Pieper on reports of Einstein; Becker's ridicule; Copernicanism Part 27

[2024-12-14: updated link to Engelder book to Archive.org copy; 2018-10-31: added link to bottom addendum to copy of 1924 Lutheran Witness article; 2018-04-13: added newspaper reports contemporary to Einstein's Theory in red at bottom]
      This continues from Part 26c, a series on Copernicanism and Geocentricity (see Intro & Contents in Part 1) in response to a letter from a young person ("Josh") who asked if I believed Geocentricity ... and did not ridicule me in his question.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

      Since it was Franz Pieper's coverage of "Copernicanism" in his Christian Dogmatics work that showed that the teaching of the old (German) Missouri Synod lasted as long as he lived, I want to address again the matter that Prof. Matthew Becker ridiculed on his blog some years ago.  First I will repeat the ending of Pieper's footnote on this subject:

By the way (übrigens), about a year ago, the newspaper writers threatened that Einstein's relativity theory will take the life out of Copernicanism.

The "year ago" he speaks of would be about 1923, since his original German Volume 1 was published in 1924.  On this statement by Pieper, Prof. Matthew Becker of Valparaiso University commented:

While I had my doubts about Pieper's view of the Bible, the world, and theology already in seminary (who wouldn't, given that he doubted the verity of the Copernican Theory and thought that Einstein's theories of relativity would eventually vindicate a geocentric biblical cosmology?!)

Prof. Becker incorrectly restates Pieper's point.  Pieper did not say that he thought these things, but that the "newspaper writers" of 1923 wrote about these things.  Pieper was reporting what was the "buzz" in his day in the newspapers.  He may have wondered whether the report might have some scientific truth to it but Pieper did not say what Becker says he said.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

      I have already presented the statement of Sir Roger Penrose elsewhere:

“Nevertheless, we might not today regard the geocentric perspective as quite so outrageous...” — Roger Penrose, Fashion, Faith, and Fantasy (p. 14)

But I want to show evidence of Pieper's point.  Nobel laureate (and atheist) Steven Weinberg stated the following in his book To Explain the World, p. 252:

When Einstein’s theory was confirmed in 1919 by the observation of a predicted bending of rays of light by the gravitational field of the Sun, the Times of London declared that Newton had been shown to be wrong.

So we see evidence of the truthfulness of Pieper's report in 1923... that the newspaper writers were indeed reporting that Einstein's theory would disprove (or prove) all manner of things.  Although I have not come across the exact newspaper reports that Pieper references, I have no doubt that there were such reports. [2018-04-13: see below appendix in red] —  Then Weinberg goes on to admit on the same page:

General relativity itself is doubtless an approximation to a more satisfactory theory.

Doesn't this admission by Weinberg put the faith of Prof. Matthew Becker in jeopardy?

      Dr. James Hanson states in his book The Bible and Geocentricity, pp. 139-140:

The Michelson-Morley experiment has been repeated over and over again since 1887 and with many variations and greatly improved accuracy; but the result is always the same. In 1887 all of science found itself in the horrifying position of returning to pre-Copernican cosmology, and admitting they were dead wrong for 344 years. As we shall see, Einstein, with relativity, came to the rescue and in doing so inadvertently made the reality of geocentricity loom even larger.

We see that indeed there was a basis for the newspaper stories that Dr. Pieper spoke about.  Dr. Hanson goes on to expose a surprising piece of information (pgs. 141-142):

In 1915 Einstein himself had benignly proposed a geocentric cosmology which was later developed by Thirring.

      And Dr. Gerardous Bouw, in his book Geocentricity: Christianity in the Woodshed, states the following (p. 475):

...relativity was invented to make every spot in the universe look as if it is at rest in the center of the universe.

I believe this fairly represents the motive behind the development of Einstein's Theories. — For anyone skeptical of Dr. Bouw's credentials in these matters, I would point out that even Frank R. Zindler, an evolutionist and Copernican, said this about Bouw's understanding of Einstein (here):

...Bouw made adroit use of Einsteinian principles to "prove" the adequacy of the earth-centered universe

"Adroit" use?  This comes from a former professor of biology and geology, an avowed atheist, and one who ridicules creationism and geocentrism.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
      I believe the above shows that indeed the newspapers were reporting what Pieper stated, that there was great excitement over these matters, that science was feverishly attempting to explain away the scientific evidence for a stationary Earth, that "relativity" was invented to explain the unexplainable, and that indeed Copernicanism was inadvertently in jeopardy with the advent of Einstein's theories.  Surely we would not want to admit this now, would we?  ... as Penrose has admitted: that geocentricity is not quite so outrageous?... even if Prof. Matthew Becker and the LCMS/CTCR disagree. —  I conclude my series on Copernicanism in the final Part 28.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
2018-04-13: In Theodore Engelder's Scripture Cannot Be Broken (CPH, 1944), p. 145 [2024-12-14: Archive.org copy]:

