This is a modern-English version of The Astronomy of the Bible: An Elementary Commentary on the Astronomical References of Holy Scripture, originally written by Maunder, E. Walter (Edward Walter). It has been thoroughly updated, including changes to sentence structure, words, spelling, and grammar—to ensure clarity for contemporary readers, while preserving the original spirit and nuance. If you click on a paragraph, you will see the original text that we modified, and you can toggle between the two versions.

Scroll to the bottom of this page and you will find a free ePUB download link for this book.

Transcriber's Notes: Variations in spelling and hyphenation have been left as in the original. Some typographical and punctuation errors have been corrected. A complete list follows the text. Underlined letters indicate diacritical marks and special characters that may not be visible in all browsers. Position your mouse over the line to see an explanation. Click on the page number to see an image of the page.

Transcriber's Notes: Variations in spelling and hyphenation have been left as in the original. Some typographical and punctuation errors have been corrected. A complete list follows the text. Underlined letters indicate diacritical marks and special characters that may not be visible in all browsers. Hover your mouse over the line to see an explanation. Click on the page number to see an image of the page.

[i]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

THE ASTRONOMY

OF THE BIBLE

[ii]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

From the Painting by Sir Edward Burne-Jones in the Birmingham Art Gallery.

From the painting by Sir Edward Burne-Jones at the Birmingham Art Gallery.

THE STAR OF BETHLEHEM.
"We have seen His star in the east, and are come to worship Him."

THE STAR OF BETHLEHEM.
"We have seen His star in the east and have come to worship Him."

[Frontispiece.]ToList

[Cover Page.]ToList

[iii]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

THE ASTRONOMY

OF THE BIBLE

AN ELEMENTARY COMMENTARY ON THE
ASTRONOMICAL REFERENCES
OF HOLY SCRIPTURE

E. WALTER MAUNDER, F.R.A.S.

AUTHOR OF
'THE ROYAL OBSERVATORY, GREENWICH: ITS HISTORY AND WORK,'
AND 'ASTRONOMY WITHOUT A TELESCOPE'

WITH THIRTY-FOUR ILLUSTRATIONS

WITH 34 ILLUSTRATIONS

NEW YORK
MITCHELL KENNERLEY

[iv] Richard Clay & Sons, Limited,
BREAD STREET HILL, E.C., AND
BUNGAY, SUFFOLK.

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] Richard Clay & Sons, Ltd.,
BREAD STREET HILL, E.C., AND
BUNGAY, SUFFOLK.

[v]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

MY WIFE

My helper in this Book
and in all things.

My assistant in this book
and in everything.

[vi]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

[vii]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

PREFACE

Why should an astronomer write a commentary on the Bible?

Why would an astronomer write a commentary on the Bible?

Because commentators as a rule are not astronomers, and therefore either pass over the astronomical allusions of Scripture in silence, or else annotate them in a way which, from a scientific point of view, leaves much to be desired.

Because commentators usually aren’t astronomers, they often either ignore the astronomical references in Scripture or explain them in a way that, from a scientific perspective, leaves a lot to be desired.

Astronomical allusions in the Bible, direct and indirect, are not few in number, and, in order to bring out their full significance, need to be treated astronomically. Astronomy further gives us the power of placing ourselves to some degree in the position of the patriarchs and prophets of old. We know that the same sun and moon, stars and planets, shine upon us as shone upon Abraham and Moses, David and Isaiah. We can, if we will, see the unchanging heavens with their eyes, and understand their attitude towards them.

Astronomical references in the Bible, both direct and indirect, are quite numerous and need to be examined from an astronomical perspective to reveal their full significance. Astronomy also allows us to somewhat step into the shoes of the ancient patriarchs and prophets. We know that the same sun, moon, stars, and planets that illuminate our skies also shone on Abraham, Moses, David, and Isaiah. If we choose to, we can see the unchanging heavens through their eyes and understand how they viewed them.

It is worth while for us so to do. For the immense advances in science, made since the Canon of Holy Scripture was closed, and especially during the last three hundred years, may enable us to realize the significance of a most remarkable fact. Even in those early ages, [viii]when to all the nations surrounding Israel the heavenly bodies were objects for divination or idolatry, the attitude of the sacred writers toward them was perfect in its sanity and truth.

It’s definitely worth doing. The huge advances in science made since the Canon of Holy Scripture was finalized, especially over the last three hundred years, help us understand the importance of a truly remarkable fact. Even back in those early times, [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]when all the nations around Israel viewed the heavenly bodies as tools for divination or objects of worship, the perspective of the sacred writers toward them was completely sane and accurate.

Astronomy has a yet further part to play in Biblical study. The dating of the several books of the Bible, and the relation of certain heathen mythologies to the Scripture narratives of the world's earliest ages, have received much attention of late years. Literary analysis has thrown much light on these subjects, but hitherto any evidence that astronomy could give has been almost wholly neglected; although, from the nature of the case, such evidence, so far as it is available, must be most decisive and exact.

Astronomy has an even bigger role to play in biblical studies. The dating of the various books of the Bible and the connection between certain pagan mythologies and the Scripture stories of the world's early days have been given a lot of attention in recent years. Literary analysis has shed light on these topics, but until now, the evidence that astronomy could provide has been largely overlooked; however, the available evidence is likely to be very definitive and precise.

I have endeavoured, in the present book, to make an astronomical commentary on the Bible, in a manner that shall be both clear and interesting to the general reader, dispensing as far as possible with astronomical technicalities, since the principles concerned are, for the most part, quite simple. I trust, also, that I have taken the first step in a new inquiry which promises to give results of no small importance.

I have tried, in this book, to provide an astronomical commentary on the Bible that is both clear and engaging for the average reader, avoiding as much as possible the technical jargon of astronomy, since the underlying principles are mostly quite simple. I also hope that I have initiated a new exploration that could lead to significant findings.

E. Walter Maunder.

St. John's, London, S.E.
January 1908.

[ix]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

BOOK I

Book I

THE HEAVENLY BODIES

Celestial Bodies

Chapter I. The Hebrew and Astronomy

Chapter I. The Hebrews and Astronomy

Modern Astronomy—Astronomy in the Classical Age—The Canon of Holy Scripture closed before the Classical Age—Character of the Scriptural References to the Heavenly Bodies—Tradition of Solomon's Eminence in Science—Attitude towards Nature of the Sacred Writers—Plan of the Book 3

Chapter II. The Creation

Chapter 2. The Creation

Indian Eclipse of 1898—Contrast between the Heathen and Scientific Attitudes—The Law of Causality—Inconsistent with Polytheism—Faith in One God the Source to the Hebrews of Intellectual Freedom—The First Words of Genesis the Charter of the Physical Sciences—The Limitations of Science—"Explanations" of the First Chapter of Genesis—Its Real Purposes—The Sabbath 12

Chapter III. The Deep

Chapter 3. The Deep

Babylonian Creation Myth—Tiamat, the Dragon of Chaos—Overcome by Merodach—Similarity to the Scandinavian Myth—No Resemblance to the Narrative in Genesis—Meanings of the Hebrew Word tehom—Date of the Babylonian Creation Story 25

Chapter IV. The Firmament

Chapter 4. The Sky

Twofold Application of the Hebrew Word raqia‘—Its Etymological Meaning—The Idea of Solidity introduced by the "Seventy"—Not the Hebrew Idea—The "Foundations" of Heaven and Earth—The "Canopy" of Heaven—The "Stories" of Heaven—Clouds and Rain—The Atmospheric Circulation—Hebrew Appreciation even of the Terrible in Nature—The "Balancings" and "Spreadings" of the Clouds—The "Windows of Heaven"—Not Literal Sluice-gates—The Four Winds—The Four Quarters—The Circle of the Earth—The Waters under the Earth—The "Depths" 35

[x] Chapter V. The Ordinances of the Heavens

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] Chapter V. The Laws of the Heavens

The Order of the Heavenly Movements—Daily Movement of the Sun—Nightly Movements of the Stars—The "Host of Heaven"—Symbolic of the Angelic Host—Morning Stars—The Scripture View of the Heavenly Order 55

Chapter VI. The Sun

Chapter 6. The Sun

The Double Purpose of the Two Great Heavenly Bodies—Symbolic Use of the Sun as Light-giver—No Deification of the Sun or of Light—Solar Idolatry in Israel—Shemesh and Ḥeres—Sun-spots—Light before the Sun—"Under the Sun"—The Circuit of the Sun—Sunstroke—"Variableness"—Our present Knowledge of the Sun—Sir William Herschel's Theory—Conflict between the Old Science and the New—Galileo—A Question of Evidence—A Question of Principle 63

Chapter VII. The Moon

Chapter 7. The Moon

Importance of the Moon in Olden Times—Especially to the Shepherd—Jewish Feasts at the Full Moon—The Harvest Moon—The Hebrew Month a Natural one—Different Hebrew Words for Moon—Moon-worship forbidden—"Similitudes" of the Moon—Worship of Ashtoreth—No mention of Lunar Phases—The Moon "for Seasons" 79

Chapter VIII. The Stars

Chapter 8. The Stars

Number of the Stars—"Magnitudes" of the Stars—Distances of the Stars 95

Chapter IX. Comets

Chapter 9. Comets

Great Comets unexpected Visitors—Description of Comets—Formation of the Tail—Possible References in Scripture to Comets 103

Chapter X. Meteors

Aerolites—Diana of the Ephesians—Star-showers—The Leonid Meteors—References in Scripture—The Aurora Borealis 111

Chapter XI. Eclipses of the Sun and Moon

Chapter 11. Solar and Lunar Eclipses

Vivid Impression produced by a Total Solar Eclipse—Eclipses not Omens to the Hebrews—Eclipses visible in Ancient Palestine—Explanation of Eclipses—The Saros—Scripture References to Eclipses—The Corona—The Egyptian "Winged Disc"—The Babylonian "Ring with Wings"—The Corona at Minimum 118

[xi] Chapter XII. Saturn and Astrology

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] Chapter 12. Saturn and Astrology

The "Seven Planets"—Possible Scripture References to Venus and Jupiter—"Your God Remphan" probably Saturn—The Sabbath and Saturn's Day—R. A. Proctor on the Names of the Days of the Week—Order of the Planets—Alexandrian Origin of the Weekday Names—The Relation of Astrology to Astronomy—Early Babylonian Astrology—Hebrew Contempt for Divination 130

BOOK II

THE CONSTELLATIONS

Chapter I. The Origin of the Constellations

The "Greek Sphere"—Aratus—St Paul's Sermon at Athens—The Constellations of Ptolemy's Catalogue—References to the Constellations in Hesiod and Homer—The Constellation Figures on Greek Coins—And on Babylonian "Boundary-stones"—The Unmapped Space in the South—Its Explanation—Precession—Date and Place of the Origin of the Constellations—Significant Positions of the Serpent Forms in the Constellations—The Four "Royal Stars"—The Constellations earlier than the Old Testament 149

Chapter II. Genesis and the Constellations

The Bow set in the Cloud—The Conflict with the Serpent—The Seed of the Woman—The Cherubim—The "Mighty Hunter" 162

Chapter III. The Story of the Deluge

Chapter III. The Story of the Flood

Resemblance between the Babylonian and Genesis Deluge Stories—The Deluge Stories in Genesis—Their Special Features—The Babylonian Deluge Story—Question as to its Date—Its Correspondence with both the Genesis Narratives—The Constellation Deluge Picture—Its Correspondence with both the Genesis Narratives—The Genesis Deluge Story independent of Star Myth and Babylonian Legend 170

Chapter IV. The Tribes of Israel and the Zodiac

Joseph's Dream—Alleged Association of the Zodiacal Figures with the Tribes of Israel—The Standards of the Four Camps of Israel—The Blessings of Jacob and Moses—The Prophecies of Balaam—The Golden Calf—The Lion of Judah 186

[xii] Chapter V. Leviathan

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] Chapter 5. Leviathan

The Four Serpent-like Forms in the Constellations—Their Significant Positions—The Dragon's Head and Tail—The Symbols for the Nodes—The Dragon of Eclipse—Hindu Myth of Eclipses—Leviathan—References to the Stellar Serpents in Scripture—Rahab—Andromeda—"The Eyelids of the Morning"—Poetry, Science, and Myth 196

Chapter VI. The Pleiades

Chapter 6. The Pleiades

Difficulty of Identification—The most Attractive Constellations—Kimah—Not a Babylonian Star Name—A Pre-exilic Hebrew Term—The Pleiades traditionally Seven—Mädler's Suggestion—Pleiades associated in Tradition with the Rainy Season—And with the Deluge—Their "Sweet Influences"—The Return of Spring—The Pleiades in recent Photographs—Great Size and Distance of the Cluster 213

Chapter VII. Orion

Chapter 7. Orion

Kesil—Probably Orion—Appearance of the Constellation—Identified in Jewish Tradition with Nimrod, who was probably Merodach—Altitude of Orion in the Sky—Kesilim—The "Bands" of Orion—The Bow-star and Lance-star, Orion's Dogs—Identification of Tiamat with Cetus 231

Chapter VIII. Mazzaroth

Chapter 8. Mazzaroth

Probably the "Signs of the Zodiac"—Babylonian Creation Story—Significance of its Astronomical References—Difference between the "Signs" and the "Constellations" of the Zodiac—Date of the Change—And of the Babylonian Creation Epic—Stages of Astrology—Astrology Younger than Astronomy by 2000 Years—Mazzaroth and the "Chambers of the South"—Mazzaloth—The Solar and Lunar Zodiacs—Mazzaroth in his Season 243

Chapter IX. Arcturus

Chapter 9. Arcturus

‘Ash and ‘Ayish—Uncertainty as to their Identification—Probably the Great Bear—Mezarim—Probably another Name for the Bears—"Canst thou guide the Bear?"—Proper Motions of the Plough-stars—Estimated Distance 258

[xiii] BOOK III

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] BOOK 3

TIMES AND SEASONS

Times and seasons

Chapter I. The Day and its Divisions

Chapter I. The Day and Its Divisions

Rotation Period of Venus—Difficulty of the Time Problem on Venus—The Sun and Stars as Time Measurers—The apparent Solar Day the First in Use—It began at Sunset—Subdivisions of the Day Interval—Between the Two Evenings—The Watches of the Night—The 12-hour Day and the 24-hour Day 269

Chapter II. The Sabbath and the Week

Chapter 2. The Sabbath and the Week

The Week not an Astronomical Period—Different Weeks employed by the Ancients—Four Origins assigned for the Week—The Quarter-month—The Babylonian System—The Babylonian Sabbath not a Rest Day—The Jewish Sabbath amongst the Romans—Alleged Astrological Origin of the Week—Origin of the Week given in the Bible 283

Chapter III. The Month

Chapter 3. The Month

The New Moon a Holy Day with the Hebrews—The Full Moons at the Two Equinoxes also Holy Days—The Beginnings of the Months determined from actual Observation—Rule for finding Easter—Names of the Jewish Months—Phœnician and Babylonian Month Names—Number of Days in the Month—Babylonian Dead Reckoning—Present Jewish Calendar 293

Chapter IV. The Year

Chapter 4. The Year

The Jewish Year a Luni-solar one—Need for an Intercalary Month—The Metonic Cycle—The Sidereal and Tropical Years—The Hebrew a Tropical Year—Beginning near the Spring Equinox—Meaning of "the End of the Year"—Early Babylonian Method of determining the First Month—Capella as the Indicator Star—The Triad of Stars—The Tropical Year in the Deluge Story 305

Chapter V. The Sabbatic Year and the Jubilee

Chapter 5. The Sabbatical Year and the Jubilee

Law of the Sabbatic Year—A Year of Rest and Release—The Jubilee—Difficulties connected with the Sabbatic Year and the Jubilee—The Sabbatic Year, an Agricultural one—Interval between the Jubilees, Forty-nine Years, not Fifty—Forty-nine Years an Astronomical Cycle 326

[xiv] Chapter VI. The Cycles of Daniel

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] Chapter 6: The Cycles of Daniel

The Jubilee Cycle possessed only by the Hebrews—High Estimation of Daniel and his Companions entertained by Nebuchadnezzar—Due possibly to Daniel's Knowledge of Luni-solar Cycles—Cycles in Daniel's Prophecy—2300 Years and 1260 Years as Astronomical Cycles—Early Astronomical Progress of the Babylonians much overrated—Yet their Real Achievements not Small—Limitations of the Babylonian—Freedom of the Hebrew 337

BOOK IV

THREE ASTRONOMICAL MARVELS

THREE ASTRONOMICAL WONDERS

Chapter I. Joshua's Long Day

Chapter 1. Joshua's Long Day

Way to Study the Record—To be discussed as it stands—An early Astronomical Observation. Before the Fight—Movements of the Israelites—Reasons for the Gibeonites' Action—Rapid Movements of all the Parties. Date, Time, and Location of the Miracle—Indication of the Sun's Declination—Joshua was at Gibeon—And at High Noon—On the 21st Day of the Fourth Month. Joshua's Plan—Key to it in the Flight of the Amorites by the Beth-horon Route—The Amorites defeated but not surrounded—King David as a Strategist. The Miracle—The Noon-day Heat, the great Hindrance to the Israelites—Joshua desired the Heat to be tempered—The Sun made to "be silent"—The Hailstorm—The March to Makkedah—A Full Day's March in the Afternoon—"The Miracle" not a Poetic Hyperbole—Exact Accord of the Poem and the Prose Chronicle—The Record made at the Time—Their March, the Israelites' Measure of Time 351

Chapter II. The Dial of Ahaz

The Narrative—Suggested Explanations—The "Dial of Ahaz," probably a Staircase—Probable History and Position of the Staircase—Significance of the Sign 385

Chapter III. The Star of Bethlehem

The Narrative—No Astronomical Details given—Purpose of the Scripture Narrative—Kepler's suggested Identification of the Star—The New Star of 1572—Legend of the Well of Bethlehem—True Significance of the Reticence of the Gospel Narrative 393
A Table of Bible References 401
Table of Contents 405

[xv]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

ILLUSTRATIONS

PAGE
The Bethlehem Star (Burne-Jones)	Frontispiece
The Rainbow (Rubens)	2
Merodach and Tiamat	25
Cirrus and Cumuli	47
A Corner of the Milky Way	94
The Great Comet of 1843	102
Fall of an Aerolite	110
Meteoric Shower of 1799	115
The Assyrian 'Ring With Wings'	126
Corona of Minimum Type	127
St. Paul preaching in Athens (Raphael)	148
The Ancient Constellations South of the Ecliptic	155
The Celestial Sphere	156
The Midnight Constellations of Spring, b.c. 2700	164
The Midnight Constellations of Winter, b.c. 2700	165
Ophiuchus and the Neighbouring Constellations	189
Aquarius and the Neighbouring Constellations	192
Hercules and Draco	197
Hydra and the Neighbouring Constellations	200
[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]Andromeda and Cetus	207
Stars of the Pleiades	219
Inner Nebulosities of the Pleiades	227
Stars of Orion	232
Orion and the Neighbouring Constellations	236
Position of Spring Equinox, b.c. 2700	246
Position of Spring Equinox, a.d. 1900	247
Stars of the Plough, as the Winnowing Fan	263
'Blow up the Trumpet in the New Moon'	268
Position of the New Moon at the Equinoxes	316
Boundary-stone in the Louvre	318
Worship of the Sun-God at Sippara	322
'Sun, stand Thou still upon Gibeon, and Thou Moon in the Valley of Ajalon'	350
Map of Southern Palestine	357
Bearings of the Rising and Setting Points of the Sun from Gibeon	363

[1]
[2]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]
[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__]

By permission of the Autotype Co. 74, New Oxford Street, London W.C.

THE RAINBOW (by Rubens).
"The bow that is in the cloud on the day of rain."ToList

THE RAINBOW (by Rubens).
"The arc that's in the sky during a rainy day."ToList

[3]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

THE ASTRONOMY OF THE BIBLE

BOOK I

THE HEAVENLY BODIES

CHAPTER I

THE HEBREW AND ASTRONOMY

Modern astronomy began a little more than three centuries ago with the invention of the telescope and Galileo's application of it to the study of the heavenly bodies. This new instrument at once revealed to him the mountains on the moon, the satellites of Jupiter, and the spots on the sun, and brought the celestial bodies under observation in a way that no one had dreamed of before. In our view to-day, the planets of the solar system are worlds; we can examine their surfaces and judge wherein they resemble or differ from our earth. To the ancients they were but points of light; to us they are vast bodies that we have been able to measure and to weigh. The telescope has enabled us also to penetrate deep into outer space; we have learnt of other systems besides that of our own sun and its dependents, many of them far more complex; clusters and clouds of stars have been [4]revealed to us, and mysterious nebulæ, which suggest by their forms that they are systems of suns in the making. More lately the invention of the spectroscope has informed us of the very elements which go to the composition of these numberless stars, and we can distinguish those which are in a similar condition to our sun from those differing from him. And photography has recorded for us objects too faint for mere sight to detect, even when aided by the most powerful telescope; too detailed and intricate for the most skilful hand to depict.

Modern astronomy started just over three hundred years ago with the invention of the telescope and Galileo's use of it to study celestial bodies. This new instrument immediately showed him the mountains on the moon, Jupiter's moons, and sunspots, bringing the heavens into view in ways no one had imagined before. Today, we see the planets of the solar system as worlds; we can explore their surfaces and assess how they are similar to or different from Earth. To the ancients, they were just points of light; to us, they are massive bodies that we can measure and weigh. The telescope has also allowed us to delve deep into outer space; we have discovered other systems besides our own sun and its planets, many of which are much more complex. Clusters and clouds of stars have been [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]revealed to us, along with mysterious nebulae, which suggest by their shapes that they are star systems in the process of forming. More recently, the invention of the spectroscope has taught us about the very elements that make up these countless stars, allowing us to distinguish those that are similar to our sun from those that are different. And photography has captured objects too faint for the naked eye to see, even with the most powerful telescope, and too detailed and intricate for the most skilled hand to illustrate.

Galileo's friend and contemporary, Kepler, laid the foundations of another department of modern astronomy at about the same time. He studied the apparent movements of the planets until they yielded him their secret so far that he was able to express them in three simple laws, laws which, two generations later, Sir Isaac Newton demonstrated to be the outcome of one grand and simple law of universal range, the law of gravitation. Upon this law the marvellous mathematical conquests of astronomy have been based.

Galileo's friend and contemporary, Kepler, established the foundations of another area of modern astronomy around the same time. He studied the observable movements of the planets until he uncovered their secrets enough to formulate three straightforward laws. Two generations later, Sir Isaac Newton showed that these laws were derived from one grand and simple law with universal applicability: the law of gravitation. This law is the basis for the incredible mathematical achievements in astronomy.

All these wonderful results have been attained by the free exercise of men's mental abilities, and it cannot be imagined that God would have intervened to hamper their growth in intellectual power by revealing to men facts and methods which it was within their own ability to discover for themselves. Men's mental powers have developed by their exercise; they would have been stunted had men been led to look to revelation rather than to diligent effort for the satisfaction of their curiosity. We therefore do not find any reference in the Bible to that which [5]modern astronomy has taught us. Yet it may be noted that some expressions, appropriate at any time, have become much more appropriate, much more forcible, in the light of our present-day knowledge.

All these amazing results have come from the unrestricted use of people's mental abilities, and it’s hard to believe that God would have stepped in to hinder their growth in intellectual power by revealing facts and methods that they could have discovered on their own. People’s mental abilities have grown through their use; they would have been limited if they had been encouraged to rely on revelation instead of putting in the hard work to satisfy their curiosity. Therefore, we don’t see any references in the Bible to what modern astronomy has taught us. However, it’s worth noting that some expressions, fitting at any time, have become much more relevant and impactful with our current knowledge.

The age of astronomy which preceded the Modern, and may be called the Classical age, was almost as sharply defined in its beginning as its successor. It lasted about two thousand years, and began with the investigations into the movements of the planets made by some of the early Greek mathematicians. Classical, like Modern astronomy, had its two sides,—the instrumental and the mathematical. On the instrumental side was the invention of graduated instruments for the determination of the positions of the heavenly bodies; on the mathematical, the development of geometry and trigonometry for the interpretation of those positions when thus determined. Amongst the great names of this period are those of Eudoxus of Knidus (b.c. 408-355), and Hipparchus of Bithynia, who lived rather more than two centuries later. Under its first leaders astronomy in the Classical age began to advance rapidly, but it soon experienced a deadly blight. Men were not content to observe the heavenly bodies for what they were; they endeavoured to make them the sources of divination. The great school of Alexandria (founded about 300 b.c.), the headquarters of astronomy, became invaded by the spirit of astrology, the bastard science which has always tried—parasite-like—to suck its life from astronomy. Thus from the days of Claudius Ptolemy to the end of the Middle Ages the growth of astronomy was arrested, and it bore but little fruit.

The era of astronomy before the Modern Age, known as the Classical Age, was almost as clearly defined in its start as the period that followed. It lasted around two thousand years and began with early Greek mathematicians investigating the movements of the planets. Like Modern astronomy, Classical astronomy had two aspects: the instrumental and the mathematical. On the instrumental side, there was the creation of graduated instruments to measure the positions of celestial bodies; on the mathematical side, there was the advancement of geometry and trigonometry to interpret those positions once determined. Notable figures from this time include Eudoxus of Knidus (b.c. 408-355) and Hipparchus of Bithynia, who lived a bit more than two centuries later. Under its initial leaders, astronomy in the Classical Age began to progress quickly, but it soon faced a significant setback. People were not satisfied with simply observing celestial bodies; they sought to use them for divination. The great school of Alexandria (established around 300 b.c.), the center of astronomy, became influenced by astrology, the pseudo-science that has always attempted to draw its energy from astronomy. As a result, from Claudius Ptolemy's time until the end of the Middle Ages, the growth of astronomy was halted, yielding little advancement.

[6]It will be noticed that the Classical age did not commence until about the time of the completion of the last books of the Old Testament; so we do not find any reference in Holy Scripture to the astronomical achievements of that period, amongst which the first attempts to explain the apparent motions of sun, moon, stars, and planets were the most considerable.

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]It's notable that the Classical age didn't begin until around the time the last books of the Old Testament were completed; therefore, we don't see any mention in the Holy Scriptures of the astronomical advancements of that time, among which the initial efforts to understand the apparent movements of the sun, moon, stars, and planets were the most significant.

We have a complete history of astronomy in the Modern and Classical periods, but there was an earlier astronomy, not inconsiderable in amount, of which no history is preserved. For when Eudoxus commenced his labours, the length of the year had already been determined, the equinoxes and solstices had been recognized, the ecliptic, the celestial equator, and the poles of both great circles were known, and the five principal planets were familiar objects. This Early astronomy must have had its history, its stages of development, but we can only with difficulty trace them out. It cannot have sprung into existence full-grown any more than the other sciences; it must have started from zero, and men must have slowly fought their way from one observation to another, with gradually widening conceptions, before they could bring it even to that stage of development in which it was when the observers of the Museum of Alexandria began their work.

We have a complete history of astronomy from the Modern and Classical periods, but there's an earlier astronomy, significant in its own right, of which no records remain. By the time Eudoxus began his work, the length of the year was already established, the equinoxes and solstices were recognized, and the ecliptic, celestial equator, and poles of both great circles were understood. The five major planets were well-known as well. This Early astronomy must have had its own history and stages of development, but we can only barely piece them together. It couldn't have just appeared fully formed, like other sciences; it must have originated from nothing, and people must have gradually advanced from one observation to the next, expanding their understanding little by little, before they could reach the level of knowledge present when the scholars at the Museum of Alexandria began their work.

The books of the Old Testament were written at different times during the progress of this Early age of astronomy. We should therefore naturally expect to find the astronomical allusions written from the standpoint of such scientific knowledge as had then been acquired. We cannot for a moment expect that any [7]supernatural revelation of purely material facts would be imparted to the writers of sacred books, two or three thousand years before the progress of science had brought those facts to light, and we ought not to be surprised if expressions are occasionally used which we should not ourselves use to-day, if we were writing about the phenomena of nature from a technical point of view. It must further be borne in mind that the astronomical references are not numerous, that they occur mostly in poetic imagery, and that Holy Scripture was not intended to give an account of the scientific achievements, if any, of the Hebrews of old. Its purpose was wholly different: it was religious, not scientific; it was meant to give spiritual, not intellectual enlightenment.

The books of the Old Testament were written at different times during the early days of astronomy. So, we should naturally expect the astronomical references to reflect the scientific knowledge that was available at the time. We can't realistically expect any [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]supernatural revelation of purely material facts to be given to the authors of sacred texts two or three thousand years before science uncovered those facts. Therefore, it shouldn't surprise us if some expressions used are ones we wouldn't choose today if we were writing about natural phenomena from a technical perspective. Additionally, it's important to remember that astronomical references are not common, they mostly appear in poetic imagery, and Holy Scripture wasn't meant to document the scientific accomplishments, if any, of the ancient Hebrews. Its purpose was entirely different: it was religious, not scientific; it aimed to provide spiritual, not intellectual enlightenment.

An exceedingly valuable and interesting work has recently been brought out by the most eminent of living Italian astronomers, Prof. G. V. Schiaparelli, on this subject of "Astronomy in the Old Testament," to which work I should like here to acknowledge my indebtedness. Yet I feel that the avowed object of his book,[7:1]—to "discover what ideas the ancient Jewish sages held regarding the structure of the universe, what observations they made of the stars, and how far they made use of them for the measurement and division of time"—is open to this criticism,—that sufficient material for carrying it out is not within our reach. If we were to accept implicitly the argument from the silence of Scripture, we should conclude that the Hebrews—though their calendar was essentially a lunar one, based upon the [8]actual observation of the new moon—had never noticed that the moon changed its apparent form as the month wore on, for there is no mention in the Bible of the lunar phases.

A highly valuable and interesting work has recently been published by the leading Italian astronomer, Prof. G. V. Schiaparelli, on the topic of "Astronomy in the Old Testament," to which I would like to express my gratitude. However, I feel that the main goal of his book,[7:1]—to "discover what ideas the ancient Jewish sages had about the structure of the universe, what observations they made of the stars, and how far they used them for measuring and dividing time"—faces this criticism: that there isn't enough material available to fulfill this objective. If we were to accept the argument from the silence of Scripture without question, we would conclude that the Hebrews—despite having a primarily lunar calendar based on the [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]actual observation of the new moon—never noticed that the moon changed its visible shape throughout the month, as there is no mention of lunar phases in the Bible.

The references to the heavenly bodies in Scripture are not numerous, and deal with them either as time-measurers or as subjects for devout allusion, poetic simile, or symbolic use. But there is one characteristic of all these references to the phenomena of Nature, that may not be ignored. None of the ancients ever approached the great Hebrew writers in spiritual elevation; none equalled them in poetic sublimity; and few, if any, surpassed them in keenness of observation, or in quick sympathy with every work of the Creator.

The references to heavenly bodies in Scripture are not many, and they either treat them as ways to measure time or as topics for thoughtful mention, poetic comparisons, or symbolic meaning. However, there's one important thing about all these references to natural phenomena that shouldn't be overlooked. None of the ancient writers ever matched the great Hebrew authors in spiritual depth; none equaled them in poetic greatness; and few, if any, surpassed them in sharp observation or in their deep connection with every creation of the Creator.

These characteristics imply a natural fitness of the Hebrews for successful scientific work, and we should have a right to believe that under propitious circumstances they would have shown a pre-eminence in the field of physical research as striking as is the superiority of their religious conceptions over those of the surrounding nations. We cannot, of course, conceive of the average Jew as an Isaiah, any more than we can conceive of the average Englishman as a Shakespeare, yet the one man, like the other, is an index of the advancement and capacity of his race; nor could Isaiah's writings have been preserved, more than those of Shakespeare, without a true appreciation of them on the part of many of his countrymen.

These traits suggest that the Hebrews were naturally suited for successful scientific work, and we can reasonably believe that given the right circumstances, they would have excelled in physical research just as much as their religious ideas surpassed those of neighboring nations. We can't really picture the average Jew as an Isaiah, just like we can't imagine the average Englishman as a Shakespeare, yet both individuals reflect the progress and potential of their people; similarly, Isaiah's writings, just like Shakespeare's, wouldn't have been preserved without genuine appreciation from many of his fellow countrymen.

But the necessary conditions for any great scientific development were lacking to Israel. A small nation, [9]planted between powerful and aggressive empires, their history was for the most part the record of a struggle for bare existence; and after three or four centuries of the unequal conflict, first the one and then the other of the two sister kingdoms was overwhelmed. There was but little opportunity during these years of storm and stress for men to indulge in any curious searchings into the secrets of nature.

But the necessary conditions for any major scientific advancement were missing in Israel. A small nation, [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]situated between powerful and aggressive empires, their history mostly consists of a struggle for mere survival; and after three or four centuries of the unequal conflict, first one and then the other of the two sister kingdoms was defeated. There was very little chance during these years of turmoil for people to pursue any inquisitive explorations into the secrets of nature.

Once only was there a long interval of prosperity and peace; viz. from the time that David had consolidated the kingdom to the time when it suffered disruption under his grandson, Rehoboam; and it is significant that tradition has ascribed to Solomon and to his times just such a scientific activity as the ability and temperament of the Hebrew race would lead us to expect it to display when the conditions should be favourable for it.

Once, there was a long period of prosperity and peace; that is, from the time David unified the kingdom to when it fell apart under his grandson, Rehoboam. It’s important to note that tradition credits Solomon and his era with a scientific curiosity that matches what we would expect from the Hebrew people when the conditions were right for it.

Thus, in the fourth chapter of the First Book of Kings, not only are the attainments of Solomon himself described, but other men, contemporaries either of his father David or himself, are referred to, as distinguished in the same direction, though to a less degree.

Thus, in the fourth chapter of the First Book of Kings, it not only describes Solomon's achievements, but also mentions other men, who were contemporaries of his father David or of Solomon himself, recognized for their abilities in the same areas, although to a lesser extent.

"And God gave Solomon wisdom and understanding exceeding much, and largeness of heart, even as the sand that is on the seashore. And Solomon's wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the children of the east country, and all the wisdom of Egypt. For he was wiser than all men; than Ethan the Ezrahite, and Heman, and Chalcol, and Darda, the sons of Mahol: and his fame was in all nations round about. And he spake three thousand proverbs: and his songs were a thousand and five. And he spake of trees, from the cedar-tree that is in Lebanon even unto the hyssop that springeth out of the wall: he spake also of [10]beasts, and of fowl, and of creeping things, and of fishes. And there came of all people to hear the wisdom of Solomon, from all kings of the earth, which had heard of his wisdom."

"And God gave Solomon an abundance of wisdom and understanding, along with a big heart, like the sand on the seashore. Solomon’s wisdom surpassed all the wise people from the east and all the wisdom of Egypt. He was wiser than any other man, including Ethan the Ezrahite, Heman, Chalcol, and Darda, the sons of Mahol; and his reputation spread to all the nations around. He wrote three thousand proverbs and composed over a thousand songs. He talked about trees, from the cedar of Lebanon to the hyssop that grows on the walls; he also spoke about animals, birds, creeping things, and fish. People from all over came to hear Solomon's wisdom, including kings from all over the earth who had heard about his insights."

The tradition of his great eminence in scientific research is also preserved in the words put into his mouth in the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon, now included in the Apocrypha.

The legacy of his significant contributions to scientific research is also captured in the words attributed to him in the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon, which is now part of the Apocrypha.

"For" (God) "Himself gave me an unerring knowledge of the things that are, to know the constitution of the world, and the operation of the elements; the beginning and end and middle of times, the alternations of the solstices and the changes of seasons, the circuits of years and the positions" (margin, constellations) "of stars; the natures of living creatures and the ragings of wild beasts, the violences of winds and the thoughts of men, the diversities of plants and the virtues of roots: all things that are either secret or manifest I learned, for she that is the artificer of all things taught me, even Wisdom."

"For" (God) "Himself gave me perfect knowledge of what exists, to understand the structure of the world and how the elements work; the beginning, end, and middle of time, the changes of the solstices and the shifts of seasons, the cycles of years and the positions" (margin, constellations) "of stars; the nature of living beings and the fury of wild animals, the violence of winds and the thoughts of people, the variety of plants and the benefits of roots: I learned all things, whether hidden or obvious, for the one who is the creator of everything taught me, even Wisdom."

Two great names have impressed themselves upon every part of the East:—the one, that of Solomon the son of David, as the master of every secret source of knowledge; and the other that of Alexander the Great, as the mightiest of conquerors. It is not unreasonable to believe that the traditions respecting the first have been founded upon as real a basis of actual achievement as those respecting the second.

Two great names have made a mark across the East: one is Solomon, the son of David, known as the master of every secret source of knowledge; the other is Alexander the Great, recognized as the mightiest conqueror. It's not unreasonable to think that the stories about the first are based on as much real achievement as those about the second.

But to such scientific achievements we have no express allusion in Scripture, other than is afforded us by the two quotations just made. Natural objects, natural phenomena are not referred to for their own sake. Every [11]thought leads up to God or to man's relation to Him. Nature, as a whole and in its every aspect and detail, is the handiwork of Jehovah: that is the truth which the heavens are always declaring;—and it is His power, His wisdom, and His goodness to man which it is sought to illustrate, when the beauty or wonder of natural objects is described.

But we don’t have any specific references to such scientific achievements in Scripture, other than the two quotes we just mentioned. Natural objects and phenomena aren't mentioned just for their own sake. Every thought connects back to God or to humanity's relationship with Him. Nature, in all its entirety and in every detail, is the creation of Jehovah: that’s the truth that the heavens always proclaim; and it’s His power, His wisdom, and His goodness to humanity that are illustrated when the beauty or wonder of natural objects is described.

"When I look at Your heavens, the work of Your hands,
The moon and the stars that You have set in place; What is man, that You think about him?
"And what is mankind that You pay attention to him?"

The first purpose, therefore, of the following study of the astronomy of the Bible is,—not to reconstruct the astronomy of the Hebrews, a task for which the material is manifestly incomplete,—but to examine such astronomical allusions as occur with respect to their appropriateness to the lesson which the writer desired to teach. Following this, it will be of interest to examine what connection can be traced between the Old Testament Scriptures and the Constellations; the arrangement of the stars into constellations having been the chief astronomical work effected during the centuries when those Scriptures were severally composed. The use made of the heavenly bodies as time-measurers amongst the Hebrews will form a third division of the subject; whilst there are two or three incidents in the history of Israel which appear to call for examination from an astronomical point of view, and may suitably be treated in a fourth and concluding section.

The main goal of the following study of biblical astronomy is not to reconstruct the astronomy of the Hebrews, which clearly lacks sufficient material, but to look at the astronomical references in relation to the lessons the writer wanted to convey. After that, it will be interesting to explore any connections between the Old Testament Scriptures and the constellations, as organizing the stars into constellations was the primary astronomical task carried out during the time those Scriptures were written. The way the Hebrews used celestial bodies to measure time will make up a third part of the subject, while there are two or three events in Israel's history that seem worth examining from an astronomical perspective, which can be appropriately discussed in a fourth and final section.

FOOTNOTES:

[7:1] Astronomy in the Old Testament, p. 12.

[12]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

CHAPTER II

THE CREATION

A few years ago a great eclipse of the sun, seen as total along a broad belt of country right across India, drew thither astronomers from the very ends of the earth. Not only did many English observers travel thither, but the United States of America in the far west, and Japan in the far east sent their contingents, and the entire length of country covered by the path of the shadow was dotted with the temporary observatories set up by the men of science.

A few years ago, a major solar eclipse, which appeared total across a wide stretch of land in India, attracted astronomers from all over the world. Many English observers made the trip, and both the United States in the west and Japan in the east sent their teams. The entire area covered by the eclipse's shadow was filled with temporary observatories set up by scientists.

It was a wonderful sight that was vouchsafed to these travellers in pursuit of knowledge. In a sky of unbroken purity, undimmed even for a moment by haze or cloud, there shone down the fierce Indian sun. Gradually a dark mysterious circle invaded its lower edge, and covered its brightness; coolness replaced the burning heat; slowly the dark covering crept on; slowly the sunlight diminished until at length the whole of the sun's disc was hidden. Then in a moment a wonderful starlike form flashed out, a noble form of glowing silver light on the deep purple-coloured sky.

It was a stunning sight for these travelers seeking knowledge. In a perfectly clear sky, untouched by haze or clouds, the intense Indian sun was shining down. Gradually, a dark, mysterious circle began to creep over its lower edge, covering its brilliance; coolness replaced the scorching heat. Slowly, the shadow crept on; slowly, the sunlight faded until the entire disc of the sun was obscured. Then, in an instant, a beautiful star-like shape burst into view, a magnificent figure of glowing silver light against the deep purple sky.

There was, however, no time for the astronomers to devote [13]to admiration of the beauty of the scene, or indulgence in rhapsodies. Two short minutes alone were allotted them to note all that was happening, to take all their photographs, to ask all the questions, and obtain all the answers for which this strange veiling of the sun, and still stranger unveiling of his halo-like surroundings, gave opportunity. It was two minutes of intensest strain, of hurried though orderly work; and then a sudden rush of sunlight put an end to all. The mysterious vision had withdrawn itself; the colour rushed back to the landscape, so corpse-like whilst in the shadow; the black veil slid rapidly from off the sun; the heat returned to the air; the eclipse was over.

There was, however, no time for the astronomers to admire the beauty of the scene or get lost in their thoughts. They had just two short minutes to observe everything happening, take all their photos, ask all the questions, and get all the answers that this strange cover of the sun, and even stranger reveal of its halo-like surroundings, allowed. It was two minutes of intense pressure, of quick but organized work; and then a sudden burst of sunlight ended it all. The mysterious sight had disappeared; the color rushed back into the landscape, which had looked so lifeless in the shadow; the dark veil quickly slid off the sun; the warmth returned to the air; the eclipse was over.

But the astronomers from distant lands were not the only people engaged in watching the eclipse. At their work, they could hear the sound of a great multitude, a sound of weeping and wailing, a people dismayed at the distress of their god.

But the astronomers from faraway places weren't the only ones watching the eclipse. While they worked, they could hear the noise of a huge crowd, a noise of crying and mourning, a people troubled by the suffering of their god.

It was so at every point along the shadow track, but especially where that track met the course of the sacred river. Along a hundred roads the pilgrims had poured in unceasing streams towards Holy Mother Gunga; towards Benares, the sacred city; towards Buxar, where the eclipse was central at the river bank. It is always meritorious—so the Hindoo holds—to bathe in that sacred river, but such a time as this, when the sun is in eclipse, is the most propitious moment of all for such lustration.

It was like this at every point along the shadowy path, but especially where that path met the flow of the sacred river. Pilgrims had come in endless streams from a hundred different roads towards Holy Mother Gunga; towards Benares, the holy city; towards Buxar, where the eclipse was happening right by the riverbank. It's always considered virtuous—so the Hindus believe—to bathe in that sacred river, but there's no better time for it than when the sun is eclipsed.

Could there be a greater contrast than that offered between the millions trembling and dismayed at the signs [14]of heaven, and the little companies who had come for thousands of miles over land and sea, rejoicing in the brief chance that was given them for learning a little more of the secrets of the wonders of Nature?

Could there be a bigger contrast than between the millions who are scared and worried about the signs from above, and the small groups who traveled thousands of miles by land and sea, excited about the brief opportunity they had to learn a bit more about the secrets of the wonders of Nature?

The contrast between the heathen and the scientists was in both their spiritual and their intellectual standpoint, and, as we shall see later, the intellectual contrast is a result of the spiritual. The heathen idea is that the orbs of heaven are divine, or at least that each expresses a divinity. This does not in itself seem an unnatural idea when we consider the great benefits that come to us through the instrumentality of the sun and moon. It is the sun that morning by morning rolls back the darkness, and brings light and warmth and returning life to men; it is the sun that rouses the earth after her winter sleep and quickens vegetation. It is the moon that has power over the great world of waters, whose pulse beats in some kind of mysterious obedience to her will.

The difference between the pagans and the scientists lies in both their spiritual and intellectual views, and, as we will see later, the intellectual difference stems from the spiritual one. The pagan belief is that the heavenly bodies are divine or at least embody a divinity. This idea doesn’t seem unreasonable when we think about the tremendous benefits we receive from the sun and moon. Every morning, the sun pushes back the darkness, bringing light, warmth, and new life to people; it’s the sun that awakens the earth from her winter slumber and stimulates plant growth. The moon has influence over the vast oceans, whose rhythms somehow seem to follow her will.

Natural, then, has it been for men to go further, and to suppose that not only is power lodged in these, and in the other members of the heavenly host, but that it is living, intelligent, personal power; that these shining orbs are beings, or the manifestations of beings; exalted, mighty, immortal;—that they are gods.

Natural, then, it has been for people to go further and assume that not only is power held by these and other members of the heavenly host, but that it is a living, intelligent, personal power; that these shining orbs are beings, or the expressions of beings; exalted, powerful, immortal; —that they are gods.

But if these are gods, then it is sacrilegious, it is profane, to treat them as mere "things"; to observe them minutely in the microscope or telescope; to dissect them, as it were, in the spectroscope; to identify their elements in the laboratory; to be curious about their properties, influences, relations, and actions on each other.

But if these are gods, then it's disrespectful and wrong to treat them as just "things"; to analyze them closely with a microscope or telescope; to break them down, so to speak, in the spectroscope; to identify their components in the lab; to be inquisitive about their properties, effects, relationships, and interactions with one another.

[15]And if these are gods, there are many gods, not One God. And if there are many gods, there are many laws, not one law. Thus scientific observations cannot be reconciled with polytheism, for scientific observations demand the assumption of one universal law. The wise king expressed this law thus:—

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]And if these are gods, there are many gods, not just one God. And if there are many gods, there are many laws, not just one law. Therefore, scientific observations can't be aligned with polytheism, since scientific observations require the belief in one universal law. The wise king put it this way:—

"The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be." The actual language of science, as expressed by Professor Thiele, a leading Continental astronomer, states that—

"The thing that has been is that which will be." The actual language of science, as expressed by Professor Thiele, a prominent Continental astronomer, states that—

"Everything that exists, and everything that happens, exists or happens as a necessary consequence of a previous state of things. If a state of things is repeated in every detail, it must lead to exactly the same consequences. Any difference between the results of causes that are in part the same, must be explainable by some difference in the other part of the causes."[15:1]

"Everything that exists and everything that happens does so as a necessary result of a prior situation. If a situation repeats in every detail, it will inevitably lead to the same outcomes. Any difference in the results of causes that share some similarities must be accounted for by some difference in the other aspects of those causes."[15:1]

The law stated in the above words has been called the Law of Causality. It "cannot be proved, but must be believed; in the same way as we believe the fundamental assumptions of religion, with which it is closely and intimately connected. The law of causality forces itself upon our belief. It may be denied in theory, but not in practice. Any person who denies it, will, if he is watchful enough, catch himself constantly asking himself, if no one else, why this has happened, and not that. But in that very question he bears witness to the law of causality. If we are consistently to deny the law of causality, we must repudiate all observation, and particularly all prediction based on past experience, as useless and misleading.

The principle mentioned above is known as the Law of Causality. It "can't be proven, but it has to be accepted; just like we accept the fundamental beliefs of religion, with which it is closely and deeply connected. The law of causality asserts itself in our minds. It can be denied in theory, but not in practice. Anyone who denies it will, if they pay attention, often find themselves wondering, if no one else is around, why this happened and not that. But in asking that very question, they acknowledge the law of causality. If we consistently deny the law of causality, we would have to reject all observation, and especially any predictions based on past experiences, as pointless and misleading.

"If we could imagine for an instant that the same complete combination of causes could have a definite number of different consequences, however small that [16]number might be, and that among these the occurrence of the actual consequence was, in the old sense of the word, accidental, no observation would ever be of any particular value."[16:1]

"If we could just imagine for a moment that the same complete set of causes could lead to a certain number of different outcomes, no matter how small that [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]number might be, and that among these, the actual outcome was, in the traditional sense, random, then no observation would ever hold much value."[16:1]

So long as men hold, as a practical faith, that the results which attend their efforts depend upon whether Jupiter is awake and active, or Neptune is taking an unfair advantage of his brother's sleep; upon whether Diana is bending her silver bow for the battle, or flying weeping and discomfited because Juno has boxed her ears—so long is it useless for them to make or consult observations.

As long as people believe that the outcomes of their efforts depend on whether Jupiter is awake and doing his thing or Neptune is unfairly taking advantage while his brother sleeps; whether Diana is ready for battle with her silver bow or is flying away in tears because Juno has scolded her—it's pointless for them to make or look at observations.

But, as Professor Thiele goes on to say—

But, as Professor Thiele continues to mention—

"If the law of causality is acknowledged to be an assumption which always holds good, then every observation gives us a revelation which, when correctly appraised and compared with others, teaches us the laws by which God rules the world."

"If we accept that the law of causality is a principle that always applies, then every observation reveals something to us that, when properly evaluated and compared with others, teaches us the laws by which God governs the world."

By what means have the modern scientists arrived at a position so different from that of the heathen? It cannot have been by any process of natural evolution that the intellectual standpoint which has made scientific observation possible should be derived from the spiritual standpoint of polytheism which rendered all scientific observation not only profane but useless.

By what methods have today's scientists reached a viewpoint so different from that of ancient beliefs? It can't be that the intellectual perspective that made scientific observation possible evolved naturally from the spiritual perspective of polytheism, which made all scientific observation not just disrespectful but pointless.

In the old days the heathen in general regarded the heavenly host and the heavenly bodies as the heathen do [17]to-day. But by one nation, the Hebrews, the truth that—

In ancient times, pagans generally viewed the celestial beings and heavenly bodies the same way that many do today. However, one nation, the Hebrews, recognized the truth that— [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth"

"In the beginning, God created the sky and the land."

was preserved in the first words of their Sacred Book. That nation declared—

"All the gods of the people are idols: but the Lord made the heavens."

"All the gods of the people are just statues: but the Lord created the heavens."

For that same nation the watchword was—

For that same nation, the motto was—

"Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord."

"Hear, Israel: our God is the one and only Lord."

From these words the Hebrews not only learned a great spiritual truth, but derived intellectual freedom. For by these words they were taught that all the host of heaven and of earth were created things—merely "things," not divinities—and not only that, but that the Creator was One God, not many gods; that there was but one law-giver; and that therefore there could be no conflict of laws. These first words of Genesis, then, may be called the charter of all the physical sciences, for by them is conferred freedom from all the bonds of unscientific superstition, and by them also do men know that consistent law holds throughout the whole universe. It is the intellectual freedom of the Hebrew that the scientist of to-day inherits. He may not indeed be able to rise to the spiritual standpoint of the Hebrew, and consciously acknowledge that—

From these words, the Hebrews not only learned an important spiritual truth but also gained intellectual freedom. They were taught that everything in heaven and on earth was created—just "things," not gods—and that the Creator is One God, not many gods; that there is only one lawgiver; and thus, there can be no conflict of laws. The first words of Genesis can therefore be seen as the foundation of all physical sciences, as they grant freedom from the constraints of unscientific superstition, and through them, people understand that consistent laws govern the entire universe. The intellectual freedom of the Hebrews is what today’s scientists inherit. While he may not be able to reach the spiritual perspective of the Hebrews, and consciously acknowledge that—

"Thou, even Thou, art Lord alone; Thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the [18]earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and Thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth Thee."

"You alone are Lord; You made the heavens, the highest heavens, and all their beings, the earth, and everything in it, the seas, and everything in them, and You keep them all safe; and the heavenly beings worship You."

But he must at least unconsciously assent to it, for it is on the first great fundamental assumption of religion as stated in the first words of Genesis, that the fundamental assumption of all his scientific reasoning depends.

But he must at least unconsciously agree with it, because it is on the first great fundamental assumption of religion as stated in the opening words of Genesis, that all his scientific reasoning relies.

Scientific reasoning and scientific observation can only hold good so long and in so far as the Law of Causality holds good. We must assume a pre-existing state of affairs which has given rise to the observed effect; we must assume that this observed effect is itself antecedent to a subsequent state of affairs. Science therefore cannot go back to the absolute beginnings of things, or forward to the absolute ends of things. It cannot reason about the way matter and energy came into existence, or how they might cease to exist; it cannot reason about time or space, as such, but only in the relations of these to phenomena that can be observed. It does not deal with things themselves, but only with the relations between things. Science indeed can only consider the universe as a great machine which is in "going order," and it concerns itself with the relations which some parts of the machine bear to other parts, and with the laws and manner of the "going" of the machine in those parts. The relations of the various parts, one to the other, and the way in which they work together, may afford some idea of the design and purpose of the machine, but it can give no information as to how the material of which it is composed came into existence, nor as to the method by which it was originally [19]constructed. Once started, the machine comes under the scrutiny of science, but the actual starting lies outside its scope.

Scientific reasoning and observation are valid only as long as the Law of Causality applies. We have to assume there was a prior state of affairs that resulted in the observed effect, and that this effect itself leads to a later state of affairs. Therefore, science cannot trace back to the absolute beginnings or forward to the absolute ends of things. It can’t explain how matter and energy came into being or how they might cease to exist; it can’t analyze time or space in general, only in relation to observable phenomena. Science doesn’t focus on the things themselves, but on the relationships between them. It views the universe as a complex machine that is currently operational, concentrating on how different parts of the machine relate to one another and the laws governing their interactions. The relationships among the various parts and their cooperation might provide some insight into the design and purpose of the machine, but science cannot offer information about how the materials it consists of came to be or how it was originally built. Once the machine is operating, it can be studied by science, but the initial starting point is beyond its reach.

Men therefore cannot find out for themselves how the worlds were originally made, how the worlds were first moved, or how the spirit of man was first formed within him; and this, not merely because these beginnings of things were of necessity outside his experience, but also because beginnings, as such, must lie outside the law by which he reasons.

Men cannot discover for themselves how the worlds were originally created, how the worlds were first set in motion, or how the human spirit was initially formed within a person; this is not just because these beginnings were necessarily beyond their experience, but also because origins, by their nature, must be outside the laws by which they reason.

By no process of research, therefore, could man find out for himself the facts that are stated in the first chapter of Genesis. They must have been revealed. Science cannot inquire into them for the purpose of checking their accuracy; it must accept them, as it accepts the fundamental law that governs its own working, without the possibility of proof.

By no means can people figure out the facts in the first chapter of Genesis through research. They must have been revealed. Science can’t investigate them to verify their accuracy; it has to take them as they are, just like it accepts the basic laws that govern its own function, without being able to prove them.

And this is what has been revealed to man:—that the heaven and the earth were not self-existent from all eternity, but were in their first beginning created by God. As the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews expresses it: "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." And a further fact was revealed that man could not have found out for himself; viz. that this creation was made and finished in six Divine actings, comprised in what the narrative denominates "days." It has not been revealed whether the duration of these "days" can be expressed in any astronomical units of time.

And this is what has been revealed to humanity: that the heavens and the earth weren't self-existent from all eternity but were created by God at the very beginning. As the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews puts it: "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were made from things that do not appear." Additionally, it was revealed that there is a fact that man could not have discovered on his own; namely, that this creation was made and completed in six Divine actions, referred to in the narrative as "days." It hasn't been clarified whether the duration of these "days" can be measured in any astronomical units of time.

[20] Since under these conditions science can afford no information, it is not to be wondered at that the hypotheses that have been framed from time to time to "explain" the first chapter of Genesis, or to express it in scientific terms, are not wholly satisfactory. At one time the chapter was interpreted to mean that the entire universe was called into existence about 6,000 years ago, in six days of twenty-four hours each. Later it was recognized that both geology and astronomy seemed to indicate the existence of matter for untold millions of years instead of some six thousand. It was then pointed out that, so far as the narrative was concerned, there might have been a period of almost unlimited duration between its first verse and its fourth; and it was suggested that the six days of creation were six days of twenty-four hours each, in which, after some great cataclysm, 6,000 years ago, the face of the earth was renewed and replenished for the habitation of man, the preceding geological ages being left entirely unnoticed. Some writers have confined the cataclysm and renewal to a small portion of the earth's surface—to "Eden," and its neighbourhood. Other commentators have laid stress on the truth revealed in Scripture that "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day," and have urged the argument that the six days of creation were really vast periods of time, during which the earth's geological changes and the evolution of its varied forms of life were running their course. Others, again, have urged that the six days of creation were six literal days, but instead of being consecutive were separated by long ages. And yet again, as no man was present [21]during the creation period, it has been suggested that the Divine revelation of it was given to Moses or some other inspired prophet in six successive visions or dreams, which constituted the "six days" in which the chief facts of creation were set forth.

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] Given that science can't provide information under these circumstances, it's not surprising that the theories proposed to "explain" the first chapter of Genesis or to phrase it in scientific terms aren't completely satisfying. At one point, it was interpreted to mean that the whole universe came into existence about 6,000 years ago in six days, each lasting twenty-four hours. Later, it became clear that both geology and astronomy suggested that matter had existed for millions of years, not just six thousand. It was then noted that, according to the narrative, there might have been an almost infinite period between its first verse and its fourth; it was suggested that the six days of creation might actually refer to six twenty-four-hour days, during which, after a great cataclysm 6,000 years ago, the earth was renewed and prepared for human habitation, ignoring the previous geological ages entirely. Some writers limited the cataclysm and renewal to a small area of the earth's surface—specifically "Eden" and its surroundings. Other commentators pointed out the scriptural truth that "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day," arguing that the six days of creation could be vast periods during which the earth underwent geological changes and the evolution of its diverse life forms. Others maintained that the six days of creation were literal days, but instead of being consecutive, they were separated by long ages. Yet again, since no one was present during the creation period, it has been suggested that the Divine revelation was given to Moses or another inspired prophet through six successive visions or dreams, which represented the "six days" where the main facts of creation were revealed. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

All such hypotheses are based on the assumption that the opening chapters of Genesis are intended to reveal to man certain physical details in the material history of this planet; to be in fact a little compendium of the geological and zoological history of the world, and so a suitable introduction to the history of the early days of mankind which followed it.

All these hypotheses are based on the idea that the opening chapters of Genesis aim to reveal certain physical details about the material history of this planet; essentially serving as a brief summary of the geological and zoological history of the world, and thus a fitting introduction to the history of early human days that followed.

It is surely more reasonable to conclude that there was no purpose whatever of teaching us anything about the physical relationships of land and sea, of tree and plant, of bird and fish; it seems, indeed, scarcely conceivable that it should have been the Divine intention so to supply the ages with a condensed manual of the physical sciences. What useful purpose could it have served? What man would have been the wiser or better for it? Who could have understood it until the time when men, by their own intellectual strivings, had attained sufficient knowledge of their physical surroundings to do without such a revelation at all?

It makes much more sense to think that there was no intention to teach us anything about the physical relationships between land and sea, trees and plants, or birds and fish. It seems almost impossible that it was the Divine plan to provide the ages with a concise guide to the physical sciences. What good would that have done? How would it have made anyone wiser or better? Who could have grasped it until humans, through their own intellectual efforts, had gained enough understanding of their physical environment to not need such a revelation at all?

But although the opening chapters of Genesis were not designed to teach the Hebrew certain physical facts of nature, they gave him the knowledge that he might lawfully study nature. For he learnt from them that nature has no power nor vitality of its own; that sun, and sea, and cloud, and wind are not separate deities, [22]nor the expression of deities that they are but "things," however glorious and admirable; that they are the handiwork of God; and—

But even though the opening chapters of Genesis weren't meant to teach the Hebrew about specific facts of nature, they provided him with the understanding that it was acceptable to study nature. He learned that nature has no independent power or life; that the sun, sea, clouds, and wind aren't separate gods, [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]nor representations of gods, but simply "things," no matter how magnificent and awe-inspiring; that they are created by God; and—

"The works of the Lord are amazing,
Sought out by all those who take pleasure in it. His work represents honor and majesty; And His righteousness lasts forever.
"He has made His wonderful works to be remembered."

What, then, is the significance of the detailed account given us of the works effected on the successive days of creation? Why are we told that light was made on the first day, the firmament on the second, dry land on the third, and so on? Probably for two reasons. First, that the rehearsal, as in a catalogue, of the leading classes of natural objects, might give definiteness and precision to the teaching that each and all were creatures, things made by the word of God. The bald statement that the heaven and the earth were made by God might still have left room for the imagination that the powers of nature were co-eternal with God, or were at least subordinate divinities; or that other powers than God had worked up into the present order the materials He had created. The detailed account makes it clear that not only was the universe in general created by God, but that there was no part of it that was not fashioned by Him.

What, then, is the significance of the detailed account of the works accomplished on the successive days of creation? Why are we told that light was created on the first day, the firmament on the second, dry land on the third, and so on? Probably for two reasons. First, the detailed listing of the main categories of natural objects helps establish that each and every one is a creation, made by the word of God. The simple statement that the heavens and the earth were made by God might still leave room for the idea that the forces of nature were co-eternal with God, or at least lesser deities; or that other powers besides God had shaped the materials He created into the current order. The detailed account clarifies that not only was the universe in general created by God, but that every part of it was crafted by Him.

The next purpose was to set a seal of sanctity upon the Sabbath. In the second chapter of Genesis we read—

The next purpose was to place a mark of holiness on the Sabbath. In the second chapter of Genesis, we read—

"On the seventh day God ended His work which He had made; and He rested on the seventh day from all [23]His work which He had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it He had rested from all His work which God created and made."

"On the seventh day, God completed His work that He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work that He had done. God blessed the seventh day and made it holy because on that day He rested from all the work of creation."

In this we get the institution of the week, the first ordinance imposed by God upon man. For in the fourth of the ten commandments which God gave through Moses, it is said—

In this, we see the establishment of the week, the first rule set by God for humankind. For in the fourth of the ten commandments that God gave through Moses, it is stated—

"The seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work. . . . For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

"The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God: on it you must not do any work. … For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and everything in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore, the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

And again, when the tabernacle was being builded, it was commanded—

And again, when the tabernacle was being built, it was commanded—

"The children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day He rested, and was refreshed."

"The people of Israel must keep the Sabbath and observe it for all generations as an everlasting covenant. It's a sign between Me and the people of Israel forever: because in six days the Lord created the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed."

God made the sun, moon, and stars, and appointed them "for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years." The sun marks out the days; the moon by her changes makes the months; the sun and the stars mark out the seasons and the years. These were divisions of time which man would naturally adopt. But there is not an exact number of days in the month, nor an exact number of days or months in the year. Still less does the period of seven days fit precisely into month or season [24]or year; the week is marked out by no phase of the moon, by no fixed relation between the sun, the moon, or the stars. It is not a division of time that man would naturally adopt for himself; it runs across all the natural divisions of time.

God created the sun, moon, and stars, assigning them "for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years." The sun tracks the days; the moon, through its phases, determines the months; the sun and the stars indicate the seasons and the years. These were natural divisions of time that people would commonly use. However, there isn't a precise number of days in a month, nor a consistent number of days or months in a year. Even more, the seven-day week doesn’t neatly fit into months or seasons, as it isn’t defined by any phase of the moon or by a fixed relationship among the sun, moon, or stars. It's not a time division that would intuitively appeal to people; it disrupts all the natural time divisions. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

What are the six days of creative work, and the seventh day—the Sabbath—of creative rest? They are not days of man, they are days of God; and our days of work and rest, our week with its Sabbath, can only be the figure and shadow of that week of God; something by which we may gain some faint apprehension of its realities, not that by which we can comprehend and measure it.

What are the six days of creative work and the seventh day—the Sabbath—of creative rest? They aren't just days for humans; they're days for God. Our workdays and rest days, along with our week and its Sabbath, can only reflect that divine week. They're a way for us to get a small glimpse of its true nature, but they can't fully capture or define it.

Our week, therefore, is God's own direct appointment to us; and His revelation that He fulfilled the work of creation in six acts or stages, dignifies and exalts the toil of the labouring man, with his six days of effort and one of rest, into an emblem of the creative work of God.

Our week, then, is a direct appointment from God; and His revelation that He completed the work of creation in six acts or stages honors and elevates the hard work of the laboring person, with their six days of effort and one day of rest, into a symbol of God's creative work.

FOOTNOTES:

[15:1] T. N. Thiele, Director of the Copenhagen Observatory, Theory of Observations, p. 1.

[16:1] T. N. Thiele, Director of the Copenhagen Observatory, Theory of Observations, p. 1.

MERODACH AND TIAMAT.

Marduk and Tiamat.

Sculpture from the Palace of Assur-nazir-pel, King of Assyria. Now in the British Museum.
Damaged by fire. Supposed to represent the defeat of Tiamat by Merodach.ToList

Sculpture from the Palace of Assur-nazir-pel, King of Assyria. Now in the British Museum.
Damaged by fire. It’s believed to depict the defeat of Tiamat by Merodach.ToList

[To face p. 25.

[See p. 25.

[25]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

CHAPTER III

THE DEEP

The second verse of Genesis states, "And the earth was without form and void [i. e. waste and empty] and darkness was upon the face of the deep." The word tehōm, here translated deep, has been used to support the theory that the Hebrews derived their Creation story from one which, when exiles in Babylon, they heard from their conquerors. If this theory were substantiated, it would have such an important bearing upon the subject of the attitude of the inspired writers towards the objects of nature, that a little space must be spared for its examination.

The second verse of Genesis says, "And the earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep." The word tehōm, translated as deep, has been used to support the idea that the Hebrews got their Creation story from one they heard from their conquerors while in exile in Babylon. If this idea is proven true, it would significantly impact our understanding of how the inspired writers viewed the natural world, so we need to take a moment to explore it.

The purpose of the first chapter of Genesis is to tell us that—

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

"In the beginning, God created the sky and the land."

From it we learn that the universe and all the parts that make it up—all the different forms of energy, all the different forms of matter—are neither deities themselves, nor their embodiments and expressions, nor the work of conflicting deities. From it we learn that the universe [26]is not self-existent, nor even (as the pantheist thinks of it) the expression of one vague, impersonal and unconscious, but all-pervading influence. It was not self-made; it did not exist from all eternity. It is not God, for God made it.

From this, we understand that the universe and all its components—all the various forms of energy and matter—are neither gods themselves, nor their representations and expressions, nor the creations of warring gods. We learn that the universe [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]doesn't exist on its own, nor is it (as pantheists might perceive) the expression of a vague, impersonal, and unconscious presence that fills everything. It wasn't created by itself; it hasn't existed for all eternity. It is not God, because God created it.

But the problem of its origin has exercised the minds of many nations beside the Hebrews, and an especial interest attaches to the solution arrived at by those nations who were near neighbours of the Hebrews and came of the same great Semitic stock.

But the question of its origin has occupied the thoughts of many countries besides the Hebrews, and there is particular interest in the conclusions reached by those nations that were close neighbors to the Hebrews and came from the same significant Semitic background.

From the nature of the case, accounts of the origin of the world cannot proceed from experience, or be the result of scientific experiment. They cannot form items of history, or arise from tradition. There are only two possible sources for them; one, Divine revelation; the other, the invention of men.

From the nature of the situation, stories about the origin of the world can’t come from experience or scientific experimentation. They can’t be part of history or come from tradition. There are only two possible sources for them: one, Divine revelation; the other, human invention.

The account current amongst the Babylonians has been preserved to us by the Syrian writer Damascius, who gives it as follows:—

The current account among the Babylonians has been passed down to us by the Syrian writer Damascius, who presents it as follows:—

"But the Babylonians, like the rest of the Barbarians, pass over in silence the one principle of the Universe, and they constitute two, Tavthê and Apasôn, making Apasôn the husband of Tavthê, and denominating her "the mother of the gods." And from these proceeds an only-begotten son, Mumis, which, I conceive, is no other than the intelligible world proceeding from the two principles. From them also another progeny is derived, Lakhê and Lakhos; and again a third, Kissarê and Assôros, from which last three others proceed, Anos and Illinos and Aos. And of Aos and Dakhê is born a son called Bêlos, who, they say, is the fabricator of the world."[26:1]

"But the Babylonians, like other barbarians, ignore the fundamental principle of the universe and create two, Tavthê and Apasôn, with Apasôn as the husband of Tavthê, calling her 'the mother of the gods.' From these two comes a unique son, Mumis, which I believe represents the intelligible world emerging from the two principles. From them also descend another set, Lakhê and Lakhos; and again a third pair, Kissarê and Assôros, from whom three more arise: Anos, Illinos, and Aos. Aos and Dakhê give birth to a son named Bêlos, who they say is the creator of the world."[26:1]

[27] The actual story, thus summarized by Damascius, was discovered by Mr. George Smith, in the form of a long epic poem, on a series of tablets, brought from the royal library of Kouyunjik, or Nineveh, and he published them in 1875, in his book on The Chaldean Account of Genesis. None of the tablets were perfect; and of some only very small portions remain. But portions of other copies of the poem have been discovered in other localities, and it has been found possible to piece together satisfactorily a considerable section, so that a fair idea of the general scope of the poem has been given to us.

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] The story, summarized by Damascius, was found by Mr. George Smith in the form of a long epic poem on a series of tablets taken from the royal library of Kouyunjik, or Nineveh. He published them in 1875 in his book The Chaldean Account of Genesis. None of the tablets were in perfect condition, and only small portions of some survive. However, parts of other copies of the poem have been found in various locations, and it's possible to put together a substantial section, giving us a decent idea of the poem's overall theme.

It opens with the introduction of a being, Tiamtu—the Tavthê of the account of Damascius,—who is regarded as the primeval mother of all things.

It starts with the introduction of a being, Tiamtu—the Tavthê of Damascius's story—who is seen as the original mother of everything.

"When the heavens were high and without a name,
There was no name beneath the earth:
The ancient ocean was their creator; Mummu Tiamtu was the one who gave birth to all of them.
Their waters merged into one, and
The plains weren't defined, and there were no marshes in sight.
When none of the gods appeared,
They had no name, and their fates hadn't been decided. The gods were all created. [27:1]

The genealogy of the gods follows, and after a gap in the story, Tiamat, or Tiamtu, is represented as preparing for battle, "She who created everything . . . produced giant serpents." She chose one of the gods, Kingu, to be her husband and the general of her forces, and delivered to him the tablets of fate.

The lineage of the gods is outlined here, and after a break in the narrative, Tiamat, or Tiamtu, is depicted as gearing up for a fight, "She who created everything . . . gave birth to giant serpents." She picked one of the gods, Kingu, to be her husband and the leader of her army, and handed him the tablets of destiny.

The second tablet shows the god Anšar, angered at the [28]threatening attitude of Tiamat, and sending his son Anu to speak soothingly to her and calm her rage. But first Anu and then another god turned back baffled, and finally Merodach, the son of Ea, was asked to become the champion of the gods. Merodach gladly consented, but made good terms for himself. The gods were to assist him in every possible way by entrusting all their powers to him, and were to acknowledge him as first and chief of all. The gods in their extremity were nothing loth. They feasted Merodach and, when swollen with wine, endued him with all magical powers, and hailed him—

The second tablet depicts the god Anšar, who is upset by Tiamat's threatening behavior, and sends his son Anu to try to calm her down. However, both Anu and another god end up retreating, confused. Eventually, Merodach, the son of Ea, is chosen to be the champion of the gods. Merodach agrees but negotiates favorable terms for himself. The gods promised to support him in every way by giving him all their powers and recognizing him as the leader of all. In their desperate situation, the gods readily accepted. They celebrated Merodach with a feast, and when they were drunk, they endowed him with all magical powers and hailed him—

"Merodach, you are our avenger,
"We have given you the kingdom over the entire universe."[28:1]

At first the sight of his terrible enemy caused even Merodach to falter, but plucking up courage he advanced to meet her, caught her in his net, and, forcing an evil wind into her open mouth—

At first, seeing his terrible enemy made even Merodach hesitate, but gathering his courage, he stepped forward to confront her, trapped her in his net, and forced a wicked wind into her open mouth—

"He made the wicked wind come in, preventing her from closing her lips.
The violent winds churned her stomach, and
her heart was broken and her mouth was twisted.
He swung the club and broke her stomach; he removed her organs; he took control of her heart; He tied her up and took her life.
He dropped her body and stood on it.[28:2]

The battle over and the enemy slain, Merodach considered how to dispose of the corpse.

The battle was over and the enemy was defeated, Merodach thought about how to handle the body.

"He sharpens his mind and comes up with a clever plan,
And he took her skin off like he would with a fish, following his plan."[28:3]

[29] Of one half of the corpse of Tiamat he formed the earth, and of the other half, the heavens. He then proceded to furnish the heavens and the earth with their respective equipments; the details of this work occupying apparently the fifth, sixth, and seventh tablets of the series.

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] From one half of Tiamat's body, he created the earth, and from the other half, he made the heavens. He then went on to equip the heavens and the earth with everything they needed; the specifics of this work seem to be covered in the fifth, sixth, and seventh tablets of the series.

Under ordinary circumstances such a legend as the foregoing would not have attracted much attention. It is as barbarous and unintelligent as any myth of Zulu or Fijian. Strictly speaking, it is not a Creation myth at all. Tiamat and her serpent-brood and the gods are all existent before Merodach commences his work, and all that the god effects is a reconstruction of the world. The method of this reconstruction possesses no features superior to those of the Creation myths of other barbarous nations. Our own Scandinavian ancestors had a similar one, the setting of which was certainly not inferior to the grotesque battle of Merodach with Tiamat. The prose Edda tells us that the first man, Bur, was the father of Bör, who was in turn the father of Odin and his two brothers Vili and Ve. These sons of Bör slew Ymir, the old frost giant.

Under normal circumstances, a legend like this wouldn't have drawn much attention. It's as primitive and unintelligent as any myth from the Zulu or Fijian cultures. Technically, it's not even a Creation myth. Tiamat, her serpent offspring, and the gods all exist before Merodach starts his work, and all he does is reconstruct the world. The way he does this is no better than the Creation myths of other primitive societies. Our own Scandinavian ancestors had a similar tale, which was certainly as dramatic as the bizarre battle between Merodach and Tiamat. The prose Edda tells us that the first man, Bur, was the father of Bör, who was the father of Odin and his two brothers, Vili and Ve. These sons of Bör killed Ymir, the ancient frost giant.

"They dragged the body of Ymir into the middle of Ginnungagap, and of it formed the earth. From Ymir's blood they made the sea and waters; from his flesh, the land; from his bones, the mountains; and his teeth and jaws, together with some bits of broken bones, served them to make the stones and pebbles."

"They dragged Ymir's body into the center of Ginnungagap and made the earth from it. They created the sea and waters from Ymir's blood; they shaped the land from his flesh; the mountains came from his bones; and his teeth and jaws, along with some broken bones, were used to make the stones and pebbles."

It will be seen that there is a remarkable likeness between the Babylonian and Scandinavian myths in the central and essential feature of each, viz. the way in which the world is supposed to have been built up by [30]the gods from the fragments of the anatomy of a huge primæval monster. Yet it is not urged that there is any direct genetic connection between the two; that the Babylonians either taught their legend to the Scandinavians or learnt it from them.

It can be observed that there is a striking similarity between the Babylonian and Scandinavian myths in their core concept, which is the belief that the world was created by the gods from the remains of a giant primordial monster. However, it is not claimed that there is a direct genetic link between the two; that the Babylonians either passed their legend to the Scandinavians or learned it from them.

Under ordinary circumstances it would hardly have occurred to any one to try to derive the monotheistic narrative of Gen. i. from either of these pagan myths, crowded as they are with uncouth and barbarous details. But it happened that Mr. George Smith, who brought to light the Assyrian Creation tablets, brought also to light a Babylonian account of the Flood, which had a large number of features in common with the narrative of Gen. vi.-ix. The actual resemblance between the two Deluge narratives has caused a resemblance to be imagined between the two Creation narratives. It has been well brought out in some of the later comments of Assyriologists that, so far from there being any resemblance in the Babylonian legend to the narrative in Genesis, the two accounts differ in toto. Mr. T. G. Pinches, for example, points out that in the Babylonian account there is—

Under normal circumstances, it wouldn't have crossed anyone's mind to connect the monotheistic story of Gen. i. with either of these pagan myths, which are filled with strange and brutal details. However, Mr. George Smith, who discovered the Assyrian Creation tablets, also revealed a Babylonian account of the Flood that shares many features with the narrative in Gen. vi.-ix. The actual similarities between the two Flood stories have led some to imagine parallels between the two Creation accounts. Some of the later observations by Assyriologists have shown that, rather than having any similarities, the Babylonian legend and the story in Genesis differ completely. Mr. T. G. Pinches, for instance, notes that in the Babylonian account there is—

"No direct statement of the creation of the heavens and the earth;

"No direct statement about how the heavens and the earth were created;

"No systematic division of the things created into groups and classes, such as is found in Genesis;

"No organized division of created things into groups and categories, like what you see in Genesis;

"No reference to the Days of Creation;

"No appearance of the Deity as the first and only cause of the existence of things."[30:1]

"No sign of the Deity as the first and only cause of things coming into existence."[30:1]

[31]Indeed, in the Babylonian account, "the heavens and the earth are represented as existing, though in a chaotic form, from the first."

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]In the Babylonian story, "the heavens and the earth are shown to exist, although in a chaotic state, from the very beginning."

Yet on this purely imaginary resemblance between the Biblical and Babylonian Creation narratives the legend has been founded "that the introductory chapters of the Book of Genesis present to us the Hebrew version of a mythology common to many of the Semitic peoples." And the legend has been yet further developed, until writers of the standing of Prof. Friedrich Delitzsch have claimed that the Genesis narrative was borrowed from the Babylonian, though "the priestly scholar who composed Genesis, chapter i. endeavoured of course to remove all possible mythological features of this Creation story."[31:1]

Yet on this completely imaginary similarity between the Biblical and Babylonian Creation stories, the idea has arisen that "the introductory chapters of the Book of Genesis present us with the Hebrew version of a mythology common to many of the Semitic peoples." This idea has been further developed, leading respected writers like Prof. Friedrich Delitzsch to claim that the Genesis narrative was borrowed from the Babylonian, although "the priestly scholar who wrote Genesis, chapter i, tried to eliminate all possible mythological elements from this Creation story."[31:1]

If the Hebrew priest did borrow from the Babylonian myth, what was it that he borrowed? Not the existence of sea and land, of sun and moon, of plants and animals, of birds and beasts and fishes. For surely the Hebrew may be credited with knowing this much of himself, without any need for a transportation to Babylon to learn it. "In writing an account of the Creation, statements as to what are the things created must of necessity be inserted,"[31:2] whenever, wherever, and by whomsoever that account is written.

If the Hebrew priest did take inspiration from the Babylonian myth, what exactly did he take? Not the existence of the sea and land, the sun and moon, or plants and animals, birds and beasts, and fish. Surely, the Hebrew would know this much about himself without needing to go to Babylon to learn it. "In writing an account of Creation, details about what was created must be included,"[31:2] no matter when, where, or by whom that account is written.

What else, then, is there common to the two accounts? Tiamat is the name given to the Babylonian mother of the universe, the dragon of the deep; and in Genesis [32]it is written that "darkness was upon the face of the deep (tehōm)."

What else is shared between the two accounts? Tiamat is the name of the Babylonian mother of the universe, the dragon of the deep; and in Genesis [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]it says that "darkness was over the face of the deep (tehōm)."

Here, and here only, is a point of possible connection; but if it be evidence of a connection, what kind of a connection does it imply? It implies that the Babylonian based his barbarous myth upon the Hebrew narrative. There is no other possible way of interpreting the connection,—if connection there be.

Here, and here only, is a possible point of connection; but if it is evidence of a connection, what kind of connection does it suggest? It suggests that the Babylonian based his crude myth on the Hebrew story. There’s no other way to interpret the connection—if there is one.

The Hebrew word would seem to mean, etymologically, "surges," "storm-tossed waters,"—"Deep calleth unto deep at the noise of Thy waterspouts." Our word "deep" is apt to give us the idea of stillness—we have the proverb, "Still waters run deep,"—whereas in some instances tehōm is used in Scripture of waters which were certainly shallow, as, for instance, those passed through by Israel at the Red Sea:—

The Hebrew word seems to mean, etymologically, "surges," "storm-tossed waters,"—"Deep calls to deep at the sound of Your waterfalls." Our word "deep" tends to make us think of calmness—we have the saying, "Still waters run deep,"—but in some cases, tehōm is used in Scripture to refer to waters that were definitely shallow, like those crossed by Israel at the Red Sea:—

"Pharaoh's chariots and his host hath He cast into the sea: his chosen captains also are drowned in the Red Sea. The depths have covered them."

"Pharaoh's chariots and his army He has thrown into the sea: his chosen captains are also drowned in the Red Sea. The depths have covered them."

In other passages the words used in our Authorized Version, "deep" or "depths," give the correct signification.

In other passages, the words used in our Authorized Version, "deep" or "depths," convey the correct meaning.

But deep waters, or waters in commotion, are in either case natural objects. We get the word tehōm used continually in Scripture in a perfectly matter-of-fact way, where there is no possibility of personification or myth being intended. Tiamat, on the contrary, the Babylonian dragon of the waters, is a mythological personification. Now the natural object must come first. It never yet has been the case that a nation has gained its knowledge [33]of a perfectly common natural object by de-mythologizing one of the mythological personifications of another nation. The Israelites did not learn about tehōm, the surging water of the Red Sea, that rolled over the Egyptians in their sight, from any Babylonian fable of a dragon of the waters, read by their descendants hundreds of years later.

But deep waters, or turbulent waters, are always natural phenomena. The term tehōm appears frequently in Scripture in a straightforward manner, with no chance of it being intended as a personification or myth. Tiamat, on the other hand, the Babylonian dragon of the waters, is a mythical figure. The natural element must come first. No nation has ever gained an understanding of a completely ordinary natural element by de-mythologizing a mythological personification from another culture. The Israelites didn’t learn about tehōm, the powerful water of the Red Sea that crashed over the Egyptians in front of them, from any Babylonian tale of a water dragon, read by their descendants centuries later.

Yet further, the Babylonian account of Creation is comparatively late; the Hebrew account, as certainly, comparatively early. It is not merely that the actual cuneiform tablets are of date about 700 b.c., coming as they do from the Kouyunjik mound, the ruins of the palace of Sennacherib and Assurbanipal, built about that date. The poem itself, as Prof. Sayce has pointed out, indicates, by the peculiar pre-eminence given in it to Merodach, that it is of late composition. It was late in the history of Babylon that Merodach was adopted as the supreme deity. The astronomical references in the poem are more conclusive still, for, as will be shown later on, they point to a development of astronomy that cannot be dated earlier than 700 b.c.

Yet further, the Babylonian account of Creation is relatively recent; the Hebrew account, on the other hand, is definitely much older. It's not just that the actual cuneiform tablets date back to around 700 B.C., originating from the Kouyunjik mound, which was the site of the palace of Sennacherib and Assurbanipal built around that time. The poem itself, as Prof. Sayce has pointed out, suggests its late composition by the special prominence given to Merodach. It was later in Babylon's history that Merodach became recognized as the supreme deity. The astronomical references in the poem are even more definitive, for, as will be shown later, they indicate a level of astronomical development that couldn't be dated earlier than 700 B.C.

On the other hand, the first chapter of Genesis was composed very early. The references to the heavenly bodies in verse 16 bear the marks of the most primitive condition possible of astronomy. The heavenly bodies are simply the greater light, the lesser light, and the stars—the last being introduced quite parenthetically. It is the simplest reference to the heavenly bodies that is made in Scripture, or that, indeed, could be made.

On the other hand, the first chapter of Genesis was written a long time ago. The mentions of the celestial bodies in verse 16 show the most basic understanding of astronomy. The celestial bodies are referred to as the greater light, the lesser light, and the stars—the last one being mentioned almost as an afterthought. It’s the simplest reference to celestial bodies found in Scripture, or that could even be made.

There may well have been Babylonians who held higher [34]conceptions of God and nature than those given in the Tiamat myth. It is certain that very many Hebrews fell short of the teaching conveyed in the first chapter of Genesis. But the fact remains that the one nation preserved the Tiamat myth, the other the narrative of Genesis, and each counted its own Creation story sacred. We can only rightly judge the two nations by what they valued. Thus judged, the Hebrew nation stands as high above the Babylonian in intelligence, as well as in faith, as the first chapter of Genesis is above the Tiamat myth.

There may have been Babylonians who had a more advanced [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]view of God and nature than what is presented in the Tiamat myth. It's clear that many Hebrews didn’t fully grasp the teachings found in the first chapter of Genesis. However, it's important to note that one nation kept the Tiamat myth, while the other cherished the Genesis account, and each considered its own Creation story to be sacred. We can only truly evaluate the two nations based on what they valued. In this regard, the Hebrew nation stands far above the Babylonian both in intellect and in faith, much like the first chapter of Genesis stands above the Tiamat myth.

FOOTNOTES:

[26:1] Records of the Past, vol. i. p. 124.

[27:1] The Old Testament in the Light of the Historical Records of Assyria and Babylonia, by T. G. Pinches, p. 16.

[28:1] The Old Testament in the Light of the Historical Records of Assyria and Babylonia, by T. G. Pinches, p. 16.

[28:2] Records of the Past, vol. i. p. 140.

[28:3] Ibid. p. 142.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Same source. p. 142.

[30:1] The Old Testament in the Light of the Historical Records of Assyria and Babylonia, by T. G. Pinches, p. 49.

[31:1] Babel and Bible, Johns' translation, pp. 36 and 37.

[31:2] The Old Testament in the Light of the Historical Records of Assyria and Babylonia, by T. G. Pinches, p. 48.

[35]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

CHAPTER IV

THE FIRMAMENT

The sixth verse of the first chapter of Genesis presents a difficulty as to the precise meaning of the principal word, viz. that translated firmament.

The sixth verse of the first chapter of Genesis presents a challenge regarding the exact meaning of the main word, which is translated as firmament.

"And God said, Let there be a rāqiā‘ in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the rāqiā‘, and divided the waters which were under the rāqiā‘ from the waters which were above the rāqiā‘: and it was so. And God called the rāqiā‘ Shamayim. And the evening and the morning were the second day."

"And God said, Let there be a rāqiā‘ in the middle of the waters, to separate the waters from the waters. And God created the rāqiā‘, separating the waters below the rāqiā‘ from the waters above the rāqiā‘: and it was so. And God named the rāqiā‘ Shamayim. And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day."

It is, of course, perfectly clear that by the word rāqiā‘ in the preceding passage it is the atmosphere that is alluded to. But later on in the chapter the word is used in a slightly different connection. "God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven."

It is, of course, perfectly clear that by the word rāqiā‘ in the preceding passage it is the atmosphere that is referenced. But later in the chapter, the word is used in a slightly different context. "God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven."

As we look upward from the earth, we look through a twofold medium. Near the earth we have our atmosphere; above that there is inter-stellar space, void of anything, so far as we know, except the Ether. We are not able to detect any line of demarcation where our atmosphere ends, and the outer void begins. Both therefore are equally spoken of as "the firmament"; and yet [36]there is a difference between the two. The lower supports the clouds; in the upper are set the two great lights and the stars. The upper, therefore, is emphatically reqiā‘ hasshamayim, "the firmament of heaven," of the "uplifted." It is "in the face of"—that is, "before," or "under the eyes of," "beneath,"—this higher expanse that the fowls of the air fly to and fro.

As we look up from the earth, we see through two layers. Close to the ground, we have our atmosphere; above that is interstellar space, which is empty, as far as we know, except for the Ether. We can't pinpoint where our atmosphere ends and the outer void begins. Both are often referred to as "the firmament," but there is a distinction between them. The lower part holds the clouds, while the upper part contains the two great lights and the stars. The upper part is specifically reqiā‘ hasshamayim, "the firmament of heaven," or "the lifted." It is "in the face of" — meaning "before," or "under the gaze of," "beneath" — this higher expanse that the birds fly back and forth.

The firmament, then, is that which Tennyson sings of as "the central blue," the seeming vault of the sky, which we can consider as at any height above us that we please. The clouds are above it in one sense; yet in another, sun, moon and stars, which are clearly far higher than the clouds, are set in it.

The sky, then, is what Tennyson refers to as "the central blue," the apparent dome of the heavens, which we can think of as being at any height we choose. The clouds are above it in one way; yet in another, the sun, moon, and stars, which are obviously much higher than the clouds, are situated within it.

There is no question therefore as to what is referred to by the word "firmament"; but there is a question as to the etymological meaning of the word, and associated with that, a question as to how the Hebrews themselves conceived of the celestial vault.

There’s no doubt about what the word "firmament" refers to; however, there’s a question about its etymological meaning, and connected to that, a question about how the Hebrews themselves viewed the celestial vault.

The word rāqiā‘, translated "firmament," properly signifies "an expanse," or "extension," something stretched or beaten out. The verb from which this noun is derived is often used in Scripture, both as referring to the heavens and in other connections. Thus in Job xxxvii. 18, the question is asked, "Canst thou with Him spread out the sky, which is strong as a molten mirror?" Eleazar, the priest, after the rebellion of Korah, Dathan and Abiram took the brazen censers of the rebels, and they were "made broad plates for a covering of the altar." The goldsmith described by Isaiah as making an idol, "spreadeth it over with gold"; whilst Jeremiah says, [37]"silver spread into plates is brought from Tarshish." Again, in Psalm cxxxvi., in the account of creation we have the same word used with reference to the earth, "To him that stretched out the earth above the waters." In this and in many other passages the idea of extension is clearly that which the word is intended to convey. But the Seventy, in making the Greek Version of the Old Testament, were naturally influenced by the views of astronomical science then held in Alexandria, the centre of Greek astronomy. Here, and at this time, the doctrine of the crystalline spheres—a misunderstanding of the mathematical researches of Eudoxus and others—held currency. These spheres were supposed to be a succession of perfectly transparent and invisible solid shells, in which the sun, moon, and planets were severally placed. The Seventy no doubt considered that in rendering rāqiā‘, by stereōma, i. e. firmament, thus conveying the idea of a solid structure, they were speaking the last word of up-to-date science.

The word rāqiā‘, translated as "firmament," actually means "an expanse" or "an extension," referring to something that is stretched or flattened out. The verb that this noun comes from is frequently used in the Bible, relating both to the heavens and other contexts. For example, in Job xxxvii. 18, it asks, "Can you with Him spread out the sky, which is as strong as a molten mirror?" After the rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, Eleazar the priest took the bronze censers of the rebels and they were "made broad plates for a covering of the altar." The goldsmith mentioned by Isaiah, who makes an idol, "spreads it over with gold"; while Jeremiah says, [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]"silver spread into plates is brought from Tarshish." In Psalm cxxxvi., during the creation account, the same word is used about the earth: "To him that stretched out the earth above the waters." In this and many other verses, the idea of extension is clearly what's conveyed by the word. However, the Seventy, when translating the Old Testament into Greek, were naturally influenced by the astronomical views prevalent in Alexandria, the hub of Greek astronomy at the time. There, the theory of crystalline spheres—a misunderstanding of the mathematical studies by Eudoxus and others—was widely accepted. These spheres were believed to be a series of perfectly transparent and invisible solid shells, with the sun, moon, and planets each placed within them. The Seventy likely thought that by translating rāqiā‘ as stereōma, meaning firmament, and thus suggesting a solid structure, they were aligning with the latest scientific understanding.

There should be no reluctance in ascribing to the Hebrews an erroneous scientific conception if there is any evidence that they held it. We cannot too clearly realize that the writers of the Scriptures were not supernaturally inspired to give correct technical scientific descriptions; and supposing they had been so inspired, we must bear in mind that we should often consider those descriptions wrong just in proportion to their correctness, for the very sufficient reason that not even our own science of to-day has yet reached finality in all things.

There should be no hesitation in attributing an incorrect scientific understanding to the Hebrews if there is any evidence that they believed it. We must clearly understand that the authors of the Scriptures were not divinely inspired to provide accurate technical scientific descriptions; and even if they had been inspired, we should remember that we would often view those descriptions as incorrect in proportion to how accurate they might be, because our own science today hasn't achieved completeness in everything.

There should be no reluctance in ascribing to the [38]Hebrews an erroneous scientific conception if there is any evidence that they held it. In this case, there is no such evidence; indeed, there is strong evidence to the contrary.

There should be no hesitation in saying that the [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]Hebrews had a mistaken scientific understanding if there's proof that they believed it. In this case, there’s no proof; in fact, there's strong evidence against it.

The Hebrew word rāqiā‘, as already shown, really signifies "extension," just as the word for heaven, shamayim means the "uplifted." In these two words, therefore, significant respectively of a surface and of height, there is a recognition of the "three dimensions,"—in other words, of Space.

The Hebrew word rāqiā‘, as already shown, actually means "extension," just like the word for heaven, shamayim, means "uplifted." These two words, which represent a surface and height, acknowledge the "three dimensions,"—in other words, Space.

When we wish to refer to super-terrestrial space, we have two expressions in modern English by which to describe it: we can speak of "the vault of heaven," or of "the canopy of heaven." "The vault of heaven" is most used, it has indeed been recently adopted as the title of a scientific work by a well-known astronomer. But the word vault certainly gives the suggestion of a solid structure; whilst the word canopy calls up the idea of a slighter covering, probably of some textile fabric.

When we want to talk about outer space, we have two expressions in modern English to describe it: we can say "the vault of heaven" or "the canopy of heaven." "The vault of heaven" is used more often, and it's recently been chosen as the title of a scientific work by a famous astronomer. However, the word vault definitely suggests a solid structure, while the word canopy brings to mind a lighter covering, likely made of some kind of fabric.

The reasons for thinking that the Hebrews did not consider the "firmament" a solid structure are, first, that the word does not necessarily convey that meaning; next, that the attitude of the Hebrew mind towards nature was not such as to require this idea. The question, "What holds up the waters above the firmament?" would not have troubled them. It would have been sufficient for them, as for the writer to the Hebrews, to consider that God was "upholding all things by the word of His power," and they would not have troubled about the machinery. But besides this, there are many passages in Scripture, some occurring in the earliest books, which [39]expressly speak of the clouds as carrying the water; so that the expressions placing waters "above the firmament," or "above the heavens," can mean no more than "in the clouds." Indeed, as we shall see, quite a clear account is given of the atmospheric circulation, such as could hardly be mended by a modern poet.

The reasons for believing that the Hebrews didn’t see the "firmament" as a solid structure are twofold: first, the word itself doesn't have to mean that; second, the way the Hebrew mind viewed nature didn’t necessitate this idea. The question, “What holds up the waters above the firmament?” wouldn’t have concerned them. It was enough for them, just as it was for the author of Hebrews, to think that God was "upholding all things by the word of His power," and they wouldn’t have worried about how it all worked. Additionally, there are many verses in Scripture, some found in the earliest texts, that explicitly state the clouds carry the water; thus, phrases referring to waters "above the firmament" or "above the heavens" simply mean "in the clouds." In fact, as we will see, there’s quite a clear explanation of atmospheric circulation that modern poets could hardly improve upon.

It is true that David sang that "the foundations of heaven moved and shook, because He was wroth," and Job says that "the pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at His reproof." But not only are the references to foundations and pillars evidently intended merely as poetic imagery, but they are also used much more frequently of the earth, and yet at the same time Job expressly points out that God "stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing." The Hebrew formed no ideas like those of the Hindus, who thought the earth supported by elephants, the elephants by a tortoise, the tortoise by a snake.

It’s true that David sang that “the foundations of heaven moved and shook because He was angry,” and Job says that “the pillars of heaven tremble and are shocked at His rebuke.” But not only are the references to foundations and pillars clearly meant as poetic imagery, but they are also used much more often in relation to the earth. At the same time, Job specifically notes that God “stretches out the north over the empty space and hangs the earth upon nothing.” The Hebrews didn’t have ideas like those of the Hindus, who believed the earth was supported by elephants, the elephants by a tortoise, and the tortoise by a snake.

In Scripture, in most cases the word "earth" (eretz) does not mean the solid mass of this our planet, but only its surface; the "dry land" as opposed to the "seas"; the countries, the dwelling place of man and beast. The "pillars" or "foundations" of the earth in this sense are the great systems of the rocks, and these were conceived of as directly supported by the power of God, without any need of intermediary structures. The Hebrew clearly recognized that it is the will of God alone that keeps the whole secure.

In Scripture, the term "earth" (eretz) typically refers not to the solid core of our planet but to its surface; specifically, the "dry land" in contrast to the "seas"; the lands where humans and animals live. The "pillars" or "foundations" of the earth in this context refer to the vast rock structures, which were thought to be directly upheld by God's power, without any need for supporting structures. The Hebrew understood that it is solely God's will that maintains the entire creation.

Thus Hannah sang—

So Hannah sang—

"The foundations of the earth belong to the Lord,
"And He has placed the world upon them."

[40]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

And Asaph represents the Lord as saying:—

And Asaph portrays the Lord as saying:—

"The earth and all its inhabitants are destroyed:
"I support the pillars of it."

Yet again, just as we speak of "the celestial canopy," so Psalm civ. describes the Lord as He "who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain," and Isaiah gives the image in a fuller form,—"that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in." The same expression of "stretching out the heavens" is repeatedly used in Isaiah; it is indeed one of his typical phrases. Here, beyond question, extension, spreading out, is the idea sought to be conveyed, not that of solidity.

Yet again, just as we talk about "the celestial canopy," Psalm 104 describes the Lord as the one "who stretches out the heavens like a curtain," and Isaiah presents the image in a fuller way—"who stretches out the heavens like a curtain and spreads them out like a tent to live in." The phrase "stretching out the heavens" is used multiple times in Isaiah; it’s definitely one of his signature expressions. Here, there’s no doubt that the idea being conveyed is one of extension and spreading out, not of solidity.

The prophet Amos uses yet another parallel. "It is He that buildeth His stories in the heaven." While Isaiah speaks of the entire stellar universe as the tent or pavilion of Jehovah, Amos likens the height of the heavens as the steps up to His throne; the "stories" are the "ascent," as Moses speaks of the "ascent of Akrabbim," and David makes "the ascent" of the Mount of Olives. The Hebrews cannot have regarded the heavens as, literally, both staircase and reservoir.

The prophet Amos draws another comparison. "It is He who builds His levels in the heavens." While Isaiah refers to the whole starry universe as God's tent or pavilion, Amos compares the heights of the heavens to the steps leading up to His throne; the "levels" represent the "ascent," just as Moses talks about the "ascent of Akrabbim," and David describes "the ascent" of the Mount of Olives. The Hebrews couldn't have seen the heavens as, literally, both a staircase and a reservoir.

The firmament, i. e. the atmosphere, is spoken of as dividing between the waters that are under the firmament, i. e. oceans, seas, rivers, etc., from the waters that are above the firmament, i. e. the masses of water vapour carried by the atmosphere, seen in the clouds, and condensing from them as rain. We get the very same expression as this of the "waters which were above" in the Psalm of Praise:—

The sky, i.e. the atmosphere, is described as separating the waters below the sky, i.e. oceans, seas, rivers, etc., from the waters above the sky, i.e. the water vapor held by the atmosphere, visible in the clouds, and forming rain. We see the same phrase about the "waters which were above" in the Psalm of Praise:—

[41]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

"Praise Him, you heavens of heavens,
And you waters that are above the heavens;

and again in the Song of the Three Children:—

"O all you waters that are above the heavens, bless the Lord."

In the later books of the Bible the subject of the circulation of water through the atmosphere is referred to much more fully. Twice over the prophet Amos describes Jehovah as "He that calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the earth." This is not merely a reference to the tides, for the Preacher in the book of Ecclesiastes expressly points out that "all the rivers run into the sea, yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again"; and Isaiah seems to employ something of the same thought:

In the later books of the Bible, the topic of how water circulates through the atmosphere is discussed in much more detail. The prophet Amos describes God as "He who calls for the waters of the sea and pours them out on the face of the earth" on two occasions. This isn’t just about the tides, because the Preacher in the book of Ecclesiastes clearly states that "all the rivers run into the sea, yet the sea is not full; to the place from where the rivers come, there they return again." Isaiah appears to express a similar idea:

"For as the rain cometh down and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, and giveth seed to the sower and bread to the eater."

"For just as the rain comes down and the snow from heaven, and doesn’t return there, but waters the earth, making it grow and bud, and providing seed for the sower and bread for the eater."

Schiaparelli indeed argues that this very passage from Isaiah "expressly excludes any idea of an atmospheric circulation of waters"[41:1] on the ground that the water so falling is thought to be transmuted into seeds and fruits. But surely the image is as true as it is beautiful! The rain is absorbed by vegetation, and is transmuted into seeds and fruit, and it would go hard to say that the same particles of rain are again evaporated and [42]taken up afresh into the clouds. Besides, if we complete the quotation we find that what is stated is that the rain does not return until it has accomplished its purpose:—

Schiaparelli argues that this passage from Isaiah "clearly excludes any idea of an atmospheric circulation of waters"[41:1] because the falling water is believed to be transformed into seeds and fruits. But the image is just as true as it is beautiful! The rain is absorbed by plants and turns into seeds and fruit, and it seems unlikely to claim that the same raindrops are then evaporated and [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]taken back up into the clouds. Plus, if we look at the full quotation, it states that the rain does not return until it has achieved its purpose:—

"So shall My word be that goeth forth out of My mouth: it shall not return unto Me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it."

"So will My word that goes out from My mouth: it will not return to Me empty, but will achieve what I desire and will succeed in the purpose for which I sent it."

Elihu describes the process of evaporation precisely:—

Elihu explains the process of evaporation in detail:—

"Look, God is great, and we do not know Him;" The number of His years is beyond comprehension.
For He gathers the drops of water,
Which condense in rain from His vapor:
Which the skies rain down And pour down blessings on man abundantly."

Throughout the books of Holy Scripture, the connection between the clouds and the rain is clearly borne in mind. Deborah says in her song "the clouds dropped water." In the Psalms there are many references. In lxxvii. 17, "The clouds poured out water;" in cxlvii. 8, "Who covereth the heaven with clouds, Who prepareth rain for the earth." Proverbs xvi. 15, "His favour is as a cloud of the latter rain." The Preacher says that "clouds return after the rain"; and Isaiah, "I will also command the clouds that they rain no rain upon it"; and Jude, "Clouds they are without water, carried about of winds."

Throughout the books of Holy Scripture, the link between clouds and rain is clearly recognized. Deborah mentions in her song, "the clouds dropped water." The Psalms have many references. In 77:17, "The clouds poured out water;" in 147:8, "Who covers the heavens with clouds, Who prepares rain for the earth." Proverbs 16:15 says, "His favor is like a cloud of the latter rain." The Preacher states that "clouds return after the rain"; and Isaiah says, "I will also command the clouds not to rain upon it"; and Jude notes, "They are clouds without water, carried about by winds."

The clouds, too, were not conceived as being heavy. Nahum says that "the clouds are the dust of His feet," and Isaiah speaks of "a cloud of dew in the heat of harvest." The Preacher clearly understood that "the waters above" were not pent in by solid barriers; that [43]they were carried by the clouds; for "if the clouds be full of rain, they empty themselves upon the earth." And Job says of Jehovah, "He bindeth up the waters in His thick clouds, and the cloud is not rent under them;" and, later, Jehovah Himself asks:—

The clouds weren’t seen as heavy. Nahum says that "the clouds are the dust of His feet," and Isaiah refers to "a cloud of dew in the heat of harvest." The Preacher understood that "the waters above" weren’t trapped by solid barriers; they were moved by the clouds, because "if the clouds are full of rain, they empty themselves upon the earth." And Job says of Jehovah, "He binds up the waters in His thick clouds, and the cloud isn’t torn under them;" and later, Jehovah Himself asks:—

"Can you raise your voice to the clouds,
Will that abundance of waters cover you?

Who can count the clouds with understanding,
"Or who can pour out the bottles of heaven?"

The Hebrews, therefore, were quite aware that the waters of the sea were drawn up into the atmosphere by evaporation, and were carried by it in the form of clouds. No doubt their knowledge in this respect, as in others, was the growth of time. But there is no need to suppose that, even in the earlier stages of their development, the Hebrews thought of the "waters that be above the heavens" as contained in a literal cistern overhead. Still less is there reason to adopt Prof. Schiaparelli's strange deduction: "Considering the spherical and convex shape of the firmament, the upper waters could not remain above without a second wall to hold them in at the sides and the top. So a second vault above the vault of the firmament closes in, together with the firmament, a space where are the storehouses of rain, hail, and snow."[43:1] There seems to be nowhere in Scripture the slightest hint or suggestion of any such second vault; certainly not in the beautiful passage to which Prof. Schiaparelli is here referring.

The Hebrews were well aware that the sea's waters evaporated into the atmosphere and were carried as clouds. Their understanding of this subject, like others, developed over time. However, there's no reason to believe that, even in their earlier stages of development, the Hebrews imagined the "waters that be above the heavens" as being literally stored in a cistern above them. Even less justification exists for Prof. Schiaparelli's odd conclusion: "Given the spherical and convex shape of the firmament, the upper waters couldn't stay above without a second wall to hold them in on the sides and top. So, a second vault above the vault of the firmament encloses, along with the firmament, a space that contains the storehouses of rain, hail, and snow."[43:1] Nowhere in Scripture is there even the slightest hint or suggestion of such a second vault; certainly not in the beautiful passage that Prof. Schiaparelli is referencing.

