Sunspots!

SunspotOne of H. P. Lovecraft’s most famous works is The Shadow out of Time, in which a 1908 professor of economics has his mind mentally switched with an inhuman being belonging to a civilization that lived millions of years ago. The foreign being’s mind lives in his body, and he lives in the foreign being’s body back in the remote past.

The switch happens when the professor is giving a lecture in economics to his students. He’s suddenly faints and, when he is brought round, it appears to everyone that he has a case of amnesia. (It’s really the foreign being who has no knowledge of the professor’s life.)

The being’s job is to research human culture in the early 20th century, and it stays five years at the task. But in 1913, it concludes that it has learned all it can and returns to its own time, simultaneously returning the economist to his own body.

In the story, the professor describes what happened he he first awoke after the being’s departure, having no memory of what had transpired:

About 11.30 I muttered some very curious syllables–syllables which seemed unrelated to any human speech. I appeared, too, to struggle against something. Then, just afternoon–the housekeeper and the maid having meanwhile returned–I began to mutter in English.

"–of the orthodox economists of that period, Jevons typifies the prevailing trend toward scientific correlation. His attempt to link the commercial cycle of prosperity and depression with the physical cycle of the solar spots forms perhaps the apex of–"

Nathaniel Wingate Peaslee had come back–a spirit in whose time scale it was still Thursday morning in 1908, with the economics class gazing up at the battered desk on the platform.

When I first read the bit about linking the economic cycle to sunspots, I laughed. I figured it was just a joke on Lovecraft’s part. Though initially very conservative, Lovecraft by this late point in his life (in the middle of the depression) was impoverished and entertaining a form of socialism. I reckoned he was just spoofing the economics of the earlier period by making up a fantastically absurd theory.

But he wasn’t!

Jevons It turns out that the "Jevons" he mentions was a real guy–William Stanley Jevons (1835-1882)–a real economist, who really did advocate the idea that the economic cycle is linked to sunspot activity:

In 1875 and 1878, Jevons read two papers before the British Association which expounded his famous "sunspot theory" of the business cycle.  Digging through mountains of statistics of economic and meteorological data, Jevons argued that there was a connection between the timing of commercial crises and the solar cycle.  The basic chain of events was that variations in sunspots affect the power of the sun’s rays, influencing the bountifulness of harvests and thus the price of corn which, in turn, affected business confidence and gave rise to commercial crises. 

Jevons changed his story several times (e.g. he replaced his European harvest-price-crisis logic with an Indian harvest-imports-crisis channel).  However flimsy his explanations, Jevons believed that the periodicity of the solar cycle and commercial crises — approximately 10.5 years, by his calculations — was too coincidental to be dismissed.  Needless to say, all this was a bit on the cranky end and, ultimately, the statistics did not bear him out. 

Nonetheless, it remains a significant piece of work as this was perhaps the first time that the phenomenon of the business cycle was identified.  Economists had long been aware that business activity had its ups and downs, but not that they necessarily followed any regular pattern.  They generally believed that "crises" arrived haphazardly, punctuating the smooth advance of the economy at irregular intervals. Jevons was perhaps the first economist to argue that the phases of business activity had a regular, measurable and predictable periodicity [SOURCE].

Don’t that beat all!

What Lovecraft says about Jevons being characteristic of the economists of the period trying to link economics with science is also true. Economics was then being constituted as a social science and there was a lot of borrowing of terms and concepts from other sciences (e.g., physics, mathematics, biology). Jevons’ sunspot theory may indeed represent a kind of apex to this process.

Two points to Lovecraft!

BTW, this is going to be economics week here on the blog. I hope to have a string of (hopefully entertaining) pieces of economics, putting up one each day.

Reading The Bible

Nobody can read the Bible! I mean . . . it’s huge, ain’t it??? Just look at it! It’s a big THICK book! Nobody could be expected to read that? Right?

WRONG!

I’ve read it, and . . . IT AIN’T THAT HARD. F’rinstance: Y’know how long it would take to read the Bible straight through?

3.6 days.

Y’know how I know that? It’s how long it would take me to listen to the complete, unabridged Bible that I just finished downloading from www.audible.com for listening on my iPod.