A. Sommerfeldt writes in Sueddeutsche Monatshefte (Vol. 18, 1921, No. 2) concerning the effect of Einstein’s theory on astronomy as follows: ‘Hereafter none must be prohibited from saying: The earth is stationary, and the firmament revolves around the earth, or: The sun moves, and the earth stands in a focus of its orbit. According to Einstein’s theory a firmament revolving around a stationary earth develops the same centrifugal forces in the earth that according to Newton are developing in a revolving earth, and this has been demonstrated mathematically by Thirring. It will always be more convenient, and for the purpose of astronomical computation more practical, to work from the basis of the Copernican system. But it is not unreasonable to accept the Ptolemaic. Indeed, the theory of relativity has been able to make its conquest just because it has shifted its standpoint regarding this question.’ In Unsere Welt (1920, No. 3) Doctor H. Remy discusses ‘The Physical Principle of Relativity’ and says: ‘From this point of view the usual conflict between the Copernican and Ptolemaic systems finds its definite solution. We cannot deny that it is senseless to call one of these systems the only correct one and to designate the other as being false.’ It seems as if the world do move.” (Dr. Th. Graebner, in The Lutheran Witness, 1924, p. 149.) See Christliche Dogmatik, I, p. 578 (1924) [Archive copy; English vol. 1, p. 474]: “By the way, the newspaper-men threatened about a year ago that Einstein’s theory of relativity would knock Copernicanism on the head.”

Copernicus’s faith; Part 26c

      This continues from Part 26b, a series on Copernicanism and Geocentricity (see Intro & Contents in Part 1) in response to a letter from a young person ("Josh") who asked if I believed Geocentricity ... and did not ridicule me in his question.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

      From the history of Copernicus's epitaph, I move on to the matter of...

Copernicus himself

      Finally we come to Copernicus himself.  One bit of evidence to support Walther's claim is touched on in the current Wikipedia article on Copernicus.  It reports of Copernicus's involvement with the Lutheran Duke Albert in the spring of 1541, spending a month in Lutheran lands on a medical mission.  The article goes on to state that

“Some of Copernicus's close friends turned Protestant...”

So we see that the doctrine of the Reformation was all around him... and Copernicus did not show revulsion to Protestantism, even if he “never showed a tendency in that direction”.
     We also have testimony in a comment by his “Lutheran” associate Rheticus (from Westman, “The Wittenberg Interpretation”, p. 189):

“However, when he [Copernicus] became aware that the phenomena, which control the astronomer, and mathematics compelled him to make certain assumptions even against his wishes …”

“Against his wishes” implies that Copernicus did not want to contradict Holy Scripture, just like Bishop Tiedemann Giese, his closest friend.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

      So what do I conclude after all this investigation?  Although Pieper left the matter of authorship to be "unknown" so that the words of the epitaph were given center stage, it is my thought that C.F.W. Walther was so well read in not only all theology, but also the historical research being done in his day, that he made a judgment call [2 Cor. 5:15-17] to assert that it was indeed Copernicus himself who had the major role in determining his own epitaph.  Walther was at his pastoral best when dealing with those who were weak in faith, and he could look past the 19th century historians and see through all the events that surrounded Copernicus .  And so he asserted that it was Copernicus who loved the words of that epitaph...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Catholic World of 1870... on that epitaph
      Ah, that epitaph, so wonderful in its rich Christian confession!  But when in 1870 the journal Catholic World reported about it (page 377)(see also CTM vol. 7, p. 505-508.), it only repeated the words in Latin and did not translate it into English for its readers.  Why?  (Robert Westman, the historian, did not leave it untranslated.)  Could it be that the perfect Christian confession in these words is the antithesis of the pope's Church? ... that this epitaph utterly destroys the Pope's power over troubled consciences? Could it be that since the Council of Trent anathematized the teaching of pure grace that the Catholic World was constrained to withhold its meaning from its English speaking readers?

      Dr. Franz Pieper in 1924 would set aside any talk or controversy of whether Copernicus took part in his own epitaph and just wanted his audience to hear the pure Christian confession!
      To end this blog post on Copernicus, I want to explicitly state the epitaph in Latin for any non-English speaking people who would come across this blog so that they may have it translated directly from the original text:

             Non parem Pauli gratiam requiro,         [2 Cor. 12:9]
             Veniam Petri neque posco, sed quam  [Matt. 26:73-75 ; John 21:15-17]
             In crucis ligno dederas latroni,                 [Luke 23:40-43]
                          Sedulus oro. 

In the next Part 27, I review Pieper's comment regarding Einstein's theory...

Copernicus’s epitaph (Non parem…); Part 26b

[2020-01-19: fixed several links; 2018-04-15: appendix added below in red - misleading judgment by Ludwig Fuerbringer in 1932]
      This continues from Part 26a, a series on Copernicanism and Geocentricity (see Intro & Contents in Part 1) in response to a letter from a young person ("Josh") who asked if I believed Geocentricity ... and did not ridicule me in his question.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

      In the previous post, C.F.W. Walther asserted that Copernicus made his own epitaph.  But...