[44]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

"Where is the path to the home of light,
And about darkness, where is its location;
That you should take it to its limit,
And you should understand the ways to its house.

Have you entered the treasures of the snow,
Or have you seen the stores of the hail,
Which I have set aside for when times are tough,
Are we ready for the day of battle and war?
How is the light divided,
Or did the east wind scatter across the earth? Who has carved a path for the floodwaters,
Or a way for the lightning in the thunder;

Does the rain have a father? Who has created the drops of dew? Whose womb produced the ice? "And who has created the ancient frost of the sky?"

The Song of David, Psalm xviii., clearly shows that its writer held no fantasy of a solidly built cistern of waters in the sky, but thought of the "dark waters" in the heavens, as identical with the "thick clouds." The passage is worth quoting at some length, not merely as supplying a magnificent word picture of a storm, but as showing the free and courageous spirit of the Hebrew poet, a spirit more emancipated than can be found in any other nation of antiquity. It was not only the gentler aspect of nature that attracted him; even for its most terrible, he had a sympathy, rising, under the influence of his strong faith in God, into positive exultation in it.

The Song of David, Psalm xviii., clearly shows that its author didn’t think of a solid, built-up reservoir of water in the sky but viewed the "dark waters" above as the same as the "thick clouds." The passage is worth quoting at length, not just because it provides a stunning image of a storm, but also because it reveals the bold and fearless spirit of the Hebrew poet, a spirit more liberated than what we see in any other ancient culture. It wasn't only the gentler side of nature that drew him in; he even felt a sense of empathy for its most terrifying aspects, which, thanks to his strong faith in God, inspired him to a genuine sense of joy in them.

"In my distress, I called out to the Lord,
And cried out to my God:
He heard my voice from His temple,
And my plea reached His ears. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] Then the earth shook and trembled,
The foundations of the mountains also shifted. And they were shaken because He was angry.
Smoke arose from His nostrils,
And fire came out of His mouth and consumed everything:
It sparked the coals.
He lowered the heavens and came down; And thick darkness was beneath His feet.
And He rode on a cherub and flew:
Yeah, He flew quickly on the wings of the wind.
He made darkness His hiding place,
His pavilion all around Him; Dark waters, heavy clouds in the sky.
At the brightness before Him, His thick clouds moved aside, Hail and fiery coals.
The Lord also roared in the skies,
And the Most High spoke; Hailstones and fire coals.
He shot out His arrows and spread them everywhere; Yes, many lightning strikes confused them. Then the streams of water showed up,
And the foundations of the world were exposed,
At Your rebuke, O Lord,
At the sound of Your breath. He sent from above, He rescued me;
He pulled me out of deep waters.
He saved me from my powerful enemy,
"And from those who hated me, because they were too powerful for me."

Two other passages point to the circulation of water vapour upward from the earth before its descent as rain; one in the prophecy of Jeremiah, the other, almost identical with it, in Psalm cxxxv. 7: "When He uttereth His voice, there is a tumult of waters in the heavens, and He causeth the vapours to ascend from the ends of the earth; He maketh lightnings for the rain, and bringeth forth the wind out of His treasuries." Here we get a [46]hint of a close observing of nature among the Hebrews. For by the foreshortening that clouds undergo in the distance, they inevitably appear to form chiefly on the horizon, "at the ends of the earth," whence they move upwards towards the zenith.

Two other passages indicate the movement of water vapor upward from the earth before it falls as rain; one in the prophecy of Jeremiah, and the other, nearly identical, in Psalm 135:7: "When He speaks, there is a roar of waters in the heavens, and He causes the vapors to rise from the ends of the earth; He creates lightning for the rain and brings the wind from His treasuries." Here we get a [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]hint of close observation of nature by the Hebrews. Because of the compression that clouds undergo in the distance, they often seem to form primarily on the horizon, "at the ends of the earth," from where they rise towards the peak of the sky.

A further reference to clouds reveals not observation only but acute reflection, though it leaves the mystery without solution. "Dost thou know the balancings of the clouds, the wondrous works of Him Which is perfect in knowledge?" There is a deep mystery here, which science is far from having completely solved, how it is that the clouds float, each in its own place, at its own level; each perfectly "balanced" in the thin air.

A further reference to clouds shows not just observation but deeper reflection, even though it leaves the mystery unsolved. "Do you know how the clouds are balanced, the amazing works of Him Who is perfect in knowledge?" There's a profound mystery here that science still hasn't fully figured out: how the clouds float, each in its own spot and at its own level; each perfectly "balanced" in the thin air.

"That mist which lies in the morning so softly in the valley, level and white, through which the tops of the trees rise as if through an inundation—why is it so heavy? and why does it lie so low, being yet so thin and frail that it will melt away utterly into splendour of morning, when the sun has shone on it but a few moments more? Those colossal pyramids, huge and firm, with outlines as of rocks, and strength to bear the beating of the high sun full on their fiery flanks—why are they so light—their bases high over our heads, high over the heads of Alps? why will these melt away, not as the sun rises, but as he descends, and leave the stars of twilight clear, while the valley vapour gains again upon the earth like a shroud?"[46:1]

"That mist that gently sits in the valley in the morning, flat and white, with the treetops peeking through like they’re submerged—why is it so thick? And why does it hang so low, even though it’s so thin and delicate that it will completely disappear into the brightness of morning after just a few moments of sunlight? Those massive pyramids, great and solid, with shapes like rocks and the strength to withstand the harsh sun beating down on their fiery sides—why are they so light, their bases towering over us, far above the Alps? Why do these dissipate, not as the sun rises but as it sets, leaving the twilight stars clear, while the valley mist creeps back over the ground like a shroud?"[46:1]

[47]
[48]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]
[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__]

The fact of the "balancing" has been brought home to us during the past hundred years very vividly by the progress of aërial navigation. Balloons are objects too familiar even to our children to cause them any surprise, [49]and every one knows how instantly a balloon, when in the air, rises up higher if a few pounds of ballast are thrown out, or sinks if a little of the gas is allowed to escape. We know of no balancing more delicate than this, of a body floating in the air.

The idea of "balancing" has become really clear to us over the past hundred years, especially with the advancements in air travel. Balloons are so common that even our kids aren’t surprised by them, [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]and everyone knows that if you throw out a few pounds of weight, a balloon rises higher, or if some gas escapes, it sinks. There’s no other balancing act more sensitive than this one of a body floating in the air.

CIRRUS FROM SOUTH KENSINGTON, 1906, MAY 29.

CUMULI FROM TUNBRIDGE WELLS, 1906, MAY 20.
(Photographs of clouds, taken by Dr. W. J. S. Lockyer.)
"Dost thou know the balancing of the clouds?"ToList

CLOUDS FROM TUNBRIDGE WELLS, 1906, MAY 20.
(Photos of clouds, taken by Dr. W. J. S. Lockyer.)
"Do you know how to balance the clouds?"ToList

"The spreadings of the clouds," mentioned by Elihu are of the same nature as their "balancings," but the expression is less remarkable. The "spreading" is a thing manifest to all, but it required the mind both of a poet and a man of science to appreciate that such spreading involved a delicate poising of each cloud in its place.

"The way clouds spread," as Elihu mentioned, is similar to how they balance, but the term is less striking. The "spreading" is obvious to everyone, but it takes a poetic mind and a scientific perspective to understand that this spreading involves carefully positioning each cloud in its spot.

The heavy rain which fell at the time of the Deluge is indeed spoken of as if it were water let out of a reservoir by its floodgates,—"the windows of heaven were opened;" but it seems to show some dulness on the part of an objector to argue that this expression involves the idea of a literal stone built reservoir with its sluices. Those who have actually seen tropical rain in full violence will find the Scriptural phrase not merely appropriate but almost inevitable. The rain does indeed fall like hitherto pent-up waters rushing forth at the opening of a sluice, and it seems unreasonable to try to place too literal an interpretation upon so suitable a simile.

The heavy rain during the Deluge is described as if it were water released from a reservoir through floodgates—“the windows of heaven were opened;” but it seems a bit dull for someone to argue that this phrase implies a literal stone-built reservoir with its sluices. Those who have experienced intense tropical rain will find the Scriptural phrase not just fitting but almost unavoidable. The rain truly falls like water that has been held back, rushing out when a sluice is opened, and it seems unreasonable to impose an overly literal interpretation on such a fitting simile.

There is the less reason to insist upon this very matter-of-fact rendering of the "windows of heaven," that in two out of the three connections in which it occurs, the expression is certainly used metaphorically. On the occasion of the famine in the city of Samaria, Elisha prophesied that—

There is less reason to insist on this straightforward interpretation of the "windows of heaven," especially since in two out of the three instances where it appears, the term is definitely used metaphorically. During the famine in the city of Samaria, Elisha prophesied that—

[50]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

"To-morrow about this time shall a measure of fine flour be sold for a shekel, and two measures of barley for a shekel, in the gate of Samaria. Then a lord on whose hand the king leaned answered the man of God, and said, Behold, if the Lord would make windows in heaven, might this thing be?"

"Tomorrow around this time, a measure of fine flour will be sold for a shekel, and two measures of barley for a shekel, at the gate of Samaria. Then a lord who the king relied on answered the man of God and said, 'Look, even if the Lord opened windows in heaven, could this really happen?'"

So again Malachi exhorted the Jews after the Return from Babylon:—

So once more, Malachi encouraged the Jews after their return from Babylon:—

"Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in Mine house, and prove Me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it."

"Bring all the tithes into the storehouse so that there will be food in My house, and test Me in this, says the Lord of hosts, and see if I won’t open the windows of heaven and pour out a blessing for you until there’s not enough room to take it in."

In neither case can the "windows of heaven" have been meant by the speaker to convey the idea of the sluice-gates of an actual, solidly-built reservoir in the sky.

In neither case can the "windows of heaven" have been intended by the speaker to suggest the idea of the sluice-gates of a real, solidly-built reservoir in the sky.

One other cloud fact—their dissipation as the sun rises high in the heavens—is noticed in one of the most tender and pathetic passages in all the prophetic Scriptures. The Lord, by the mouth of Hosea, is mourning over the instability of His people. "O Ephraim, what shall I do unto thee? O Judah, what shall I do unto thee? For your goodness is as a morning cloud, and as the early dew it goeth away."

One other fact about clouds—their disappearance as the sun rises high in the sky—is highlighted in one of the most touching and sad passages in all the prophetic Scriptures. The Lord, speaking through Hosea, is lamenting the unreliability of His people. "O Ephraim, what should I do to you? O Judah, what should I do to you? For your goodness is like a morning cloud, and like the early dew, it fades away."

The winds of heaven were considered as four in number, corresponding to our own four "cardinal points." Thus the great horn of Daniel's he-goat was broken and succeeded by four notable horns toward the four winds of heaven; as the empire of Alexander the Great was divided amongst his four generals. In Ezekiel's vision of the dry bones the prophet prays, "Come from the four [51]winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain;" and Jeremiah foretells that "the four winds from the four quarters of heaven" shall be brought upon Elam, and scatter its outcasts into every nation.

The winds of heaven were thought to be four, matching our own four "cardinal points." So, the great horn of Daniel's he-goat was broken and replaced by four notable horns facing the four winds of heaven, just as Alexander the Great's empire was split among his four generals. In Ezekiel's vision of the dry bones, the prophet prays, "Come from the four [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain;" and Jeremiah predicts that "the four winds from the four quarters of heaven" will be brought against Elam and scatter its outcasts into every nation.

The circulation of the winds is clearly set forth by the Preacher in the Book of Ecclesiastes.

The movement of the winds is clearly explained by the Preacher in the Book of Ecclesiastes.

"The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits."

"The wind moves toward the south and then shifts toward the north; it keeps swirling around and the wind returns again following its paths."

Of the four quarters, the Hebrews reckoned the east as first. It was to the east that they supposed themselves always looking. The chief word for east, therefore, kedem, means "that which is before," "the front"; and the word next in use is, naturally, mizrach, the rising of the sun. The west is, as naturally, mebō hasshemesh, the going down of the sun; but as the Mediterranean Sea lay to the westward of Palestine "the sea" (yam) is frequently put instead of that point of the compass. With the east in front, the south becomes the right, and the north the left. The south also was negeb, the desert, since the desert shut in Palestine to the south, as the sea to the west. In opposition to tsaphon, the dark or hidden north, the south is darom, the bright and sunny region.

Of the four directions, the Hebrews considered the east to be first. They believed they were always facing east. The main word for east, therefore, kedem, means "that which is before" or "the front"; and the next most commonly used word is mizrach, which refers to the sunrise. The west is, of course, mebō hasshemesh, meaning the sunset; but since the Mediterranean Sea is to the west of Palestine, "the sea" (yam) is often used instead of that direction. With east in front, south becomes the right side, and north the left. The south was also referred to as negeb, meaning the desert, because the desert bordered Palestine to the south, just as the sea did to the west. In contrast to tsaphon, the dark or hidden north, the south is darom, a bright and sunny area.

The phrase "four corners of the earth" does not imply that the Hebrews thought of the earth as square. Several expressions on the contrary show that they thought of it as circular. The Lord "sitteth upon the circle of the earth," and in another passage the same form is applied to the ocean. "He set a compass (margin circle) upon the face [52]of the depth." This circle is no doubt the circle of the visible horizon, within which earth and sea are spread out apparently as a plain; above it "the vault of heaven" (Job xxii. 14; R.V. margin) is arched. There does not appear to be allusion, anywhere in Scripture, to the spherical form of the earth.

The phrase "four corners of the earth" doesn't mean that the Hebrews believed the earth was square. On the contrary, several expressions suggest they viewed it as circular. The Lord "sits upon the circle of the earth," and in another passage, the same idea is applied to the ocean. "He set a compass (margin circle) upon the face [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]of the depth." This circle is likely the visible horizon, where land and sea appear spread out like a plain; above it is "the vault of heaven" (Job xxii. 14; R.V. margin) arched overhead. There doesn't seem to be any reference in Scripture to the earth's spherical shape.

The Hebrew knowledge of the extent of the terrestrial plain was of course very limited, but it would seem that, like many other nations of antiquity, they supposed that the ocean occupied the outer part of the circle surrounding the land which was in the centre. This may be inferred from Job's statement—

The Hebrew understanding of the size of the land was quite limited, but it seems that, similar to many other ancient cultures, they believed the ocean surrounded the land in the center like a circle. This can be inferred from Job's statement—

"He has described a boundary on the surface of the waters,
"To the edges of light and darkness."

The boundary of the world is represented as being "described," or more properly "circumscribed," drawn as a circle, upon the ocean. This ocean is considered as essentially one, exactly as by actual exploration we now know it to be;—"Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place;"—all the oceans and seas communicate.

The edge of the world is shown as being "described," or more accurately "circumscribed," outlined as a circle on the ocean. This ocean is viewed as essentially one, just as we currently understand it through exploration;—"Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together into one place;"—all the oceans and seas are connected.

Beneath the earth there are the waters. The Lord hath founded the world "upon the seas, and established it upon the floods," and (Psalm cxxxvi. 6) "stretched out the earth above the waters." This for the most part means simply that the water surface lies lower than the land surface. But there are waters,—other than those of the ocean,—which are, in a strict sense, beneath the earth; the subterranean waters, which though in the very [53]substance of the earth, and existing there in an altogether different way from the great masses of water we see upon the surface, form a water system, which may legitimately be termed a kind of ocean underground. From these subterranean waters our springs issue forth, and it is these waters we tap in our wells. Of the cedar in Lebanon Ezekiel spoke: "The waters made him great, the deep set him up on high with her rivers running round about his plants, and sent out her little rivers (margin, conduits) unto all the trees of the field." The "deep," tehōm, applies therefore, not merely to the restless waters of the ocean, but to these unseen waters as well; and means, not merely "surging waters," but depths of any kind. When in the great Deluge the floodgates of heaven were opened, these "fountains of the great deep were broken up" as well. And later both fountains and windows were "stopped." So the Lord asks Job, "Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?" and in Proverbs it is said of the Lord, "By His knowledge the depths are broken up, and the clouds drop down the dew."

Beneath the earth, there is water. The Lord has established the world "upon the seas and set it upon the floods" (Psalm 136:6), and "stretched out the earth above the waters." This generally means that the surface of the water is lower than the land surface. However, there are waters—other than those in the ocean—that are, in a strict sense, beneath the earth; these are the underground waters. Although they exist in a completely different way than the large bodies of water we see on the surface, they form a system that could be considered a kind of underground ocean. Our springs come from these subterranean waters, and those are the waters we draw from in our wells. Ezekiel spoke of the cedar in Lebanon: "The waters made him great, the deep set him up on high with her rivers running around his plants, and sent out her little rivers (margin, conduits) to all the trees of the field." The "deep," *tehōm*, thus refers not only to the restless waters of the ocean but also to these unseen waters; it means not just "surging waters," but depths of any kind. When the great Flood occurred, the "fountains of the great deep were broken up" as well as the floodgates of heaven. Later, both fountains and windows were "stopped." The Lord asks Job, "Have you entered the springs of the sea? Or have you walked in search of the depths?" And in Proverbs, it is said of the Lord, "By His knowledge the depths are broken up, and the clouds drop down the dew."

The tides upon the sea-coast of Palestine are very slight, but some have seen a reference to them in Jer. v. 22 where the Lord says, I "have placed the sand for the bound of the sea by a perpetual decree, that it cannot pass it: and though the waves thereof toss themselves, yet can they not prevail; though they roar, yet can they not pass over it." More probably the idea to be conveyed is merely that of the restraint of the sea to its proper basin, as in the passage where the Lord asks Job, "Who [54]shut up the sea with doors when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?" And the writer of Proverbs sums all up:—

The tides along the coast of Palestine are very minimal, but some refer to them in Jeremiah 5:22 where the Lord says, “I have set the sand as the boundary for the sea by a lasting decree that it cannot cross; even though the waves crash, they cannot prevail; even when they roar, they cannot overwhelm it.” More likely, the point being made is simply that the sea is kept within its proper limits, as illustrated in the passage where the Lord asks Job, “Who [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]shut up the sea with doors when it broke forth, as if it had come out of the womb?” And the writer of Proverbs sums it all up:—

"When He prepared the heavens I [Wisdom] was there: when He set a compass upon the face of the depth: when He established the clouds above: when He strengthened the fountains of the deep: when He gave to the sea His decree, that the waters should not pass His commandment: when He appointed the foundations of the earth."

"When He created the heavens, I [Wisdom] was there: when He set a boundary on the depths: when He established the clouds above: when He strengthened the springs of the deep: when He commanded the sea, telling the waters not to overstep His limits: when He laid the foundations of the earth."

FOOTNOTES:

[41:1] Astronomy in the Old Testament, p. 33 note.

[43:1] Astronomy in the Old Testament, p. 32.

[46:1] Ruskin, Modern Painters, part vii. chap. i.

[55]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

CHAPTER V

THE ORDINANCES OF THE HEAVENS

As has been already pointed out, the astronomical references in Scripture are not numerous, and probably give but an inadequate idea of the actual degree of progress attained by the Hebrews in astronomical science. Yet it is clear, even from the record which we have, that there was one great astronomical fact which they had observed, and that it had made a deep impression upon them.

As has already been mentioned, the astronomical references in Scripture are few and likely provide only a limited view of the actual progress the Hebrews made in astronomy. However, it's evident, even from the records we have, that there was one significant astronomical fact they observed, and it had a profound impact on them.

That fact was the sublime Order of the heavenly movements. First amongst these was the order of the daily progress of the sun; rising in the east and moving slowly, majestically, and resistlessly upward to the meridian,—the "midst" or "bisection" of heaven, of Josh. x. 13,—and then passing downwards as smoothly and unfalteringly to his setting in the west.

That fact was the amazing order of the celestial movements. First among these was the cycle of the daily journey of the sun; rising in the east and moving slowly, majestically, and powerfully upwards to the highest point in the sky,—the "midpoint" or "division" of heaven, as referenced in Josh. x. 13,—and then smoothly and steadily descending to set in the west.

This motion of the sun inspires the simile employed by the Psalmist in the astronomical psalm, the nineteenth. He sings—

This movement of the sun inspires the comparison used by the Psalmist in the astronomical psalm, the nineteenth. He sings—

"The skies proclaim the glory of God.

He has made a home for the sun in them,
Like a groom coming out of his room,
And rejoices like a strong man ready to run his race.
[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] His journey begins at the edges of the sky,
And his journey to the farthest parts of it:
"And nothing is hidden from its heat."

The night revealed another Order, in its way more majestic still. As the twilight faded away the bright and silent watchers of the heavens mustered each in his place. And each, like the sun during the day, was moving, slowly, majestically, resistlessly, "without haste, without rest." Each had its appointed place, its appointed path. Some moved in small circles in the north; some rose in the east, and swept in long curves over towards their setting in the west, some scarcely lifted themselves above the southern horizon. But each one kept its own place. None jostled another, or hurried in advance, or lagged behind. It is no wonder that as the multitude of the stars was observed, and the unbroken order of their going, that the simile suggested itself of an army on the march—"the host of heaven." And the sight of the unbroken order of these bright celestial orbs suggested a comparison with the unseen army of exalted beings, the angels; the army or host of heaven in another sense, marshalled, like the stars, in perfect obedience to the Divine will. So in the vision of Micaiah, the son of Imlah, the "host of heaven" are the thousands of attendant spirits waiting around the throne of God to fulfil His bidding.

The night revealed another Order, even more majestic in its own way. As twilight faded, the bright and silent watchers of the heavens took their places. Each one, like the sun during the day, moved slowly, majestically, and irresistibly, "without haste, without rest." Each had its own spot, its own path. Some moved in small circles in the north; others rose in the east and swept in long curves toward their setting in the west, while some barely lifted themselves above the southern horizon. But each one stayed in its designated spot. None bumped into another, hurried ahead, or fell behind. It's no surprise that as people observed the multitude of stars and the unbroken order of their movements, they likened them to an army on the march—"the host of heaven." The sight of the orderly arrangement of these bright celestial objects also brought to mind the unseen army of exalted beings, the angels; the army or host of heaven in another sense, organized, like the stars, in perfect obedience to the Divine will. So in the vision of Micaiah, the son of Imlah, the "host of heaven" refers to the thousands of spirits waiting around the throne of God to carry out His commands.

"I saw the Lord sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on His right hand and on His left."

"I saw the Lord sitting on His throne, and all the angels of heaven standing beside Him, on His right and on His left."

But more frequently it is the starry, not the angelic, army to which reference is made.

But more often, it's the starry, not the angelic, army that is referred to.

[57] So Jeremiah prophesies—

So Jeremiah predicts—

"As the host of heaven cannot be counted,
Neither was the sand of the sea measured:
So I will increase the descendants of David My servant,
"And the Levites who serve Me."

The prophets of Israel recognized clearly, that the starry host of heaven and the angelic host were distinct; that the first, in their brightness, order, and obedience formed fitting comparison for the second; but that both were created beings; neither were divinities.

The prophets of Israel clearly recognized that the stars in the sky and the angels were different; that the stars, in their brightness, order, and obedience, were a suitable comparison for the angels; but that both were created beings and neither were gods.

The heathen nations around recognized also the hosts both of the stars and of spiritual beings, but the first they took as the manifestations of the second, whom they counted as divinities. There was often a great confusion between the two, and the observance or worship of the first could not be kept distinguished from the recognition or worship of the other; the very ideogram for a god was an 8-rayed star.

The pagan nations nearby also acknowledged both the hosts of stars and spiritual beings, but they viewed the stars as manifestations of the latter, whom they considered deities. There was often a lot of confusion between the two, and the observation or worship of the stars couldn’t be separated from the acknowledgment or worship of the spiritual beings; the very symbol for a god was an 8-pointed star.

The Hebrews were warned again and again lest, confusing in their minds these two great hosts of stars and angels, they should deem the one the divine manifestation of the other, the divinity, not accounting them both fellow-servants, the handiwork of God.

The Hebrews were warned repeatedly so that they wouldn't confuse in their minds these two great groups of stars and angels, thinking of one as the divine manifestation of the other, the divinity, without realizing that they were both fellow servants, creations of God.

Thus, in the wilderness, the Lord commands them through Moses—

Thus, in the wilderness, the Lord instructs them through Moses—

"Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves, . . . lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the Lord thy God hath divided [distributed] unto all nations under the whole heaven."

"Pay close attention to yourselves, . . . so that you don’t look up to heaven and see the sun, the moon, and the stars—all the heavenly bodies—and feel tempted to worship them and serve them, which the Lord your God has assigned to all nations under the entire sky."

[58]But the one celestial army continually suggests the other, and the two are placed in the closest parallelism when reference is made to the time when the foundations of the earth were fastened, and the corner stone thereof was laid,

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]But one heavenly army constantly invokes the other, and the two are closely aligned when referring to the time when the earth's foundations were secured and its corner stone was laid,

"When the morning stars sang together,
"And all the sons of God shouted with joy."

So when Deborah sings of the deliverance which the Lord gave to Israel at the battle of the Kishon, she puts the stars for the angelic legions that she feels assured were engaged in warring in their support.

So when Deborah sings about the deliverance that the Lord gave to Israel at the battle of the Kishon, she represents the stars as the angelic armies that she believes were fighting alongside them.

"They battled from heaven;
"The stars in their paths fought against Sisera."

The "courses" of the stars are the paths which they appear to follow as they move round the pole of the heavens as the night proceeds, whilst the stars themselves stand for the heavenly helpers who, unseen, had mingled in the battle and discomforted the squadrons of Sisera's war-chariots. It almost reads as if to Deborah had been vouchsafed such a vision as Elisha prayed might be given to his servant:—

The "courses" of the stars are the paths they seem to take as they move around the North Star throughout the night, while the stars themselves symbolize the celestial helpers who, though invisible, joined in the battle and troubled Sisera's chariots. It almost sounds like Deborah was granted a vision similar to what Elisha wished for his servant:—

"Therefore sent the King of Syria thither horses, and chariots, and a great host: and they came by night, and compassed the city about.

"Therefore, the King of Syria sent horses, chariots, and a large army there: and they arrived at night and surrounded the city."

"And when the servant of the man of God was risen early, and gone forth, behold, an host compassed the city both with horses and chariots. And his servant said unto him, Alas, my master! how shall we do?

"And when the servant of the man of God got up early and went outside, he saw an army surrounding the city with horses and chariots. The servant said to him, "Oh no, my master! What are we going to do?"

"And he answered, Fear not: for they that be with us are more than they that be with them.

"And he answered, Don't be afraid: because those who are with us are more than those who are with them."

"And Elisha prayed, and said, Lord, I pray Thee, open [59]his eyes that he may see. And the Lord opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha."

"And Elisha prayed, saying, 'Lord, please open [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]his eyes so he can see.' The Lord opened the young man's eyes, and he saw that the mountain was filled with horses and chariots of fire surrounding Elisha."

The solemn procession of the starry host through the long night—the rising in the east, the southing, and the setting in the west—is not the only ordered movement of the stars of heaven that may be recognized. As night by night brightens to its dawn, if we watch the eastern horizon and note what stars are the last to rise above it before the growing daylight overpowers the feeble stellar rays, then we see that some bright star, invisible on the preceding mornings, shines out for a few moments low down in the glimmer of the dawn. As morning succeeds morning it rises earlier, until at last it mounts when it is yet dark, and some other star takes its place as the herald of the rising sun. We recognize to-day this "heliacal rising" of the stars. Though we do not make use of it in our system of time-measuring, it played an important part in the calendar-making of the ancients. Such heralds of the rising sun were called "morning stars" by the Hebrews, and they used them "for seasons" and "for years." One star or constellation of stars would herald by its "heliacal rising" the beginning of spring, another the coming of winter; the time to plough, the time to sow, the time of the rains, would all be indicated by the successive "morning stars" as they appeared. And after an interval of three hundred and sixty-five or three hundred and sixty-six days the same star would again show itself as a morning star for a second time, marking out [60]the year, whilst the other morning stars would follow, each in its due season. So we read in Job, that God led "forth the Mazzaroth in their season."

The serious parade of the stars through the long night—their rise in the east, movement south, and setting in the west—is not the only organized movement of the heavenly stars that we can see. As night turns to dawn, if we watch the eastern horizon and notice which stars are the last to rise above it before the increasing daylight outshines the faint star rays, we can see that some bright star, invisible on previous mornings, shines briefly low in the dawn's glow. As days go by, it rises earlier, until eventually it appears while it’s still dark, and another star takes its place as the sign of the coming sun. Today, we recognize this "heliacal rising" of the stars. Although we don’t use it to measure time, it played a significant role in how ancient people created calendars. The Hebrews referred to these morning star signs as "morning stars," and they relied on them "for seasons" and "for years." One star or group of stars would announce the start of spring with its "heliacal rising," while another would signal the arrival of winter; the right time for plowing, sowing, and the rainy season would all be marked by the appearance of these successive "morning stars." After a period of three hundred sixty-five or three hundred sixty-six days, the same star would show up again as a morning star for a second time, marking out [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]the year, while the other morning stars would follow suit in their own seasons. This is reflected in Job, where it says that God led "forth the Mazzaroth in their season."

This wonderful procession of the midnight sky is not known and admired by those who live in walled cities and ceiled houses, as it is by those who live in the open, in the wilderness. It is not therefore to be wondered at, that we find praise of these "works of the Lord . . . sought out of all them that have pleasure therein," mostly amongst the shepherds, the herdsmen, the wanderers in the open—in the words and prophecies of Job, of Jacob, Moses, David and Amos.

This amazing display of the midnight sky isn't recognized and appreciated by people living in walled cities and enclosed homes, as it is by those who dwell in the open, in nature. So, it's no surprise that we find admiration for these "works of the Lord . . . sought out of all them that have pleasure therein," primarily among shepherds, herders, and wanderers in the wild—in the words and prophecies of Job, Jacob, Moses, David, and Amos.

The thought that each new day, beginning with a new outburst of light, was, in its degree, a kind of new creation, an emblem of the original act by which the world was brought into being, renders appropriate and beautiful the ascription of the term "morning stars" to those "sons of God," the angels. As the stars in the eastern sky are poetically thought of as "singing together" to herald the creation of each new day, so in the verses already quoted from the Book of Job, the angels of God are represented as shouting for joy when the foundations of the earth were laid.

The idea that every new day starts with a fresh burst of light is, in its own way, a form of new creation, a reminder of the original moment when the world came into existence. This makes the term "morning stars" fitting and beautiful when referring to the "sons of God," the angels. Just as the stars in the eastern sky are poetically imagined as "singing together" to welcome each new day, in the verses previously quoted from the Book of Job, the angels of God are depicted as shouting for joy when the earth's foundations were established.

The "morning star" again stands as the type and earnest of that new creation which God has promised to His servants. The epistle to Thyatira concludes with the promise—"He that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, . . . I will give him the morning star."

The "morning star" once more represents the symbol and assurance of the new creation that God has promised to His servants. The letter to Thyatira ends with the promise—"To the one who overcomes and continues to do my works to the end, . . . I will give him the morning star."

The brightest of these heralds of the sun is the planet Venus, and such a "morning star" for power, glory, and [61]magnificence, the king of Babylon had once been; like one of the angels of God. But as addressed in Isaiah's prophecy, he has been brought down to Sheol:—

The brightest of these messengers of the sun is the planet Venus, and such a "morning star" of power, glory, and [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]magnificence, the king of Babylon used to be; like one of God's angels. But as mentioned in Isaiah's prophecy, he has been brought down to Sheol:—

"How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! . . . For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God . . . I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High."

"How have you fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, morning star! ... For you said in your heart, I will rise into heaven, I will lift my throne above the stars of God ... I will rise above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the Most High."

But the "morning star" is taken as a higher type, even of our Lord Himself, and of His future coming in glory. St. Peter bids the disciples, to whom he writes, take heed unto the word of prophecy as unto a lamp shining in a dark place "until the day dawn, and the Day star arise in your hearts." In almost the last words of the Bible, the Lord uses the same image Himself:—

But the "morning star" is seen as a higher representation, even of our Lord Himself, and of His future return in glory. St. Peter tells the disciples he’s writing to to pay attention to the word of prophecy as a lamp shining in a dark place "until the day breaks, and the Day star rises in your hearts." In nearly the last words of the Bible, the Lord uses the same imagery Himself:—

"I, Jesus, have sent Mine angel to testify unto you these things in the Churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright and morning star."

"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things in the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright and morning star."

In the sublime and ordered movements of the various heavenly bodies, the Hebrews recognized the ordinances of God. The point of view always taken in Scripture is the theo-centric one; the relation sought to be brought out is not the relation of thing to thing—which is the objective of physical science—but the relation of creature to Creator. We have no means of knowing whether they made attempt to find any mechanical explanation of the movements; such inquiry would lie entirely outside the scope of the books of Holy Scripture, and other ancient Hebrew literature has not been transmitted to us.

In the majestic and structured movements of the different heavenly bodies, the Hebrews saw the laws of God. The perspective consistently taken in Scripture is a theo-centric one; the relationship emphasized is not the connection between objects—which is the focus of physical science—but the relationship between creature and Creator. We have no way of knowing if they tried to find a mechanical explanation for these movements; such an inquiry would be completely outside the scope of the Holy Scriptures, and other ancient Hebrew texts have not been passed down to us.

[62]The lesson which the Psalmists and the Prophets desired to teach was not the daily rotation of the earth upon its axis, nor its yearly revolution round the sun, but that—

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]The lesson that the Psalmists and the Prophets wanted to convey wasn’t about the daily rotation of the earth on its axis or its yearly orbit around the sun, but that—

"If those ordinances depart from before Me, saith the Lord, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before Me for ever."

"If those laws are no longer followed, says the Lord, then the descendants of Israel will no longer be a nation in My view forever."

In the Bible all intermediate steps are omitted, and the result is linked immediately to the first Cause. God Himself is the theme, and trust in Him the lesson.

In the Bible, all the intermediate steps are left out, and the outcome is directly connected to the First Cause. God Himself is the subject, and trusting in Him is the lesson.

"Lift up your eyes on high, and see Who hath created these, That bringeth out their host by number: He calleth them all by name; by the greatness of His might, and for that He is strong in power, not one is lacking.

"Look up high and see who created these things, He brings out their number one by one; He calls them all by name; because of His great power, not one is missing."

"Why sayest thou, O Jacob, and speakest, O Israel, My way is hid from the Lord, and my judgment is passed away from my God. Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard? the everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary; there is no searching of His understanding. He giveth power to the faint; and to him that hath no might He increaseth strength. Even the youths shall faint and be weary, and the young men shall utterly fall: but they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; they shall walk, and not faint."

"Why do you say, Jacob, and speak, Israel, 'My way is hidden from the Lord, and my case is ignored by my God'? Have you not known? Have you not heard? The everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, does not grow tired or weary; His understanding is beyond searching. He gives power to the weak; to those who have no strength, He increases their strength. Even young people grow tired and weary, and young men stumble and fall, but those who wait on the Lord will renew their strength; they will soar on wings like eagles; they will run and not grow weary; they will walk and not faint."

[63]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

CHAPTER VI

THE SUN

"And God said Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons and for days, and years: and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven, to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: He made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day."

"And God said, 'Let there be lights in the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs, seasons, days, and years; and let them be lights in the sky to shine on the earth.' And it was so. God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night; He made the stars as well. God placed them in the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day."

A double purpose for the two great heavenly bodies is indicated here,—first, the obvious one of giving light; next, that of time measurement. These, from the human and practical point of view, are the two main services which the sun and moon render to us, and naturally sufficed for the object that the writer had before him. There is no evidence that he had any idea that the moon simply shone by reflecting the light of the sun; still less that the sun was a light for worlds other than our own; but if he had known these facts we can hardly suppose that he would have mentioned [64]them; there would have been no purpose to be served by so doing.

A double purpose for the two great heavenly bodies is indicated here—first, the obvious one of providing light; second, that of measuring time. These are, from a human and practical perspective, the two main functions that the sun and moon offer us, and they naturally sufficed for the writer's intent. There is no evidence that he realized the moon only shines by reflecting the sun's light; even less that the sun is a light for worlds other than ours. However, if he had known these facts, it's hard to believe he would have mentioned [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]them; there wouldn't have been any purpose in doing so.

But it is remarkable that no reference is made either to the incalculable benefits conferred by the action of the sun in ripening the fruits of the earth, or to the services of the moon as a time-measurer, in dividing off the months. Both these actions are clearly indicated later on in the Scriptures, where Moses, in the blessing which he pronounced upon the tribe of Joseph, prayed that his land might be blessed "for the precious things of the fruits of the sun," so that we may take their omission here, together with the omission of all mention of the planets, and the slight parenthetical reference to the stars, as indicating that this chapter was composed at an exceedingly early date.

But it's noteworthy that there's no mention of the immense benefits provided by the sun in ripening the earth's fruits, nor the moon's role as a calendar, marking the months. Both these actions are clearly referenced later in the Scriptures, where Moses, in his blessing for the tribe of Joseph, prayed that his land would be blessed "for the precious things of the fruits of the sun." Therefore, we can interpret their absence here, along with the lack of any mention of the planets and the brief parenthetical mention of the stars, as signs that this chapter was written at a very early time.

The chief purpose of the sun is to give light; it "rules" or regulates the day and "divides the light from the darkness." As such it is the appropriate emblem of God Himself, Who "is Light, and in Him is no darkness at all." These images are frequently repeated in the Scriptures, and it is only possible to give a few instances. David sings, "The Lord is my light and my salvation." "The Lord shall be unto thee an everlasting light," is the promise made to Zion. St. John expressly uses the term of the Son of God, our Lord: "That was the true Light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." Whilst the more concrete emblem is used as often. In the eighty-fourth psalm, the psalm of pilgrimage, we read, "The Lord God is a sun and shield;" Malachi predicts that "the Sun of Righteousness shall [65]arise with healing in His wings," and St James, with the same thought of the sun in his mind, speaks of God as "the Father of lights."

The main purpose of the sun is to provide light; it “controls” or manages the day and “separates light from darkness.” Because of this, it represents God Himself, Who “is Light, and in Him is no darkness at all.” These images appear frequently in the Scriptures, and only a few examples can be mentioned. David expresses, “The Lord is my light and my salvation.” The promise made to Zion is, “The Lord will be an everlasting light for you.” St. John specifically refers to the Son of God, our Lord, saying: “That was the true Light that lights every person who comes into the world.” Meanwhile, the more physical symbol is used just as often. In the eighty-fourth psalm, the psalm about pilgrimage, we read, “The Lord God is a sun and a shield;” Malachi foretells that “the Sun of Righteousness shall [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]arise with healing in His wings,” and St. James, thinking along the same lines about the sun, refers to God as “the Father of lights.”

But in none of these or the other parallel passages is there the remotest approach to any deification of the sun, or even of that most ethereal of influences, light itself. Both are creatures, both are made by God; they are things and things only, and are not even the shrines of a deity. They may be used as emblems of God in some of His attributes; they do not even furnish any indication of His special presence, for He is equally present where sun and light are not. "The darkness hideth not from Thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to Thee."

But in none of these or the other similar passages is there even a hint of any worship of the sun, or even of that most spiritual of forces, light itself. Both are creations, both are made by God; they are simply objects, not even the temples of a deity. They can be used as symbols of God in some of His attributes; they don’t even suggest His special presence, because He is just as present where the sun and light are absent. "The darkness hides not from You; but the night shines as the day: the darkness and the light are both the same to You."

The worship of the sun and of other heavenly bodies is one of the sins most unsparingly denounced in Scripture. It was one of the first warnings of the Book of Deuteronomy that Israel as a people were to take heed "lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them and serve them," and the utter overthrow of the nation was foretold should they break this law. And as for the nation, so for the individual, any "man or woman that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the Lord thy God, in transgressing His covenant and hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven" was when convicted of working "such abomination" unsparingly to be put to death.

The worship of the sun and other heavenly bodies is one of the sins most harshly condemned in Scripture. One of the first warnings in the Book of Deuteronomy was that Israel as a people should be cautious "lest you lift up your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun, the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, you be tempted to worship and serve them." The complete destruction of the nation was predicted if they violated this law. And just as it applied to the nation, it applied to individuals: any "man or woman who has committed wickedness in the sight of the Lord your God, by breaking His covenant and has gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, whether the sun, the moon, or any of the host of heaven" was to be put to death without mercy when convicted of such "abomination."

Yet with all this, sun-worship prevailed in Israel again [66]and again. Two of the reforming kings of Judah, Asa and Josiah, found it necessary to take away "the sun-images;" indeed, the latter king found that the horses and chariots which his predecessors, Manasseh and Amon, had dedicated to sun worship were kept at the very entrance to the temple. In spite of his reformation, however, the evil spread until the final corruption of Jerusalem was shown in vision to Ezekiel, "Seventy men of the ancients"—that is the complete Sanhedrim—offered incense to creeping things and abominable beasts; the women wept for Tammuz, probably the sun-god in his decline to winter death; and deepest apostasy of all, five and twenty men, the high-priest, and the chief priests of the twenty-four courses, "with their backs toward the temple of the Lord, and their faces toward the east; and they worshipped the sun toward the east." The entire nation, as represented in its chief members in State, Society, and Church, was apostate, and its ruin followed. Five years more and the temple was burned and Jerusalem destroyed, and in captivity and exile the nation learned to abhor the idolatry that had brought about its overthrow.

Yet despite all this, sun-worship dominated Israel time and time again [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]. Two of the reforming kings of Judah, Asa and Josiah, found it necessary to remove "the sun-images." In fact, King Josiah discovered that the horses and chariots dedicated to sun worship by his predecessors, Manasseh and Amon, were placed right at the entrance to the temple. However, despite his reforms, the evil spread until the complete corruption of Jerusalem was revealed to Ezekiel. "Seventy men of the ancients"—which is the whole Sanhedrin—offered incense to creepy creatures and vile beasts; the women mourned for Tammuz, probably the sun-god in his descent into winter death; and the deepest apostasy of all, twenty-five men, including the high priest and the chief priests of the twenty-four courses, "with their backs toward the temple of the Lord and their faces toward the east; and they worshipped the sun toward the east." The entire nation, as shown in its leading figures in government, society, and religion, had turned away from faith, leading to its downfall. Just five years later, the temple was burned and Jerusalem was destroyed, and while in captivity and exile, the nation learned to hate the idolatry that had caused its downfall.

Four words are translated "sun" in our Authorized Version. Of these one, used Job xxxi. 26, should really be "light," as in the margin—"If I beheld the light when it shined,"—though the sun is obviously meant. The second word is one used in poetry chiefly in conjunction with a poetical word for the moon, and refers to the sun's warmth, as the other does to the whiteness of the moon. Thus the Bride in the Song of Solomon is described as "fair as the moon, clear as the sun." The [67]third word has given use to some ambiguity. In the eighth chapter of Judges in the Authorized Version, it is stated that "Gideon, the son of Joash, returned from the battle before the sun was up," but in the Revised Version that he "returned from the battle from the ascent of Heres." There was a mount Ḥeres, a mount of the sun, in the portion of the Danites held by the Amorites, but that cannot have been the Ḥeres of Gideon. Still the probability is that a mount sacred to the sun is meant here as well as in the reference to the Danites; though ḥeres as meaning the sun itself occurs in the story of Samson's riddle, for the men of the city gave him the answer to it which they had extorted from his wife, "before the sun (ḥeres) went down." Shemesh, the Samas of the Babylonians, is the usual word for the sun; and we find it in Beth-shemesh, the "house of the sun," a Levitical city within the tribe of Judah, the scene of the return of the ark after its captivity amongst the Philistines. There was another Beth-shemesh in Naphtali on the borders of Issachar, and Jeremiah prophesies that Nebuchadnezzar "shall break also the images of Beth-shemesh, that is in the land of Egypt," probably the obelisks of the sun in On, or Heliopolis. It was from this city that Joseph, when vizier of Egypt, took his wife, the daughter of the high priest there. The images of the sun, and of Baal as the sun-god, seem to have been obelisks or pillars of stone, and hence had to be "broken down"; whilst the Asherah, the "groves" of the Authorized Version, the images of Ashtoreth as the moon-goddess, were wooden pillars, to be "cut" or "hewn down."

Four words are translated as "sun" in our Authorized Version. One of these, used in Job 31:26, should actually be "light," as noted in the margin—"If I beheld the light when it shined,"—even though the sun is clearly what is intended. The second word is mostly used in poetry, often paired with a poetic term for the moon, and refers to the sun's warmth, while the other refers to the brightness of the moon. Thus, the Bride in the Song of Solomon is described as "fair as the moon, clear as the sun." The [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]third word has caused some confusion. In Judges 8 in the Authorized Version, it states that "Gideon, the son of Joash, returned from the battle before the sun was up," but in the Revised Version, it says he "returned from the battle from the ascent of Heres." There was a mount Ḥeres, a mount of the sun, in the territory of the Danites held by the Amorites, but that cannot be the Ḥeres of Gideon. Still, it is likely that a mount sacred to the sun is intended here, as well as in the reference to the Danites; although ḥeres meaning the sun itself appears in the story of Samson's riddle, when the men of the city gave him the answer they had pressured from his wife, "before the sun (ḥeres) went down." Shemesh, the Samas of the Babylonians, is the typical word for the sun; and we find it in Beth-shemesh, the "house of the sun," a Levitical city in the tribe of Judah, the site of the ark's return after its captivity among the Philistines. There was another Beth-shemesh in Naphtali on the borders of Issachar, and Jeremiah prophesies that Nebuchadnezzar "shall break also the images of Beth-shemesh, that is in the land of Egypt," likely referring to the obelisks of the sun in On, or Heliopolis. It was from this city that Joseph, while vizier of Egypt, took his wife, the daughter of the high priest there. The images of the sun, and Baal as the sun-god, seem to have been obelisks or stone pillars, which is why they had to be "broken down"; while the Asherah, the "groves" in the Authorized Version, representing the images of Ashtoreth as the moon-goddess, were wooden pillars, to be "cut" or "hewn down."

[68]Another "city of the sun" in the land of Egypt is also mentioned by Isaiah, in his prophecy of the conversion and restoration of the Egyptians. "Five cities in the land of Egypt shall speak the language of Canaan, and swear to the Lord of hosts; one shall be called The city of destruction;" lit. of Ḥeres, or of the sun. It was upon the strength of this text that Onias, the son of Onias the high priest, appealed to Ptolemy Philometer to be allowed to build a temple to Jehovah in the prefecture of Heliopolis (the city of the sun), and obtained his permission to do so, b.c. 149.[68:1]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]Another "city of the sun" in Egypt is also mentioned by Isaiah in his prophecy about the conversion and restoration of the Egyptians. "Five cities in Egypt will speak the language of Canaan and swear to the Lord of hosts; one will be called The city of destruction;" literally, of Ḥeres, or of the sun. It was based on this text that Onias, the son of Onias the high priest, asked Ptolemy Philometer for permission to build a temple to Jehovah in the district of Heliopolis (the city of the sun), and he received approval to do so, B.C. 149.[68:1]

The epithet applied to the sun in Cant. vi. already quoted, "Clear as the sun," may be taken as equivalent to "spotless." That is its ordinary appearance to the naked eye, though from time to time—far more frequently than most persons have any idea—there are spots upon the sun sufficiently large to be seen without any optical assistance. Thus in the twenty years from 1882 to 1901 inclusive, such a phenomenon occurred on the average once in each week. No reference to the existence of sun-spots occurs in Scripture. Nor is this surprising, for it would not have fallen within the purpose of Scripture to record such a fact. But it is surprising that whilst the Chinese detected their occasional appearance, there is no distinct account of such an observation given either on Babylonian tablets or by classical or mediæval writers.

The term used for the sun in Cant. vi., "Clear as the sun," can be understood as "spotless." This is how it generally looks to the naked eye, although, more often than most people realize, there are sunspots that are large enough to be seen without any optical tools. In fact, between 1882 and 1901, such occurrences averaged about once a week. The Bible does not mention sunspots, which isn't surprising, as it wouldn’t be within its purpose to document such details. However, it is surprising that while the Chinese noted their occasional appearance, there is no clear record of such observations on Babylonian tablets or by classical or medieval writers.

The achievement of the Chinese in this direction is very notable, for the difficulty of looking directly at the [69]sun, under ordinary circumstances is so great, and the very largest sunspots are so small as compared with the entire disc, that it argues great perseverance in watching such appearances on the part of the Chinese, for them to have assured themselves that they were not due to very small distant clouds in our own atmosphere.

The progress made by the Chinese in this area is quite impressive, because usually it’s really hard to look directly at the [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]sun. The biggest sunspots are minuscule compared to the whole disc, which shows that the Chinese must have shown remarkable dedication in observing these phenomena to confirm they weren't just tiny distant clouds in our atmosphere.

It has often been the subject of comment that light is mentioned in Gen. i. as having been created on the first day, but the sun not until the fourth. The order is entirely appropriate from an astronomical point of view, for we know that our sun is not the only source of light, since it is but one out of millions of stars, many of which greatly exceed it in splendour. Further, most astronomers consider that our solar system existed as a luminous nebula long ages before the sun was formed as a central condensation.

It has often been noted that light is mentioned in Gen. i. as being created on the first day, while the sun is not mentioned until the fourth day. This order makes complete sense from an astronomical perspective because we know that our sun is just one source of light among millions of stars, many of which are much brighter. Additionally, most astronomers believe that our solar system existed as a shining nebula long before the sun formed as a central mass.

But the true explanation of the creation of light being put first is probably this—that there might be no imagining that, though gross solid bodies, like earth and sea, sun and moon might require a Creator, yet something so ethereal and all-pervading as light was self-existent, and by its own nature, eternal. This was a truth that needed to be stated first. God is light, but light is not God.

But the real reason light is mentioned first in the creation story is likely this: it prevents anyone from thinking that while solid objects like the earth, sea, sun, and moon need a Creator, something as intangible and everywhere-present as light could exist by itself, eternal by its nature. This is a truth that had to be stated upfront. God is light, but light is not God.

The other references to the sun in Scripture do not call for much comment. Its apparent unchangeableness qualifies it for use as an expression for eternal duration, as in the seventy-second, the Royal, Psalm, "They shall fear Thee as long as the sun and moon endure;" and again, "His name shall endure for ever: His name shall be continued as long as the sun." And again, in the [70]eighty-ninth Psalm, it is said of David: "His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before Me."

The other mentions of the sun in the Bible don’t need much commentary. Its seemingly unchanging nature makes it a fitting symbol for eternal duration, as seen in the seventy-second, the Royal, Psalm: "They shall fear You as long as the sun and moon last;" and again, "His name shall last forever: His name shall be established as long as the sun." Additionally, in the [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]eighty-ninth Psalm, it says of David: "His descendants shall endure forever, and his throne will be like the sun before Me."

The daily course of the sun from beyond the eastern horizon to beyond the western gives the widest expression for the compass of the whole earth. "The mighty God, even the Lord, hath spoken, and called the earth, from the rising of the sun unto the going down thereof." "From the rising of the sun, unto the going down of the same, the Lord's name is to be praised." The sun's rays penetrate everywhere. "His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof." Whilst in the Book of Ecclesiastes, the melancholy words of the Preacher revert over and over again to that which is done "under the sun." "What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun?"

The daily journey of the sun from the eastern horizon to the western one represents the full range of the earth. "The mighty God, the Lord, has spoken and called the earth, from the rising of the sun to its setting." "From the rising of the sun to its setting, the Lord's name should be praised." The sun's rays reach everywhere. "His rise is from one end of the sky, and his path is to the other end: and nothing is hidden from its heat." Meanwhile, in the Book of Ecclesiastes, the somber words of the Preacher repeatedly return to what happens "under the sun." "What gain is there for a person in all their work that they do under the sun?"

It should be noted that this same Book of Ecclesiastes shows a much clearer idea of the sun's daily apparent motion than was held by many of the writers of antiquity. There is, of course, nowhere in Scripture any mention of the rotation of the earth on its axis as the mechanical explanation of the sun's daily apparent motion; any more than we should refer to it ourselves to-day except when writing from a purely technical point of view. As said already, the Hebrews had probably not discovered this explanation, and would certainly have not gone out of their way to mention it in any of their Scriptures if they had.

It’s important to note that the Book of Ecclesiastes presents a much clearer understanding of the sun's daily motion than many ancient writers did. There’s no mention in Scripture of the earth rotating on its axis as a mechanical explanation for the sun's daily movement, just as we wouldn’t refer to it today unless we were discussing it from a purely technical perspective. As mentioned earlier, the Hebrews likely hadn’t discovered this explanation and definitely wouldn’t have highlighted it in their Scriptures even if they had.

One passage of great beauty has sometimes been quoted as if it contained a reference to the earth's rotation, but when carefully examined it is seen to be dealing simply [71]with the apparent motion of the sun in the course of the year and of the day.

One beautifully worded passage has often been quoted as if it refers to the earth's rotation, but upon closer examination, it merely discusses the sun's apparent movement over the course of the year and the day. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

"Have you ever commanded the morning since your days began; And made the dawn understand its place;
That it may take hold of the ends of the earth,
So that the evil ones could be removed from it? It's shaped like clay to the seal; "And they serve as a covering."

The earth appears to be spoken of as being "turned" to the sun, the dayspring; and this, we know, takes place, morning by morning, in consequence of the diurnal rotation. But the last two lines are better rendered in the Revised Version—

The earth seems to be described as being "turned" toward the sun, the dawn; and we know this happens every morning due to the daily rotation. However, the last two lines are more accurately rendered in the Revised Version—

"It changes like clay under a seal;
"And everything appears like clothing."

The ancient seals were cylinders, rolled over the clay, which, formless before, took upon it the desired relief as the seal passed over it. So a garment, laid aside and folded up during the night, is shapeless, but once again takes form when the wearer puts it on. And the earth, formless in the darkness, gains shape and colour and relief with the impress upon it of the morning light.

The ancient seals were cylinders that were rolled over the clay, which, formless at first, took on the desired design as the seal passed over it. Similarly, a garment that is set aside and folded during the night is shapeless, but regains its form when the wearer puts it on. Likewise, the earth, formless in the darkness, develops shape, color, and texture with the impression of the morning light.

It is quite clear that the Hebrews did not suppose that it was a new sun that came up from the east each morning, as did Xenophanes and the Epicureans amongst the Greeks. It was the same sun throughout. Nor is there any idea of his hiding himself behind a mysterious mountain during the night. "The sun," the Preacher tells us, "ariseth and the sun goeth down, and hasteth [72]to his place where he arose." The Hebrew was quite aware that the earth was unsupported in space, for he knew that the Lord "stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing." There was therefore nothing to hinder the sun passing freely under the earth from west to east, and thus making his path, not a mere march onward ending in his dissolution at sunset, but a complete "circuit," as noted by the writer of the nineteenth Psalm.

It’s clear that the Hebrews didn’t think a new sun rose in the east every morning, like Xenophanes and the Epicureans did among the Greeks. It was the same sun every day. There’s no idea of it hiding behind a mysterious mountain at night either. “The sun,” the Preacher says, “rises and the sun sets, and hurries to the place where it rose.” The Hebrew understood that the earth wasn’t supported in space, as he knew the Lord “stretches out the north over the empty space and hangs the earth on nothing.” So, nothing prevented the sun from moving freely under the earth from west to east, making its journey not just a straightforward march that ends in disappearance at sunset, but a complete “circuit,” as mentioned by the writer of the nineteenth Psalm.

The fierceness of the sun's heat in Palestine rendered sun-stroke a serious danger. The little son of the Shunammite was probably so smitten as he watched his father at work with the reapers. So the promise is given to God's people more than once: "The sun shall not smite thee by day." "They shall not hunger nor thirst; neither shall the heat nor sun smite them." The martyrs who pass through the great tribulation "shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat."

The intensity of the sun's heat in Palestine made sunstroke a serious threat. The young son of the Shunammite likely suffered from it while watching his father work with the harvesters. God's people receive the assurance more than once: "The sun will not harm you by day." "They won’t hunger or thirst; neither will the heat or sun strike them." The martyrs who endure the great tribulation "will not hunger anymore, nor will they thirst anymore; neither will the sun beat down on them, nor any heat."

There are fewer references in Scripture to the vivifying effects of sunlight upon vegetation than we might have expected. The explanation is possibly to be found in the terrible perversion men had made of the benefits which came to them by means of this action of sunlight, by using them as an excuse for plunging into all kinds of nature-worship. Yet there are one or two allusions not without interest. As already mentioned, "the precious fruits brought forth by the sun" were promised to the tribe of Joseph, whilst the great modern discovery that nearly every form of terrestrial energy is derived ultimately from the energy [73]of the sun's rays gives a most striking appropriateness to the imagery made use of by St. James.

There are fewer mentions in the Scriptures about how sunlight helps plants grow than we might expect. This could be because of the terrible misuse that people made of the benefits they received from sunlight, using it as an excuse to indulge in various forms of nature worship. However, there are a couple of interesting references. As noted earlier, "the precious fruits brought forth by the sun" were promised to the tribe of Joseph, while the modern discovery that nearly all forms of earthly energy ultimately come from the sun's rays makes the imagery used by St. James particularly fitting. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

"Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of Lights, with Whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning."

"Every good and perfect gift comes from above, coming down from the Father of Lights, who doesn’t change or bring any shadow of turning."

God, that is to say, is the true Sun, the true Origin of all Lights, the true bestower of every good and perfect gift. The word rendered "variableness," is a technical word, used by ourselves in modern English as "parallax," and employed in the Septuagint Version to denote the revolutions of the heavenly bodies, described in the thirty-eighth chapter of the book of Job, as "the ordinances of the heavens." With the natural sun, therefore, there is "variableness," that is to say, real or apparent change of place; there is none with God. Neither is there with Him any darkness of eclipse; any "shadow" caused as in the case of the material sun, by the "turning" of earth and moon in their orbits. The knowledge of "the alternations of the turning of the sun," described in the Book of Wisdom as a feature of the learning of Solomon, was a knowledge of the laws of this "variableness" and "turning"; especially of the "turning" of its rising and setting points at the two solstices; and St. James may well have had that passage in his mind when he wrote. For Science deals with the knowledge of things that change, as they change, and of their changes, but Faith with the knowledge of Him that abideth for ever, and it is to this higher knowledge that St. James wished to point his readers.

God is the true Sun, the ultimate Source of all Lights, and the real giver of every good and perfect gift. The term translated as "variableness" is a technical word we now use in modern English as "parallax," and it appears in the Septuagint to refer to the movement of the heavenly bodies, mentioned in the thirty-eighth chapter of the book of Job as "the ordinances of the heavens." Thus, like the natural sun, there is "variableness," meaning real or apparent change of position; but there is none with God. There is also no darkness of eclipse with Him; no "shadow" created as with the material sun, due to the "turning" of the earth and moon in their orbits. The understanding of "the alternations of the turning of the sun," described in the Book of Wisdom as part of Solomon's wisdom, was about the laws of this "variableness" and "turning," particularly regarding the "turning" of its rising and setting points at the two solstices; and St. James may have been keeping that passage in mind when he wrote. Science focuses on understanding things that change, as they change, and their changes, but Faith focuses on knowing Him who remains forever, and it is this deeper knowledge that St. James wanted to highlight for his readers.

Science deals with the knowledge of things that change, as they change and of their changes. The physical facts [74]that we have learned in the last years about that changeful body the sun are briefly these:—

Science is concerned with understanding things that change, as they change, and their changes. The physical facts [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] that we have learned in recent years about the ever-changing sun are summarized as follows:—

Its core or inner nucleus is not accessible to observation, its nature and constitution being a mere matter of inference. The "photosphere" is a shell of incandescent cloud surrounding the nucleus, but the depth, or thickness of this shell is quite unknown. The outer surface—which we see—of the photosphere is certainly pretty sharply defined, though very irregular, rising at points into whiter aggregations, called "faculæ," and perhaps depressed at other places in the dark "spots." Immediately above the photosphere lies the "reversing layer" in which are found the substances which give rise to the gaps in the sun's spectrum—the Fraunhofer lines. Above the "reversing layer" lies the scarlet "chromosphere" with "prominences" of various forms and dimensions rising high above the solar surface; and over, and embracing all, is the "corona," with its mysterious petal-like forms and rod-like rays.

Its core or inner nucleus can't be observed; its nature and structure are only inferred. The "photosphere" is a layer of glowing gas surrounding the nucleus, but the thickness of this layer is unknown. The outer surface that we see of the photosphere is pretty well-defined, though very irregular, with some areas rising into brighter clusters known as "faculæ," and others dipping into dark "spots." Just above the photosphere is the "reversing layer," where substances create gaps in the sun's spectrum, known as the Fraunhofer lines. Above the "reversing layer" is the red "chromosphere," with "prominences" of various shapes and sizes rising high above the sun's surface; and above it all is the "corona," with its mysterious petal-like shapes and rod-like rays.

The great body of the sun is gaseous, though it is impossible for us to conceive of the condition of the gaseous core, subjected, as it is, at once to temperature and pressure both enormously great. Probably it is a gas so viscous that it would resist motion as pitch or putty does. Nor do we know much of the nature of either the sun-spots or the solar corona. Both seem to be produced by causes which lie within the sun; both undergo changes that are periodical and connected with each other. They exercise some influence upon the earth's magnetism, but whether this influence extends to terrestrial weather, to rainfall and storms, is still a matter of controversy.

The main part of the sun is made of gas, but it's hard for us to imagine the state of the gaseous core, which is under both extremely high temperature and pressure. It’s likely a gas so thick that it would resist movement like pitch or putty. We also don’t know much about the nature of sunspots or the solar corona. Both seem to be created by processes that originate within the sun; they undergo changes that are periodic and connected to each other. They have some effect on the earth's magnetic field, but whether this effect influences weather patterns, rainfall, and storms is still up for debate.

[75]The sun itself is distant from the earth in the mean, about 92,885,000 miles, but this distance varies between January and June by 3,100,000 miles. The diameter of the sun is 866,400 miles, but perhaps this is variable to the extent of some hundreds of miles. It would contain 1,305,000 times the bulk of the earth, but its mean density is but one-quarter that of the earth. The force of gravity at its surface is 27-1/2 times that at the surface of the earth, and it rotates on its axis in about 25 days. But the sun's surface does not appear to rotate as a whole, so this time of rotating varies by as much as two days if we consider a region on the sun's equator or at a distance from it of 45°. The intensity of sunlight at the surface of the sun is about 190,000 times that of a candle-flame, and the effective temperature of the solar surface is eight or ten thousand degrees centigrade.

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]The sun is, on average, about 92,885,000 miles away from the earth, but this distance changes by 3,100,000 miles between January and June. The sun has a diameter of 866,400 miles, though this could vary by a few hundred miles. It could fit 1,305,000 times the volume of the earth, but its average density is only a quarter of that of the earth. The gravity at its surface is 27.5 times that of earth's surface, and it takes about 25 days to complete one rotation on its axis. However, the sun's surface doesn't rotate uniformly, so this rotation time can vary by up to two days when looking at different regions, like the equator or areas 45° away from it. Sunlight intensity at the sun's surface is about 190,000 times stronger than a candle flame, and the effective temperature of the solar surface ranges from eight to ten thousand degrees Celsius.

Such are some of the facts about the sun that are received, or, as it would be technically expressed, "adopted" to-day. Doubtless a very few years will find them altered and rendered more accurate as observations accumulate. In a few hundred years, knowledge of the constitution of the sun may have so increased that these data and suggestions may seem so erroneous as to be absurd. It is little more than a century since one of the greatest of astronomers, Sir William Herschel, contended that the central globe of the sun might be a habitable world, sheltered from the blazing photosphere by a layer of cool non-luminous clouds. Such an hypothesis was not incompatible with what was then known of the constitution of the heavenly bodies, though it is incompatible with what we know [76]now. It was simply a matter on which more evidence was to be accumulated, and the holding of such a view does not, and did not, detract from the scientific status of Sir William Herschel.

Here are some of the facts about the sun that are accepted, or as it's technically called, "adopted" today. In just a few years, these facts will likely change and become more accurate as more observations are made. In a few hundred years, our understanding of the sun's structure may expand so much that this information and these ideas might seem completely wrong. It’s only been a little over a century since one of the greatest astronomers, Sir William Herschel, argued that the sun’s core could be a habitable world, protected from the intense photosphere by a layer of cool, non-luminous clouds. At that time, this hypothesis wasn't at odds with the then-current understanding of celestial bodies, although it contradicts what we know now. It was simply a topic where more evidence needed to be gathered, and holding such a view did not, and does not, lessen Sir William Herschel’s scientific credibility.

The hypotheses of science require continual restatement in the light of new evidence, and, as to the weight and interpretation to be given to such evidence, there is continual conflict—if it may so be called—between the old and the new science, between the science that is established and the science that is being established. It is by this conflict that knowledge is rendered sure.

The theories in science need to be constantly updated based on new evidence, and when it comes to how much importance to give to that evidence, there’s an ongoing debate—if we can call it that—between established science and emerging science. It’s through this debate that we reinforce our understanding.

Such a conflict took place rather more than 300 years ago at the opening of the Modern Era of astronomy. It was a conflict between two schools of science—between the disciples of Aristotle and Claudius Ptolemy on the one hand and the disciples of Copernicus on the other. It has often been represented as a conflict between religion and science, whereas that which happened was that the representatives of the older school of science made use of the powers of the Church to persecute the newer school as represented by Galileo. That persecution was no doubt a flagrant abuse of authority, but it should be impossible at the present day for any one to claim a theological standing for either theory, whether Copernican or Ptolemaic.

A conflict occurred over 300 years ago at the start of the Modern Era of astronomy. It was a battle between two scientific schools—those who followed Aristotle and Claudius Ptolemy on one side, and those who followed Copernicus on the other. It's often portrayed as a struggle between religion and science, but in reality, the representatives of the older scientific school used the Church's influence to persecute the newer school, represented by Galileo. While that persecution was a clear abuse of power, today it should be impossible for anyone to claim a religious basis for either theory, whether Copernican or Ptolemaic.

So long as evidence sufficient to demonstrate the Copernican hypothesis was not forthcoming, it was possible for a man to hold the Ptolemaic, without detracting from his scientific position, just as it is thought no discredit to Sir William Herschel that he held his curious idea of a cool sun under the conditions of knowledge of a hundred [77]years ago. Even at the present day, we habitually use the Ptolemaic phraseology. Not only do we speak of "sunrise" and "sunset," but astronomers in strictly technical papers use the expression, "acceleration of the sun's motion" when "acceleration of the earth's motion" is meant.

As long as there wasn't enough evidence to prove the Copernican theory, it was acceptable for someone to believe in the Ptolemaic system without harming their scientific credibility, just like it's not considered a flaw that Sir William Herschel had his odd idea of a cool sun based on the knowledge available a hundred [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]years ago. Even today, we commonly use Ptolemaic terms. We not only say "sunrise" and "sunset," but astronomers in formal papers also refer to "acceleration of the sun's motion" when they actually mean "acceleration of the earth's motion."

The question as to whether the earth goes round the sun or the sun goes round the earth has been decided by the accumulation of evidence. It was a question for evidence to decide. It was an open question so long as the evidence available was not sufficient to decide it. It was perfectly possible at one time for a scientific or a religious man to hold either view. Neither view interfered with his fundamental standing or with his mental attitude towards either sun or earth. In this respect—important as the question is in itself—it might be said to be a mere detail, almost a matter of indifference.

The question of whether the Earth orbits the sun or the sun orbits the Earth has been resolved through the accumulation of evidence. It was a question that evidence had to answer. It remained open as long as the available evidence was insufficient to reach a conclusion. At one time, it was completely reasonable for both scientists and religious individuals to hold either perspective. Neither belief affected their core principles or their mindset toward the sun or the Earth. In this regard—important as the question is on its own—it could be considered a mere detail, almost insignificant.

But it is not a mere detail, a matter of indifference to either scientist or religious man, as to what the sun and earth are—whether he can treat them as things that can be weighed, measured, compared, analyzed, as, a few pages back, we have shown has been done, or whether, as one of the chief astrologers of to-day puts it, he—

But it's not just a small detail or something that doesn't matter to either scientists or religious people what the sun and earth are. Whether they can view them as objects that can be weighed, measured, compared, and analyzed, as we've demonstrated a few pages ago, or whether, as one of today's leading astrologers puts it, he—

"Believes that the sun is the body of the Logos of this solar system, 'in Him we live and move and have our being.' The planets are his angels, being modifications in the consciousness of the Logos,"

"Believes that the sun is the embodiment of the Logos of this solar system, 'in Him we live and move and have our being.' The planets are his angels, representing variations in the consciousness of the Logos,"

and that the sun

"Stands as Power, having Love and Will united."

"Exists as Power, with Love and Will combined."

[78]The difference between these two points of view is fundamental, and one of root principle. The foundation, the common foundation on which both the believer and the scientist build, is threatened by this false science and false religion. The calling, the very existence of both is assailed, and they must stand or fall together. The believer in one God cannot acknowledge a Sun-god, a Solar Logos, these planetary angels; the astronomer cannot admit the intrusion of planetary influences that obey no known laws, and the supposed effects of which are in no way proportional to the supposed causes. The Law of Causality does not run within the borders of astrology.

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]The difference between these two viewpoints is fundamental and rooted in principle. The common foundation that both the believer and the scientist rely on is threatened by this false science and false religion. Their purpose and very existence are under attack, and they must either stand together or fall together. A believer in one God cannot accept a Sun-god, a Solar Logos, or these planetary angels; the astronomer cannot acknowledge the influence of planets that follow no known laws, with effects that are not in any way proportional to their supposed causes. The Law of Causality does not apply within the realm of astrology.

It is the old antithesis restated of the Hebrew and the heathen. The believer in one God and the scientist alike derive their heritage from the Hebrew, whilst the modern astrologer claims that the astrology of to-day is once more a revelation of the Chaldean and Assyrian religions. But polytheism—whether in its gross form of many gods, of planetary angels, or in the more subtle form of pantheism,—is the very negation of sane religion; and astrology is the negation of sane astronomy.

It’s the old opposition restated between the Hebrew and the pagan. Both the believer in one God and the scientist draw their heritage from the Hebrew tradition, while today’s astrologer claims that modern astrology is once again a revelation of Chaldean and Assyrian religions. But polytheism—whether in its obvious form of multiple gods, planetary angels, or in the more subtle form of pantheism—is the complete opposite of rational religion; and astrology is the opposite of rational astronomy.

"For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things."

"For the invisible qualities of Him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, understood through what has been made, even His eternal power and divine nature; so they are without excuse. Because although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God or give thanks; instead, they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for images made to look like corruptible man, birds, four-legged animals, and creeping things."

FOOTNOTES:

[68:1] Josephus, Antiquities, XIII. iii. 1.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Josephus, Antiquities, XIII. iii. 1.

[79]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

CHAPTER VII

THE MOON

"The gentle moon of blessed Israel
Floods all the deep blue darkness with divine beams:
All night, the jagged cliffs that surround the valley "With shining silver spires."

So, in Tennyson's words, sang Jephthah's daughter, as she recalled the days of her mourning before she accomplished her self-sacrifice.

So, in Tennyson's words, sang Jephthah's daughter, as she remembered the days of her mourning before she fulfilled her self-sacrifice.

It is hard for modern dwellers in towns to realize the immense importance of the moon to the people of old. "The night cometh when no man can work" fitly describes their condition when she was absent. In sub-tropical countries like Palestine, twilight is short, and, the sun once set, deep darkness soon covers everything. Such artificial lights as men then had would now be deemed very inefficient. There was little opportunity, when once darkness had fallen, for either work or enjoyment.

It’s difficult for people living in cities today to understand how crucial the moon was for ancient people. “The night comes when no one can work” perfectly captures their situation when the moon was missing. In tropical regions like Palestine, twilight doesn’t last long, and once the sun sets, darkness quickly envelops everything. The artificial lights people had back then would seem really inefficient now. Once darkness arrived, there was hardly any chance for work or leisure.

But, when the moon was up, how very different was the case. Then men might say—

But when the moon was up, everything was completely different. Then people could say—

"Tonight, I think, is just the daylight feeling unwell;
It seems a bit lighter: it's a day,
"Just like the day when the sun is hidden."

[80] In the long moonlit nights, travelling was easy and safe; the labours of the field and house could still be carried on; the friendly feast need not be interrupted. But of all men, the shepherd would most rejoice at this season; all his toils, all his dangers were immeasurably lightened during the nights near the full. As in the beautiful rendering which Tennyson has given us of one of the finest passages in the Iliad—

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] On the long, moonlit nights, traveling was easy and safe; the work in the fields and at home could still continue; the friendly feasts didn't have to be interrupted. But among all people, the shepherd would be the happiest during this time; all his hard work and dangers felt much lighter during the nights close to the full moon. Just like the beautiful way Tennyson expressed one of the best passages in the Iliad—

"In heaven, the stars surround the moon
Look beautiful when all the winds are calm,
And every height emerges, and sharp peak And valley, and the vast sky Break open to their fullest, and all the stars "Shine, and the Shepherd feels joyful in his heart."

A large proportion of the people of Israel, long after their settlement in Palestine, maintained the habits of their forefathers, and led the shepherd's life. To them, therefore, the full of the moon must have been of special importance; yet there is no single reference in Scripture to this phase as such; nor indeed to any change of the moon's apparent figure. In two cases in our Revised Version we do indeed find the expression "at the full moon," but if we compare these passages with the Authorized Version, we find them there rendered "in the time appointed," or "at the day appointed." This latter appears to be the literal meaning, though there can be no question, as is seen by a comparison with the Syriac, that the period of the full moon is referred to. No doubt it was because travelling was so much more safe and easy than in the moonless nights, that the two great spring and [81]autumn festivals of the Jews were held at the full moon. Indeed, the latter feast, when the Israelites "camped out" for a week "in booths," was held at the time of the "harvest moon." The phenomenon of the "harvest moon" may be briefly explained as follows. At the autumnal equinox, when the sun is crossing from the north side of the equator to the south, the full moon is crossing from the south side of the equator to the north. It is thus higher in the sky, when it souths, on each succeeding night, and is therefore up for a greater length of time. This counterbalances to a considerable extent its movement eastward amongst the stars, so that, for several nights in succession, it rises almost at sundown. These nights of the Feast of Tabernacles, when all Israel was rejoicing over the ingathered fruits, each family in its tent or arbour of green boughs, were therefore the fullest of moonlight in the year.[81:1]

A large number of people in Israel, long after settling in Palestine, kept the traditions of their ancestors and lived a shepherd's life. For them, the full moon must have been particularly significant; however, there is no specific mention of this phase in Scripture, nor any reference to changes in the moon's shape. In two instances in our Revised Version, we do see the phrase "at the full moon," but if we compare these passages with the Authorized Version, we find them translated as "in the time appointed" or "at the day appointed." The latter seems to be the literal meaning, though it is clear, especially when compared with the Syriac, that the full moon period is implied. It was likely because traveling was much safer and easier during the full moon than on moonless nights that the two major spring and autumn festivals of the Jews were held at this time. In fact, the latter feast, when the Israelites would "camp out" for a week "in booths," took place during the "harvest moon." The "harvest moon" can be explained briefly: during the autumnal equinox, as the sun moves from the northern hemisphere to the southern, the full moon is shifting from the southern hemisphere to the northern. As a result, it rises higher in the sky each night, remaining visible for a longer period of time. This offsets its eastward movement among the stars, so that for several consecutive nights, it nearly rises at sundown. These nights of the Feast of Tabernacles, when all of Israel celebrated the gathered harvests in their tents or arbours of green branches, were, therefore, the brightest in terms of moonlight throughout the year.[81:1]

Modern civilization has almost shut us off from the heavens, at least in our great towns and cities. These offer many conveniences, but they remove us from not a few of the beauties which nature has to offer. And so it comes that, taking the population as a whole, there is perhaps less practically known of astronomy in England to-day than there was under the Plantagenets. A very few are astronomers, professional and amateur, and know immeasurably more than our forefathers did of the science. Then there is a large, more or less cultured, public that know something of the science at secondhand through [82]books. But the great majority know nothing of the heavenly bodies except of the sun; they need to "look in the almanack" to "find out moonshine." But to simpler peoples the difference between the "light half" of the month, from the first quarter to the last quarter through the full of the moon, and the "dark half," from the last quarter to the first quarter, through new, is very great. Indian astronomers so divide the month to this day.

Modern society has largely cut us off from the heavens, especially in our big towns and cities. While these places offer many conveniences, they also take us away from some of the beauty that nature provides. As a result, when looking at the general population, there is likely less practical knowledge of astronomy in England today than there was during the Plantagenets' time. Only a small number of people, both professional and amateur astronomers, understand much more about the science than our ancestors did. Then there's a larger, somewhat educated public that knows a bit about astronomy secondhand through [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]books. But the vast majority knows almost nothing about celestial bodies beyond the sun; they need to "check the almanack" to "find out about the moon." However, for simpler cultures, the distinction between the "light half" of the month—spanning from the first quarter to the last quarter through the full moon—and the "dark half," from the last quarter to the first quarter through new, is significant. Indian astronomers still divide the month this way today.

In one passage of Holy Scripture, the description which Isaiah gives of the "City of the Lord, the Zion of the Holy One of Israel," there is a reference to the dark part of the month.

In one passage of the Holy Scripture, the description that Isaiah gives of the "City of the Lord, the Zion of the Holy One of Israel," mentions the darker part of the month.

"Thy sun shall no more go down; neither shall thy moon (literally "month") withdraw itself: for the Lord shall be thine everlasting light, and the days of thy mourning shall be ended."

"Your sun will no longer set; your moon won't fade away either: for the Lord will be your everlasting light, and your days of mourning will be over."

The parallelism expressed in the verse lies between the darkness of night whilst the sun is below the horizon, and the special darkness of those nights when the moon, being near conjunction with the sun, is absent from the sky during the greater part or whole of the night hours, and has but a small portion of her disc illuminated. Just as half the day is dark because the sun has withdrawn itself, so half the nights of the month are dark because the moon has withdrawn itself.

The parallelism in the verse points out the darkness of night when the sun is below the horizon and the unique darkness of those nights when the moon, close to being in line with the sun, is mostly missing from the sky for most or all of the night, showing only a small part of its surface lit up. Just as half the day is dark because the sun has set, so half the nights of the month are dark because the moon is absent.

The Hebrew month was a natural one, determined by actual observation of the new moon. They used three words in their references to the moon, the first of which, chodesh, derived from a root meaning "to be new," indicates the fact that the new moon, as actually [83]observed, governed their calendar. The word therefore signifies the new moon—the day of the new moon: and thus a month; that is, a lunar month beginning at the new moon. This is the Hebrew word used in the Deluge story in the seventh chapter of Genesis; and in all references to feasts depending on a day in the month. As when the Lord spake to Moses, saying, "Also in the day of your gladness, and in your solemn days, and in the beginnings of your months, ye shall blow with your trumpets over your burnt offerings, and over the sacrifices of your peace offerings." And again in the Psalm of Asaph to the chief musician upon Gittith: "Blow up the trumpet in the new moon, in the time appointed, on our solemn feast day." This is the word also that Isaiah uses in describing the bravery of the daughters of Zion, "the tinkling ornaments about their feet, and their cauls, and their round tires like the moon, the chains, and the bracelets." "The round tires" were not discs, like the full moon, but were round like the crescent.

The Hebrew month was based on natural observations of the new moon. They used three words to refer to the moon, the first being chodesh, which comes from a root meaning "to be new," indicating that the new moon, as actually [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]observed, determined their calendar. The term signifies the new moon—the day of the new moon—and thus a month; specifically, a lunar month starting at the new moon. This is the Hebrew word found in the Deluge story in the seventh chapter of Genesis and in all references to feasts that rely on a specific day of the month. For instance, when the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, "Also on the day of your joy, on your solemn days, and at the start of your months, you shall blow your trumpets over your burnt offerings and your peace offerings." Additionally, in the Psalm of Asaph for the chief musician upon Gittith: "Blow the trumpet on the new moon, at the appointed time, on our solemn feast day." This is also the word Isaiah uses to describe the adornments of the daughters of Zion: "the tinkling ornaments around their feet, their headbands, and their round earrings like the moon, the chains, and the bracelets." "The round earrings" were not discs like the full moon, but were round like the crescent.

Generally speaking, chodesh is employed where either reference is made to the shape or newness of the crescent moon, or where "month" is used in any precise way. This is the word for "month" employed throughout by the prophet Ezekiel, who is so precise in the dating of his prophecies.

Generally speaking, chodesh is used when either the shape or newness of the crescent moon is referenced, or when "month" is used in any specific way. This is the term for "month" used consistently by the prophet Ezekiel, who is very precise in dating his prophecies.

When the moon is mentioned as the lesser light of heaven, without particular reference to its form, or when a month is mentioned as a somewhat indefinite period of time, then the Hebrew word yarēach, is used. Here the [84]word has the root meaning of "paleness"; it is the "silver moon."

When the moon is referred to as the lesser light of the sky, without specifically mentioning its shape, or when a month is described as a somewhat vague time period, the Hebrew word yarēach is used. Here, the [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]word has its root meaning of "paleness"; it represents the "silver moon."

Yarēach is the word always used where the moon is classed among the heavenly bodies; as when Joseph dreamed of the sun, the moon, and the eleven constellations; or in Jer. viii. 2, where the Lord says that they shall bring out the bones of the kings, princes, priests, prophets, and inhabitants of Jerusalem, "and they shall spread them before the sun, and the moon, and all the host of heaven, whom they have loved, and whom they have served, and after whom they have walked, and whom they have sought, and whom they have worshipped."

Yarēach is the term always used when referring to the moon as one of the heavenly bodies; like when Joseph dreamed of the sun, the moon, and the eleven stars; or in Jer. viii. 2, where the Lord mentions that they will bring out the bones of the kings, princes, priests, prophets, and people of Jerusalem, "and they will lay them out before the sun, the moon, and all the hosts of heaven, whom they have loved, served, followed, sought after, and worshipped."

The same word is used for the moon in its character of "making ordinances." Thus we have it several times in the Psalms: "He (the Lord) appointed the moon for seasons." "His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before Me. It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven." And again: "The moon and stars rule by night;" whilst Jeremiah says, "Thus saith the Lord, Which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night."

The same word is used for the moon in its role of "making rules." We see this several times in the Psalms: "He (the Lord) set the moon for seasons." "His descendants will last forever, and his throne will be like the sun in my presence. It will be established forever like the moon, and will be a faithful witness in heaven." And again: "The moon and stars govern by night;" while Jeremiah says, "Thus says the Lord, who provides the sun for light during the day, and the rules of the moon and stars for light at night."

In all passages where reference seems to be made to the darkening or withdrawing of the moon's light (Eccl. xii. 2; Isa. xiii. 10; Ezek. xxxii. 7; Joel ii. 10, 31, and iii. 15; and Hab. iii. 11) the word yarēach is employed. A slight variant of the same word indicates the month when viewed as a period of time not quite defined, and not in the strict sense of a lunar month. This is the term used in Exod. ii. 2, for the three months that the mother [85]of Moses hid him when she saw that he was a goodly child; by Moses, in his prophecy for Joseph, of "Blessed of the Lord be his land . . . for the precious fruits brought forth by the sun, and for the precious things put forth by the months." Such a "full month of days" did Shallum the son of Jabesh reign in Samaria in the nine and thirtieth year of Uzziah, king of Judah. Such also were the twelve months of warning given to Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, before his madness fell upon him. The same word is once used for a true lunar month, viz. in Ezra vi. 15, when the building of the "house was finished on the third day of the month Adar, which was in the sixth year of the reign of Darius the king." In all other references to the months derived from the Babylonians, such as the "month Chisleu" in Neh. i. 1, the term chodesh is used, since these, like the Hebrew months, were defined by the observation of the new moon; but for the Tyrian months, Zif, Bul, Ethanim, we find the term yerach in three out of the four instances.

In all passages that refer to the darkening or withdrawal of the moon's light (Eccl. xii. 2; Isa. xiii. 10; Ezek. xxxii. 7; Joel ii. 10, 31, and iii. 15; and Hab. iii. 11), the word yarēach is used. A slight variation of this word indicates the month seen as a somewhat indefinite period of time, not strictly a lunar month. This term is used in Exod. ii. 2, for the three months that Moses' mother hid him when she saw that he was a fine child; by Moses, in his prophecy for Joseph, of "Blessed of the Lord be his land... for the precious fruits brought forth by the sun, and for the precious things produced by the months." Such a "full month of days" is what Shallum, the son of Jabesh, reigned in Samaria in the thirty-ninth year of Uzziah, king of Judah. Likewise, these were the twelve months of warning given to Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, before his descent into madness. The same word is once used for a literal lunar month, as seen in Ezra vi. 15, when the building of the "house was finished on the third day of the month Adar, which was in the sixth year of the reign of Darius the king." In all other references to the months derived from the Babylonians, such as "the month Chisleu" in Neh. i. 1, the term chodesh is used, since these, like the Hebrew months, were defined by the observation of the new moon; however, for the Tyrian months Zif, Bul, Ethanim, we find the term yerach in three out of the four instances.

In three instances a third word is used poetically to express the moon. This is lebanah, which has the meaning of whiteness. In Song of Sol. vi. 10, it is asked—

In three instances, a third word is used poetically to represent the moon. This is lebanah, which means whiteness. In Song of Sol. vi. 10, it is asked—

"Who is she that looketh forth as the morning, fair as the moon, clear as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners?"

"Who is she that shines like the morning, beautiful as the moon, bright as the sun, and awe-inspiring like an army with banners?"

Isaiah also says—

Isaiah also states—

"Then the moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed, when the Lord of Hosts shall reign in Mount Zion, and in Jerusalem, and before His ancients gloriously."

"Then the moon will be embarrassed, and the sun will be ashamed, when the Lord of Hosts reigns on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem, and before His elders in glory."

[86]And yet again—

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]And once more—

"Moreover the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days, in the day that the Lord bindeth up the breach of His people, and healeth the stroke of their wound."

"Furthermore, the light of the moon will be like the light of the sun, and the light of the sun will be seven times brighter, like the light of seven days, on the day when the Lord repairs the brokenness of His people and heals the wounds they have suffered."

It may not be without significance that each of these three passages, wherein the moon is denominated by its name of whiteness or purity, looks forward prophetically to the same great event, pictured yet more clearly in the Revelation—

It might be important to note that in each of these three passages, where the moon is referred to by its names of whiteness or purity, there is a prophetic anticipation of the same major event, depicted even more clearly in the Revelation—

"And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.

"And I heard the sound of a great crowd, like the sound of many waters, and like the sound of powerful thunder, saying, Hallelujah: for the Lord God all-powerful reigns."

"Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to Him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and His wife hath made herself ready.

"Let’s be happy and celebrate, and give Him honor: for the wedding of the Lamb has arrived, and His bride has prepared herself."

"And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints."

"And she was given fine linen to wear, pure and white; for the fine linen represents the righteousness of the saints."

Chodesh and yarēach are masculine words; lebanah is feminine. But nowhere throughout the Old Testament is the moon personified, and in only one instance is it used figuratively to represent a person. This is in the case of Jacob's reading of Joseph's dream, already referred to, where he said—

Chodesh and yarēach are masculine words; lebanah is feminine. But throughout the Old Testament, the moon is never personified, and it's only used metaphorically to represent a person in one instance. This occurs when Jacob interprets Joseph's dream, as mentioned before, where he said—

"Behold I have dreamed a dream more; and, behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me."

"Look, I had another dream, and in this dream, the sun, the moon, and the eleven stars were bowing down to me."

[87] And his father quickly rebuked him, saying—

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] And his father quickly scolded him, saying—

"What is this dream that thou hast dreamed? Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down ourselves to thee to the earth?"

"What is this dream that you've dreamed? Are your mother and I and your brothers really going to bow down to you on the ground?"

Here Jacob understands that the moon (yarēach) stands for a woman, his wife. But in Mesopotamia, whence his grandfather Abraham had come out, Sin, the moon-god, was held to be a male god, high indeed among the deities at that time, and superior even to Samas, the sun-god. Terah, the father of Abraham, was held by Jewish tradition to have been an especial worshipper of the moon-god, whose great temple was in Haran, where he dwelt.

Here Jacob realizes that the moon (yarēach) represents a woman, his wife. However, in Mesopotamia, where his grandfather Abraham originated, Sin, the moon god, was considered a male deity, quite prominent among the gods of that era, even more revered than Samas, the sun god. Jewish tradition holds that Terah, Abraham's father, was a dedicated worshipper of the moon god, whose grand temple was located in Haran, where he lived.

Wherever the land of Uz may have been, at whatever period Job may have lived, there and then it was an iniquity to worship the moon or the moon-god. In his final defence to his friends, when the "three men ceased to answer Job, because he was righteous in his own eyes," Job, justifying his life, said—

Wherever the land of Uz was, and whenever Job lived, it was considered wrong to worship the moon or the moon-god. In his final defense to his friends, when "the three men stopped answering Job because he thought he was right," Job, defending his life, said—

"If I saw the sun when it was shining,
Or the moon shining brightly; And my heart has been secretly tempted,
And my mouth has kissed my hand:
This was also a wrongdoing that should be punished by the judges:
"For I would have been lying to God above."

The Hebrews, too, were forbidden to worship the sun, the moon, or the stars, the host of heaven, and disobeyed the commandment both early and late in their history. When Moses spake unto all Israel on this side Jordan in the wilderness in the plain over against the Red Sea, he said to them—

The Hebrews were also prohibited from worshipping the sun, the moon, or the stars, the heavenly bodies, and they broke this commandment both early and later in their history. When Moses spoke to all of Israel on this side of the Jordan in the wilderness, in the plain across from the Red Sea, he said to them—

[88]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

"The Lord spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only ye heard a voice. . . . Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire:

"The Lord spoke to you from the fire: you heard the sound of the words, but you saw no form; you only heard a voice. . . . So be very careful about yourselves; because you did not see any kind of form on the day the Lord spoke to you at Horeb from the fire:

"Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female . . . . And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldst be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the Lord thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven."

"Lest you corrupt yourselves and create a carved image, resembling any shape, whether male or female... And don't lift your eyes to the heavens, and when you see the sun, the moon, and the stars, all the heavenly host, be tempted to worship and serve them, which the Lord your God has allotted to all nations under the entire heaven."

We know what the "similitude" of the sun and the moon were like among the surrounding nations. We see their "hieroglyphs" on numberless seals and images from the ruins of Nineveh or Babylon. That of the sun was first a rayed star or disc, later a figure, rayed and winged. That of the moon was a crescent, one lying on its back, like a bowl or cup, the actual attitude of the new moon at the beginning of the new year. Just such moon similitudes did the soldiers of Gideon take from off the camels of Zebah and Zalmunna; just such were the "round tires like the moon" that Isaiah condemns among the bravery of the daughters of Zion.

We know how the sun and moon were represented by surrounding nations. Their symbols appear on countless seals and images from the ruins of Nineveh or Babylon. The sun was first shown as a star or disc with rays, and later as a figure with rays and wings. The moon was depicted as a crescent, lying on its back like a bowl or cup, which reflects the actual position of the new moon at the start of the new year. These same moon symbols were taken by Gideon's soldiers from the camels of Zebah and Zalmunna; similar to the "round tires like the moon" that Isaiah criticizes among the pride of the daughters of Zion.

The similitude or token of Ashtoreth, the paramount goddess of the Zidonians, was the ashera, the "grove" of the Authorized Version, probably in most cases merely a wooden pillar. This goddess, "the abomination of the Zidonians," was a moon-goddess, concerning whom Eusebius preserves a statement by the Phœnician historian, Sanchoniathon, that her images had the head of an [89]ox. In the wars in the days of Abraham we find Chedorlaomer, and the kings that were with him, smiting the Rephaim in Ashteroth Karnaim, that is, in the Ashtoreths "of the horns." It is impossible to decide at this date whether the horns which gave the distinctive title to this shrine of Ashtoreth owed their origin to the horns of the animal merged in the goddess, or to the horns of the crescent moon, with which she was to some extent identified. Possibly there was always a confusion between the two in the minds of her worshippers. The cult of Ashtoreth was spread not only among the Hebrews, but throughout the whole plain of Mesopotamia. In the times of the Judges, and in the days of Samuel, we find continually the statement that the people "served Baalim and Ashtaroth"—the plurals of Baal and Ashtoreth—these representing the sun and moon, and reigning as king and queen in heaven. When the Philistines fought with Saul at Mount Gilboa, and he was slain, they stripped off his armour and put it "in the house of Ashtaroth." Yet later we find that Solomon loved strange women of the Zidonians, who turned his heart after Ashtoreth, the goddess of the Zidonians, and he built a high place for her on the right hand of the Mount of Olives, which remained for some three and a half centuries, until Josiah, the king, defiled it. Nevertheless, the worship of Ashtoreth continued, and the prophet Jeremiah describes her cult:—

The representation of Ashtoreth, the chief goddess of the Zidonians, was the ashera, which is referred to as the "grove" in the Authorized Version, likely just a wooden pole in most instances. This goddess, "the abomination of the Zidonians," was a moon goddess. Eusebius records a statement from the Phoenician historian Sanchoniathon, claiming that her images had the head of an [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]ox. During the wars in Abraham's time, we see Chedorlaomer and his allied kings defeating the Rephaim in Ashteroth Karnaim, meaning the Ashtoreths "of the horns." It’s hard to determine today whether the horns that gave this shrine its name came from the horns of an animal associated with the goddess or from the crescent moon, which she was partly linked to. There may have always been some confusion between the two in the minds of her followers. The worship of Ashtoreth extended not only among the Hebrews but also across the entire Mesopotamian plain. In the era of the Judges and in Samuel's time, it's repeatedly stated that the people "served Baalim and Ashtaroth"—the plural forms of Baal and Ashtoreth—representing the sun and moon, reigning as king and queen in the sky. When the Philistines battled Saul at Mount Gilboa and he was killed, they took his armor and placed it "in the house of Ashtaroth." Later, we learn that Solomon loved foreign women from the Zidonians, who led him to worship Ashtoreth, the goddess of the Zidonians, and he built a high place for her on the right side of the Mount of Olives, which lasted for about three and a half centuries until King Josiah defiled it. Still, the worship of Ashtoreth persisted, and the prophet Jeremiah described her cult:—

"The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven."

"The kids collect firewood while the dads start the fire, and the moms knead their dough to make cakes for the queen of heaven."

[90]This was done in the cities of Judah and streets of Jerusalem, but the Jews carried the cult with them even when they fled into Egypt, and whilst there they answered Jeremiah—

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]This happened in the cities of Judah and the streets of Jerusalem, but the Jews took their worship with them even when they escaped to Egypt, and while they were there, they responded to Jeremiah—

"We will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil. But since we left off to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, we have wanted all things, and have been consumed by the sword and by the famine."

"We will definitely do whatever we say we will do, to burn incense to the queen of heaven and pour out drink offerings to her, just like we, our ancestors, our kings, and our leaders have done in the cities of Judah and the streets of Jerusalem. Back then, we had plenty of food, were doing well, and saw no trouble. But since we stopped burning incense to the queen of heaven and pouring out drink offerings to her, we have lacked everything and have been destroyed by the sword and by famine."

Ashtoreth, according to Pinches [90:1] is evidently a lengthening of the name of the Assyrio-Babylonian goddess Ištar, and the Babylonian legend of the Descent of Ištar may well have been a myth founded on the varying phases of the moon. But it must be remembered that, though Ashtoreth or Ištar might be the queen of heaven, the moon was not necessarily the only aspect in which her worshippers recognized her. In others, the planet Venus may have been chosen as her representative; in others the constellation Taurus, at one time the leader of the Zodiac; in others, yet again, the actual form of a material bull or cow.

Ashtoreth, according to Pinches [90:1], is clearly an extended version of the name of the Assyrian-Babylonian goddess Ištar, and the Babylonian story of the Descent of Ištar may very well be a myth based on the different phases of the moon. However, it's important to note that while Ashtoreth or Ištar could be seen as the queen of heaven, the moon wasn't necessarily the only way her worshippers recognized her. In some cases, the planet Venus might have represented her; in other instances, the constellation Taurus, which was once the leader of the Zodiac; and in yet others, the actual form of a physical bull or cow.

The Hebrews recognized the great superiority in brightness of the sun over the moon, as testified in their names of the "greater" and "lesser" lights, and [91]in such passages as that already quoted from Isaiah (xxx. 26). The word here used for moon is the poetic one, lebanah. Of course no argument can be founded on the parallelism employed so as to lead to the conclusion that the Hebrews considered that the solar light exceeded the lunar by only seven times, instead of the 600,000 times indicated by modern photometric measurement.

The Hebrews acknowledged the significant difference in brightness between the sun and the moon, which is evident in their names for the "greater" and "lesser" lights, and [a id="Page_91">[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]in passages like the one from Isaiah (xxx. 26). The term used for the moon here is the poetic word, lebanah. It's clear that no conclusion can be drawn from the parallelism used to suggest that the Hebrews believed the sunlight was only seven times brighter than moonlight, rather than the 600,000 times suggested by modern photometric measurements.

In only one instance in Scripture—that already quoted of the moon withdrawing itself—is there even an allusion to the changing phases of the moon, other than that implied in the frequent references to the new moons. The appointment of certain feasts to be held on the fifteenth day of the month is a confirmation of the supposition that their months were truly lunar, for then the moon is fully lighted, and rides the sky the whole night long from sunset to sunrise. It is clear, therefore, that the Hebrews, not only noticed the phases of the moon, but made regular use of them. Yet, if we adopted the argument from silence, we should suppose that they had never observed its changes of shape, for there is no direct allusion to them in Scripture. We cannot, therefore, argue from silence as to whether or no they had divined the cause of those changes, namely that the moon shines by reflecting the light of the sun.

In only one instance in the Bible—that already mentioned about the moon pulling away—there’s even a hint about the changing phases of the moon, apart from the frequent mentions of the new moons. The scheduling of certain festivals on the fifteenth day of the month confirms the idea that their months were indeed lunar, because that’s when the moon is fully illuminated and lights up the sky all night long from sunset to sunrise. It’s clear, then, that the Hebrews not only observed the moon’s phases but also made regular use of them. However, if we were to rely on the lack of evidence, we might assume they never noticed its changing shapes, since there’s no direct reference to them in the Bible. Therefore, we can’t conclude based on silence whether they figured out the reason for those changes, which is that the moon shines by reflecting sunlight.

Nor are there any references to the markings on the moon. It is quite obvious to the naked eye that there are grey stains upon her silver surface, that these grey stains are always there, most of them forming a chain which curves through the upper hemisphere. Of the bright parts of the moon, some shine out with greater [92]lustre than others, particularly one spot in the lower left-hand quadrant, not far from the edge of the full disc. The edges of the moon gleam more brightly as a rule than the central parts. All this was apparent to the Hebrews of old, as it is to our unassisted sight to-day.

Nor are there any references to the marks on the moon. It's pretty clear to the naked eye that there are grey spots on her silver surface, and these grey spots are always present, most of them forming a chain that curves through the upper half. Among the bright areas on the moon, some shine with more brightness than others, especially one spot in the lower left quadrant, not far from the edge of the full disc. Typically, the edges of the moon shine brighter than the center. This was obvious to the ancient Hebrews, just as it is to our unaided eyes today.

The moon's influence in raising the tides is naturally not mentioned. The Hebrews were not a seafaring race, nor are the tides on the coast of Palestine pronounced enough to draw much attention. One influence is ascribed to the moon; an influence still obscure, or even disputed. For the promise that—

The moon's role in raising the tides is naturally not mentioned. The Hebrews weren't a seafaring people, and the tides along the coast of Palestine aren't strong enough to grab much attention. One influence is attributed to the moon; an influence that remains unclear, or even debated. For the promise that—

"The sun won't harm you during the day,
"Nor the moon at night,"

quite obvious in its application to the sun, with the moon seems to refer to its supposed influence on certain diseases and in causing "moon-blindness."

quite obvious in its application to the sun, while the moon seems to refer to its supposed influence on certain diseases and in causing "moon-blindness."

The chief function of the moon, as indicated in Scripture, is to regulate the calendar, and mark out the times for the days of solemnity. In the words of the 104th Psalm:—

The main purpose of the moon, as mentioned in Scripture, is to keep the calendar and indicate the times for the days of celebration. In the words of the 104th Psalm:—

"He (God) set the moon to mark the seasons:
The sun knows when it sets.
You create darkness, and it is night;
Where all the animals of the forest come out. The young lions roar after their prey,
And look to God for their sustenance.
The sun rises, and they leave. And put them in their dens.
A man goes out to his work
And to his work until the evening.
O Lord, how diverse are Your creations!
You have created everything with wisdom:
"The earth is filled with Your riches."

[93]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

A CORNER OF THE MILKY WAY.
The "America Nebula": photographed by Dr. Max Wolf, at Heidelberg.ToList

A PART OF THE MILKY WAY.
The "America Nebula": captured in a photo by Dr. Max Wolf, at Heidelberg.ToList

FOOTNOTES:

[81:1] How the little children must have revelled in that yearly holiday!

[81:1] How much the little kids must have enjoyed that yearly holiday!

[90:1] T. G. Pinches, The Old Testament in the Light of the Historical Records of Assyria and Babylonia, p. 278.

[95]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

CHAPTER VIII

THE STARS

The stars and the heaven, whose host they are, were used by the Hebrew writers to express the superlatives of number, of height, and of expanse. To an observer, watching the heavens at any particular time and place, not more than some two thousand stars are separately visible to the unassisted sight. But it was evident to the Hebrew, as it is to any one to-day, that the stars separately visible do not by any means make up their whole number. On clear nights the whole vault of heaven seems covered with a tapestry or curtain the pattern of which is formed of patches of various intensities of light, and sprinkled upon this patterned curtain are the brighter stars that may be separately seen. The most striking feature in the pattern is the Milky Way, and it may be easily discerned that its texture is made up of innumerable minute points of light, a granulation, of which some of the grains are set more closely together, forming the more brilliant patches, and some more loosely, giving the darker shades. The mind easily conceives that the minute points of light whose aggregations make up the varying pattern of the Milky Way, though too small to be [96]individually seen, are also stars, differing perhaps from the stars of the Pleiades or the Bears only in their greater distance or smaller size. It was of all these that the Lord said to Abram—

The stars and the sky, of which they are a part, were used by Hebrew writers to convey extremes in numbers, heights, and vastness. To someone observing the night sky at any given moment, only about two thousand stars can be seen with the naked eye. But it was clear to the Hebrews, just as it is to anyone today, that the stars visible do not represent their total number. On clear nights, the entire sky looks like it's covered in a tapestry or curtain, with a design made up of patches of different light intensities, and brighter stars scattered across this patterned curtain that can be seen individually. The most prominent feature in this pattern is the Milky Way, which can be easily recognized as being composed of countless tiny points of light. This creates a texture where some points are clustered together, forming brighter areas, while others are spread out, producing darker shades. It's easy to understand that the tiny points of light that combine to create the varying design of the Milky Way, though too small to be [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]seen individually, are also stars, perhaps only different from the stars of the Pleiades or the Bears in their greater distance or smaller size. It was about all of these that the Lord spoke to Abram—

"Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and He said unto him, So shall thy seed be."

"Look up at the sky and try to count the stars, if you can. He said to him, 'So shall your descendants be.'"

The first catalogue of the stars of which we have record was that of Hipparchus in 129 b.c. It contained 1,025 stars, and Ptolemy brought this catalogue up to date in the Almagest of 137 a.d. Tycho Brahé in 1602 made a catalogue of 777 stars, and Kepler republished this in 1627, and increased the number to 1,005. These were before the invention of the telescope, and consequently contained only naked-eye stars. Since astronomers have been able to sound the heavens more deeply, catalogues have increased in size and number. Flamsteed, the first Astronomer Royal, made one of 3,310 stars; from the observations of Bradley, the third, a yet more famous catalogue has been compiled. In our own day more than three hundred thousand stars have been catalogued in the Bonn Durchmusterung; and the great International Photographic Chart of the Heavens will probably show not less than fifty millions of stars, and in this it has limited itself to stars exceeding the fourteenth magnitude in brightness, thus leaving out of its pages many millions of stars that are visible through our more powerful telescopes.

The first recorded star catalog was created by Hipparchus in 129 B.C.. It listed 1,025 stars, and Ptolemy updated this catalog in the Almagest around 137 A.D.. Tycho Brahe compiled a catalog of 777 stars in 1602, which Kepler republished in 1627, boosting the count to 1,005. These catalogs were made before the telescope was invented, so they only included stars visible to the naked eye. Since then, as astronomers have delved deeper into the cosmos, the size and number of catalogs have grown. Flamsteed, the first Astronomer Royal, created one with 3,310 stars; from Bradley's observations, an even more notable catalog has been compiled. Today, over three hundred thousand stars have been cataloged in the Bonn Durchmusterung, and the extensive International Photographic Chart of the Heavens will likely reveal at least fifty million stars. This chart focuses only on stars brighter than the fourteenth magnitude, leaving out millions more that our advanced telescopes can detect.

So when Abraham, Moses, Job or Jeremiah speaks of the host of heaven that cannot be numbered, it does [97]not mean simply that these men had but small powers of numeration. To us,—who can count beyond that which we can conceive,—as to the Psalmist, it is a sign of infinite power, wisdom and knowledge that "He telleth the number of the stars; He calleth them all by their names."

