Venus & Jupiter (APOD 02 Feb 2008)

[emc]

Just wanted to be number 50... and let you know that I still didn't see Venus or Jupiter this morning... starting to get worried... If we did lose either or both planets, I'm almost positive it would have detrimental effects on earth

[BMAONE23]

Don't Forget...some of the most interesting mushrooms can be found under bovine fesses and rotten redwood logs

[FieryIce]

fesses - possessing the third part of the escutcheon

ROFL, if the shoe fits.

Et’s and UFO’s are off limits, conspiracy theory is just a fact.

I'm the new kid on the block and you're trying to size me up
(and possibly steal my lunch money).

It is very evident who and what you are, as for your lunch money, who cares? Irrelevant

[Case]

I still didn't see Venus or Jupiter this morning

Jupiter is on the other side of Venus now, compared to the APOD image. And you'll need a clear view at the horizon, as a distant tree line or hill can easily hide the first 10° altitude, to see them before they disappear in the glow of dawn.

[emc]

And you'll need a clear view at the horizon

Whew! Thanks for the reassurance...!!! I get stressed easily

Nice image!

[craterchains]

neufer,

You obviously know the routine of information manipulation by deception, misrepresentation, misdirection, and so on. We have seen those tactics in use on these forums for years now, nothing new there. Conspiracy? What conspiracy? Facts are after all, facts. Knowledge of such secret agendas that get labeled "conspiracy theories", by those that don't want certain things discussed, causes me to wonder about who is afraid of who, and why? Fascinating.

and yes, , , those planets are still there, , lol

[Arramon]

*slaps everyone with a fat Jupiter*

emc:

We won't lose any gas giants any time soon (or venus even, which ironically is more protected by the sun than anything). It would take a great disturbance (a rogue star/planet?) in our solar realm to affect the sun's condition or any of the other guardian gas planets within their own realms.

Comets, asteroids, all that debris floatin around the system has already been minimized by the creation of our system's worlds. So unless some KBO came bumbling in from regions beyond neptune and pluto that we don't know much about yet (or heaven forbid an Oort object even), I wouldn't worry about any of the planets not being there when you wake. =b

The earth is just fat and sometimes its pudge gets in the way of any good views offworld.

[emc]

Interesting what you can learn when strangers in different rooms only have a high tech typewriter, pictures and some cute emoticons to communicate with. It is far more challenging without face to face contact.

Speaking of far... I saw them with my own eyes this morning… however, Jupiter is “miles and miles” (many arc seconds) away from Venus now. I missed the closest encounter, but we needed the rain here in the south.

[emc]

We won't lose any gas giants any time soon (or venus even, which ironically is more protected by the sun than anything).

How is Venus more protected by the sun?

[neufer]

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap080202.html
.
Star of Bethlehem?
Near Occultation - Venus & Jupiter , June 17, 2 BC
http://www.go.ednet.ns.ca/~larry/planets/2bcocclt.htm

Code: Select all

Solar System: Tue -1 Jun 17 17:37 UTC ("Ur of the Chaldees" )
http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Solar

.             Right                   Distance    From 30°57'45"N 46°6'11"E:
.           Ascension    Declination      (AU)   Altitude Azimuth
Sun          5h 27m 37s   +23° 29.1'     1.017   -18.460  313.649 Set

Venus        8h 42m 49s   +19° 29.0'     0.656    15.878  283.517 Up
Jupiter      8h 43m 13s   +19° 27.2'     6.077    15.947  283.444 Up
.......................................................................
"Ur of the Chaldees" to Nazareth      Azimuth: 283.5°  (dist. 646 miles)

Persian astrologers probably would have been inspired by a close conjunction of Venus & Jupiter on June 17, 2 B.C. near Regulus). They may even have taken the time to travel to Jerusalem where they might have learned at the court of Herod about expectation of a Messiah to be born in the land of the Lion (Leo) of Judah: King David (i.e., Bethlehem).
.........................................
<<Regulus is Latin for 'prince' or 'little king'.
Persian astrologers around 3000 BC knew Regulus as Venant, one of the four 'royal stars'.>>
.....................................
<<The Persians found the Chaldeans masters of reading and writing, and especially versed in all forms of incantation, in sorcery, witchcraft, and the magical arts. Thus, in Greek, "Chaldean" came to acquire the meaning of "astrologer" (e.g. in Strabo). In this sense it is also used in the Book of Daniel (Dan. 1:4, 2:2ff.).>>

http://williams.best.vwh.net/gccalc.htm
"Ur of the Chaldees" : 30.9625, 46.103056
Nazareth: 32.701944,35.303333
--------------------------------------------

