Should we desire cities?

[FollowingHim]

Genesis 14 is also very interesting. Four "kings" attacked five "kings". The four defeated the five, and carried away Lot and many goods. So Abram took 318 servants, attacked all four kings, defeated them, and rescued Lot and all the goods. Four kings defeated by an army of 319 people.

Why so many kings? Every town had a "king". They were really tribal chiefs / town mayors. (In this case, all were kings of individual towns, except for Tidal, who seems to have been king of a larger area, see v9).

And assuming their combined army was about 300 men also (assuming it was a fair fight - Abram might have beaten a larger force, or maybe outnumbered them, we have no idea, let's guess 300), then on average each king had 75 fighting men. If half the men in their town were of fighting age, that would mean each king had about 150 men or 300 total subjects. Assuming half lived in the town itself and half were farmers living in the surrounding countryside, that means 150 total residents per "city" including women. On average, so some would have been even smaller.

That's incredibly crude maths, it relies on so many assumptions it's going to be wrong, but it paints enough of a picture to show that each "king" was probably only ruling a few hundred people, maybe a thousand or two tops, with only a fraction of those actually living in his city. Which gives us a very rough idea of the size of a "city" at the time.

 

[BiblicalLiteralist]

Genesis 14 is also very interesting. Four "kings" attacked five "kings". The four defeated the five, and carried away Lot and many goods. So Abram took 318 servants, attacked all four kings, defeated them, and rescued Lot and all the goods. Four kings defeated by an army of 319 people.

Why so many kings? Every town had a "king". They were really tribal chiefs / town mayors. (In this case, all were kings of individual towns, except for Tidal, who seems to have been king of a larger area, see v9).

And assuming their combined army was about 300 men also (assuming it was a fair fight - Abram might have beaten a larger force, or maybe outnumbered them, we have no idea, let's guess 300), then on average each king had 75 fighting men. If half the men in their town were of fighting age, that would mean each king had about 150 men or 300 total subjects. Assuming half lived in the town itself and half were farmers living in the surrounding countryside, that means 150 total residents per "city" including women. On average, so some would have been even smaller.

That's incredibly crude maths, it relies on so many assumptions it's going to be wrong, but it paints enough of a picture to show that each "king" was probably only ruling a few hundred people, maybe a thousand or two tops, with only a fraction of those actually living in his city. Which gives us a very rough idea of the size of a "city" at the time.

This makes me think of the research that was done regarding the maximum number or true relationships one person can have, which I think is right around that 150 number. Dunbars number. Makes me wonder how many of the 300 were in Abrahams circle and how many were only in the circle of those in his circle, but were still aligned and following Abraham and his God. 10's, 50's, 100's 1000's

 

[BiblicalLiteralist]

I will carry out whatever assignment that I am given.
Being given a rulership is not necessarily considered a gift, I think that David might have an informed opinion on the subject.

In the context of the parable it certainly sounds like a reward. Considering the terms used like faithfulness, abundance, and joy and the fact we see punishment for the unfaithful one.

 

[MeganC]

Cities and towns generally differ in terms of complexity and not so much population.

In Europe it is common to find cities with less population than nearby towns. The cities being defined by more intricate infrastructure and a generally defined downtown area. Towns frequently have commercial areas that blend into residential areas or are even wholly undefined.

European and Holy Land cities were at one time defined by their city walls. Towns or settlements had no such defensive works.

It seems that organization and infrastructure best define the difference between a city and a town.

 

[MemeFan]

Genesis 14 is also very interesting. Four "kings" attacked five "kings". The four defeated the five, and carried away Lot and many goods. So Abram took 318 servants, attacked all four kings, defeated them, and rescued Lot and all the goods. Four kings defeated by an army of 319 people.

Why so many kings? Every town had a "king". They were really tribal chiefs / town mayors. (In this case, all were kings of individual towns, except for Tidal, who seems to have been king of a larger area, see v9).

And assuming their combined army was about 300 men also (assuming it was a fair fight - Abram might have beaten a larger force, or maybe outnumbered them, we have no idea, let's guess 300), then on average each king had 75 fighting men. If half the men in their town were of fighting age, that would mean each king had about 150 men or 300 total subjects. Assuming half lived in the town itself and half were farmers living in the surrounding countryside, that means 150 total residents per "city" including women. On average, so some would have been even smaller.

That's incredibly crude maths, it relies on so many assumptions it's going to be wrong, but it paints enough of a picture to show that each "king" was probably only ruling a few hundred people, maybe a thousand or two tops, with only a fraction of those actually living in his city. Which gives us a very rough idea of the size of a "city" at the time.

Something is fishy.

75 men is clan size and smaller one. Tribe would be in hundreds/thousand and those are small ones.

And ancient cities were formed by several tribes divided into clans divided into families.

 

[FollowingHim]

Nothing is fishy @MemeFan, you're just still reading the English word "city" and thinking that is what the Bible means. Read the definition of the Hebrew word again: "a place guarded by waking or a watch, in the widest sense, even of a mere encampment or post".

The Hebrew word means a settlement with a guard. That's all. @MeganC is on the right track noting that cities were defined by their defensive structures, but again bear in mind that in a less civilised context even a small settlement without a wall would need a watchman - and it is the presence of a watchman that makes it a "city", whether or not he has a wall to stand on. So a "city" can even be just what we would call a homestead.