       But other historians of the 19th century (and contemporaries of C.F.W. Walther) Leopold Prowe (see this document here), C.E. Luthardt (see pgs 187-188 here [2020-01-19 fixed link] and item #13 here), and Philip Schaff (see here, # 986) had assumed that since so many years had passed between Copernicus's death (1543) and the placing of his epitaph (~1570), the epitaph wording could not have been chosen by Copernicus himself. Concerning Pyrnesius, Prowe states (p. 374 footnote **; translated): "It is not even possible to say with certainty which confession he [Pyrnesius] belonged to...".  While historian Prowe may doubt whether Pyrnesius was Lutheran, I have discovered that he received his medical training at... Wittenberg (see bottom p. 101 here).  Let the reader judge on this point.  We will see later a differing opinion from historian Robert Westman who, in contrast to Prowe and Luthardt, does not follow their denial and leaves the possibility open that indeed the wording for the epitaph may have been chosen by Copernicus himself.

      Franz Pieper also touched on the subject of Copernicus's epitaph in his essay presented to the 1924 Oregon-Washington District convention entitled “Theses on Unionism”.  The full text of this essay (translated by Pastor Kenneth K. Miller) is available here.  The following is an excerpt where Pieper refer's to Copernicus's epitaph:

Whether Copernicus or someone else composed his epitaph is unknown, but it expresses the attitude of all Christians before God. It says,
      Not that grace that Paul received do I seek;
      Nor the kindness with which Thou didst draw Peter;
      Just that which on the cross Thou didst promise the thief;
            Just for that do I beg.

Pieper did not follow Walther in his assertion on who made or chose the epitaph.  I could let this subject rest with Pieper's judgment and just leave it that it is unknown whether Copernicus actually chose this epitaph wording.  After all, next to Walther, I highly regard Pieper's judgment in matters of not only theology but also history.  He was highly informed of practically all these matters in his time. And Pieper wrote his comments 44 years after Walther's 1880 piece, plenty of time for the research of historians to be made public.

However...

Robert Westman

      In support of Walther's claim, I would call attention to a writing of the historian of Copernicus, Robert Westman, in his book The Copernican Question (p. 139, bolding mine):

Melchior Pyrnesius (d. 1589), a younger fellow townsman and physician, commissioned the portrait and the epitaph. That Pyrnesius was carrying out Copernicus’s wishes in the choice of wording for the epitaph cannot entirely be ruled out.  The Latin, in sapphic meter, was one of thirty-four odes on Christ’s suffering written in 1444 by Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini, who later reigned as Pope Pius II (1458-64):
      Not grace the equal of Paul’s do I ask,
      Nor Peter’s pardon seek, but what
      To a thief you granted on the wood of the cross,
      This I do earnestly pray for.

      An earlier historian from the 19th century, Johann Heinrich Kurtz († 1890), had stated (see pg 47, footnote): “As to the religious sentiments of Copernicus, it is sufficient here to quote the epitaph, which may yet be read upon his monument, in the ‘Johanneskirche,’ in Thorn, and which was conceived by himself for the purpose it now serves”.  However Kurtz is not reliable because of his accommodating stance towards astronomy and the Bible (see his book here) , so I do not rest on his judgment.

Bishop Tiedmann Giese

Bishop Tiedemann Giese
      Also in support of Walther’s claim of Copernicus’s faith, there is his closest friend Bishop Tiedemann Giese.  See here for an old German biography of him.  See this translation of some sentences that indicate Giese, who described Copernicus’s end to Rheticus, allowed “innovations” (read as “evangelical teachings”) at Thorn and was not so adverse to the reformation, even if he wrote some early pieces against the reformation.  Owen Gingerich reports (The Book Nobody Read, p. 180) “Tiedemann Giese described the end in a heartfelt letter to Rheticus.”  I wish that I could find out exactly what Bishop Giese wrote in this letter.  Rheticus was considered a Lutheran to the Romanists.  Westman reports (p. 138): “And Giese shared the characteristic Erasmian view that gentle persuasion could achieve more than sharp criticism and satire. Differences of opinion could be resolved through love and toleration; Christian unity must come from within the church.”  The "Deutche Biographie" webpage says (translated from the German):

"His irenic, ready attitude for concessions to the doctrines of the Reformation shows up in his theological writings."  

In the "Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie" on Giese, it states (translated from the German):

In his capacity as Bishop of Culm, Giese advanced towards the religious innovations where they showed themselves openly, for example in Thorn, ...  This circumstance in conjunction with his more irenic character and the relations in which he stood toward Protestant relatives and scholars, had earned him a reputation among the later Prussian church historians for not sufficiently fulfilling the duties of his office, and was not decided enough in his Catholic convictions.