So when Abraham, Moses, Job, or Jeremiah talks about the countless hosts of heaven, it doesn’t just mean that they had limited counting abilities. For us—who can count beyond what we can imagine—just like the Psalmist, it’s a sign of infinite power, wisdom, and knowledge that "He counts the number of the stars; He names them all."

Isaiah describes the Lord as "He that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, . . . that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in." And many others of the prophets use the same simile of a curtain which we have seen to be so appropriate to the appearance of the starry sky. Nowhere, however, have we any indication whether or not they considered the stars were all set on this curtain, that is to say were all at the same distance from us. We now know that they are not equidistant from us, but this we largely base on the fact that the stars are of very different orders of brightness, and we judge that, on an average, the fainter a star appears, the further is it distant from us. To the Hebrews, as to us, it was evident that the stars differ in magnitude, and the writer of the Epistle to the Corinthians expressed this when he wrote—

Isaiah describes the Lord as "He who sits on the circle of the earth, ... who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to live in." Many other prophets also use the same image of a curtain, which fits well with how the starry sky looks. However, there’s no indication of whether they thought the stars were all set on this curtain, meaning whether they believed all the stars were at the same distance from us. We now know they are not equidistant, and we largely base this knowledge on the fact that stars have very different levels of brightness. Generally, we observe that, on average, a fainter star appears to be further away. To the Hebrews, just like to us, it was obvious that stars vary in brightness, and the writer of the Epistle to the Corinthians noted this when he wrote—

"There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory."

"There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differs from another star in glory."

The ancient Greek astronomers divided the stars according to their brightness into six classes, or six "magnitudes," to use the modern technical term. The average star of any particular magnitude gives about two and a half times as much light as the average star of the next magnitude. More exactly, the average first magnitude [98]star gives one hundred times the light of the average star of the sixth magnitude.

The ancient Greek astronomers grouped the stars based on their brightness into six classes, or six "magnitudes," which is the modern technical term. An average star of any given magnitude emits roughly two and a half times more light than the average star of the next lower magnitude. More specifically, an average first magnitude [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]star emits one hundred times the light of the average sixth magnitude star.

In a few instances we have been able to measure, in the very roughest degree, the distances of stars; not a hundred stars have their parallaxes known, and these have all been measured in the course of the last century. And so far away are these stars, even the nearest of them, that we do not express their distance from us in millions of miles; we express it in the time that their light takes in travelling from them to us. Now it takes light only one second to traverse 186,300 miles, and yet it requires four and a third years for the light from the nearest star to reach us. This is a star of the first magnitude, Alpha in the constellation of the Centaur. The next nearest star is a faint one of between the seventh and eighth magnitudes, and its light takes seven years to come. From a sixth magnitude star in the constellation of the Swan, the light requires eight years; and from Sirius, the brightest star in the heavens, light requires eight and a half years. These four stars are the nearest to us; from no other star, that we know of, does light take less than ten years to travel; from the majority of those whose distance we have succeeded in measuring, the light takes at least twenty years.

In a few cases, we've managed to roughly measure the distances of stars; fewer than a hundred stars have their parallaxes known, and these have all been determined over the last century. These stars are so far away, even the closest one, that we don't express their distance in millions of miles; instead, we refer to the time it takes for their light to travel to us. Light travels at 186,300 miles per second, yet it takes over four years for the light from the nearest star to reach us. This star, which is very bright, is Alpha in the Centaur constellation. The next closest star is a dimmer one between the seventh and eighth magnitudes, and its light takes seven years to arrive. From a sixth magnitude star in the Swan constellation, the light takes eight years; and from Sirius, the brightest star in the night sky, it takes eight and a half years for its light to reach us. These four stars are the closest to us; no other star that we know of has light that takes less than ten years to travel; for most of the stars whose distances we've successfully measured, the light takes at least twenty years.

To get some conception of what a "light-year" means, let us remember that light could travel right round the earth at its equator seven times in the space of a single second, and that there are 31,556,925 seconds in a year. Light then could girdle the earth a thousand million times whilst it comes from Alpha Centauri. Or we may put it another [99]way. The distance from Alpha Centauri exceeds the equator of the earth by as much as this exceeds an inch and a half; or by as much as the distance from London to Manchester exceeds the hundredth of an inch.

To understand what a "light-year" means, consider that light can travel around the Earth at its equator seven times in just one second, and there are 31,556,925 seconds in a year. This means light could circle the Earth a billion times while it journeys from Alpha Centauri. Alternatively, we can say that the distance from Alpha Centauri is far greater than the Earth's circumference, just as that circumference is greater than an inch and a half; or like how the distance from London to Manchester is much greater than a hundredth of an inch. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Of all the rest of the innumerable stars, as far as actual measurement is concerned, for us, as for the Hebrews, they might all actually lie on the texture of a curtain, at practically the same distance from us.

Of all the countless stars, in terms of actual measurement, for us, just like for the Hebrews, they might all really be on the surface of a curtain, at nearly the same distance from us.

We have measured the distances of but a very few stars; the rest—as every one of them was for the Hebrew—are at a greater distance than any effort of ours can reach, be our telescopes ever so great and powerful, our measuring instruments ever so precise and delicate. For them, as for us, the heaven of stars is "for height," for a height which is beyond measure and therefore the only fitting image for the immensity of God.

We have only measured the distances of a handful of stars; the rest—like the stars in Hebrew tradition—are so far away that no amount of effort on our part can reach them, no matter how advanced our telescopes are or how precise and delicate our measuring tools may be. For them, just like for us, the realm of stars is "for height," a height that is beyond measure and thus serves as the only fitting image for the vastness of God.

So Zophar the Naamathite said—

"Can you find the Almighty in all His perfection?
"It's as high as the heavens; what can you do?"

and Eliphaz the Temanite reiterated still more strongly—

and Eliphaz the Temanite emphasized even more clearly—

"Isn't God in the highest heaven?
"Look at how high the stars are!"

God Himself is represented as using the expanse of heaven as a measure of the greatness of his fidelity and mercy. The prophet Jeremiah writes—

God Himself is shown as using the vastness of the heavens to illustrate the depth of His faithfulness and mercy. The prophet Jeremiah writes—

"Thus saith the Lord; if Heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the Lord."

"Thus says the Lord; if Heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth explored below, I will also reject all the descendants of Israel for all that they have done, says the Lord."

[100] As if he were using the figure of a great cross, whose height was that of the heavens, whose arms stretched from east to west, David testifies of the same mercy and forgiveness:—

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] It's like he’s describing a massive cross that reaches up to the skies, with its arms extending from east to west. David speaks about the same mercy and forgiveness:—

"For as the sky is high above the earth,
His mercy towards those who fear Him is so great. As far as the east is from the west,
"He has removed our wrongdoings from us."

[101]
[102]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]
[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__]

THE GREAT COMET OF 1843.
"Running like a road through the constellations" (see p. 105).ToList

The Great Comet of 1843.
"Streaming like a path through the stars" (see p. 105).ToList

[103]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

CHAPTER IX

COMETS

Great comets are almost always unexpected visitors. There is only one great comet that we know has been seen more than once, and expect with reasonable certainty to see again. This is Halley's comet, which has been returning to a near approach to the sun at somewhat irregular intervals of seventy-five to seventy-eight years during the last centuries: indeed, it is possible that it was this comet that was coincident with the invasion of England by William the Conqueror.

Great comets are usually unexpected guests. The only great comet that we know has been seen multiple times and we reasonably expect to see again is Halley's comet. It has been coming close to the sun at somewhat irregular intervals of seventy-five to seventy-eight years over the past centuries. In fact, it’s possible that this was the comet that appeared around the time of William the Conqueror's invasion of England.

There are other small comets that are also regular inhabitants of the solar system; but, as with Halley's comet, so with these, two circumstances are to be borne in mind. First, that each successive revolution round the sun involves an increasing degradation of their brightness, since there is a manifest waste of their material at each near approach to the sun; until at length the comet is seen no more, not because it has left the warm precincts of the sun for the outer darkness, but because it has spent its substance. Halley's comet was not as brilliant or as impressive in 1835 as it was in 1759: in 1910 it may have become degraded to an appearance of quite the second order.

There are other small comets that also regularly travel through the solar system; however, just like with Halley's comet, two things should be noted. First, with each pass around the sun, their brightness gradually decreases because they lose material during each close encounter with the sun; eventually, the comet disappears not because it has ventured into the cold depths of space, but because it has used up its material. Halley's comet wasn't as bright or impressive in 1835 as it was in 1759: by 1910, it might have faded to a much less notable appearance.

[104]Next, we have no knowledge, no evidence, that any of these comets have always been members of the solar family. Some of them, indeed, we know were adopted into it by the influence of one or other of the greater planets: Uranus we know is responsible for the introduction of one, Jupiter of a considerable number. The vast majority of comets, great or small, seem to blunder into the solar system anyhow, anywhere, from any direction: they come within the attractive influence of the sun; obey his laws whilst within that influence; make one close approach to him, passing rapidly across our sky; and then depart in an orbit which will never bring them to his neighbourhood again. Some chance of direction, some compelling influence of a planet that it may have approached, so modified the path of Halley's comet when it first entered the solar system, that it has remained a member ever since, and may so remain until it has ceased to be a comet at all.

[a id="Page_104">[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]Next, we have no knowledge or evidence that any of these comets have always been part of the solar family. In fact, we know that some of them were brought in by the influence of larger planets: Uranus is known to have introduced one, and Jupiter is responsible for quite a few. The vast majority of comets, big or small, seem to accidentally wander into the solar system from any direction: they come under the sun's gravitational pull, follow his laws while within that influence, make one close approach to him, racing across our sky, and then leave in an orbit that will never bring them back near him again. Some random direction or a strong pull from a planet they may have passed by altered Halley's comet's path when it first entered the solar system, allowing it to stay a member ever since, possibly remaining so until it stops being a comet altogether.

It follows, therefore, that, as to the number of great comets that may be seen in any age, we can scarcely even apply the laws of probability. During the last couple of thousand years, since chronicles have been abundant, we know that many great comets have been seen. We may suppose, therefore, that during the preceding age, that in which the Scriptures were written, there were also many great comets seen, but we do not know. And most emphatically we are not able to say, from our knowledge of comets themselves and of their motions, that in the days of this or that writer a comet was flaming in the sky.

It follows that, when it comes to the number of great comets visible in any given era, we can hardly apply the laws of probability. Over the past couple of thousand years, since records have been plentiful, we know that many great comets have been observed. We can assume that during the prior era, when the Scriptures were written, many great comets were also seen, but we can't confirm this. And we definitely cannot state, based on our understanding of comets and their movements, that during the time of any specific writer a comet was shining in the sky.

[105]If a comet had been observed in those ages we might not recognize the description of it. Thus in the fourth year of the 101st Olympiad, the Greeks were startled by a celestial portent. They did not draw fine distinctions, and posterity might have remained ignorant that the terrifying object was possibly a comet, had not Aristotle, who saw it as a boy at Stagira, left a rather more scientifically worded description of it. It flared up from the sunset sky with a narrow definite tail running "like a road through the constellations." In recent times the great comet of 1843 may be mentioned as having exactly such an appearance.

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]If a comet had been seen back then, we might not recognize its description. In the fourth year of the 101st Olympiad, the Greeks were taken aback by a celestial event. They didn’t make fine distinctions, and future generations might have stayed unaware that the frightening object was likely a comet, if Aristotle, who witnessed it as a boy in Stagira, hadn’t left a more scientifically detailed description. It blazed up from the sunset sky with a clear, narrow tail running "like a road through the constellations." In recent times, we can mention the great comet of 1843 as having exactly that appearance.

So we cannot expect to find in the Scriptures definite and precise descriptions that we can recognize as those of comets. At the most we may find some expressions, some descriptions, that to us may seem appropriate to the forms and appearances of these objects, and we may therefore infer that the appearance of a comet may have suggested these descriptions or expressions.

So we can’t expect to find clear and exact descriptions in the Scriptures that we can recognize as comets. At best, we might come across some phrases or descriptions that seem to match the shapes and appearances of these objects, and we can infer that the sighting of a comet could have inspired these descriptions or phrases.

The head of a great comet is brilliant, sometimes starlike. But its tail often takes on the most impressive appearance. Donati's comet, in 1858, assumed the most varied shapes—sometimes its tail was broad, with one bright and curving edge, the other fainter and finer, the whole making up a stupendous semi-circular blade-like object. Later, the tail was shaped like a scimitar, and later again, it assumed a duplex form.

The head of a bright comet can look like a star. But its tail often looks even more amazing. Donati's comet in 1858 displayed many different shapes—sometimes its tail was wide, with one bright and curved edge and the other one dimmer and thinner, creating a stunning semi-circular blade-like shape. Later, the tail looked like a scimitar, and then it changed again to a dual form.

Though the bulk of comets is huge, they contain extraordinarily little substance. Their heads must contain some solid matter, but it is probably in the form of a loose [106]aggregation of stones enveloped in vaporous material. There is some reason to suppose that comets are apt to shed some of these stones as they travel along their paths, for the orbits of the meteors that cause some of our greatest "star showers" are coincident with the paths of comets that have been observed.

Though comets are massive, they have incredibly little actual substance. Their heads must have some solid material, but it's likely just a loose [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]collection of rocks surrounded by gas. There's some evidence to suggest that comets tend to lose some of these rocks as they move along their paths, since the orbits of the meteors that create some of our biggest "meteor showers" align with the paths of comets that have been observed.

But it is not only by shedding its loose stones that a comet diminishes its bulk; it loses also through its tail. As the comet gets close to the sun its head becomes heated, and throws off concentric envelopes, much of which consists of matter in an extremely fine state of division. Now it has been shown that the radiations of the sun have the power of repelling matter, whilst the sun itself attracts by its gravitational force. But there is a difference in the action of the two forces. The light-pressure varies with the surface of the particle upon which it is exercised; the gravitational attraction varies with the mass or volume. If we consider the behaviour of very small particles, it follows that the attraction due to gravitation (depending on the volume of the particle) will diminish more rapidly than the repulsion due to light-pressure (depending on the surface of the particle), as we decrease continually the size of the particle, since its volume diminishes more rapidly than its surface. A limit therefore will be reached below which the repulsion will become greater than the attraction. Thus for particles less than the 1/25000 part of an inch in diameter the repulsion of the sun is greater than its attraction. Particles in the outer envelope of the comet below this size will be driven away in a continuous stream, and will [107]form that thin, luminous fog which we see as the comet's tail.

But a comet doesn’t just reduce its size by shedding loose stones; it also loses material through its tail. As the comet approaches the sun, its head heats up and releases concentric layers, mostly made up of extremely fine particles. It's been shown that the sun’s radiation can repel matter, while the sun itself attracts objects with its gravitational force. However, the effects of these two forces are different. Light pressure varies depending on the surface area of the particle, while gravitational attraction depends on the particle's mass or volume. When we look at very small particles, we see that gravitational attraction (which depends on volume) decreases more quickly than light pressure (which depends on surface area) when we keep reducing the particle size, since volume shrinks faster than surface area does. Eventually, there will be a point where repulsion becomes greater than attraction. For particles smaller than 1/25000 of an inch in diameter, the sun’s repulsive force outweighs its attractive force. Particles in the comet's outer envelope that are smaller than this size will be expelled in a continuous stream, forming that thin, glowing mist we see as the comet's tail.

We cannot tell whether such objects as these were present to the mind of Joel when he spoke of "blood and fire and pillars of smoke"; possibly these metaphors are better explained by a sand- or thunder-storm, especially when we consider that the Hebrew expression for the "pillars of smoke" indicates a resemblance to a palm-tree, as in the spreading out of the head of a sand- or thunder-cloud in the sky. The suggestion has been made,—following the closing lines of Paradise Lost (for Milton is responsible for many of our interpretations of Scripture)

We can't know for sure whether Joel had objects like these in mind when he mentioned "blood and fire and pillars of smoke." These metaphors might be better explained by a sandstorm or a thunderstorm, especially since the Hebrew phrase for "pillars of smoke" suggests a similarity to a palm tree, like how the top of a sandstorm or thundercloud spreads out in the sky. There's been a suggestion, following the last lines of Paradise Lost (since Milton has influenced many of our interpretations of the Bible)

"High in front advanced," The sword of God flashed brightly in front of them, "Fierce as a comet,"

—that a comet was indeed the "flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life." There is less improbability in the suggestion made by several writers that, when the pestilence wasted Jerusalem, and David offered up the sacrifice of intercession in the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite, the king may have seen, in the scimitar-like tail of a comet such as Donati's, God's "minister,"—"a flame of fire,"—"the angel of the Lord stand between the earth and the heaven, having a drawn sword in his hand stretched out over Jerusalem."

—that a comet was actually the "flaming sword that turned in every direction, to guard the way of the tree of life." There’s less unlikeliness in the idea suggested by several writers that, when the plague devastated Jerusalem, and David made a sacrifice for intercession at the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite, the king might have seen, in the scimitar-like tail of a comet like Donati's, God's "minister,"—"a flame of fire,"—"the angel of the Lord standing between the earth and heaven, holding a drawn sword stretched out over Jerusalem."

The late R. A. Proctor describes the wanderings of a comet thus:—

The late R. A. Proctor describes the path of a comet this way:—

[108]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

"A comet is seen in the far distant depths of space as a faint and scarcely discernible speck. It draws nearer and nearer with continually increasing velocity, growing continually larger and brighter. Faster and faster it rushes on until it makes its nearest approach to our sun, and then, sweeping round him, it begins its long return voyage into infinite space. As it recedes it grows fainter and fainter, until at length it passes beyond the range of the most powerful telescopes made by man, and is seen no more. It has been seen for the first and last time by the generation of men to whom it has displayed its glories. It has been seen for the first and last time by the race of man itself."[108:1]

"A comet appears in the distant reaches of space as a faint and barely visible dot. It moves closer and closer with increasing speed, growing larger and brighter all the time. It rushes on faster and faster until it makes its closest approach to our sun, and then, after swinging around it, it begins its long journey back into the vastness of space. As it moves away, it becomes fainter and fainter, until finally it goes beyond the reach of even the most powerful telescopes created by humans, and is never seen again. It has been viewed for the first and last time by the generation of people who witnessed its beauty. It has been seen for the first and last time by humanity itself."[108:1]

"These are . . . wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever."

"These are ... wandering stars, destined to endure the darkness forever."

[109]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

FOOTNOTES:

[108:1] R. A. Proctor, The Expanse of Heaven, p. 134.

[110]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

FALL OF AN AEROLITE.
"There fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp." (see p. 116).ToList

Falling of a meteorite.
"A big star fell from the sky, burning like a lamp." (see p. 116).ToList

[111]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

CHAPTER X

METEORS

Great meteorites—"aerolites" as they are called—are like great comets, chance visitors to our world. Now and then they come, but we cannot foretell their coming. Such an aerolite exploded some fifteen miles above Madrid at about 9^h 29^m, on the morning of February 10, 1896:—

Great meteorites—"aerolites" as they're called—are like huge comets, random visitors to our planet. They show up every now and then, but we can’t predict when. One such aerolite exploded about fifteen miles above Madrid at around 9:29 AM on the morning of February 10, 1896:—

"A vivid glare of blinding light was followed in 1-1/2 minutes by a loud report, the concussion being such as not merely to create a panic, but to break many windows, and in some cases to shake down partitions. The sky was clear, and the sun shining brightly, when a white cloud, bordered with red, was seen rushing from south-west to north-east, leaving behind it a train of fine white dust. A red-tinted cloud was long visible in the east."

A bright flash of blinding light was followed in 1.5 minutes by a loud bang, the shockwave not only causing panic but also breaking many windows and in some cases knocking down walls. The sky was clear and the sun was shining brightly when a white cloud edged with red was seen moving from the southwest to the northeast, leaving a trail of fine white dust in its wake. A red-tinted cloud was visible in the east for a long time.

Many fragments were picked up, and analyzed, and, like other aerolites, were found to consist of materials already known on the earth. The outer crust showed the signs of fire,—the meteoric stone had been fused and ignited by its very rapid rush through the air—but the interior was entirely unaffected by the heat. The manner in which the elements were combined is somewhat peculiar to aerolites; the nearest terrestrial affinity of the minerals [112]aggregated in them, is to be found in the volcanic products from great depths. Thus aerolites seem to be broken-up fragments from the interior parts of globes like our own. They do not come from our own volcanoes, for the velocities with which they entered our atmosphere prove their cosmical origin. Had our atmosphere not entangled them, many, circuiting the sun in a parabolic or hyperbolic curve, would have escaped for ever from our system. The swift motions, which they had on entering our atmosphere, are considerably greater on the average than those of comets, and probably their true home is not in our solar system, but in interstellar space.

Many fragments were collected and examined, and like other meteorites, they were found to be made up of materials already known on Earth. The outer layer showed signs of burning—the meteorite had melted and ignited during its rapid passage through the atmosphere—but the inside was completely unaffected by the heat. The way the elements were combined is somewhat unique to meteorites; the closest earthly counterpart of the minerals [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]found in them is in volcanic materials from great depths. This suggests that meteorites might be broken-up pieces from the deeper parts of worlds similar to ours. They don't originate from our own volcanoes since the velocities at which they entered our atmosphere indicate their cosmic origin. If our atmosphere hadn't caught them, many would have continued their orbits around the sun in a parabolic or hyperbolic path and would have escaped our system forever. The high speeds they had upon entering our atmosphere are generally much greater than those of comets, and it's likely their true origin is not within our solar system but in interstellar space.

The aerolites that reach the surface are not always exploded into very small fragments, but every now and then quite large masses remain intact. Most of these are stony; some have bits of iron scattered through them; others are almost pure iron, or with a little nickel alloy, or have pockets in them laden with stone. There are hundreds of accounts of the falls of aerolites during the past 2,500 years. The Greeks and Romans considered them as celestial omens, and kept some of them in temples. One at Mecca is revered by the faithful Mohammedans, and Jehangir, the great Mogul, is said to have had a sword forged from an iron aerolite which fell in 1620 in the Panjab. Diana of Ephesus stood on a shapeless block which, tradition says, was a meteoric stone, and reference may perhaps be found to this in the speech of the town-clerk of the city to appease the riot stirred up against St. Paul by Demetrius the silversmith and his companions:—

The meteorites that land on Earth aren't always shattered into tiny pieces; sometimes, large chunks stay intact. Most of these are rocky; some contain bits of iron throughout, others are nearly pure iron with just a bit of nickel, or they have pockets filled with stone. There are hundreds of records of meteorite falls over the past 2,500 years. The Greeks and Romans viewed them as signs from the heavens and kept some in temples. One in Mecca is honored by devout Muslims, and Jehangir, the great Mughal, is said to have had a sword made from an iron meteorite that fell in 1620 in the Punjab. Diana of Ephesus stood on a shapeless block that, according to tradition, was a meteorite, and there may be a reference to this in the speech of the city's town clerk meant to calm the riot incited against St. Paul by Demetrius the silversmith and his followers:—

[113]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

"Ye men of Ephesus, what man is there who knoweth not how that the city of the Ephesians is temple-keeper of the great Diana, and of the image which fell down from Jupiter?"

"People of Ephesus, who here does not know that the city of Ephesus is the guardian of the great Diana and the image that fell from Jupiter?"

Aerolites come singly and unexpectedly, falling actually to earth on land or sea. "Shooting stars" come usually in battalions. They travel together in swarms, and the earth may meet the same swarm again and again. They are smaller than aerolites, probably mere particles of dust, and for the most part are entirely consumed in our upper atmosphere, so that they do not actually reach the earth. The swarms travel along paths that resemble cometary orbits; they are very elongated ellipses, inclined at all angles to the plane of the ecliptic. Indeed, several of the orbits are actually those of known comets, and it is generally held that these meteorites or "shooting stars" are the débris that a comet sheds on its journey.

Aerolites appear randomly and unexpectedly, falling to earth on land or water. "Shooting stars" usually come in clusters. They travel together in groups, and the earth can encounter the same group repeatedly. They are smaller than aerolites, likely just tiny particles of dust, and for the most part, they burn up completely in our upper atmosphere, so they don't actually make it to the earth. These groups move along paths that look like comet orbits; they are very elongated ellipses, tilted at various angles to the plane of the ecliptic. In fact, several of these orbits are actually those of known comets, and it's generally believed that these meteorites or "shooting stars" are the débris shed by a comet during its journey.

We can never see the same "shooting star" twice; its visibility implies its dissolution, for it is only as it is entrapped and burnt up in our atmosphere that we see it, or can see it. Its companions in a great meteoric swarm, are, however, as the sand on the sea-shore, and we recognize them as members of the same swarm by their agreement in direction and date. The swarms move in a closed orbit, and it is where this orbit intersects that of the earth that we get a great "star shower," if both earth and swarm are present together at the intersection. If the swarm is drawn out, so that many meteorites are scattered throughout the whole circuit of its orbit, then we get a "shower" every year. If the meteor swarm is [114]more condensed, so as to form a cluster, then the "shower" only comes when the "gem of the ring," as it is termed, is at the intersection of the orbits, and the earth is there too.

We can never see the same "shooting star" twice; when we see it, it means it's already burned up because it only becomes visible when it's trapped and vaporized in our atmosphere. Its companions in a large meteor swarm, however, are like sand on the beach, and we recognize them as part of the same swarm by their shared direction and timing. The swarms travel in a closed orbit, and we experience a significant "star shower" when this orbit crosses that of the Earth, provided both the Earth and the swarm are at the intersection at the same time. If the swarm is spread out, so that numerous meteorites are scattered throughout its entire orbit, then we get a "shower" every year. If the meteor swarm is [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]more concentrated, forming a cluster, then the "shower" occurs only when the "gem of the ring," as it's called, is at the intersection of the orbits, and the Earth is there too.

[115] Such a conjunction may present the most impressive spectacle that the heavens can afford. The Leonid meteor shower is, perhaps, the most famous. It has been seen at intervals of about thirty-three years, since early in the tenth century. When Ibrahim ben Ahmed lay dying, in the year 902 a.d., it was recorded that "an infinite number of stars were seen during the night, scattering themselves like rain to the right and left, and that year was known as the year of stars." When the earth encountered the same system in 1202 a.d. the Mohammedan record runs that "on the night of Saturday, on the last day of Muharram, stars shot hither and thither in the heavens, eastward and westward, and flew against one another, like a scattering swarm of locusts, to the right and left." There are not records of all the returns of this meteoric swarm between the thirteenth century and the eighteenth, but when the earth encountered it in 1799, Humboldt reported that "from the beginning of the phenomenon there was not a space in the firmament equal in extent to three diameters of the moon that was not filled every instant with bolides and falling stars;" and Mr. Andrew Ellicott, an agent of the United States, cruising off the coast of Florida, watched this same meteoric display, and made the drawing reproduced on the opposite page. In 1833 a planter in South Carolina wrote of a return of this same system, "Never did rain fall much thicker than the meteors fell towards the earth; east, west, north, south, [116]it was the same." In 1866 the shower was again heavy and brilliant, but at the end of the nineteenth century, when the swarm should have returned, the display was meagre and ineffective.

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] Such a conjunction might create the most stunning sight the night sky can offer. The Leonid meteor shower is probably the most famous one. It has been observed roughly every thirty-three years since the early tenth century. When Ibrahim ben Ahmed was dying in the year 902 A.D., it was noted that "an endless number of stars were seen during the night, scattering like rain to the right and left, and that year was known as the year of stars." When the Earth crossed paths with the same meteor system in 1202 A.D., the Muslim records state that "on the night of Saturday, the last day of Muharram, stars shot across the sky in every direction, east and west, and collided with one another, like a swarm of locusts scattering to the right and left." There are no records of all the appearances of this meteoric swarm between the thirteenth and eighteenth centuries, but when the Earth encountered it again in 1799, Humboldt reported that "from the beginning of the phenomenon, there wasn’t a space in the sky equal to three diameters of the moon that wasn’t filled every moment with fireballs and shooting stars;" and Mr. Andrew Ellicott, a representative of the United States cruising off the coast of Florida, observed this same meteor shower and created the drawing found on the opposite page. In 1833, a plantation owner in South Carolina described a return of this system, saying, "Never did rain fall much thicker than the meteors fell towards the Earth; east, west, north, south, [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]it was the same." In 1866, the shower was heavy and brilliant again, but by the end of the nineteenth century, when the swarm was expected to return, the display was sparse and unimpressive.

METEORIC SHOWER OF 1799, NOVEMBER 12.
Seen off Cape Florida, by Mr. Andrew Ellicott.ToList

METEOR SHOWER OF 1799, NOVEMBER 12.
Spotted off Cape Florida by Mr. Andrew Ellicott.ToList

The Leonid system of meteorites did not always move in a closed orbit round our sun. Tracing back their records and history, we find that in a.d. 126 the swarm passed close to Uranus, and probably at that time the planet captured them for the sun. But we cannot doubt that some such similar sight as they have afforded us suggested the imagery employed by the Apostle St. John when he wrote, "The stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig-tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. And the heavens departed as a scroll when it is rolled together."

The Leonid meteor shower didn't always follow a closed orbit around our sun. Looking back at their records and history, we find that in CE 126, the swarm passed close to Uranus, and it's likely that the planet pulled them into the sun's orbit. However, we can't doubt that some similar sight they provided inspired the imagery used by the Apostle St. John when he wrote, "The stars of heaven fell to the earth, just like a fig tree drops its unripe figs when it's shaken by a strong wind. And the heavens rolled up like a scroll when it's rolled together."

And the prophet Isaiah used a very similar figure—

And the prophet Isaiah used a very similar image—

"All the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig-tree."

"All the stars in the sky will be destroyed, and the heavens will be folded up like a scroll: and all their stars will fall down, like leaves falling from the vine, and like figs falling from the fig tree."

Whilst the simile of a great aerolite is that employed by St. John in his description of the star "Wormwood"—

Whilst the comparison to a large meteorite is what St. John uses in his description of the star "Wormwood"—

"The third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters."

"The third angel blew his trumpet, and a huge star fell from heaven, burning like a lamp, and it fell on a third of the rivers and on the springs of water."

St. Jude's simile of the "wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever," may have been drawn from meteors rather than from comets. But, as has been seen, the two classes of objects are closely connected.

St. Jude's comparison of the "wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever," may have come from meteors instead of comets. However, as we've observed, the two types of objects are closely linked.

[117]The word "meteor" is sometimes used for any unusual light seen in the sky. The Zodiacal Light, the pale conical beam seen after sunset in the west in the spring, and before sunrise in the east in the autumn, and known to the Arabs as the "False Dawn," does not appear to be mentioned in Scripture. Some commentators wrongly consider that the expression, "the eyelids of the morning," occurring twice in the Book of Job, is intended to describe it, but the metaphor does not in the least apply.

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]The term "meteor" is sometimes used to refer to any unusual light seen in the sky. The Zodiacal Light, a faint cone of light visible after sunset in the west during spring and before sunrise in the east during autumn, is referred to by the Arabs as the "False Dawn," but it doesn't seem to be mentioned in the Bible. Some commentators mistakenly think that the phrase "the eyelids of the morning," which appears twice in the Book of Job, is meant to describe it, but that metaphor doesn’t apply at all.

The Aurora Borealis, on the other hand, seldom though it is seen on an impressive scale in Palestine, seems clearly indicated in one passage. "Out of the north cometh golden splendour" would well fit the gleaming of the "Northern Lights," seen, as they often are, "as sheaves of golden rays."

The Aurora Borealis, while rarely seen in Palestine on a grand scale, is clearly referenced in one passage. "Out of the north comes golden splendor" would perfectly describe the shining of the "Northern Lights," often seen as "bundles of golden rays."

[118]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

CHAPTER XI

ECLIPSES OF THE SUN AND MOON

We do not know what great comets, or aerolites, or "star-showers" were seen in Palestine during the centuries in which the books of the Bible were composed. But we do know that eclipses, both of the sun and moon, must have been seen, for these are not the results of chance conjunctions. We know more, that not only partial eclipses of the sun, but total eclipses, fell within the period so covered.

We don't know what amazing comets, meteorites, or "shooting stars" were observed in Palestine during the centuries when the Bible was written. But we do know that people must have seen eclipses of both the sun and moon, because those events aren’t just random alignments. We also know that not only partial solar eclipses but also total eclipses occurred during that time.

There is no phenomenon of nature which is so truly impressive as a total eclipse of the sun. The beautiful pageants of the evening and the morning are too often witnessed to produce the same effect upon us, whilst the storm and the earthquake and the volcano in eruption, by the confusion and fear for personal safety they produce, render men unfit to watch their developments. But the eclipse awes and subdues by what might almost be called moral means alone: no noise, no danger accompanies it; the body is not tortured, nor the mind confused by the rush of the blast, the crash of the thunder-peal, the rocking of the earthquake, or the fires of the volcano. The only sense appealed to is that of sight; the movements of the orbs of heaven go on without noise or [119]confusion, and with a majestic smoothness in which there is neither hurry nor delay.

There’s no natural phenomenon as truly impressive as a total solar eclipse. The beautiful displays of the evening and morning happen too frequently to have the same impact on us, while storms, earthquakes, and erupting volcanoes often cause such confusion and fear for personal safety that people are unable to observe their developments. But an eclipse captivates and humbles us almost entirely through what could be called moral means: there’s no noise or danger involved. The body isn’t tortured, nor is the mind thrown into chaos by the rush of wind, the crash of thunder, the shaking of the earth, or the fires of a volcano. The only sense engaged is sight; the movements of the celestial bodies happen quietly and without confusion, with a majestic smoothness that has neither rush nor delay.

This impression is felt by every one, no matter how perfectly acquainted, not only with the cause of the phenomenon, but also with the appearances to be expected, and scientific men have found themselves awestruck and even overwhelmed.

This feeling is shared by everyone, regardless of how well they understand not just the cause of the phenomenon, but also the expected outcomes. Even scientists have found themselves amazed and even overwhelmed.

But if such are the feelings called forth by an eclipse now-a-days, in those who are expecting it, who are prepared for it, knowing perfectly what will happen and what brings it about, how can we gauge aright the unspeakable terror such an event must have caused in ages long ago, when it came utterly unforeseen, and it was impossible to understand what was really taking place?

But if these are the feelings that an eclipse brings up nowadays in those who are expecting it, who are prepared for it, knowing exactly what will happen and what causes it, how can we truly understand the indescribable fear such an event must have caused in ancient times, when it happened completely unexpectedly, and it was impossible to comprehend what was really going on?

And so, in olden time, an eclipse of the sun came as an omen of terrible disaster, nay as being itself one of the worst of disasters. It came so to all nations but one. But to that nation the word of the prophet had come—

And so, in ancient times, a solar eclipse was seen as a sign of terrible disaster, even considered one of the worst disasters itself. This was true for all nations except one. But to that nation, the prophet's message had come—

"Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them."

"Don't follow the customs of those who don't believe, and don't be afraid of the signs in the sky; because those who don't believe are afraid of them."

God did not reveal the physical explanation of the eclipse to the Hebrews: that, in process of time, they could learn by the exercise of their own mental powers. But He set them free from the slavish fear of the heathen; they could look at all these terror-striking signs without fear; they could look with calmness, with confidence, because they looked in faith.

God didn't give the Hebrews a physical explanation for the eclipse, which they could eventually learn through their own understanding. Instead, He freed them from the paralyzing fear of the pagans; they could observe all these frightening signs without fear. They could look on with calmness and confidence because they approached it in faith.

[120]It is not easy to exaggerate the advantage which this must have given the Hebrews over the neighbouring nations, from a scientific point of view. The word of God gave them intellectual freedom, and so far as they were faithful to it, there was no hindrance to their fully working out the scientific problems which came before them. They neither worshipped the heavenly bodies nor were dismayed at their signs. We have no record as to how far the Hebrews made use of this freedom, for, as already pointed out, the Holy Scriptures were not written to chronicle their scientific achievements. But there can be no doubt that, given the leisure of peace, it is a priori more likely that they should have taught astronomy to their neighbours, than have learnt it even from the most advanced.

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]It's hard to overstate the advantage this gave the Hebrews over surrounding nations from a scientific standpoint. The word of God provided them with intellectual freedom, and as long as they stayed true to it, they had no barriers to fully explore the scientific questions that arose. They didn’t worship celestial bodies nor were they intimidated by their signs. We don’t have records of how extensively the Hebrews took advantage of this freedom, since, as mentioned, the Holy Scriptures weren't written to document their scientific accomplishments. However, it's clear that, given a peaceful environment, it’s more likely they would have taught astronomy to their neighbors rather than just learned it from even the most advanced cultures.

There must have been numberless eclipses of the moon seen in the ages during which the Canon of Holy Scripture was written. Of eclipses of the sun, total or very nearly total over the regions of Palestine or Mesopotamia, in the times of the Old Testament, we know of four that were actually seen, whose record is preserved in contemporaneous history, and a fifth that was nearly total in Judæa about midday.

There must have been countless lunar eclipses observed during the centuries when the Bible was written. As for solar eclipses, we know of four that were witnessed in the regions of Palestine or Mesopotamia during the Old Testament period, with their accounts preserved in contemporary history, and a fifth that was almost total in Judea around noon.

The first of the four is recorded on a tablet from Babylon, lately deciphered, in which it states that on "the 26th day of Sivan, day was turned into night, and fire appeared in the midst of heaven." This has been identified with the eclipse of July 31, 1063 b.c., and we do not find any reference to it in Scripture.

The first of the four is recorded on a tablet from Babylon, recently deciphered, which states that on "the 26th day of Sivan, day was turned into night, and fire appeared in the midst of heaven." This has been linked to the eclipse of July 31, 1063 B.C., and we don’t find any mention of it in Scripture.

The second is that of Aug. 15, 831 b.c. No specific [121]record of this eclipse has been found as yet, but it took place during the lifetime of the prophets Joel and Amos, and may have been seen by them, and their recollection of it may have influenced the wording of their prophecies.

The second is that of Aug. 15, 831 B.C. No specific [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]record of this eclipse has been found yet, but it occurred during the lives of the prophets Joel and Amos, and they may have witnessed it, which could have shaped the language of their prophecies.

The third eclipse is recorded on a tablet from Nineveh, stating the coincidence of an eclipse in Sivan with a revolt in the city of Assur. This has been identified with the eclipse of June 15, 763 b.c.

The third eclipse is noted on a tablet from Nineveh, mentioning that an eclipse in Sivan coincided with a revolt in the city of Assur. This has been linked to the eclipse of June 15, 763 B.C.

The fourth is that known as the eclipse of Larissa on May 18, 603 b.c., which was coincident with the final overthrow of the Assyrian Empire, and the fifth is that of Thales on May 28, 585 b.c.

The fourth is the eclipse of Larissa on May 18, 603 BCE, which coincided with the final fall of the Assyrian Empire, and the fifth is Thales' eclipse on May 28, 585 B.C.

The earth goes round the sun once in a year, the moon goes round the earth once in a month, and sometimes the three bodies are in one straight line. In this case the intermediate body—earth or moon—deprives the other, wholly or partially of the light from the sun, thus causing an eclipse. If the orbits of the earth and moon were in the same plane, an eclipse would happen every time the moon was new or full; that is to say, at every conjunction and every opposition, or about twenty-five times a year. But the plane of the moon's orbit is inclined to the plane of the earth's orbit at an angle of about 5°, and so an eclipse only occurs when the moon is in conjunction or opposition and is at the same time at or very near one of the nodes—that is, one of the two points where the plane of the earth's orbit intersects the moon's orbit. If the moon is in opposition, or "full," then, under these conditions, an eclipse of the moon takes place, and this is visible at all places where the moon is [122]above the horizon at the time. If, however, the moon is in conjunction, or "new," it is the sun that is eclipsed, and as the shadow cast by the moon is but small, only a portion of the earth's surface will experience the solar eclipse. The nodes of the moon's orbit are not stationary, but have a daily retrograde motion of 3´ 10·64´´. It takes the moon therefore 27^d 5^h 5^m 36^s (27·21222^d) to perform a journey in its orbit from one node back to that node again; this is called a Draconic period. But it takes the moon 29^d 12^h 44^m 2·87^s (29·53059^d) to pass from new to new, or from full to full, i. e. to complete a lunation. Now 242 Draconic periods very nearly equal 223 lunations, being about 18 years 10-1/3 days, and both are very nearly equal to 19 returns of the sun to the moon's node; so that if the moon is new or full when at a node, in 18 years and 10 or 11 days it will be at that node again, and again new or full, and the sun will be also present in very nearly its former position. If, therefore, an eclipse occurred on the former occasion, it will probably occur on the latter. This recurrence of eclipses after intervals of 18·03 years is called the Saros, and was known to the Chaldeans. We do not know whether it was known to the Hebrews prior to their captivity in Babylon, but possibly the statement of the wise king, already quoted from the Apocryphal "Wisdom of Solomon," may refer to some such knowledge.

The Earth orbits the sun once a year, the moon orbits the Earth once a month, and sometimes all three bodies align in a straight line. When this happens, the middle body—Earth or moon—blocks the sunlight from reaching the other, either completely or partially, causing an eclipse. If the orbits of the Earth and moon were perfectly aligned, an eclipse would occur every time there’s a new or full moon; that is, at every conjunction and opposition, or around twenty-five times a year. However, the plane of the moon's orbit is tilted about 5° to the plane of the Earth’s orbit, so an eclipse only happens when the moon is in conjunction or opposition and at or near one of the nodes—those are the two points where the plane of the Earth’s orbit crosses the moon's orbit. If the moon is in opposition, or "full," then under these conditions, a lunar eclipse occurs and is visible from anywhere the moon is [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]above the horizon at that time. If the moon is in conjunction, or "new," it’s the sun that gets eclipsed, and since the shadow cast by the moon is small, only a portion of the Earth will experience the solar eclipse. The nodes of the moon's orbit aren’t stationary; they have a daily retrograde motion of 3' 10.64''. It takes the moon about 27 days, 5 hours, 5 minutes, and 36 seconds (27.21222 days) to travel in its orbit from one node back to itself; this is called a Draconic period. But it takes the moon about 29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes, and 2.87 seconds (29.53059 days) to move from new moon to new moon, or from full moon to full moon, i.e., to complete a lunation. Now, 242 Draconic periods are almost equal to 223 lunations, which is about 18 years and 10-1/3 days, and both are very close to 19 returns of the sun to the moon's node. So, if the moon is new or full at a node, in 18 years and about 10 or 11 days it will be at that node again, still new or full, and the sun will almost be in the same position. Therefore, if an eclipse happened during the first event, it will likely happen again. This repeating pattern of eclipses occurring every 18.03 years is called the Saros, and the Chaldeans were aware of this. We don’t know if the Hebrews knew about it before their captivity in Babylon, but perhaps the statement from the wise king, referenced earlier from the Apocryphal "Wisdom of Solomon," pertains to some such knowledge.

Our calendar to-day is a purely solar one; our months are twelve in number, but of purely arbitrary length, divorced from all connection with the moon; and to us, the Saros cycle does not readily leap to the eye, for eclipses [123]of sun or moon seem to fall haphazard on any day of the month or year.

Our calendar today is entirely solar; we have twelve months that are purely arbitrary in length, disconnected from the moon. The Saros cycle doesn’t readily catch our attention, as solar or lunar eclipses appear to occur randomly on any day of the month or year. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

But with the Hebrews, Assyrians, and Babylonians it was not so. Their calendar was a luni-solar one—their year was on the average a solar year, their months were true lunations; the first day of their new month began on the evening when the first thin crescent of the moon appeared after its conjunction with the sun. This observation is what is meant in the Bible by the "new moon." Astronomers now by "new moon" mean the time when it is actually in conjunction with the sun, and is therefore not visible. Nations whose calendar was of this description were certain to discover the Saros much sooner than those whose months were not true lunations, like the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans.

But for the Hebrews, Assyrians, and Babylonians, it was different. Their calendar was luni-solar—their year was generally a solar year, and their months were actual lunar cycles; the first day of their new month started on the evening when the first thin crescent of the moon appeared after it aligned with the sun. This observation is what is referred to in the Bible as the "new moon." Today, astronomers refer to "new moon" as the moment when it is actually aligned with the sun and therefore isn’t visible. Societies that used this type of calendar were more likely to discover the Saros much earlier than those whose months weren’t true lunar cycles, like the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans.

There are no direct references to eclipses in Scripture. They might have been used in the historical portions for the purpose of dating events, as was the great earthquake in the days of King Uzziah, but they were not so used. But we find not a few allusions to their characteristic appearances and phenomena in the books of the prophets. God in the beginning set the two great lights in the firmament for signs as well as for seasons; and the prophets throughout use the relations of the sun and moon as types of spiritual relations. The Messiah was the Sun of Righteousness; the chosen people, the Church, was as the moon, which derives her light from Him. The "signs of heaven" were symbols of great spiritual events, not omens of mundane disasters.

There are no direct mentions of eclipses in the Bible. They might have been referenced in the historical accounts to date events, like the significant earthquake during King Uzziah's reign, but they weren't actually used that way. However, we see quite a few references to their distinct appearances and phenomena in the prophets' writings. In the beginning, God placed the two main lights in the sky not just for marking seasons but also for signs; and throughout the prophetic books, the relationships between the sun and moon serve as metaphors for spiritual connections. The Messiah is referred to as the Sun of Righteousness, while the chosen people, the Church, are likened to the moon, which shines by reflecting His light. The "signs of heaven" were symbols of significant spiritual events, not omens of everyday disasters.

The prophets Joel and Amos are clear and vivid in their [124]descriptions; probably because the eclipse of 831 b.c. was within their recollection. Joel says first, "The sun and the moon shall be dark;" and again, more plainly,—

The prophets Joel and Amos are straightforward and vivid in their [a id="Page_124">[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]descriptions; likely because the eclipse of 831 BCE was within their memory. Joel starts by saying, "The sun and the moon will be dark;" and then, more clearly,—

"I will show wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the Lord come."

"I will show amazing things in the sky and on the earth: blood, fire, and pillars of smoke. The sun will be darkened, and the moon will look red, before the great and terrible day of the Lord arrives."

This prophecy was quoted by St. Peter on the day of Pentecost. And in the Apocalypse, St. John says that when the sixth seal was opened, "the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood."

This prophecy was quoted by St. Peter on Pentecost. And in the Apocalypse, St. John says that when the sixth seal was opened, "the sun became as black as sackcloth, and the moon became like blood."

In these references, the two kinds of eclipses are referred to—the sun becomes black when the moon is "new" and hides it; the moon becomes as blood when it is "full" and the earth's shadow falls upon it; its deep copper colour, like that of dried blood, being due to the fact that the light, falling upon it, has passed through a great depth of the earth's atmosphere. These two eclipses cannot therefore be coincident, but they may occur only a fortnight apart—a total eclipse of the sun may be accompanied by a partial eclipse of the moon, a fortnight earlier or a fortnight later; a total eclipse of the moon may be accompanied by partial eclipses of the sun, both at the preceding and following "new moons."

In these references, two types of eclipses are mentioned—the sun turns dark when the moon is "new" and blocks it; the moon takes on a reddish hue when it is "full" and the earth's shadow falls on it; its deep copper color, similar to dried blood, comes from the fact that the light reaching it has passed through a significant thickness of the earth's atmosphere. These two eclipses cannot occur at the same time, but they can happen just two weeks apart—a total solar eclipse may be seen with a partial lunar eclipse, either two weeks earlier or two weeks later; a total lunar eclipse may also coincide with partial solar eclipses, both at the "new moons" before and after.

Writing at about the same period, the prophet Amos says—

Writing around the same time, the prophet Amos says—

"Saith the Lord God, I will cause the sun to go down at noon, and I will darken the earth in the clear day,"

"Then the Lord God said, 'I will make the sun set at noon, and I will darken the earth on a bright day.'"

and seems to refer to the fact that the eclipse of 831 b.c. occurred about midday in Judæa.

and seems to refer to the fact that the eclipse of 831 B.C. happened around noon in Judea.

[125]Later Micah writes—

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]Later, Micah writes—

"The sun shall go down over the prophets, and the day shall be dark over them."

"The sun will set on the prophets, and the day will be dark for them."

Isaiah says that the "sun shall be darkened in his going forth," and Jeremiah that "her sun is gone down while it was yet day." Whilst Ezekiel says—

Isaiah says that the "sun will be darkened as it rises," and Jeremiah that "her sun has set while it was still daytime." Meanwhile, Ezekiel says—

"I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give her light. All the bright lights of heaven will I make dark over thee, and set darkness upon thy land, saith the Lord God."

"I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon won’t shine. I will darken all the bright lights in the sky over you, and bring darkness upon your land, says the Lord God."

But a total eclipse is not all darkness and terror; it has a beauty and a glory all its own. Scarcely has the dark moon hidden the last thread of sunlight from view, than spurs of rosy light are seen around the black disc that now fills the place so lately occupied by the glorious king of day. And these rosy spurs of light shine on a background of pearly glory, as impressive in its beauty as the swift march of the awful shadow, and the seeming descent of the darkened heavens, were in terror. There it shines, pure, lovely, serene, radiant with a light like molten silver, wreathing the darkened sun with a halo like that round a saintly head in some noble altar-piece; so that while in some cases the dreadful shadow has awed a laughing and frivolous crowd into silence, in others the radiance of that halo has brought spectators to their knees with an involuntary exclamation, "The Glory!" as if God Himself had made known His presence in the moment of the sun's eclipse.

But a total eclipse isn't just darkness and fear; it has its own unique beauty and glory. As soon as the dark moon hides the last bit of sunlight, you can see rosy rays of light around the black disc that has taken the place of the glorious sun. These rosy rays shine against a backdrop of pearly brilliance, as stunning as the swift movement of the ominous shadow and the seemingly descending darkened sky were frightening. It shines there, pure, lovely, calm, glowing with a light like molten silver, surrounding the darkened sun with a halo like that around a saint's head in a beautiful altar piece. So while in some instances the terrifying shadow has silenced a laughing, carefree crowd, in others the brightness of that halo has brought spectators to their knees with an involuntary shout, "The Glory!" as if God Himself had revealed His presence during the sun's eclipse.

And this, indeed, seems to have been the thought of [126]both the Babylonians and Egyptians of old. Both nations had a specially sacred symbol to set forth the Divine Presence—the Egyptians, a disc with long outstretched wings; the Babylonians, a ring with wings. The latter symbol on Assyrian monuments is always shown as floating over the head of the king, and is designed to indicate the presence and protection of the Deity.

And this, indeed, seems to have been the idea of [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]both the Babylonians and Egyptians of the past. Both cultures had a sacred symbol to represent the Divine Presence—the Egyptians had a disc with long outstretched wings; the Babylonians had a ring with wings. The Babylonian symbol on Assyrian monuments is always depicted as hovering above the king's head, indicating the presence and protection of the Deity.

THE ASSYRIAN "RING WITH WINGS."ToList

We may take it for granted that the Egyptians and Chaldeans of old, as modern astronomers to-day, had at one time or another presented to them every type of coronal form. But there would, no doubt, be a difficulty in grasping or remembering the irregular details of the corona as seen in most eclipses. Sometimes, however, the corona shows itself in a striking and simple form—when sun-spots are few in number, it spreads itself out in two great equatorial streamers. At the eclipse of Algiers in 1900, already referred to, one observer who watched the eclipse from the sea, said—[127]

We can assume that the Egyptians and Chaldeans of the past, like modern astronomers today, at some point encountered every type of coronal form. However, it would likely be challenging to grasp or remember the irregular details of the corona as seen in most eclipses. Sometimes, though, the corona appears in a clear and simple form—when sunspots are few, it stretches out into two large equatorial streamers. During the eclipse in Algiers in 1900, as mentioned earlier, one observer who viewed the eclipse from the sea said—[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

[128]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

"The sky was blue all round the sun, and the effect of [129]the silvery corona projected on it was beyond any one to describe. I can only say it seemed to me what angels' wings will be like."[129:1]

"The sky was blue all around the sun, and the effect of [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]the silvery corona shining on it was indescribable. All I can say is that it felt like what angels' wings might look like."[129:1]

CORONA OF MINIMUM TYPE.
Drawing made by W. H. Wesley, from photographs of the 1900 Eclipse.ToList

Minimal Type Crown.
Drawing by W. H. Wesley, based on photographs from the 1900 Eclipse.ToList

It seems exceedingly probable that the symbol of the ring with wings owed its origin not to any supposed analogy between the ring and the wings and the divine attributes of eternity and power, but to the revelations of a total eclipse with a corona of minimum type. Moreover the Assyrians, when they insert a figure of their deity within the ring, give him a kilt-like dress, and this kilted or feathered characteristic is often retained where the figure is omitted. This gives the symbol a yet closer likeness to the corona, whose "polar rays" are remarkably like the tail feathers of a bird.

It seems very likely that the symbol of the ring with wings didn't come from any supposed connection between the ring, the wings, and the divine qualities of eternity and power, but rather from the appearance of a total eclipse with a small corona. Additionally, the Assyrians, when they place an image of their deity inside the ring, depict him in a kilt-like outfit, and this kilted or feathered feature is often kept even when the figure is not shown. This makes the symbol even more similar to the corona, whose "polar rays" closely resemble the tail feathers of a bird.

Perhaps the prophet Malachi makes a reference to this characteristic of the eclipsed sun, with its corona like "angels' wings," when he predicts—

Perhaps the prophet Malachi refers to this quality of the eclipsed sun, with its corona resembling "angels' wings," when he predicts—

"But unto you that fear My name shall the Sun of Righteousness arise with healing in His wings."

"But for you who honor My name, the Sun of Righteousness will rise with healing in its rays."

But, if this be so, it must be borne in mind that the prophet uses the corona as a simile only. No more than the sun itself, is it the Deity, or the manifestation of the Deity.

But if this is true, it should be noted that the prophet only uses the crown as a metaphor. Just like the sun itself, it is neither the Deity nor a manifestation of the Deity.

In the New Testament we may find perhaps a reference to what causes an eclipse—to the shadow cast by a heavenly body in its revolution—its "turning."

In the New Testament, we might find a reference to what causes an eclipse—it's the shadow cast by a celestial body as it moves—its "turning."

"Every good gift and every perfect boon is from above, coming down from the Father of Lights, with Whom can be no variation, neither shadow that is cast by turning."

"Every good gift and every perfect blessing comes from above, from the Father of Lights, who doesn't change or cast a shadow."

FOOTNOTES:

[129:1] The Total Solar Eclipse of May, 1900, p. 22.

[129:1] The Total Solar Eclipse of May 1900, p. 22.

[130]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

CHAPTER XII

SATURN AND ASTROLOGY

The planets, as such, are nowhere mentioned in the Bible. In the one instance in which the word appears in our versions, it is given as a translation of Mazzaloth, better rendered in the margin as the "twelve signs or constellations." The evidence is not fully conclusive that allusion is made to any planet, even in its capacity of a god worshipped by the surrounding nations.

The planets are not mentioned in the Bible. In the only instance where the word appears in our versions, it's translated from Mazzaloth, which is better described in the margin as the "twelve signs or constellations." There isn't strong evidence to suggest that there’s any reference to a planet, even in the context of it being a god worshipped by the neighboring nations.

Of planets, besides the earth, modern astronomy knows Mercury, Venus, Mars, many planetoids, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. And of satellites revolving round planets there are at present known, the moon which owns our earth as primary, two satellites to Mars, seven satellites to Jupiter, ten to Saturn, four to Uranus, and one to Neptune.

Of planets, besides Earth, modern astronomy knows about Mercury, Venus, Mars, many asteroids, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. As for the moons orbiting these planets, we currently know of the Moon that belongs to Earth, two moons of Mars, seven moons of Jupiter, ten moons of Saturn, four moons of Uranus, and one moon of Neptune.

The ancients counted the planets as seven, numbering the moon and the sun amongst them. The rest were Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. They recognized no satellites to any planet. We have no evidence that the ancient Semitic nations considered that the moon was more intimately connected with the earth than any of the other six.

The ancients considered the planets to be seven, including the moon and the sun. The others were Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. They didn't recognize any moons orbiting the planets. We have no evidence that the ancient Semitic nations thought the moon had a closer relationship with the earth than any of the other six.

[131]But though the planets were sometimes regarded as "seven" in number, the ancients perfectly recognized that the sun and moon stood in a different category altogether from the other five. And though the heathen recognized them as deities, confusion resulted as to the identity of the deity of which each was a manifestation. Samas was the sun-god and Baal was the sun-god, but Samas and Baal, or Bel, were not identical, and both were something more than merely the sun personified. Again, Merodach, or Marduk, is sometimes expressly identified with Bel as sun-god, sometimes with the divinity of the planet Jupiter. Similarly Ashtoreth, or Ištar, is sometimes identified with the goddess of the moon, sometimes with the planet Venus. It would not be safe, therefore, to assume that reference is intended to any particular heavenly body, because a deity is mentioned that has been on occasions identified with that heavenly body. Still less safe would it be to assume astronomical allusions in the description of the qualities or characteristics of that deity. Though Ashtoreth, or Ištar, may have been often identified with the planet Venus, it is ridiculous to argue, as some have done, from the expression "Ashteroth-Karnaim," Ashteroth of "the horns," that the ancients had sight or instruments sufficiently powerful to enable them to observe that Venus, like the moon, had her phases, her "horns." Though Nebo has been identified with the planet Mercury, we must not see any astronomical allusion to its being the nearest planet to the sun in Isaiah's coupling the two together, where he says, "Bel boweth down, Nebo stoopeth."

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]Even though the planets were sometimes thought of as “seven,” the ancients clearly understood that the sun and moon were in a completely different category compared to the other five. While they recognized them as gods, there was confusion about which deity each represented. Samas was the sun god, and Baal was also the sun god, but Samas and Baal, or Bel, were not the same, and both represented something more than just the sun personified. Additionally, Merodach, or Marduk, is sometimes specifically linked to Bel as the sun god, and other times with the god of the planet Jupiter. Likewise, Ashtoreth, or Ištar, is sometimes associated with the goddess of the moon, and other times with the planet Venus. Therefore, it wouldn’t be safe to assume that a reference is meant for any specific celestial body just because a deity is mentioned that has at times been linked with that body. It’s even less safe to assume there are astronomical references in the descriptions of that deity’s qualities or characteristics. While Ashtoreth, or Ištar, may have often been linked to the planet Venus, it’s absurd to argue, as some have done, from the term "Ashteroth-Karnaim," Ashteroth of "the horns," that the ancients had vision or tools powerful enough to observe that Venus, like the moon, had its phases, its "horns." Even though Nebo has been associated with the planet Mercury, we shouldn’t interpret any astronomical significance in Isaiah’s pairing of the two when he says, "Bel bows down, Nebo stoops."

[132] Isaiah speaks of the King of Babylon—

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] Isaiah talks about the King of Babylon—

"How have you fallen from Heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!"

The word here translated Lucifer, "light-bearer," is the word hēlel from the root halal, and means spreading brightness. In the Assyrio-Babylonian, the planet Venus is sometimes termed Mustēlel, from the root ēlil, and she is the most lustrous of all the "morning stars," of the stars that herald the dawn. But except that her greater brilliancy marks her as especially appropriate to the expression, Sirius or any other in its capacity of morning star would be suitable as an explanation of the term.

The word translated as Lucifer here, meaning "light-bearer," comes from the Hebrew word hēlel, which is derived from the root halal, and signifies spreading brightness. In Assyrian-Babylonian language, the planet Venus is sometimes called Mustēlel, from the root ēlil, and it is the brightest of all the "morning stars," those stars that mark the dawn. However, aside from her greater brightness making her particularly fitting for this expression, Sirius or any other star in its role as a morning star could also serve as a suitable interpretation of the term.

St. Peter uses the equivalent Greek expression Phōsphorus in his second epistle: "A light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn and the day-star" (light-bringer) "arise in your hearts."

St. Peter uses the Greek term Phōsphorus in his second letter: "A light shining in a dark place, until the day breaks and the morning star" (light-bringer) "rises in your hearts."

Isaiah again says—

Isaiah says again—

"Ye are they that forsake the Lord, that forget My holy mountain, that prepare a table for that Troop, and that furnish the drink offering unto that Number."

"You are the ones who abandon the Lord, who forget My holy mountain, who set a table for that Troop, and who prepare the drink offering for that Number."

"Gad" and "Meni," here literally translated as "Troop" and "Number," are in the Revised Version rendered as "Fortune" and "Destiny." A reference to this god "Meni" has been suggested in the mysterious inscription which the King of Babylon saw written by a hand upon the wall, which Daniel interpreted as "God hath numbered thy kingdom, and brought it to an end." By some commentators Meni is understood to be the planet Venus, and Gad to be Jupiter, for these are associated in [133]Arabian astrology with Fortune or Fate in the sense of good luck. Or, from the similarity of Meni with the Greek mēnē, moon, "that Number" might be identified with the moon, and "that Troop," by analogy, with the sun.

"Gad" and "Meni," literally translated as "Troop" and "Number," are rendered as "Fortune" and "Destiny" in the Revised Version. There’s a reference to this god "Meni" in the mysterious inscription that the King of Babylon saw being written by a hand on the wall, which Daniel interpreted as "God has numbered your kingdom and brought it to an end." Some commentators believe Meni refers to the planet Venus and Gad to Jupiter, as these are associated in [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]Arabian astrology with good luck or Fate. Alternatively, because Meni is similar to the Greek mēnē, meaning moon, "that Number" might represent the moon, and "that Troop" could be associated with the sun.

It is more probable, if any astrological deities are intended, that the two little star clusters—the Pleiades and the Hyades—situated on the back and head of the Bull, may have been accounted the manifestations of the divinities which are by their names so intimately associated with the idea of multitude. The number seven has been held a sacred number, and has been traditionally associated with both the little star groups.

It’s more likely that if any astrological gods are meant, the two small star clusters—the Pleiades and the Hyades—located on the back and head of the Bull, were seen as representations of the deities closely linked to the idea of many. The number seven is considered sacred and has traditionally been associated with both of these star groups.

In one instance alone does there seem to be any strong evidence that reference is intended to one of the five planets known to the ancients, when worshipped as a god; and even that is not conclusive. The prophet Amos, charging the Israelites with idolatry even in the wilderness, asks—

In just one instance, there appears to be strong evidence that the reference is to one of the five planets known to the ancients when worshiped as a god; and even that isn't definitive. The prophet Amos, accusing the Israelites of idolatry even in the wilderness, asks—

"Have ye offered unto Me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness forty years, O house of Israel? But ye have borne the tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun your images, the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves."

"Have you made sacrifices and offerings to Me in the wilderness for forty years, O house of Israel? Yet you have carried the tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun your images, the star of your god, which you created for yourselves."

But the Septuagint Version makes the accusation run thus:—

But the Septuagint version states the accusation like this:—

"Ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them."

"You took up the tent for Moloch and the star of your god Remphan, images that you made to worship them."

This was the version which St. Stephen quoted in his defence before the High Priest. It is quite clear that it [134]was star worship to which he was referring, for he prefaces his quotation by saying, "God turned and gave them up to serve the host of heaven, as it is written in the book of the prophets."

This was the version that St. Stephen cited in his defense before the High Priest. It's clear that it [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]was about star worship he was referring to, as he starts his quote by saying, "God turned and gave them up to serve the host of heaven, as it is written in the book of the prophets."

The difference between the names "Chiun" and "Remphan" is explained by a probable misreading on the part of the Septuagint translators into the Greek, who seemed to have transcribed the initial of the word as "resh," where it should have been "caph"—"R" instead of "K,"—thus the real word should be transliterated "Kaivan," which was the name of the planet Saturn both amongst the ancient Arabs and Syrians, and also amongst the Assyrians, whilst "Kevan" is the name of that planet in the sacred books of the Parsees. On the other hand, there seems to be some difficulty in supposing that a deity is intended of which there is no other mention in Scripture, seeing that the reference, both by Amos and St. Stephen, would imply that the particular object of idolatry denounced was one exceedingly familiar to them. Gesenius, therefore, after having previously accepted the view that we have here a reference to the worship of Saturn, finally adopted the rendering of the Latin Vulgate, that the word "Chiun" should be translated "statue" or "image." The passage would then become—

The difference between the names "Chiun" and "Remphan" likely comes from a misreading by the Septuagint translators into Greek, who seem to have written the initial of the word as "resh," when it should have been "caph"—"R" instead of "K." Therefore, the actual word should be transliterated as "Kaivan," which was the name of the planet Saturn among the ancient Arabs and Syrians, as well as the Assyrians. Meanwhile, "Kevan" is the name of that planet in the sacred texts of the Parsees. However, it seems unlikely that a deity is being referenced that has no other mention in Scripture, since both Amos and St. Stephen suggest that the specific object of idolatry they spoke of was very familiar to their audience. Gesenius, after earlier agreeing that we are indeed referencing the worship of Saturn, ultimately accepted the interpretation from the Latin Vulgate that the word "Chiun" should be translated as "statue" or "image." The passage would then become—

"Ye have borne the booth of your Moloch and the image of your idols, the star of your god which ye made for yourselves."

"You have carried the tent of your Moloch and the image of your idols, the star of your god that you made for yourselves."

If we accept the view that the worship of the planet Saturn is indeed referred to, it does not necessarily follow [135]that the prophet Amos was stating that the Israelites in the wilderness actually observed and worshipped him as such. The prophet may mean no more than that the Israelites, whilst outwardly conforming to the worship of Jehovah, were in their secret desires hankering after Sabæism—the worship of the heavenly host. And it may well be that he chooses Moloch and Saturn as representing the cruellest and most debased forms of heathenism.

If we agree that the worship of the planet Saturn is indeed being referred to, it doesn't necessarily imply [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]that the prophet Amos was claiming that the Israelites in the wilderness actually observed and worshipped him as such. The prophet may simply mean that the Israelites, while outwardly following the worship of Jehovah, were secretly longing for Sabæism—the worship of the heavenly host. It’s also possible that he uses Moloch and Saturn to represent the most cruel and degrading forms of paganism.

The planet Saturn gives its name to the seventh day of our week, "Saturn's day," the sabbath of the week of the Jews, and the coincidence of the two has called forth not a few ingenious theories. Why do the days of our week bear their present names, and what is the explanation of their order?

The planet Saturn lends its name to the seventh day of our week, "Saturday," which is the sabbath of the Jewish week. The connection between the two has inspired several clever theories. Why do the days of our week have their current names, and what explains their order?

The late well-known astronomer, R. A. Proctor, gives the explanation as follows:—

The late famous astronomer, R. A. Proctor, explains it like this:—

"The twenty-four hours of each day were devoted to those planets in the order of their supposed distance from the earth,—Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, the Sun, Venus, Mercury, and the Moon. The outermost planet, Saturn, which also travels in the longest period, was regarded in this arrangement as of chief dignity, as encompassing in his movement all the rest, Jupiter was of higher dignity than Mars, and so forth. Moreover to the outermost planet, partly because of Saturn's gloomy aspect, partly because among half-savage races the powers of evil are always more respected than the powers that work for good, a maleficent influence was attributed. Now, if we assign to the successive hours of a day the planets as above-named, beginning with Saturn on the day assigned to that powerful deity, it will be found that the last hour of that day will be assigned to Mars—'the lesser infortune,' as Saturn was 'the greater infortune,' of the [136]old system of astrology—and the first hour of the next day to the next planet, the Sun; the day following Saturday would thus be Sunday. The last hour of Sunday would fall to Mercury, and the first of the next to the Moon; so Monday, the Moon's day, follows Sunday. The next day would be the day of Mars, who, in the Scandinavian theology, is represented by Tuisco; so Tuisco's day, or Tuesday (Mardi), follows Monday. Then, by following the same system, we come to Mercury's day (Mercredi), Woden's day, or Wednesday; next to Jupiter's day, Jove's day (Jeudi), Thor's day, or Thursday; to Venus's day, Vendredi (Veneris dies), Freya's day, or Friday, and so to Saturday again. That the day devoted to the most evil and most powerful of all the deities of the Sabdans (sic) should be set apart—first as one on which it was unlucky to work, and afterwards as one on which it was held to be sinful to work—was but the natural outcome of the superstitious belief that the planets were gods ruling the fates of men and nations."[136:1]

The twenty-four hours of each day were assigned to the planets based on their presumed distance from the Earth—Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, the Sun, Venus, Mercury, and the Moon. Saturn, the farthest planet and the one with the longest orbit, was considered the most dignified in this system, encompassing all the others in its movement. Jupiter held a higher status than Mars, and so on. Additionally, due to Saturn's dark appearance and the tendency of some less-civilized cultures to respect evil forces more than those that promote good, a negative influence was attributed to it. If we allocate the hours of the day to the planets as mentioned, starting with Saturn on the day dedicated to that powerful god, we find that the last hour of that day goes to Mars—referred to as 'the lesser misfortune' in contrast to Saturn, 'the greater misfortune,' in the old astrological system. The first hour of the next day would then be assigned to the Sun; therefore, the day after Saturday would be Sunday. The last hour of Sunday would belong to Mercury, and the first hour of the following day to the Moon; thus, Monday, the Moon's day, comes after Sunday. The next day would be Mars's day, who in Scandinavian mythology is represented by Tuisco; consequently, Tuisco's day, or Tuesday, follows Monday. Continuing this system, we arrive at Mercury's day (Wednesday), Woden's day; then we have Jupiter's day (Thursday), Jove's day; Venus's day (Friday), Freya's day; and circle back to Saturday. It was only natural that the day dedicated to the most evil and most powerful of the Sabdan gods should initially be seen as unlucky for working, and later as sinful to work, stemming from the superstitious belief that the planets were gods controlling the destinies of people and nations.[136:1]

This theory appears at first sight so simple, so plausible, that many are tempted to say, "It must be true," and it has accordingly gained a wide acceptance. Yet a moment's thought shows that it makes many assumptions, some of which rest without any proof, and others are known to be false.

This theory seems at first glance so simple and believable that many feel tempted to say, "It must be true," leading to its widespread acceptance. However, a little thought reveals that it relies on many assumptions, some of which lack proof, while others are known to be false.

When were the planets discovered? Not certainly at the dawn of astronomy. The fixed stars must have become familiar, and have been recognized in their various groupings before it could have been known that there were others that were not fixed,—were "planets," i. e. wanderers. Thus, amongst the Greeks, no planet is alluded to by Hesiod, and Homer mentions no planet other than Venus, [137]and apparently regarded her as two distinct objects, according as she was seen as a morning and as an evening star. Pythagoras is reputed to have been the first of the Greek philosophers to realize the identity of Phosphorus and Hesperus, that is Venus at her two elongations, so that the Greeks did not know this until the sixth century before our era. We are yet without certain knowledge as to when the Babylonians began to notice the different planets, but the order of discovery can hardly have been different from what it seems to have been amongst the Greeks—that is to say, first Venus as two separate objects, then Jupiter and Mars, and, probably much later, Saturn and Mercury. This last, again, would originally be considered a pair of planets, just as Venus had been. Later these planets as morning stars would be identified with their appearances as evening stars. After this obscurity had been cleared up, there was a still further advance to be made before the astrologers could have adopted their strange grouping of the sun and moon as planets equally with the other five. This certainly is no primitive conception; for the sun and moon have such appreciable dimensions and are of such great brightness that they seem to be marked off (as in the first chapter of Genesis) as of an entirely different order from all the other heavenly bodies. The point in common with the other five planets, namely their apparent periodical movements, could only have been brought out by very careful and prolonged observation. The recognition, therefore, of the planets as being "seven," two of the seven being the sun and moon, must have been quite late in the history of the world. The connection of [138]the "seven planets" with the seven days of the week was something much later still. It implies, as we have seen, the adoption of a particular order for the planets, and this order further implies that a knowledge had been obtained of their relative distances, and involves a particular theory of the solar system, that which we now know as the Ptolemaic. It is not the order of the Babylonians, for they arranged them, Moon, Sun, Mercury, Venus, Saturn, Jupiter, Mars.

When were the planets discovered? Not certainly at the beginning of astronomy. The fixed stars must have been recognized and familiar before it could have been known that there were others that weren’t fixed—called "planets," or "wanderers." So, among the Greeks, Hesiod doesn’t mention any planets, and Homer only refers to Venus, considering her as two separate objects depending on whether she was seen as a morning star or an evening star. Pythagoras is said to be the first Greek philosopher to understand that Phosphorus and Hesperus were the same, meaning Venus at her two positions in the sky, which the Greeks didn’t realize until the sixth century BCE. We still don’t know for sure when the Babylonians started to notice the different planets, but it likely followed the same order as the Greeks—that is, first Venus as two distinct objects, then Jupiter and Mars, and likely much later, Saturn and Mercury. The latter would have originally been regarded as a pair of planets, just like Venus was. Eventually, these planets as morning stars would be recognized as the same when they appeared as evening stars. Once this confusion was resolved, there was still more to understand before astrologers accepted the unusual idea of grouping the sun and moon as planets alongside the other five. This isn’t a basic concept; the sun and moon are so large and bright that they seem to stand out (as mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis) as entirely different from all the other celestial bodies. The common link with the other five planets, their apparent periodic movements, could have only been noticed through careful and extended observation. Therefore, recognizing the planets as "seven," two of which are the sun and moon, must have occurred quite late in history. The association of the "seven planets" with the seven days of the week came even later. It suggests, as we’ve noted, the establishment of a specific order for the planets, which also implies an understanding of their relative distances and involves a particular theory of the solar system, known today as the Ptolemaic system. It differs from the order of the Babylonians, who arranged them as Moon, Sun, Mercury, Venus, Saturn, Jupiter, Mars.

There are further considerations which show that the Babylonians could not have given these planetary names to the days of the week. The order of the names implies that a twenty-four hour day was used, but the Babylonian hours were twice the length of those which we use; hence there were only twelve of them. Further, the Babylonian week was not a true week running on continuously; it was tied to the month, and hence did not lend itself to such a notation.

There are additional factors that indicate the Babylonians couldn’t have assigned these planetary names to the days of the week. The sequence of the names suggests that a twenty-four-hour day was in use, but Babylonian hours were twice as long as ours; therefore, there were only twelve of them. Additionally, the Babylonian week wasn’t a continuous week; it was linked to the month, making it unsuitable for such a notation.

But the order adopted for the planets is that current amongst the Greek astronomers of Alexandria, who did use a twenty-four hour day. Hence it was certainly later than 300 b.c. But the Greeks and Egyptians alike used a week of ten days, not of seven. How then did the planetary names come to be assigned to the seven-day week?

But the order of the planets used here is the one followed by the Greek astronomers in Alexandria, who used a twenty-four hour day. So, it definitely came about after 300 b.c. However, both the Greeks and Egyptians used a ten-day week, not a seven-day one. So how did the names of the planets get assigned to the seven-day week?

It was a consequence of the power which the Jews possessed of impressing their religious ideas, and particularly their observance of the sabbath day, upon their conquerors. They did so with the Romans. We find such writers as Cicero, Horace, Juvenal and others remarking [139]upon the sabbath, and, indeed, in the early days of the Empire there was a considerable observance of it. Much more, then, must the Alexandrian Greeks have been aware of the Jewish sabbath,—which involved the Jewish week,—at a time when the Jews of that city were both numerous and powerful, having equal rights with the Greek inhabitants, and when the Ptolemies were sanctioning the erection of a Jewish temple in their dominions, and the translation of the Jewish Scriptures into Greek. It was after the Alexandrian Greeks had thus learned of the Jewish week that they assigned the planets to the seven days of that week, since it suited their astrological purposes better than the Egyptian week of ten days. That allotment could not possibly have brought either week or sabbath into existence. Both had been recognized many centuries earlier. It was foisted upon that which had already a venerable antiquity. As Professor Schiaparelli well remarks, "we are indebted for these names to mathematical astrology, the false science which came to be formed after the time of Alexander the Great from the strange intermarriage between Chaldean and Egyptian superstitions and the mathematical astronomy of the Greeks."[139:1]

It was a result of the influence the Jews had in imprinting their religious beliefs, especially their observance of the Sabbath, on their conquerors. They managed to do this with the Romans. We see writers like Cicero, Horace, Juvenal, and others commenting [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]on the Sabbath, and indeed, in the early days of the Empire, it was observed significantly. The Alexandrian Greeks must have been even more aware of the Jewish Sabbath—which was part of the Jewish week—at a time when the Jews in that city were numerous and powerful, holding equal rights with the Greek citizens, and when the Ptolemies were allowing the construction of a Jewish temple in their territory and the translation of the Jewish Scriptures into Greek. It was after the Alexandrian Greeks learned about the Jewish week that they assigned planets to the seven days of that week, as it worked better for their astrological needs than the Egyptian ten-day week. That assignment could not have created either week or Sabbath; both had been recognized many centuries earlier. It was imposed onto something that already had a long-standing history. As Professor Schiaparelli aptly notes, "we owe these names to mathematical astrology, the false science that developed after the time of Alexander the Great from the unusual mix of Chaldean and Egyptian superstitions and the mathematical astronomy of the Greeks."[139:1]

There is a widespread notion that early astronomy, whether amongst the Hebrews or elsewhere, took the form of astrology; that the fortune-telling came first, and the legitimate science grew out of it. Indeed, a claim is not infrequently made that no small honour is due to the early astrologers, since from their efforts, [140]the most majestic of all the sciences is said to have arisen.

There’s a common belief that early astronomy, whether among the Hebrews or in other cultures, was primarily astrology; that fortune-telling came first, and real science developed from it. In fact, it's often claimed that early astrologers deserve a considerable amount of credit, as it’s said that the most magnificent of all sciences emerged from their work. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

These ideas are the exact contrary of the truth. Mathematical, or perhaps as we might better call it, planetary astrology, as we have it to-day, concerns itself with the apparent movements of the planets in the sense that it uses them as its material; just as a child playing in a library might use the books as building blocks, piling, it may be, a book of sermons on a history, and a novel on a mathematical treatise. Astrology does not contribute, has not contributed a single observation, a single demonstration to astronomy. It owes to astronomy all that it knows of mathematical processes and planetary positions. In astronomical language, the calculation of a horoscope is simply the calculation of the "azimuths" of the different planets, and of certain imaginary points on the ecliptic for a given time. This is an astronomical process, carried out according to certain simple formulæ. The calculation of a horoscope is therefore a straightforward business, but, as astrologers all admit, its interpretation is where the skill is required, and no real rules can be given for that.

These ideas are completely opposite to the truth. Mathematical, or what we might better call planetary astrology, as we understand it today, focuses on the apparent movements of the planets in the sense that it uses them as its material; much like a child playing in a library might use books as building blocks, stacking a book of sermons on top of a history book, and placing a novel next to a math treatise. Astrology does not add, nor has it ever added, a single observation or demonstration to astronomy. It relies on astronomy for everything it knows about mathematical processes and planetary positions. In astronomical terms, calculating a horoscope is simply figuring out the "azimuths" of the different planets and certain imaginary points on the ecliptic for a specific time. This is an astronomical process conducted using specific, straightforward formulas. Therefore, calculating a horoscope is relatively simple, but, as all astrologers agree, it’s the interpretation that requires skill, and no real rules can be provided for that.

Here is the explanation why the sun and moon are classed together with such relatively insignificant bodies as the other five planets, and are not even ranked as their chief. The ancient astrologer, like the modern, cared nothing for the actual luminary in the heavens; all he cared for was its written symbol on his tablets, and there Sun and Saturn could be looked upon as equal, or Saturn as the greater. It is a rare thing for a modern astrologer to introduce the place of an actual star into a horoscope; [141]the calculations all refer to the positions of the Signs of the Zodiac, which are purely imaginary divisions of the heavens; not to the Constellations of the Zodiac, which are the actual star-groups.

Here’s why the sun and moon are grouped with the less important bodies like the other five planets and aren’t even considered the top ones. The ancient astrologer, just like the modern one, didn’t care about the actual light in the sky; what mattered was its symbol on his charts, where the Sun and Saturn could be seen as equals, or Saturn could be viewed as the more significant one. It’s uncommon for a modern astrologer to include the position of a real star in a horoscope; [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]the calculations focus on the positions of the Signs of the Zodiac, which are entirely imaginary sections of the sky, not the Constellations of the Zodiac, which represent actual star groups.

Until astronomers had determined the apparent orbits of the planets, and drawn up tables by which their apparent places could be predicted for some time in advance, it was impossible for astrologers to cast horoscopes of the present kind. All they could do was to divide up time amongst the deities supposed to preside over the various planets. To have simply given a planet to each day would have allowed the astrologer a very small scope in which to work for his prophecies; the ingenious idea of giving a planet to each hour as well, gave a wider range of possible combinations. There seems to have been deliberate spitefulness in the assignment of the most evil of the planetary divinities to the sacred day of the Jews—their sabbath. It should be noticed at the same time that, whilst the Jewish sabbath coincides with the astrological "Saturn's Day," that particular day is the seventh day of the Jewish week, but the first of the astrological. For the very nature of the reckoning by which the astrologers allotted the planets to the days of the week, implies, as shown in the extract quoted from Proctor, that they began with Saturn and worked downwards from the "highest planet"—as they called it—to the "lowest." This detail of itself should have sufficed to have demonstrated to Proctor, or any other astronomer, that the astrological week had been foisted upon the already existing week of the Jews.

Until astronomers figured out the apparent orbits of the planets and created tables to predict their positions in advance, astrologers couldn't cast the kind of horoscopes we see today. They could only divide time among the gods thought to oversee the various planets. Simply assigning one planet to each day would have limited the astrologer's ability to make prophecies; however, by also assigning a planet to each hour, they gained a wider range of possible combinations. It seems there was a deliberate malice in assigning the most malevolent of the planetary deities to the sacred day of the Jews—their Sabbath. It's important to note that while the Jewish Sabbath coincides with the astrological "Saturn's Day," that day is the seventh day of the Jewish week, but the first of the astrological. The very method that astrologers used to assign planets to the days of the week indicates, as shown in the excerpt cited from Proctor, that they started with Saturn and worked their way down from the "highest planet," as they referred to it, to the "lowest." This detail alone should have been enough to show Proctor, or any other astronomer, that the astrological week had been imposed on the already existing week of the Jews.

Before astrology took its present mathematical form, [142]astrologers used as their material for prediction the stars or constellations which happened to be rising or setting at the time selected, or were upon the same meridian, or had the same longitude, as such constellations. One of the earliest of these astrological writers was Zeuchros of Babylon, who lived about the time of the Christian era, some of whose writings have been preserved to us. From these it is clear that the astrologers found twelve signs of the zodiac did not give them enough play. They therefore introduced the "decans," that is to say the idea of thirty-six divinities—three to each month—borrowed from the Egyptian division of the year into thirty-six weeks (of ten days), each under the rule of a separate god. Of course this Egyptian year bore no fixed relation to the actual lunar months or solar year, nor therefore to the Jewish year, which was related to both. But even with this increase of material, the astrologers found the astronomical data insufficient for their fortune-telling purposes. Additional figures quite unrepresented in the heavens, were devised, and were drawn upon, as needed, to supplement the genuine constellations, and as it was impossible to recognize these additions in the sky, the predictions were made, not from observation of the heavens, but from observations on globes, often very inaccurate.

Before astrology became the mathematical system we know today, [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]astrologers based their predictions on the stars or constellations that were rising or setting at the chosen time, or on those aligned with the same meridian or longitude as these constellations. One of the earliest astrological writers was Zeuchros of Babylon, who lived around the time of the Christian era, and some of his writings have survived. From these texts, it’s clear that astrologers felt the twelve zodiac signs were insufficient. They introduced the "decans," which refers to the concept of thirty-six deities—three for each month—taken from the Egyptian division of the year into thirty-six ten-day weeks, each ruled by a different god. Naturally, this Egyptian calendar did not align with the actual lunar months or solar year, and therefore not with the Jewish calendar, which was tied to both. Even with this expanded system, astrologers still found the astronomical data lacking for their fortune-telling. They created additional figures that had no real representation in the sky and used them as needed to supplement the true constellations. Since these additions couldn't be identified in the heavens, predictions were based not on observations of the sky but rather on observations from globes, which were often quite inaccurate.

Earlier still we have astrological tablets from Assyria and Babylon, many of which show that they had nothing to do with any actual observation, and were simply invented to give completeness to the tables of omens. Thus an Assyrian tablet has been found upon which are given the significations of eclipses falling upon each day of the month [143]Tammuz, right up to the middle of the month. It is amusing to read the naïve comment of a distinguished Assyriologist, that tablets such as these prove how careful, and how long continued had been the observations upon which they were based. It was not recognized that no eclipses either of sun or moon could possibly occur on most of the dates given, and that they could never occur "in the north," which is one of the quarters indicated. They were no more founded on actual observation than the portent mentioned on another tablet, of a woman giving birth to a lion, which, after all, is not more impossible than that an eclipse should occur in the north on the second day of Tammuz. In all ages it has been the same; the astrologer has had nothing to do with science as such, even in its most primitive form; he has cared nothing for the actual appearance of the heavens upon which he pretended to base his predictions; an imaginary planet, an imaginary eclipse, an imaginary constellation were just as good for his fortune-telling as real ones. Such fortune-telling was forbidden to the Hebrews; necessarily forbidden, for astrology had no excuse unless the stars and planets were gods, or the vehicles and engines of gods. Further, all attempts to extort from spirits or from inanimate things a glimpse into the future was likewise forbidden them. They were to look to God, and to His revealed will alone for all such light.

Earlier, we have astrological tablets from Assyria and Babylon, many of which show that they were not based on actual observations and were simply made up to complete the tables of omens. For instance, an Assyrian tablet lists the meanings of eclipses for each day of the month of Tammuz, right up to the middle of the month. It’s amusing to read the naive comment of a well-known Assyriologist, who claims that tablets like these prove how careful and long-term the observations were that they were based on. It wasn’t recognized that no eclipses, either of the sun or moon, could actually happen on most of the dates listed, and that they could never occur “in the north,” which is one of the locations mentioned. They were not based on real observations any more than the strange note on another tablet about a woman giving birth to a lion, which, after all, is no more impossible than an eclipse happening in the north on the second day of Tammuz. In all ages, it’s been the same; astrologers have typically had nothing to do with science as such, even in its most basic form; they cared nothing for the actual appearance of the heavens upon which they claimed to base their predictions; an imaginary planet, an imaginary eclipse, an imaginary constellation were just as good for their fortune-telling as real ones. Such fortune-telling was forbidden to the Hebrews; it was necessarily forbidden, as astrology had no justification unless the stars and planets were considered gods, or the means and instruments of gods. Moreover, all attempts to extract insights into the future from spirits or inanimate objects were also forbidden. They were to look to God and His revealed will alone for such guidance.

"When they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God?"

"When they say to you, 'Consult those who have familiar spirits and wizards who whisper and mutter,' shouldn't a people seek their God?"

The Hebrews were few in number, their kingdoms very [144]small compared with the great empires of Egypt, Assyria, or Babylon, but here, in this question of divination or fortune-telling, they stand on a plane far above any of the surrounding nations. There is just contempt in the picture drawn by Ezekiel of the king of Babylon, great though his military power might be—

The Hebrews were a small group, their kingdoms tiny when compared to the massive empires of Egypt, Assyria, or Babylon. Yet, in the realm of divination or fortune-telling, they stand on a level far superior to any of their neighboring nations. Ezekiel paints a picture of the king of Babylon that is filled with contempt, despite his significant military power—

"The king of Babylon stood at the parting of the way, at the head of the two ways, to use divination: he shook the arrows to and fro, he consulted the teraphim, he looked in the liver."

"The king of Babylon stood at the crossroads, at the beginning of the two paths, to perform divination: he shook the arrows back and forth, he consulted the household gods, he examined the liver."

And Isaiah calls upon the city of Babylon—

And Isaiah calls out to the city of Babylon—

"Stand now with thine enchantments, and with the multitude of thy sorceries, wherein thou hast laboured from thy youth; if so thou shalt be able to profit, if so be thou mayest prevail. Thou art wearied in the multitude of thy counsels: let now the astrologers, the stargazers, the monthly prognosticators stand up, and save thee from these things that shall come upon thee."

"Now stand with your magic and all the many spells you've practiced since you were young; see if you can gain anything from them, see if you can succeed. You're exhausted from all your plans: let the astrologers, the stargazers, and the monthly fortune-tellers rise up and save you from what is about to happen to you."

Isaiah knew the Lord to be He that "frustrateth the tokens of the liars and maketh diviners mad." And the word of the Lord to Israel through Jeremiah was—

Isaiah understood the Lord to be the one who "frustrates the signs of the liars and drives diviners crazy." And the word of the Lord to Israel through Jeremiah was—

"Thus saith the Lord. Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them."

"Thus says the Lord. Do not follow the ways of the nonbelievers, and do not be frightened by the signs in the sky; for the nonbelievers are afraid of them."

It is to our shame that even to-day, in spite of all our enlightenment and scientific advances, astrology still has a hold upon multitudes. Astrological almanacs and treatises are sold by the tens of thousands, and astrological superstitions are still current. "The star of the god Chiun" is not indeed openly worshipped; but Saturn is [145]still looked upon as the planet bringing such diseases as "toothache, agues, and all that proceeds from cold, consumption, the spleen particularly, and the bones, rheumatic gouts, jaundice, dropsy, and all complaints arising from fear, apoplexies, etc."; and charms made of Saturn's metal, lead, are still worn upon Saturn's finger, in the belief that these will ward off the threatened evil; a tradition of the time when by so doing the wearers would have proclaimed themselves votaries of the god, and therefore under his protection.

It’s shameful that even today, despite all our knowledge and scientific advancements, astrology still captivates many people. Astrological almanacs and books are sold by the tens of thousands, and astrological superstitions are still widespread. "The star of the god Chiun" may not be openly worshipped, but Saturn is still seen as the planet associated with diseases like "toothache, fevers, and all illnesses caused by cold, particularly affecting the lungs, spleen, and bones, as well as rheumatic gout, jaundice, dropsy, and all issues stemming from fear, strokes, etc."; and charms made from Saturn's metal, lead, are still worn on Saturn's day, in the belief that they can fend off these dangers; a tradition from a time when wearing them would have indicated that the wearers were followers of the god, thus ensuring they were under his protection.

Astrology is inevitably linked with heathenism, and both shut up spirit and mind against the knowledge of God Himself, which is religion; and against the knowledge of His works, which is science. And though a man may be religious without being scientific, or scientific without being religious, religion and science alike both rest on one and the same basis—the belief in "One God, Maker of heaven and earth."

Astrology is inevitably connected to paganism, and both block the spirit and mind from truly understanding God Himself, which is religion, and from understanding His creations, which is science. While someone can be religious without being scientific or scientific without being religious, both religion and science ultimately rely on the same foundation—the belief in "One God, Maker of heaven and earth."

That belief was the reason why Israel of old, so far as it was faithful to it, was free from the superstitions of astrology.

That belief was why ancient Israel, to the extent that it stayed true to it, was free from the superstitions of astrology.

"It is no small honour for this nation to have been wise enough to see the inanity of this and all other forms of divination. . . . Of what other ancient civilized nation could as much be said?"[145:1]

"It is a significant honor for this nation to have been smart enough to recognize the futility of this and other forms of divination. . . . What other ancient civilized nation could say the same?"[145:1]

FOOTNOTES:

[136:1] R. A. Proctor, The Great Pyramid, pp. 274-276.

[139:1] G. V. Schiaparelli, Astronomy in the Old Testament, p. 137.

[145:1] G. V. Schiaparelli, Astronomy in the Old Testament, p. 52.

[146]
[147]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]
[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__]

[148]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

By permission of the Autotype Co. 74, New Oxford Street, London, W.C.

ST. PAUL PREACHING AT ATHENS (by Raphael).
"As certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also His offspring."ToList

St. Paul preaching in Athens (by Raphael).
"As some of your own poets have said, For we are also His children."ToList

[149]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

BOOK II

THE CONSTELLATIONS

CHAPTER I

THE ORIGIN OF THE CONSTELLATIONS

The age of Classical astronomy began with the labours of Eudoxus and others, about four centuries before the Christian Era, but there was an Earlier astronomy whose chief feature was the arrangement of the stars into constellations.

The era of Classical astronomy started with the work of Eudoxus and others around four centuries before the Christian Era, but there was an earlier astronomy that primarily focused on organizing the stars into constellations.

The best known of all such arrangements is that sometimes called the "Greek Sphere," because those constellations have been preserved to us by Greek astronomers and poets. The earliest complete catalogue of the stars, as thus arranged, that has come down to us was compiled by Claudius Ptolemy, the astronomer of Alexandria, and completed 137 a.d. In this catalogue, each star is described by its place in the supposed figure of the constellation, whilst its celestial latitude and longitude are added, so that we can see with considerable exactness how the astronomers of that time imagined the star figures. The earliest complete description of the constellations, apart from the places of the individual stars, is given in the poem of Aratus of Soli—The Phenomena, published about 270 b.c.

The most well-known of these arrangements is often referred to as the "Greek Sphere," since those constellations have been passed down to us by Greek astronomers and poets. The earliest complete catalog of the stars, arranged in this way, was compiled by Claudius Ptolemy, the astronomer from Alexandria, and was finished in 137 AD In this catalog, each star is described by its position in the imagined figure of the constellation, along with its celestial latitude and longitude, allowing us to see fairly accurately how the astronomers of that time envisioned the star patterns. The earliest comprehensive description of the constellations, aside from the positions of the individual stars, is found in the poem by Aratus of Soli—The Phenomena, published around 270 B.C.

[150]Were these constellations known to the Hebrews of old? We can answer this question without hesitation in the case of St. Paul. For in his sermon to the Athenians on Mars' Hill, he quotes from the opening verses of this constellation poem of Aratus:—

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]Did the ancient Hebrews know about these constellations? We can confidently answer this for St. Paul. In his sermon to the Athenians at Mars' Hill, he quotes the opening lines of this constellation poem by Aratus:—

"God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that He is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though He needed anything, seeing He giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; and hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; that they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after Him, and find Him, though He be not far from every one of us: for in Him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also His offspring."

"God, who created the world and everything in it, being the Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by human hands; nor is He served by human hands as if He needed anything, since He gives all people life, breath, and everything else. He made all nations from one blood to live all over the earth and set the times and boundaries for their dwellings, so they would seek the Lord, perhaps reaching for Him and finding Him, although He is not far from any of us. For in Him we live, move, and exist; as some of your own poets have said, 'For we are also His offspring.'"

The poem of Aratus begins thus:—

The poem by Aratus starts like this:—

"To God above, we dedicate our song;
We never dare to leave Him unadored; For He is present in every busy crowd,
He is present at every serious gathering. The sea belongs to Him, and so does every busy port; In every place, we feel our need for Him; For we are His children."

Aratus, like St. Paul himself, was a native of Cilicia, and had been educated at Athens. His poem on the constellations came, in the opinion of the Greeks, next in honour to the poems of Homer, so that St. Paul's quotation from it appealed to his hearers with special force.

Aratus, like St. Paul himself, was born in Cilicia and had studied in Athens. His poem about the constellations was considered by the Greeks to be second only to the poems of Homer, which made St. Paul's reference to it resonate strongly with his audience.

The constellations of Ptolemy's catalogue are forty-eight in number. Those of Aratus correspond to them in [151]almost every particular, but one or two minor differences may be marked. According to Ptolemy, the constellations are divided into three sets:—twenty-one northern, twelve in the zodiac, and fifteen southern.

The constellations in Ptolemy's catalogue number forty-eight. The ones from Aratus match them in almost every detail, with a couple of minor differences noted. Ptolemy divides the constellations into three groups: twenty-one in the northern sky, twelve in the zodiac, and fifteen in the southern sky.

The northern constellations are—to use the names by which they are now familiar to us—1, Ursa Minor, the Little Bear; 2, Ursa Major, the Great Bear; 3, Draco, the Dragon; 4, Cepheus, the King; 5, Boötes, the Herdsman; 6, Corona Borealis, the Northern Crown; 7, Hercules, the Kneeler; 8, Lyra, the Lyre or Swooping Eagle; 9, Cygnus, the Bird; 10, Cassiopeia, the Throned Queen, or the Lady in the Chair; 11, Perseus; 12, Auriga, the Holder of the Reins; 13, Ophiuchus, the Serpent-holder; 14, Serpens, the Serpent; 15, Sagitta, the Arrow; 16, Aquila, the Soaring Eagle; 17, Delphinus, the Dolphin; 18, Equuleus, the Horse's Head; 19, Pegasus, the Winged Horse; 20, Andromeda, the Chained Woman; 21, Triangulum, the Triangle.

The northern constellations are—using the names we know today—1, Ursa Minor, the Little Bear; 2, Ursa Major, the Great Bear; 3, Draco, the Dragon; 4, Cepheus, the King; 5, Boötes, the Herdsman; 6, Corona Borealis, the Northern Crown; 7, Hercules, the Kneeler; 8, Lyra, the Lyre or Swooping Eagle; 9, Cygnus, the Bird; 10, Cassiopeia, the Throned Queen, or the Lady in the Chair; 11, Perseus; 12, Auriga, the Holder of the Reins; 13, Ophiuchus, the Serpent-holder; 14, Serpens, the Serpent; 15, Sagitta, the Arrow; 16, Aquila, the Soaring Eagle; 17, Delphinus, the Dolphin; 18, Equuleus, the Horse's Head; 19, Pegasus, the Winged Horse; 20, Andromeda, the Chained Woman; 21, Triangulum, the Triangle.

The zodiacal constellations are: 1, Aries, the Ram; 2, Taurus, the Bull; 3, Gemini, the Twins; 4, Cancer, the Crab; 5, Leo, the Lion; 6, Virgo, the Virgin; 7, Libra, the Scales,—also called the Claws, that is of the Scorpion; 8, Scorpio, the Scorpion; 9, Sagittarius, the Archer; 10, Capricornus, the Sea-goat, i. e. Goat-fish; 11, Aquarius, the Water-pourer; 12, Pisces, the Fishes.

The zodiac constellations are: 1, Aries, the Ram; 2, Taurus, the Bull; 3, Gemini, the Twins; 4, Cancer, the Crab; 5, Leo, the Lion; 6, Virgo, the Virgin; 7, Libra, the Scales — also known as the Claws, which belong to the Scorpion; 8, Scorpio, the Scorpion; 9, Sagittarius, the Archer; 10, Capricornus, the Sea-goat, i.e. Goat-fish; 11, Aquarius, the Water-bearer; 12, Pisces, the Fishes.

The southern constellations are: 1, Cetus, the Sea-Monster; 2, Orion, the Giant; 3, Eridanus, the River; 4, Lepus, the Hare; 5, Canis Major, the Great Dog; 6, Canis Minor, the Little Dog; 7, Argo, the Ship and Rock; 8, Hydra, the Water-snake; 9, Crater, the Cup; 10, Corvus, [152]the Raven; 11, Centaurus, the Centaur; 12, Lupus, the Beast; 13, Ara, the Altar; 14, Corona Australis, the Southern Crown; 15, Piscis Australis, the Southern Fish.

The southern constellations are: 1, Cetus, the Sea Monster; 2, Orion, the Giant; 3, Eridanus, the River; 4, Lepus, the Hare; 5, Canis Major, the Great Dog; 6, Canis Minor, the Little Dog; 7, Argo, the Ship and Rock; 8, Hydra, the Water Snake; 9, Crater, the Cup; 10, Corvus, [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]the Raven; 11, Centaurus, the Centaur; 12, Lupus, the Beast; 13, Ara, the Altar; 14, Corona Australis, the Southern Crown; 15, Piscis Australis, the Southern Fish.

Aratus, living four hundred years earlier than Ptolemy, differs only from him in that he reckons the cluster of the Pleiades—counted by Ptolemy in Taurus—as a separate constellation, but he has no constellation of Equuleus. The total number of constellations was thus still forty-eight. Aratus further describes the Southern Crown, but gives it no name; and in the constellation of the Little Dog he only mentions one star, Procyon, the Dog's Forerunner. He also mentions that the two Bears were also known as two Wagons or Chariots.

Aratus, who lived four hundred years before Ptolemy, differs from him mainly in that he considers the Pleiades—a group counted by Ptolemy in Taurus—as a separate constellation, but he doesn't include a constellation for Equuleus. So, the total number of constellations remained forty-eight. Aratus also describes the Southern Crown but doesn't give it a name; in the constellation of the Little Dog, he only mentions one star, Procyon, the Dog's Forerunner. He notes that the two Bears were also referred to as two Wagons or Chariots.

Were these constellations, so familiar to us to-day, known before the time of Aratus, and if so, by whom were they devised, and when and where?

Were these constellations, so familiar to us today, known before Aratus's time, and if so, who created them, and when and where?

They were certainly known before the time of Aratus, for his poem was confessedly a versification of an account of them written by Eudoxus more than a hundred years previous. At a yet earlier date, Panyasis, uncle to the great historian Herodotus, incidentally discusses the name of one of the constellations, which must therefore have been known to him. Earlier still, Hesiod, in the second book of his Works and Days, refers to several:—

They were definitely known before Aratus' time, as his poem clearly came from an account written by Eudoxus over a hundred years earlier. Even earlier, Panyasis, the uncle of the famous historian Herodotus, casually mentions the name of one of the constellations, indicating that it was already known to him. Going back even further, Hesiod, in the second book of his Works and Days, refers to several:—

"Orion and the Dog, close to each other,
Together we rode up into the midnight sky,
When Arcturus shines in the bright morning,
Then pick the bunches from the parent vines.

Next in the round, don't forget to plow. "When the Seven Virgins and Orion rise."

[153] Much the same constellations are referred to by Homer. Thus, in the fifth book of the Odyssey,—

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] Homer talks about many of the same constellations. So, in the fifth book of the Odyssey,—

"And now, celebrating the favorable winds,
With a beating heart, Ulysses spreads his sails:
He sat at the helm and watched the skies, Nor did his ever-watchful eyes close in sleep. They looked at the Pleiades and the Northern Team,
And great Orion's brighter light, To which around the axis of the sky "The Bear spins around, showing his golden eye."

Thus it is clear that several of the constellations were perfectly familiar to the Greeks a thousand years before the Christian era; that is to say, about the time of Solomon.

Thus, it's clear that several of the constellations were well-known to the Greeks a thousand years before the Christian era; that is to say, around the time of Solomon.

We have other evidence that the constellations were known in early times. We often find on Greek coins, a bull, a ram, or a lion represented; these may well be references to some of the signs of the zodiac, but offer no conclusive evidence. But several of the constellation figures are very unusual in form; thus the Sea-goat has the head and fore-legs of a goat, but the hinder part of a fish; and the Archer has the head and shoulders of a man, but the body and legs of a horse. Pegasus, the horse with wings, not only shows this unnatural combination, but the constellation figure only gives part of the animal—the head, neck, wings, breast, and fore-legs. Now some of these characteristic figures are found on quite early Greek coins, and yet earlier on what are known as "boundary stones" from Babylonia. These are little square pillars, covered with inscriptions and sculptures, and record for the most part the gift, transfer, or sale of [154]land. They are dated according to the year of the reigning king, so that a clear idea can be formed as to their age. A great many symbols, which appear to be astronomical, occur upon them; amongst these such very distinguishing shapes as the Archer, Sea-goat, and Scorpion (see p. 318). So that, just as we know from Homer and Hesiod that the principal constellations were known of old by the same names as those by which we know them to-day, we learn from Babylonian boundary stones that they were then known as having the same forms as we now ascribe to them. The date of the earliest boundary stones of the kind in our possession would show that the Babylonians knew of our constellations as far back as the twelfth century b.c., that is to say, whilst Israel was under the Judges.

We have more evidence that people recognized the constellations in ancient times. Greek coins often feature images of a bull, ram, or lion; these might refer to some zodiac signs but don't provide conclusive proof. However, some constellation figures have very distinct shapes; for example, the Sea-goat has the head and front legs of a goat but the back half of a fish, and the Archer has the head and shoulders of a man along with the body and legs of a horse. Pegasus, the winged horse, not only has this odd combination but the constellation also only shows part of the animal—the head, neck, wings, chest, and front legs. Many of these unique figures appear on quite old Greek coins and even earlier on what are known as "boundary stones" from Babylonia. These are small square pillars covered in inscriptions and carvings, mostly recording the gifting, transferring, or selling of land. They are dated according to the ruling king's reign, allowing us to determine their age clearly. A lot of symbols that seem to be astronomical are found on them, including very distinct shapes like the Archer, Sea-goat, and Scorpion (see p. 318). So, just as we know from Homer and Hesiod that the main constellations were recognized by the same names that we use today, we learn from Babylonian boundary stones that they were known for the same shapes as we attribute to them now. The date of the earliest boundary stones we have suggests that the Babylonians were aware of our constellations as far back as the 12th century b.c., meaning this was during the time when Israel was governed by the Judges.

We have direct evidence thus far back as to the existence of the constellations. But they are older than this, so much older that tradition as well as direct historical evidence fails us. The only earlier evidence open to us is that of the constellations themselves.

We have direct evidence dating back to the existence of the constellations. But they are much older than that, so much so that both tradition and direct historical evidence are lacking. The only earlier evidence we have is the constellations themselves.

