Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sarpedon · 07-17-2012, 10:17 AM

Actually I'm an architect, but I work on waterworks.

Duke Leto · 07-17-2012, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarpedon

Actually I'm an architect, but I work on waterworks.

Still better than a layman.

outhouse · 07-17-2012, 10:24 AM

Quote:

you're arguing with a civil engineer specializing in water supplies

so what

I often had to tell water engineers what would end up happening on large projects as I have been responsible for water supplies for some cities personaly. Cambria Ca and Portola ca.

if you knew half of what you stated you would undertsand storage is the key.

the temple had storage, a large spring and a aquaduct.

it also had sewage tunnels you knew nothing about. History is not your gig and its obvious. the likes of you and your historical ignorance will not overturn someone with excellent historical knowledge like EP Sanders.

Duke Leto · 07-17-2012, 10:40 AM

Look, I actually majored in History so let's pull back a bit on the "you obviously don't know what your talking about, Sanders is great, worship the Sanders". Spend 8 hours a day in library carol in UVA going over the Lansdowne manuscript library and then we'll talk about your superior knowledge of historical method.

You have yet to explain how 20,000-30,000 people can fit in an acre, which you asserted earlier in this conversation. Until you can show your work on getting 30,000 people into 43,000 square feet, which actually is transparently absurd, your credibility on everything else is suspect.

But the problem is you aren't doing history at all, you aren't even responding to the problems Sarpedon and I post. Every single time we question something you point to some secondary source, Sanders or otherwise, as an authority that we're not competent to refute.

Historians don't take their sources as Gospel, they subject them to rational analysis, figure out discrepancies, why they must be wrong and why they made mistakes. It isn't a matter of who wrote the most well recognized book.

Iskander · 07-17-2012, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarpedon

Quote:

The wealth of Egypt would also benefit Palestine.

How? Where's your evidence of this? Egypt was a roman province that was the personal property of the Roman Emperor. We are not talking about Illinois and Missouri here. There is a barely passable desert between the two regions.

I've not been in the least dogmatic in my use of the ottoman census. Please explain how I've been dogmatic.

I have not used the ottoman census for anything than to establish a believable range of populations in a pre-modern society. To compare it to using current population of native americans to precolumbian populations is simply and one hundred percent dishonest misrepresentation of my argument. Do I need to produce documentation that shows that farmers in the region used similar tools and methods as have been unearthed in ancient archaelogical digs? Wooden plows drawn by donkeys were used continuously in the region for thousands of years. The technology barely changed throughout that time. That is the difference between the situation in Palestine and the situation in America.

The fact that you would make such obviously false and misleading comparisons shows how limited your understanding of history actually is. If you have evidence that the ancient farming technology of Palestine was superior to the Ottoman era,and therefore could support a greater population, please supply it. I am absolutely confident that it wasn't. If you think that Palestine was importing vast amounts of grain from Egypt, provide documentation. I don't think it was, the grain was going to Rome.

In fact, why don't you tell me what you think the population of Palestine was, and say what Tacitus thought it was, and how, exactly you account for his exaggeration.

I also would like someone to explain exactly what the difference is between someone guessing in the 1st century about 1st century populations, and someone guessing in the 21st century about 1st century populations, and why one would prefer the first over the second.

Food supply, commerce, loans....

I am terminating our conversation because I have nothing more to say.

You made a statement and I asked you a question.
You gave your considered answer and invited me to state my objections,.
I have given you the reasons why I cannot accept the ottoman census.

outhouse · 07-17-2012, 10:48 AM

http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/NTIntro.../LSUPCHAP1.htm

When King Agrippa wanted to know the number of the population during Passover, he had the priests put aside the kidneys of the sacrificial victims (t. Pesah.. 4:15). Six hundred thousand pairs were counted; assuming that there were not fewer than ten members in each Passover haburah (a voluntary association of adults), one arrives at a total of six million. It is said that this was called the "crowded Passover," so crowded that the Temple mount could not contain the numbers. Again, even if these numbers are greatly inflated the general point that Jerusalem overflowed with Passover pilgrims is still established.

you will have to deal with the facts at hand

it was a required event for all jews to make the journey, not just those who lived in the city. your numbers quoted earlier are simply laughable

outhouse · 07-17-2012, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duke Leto

Look, I actually majored in History so let's pull back a bit on the "you obviously don't know what your talking about, Sanders is great, worship the Sanders". Spend 8 hours a day in library carol in UVA going over the Lansdowne manuscript library and then we'll talk about your superior knowledge of historical method.

You have yet to explain how 20,000-30,000 people can fit in an acre, which you asserted earlier in this conversation. Until you can show your work on getting 30,000 people into 43,000 square feet, which actually is transparently absurd, your credibility on everything else is suspect.