If anyone reads this blog and knows where to find the content of Giese's letter to Rheticus, I would like to know of it and its contents. —  Owen Gingerich quotes (🔗) Bishop Giese elsewhere where he confesses that he does not want Copernicus's book to be viewed as overturning the Bible:

Giese then asked Copernicus’s first and only disciple, the Lutheran scholar Georg Joachim Rheticus, to insert in the copies not yet sold a short apologia “by which you have so skillfully defended the idea that the motion of the earth is not contrary to the Holy Scriptures.”

We may notice that Giese followed the "accommodation theory", but this quote clearly shows reverence for the Sacred Scriptures, something that Walther pointed out to be absolutely necessary for a Christian. — If anyone is a key to an understanding of the faith of Copernicus, it would likely be Bishop Giese.

J. G. Rösner
martyred in 1724

The history of Thorn Prussia/Poland (now Toruń) after Copernicus's death is ripe with Reformation history!  Just read the history of the Tumult of Thorn (Toruń) and the biography of Johann Gottfried Rösner, the martyred Lutheran mayor who confessed as he was about to be murdered by the Jesuits (God's Playground A History of Poland: Volume 1, p. 141):

“Be satisfied with my body; my Soul is my Saviour's”

Poor Poland!  The Reformation shone brightly for a time in that land... only to be snuffed out.  Could it be that Bishop Tiedemann Giese was in part responsible for the admittance of the doctrine of the Reformation in his land?  Could it be that Bishop Giese comforted his close friend Copernicus at his last hour with the glorious message of the Gospel of Grace that had dawned on Christendom anew?  Could it be that this was the reason for his "heartfelt" letter to Rheticus who was considered a Lutheran?  — (For more on the Reformation in Poland, see this)

      In the next Part 26c, I review evidence on Copernicus himself...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

2018-04-15 – 

Appendix: 

Misleading judgment of Ludwig Fuerbringer

      I came across a short blurb by the third president of Concordia Seminary Ludwig Fuerbringer where he overturns to a degree the judgment of the two previous presidents.  This was published in the April 1932 Concordia Theological Monthly, p. 297-299, 10 months after Franz Pieper's passing.  Below is my translation from the German of a portion of his comment:

In one of the above articles about Dr. Pieper I had also mentioned the inscription on the tomb of Copernicus, and suggested that this inscription did not stem from Copernicus himself. A writer asks how it actually is with this inscription. It is indeed widely believed that this inscription, written on Copernicus's tomb in St. John’s Church of Thorn [now Torun], was written by himself, and it has been cited many times as evidence that this famous astronomer  had given expression in keeping with his Christian faith. But this is an old, ever-recurring mistake.  … The well-known theologian C. E. Luthardt, who in the first editions of his “Apologetic Lectures on the Fundamental Truths of Christianity” represented the above assumption and used the verse accordingly, 3) has proved in the later editions of these lectures, by Prowe’s better work on Copernicus, corrected this statement and made an effort to remove the error from the world.4) The much-quoted verse does not come from Copernicus, but is a stanza taken from the poem of Aenaeus Sylvius Piccolomini De Passione Domini [see here] and which the city physician at Thorn, Dr. Melchior Pyrnesius († 1589), put on the monument for Copernicus built in his day. Copernicus is depicted with folded hands in front of a crucifix; next to the left arm is a skull and in the background a celestial globe and next to it a compass, and under the right arm is that stanza. As far as I know, there are no testimonies for the piety and ecclesiastical convictions of Copernicus. His moral life is not without shadows, and in the circle of his cathedral chapter there was an air of Erasmus. But the verse itself remains in all honor and beautifully expresses a thought that is truly worth holding on to.  And the strange thing is that the author of this stanza, the author of the above-mentioned poem, became known in church history under the name of Pope Pius II. The Piccolomini were a famous line of Italians, and several members of this family have emerged in the history of their time. L.F. ————————— 3) Fifth edition, p. 65, 262 [ or 7th ed.; English ed. p. 90;  366]. 4) Theologisches Literaturblatt, 13 (1892), No. 16, p. 188. [2020-01-19 fixed link]

Fuerbringer again shows his weakness as a theologian by being overawed by the likes of Luthardt, Prowe, and Schaff, and completely discarding the judgment of C.F.W. Walther and partially overruling Pieper's judgment.  Fuerbringer took a step beyond what Pieper stated in 1924, that "whether Copernicus or someone else composed his epitaph is unknown".  No, Fuerbringer had to go beyond Pieper's judgment of "unknown" to make the additional assertion that "the much-quoted verse did not come from Copernicus". We have also seen elsewhere where Fuerbringer was lax in exactness in historical details. — Again, I believe that Walther was well aware of the findings of Prowe who wrote his history well before 1880 [2020-01-19: fixed link] when Walther published his statement.  Walther was not willing to follow the crowd of church historians but could see through the events during the times of the Reformation and made his assertion in full view of Prowe's and Luthardt's judgments.  And now even the current historian of Copernicus, Robert Westman, has admitted that "Copernicus’s wishes in the choice of wording for the epitaph cannot entirely be ruled out" (see above). 

