An inscription, found on a first century coffin bearing the sign of the cross, reads: "Shimon Bar Yonah" = "Simon [Peter] son of Jonah".
Posted on 11/23/2003 3:39:24 AM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
JERUSALEM, Israel - Does your heart quicken when you hear someone give a personal testimony about Jesus? Do you feel excited when you read about the ways the Lord has worked in someone's life? The first century catacomb, uncovered by archaeologist P. Bagatti on the Mount of Olives, contains inscriptions clearly indicating its use, "by the very first Christians in Jerusalem."
If you know the feeling of genuine excitement about the workings of the Lord, then you will be ecstatic to learn that archaeologists have found first-century dedications with the names Jesus, Matthias and "Simon Bar-Yonah" ("Peter son of Jonah") along with testimonials that bear direct witness to the Savior. A "head stone", found near the entrance to the first century catacomb, is inscribed with the sign of the cross.
Where were such inscriptions found? Etched in stone - in the sides of coffins found in catacombs (burial caves) of some first-century Christians on a mountain in Jerusalem called the Mount of Olives.
An inscription, found on a first century coffin bearing the sign of the cross, reads: "Shimon Bar Yonah" = "Simon [Peter] son of Jonah".
Like many other important early Christian discoveries in the Holy Land, these major finds were unearthed and the results published many decades ago. Then the discoveries were practically forgotten. Because of recent knowledge and understanding, these ancient tombs once again assume center stage, and their amazing "testimonies in stone" give some pleasant surprises about some of the earliest followers of Jesus.
The catacombs were found and excavated primarily by two well-known archaeologists, but their findings were later read and verified by other scholars such as Yigael Yadin, J. T. Milik and J. Finegan. The ossuaries (stone coffins), untouched for 2,000 years, as they were found by archaeologist P. Bagatti on the Mt. of Olives.
The first catacomb found near Bethany was investigated by renowned French archaeologist Charles Clermont-Ganneau. The other, a large burial cemetery unearthed near the modern Dominus Flevit Chapel, was excavated by Italian scholar, P. Bagatti.
Both archaeologists found evidence clearly dating the two catacombs to the first century AD, with the later finding coins minted by Governor Varius Gratus at the turn of the millenium (up to 15/16 AD). Evidence in both catacombs indicated their use for burial until the middle part of the first century AD, several years before the New Testament was written.
The first catacomb was a family tomb investigated by archaeologist Clermont-Ganneau on the Mount of Olives near the ancient town of Bethany. Clermont-Ganneau was surprised to find names which corresponded with names in the New Testament. Even more interesting were the signs of the cross etched on several of the ossuaries (stone coffins).
As Claremont-Ganneau further investigated the tomb, he found inscriptions, including the names of "Eleazar"(="Lazarus"), "Martha" and "Mary" on three different coffins.
The Gospel of John records the existence of one family of followers of Jesus to which this tomb seems to belong: "Now a certain man was sick, named Lazarus, of Bethany, the town of Mary and her sister Martha. (It was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick)..." (11:1,2)
John continues by recounting Jesus' resurrection of Lazarus from the dead. Found only a short distance from Bethany, Clermont-Ganneau believed it was not a "singular coincidence" that these names were found.
He wrote: "[This catacomb] on the Mount of Olives belonged apparently to one of the earliest [families] which joined the new religion [of Christianity]. In this group of sarcophagi [coffins], some of which have the Christian symbol [cross marks] and some have not, we are, so to speak, [witnessing the] actual unfolding of Christianity." A first-century coffin bearing cross marks as it was found by archaeologist P. Bagatti in the catacomb on the Mt. of Olives. The Hebrew inscription both on the lid and body of the coffin reads: "Shlom-zion". Archaeologist Claremont-Ganneau found the same name followed by the designation "daughter of Simon the Priest."
As Claremont-Ganneau continued to investigate the catacomb, he found additional inscriptions including the name "Yeshua" (="Jesus") commemoratively inscribed on several ossuaries. One coffin, also bearing cross marks on it, was inscribed with the name "Shlom-zion" followed by the designation "daughter of Simon the Priest."
While these discoveries were of great interest, even more important was another catacomb found nearby and excavated by archaeologist P. Bagatti several years later.