[Chris Peterson]

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap080202.html
.
Star of Bethlehem?
Near Occultation - Venus & Jupiter , June 17, 2 BC

It is almost certainly a mistake (not to mention an exercise in futility) to attempt to connect the "Star of Bethlehem" to an actual astronomical event like this. From a historical standpoint, the Jesus mythology wasn't constructed until many decades after his supposed lifetime. There's no evidence of an astronomical event that would carry enough significance to be remembered that long afterward (certainly, conjunctions were interesting to astrologers, but happen frequently enough to be generally unremarkable to most people).

Keeping in mind that the early Christian church co-opted already existing winter holidays, it seems more likely that the star story is derived from existing astrological/astronomical traditions- in particular, those of Egypt that held the rising of Sirius (in the east, of course) as the indicator of winter, heralded by the three wise men: the belt stars of Orion.

An astrological or calendrical explanation later converted to a supernatural physical one makes sense also since no physical event could behave as described: a star in the east is hardly a useful guide to people traveling west, and a star can't appear over any one place without appearing over every place (at the scale of the Middle East).

[apodman]

a star in the east is hardly a useful guide to people traveling west

Even as a 5-year-old nascent astronomer, I had to bite my lip about this in Sunday School.

a star can't appear over any one place without appearing over every place (at the scale of the Middle East).

This is what has led many to suggest that a****s in their u*********** f***** o*****s were the "star" (another reason to leave the subject alone).

[neufer]

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap080202.html
.
Star of Bethlehem?
Near Occultation - Venus & Jupiter , June 17, 2 BC

It is almost certainly a mistake (not to mention an exercise in futility)
to attempt to connect the "Star of Bethlehem" to an actual astronomical event like this.

If you consider THIS "an exercise in futility" then what MUST you make of my attempt
to connect the "Little Dumbbell Nebula" with the "Martian Popping Thing"

From a historical standpoint, the Jesus mythology wasn't constructed until many decades after his supposed lifetime. There's no evidence of an astronomical event that would carry enough significance to be remembered that long afterward (certainly, conjunctions were interesting to astrologers, but happen frequently enough to be generally unremarkable to most people).

No less remarkable than the arrangement of the Moon, Jupiter, Mercury and Mars on 7 July 62 BC

Astrological events near "Regulus" : the "little king" (Latin) that, in fact,
pertain to Kings (and/or the Lion of Judah) is sort of interesting in itself.

<<In Christian tradition, the lion is often assumed to represent Jesus. Many Christian organizations and ministries use the lion of Judah as their emblem or even their name. The phrase appears in the New Testament Book of Revelation 5:5; "And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.">>

Keeping in mind that the early Christian church co-opted already existing winter holidays, it seems more likely that the star story is derived from existing astrological/astronomical traditions- in particular, those of Egypt that held the rising of Sirius (in the east, of course) as the indicator of winter, heralded by the three wise men: the belt stars of Orion.

The helical rising of Sirius heralded Nile floods would probably have occurred
around June 17, 2 BC...so I don't see why these two situations need be contrasted.

An astrological or calendrical explanation later converted to a supernatural physical one makes sense also since no physical event could behave as described: a star in the east is hardly a useful guide to people traveling west, and a star can't appear over any one place without appearing over every place (at the scale of the Middle East).

A "star" seen in the WNW by "wise men from the east"
when THEY, themselves, were "in the east" may have guided them to travel west.

Matthew 1:1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king,
______ behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, Where is he
that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.

