The Opening of Genesis. Preliminaries III:

On the Apparent Structure of the World

(c) 2013 Bart A. Mazzetti

§

1

CONTENTS.

I. ON THE APPARENT STRUCTURE OF THE WORLD, PART I.

II. ON THE APPARENT STRUCTURE OF THE WORLD, PART II.

III. ON THE FIRMAMENT AND ITS RELATION TO WATER: A SUMMARY ACCOUNT.

§

2

I. ON THE APPARENT STRUCTURE OF THE WORLD, PART I.

1. The comparison of the world to a living thing.

Cf. Johannes Kepler, Epitome of Copernican Astronomy IV and V, translated by Charles Glenn Wallis, Great Books of the Western World, Volume 16, pp. 853-57:

On the Principal Parts of the World

What do you judge to be the lay-out of the principal parts of the world?

The Philosophy of Copernicus reckons up the principal parts of the world by dividing the figure of the world into regions. For in the sphere, which is the image of God the Creator and the Archetype of the world as was proved in Book I, there are three regions, symbols of the three persons of the Holy Trinity: the centre, a symbol of the Father; the surface, of the Son; and the intermediate space, of the Holy Ghost. So, too, just as many principal parts of the world have been made the different parts in the different regions of the sphere: the sun in the centre, the sphere of the fixed stars on the surface, and lastly the planetary system in the region intermediate between the sun and the fixed stars.

I thought the principal parts of the world are reckoned to be the heavens and the earth?

Of course, our uncultivated eyesight from the Earth cannot show us any other more notable parts . . . since we tread upon the one with our feet and are roofed over by the other, and since both parts seem to be commingled and cemented together in the com-mon limbo of the horizon like a globe in which the stars, clouds, birds, man, and the various kinds of terrestrial animals are enclosed. But we are practised in the discipline which discloses the causes of things, shakes off the deceptions of eyesight, and carries the mind higher and farther, outside of the boundaries of eyesight. Hence it should not be surprising to anyone that eyesight should learn from reason, that the pupil should learn something new from his master which he did not know before namely, that the Earth, considered alone and by itself, should not be reckoned among the primary parts of the great world but should be added to one of the primary parts, i.e., to the planetary region, the movable world, and that the Earth has the proportionality of a beginning in that part; and that the sun in turn should be separated from the number of stars and set up as one of the principal parts of the whole universe. But I am speaking now of the Earth in so far as it is a part of the edifice of the world, and not of the dignity of the governing creatures which inhabit it.

By what properties do you distinguish these members of the great world from one another?

The perfection of the world consists in light, heat, movement, and the harmony of move-ments. These are analogous to the faculties of the soul: light, to the sensitive; heat to the vital and the natural; movement, to the animal; harmony, to the rational. And indeed the adornment [ornatus] of the world consists in light; its life and growth in heat; and, so to speak, its action, in movement; and its contemplation wherein Aristotle places blessedness in harmonies. Now since three things necessarily come together for every affection, namely the cause a qua, the subject in quo, and the form sub qua therefore, in respect to all the aforesaid affections of the world, the sun exercises the function of the efficient cause; the region of the fixed stars that of the thing forming, containing, and terminating; and the intermediate space, that of the subject in accord-ance with the nature of each affection.

3

Accordingly, in all these ways the sun is the principal body of the whole world. For as regards light; since the sun is very beautiful with light and is as if the eye of the world, like a source of light or very brilliant torch, the sun illuminates, paints, and adorns the bodies of the rest of the world; the intermediate space is not itself light-giving, but light-filled and transparent and the channel through which light is conducted from its source, and there exist in this region the globes and the creatures upon which the light of the sun is poured and which make use of this light. The sphere of the fixed stars plays the role of the river-bed in which this river of light runs and is as it were an opaque and illuminated wall, reflecting and doubling the light of the sun: you have very properly likened it to a lantern, which shuts out the winds. Thus in animals the cerebrum, the seat of the sensitive faculty imparts to the whole animal all its senses, and by the act of common sense causes the presence of all those senses as if arousing them and ordering them to keep watch. And in another way, in this simile, the sun is the image of common sense; the globes in the intermediate space of the sense-organs; and the sphere of the fixed stars of the sensible objects. As regards heat: the sun is the fireplace [focus] of the world; the globes in the intermediate space warm themselves at this fireplace, and the sphere of the fixed stars keeps the heat from flowing out, like the wall of the world, or a skin or garment to use the metaphor of the Psalm of David. The sun is fire, as the Pythagoreans said, or a red-hot stone or mass, as Democritus said and the sphere of the fixed stars is ice, or a crystalline sphere, comparatively speaking. But if there is a certain vegetative faculty not only in terrestrial creatures but also in the whole ether throughout the universal amplitude of the world and both the manifest energy of the sun in warming and physical considerations concerning the origin of comets lead us to draw this inference, it is believable that this faculty is rooted in the sun as in the heart of the world, and that thence by the oarage [sic] of light and heat it spreads out into this most wide space of the world in the way that in animals the seat of heat and of the vital faculty is in the heart and the seat of the vegetative faculty in the liver, whence these faculties by the intermingling of the spirits spread out into the remaining members of the body. The sphere of the fixed stars, situated diametrically opposite on every side, helps this vegetative faculty by concentrating heat, as they say; as it were a kind of skin of the world. As regards movement: the sun is the first cause of the movement of the planets and the first mover of the universe, even by reason of its own body. In the intermediate space the movables, i.e. if the globes of the planets, are laid out. The region of the fixed stars supplies the movables with a place and a base upon which the movables are, as it were, supported; and movement is understood as taking place relative to its absolute immobility. So in animals the cerebellum is the seat of the motor faculty, and the body and its members are that which is moved. The Earth is the base of an animal body; the body, the base of the arm or head; and the arm, the base of the finger. And the movement of each part takes place upon this base as upon something immovable. Finally, as regards the harmony of the movements: the sun occupies that place in which alone the movements of the planets give the appearance of magnitudes harmonically proportioned [contemperatarum]. The planets themselves, moving in the intermediate space, exhibit the subject or terms, wherein the harmonics are found; the sphere of the fixed stars, or the circle of the zodiac, exhibits the measures whereby the magnitude of the apparent movements is known. So too in man there is the intellect, which abstracts universals and forms numbers and proportions, as things which are not outside of intellect; but individuals [individua], received inwardly through the senses are the foundation of universal; and indivisible [individuae] and discrete unities, of numbers; and real terms of proportions. Finally, memory, divided as it were into compartments of quantities and times, like the sphere of the fixed stars, is the storehouse and repository of sensations. And further, there is never judgment of sensations except in the cerebrum; and the effect of joy never arises from a sense-perception except in the heart.

4

Accordingly, the aforesaid vegetative corresponds to the nutritive faculty of animals and plants; heating corresponds to the vital faculty; movement, to the animal faculty; light, to the sensitive; and harmony, to the rational. Wherefore most rightly is the sun held to be the heart of the world and the seat of reason and life, and the principal one among three primary members of the world; and these praises are true in the philosophic sense, since the poets honor the sun as the king of the stars, but the Sidonians, Chaldees, and Persians by an idiom of language observed in German too as the queen of the heavens, and the Platonists, as the king of intellectual fire.

These three members of the world do not seem to correspond with sufficient neatness to the three regions of a sphere: for the centre is a point, but the sun is a body; and the outer surface is understood to be continuous, yet the region of the fixed stars does not shine as a totality, but is everywhere sown with shining points discrete from one another; and finally, the intermediate part in a sphere fills the whole expanse, but in the world the space between the sun and the fixed stars is not seen to be set in motion as a whole.

As a matter of fact the question indicates the neatest answer concerning the three parts of the world. For since a point could not be clothed or expressed except by some body and thus the body which is in the centre would fail of the indivisibility of the centre, it was proper that the sphere of the fixed stars should fail of the continuity of a spherical surface, and should burst open in the very minute points of the innumerable fixed stars; and that finally the middle space should not be wholly occupied by movement and the other affections, not be completely transparent, but slightly more dense, since it could not be altogether empty but had to be filled by some body.

Are there solid spheres [orbes] whereon the planets are carried? And are there empty spaces between the spheres?

Tycho Brahe disproved the solidity of the spheres by three reasons: the first from the movement of comets; the second from the fact that light is not refracted; the third from the ratio of the spheres. For if spheres were solid, the comets would not be seen to cross from one sphere into another, for they would be prevented by the solidity; but they cross from one sphere into another, as Brahe shows. From light thus: since the spheres are eccentric, and since the Earth and its surface where the eye is are not situated at the center of each sphere; therefore if the spheres were solid, that is to say far more dense than that very limpid ether, then the rays of the stars would be refracted before they reached our air, as optics teaches; and so the planet would appear irregularly and in places far different from those which could be predicted by the astronomer. The third reason comes from the principles of Brahe himself; for they bear witness, as do the Copernican, that Mars is sometimes nearer the Earth than the sun is. But Brahe could not believe this interchange to be possible if the spheres were solid, since the sphere of Mars would have to intersect the sphere of the sun. (emphasis added)

2. According to a Jewish witness.

Cf. The Wisdom of the Talmud, by Ben Zion Bokser, [1951], at sacred-texts.com:

The Theological Elements in the Talmud

THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

5

…The Talmudists saw a manifestation of God in the dynamism of the world. The universe is not a mass of inert matter. It is an enterprise of tremendous dynamic activity. “The universe is filled with the might and power of our God.… He formed you and infused into you the breath of life. He stretched forth the heavens and laid the foundations of the earth. His voice blows out flames of fire, rends mountains asunder, and shatters rocks. His bow is fire and His arrows flames. His spear is a torch, His shield the clouds, and His sword the lightning. He fashioned mountains and hills and covered them with grass. He makes the rains and dew to descend, and causes the vegetation to sprout. He also forms the embryo in the mother’s womb and enables it to issue forth as a living being.”6

In this vast panorama of existence, moreover, there is the evidence of a purposeful Intelli-gence at work. No organism is superfluous. A close scrutiny of the world shows everywhere an all-permeating intelligence and purpose. We see the evidence of that design in the vast-ness of the planetary system, in the individuality of each rain drop, in the majesty of trees that renew their garb of green in spring, in the mysteries of love which bind men and women in the unity of marriage. “Even such things as you deem superfluous in the world, such as flies and gnats are necessary parts of the cosmic order and were created by the Holy One, blessed be He, for His purpose—yes even serpents and frogs.” Indeed, every creature in its own way, by its mere existence, and by the precision with which it functions in the p. 89 world, offers eloquent testimony to the divine source from which it is derived.7

It is in man that the design of creation shows itself most forcefully. The Talmudists admired the marvellous construction of the human body in which every organ seemed so perfectly designed for the well-being of the individual and the furtherance of life. “Come and see how many miracles the Holy One, blessed be He, performed with man, and he is unaware of it. Were he to eat a piece of bread which is hard, it would descend into the intestines and scratch them; but the Holy One, blessed be He, created a fountain in the middle of the throat, which enables the bread to move down safely.” “If the bladder is pricked by only a needle, all the air in it comes out; but man is made with numerous orifices, and yet the breath in him does not come out.”

How unlike the work of man is the handiwork of God! The best of man’s work has the mark of his imperfection, but what the Lord has wrought is beyond criticism. “When a human being builds a palace, people often come and criticize. If the pillars were taller, they say, if the roof were only higher, it would be better! But has man ever come and said, If I had three eyes or three hands or three legs, if I walked on my head or my head were turned backward, I should have preferred it? … The Holy One … decided upon every limb which you have and set it in its proper place.”8

6. Exodus Rabbah 5:14. p. 172

7. Genesis Rabbah 10:7; Yalkut on Proverbs, 16:4.8. Genesis Rabbah 1:3, 12:1; Sifre Deut. section 307. (emphasis added)

3. Additional witnesses.

Cf. Johannes Kepler, Epitome of Copernican Astronomy IV and V, translated by Charles Glenn Wallis, Great Books of the Western World, Volume 16, pp. 853-57:

On the Principal Parts of the World

<…>I thought the principal parts of the world are reckoned to be the heavens and the earth?

6

Of course, our uncultivated eyesight from the Earth cannot show us any other more notable parts . . . since we tread upon the one with our feet and are roofed over by the other, and since both parts seem to be commingled and cemented together in the common limbo of the horizon like a globe in which the stars, clouds, birds, man, and the various kinds of terrestrial animals are enclosed.

Cf. Evolving Interpretations of the Bible’s “Cosmological Teachings”—Or—Does the Bible “Teach Science?” by Edward T. Babinski:1

Example 5: Throughout Scripture the shape and construction of the earth is assumed to resemble that of a building having a firm immovable foundation, and a roof (or canopy). “He established the earth upon its foundations, that it will not totter, forever and ever.” (Psalm 104:5) “The world is firmly established, it will not be moved.” (Psalm 93:1) “For the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s, and he set the world on them.” (I Samuel 2:8) “It is I who have firmly set its pillars.” (Psalm 75:3) “Who stretched out the heavens... and established the world.” (Jeremiah 10:12) “Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in” (Isaiah 40:22) “Stretching out heaven like a tent curtain.” (Psalm 104:1,2) “In the heavens... in the true tabernacle (tent), which the Lord pitched, not man.” (Hebrews 8:2-3) “The One who builds his upper chambers in the heavens, and has founded his vaulted dome over the earth.” (Amos 9:6) “Praise God in his sanctuary, praise him in his mighty firmament.” (Psalm 150:1)

Cf. Itinerarium Mentis in Deum by St. Bonaventure. With an Introduction, Translation and Commentary by Philotheus Boehner, OFM, Ph.D., Ch. 1, n. 14:

The Steps in the Ascent to God and the Consideration of Himthrough His Footsteps in the Universe

14. We may extend this consideration to the sevenfold general properties of creatures,19

which bear a sevenfold witness to the power, wisdom, and goodness of God, if we consider the origin, greatness, multitude, beauty, plenitude, activity, and order of all things.

The origin of things, according to their creation, distinction,20 and adornment21 as the work of the six days, proclaims the power of God that produced all things out of nothing, the wisdom of God that clearly differentiated all things, the goodness of God that lavishly adorned all things. The greatness of things also – looking at their vast extension, latitude, and profundity, at the immense power extending itself in the diffusion of light, and the efficiency of their inner uninterrupted and diffusive operation, as manifest in the action of fire – clearly portrays the immensity of the power, wisdom, and the goodness of the Triune God, Who, uncircumscribed, exists in all things by His power, presence, and essence.22

Likewise, the multitude of things in their generic, specific, and individual diversity of substance, form, of figure, and the efficiency which is beyond all human estimation, manifestly suggests and shows the immensity of the three above-mentioned attributes in God. The beauty of things, too, if we but consider the diversity of lights, forms, and colors in elementary, inorganic, and organic bodies, as in heavenly bodies and in minerals, in stones and metals, and in plants and animals, clearly proclaims these three attributes of God. In so far as matter is full of forms because of the seminal principles,23 and form is full of power because of its active potentialities, while power is capable of many effects be-cause of its efficiency, the plenitude of things clearly proclaims the same three attri-butes. In like manner, manifold activity, whether natural, cultural, or moral, by its infinitely multiple variety, shows forth the immensity of that power, art,24 and goodness, which is for

1 (http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/articles/hebrew_heavens.html [12/15/06])

7

all things “the cause of being, the basis of understanding, and the norm of orderly conduct.” Finally, when we consider order in reference to duration, position, and influence, that is, from the standpoint of prior and posterior, superior and inferior, more noble and more ignoble, it clearly points out, first of all, in the book of creation, the primacy, sublimity, and dignity of the First Principle, and thus the infinity of His power; secondly, in the book of Scriptures, the order of divine laws, commands, and judgments, and thus the immensity of His wisdom; and lastly, in the body of the Church, the order of the divine Sacraments, benefices, and rewards, and thus the immensity of His goodness. So it is that order leads us to that which is first and highest, most powerful, most wise, and best.

[19] Septiformem conditionem creaturarum, the sevenfold general properties of creatures. The following consideration of the sevenfold condition of creatures shows the influence of Hugo of Saint Victor, Didascaleion, VII, 1-12 (PL 176, 811-822).

[20] Distinctio, distinction. The term here refers to the creation of the world. The works of distinctio are the separation of light from darkness (first day), the separation of the waters beneath and above the firmament (second day) and the separation of the waters from the land (third day). Cf. Brevil. II, 2 (V, 220.)

[21] Ornatus, adornment. This refers to the following three days of creation: luminous nature adorned by the sun, moon, and stars (fourth day); perspicuous nature, water and air, adorned by the fishes and the birds (fifth day); opaque nature, land, adorned by beasts, reptiles, and man (sixth day). Cf. ibid. [22] Per potentiam, praesentiam et essentiam, by His power, presence, and essence. The presence of God in all things per potentiam, praesentiam et essentiam is a time-honored formula, the explanation of which caused considerable difficulty to the scholastics. It was referred to Gregory the Great, but it is actually found in Glossa Ordinaria, Cant. Cant., 5, 17 (PL 113, 1157). Cf. Adrian Fuerst, O. S. B., An Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Omnipresence of God in Selected Writings between 1220 to 1270, The Catholic University of America Studies in Sacred Theology (second series) no. 62, Catholic University of America Press, 1951, p. 18 et passim. Saint Bonaventure explains: “Assignatio autem beati Gregorii accipitur quantum ad conditiones modorum essendi. In his enim tribus circumloquitur beatus Gregorius perfectionem modorum existendi Deum in omnibus, in quibus est hoc modo. Aliquid enim est in aliquo secundum praesentialitatis indistantiam, ut contentum in continente, ut aqua in vase, aliquid secundum virtutis influentiam, ut motor in mobiIi; aliquid secundum intimitatis existentiam ut illud quod est continens intra, ut anima in corpore. Et omne quod perfecte est in re, necesse est esse quantum ad hanc triplicem conditionem; et hoc modo est Deus. Et ideo dicitur esse potentialiter, praesentialiter et essentialiter, quia secundum praesentialitatis indistantiam, secundum virtutis influentiam, secundum intimitatis existentiam.” I Sent., 37, I, 3, 2 (I, 648).

[23] Rationes seminales, seminal principles. This idea goes back to the logoi spermatikoi of the Stoics. It was adopted by Saint Augustine, from whom Saint Bonaventure derived it. According to Saint Bonaventure, the rationes seminales are active and positive potentialities which the Creator has inserted and concealed in the seminarium of this world. They are the essences or forms of things to be produced. Production and generation, however, are only the awakening of this positive potentiality and the stimulation for its development to a complete and visible state. Corruption means the reversion of the seminal reason from visible to invisible state. “Cum satis constet rationem seminalem esse potentiam activam inditam materiae, et illam potentiam activam constet esse essentiam formam cum ex ea fiat forma mediante operatione naturae, quae non producit aliquid ex nihil; satis rationabiliter ponitur quod ratio seminalis est essentia formae producendae, differens ab illa secundum esse

8

completum et incompletum, sive secundum esse in potentia et in actu.” II Sent., 18, I, 3 (II, 440). The two states of implication (active potentiality) and explication (the visible creature) are likened to a rosebud and a rose. Cf. ibid., 15, I, 1 (II, 374).

[24] Quod est artificiales . . . artis. These terms had a broader meaning in the Middle Ages than they have today. Ars here means everything that is done by man acting as a rational being; hence it includes every object of culture made by man. Artificiales has much the same connotation. It is applied to what we would call artistic works as well as to those things done by human ingenuity as opposed to nature. (emphasis added)

§

9

4. Genesis 1: A critical reading.

Cf. T. H. Huxley, “Mr. Gladstone and Genesis” (1886). Preface and Table of Contents to Volume IV, Science and Hebrew Tradition: Collected Essays IV:

Note on the Proper Sense of the “Mosaic” Narrative of the Creation

<...>

Having taken a good deal of trouble to show what Genesis i.-ii. 4 does not mean, in the preceding pages, perhaps it may be well that I should briefly give my opinion as to what it does mean.

I conceive that the unknown author of this part of the Hexateuchal compilation believed, and meant his readers to believe, that his words, as they understood them—that is to say, in their ordinary natural sense—conveyed the “actual historical truth.” When he says that such and such things happened, I believe him to mean that they actually occurred and not that he imagined or dreamed them; when he says “day,” I believe he uses the word in the popular sense; when he says “made” or “created,” I believe he means that they came into being by a process analogous to that which the people whom he addressed called “making” or “creating”; and I think that, unless we forget our present knowledge of nature, and, putting ourselves back into the position of a Phœnician or a Chaldæan philosopher, start from his conception of the world, we shall fail to grasp the meaning of the Hebrew writer.

We must conceive the earth to be an immovable, more or less flattened, body, with the vault of heaven above, the watery abyss below and around. We must imagine sun, moon, and stars to be “set” in a “firmament” with, or in, which they move; and above which is yet another watery mass. We must consider “light” and “darkness” to be things, the alternation of which constitutes day and night, independently of the existence of sun, moon, and stars. We must further suppose that, as in the case of the story of the deluge, the Hebrew writer was ac-quainted with a Gentile (probably Chaldæan or Accadian) account of the origin of things, in which he substantially believed, but which he stripped of all its idolatrous associations by substituting “Elohim” for Ea, Anu, Bel, and the like.

From this point of view the first verse strikes the keynote [197] of the whole. In the beginning “Elohim created the heaven and the earth.” Heaven and earth were not primitive existences from which the gods proceeded, as the Gentiles taught; on the contrary, the “Powers” preceded and created heaven and earth. Whether by “creation” is meant “causing to be where nothing was before” or “shaping of something which pre-existed,” seems to me to be an insoluble question. As I have pointed out, the second verse has an interesting parallel in Jeremiah iv. 23: “I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was waste and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.” I conceive that there is no more allusion to chaos in the one than in the other. The earth-disk lay in its watery envelope, like the yolk of an egg in the glaire, and the spirit, or breath, of Elohim stirred the mass. Light was created as a thing by itself; and its antithesis “darkness” as another thing. It was supposed to be the nature of these two to alternate, and a pair of alternations constituted a “day” in the sense of an unit of time. The next step was, necessarily, the formation of that “firmament,” or dome over the earth-disk, which was supposed to support the celestial waters; and in which sun, moon, and stars were conceived to be set, as in a sort of orrery. The earth was still surrounded and covered by the lower waters, but the upper were separated from it by the “firmament,” beneath which what we call the air lay. A second alternation of darkness and light marks the lapse of time. After this, the waters which covered the earth-disk, under the firmament, were drawn away

10

into certain regions, which became seas, while the part laid bare became dry land. In accordance with the notion, universally accepted in antiquity, that moist earth possesses the potentiality of giving rise to living beings, the land, at the command of Elohim, “put forth” all sorts of plants. They are made to appear thus early, not, I apprehend, from any notion that plants are lower in the scale of being than animals (which would seem to be inconsistent with the prevalence of tree worship among ancient people), but rather because [198] animals obviously depend on plants; and because, without crops and harvests, there seemed to be no particular need of heavenly signs for the seasons. These were provided by the fourth day’s work. Light existed already; but now vehicles for the distribution of light, in a special manner and with varying degrees of intensity, were provided. I conceive that the previous alternations of light and darkness were supposed to go on; but that the “light” was strengthened during the daytime by the sun, which, as a source of heat as well as of light, glided up the firmament from the east, and slid down in the west, each day. Very probably each day’s sun was supposed to be a new one. And as the light of the day was strengthened by the sun, so the darkness of the night was weakened by the moon, which regularly waxed and waned every month. The stars are, as it were, thrown in. And nothing can more sharply mark the doctrinal purpose of the author, than the manner in which he deals with the heavenly bodies, which the Gentiles identified so closely with their gods, as if they were mere accessories to the almanac. Animals come next in order of creation, and the general notion of the writer seems to be that they were produced by the medium in which they live; that is to say, the aquatic animals by the waters, and the terrestrial animals by the land. But there was a difficulty about flying things, such as bats, birds, and insects. The cosmogonist seems to have had no conception of “air” as an elemental body. His “elements” are earth and water, and he ignores air as much as he does fire. Birds “fly above the earth in the open firmament” or “on the face of the expanse” of heaven. They are not said to fly through the air. The choice of a generative medium for flying things, therefore, seemed to lie between water and earth; and, if we take into account the conspicuousness of the great flocks of water-birds and the swarms of winged insects, which appear to arise from water, I think the preference of water becomes intelligible. However, I do not put this forward as more than a probable hypothesis. As to the creation of aquatic animals on the fifth, that of land animals on the sixth day, and that of man last of all, I presume the order was determined by the fact that man [199] could hardly receive dominion over the living world before it existed; and that the “cattle” were not wanted until he was about to make his appearance. The other terrestrial animals would naturally be associated with the cattle. The absurdity of imagining that any conception, analogous to that of a zoological classi-fication, was in the mind of the writer will be apparent, when we consider that the fifth day’s work must include the zoologist’s Cetacea, Sirenia, and seals,12 all of which are Mammalia; all birds, turtles, sea-snakes and, presumably, the fresh water Reptilia and Amphibia; with the great majority of Invertebrata. The creation of man is announced as a separate act, resulting from a particular resolution of Elohim to “make man in our image, after our likeness.” To learn what this remarkable phrase means we must turn to the fifth chapter of Genesis, the work of the same writer. “In the day that Elohim created man, in the likeness of Elohim made he him; male and female created he them; and blessed them and called their name Adam in the day when they were created. And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth.” I find it impossible to read this passage without being convinced that, when the writer says Adam was made in the likeness of Elohim, he means the same sort of likeness as when he says that Seth was begotten in the likeness of Adam. Whence it follows that his conception of Elohim was completely anthropomorphic. In all this narrative I can discover nothing which differentiates it, in principle, from other ancient cosmogonies, except the rejection of all gods, save the vague, yet anthropomorphic, Elohim, and the assigning to them anteriority and superiority to the world. It is as utterly

11

irreconcilable with the assured truths of modern science, as it is with the account of the origin of man, plants, and animals given by the writer of the second chief constituent of the Hexateuch in the second chapter of Genesis. This extraordinary story starts with the assump-tion of the existence of a rainless earth, devoid of plants and herbs [200] of the field. The creation of living beings begins with that of a solitary man; the next thing that happens is the laying out of the Garden of Eden, and the causing the growth from its soil of every tree “that is pleasant to the sight and good for food”; the third act is the formation out of the ground of “every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air”; the fourth and last, the manufacture of the first woman from a rib, extracted from Adam, while in a state of anæsthesia. Yet there are people who not only profess to take this monstrous legend seriously, but who declare it to be reconcilable with the Elohistic account of the creation!

5. Genesis 1: A favorable reading.

Cf. J. C. Wenger, “The Authority of Scripture” (excerpt):2

The Bible, Religious Truth.

<...>

The account of the creation will serve to illustrate the religious concerns which motivated the writers of Scripture. Moses could have written all sorts of scientific data—if God had revealed it to him. Had a modern scientist attempted to write the first two chapters of Gene-sis, he would have begun with a statement of the age of the earth; but Moses says simply that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” The scientist of today would attempt to give us some concept of the solar system, the size and mass of the sun, and of each of its planets and their moons, the size and shape of the planetary orbits, the location of the solar system in the “Milky Way,” the number of such galaxies which God made, and the like. Coming to the earth, the scientist would have made a modern classification of the flora and fauna which God created, and so ad infinitum, writing everything from the standpoint of the findings and theories of the most modern learning, including, no doubt, some untrue hypotheses which later research would disprove! But this is not the character of Genesis. It was not written to make studies in biology, geology, and astronomy unnecessary. Rather, it gives a simple and straightforward account of how the God of Israel created all things by His all-powerful Word, of how His work was orderly and well arranged, and of how it all was “good,” as the account states over and over. As to interest, the account is naturally geo-centric, for man dwells on this sphere. As to emphasis, the account is theocentric, for it was God, and He alone, who acted on each of the six divine creative “days.” The language is that of ordinary people living in the ancient Near East: vegetation and fruit trees; sun, moon, stars; flying creatures; huge marine forms and what one scholar has described as “the smaller fry” of the sea; wild beasts of the earth, and a broad term rendered “cattle” in the English version; and finally, the creatures which “glide” or crawl, probably reptiles in today’s language. The account simply mentions the major forms of life known to common people in the early days of Israel, and reports that God created them all. When one compares the Genesis account of the creation with such Babylonian myths as the Enuma elish, found at Assyrian Nineveh, there are superficial similarities of language and general scheme, such as the mention of the “deep,” the creation of the earth and a cover-ing for it, waters in the sky and on the earth, the establishment of a twelve-month year, the creation of man from divine materials, and so on. But the differences in the two accounts are

2 (http://www.bibleviews.com/GodsWW2.html [12/15/06]. From God’s Word Written, by J. C. Wenger, © copyright 1966, renewed, by Herald Press, copyright now owned by Leland M. Haines, Northville, MI. This book has been reprinted by Biblical Viewpoints)

12

even more striking. Genesis 1 is written in chaste and simple language, while the Enuma elish is mythological in form and polytheistic in outlook, beginning with the generation of the gods, and rehearsing their disharmony, strife, and crimes; the world is created in the fourth phase of the myth; and the long account (over 950 lines) ends in the praise of the god Marduk, not in the institution of the Lord’s Sabbath. G. Ernest Wright is assuredly correct when he writes that it is “very confusing” to call the Biblical presentation a myth for “nothing could be more different” than the total Biblical point of view and “polytheist mythology.” (Biblical Archaeology, Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, Revised Edition, 1962, p.104.) The vivid and poetic Hebrew account of the creation fails to answer many of the questions with which scientists are concerned, for it is a truly religious account. Indeed, it has genuine theological depth. We gather from it how great the God of Israel must really be to have created by His Word all that exists, “the heavens and the earth.” We learn that the Most High is sovereign over His creation, for He made it all. We see that man is a creature of dignity, for he was created in the image of God, and it was God who breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, making him an animate creature, “a living soul.” We see portrayed in Genesis 1 a great personal God who made everything “very good,” and who is the kind of Deity who has a plan for human history. (In contrast, the Babylonian myths, with their polytheism and all sorts of imaginary details, are grossly distorted and misleading.) It cannot be emphasized too strongly how utterly dependent we are upon the Scriptures of the Old and New Testa-ments for all that we know of God, of Jesus Christ, and of the divine salvation which the Holy Spirit seeks to bring to us. The Bible has a vastly higher function than to provide us with the facts of mathematics or of science: it was all written by the inspiration of God’s Spirit to make us “wise unto salvation,” even the salvation “which is in Christ Jesus” (II Timothy 3:15). It is difficult indeed to find a name for the type of literature which we find in the early pages of Genesis. It is agreed on all hands that the simple narratives there recorded were written to answer the deepest questions which men face. What is the origin of matter, of plants and animals, of man, and especially of human sin and depravity? The term legend is not a satisfactory name, for it suggests that the narratives are unrelated to real history, or at least that their historicity is suspect. The Scandinavian term saga seems to be no improvement over legend. Parable is usually used of a short story designed to teach a truth which is not rooted in actual history. The word allegory is generally used of an imaginary story to convey spiritual truth, again without particular relation to actual history: Pilgrim’s Progress being an illustration. For lack of a better term some Christian writers therefore strip from the word myth any association with the idea of imaginary gods and goddesses and arbitrarily apply it to the accounts in the early chapters of Genesis. The present writer feels that this procedure is not a happy one, for it is difficult to use words in other than their dictionary sense without conveying connotations which are not intended. Could not a phrase be found to indicate less ambiguously the truth that in Genesis 1-3 we have simple narratives which are not ends in themselves but which were intended to provide true theological explanations of man’s deepest questions? We have already observed that there are profound differences between the Babylonian mythology and the Mosaic account. (And these differences are surely to be accounted for by the ministry of the Holy Spirit to Moses as he wrote the illuminating accounts of the creation and the Fall.) Moses did not write theology as such, nor did he write simple stories as such. What he wrote was a sort of hybrid between simple narratives and theological exposition. I would therefore suggest that we refer to the early chapters of the Bible as theological narration.

§

13

6. The divergence between pagan analogues and Genesis I.

Cf. Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: Part I, From Adam to Noah (Jerusalem, 1961) Introduction:

They began, as a rule, with a theogony, that is, with the origin of the gods, the genealogy of the deities who preceded the birth of the world and mankind; and they told of the antagonism between this god and that god, of frictions that arose from these clashes of will, and of mighty wars that were waged by the gods. They connected the genesis of the world with the genesis of the gods and with the hostilities and wars between them; and they identified the different parts of the universe with given deities or with certain parts of their bodies.

Cf. Umberto Cassuto, idem. Introduction

Furthermore, whilst these allusions show certain resemblances quite striking, at times to the sagas of the Gentiles, they also exhibit distinct differences: the actions credited to the various deities in the pagan literature are attributed in the Hebrew Scriptures to the God of Israel, and are portrayed in a form more in keeping with Israel’s religious conscience. It follows that we have to assume the existence of intermediate links in the chain of development, which bridged the gap between the poems of the non-Israelites and the myths alluded to in the Bible…. The truth that the Torah wished to convey in this section, to wit, that the world in its entirety was created by the word of the One God, could not be stated in abstract terms, sim-ply as a theoretical concept. Semitic thought avoids general statements. Particularly in the case of a book like ours, which was not intended for the thinkers and the elect few only, but for the people as a whole, including also its common folk, it was proper that its ideas should be embodied in the language of concrete description. Hence, the Torah made use of the con-crete traditions that found expression in the ‘Wisdom’ literature and in the ancient heroic poetry of Israel, and drew from them material for its structure. Choosing only what it deemed worthy, it refined and purified the selected matter, and moulded the entire narrative to a pattern of its own – a pattern befitting its purpose and educational aim. In the light of this hypothesis, the parallels between our section and the traditions current in the ancient Orient become perfectly clear.