A modern celestial globe is covered over with figures from pole to pole, but the majority of these are of quite recent origin and belong to the Modern period of astronomy. They have been framed since the invention of the telescope, and since the progress of geographical discovery brought men to know the southern skies. If these modern constellations are cleared off, and only those of Aratus and Ptolemy suffered to remain, it becomes at once evident that the ancient astronomers were not acquainted with the entire heavens. For there is a large space in the south, [155]left free from all the old constellations, and no explanation, why it should have been so left free, is so simple and satisfactory as the obvious one, that the ancient astronomers did not map out the stars in that region because they never saw them; those stars never rose above their horizon.

A modern celestial globe is filled with images from pole to pole, but most of these are relatively new and belong to the modern era of astronomy. They were created after the invention of the telescope and after advancements in geographical exploration led to the discovery of the southern skies. If we remove these modern constellations and only keep those of Aratus and Ptolemy, it becomes clear that the ancient astronomers didn’t know the whole sky. There’s a large area in the south, [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]that remains empty of all the old constellations, and the simplest explanation for why it was left empty is that the ancient astronomers didn’t chart the stars in that part of the sky because they never saw them; those stars never rose above their horizon.

THE ANCIENT CONSTELLATIONS SOUTH OF THE ECLIPTIC.ToList

THE OLD CONSTELLATIONS SOUTH OF THE ECLIPTIC.ToList

Thus at the present time the heavens for an observer in England are naturally divided into three parts, as shown in the accompanying diagram. In the north, round the [156]pole-star are a number of constellations that never set; they wheel unceasingly around the pole. On every fine night we can see the Great Bear, the Little Bear, the Dragon, Cepheus and Cassiopeia. But the stars in the larger portion of the sky have their risings and settings, and the seasons in which they are visible or are withdrawn from sight. Thus we see Orion and the Pleiades and Sirius in the winter, not in the summer, but the Scorpion and Sagittarius in the summer. Similarly there is a third portion of the heavens which never comes within our range. We never see the Southern Cross, and hardly any [157]star in the great constellation of the Ship, though these are very familiar to New Zealanders.

At this time, the sky for someone observing from England is naturally divided into three parts, as shown in the accompanying diagram. In the north, around the [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]pole star, there are several constellations that never set; they continuously rotate around the pole. On a clear night, we can see the Great Bear, the Little Bear, the Dragon, Cepheus, and Cassiopeia. However, the stars in the larger part of the sky do rise and set, appearing in different seasons. For instance, we see Orion, the Pleiades, and Sirius in winter, but not in summer, while the Scorpion and Sagittarius are visible in summer. Additionally, there’s a third section of the sky that we can never see. We never observe the Southern Cross and hardly any [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]stars in the large constellation of the Ship, even though these are well-known to people in New Zealand.

THE CELESTIAL SPHERE.ToList

The outline of this unmapped region must therefore correspond roughly to the horizon of the place where the constellations were originally designed, or at least be roughly parallel to it, since we may well suppose that stars which only rose two or three degrees above that horizon might have been neglected.

The outline of this unexplored area must therefore roughly match the horizon of the location where the constellations were first created, or at least be somewhat parallel to it, since we can assume that stars which only rose two or three degrees above that horizon might have been overlooked.

From this we learn that the constellations were designed by people living not very far from the 40th parallel of north latitude, not further south than the 37th or 36th. This is important, as it shows that they did not originate in ancient Egypt or India, nor even in the city of Babylon, which is in latitude 32-1/2°.[157:1]

From this, we understand that the constellations were created by people living close to the 40th parallel north, not further south than the 37th or 36th. This is significant because it indicates that they did not come from ancient Egypt or India, nor even from the city of Babylon, which is at a latitude of 32.5°. [157:1]

But this vacant space reveals another fact of even more importance. It gives us a hint as to the date when the constellations were designed.

But this empty space shows us something even more important. It gives us a clue about when the constellations were created.

An observer in north latitude 40° at the present time would be very far from seeing all the stars included in the forty-eight constellations. He would see nothing at all of the constellation of the Altar, and a good deal of that of the Centaur would be hidden from him.

An observer at 40° north latitude right now would not be able to see all the stars in the forty-eight constellations. He wouldn’t see anything from the constellation of the Altar, and much of the Centaur would be out of view.

On the other hand, there are some bright constellations, such as the Phoenix and the Crane, unknown to the [158]ancients, which would come within his range of vision. This is due to what is known as "precession;" a slow movement of the axis upon which the earth rotates. In consequence of this, the pole of the heavens seems to trace out a circle amongst the stars which it takes 25,800 years to complete. It is therefore a matter of very simple calculation to find the position of the south pole of the heavens at any given date, past or future, and we find that the centre of the unmapped space was the south pole of the heavens something like 4,600 years ago, that is to say about 2,700 b.c.

On the flip side, there are some bright constellations, like the Phoenix and the Crane, that were unknown to the [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]ancients, which would now be visible to him. This is because of what’s called "precession," a slow shift in the axis around which the Earth spins. As a result, the pole of the heavens appears to trace a circle among the stars, a cycle that takes about 25,800 years to complete. So, it's quite straightforward to calculate the position of the south pole of the heavens at any specific date, whether in the past or the future. We find that the center of the unmapped space was the south pole of the heavens roughly 4,600 years ago, or about 2,700 B.C.

It is, of course, not possible to fix either time or latitude very closely, since the limits of the unmapped space are a a little vague. But it is significant that if we take a celestial globe, arranged so as to represent the heavens for the time 2,700 b.c., and for north latitude 40°, we find several striking relations. First of all, the Great Dragon then linked together the north pole of the celestial equator, and the north pole of the ecliptic; it was as nearly as possible symmetrical with regard to the two; it occupied the very crown of the heavens. With the single exception of the Little Bear, which it nearly surrounds, the Dragon was the only constellation that never set. Next, the Water-snake (see diagram, p. 200) lay at this time right along the equator, extending over 105° of Right Ascension; or, to put it less technically, it took seven hours out of the twenty-four to cross the meridian. It covered nearly one-third of the equatorial belt. Thirdly, the intersection of the equator with one of the principal meridians of the sky was marked by the Serpent, which is carried by the [159]Serpent-holder in a very peculiar manner. The meridian at midnight at the time of the spring equinox is called a "colure,"—the "autumnal colure," because the sun crosses it in autumn. Now the Serpent was so arranged as to be shown writhing itself for some distance along the equator, and then struggling upwards, along the autumnal colure, marking the zenith with its head. The lower part of the autumnal colure was marked by the Scorpion, and the foot of the Serpent-holder pressed down the creature's head, just where the colure, the equator, and the ecliptic intersected (see diagram, p. 164).

It’s not really possible to determine the exact time or latitude since the boundaries of the unmapped space are a bit unclear. However, it’s interesting that if we look at a celestial globe set up to show the skies for the time 2,700 B.C. and for a northern latitude of 40°, we find several notable connections. First, the Great Dragon was positioned between the celestial equator’s north pole and the north pole of the ecliptic; it was almost perfectly symmetrical between the two and was at the highest point in the sky. Besides the Little Bear, which it almost encircled, the Dragon was the only constellation that never set. Next, the Water-snake (see diagram, p. 200) extended directly along the equator, covering 105° of Right Ascension; in simpler terms, it took seven hours out of the twenty-four to cross the meridian. It spanned nearly a third of the equatorial belt. Third, where the equator crossed one of the main meridians of the sky was marked by the Serpent, carried by the [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]Serpent-holder in a unique way. The meridian at midnight during the spring equinox is called a "colure," specifically the "autumnal colure," because that’s when the sun crosses it in autumn. The Serpent was arranged to appear as if it was writhing along the equator for some distance and then climbing up along the autumnal colure, with its head marking the zenith. The lower part of the autumnal colure was indicated by the Scorpion, and the foot of the Serpent-holder pressed down on the creature's head, right at the point where the colure, the equator, and the ecliptic intersected (see diagram, p. 164).

It is scarcely conceivable that this fourfold arrangement, not suggested by any natural grouping of the stars, should have come about by accident; it must have been intentional. For some reason, the equator, the colure, the zenith and the poles were all marked out by these serpentine or draconic forms. The unmapped space gives us a clue only to the date and latitude of the designing of the most southerly constellations. We now see that a number of the northern hold positions which were specially significant under the same conditions, indicating that they were designed at about the same date. There is therefore little room for doubt that some time in the earlier half of the third millennium before our era, and somewhere between the 36th and 40th parallels of north latitude, the constellations were designed, substantially as we have them now, the serpent forms being intentionally placed in these positions of great astronomical importance.

It’s hard to believe that this fourfold arrangement, which doesn’t match any natural grouping of the stars, happened by chance; it must have been done on purpose. For some reason, the equator, the colure, the zenith, and the poles were all marked out by these serpentine or draconic shapes. The unexplored space gives us a hint about the time and location where the southern constellations were designed. We can see that several northern constellations also hold significant positions under the same conditions, suggesting they were created around the same time. So, there's little doubt that sometime in the earlier half of the third millennium BCE, and somewhere between the 36th and 40th parallels of north latitude, the constellations were designed pretty much as we have them today, with the serpent shapes intentionally placed in these key astronomical positions.

It will have been noticed that Ptolemy makes the Ram the first constellation of the zodiac. It was so in his [160]days, but it was the Bull that was the original leader, as we know from a variety of traditions; the sun at the spring equinox being in the centre of that constellation about 3000 b.c. At the time when the constellations were designed, the sun at the spring equinox was near Aldebaran, the brightest star of the Bull; at the summer solstice it was near Regulus, the brightest star of the Lion; at the autumnal equinox it was near Antares, the brightest star of the Scorpion; at the winter solstice it was near Fomalhaut, the brightest star in the neighbourhood of the Waterpourer. These four stars have come down to us with the name of the "Royal Stars," probably because they were so near to the four most important points in the apparent path of the sun amongst the stars. There is also a celebrated passage in the first of Virgil's Georgics which speaks of the white bull with golden horns that opens the year. So when the Mithraic religion adopted several of the constellation figures amongst its symbols, the Bull as standing for the spring equinox, the Lion for the summer solstice, were the two to which most prominence was given, and they are found thus used in Mithraic monuments as late as the second or third century a.d., long after the Ram had been recognized as the leading sign.

It's noted that Ptolemy lists the Ram as the first constellation of the zodiac. This was true in his [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]time, but actually, the Bull was the original leader, as various traditions indicate; the sun was in the middle of that constellation around 3000 B.C.. When the constellations were created, the sun at the spring equinox was near Aldebaran, the brightest star in the Bull; at the summer solstice, it was near Regulus, the brightest star in the Lion; at the autumn equinox, it was near Antares, the brightest star in the Scorpion; and at the winter solstice, it was near Fomalhaut, the brightest star near the Waterbearer. These four stars have come to be known as the "Royal Stars," likely because they were close to the four key points in the sun's apparent path among the stars. There's also a famous passage in the first of Virgil's Georgics that mentions the white bull with golden horns that marks the beginning of the year. So when the Mithraic religion incorporated several of the constellation figures into its symbols, the Bull representing the spring equinox and the Lion for the summer solstice were the most emphasized, and they continued to be used in Mithraic monuments as late as the second or third century AD, long after the Ram had been recognized as the leading sign.

It is not possible to push back the origin of the constellations to an indefinite antiquity. They cannot at the very outside be more than 5000 years old; they must be considerably more than 4000. But during the whole of this millennium the sun at the spring equinox was in the constellation of the Bull. There is therefore no possible [161]doubt that the Bull—and not the Twins nor the Ram—was the original leader of the zodiac.

It’s impossible to trace the origins of the constellations back to a time that's endlessly ancient. They can’t be older than 5,000 years at most; they must be significantly more than 4,000. However, during this entire millennium, the sun at the spring equinox was in the constellation of Taurus. So, there’s no doubt that Taurus—and not Gemini or Aries—was the original leader of the zodiac.

The constellations, therefore, were designed long before the nation of Israel had its origin, indeed before Abraham left Ur of the Chaldees. The most probable date—2700 b.c.—would take us to a point a little before the Flood, if we accept the Hebrew chronology, a few centuries after the Flood, if we accept the Septuagint chronology. Just as the next great age of astronomical activity, which I have termed the Classical, began after the close of the canon of the Old Testament scriptures, so the constellation age began before the first books of those scriptures were compiled. Broadly speaking, it may be said that the knowledge of the constellation figures was the chief asset of astronomy in the centuries when the Old Testament was being written.

The constellations were established long before the nation of Israel came into being, even before Abraham left Ur of the Chaldees. The most likely date—2700 B.C.—would place us just before the Flood if we go with the Hebrew timeline, or a few centuries after the Flood if we follow the Septuagint timeline. Just as the next major era of astronomical activity, which I call the Classical period, began after the canon of the Old Testament scriptures was completed, the age of constellations started before the first books of those scriptures were written. Overall, it's fair to say that the knowledge of the constellation figures was the most valuable aspect of astronomy during the centuries when the Old Testament was being composed.

Seeing that the knowledge of these figures was preserved in Mesopotamia, the country from which Abraham came out, and that they were in existence long before his day, it is not unreasonable to suppose that both he and his descendants were acquainted with them, and that when he and they looked upward to the glories of the silent stars, and recalled the promise, "So shall thy seed be," they pictured round those glittering points of light much the same forms that we connect with them to-day.

Seeing that the knowledge of these figures was preserved in Mesopotamia, the country from which Abraham came, and that they existed long before his time, it’s reasonable to think that both he and his descendants knew about them. When he and his family looked up at the beautiful stars and remembered the promise, "So shall thy seed be," they likely imagined around those shiny points of light much the same shapes that we associate with them today.

FOOTNOTES:

[157:1] Delitzsch is, therefore, in error when he asserts that "when we divide the zodiac into twelve signs and style them the Ram, Bull, Twins, etc. . . . the Sumerian-Babylonian culture is still living and operating even at the present day" (Babel and Bible, p. 67). The constellations may have been originally designed by the Akkadians, but if so it was before they came down from their native highlands into the Mesopotamian valley.

[157:1] Delitzsch is mistaken when he claims that "when we divide the zodiac into twelve signs and call them the Ram, Bull, Twins, etc. . . . the Sumerian-Babylonian culture is still alive and well even today" (Babel and Bible, p. 67). The constellations may have originally been created by the Akkadians, but if that’s the case, it was before they migrated from their native highlands into the Mesopotamian valley.

[162]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

CHAPTER II

GENESIS AND THE CONSTELLATIONS

As we have just shown, the constellations evidently were designed long before the earliest books of the Old Testament received their present form. But the first nine chapters of Genesis give the history of the world before any date that we can assign to the constellations, and are clearly derived from very early documents or traditions.

As we have just shown, the constellations were obviously created long before the earliest books of the Old Testament were finalized. However, the first nine chapters of Genesis outline the history of the world before we can even date the constellations, and they clearly come from very early documents or traditions.

When the constellations are compared with those nine chapters, several correspondences appear between the two; remarkable, when it is borne in mind how few are the events that can be plainly set forth in a group of forty-eight figures on the one hand, and how condensed are the narratives of those nine chapters on the other.

When you compare the constellations to those nine chapters, some striking similarities show up between the two. This is impressive, considering how few events can be clearly depicted in a set of forty-eight figures on one side, and how concise the stories in those nine chapters are on the other.

Look at the six southern constellations (see pp. 164, 165) which were seen during the nights of spring in that distant time. The largest of these six is a great Ship resting on the southern horizon. Just above, a Raven is perched on the stretched-out body of a reptile. A figure of a Centaur appears to have just left the Ship, and is represented as offering up an animal on an Altar. The animal is now shown as a Wolf, but Aratus, our earliest authority, states that he did not know what kind of animal it was that [163]was being thus offered up. The cloud of smoke from the Altar is represented by the bright coiling wreaths of the Milky Way, and here in the midst of that cloud is set the Bow—the bow of Sagittarius, the Archer. Is it possible that this can be mere coincidence, or was it indeed intended as a memorial of the covenant which God made with Noah, and with his children for ever?—"I do set My bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between Me and the earth."

Look at the six southern constellations (see pp. 164, 165) that were visible during the spring nights in that far-off time. The largest of these six is a massive Ship resting on the southern horizon. Just above it, a Raven is perched on the elongated body of a reptile. A figure of a Centaur seems to have just departed from the Ship and is depicted as offering an animal on an Altar. The animal is now shown as a Wolf, but Aratus, our earliest source, mentioned that he didn't know what kind of animal it was that [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]was being offered. The smoke from the Altar is represented by the bright, swirling strands of the Milky Way, and in the middle of that smoke is the Bow—the bow of Sagittarius, the Archer. Could this be mere coincidence, or was it really intended as a reminder of the covenant that God made with Noah and his children forever?—"I set My bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of a covenant between Me and the earth."

Close by this group was another, made up of five constellations. Towards the south, near midnight in spring, the observer in those ancient times saw the Scorpion. The figure of a man was standing upon that venomous beast, with his left foot pressed firmly down upon its head; but the scorpion's tail was curled up to sting him in the right heel. Ophiuchus, the Serpent-holder, the man treading on the Scorpion, derives his name from the Serpent which he holds in his hands and strangles; the Serpent that, as we have seen in the preceding chapter, marked the autumnal colure. The head of Ophiuchus reached nearly to the zenith, and there close to it was the head of another hero, so close that to complete the form of the two heads the same stars must be used to some extent twice over. Facing north, this second hero, now known to us as Hercules, but to Aratus simply as the "Kneeler," was seen kneeling with his foot on the head of the great northern Dragon. This great conflict between the man and the serpent, therefore, was presented in a twofold form. Looking south there was the picture of Ophiuchus trampling on the scorpion and strangling [164]the snake, yet wounded in the heel by the scorpion's sting; looking north, the corresponding picture of the kneeling figure of Hercules treading down the dragon's head. Here there seems an evident reference to the word spoken by God to the serpent in the garden in Eden: "I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her Seed; It shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise His heel."

Nearby this group was another, consisting of five constellations. Toward the south, around midnight in spring, an observer in ancient times saw the Scorpion. A man stood on that venomous creature, his left foot firmly pressing down on its head; however, the scorpion's tail curled up to sting him in the right heel. Ophiuchus, the Serpent-holder, the man stepping on the Scorpion, gets his name from the Serpent he holds and strangles; the Serpent that, as we noted in the previous chapter, marked the autumnal colure. Ophiuchus's head reached almost to the zenith, and close by it was the head of another hero, so close that the same stars had to be used partially to depict both heads. Facing north, this second hero, known to us as Hercules but referred to by Aratus simply as the "Kneeler," was seen kneeling with his foot on the head of the great northern Dragon. Thus, this significant conflict between the man and the serpent was represented in two ways. Looking south, there was the image of Ophiuchus trampling the scorpion and strangling the snake, yet wounded in the heel by the scorpion's sting; looking north, there was the corresponding image of Hercules kneeling and stepping down on the dragon's head. Here, there seems to be a clear reference to the words spoken by God to the serpent in the garden of Eden: "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her Offspring; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel."

THE MIDNIGHT CONSTELLATIONS OF SPRING, B.C. 2700.ToList

THE MIDNIGHT CONSTELLATIONS OF SPRING, 2700 B.C.ToList

These two groups of star-figures seem therefore to point [165]to the two great promises made to mankind and recorded in the early chapters of Genesis; the Promise of the Deliverer, Who, "Seed of the woman," should bruise the serpent's head, and the promise of the "Bow set in the cloud," the pledge that the world should not again be destroyed by a flood.

These two groups of star figures seem to refer to the two great promises made to humanity and recorded in the early chapters of Genesis: the promise of the Deliverer, who, as the "Seed of the woman," would crush the serpent's head, and the promise of the "Bow set in the cloud," the assurance that the world would not be destroyed by a flood again.

THE MIDNIGHT CONSTELLATIONS OF WINTER, B.C. 2700.ToList

One or two other constellations appear, less distinctly, to refer to the first of these two promises. The Virgin, the woman of the zodiac, carries in her hand a bright star, [166]the ear of corn, the seed; whilst, immediately under her, the great Water-snake, Hydra, is drawn out at enormous length, "going on its belly;" not writhing upwards like the Serpent, nor twined round the crown of the sky like the Dragon.

One or two other constellations also seem to hint at the first of these two promises, though less clearly. The Virgin, the woman of the zodiac, holds a bright star in her hand, [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]which represents the ear of corn, the seed. Below her, the great Water-snake, Hydra, stretches out in an enormous length, "moving on its belly;" not curling upward like the Serpent, nor wrapped around the crown of the sky like the Dragon.

Yet again, the narrative in Genesis tells us that God "drove out the man" (i. e. Adam), "and He placed at the east of the garden of Eden the cherubim, and the flame of a sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life." No description is given of the form of the cherubim in that passage, but they are fully described by Ezekiel, who saw them in vision when he was by the river Chebar, as "the likeness of four living creatures." The same beings were also seen in vision by St. John, and are described by him in the Apocalypse as "four living creatures" (Zōa). "The first creature was like a lion, and the second creature like a calf, and the third creature had a face as of a man, and the fourth creature was like a flying eagle." Ezekiel gives a fuller and more complex description, but agreeing in its essential elements with that given by the Apostle, and, at the close of one of these descriptions, he adds, "This is the living creature that I saw under the God of Israel by the river of Chebar; and I knew that they were cherubim"—no doubt because as a priest he had been familiar with the cherubic forms as they were embroidered upon the curtains of the Temple, and carved upon its walls and doors.

Yet again, the story in Genesis tells us that God "drove out the man" (i. e. Adam), "and He placed at the east of the garden of Eden the cherubim, and the flame of a sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life." No description is given of the cherubim's form in that passage, but they are fully described by Ezekiel, who saw them in a vision while he was by the river Chebar, as "the likeness of four living creatures." The same beings were also seen in a vision by St. John and are described by him in the Apocalypse as "four living creatures" (Zōa). "The first creature was like a lion, the second creature like a calf, the third creature had a face like a man, and the fourth creature was like a flying eagle." Ezekiel provides a more detailed and complex description, but it agrees in its essential elements with that given by the Apostle. At the end of one of his descriptions, he adds, "This is the living creature that I saw under the God of Israel by the river of Chebar; and I knew that they were cherubim"—no doubt because, as a priest, he was familiar with the cherubic forms as they were embroidered on the curtains of the Temple and carved on its walls and doors.

The same four forms were seen amongst the constellation figures; not placed at random amongst them, but as far as possible in the four most important positions in the sky. [167]For the constellations were originally so designed that the sun at the time of the summer solstice was in the middle of the constellation Leo, the Lion; at the time of the spring equinox in the middle of Taurus, the Bull; and at the time of the winter solstice, in the middle of Aquarius, the Man bearing the waterpot. The fourth point, that held by the sun at the autumnal equinox, would appear to have been already assigned to the foot of the Serpent-holder as he crushes down the Scorpion's head; but a flying eagle, Aquila, is placed as near the equinoctial point as seems to have been consistent with the ample space that it was desired to give to the emblems of the great conflict between the Deliverer and the Serpent. Thus, as in the vision of Ezekiel, so in the constellation figures, the Lion, the Ox, the Man, and the Eagle, stood as the upholders of the firmament, as "the pillars of heaven." They looked down like watchers upon all creation; they seemed to guard the four quarters of the sky.

The same four forms were observed among the constellation figures; they weren't scattered randomly but were positioned in the four most significant spots in the sky. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]Originally, the constellations were arranged so that the sun, during the summer solstice, was in the center of the constellation Leo, the Lion; during the spring equinox, it was in the middle of Taurus, the Bull; and during the winter solstice, it was in the center of Aquarius, the Water Bearer. The fourth position, held by the sun during the autumn equinox, seems to have been designated to the foot of the Serpent-holder as he steps on the Scorpion's head; however, a flying eagle, Aquila, is placed as close to the equinoctial point as was deemed appropriate, given the ample space intended for the symbols of the epic battle between the Deliverer and the Serpent. Thus, like in Ezekiel's vision, in the constellation figures, the Lion, the Ox, the Man, and the Eagle stood as the guardians of the sky, as "the pillars of heaven." They watched over all creation, appearing to guard the four corners of the sky.

If we accept an old Jewish tradition, the constellations may likewise give us some hint of an event recorded in the tenth chapter of Genesis. For it has been supposed that the great stellar giant Orion is none other than "Nimrod, the mighty hunter before the Lord," and the founder of the Babylonian kingdom; identified by some Assyriologists with Merodach, the tutelary deity of Babylon: and by others with Gilgamesh, the tyrant of Erech, whose exploits have been preserved to us in the great epic now known by his name. Possibly both identifications may prove to be correct.

If we go along with an old Jewish tradition, the constellations might also give us a clue about an event mentioned in the tenth chapter of Genesis. It’s been suggested that the enormous star cluster Orion represents "Nimrod, the mighty hunter before the Lord," who founded the Babylonian kingdom; some Assyriologists link him with Merodach, the guardian god of Babylon, while others connect him with Gilgamesh, the ruler of Erech, whose adventures are recorded in the epic that bears his name. It's possible that both connections could be accurate.

[168] More than one third of the constellation figures thus appear to have a close connection with some of the chief incidents recorded in the first ten chapters of Genesis as having taken place in the earliest ages of the world's history. If we include the Hare and the two Dogs as adjuncts of Orion, and the Cup as well as the Raven with Hydra, then no fewer than twenty-two out of the forty-eight are directly or indirectly so connected. But the constellation figures only deal with a very few isolated incidents, and these are necessarily such as lend themselves to graphic representation. The points in common with the Genesis narrative are indeed striking, but the points of independence are no less striking. The majority of the constellation figures do not appear to refer to any incidents in Genesis; the majority of the incidents in the Genesis narrative find no record in the sky. Even in the treatment of incidents common to both there are differences, which make it impossible to suppose that either was directly derived from the other.

[a id="Page_168">[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] More than a third of the constellation figures seem to have a strong connection with some of the key events described in the first ten chapters of Genesis, which occurred in the earliest times of the world's history. If we include the Hare and the two Dogs as part of Orion, along with the Cup and the Raven associated with Hydra, then at least twenty-two out of the forty-eight are linked, either directly or indirectly. However, the constellation figures only represent a few isolated events, and these are ones that can easily be depicted visually. The similarities with the Genesis narrative are indeed noticeable, but the differences are equally significant. Most of the constellation figures do not seem to relate to any events in Genesis, and most of the events in the Genesis narrative are not represented in the stars. Even when looking at common events in both, there are variances that make it clear that neither was directly drawn from the other.

But it is clear that when the constellations were devised,—that is to say, roughly speaking, about 2,700 b.c.,—the promise of the Deliverer, the "Seed of the woman" who should bruise the serpent's head, was well known and highly valued; so highly valued that a large part of the sky was devoted to its commemoration and to that of the curse on the serpent. The story of the Flood was also known, and especially the covenant made with those who were saved in the ark, that the world should not again be destroyed by water, the token of which covenant was the "Bow set in the cloud." The fourfold cherubic forms [169]were known, the keepers of the way of the tree of life, the symbols of the presence of God; and they were set in the four parts of the heaven, marking it out as the tabernacle which He spreadeth abroad, for He dwelleth between the cherubim.

But it's clear that when the constellations were created—around 2,700 B.C.—the promise of the Deliverer, the "Seed of the woman" who would crush the serpent's head, was well known and greatly valued; so much so that a significant part of the sky was dedicated to its remembrance and to the curse on the serpent. The story of the Flood was also known, especially the covenant made with those who were saved in the ark, that the world would not be destroyed by water again, with the symbol of that covenant being the "Bow set in the cloud." The four cherubic forms [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]were recognized, acting as guardians of the way to the tree of life, symbols of God's presence; and they were positioned in the four corners of the sky, marking it as the tabernacle He spread out, for He dwells between the cherubim.

[170]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

CHAPTER III

THE STORY OF THE DELUGE

Beside the narrative of the Flood given to us in Genesis, and the pictorial representation of it preserved in the star figures, we have Deluge stories from many parts of the world. But in particular we have a very striking one from Babylonia. In the Epic of Gilgamesh, already alluded to, the eleventh tablet is devoted to an interview between the hero and Pir-napistim, the Babylonian Noah, who recounts to him how he and his family were saved at the time of the great flood.

Beside the story of the Flood found in Genesis and the visual depiction of it in the star constellations, we have flood stories from many regions of the world. However, one particularly notable account comes from Babylonia. In the Epic of Gilgamesh, which has already been mentioned, the eleventh tablet focuses on a conversation between the hero and Pir-napistim, the Babylonian Noah, who tells him how he and his family survived the great flood.

This Babylonian story of the Deluge stands in quite a different relation from the Babylonian story of Creation in its bearing on the account given in Genesis. As we have already seen, the stories of Creation have practically nothing in common; the stories of the Deluge have many most striking points of resemblance, and may reasonably be supposed to have had a common origin.

This Babylonian story of the Flood is quite different from the Babylonian Creation story regarding its connection to the account in Genesis. As we've already seen, the Creation stories have almost nothing in common; however, the Flood stories share many striking similarities and are likely to have a common origin.

Prof. Friedrich Delitzsch, in his celebrated lectures Babel and Bible, refers to this Babylonian Deluge story in the following terms:—

Prof. Friedrich Delitzsch, in his famous lectures Babel and Bible, talks about this Babylonian Deluge story in the following terms:—

"The Babylonians divided their history into two great periods: the one before, the other after the Flood. [171]Babylon was in quite a peculiar sense the land of deluges. The alluvial lowlands along the course of all great rivers discharging into the sea are, of course, exposed to terrible floods of a special kind—cyclones and tornadoes accompanied by earthquakes and tremendous downpours of rain."

"The Babylonians split their history into two main periods: one before the Flood and the other after it. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]Babylon was, in a unique way, the land of floods. The low, alluvial areas along the paths of major rivers flowing into the sea are particularly prone to severe floods caused by cyclones and tornadoes, combined with earthquakes and heavy rainfall."

After referring to the great cyclone and tidal wave which wrecked the Sunderbunds at the mouths of the Ganges in 1876, when 215,000 persons met their death by drowning, Prof. Delitzsch goes on—

After mentioning the massive cyclone and tidal wave that devastated the Sunderbunds at the mouth of the Ganges in 1876, which resulted in the drowning of 215,000 people, Prof. Delitzsch continues—

"It is the merit of the celebrated Viennese geologist, Eduard Suess, to have shown that there is an accurate description of such a cyclone, line for line, in the Babylonian Deluge story. . . . The whole story, precisely as it was written down, travelled to Canaan. But, owing to the new and entirely different local conditions, it was forgotten that the sea was the chief factor, and so we find in the Bible two accounts of the Deluge, which are not only scientifically impossible, but, furthermore, mutually contradictory—the one assigning to it a duration of 365 days, the other of [40 + (3 x 7)] = 61 days. Science is indebted to Jean Astruc, that strictly orthodox Catholic physician of Louis XIV., for recognizing that two fundamentally different accounts of a deluge have been worked up into a single story in the Bible."[171:1]

"It is the achievement of the renowned Viennese geologist, Eduard Suess, to have demonstrated that there is a precise description of such a cyclone, line by line, in the Babylonian Flood story. The entire narrative, exactly as it was recorded, made its way to Canaan. However, due to the new and completely different local conditions, it was overlooked that the sea was the main factor, and thus we find in the Bible two accounts of the Flood, which are not only scientifically impossible but also mutually contradictory—one claiming it lasted 365 days, the other [40 + (3 x 7)] = 61 days. Science owes it to Jean Astruc, the strictly orthodox Catholic physician of Louis XIV, for acknowledging that two fundamentally different accounts of a flood have been combined into a single narrative in the Bible." [171:1]

The importance of the Babylonian Deluge story does not rest in anything intrinsic to itself, for there are many deluge stories preserved by other nations quite as interesting and as well told. It derives its importance from its points of resemblance to the Genesis story, and from the deduction that some have drawn from these that it was the original of that story—or rather of the two stories—that we find imperfectly recombined in Genesis.

The significance of the Babylonian flood story isn't inherent to the story itself, since there are many flood stories from other cultures that are just as fascinating and well-crafted. Its importance comes from its similarities to the Genesis account and from the conclusion that some have made—that it served as the source for that story—or, more accurately, for the two stories that we see imperfectly combined in Genesis.

[172]The suggestion of Jean Astruc that "two fundamentally different accounts of a deluge have been worked up into a single story in the Bible" has been generally accepted by those who have followed him in the minute analysis of the literary structure of Holy Scripture; and the names of the "Priestly Narrative" and of the "Jehovistic Narrative" have, for the sake of distinctness, been applied to them. The former is so called because the chapters in Exodus and the two following books, which treat with particular minuteness of the various ceremonial institutions of Israel, are considered to be by the same writer. The latter has received its name from the preference shown by the writer for the use, as the Divine name, of the word Jehovah,—so spelt when given in our English versions, but generally translated "the Lord."

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]Jean Astruc's idea that "two fundamentally different accounts of a flood have been combined into a single story in the Bible" is widely accepted by those who have closely analyzed the literary structure of Holy Scripture. The terms "Priestly Narrative" and "Jehovistic Narrative" have been used to distinguish between them. The former is named for the chapters in Exodus and the following two books, which detail the various ceremonial practices of Israel and are believed to be written by the same author. The latter is named for the writer's preference for using the name Jehovah as the Divine name—spelled this way in our English versions but usually translated as "the Lord."

There is a very close accord between different authorities as to the way in which Genesis, chapters vi.-ix., should be allotted to these two sources. The following is Dr. Driver's arrangement:—

There is a strong agreement among different experts on how Genesis, chapters 6-9, should be divided between these two sources. Here is Dr. Driver's arrangement:—

Priestly Narrative.			Jehovah's Narrative.

	Chap.	Verse.		Chap.	Verse.
Genesis	vi.	9-22.	Genesis	vii.	1-5.
	vii.	6.			7-10.
		11.			12.
		13-16a.			16b.
		17a.			17b.
		18-21.			22-23.
		24.		viii.	2b-3a.
	viii.	1-2a.			6-12.
		3b-5.			13b.
		13a.			20-22.
		14-19.
	ix.	1-17.

[173]The Priestly narrative therefore tells us the cause of the Flood—that is to say, the corruption of mankind; describes the dimensions of the ark, and instructs Noah to bring "of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female." It further supplies the dates of the chief occurrences during the Flood, states that the waters prevailed above the tops of the mountains, that when the Flood diminished the ark rested upon the mountains of Ararat; and gives the account of Noah and his family going forth from the ark, and of the covenant which God made with them, of which the token was to be the bow seen in the cloud.

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]The Priestly narrative explains the reason for the Flood—specifically, the corruption of humanity; details the dimensions of the ark, and tells Noah to take "two of every kind of living creature, a male and a female, into the ark to keep them alive with you." It also provides the timeline of key events during the Flood, mentions that the waters rose above the tallest mountains, states that when the Flood receded, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat, and recounts how Noah and his family exited the ark, along with the covenant God made with them, marked by the rainbow seen in the clouds.

The most striking notes of the Jehovistic narrative are,—the incident of the sending out of the raven and the dove; the account of Noah's sacrifice; and the distinction made between clean beasts and beasts that are not clean—the command to Noah being, "Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female." The significant points of distinction between the two accounts are that the Priestly writer gives the description of the ark, the Flood prevailing above the mountains, the grounding on Mount Ararat, and the bow in the cloud; the Jehovistic gives the sending out of the raven and the dove, and the account of Noah's sacrifice, which involves the recognition of the distinction between the clean and unclean beasts and the more abundant provision of the former. He also lays emphasis on the Lord's "smelling a sweet savour" and promising never again to [174]smite everything living, "for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth."

The most notable aspects of the Jehovistic narrative are the events of sending out the raven and the dove, Noah's sacrifice, and the distinction between clean and unclean animals. Noah was commanded, "Take seven pairs of every clean animal, the male and his female, and two of each unclean animal, the male and his female." The key differences between the two accounts are that the Priestly writer describes the ark, how the Flood covered the mountains, where the ark rested on Mount Ararat, and the rainbow in the clouds; while the Jehovistic account focuses on sending out the raven and the dove and on Noah's sacrifice, which highlights the distinction between clean and unclean animals and the larger quantity of the former. He also emphasizes that the Lord "smelled a sweet aroma" and promised never again to [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]strike everything living, "for man's heart is evil from his youth."

The chief features of the Babylonian story of the Deluge are as follows:—The God Ae spoke to Pir-napistim, the Babylonian Noah—

The main features of the Babylonian flood story are as follows:—The God Ae spoke to Pir-napistim, the Babylonian Noah—

"Destroy the house, build a ship,
Leave what you have, focus on your life.
Eliminate the threat and preserve life.
Gather all the seed of life and bring it to the center of the ship.
The ship that you will make, even you.
Measure its size; "Let it be agreed upon in terms of its height and length."

The description of the building of the ship seems to have been very minute, but the record is mutilated, and what remains is difficult to translate. As in the Priestly narrative, it is expressly mentioned that it was "pitched within and without."

The description of the ship's construction appears to be very detailed, but the record is damaged, and what’s left is hard to interpret. As in the Priestly narrative, it explicitly states that it was "coated inside and out."

The narrative proceeds in the words of Pir-napistim:—

The story continues with the words of Pir-napistim:—

"Everything I had, I gathered it,
Everything I owned, I gathered it, made of silver; Everything I had, I gathered it, of gold; Everything I had, I gathered it all, the essence of life, the entirety. I caused to go up into the middle of the ship,
All my family and relatives, I sent up all the wild animals, the farm animals, and the sons of the craftsmen.__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ God Šamaš set the time—
Muir Kukki—'Tonight, I will bring down destruction from the skies,
"Go inside the ship and close the door." That time was coming—
Muir Kukki—In the night, the skies poured down destruction
I noticed how the day started:
I was scared to face the day—
I went inside the ship and closed my door.

[175]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

At dawn in the morning,
A dark cloud emerged from the foundation of heaven:

The first day of the storm...?
It quickly moved, and . . . .
Like a fight against the people it aimed to reach. Brother didn't see brother.
The people were unrecognizable. In heaven
The gods were afraid of the flood, and
They escaped and rose to the heaven of Anu.
The gods were fenced in like dogs, huddled down in the pens.

The gods had hunched over, sitting in grief,
Their lips were sealed in the gatherings,
Six days and nights The wind blew, and the heavy rain and flood filled the land. On the seventh day, when it arrived, the storm stopped, and the fierce flood, Which had fought like a whirlwind,
The sea calmed down and retreated, and the fierce wind and heavy rain stopped. I noticed the sea making a sound,
And all of humanity had become corrupt.

I observed the areas along the coast of the sea,
For twelve measures, the area came to life.
The ship had docked at the land of Nisir.
The mountain of Nisir captured the ship and wouldn't let it go through.
On the first and second days, the mountains of Nisir blocked the ship and wouldn't let it through.

The seventh day, when it arrived I sent out a dove, and it flew away;
The dove flew away, then turned around,
But there was no place to rest, so it came back. I sent out a swallow, and it flew away,
The swallow flew away, then circled back,
But there was no place to rest, so it came back. I released a raven, and it flew away,
The raven flew away, witnessing the rushing waters,
It ate, it walked through the water, it croaked, and it did not come back.
I sent the animals out in all directions, and I offered a drink.
I made an offering at the top of the mountain,
[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]I placed seven incense vases there, I filled them with cane, cedar, and rosewood. The gods sensed a fragrance; The gods sensed a pleasant aroma.
The gods gathered around the sacrificer like flies. Then the goddess Sîrtu, when she arrived,
Raised the great seals that Anu had created at her request: "These gods—by the lapis stone around my neck—help me remember;" These days, let me remember them and never forget them!
Let the gods attend the sacrifice,
But let Bêl not come to the sacrifice,
For he didn't seek advice and created a flood,
"And doomed my people to destruction."
Then Bêl, when he arrived,
Saw the ship. And Bêl remained still,
Filled with anger because of the gods and the spirits of heaven. 'What, has a soul escaped? "Don’t let a man escape from destruction." Ninip opened his mouth and spoke.
He said to the warrior Bêl: "Who else has done this but Ae?
" And Ae knows every event. Ae opened his mouth and spoke, He told the warrior Bêl:
"O wise one of the gods, warrior,
You truly haven't sought advice, and you've caused a flood. The sinner has committed his sin,
The wrongdoer has carried out his act,
Be merciful—don’t let him be cut off—give in, don’t let him perish.
Why have you caused a flood?
Let the lion come, and let people fade away.
Why did you create a flood?
Let the hyena come, and let people fade away.
Why have you caused a flood?
Let a famine occur, and let the land be (?)
Why have you created a flood?
Let Ura (pestilence) come, and let the land be (?)'"[176:1]

[177]Of the four records before us, we can only date one approximately. The constellations, as we have already seen, were mapped out some time in the third millennium before our era, probably not very far from 2700 b.c.

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]Out of the four records we have, we can only roughly date one. The constellations, as we've already observed, were mapped out sometime in the third millennium B.C.E., likely around 2700 B.C.

When was the Babylonian story written? Does it, itself, afford any evidence of date? It occurs in the eleventh tablet of the Epic of Gilgamesh, and the theory has been started that as Aquarius, a watery constellation, is now the eleventh sign of the zodiac, therefore we have in this epic of twelve tablets a series of solar myths founded upon the twelve signs of the zodiac, the eleventh giving us a legend of a flood to correspond to the stream of water which the man in Aquarius pours from his pitcher.

When was the Babylonian story written? Does it provide any clues about its date? It appears in the eleventh tablet of the Epic of Gilgamesh, and there's a theory suggesting that since Aquarius, a watery constellation, is now the eleventh sign of the zodiac, this epic of twelve tablets represents a set of solar myths based on the twelve zodiac signs, with the eleventh tablet presenting a flood legend that aligns with the stream of water poured from the pitcher by the man in Aquarius.

If this theory be accepted we can date the Epic of Gilgamesh with much certainty: it must be later, probably much later, than 700 b.c. For it cannot have been till about that time that the present arrangement of the zodiacal signs—that is to say with Aries as the first and Aquarius as the eleventh—can have been adopted. We have then to allow for the growth of a mythology with the twelve signs as its motif. Had this supposed series of zodiacal myths originated before 700 b.c., before Aries was adopted as the leading sign, then the Bull, Taurus, would have given rise to the myth of the first tablet and Aquarius to the tenth, not to the eleventh where we find the story of the flood.

If we accept this theory, we can date the Epic of Gilgamesh with a good amount of certainty: it must be later, likely much later, than 700 B.C. This is because it wasn't until around that time that the current arrangement of the zodiac signs—specifically, with Aries as the first and Aquarius as the eleventh—was established. We must then consider the development of a mythology based on the twelve signs as its motif. If this supposed series of zodiac myths had originated before 700 B.C., before Aries became the leading sign, then the Bull, Taurus, would have inspired the myth of the first tablet, and Aquarius would have related to the tenth, not the eleventh, where we find the flood story.

Assyriologists do not assign so late a date to this poem, and it must be noted that the theory supposes, not merely that the tablet itself, but that the poem and [178]the series of myths upon which it was based, were all later in conception than 700 b.c. One conclusive indication of its early date is given by the position in the pantheon of Ae and Bêl. Ae has not receded into comparative insignificance, nor has Bêl attained to that full supremacy which, as Merodach, he possesses in the Babylonian Creation story. We may therefore put on one side as an unsupported and unfortunate guess the suggestion that the Epic of Gilgamesh is the setting forth of a series of zodiacal myths.

Assyriologists don't date this poem as late, and it's important to note that the theory suggests that not just the tablet itself, but also the poem and the series of myths it was based on, were all conceived after 700 B.C. A clear sign of its early date is tied to the status of Ae and Bêl in the pantheon. Ae hasn't lost his importance, nor has Bêl reached the complete dominance he holds as Merodach in the Babylonian Creation story. Therefore, we can dismiss the idea that the Epic of Gilgamesh presents a series of zodiacal myths as an unsupported and unfortunate guess.

Any legends, any mythology, any pantheon based upon the zodiac must necessarily be more recent than the zodiac; any system involving Aries as the first sign of the zodiac must be later than the adoption of Aries as the first sign, that is to say, later than 700 b.c. Systems arising before that date would inevitably be based upon Taurus as first constellation.

Any legends, mythology, or pantheon based on the zodiac must be more recent than the zodiac itself; any system that considers Aries as the first sign of the zodiac has to come after Aries was established as the first sign, meaning it has to be from after 700 B.C. Systems that developed before that time would definitely be based on Taurus as the first constellation.

We cannot then, from astronomical relationships, fix the date of the Babylonian story of the Flood. Is it possible, however, to form any estimate of the comparative ages of the Babylonian legend and of the two narratives given in Genesis, or of either of these two? Does the Babylonian story connect itself with one of the Genesis narratives rather than the other?

We can't determine the date of the Babylonian Flood story based on astronomical relationships. However, can we estimate the relative ages of the Babylonian legend and the two accounts provided in Genesis, or of either one? Does the Babylonian story relate more closely to one of the Genesis narratives over the other?

The significant points in the Babylonian story are these:—the command to Pir-napistim to build a ship, with detailed directions; the great rise of the flood so that even the gods in the heaven of Anu feared it; the detailed dating of the duration of the flood; the stranding of the ship on the mountain of Nisir; the sending forth [179]of the dove, the swallow, and their return; the sending forth of the raven, and its non-return; the sacrifice; the gods smelling its sweet savour; the vow of remembrance of the goddess by the lapis-stone necklace; the determination of the gods not to send a flood again upon the earth, since sin is inevitable from the sinner. To all these points we find parallels in the account as given in Genesis.

The key points in the Babylonian story are these:—the command to Pir-napistim to build a ship, complete with detailed instructions; the massive rise of the flood that even the gods in Anu's heaven feared; the specific timeline for how long the flood lasted; the ship getting stuck on the mountain of Nisir; the sending out of the dove and the swallow, and their return; the sending out of the raven, which did not return; the sacrifice made; the gods enjoying its sweet smell; the vow of remembrance of the goddess with the lapis-stone necklace; and the gods' decision not to flood the earth again, since sin is unavoidable for a sinner. We can find parallels to all these points in the account given in Genesis.

But it is in the Priestly narrative that we find the directions for the building of the ship; the great prevalence of the flood even to the height of the mountains; the stranding of the ship on a mountain; and the bow in the clouds as a covenant of remembrance—this last being perhaps paralleled in the Babylonian story by the mottled (blue-and-white) lapis necklace of the goddess which she swore by as a remembrancer. There is therefore manifest connection with the narrative told by the Priestly writer.

But it’s in the Priestly narrative that we discover the instructions for building the ship; the massive flood reaching even the heights of the mountains; the ship being stranded on a mountain; and the rainbow in the clouds as a sign of remembrance—this last element possibly mirrored in the Babylonian story by the speckled (blue-and-white) lapis necklace of the goddess, which she swore by as a reminder. There is a clear connection with the account given by the Priestly writer.

But it is in the Jehovistic narrative, on the other hand, that we find the sending forth of the raven, and its non-return; the sending forth of the dove, and its return; the sacrifice, and the sweet savour that was smelled of the Lord; and the determination of the Lord not to curse the earth any more for man's sake, nor smite any more every living thing, "for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth." There is, therefore, no less manifest connection with the narrative told by the Jehovistic writer.

But in the Jehovistic account, we see the raven being sent out and not coming back; the dove being sent out and returning; the sacrifice and the pleasant aroma that the Lord smelled; and the Lord's decision not to curse the earth anymore because of humans, nor to strike down every living thing, "for the thoughts of humanity's heart are wicked from their youth." Therefore, there's a clear link to the story told by the Jehovistic writer.

But the narrative told by the writer of the Babylonian story is one single account; even if it were a combination [180]of two separate traditions, they have been so completely fused that they cannot now be broken up so as to form two distinct narratives, each complete in itself.

But the story told by the writer of the Babylonian tale is one cohesive account; even if it were a blend of two different traditions, they have merged so thoroughly that they can't be separated into two distinct narratives, each complete on its own.

"The whole story precisely as it was written down travelled to Canaan,"—so we are told. And there,—we are asked to believe,—two Hebrew writers of very different temperaments and schools of thought, each independently worked up a complete story of the Deluge from this Gilgamesh legend. They chose out different incidents, one selecting what the other rejected, and vice versa, so that their two accounts were "mutually contradictory." They agreed, however, in cleansing it from its polytheistic setting, and giving it a strictly monotheistic tone. Later, an "editor" put the two narratives together, with all their inconsistencies and contradictions, and interlocked them into one, which presents all the main features of the original Gilgamesh story except its polytheism. In other words, two Hebrew scribes each told in his own way a part of the account of the Deluge which he had derived from Babylon, and a third unwittingly so recombined them as to make them represent the Babylonian original!

"The entire story, exactly as it was recorded, made its way to Canaan,"—that's what we're told. And there,—we're asked to believe,—two Hebrew writers with very different styles and viewpoints, each independently created a complete version of the Flood story based on this Gilgamesh legend. They picked different events, with one choosing what the other discarded, and vice versa, resulting in their two narratives being "mutually contradictory." However, they did agree on removing the polytheistic elements and giving it a strictly monotheistic tone. Later, an "editor" combined the two narratives, with all their inconsistencies and contradictions, merging them into one that retains all the key features of the original Gilgamesh story, except for its polytheism. In other words, two Hebrew scribes each recounted their own version of the Flood story derived from Babylon, and a third unwittingly blended them in a way that made them reflect the Babylonian original!

The two accounts of the Deluge, supposed to be present in Genesis, therefore cannot be derived from the Gilgamesh epic, nor be later than it, seeing that what is still plainly separable in Genesis is inseparably fused in the epic.

The two accounts of the Flood that are believed to be in Genesis cannot be taken from the Gilgamesh epic or come after it, because what is still clearly distinct in Genesis is completely blended in the epic.

On the other hand, can the Babylonian narrative be later than, and derived from, the Genesis account? Since so many of the same circumstances are represented in [181]both, this is a more reasonable proposition, if we assume that the Babylonian narrator had the Genesis account as it now stands, and did not have to combine two separate statements. For surely if he had the separate Priestly and Jehovistic narratives we should now be able to decompose the Babylonian narrative just as easily as we do the one in Genesis. The Babylonian adapter of the Genesis story must have either been less astute than ourselves, and did not perceive that he had really two distinct (and "contradictory") narratives to deal with, or he did not consider this circumstance of the slightest importance, and had no objection to merging them inextricably into one continuous account.

On the other hand, could the Babylonian story be later and based on the Genesis account? Since many of the same situations are shown in both, this idea makes more sense if we assume that the Babylonian storyteller had the Genesis account as it is now and didn’t have to mix together two different versions. If he had the separate Priestly and Jehovistic accounts, we should be able to break down the Babylonian narrative just as easily as we do the one in Genesis. The Babylonian adapter of the Genesis story must have either been less sharp than we are and didn’t realize he was actually dealing with two distinct (and "contradictory") narratives, or he didn’t think this situation mattered at all and had no problem merging them into one continuous story.

It is therefore possible that the Babylonian account was derived from that in Genesis; but it is not probable. The main circumstances are the same in both, but the details, the presentment, the attitude of mind are very different. We can better explain the agreement in the general circumstances, and even in many of the details, by presuming that both are accounts—genuine traditions—of the same actual occurrence. The differences in detail, presentment, and attitude, are fully and sufficiently explained by supposing that we have traditions from two, if not three, witnesses of the event.

It is therefore possible that the Babylonian account was taken from the one in Genesis; however, it seems unlikely. The overall circumstances are similar in both, but the specifics, the presentation, and the mindset are quite different. We can better explain the similarities in the general circumstances, and even in many of the details, by considering that both are genuine accounts of the same actual event. The differences in specifics, presentation, and mindset can be fully and adequately explained by suggesting that we have accounts from two, if not three, witnesses of the event.

We have also the pictorial representation of the Flood given us in the constellations. What evidence do they supply?

We also have the visual depiction of the Flood shown in the constellations. What proof do they provide?

Here the significant points are: the ship grounded upon a high rock; the raven above it, eating the flesh of a stretched-out reptile; a sacrifice offered up by a person, [182]who has issued forth from the ship, upon an altar, whose smoke goes up in a cloud, in which a bow is set.

Here are the important details: the ship ran aground on a tall rock; a raven above is eating the flesh of a stretched-out reptile; a sacrifice is being made by someone, [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]who came out of the ship, on an altar, with smoke rising in a cloud, where a bow is placed.

In this grouping of pictures we have two characteristic features of the Priestly narrative, in the ship grounded on a rock, and in the bow set in the cloud; we have also two characteristic features of the Jehovistic narrative, in the smoking altar of sacrifice, and in the carrion bird. There is therefore manifest connection between the constellation grouping and both the narratives given in Genesis.

In this collection of images, we see two distinctive elements of the Priestly narrative: the ship stuck on a rock and the bow appearing in the cloud. We also notice two key features of the Jehovistic narrative: the smoking altar of sacrifice and the carrion bird. Thus, there’s a clear link between the arrangement of the constellation and both narratives presented in Genesis.

But the constellational picture story is the only one of all these narratives that we can date. It must have been designed—as we have seen—about 2700 b.c.

But the story of the constellations is the only one among all these narratives that we can date. It must have been created—as we have seen—around 2700 B.C.

The question again comes up for answer. Were the Genesis and Babylonian narratives, any or all of them, derived from the pictured story in the constellations; or, on the other hand, was this derived from any or all of them?

The question arises once more: Were the Genesis and Babylonian stories derived from the images in the constellations, or were those constellations inspired by any or all of these stories?

The constellations were mapped out near the north latitude of 40°, far to the north of Babylonia, so the pictured story cannot have come from thence. We do not know where the Genesis narratives were written, but if the Flood of the constellations was pictured from them, then they must have been already united into the account that is now presented to us in Genesis, very early in the third millennium before Christ.

The constellations were charted around 40° north latitude, far north of Babylonia, so the depicted story couldn’t have originated from there. We don’t know where the Genesis stories were written, but if the constellations’ Flood was based on them, then they must have already been compiled into the account we have now in Genesis, quite early in the third millennium BC.

Could the account in Genesis have been derived from the constellations? If it is a double account, most decidedly not; since the pictured story in the constellations is one, and presents impartially the characteristic features of both the narratives.

Could the story in Genesis have come from the constellations? If it's a double account, definitely not; because the illustrated story in the constellations is singular and fairly represents the key features of both narratives.

[183]And (as in comparing the Genesis and the Babylonian narratives) we see that though the main circumstances are the same—in so far as they lend themselves to pictorial representations—the details, the presentment, the attitude are different. In the Genesis narrative, the bow set in the cloud is a rainbow in a cloud of rain; in the constellation picture, the bow set in the cloud is the bow of an archer, and the cloud is the pillar of smoke from off the altar of sacrifice. In the narratives of Genesis and Babylonia, Noah and Pir-napistim are men: no hint is given anywhere that by their physical form or constitution they were marked off from other men; in the storied picture, he who issues from the ship is a centaur: his upper part is the head and body of a man, his lower part is the body of a horse.

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]When we compare the Genesis and Babylonian narratives, we find that while the main events are similar—allowing for vivid imagery—the specifics, the way they are presented, and the overall mood are different. In the Genesis story, the bow in the cloud represents a rainbow amid rain; in the constellation illustration, the bow in the cloud symbolizes an archer's bow, and the cloud is the pillar of smoke from a sacrifice altar. In both Genesis and Babylonian narratives, Noah and Pir-napistim are portrayed as ordinary men; there’s no indication that they are physically different from any other men. However, in the depicted story, the figure that emerges from the ship is a centaur: the upper half is a man's head and torso, while the lower half is the body of a horse.

As before, there is no doubt that we can best explain the agreement in circumstance of all the narratives by presuming that they are independent accounts of the same historical occurrence. We can, at the same time, explain the differences in style and detail between the narratives by presuming that the originals were by men of different qualities of mind who each wrote as the occurrence most appealed to him. The Babylonian narrator laid hold of the promise that, though beast, or famine, or pestilence might diminish men, a flood should not again sweep away every living thing, and connected the promise with the signets—the lapis necklace of the goddess Sîrtu that she touched as a remembrancer. The picturer of the constellations saw the pledge in the smoke of the sacrifice, in the spirit of the words of the [184]Lord as given by Asaph, "Gather My saints together unto me; those that have made a covenant with Me by sacrifice." The writer in Genesis saw the promise in the rain-cloud, for the rainbow can only appear with the shining of the sun. The writer in Genesis saw in Noah a righteous man, worthy to escape the flood of desolation that swept away the wickedness around; there is no explanation apparent, at least on the surface, as to why the designer of the constellations made him, who issued from the ship and offered the sacrifice, a centaur—one who partook of two natures.

As before, there's no doubt that we can best understand the agreement in the context of all the stories by assuming they are separate accounts of the same historical event. At the same time, we can explain the differences in style and detail between the narratives by assuming that the originals were written by different individuals, each expressing the event in a way that resonated with them personally. The Babylonian storyteller focused on the promise that, although beasts, famine, or disease might reduce humanity, a flood would never again wipe out every living thing, and they linked this promise to the signets—the lapis necklace of the goddess Sîrtu that she touched as a reminder. The one who illustrated the constellations saw the assurance in the smoke of the sacrifice, in the spirit of the words from the Lord as given by Asaph, "Gather My saints together unto me; those that have made a covenant with Me by sacrifice." The writer in Genesis saw the promise in the rain-cloud, since a rainbow can only appear when the sun shines. In Genesis, Noah is portrayed as a righteous man, deserving to escape the deluge of destruction that eliminated the wickedness around him; there is no clear reason, at least on the surface, why the creator of the constellations depicted him, who emerged from the ship and offered the sacrifice, as a centaur—someone who embodies two natures.

The comparison of the Deluge narratives from Genesis, from the constellations, and from Babylonia, presents a clear issue. If all the accounts are independent, and if there are two accounts intermingled into one in Genesis, then the chief facts presented in both parts of that dual narrative must have been so intermingled at an earlier date than 2700 b.c. The editor who first united the two stories into one must have done his work before that date.

The comparison of the flood stories from Genesis, from the constellations, and from Babylon shows a clear issue. If all the accounts are separate and if there are two stories combined into one in Genesis, then the main facts in both parts of that dual narrative must have been mixed together before 2700 B.C. The editor who first merged the two stories into one must have completed this work before that date.

But if the accounts are not independent histories, and the narrative as we have it in Genesis is derived either in whole or in part from Babylonia or from the constellations—if, in short, the Genesis story came from a Babylonian or a stellar myth—then we cannot escape from this conclusion: that the narrative in Genesis is not, and never has been, two separable portions; that the scholars who have so divided it have been entirely in error. But we cannot so lightly put on one side the whole of the results which the learning and research of so [185]many scholars have given us in the last century-and-a-half. We must therefore unhesitatingly reject the theory that the Genesis Deluge story owes anything either to star myth or to Babylonian mythology. And if the Genesis Deluge story is not so derived, certainly no other portion of Holy Scripture.

But if the accounts are not independent histories, and the narrative as we have it in Genesis comes either completely or partially from Babylonia or the constellations—if, in short, the Genesis story originated from a Babylonian or a stellar myth—then we cannot escape this conclusion: that the narrative in Genesis is not, and never has been, two separate parts; that the scholars who have divided it this way have been completely mistaken. However, we cannot just dismiss the extensive findings that the research and knowledge of so [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]many scholars have contributed in the last century and a half. Therefore, we must firmly reject the idea that the Genesis Deluge story derives from either star myth or Babylonian mythology. And if the Genesis Deluge story isn't derived that way, certainly no other part of Holy Scripture is.

FOOTNOTES:

[171:1] Babel and Bible, Johns' translation, pp. 42-46.

[176:1] T. G. Pinches, The Old Testament in the Light of the Historical Records of Assyria and Babylonia, pp. 102-107.

[186]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

CHAPTER IV

THE TRIBES OF ISRAEL AND THE ZODIAC

The earliest reference in Scripture to the constellations of the zodiac occurs in the course of the history of Joseph. In relating his second dream to his brethren he said—

The earliest reference in Scripture to the constellations of the zodiac occurs in the course of the history of Joseph. In sharing his second dream with his brothers, he said—

"Behold, I have dreamed a dream more; and, behold, the sun and the moon, and the eleven stars made obeisance to me."

"Look, I've had another dream; and in this dream, the sun, the moon, and the eleven stars bowed down to me."

The word "Kochab" in the Hebrew means both "star" and "constellation." The significance, therefore, of the reference to the "eleven stars" is clear. Just as Joseph's eleven brethren were eleven out of the twelve sons of Jacob, so Joseph saw eleven constellations out of the twelve come and bow down to him. And the twelve constellations can only mean the twelve of the zodiac.

The word "Kochab" in Hebrew means both "star" and "constellation." So, the mention of the "eleven stars" is straightforward. Just as Joseph had eleven brothers who were part of the twelve sons of Jacob, he saw eleven constellations out of the twelve come and bow down to him. The twelve constellations refer to the twelve zodiac signs.

There can be no reasonable doubt that the zodiac in question was practically the same as we have now, the one transmitted to us through Aratus and Ptolemy. It had been designed quite a thousand years earlier than the days of Joseph; it was known in Mesopotamia from whence his ancestors had come; it was known in Egypt; that is to say it was known on both sides of Canaan. [187]There have been other zodiacs: thus the Chinese have one of their own: but we have no evidence of any zodiac, except the one transmitted to us by the Greeks, as having been at any time adopted in Canaan or the neighbouring countries.

There’s no reasonable doubt that the zodiac in question was almost identical to the one we have today, the one passed down to us through Aratus and Ptolemy. It was created around a thousand years before the time of Joseph; it was known in Mesopotamia, from where his ancestors came; it was known in Egypt; in other words, it was recognized on both sides of Canaan. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]There have been other zodiacs: for instance, the Chinese have one of their own; however, we have no evidence of any zodiac, other than the one handed down to us by the Greeks, being adopted at any time in Canaan or the surrounding regions.

There is no need to suppose that each of the brethren had a zodiacal figure already assigned to him as a kind of armorial bearing or device. The dream was appropriate, and perfectly intelligible to Jacob, to Joseph, and his brethren, without supposing that any such arrangement had then been made. It is quite true that there are Jewish traditions assigning a constellation to each of the tribes of Israel, but it does not appear that any such traditions can be distinctly traced to a great antiquity, and they are mostly somewhat indefinite. Josephus, for instance, makes a vague assertion about the twelve precious stones of the High Priest's breast-plate, each of which bore the name of one of the tribes, connecting them with the signs of the zodiac:—

There’s no need to assume that each of the brothers had a zodiac sign assigned to him like a coat of arms or symbol. The dream was fitting and completely clear to Jacob, Joseph, and his brothers, without needing to believe that any such system existed at that time. It’s true that there are Jewish traditions linking a constellation to each of the tribes of Israel, but it doesn’t seem that any of these traditions can be clearly traced back to ancient times, and they often lack clarity. For example, Josephus makes a vague claim about the twelve precious stones on the High Priest's breastplate, each representing one of the tribes, and connects them to the zodiac signs:—

"Now the names of all those sons of Jacob were engraven in these stones, whom we esteem the heads of our tribes, each stone having the honour of a name, in the order according to which they were born. . . . And for the twelve stones whether we understand by them the months, or whether we understand the like number of the signs of that circle which the Greeks call the Zodiac, we shall not be mistaken in their meaning."[187:1]

"Now the names of all the sons of Jacob were carved into these stones, which we regard as the leaders of our tribes, with each stone proudly displaying a name in the order they were born. . . . And whether we see the twelve stones representing the months or corresponding to the same number of signs in the circle the Greeks call the Zodiac, we won't be wrong in understanding their significance." [187:1]

But whilst there is no sufficient evidence that each of the sons of Jacob had a zodiacal figure for his coat-of-arms, nor even that the tribes deriving their names from [188]them were so furnished, there is strong and harmonious tradition as to the character of the devices borne on the standards carried by the four divisions of the host in the march through the wilderness. The four divisions, or camps, each contained three tribes, and were known by the name of the principal tribe in each. The camp of Judah was on the east, and the division of Judah led on the march. The camp of Reuben was on the south. The camp of Ephraim was on the west. The camp of Dan was on the north, and the division of Dan brought up the rear. And the traditional devices shown on the four standards were these:—For Judah, a lion; for Reuben, a man and a river; for Ephraim, a bull; for Dan, an eagle and a serpent.

But while there's no strong evidence that each of Jacob's sons had a zodiac symbol as their coat of arms, or even that the tribes named after them had such symbols, there is a consistent tradition about the designs on the standards carried by the four divisions of the army during their journey through the wilderness. Each of the four divisions, or camps, included three tribes and was named after the main tribe in each. The camp of Judah was in the east, and Judah led the march. The camp of Reuben was in the south. The camp of Ephraim was in the west. The camp of Dan was in the north, with Dan bringing up the rear. The traditional symbols displayed on the four standards were as follows: For Judah, a lion; for Reuben, a man and a river; for Ephraim, a bull; for Dan, an eagle and a serpent.

In these four standards we cannot fail to see again the four cherubic forms of lion, man, ox and eagle; but in two cases an addition was made to the cherubic form, an addition recalling the constellation figure. For just as the crest of Reuben was not a man only, but a man and a river, so Aquarius is not a man only, but a man pouring out a stream of water. And as the crest of Dan was not an eagle only, but an eagle and a serpent, so the great group of constellations, clustering round the autumnal equinox, included not only the Eagle, but also the Scorpion and the Serpent (see diagram, p. 189).

In these four standards, we can again see the four angelic figures of the lion, man, ox, and eagle; however, in two instances, there was an addition to the angelic form, connecting it to the constellation figure. Just as the symbol for Reuben included not just a man but also a river, Aquarius represents not just a man but a man pouring out a stream of water. Similarly, while the symbol for Dan included not just an eagle but also a serpent, the major group of constellations surrounding the autumn equinox features not just the Eagle but also the Scorpion and the Serpent (see diagram, p. 189).

There appears to be an obvious connection between these devices and the blessings pronounced by Jacob upon his sons, and by Moses upon the tribes; indeed, it would seem probable that it was the former that largely determined the choice of the devices adopted by the four great divisions of the host in the wilderness.

There seems to be a clear link between these devices and the blessings given by Jacob to his sons, as well as by Moses to the tribes. In fact, it looks like the former greatly influenced the selection of the devices used by the four major divisions of the group in the wilderness.

[189]The blessing pronounced by Jacob on Judah runs, "Judah is a lion's whelp: from the prey, my son, thou art gone up: he stooped down, he couched as a lion, and as an old lion; who shall rouse him up?" "The Lion of the tribe of Judah" is the title given to our Lord Himself in the Apocalypse of St. John.

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]The blessing Jacob gave to Judah says, "Judah is a young lion: you’ve risen from the prey, my son: he crouched down, he lay like a lion, and like an older lion; who will wake him?" "The Lion of the tribe of Judah" is the title given to our Lord Himself in the Book of Revelation.

OPHIUCHUS AND THE NEIGHBOURING CONSTELLATIONS.ToList

OPHIUCHUS AND THE SURROUNDING CONSTELLATIONS.ToList

The blessing pronounced upon Joseph by Moses bears as emphatic a reference to the bull. "The firstling of his bullock, majesty is his; and his horns are the horns of the wild-ox."

The blessing given to Joseph by Moses makes a strong reference to the bull. "The firstborn of his bull is filled with glory; and his horns are like the horns of a wild ox."

Jacob's blessing upon Joseph does not show any reference to the ox or bull in our Authorized Version. But in our Revised Version Jacob says of Simeon and Levi—

Jacob's blessing for Joseph doesn't mention the ox or bull in our Authorized Version. However, in our Revised Version, Jacob speaks about Simeon and Levi—

[190]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

"In their anger, they killed a man,
And in their stubbornness, they hamstrung an ox.

The first line appears to refer to the massacre of the Shechemites; the second is interpreted by the Jerusalem Targum, "In their wilfulness they sold Joseph their brother, who is likened to an ox." And in the blessing of Joseph it is said that his "branches (margin, daughters), run over the wall." Some translators have rendered this, "The daughters walk upon the bull," "wall" and "bull" being only distinguishable in the original by a slight difference in the pointing.

The first line seems to reference the massacre of the Shechemites; the second is interpreted by the Jerusalem Targum as "In their stubbornness, they sold their brother Joseph, who is compared to an ox." And in the blessing of Joseph, it says that his "branches (margin, daughters) extend over the wall." Some translators have put this as, "The daughters walk upon the bull," with "wall" and "bull" only differing slightly in the original text's pointing.

Of Reuben, his father said, "Unstable as water, thou shalt not excel;" and of Dan, "Dan shall be a serpent by the way, an adder in the path, that biteth the horse heels, so that his rider shall fall backward."

Of Reuben, his father said, "Unstable as water, you won't succeed;” and of Dan, “Dan will be a snake on the way, a viper on the path, that bites the horse's heels, so that its rider will fall backward.”

These two last prophecies supply the "water" and the "serpent," which, added to the "man" and "eagle" of the cherubic forms, are needed to complete the traditional standards, and are needed also to make them conform more closely to the constellation figures.

These last two prophecies provide the "water" and the "serpent," which, along with the "man" and "eagle" of the cherubic forms, are necessary to complete the traditional standards and also to make them align more closely with the constellation figures.

No such correspondence can be traced between the eight remaining tribes and the eight remaining constellations. Different writers combine them in different ways, and the allusions to constellation figures in the blessings of those tribes are in most cases very doubtful and obscure, even if it can be supposed that any such allusions are present at all. The connection cannot be pushed safely beyond the four chief tribes, and the four cherubic forms as represented in the constellations of the four quarters of the sky.

No correspondence can be linked between the eight remaining tribes and the eight remaining constellations. Different authors connect them in various ways, and references to constellation figures in the blessings of those tribes are often unclear and ambiguous, even if we can assume that any references exist at all. The connection can't be confidently extended beyond the four main tribes and the four cherubic forms as depicted in the constellations of the four cardinal directions.

[191]These four standards, or rather, three of them, meet us again in a very interesting connection. When Israel reached the borders of Moab, Balak, the king of Moab, sent for a seer of great reputation, Balaam, the son of Beor, to "Come, curse me Jacob, and come, defy Israel." Balaam came, but instead of cursing Jacob, blessed the people in four prophecies, wherein he made, what would appear to be, distinct references to the standards of Judah, Joseph and Reuben.

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]These four standards, or actually three of them, appear again in a very interesting context. When Israel reached the borders of Moab, Balak, the king of Moab, called for a well-known seer, Balaam, the son of Beor, to "Come, curse Jacob for me, and come, defy Israel." Balaam came, but instead of cursing Jacob, he blessed the people with four prophecies, where he made what seemed to be clear references to the standards of Judah, Joseph, and Reuben.

"Look, the people rise up like a lioness,
"And like a lion, he lifts himself up."

Then again—

"He lay down like a lion,
"And like a lioness; who will wake him up?"

And in two passages—

And in two sections—

"God brings him out of Egypt;
He has, so to speak, the strength of a wild ox.

The wild ox and lion are obvious similes to use concerning a powerful and warlike people. These two similes are, therefore, not sufficient by themselves to prove that the tribal standards are being referred to. But the otherwise enigmatical verse—

The wild ox and lion are clear comparisons to make about a strong and aggressive people. These two comparisons, however, are not enough on their own to prove that the tribal standards are being referenced. But the otherwise puzzling verse—

"Water will flow from his buckets,"

appears more expressly as an allusion to the standard of Reuben, the "man with the river," Aquarius pouring water from his pitcher; and if one be a reference to a standard, the others may also well be.

appears more clearly as a reference to the standard of Reuben, the "man with the river," Aquarius pouring water from his pitcher; and if one is a reference to a standard, the others may also be.

[192]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

AQUARIUS AND THE NEIGHBOURING CONSTELLATIONS.ToList

AQUARIUS AND NEARBY CONSTELLATIONS.ToList

It is surely something more than coincidence that Joseph, who by his father's favour and his own merit was made the leader of the twelve brethren, should be associated with the bull or wild ox, seeing that Taurus was the [193]leader of the zodiac in those ages. It may also well be more than coincidence, that when Moses was in the mount and "the people gathered themselves unto Aaron, and said unto him, Up, make us gods, which shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him," Aaron fashioned the golden earrings given him into the form of a molten calf; into the similitude, that is to say, of Taurus, then Prince of the Zodiac. If we turn to St. Stephen's reference to this occurrence, we find that he says—

It's certainly more than just coincidence that Joseph, who became the leader of the twelve brothers thanks to his father's favoritism and his own abilities, is linked to the bull or wild ox, given that Taurus was the [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]leader of the zodiac back then. It also seems more than coincidental that when Moses was on the mountain and "the people gathered around Aaron, and said to him, 'Get up, make us gods that will go before us; for this Moses, the man who brought us out of the land of Egypt, we don’t know what has happened to him,'" Aaron made a molten calf from the golden earrings they gave him; in other words, it resembled Taurus, the then Prince of the Zodiac. If we look at St. Stephen's reference to this event, we find that he says—

"And they made a calf in those days, and offered sacrifice unto the idol, and rejoiced in the works of their own hands. Then God turned, and gave them up to worship the host of heaven."

"And in those days, they created a calf and sacrificed to the idol, celebrating what they had made with their own hands. Then God turned away and allowed them to worship the heavenly bodies."

In other words, their worship of the golden calf was star worship.

In other words, their worship of the golden calf was idol worship.

It has been often pointed out that this sin of the Israelites, deep as it was, was not in itself a breach of the first commandment—

It has often been noted that this sin of the Israelites, as serious as it was, did not in itself violate the first commandment—

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

"You shall have no other gods before me."

It was a breach of the second—

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself to them nor serve them."

"You shall not make for yourself any carved image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth below, or that is in the water underneath the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them."

The Israelites did not conceive that they were abandoning the worship of Jehovah; they still considered [194]themselves as worshipping the one true God. They were monotheists still, not polytheists. But they had taken the first false step that inevitably leads to polytheism; they had forgotten that they had seen "no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto" them "in Horeb out of the midst of the fire," and they had worshipped this golden calf as the similitude of God; they had "changed their glory into the similitude of an ox that eateth grass." And that was treason against Him; therefore St. Stephen said, "God turned, and gave them up to worship the host of heaven;" the one sin inevitably led to the other, indeed, involved it. In a later day, when Jeroboam, who had been appointed by Solomon ruler over all the charge of the house of Joseph, led the rebellion of the ten tribes against Rehoboam, king of Judah, he set up golden calves at Dan and Bethel, and said unto his people, "It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem: behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt." There can be little doubt that, in this case, Jeroboam was not so much recalling the transgression in the wilderness—it was not an encouraging precedent—as he was adopting the well-known cognizance of the tribe of Joseph, that is to say, of the two tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, which together made up the more important part of his kingdom, as the symbol of the presence of Jehovah.

The Israelites didn’t think they were abandoning the worship of Jehovah; they still saw [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]themselves as worshiping the one true God. They remained monotheists, not polytheists. But they had taken the first wrong step that inevitably leads to polytheism; they had forgotten that they had seen "no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spoke to" them "in Horeb out of the midst of the fire," and they had worshipped this golden calf as the image of God; they had "changed their glory into the likeness of an ox that eats grass." That was treason against Him; therefore St. Stephen said, "God turned, and gave them up to worship the host of heaven;" one sin inevitably led to another, indeed, it was intertwined. Later on, when Jeroboam, who had been appointed by Solomon as the ruler over all the charge of the house of Joseph, led the rebellion of the ten tribes against Rehoboam, king of Judah, he set up golden calves at Dan and Bethel, and said to his people, "It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem: behold your gods, O Israel, which brought you up out of the land of Egypt." There is little doubt that in this case, Jeroboam was not so much recalling the wrongdoing in the wilderness—it was not an encouraging example—as he was using the well-known symbol of the tribe of Joseph, meaning the two tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, which together made up the more significant part of his kingdom, as the symbol of the presence of Jehovah.

The southern kingdom would naturally adopt the device of its predominant tribe, Judah, and it was as the undoubted cognizance of the kingdom of Judah that our Richard I., the Crusader, placed the Lion on his shield.

The southern kingdom would naturally take on the emblem of its main tribe, Judah, and it was as the clear symbol of the kingdom of Judah that our Richard I, the Crusader, put the Lion on his shield.

[195]More definitely still, we find this one of the cherubic forms applied to set forth Christ Himself, as "The Root of David," Prince of the house of Judah—

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]More clearly still, we see this cherubic figure used to represent Christ Himself as "The Root of David," Prince of the house of Judah—

"Behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof."

"Look, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has won the right to open the book and break its seven seals."

FOOTNOTES:

[187:1] Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, III. vii. 5-7.

[196]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

CHAPTER V

LEVIATHAN

There are amongst the constellations four great draconic or serpent-like forms. Chief of these is the great dragon coiled round the pole of the ecliptic and the pole of the equator as the latter was observed some 4600 years ago. This is the dragon with which the Kneeler, Hercules, is fighting, and whose head he presses down with his foot. The second is the great watersnake, Hydra, which 4600 years ago stretched for 105° along the celestial equator of that day. Its head was directed towards the ascending node, that is to say the point where the ecliptic, the sun's apparent path, crosses the equator at the spring equinox; and its tail stretched nearly to the descending node, the point where the ecliptic again meets the equator at the autumn equinox. The third was the Serpent, the one held in the grip of the Serpent-holder. Its head erected itself just above the autumn equinox, and reached up as far as the zenith; its tail lay along the equator. The fourth of these draconic forms was the great Sea-monster, stretched out along the horizon, with a double river—Eridanus—proceeding from it, just below the spring equinox.

There are four major dragon or serpent-like forms among the constellations. The most notable is the great dragon coiled around the pole of the ecliptic and the pole of the equator as it was seen about 4600 years ago. This is the dragon that the Kneeler, Hercules, is battling, pressing its head down with his foot. The second is the great watersnake, Hydra, which back then stretched 105° along the celestial equator. Its head pointed towards the ascending node, the point where the ecliptic, or the sun's apparent path, crosses the equator at the spring equinox, while its tail stretched almost to the descending node, where the ecliptic meets the equator again at the autumn equinox. The third is the Serpent, held firmly by the Serpent-holder. Its head rose just above the autumn equinox and reached up to the zenith, with its tail lying along the equator. The fourth of these dragon forms was the great Sea-monster, lying along the horizon, with a double river—Eridanus—flowing from it, just below the spring equinox.

[197]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

HERCULES AND DRACO.ToList

HERCULES AND DRACO. __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__

[198]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

None of these four figures was suggested by the natural grouping of the stars. Very few of the constellation-figures were so suggested, and these four in particular, as so high an authority as Prof. Schiaparelli expressly points out, were not amongst that few. Their positions show that they were designed some 4600 years ago, and that they have not been materially altered down to the present time. Though no forms or semblances of forms are there in the heavens, yet we still seem to see, as we look upwards, not merely the stars themselves, but the same snakes and dragons, first imagined so many ages ago as coiling amongst them.

None of these four figures was based on the natural arrangement of the stars. Very few of the constellation figures were suggested this way, and these four in particular, as noted by the esteemed Prof. Schiaparelli, were not among those few. Their positions indicate that they were created about 4,600 years ago and have not changed significantly since then. Although there are no shapes or outlines in the sky, when we look up, we still seem to see not just the stars themselves, but also the same snakes and dragons that were first envisioned so long ago, winding among them.

The tradition of these serpentine forms and of their peculiar placing in the heavens was current among the Babylonians quite 1500 years after the constellations were devised. For the little "boundary stones" often display, amongst many other astronomical symbols, the coiled dragon round the top of the stone, the extended snake at its base (see p. 318), and at one or other corner the serpent bent into a right angle like that borne by the Serpent-holder—that is to say, the three out of the four serpentine forms that hold astronomically important positions in the sky.

The tradition of these snake-like shapes and their unique placement in the sky was known to the Babylonians for about 1500 years after the constellations were created. The small "boundary stones" often feature, among various other astronomical symbols, a coiled dragon at the top of the stone, an extended snake at the base (see p. 318), and at one or another corner, the serpent bent at a right angle like the one held by the Serpent-holder—that is, three out of the four snake-like shapes that are astronomically significant in the sky.

The positions held by these three serpents or dragons have given rise to a significant set of astronomical terms. The Dragon marked the poles of both ecliptic and equator; the Watersnake marked the equator almost from node to node; the Serpent marked the equator at one of the nodes. The "Dragon's Head" and the "Dragon's Tail" therefore have been taken as astronomical symbols of the ascending and descending nodes of the sun's [199]apparent path—the points where he seems to ascend above the equator in the spring, and to descend below it again in the autumn.

The positions of these three serpents or dragons have given rise to a significant set of astronomical terms. The Dragon marked the poles of both the ecliptic and the equator; the Watersnake marked the equator almost from one node to the other; the Serpent marked the equator at one of the nodes. The "Dragon's Head" and the "Dragon's Tail" have thus been recognized as astronomical symbols of the ascending and descending nodes of the sun's[a id="Page_199">[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]apparent path—the points where it seems to rise above the equator in the spring and to set below it again in the autumn.

The moon's orbit likewise intersects the apparent path of the sun in two points, its two nodes; and the interval of time between its passage through one of these nodes and its return to that same node again is called a Draconic month, a month of the Dragon. The same symbols are applied by analogy to the moon's nodes.

The moon’s orbit also crosses the sun’s apparent path at two points, known as its two nodes. The time it takes for the moon to pass through one of these nodes and return to that same node is called a Draconic month, or a month of the Dragon. The same symbols are used by analogy for the moon's nodes.

Indeed the "Dragon's Head," ☊, is the general sign for the ascending node of any orbit, whether of moon, planet or comet, and the "Dragon's Tail," ☋, for the descending node. We not only use these signs in astronomical works to-day, but the latter sign frequently occurs, figured exactly as we figure it now, on Babylonian boundary stones 3000 years old.

Indeed the "Dragon's Head," ☊, is the general symbol for the ascending node of any orbit, whether it's a moon, planet, or comet, while the "Dragon's Tail," ☋, represents the descending node. We still use these symbols in modern astronomical texts, and the latter symbol often appears, depicted just as we do today, on Babylonian boundary stones that are 3000 years old.

But an eclipse either of the sun or of the moon can only take place when the latter is near one of its two nodes—is in the "Dragon's Head" or in the "Dragon's Tail." This relation might be briefly expressed by saying that the Dragon—that is of the nodes—causes the eclipse. Hence the numerous myths, found in so many nations, which relate how "a dragon devours the sun (or moon)" at the time of an eclipse.

But a solar or lunar eclipse can only occur when the moon is close to one of its two nodes—either at the "Dragon's Head" or the "Dragon's Tail." This relationship can be summarized by saying that the Dragon—referring to the nodes—causes the eclipse. This explains the many myths found in various cultures that tell how "a dragon devours the sun (or moon)" during an eclipse.

[200]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

HYDRA AND THE NEIGHBOURING CONSTELLATIONS.ToList

Hydra and the Nearby Constellations.ToList

The dragon of eclipse finds its way into Hindoo mythology in a form which shows clearly that the myth arose from a misunderstanding of the constellations. The equatorial Water-snake, stretching from one node nearly to the other, has resting upon it, Crater, the Cup. Combining this with the expression for the two nodes, the [201]Hindu myth has taken the following form. The gods churned the surface of the sea to make the Amrita Cup, the cup of the water of life. "And while the gods were drinking that nectar after which they had so much hankered, a Danava, named Rahu, was drinking it in the guise of a god. And when the nectar had only reached Rahu's throat, the sun and the moon discovered him, and communicated the fact to the gods." Rahu's head was at once cut off, but, as the nectar had reached thus far, it was immortal, and rose to the sky. "From that time hath arisen a long-standing quarrel between Rahu's head and the sun and moon," and the head swallows them from time to time, causing eclipses. Rahu's head marks the ascending, Ketu, the tail, the descending node.

The dragon of eclipse appears in Hindu mythology in a way that clearly shows the myth originated from a misunderstanding of the constellations. The equatorial Water-snake stretches from one node to nearly the other, with Crater, the Cup, resting on it. Combining this with the concept of the two nodes, the Hindu myth takes the following form. The gods churned the surface of the sea to create the Amrita Cup, the cup of the water of life. "And while the gods were drinking that nectar they had long desired, a Danava named Rahu disguised himself as a god and drank it. When the nectar had only reached Rahu's throat, the sun and the moon noticed him and informed the gods." Rahu's head was immediately cut off, but since the nectar had reached this point, it made him immortal and rose to the sky. "Since then, a long-standing conflict has existed between Rahu's head and the sun and moon," with the head occasionally swallowing them, causing eclipses. Rahu's head represents the ascending node, while Ketu represents the tail, the descending node.

This myth is very instructive. Before it could have arisen, not only must the constellations have been mapped out, and the equator and ecliptic both recognized, but the inclination of the moon's orbit to that of the sun must also have been recognized, together with the fact that it was only when the moon was near its node that the eclipses, either of the sun or moon, could take place. In other words, the cause of eclipses must have been at one time understood, but that knowledge must have been afterwards lost. We have seen already, in the chapter on "The Deep," that the Hebrew idea of tehōm could not possibly have been derived from the Babylonian myth of Tiamat, since the knowledge of the natural object must precede the myth founded upon it. If, therefore, Gen. i. and the Babylonian story of Creation be connected, the one as original, the other as derived from that original, it is the [202]Babylonian story that has been borrowed from the Hebrew, and it has been degraded in the borrowing.

This myth is really informative. For it to have come about, not only did the constellations have to be mapped out, but both the equator and the ecliptic needed to be recognized, along with the fact that the moon's orbit is tilted to the sun's orbit. It also had to be understood that eclipses, whether of the sun or the moon, could only happen when the moon was close to its node. In other words, the cause of eclipses must have been known at one point, but that knowledge must have later been lost. As we’ve already discussed in the chapter on "The Deep," the Hebrew concept of tehōm definitely couldn’t have come from the Babylonian myth of Tiamat, because understanding the natural phenomenon must come before the myth that’s based on it. If Gen. i. and the Babylonian Creation story are related, with one being original and the other derived from it, then the Babylonian story is the one that was borrowed from the Hebrew version, and it has been diminished in the process.

So in this case, the myth of the Dragon, whose head and tail cause eclipses, must have been derived from a corruption and misunderstanding of a very early astronomical achievement. The myth is evidence of knowledge lost, of science on the down-grade.

So in this case, the myth of the Dragon, whose head and tail cause eclipses, must have come from a distortion and misunderstanding of a very early astronomical achievement. The myth shows that knowledge was lost, a sign of science declining.

Some may object that the myth may have brought about the conception of the draconic constellations. A very little reflection will show that such a thing was impossible. If the superstition that an eclipse is caused by an invisible dragon swallowing the sun or moon had really been the origin of the constellational dragons, they would certainly have all been put in the zodiac, the only region of the sky where sun or moon can be found; not outside it, where neither can ever come, and in consequence where no eclipse can take place. Nor could such a superstition have led on to the discoveries above-mentioned: that the moon caused eclipses of the sun, the earth those of the moon; that the moon's orbit was inclined to the ecliptic, and that eclipses took place only near the nodes. The idea of an unseen spiritual agent being at work would prevent any search for a physical explanation, since polytheism is necessarily opposed to science.

Some might argue that the myth could have led to the idea of the dragon constellations. A little thought will reveal that this was impossible. If the belief that an invisible dragon swallows the sun or moon during an eclipse had truly inspired the constellational dragons, they would definitely have all been placed in the zodiac, the only part of the sky where the sun or moon appears; not outside of it, where neither can ever be found and where no eclipse can happen. Additionally, such a belief couldn't have contributed to the discoveries mentioned earlier: that the moon causes solar eclipses, the earth causes lunar eclipses; that the moon's orbit is tilted to the ecliptic, and that eclipses only occur near the nodes. The notion of an unseen spiritual force would hinder any quest for a physical explanation, as polytheism fundamentally contradicts science.

There is a word used in Scripture to denote a reptilian monster, which appears in one instance at least to refer to this dragon of eclipse, and so to be used in an astronomical sense. Job, in his first outburst of grief cursed the day in which he was born, and cried—

There is a word used in the Bible to refer to a reptilian monster, which seems to describe this dragon of eclipse at least once, suggesting it has an astronomical meaning. Job, in his first expression of grief, cursed the day he was born and cried—

[203]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

"Let those who curse the day go ahead and do so,
Who are ready (margin, skilled) to awaken Leviathan.
Let the stars of the twilight be dim Let it seek light, but find none; "Don't let it see the morning's eyelids."

"Leviathan" denotes an animal wreathed, gathering itself in coils: hence a serpent, or some great reptile. The description in Job xli. is evidently that of a mighty crocodile, though in Psalm civ. leviathan is said to play in "the great and wide sea," which has raised a difficulty as to its identification in the minds of some commentators. In the present passage it is supposed to mean one of the stellar dragons, and hence the mythical dragon of eclipse. Job desired that the day of his birth should have been cursed by the magicians, so that it had been a day of complete and entire eclipse, not even the stars that preceded its dawn being allowed to shine.

"Leviathan" refers to a creature that coils upon itself: basically a serpent or some large reptile. The description in Job 41 clearly depicts a powerful crocodile, although in Psalm 104, the leviathan is said to swim in "the great and wide sea," which has caused some difficulty in identifying it for certain commentators. In this context, it is thought to refer to one of the starry dragons, and thus the mythical dragon associated with eclipses. Job wished that the day of his birth had been cursed by the sorcerers, so it would have been a day of total and complete eclipse, with not even the stars that came before dawn allowed to shine.

The astronomical use of the word leviathan here renders it possible that there may be in Isa. xxvii. an allusion—quite secondary and indirect however—to the chief stellar dragons.

The extensive use of the word leviathan here suggests that there might be a reference—though secondary and indirect—in Isa. xxvii. to the main celestial dragons.

"In that day the Lord with His sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and He shall slay the dragon that is in the sea."

"In that day the Lord with His fierce and powerful sword shall punish Leviathan, the piercing serpent, even Leviathan the twisted serpent; and He shall slay the dragon that is in the sea."

The marginal reading gives us instead of "piercing," "crossing like a bar"; a most descriptive epithet for the long-drawn-out constellation of Hydra, the Water-snake, which stretched itself for one hundred and five degrees along the primitive equator, and "crossed" the meridian [204]"like a bar" for seven hours out of every twenty-four. "The crooked serpent" would denote the dragon coiled around the poles, whilst "the dragon which is in the sea" would naturally refer to Cetus, the Sea-monster. The prophecy would mean then, that "in that day" the Lord will destroy all the powers of evil which have, as it were, laid hold of the chief places, even in the heavens.

The marginal reading tells us instead of "piercing," "crossing like a bar"; a very descriptive phrase for the long and stretched-out constellation of Hydra, the Water-snake, which extended for one hundred and five degrees along the original equator, and "crossed" the meridian [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] "like a bar" for seven hours out of every twenty-four. "The crooked serpent" would refer to the dragon coiled around the poles, while "the dragon which is in the sea" would obviously refer to Cetus, the Sea-monster. So, the prophecy would mean that "on that day" the Lord will wipe out all the forces of evil that have, in a sense, taken hold of the primary places, even in the heavens.

In one passage "the crooked serpent," here used as a synonym of leviathan, distinctly points to the dragon of the constellations. In Job's last answer to Bildad the Shuhite, he says—

In one passage "the crooked serpent," used here as a synonym for leviathan, clearly refers to the dragon of the constellations. In Job's final response to Bildad the Shuhite, he says—

"He separates the sea with His power,
And with His understanding, He strikes down the proud. (R.V. Rahab.)
By His spirit, He has adorned the heavens;
"His hand has created the twisted serpent."

The passage gives a good example of the parallelism of Hebrew poetry; the repetition of the several terms of a statement, term by term, in a slightly modified sense; a rhyme, if the expression may be used, not of sound, but of signification.

The passage provides a clear example of the parallelism found in Hebrew poetry; the repeated use of various terms in a statement, each with a slightly different meaning; a rhyme, if we can call it that, not based on sound, but on meaning.

Thus in the four verses just quoted, we have three terms in each—agent, action, object;—each appears in the first statement, each appears likewise in the second. The third statement, in like manner, has its three terms repeated in a varied form in the fourth.

Thus in the four verses just quoted, we have three terms in each—agent, action, object;—each appears in the first statement, and each also appears in the second. The third statement, in the same way, has its three terms restated in a different form in the fourth.

Thus—

So—

His power	=	His understanding.
Divideth	=	Smiteth through.
The sea	=	Rahab (the proud).

[205] And—

And—

His spirit	=	His hand.
Hath garnished	=	Hath formed.
The heavens	=	The crooked serpent.

There can be no doubt as to the significance of the two parallels. In the first, dividing the sea, i. e. the Red Sea, is the correlative of smiting through Rahab, "the proud one," the name often applied to Egypt, as in Isa. xxx. 7: "For Egypt helpeth in vain, and to no purpose: therefore have I called her Rahab that sitteth still." In the second, "adorning the heavens" is the correlative of "forming the crooked serpent." The great constellation of the writhing dragon, emphatically a "crooked serpent," placed at the very crown of the heavens, is set for all the constellations of the sky.

There’s no doubt about the importance of the two parallels. In the first, parting the sea, meaning the Red Sea, relates to smiting through Rahab, "the proud one," a name often used for Egypt, as mentioned in Isaiah 30:7: "For Egypt helps in vain, and to no purpose; therefore I have called her Rahab who sits still." In the second, "adorning the heavens" correlates with "forming the crooked serpent." The great constellation of the writhing dragon, definitely a "crooked serpent," is placed right at the top of the heavens, positioned above all the other constellations in the sky.

There are several references to Rahab, as "the dragon which is in the sea," all clearly referring to the kingdom of Egypt, personified as one of her own crocodiles lying-in-wait in her own river, the Nile, or transferred, by a figure of speech, to the Red Sea, which formed her eastern border. Thus in chapter li. Isaiah apostrophizes "the arm of the Lord."

There are several references to Rahab as "the dragon in the sea," all clearly pointing to the kingdom of Egypt, depicted as one of its own crocodiles lurking in its own river, the Nile, or metaphorically applied to the Red Sea, which marked its eastern border. So, in chapter li, Isaiah addresses "the arm of the Lord."

"Aren't You the one who broke Rahab into pieces,
Did that pierce the dragon? Aren't You the one who dried up the sea,
The waters of the deep sea; "Did that make the depths of the sea a path for the redeemed to cross?"

And in Psalm lxxxix. we have—

And in Psalm 89, we have—

"You control the raging of the sea;
When the waves rise, You calm them. You have shattered Rahab like someone who has been killed,
"You have scattered Your enemies with Your powerful arm."

[206] So the prophet Ezekiel is directed—

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] So the prophet Ezekiel is instructed—

"Son of man, take up a lamentation for Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and say unto him, thou wast likened unto a young lion of the nations: yet art thou as a dragon in the seas."

"Son of man, take up a lament for Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and say to him, you were like a young lion among the nations; yet you are like a dragon in the seas."

In all these passages it is only in an indirect and secondary sense that we can see any constellational references in the various descriptions of "the dragon that is in the sea." It is the crocodile of Egypt that is intended; Egypt the great oppressor of Israel, and one of the great powers of evil, standing as a representative of them all. The serpent or dragon forms in the constellations also represented the powers of evil; especially the great enemy of God and man, "the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan." So there is some amount of appropriateness to the watery dragons of the sky—Hydra and Cetus—in these descriptions of Rahab, the dragon of Egypt, without there being any direct reference. Thus it is said of the Egyptian "dragon in the seas," "I have given thee for meat to the beasts of the earth, and to the fowls of the heaven;" and again, "I will cause all the fowls of the heaven to settle upon thee," just as Corvus, the Raven, is shown as having settled upon Hydra, the Water-snake, and is devouring its flesh. Again, Pharaoh, the Egyptian dragon, says, "My river is mine own, and I have made it for myself;" just as Cetus, the Sea-monster, is represented as pouring forth Eridanus, the river, from its mouth.

In all these passages, any constellational references in the descriptions of "the dragon that is in the sea" can only be seen indirectly and secondarily. The primary reference is to the crocodile of Egypt, which symbolizes Egypt as the great oppressor of Israel and one of the main powers of evil, representing them all. The serpent or dragon forms in the constellations also represent the forces of evil, especially the significant enemy of God and humanity, "the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan." Therefore, there is some relevance to the watery dragons of the sky—Hydra and Cetus—in these descriptions of Rahab, the dragon of Egypt, even without a direct reference. It is stated about the Egyptian "dragon in the seas," "I have given you for food to the beasts of the earth, and to the birds of the sky;" and again, "I will cause all the birds of the sky to settle upon you," similar to how Corvus, the Raven, is depicted as having settled on Hydra, the Water-snake, and is devouring its flesh. Moreover, Pharaoh, the Egyptian dragon, claims, "My river is mine own, and I have made it for myself;" just like Cetus, the Sea-monster, is shown as pouring forth Eridanus, the river, from its mouth.

ANDROMEDA AND CETUS.ToList

But a clear and direct allusion to this last grouping of the constellations occurs in the Apocalypse. In the [207]twelfth chapter, the proud oppressor dragon from the sea is shown us again with much fulness of detail. There the Apostle describes his vision of a woman, who evidently represents the people of God, being persecuted by a dragon. There is still a reminiscence of the deliverance of Israel in the Exodus from Egypt, for "the woman fled [208]into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that there they may nourish her a thousand two hundred and threescore days." And the vision goes on:—

But a clear and direct reference to this last grouping of the constellations appears in the Apocalypse. In the [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]twelfth chapter, the proud oppressor dragon from the sea is presented to us again with a lot of detail. There, the Apostle describes his vision of a woman, who clearly symbolizes the people of God, being persecuted by a dragon. There is still a reminder of the deliverance of Israel during the Exodus from Egypt, for "the woman fled [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, so that they may take care of her for a thousand two hundred and sixty days." And the vision continues:—

"And the serpent cast out of his mouth, after the woman water as a river, that he might cause her to be carried away by the stream. And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the river which the dragon cast out of his mouth."

"And the serpent spat out water like a river after the woman, hoping to sweep her away with the current. But the earth came to the woman’s aid; it opened its mouth and swallowed up the river that the dragon had poured out."

This appears to be precisely the action which is presented to us in the three constellations of Andromeda, Cetus, and Eridanus. Andromeda is always shown as a woman in distress, and the Sea-monster, though placed far from her in the sky, has always been understood to be her persecutor. Thus Aratus writes—

This seems to be exactly the situation depicted in the three constellations of Andromeda, Cetus, and Eridanus. Andromeda is consistently portrayed as a woman in distress, and the Sea Monster, despite being located far from her in the sky, has always been interpreted as her tormentor. Hence, Aratus writes—

"Andromeda, even though she travels far away,
"Fears the Sea-monster, lurking in the southern skies."

The latter, baffled in his pursuit of his victim, has cast the river, Eridanus, out of his mouth, which, flowing down below the southern horizon, is apparently swallowed up by the earth.

The latter, confused in his attempt to catch his victim, has spat out the river, Eridanus, which, flowing down beneath the southern horizon, seems to be swallowed up by the earth.

It need occasion no surprise that we should find imagery used by St. John in his prophecy already set forth in the constellations nearly 3,000 years before he wrote. Just as, in this same book, St. John repeated Daniel's vision of the fourth beast, and Ezekiel's vision of the living creatures, as he used the well-known details of the Jewish Temple, the candlesticks, the laver, the altar of incense, so he used a group of stellar figures perfectly well known at the time when he wrote. In so doing the beloved [209]disciple only followed the example which his Master had already set him. For the imagery in the parables of our Lord is always drawn from scenes and objects known and familiar to all men.

It shouldn’t be surprising that St. John used imagery in his prophecy that had already been represented in the constellations nearly 3,000 years before he wrote. Just as St. John repeated Daniel's vision of the fourth beast and Ezekiel's vision of the living creatures in this same book, and referenced the well-known details of the Jewish Temple, such as the candlesticks, the basin, and the altar of incense, he also utilized a group of stellar figures that were well known at the time he was writing. In doing so, the beloved [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]disciple was simply following the example set by his Master. The imagery in our Lord's parables is consistently drawn from scenes and objects that are familiar to everyone.

In two instances in which leviathan is mentioned, a further expression is used which has a distinct astronomical bearing. In the passage already quoted, where Job curses the day of his birth, he desires that it may not "behold the eyelids of the morning." And in the grand description of leviathan, the crocodile, in chapter xli., we have—

In two instances where leviathan is mentioned, there’s another expression that has a clear astronomical connection. In the passage already quoted, where Job curses the day he was born, he wishes that it may not "see the eyelids of the morning." And in the grand description of leviathan, the crocodile, in chapter xli., we have—

"His sneezes flash forth light,
"And his eyes are like the dawn."

Canon Driver considers this as an "allusion, probably to the reddish eyes of the crocodile, which are said to appear gleaming through the water before the head comes to the surface." This is because of the position of the eyes on the animal's head, not because they have any peculiar brilliancy.

Canon Driver views this as an "allusion, probably to the reddish eyes of the crocodile, which are said to gleam through the water before the head surfaces." This is due to the location of the eyes on the animal's head, not because they have any unique brightness.

"It is an idea exclusively Egyptian, and is another link in the chain of evidence which connects the author of the poem with Egypt. The crocodile's head is so formed that its highest points are the eyes; and when it rises obliquely to the surface the eyes are the first part of the whole animal to emerge. The Egyptians observing this, compared it to the sun rising out of the sea, and made it the hieroglyphic representative of the idea of sunrise. Thus Horus Apollo says: When the Egyptians represent the sunrise, they paint the eye of the crocodile, because it is first seen as that animal emerges from the water."[209:1]

"It’s an idea that’s uniquely Egyptian, and it adds another piece to the puzzle that connects the author of the poem to Egypt. The crocodile’s head is shaped so that its highest points are its eyes; when it rises at an angle to the surface, the eyes are the first part of the entire animal to come up. The Egyptians noticed this and compared it to the sun rising from the sea, using it as the hieroglyphic symbol for the idea of sunrise. So, Horus Apollo says: When the Egyptians depict the sunrise, they paint the eye of the crocodile because it is the first thing visible as the animal surfaces from the water."[209:1]

[210]In this likening of the eyes of the crocodile to the eyelids of the morning, we have the comparison of one natural object with another. Such comparison, when used in one way and for one purpose, is the essence of poetry; when used in another way and for another purpose, is the essence of science. Both poetry and science are opposed to myth, which is the confusion of natural with imaginary objects, the mistaking the one for the other.

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]In comparing the eyes of a crocodile to the eyelids of the morning, we're looking at one natural object next to another. This kind of comparison, when applied in a specific way and for a particular reason, captures the essence of poetry; when used differently and for another purpose, it embodies the essence of science. Both poetry and science stand in contrast to myth, which mixes natural and imaginary objects, confusing one for the other.

Thus it is poetry when the Psalmist speaks of the sun "as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber"; for there is no confusion in his thought between the two natural objects. The sun is like the bridegroom in the glory of his appearance. The Psalmist does not ascribe to him a bride and children.

Thus, it is poetry when the Psalmist describes the sun "like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber"; for there is no mix-up in his thinking between the two natural things. The sun resembles the bridegroom in the splendor of his appearance. The Psalmist does not attribute a bride or children to him.

It is science when the astronomer compares the spectrum of the sun with the spectra of various metals in the laboratory. He is comparing natural object with natural object, and is enabled to draw conclusions as to the elements composing the sun, and the condition in which they there exist.

It’s science when the astronomer compares the sun's spectrum with the spectra of different metals in the lab. He’s comparing natural objects with other natural objects, which allows him to draw conclusions about what elements make up the sun and the conditions they exist in there.

But it is myth when the Babylonian represents Bel or Merodach as the solar deity, destroying Tiamat, the dragon of darkness, for there is confusion in the thought. The imaginary god is sometimes given solar, sometimes human, sometimes superhuman characteristics. There is no actuality in much of what is asserted as to the sun or as to the wholly imaginary being associated with it. The mocking words of Elijah to the priests of Baal were justified by the intellectual confusion of their ideas, as well as by the spiritual degradation of their idolatry.

But it's a myth when the Babylonian portrays Bel or Merodach as the sun god who defeats Tiamat, the dragon of darkness, because there’s confusion in that idea. This made-up god is sometimes depicted with solar, sometimes human, and sometimes superhuman traits. A lot of what is claimed about the sun or the completely imaginary being linked to it lacks any real substance. Elijah's mocking words to the priests of Baal were justified by their muddled understanding, as well as by the spiritual decline of their idolatry.

[211]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

"Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awakened."

"Cry out loud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is busy, or he is on a journey, or maybe he's sleeping and needs to be woken up."

Such nature-myths are not indications of the healthy mental development of a primitive people; they are the clear signs of a pathological condition, the symptoms of intellectual disease.

Such nature myths aren’t a sign of healthy mental development in a primitive society; they are clear indications of a pathological condition, the symptoms of an intellectual disease.

It is well to bear in mind this distinction, this opposition between poetry and myth, for ignoring it has led to not a little misconception as to the occurrence of myth in Scripture, especially in connection with the names associated with the crocodile. Thus it has been broadly asserted that "the original mythical signification of the monsters tehôm, livyāthān, tannim, rahâb, is unmistakably evident."

