PLEASE NOTE:
*
CCNet 130/2001 - 5 December 2001
================================
(1) PLANETARY SOCIETY NOW ACCEPTING APPLICATIONS FOR SHOEMAKER
NEO GRANTS
Ron Baalke <baalke@jpl.nasa.gov>
(2) THE STAR OF BETHLEHEM
Mark Kidger <mrk@ll.iac.es>
(3) ESCHATOLOGY AND CHRONOLOGY
Clark Whelton <cwhelton@mindspring.com>
(4) NOT A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT
Duncan Steel <D.I.Steel@salford.ac.uk>
(5) SEASONS IN SPACE? AMAZING!
Malcolm Miller <stellar2@cyberone.com.au>
(6) AND FINALLY: AUSTRALIAN TEACHER BANNED FOR NOT BELIEVING IN
SANTA
Xtramsn.co.nz, 4 December 2001
=================
(1) PLANETARY SOCIETY NOW ACCEPTING APPLICATIONS FOR SHOEMAKER
NEO GRANTS
>From Ron Baalke <baalke@jpl.nasa.gov>
http://www.planetary.org/html/news/articlearchive/headlines/2001/neograntann.html
Planetary Society Now Accepting Applications for the next round
of Shoemaker
NEO Grants
by Melanie Melton
Planetary Society
December 3 , 2001
The Planetary Society is now accepting applications for the next
round of
Shoemaker Near Earth Object (NEO) grants.
Those amateur or professional astronomers interested in studying
Near Earth
Objects can apply for the grant by filling out an application
form and
sending it to The Planetary Society by March 31, 2002.
The application form can by found here:
http://www.planetary.org/html/neo/SocietyProjects/ShoemakerGrant/NEOGrantForm.html
The Shoemaker NEO grant program was established by the Society in
1997, in
an effort to advance the study of Near Earth Objects. Grant
recipients in
the past have been both individuals and groups, amateur and
professional
astronomers, all interested in studying asteroids and comets in
Earth's
vicinity.
For this round of grants, the Society's international advisory
group
reviewing the proposals will be considering three different
categories:
Observation Programs, NEO Research Programs, and International
Collaboration
in NEO Observations.
With several asteroid detection programs in place at major
observatories
around the country, there has been a dramatic increase in
asteroid detection
within the last year, creating a long list of objects in need of
follow-up
observations. As a result, special consideration will be given to
observers
interested in conducting follow-up NEO observations, especially
those
capable of detecting objects fainter than magnitude V= 19.5 or
so.
* For more information about the Shoemaker NEO Grant
Program:
http://www.planetary.org/html/neo/SocietyProjects/ShoemakerGrant/NEOGrantindex.html
* For NEO Grant Guidelines:
http://www.planetary.org/html/neo/SocietyProjects/ShoemakerGrant/NEOGrantGuidelines.html
* For the application form:
http://www.planetary.org/html/neo/SocietyProjects/ShoemakerGrant/NEOGrantForm.html
============================
* LETTERS TO THE MODERATOR *
============================
(2) THE STAR OF BETHLEHEM
>From Mark Kidger <mrk@ll.iac.es>
Dear Benny:
I would like to make a slightly delayed response to two recent
submissions
on the Star of Bethlehem: from the Bible Society (November 29th)
and from
Scott Raeburn (December 3rd)
Readers in the U.K. and (I guess) those with access to the BBC by
satellite
may be interested to hear that the next BBC "Sky at
Night" to be broadcast
on Sunday December 9th will feature a debate between Patrick
Moore, David
Hughes and myself on the Star of Bethlehem. As we defends
radically different views (Patrick that it was a Cyrillid meteor
stream or
two bright bolides, David that it was the 7BC Jupiter-Saturn
triple
conjunction and myself that it was the 5BC object that was
probably a nova),
this may be an interesting meeting of minds.
The chronology of Biblical events is complicated and even more so
when there
are mistakes and false clues in the evidence.
Scott Raeburn is correct when he says that Dionisius missed the
year zero.
