• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

ARCHEOLOGY and THE BIBLE

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Yes... that is ONE viewpoint. I find logic, as well as historical documents, to be a better fit:

"From the Biblical Archaeology Review: 80,000 “Estimating the Population of Ancient Jerusalem”, Magen Broshi, BAR 4:02, Jun 1978

Roman historian Tacitus estimated the population of Jerusalem at the time of the Jewish wars to be 600,000 .

Jewish historian Josephus, who would know because he had lived there during the 60s AD, estimated the number of Pharisees alone to be 6,000 (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 17.42)

Josephus estimated that 1.1 million were killed in the Jewish War, that 115,880 dead were carried out one of the gates during the month of Nisan in AD 70, and that 97,000 were taken as slaves. Josephus (The Wars Of The Jews Book VI Ch 9 Sec 3)"

https://www.quora.com/What-was-the-population-of-Jerusalem-during-Jesus-time

Joshua was real. :)

I think it's kind of funny that your own link states that Josephus and Tacitus almost certainly exaggerated their numbers.

You didn't quote that part, did you?
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
So you have been to Jericho? The first time I was there was about a year after Kenyon completed her work. 1958-59 I think.. Jericho has many, many layers as far back as the Natufians in 11,000 BC...

It was abandoned for a time .. several hundred years as I recall because the spring dried up.. Joshua is fiction.. Israel had no massive armies and didn't destroy any Canaanite cities.

BAR has had numerous articles on this.

BTW, for what it's worth, I was in Jericho back in 1991, but that certainly doesn't make me an expert on that, or anything else for the matter. :emojconfused:
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
I think it's kind of funny that your own link states that Josephus and Tacitus almost certainly exaggerated their numbers.

You didn't quote that part, did you?
But, is the person the expert or is Josephus and Tacitus more of an expert :) But of course, you would select (as an atheist) - that which suits you versus those who lived there at the times speaking about.

Of course, we don't want first hand witnesses :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

sooda

Veteran Member
The next period Geva considers is the period of the United Monarchy, the time of King David and King Solomon and a couple centuries thereafter (1000 B.C.E. down to about the eighth century B.C.E.).

In David’s time, the borders of the city did not change from the previous period. However, King Solomon expanded the confines of the city northward to include the Temple Mount.

This increased the size of the city to about 40 acres, but the increase in population was not proportionate since much of this expansion was taken up with the Temple and royal buildings. “It is likely that Jerusalem attracted new inhabitants of different social classes,” Geva tells us. “Some of these people came to reside in the city as a consequence of their official and religious capacities, while others came to seek a livelihood in its developing economy.” Geva estimates the population of the city at this time at about 2,000. (Previously, other scholars had estimated the number of people living in the city at this time as 2,000, 2,500 or 4,500–5,000.)

In the mid-eighth century B.C.E., the area usually referred to as the Western Hill was added to the city of Jerusalem. This area is well documented archaeologically.

With this addition, more than a hundred acres were added to the city, and the population of the city increased proportionately. According to some scholars, this increase may have been at least in part due to the influx of refugees from the north after the Assyrian conquest of the northern kingdom of Israel in 721 B.C.E.

continued

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-sites-places/jerusalem/ancient-jerusalem/
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
We have to remember that Jerusalem at the time of Jesus was one square mile (technically 1 & 1/4), so this makes it highly unlikely that we would be dealing with large numbers of people, especially since housing was no more than two stories and relatively small buildings by today's standards. Even Herod's Palace, which I've been in (the excavation), is surprisingly small.

Also, we have to remember that the area is semi-arid, so the idea of growing enough food to feed hundreds of thousands or millions of people in just one city is impossible for me to imagine.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
We have to remember that Jerusalem at the time of Jesus was one square mile (technically 1 & 1/4), so this makes it highly unlikely that we would be dealing with large numbers of people, especially since housing was no more than two stories and relatively small buildings by today's standards. Even Herod's Palace, which I've been in (the excavation), is surprisingly small.

Also, we have to remember that the area is semi-arid, so the idea of growing enough food to feed hundreds of thousands or millions of people in just one city is impossible for me to imagine.

It never could support a large population .. Even in the Turkish census of the 1880s the population of Palestine was less than 700,000... not including 10,000 Bedouin in the Negev.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
It never could support a large population .. Even in the Turkish census of the 1880s the population of Palestine was less than 700,000... not including 10,000 Bedouin in the Negev.

