God and Nature Spring 2024
Biblical Cosmology: Lessons from the Wittenberg Circle
|
|
By Terry Defoe
INTRODUCTION
Biblical cosmology is a scriptural explanation of origins (1). Israel’s understanding of the cosmos was phenomenological: people described natural phenomena based on their senses and in the context of the cultural norms and expectations of their times (2). In other words, biblical cosmology is an ancient, pre-scientific (not anti-scientific) description of phenomena as they appear to the naked eye, unconstrained by the norms of scientific methodology. The observations of the ancients were made without the assistance of modern technology. The ancient Israelites understood the earth to be a flat disk above a vast underground body of water (3). The heavens (“firmament”) were thought to be a solid dome, above which was more water. The cosmos was static, unchanging except for the occasional miracle.
Information on Babylonian cosmology is limited, but there is agreement on a few important points. The Babylonians were the first to apply mathematics to their astronomical observations (4). They were able to predict eclipses (5), and they could track and predict movements of the sun, the moon, and a few other astronomical bodies. They gave names to many of them. Given these realities, even if their observations fail to measure up to modern standards, the biblical authors are not lying to us or in any way deceiving us. They were simply doing their best to describe what their limited human senses told them.
INTRODUCTION
Biblical cosmology is a scriptural explanation of origins (1). Israel’s understanding of the cosmos was phenomenological: people described natural phenomena based on their senses and in the context of the cultural norms and expectations of their times (2). In other words, biblical cosmology is an ancient, pre-scientific (not anti-scientific) description of phenomena as they appear to the naked eye, unconstrained by the norms of scientific methodology. The observations of the ancients were made without the assistance of modern technology. The ancient Israelites understood the earth to be a flat disk above a vast underground body of water (3). The heavens (“firmament”) were thought to be a solid dome, above which was more water. The cosmos was static, unchanging except for the occasional miracle.
Information on Babylonian cosmology is limited, but there is agreement on a few important points. The Babylonians were the first to apply mathematics to their astronomical observations (4). They were able to predict eclipses (5), and they could track and predict movements of the sun, the moon, and a few other astronomical bodies. They gave names to many of them. Given these realities, even if their observations fail to measure up to modern standards, the biblical authors are not lying to us or in any way deceiving us. They were simply doing their best to describe what their limited human senses told them.
The interpretation of certain verses was revised. And the church moved on. |
A PARADIGM SHIFT
In the 16th century, the University of Wittenberg hosted scholars representing many disciplines. One of those individuals was a professor of mathematics, Philipp Melanchthon (6). Melanchthon (1497-1560) introduced several courses in mathematics to the university. He is best known for his contributions to Lutheran doctrinal literature—he was a confidant of Martin Luther (1483-1546) and a significant player in events leading up to the Protestant Reformation (7). But he also assembled a group of scholars at the University known as the Wittenberg Circle (8), whose members included mathematician Georg Joachim Rheticus (1514-1574) and astronomical educator Erasmus Reinhold (1511-1553) (9). They were contemporaries of Copernicus (1473-1543), and Melanchthon first encountered heliocentrism through Rheticus’ account titled Narratio Prima, written in 1540 (8). Melanchthon maintained that there was a clear contradiction between what Copernicus was proposing and the plain words of scriptures such as:
Heliocentrism made its appearance in scholarly circles in the 1530s, although Copernicus’ book on the topic, titled De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium, was not published until 1543 (10). In informal discussions with students and others, discussions which later became known as his Table Talk, Luther reportedly (as quoted by students) made disparaging remarks about an unnamed astronomer and his subversive ideas (11). According to these, Luther agreed with Melanchthon that Copernicus was a fool whose theory would turn the whole science of astronomy upside down. He seemed to be concerned about the potential negative impact of Copernicanism on Bible passages such as Joshua chapter 10, which talks about the sun standing still.
THE WITTENBERG CIRCLE
The Wittenberg Circle discussed Copernicus and his theory at length. Contrary to the opinions of both Luther and Melanchthon, based on a thorough analysis of the proposals made by Copernicus, the Circle accepted heliocentrism (12) to be scientifically valid and not a threat to the scriptures. This affirmation was a significant factor in the promotion and eventual acceptance of heliocentrism and helped the nascent Scientific Revolution get off the ground. Official acceptance of heliocentrism took a very long time, however. As we have seen, the theory was officially offered for consideration in 1543. But it wasn’t until 1822, almost 280 years later, that the Catholic Church officially recognized it (13), and it wasn’t until 1835 that books defending heliocentrism were removed from the Catholic Church’s Index of Forbidden Books.
YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST COSMOLOGY
Young-Earth Creationism contends that the creation narrative recorded in Genesis 1:1 to 2:2 is a trustworthy, literal description of these events, and that the creation took place in six twenty-four-hour days (14). This interpretation puts the earth’s age at around 6,000 to 10,000 years. Young-earth creationists therefore reject the current scientific consensus on these matters. After all, science is based on the words of fallible humanity, while faith is based on the infallible word of God. Dr. Russell Humphreys, a current spokesman for Young-Earth Creationism (15), has proposed a relativistic cosmology, arguing not only that the Bible provides a legitimate foundation for cosmology, but also that “recent gravitational time dilation” allows the earth to be only 6000 years old while other parts of the universe have clocked billions of years. He believes that the “expanse” or “firmament” is a reference to interstellar space, and that the waters above the expanse are a water boundary to the created universe. Humphreys contends that the scriptural reference to God stretching out the heavens occurred at some time in the past, which he then links with an expansion of the universe during creation week.
Many Bible scholars argue that scientific concordism—that is, expecting the Scriptures to reflect modern scientific realities—is an example of eisegesis, of reading modern notions back into ancient documents, awkwardly changing what the original author intended to say. Bible scholar John Walton has labelled such eisegesis (and the scientific concordism that requires it) as interpretive malpractice (16).
CONCLUSION
Heliocentrism initiated a vigorous and extended debate in the church about hermeneutics—the methodology of accurately interpreting the scriptures so as to make clear the author’s intended meaning. Accurate interpretation of the whole Bible, including cosmology and the topic of origins, is important for a correct understanding of the texts. Heliocentrism encouraged theologians to revisit texts long understood to mean that the earth is fixed in place. Claims made by Copernicus put interpreters on the horns of a dilemma. Was Copernicus correct, and the traditional hermeneutic in error? Or was Copernicus misled, despite scientific evidence to the contrary? For all intents and purposes, the dust has now settled on this issue. The interpretation of certain verses was revised. And the church moved on.
Since 1859, however, with the publication of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, another controversy ensued. But the stakes are now much higher, because Darwin’s theory spoke directly to the issue of human origins. The final chapter of that issue, of course, is yet to be written. The example of the Wittenberg Circle certainly appears to offer a way out of the impasse. We have seen that although Luther and Melanchthon opposed heliocentrism, they did not stand in the way of further academic investigation. That kind of gracious compromise is sorely needed in the church today. The current polemical approach of groups like Answers in Genesis is well past its “Best Before” date. An important compromise from more than 500 years ago may show us the way forward.
REFERENCES
1. J.R. Roberts, “Biblical Cosmology: The Implications for Bible Translation.” JOT 9(2), 1–53 (2013). https://doi.org/10.54395/jot-583n6
2. “The Bible and Phenomenology.” Steve Schramm Ministries. https://www.steveschramm.com/the-bible-and-phenomenology
3. “Biblical cosmology.” Wikipedia (2023).
4. “Astronomy, Babylonia.” Oxford Classical Dictionary.
5. “How did ancient civilizations make sense of the cosmos, and what did they get right?” Phys.org. https://phys.org/news/2022-03-ancient-civilizations-cosmos.html
6. “Philipp Melanchthon | German theologian.” Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Philipp-Melanchthon
7. “Philipp Melanchthon,” The Linda Hall Library. https://www.lindahall.org/about/news/scientist-of-the-day/philipp-melanchthon
8. R.S. Westman, “The Melanchthon Circle, Rheticus, and the Wittenberg Interpretation of the Copernican Theory,” Isis 66(2), 165–193 (1975).
9. “Georg Joachim Rheticus (1514 - 1574),” Mathshistory. School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of St. Andrews, Scotland. https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Rheticus/
10. “Wittenberg interpretation of Copernicus.” Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wittenberg_interpretation_of_Copernicus
11. “Martin Luther and Copernicus.” The American Vision (2006). https://americanvision.org/1264/martin-luther-copernicus
12. Elert, W. (2000). The Structure of Lutheranism. Trans. by Walter A. Hansen. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House. Chapters 5 and 6.
