Hi Mike,
On the Star of Bethlehem:
: You wrote: I haven't read Humphrey's article yet.
: You then wrote: Since the biblical text is explicit that the Magi were led to Jesus by the 'star', it's obvious that the 'star' cannot have been an object situated at an astronomical distance from the earth.
: I think you should read Humphreys' article before making further comments along those lines. I used to feel the same way as you, before reading his article. I think you will find it very interesting.
I read the article and have not changed my opinion. Humphreys' reasoning is full of holes, some of which I'll point out.
Humphreys lists "several specific characteristics of the star of Bethlehem recorded in Matthew's gospel which, if accepted, allow the type of astronomical object to be identified uniquely." However, Humphrey's claims are easily shown to be internally inconsistent, inconsistent with the actual text of Matthew, and just plain silly, as I will show.
In the first of these, Humphreys claims that the "star of Bethlehem" was a newly appeared comet. A comet is visible over much of the globe on any given evening. In particular, a comet visible to the Magi in Persia would have been visible to Herod in Judea. If said comet first became visible in the east at dawn, and it moved southwestward in the sky at the speed Humphreys claims, then within a day or two at most it would have been visible in Judea. Humphrey's quotes Matthew 2:7: "Then Herod summoned the Magi secretly and ascertained from them the exact time when the star had appeared." Since Herod (more specifically, his astrological record keepers) and the Magi would have seen a newly appeared comet within a couple of days of each other, there would have been no need for Herod to ascertain from the Magi "the exact time when the star had appeared," for the information would already have been in Herod's records. Thus, the text of Matthew lends no support to Humphrey's claim here, and it's silly to claim otherwise.
Humphreys lists the 2nd characteristic:
(ii) It travelled slowly through the sky against the star background. The Magi 'saw his star in the east' (Matthew 2:2) then they came to Jerusalem where Herod sent them to Bethlehem, then 'they went on their way and the star they had seen in the east went ahead of them' (Matthew 2:9). Since Bethlehem is to the south of Jerusalem the clear implication is that the star of Bethlehem moved slowly through the sky from the east to the south in the time taken for the Magi to travel from their country to Jerusalem, probably about one or two months (see later).
I really wonder if anyone has carefully read the above nonsense. Humphreys realizes that the "star" somehow "went ahead of" the Magi, but his sequence of events is completely nonsensical. If, after the Magi "came to Jerusalem", Herod then "sent them to Bethlehem", it would have been a journey of only a couple of hours at most (six miles, to be exact). So the "star they had seen in the east went ahead of them" for only six miles! Yet Humphreys somehow connects this two-hour, six-mile journey with the Magi's journey "from their country to Jerusalem, probably about one or two months," and thus attempts to justify his equating of the "star" with a comet that slowly traveled "through the sky from the east to the south in the time taken for the Magi to travel from their country to Jerusalem." But there is obviously no connection between a "star" said to lead some men on a two-hour journey and a comet that "journeys" only against the background of stars.
Finally, a careful reading of the actual text of Matt. 2:7-12 shows that Humphreys' interpretation is inconsistent with the text (NIV):
7 Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared. 8 He sent them to Bethlehem and said, ?Go and make a careful search for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him.? 9 After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen in the east went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was. 10 When they saw the star, they were overjoyed. 11 On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him.
Note what the text says about the behavior of the "star": it "stopped over the place where the child was." Of course, heavenly objects such as stars and comets don't stop over a place -- they continue traveling through the night sky. Therefore, whatever the "star" was, it wasn't a star or comet. Humphreys' claim is therefore once again inconsistent with the text.
Humphreys goes on with his 3rd characteristic:
(iii) The star 'stood over' Bethlehem. Matthew 2:9 records that the star 'went ahead of them and stood over the place where the child was'. Popular tradition has the star pointing out the very stable in which Christ was born, but Matthew neither states nor implies this: according to Matthew, viewed from Jerusalem the star stood over the place where the child was born, i.e. Bethlehem.
Here again, Humphreys twists the text to suit him. Note how the NASB phrases Matt. 2:9: "The star, which they had seen in the east, went on before them until it came and stood over the place where the Child was." Neither this rendering nor the above NIV rendering says anything whatsoever about anyone viewing the "star" from Jerusalem 'standing' over Bethlehem. Indeed, the text says that the "star" moved along, and then it "stopped" or "stood" in one place. Note again the NIV: the "star" "went ahead of them until it stopped"; the NASB: the "star" "went on before them until it came and stood". So it doesn't even matter whether one can argue that the "star" 'stood' in whatever manner directly over Bethlehem, or directly over the house where Jesus was, or even only apparently over Bethlehem (as Humphreys claims) but actually in the southern sky -- the "star" is said to move, and then stop, and therefore Humphreys' argument is inconsistent with the text.
