradition. Since Bible isn't oral, the author(s) necessarily added their artistic personality to the work (it's possible 120 "made sense" or "sounded good" to the author of that line or is an important number for them etc)
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.
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.