More problematic is the fact that June 17, 2 BC was after the days of Herod the king.
-------------------------------------------------
<<The scholarly consensus, based on Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews is that Herod died at the end of March or early April in 4 BC. Josephus wrote that Herod died 37 years after being named as King by the Romans, and 34 years after the death of Antigonus*. This would imply that he died in 4 BC. This is confirmed by the fact that his three sons, between whom his kingdom was divided, dated their rule from 4 BC. For instance, he states that Herod Philip II's death took place after a 37-year reign in the 20th year of Tiberius, which would imply that he took over on Herod's death in 4 BC. In addition, Josephus wrote that Herod died after a lunar eclipse, and a partial eclipse took place in 4 BC. It has been suggested that 5 BC might be a more likely date – there were two total eclipses in that year.>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great

Code: Select all

http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEcat/LE-0099-0000.html
.
.               U.T.
.            Greatest    Saros          Pen.   Umb. S.D. S.D.  GST    Moon  Moon
.     Date    Eclipse Type #    Gamma   Mag.   Mag. Par  Tot  (0 UT)   RA    Dec
.                                                                h     h    °
 -0004 Mar 23  18:20   T+  61  -0.022  2.847  1.818 111m  51m  11.9  12.06  -0.4
 -0004 Sep 15  20:10   T+  66  -0.081  2.732  1.717 109m  50m  23.5  23.44  -3.8
 -0003 Mar 13  00:40   P   71  -0.797  1.454  0.367  70m   -   11.2  11.38   3.2
 -0003 Sep 05  11:06   P   76   0.622  1.720  0.743  84m   -   22.8  22.77  -7.2

<<* Antigonus II Mattathias was the only anointed King of the Jews (messiah) historically recorded to have been scourged and crucified by the Romans. Cassius Dio's Roman History records: "These people [the Jews] Antony entrusted to a certain Herod to govern; but Antigonus he bound to a cross and scourged, a punishment no other king had suffered at the hands of the Romans, and so slew him.">>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antigonus_the_Hasmonean
--------------------------------------------

[Chris Peterson]

Keeping in mind that the early Christian church co-opted already existing winter holidays, it seems more likely that the star story is derived from existing astrological/astronomical traditions- in particular, those of Egypt that held the rising of Sirius (in the east, of course) as the indicator of winter, heralded by the three wise men: the belt stars of Orion.

The helical rising of Sirius heralded Nile floods would probably have occurred around June 17, 2 BC...so I don't see why these two situations need be contrasted.

I wasn't referring to the helical rising of Sirius (which as you note, was a predictor of the flooding of the Nile), but the evening rising of Sirius. Around the winter solstice is when Sirius is first seen in the evening sky, right after sunset. An element of the Egyptian calendar system included the identification of this rising with winter, and it was heralded by the visibility of the three stars of Orion's belt. Many cultures have associated Sirius with the "winter star" because of when it first rises, and its subsequent prominence throughout winter.

A "star" seen in the WNW by "wise men from the east" when THEY, themselves, were "in the east" may have guided them to travel west.

Matthew 1:1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king,
______ behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, Where is he
that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.

The biggest problem from a rigorous historical standpoint is we have nothing other than Matthew to guide us. Nowhere else do we find anything about this in the New Testament, or in historical writings. Matthew is generally assumed to be the newest of the gospels, and probably the least useful historically. Its author was apparently working in the first century, and was mainly retelling Mark- with a few new things thrown in. As the early church developed (and with anybody from its earliest days now dead), it is reasonable to expect its writers to start adding details. Of course, the tale of three magi and a miraculous star makes for great telling- which is, after all, an important goal in religious writings (far more important that historical accuracy).

[neufer]

A "star" seen in the WNW by "wise men from the east" when THEY, themselves, were "in the east" may have guided them to travel west.

Matthew 1:1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king,
______ behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, Where is he
that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.

The biggest problem from a rigorous historical standpoint is we have nothing other than Matthew to guide us. Nowhere else do we find anything about this in the New Testament, or in historical writings. Matthew is generally assumed to be the newest of the gospels, and probably the least useful historically. Its author was apparently working in the first century, and was mainly retelling Mark- with a few new things thrown in. As the early church developed (and with anybody from its earliest days now dead), it is reasonable to expect its writers to start adding details. Of course, the tale of three magi and a miraculous star makes for great telling- which is, after all, an important goal in religious writings (far more important that historical accuracy).

<<The historical accuracy of [Herod's "Massacre of the Innocents" from Matthew] has been questioned, since although Herod was certainly guilty of many brutal acts, including the killing of two of his own sons, no other source from the period makes any reference to such a massacre.

However, numerous historical events from the ancient world are recorded in only one source, yet their veracity is seldom questioned.>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great
--------------------------------------------------------
I, for one, question the rigorous veracity of almost all "historical events"
which have anything less than hundreds of sources.
(Scientific "facts" , most holocausts, etc. do, indeed, have hundreds of sources.)

