- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Excerpt from Evangelisch-Lutherisches Schulblatt, vol. 8 (1873) pp. 65-74, 107-116; translation by BackToLuther; all highlighting, red text in [] square brackets, images, and hyperlinks are mine, underlining in original.
Copernicus and the Lutheran theologians.
[by J. C. W. Lindemann, Part 5 of 8, pp. 107-109]
David Hollaz (born 1648, died 1713 as pastor and provost at Jakobshagen [now Dobrzany in Poland]) raises the question in his Examen (I, 402): *) “Is the earth made to move so that it moves in a circle and should determine the times through its movement?” He answers as follows:
——————
*) Pastor Dorn kindly informed me of the following from Hollaz. L.[Lindemann]
——————
“a) The all-wise Creator created the Earth so that it does not move in its entirety, but rather rests; b) but He gave the office to the heavenly lights that they determine the time through their movement.”
Hollaz then proves the correctness of this answer:
On a)
“1. the Scriptures deny the movement of the Earth: Ps. 104:5: He founded the Earth on its foundation and it will never be moved forever. †) Like a builder bases the house on a foundation so that it can not move against the storms stand, the heavenly master has firmly founded the building of the Earth so that it can never be moved from its place at any time until the Last Day.
——————
†) Hollaz uses the Latin Bible of Sebastian Schmidt [German Wiki], who translated the Hebrew text literally; hence it is that the words of Scripture differ somewhat from Luther's translation. L.
——————
2. A standing or resting is attributed to the Earth: Ecclesiastes 1:4: “The earth abideth for ever.”; Ps. 119:90: “Thou hast established the earth, and it abideth.”
On b)
1. A movement is attributed to the heavenly lights: Ecclesiastes 1:5: “The Sun also ariseth, and the Sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.”
2. Christ is compared to the running Sun: Ps. 19:4-6: “The Sun, which as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit (circuito) unto the ends of it to the ends thereof.” It is true that these words are to be understood of Christ, the figurative Sun, which is elucidated from the passage of Paul in Romans 10:18 [and Ro. 10:15]; but they are taken from the realm of nature and Christ is compared to the natural Sun, which comparison could not take place [page 108] if the Sun was standing still and the Earth, like the other planets, moved around the Sun.
3. The standing still of the Sun, which happened to the warring Joshua, is believed to be an astonishing miracle. But if the Sun was not moving, but was standing immovably still, why would Joshua have commanded: Sun stand still?
But Hollaz doesn't just base his answer on Scripture; he also explicitly refutes Copernicus' view. He illuminates the “antithesis” of some astronomers, among whom N. Copernicus stands out, who determine that the Sun is resting and the Earth is moving. This is based on the following evidence:
1. Every natural body is moved; also the Earth. Answer: I deny the antecedent because the movement and rest is a different effect of the natural body, some of which are moved and some of which are at rest.
2. The Earth is made to move, so it is likely to move. The proposition is thus proven: 1. the Earth is round; 2. it has air around it; 3. It is in one place, therefore it has a local movement. — I answer: 1. If something is moved because it is round, the Sun must also move. 2. One must judge the movement of a body not according to the surrounding air, but according to the divine decree. Because God has commanded that the Earth be fixed, it is immobile. 3. A stone is also in one place and is not moved.
3. The Earth is rich in magnetic fibers, so it moves around the poles by which the magnet turns. — I answer: 1. We doubt the presence of the magnetic fibers. 2. (If there were any) we doubt whether the strength of the magnetic fibers is so great that they can turn the heavy and dense body of the Earth towards the poles. — Everything that is said about the magnetic fibers is uncertain.
4. What is moved from place to place is truly and really moved. Now, as Job 9:6 testifies [“Which shaketh the earth out of her place”], the Earth is moved, consequently the Earth is in motion. — I answer: You have to distinguish between a natural, orderly and general movement, and a huge, extraordinary and special one. Job speaks of a tremendous and extraordinary movement, which is excited by God's wrath.
5. If the whole sky is moved with the stars, it follows that the stars around the equator travel 876 German miles in a second or during a [page 109] pulse beat according to Tycho's calculation, which is unlikely. But when the Earth moves from west to east, it partially meets the movement of the sky; only goes 225 German miles in an hour, and 250 paces in a pulse, which is far more likely. — I answer: If the Scriptures clearly testify that the Sun is moving, then the rapid movement of the Sun must be taken as evidence of the divine power and wisdom! How in a flash the rays of the Sun pour out! How quickly lightning and wind are moved! Who can measure such agile movement?”
