Life Expectancy In Biblical Times

[FreeThinkerNZ]

The bible makes a lot of claims about how long certain people lived, at a time when secular scholars say life expectancies were relatively short.  Life expectancies seem to have increased over the course of human history, due to better living conditions, food and health care.  Therefore it is easy to see that eg 900-year lifespans in the OT cannot be true, unless you believe in supernatural miracles.

 

But what about the lifespans of the NT?  I am thinking of the Apostle John in particular, who is thought to have died at 94 years of age.  How could that be, at a time when most people lived to something like 30 or 40?  Was he an outlier, or is his story exaggerated?  I'd need some convincing to believe he was an outlier.

 

What do you think, about John, and biblical life expectancies in general?

[sdelsolray]

They are quite easily explained as exaggerations, make believe and fiction.

[pratt]

i always thot the biblical standard of life expectancy is three scores and ten.....

[FreeThinkerNZ]

i always thot the biblical standard of life expectancy is three scores and ten.....

 

And that wasn't even the life expectancy at that time. Strange, huh?

[Penguin]

The explanation I've heard is that "the Earth needed to be populated, so people lived longer." I don't necessarily buy that, though, because--for example--Adam was 130 when Seth was born (Genesis 5:3). He is the third child of Adam mentioned. After that, it says Adam lived for 800 years and had other sons and daughters.

 

Why would you wait 130 years to have kids if "the Earth needed to be populated?" One could argue he had kids (other than Cain and Abel) before that, but that's not what Genesis 5 says. It says he had other sons and daughters after Seth was born. At any rate, even if he did have other children before Seth, why was it 130 years before one of them was noteworthy, other than the first two chuckle heads he had?

[FreeThinkerNZ]

Good points, Penguin.  Your post made me think, if one had unlimited resources, it might be fun to try and rewrite the bible to make it sound more plausible and coherent.  It still couldn't be made to sound plausible or coherent, but I think the exercise might be interesting. If people had historically accurate lifespans, would it affect the plot much?

[Penguin]

Good points, Penguin.  Your post made me think, if one had unlimited resources, it might be fun to try and rewrite the bible to make it sound more plausible and coherent.  It still couldn't be made to sound plausible or coherent, but I think the exercise might be interesting. If people had historically accurate lifespans, would it affect the plot much?

 

Only that the Young Earth Creationists would tell you the Earth is 79 years old, instead of 6,000.

 

"And when Methuselah was 23, he begat John F. Kennedy..."

[Ravenstar]

Life expectancy numbers for the past are skewed by infant mortality rates. It probably wasn't that unusual for someone to live to 40 or 50, maybe up to seventy during the Bronze age… IF they survived past age 5. Even paleolithic people, if they made it through childhood, could live to 40 or 50.

 

In the Ptolemaic period in Egypt the average age of death was 58 for women and 54 for men. But Egypt was a wealthy country with a good food supply and a stable society, mostly.

 

As for the 'begats'… I don't know where they came up with those numbers and it seems rather suspect. It smacks of ancestor worship, and narrative exaggeration to support their theology.

[Overcame Faith]

Life expectancy numbers for the past are skewed by infant mortality rates. It probably wasn't that unusual for someone to live to 40 or 50, maybe up to seventy during the Bronze age… IF they survived past age 5. Even paleolithic people, if they made it through childhood, could live to 40 or 50.

 

In the Ptolemaic period in Egypt the average age of death was 58 for women and 54 for men. But Egypt was a wealthy country with a good food supply and a stable society, mostly.

 

As for the 'begats'… I don't know where they came up with those numbers and it seems rather suspect. It smacks of ancestor worship, and narrative exaggeration to support their theology.

That's right, one must factor infant and childhood mortality into life expectancy statistics. Here is an article discussing this issue in terms of mortality rates in prehistoric humans:

 

If we look again at the estimated maximum life expectancy for prehistoric humans, which is 35 years, we can see that this does not mean that the average person living at this time died at the age of 35. Rather, it means that for every child that died in infancy, another person might have lived to be 70. The life expectancy statistic is, therefore, a deeply flawed way to think about the quality of life of our ancient ancestors.

 

http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/life-expectancy-myth-and-why-many-ancient-humans-lived-long-077889

 

Here is a list of Ancient Greek philosophers and statesmen who lived past age 70. As you will see, one lived to be 105:

 

http://www.grg.org/OldGreeks.htm

[Guest Furball]

Would anyone really want to live for 900 years? And if they did, wouldn't the earth have been overcrowded beyond livability? 

[amateur]

I thought their ages had something to do with the myths they had evolved from.