I would never question, however, the "meaningfulness" of ANY recorded event
(at least, meaningful to those scribes who bothered to write the stuff down
& preserved it) whether or not it was actually "historical."
--------------------------------------------------
I believe:
1) there were numerous astrologers in the Middle East in 2 B.C.
2) those astrologers were specifically obligated to interpret conjunctions
3) and the bright & close 2 B.C. conjunction of Jupiter & Venus in Leo
. has a rather obvious interpretation (IMO) of announcing
. the birth of the expected messiah (King of Judah).
--------------------------------------------------
A supernova would just have confused astrologers (possibly causing their death)
while a comet would be universally interpreted as an evil omen.

A subtle & predictable conjunction, however, would probably
have gone unnoticed EXCEPT for Middle Eastern astrologers
with a firm knowledge of Jewish messianic prophesies.

Certainly, Matthew had a firm knowledge of Jewish messianic prophesies. and
the asterism of Jupiter & Venus in Leo would not have gone unnoticed in his gospel.

[apodman]

I prefer "he·li·a·cal" to "he·li·cal".

[Chris Peterson]

However, numerous historical events from the ancient world are recorded in only one source, yet their veracity is seldom questioned.

As a trained historian, I'd have to disagree with that assessment. Historical events found in only one source are almost always questioned. One important factor in determining veracity is motive. A civil document (e.g. tax or property records) is likely to be treated as accurate since there is seldom a reason for such facts to be misrecorded. Writings from a historian (e.g. Josephus) with a strong record of corroborated accuracy will also tend to be believed in the absence of contradictory evidence. However, writings with the specific intent of furthering a religious agenda, and which describe miraculous events as well as demonstrably wrong facts are not likely to be taken too seriously without corroborative evidence.

I believe:
1) there were numerous astrologers in the Middle East in 2 B.C.
2) those astrologers were specifically obligated to interpret conjunctions
3) and the bright & close 2 B.C. conjunction of Jupiter & Venus in Leo
. has a rather obvious interpretation (IMO) of announcing
. the birth of the expected messiah (King of Judah).

There was no prophecy that could be used to predict when a messiah would show up; generally, the belief was that it would be "in my lifetime" (just as this is the most common belief amongst fundamentalist Christians today). Since conjunctions are pretty common, I don't think this would be "obviously" interpreted as heralding the Messiah. More likely it would be seen as a sign of something more mundane, like a new king, a war, etc. These things happened all the time, and most astrologers were smart enough to only predict things that were likely. Doing otherwise could be fatal. But there is no historical record of any messianic interpretation of an astronomical or astrological event around the beginning of the first millennium. Only an ex post facto (maybe absent any facto) interpretation made nearly a century later, and found in only one source- a source with an overt agenda that was distinctly non-historical.

A subtle & predictable conjunction, however, would probably
have gone unnoticed EXCEPT for Middle Eastern astrologers
with a firm knowledge of Jewish messianic prophesies.

Certainly, Matthew had a firm knowledge of Jewish messianic prophesies. and
the asterism of Jupiter & Venus in Leo would not have gone unnoticed in his gospel.

By "Matthew" I'll assume you mean the author of Matthew's gospel (who was not, in fact, Matthew). Yes, the author seems to have been a student of Jewish tradition and prophesy (and was probably Jewish himself). However, familiarity with Jewish prophesy alone isn't enough. He would also have needed a familiarity with astrology and astrological records, which would have been far less common. If the author of Matthew was an astrologer, or was able to interpret century-old astrological records, why wouldn't he simply say it was a conjunction? If he was trying to justify the birth of Jesus against prophecy (and few Jews would accept that there was any such prophecy involving a star), then why bother connecting it to a real event at all?

To me, it simply doesn't hold together. I share your skepticism of historical sources, but in this case my reading of the events (such as they are), along with a pretty good idea of the motives behind the story, makes me feel rather strongly that the entire thing is a fiction, and therefore looking for astronomical events over a couple of decades at the start of the first millennium isn't a very productive use of time.

[Chris Peterson]

I prefer "he·li·a·cal" to "he·li·cal".

Me too, but most Egyptology papers use "helical". While "heliacal" certainly seems a more accurate description, both are acceptable usage.

[apodman]

... Egyptology papers ...

Regarding previously discussed attributes of "science of the continuous present" compared with "science of the past" ...