3.6 days. That’s all.

Okay, okay. There are a couple of caveats:

  1. It’s a Protestant Bible, so it only includes the 66 books of the Protestant Bible and not the seven extra books (plus parts of two others) that give us the Catholic Bible. Add those, and the whole might come to 4 days of unconstrained listening.
  2. It also presupposes that one doesn’t need to sleep or take a break from listening. It’s four days of unadulterated listening.

Nobody can really do that (except as part of a publicity stunt for a radio station or something), so listening to the Bible takes longer than 4 days.

But still, 4 days of listening taken in little pieces–say, an hour a day for 3 months–that’s quite doable. Many folks have commutes (one way or two ways) that are longer than an hour a day.

Or read only 4 chapters a day, and you’ll have read the whole thing in a year.

Wouldn’t you like to read the whole Bible? To have the Big Picture so you have a feel for the history of God’s program of the ages? Wouldn’t you like to know the context in which the readings at Mass occur?

You really can!

Start!

Now!

Three Apologetic Questions

A reader asks:

1) What is the simplest way to define existentialism?

I don’t know that I can tell you the simplest way, but I can give you a one sentence definition:

Existentialism is a philosophical school of thought that asserts that the existence of the individual is primary rather than the essence of the individual, meaning that individuals have a form of radical freedom to define themselves.

I’d add that existentialism started in the 19th century and was common in 20th century Continental philosophy (meaning: on the continent of Europe, not in England or America, where analytic philosophy has been dominant). Though there were Christian existentialists (e.g., Kierkegaard), existentialism tends to be associated with atheism and a gloomy world view.

MORE HERE.

2) Regarding the Fatima apparitions, it was reported that the seers received Holy Communion from the angel. Aren’t priests the only individuals who have the gift to confect the Sacrament?

Anyone with the power to confect the Eucharist is by definition a priest since the confection of the Eucharist is a sacrifice. We know that God has ordained that there be human priests, and Revelation may well signal that there are angel priests as well since angels are there depicted offering incense and performing other liturgical functions in heaven. What do we not know is, if there are angelic priests, are they an order capable of confecting the Eucharist. That is knowledge that, for now, we don’t have access to.

That being said the Fatima children did not report that the angel celebrated Mass in front of them. They said that he brought Communion to them. Where he got the consecrated elements (a church? heaven?) we don’t know.

It also is not certain what the status of this incident was in terms of outward reality. It may have been a visionary experience rather than one with Communion being offered in the normal, outward manner as in a Church. In other words, it may have been a visionary spiritual Communion.

MORE HERE.

3) Is it morally licit for someone to consult a psychic for the purpose of solving a murder?

Presumptively, no, and for several reasons:

  • Psychics are notoriously unreliable, and injecting a case with information from a notoriously unreliable source is very bad idea. It clouds one’s vision and may lead one to misweigh evidence or go down rabbit trails that are not productive.
  • To the extent psychics come up with accurate info, it may be from an evil, occult source that we should have no dealings with.
  • There is the potential for scandal in the proper sense: That is, folks may be tempted to give credence to psychics and occult ideas if they think psychics are sufficiently credible for the police to use them.

That being said, speaking hypothetically, I can’t rule out all possibility that science might one day prove that humans (or some humans) have a purely natural (i.e., not supernatural) sensing ability that would have sufficient reliability to make it useful and that could be deployed in a way not giving rise to moral scandal. Until such time as that would happen, though, the above considerations apply.

An Audible Hack

No, I don’t have a chest cold!

Y’know how they have those books at there called "Google Hacks" or "eBay Hacks" or things like that?

They’re not really about how to hack Google or eBay or similar services. The so-called "hacks" are really tips on how to use the services. Sometimes they’re undocumented tips, but often they’re just things you’d know if you actually . . . like . . . read the instructions.

Well, here’s a similar "hack" for using the Audible.Com book service.

Depending on what kind of subscription you have to it, you get to download one or two audiobooks a month. The problem is (if you’re like me) you’ve already listened to them way before the month is over and are wanting to download something new without having to pay a huge price for it.