This is often referred to as the Year 0K problem (zero, not
"oh"). Even
though we say that this was a mistake by Dionisius, it was not
his fault
that there is no Roman numeral for zero and the Romans did
apparently not
use this number. What he misses is the second and more important
dating
error, which Dionisius made, namely that when counting the reigns
of Roman
Emperors he included Augustus Caesar correctly but forgot that
Augustus had
also reigned for 4 years under the name of Octavian. Together the
two errors
add up to the famous 5-year error in the Christian calendar.
If we assume that Dionisius was correct, apart from these two
known errors,
then we shift the date of the Nativity back to 5BC. This is
consonant with
the accepted range of dates that the Bible Society submission
states from
7-4BC.
Curiously, I have never seen any suggestion that Dionisius had
additional
errors in his work that would cast 5BC into doubt as a date.
Given that
there is very good evidence that King Herod died in late March or
early
April 4BC if there were no other errors in Dionisius's work we
have a
pleasing agreement in the dates.
So why is there further doubt? Part of it is for historical
reasons. Luke's
Gospel opens its description of the Nativity with a series of
statements
that are described generally as "contextual clues" to
the dating of the
Nativity. One of these states that Quirinius was Governor of
Syria at the
time. We know that Quirinius was not Governor of Syria until 6AD,
thus this
clue caused some consternation as it contradicts Dionisius's
chronology
completely. David Hughes gave a possible explanation in a seminal
review (1)
in which he notes that Quirinius was Governor's Legate in Syria
from 6-5BC
under the Governor Saturninus and thus Luke's text may be an
error.
A second problem is the famous census. Three are known, the
closest in date
being one that was ordered in 8BC. An 8BC order to census is
inconsistent
with a 5BC Nativity (3 years to carry out Augustus's order seems
excessive
in a Roman Empire with excellent communications between the
provinces and
Rome) and would appear to support a date for the Nativity around
7BC. It
also contradicts the statement that the census coincided with
Quirinius's
governorship.
What seems to be less well known though is the fact that the 8BC
call to
census was for Roman citizens, which Joseph most certainly was
not. This
region was a Roman Protectorate with a certain degree of autonomy
and its
people were not granted the privilege of Roman citizenship. Why
would a Jew
be required to respond to a census exclusively for Roman
citizens? The most
likely explanation is that the 8BC call to census was not the one
that was
referred to by Luke. Similarly, Luke's statement that "the
whole world" was
called to census is also inconsistent with the 8BC Romans-only
census,
although this may simply be typical Roman hyperbole.
In other words, the confusion between sources and clues is one
reason why
few people will give a single date with confidence as being the
year of the
Nativity. In these circumstances I am personally happy to believe
Dionisius.
Incidentally, "Exiguus" was his own way of paying
tribute to an earlier
Dionisius from the 4th Century who Dionisius Exiguus considered
to be
greater than himself so, rather than being "Dennis the
Short"; a better
translation is "The Lesser Dennis".
As far as the date of the year was concerned, many different
versions have
been given for the date of the Nativity. Dionisius was writing
more than 500
years later and it seems very unlikely that he had any special
knowledge or
insight into the problem that has since been lost. Dionisius was
actually
using a date that had been established at least 200 years earlier
according
to Finnegan (2).
In fact, there are other very good reasons to disbelieve the
December 25th
date. The contextual reason is the description of shepherds
watching their
flocks by night on the hills. The hills around Bethlehem suffer
from
moderately cold and wet winters and in some years heavy snow may
fall. It is
unlikely that the biblical shepherds would have kept their flocks
in the
open at this time of year - more probably they would have been
under cover
as pointed out by Keller (3) or, at very least, taken to
low-level winter
pastures. Similarly, there would be no real need for all-night
vigils at
most times of year. When the shepherds would have maintained
all-night
vigils would be in spring, at lambing time, to aid ewes in
distress. This
implies March, April and possibly early May. Humphreys (4) goes
even further
and suggests that the biblical description of Jesus as "the
holy lamb of
God" suggests that the Nativity may have occurred in the day
that the
Passover lambs were selected (sunset of April 14th to sunset of
15th 5BC).
A second strong reason to disbelieve the December 25th date is
that this
probably is a christianisation of a long established pagan
festival. The
feast of Saturnalia, that celebrated the passing of the shortest
day, was a
long established tradition. Curiously, many of its elements
correspond to
our modern Christmas traditions (e.g. the giving and receiving of
presents,
decoration of houses with green branches, a surfeit of eating and
drinking
and processions). As Saturnalia was a popular public holiday the
early
Christian church preferred to adapt it and make it into a
Christian
celebration than to make the highly unpopular move to abolish it.
