APOD and General Astronomy Discussion Forum
https://asterisk.apod.com/
ROFL, if the shoe fits.fesses - possessing the third part of the escutcheon
It is very evident who and what you are, as for your lunch money, who cares? IrrelevantI'm the new kid on the block and you're trying to size me up
(and possibly steal my lunch money).
emc wrote:I still didn't see Venus or Jupiter this morning
Whew! Thanks for the reassurance...!!! I get stressed easilyCase wrote:And you'll need a clear view at the horizon
How is Venus more protected by the sun?Arramon wrote: We won't lose any gas giants any time soon (or venus even, which ironically is more protected by the sun than anything).
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).neufer wrote: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)
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).neufer wrote:neufer wrote:http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap080202.html
.
Star of Bethlehem?
Near Occultation - Venus & Jupiter , June 17, 2 BC
Even as a 5-year-old nascent astronomer, I had to bite my lip about this in Sunday School.Chris Peterson wrote:a star in the east is hardly a useful guide to people traveling west
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).Chris Peterson wrote:a star can't appear over any one place without appearing over every place (at the scale of the Middle East).
If you consider THIS "an exercise in futility" then what MUST you make of my attemptChris Peterson wrote:It is almost certainly a mistake (not to mention an exercise in futility)neufer wrote:neufer wrote:http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap080202.html
.
Star of Bethlehem?
Near Occultation - Venus & Jupiter , June 17, 2 BC
to attempt to connect the "Star of Bethlehem" to an actual astronomical event like this.
No less remarkable than the arrangement of the Moon, Jupiter, Mercury and Mars on 7 July 62 BCChris Peterson wrote: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).
The helical rising of Sirius heralded Nile floods would probably have occurredChris Peterson wrote: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.
A "star" seen in the WNW by "wise men from the east"Chris Peterson wrote: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).
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 -7.2I 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.neufer wrote: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.Chris Peterson wrote: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 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).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 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.Chris Peterson wrote:neufer wrote: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).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.
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.neufer wrote:However, numerous historical events from the ancient world are recorded in only one source, yet their veracity is seldom questioned.
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.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).
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?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.
Me too, but most Egyptology papers use "helical". While "heliacal" certainly seems a more accurate description, both are acceptable usage.apodman wrote:I prefer "he·li·a·cal" to "he·li·cal".
Regarding previously discussed attributes of "science of the continuous present" compared with "science of the past" ...Chris Peterson wrote:... Egyptology papers ...
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).apodman wrote: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.
Do you think that I have "a religious agenda?"Chris Peterson wrote: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.neufer wrote:However, numerous historical events from the ancient world are recorded in only one source, yet their veracity is seldom questioned.
The messiah would show up only after Herod rebuilt the Temple in 19 BC.Chris Peterson wrote: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).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).
Only 1 in 12 conjunctions occur in Leo and very few of these qualify as "Near Occultations."Chris Peterson wrote:Since conjunctions are pretty common,
<<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.>>Chris Peterson wrote: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.
Most astrologers were obligated to predict things but (like the Magi, themselves) they didn't necessarily have to stick around after wards.Chris Peterson wrote: These things happened all the time, and most astrologers were smart enough to only predict things that were likely. Doing otherwise could be fatal.
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.Chris Peterson wrote: But there is no historical record of any messianic interpretation of an astronomical or astrological event around the beginning of the first millennium.
I have no problem with "Matthew" being an ex post facto interpretation.Chris Peterson wrote: 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.
By which you mean that the author(s) was not the former tax collector who was befriended by Jesus.Chris Peterson wrote:By "Matthew" I'll assume you mean the author of Matthew's gospel (who was not, in fact, Matthew).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.
"Matthew" could well have been a group of scholars with a wide range of knowledge including Greek & astrologyChris Peterson wrote: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.
There was no explicit Jewish astrology tradition.Chris Peterson wrote: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?
The "Bethlehem" birth of Jesus of Nazareth was NOT a real event; however, the conjunction was.Chris Peterson wrote: 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?
Good stories don't materialize out of thin air.Chris Peterson wrote: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.
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).Chris Peterson wrote:... you can read the paper here ...
Not that I've seen. I was referring to the author of Matthew.neufer wrote:Do you think that I have "a religious agenda?"
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.(What is your training as a historian, by the by?)
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.The messiah would show up only after Herod rebuilt the Temple in 19 BC.
.
Three interesting astrological events occurred shortly after 19 BC