Cf. S. M. Paul, Encyclopedia Judaica, s.v. “Creation”, 5:1062:

In Genesis there is a total rejection of all mythology.... Cosmogony is not linked to theo-gony. The pre-existence of [G]od is assumed—it is not linked to the genesis of the universe. There is no suggestion of any primordial battle or internecine wars which eventually led to the creation of the universe.... The primeval water, earth, sky, and luminaries are not pictured as deities or as parts of disembodied deities, but are all parts of the manifold work of the Creator.... The story in Genesis, moreover, is nonpolitical: unlike Enuma Elish, which is a monument to Marduk and to Babylon and its temple, Genesis makes no allusion to Israel, Jerusalem, or the temple.

Cf. Nahum Sarna, JPS Torah Commentary, Genesis, p. 3:

The story of Creation, or cosmology, that opens the Book of Genesis differs from all other such accounts that were current among the peoples of the ancient world. Its lack of interest in the realm of heaven and its economy of words in depicting primeval chaos are highly uncharacteristic of this genre of literature. The descriptions in Genesis deal solely with what lies beneath the celestial realm, and still the narration is marked by compactness, solemnity, and dignity.

14

<…>

These myths about a cosmic battle at the beginning of time appear in the Bible in frag-mentary form, and the several allusions have to be pieced together to produce some kind of coherent unit. Still, the fact that these myths appear in literary compositions in ancient Israel indicates clearly that they had achieved wide currency over a long period of time. They have survived in the Bible solely as obscure, picturesque metaphors and exclusively in the language of poetry. Never are these creatures accorded divine attributes, nor is there any-where a suggestion that their struggle against God could in any way have posed a challenge to His sovereign rule. This is of particular significance in light of the fact that one of the inherent characteristics of all other ancient Near Eastern cosmologies is the internecine strife of the gods. Polytheistic accounts of creation always begin with the predominance of the divinized powers of nature and then describe in detail a titanic struggle between the opposing forces. They inevitably regard the achievement of world order as the outgrowth of an overwhelming exhibition of power on the part of one god who then manages to impose his will upon all other gods.

§

15

7. The constitution of the world according to the Book of Job.

Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Book of Job (tr. Brian Mullady) (© 1996-2009 Western Dominican Province), ch. 38, Lessons 1-2:3

CHAPTER THIRTY EIGHT: GOD RESOLVES THE QUESTION

The First Lesson: What Can Man Understand?

1 Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind and said: 2 Who is that man who envelops his opinions with inept arguments? 3 Gird up your loins like a man. I will question you and you answer me. 4 Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding, 5 who determined its measurements, if you know it? Or who stretched the measuring line upon the earth? 6 On what were the bases of the land sunk or who has laid the cornerstone 7 when each of the morning stars praised me, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? 8 Who shut up the sea with doors when it burst forth as though coming from a womb, 9 when he laid out the clouds as its clothing, and I wrapped it in fog like the swaddling clothes of an infant? 10 I surrounded it with my limits and placed the bar and the doors. 11 And I said: Thus far shall you come and you will not proceed further and here shall your proud waves break. 12 After your rising, did you command the dawn and have you shown the dawn its place?

After the discussion of Job and his friends about divine providence took place, Eliud had assumed to himself the office of determining the answer, contradicting Job in some things and his friends in others. But because human wisdom is not sufficient to understand the truth of divine providence, it was necessary that this dispute should be determined by divine authority. Since Job thought correctly about divine providence, but in his manner of speaking he had gone to excess that he had caused scandal in the hearts of the others when they thought that he did not show due reverence to God, therefore, the Lord, as the determiner of the question, contradicts the friends of Job because they did not think correctly, (42:7) Job himself for expressing himself in an inordinate way, (v. 3ff. and Eliud for an inadequate determination of the question. (v.2) So the text continues, “The Lord answered Job,” because this answer was more on his account, although he had not spoken immediately before. Then he shows the manner of response saying, “out of the whirlwind,” which can certainly be understood according to the literal sense to mean that the voice of God was formed miraculously in the air by some disturbance of the air, as happened on Mt. Sinai in Exodus 20:18, or like the voice which spoke to Christ, which some said, “was like a clap of thunder,” as one reads in John 12:29. Or this can be understood metaphorically, so that this answer of the Lord is an interior inspiration divinely given to Job himself, and so the Lord is said to have answered him, “out of the whirlwind,” both because of the disturbance which he still suffered and also because of the darkness which accompanies a whirlwind, since we cannot perceive divine inspiration clearly in this life, but with the darkness of sensible likenesses, as Dionysius says in chapter I of The Heavenly Hierarchy. The Lord indicated this if he had made his voice sensibly heard from a corporeal whirlwind. Once a dispute has been determined by the opinion of the judge, nothing else remains to be said unless the statement of the determination is rejected. So the Lord first rejects the determination of the question which Eliud had made. He rejects it because Eliud had enveloped the true opinions which he had proposed with many false and frivolous words, and so the text continues, “He said: Who is that man who envelops his opinions with inept arguments?” In his arguments Eliud had accused Job of saying he wanted to dispute with

3 (http://dhspriory.org/thomas/SSJob.htm [3/28/11])

16

God and said that he was just so vigorously that he seemed to detract from the justice of the divine judgment. But Eliud enveloped these opinions with many presumptuous and even false statements, as should be clear already, which are called here inept arguments because every lack of order proceeds from a defect of reason. So after the Lord rejected the determination of Eliud, he himself begins to determine the question. First, he gets Job’s attention when he says, “Gird up your loins like a man,” which here is used as a metaphor. For men usually gird up their loins in preparation for a journey or some work. The Lord therefore wanted Job to be ready to consider what he said to him by removing every impediment. So he clearly tells him to gird up his loins, because loins metaphorically mean carnal desires which block spiritual attention in a special way as Isaiah says, “To whom will he teach knowledge, and whom will he make understand what has been heard? Those who have been weaned from milk, those taken from the breast.” (28:9) First, he begins in his determination to accuse Job for seeming to have spoken presumptuously when he provoked God to discussion. Since Job seems to have given God two options when he said, “Call me and I will answer you, and let me speak and you answer me,” (13:22) and as Job had already said enough, the Lord, as though he choosing the second alternative, says, “let me speak and you answer me.” God certainly does not question to learn, but to convince man of his ignorance. He questions Job about his effects which are accessible to the experience of the human senses. When a man is shown to be ignorant of these, he is much more convinced that he does not have knowledge of the higher realities. Among other sensible effects he begins to ask about the principal parts of the earth. Of these earth is more known to us because it is more immediate to our experience. He begins to ask him about this and says, “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?” He rightly compares the earth to a foundation because as a foundation is the lowest part of a building, so also the earth is the lowest of bodies and it lies under everything. Since the earth is the principal matter of the human body, matter precedes in time that which is made from it, and even more the plan of the artisan who puts together the matter precedes it. So he clearly says, “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth,” as if to say: You cannot know the plan of the foundation of the earth, because when the earth was laid on its foundation you did not yet exist in the nature of things. Consider that some of the ancients did not attribute the position of the earth and of the other elements to some ordering plan, but to material necessity, according to which the heavy elements sank under the light ones. So to disprove this opinion, the Lord as a consequence compares the foundation of the earth to the foundation of a building. This foun-dation is constructed from the plans of the architect. In the same way the foundation of the earth was made according to divine providence, which human intelligence is not capable of understanding fully. He makes this clear when he says, “Tell me, if you have under-standing,” as if to say: Therefore, you cannot indicate the reason for these things because your intelligence is not capable of grasping them. Consider that an artisan puts four things in order in the foundation of a building. First, he orders how large the foundation ought to be. In the same way, divine reason has disposed how great a quantity the earth should have, and not larger or smaller. He expresses this saying, “Who determined its measurements,” in all its dimensions. He clearly says, “determined,” for the shape of the earth does not require a certain quantity by necessity, but this quantity was only imposed on the earth from divine reason, which man cannot know. So he says, “If you know it,” since man cannot know or tell this. Second, an artisan puts in order in his plan the determination of the site of the foundation, which he encompasses by the extension of the measuring line, and so he says, “or who stretched the measuring line upon the earth?” This means the plan of divine government which clearly determined the place for the earth in the parts of the universe. Third, after the artisan has determined the size of the foundation and where it is to be located, he determines on what the foundation can be solidly laid. As to this he says, “On what were the bases,” of the land, “sunk,” because it was founded on the center of the world. Fourth, after thinking through these three things, the artisan

17

now begins to lay the stones in the foundation. First, he lays the corner stone to which the different walls are aligned. As to this he says, “or who has laid,” put down, “the corner-stone,” on which the very center of the earth is clearly determined, according to which the different parts of the earth are aligned. A man usually lays the foundation of a building because he needs a place to live. But to show that God does not lay the foundation of the earth from need, he adds, “when each of the morning stars praised me,” as if he should say: Although heaven whose stars praise me is my dwelling, yet I founded the earth, not because I need the servants who live there, but from my will alone. He does not say this as though heaven was made before the earth, especially as we read in Genesis, “In the beginning God created heaven and earth,” (1:1) Whereas the text says that the stars which he mentions here were created on the fourth day. (Gen. 1:14) But Genesis says this to show that in the order of nature heaven and the stars are prior to the earth as incorruptible to corruptible and mover to moved. He says the “morning stars,” i.e. ones newly created, as we call morning stars the ones which usually appear at the beginning of the day. The fact that the morning stars are said to praise God can be understood materially in one way, inasmuch as they were the material of divine praise in their brightness and nobility. If not to men, who did not exist yet, they were so at least for the angels who already existed. In another way, according to those who say the heavenly bodies have souls, the stars in the beginning of their institution praised God, not with vocal, but with mental praise. This can even refer to the angels whose ministry is to move the heavenly bodies, as the text continues, “and all the sons of God shouted for joy,” which refers to the angels of the highest hierarchy, whom Dionysius says are located in the entrance court of God. Therefore, as he clearly attributes praise to former stars as to the lower angels, but he attributes shouting for joy to the latter as to the higher angels, because this connotes a kind of excellence in praise. After the foundation of the earth, he continues then speaking about the waters which are immediately placed over the land. The natural order of the elements requires that water surrounds the earth at every point like air surrounds earth and water at every point. But by divine disposition, it has been effected for the generation of men, animals, and plants, some part of the land remains uncovered by the waters, as God holds back the waters of the sea within their certain limits by his power, and so he says, “Who shut up the sea with doors,” with determined limits. There were some who thought the action of the sun dried up some part of the earth, but the Lord shows that it has been disposed from the beginning that the sea does not cover the land everywhere. He describes the production of the sea using the comparison of the birth of a living thing, a child, because water is especially apt to be changed into living things. This is why the seed of all things is moist. The child first comes forth from the womb of its mother, and he means this when he says, “when it burst forth as though proceeding from the womb.” He uses the word “to break forth” because it is a property of water to move almost continually. He says the sea proceeds, “from the womb,” not because it has had its origin from other corporeal matter, but because it proceeded from the hidden origin of divine providence as from the womb. Second, a newborn child is dressed, and expressing this he says, “when he laid out the clouds as its clothing.” For since the clouds are born from vapors released from water, clouds are much more numerous in maritime places. Third, a child who is born is wrapped in swaddling clothes, and expressing this he says, “and I wrapped it in fog like the swaddling clothes of an infant.” The fog does not mean those water vapors raised up or condensed in the clouds, but darkening of the air on the face of the sea, and perhaps he alludes to what Genesis says, “and darkness covered the face of the abyss.” (Gen. 1:2) After he posits these things which express the primordial production of the sea, he ex-plains his conclusion as if he said: When the sea was newly made, then, “I surrounded it with my limits.” He posits three things which pertain to the boundary of the sea. One of these is shown when he says, “within my limits,” that is, those placed by me. The second is when he says, “I placed the bar,” and the third when he says, “and doors.”

18

These three things pertain to the rule of divine power, and so he explains them in this way, “and I said: Thus far shall you come,” which pertains to the nature of boundaries, i.e. for a boundary [is] the farthest extent of motion, “and you will proceed no further,” which pertains to the bar by which one’s progress is blocked, “and here shall your proud waves break.” This pertains to the gates which are placed for the purpose of not allowing entrance or exit at random, but according to a determined measure. Thus even the sea does not change its shore at random, but according to the determined measure of the ebb and flow of the waves. After the land and the water, he proceeds on to the air, which, according to appear-ances, is joined to heaven. The first disposition common to the whole body which stretches over the waters and the land is the variation of night and day, which happens from the motion of the day which is first of movements. Therefore, he says as a consequence, “After your rising did you command the dawn?” as if to say: Do day and night succeed each other on this earth by your command? For dawn is a kind of boundary between day and night. He clearly says, “After your rising,” as when he spoke about the earth before he had said, “Where were you?” (v.4) For just as the earth is the first material principle of man, so also the highest heaven, which varies night and day by its motion is the first principle of the human body among corporeal causes . Consider that the clarity of the break of day or the dawn is diversified according to the diverse degrees of the intensity of signs which accompany the sun, because when there is the sign of a quick rising, in which the sun rises immediately, the dawn lasts only a little while. When the sun shows signs of a delayed rising it endures longer. The measure of place is determined out of which the brightness of the daybreak begins to appear when the sun is rising there, and expressing this he then says, “and have you shown the dawn its place?” as if to say: Have you ordered the places in the heaven from which the dawn will gives its light? He implies the answer, “No”. From all these things you can understand that your reason fall short of the comprehension of divine things, and so it is clear that you are no suited to dispute with God.

CHAPTER THIRTY EIGHT: GOD RESOLVES THE QUESTION

The Second Lesson: God’s Marvels on Earth, in the Sea and the Air

13 Have you taken hold and shaken out the ends of the earth and have you shaken wicked men out of it? 14 The seal will be opened like clay and will stand like a garment. 15 Their light will be withheld from the wicked and their upraised arm will be broken. 16 Have you entered into the depth of the sea, and have you walked in the valley of the deep? 17 Have the gates of death opened to you and have you seen the dark gates? 18 Have you considered the expanses of the earth? Tell me, if you know everything, 19 in which path does the light dwell? And where is the place of darkness, 20 to lead to each of its limits and understand the paths to its home? 21 Did you know where you were born then? And do you know the number of your days? 22 Have you entered the storehouses of the snow, or have you inspected the storehouses of the hail? 23 These things which I have prepared for a time of the enemy the day of battle and war. 24 By what path does light scatter, and is heat divided on the earth? 25 Who gave a course to the very violent rainstorm and the way of sound to thunder 26 to rain on the land in an uninhabited desert, where no mortal man lingers. 27 To rain on the steppes and the desolate earth and to produce green plants. 28 Who is the father of the rain or who generated the drops of the dew? 29 From whose womb did the ice come forth and who has given birth to the hoarfrost falling from heaven? 30 The waters harden like a stone and the surface of the deep is frozen 31 Will you be able to bind together the flickering stars of the Pleiades? Or will you be able to break the circle of Arcturus? 32 Will you bring forth Lucifer at its time and can you make the evening

19

star rise over the sons of the earth? 33 Do you know the order of heaven, and will you be able to establish their plan upon the earth? 34 Will you lift up your voice in a cloud and will the rapid movement of the waters cover you? 35 Will you send the lightening and will it go forth, and upon its return will it say to you: Here we are?

After the Lord has enumerated the principal parts of corporeal creatures, that is, earth, sea, and sky, he begins here with the marvels of divine works which appear in the ordering of these three parts of the world just mentioned. He begins with the earth in which what happens in earthquakes seems to be especially wondrous. He speaks about this metaphorically in the figure of a man who takes some object and shakes it. So he says, “Have you taken hold,” i.e., have you grasped with your power, “and shaken out the ends of the earth?” This must not be interpreted to mean that the whole earth is shaken at once in an earthquake, but that some extremities are shaken. Everything which happens in the corporeal creature redounds to the usefulness of man. Earthquakes and other such terrible things are useful in that man, being terrified, may desist from their sins, and so he says, “and have you shaken wicked men out of it?” He speaks here using the comparison of a man who shakes a garment to shake dust or a moth out of it. So also God seems to shake the earth to shake sinners out of it, sometimes by death, and sometimes by a changed life. In an earthquake some things are usually uncovered, like walls and things of this kind, and he expresses this saying, “The seal will be opened like clay.” For clay, when it is divided, easily returns to the same condition, and so also a seal, for example, on a wall or something of this sort, which has been changed by the opening of the wall, is sometimes restored to the same place by divine power. Sometimes towers, trees and other things of this kind are shaken by an earthquake and do not fall, and as to this he says, “and will stand like a garment,” which does not lose its original shape after it is shaken out. But on the contrary sometimes men die either buried by the earth or even crushed by walls falling in an earthquake, and so he says, “their light will be withheld from the wicked,” by death. Sometimes fortifications and very strong towers are cast down by an earthquake, and as to this he says, “and their upraised arm,” is broken that is, a very strong fortification or some powerful friend in whom a man confides like his own arm. After these premises about the earthquake and its effects, he proceeds to the dis-position of the middle element, i.e., the sea, where man believes there are marvelous things hidden. First, those things which are in the depths of the sea, for example, the habitats of the fish living in the sea, and as to this he says, “Have you entered into the depths of the sea,” so that you know the animals which are hidden there? Another thing which seems hidden and marvelous in the sea is the disposition of the ocean floor, and as to this he says, “and have you walked in the valley of the deep,” that is, in the deepest part of the sea? After the disposition of the land and the sea he proceeds to the disposition of heaven under which air is contained. He lingers a little longer on this because of the many marvelous things which appear there. First, he considers the disposition of the light and the darkness which embraces the whole of the higher body in common. Consider that the heavenly bodies act through their own light on lower bodies. This is so because light is like the active quality of the heavenly bodies, like cold and heat of the elements. Therefore, he connects the effects of the heavenly bodies on those lower things with the consideration of light and darkness. Among the other effects of the heavenly bodies on lower bodies, the most common is generation and corruption. and from this he begins saying, “Have the gates of death opened to you?” For death is the corruption of a living body, and so it properly belongs to the man to whom the present discourse is addressed. But the gates of death are the causes of corruption in relation to the powers of the heavenly bodies, which are the primary powers through which one proceeds to such an effect. It is very difficult to know the period of life and the permanence of each thing, and so the gates of death are not open to us because we cannot know in the heavenly bodies the proper cause of the corruption of each thing. Darkness fittingly describes death both because in death man (who experiences

20

knowledge by means of light) is deprived of corporeal sight, and also because man after death passes into oblivion as into a kind of darkness. Therefore he says, “and have you seen the dark gates?” He may be understood to be calling “the dark gates” because it is proper to death which before he had called the gates of death. Or “dark gates” can be referred to another action of the heavenly bodies, which is the darkness of the atmosphere, so that what he said about the gates of death is referred to only living bodies, but what he said about the dark gates may refer to transparent bodies. He continues about the diversity of heat and cold around the earth saying, “Have you considered the expanse of the earth?” Consider here that according to the astronomers the longitude of the earth is from East to West, and the latitude of the earth from South to North, because in everything the greater dimension is called length and the lesser dimension called breadth. We know by experience that the dimension of the earth which is inhabited is greater from the East to the West than from the South to the North. Thus the latitude of the earth is measured from South to North in which progression one measures the difference of heat and cold. For the nearer one approaches the South in our populated world, the hotter the place is because of nearness to the sun. Thus what is said about the latitude of the earth can be referred to the diversity of hot and cold places. When he has said these things about the action of heavenly light on lower bodies, he mentions the light itself when he says, “Tell me, if you know everything,” so that you are fit to argue with God who knows everything, “in which path does light dwell?” Consider here that light is found in the heavenly bodies of the world, which are called luminaries because of the fact that they are vessels of light. But since a path refers to motion, the question of the path in which the light dwells refers to the motion of the luminaries. Exactly how the luminaries move exceeds human knowledge, which is shown from the different opinions of men concerning their motions. Some assert that they move by eccentric movement [not having the axis in the center] and epicycles, others by the motion of the different spheres. So just as the movement of the luminaries causes light as they move in the upper hemisphere, so also darkness proceeds from their motion as they are moved in the lower hemisphere, this also presents the same difficulty, and so he says, “and where is the place of darkness.” One cannot measure the motion of a body perfectly unless the path that it follows is known since magnitude is measured by motion and motion by magnitude, as Aristotle says in IV Physics. Therefore, since the path of motion of the luminaries cannot be known by man for certain, the consequence is that the measure of their motions cannot perfectly be known either, and so he says, “to lead each,” i.e., the light and the darkness, “to its limits,” by showing the reason for the appearance and disappearance of each of the luminaries as to beginning and end and also with respect to their medium. He speaks about this saying, “and do you understand the path to its home,” of the light. For when at noon it reaches its zenith, then it walks the paths to its home, so to speak. Its two termini are in the rising and the setting. The duration of the lower bodies and the times of generation and corruption are measured according to the motion of the heavenly bodies, as Dionysius says in Chapter IV of The Divine Names. Therefore, when one is ignorant of these causes, one consequently does not know the effects, and so he says, “Did you know when you were born then?” as if to say: Could you know the time of your birth in advance by considering the motion of the heavens? You could not know this because before you were born, you did not exist; but also no other man could know this in advance because of the weakness of human knowledge. For God speaks to Job as representing all men. Just as you could not know in advance the time of your birth, so also you cannot know the end of you life in advance, and so he says, “and do you know the number of your days?” as if to say: You cannot know this from the computation of the heavenly motions, whose certain measure you do not know. After he considers these things about the changeableness of light and darkness, he comes to diverse changes of the air, according to which the air varies as storm or calm. He begins with the snow and the hail saying, “Have you entered the storehouses of the snow,

21

or have you inspected the storehouses of the hail?” By the storehouses of the snow and the hail he means the water vapors which have risen up from which snows and hail are generated. But because hail is the heavier substance and is generated in a place closer to us, when cold is expelled to the interior of a cloud by surrounding heat, for this reason when he discusses the hail he desires sight because it is more capable of being seen. When he speaks about snows he talks about entering, because one can penetrate snow more because it is light. God sometimes uses things like this for the correction of men, as we have already seen, “He judges the peoples with these things.” (36:31) So he says, “These things which I have prepared for a time of the enemy,” that is for a time when revenge must be taken on enemies. God uses these things against them like the arms of war, and so he says, “in the day of battle,” that is, actual conflict, “and war,” that is, wars in which one prepares for combat.

After a storm of snow and hail ends, a calm follows in which warm and clear air is prepared, and so he says, “By what path does light scatter?” which expresses the clear air, “and heat is divided upon the earth,” which expresses warm weather. Here we should consider that before when he spoke about light and the luminaries themselves in which light dwells, he mentioned only their path because the light wends its way through the motion of the luminaries, whether in a storm or calm. But clarity and warmth from it only appear to us after the storm ceases. There is no sensible difference of the intensity of the clear air in various lands when the air has been calm, but there is a sensible difference in intensity of heat. Therefore he said that light is scattered as though diffused indifferently, but heat is divided as though distributed differently, befits difference of place. Next he proceeds to certain aspects of the winds in the air, by which the rainstorm is caused when rain is driven on. So he says, “Who gave the course of the very violent rainstorm?” For the violent course of the rainstorm is caused by the strong impulse of the winds which divine power produces. Likewise, when clouds are set in motion from the winds, this causes thunderclaps, and that is why such a sound is not heard in one place, like the sound of some passing body, and so he says, “and the way of sound to thunder?” He adds the reason why the winds set in motion the rain and the clouds when he says, “to rain on the land of an uninhabited desert,” which cannot be lived in because of the aridity of the earth. Vapors bearing rain arise especially from humid places, and so if the clouds and rains were not set in motion by the winds it would follow that it would never rain in dry places. It happens that some places are sometimes irrigated by human industry, when the rains cease. But this cannot happen there, and so he says, “where no mortal man lingers.” So human technology cannot provide water for that land. Because of this God ordered that the clouds and the rains be set in motion by the winds so that it might rain even in desert places, and so he says, “to rain on,” with rains, “the steppes,” that is the land which no man can cross, “and the desolate earth,” destitute of human care. So only by divine care alone, “to produce green plants,” to beautify the earth and give pasture to wild animals which are also managed by divine providence. Next he discusses the rains without the wind when he says, “Who is the father?” that is, the efficient cause “of the rain” not from necessity, but from the order of providence which befits a father. For God moves the sun and the other heavenly bodies which are the proximate efficient causes of the generation of the rains. The dew is generated from the same cause as the rain, and only differs from rain in the greatness and smallness of matter, and so he then says, “or who generated the drops of the dew?” He clearly calls them drops to show their small quantity. Consider here that just as rain, when frozen, is snow, so dew, when frozen, is frost,9 and so he says, “From whose womb did the ice come forth?” Here one should note that cold is the cause of ice and is a feminine quality, whereas the cause of rains and dew is the heat which melts and does not permit the vapor to freeze. Heat is a masculine quality, and so he used clearly the name of father for the generation of the rain and dew. However, concerning the generation of ice he used the term womb which pertains to a mother. Cold causes two kinds of ice: one in the air, which pertains to the frost falling from

22

the sky, and so he says, “and who has given birth to the hoarfrost falling from heaven?” an act which he still attributes to a father because the power of cold does not appear to be so great in frost as in more substantial ice. The other kind of ice is generated from the waters below where the cold is more intense, and so he says, “The waters harden like a stone,” because the violent intensity of the cold hardens them to ice. This cold may be so great that in very cold climates even the seas freeze over, and expressing this he says, “and the surface of the deep is frozen,” namely, the water which is on the surface is frozen by the cold. But cold air cannot penetrate to the depths of the sea.

When he has explained these things about the variable changes of the air, he proceeds further to the immutable changeableness of the heavenly bodies. On this subject he first considers the immobility of figure in the fixed stars, because each of them maintains its place so that one does not approach the other too much or too little. This phenomenon especially appears in the stars closer to us which never come together, and so he says, “Will you be able to bind together the flickering stars of the Pleiades?” The stars of the Pleiades are the stars which shine in the head of Taurus, of which six appear very close, but the seventh is more dull.

Second, he considers the uniformity of the first motion in the heavenly bodies, by which the whole heaven and all the stars in it revolve once in a night and a day over the poles of the world. This motion is more perceived by the senses in the stars near the North Pole, which are perpetually apparent to us because of the elevation of the pole over our horizon. Among these stars one especially notes the constellation of Arcturus, which is The Great Bear. The stars of this constellation clearly move uniformly in a circle around the pole of the world, and as to this he says, “or are you able to break up the circle of Arcturus,” so that it does not encircle the pole?

Third, the motion of the planets seems wonderful among the heavenly bodies. Although completely uniform, our senses perceive some irregularity in this motion. This can be especially observed in the star Venus, which sometimes rises before the sun and then is called Lucifer, the Morning Star, but sometimes sets after the sun and then is called the Evening Star. It is clear that the stars which always move more slowly than the sun begin first to appear in the morning before the rising of the sun, because the sun in its own proper motion moves from the West to the East and leaves them behind, as one can see in Saturn, Jupiter, and Mars. The moon, which has a faster motion than the sun, always begins to appear in the evening as though leaving the sun behind and preceding it towards the East. Venus and Mercury sometimes begin to appear in the morning, sometimes in the evening; but since Mercury is rarely seen and is small in size, its irregularity is less evident. Venus, however, is visible to everyone, and so it clearly sometimes has a faster motion than the sun, sometimes a slower one. From this the irregularity in the motion of the planets clearly is evident, and to show this he says, “Will you bring forth Lucifer,” that is, Venus appearing in the morning, “at its time,” in a determined time, because this variation is always regular. “And the Evening Star,” that is, Venus appearing in the evening, “can you make it rise over the sons of the earth?” Note that in saying, “Will you bring forth,” and, “do you make it rise up,” he means a new appearance of the star.

Fourth, the order, placement, and movement in the heavenly bodies seems wonderful, and so he says, “Do you know the order of heaven?”, which man cannot comprehend?

Fifth, the disposition of the lower bodies in relation to the higher ones is wonderful, and expressing this he says, “and will you be able to establish their plan upon the earth” so that you know the proper effects of each one of the heavenly causes.

23

True, the effects of divine power just discussed are very great; yet the greatness is known by the vast majority of ordinary men in them so much as in thunder and lightning, and so he places these effects last. So as to thunder he says, “Will you lift up your voice in the clouds?” For thunder is generated in the clouds and the sound seems like the voice of God. Thunder is often followed by heavy rains because of the condensation of the clouds from the violent movement of the winds from which thunder is caused, and so he says, “and will the rapid movement of the waters cover you?” For heavy rain seems to almost cover God because it hides heaven from us which is called the throne of God. (cf. Is.66:1)

He next speaks about the lightning saying, “Will you send the lightning?”, that is, will their motion be by your power? “And will it go forth,” as though obedient to your command? The movement of the lightning often rebounds from one place to another, and he shows this saying, “and upon its return will it say to you: Here we are?”, as though on their return they indicate they are prepared to obey again the divine command, and so go forth again to another place. He relates all these things to show that man cannot attain either divine wisdom or divine power. (emphasis added)

Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Book of Job (tr. Brian Mullady), Chapter 26:

CHAPTER TWENTY-SIX: THE LAST RESPONSE OF JOB

1 Job answered and said: 2 Whose helper are you? Who is then so feeble? Do you sustain the arm of anyone who is not strong? 3 To whom have you given counsel? Perhaps to someone who has not wisdom? And have you shown your very great prudence? Whom do you want to teach? Was he not the one who made the spirit? 5 Behold, giants moan under the waters and those who live with them. 6 Hell is naked before him, and there is no hiding place for perdition. 7 He stretches out the North Wind over the empty air and he hangs the earth on nothing. 8 He builds up the waters in his clouds so that the clouds do not break and fall out at the same time. 9 He keeps hidden the face of his throne and he expands his cloud over it. 10 He has circumscribed a limit on the waters at the boundary between light and darkness. 11 The pillars of heaven tremble and quake with fear at his nod. 12 In his power the seas are suddenly assembled and his prudence smote the proud. 13 His spirit has adorned the heavens, and by his hand he has played midwife and he has drawn out the coiled serpent. 14 Lo, these things have been said about a part of his ways, and when we have scarcely heard a small whisper of his speeches, who can look on the thunder of his greatness?

Baldath wanted in his last speech to convince Job by the consideration of divine power, terrible to all, in respect of which no man can make a pretense of justice, and innocence so that he asserts that he has been punished without sin. So Jobs give three answers, the first of which is specifically against Baldath, who had tried to frighten Job by the consideration of divine power.

Men [who] do not use reason against someone condemned, but cite the power and the wisdom of the judge. They usually do this in favor of the judge. Favor is accorded to someone for two reasons: either because of the defect of power of the one favored, or because of his lack of wisdom. As to the first he says, “Whose helper are you? Who is then so feeble?” as if to say: Have you said these things to favor God and not accord with reason as it were, and did you say this to bring help to God as though he were weak? One seems to help someone when he defends his action, and so he says, “And do you sustain the arm of someone who is not strong?” as if to say: Do you want by these words to justify the action of God by which I have been punished by him, as though he were not strong enough to justify himself?

24

Then, as for the favor which is shown to someone because of the defect of wisdom, we should consider that this favor is twofold. On the one hand, in that one gives counsel to someone about things to be done, and he speaks to this theme saying, “To whom have you given counsel?” Someone seems to give counsel to another when he defends his cause without reason. God, who is perfect in wisdom, does not stand in need of counsel, and so he says, “Perhaps to someone who hs not wisdom?” as if to say: Do you doubt that God has wisdom to speak so stupidly for him? One who gives counsel to a wise man seems to do this to show his own wisdom, and so he then says, “and have you shown your very great prudence?”, saying in effect: Do you want to show by this the abundance of your prudence?The other way of favoring against the lack of wisdom is to instruct the ignorant man concerning what he must know, and as to this he says, “Whom do you want to teach?”, for you seemed to teach God when you brought his power against me, but he who is the cause of all human science does not need to be taught, and so he says, “Was he not the one who made the spirit,” who created the human soul by which man both understands and breathes? This is the one and the same soul which perceives science by intellect and gives life to the body by the other powers.

Then, lest Job seem to detract from the power of God in anything, he commends it as much more all encompassing than did Baldath, enumerating the many effects of divine power. He begins from those effects which God powerfully worked in the human race in the time of the flood. For in Genesis we read that “there were giants on the earth in those days,” (6:4) and “Because God saw that the earth was corrupt, for in fact all flesh had corrupted its way on the earth, he said to Noah, ‘The end of the all flesh has come before me.’” (6:12) Later he says, “Behold, I will bring the waters of the flood upon the earth and I will kill all flesh.” (6:17) He shows this effect of the divine power when he says, “Behold giants,” the ancient ones “moan,” in the punishments of hell, “under the waters,” who were drowned in the waters of the flood. Because not only they perished, but many others with them then and later, he continues, “and those who live with them,” moan in the same way by virtue of his power.

One should not believe that divine providence extends only to judging men in this life, and not after death, as the friends of Job seemed to think. To disprove this he then says, “Hell is naked before him,” as if to say: The things which happen in hell are clearly seen by him and happen according to his judgment. To explain this he then says, “and there is no hiding place for perdition,” so that those who have perished in hell can be hidden from the eyes of God as they are hidden from our eyes.