Isn't it interesting that a culture gets its own "ology"? Strictly speaking, "ology" denotes "study" as opposed to "science", but the implication of science is there.

Egyptology seems more like forensic history than science to me. Rightly or wrongly, the "ology" in this case has always appeared to me to be promoting this subject as science (and investigators as scientists), begging the question of why it needs to be promoted as such and who thinks so.

Maybe it's just my own odd perspective talking.

[Chris Peterson]

Egyptology seems more like forensic history than science to me. Rightly or wrongly, the "ology" in this case has always appeared to me to be promoting this subject as science (and investigators as scientists), begging the question of why it needs to be promoted as such and who thinks so.

I presented a paper at an Egyptology conference a few years ago making roughly this point (you can read the paper here if you're so inclined). I certainly didn't go so far as to say that archaeology isn't science, but rather that it is a very different kind of science than astronomy. Of course, the -logy suffix isn't limited to science; it can also refer to any body of knowledge with no requirement that it be obtained by scientific methods, or even the simple study of a subject (consider: theology).

I like your term of forensic history, but there's no reason such a subject can't be approached as a science. In many respects archaeology parallels astronomy as a field of study with only limited opportunities to perform controlled experiments.

[neufer]

However, numerous historical events from the ancient world are recorded in only one source, yet their veracity is seldom questioned.

As a trained historian, I'd have to disagree with that assessment. Historical events found in only one source are almost always questioned. One important factor in determining veracity is motive. A civil document (e.g. tax or property records) is likely to be treated as accurate since there is seldom a reason for such facts to be misrecorded. Writings from a historian (e.g. Josephus) with a strong record of corroborated accuracy will also tend to be believed in the absence of contradictory evidence. However, writings with the specific intent of furthering a religious agenda, and which describe miraculous events as well as demonstrably wrong facts are not likely to be taken too seriously without corroborative evidence.

Do you think that I have "a religious agenda?"
(What is your training as a historian, by the by?)

I believe:
1) there were numerous astrologers in the Middle East in 2 B.C.
2) those astrologers were specifically obligated to interpret conjunctions
3) and the bright & close 2 B.C. conjunction of Jupiter & Venus in Leo
. has a rather obvious interpretation (IMO) of announcing
. the birth of the expected messiah (King of Judah).

There was no prophecy that could be used to predict when a messiah would show up; generally, the belief was that it would be "in my lifetime" (just as this is the most common belief amongst fundamentalist Christians today).

The messiah would show up only after Herod rebuilt the Temple in 19 BC.
.
Three interesting astrological events occurred shortly after 19 BC
......................................
*Feb. 20, 6 B.C. , when Mars, Jupiter and Saturn aligned in the constellation Pisces.
*April 17, 6 B.C. , when the sun, Jupiter, the moon and Saturn aligned in the constellation Aries, while Venus and Mars were in neighboring constellations.
*June 17, 2 B.C., when Jupiter and Venus were closely aligned in Leo.

Since conjunctions are pretty common,

Only 1 in 12 conjunctions occur in Leo and very few of these qualify as "Near Occultations."

I don't think this would be "obviously" interpreted as heralding the Messiah. More likely it would be seen as a sign of something more mundane, like a new king, a war, etc.

<<After Herod's death, his kingdom was peacefully divided among three of his sons, namely Herod Archelaus, Herod Antipas, and Herod Philip II, who ruled as tetrarchs rather than kings.>>

Herod's grandson was a king (and candidate Messiah), however: <<Agrippa I also called the Great (10 BC - 44 AD), King of the Jews, was the grandson of Herod the Great, After Passover in 44, Agrippa went to Caesarea, where he had games performed in honor of Claudius. In the midst of his elation Agrippa saw an owl perched over his head. During his imprisonment by Tiberius a similar omen had been interpreted as portending his speedy release, with the warning that should he behold the same sight again, he would die within five days. He was immediately smitten with violent pains, scolded his friends for flattering him and accepted his imminent death. He experienced heart pains and a pain in his abdomen, and died after five days. This account is a similar to the version in Acts 12, which adds he was eaten by worms.>>

These things happened all the time, and most astrologers were smart enough to only predict things that were likely. Doing otherwise could be fatal.

Most astrologers were obligated to predict things but (like the Magi, themselves) they didn't necessarily have to stick around after wards.

But there is no historical record of any messianic interpretation of an astronomical or astrological event around the beginning of the first millennium.