 

[FollowingHim]

This makes me think of the research that was done regarding the maximum number or true relationships one person can have, which I think is right around that 150 number. Dunbars number. Makes me wonder how many of the 300 were in Abrahams circle and how many were only in the circle of those in his circle, but were still aligned and following Abraham and his God. 10's, 50's, 100's 1000's

And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan.

They weren't people who just decided to follow him into war because they knew him. They were his own trained servants - the workers in his farming enterprise, the members of his tribe. The same people who are later referred to in chapter 17 as being those "born in his house or bought with his money" and needing to be circumcised.

 

[steve]

They weren't people who just decided to follow him into war because they knew him. They were his own trained servants - the workers in his farming enterprise, the members of his tribe. The same people who are later referred to in chapter 17 as being those "born in his house or bought with his money" and needing to be circumcised.

An interesting point, in this thread, is that he was not appointed to this group, he built the group.
Of course he may well have inherited some of it.

Another point to consider is that when Lot’s group couldn’t get along with his, they separated with Lot going towards the cities.
Presumably he somehow traded away or lost his flocks, otherwise he would have returned to them after the destruction of the cities.

 

[MemeFan]

The Hebrew word means a settlement with a guard. That's all. @MeganC is on the right track noting that cities were defined by their defensive structures,

Sparta was one of greatest Greek cities and it was without walls or defense.

You see, it's natural to desire protection. So build walls. Not so fast. Enemy army can't allow you holding fortress their backs, so they will have to seize it.

Defense isn't key defining feature of cities. Look today, will have cities and where are their walls? I would say city is place will natural social division of labor, something which village lacks (farmers).

Regarding Hebrew word "city", it would also imply Hadrian walls and Roman limes on Rhine and Danube are cities, so translation is nonsense in general sense.

Can we take that these kings were from sedementary tribes or these were nomads with some "central storage locations" (naturally guarded)?

There is theory that cities started as meeting place for nomads or some sort of storage location. With time, more people would start arriving and eventually some decided to live there full time.

 

[MemeFan]

They weren't people who just decided to follow him into war because they knew him. They were his own trained servants - the workers in his farming enterprise, the members of his tribe. The same people who are later referred to in chapter 17 as being those "born in his house or bought with his money" and needing to be circumcised.

Wasn't Abraham nomad his whole life?

Nomatic life isn't suitable for farming.

 

[MemeFan]

European and Holy Land cities were at one time defined by their city walls. Towns or settlements had no such defensive works.

I doubt it. Even just setting palisade would be enough to stop suprise night raid. Enough to save whole settlement.

 

[steve]

Wasn't Abraham nomad his whole life?

Nomatic life isn't suitable for farming.

There is more than one kind of farming.

 

[FollowingHim]

Wasn't Abraham nomad his whole life?

Nomatic life isn't suitable for farming.

Language difference. In British English, "farming" means both crops and livestock. In American English "farming" refers to cropping and "ranching" means keeping livestock. I have a farm, but if I were in America I'd call it a ranch. I'd call Abraham a farmer, the Americans would call him a rancher. You know what we both mean.

 

[steve]

Language difference. In British English, "farming" means both crops and livestock. In American English "farming" refers to cropping and "ranching" means keeping livestock. I have a farm, but if I were in America I'd call it a ranch. I'd call Abraham a farmer, the Americans would call him a rancher. You know what we both mean.

Not really, dairy farmers are not ranchers.
Chicken farmers aren’t either.
Hog farmers?
Smaller beef operations are not ranches.
For most of our history farming included both livestock and crops. The standard homestead claims were 160 acres in the Midwest, hardly a ranch.
Ranches are in more arid or mountainous areas where grazing is best use of the land.

 

[IndianaLife]

Just my two cents here is when you're rural you have a lot more freedom but also a lot less convenience.

Exactly, if we need something it's an hour trip minimum, even groceries. It's a pain if you need something fast "oh the sump failed, well you sit here and manually pump while I go drive an hour and a half roundtrip to get a new pump" or anything else you could possibly need.

And we lose power a dozen plus times a year.

And the recent 13 inches of snow had us stuck at home for the better part of a week.

House is on fire? It's not going to make it. A neighbor's shed caught on fire this summer, and 3 fire vehicles rolled up to spray the ashes almost exactly a half hour after it was called in. Imagine if that was someone that cut themselves badly or had a heart attack... you're dead.

 

[IndianaLife]

Language difference. In British English, "farming" means both crops and livestock. In American English "farming" refers to cropping and "ranching" means keeping livestock. I have a farm, but if I were in America I'd call it a ranch. I'd call Abraham a farmer, the Americans would call him a rancher. You know what we both mean.

I am surrounded by farms; my wife's father was a *dairy farmer*. I don't know anyone that refers to themselves as a "rancher" or having a "ranch". That's some out west cowboy talk.

 

[Mark C]

...I don't know anyone that refers to themselves as a "rancher" or having a "ranch". That's some out west cowboy talk.

I do.

We have a small ranch, and goats and chickens. A garden. Even a runway.


But no irrigated fields, no farm crops. Definitely not a 'farm.'

 

[MeganC]

I am surrounded by farms; my wife's father was a *dairy farmer*. I don't know anyone that refers to themselves as a "rancher" or having a "ranch". That's some out west cowboy talk.

A farm is a place where you have tended pastures or you grow crops. A ranch is where you might have some tilled acreage but mostly you're grazing bison, cattle, sheep, horses, or even goats.