According to Ottoman statistics studied by Justin McCarthy, thepopulation of Palestine in the early 19th century was 350,000, in 1860 it was 411,000 and in 1900 about 600,000 of which 94% were Arabs. In 1914 Palestine had a populationof 657,000 Muslim Arabs, 81,000 Christian Arabs, and 59,000 Jews
 

sooda

Veteran Member
According to Ottoman statistics studied by Justin McCarthy, thepopulation of Palestine in the early 19th century was 350,000, in 1860 it was 411,000 and in 1900 about 600,000 of which 94% were Arabs. In 1914 Palestine had a populationof 657,000 Muslim Arabs, 81,000 Christian Arabs, and 59,000 Jews

Thank you. I appreciate you looking it up. More Jews lived outside of Palestine be the time of the birth of Christ.... Rome, Aleppo, Alexandria, Damascus, Persia, Anatolia etc.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
First hand witness still trumps "experts".

Does it?
You mean like the numbers cited by Trump team about how many people were at his inauguration?
They were first-hand witnesses after all.

:rolleyes:

Are you aware that people can lie and be mistaken?
It doesn't matter what people just claim. Things aren't correct because people claim it.
If someone claims a certain city had 1 million citizens while everything about the city points of it having a capacity of only a good 50.000, then surely the claim should be treated as an exaggeration, right?

So clearly, simply because a "firsthand witness" claims it, it's not necessarily correct.
That person can be exaggerating. He can be mistaken. He can be flat out lying.

If and "expert" throws out history... ???? he becomes an "ex" "spurt"

So, how again have you determined that the claims of Tacitus / Josephus are actually correct?
Or are you "just believing" them, no matter the evidence?
Have you properly reviewed how the modern day archeologists and whatnot have reached their conclusions?

I'm guessing that you haven't and you're just going by the Tacitus / Josephus claims for the sole reason that it fits better with your a priori beliefs.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Does it?
You mean like the numbers cited by Trump team about how many people were at his inauguration?
They were first-hand witnesses after all.

:rolleyes:

Are you aware that people can lie and be mistaken?
It doesn't matter what people just claim. Things aren't correct because people claim it.
If someone claims a certain city had 1 million citizens while everything about the city points of it having a capacity of only a good 50.000, then surely the claim should be treated as an exaggeration, right?

So clearly, simply because a "firsthand witness" claims it, it's not necessarily correct.
That person can be exaggerating. He can be mistaken. He can be flat out lying.



So, how again have you determined that the claims of Tacitus / Josephus are actually correct?
Or are you "just believing" them, no matter the evidence?
Have you properly reviewed how the modern day archeologists and whatnot have reached their conclusions?

I'm guessing that you haven't and you're just going by the Tacitus / Josephus claims for the sole reason that it fits better with your a priori beliefs.

I GUESS.... if that is what you want to believe as an atheists... any reason will be a good enough reason for you.

I prefer history.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
I GUESS.... if that is what you want to believe as an atheists... any reason will be a good enough reason for you.

I prefer history.

Just about everything in the Old Testament is grossly exaggerated.The copper mines that are bragged about re: Solomon belonged to Egypt and then the Canaanites. Most of what is attributed to Solomon was built by King Omri.

That whole business about a thousand wives and concubines and thousands of horses isn't true. Palestine never had a big population.. insufficient water, pasture and arable land.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Just about everything in the Old Testament is grossly exaggerated.The copper mines that are bragged about re: Solomon belonged to Egypt and then the Canaanites. Most of what is attributed to Solomon was built by King Omri.

That whole business about a thousand wives and concubines and thousands of horses isn't true. Palestine never had a big population.. insufficient water, pasture and arable land.

Next you will be telling me that the Romans didn't control most of the known world. It is all an exaggeration and Alexander the Great was really Alexander the Insignificant.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Next you will be telling me that the Romans didn't control most of the known world. It is all an exaggeration and Alexander the Great was really Alexander the Insignificant.

Not at all, Alexander and Rome were quite real, but Israel was a whistlestop on the trade route. It was tiny and never grand.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Not at all, Alexander and Rome were quite real, but Israel was a whistlestop on the trade route. It was tiny and never grand.
Riiiight. It's real when you want it to be and not real when you don't want it to be... gotcha!
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Riiiight. It's real when you want it to be and not real when you don't want it to be... gotcha!

Israel was small and impoverished... The "good figs" were taken to Babylon in exile. The bad figs were left behind. They experienced rich history and mythology, grand architecture and prosperity in Babylon. That changed them profoundly.. Leviticus and Deuteronomy were written when they were in Babylon and Genesis and Exodus were written shortly thereafter.

That's where they learned about the Code of Hammurabi, the Flood myth of Sumer and the Psalms of the Canaanites. They reinvented themselves giving themselves a history back to Adam and a foundational myth.
 
Top