Furthermore, the sequence of events really does indicate that the "star" was a miraculous phenomenon that, in effect, led the Magi by the hand to the house in which Jesus was. The "star" goes ahead of the Magi from Jerusalem to Bethlehem; when it gets to its destination, it stops and stands over the place where the child was; when the Magi see the star stand still, they become overjoyed; they go to the house over which the "star" is standing, and "worship" Jesus.
The rest of Humphreys' exposition is just a pile of silliness to support his claim, and I see no need to comment further.
On the Flood:
Ok, now I understand your view of Jonsson's Flood dating.
: I believe Noah's flood took place in about 2350 B.C. Some time ago I started a thread on this board entitled, "Space.com dates Noah's flood to 2350 B.C." I posted a link to this web page: http://space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/comet_bronzeage_011113-1.html There we are told that some serious scientists now date the ( large but not global ) flood of Noah's day to 2350 B.C. They do so based largely on the studies of dendrochonologists who tell us that our earth appears to have experienced a significant change in climate "from 2354-2345 B.C." They tell us such a change, recorded in tree rings around the world, would have almost certainly resulted in several very large floods.
Your old post seems to have disappeared; at least, it doesn't show up in "Post History" for you.
I read the space.com article and, quite frankly, it reads as though written by the Watchtower to support Noah's Flood. It smacks of sensationalism, references are almost nonexistent, some of the information stated or implied is simply wrong, and the conclusions really don't follow from the sparse information given in this November 13, 2001 article.
For example, in the 3rd paragraph in the article, author Robert Britt states:
Biblical stories, apocalyptic visions, ancient art and scientific data all seem to intersect at around 2350 B.C., when one or more catastrophic events wiped out several advanced societies in Europe, Asia and Africa.
But the only information given that supports a date really near 2350 B.C. is Bishop Ussher's chronology that "put Noah's great flood at 2349 B.C." and a reference to one "Bill Napier, an astronomer at the Armagh Observatory", who in an email interview with the author expressed the opinion that one or more comets may have fallen about that time and that he "has tied the possible event to a cooling of the climate, measured in tree rings, that ran from 2354-2345 B.C." All of the other references are to events about 150 to 350 years later than 2350, or are given in such a vague way as to be useless.
For example, the author references an article "in a recent issue of the journal Meteoritics & Planetary Science." No further reference information is given, typical of the Watchtower Society's writings and other material written for people who really don't want details. Nevertheless, I found the article at the "NASA ADS Astronomy/Planetary Abstract Service". A search turned up this article ( http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2001M%26PSA..36Q.124M ): "A Possible Holocene Impact Structure in the Al 'Amarah Marshes, near the Tigris-Euphrates Confluence, Southern Iraq" (Master, S.; Meteoritics & Planetary Science, vol. 36, Supplement, p.A124, 09/2001). The article states:
Quasi-Historical Reference?: The formation of such a young impact structure may have had a catastrophic effect on the people living in the region, and there is a possible quasi-historical reference to such an event in the account of the Deluge from the Epic of Gilgamesh, dating from ~2000 BC..."
~2000 B.C. is not particularly close to 2349 B.C.
The author claims that "archeological findings show that in the space of a few centuries, many of the first sophisticated civilizations disappeared," but gives no references and no actual dates. He states that "the Akkadian culture of Iraq, thought to be the world's first empire, collapsed," and that:
Omens predicting the Akkadian collapse preserve a record that "many stars were falling from the sky." The "Curse of Akkad," dated to about 2200 B.C., speaks of "flaming potsherds raining from the sky."
This gives the impression that when the Akkadian empire collapsed, so did all of Mesopotamian civilization.
The problem here is that most modern dating has the Akkadian empire ending about 2200 B.C. (cf. http://www.sron.nl/~jheise/akkadian/bronze_age.html ) with the sack of Akkad. If the "Curse of Akkad", written from the viewpoint of the conquering Sumerians, was "written in Sumerian a few centuries after" (see above link) the sack of Akkad, then either the dating of the "curse of Akkad" must be at least as late as 2000 B.C., or if one accept's Britt's date of "about 2200 B.C." for the "curse", then Akkad must have fallen no later than about 2400 B.C. Furthermore, the above link shows that, far from a collapse of Mesopotamian civilization, the Akkadians were simply conquered by the Sumerians, and life went on as usual. In any case, the evidence given by Britt with respect to the Akkadians provides no support for a date of 2349 B.C. for a massive Mesopotamian flood.
So in view of real history, Britt's statement: "Mesopotamia, Earth's original breadbasket, dust," is itself dust.