Saturnalia
was thus transformed into the second most important date in the
new
Christian calendar that Dionisius Exiguus was charged with
organising.
In other words, December 25th was just an expedient date and
became
enshrined in the modern western calendar, but there is no special
reason for
believing that it was the true date of the Nativity and many for
believing
otherwise. There are much better reasons for accepting a date
around April
5BC, even if we do not accept in full the reasoning of Humphreys.
If this is
true, the millennium was actually some time in April 1996.
Chronology is extremely important as it provides important clues
as to the
possible nature of the Star of Bethlehem. Probably the most
important
"modern" study of the Star was carried out by Sinnott
(5). This study though
was enormously complicated by the uncertainty of the chronology
that was
available, leading to the need to search a range of almost 20
years. This
led Sinnott to select the June 17th 2BC conjunction of Jupiter
and Venus (it
has since been shown that from Western Europe an occultation of
Jupiter by
Venus would have occurred) as his candidate for the Star.
Although this
theory was very popular for many years and has recently been
revived Martin
(6), modern biblical chronology is usually regarded as ruling it
out and
thus only by questioning this chronology does the Jupiter-Venus
become a
candidate Star of Bethlehem.
By greatly reducing the possible range of dates for the Star of
Bethlehem
the task of finding plausible explanations is greatly simplified,
although
the sad truth is that we may never ever be able to prove which of
the
competing theories is the correct one.
The unsigned contribution from the Biblical Archaeology Society
(CCNet,
November 28th), makes a number of valid and extremely interesting
points,
although it falls into some possible errors of appreciation and
contains
some extremely serious errors of detail.
The writer takes the 7BC triple conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn
is the
reference point for the Star. This theory has been strongly
supported over
the years by Hughes (1) and is one of the most plausible
theories. On May
29th, September 29th and December 4th, 7BC the two planets were
in
conjunction, with a minimum separation of 58 arcminutes between
the two.
This separation was such that the magnitude -2.5 Jupiter and
magnitude 0
Saturn would have made an interesting, but not especially
spectacular
pairing.
Where the Biblical Archaeological Society text errs is in its
suggestion of
the rarity of such triple conjunctions. Conjunctions of Jupiter
and Saturn
occur every 20 years approximately and triple conjunctions may
occur with a
separation that ranges from 40 years to several centuries. The
statement
that "Since 7 B.C.E. a triple conjunction of Jupiter and
Saturn has been
observed only twice, in the years 786 and 1583" is simply
not correct. Nor
is the assertion that triple conjunctions in Pisces occur only
every 800
years. In fact, two triple conjunctions occurred in the 20th
century: in
1940 and in 1980/81 and between 1000BC and 1BC there were seven
triple
conjunctions of Jupiter and Saturn of which no less than three -
those of
980/979BC, 861/860BC and 7BC took place in the constellation of
Pisces (7).
Sceptics of the triple conjunction theory point out that the
previous triple
conjunction in 146/145BC, which took place in Cancer was far more
spectacular, with a minimum separation of just 10 arcminutes
between Jupiter
and Saturn. Hughes (1) suggested that the 7BC triple conjunction
was
significant because it took place in Pisces and noted the
constellation's
historical association with the Jews. If the astrological
association with
Pisces is the key to the Star of Bethlehem it is also possible to
argue that
the "normal" conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in
126BC, which occurred in
Pisces, was far more significant and spectacular because it was
just one
event of a series of close conjunctions and planetary massings of
Mercury,
Venus, Jupiter, Saturn and the Moon that occurred in a small
region of sky
between January 25th and April 24th, 126BC (7).
This astrological link with Pisces though has been strongly
questioned by
Molnar (8, 9) who casts severe doubt on the idea, pointing out
that this
idea dates back only to the 17th century and is of dubious
validity. Molnar
suggests that the constellation with links to the Jews in ancient
astrology
was Aries and not Pisces. Similarly, Sinnott (5) supports his
hypothesis
that the Star was the 2BC conjunction/occultation of Venus and
Jupiter in
Leo by suggesting a historical link between this constellation
and the Jews.