One of the first-century coffins found on the Mt. of Olives contains a commemorative dedication to: "Yeshua" = "Jesus". Bagatti also found evidence which clearly indicated that the tomb was in use in the early part of the first century AD. Inside, the sign of the cross was found on numerous first-century coffins.
He found dozens of inscribed ossuaries, which included the names Jairus, Jonathan, Joseph, Judah, Matthias, Menahem, Salome, Simon, and Zechariah. In addition, he found one ossuary with crosses and the unusual name "Shappira" - which is a unique name not found in any other first-century writtings except for the Book of Acts (5:1).
As he continued his excavations, Bagatti also found a coffin bearing the unusual inscription "Shimon bar Yonah" (= "Simon [Peter] son of Jonah").
An inscription, found on a first century coffin bearing the sign of the cross, reads: "Shimon Bar Yonah" = "Simon [Peter] son of Jonah".
Copyright © 1998 Jerusalem Christian Review
Below are Ten major New Testament proofs, which completely disprove the claim that Peter was in Rome from the time of Claudius until Nero. These Biblical points speak for themselves and ANY ONE of them is sufficient to prove the ridiculousness of the Catholic claim. Notice what God tells us! The truth IS conclusive!
PROOF TWO:
Paul specifically told the Gentile Romans that HE had been chosen to be their Apostle, not Peter. "I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable" (Rom. 15:16). How clear! Paul had the direct charge from Christ in this matter. He even further relates in Romans 15:18 that it was Christ who had chosen him "to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed." PAUL Established The Only TRUE Church at Rome.
PROOF THREE:
We are told by Paul himself that it was he -- not Peter -who was going to officially found the Roman Church. "I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established" (Rom. 1:11). Amazing! The Church at Rome had not been ESTABLISHED officially even by 55 or 56 A.D. However, the Roman Church would have us believe that Peter had done this some ten years before -- in the reign of Claudius. What nonsense!
PROOF FOUR:
We find Paul not only wanting to establish the Church at Rome, but he emphatically tells us that his policy was NEVER to build upon another man's foundation. "Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, LEST I SHOULD BUILD UPON ANOTHER MAN'S FOUNDATION"(Rom. 15:20). If Peter had "founded" the Roman Church some ten years before this statement, this represents a real affront to Peter. This statement alone is proof that Peter had never been in Rome before this time to "found" any church – because Peter was not in Rome.
PROOF FIVE:
At the end of Paul's Epistle to the Romans he greets no fewer than 28 different individuals, but never mentions Peter once! See Romans 16 --read the whole chapter! Remember, Paul greeted these people in 55 or 56 A.D. Why didn't he mention Peter? -- Peter simply wasn't there!
PROOF SIX:
Some four years after Paul wrote Romans, he was conveyed as a prisoner to Rome in order to stand trial before Caesar. When the Christian community in Rome heard of Paul's arrival, they all went to meet him. "When THE brethren [of Rome] heard of us, they came to meet us" (Acts 28:15). Again, there is not a single mention of Peter among them. This would have been extraordinary had Peter been in Rome, for Luke always mentions by name important Apostles in his narration of Acts. But he says nothing of Peter's meeting with Paul. Why? Because Peter was not in Rome!
PROOF SEVEN:
When Paul finally arrived at Rome, the first thing he did was to summon "the chief of the Jews together" (Acts 28:17) to whom he "expounded and testified the kingdom of God" (Verse 23). But what is amazing is that these chief Jewish elders claimed they knew very little even about the basic teachings of Christ. All they knew was that ``as concerning this sect, we know that everywhere it is spoken against" (Verse 22). Then Paul began to explain to them the basic teachings of Christ on the Kingdom of God. Some believed -- the majority didn't. Now, what does all this mean? It means that if Peter, who was himself a strongly partisan Jew, had been preaching constantly in Rome for 14 long years before this time, AND WAS STILL THERE -- how could these Jewish leaders have known so little about even the basic truths of Christianity? This again is clear proof Peter had not been in Rome prior to 59 A.D. There is no mention of Peter in Paul's Letters.
