Why are weeks seven days long?
Frederick Williams
(i) Because God supposedly made everything in six days and then rested
on the seventh.
(ii) The number of days in a lunar month is a multiple of seven.
Those answers raise further questions:
(i)(a) Did parts of the world where Christianity (Judaism, Islam) had
not penetrated have seven day weeks?
(i)(b) Why did the authors of Genesis choose six and seven? Seven
because of (ii), or six for numerological reasons (six being the least
perfect number)?
(ii)(a) Why divide 28 by four to get seven? Why not divide by seven and
get a four day week, or by two to get a 14 day week? Why divide at all?
--
Which of the seven heavens / Was responsible her smile /
Wouldn't be sure but attested / That, whoever it was, a god /
Worth kneeling-to for a while / Had tabernacled and rested.
SolomonW
> (ii) The number of days in a lunar month is a multiple of seven.
???
1 lunar month = 29.53059 days
Agamemnon
"Frederick Williams" <frederick...@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:4AC1D917...@tesco.net...
> Why are weeks seven days long? Two answers immediately come to mind:
7 planets representing the major gods of the Phoenician and Babylonian
religions, therefore 7 days.
Tiglath
> "Frederick Williams" <frederick.willia...@tesco.net> wrote in message
>
> news:4AC1D917...@tesco.net...
>
> > Why are weeks seven days long? Two answers immediately come to mind:
>
> 7 planets representing the major gods of the Phoenician and Babylonian
> religions, therefore 7 days.
Wrong again. <sigh>
That was an intermediate nomenclature not the ORIGIN.
In the dawn of humanity people had not TV, no Internet, and no
soc.history.*, so they sat outdoors at night a lot and when the fires
died the sky shone in all its glory. Night after night they became
very familiar with the shiny celestial objects, the sapiens brain's
first class pattern matching software aided by a variety of libations
and herbs, began to see familiar shapes as the stars moved in unison
across the celestial hemisphere, and so the constellations were
born. However, they also noticed the presence of a few rogue lights,
which seemed to move at random: those were the solar planets visible
with the unaided eye, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn, which
seemed to be unruled by whatever made the starts hold their
patterns.
Abhorring the void of simply admitting that they had no clue what
those rogue lights were, primitive human initiative came out with the
explanation that those lights were Gods prancing about the heavens.
Eventually they added the Moon, and the Sun to the five planets, and
voila: Monday (moon-day); Tuesday (Martes, Mars-day); Wednesday
(Miercoles, Mercury-day); Thursday (Jueves, Jupiter-day, Thor-day);
Friday (Viernes, Venus-day); Saturday (Saturn-day); and the other
one.
Agamemnon
"Tiglath" <te...@tiglath.net> wrote in message
news:47878ce6-88dc-42b3...@r36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
<<<Wrong again. <sigh>
Cleary you can't understand a word that you read because you have just said
what I already said in my original reply, and claim that I'm wrong.
Tiglath
Wrong again about being right.
You replied, " 7 planets representing the major gods of the Phoenician
and Babylonian religions, therefore 7 days."
First, the sun is not a planet.
Secondly, the moon is not a planet.
Third, the planets did not represent the gods, the gods represented
the planets, the Moon, and the Sun.
You obviously had a clue but your mental sloppiness gave a wrong,
flaccid reply not worth noting.
Frederick Williams
According to the SOED:
lunar month (a) = SYNODIC month;
(b) a period of 28 days (four weeks).
I was appealing to the second meaning, but I'm not unsympathetic to your
objection.
Frederick Williams
>
> ...
>
> You replied, " 7 planets representing the major gods of the Phoenician
> and Babylonian religions, therefore 7 days."
>
> First, the sun is not a planet.
>
> Secondly, the moon is not a planet.
These seven "things" were the "wandering stars" of the ancients and it
does indeed seem that that's where the seven came from. See
news:87bpktm...@g.mccaughan.org.uk (I have asked which book).
>
> Third, the planets did not represent the gods, the gods represented
> the planets, the Moon, and the Sun.