The triple conjunction theory suffers from other significant
problems. Both
Hughes (1) and the aforementioned Biblical Archaeological Society
text
suppose that the Magi came from Babylon. Although it is known
that Babylon
had advanced astronomy and strong links with Judaism through the
enslavement
of many thousands of Jews after the sack of Jerusalem around
586BC, there is
little or no direct evidence to link the Babylonians with a
messianic triple
conjunction. A description of the 7BC triple conjunction is found
in a
Babylonian almanac preserved on a tablet in the British Museum
that is
catalogued as BM 35429. BM 35429 is translated in Sachs &
Walker (10). The
tablet makes neither direct reference, nor allusion to the
conjunction. A
translation of a small portion of the tablet is, as follows:
"Month VII, the 1st of which will follow the 30th of the
previous month.
Jupiter and Saturn in Pisces, Venus in Scorpio, Mars in
Sagittarius. On the
2nd, equinox."
"Month XI, ... Jupiter and Saturn, and Mars in Pisces,
Venus in
Sagittarius. On the 13th Venus will reach Capricorn."
As can be seen from the above extracts, the conjunction seems to
have given
rise to no perceptible comment or interest, either in the triple
conjunction
(e.g. the text from Month VII reproduced above) or in the
planetary massing
that followed it (Month XI).
It seems that in most cases it is assumed with little or no
supporting
evidence that the Magi were Babylonian and that everything in the
interpretation of the Star must be based on Babylonian beliefs
and culture.
Yet we see above that if the 7BC triple conjunction was so
significant to
the Babylonians that it led to a group of Magi leaving Babylon
for
Jerusalem, this was not communicated in the almanac of the event.
The
description of the 7BC triple conjunction, written by the same
astronomers
who would have been responsible for its astrological
interpretation is so
low key as to suggest that it excited little or no interest in
Babylon. This
does not square with it having been an event of great
astrological
importance to the Babylonians or the Magi's star.
The most plausible theory is that the Magi were Persian and not
Babylonian
at all. The names of the Magi in the classical version of the
Nativity
(Gaspar, Balthasar and Melchior) are not biblical and not even
necessarily
even from the early church. Although some sources claim that the
names were
given by Origen (10) in the 3rd century and became popular by the
6th
century, Trexler (11) gives a radically different chronology and
states that
these names did not appear until the 5th century, long after the
death of
Origen, and were not widely used until the end of the first
millennium. In
this case the fact that they are Babylonian becomes irrelevant as
there is
nothing in this case to link them to the Magi. Greetham
(12) points out
that the Magi are also known under various other names such as
Hor, Basanter
and Karsudan, or Hormizdah, Yazdegerd, and Perozdh. It is also
unknown just
how many Magi there were. The idea that there were three is a
relatively
modern embellishment and in frescos from the early Christian
church there
are on occasions 2, 4, or even 12 Magi.
There are various reasons for believing that the Magi were
Persian. First,
the association that the cited text makes with the Zoroastrian
sect of Magi.
In the Apocryphal Gospel of the Infancy, chapter 7:1 states that
the Magi
came to Jerusalem:
"according to the prediction of Zoroaster"
A second interesting link is provided by Sinnott (5). He comments
that, when
Marco Polo passed through the small Persian village of Saveh, the
inhabitants told him that the Magi had set out from there. This
village is
now a small town situated 130-km southwest of Tehran, in modern
Iran.
Sinnott also points out that this legend is not unique just to
Saveh and
that other towns have similar ones, hence we should take such
stories with
rather more than just a grain of salt, unless we can find
independent
evidence to support them. However, it is curious to find such a
generalised
belief in the region that the Magi had set out from there unless
there is
some truth in the legends
A third line of evidence is provided by the fund of paintings and
carvings
from the earliest centuries AD. These, however, were made long
after the
Nativity and are thus, an unreliable and dangerous ally, as they
are heavily
influenced by the prejudices and biases of the time when they
were made. But
Hughes (1) points out that these earliest carvings show that Magi
wore
Persian dress, wearing trousers rather than the traditional
robes. There is
even a legend that such a carving saved the church of the
Nativity at
Ravenna on the Adriatic coast of northern Italy from the ravaging
Persian
hordes in 614 AD. When the invading army saw the Persian figure
within the
church, recognising it as one of their own symbols, they spared
the building
from pillage and torching.