Then he lists the effects of divine providence in natural things, and he begins from the two extremes, from earth and heaven. In each of these something appears instituted from divine power which exceeds human strength. As far as what appears to the senses, heaven seems to be extended above the earth like a kind of tent; earth to be under heaven like the floor of the tent. Whoever sets up a tent puts something by which the tent can be supported. This does not seem to be the case with heaven. For there does not seem to be anything sustaining heaven but divine power, and so he says, “he stretches out the North Wind over the empty air.” By “North Wind” he means the upper hemisphere from our point of view. For from our point of view the North Pole is raised above the horizon, but the South Pole is depressed below the horizon, and so he says that the North Wind is extended “over the empty air,” because nothing of heaven appears to us under the upper hemisphere except space full of air, which unlettered men deem empty. He speaks according to the thinking of the common man as is the custom in Sacred Scripture. Likewise, one who lays a floor puts it on something which is firm. However, the earth, which is like the floor of heaven does not appear to have anything firm which can sustain it, but is only sustained by the power of

25

God, and so he says, “and he hangs the earth upon nothing.” These things do not mean that heaven is of great weight and needs to be held up so that it does not fall, or as if earth can fall down to its center, but he means that the natural powers themselves by which bodies are naturally contained in their places proceeded from divine power. For as violent motion is from human force, so natural inclination of things proceeds from divine power which is the principle of nature.

Then he enumerates the effects of divine power in the middle space between heaven and earth. First, in the air, where one finds the wondrous fact that water is lifted up as vapor, is suspended in the air, and does not fall all at once, but drop by drop. One sees this in the rain, and so he says, “He binds up the waters in his thick clouds,” in clouds caused by his power, “so that the clouds do not break,” from the rainwater’s “falling out at the same time,” but drop by drop to keep the earth at a moderate temperature. It is as though what remains in the clouds had been bound together to not fall immediately by God’s power. For by divine power vapors do not condense at the same time so that they all must fall together after they are converted into water at the same time. After rain falls from the clouds, some remnants of the vapors remain behind, from which the clouds are formed. These conceal heaven from our point of view which is like the throne of God, according to the last chapter of Isaiah, “Heaven is my throne.” (66:1) Expressing this he continues, “He keeps hidden the face of his throne,” for he holds back as though hiding the face of heaven, which is his throne. He does this by the clouds, which prohibit us from seeing heaven, and so he says, “and he expands his cloud over it,” a cloud produced by his power.

Then he shows the effect of divine power on the waters when he says, “He has circumscribed a limit on the waters”; for the waters according to the natural order of the elements should cover every place on the earth, but that some part of the earth remains uncovered by the waters is due to divine power, which has set out a boundary for the water covering the earth. This pertains particularly to the ocean, which surrounds the land everywhere, and because of this he continues, “at the boundary between light and darkness.” For the light of day and the dark of night are bounded for us by the sun rising and setting from the upper hemisphere, which is placed over the habitable land, which is enclosed everywhere by the ocean. Or this can be understood to mean that the boundary of the waters will remain unchangeable, as long as this actual state of the world remains in which there is a succession of light and darkness.

After listing the effects of the divine power on corporeal creatures he shows its effect on spiritual creatures which he calls the pillars of heaven, because their duty, in effect, is to preside over the movements of the heaven. So he says, “The pillars of heaven,” the angels, “tremble and quake with fear at his nod,” that is, they obey him at his nod, and he speaks using the metaphor of a slave obeying the nod of his master in fear and trembling, with fear referring to the soul and trembling to the body. Do not think that there is fear of punishment in the holy angels, for their fear here is called reverential for God: and so their fear refers to the affection, while trembling refers to the exterior effect.

Since among the angels there are some who fell away from the reverence due to God, about whom he had already spoken, “In his angels he found wickedness” (4:18) as a consequence, he adds a remark making a distinction between the good and evil angels. Now one must suppose that the distinction of spiritual creatures is made at the same time as the distinction of corporeal creatures, and so to suggest the distinction of spiritual creatures he begins with corporeal creation saying, “In his power the seas are suddenly assembled,” according to Genesis, “Let the waters be collected which are on the earth in one place and let dry land appear.” (1:9) Spiritual creatures are distinguished by divine power just like corporeal creatures, and so he then says, “and his prudence smote the proud,” that is, by the power of

26

his providence, the devil who is proud has been deprived of his glory. Therefore, the spiritual gifts for the good angels were increased as he fell, and so he says, “his spirit has adorned the heavens,” that is, he has adorned the heavenly spirits with the adornment of spiritual gifts. It was not fitting that he who had fallen by the privation of his glory should remain endowed with his gifts through the Holy Spirit, and so he says, “and by his hand he has played midwife and he drew out,” from the society of the good angels, “the coiled serpent,” the devil, who is compared to a serpent because of the poison of evil, and is said to be coiled because he is clever. He clearly says he has been drawn out by the hand of God assisting at the birth, as a midwife sometimes draws a child out who is dead so that the mother is not injured. So God has drawn the devil out of the midst of the angels so that the society of the good angels may not suffer detriment in anything.

Lest anyone think that these effects, although they are great, are equal to divine power, he says, “Lo, these things have been said about his ways,” of the works by which we ascend to the knowledge of God and God communicates himself in some way to us. Lest these should seem, though not equalling the whole divine power, yet even to come close to equalling it for the most part, he says, “and when we have scarcely heard a small whisper of his speeches, who can look on the thunder of his greatness?” He means: The proportion of the things which have now been said about the effects of divine power are less than the proportion of one small word whispered quietly compared to the loudest clap of thunder. (emphasis added)

 §

27

8. The propria of the Judeo-Christian view.

Cf. Tatian, Address to the Greeks, c. iv-v, ix (tr. J. E. Ryland):

CHAP. IV.–THE CHRISTIANS WORSHIP GOD ALONE.

For what reason, men of Greece, do you wish to bring the civil powers, as in a pugilistic encounter, into collision with us? And, if I am not disposed to comply with the usages of some of them, why am I to be abhorred as a vile miscreant? Does the sovereign order the payment of tribute, I am ready to render it. Does my master command me to act as a bondsman and to serve, I acknowledge the serfdom. Man is to be honoured as a fellow-man; God alone is to be feared,—He who is not visible to human eyes, nor comes within the compass of human art. Only when I am commanded to deny Him, will I not obey, but will rather die than show myself false and ungrateful. Our God did not begin to be in time: He alone is without beginning, and He Himself is the beginning of all things. God is a Spirit, not pervading matter, but the Maker of material spirits, and of the forms that are in matter; He is invisible, impalpable, being Himself the Father of both sensible and invisible things. Him we know from His creation, and apprehend His invisible power by His works. I refuse to adore that workmanship which He has made for our sakes. The sun and moon were made for us: how, then, can I adore my own servants? How can I speak of stocks and stones as gods? For the Spirit that pervades matter is inferior to the more divine spirit; and this, even when assimilated to the soul, is not to be honoured equally with the perfect God. Nor even ought the ineffable God to be presented with gifts; for He who is in want of nothing is not to be misrepresented by us as though He were indigent. But I will set forth our views more distinctly.

CHAP. V.–THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHRISTIANS AS TO THE CREATION OF THE WORLD.

God was in the beginning; but the beginning, we have been taught, is the power of the Logos. For the Lord of the universe, who is Himself the necessary ground (hupostasis) of all being, inasmuch as no creature was yet in existence, was alone; but inasmuch as He was all power, Himself the necessary ground of things visible and invisible, with Him were all things; with Him, by Logos-power (dia logikes dunameos), the Logos Himself also, who was in Him, subsists. And by His simple will the Logos springs forth; and the Logos, not coming forth in vain, becomes the first-begotten work of the Father. Him (the Logos) we know to be the beginning of the world. But He came into being by participation, not by abscission; for what is cut off is separated from the original substance, but that which comes by participation, making its choice of function, does not render him deficient from whom it is taken. For just as from one torch many fires are lighted, but the light of the first torch is not lessened by the kindling of many torches, so the Logos, coming forth from the Logos-power of the Father, has not divested of the Logos-power Him who begat Him. I myself, for instance, talk, and you hear; yet, certainly, I who converse do not become destitute of speech (logos) by the transmission of speech, but by the utterance of my voice I endeavour to reduce to order the unarranged matter in your minds. And as the Logos begotten in the beginning, begat in turn our world, having first created for Himself the necessary matter, so also I, in imitation of the Logos, being begotten again, and having become possessed of the truth, am trying to reduce to order the confused matter which is kindred with myself. For matter is not, like God, without beginning, nor, as having no beginning, is of equal power with God; it is begotten, and not produced by any other being, but brought into existence by the Framer of all things alone.

<...>

28

CHAP. IX.–THEY GIVE RISE TO SUPERSTITIONS.

Such are the demons; these are they who laid down the doctrine of Fate. Their fundamental principle was the placing of animals in the heavens. For the creeping things on the earth, and those that swim in the waters, and the quadrupeds on the mountains, with which they lived when expelled from heaven,–these they dignified with celestial honour, in order that they might themselves be thought to remain in heaven, and, by placing the constellations there, might make to appear rational the irrational course of life on earth. Thus the high-spirited and he who is crushed with toil, the temperate and the intemperate, the indigent and the wealthy, are what they are simply from the controllers of their nativity. For the delineation of the zodiacal circle is the work of gods. And, when the light of one of them predominates, as they express it, it deprives all the rest of their honour; and he who now is conquered, at another time gains the predominance. And the seven planets are well pleased with them, as if they were amusing themselves with dice. But we are superior to Fate, and instead of wandering (planeton) demons, we have learned to know one Lord who wanders not; and, as we do not follow the guidance of Fate, we reject its lawgivers. Tell me, I adjure you, did Triptolemus sow wheat and prove a benefactor to the Athenians after their sorrow? And why was not Demeter, before she lost her daughter, a benefactress to men? The Dog of Erigone is shown in the heavens, and the Scorpion the helper of Artemis, and Chiron the Centaur, and the divided Argo, and the Bear of Callisto. Yet how, before these performed the aforesaid deeds, were the heavens unadorned? And to whom will it not appear ridiculous that the Deltotum should be placed among the stars, according to some, on account of Sicily, or, as others say, on account of the first letter in the name of Zeus (Dios)? For why are not Sardinia and Cyprus honoured in heaven? And why have not the letters of the names of the brothers of Zeus, who shared the kingdom with him, been fixed there too? And how is it that Kronos, who was put in chains and ejected from his kingdom, is constituted a manager of Fate? How, too, can he give kingdoms who no longer reigns himself? Reject, then, these absurdities, and do not become transgressors by hating us unjustly. (emphasis added)

N.B. For more on the pagan view of the Zodiac, with helpful information regarding its relationship to the other principal agents of nature, cf. Ken Taylor, Astrology: Roots & Branches (1998 WordWrights):4

When ancient Middle Eastern nomads first settled into agricultural communities around 11,000 years ago, they found themselves increasingly reliant upon the seasonal planting, growing and harvesting of crops. Clearly they needed an accurate calendar. Fortunately these farmers were much better placed than were their predecessors, the hunter–gatherers, to observe the fixed stars, and to plot the movements of the planets (literally: “wandering stars”), year after year. They discovered that the planets, including the Sun and Moon (regarded, in astrological parlance, as honorary planets), are always to be found in a narrow ring around the sky (the Solar System evolved from a thin accretion disc around the Sun). This ring became known as the Zodiac – “Sculptured Animals” – because most of its constellations are of animals. It is likely that many of the ideas built into the Zodiac actually predate civilisation, and reflect early nomadic beliefs about the sacred sky. Once you have mapped the stars it is easy to envisage the Sun passing through the con-stellations of the Zodiac bringing, as it does so, the changing Seasons. This link, between the position of the Sun in relation to the Zodiac, and the perpetual cycle of vegetation’s growth, decay and regeneration, is anything but imaginary and is, more to the point, reasonably predictable. The sight of the celestial travellers following their allotted path through the heavens, invited comparison with the human experience of the voyage of life

4 (http://www.joulestaylor.com/nonfic/astrorb.html [12/1/09])

29

here on Earth. But astrology – “study of the stars” – goes much further than simply drawing poetic parallels between Heaven and Earth – it declares that the planets actually wield power over us. Certainly the Moon’s gravitational alignments with the Sun, revealed in its Phases, affects the height of the tides of the sea, and the satellite’s rising and setting likewise determines the times of the tides themselves. It is worth noting that in many ancient cosmogonies, marine or salt water is identified with the amniotic fluid wherein the Foetus of Creation floats. The Lunar influence does indeed extend profoundly into this intimate and mysterious sphere, determining both the length of human gestation and the monthly cycle of female fertility. (emphasis added)

§

30

9. The popular conception of the heavens and earth: The Bible.

Cf. Dan Vogel and Brent Lee Metcalfe, “Joseph Smith’s Scriptural Cosmology”, in The Word of God: Essays on Mormon Scripture, ed. Dan Vogel (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1990), pp. 187-189:

Bible scholars, for instance, generally agree that the writers and prophets of sacred literature drew (whether consciously, unconsciously, inspired, or otherwise) upon the mythological and cosmological motifs of surrounding cultures to communicate their religious affirmations.

The earth was depicted as a flat strip (Is. 42:5; 44:24) supported on pillars or props (Job 9:6; Ps. 75:3; 2 Sam. 22:16; Is. 24:18; Jer. 31:37) above a cosmic ocean (Ps. 24:2; 136:6) or empty space (Job 26:7). The earth had “four corners” or “four edges” (Is. 11:12; Ezk. 7:2).

In common with their contemporaries, biblical writers saw the earth as stationary while the sun, moon and stars (luminaries not planets) moved across the sky. The moon moved by God’s will (Gen. 1:14–19; Ps. 104:19; 136:9) and could be halted in its course by him (Hab. 3:11). The sun was fashioned by God and placed in the firmament (Gen. 1:14–19), and once it actually stood still (Josh. 10:12). The Hebrew word translated as “firmament” means literally “strip of beaten metal” and reflects the ancient notion that the sky was a mirror-like surface which separated the upper and lower waters. This ancient Hebrew conception of the world is in substantial agreement with Near Eastern cosmology. Catholic exegete Luis Stadelmann found in the Genesis creation accounts “traces either of borrowings or of paral-lels to the cosmogonic traditions of the ancient Near East.” Moreover, Stadelmann noted, “it has long been recognized by Bible scholars that the Priestly account of the creation of the world [Gen. 1:1–2:4a] reveals obvious traces of Mesopotamian influence.”

These insights, however, have been challenged by biblical literalists not because such views challenge biblical inspiration but rather because they challenge fundamentalist pre-conceptions about the nature of revelation. Literalists not only hold the notion of verbal inspiration but also assume that for revelation to be true, it must contain unique and new concepts which transcend time and space—any environmental dependency would be proof of human origin. Attempting to avoid the implications of cultural parallels in the Genesis creation account, some have conjectured that similarities are due to an earlier no longer extant source to which both Mesopotamians and Hebrews were indebted. E. A. Speiser, however, rebutted this argument, stating that there is not “the slightest basis in fact for assuming some unidentified ultimate source from which both the Mesopotamians and the Hebrews could have derived their views about creation.” And Alexander Heidel conceded that there is nothing “incompatible with the doctrine of inspiration to assume that Gen. 1:1–2:3 might in a measure be dependent on [the earlier Babylonian creation epic] Enuma elish.”

Cf. A Reconstructionist Dvar Torah for Bereyshit. Parashat Bereyshit Genesis 1:1 - 6:8. Not “How” but “Why”. Rabbi Lewis Eron. Added October 2, 2002:

The language used to describe God’s setting the foundations of the earth, setting the world’s pillars, and stretching forth heaven and earth, an image of creation favored by the psalmists and prophets (Isaiah 48:13; 51:13, Amos 9:6; Psalm 104:1-9; Job 38:4-7), parallels the words used to describe the construction of the Mishkan, the portable desert shrine, and the erection of its successor, the Beit Ha-Mikdash, the Temple in Jerusalem, by King Solomon. Our ancestors’ most sacred place in which God’s presence was most strongly felt was a microcosm. It provided a spiritual mirror through which our ancestors could experience all creation in the presence of creation’s God. Although this physical model of creation is no

31

longer available to us, our sages, following the insights of Proverbs 8 where Wisdom is God’s companion in creation, teach us that our Torah, the manifestation of Wisdom, served as the world’s spiritual blueprint.

Descriptions of God establishing the earth after subduing the chaotic energy of the primordial waters (Psalm 74:12-17; Psalm 89:10-11; Psalm 93:3-4) seem to draw on the image and vocabulary of Ancient Near Eastern legends. The Bible, however, separates them from their mythic past by connecting them to Israel’s story of liberation and dream of redemption. God’s mastery over the ancient waters comes alive in Israelite history in descriptions of the crossing of the Red Sea on our way to freedom (Isaiah 51:9-19) and of the messianic age to come (Isaiah 27:1). Our tradition helps us find justice and order in a world we still find unjust and chaotic. Not only does our external world often seem chaotic, we often find our interior world in shambles. Images of God’s ordering creation help us understand our struggles to bring order in our world, our lives and in our hearts.

The images of God as creation’s father and mother (Job 38: 4-11, 28-29) help us cherish our roles as parents of the generations that will follow us. These images help us comprehend the rabbinic understanding that each and every one of us is capable of bringing an entire world to life. Descriptions of God’s engendering and birthing our world, helps us find spiritual value in our own sexuality as a way of creating the most intimate human institution, the family.

Finally, the story of the Adam and Eve, primordial couple charged with caring for God’s garden, helps us personalize a vast creation (Genesis 2:5 - 3:24). We can see our journey, from childhood to adulthood, from innocence to responsibility and from caretakers to creators, reflected in their moving story.

Cf. Ernst Lohmeyer, “The Right Interpretation of the Mythological”, sec. I:5

For instance, there is the idea of heaven as a kind of vault suspended over the edges of the earth’s disk, of an underworld like a turbulent cauldron in a deep, dark cavern under the lid of the earth, of the stars as spirits which control human destiny.

Cf. “Biblical Conception of the Universe” (excerpt):6

Here’s a few excerpts from a monograph on the topic, as well: Stadelmann, Luis, S.J. The Hebrew Conception of the World – A Philological and Literary Study (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1970):

Horizon

“Another idea, particularly noteworthy because it concerns the horizon as the boundary between earth and heaven, more clearly indicates how the heavenly dome was linked with the earth. This boundary between earth and heaven was expressed by hwg smym (Job 22.14) or hwg h’rs (Is 40.22). Literally hwg denotes a circle. It is worth noting that this term is used in cosmogonic context: ‘He [God] marks a circle on the surface of the water; As the boundary between light and darkness.’ (Job 26.10) … the horizon prevents the world from being flooded by the primeval waters by holding the sky and the earth firmly together. From

5 (http://www.religion-online.org/cgi-bin/relsearchd.dll/showchapter?chapter_id=296 [8/11/03]) “Based upon a lecture delivered at Breslau on 9th January, 1944” on the demythologizing of the New Testament procla-mation in an essay by Rudolf Bultmann 6 (http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/ThreeTieredUniverse.htm [12/11/06])

32

the above-quoted scriptural texts we conclude that the ancient Hebrews conceived of the horizon not only as the boundary between heaven and earth, but also as the link between the dome of heaven and the surface of the earth.” (p. 42)

The Firmament of Heaven

“… the imagery behind the verb nth suggests both the stretching out the heaven in the form of a cloth and the pitching a tent… the ancient Hebrews regarded heaven as the site of a building in which God dwells and in which the storehouses of rain, hail and snow are erected.” (p. 44)

“In the sky are located the storehouses ‘wsr [wt] rendered thesauros [ous] by the LXX, containing winds, snow and hail (Ps 135.7; Jer 10.13; 51.16; Job 38.22). The residence of God was provided with ‘lywt “upper or roof-chamber.” (Ps 104.3). The elastic imagery wherein heaven is God’s abode or a support of the primeval waters above which God resides, appears in several scriptural references. Thus, Yahweh built his royal palace on firm pillars in the rolling waters of the celestial sea above the canopy of heaven (Ps 104.3). Another passage suggests that God’s upper chambers were built in the sky itself.” (pp. 44-45)

Rainfall

“Two essential factors for explaining this phenomenon played their part, namely, the ability to conceive of an ocean for the necessary water supply and the ability to relate the periodic rainfall to grills or sluices in the firmament which were opened at intervals to let the water pass through. This idea, that naturally suggests itself to men through their observation of rainfall, is found, though in diverse forms, among many peoples in ancient times. The ancient Hebrews believed that the firmament was punctured at intervals by ‘rbwt, the “windows of heaven” (Gen 7.11; 8.2; 2 Kings 7.2, 19; Is 24.18; Mal 3.10).

“Clearly, water was believed to exist both above the heaven (cf. Ps 148.4) and inside it (cf. Jer 10.13; 51.16; see also 2 Sam 21.10). The waters above the heaven represent the celestial ocean called mbwl… The waters in the heaven were thought to be stored up in the ‘treasure houses’, either as snow or hail (cf. Job 38.22; see also Is 55.10; Josh 10.11) or kept in the clouds and released to the earth in the form of rain (cf. Gen 8.2; Is 55.10; Deut 11.11), showers (cf. Jer 14.22), or dew (cf. Gen 27.28, 39; Deut 33.28; Zech 8.12; Dan 5.21).

Heaven

“Heaven… was pictured as a tent. The implication of this view is that the heaven is a dwelling place, while the earth beneath lies under the sky’s protective canopy: ‘Indeed he [God] will treasure me in his abode, after the evil day: He will shelter me in his sheltering tent, will set me high upon his mountain’ (Ps 27.5).” (p. 52) “the Hebrews thought primarily of the heaven as the residence of God”

Firmament

“In the concept rqy’… used to describe the firmament, the function and the shape of the heavenly dome are essentially related. The Hebrew word rqy’ comes from the root rq’ which means “to beat, stamp, expand by beating,” and to spread out”. The meaning of the substantive rqy’ is “extended surface, (solid) expanse.” From this meaning there is derived a second, which the same root rqa’ takes in the Syriac language: this may be expressed by “press down, spread out, consolidate.”

33

The beaten out expanse of the earth… stands as a partition in the midst of the waters to separate the upper from the lower waters.”

“The Priestly writer conceived of rqy’ as something “solid”. This idea of solidity of rqy’ is conveyed also by Ezekiel in what might be called his Throne-chariot vision:‘Over the heads of the creatures was the semblance of a rqy’, glittering like transparent ice, stretched above their heads. Under the rqy’ their wings touched those on the next [creature]. And above the rqy’ that was over their heads was the semblance of a throne, coloured like sapphire. (Ez 1.22-23, 26). Then I looked and lo! upon the rqy’ that was over the head of the cherubim there appeared the semblance of a throne, colored like sapphire’ (Ez 10.1).

The function of rqy’ suggests, in this context, the idea of ‘pavement, floor, base’. rqy’ is definitely not to be identified with the earth, and it is upon this rqy’ that the throne rests.” (p. 56)

“An interesting note… is provided by the account of creation where the luminaries are said to have been ‘set’ (ntn is to be taken in the sense of sym), in the rqy’ of the sky.” (p. 57)

Rain

“Despite the limited number of passages which explicitly mention the place of origin of the precipitation, referring either to the heaven (cf. the expressions mtr hsmym (Deut 11.11); kpr smym (Job 38.29); tl smym (Gen 27.28) or the storehouses in heaven (cf. Job 38.22), it can be safely assumed that the ancient Hebrews actually conceived of an immense ocean located above the firmament supplying water for precipitation. This assumption rests on the usage of specific verbs employed in this context which speak of water flowing nzl, dripping ‘rp, descending yrd and falling npl from above.” (pp. 120-121)

“The ancient Hebrews conceived of an ocean located above the firmament and related the periodic rainfall to windows (‘rbwt) and doors (dltym) in the firmament which were opened at intervals to let the waters pass through. These, however, are not the only openings in the sky through which the rain was released in due measure. This view of water channels, like irrigation canals, opened on the surface of the firmament, which caused the rain to flow down from all parts of heaven, is confirmed by a poetical passage: ‘“Who has cut a channel for the torrents of rain, and a way for the thunderbolt’ (Job 38.25)

Earth

“The ancient Hebrews considered the universe on a three-leveled structure. The earth was located between the heaven, the upper part, and the underworld, the lowest part of the universe. The earth was regarded as a vast plain, occupied partly by the sea, partly by continents studded with mountains, furrowed by rivers, and dotted with lakes. The horizon encircling the earth quite naturally suggested the idea of a circular shape to the ancient Hebrews.” (p. 126)

- On pillars: “Similar to the conception that the heaven was thought to be constructed on pillars, there is abundant evidence that confirms the generally accepted view that the earth is firmly fixed in its place. The idea of the stability of the earth finds expression in the foundations, cornerstones, and pillars upon which the structure of the earth is said to be built.” (p. 126)

34

- On the waters of the deep: ‘He suspends the earth on nothing’ (Job 26.7b) “A likely interpretation would seem to be that the terrestrial mass which supports the continents and seas in its upper part is floating in the primeval flood.” (p. 127)

Cf. the following additional excerpts from Stadelmann:

“L. Stadelmann (1970:147-54) suggests that Jerusalem (cf Ezek 5.5), and possibly Bethel at an earlier time (cf. Gen 28.10-12, 17-18), were considered in this light, in keeping with the views of many ANE and other peoples that their central sanctuary or capital city represented such a center.”

“The modern concept of an infinite or open-ended universe was not known in the OT; on the contrary, heaven and earth were thought to be sealed together at the rim of the horizon to prevent the influx of the cosmic waters (Stadelmann 1970:43).”

Cf. the following, from an internet article:

As Luis Stadelmann explained in his excellent work The Hebrew Conception of the World:

It has long been recognized by Bible scholars that the Priestly account of creation of the world [in Genesis 1] reveals traces of Mesopotamian influence. This influence is most apparent in the cosmological presuppositions, and in this sense the Priestly account differs significantly in outlook from that of the Yahwist [in Genesis 2]. For example, where as the Yahwist record envisages the primeval state as a desert needing water to make it fertile, the Priestly presupposes the existence of an unformed chaos enveloped in primeval darkness.... The world is pictured as “being then a formless waste, with darkness over the seas,” in short a watery caos (sic). The passage concerned seems to indicate a situation in which the world is envisaged as immersed in the thwm, the ‘seas.’ As further development of the idea shows, the chief features of the primeval chaos were those of the raw material of the universe.29

29 Luis I. J. Stadelmann, S.J., The Hebrew Conception of the World (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1970), 12.

N.B. For a critique of literalist or fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible and Genesis, see my separate treatment.

Cf. Robert J. Schneider, “What the Bible Teaches About Creation”:

Is There a “Portrait” of Creation in the Bible?

Up to this point I have focused on those passages about Creation in Holy Scripture that have provided essential themes for a theology of creation. But does the Bible, in particular the Old Testament writings, also offer a portrait of the creation, that is, do these writings contain a conceptual model7 to account for the variety of natural phenomena the sacred writers observed and described? One does find such a portrait: it was basically the “standard model” the Israelites shared with their Semitic neighbors of the ancient Near East. Although there is no single passage where this portrait is elaborated in detail, there are a number of allusions to its various elements throughout the Old Testament.

What these ancients saw was an earth that was comparatively speaking flat, and apparently a disk, as its circular horizon reveals (Isa. 40:22a). The Earth, here meaning “the land” (and

7 On the notion of a “conceptual model”, see my separate treatment.

35

not “the other part of the creation from the heavens”) apparently rests upon and is surrounded by a huge body of water, which the Hebrews referred to as “the Deep” (Prov. 8:27; Job 26:10). The portion of this water that lies under the earth is the source of the freshwater springs that well up from below the ground (Gen. 2:5). Above the land is a great expanse of the sky, which appears dome-like, called the Firmament (Heb., “raqi’a” [Gen. 1:5]); it is held up by “pillars,” high mountains on the edge of the earth (Job 26:11). That this dome-like expanse was thought to be solid is clear from the fact that one finds another great sea above it, referred to in the Bible as the “upper sea” or the “waters above the heavens” (Gen. 1:6-7; Ps. 148:4). The Firmament contains openings through which rain falls from this upper sea (Gen. 7:11-12) and “storehouses” which hold snow, hail, and lightning (Job 38:22).

In the great expanse of Sky are placed the lights of the stars, and the “greater and lesser lights,” the sun and the moon. Elsewhere the sun is described poetically as “running its course” (Ps. 19:5). In Gen. 1:14-18, God is said to have set the stars, sun and moon in the dome; elsewhere, they appear, and are understood, to utilize openings in the expanse or the horizon as they make their journeys across the skies.

There is another area within the disk of the earth that enters into this portrait of the creation, an underworld called Sheol. Located deep within the earth (Isa. 7:11; Prov. 9:18), vast (Hab. 2:5) and dark (Job 10:21-22), it was regarded as the natural resting place of the dead—but not, for the Hebrews, a place of punishment (Job 3:11-19).

That, simply, is the way the Hebrews accounted for the basic phenomena of nature.

They sometimes conceived of their model as bipartite—God made “the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1), and sometimes as tripartite—”the heavens above, the earth beneath, and the waters under the earth” (Exod. 20:4), but it is clear that the creation they saw around them was conceptualized in this way (for more detailed accounts of this portrait, see the books and articles by Bailey, Stadelmann, Stek, Seely, Van Till, and Walton, listed in “Further Reading,” below). These biblical writers were not scientists, and the fact that there is no extensive, detailed description of the physical world in the Bible strongly suggests that they were not inspired to provide a scientific description. Rather, they were spokespersons of the message that the world they perceived was created and sustained by the God who led them from bondage to freedom, and showed his power in every aspect of the creation. In my view it is a mistake, and truly misguided, to try to read modern scientific knowledge into these ancient depictions, as some Christians try to do (Schneider 159-169). The Bible does not contain this sort of knowledge. Evangelical Bible scholar Gordon Wenham’s comment on this practice expresses my own view:

Instead of reading the chapter as a triumphant affirmation of the power and wisdom of God and the wonder of his creation, we have been too often bogged down in attempting to squeeze Scripture into the mold of the latest scientific hypothesis or distorting scientific facts to fit a particular interpretation. When allowed to speak for itself, Gen. 1 looks beyond such minutiae. Its proclamation of the God of grace and power who undergirds the world and gives it purpose justifies the scientific approach to nature (40). (emphasis added)

On the last point just made, cf. “Dinosaur Religion and Religion as Dinosaur: The Encoun-ter of Science and Faith in Genesis 1” by Carl Schultz, Ph.D. Integrative Studies Lecture, March 26, 1998:8

8 (http://campus.houghton.edu/orgs/rel-phil/schultzweb/Genesis_lect.html 2/8/10])

36

It seems most unlikely that Genesis 1 has waited in obscurity all of these many years for modern science to provide its meaning. Our contemporary preoccupations could hardly have been the preoccupations of ancient Israel.17 The ancient text must have said something and meant something to those who first received it. We must keep in mind that “God’s word to us was first of all his word to them.”18 It was conditioned by the language, time, and culture in which it was written – more correctly, by the oral history it had before being reduced to writing.

The issue then was not evolution but polytheism, divinization of nature, the eternity of matter, the threat of chaos, location of human life in a cosmic order and the ordering of human experience relative to a meaningful world. We must first attempt to understand what was said to them back then and there (necessitating exegesis) and then proceed to hear that same text in the here and now (necessitating hermeneutics). Our modern western preoccupation with science understood and applied either by the secular mind or the fundamentalistic mind must not be substituted for the mindset of ancient Israel.

17.  Hyers, op. cit., p. 3. [= Conrad Hyers, The Meaning of Creation (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1984)]  18.  Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, How To Read the Bible for All Its Worth.  (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993), pp. 18-19. (emphasis added)

On the relation of “chaos” to creation, cf. “A Reconstructionist Dvar Torah for Bereyshit”. Parashat Bereyshit Genesis 1:1 - 6:8. Not “How” but “Why”. Rabbi Lewis Eron. Added October 2, 2002:9

Descriptions of God establishing the earth after subduing the chaotic energy of the pri-mordial waters (Psalm 74:12-17; Psalm 89:10-11; Psalm 93:3-4) seem to draw on the image and vocabulary of Ancient Near Eastern legends. The Bible, however, separates them from their mythic past by connecting them to Israel’s story of liberation and dream of redemption. God’s mastery over the ancient waters comes alive in Israelite history in descriptions of the crossing of the Red Sea on our way to freedom (Isaiah 51:9-19) and of the messianic age to come (Isaiah 27:1). Our tradition helps us find justice and order in a world we still find unjust and chaotic. Not only does our external world often seem chaotic, we often find our interior world in shambles. Images of God’s ordering creation help us understand our struggles to bring order in our world, our lives and in our hearts.

Cf. Robert J. Schneider, “What the Bible Teaches About Creation”:

Because of this pattern [evident in the six days of creation], many evangelical biblical scholars have been drawn to some version of a “framework hypothesis”: the six days are to be seen not as a chronological account of the steps of creation but as a framework in which the various categories of “creature”—the word refers to both inanimate and living things—are laid out in a logical order that in itself declares that creation in the beginning involves the bringing of order out of chaos. (emphasis added)

§

9 (http://jrf.org/dt&id=3 [1/14/09])

37

10. On ‘the circle of the earth’ and the structure of the world.

Cf. Institute for Biblical & Scientific Studies:10

Genesis 1:9-13 DAY 3

Circle of the Earth

Hebrew Text

The phrase of Isaiah 40:22, “the circle of the earth” is very controversial. There are five main views of this phrase. The first interpretation says that the word “circle” means “sphere” indicating that the earth is a sphere. This view seems most unlikely since we have all ready seen that the Hebrew word gh means “circle,” and it seems very remote that it means “sphere” because of the context, and there is a better Hebrew word for “sphere,” rwd. In Isaiah 22:18 the word rwd is translated “ball.” If the LXX translators understood gh as “sphere,” they would have used the Greek word sfairoeides. Plugging the meaning of “sphere” into every passage that gh occurs will result in awkward interpretations.

The second interpretation is that the earth is a round flat disk. Although the ancient world thought the earth was round and flat, this phrase seems to refer to the shape the vaulted heavens above the earth from which the inhabitants look like grasshoppers.