The Old Testament, for example, will run you either 1 book credit as one of the monthly downloads you get or, if you’ve already used up your monthly book credits (which are about $10-12 each, or half of your monthly subscription) then the Old Testament will run you $119.

It’s really hard after you’ve used your monthly book credit because you’re sitting around going "Oooo. . . . I want to read that. But I don’t want to pay 70 bucks for it! I wish it was my renewal date so I’d have another couple of book credits to use."

Audible is always having sales on things, but usually not on what I want to read at the moment.

Currently, though, they’re having a sale where you can give your mom or anybody you care about 10 book credits for $119, or about $12 each.

So I thought: Per St. Thomas, I care about myself. Why don’t I send these 10 audio book credits to myself?

So I did.

And the system let me!

Cool!

Now I have extra book credits sitting in my account that I can use even when it ain’t renewal time.

Just thought frustrated Audible fans might want to know this is possible. (If you have $120 you can part with at the moment.)

Scandal

A reader writes:

How do you respond when someone says to you something like: "Country X is a predominantly Catholic country, but that country is rife with crime, violence, corruption, etc., etc. So being Catholic doesn’t seem to do anything for helping to produce morally upright people. This fact detracts from your claim that the Catholic Church is the true Church."

It does detract from the claim but does not neutralize it. Sin is a scandal, but looking at the perceived moral life of a nation does not tell one whether the majority religion of its inhabitants is true or not.

Look at the history of Israel prior to the time of Christ and all the sins that were committed in it. Did that stop Israel from being the chosen people? Did it stop Judaism from being the true religion? Yet the Old Testament is filled with condemnations of the Jewish people’s sins and even accuses them of sinning worse than the gentiles.

Further, look at countries today that have no experience of Christianity. They’re not exactly filled with moral goodness either. Neither are historically Protestant countries (like America) where abortion and stem cell research are legal and gay marriage is actually under discussion.

It’s simply impossible to establish the kind of correlations between different Christian religious affiliations and moral practice that the person wants to make.

Which is why Jesus didn’t propose this to us as a test of the true religion. He said we can spot false teachers by their bad behavior, but we can’t spot false religions by the behavior of there adherents.

When I was becoming a Catholic, I often reminded myself that I must not judge Catholicism by the behavior of Catholics. If I had, in pre-Christian times, judge Judaism by the behavior of Jews, I would have missed the true religion.

Cowboy Up!

Okay. Y’know how the pope’s former car apparently recently sold on the German version of eBay?

He’s apparently trading it in for a pickup!

Okay, okay. It’s not exactly a pick-up. It’s a "pick-up-like vehicle" apparently reverse-engineered from an SUV and outfitted with bullet-proof glass behind where he is to stand, but still

THAT’S GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME!

YEE-HAW!

GET THE STORY.

Only problem is . . . it’s a Volkswagen. I’m from a car-fixin’ family, and one thing I can tell you: Volkswagens are (or were) high maintenence. I know the pope’s from Germany and all, but I wouldn’t own a Volkswagen (not even a Volkswagen pick-up) if you paid me.

Still, it’s a sign that the pope’s "gone country" in Alan Jackson’s words.

Maybe I’ll send him a Charlie Daniels Band CD to play while he’s drivingbeing driven around in it. (Can’t you just hear him being driven around to "The Devil Went Down To Georgia"?)

Or maybe I’ll send him a pair of boot that he can use with heretics to . . . y’know.

Star Trek's Immigration Problem

Last night they started airing the penultimate episode of Star Trek Enterprise. Next week is the big finale.

I won’t spoil too much here lest folks haven’t seen it yet. (CHECK YOUR LOCAL LISTINGS.)

I do, though, want to comment on a few things.

The episode is better than I expected.

From the previews, I knew that it featured sci-fi regular Peter Weller (a.k.a. Buckaroo Bonzai a.k.a. RoboCop) in the role of an extremist leader who makes fiery speeches. Something about seeing this in the previews gave me a sinking feeling that they were going to do the standard things of giving it a religious/moral values overlay that would allow the series creators to make a veiled statement about "the religious right" (the way they did in that stupid, stupid Deep Space 9 episode where Fundamentalism and the Moral Majority was portrayed under the name "Foundationalism").

