outhouse

i have never stated any of those numbers are correct.


If I posted any numbers it was to show that there is a possibilituy for 300,000 to 400,000 jews could make the journey for passover

that is that the jewish population in the levant was large enough , so that said number would be there.

I have never once stated anything other then the temple passover numbers as far as what I find credible or valid.



do you undertsand the concept of what a oppressed nation means?


were talking about generations of poverty stricken peasants, and some of these jews, a very select few, were making a killing off the oppression so not everyone was on board.

as a matter of fact those on board were only the zealots and not all of those, not the Saducees getting rich, not the Pharisees raping tithes, and not the Essenes.

im not even counting the subsect's either that would not have taken part in any way shape or form, hell not even all the zealots inside were on board for a revolt, based on how many tried escaping and were put on a cross. we know there was infighting in the temple or they would not have burned the food supply forcing people to fight.








Nope.

you had temple guards part of the Saducees, but out in the levant, it was a wild and barbaric free for all and dangerous to travel.

the roman army didnt let people get to well armed, and certainly not the jews.

you have little understanding of first century jewish life in the levant. hell im still learning, but when I say poverty stricken peasants, well you should get the idea





YOU do understand every time jews tried to revolt against the extreme taxation they were brutally crushed by the roman army, less a few small win's that were very short lived. all it took was time for roman organization to kick in and trops to get there and they were crushed like bugs


I dont do religious scholars unless they show some serious quality of work

I highly reccomend Johnathon Reed for his cultural anthropology

and Israel Finklestien is great as well

but all the good scholars have decent info if you cherry pick what you need. Carrier, Crossan, Borg, Ehrman, all have something valuable to offer

Duke Leto

What then would you say IS the correct population of Palestine in the 1st Century?

Tread carefully because a pretty sizable percentage is going to turn out to be non-Jewish.

Duke Leto

Richard Carrier responded!

Here is his email, which you will note I could not have forged owing to the absence of multi-paragraph sentences, gratuitous use of excessive vocabulary and a host of other eccentricities that make up my style.

outhouse

So what we get from Carrier, is that Sanders may not be the most credible.

and then he states the size of the population of what we are dealing with in comparison.


then states there may be water issue's without addressing them.


Maybe he missed the aquaduct, and or the storage supply but this below does sum it up





heres some details to work with.

120,000 roman's fighting how many jews? for month after month when the temple fell. Lets say the jews only numbered 180,000. [which I find light]

the city would have then supported 300,000 for months, not the week of passover they celibrated.

where did they get their water and food??


remember this wasnt the temples first large crowd, they had been practicing this for years.


and last, who suplied the roman troop numbers, it would'nt be the same people reporting the jewish population would it?

outhouse

good question

I would have to research it before I just threw out a comment

Duke Leto

The official tally of legions involved in the siege was 4. Officially a legion had 5,300 men. See Carrier's numbers. Assuming Titus had as many auxilia, that's 50,000 tops. 35,000 seems more likely. You're assuming more beseiged than beseigers. I don't see why. Let's say 60,000 defenders, although 15,000 strikes me as more likely. That would be 120,000 within the walls (30-40,000 makes more sense.)

180,000 defenders is extremely high.

It's more than twice the number Julius Caesar CLAIMED Vercingetorix had with him in the town of Alesia. Caesar had three times as many legions as Titus did. The town of Alesia was surrounded by a wall of circumvallation 11 miles in circumference, built by Caesar's men. Josephus says that Titus's circumvallation was 5 miles in circumference. The siege of Alesia could not have been longer than 3 months, and was ended when a Gaulish relief army Caesar claims was 240,000 strong attacked Caesar's counter defenses. Before that time, all of the women and children of Alesia had been thrown out of the town to conserve food, since Vercingetorix thought Caesar would let them pass through unharmed. He didn't, and they starved. Caesar beat off simultaneous attacks from both directions, with a significant number of the relief army being killed. Vercingetorix surrendered the next day, not only because food was about to run out but there was no hope of raising another Gaulish army. Caesar probably exaggerated the numbers of both opposing armies, but stop and think a minute. If 320,000 fighting men was ALL that an area the size of Northern France could muster in its own defense with 1-2 months notice... what does that tell you about the population of Gaul in the 1st Century BCE? And what in turn should that tell you about the population of 1st Century CE Palestine, which is many times smaller than Northern France? Alesia was not totally unprepared for the siege, Vercingetorix had ordered food stocked at all the major walled towns. His army was smaller than the you propose for the besieged in Jerusalem, possibly much smaller, but it was in trouble already with respect to food in less than 2 months.

Compare Vicksburg, an area heavily fortified by the Confederates. 30,000 confederates (actual verified number) were starved out by 77,000 Union soldiers in a bit over a month.

Or how about the greatest siege of all time? That would be Stalingrad. The battle for Stalingrad saw 800,000 Germans and German playmates killed or wounded compared to 1.2 million Soviet casualties. Many of these deaths happened in the battles around Stalingrad as much as in the city itself, but the end came in November 1942 when the Soviets surrounded 300,000 Axis troops inside the city itself. These took three months to freeze and starve to death in a city that today covers 200 square miles and has 1 million inhabitants.