The third view, which is set forth by Seybold, is that “circle” refers to the ring of the ocean that surrounds the earth. This is mainly based on the supposed meaning of the word guros used in the LXX for gwj.

The fourth interpretation is that “circle” refers to the vault like sky over the earth. This seems to be partly right as well as the next view where “circle” refers to the horizon. It may be best to combine theses two views so that “circle” refers to the circle of the horizon that arches up over the earth. From the top of this dome God looks down to see the inhabitants on earth as small as grasshoppers. In the later part of this same verse (Isa.40:22) the heavens are described like a curtain and a tent. There seems to be a descriptive parallelism of the heavens in this poetic verse.

Stadelmann (1970, 42) states that gwj refers to the horizon which was the boundary between earth and heaven, and indicates how the heavenly dome was linked with the earth. In Job 26:10 gwj is the boundary between light and darkness. It is the circular line that separates the light of heaven from the darkness under the ocean and earth. In the ancient world the horizon prevented the earth from being flooded by primeval waters by holding the sky and the earth firmly together (Ibid, 43). In Job 22:14 it seems that the gwj is more than the horizon, and includes the vault of heaven as well. This seems to be the case in Isaiah 40:22 as well. Therefore, gwj is the part for the whole of heaven in certain passages in Job and Isaiah. This would be called “Synecdoche of the Part” by Bullinger (1968, 640, see also 892).

In Isaiah 66:1 it says, “Thus saith the LORD, the heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool.” The imagery of Isaiah 66 and 40 shows clearly that gwj means the vaulted heavens.

10 (http://www.bibleandscience.com/bible/books/genesis/genesis1_circleearth.htm [10/1/08])

38

Delitzsch translates Isaiah 40:22 as follows: “He who is enthroned above the vault of the earth, and its inhabitants resemble grasshoppers; who has spread out the heavens like gauze, and stretched them out like a tent-roof to dwell in” (Keil and Delitzch 1976, 7:152).

In Isaiah 40:22 the verb b?y means, “to sit or dwell.” This same verb and preposition lu is used in other OT passages. In Exodus 11:5 it says, “Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne” (also Ex. 12:29). Second Chronicles 18:18 says, “I saw the Lord sitting upon his throne” Psalm 2:4 says, He that sitteth in the heavens” Psalm 123:1 says, “O thou that dwellest in the heavens.” Isaiah 6:1 says, “I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne.” It seems clear that the Lord sits, or dwells on his throne in Heaven, and not on the circular earth or river encircling the earth. The verb b?y “to sit” plus the preposition lu means, “to sit on” not “to sit over or above.”

It seems that the “circle of the sea” is where the sky and sea meet at the horizon; the “circle of the earth” is where the sky and earth meet at the horizon and arching above; and the “circle of heaven” begins where the horizon is and arching above. The “foundations of heaven” are where the sky meets the earth at the horizon.

Akkadian Literature

There is an important Babylonian world map that depicts their view of the universe (Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum 1906, part xxii, pl. 48; BM 92687). Unger describes this world map in his book Babylon (1931; in German). A good English translation of this map is by Wayne Horowitz (1989, 147-165). The earth is seen as a circle within a circle with Babylon at the center. It seems clear that the Babylonians viewed the earth as flat and circular in shape.

Sargon of Akkad is a third millennium king who was said to conquer the whole world in the work The Sargon Geography which states,” Anaku and Kaptara, the lands across the upper Sea, Dilmun and Magan, the lands across the Lower Sea, and the lands from sunrise to sunset, the sum total of all the land, which Sargon, the king of the Univer[se] conquered three times” (Horowitz, 1989, 161; Garyson AFO 25, 62:A 41-44).

The Samas Hymn which is written to the Sun-god says, “You climb to the mountains surveying the earth, You suspend from the heavens the circle of the lands” (kip-pat matati (kur.kur) ina qi-rib same’saq-la-a-ta; Lambert 1960, 126-7). In the Assyrian Royal Inscriptions (Grayson 1972, 105-109) there are many references to the “four quarters” (of the earth). The Royal inscription of Tukulti-Ninurta says:

Tukulti-Ninurta, king of the universe, king of Assyria, strong king, king of the four quarters, chosen of Ashur, vice-regent of Ashur, the king whose deeds are pleasing to the gods of heaven (and) underworld and to whom they allotted the four corners of the earth, (the king whom) they allowed to always exercise rule in the (four) quarters and who conquered all those who did not submit to him (Grayson 1972, 1:105).

The phrase “king of the four quarters” according to Grayson (1972, 1:4) is “the Sumero-Akkadian expression for ‘king of the world’.” Grayson goes on to say, “The four ‘quarters’ or ‘coasts’ are approximately identical with the cardinal points of the compass and are the extremities of the world (which was believed to be a disc) projecting out into the primeval sea (which was believed to surround the world disc).” The phrase “four corners of the earth” which in Akkadian is kap-pat tu-bu-qa-at erbitti, can literally be translated “the circle of the four corners” (Grayson 1972, 105; CAD K, 397-400). This is a clear reference to the earth

39

being circular. It seems strange that a circle would also have corners, but they meant the extremities in the four cardinal directions.

In Atra-Hasis the third tablet says:

22 Destroy your house, build a boat, 23 Spurn property and save life. 25 The boat which you build 29 Roof it over like the Apsu. 30 So that the sun shall not see inside it 31 Let it be roofed over above and below (Lambert and Millard 1969, 89).

Atra-Hasis is told to build a boat because a flood is coming. The boat is to be built like the world. He is to build a roof above and below to keep the waters of the deep and the waters from heaven out. Atra-Hasis’ world was completely surrounded by water. The firmament held up the heavenly waters, and the earth kept out the waters from the deep. The earth floated in a watery universe.

In Enuma Elish the world is like a shellfish or clam surrounded by an ocean of water. The world is shaped like a round clam with two halves. The upper half or vault is the firmament, and the lower half is the earth (Heidel 1942, 42-43; ANET, 67).

Egyptian Literature

Egyptian literature in the New Kingdom period has some interesting statements about the shape of the world. The Hymn to Ramses II is found on various stela inside the temple of Abu Simbel, Nubia. It proclaims:

The subjugator of the adversary, rich in years, great in victories, who reacheth the ends of the earth when seeking for battle, who maketh narrow the wide mouth of foreign princes. The good god, the strong one, whom men praise, the lord, in whom men make their boast; who protecteth his soldiers, who maketh his boundaries on earth as he will, like Re when he shineth over the circle of the world, he, the king of Upper and Lower Egypt (Erman 1927, 258-9).

The phrase “circle of the world” indicates that the Egyptians viewed the earth as a disk which the sun-god shines over on its daily journey.

There is another similar phrase in The War Against the Peoples of the Sea which comes from Ramses III’ temple of Medinet Habu at Thebes which says, “They laid their hands upon the lands as far as the circuit of the earth” (ANET 1969, 262).

A relief on a sarcophagus cover from the fourth century BC pictures the earth as a circular disc surrounded by a circular sea (Keel 1978, 38). At the ends of the earth are the nations that surround Egypt. In the middle of the earth is the underworld which is reached through the gates of necropolis. So there are three rings in this picture; the circle of the sea, the circle of the earth, and then the circle of the underworld.

There is another much older picture of the circular earth surrounded by a circular sea which dates back around 700 BC (Keel 1978, 40). Surrounding the sea were the mountains of the horizon and beyond this circle the heavenly ocean begins. The heavenly ocean is called kbhw-hr which means “upper waters of Horus” (Ibid, 37). The outermost circle may represent the firmament which like a wall or dam that contained the heavenly ocean.

40

From the treasuries of Tutankhamun (1358-1349 BC) there is a drawing that represents the celestial and terrestrial oceans by two circular snakes (Ibid, 45). The earth is also drawn as a mountain in several places (Ibid, 42). In the book of Psalms the earth and mountains are used as parallel terms (Psa. 97:4-5, 98:7-8).

LXX Text

The LXX translation of gwj is with guros. Seybold states, “the image conveyed by this word (guros) appears to express the classical Babylonian idea of the ring of water surrounding the earth’s surface” (TDOT 1980, 4:246). He declares that this rare word is especially used for a circular trench around a tree, but this is just one of the meanings of guros in the context of farming. Liddel and Scott (1940, 364) say, “plant in a guros” (a round hole). In the Letters to Alciphron Callicrates writes to Aegon saying, “As the right season had come, I dug gurous (round holes) in the earth and made boqria (pits), and was ready to plant my young olive trees and to bring them running water, which comes to me from the neighboring ravine” (Letters of Alciphron, Aelian and Philostratus 1949, 101). A round hole in the earth is just an inverted vault, but this seems an unlikely way to describe the heavens. Guros may also just mean bent or curved and could be used to describe the vaulted heavens in Job 22:14, but Seybold is probably right in assuming that guros is referring to the idea of a circular trench of water surrounding the earth in Isaiah 40:22 which was the common belief of their day. The LXX translators probably understood gwh to refer to the sea around the earth. They could have clearly wrote “the circle of the deep” as was done in Proverbs 8:27 by Aquila, and Theodotion (Field 1964, 327), but stuck to a more literal rendering.

The LXX uses the ths ghs kuklw twice in 2 Chronicles 17:10 and Numbers 32:33. It means, “the land round about,” and not “the circle of the earth.”

In classical Greek guros is used primarily for farming, and never used to described the sky as the LXX does. Another Greek word was usually used to describe the sky, and that was kuklos meaning “circle” (L&S 1940, 1007). Plato used the word sfairoeides to describe the heavens as a sphere (Archer-Hind 1973, 100). Strabo used sfairoeidhs meaning “a ball, sphere, or globe,” to describe the earth (Strabo 1924, 431; L&S 1940, 1452). If the Hebrews thought the earth or heavens were a sphere, they would have used the Hebrew word rwd which is used in Isaiah 22:18 for “ball.” I think the translators of the LXX were trying to avoid using a Greek word that would imply the controversial idea that the earth or heavens were spherical.

Aramaic Literature

The targum of Isaiah translates Isaiah 40:22 as follows:

Who caused the Shekinah of his glory to dwell in the mighty height, and all the inhabitants of the earth are counted as grasshoppers before him; who stretched out the heavens as a small thing, and spread them out like a glorious tent for the house of his Shekinah (Stenning 1949,132-5, see also Chilton, 79).

Here the “circle of the earth” is interpreted as “in the might height” or the zenith of heaven which would make the inhabitants on earth look like grasshoppers. This shows that the vault of the heavens is understood, and not a river encircling the earth as in the LXX.

Jewish Literature

41

There is a legend that Alexander the Great once ascended high above the earth until “the world appeared like a ball and the sea like a dish” (in which it was set; Cohen 1975, 36).

In Ber.R.iv.5 the thickness of the firmament is said to equal the thickness of the earth because gwj is used for both the earth (Isa 40:22) and of heaven (Job 22:14; Bowker 1969, 104).

In Ezekiel’s Exodus quoted by Eusebius says, “upon Mount Sinai’s brow I saw A mighty throne that reached to heaven’s high vault. Thence I looked forth Upon the earth’s wide circle” (1981, 470).

Latin Literature

In the Apocalypse of Esdras 6:1, Charlesworth (1983, 1:534) translates the Latin text as, “At the beginning of the circle of the earth.” The Latin text says, Initium terrena orbis (Klijin 1983, 38). The Syriac and the Ethopic do not have the word “circle” (Charlesworth 1983, 534). There is a very simple explanation for this. The Latin words, terrena orbis have been mistranslated. This common Latin phrase is used frequently in the Vulgate and means “world.” It is sometimes shortened to just orbis. This does not mean that Jerome thought the earth was round, because Cicero and other Latin writers used orbis terrarum to mean “world.” What they meant was the land that encircled the Mediterranean Sea. Mediterranean means “the sea in the middle of the land.” The known world at that time surrounded the Mediterranean Sea. The Vulgate uses orbis terrarum six times in the NT (Matt 24:14; Luke 2:1, 21:26; Acts 11:28, 24:5; Rev. 3:10, 12:9), and orbis two times (Acts 17:31, 19:27). The references mainly refer to the world or mankind and not the physical world, just like the Greek word kosmos.

Church Fathers

St. Clement of Rome

St. Clement of Rome in his epistle to the Corinthians (about 95 AD), briefly describes his view of the world as under the control of the creator which results in peace and enjoyment. He says the following in chapter twenty:

The heavens are moved by His direction and obey Him in peace. Day and night accomplish the course assigned to them by Him, without hindrance one to another. The sun and the moon and the dancing stars according to His appointment circle in harmony within the bounds assigned to them, without any swerving aside. The earth, bearing fruit in fulfillment of His will at her proper seasons, putteth forth the food that supplieth abundantly both men and beasts and all living things which are thereupon, making no dissension, neither altering anything which He hath decreed. Moreover, the inscrutable depths of the abysses and the unutterable statutes of the nether regions are constrained by the same ordinances. The basin of the boundless sea, gathered together by His workmanship into its reservoirs, passeth not the barriers wherewith it is surrounded; but even as He ordereth it, so it doeth. For he said. ‘So far shalt thou come, and thy waves shall be broken within thee.’ The ocean which is impassable for men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Master (Lightfoot and Harmer 1984, 66).

In this chapter there is the common three layer view of the world, heaven, earth, and underworld. Surrounding the earth is the ocean which man can not pass. Beyond the ocean are kosmoi, “worlds.” It is not certain what is meant by kosmoi. It may refer to the underworld and upperworlds.

42

St. Basil

St. Basil in his Hexaemeron states:

Those who have written about the nature of the universe have discussed at length the shape of the earth. If it be spherical or cylindrical, if it resemble a disc and is equally rounded in all parts, or if it has the form of a winnowing basket and is hollow in the middle; all these conjectures have been suggested by cosmographers, each one upsetting that of his predecessor. It will not lead me to give less importance to the creation of the universe, that the servant of God, Moses, is silent as to shapes. Shall I not rather exalt Him who, not wishing to fill our minds with these vanities, has regulated all the economy of Scripture in view of the edification and the making perfect of our souls (Homily 9)?

Cosmas Indicopleustes

An Egyptian monk named Cosmas Indicopleustes wrote a book called Christian Topography around 547 AD (McCrindle 1897, iv-x). Cosmas was probably a native of Alexandria. Because he was a merchant, he traveled to seas and countries that were far from home. There were many ecclesiastical controversies in his day. Cosmas probably belonged to the Nestorian sect.

The basic purpose of his book was to refute from scripture and common sense, the impious pagan beliefs that the earth was a sphere, and the center around which the heavens which were also a sphere, revolved. He also wrote against antipodes which means that people would be standing on their heads on the other side of the spherical earth.

Cosmas shaped the world through his literal interpretation of Hebrews 9:23-24 which says:

It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices that these. For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us.

The tabernacle was a pattern of the universe.

The tabernacle is divided into two parts by means of a veil. This symbolizes the division of the universe into two worlds, an upper and lower, by means of the firmament. The table of shew-bread with its waved border represented the earth surrounded by the ocean. Since the table was twice as long as it was wide, and was placed lengthwise from East to West, the earth also is a rectangular shape extending in length from East to West twice as long as it is wide. The surrounding ocean is unnavigatable, and is surrounded by another earth which is the seat of paradise, and the abode of man until the flood when Noah was carried over to this earth. McCrindle summarizes Cosmas’ shape of the world by saying:

The heavens come down to us in four walls, which, at their lower sides, are welded to the four sides of the earth beyond the ocean, each to each. The upper side of the northern wall, at the summit of heaven, curves round and over, till it unites with the upper side of the southern wall, and thus forms, in the shape of an oblong vault, the canopy of heaven, which Cosmas likens to the vaulted roof of a bathroom. This vast rectangular hall is divided at the middle into two stories by the firmament, which this serves as a ceiling for the lower story and a floor for the upper. The lower story is this world, where men and angels have their abode until the resurrection, and the story above is heaven-the place of the future state (McCrindle 1897, xvi).

43

From Isaiah which says that the heaven is His throne, and the earth is His footstool, he deduced that the earth must be at the bottom of the universe, founded on its own stability (Ibid, 28). Therefore in Job 26:7 it says, “He hangeth the earth upon nothing.” It is the Lord who holds up the earth (Heb 1:3, Job 38:4-6, Psa 102:5).

Cosmas believed that heaven was light, and tended upward while the earth was heavy, and tended downward. By binding heaven and earth together they would both naturally support each other. He then describes the heavens like “an oblong vaulted vapor-bath. For it says in Isaiah 40:22, He who established heaven as a vault.” Cosmas always quotes from the Septuagint. He seems to ignore the phrase “the circle of the earth,” since he views the earth as a rectangle. The LXX mistranslates the Hebrew word for “veil” as “vault.” At that time the LXX was considered inspired. Cosmas based his argument on the Greek word kamaran which means “vault.” Cosmas writes:

The divine scripture speaks thus in Moses concerning the second heaven: And God called the firmament heaven; and in the inspired David we find these words: Stretching out the heavens as a covering; and he adds: who covereth his upper chambers with waters; saying this evidently with respect to the firmament. But scripture, when coupling the two heavens together, frequently speaks of them in the singular, as but one, saying through Isaiah: He that established the heaven as a vaulted chamber, and stretched it out as a tent to dwell in ; meaning here by the vaulted chamber the highest heaven, and by what is stretched out as a tent the firmament, and thus declaring them in the singular number to be bound together and to be of similar appearance (McCrindle 1897, 31-2).

The LXX reads kamaran which Cosmas translates as meaning “vaulted chamber” and not just “chamber,” in Isaiah 40:22b. Kamaran means “arch, vault, vaulted room” in the Greek (A&G 1957, 401). The Vulgate has qui extendit velut nihilum caelos which means, “who stretches out the sky as nothing.” The Hebrew word is qd, meaning “curtain” (BDB 1980, 201). Cosmas quotes David in Psalm 104:2-3 saying:

Stretching out the heaven as a curtain, and indicating still more clearly he says, Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters. Now, when scripture speaks of the extremities of heaven and earth, this cannot be understood as applicable to a sphere (McCrindle 1897, 313).

Isaiah again says, “Thus saith the Lord, he that made the heaven and pitched it” (Isa 42:5). The curtain refers to the firmament. Cosmas quotes Isaiah 45:18 which says, “The Lord God who made the heaven and fixed it” means the heavens are not revolving as the Greeks thought (Ibid, 313).

Cosmas states that the Babylonians were the first ones to say that the heavens were a sphere, and “they were the first to be taught, through Isaiah the prophet, that it is not a sphere, but a vault” (Ibid, 315).

About the second day of creation Cosmas quotes Severianus, the Bishop of Gabula, who explains:

He made this heaven, not the one above, but the visible heaven which he crystallized from the waters like ice. Thereupon a solid ice-like substance was produced in the midst of the waters, which made lighter the upper half of the water, and left the other half underneath. Isaiah testifies where he says: The heaven was made firm and solid as smoke (Isa 51:6). The heaven was crystalline, having been consolidated from the waters; but since it was to receive the flame of the sun and of the moon and the countless hosts of the stars, and was entirely filled with fire, then in order that it might not be dissolved, nor burned with the heat, He

44

spread over the upper surfaces of heaven those sea-like expanses of water, with a view to soften, and as it were to anoint the upper surface and thus render it capable of resisting the scorching heat of the flames (Ibid, 336-8). Cosmas takes everything in the Bible very literally.

Cosmas in book twelve claims that many old pagan writers testify to the accuracy of the OT. The Chaldaean books of Berosus tells of King Xisuthrus who was warned by God built a ship and escaped the great flood (Ibid, 375). Noah is King Xisuthrus. The genealogies with long life spans are explained by counting days not years, and are carefully correlated to the genealogies in Genesis. The Tower of Babel is also mentioned in Chaldeaen history.

Cosmas also appeals to the philosopher Timaeus in Plato’s book where he describes the earth as surrounded by the ocean, and then the ocean is surrounded by the more remote earth called Atlantis which Cosmas calls Paradise (Ibid, 376). It may be more accurate to say that Atlantis and Paradise are big islands. In Timaeus it says that the island is bigger than Africa (Archer-Hind 1973, 79; 24E). It seems that Cosmas in order to add support to his views, quotes secular writers that agree with him, and criticizes those writers who do not agree with him.

Eusebius of Caesarea

Eusebius of Caesarea wrote a book called Preparation of the Gospel around 314 AD (Eusebius 1981, v; Mras 1954). He discusses different Greek philosophies showing how some are similar to the Bible, and how some are contrary. The following is a compilation of Greek views of the shape of the earth:

Thales and the Stoics: the earth is spherical. Anaximander: it is like a stone pillar supporting the surfaces. Anaximenes: like a table. Leucippus: like a kettle-drum. Democritus: like a disk in its extension, but hollow in the middle.

“But Moses and the oracles of the Hebrews trouble themselves about none of these things; and with good reason, because it was thought that those who busied themselves about these matters gained no benefit in regard to the right conduct of life (Eusebius 1981, 913, 869).”

Eusebius quotes briefly from Scripture to demonstrate how God created the universe. God spoke and it came into being. He quoted Isaiah 450:22b, ëo sthsaj wj kamarav ton ouranon kai diateinaj Wj skhnhn katoikein, which means, “who set the heaven for a canopy, and spread it out as a tent to dwell in” (Mras 1954, 384; 7:11,7). This is a direct quote from the LXX. He does not speculate on what the verse might mean.

St. Chrysostom

St. Chrysostom in Concerning the Statues quotes the following scriptures, “who hath placed the sky as a vault, and spread it out as a tent over the earth. And again, Who holdeth the circle of heaven” (Schaff 1979, 9:409). St. Chrysostom is following the LXX, but instead of writing “circle of the earth” he writes “circle of heaven” He may be interpreting the phrase to refer to heaven or thinking about the circle in Ecclesiasticus 43:12-12.

Gregory of Nyssa

45

Gregory of Nyssa in book two of Against Eunomius writes, “Who sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and hath meted out heaven with the span” (Schaff and Wace 1979, 5:125). Here Gregory is not quoting the LXX which says, “It is he that comprehends the circle of the earth,” but from the Vulgate.

Theophilus

Theophilus writing to Autolycus following the LXX says:

The heaven, therefore, being dome-shaped covering, comprehended matter which was like a clod. And so another prophet, Isaiah by name, spoke in these words: It is God who made the heavens as a vault, and stretched them as a tent to dwell in.This heaven which we see has been called firmament, and to which half the water was taken up that it might serve for rains, and showers, and dews to mankind. And half the water was left on earth for rivers, and fountains, and seas (Schaff and Wace 1979, 2:100).

Theophilus interprets the “circle of the earth” as referring to the vault of heaven.

Novatian

Novatian in his Treatise Concerning the Trinity, following the LXX writes:

Who, according to Isaiah, ‘hath meted out the heaven with a span, the earth with the hollow of His hand;’ ‘who looketh on the earth, and maketh it tremble; who boundeth the circle of the earth, and those that dwell in it like locusts; who hath weighed the mountains in a balance, and the groves in scales’ (Ibid, 5:613).

Severianus

Severianus, bishop of Gabula wrote Six Orations on the Creation of the World. He saw the world as flat in the shape of the tabernacle which was a common early Christian view (Durham and Purrington 1983, 76). Cosmas quotes extensively from these orations.

Bibliography Updated: 4/30/2008 Webmaster: info@bibleandscience.com

§

46

II. ON THE APPARENT STRUCTURE OF THE WORLD, PART II.

1. The constitution of the world according to Homer and the Pre-Socratics.

Cf. [Pseudo-] Plutarch, The Life and Poetry of Homer. Translated by Thomas Y. Cromwell (New York, n.d.), nn. 92-105:

[92] There is the theoretic style, which embraces what is called speculative matter, which is a knowledge of the truth conceived in art. By these it is possible to know the nature of reality, both divine and human things, and to discriminate virtues and vices in morals and to learn how to attain truth by logical skill. These things are the province of those who are occupied in philosophy, which is divided into natural, ethical, and dialectical. If we find out Homer supplying the beginnings and the seeds of all these, is he not, beyond all others, worthy of admiration? Because he shows matters of intelligence by dark sayings and mythical expressions, it ought not to be considered strange. The reason is to be found in poetic art and ancient custom. So those who desired to learn, being led by a certain intellectual pleasure, might the easier seek and find the truth, and that the unlearned might not despise what they are not able to understand. For what is indicated indirectly is stimulating, while what is said clearly is valued more moderately.

[93] Let us begin with the beginning and creation of the whole universe, which Thales the Milesian refers to the substance water, and let us see whether Homer first discovered this when he said (I. xiv. 246):– Even to the stream of old Oceanus Prime origin of all. After him Xenophanes of Colophon, laying down that the first elements were water and land, seems to have taken this conception from the Homeric poems (I. vii. 99):– To dust and water turn all ye who here inglorious sit. For he indicates their dissolution into the original elements of the universe. But the most likely opinion makes four elements,– fire, air, water, earth. These Homer shows he knows, as in many places he makes mention of them.

[94] He knew, too, the order of their arrangement. We shall see that the land is the lowest of them all, for as the world is spherical, the sky, which contains all things, can reasonably be said to have the highest position. The earth being in the midst everywhere is below what surrounds it. This the poet declares chiefly in the lines where he says if Zeus let a chain down from Olympus, he could turn over the land and sea so that everything would be in the air (I. viii. 23):– But if I choose to make my pow’r be known, The earth itself and ocean I could raise, And binding round Olympus’ ridge the cord Leave them suspended so in middle air.

[95] Although the air is around the earth, he says the ether is higher in the following lines (I. xiv. 287):– And going up on a lofty pine, which then grew on the summit of Ida and through the air reached into the ether. But higher than the ether is heaven (I. xvii. 424):– And thus they fought: the iron clangor pierc’d The airless ether and brazen vault of Heaven. And, besides, in the following (I. i. 497):– The vapor ascended to the great heaven and to Olympus. The top part of the air is finer and more distant from the earth and its exhalations. Therefore it is said Olympus is called “wholly shining.”

[96] Where the poet says Hera is the wife of Zeus, although she is his sister, he seems to speak in an allegory, since Hera stands for the air, which is a humid substance. Therefore he says (I. xxi. 6):– Hera spread before their path clouds of thick darkness. By Zeus is signified the ether, that is the fiery and heated substance (I. xv. 192):– Broad Heav’n amid the sky and clouds, to Jove.

47

They seem brother and sister on account of a certain likeness and relationship, because both are light and mobile; they dwell together and are intimate, because from their intercourse all things are generated. Therefore they meet in Ida, and the land produces for them plants and flowers.

[97] The same explanation have those words in which Zeus says he will hang Hera and fasten two weights to her feet, namely, the land and the sea. He works out especially the principles of the elements in what Poseidon says to him (I. xv. 187):– We were brethren, all of Rhaea born To Saturn: Jove and I and Pluto third, Who o’er the nether regions holds his sway, and (I. xv. 189):– Threefold was our partition: each obtain’d His meed of honor due. And in the division of the whole, Zeus obtained the element fire, Poseidon water, and Hades that of air. Him he also calls “aerial darkness,” because the air has no proper light, but is lightened by the sun, moon, and other planets.

[98] The fourth part was left common to all, for the primal essence of the three elements is always in motion. The earth alone remains unmoved, to which he added also Olympus; it may have been because it is a mountain, being a part of the earth. If it belongs to heaven, as being the most brilliant and purest part of it, this may be the fifth essence in the elements, as certain distinguished philosophers think. So he, with reason, has conjectured it was common, the lowest part belonging to the earth by its weight, and the top parts to Olympus by their lightness.

[99] The natures between the two are borne upward to the one and downward to the other. Since the nature of the elements is a combination of contraries, of dryness and moisture, hot and cold, and since by their relation and combination all things are constructed and undergo partial changes,–the whole not admitting of dissolution,–Empedocles says all things exist in this manner: “Sometimes in love all things meeting together in one. Sometimes, again, each being carried away by animosity of hate.” The concord and unity of the elements he calls love, their opposition, hate.

[100] Before his time Homer foreshadowed love and hate in what he says in his poetry (I. xiv. 200):– I go to visit old Oceanus The sire of gods, and Tethys, I go to visit them and reconcile a lengthen’d feud.

[101] A similar meaning has the myth about Aphrodite and Ares, the one having the same force as Empedocles’s love, the other his hate. When they sometimes come together, and again separate, the sun reveals them, Hephaestus binds them, and Poseidon releases them. Whence it is evident that the warm and dry essence, and the contrary of these, the cold and wet, sometimes combine all things and again dissolve them.

[102] Related to these is what is said by other poets that by the intercourse of Ares and Aphrodite arises Harmony; a combination of contraries grave and acute analogously accommodating themselves to one another. By which arrangement things which are endowed with a contrary nature are all mutually opposed.

The poet seems to have signified this enigmatically in the conflict of the gods, in which he makes some help the Greeks and some the Trojans, showing allegorically the character of each. And he set over against Poseidon Phoebus, the cold and wet against the hot and dry: Athene to Ares, the rational to the irrational, that is, the good to the bad. Hera to Artemis, that is, the air to the moon, because the one is stable and the other unstable. Hermes to Latona, because speech investigates and remembers, but oblivion is contrary to these. Hephaestus to the River God, for the same reason that the sun is opposed to the sea. The spectator of the fight was the primary god, and he is made taking joy in it.

48

[103] From the aforementioned matter Homer seems to show this: that the world is one and finite. For if it had been infinite, it would never have been divided in a number having a limit. By the name “all” he signifies the collective whole. For in many other cases he uses the plural for the singular. He signifies the same thing more clearly in saying (I. xiv. 200):– The ends of the earth,– and again where he says (I. vii. 478):– Nor should I care Though thou wert thrust beneath the lowest deep Of earth and ocean,– and in On the very top of many-peaked Olympus where there is a top, there, too, is a limit.

[104] His opinions about the sun are plain. That it has an orbicular energy sometimes appearing over the earth, sometimes going under it, this he makes evident by saying (O. x. 190):– My friends, lo we know not where is the place of darkness or of dawning, nor where the sun that gives light to men goes beneath the earth, nor where he rises. And that he is always preceding over us and on this account is called Hyperion by our poet; that he makes the sun rising from the water which surrounds the earth the ocean, that the sun descends into it, is clearly expressed.

First, as to the rising (O. iii. l):– Now the sun arose and left the lovely mere speeding to the brazen heaven, to give light to the immortals and to mortal men on the earth. Its setting (I. vii. 486):– The sun, now sunk beneath the ocean wave, Drew o’er the teeming earth the veil of night.

[105] And he declares its form (O. xix. 234):– He was brilliant as the sun, and its size (I. xi. 735):– We as sunlight overspread the earth. And more in the following (O. iv. 400):– So often as the sun in his course has reached the mid-heaven,– and its power (O. ii. log):– Of Helios, who overseeth all and ordereth all things.

Finally that it has a soul, and in its movement is guided by choice in certain menaces it makes (O. xii. 383):– I will go down to Hades and shine among the dead. And on this thus Zeus exhorts him:– Helios, see that thou shine on amidst the deathless gods amid mortal men upon the earth, the grain giver. From which it is plain that the sun is not a fire, but some more potent being, as Aristotle conjectured. Assuredly, fire is borne aloft, is without a soul, is easily quenchable and corruptible; but the sun is orbicular and animate, eternal and imperishable.

[106] And as to the other planets scattered through the heavens, that Homer is not ignorant is evident in his poems (I. xviii. 480):– Pleiads and Hyads and Orions might. The Bear which always encircles the North Pole is visible to us. By reason of its height it never touches the horizon, because in an equal time, the smallest circle in which the Bear is, and the largest in which Orion is, revolves in the periphery of the world. And Bootes, slowly sinking because it makes a frequent setting, has that kind of position, that is carried along in a straight line. It sinks with the four signs of Zodiac, there being six zodiacal signs divided in the whole night. That he has not gone through all observations of the stars, as Aratus or some of the others, need be surprising to no one. For this was not his purpose.

He is not ignorant of the causes of disturbances to the elements as earthquakes and eclipses, since the whole earth shares in itself air, fire, and water, by which it is surrounded. Reasonably, in its depths are found vapors full of spirit, which they say being borne outward move the air; when they are restrained, they swell up and break violently forth. That the spirit is held within the earth they consider is caused by the sea, which sometimes obstructs the channels going outward, and sometimes by withdrawing, overturns parts of the earth. This Homer knew, laying the cause of earthquakes on Poseidon, calling him Earth Container and Earth Shaker. Now, then, when these volatile movements are kept within the earth, the winds cease to blow, then arises the darkness and obscurity of the sun.

49

Let us see whether he was aware also of this. He made Poseidon moving the earth after Achilles issued forth to fight. For he had previously mentioned on the day before what the state of the air was. In the incident of Sarpedon (I. xvi. 567):– Zeus extended opaque shadows over the fight,– and again in the case of Patroclus (I. xvii. 366):– Now might ye deem the glorious sun himself nor moon was safe, for darkest clouds of night overspread the warriors. And a little while afterward Ajax prays (I. xvii. 645):– O Father Jove, from o’er the sons of Greece, Remove this cloudy darkness; clear the sky That we may see our fate. But after the earthquake, the vapor issuing forth, there are violent winds, whence Hera says (I. xxi. 334):– While from the sea I call the strong blast Of Zephyr and brisk Notus who shall drive The raging flames ahead. On the following day Iris calls the winds to the pyre of Patroclus (I. xxiii. 212):– They with rushing sound rose and before them drove the hurrying clouds.