>
> You obviously had a clue but your mental sloppiness gave a wrong,
> flaccid reply not worth noting.
Tiglath
wrote:
> Tiglath wrote:
>
> > ...
>
> > You replied, " 7 planets representing the major gods of the Phoenician
> > and Babylonian religions, therefore 7 days."
>
> > First, the sun is not a planet.
>
> > Secondly, the moon is not a planet.
>
> These seven "things" were the "wandering stars" of the ancients
Five?
I doubt the ancient called the sun and the moon "stars."
Agamemnon
WRONG! In ancient Greek it is, as is the sun! Planiti means something that
moves across the heavens.
<<<Third, the planets did not represent the gods, the gods represented
the planets, the Moon, and the Sun.>>>
BULLSHIT! The planets were named after the gods and represented them and all
historical texts state this.
<<<You obviously had a clue but your mental sloppiness gave a wrong,
flaccid reply not worth noting.>>>
You obviously don't have a clue about anything.
It is clear that you have neither read nor understood and ancient historical
texts and you have been brainwash with modern revisionist codswallop and are
apply modern meanings of words to things instead of their original meanings
which you don't have a clue of.
Tiglath
For once you are right and I am wrong.
But you don't seem to know why, and ran to the Greeks for aid, as
usual.
No need. The Babylonians suffice. I checked and in Mesopotamian
astronomy there are only two kinds of astral bodies: stars and planets
and the moon and the sun were considered planets.
I stand corrected.
There seems to be no need to bring in the Phoenicians into it,
either. The Babylonians seem to be the first who cataloged the
"seven" planets.
Tell us about the Phoenicians and the seven planets.
The Greeks relied on Babylonian astronomy for their own astronomy, and
seems they actually came to consider the planets separately from the
sun and the moon.
Eudoxus of Cnidos (c. 408 BC) system of sphere had 3 spheres for the
sun and the moon, and 4 spheres for each planet.
Aristarchus' heliocentric model obviously did not consider the sun a
planet.
The moment Greeks divided the planets into inferior and superior
planets they excluded the sun and the moon (Ptolomei).
All I have to add is that it's so good that the Babylonians did not
have better eyes or means of magnification, which would have reveaed
three other planets. Can you imagine a ten-day week?
imipak
Although there are elements in what he says that are correct, I
disagree that this means he is correct. The "right" answer for the
wrong reasons is the wrong answer. The method is more important than a
numerical value or a trivial transliteration, because those can be
obtained by guesswork alone, devoid of reasoning.
> But you don't seem to know why, and ran to the Greeks for aid, as
> usual.
Which is why he is NOT correct. He is stabbing in the dark.
> No need. The Babylonians suffice. I checked and in Mesopotamian
> astronomy there are only two kinds of astral bodies: stars and planets
> and the moon and the sun were considered planets.
And this is the crux of the matter. The Mesopotamians did indeed make
the distinction you observe, but Mesopotamian astronomy was not the
only astronomy that existed. Aggy's claim is that things were one way
and no other. Ever, anywhere. That there is one and only one solution,
one and only one path, one and only one conclusion. One and only one
length of a week.
In truth, the week of seven days is a mere historical accident. I have
seen nothing to indicate it has anything to do with "wandering
stars" (the correct distinction was between the wandering bodies and
the fixed bodies), as illustrated by the fact that we don't use
Mesopotamian names for the days. The names come from a wide range of
languages, some Indo-European, some not, but Sumerian and Babylonian
names are conspicuous by their absence.
Seven happens to be a number that crops up in a number of places -
there are seven easily-seen stars in the Pleiades, seven easily-
distinguished bands in a rainbow. Early lunar calendars divide the
lunar cycle into four phases of seven days*. Seven is a popular
mystical number for these sorts of reasons.
*Yes, I know the lunar cycle isn't exactly 28 days. Early societies
often had "days between months" and "days between years" to take
account of the discrepancy between what was mathematically convenient
and what was physically correct. One of the more interesting
innovations of Julius Caesar was to include the leap-day as part of
the calendar rather than having it outside.
> I stand corrected.