13. “Sept. 11, 1822: Church Admits It’s Not All About Us.” WIRED. https://www.wired.com/2008/09/sept-11-1822-church-admits-its-not-all-about-us-2
14. “What Is Young Earth Creationism?” Christianity.Com. https://www.christianity.com/wiki/bible/what-is-young-earth-creationism.html
15. “Dr. Russ Humphrey’s ‘A Young-Earth Relativistic Cosmology’.” Answers in Genesis. https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/cosmology/dr-russ-humphreys-a-young-earth-relativistic-cosmology
16. J. Walton, and D.B. Sandy. The Lost World of Scripture: Ancient Literary Culture and Biblical Authority. IVP Academic (2013).
Terry Defoe was educated at Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia (BA, Sociology, 1978), Lutheran Theological Seminary, Saskatoon Saskatchewan (M.Div., 1982), and the Open Learning University, Burnaby British Columbia (BA, Psychology, 2003). Defoe served as a chaplain at the University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University. He has been interested in the science / faith dialog for more than 30 years. His intellectual journey took him from young earth creationism to an evolutionary perspective.
In the 16th century, the University of Wittenberg hosted scholars representing many disciplines. One of those individuals was a professor of mathematics, Philipp Melanchthon (6). Melanchthon (1497-1560) introduced several courses in mathematics to the university. He is best known for his contributions to Lutheran doctrinal literature—he was a confidant of Martin Luther (1483-1546) and a significant player in events leading up to the Protestant Reformation (7). But he also assembled a group of scholars at the University known as the Wittenberg Circle (8), whose members included mathematician Georg Joachim Rheticus (1514-1574) and astronomical educator Erasmus Reinhold (1511-1553) (9). They were contemporaries of Copernicus (1473-1543), and Melanchthon first encountered heliocentrism through Rheticus’ account titled Narratio Prima, written in 1540 (8). Melanchthon maintained that there was a clear contradiction between what Copernicus was proposing and the plain words of scriptures such as:
- Psalm 93:1: “The world also is established, that it cannot be moved” (ASV).
- Psalm 104:5: “Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be moved forever” (ASV).
- 1 Chronicles 16:30: “The world is firmly established, immovable” (CJB).
- Ecclesiastes 1:5: “The sun rises, the sun sets; it returns panting to the place where it dawns” (CEB).
Heliocentrism made its appearance in scholarly circles in the 1530s, although Copernicus’ book on the topic, titled De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium, was not published until 1543 (10). In informal discussions with students and others, discussions which later became known as his Table Talk, Luther reportedly (as quoted by students) made disparaging remarks about an unnamed astronomer and his subversive ideas (11). According to these, Luther agreed with Melanchthon that Copernicus was a fool whose theory would turn the whole science of astronomy upside down. He seemed to be concerned about the potential negative impact of Copernicanism on Bible passages such as Joshua chapter 10, which talks about the sun standing still.
THE WITTENBERG CIRCLE
The Wittenberg Circle discussed Copernicus and his theory at length. Contrary to the opinions of both Luther and Melanchthon, based on a thorough analysis of the proposals made by Copernicus, the Circle accepted heliocentrism (12) to be scientifically valid and not a threat to the scriptures. This affirmation was a significant factor in the promotion and eventual acceptance of heliocentrism and helped the nascent Scientific Revolution get off the ground. Official acceptance of heliocentrism took a very long time, however. As we have seen, the theory was officially offered for consideration in 1543. But it wasn’t until 1822, almost 280 years later, that the Catholic Church officially recognized it (13), and it wasn’t until 1835 that books defending heliocentrism were removed from the Catholic Church’s Index of Forbidden Books.
YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST COSMOLOGY
Young-Earth Creationism contends that the creation narrative recorded in Genesis 1:1 to 2:2 is a trustworthy, literal description of these events, and that the creation took place in six twenty-four-hour days (14). This interpretation puts the earth’s age at around 6,000 to 10,000 years. Young-earth creationists therefore reject the current scientific consensus on these matters. After all, science is based on the words of fallible humanity, while faith is based on the infallible word of God. Dr. Russell Humphreys, a current spokesman for Young-Earth Creationism (15), has proposed a relativistic cosmology, arguing not only that the Bible provides a legitimate foundation for cosmology, but also that “recent gravitational time dilation” allows the earth to be only 6000 years old while other parts of the universe have clocked billions of years. He believes that the “expanse” or “firmament” is a reference to interstellar space, and that the waters above the expanse are a water boundary to the created universe. Humphreys contends that the scriptural reference to God stretching out the heavens occurred at some time in the past, which he then links with an expansion of the universe during creation week.