PROOF EIGHT:
After the rejection of the Jewish elders, Paul remained in his own hired house for two years. During that time he wrote Epistles to the Ephesians, the Philippians, the Colossians, Philemon, and to the Hebrews. And while Paul mentions others as being in Rome during that period, he nowhere mentions Peter. The obvious reason is -- the Apostle to the circumcision wasn't there!
PROOF NINE:
With the expiration of Paul's two year's imprisonment, he was released. But about four years later (near 65 A.D.), he was again sent back a prisoner to Rome. This time he had to appear before the throne of Caesar and was sentenced to die. Paul describes these circumstances at length in II Timothy. In regard to his trial, notice what Paul said in II Timothy 4:16. "At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men [in Rome] forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge." This means, if we believe the Romanist Church, that Peter forsook Paul, for they tell us Peter was very much present at Rome during this time! Peter thrice denied Christ, but that was before he was indwelt by the Spirit at Pentecost. To believe that Peter was in Rome during Paul's trial, and FORSOOK Paul as he forsook Christ, is absolutely untenable. Peter did not forsake Paul; PETER WAS NOT IN ROME.
PROOF TEN:
The Apostle Paul distinctly informs us that Peter was not in Rome in 65 A.D. -- even though The Romanist Church says he was. Paul said: "Only Luke is with me" (II Tim. 4:11). The truth becomes very plain. Paul wrote TO Rome; he had been IN Rome; and at the end wrote at least six epistles FROM Rome; and not only does he NEVER mention Peter, but at the last moment says: "Only Luke is with me." Peter, therefore, was never Bishop of Rome!
Near 45 A.D., we find Peter being cast into prison at Jerusalem (Acts 12:3, 4). In 49 A.D., he was still in Jerusalem, this time attending the Jerusalem Council. About 51 A.D., he was in Antioch of Syria where he got into differences with Paul because he wouldn't sit or eat with Gentiles. Strange that the "Roman bishop" would have nothing to do with Gentiles in 51 A.D.! Later in about 66 A.D., we find him in the city of Babylon among the Jews (I Pet. 5:13). Remember that Peter was the Apostle to the CIRCUMCISED. Why was he in Babylon? Because history shows that there were as many Jews in the Mesopotamian areas in Christ's time as there were in Palestine. It is no wonder we find him in the East…. scholars say Peter's writings are strongly Aramaic in flavor, the type of Aramaic spoken in Babylon. Peter was accustomed to their Eastern dialect.
At the times the Romanists believe Peter was in Rome, The Bible clearly shows he was elsewhere. There are, of course, many supposed historical accounts of Peter in Rome -- but none of them are first-hand accounts, and none of them should be put above the many accounts of The Bible.
The Sword of the Spirit: On the Apostles Peter and Paul
"There is a hundred times more evidence that Peter was buried in Jerusalem than in Rome." ~~ Rev. Father J.T. Milik, Roman Catholic Priest and archaeologist
"Well, we will have to make some changes... but for the time being, keep this thing quiet." ~~ Pope Pius XII, the Bishop of Rome
List of Roman Emperors:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Emperors
(Note that, contrary to popular belief, Julius Caesar was never Emperor (princeps), although he was named dictator for life in 45 BC (but was not the first Roman to hold that title) and was regarded as such by Roman historians.)
Confirmation of two Richter 7.0 earthquakes in Laodicea, AD 60 and AD 65. Some sources date the second earthquake in AD 66; it's a small matter.
Since it is difficult to find much evidence concerning Laodicea after AD 66 until much later, I'll allow that the Stadium of AD 79 represents a post-AD66 "rebuilding" to some extent... although we've no idea how much of the city had been rebuilt by that time.
I missed the fact that the second part of your Post is from Hippolytus; but Hippolytus himself is believed to be a disciple of Irenaeus, and so may well have simply repeated Irenaeus' errors (I'm not aware of whether or not Hippolytus also taught that Jesus lived to over 50 years of age).