Walther on Copernicus’s epitaph and his faith; Part 26a

      This continues from Part 25 (or 19c), a series on Copernicanism and Geocentricity (see Intro & Contents in Part 1) in response to a letter from a young person ("Josh") who asked if I believed Geocentricity ... and did not ridicule me in his question.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

      15 years ago I made a discovery as I was examining the July 1, 1880 issue of C.F.W. Walther's Der Lutheraner magazine.  On the last page of feature articles, page 102, the following page filler blurb appeared, just before the news and announcements pages.  I recall that it caused me such joy that I paused to fully investigate it.  I typed out the German text and then had it machine translated.  The German/Latin text may be found >> here <<.  But here is my translation from the German (and Latin):

Copernicus, 

N. Copernicus epitaph
(inset in picture)

born 10 years before Luther and died 3 years before him, taught, as is well known,  that the sun does not move about the earth, but stands still.  That is why he is now highly praised by the unbelieving world. They remark namely that Copernicus has clearly shown that it is not true what the Bible says that the sun had stood still at Joshua's prayer (Joshua. 10, 12-14).  But if this is not true, so also is the whole Bible not true.  But if the world knew Copernicus more precisely, it would not like to look at and admire one like him.  For Copernicus was from the heart a man of faith.  A proof for this is that he himself made the following epitaph:

            Not the grace that Paul received, covet I,
             Still the favor with which Peter you forgave;
             Only that, which you granted to the thief at the cross,
                        That only do I crave.           W.[alther]

On Sunday, August 25, 2001, I printed this out and taped it onto the wall of my office and it has been hanging there, in my face for the past 15 years.  I did not want to publish it earlier because I figured it would be ridiculed as an erroneous account...  but now I want the whole world to read not only Copernicus's epitaph but also C.F.W. Walther's judgment of  Copernicus.  C.F.W. Walther, the 19th Century Luther and the greatest defender against Copernicanism in our day... eulogizes Copernicus's faith!
      But contrary to Walther's judgment, Pastor F.E. Pasche was harsher.  He states in his Christliche Weltanschauung book, p 78:

Copernicus worked for almost thirty years on his book and dedicated it finally the Pope Paul III., to protect himself by his reputation. It was later printed in Nuremberg under the supervision of his disciple Rheticus. But when the first printed copy was given to him in the hand, he was already deranged in his mind and he never came to a clear mind. He died in 1543. He remained throughout his life sitting in Popish darkness.

So we see a contrast in the judgments of Walther and Pasche on Copernicus's faith.

      There are 2 points that I would make on Walther's statement:
1)  Walther flatly states that if the sun had not stood still as recorded in the Joshua 10 passages, then the whole Bible is not true!  Walther is willing to put his whole faith on the line... on the teaching of the "inerrancy" of the Sacred Scriptures.  Either the Bible is INERRANT or it is NOT!  There is no middle ground!  Period.  When God says it, it is a priori or "automatically" true.  And the forcefulness with which Walther makes this point only reinforces the fact that it was C.F.W. Walther who is the most responsible in the whole world in the 19th Century for bringing honor back to the Holy Scriptures which had been suffering from a long night of rationalism and falsification by Schleiermacher in Germany and almost all other theologians.

2)  Oh, but Walther went out on a limb when he stated that Copernicus "himself made the following epitaph", for history now shows that this epitaph was not placed until several years after his death.  Uh-oh, did Walther, the Luther of the 19th century, perhaps bring ridicule upon his Missouri Synod for stating this?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

      Copernicus's epitaph is in Latin and if you Google the first few words of it, "Non parem Pauli gratiam requiro", you will come across several Christian websites which quote this epitaph as a great Christian confession.  What a wonderful Christian testimony!  However practically all of them also admit the teaching of Copernicanism without question.  Among those I found were 2 Wisconsin Synod websites: (1) Principal Jeff Inniger of Trinity Lutheran Church school in Waukesha in this newsletter and (2) Rev. Roger Rockoff in this 2009 sermon. [2019-08-15: both links broken and lost] (Interestingly, this sermon states that Copernicus dictated his own epitaph)  So there seems to be contrary evidence to Dr. Bouw's notion that the WELS still defends against Copernicanism.  In my research, I did not find any LCMS pastors even mentioning Copernicus or his epitaph.  At least they could keep the epitaph alive...  but the poor LCMS!... too bad.
      Pastor Pasche rendered quite a different judgment than Walther on Copernicus's own Christian faith or lack of it as we saw above.  I did not find anywhere that Pasche made mention of Copernicus's epitaph.  So practically everyone disagrees with Walther's assessment of Copernicus to some extent, either on his faith or his authorship of his own epitaph or... on Copernicanism.
      In the next Part 26b, I want to expand on the epitaph... what it says itself and who was responsible for it.  Then in Part 26c, I will review the matter of Copernicus's own faith.