It’s important to remember the difference and contrast between poetry and myth, because overlooking it has caused quite a bit of confusion regarding the presence of myth in Scripture, particularly related to the names connected to the crocodile. Therefore, it has been widely claimed that "the original mythical meaning of the monsters tehôm, livyāthān, tannim, rahâb, is clearly evident."

Of these names the first signifies the world of waters; the second and third real aquatic animals; and the last, "the proud one," is simply an epithet of Egypt, applied to the crocodile as the representation of the kingdom. There is no more myth in setting forth Egypt by the crocodile or leviathan than in setting forth Great Britain by the lion, or Russia by the bear.

Of these names, the first refers to the world of water; the second and third are actual water-dwelling animals; and the last, "the proud one," is just a nickname for Egypt, used for the crocodile as a symbol of the kingdom. There's no more myth in representing Egypt with the crocodile or leviathan than there is in representing Great Britain with the lion or Russia with the bear.

The Hebrews in setting forth their enemies by crocodile and other ferocious reptiles were not describing any imaginary monsters of the primæval chaos, but real oppressors. The Egyptian, with his "house of bondage," the Assyrian, "which smote with a rod," the Chaldean who made havoc of Israel altogether, were not dreams. And in beseeching God to deliver them from their latest oppressor the Hebrews naturally recalled, not some idle tale of the fabulous achievements of Babylonian deities, but the actual [212]deliverance God had wrought for them at the Red Sea. There the Egyptian crocodile had been made "meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness" when the corpses of Pharaoh's bodyguard, cast up on the shore, supplied the children of Israel with the weapons and armour of which they stood in need. So in the day of their utter distress they could still cry in faith and hope—

The Hebrews, when describing their enemies as crocodiles and other fierce reptiles, weren't talking about imaginary monsters from ancient chaos, but real oppressors. The Egyptians with their "house of bondage," the Assyrians who "struck with a rod," and the Chaldeans who devastated Israel were not just figments of imagination. In pleading with God to save them from their latest oppressor, the Hebrews naturally remembered not idle myths about the fantastic deeds of Babylonian gods, but the actual [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]deliverance that God had given them at the Red Sea. There, the Egyptian crocodile had become "food for the people living in the wilderness," as the bodies of Pharaoh's guards washed ashore, providing the Israelites with the weapons and armor they desperately needed. So, even in their deepest distress, they could still cry out in faith and hope—

"Yet God has been my King since ancient times,
Bringing salvation to the people on earth.
You parted the sea with Your strength:
You crushed the heads of the dragons in the waters.
You shattered the heads of Leviathan into pieces,
And gave him to be food for the people living in the wilderness.
You split the fountain and the flood:
You dried up mighty rivers.
The day is Yours, and the night is also Yours: You have created the light and the sun.
You have established all the borders of the earth:
"You have made summer and winter."

FOOTNOTES:

[209:1] P. H. Gosse, in the Imperial Bible-Dictionary.

[213]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

CHAPTER VI

THE PLEIADES

The translators of the Bible, from time to time, find themselves in a difficulty as to the correct rendering of certain words in the original. This is especially the case with the names of plants and animals. Some sort of clue may be given by the context, as, for instance, if the region is mentioned in which a certain plant is found, or the use that is made of it; or, in the case of an animal, whether it is "clean" or "unclean," what are its habits, and with what other animals it is associated. But in the case of the few Scripture references to special groups of stars, we have no such help. We are in the position in which Macaulay's New Zealander might be, if, long after the English nation had been dispersed, and its language had ceased to be spoken amongst men, he were to find a book in which the rivers "Thames," "Trent," "Tyne," and "Tweed" were mentioned by name, but without the slightest indication of their locality. His attempt to fit these names to particular rivers would be little more than a guess—a guess the accuracy of which he would have no means for testing.

The translators of the Bible sometimes struggle with the right translation of specific words in the original text. This is particularly true for the names of plants and animals. The context can sometimes provide a clue, such as mentioning the area where a particular plant grows or how it’s used; or, in the case of an animal, whether it’s "clean" or "unclean," its habits, and the other animals it’s associated with. However, when it comes to the few Biblical references to special groups of stars, we don’t have any of that context. We might be in a situation similar to what Macaulay's New Zealander would face if, long after the English people had spread out and their language was no longer spoken, he found a book that mentioned the rivers "Thames," "Trent," "Tyne," and "Tweed" by name, but offered no clues about where they were located. His effort to match those names to specific rivers would be little more than a guess—and a guess he would have no way of verifying.

This is somewhat our position with regard to the four [214]Hebrew names, Kīmah, Kĕsīl, ‘Ayish, and Mazzaroth; yet in each case there are some slight indications which have given a clue to the compilers of our Revised Version, and have, in all probability, guided them correctly.

This is somewhat our stance regarding the four [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]Hebrew names, Kīmah, Kĕsīl, ‘Ayish, and Mazzaroth; however, in each case, there are some small hints that have provided insight to the compilers of our Revised Version and have likely steered them in the right direction.

The constellations are not all equally attractive. A few have drawn the attention of all men, however otherwise inattentive. North-American Indians and Australian savages have equally noted the flashing brilliancy of Orion, and the compact little swarm of the Pleiades. All northern nations recognize the seven bright stars of the Great Bear, and they are known by a score of familiar names. They are the "Plough," or "Charles's Wain" of Northern Europe; the "Seven Plough Oxen" of ancient Rome; the "Bier and Mourners" of the Arabs; the "Chariot," or "Waggon," of the old Chaldeans; the "Big Dipper" of the prosaic New England farmer. These three groups are just the three which we find mentioned in the earliest poetry of Greece. So Homer writes, in the Fifth Book of the Odyssey, that Ulysses—

The constellations aren't all equally appealing. A few have captured the attention of everyone, even those who aren't usually paying attention. Native Americans and Aboriginal Australians have both noticed the bright brilliance of Orion and the close cluster of the Pleiades. All northern cultures recognize the seven bright stars of the Great Bear, which go by many familiar names. They're called the "Plough" or "Charles's Wain" in Northern Europe; the "Seven Plough Oxen" in ancient Rome; the "Coffin and Mourners" by the Arabs; the "Chariot" or "Wagon" by the ancient Chaldeans; and the "Big Dipper" by the practical farmers of New England. These three groups are the same ones mentioned in the earliest poetry of Greece. As Homer writes in the Fifth Book of the Odyssey, Ulysses—

"There they saw the Pleiades and the Big Dipper," And Great Orion's brighter light,
To which, around the axis of the sky,
"The Bear, turning around, points his golden eye."

It seems natural to conclude that these constellations, the most striking, or at all events the most universally recognized, would be those mentioned in the Bible.

It seems obvious to conclude that these constellations, the most impressive, or at least the most widely recognized, would be the ones mentioned in the Bible.

The passages in which the Hebrew word Kīmah, is used are the following—

The sections where the Hebrew word Kīmah is used are as follows—

[215]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

(God) "maketh Arcturus, Orion, and Pleiades (Kīmah), and the chambers of the south" (Job ix. 9).

(God) "makes Arcturus, Orion, and Pleiades (Kīmah), and the rooms of the south" (Job ix. 9).

"Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades (Kīmah), or loose the bands of Orion?" (Job xxxviii. 31).

"Can you control the beautiful patterns of the Pleiades (Kīmah) or loosen the ties of Orion?" (Job xxxviii. 31).

"Seek Him that maketh the seven stars (Kīmah) and Orion" (Amos v. 8).

"Look for the one who created the seven stars (Kīmah) and Orion" (Amos v. 8).

In our Revised Version, Kīmah is rendered "Pleiades" in all three instances, and of course the translators of the Authorized Version meant the same group by the "seven stars" in their free rendering of the passage from Amos. The word kīmah signifies "a heap," or "a cluster," and would seem to be related to the Assyrian word kimtu, "family," from a root meaning to "tie," or "bind"; a family being a number of persons bound together by the very closest tie of relationship. If this be so we can have no doubt that our translators have rightly rendered the word. There is one cluster in the sky, and one alone, which appeals to the unaided sight as being distinctly and unmistakably a family of stars—the Pleiades.

In our Revised Version, Kīmah is translated as "Pleiades" in all three occurrences, and the translators of the Authorized Version were referring to the same group when they used "seven stars" in their free translation of the passage from Amos. The word kīmah means "a heap" or "a cluster" and seems to be linked to the Assyrian word kimtu, which means "family," coming from a root that means to "tie" or "bind"; a family being a group of individuals closely connected by ties of relationship. If this is the case, we can confidently say that our translators have accurately translated the word. There is one cluster in the sky, and only one, that distinctly and unmistakably looks like a family of stars—the Pleiades.

The names ‘Ash, or ‘Ayish, Kĕsīl, and Kīmah are peculiar to the Hebrews, and are not, so far as we have any evidence at present, allied to names in use for any constellation amongst the Babylonians and Assyrians; they have, as yet, not been found on any cuneiform inscription. Amos, the herdsman of Tekoa, living in the eighth century b.c., two centuries before the Jews were carried into exile to Babylon, evidently knew well what the terms signified, and the writer of the Book of Job was no less aware of their signification. But the "Seventy," who translated the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, were not at [216]all clear as to the identification of these names of constellations; though they made their translation only two or three centuries after the Jews returned to Jerusalem under Ezra and Nehemiah, when oral tradition should have still supplied the meaning of such astronomical terms. Had these names been then known in Babylon, they could not have been unknown to the learned men of Alexandria in the second century before our era, since at that time there was a very direct scientific influence of the one city upon the other. This Hebrew astronomy was so far from being due to Babylonian influence and teaching, that, though known centuries before the exile, after the exile we find the knowledge of its technical terms was lost. On the other hand, kīma was the term used in all Syriac literature to denominate the Pleiades, and we accordingly find in the Peschitta, the ancient Syriac version of the Bible, made about the second century a.d., the term kīma retained throughout, but kesil and ‘ayish were reduced to their supposed Syriac equivalents.

The names ‘Ash, ‘Ayish, Kĕsīl, and Kīmah are unique to the Hebrews and, as far as we currently know, are not related to names used for any constellations by the Babylonians and Assyrians; they haven't been found on any cuneiform inscriptions. Amos, the shepherd from Tekoa living in the eighth century B.C., two centuries before the Jews were exiled to Babylon, clearly understood what these terms meant, and the writer of the Book of Job was equally aware of their significance. However, the "Seventy," who translated the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, were completely unclear about identifying these constellation names; their translation came just two or three centuries after the Jews returned to Jerusalem under Ezra and Nehemiah, a time when oral tradition should have still provided the meanings of such astronomical terms. If these names had been known in Babylon, they wouldn't have been unknown to the scholars in Alexandria in the second century before our era, since there was a strong scientific connection between the two cities at that time. This Hebrew astronomy wasn't influenced by Babylonian teachings; despite being known centuries prior to the exile, we see that after the exile, the knowledge of its technical terms was lost. On the other hand, kīma was the term used in all Syriac literature to refer to the Pleiades, and we can see in the Peshitta, the ancient Syriac version of the Bible created around the second century AD, that the term kīma is consistently used, while kesil and ‘ayish were replaced with their supposed Syriac equivalents.

Whatever uncertainty was felt as to the meaning of kīmah by the early translators, it is not now seriously disputed that the Pleiades is the group of stars in question.

Whatever uncertainty existed regarding the meaning of kīmah by the early translators, it is no longer seriously debated that the Pleiades is the group of stars being referenced.

The word kīmah means, as we have seen, "cluster" or "heap," so also the word Pleiades, which we use to-day, is probably derived from the Greek Pleiones, "many." Several Greek poets—Athenæus, Hesiod, Pindar, and Simonides—wrote the word Peleiades, i. e. "rock pigeons," considered as flying from the Hunter Orion; others made them the seven doves who carried ambrosia to the infant [217]Zeus. D'Arcy Thompson says, "The Pleiad is in many languages associated with bird-names, . . . and I am inclined to take the bird on the bull's back in coins of Eretria, Dicæa, and Thurii for the associated constellation of the Pleiad"[217:1]—the Pleiades being situated on the shoulder of Taurus the Bull.

The word kīmah means, as we’ve seen, "cluster" or "heap," and the word Pleiades that we use today likely comes from the Greek Pleiones, meaning "many." Several Greek poets—Athenæus, Hesiod, Pindar, and Simonides—referenced the term Peleiades, which means "rock pigeons," thought to be flying away from the Hunter Orion; others depicted them as the seven doves who brought ambrosia to the infant [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]Zeus. D'Arcy Thompson mentions, "The Pleiad is connected with bird-names in many languages, . . . and I tend to see the bird on the bull's back in coins from Eretria, Dicæa, and Thurii as the associated constellation of the Pleiade"[217:1]—the Pleiades being located on the shoulder of Taurus the Bull.

The Hyades were situated on the head of the Bull, and in the Euphrates region these two little groups of stars were termed together, Mas-tab-ba-gal-gal-la, the Great Twins of the ecliptic, as Castor and Pollux were the Twins of the zodiac. In one tablet ’Îmina bi, "the sevenfold one," and Gut-dûa, "the Bull-in-front," are mentioned side by side, thus agreeing well with their interpretation of "Pleiades and Hyades." The Semitic name for the Pleiades was also Têmennu; and these groups of stars, worshipped as gods by the Babylonians, may possibly have been the Gad and Meni, "that troop," and "that number," referred to by the prophet Isaiah (lxv. 11).

The Hyades were located on the head of the Bull, and in the Euphrates region, this pair of small star clusters was referred to as Mas-tab-ba-gal-gal-la, the Great Twins of the ecliptic, just like Castor and Pollux were the Twins of the zodiac. In one tablet, ’Îmina bi, "the sevenfold one," and Gut-dûa, "the Bull-in-front," are mentioned together, which fits well with their interpretation of "Pleiades and Hyades." The Semitic name for the Pleiades was also Têmennu; these star clusters, which were worshipped as gods by the Babylonians, may have possibly been the Gad and Meni, "that troop," and "that number," mentioned by the prophet Isaiah (lxv. 11).

On many Babylonian cylinder seals there are engraved seven small discs, in addition to other astronomical symbols. These seven small stellar discs are almost invariably arranged in the form :::' or :::· much as we should now-a-days plot the cluster of the Pleiades when mapping on a small scale the constellations round the Bull. It is evident that these seven little stellar discs do not mean the "seven planets," for in many cases the astronomical symbols which accompany them include both those of the sun and moon. It is most probable that they signify the Pleiades, or perhaps alternatively the Hyades.

On many Babylonian cylinder seals, there are seven small discs engraved, along with other astronomical symbols. These seven small stellar discs are almost always arranged in the form :::' or :::·, similar to how we would plot the Pleiades cluster when mapping the constellations around Taurus on a smaller scale today. It's clear that these seven little stellar discs don't refer to the "seven planets," because in many instances, the astronomical symbols that accompany them include those of the sun and moon. It's highly likely that they represent the Pleiades, or possibly the Hyades instead.

[218]Possibly, reference is made to the worship of the Pleiades when the king of Assyria, in the seventh century b.c., brought men from Babylon and other regions to inhabit the depopulated cities of Samaria, "and the men of Babylon made Succoth-benoth." The Rabbis are said to have rendered this by the "booths of the Maidens," or the "tents of the Daughters,"—the Pleiades being the maidens in question.

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]It’s possible that there is a reference to the worship of the Pleiades when the Assyrian king, in the seventh century B.C., brought people from Babylon and other areas to live in the empty cities of Samaria, "and the people of Babylon made Succoth-benoth." The Rabbis are said to have interpreted this as the "booths of the Maidens" or the "tents of the Daughters,"—with the Pleiades being the maidens in question.

Generally they are the Seven Sisters. Hesiod calls them the Seven Virgins, and the Virgin Stars. The names given to the individual stars are those of the seven daughters of Atlas and Pleione; thus Milton terms them the Seven Atlantic Sisters.

Generally they are the Seven Sisters. Hesiod refers to them as the Seven Virgins and the Virgin Stars. The names assigned to the individual stars are those of the seven daughters of Atlas and Pleione; thus Milton calls them the Seven Atlantic Sisters.

As we have seen (p. 189), the device associated expressly with Joseph is the Bull, and Jacob's blessing to his son has been sometimes rendered—

As we've seen (p. 189), the device specifically linked to Joseph is the Bull, and Jacob's blessing to his son has sometimes been expressed—

"Joseph is a fruitful bough, even a fruitful bough by a well; the daughters walk upon the bull."

"Joseph is a fruitful branch, a fruitful branch by a well; the daughters walk on the bull."

That is, "the Seven Sisters," the Pleiades, are on the shoulder of Taurus.

Aratus wrote of the number of the Pleiades—

Aratus wrote about the number of the Pleiades—

"Seven paths above, they say men travel," Yet only six can be seen by human eyes.
From Zeus' home, no star goes unnoticed,
"Since the moment we were born, we've heard this story told."

STARS OF THE PLEIADES.ToList

Pleiades Stars.ToList

Euripides speaks of these "seven paths," and Eratosthenes calls them "the seven-starred Pleiad," although he describes one as "All-Invisible." There is a surprisingly universal tradition that they "were seven who now are [219]six." We find it not only in ancient Greece and Italy, but also among the black fellows of Australia, the Malays of Borneo, and the negroes of the Gold Coast. There must be some reason to account for this widespread tradition. Some of the stars are known to be slightly variable, and one of the fainter stars in the cluster may have shone more brightly in olden time;—the gaseous spectrum of Pleione renders it credible that this star may once have had great brilliancy. Alcyone, now the brightest star in the cluster, was not mentioned by Ptolemy among the four brightest Pleiads of his day. The six now visible to ordinary sight are Alcyone, Electra, Atlas, Maia, Merope and Taygeta. Celoeno is the next in brightness, and the present candidate for the seventh place. By good sight, several more may be made out: thus Maestlin, the tutor of Kepler, mapped eleven before the invention of the telescope, and in our own day [220]Carrington and Denning have counted fourteen with the naked eye.

Euripides talks about these "seven paths," and Eratosthenes refers to them as "the seven-starred Pleiad," although he describes one as "All-Invisible." There's a surprisingly widespread tradition that they "were seven who now are [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]six." We see this not just in ancient Greece and Italy, but also among the Indigenous Australians, the Malays of Borneo, and the people of the Gold Coast. There must be some reason behind this common tradition. Some of the stars are known to be slightly variable, and one of the dimmer stars in the cluster may have shone more brightly in the past;—the gaseous spectrum of Pleione suggests that this star may once have been very bright. Alcyone, now the brightest star in the cluster, wasn't listed by Ptolemy among the four brightest Pleiads of his time. The six currently visible to the naked eye are Alcyone, Electra, Atlas, Maia, Merope, and Taygeta. Celoeno is the next brightest and is currently considered the potential seventh star. With good eyesight, several more can be spotted: Maestlin, Kepler's tutor, mapped eleven stars before the telescope was invented, and in our own time, [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]Carrington and Denning counted fourteen stars without the use of a telescope.

In clear mountain atmosphere more than seven would be seen by any keen-sighted observer. Usually six stars may be made out with the naked eye in both the Pleiades and the Hyades, or, if more than six, then several more; though with both groups the number of "seven" has always been associated.

In clear mountain air, anyone with sharp eyesight could spot more than seven stars. Typically, you can see six stars with the naked eye in both the Pleiades and the Hyades, and sometimes there are even a few more; however, the number "seven" has always been linked to both groups.

In the New Testament we find the "Seven Stars" also mentioned. In the first chapter of the Revelation, the Apostle St. John says that he "saw seven golden candlesticks; and in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of Man, . . . and He had in His right hand seven stars." Later in the same chapter it is explained that "the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches; and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches." The seven stars in a single compact cluster thus stand for the Church in its many diversities and its essential unity.

In the New Testament, the "Seven Stars" are mentioned as well. In the first chapter of Revelation, the Apostle St. John says he "saw seven golden lampstands; and in the middle of the lampstands was someone like the Son of Man, . . . and He held seven stars in His right hand." Later in the same chapter, it explains that "the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches; and the seven lampstands you saw are the seven churches." The seven stars in a tight cluster represent the Church in its various forms and its fundamental unity.

This beautiful little constellation has become associated with a foolish fable. When it was first found that not only did the planets move round the sun in orbits, but that the sun itself also was travelling rapidly through space, a German astronomer, Mädler, hazarded the suggestion that the centre of the sun's motion lay in the Pleiades. It was soon evident that there was no sufficient ground for this suggestion, and that many clearly established facts were inconsistent with it. Nevertheless the idea caught hold of the popular mind, and it has acquired an amazing vogue. Non-astronomical writers have asserted that [221]Alcyone, the brightest Pleiad, is the centre of the entire universe; some have even been sufficiently irreverent to declare that it is the seat of heaven, the throne of God. A popular London divine, having noticed a bright ring round Alcyone on a photograph of the group, took that halo, which every photographer would at once recognize as a mere photographic defect, as a confirmation of this baseless fancy. Foolishness of this kind has nothing to support it in science or religion; it is an offence against both. We have no reason to regard the Pleiades as the centre of the universe, or as containing the attracting mass which draws our sun forward in its vast mysterious orbit.

This beautiful little constellation has become linked to a silly story. When it was first discovered that not only do the planets revolve around the sun in orbits, but that the sun itself is also moving quickly through space, a German astronomer, Mädler, suggested that the center of the sun's motion lies in the Pleiades. It soon became clear that there was no solid evidence for this idea and that many established facts contradicted it. Still, the notion caught on with the public and became quite popular. Non-astronomical writers have claimed that Alcyone, the brightest Pleiad, is the center of the whole universe; some have even had the audacity to say it's the seat of heaven, the throne of God. A well-known London clergyman, after noticing a bright halo around Alcyone in a photograph of the group, mistakenly took that ring, which any photographer would recognize as a simple photographic flaw, as proof of this baseless belief. Such nonsense has no support in science or religion; it is a disservice to both. We have no reason to consider the Pleiades as the center of the universe or as containing the mass that pulls our sun along in its vast, mysterious orbit.

R. H. Allen, in his survey of the literature of the Pleiades, mentions that "Drach surmised that their midnight culmination in the time of Moses, ten days after the autumnal equinox, may have fixed the Day of Atonement on the 10th of Tishri."[221:1] This is worth quoting as a sample of the unhappy astronomical guesses of commentators. Drach overlooked that his suggestion necessitated the assumption that in the time of Moses astronomers had already learned, first, to determine the actual equinox; next, to observe the culmination of stars on the meridian rather than their risings and settings; and, third and more important, to determine midnight by some artificial measurement of time. None of these can have been primitive operations; we have no knowledge that any of the three were in use in the time of Moses; certainly they were not suitable for a people on the march, like the Israelites in the wilderness. Above all, Drach [222]ignored in this suggestion the fact that the Jewish calendar was a lunar-solar one, and hence that the tenth day of the seventh month could not bear any fixed relation either to the autumnal equinox, or to the midnight culmination of the Pleiades; any more than our Easter Sunday is fixed to the spring equinox on March 22.

R. H. Allen, in his review of the literature on the Pleiades, notes that "Drach suggested that their peak visibility at midnight during the time of Moses, ten days after the autumn equinox, might have influenced the Day of Atonement being set on the 10th of Tishri."[221:1] This is worth quoting as an example of the unfortunate astronomical speculations made by commentators. Drach failed to recognize that his idea required assuming that during Moses' time, astronomers had already learned, first, to identify the actual equinox; next, to track the peak visibility of stars at the meridian rather than just their rises and sets; and, most importantly, to define midnight through some artificial method of measuring time. None of these could have been basic tasks; we have no evidence that any of the three were practiced during Moses' time; they certainly weren't practical for a people on the move, like the Israelites in the wilderness. Most importantly, Drach [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]overlooked that the Jewish calendar was a lunar-solar one, meaning that the tenth day of the seventh month could not have any fixed connection to either the autumn equinox or the peak visibility of the Pleiades; no more than Easter Sunday is linked to the spring equinox on March 22.

The Pleiades were often associated with the late autumn, as Aratus writes—

The Pleiades were often linked to late autumn, as Aratus writes—

"Men see them rising with the setting sun's light,
Forerunners of winter's dark night.

This is what is technically known as the "acronical rising" of the Pleiades, their rising at sunset; in contrast to their "heliacal rising," their rising just before daybreak, which ushered in the spring time. This acronical rising has led to the association of the group with the rainy season, and with floods. Thus Statius called the cluster "Pliadum nivosum sidus," and Valerius Flaccus distinctly used the word "Pliada" for the showers. Josephus says that during the siege of Jerusalem by Antiochus Epiphanes in 170 b.c., the besieged wanted for water until relieved "by a large shower of rain which fell at the setting of the Pleiades." R. H. Allen, in his Star-Names and their Meanings, states that the Pleiades "are intimately connected with traditions of the flood found among so many and widely separated nations, and especially in the Deluge-myth of Chaldæa," but he does not cite authorities or instances.

This is what is technically called the "acronical rising" of the Pleiades, their rising at sunset; in contrast to their "heliacal rising," which occurs just before dawn and signifies the arrival of spring. This acronical rising has linked the group to the rainy season and to floods. For instance, Statius referred to the cluster as "Pliadum nivosum sidus," and Valerius Flaccus specifically used the term "Pliada" to describe the showers. Josephus mentions that during the siege of Jerusalem by Antiochus Epiphanes in 170 B.C., the people trapped inside were in desperate need of water until they were saved "by a large shower of rain that fell at the setting of the Pleiades." R. H. Allen, in his Star-Names and their Meanings, notes that the Pleiades "are closely linked to flood traditions found among many widely separated nations, especially in the Deluge myth of Chaldæa," though he does not provide sources or examples.

The Talmud gives a curious legend connecting the Pleiades with the Flood:—

The Talmud shares an interesting legend linking the Pleiades to the Flood:—

[223]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

"When the Holy One, blessed be He! wished to bring the Deluge upon the world, He took two stars out of Pleiades, and thus let the Deluge loose. And when He wished to arrest it, He took two stars out of Arcturus and stopped it."[223:1]

"When God, blessed be He, wanted to bring the Flood upon the world, He removed two stars from Pleiades, and that caused the Flood to begin. And when He wanted to stop it, He took two stars from Arcturus and brought it to a halt."[223:1]

It would seem from this that the Rabbis connected the number of visible stars with the number of the family in the Ark—with the "few, that is, eight souls . . . saved by water," of whom St. Peter speaks. Six Pleiades only are usually seen by the naked eye; traditionally seven were seen; but the Rabbis assumed that two, not one, were lost.

It seems that the Rabbis linked the number of visible stars to the number of people in the Ark—with the "few, that is, eight souls . . . saved by water," mentioned by St. Peter. Usually, only six Pleiades can be seen with the naked eye; traditionally, seven were visible; but the Rabbis believed that two, not just one, were missing.

Perhaps we may trace a reference to this supposed association of Kīmah with the Flood in the passage from Amos already quoted:—

Perhaps we can find a reference to this suggested connection of Kīmah with the Flood in the passage from Amos that we quoted earlier:—

"Seek Him that maketh the seven stars and Orion, . . . that calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the earth: the Lord is His name."

"Look for Him who created the seven stars and Orion, . . . who calls for the waters of the sea and pours them out over the surface of the earth: the Lord is His name."

Many ancient nations have set apart days in the late autumn in honour of the dead, no doubt because the year was then considered as dead. This season being marked by the acronical rising of the Pleiades, that group has become associated with such observances. There is, however, no reference to any custom of this kind in Scripture.

Many ancient cultures designated days in late autumn to honor the deceased, likely because the year was seen as coming to an end. This time of year is noted for the rising of the Pleiades, which has become linked to these rituals. However, there is no mention of such customs in the Scriptures.

What is the meaning of the inquiry addressed to Job by the Almighty?

What does the question from the Almighty to Job mean?

"Can you control the gentle forces of the Pleiades?"

[224]What was the meaning which it possessed in the thought of the writer of the book? What was the meaning which we should now put on such an inquiry, looking at the constellations from the standpoint which the researches of modern astronomy have given us?

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]What did the writer of the book mean by this? How should we interpret such a question now, considering what modern astronomy has revealed about the stars?

The first meaning of the text would appear to be connected with the apparent movement of the sun amongst the stars in the course of the year. We cannot see the stars by daylight, or see directly where the sun is situated with respect to them; but, in very early times, men learnt to associate the seasons of the year with the stars which were last seen in the morning, above the place where the sun was about to rise; in the technical term once in use, with the heliacal risings of stars. When the constellations were first designed, the Pleiades rose heliacally at the beginning of April, and were the sign of the return of spring. Thus Aratus, in his constellation poem writes—

The first meaning of the text seems to be related to the way the sun appears to move among the stars throughout the year. We can't see the stars during the day or directly determine where the sun is in relation to them; however, in ancient times, people learned to connect the seasons with the stars that were last visible in the morning, just above where the sun was about to rise. This was referred to as the heliacal risings of stars. When the constellations were first named, the Pleiades appeared heliacally at the start of April and signified the arrival of spring. So, Aratus, in his poem about constellations, writes—

"People notice them (i. e. the Pleiades) appearing with the sunlight,
"The sign of summer's brighter days."

They heralded, therefore, the revival of nature from her winter sleep, the time of which the kingly poet sang so alluringly—

They announced the awakening of nature from her winter slumber, the time that the royal poet sang about so beautifully—

"Because, look, winter is over,
The rain has stopped and it's gone; The flowers bloom on the ground;
The time for the birds to sing has arrived,
And the turtle's voice is heard in our land; The fig tree is ripening its green figs,
And the vines are blooming,
They release their fragrance.

[225] The constellation which thus heralded the return of this genial season was poetically taken as representing the power and influence of spring. Their "sweet influences" were those that had rolled away the gravestone of snow and ice which had lain upon the winter tomb of nature. Theirs was the power that brought the flowers up from under the turf; earth's constellations of a million varied stars to shine upwards in answer to the constellations of heaven above. Their influences filled copse and wood with the songs of happy birds. Theirs stirred anew the sap in the veins of the trees, and drew forth their reawakened strength in bud and blossom. Theirs was the bleating of the new-born lambs; theirs the murmur of the reviving bees.

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] The constellation that announced the arrival of this cheerful season was seen as a symbol of the power and influence of spring. Their "sweet influences" were what had melted away the snow and ice that covered nature's winter grave. It was their power that pushed the flowers up from beneath the ground; earth’s stars, a million in variety, shining up in response to the heavenly constellations above. Their influence filled the forest and woods with the songs of joyful birds. It renewed the sap in the trees, drawing out their revived strength in buds and blossoms. It brought the bleating of newborn lambs and the buzzing of the waking bees.

Upon this view, then, the question to Job was, in effect, "What control hast thou over the powers of nature? Canst thou hold back the sun from shining in spring-time—from quickening flower, and herb, and tree with its gracious warmth? This is God's work, year by year over a thousand lands, on a million hills, in a million valleys. What canst thou do to hinder it?"

Upon this view, then, the question to Job was basically, "What control do you have over the forces of nature? Can you stop the sun from shining in spring—preventing flowers, plants, and trees from blossoming with its warm rays? This is God's work, year after year across a thousand lands, on millions of hills, in countless valleys. What can you do to stop it?"

The question was a striking one; one which must have appealed to the patriarch, evidently a keen observer and lover of nature; and it was entirely in line with the other inquiries addressed to him in the same chapter.

The question was a striking one; one that must have resonated with the patriarch, clearly a keen observer and lover of nature; and it was completely in line with the other inquiries directed at him in the same chapter.

"Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?"

"Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?"

The Revised Version renders the question—

The Revised Version puts the question—

"Canst thou bind the cluster of the Pleiades?"

"Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades?"

[226]reading the Hebrew word Ma‘anaddoth, instead of Ma’adannoth, following in this all the most ancient versions. On this view, Job is, in effect, asked, "Canst thou gather together the stars in the family of the Pleiades and keep them in their places?"

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]reading the Hebrew word Ma‘anaddoth, instead of Ma’adannoth, following this with all the oldest versions. From this perspective, Job is essentially being asked, "Can you gather the stars in the Pleiades and hold them in their places?"

The expression of a chain or band is one suggested by the appearance of the group to the eye, but it is no less appropriate in the knowledge which photography and great telescopes have given us. To quote from Miss Clerke's description of the nebula discovered round the brighter stars of the Pleiades—Alcyone, Asterope, Celœno, Electra, Maia, Merope and Taygeta:—[227]

The idea of a chain or band comes from how the group looks to our eyes, but it's equally fitting based on what photography and powerful telescopes have revealed to us. To quote Miss Clerke's description of the nebula found around the brighter stars of the Pleiades—Alcyone, Asterope, Celœno, Electra, Maia, Merope, and Taygeta:—[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

[228]"Besides the Maia vortex, the Paris photographs depicted a series of nebulous bars on either side of Merope, and a curious streak extending like a finger-post from Electra towards Alcyone . . . Streamers and fleecy masses of cosmical fog seem almost to fill the spaces between the stars, as clouds choke a mountain valley. The chief points of its concentration are the four stars Alcyone, Merope, Maia, and Electra; but it includes as well Celœno and Taygeta, and is traceable southward from Asterope over an arc of 1° 10´. . . . The greater part of the constellation is shown as veiled in nebulous matter of most unequal densities. In some places it lies in heavy folds and wreaths, in others it barely qualifies the darkness of the sky-ground. The details of its distribution come out with remarkable clearness, and are evidently to a large extent prescribed by the relative situations of the stars. Their lines of junction are frequently marked by nebulous rays, establishing between them, no doubt, relations of great physical importance; and masses of nebula, in numerous instances, seem as if pulled out of shape and drawn into festoons by the attractions of neighbouring stars. But the strangest [229]exemplification of this filamentous tendency is in a fine, thread-like process, 3´´ or 4´´ wide, but 35´ to 40´ long, issuing in an easterly direction from the edge of the nebula about Maia, and stringing together seven stars, met in its advance, like beads on a rosary. The largest of these is apparently the occasion of a slight deviation from its otherwise rectilinear course. A second similar but shorter streak runs, likewise east and west, through the midst of the formation."[229:1]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]"In addition to the Maia vortex, the Paris photos showed a series of hazy bands flanking Merope and a strange streak extending like a signpost from Electra towards Alcyone . . . Streams and fluffy patches of cosmic fog nearly fill the gaps between the stars, resembling clouds filling a mountain valley. The main focus of this phenomenon includes the four stars Alcyone, Merope, Maia, and Electra, but also encompasses Celœno and Taygeta, extending southward from Asterope over an angle of 1° 10′ . . . . Most of the constellation appears shrouded in foggy material of varying densities. In some areas, it gathers in thick folds and curls, while in others, it barely breaks up the darkness of the night sky. The details of its arrangement become strikingly clear, largely dictated by the positions of the stars. Their connecting lines are often highlighted by nebulous rays, likely indicating significant physical interactions between them; and in many cases, clumps of nebula seem as if stretched out and sculpted into loops by the gravitational pull of nearby stars. However, the most peculiar demonstration of this thread-like quality is in a fine, slim strand, 3″ or 4″ wide but stretching 35′ to 40′ long, extending eastward from the edge of the nebula around Maia, linking seven stars it encounters along its path like beads on a necklace. The largest of these seems to cause a slight bend in its otherwise straight trajectory. A second similar, yet shorter, streak also runs east to west through the center of the formation."[229:1]

NEBULOSITIES OF THE PLEIADES.
Photographed by Dr. Max Wolf, Heidelberg.ToList

Pleiades Nebulae.
Photographed by Dr. Max Wolf, Heidelberg.ToList

Later photographs have shown that not only are the several stars of the Pleiades linked together by nebulous filaments, but the whole cluster is embedded in a nebulous net that spreads its meshes far out into space. Not only is the group thus tied or bound together by nebulous clouds, it has other tokens of forming but a single family. The movements of the several stars have been carefully measured, and for the most part the entire cluster is drifting in the same direction; a few stars do not share in the common motion, and are probably apparent members, seen in perspective projected on the group, but in reality much nearer to us. The members of the group also show a family likeness in constitution. When the spectroscope is turned upon it, the chief stars are seen to closely resemble each other; the principal lines in their spectra being those of hydrogen, and these are seen as broad and diffused bands, so that the spectrum we see resembles that of the brightest star of the heavens, Sirius.

Later photographs have shown that not only are the several stars of the Pleiades connected by fuzzy filaments, but the entire cluster is also situated in a hazy web that stretches far out into space. The group is tied together by these nebulous clouds and shows other signs of being a single family. The movements of the various stars have been carefully measured, and mostly, the whole cluster is drifting in the same direction; a few stars don’t share this common motion and are likely just illusions, seen in perspective against the group, but actually much closer to us. The members of the group also share a family resemblance in their makeup. When we use a spectroscope on it, the main stars appear to be very similar to each other; the key lines in their spectra are primarily those of hydrogen, appearing as broad and diffuse bands, making the spectrum we observe resemble that of the brightest star in the sky, Sirius.

There can be little doubt but that the leaders of the group are actually greater, brighter suns than Sirius itself. We do not know the exact distance of the Pleiades, they [230]are so far off that we can scarcely do more than make a guess at it; but it is probable that they are so far distant that our sun at like distance would prove much too faint to be seen at all by the naked eye. The Pleiades then would seem to be a most glorious star-system, not yet come to its full growth. From the standpoint of modern science we may interpret the "chain" or "the sweet influences" of the Pleiades as consisting in the enfolding wisps of nebulosity which still, as it were, knit together those vast young suns; or, and in all probability more truly, as that mysterious force of gravitation which holds the mighty system together, and in obedience to which the group has taken its present shape. The question, if asked us to-day, would be, in effect, "Canst thou bind together by nebulous chains scores of suns, far more glorious than thine own, and scattered over many millions of millions of miles of space; or canst thou loosen the attraction which those suns exercise upon each other, and move them hither and thither at thy will?"

There’s little doubt that the leaders of the group are actually greater, brighter stars than Sirius itself. We don’t know the exact distance of the Pleiades; they are so far away that we can barely make an educated guess about it. However, it's likely that they are so distant that our sun, at a similar distance, would be too faint to be seen by the naked eye. The Pleiades then seem to be an incredibly beautiful star system, not yet fully developed. From a modern science perspective, we can interpret the "chain" or "the sweet influences" of the Pleiades as the wisps of nebulosity that still, in a way, connect those vast young stars together; or, more likely, as that mysterious gravitational force that keeps the entire system intact and shapes the group as it is now. If we were asked the question today, it would effectively be: "Can you bind together by nebulous chains many stars, far more magnificent than your own, scattered over countless millions of miles of space; or can you break the attraction those stars have for one another and move them around at your command?"

FOOTNOTES:

[217:1] Glossary of Greek Birds, pp. 28, 29.

[221:1] R. H. Allen, Star Names and their Meanings, p. 401.

[223:1] Berachoth, fol. 59, col. 1.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Berachoth, fol. 59, col. 1.

[229:1] The System of the Stars, 1st edit., pp. 230-232.

[229:1] The System of the Stars, 1st ed., pp. 230-232.

[231]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

CHAPTER VII

ORION

Kĕsīl, the word rendered by our translators "Orion," occurs in an astronomical sense four times in the Scriptures; twice in the Book of Job, once in the prophecy of Amos, and once, in the plural, in the prophecy of Isaiah. In the three first cases the word is used in conjunction with Kīmah, "the Pleiades," as shown in the preceding chapter. The fourth instance is rendered in the Authorized Version—

Kĕsīl, the term our translators translate as "Orion," appears four times in an astronomical context in the Scriptures; twice in the Book of Job, once in the prophecy of Amos, and once, in the plural, in the prophecy of Isaiah. In the first three instances, the word is used along with Kīmah, "the Pleiades," as mentioned in the previous chapter. The fourth instance is translated in the Authorized Version—

"For the stars of heaven and the constellations (Kĕsīlim) thereof shall not give their light."

"For the stars in the sky and the constellations (Kĕsīlim) won’t provide their light."

The Hebrew word Kĕsīl signifies "a fool," and that in the general sense of the term as used in Scripture; not merely a silly, untaught, feckless person, but a godless and an impious one. Thus, in the Book of Proverbs, Divine Wisdom is represented as appealing—

The Hebrew word Kĕsīl means "a fool," and that refers to the broader sense of the term in Scripture; not just a silly, uneducated, careless person, but someone who is godless and impious. In the Book of Proverbs, Divine Wisdom is shown as appealing—

"How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?"

"How long, you naive ones, will you embrace simplicity? The mockers take pleasure in their mockery, and fools despise knowledge?"

THE STARS OF ORION.ToList

What constellation was known to the ancient Hebrews as "the fool"? The Seventy who rendered the Old [232]Testament into Greek confess themselves at fault. Once, in Amos, both Kīmah and Kĕsīl are left untranslated. Instead of "Him that maketh the seven stars and Orion," we have the paraphrase, "That maketh and transformeth all things." Once, in Job, it is rendered "Hesperus," the evening star; and in the other two instances it is given as "Orion." The tradition of the real meaning of the word as an astronomical term had been lost, or at least much [233]confused before the Septuagint Version was undertaken. The Jews had not, so far as there is any present evidence, learned the term in Babylon, for the word has not yet been found as a star-name on any cuneiform inscription. It was well known before the Exile, for Amos and Isaiah both use it, and the fact that the author of Job also uses it, indicates that he did not gain his knowledge of the constellation during the Babylonian captivity.

What constellation did the ancient Hebrews refer to as "the fool"? The translators of the Old [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]Testament into Greek admit their mistakes. In Amos, both Kīmah and Kĕsīl are left untranslated. Instead of saying "He who made the seven stars and Orion," they paraphrase it as "He who makes and transforms all things." Once in Job, it’s translated as "Hesperus," the evening star; and in the other two instances, it’s referred to as "Orion." The original astronomical meaning of the term seems to have been lost, or at least greatly confused, before the Septuagint version was created. As far as we know, the Jews didn't learn the term during their time in Babylon, since the word hasn't been found as a star name on any cuneiform inscription. It was widely recognized before the Exile, as both Amos and Isaiah mention it, and the fact that the author of Job also references it suggests that he didn't learn about the constellation during the Babylonian captivity.

The majority of translators and commentators have, however, agreed in believing that the brightest and most splendid constellation in the sky is intended—the one which we know as Orion. This constellation is one of the very few in which the natural grouping of the stars seems to suggest the figure that has been connected with it. Four bright stars, in a great trapezium, are taken to mark the two shoulders and the two legs of a gigantic warrior; a row of three bright stars, midway between the four first named, suggest his gemmed belt; another row of stars straight down from the centre star of the belt, presents his sword; a compact cluster of three stars marks his head. A gigantic warrior, armed for the battle, seems thus to be outlined in the heavens. As Longfellow describes him—

The majority of translators and commentators have agreed that the brightest and most striking constellation in the sky is the one we know as Orion. This constellation is one of the few where the natural arrangement of the stars appears to form the figure associated with it. Four bright stars create a large trapezoid, marking the two shoulders and two legs of a gigantic warrior; a row of three bright stars, positioned between the first four, represents his jeweled belt; another line of stars directly below the center star of the belt shows his sword; and a tight cluster of three stars signifies his head. It seems that a massive warrior, ready for battle, is outlined in the sky. As Longfellow describes him—

"Surrounded by many bright stars,
Stood the giant, Algebar,
Orion, beast hunter!
His sword shone brightly at his side,
And, on his arm, the lion's skin Scattered across the night sky
The golden shine of its hair.

In accord with the form naturally suggested by the [234]grouping of the stars, the Syrians have called the constellation Gabbārā; and the Arabs, Al Jabbār; and the Jews, Gibbōr. The brightest star of the constellation, the one in the left knee, now generally known as Rigel, is still occasionally called Algebar, a corruption of Al Jabbār, though one of the fainter stars near it now bears that name. The meaning in each case is "the giant," "the mighty one," "the great warrior," and no doubt from the first formation of the constellations, this, the most brilliant of all, was understood to set forth a warrior armed for the battle. There were gibbōrim before the Flood; we are told that after "the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men (gibbōrim) which were of old, men of renown."

In line with the natural shape suggested by the [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]grouping of the stars, the Syrians named the constellation Gabbārā; the Arabs, Al Jabbār; and the Jews, Gibbōr. The brightest star in the constellation, located in the left knee, is now commonly known as Rigel, but it's still sometimes referred to as Algebar, which is a variation of Al Jabbār, even though a fainter star nearby now has that name. In each case, the meaning is "the giant," "the mighty one," or "the great warrior," and since the constellations were first formed, this one, being the brightest of them all, was recognized as representing a warrior ready for battle. There were gibbōrim before the Flood; it is said that after "the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them, these became mighty men (gibbōrim) who were of old, men of renown."

But according to Jewish tradition, this constellation was appropriated to himself by a particular mighty man. We are told in Gen. x. that—

But according to Jewish tradition, this constellation was claimed by a certain powerful figure. We are told in Gen. x. that—

"Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one (gibbōr) in the earth."

"Cush was the father of Nimrod; he became a powerful figure (gibbōr) on the earth."

and it is alleged that he, or his courtiers, in order to flatter him, gave his name to this constellation, just as thousands of years later the University of Leipzic proposed to call the belt stars of Orion, Stellæ Napoleonis, "the Constellation of Napoleon."[234:1]

and it's said that he, or his courtiers, to flatter him, named this constellation, just like thousands of years later the University of Leipzig suggested calling the belt stars of Orion, Stellæ Napoleonis, "the Constellation of Napoleon."[234:1]

[235]There was at one time surprise felt, that, deeply as the name of Nimrod had impressed itself upon Eastern tradition, his name, as such, was "nowhere found in the extensive literature which has come down to us" from Babylon. It is now considered that the word, Nimrod, is simply a Hebrew variant of Merodach, "the well-known head of the Babylonian pantheon." He was probably "the first king of Babylonia or the first really great ruler of the country." It is significant, as Mr. T. G. Pinches points out, in his Old Testament in the Light of the Records from Assyria and Babylonia, that just as in Genesis it is stated that "the beginning of his (Nimrod's) kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh," so Merodach is stated, in the cuneiform records, to have built Babel and Erech and Niffer, which last is probably Calneh. [236]The Hebrew scribes would seem to have altered the name of Merodach in two particulars: they dropped the last syllable, thus suggesting that the name was derived from Marad, "the rebellious one"; and they prefixed the syllable "Ni," just as "Nisroch" was written for "Assur." "From a linguistic point of view, therefore, the identification of Nimrod as a changed form of Merodach is fully justified."

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]At one time, it was surprising that, despite Nimrod's strong presence in Eastern tradition, his name was "nowhere found in the extensive literature that has come down to us" from Babylon. It's now thought that the name Nimrod is just a Hebrew version of Merodach, "the well-known leader of the Babylonian pantheon." He was likely "the first king of Babylonia or the first truly great ruler of the nation." It's notable, as Mr. T. G. Pinches points out in his Old Testament in the Light of the Records from Assyria and Babylonia, that just as Genesis states "the beginning of his (Nimrod's) kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh," Merodach is noted in the cuneiform records to have built Babel and Erech and Niffer, which is likely Calneh. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]The Hebrew scribes seem to have altered Merodach's name in two ways: they dropped the last syllable, suggesting the name came from Marad, "the rebellious one"; and they added the syllable "Ni," similar to how "Nisroch" was used for "Assur." "From a linguistic point of view, therefore, identifying Nimrod as a modified form of Merodach is fully supported."

ORION AND THE NEIGHBOURING CONSTELLATIONS.ToList

ORION AND THE SURROUNDING CONSTELLATIONS.ToList

The attitude of Orion in the sky is a striking one. The warrior is represented as holding a club in the right hand, and a skin or shield in the left. His left foot is raised high as if he were climbing a steep ascent, he seems to be endeavouring to force his way up into the zodiac, and—as Longfellow expresses it—to be beating the forehead of the [237]Bull. His right leg is not shown below the knee, for immediately beneath him is the little constellation of the Hare, by the early Arabs sometimes called, Al Kursiyy al Jabbār, "the Chair of the Giant," from its position. Behind Orion are the two Dogs, each constellation distinguished by a very brilliant star; the Greater Dog, by Sirius, the brightest star in the heavens; the Lesser Dog, by Procyon, i.e. the "Dog's Forerunner." Not far above Orion, on the shoulder of the Bull, is the little cluster of the Pleiades.

The position of Orion in the sky is impressive. The warrior is depicted holding a club in his right hand and a skin or shield in his left. His left foot is lifted high as if he’s climbing a steep slope, seemingly trying to force his way into the zodiac, and—as Longfellow puts it—beating the forehead of the [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]Bull. His right leg isn’t shown below the knee because right below him is the small constellation of the Hare, which early Arabs sometimes referred to as Al Kursiyy al Jabbār, "the Chair of the Giant," due to its position. Behind Orion are the two Dogs, each marked by a very bright star; the Greater Dog is marked by Sirius, the brightest star in the sky, while the Lesser Dog is marked by Procyon, meaning "the Dog's Forerunner." Just above Orion, on the shoulder of the Bull, is the small cluster of the Pleiades.

There are—as we have seen—only three passages where Kīmah, literally "the cluster" or "company,"—the group we know as the Pleiades,—is mentioned in Scripture; and in each case it is associated with Kĕsīl, "the fool,"—Orion. Several Greek poets give us the same association, likening the stars to "rock-pigeons, flying from the Hunter Orion." And Hesiod in his Works and Days writes—

There are—like we’ve seen—only three instances where Kīmah, literally "the cluster" or "company,"—the group we know as the Pleiades,—is mentioned in the Bible; and in each case, it’s linked with Kĕsīl, "the fool,"—Orion. Several Greek poets make the same connection, comparing the stars to "rock pigeons, flying from the Hunter Orion." And Hesiod in his Works and Days writes—

"Don't forget to plough,
When the Seven Virgins and Orion set: So an advantage will always be obvious,
In every task throughout the year.
If the desire for profit dominates your thoughts,
And entices you to the risks of the sea,
Yet the vessel remains safely in her harbor,
When the mighty Orion hunts down into the depths
The Virgin stars.

There is a suggestion of intense irony in this position of Orion amongst the other constellations. He is trampling on the Hare—most timid of creatures; he is climbing up into the zodiac to chase the little company of the Pleiades—be they seven doves or seven maidens—and he is thwarted even in this unheroic attempt by the determined attitude of the guardian Bull.

There’s a hint of deep irony in Orion's place among the other constellations. He’s trampling on the Hare— the most timid of animals; he’s climbing into the zodiac to pursue the small group of the Pleiades—whether they’re seven doves or seven maidens—and he’s even blocked in this unheroic effort by the steadfast presence of the Bull.

[238]A similar irony is seen in the Hebrew name for the constellation. The "mighty Hunter," the great hero whom the Babylonians had deified and made their supreme god, the Hebrews regarded as the "fool," the "impious rebel." Since Orion is Nimrod, that is Merodach, there is small wonder that Kĕsīl was not recognized as his name in Babylonia.[238:1]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]A similar irony is seen in the Hebrew name for the constellation. The "mighty Hunter," the great hero whom the Babylonians turned into a god and made their supreme deity, was seen by the Hebrews as the "fool," the "impious rebel." Since Orion represents Nimrod, also known as Merodach, it’s no surprise that Kĕsīl wasn’t recognized as his name in Babylonia.[238:1]

The attitude of Orion—attempting to force his way upward into the zodiac—and the identification of Merodach with him, gives emphasis to Isaiah's reproach, many centuries later, against the king of Babylon, the successor of Merodach—

The attitude of Orion—trying to push his way up into the zodiac—and the association of Merodach with him highlights Isaiah's criticism, many centuries later, against the king of Babylon, the successor of Merodach—

"Thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the Most High."

"You have said in your heart, 'I will rise to heaven, I will elevate my throne above the stars of God: I will also sit on the mountain of the assembly, in the northern reaches: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the Most High.'"

In the sight of the Hebrew prophets and poets, Merodach, in taking to himself this group of stars, published his shame and folly. He had ascended into heaven, but his [239]glittering belt was only his fetter; he was bound and gibbeted in the sky like a captive, a rebel, and who could loose his bands?

In the view of the Hebrew prophets and poets, Merodach, by claiming this group of stars for himself, revealed his shame and foolishness. He had risen to heaven, but his [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]shining belt was just his chain; he was trapped and displayed in the sky like a prisoner, a rebel, and who could set him free?

In the thirteenth chapter of Isaiah we have the plural of kĕsīl—kĕsīlim. It is usually understood that we have here Orion, as the most splendid constellation in the sky, put for the constellations in general. But if we remember that kĕsīl stands for "Nimrod" or "Merodach," the first proud tyrant mentioned by name in Scripture, the particular significance of the allusion becomes evident—

In the thirteenth chapter of Isaiah, we find the plural of kĕsīl—kĕsīlim. It's commonly interpreted as referring to Orion, the most impressive constellation in the sky, symbolizing constellations in general. However, if we consider that kĕsīl represents "Nimrod" or "Merodach," the first arrogant tyrant named in Scripture, the specific meaning of the reference becomes clear—

"Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it. For the stars of heavens and the constellations"—(that is the kĕsīlim, the Nimrods or Merodachs of the sky)—"thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine. And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible."

"Look, the day of the Lord is coming, harsh with anger and fierce wrath, to make the land desolate; and He will remove the sinners from it. For the stars in the heavens and the constellations"—(that is the kĕsīlim, the Nimrods or Merodachs of the sky)—"will not give their light: the sun will be darkened as it rises, and the moon will not shine. I will punish the world for their wickedness and the evil for their wrongdoing; I will put an end to the arrogance of the proud and bring down the haughtiness of the mighty."

The strictly astronomical relations of Orion and the Pleiades seem to be hinted at in Amos and in Job—

The clear astronomical connections of Orion and the Pleiades appear to be suggested in Amos and in Job—

"Seek Him that maketh the seven stars and Orion, and turneth the shadow of death into the morning, and maketh the day dark with night."

"Look for the one who created the seven stars and Orion, who turns the shadow of death into morning, and who makes the day dark with night."

In this passage the parallelism seems to be between the seven stars, the Pleiades, with sunrise, and Orion with sunset. Now at the time and place when the constellations were mapped out, the Pleiades were the immediate heralds of sunrise, shortly after the spring equinox, at the [240]season which would correspond to the early part of April in our present calendar. The rising of Orion at sunset—his acronical rising—was early in December, about the time when the coldest season of the year begins. The astronomical meaning of the "bands of Orion" would therefore be the rigour in which the earth is held during the cold of winter.

In this passage, the connection seems to be between the seven stars of the Pleiades, which signify sunrise, and Orion, which represents sunset. At the time and place when the constellations were first mapped, the Pleiades were the direct signifiers of sunrise shortly after the spring equinox, during the [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]season that would align with early April in our current calendar. The appearance of Orion at sunset—his acronical rising—occurred in early December, around when the coldest season of the year starts. Thus, the astronomical significance of the "bands of Orion" represents the severity with which winter grips the earth.

It is possible that the two great stars which follow Orion, Sirius and Procyon, known to the ancients generally and to us to-day as "the Dogs," were by the Babylonians known as "the Bow-star" and "the Lance-star"; the weapons, that is to say, of Orion or Merodach. Jensen identifies Sirius with the Bow-star, but considers that the Lance-star was Antares; Hommel, however, identifies the Lance-star with Procyon. In the fifth tablet of the Babylonian Creation epic as translated by Dr. L. W. King, there is an interesting account of the placing of the Bow-star in the heavens. After Merodach had killed Tiamat—

It’s possible that the two bright stars that follow Orion, Sirius and Procyon, commonly known to the ancients and to us today as "the Dogs," were referred to by the Babylonians as "the Bow-star" and "the Lance-star"; essentially, the weapons of Orion or Merodach. Jensen identifies Sirius as the Bow-star, but thinks the Lance-star was Antares; however, Hommel believes the Lance-star is Procyon. In the fifth tablet of the Babylonian Creation epic, as translated by Dr. L. W. King, there’s a fascinating account of how the Bow-star was placed in the sky. After Merodach had defeated Tiamat—

75. "The gods (his fathers) saw the net he had created,
76. They saw the bow and how its work was done.
77. They praised the work he had done [ . . . ]
78. Then Anu spoke up in the gathering of the gods.
79. He kissed the bow, saying, "It is [ . . . ]"!
80. And so he gave names to the bow, saying,
81. 'Long-wood will be one name, and the second name [will be . . . ],
82. Its third name will be the Bow-star, in the sky [shall it . . . ]!'
83. Then he set up a station for it.

Dr. Cheyne even considers that he has found a reference to these two stars in Job xxxviii. 36—

Dr. Cheyne even thinks he has found a reference to these two stars in Job xxxviii. 36—

[241]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

"Who has placed wisdom in the inner being (Lance-star),
"Or who has provided understanding to the heart (Bow-star)."

But this interpretation does not appear to have been generally accepted. The same high authority suggests that the astronomical allusions in Amos may have been inserted by a post-exilic editor, thus accounting for the occurrence of the same astronomical terms as are found in Job, which he assigns to the exilic or post-exilic period. This seems a dangerous expedient, as it might with equal reason be used in many other directions. Further, it entirely fails to explain the real difficulty that kīmah and kĕsīl have not been found as Babylonian constellation names, and that their astronomical signification had been lost by the time that the "Seventy" undertook their labours.

But this interpretation doesn't seem to have been widely accepted. The same high authority suggests that the astronomical references in Amos might have been added by an editor after the exile, which would explain why the same astronomical terms appear in Job, which is associated with the exilic or post-exilic period. This approach seems risky, as it could just as easily apply in many other contexts. Moreover, it completely fails to address the main issue that kīmah and kĕsīl have not been identified as Babylonian constellation names, and that their astronomical meanings were already lost by the time the "Seventy" began their work.

Quite apart from the fact that the Babylonians could not give the name of "Fool" to the representation in the sky of their supreme deity, the Hebrews and the Babylonians regarded the constellation in different ways. Several Assyriologists consider that the constellations, Orion and Cetus, represent the struggle between Merodach and Tiamat, and this conjecture is probably correct, so far as Babylonian ideas of the constellations are concerned, for Tiamat is expressly identified on a Babylonian tablet with a constellation near the ecliptic.[241:1] But this means that the myth originated in the star figures, and was the Babylonian interpretation of them. In this case, Cetus—that is Tiamat—must have been considered as a goddess, and as directly and immediately the ancestress of [242]all the gods. Orion—Merodach—must have been likewise a god, the great-great-grandson of Tiamat, whom he destroys.

Quite apart from the fact that the Babylonians couldn’t call the representation of their supreme deity in the sky a “Fool,” the Hebrews and the Babylonians had different views of the constellation. Several Assyriologists believe that the constellations, Orion and Cetus, symbolize the struggle between Merodach and Tiamat, and this theory is likely correct regarding Babylonian concepts of the constellations, as Tiamat is specifically linked to a constellation near the ecliptic on a Babylonian tablet.[241:1] But this suggests that the myth originated from the star figures and reflects the Babylonian interpretation of them. In this context, Cetus—that is Tiamat—was likely seen as a goddess, the direct ancestor of [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]all the gods. Orion—Merodach—was also thought to be a god, the great-great-grandson of Tiamat, whom he defeats.

The Hebrew conception was altogether different. Neither Merodach, nor Tiamat, nor the constellations of Orion and Cetus, nor the actual stars of which they are composed, are anything but creatures. Jehovah has made Orion, as well as the "Seven Stars," as "His hand hath formed the crooked serpent." By the mouth of Isaiah He says, "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord, do all these things." The Babylonian view was of two divinities pitted against each other, and the evil divinity was the original and the originator of the good. In the Hebrew view, even the powers of evil are created things; they are not self-existent.

The Hebrew perspective was completely different. Merodach, Tiamat, the constellations of Orion and Cetus, and the actual stars in them are all just created beings. Jehovah created Orion, as well as the "Seven Stars," just as "His hand has formed the crooked serpent." Through the prophet Isaiah, He says, "I form the light and create darkness; I make peace and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things." The Babylonian belief was that two gods battled each other, with the evil god being the original and the source of the good. In contrast, the Hebrew belief holds that even the forces of evil are created; they are not self-existing.

And the Hebrews took a different view from the Babylonians of the story told by these constellations. The Hebrews always coupled Orion with the Pleiades; the Babylonians coupled Orion with Cetus—that is, Merodach with Tiamat.

And the Hebrews had a different perspective from the Babylonians regarding the story told by these constellations. The Hebrews always associated Orion with the Pleiades; the Babylonians linked Orion with Cetus—that is, Merodach with Tiamat.

The view that has come down to us through the Greeks agrees much better with the association of the constellations as held amongst the Hebrews, rather than amongst the Babylonians. The Hunter Orion, according to the Greeks, chased the Pleiades—the little company of Seven Virgins, or Seven Doves—and he was confronted by the Bull. In their view, too, the Sea-monster was not warring against Orion, but against the chained woman, Andromeda.

The perspective that has been passed down to us from the Greeks aligns much more with how the Hebrews associated the constellations than how the Babylonians did. According to the Greeks, the Hunter Orion chased the Pleiades—the small group of Seven Virgins or Seven Doves—and he faced the Bull. They also believed that the Sea-monster was not fighting against Orion, but against the chained woman, Andromeda.

FOOTNOTES:

[234:1] But the fact that Napoleon's name was thus coupled with this constellation does not warrant us in asserting that Napoleon had no historical existence, and that his long contest with the great sea-power (England), with its capital on the river Thames (? tehom), was only a stellar myth, arising from the nearness of Orion to the Sea-monster in the sky—a variant, in fact, of the great Babylonian myth of Marduk and Tiamat, the dragon of the deep.

[234:1] But just because Napoleon's name was linked with this constellation, we can’t claim that Napoleon didn’t exist historically, or that his long struggle against the major sea power (England), whose capital is on the Thames River (? tehom), was just a celestial myth. This idea comes from the proximity of Orion to the Sea Monster in the sky—essentially a version of the ancient Babylonian myth of Marduk and Tiamat, the dragon of the deep.

It seems necessary to make this remark, since the process of astrologizing history, whether derived from the Bible or from secular writers, has been carried very far. Thus Dr. H. Winckler writes down the account of the first three Persian kings, given us by Herodotus, as myths of Aries, Taurus, and Gemini; David and Goliath, too, are but Marduk and Tiamat, or Orion and Cetus, but David has become the Giant, and Goliath the Dragon, for "Goliath" is claimed as a word-play on the Babylonian galittu, "ocean." Examining an Arabic globe of date 1279 a.d.—that is to say some 4,000 years after the constellations were devised,—Dr. Winckler found that Orion was represented as left-handed. He therefore used this left-handed Orion as the link of identification between Ehud, the left-handed judge of Israel, and Tyr, the left-handed Mars of the Scandinavian pantheon. Dr. Winckler seems to have been unaware of the elementary fact that a celestial globe necessarily shows its figures "inside out." We look up to the sky, to see the actual constellations from within the sphere; we look down upon a celestial globe from without, and hence see the designs upon it as in the looking-glass.

It seems important to make this point, since the practice of interpreting history through astrology, whether based on the Bible or secular sources, has been taken quite far. Dr. H. Winckler interprets the accounts of the first three Persian kings from Herodotus as symbols of Aries, Taurus, and Gemini; similarly, the story of David and Goliath is reinterpreted as Marduk and Tiamat or Orion and Cetus, where David becomes the Giant and Goliath the Dragon, with "Goliath" being seen as a pun on the Babylonian galittu, meaning "ocean." When examining an Arabic globe from 1279 A.D.—around 4,000 years after the constellations were created—Dr. Winckler discovered that Orion was depicted as left-handed. He then used this left-handed Orion to connect Ehud, Israel's left-handed judge, with Tyr, the left-handed Mars of the Scandinavian pantheon. Dr. Winckler seems not to realize the basic fact that a celestial globe shows its figures "inside out." We look up at the sky to see the actual constellations from the inside of the sphere; when we look down at a celestial globe from the outside, we see the designs on it as if in a mirror.

[238:1] Dr. Cheyne says, in a note on p. 52 of Job and Solomon, "Heb. K’sīl, the name of the foolhardy giant who strove with Jehovah. The Chaldeo-Assyrian astrology gave the name Kisiluv to the ninth month, connecting it with the zodiacal sign Sagittarius. But there are valid reasons for attaching the Hebrew popular myth to Orion." So Col. Conder, in p. 179 of The Hittites and their Language, translates the name of the Assyrian ninth month, Cisleu, as "giant." Now Sagittarius is in the heavens just opposite to Orion, so when in the ninth month the sun was in conjunction with Sagittarius, Orion was in opposition. In Cisleu, therefore, the giant, Orion, was riding the heavens all night, occupying the chamber of the south at midnight, so that the ninth month might well be called the month of the giant.

[238:1] Dr. Cheyne mentions in a note on p. 52 of Job and Solomon, "Heb. K’sīl, the name of the reckless giant who fought against Jehovah. The Chaldeo-Assyrian astrology named the ninth month Kisiluv, linking it to the zodiac sign Sagittarius. However, there are good reasons to associate the Hebrew popular myth with Orion." Col. Conder, on p. 179 of The Hittites and their Language, translates the name of the Assyrian ninth month, Cisleu, as "giant." Sagittarius is in the sky directly opposite Orion, so when the sun is aligned with Sagittarius in the ninth month, Orion is in opposition. Thus, in Cisleu, the giant, Orion, was visible in the sky all night, occupying the southern sky at midnight, making the ninth month rightly known as the month of the giant.

[241:1] Dr. L. W. King, Tablets of Creation, appendix iii. p. 208.

[243]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

CHAPTER VIII

MAZZAROTH

We have no assistance from any cuneiform inscriptions as to the astronomical significance of ‘Ayish, Kīmah, and Kĕsīl, but the case is different when we come to Mazzaroth. In the fifth tablet of the Babylonian Creation epic we read—

We have no help from any cuneiform inscriptions regarding the astronomical significance of ‘Ayish, Kīmah, and Kĕsīl, but the situation is different when we get to Mazzaroth. In the fifth tablet of the Babylonian Creation epic, we read—

"1. He (Marduk) created the places for the great gods;
2. He established the stars and their images as the stars of the zodiac.
He established the year and divided it into sections (mizrāta);
4. Over the course of twelve months, he established three stars.
5. After he had [. . .] the days of the year [. . .] images
6. He established the station of Nibir to define their limits;
7. So that no one might make a mistake or lose their way.
8. He established the station of Bēl and Ea with him.

In the third line mizrāta, cognate with the Hebrew Mazzārōth, means the sections or divisions of the year, corresponding to the signs of the zodiac mentioned in the second line. There can therefore be little doubt that the translators who gave us our English versions are practically correct in the rendering of Job xxxviii. 32 which they give in the margin, "Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth (or the twelve signs) in his season?"

In the third line mizrāta, related to the Hebrew Mazzārōth, refers to the sections or divisions of the year, corresponding to the zodiac signs mentioned in the second line. Therefore, it's clear that the translators of our English versions are largely accurate in their interpretation of Job xxxviii. 32, which they provide in the margin: "Can you bring forth Mazzaroth (or the twelve signs) in their season?"

The foregoing extract from the fifth tablet of Creation [244]has no small astronomical interest. Merodach is represented as setting in order the heavenly bodies. First of all he allots their stations to the great gods, dividing to them the constellations of the zodiac, and the months of the year; so that the arrangement by which every month had its tutelary deity or deities, is here said to be his work. Next, he divides up the constellations of the zodiac; not merely arranging the actual stars, but appropriating to each constellation its special design or "image." Third, he divides up the year to correspond with the zodiac, making twelve months with three "stars" or constellations to each. In other words, he carries the division of the zodiac a step further, and divides each sign into three equal parts, the "decans" of the astrologers, each containing 10° (deka) of the ecliptic.

The previous excerpt from the fifth tablet of Creation [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]holds significant astronomical importance. Merodach is depicted as organizing the celestial bodies. He first assigns their positions to the major gods, distributing the constellations of the zodiac and the months of the year, establishing that each month has its protective deity or deities, which is attributed to him. Next, he organizes the zodiac constellations, not only arranging the actual stars but also assigning each constellation its unique design or "image." Lastly, he divides the year in alignment with the zodiac, creating twelve months with three "stars" or constellations for each. In simpler terms, he takes the division of the zodiac further by splitting each sign into three equal parts, known as the "decans" in astrology, each containing 10° (deka) of the ecliptic.

The statement made in line 4 refers to an important development of astronomy. The constellations of the zodiac, that is, the groups made up of the actual stars, are very unequal in size and irregular in shape. The numerous theories, ancient or modern, in which the constellations are supposed to owe their origin to the distinctive weather of the successive months, each constellation figure being a sort of hieroglyph for its particular month, are therefore all manifestly erroneous, for there never could have been any real fixed or steady correlation between the constellations and the months. Similarly, the theories which claim that the ancient names for the months were derived from the constellations are equally untenable. Some writers have even held both classes of [245]theory, overlooking the fact that they mutually contradict each other.

The statement in line 4 highlights an important development in astronomy. The constellations of the zodiac, meaning the groups made up of actual stars, are very different in size and irregular in shape. The many theories, whether ancient or modern, suggesting that the constellations originated from the distinct weather patterns of each month, with each constellation figure acting as a sort of symbol for its specific month, are clearly mistaken, as there could never have been a genuine fixed or consistent connection between the constellations and the months. Likewise, the theories that argue the ancient names for the months came from the constellations are also unsustainable. Some writers have even supported both types of [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]theory, failing to recognize that they contradict each other.

But there came a time when the inconvenience of the unequal division of the zodiac by the constellations was felt to be an evil, and it was remedied by dividing the ecliptic into twelve equal parts, each part being called after the constellation with which it corresponded most nearly at the time such division was made. These equal divisions have been called the Signs of the zodiac. It must be clearly understood that they have always and at all times been imaginary divisions of the heavens, that they were never associated with real stars. They were simply a picturesque mode of expressing celestial longitude; the distance of a star from the place of the sun at the spring equinox, as measured along the ecliptic,—the sun's apparent path during the year.

But there came a time when the inconvenience of the uneven division of the zodiac by the constellations was recognized as a problem, and it was fixed by splitting the ecliptic into twelve equal parts, with each part named after the constellation that matched it most closely at the time of the division. These equal divisions are known as the Signs of the zodiac. It’s important to understand that they have always been imaginary divisions of the sky and were never linked to actual stars. They were just a colorful way of indicating celestial longitude; that is, the distance of a star from the sun's position at the spring equinox, measured along the ecliptic—the sun's apparent path throughout the year.

The Signs once arranged, the next step was an easy one. Each sign was equivalent to 30 degrees of longitude. A third of a sign, a "decan," was 10 degrees of longitude, corresponding to the "week" of ten days used in Egypt and in Greece.

The signs were set up, and the next step was straightforward. Each sign represented 30 degrees of longitude. A third of a sign, called a "decan," was 10 degrees of longitude, matching the "week" of ten days used in Egypt and Greece.

This change from the constellations to the Signs cannot have taken place very early. The place of the spring equinox travels backwards amongst the stars at the rate of very little more than a degree in 72 years. When the change was made the spring equinox was somewhere in the constellation Aries, the Ram, and therefore Aries was then adopted as the first Sign, and must always remain such, since the Signs move amongst the stars with the equinox.

This shift from the constellations to the Signs couldn't have happened too early. The position of the spring equinox moves backward among the stars at a rate of just over one degree every 72 years. When the change occurred, the spring equinox was located in the constellation Aries, the Ram, and so Aries was adopted as the first Sign and will always stay that way, since the Signs shift among the stars with the equinox.

POSITION OF SPRING EQUINOX, B.C. 2700.ToList

[246]We cannot fix when this change was made within a few years, but it cannot have been before the time when the sun at the spring equinox was situated just below Hamal, the brightest star of the Ram. This was about 700 b.c. The equal division of the zodiac must have taken place not earlier than this, and with it, the Bull must have been deposed from the position it had always held up to that time, of leader of the zodiac. It is probable that some direct method of determining the equinox itself was introduced much about the same time. This new system involved nothing short of a revolution in astronomy, but the Babylonian Creation story [247]implies that this revolution had already taken place when it was composed, and that the equal division of the zodiac was already in force. It is possible that the sixth and seventh lines of the poem indicate that the Babylonians had already noticed a peculiar fact, viz. that just as the moon passes through all the signs in a month, whilst the sun passes through only one sign in that time; so the sun passes through all the signs in a year, whilst Jupiter passes through but one sign. Nibir was the special Babylonian name of the planet Jupiter when on the meridian; and Merodach, as the deity of that planet, is thus represented as pacing out the bounds of the zodiacal Signs by his movement in the course of the year. The planet also marks out the third part of a sign, i. e. ten degrees; for during one-third of each year it appears to retrograde, moving from east to west amongst the stars instead of from west to east. During [248]this retrogression it covers the breadth of one "decan" = ten degrees.

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]We can't pinpoint exactly when this change happened, but it couldn't have been before the time when the sun at the spring equinox was just below Hamal, the brightest star in Aries. This was around 700 BCE The equal division of the zodiac must have occurred no earlier than this, which meant that the Bull lost its long-held position as the leader of the zodiac. It's likely that a direct method for determining the equinox was introduced around the same time. This new system marked a major shift in astronomy, but the Babylonian Creation story [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]suggests that this change had already happened by the time it was written, and that the equal division of the zodiac was already in practice. The sixth and seventh lines of the poem might indicate that the Babylonians had already observed a notable fact: just as the moon travels through all the signs in a month while the sun only travels through one, the sun journeys through all the signs in a year while Jupiter moves through just one. Nibir was the specific Babylonian name for the planet Jupiter when it was on the meridian; and Merodach, as the god of that planet, is portrayed as measuring out the boundaries of the zodiac signs by its movement over the year. The planet also marks the third part of a sign, i.e. ten degrees; because for one-third of each year, it appears to go backward, moving from east to west among the stars instead of from west to east. During [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]this backward motion, it covers the span of one "decan" = ten degrees.

POSITION OF SPRING EQUINOX, A.D. 1900.ToList

The Babylonian Creation epic is therefore quite late, for it introduces astronomical ideas not current earlier than 700 b.c. in Babylonia or anywhere else. This new development of astronomy enables us also to roughly date the origin of the different orders of systematic astrology.

The Babylonian Creation epic is quite late because it includes astronomical concepts that didn’t arise until around 700 B.C. in Babylonia or elsewhere. This advancement in astronomy also helps us to roughly date the beginnings of various types of systematic astrology.

Astrology, like astronomy, has passed through successive stages. It began at zero. An unexpected event in the heavens was accounted portentous, because it was unexpected, and it was interpreted in a good or bad sense according to the state of mind of the beholder. There can have been at first no system, no order, no linking up of one specific kind of prediction with one kind of astronomical event. It can have been originally nothing but a crude jumble of omens, just on a level with the superstitions of some of our peasantry as to seeing hares, or cats, or magpies; and the earliest astrological tablets from Mesopotamia are precisely of this character.

Astrology, like astronomy, has gone through various stages of development. It started from scratch. Any unexpected occurrence in the sky was seen as significant, simply because it was surprising, and it was interpreted as either good or bad depending on the observer's mindset. Initially, there couldn’t have been any system, order, or connection between specific types of predictions and certain astronomical events. It likely began as a basic mix of omens, similar to the superstitions some of our rural communities have about spotting hares, cats, or magpies; and the earliest astrological tablets from Mesopotamia reflect this same idea.

But the official fortune-tellers at the courts of the kings of Nineveh or Babylon must speedily have learned the necessity of arranging some systems of prediction for their own protection—systems definite enough to give the astrologer a groundwork for a prediction which he could claim was dependent simply upon the heavenly bodies, and hence for which the astrologer could not be held personally responsible, and at the same time elastic enough to enable him to shape his prediction to fit in with his patron's wishes. The astrology of to-day shows the same essential features.

But the official fortune-tellers at the courts of the kings of Nineveh or Babylon must have quickly realized they needed to establish some systems of prediction for their own safety—systems specific enough to give the astrologer a solid basis for a prediction that he could claim was based solely on the stars, and therefore for which he couldn't be held personally accountable, while also flexible enough to allow him to tailor his prediction to meet his patron's desires. Today's astrology shows the same key characteristics.

[249]This necessity explains the early Babylonian tablets with catalogues of eclipses on all days of the month, and in all quarters of the sky. The great majority of the eclipses could never happen, but they could be, none-the-less, made use of by a court magician. If an eclipse of the sun took place on the 29th day and in the south, he could always point out how exceedingly unpleasant things might have been for the king and the country if he, the magician, had not by his diligence, prevented its happening, say, on the 20th, and in the north. A Zulu witch-doctor is quite equal to analogous subterfuges to-day, and no doubt his Babylonian congeners were not less ingenious 3,000 years ago. Such subterfuges were not always successful when a Chaka or a Nebuchadnezzar had to be dealt with, but with kings of a more ordinary type either in Zululand or Mesopotamia they would answer well enough.

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]This need explains the early Babylonian tablets that listed eclipses for every day of the month and in every part of the sky. Most of the eclipses could never actually happen, but they could still be used by a court magician. If a solar eclipse occurred on the 29th day and in the south, he could always point out how terrible things might have been for the king and the country if he, the magician, hadn’t through his hard work prevented it from happening, say, on the 20th, and in the north. A Zulu witch-doctor can easily use similar tricks today, and it's likely that his Babylonian counterparts were just as clever 3,000 years ago. These tricks didn’t always work when dealing with someone like Chaka or Nebuchadnezzar, but with kings of a more average nature, whether in Zululand or Mesopotamia, they worked just fine.

Coming down to times when astronomy had so far advanced that a catalogue of the stars had been drawn up, with their positions determined by actual measurement, it became possible for astrologers to draw up something like a definite system of prediction, based upon the constellations or parts of a constellation that happened to be rising at any given moment, and this was the system employed when Zeuchros of Babylon wrote in the first century of our era. His system must have been started later than 700 b.c., for in it Aries is considered as the leader of the zodiac; the constellations are already disestablished in favour of the Signs; and the Signs are each divided into three. A practical drawback to this particular [250]astrological system was that the aspect presented by the heavens on one evening was precisely the same as that presented on the next evening four minutes earlier. The field for prediction therefore was very limited and repeated itself too much for the purpose of fortune-tellers.

As astronomy progressed to the point where a catalogue of stars was created and their positions measured, astrologers were able to develop a more structured prediction system based on the constellations or specific parts of a constellation that were rising at any given moment. This system was used when Zeuchros of Babylon wrote in the first century CE. His system must have started after 700 B.C. since in it, Aries is seen as the zodiac's leader; the constellations were already replaced by the Signs, and each Sign was divided into three parts. A practical limitation of this particular [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]astrological system was that the sky's configuration one evening was identical to what it would be the next evening just four minutes earlier. This made the scope for predictions quite narrow and repetitive, which wasn’t helpful for fortune-tellers.

The introduction of the planets into astrology gave a greater diversity to the material used by the fortune-tellers. An early phase of planetary astrology consisted in the allotment of a planet to each hour of the day and also to each day of the week. It has been already shown in the chapter on "Saturn and Astrology," that this system arose from the Ptolemaic idea of the solar system grafted on the Egyptian division of the day into twenty-four hours, and applied to the week of seven days. It probably originated in Alexandria, and arose not earlier than the third century before our era. Mathematical astrology—the complex system now in vogue—involves a considerable knowledge of the apparent movements of the planets and a development of mathematics such as did not exist until the days of Hipparchus. It also employs the purely imaginary signs of the zodiac, not the constellations; and reckons the first point of Aries as at the spring equinox. So far as we can ascertain, the spring equinox marked the first point of the constellation Aries about b.c. 110.

The introduction of planets into astrology added more variety to the material used by fortune-tellers. An early phase of planetary astrology involved assigning a planet to each hour of the day and each day of the week. It has already been explained in the chapter on "Saturn and Astrology," that this system came from the Ptolemaic view of the solar system combined with the Egyptian way of dividing the day into twenty-four hours, and applied to the seven-day week. It likely started in Alexandria and emerged no earlier than the third century BCE. Mathematical astrology—the complex system that's popular today—requires a significant understanding of the apparent movements of the planets and developed mathematical concepts that didn't exist until the time of Hipparchus. It also uses the purely fictional signs of the zodiac rather than the constellations, and counts the first point of Aries as occurring at the spring equinox. As far as we know, the spring equinox was aligned with the first point of the constellation Aries around B.C. 110.

All these varied forms of astrology are therefore comparatively recent. Before that it was of course reckoned ominous if an eclipse took place, or a comet was seen, or a bright planet came near the moon, just as spilling salt or crossing knives may be reckoned ominous to-day. The omens had as little to do with observation, or with [251]anything that could be called scientific, in the one case as in the other.

All these different forms of astrology are relatively new. Before that, it was considered a bad sign if there was an eclipse, a comet appeared, or a bright planet was close to the moon, just like spilling salt or crossing knives might be seen as bad luck today. The omens had nothing to do with observation or anything that could be classified as scientific, in both cases.

It is important to realize that astrology, as anything more than the crude observance of omens, is younger than astronomy by at least 2,000 years.

It’s important to understand that astrology, beyond just the simple observation of signs, is at least 2,000 years younger than astronomy.

Mazzārōth occurs only once in the Bible, viz. in Job xxxviii. 32, already so often quoted, but a similar word Mazzālōth occurs in 2 Kings xxiii. 5, where it is said that Josiah put down the idolatrous priests, "them also that burned incense unto Baal, to the sun, and to the moon, and to the planets (Mazzālōth), and to all the host of heaven." The context itself, as well as the parallel passage in Deuteronomy—"When thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldst be driven to worship them,"—shows clearly that celestial luminaries of some kind are intended, probably certain groups of stars, distinguished from the general "host of heaven."

Mazzārōth appears only once in the Bible, specifically in Job xxxviii. 32, which has been frequently cited. However, a similar term, Mazzālōth, appears in 2 Kings xxiii. 5, where it mentions that Josiah removed the idolatrous priests, "those who burned incense to Baal, to the sun, to the moon, to the planets (Mazzālōth), and to all the host of heaven." The context, along with the related passage in Deuteronomy—"When you see the sun, the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, should you be tempted to worship them,"—clearly indicates that it refers to some kind of celestial bodies, likely specific groups of stars, separate from the general "host of heaven."

Comparing Job ix. 9, with Job xxxviii. 31, 32, we find ‘Ash, or ‘Ayish, Kīmah and Kĕsil common to the two passages; if we take ‘Ash and ‘Ayish as identical, this leaves the "chambers of the south" as the equivalent of Mazzaroth. The same expression occurs in the singular in Job xxxvii. 9—"Out of the south (marg. chamber) cometh the whirlwind." There need be but little question as to the significance of these various passages. The correspondence of the word Mazzārōth with the Babylonian mizrātā, the "divisions" of the year, answering to the twelve signs of the zodiac, points in exactly the same direction as the correspondence in idea which is evident between the [252]"chambers of the south" and the Arabic Al manāzil, "the mansions" or "resting-places" of the moon in the lunar zodiac.

Comparing Job 9:9 with Job 38:31-32, we see that ‘Ash, or ‘Ayish, Kīmah, and Kĕsil are mentioned in both passages. If we consider ‘Ash and ‘Ayish to be the same, it implies that the "chambers of the south" refer to Mazzaroth. The same term is also used in the singular in Job 37:9: "Out of the south (marg. chamber) comes the whirlwind." There is little doubt about the significance of these different passages. The connection of the word Mazzārōth with the Babylonian mizrātā, the "divisions" of the year corresponding to the twelve signs of the zodiac, indicates a similar idea as that found between the "chambers of the south" and the Arabic Al manāzil, "the mansions" or "resting-places" of the moon in the lunar zodiac.

Mazzaroth are therefore the "divisions" of the zodiac, the "chambers" through which the sun successively passes in the course of the year, his "resting-place" for a month. They are "the chambers of the south," since that is their distinctive position. In Palestine, the sun, even at rising or setting at midsummer, passes but little to the north of east or west. Roughly speaking, the "south" is the sun's quarter, and therefore it is necessarily the quarter of the constellation in which the sun is placed.

Mazzaroth refers to the "divisions" of the zodiac, the "chambers" the sun moves through as it travels throughout the year, spending a month in each "resting place." They are called "the chambers of the south" because that’s their unique position. In Palestine, even when the sun rises or sets during midsummer, it travels just a little north of east or west. Generally, "south" is the sun's direction, so it naturally corresponds to the constellation where the sun is located.

It has been made an objection to this identification that the Israelites are said to have worshipped Mazzālōth, and we have no direct evidence that the signs or constellations of the zodiac were worshipped as such. But this is to make a distinction that is hardly warranted. The Creation tablets, as we have seen, distinctly record the allocation of the great gods to the various signs, Merodach himself being one of the three deities associated with the month Adar, just as in Egypt a god presided over each one of the thirty-six decades of the year.

It has been argued against this identification that the Israelites are said to have worshipped Mazzālōth, and we don’t have any direct evidence that the signs or constellations of the zodiac were worshipped as such. However, this distinction is hardly justified. The Creation tablets, as we have seen, clearly document the assignment of the major gods to the various signs, with Merodach himself being one of the three deities linked to the month Adar, just as in Egypt a god oversaw each of the thirty-six decades of the year.

Again, it is probable that the "golden calf," worshipped by the Israelites in the wilderness, and, after the disruption, at Bethel and at Dan, was none other than an attempt to worship Jehovah under the symbol of Taurus, the leader of the zodiac and cognizance of the tribe of Joseph; regarded as a type of Him Who had been the Leader of the people out of Egypt, and the Giver of the blessings associated with the return of the sun to Taurus, the revival of nature in [253]spring-time. It was intended as a worship of Jehovah; it was in reality dire rebellion against Him, and a beginning of the worship of "Mazzālōth and the heavenly host;" an idolatry that was bound to bring other idolatries in its train.

Again, it's likely that the "golden calf" worshipped by the Israelites in the wilderness, and later at Bethel and Dan after the split, was actually an attempt to worship Jehovah using the symbol of Taurus, the leader of the zodiac and emblem of the tribe of Joseph. It was seen as a representation of Him Who had led the people out of Egypt and the Giver of the blessings related to the return of the sun to Taurus, marking the revival of nature in [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]spring. It was meant to be a worship of Jehovah; however, it was actually a serious rebellion against Him and the start of the worship of "Mazzālōth and the heavenly host," an idolatry that was sure to lead to further idolatries.

A three-fold symbol found continually on Babylonian monuments, "the triad of stars," undoubtedly at one time set forth Sin, the moon-god, Samas, the sun-god, and Ištar, in this connection possibly the planet Venus. It has therefore been suggested by Prof. Schiaparelli that Mazzālōth is the planet Venus; and, since the word is plural in form, Venus in her double capacity;—sometimes an evening, sometimes a morning star. The sun and the moon and Mazzālōth would then set forth the three brightest luminaries, whilst the general congress of stars would be represented by the "host of heaven." But though Venus is sometimes the brightest of the planets, she is essentially of the same order as Jupiter or Mars, and is not of the same order as the sun and moon, with whom, on this supposition, she is singled out to be ranked. Moreover, if Ištar or Ashtoreth were intended in this passage, it does not appear why she should not be expressly named as such; especially as Baal, so often coupled with her, is named. The "triad of stars," too, had originally quite a different meaning, as will be seen later.

A three-fold symbol commonly found on Babylonian monuments, "the triad of stars," likely once represented Sin, the moon-god, Samas, the sun-god, and Ištar, possibly the planet Venus in this context. Prof. Schiaparelli has suggested that Mazzālōth refers to the planet Venus; since the term is plural, it may indicate Venus in both of her forms—sometimes as the evening star, sometimes as the morning star. The sun, the moon, and Mazzālōth would then represent the three brightest celestial bodies, while the overall assembly of stars would be symbolized by the "host of heaven." However, although Venus can be the brightest planet, she is fundamentally in the same category as Jupiter or Mars, not comparable to the sun and moon, with whom, under this theory, she is placed. Furthermore, if Ištar or Ashtoreth were meant in this reference, it's unclear why she wouldn't be specifically named, especially since Baal, who is often associated with her, is mentioned. The "triad of stars," too, originally had a different significance, as will be discussed later.

Moreover, the parallelism between Job ix. and Job xxxviii. is destroyed by this rendering, since the planet Venus could not be described as "the chambers of the south." These are therefore referred by Professor Schiaparelli to the glorious mass of stars in the far [254]south, shining in the constellations that set forth the Deluge story,—the Ship, and the Centaur, much the most brilliant region of the whole sky.

Moreover, the comparison between Job 9 and Job 38 is disrupted by this interpretation, since the planet Venus cannot be referred to as "the chambers of the south." Professor Schiaparelli instead links these to the stunning cluster of stars in the far [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]south, shining in the constellations that depict the Flood story—the Ship and the Centaur, which is the brightest area in the entire sky.

Another interpretation of Mazzaroth is given by Dr. Cheyne, on grounds that refute Professor Schiaparelli's suggestion, but it is itself open to objection from an astronomical point of view. He writes—

Another interpretation of Mazzaroth is provided by Dr. Cheyne, which counters Professor Schiaparelli's suggestion, but it also faces criticism from an astronomical perspective. He writes—

"Mazzaroth is probably not to be identified with Mazzaloth (2 Kings xxiii. 5) in spite of the authority of the Sept. and the Targum. . . . Mazzaroth = Ass. Mazarati; Mazzaloth (i.e. the zodiacal signs) seems to be the plural of Mazzāla = Ass. Manzaltu, station."[254:1]

"Mazzaroth probably shouldn't be equated with Mazzaloth (2 Kings 23:5), even though the Septuagint and the Targum suggest otherwise. . . . Mazzaroth = Assyrian Mazarati; Mazzaloth (meaning the zodiac signs) appears to be the plural of Mazzāla = Assyrian Manzaltu, which means station."[254:1]

Dr. Cheyne therefore renders the passage thus—

Dr. Cheyne therefore translates the passage like this—

"Do you bring out the moon's phases at the right time,
And the Bear and her cubs—are you guiding them? Do you know the laws of heaven?
"Do you assess its impact on the earth?"

Mazzaloth are therefore "the zodiacal signs," but Mazzaroth "the watches or stations of the moon, which marked the progress of the month;"[254:2] or, in other words, the lunar zodiac.

Mazzaloth are therefore "the zodiac signs," but Mazzaroth refers to "the watches or stations of the moon, which tracked the progress of the month;"[254:2] or, in other words, the lunar zodiac.

But the lunar and the solar zodiac are only different ways of dividing the same belt of stars. Consequently when, as in the passage before us, reference is made to the actual belt of stars as a whole, there is no difference between the two. So that we are obliged, as before, to consider Mazzaroth and Mazzaloth as identical, and both as setting forth the stars of the zodiac.

But the lunar and solar zodiacs are just different methods of dividing the same band of stars. Therefore, when, as in the passage we’re looking at, there’s a mention of the entire band of stars, there’s no distinction between the two. We must conclude, as before, that Mazzaroth and Mazzaloth are the same and both represent the stars of the zodiac.

[255]So far as the two zodiacs differ, it is the solar and not the lunar zodiac that is intended. This is evident when we consider the different natures of the apparent motions of the sun and the moon. The sun passes through a twelfth part of the zodiac each month, and month by month the successive constellations of the zodiac are brought out, each in its own season; each having a period during which it rises at sunset, is visible the whole night, and sets at sunrise. The solar Mazzaroth are therefore emphatically brought out, each "in its season." Not so the lunar Mazzaroth.

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]When it comes to the differences between the two zodiacs, it's the solar zodiac that's relevant, not the lunar one. This becomes clear when we look at how the sun and the moon move. The sun moves through one twelfth of the zodiac every month, showcasing different constellations in their respective seasons; each constellation has its time when it rises at sunset, is visible all night, and sets at sunrise. The solar Mazzaroth are thus distinctly highlighted, each "in its season." The same isn't true for the lunar Mazzaroth.

The expression, "the watches or stations of the moon which marked the progress of the month," is unsuitable when astronomically considered. "Watches" refer strictly to divisions of the day and night; the "stations" of the moon refer to the twenty-seven or twenty-eight divisions of the lunar zodiac; the "progress of the month" refers to the complete sequence of the lunar phases. These are three entirely different matters, and Dr. Cheyne has confused them. The progress of the moon through its complete series of stations is accomplished in a siderial month—that is, twenty-seven days eight hours, but from the nature of the case it cannot be said that these "stations" are brought out each in his season, in that time, as a month makes but a small change in the aspect of the sky. The moon passes through the complete succession of its phases in the course of a synodical month, which is in the mean twenty-nine days, thirteen hours—that is to say from new to new, or full to full—but no particular star, or constellation, or "station" has any [256]fixed relation to any one given phase of the moon. In the course of some four or five years the moon will have been both new and full in every one of the "lunar stations."

The phrase, "the watches or stations of the moon that tracked the month's progress," isn’t accurate when looked at astronomically. "Watches" specifically mean divisions of day and night; the "stations" of the moon refer to the twenty-seven or twenty-eight segments of the lunar zodiac; and the "progress of the month" indicates the full cycle of the lunar phases. These are three completely different concepts, and Dr. Cheyne has mixed them up. The moon's full journey through its stations takes place over a sidereal month—that is, twenty-seven days and eight hours—but it can't be said that these "stations" appear in their appropriate order during that time since a month only causes a slight change in the sky's appearance. The moon experiences the entire range of its phases in a synodical month, which averages twenty-nine days and thirteen hours—meaning from new moon to new moon, or full moon to full moon—but no specific star, constellation, or "station" has a consistent relationship with any one specific phase of the moon. Over the span of four or five years, the moon will have been both new and full in every one of the "lunar stations."

"Do you know the laws of heaven?
"Can you establish its rule on the earth?"

He, who has lived out under the stars, in contact with the actual workings of nature, knows what it is to watch "Mazzaroth" brought "out in his season;" the silent return to the skies of the constellations, month by month, simultaneous with the changes on the face of the earth. Overhead, the glorious procession, so regular and unfaltering, of the silent, unapproachable stars: below, in unfailing answer, the succession of spring and summer, autumn and winter, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, rain and drought. If there be but eyes to see, this majestic Order, so smooth in working, so magnificent in scale, will impress the most stolid as the immediate acting of God; and the beholder will feel at the same a reverent awe, and an uplifting of the spirit as he sees the action of "the ordinances of heaven," and the evidence of "the dominion thereof in the earth."

He who has spent time under the stars, engaging with the real workings of nature, understands what it's like to see the "Mazzaroth" come “out in its season.” Watching the constellations silently return to the sky month after month, in sync with the changes on Earth. Above, there’s the stunning procession of the stars, consistently and unchangingly; below, in perfect response, the cycle of spring and summer, autumn and winter, planting and harvest, cold and heat, rain and drought. If only there are eyes to see, this majestic Order, so smooth in its function and grand in scale, will strike even the most indifferent as the direct action of God. The observer will feel both a respectful awe and a lift in spirit as they witness the workings of "the ordinances of heaven" and the evidence of "the dominion thereof in the earth."

Dr. Cheyne, however, only sees in these beautiful and appropriate lines the influence upon the sacred writer of "the physical theology of Babylonia";[256:1] in other words, its idolatrous astrology, "the influence of the sky upon the earth."

Dr. Cheyne, however, only sees in these beautiful and fitting lines the effect of "the physical theology of Babylonia";[256:1] in other words, its pagan astrology, "the influence of the sky on the earth."

But what would Job understand by the question, "Canst thou bring forth Mazzārōth in his season?" Just [257]this: "Canst thou so move the great celestial sphere that the varied constellations of the zodiac shall come into view, each in their turn, and with them the earth pass through its proper successive seasons?" The question therefore embraced and was an extension of the two that preceded it. "Canst thou bind the sweet influences of the Pleiades? Canst thou prevent the revival of all the forces of nature in the springtime?" and "Canst thou loose the bands of Orion; canst thou free the ground from the numbing frosts of winter?"

But what would Job understand by the question, "Can you bring forth Mazzārōth in its season?" Just [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] this: "Can you move the vast celestial sphere so that the different zodiac constellations appear one after another, allowing the earth to go through its proper succession of seasons?" The question, therefore, included and expanded on the two that came before it. "Can you hold back the gentle influences of the Pleiades? Can you stop all the forces of nature from reviving in the spring?" and "Can you loosen the bands of Orion; can you free the land from the chilling frosts of winter?"

The question to us would not greatly differ in its meaning, except that we should better understand the mechanism underlying the phenomena. The question would mean, "Canst thou move this vast globe of the earth, weighing six thousand million times a million million tons, continually in its orbit, more than 580 millions of miles in circuit, with a speed of nearly nineteen miles in every second of time, thus bringing into view different constellations at different times of the year, and presenting the various zones of the earth in different aspects to the sun's light and heat?" To us, as to Job, the question would come as:

The question for us wouldn't be much different in meaning, except that we would better understand the mechanism behind the phenomena. The question would be, "Can you move this huge globe of the Earth, weighing six thousand million times a million million tons, continually in its orbit, covering more than 580 million miles, at a speed of nearly nineteen miles per second, thus revealing different constellations at different times of the year, and showing the various zones of the Earth in different ways to the sun's light and heat?" For us, just like Job, the question would be:

"Do you know the laws of heaven?
"Can you establish its rule on earth?"

It is going beyond astronomy, yet it may be permitted to an astronomer, to refer for comparison to a parallel thought, not couched in the form of a question, but in the form of a prayer:

It goes beyond astronomy, but it might be acceptable for an astronomer to reference a similar idea, not framed as a question, but as a prayer:

"Your will be done,
"As it is in heaven, so it is on earth."

FOOTNOTES:

[254:1] Rev. T. K. Cheyne, M.A., Job and Solomon, p. 290.

[254:2] Ibid., p. 52.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Same source., p. 52.

[256:1] Rev. T. K. Cheyne, M.A., Job and Solomon, p. 52.

[258]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

CHAPTER IX

ARCTURUS

In two passages of the Book of Job a word, ‘Ash or ‘Ayish, is used, by context evidently one of the constellations of the sky, but the identification of which is doubtful. In our Authorized Version the first passage is rendered thus:—

In two sections of the Book of Job, a word, 'Ash or 'Ayish, is used, which is clearly referring to one of the constellations in the sky, though its exact identification is uncertain. In our Authorized Version, the first section is translated as follows:—

(God) "Which maketh Arcturus (‘Ash), Orion, and Pleiades, and the chambers of the south";

(God) "Who creates Arcturus (‘Ash), Orion, and the Pleiades, and the rooms of the south";

and the second:—

"Can you control the gentle powers of the Pleiades,
Or let go of the bands of Orion?
Can you bring out Mazzaroth in its season? Or can you guide Arcturus (‘Ayish) and his sons?
Do you know the laws of heaven?
"Can you establish its authority on earth?"

The words (or word, for possibly ‘Ayish is no more than a variant of ‘Ash) here translated "Arcturus" were rendered by the "Seventy" as "Arktouros" in the first passage; as "Hesperos" in the second passage; and their rendering was followed by the Vulgate. The rendering Hesper or Vesper is absurd, as "the sons" of Hesper has [259]no meaning. "Arktouros" is not improbably a misrendering of "Arktos," "the north," which would give a free but not a literal translation of the meaning of the passage. In another passage from Job (xxxvii. 9) where the south wind is contrasted with the cold from another quarter of the sky, the "Seventy"—again followed by the Vulgate—rendered it as "cold from Arcturus." Now cold came to the Jews, as it does to us, from the north, and the star which we know as Arcturus could not be described as typifying that direction either now or when the Septuagint or Vulgate versions were made. The Peschitta, the Syriac version of the Bible, made about the second century after Christ, gives as the Syriac equivalent for ‘Ash, or ‘Ayish, the word ‘iyūthā, but it also renders Kĕsīl by the same word in Amos v. 8, so that the translators were evidently quite at sea as to the identity of these constellations. We are also in doubt as to what star or constellation the Syrians meant by ‘Iyūthā, and apparently they were in some doubt themselves, for in the Talmud we are told that there was a disputation, held in the presence of the great teacher Rabbi Jehuda, about 150 years after Christ, whether ‘Iyūthā was situated in the head of the Bull, or in the tail of the Ram. Oriental scholars now assign it either to Aldebaran in the head of the Bull, the "sons" being in this case the other members of the Hyades group of which Aldebaran is the brightest star; or else identifying it with the Arabic el-‘aiyūq, the name of the star which the Greeks call Aix, and we call Capella, the "sons" on this inference being the three small stars near, called by the Greeks and by ourselves the "Kids." The [260]word ‘Ash is used several times in Scripture, but without any astronomical signification, and is there rendered "moth," as in Isaiah, where it says—

The words (or word, since ‘Ayish might just be a variation of ‘Ash) translated here as "Arcturus" were given as "Arktouros" by the "Seventy" in the first instance; as "Hesperos" in the second; and this translation was also followed by the Vulgate. The use of Hesper or Vesper is nonsensical, since "the sons" of Hesper has [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]no meaning. "Arktouros" is likely a misrendering of "Arktos," meaning "the north," which would provide a free, though not literal, translation of the passage's meaning. In another section from Job (xxxvii. 9) where the south wind is contrasted with the cold from another direction, the "Seventy"—again followed by the Vulgate—translated it as "cold from Arcturus." Cold, to the Jews, came from the north, just as it does to us, and the star we refer to as Arcturus couldn't be described as representing that direction, either now or at the time the Septuagint or Vulgate versions were created. The Peschitta, the Syriac version of the Bible made around the second century after Christ, translates the Syriac equivalent for ‘Ash, or ‘Ayish, as ‘iyūthā, but it also uses the same word for Kĕsīl in Amos v. 8, indicating that the translators were clearly confused about these constellations. We also have uncertainty regarding which star or constellation the Syrians referred to as ‘Iyūthā, and it seems they had some doubt too, as the Talmud mentions a debate held in front of the esteemed teacher Rabbi Jehuda, about 150 years after Christ, regarding whether ‘Iyūthā was located in the Bull's head or the Ram's tail. Nowadays, scholars from the East link it either to Aldebaran in the head of the Bull—where "the sons" would refer to the other members of the Hyades group, of which Aldebaran is the brightest star—or they associate it with the Arabic el-‘aiyūq, the name for the star the Greeks call Aix, which we refer to as Capella, with the "sons" in this case being the three small stars nearby, known by the Greeks and by us as the "Kids." The [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]word ‘Ash appears several times in Scripture, but without any astronomical significance, and is rendered as "moth," as seen in Isaiah, where it states—

"Lo, they all shall wax old as a garment; the moth (‘Ash) shall eat them up."

"Look, they will all wear out like a piece of clothing; the moth (‘Ash) will consume them."

This literal significance of the word does not help, as we know of no constellation figured as a "moth" or bearing any resemblance to one.

This literal meaning of the word doesn't help, since we don't know of any constellation shaped like a "moth" or that looks anything like one.

But the word ‘ash, or ‘ayish does not differ importantly from the word na‘sh, in Hebrew "assembly," in Arabic "bier," which has been the word used by the Arabs from remote antiquity to denote the four bright stars in the hind-quarters of the Great Bear; those which form the body of the Plough. Moreover, the three stars which form the "tail" of the Great Bear, or the "handle" of the Plough have been called by the Arabs benāt na‘sh, "the daughters of na‘sh." The Bear is the great northern constellation, which swings constantly round the pole, always visible throughout the changing seasons of the year. There should be no hesitation then in accepting the opinion of the Rabbi, Aben Ezra, who saw in ‘Ash, or ‘Ayish the quadrilateral of the great Bear, whose four points are marked by the bright stars, Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Delta, and in the "sons" of ‘Ayish, the three stars, Epsilon, Zeta, and Eta. Our Revised Version therefore renders the word as "Bear."

But the word ‘ash, or ‘ayish, doesn't significantly differ from the word na‘sh, which means "assembly" in Hebrew and "bier" in Arabic. This term has been used by Arabs since ancient times to refer to the four bright stars in the rear of the Great Bear, the ones that form the body of the Plough. Additionally, the three stars that make up the "tail" of the Great Bear, or the "handle" of the Plough, are called by the Arabs benāt na‘sh, meaning "the daughters of na‘sh." The Bear is the prominent northern constellation that constantly revolves around the pole and remains visible throughout the changing seasons of the year. Therefore, there should be no doubt in accepting Rabbi Aben Ezra's view that ‘Ash, or ‘Ayish, represents the quadrilateral of the Great Bear, with its four points marked by the bright stars Alpha, Beta, Gamma, and Delta, and its "sons," the three stars Epsilon, Zeta, and Eta. Our Revised Version thus translates the word as "Bear."

In both passages of Job, then, we get the four quarters of the sky marked out as being under the dominion of the Lord. In the ninth chapter they are given in the order—

In both passages of Job, we see the four quarters of the sky identified as being under the control of the Lord. In the ninth chapter, they are listed in the order—

[261]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

The Bear, which is in the North;

Orion, in its acronical rising, with the sun setting in the West;

Orion rises in the east as the sun sets in the west;

The Pleiades, in their heliacal rising, with the sun rising in the East;

The Pleiades, at their first appearance in the dawn, with the sun rising in the East;

And the Chambers of the South.

And the Southern Chambers.