>
> There seems to be no need to bring in the Phoenicians into it,
> either. The Babylonians seem to be the first who cataloged the
> "seven" planets.
Unless there is some evidence to show that the Mesopotamians divided
the week (a) according to the fact that they had seven wanderers and
(b) either made no division at all or divided the week into fewer days
prior to cataloguing all seven, I maintain it is immaterial that it is
possible to find "yet another" seven. The numerical coincidence is not
proof they divided the week that way, and the use of names from other
cultures is strong evidence they did not.
> Tell us about the Phoenicians and the seven planets.
>
> The Greeks relied on Babylonian astronomy for their own astronomy, and
> seems they actually came to consider the planets separately from the
> sun and the moon.
There were quite a few Greeks who had figured out that the solar
system was heliocentric, which would mean the sun could not have been
a wanderer in their astronomy. It would have been a fixed point with
the Earth being the wanderer. However, this view was certainly not the
only view in Greece and was not even dominant as far as I can tell.
Nonetheless, it existed, and it could not have existed had the Greeks
firmly equated the Sun and the planets. Beyond that, we have very
little in the way of science texts from ancient Greece. Most of what
survives is translations by the Persians and other cultures, and those
translations will only include the texts that were deemed of interest
to the translators. (Which is why the Archimedes Palimpsest contains
so much that was radically new to historians.)
> Eudoxus of Cnidos (c. 408 BC) system of sphere had 3 spheres for the
> sun and the moon, and 4 spheres for each planet.
>
> Aristarchus' heliocentric model obviously did not consider the sun a
> planet.
Agreed, and this is basically what I was saying, with the sole
additional observation that other significant models likely existed
about which we know nothing due to the poor survival rate of material.
> The moment Greeks divided the planets into inferior and superior
> planets they excluded the sun and the moon (Ptolomei).
>
> All I have to add is that it's so good that the Babylonians did not
> have better eyes or means of magnification, which would have reveaed
> three other planets. Can you imagine a ten-day week?
Since the Babylonians wanted things neatly divided up, a week could
only ever have been a factor of 365. If they had seen three other
planets, assuming a planetary origin for the week, the two week period
could have been 10, with one week being 5, but one week could never
have been 10 no matter what. However, although 5 does crop up as a
magic number in some Welsh myths, the numbers that were considered
magical long before any civilization arose were 3, 4 and 7. This was
long before astronomy ever existed and certainly before anyone
recorded astronomical observations.
People saw seven wanderers, not because they didn't have better
eyesight, but because it was a political no-brainer to stop at 7. Same
reason we talk about the Seven Sisters for the Pleiades even though
anyone with halfway-decent eyesight will see eight or nine. Seven was
the acceptable stopping point. Eight was not.
jerry warner
Frederick Williams wrote:
Try: http://www.hermetic.ch/cal_stud/hlwc/why_seven.htm
There are many others through Google but pretty much
the same.
An engraved bone c.28,000bpe at the Smithsonian
shows several lunar cycles neatly divided into segments of seven. Go figure!
Eric Stevens
Tiglath
> Frederick Williams wrote:
> > Why are weeks seven days long? Two answers immediately come to mind:
>
> > (i) Because God supposedly made everything in six days and then rested
> > on the seventh.
>
> > (ii) The number of days in a lunar month is a multiple of seven.
>
> > Those answers raise further questions:
>
> > (i)(a) Did parts of the world where Christianity (Judaism, Islam) had
> > not penetrated have seven day weeks?
>
> > (i)(b) Why did the authors of Genesis choose six and seven? Seven
> > because of (ii), or six for numerological reasons (six being the least
> > perfect number)?
>
> > (ii)(a) Why divide 28 by four to get seven? Why not divide by seven and
> > get a four day week, or by two to get a 14 day week? Why divide at all?
>
> > --
> > Which of the seven heavens / Was responsible her smile /
> > Wouldn't be sure but attested / That, whoever it was, a god /
> > Worth kneeling-to for a while / Had tabernacled and rested.