So even 180,000 Jewish combatant number is asking for a Fall of Jerusalem that's a not insignificant fraction as bad as the battle of Stalingrad.

outhouse

I think you have to examine the jewish population in the levant

then realize how important your religion was to your survival.


then realize the beauty of gods house when it was brand new, this was one of the wonders of the world. it would have been a sight that would take your breath away.


Much of the jewish population showed up for this event, and packed the temple until it overflowed during these years.

to claim only 30,000 - 40,000 showed is almost a insult not just to the beauty of the temple, but to the jewish population in the levant.



Ill still go with two scholars shown here that back it, theres plenty more, and one that doesnt know, then lower my number below 300,000 and as high as 400,000

Duke Leto

And circling right back where we started.

I put the Jewish population of Israel at 150,000. That's being generous in my opinion.

I have no doubt it was an extremely lovely building. So were the Pyramids, Khufu had 200,000 working on those puppies. That's 10% of Egypt's 2 million in 2500 BCE.

That same source puts the population of Egypt at 7 million in 30 BCE.

Modern Egypt has 90 million compared to 7 million for Israel, and that probably isn't comparable because 21st century Israel is more urbanized compared to Egypt than their 1st Century BCE counterparts. That gives a total population for Israel of 500,000, not out of line with the 700,000 in the 1800 Ottoman census or the 300,000 I've posited elsewhere. Because of the greater urbanization of modern Israel I incline to 300,000. If half of them were Jewish that might be too many because of the Greeks on the coast and the Samarians in Samaria.

Sarpedon correctly asked who was minding the farms in Galilee and Judea while all the Jews went to Jerusalem? Who's keeping the Samaritans from doing a little good old fashioned goat rustlin'? Judea's not a big province and no part of it is very far from Jerusalem, but even 30,000 is pushing credulity to its limits.

Carrier's answer was actually, "I don't know, but it seems very unlikely", in case you didn't notice.

What is the obsession with defending the importance and majesty of the Temple?

The Parthenon was just as impressive, so I imagine was Artemis at Ephesus. I'm pretty sure the Pantheon and the Colosseum were bigger than the Temple.

semiopen

Quite generous, in post 132 I quoted Finkelstein's opinion that there were less than 80,000 people in Judea in the 140s(BCE). Nobody seems to know what the situation was in the first century CE but I don't know of anything that would cause the population to double.

Also, the population of Jerusalem was not more than 70,000 which probably would include pilgrims.

My personal oipinion is that there was not a big influx of pilgrims. People could have conceivably come from the nearby countryside - however I have my doubts that many farmers were Jewish.

It's pretty remarkable that Josephus could fuck up his numbers so badly, yet fucked up they apparently were.

Sarpedon

You used the figures to support your argument, but you claim that you don't believe them. Why can't you argue honestly?

And don't belittle my knowledge of history. It is true I have not studied this particular time and place in detail, but my general knowledge is vast. There are many instances of poor oppressed peasants rising up and defeating powerful empires. Usually through good leadership, which this revolt seemed to lack. I also note that one moment you claim that the jewish peasants are poor, yet the next you claim that the festival was one of the most important sources of income for the Roman Government. Once again, you are arguing dishonestly, claiming one thing one minute, and the opposite the next, when it suits your purposes. I also find it amusing that at the one hand you say the jews had no weapons, and the next say that the roads were infested with dangerous (and apparently unarmed) bandits. You realize of course that 'bandit' and 'rebel' are virtually synonymous to the people in authority? How many bandit chiefs went on to be rebel leaders, and vice versa?

And the idea that no one but the roman legions had weapons is simply absurd. May I point out that Judea was not a province at this time, but a vassal kingdom? Did Herod not have troops? When Herod's kingdom was incorporated into the empire before the revolt, what happened to them? Don't tell me that there was positively no one who knew how to fight. In those days violence was a way of life. A man might live his life now without ever having to fight, but that was not true then, or at least much less likely. There's no way to stop someone from making weapons. In fact, isn't there a bible story about the philistines trying to take the israeli's weapons, only to have them beat them to death with their farm tools? Are you aware that many of the most effective medieval and ancient weapons are also tools? If you can make a hoe, you can make a spear. Also, I note that in the Bible, common jews do carry weapons in this period.

Jesus: Those who don't have swords should sell their garments and buy one.
Disciples: Here, we have two swords.
Jesus: That will do.

Sounds like swords are available for sale, and cost the same as a suit of clothes.

And pardon me, but as an atheist I cannot accept the idea that one's religion is important to one's survival. I also do not unquestioningly accept the idea that just because someone is a member of a religion necessarily means that they A: do the things the religion tells them to, and B: would sacrifice or even inconvenience themselves for it. Doubtless, there are those that do, but there are plenty who don't.