In the later passage they are given with fuller illustration, and in the order—

In the later section, they are presented with a more detailed explanation, and in the order—

The Pleiades, whose "sweet influences" are given by their heliacal rising in spring time, with the sun rising in the East;

The Pleiades, known for their "sweet influences," are visible when they rise in the spring alongside the sun in the East;

Orion, whose "bands" are those of winter, heralded by his acronical rising with the sun setting in the West;

Orion, whose "bands" represent winter, announced by his rising with the sun setting in the West;

Mazzaroth, the constellations of the zodiac corresponding to the Chambers of the South, which the sun occupies each in its "season."

Mazzaroth, the zodiac constellations linked to the Chambers of the South, where the sun resides in each during its "season."

The Bear with its "sons," who, always visible, are unceasingly guided round the pole in the North.

The Bear with its "cub," which is always in sight, is constantly led around the North Pole.

The parallelism in the two passages in Job gives us the right to argue that ‘Ash and ‘Ayish refer to the same constellation, and are variants of the same name; possibly their vocalization was the same, and they are but two divergent ways of writing the word. We must therefore reject Prof. Schiaparelli's suggestion made on the authority of the Peschitta version of the Scriptures and of Rabbi Jehuda, who lived in the second century a.d., that ‘Ash is ‘Iyūthā which is Aldebaran, but that ‘Ayish and his "sons" may be Capella and her "Kids."

The similar structure in the two passages in Job allows us to argue that ‘Ash and ‘Ayish refer to the same constellation and are different versions of the same name; their pronunciation might have been identical, and they are simply two different ways of spelling the word. Therefore, we must dismiss Prof. Schiaparelli's suggestion, based on the Peschitta version of the Scriptures and Rabbi Jehuda, who lived in the second century A.D., that ‘Ash is ‘Iyūthā, which is Aldebaran, while ‘Ayish and his "sons" could be Capella and her "Kids."

Equally we must reject Prof. Stern's argument that Kīmah is Sirius, Kĕsīl is Orion, Mazzārōth is the Hyades and ‘Ayish is the Pleiades. He bases his argument on the order in which these names are given in the [262]second passage of Job, and on the contention of Otfried Müller that there are only four out of the remarkable groups of stars placed in the middle and southern regions of the sky which have given rise to important legends in the primitive mythology of the Greeks. These groups follow one after the other in a belt in the sky in the order just given, and their risings and settings were important factors in the old Greek meteorological and agricultural calendars. Prof. Stern assumes that kĕsīl means Orion, and from this identification deduces the others, neglecting all etymological or traditional evidences to the contrary. He takes no notice of the employment of the same names in passages of Scripture other than that in the thirty-eighth chapter of Job. Here he would interpret the "chain," or "sweet influences" of Kīmah = "Sirius the dog," by assuming that the Jews considered that the dog was mad, and hence was kept chained up. More important still, he fails to recognize that the Jews had a continental climate in a different latitude from the insular climate of Greece, and that both their agricultural and their weather conditions were different, and would be associated with different astronomical indications.

We also need to reject Prof. Stern's argument that Kīmah refers to Sirius, Kĕsīl refers to Orion, Mazzārōth signifies the Hyades, and ‘Ayish corresponds to the Pleiades. He bases his argument on the order these names are presented in the [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]second passage of Job, along with Otfried Müller’s claim that only four of the notable star groups located in the middle and southern parts of the sky have inspired significant myths in ancient Greek mythology. These groups appear sequentially in a band across the sky as listed, and their rising and setting were crucial elements in the ancient Greek weather and farming calendars. Prof. Stern assumes that kĕsīl means Orion, and from that connection infers the meanings of the others, disregarding any etymological or traditional evidence to the contrary. He overlooks the use of these names in other Scripture passages aside from the thirty-eighth chapter of Job. He interprets the "chain," or "sweet influences" of Kīmah as "Sirius the dog," suggesting that Jews believed the dog was mad and thus needed to be chained up. More importantly, he fails to acknowledge that the Jews lived in a continental climate at a different latitude compared to the insular climate of Greece, leading to different agricultural practices and weather patterns associated with different astronomical indicators.

In the 9th verse of the 37th chapter of Job we get an antithesis which has already been referred to—

"Out of the south cometh the whirlwind: and cold out of the north."

"From the south comes the whirlwind, and cold air comes from the north."

The Hebrew word here translated "north" is mezarīm, a plural word which is taken literally to mean "the scatterings." For its interpretation Prof. Schiaparelli [263]makes a very plausible suggestion. He says, "We may first observe that the five Hebrew letters with which this name was written in the original unpointed text could equally well be read, with a somewhat different pointing, as mizrim, or also as mizrayim, of which the one is the plural, the other the dual, of mizreh. Now mizreh means a winnowing-fan, the instrument with which grain is scattered in the air to sift it; and it has its root, like mezarim, in the word zarah, . . . which, besides the sense dispersit, bears also the sense expandit, ventilavit."[263:1]

The Hebrew word for "north" here is mezarīm, which is a plural term literally meaning "the scatterings." For its interpretation, Prof. Schiaparelli [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]makes a very convincing suggestion. He points out that the five Hebrew letters used to write this name in the original unpointed text could also be read, with a slightly different pronunciation, as mizrim, or as mizrayim, where one is the plural and the other the dual of mizreh. Now, mizreh refers to a winnowing fan, the tool used to toss grain into the air for sifting, and it shares its root with mezarim in the word zarah, which, in addition to meaning dispersed, also means expanded and ventilated.[263:1]

STARS OF THE PLOUGH, AS THE WINNOWING FAN.ToList

Stars of the Plough, like a winnowing fan.ToList

If Prof. Schiaparelli is correct in his supposition, then the word translated "north" in our versions is literally the "two winnowing fans," names which from the form suggested by the stars we may suppose that the Jews gave to the two Bears in the sky, just as the Chinese called them the "Ladles," and the Americans call them the "Big Dipper" and the "Little Dipper." The sense is still that of the north, but we may recognize in the [264]word employed another Jewish name of the constellation, alternative with ‘Ash or ‘Ayish, or perhaps used in order to include in the region the Lesser as well as the Greater Bear. We should not be surprised at finding an alternative name for this great northern constellation, for we ourselves call it by several different appellations, using them indiscriminately, perhaps even in the course of a single paragraph.

If Prof. Schiaparelli is right in his theory, then the word translated as "north" in our versions literally means "two winnowing fans." This name likely comes from the shape suggested by the stars, which the Jews may have given to the two Bears in the sky, just as the Chinese called them the "Ladles," and the Americans refer to them as the "Big Dipper" and the "Little Dipper." The meaning still relates to the north, but we can identify in the [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]word used another Jewish name for the constellation, which could be used interchangeably with ‘Ash or ‘Ayish, or perhaps to include both the Lesser and Greater Bear in the region. We shouldn’t be surprised to find an alternative name for this major northern constellation, as we also use several different names for it, often interchangeably, sometimes even within the same paragraph.

What to Job did the question mean which the Lord addressed to him: "Canst thou guide the Bear and his sons?" To Job it meant, "Canst thou guide this great constellation of stars in the north, in their unceasing round, as a charioteer guides his horses in a wide circle, each keeping to his proper ring, none entangling himself with another, nor falling out of his place?"

What did the question the Lord asked Job mean: "Can you guide the Bear and its cubs?" To Job, it meant, "Can you steer this vast constellation of stars in the north, in their endless cycle, like a charioteer directing his horses in a big circle, each one staying in its own lane, none getting mixed up with the others or falling out of line?"

What would the same question mean to us, if addressed to us to-day? In the first place we might put it shortly as "Canst thou turn the earth on its axis regularly and continuously, so as to produce this motion of the stars round the pole, and to make day and night?" But modern astronomy can ask the question in a deeper and a wider sense.

What would the same question mean to us if it were asked today? First, we might simply phrase it as "Can you rotate the earth on its axis consistently and continuously to create the motion of the stars around the pole and to create day and night?" However, modern astronomy can explore this question in a deeper and broader way.

It was an ancient idea that the stars were fixed in a crystal sphere, and that they could not alter their relative positions; and indeed until the last century or two, instruments were not delicate enough to measure the small relative shift that stars make. It is within the last seventy years that we have been able to measure the "annual parallax" of certain stars,—that is, the difference in the position of a star when viewed by [265]the earth from the opposite ends of a diameter of the earth's orbit round the sun. Besides their yearly shift due to "annual parallax," most stars have a "proper" or "peculiar motion" of their own, which is in most cases a very small amount indeed, but can be determined more easily than "annual parallax" because its effect accumulates year after year. If, therefore, we are able to observe a star over a period of fifty, or a hundred or more years, it may seem to have moved quite an appreciable amount when examined by the powerful and delicate instruments that we have now at our disposal. Observations of the exact positions of stars have been made ever since the founding of Greenwich Observatory, so that now we have catalogues giving the "proper motions" of several hundreds of stars. When these are examined it is seen that some groups of stars move in fellowship together through space, having the same direction, and moving at the same rate, and of these companies the most striking are the stars of the Plough, that is ‘Ayish and his sons. Not all the stars move together; out of the seven, the first and the last have a different direction, but the other five show a striking similarity in their paths. And not only are their directions of movement, and the amounts of it, the same for the five stars, but spectroscopic observations of their motion in the line of sight show that they are all approaching us with a speed of about eighteen miles a second, that is to say with much the same speed as the earth moves in her orbit round the sun. Another indication of their "family likeness" is that all their [266]spectra are similar. A German astronomer, Dr. Höffler, has found for this system a distance from us so great that it would take light 192 years to travel from them to us. Yet so vast is this company of five stars that it would take light seventy years, travelling at the rate of 186,000 miles in every second of time to go from the leading star, Merak—Beta of the Bear—to Mizar—Zeta of the Bear—the final brilliant of the five. So bright and great are these suns that they shine to us as gems of the second magnitude, and yet if our sun were placed amongst them at their distance from us he would be invisible to the keenest sight.

It was an old belief that the stars were fixed in a crystal sphere and couldn't change their positions relative to each other. In fact, until the last century or two, the tools available weren't sensitive enough to detect the tiny shifts that stars make. Only in the last seventy years have we been able to measure the "annual parallax" of certain stars—that is, the difference in a star's position when viewed from the opposite ends of Earth's orbit around the sun. Apart from their yearly shift due to "annual parallax," most stars have their own "proper" or "peculiar motion," which, although usually very slight, can be measured more easily than "annual parallax" because its effects add up year after year. Therefore, if we observe a star over a period of fifty, a hundred years, or more, it may appear to have moved a noticeable distance when viewed with the powerful and precise instruments we have today. Since the founding of Greenwich Observatory, we have been recording the exact positions of stars, resulting in catalogs that list the "proper motions" of several hundred stars. Upon examination, it seems that some groups of stars move together through space, having the same direction and speed; among these, the most striking are the stars of the Plough, that is, ‘Ayish and his sons. Not all the stars move together; among the seven, the first and the last have different directions, but the other five display a remarkable similarity in their paths. Not only are their directions and speeds of movement similar, but spectroscopic observations of their motion along the line of sight show that they are all approaching us at about eighteen miles per second, which is roughly the same speed as Earth travels in its orbit around the sun. Another sign of their "family resemblance" is that all their[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]spectra are similar. A German astronomer, Dr. Höffler, has determined that this system is located so far away that it takes light 192 years to reach us from there. Yet, so immense is this group of five stars that it would take light seventy years, traveling at 186,000 miles per second, to travel from the leading star, Merak—Beta of the Bear—to Mizar—Zeta of the Bear—the last brilliant of the five. These suns are so bright and massive that they shine for us as gems of the second magnitude, but if our sun were placed among them at that distance, it would be invisible to even the sharpest eyes.

Dr. Höffler's estimate may be an exaggerated one, but it still remains true that whilst the cluster of the Pleiades forms a great and wonderful family group, it is dwarfed into insignificance by the vast distances between these five stars of the Great Bear. Yet these also form one family, though they are united by no nebulous bands, and are at distances so great from each other that the bonds of gravitation must cease to show their influence; yet all are alike, all are marshalled together in their march under some mysterious law. We cannot answer the question, "By what means are ‘Ayish and his sons guided?" much more are we speechless when we are asked, "Canst thou guide them?"

Dr. Höffler's estimate might be an overstatement, but it's still true that while the Pleiades cluster creates a beautiful and impressive family group, it pales in comparison to the immense distances between the five stars of the Great Bear. Yet these stars also form a family, even though they aren't connected by any fuzzy bands and are so far apart that gravitational forces likely have no effect on them; still, they are all similar, all aligned in their journey under some mysterious law. We can't answer the question, "How are ‘Ayish and his sons guided?" and we're even more at a loss when asked, "Can you guide them?"

[267]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

FOOTNOTES:

[263:1] Astronomy in the Old Testament, p. 69.

[268]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

"BLOW UP THE TRUMPET IN THE NEW MOON."ToList

"BLOW THE TRUMPET ON THE NEW MOON."ToList

[269]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

BOOK III

TIMES AND SEASONS

CHAPTER I

THE DAY AND ITS DIVISIONS

There is a difference of opinion at the present day amongst astronomers as to the time in which the planet Venus rotates upon her axis. This difference arises through the difficulty of perceiving or identifying any markings on her brilliantly lighted surface. She is probably continually cloud-covered, and the movements of the very faint shadings that are sometimes seen upon her have been differently interpreted. The older observers concurred in giving her a rotation period of 23^h 21^m, which is not very different from that of the earth. Many astronomers, amongst them Schiaparelli, assign a rotation period of 225 days, that is to say the same period as that in which she goes round the sun in her orbit. The axis on which she rotates is almost certainly at right angles to the plane in which she moves round the sun, and she has no moon.

There is currently a disagreement among astronomers about how long it takes the planet Venus to rotate on its axis. This disagreement stems from the challenge of seeing or recognizing any features on her brightly lit surface. She is likely always covered in clouds, and the movements of the very faint shadings that can sometimes be observed have been interpreted in different ways. Earlier observers generally agreed on a rotation period of 23^h 21^m, which is quite similar to Earth's. Many astronomers, including Schiaparelli, suggest a rotation period of 225 days, which is the same time it takes her to orbit the sun. The axis on which she rotates is almost certainly perpendicular to the plane in which she revolves around the sun, and she has no moon.

We do not know if the planet is inhabited by intelligent beings, but assuming the existence of such, it will be instructive to inquire as to the conditions under which [270]they must live if this view be correct, and the rotation period of Venus, and her revolution period be the same.

We don’t know if the planet is home to intelligent beings, but if we assume there are, it would be helpful to explore the conditions they would need to live under, given that this perspective is accurate and that Venus's rotation and revolution periods are the same.

Venus would then always turn the same face to the sun, just as our moon always turns the same face to us and so never appears to turn round. Venus would therefore have no "days," for on her one hemisphere there would be eternal light, and on the other eternal darkness. Since she has no moon, she has no "month." Since she moves round the sun in a circle, and the axis through her north and south poles lies at right angles to her ecliptic, she has no "seasons," she can have no "year." On her daylight side, the sun remains fixed in one spot in the sky, so long as the observer does not leave his locality; it hangs overhead, or near some horizon, north, south, east, or west, continually. There are no "hours," therefore no divisions of time, it might be almost said no "time" itself. There are no points of the compass even, no north, south, east or west, no directions except towards the place where the sun is overhead or away from it. There could be no history in the sense we know it, for there would be no natural means of dating. "Time" must there be artificial, uncertain and arbitrary.

Venus always presents the same side to the sun, just like our moon always shows the same face to us and never seems to rotate. Therefore, Venus has no "days," as one side experiences constant daylight while the other is in perpetual darkness. Without a moon, there’s no "month." Since she orbits the sun in a circle and her axis through the north and south poles is perpendicular to her ecliptic, she has no "seasons," and thus no "year." On her sunlit side, the sun stays fixed in one spot in the sky as long as the observer remains in the same location; it is either directly overhead or near the horizon in any direction—north, south, east, or west—constantly. There are no "hours," and therefore no divisions of time; one might almost say there is no "time" at all. There are no compass points—no north, south, east, or west—only directions towards where the sun is overhead or away from it. Consequently, there could be no history as we understand it, since there would be no natural way to keep track of dates. "Time" would have to be artificial, uncertain, and arbitrary.

On the night side of Venus, if her men can see the stars at all for cloud, they would perceive the slow procession of stars coming out, for Venus turns continually to the heavens—though not to the sun. Mazzaroth would still be brought out in his season, but there would be no answering change on Venus. Her men might still know the ordinances of heaven, but they could not know the dominion thereof set upon their earth.

On the dark side of Venus, if its inhabitants can see the stars through the clouds, they would notice the stars slowly appearing, as Venus constantly turns towards the sky—though not towards the sun. Mazzaroth would still appear in its time, but there would be no corresponding change on Venus. The people there might understand the rules of the universe, but they wouldn't grasp the control those rules have over their world.

[271]This imaginary picture of the state of our sister planet may illustrate the fourteenth verse of the first chapter of Genesis:—

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]This imagined view of our sister planet might help explain the fourteenth verse of the first chapter of Genesis:—

"And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years."

"And God said, 'Let there be lights in the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years.'"

The making of the calendar is in all nations an astronomical problem: it is the movements of the various heavenly bodies that give to us our most natural divisions of time. We are told in Deuteronomy:—

The creation of the calendar is an astronomical issue in all countries: it is the movements of different celestial bodies that provide us with our most natural divisions of time. We are told in Deuteronomy:—

"The sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, . . . the Lord thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven."

"The sun, the moon, and the stars, even the entire heavenly host, ... the Lord your God has given to all nations under the whole sky."

This is the legitimate use of the heavenly bodies, just as the worship of them is their abuse, for the division of time—in other words, the formation of a calendar—is a necessity. But as there are many heavenly bodies and several natural divisions of time, the calendars in use by different peoples differ considerably. One division, however, is common to all calendars—the day.

This is the rightful use of celestial bodies, just as their worship is a misuse, since dividing time—in other words, creating a calendar—is essential. However, because there are many celestial bodies and various natural divisions of time, the calendars used by different cultures vary significantly. One division, though, is consistent across all calendars—the day.

The "day" is the first and shortest natural division of time. At present we recognize three kinds of "days"—the sidereal day, which is the interval of time between successive passages of a fixed star over a given meridian; the apparent solar day, which is the interval between two passages of the sun's centre over a given meridian, or the interval between two successive noons on a sundial; and the mean solar day, which is the interval between the [272]successive passages of a fictitious sun moving uniformly eastward in the celestial equator, and completing its annual course in exactly the same time as that in which the actual sun makes the circuit of the ecliptic. The mean solar days are all exactly the same length; they are equal to the length of the average apparent solar day; and they are each four minutes longer than a sidereal day. We divide our days into 24 hours; each hour into 60 minutes; each minute into 60 seconds. This subdivision of the day requires some mechanical means of continually registering time, and for this purpose we use clocks and watches.

The "day" is the first and shortest natural division of time. Nowadays, we recognize three types of "days"—the sidereal day, which is the time it takes for a fixed star to cross the same meridian again; the apparent solar day, which is the time between two crossings of the sun's center over the same meridian, or the time between two successive noons on a sundial; and the mean solar day, which is the interval between [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]the successive crossings of an imaginary sun that moves steadily eastward along the celestial equator, completing its yearly journey in the same amount of time that the actual sun takes to travel around the ecliptic. The mean solar days are all exactly the same length; they equal the length of the average apparent solar day; and each is four minutes longer than a sidereal day. We break our days into 24 hours; each hour into 60 minutes; and each minute into 60 seconds. This breakdown of the day requires some mechanical way to keep track of time, and for that, we use clocks and watches.

The sidereal day and the mean solar day necessitate some means of registering time, such as clocks; therefore the original day in use must have been the apparent solar day. It must then have been reckoned either from sunset to sunset, or from sunrise to sunrise. Later it might have been possible to reckon it from noon to noon, when some method of fixing the moment of noon had been invented; some method, that is to say, of fixing the true north and south, and of noting that the sun was due south, or the shadow due north. Our own reckoning from midnight to midnight is a late method. Midnight is not marked by the peculiar position of any visible heavenly body; it has, in general, to be registered by some mechanical time-measurer.

The sidereal day and the mean solar day require a way to track time, like clocks; therefore, the initial day used must have been the apparent solar day. It must have been measured either from sunset to sunset or from sunrise to sunrise. Later on, it might have been possible to measure it from noon to noon once a method for determining the moment of noon was developed; that is, a way to identify true north and south, and to observe when the sun was directly south or the shadow pointed north. Our current way of measuring time from midnight to midnight is a more recent practice. Midnight isn’t marked by the specific position of any visible celestial object; for the most part, it has to be recorded by some mechanical timekeeper.

In the Old Testament Scriptures the ecclesiastical reckoning was always from one setting of the sun to the next. In the first chapter of Genesis the expressions for the days run, "The evening and the morning," as if the [273]evening took precedence of the morning. When the Passover was instituted as a memorial feast, the command ran—

In the Old Testament, the way time was counted by the church was always from one sunset to the next. In the first chapter of Genesis, the days are described as "The evening and the morning," suggesting that the evening comes before the morning. When the Passover was established as a memorial feast, the instruction said—

"In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even. Seven days shall there be no leaven."

"In the first month, on the fourteenth day at evening, you shall eat unleavened bread until the twenty-first day at evening. For seven days, there shall be no yeast."

And again, for the sabbath of rest in the seventh month—

And once more, for the day of rest in the seventh month—

"In the ninth day of the month at even, from even unto even, shall ye celebrate your sabbath."

"In the evening of the ninth day of the month, from evening to evening, you shall celebrate your Sabbath."

The ecclesiastical "day" of the Jews, therefore, began in the evening, with sunset. It does not by any means follow that their civil day began at this time. It would be more natural for such business contracts as the hiring of servants or labourers to date from morning to morning rather than from evening to evening. Naturally any allusion in the Scriptures to the civil calendar as apart from the ecclesiastical would be indirect, but that common custom was not entirely in agreement with the ecclesiastical formula we may perhaps gather from the fact that in the Old Testament there are twenty-six cases in which the phrases "day and night," "day or night" are employed, and only three where "night" comes before "day." We have a similar divergence of usage in the case of our civil and astronomical days; the first beginning at midnight, and the second at the following noon, since the daylight is the time for work in ordinary business life, but [274]the night for the astronomers. The Babylonians, at least at a late date in their history, had also a twofold way of determining when the day began. Epping and Strassmaier have translated and elucidated a series of Babylonian lunar calendars of dates between the first and second centuries before our era. In one column of these was given the interval of time which elapsed between the true new moon and the first visible crescent.

The religious "day" for the Jews starts in the evening, at sunset. This doesn’t necessarily mean their civil day begins at the same time. It would make more sense for things like contracts for hiring workers to be based on a morning-to-morning schedule rather than evening-to-evening. Any references in the Scriptures to the civil calendar, separate from the religious one, would be indirect. However, we might infer that local customs didn’t fully align with the religious timetable, considering that in the Old Testament there are twenty-six instances of the phrases "day and night" or "day or night," and only three times where "night" comes before "day." We see a similar difference in our civil and astronomical days; the civil day starts at midnight, while the astronomical day begins at noon, since daytime is typically when work happens, but [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]nighttime is for astronomers. The Babylonians, at least later in their history, also had two ways of determining when the day started. Epping and Strassmaier translated and explained several Babylonian lunar calendars from the first and second centuries before our era. One column in these calendars noted the time that passed between the actual new moon and the first visible crescent.

"Curious to relate, at first all Father Epping's calculations to establish this result were out by a mean interval of six hours. The solution was found in the fact that the Babylonian astronomers were not content with such a variable instant of time as sunset for their calculations, as indeed they ought not to have been, but used as the origin of the astronomical day at Babylon the midnight which followed the setting of the sun, marking the beginning of the civil day."

"Interestingly, at first all of Father Epping's calculations to determine this result were off by an average of six hours. The issue was that the Babylonian astronomers weren't satisfied with a variable moment like sunset for their calculations, which they shouldn't have been. Instead, they used the midnight that followed the sunset as the starting point for the astronomical day in Babylon, marking the beginning of the civil day."

It may be mentioned that the days as reckoned from sunset to sunset, sunrise to sunrise, and noon to noon, would give intervals of slightly different lengths. This would, however, be imperceptible so long as their lengths were not measured by some accurate mechanical time-measurer such as a clepsydra, sandglass, pendulum, or spring clock.

It’s worth noting that the days measured from sunset to sunset, sunrise to sunrise, and noon to noon would have slightly different lengths. However, this difference would be unnoticed as long as their lengths weren't measured with an accurate mechanical timekeeper like a water clock, hourglass, pendulum, or spring clock.

The first obvious and natural division of the whole day-interval is into the light part and the dark part. As we have seen in Genesis, the evening and the morning are the day. Since Palestine is a sub-tropical country, these would never differ very greatly in length, even at midsummer or midwinter.

The first clear and natural division of the entire day is into the light part and the dark part. As we have seen in Genesis, evening and morning make up the day. Since Palestine is a subtropical region, the lengths of these parts don't vary much, even in the middle of summer or winter.

The next subdivision, of the light part of the day, is [275]into morning, noon and evening. As David says in the fifty-fifth Psalm—

The next subdivision of the light part of the day is [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]into morning, noon, and evening. As David says in the fifty-fifth Psalm—

"I will pray in the evening, in the morning, and at noon."

None of these three subdivisions were marked out definitely in their beginning or their ending, but each contained a definite epoch. Morning contained the moment at which the sun rose; noon the moment at which he was at his greatest height, and was at the same time due south; evening contained the moment at which the sun set.

None of these three subdivisions were clearly defined in their start or end, but each represented a specific period. Morning included the moment when the sun rose; noon was the moment when it was at its highest point and directly south; evening marked the moment when the sun set.

In the early Scriptures of the Old Testament, the further divisions of the morning and the evening are still natural ones.

In the early writings of the Old Testament, the distinctions between morning and evening are still based on natural occurrences.

For the progress of the morning we have, first, the twilight, as in Job—

For the progress of the morning, we start with the dawn, like in Job—

"Let the stars of the evening be obscured;
Let it seek light but find none;
"Don't let it see the light of day."

Then, daybreak, as in the Song of Solomon—

Then, daybreak, like in the Song of Solomon—

"Until the day breaks (literally, breathe) and the shadows disappear,"

where the reference is to the cool breezes of twilight. So too in Genesis, in Joshua, in the Judges and in Samuel, we find references to the "break of day" (literally, the rising of the morning, or when it became light to them) and "the dawning of the day" or "about the spring of the day."

where the reference is to the cool breezes of twilight. Similarly, in Genesis, in Joshua, in the Judges, and in Samuel, we come across mentions of the "break of day" (literally, the rising of the morning, or when it became light for them) and "the dawning of the day" or "around the spring of the day."

[276] The progress of the morning is marked by the increasing heat; thus as "the sun waxed hot," the manna melted; whilst Saul promised to let the men of Jabesh-Gilead have help "by that time the sun be hot," or, as we should put it, about the middle of the morning.

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] The morning's progress is signaled by the rising heat; so as "the sun grew hotter," the manna melted; while Saul promised to send assistance to the men of Jabesh-Gilead "by the time the sun is hot," or, in our terms, around mid-morning.

Noon is often mentioned. Ish-bosheth was murdered as he "lay on a bed at noon," and Jezebel's prophets "called on the name of Baal from morning even unto noon."

Noon is often mentioned. Ish-bosheth was killed while he "lay on a bed at noon," and Jezebel's prophets "called on the name of Baal from morning until noon."

We find the "afternoon" (lit. "till the day declined") mentioned in the nineteenth chapter of the Judges, and in the same chapter this period is further described in "The day draweth toward evening (lit. is weak)," and "The day groweth to an end" (lit. "It is the pitching time of the day," that is to say, the time for pitching tents, in preparation for the nightly halt).

We see the "afternoon" (literally, "until the day declined") mentioned in the nineteenth chapter of the Judges, and in that same chapter, this time is further described as "The day is drawing to a close" (literally, "is weak"), and "The day is coming to an end" (literally, "It is the time to set up tents," which means the time for preparing to stop for the night).

As there was no dividing line between the morning and noontide, neither was there any between the afternoon and evening. The shadows of the night were spoken of as chased away by the cool breezes of the morning, so the lengthening shadows cast by the declining sun marked the progress of the evening. Job speaks of the servant who "earnestly desireth the shadow;" that is to say, the intimation, from the length of his own shadow, that his day's work was done; and Jeremiah says, "The shadows of the evening are stretched out." Then came sundown, and the remaining part of the evening is described in Proverbs: "In the twilight, in the evening, in the black and dark night."

As there was no clear separation between morning and noon, there was also none between afternoon and evening. People talked about the night’s shadows being pushed away by the cool morning breezes, just as the shadows growing longer from the setting sun indicated that evening was upon them. Job mentions the servant who "earnestly desires the shadow," meaning the sign from his own shadow that his day’s work was finished; and Jeremiah notes, "The shadows of the evening are stretched out." Then came sunset, and the rest of the evening is described in Proverbs: "In the twilight, in the evening, in the black and dark night."

In a country like Palestine, near the tropics, with the days not differing extravagantly in length from one part of [277]the year to another, and the sun generally bright and shining, and throwing intense shadows, it was easy, even for the uneducated, to learn to tell the time of day from the length of the shadow. Here, in our northern latitude, the problem is a more complex one, yet we learn from the Canterbury Tales, that Englishmen in the time of the Plantagenets could read the position of the sun with quite sufficient accuracy for ordinary purposes. Thus the host of the Tabard inn, though not a learned man—

In a country like Palestine, close to the tropics, where the length of days doesn’t vary much throughout the year and the sun is usually bright and creates strong shadows, it was easy, even for those without an education, to tell the time of day by the length of the shadow. Here, in our northern location, it’s more complicated, but we learn from the Canterbury Tales that English people during the time of the Plantagenets could determine the sun's position accurately enough for everyday needs. So, the host of the Tabard inn, even though he wasn't educated—

"Saw well, that the bright sun" The ark of his artificial day had run. The fourth part, and half an hour or more; And although he wasn't deeply knowledgeable in the subject, He knew it was the 28th day. Of April, the messenger to May; And saw well that the shadow of every tree Was the same length of the same quantity. That was the upright body that caused it;
And so by the shadow, he took his wits,
That Phebus, which shone so clearly and brightly, Degrees was five and forty climbed in height; And for that day, in that area,
It was ten o'clock when he decided to wrap things up.[277:1]

In the latter part of the day there is an expression used several times in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers "between the two evenings" which has given rise to much controversy. The lamb of the Passover was killed in this period; so also was the lamb of the first year offered daily at the evening sacrifice; and day by day Aaron was then commanded to light the seven lamps and burn incense. It is also mentioned once, in no connection with the evening [278]sacrifice, when the Lord sent quails to the children of Israel saying, "At even (between the two evenings) ye shall eat flesh." In Deuteronomy, where a command is again given concerning the Passover, it is explained that it is "at even, at the going down of the sun." The Samaritans, the Karaite Jews, and Aben Ezra held "the two evenings" to be the interval between the sun's setting and the entrance of total darkness; i. e. between about six o'clock and seven or half-past seven. A graphic description of the commencement of the sabbath is given in Disraeli's novel of Alroy, and may serve to illustrate this, the original, idea of "between the two evenings."

In the later part of the day, there’s an expression used multiple times in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers: "between the two evenings," which has sparked a lot of debate. The Passover lamb was sacrificed during this time; the lamb from the first year was also offered daily at the evening sacrifice. Each day, Aaron was instructed to light the seven lamps and burn incense. It’s also mentioned once, unrelated to the evening sacrifice, when the Lord sent quails to the Israelites, saying, "At even (between the two evenings), you shall eat flesh." In Deuteronomy, where there’s another command regarding Passover, it clarifies that it is "at even, at the going down of the sun." The Samaritans, Karaite Jews, and Aben Ezra understood "the two evenings" to mean the time between sunset and total darkness; that is, roughly between six o'clock and seven or seven-thirty. A vivid description of the beginning of the Sabbath is found in Disraeli’s novel, *Alroy*, which may help clarify the original concept of "between the two evenings."

"The dead were plundered, and thrown into the river, the encampment of the Hebrews completed. Alroy, with his principal officers, visited the wounded, and praised the valiant. The bustle which always succeeds a victory was increased in the present instance by the anxiety of the army to observe with grateful strictness the impending sabbath.

"The dead were looted and tossed into the river as the Hebrews finished setting up their camp. Alroy, along with his main officers, checked on the wounded and commended the brave ones. The activity that typically follows a victory was heightened this time by the army's eagerness to respectfully prepare for the upcoming Sabbath."

"When the sun set the sabbath was to commence. The undulating horizon rendered it difficult to ascertain the precise moment of his fall. The crimson orb sunk below the purple mountains, the sky was flushed with a rich and rosy glow. Then might be perceived the zealots, proud in their Talmudical lore, holding the skein of white silk in their hands, and announcing the approach of the sabbath by their observation of its shifting tints. While the skein was yet golden, the forge of the armourers still sounded, the fire of the cook still blazed, still the cavalry led their steeds to the river, and still the busy footmen braced up their tents, and hammered at their palisades. The skein of silk became rosy, the armourer worked with renewed energy, the cook puffed with increased zeal, the [279]horsemen scampered from the river, the footmen cast an anxious glance at the fading light.

"When the sun set, the Sabbath was set to begin. The rolling hills made it hard to tell the exact moment of his descent. The red sun dropped below the purple mountains, and the sky glowed with a warm rosy hue. Then you could see the zealots, proud of their Talmudic knowledge, holding a skein of white silk in their hands, announcing the Sabbath’s arrival by watching the changing colors. While the skein was still golden, the sounds of the armorers' forge continued, the cook's fire still blazed, the cavalry still led their horses to the river, and the busy foot soldiers were setting up their tents and hammering their barricades. The silk skein turned rosy, the armorers worked with renewed energy, the cook labored with increased enthusiasm, the horsemen rushed back from the river, and the foot soldiers glanced anxiously at the fading light."

"The skein of silk became blue; a dim, dull, sepulchral, leaden tinge fell over its purity. The hum of gnats arose, the bat flew in circling whirls over the tents, horns sounded from all quarters, the sun had set, the sabbath had commenced. The forge was mute, the fire extinguished, the prance of horses and the bustle of men in a moment ceased. A deep, a sudden, an all-pervading stillness dropped over that mighty host. It was night; the sacred lamps of the sabbath sparkled in every tent of the camp, which vied in silence and in brilliancy with the mute and glowing heavens."

"The silk thread turned blue; a dim, dull, grave, leaden hue fell over its purity. The buzz of gnats filled the air, and the bat flew in circles above the tents. Horns sounded from all directions, the sun had set, and the sabbath had begun. The forge was silent, the fire was out, and the prancing of horses and the commotion of men abruptly stopped. A deep, sudden, and all-encompassing stillness enveloped that vast host. It was night; the sacred sabbath lamps sparkled in every tent of the camp, competing in silence and brilliance with the quiet, glowing heavens."

In later times, on account of ritualistic necessities, a different interpretation was held. So Josephus says: "So these high-priests, upon the coming of their feast which is called the Passover, . . . slay their sacrifices, from the ninth hour till the eleventh."[279:1] And the Talmud made the first evening to begin with the visible decline of the sun and the second with sunset, or "the two evenings" to last from three till about six. Schiaparelli gives the first evening from sunset until the time that the newly visible lunar crescent could be seen in the twilight sky, or about half an hour after sunset, and the second evening from that until darkness set in, basing his argument on the directions to Aaron to light the lamps "between the two evenings," since, he argues, these would not be made to burn in the daylight. Probably in the days of Moses and Aaron the period could not be defined as accurately as this would imply, as the opportunity of seeing the new moon could only come once a month, and we have no [280]evidence of any mechanical time-measurer being then in use with them.

In later times, due to ritual needs, a different interpretation emerged. Josephus states: "So these high priests, when their feast called the Passover approaches, ... sacrifice their offerings from the ninth hour until the eleventh." [279:1] The Talmud defined the first evening to start with the visible decline of the sun and the second with sunset, meaning "the two evenings" lasted from three until about six. Schiaparelli describes the first evening as lasting from sunset until the newly visible lunar crescent could be seen in the twilight sky, which is about half an hour after sunset, and the second evening from that point until night fell, arguing this based on the instructions to Aaron to light the lamps "between the two evenings," as it wouldn’t make sense to light them during daylight. It's likely that in the times of Moses and Aaron, this period couldn't be defined as precisely as this suggests, since the chance to see the new moon came only once a month, and there’s no [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]evidence that they used any mechanical time-keeping devices.

For shorter spaces of time we have the word "moment" or "instant" many times mentioned. The words may mean, the opening or winking of the eye, "the twinkling of an eye," spoken of by St. Paul, in his Epistle to the Corinthians, and do not describe any actual duration of time, or division of the day.

For brief periods, we often use the terms "moment" or "instant." These words can refer to the blink of an eye, the "twinkling of an eye," as mentioned by St. Paul in his letter to the Corinthians, and they don’t actually indicate any specific duration of time or division of the day.

The only time-measurer mentioned in the Bible is the dial of Ahaz, which will form the subject of a later chapter. It need only be noted here that, as it depended upon the fall of the shadow, it was of use only whilst the sun was shining; not during cloudy weather, or at night.

The only time-measurer mentioned in the Bible is the dial of Ahaz, which will be discussed in a later chapter. It’s important to note here that, since it relied on the shadow's position, it only worked while the sun was shining; it didn’t work during cloudy weather or at night.

As the day had three main divisions, so had also the night. There were three "watches," each, like the watches on ship-board, about four hours in length. So in the Psalms, "the watches" are twice put as an equivalent for the night.

As the day had three main parts, so did the night. There were three "watches," each lasting about four hours, similar to the watches on a ship. In the Psalms, "the watches" is mentioned twice as another way to refer to the night.

The ancient Hebrews would have no difficulty in roughly dividing the night into three equal parts, whenever the stars could be seen. Whether they watched "Arcturus and his sons,"—the circumpolar constellations moving round like a vast dial in the north—or the bringing forth of Mazzaroth, the zodiacal constellations, in the south, they would soon learn to interpret the signs of night with sufficient accuracy for their purpose.

The ancient Hebrews had no trouble roughly dividing the night into three equal parts whenever the stars were visible. Whether they observed "Arcturus and his sons,"—the circumpolar constellations rotating like a giant clock in the north—or the rising of Mazzaroth, the zodiac constellations, in the south, they quickly learned to interpret the signs of the night well enough for their needs.

The first watch of night is mentioned in the book of Lamentations.

The first watch of the night is mentioned in the book of Lamentations.

"Arise, cry out in the night: in the beginning of the watches pour out thine heart like water before the face of the Lord."

"Get up, cry out in the night: at the start of the night watches, pour out your heart like water before the Lord."

[281]It was "in the beginning of the middle watch; and they had but newly set the watch," that Gideon and his gallant three hundred made their onslaught on the host of the Midianites.

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]It was "at the start of the middle watch; and they had just set the watch," that Gideon and his brave three hundred launched their attack on the Midianite army.

It was in the third, the morning watch, that "the Lord looked unto the host of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire and of the cloud, and troubled the host of the Egyptians" as they pursued Israel into the midst of the Red Sea. In this watch also, Saul surprised the Ammonites as they besieged Jabesh-Gilead, and scattered them, "so that two of them were not left together."

It was during the third watch, the early morning hours, that "the Lord looked at the army of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire and the cloud, and disturbed the army of the Egyptians" as they chased Israel into the middle of the Red Sea. In this same watch, Saul caught the Ammonites off guard as they besieged Jabesh-Gilead and scattered them, "so that not two of them were left together."

In the New Testament, the Roman method of dividing the night is adopted; viz. into four watches. When the disciples were crossing the Sea of Galilee in their little boat, and they had toiled all night in rowing because the wind was contrary, it was in "the fourth watch of the night" that Jesus came unto them.

In the New Testament, the Roman way of dividing the night is used; specifically, into four watches. When the disciples were crossing the Sea of Galilee in their small boat and had rowed all night because the wind was against them, it was during "the fourth watch of the night" that Jesus came to them.

There is no mention of any mechanical time-measurer in the Old Testament, and in only one book is there mention in the English version of the word "hour." Five times it is mentioned in the Book of Daniel as the rendering of the Chaldean word sha‘ah, which literally means "the instant of time."

There is no mention of any mechanical time-measurer in the Old Testament, and in only one book is there mention in the English version of the word "hour." It appears five times in the Book of Daniel as the translation of the Chaldean word sha‘ah, which literally means "the instant of time."

No mention either is made of the differing lengths of the days or nights throughout the year—at midsummer the day is 14-1/4 hours long, and the night 9-3/4. Job speaks, however, of causing "the day-spring to know its place," which may well refer to the varying places along the eastern horizon at which the sun rose during the course of the year. Thus in mid-winter the sun rose 28° south of [282]the east point, or half a point south of E.S.E. Similarly in midsummer it rose 28° north of east, or half a point north of E.N.E.[282:1]

No mention is made of the different lengths of day and night throughout the year—at midsummer, the day lasts 14.25 hours, while the night is 9.75 hours long. Job, however, refers to causing "the day-spring to know its place," which could relate to the different locations along the eastern horizon where the sun rises throughout the year. In mid-winter, the sun rises 28° south of [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]the east point, or half a point south of E.S.E. Likewise, in midsummer, it rises 28° north of east, or half a point north of E.N.E.[282:1]

The Babylonians divided the whole day interval into twelve kasbu, or "double hours." Those again were divided into sixty parts, each equal to two of our minutes; this being about the time that is required for the disc of the sun to rise or set wholly. The Babylonian kasbu was not only a division of time, but a division of space, signifying the space that might be marched in a kasbu of time. Similarly we find, in the Old Testament, the expression "a day's journey," or "three days' journey," to express distance, and in the New Testament we find the same idea applied to a shorter distance in the "sabbath-day's journey," which was about two miles. But the Jews in New Testament times adopted, not the Babylonian day of twelve hours, but the Egyptian of twenty-four. So we find, in the parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard, mention made of hiring early in the morning, and at the third, sixth, ninth, and eleventh hours; and since those hired latest worked for but one hour, it is evident that there were twelve hours in the daylight. Our Lord alludes to this expressly in the Gospel according to St. John, where he says—

The Babylonians divided the entire day into twelve kasbu, or "double hours." Each of those was divided into sixty parts, each equal to two of our minutes; this being about the time it takes for the sun to fully rise or set. The Babylonian kasbu was not only a way to measure time, but also a measure of space, referring to the distance that could be traveled in a kasbu of time. Similarly, in the Old Testament, we see the terms "a day's journey" or "three days' journey" to describe distances, and in the New Testament, we find the concept applied to a shorter distance in the "sabbath-day's journey," which was about two miles. However, the Jews in New Testament times used the Egyptian system of a twenty-four hour day instead of the Babylonian twelve-hour system. In the parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard, we see references to hiring in the early morning, and at the third, sixth, ninth, and eleventh hours; and since those who were hired last worked for only one hour, it’s clear that there were twelve hours of daylight. Our Lord directly refers to this in the Gospel according to St. John, where he says—

"Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world. But if a man walk in the night, he stumbleth, because there is no light in him."

"Are there not twelve hours in the day? If someone walks during the day, they won't stumble because they can see the light of this world. But if someone walks at night, they will stumble because they have no light in them."

FOOTNOTES:

[277:1] The Man of Lawe's Prologue, lines 4421-4434.

[279:1] Josephus, Wars, VI. ix. 3.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Josephus, Wars, VI. ix. 3.

[282:1] See the diagram on p. 363.

[282:1] Check out the diagram on p. 363.

[283]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

CHAPTER II

THE SABBATH AND THE WEEK

The present chapter has little, if anything, to do with astronomy, for the week, as such, is not an astronomical period. But the sabbath and the week of seven days are so intimately connected with the laws and customs of Israel that it is impossible to leave them out of consideration in dealing with the "times and seasons" referred to in the Bible.

The current chapter has very little to do with astronomy because the week, as a concept, isn't an astronomical time frame. However, the Sabbath and the seven-day week are so closely linked to the laws and customs of Israel that we can't ignore them when discussing the "times and seasons" mentioned in the Bible.

The day, the month and the year are each defined by some specific revolution of one of the great cosmical bodies; there is in each case a return of the earth, or of the earth and moon together, to the same position, relative to the sun, as that held at the beginning of the period.

The day, the month, and the year are each defined by the specific orbit of one of the major celestial bodies; in each case, the earth, or the earth and moon together, return to the same position relative to the sun as they were at the start of the period.

The week stands in a different category. It is not defined by any astronomical revolution; it is defined by the return of the sabbath, the consecrated day.

The week belongs to a different category. It's not defined by any astronomical cycle; it's defined by the arrival of the sabbath, the sacred day.

A need for the division of time into short periods, less than a month, has been generally felt amongst civilized men. Business of state, commercial arrangements, social intercourse, are all more easily carried out, when some such period is universally recognized. And so, what we [284]may loosely term a "week," has been employed in many ancient nations. The Aztecs, using a short month of 20 days, divided it into four quarters of 5 days each. The Egyptians, using a conventional month of 30 days, divided it into 3 decades; and decades were also used by the Athenians, whose months were alternately of 29 and of 30 days.

A need for dividing time into shorter periods, less than a month, has been widely recognized among civilized people. State affairs, business deals, and social interactions are all easier to manage when some period is universally accepted. Thus, what we can loosely call a "week" has been used in many ancient cultures. The Aztecs, who had a short month of 20 days, divided it into four segments of 5 days each. The Egyptians, with a standard month of 30 days, split it into 3 decades; and the Athenians also used decades, with their months alternating between 29 and 30 days.

Hesiod tells us that the days regarded as sacred in his day were the fourth, fourteenth and twenty-fourth of each month.

Hesiod tells us that the days considered sacred in his time were the fourth, fourteenth, and twenty-fourth of each month.

"The fourth and twenty-fourth, no sorrow should weigh down" Within your heart, for either holy day.

Pierce the fourth barrel; the fourteenth prize. As sacred; and, when morning colors the skies,
"The 24th is the best."

The Babylonians divided the month somewhat differently; the seventh, fourteenth, nineteenth, twenty-first and twenty-eighth days being regarded as "sabbaths."[284:1]

The Babylonians divided the month a bit differently; the seventh, fourteenth, nineteenth, twenty-first, and twenty-eighth days were considered "Sabbaths."[284:1]

The sabbath enjoined upon the Hebrews was every seventh day. The week as defined by it was a "free" week; it was tied neither to month nor year, but ran its course uninterruptedly, quite irrespective of the longer divisions of time. It was, therefore, a different conception from that underlying the usages of the Greeks or Babylonians, and, it may be added, a more reasonable and practical one.

The Sabbath required of the Hebrews was every seventh day. The week defined by it was a "free" week; it was not connected to the month or year, but progressed continuously, completely independent of the longer divisions of time. Thus, it represented a different understanding compared to the customs of the Greeks or Babylonians, and it can be said to be a more logical and practical one.

Four origins have been assigned for the week. There [285]are those who assert that it is simply the closest possible approximation to the quarter-month; the mean month being 29-1/2 days in length, a quarter-month would be 7-3/8 days, and since fractions of a day cannot be recognized in any practical division of time for general use, the week of seven days forms the nearest approach to the quarter-month that could be adopted. This is undeniably true, but it is far more likely that such an origin would give rise to the Babylonian system than to the Jewish one, for the Babylonian system corrected the inequality of quarter-month and week every month, and so kept the two in harmony; whilst the Hebrew disregarded the month altogether in the succession of his weeks.

Four origins have been identified for the week. There [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]are those who claim that it’s just the closest approximation to a quarter-month; since the average month is 29-1/2 days long, a quarter-month would be 7-3/8 days. Because we can’t practically use fractions of a day to divide time for everyday purposes, the seven-day week is the closest fit to a quarter-month that can be used. This is certainly true, but it’s much more likely that such an origin would influence the Babylonian system rather than the Jewish one. The Babylonian system adjusted the difference between quarter-month and week every month, maintaining harmony, while the Hebrew system completely ignored the month in the sequence of their weeks.

Next, it is asserted that the Hebrew sabbath was derived from the Babylonian, and that "it is scarcely possible for us to doubt that we owe the blessings decreed in the sabbath or Sunday day of rest in the last resort to that ancient and civilized race on the Euphrates and Tigris."[285:1]

Next, it is claimed that the Hebrew sabbath came from the Babylonian tradition, and that "it is hard to deny that we owe the blessings designated for the sabbath or Sunday day of rest ultimately to that ancient and civilized civilization along the Euphrates and Tigris."[285:1]

There are two points to be considered here. Did the Babylonians observe their "sabbaths" as days of rest; and, were they or the Hebrews the more likely to hand on their observances to another nation?

There are two points to consider here. Did the Babylonians observe their "sabbaths" as days of rest, and were they or the Hebrews more likely to pass on their practices to another nation?

We can answer both these questions. As to the first, a large number of Babylonian documents on tablets, preserved in the British Museum, have been published by Father Strassmaier, and discussed by Prof. Schiaparelli. In all there were 2,764 dated documents available for [286]examination, nearly all of them commercial and civil deeds, and covering practically the whole period from the accession of Nebuchadnezzar to the twenty-third year of Darius Hystaspes. This number would give an average of 94 deeds for each day of the month; the number actually found for the four "sabbaths," i. e. for the 7th, 14th, 21st and 28th days, were 100, 98, 121 and 91 respectively. The Babylonians evidently did not keep these days as days of rest, or of abstinence from business, as the Jews keep their sabbath, or Christian countries their Sunday. They cannot even have regarded it as an unlucky day, since we find the average of contracts is rather higher for a "sabbath" than for a common day.

We can answer both of these questions. For the first one, a large number of Babylonian documents on tablets, preserved in the British Museum, have been published by Father Strassmaier and discussed by Prof. Schiaparelli. In total, there were 2,764 dated documents available for [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] examination, nearly all of which were commercial and civil deeds, covering almost the entire period from the start of Nebuchadnezzar's reign to the twenty-third year of Darius Hystaspes. This number averages out to 94 deeds for each day of the month; the actual numbers found for the four "sabbaths," namely the 7th, 14th, 21st, and 28th days, were 100, 98, 121, and 91, respectively. The Babylonians clearly did not observe these days as days of rest or abstaining from business, unlike how Jews observe their Sabbath or how Christian countries observe Sunday. They didn't even seem to view it as an unlucky day since the average number of contracts is actually higher on a "sabbath" than on a regular day.

The case is a little different with the 19th day of the month. This, as the 49th day from the beginning of the previous month, was a sabbath of sabbaths, at the end of a "week of weeks." In this case only 89 contracts are found, which is slightly below the average, though twelve common days show a lower record still. But in most cases the date is written, not as 19, but as 20-1; as if there were a superstition about the number 19. On the other hand, this method of indicating the number may be nothing more than a mode of writing; just as in our Roman numerals, XIX., one less than XX., is written for 19.

The situation is a bit different with the 19th day of the month. This day, being the 49th from the beginning of the previous month, was a sabbath of sabbaths, marking the end of a "week of weeks." In this case, only 89 contracts are recorded, which is slightly below average, although twelve common days show an even lower record. However, in most instances, the date is noted not as 19, but as 20-1, almost as if there's a superstition associated with the number 19. On the other hand, this way of writing the number might just be a style choice, similar to how we write the Roman numerals, where XIX., one less than XX., represents 19.

The Babylonians, therefore, did not observe these days as days of rest, though they seem to have marked them in the ritual of temple and court. Nor did they make every seventh or every fifth a rest-day, for Prof. Schiaparelli has specially examined these documents to see if they gave [287]any evidence of abstention from business either on one day in seven or on one day in five, and in both cases with a purely negative result.

The Babylonians didn't treat these days as days of rest, although they appeared to acknowledge them in temple and court rituals. They also didn't designate every seventh or every fifth day as a rest day, as Professor Schiaparelli specifically examined these documents to check for any indication of a break from business either on one day every seven or on one day every five, and he found no evidence in either case. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

When we inquire which nation has been successful in impressing their particular form of sabbath on the nations around the case is clear. We have no evidence of the Babylonians securing the adoption of their sabbatic arrangements by the Persians, Greeks and Parthians who successively overcame them. It was entirely different with the Jews. The Jewish kingdom before the Captivity was a very small one compared with its enemies on either side—Assyria, Babylon and Egypt; it was but a shadow even of its former self after the Return. And imperial Rome was a mightier power than Assyria or Babylon at their greatest. If ever one state was secure from influence by another on the score of its greater magnitude and power, Rome was safe from any Jewish impress. Yet it is perfectly well known that the impression made upon the Romans by the Jews in this very matter of sabbath-keeping was widespread and deep. Jewish influence was felt and acknowledged almost from the time that Syria, of which Judæa was but a petty division, became a Roman province, and a generation had not passed away before we find Horace making jocular allusion to the spread of the recognition of the Jewish sabbath. In his ninth satire he describes himself as being buttonholed by a bore, and, seeing a friend pass by, as begging the latter to pretend business with him and so relieve him of his trouble. His friend mischievously excuses himself from talking about business:—

When we ask which nation has been successful in imposing their specific version of the Sabbath on others, the answer is clear. We have no evidence that the Babylonians managed to get the Persians, Greeks, or Parthians—who successively conquered them—to adopt their sabbath practices. The situation was completely different for the Jews. The Jewish kingdom before the Captivity was much smaller compared to its enemies on either side—Assyria, Babylon, and Egypt; it was just a shadow of its former self after the Return. And imperial Rome was a more powerful entity than Assyria or Babylon at their height. If any state was safe from the influence of another due to its size and strength, it was Rome from any Jewish impact. Yet, it is well-documented that the influence the Jews had on the Romans regarding the practice of keeping the Sabbath was widespread and significant. Jewish influence was felt and recognized almost from the time that Syria, of which Judea was just a minor part, became a Roman province, and a generation hadn't passed before we find Horace humorously referencing the acknowledgment of the Jewish Sabbath. In his ninth satire, he describes himself as being cornered by a boor, and when he sees a friend passing by, he begs that friend to pretend to be busy, hoping to be relieved of his predicament. His friend teasingly declines to discuss business:—

[288]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

"Today is the thirtieth Sabbath. Do you intend to…" So, to insult the circumcised Jews?

Persius, in his fifth satire, speaks of those who—

"Move their lips in silence, filled with fear
"The sabbath of the circumcised is honored."

Juvenal, in his fourteenth satire, describes how many Romans reverence the sabbath; and their sons, bettering the example, turn Jews themselves:—

Juvenal, in his fourteenth satire, describes how many Romans honor the Sabbath; and their sons, improving on this example, become Jews themselves:—

"Others are there, whose father observes the Sabbath,
And so they worship nothing but clouds and the sky.
They consider pig's meat, which their father avoided,
No different from a man's. And soon enough Are circumcised; pretending to hate They study, uphold, and respect the laws of Rome. Jewish law, whatever is in the mystical book Moses has passed down—to guide the way Only to the one who follows the same rituals, And those eager to guide to the fountain Only if circumcised. Here's the reason: Was he, their father, to whom every seventh day Was one of laziness, which he undertook No part in life.

Ovid, Tibullus, and others also speak of the Jewish sabbath, not merely as universally known, but as largely observed amongst the Romans, so that it obtained almost a public recognition, whilst the success of Judaism in making proselytes, until Christianity came into rivalry with it, is known to every one.

Ovid, Tibullus, and others also mention the Jewish Sabbath, not just as something widely known, but as largely practiced among the Romans, which gave it almost a public acknowledgment. The success of Judaism in gaining converts, until Christianity began to compete with it, is known to everyone.

As to the general influence of Judaism in securing the recognition of the week with its seventh day of rest, the testimony of Josephus is emphatic.

As for the overall impact of Judaism in establishing the recognition of the week with its seventh day of rest, Josephus's testimony is clear.

[289]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

"The multitude of mankind itself have had a great inclination of a long time to follow our religious observances; for there is not any city of the Grecians, nor any of the barbarians, nor any nation whatsoever, whither our custom of resting on the seventh day hath not come, and by which our fasts and lighting up lamps, and many of our prohibitions as to our food, are not observed; they also endeavour to imitate our mutual concord with one another, and the charitable distribution of our goods, and our diligence in our trades, and our fortitude in undergoing the distresses we are in, on account of our laws; and, what is here matter of the greatest admiration, our law hath no bait of pleasure to allure men to it, but it prevails by its own force; and as God Himself pervades all the world, so hath our law passed through all the world also."[289:1]

"The majority of people have been inclined for a long time to follow our religious practices; for there isn’t a single city among the Greeks, nor among the barbarians, nor any nation at all, where our tradition of resting on the seventh day hasn’t spread, along with our fasting, lighting lamps, and many dietary restrictions. They also try to imitate our unity with one another, our generous sharing of resources, our hard work in our jobs, and our resilience in facing the hardships caused by our laws. What’s truly remarkable is that our law doesn’t offer any enticing pleasures to draw people in; it stands strong on its own. Just as God permeates the entire world, so too has our law spread across the globe." [289:1]

Philo, the Jew, bears equally distinct testimony to the fact that wheresoever the Jews were carried in their dispersion, their laws and religious customs, especially their observance of every seventh day, attracted attention, and even secured a certain amount of acceptance. The Jews, therefore, even when, as a nation, they were ruined and crushed, proved themselves possessed of such vital force, of such tenacity, as to impress their conquerors with interest in, and respect for, their sabbatic customs. Of their tenacity and force in general, of their power to influence the nations amongst whom they have been scattered, the history of the last two thousand five hundred years is eloquent. It is not reasonable, nor scientific, to suppose that this nation, steel since it returned from its captivity in Babylon, was wax before.

Philo, the Jew, clearly states that wherever the Jews were taken in their dispersion, their laws and religious customs, especially their observance of every seventh day, attracted attention and even gained some level of acceptance. Thus, even when they were a ruined and oppressed nation, the Jews displayed such resilience and determination that they intrigued their conquerors, who came to respect their sabbath practices. The last two thousand five hundred years of history powerfully illustrate their resilience and influence over the nations among whom they have been scattered. It's neither reasonable nor scientific to think that this nation, who has remained strong since returning from captivity in Babylon, was weak before.

But the third suggestion as to the origin of the week [290]of seven days,—that it was derived from the influence of the planets,—makes the matter clearer still. This suggestion has already been noticed in the chapter on "Saturn and Astrology." It is sufficient to say here that it presupposes a state of astronomical advancement not attained until long after the sabbath was fully known. The Babylonians did observe the seven planets, but there is no trace of their connection with the Babylonian week. But when the Greek astronomers had worked out that system of the planetary motions which we call after Ptolemy, and the planets had been fitted by the Alexandrian observers to the days of the Jewish week and the hours of the Egyptian day, then the Babylonian astrologers also adopted the mongrel combination. Thus indirectly Babylon received the free week from the Jews, and did not give it.

But the third suggestion about the origin of the week of seven days—that it came from the influence of the planets—makes things even clearer. This idea has already been mentioned in the chapter on "Saturn and Astrology." It’s enough to say here that it assumes a level of astronomical knowledge that wasn’t achieved until long after the Sabbath was already well established. The Babylonians did observe the seven planets, but there’s no evidence linking them to the Babylonian week. However, when Greek astronomers figured out the system of planetary motions we call the Ptolemaic system, and the Alexandrian observers aligned the planets with the days of the Jewish week and the hours of the Egyptian day, the Babylonian astrologers also adopted this mixed system. So indirectly, Babylon received the seven-day week from the Jews and did not create it.

"The oldest use of the free and uniform week is found among the Jews, who had only a most imperfect knowledge of the planets. The identity of the number of the days in the week with that of the planets is purely accidental, and it is not permissible to assert that the former number is derived from the latter."[290:1]

"The earliest use of the seven-day week comes from the Jews, who had a limited understanding of the planets. The coincidence of the number of days in a week aligning with the number of planets is purely random, and it isn't accurate to say that the first number comes from the second." [290:1]

"Carried by the Jews into their dispersion, adopted by the Chaldæan astrologers for use in their divinations, received by Christianity and Islam, this cycle" (the free week of seven days), "so convenient and so useful for chronology, has now been adopted throughout the world. Its use can be traced back for about 3,000 years, and there is every reason to believe that it will last through the centuries to come, resisting the madness of useless novelty and the assaults of present and future iconoclasts."[290:2]

"Carried by the Jews during their dispersion, adopted by the Chaldean astrologers for their divinations, and embraced by Christianity and Islam, this cycle" (the week of seven days), "which is so practical and useful for tracking time, has now been embraced worldwide. Its use can be traced back for about 3,000 years, and there is every reason to believe that it will endure through the coming centuries, resisting the madness of pointless novelty and the challenges from both present and future iconoclasts."[290:2]

[291]The fourth account of the origin of the week is that given us in the Bible itself.

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]The fourth explanation for the origin of the week comes from the Bible itself.

"In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

"In six days, the Lord created the heavens and the earth, the sea, and everything in them, and He rested on the seventh day. That's why the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

The institution of the sabbath day is the crown of the work of creation, the key to its purpose. Other times and seasons are marked out by the revolutions and conjunctions of the heavenly bodies. This day is set apart directly by God Himself; it is His express handiwork,—"the day which the Lord hath made."

The institution of the Sabbath is the highlight of creation, the key to its meaning. Other times and seasons are defined by the movements and alignments of the celestial bodies. This day is designated solely by God Himself; it is His direct creation—"the day which the Lord has made."

The great truth taught in the first chapter of Genesis is that God is the One Reality. All that we can see above or around was made by Him. He alone is God.

The main truth taught in the first chapter of Genesis is that God is the One Reality. Everything we can see above or around us was created by Him. He alone is God.

And His creative work has a definite goal to which its several details all lead up—the creation of man, made in the image of God.

And His creative work has a clear goal that all its details lead towards—the creation of man, made in the image of God.

As such, man has a higher calling than that of the beasts that perish. The chief object of their lives is to secure their food; their aspirations extend no further. But he is different; he has higher wants, nobler aspirations. How can they be met?

As such, humans have a higher purpose than that of the animals that die. The main goal of their lives is to find food; their ambitions go no further. But humans are different; they have more profound needs and nobler aspirations. How can these be fulfilled?

The earth was created to form an abode suitable for man; the varied forms of organic life were brought into existence to prepare the way for and minister to him. For what was man himself made, and made in the image of God, but that he might know God and have communion [292]with Him? To this the sabbath day gave the call, and for this it offered the opportunity.

The earth was created as a home fit for humans; the diverse forms of life were brought into being to pave the way for and serve them. After all, why was humanity created, made in the image of God, if not to understand God and connect with Him? [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]The Sabbath day invited this connection and provided the opportunity for it.

"For what makes men any better than sheep or goats,
That sustain a hidden life within the mind,
"If they know God, why don’t they lift their hands to pray?"

FOOTNOTES:

[284:1] This is learnt from a single tablet of a Babylonian Calendar (preserved in the British Museum), which unfortunately contains one month only.

[284:1] This is learned from a single tablet of a Babylonian Calendar (kept in the British Museum), which unfortunately only has one month.

[285:1] Babel and Bible, Dr. Fried. Delitzsch, Johns' Translation, pp. 40, 41.

[289:1] Flavius Josephus against Apion, book ii. 40.

[290:1] Schiaparelli, Astronomy in the Old Testament, p. 135.

[290:2] Ibid., p. 133.

__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Ibid., p. 133.

[293]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

CHAPTER III

THE MONTH

The shortest natural division of time is the day. Next in length comes the month.

The shortest natural division of time is a day. The next longest is a month.

As was pointed out in the chapter on the Moon, the Hebrews used two expressions for month—Chodesh, from a root meaning "to be new"; and Yerach, from the root meaning "to be pale."

As mentioned in the chapter on the Moon, the Hebrews used two terms for month—Chodesh, which comes from a root meaning "to be new"; and Yerach, which comes from the root meaning "to be pale."

Chodesh is the word most commonly employed, and this, in itself, is sufficient to show that the Hebrew calendar month was a lunar one. But there are, besides, too many references to the actual new moons for there to be any doubt on the question.

Chodesh is the term most frequently used, and this alone is enough to demonstrate that the Hebrew calendar month was based on the lunar cycle. Additionally, there are numerous references to the actual new moons, leaving no doubt about this matter.

Every seventh day was commanded to be held as a sabbath of rest, and on it were sacrificed four lambs, instead of the two offered up, the one at the morning and the other at the evening sacrifice of the six working days. But the new moons are also mentioned as holy days, and are coupled with the sabbaths. The husband of the Shunamite asked her why she wished to go to Elisha, as "it is neither new moon, nor sabbath." Isaiah, speaking in the name of the Lord, says—

Every seventh day was designated as a day of rest, during which four lambs were sacrificed, compared to the two offered during the morning and evening sacrifices on the six working days. The new moons are also regarded as holy days and are linked with the sabbaths. The husband of the Shunamite woman asked her why she wanted to go to Elisha, saying, "It's neither a new moon nor a sabbath." Isaiah, speaking on behalf of the Lord, says—

[294]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

"The new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; . . . your new moons and your appointed feasts My soul hateth"; and again, "From one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship."

"The new moons and sabbaths, the gatherings you call for, I can't stand; ... your new moons and your scheduled feasts disgust My soul"; and again, "From one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, all people will come to worship."

Amos speaks of degenerate Israel, that they say—

Amos talks about the corrupt Israel, saying—

"When will the new moon be gone, that we may sell corn? and the sabbath, that we may set forth wheat?"

"When will the new moon be over so we can sell corn? And when will the Sabbath end so we can bring out the wheat?"

As late as Apostolic times, St. Paul refers to the feasts of the new moons, saying, "Let no man therefore judge you . . . in respect . . . of the new moon."

As late as Apostolic times, St. Paul refers to the feasts of the new moons, saying, "Let no one judge you . . . in regards to . . . the new moon."

The ordinances respecting the observance of the new moons—the "beginnings of months"—were explicit. Trumpets were blown over the burnt offerings and over the sacrifices of the peace offerings, and the nature of these offerings is given in detail in the twenty-eighth chapter of the Book of Numbers. The ordinances were reiterated and emphasized in the days of David, Solomon, Hezekiah, Ezekiel, Ezra and Nehemiah. Amongst the Jews of the present day the trumpets are not blown at new moons; extra prayers are read, but the burnt and peace offerings are of necessity omitted.

The rules regarding the observation of the new moons—the "start of the months"—were clear. Trumpets were sounded over the burnt offerings and the peace offerings, and the specifics of these offerings are detailed in the twenty-eighth chapter of the Book of Numbers. These rules were reinforced during the times of David, Solomon, Hezekiah, Ezekiel, Ezra, and Nehemiah. Today, among Jews, trumpets are not blown for new moons; additional prayers are recited, but the burnt and peace offerings are unfortunately left out.

Beside the "new moons" and the sabbaths, the ancient Hebrews had three great festivals, all defined as to the time of their celebration by the natural months.

Beside the "new moons" and the sabbaths, the ancient Hebrews had three major festivals, all determined by the time of year based on the natural months.

The first was the Feast of the Passover, which lasted a week, and began with the killing of a lamb "between the two evenings"; on the 14th day of the month Abib, the first month of the year—that is to say, on the evening that the first moon of the year became full. This feast [295]corresponded to our Easter. The second was that of Pentecost, and was bound to the Feast of the Passover by being appointed to occur seven weeks after the consecration of the harvest season by the offering of the sheaf on the second day of the Passover. We still celebrate the Feast of Pentecost, or Whitsunday, keeping it in remembrance of the birthday of the Christian Church. This feast lasted but a single day, and did not occur at either the new or the full of the moon, but nearly at first quarter.

The first was the Feast of the Passover, which lasted a week and began with the killing of a lamb "between the two evenings"; on the 14th day of the month Abib, the first month of the year—that is, on the evening when the first full moon of the year appeared. This feast [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]corresponded to our Easter. The second was Pentecost, which was linked to the Feast of the Passover, occurring seven weeks after the harvest season was consecrated by the offering of the sheaf on the second day of Passover. We still celebrate Pentecost, or Whitsunday, in remembrance of the birthday of the Christian Church. This feast lasted only one day and did not occur on either the new or the full moon, but rather around the first quarter.

The third festival was threefold in its character. It began with special sacrifices besides those usually offered at the new moon:—

The third festival had three parts to it. It started with special sacrifices in addition to those typically offered at the new moon:—

"In the seventh month, on the first day of the month, ye shall have an holy convocation; ye shall do no servile work: it is a day of blowing of trumpets unto you."

"In the seventh month, on the first day of the month, you shall have a holy gathering; you shall not do any work: it is a day for blowing trumpets for you."

This then was especially dependent on the new moon, being on the first day of the month.

This was particularly influenced by the new moon, occurring on the first day of the month.

On the 10th day of the month was the Day of Atonement, when the people should afflict their souls. On the 15th day of the month began the Feast of Tabernacles, which commenced on the night that the moon was full, and lasted for a week.

On the 10th day of the month was the Day of Atonement, when the people were to humble themselves. On the 15th day of the month started the Feast of Tabernacles, which began on the night of the full moon and lasted for a week.

We have no special religious seasons in the Christian Church to correspond with these.

We don't have any specific religious seasons in the Christian Church that match these.

We thus see that with the Hebrews all the days of the new moons, and two days of full moon (in the first and in the seventh months), were days for which special ordinances were imposed. And there is no doubt that the beginnings [296]of the new months were obtained by direct observation of the moon, when weather or other conditions permitted, not by any rule of thumb computation. The new moon observed was, necessarily, not the new moon as understood in the technical language of astronomy; i. e. the moment when the moon is in "conjunction" with the sun, having its dark side wholly turned towards the earth, and being in consequence completely invisible. "The new moon" as mentioned in the Scriptures, and as we ordinarily use the term, is not this conjunction, but the first visible crescent of the moon when it has drawn away from the sun sufficiently to be seen after sunset for a short time, in the twilight, before it sets; for the moon when very slender cannot be seen in daylight. It may, therefore, be first seen any time between about 18 hours and 40 hours after its conjunction with the sun; in other words, it may be first seen on one of two evenings. But for the ecclesiastical rites it was necessary that there should be an authoritative declaration as to the time of the commencement of the month, and, moreover, the great feasts were fixed for certain days in the month, and so were dependent on its beginning.

We see that for the Hebrews, all the new moon days, and two full moon days (in the first and seventh months), were designated for specific observances. There's no doubt that the start of the new months was determined by direct observation of the moon whenever weather or other conditions allowed, rather than based on some rough calculation. The new moon that was observed was not the same as the new moon defined in technical astronomy; that is, the moment the moon is in "conjunction" with the sun, where its dark side faces the earth, making it completely invisible. "The new moon" referred to in the Scriptures, and how we usually use the term, is actually the first visible crescent of the moon when it has moved away from the sun enough to be seen after sunset for a short time, during twilight, before it sets; the thin moon cannot be seen during the day. Therefore, it can first be sighted anytime between approximately 18 to 40 hours after its conjunction with the sun; in other words, it may first appear on one of two evenings. However, for the religious rituals, it was essential to have an official announcement regarding when the month began, and besides, the major feasts were set for specific days within the month, which depended on its start.

During the period of the Jewish restoration, up to the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, the Sanhedrim used to sit in the "Hall of Polished Stones" to receive the testimony of credible witnesses that they had seen the new moon. If the new moon had appeared at the commencement of the 30th day—corresponding to our evening of the 29th—the Sanhedrim declared the previous month "imperfect," or consisting only of 29 days. [297]If credible witnesses had not appeared to testify to the appearance of the new moon on the evening of the 29th, the next evening, i. e. that of the 30th—according to our mode of reckoning—was taken as the commencement of the new month, and the previous month was then declared to be "full," or of 30 days.

During the time of the Jewish restoration, leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, the Sanhedrin would gather in the "Hall of Polished Stones" to hear from reliable witnesses who claimed they had seen the new moon. If the new moon appeared at the beginning of the 30th day—corresponding to our evening of the 29th—the Sanhedrin would declare the previous month "incomplete," meaning it only had 29 days. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] If no credible witnesses showed up to confirm the sighting of the new moon on the evening of the 29th, then the next evening, that is, the 30th—according to our way of counting—was considered the start of the new month, and the previous month was then declared "full," or 30 days long.

Early in the Christian era, it was enacted that no testimony should be received from unknown persons, because, says the Talmud, the Baithusites wished to impose on the Mishnic Rabbis, and hired two men to do so for four hundred pieces of silver.

Early in the Christian era, it was established that no testimony should be accepted from unknown individuals, because, according to the Talmud, the Baithusites wanted to deceive the Mishnic Rabbis and paid two men to do so for four hundred pieces of silver.

It is clear, therefore, that about the time of the Christian era the beginnings of the months were determined astronomically from the actual observation of the new moons, and we may safely conclude that it was the same also from the earliest times. It was the actual new moon, not any theoretical or fictitious new moon, that regulated the great festivals, and, as we have seen, there was often some considerable uncertainty possible in the fixing of the dates. The witnesses might give conflicting testimony, and the authoritative date might be proved to be in fault. We have an instance of such conflicting authority in the different dating, on one occasion, of the Day of Atonement by the Rabbi Yehoshua, and Rabbon Gamaliel, the president of the Sanhedrim, grandson of the Gamaliel at whose feet Paul sat.

It’s clear that around the time of the Christian era, the start of the months was determined through actual observations of the new moons, and we can confidently assume this practice goes back to the earliest times. It was the real new moon, not some theoretical or made-up new moon, that dictated the major festivals, and, as we've seen, there was often a significant uncertainty in setting the dates. Witnesses could provide conflicting accounts, and the official date might turn out to be incorrect. We have an example of such conflicting authority in the different dates for the Day of Atonement set by Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbon Gamaliel, the head of the Sanhedrin and grandson of the Gamaliel who taught Paul.

According to a statement in the Mishna, dating from the second century of our era, the appearance of the new moon at Jerusalem was signalled to Babylonia during the century preceding the destruction of the Holy City by [298]Titus, and perhaps from earlier times. The dispersion of the Jews had therefore presented them with an additional difficulty in fixing the beginning of their months. The problem is much more intricate to-day, seeing that the Jews are dispersed over the whole world, and the new moon, first visible on one evening at Jerusalem, might be seen the evening before, according to the reckoning of places west of Jerusalem, or might be invisible until the following evening, according to the reckoning of places east of it. We have the same problem to solve in finding the date of Easter Sunday. The Prayer Book rule for finding it runs thus:—

According to a statement in the Mishna from the second century, the sighting of the new moon in Jerusalem was communicated to Babylonia during the century before the destruction of the Holy City by [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]Titus, and possibly even earlier. The scattering of the Jews created an additional challenge in determining when their months began. The issue is much more complex today, as Jews are spread out all over the world. The new moon, first visible one evening in Jerusalem, might be seen the evening before in places to the west or might not be visible until the following evening in areas to the east. We face a similar problem in determining the date of Easter Sunday. The Prayer Book rule for calculating it goes as follows:—

"Easter day is always the first Sunday after the full moon which happens upon, or next after, the 21st day of March; and if the full moon happens on a Sunday, Easter day is the Sunday after."

"Easter Sunday is always the first Sunday following the full moon that occurs on or after March 21st; if the full moon falls on a Sunday, Easter is celebrated the following Sunday."

But the "moon" we choose for the ecclesiastical calendar is an imaginary body, which is so controlled by specially constructed tables as to be "full" on a day not differing by more than two or three days at most from the date on which the actual moon is full. This may seem, at first sight, a very clumsy arrangement, but it has the advantage of defining the date of Easter precisely, without introducing any question as to the special meridian where the moon might be supposed to be observed. Thus, in 1905, the moon was full at 4^h 56^m Greenwich mean time on the morning of March 21. But Easter Day was not fixed for March 26, the next Sunday following that full moon, but a month later, for April 23. For the calendar moon, the imaginary moon, was full on March 20; and it [299]may be added that the actual moon, though full on March 21 for European time, was full on March 20 for American time. There would have been an ambiguity, therefore, if the actual moon had been taken, according to the country in which it was observed, an ambiguity which is got rid of by adopting a technical or imaginary moon.

But the "moon" we use for the church calendar is a fictional entity, managed by specially created tables so that it is "full" on a day that doesn't differ by more than two or three days at most from when the actual moon is full. This might seem, at first glance, a bit awkward, but it has the benefit of specifying the date of Easter clearly, without creating any confusion about the precise location where the moon might be seen. For instance, in 1905, the moon was full at 4^h 56^m Greenwich mean time on the morning of March 21. However, Easter Day wasn't set for March 26, the following Sunday after that full moon, but rather a month later, on April 23. This is because the calendar moon, the imaginary moon, was full on March 20; and it [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]can also be noted that while the actual moon was full on March 21 for European time, it was full on March 20 for American time. This could have caused confusion if the actual moon had been used, depending on the country observing it, but that confusion is eliminated by using a technical or imaginary moon.

The names given to the different months in Scripture have an interest of their own. For the most part the months are simply numbered; the month of the Passover is the first month, and the others follow, as the second, third, fourth, etc., throughout the year; examples of each occurring right up to the twelfth month. There is no mention of a thirteenth month.

The names assigned to the various months in the Scriptures are intriguing in their own right. Generally, the months are just numbered; the month of Passover is referred to as the first month, and the others continue as the second, third, fourth, and so on, all the way through the year, with examples of each up to the twelfth month. There’s no mention of a thirteenth month.

But occasionally we find names as well as numbers given to the months. The first of these is Abib, meaning the month of "green ears." This was the first month, the month of the Passover, and it received its name no doubt from the first green ears of barley offered before the Lord during the feast that followed the Passover.

But sometimes we see both names and numbers assigned to the months. The first of these is Abib, which means the month of "green ears." This was the first month, the month of the Passover, and it likely got its name from the first green ears of barley presented to the Lord during the feast that came after the Passover.

The second month was called Zif, "splendour"; apparently referring to the splendour of the flowers in full spring time. It is mentioned together with two other names, Ethanim, the seventh month, and Bul, the eighth month, in the account of the building and dedication of Solomon's Temple. The last two are certainly Phœnician names, having been found on Phœnician inscriptions; the first is possibly Phœnician also. Their occurrence in this special connection was no doubt a result of the very large part taken in the building of the Temple and the construction of its furniture by [300]the workmen of Hiram, king of Tyre. The Phœnician names of the months would naturally appear in the contracts and accounts for the work, side by side with the Hebrew equivalents; just as an English contractor to-day, in negotiating for a piece of work to be carried out in Russia, would probably take care to use the dating both of the Russian old style calendar, and of the English new style. The word used for month in these cases is generally, not chodesh, the month as beginning with the new moon, but yerach, as if the chronicler did not wish them to be understood as having been determined by Jewish authorities or methods. In one case, however, chodesh is used in connection with the month Zif.

The second month was called Zif, meaning "splendor"; it likely refers to the beauty of flowers during full spring. It's mentioned alongside two other names, Ethanim, the seventh month, and Bul, the eighth month, in the account of building and dedicating Solomon's Temple. The latter two are definitely Phoenician names, as they've been found on Phoenician inscriptions; the first might also be Phoenician. Their inclusion in this context was probably due to the significant role played by the workmen of Hiram, king of Tyre, in constructing the Temple and its furnishings. The Phoenician names of the months would naturally appear in contracts and accounts for the work, alongside their Hebrew counterparts; just as an English contractor today, when negotiating a project in Russia, would likely use the dates from both the Russian old-style calendar and the English new-style calendar. The term used for month here is generally not chodesh, which refers to the month starting with the new moon, but yerach, suggesting that the chronicler wanted to indicate they were not determined by Jewish authorities or methods. However, in one instance, chodesh is used in connection with the month Zif.

The other instances of names for the months are Nisan, Sivan, Elul, Chisleu, Tebeth, Sebat, and Adar, derived from month names in use in Babylonia, and employed only in the books of Esther, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Zechariah, all avowedly post-exilic writers. The month word used in connection with them is chodesh—since the Babylonian months were also lunar—except in the single case where Ezra used a month name, terming it yerach. The other post-exilic writers or editors of the books of Holy Scripture would seem to have been at some pains to omit all Babylonian month names. These Babylonian month names continue to be used in the Jewish calendar of to-day.

The other names for the months are Nisan, Sivan, Elul, Chisleu, Tebeth, Sebat, and Adar, which come from month names used in Babylonia. These names only appear in the books of Esther, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Zechariah, all of which were written after the exile. The word for month used alongside them is chodesh—since the Babylonian months were also lunar—except for one instance where Ezra used a month name, referring to it as yerach. The other post-exilic writers or editors of the Holy Scriptures appear to have made an effort to exclude all Babylonian month names. These Babylonian month names are still in use in the Jewish calendar today.

In four places in Scripture mention is made of a month of days, the word for month being in two cases chodesh, and in two, yerach. Jacob, when he came to Padan-aram, abode with Laban for "the space of a [301]month," before his crafty uncle broached the subject of his wages. This may either merely mean full thirty days, or the term chodesh may possibly have a special appropriateness, as Laban may have dated Jacob's service so as to commence from the second new moon after his arrival. Again, when the people lusted for flesh in the wilderness, saying, "Who shall give us flesh to eat?" the Lord promised to send them flesh—

In four places in Scripture, a month of days is mentioned. The word for month is used as chodesh in two instances and as yerach in the other two. When Jacob arrived in Padan-aram, he stayed with Laban for "the space of a [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]month," before his cunning uncle discussed his wages. This could simply mean a full thirty days, or the term chodesh might have a specific relevance since Laban may have counted Jacob's service starting from the second new moon after his arrival. Additionally, when the people craved meat in the wilderness, saying, "Who will give us flesh to eat?" the Lord promised to provide them with meat—

"And ye shall eat. Ye shall not eat one day, nor two days, nor five days, neither ten days, nor twenty days, but even a whole month. . . . And there went forth a wind from the Lord, and brought quails from the sea."

"And you will eat. You will not eat for one day, nor two days, nor five days, nor ten days, nor twenty days, but for a whole month... And a wind from the Lord went out and brought quails from the sea."

"He poured down flesh on them like dust,
"And feathered birds like the sand of the sea."

The "whole month" in this case was evidently a full period of thirty days, irrespective of the particular phase of the moon when it began and ended.

The "whole month" here clearly refers to a complete period of thirty days, regardless of the specific phase of the moon at the start and end.

Amongst the Babylonians the sign for the word month was xxx, expressing the usual number of days that it contained, and without doubt amongst the Hebrews that was the number of days originally assigned to the month, except when the interval between two actually observed new moons was found to be twenty-nine. In later times it was learned that the length for the lunation lay between twenty-nine and thirty days, and that these lengths for the month must be alternate as a general rule. But in early times, if a long spell of bad weather prevented direct observation of the new moon, we cannot suppose that anything less than thirty days would be assigned to each month.

Among the Babylonians, the sign for the word "month" was xxx, which represented the usual number of days in it. It's clear that among the Hebrews, that was the original number of days designated for the month, except when the interval between two observed new moons was found to be twenty-nine. Later on, it was discovered that the duration of a lunation is between twenty-nine and thirty days, and generally, these lengths alternate for the months. However, in earlier times, if long periods of bad weather prevented the direct observation of the new moon, we can't assume that anything less than thirty days would be assigned to each month.

[302]Such a long spell of bad observing weather did certainly occur on one occasion in the very early days of astronomy, and we accordingly find that such was the number of days allotted to several consecutive months, though the historian was evidently in the habit of observing the new moon, for chodesh is the word used to express these months of thirty days.

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]A particularly long period of bad weather for observations did happen once in the early days of astronomy, and we can see this reflected in the number of days assigned to several consecutive months. It seems the historian often noted the new moon, as chodesh is the term used to refer to these thirty-day months.

We are told that—

We’re told that—

"In the six hundreth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened."

"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, that same day all the springs of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of heaven were opened."

And later that—

"After the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated. And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat."

"After the hundred and fifty days were over, the waters receded. The ark came to rest in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the mountains of Ararat."

The five months during which the waters prevailed upon the earth were, therefore, reckoned as of thirty days each. If all the new moons, or even that of the seventh month, had been actually observed, this event would have been ascribed to the nineteenth day of the month, since 150 days is five months and two days; but in the absence of such observations a sort of "dead reckoning" was applied, which would of course be corrected directly the return of clear weather gave an opportunity for observing the new moon once again.

The five months that the waters covered the earth were counted as thirty days each. If all the new moons, or even the one in the seventh month, had actually been noted, this event would have been attributed to the nineteenth day of the month, since 150 days equals five months and two days; but since there were no such observations, a sort of rough estimation was used, which would obviously be adjusted once clear weather allowed for the sighting of the new moon again.

A similar practice was followed at a much later date in Babylon, where astronomy is supposed to have been highly developed from remote antiquity. Thus an [303]inscription recently published by Dr. L. W. King records that—

A similar practice was followed much later in Babylon, where astronomy is believed to have been highly advanced since ancient times. An [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]inscription recently published by Dr. L. W. King notes that—

"On the 26th day of the month Sivan, in the seventh year, the day was turned into night, and fire in the midst of heaven."

"On the 26th day of the month Sivan, in the seventh year, the day turned into night, and there was fire in the sky."

This has been identified by Mr. P. H. Cowell, F.R.S., Chief Assistant at the Royal Observatory, Greenwich, as the eclipse of the sun that was total at Babylon on July 31, b.c. 1063. The Babylonians, when bad weather obliged them to resort to dead reckoning, were, therefore, still reckoning the month as precisely thirty days so late as the times of Samuel and Saul, and in this particular instance were two, if not three, days out in their count. Had the new moon of Sivan been observed, or correctly calculated, the eclipse must have been reckoned as falling on the 28th or 29th day of the month.

This was identified by Mr. P. H. Cowell, F.R.S., Chief Assistant at the Royal Observatory, Greenwich, as the solar eclipse that was total in Babylon on July 31, B.C. 1063. The Babylonians, when bad weather forced them to rely on dead reckoning, were still counting the month as exactly thirty days as late as the times of Samuel and Saul, and in this case they were off by two, if not three, days in their calculations. If the new moon of Sivan had been observed or calculated correctly, the eclipse would have been counted as falling on the 28th or 29th day of the month.

The Athenians in the days of Solon, five hundred years later than this, adopted months alternately twenty-nine and thirty days in length, which gives a result very nearly correct.

The Athenians during Solon's time, five hundred years later than this, used months that alternated between twenty-nine and thirty days. This system yielded a result that was quite accurate.

The Jews after the Dispersion adopted the system of thus alternating the lengths of their months, and with some slight modifications it holds good to the present day. As will be shown in the following chapter, the ordinary years are of twelve months, but seven years in every nineteen are "embolismic," having an extra month. The names employed are those learned during the Babylonian captivity, and the year begins with the month Tishri, corresponding to September-October of our calendar. The lengths of most of the months are fixed as given [304]in the following table, but any adjustment necessary can be effected either by adding one day to Heshvan, which has usually twenty-nine days, or taking away one day from Kislev, which has usually thirty—

The Jews after the Dispersion started alternating the lengths of their months, and with some minor changes, this system is still used today. As will be explained in the next chapter, regular years consist of twelve months, but seven out of every nineteen years are "embolismic," meaning they have an extra month. The names for the months were adopted during the Babylonian captivity, and the year begins with the month Tishri, which corresponds to September-October in our calendar. The lengths of most months are set as shown in the following table, but any needed adjustments can be made by either adding a day to Heshvan, which usually has twenty-nine days, or subtracting a day from Kislev, which usually has thirty—

	Typical Year	Embolismic Year
	Days	Days
Tishri	30	30
Heshvan	29 +	29 +
Kislev	30 -	30 -
Tebeth	29	29
Shebat	30	30
Adar	29	30
Ve-adar	...	29
Nisan	30	30
Yiar	29	29
Sivan	30	30
Tamuz	29	29
Ab	30	30
Elul	29	29

The Jewish month, therefore, continues to be essentially a true lunar one, though the exact definition of each month is, to some extent, conventional, and the words of the Son of Sirach still apply to the Hebrew calendar—

The Jewish month is still fundamentally a lunar one, although the precise definition of each month is somewhat conventional, and the words of the Son of Sirach are still relevant to the Hebrew calendar—

"The moon is present in everything during its season,
For a declaration of times and a symbol of the world.
The moon is the sign of the feast day; "A light that fades when it reaches its peak."

For so God—

For God’s sake—

"Set the moon for seasons."

[305]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

CHAPTER IV

THE YEAR

The third great natural division of time is the year, and, like the day and the month, it is defined by the relative apparent movements of the heavenly bodies.

The third major natural division of time is the year, and, like the day and the month, it is defined by the relative visible movements of the celestial bodies.

As the Rabbi Aben Ezra pointed out, shanah, the ordinary Hebrew word used for year, expresses the idea of annus or annulus, a closed ring, and therefore implies that the year is a complete solar one. A year, that is purely lunar, consists of twelve lunations, amounting to 354 days. Such is the year that the Mohammedans use; and since it falls short of a solar year of 365 days by 10 or 11 days, its beginning moves backwards rather rapidly through the seasons.

As Rabbi Aben Ezra pointed out, shanah, the common Hebrew word for year, suggests the idea of annus or annulus, a closed ring, and thus indicates that the year is a complete solar one. A purely lunar year has twelve lunar cycles, totaling 354 days. This is the year that Muslims use; and because it is 10 or 11 days shorter than the solar year of 365 days, its beginning shifts backward quite quickly through the seasons.

The Jews used actual lunations for their months, but their year was one depending on the position of the sun, and their calendar was therefore a luni-solar one. But lunations cannot be made to fit in exactly into a solar year—12 lunations are some 11 days short of one year; 37 lunations are 2 or 3 days too long for three years—but an approximation can be made by giving an extra month to every third year; or more nearly still by taking 7 years in every 19 as years of 13 months each. This thirteenth [306]month is called an intercalary month, and in the present Jewish calendar it is the month Adar which is reduplicated under the name of Ve-Adar. But, though from the necessity of the case, this intercalation, from time to time, of a thirteenth month must have been made regularly from the first institution of the feast of unleavened bread, we find no allusion, direct or indirect, in the Hebrew Scriptures to any such custom.

The Jews used actual moon phases for their months, but their year was based on the sun's position, making their calendar a luni-solar one. However, moon phases don't perfectly align with a solar year—12 lunar months are about 11 days short of a year; 37 lunar months are 2 or 3 days too long for three years. An approximation can be achieved by adding an extra month every third year, or more accurately, by designating 7 years out of every 19 as having 13 months each. This thirteenth [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]month is referred to as an intercalary month, and in the current Jewish calendar, it is the month Adar, which is repeated under the name Ve-Adar. However, even though the inclusion of a thirteenth month would have been necessary since the establishment of the feast of unleavened bread, we find no direct or indirect reference to this practice in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Amongst the Babylonians a year and a month were termed "full" when they contained 13 months and 30 days respectively, and "normal" or "incomplete" when they contained but 12 months or 29 days. The succession of full and normal years recurred in the same order, at intervals of nineteen years. For 19 years contain 6939 days 14-1/2 hours; and 235 months, 6939 days 16-1/2 hours; the two therefore differing only by about a couple of hours. The discovery of this cycle is attributed to Meton, about 433 b.c., and it is therefore known as the Metonic cycle. It supplies the "Golden Numbers" of the introduction to the Book of Common Prayer.

Among the Babylonians, a year and a month were called "full" when they had 13 months and 30 days, and "normal" or "incomplete" when they had only 12 months or 29 days. The pattern of full and normal years followed the same order, repeating every nineteen years. A 19-year period has 6939 days and 14.5 hours; and 235 months total 6939 days and 16.5 hours, so they only differ by about a couple of hours. This cycle was discovered by Meton around 433 B.C., and it’s known as the Metonic cycle. It provides the "Golden Numbers" used in the introduction to the Book of Common Prayer.

There are two kinds of solar years, with which we may have to do in a luni-solar calendar—the tropical or equinoctial year, and the sidereal year. The tropical year is the interval from one season till the return of that season again—spring to spring, summer to summer, autumn to autumn, or winter to winter. It is defined as the time included between two successive passages of the sun through the vernal equinox, hence it is also called the equinoctial year. Its length is found to be 365 days, 5 hours, 49 minutes, and some ancient astronomers derived [307]its length as closely as 365 days, 6 hours, by observing the dates when the sun set at exactly the opposite part of the horizon to that where it rose.

There are two types of solar years that we may deal with in a luni-solar calendar—the tropical year and the sidereal year. The tropical year is the time it takes for one season to return—spring to spring, summer to summer, autumn to autumn, or winter to winter. It is defined as the period between two consecutive passages of the sun through the vernal equinox, which is why it's also called the equinoctial year. Its length is about 365 days, 5 hours, 49 minutes, and some ancient astronomers calculated its length as closely as 365 days, 6 hours, by observing the dates when the sun set directly opposite where it rose.

The sidereal year is the time occupied by the sun in apparently completing the circuit of the heavens from a given star to the same star again. The length of the sidereal year is 365 days, 6 hours, 9 minutes. In some cases the ancients took the sidereal year from the "heliacal" risings or settings of stars, that is from the interval between the time when a bright star was first seen in the morning just before the sun rose, until it was first so seen again; or last seen just after the sun set in the evening, until it was last so seen again.

The sidereal year is the time it takes for the sun to seemingly complete its path across the sky, returning to the same position relative to a specific star. The length of the sidereal year is 365 days, 6 hours, and 9 minutes. In some cases, ancient civilizations calculated the sidereal year based on the "heliacal" risings or settings of stars, meaning the period from when a bright star was first seen in the morning just before sunrise until it was first seen again; or from when it was last seen just after sunset in the evening until it was last seen again.

But to connect the spring new moon with the day when the sun has returned to the equinox is a more difficult and complicated matter. The early Hebrews would seem to have solved the problem practically, by simply watching the progress of the growing grain. If at one new moon in spring time it appeared clear that some of the barley would be ready in a fortnight for the offering of the green ears at the feast of unleavened bread, then that was taken as beginning the new year. If it appeared doubtful if it would be ready, or certain that it would not be, then the next new moon was waited for. This method was sufficient in primitive times, and so long as the nation of Israel remained in its own land. In the long run, it gave an accurate value for the mean tropical year, and avoided all the astronomical difficulties of the question. It shows the early Hebrews as practical men, for the solution adopted was easy, simple and efficient. This practical method of [308]determining the beginning of the year amongst the early Hebrews, does not appear to have been the one in use amongst the Babylonians either early or late in their history. The early Babylonians used a sidereal year, as will be shown shortly. The later Babylonians used a tropical year dependent on the actual observation of the spring equinox.

But connecting the spring new moon with the day the sun returns to the equinox is a more complex issue. The early Hebrews seemed to solve this practically by simply observing the growth of the grain. If it was clear at one new moon in spring that some of the barley would be ready in two weeks for the offering of the green ears at the feast of unleavened bread, then that marked the start of the new year. If it was uncertain whether it would be ready or certain it wouldn't, they would wait for the next new moon. This method was sufficient in ancient times and while Israel remained in its own land. Over time, it accurately aligned with the mean tropical year and avoided all the astronomical complications of the issue. It shows that the early Hebrews were practical people since the solution they adopted was easy, straightforward, and effective. This practical way of [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]determining the start of the year among the early Hebrews doesn't seem to have been the same one used by the Babylonians, either early or late in their history. The early Babylonians used a sidereal year, as will be shown shortly. The later Babylonians used a tropical year based on actual observations of the spring equinox.

To those who have no clocks, no telescopes, no sundials, no instruments of any kind, there are two natural epochs at which the day might begin; at sunrise, the beginning of daylight; and at sunset, the beginning of darkness. Similarly, to all nations which use the tropical year, whether their calendar is dependent on the sun alone, or on both sun and moon, there are two natural epochs at which the year may begin; at the spring equinox, the beginning of the bright half of the year, when the sun is high in the heavens, and all nature is reviving under its heat and light; and at the autumn equinox, the beginning of the dark half of the year, when the sun is low in the heavens, and all nature seems dying. As a nation becomes more highly equipped, both in the means of observing, and in knowledge, it may not retain either of these epochs as the actual beginning of its year, but the determination of the year still rests directly or indirectly upon the observation of the equinoxes.

For those without clocks, telescopes, sundials, or any kind of instruments, there are two natural times when the day might start: at sunrise, marking the beginning of daylight, and at sunset, signaling the start of darkness. Similarly, for all nations that follow the tropical year, whether their calendar relies solely on the sun or on both the sun and the moon, there are two natural times when the year may begin: at the spring equinox, the start of the bright half of the year when the sun is high in the sky and nature is thriving under its warmth and light; and at the autumn equinox, the start of the dark half of the year when the sun is low in the sky and nature appears to be fading. As a society becomes more advanced in its means of observation and knowledge, it may not use either of these times as the actual start of its year, but the determination of the year still relies directly or indirectly on the observation of the equinoxes.

At the exodus from Egypt, in the month Abib, the children of Israel were commanded in these words—

At the exodus from Egypt, in the month of Abib, the Israelites were instructed in these words—

"This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you."

"This month will be the start of your months; it will be the first month of the year for you."

[309]This command may have abolished and reversed the previously existing calendar, or it may have related solely to the ecclesiastical calendar, and the civil calendar may have been still retained with a different epoch of commencement.

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]This order might have done away with and changed the earlier calendar entirely, or it could have only affected the church calendar, while the civil calendar was still kept with a different starting point.

An inquiry into the question as to whether there is evidence in Scripture of the use of a double calendar, shows that in every case that the Passover is mentioned it is as being kept in the first month, except when Hezekiah availed himself of the regulation which permitted its being kept in the second month. Since the Passover was a spring feast, this links the beginning of the year to the spring time. Similarly the feast of Tabernacles, which is an autumn festival, is always mentioned as being held in the seventh month.

An investigation into whether there's evidence in Scripture for the use of a double calendar shows that whenever the Passover is mentioned, it's observed in the first month, except when Hezekiah used the rule allowing it to be celebrated in the second month. Since the Passover is a spring festival, this connects the start of the year to spring. Similarly, the Feast of Tabernacles, which is an autumn celebration, is always referred to as taking place in the seventh month.

These feasts would naturally be referred to the ecclesiastical calendar. But the slight evidences given in the civil history point the same way. Thus some men joined David at Ziklag during the time of his persecution by Saul, "in the first month." This was spring time, for it is added that Jordan had overflowed all its banks. Similarly, the ninth month fell in the winter: for it was as he "sat in the winter-house in the ninth month, and there was a fire on the hearth burning before him" that king Jehoiakim took the prophecy of Jeremiah and "cut it with the penknife, and cast it into the fire that was on the hearth." The same ninth month is also mentioned in the Book of Ezra as a winter month, a time of great rain.

These celebrations would naturally connect to the church calendar. However, the slight clues found in the civil history point in the same direction. For example, some people joined David at Ziklag during his persecution by Saul, "in the first month." This was springtime, as it’s noted that the Jordan had overflowed all its banks. Similarly, the ninth month occurred in winter: it was when he "sat in the winter-house in the ninth month, and there was a fire on the hearth burning before him" that King Jehoiakim took the prophecy of Jeremiah and "cut it with the penknife, and cast it into the fire that was on the hearth." The same ninth month is also noted in the Book of Ezra as a winter month, a time of heavy rain.

The same result is given by the instances in which a Babylonian month name is interpreted by its corresponding [310]Jewish month number. In each case the Jewish year is reckoned as beginning with Nisan, the month of the spring equinox.

The same result occurs in cases where a Babylonian month name is understood by its corresponding [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]Jewish month number. In every instance, the Jewish year starts with Nisan, the month of the spring equinox.

In one case, however, two Babylonian month names do present a difficulty.

In one case, though, two Babylonian month names create a challenge.

In the Book of Nehemiah, in the first chapter, the writer says—

"It came to pass in the month Chisleu, in the twentieth year, as I was in Shushan the palace, that Hanani, one of my brethren, came"—

"It happened in the month of Chisleu, in the twentieth year, while I was in the palace of Shushan, that Hanani, one of my brothers, came"—

and told him concerning the sad state of Jerusalem. In consequence of this he subsequently approached the king on the subject "in the month Nisan, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes the king."

and told him about the unfortunate situation in Jerusalem. As a result, he later went to the king about it "in the month Nisan, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes the king."

If the twentieth year of king Artaxerxes began in the spring, Nisan, which is a spring month, could not follow Chisleu, which is a month of late autumn. But Artaxerxes may have dated his accession, and therefore his regnal years, from some month between Nisan and Chisleu; or the civil year may have been reckoned at the court of Shushan as beginning with Tishri. It may be noted that Nehemiah does not define either of these months in terms of the Jewish. Elsewhere, when referring to the Jewish Feast of Tabernacles, he attributes it to the seventh month, in accord with its place in the Mosaic calendar. An alteration of the beginning of the year from the spring to the autumn was brought about amongst the Jews at a later date, and was systematized in the Religious Calendar by the Rabbis of about the fourth century a.d. Tishri [311]begins the Jewish year at the present day; the first day of Tishri being taken as the anniversary of the creation of the world.

If the twentieth year of King Artaxerxes started in the spring, then Nisan, which is a spring month, couldn't come after Chisleu, a late autumn month. However, Artaxerxes might have counted his reign from a month between Nisan and Chisleu; or the civil year at the court of Shushan might have been considered to start with Tishri. It's worth noting that Nehemiah doesn't specify either of these months in Jewish terms. Elsewhere, when mentioning the Jewish Feast of Tabernacles, he refers to it as the seventh month, according to its position in the Mosaic calendar. A change in the start of the year from spring to autumn occurred among the Jews at a later time, which was organized into the Religious Calendar by the Rabbis around the fourth century AD Tishri [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]now marks the beginning of the Jewish year; with the first day of Tishri celebrated as the anniversary of the creation of the world.

The Mishna, "The Law of the Lip," was first committed to writing in 191 a.d., and the compilation of the Babylonian Talmud, based on the Mishna, was completed about 500 a.d. In its commentary on the first chapter of Genesis, there is an allusion to the year as beginning in spring, for it says that—

The Mishna, "The Law of the Lip," was first written down in 191 A.D., and the compilation of the Babylonian Talmud, which is based on the Mishna, was finished around 500 A.D. In its commentary on the first chapter of Genesis, it suggests that the year begins in spring, for it states that—

"A king crowned on the twenty-ninth of Adar is considered as having completed the first year of his reign on the first of Nisan" (i. e. the next day). "Hence follows (observes some one) that the first of Nisan is the new year's day of kings, and that if one had reigned only one day in a year, it is considered as a whole year."[311:1]

"A king who is crowned on the twenty-ninth of Adar is seen as having completed the first year of his reign on the first of Nisan" (i. e. the next day). "This leads to the observation that the first of Nisan is the new year's day for kings, and that if someone had reigned for just one day in a year, it is regarded as a full year."[311:1]

It is not indicated whether this rule held good for the kings of Persia, as well as for those of Israel. If so, and this tradition be correct, then we cannot explain Nehemiah's reckoning by supposing that he was counting from the month of the accession of Artaxerxes, and must assume that a civil or court year beginning with Tishri, i. e. in the autumn, was the one in question.

It’s unclear if this rule applied to the kings of Persia, as it did for those of Israel. If that’s the case, and if this tradition is accurate, then we can’t explain Nehemiah’s calculations by assuming he was counting from the month when Artaxerxes took the throne. Instead, we have to assume that a civil or court year starting in Tishri, i.e. in the autumn, is what we’re talking about.

A further, but, as it would seem, quite an imaginary difficulty, has been raised because the feast of ingathering, or Tabernacles, though held in the seventh month, is twice spoken of as being "in the end of the year," or, as it is rendered in the margin in one case, "in the revolution of the year." This latter expression occurs again in 2 Chron. xxiv. 23, when it is said that, "at the end of the [312]year, the host of Syria came up"; but in this case it probably means early spring, for it is only of late centuries that war has been waged in the winter months. Down to the Middle Ages, the armies always went into winter quarters, and in the spring the kings led them out again to battle. One Hebrew expression used in Scripture means the return of the year, as applied to the close of one and the opening of another year. This is the expression employed in the Second Book of Samuel, and of the First Book of Chronicles, where it is said "after the year was expired, at the time when kings go forth to battle," implying that in the time of David the year began in the spring. The same expression, no doubt in reference to the same time of the year, is also used in connection with the warlike expeditions of Benhadad, king of Syria, and of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon.

A further difficulty, which seems quite imagined, has been raised because the feast of ingathering, or Tabernacles, though held in the seventh month, is referred to twice as being "in the end of the year," or as it's noted in the margin in one instance, "in the revolution of the year." This latter phrase appears again in 2 Chron. xxiv. 23, when it states, "at the end of the [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]year, the host of Syria came up"; but in this case, it likely refers to early spring, as it has only been in recent centuries that wars have been fought during winter months. Up until the Middle Ages, armies would go into winter quarters, and in the spring, the kings would lead them back into battle. One Hebrew phrase used in Scripture signifies the return of the year, as it pertains to the end of one year and the beginning of another. This is the term used in the Second Book of Samuel and the First Book of Chronicles, where it states, "after the year was expired, at the time when kings go forth to battle," suggesting that during David's time, the year began in spring. The same phrase, likely referring to the same season, is also used in connection with the military campaigns of Benhadad, king of Syria, and Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon.