Taken individually, these items are probably insignificant but,
together
they suggest strongly that the standard dogma of Babylonian Magi
is
incorrect and unjustified and that the Magi were Persian. It is
thus
dangerous to judge their motives by our knowledge of Babylonian
astrology.
Mention is made of Molnar's new and original theory that the Star
of
Bethlehem was an occultation of Jupiter by the Moon. Molnar (8,
9) bases his
work in a study of the Antioch coin (13), which shows a ram
looking over its
shoulder at a bright star close to a crescent Moon. This he
interprets as
being an occultation of Venus by the Moon that took place in
Aries. Molnar
suggests that the Star of Bethlehem was one of a series of lunar
occultations of Jupiter in the constellation of Aries between
February and
May 6BC. Only the March 20th occultation would have been
marginally visible
in the Middle East, with a 14-hour old Moon occulting Jupiter
just 12
degrees from the Sun. This event could not have been observed
with the naked
eye and would have been challenging to observe even with a small
telescope.
Molnar's theory is important in that the event that he describes
is
genuinely very rare. I have checked all lunar occultations of
Jupiter from
200BC to 1BC, some 390 in all, finding to my considerable
surprise that only
in 136BC and in 6BC did occultations take place in Aries.
However, if we widen the search to occultations of the four most
visible
planets (Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn) we find that they are
extremely
frequent. Just between 20BC and 1BC there were no less than 170,
of which
six occurred with the Sun below the horizon. On July 13th 17BC
there was a
occultation of Jupiter by the waning crescent Moon that was
observable of
much of the Middle East. This occultation took place in western
Taurus and
would have been very spectacular to the naked eye. Slightly
further back in
time, in 46 and 45BC respectively, occultations of Jupiter and
Venus
respectively would have been observed from the region and at
least the
latter would have been even more prominent than the 17BC event.
In other
words, if we remove the astrological association with Aries from
the
equation the theory that the Star was the (unobservable) 6BC
occultation of
Jupiter becomes much less convincing.
My own preference is of course that the Star itself was a nova, a
theory not
even mentioned in the November 28th posting. There is even an
interesting
candidate object that was observed in late February or early
March 5BC, the
correct time of year and in a year that even agrees with the
Dionisian
chronology of the Nativity. This theory was popularised in 1955
by Arthur C.
Clarke in his short story "The Star" (15), although it
seems to date back to
Kepler in 1604. In it he assumes the persona of a Jesuit
astronomer, working
as a scientist aboard an exploratory space ship of the future.
The ships
mission is to enter and explore the Phoenix Nebula; the remnant
of an old
massive star which has died, torn apart by a supernova explosion.
In his
cabin he tries to reconcile his conscience with his faith,
wrestling
uncomfortably with the implications of his discoveries.
We could not tell, before we reached the nebula, how long ago the
explosion
took place. Now, from the astronomical evidence and the record in
the rocks
of that one surviving planet, I have been able to date it very
exactly. I
now know in what year the light of this colossal conflagration
reached our
Earth. I know how brilliantly the supernova whose corpse now
dwindles behind
our speeding ship once shone in terrestrial skies. I know how it
must have
blazed low in the east before Sunrise, like a beacon in that
oriental dawn.
There can be no reasonable doubt: the ancient mystery is solved
at last.
Although Clarke's star is a supernova and not a classical nova
the premise
is basically the same. As someone born and bread just slightly
around the
coast from his Minehead home, it would be a special pleasure for
me to prove
that his "speculation" was, as so often, correct.
The Star was written for a short story competition run by the
British
newspaper The Observer. Much to Clarke's amusement and
perplexity, the story
was not worthy of even one of the many consolation prizes of a
certificate
of merit. But, when later published in the November 1955
edition of the magazine Infinity Science Fiction, the story was
voted the
best science fiction story published in 1955!