I don't think he flubbed it so much as to say more than fifty. Lets read what he said in Book II, Chapter 22:
1. I have shown that the number thirty fails them in every respect; too few Aeons, as they represent them, being at one time found within the Pleroma, and then again too many [to correspond with that number]. There are not, therefore, thirty Aeons, nor did the Saviour come to be baptized when He was thirty years old, for this reason, that He might show forth the thirty silent Aeons of their system, otherwise they must first of all separate and eject [the Saviour] Himself from the Pleroma of all. Moreover, they affirm that He suffered in the twelfth month, so that He continued to preach for one year after His baptism; and they endeavour to establish this point out of the prophet (for it is written, "To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of retribution" ), being truly blind, inasmuch as they affirm they have found out the mysteries of Bythus, yet not understanding that which is called by Isaiah the acceptable year of the Lord, nor the day of retribution. For the prophet neither speaks concerning a day which includes the space of twelve hours, nor of a year the length of which is twelve months. For even they themselves acknowledge that the prophets have very often expressed themselves in parables and allegories, and [are] not [to be understood] according to the mere sound of the words. ...3. But it is greatly to be wondered at, how it has come to pass that, while affirming that they have found out the mysteries of God, they have not examined the Gospels to ascertain how often after His baptism the Lord went up, at the time of the passover, to Jerusalem, in accordance with what was the practice of the Jews from every land, and every year, that they should assemble at this period in Jerusalem, and there celebrate the feast of the passover. First of all, after He had made the water wine at Cana of Galilee, He went up to the festival day of the passover, on which occasion it is written, "For many believed in Him, when they saw the signs which He did," as John the disciple of the Lord records. Then, again, withdrawing Himself [from Judaea], He is found in Samaria; on which occasion, too, He convened with the Samaritan woman, and while at a distance, cured the son of the centurion by a word, saying, "Go thy way, thy son liveth." Afterwards He went up, the second time, to observe the festival day of the passover in Jerusalem; on which occasion He cured the paralytic man, who had lain beside the pool thirty-eight years, bidding him rise, take up his couch, and depart. Again, withdrawing from thence to the other side of the sea of Tiberias, He there seeing a great crowd had followed Him, fed all that multitude with five loaves of bread, and twelve baskets of fragments remained over and above. Then, when He had raised Lazarus from the dead, and plots were formed against Him by the Pharisees, He withdrew to a city called Ephraim; and from that place, as it is written "He came to Bethany six days before the passover," and going up from Bethany to Jerusalem, He there ate the passover, and suffered on the day following. Now, that these three occasions of the passover are not included within one year, every person whatever must acknowledge. And that the special month in which the passover was celebrated, and in which also the Lord suffered, was not the twelfth, but the first, those men who boast that they know all things, if they know not this, may learn it from Moses. Their explanation, therefore, both of the year and of the twelfth month has been proved false, and they ought to reject either their explanation or the Gospel; otherwise [this unanswerable question forces itself upon them], How is it possible that the Lord preached for one year only?
4. Being thirty years old when He came to be baptized, and then possessing the full age of a Master, He came to Jerusalem, so that He might be properly acknowledged by all as a Master. For He did not seem one thing while He was another, as those affirm who describe Him as being man only in appearance; but what He was, that He also appeared to be. Being a Master, therefore, He also possessed the age of a Master, not despising or evading any condition of humanity, nor setting aside in Himself that law which He had appointed for the human race, but sanctifying every age, by that period corresponding to it which belonged to Himself. For He came to save all through means of Himself -- all, I say, who through Him are born again to God -- infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord. So likewise He was an old man for old men, that He might be a perfect Master for all, not merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age, sanctifying at the same time the aged also, and becoming an example to them likewise. Then, at last, He came on to death itself, that He might be "the first-born from the dead, that in all things He might have the pre-eminence," the Prince of life, existing before all, and going before all.