>
> Try: http://www.hermetic.ch/cal_stud/hlwc/why_seven.htm
>
That's a very long way of saying what I said. There is an undeniable
connection between the planets and the god's names and the days of the
week. That would suffice to answer the question without the history
of calendars thrown in.
imipak
The connection is undeniable, but (a) that doesn't imply which came
first - correlation does NOT prove causation, (b) the reason for the
association, (c) whether other week-lengths were used by other
cultures, or (d) explain why the Gods chosen come from a wide range of
totally different cultures - none of them Mesopotamian or indeed
Greek. (Sune was Celtic, Thor was Norse as was Freya and Woden, Moon
is Germanic, Saturn is Roman, Tiu was Angle). Even if we go by the
majority - Nordic - we have a problem. In fact, more than one. The
Norse were Indo-European, the Babylonians were Semitic, for a start.
Then there's the matter of a 2,900 year time difference. And finally,
the Norse Gods weren't linked with planets.
Part of the problem is that ancient cultures were really lousy when it
came to writing down reasons for why they did things. Explanations
tended to be given in hindsight, and events re-interpreted to fit with
the popular beliefs of the time. This is great for studying the
societies but it's terrible for studying the individuals.
So far, nothing I've seen posted on this thread actually -explains-
anything. I've seen assertions, I've seen correlations, but I've seen
no evidence (no great surprise as none has survived) and the reasoning
has been extremely fragile. C'mon, there are some great minds on here.
The arguments may well be completely sound and correct, but they are
NOT complete even within those societies that do use a 7-day week. You
should be horrified with yourselves if you really think such tenuous
associations based on numerology are sufficient. I am certain better
and more comprehensive reasoning can be given.
Tiglath
> > > > Which of the seven heavens / Was responsible her smile /
> > > > Wouldn't be sure but attested / That, whoever it was, a god /
> > > > Worth kneeling-to for a while / Had tabernacled and rested.
>
> > > Try: http://www.hermetic.ch/cal_stud/hlwc/why_seven.htm
>
> > That's a very long way of saying what I said. There is an undeniable
> > connection between the planets and the god's names and the days of the
> > week. That would suffice to answer the question without the history
> > of calendars thrown in.
>
> The connection is undeniable, but (a) that doesn't imply which came
> first
The planets came before anyone who invented the concept of god, and he
or she had to know it
< - correlation does NOT prove causation,
Let's see...
In human prehistory...
a) People arbitrarily invents seven gods and then happen to observe
seven wandering celestial bodies and give them the names of the seven
gods.
or
b) People recognize seven wandering bodies that never die and do as
they seem to please in the heavens and imagine them to be gods, and in
turn worship each for a day, and so create the week cycle.
Which one has a better likelihood?
This is not mathematics, likelihood is as good as it gets.
(b) the reason for the
> association, (c) whether other week-lengths were used by other
> cultures, or (d) explain why the Gods chosen come from a wide range of
> totally different cultures - none of them Mesopotamian or indeed
> Greek. (Sune was Celtic, Thor was Norse as was Freya and Woden, Moon
> is Germanic, Saturn is Roman, Tiu was Angle).
It's unreasonable to expect that the names of the gods would be
preserved down different cultures with different languages, but it is
clear that we can find an equivalence between gods with different
names that refer to the same day of the week/planet.
> Even if we go by the
> majority - Nordic - we have a problem. In fact, more than one. The
> Norse were Indo-European, the Babylonians were Semitic, for a start.
> Then there's the matter of a 2,900 year time difference. And finally,
> the Norse Gods weren't linked with planets.
Hmmmm.
Some seem to have been, though indirectly.
Mars is the Norse god Tyr. Tyr's day = Tuesday.
Mercury is the Norse god Woden. Woden's day = Wednesday.
Venus is the Norse god Freda. Freda's day = Friday.
Thor's day
There is a Nordic name for Saturn, but the Roman name was retained
instead in English.
The Norse Gods may not have a direct connection with planets, but if
they have not, they still have an indirect one by being equivalent to
gods which do have such a connection.