 

When I was younger, I assumed that when it said they lived for 100's of years back then that it had to do with being respectful of elders and venerating their wisdom.  Like they weren't really 500 years old, but were being respected as being "as wise as someone that's 500 years old."  No, that's not biblical, but it was the only thing that made sense to me.

[mwc]

     People use a Bathtub Curve to guesstimate this sort of thing.  From the article:

 

 

The name is derived from the cross-sectional shape of a bathtub: steep sides and a flat bottom.

 

The bathtub curve is generated by mapping the rate of early "infant mortality" failures when first introduced, the rate of random failures with constant failure rate during its "useful life", and finally the rate of "wear out" failures as the product exceeds its design lifetime.

 

     So infants would die along the first sharp downward curve.  Most people live and die along the bottom.  And old people die along the sharp upward curve (furthest away from the drain as it were).  As we've grown collectively older the bathtub has "stretched" along the bottom and gotten longer and the side slopes have changed their angles a bit but none of that stuff is really all to important here.

 

     What is important is that no one lives to 900.  They're not on the curve at all.  But it is more than possible for people to live to 94 even 2000 years ago.  They'd be up on the far right of the curve but they'd be there nonetheless.

 

          mwc

[amateur]

Also, they made shit up in the bible.  

[mymistake]

Christians don't care about the facts or science regarding lifespans during the Old Testament.  You see it was a miracle and God can do anything God wants.

 

However that makes God a scumbag every time (in the real world) a puppy, kitten or child dies.  Yep, God does whatever God wants.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

     People use a Bathtub Curve to guesstimate this sort of thing.  From the article:

 

 

The name is derived from the cross-sectional shape of a bathtub: steep sides and a flat bottom.

 

The bathtub curve is generated by mapping the rate of early "infant mortality" failures when first introduced, the rate of random failures with constant failure rate during its "useful life", and finally the rate of "wear out" failures as the product exceeds its design lifetime.

 

     So infants would die along the first sharp downward curve.  Most people live and die along the bottom.  And old people die along the sharp upward curve (furthest away from the drain as it were).  As we've grown collectively older the bathtub has "stretched" along the bottom and gotten longer and the side slopes have changed their angles a bit but none of that stuff is really all to important here.

 

     What is important is that no one lives to 900.  They're not on the curve at all.  But it is more than possible for people to live to 94 even 2000 years ago.  They'd be up on the far right of the curve but they'd be there nonetheless.

 

          mwc

Thanks, that explains it well.

[Guest Furball]

Christians don't care about the facts or science regarding lifespans during the Old Testament.  You see it was a miracle and God can do anything God wants.

 

However that makes God a scumbag every time (in the real world) a puppy, kitten or child dies.  Yep, God does whatever God wants.

Reminds me of that bible verse that excuses god - 

God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged. Romans 3:4

 

Must be nice to continually break your own commandments and have no repercussions from it. 

[francesco]

I think it come down to "what is a year?"

 

we define a year as the time needed for earth to rotate the sun once

I don't know what the people back then define as a year

 

 

in my country 1 lb is 500 gram (dutch lb)

in north america 1 lb is 454 gram 

I weighted 180 lbs in my country 

I weighted 198.23 lbs in canada

which one is right? 180 or 198.23?

[Onyx]

Fantastic thread, Free!

 

People, be sure to copy and paste some of the names into Google from the list Overcame Faith linked. There's some interesting stuff on them in Wikipedia. Start with Gorgias which is the oldest Greek philosopher on the list. You'll learn something about nihilism and golden statues.

[mwc]

I think it come down to "what is a year?"

 

we define a year as the time needed for earth to rotate the sun once

I don't know what the people back then define as a year

 

 

in my country 1 lb is 500 gram (dutch lb)

in north america 1 lb is 454 gram 

I weighted 180 lbs in my country 

I weighted 198.23 lbs in canada

which one is right? 180 or 198.23?

     A year would take place when the sun returned to the same general location in the sky relative to the stars and/or the stars were in the same positions.  So the basics are the same as astrology.  The sun enters a position in the sky relative to a star pattern and then when that happens again then a year has passed.  Or, if you prefer, simple astronomy with solstices and equinoxes (they're essentially the same thing for our purposes).  Egyptians would look for the rising of Soth (Sirius) to mark their new year (a Sothic cycle which was roughly 365 days).  Day counts were also done (ie. calendars) but they varied depending on the time and place (ie. lunar vs. solar and so on).  Once the Julian year came into effect (along with the final reforms) things were pretty much like today.  If people used a lunar cycle their year could vary by quite a bit compared to those who used a solar or lunar/solar hybrid.  Take a look at the Muslim calendar even today to see how it moves compared to the seasons and such.

 

          mwc