Pasche's Die Bibel und Astronomie; Copernicanism Part 19c

[2018-06-28: added quote from Lutheran Confessions (Ap. VII-VIII);2018-03-02: added info on Calov below in red; 2017-07-14: added note in red below (Hafenreffer)]
      This continues from Part 19b, a series on Copernicanism and Geocentricity (see Intro & Contents in Part 1) in response to a letter from a young person ("Josh") who asked if I believed Geocentricity ... and did not ridicule me in his question.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

      Pasche's 2nd book in German was published in 1906.  I present a translation of the Table of Contents (w/ hyperlinks) and a sampling of comments of selected topics.  This book is available at Google Books:

Die Bibel und Astronomie – 1906 (Google Books; >> full text here <<)
                       Contents.
                  First part. – The Bible.
1. The Bible teaches a certain astronomical plan - 7
2. The Bible always teaches only this astronomical system - 12
3. Scripture treats the apparent movements of the heavenly bodies as the actual movements of these bodies - 14
4. The much controversial word of faith of Joshua - 22
5. All Scripture is inspired by God  - 31
6. Scripture speaks rightly, as of spiritual, and also of natural things - 44
7. Scripture never speaks of the erroneous ideas of men - 53
8. The position of the old church - 61
9. The position of the Roman church - 70
10. The position of Luther - 80
11. The Lutheran Church from beginning to now - 100
12. The Rationalistic Accommodation Theory - 126
13. Every Christian must seriously take heed of false interpretations of the Scriptures - 143
14. You can not limp on either side - 153
15. Testimonies of truth - 158
                  Second part. – Astronomy.
1. History - 177
2. Copernican boastings - 202
3. Disbelief of naturalists - 214
4. Science has its limits - 230
5. Space is not infinite - 272
6. Changes in the heavens - 282
7. False conclusions - 295
8. Evil Cliffs - 339
9. Throndson - 386
10. Explanation of the calendar. Darkness until 1915 - 401

Here is a small sampling of the material covered:

1) p. 80: Martin Luther is quoted from his commentary on Genesis 1:14, St. Louis Edition vol 3, col. 40, paragraphs 39 & 40 (translation and highlighting by BackToLuther):

     39. So we see that it is everywhere from God's order, and no thing has its essence, nor governs by itself, but everything from the hand, counsels, and wills, that we should see God in all creatures, we open our eyes or ears , and so thank Him. And, when I have said above enough, we should not think that God had created the creatures, and afterwards went away, and let them act on their own accord; rather that He made them, and still make them, and keeps them by the Word. So the Word still drives the sun today and always from morning to evening. For it is not their own nature or power, but the Word by which they are created, that they go through the sky every day.

     40. Again, besides, God says that these two lights [Sun and Moon] are meant to be signs, tidings, years, and days; that is, that time could be counted and known. To do this, we have no thoughts from our own art, but everything is arranged by God. So, in these lights, both the day and the night are measured, that the sunshine is divided into twelve hours, and also teaches the year in the course of the sun, because every year it comes round, and with its course the seasons, summer and winter, with it.

For those that own Concordia Publishing House's Luther's Works, American Edition, volume 1, we are out of luck to find the above quote.  This is because the editors chose another series of lectures by Luther than the one used in the St. Louis Edition.  Nevertheless, even the American Edition teaches much the same, e.g. page 44 on Gen. 1:14:

The following "and for days" denotes the natural day, when the sun revolves around the earth. – Martin Luther

How many quotes does it take to convince us that Martin Luther taught just what the Holy Scriptures teach?

2) p. 100 ff.: Pasche gives a long list of Lutheran theologians who taught against the error of Copernicanism.  These include:

• Philip Melanchthon, Johann Arndt (1555—1621), Valerius Herberger (1562—1627), Konrad Dietrich  (1575-1639), J. M. Dillher (1604—1669), Christian Scriver (1629—1693), Abraham Calov († 1686), Johann Meisner († 1681), David Hollaz (1648—1713), Christian Stock (1672—1733), M. Gottfried Balthasar Scharff (1676-1744), Karl Gottfried Engelschall (1675—1738), J. J. Rambach (1693—1735), Valentin Ernst Löscher  († 1749), Dr. Michael Christian Rusmeyer, Dr. Andr. Gottlob Rudelbach († 1862), Licentiate K. Ströbel [or Stroebel] (praised Schöpffer's work), Dr. Alexander Frantz, Pastor Gustav Knak (1806—1878), N. Fr. S. Grundtvig (1783-1872), Prof. J. C. W. Lindemann († 1879), Dr. C.F.W. Walther. 