>
> So far, nothing I've seen posted on this thread actually -explains-
> anything. I've seen assertions, I've seen correlations, but I've seen
> no evidence
It's hard to have evidence for prehistoric events. We don't know who
invented man-made fire or how. But we know that the connection of
planets and gods must have began at some time before an entire
astrology was weaved around them.
imipak
> On Oct 5, 3:11 am, imipak <imi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Which of the seven heavens / Was responsible her smile /
> > > > > Wouldn't be sure but attested / That, whoever it was, a god /
> > > > > Worth kneeling-to for a while / Had tabernacled and rested.
>
> > > > Try: http://www.hermetic.ch/cal_stud/hlwc/why_seven.htm
>
> > > That's a very long way of saying what I said. There is an undeniable
> > > connection between the planets and the god's names and the days of the
> > > week. That would suffice to answer the question without the history
> > > of calendars thrown in.
>
> > The connection is undeniable, but (a) that doesn't imply which came
> > first
>
> The planets came before anyone who invented the concept of god, and he
> or she had to know it
>
> < - correlation does NOT prove causation,
>
> Let's see...
>
> In human prehistory...
>
> a) People arbitrarily invents seven gods and then happen to observe
> seven wandering celestial bodies and give them the names of the seven
> gods.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_religion
Where do you get seven Gods from? I see about 18.
> or
>
> b) People recognize seven wandering bodies that never die and do as
> they seem to please in the heavens and imagine them to be gods, and in
> turn worship each for a day, and so create the week cycle.
You still have to explain a 2.900 year gap and the fact that other
cultures did NOT have a 7-day week.
> Which one has a better likelihood?
Well, given your assumptions are false, neither of your statements is
"likely".
> This is not mathematics, likelihood is as good as it gets.
True, it's not mathematics. In mathematics, 18 does not equal 7. 18
isn't even an exact multiple of 7.
> (b) the reason for the
>
> > association, (c) whether other week-lengths were used by other
> > cultures, or (d) explain why the Gods chosen come from a wide range of
> > totally different cultures - none of them Mesopotamian or indeed
> > Greek. (Sune was Celtic, Thor was Norse as was Freya and Woden, Moon
> > is Germanic, Saturn is Roman, Tiu was Angle).
>
> It's unreasonable to expect that the names of the gods would be
> preserved down different cultures with different languages, but it is
> clear that we can find an equivalence between gods with different
> names that refer to the same day of the week/planet.
No, that is not clear, as not all cultures have a 7 day week.
> > Even if we go by the
> > majority - Nordic - we have a problem. In fact, more than one. The
> > Norse were Indo-European, the Babylonians were Semitic, for a start.
> > Then there's the matter of a 2,900 year time difference. And finally,
> > the Norse Gods weren't linked with planets.
>
> Hmmmm.
>
> Some seem to have been, though indirectly.
>
> Mars is the Norse god Tyr. Tyr's day = Tuesday.
>
> Mercury is the Norse god Woden. Woden's day = Wednesday.
>
> Venus is the Norse god Freda. Freda's day = Friday.
>
> Thor's day
>
> There is a Nordic name for Saturn, but the Roman name was retained
> instead in English.
>
> The Norse Gods may not have a direct connection with planets, but if
> they have not, they still have an indirect one by being equivalent to
> gods which do have such a connection.
Why are you making the connection so long and complicated? The Norse
didn't conquer the Saxons - if anything, under Alfred the Great, the
Saxons defeated the Norse. You've got to provide better evidence than
this. Again, I'm not saying your conclusion is wrong, but your
assumptions aren't solid and your logic has holes. You might very well
be right, but you need better than this to show it.
> > So far, nothing I've seen posted on this thread actually -explains-
> > anything. I've seen assertions, I've seen correlations, but I've seen
> > no evidence
>
> It's hard to have evidence for prehistoric events. We don't know who
> invented man-made fire or how. But we know that the connection of
> planets and gods must have began at some time before an entire
> astrology was weaved around them.