5. They, however, that they may establish their false opinion regarding that which is written, "to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord," maintain that He preached for one year only, and then suffered in the twelfth month. [In speaking thus], they are forgetful to their own disadvantage, destroying His whole work, and robbing Him of that age which is both more necessary and more honourable than any other; that more advanced age, I mean, during which also as a teacher He excelled all others. For how could He have had disciples, if He did not teach? And how could He have taught, unless He had reached the age of a Master? For when He came to be baptized, He had not yet completed His thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about thirty years of age (for thus Luke, who has mentioned His years, has expressed it: "Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be thirty years old," when He came to receive baptism); and, [according to these men,] He preached only one year reckoning from His baptism. On completing His thirtieth year He suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced age. Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information. And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan. Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity of] the statement. Whom then should we rather believe? Whether such men as these, or Ptolemaeus, who never saw the apostles, and who never even in his dreams attained to the slightest trace of an apostle? 6. But, besides this, those very Jews who then disputed with the Lord Jesus Christ have most clearly indicated the same thing. For when the Lord said to them, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad," they answered Him, "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?" Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period. But to one who is only thirty years old it would unquestionably be said, "Thou art not yet forty years old." For those who wished to convict Him of falsehood would certainly not extend the number of His years far beyond the age which they saw He had attained; but they mentioned a period near His real age, whether they had truly ascertained this out of the entry in the public register, or simply made a conjecture from what they observed that He was above forty years old, and that He certainly was not one of only thirty years of age. For it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they were mistaken by twenty years, when they wished to prove Him younger than the times of Abraham. For what they saw, that they also expressed; and He whom they beheld was not a mere phantasm, but an actual being of flesh and blood. He did not then wont much of being fifty years old; and, in accordance with that fact, they said to Him, "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?" He did not therefore preach only for one year, nor did He suffer in the twelfth month of the year. For the period included between the thirtieth and the fiftieth year can never be regarded as one year, unless indeed, among their Aeons, there be so long years assigned to those who sit in their ranks with Bythus in the Pleroma; of which beings Homer the poet, too, has spoken, doubtless being inspired by the Mother of their [system of] error:- Oi de qeoi par Zhni kaqhmenoi hgorownto Xrusew en dapedw: which we may thus render into English: "The gods sat round, while Jove presided o'er, And converse held upon the golden floor."
"The Roman Emperor Hadrianus has visited the city in 129 AD and has written letters to Rome from there."
Obviously, it would be tough for Hadrian to visit a city that Marcus Aurelius had yet to rebuild 40 years later if it was uninhabited.
Alright, at the time of Nero, the Ten Senatorial Provinces were:
And here is their listing together with a Map:
The Imperium of Nero and the Ten Senatorial Provinces, AD 67
Once again, when you calm down, please admit that ten Germanic Kingdoms supplanted West Rome. Its not hard. Its right there in your history books. You don't need to confuse the issue with how many tribal groups were involved. We are just looking at the issue of whether or not ten German Kingdoms took over West Rome. I'm not insisting you interpret them as the ten kings of Revelation, which I am doing. I just want an admission of a point of history on your part. Yes or no, did ten German Kingdoms supplant West Rome?
I'll admit no such thing, because it's simply not true. Depending on which "nations" and "duchies" and "vassals" you want to count as "kingdoms", you can come up with more than ten, less than ten -- just about any number you please.
Quite convenient for mixing and matching, but entirely indefinite -- unlike the Senatorial Provinces, which were precisely TEN.
Forgive me OP, but I missed mention of "ten kings" here. I do see mention of Kings from the East coming across the Euphrates and a gathering of the Kings of the Whole Earth, which could obviously not be your mythical Ten Senatorial Provinces.
"But they hearing it, glorified God and said to him: Thou seest, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews that have believed: and they are all zealous for the law." (Acts 21.20). Nothing there limits these men to Jerusalem. There were believing Jews all over the East and in Rome and Persia.
This confirms an estimate of Jerusalem and it's suburbs population in the 250,000 range (I'm not going to bother with your disputation against a million-population mark for Jerusalem, since it's irrelevant to my contention that the year-round population of the city and all its suburbs was about a quarter of that).
Why include Galba then? They were all not real Emperors. The book makes perfect sense interpreting number one as Augustus and number six as Vespasian - you can maintain your Preterist interpretation that way too, as Tantumergo does.
Galba Imperator immediately followed the death of Nero, whom John directly identifies as the Sixth Head of the Beast who is presently reigning when he writes the Revelation (the number of Nero being 666 in the gematriya of John 13:18); and he then reigns for but a short time. Galba is thus exactly identified with the the Seventh Head of the Beast, who "has not yet come" when John is writing the Revelation, and "must continue a short space" when he comes.