So the eclipse of the sun takes place in a natural manner, when the moon on its passage by it goes under it perpendicularly and is darkened. This he seems to have known. For he said before that Odysseus was about to come (O. xiv. 162):– As the old moon wanes, and the new is born;– that is, when the month ends and begins, the sun being conjoined with the moon at the time of his coming. The seer says to the suitors (O. xiv. 353):– Ah, wretched men, what woe is this ye suffer, shrouded in night are your heads and your faces and knees, and kindled is the voice of wailing and the path is full of phantoms and full is the court, the shadows of men hasting hellwards beneath the gloom, and the sun is perished out of heaven, and an evil mist has overspread the world.

Cf. Eusebius of Caesarea: Praeparatio Evangelica (Preparation for the Gospel). Tr. E.H. Gifford (1903) Chapters 13-16:

...But now let this suffice in the way of preface to our defence that we have not without right judgement neglected the useless learning of such subjects as these. Let us then make at once a new beginning and examine the mutual contradictions in doctrine of the aforesaid physical philosophers. Now Plutarch has collected together the opinions of all the Platonists and Pythagoreans alike, and of the still earlier physical philosophers as they were called, and again of the more recent Peripatetics, and Stoics, and Epicureans, and written them in a work which he entitled Of the Physical Doctrines approved by Philosophers, from which I shall make the following quotations: 33

CHAPTER XIV

‘THALES of Miletus, one of the seven sages, declared water to be the first principle of all things. This man is thought to have been the founder of philosophy, and from him the Ionic sect derived its name; for it had many successions. After studying philosophy in Egypt he came as an elderly man to Miletus. He says that all things come from water, and are all resolved into water. And he forms his conjecture first from the fact that seed, which is watery, is the first principle of all animal life; thus it is probable that all things have their origin from moisture. His second argument is that all plants derive nourishment and fruitfulness from moisture, and when deprived of it wither away. And the third, that the very fire of the sun, and of the stars, and the world itself are nourished by the evaporations of the waters. For this reason Homer also suggests this notion concerning water, “Ocean, which is the origin of all.” 34 This is what Thales says.

‘But Anaximander of Miletus says that the first principle of all things is the infinite, for from this all are produced, and into this all pass away; for which reason also infinite worlds are generated, and pass away again into that from which they spring. So he says the reason why the infinite exists is that the subsisting creation may not be deficient in any point. But he also

50

is at fault in not saying what the infinite is, whether it is air, or water, or earth, or any other corporeal elements; he is wrong therefore in declaring the matter while excluding the efficient cause. For the infinite is nothing else than matter, and matter cannot have an actual existence, unless the efficient cause underlie it.

‘Anaximenes of Miletus declared that the air is the first principle of all things, for from this all are produced, and into it they are resolved again. For example, our soul, he says, is air, for it holds us together; and the whole world too is encompassed by air and breath, and air and breath are used as synonyms. But he too is wrong in thinking that living beings consist of simple homogeneous air and breath; for it is impossible that the matter can exist as sole principle of things, but we must assume the efficient cause also. As for instance silver suffices not for the production of the drinking-cup, unless there be the efficient cause, that is the silversmith; the case is similar with copper and various kinds of wood, and all other matter.

‘Heracleitus and Hippasus of Metapontum say that fire is the principle of all things: for from fire, they say, all things are produced and all end in fire: and all things in the world are created as it gradually cools down. For first the coarsest part of it is pressed together and becomes earth; then the earth being resolved by the natural force of the fire is turned into water, and being vaporised becomes air. And again the world and all the bodies in it are consumed in a conflagration by fire. Fire therefore is the first principle, because all things come from it, and the end, inasmuch as they are all resolved into it.

‘Democritus, who was followed long after by Epicurus, said that the first principles of all things are bodies indivisible, but conceivable by reason, with no admixture of vacuum, uncreated, imperishable, not capable of being broken, nor of receiving shape from their parts, nor of being altered in quality, but perceptible by reason only; that they move, however, in the vacuum, and through the vacuum, and that both the vacuum itself is infinite and the bodies infinite. And the bodies possess these three properties, shape, magnitude, and weight. Democritus, however, said two, magnitude and shape; but Epicurus added to them a third, namely weight. For he said the bodies must be moved by the impulse of the weight, since otherwise they will not be moved at all. The shapes of the atoms are limitable, not infinite: for there are none either hook-shaped, nor trident-shaped, nor ring-shaped. For these shapes are easily broken, whereas the atoms are impassive and cannot be broken; but they have their proper shapes, which are conceivable by reason. And the “atom” is so called, not because it is extremely small, but because it cannot be divided, being impassive, and free from admixture of vacuum: so that if a man says “atom” he means unbreakable, impassive, unmixed with vacuum. And that the atom exists is manifest: for there are also elements (stoixei=a), and living beings that are empty, and there is the Monad.

‘Empedocles, son of Meton, of Agrigentum, says that there are four elements, fire, air, water, earth, and, two original forces, love and hate, of which the one tends to unite, and the other to separate. And this is how he speaks:

“Learn first four roots of all things that exist: Bright Zeus, life-giving Hera, and the god 

Of realms unseen, and Nestis, who with tears Bedews the fountain-head of mortal life.”35

For by “Zeus” he means the seething heat and the ether; and by “life-giving Hera,” the air; the earth by Aidoneus, and by Nestis and “the fountain-head of mortal life,” the seed, as it were, and the water.’

51

So great is the dissonance of the first physical philosophers: such too is their opinion concerning first principles, assuming, as they did, no god, no maker, no artificer, nor any cause of the universe, nor yet gods, nor incorporeal powers, no intelligent natures, no rational essences, nor anything at all beyond the reach of the senses, in their first principles.

In fact Anaxagoras alone is mentioned as the first of the Greeks who declared in his discourses about first principles that mind is the cause of all things. They say at least that this philosopher had a great admiration for natural science beyond all who were before him: for the sake of it certainly he left his own district a mere sheepwalk, and was the first of the Greeks who stated clearly the doctrine of first principles. For he not only pronounced, like those before him, on the essence of all things, but also on the cause which set it in motion.

‘“For in the beginning,” he said, “all things were mingled together in confusion: but mind came in, and brought them out of confusion into order.’”

One cannot but wonder how this man, having been the first among Greeks who taught concerning God in this fashion, was thought by the Athenians to be an atheist, because he regarded not the sun but the Maker of the sun as God, and barely escaped being stoned to death. But it is said that even he did not keep the doctrine safe and sound: for though he made mind preside over all things, he did not go on to render his physical system concerning the existing world accordant with mind and reason. Hear in fact how in Plato’s dialogue Of the Soul Socrates blames him in the following passage: 36

CHAPTER XVI

‘SOME of the philosophers, as Diagoras of Melos, and Theodoras of Cyrene, and Euemerus of Tegea, altogether deny that there are any gods’. There is an allusion also to Euemerus in the Iambic poems of Callimachus of Cyrene. Euripides also, the tragic poet, though he was loath to withdraw the veil through fear of the Areopagus, yet gave a glimpse of this. For he brought Sisyphus forward as the patron of this opinion, and advocated his judgement.’

After these he brings in Anaxagoras again, stating that he was the first who formed right thoughts about God. And this is how he speaks: 39

‘But Anaxagoras says that in the beginning the bodies were motionless, but the mind of God distributed them in order, and produced the generations of the universe. Plato, however, supposed that the primordial bodies were not motionless, but were moving in a disorderly way: wherefore, says he, God having ordained that order is better than disorder, made an orderly distribution of them.’

To which he adds: ‘They therefore are both in error, because they represented God as having regard to human affairs, and arranging the world for this purpose: for the living Being which is blessed and immortal, supplied with all good things, and incapable of any misfortune, being wholly occupied with the maintenance of its own happiness and immortality, has no regard for human affairs. But he would be a miserable being if he carried burdens like a labourer or artisan, and was full of cares about the constitution of the world.

‘And again the god of whom they speak either was not existing throughout that former age when the primary bodies were motionless, or when they were moving in disorderly fashion, or else he was either asleep, or awake, or neither of these. We can neither admit the first, for every god is eternal; nor the second, for if God was sleeping from eternity He was dead; for an eternal sleep is death. But surely God is incapable of sleep; for the immortality of God and that which is akin to death are far apart.

52

‘If then God was awake, either He was in want of something to complete His happiness, or He was complete in blessedness. And neither according to the first case is God blessed, for that which is wanting in happiness is not blessed: nor according to the second case; for being deficient in nothing, any actions He might attempt must be void of purpose. And if God exists, and if human affairs are administered by His care, how conies it that the counterfeit is prosperous, and the worthy suffers adversity? ‘For Agamemnon, who was both “A valiant warrior and a virtuous king,” 40 was overpowered and treacherously murdered by an adulterer and adulteress. Also his kinsman Hercules, after purging away many of the plagues by which human life is infested, was treacherously murdered with a poisoned robe by Deianira.

‘Thales held that god is the mind of the world; Anaximander that the stars are celestial gods; Democritus that god is like a sphere amid fire, which is the soul of the world.

‘Pythagoras held that of first principles the monad is god: and the good, which is the nature of the One, is the mind itself. But the unlimited dyad is a daemon and the evil, and it is surrounded by the multitude of matter and the visible world.’

Now after these, hear what were the opinions held by those of more recent time: 41

‘Socrates and Plato held that (God is) the One, the single self-existent nature, the monadic, the real Being, the good: and all this variety of names points immediately to mind. God therefore is mind, a separate species, that is to say what is purely immaterial and uncon-nected with anything passible.

‘Aristotle held that the Most High God is a separate species, and rides upon the sphere of the universe, which is an etherial body, the fifth essence so-called by him. And when this had been divided into spheres, which though connected in their nature are separated by reason, he thinks that each of the spheres is a living being compounded of body and soul, of which the body is etherial, and moves in a circular orbit, while the soul, being itself motionless reason, is actually the cause of the motion.

‘The Stoics set forth an intelligent god, an artistic fire, proceeding methodically to generate a world, which comprises all the seminal laws, in accordance with which things are severally produced according to fate: also a spirit, which pervades the whole world, but receives different names according to the changes of the matter through which it has passed. ‘They regard as a god the world, and the stars, and the earth, but mind which is highest of all they place in the ether.

‘Epicurus held that the gods are of human shape, but all to be discerned by reason because of the fineness of the particles in the nature of their forms. The same philosopher added four other natures generically imperishable, namely the atoms, the vacuum, the infinite, the similarities, which are called homoeomeriae and elements.’

Such are the dissensions and blasphemies concerning God of the physical philosophers, among whom, as is proved by this narrative, Pythagoras, and Anaxagoras, and Plato, and Socrates were the first who made mind and God preside over the world.

These then are shown to have been in their times very children, as compared with the times at which the remotest events in Hebrew antiquity are fixed by history. Accordingly among all the Greeks, and those who long ago introduced the polytheistic superstition among both the Phoenicians and Egyptians, the knowledge of the God of the universe was not very ancient, but the first of the Greeks to publish it were Anaxagoras and his school.

53

Moreover the doctrines of the polytheistic superstition prevailed over all nations; but they contained, as it seems, not the true theology, but that which the Egyptians and Phoenicians, as was testified, were the very first to establish. And this was a theology which by no means treated of gods, nor of any divine powers, but of men who had already been long lying among the dead, as was shown long since by our word of truth. Come then, let us take up our argument again. Since among the physical philosophers some were for bringing all things down to the senses, while others drew all in the contrary direction, as Xenophanes of Colophon, and Parmenides the Eleatic, who made nought of the senses, asserting that there could be no comprehension of things sensible, and that we must therefore trust to reason alone, let us examine the objections which have been urged against them.

33. 747 d 2 Plutarch, De Placitis Philosophorum, p. 875 34. 748 b 3 Hom. Il. xiv. 246 35. 749 d 12 Empedocles, On Nature, 1. 59 (Mullach, i. p. 2) 36. 750 d 1 Plato, Phaedo, p. 97 B 37. 752 d 4 Plato, Phaedo, 99 B 38. 753 b 2 Plutarch, De Placitis Philosophorum, p. 880 39. 753 e 9 ibid. p. 881 40. 754 c 1 Hom Il. iii. 179 41. d 7 Plutarch, De Placitis Philosophorum, i. 7 (Diels, Doxogr. p. 304)

Cf. Pliny’s Natural History. Book II, Chapters I-VI (Pliny: Natural History. With an English Translation in Ten Volumes. Volume I – Praefatio, Libri I, II. by H. Rackham, M.A. Harvard University Press, 1949.):

PLINY’S  NATURAL HISTORY

Book II

Chapters  I – VII

I. THE world, and this – whatever other name men have chosen to designate the sky whose vaulted roof encircles the universe – is fitly believed to be a deity, eternal, im-measurable, a being that never began to exist and never will perish. What is outside it does not concern men to explore and is not within the grasp of the human mind to guess. It is sacred, eternal, immeasurable, wholly within the whole, nay rather itself the whole, finite and resembling the infinite, certain of all things and resembling the uncertain, holding in its embrace all things that are without and within, at once the work of nature and nature herself.  That certain persons have studied, and have dared to publish, its dimensions, is mere madness; and again that others taking or receiving occasion from the former, have taught the existence of a countless number of worlds, involving the belief in as many systems of nature, or, if a single nature embraces all the worlds, nevertheless the same number of suns, moons and other unmeasurable and innumerable heavenly bodies, as already in a single world; just as if owing to our craving for some End the same problem would not always encounter us at the termination of this process of thought, or as if, assuming it possible to attribute this infinity of nature to the artificer of the universe, that same property would not be easier to understand in a single world, especially one that is so vast a structure. It is madness, downright madness, to go out of that world, and to investigate what lies outside it just as if the whole of what is within it were already clearly known; as though, forsooth, the measure of anything could be taken by him that knows not the measure of himself, or as if the mind of man could see things that the world itself does not contain.

54

II. Its shape has the rounded appearance of a perfect sphere. This is shown first of all by the name of ‘orb’ which is bestowed upon it by the general consent of mankind. It is also shown by the evidence of the facts: not only does such a figure in all its parts converge upon itself; not only must it sustain itself, enclosing and holding itself together without the need of any fastenings, and without experiencing an end or a beginning at any part of itself; not only is that shape the one best fitted for the motion with which, as will shortly appear, it must repeatedly revolve, but our eyesight also confirms this belief, because the firmament presents the aspect of a concave & hemisphere equidistant in every direction, which would be impossible in the case of any other figure. 

III. The world thus shaped then is not at rest but eternally revolves with indescribable velocity, each revolution occupying the space of 24 hours: the rising and setting of the sun have left this not doubtful. Whether the sound of this vast mass whirling in unceasing rotation is of enormous volume and consequently beyond the capacity of our ears to perceive, for my own part I cannot easily say – any more in fact than whether this is true of the tinkling of the stars that travel round with it, revolving in their own orbits; or whether it emits a sweet harmonious music that is beyond belief charming. To us who live within it the world glides silently alike by day and night. Stamped upon it are countless figures of animals and objects of all kinds – it is not the case, as has been stated by very famous authors, that its structure has an even surface of unbroken smoothness, like that which we observe in birds’ eggs: this is proved by the evidence of the facts, since from seeds of all these objects, falling from the sky in countless numbers, particularly in the sea, and usually mixed together, monstrous shapes are generated; and also by the testimony of sight – in one place the figure of a bear, in another of a bull, in another a wain, in another a letter of the alphabet, the middle of the circle across the pole being more radiant.

For my own part I am also influenced by the agreement of the nations. The Greeks have designated the world by a word that means ‘ornament’ and we have given it the name of mundus, because of its perfect finish and grace! As for our word caelum, it undoubtedly has the signification ‘engraved,’ as is explained by Marcus Varro. Further assistance is contributed by its orderly structure, the circle called the Zodiac being marked out into the likenesses of twelve animals; and also by the uniform regularity in so many centuries of the sun’s progress through these signs. 

IV. As regards the elements also I observe that they are accepted as being four in number: topmost the element of fire, source of yonder eyes of all those blazing stars; next the vapour which the Greeks and our own nation call by the same name, air – this is the principle of life, and penetrates all the universe and is intertwined with the whole; suspended by its force in the centre of space is poised the earth, and with it the fourth element, that of the waters. Thus the mutual embrace of the unlike results in an interlacing, the light substances being prevented by the heavy ones from flying up, while on the contrary the heavy substances are held from crashing down by the upward tendency of the light ones. In this way owing to an equal urge in opposite directions the elements remain stationary, each in its own place, bound together by the unresting revolution of the world itself; and with this always running back to its starting-point, the earth is the lowest and central object in the whole, and stays suspended at the pivot of the universe and also balancing the bodies to which its suspension is due; thus being alone motionless with the universe revolving round her she both hangs attached to them all and at the same time is that on which they all rest. Upheld by the same vapour between earth and heaven, at definite spaces apart, hang the seven stars which owing to their motion we call ‘planets,’ although no stars wander less than they do. In the midst of these moves the sun, whose magnitude and power are the greatest, and who is the ruler not only of the seasons and of the lands, but even of the stars themselves and of the heaven. Taking into account all that he effects, we must believe him to be the soul, or more precisely

55

the mind, of the whole world, the supreme ruling principle and divinity of nature. He furnishes the world with light and removes darkness, he obscures and he illumines the rest of the stars, he regulates in accord with nature’s precedent the changes of the seasons and the continuous re-birth of the year, he dissipates the gloom of heaven and even calms the storm-clouds of the mind of man, he lends his light to the rest of the stars also; he is glorious and pre-eminent, all-seeing and even all-hearing –this I observe that Homer the prince of literature held to be true in the case of the sun alone. 

V. For this reason I deem it a mark of human weakness to seek to discover the shape and form of God. Whoever God is – provided there is a God – and in whatever region he is, he consists wholly of sense, sight and hearing, wholly of soul, wholly of mind, wholly of himself. To believe in gods without number, and gods corresponding to men’s vices as well as to their virtues, like the Goddesses of Modesty, Concord, Intelligence, Hope, Honour, Mercy and Faith – or else, as Democritus held, only two, Punishment and Reward, reaches an even greater height of folly. Frail, toiling mortality, remembering its own weakness, has divided such deities into groups, so as to worship in sections, each the deity he is most in need of. Consequently different races have different names for the deities, and we find countless deities in the same races, even those of the lower world being classified into groups, and diseases and also many forms of plague, in our nervous anxiety to get them placated. Because of this there is actually a Temple of Fever consecrated by the nation on the Palatine Hill, and one of Bereavement at the Temple of the Household Deities, and an Altar of Misfortune on the Esquiline. For this reason we can infer a larger population of celestials than of human beings, as individuals also make an equal number of gods on their own, by adopting their own private Junos and Genii; while certain nations have animals, even some loathsome ones, for gods, and many things still more disgraceful to tell of – swearing by rotten articles of food and other things of that sort.

To believe even in marriages taking place between gods, without anybody all through the long ages of time being born as a result of them, and that some are always old and grey, others youths and boys, and gods with dusky complexions, winged, lame, born from eggs, living and dying on alternate days – this almost ranks with the mad fancies of children; but it passes all bounds of shamelessness to invent acts of adultery taking place between the gods themselves, followed by altercation and enmity, and the existence of deities of theft and of crime. For mortal to aid mortal – this is god; and this is the road to eternal glory: by this road went our Roman chieftains, by this road now proceeds with heavenward step, escorted by his children, the greatest ruler of all time, His Majesty Vespasian, coming to the succour of an exhausted world. To enrol such men among the deities is the most ancient method of paying them gratitude for their benefactions.

In fact the names of the other gods, and also of the stars that I have   mentioned above, originated from the services of men: at all events who would not admit that it is the interpretation of men’s characters that prompts them to call each other Jupiter or Mercury or other names, and that originates the nomenclature of heaven? That that supreme being, whate’er it be, pays heed to man’s affairs is a ridiculous notion. Can we believe that it would not be defiled by so gloomy and so multifarious a duty? Can we doubt it? It is scarcely pertinent to determine which is more profitable for the human race, when some men pay no regard to the gods at all and the regard paid by others is of a shameful nature: they serve as the lackeys of foreign ritual, and they carry gods on their fingers; also they pass sentence of punishment upon the monsters they worship, and devise elaborate viands for them; they subject themselves to awful tyrannies, so as to find no repose even in sleep; they do not decide on marriage or having a family or indeed anything else except by the command of sacrifices; others cheat in the very Capitol and swear false oaths by Jupiter who wields the thunder-bolts – and these indeed make a profit out of their crimes, whereas the others are

56

penalised by their religious observances. Nevertheless mortality has rendered our guesses about God even more obscure by inventing for itself a deity intermediate between these two conceptions.

Everywhere in the whole world at every hour by all men’s voices Fortune alone is invoked and named, alone accused, alone impeached, alone pondered, alone applauded, alone rebuked and visited with reproaches; deemed volatile and indeed by most men blind as well,  wayward, inconstant, uncertain, fickle in her favours and favouring the unworthy. To her is debited and that is spent and credited all that is received, she alone fills both pages in the whole of mortals’ account; and we are so much at the mercy of chance that Chance herself, by whom God is proved uncertain, takes the place of God. Another set of people banishes fortune also, and attributes events to its star and to the laws of birth, holding that for all men that ever are to be God’s decree has been enacted once for all, while for the rest of time leisure has been vouchsafed to Him. This belief begins to take root, and the learned and unlearned mob alike go marching on towards it at the double: witness the warnings drawn from lightning, the forecasts made by oracles, the prophecies of augurs, and even inconsiderable trifles – sneeze, a stumble – counted as omens. His late Majesty put abroad a story that on the day on which he was almost overthrown by a mutiny in the army he had put his left boot on the wrong foot. This series of instances entangles unforeseeing mortality, so that among these things but one thing is in the least certain – that nothing certain exists, and that nothing is more pitiable, or more presumptuous, than man! inasmuch as with the rest of living creatures their sole anxiety is for the means of life, in which nature’s bounty of itself suffices, the one blessing indeed that is actually preferable to every other being the fact that they do not think about glory, money, ambition, and above all death. 

But it agrees with life’s experience to believe that in these matters the gods exercise an interest in human affairs; and that punishment for wickedness, though sometimes tardy, as God is occupied in so vast a mass of things, yet is never frustrated; and that man was not born God’s next of kin for the purpose of approximating to the beasts in vileness. Put the chief consolations for nature’s imperfection in the case of man are that not even for God are all things possible – for he cannot, even if he wishes, commit suicide, the supreme boon that he has bestowed on man among all the penalties of life, nor bestow eternity on mortals or recall the deceased, nor cause a man that has lived not to have lived or one that has held high office not to have held it – and that he has no power over what is past save to forget it, and (to link our fellowship with God by means of frivolous arguments as well) that he cannot cause twice ten not to be twenty or do many things on similar lines: which facts unquestionably demonstrate the power of nature, and prove that it is this that we mean by the word ‘God.’ It will not have been irrelevant to have diverged to these topics, which have already been widely disseminated because of the unceasing enquiry into the nature of God. 

VI. Let us return from these questions to the remaining facts of nature. We have stated that the stars are attached to the firmament, not assigned to each of us in the way in which the vulgar believe, and dealt out to mortals with a degree of radiance proportionate to the lot of each, the brightest stars to the rich, the smaller ones to the poor, the dim to those who are worn out; they do not each rise with their own human being, nor indicate by their fall that someone’s life is being extinguished. There is no such close alliance between us and the sky that the radiance of the stars there also shares our fate of mortality. When the stars are believed to fall, what happens is that owing to their being over fed with a draught of liquid they give back the surplus with a fiery flash, just as with us also we see this occur with a stream of oil when lamps are lit. But the heavenly bodies have a nature that is eternal – they interweave the world and are blended with its weft; yet their potency has a powerful influence on the earth, indeed it is owing to the effects that they produce and to their brilliance and magnitude that it has been possible for them to become known with such a

57

degree of precision, as we shall show in the proper place. Also the system of the revolutions of the sky will be more appropriately stated when we deal with geography, since it is entirely related to the earth; only we must not postpone the discoveries that have been made as to the zodiac. Tradition says that Anaximander of Miletus in the fifty-eighth Olympiad was the first person to discover the obliquity of the zodiac, that is, to open the portals of science; and that next Cleostratus explained the signs in it, beginning with the Ram and the Archer; the firmament itself having been explained long before by Atlas.  Let us now leave the frame of the world itself and treat the remaining bodies situated between the sky and the earth. The following points are certain: (1) The star called Saturn’s is the highest and consequently looks the smallest and revolves in the largest orbit, returning in thirty years at the shortest to its initial station. (2) The motions of all the planets, and among them the sun and moon, follow a course contrary to that of the world, namely to the left, the world always running to the right. (3) Although they are borne on by it and carried westward with an unceasing revolution of immeasurable velocity, nevertheless they travel with an opposite motion along their respective tracks. (4) Thus it comes about that the air is not massed in a dull lethargic ball by revolving in the same direction because of the eternal rotation of the world, but is scattered into separate portions by the opposite impact of the stars. (5) Saturn is of a cold and frozen nature. The orbit of Jupiter is much below it and therefore revolves much faster, completing one rotation every twelve years. The third star is Mars, called by some Hercules; owing to the proximity of the sun it has a fiery glow; it revolves once in about two years, and consequently, owing to its excessive heat and Saturn’s frost, Jupiter being situated between them combines the influence of each and is rendered healthy. (6) Next, the sun’s course is divided into 360 parts, but in order that an observation taken of the shadows that it casts may come round to the starting-point, five and a quarter days per annum are added; consequently to every fourth a year an intercalary day is added to make our chronology tally with the course of the sun.  Below the sun revolves a very large star named Venus, which varies its course alternately, and whose alternative names in themselves indicate its rivalry with the sun and moon – when in advance and rising before dawn it receives the name of Lucifer, as being another sun and bringing the dawn, whereas when it shines after sunset it is named Vesper, as prolonging the daylight, or as being a deputy for the moon. This property of Venus was first discovered by pythagoras of Samos about the 42nd Olympiad, 142 years after the foundation of Rome. Further it surpasses all the other stars in magnitude, and is so brilliant that alone among stars it casts a shadow by its rays. Consequently there is a great competition to give it a name, some having called it Juno, others Isis, others the Mother of the Gods. Its influence is the cause of the birth of all things upon earth; at both of its risings it scatters a genital dew with which it not only fills the conceptive organs of the earth but also stimulates those of all animals. It completes the circuit of the zodiac every 348 days, and according to Timaeus is never more than 46 degrees distant from the sun. The star next to Venus is Mercury, by some called Apollo; it has a similar orbit, but is by no means similar in magnitude or power. It travels in a lower circle, with a revolution nine days quicker, shining sometimes before sunrise and sometimes after sunset, but according to Cidenas and Sosigenes never more than 22 degrees away from the sun. Consequently the course of these stars also is peculiar, and not shared by those above mentioned: those are often observed to be a quarter or a third of the heaven away from the sun and travelling against the sun, and they all have other larger circuits of full revolution, the specification of which belongs to the theory of the Great Year.

But the wonder of everyone is vanquished by the last star, the one most familiar to the earth, and devised by nature to serve as a remedy for the shadows of darkness – the moon. By the riddle of her transformations she has racked the wits of observers who are ashamed that the star which is nearest should be the one about which we know least – always waxing or

58

waning, and now curved into the horns of a sickle, now just halved in size, now rounded into a circle; spotted and then suddenly shining clear; vast and full-orbed, and then all of a sudden not there at all; at one time shining all night and at another rising late and for a part of the day augmenting the light of the sun, eclipsed and nevertheless visible during the eclipse, invisible at the end of the month when she is not believed to be in trouble; again at one time low down and at another up aloft, and not even this in a uniform way, but sometimes raised to the sky and sometimes touching the mountain-tops, now borne up to the North and now carried down to the South. The first human being to observe all these facts about her was Endymion – which accounts for the traditional story of his love for her. We forsooth feel no gratitude towards those whose assiduous toil has given us illumination on the subject of this luminary, while owing to a curious disease of the human mind we are pleased to enshrine in history records of bloodshed and slaughter, so that persons ignorant of the facts of the world may be acquainted with the crimes of mankind.  The moon then is nearest to the pole, and therefore has the smallest orbit, completing the same distance every 27 1/3  days that Saturn the highest star covers, as we have said, in 30 years. Then she lingers two days in conjunction with the sun, and after the 30th day at latest sets out again on the same course – being perhaps our teacher as to all the facts that it has been possible to observe in the heavens; (1) that the year is to be divided into twelve monthly spaces, because she herself that number of times follows the sun in his return to his starting point; (2) that she is governed by the sun’s radiance as are the rest of the stars, as in fact she shines with a light entirely borrowed from him, like the light which we see flickering reflected in water; (3) that consequently she only causes water to evaporate with a rather gentle and imperfect force, and indeed increases its quantity, whereas the sun’s rays dry it up; (4) also that the reason why she is seen to vary in her light is that she is full only when opposite to the sun, and on the remaining days shows as much light from herself to the earth as she herself conceives from the sun; though (5) she is indeed invisible when in conjunction with the sun, because being turned towards him she gives back the entire draught of light to the source from which she receives it; (6) but that the stars are undoubted nourished by the moisture of the earth, since she is sometimes seen spotted in half her orb, clearly because she has not yet got sufficient strength to go on drinking – her spots being merely dirt from the earth taken up with the moisture; (7) but that her eclipses and those of the sun, the most marvellous and indeed portentous occurrence in the whole of our observation of nature, serve as indications of their dimensions and shadow. 

VII. It is in fact obvious that the sun is hidden by the passage across it of the moon, and the moon by the interposition of the earth, and that they retaliate on one another, the same rays of the sun being taken away from the earth by the moon intervening and from the moon by the earth: at the transit of the former a sudden shadow passes over the earth, and in return the shadow of the latter dims the heavenly body (the moon), and the darkness is merely the earth’s shadow, but the shape of the shadow is conical, resembling a spinning-top upside down, as it impinges only with its point and does not go beyond the altitude of the moon, because no other star is obscured in the same way, and a conical figure always tapers off into a point: that shadows are made to disappear by distance is proved when birds fly to extreme heights. Consequently the frontier between the moon and the other heavenly bodies is at the point where the air ends and the aether begins. All the space above the moon is clear and filled with continual light, but to us the stars are visible through the night in the same way as other lights in shadows. And these are the reasons why the moon wanes in the night-time; but both of her wanings are irregular and not monthly, because of the slant of the zodiac and the widely varying curves of the moon’s course, as has been stated, the motion of the heavenly bodies not always tallying in minute fractional quantities. (emphasis added)

§

59

2. The appearance of heaven and earth to Homer and the early Greeks.

Cf. Jean-Louis and Monique Tassoul, A Concise History of Solar and Stellar Physics. From Chapter 1: The Age of Myths and Speculations:11

1.1 ANCIENT EGYPT AND THE MIDDLE EAST

For thousands of years men have looked up into the star-filled night sky and have wondered about the nature of the “fixed” stars as opposed to that of the five planets wandering among the constellations of the zodiac. The daily course of the sun, its brilliance and heat, and the passing of the seasons are among the central problems that have concerned every human society. Undoubtedly, the appearance of a comet or a shooting star, the passing phenol-mena of clouds and rain and lightning, the Milky Way, the changing phases of the moon and the eclipses—all of these must have caused quite a sense of wonder and been the source of endless discussions.

Faced with this confusing multiplicity of brute facts, beyond their physical power to con-trol, our ancestors sought to master these unrelated phenomena symbolically by picturing the universe in terms of objects familiar to them so as to make clear the unfamiliar and the unexplained. The cosmologies that these men set up thus inevitably reflect the physical and intellectual environment in which they lived.1

1 [N.B. No footnotes are given on the web page.]

<...>

1.2 IONIA: THE EASTERN GREEK SCHOOL

Before the sixth century B.C. and the time of rationalism heralded by Ionian philosophers, Greek cosmologies were dependent on traditions that came from more ancient civilizations. The first records containing the early Greek ideas are due to Homer and Hesiod. Homer’s two epics, the Iliad and Odyssey, are mainly devoted to the Trojan war and to the return of Ulysses in his homeland. Hesiod, the father of Greek didactic poetry, probably flourished during the eighth century B.C. His poem Theogony tells of the generations of the gods and attempts in mythical terms to provide an account of the events that brought the world into being. His other poem Works and Days resembles a modern almanac in that it correlates the agricultural work to be done with the rising or setting of certain stars. Both Homer and Hesiod agree upon the fact that the earth is a circular disk surrounded by the river Oce-anus. Over the flat earth is the vault of heaven; below the earth is Tartarus, the realm of the underworld. The vault of heaven remains forever fixed; the sun, the moon, and the stars move round under it, rising from Oceanus in the east and plunging into it again in the west. We are not told what happens to the heavenly bodies between their setting and rising. They cannot pass under the earth, however, because Tartarus is never lit up by the sun. Possibly they float round Oceanus, past the north, to the points where they rise again in the east. (emphasis added)

On the movement of the heavenly bodies after they have set, cf. the following from Dr. Barbara J. Becker, Fragments of Pre-Socratic Philosophy (History 60):12

11 (http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s7785.html [12/30/06])12 (https://eee.uci.edu/clients/bjbecker/RevoltingIdeas/week1b.html#anaximenes [11/12/08])

60

Anaximenes of Miletus (fl.. 535 BCE)

Anaximenes of Miletos, son of Eurystratos, who had been an associate of Anaximander, said, like him, that the underlying substance was single and unbounded. However, according to him it was not characterless, as it was for Anaximander, but had a definite character; for he said that it was Air.

He said that, while the Air was being thickened like felt, the Earth first came into being. The Earth is like a table in shape. It is very broad, and can accordingly be supported by the Air. The Sun, Moon and other heavenly bodies, which are of a fiery nature, are likewise supported by the Air because of their breadth. The heavenly bodies were produced out of moisture rising from the Earth. When this rarefied, fire was produced: the stars are composed of the fire thus raised aloft. Revolving along with the stars there are also earthy bodies.