For those unfamiliar with the story, I can thoroughly recommend
it. Without
wishing to give away its plot, the Jesuit astronomer who is the
central
character in the story finds that the nebula that he is
investigating is the
remains of the explosion which was, thousands of years
previously, observed
as the Star of Bethlehem. This forces him into a crisis of faith
because of
the contradictions involved in this discovery. The contradiction
is revealed
in the unexpected sting in the tail of this classic work, which I
will not
spoil for people interested in reading the story.
The Star was based on an popular article, also by Arthur C.
Clarke, which he
had written in 1954. It was called The Star of the Magi and
published in
Holiday magazine (16).
Of course it is now known that there were no supernovae close to
the date of
the Nativity (17), but a bright nova is a realistic possibility
and an
object variously described as a hui-hsing (hairy star) and a
po-hsing (bushy
star) in different chronicles is a serious candidate. Although
hui-hsing was generally used for tailed comets and po-hsing for
tailless
objects, there is historical precedent for these designations to
be used for
bright star-like objects. Chinese observations of Tycho's
supernova of 1572
describe it as a Hui-hsing. Despite being observed for over 70
days, the
chinese chronicles make no mention of any movement in the sky,
although even
a moderately bright comet would be expected to move considerably
in this
time and contemporary chronicles of Comet Halley detail its
movement, its
tail length and even its colour; these details are missing for
the 5BC
object which was apparently a fixed object. However, due to the
"hui-hsing"
designation, Clark and Stephenson (17) make this a Class 2
nova/supernova
candidate (probable nova) rather than Class 1 (certain).
However, like many other theories, a nova has the inconvenience
that a
bright nova is a relatively frequent event and thus it is only a
*plausible*
candidate due to its proximity to the known date of the Nativity.
This argument can be made strongly about all three of the main
candidates
theories. It is the fact that there are question marks over the
three
principal theories about the star: the triple conjunction, the
occultation
and the 5BC nova (which some authors consider to have been a
faint comet
rather than a nova, although the most detailed study yet made of
this object
(14) comes out strongly in factor of its nova nature), either
because of
their visibility or their astrological interpretation suggests
that it is
likely that no single theory is correct.
Astrologically it is argued that the triple conjunction was the
most
significant sign. This though stretches biblical chronology to
its limits
(few experts seem to date the Nativity as early as 7BC). The nova
though was
observed in March 5BC, almost exactly at the moment of our best
estimate of
the date of the Nativity and this object would genuinely have
been observed
quite low in the east at dawn. In other words, both the date and
the
position in the sky (southern Aquila) fit the available evidence
both on
date and observability. Hughes (1) pointed out that the
traditional
translation of Matthew's Gospel "we have seen his star in
the east" is
incorrect and recent translations have revised the phrasing to
"at its
rising" or "in the first light of dawn", implying
that the Star was observed
at or close to its heliacal rising. A nova that appeared in the
dawn sky
would appear to simulate the first sighting of a heliacal rising
and has the
additional advantage that by May 5BC it would have been due south
at dawn
and could genuinely have led the Magi from Jerusalem, due south
to
Bethlehem.
Bright novae are sufficiently common though for it to be
difficult to argue
that a single nova could be the Star of Bethlehem without some
additional
factor being involved. It seems reasonable to suggest that the
Magi did not
rely on a single sign to make their journey because none was
clear enough
and unambiguous enough to be sufficient on its own (the mere fact
that we
still debate the Star more than 2000 years after it appears
demonstrates
this). The most likely scenario is that the Magi observed the 7BC
triple
conjunction and the massing of the planets Mars, Jupiter and
Saturn that
followed in 6BC (which, contrary to some suggestions, would have
been
clearly and spectacularly visible low in the dusk sky) and
pondered its
significance, seeing that it referred to the birth of a king, but
did not
start their journey until a further sign told them that the king
had been
born. This definitive sign would have been the (presumably, given
that it
was naked-eye visible from China for more than 2 months until
finally lost
from view when the spring monsoon made further observations
impossible)
bright nova observed in 5BC. Only when the Magis' interpretation
of the
triple conjunction was confirmed by the birth of a new star would
they have
made their plans to depart and finally made the long and perilous
journey
across mountains and deserts from Persia.