This list was partly compiled from Director J.C.W. Lindemann's article in Evangelisch-Lutherisches Schulblatt vol. 8, p. 112 "Kopernicus und die lutherischen Theologen".  It is only slightly incomplete as he overlooked Carl Gottlob Hofmann and Pastor C.A.T. Selle, one of the charter members of the old (German) Missouri Synod.
[2017-07-13: The Lutheran Hafenreffer should be added to this listing.  Walther quoted a statement made about him in his Baier-Walther Compendium (II, p. 86) the following (roughly translated):
Acta Eruditorum: "The theologian Hafenreffer suggested to his friend Kepler to develop a system that the earth moved as a hypothesis to save the phenomena as useful to astronomers, and abstain from reconciling it with the Bible." (Vol. anni 1719., p. 5-6)] 
[2018--3-02: On Calov, Robert Preus reported in his Theology of Post-Reformation Lutheranism, vol. 1, p. 399: “On the basis of such passages as Ps. 104:5; Eccl. 1:4; Ps. 19:6-7; 74:16; 104:19; and Jer. 31:35 Calov maintained that Scripture teaches that the earth does not move in an orbit but remains in a fixed position. Calov was fully aware of the theories of Copernicus and Kepler, which “appeared more probable to the reasonings in the physical sciences and mathematics,” but on this particular issue he is convinced that Scripture has decided the issue.”]
[2018-06-28: From the Lutheran Confessions, Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article VII-VIII: Of the Church,  § 50 (Triglotta, p. 245, BookOfConcord.org): “For as … fixed movements of the heavenly bodies are truly God's ordinances and these are preserved by God,…”, Tappert, p. 178 translates as "fixed movement of the stars" or the German text says (translated): "For as heaven, earth, sun, moon and stars are of God's order and are preserved by God,..."; Latin text translated here: siderum = stars or "celestial bodies".

3) In the second part of the book, there is much history of science.  Any student of this topic would do well to include Pasche's books in their study.  He was quite resourceful in digging out so much information, even accessing the Library of Congress! (p. 361)  It amazes me how he could have compiled so much information before our age of the Internet!  Among the many scientists he covers are Kepler, Tycho Brahe, Galileo, Newton, and many that were lesser known.  Many of these are also covered by Dr. Gerhardus Bouw, but perhaps both authors missed some information covered by the other.  But what strikes one is a statement he quotes regarding Gravitation (p. 198):

"The wisest naturalist of today will assure you that he knows absolutely nothing about the how of gravitation."

This statement was made before Einstein's theories were put forth. Yet it still striking how long this took since Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation and how little is really understood about the nature of Gravity.  Even the Wikipedia article on Gravity openly states:

"There are some observations that are not adequately accounted for, which may point to the need for better theories of gravity or perhaps be explained in other ways."

4) It should be noted that Pasche covers those who embraced a "flat earth" or the Zetetic Society on pages 380-386.  Suffice to say that Pasche, as well as Dr. Bouw, refutes both their science and their Scriptural basis.

Pastor and Mrs. F.E. Pasche
in later years.

– – – – – – – – – – – – 

      Further comments and analysis of this book are beyond the scope of this blog.  Pastor Pasche followed up with his English pamphlet in 1915 Fifty Reasons: Copernicus or the Bible but that ended his publications on this topic.  My mother had a copy of his later 1929 devotional book Daily Bread and apparently treasured it.  I have benefited greatly from studying this old (German) Missouri Synod pastor's books, but I still value C.F.W. Walther's judgment more in one certain area.  Walther made a striking statement in 1880 regarding Copernicus's own Christian faith that differed from Pasche's judgment.  In the next Part 26a (chronological sequence), I cover this. (Following the numerical sequence, the next Part 20 presents additional quotes from Luther and Walther).

[2023-12-01: added Part 19d at a later time here to finish the material on Pastor Pasche.]

Pasche's Christliche Weltanschauung (Worldview); Lindemann Jr.; Gräbner; Penrose; Copernicanism Part 19b

[2018-01-09: added link to Archive.org copy below; 2016-11-10 Updated hyperlink in red below]
      This continues from Part 19a, a series on Copernicanism and Geocentricity (see Intro & Contents in Part 1) in response to a letter from a young person ("Josh") who asked if I believed Geocentricity ... and did not ridicule me in his question.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

      Pastor F.E. Pasche authored 2 extensive books in German to defend against Copernicanism.  In this blog post I address his first and present a translation of the Table of Contents (w/ hyperlinks) and a few brief comments of selected topics covered.  Note that this book is not available elsewhere online.  I have added much highlighting and quite a few hyperlinks to the "full text" version:

Christliche Weltanschauung – 1904 (Archive.org PDF copy; >> full text here <<)