But they didn’t!

They had Weller playing a character named Paxton who leads a purely secular extremist group. No talk about religion or values or anything like that.

Paxton’s group is concerned with alien immigration and influence on human society.

The episode also starts setting up the founding of the Federation (to be seen in the series finale, next week).

It’s understandable that many in human society would be hesitant about joining the Federation.

Folks here don’t want to give up their sovereignty to the United Nations (and justly so! thoroughly corrupt and unjust body that it is). Why should people go unhesitatingly into a federation of planets?

It’s natural that there would be a xenophobia problem (particularly if Earth had just been attacked by an alien race like the Xindi!).

The show’s producers even let Weller’s character get in some good points–like the fact that Starfleet has been galavanting around the galaxy giving other, possibly hostile species’ knowledge of the whereabouts of Earth.

There is also mention of the fact that there are numerous "unregistered" aliens on Earth–a deliberate allusion to the U.S.’s current illegal immigration problem.

But despite these fair points, Paxton’s group is still, at bottom, evil, and the episode makes that clear.

What I found suprising was the name of the group.

"Terra Prime."

Y’know what that means in (fractured) Latin?

Earth First.

(It’s fractured Latin because it should really be Terra Prima.)

Still, "Earth First" is a good name for a xenophobic, Earth-centric organization.

Like that there xenophobic, Earth-centric group on Babylon 5, which was also called . . .

"Earth First."

Guess that name was already taken or something.

Star Trek’s Immigration Problem

Last night they started airing the penultimate episode of Star Trek Enterprise. Next week is the big finale.

I won’t spoil too much here lest folks haven’t seen it yet. (CHECK YOUR LOCAL LISTINGS.)

I do, though, want to comment on a few things.

The episode is better than I expected.

From the previews, I knew that it featured sci-fi regular Peter Weller (a.k.a. Buckaroo Bonzai a.k.a. RoboCop) in the role of an extremist leader who makes fiery speeches. Something about seeing this in the previews gave me a sinking feeling that they were going to do the standard things of giving it a religious/moral values overlay that would allow the series creators to make a veiled statement about "the religious right" (the way they did in that stupid, stupid Deep Space 9 episode where Fundamentalism and the Moral Majority was portrayed under the name "Foundationalism").

But they didn’t!

They had Weller playing a character named Paxton who leads a purely secular extremist group. No talk about religion or values or anything like that.

Paxton’s group is concerned with alien immigration and influence on human society.

The episode also starts setting up the founding of the Federation (to be seen in the series finale, next week).

It’s understandable that many in human society would be hesitant about joining the Federation.

Folks here don’t want to give up their sovereignty to the United Nations (and justly so! thoroughly corrupt and unjust body that it is). Why should people go unhesitatingly into a federation of planets?

It’s natural that there would be a xenophobia problem (particularly if Earth had just been attacked by an alien race like the Xindi!).

The show’s producers even let Weller’s character get in some good points–like the fact that Starfleet has been galavanting around the galaxy giving other, possibly hostile species’ knowledge of the whereabouts of Earth.

There is also mention of the fact that there are numerous "unregistered" aliens on Earth–a deliberate allusion to the U.S.’s current illegal immigration problem.

But despite these fair points, Paxton’s group is still, at bottom, evil, and the episode makes that clear.

What I found suprising was the name of the group.

"Terra Prime."

Y’know what that means in (fractured) Latin?

Earth First.

(It’s fractured Latin because it should really be Terra Prima.)

Still, "Earth First" is a good name for a xenophobic, Earth-centric organization.

Like that there xenophobic, Earth-centric group on Babylon 5, which was also called . . .

"Earth First."

Guess that name was already taken or something.

Jesus The Nassraya

A reader writes:

I too have been enjoying your posts on Aramaic in the New Testament. While my Hebrew is fairly good, my Aramaic is non-existant except for the Mourner’s Kaddish.