References:
(1) Hughes, D.W.: 1976, "The Star of Bethlehem",
Nature, 264, 513
(2) Finnegan, J.: 1964, "Handbook of Bible Chronology",
Princeton: Princeton
University Press
(3) Keller, W.: 1981, "The Bible as history", 2nd
Revised Edition, New York:
Morrow
(4) Humphreys, C.J.: 1991, "The Star of Bethlehem - a comet
in 5BC - and the
date of the birth of Christ", QJRAS, 32, 389
(5) Sinnott, R.W.: 1968, "Thoughts on the Star of
Bethlehem", Sky &
Telescope, 36, 384
(6) Martin, E.L.: 1996, "The Star that Astonished the
World", Portland: Ask
Publications
(7) Kidger, M.R.: 1999, "The Star of Bethlehem - an
astronomer's view",
Princeton: Princeton University Press
(8) Molnar, M.R.: 1995, "The Magi's Star from the
perspective of ancient
astrological practices", QJRAS, 36, 109
(9) Molnar, M.R.: 1999, "The star of Bethlehem : the legacy
of the Magi",
New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press
(10) Origen: c.254, "Contra Celsum"
(11) Trexler, R.C.: 1997, "The Journey of the Magi: Meanings
in history of a
Christian story", Princeton: Princeton University Press.
(12) Greetham, Rev. P.: World Wide Web page
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/p_greetham/wisemen
(13) Molnar, M.R.: 1992, "The coins of Antioch", Sky
& Telescope, 83, 37
(14) Clark, D.H., Parkinson, J.H., & Stephenson, F.R.: 1977,
"An
astronomical reappraisal of the Star of Bethlehem - a nova in
5BC), QJRAS,
18, 443
(15) Clarke, A.C.: 1955, "The Star", published in the
collection "The other
side of the sky". New York: Victor Gollancz Science Fiction,
1987
(16) Clarke, A.C.: 1954, "The Star of the Magi",
published in the collection
"Report on Planet Three and Other Speculations".
London: Corgi Books, 1975
(17) Clark, D.H., & Stephenson, F.R.: 1977, "The
Historical Supernovae".
Oxford: Pergamon
==================
(3) ESCHATOLOGY AND CHRONOLOGY
>From Clark Whelton <cwhelton@mindspring.com>
Dear Benny,
Recent discussions of AD chronology in this forum seem to accept
the
Christian myths on which AD dating is based.
Religious faith aside, it has not been proven that either Jesus
of Nazareth
or "Dionysius Exiguus" are genuine historical figures.
Nor has it been
proven that anyone living 1,500 years ago kept track of time by
counting
forward from the birth of Jesus.
Early Christians did not use AD dating. They used AM (Annus
Mundi) dating,
a timekeeping system that calculated the number of years
since the creation
of the world (see Richard Landes' brilliant paper "The Use
and Abuse of
Eschatology in the Middle Ages (Louvain, 1989) edited by Verbeke,
Verhelst... A study of apocalyptic expectations and the pattern
of Western
chronography 100-800 CE").
Landes wrote, "Within both Christianity and Judaism,
(chronological systems)
emerged more or less simultaneously, based on the age of the
world (Annus
Mundi = AM). But whereas both the Greek Christians and the Jews
established
their current erae mundi in the early centuries of the Common Era
(c.
100-250 CE), Latin Christianity, curiously, made two major
revisions in its
dating system during the following six centuries (c. 250-850)
before
ultimately abandoning AM entirely in favor of Annus Domini... The
pattern
begins with the establishment of a system for dating the age of
the world
that situates its own date early in the last five centuries of
the 6th
millennium (c. 5600 to 5700 AM). This system then enjoys about
two centuries
of universal acceptance among a wide range of ecclesiastical
writers,
despite occasional efforts to change it (c. 5700-5900).
Finally, and rather suddenly, it disappears from common usage in
its 5900s,
giving way to another dating system that rejuvenates the world by
about
three centuries; that is the new system universally adopted in
its
5600-5700s.(AM)."
Landes shows that by combining eschatological interpretations of
two
scriptural passages ("for the Lord, one day is as a thousand
years," and "on
the seventh day He rested") early Christians came to believe
the world would
end in the year 6000 AM (i.e. the beginning of the "seventh
day" when the
Lord would rest). Fear of the year 6000 AM caused Christian
scholars to
constantly recalculate and manipulate AM dates in hopes of
postponing the
dreaded sixth millennium.