The heavenly bodies do not move under the Earth, as some supposed, but round it; like a cap turned round on one’s head. The Sun disappears from sight, not because it goes below the Earth, but because, having gone a long way from us, it is concealed by the higher parts of the Earth. The stars give no heat because they are so far away. They are fixed like nails in the crystalline vault of the heavens, though some say they are like fiery leaves painted on the heavens.    –Theophrastus, Opinions of Physics

3. On the movement of the heavens and its relation to the world-encircling Ocean.

Cf. The Geography of Strabo. With an English translation by Horace Leonard Jones, Ph.D., LL.D. (The Loeb Classical Library.) 8 vols. Vol. I, nn. 3; 6-7. 1917. London: William Heinemann:

3 In the first place, Homer declares that the inhabited world is washed on all sides by Oce-anus, and this is true; and then he mentions some of the countries by name, while he leaves us to infer the other countries from hints; for instance, he expressly mentions Libya,1

Ethiopia, Sidonians, and Erembians—by Erembians he probably means Arabian Troglo-dytes2— whereas he only indicates in general terms the people who live in the far east and the far west by saying that their countries are washed by Oceanus. For he makes the sun to rise out of Oceanus and to set in Oceanus; and he refers in the same way to the constel-lations: “Now the sun was just beating on the fields as he climbed heaven from the deep stream of gently-flowing Oceanus.” “And the sun’s bright light dropped into Oceanus draw-ing black night across the earth.” And he declares that the stars also rise from Oceanus “after having bathed in Oceanus.”

6. …And he has left us to infer that the farthest land in the north is also bounded by Oceanus when he says of the Bear that “She alone hath no part in the baths of Oceanus.” That is, by the terms “Bear” and “Wain” he means the “arctic circle”;7 for otherwise he would not have said of the Bear that “She alone hath no part in the baths of Oceanus,” since so many stars complete their diurnal revolutions in that same quarter of the heavens which was always visible to him. So it is not well for us to accuse him of ignorance on the ground that he knew of but one Bear instead of two; for it is likely that in the time of Homer the other Bear had not yet been marked out as a constellation, and that the star-group did not become known as such to the Greeks until the Phoenicians so designated it and used it for purposes of navigation; the same is true of Berenice’s Hair and of Canopus, for we know that these two constellations have received their names quite recently, and that there are many constel-

61

lations still unnamed, just as Aratus says. Therefore Crates is not correct, either, when in seeking to avoid what needs no avoidance, he alters the text of Homer so as to make it read, “And the arctic circle alone8 hath no part in the baths of Oceanus.”

Better and more Homeric is Heracleitus, who likewise employs “the Bear” for “the arctic circle”: “The Bear forms limits of morning and evening, and over against the Bear fair breezes blow from fair skies”;9 for the arctic circle, and not the Bear, forms a boundary beyond which the stars neither rise nor set. Accordingly, by “the Bear,” which he also calls “the Wain” and describes as keeping watch upon Orion, Homer means the “arctic circle,” and by Oceanus he means the horizon into which he makes the stars to set and from which he makes them to rise.

And when he says that the Bear makes its revolution in that region without having a part in Oceanus, he knows that the arctic circle touches the most northerly point of the horizon. If we construe the poet’s verse in this way, then we should interpret the terrestrial horizon as closely corresponding to Oceanus, and the arctic circle as touching the earth — if we may believe the evidence of our sense — at its most northerly inhabited point. And so, in the opinion of Homer, this part of the earth also is washed by Oceanus. Furthermore, Homer knows of the men who live farthest north; and while he does not mention them by name — and even to the present day there is no common term that will embrace them all — he characterises them by their mode of life, describing them as “nomads,” and as “proud mare-milkers, curd-eaters, and a resourceless folk.” (emphasis added)

7 In other ways, too, Homer indicates that Oceanus surrounds the earth, as when Hera says as follows: “For I am going to visit the limits of the bountiful earth, and Oceanus, father of the gods.” By these words he means that Oceanus touches all the extremities of the earth; and these extremities form a circle round the earth. Again, in the story of the making of the arms of Achilles, Homer places Oceanus in a circle round the outer edge of the shield of Achilles….

1 For Strabo’s definition of Libya see 17.3.1. 2 “Cave-dwellers.” They lived on the western shores of the Red Sea. 7 For the meaning of the term “arctic circle” among the ancients, see 2.2.2 and footnote. 8 Crates emended Homer’s feminine form of the adjective for “alone” (οuη) to the masculine form (οἶος), so as to make it agree with “arctic circle” and not with “Bear.” 9 Heracleitus, with his usual obscurity, divides the heavens roughly into four quarters, viz.: the Bear (north), morning (east), evening (west), and the region opposite the Bear (south). Strabo’s interpretation of Heracleitus as regards the “arctic circle” is altogether reasonable. (emphasis added)

§

62

4. The popular conception of the heavens: The Greeks.

Cf. G. S. Kirk, J. E. Raven, and M. Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers (Cambridge, 1960), p. 9:

I. The naive view of the world

A popular conception of the nature of the world, which can be traced mainly in scattered references in Homer, is roughly as follows. The sky is a solid hemisphere like a bowl (Il. XVII, 425 ka/lkeon ou)ran/oj), cf. Pindar Nem. 6, 3-4; ou)rano\h e(j polu/xalkon at Il. V, 504, Od. III, 2; sidh/reon ou)rano/n at Od. XV, 329 and XVII, 565. Solidity as well as brightness is presumably conveyed by these metallic epithets). It covers the round flat earth. The lower part of the gap between the earth and sky, up to and including the clouds, contains a)hr or mist; the upper part (sometimes called the ou)rano/j itself) is ai)qh/r, aither, the shining upper air, which is sometimes conceived as fiery. At Il. XIV, 288 (e)la/th) di ) h)e/roj ai)qe/r ) i)/kanen, ‘the fir-tree reached through the aer to the aither’. Below its surface, the earth stretches far downwards, and has its roots in or above Tartarus.13

Cf. Patricia O’Grady, “Thales of Miletus (62?-546 BCE)”, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Thales’s Spherical Earth:14

Third, from mere observation the earth has the appearance of being curved. From obser-vation, it appears that the earth is covered by a dome. When observed from an elevated site, the sky seems to surround the earth, like a dome, to meet the apparently curved horizon. If observed over the seasons, the dome would appear to revolve, with many of the heavenly bodies changing their position in varying degrees, but returning annually to a similar place in the heavens.15

Cf. Sextus Empiricus, Phys. I. 20-23 (tr. W. D. Ross, The Works of Aristotle, Vol. XII, Select Fragments, 12 a, p. 84:

Aristotle used to say that men’s thought of gods sprang from two sources—the experiences of the soul and the phenomena of the heavens.... But the heavenly bodies also contributed to this belief; seeing by day the sun running his circular course, and by night the well-ordered movement of the other stars, they came to think that there is a God who is the cause of such movement and order. Such was the belief of Aristotle.

1 Reading in R, 28. 13 qei=on, with Mutschmann. (emphasis added)

On the name theontas as arising from this movement, cf. Plato, Cratylus, 397d (tr. Benja-min Jowett):

13 Cf. Pseudo-Plutarch, op. cit.: [95] Although the air is around the earth, he says the ether is higher in the following lines (I. xiv. 287):– And going up on a lofty pine, which then grew on the summit of Ida and through the air reached into the ether. But higher than the ether is heaven (I. xvii. 424):– And thus they fought: the iron clangor pierc’d The airless ether and brazen vault of Heaven. And, besides, in the following (I. i. 497):– The vapor ascended to the great heaven and to Olympus. The top part of the air is finer and more distant from the earth and its exhalations. Therefore it is said Olympus is called “wholly shining.”14 (http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/t/thales.htm [9/21/04])15 On this matter, see the passage from the Geography of Strabo below. Cf. also on “The Circle of the Earth” given above.

63

SOCRATES. My notion would be something of this sort:- I suspect that the sun, moon, earth, stars, and heaven, which are still the Gods of many barbarians, were the only Gods known to the aboriginal Hellenes. Seeing that they were always moving and running, from their running nature they were called Gods or runners (qeou/j, qe/ontaj); and when men became acquainted with the other Gods, they proceeded to apply the same name to them all.

On the name aither, cf. Aristotle, De Caelo (On the Heavens), I. 3 (add) (tr. J. L. Stock):

The common name, too, which has been handed down from our distant ancestors even to our own day, seems to show that they conceived of it in the fashion which we have been expressing. The same ideas, one must believe, recur in men’s minds not once or twice but again and again. And so, implying that the primary body is something else beyond earth, fire, air, and water, they gave the highest place a name of its own, aither, derived from the fact that it ‘runs always’ for an eternity of time. Anaxagoras, however, scandalously misuses this name, taking aither as equivalent to fire.

Cf. Eusebius of Caesarea: Praeparatio Evangelica (Preparation for the Gospel). Tr. E.H. Gifford (1903) – Book XI, Chapter 6:

Again Moses calls the heaven in the Hebrew tongue the firmament etymologically, because the first thing after the incorporeal and intellectual essence is the firm and sensible body of this world. But Plato says that the name ou)ranowj is rightly given to the heaven, because it makes us look upward (o(ran a/nw).13 Again the Hebrews say that the highest and proper name of God may not be spoken or uttered, nor even conceived in the imagination of the mind: but this actual name by which they speak of God, they call Elohim, from El, as it seems: and this they interpret as ‘strength,’ and ‘power’; so that among them the name of God has been derived by reasoning from His power and strength, by which He is conceived as Allpowerful and Almighty, as having established all things. But Plato says that the names qeowj and qeoi/ (god and gods) were given because the luminaries in heaven are always running (qe/ein).14

13 c 5 Cratylus. 396 C  14 d 5 ibid. 397 D

That the sun, the moon, and the stars are gods, cf. Patricia O’Grady, “Thales of Miletus (62?-546 BCE)”, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:16

All Things Are Full of Gods.

...In a passage in Apology (26 C) Socrates identified the heavenly bodies as gods, and pointed out that that was the general understanding. In Cratylus (399 D-E) Plato had Socrates explain a relationship between soul as a life-giving force, the capacity to breathe, and the reviving force. In Timaeus 34B) Plato had Timaeus relate a theory which described soul as pervading the whole universe. Then, in Laws Plato has the Athenian Stranger say: ‘Everyone . . . who has not reached the utmost verge of folly is bound to regard the soul as a god. Concerning all the stars and the moon, and concerning the years and months and all seasons, what other account shall we give than this very same, – namely, that, inasmuch as it has been shown that they are all caused by one or more souls . . . we shall declare these souls to be gods . . .? Is there any man that agrees with this view who will stand hearing it denied that ‘all things are full of gods’? The response is: ‘No man is so wrong-headed as that’ (Laws, 899 A-B). §

16 (http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/t/thales.htm [9/21/04])

64

On the beginning of speculative philosophy among his predecessors, cf. Aristotle, On the Parts of Animals, I.1 (640b 5-11) (tr. William Ogle):

Now that with which the ancient writers, who first philosophized about Nature, busied themselves, was the material principle and the material cause. They inquired what this is, and what its character; how the universe is generated out of it, and by what motor influence, whether, for instance, by antagonism or friendship, whether by intelligence or spontaneous action, the substratum of matter being assumed to have certain inseparable properties; fire, for instance, to have a hot [10] nature, earth a cold one; the former to be light, the latter heavy. For even the genesis of the universe is thus explained by them.

Cf. Aristotle, Metaphysics I. 2 (982b 15-16) (tr. W. D. Ross):

…[T]hey wondered originally at the obvious difficulties, then advanced little by little and stated difficulties about the greater matters, e.g. about (1) the phenomena of the moon and those of the sun and of the stars, and about (2) the genesis of the universe.

Cf. [Pseudo-] Plutarch,17 The Life and Poetry of Homer Translated by Thomas Y. Cromwell (New York, n.d.), n. 93:

[93] Let us begin with the beginning and creation of the whole universe, which Thales the Milesian refers to the substance water, and let us see whether Homer first discovered this when he said (I. xiv. 246):– Even to the stream of old Oceanus Prime origin of all.

Cf. Aristotle, Metaphysics I. 3 (983b 29-984b 3) (tr. H. G. Apostle):

Some think that even the ancients, who lived long before the present generation and were first to speculate about divine things, had similar [30] beliefs about nature, for they represented Ocean and Tethys as fathers of generation, and the oath of the Gods as being by Water or Styx (as the poets called it); for that which is most ancient is most honorable, [984a] and that which is most honorable is that by which one swears. Perhaps it may not be clear whether this doctrine about nature happens to be primitive and ancient; at any rate, Thales is said to have spoken out in this manner concerning the first cause.

Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, In I Meta. lect. 4, nn. 14-16 (tr. B.A.M.):

n. 14. Then when he says, They are, however, he shows in what way Thales was led by the authority of the ancients to hold the aforementioned position. And he says that there were some men more ancient than Thales and many who belonged to the generation of men before the time of Aristotle who were the first theologizers,18 who are observed to have held this opinion about nature, namely, that water was the beginning of all things.

n. 15. In order for this to be clear, one must bear in mind that among the Greeks the first men of repute in science were certain poet theologians, so called because they made songs about divine things. But there were three, Orpheus, Musaeus, and Linus, among whom Orpheus was more famous. They, however, lived at the time there were Judges over the people of the Jews. And so it is clear that they lived long before Thales and much earlier than Aristotle, who lived in the time of Alexander.

17 Whoever he was, the indebtedness of this author to Aristotle (whom he frequently cites by name) is evident from the similarity of this observation to the view of the Philosopher, which I give next.18 That is, the first to discourse on the gods or the divine.

65

But these poets employing certain enigmas of fables [aenigmatibus fabularum, = enigmatic fables] treated something about the nature of things. For they said that Oceanus, where there is the greatest gathering of waters, and Thetis, who is called the Goddess of Waters, are the parents of generation:19 from this under the likeness of something fabulous giving us to understand water to be the beginning of generation.

n. 16. But they veiled this opinion under another fabulous narrative saying that the oath or vow of the gods was by a certain water which the poets called Styx, which they say is a lake of the underworld. And from the fact that the Gods were said to swear by water, they gave us to understand that water was more noble than the gods, because one makes an oath or vow by what is more honorable. But what comes before is more honorable. For the perfect precedes the imperfect in nature and in time without qualification, although in one thing a certain imperfection may precede in time. For this reason it is clear that they thought water to come before the gods themselves, whom they understood to be the heavenly bodies. And because the most ancient [thinkers] said that water was the beginning of things, if some opinion about natural things were earlier than this one, it is not evident to us. In this way, then, what Thales is said to have thought about the first cause of things is clear.

On water as the principle of all things in Thales, cf. G. S. Kirk, J. E. Raven, and M. Scho-field, The Presocratic Philosophers (Cambridge: University Press, 1960, Second Edition), pp. 93-95:

Even more uncertainty attaches to a problem that has already been foreshadowed: are we justified in inferring from the Peripatetic identification of Thales’ water as ‘material principle’ that he believed the visible, developed world to be water in some way? This is the normal interpretation of Thales; but it is important to realize that it rests ultimately on the Aristotelian formulation, and that Aristotle, knowing little about Thales, and that indirectly, would surely have [93-94] found the mere information that the world originated from water sufficient for saying that water was Thales’ material principle or a(rxh/, with the implication that water is a persistent substrate. It must be emphasized once more that no such development was necessary, and that is was not implicit in the near-eastern concepts which were ultimately Thales’ archetype. Thales might have held that the world originated from an indefinite expanse1 of primeval water, on which it still floats and which is still responsible for certain natural phenomena, without also believing that earth, rocks, trees or men are in a way made of water or a form of water. There would be a remote ancestral connexion, no more. On the other hand Thales could have made the entirely new inference that water is the continuing, hidden constituent of all things. Certainly his near succesor Anaximenes believed that all things were made of air (but he had thought of a way in which this could be so: air takes on different forms when compressed or rarified), and it is invariably assumed that he was extending and refining a line of thought initiated by Thales. It would be impru-dent entirely to reject this assumption, which goes back to Theophrastus and Aristotle. The physiological reasons introduced by Aristotle, that all living things depend on water for nourishment, that the sperm is moist, and so on, although conjectural, are of a kind that might well have struck Thales. With other indications (e.g. the Homeric statement that the surrounding Okeanos is the source of all springs and rivers, 6) they could have led him to the conclusion that water, as well as being the cosmogonical source, is also involved in the very essence of the developed world. On the other hand one must remain aware of the possibility that Aristotle was simply making his own kind of inference, in the absence of other information, from Thales’ belief that the world originated from water and that water still plays a major part in the cosmos by supporting the earth.

19 Cf. Eusebius of Caesarea, Praeparatio Evangelica (tr. E. H. Gifford. 1903) Book I, Chapter 11: “The whole power productive of water they called Oceanus, and named its symbolic figure Tethys....”

66

1 Thales would have accepted Simplicius’ judgement (in Phys. 438, 23, DK 11A 13) that water was, for him, a)/peiron; though for Thales this would mean ‘limitless’, i.e. of indefinite extent, not ‘infinite’, and be a natural assumption rather than a consciously propounded theory. Simplicius was more seriously misleading in asserting (in Phys. 180, 14) that Thales, like Anaximenes, generated by means of the condensation and rarefaction of his material principle. This is a purely schematic judgement based on an over-rigid dichotomy in Aristotle (104). Theophrastus only found the device explicitly used in Anaximenes; see 142.

Two things, then, have emerged from the present discussion: (i) ‘all things are water’ is not necessarily a reliable summary of Thales’ [94-95] cosmological views; and (ii) even if we do accept (with some allowance, in any event, for his inevitably altered viewpoint), we have little idea of how things were felt to be essentially related to water. (emphasis added)

Cf. the Commentary on Aristotle’s De Anima by Thomas Aquinas translated by Kenelm Foster, O.P. and Sylvester Humphries, O.P. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1951):20

TEXT404b30–405b30

BOOK I, CHAPTER, II, CONTINUEDPREVIOUS THEORIES

SOUL AS IDENTIFIED WITH THE ELEMENTS

It seems that Thales, from what they recollect of him, was also of opinion that the soul was a cause of motion,—if it is a fact that he said that the magnet had a ‘soul’ because it attracts iron. §58

TEXT404b30–405b30

BOOK I, CHAPTER, II, CONTINUEDPREVIOUS THEORIES

SOUL AS IDENTIFIED WITH THE ELEMENTS

§ 58. Next, at ‘It seems that Thales’, he states the opinion of a philosopher called Thales who had only this in common with the others mentioned above, that he identified soul with a motive force. This Thales was one of the Seven Wise Men; but while the others studied moral questions, Thales devoted himself to the world of nature and was the first natural philosopher. Hence Aristotle remarks ‘from what they recollect etc.’, referring to those who said that water was the basic principle of things. For Thales thought that the way to find the principle of all things was by searching into the principle of living things, and since all the principles or seeds of living things are moist, he thought that the absolutely first principle must be the most moist of things; and this being water, he said water was that principle. Yet he did not follow his theory to the point of saying that soul was water; rather, he defined it as that which has motive force. Hence he asserted that a certain stone, the magnet, had a soul because it moved iron. Anaxagoras and Thales, then, are included in the present list; not for identifying the soul with fire, but because the former said that the soul was the source of knowledge and sensation, and the latter that it was at the origin of movement. <…>

§ 62. Then at ‘Some cruder thinkers’, Aristotle states an opinion of some who made water the first principle. For there were certain rather crude followers of Thales who tried to make the principle of one particular thing an analogy of the first principle of Nature as a whole.

20 html edition by Joseph Kenny, O.P.

67

Observing that moisture was fundamental to living things they concluded that it must be the first principle of all things; in short, that the latter was water. So far indeed they followed their master, Thales; but whereas he, though admitting water to be the first principle, would not, as we have seen, allow that the soul was water, but rather a motive force, his cruder disciples (such as Hippo) asserted that it was water . Hippo tried to refute those who said the soul was blood with the argument that blood is not the generating seed (which they called ‘the inchoate soul’) of animate things. He identified this with water on account of its humidity. (emphasis added)

TEXT409b18–411a7

BOOK I, CHAPTER V, CONTINUEDEMPEDOCLES’S THEORY OF COGNITION

SOUL NOT COMPOSED OF THE ELEMENTS

§ 190. And a certain philosopher named Orpheus having fallen into a rather similar error in what he said about the soul, he too is mentioned here. Orpheus was one of those three early thinkers who were, so to say, poet-theologians; for they wrote in verse on philosophy and about God. The other two were Museus and a certain Linus. Orpheus, a wonderful orator whose words had power to civilise wild and brutish folk, was the first man to induce his fellows to live together in society. For this reason it is said of him that he could make rocks dance to the sweet sounds of his harp, which really means that his eloquence could melt the hardest hearts. And after these three poet-philosophers came the seven sages, of whom Thales was one. Now this Orpheus thought that the whole air was alive, was indeed a sort of living soul, and that the so-called souls of living bodies were really nothing but the air these bodies breathed; and this idea he expressed in verse. But the Philosopher objects to the Orphic theory, saying that it is just as inadequate as the others he has criticised; for there are many animals that do not breathe at all, ‘a fact’, he says, ‘which was overlooked’ by those who held this opinion. The criticism touches the inadequacy of the theory.

TEXT41a 8–411a25

BOOK I, CHAPTER V, CONTINUEDTHE ELEMENTS HAVE NO SOUL

And some say that the soul is intermingled generally with the Universe. That is perhaps why Thales thought that the whole world was full of divinities. § 192

This, however, involves several difficulties. For why does the soul in fire and air not result in an animated being, whereas it does so in composite beings?—and that, even though it is thought to be more excellent in the former. (And one might well query why the soul in the air should be nobler and more enduring than that in animals.) On either count the theory is absurd and unreasonable. To say that air or fire is an animal is among the most wanton of absurdities; and if there is a soul in them, it is inconsistent not to call them animals. §§ 193-5

They seem to have held that there was a soul in these on the ground that the Universe is made up of homogeneous parts; so that if animals become animate by partaking of the containing element, they must say that the soul [of the Whole] is homogeneous with its parts. § 196

If then the air, divided off thus, be homogeneous, but the soul be composed of heterogeneous parts, something of it [the soul] will exist and something not. It is necessary then, either that it be of homogeneous parts, or that it be not in any and every part of the whole. § 197

68

It is evident then, from what has been said, that the cause of knowledge being in the soul is not that soul is made up of the elements; and that it is neither true nor apposite to say that it is in motion. § 198

I That the distinction here referred to between parts of ‘soul’ refers to mortal and immortal existence is St. Thomas’s interpretation of this passage (§ 197).

LECTIO THIRTEEN

§ 192. Having stated and rejected the theories and arguments of those who maintained that the soul was composed of elements, the Philosopher is now led, by the same train of thought, to discuss the notion, upheld by some, according to which a soul is intermingled with the elements. First, then, he states this opinion, and then, at ‘They seemed to have held’, the argument used to support it. And the opinion itself is first stated and then, at ‘This, how-ever,’ attacked. There are, he says, some who see a soul intermingled with everything, whether simple elements or things composed of these. This perhaps is what Thales meant when he said that everything was full of gods; perhaps he thought that the entire Universe was alive and its life was divine; that just as soul exists everywhere in each living thing so a god was everywhere in the Universe and everything therefore was ‘full of divinities’. And perhaps this was the notion that underlay idolatry.21 (emphasis added)

For further indications of Thales’ views of the world, cf. Patricia O’Grady, “Thales of Miletus (62?-546 BCE)”, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:22

The Earth Floats on Water

In De Caelo Aristotle wrote: ‘This [opinion that the earth rests on water] is the most ancient explanation which has come down to us, and is attributed to Thales of Miletus (Cael. 294 a28-30). He explained his theory by adding the analogy that the earth is at rest because it is of the nature of wood and similar substances which have the capacity to float on water, although not on air (Cael. 294 a30-b1). In Metaphysics (983 b21) Aristotle stated, quite unequivocally: ‘Thales . . . declared that the earth rests on water’. This concept does appear to be at odds with natural expectations, and Aristotle expressed his difficulty with Thales’s theory (Cael. 294 a33-294 b6). Perhaps Thales anticipated problems with acceptance because he explained that it floated because of a particular quality, a quality of buoyancy similar to that of wood. At the busy city-port of Miletus, Thales had unlimited opportunities to observe the arrival and departure of ships with their heavier-than-water cargoes, and recognized an analogy to floating logs. Thales may have envisaged some quality, common to ships and earth, a quality of ‘floatiness’, or buoyancy. It seems that Thales’s hypothesis was substantiated by sound observation and reasoned considerations. Indeed, Seneca reported that Thales had land supported by water and carried along like a boat (Sen. QNat. III.14). Aristotle’s lines in Metaphysics indicate his understanding that Thales believed that, because water was the permanent entity, the earth floats on water. Thales may have reasoned that as a modification of water, earth must be the lighter substance, and floating islands do exist. Herodotus (The Histories, II.156) was impressed when he saw Chemmis, a floating island, about thirty-eight kilometres north-east of Naucratis, the Egyptian trading concession which Thales probably visited. Seneca described floating islands in Lydia: ‘There are many light, pumice-like stones of which islands are composed, namely those which float in Lydia’ (Sen. QNat., III.25. 7-10). Pliny described several floating islands, the most relevant being the Reed Islands, in Lydia (HN, II.XCVII),

21 For St. Thomas on the fourfold cause of idolatry, see my discussion elsewhere in these pages.22 (http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/t/thales.htm [9/21/04])

69

and Pliny (the Younger) (Ep. VIII.XX) described a circular floating island, its buoyancy, and the way it moved. Thales could have visited the near-by Reed Islands. He might have considered such readily visible examples to be models of his theory, and he could well have claimed that the observation that certain islands had the capacity to float substantiated his hypothesis that water has the capacity to support earth. Again it is understood that Thales did not mention any of the gods who were traditionally associated with the simple bodies; we do not hear of Oceanus or Gaia: we read of water and earth. The idea that Thales would have resurrected the gods is quite contrary to the bold, new, non-mythical theories which Thales proposed.

Thales’s Spherical Earth

Modern commentators assume that Thales regarded the earth as flat, thin, and circular, but there is no ancient testimony to support that opinion. On the contrary, Aristotle may have attributed knowledge of the sphericity of the earth to Thales, an opinion which was later reported by Aëtius (Aët. III. 9-10) and followed by Ps.-Plutarch (Epit. III.10). Aristotle wrote that some think it spherical, others flat and shaped like a drum (Arist. Cael. 293 b33-294 a1), and then attributed belief in a flat earth to Anaximenes, Anaxagoras, and Democritus (Arist. Cael. 294 b14-15). If following chronological order, Aristotle’s words, ‘some think it spherical’, referred to the theory of Thales. Aristotle then followed with the theory of Thales’s immediate Milesian successor, Anaximander, and then reported the flat earth view of Anaximenes, the third of the Milesian natural philosophers.

There are several good reasons to accept that Thales envisaged the earth as spherical. Aristotle used these arguments to support his own view (Arist. Cael. 297 b25-298 a8).

First is the fact that during a solar eclipse, the shadow caused by the interposition of the earth between the sun and the moon is always convex; therefore the earth must be spherical. In other words, if the earth were a flat disk, the shadow cast during an eclipse would be elliptical. Second, Thales, who is acknowledged as an observer of the heavens, would have observed that stars which are visible in a certain locality may not be visible further to the north or south, a phenomena which could be explained within the understanding of a spherical earth. Third, from mere observation the earth has the appearance of being curved. From observation, it appears that the earth is covered by a dome. When observed from an elevated site, the sky seems to surround the earth, like a dome, to meet the apparently curved horizon. If observed over the seasons, the dome would appear to revolve, with many of the heavenly bodies changing their position in varying degrees, but returning annually to a similar place in the heavens.

Through his work in astronomy Thales would almost certainly have become familiar with the night sky and the motion of the heavenly bodies. There is evidence that he gave advice to navigate by Ursa Minor, and was so involved in observation of the stars that he fell into a well. As a result of observations made over a long period of time, Thales could have realized that the motions of the fixed stars could not be explained within the idea of the observable hemispherical dome. During the determination of the size of the rising sun, and again while watching its risings and settings during his work on fixing the solstices, Thales may have realized that much natural phenomena could be explained only within the understanding of the earth as a sphere. From the shore, a ship can be seen to be descending, gradually, below the horizon, with the hull disappearing from view first, to be followed by masts and sails. If one had a companion observing from a higher point, the companion would see the ship for a long period before it disappeared from view.

70

Aëtius recorded the different opinions of the shape of the earth that were held by Thales, Anaximander and Anaximenes (III.9-10; III.10; and III.10). Cicero attributed to Thales the earliest construction of a solid celestial globe (Rep. I.XIII.22). Thales’s immediate successors proposed theories about the shape of the earth which were quite different from each other, but that is no reason to reject the view that Thales hypothesized a spherical earth. It is not the only occasion on which Anaximander and Anaximenes failed to follow the theories of Thales. That they did not do so is the main argument in favour of accepting that the scientific method commenced in the Milesian School. There is testimony that Thales knew the earth to be spherical, but no evidence to suggest that he proposed any other shape. (emphasis added)

5. The view of Thales.

On the position of the earth according to Thales, cf. Aristotle, On the Heavens 213 294a28-34 = llA14 (tr. W.K.C. Guthrie):

Others say it [the earth] rests on water. This is the most ancient explanation which has come down to us, and is attributed to Thales of Miletus. It supposes that the earth is at rest because it can float like wood and similar substances, whose nature it is to rest upon water, though none of them could rest on air. But this is to forget that the same thing may be said of the water supporting the earth as was said of the earth itself.

On the genesis of all things from water, cf. Sir Thomas L. Heath, Greek Astronomy, Intro-duction, pp. xx-xxi:

Thales’ theory of the universe was this. According to him, the one “first principle” (as Aristotle calls it) or material cause of all things is water; earth is the result of condensation of water, air is produced from water by rarefaction, and air again when heated becomes fire. We may assume therefore that, in Thales’ view, there was in the beginning only the primordial mass of water and from this other things were gradually differentiated. Thales said that the earth floats on the water like a log or a cork; he would therefore presumably regard it as a flat disc or short cylinder. Simplicius, the commentator on Aristotle, conjectures that Thales derived his ideas from myths current in Egypt. Paul Tannery pointed out the similarity between Thales’ view of the world and that contained in ancient Egyptian papyri. According to these, there existed in the beginning the Nu, a primordial liquid mass in the limitless depths of which floated the germ of all things. When the sun began to shine, the earth was flattened out and the waters separated into two masses. The one gave rise to the rivers and the ocean; the other, suspended above, formed the vault of heaven, the waters above, on which the stars and the gods, borne by an eternal current, began to float. The sun, standing upright in his sacred bark which had endured for millions of years, glides slowly, conducted by an army of secondary gods, the planets, and the stars. We may compare also the first chapter of Genesis, verses 6 to 10: “And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters [xx-xxi] which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear; and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas.” The Babylonian account of creation contains apparently the same idea of the primordial watery chaos being cleft into two parts, the chaos, however, being personified as a monster which Marduk, the supreme God of Babylon, cleaves in twain with his scimitar. So far,

71

therefore, as his views on the universe are concerned, Thales was not greatly in advance of the Egyptians, the Hebrews, and the Babylonians. (emphasis added)

To the image of the earth being “flattend out” mentioned by Heath in connection with the Egyptian story, cp. M. Stol, Birth in Babylonia and the Bible: Its Mediterranean Setting (Cuneiform Monographs, 14) (Brill, 2000) Chap. I. Conception and Embryology, p. 13:

Embryology

…The image of the embryo curdling like cheese is found in a few other texts. In the Wisdom of Solomon the word “curdle” (Greek pègnumi) is used again: “curdled in blood from/by the seed of man” (Sap 7:2). Mani, founder of the Manichean movement, tells in his autobiography with disgust how man is fashioned: “through foulness it (the body) was made into cheese (turōthè), and built, came into existence”.71 …

Most famous is this passage in the Book of Psalms: “For thou didst form my inward parts (kiljāh), thou didst knit (skk) me together in my mother’s womb (b`et`en). I praise thee, for thou art fearful and wonderful. Wonderful are thy works! Thou knowest me right well; my frame (‘èsèm) was not hidden from thee, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought (rqm) in the depths of the earth. Thy eyes beheld my unformed substance (golèm); in thy book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them” (Psalm 139:13-16).

This translation in the Revised Standard Version is a little free. Hebrew kiljōt, rendered as “inward parts”, specifically means “the reins”. For “womb” stands the word “belly”. “Frame” is literally “bones” in Hebrew. “Intricately wrought” is literally “weaved/stitched in variegated colors” (meruqqām). The Mishnah uses this word when discussing the miscarriage called “sac” (še fīr, German “Eiblase”): in its first stage it is full of water or coloured materials; when more developed it is meruqqām (Niddah III 3). One can recognize a human being in it. That the child is being wrought “in the depths of the earth” is a surprising metaphor which gives God’s creation a cosmic dimension.71 We are reminded of the earth as the mother in which the seed has been sown. The word “unformed substance” (golèm) is attested only here; it is probably to be derived from a root meaning “to fold up (a garment)” (2 Kings 2:8). Does the Psalmist think of the foetus as folded up? The Talmud compares the child with a folded writing tablet (see below). (emphasis added)

71 L. Koenen, C. Roemer, Der Kölner Mani-Kodex (1988) 58 (85, 9-12). Latest discussion of this passage : B. Visotzky, ZPE 52 (1983) 300.