It is admitted that the Feast of Tabernacles was held in the autumn, and in the seventh month. The difficulty lies in the question of how it could be said to be "in the end of the year," "at the year's end," although it is clear from the cases just cited that these and similar expressions are merely of a general character, as we ourselves might say, "when the year came round," and do not indicate any rigid connection with a specific date of the calendar.

It’s acknowledged that the Feast of Tabernacles took place in the autumn and in the seventh month. The challenge comes with the phrase "in the end of the year," "at the year's end," even though it’s clear from the examples mentioned that these phrases are just general terms. They’re similar to when we might say, "when the year came around," and don’t necessarily point to a strict link with a specific date on the calendar.

We ourselves use several years and calendars, without any confusion. The civil year begins, at midnight, on January 1; the financial year on April 1; the ecclesiastical year with Advent, about December 1; the scholastic year about the middle of September, and so on. As [313]the word "year" expresses with ourselves many different usages, there is no reason to attribute to the Jews the extreme pedantry of invariably using nothing but precise definitions drawn from their ecclesiastical calendar.

We use several years and calendars without any confusion. The civil year starts at midnight on January 1; the financial year begins on April 1; the ecclesiastical year starts with Advent, around December 1; the academic year kicks off in the middle of September, and so on. Since the word "year" represents many different meanings for us, there's no reason to assume that the Jews were overly strict about only using precise definitions from their ecclesiastical calendar.

The services of the Tabernacle and the Temple were—with the exception of the slaying of the Paschal lambs—all comprised within the hours of daylight; there was no offering before the morning sacrifice, none after the evening sacrifice. So, too, the Mosaic law directed all the great feasts to be held in the summer half of the year, the light half; none in the winter. The Paschal full moon was just after the spring equinox; the harvest moon of the Feast of Tabernacles as near as possible to the autumn equinox. Until the introduction, after the Captivity, of the Feast of Purim in the twelfth month, the month Adar, the ecclesiastical year might be said to end with those seven days of joyous "camping-out" in the booths built of the green boughs; just as all the great days of the Christian year lie between Advent and the octave of Pentecost, whilst the "Sundays after Trinity" stretch their length through six whole months. There is, therefore, no contradiction between the command in Exod. xii., to make Abib, the month of the Passover, the first month, and the references elsewhere in Exodus to the Feast of Ingathering as being in "the end of the year." It was at the end of the agricultural year; it was also at the end of the period of feasts. So, if a workman is engaged for a day's work, he comes in the morning, and goes home in the evening, and expects to be paid as he leaves; no one would ask him [314]to complete the twenty-four hours before payment and dismissal. It is the end of his day; though, like the men in the parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard, he has only worked twelve hours out of the twenty-four. In the same way the Feast of Tabernacles, though in the seventh month, was in "the end of the year," both from the point of view of the farmer and of the ordinances of the sacred festivals.

The services of the Tabernacle and the Temple were—apart from the sacrifice of the Paschal lambs—entirely within daylight hours; no offerings were made before the morning sacrifice and none after the evening sacrifice. Likewise, the Mosaic law specified that all the major feasts should take place during the summer half of the year, the lighter half; none were held in winter. The Paschal full moon occurred right after the spring equinox, and the harvest moon for the Feast of Tabernacles was scheduled as close as possible to the autumn equinox. Until the Feast of Purim was introduced after the Captivity in the twelfth month, Adar, the ecclesiastical year effectively ended with those seven days of joyful "camping-out" in booths made from green branches; similar to how all the main days in the Christian year are observed between Advent and the octave of Pentecost, while the "Sundays after Trinity" extend for six full months. Therefore, there’s no conflict between the command in Exod. xii. to consider Abib, the month of the Passover, as the first month, and other mentions in Exodus of the Feast of Ingathering being referred to as occurring "at the end of the year." It marked the close of the agricultural year; it was also the end of the festive period. So, if a worker is hired for a day, he starts in the morning, goes home in the evening, and expects to be paid as he leaves; nobody would require him to finish a full twenty-four hours before he gets paid and dismissed. It is the end of his workday; even if, like the men in the parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard, he only worked half of that time. Similarly, the Feast of Tabernacles, although in the seventh month, was considered "at the end of the year" from both the farmer's perspective and the context of the sacred festivals.

The method employed in very early times in Assyria and Babylonia for determining the first month of the year was a simple and effective one, the principle of which may be explained thus: If we watch for the appearance of the new moon in spring time, and, as we see it setting in the west, notice some bright star near it, then 12 months later we should see the two together again; but with this difference, that the moon and star would be seen together, not on the first, but on the second evening of the month. For since 12 lunar months fall short of a solar year by 11 days, the moon on the first evening would be about 11 degrees short of her former position. But as she moves about 13 degrees in 24 hours, the next evening she would practically be back in her old place. In the second year, therefore, moon and star would set together on the second evening of the first month; and in like manner they would set together on the third evening in the third year; and, roughly speaking, on the fourth evening of the fourth year. But this last conjunction would mean that they would also set together on the first evening of the next month, which would thus be indicated as the true first [315]month of the year. Thus when moon and star set together on the third evening of a month, thirteen months later they would set together on the first evening of a month. Thus the setting together of moon and star would not only mark which was to be first month of the year, but if they set together on the first evening it would show that the year then beginning was to be an ordinary one of 12 months; if on the third evening, that the year ought to be a full one of 13 months.

The method used in ancient Assyria and Babylonia to determine the first month of the year was straightforward and effective, which can be explained like this: If we look for the new moon in the spring and notice a bright star nearby as it sets in the west, then a year later we should see both together again; but there’s a difference: the moon and the star will be together on the second evening of the month instead of the first. This happens because 12 lunar months fall short of a solar year by 11 days, so the moon on the first evening would be about 11 degrees behind its previous position. However, since the moon moves about 13 degrees in 24 hours, the next evening it would be back in its old position. Therefore, in the second year, the moon and star would set together on the second evening of the first month; in the third year, they would set together on the third evening; and roughly speaking, on the fourth evening of the fourth year. This last conjunction would also mean they would set together on the first evening of the next month, which would then be recognized as the true first month of the year. So when the moon and star set together on the third evening of a month, thirteen months later they would set together on the first evening of a month. This way, the setting of the moon and star would indicate which month was to be the first of the year, and if they set together on the first evening, it would show that the new year was to be an ordinary one of 12 months; if on the third evening, it would indicate that the year should be a full one of 13 months.

This was precisely the method followed by the Akkadians some 4000 years ago. For Prof. Sayce and Mr. Bosanquet translate an old tablet in Akkadian as follows:—

This was exactly the method used by the Akkadians about 4000 years ago. For Prof. Sayce and Mr. Bosanquet translate an old tablet in Akkadian like this:—

"When on the first day of the month Nisan the star of stars (or Dilgan) and the moon are parallel, that year is normal. When on the third day of the month Nisan the star of stars and the moon are parallel, that year is full."[315:1]

"When the first day of the month Nisan has the star of stars (or Dilgan) and the moon aligned, that year is normal. When the third day of the month Nisan has the star of stars and the moon aligned, that year is full."[315:1]

The "star of stars" of this inscription is no doubt the bright star Capella, and the year thus determined by the setting together of the moon and Capella would begin on the average with the spring equinox about 2000 b.c.

The "star of stars" in this inscription is clearly the bright star Capella, and the year determined by the alignment of the moon and Capella would typically start around the spring equinox around 2000 B.C.

When Capella thus marked the first month of the year, the "twin stars," Castor and Pollux, marked the second month of the year in just the same way. A reminiscence of this circumstance is found in the signs for the first two months; that for the first month being a crescent moon "lying on its back;" that for the second month a pair of stars.

When Capella signaled the first month of the year, the "twin stars," Castor and Pollux, indicated the second month in exactly the same manner. A reminder of this is seen in the symbols for the first two months; the symbol for the first month is a crescent moon "lying on its back," and for the second month, it’s a pair of stars.

[316]The significance of the crescent being shown as lying on its back is seen at once when it is remembered that the new moon is differently inclined to the horizon according to the time of the year when it is seen. It is most nearly upright at the time of the autumn equinox; it is most nearly horizontal, "lying on its back," at the spring equinox. It is clear from this symbol, therefore, that the Babylonians began their year in the spring.[317]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]The importance of the crescent appearing to be lying on its back becomes clear when we remember that the new moon's position relative to the horizon changes depending on the time of year it is observed. It stands most upright during the autumn equinox and is most horizontal, or "lying on its back," during the spring equinox. This symbol clearly indicates that the Babylonians started their year in the spring.[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

POSITION OF THE NEW MOON AT THE EQUINOXES.ToList

[318] This method, by which the new moon was used as a kind of pointer for determining the return of the sun to the neighbourhood of a particular star at the end of a solar year, is quite unlike anything that commentators [319]on the astronomical methods of the ancients have supposed them to have used. But we know from the ancient inscription already quoted that it was actually used; it was eminently simple; it was bound to have suggested itself wherever a luni-solar year, starting from the observed new moon, was used. Further, it required no instruments or star-maps; it did not even require a knowledge of the constellations; only of one or two conspicuous stars. Though rough, it was perfectly efficient, and would give the mean length of the year with all the accuracy that was then required.

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] This method, where the new moon acted as a marker to figure out when the sun returned near a specific star at the end of the solar year, is completely different from what scholars [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] on ancient astronomical methods have thought. However, we know from the ancient inscription mentioned earlier that it was actually used; it was very straightforward; it must have naturally occurred to anyone using a luni-solar year based on the observed new moon. Additionally, it didn't require any tools or star maps; there was no need to know the constellations, just one or two prominent stars. Although it was basic, it worked really well and could accurately provide the average length of the year as needed at the time.

BOUNDARY-STONE IN THE LOUVRE; APPROXIMATE DATE, B.C. 1200.
(From a photograph by Messrs. W. A. Mansell.)ToList

BOUNDARY STONE IN THE LOUVRE; APPROXIMATE DATE, 1200 B.C.
(From a photograph by Messrs. W. A. Mansell.)ToList

But it had one drawback, which the ancients could not have been expected to foresee. The effect of "precession," alluded to in the chapter on "The Origin of the Constellations," p. 158, would be to throw the beginning of the year, as thus determined, gradually later and later in the seasons,—roughly speaking, by a day in every seventy years,—and the time came, no doubt, when it was noticed that the terrestrial seasons no longer bore their traditional relation to the year. This probably happened at some time in the seventh or eighth centuries before our era, and was connected with the astronomical revolution that has been alluded to before; when the ecliptic was divided into twelve equal divisions, not associated with the actual stars, the Signs were substituted for the Constellations of the Zodiac, and the Ram was taken as the leader instead of the Bull. The equinox was then determined by direct measurement of the length of the day and night; for a tablet of about this period records—

But it had one drawback that the ancients couldn't have predicted. The effect of "precession," mentioned in the chapter on "The Origin of the Constellations," p. 158, would cause the start of the year, as determined, to gradually shift later in the seasons—roughly by a day every seventy years—and eventually, it was likely noticed that the terrestrial seasons no longer aligned with the traditional year. This probably became evident around the seventh or eighth centuries BCE and was linked to the astronomical changes previously mentioned; when the ecliptic was divided into twelve equal parts, not related to the actual stars, the Signs replaced the Zodiac Constellations, and the Ram was chosen as the leading sign instead of the Bull. The equinox was then established by directly measuring the day and night lengths; a tablet from around this time records—

[320]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

"On the sixth day of the month Nisan the day and night were equal. The day was six double-hours (kasbu), and the night was six double-hours."

"On the sixth day of the month Nisan, the day and night were equal. The day lasted six double-hours (kasbu), and the night lasted six double-hours."

So long as Capella was used as the indicator star, so long the year must have begun with the sun in Taurus, the Bull; but when the re-adjustment was made, and the solar tropical year connected with the equinox was substituted for the sidereal year connected with the return of the sun to a particular star, it would be seen that the association of the beginning of the year with the sun's presence in any given constellation could no longer be kept up. The necessity for an artificial division of the zodiac would be felt, and that artificial division clearly was not made until the sun at the spring equinox was unmistakably in Aries, the Ram; or about 700 b.c.

As long as Capella was used as the guiding star, the year had to start with the sun in Taurus, the Bull. However, when the adjustment took place, and the solar tropical year linked to the equinox replaced the sidereal year associated with the sun's return to a specific star, it became clear that we could no longer link the start of the year to the sun being in any specific constellation. The need for an artificial division of the zodiac was recognized, and that division wasn't clearly established until the sun was definitely in Aries, the Ram, during the spring equinox, around 700 B.C.

The eclipse of 1063 b.c. incidentally proves that the old method of fixing Nisan by the conjunction of the moon and Capella was then still in use; for the eclipse took place on July 31, which is called in the record "the 26th of Sivan." Sivan being the third month, its 26th day could not have fallen so late, if the year had begun with the equinox; but it would have so fallen if the Capella method were still in vogue.[321]

The eclipse of 1063 B.C. shows that the old way of determining Nisan by the alignment of the moon and Capella was still being used at that time; the eclipse occurred on July 31, which is referred to in the records as "the 26th of Sivan." Since Sivan is the third month, its 26th day couldn’t have landed so late if the year had started with the equinox, but it would have if the Capella method was still in practice.[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

[322] There is a set of symbols repeated over and over again on Babylonian monuments, and always given a position of eminence;—it is the so-called "Triad of Stars," a crescent lying on its back and two stars near it. They are seen very distinctly at the top of the photograph of the boundary-stone from the Louvre, given on p. 318, and also immediately above the head of the Sun-god in the [323]photograph of the tablet from Sippar, on p. 322. Their significance is now clear. Four thousand years before the Christian era, the two Twin stars, Castor and Pollux, served as indicators of the first new moon of the year, just as Capella did two thousand years later. The "triad of stars," then, is simply a picture of what men saw, year after year, in the sunset sky at the beginning of the first month, six thousand years ago. It is the earliest record of an astronomical observation that has come down to us.

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] There is a set of symbols that appears repeatedly on Babylonian monuments, always placed prominently; it’s known as the "Triad of Stars," which consists of a crescent lying on its back with two stars nearby. You can see them clearly at the top of the photograph of the boundary stone from the Louvre, shown on p. 318, and also just above the head of the Sun-god in the [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]photograph of the tablet from Sippar, on p. 322. Their meaning is now understood. Four thousand years before the Christian era, the two twin stars, Castor and Pollux, marked the arrival of the first new moon of the year, just like Capella did two thousand years later. The "triad of stars" is, then, a representation of what people saw year after year in the sunset sky at the start of the first month, six thousand years ago. It’s the earliest known record of an astronomical observation that has survived to this day.

WORSHIP OF THE SUN-GOD AT SIPPARA.ToList

WORSHIP OF THE SUN GOD AT SIPPARA.ToList

How simple and easy the observation was, and how distinctly the year was marked off by it! The month was marked off by the first sight of the new thin crescent in the evening sky. The day was marked off by the return of darkness, the evening hour in which, month by month, the new moon was first observed; so that "the evening and the morning were the first day." The year was marked off by the new moon being seen in the evening with a bright pair of stars, the stars we still know as the "Twins;" and the length of the year was shown by the evening of the month, when moon and stars came together. If on the first evening, it was a year of twelve months; if on the third, one of thirteen. There was a time when these three observations constituted the whole of primitive astronomy.

How simple and straightforward the observation was, and how clearly the year was defined by it! The month was defined by the first sight of the new thin crescent in the evening sky. The day was defined by the return of darkness, the evening hour in which, month by month, the new moon was first seen; so that "the evening and the morning were the first day." The year was defined by the new moon appearing in the evening alongside a bright pair of stars, the ones we still call the "Twins"; and the length of the year was indicated by the evening of the month when the moon and stars came together. If it was the first evening, it marked a year of twelve months; if it was the third, a year of thirteen. There was a time when these three observations made up the entirety of early astronomy.

In later days the original meaning of the "Triad of Stars" would seem to have been forgotten, and they were taken as representing Sin, Samas, and Istar;—the Moon, the Sun and the planet Venus. Yet now and again a hint of the part they once played in determining [324]the length of the year is preserved. Thus, on the tablet now in the British Museum, and shown on p. 322, sculptured with a scene representing the worship of the Sun-god in the temple of Sippar, these three symbols are shown with the explanatory inscription:—

In later times, the original meaning of the "Triad of Stars" seemed to have been lost, and they were thought to represent Sin, Samas, and Istar—the Moon, the Sun, and the planet Venus. However, now and then, there's a hint of their historical role in measuring [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]the length of the year. For example, on a tablet in the British Museum, displayed on p. 322, there's a carving showing the worship of the Sun-god in the temple of Sippar, featuring these three symbols along with an explanatory inscription:—

"The Moon god, the Sun god, and Istar, inhabitants of the abyss,
Let the years know what they can expect;

possibly an astrological formula, but it may well mean—"announce whether the years should expect twelve or thirteen months."

possibly an astrological formula, but it might mean—"declare whether the years should anticipate twelve or thirteen months."

As already pointed out, this method had one drawback; it gave a sidereal year, not a tropical year, and this inconvenience must have been discovered, and Capella substituted for the Twin stars, long before the giving of the Law to Israel. The method employed by the priests of watching the progress of the ripening of the barley overcame this difficulty, and gave a year to Israel which, on the average, was a correct tropical one.

As noted earlier, this method had a disadvantage; it calculated a sidereal year instead of a tropical year, and this issue must have been identified, with Capella replacing the Twin stars, long before the Law was given to Israel. The approach used by the priests to monitor the ripening of the barley addressed this issue, providing Israel with a year that was, on average, a true tropical year.

There is a detail in the history of the flood in Gen. vii. and viii. which has been taken by some as meant to indicate the length of the tropical year.

There’s a detail in the history of the flood in Gen. vii. and viii. that some people interpret as indicating the length of the tropical year.

"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened."

"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, all the springs of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of heaven were opened."

"And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, . . . in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth dried."

"And it happened in the six hundred and first year, . . . in the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, the earth was dried."

The interval from the commencement of the deluge to its close was therefore twelve lunar months and ten [325]days; i. e. 364 or 365 days. The beginning of the rain would, no doubt, be sharply marked; the end of the drying would be gradual, and hence the selection of a day exactly (so far as we can tell) a full tropical year from the beginning of the flood would seem to be intentional. A complete year had been consumed by the judgment.

The time from the start of the flood to the end was twelve lunar months and ten [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]days; that is, 364 or 365 days. The start of the rain would definitely be clearly defined; the end of the drying out would be gradual, so choosing a day that is exactly a full tropical year from the beginning of the flood seems intentional. A full year had passed due to the judgment.

No such total interruption of the kindly succession of the seasons shall ever occur again:—

No total break in the gentle flow of the seasons will ever happen again:—

"While the earth remaineth, seed-time and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease."

"While the earth lasts, planting and harvesting, cold and heat, summer and winter, and day and night will never stop."

The rain is no longer for judgment, but for blessing:—

The rain is no longer seen as punishment, but as a gift:—

You visit the earth and water it,
You greatly enrich it;
The river of God is overflowing with water:
You provide them with grain when You have prepared the earth. You water her furrows abundantly;
You settle its ridges: You make it soft with rain;
You bless its growth. "You crown the year with Your goodness."

FOOTNOTES:

[311:1] P. I. Hershon, Genesis with a Talmudical Commentary, p. 30.

[315:1] Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, vol. xxxix. p. 455.

[315:1] Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, vol. 39, p. 455.

[326]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

CHAPTER V

THE SABBATIC YEAR AND THE JUBILEE

The principle of the week with its sabbath of rest was carried partially into the month, and completely into the year. The seventh month of the year was marked out pre-eminently by the threefold character of its services, though every seventh month was not distinguished. But the weekly sabbath was expressed not only in days but in years, and was one both of rest and of release.

The idea of a week with a day of rest was partially extended to the month and fully to the year. The seventh month was especially noted for its three types of activities, although not every seventh month was highlighted. The weekly day of rest was recognized not just in days but also in years, serving as a time for both rest and freedom.

The sabbath of years was first enjoined from Mount Sinai, in the third month after the departure from Egypt, certainly within a day or so, if not on the actual day, of the second great feast of the year, variously known to the Hebrews as the Feast of Firstfruits, or the Feast of Weeks, and to us as Pentecost, that is Whitsuntide. It is most shortly given in Exod. xxi. 2, and xxiii. 10, 11:—

The sabbath of years was first established at Mount Sinai, in the third month after leaving Egypt, definitely within a day or so, if not on the actual day, of the second major feast of the year, known by the Hebrews as the Feast of Firstfruits or the Feast of Weeks, and by us as Pentecost, or Whitsuntide. It is briefly stated in Exod. xxi. 2, and xxiii. 10, 11:—

"If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing."

"If you buy a Hebrew servant, he shall serve for six years, and in the seventh year, he will go free without paying anything."

"Six years thou shalt sow thy land, and shalt gather in the fruits thereof: but the seventh year thou shalt let it rest and lie still; that the poor of thy people may eat: and what they leave the beasts of the field shall eat. In like manner thou shalt deal with thy vineyard, and with thy oliveyard."

"Six years you will plant your land and gather its crops, but in the seventh year you will let it rest and remain uncultivated so that the poor among your people can eat. Whatever is left, the animals of the field will eat. Similarly, you will handle your vineyard and your olive grove in the same way."

[327]These laws are given at greater length and with fuller explanation in the twenty-fifth chapter of the Book of Leviticus. In addition there is given a promise of blessing for the fulfilment of the laws, and, in the twenty-sixth chapter, a sign to follow on their breach.

[a id="Page_327">[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]These laws are explained in more detail in the twenty-fifth chapter of the Book of Leviticus. Additionally, there is a promise of blessings for following the laws, and in the twenty-sixth chapter, a sign of what will happen if they are broken.

"If ye shall say, What shall we eat the seventh year? behold, we shall not sow, nor gather in our increase: then I will command My blessing upon you in the sixth year, and it shall bring forth fruit for three years. And ye shall sow the eighth year, and eat yet of old fruit until the ninth year: until her fruits come in ye shall eat of the old store."

"If you say, ‘What will we eat in the seventh year? Look, we won’t sow or gather our harvest,’ then I will command My blessing on you in the sixth year, and it will produce fruit for three years. You will sow in the eighth year and still eat old fruit until the ninth year; you will eat from the old store until the new harvest comes in."

"Ye shall keep My sabbaths . . . and if ye walk contrary unto Me . . . I will scatter you among the heathen, and will draw out a sword after you: and your land shall be desolate, and your cities waste. Then shall the land enjoy her sabbaths, as long as it lieth desolate, and ye be in your enemies' land; even then shall the land rest, and enjoy her sabbaths. As long as it lieth desolate it shall rest; because it did not rest in your sabbaths, when ye dwelt upon it."

"You must observe My Sabbaths... and if you go against Me... I will scatter you among the nations and will pursue you with the sword; your land will become desolate, and your cities will be in ruins. Then the land will enjoy its Sabbaths as long as it remains desolate, and you are in your enemies' land; even then, the land will rest and enjoy its Sabbaths. As long as it remains desolate, it will have rest because it did not rest during your Sabbaths when you lived on it."

In the fifteenth chapter of the Book of Deuteronomy this sabbatic year is called a year of release. The specific injunctions here relate to loans made to a Hebrew and to a foreigner, and to the taking of a Hebrew into bondage. The laws as to loans had direct reference to the sabbath of the land, for since only Hebrews might possess the Holy Land, interest on a debt might not be exacted from a Hebrew in the sabbatic year, as the land did not then yield him wherewith he might pay. But loans to foreigners would be necessarily for commercial, not agricultural, purposes, and since commerce was not interdicted in the sabbatic year, interest on loans to foreigners [328]might be exacted. Warning was given that the loans to a poor Hebrew should not be withheld because the sabbatic year was close at hand. The rules with respect to the Hebrew sold for debt into bondage are the same as those given in the Book of the Exodus.

In the fifteenth chapter of the Book of Deuteronomy, this sabbatical year is referred to as a year of release. The specific guidelines here apply to loans made to a Hebrew and to a foreigner, as well as to the enslavement of a Hebrew. The laws regarding loans are directly tied to the sabbath of the land, since only Hebrews could own land in the Holy Land. Therefore, interest on a debt couldn’t be charged to a Hebrew during the sabbatical year, as the land wouldn’t provide them with the means to repay. However, loans to foreigners were typically for commercial purposes, not agricultural ones, and since trade wasn’t prohibited during the sabbatical year, interest on loans to foreigners [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]could be charged. It was advised that loans to a poor Hebrew should not be withheld just because the sabbatical year was approaching. The rules regarding a Hebrew sold into slavery for debt are the same as those mentioned in the Book of Exodus.

In Deuteronomy it was also enjoined that—

In Deuteronomy, it was also commanded that—

"at the end of every seven years, in the solemnity of the year of release, in the Feast of Tabernacles" (that is, in the feast of the seventh month), "when all Israel is come to appear before the Lord thy God in the place which He shall choose, thou shalt read this law before all Israel in their hearing."

"At the end of every seven years, during the sacred year of release, at the Feast of Tabernacles" (which is in the seventh month), "when all Israel gathers to appear before the Lord your God in the place He chooses, you must read this law aloud to all Israel in their presence."

We find no more mention of the sabbatic year until the reign of Zedekiah, the last king of Judah. He had made a covenant with all the people which were at Jerusalem, to proclaim liberty unto them, that every Hebrew bondservant should go free, but the princes and all the people caused their Hebrew bondservants to return and be in subjection to them. Then Jeremiah the prophet was sent to remind them of the covenant made with their fathers when they were brought out from the land of Egypt, from the house of bondmen; and in the Second Book of Chronicles it is said that the sign of the breaking of this covenant, already quoted from the Book of Leviticus, was being accomplished. The Captivity was—

We don’t hear about the sabbatic year again until the reign of Zedekiah, the last king of Judah. He had made a promise to everyone in Jerusalem, declaring freedom for all Hebrew bondservants, but the princes and the people made their Hebrew bondservants return and submit to them. Then the prophet Jeremiah was sent to remind them of the covenant made with their ancestors when they were freed from Egypt, from the house of bondage. In the Second Book of Chronicles, it’s stated that the consequences of breaking this covenant, mentioned earlier in the Book of Leviticus, were unfolding. The Captivity was—

"to fulfil the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed her sabbaths: for as long as she lay desolate she kept sabbath, to fulfil three-score and ten years."

"to fulfill the word of the Lord spoken through Jeremiah, until the land had experienced its sabbaths: for as long as it remained desolate, it observed the sabbath, to complete seventy years."

After the exile, we find one reference to the sabbatic [329]year in the covenant sealed by the princes, Levites, and priests and people, in the Book of Nehemiah:—

After the exile, there's one mention of the sabbatic [a id="Page_329">[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]year in the agreement made by the princes, Levites, priests, and the people, in the Book of Nehemiah:—

"That we would leave the seventh year, and the exaction of every debt."

"That we would leave the seventh year and the collection of every debt."

Just as the Feast of Weeks was bound to the Feast of the Passover by numbering seven sabbaths from the day of the wave-offering—"even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath shall ye number fifty days:"—so the year of Jubilee was bound to the sabbatic year:—

Just as the Feast of Weeks was connected to the Feast of the Passover by counting seven sabbaths from the day of the wave-offering—"even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath shall ye number fifty days:"—the year of Jubilee was connected to the sabbatic year:—

"Thou shalt number seven sabbaths of years unto thee, seven times seven years; and the space of the seven sabbaths of years shall be unto thee forty and nine years. Then shalt thou cause the trumpet of the Jubile to sound on the tenth day of the seventh month, in the day of atonement shall ye make the trumpet sound throughout all your land. And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a Jubile unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family."

"You shall count seven sabbaths of years for yourself, seven times seven years; the total of the seven sabbaths of years will be forty-nine years. Then you shall have the trumpet of the Jubilee sound on the tenth day of the seventh month, on the Day of Atonement you shall make the trumpet sound throughout all your land. You shall consecrate the fiftieth year and proclaim liberty throughout all the land to all its inhabitants: it shall be a Jubilee for you; and each person shall return to their own possession, and each person shall return to their family."

In this year of Jubilee all land, and village houses, and the houses of the Levites were to revert to their original owners. These, in other words, could be leased only, and not bought outright, the price of the lease depending upon the number of years until the next Jubilee. A foreigner might not buy a Hebrew outright as a bondslave; he could but contract with him as a servant hired for a term; this contract might be abolished by the payment of a sum dependent on the number of years until the next year of Jubilee, and in any case the Hebrew servant and [330]his family must go out free at the year of Jubilee. In the last chapter of the Book of Numbers we get a reference again to the year of Jubilee, and indirect allusions to it are made by Isaiah, in "the acceptable year of the Lord" when liberty should be proclaimed, and in "the year of the redeemed." In his prophecy of the restoration of Israel, Ezekiel definitely refers to "the year of liberty," when the inheritance that has been granted to a servant shall return again to the prince.

In this Jubilee year, all land, village houses, and the homes of the Levites were to return to their original owners. Basically, these properties could only be leased, not sold outright, with the lease price based on how many years remained until the next Jubilee. A foreigner couldn't buy a Hebrew as a permanent bondservant; they could only hire them as a temporary worker. This contract could be ended by paying a sum based on the remaining years until the next Jubilee, and in any case, the Hebrew worker and their family had to be set free at the year of Jubilee. In the final chapter of the Book of Numbers, there's another mention of the year of Jubilee, and Isaiah refers to it indirectly in phrases like "the acceptable year of the Lord," when freedom would be proclaimed, and "the year of the redeemed." In his prophecy about the restoration of Israel, Ezekiel specifically mentions "the year of liberty," when the inheritance granted to a servant would return to the prince.

The interpretation of the sabbatic year and the year of Jubilee has greatly exercised commentators. At what season did the sabbatic year begin? was it coterminous with the ecclesiastical year; or did it differ from it by six months? Was the year of Jubilee held once in every forty-nine years or once in every fifty? did it begin at the same season as the sabbatic year? did it interrupt the reckoning of the sabbatic year, so that a new cycle commenced immediately after the year of Jubilee; or was the sabbatic year every seventh, irrespective of the year of Jubilee? did the year of Jubilee always follow immediately on a sabbatic year, or did this only happen occasionally?

The understanding of the sabbatical year and the Year of Jubilee has long been a topic of debate among scholars. When did the sabbatical year actually start? Did it align with the ecclesiastical year, or was it off by six months? Was the Year of Jubilee celebrated every forty-nine years or every fifty years? Did it start at the same time as the sabbatical year? Did it affect the counting of the sabbatical year, so that a new cycle began right after the Year of Jubilee, or was the sabbatical year always every seventh year, regardless of the Year of Jubilee? Did the Year of Jubilee always come right after a sabbatical year, or did that only happen sometimes?

The problem will be much simpler if it is borne in mind that the Law, as originally proclaimed, was eminently practical and for practical men. The period of pedantry, of hair-splitting, of slavery to mere technicalities, came very late in Jewish history.

The problem will be much simpler if we remember that the Law, when it was first announced, was very practical and meant for practical people. The time of pedantry, nitpicking, and being stuck on minor details came quite late in Jewish history.

It is clear from what has been already said in the chapter on the year, that the only calendar year in the Old Testament was the sacred one, beginning with the month [331]Abib or Nisan, in the spring. At the same time the Jews, like ourselves, would occasionally refer vaguely to the beginning, or the end, or the course of the year, without meaning to set up any hard and fast connection with the authorized calendar.

It is clear from what has already been discussed in the chapter on the year that the only calendar year in the Old Testament was the sacred one, starting with the month [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]Abib or Nisan in the spring. At the same time, the Jews, like us, would sometimes refer vaguely to the beginning, end, or passage of the year without intending to establish any strict connection with the official calendar.

Now it is perfectly clear that the sabbatic year cannot have begun with the first day of the month Abib, because the first fruits were offered on the fifteenth of that month. That being so, the ploughing and the sowing must have taken place very considerably earlier. It is not possible to suppose that the Hebrew farmer would plough and sow his land in the last months of the previous year, knowing that he could not reap during the sabbatic year.

Now it’s clear that the sabbatical year couldn’t have started on the first day of the month of Abib because the first fruits were offered on the fifteenth of that month. So, the plowing and sowing must have happened much earlier. It’s hard to believe that the Hebrew farmer would plow and sow his fields in the last months of the previous year, knowing he wouldn’t be able to harvest during the sabbatical year.

Similarly, it seems hardly likely that it was considered as beginning with the first of Tishri, inasmuch as the harvest festival, the Feast of the Ingathering, or Tabernacles, took place in the middle of that month. The plain and practical explanation is that, after the Feast of Tabernacles of the sixth year, the farmer would not again plough, sow, or reap his land until after the Feast of Tabernacles in the sabbatic year. The sabbatic year, in other words, was a simple agricultural year, and it did not correspond exactly with the ecclesiastical or with any calendar year.

Similarly, it seems unlikely that it was regarded as starting with the first of Tishri, since the harvest festival, the Feast of the Ingathering, or Tabernacles, occurred in the middle of that month. The straightforward and practical explanation is that after the Feast of Tabernacles in the sixth year, the farmer wouldn’t plow, plant, or harvest his land until after the Feast of Tabernacles in the sabbatical year. The sabbatical year, in other words, was just an agricultural year and didn’t align perfectly with the ecclesiastical or any other calendar year.

For practical purposes the sabbatic year therefore ended with the close of the Feast of Tabernacles, when the Law was read before the whole people according to the command of Moses; and it practically began a year earlier.

For practical purposes, the sabbatical year ended with the conclusion of the Feast of Tabernacles, when the Law was read to all the people as commanded by Moses; and it essentially began a year earlier.

The year of Jubilee appears in the directions of Lev. xxv. to have been most distinctly linked to the sabbatic year.

The year of Jubilee, as outlined in Lev. xxv, seems to be clearly associated with the sabbatical year.

[332]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

"The space of the seven sabbaths of years shall be unto thee forty and nine years, . . . and ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a Jubile unto you."

"The period of seven cycles of seven years will be forty-nine years for you... and you shall make the fiftieth year holy, and announce freedom throughout the land to all who live there: it will be a Jubilee for you."

It would seem, therefore, that just as the week of days ran on continuously, uninterrupted by any feasts or fasts, so the week of years ran on continuously. And as the Feast of Pentecost was the 49th day from the offering of the first-fruits on the morrow of the Passover, so the Jubilee was the 49th year from the "morrow" of a sabbatic year; it followed immediately after a sabbatic year. The Jubilee was thus the 49th year from the previous Jubilee; it was the 50th from the particular sabbatic year from which the original reckoning was made.

It seems that just like the week of days went on continuously, without any breaks for feasts or fasts, the week of years also moved along without interruption. The Feast of Pentecost was the 49th day after the offering of the first-fruits on the day after Passover, and similarly, the Jubilee was the 49th year following the day after a sabbatic year; it came right after a sabbatic year. Therefore, the Jubilee was the 49th year since the last Jubilee; it was the 50th year from the specific sabbatic year that started the original count.

Actually the year of Jubilee began before the sabbatic year was completed, because the trumpet of the Jubilee was to be blown upon the Day of Atonement, the 10th day of the seventh month—that is to say, whilst the sabbatic year was yet in progress. Indeed, literally speaking, this trumpet, "loud of sound," blown on the 10th day of the seventh month, was the Jubilee, that is to say, the sound of rejoicing, the joyful sound. A difficulty comes in here. The Israelites were commanded—

Actually, the year of Jubilee started before the sabbatic year was finished, because the trumpet for the Jubilee was to be blown on the Day of Atonement, the 10th day of the seventh month—that is, while the sabbatic year was still ongoing. In fact, literally speaking, this trumpet, "loud with sound," blown on the 10th day of the seventh month, was the Jubilee, which means the sound of celebration, the joyful sound. This creates a challenge. The Israelites were commanded—

"Ye shall not sow, neither reap that which groweth of itself in it, nor gather the grapes in it of thy vine undressed. For it is the Jubile; it shall be holy unto you: ye shall eat the increase thereof out of the field."

"You must not plant or harvest what grows on its own, nor gather the grapes from your untended vine. For it is the Jubilee; it will be holy to you: you may eat the produce from the field."

This would appear to mean that the Jubilee extended over a whole year following a sabbatic year, so that the [333]land lay fallow for two consecutive years. But this seems negatived by two considerations. It is expressly laid down in the same chapter (Lev. xxv. 22) that the Israelites were to sow in the eighth year—that is to say, in the year after a sabbatic year, and the year of Jubilee would be always a year of this character. Further, if the next sabbatic year was the seventh after the one preceding the Jubilee, then the land would be tilled for only five consecutive years, not for six, though this is expressly commanded in Lev. xxv. 3. If, on the contrary, it was tilled for six years, then the run of the sabbatic years would be interrupted.

This seems to suggest that the Jubilee lasted a full year after a sabbatic year, meaning the [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]land would remain unplanted for two straight years. However, two points contradict this idea. It's clearly stated in the same chapter (Lev. xxv. 22) that the Israelites were to plant in the eighth year—that is, the year after a sabbatic year, and the Jubilee year would always be one of that kind. Additionally, if the next sabbatic year was the seventh after the one before the Jubilee, then the land would be farmed for only five consecutive years instead of six, which is explicitly required in Lev. xxv. 3. On the other hand, if the land was farmed for six years, it would disrupt the sequence of sabbatic years.

The explanation of this difficulty may possibly be found in the fact that that which distinguished the year of Jubilee was something which did not run through the whole circuit of the seasons. The land in that year was to return to its original owners. The freehold of the land was never sold; the land was inalienable, and in the year of Jubilee it reverted. "In the year of this Jubile ye shall return every man unto his possession."

The explanation for this challenge might be found in the fact that what set the year of Jubilee apart was something that didn’t follow the usual seasonal cycle. During that year, the land was supposed to go back to its original owners. The ownership of the land was never truly sold; it was inalienable, and in the year of Jubilee, it returned. "In the year of this Jubilee, every person shall return to their own possession."

It is quite clear that it could not have been left to the caprice of the owners of property as to when this transfer took place, or as to when such Hebrews as had fallen through poverty into slavery should be liberated. If the time were made optional, grasping men would put it off till the end of the year, and sooner or later that would be the general rule. There can be no doubt that the blowing of the trumpet on the 10th day of the seventh month was the proclamation of liberty throughout all the land and to all the inhabitants thereof; and that the transfer of the [334]land must have taken place at the same time. The slave would return to the possession of his ancestors in time to keep, as a freeman, the Feast of Tabernacles on his own land. The four days between the great day of Atonement and the Feast of Tabernacles were sufficient for this change to be carried out.

It’s obvious that it couldn’t be left up to property owners to decide when this transfer happened, or when Hebrews who became enslaved due to poverty would be freed. If the timing was left to them, greedy individuals would keep postponing it until the end of the year, and eventually that would become the norm. There’s no doubt that the sound of the trumpet on the 10th day of the seventh month announced freedom throughout the land for all its inhabitants; and that the transfer of the [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]land had to happen at the same time. The slave would return to his ancestors' property in time to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles as a free person. The four days between the Day of Atonement and the Feast of Tabernacles were enough for this change to take place.

The term "Year of Jubilee" is therefore not to be taken as signifying that the events of the Jubilee were spread over twelve months, but simply, that it was the year in which the restoration of the Jubilee was accomplished. We speak of the king's "coronation year," though his coronation took place on but a single day, and the meaning that we should attach to the phrase would depend upon the particular sense in which we were using the word "year." Whilst, therefore, the Jubilee itself was strictly defined by the blowing of trumpets on the 10th day of the seventh month, it would be perfectly correct to give the title, "year of Jubilee," to any year, no matter in what season it commenced, that contained the day of that proclamation of liberty. It is also correct to say that it was the fiftieth year because it was placed at the very end of the forty-ninth year.

The term "Year of Jubilee" shouldn't be seen as meaning that the events of the Jubilee lasted twelve months, but rather that it was the year when the Jubilee was restored. We often refer to the king's "coronation year," even though his actual coronation happened in just one day, and the meaning we attach to that phrase depends on how we are interpreting the word "year." Thus, while the Jubilee itself was clearly defined by the blowing of trumpets on the 10th day of the seventh month, it would be entirely accurate to call any year that included that day of announcing freedom a "year of Jubilee," regardless of when the year started. It’s also accurate to say it was the fiftieth year because it occurred at the very end of the forty-ninth year.

The difficulty still remains as to the meaning of the prohibition to sow or reap in the year of Jubilee. The command certainly reads as if the land was to lie fallow for two consecutive years; but it would seem an impracticable arrangement that the poor man returning to his inheritance should be forbidden to plough or sow until more than a twelvemonth had elapsed, and hence that he should be forbidden to reap until nearly two full years [335]had run their course. It also, as already stated, seems directly contrary to the command to sow in the eighth year, which would also be the fiftieth. It may therefore be meant simply to emphasize the prohibition to sow and reap in the sabbatic year immediately preceding the Jubilee. The temptation would be great to a grasping man to get the most he could out of the land before parting with it for ever.

The issue still exists regarding the meaning of the ban on sowing or reaping in the year of Jubilee. The command definitely suggests that the land should rest for two consecutive years; however, it seems impractical for a poor person returning to their inheritance to be prohibited from plowing or sowing for more than a year, which would mean they couldn’t reap until nearly two full years [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]had passed. Additionally, as mentioned earlier, this seems to contradict the instruction to sow in the eighth year, which would also be the fiftieth. Therefore, it might be intended simply to emphasize the prohibition against sowing and reaping in the sabbatical year right before the Jubilee. The temptation would be strong for a greedy person to extract as much as possible from the land before giving it up forever.

In spite of the strong array of commentators who claim that the Jubilees were to be held every fifty years as we moderns should compute it, there can be no doubt but that they followed each other at the same interval as every seventh sabbatic year; in other words, that they were held every 49 years. This is confirmed by an astronomical consideration. Forty-nine years make a convenient luni-solar cycle, reconciling the lunar month and the tropical solar year. Though not so good as the Metonic cycle of 19 years, it is quite a practical one, as the following table will show:—

In spite of the many commentators who argue that Jubilees should be celebrated every fifty years as we would calculate it today, it’s clear that they actually occurred every 49 years, following the same cycle as every seventh sabbatical year. This is supported by an astronomical fact. Forty-nine years create a useful luni-solar cycle, aligning the lunar month with the tropical solar year. While it's not as effective as the Metonic cycle of 19 years, it is still quite practical, as the following table will show:—

3	years	=	1095·73	days	:	37	months	=	1092·63	days
8	"	=	2921·94	"	:	99	"	=	2923·53	"
11	"	=	4017·66	"	:	136	"	=	4016·16	"
19	"	=	6939·60	"	:	235	"	=	6939·69	"
49	"	=	17896·87	"	:	606	"	=	17895·54	"
60	"	=	21914·53	"	:	742	"	=	21911·70	"

The cycle of 49 years would therefore be amply good enough to guide the priestly authorities in drawing up their calendar in cases where there was some ambiguity due to the interruption of observations of the moon, and this was all that could be needed so long as the nation of Israel remained in its own land.

The 49-year cycle would be more than enough to help the priestly leaders create their calendar when there were uncertainties because of interrupted sightings of the moon, and this was all that was necessary as long as the nation of Israel stayed in its own land.

[336]The cycle of 8 years is added above, since it has been stated that the Jews of Alexandria adopted this at one time from the Greeks. This was not so good as the cycle of 11 years would have been, and not to be compared with the combination of the two cycles in that of 19 years ascribed to Meton. The latter cycle was adopted by the Babylonian Jews, and forms the basis of the Jewish calendar in use to-day.

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]The 8-year cycle mentioned above was adopted by the Jews of Alexandria from the Greeks at one point. This wasn't as effective as the 11-year cycle would have been, and it doesn't compare to the combination of the two cycles in the 19-year cycle attributed to Meton. The Babylonian Jews adopted this latter cycle, which is the foundation of the Jewish calendar we use today.

[337]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

CHAPTER VI

THE CYCLES OF DANIEL

The cycle of 49 years, marked out by the return of the Jubilee, was a useful and practical one. It supplied, in fact, all that the Hebrews, in that age, required for the purposes of their calendar. The Babylonian basic number, 60, would have given—as will be seen from the table in the last chapter—a distinctly less accurate correspondence between the month and the tropical year.

The 49-year cycle, defined by the return of the Jubilee, was practical and helpful. It actually provided everything the Hebrews needed for their calendar at that time. The Babylonian base number, 60, would have resulted in a noticeably less accurate match between the month and the tropical year, as shown in the table in the last chapter.

There is another way of looking at the regulations for the Jubilee, which brings out a further significant relation. On the 10th day of the first month of any year, the lamb was selected for the Passover. On the 10th day of the seventh month of any year was the great Day of Atonement. From the 10th day of the first month of the first year after a Jubilee to the next blowing of the Jubilee trumpet on the great Day of Atonement, was 600 months, that is 50 complete lunar years. And the same interval necessarily held good between the Passover of that first year and the Feast of Tabernacles of the forty-ninth year. The Passover recalled the deliverance of Israel from the bondage of Egypt; and in like manner, the release to be given to the Hebrew slave at the year of Jubilee was [338]expressly connected with the memory of that national deliverance.

There’s another way to look at the Jubilee regulations that highlights a significant connection. On the 10th day of the first month each year, the lamb was chosen for the Passover. On the 10th day of the seventh month each year was the important Day of Atonement. From the 10th day of the first month of the first year after a Jubilee to the next blowing of the Jubilee trumpet on the Day of Atonement was 600 months, which is 50 complete lunar years. The same time frame also applied between the Passover of that first year and the Feast of Tabernacles of the forty-ninth year. The Passover commemorated Israel's escape from slavery in Egypt, and similarly, the release granted to the Hebrew slave during the Jubilee year was [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]directly linked to the memory of that national liberation.

"For they are My servants, which I brought forth out of the land of Egypt: they shall not be sold as bondmen."

"For they are My servants whom I brought out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as slaves."

The day of Jubilee fell in the middle of the ecclesiastical year. From the close of the year of Jubilee—that is to say, of the ecclesiastical year in which the freeing, both of the bondmen and of the land, took place—to the next day of Jubilee was 48-1/2 solar years, or—as seen above—600 lunations, or 50 lunar years, so that there can be no doubt that the period was expressly designed to exhibit this cycle, a cycle which shows incidentally a very correct knowledge of the true lengths of the lunation and solar year.

The day of Jubilee happened in the middle of the church year. From the end of the Jubilee year—that is, the church year when both the slaves and the land were freed—to the next Jubilee day was 48 and a half solar years, or, as mentioned earlier, 600 lunar months, or 50 lunar years. This clearly indicates that the period was specifically intended to illustrate this cycle, a cycle that incidentally reflects a very accurate understanding of the true lengths of the lunar month and solar year.

This cycle was possessed by no other nation of antiquity; therefore the Hebrews borrowed it from none; and since they did not borrow the cycle, neither could they have borrowed the ritual with which that cycle was interwoven.

This cycle was not found in any other ancient nation; therefore, the Hebrews didn’t borrow it from anyone. And since they didn’t borrow the cycle, they couldn’t have borrowed the rituals that were connected to it.

That the Hebrews possessed this knowledge throws some light upon an incident in the early life of the prophet Daniel.

That the Hebrews had this knowledge sheds some light on an incident during the early life of the prophet Daniel.

"In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it. . . . And the king spake unto Ashpenaz the master of his eunuchs, that he should bring certain of the children of Israel, and of the king's seed, and of the princes; children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the king's palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the [339]Chaldeans. . . . Now among these were of the children of Judah, Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah: unto whom the prince of the eunuchs gave names: for he gave unto Daniel the name of Belteshazzar; and to Hananiah, of Shadrach; and to Mishael, of Meshach; and to Azariah, of Abed-nego. . . . As for these four children, God gave them knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom; and Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams. Now at the end of the days that the king had said he should bring them in, then the prince of the eunuchs brought them in before Nebuchadnezzar. And the king communed with them; and among them all was found none like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah: therefore stood they before the king. And in all matters of wisdom and understanding, that the king inquired of them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and astrologers that were in all his realm."

"In the third year of the reign of King Jehoiakim of Judah, King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. . . . The king spoke to Ashpenaz, the chief of his eunuchs, telling him to bring some of the Israelites, particularly from the royal family and nobility; young men without physical defects, handsome, wise, knowledgeable, skilled in learning, and capable of standing in the king's palace, whom they could teach the language and literature of the Chaldeans. . . . Among these were the children of Judah: Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. The chief of the eunuchs gave them new names: he named Daniel Belteshazzar, Hananiah Shadrach, Mishael Meshach, and Azariah Abed-nego. . . . God granted these four young men knowledge and skill in all kinds of literature and wisdom, and Daniel had insight into all visions and dreams. After the time set by the king, the chief of the eunuchs brought them in before Nebuchadnezzar. The king talked with them, and among all those tested, none was found like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah; so they served the king. In every matter of wisdom and understanding the king asked them about, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and astrologers in his entire kingdom."

The Hebrew children that king Nebuchadnezzar desired to be brought were to be already possessed of knowledge; they were to be further instructed in the learning and tongue of the Chaldeans. But when the four Hebrew children were brought before the king, and he communed with them, he found them wiser than his own wise men.

The Hebrew boys that King Nebuchadnezzar wanted to bring in were expected to already have some knowledge; they were to receive further training in the learning and language of the Chaldeans. However, when the four Hebrew boys were presented to the king and he talked with them, he discovered they were wiser than his own wise men.

No account is given of the questions asked by the king, or of the answers made by the four young Hebrews; so it is merely a conjecture that possibly some question bearing on the calendar may have come up. But if it did, then certainly the information within the grasp of the Hebrews could not have failed to impress the king.

No details are provided about the questions the king asked or the answers given by the four young Hebrews, so it's just a guess that maybe a question about the calendar was raised. But if it was, then it's clear that the knowledge the Hebrews had would have impressed the king.

We know how highly the Greeks esteemed the discovery by Meton, in the 86th Olympiad, of that relation between the movements of the sun and moon, which gives the cycle of nineteen years, and similar knowledge would certainly [340]have given king Nebuchadnezzar a high opinion of the young captives.

We know how much the Greeks valued Meton's discovery during the 86th Olympiad regarding the relationship between the movements of the sun and moon, which creates a 19-year cycle. Having similar knowledge would definitely [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]have impressed King Nebuchadnezzar and led him to think highly of the young captives.

But there is evidence, from certain numbers in the book which bears his name, that Daniel was acquainted with luni-solar cycles which quite transcended that of the Jubilees in preciseness, and indicate a knowledge such as was certainly not to be found in any other ancient nation. The numbers themselves are used in a prophetic context, so that the meaning of the whole is veiled, but astronomical knowledge underlying the use of these numbers is unmistakably there.

But there is evidence from some figures in the book named after him that Daniel understood luni-solar cycles that were much more precise than those in the Jubilees and show a level of knowledge that definitely wasn't found in any other ancient nation. The numbers themselves are used in a prophetic context, making the overall meaning obscured, but the astronomical knowledge behind these numbers is clearly present.

One of these numbers is found in the eighth chapter.

One of these numbers is in the eighth chapter.

"How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed."

"How long will the vision about the daily sacrifice and the sin of desolation last, allowing both the sanctuary and the people to be trampled? And he said to me, 'It will be for two thousand three hundred days; then the sanctuary will be restored.'"

The twelfth chapter gives the other number, but in a more veiled form:—

The twelfth chapter provides the other number, but in a more indirect way:—

"And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by Him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished."

"And I heard the man dressed in linen, who was over the waters of the river, when he raised his right hand and his left hand to heaven, and swore by Him who lives forever that it would be for a time, times, and half a time; and when he has finished scattering the power of the holy people, all these things will be complete."

The numerical significance of the "time, times and an half," or, as it is expressed in the seventh chapter of Daniel, "until a time, and times, and the dividing of time," is plainly shown by the corresponding expressions in the Apocalypse, where "a time and times and half a time" [341]would appear to be given elsewhere both as "forty and two months" and "a thousand, two hundred and three-score days." Forty-two conventional months—that is of 30 days each—make up 1260 days, whilst 3-1/2 conventional years of 360 days—that is twelve months of 30 days each—make up the same period. The word "times" is expressly used as equivalent to years in the eleventh chapter of Daniel, where it is said that the king of the north "shall come on at the end of the times, even of years, with a great army and with much substance." Then, again in the vision which Nebuchadnezzar had previous to his madness, he heard the watcher and the holy one cry concerning him:—

The numerical significance of "time, times, and a half," or, as it's put in the seventh chapter of Daniel, "until a time, and times, and the dividing of time," is clearly demonstrated by the similar expressions in the Apocalypse, where "a time and times and half a time" [a id="Page_341">[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]also appears as "forty and two months" and "a thousand, two hundred and three-score days." Forty-two standard months—meaning 30 days each—total 1260 days, and 3.5 standard years of 360 days—twelve months of 30 days each—also equal the same time frame. The term "times" is specifically used to mean years in the eleventh chapter of Daniel, where it states that the king of the north "shall come at the end of the times, even of years, with a great army and with much substance." Additionally, in the vision Nebuchadnezzar had before his madness, he heard the watcher and the holy one call out about him:—

"Let his heart be changed from man's, and let a beast's heart be given unto him; and let seven times pass over him."

"Let his heart be changed from a human heart, and let him be given the heart of a beast; and let seven times pass over him."

It has been generally understood that the "seven times" in this latter case meant "seven years." The "time, times and an half" are obviously meant as the half of "seven times."

It has been generally understood that the "seven times" in this latter case meant "seven years." The "time, times and a half" are clearly intended as half of "seven times."

The two numbers, 2,300 and 1,260, whatever be their significance in their particular context in these prophecies, have an unmistakable astronomical bearing, as the following table will show:—

The two numbers, 2,300 and 1,260, whatever their meaning in the context of these prophecies, clearly have an astronomical relevance, as the following table will show:—

2,300	solar years	=	840,057	days,	1	hour.
28,447	lunar months	=	840,056	"	16	hours.
difference		=	9			"
1,260	solar years	=	460,205	"	4	"
15,584	lunar months	=	460,204	"	17	"
difference		=	11			"

[342] If the one number 1,260 stood alone, the fact that it was so close a lunar cycle might easily be ascribed to a mere coincidence. Seven is a sacred number, and the days in the year may be conventionally represented as 360. Half the product of the two might, perhaps, seem to be a natural number to adopt for symbolic purposes. But the number 2,300 stands in quite a different category. It is not suggested by any combination of sacred numbers, and is not veiled under any mystic expression; the number is given as it stands—2,300. But 2,300 solar years is an exact number, not only of lunations, but also of "anomalistic" months. The "anomalistic month" is the time occupied by the moon in travelling from its perigee, that is its point of nearest approach to the earth, round to its perigee again. For the moon's orbit round the earth is not circular, but decidedly elliptical; the moon being 31,000 miles nearer to us at perigee than it is at apogee, its point of greatest distance. But it moves more rapidly when near perigee than when near apogee, so that its motion differs considerably from perfect uniformity.

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] If the number 1,260 stood alone, the fact that it was so close to a lunar cycle could easily be seen as just a coincidence. Seven is considered a sacred number, and the days in a year can conventionally be represented as 360. Half of the product of those two numbers might seem like a natural choice for symbolic reasons. But the number 2,300 is in a completely different category. It isn't suggested by any combination of sacred numbers and isn't hidden behind any mystical wording; the number is presented as it is—2,300. However, 2,300 solar years is an exact figure, not just for lunations but also for "anomalistic" months. The "anomalistic month" is the time it takes for the moon to travel from its perigee, which is the closest point to the earth, back to its perigee again. This is because the moon's orbit around the earth isn't circular, but rather noticeably elliptical; the moon is about 31,000 miles closer to us at perigee than at apogee, its farthest point. Yet it moves faster when close to perigee than when near apogee, so its motion is significantly different from perfect uniformity.

But the period in which the moon travels from her perigee round to perigee again is 27 days, 13 hours, 18 minutes, 37 seconds, and there are in 2,300 solar years almost exactly 30,487 such periods or anomalistic months, which amount to 840,057 days, 2 hours.

But the time it takes for the moon to travel from its closest point to Earth back to the same point again is 27 days, 13 hours, 18 minutes, and 37 seconds. In 2,300 solar years, there are almost exactly 30,487 of these periods, or anomalistic months, which add up to 840,057 days and 2 hours.

If we take the mean of these three periods, that is to say 840,057 days, as being the cycle, it brings into harmony the day, the anomalistic month, the ordinary month, and the solar year. It is from this point of view the most perfect cycle known.

If we average these three periods, amounting to 840,057 days, as the cycle, it aligns the day, the anomalistic month, the regular month, and the solar year. From this perspective, it's the most perfect cycle we know.

[343] Dr. H. Grattan Guinness [343:1] has shown what a beautifully simple and accurate calendar could have been constructed on the basis of this period of 2,300 years; thus:—

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] Dr. H. Grattan Guinness [343:1] has demonstrated how a beautifully simple and precise calendar could have been created based on this 2,300-year period; as follows:—

2,300 solar years contain 28,447 synodic months, of which 847 are intercalary, or epact months. 2,300 years are 840,057 days:

2,300 solar years include 28,447 synodic months, with 847 being intercalary or epact months. In total, 2,300 years equal 840,057 days:

Days.

27,600

13,800
13,800

non-intercalary mths. of 29 d. each
non-intercalary mths. of 30 d. each

=
=

400,200
414,000

847

423
424

intercalary months of 30 days each
intercalary months of 31 days each

=
=

12,690
13,144

days additional for the 23 centuries

———

840,057

The Jewish calendar on this system would have consisted of ordinary months, alternately 29 and 30 days in length. The intercalary months would have contained alternately 30 or 31 days, and once in every century one of the ordinary months would have had an additional day. Or, what would come to very much the same thing, this extra day might have been added at every alternate Jubilee.

The Jewish calendar in this system would have included regular months, alternating between 29 and 30 days. The extra months would have alternated between 30 or 31 days, and once every century, one of the regular months would have had an extra day. Alternatively, this extra day might have been added every other Jubilee.

By combining these two numbers of Daniel some cycles of extreme astronomical interest have been derived by De Cheseaux, a Swiss astronomer of the eighteenth century, and by Dr. H. Grattan Guinness, and Dr. W. Bell Dawson in our own times. Thus, the difference between 2,300 and 1,260 is 1,040, and 1,040 years give an extremely exact correspondence between the solar year and the month, whilst the mean of the two numbers gives us 1,780, and [344]1,780 lunar years is 1,727 solar years with extreme precision. But since these are not given directly in the Book of Daniel, and are only inferential from his numbers, there seems no need to comment upon them here.

By combining these two numbers from Daniel, some cycles of significant astronomical interest have been formulated by De Cheseaux, an 18th-century Swiss astronomer, and by Dr. H. Grattan Guinness and Dr. W. Bell Dawson in modern times. The difference between 2,300 and 1,260 is 1,040, and 1,040 years provide a remarkably accurate match between the solar year and the month, while the average of the two numbers gives us 1,780, and [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]1,780 lunar years equals 1,727 solar years with great precision. However, since these are not directly stated in the Book of Daniel and are only inferred from his numbers, there seems to be no need to discuss them here.

It is fair, however, to conclude that Daniel was aware of the Metonic cycle. The 2300-year cycle gives evidence of a more accurate knowledge of the respective lengths of month and year than is involved in the cycle of 19 years. And the latter is a cycle which a Jew would be naturally led to detect, as the number of intercalary months contained in it is seven, the Hebrew sacred number.

It is reasonable to conclude that Daniel knew about the Metonic cycle. The 2300-year cycle shows a better understanding of the lengths of months and years than what is found in the 19-year cycle. The 19-year cycle is one that a Jew would naturally notice, as it contains seven intercalary months, which is the Hebrew sacred number.

The Book of Daniel, therefore, itself proves to us that king Nebuchadnezzar was perfectly justified in the high estimate which he formed of the attainments of the four Hebrew children. Certainly one of them, Daniel, was a better instructed mathematician and astronomer than any Chaldean who had ever been brought into his presence.

The Book of Daniel clearly shows us that King Nebuchadnezzar was totally justified in the high regard he had for the abilities of the four Hebrew boys. Without a doubt, one of them, Daniel, was a more knowledgeable mathematician and astronomer than any Chaldean he had ever met.

We have the right to make this assertion, for now we have an immense number of Babylonian records at our command; and can form a fairly accurate estimate as to the state there of astronomical and mathematical science at different epochs. A kind of "quasi-patriotism" has induced some Assyriologists to confuse in their accounts of Babylonian attainments the work of times close to the Christian era with that of many centuries, if not of several millenniums earlier; and the times of Sargon of Agadé, whose reputed date is 3800 b.c., have seemed to be credited with the astronomical work done in Babylon in the first and second centuries before our era. This is much as if [345]we should credit our predecessors who lived in this island at the time of Abraham with the scientific attainments of the present day.

We have the right to make this statement because we now have a vast number of Babylonian records at our disposal, which allows us to get a pretty accurate picture of the state of astronomical and mathematical science in different eras. A sort of "quasi-patriotism" has caused some Assyriologists to mix up their descriptions of Babylonian achievements, blending work from around the time of Christ with that from many centuries, if not several millennia, earlier. The era of Sargon of Agadé, who is believed to have lived around 3800 B.C., has been wrongly credited with the astronomical work done in Babylon in the first and second centuries before our era. This is similar to saying that we should attribute the scientific achievements of today to our ancestors who lived on this island during the time of Abraham.

The earlier astronomical achievements at Babylon were not, in any real sense, astronomical at all. They were simply the compilation of lists of crude astrological omens, of the most foolish and unreasoning kind. Late in Babylonian history there were observations of a high scientific order; real observations of the positions of moon and planets, made with great system and regularity. But these were made after Greek astronomy had attained a high level, and Babylon had come under Greek rule.

The early astronomical achievements in Babylon weren't really astronomical at all. They were just collections of basic astrological signs, some of the most nonsensical and irrational kinds. Later on in Babylonian history, there were observations of a much higher scientific quality; genuine observations of the positions of the moon and planets, conducted with a lot of organization and consistency. However, these took place after Greek astronomy had reached an advanced level, and Babylon had fallen under Greek control.

Whether this development of genuine astronomical observation was of native origin, or was derived from their Greek masters, is not clear. If it was native, then certainly the Babylonians were not able to use and interpret the observations which they made nearly so well as were Greek astronomers, such as Eudoxus, Thales, Pythagoras, Hipparchus and many others.

Whether this advancement in true astronomical observation came from their own culture or was influenced by their Greek teachers is unclear. If it did come from their own culture, then the Babylonians certainly weren’t able to use and interpret their observations nearly as effectively as Greek astronomers like Eudoxus, Thales, Pythagoras, Hipparchus, and many others.

But it must not be supposed that, though their astronomical achievements have been grossly, even ludicrously, exaggerated by some popular writers, the Babylonians contributed nothing of value to the progress of the science. We may infer from such a tablet as that already quoted on page 320, when the equinox was observed on the 6th day of Nisan, since there were 6 kasbu of day and 6 kasbu of night, that some mechanical time-measurer was in use. Indeed, the record on one tablet has been interpreted as noting that the astronomer's clock or clepsydra had stopped. If this be so, then we owe to [346]Babylon the invention of clocks of some description, and from an astronomical point of view, this is of the greatest importance.

But we shouldn't think that, even though some popular writers have exaggerated their astronomical achievements to a ridiculous extent, the Babylonians didn't contribute anything valuable to the advancement of science. We can deduce from a tablet mentioned on page 320, which notes that the equinox was observed on the 6th day of Nisan, with 6 kasbu of day and 6 kasbu of night, that a mechanical time-measuring device was being used. In fact, one record on a tablet has been interpreted as indicating that the astronomer's clock or clepsydra had stopped. If that's true, then we owe the invention of some form of clocks to [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]Babylon, which is extremely significant from an astronomical standpoint.

Tradition also points to the Chaldeans as the discoverers of the Saros, the cycle of 18 years, 10 or 11 days, after which eclipses of the sun or moon recur. The fact that very careful watch was kept every month at the times of the new and of the full moon, at many different stations, to note whether an eclipse would take place, would naturally bring about the discovery of the period, sooner or later.

Tradition also credits the Chaldeans with discovering the Saros, a cycle of 18 years, 10 or 11 days, after which solar or lunar eclipses happen again. The fact that they carefully watched every month during the new and full moons at many different locations to see if an eclipse would happen would naturally lead to the discovery of this period, eventually.

The achievements of a nation will be in accordance with its temperament and opportunities, and it is evident from the records which they have left us that the Babylonians, though very superstitious, were a methodical, practical, prosaic people, and a people of that order, if they are numerous, and under strong rule, will go far and do much. The discovery of the Saros was such as was within their power, and was certainly no small achievement. But it is to the Greeks, not to the Babylonians, that we trace the beginnings of mathematics and planetary theory.

The achievements of a nation reflect its character and opportunities, and it's clear from the records they've left us that the Babylonians, despite being quite superstitious, were a methodical, practical, and down-to-earth people. A group like this, if they are large and well-governed, can achieve a lot. The discovery of the Saros was something they were capable of and was definitely a significant accomplishment. However, we owe the beginnings of mathematics and planetary theory to the Greeks, not the Babylonians.

We look in vain amongst such Babylonian poetry as we possess for the traces of a Homer, a Pindar, a Sophocles, or even of a poet fit to enter into competition with those of the second rank in the literature of Greece; while it must remain one of the literary mysteries of our time that any one should deem the poetry of the books of Isaiah and Job dependent on Babylonian inspiration.

We search in vain among the Babylonian poetry we have for the traces of a Homer, a Pindar, a Sophocles, or even a poet who could compete with those of the second tier in Greek literature; while it remains one of the literary mysteries of our time that anyone would think the poetry of the books of Isaiah and Job relies on Babylonian inspiration.

There were two great hindrances under which the Babylonian man of science laboured: he was an idolater, [347]and he was an astrologer. It is not possible for us in our freedom to fully realize how oppressive was the slavery of mind, as well as spirit, which was consequent upon this twofold superstition. The Greek was freer, insomuch that he did not worship the planets, and did not become a planetary astrologer until after he had learnt that superstition from Chaldea; in learning it he put an end to his scientific progress.

There were two major obstacles that the Babylonian scientist faced: he was an idol worshipper, [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]and he was an astrologer. We can’t fully grasp how stifling the mental and spiritual limitations were due to this double superstition, especially given our modern sense of freedom. The Greek had more freedom since he didn’t worship the planets and didn’t start practicing planetary astrology until after learning that superstition from the Chaldeans; by adopting it, he halted his scientific advancement.

But the Hebrew, if he was faithful to the Law that had been given to him, was free in mind as well as in spirit. He could fearlessly inquire into any and all the objects of nature, for these were but things—the work of God's Hands, whereas he, made in the image of God, having the right of intercourse with God, was the superior, the ruler of everything he could see.

But the Hebrew, if he was true to the Law that had been given to him, was free in both mind and spirit. He could boldly explore any and all aspects of nature, as these were just things—the work of God's Hands. He, made in the image of God and having the right to connect with God, was the superior, the ruler of everything he could see.

His religious attitude therefore gave him a great superiority for scientific advancement. Yet there was one phase of that attitude which, whilst it preserved him from erroneous conceptions, tended to check that spirit of curiosity which has led to so much of the scientific progress of modern times. "What?" "How?" and "Why?" are the three questions which man is always asking of nature, and to the Hebrew the answer to the second and third was obvious:—It is the power of God: It is the will of God. He did not need to invent for himself the crass absurdities of the cosmogonies of the heathen; but neither was he induced to go behind the appearances of things; the sufficient cause and explanation of all was God.

His religious outlook gave him a significant advantage in scientific progress. However, there was one aspect of this outlook that, while protecting him from false ideas, stifled the curiosity that has fueled so much of modern scientific advancement. "What?" "How?" and "Why?" are the three questions that humans constantly ask nature, and for the Hebrew, the answers to the second and third were clear: It’s the power of God; It’s the will of God. He didn’t need to create for himself the ridiculous myths of pagan creation stories, but he also wasn’t motivated to look beyond the surface of things; the ultimate cause and explanation for everything was God.

But of the appearances he was very observant, as I trust has become clear in the course of this imperfect review of [348]the traces of one particular science as noticed in Holy Scripture.

But he was very attentive to appearances, as I hope has become clear in this brief overview of [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]the signs of one specific science as seen in Holy Scripture.

If he was faithful to the Law which had been given him, the Hebrew was free in character as well as in mind. His spirit was not that of a bondman, and Nebuchadnezzar certainly never met anything more noble, anything more free, than the spirit of the men who answered him in the very view of the burning fiery furnace:—

If he stayed true to the Law given to him, the Hebrew was free in both character and mind. His spirit wasn't that of a slave, and Nebuchadnezzar certainly never encountered anything more noble or more free than the spirit of the men who responded to him right in front of the blazing furnace:—

"O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter. If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and He will deliver us out of thine hand, O king. BUT IF NOT, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up."

"O Nebuchadnezzar, we don't need to defend ourselves to you in this matter. If that's the case, our God whom we serve is capable of saving us from the fiery furnace, and He will rescue us from your power, O king. BUT IF NOT, let it be known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the golden image you have set up."

[349]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

FOOTNOTES:

[343:1] Creation centred in Christ, p. 344.

[343:1] Creation centered in Christ, p. 344.

[350]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

"SUN, STAND THOU STILL UPON GIBEON, AND THOU MOON IN THE VALLEY OF AJALON."ToList

"Sun, stop over Gibeon, and you moon in the valley of Ajalon."ToList

[351]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

BOOK IV

THREE ASTRONOMICAL MARVELS

CHAPTER I

JOSHUA'S "LONG DAY"[351:1]

1.—Method of Studying the Record

1.—How to Study the Record

There are three incidents recorded in Holy Scripture which may fairly, if with no great exactness, be termed astronomical miracles;—the "long day" on the occasion of Joshua's victory at Beth-horon; the turning back of the shadow on the dial of Ahaz, as a sign of king Hezekiah's recovery from sickness; and the star which guided the wise men from the east to the birthplace of the Holy Child at Bethlehem.

There are three events mentioned in the Bible that could reasonably, though not perfectly, be called astronomical miracles: the "long day" during Joshua's victory at Beth-horon; the reversal of the shadow on Ahaz's sundial as a sign of King Hezekiah's recovery from illness; and the star that guided the wise men from the east to the birthplace of the Holy Child in Bethlehem.

As astronomy has some bearing on each of these three remarkable events, it will be of some interest to examine each of them from the point of view of our present astronomical knowledge. It does not follow that this will throw any new light upon the narratives, for we must always bear in mind that the Scriptures were not intended to teach us the physical [352]sciences; consequently we may find that the very details have been omitted which an astronomer, if he were writing an account of an astronomical observation, would be careful to preserve. And we must further remember that we have not the slightest reason to suppose that the sacred historians received any supernatural instruction in scientific matters. Their knowledge of astronomy therefore was that which they had themselves acquired from education and research, and nothing more. In other words, the astronomy of the narrative must be read strictly in the terms of the scientific advancement of the writers.

As astronomy relates to each of these three significant events, it’s worth looking at them through the lens of our current astronomical understanding. This doesn't necessarily mean we'll gain new insights into the stories, as we must keep in mind that the Scriptures weren't meant to teach us about the physical sciences. As a result, we might notice that the details an astronomer would include in their account of an astronomical observation might be missing. Additionally, we should remember that there's no reason to believe that the authors of these sacred texts received any special guidance on scientific topics. Their understanding of astronomy came solely from what they learned through education and research, and nothing beyond that. In other words, the astronomy presented in the narrative should be interpreted strictly within the context of the scientific knowledge available to the writers.

But there is another thing that has also to be remembered. The narrative which we have before us, being the only one that we have, must be accepted exactly as it stands. That is the foundation of our inquiry; we have no right to first cut it about at our will, to omit this, to alter that, to find traces of two, three, or more original documents, and so to split up the narrative as it stands into a number of imperfect fragments, which by their very imperfection may seem to be more or less in conflict.

But there’s another thing to keep in mind. The story we have is the only one available, so we have to take it as it is. That’s the basis of our investigation; we can’t just chop it up as we please, leave things out, change details, or look for two, three, or more original documents and break the story into a bunch of incomplete pieces, which, due to their incompleteness, might appear to contradict each other.

The scientific attitude with regard to the record of an observation cannot be too clearly defined. If that record be the only one, then we may accept it, we may reject it, we may be obliged to say, "We do not understand it," or "It is imperfect, and we can make no use of it," but we must not alter it. A moment's reflection will show that a man who would permit himself to tamper with the sole evidence upon which he purports to work, [353]no matter how profoundly convinced he may be that his proposed corrections are sound, is one who does not understand the spirit of science, and is not going the way to arrive at scientific truth.

The scientific approach to recording an observation can’t be too clearly defined. If that record is the only one available, we can either accept it, reject it, admit that "We don’t understand it," or say, "It’s incomplete, and we can’t use it," but we must not change it. A moment’s thought will reveal that someone who would alter the only evidence they claim to rely on, no matter how convinced they are that their suggested changes are valid, does not grasp the essence of science and is not on the path to discovering scientific truth.

There is no need then to inquire as to whether the tenth chapter of the Book of Joshua comes from two or more sources; we take the narrative as it stands. And it is one which has, for the astronomer, an interest quite irrespective of any interpretation which he may place upon the account of the miracle which forms its central incident. For Joshua's exclamation:—

There is no need to question whether the tenth chapter of the Book of Joshua comes from two or more sources; we accept the narrative as it is. And it is one that holds interest for astronomers, regardless of any interpretation they might apply to the account of the miracle that is its main event. For Joshua's exclamation:—

"Sun, stay still over Gibeon;
And you, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon,"

implies that, at the moment of his speaking, the two heavenly bodies appeared to him to be, the one upon or over Gibeon, the other over the valley of Ajalon. We have therefore, in effect, a definite astronomical observation; interesting in itself, as being one of the oldest that has been preserved to us; doubly interesting in the conclusions that we are able to deduce from it.

implies that, when he spoke, the two heavenly bodies seemed to him to be, one over Gibeon and the other over the valley of Ajalon. So, we effectively have a clear astronomical observation; it's interesting on its own, as it is one of the oldest recorded that we have; it's even more interesting in the conclusions we can draw from it.

The idea which has been most generally formed of the meaning of Joshua's command, is, that he saw Gibeon in the distance on the horizon in one direction with the sun low down in the sky immediately above it, and the valley of Ajalon in the distance, on the horizon in another direction, with the moon low down in the sky above it.

The most common understanding of what Joshua meant by his command is that he saw Gibeon far away on the horizon in one direction, with the sun just above it, and the valley of Ajalon far away in another direction, with the moon just above it.

It would be quite natural to associate the sun and moon with distant objects if they were only some five [354]or six degrees high; it would be rather straining the point to do so if they were more than ten degrees high; and if they were fifteen or more degrees high, it would be quite impossible.

It would be completely normal to think of the sun and moon as distant objects if they were just five or six degrees above the horizon; it would be pushing it a bit if they were more than ten degrees high; and if they were fifteen degrees or higher, it would be totally impossible.

They could not be both in the same quarter of the sky; both rising or both setting. For this would mean that the moon was not only very near the sun in the sky, but was very near to conjunction—in other words, to new moon. She could, therefore, have only shown a slender thread of light, and it is perfectly certain that Joshua, facing the sun in such a country as southern Palestine could not possibly have perceived the thin pale arch of light, which would have been all that the moon could then have presented to him. Therefore the one must have been rising and the other setting, and Joshua must have been standing between Gibeon and the valley of Ajalon, so that the two places were nearly in opposite directions from him. The moon must have been in the west and the sun in the east, for the valley of Ajalon is west of Gibeon. That is to say, it cannot have been more than an hour after sunrise, and it cannot have been more than an hour before moonset. Adopting therefore the usual explanation of Joshua's words, we see at once that the common idea of the reason for Joshua's command to the sun, namely, that the day was nearly over, and that he desired the daylight to be prolonged, is quite mistaken. If the sun was low down in the sky, he would have had practically the whole of the day still before him.

They couldn't be in the same part of the sky; both rising or both setting. That would mean the moon was not only really close to the sun in the sky but also very close to conjunction—in other words, to a new moon. So, it could only show a slender sliver of light, and it's clear that Joshua, facing the sun in a place like southern Palestine, wouldn't have seen the thin pale curve of light, which is all the moon could have shown him at that time. Therefore, one must have been rising and the other setting, and Joshua must have been standing between Gibeon and the valley of Ajalon, with those two places nearly in opposite directions from him. The moon had to be in the west and the sun in the east, since the valley of Ajalon is west of Gibeon. This means it couldn’t have been more than an hour after sunrise, and it couldn’t have been more than an hour before moonset. Thus, if we take the usual interpretation of Joshua's words, we immediately see that the common belief about why Joshua commanded the sun to stand still—that the day was almost over and he wanted the daylight extended—is completely mistaken. If the sun was low in the sky, he would have had nearly the entire day still ahead of him.

[355] 2.—Before the Battle

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] 2.—Prior to the Battle

Before attempting to examine further into the nature of the miracle, it will be well to summarize once again the familiar history of the early days of the Hebrew invasion of Canaan. We are told that the passage of the Jordan took place on the tenth day of the first month; and that the Feast of the Passover was held on the fourteenth day of that month. These are the only two positive dates given us. The week of the Pascal celebrations would have occupied the time until the moon's last quarter. Then preparations were made for the siege of Jericho, and another week passed in the daily processions round the city before the moment came for its destruction, which must have been very nearly at the beginning of the second month of the year. Jericho having been destroyed, Joshua next ordered a reconnaissance of Aï, a small fortified town, some twenty miles distant, and some 3400 feet above the Israelite camp at Gilgal, and commanding the upper end of the valley of Achor, the chief ravine leading up from the valley of the Jordan. The reconnaissance was followed by an attack on the town, which resulted in defeat. From the dejection into which this reverse had thrown him Joshua was roused by the information that the command to devote the spoil of Jericho to utter destruction had been disobeyed. A searching investigation was held; it was found that Achan, one of the Israelite soldiers, had seized for himself a royal robe and an ingot of gold; he was tried, condemned and executed, and the army of Israel was absolved from his guilt. A second attack [356]was made upon Aï; the town was taken; and the road was made clear for Israel to march into the heart of the country, in order to hold the great religious ceremony of the reading of the law upon the mountains of Ebal and Gerizim, which had been commanded them long before. No note is given of the date when this ceremony took place, but bearing in mind that the second month of the year must have begun at the time of the first reconnaissance of Aï, and that the original giving of the Law upon Mount Sinai had taken place upon the third day of the third month, it seems most likely that that anniversary would be chosen for a solemnity which was intended to recall the original promulgation in the most effective manner. If this were so, it would account for the circumstance, which would otherwise have seemed so strange, that Joshua should have attacked two cities only, Jericho and Aï, and then for a time have held his hand. It was the necessity of keeping the great national anniversary on the proper day which compelled him to desist from his military operations after Aï was taken.

Before diving deeper into the nature of the miracle, it’s helpful to recap the well-known history of the early days of the Hebrew invasion of Canaan. The crossing of the Jordan happened on the tenth day of the first month, and the Feast of the Passover was celebrated on the fourteenth day of that month. These are the only two specific dates provided. The week of the Passover celebrations would have continued until the moon’s last quarter. Then, preparations began for the siege of Jericho, followed by another week of daily processions around the city before the moment came for its destruction, which likely occurred just at the start of the second month of the year. After Jericho was destroyed, Joshua ordered a reconnaissance of Aï, a small fortified town located about twenty miles away and around 3,400 feet above the Israelite camp at Gilgal, overseeing the upper end of the valley of Achor, the main ravine leading up from the Jordan valley. The reconnaissance was followed by an attack on the town, which ended in defeat. Joshua was initially disheartened by this setback until he learned that the order to destroy the spoils of Jericho had been ignored. A thorough investigation revealed that Achan, one of the Israelite soldiers, had taken a royal robe and a gold ingot for himself; he was tried, found guilty, and executed, absolving the army of Israel from his sin. A second attack was launched on Aï; the town was captured; and the way was cleared for Israel to enter the heart of the country to hold the significant religious ceremony of reading the law on the mountains of Ebal and Gerizim, as they had been commanded long before. No specific date is given for this ceremony, but considering that the second month of the year would have begun around the time of the first reconnaissance of Aï, and the original giving of the Law on Mount Sinai happened on the third day of the third month, it seems likely that this anniversary would be chosen for a solemn occasion meant to recall the original declaration in the most impactful way. If this is the case, it would explain why it seems odd that Joshua attacked only two cities, Jericho and Aï, and then paused his efforts for some time. It was the need to observe the significant national anniversary on the correct date that led him to halt military operations after Aï was taken.

We are not told how long the religious celebrations at Shechem lasted, but in any case the Israelites can hardly have been back in their camp at Gilgal before the third moon of the year was at the full. But after their return, events must have succeeded each other with great rapidity. The Amorites must have regarded the pilgrimage of Israel to Shechem as an unhoped-for respite, and they took advantage of it to organize a great confederacy. Whilst this confederacy was being formed, the rulers of a small state of "Hivites"—by [357]which we must understand a community differing either in race or habits from the generality of their Amorite neighbours—had been much exercised by the course of events. They had indeed reason to be. Aï, the last conquest of Israel, was less than four miles, as the crow flies, from Bireh, which is usually identified with Beeroth, one of the four cities of the Hivite State; and the Beerothites had, without doubt, watched the cloud of [358]smoke go up from the burning town when it was sacked; and the mound which now covered what had been so recently their neighbour city, was visible almost from their gates. That was an object-lesson which required no enforcement. The Hivites, sure that otherwise their turn would come next, resolved to make peace with Israel before they were attacked.

We don't know how long the religious celebrations at Shechem lasted, but the Israelites probably weren't back in their camp at Gilgal until the third month of the year was full. However, after they returned, events must have happened quickly. The Amorites likely saw Israel's pilgrimage to Shechem as an unexpected break and took the opportunity to form a large alliance. While this alliance was being established, the leaders of a small group of "Hivites"—which refers to a community different either in race or customs from most of their Amorite neighbors—were quite concerned about what was happening. They had good reason to be worried. Ai, the last city conquered by Israel, was less than four miles away from Bireh, which is usually identified with Beeroth, one of the four cities of the Hivite State. The Beerothites had undoubtedly seen the smoke rising from the burning city when it was attacked, and the mound that now covered what had recently been their neighboring city was almost visible from their gates. That was a clear warning. The Hivites, knowing that they would likely be next, decided to make peace with Israel before they were attacked.

MAP OF SOUTHERN PALESTINE.ToList

Amorite Cities, thus: Hebron. Hivite Cities: BEEROTH.
Places taken by the Israelites: Jericho.
Conjectural line of march of Joshua: ...................

Amorite Cities: Hebron. Hivite Cities: Beeroth.
Places taken by the Israelites: Jericho.
Conjectured route of Joshua: ...................

To do this they had to deceive the Israelites into believing that they were inhabitants of some land far from Canaan, and this they must do, not only before Joshua actually attacked them, but before he sent out another scouting party. For Beeroth would inevitably have been the very first town which it would have approached, and once Joshua's spies had surveyed it, all chance of the Hivites successfully imposing upon him would have vanished.

To accomplish this, they needed to trick the Israelites into thinking they were from a land far away from Canaan, and they had to do this not only before Joshua attacked them, but also before he sent out another scouting team. Beeroth would definitely have been the first town he would have approached, and once Joshua's spies surveyed it, any chance of the Hivites successfully fooling him would have disappeared.

But they were exposed to another danger, if possible more urgent still. The headquarters of the newly formed Amorite league was at Jerusalem, on the same plateau as Gibeon, the Hivite capital, and distant from it less than six miles. A single spy, a single traitor, during the anxious time that their defection was being planned, and Adoni-zedec, the king of Jerusalem, would have heard of it in less than a couple of hours; and the Gibeonites would have been overwhelmed before Joshua had any inkling that they were anxious to treat with him. Whoever was dilatory, whoever was slow, the Gibeonites dared not be. It can, therefore, have been, at most, only a matter of hours after Joshua's return to Gilgal, before their wily embassy set forth.

But they faced another danger, possibly even more immediate. The headquarters of the newly formed Amorite alliance was in Jerusalem, on the same plateau as Gibeon, the capital of the Hivites, and less than six miles away. Just one spy, just one traitor, during the tense time they were planning their defection, and Adoni-zedec, the king of Jerusalem, would have learned about it in just a couple of hours; and the Gibeonites would have been overwhelmed before Joshua even suspected they were eager to negotiate with him. No matter who was slow, the Gibeonites couldn’t afford to be. So, it must have been only a matter of hours after Joshua returned to Gilgal that their cunning delegation set out.

[359]But their defection had an instant result. Adoni-zedec recognized in a moment the urgency of the situation. With Joshua in possession of Gibeon and its dependencies, the Israelites would be firmly established on the plateau at his very gates, and the states of southern Palestine would be cut off from their brethren in the north.

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]But their betrayal had an immediate impact. Adoni-zedec quickly understood the seriousness of the situation. With Joshua now controlling Gibeon and its surrounding areas, the Israelites would be firmly positioned on the plateau right at his doorstep, isolating the southern Palestinian territories from their northern counterparts.

Adoni-zedec lost no time; he sought and obtained the aid of four neighbouring kings and marched upon Gibeon. The Gibeonites sent at once the most urgent message to acquaint Joshua with their danger, and Joshua as promptly replied. He made a forced march with picked troops all that night up from Gilgal, and next day he was at their gates.

Adoni-zedec wasted no time; he got help from four neighboring kings and marched toward Gibeon. The Gibeonites immediately sent an urgent message to inform Joshua about their danger, and Joshua quickly responded. He made a rapid march with selected troops all night from Gilgal, and the next day he arrived at their gates.

Counterblow had followed blow, swift as the clash of rapiers in a duel of fencers. All three of the parties concerned—Hivite, Amorite and Israelite—had moved with the utmost rapidity. And no wonder; the stake for which they were playing was very existence, and the forfeit, which would be exacted on failure, was extinction.

Counterblow had followed blow, as quick as the clash of swords in a fencing match. All three groups involved—Hivite, Amorite, and Israelite—had moved with incredible speed. And it's no surprise; the stakes they were playing for were their very survival, and the consequence of failure was total annihilation.

3.—Day, Hour, and Place of the Miracle

3.—Date, Time, and Location of the Miracle

The foregoing considerations enable us somewhat to narrow down the time of the year at which Joshua's miracle can have taken place, and from an astronomical point of view this is very important. The Israelites had entered the land of Canaan on the 10th day of the first month, that is to say, very shortly after the spring equinox—March 21 of our present calendar. Seven weeks after that equinox—May 11—the sun attains a declination of [360]18° north. From this time its declination increases day by day until the summer solstice, when, in Joshua's time, it was nearly 24° north. After that it slowly diminishes, and on August 4 it is 18° again. For twelve weeks, therefore—very nearly a quarter of the entire year—the sun's northern declination is never less than 18°. The date of the battle must have fallen somewhere within this period. It cannot have fallen earlier; the events recorded could not possibly have all been included in the seven weeks following the equinox. Nor, in view of the promptitude with which all the contending parties acted, and were bound to act, can we postpone the battle to a later date than the end of this midsummer period.

The previous points help us narrow down the time of year when Joshua's miracle likely occurred, which is very significant from an astronomical perspective. The Israelites entered Canaan on the 10th day of the first month, shortly after the spring equinox—March 21 on our current calendar. Seven weeks after that equinox—May 11—the sun reaches a declination of [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]18° north. From this point, its declination increases daily until the summer solstice, when, during Joshua's time, it was nearly 24° north. After that, it gradually decreases, returning to 18° on August 4. For about twelve weeks—which is nearly a quarter of the year—the sun’s northern declination remains at least 18°. Therefore, the battle must have happened sometime during this period. It couldn't have occurred earlier; the events recorded couldn't have all happened within the seven weeks following the equinox. Also, considering how quickly all the parties acted, we can’t push the battle to a date later than the end of this midsummer period.

We thus know, roughly speaking, what was the declination of the sun—that is to say, its distance from the equator of the heavens—at the time of the battle; it was not less than 18° north of the equator, it could not have been more than 24°.

We roughly know what the angle of the sun was—that is, its distance from the celestial equator—during the battle; it was no less than 18° north of the equator and no more than 24°.

But, if we adopt the idea most generally formed of the meaning of Joshua's command, namely, that he saw the sun low down over Gibeon in one direction, and the moon low down over the valley of Ajalon in another, we can judge of the apparent bearing of those two heavenly bodies from an examination of the map. And since, if we may judge from the map of the Palestine Exploration Fund, the valley of Ajalon lies about 17° north of west from Gibeon, and runs nearly in that direction from it, the moon must, to Joshua, have seemed about 17° north of west, and the sun 17° south of east.

But if we go with the most common understanding of what Joshua meant when he commanded this, it suggests that he saw the sun low in the sky over Gibeon in one direction and the moon low in the sky over the valley of Ajalon in another. We can figure out the apparent positions of those two celestial bodies by looking at a map. From the Palestine Exploration Fund map, we see that the valley of Ajalon is located about 17° north of west from Gibeon and runs almost directly in that direction. Therefore, to Joshua, the moon would have appeared to be about 17° north of west, while the sun would have seemed around 17° south of east.

But for any date within the three summer months, the [361]sun in the latitude of Gibeon, when it bears 17° south of east, must be at least 56° high. At this height it would seem overhead, and would not give the slightest idea of association with any distant terrestrial object. Not until some weeks after the autumnal equinox could the sun be seen low down on the horizon in the direction 17° south of east, and at the same time the moon be as much as 17° north of the west point. And, as this would mean that the different combatants had remained so close to each other, some four or five months without moving, it is clearly inadmissible. We are forced therefore to the unexpected conclusion that it is practically impossible that Joshua could have been in any place from whence he could have seen, at one and the name moment; the sun low down in the sky over Gibeon, and the moon over the valley of Ajalon.

But for any date within the three summer months, the [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]sun at the latitude of Gibeon, when it’s 17° south of east, must be at least 56° high. At this height, it would appear to be directly overhead and wouldn’t suggest any connection to a distant terrestrial object. Not until weeks after the autumnal equinox could the sun be seen low on the horizon in the direction of 17° south of east, while at the same time, the moon could be as much as 17° north of the west point. And since this would mean that the different combatants had stayed so close to each other, for about four or five months without moving, it’s clearly not possible. We are therefore led to the surprising conclusion that it is practically impossible for Joshua to have been in any location from where he could see, at the same moment, the sun low in the sky over Gibeon and the moon over the valley of Ajalon.

Is the narrative in error, then? Or have we been reading into it our own erroneous impression? Is there any other sense in which a man would naturally speak of a celestial body as being "over" some locality on the earth, except when both were together on his horizon?

Is the story wrong, then? Or have we been misinterpreting it with our own mistakes? Is there any other way a person would casually refer to a celestial body as being "over" a specific place on Earth, unless both were visible at the same time on his horizon?

Most certainly. There is another position which the sun can hold in which it may naturally be said to be "over," or "upon" a given place; far more naturally and accurately than when it chances to lie in the same direction as some object on the horizon. We have no experience of that position in these northern latitudes, and hence perhaps our commentators have, as a rule, not taken it into account. But those who, in tropical or sub-tropical countries, have been in the open at high noon, when a man's foot can almost cover his shadow, will recognize [362]how definite, how significant such a position is. In southern Palestine, during the three summer months, the sun is always so near the zenith at noon that it could never occur to any one to speak of it as anything but "overhead."

Most definitely. There's another position that the sun can be in where it’s more accurately described as being "over" or "above" a specific location, much more so than when it aligns with something on the horizon. We don’t have experience of that position in these northern areas, which is probably why most commentators have overlooked it. However, those who have been outdoors in tropical or subtropical regions at high noon, when a person's foot can nearly cover their shadow, will understand how clear and significant that position is. In southern Palestine during the summer months, the sun is always so close to the zenith at noon that it’s never considered anything other than "overhead."

And the prose narrative expressly tells us that this was the case. It is intimated that when Joshua spoke it was noon, by the expression that the sun "hasted not to go down about a whole day," implying that the change in the rate in its apparent motion occurred only in the afternoon, and that it had reached its culmination. Further, as not a few commentators have pointed out, the expression,—"the sun stood still in the midst of heaven,"—is literally "in the bisection of heaven"; a phrase applicable indeed to any position on the meridian, but especially appropriate to the meridian close to the zenith.

And the narrative clearly tells us that this was the case. It suggests that when Joshua spoke it was noon, based on the phrase that the sun "didn't hurry to go down for a whole day," which means that the change in its apparent motion happened only in the afternoon, and that it had reached its peak. Moreover, as several commentators have noted, the phrase "the sun stood still in the midst of heaven" literally translates to "in the center of heaven"; a term that can apply to any position on the meridian, but is particularly fitting for the meridian near the zenith.

This, then, is what Joshua meant by his command to the sun. Its glowing orb blazed almost in the centre of the whole celestial vault—"in the midst of heaven"—and poured down its vertical rays straight on his head. It stood over him—it stood over the place where he was—Gibeon.

This is what Joshua meant when he commanded the sun. Its glowing orb shone almost at the center of the entire sky—"in the midst of heaven"—and sent down its direct rays right onto his head. It was directly above him—it was above the place where he was—Gibeon.

We have, therefore, been able to find that the narrative gives us, by implication, two very important particulars, the place where Joshua was, and the time of the day. He was at Gibeon, and it was high noon.

We have, therefore, been able to determine that the story implies two very important details: where Joshua was and what time of day it was. He was at Gibeon, and it was high noon.

The expression, "Thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon," has now a very definite signification. As we have already seen, the valley of Ajalon bears 17° north of west from Gibeon, according to the map of the Palestine Exploration [363]Fund, so that this is the azimuth which the moon had at the given moment. In other words, it was almost exactly midway between the two "points of the compass," W.b.N. and W.N.W. It was also in its "last quarter" or nearly so; that is, it was half-full, and waning. With the sun on the meridian it could not have been much more than half-full, for in that case it would have already set; nor much less than half-full, or it would have been too faint to be seen in full daylight. It was therefore almost exactly half-full, and the day was probably the 21st day of the month in the Jewish reckoning.

The phrase, "You, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon," has a very specific meaning now. As we've already noted, the valley of Ajalon is located 17° north of west from Gibeon, according to the map from the Palestine Exploration [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]Fund. This indicates the position of the moon at that moment. In other words, it was nearly halfway between the two compass points, West by North and West-Northwest. It was also in its "last quarter," or almost there; that is, it was half-full and decreasing. With the sun at its highest point, it couldn't have been much more than half-full, as it would have already set; nor could it have been much less than half-full, or it would have been too dim to see in broad daylight. So, it was almost exactly half-full, and the day was likely the 21st of the month in the Jewish calendar.

Bearings of the Rising aAnd Setting Points of the Sun from Gibeon.

BEARINGS OF THE RISING AND SETTING POINTS OF THE SUN FROM GIBEON.ToList

DIRECTIONS OF THE SUN'S RISING AND SETTING POINTS FROM GIBEON.ToList

But the moon cannot be as far as 17° north of west in latitude 31° 51´ N. on the 21st day of the month earlier than the fourth month of the Jewish year, or later than [364]the eighth month. Now the 21st day of the fourth month is about seven weeks after the 3rd day of the third month; the 21st day of the fifth month is eleven weeks. Remembering how close Gilgal, Gibeon and Jerusalem were to each other, and how important was the need for promptitude to Israelite and Amorite alike, it can scarcely be disputed that eleven weeks is an inadmissible length of time to interpose between the reading of the Law and the battle; and that seven weeks is the utmost that can be allowed.

But the moon can’t be as far as 17° north of west at latitude 31° 51´ N. on the 21st day of the month earlier than the fourth month of the Jewish year, or later than [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]the eighth month. Now, the 21st day of the fourth month is about seven weeks after the 3rd day of the third month; the 21st day of the fifth month is eleven weeks. Considering how close Gilgal, Gibeon, and Jerusalem were to one another, and how important it was for both the Israelites and the Amorites to act quickly, it’s hard to argue that eleven weeks is an acceptable gap between the reading of the Law and the battle; seven weeks is really the maximum that can be allowed.

The battle took place, then, on or about the 21st day of the fourth month. But it could only have done so if that particular year began late. If the year had begun earlier than April 1st of our present calendar, the moon could not have been so far north on the day named. For the Jewish calendar is a natural one and regulated both by the sun and the moon. It begins with the new moon, and it also begins as nearly as possible with the spring equinox. But as twelve natural months fall short of a solar year by eleven days, a thirteenth month has to be intercalated from time to time; in every nineteen years, seven are years having an extra month. Now the 21st day of the fourth month must have fallen on or about July 22 according to our present reckoning, in order that the moon might have sufficient northing, and that involves a year beginning after April 1; so that the year of the battle of Beth-horon must have been an ordinary year, one of twelve months, but must have followed a year of thirteen months.

The battle happened around the 21st of the fourth month. However, this could only be the case if that specific year started late. If the year had started before April 1st on our current calendar, the moon wouldn't have been that far north on the specified day. The Jewish calendar is natural and is governed by both the sun and the moon. It starts with the new moon and aims to align closely with the spring equinox. However, since twelve natural months fall short of a solar year by eleven days, a thirteenth month has to be added from time to time; in every nineteen years, there are seven years that include an extra month. So, the 21st of the fourth month would have corresponded to around July 22 based on our current calendar, allowing the moon to be sufficiently north, which means the year must have started after April 1; therefore, the year of the Battle of Beth-horon was a regular year of twelve months but followed a year that had thirteen months.

Summarizing all the conclusions at which we have now [365]arrived, Joshua's observation was made at Gibeon itself, almost precisely at the moment of noon, on or about the 21st day of the fourth month, which day fell late in July according to our present reckoning; probably on or about the 22nd. The sun's declination must have been about 20° north; probably, if anything, a little more. The sun rose therefore almost exactly at five in the morning, and set almost exactly at seven in the evening, the day being just fourteen hours long. The moon had not yet passed her third quarter, but was very near it; that is to say, she was about half full. Her declination did not differ greatly from 16° north; she was probably about 5° above the horizon, and was due to set in about half an hour. She had risen soon after eleven o'clock the previous evening, and had lighted the Israelites during more than half of their night march up from Gilgal.

Summarizing all the conclusions we've reached so far, Joshua's observation was made at Gibeon itself, almost exactly at noon, around the 21st day of the fourth month, which would have been late July by today's calendar; likely around the 22nd. The sun's declination was about 20° north, possibly a bit more. The sun rose almost exactly at five in the morning and set almost exactly at seven in the evening, making the day just fourteen hours long. The moon had not yet passed its third quarter, but it was very close; in other words, it was about half full. Its declination didn’t differ much from 16° north; it was probably about 5° above the horizon and was set to go down in about half an hour. It had risen shortly after eleven o'clock the previous night and had lit the way for the Israelites during more than half of their night march from Gilgal.

4.—Joshua's Strategy

4.—Joshua's Plan

These conclusions, as to the place and time of day, entirely sweep away the impression, so often formed, that Joshua's victory was practically in the nature of a night surprise. Had it been so, and had the Amorites been put to flight at daybreak, there would have seemed no conceivable reason why, with fourteen hours of daylight before him, Joshua should have been filled with anxiety for the day to have been prolonged. Nor is it possible to conceive that he would still have been at Gibeon at noon, seven hours after he had made his victorious attack upon his enemy.

These conclusions about the time and place completely eliminate the common belief that Joshua's victory was essentially a nighttime surprise. If that had been the case, and if the Amorites had fled at dawn, there would have been no logical reason for Joshua to be worried about needing the day to last longer, especially with fourteen hours of daylight ahead of him. It’s also hard to imagine that he would still be at Gibeon at noon, seven hours after his successful attack on the enemy.

The fact is that, in all probability, Joshua had no wish [366]to make a night surprise. His attitude was like that of Nelson before the battle of Trafalgar; he had not the slightest doubt but that he would gain the victory, but he was most anxious that it should be a complete one. The great difficulty in the campaign which lay before him was the number of fortified places in the hands of the enemy, and the costliness, both in time and lives, of all siege operations at that epoch. His enemies having taken the field gave him the prospect of overcoming this difficulty, if, now that they were in the open, he could succeed in annihilating them there; to have simply scattered them would have brought him but little advantage. That this was the point to which he gave chief attention is apparent from one most significant circumstance in the history; the Amorites fled by the road to Beth-horon.

The truth is that, most likely, Joshua had no intention [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]of launching a nighttime surprise attack. His mindset was similar to Nelson's before the Battle of Trafalgar; he had complete confidence in his victory, but he was very keen on ensuring it was a decisive one. The major challenge in the upcoming campaign was the numerous fortified locations controlled by the enemy and the high costs, in both time and lives, associated with siege warfare at that time. With his enemies now on the battlefield, he saw the opportunity to overcome this challenge if he could manage to eliminate them there; merely scattering them wouldn't provide much advantage. This focus is evident from a significant detail in the story: the Amorites fled along the road to Beth-horon.

There have been several battles of Beth-horon since the days of Joshua, and the defeated army has, on more than one occasion, fled by the route now taken by the Amorites. Two of these are recorded by Josephus; the one in which Judas Maccabæus defeated and slew Nicanor, and the other when Cestius Gallus retreated from Jerusalem. It is probable that Beth-horon was also the scene of one, if not two, battles with the Philistines, at the commencement of David's reign. In all these cases the defeated foe fled by this road because it had been their line of advance, and was their shortest way back to safety.

There have been several battles at Beth-horon since the time of Joshua, and the defeated army has, on more than one occasion, escaped via the route now used by the Amorites. Two of these battles are noted by Josephus: the one where Judas Maccabeus defeated and killed Nicanor, and the other when Cestius Gallus withdrew from Jerusalem. It's likely that Beth-horon was also the site of one, if not two, battles against the Philistines at the beginning of David's reign. In all these instances, the defeated enemy retreated along this road because it was their route of advance and the quickest way back to safety.

But the conditions were entirely reversed in the case of Joshua's battle. The Amorites fled away from their cities. Jerusalem, the capital of Adoni-zedec and the chief city of the confederation, lay in precisely the opposite direction. [367]The other cities of their league lay beyond Jerusalem, further still to the south.

But the situation was totally different in Joshua's battle. The Amorites ran away from their cities. Jerusalem, the capital of Adoni-zedec and the main city of the alliance, was actually in the opposite direction. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]The other cities in their alliance were beyond Jerusalem, even further to the south.

A reference to the map shows that Gilgal, the headquarters of the army of Israel, was on the plain of Jericho, close to the banks of the Jordan, at the bottom of that extraordinary ravine through which the river runs. Due west, at a distance of about sixteen or seventeen miles as the crow flies, but three thousand four hundred feet above the level of the Jordan, rises the Ridge of the Watershed, the backbone of the structure of Palestine. On this ridge are the cities of Jerusalem and Gibeon, and on it, leading down to the Maritime Plain, runs in a north-westerly direction, the road through the two Beth-horons.

A reference to the map indicates that Gilgal, the base of the Israelite army, was located on the plain of Jericho, near the banks of the Jordan, at the bottom of the impressive ravine through which the river flows. Due west, about sixteen or seventeen miles away as the crow flies, but three thousand four hundred feet above the level of the Jordan, rises the Ridge of the Watershed, the backbone of Palestine's geography. On this ridge are the cities of Jerusalem and Gibeon, and a road leading down to the Maritime Plain runs northwest through the two Beth-horons.

The two Beth-horons are one and a half miles apart, with a descent of 700 feet from the Upper to the Lower.

The two Beth-horons are one and a half miles apart, with a drop of 700 feet from the Upper to the Lower.

The flight of the Amorites towards Beth-horon proves, beyond a doubt, that Joshua had possessed himself of the road from Gibeon to Jerusalem. It is equally clear that this could not have been done by accident, but that it must have been the deliberate purpose of his generalship. Jerusalem was a city so strong that it was not until the reign of David that the Israelites obtained possession of the whole of it, and to take it was evidently a matter beyond Joshua's ability. But to have defeated the Amorites at Gibeon, and to have left open to them the way to Jerusalem—less than six miles distant—would have been a perfectly futile proceeding. We may be sure, therefore, that from the moment when he learned that Adoni-zedek was besieging Gibeon, Joshua's first aim was to cut off the Amorite king from his capital.

The flight of the Amorites towards Beth-horon clearly shows that Joshua had taken control of the road from Gibeon to Jerusalem. It's obvious that this wasn't a coincidence, but rather a deliberate strategy on his part. Jerusalem was such a strong city that the Israelites didn’t gain full control over it until David’s reign, and capturing it was clearly beyond Joshua's reach. However, defeating the Amorites at Gibeon while leaving their path to Jerusalem — less than six miles away — open would have been completely pointless. So, we can be certain that as soon as Joshua learned that Adoni-zedek was attacking Gibeon, his main goal was to cut off the Amorite king from his capital.