AD dating does not come into general use in Europe until long
after the time
period assigned to Bede. Given that documents are easily copied
and redated,
I have been trying to find the oldest _original_ AD date
inscribed in stone
or metal, i.e. a date not retrocalculated and added to a
church or tomb at
a later time. The oldest such date I have found in the UK is
1360. AD dating
in the UK does not seem to have come into general use until the
mid-15th
century or later. The Magna Carta, for example,
traditionally dated to
1215, does not bear an AD date, instead being dated to the 17th
year of King
John.
It is not logical to keep track of time by counting forward from
unprovable
events in the past. In my opinion reliable timekeeping
begins with the
Gregorian calendar reform. In discussions involving history and
chronology,
I prefer to use B2K (before the year 2000) dating. Only by
counting backward
from known events can we hope to arrive at an accurate chronology
of the
past.
Clark Whelton
Society for Historical Research
cwhelton@mindspring.com
MODERATOR'S NOTE: Reliable timekeeping goes, of course, much
further back
than the Gregorian calendar reform as can be seen from the Jewish
book Seder
Olam (2nd/3rd century CE) which includes the Rabbinical
chronology - from
Adam to the destruction of the second temple (i.e. the time of
Jesus) - and
which formed the basis for the dating of the "Era of
Creation" (= Annus
Mundi). Equally impressive is the systematic dating system used
in Islamic
coinage: http://w3.nai.net/~jroberts/early.htm.
BJP
===============
(4) NOT A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT
>From Duncan Steel <D.I.Steel@salford.ac.uk>
Dear Benny,
In the item from the Toronto Star (CCNet 4/12/01) it was said
that:
"During his life (which tragically ended four years ago in a
traffic
accident), Shoemaker was the guru of asteroid-impact
research"
Our friend Gene was indeed the guru of asteroid-impact research.
If I recall
correctly, when he died his life-partner Carolyn said that Gene
would have
seen the irony of his end in an impact event.
But it was not a "traffic accident" as it is usually
understood: no-one
skipped a red light, or got rear-ended by a drunken driver. Out
in the
Tanami Desert, in the Australian Outback, there is no
"traffic". Gene and
Carolyn came around a blind corner on a dirt track and, against
all the
odds, hit another 4WD coming the other way. Gene, I am sure,
would also have
appreciated the irony of such a wildly improbable event
occurring. He would
have seen the parallel with the next hugely unlikely, but fatal,
asteroid
impact on the Earth.
Regards,
Duncan Steel
================
(5) SEASONS IN SPACE? AMAZING!
>From Malcolm Miller <stellar2@cyberone.com.au>
A quote from CCNet 129/2001:
"It has been exciting watching the space weather so
far," said Dr.
Roger Wiens of Los Alamos National Laboratory, N.M., head of the
team
that operates the instruments. "We've had a rather stormy
autumn in space,
which has been great for checking out our instruments."
Funny, that. We've been having spring in the part of space
I live in - the
southern hemisphere of planet Earth
--
Malcolm Miller
===========
(6) AND FINALLY: AUSTRALIAN TEACHER BANNED FOR NOT BELIEVING IN
SANTA
>From Xtramsn.co.nz, 4 December 2001
http://xtramsn.co.nz/news/0,,3885-931180,00.html
An Australian primary school has banned a teacher after she told
a class of
six year olds that Santa Claus does not exist. Angry parents from
the Corowa
public school demanded action when some children arrived home in
tears after
a reserve teacher, on her first day on the job, told them their
parents
brought their presents....
-------------------------------------------------------------------
THE CAMBRIDGE-CONFERENCE NETWORK (CCNet)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The CCNet is a scholarly electronic network. To
subscribe/unsubscribe,
please contact the moderator Benny J Peiser <b.j.peiser@livjm.ac.uk>.
Information circulated on this network is for scholarly and
educational use
only. The attached information may not be copied or reproduced
for
any other purposes without prior permission of the copyright
holders. The
fully indexed archive of the CCNet, from February 1997 on, can be
found at
http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/cccmenu.html
DISCLAIMER: The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed in the
articles
and texts and in other CCNet contributions do not necessarily
reflect the
opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of the moderator of this
network.