Cf. John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible (1748), on Genesis 1:24:

Ver. 24. And God said, let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind ,.... All sorts of living creatures that live and move upon the earth; not that the earth was endued with a power to produce these creatures of itself, without the interposition of God: for though it might be impregnated with a quickening virtue by the Spirit of God, which moved on it whilst a fluid, and had been prepared and disposed for such a production by the heat of the body of light created on the first day, and of the sun on the fourth; yet no doubt it was by the power of God accompanying his word, that these creatures were produced of the earth, and formed into their several shapes. The Heathens had some traditionary notion of this affair: according to the Egyptians, whose sentiments Diodorus Siculus {c} seems to give us, the process was thus carried on; the earth being stiffened by the rays of the sun, and the moist matter being made fruitful by the

72

genial heat, at night received nourishment by the mist which fell from the ambient air; and in the day was consolidated by the heat of the sun, till at length the enclosed foetus having arrived to a perfect increase, and the membranes burnt and burst, creatures of all kinds appeared; of whom those that had got a greater degree of heat went upwards, and became flying fowl; those that were endued with an earthly concretion were reckoned in the class or order of reptiles, and other terrestrial animals; and those that chiefly partook of a moist or watery nature, ran to the place of a like kind, and were called swimmers or fish.

This is the account they give; and somewhat like is that which Archelaus, the master of Socrates, delivers as his notion, that animals were produced out of slime, through the heat of the earth liquefying the slime like milk for food {d}: and Zeno the Stoic says {e}, the grosser part of the watery matter of the world made the earth, the thinner part the air, and that still more subtilized, the fire; and then out of the mixture of these proceeded plants and animals, and all the other kinds; but all this they seem to suppose to be done by the mere efforts of nature; whereas Moses here most truly ascribes their production to the all powerful Word of God:

<…>

{c} Bibliothec. l. 1. p. 7. {d} Laert. in Vita Archelai, p. 99. {e} Ib. in Vita Zenonis, p. 524. (emphasis added)

§

73

6. That nature is cyclical: The hydrological (or water) cycle.

a. The physical and metaphysical presuppositions of this position:

For the physical doctrine, cf. Plato, Timaeus (49b-d) (tr. Benjamin Jowett).

In the first place, we see that what we just now called water, by [c] condensation, I suppose, becomes stone and earth; and this same element, when melted and dispersed, passes into vapour and air. Air, again, when inflamed, becomes fire; and again fire, when condensed and extinguished, passes once more into the form of air; and once more, air, when collected and condensed, produces cloud and mist; and from these, when still more compressed, comes flowing water, and from water comes earth and stones once more; and thus generation [d] appears to be transmitted from one to the other in a circle. Thus, then, as the several ele-ments never present themselves in the same form, how can any one have the assurance to assert positively that any of them, whatever it may be, is one thing rather than another? No one can.

For the metaphysical, cf. Plato, Theaetetus (152d-e) (tr. Benjamin Jowett):

Soc. I am about to speak of a high argument, in which all things are said to be relative; you cannot rightly call anything by any name, such as great or small, heavy or light, for the great will be small and the heavy light—there is no single thing or quality, but out of motion and change and admixture all things are becoming relatively to one another, which “becoming” is by us incorrectly called being, but is really becoming, for nothing ever is, but all things are becoming.

Summon all philosophers—Protagoras, Heracleitus, Empedocles, and the rest of them, one after another, and with the exception of Parmenides they will agree with you in this. Sum-mon the great masters of either kind of poetry—Epicharmus, the prince of Comedy, and Homer of Tragedy; when the latter sings of Ocean whence sprang the gods, and mother Tethys, does he not mean that all things are the offspring, of flux and motion?

Cf. also Plato, Theaetetus (180-c-d) (tr. Benjamin Jowett):

Soc. Quite right too; but as touching the aforesaid problem, have we not heard from the ancients, who concealed their wisdom from the many in poetical figures, that Oceanus and Tethys, the origin of all things,23 are streams, and that nothing is at rest? And now the moderns, in their superior wisdom, have declared the same openly, that the cobbler too may hear and learn of them, and no longer foolishly imagine that some things are at rest and others in motion—having learned that all is motion, he will duly honour his teachers. (emphasis added)

That water is the principle, cf. Aristotle, Metaphysics I. 3 (983b 29-984b 3) (tr. H. G. Apostle):

Some think that even the ancients, who lived long before the present generation and were first to speculate about divine things, had similar [30] beliefs about nature, for they represented Ocean and Tethys as fathers of generation,24 and the oath of the Gods as being by Water or Styx (as the poets called it); for that which is most ancient is most honorable, [984a] and that which is most honorable is that by which one swears. Perhaps it may not be

23 Cp. Tim. 40e, where we are told that “Oceanus and Tethys were the children of Earth and Heaven....”.24 Cf. Thales’s claim that water is the principle of all things, in which case it would be their material cause.

74

clear whether this doctrine about nature happens to be primitive and ancient; at any rate, Thales is said to have spoken out in this manner concerning the first cause. (emphasis added)

For a comparison of Plato and Aristotle in this regard, cf. James S. Romm, The Edges of the Earth (New Jersey, 1992, pp. 177-179):

As mentioned earlier in chapter 1, Plato is perhaps the first writer to look at these passages 25

from a critical perspective, and his analysis prefigures that of many later readers. He wrestles with the Iliad lines twice in the Theaetetus (152d7-e7), and once again in the Cratylus, this time in conjunction with the Orphic hymn (402b1-c3).26 On each occasion he has Socrates find in these passages a veiled description of the Heraclitean “flux” governing the cosmos. Nor does he treat this as a subjective or arbitrary interpretation, but one based on the explicit intentions of the early poets:

Have we not heard something else regarding this question [of a universal flux] from the ancients, who baffled the masses by way of their poetry: that Ocean and Tethys, both flowing streams who do not stand still, are the source of all other things? (Theaet. 180c8-d3)

Here Plato suggests that the “ancients” (hoi archaioi) had deliberately hidden allegorical meanings in entities like Ocean by a kind of encryption, as if to keep their truths out of reach of the unlettered public; he goes on to contrast this with the technique of modern-day teachers (like Socrates) who express their meanings openly, “so that even the cobblers may hear.” It is not clear whether Plato took such a view seriously (it sounds like the same sort of labored hermeneutics he allows Socrates to scoff at elsewhere, e.g., Phaedrus 229c-230a), but the frequency with which it recurs and the degree of its elaboration indicate that some of his contemporaries probably did so. Aristotle, although skeptical of Plato’s Heraclitean reading of Homer’s Ocean, proposes an allegorizing interpretation of his own, grounded this time not in cosmology but in meteorology. In his Meteorologica he introduces Ocean as a figure for the circulation of water vapor in the earth’s atmosphere:

We should think of [the hydrological cycle] as a river, running in a circle high and low, composed of air and water together: When the sun is near, a river of vapor runs upward, and when it sets a river of water runs down. And this cycle keeps going continually in the same order. Thus, if the men of old were speaking in riddles (einittonto) when they mention Ocean, then perhaps they referred to this river which flows in a circle around the earth. (347a2-7)

This solution may strike us as contrived, perhaps even more contrived than Plato’s; what is interesting, however, is that Aristotle here agrees with Plato in supposing that early poets deliberately “wrote in riddles,” and in seeing Ocean as a prime example of such encryption. As to the question of what purpose this riddling style would have served, however, beyond providing colorful metaphors for later cosmologists, Aristotle gives no clues.

Cf. Aristotle, Meteorology, I. 9 (346b 16—347a 12) (tr. E. W. Webster):

25 Cf. Il. 14.201, where Ocean is described as “origin of the gods,” and 14.246, where it is called “begetter of all things”.26 “Ocean I call upon, father unperishing, always existing, origin of immortals and mortals, who sends his waves round about the farthest circle of earth.”

75

Let us go on to treat of the region which follows next in order after this and which immediately surrounds the earth. It is the region common to water and air, and the processes attending the formation of water above take place in it. We must consider the principles and causes of all these phenomena too as before.

[20] The efficient and chief and first cause is the circle in which the sun moves. For the sun as it approaches or recedes, obviously causes dissipation and condensation and so gives rise to generation and destruction. Now the earth remains [25] but the moisture surrounding it is made to evaporate by the sun’s rays and the other heat from above, and rises. But when the heat which was raising it leaves it, in part dispersing to the higher region, in part quenched through rising so far into the upper [30] air, then the vapour cools because its heat is gone and because the place is cold, and condenses again and turns from air into water. And after the water has formed it falls down again to the earth.

The exhalation of water is vapour: air condensing into water is cloud. Mist is what is left over when a cloud condenses into water, and is therefore rather a sign of [35] fine weather than of rain; for mist might be called a barren cloud.

So we get a circular process that follows the course of the sun. For according as [347a] the sun moves to this side or that, the moisture in this process rises or falls. We must think of it as a river flowing up and down in a circle and made up partly of air, partly of water. When the sun is near, the stream of vapour flows upwards; when it [5] recedes, the stream of water flows down: and the order of sequence, at all events, in this process always remains the same. So if ‘Oceanus’ had some secret meaning in early writers, perhaps they may have meant this river that flows in a circle about the earth. So the moisture is always raised by the heat and descends to the earth again when it gets cold. These processes and, in some cases, their varieties are [10] distinguished by special names. When the water falls in small drops it is called a drizzle; when the drops are larger it is rain. (emphasis added)

Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Aristotle’s Meteorology, lect. 1, n. 4 (tr. Pierre Conway, O.P. and F.R. Larcher, O.P. [1964]), lect. 14, n. 100:

Thirdly [97], he shows the above-mentioned transmutations bear an analogy to the first movent cause, i.e., to the circling of the sun. For a certain circling is discernible in the above-mentioned transmutations, as water is refined into vapors which are condensed into clouds, and the clouds into water, which falls to earth. He says therefore that the circular transmutation imitates the circular movement of the sun—for the sun is changed to diverse parts of the heaven (for example, to the north and to the south); and that cycle is completed in the fact that vapors ascend upwards and descend downwards. But we should understand this flow of ascending and descending vapors as a certain circular stream com-mon to air and water: for the resolving of water into vapor pertains to the air, while the con-densing of clouds into water pertains to the water. When, therefore, the sun is near, this river of vapors flows upward; when the sun is away, it flows downward; and this goes on without interruption in the order described.

From this he concludes that perhaps the ancients, in speaking of Oceanus as a certain river surrounding the earth, were cryptically [that is, enigmatically] speaking of this river, which, as was said, flows circularly around the earth. (emphasis added)

Cf. Commentary on the Posterior Analytics of Aristotle by Thomas Aquinas translated by Fabian R. Larcher, O.P., Bk. II, lect. 12:

76

Lecture 12(95b38-96a20)

HOW IN THINGS THAT COME TO BE RECIPROCALLY, A CAUSE WHICH IS NOT SIMULTANEOUS WITH THE EFFECT IS TAKEN AS MIDDLE IN A

DEMONSTRATION

HOW ONE DEMONSTRATES THROUGH CAUSE DIFFERENTLY, IN THINGS THAT OCCUR ALWAYS AND IN THINGS THAT OCCUR AS A GENERAL RULE

b38. Now we observe in Nature— a2. In actual fact— a8. Some occurrences are universal— a12. For if A is predicated— a20. We have already explained

After showing how one must take the middle, which is the cause, in things that come to be in a direct line, the Philosopher now shows how one should take it in the case of things that come to be in reciprocal generation. First, he proves his proposal. Secondly, he elucidates it with examples (96a2).

In regard to the first it should be noted that because the circular movement of the heavens is the cause of generation in sublunar things, it is stated in On Generation II that a kind of circular reciprocity is found is generation in the sense that earth is generated from water, and water in turn from earth.

He says therefore (95b38) that since we observe a certain pattern of generation in things that are generated circularly, it is possible in these cases also to follow what has been established above, namely, to syllogize from what is subsequent, provided that the terms of the demon-stration are taken in such a way that middle and extremes follow one upon the other: because in the case of things that are generated in that way, there is a kind of circular conversion in the sense that one passes from the first thing to the last thing, and then a return is made from the last to the first; although these things are not numerically but specifically the same, as is explained in On Generation II. Hence it does not follow that the same numerical thing is prior and subsequent, or is cause and effect. And this is suitable to the process of demon-strations, for, as has been established in the foregoing, whenever conclusions are converted, i.e., whenever some of the premises can be syllogized from them, this is a circular demon-stration. And although this is not fitting if the very same thing which was first the conclusion is later the principle of the same numerical thing (otherwise the same thing would be at once better known and less known), nevertheless if they are not entirely the same, as happens in things that are circularly generated, there is nothing unfitting.

Then (96a2) he uses examples to elucidate what he has said, saying that a circular process is seen to occur in the works of nature. For if the earth is saturated with rain, it is neces-sary that the action of the sun release vapors from it; when these are released and borne aloft, it is necessary that clouds be formed; and after they are formed, it is necessary that rain water be formed; and when this is formed, it is necessary that in falling upon the earth it saturate it. Now this saturation of the earth was the very thing we took as being first; however, it is not the same saturation as the one from which we first began.

Thus it is clear that a cycle has been achieved in the sense that with one of them existing, another comes to be; and that other existing, still another comes to be; and that one existing, a return is made to the first, which is not numerically the same, but specifically the same. Yet this cycle of causes cannot be found according to the order which is found in per se causes; for in per se causes it is necessary to reach some one thing which is first in each genus of causes as is proved in Metaphysics II.

77

But the fact that water is generated from fire, and fire in turn from water, is not per se but per accidens. For being is generated per se not from actual being but from potential being, as it is stated in Physics I. Therefore, if we proceed from cause to cause in per se causes, there will not be a cycle. For we will accept as the efficient cause of the rain-soaked earth, the heat of the air which is caused by the sun, but not vice versa; but the material cause we take as water, whose matter is not vapor but the common matter of the elements. (emphasis added)

Cf. Walter Pagel, William Harvey’s Biological Ideas: Selected Aspects and Historical Background. (Basel/New York, 1967), William Harvey’s Circular Symbolism, pp. 82-83:

In Harvey’s own words: “I began to think by myself whether it (the blood) has a certain motion, as it were in a circle, which afterwards I found to be true, and that the blood is propelled from the heart through the arteries into the body and all parts … and back again through the veins … to the right auricle…. This may be called circular motion, in the same way in which, accord- [82-83] ing to Aristotle, air and rain emulate the circular motion of the bodies above. For the moist earth evaporates when heated by the sun; the vapours lifted up are condensed, and condensed into rain come down again, moisten the earth and in this manner generation takes place and similarly tempests and atmospheric phenomena develop through the circular motion of the sun, his approach and recession.

In the same way in all likelihood it should happen in the body through the motion of the blood that all parts are nourished, warmed and quickened by the warmer, more perfect, vaporous, spirituous and so to speak nutritious blood: that by contrast the blood in these parts is cooled down, thickens and as it were becomes effete—whence it returns to its principle, namely the heart, the fountain and hearth of the body in order to recuperate its perfection; here, through the natural, potent, fervent heat, as it were the treasure of life, it is made fluid again and pregnant with spirits and so to speak balsam is dispersed from here again, and all this depends upon the motion and beat of the heart.

Thus the heart is the principle of life and the sun of the microcosm (just as proportionally the sun deserves to be called the heart of the world); it is through its virtue and heat that the blood is moved, perfected, quickened and protected against corruption and clotting. It is this intimate hearth—the fundament of life and author of all—that is devoted to the whole body, nourishing, heating and quickening it.”31

31 HARVEY, De motu cap. VIII. ed. 1628, p. 42, ed. Roterod. 1648, p. 102 (“coepi egomet mecum cogitare, an motionem quandam quasi in circulo haberet.”), tr. WILLIS, p.46.

§

78

b. The cycle of evaporation, condensation, and rainfall: Some Biblical witnesses to this “admirable economy”:

Cf. Psalm 32 (33): 7 (Douay-Rheims):

7 Gathering together the waters of the sea, as in a vessel; laying up the depths in storehouses.

Cf. Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary (1853; original ed. 1811) on Psalm 32:7:

As in. This is agreeable to S. Aug. and some ancient psalters; though the Sept. have “like a bottle” made of leather, ωσει ασκον. Moderns would translate, “like a heap.” But Sym. and S. Jer. agree with us, (see Ps. lxxvii. 13. C.) as well as the Chal. and Houbigant. God has made the bed of the sea capable of containing such quantities of water, some of which evaporate and descend again from the clouds, to make the earth fruitful. Yet many take no notice of this admirable economy. Bert. – Theodoret and S. Athanasius understand the clouds to be meant by this vessel; but the former sentiment seems better. These waters, as well as hail, &c. are instruments of God’s vengeance. Deut. xxxii. 34. The depths have the same import. God calls them forth at pleasure, (Amos v. 8. Gen. vii. 11.) and confines them within bounds. Job xxxviii. 11. (emphasis added)

Cf. Adam Clarke, The Holy Bible: Containing the Old and the New Testaments (New York, 1811), Ps 33:7 (KJV):

Verse 7. He gathereth the waters of the sea together]

He separated the water from the earth and, while the latter was collected into continents, islands, mountains, hills, and valleys, the former was collected into one place, and called seas; and by his all-controlling power and providence the waters have been retained in their place, so that they have not returned to drown the earth: and he has so adapted the solar and lunar influence exerted on the waters, that the tides are only raised to certain heights, so that they cannot overflow the shores, nor become dissipated in the atmospheric regions. In this one economy there is a whole circle of science. The quantity of matter in the sun, moon, and in the earth, are all adjusted to each other in this astonishing provision: the course of the moon, and the diurnal and annual revolutions of the earth, are all concerned here; and so concerned, that it requires some of the nicest of the Newtonian calcula-tions to ascertain the laws by which the whole is affected. (emphasis added)

Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Book of Job (tr. Brian Mullady) (© 1996-2009 Western Dominican Province), ch. 26, Lesson ?:

8 He builds up the waters in his clouds so that the clouds do not break and fall out at the same time. 9 He keeps hidden the face of his throne and he expands his cloud over it. 10 He has circumscribed a limit on the waters at the boundary between light and darkness.

…Then he enumerates the effects of divine power in the middle space between heaven and earth. First, in the air, where one finds the wondrous fact that water is lifted up as vapor, is suspended in the air, and does not fall all at once, but drop by drop. One sees this in the rain, and so he says, “He binds up the waters in his thick clouds,” in clouds caused by his power, “so that the clouds do not break,” from the rainwater’s “falling out at the same time,” but drop by drop to keep the earth at a moderate temperature. It is as though what remains in the clouds had been bound together to not fall immediately by God’s power.

79

For by divine power vapors do not condense at the same time so that they all must fall to-gether after they are converted into water at the same time. After rain falls from the clouds, some remnants of the vapors remain behind, from which the clouds are formed. These conceal heaven from our point of view which is like the throne of God, according to the last chapter of Isaiah, “Heaven is my throne.” (66:1) Expressing this he continues, “He keeps hidden the face of his throne,” for he holds back as though hiding the face of heaven, which is his throne. He does this by the clouds, which prohibit us from seeing heaven, and so he says, “and he expands his cloud over it,” a cloud produced by his power. (emphasis added)

c. That nature is cyclical: Religious considerations:

Cf. M. Friedlaender, Essays on the Writings of Ibn Ezra, Vol. 4 (London, 1886). First Essay. The Philosophy of Ibn Ezra, pp. 1-2:

HE who set a boundary to the ever-flowing billows of the sea, and said, “Thus far shalt thou go and no further,” also limited the sphere of the all-investigating human mind. When, however, in compliance with the exhortation of the prophet, “we lift our eyes on high, and see who created these things,” we are not satisfied with only admiring the grandeur of the Universe and the infinite wisdom of its Creator: we are anxious to know this great Architect, to understand the mysterious art by which He became the Author of all Beauty, and to comprehend the scheme of Providence by which all parts of the divine work are kept in marvellous harmony. Moralists of old, poets and prophets have warned us in vain against any attempts at realising such a desire as useless and even dangerous. 1 The experience of previous failures, of systems which flourished for some time and faded away, is likewise of no avail. The restless human mind tries to break down every fence, in order to pass into regions which are beyond its reach. When, on the one hand, change appears to be the rule of nature, when the sun is observed to rise and set, clouds to

1 “Seek not out the things that are too hard for thee, neither search the things that are above thy strength” (Ben Sira iii. 21). “For in much wisdom is much grief, and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow” (Eccl. i. 18) [2-3]

appear and disappear, seasons to come and go, generation to succeed generation, in short all things to flow in a perpetual tide, and on the other hand, amidst all this change a certain constancy is noticed, the question is naturally asked, When and how did this series of successions commence? When will it end? We are as much at a loss to form a conception of its absence as to comprehend its continuance from infinity to infinity. (emphasis added)

Cf. Marcus Tullius Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods, I. xvi (tr. C. D. Yonge, The Nature of the Gods and Divination, Amherst: Prometheus Books, 1997, original edition H. G. Bohn, 1853), Book II. VII:

BOOK II.

VII. But where did we find that which excels all these things — I mean reason, or (if you please, in other terms) the mind, understanding, thought, prudence; and from whence did we receive it? Shall the world be possessed of every other perfection, and be destitute of this one, which is the most important and valuable of all? But certainly there is nothing better, or more excellent, or more beautiful than the world; and not only there is nothing better, but we cannot even conceive anything superior to it; and if reason and wisdom are the greatest of all perfections, they must necessarily be a part of what we all allow to be the most excellent.

80

Who is not compelled to admit the truth of what I assert by that agreeable, uniform, and continued agreement of things in the universe? Could the earth at one season be adorned with flowers, at another be covered with snow? Or, if such a number of things regulated their own changes, could the approach and retreat of the sun in the summer and winter solstices be so regularly known and calculated? Could the flux and reflux of the sea and the height of the tides be affected by the increase or wane of the moon? Could the differ-ent courses of the stars be preserved by the uniform movement of the whole heaven? Could these things subsist, I say, in such a harmony of all the parts of the universe with-out the continued influence of a divine spirit? (emphasis added)

Cf. John Henry Newman, The Second Spring: A sermon delivered to the First Provincial Council of Westminster, 1852:

A Sermon by John Henry Newman, D.D.

[Preached on July 13, 1852, in St. Mary’s College, Oscott, in the First Provincial Synod of Westminster, before Cardinal Wiseman and the Bishops of England.]

Surge, propera, amica mea, columba mea, formosa mea, et veni. Jam enim hiems transiit, imber abiit et recessit. Flores apparuerunt in terra nostra.—Cant., c. ii. v. 10-12.

Arise, make haste, my love, my dove, my beautiful one, and come. For the winter is now past, the rain is over and gone. The flowers have appeared in our land.

We have familiar experience of the order, the constancy, the perpetual renovation of the material world which surrounds us. Frail and transitory as is every part of it, restless and migratory as are its elements, never-ceasing as are its changes, still it abides. It is bound together by a law of permanence, it is set up in unity; and, though it is ever dying, it is ever coming to life again. Dissolution does but give birth to fresh modes of organization, and one death is the parent of a thousand lives. Each hour, as it comes, is but a testimony, how fleeting, yet how secure, how certain, is the great whole. It is like an image on the waters, which is ever the same, though the waters ever flow. Change upon change,—yet one change cries out to another, like the alternate Seraphim, in praise and in glory of their Maker. The sun sinks to rise again; the day is swallowed up in the gloom of the night, to be born out of it, as fresh as if it had never been quenched. Spring passes into summer, and through summer and autumn into winter, only the more surely, by its own ultimate return, to triumph over that grave, towards which it resolutely hastened from its first hour. We mourn over the blossoms of May, because they are to wither; but we know, withal, that May is one day to have its revenge upon November, by the revolution of that solemn circle which never stops,—which teaches us in our height of hope, ever to be sober, and in our depth of desolation, never to despair.

d. That nature is cyclical: General considerations:

Cf. Chris Weinkopf, “A Brief History of Time” (April 9, 1995):27

With or without astronomy, casual observation over the course of one’s life makes the cyclical nature of seasons self-explanatory. One need have no appreciation of the earth’s orbit around the sun to discover that fall invariably follows summer, which is preceded by spring, the successor of winter. This order is unfailing, and easily discernible to the naked or even blind eye.

27 (http://old.perseus.tufts.edu/GreekScience/Students/Chris/TIME2.html [12/21/09])

81

Cf. Aristotle, On Generation and Corruption, II. 11 (336b 35-338b 19) (tr. H. H. Joachim):

Wherever there is continuity in any process (coming-to-be or ‘alteration’ [337b] or any kind of change whatever) we observe consecutiveness, i.e. this coming-to-be after that without any interval. Hence we must investigate whether there is anything which will neces-sarily exist, or whether everything may fail to come-to-be. For if it be true to say of some-thing that it will be, it must at the same time be true to say of it that it is; whereas, [5] though it be true to say of something now that it is going to be, it is quite possible for it not come-to-be—thus a man might not go for a walk, though he is now going for a walk. And since in general amongst the things which are some are capable also of not-being, it is clear that the same character will attach to them no less when they are coming-to-be: in other words, their coming-to-be will not be necessary. Then are all the things that come-to-be of this character? Or, on the contrary, [10] is it absolutely necessary for some of them to come-to-be? Is there, in fact, a distinction in the field of coming-to-be corresponding to the distinction, within the field of being, between things that cannot possibly not-be and things that can not-be? For instance, is it necessary that solstices shall come-to-be, i.e. impossible that they should fail to be able to occur? Assuming that what is prior must have come-to-be if what is posterior is to be (e.g. that foundations must have come-to-be if there [15] is to be a house: clay, if there are to be foundations), is the converse also true? If foundations have come-to-be, must a house come-to-be? It seems that this is not so, unless it is necessary absolutely for the latter to come to be. If that be the case, however, a house must come-to-be if foundations have come-to-be, as well as vice versa. For the prior was assumed to be so related to the posterior that, if the latter is to be, the prior also must have come-to-be before it. If, therefore, it is necessary that the posterior should come-to-be, the prior [20] also must have come-to-be: and if the prior has come-to-be, then the posterior also must come-to-be—not, however, because of the prior, but because the future being of the posterior was assumed as necessary. Hence, in any sequence, when the being of the posterior is necessary, the nexus is reciprocal—in other words, when the prior has come-to-be the posterior must always come-to-be too. Now if the sequence of occurrences is to proceed ad infinitum downwards, the [25] coming to-be of any determinate later member will not be absolutely, but only conditionally, necessary. For it will always be necessary that some other member shall have come-to-be beforehand, on account of which it is necessary that this should come-to-be: consequently, since what is infinite has no beginning, neither will there be in the infinite sequence any ‘primary’ member which will make it necessary for the remaining members to come-to-be. Nor again (ii) will it be possible to say with truth, even in regard to the members of [30] a limited sequence, that it is absolutely necessary for any one of them to come-to-be. We cannot truly say, e.g. that it is absolutely necessary for a house to come-to-be when foundations have been laid: for (unless it is always necessary for a house to be coming-to-be) we should be faced with the consequence that, when foundations have been laid, a thing, which need not always be, must always be. No: if its coming-to-be is to be necessary, it must be always in its coming-to-be. For what is of necessity coincides with what is always, since that which ‘must be’ cannot possibly not-be. Hence a thing is eternal if its being is necessary: and if it is eternal, it is of [338a] necessity. And if, therefore, the coming-to-be of a thing is necessary, its coming-to-be is eternal; and if eternal, necessary. It follows that the coming-to-be of anything, if it is absolutely necessary, must [5] be cyclical—i.e. must return upon itself. For coming-to-be must either be limited or not limited: and if not limited, it must be either rectilinear or cyclical. But the first of these last two alternatives is impossible if coming-to-be is to be eternal, because there could not be any beginning , whether the members being taken downwards (as future events) or upwards (as past events). Yet coming-to-be must have a beginning [10] (if it is to be necessary and therefore eternal), nor can it be eternal if it is limited.30 Consequently it must be cyclical. Hence the nexus must be reciprocal. By this I mean that the necessary occurrence of this

82

involves the necessary occurrence of something prior: and conversely, given the prior, it is also necessary for the posterior to come-to-be. And this will hold continuously throughout the sequence: for it makes no difference whether we take two, or by many, members. [15] It is in circular movement, therefore, and in cyclical coming-to-be that the absolutely necessary is to be found. In other words, if the coming-to-be of any things is cyclical, it is necessary that each of them is coming-to-be and has come-to-be: and if the coming-to-be of any things is ‘necessary’, their coming-to-be is cyclical. And this is reasonable; for circular motion, i.e. the revolution of the heavens, was seen on other grounds to be eternal since precisely those movements which [338b] belong to, and depend upon, this eternal revolution ‘come-to-be’ of necessity, and of necessity will be. For since the revolving body is always setting something else in motion, the movement of the things it moves must also be circular. Thus, since the upper movement is cyclical, the sun31

moves in a determinate manner; and since the sun moves thus, the seasons in consequence come-to-be in a cycle, i.e. return upon themselves; and since they come-to-be cyclically, so in their turn do the things [5] whose coming-to-be the seasons initiate. Then why do some things manifestly come-to-be in this cyclical fashion (as, e.g. showers and air, so that it must rain if there is to be a cloud and, conversely, there must be a cloud if it is to rain), while men and animals do not ‘return upon themselves’ so that the same individual comes-to-be a second time (for [10] though your coming-to-be presupposes your father’s, his coming-to-be does not presuppose yours)? Why, on the contrary, does this coming-to-be seem to constitute a rectilinear sequence? In discussing this, we must begin by inquiring whether all things return upon themselves in a uniform manner; or whether, on the contrary, though in some sequences what recurs is numerically the same, in other sequences it is the same only in species. In consequence of this distinction, it is evident that those things, whose substance—that which is undergoing the process—is imperishable, will be numerically, as well as specifically, the same in their recurrence: for the [15] character of the process is determined by the character of that which undergoes it. Those things, on the other hand, whose substance is perishable (not imperishable) must ‘return upon themselves’ in the sense that what recurs, though specifically the same, is not the same numerically. That is why, when Water comes-to-be from Air and Air from Water, the Air is the same ‘specifically’, not ‘numerically’: and if these too recur numerically the same, at any rate this does not happen with things whose ‘substance’ comes-to-be-whose ‘substance’ is such that it is essentially capable of not-being.

30 The text is corrupt at this point.31 Reading ku/kl% o) h(/lioj.

§

83

7. The hydrological cycle: Supplemental texts.

Cf. Archibald Geikie, Elementary Lessons in Physical Geography (1886), pp. 64-66:

CHAPTER III. LESSON X. — The Moisture of the Air.

1. One of the constantly present ingredients in air described in Lesson VI. was water-vapour. We have found how important this component is in determining differences of pressure, and consequently in giving rise to changes of weather. It may now be considered rather more at length in reference to its sources of supply, and the different forms in which it is taken out of the air and restored again to land and sea.

2. First, then, let us ask whence does this widely-diffused and all-important vapour come? It is all evaporated, or given off in an invisible form, from the surface of every sea, lake, river, and spring; in short, from every water-surface on the face of the earth, and [64-65] even from ice and snow. Nothing is more familiar than the rapidity with which water dries up on streets and roads after rain. Every accumulation of water, indeed, which is freely exposed to the air, and is not replenished with water, is seen to diminish, and finally to disappear. It is not that the water merely sinks into the ground. Part of it no doubt does so, but we find the water to disappear even from a saucer or other vessel where there can be no loss underneath.

3. The air is usually busy absorbing vapour. When it can hold no more it is said to be saturated, or to reach its point of saturation, and then evaporation ceases. This limit varies according to temperature, warm air, as was proved in Lesson VIII., being able to contain more vapour than cold air. Evaporation is greatly helped by wind. Damp places and pools of water, for instance, dry up in a breeze sooner than they do in still air, because the wind removes the vapour as it is formed, and brings other and drier air to drink up and carry away renewed supplies of vapour.

4. Evaporation, therefore, takes place chiefly during the day, especially the warm parts of the day, and more actively in summer than in winter. It is feeble in amount when the air is moist and still, but goes on briskly when a fresh wind blows. It takes place far more copiously in warm tropical regions than in those with a temperate or polar climate.

5. It has been calculated that the amount of water which is annually condensed out of the atmosphere upon the surface of the earth would, if collected together into one mass, cover to the depth of one mile an area of about 200,000 square miles, or a space nearly equal to the size of the whole of France. This vast liquid mass is, as it were, pumped out of the sea and out of the waters of the land by the sun’s heat. But the amount of water that passes off into vapour in the atmosphere is best realised when we consider the enormous quantity [65-66] discharged into the sea by rivers. All over the world, rivers, great and small, are continually pouring their burden of water into the ocean. All the water thus supplied is obtained by the rivers from the atmosphere, either directly by rains and snows, or indirectly by springs . Vast though the amount of water is which is daily discharged into the sea by rivers, it is obviously less than the quantity actually received by the rivers themselves, for while they are coursing down from the mountains to the sea, vapour continually rises from their surfaces, and their volume consequently grows less.

6. If, then, from every ocean, lake, and river on the surface of the globe water-vapour is continually passing into the air, what becomes of all this vapour, and why do not the waters of the globe sensibly diminish? The reason is, that the conversion of water from its

84

common visible liquid form into the invisible gaseous state is only one-half of a gigantic system of circulation. The vapour is not allowed to accumulate indefinitely in the atmos-phere; it is changed back again or condensed into water, and then appears in such forms as dew, clouds, rain, hail, or snow.