[368]The fact that the Amorites fled, not towards their cities but away from them, shows clearly that Joshua had specially manœuvred so as to cut them off from Jerusalem. How he did it, we are not told, and any explanation offered must necessarily be merely of the nature of surmise. Yet a considerable amount of probability may attach to it. The geographical conditions are perfectly well known, and we can, to some degree, infer the course which the battle must have taken from these, just as we could infer the main lines of the strategy employed by the Germans in their war with the French in 1870, simply by noting the places where the successive battles occurred. The positions of the battlefields of Mars-la-Tour, Gravelotte, and Sedan would show clearly that the object of the Germans had been, first, to shut Bazaine up in Metz, and then to hinder MacMahon from coming to his relief. So in the present case, the fact that the Amorites fled by the way of the two Beth-horons, shows, first, that Joshua had completely cut them off from the road to Jerusalem, and next, that somehow or other when they took flight they were a long way to the north of him. Had they not been so, they could not have had any long start in their flight, and the hailstorm which occasioned them such heavy loss would have injured the Israelites almost as much.

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]The fact that the Amorites fled away from their cities instead of toward them clearly indicates that Joshua had strategically maneuvered to cut them off from Jerusalem. We aren't told exactly how he did this, and any explanation we could offer would simply be speculation. However, there's a significant degree of likelihood to it. The geographical conditions are well understood, and we can somewhat deduce the likely course of the battle from these, similar to how we could infer the main strategies the Germans used against the French in the 1870 war just by observing where the battles took place. The locations of the battlefields at Mars-la-Tour, Gravelotte, and Sedan clearly show that the Germans aimed to first trap Bazaine in Metz and then prevent MacMahon from coming to his aid. In this case, the fact that the Amorites fled toward the two Beth-horons indicates that Joshua had completely blocked their route to Jerusalem, and that when they fled, they were significantly north of him. If they hadn’t been, they wouldn’t have had such a substantial head start in their escape, and the hailstorm that caused them such heavy losses would have affected the Israelites almost just as much.

How can these two circumstances be accounted for? I think we can make a very plausible guess at the details of Joshua's strategy from noting what he is recorded to have done in the case of Aï. On that occasion, as on this, he had felt his inability to deal with an enemy behind fortifications. His tactics therefore had consisted in making a [369]feigned attack, followed by a feigned retreat, by which he drew his enemies completely away from their base, which he then seized by means of a detachment which he had previously placed in ambush near. Then, when the men of Aï were hopelessly cut off from their city, he brought all his forces together, surrounded his enemies in the open, and destroyed them.

How can we explain these two situations? I think we can make a pretty good guess about Joshua's strategy by looking at what he did with Aï. At that time, like now, he realized he couldn't effectively confront an enemy behind walls. His plan involved a fake attack, followed by a fake retreat, which lured his enemies away from their stronghold. He then took over their base with a unit he had secretly positioned nearby. Once the men of Aï were completely cut off from their city, he gathered all his forces, surrounded his enemies in the open, and defeated them.

It was a far more difficult task which lay before him at Gibeon, but we may suppose that he still acted on the same general principles. There were two points on the ridge of the watershed which, for very different reasons, it was important that he should seize. The one was Beeroth, one of the cities of the Hivites, his allies, close to his latest victory of Aï, and commanding the highest point on the ridge of the watershed. It is distant from Jerusalem some ten miles—a day's journey. Tradition therefore gives it as the place where the Virgin Mary and St. Joseph turned back sorrowing, seeking Jesus. For "they, supposing Him to have been in the company, went a day's journey," and Beeroth still forms the first halting-place for pilgrims from the north on their return journey.

It was a much harder job waiting for him at Gibeon, but we can assume he continued to follow the same general principles. There were two key locations on the ridge of the watershed that he needed to secure for very different reasons. One was Beeroth, a city of the Hivites, who were his allies, located near his recent victory at Aï, and it stood at the highest point on the watershed ridge. It's about ten miles from Jerusalem—a day's journey. Tradition says this is where the Virgin Mary and St. Joseph turned back in sorrow while searching for Jesus. "They, thinking He was with the group, went a day's journey," and Beeroth remains the first stop for pilgrims coming from the north on their way back.

Beeroth also was the city of the two sons of Rimmon who murdered Ishbosheth, the son of Saul. When it is remembered how Saul had attempted to extirpate the Gibeonites, and how bitter a blood feud the latter entertained against his house in consequence, it becomes very significant that the murderers of his son were men of this Gibeonite town.

Beeroth was also the city of the two sons of Rimmon who killed Ishbosheth, the son of Saul. Considering how Saul had tried to wipe out the Gibeonites and the intense blood feud they held against his family as a result, it’s very important to note that the murderers of his son came from this Gibeonite town.

Beeroth also commanded the exit from the principal ravine by which Joshua could march upwards to the ridge[370]—the valley of Achor. The Israelites marching by this route would have the great advantage that Beeroth, in the possession of their allies, the Gibeonites, would act as a cover to them whilst in the ravines, and give them security whilst taking up a position on the plateau.

Beeroth also controlled the way out of the main ravine that Joshua could use to move up to the ridge[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]—the valley of Achor. The Israelites taking this path would have the significant benefit that Beeroth, held by their allies, the Gibeonites, would serve as a shield for them while they were in the ravines and provide safety as they set up on the plateau.

But Beeroth had one fatal disadvantage as a sole line of advance. From Beeroth Joshua would come down to Gibeon from the north, and the Amorites, if defeated, would have a line of retreat, clear and easy, to Jerusalem. It was absolutely essential that somewhere or other he should cut the Jerusalem road.

But Beeroth had one major flaw as the only route of advance. From Beeroth, Joshua would approach Gibeon from the north, and if the Amorites were defeated, they would have a clear and easy escape route to Jerusalem. It was crucial that he cut off the road to Jerusalem at some point.

This would be a matter of great difficulty and danger, as, if his advance were detected whilst he was still in the ravines, he would have been taken at almost hopeless disadvantage. The fearful losses which the Israelites sustained in the intertribal war with Benjamin near this very place, show what Joshua might reasonably have expected had he tried to make his sole advance on the ridge near Jerusalem.

This would be very difficult and dangerous, as if he was detected while still in the ravines, he would have been at a serious disadvantage. The terrible losses the Israelites faced in the intertribal war with Benjamin right around here show what Joshua could have realistically expected if he had tried to make his advance alone on the ridge near Jerusalem.

Is it not probable that he would have endeavoured, under these circumstances, to entice the Amorites as far away to the north as possible before he ventured to bring his main force out on the ridge? If so, we may imagine that he first sent a strong force by the valley of Achor to Beeroth; that they were instructed there to take up a strong position, and when firmly established, to challenge the Amorites to attack them. Then, when the Israelite general in command at Beeroth perceived that he had before him practically the whole Amorite force—for it would seem clear that the five kings themselves, together [371]with the greater part of their army, were thus drawn away—he would signal to Joshua that the time had come for his advance. Just as Joshua himself had signalled with his spear at the taking of Aï, so the firing of a beacon placed on the summit of the ridge would suffice for the purpose. Joshua would then lead up the main body, seize the Jerusalem road, and press on to Gibeon at the utmost speed. If this were so, the small detachment of Amorites left to continue the blockade was speedily crushed, but perhaps was aware of Joshua's approach soon enough to send swift runners urging the five kings to return. The news would brook no delay; the kings would turn south immediately; but for all their haste they never reached Gibeon. They probably had but advanced as far as the ridge leading to Beth-horon, when they perceived that not only had Joshua relieved Gibeon and destroyed the force which they had left before it, but that his line, stretched out far to the right and left, already cut them off, not merely from the road to Jerusalem and Hebron, but also from the valley of Ajalon, a shorter road to the Maritime Plain than the one they actually took. East there was no escape; north was the Israelite army from Beeroth; south and west was the army of Joshua. Out-manœuvred and out-generalled, they were in the most imminent danger of being caught between the two Israelite armies, and of being ground, like wheat, between the upper and nether millstones. They had no heart for further fight; the promise made to Joshua,—"there shall not a man of them stand before thee,"—was fulfilled; they broke and fled by the one way open to them, the way of the two Beth-horons.

Isn't it likely that he would have tried, under these circumstances, to lure the Amorites as far north as possible before he brought his main forces out on the ridge? If that's the case, we can picture him initially dispatching a strong team through the valley of Achor to Beeroth; they were instructed to take up a strong position there and, once established, to provoke the Amorites into attacking them. Then, when the Israelite general in charge at Beeroth saw that he was facing almost the entire Amorite force—since it seems evident that the five kings and most of their army had been drawn away—he would signal to Joshua that it was time to advance. Just as Joshua had signaled with his spear when taking Aï, lighting a beacon on the top of the ridge would serve the same purpose. Joshua would then lead the main group, capture the road to Jerusalem, and rush toward Gibeon as quickly as possible. If this happened, the small group of Amorites left to maintain the blockade was quickly overwhelmed but perhaps realized Joshua's approach soon enough to send fast runners urging the five kings to return. There was no time to lose; the kings would head south immediately; but despite their urgency, they never reached Gibeon. They likely only got as far as the ridge leading to Beth-horon when they realized that Joshua had not only relieved Gibeon and taken out the force they had left there, but that his line, extending far to the right and left, had already cut them off—not just from the road to Jerusalem and Hebron, but also from the valley of Ajalon, which was a shorter route to the Maritime Plain than the one they actually took. There was no escape to the east; to the north was the Israelite army from Beeroth; to the south and west was Joshua's army. Outmaneuvered and outsmarted, they were in serious danger of being trapped between the two Israelite armies, ground down like wheat between upper and lower millstones. They had no will to continue fighting; the promise made to Joshua—that "not a man of them shall stand before you"—was fulfilled; they scattered and fled by the only route open to them, the path of the two Beth-horons.

[372] Whilst this conjectural strategy attributes to Joshua a ready grasp of the essential features of the military position and skill in dealing with them, it certainly does not attribute to him any greater skill than it is reasonable to suppose he possessed. The Hebrews have repeatedly proved, not merely their valour in battle, but their mastery of the art of war, and, as Marcel Dieulafoy has recently shown,[372:1] the earliest general of whom we have record as introducing turning tactics in the field, is David in the battle of the valley of Rephaim, recorded in 2 Sam. v. 22-25 and 1 Chron. xiv. 13-17.

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] While this hypothetical strategy suggests that Joshua had a strong understanding of the key aspects of the military situation and skill in managing them, it certainly doesn’t claim that he had any more skill than is reasonable to believe he possessed. The Hebrews have consistently demonstrated not only their bravery in battle but also their expertise in the art of war. As Marcel Dieulafoy has recently pointed out,[372:1] the earliest general we have records of introducing turning tactics in the field is David, during the battle in the valley of Rephaim, noted in 2 Sam. 5:22-25 and 1 Chron. 14:13-17.

"The several evolutions of a complicated and hazardous nature which decided the fate of the battle would betoken, even at the present day, when successfully conducted, a consummate general, experienced lieutenants, troops well accustomed to manœuvres, mobile, and, above all, disciplined almost into unconsciousness, so contrary is it to our instincts not to meet peril face to face. . . . In point of fact, the Israelites had just effected in the face of the Philistines a turning and enveloping movement—that is to say, an operation of war considered to be one of the boldest, most skilful, and difficult attempted by forces similar in number to those of the Hebrews, but, at the same time, very efficacious and brilliant when successful. It was the favourite manœuvre of Frederick II, and the one on which his military reputation rests."

The various complicated and risky maneuvers that determined the outcome of the battle would indicate, even today, that a highly skilled general, seasoned lieutenants, troops well-trained in tactics, flexible, and, most importantly, disciplined to the point of instinctively confronting danger, were involved. . . . In fact, the Israelites had just executed a turning and enveloping maneuver against the Philistines—that is to say, a military operation regarded as one of the boldest, most skillful, and difficult attempted by forces comparable in number to those of the Hebrews, but also very effective and impressive when successful. It was the preferred maneuver of Frederick II, and the foundation of his military reputation.

But though the Amorites had been discomfited by Joshua, they had not been completely surrounded; one way of escape was left open. More than this, it appears that they obtained a very ample start in the race along the north-western road. We infer this from the incident [373]of the hailstorm which fell upon them whilst rushing down the precipitous road between the Beth-horons; a storm so sudden and so violent that more of the Amorites died by the hailstones than had fallen in the contest at Gibeon. It does not appear that the Israelites suffered from the storm; they must consequently have, at the time, been much in the rear of their foes. Probably they were still "in the way that goeth up to Beth-horon"; that is to say, in the ascent some two miles long from Gibeon till the summit of the road is reached. There would be a special appropriateness in this case in the phrasing of the record that "the Lord discomfited the Amorites before Israel, and slew them with a great slaughter at Gibeon, and chased them along the way that goeth up to Beth-horon, and smote them to Azekah and unto Makkedah." There was no slaughter on the road between Gibeon and Beth-horon. It was a simple chase; a pursuit with the enemy far in advance.

But even though Joshua had defeated the Amorites, they weren’t completely surrounded; there was still a way for them to escape. In fact, it seems they got a significant head start on the northwestern road. We can tell this from the incident [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]when a hailstorm hit them while they were rushing down the steep road between the Beth-horons; it was such a sudden and fierce storm that more Amorites died from the hailstones than in the battle at Gibeon. The Israelites didn’t seem to have been affected by the storm; therefore, they must have been much farther behind their enemies at that time. They were probably still "on the way that goes up to Beth-horon," which means they were climbing the two-mile stretch from Gibeon to the top of the road. It makes sense that the record states that "the Lord discomfited the Amorites before Israel and slew them with a great slaughter at Gibeon, and chased them along the way that goes up to Beth-horon, and smote them to Azekah and unto Makkedah." There wasn’t any slaughter on the road between Gibeon and Beth-horon. It was just a simple chase; a pursuit with the enemy far ahead.

The Israelites, general and soldiers alike, had done their best. The forced march all night up the steep ravines, the plan of the battle, and the way in which it had been carried out were alike admirable. Yet when the Israelites had done their best, and the heat and their long exertions had nearly overpowered them, Joshua was compelled to recognize that he had been but partly successful. He had relieved Gibeon; the Amorites were in headlong flight; he had cut them off from the direct road to safety, but he had failed in one most important point. He had not succeeded in surrounding them, and the greater portion of their force was escaping.

The Israelites, both their leader and soldiers, had given it their all. The all-night forced march up the steep ravines, the battle plan, and how it was executed were all impressive. However, after the Israelites had done their best, and as the heat and their long efforts nearly overwhelmed them, Joshua had to admit he had only been partially successful. He had saved Gibeon; the Amorites were running for their lives; he had cut them off from the straight path to safety, but he had failed in one crucial aspect. He hadn’t managed to surround them, and most of their forces were getting away.

[374] 5.—The Miracle.

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] 5.—The Miracle.

It was at this moment, when his scouts announced to him the frustration of his hopes, that Joshua in the anxiety lest the full fruits of his victory should be denied him, and in the supremest faith that the Lord God, in Whose hand are all the powers of the universe, was with him, exclaimed:

It was at this moment, when his scouts told him that his hopes were dashed, that Joshua, worried that he might not reap the full benefits of his victory, and with complete faith that the Lord God, Who holds all the power in the universe, was by his side, exclaimed:

"Sun, stay still over Gibeon,
"And you, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon!"

So his exclamation stands in our Authorized Version, but, as the marginal reading shows, the word translated "stand still" is more literally "be silent." There can be no doubt that this expression, so unusual in this connection, must have been employed with intention. What was it that Joshua is likely to have had in his mind when he thus spoke?

So, his exclamation is in our Authorized Version, but as the marginal reading indicates, the word translated as "stand still" is more literally "be silent." There's no doubt that this expression, which is quite unusual in this context, was used intentionally. What was Joshua likely thinking when he said this?

The common idea is that he simply wished for more time; for the day to be prolonged. But as we have seen, it was midday when he spoke, and he had full seven hours of daylight before him. There was a need which he must have felt more pressing. His men had now been seventeen hours on the march, for they had started at sunset—7 p.m.—on the previous evening, and it was now noon, the noon of a sub-tropical midsummer. They had marched at least twenty miles in the time, possibly considerably more according to the route which they had followed, and the march had been along the roughest of roads, and had included an ascent of 3400 feet—about the height of the summit of Snowdon above the sea-level. They must have [375]been weary, and have felt sorely the heat of the sun, now blazing right overhead. Surely it requires no words to labour this point. Joshua's one pressing need at that moment was something to temper the fierce oppression of the sun, and to refresh his men. This was what he prayed for; this was what was granted him. For the moment the sun seemed fighting on the side of his enemies, and he bade it "Be silent." Instantly, in answer to his command, a mighty rush of dark storm-clouds came sweeping up from the sea.

The common belief is that he simply wanted more time; for the day to stretch on. But as we saw, it was midday when he spoke, and he had a full seven hours of daylight ahead of him. There was a need that he must have felt was more urgent. His men had been marching for seventeen hours, having set out at sunset—7 p.m.—the night before, and it was now noon, right in the heart of a subtropical midsummer. They had covered at least twenty miles by that point, possibly even more depending on the route they took, and the journey had been along some of the roughest roads, including an ascent of 3,400 feet—about the height of Snowdon's summit above sea level. They must have been exhausted and feeling the scorching heat of the sun, blazing directly overhead. It hardly needs saying. Joshua's most urgent need at that moment was something to ease the oppressive heat and refresh his men. This was what he prayed for; this was what he was given. For a moment, the sun seemed to be fighting against him, and he commanded it to "Be silent." Instantly, in response to his command, a powerful rush of dark storm clouds swept in from the sea.

Refreshed by the sudden coolness, the Israelites set out at once in the pursuit of their enemies. It is probable that for the first six miles they saw no trace of them, but when they reached Beth-horon the Upper, and stood at the top of its steep descent, they saw the Amorites again. As it had been with their fathers at the Red Sea, when the pillar of cloud had been a defence to them but the means of discomfiture to the Egyptians, so now the storm-clouds which had so revived them and restored their their strength, had brought death and destruction to their enemies. All down the rocky descent lay the wounded, the dying, the dead. For "the Lord cast down great stones from heaven upon them, unto Azekah, and they died: they were more which died with hailstones than they whom the children of Israel slew with the sword."

Refreshed by the sudden coolness, the Israelites immediately set out to chase their enemies. It's likely that for the first six miles, they found no sign of them, but when they arrived at Upper Beth-horon and stood at the top of its steep slope, they spotted the Amorites again. Just like their ancestors at the Red Sea, when the pillar of cloud provided protection for them but caused chaos for the Egyptians, the storm clouds that had revived and strengthened them now brought death and destruction to their enemies. All down the rocky slope were the wounded, the dying, and the dead. For "the Lord cast down great stones from heaven upon them, unto Azekah, and they died: they were more which died with hailstones than they whom the children of Israel slew with the sword."

"The strength of the Gentile, untouched by the sword,
"Had melted like snow at the sight of the Lord."

Far below them the panic-stricken remnants of the Amorite host were fleeing for safety to the cities of [376]the Maritime Plain. The battle proper was over; the one duty left to the army of Israel was to overtake and destroy those remnants before they could gain shelter.

Far below them, the terrified remnants of the Amorite army were fleeing for safety to the cities of [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]the Maritime Plain. The main battle was over; the only task left for the army of Israel was to catch up with and eliminate those survivors before they could find refuge.

But the narrative continues. "The sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day." This statement evidently implies much more than the mere darkening of the sun by storm-clouds. For its interpretation we must return to the remaining incidents of the day.

But the story goes on. "The sun stayed in the middle of the sky and did not hurry to set for an entire day." This clearly suggests much more than just the sun being blocked by storm clouds. To understand it better, we need to go back to the other events of the day.

These are soon told. Joshua pursued the Amorites to Makkedah, twenty-seven miles from Gibeon by the route taken. There the five kings had hidden themselves in a cave. A guard was placed to watch the cave; the Israelites continued the pursuit for an undefined distance farther; returned to Makkedah and took it by assault; brought the kings out of their cave, and hanged them.

These events are quickly explained. Joshua chased the Amorites to Makkedah, which is twenty-seven miles from Gibeon along the path they took. The five kings had hidden in a cave. A guard was set up to watch the cave, while the Israelites continued their pursuit for an uncertain distance further. They returned to Makkedah and attacked it, bringing the kings out of their cave and hanging them.

"And it came to pass at the time of the going down of the sun, that Joshua commanded, and they took them down off the trees, and cast them into the cave wherein they had hidden themselves, and laid great stones on the mouth of the cave, unto this very day."

"And it happened at sunset that Joshua ordered them to be taken down from the trees, and they were tossed into the cave where they had hidden, and large stones were placed at the entrance of the cave, still there to this day."

All these events—the pursuit for twenty-seven miles and more, the taking of Makkedah and the hanging of the kings—took place between noon and the going down of the sun, an interval whose normal length, for that latitude and at that time of the year, was about seven hours.

All these events—the chase for twenty-seven miles and more, the capture of Makkedah, and the execution of the kings—happened between noon and sunset, a period that typically lasted about seven hours for that location and time of year.

This is an abnormal feat. It is true that a single trained pedestrian might traverse the twenty-seven and odd miles, and still have time to take part in an assault on a town and to watch an execution. But it is an [377]altogether different thing when we come to a large army. It is well known that the speed with which a body of men can move diminishes with the number. A company can march faster than a regiment; a regiment than a brigade; a brigade than an army corps. But for a large force thirty miles in the entire day is heavy work. "Thus Sir Archibald Hunter's division, in its march through Bechuanaland to the relief of Mafeking, starting at four in the morning, went on till seven or eight at night, covering as many as thirty miles a day at times." Joshua's achievement was a march fully as long as any of General Hunter's, but it was accomplished in less than seven hours instead of from fifteen to sixteen, and it followed straight on from a march seventeen hours in length which had ended in a battle. In all, between one sunset and the next he had marched between fifty and sixty miles besides fighting a battle and taking a town.

This is an unusual accomplishment. It’s true that a trained individual could cover the twenty-seven plus miles, and still find time to participate in an attack on a town and witness an execution. But it’s a completely different story when we talk about a large army. It's widely recognized that the speed at which a group of people can move decreases as the number increases. A company can march faster than a regiment; a regiment can move faster than a brigade; and a brigade is quicker than an army corps. For a large force, covering thirty miles in an entire day is tough work. "Thus Sir Archibald Hunter's division, during its march through Bechuanaland to relieve Mafeking, started at four in the morning and continued until seven or eight at night, sometimes covering as much as thirty miles a day." Joshua's achievement was a march just as long as any of General Hunter's, but he completed it in under seven hours instead of the fifteen to sixteen it usually takes, following directly after a seventeen-hour march that ended in a battle. All told, between one sunset and the next, he had marched between fifty and sixty miles while also fighting a battle and capturing a town.

If we turn to the records of other battles fought in this neighbourhood, we find that they agree as closely as we could expect, not with Joshua's achievement, but with General Hunter's. In the case of the great victory secured by Jonathan, the gallant son of Saul, the Israelites smote the Philistines from Michmash to Ajalon;—not quite twenty miles. In the defeat of Cestius Gallus, the Jews followed him from Beth-horon to Antipatris, a little over twenty miles, the pursuit beginning at daybreak, and being evidently continued nearly till sundown. The pursuit of the Syrians under Nicanor by Judas Maccabæus seems also to have covered about the same distance, for [378]Nicanor was killed at the first onslaught and his troops took to flight.

If we look at the records of other battles fought in this area, we see that they align closely, not with Joshua's success, but with General Hunter's. In the case of the great victory won by Jonathan, the brave son of Saul, the Israelites defeated the Philistines from Michmash to Ajalon—just under twenty miles. During the defeat of Cestius Gallus, the Jews chased him from Beth-horon to Antipatris, a bit over twenty miles, starting at dawn and clearly continuing almost until sunset. The pursuit of the Syrians led by Nicanor by Judas Maccabæus also seems to have covered about the same distance, as Nicanor was killed at the first attack and his troops fled.

It is not at all unusual to read in comments on the Book of Joshua that the "miracle" is simply the result of the dulness of the prose chronicler in accepting as literal fact an expression that originated in the poetic exuberance of an old bard. The latter, so it is urged, simply meaning to add a figure of dignity and importance to his song commemorating a great national victory, had written:—

It’s pretty common to see in comments on the Book of Joshua that the “miracle” is just a product of the writer's dullness in taking literally something that started as poetic flair from an old storyteller. The storyteller, it’s suggested, was only trying to add a sense of grandeur and significance to his song celebrating a major national victory, and he wrote:—

"And the sun stopped, and the moon held still,
Until the nation had gotten revenge on their enemies,

but with no more expectation that the stay of the moon would be accepted literally, than the singers, who welcomed David after the slaying of Goliath, imagined that any one would seriously suppose that Saul had actually with his own hand killed two thousand Philistines, and David twenty thousand. But, say they, the later prose chronicler, quoting from the ballad, and accepting a piece of poetic hyperbole as actual fact, reproduced the statement in his own words, and added, "the sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day."

but with no more expectation that the moon would literally pause than the singers who welcomed David after he defeated Goliath thought anyone would seriously believe that Saul had actually killed two thousand Philistines with his own hands, and David had killed twenty thousand. But, they say, the later prose writer, quoting from the ballad and taking a piece of poetic exaggeration as fact, repeated the statement in his own words and added, "the sun stood still in the middle of the sky and didn’t set for about a whole day."

Not so. The poem and the prose chronicle make one coherent whole. Working from the poem alone, treating the expressions in the first two lines merely as astronomical indications of time and place, and without the slightest reference to any miraculous interpretation, they lead to the inevitable conclusion that the time was noonday. This result certainly does not lie on the surface of the poem, and it was wholly beyond the power of the [379]prose chronicler to have computed it, yet it is just in the supposed stupid gloss of the prose chronicler, and nowhere else, that we find this fact definitely stated: whilst the "miracle" recorded both by poem and prose narrative completely accords with the extraordinary distance traversed between noon and sunset.

Not at all. The poem and the prose work together to form a complete whole. If we only look at the poem, interpreting the expressions in the first two lines simply as time and location clues, and without considering any miraculous explanation, we reach the unavoidable conclusion that it was noon. This result isn’t immediately obvious from the poem, and it was completely beyond the prose writer's ability to have figured it out. However, it's precisely in the so-called simplistic interpretation of the prose writer, and nowhere else, that we find this fact explicitly stated: while the "miracle" described in both the poem and prose matches the extraordinary distance covered between noon and sunset.

Any man, however ignorant of science, if he be but careful and conscientious, can truthfully record an observation without any difficulty. But to successfully invent even the simplest astronomical observation requires very full knowledge, and is difficult even then. Every astronomer knows that there is hardly a single novelist, no matter how learned or painstaking, who can at this present day introduce a simple astronomical relation into his story, without falling into egregious error.

Any man, no matter how little he knows about science, can easily and accurately write down an observation if he is careful and diligent. However, coming up with even the simplest astronomical observation takes a lot of knowledge and is still challenging. Every astronomer knows that there’s hardly a novelist, no matter how educated or hardworking, who can include a basic astronomical concept in their story today without making a serious mistake.

We are therefore quite sure that Joshua did use the words attributed to him; that the "moon" and "the valley of Ajalon" were not merely inserted in order to complete the parallelism by a bard putting a legend into poetic form. Nor was the prose narrative the result of an editor combining two or three narratives all written much after the date. The original records must have been made at the time.

We are therefore quite sure that Joshua really did say the words attributed to him; that the "moon" and "the valley of Ajalon" were not just added in to complete the parallelism by a poet putting a legend into verse. Nor was the prose story created by an editor piecing together two or three accounts written long after the events. The original records must have been made at that time.

All astronomers know well how absolutely essential it is to commit an observation to writing on the spot. Illustrations of this necessity could be made to any extent. One may suffice. In vol. ii. of the Life of Sir Richard Burton, by his wife, p. 244, Lady Burton says:—

All astronomers know how crucial it is to write down an observation right away. There are countless examples of this need. One will do. In vol. ii. of the Life of Sir Richard Burton, by his wife, p. 244, Lady Burton says:—

"On the 6th December, 1882 . . . we were walking on the Karso (Opçona) alone; the sky was clear, and all of a [380]sudden my niece said to me, 'Oh, look up, there is a star walking into the moon!' 'Glorious!' I answered. 'We are looking at the Transit of Venus, which crowds of scientists have gone to the end of the world to see.'"

"On December 6th, 1882 . . . we were walking alone on the Karso (Opçona); the sky was clear, and all of a sudden my niece said to me, 'Oh, look up, there’s a star moving into the moon!' 'Amazing!' I replied. 'We’re witnessing the Transit of Venus, which crowds of scientists have traveled to the ends of the earth to see.'"

The Transit of Venus did take place on December 6, 1882; and though Venus could have been seen without telescopic aid as a black spot on the sun's disc, nothing can be more unlike Venus in transit than "a star walking into the moon." The moon was not visible on that evening, and Venus was only visible when on the sun's disc, and appeared then, not as a star, but as a black dot.

The Transit of Venus occurred on December 6, 1882; and while Venus could have been seen without a telescope as a dark spot on the sun's surface, nothing is more different from Venus in transit than "a star moving into the moon." The moon wasn't visible that evening, and Venus was only visible when it was on the sun's surface, appearing not as a star, but as a black dot.

No doubt Lady Burton's niece did make the exclamation attributed to her, but it must have been, not on December 6, 1882, but on some other occasion. Lady Burton may indeed have told her niece that this was the Transit of Venus, but that was simply because she did not know what a transit was, nor that it occurred in the daytime, not at night. Lady Burton's narrative was therefore not written at the time. So if the facts of the tenth chapter of Joshua, as we have it, had not been written at the time of the battle, some gross astronomical discordance would inevitably have crept in.

No doubt Lady Burton's niece did make the comment attributed to her, but it must have been, not on December 6, 1882, but on another occasion. Lady Burton may have told her niece that this was the Transit of Venus, but that was simply because she didn’t understand what a transit was, or that it happened during the day, not at night. Lady Burton's account was therefore not written at the time. So if the facts of the tenth chapter of Joshua, as we have it, hadn’t been recorded at the time of the battle, some significant astronomical inconsistency would inevitably have occurred.

Let us suppose that the sun and moon did actually stand still in the sky for so long a time that between noon and sunset was equal to the full length of an ordinary day. What effect would have resulted that the Israelites could have perceived? This, and this only, that they would have marched twice as far between noon and sunset as they could have done in any ordinary afternoon. And [381]this as we have seen, is exactly what they are recorded to have done.

Let’s imagine that the sun and moon actually stood still in the sky for such a long time that the time from noon to sunset was equal to a full day. What effect would the Israelites have noticed? Only that they would have marched twice as far between noon and sunset as they could have in a typical afternoon. And [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]this, as we've noted, is exactly what they are said to have done.

The only measure of time, available to the Israelites, independent of the apparent motion of the sun, was the number of miles marched. Indeed, with the Babylonians, the same word (kasbu) was used to indicate three distinct, but related measures. It was a measure of time—the double hour; of celestial arc—the twelfth part of a great circle, thirty degrees, that is to say the space traversed by the sun in two hours; and it was a measure of distance on the surface of the earth—six or seven miles, or a two hours' march.

The only way the Israelites could measure time, apart from watching the sun move, was by counting the miles they marched. In fact, the Babylonians used the same word (kasbu) to refer to three different, but connected measurements. It was a measure of time—the double hour; of celestial arc—the twelfth part of a great circle, thirty degrees, which represents the distance the sun travels in two hours; and it was also a measure of distance on the earth’s surface—six or seven miles, or a two-hour march.

If, for the sake of illustration, we may suppose that the sun were to stand still for us, we should recognize it neither by sundial nor by shadow, but we should see that whereas our clocks had indicated that the sun had risen (we will say) at six in the morning, and had southed at twelve of noon; it had not set until twelve of the night. The register of work done, shown by all our clocks and watches, would be double for the afternoon what it had been for the morning. And if all our clocks and watches did thus register upon some occasion twice the interval between noon and sunset that they had registered between sunrise and noon, we should be justified in recording, as the writer of the book of Joshua has recorded, "The sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day."

If we imagine for a moment that the sun stopped moving, we wouldn't notice it by sundials or shadows. Instead, we would see that while our clocks said the sun rose at six in the morning and was at its highest point at noon, it didn't actually set until midnight. The record of work done, as shown by our clocks and watches, would be twice as much in the afternoon compared to the morning. And if all our clocks and watches recorded twice the time from noon to sunset as they did from sunrise to noon, we could rightfully say, just like the writer of the book of Joshua did, "The sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day."

The real difficulty to the understanding of this narrative has lain in the failure of commentators to put themselves back into the conditions of the Israelites. The Israelites [382]had no time-measurers, could have had no time-measurers. A sundial, if any such were in existence, would only indicate the position of the sun, and therefore could give no evidence in the matter. Beside, a sundial is not a portable instrument, and Joshua and his men had something more pressing to do than to loiter round it. Clepsydræ or clocks are of later date, and no more than a sundial are they portable. Many comments, one might almost say most comments on the narrative, read as if the writers supposed that Joshua and his men carried stop-watches, and that their chief interest in the whole campaign was to see how fast the sun was moving. Since they had no such methods of measuring time, since it is not possible to suppose that over and above any material miracle that was wrought, the mental miracle was added of acquainting the Israelites for this occasion only with the Copernican system of astronomy, all that the words of the narrative can possibly mean is, that—

The main challenge in understanding this story comes from commentators not putting themselves in the Israelites' shoes. The Israelites [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]had no way to measure time and couldn’t have had any. A sundial, if one existed, would only show the sun's position and wouldn't provide any actual timekeeping. Besides, a sundial isn't portable, and Joshua and his men had more urgent matters to attend to than hanging around it. Water clocks or clocks in general came later, and they’re also not portable. Many comments, you could almost say most comments on the story, seem to assume that Joshua and his men had stopwatches and that their main interest during the whole campaign was timing how fast the sun was moving. Since they had no way to measure time, and it’s hard to believe that, in addition to any physical miracle that happened, there was also a mental miracle that taught the Israelites about the Copernican system of astronomy for this one event, all that the words of the narrative can really mean is that—

"the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day,"

"the sun stood still in the sky and didn’t set for an entire day,"

according to the only means which the Israelites had for testing the matter. In short, it simply states in other words, what, it is clear from other parts of the narrative, was actually the case, that the length of the march made between noon and sunset was equal to an ordinary march taking the whole of a day.

according to the only way the Israelites had to check the situation. In short, it basically restates in different words what is evident from other parts of the story: that the distance covered between noon and sunset was equal to a typical march that would usually take an entire day.

If we suppose—as has been generally done, and as it is quite legitimate to do, for all things are possible to God—that the miracle consisted in the slackening of the [383]rotation of the earth, what effect would have been perceived by the Hebrews? This, and only this, that they would have accomplished a full day's march in the course of the afternoon. And what would have been the effects produced on all the neighbouring nations? Simply that they had managed to do more work than usual in the course of that afternoon, and that they felt more than usually tired and hungry in the evening.

If we assume—like people generally have, and it makes sense to do so, since anything is possible for God—that the miracle involved the slowing down of the [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]earth's rotation, what would the Hebrews have noticed? They would have realized that they completed a full day's march in just one afternoon. And what about the surrounding nations? They would simply have believed they managed to accomplish more work than usual that afternoon and felt extra tired and hungry by evening.

But would it have helped the Israelites for the day to have been thus actually lengthened? Scarcely so, unless they had been, at the same time, endowed with supernatural, or at all events, with unusual strength. The Israelites had already been 31 hours without sleep or rest, they had made a remarkable march, their enemies had several miles start of them; would not a longer day have simply given the latter a better chance to make good their flight, unless the Israelites were enabled to pursue them with unusual speed? And if the Israelites were so enabled, then no further miracle is required; for them the sun would have "hasted not to go down about a whole day."

But would it have helped the Israelites if the day had actually been extended? Probably not, unless they had also been given supernatural or at least unusual strength. The Israelites had already been 31 hours without sleep or rest, and they had made an impressive march, while their enemies had a head start of several miles; wouldn’t a longer day just give the latter a better chance to escape unless the Israelites could chase them down with extraordinary speed? And if the Israelites could do that, then no further miracle would be needed; for them, the sun would have “not hurried to set for a whole day.”

Leaving the question as to whether the sun appeared to stand still through the temporary arrest of the earth's rotation, or through some exaltation of the physical powers of the Israelites, it seems clear, from the foregoing analysis of the narrative, that both the prose account and the poem were written by eye-witnesses, who recorded what they had themselves seen and heard whilst every detail was fresh in their memory. Simple as the astronomical references are, they are very stringent, and can only have been supplied by those who were actually present.

Leaving the question of whether the sun seemed to stand still because of a temporary halt in the earth's rotation, or due to some heightened abilities of the Israelites, it’s clear from the earlier analysis of the story that both the prose account and the poem were written by witnesses who documented what they had seen and heard while every detail was still fresh in their minds. Although the astronomical references are straightforward, they are quite precise and could only have been provided by those who were actually present.

[384]Nothing can be more unlike poetic hyperbole than the sum of actual miles marched to the men who trod them; and these very concrete miles were the gauge of the lapse of time. For just as "nail," and "span," and "foot," and "cubit," and "pace" were the early measures of small distance, so the average day's march was the early measure of long distance. The human frame, in its proportions and in its abilities, is sufficiently uniform to have furnished the primitive standards of length. But the relation established between time and distance as in the case of a day's march, works either way, and is employed in either direction, even at the present day. When the Israelites at the end of their campaign returned from Makkedah to Gibeon, and found the march, though wholly unobstructed, was still a heavy performance for the whole of a long day, what could they think, how could they express themselves, concerning that same march made between noon and sundown? Whatever construction we put upon the incident, whatever explanation we may offer for it, to all the men of Israel, judging the events of the afternoon by the only standard within their reach, the eminently practical standard of the miles they had marched, the only conclusion at which they could arrive was the one they so justly drew—

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]Nothing is more different from poetic exaggeration than the actual miles that the men walked, and these concrete miles measured the passage of time. Just like "nail," "span," "foot," "cubit," and "pace" were early measurements of small distances, the average day's march became the early measurement of longer distances. The human body, in its proportions and capabilities, is uniform enough to have provided the basic standards of length. But the connection between time and distance—as seen with a day’s march—works both ways and is still used in either direction today. When the Israelites returned from Makkedah to Gibeon at the end of their campaign and found the march, though totally unobstructed, was still a challenging task for an entire long day, what could they think, how could they express themselves about that same journey made between noon and sunset? Regardless of how we interpret the incident or the explanations we might offer, the men of Israel, judging the afternoon's events by the only standard they had, the practical standard of the miles they had walked, could only conclude the one they accurately reached—

"The sun stayed in the midst of heaven and hasted not to go down about a whole day. And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the Lord hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the Lord fought for Israel."

"The sun remained in the sky and didn't set for almost an entire day. There has never been a day like that before or since, when the Lord listened to a man's voice, for the Lord fought for Israel."

FOOTNOTES:

[351:1] Revised and reprinted from the Sunday at Home for February and March, 1904.

[372:1] Marcel Dieulafoy, David the King: an Historical Enquiry, pp. 155-175.

[385]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

CHAPTER II

THE DIAL OF AHAZ

The second astronomical marvel recorded in the Scripture narrative is the going back of the shadow on the dial of Ahaz, at the time of Hezekiah's recovery, from his dangerous illness.

The second astronomical wonder noted in the Scripture narrative is the shadow retreating on the dial of Ahaz when Hezekiah recovered from his serious illness.

It was shortly after the deliverance of the kingdom of Judah from the danger threatened it by Sennacherib king of Assyria, that Hezekiah fell "sick unto death." But in answer to his prayer, Isaiah was sent to tell him—

It was shortly after the kingdom of Judah was rescued from the threat posed by Sennacherib, king of Assyria, that Hezekiah became "gravely ill." However, in response to his prayer, Isaiah was sent to tell him—

"Thus saith the Lord, the God of David thy father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: behold, I will heal thee: on the third day thou shalt go up unto the house of the Lord. And I will add unto thy days fifteen years; and I will deliver thee and this city out of the hand of the king of Assyria; and I will defend this city for Mine own sake, and for My servant David's sake. And Isaiah said, Take a lump of figs. And they took and laid it on the boil, and he recovered. And Hezekiah said unto Isaiah, What shall be the sign that the Lord will heal me, and that I shall go up into the house of the Lord the third day? And Isaiah said, This sign shalt thou have of the Lord, that the Lord will do the thing that He hath spoken: shall the shadow go forward ten degrees, or go back ten degrees? And Hezekiah answered, It is a light thing for the shadow to go down ten degrees: [386]nay, but let the shadow return backward ten degrees. And Isaiah the prophet cried unto the Lord: and He brought the shadow ten degrees backward, by which it had gone down in the dial of Ahaz."

"Thus says the Lord, the God of David your father, I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears: look, I will heal you: on the third day you shall go up to the house of the Lord. And I will add fifteen years to your life; and I will rescue you and this city from the hand of the king of Assyria; and I will defend this city for My own sake, and for My servant David's sake. And Isaiah said, Take a lump of figs. They took it and placed it on the boil, and he recovered. Hezekiah asked Isaiah, What will be the sign that the Lord will heal me, and that I shall go up to the house of the Lord on the third day? Isaiah said, This shall be the sign from the Lord, that the Lord will do what He has promised: should the shadow go forward ten degrees, or go back ten degrees? Hezekiah answered, It is easy for the shadow to go down ten degrees: no, but let the shadow return backward ten degrees. And Isaiah the prophet cried out to the Lord: and He brought the shadow ten degrees backwards, by which it had gone down on the dial of Ahaz."

The narrative in the Book of Isaiah gives the concluding words in the form—

The narrative in the Book of Isaiah presents the concluding words in the form—

"So the sun returned ten degrees, by which degrees it was gone down."

"So the sun moved back ten degrees, by which degrees it had set."

The narrative is complete as a record of the healing of king Hezekiah and of the sign given to him to assure him that he should recover; complete for all the ordinary purposes of a narrative, and for readers in general. But for any purpose of astronomical analysis the narrative is deficient, and it must be frankly confessed that it does not lie within the power of astronomy to make any use of it.

The story is complete as a record of King Hezekiah's healing and the sign given to him to assure him that he would recover; complete for all usual narrative purposes and for general readers. However, for any astronomical analysis, the narrative falls short, and it must be openly acknowledged that astronomy cannot make any use of it.

It has been generally assumed that it was an actual sundial upon which this sign was seen. We do not know how far back the art of dialling goes. The simplest form of dial is an obelisk on a flat pavement, but it has the very important drawback that the graduation is different for different times of the year. In a properly constructed dial the edge of the style casting the shadow should be made parallel to the axis of the earth. Consequently a dial for one latitude is not available without alteration when transferred to another latitude. Some fine types of dials on a large scale exist in the observatories built by Jai Singh. The first of these—that at Delhi—was probably completed about 1710 a.d. They are, therefore, [387]quite modern, but afford good illustrations of the type of structure which we can readily conceive of as having been built in what has been termed the Stone Age of astronomy. The principal of these buildings, the Samrat Yantra, is a long staircase in the meridian leading up to nothing, the shadow falling on to a great semicircular arc which it crosses. The slope of the staircase is, of course, parallel to the earth's axis.

It’s generally believed that the sign was seen on a real sundial. We don’t know how far back the practice of using sundials goes. The simplest kind of sundial is an obelisk on a flat surface, but it has the significant drawback of having different markings for different times of the year. In a well-made sundial, the edge of the gnomon casting the shadow should be aligned with the Earth's axis. Therefore, a sundial designed for one latitude won’t work without adjustments when moved to another latitude. There are some impressive large-scale sundials in the observatories built by Jai Singh. The first one, located in Delhi, was likely finished around 1710 A.D. They are, thus, [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]fairly modern, but they provide great examples of the type of structures we can easily imagine being built during what has been called the Stone Age of astronomy. The main structure, the Samrat Yantra, features a long staircase aligned with the meridian that leads to nowhere, with the shadow falling onto a large semicircular arc that it intersects. The slope of the staircase is, of course, aligned with the Earth's axis.

It has been suggested that if such a dial were erected at Jerusalem, and the style were that for a tropical latitude, at certain times of the year the shadow would appear to go backward for a short time. Others, again, have suggested that if a small portable dial were tilted the same phenomenon would show itself. It is, of course, evident that no such suggestion at all accords with the narrative. Hezekiah was now in the fourteenth year of his reign, the dial—if dial it was—was made by his father, and the "miracle" would have been reproduced day by day for a considerable part of each year, and after the event it would have been apparent to every one that the "miracle" continued to be reproduced. If this had been the case, it would say very little for the astronomical science of the wise men of Merodach-Baladan that he should have sent all the way from Babylon to Jerusalem "to inquire of the wonder that was done in the land" if the wonder was nothing more than a wrongly mounted dial.

It has been proposed that if a dial were set up in Jerusalem, and it was designed for a tropical latitude, there would be times of the year when the shadow would seem to move backward briefly. Others have said that if a small portable dial were tilted, the same effect would occur. However, it's clear that none of these suggestions align with the story. Hezekiah was in the fourteenth year of his reign, and the dial—if it even was a dial—was created by his father. The "miracle" would have been visible each day for a significant part of the year, and afterward, it would have been clear to everyone that the "miracle" kept happening. If that were true, it wouldn’t reflect well on the astronomical knowledge of the wise men from Merodach-Baladan who traveled all the way from Babylon to Jerusalem "to inquire about the wonder that happened in the land" if the wonder was just a wrongly installed dial.

Others have hazarded the extreme hypothesis, that there might have been an earthquake at the time which dipped the dial in the proper direction, and then restored it to its proper place; presumably, of course, without doing [388]harm to Jerusalem, or any of its buildings, and passing unnoticed by both king and people.

Others have put forward the radical idea that there could have been an earthquake at the time that tilted the dial in the right direction, and then set it back in its original position; presumably, of course, without causing any harm to Jerusalem or any of its buildings, and going unnoticed by both the king and the people.

A much more ingenious theory than any of those was communicated by the late J. W. Bosanquet to the Royal Asiatic Society in 1854. An eclipse of the sun took place on January 11, 689 b.c. It was an annular eclipse in Asia Minor, and a very large partial eclipse at Jerusalem, the greatest phase taking place nearly at local noon. Mr. Bosanquet considers that the effect of the partial eclipse would be to practically shift the centre of the bright body casting the shadow. At the beginning of the annular phase, the part of the sun uncovered would be a crescent in a nearly vertical position; at mid eclipse the crescent would be in a horizontal position; at the end of the annular phase the crescent would again be in a vertical position; so that the exposed part of the sun would appear to move down and up in the sky over a very small distance. It is extremely doubtful whether any perceptible effect could be so produced on the shadow, and one wholly fails to understand why the eclipse itself should not have been given as the sign, and why neither the king nor the people seem to have noticed that it was in progress. It is, however, sufficient to say that modern chronology shows that Hezekiah died ten years before the eclipse in question, so that it fell a quarter of a century too late for the purpose, and no other eclipse is available to take its place during the lifetime of Hezekiah.

A much smarter theory than any of those was shared by the late J. W. Bosanquet with the Royal Asiatic Society in 1854. A solar eclipse occurred on January 11, 689 B.C. It was an annular eclipse in Asia Minor and a very large partial eclipse in Jerusalem, with the greatest phase happening almost exactly at local noon. Mr. Bosanquet believes that the effect of the partial eclipse would effectively shift the center of the bright body casting the shadow. At the start of the annular phase, the uncovered part of the sun would appear as a crescent in a nearly vertical position; at mid-eclipse, the crescent would shift to a horizontal position; and at the end of the annular phase, the crescent would again be vertical. This means the exposed part of the sun would seem to move up and down in the sky over a very short distance. However, it’s extremely doubtful that any noticeable effect could actually be produced on the shadow, and it's hard to understand why the eclipse itself wasn’t indicated as the sign, nor why neither the king nor the people seemed to notice it was happening. Nevertheless, it’s sufficient to note that modern chronology indicates that Hezekiah died ten years before the eclipse in question, making it a quarter of a century too late for the intended purpose, and there is no other eclipse that could fit during Hezekiah's lifetime.

But there is no reason to think that the word rendered in our Authorized Version as "dial" was a sundial at all. [389]The word translated "dial" is the same which is also rendered "degrees" in the A.V. and "steps" in the R.V., as is shown in the margin of the latter. It occurs in the prophecy of Amos, where it is rendered "stories" or "ascensions." It means an "ascent," a "going up," a "step." Thus king Solomon's throne had six steps, and there are fifteen Psalms (cxx.-cxxxiv.)—that are called "songs of degrees," that is "songs of steps."

But there’s no reason to believe that the word translated as "dial" in our Authorized Version actually referred to a sundial. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]The term translated as "dial" is the same one that is translated as "degrees" in the A.V. and "steps" in the R.V., as noted in the margin of the latter. It appears in the prophecy of Amos, where it is translated as "stories" or "ascensions." It signifies an "ascent," a "going up," or a "step." Thus, King Solomon's throne had six steps, and there are fifteen Psalms (cxx.-cxxxiv.) that are referred to as "songs of degrees," meaning "songs of steps."

We do not know how the staircase of Ahaz faced, but we can form some rough idea from the known positions of the Temple and of the city of David, and one or two little hints given us in the narrative itself. It will be noted that Hezekiah uses the movement of the shadow downward, as equivalent to its going forward. The going forward of course meant its ordinary direction of motion at that time of day; so the return of the shadow backward meant that the shadow went up ten steps, for in the Book of Isaiah it speaks of the sun returning "ten degrees by which degrees it was gone down." It was therefore in the afternoon, and the sun was declining, when the sign took place. It is clear, therefore, that the staircase was so placed that the shadow went down the stairs as the sun declined in the sky. The staircase, therefore, probably faced east or north-east, as it would naturally do if it led from the palace towards the Temple. No doubt there was a causeway at the foot of this staircase, and a corresponding ascent up the Temple hill on the opposite side of the valley.

We’re not sure how the staircase of Ahaz was positioned, but we can get a rough idea from the locations of the Temple and the city of David, along with a couple of hints in the story itself. Notably, Hezekiah refers to the shadow moving downward as being the same as moving forward. When he says “going forward,” it refers to the usual movement of the shadow at that time of day; so when the shadow moves back, it means the shadow moved up ten steps, since the Book of Isaiah mentions the sun going back “ten degrees by which degrees it was gone down.” This indicates it was afternoon and the sun was lowering when the sign occurred. Clearly, the staircase was positioned so that the shadow moved down the stairs as the sun sank in the sky. Therefore, the staircase likely faced east or northeast, which would make sense if it led from the palace toward the Temple. There was probably a pathway at the bottom of the staircase, and a corresponding climb up the Temple hill on the opposite side of the valley.

We can now conjecturally reproduce the circumstances. [390]It was afternoon, and the palace had already cast the upper steps of the staircase into shadow. The sick king, looking longingly towards the Temple, could see the lower steps still gleaming in the bright Judean sunshine. It was natural therefore for him to say, when the prophet Isaiah offered him his choice of a sign, "Shall the shadow go forward ten steps, or back ten steps?" that it was "a light thing for the shadow to go down ten steps: nay, but let the shadow return backward ten steps." It would be quite obvious to him that a small cloud, suitably placed, might throw ten additional steps into shadow.

We can now imagine the situation. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]It was afternoon, and the palace had already created a shadow over the upper steps of the staircase. The ailing king, gazing longingly toward the Temple, could see the lower steps still shining in the bright Judean sun. So, it was natural for him to respond when the prophet Isaiah offered him a choice of sign, "Should the shadow move forward ten steps or back ten steps?" that it was "easy for the shadow to go down ten steps: no, let the shadow go back ten steps." It was clear to him that a small cloud, positioned just right, could cast ten more steps into shadow.

It will be seen that we are left with several details undetermined. For the staircase, wherever constructed, was probably not meant to act as a sundial, and was only so used because it chanced to have some rough suitability for the purpose. In this case the shadow will probably have been thrown, not by a properly constructed gnomon, but by some building in the neighbourhood. And as we have no record of the direction of the staircase, its angle of inclination, its height, and the position of the buildings which might have cast a shadow upon it, we are without any indication to guide us.

It appears that there are still several details that remain unclear. The staircase, no matter where it was built, likely wasn’t intended to function as a sundial; it just happened to be somewhat suitable for that purpose. In this scenario, the shadow was probably cast not by a well-designed gnomon but by a nearby building. Since we don’t have any information about the direction of the staircase, its angle, its height, or the locations of the buildings that could have cast a shadow on it, we lack any guidance to help us.

When the queen of Sheba came to visit king Solomon, and saw all his magnificence, one of the things which specially impressed her was "his ascent by which he went up unto the house of the Lord." This was "the causeway of the going up," as it is called in the First Book of Chronicles. We are told of a number of alterations, made in the Temple furniture and buildings by king Ahaz, and it is said that "the covered way for the [391]sabbath that they had built in the house, and the king's entry without, turned he unto (margin, round) the house of the Lord, because of the king of Assyria." That is to say, Ahaz considered that Solomon's staircase was too much exposed in the case of a siege, being without the Temple enclosure. This probably necessitated the construction of a new staircase, which would naturally be called the staircase of Ahaz. That there was, in later times, such a staircase at about this place we know from the route taken by the triumphal procession at the time of the dedication of the wall of Jerusalem under Nehemiah:—

When the Queen of Sheba visited King Solomon and saw all his grandeur, one of the things that especially impressed her was "his ascent by which he went up to the house of the Lord." This was "the causeway of the going up," as mentioned in the First Book of Chronicles. We read about several changes made to the Temple's furnishings and buildings by King Ahaz, and it states that "the covered way for the [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]sabbath that they had built in the house, and the king's entry outside, turned he unto (margin, around) the house of the Lord, because of the king of Assyria." This means that Ahaz thought Solomon's staircase was too vulnerable during a siege, since it was outside the Temple enclosure. This likely led to the construction of a new staircase, which would naturally be called the staircase of Ahaz. We know that there was, in later times, such a staircase at about this location from the route taken by the triumphal procession during the dedication of the wall of Jerusalem under Nehemiah:—

"At the fountain gate, which was over against them, they went up by the stairs of the City of David, at the going up of the wall, above the house of David, even unto the water gate eastward."

"At the fountain gate, which was in front of them, they ascended the stairs of the City of David, at the rise of the wall, above the house of David, all the way to the water gate to the east."

In this case there would be a special appropriateness in the sign that was offered to Hezekiah. The sign that he would be so restored, as once again to go up to the house of the Lord, was to be given him on the very staircase by which he would go. He was now thirty-eight years old, and had doubtless watched the shadow of the palace descend the staircase in the afternoon, hundreds of times; quite possibly he had actually seen a cloud make the shadow race forward. But the reverse he had never seen. Once a step had passed into the shadow of the palace, it did not again emerge until the next morning dawned.

In this situation, the sign given to Hezekiah was particularly fitting. The sign that he would be healed enough to go back up to the house of the Lord was to be shown to him right on the staircase he would use. He was now thirty-eight years old and had surely watched the shadow of the palace move down the stairs countless times in the afternoon; he may have even seen a cloud cause the shadow to suddenly shift forward. But he had never witnessed the opposite. Once a step entered the shadow of the palace, it wouldn’t come back out until the next morning.

The sign then was this: It was afternoon, probably approaching the time of the evening prayer, and the court officials and palace attendants were moving down [392]the staircase in the shadow, when, as the sick king watched them from above, the shadow of the palace was rolled back up the staircase, and a flood of light poured down on ten of the broad steps upon which the sun had already set. How this lighting of the ten steps was brought about we are not told, nor is any clue given us on which we can base a conjecture. But this return of light was a figure of what was actually happening in the life of the king himself. He had already, as it were, passed into the shadow that only deepens into night. As he sang himself after his recovery—

The sign was this: It was afternoon, probably getting close to the evening prayer time, and the court officials and palace staff were coming down the staircase in the shadows. As the sick king watched them from above, the shadow of the palace rolled back up the staircase, and a flood of light poured down onto ten of the wide steps where the sun had already set. We aren’t told how this lighting of the ten steps happened, nor are we given any clues to make a guess. But this return of light represented what was actually taking place in the king's life. He had already, in a sense, moved into the shadows that only deepen into night. As he sang to himself after his recovery—

"I said, In the middle of my life I will enter the gates of the grave:
I feel like I’m missing out on the remaining years of my life.
I said, I will not see the Lord, even the Lord in the land of the living:
"I will no longer see man among the people of the world."

But now the light had been brought back to him, and he could say—

But now the light had returned to him, and he could say—

"The living, the living, will praise You, just like I do today:
The father of the children shall reveal your truth.
The Lord is ready to save me:
So, we will sing my songs to the string instruments.
"All the days of our lives in the house of the Lord."

[393]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

CHAPTER III

THE STAR OF BETHLEHEM

No narrative of Holy Scripture is more familiar to us than that of the visit of the wise men from the East to see Him that was born King of the Jews. It was towards the end of the reign of Herod the Great that they arrived at Jerusalem, and threw Herod the king and all the city into great excitement by their question—

No story in the Bible is more familiar to us than that of the wise men from the East who came to see the one born King of the Jews. It was toward the end of Herod the Great’s reign when they reached Jerusalem, throwing Herod and the entire city into a frenzy with their question—

"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."

"Where is the one who has been born King of the Jews? We saw His star in the east and have come to worship Him."

Herod at once gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, and demanded of them where the Messiah should be born. Their reply was distinct and unhesitating—

Herod immediately brought together all the high priests and scribes of the people and asked them where the Messiah would be born. Their answer was clear and confident—

"In Bethlehem of Judæa: for thus it is written by the Prophet, And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule My people Israel. Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, inquired of them diligently what time the star appeared. And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young Child; and when ye have found Him, bring me word again, [394]that I may come and worship Him also. When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young Child was. When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy."

"In Bethlehem of Judea: for it is written by the Prophet, 'And you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are not the least among the leaders of Judah; for out of you will come a Governor who will rule My people Israel.' Then Herod, after secretly calling the wise men, asked them carefully when the star had appeared. He sent them to Bethlehem and said, 'Go and search carefully for the young Child; and when you find Him, let me know, [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]so that I may come and worship Him too.' After hearing the king, they went on their way; and the star they had seen in the east went ahead of them until it stood over the place where the young Child was. When they saw the star, they were filled with great joy."

So much, and no more are we told of the star of Bethlehem, and the story is as significant in its omissions as in that which it tells us.

So much, and nothing more, is said about the star of Bethlehem, and the story is just as meaningful in what it leaves out as it is in what it reveals.

What sort of a star it was that led the wise men; how they learnt from it that the King of the Jews was born; how it went before them; how it stood over where the young Child was, we do not know. Nor is it of the least importance that we should know. One verse more, and that a short one, would have answered these inquiries; it would have told us whether it was some conjunction of the planets; whether perchance it was a comet, or a "new" or "temporary" star; or whether it was a supernatural light, like the pillar of fire that guided the children of Israel in the wilderness. But that verse has not been given. The twelve or twenty additional words, which could have cleared up the matter, have been withheld, and there can be no doubt as to the reason. The "star," whatever its physical nature, was of no importance, except as a guide to the birthplace of the infant Jesus. Information about it would have drawn attention from the object of the narrative; it would have given to a mere sign-post the importance which belonged only to "the Word made flesh."

What kind of star guided the wise men; how they figured out from it that the King of the Jews was born; how it moved in front of them; how it stopped over where the young Child was, we don't know. And it's really not that important for us to know. One more verse, and a short one at that, could have answered these questions; it could have told us if it was some planetary alignment; if perhaps it was a comet, or a "new" or "temporary" star; or if it was a supernatural light, like the pillar of fire that led the children of Israel in the wilderness. But that verse hasn't been provided. The twelve or twenty extra words that could have clarified the issue have been kept back, and there's no doubt about the reason. The "star," whatever its physical nature, was unimportant except as a guide to the birthplace of the infant Jesus. Details about it would have distracted from the focus of the story; it would have given a mere signpost the significance that belonged only to "the Word made flesh."

We are often told that the Bible should be studied precisely as any other book is studied. Yet before we [395]can criticize any book, we must first ascertain what was the purpose that the author had in writing it. The history of England, for instance, has been written by many persons and from many points of view. One man has traced the succession of the dynasties, the relationships of the successive royal families, and the effect of the administrations of the various kings. Another has chiefly considered the development of representative government and of parliamentary institutions. A third has concerned himself more with the different races that, by their fusion, have formed the nation as it is to-day. A fourth has dealt with the social condition of the people, the increase of comfort and luxury. To a fifth the true history of England is the story of its expansion, the foundation and growth of its colonial empire. While to a sixth, its religious history is the one that claims most attention, and the struggles with Rome, the rise and decay of Puritanism, and the development of modern thought will fill his pages. Each of these six will select just those facts, and those facts only, that are relevant to his subject. The introduction of irrelevant facts would be felt to mark the ignorant or unskilful workman. The master of his craft will keep in the background the details that have no bearing on his main purpose, and to those which have but a slight bearing he will give only such notice as their importance in this connection warrants.

We often hear that the Bible should be studied the same way we study any other book. However, before we [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]criticize any book, we need to understand the purpose the author had in writing it. The history of England, for example, has been written by many different people, each from their own perspective. One writer focuses on the lineage of the dynasties, the relationships of various royal families, and how the administrations of different kings impacted history. Another looks primarily at the development of representative government and parliamentary systems. A third author concentrates on the diverse races that have blended together to form the nation as we know it today. A fourth examines the social conditions of the people and the rise in comfort and luxury. For a fifth, the true history of England is about its expansion and the establishment and growth of its colonial empire. Meanwhile, a sixth author prioritizes its religious history, detailing the struggles with Rome, the rise and fall of Puritanism, and the evolution of modern thought. Each of these six will select only the facts that are relevant to their focus. Including irrelevant facts would show a lack of knowledge or skill. A master of their craft will downplay details that don’t relate to their main goal and will only acknowledge those that are somewhat relevant as their significance warrants.

The purpose of the Bible is to reveal God to us, and to teach us of our relationship to Him. It was not intended to gratify that natural and laudable curiosity [396]which has been the foundation of the physical sciences. Our own efforts, our own intelligence can help us here, and the Scriptures have not been given us in order to save us the trouble of exerting them.

The purpose of the Bible is to show us who God is and to teach us about our relationship with Him. It wasn’t meant to satisfy that natural and admirable curiosity [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] that has been the basis for the physical sciences. Our own efforts and intelligence can assist us in this area, and the Scriptures were not given to us to spare us the effort of using them.

There is no reason for surprise, then, that the information given us concerning the star is, astronomically, so imperfect. We are, indeed, told but two facts concerning it. First that its appearance, in some way or other, informed the wise men, not of the birth of a king of the Jews, but of the King of the Jews, for Whose coming not Israel only, but more or less consciously the whole civilized world, was waiting. Next, having come to Judæa in consequence of this information, the "star" pointed out to them the actual spot where the new-born King was to be found. "It went before them till it came and stood over where the young Child was." It may also be inferred from Matt. ii. 10 that in some way or other the wise men had for a time lost sight of the star, so that the two facts mentioned of it relate to two separate appearances. The first appearance induced them to leave the East, and set out for Judæa; the second pointed out to them the place at Bethlehem where the object of their search was to be found. Nothing is told us respecting the star except its work as a guide.

There’s no reason to be surprised that the information we have about the star is so incomplete from an astronomical perspective. Essentially, we’re told just two facts about it. First, its appearance signaled to the wise men not just the birth of a king of the Jews, but the King of the Jews, for whose arrival not only Israel but, more or less knowingly, the entire civilized world was waiting. Then, after coming to Judea based on this information, the "star" indicated the exact location where the newborn King could be found. "It went before them until it came and stood over where the young Child was." We can also gather from Matt. ii. 10 that at some point, the wise men lost sight of the star, meaning the two facts mentioned relate to separate appearances. The first appearance prompted them to leave the East and head to Judea; the second showed them the spot in Bethlehem where their search's object could be found. We aren't told anything about the star other than its role as a guide.

Some three centuries ago the ingenious and devout Kepler supposed that he could identify the Star with a conjunction of the planets Jupiter and Saturn, in the constellation Pisces. This conjunction took place in the month of May, b.c. 7, not very long before the birth of our Lord is supposed to have taken place.

About three hundred years ago, the clever and devoted Kepler thought he could identify the Star with a conjunction of the planets Jupiter and Saturn in the constellation Pisces. This conjunction happened in May, B.C. 7, not long before the birth of our Lord is believed to have occurred.

[397]But the late Prof. C. Pritchard has shown, first, that a similar and closer conjunction occurred 59 years earlier, and should therefore have brought a Magian deputation to Judæa then. Next, that the two planets never approached each other nearer than twice the apparent diameter of the moon, so that they would have appeared, not as one star, but as two. And thirdly, if the planets had seemed to stand over Bethlehem as the wise men left Jerusalem, they most assuredly would not have appeared to do so when they arrived at the little city. Ingenious as the suggestion was, it may be dismissed as unworthy of serious consideration.

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]But the late Prof. C. Pritchard pointed out that a similar and closer alignment happened 59 years earlier, which should have led to a Magian delegation visiting Judea at that time. Additionally, the two planets never came closer to each other than twice the apparent size of the moon, so they would have looked like two separate stars, not one. Lastly, if the planets had seemed to be positioned over Bethlehem as the wise men were leaving Jerusalem, they definitely wouldn’t have appeared that way when they reached the small town. As clever as the idea was, it can be dismissed as not deserving of serious consideration.

Another suggestion shows upon what slight foundations a well-rounded legend may be built. In the year 1572 a wonderful "new star" appeared in the constellation Cassiopeia. At its brightest it outshone Venus, and, though it gradually declined in splendour, it remained visible for some sixteen months. There have been other instances of outbursts of bright short-lived stars; and brief notices, in the annals of the years 1265 and 952 may have referred to such objects, but more probably these were comets. The guess was hazarded that these objects might be one and the same; that the star in Cassiopeia might be a "variable" star, bursting into brilliancy about every 315 or 316 years; that it was the star that announced the birth of our Lord, and that it would reappear towards the end of the nineteenth century to announce His second coming.

Another suggestion reveals how easily a solid legend can be created. In 1572, a remarkable "new star" appeared in the constellation Cassiopeia. At its brightest, it outshone Venus, and although it gradually faded, it remained visible for about sixteen months. There have been other cases of bright, short-lived stars, and brief mentions in records from the years 1265 and 952 might have referred to similar objects, but it's more likely those were comets. It was speculated that these objects might be related; that the star in Cassiopeia could be a "variable" star, flaring up in brightness every 315 or 316 years; that it was the star that heralded the birth of our Lord, and that it would reappear towards the end of the nineteenth century to signal His second coming.

One thing more was lacking to make the legend complete, and this was supplied by the planet Venus, which [398]shines with extraordinary brilliance when in particular parts of her orbit. On one of these occasions, when she was seen as a morning star in the east, some hazy recollection of the legend just noticed caused a number of people to hail her as none other than the star of Bethlehem at its predicted return.

One more thing was needed to complete the legend, and that was filled by the planet Venus, which [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]shines exceptionally bright at certain points in its orbit. On one of these occasions, when she appeared as a morning star in the east, some vague memory of the previously mentioned legend led several people to recognize her as the star of Bethlehem at its expected return.

There is no reason to suppose that the star of 1572 had ever appeared before that date, or will ever appear again. But in any case we are perfectly sure that it could not have been the star of Bethlehem. For Cassiopeia is a northern constellation, and the wise men, when they set out from Jerusalem to Bethlehem must have had Cassiopeia and all her stars behind them.

There’s no reason to think that the star of 1572 had ever shown up before that time, or will show up again. But in any case, we’re absolutely certain it couldn’t have been the star of Bethlehem. Cassiopeia is a northern constellation, and the wise men, when they left Jerusalem for Bethlehem, must have had Cassiopeia and all her stars behind them.

The fact that the "star" went before them and stood over where the young Child lay, gives the impression that it was some light, like the Shekinah glory resting on the Ark in the tabernacle, or the pillar of fire which led the children of Israel through the wilderness. But this view raises the questions as to the form in which it first appeared to the wise men when they were still in the East, and how they came to call it a star, when they must have recognized how very unstarlike it was. Whilst, if what they saw when in the East was really a star, it seems most difficult to understand how it can have appeared to go before them and to stand over the place where the young Child lay.

The fact that the "star" went ahead of them and stopped where the young Child was lying gives the impression that it was some kind of light, like the Shekinah glory resting on the Ark in the tabernacle, or the pillar of fire that guided the children of Israel through the wilderness. But this perspective raises questions about how it first appeared to the wise men while they were still in the East, and why they referred to it as a star, when they must have realized how un-starlike it was. If what they saw in the East was actually a star, it's hard to understand how it could have appeared to lead them and stop over the place where the young Child was.

I have somewhere come across a legend which may possibly afford the clue, but I have not been able to find that the legend rests upon any authority. It is that the star had been lost in the daylight by the time that the [399]wise men reached Jerusalem. It was therefore an evening star during their journey thither. But it is said that when they reached Bethlehem, apparently nearly at midday, one of them went to the well of the inn, in order to draw water. Looking down into the well, he saw the star, reflected from the surface of the water. This would of course be an intimation to them that the star was directly overhead, and its re-observation, under such unusual circumstances, would be a sufficient assurance that they had reached the right spot. Inquiry in the inn would lead to a knowledge of the visit of the shepherds, and of the angelic message which had told them where to find the Babe born in the city of David, "a Saviour, Which is Christ the Lord."

I came across a legend that might provide a clue, but I haven’t found any reliable source to back it up. It says that the star was lost in the daylight by the time the [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]wise men arrived in Jerusalem. So, it was an evening star during their journey there. When they got to Bethlehem, apparently around midday, one of them went to the well of the inn to draw water. Looking into the well, he saw the star reflected on the water's surface. This would indicate to them that the star was directly overhead, and the unusual circumstances of seeing it again would confirm they were in the right place. Asking around at the inn would lead them to learn about the shepherds' visit and the angelic message that told them where to find the Babe born in the city of David, "a Savior, which is Christ the Lord."

If this story be true, the "Star of Bethlehem" was probably a "new star," like that of 1572. Its first appearance would then have caused the Magi to set out on their journey, though it does not appear how they knew what it signified, unless we suppose that they were informed of it in a dream, just as they were afterwards warned of God not to return to Herod. Whilst they were travelling the course of the year would bring the star, which shone straight before them in the west after sunset every evening, nearer and nearer to the sun. We may suppose that, like other new stars, it gradually faded, so that by the time the wise men had reached Jerusalem they had lost sight of it altogether. Having thus lost it, they would probably not think of looking for it by daylight, for it is no easy thing to detect by daylight even Venus at her greatest brilliancy, unless one knows exactly where to look. [400]The difficulty does not lie in any want of brightness, but in picking up and holding steadily so minute a point of light in the broad expanse of the gleaming sky. This difficulty would be overcome for them, according to this story, by the well, which acted like a tube to direct them exactly to the star, and like a telescope, to lessen the sky glare. It would be also necessary to suppose that the star was flashing out again with renewed brilliancy. Such a brief recovery of light has not been unknown in the case of some of our "new" or "temporary" stars.

If this story is true, the "Star of Bethlehem" was probably a "new star," similar to the one in 1572. Its initial sighting would have prompted the Magi to begin their journey, although it's unclear how they understood its significance, unless we assume they were told about it in a dream, just like they were later warned by God not to go back to Herod. During their travels, the course of the year would have brought the star, which appeared clearly ahead in the west every evening after sunset, closer to the sun. We can assume it, like other new stars, gradually faded, so that by the time the wise men arrived in Jerusalem, they had completely lost sight of it. After losing track of it, they probably wouldn’t think to search for it during the day, since even finding Venus at its brightest can be tricky in daylight without knowing exactly where to look. The challenge isn’t due to a lack of brightness but in identifying and focusing on such a tiny point of light in the vastness of the bright sky. According to this story, they would overcome this challenge with the well, which acted like a tube directing them straight to the star, and like a telescope, reducing the sky's glare. It would also be necessary to assume that the star shone again with renewed brightness. Such brief recoveries of light have been observed in some of our "new" or "temporary" stars.

I give the above story for what it is worth, but I attach no importance to it myself. Some, however, may feel that it removes what they had felt as a difficulty in the narrative,—namely, to understand how the star could "stand over where the young Child lay." It would also explain, what seems to be implied in the narrative, how it happened that the Magi alone, and not the Jews in general, perceived the star at its second appearance.

I share the story above for what it's worth, but I don't think it’s important. Some people might feel that it clears up a confusion in the narrative—specifically, how the star could "stand over where the young Child lay." It would also clarify what seems to be implied in the narrative: why only the Magi, and not the Jews in general, saw the star when it appeared a second time.

For myself, the narrative appears to me astronomically too incomplete for any astronomical conclusions to be drawn from it. The reticence of the narrative on all points, except those directly relating to our Lord Himself, is an illustration of the truth that the Scriptures were not written to instruct us in astronomy, or in any of the physical sciences, but that we might have eternal life.

For me, the story seems way too incomplete to draw any big conclusions from it. The lack of detail in the narrative, except for what directly concerns our Lord Himself, shows that the Scriptures weren't written to teach us about astronomy or any physical sciences, but so that we could have eternal life.

"And this is life eternal, that they might know Thee the Only true God, and Jesus Christ, Whom Thou hast sent."

And this is eternal life: to know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent.

[401]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

A TABLE OF SCRIPTURAL REFERENCES
Page.	Book.	Chap. and Verse.
9	I. Kings	v. 29-34
10	Wisdom	vii. 17-22 (R.V.)
11	Psalm	viii. 3, 4
15	Eccl.	i. 9
17	Gen.	i. 1
"	I. Chron.	xvi. 26
"	Deut.	vi. 4
"	Mark	xii. 29
"	Neh.	ix. 6
19	Heb.	xi. 23
20	II. Pet.	iii. 8
22	Psalm	cxi. 2-4 (R.V.)
"	Gen.	ii. 3
23	Exod.	xx. 10, 11
"	Exod.	xxxi. 16, 17
"	Gen.	i. 14
25	Gen.	i. 1
32	Exod.	xv. 4, 5
35	Gen.	i. 6-8
"	Gen.	i. 14
36	Gen.	i. 20
"	Job	xxxvii. 18 (R.V.)
"	Num.	xvii. 39
"	Isaiah	xl. 19
37	Jer.	x. 9
"	Psalm	cxxxvi. 6
38	Heb.	i. 3
39	II. Sam.	xxii. 8
"	Job	xxvi. 11
"	Job	xxvi. 7
"	I. Sam.	ii. 8
40	Psalm	lxxv. 3
"	Psalm	civ. 2
"	Isaiah	xl. 22
"	Amos	ix. 6
"	Num.	xxxiv. 4
"	II. Sam.	xv. 30
41	Psalm	cxlviii. 4
"	Song of Three Children	38
"	Amos	v. 8
"	Amos	ix. 6
"	Eccl.	i. 7
"	Isaiah	lv. 10 (R.V.)
42	Isaiah	lv. 11
"	Job	xxxvi. 26-28 (R.V.)
"	Judges	v. 4
"	Psalm	lxxvii. 17
"	Psalm	cxlvii. 8
"	Prov.	xvi. 15
"	Eccl.	xii. 2
"	Isaiah	v. 6
"	Jude	12
"	Nahum	i. 3
"	Isaiah	xviii. 4
43	Eccl.	xi. 3
"	Job	xxvi. 8
"	Job	xxxviii. 34-37
44	Job	xxxviii. 19-29 (R.V.)
"	Psalm	xviii. 6-17 (R.V.)
45	Jer.	x. 13 (R.V.)
"	Psalm	cxxxv. 7
46	Job	xxxvii. 16
49	Job	xxxvi. 29
"	Gen.	vii. 11
50	II. Kings	vii. 1, 2
"	Mal.	iii. 10
"	Hos.	vi. 4
"	Dan.	viii. 8
"	Ezek.	xxxvii. 9
51	Jer.	xlix. 36
"	Eccl.	i. 6
"	Isaiah	xi. 12
"	Isaiah	xl. 22
"	Prov.	viii. 27
52	Job	xxii. 14 (R.V. margin)
"	Job	xxvi. 10 (R.V.)
"	Gen.	i. 9
"	Psalm	xxiv. 2
"	Psalm	cxxxvi. 6
53	Ezek.	xxxi. 4
"	Gen.	vii. 11
"	Gen.	viii. 2
"	Job	xxxviii. 16
"	Prov.	iii. 20
"	Jer.	v. 22
54	Job	xxxviii. 8
"	Prov.	viii. 27, 29
55	Josh.	x. 13
"	Psalm	xix. 1-6 (R.V.)
56	I. Kings	xxii. 19
57	Jer.	xxxiii. 22
"	Deut.	iv. 15, 19
58	Job	xxxviii. 7
"	Judges	v. 20
"	II. Kings	vi. 14-17
60	Job	xxxviii. 52 (R.V.)
"	Psalm	cxi. 2
"	Rev.	ii. 26, 28
61	Isaiah	xiv. 12-14
"	Rev.	xxii. 16
62	Jer.	xxxi. 36
"	Isaiah	xl. 26-31 (R.V.)
63	Gen.	i. 14-19
64	Deut.	xxxiii. 14 (R.V.)
"	I. John	i. 5
"	Psalm	xxvii. 1
"	Isaiah	lx. 19
"	John	i. 9
"	Psalm	lxxxiv. 11
"	Mal.	iv. 2
65	James	i. 17
"	Psalm	cxxxix. 12
"	Deut.	iv. 19
"	Deut.	xvii. 2, 3
66	II. Kings	xxiii. 11
"	Ezek.	viii. 11
"	Ezek.	viii. 16
"	Job	xxxi. 26
"	Cant.	vi. 10
67	Judges	viii. 13
[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]"	Judges	xiv. 18
"	Jer.	xliii. 13
68	Isaiah	xix. 18
"	Cant.	vi. 10
69	Psalm	lxxii. 5
"	Psalm	lxxii. 17
70	Psalm	lxxxix. 36
"	Psalm	l. 1
"	Psalm	cxiii. 3
"	Psalm	xix. 6
"	Eccl.	i. 3
71	Job	xxxviii. 12-14
"	Job	xxxviii. 14 (R.V.)
"	Eccl.	i. 5
72	Job	xxvi. 7
"	Psalm	xix. 6
"	II. Kings	iv. 19
"	Psalm	cxxi. 6
"	Isaiah	xlix. 10
"	Rev.	vii. 16
"	Deut.	xxxiii. 14
73	James	i. 17
"	Job	xxxviii. 33
"	Wisdom	vii. 18
78	Rom.	i. 20-23
79	John	ix. 4
80	Psalm	lxxxi. 3
"	Prov.	vii. 20
82	Isaiah	lx. 20
83	Num.	x. 10
"	Psalm	lxxxi. 3
"	Isaiah	iii. 18
84	Gen.	xxxvii. 9
"	Jer.	viii. 2
"	Psalm	civ. 19
"	Psalm	lxxxix. 36, 37
"	Psalm	cxxxvi. 9
"	Jer.	xxxi. 35
"	Eccl.	xii. 2
"	Isaiah	xiii. 10
"	Ezek.	xxxii. 7
"	Joel	ii. 10, 31
"	Joel	iii. 15
"	Hab.	iii. 11
"	Exod.	ii. 2
85	Deut.	xxxiii. 13, 14
"	II. Kings	xv. 13
"	Dan.	iv. 29
"	Ezra	vi. 15
"	Neh.	i. 1
"	I. Kings	vi. 1, 37, 38
"	I. Kings	viii. 2
"	Cant.	vi. 10
"	Isaiah	lxxiv. 23
86	Isaiah	xxx. 26
"	Rev.	xix. 6-8
"	Gen.	xxxvii. 9
87	Gen.	xxxvii. 10
"	Job	xxxi. 26-28 (R.V.)
88	Deut.	iv. 12, 15, 16, 19
"	Judges	viii. 21
"	Isaiah	iii. 18
"	II. Kings	xxiii. 13
89	Gen.	xiv. 5
"	I. Sam.	xxxi. 10
"	II. Kings	xxiii. 13
"	Jer.	vii. 18
90	Jer.	xliv. 17, 18
91	Isaiah	xxx. 26
"	Isaiah	lx. 20
92	Psalm	cxxi. 6
"	Psalm	civ. 19-24 (R.V.)
96	Gen.	xv. 5
97	Psalm	cxlvii. 4
"	Isaiah	xl. 22
98	I. Cor.	xv. 41
99	Prov.	xxv. 3
"	Job	xi. 7, 8
"	Job	xxii. 12
"	Jer.	xxxi. 37
100	Psalm	ciii. 11, 12
107	Joel	ii. 30
"	Gen.	iii. 24
"	Heb.	i. 7
"	I. Chron.	xxi. 16
108	Jude	13
113	Acts	xix. 35 (R.V.)
116	Rev.	vi. 13
"	Isaiah	xxxiv. 4
"	Rev.	viii. 10
"	Jude	13
117	Job	iii. 9 (margin)
"	Job	xli. 18
"	Job	xxxvii. 22 (R.V.)
119	Jer.	x. 2
122	Wisdom	vii. 18
123	Amos	i. 1
"	Zech.	xiv. 5
"	Gen.	i. 14
124	Joel	ii. 10
"	Joel	ii. 30, 31
"	Acts	ii. 19, 20
"	Rev.	vi. 12
"	Amos	viii. 9
125	Micah	iii. 6
"	Isaiah	xiii. 10
"	Jer.	xv. 9
"	Ezek.	xxxii. 7, 8
129	Mal.	iv. 2
"	James	i. 17 (R.V.)
131	Gen.	xiv. 5
"	Isaiah	xlvi. 1
132	Isaiah	xiv. 12
"	II. Peter	i. 19
"	Isaiah	lxv. 11
"	Dan.	v. 26 (R.V.)
133	Amos	v. 25, 26
"	Acts	vii. 43
143	Isaiah	viii. 19
144	Ezek.	xxi. 21 (R.V.)
"	Isaiah	xlvii. 12, 13
"	Jer.	x. 2
150	Acts	xvii. 24-28
163	Gen.	ix. 13
164	Gen.	iii. 15
166	Gen.	iii. 24
"	Ezek.	i. 5
"	Rev.	iv. 7 (R.V.)
"	Ezek.	x. 20
"	I. Kings	vi. 29, 32
167	Gen.	x. 9
169	Psalm	lxxx. 1
[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]173	Gen.	vi. 19
"	Gen.	vii. 2
184	Psalm	l. 5
186	Gen.	xxxvii. 9
189	Gen.	xlix. 9
"	Rev.	v. 5
190	Deut.	xxxiii. 17 (R.V.)
"	Gen.	xlix. 6 (R.V.)
"	Gen.	xlix. 4, 17
191	Num.	xxiii. 7, 24 (R.V.)
"	Num.	xxiv. 9 (R.V.)
"	Num.	xxiv. 8 (R.V.)
"	Num.	xxiv. 7 (R.V.)
193	Exod.	xxxii. 1
"	Acts	vii. 41, 42
"	Exod.	xx. 3
"	Exod.	xx. 4, 5
194	Deut.	iv. 15
"	Psalm	cvi. 20
"	Acts	vii. 42
"	I. Kings	xii. 28
195	Rev.	v. 5
203	Job	iii. 8, 9 (R.V.)
"	Job	xli.
"	Psalm	civ. 25
"	Isaiah	xxvii. 1
204	Job	xxvi. 12, 13
205	Isaiah	xxx. 7 (R.V.)
"	Isaiah	li. 9, 10 (R.V.)
"	Psalm	lxxxix. 9, 10
206	Ezek.	xxxii. 2 (R.V.)
"	Rev.	xx. 2
"	Ezek.	xxxii. 4 (R.V.)
"	Ezek.	xxix. 3, 5
207	Rev.	xii. 6 (R.V.)
208	Rev.	xii. 15, 16 (R.V.)
209	Job	iii. 9 (R.V.)
"	Job	xli. 18 (R.V.)
210	Psalm	xix. 5
211	I. Kings	xviii. 27
"	Isaiah	xxx. 31
212	Psalm	lxxiv. 12-17
215	Job	ix. 9
"	Job	xxxviii. 31
"	Amos	v. 8
217	Isaiah	lxv. 11
218	II. Kings	xvii. 30
"	Gen.	xlix. 22
220	Rev.	i. 12, 13, 15
"	Rev.	i. 20
223	I. Peter	iii. 20
"	Amos	v. 8
"	Job	xxxviii. 31
224	Cant.	ii. 11-13 (R.V.)
225	Job	xxxviii. 4
"	Job	xxxviii. 31 (R.V.)
231	Job	ix. 9
"	Job	xxxviii. 31
"	Amos	v. 8
"	Isaiah	xiii. 10
"	Prov.	i. 22
234	Gen.	x. 8
235	Gen.	x. 10
238	Isaiah	xiv. 13, 14
239	Isaiah	xiii. 9-11
"	Amos	v. 8
241	Job	xxxviii. 36
242	Job	xxvi. 13
"	Isaiah	xlv. 7
243	Job	xxxviii. 32
251	Job	xxxviii. 32
"	II. Kings	xxiii. 5
"	Deut.	iv. 19
"	Job	ix. 9
"	Job	xxxviii. 31, 32
"	Job	xxxvii. 9
252	Exod.	xxxii.
"	I. Kings	xii.
253	II. Kings	xxiii. 5
"	Job	ix., xxxviii.
257	Job	xxxviii. 33
"	Luke	xi. 2
258	Job	ix. 9
"	Job	xxxviii. 31-33
259	Job	xxxvii. 9
260	Isaiah	l. 9
262	Job	xxxvii. 9
271	Gen.	i. 14
"	Deut.	iv. 19
273	Exod.	xii. 18, 19
"	Lev.	xxiii. 32
275	Psalm	lv. 17
"	Job	iii. 9 (margin)
"	Cant.	ii. 17
"	Gen.	xxxii. 24, 26
"	Josh.	vi. 15
"	Judges	xix. 25
"	II. Sam.	ii. 32
276	Gen.	xxxii. 31
"	Exod.	xvi. 21
"	I. Sam.	xi. 9
"	II. Sam.	iv. 5
"	I. Kings	xviii. 26
"	Judges	xix. 8, 9
"	Job	vii. 2
"	Jer.	vi. 4
"	Prov.	vii. 9
277	Exod.	xii. 6
"	Exod.	xvi. 12
"	Exod.	xxx. 8
"	Levit.	xxiii. 5
"	Num.	ix. 3
"	Num.	xxviii. 4
278	Deut.	xvi. 6
279	Exod.	xxx. 8
280	I. Cor.	xv. 52
"	Psalm	lxiii. 6
"	Psalm	cxix. 148
"	Lam.	ii. 19
281	Judges	vii. 19
"	Exod.	xiv. 24
"	I. Sam.	xi. 11
"	Matt.	xiv. 25
"	Mark	vi. 48
"	Dan.	iii. 6, 15
"	Dan.	iv. 19, 33
"	Dan.	v. 5
"	Job	xxxviii. 12
282	Acts	i. 12
"	Matt.	xx.
[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]"	John	xi. 9, 10
291	Exod.	xx. 11
"	Psalm	cxviii. 24
293	II. Kings	iv. 23
"	Isaiah	i. 13, 14
294	Isaiah	lxvi. 23
"	Amos	viii. 5
"	Col.	ii. 16
"	Num.	xxviii.
"	I. Chron.	xxiii.
"	II. Chron.	ii.
"	II. Chron.	xxix.
"	Ezek.	xlv.
"	Ezra	iii.
"	Neh.	x.
295	Num.	xxix. 1
"	Num.	xxix. 7
"	Num.	xxix. 12
299	Deut.	xvi. 1
"	I. Kings	vi. 1, 37
"	I. Kings	vi. 38
"	I. Kings	viii. 2
300	Esther	ii. 16
"	Esther	iii. 7, 13
"	Esther	viii. 9, 12
"	Esther	ix. 1, 17, 19, 21
"	Ezra	vi. 15
"	Neh.	i. 1
"	Neh.	ii. 1
"	Zech.	vii. 1
"	Deut.	xxi. 13 (yerach)
"	II. Kings	xv. 13 (yerach)
"	Gen.	xxix. 14 (chodesh)
301	Num.	xi. 18-20, 31 (chodesh)
"	Psalm	lxxviii. 27
302	Gen.	vii. 11
"	Gen.	viii. 3, 4
304	Ecclus.	xliii. 6, 7
"	Psalm	civ. 19
308	Exod.	xii. 2
309	I. Chron.	xii. 15
"	Jer.	xxxvi. 22, 23
"	Ezra	x. 9
310	Neh.	i. 1, 2
"	Neh.	ii. 1
"	Neh.	viii. 14
311	Exod.	xxiii. 16
"	Exod.	xxxiv. 22
"	II. Chron.	xxiv. 23
312	II. Sam.	xi. 1
"	I. Chron.	xx. 1
"	I. Kings	xx. 26
"	II. Chron.	xxxvi. 10
313	Exod.	xii. 2
"	Exod.	xxiii. 16
"	Exod.	xxxiv. 22
321	Gen.	i. 5
322	Gen.	vii. 11
"	Gen.	viii. 13, 14
325	Gen.	viii. 22
"	Psalm	lxv. 9-11 (R.V.)
326	Exod.	xxi. 2
"	Exod.	xxiii. 10, 11
327	Lev.	xxv. 20-22
"	Lev.	xxvi. 2, 21
"	Lev.	xxvi. 33-35
"	Deut.	xv. 1
328	Deut.	xxxi. 10, 11
"	Jer.	xxxiv.
"	Lev.	xxvi. 32-35
"	II. Chron.	xxxvi. 21
329	Neh.	x. 31
"	Lev.	xxv. 8-10
330	Num.	xxxvi. 4
"	Isaiah	lxi. 2
"	Ezek.	xlvi. 17
332	Lev.	xxv. 8, 10
"	Lev.	xxv. 11, 12
333	Lev.	xxv. 22
"	Lev.	xxv. 3
"	Lev.	xxv. 10
338	Lev.	xxv. 42
"	Dan.	i. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 17-20
340	Dan.	viii. 13, 14
"	Dan.	xii. 7
"	Dan.	vii. 25
"	Rev.	xii. 14
341	Rev.	xiii. 5
"	Rev.	xi. 2, 3
"	Rev.	xii. 6
"	Dan.	xi. 13 (margin)
"	Dan.	iv. 16
348	Dan.	iii. 16-18
353	Josh.	x. 12
355	Josh.	iv. 19
"	Josh.	v. 10
"	Josh.	vii. 2-5
"	Josh.	vii. 1, 21
"	Josh.	viii.
356	Josh.	viii. 30-35
"	Exod.	xix. 1, 11
362	Josh.	x. 13
369	Luke	ii. 44
371	Josh.	x. 8
373	Josh.	x. 10
374	Josh.	x. 12
375	Josh.	x. 11
376	Josh.	x. 27 (R.V.)
378	Josh.	x. 13
382	Josh.	x. 13
384	Josh.	x. 13, 14
385	II. Kings	xx. 5-11
386	Isaiah	xxxviii. 8
387	II. Chron.	xxxii. 31
389	Isaiah	xxxviii. 8
390	II. Kings	xx. 9 (R.V.)
"	I. Kings	x. 5
"	I. Chron.	xxvi. 16
"	II. Kings	xvi. 18 (R.V.)
391	Neh.	xii. 37
392	Isaiah	xxxviii. 10, 11
"	Isaiah	xxxviii. 19, 20
393	Matt.	ii. 2, 5-10
396	Matt.	ii. 10
399	Luke	ii. 11
400	John	xvii. 3

[405]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

INDEX

PAGE
Aben Ezra, Rabbi	260, 278, 305
Abib (month of green ears)	299
Acronical rising	223, 246, 261
Adar, month	85, 300, 304
Aerolites	111, 112, 113
Ahaz, Dial of	385-392
Alexandria, Museum of	5, 6, 138, 139, 290
Algebar, star-name	233, 234
Allen, R. H.	221, 222
"Alroy"	278
Aratus	149, 150, 152, 154, 162, 163, 186, 208, 218, 222, 224
Arcturus (see ‘Ash)	258-266
Aristotle	76, 105
‘Ash	214, 215, 216, 243, 251, 258, 259, 260, 261, 264-266
Asherah ("groves")	67, 88
Ashtoreth	67, 88, 89, 90, 131
Astrology	5, 77, 78, 130-145, 248
Astruc, Jean	171, 172
Atmospheric circulation	41-45
Aurora Borealis	117
‘Ayish, see ‘Ash

Baal, or Bel	67, 89, 131, 176, 178, 210, 253
Bear, the (see Arcturus)	152
Benetna‘sh	260
Bethlehem, Star of	393-400
Bosanquet, J. W.	388
Bosanquet, R. H. M.	315
"Boundary-stones"	153, 154, 198, 318, 320
Bow-star, the	240
Bradley, third Astronomer Royal	96
Bul, month	85, 299
Burton, Lady	379

"Canterbury Tales"	277
Cardinal points	50, 51
Carrington, R.	220
Causality, Law of	15, 16, 18, 78
"Chaldean Account of Genesis"	27
[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]Cherubim	166, 169, 188, 190
Cheyne, Dr.	238, 240, 254, 255, 256
Chisleu, month	85, 238, 300, 304, 310
Chiun	133, 134, 144
Clouds	42, 43, 44, 46, 54
the balancings of the	46
the spreadings of	49
Colures, the	159
Comets	103-108
Donati's	105, 107
Halley's	103, 104
Conder, Col. C. R.	238
Constellations, list of	151-152
origin of	149-161
Copernicus	76
Cowell, P. H.	303
Creation	12-24
story of, Babylonian	26, 170, 178, 240, 242, 246, 252
Hebrew	25
Scandinavian	29
Cycles, Astronomical, of Daniel	337-348
Cylinder seal	71, 217

Damascius	26, 27
Daniel, Cycles of	337-348
Dawson, Dr. W. Bell	343
Day and its divisions	269-282
Days, different kinds of	271, 272
"Dayspring"	71, 281
Decans	142, 244, 245, 248
De Cheseaux	343
Deep (tehōm)	25-34, 53, 201, 210, 211, 234
fountains of	52-54
Delitzsch, Prof. Fr.	31, 157, 170, 171, 285
Deluge	49, 53, 83, 161, 165, 168, 170-185, 254
Denning, W. F.	220
Dial of Ahaz	385-392
Diana of the Ephesians	112
Dieulafoy, Marcel	372
Disraeli	278
Drach	221
Draconic period	122
Dragon's Head and Tail	198, 199
Driver, Dr.	172, 209

Earth (eretz)	39
corners of	51
foundations of	39, 58
pillars of	39, 40
East (kedem, front)	51
(mizrach, rising)	51
[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]Eclipses	118-129
Edda, prose	29
Ellicott, Andrew	114
Epicureans	71
Epping, Dr.	274
Equuleus	152
Eratosthenes	218
Ethanim, month	85, 299
Eudoxus	5, 6, 37, 152, 345
Euripides	218
Eusebius	88
Evenings, between the two	277-279
"Eyelids of the Morning"	117, 209, 210

"False Dawn"	117
Firmament (raqia‘)	35-38
(stereoma)	37
Flamsteed, first Astronomer Royal	96
Flood, see Deluge

Gad	132, 217
Galileo	3, 4, 76
Gamaliel, Rabbon	297
Genesis and the Constellations	162-169
Gesenius	134
Gilgamesh, Epic of	167, 170, 177, 180
Gosse, P. H.	209
Groves, see Asherah
Guinness, Dr. H. Grattan	343

Heaven (shamayim)	35, 36, 38
"bisection of"	55, 362
foundations of	39
host of	56, 57, 65
pillars of	39
stories of	40
windows of	49, 50, 53
Heliacal rising	59, 222, 224, 261
Herschel, Sir W.	75, 76
Hershon, P. I.	311
Hesiod	136, 152, 154, 216, 218, 237, 284
Hesperus	137, 232, 258
Hipparchus	5, 96, 250, 345
Höffler, Dr.	266
Hommel, Dr.	240
Homer	136, 153, 154
Horace	287, 288
Hour (sha‘ah)	281
double- (kasbu)	282, 320, 345, 381
Humboldt	114
Hyades	133, 217

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]Ibrahim ben Ahmed	114
Iliad	80
Istar	90, 131, 253, 323, 324

Jehuda, Rabbi	261
Jensen	240
Josephus	68, 187, 222, 279, 288, 289
Joshua's Long Day	351-384
Jubilee, the	326-336
Jupiter	104, 131, 132, 137, 247, 396
(Nibir)	243, 247
Juvenal	288

Karaite Jews	278
Kepler	4, 96, 396
Kĕsīl	214-216, 231-232, 237-243, 251, 261, 262
Ketu	201
Kimah	214-216, 223, 231-232, 237, 241, 243, 251, 261, 262
King, Dr. L. W.	240, 241, 303
Kouyunjik mound	27, 33

Lance-star	240
Leonid meteors	114, 116
Leviathan	196-212
Longfellow	233, 236
Lucifer	132

Mädler	220
Maestlin	219
Mazzaroth (or Mazzaloth)	130, 214, 243-257, 270, 280
Meni	132, 217
Mercury	131, 137
Merodach	28, 29, 33, 131, 167, 178, 210, 234-242, 247, 252
Meteors	111-117
Metonic Cycle	306, 335, 336, 339, 344
Milton	107
Mishna, the	297, 311
Mithraic cult	160
Month	293-304
anomalistic	342
Months, Hebrew names for	304
Moon	79-92
blindness	92
-god (Sin)	87, 253, 323, 324
harvest	81
new	123
phases of	80, 91
Müller, Otfried	262

Newton	4
Nisan, month	300, 304, 310, 311, 315, 320
[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]Node	121, 122
North (mezarim)	262, 263
(tsaphon)	51

Onias	68
Orion	231-242
Ovid	288

Palestine Exploration Fund, map	360, 362
Panyasis	152
Parallax	73, 98, 265
Persius	288
Peschitta	259, 261
Philo	289
Phosphorus	132, 137
Pinches, T. G.	27, 28, 30, 31, 90, 176, 235
Pleiades	133, 152, 213-230
Precession	158
Pritchard, Prof. C.	397
Proctor, R. A.	107, 108, 135, 141
Procyon	152, 240
Ptolemy, Claudius	5, 76, 96, 149-154
Ptolemy Philometer	68
Pythagoras	137, 345

Rahab (the proud one)	204-206, 211
Rahu	201
Rain	42-45, 49
"Records of the Past"	26, 28
Remphan	133, 134
Ring with wings	88, 126, 129
Ruskin	46

Sabbath	22-24, 283-292
Sabbatic Year and the Jubilee	326-336
Samaritans	278
Samas (sun-god), see Sun
Sanchoniathon	88
Sanhedrim	296
Saros, the	122, 123, 346
Saturn and Astrology	130-145
Sayce, A. H.	33, 315
Schiaparelli, G. V.	7, 41, 43, 139, 145, 198, 253, 254, 261-263, 269, 279, 285, 286, 290
Septuagint Version	37, 133, 134, 161, 215, 231, 241, 258, 259
Sin (moon-god), see Moon
Sirius	98, 240
Sivan, month	303, 320
Smith, George	27, 30
South (darom, bright)	51
(negeb, desert)	51
[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]Star of Bethlehem	393-400
Stars	75, 95-100
morning	59-61
royal	160
shooting	113
Triad of	253, 320
Statius	222
Stern, Prof.	261, 262
Strassmaier	274, 285
Sun	55, 63-78
-god (Samas)	67, 131, 174, 253, 323, 324
-stroke	72

Talmud	222, 279, 297, 311
Tammuz	66
Targum, the Jerusalem	190
Tavthê, see Tiamat
Tehōm, see Deep
Tennyson	36, 79, 80
Thales	345
Thiele, Prof.	15, 16
Tiamat, or Tiamtu	27-29, 32, 34, 201, 210, 234-235, 240-242
Tibullus	288
Tides	41, 53, 92
Tribes of Israel and the Zodiac	186-195
Tycho Brahé	96

Venus	90, 131, 132, 136, 137
Virgil	160
Vulgate	258, 259

Week and the Sabbath	283-292
West (mebō hasshemesh, going down of the sun)	51
(yam, the sea)	51
Winckler, Prof. H.	235
Winds	50, 51
Wormwood, the star	116

Xenophanes	71

Year	305-325
(shanah)	305
Yehoshua, Rabbi	297

Zeuchros	142, 249
Zif, month	85, 299
Zodiac, constellations of	141, 151, 152
sections of (mizrata)	243, 251
signs of	141, 245, 249
Zodiacal Light	117

[411]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Richard Clay & Sons, Limited,
BREAD STREET HILL, E.C., AND
BUNGAY, SUFFOLK.

Richard Clay & Sons, Ltd.,
BREAD STREET HILL, E.C., AND
BUNGAY, SUFFOLK.

Transcriber's Notes:

Ellipses match the original except in poetry quotations where a short line represents an ellipses.

Ellipses are the same as the original, except in poetry quotations where a short line stands for an ellipsis.

Pages vi, 1, 48, 93, 101, 109, 128, 146, 147, 228, 267, 317, 321, and 349 are blank in the original.

The following corrections have been made to the text:

Page 29: not a Creation myth at all.[period missing in original]

Page 29: not a creation myth at all.

Page 27: shows the god Anšar[original has the letter s with a breve]

Page 27: shows the god Anšar

Page 89: representing the sun[original has son] and moon

Page 89: representing the sun and moon

Page 140: place of an actual star into a horoscope;[semi-colon missing in original]

Page 140: the position of a real star in a horoscope;[semi-colon missing in original]

Page 176: gods and the spirits of heaven.[period missing in original]

Page 176: gods and the spirits of heaven.

Page 176: '[quotation mark missing in original]What, has a soul escaped?

Page 176: 'What, has a soul escaped?

Page 176: '[original has double quote]Thou sage of the gods, warrior

Page 176: "You wise one of the gods, warrior

Page 206: "[quotation mark missing in original]I have given thee for meat

Page 206: "I have given you food

Page 260: "tail" of the Great Bear[original has extraneous quotation mark]

Page 260: "tail" of the Great Bear

Page 374: and it was now noon,[comma missing in original] the noon

Page 374: and it was now noon, the noon

Page 389: fifteen Psalms (cxx.-cxxxiv.)[original has (cxx.-cxxxiv).]

Page 389: 15 Psalms (120-134)

Page 405: Allen, R. H. 221,[comma missing in original] 222

Page 405: Allen, R. H. 221, 222

Page 405: "Alroy" 278[original has 221]

Page 407: Hommel[original has Hömmel], Dr. 240

Page 407: Dr. Hommel 240

Page 410: Tavthê[original has Tavthé], see Tiamat

Page 410: Tavthê, see Tiamat

Download ePUB

If you like this ebook, consider a donation!

THE ASTRONOMY

OF THE BIBLE

THE ASTRONOMY

OF THE BIBLE

AN ELEMENTARY COMMENTARY ON THE ASTRONOMICAL REFERENCES OF HOLY SCRIPTURE

E. WALTER MAUNDER, F.R.A.S.

AUTHOR OF 'THE ROYAL OBSERVATORY, GREENWICH: ITS HISTORY AND WORK,' AND 'ASTRONOMY WITHOUT A TELESCOPE'

PREFACE

CONTENTS

ILLUSTRATIONS

THE ASTRONOMY OF THE BIBLE

BOOK I

THE HEAVENLY BODIES

CHAPTER I

THE HEBREW AND ASTRONOMY

FOOTNOTES:

CHAPTER II

THE CREATION

FOOTNOTES:

CHAPTER III

THE DEEP

FOOTNOTES:

CHAPTER IV

THE FIRMAMENT

FOOTNOTES:

CHAPTER V

THE ORDINANCES OF THE HEAVENS

CHAPTER VI

THE SUN

FOOTNOTES:

CHAPTER VII

THE MOON

FOOTNOTES:

CHAPTER VIII

THE STARS

CHAPTER IX

COMETS

FOOTNOTES:

CHAPTER X

METEORS

CHAPTER XI

ECLIPSES OF THE SUN AND MOON

FOOTNOTES:

CHAPTER XII

SATURN AND ASTROLOGY

FOOTNOTES:

BOOK II

THE CONSTELLATIONS

CHAPTER I

THE ORIGIN OF THE CONSTELLATIONS

FOOTNOTES:

CHAPTER II

GENESIS AND THE CONSTELLATIONS

CHAPTER III

THE STORY OF THE DELUGE

FOOTNOTES:

CHAPTER IV

THE TRIBES OF ISRAEL AND THE ZODIAC

FOOTNOTES:

CHAPTER V

LEVIATHAN

FOOTNOTES:

CHAPTER VI

THE PLEIADES

FOOTNOTES:

CHAPTER VII

ORION

FOOTNOTES:

CHAPTER VIII

MAZZAROTH

FOOTNOTES:

CHAPTER IX

ARCTURUS

FOOTNOTES:

BOOK III

TIMES AND SEASONS

CHAPTER I

THE DAY AND ITS DIVISIONS

FOOTNOTES:

CHAPTER II

AN ELEMENTARY COMMENTARY ON THE
ASTRONOMICAL REFERENCES
OF HOLY SCRIPTURE

AUTHOR OF
'THE ROYAL OBSERVATORY, GREENWICH: ITS HISTORY AND WORK,'
AND 'ASTRONOMY WITHOUT A TELESCOPE'