Not really. The Egyptians placed many of their Gods in static stars
and constellations. The earliest-known religious centre of worship in
Africa (which I've linked to before) is based on python-worship. Horse-
worship and water-worship were common amongst the "Celtic" (Iron Age)
British. Animal worship of all kinds was rife in Meso-America. The
green rocks that were used as charms or amulets at the advent of
European agriculture appear to be a worship of geology. Religion has
taken on countless forms, planets being but a single one of these -
and, frankly, not a very significant form at that. The Greeks and
Romans seem to mention it a lot, the Sumerians and Babylonians appear
to have done the same, but I can't think of any other culture that
made that link on any kind of dramatic level.
It -is- hard to have evidence for pre-historic events, I agree.
(Indeed, I seem to recall saying so in both my previous posts.) But we
do know some things, and they're not consistent with the hypothesis as
currently stated. Notice I say "as currently stated". You're quite
entitled, and indeed you are encouraged to, tighten up the hypothesis
to eliminate the discrepancies. Nothing wrong with doing so. Equally,
you're encouraged to put forward any other data available to you that
might show why the data I've presented doesn't apply.
A lot of people who protest theories on this newsgroup are not
skeptics, they are cynics. They'll never be convinced of a theory, no
matter how strong the case, and will always complain about a lack of
evidence, no matter what constraints may exist. I am not such a
person. I'm not asking you to give me written testimony by a pre-Indo-
European tribe for the planet/week theory. That would be stupid. I do
not expect you to be able to present me with a step-by-step case,
because the majority of those steps were either never recorded or the
records have been lost/destroyed.
So what am I expecting?
Well, if you claim that a culture has 7 gods/goddesses, you presumably
have some basis for this claim other than the number of days in the
week. (That would be a circular argument.) So show me what this basis
is. Plenty of European cultures in pre-history used cave paintings and/
or figurines long before they produced writing. Or perhaps there's a
specific pantheon in the Sumerian/Akkadian/Babylonian religious
thought that has just 7 major figures, in which case you should be
able to identify a period - or at least a reason for thinking that a
specific period had a pantheon that size. I'll be happy with a reason
for making such an assumption.
You also claim that 7 wandering bodies were seen. Not all cultures
recognized that the "morning star" and "evening star" were the same
planet - as illustrated by the fact that we use those two names.
Babylonian astronomy was rather good, and is fairly well documented,
so you shouldn't have much trouble in showing that 7 and only 7
wanderers were seen. So far, that has been claimed to have been the
case, and it may very well have been. But on what grounds are you
making the claim? Are there reputable Assyriologists who assert this?
Then, there's the matter of why we use this specific week. As you can
see, the range was from between 4 to 20 days, depending on culture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Week
This should be the easiest one of all for you to provide evidence for.
Clearly, a lot of the modern standardization has to do with the Roman
Empire, but the Latium peoples are a lot older than Rome. How much do
we know about the earliest concepts of "week" to these people? Much of
it pre-dates their ability to write, but then calendars pre-date true
writing too. Do we have a pre-Rome Latium calendar? Or evidence of the
Babylonian week being imported via the Etruscans and/or Greeks?
I'm not asking you to produce all these things. Indeed, even if you
can't produce any of them but CAN produce some evidence which is
highly suggestive of these processes taking place, I'd be happy with
that. All I am objecting to is the assumption that it is true, without
anyone ever really saying why, or offering bits of an explanation that
are sufficiently incomplete that nothing is really explained.
Correction, I'm objecting to the assumption of it being true when I
know damn well you're smart enough and knowledgeable enough to say
more. If I didn't think you had anything more than what you said, I'd
not complain about a lack of information. I -might- argue when
information doesn't add up or differs from information I have, but I
wouldn't complain about a lack. I don't expect the impossible. If I
ask for more, it is because I believe you are smart enough,
resourceful enough and knowledgeable enough TO say more. What I want
is your thinking. You've already told me your conclusion, what you've
not told me is how you got there.
deowll
keep up with the lunar calendar in Europe about 30,000 years ago. They may
have already had the seven day week then. That suggests that modern efforts
to determine the true cause for the selection of 7 days are going to have
limited success baring time travel.
If I was going with the lunar calendar I'd have gone with a six day week
with an occasional five day week but then nobody asked me. ?;^)