                       Contents.
3      Foreword.
                  First part. – Cosmogony.
5      1. How did the world form?
9      2. In what period of time did it come about?
17    3. How long ago did it arise?
                  Second part. – Astronomy.
41     I. The Ptolemian System.
76            The Copernican System.
89            Copernican evidence that the earth goes around the sun.
116          Copernican evidence for the daily rotation of the earth.
139   II. Definite rules which must guide a Christian.
182   III. A safe position which denies neither the Bible nor the results of science..
182          1. The earth has a spherical shape.
187          2. The earth does not make the annual movement around the sun.
193          3. The Earth does not make the daily rotation.
228    Conclusion.
229    Postscript - Lindemann Jr.-Schulblatt article refuted; A.L. Graebner mystery
235    Index

Here is a small sampling of the material covered:

• p. 15-16, 42, 145-146, 224: Prof. A.L. Gräbner's well-known article "Science and the Church" in the 1902 Theological Quarterly (p. 37-45) is quoted.  Today this article seems to be used by multiple sources on the Internet as the authoritative teaching of the old Missouri Synod.  But I have blogged earlier that Gräbner's essay can be considered somewhat ambiguous regarding a defense against Copernicanism as he is mainly addressing the creation account in Genesis.
• p. 25: Andrew Dickson White of Cornell introduced
• p. 72-73: Schöpffer, A. Frantz, and General de Peyster are referenced
• p. 78: Pastor Pasche judges Copernicus's faith, that he "remained throughout his life seated in popish darkness".  But we will see in a later blog post that C.F.W. Walther held a different judgment on this point -- that Pasche may have missed something on Copernicus himself.
• p. 150: Carl Gottlob Hofmann is quoted.  I had earlier thought that Pasche had missed him.  However Pasche's quote from Hofmann does not directly address Copernicanism whereas Walther's quote does.
• p. 172-173: Pasche's quote of the 1886 Synodical Conference Report
• p. 174: Report of recent attack by the President of Cornell University (Andrew Dickson White) against J.C.W. Lindemann's writing.
• p. 181: "Flat earth" proposition refuted scientifically; p. 186-187 "flat earth" refuted scripturally
• p. 220-224: Walther, Chemnitz, Calov, Lindemann Sr., Pieper, and A.L. Gräbner quoted.
• p. 227: Dr. Woodhouse, Cambridge astronomer, is quoted: “When we consider that the advocates of the earth’s stationary and central position can account for and explain the celestial phenomena as accurately, to their own thinking, as we can to ours, in addition to which they have the evidence of their senses, and Scripture and facts in their favor, which we have not, it is not without a show of reason that they maintain the superiority of their system.”

J.C.W. Lindemann's son (Friedrich)
      On pages 229-234 Pasche is almost apologetic in revealing that a publication of his own Missouri Synod was beginning to teach that "the earth rotates upon its axis", that "the rotation of the earth on its axis causes daytime and night." This was done in the journal Evangelisch-Lutherisches Schulblatt, March 1904 issue, pages 75-79 [added link 2016-11-10].  What is even more surprising and tragic is that the publication is in the very same journal in which J.C.W. Lindemann had forcefully refuted Copernicanism in an article of 1873 ("Copernicus and the Lutheran Theologians").  And to top it all off, the writer was Lindemann's own son, Friedrich Lindemann. There seems to be no denying that there was pressure even in the old (German) Missouri Synod to give up its defense against Copernicanism.

Prof. A.L. Gräbner
      In the same section (p 232), a mystery is related regarding Prof. A.L. Gräbner: how could he approve of "engravings" in the March, 1904 issue of the journal Evangelisch-Lutherisches Schulblatt where an article taught that "the earth rotates upon its axis"... yet he "denies that he teaches the Copernican system".  Pasche handles this mystery surrounding Gräbner by implying that there must have been a misunderstanding or some misinformation somewhere.

– – – – – – – – – – – – 

      There is a lot of science and science history covered by Pastor Pasche – I wish Cornell would have his books translated, since they see fit to provide Internet access to the English translated text from another Lutheran theologian, the modernist "accommodating" Johann Heinrich Kurtz and his book Bibel und Astronomie.  I wondered at times that Pastor Pasche delved too much into the science, but after reviewing this book several times, I have been amazed at how much he covered in detail... and from a Biblical perspective.  Still, I consider that Dr. Gerardus Bouw's scientific expertise is more advanced and can correct some areas of science that are better understood today.

Sir Roger Penrose

      But for all the science where Pastor Pasche may be shown to be incorrect, I would point out that Sir Roger Penrose, the well-known University of Oxford scientist in mathematical physics (and Stephen Hawking's collaborator) has in recent years admitted in his book Fashion, Faith, and Fantasy (p. 14) the possibility of geocentricity:

“Nevertheless, we might not today regard the geocentric perspective as quite so outrageous...” — Roger Penrose

Hmmm, I wonder how the LCMS/CTCR (and Prof. Matthew Becker) responds to this admission?

In the next Part 19c, I review Pastor Pasche's 1906 book in German, Die Bibel und Astronomie.