|
?:reviewBody
|
-
Readers have been awestruck by the missing day legend since at least 1936, when the story emerged into popular culture via a book by Harry Rimmer, titled The Harmony of Science and Scripture, as reflected in this 1999 example from the Internet: In his own work, Rimmer cited an 1890 book as his proof of the calculations behind the tale. Scholars dismissed Rimmer's claims as baseless, but despite the authoritative debunkings of that time and in the years since, the legend continues to thrive. Indeed, the Internet has given it new legs, and spreading it to new audiences is as easy as clicking the 'forward' button. The Public Affairs Office at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, responded to the prevalence of Hill's fictitious story by issuing a press release that noted (among other things): Historically, the notion of a lost day in time comes from a combination of two Old Testament passages. The first is from the Book of Joshua and describes Joshua's defense of Gibeon from the five kings of the Amorites. In order to enable Joshua to finish off his enemies before they had a chance to flee under cover of darkness, God provided additional daylight by causing the sun to stand still in the sky for nearly a day: The second passage, from 2 Kings, describes Hezekiah's request that God move the sun ten degrees backwards as confirmation of his promise that Hezekiah would be delivered into Heaven: One of the first issues we have to consider is that the Bible is thousands of years old, and the accounts it contains have come to us through many oral tellings, re-copyings, printings, and translations. We have to be very careful about presenting a specific interpretation of a single English word or phrase from one particular version of the Bible as being what the Bible actually says. Therefore, the first difficulty this legend presents is that nowhere in the Bible (in the Book of Joshua or elsewhere) is it stated that God made the sun stand still for exactly 23 hours and 20 minutes. Various translations word Joshua 10:13 differently, but most agree that the sun stood still for something less than a day: about a whole day or nearly a day. We're told nothing more specific — about a whole day could also mean 22 hours and 48 minutes or 23 hours and 2 minutes; we have no way of telling. (The primary means of reckoning the passage of time in Joshua's era was by observing the apparent movement of celestial bodies through the sky relative to the observer. It's not likely any contemporary of Joshua's could have recorded the length of time the sun stood still with this degree of precision under the best of circumstances, and certainly not when the sun and moon were both fixed in the sky, and the sun's light prevented the sighting of any other stars.) As it turns out, the 23 hours and 20 minutes figure was almost certainly an amount of time chosen by the legend's originator for extra-scriptual reasons we'll explain later. The next difficulty is the interpretation presented in this legend of the statement in 2 Kings 20 about God's moving the shadow backwards ten degrees as meaning that the sun's shadow was moved backwards through ten angular degrees of measurement on a dial (presumably a sundial). Since a dial is a circle, and a circle contains 360 degrees, moving the sun's shadow backwards ten degrees would correspond to resetting time by one thirty-sixth of day. One thirty-sixth of a twenty-four hour day is two-thirds of an hour, or forty minutes. Voilà! The problem is, 2 Kings 20 doesn't quite say this — the word degree is an artifact of certain English translations. How this passage is presented in other translations is more general: that the sun's shadow moved backwards ten steps (or ten units or ten intervals or ten markings) on the dial of Ahaz. Since we have no idea exactly what the dial of Ahaz was, nor how much time was represented by one of its units, we cannot make any real estimate as to how far the sun actually moved. (If the dial of Ahaz had forty evenly-spaced markings on it, for example, ten of those units would represent one-fourth of a day, or six hours.) We can only speculate, but it seems likely that once the originator of this legend decided upon an interpretation of 2 Kings 20 that created a lost 40 minutes of time, he also decided that the about a whole day described in Joshua 10 was a period of exactly 23 hours and 20 minutes so that the two amounts combined would equal exactly one day (even though the length day is actually about 23 hours and 56 minutes). Why? Perhaps because God is associated with balance and perfection, and any natural process that appears ordered is often attributed to divine handiwork: if scientists discovered a missing 23 hours and 18 minutes, that could be taken as some random fluke of the cosmos, but if the missing period were exactly one day, that would be evidence of a directed celestial intervention by a higher power. Regardless of the amount of time involved, the discovery of a missing period of time remains implausible. If the sun had indeed stood still for a day a few millennia ago, we would have no way of determining that fact through astronomic observations today. We have no frame of reference, no cosmic calendar or master clock to check against to see if we're overdrawn at the Bank of Time. The concept described here would be like giving someone a non-functioning clock and asking him to determine how much time had elapsed since the clock had stopped running. One could note the positions of the hands on the dial and make a reasonable guess about what the time of day was when the clock stopped running, but without knowing whether that time was A.M. or P.M., and without knowing the calendar date on which stoppage occurred, one could not possibly make any reasonable estimate about how long ago the clock stopped. Even the putative reasons offered for the scientists' performing the calculations described in this legend make little sense. We need not know about any missing time in the past in order to be able to launch spacecraft today. Even if the sun really did once stand still for a day, that would have absolutely no effect on where the sun, the moon, or the other planets are going to be one hundred or one thousand years from now. If we put a new battery in our stopped clock, all we have to do to get it back on track is to set it to the correct time; we don't need to determine how much time the clock lost while it wasn't running to be assured that it will display the correct time in the future. The appeal of this legend isn't difficult to see: the tale confirms not only the existence of God, but also the literal truth of the Bible. Moreover, it pits the scientists versus the believers, with the believers emerging victorious and the (presumed godless) scientists left ground into dust by the very science they'd so long and so loudly upheld. David (in the form of the pure-hearted believer) takes on the Goliath of Science who continally bleats for independently verifiable proof of the Almighty, and for once the faithful are able to deliver up on a silver platter what's been asked for. To those who've given over their hearts to God and the Holy Word, this is a deeply satisfying legend. Faith is, after all, the firm belief in something which cannot necessarily be proved, a quality that can leave believers (especially those who find themselves in the midst of non-believers) feeling unsatisfied. As steadfast as their certainty is, they cannot prove the rightness of the path they tread to those who jeer at their convictions. And this is a heavy burden to shoulder. A legend such as the missing day explained tale speaks straight to the hearts of those who yearn for a bit of vindication in this life. Being right isn't always enough: sometimes what one most longs for is sweet recognition from others. That recognition, and that satisfaction, is what this legend provides. Intoxicatingly heady stuff, that. No wonder this tale has survived from generation to generation and withstood the ravages of countless debunkings. Nonetheless, its factual details are wrong, the scientific processes it describes are dubious, and its premise of a missing day depends upon some very selective and questionable intepretations of scripture. Authenticity matters little, though: our willingness to accept legends depends far more upon their expression of concepts we want to believe than upon their plausibility. If the sun once really did stand still for a day, the best evidence we'd have for proving it would be the accounts of people who saw it happen. That is what the Bible is said to offer. Some people accept that as sufficient proof, and others don't.
(en)
|
![[This page as RDF]](http://data.gesis.org/claimskg/static/rdf-icon.gif){kind=icon}