Julius Caesar was known as a dictator, not an Emperor. Its not hard to find references to Augustus as the first Emperor.
It's not hard to find references to Julius Caesar as the first Emperor, either (hardly surprising as he claimed the title "Imperator", or Emperor).
Let me re-post this again, since you apparently missed it:
Let's see: that's Seutonius, and Dio Cassius, and the Sybilline Oracles, and 4 Esdras, and Josephus all united in testimony that Julius Caesar was considered the First Emperor -- and that, of course, makes Nero Caesar (whose number, in gematriya, is 666) the Sixth Head of the Beast who is reigning when John writes.
So, let's review -- Jerusalem is the Great City which:
Ergo, Jerusalem = Mystery Babylon.
Yeah, I granted that "the Stadium of AD 79 represents a post-AD66 'rebuilding' to some extent... although we've no idea how much of the city had been rebuilt by that time." (post #462)
I want to make one more point on this. One of the nice things about being a Catholic is that it is perfectly acceptable to differ in the interpretation of Scripture. We can do so and still be brothers. The reason is that we hold the One Catholic Faith. Knowing the Faith, a faithful Catholic will never theorize about the data of revelation ("The Deposit" (1 Tim. 6.20) outside of the bounds of faith. So we can differ in interpreting prophecies, differ in interpreting the working of grace and free will, differ about the datign of Christ's ministry, differ about the time He instituted the Sacraments, differ about the charge given to the Apostles, differ about how the Christian and the Church should relate to the State, and many other things. Its part and parcel of Christian freedom. Its why Catholics in Malabar can abstain on Fridays from Fish, while Catholics in Europe abstain from Fleshmeat.
You ought to consider enjoying this freedom with us OP.
Does not Irenaeus say right there that Jesus eventually "possessed" a "fiftieth year"??
But.... I already enjoy the freedom to abstain from Fish on Fridays, or from Fleshmeat, if I so desire. (grin)
Historians have been shying away from these claims for a while now.
1 million people in Rome in 13 sq. mi. is 77,000 people per square mile, or a density HIGHER than Manhattan today, and leaving only 362 sq. ft. per person, or an area 19 ft. by 19 ft. Recalling that much of the city would be given over to roads, public buildings, palaces, and workplaces, the living space available was probably half the total, or about 14 ft. by 14 ft. per person. Even with the stacking of flats up to several stories in height, this doesn't leave a whole lot of space to live in. Increases above this would be proportional. Quite simply, it isn't believeable, especially since Italy could not economically sustain the food production for this type of non-agricultural population then.
It seems more likely that the population of Rome was around 500,000, with a density of about 35-40,000 per square mile. This is equivalent to the density seen in row home cities in the US like Brooklyn, Philadelphia, and Baltimore.
By contrast, 1.1 million died in the Jewish Wars (remember, the population of Jerusalem during the Siege was recorded by Tacitus at 600,000, Josephus says more, as many Jews had fled to the City).
I question the veracity of these numbers as well (the numbers given in the Talmud are even more ridiculous). No doubt many Jews fled to the city during the siege. But how to sustain such a multitude for any period of time with no food? Simply not practical. 500,000 Jews in the 87 hectare city is 1 Jew every 18 sq. ft. of land space - 6 ft. by 3 ft. for all with no room to spare. How would they possibly move about?
Where's the Seven Mountains OP? I CAN'T SEE THEM.
Can you point to any other Roman "great city" so far from the seacoast or a river (and thus ready access to grain and fuel)?
At the time of Passover, it's population quadrupled from 250,000 to over one million residents and pilgrims within a "Sabbath's day journey" of the city (not within the city walls itself).
Define "suburbs". Provide a citation for 250,000 as the ordinary population.
Now then -- Howzabout we look to Infallible Scripture for some evidence as to the Population of Jerusalem and Israel in the 1st Century AD? In the first place, since the 2 Samuel informs us that the able-bodied men of Israel numbered some 1.3 million in David's day (II Samuel 24:9), we can estimate a total population of at least 4-5 million in the Israel of King David. Thus, an estimate of 2-3 million in the general area of 1st-Century Syro-Palestine is not unreasonable, nor is an estimate of 250,000 in the City of of Seven Mountains (Jerusalem) and its suburbs.