I imagine there were dozens of messianic interpretations of an astronomical or astrological events around the beginning of the first millennium from which "Matthew" could pick & choose and then discard the rest.

Only an ex post facto (maybe absent any facto) interpretation made nearly a century later, and found in only one source- a source with an overt agenda that was distinctly non-historical.

I have no problem with "Matthew" being an ex post facto interpretation.

However, I still believe:
1) there were numerous astrologers in the Middle East in 2 B.C.
2) those astrologers were specifically obligated to interpret conjunctions
3) and the bright & close 2 B.C. conjunction of Jupiter & Venus in Leo
. has a rather obvious interpretation (IMO) of announcing
. the birth of the expected messiah (King of Judah).

A subtle & predictable conjunction, however, would probably
have gone unnoticed EXCEPT for Middle Eastern astrologers
with a firm knowledge of Jewish messianic prophesies.

Certainly, Matthew had a firm knowledge of Jewish messianic prophesies. and
the asterism of Jupiter & Venus in Leo would not have gone unnoticed in his gospel.

By "Matthew" I'll assume you mean the author of Matthew's gospel (who was not, in fact, Matthew).

By which you mean that the author(s) was not the former tax collector who was befriended by Jesus.

Yes, the author seems to have been a student of Jewish tradition and prophesy (and was probably Jewish himself). However, familiarity with Jewish prophesy alone isn't enough. He would also have needed a familiarity with astrology and astrological records, which would have been far less common.

"Matthew" could well have been a group of scholars with a wide range of knowledge including Greek & astrology

If the author of Matthew was an astrologer, or was able to interpret century-old astrological records, why wouldn't he simply say it was a conjunction?

There was no explicit Jewish astrology tradition.
"Sirius rising" was a concept picked up during Egyptian captivity.
"Venus/Lucifer" was a concept picked up during Babylonian captivity.

If he was trying to justify the birth of Jesus against prophecy (and few Jews would accept that there was any such prophecy involving a star), then why bother connecting it to a real event at all?

The "Bethlehem" birth of Jesus of Nazareth was NOT a real event; however, the conjunction was.

To me, it simply doesn't hold together. I share your skepticism of historical sources, but in this case my reading of the events (such as they are), along with a pretty good idea of the motives behind the story, makes me feel rather strongly that the entire thing is a fiction, and therefore looking for astronomical events over a couple of decades at the start of the first millennium isn't a very productive use of time.

Good stories don't materialize out of thin air.
They generally evolve out of other stories to fit the needs & current events.
Some of those current events were astrological.

[apodman]

... you can read the paper here ...

I hadn't considered the problem popular pseudo-science poses for archaeology and historical anthropology. As a reader around here, I thought of it only as a heckler of serious astrophysical cosmology. It makes sense though that pseudo-science more easily becomes widespread than science, since it doesn't need to pass the same rigors on the way to publication, so I expect the imbalance to continue indefinitely. Maybe "we" should create and promote a selective pseudo-science-free search engine (unless there already is one, in which case I want to hear about it).

---

Regarding the seasonal quest to identify the Star of Bethlehem, I see it as having less to do with historical viability and more to do with present day sociology, attracting members of the Christmas culture to the aesthetics of the Astronomy culture - an opportunity to put an article in your publication that will attract a larger readership. That sounds a little cynical, but I mean that it's a good thing. I see this in a similar light as attracting members of various Folk cultures to the socio-historical aspects of the Astronomy culture with tales of moons, constellations, and star names.

[Chris Peterson]

Do you think that I have "a religious agenda?"

Not that I've seen. I was referring to the author of Matthew.

(What is your training as a historian, by the by?)

I took two Bachelor of Science degrees, one in History and one in Applied Physics. My history theses involved childhood in the Middle Ages, and political party development around the time of the Civil War- nothing Biblical. But the program was pretty rigorous, and I've studied a lot of ancient Near East history.

The messiah would show up only after Herod rebuilt the Temple in 19 BC.
.
Three interesting astrological events occurred shortly after 19 BC

I'd have to say that I don't find these (post analyzed) interpretations of Old Testament prophecy any more convincing than Nostradamus. A lot is taken out of context, and what's left can pretty much be read to mean anything you want it to.

[bystander]

I think the discussion here is seriously off topic and must remind the posters here that religion is prohibited by the rules of this forum. I am locking this topic before it digresses any further.