outhouse

your opinion doesbt refute this in any way shape or form


MOD NOTE: THE ABOVE WAS COPIED AND PASTED FROM http://www.headcoverings-by-devorah....shDiaspora.htm

also http://www.hebroots.org/hebrootsarch.../971127_g.html

Quote:

Course: An Introduction to the History of the Second Temple Period Lecture: 10/12 Lecturer: Scott Copeland

and possibly other places on the web

Sarpedon

Again, I don't need to refute that, Magen Moshi already did. As I said. 2,500,000 is absurd for Palestine. Refute Moshi's argument. Explain how these 2.5 million people were fed. You can't. All you can do is repeat politically motivated overestimates based on wild guesses.

I repeat, the Claudian census is not complete, and does not name jews. Take the following page from a 'History of the Jews" by Paul Johnson.

http://books.google.com/books?id=VIK...census&f=false

It clarifies that the number quoted does not come from the census itself, but an estimate made during the middle ages based on the census. Once again, one of the sources that outhouse boasts about is shown to be a 'traditional, medieval source,' rather than reliable scholarship. If you dispute this, please provide a PRIMARY source for the claudian census. I think I will visit the library and see if I can find more on this subject. I'm very interested to find out Johnson's source for this. Sadly, Note 65 is not included.

I strongly suspect that this medieval source was a typical medieval scholar, who accepts uncritically what is written, and is not above embellishing, exaggerating, and so forth. Using this 'traditional' estimate is clearly suspect, and very likely politically motivated.

Of course, if you can actually point to the census itself and say 'here's where it says how many Jews there were,' or something similar, this would be greatly appreciated. Most likely the best you can do is point to this 'medieval source,' and pretend it is the same thing.

I will endeavor to find out what this 'medieval source' is and report back, for those who are actually interested in scholarship, rather than those who have a political axe to grind.

outhouse

Sanders was unbiased and had no axe to grind.


And he knew everything in this thread and more.



what you cant wrap your head around that the temple had been full in the past, and the city had overflowed outside its walls.


that is 37 acres crammed to the gills plus the tent and campers outside the city walls.




NOW had you been making a valid point, you would easily find scholars that claim a lighter number as you suggest, but those educated n the subject are coming up with the 300,000 to 400,000 range.

Find someone who is credible that places a lower number, but really even then 1 doesnt cut it.


there is no debate going on about this number within the scholarly community


Mayeb ill try and get Carriers opinion on this.

Sarpedon

There's no real debate in the scholarly community because no one gives enough of a shit to risk being accused of being an antisemite for contradicting the idea that jews made up 2% of the world's population during the Roman era. (that being estimated at 300,000,000)

Sanders might have had no axe to grind, I don't give enough of a shit to read his trash to find out, but I'm willing to bet that medieval source that made that estimate did.

outhouse

by the way Paul Johnson was never a decent historian on this subject and never his specialty in any way shape or form.

and all he states is some medieval tradition without explanation or rationalization.


even his numbers would fly for 300,000 to 400,000

outhouse

and that is the key statement, you said.

I never did, nor agreed

Sarpedon

And this is the key difference between a scholar and you. You base everything on the supposed authority of the author. I'm more interested in locating the source, which is why I'll walk over to the library today and see if I can find the citation. I don't give two liters of donkey piss over who is the better historian, Johnson or Sanders. I don't give a damn about either of them. Johnson seems to accept the estimate, anyway, but he's enough of a scholar to point out that it is 'one' estimate based on 'medieval sources.' That's called being honest about one's sources, which is more than you've done in this debate.

Let me explain; there are primary sources, secondary sources, and other sources.
The Claudian Census is a primary source: It records things directly.
A secondary source is one that is based off a primary source. For example, a wikipedia article that quotes or summarizes a primary source.
Then there are sources that are written based off of secondary sources. These are generally of little interest to scholars, and are most common in popular culture and overviews.

Now, IF your source Sanders had actually read the claudian census and came up with the estimate himself, that would make him a secondary source. IF Johnson is right, and he's merely quoting an estimate made by someone else, he's then a tertiary source. You, however, treat him like he's a primary source, one to be quoted and not questioned, as if that's that. That is not how a real scholar would behave.

You do have good primary sources in your argument, by the way. Your people who studied the waterworks of Jerusalem are primary sources. I've never disputed the existance of such works, I only dispute your idea that 1 gallon a day is sufficient for the needs of pilgrims.

My ass you didn't. Your whole argument has been based around an unrealistic demographic estimate. A few posts ago, you said 'there could have been as many as a million' pilgrims. How could you get a million pilgrims with a population less than 2 million? And the time that you said there were 600,000 refugees in Jerusalem, following the wild guesses of Tacitus. Again, how could you get that many unless you start with a few million? And you also agreed with Josephus's estimate of more than a million casualties. Again, you implicitly endorse the wildly inflated population figures.

Duke Leto

By all means, ask Carrier. I strongly suspect he's going to tell you Sanders was talking out his ass.

outhouse

well after searching I did find one scholar that claims up to 125,000 plus the cities inhabitants that varies from 30,000--- 60,000

unfotunatley its very old work and didnt give many details. [from the 60's]



someone i'd trust would be Johnathon Reed or Carrier. Not sure either will take questions though.


Sanders is well respected and one of the better scholars out there, doubt you will find Carrier stating that

outhouse

thats where your failing. Your assuming what Sanders used.


Im sure he used all sourves avalible and determined their possibly accuracy befre making any assertion