Numeric citations in Scripture are quite problematic at times, as the differences between the Septuagint and the Masoretic show, scribal error is easy to introduce. I'd accept it as infallible scripture if you could prove to me it is in the autograph.
2-3 million seems inflated. I'd possibly believe around 1 million, with an urbanized population of perhaps 10%.
http://www.tulane.edu/~august/H303/handouts/Population.htm
Cites 6.5 million for Syria, Palestine, and northern Mesopotamia (Edessa/Nisbis).
Other interesting citations:
http://intarch.ac.uk/antiquity/storey.html
"What was the population of imperial Rome? City blocks in Pompeii and Ostia are sufficiently well explored that a fair estimate of population density can now be arrived at. That peoples the city of ancient Rome with roughly 450,000 inhabitants, within the known population and density range of pre-industrial and modern urban centres."
http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/judaism/ancisr.html
You have to remember, the biggest difficulty with populations is feeding them and getting them water. If you want a large population in Jerusalem, how do you get the food there overland, and where is the water soruce and ancient aquaducts?
Well, for one thing, you indeed may have the "the stacking of flats up to several stories in height"... each story you add to the average height of Jerusalem doubles the amount of space available to each Jew. So what was the average height of Jerusalem? Dunno -- but the great porch of the Temple was some 90 cubits high (135 feet!) so being surrounded by buildings averaging 3 or 4 stories each is certainly possible (and don't forget the common practice of travellers setting up tents on the roof).
So assuming an average height of four stories (three, plus a tented roof) for the city within the walls, we can quadruple the living area to 72 ft.sq. for each of 500,000 Jews, or 360 ft.sq. for each family of five (an area about 19 by 19 feet, as you say). Crowded? Certainly. I'd imagine things did get quite crowded in a Siege -- remember the scenes of multiple Jewish Families being crowded into each room of the Jewish Ghetto in Schindler's list??
All that said... if you downsize the estimates for the Population of Rome, and you downsize the estimates for the Population of Jerusalem and suburbs, you end up with a Jerusalem which would still be a "Great City" relative to Rome. (by comparison, New York may be the largest city in the US, but Chicago is a "great city" in its own right -- and its sudden, complete annihilation would indeed make the merchants mourn)
Here you go:
Mmm... I think this is getting close to playing dangerously fast and loose with Scripture on the basis of a (quite possibly incorrect) pre-existing demographic bias, but I'll let it slide.
Define "suburbs".
sub·urb  ( P ) Pronunciation Key (s b ûrb )n.
[Middle English suburbe, from Old French, from Latin suburbium : sub-, sub- + urbs, urb-, city.] |
Provide a citation for 250,000 as the ordinary population.
I've already given one link for the 250,000 figure, and I can give more if you want.
However, This citation, from The Book of Acts in its Palestinian Setting, relates that the most recent demographic studies would indicate a population in the 60-120,000 range; "the dominant argument against the historical plausibility of Luke's figures - the alleged small population of Jerusalem at the time - can no longer be considered valid."
Ergo, a Great City, by first-century Roman standards.
By which.... you mean Rome?
You mean you guys have finally drummed all of the Molinists and other anti-Augustinians out of the Corps of your presbyters and theologians? Well, why didn't you say so? Nobody told me!!
That settled, then, where do I sign up? (kidding!! just kidding!!)
best, OP
A man was sitting on the edge of a bridge about to jump to his death when suddenly another man ran up to him and yelled "Stop! Don't jump!"
The first man asked "Why?"
The other said "Don't you have so much to live for?"
The first said "Like what?"
"Well do you believe in God?"
"Yes I do."
"So do I! Are you a Christian?"
"Yes."
"So am I! Are you a Protestant?"
"Yes."
"So am I! Are you saved?"
The first man, now excitedly "Yes!"
"So am I! Are you a Baptist?"
"Yes!"
"So am I! Two Seed in the Spirit Predestinarian Baptist or Free Will Bible Baptist?"
"Free Will Bible Baptist!"
The second man frowned for a moment, then hurriedly shoved the first man off the bridge and shouted out as he fell to his death "DIE HERETIC SCUM!"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.