Many Bible scholars argue that scientific concordism—that is, expecting the Scriptures to reflect modern scientific realities—is an example of eisegesis, of reading modern notions back into ancient documents, awkwardly changing what the original author intended to say. Bible scholar John Walton has labelled such eisegesis (and the scientific concordism that requires it) as interpretive malpractice (16).
CONCLUSION
Heliocentrism initiated a vigorous and extended debate in the church about hermeneutics—the methodology of accurately interpreting the scriptures so as to make clear the author’s intended meaning. Accurate interpretation of the whole Bible, including cosmology and the topic of origins, is important for a correct understanding of the texts. Heliocentrism encouraged theologians to revisit texts long understood to mean that the earth is fixed in place. Claims made by Copernicus put interpreters on the horns of a dilemma. Was Copernicus correct, and the traditional hermeneutic in error? Or was Copernicus misled, despite scientific evidence to the contrary? For all intents and purposes, the dust has now settled on this issue. The interpretation of certain verses was revised. And the church moved on.
Since 1859, however, with the publication of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, another controversy ensued. But the stakes are now much higher, because Darwin’s theory spoke directly to the issue of human origins. The final chapter of that issue, of course, is yet to be written. The example of the Wittenberg Circle certainly appears to offer a way out of the impasse. We have seen that although Luther and Melanchthon opposed heliocentrism, they did not stand in the way of further academic investigation. That kind of gracious compromise is sorely needed in the church today. The current polemical approach of groups like Answers in Genesis is well past its “Best Before” date. An important compromise from more than 500 years ago may show us the way forward.
REFERENCES
1. J.R. Roberts, “Biblical Cosmology: The Implications for Bible Translation.” JOT 9(2), 1–53 (2013). https://doi.org/10.54395/jot-583n6
2. “The Bible and Phenomenology.” Steve Schramm Ministries. https://www.steveschramm.com/the-bible-and-phenomenology
3. “Biblical cosmology.” Wikipedia (2023).
4. “Astronomy, Babylonia.” Oxford Classical Dictionary.
5. “How did ancient civilizations make sense of the cosmos, and what did they get right?” Phys.org. https://phys.org/news/2022-03-ancient-civilizations-cosmos.html
6. “Philipp Melanchthon | German theologian.” Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Philipp-Melanchthon
7. “Philipp Melanchthon,” The Linda Hall Library. https://www.lindahall.org/about/news/scientist-of-the-day/philipp-melanchthon
8. R.S. Westman, “The Melanchthon Circle, Rheticus, and the Wittenberg Interpretation of the Copernican Theory,” Isis 66(2), 165–193 (1975).
9. “Georg Joachim Rheticus (1514 - 1574),” Mathshistory. School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of St. Andrews, Scotland. https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Rheticus/
10. “Wittenberg interpretation of Copernicus.” Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wittenberg_interpretation_of_Copernicus
11. “Martin Luther and Copernicus.” The American Vision (2006). https://americanvision.org/1264/martin-luther-copernicus
12. Elert, W. (2000). The Structure of Lutheranism. Trans. by Walter A. Hansen. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House. Chapters 5 and 6.
13. “Sept. 11, 1822: Church Admits It’s Not All About Us.” WIRED. https://www.wired.com/2008/09/sept-11-1822-church-admits-its-not-all-about-us-2
14. “What Is Young Earth Creationism?” Christianity.Com. https://www.christianity.com/wiki/bible/what-is-young-earth-creationism.html
15. “Dr. Russ Humphrey’s ‘A Young-Earth Relativistic Cosmology’.” Answers in Genesis. https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/cosmology/dr-russ-humphreys-a-young-earth-relativistic-cosmology
16. J. Walton, and D.B. Sandy. The Lost World of Scripture: Ancient Literary Culture and Biblical Authority. IVP Academic (2013).
Terry Defoe was educated at Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia (BA, Sociology, 1978), Lutheran Theological Seminary, Saskatoon Saskatchewan (M.Div., 1982), and the Open Learning University, Burnaby British Columbia (BA, Psychology, 2003). Defoe served as a chaplain at the University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University. He has been interested in the science / faith dialog for more than 30 years. His intellectual journey took him from young earth creationism to an evolutionary perspective.