But in this latest post it looks like you’ve opened a real can of worms. You state that in the Pshitta Acts Jesus’ name is literally rendered at "Jesus the Nazirite". This would tend to confirm the view that Jesus was originally a member of the ultra-ascetic sect of Judaism known as the Nazirim. And he may not have been from Nazareth at all, and that some archaeologists even have doubts as to Nazareth’s existance 2000 years ago.

For more on the Nazirim, please see: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=142&letter=N

Any thoughts on the matter?

A few. First, I’m glad you’ve been enjoying those posts. I hope you find this one useful as well.

Second, what the text of the Pshitta actually calls Jesus in Acts 2:22 is a "Nassraya." In Aramaic, –aya is a common gentilic suffix, meaning that you use it to turn a noun into a word describing a group of people. For example, the word for a Chaldean is Kaldhaya (kal-THY-ah), the word for a Christian is Mshihaya, the word for a Catholic is Qatoliqaya. –Aya is thus similar to the –i gentilic suffix that one finds in Hebrew and Arabic, resulting in words like Israeli ("a person from Israel") and Suri ("a person from Syria").

(Indeed, it seems to be the same ending, spelled –ay since there is no simple letter /i/ in these languages, only with Aramaic’s characteristic –a noun ending stuck on it since Aramaic routinely uses the emphatic state even for non-emphatic words.)

While nassraya sounds similar to the word for Nazarite, and some have speculated that’s what was meant in this passage, I don’t think that’s what’s going on.

The Nazarites weren’t quite a sect (i.e., a group of folks who held religious views different than others). They were more like a religious order. They took the Nazarite vow either temporarily or permanently as a form of consecration to God. Samuel is the best known instance of a Nazarite from birth that most folks are aware of.

I have no problem with saying various New Testament figures were Nazarites–John the Baptist, for example, would be a good contender. Indeed, John is known for honoring one of the things that was part of the Nazarite vow: abstinence from wine (Luke 7:33).

This, however, is in marked contrast from Jesus, who in the very next verse is said to drink wine (Luke 7:34). He also made wine central to the Eucharist. It thus does not seem to me that Jesus was a Nazarite in the sense of one who had taken the Nazarite vow or who was made a Nazarite from birth like Samuel.

It seems to me that the origin of the word nassraya is more likely to be an attempt to form a gentilic noun based on the place-name nassrath ("Nazareth"), which is given in Acts 10:38. It’s thus nassrath + -aya = nassraya = "a person from Nazareth." (-ath being a feminine ending on the place name that would drop out when making a masculine gentilic noun.)

Unfortunately, when I was composing the post I was doing it quickly and my mind locked onto "Nazarite" as a translation of nassraya without remembering the Nazarite vow.

Sorry for the confusion. I hope the clarification is enlightening.

As to the idea that Nazareth didn’t exist in the first century, I frankly don’t hold much truck with that notion. It proceeds form a hermeutic of skepticism that wants to say everything in the New Testament is false unless it can be proven from independent sources. That is a criterion applied to no other historical text (except the Old Testament). Historians simply do not hold their sources in such contempt.

First, we have New Testament documents clearly and explicitly referring to it on multiple occasions. That of itself is evidence that can’t be dismissed. When folks were dating books like Acts absurdly late, it would have been easier to claim that Nazareth didn’t exist in the first century, but as archaeology has moved the dates of the books earlier and earlier, the claim gets harder and harder to sustain.

First, an unbiased look at the evidence strongly suggests that Acts dates to A.D. 61 or 62 and that Luke is earlier (possibly by a year or two), or about 65-70 years after Jesus was born. It also was written by a gentleman who was a close associate of one of the major apostles and who clearly interviewed a number of people in the apostolic community (and likely Mary herself) to obtain his material. The idea that a town called Nazareth could have sprang into existence in that 65-70 year interim and then got so famous that it could be so quickly confused with the hometown of a man whose followers regarded him as the Messiah simply strains credibility.

It is far more likely that, since Nazareth was apparently a pretty humble place, it simply didn’t show up in the independent records that we do have until later on (maybe because it became more significant and noteworthy to people and even more populous on account of its famous Resident).