But the problem is you aren't doing history at all, you aren't even responding to the problems Sarpedon and I post. Every single time we question something you point to some secondary source, Sanders or otherwise, as an authority that we're not competent to refute.

Historians don't take their sources as Gospel, they subject them to rational analysis, figure out discrepancies, why they must be wrong and why they made mistakes. It isn't a matter of who wrote the most well recognized book.

majoring in history is one thing.

being a specialist on first century passover is another. your not Sanders and he is about as good as they get.

someone who didnt know they had water or sewage VS --- E.P. Sanders boy thats a tough one

you have kept digging holes and been shot down at every angle.

sewers---- check you failed.
water------ check, you failed
jewish people---- check, you failed

the real question is where you will turn to next to fail.

all i asked from you were alternitive sources, i would love nothing more then to be proved wrong so I could post the right information. you have failed there as well

Duke Leto · 07-17-2012, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

all i asked from you were alternitive sources, i would love nothing more then to be proved wrong so I could post the right information. you have failed there as well

I've given pretty basic logistical analysis that you've refused to engage on any point.

You don't NEED sources when you can make your own arguments.

I've called you out on one completely impossible figure on crowd density that you've quoted and you don't seem to even want to acknowledge you cited it.

The 1st Century historians want you to accept that people were packed into Jerusalem with a density a couple orders of magnitude greater than modern Manhattan. This is nuts.

It wants us to accept that something like 2 million people lived in an area in the 1st Century that can barely support 7 million with modern technology, and only had 700,000 inhabitants in 1800. This is nuts.

It wants us to accept that a group of people the size of four Woodstock festivals camped out on the outskirts of Jerusalem for a week every single year, in spite of the fact that no army of that magnitude could concentrate in so small a space for even a few days until 1900 or so. This is just plain nuts.

The maximum size of Biblical Jerusalem was 20,000-30,000, maybe more in the suburbs. The maximum Jewish population of Judea, Samaria and Galilee would have been around 150,000. Of these, I don't think more than 30,000-40,000 could conceivable have made the annual Passover pilgrimage.

Religious duty is one thing, but the Jews doing the pilgrimage have to actually exist and they can't crowd tighter than the countryside will allow.

outhouse · 07-17-2012, 12:04 PM

Quote:

. Of these, I don't think more than 30,000-40,000 could conceivable have made the annual Passover pilgrimage.

HA HA HA

so thats all the jews that existed inthe levant BWA HA HA that made the journey

outhouse · 07-17-2012, 12:11 PM

Quote:

It wants us to accept that a group of people the size of four Woodstock festivals camped out on the outskirts of Jerusalem for a week every single year

wrong again

they were required 3 times a year to make the journey.

but history does show most only made the trip once at passover.

Now im with you, I dont think they all traveled. but there were droves of people

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-17-2012, 10:17 AM	#81
Sarpedon Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Minnesota, the least controversial state in the le Posts: 8,446	Actually I'm an architect, but I work on waterworks.

07-17-2012, 10:40 AM	#84
Duke Leto Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Philadelphia, PA Posts: 3,387	Look, I actually majored in History so let's pull back a bit on the "you obviously don't know what your talking about, Sanders is great, worship the Sanders". Spend 8 hours a day in library carol in UVA going over the Lansdowne manuscript library and then we'll talk about your superior knowledge of historical method. You have yet to explain how 20,000-30,000 people can fit in an acre, which you asserted earlier in this conversation. Until you can show your work on getting 30,000 people into 43,000 square feet, which actually is transparently absurd, your credibility on everything else is suspect. But the problem is you aren't doing history at all, you aren't even responding to the problems Sarpedon and I post. Every single time we question something you point to some secondary source, Sanders or otherwise, as an authority that we're not competent to refute. Historians don't take their sources as Gospel, they subject them to rational analysis, figure out discrepancies, why they must be wrong and why they made mistakes. It isn't a matter of who wrote the most well recognized book.

07-17-2012, 10:48 AM	#86
outhouse Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Auburn ca Posts: 4,269	http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/NTIntro.../LSUPCHAP1.htm When King Agrippa wanted to know the number of the population during Passover, he had the priests put aside the kidneys of the sacrificial victims (t. Pesah.. 4:15). Six hundred thousand pairs were counted; assuming that there were not fewer than ten members in each Passover haburah (a voluntary association of adults), one arrives at a total of six million. It is said that this was called the "crowded Passover," so crowded that the Temple mount could not contain the numbers. Again, even if these numbers are greatly inflated the general point that Jerusalem overflowed with Passover pilgrims is still established. you will have to deal with the facts at hand it was a required event for all jews to make the journey, not just those who lived in the city. your numbers quoted earlier are simply laughable

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.