So far Hollaz. From what he cites, one can clearly see what evidence the Copernicans gave in his day to substantiate their opinion, and how weak they are in relation to the Word of God and the testimony of the Holy Spirit, and even to common sense. It is impossible that a person who considers Scripture to be God's Word could be persuaded by such reasons to hold true an assertion that contradicts both the Bible and observation. [Lindemann speaks!]
= = = = = = = = = continued in Part 6 = = = = = = = = = =Psalm 19:4-6
For the many theologians who have succumbed to Copernicanism, they must interpret Psalm 19:4-6 in an accommodating way, in a non-Messianic way. But how comforting this passage is for those who believe their Bible, just as it reads, in a "biblicistic" way.
Kepler vs Tycho
Although some of Hollaz's points may be questioned in the light of today's science, yet the testimony of Tycho Brahe is not so easy to dismiss. Even among Copernican scientists, the name of Tycho is still held high – surely an embarrassment to the "Scientific" community which holds Kepler, Tycho's pupil, higher than his teacher. Is that because Kepler's "science" is better than Tycho's or is it because Tycho held Holy Scripture higher than Kepler? — In the next Part 6, "Lindemann's List" grows longer…
"Even among Copernican scientists, the name of Tycho is still held high – surely an embarrassment to the "Scientific" community which holds Kepler, Tycho's pupil, higher than his teacher. Is that because Kepler's "science" is better than Tycho's or is it because Tycho held Holy Scripture higher than Kepler?"
ReplyDeleteFirst, there were not really that many "Copernican scientists" during the 16th century. In his paper, "The Astronomer’s Role in the Sixteenth Century: A Preliminary Study" (History of Science, 18, 1980, 105–147), Robert S. Westman claimed he could find no more than ten people (of which four were Lutherans, including University of Tübingen astronomy / mathematics professor Michael Maestlin), who, between 1543 and 1600, accepted the heliocentric reality of the Copernican model (the names are in reference note 6).
Second, Tycho Brahe was the employer (in 1600), not the "teacher," of Johannes Kepler. Michael Maestlin is recognized as the teacher and mentor of Kepler, even later in Kepler's life.
Third, Tycho Brahe was held in high regard by astronomers primarily because his instruments and precise astronomical measurements were far superior to any made prior to the invention and refinement of the telescope in the early 17th century. Brahe's superior data is what drove Kepler (after he obtained full access to the data following Brahe's death in 1601) to eventually develop his theory of elliptical orbits of the planets around the sun.
Fourth, Galileo's 1610 telescopic observations (and those of other astronomers in the years soon after) of the phases of Venus showed that Venus orbited the Sun (which had been speculated by Heracleides Ponticus in the 4th century BC) and thus was contrary to the purely geocentric Ptolemaic system. However the the phases were still compatible with the Tychonian version of geocentrism as well as the heliocentric model. It wasn't until further advancements in telescopes that in 1838 Lutheran astronomer, Friedrich Bessel, was able to accurately measure the parallax of the star 61 Cygni, which was based on the earth's heliocentric orbit around the sun. Soon others were able to make parallax measurements of other nearby stars. The importance of measuring parallax was recognized even by Copernicus and Galileo, but without advanced telescopes available, they could not make such measurements.
Fifth, both Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler believed their system was in agreement with Scripture. When preparing his 1597 book, Mysterium cosmographicum, Kepler, in one chapter, sought to demonstrate that the reality of heliocentrism was compatible with Scripture. However his mentor and Michael Maestlin, as well as his Lutheran mentor, Matthias Hafenreffer, advised that the chapter would cause too much strife within the Church, and Kepler eventually removed it from the book. However he was allowed to include the following in Chapter 1:
"It is an act of piety at the very beginning of this discourse about Nature to see whether it says anything contrary to Holy Writ. Nevertheless, I believe that it is premature to raise this question here before I am assailed. In general I promise to say nothing harmful to Holy Writ, and if Copernicus is convicted of anything with me, I shall consider him finished. And this was always my intention from the time when I began to examine the books of Copernicus’ Revolutions." [Rosen, p. 228]
"Carl Vehse":
DeleteI am sorry for not getting your comment of earlier this year published before. Google had mysteriously stopped informing me of new comments coming in and I was unaware of this, so finally here it is.—
As for your points, without going through them in further detail, I would say that it is rather unconvincing (1) to suggest that Kepler was not somehow a student of Tycho Brahe because he was an employee. (2) Although both Brahe and Kepler "believed their system was in agreement with Scripture" (as did Copernicus), that does not excuse Kepler's (or Copernicus’s) leaning towards the teaching that the Copernican theory was objective truth. (3) Lastly, Hafenreffer was not in the same position in the matter of a "strife within the Church" as Maestlin, for Hafenreffer was approaching it that the Bible was true, Maestlin was wanting to maintain his clandestine position for Copernicanism.