Britt also stated that around 2350 B.C. "the Old Kingdom in Egypt fell into ruin." Not only is this claim misleading, but the dating is wrong. According to a number of websites, Egypt's Old Kingdom lasted until anywhere from 2181 to 2134 B.C. Furthermore, there was not an abrupt end to Egyptian civilization, but a gradual decline due to political and environmental problems. For example, one website on Egyptian history has the following ( http://campus.northpark.edu/history/WebChron/Africa/OldKingdom.html ):
Old Kingdom Egypt 2686-2181 BC
Collapse of the Strong Central Government and the Kingship
When King Pepy II died after 94 years of reign, the government lost control of power. This decline in royal power allowed provincial governors to form states, ruling their districts. The people no longer felt an allegiance to the pharaoh.
In 2181 BC, the system faltered upon the loss of newly conquered Nubia to Kail (the governor of Aswan). Foreign relations were also problematic at this time. The empire had stretched itself out too far to maintain military control. Problems arose with the Punt (Ethiopia) Beduin on the northeast frontier, with Lebanon and Syria, as well as an ongoing war with Lybia and the Philistines. Another factor contributing to the faulty system was the king's marriage to a foreign wife. The king's marriage had vast political implications such as being representative of diplomatic alignment. The theory is that the kingship was brought down from the inside by a foreign wife. As the pharaohs power decreased, the power of the governors increased. Most of the administrative districts known as "Nomes" which had originally existed under the Pharaoh emerged as city-states independent of the central government. The governors had become more powerful than the pharaoh due to the social emphasis and reliance on wealth and title.
Due to new directions in philosophical reasoning concerning the power and humanity of the king, the pharaoh was no longer respected, or regarded as god. "God" no longer controlled the land or provided for the people; this function had been passed to the landowners. This related directly to the rise of cults and the priesthood.
When climactic changes occurred in the Nile valley and the land became too dry to successfully grow crops (even with irrigation), the power of the pharaoh was doubted all the more. A famine swept the land and pharaoh was blamed for the lack of planting and control. The people had trusted in him to prevent the famine and control the river; he had failed. Under this weak control, the society began to disintegrate, resulting in a social and political breakdown.
Society turned to the provincial leaders to provide for care and control. Disputes were now settled by favoritism, rather than through the pharaoh and courts. The government lost its tax revenue due to the large amounts of tax-free land given to the Pious Foundations, and the lack of land given to the taxpaying lower class.
Egypt's vast trade routes, reaching as far as Lebanon and Western Asia, were demolished by war, hostile bands of nomads, and lack of ensured safety along the routes.
The government and people were left without a pharaoh or any central figure of power. The governors ruled during this time of provincial assertion and the chaotic social upheaval of the civil war. The war resulted from governors desiring more land to control, and lasted for one and one half centuries.
Another website ( http://www.ancient-egypt.org/history/04_06/ ) gives the following information:
Old Kingdom (2575 - 2150)
With the 6th Dynasty, the Old Kingdom would start its slow decline. Although some military activity is reported to the East of the Delta or in Palestine and in Nubia, the central power of the king kept on decaying. This may have been caused, in part, by the long reign of Pepi II, during which more power may have been relegated to the central and local administrations.
Another key factor in the decline of the Old Kingdom was a decreasing inundation of the Nile. By the end of the Old Kingdom, the inundation apparently became less abundant. Local measures needed to be taken to ensure that the inundation would flood enough land and keep it fertile. Local administrators and governors who succeeded in controlling the flow of the floods for their region strengthened their position against the central government.
The kings of the 7th/8th Dynasty lacked the power and prestige to prevent their country from becoming divided. With them, the Old Kingdom has come to an end and the 1st Intermediate Period has started. Some history books have the 7th/8th Dynasty at the end of the Old Kingdom, but since it was during that Dynasty that the central government lost its grip on the country, it seems preferable to already place this dynasty in the 1st Intermediate Period.
So Britt's claim that "the Old Kingdom in Egypt fell into ruin", with the implication that it fell all of a sudden around 2350 B.C., is simply wrong.
Here are a few other links that give essentially the same information:
http://www.touregypt.net/ehistory.htm
http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/egypt/g/oldkingdom.htm
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/EGYPT/OLD.HTM
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/EGYPT/1ST.HTM
http://www.eyelid.co.uk/dynasty1.htm
Britt also claims: "The settlements of ancient Israel, gone." I haven't researched this, but I suspect that his information is as biased as his other claims as shown above.
Given the above, I see no need to point out further problems in Britt's sensationalististic article. Leolaia has also given some excellent arguments against Britt's claims.
Mike, I'm beginning to despair of you. You grasp at all available straws to hang on to a belief you can't prove, and certainly can't provide much evidence for. I'm slowly looking through your previous post to me, since there's a lot of information to be looked at, but from what I've seen so far, your dating of John the Baptist's ministry has even less support than the claims made by the space.com author. It's all smoke and mirrors designed to support a system that's as much a deck of cards as is the Watchtower's 1914 'chronology'.
AlanF