7. The two processes of evaporation and condensation balance each other; that is, so far as the larger features of the earth’s system are concerned, as much water is returned to the sea and land as is taken from them by the atmosphere. It is from this circulation of water that all the manifold phenomena of clouds, rain, snow, rivers, glaciers, and lakes arise. But more than this, if we reflect that now evaporation and now condensation must from time to time be predominant at any place, we perceive how greatly these processes must affect the pressure of the air; and since variations in pressure determine the various movements of the atmosphere (Lesson XI.), it is obvious how all-important this water-vapour must be in the present arrangements of our globe. (emphasis added)

Cf. “Geology”, Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed. (1910) (on the atmosphere), p. 654:

Of the vapours contained in it by far the most important is that of water which, although always present, varies greatly in amount according to variations in temperature. By condensation the water vapour appears in visible form as dew, mist, cloud, rain, hail, snow and ice, and in these forms includes and carries down some of the other vapours, gases and solid particles present in the air. The circulation of water from the atmosphere to the land, from the land to the sea, and again from the sea to the land, forms the great geological process whereby the habitable condition of the planet is maintained and the surface of the land is sculptured (Part IV.). (emphasis added)

N.B. Note how inescapably the hydrological cycle reveals the world to be a kosmos—that is to say, an orderly system. Note as well how closely related that cycle is to the ancient notion that water is the principle of all things: Among the varied phenomena of nature, the alteration and generation of bodies caused by the sun holds, for the philosophical mind, a not insignificant place, for which reason it would be most fitting for Moses to have incorporated it into his account as the first natural effect subsequent to the illumination resulting from the production of light, itself the first work of distinction. Finally, also note how “the surface of the land is sculptured” (Encyclopedia Britannica, op.cit.) by the forces of the cycle, establishing thereby a causal link between the second and third works of distinction in the Hexaemeron.

§

85

8. Analogues in Greek, Egyptian, and Babylonian Cosmologies.

Cf. [Pseudo-] Plutarch, The Life and Poetry of Homer. Translated by Thomas Y. Cromwell (New York, n.d.), nn. 92-99:

[106] ...He closely observed the nature of the winds, how they arise from the moist ele-ment. For the water transformed goes into air. The wind is air in motion. This he shows in very many places, and where he says (O. v. 478):– The force of the wet winds blew,– he arranged the order of their series (O. v. 295):– The East wind and the South wind clashed and the stormy West and the North that is born in the bright air, welling onwards a great wave. Of these one comes from the rising, one from the midday quarter, one from the setting, one from the north. And Subsolanus, being humid, changes into the South, which is warm. And the South, rarefying, is changed into the East; but the East, becoming further rarefied, is purified into the North wind, therefore (O. v. 385):– She roused the swift North and brake the waves before him. Their contention he explains naturally (O. v. 331):– Now the South would toss it to the North to carry, and now again the East would yield it to the West. He knew besides that the North Pole is suspended over the earth, and how it weighs on the men who dwell in that climate. But the South Pole, on the contrary, is profound; as when he says of the North Pole (O. v. 296):– And the North that is born in the bright air rolling on a great wave on the Southwest wind. (O. iii. 295):– Where the Southwest wind drives a great wave against the left headland. For by saying “rolling” he notes the force of the wave rushing on from above, but the wind “driving” signifies a force applied to what is higher, coming from what is lower. That the generation of rains comes from the evaporation of the humid, he demonstrates, saying (I. xi. 54):

– Who sent from Heav’n a show’r of blood-stained rain,– and (I. xvi. 459):– But to the ground some drops of blood let fall,– for he had previously said (I. vii. 329):– Whose blood, beside Scamander’s flowing stream, Fierce Mars has shed, while to the viewless shade Their spirits are gone,– where it is evident that humors of this sort exhaled from the waters about the earth, mixed with blood, are borne upward. The same argument is found in the following (I. xvi. 385):– As in the autumnal season when the earth with weight of rain is saturate,– for then the sun on account of the dryness of the ground draws out humors from below and brings from above terrestrial disturbances. The humid exhalations produce rains, the dry ones, winds. When the wind is in impact with a cloud and by its force rends the cloud, it generates thunder and lightning. If the lightning falls, it sends a thunderbolt. Knowing this our poet speaks as follows (I. xvii. 595):– His lightnings flash, his rolling thunders roar. And in another place (O. xii. 415):– In that same hour Zeus thundered and cast his bolt upon the ship. (emphasis added)

§

86

9. The Ancient Near-Eastern world-view in relation to water.

Cf. Plutarch, “On Isis and Osiris”, nn. 32-34, 36 (Plutarch’s Moralia, LCL vol. 5, tr. F. C. Babbitt), p. 79-85, 91:

32 Such, then, are the possible interpretations which these facts suggest. But now let us begin over again, and consider first the most perspicuous of those who have a reputation for expounding matters more philosophically. These men are like the Greeks who say that Cronus is but a figurative name for Chronus168 (Time), Hera for Air, and that the birth of Hephaestus symbolises the change of Air into Fire.169 And thus among the Egyptians such men say that Osiris is the [p79] Nile consorting with the Earth, which is Isis, and that the sea is Typhon into which the Nile discharges its waters and is lost to view and dissipated, E save for that part which the earth takes up and absorbs and thereby becomes fertilized.170

<...>

33 But the wiser of the priests call not only the Nile Osiris and the sea Typhon, but they simply give the name of Osiris to the whole source and faculty creative of moisture,181 be-lieving this to be the cause of generation and the substance of life-producing seed; and the name of Typhon they give to all that is dry, fiery, and arid,182 in general, and antagonistic to moisture. B Therefore, because they believe that he was personally of a reddish sallow colour,183 they are not eager to meet men of such complexion, nor do they like to associate with them. Osiris, on the other hand, according to their legendary tradition, was dark,184 because water darkens everything, earth and clothes and clouds, when it comes into contact with them.185 In young people the presence of moisture renders their hair black, while greyness, like a paleness as it were, is induced by p83dryness in those who are passing their prime.186 Also the spring-time is vigorous, prolific, and agreeable; but the autumn, since it lacks moisture, is inimical to plants and C unhealthful for living creatures.b <...>

34 They say that the sun and moon do not use chariots, but boats190 in which to sail round in their courses; D and by this they intimate that the nourishment and origin of these heavenly bodies is from moisture. They think also that Homer,191 like Thales, had gained his knowledge from the Egyptians, when he postulated water as the source and origin of all things; for, according to them, Oceanus is Osiris, and Tethys is Isis, since she is the kindly nurse and provider for all things. In fact, the Greeks call emission apousia 192 and coition synousia, and the son (hyios) from water (hydor) and rain (hysai); Dionysus also they call Hyes193 since he is lord of the nature of moisture; and he is no other than Osiris.194 In fact, Hellanicus seems [p85] to have heard Osiris pronounced Hysiris by the priests, for he regularly spells the name in this way, deriving it, in all probability, Efrom the nature of Osiris and the ceremony of finding him.195 (emphasis added)

168 Cf. Cicero, De Natura Deorum, ii.25 (64). 169 Cf. 392 C, infra. 170 Cf. 366 A, infra. [On this point, see further below. (B.A.M.)]181 Cf. 365 B, infra. [Cp. Eusebius on Oceanus and Thetys, cited above. (B.A.M.)]182 Cf. 369 A and 376 F, infra. 183 Cf. 359 E and 363 B, supra. 184 Cf. 359 E, supra. 185 Cf. Moralia, 950 A. 186 Cf. Aristotle, De Generatione Animalium, v.1 (780 B 6). 190 Cf. Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis, v.41.2 (p566 Potter); Eusebius, Praepar. Evang. iii.11.48.

87

191 Il. XIV.201. 192 Cf. Artemidorus, Oneirocritica, i.78. 193 Cf. the name Hyades of the constellation. 194 Cf. 356 B, 362 B, supra, and 365 A, infra. 195 See 366 F, infra.

36 Not only the Nile, but every form of moisture205 they call simply the effusion of Osiris; and in their holy rites the water jar in honour of the god heads the procession.206 And by the picture of a rush they represent a king and the southern region of the world,207 and the rush is interpreted to mean the watering and fructifying of all things, and in its nature it seems to bear some resemblance to the generative member. Moreover, when they celebrate the festival of the Pamylia which, as has been said,208 is of a phallic member, they expose and carry about a statue of which the male member is triple;209 for the god is the Source, and every source, by its fecundity, multiplies what proceeds from it; and for “many times” we have a habit of saying “thrice,” Cas, for example, “thrice happy,”210 and

Bonds, even thrice as many, unnumbered,211

unless, indeed, the word “triple” is used by the early writers in its strict meaning; for the nature of moisture, being the source and origin of all things, created out of itself three primal material substances, Earth, Air and Fire. In fact, the tale that is annexed to the legend to the effect that Typhon cast the male member of Osiris into the river, and Isis could not find it, but constructed and shaped a replica of it, and ordained that it should be honoured and borne in processions,212 plainly comes round to this doctrine, that the creative and germinal power of the god, at the very first, acquired moisture as its substance, and through moisture combined with whatever was by nature capable of participating in generation.

205 Cf. 366 A, 371 B, infra, and 729 B. 206 Cf. Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis, vi.31.1 (p758 Potter). 207 Such a symbol exists on Egyptian monuments. 208 355 E, supra.209 Cf. 371 F, infra, Herodotus, ii.48, and Egyptian monuments. 210 Homer, Od. V.306, and vi.154. It is interesting that G. H. Palmer translates this “most happy.” 211 Ibid. viii.340. 212 Cf. 358 B, supra. (emphasis added)

Cf. Plutarch, “On Isis and Osiris”, nn. 38-40 (Plutarch’s Moralia, LCL vol. 5, tr. F. C. Babbitt), p. 97-101: [see the next section]

Cf. T. H. Huxley, “Mr. Gladstone and Genesis” (1886). Preface and Table of Contents to Volume IV, Science and Hebrew Tradition: Collected Essays IV (excerpt):

Note on the Proper Sense of the “Mosaic” Narrative of the Creation

...After this, the waters which covered the earth-disk, under the firmament, were drawn away into certain regions, which became seas, while the part laid bare became dry land. In accordance with the notion, universally accepted in antiquity, that moist earth possesses the potentiality of giving rise to living beings, the land, at the command of Elohim, “put forth” all sorts of plants.28 (emphasis added)

§

28 Cf. John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible (1748), on Genesis 1:24, supra.

88

10. On earth immersed in water: The inundation of the Nile.

Cf. Patricia O’Grady, “Thales of Miletus (62?-546 BCE)”, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The Possible Travels of Thales:

Eudemus, who was one of Aristotle’s students, believed that Thales had travelled to Egypt (Eudemus ap. Proclus, 65.7). A number of ancient sources support that opinion, including Pamphila who held that he spent time with the Egyptian priests (D.L. I.24), Hieronymus from whose report we learn that Thales measured the height of the pyramids by the shadow they cast (D.L. I.27), and Plutarch (De Is. et Os. 131). Thales gave an explanation for the inundation (D.L. I.37). He may have devised this explanation after witnessing the phenol-mena, which Herodotus later described (Hdt. II.97). (emphasis added)

Cf. James S. Romm, The Edges of the Earth (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1992), pp. 172-173:

Herodotus himself seems aware of some of the theoretical issues involved in his Oce-anus critique. In his first attack on the myth, directed against an unnamed author (per-haps Hecataeus)1 who has connected Ocean with the mysterious flooding of the Nile, Herodotus complains that such theories take refuge in the remoteness of distant space and hence “do not admit refutation”2 (ou)k e)/xei e)/legxon). That is to say they must be appro-ached by way of arguments from plausibility and internal coherence, for example by an examination of the idea of Ocean’s circularity, rather than by the sounder route of empir- [172-172] ical evidence. This “credibility shield” provided by distant space becomes even more of a concern in cases where no arguments from plausibility exist; in his inquiry into the Hyperboreans, for example, Herodotus seems completely at a loss for reasons either to believe or disbelieve the traditional stories, and settles for repeating them without taking any position at all.3 At such moments Herodotus relies on the storyteller’s prerogative of “saying what is said” (legein ta legomena, 7.152.2 [3]; cf. 2.123.1) without necessarily affirming it—the same strategy, it should be noted, with which Aristotle urges writers of fiction4 to coun-tenance their inventions (Poetics 25.12-13). (emphasis added)

1 See Lionel Pearson, Early Ionian Historians (Oxford 1939) 87; Alan B. Lloyd, Herodotus Book 2 (Etudes preliminaries aux relgions orientiales dans l’empire romain, vol. 43, Leiden 1976) ad loc.2 The meaning of elenchos here is correctly explained by G.E.R. Lloyd in Magic, Reason and Experience (Cambridge 1979) 253 and n. 118.3 The passage is discussed in greater detail in my “Herodotus and Mythic Geography: The Case of the Hyperboreans,” TAPA 119 (1989): 97-117.4 [Romm’s note omitted.]

Cf. The Mysteries of the Nile:29

Why does the Nile rise and fall in a regular seasonal pattern (19)? Hdt. knows three theories about this. He quickly rejects the first two, which are (a) that the flooding is caused by the Etesian winds, and (b) that infusions of water from the river called Ocean are responsible (20-21). He also rejects the third theory, that the flooding is caused by melting snow. In Hdt.’s opinion the river called Ocean is a poetic fiction (22-23). His own belief is that the changing proximity of the sun to Egypt can explain the flood patterns (24-27).

29 (http://academic.reed.edu/Humanities/Hum110/Hdt/Hdt2.html [9/20/08])

89

Cf. Herodotus, The History of Herodotus. By Herodotus, George Rawlinson, Henry Cres-wicke Rawlinson, John Gardner Wilkinson (1862), Book II, 19-27:

Now the Nile, when it overflows, floods not only the Delta, but also the tracts of country on both sides of the stream which are thought to belong to Libya and Arabia, in some places reaching to the extent of two days’ journey from its banks, in some even exceeding that distance, but in others falling short of it. Concerning the nature of the river, I was not able to gain any information either from the priests or from others. I was particularly anxious to learn from them why the Nile, at the commencement of the summer solstice, begins to rise, and continues to increase for a hundred days– and why, as soon as that number is past, it forthwith retires and contracts its stream, continuing low during the whole of the winter until the summer solstice comes round again. On none of these points could I obtain any explanation from the inhabitants, though I made every inquiry, wishing to know what was commonly reported– they could neither tell me what special virtue the Nile has which makes it so opposite in its nature to all other streams, nor why, unlike every other river, it gives forth no breezes from its surface. Some of the Greeks, however, wishing to get a reputation for cleverness, have offered explanations of the phenomena of the river, for which they have accounted in three different ways. Two of these I do not think it worth while to speak of, further than simply to mention what they are. One pretends that the Etesian winds cause the rise of the river by preventing the Nile-water from running off into the sea. But in the first place it has often happened, when the Etesian winds did not blow, that the Nile has risen according to its usual wont; and further, if the Etesian winds produced the effect, the other rivers which flow in a direction opposite to those winds ought to present the same phenomena as the Nile, and the more so as they are all smaller streams, and have a weaker current. But these rivers, of which there are many both in Syria and Libya, are entirely unlike the Nile in this respect. The second opinion is even more unscientific than the one just mentioned, and also, if I may so say, more marvellous. It is that the Nile acts so strangely, because it flows from the ocean, and that the ocean flows all round the earth. The third explanation, which is very much more plausible than either of the others, is positively the furthest from the truth; for there is really nothing in what it says, any more than in the other theories. It is, that the inundation of the Nile is caused by the melting of snows. Now, as the Nile flows out of Libya, through Ethiopia, into Egypt, how is it possible that it can be formed of melted snow, running, as it does, from the hottest regions of the world into cooler countries? Many are the proofs whereby any one capable of reasoning on the subject may be convinced that it is most unlikely this should be the case. The first and strongest argument is furnished by the winds, which always blow hot from these regions. The second is that rain and frost are unknown there. Now whenever snow falls, it must of necessity rain within five days;. so that, if there were snow, there must be rain also in those parts. Thirdly, it is certain that the natives of the country are black with the heat, that the kites and the swallows remain there the whole year, and that the cranes, when they fly from the rigours of a Scythian winter, flock thither to pass the cold season. If then, in the country whence the Nile has its source, or in that through which it flows, there fell ever so little snow, it is absolutely impossible that any of these circumstances could take place. As for the writer who attributes the phenomenon to the ocean, his account is involved in such obscurity that it is impossible to disprove it by argument. For my part I know of no river called Ocean, and I think that Homer, or one of the earlier poets, invented the name, and introduced it into his poetry.

Perhaps, after censuring all the opinions that have been put forward on this obscure subject, one ought to propose some theory of one’s own. I will therefore proceed to explain what I think to be the reason of the Nile’s swelling in the summer time.

90

During the winter, the sun is driven out of his usual course by the storms, and removes to the upper parts of Libya. This is the whole secret in the fewest possible words; for it stands to reason that the country to which the Sun-god approaches the nearest, and which he passes most directly over, will be scantest of water, and that there the streams which feed the rivers will shrink the most. To explain, however, more at length, the case is this. The sun, in his passage across the upper parts of Libya, affects them in the following way. As the air in those regions is constantly clear, and the country warm through the absence of cold winds, the sun in his passage across them acts upon them exactly as he wont to act elsewhere in summer, when his path is in the middle of heaven– that is, he attracts the water. After attracting it, he again repels it into the upper regions, where the winds lay hold of it, scatter it, and reduce it to a vapour, whence it naturally enough comes to pass that the winds which blow from this quarter– the south and south-west– are of all winds the most rainy. And my own opinion is that the sun does not get rid of all the water which he draws year by year from the Nile, but retains some about him. When the winter begins to soften, the sun goes back again to his old place in the middle of the heaven, and proceeds to attract water equally from all countries. Till then the other rivers run big, from the quantity of rain-water which they bring down from countries where so much moisture falls that all the land is cut into gullies; but in summer, when the showers fail, and the sun attracts their water, they become low. The Nile, on the contrary, not deriving any of its bulk from rains, and being in winter subject to the attraction of the sun, naturally runs at that season, unlike all other streams, with a less burthen of water than in the summer time. For in summer it is exposed to attraction equally with all other rivers, but in winter it suffers alone. The sun, therefore, I regard as the sole cause of the phenomenon. It is the sun also, in my opinion, which, by heating the space through which it passes, makes the air in Egypt so dry. There is thus perpetual summer in the upper parts of Libya. Were the position of the heavenly regions reversed, so that the place where now the north wind and the winter have their dwelling became the station of the south wind and of the noon-day, while, on the other hand, the station of the south wind became that of the north, the consequence would be that the sun, driven from the mid-heaven by the winter and the northern gales, would betake himself to the upper parts of Europe, as he now does to those of Libya, and then I believe his passage across Europe would affect the Ister exactly as the Nile is affected at the present day. And with respect to the fact that no breeze blows from the Nile, I am of opinion that no wind is likely to arise in very hot countries, for breezes love to blow from some cold quarter. (emphasis added)

On the Egyptians’s own understanding of the phenomenon, cf. Plutarch, “On Isis and Osiris”, nn. 38-40 (Plutarch’s Moralia, LCL vol. 5, tr. F. C. Babbitt), pp. 93-101:

38 Of the stars, the Egyptians think that the Dog-star is the star of Isis,221 because it is the bringer of water.222 They also hold the Lion in honour, and they [p93] adorn the doorways of their shrines with gaping lions’ heads,223 because the Nile overflows

When for the first time the Sun comes into conjunction with Leo.224

As they regard the Nile as the effusion of Osiris,225 so they hold and believe the earth to be the body of Isis, not all of it, but so much of it as the Nile covers, fertilizing it and uniting with it.226 From this union they make Horus to be born. The all-conserving and fostering Hora, that is the seasonable tempering of the surrounding air, is Horus, who they say was brought up by Leto in the marshes round about Buto;227 for the watery and saturated land best nurtures B those exhalations which quench and abate aridity and dryness.

91

The outmost parts of the land beside the mountains and bordering on the sea the Egyptians call Nephthys. This is why they give to Nephthys the name of “Finality,”228 and say that she is the wife of Typhon. Whenever, then, the Nile overflows and with abounding waters spreads far away to those who dwell in the outermost regions, they call this the union of Osiris with Nephthys,229 which is proved by the upspringing of the plants. Among these is the melilotus,230 by the wilting and failing of which, as the story goes, Typhon gained knowledge of the wrong done to his bed. C So Isis gave birth to Horus in lawful wedlock, but Nephthys bore Anubis clandestinely. However, in the chronological lists of the kings they record that [p95] Nephthys, after her marriage to Typhon, was at first barren. If they say this, not about a woman, but about the goddess, they must mean by it the utter barrenness and unproductivity of the earth resulting from a hard-baked soil.

39 The insidious scheming and usurpation of Typhon, then, is the power of drought, which gains control and dissipates the moisture which is the source of the Nile and of its rising; and his coadjutor, the Queen of the Ethiopians,231 signifies allegorically the south winds from Ethiopia; for whenever these gain the upper hand over the northerly or Etesian winds232 which drive the clouds towards Ethiopia, D and when they prevent the falling of the rains which cause the rising of the Nile, then Typhon, being in possession, blazes with scorching heat; and having gained complete mastery, he forces the Nile in retreat to draw back its waters for weakness, and, flowing at the bottom of its almost empty channel, to proceed to the sea. The story told of the shutting up of Osiris in the chest seems to mean nothing else than the vanishing and disappearance of water. Consequently they say that the disappearance of Osiris occurred in the month of Athyr,233 at the time when, owing to the complete cessation of the Etesian winds, the Nile recedes to its low level and the land becomes denuded. As the nights grow longer, the darkness increases, E and the potency of the light is abated and subdued. Then among the gloomy rites which the priests perform, they shroud the gilded image of a cow with a black linen vestment, and display her as a sign of mourning for the goddess, inasmuch as they regard both the cow and the earth234 [p97] as the image of Isis; and this is kept up for four days consecutively, beginning with the seventeenth of the month. The things mourned for are four in number: first, the departure and recession of the Nile; second, the complete extinction of the north winds, as the south winds gain the upper hand; third, the day’s growing shorter than the night; and, to crown all, the denudation of the earth together with the defoliation of the trees and shrubs at this time. On the nineteenth day F they go down to the sea at night-time; and the keepers of the robes and the priests bring forth the sacred chest containing a small golden coffer, into which they pour some potable water which they have taken up, and a great shout arises from the company for joy that Osiris is found. Then they knead some fertile soil with the water and mix in spices and incense of a very costly sort, and fashion therefrom a crescent-shaped figure, which they clothe and adorn, thus indicating that they regard these gods as the substance of Earth and Water.

40 When Isis recovered Osiris and was watching Horus grow up235 367 as he was being made strong by the exhalations and mists and clouds, Typhon was vanquished but not annihilated;236 for the goddess who holds sway over the Earth would not permit the complete annihilation of the nature opposed to moisture, but relaxed and moderated it, being desirous that its tempering potency should persist, because it was not possible for a complete world to exist, if the fiery element left it and disappeared. Even if this story were not current among them, one would hardly [p99] be justified in rejecting that other account, to the effect that Typhon, many ages ago, held sway over Osiris’s domain; for Egypt used to be all a sea,237

and, for that reason, B even to-day it is found to have shells in its mines and mountains.238

Moreover, all the springs and wells, of which there are many, have a saline and brackish water, as if some stale dregs of the ancient sea had collected there. But, in time, Horus overpowered Typhon; that is to say, there came on a timely abundance of rain, and the Nile

92

forced out the sea and revealed the fertile land, which it filled out with its alluvial deposits .30

This has support in the testimony of our own observation; for we see, even to-day, as the river brings down new silt C and advances the land, that the deep waters gradually recede and, as the bottom gains in height by reason of the alluvial deposits, the water of the sea runs off from these. We also note that Pharos, which Homer239 knew as distant a day’s sail from Egypt, is now a part of it; not that the island has extended its area by rising, or has come nearer to the land, but the sea that separated them was obliged to retire before the river, as the river reshaped the land and made it to increase. The fact is that all this is somewhat like the doctrines promulgated by the Stoics 240 about the gods; for they say that the creative and fostering spirit is Dionysus, the truculent and destructive is Heracles, the receptive is Ammon, that which pervades the Earth and its products is Demeter and the Daughter, [p101]and that which pervades the Sea is Poseidon.241

(emphasis added)

221 Cf. 359 D, supra, and 376 A, infra. 222 In the Nile. 223 Cf. Moralia, 670 C; Horapollo, Hieroglyphica, i.21. 224 Aratus, Phaenomena, 151. The Dog-star rises at about the same time. 225 Cf. the note on 365 B, supra. 226 Cf. 363 D, supra. 227 Cf. 357 F, supra. 228 Cf. 355 F, supra, and 375 B, infra. 229 Cf. the note on 356 E, supra. 230 Cf. 356 F, supra. 231 Cf. 356 B, supra. 232 Cf. Moralia, 898 A, and Diodorus, i.39. 233 The month of November. Cf. 356 C, supra. 234 Cf. 366 A, supra. 235 Cf. 357 C-F, supra. 236 Cf. 358 D, supra. 237 Cf. Herodotus, ii.5; Diodorus, iii.3, and i.39.11. 238 Cf. Herodotus, ii.12. 239 Od. IV.356. Cf. also Strabo, xii.2.4 (p536), and xvii.1.6 (p791). 240 Cf. von Arnim, Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta, ii.1093 (p319). 241 Cf. Cicero, De Natura Deorum, i.15 (40), ii.28 (71); and Diogenes Laertius, vii.147.

Cf. Aristotle, Meteorology, I. 14 (351a 19-353a26) (tr. E. W. Webster):

The same parts of the earth are not always moist or dry, but they change [20] according as rivers come into existence and dry up. And so the relation of land to sea changes too and a place does not always remain land or sea throughout all time, but where there was dry land there comes to be sea, and where there is now [25] sea, there one day comes to be dry land. But we must suppose these changes to follow some order and cycle . The principle and cause of these changes is that the interior of the earth grows and decays, like the bodies of plants and animals. Only in the case of these latter the process does not go on by parts, but each [30] of them necessarily grows or decays as a whole, whereas it does go on by parts in the case of the earth. Here the causes are cold and heat, which increase and diminish on account of the sun and its course. It is owing to them that the parts of the earth come to have a different character, that some parts remain moist for a certain time, and then dry up and grow old, while other parts in their turn are filled with life and moisture.

30 Cf. the excerpt from T. H. Huxley, above.

93

Now when places become drier the springs necessarily give out, and when [351b] this happens the rivers first decrease in size and then finally become dry; and when rivers change and disappear in one part and come into existence correspondingly in another, the sea must needs be affected. If the sea was once pushed out by rivers and encroached upon the land anywhere, it [5] necessarily leaves that place dry when it recedes; again, if the dry land has encroached on the sea at all by a process of silting set up by the rivers when at their full, the time must come when this place will be flooded again. But the whole vital process of the earth takes place so gradually and in periods of time which are so immense compared with the length of our life, that these [10] changes are not observed, and before their course can be recorded from beginning to end whole nations perish and are destroyed. Of such destructions the most utter and sudden are due to wars; but pestilence or famine cause them too. Famines, again, are either sudden and severe or else gradual. In the latter case the disappearance of a nation is [15] not noticed because some leave the country while others remain; and this goes on until the land is unable to maintain any inhabitants at all. So a long period of time is likely to elapse from the first departure to the last, and no one remembers and the [20] lapse of time destroys all record even before the last inhabitants have disappeared. In the same way a nation must be sup-posed to lose account of the time when it first settled in a land that was changing from a marshy and watery state and becoming dry. Here, too, the change is gradual and lasts a long time and men do not [25] remember who came first, or when, or what the land was like when they came. This has been the case with Egypt. Here it is obvious that the land is continually getting drier and that the whole country is a deposit of the river Nile. But because the [30] neighbouring peoples settled in the land gradually as the marshes dried, the lapse of time has hidden the beginning of the process. However, all the mouths of the Nile, with the single exception of that at Canopus, are obviously artificial and not natural . And Egypt was nothing more than what is called Thebes, as Homer, too, shows, modern [35] though he is in relation to such changes. For Thebes is the place that he mentions; which implies that Memphis did not yet exist, or at any rate was not as important as [352a] it is now. That this should be so is natural, since the lower land came to be inhabited later than that which lay higher. For the parts that lie nearer to the place where the river is depositing the silt are necessarily marshy for a longer time since the water always lies most in the newly formed land. But in time this land changes its [5] character, and in its turn enjoys a period of prosperity. For these places dry up and come to be in good condition while the places that were formerly well-tempered some day grow excessively dry and deteriorate. This happened to the land of Argos and Mycenae in Greece. In the time of the Trojan wars the Argive land was marshy [10] and could only support a small population, whereas the land of Mycenae was in good condition (and for this reason Mycenae was the superior). But now the opposite is the case, for the reason we have mentioned: the land of Mycenae has become completely dry and barren, while the Argive land that was formerly barren owing to the water has now become fruitful. Now the same process that has taken [15] place in this small district must be supposed to be going on over whole countries and on a large scale. Men whose outlook is narrow suppose the cause of such events to be change in the universe, in the sense of a coming to be of the world as a whole. Hence they say [20] that the sea [is] being dried up and is growing less, because this is observed to have happened in more places now than formerly. But this is only partially true. It is true that many places are now dry, that formerly were covered with water. But the opposite is true too: for if they look they will find that there are many places where [25] the sea has invaded the land. But we must not suppose that the cause of this is that the world is in process of becoming. For it is absurd to make the universe to be in process because of small and trifling changes, when the bulk and size of the earth are surely as nothing in comparison with the whole world. Rather we must take the [30] cause of all these changes to be that, just as winter occurs in the

94

seasons of the year, so in determined periods there comes a great winter of a great year and with it excess of rain. But this excess does not always occur in the same place. The deluge in the time of Deucalion, for instance, took place chiefly in the Greek world and in it especially about ancient Hellas, the country about Dodona [352b] and the Achelous, a river which has often changed its course. Here the Selli dwelt and those who were formerly called Graeci and now Hellenes. When, therefore, such an excess of rain occurs we must suppose that it suffices for a long time. (emphasis added)

Cf. Richard L. Meehan, Ignatius Donnelly and the End of the World, “Aristotle”:31

As Aristotle saw it, the wetting and drying was, in the bigger picture, part of a long term cycle, for just as there is a winter among the yearly seasons so at fixed intervals there is a great winter and an excess of rain. Aristotle thought that these rare pluvial events were not necessarily world-wide but might be confined to certain geographies, much as the great flood of Deucalion had been mostly confined to the River Achelous in Old Hellas (Met. p. 115) (Meteorologica, I, xiv) In this Aristotle accepted the view of Plato who had concluded that the flood of Deucalion must have been an event confined to river valleys and that not all humanity had perished in that great flood. Thus Aristotle’s description of the geographic process differs little from what one might read today in stratigraphic descriptions of the non-uniform, quasi-rhythmic character of deltaic microstratigraphy.

Cf. J. B. Frazer, Folk-lore in the Old Testament. 3 vols. (London, 1918):

§ 4. Ancient Greek Stories of a Great Flood

According to Aristotle, writing in the fourth century B.C., the ravages of the deluge in Deucalion’s time were felt most sensibly “in ancient Hellas, which is the country about Dodona and the river Achelous, for that river has changed its bed in many places. In those days the land was inhabited by the Selli and the people who were then called Greeks (Grai-koi) but are now named Hellenes.”7 Some people thought that the sanctuary of Zeus at Do-dona was founded by Deucalion and Pyrrha, who dwelt among the Molossians of that country.1 In the fourth century B.C. Plato also mentions, without describing, the flood which took place in the time of Deucalion and Pyrrha, and he represents the Egyptian priests as ridiculing the Greeks for believing that there had been only one deluge, whereas there had been many.2

The Parian chronicler, who drew up his chronological table in the year 265 B.C.,3 dated Deucalion’s flood one thousand two hundred and sixty-five years before his own time;4

according to this calculation the cataclysm occurred in the year 1539 B.C.

7 Aristotle, Meteorolog. i. 14, p. 352, ed. Im. Bekker (Berlin, 1831).1 Plutarch, Pyrrhus, I. 2 Plato, Timaeus, pp. 22A, 238.3 L. Ideler, Handbuch der mathemetischen und technischen Chronologie, (Berlin, 1825-1826), i. 380 sqq.4 Marmor Parium, 6 sqq., in Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, ed. C. Muller, i. 542.

[N.B. See also the excerpt from Gordon Johnston below.]

Supplement: On the shaping and re-shaping of the surface of the earth:

31 (http://www.stanford.edu/~meehan/donnelly/aristot.html [5/27/03])

95

Cf. Ernst Haeckel. History of Creation, 2nd ed., (New York, 1876), Vol. I., pp. 360-62:

The history of the earth’s development shows us that the distribution of land and water on its surface is ever and continually changing. In consequence of geological changes of the earth’s crust, elevations   and   depressions   of the ground take place everywhere, some- times more strongly marked in one place, sometimes in another. Even if they happen so slowly that in the course of centuries the seashore rises or sinks only a few inches, or even only a few lines, still they nevertheless effect great results in the course of long periods of time. And long – immeasurably long – periods of time have not been wanting in the earth’s history. During the course of many millions of years, ever since organic life existed on the earth, land and water have perpetually struggled for supremacy. Continents and islands have sunk into the sea, and new ones have arisen out of its bosom. Lakes and seas have been slowly raised and dried up, and new water basins have arisen by the sinking of the ground. Peninsulas have become islands by the narrow neck of land which connected them with the mainland sinking into the water. The islands of an archipelago have become the peaks of a continuous chain of mountains by the whole floor of their sea being considerably raised. Thus the Mediterranean at one time was an inland sea, when in the place of the Straits of Gibraltar, an isthmus connected Africa with Spain. England even during the more recent history of the earth, when man already existed, has re-peatedly been connected with the European continent and been repeatedly separated from it. Nay, even Europe and North America have been directly connected. The South Sea at one time formed a large Pacific Continent, and the numerous little islands which now lie scat-tered in it were simply the highest peaks of the mountains covering that continent. The Indian Ocean formed a continent which extended from the Sunda Islands along the southern coast of Asia to the east coast of Africa. This large continent of former times Sclater, an Englishman, has called Lemuria, from the monkey-like animals which inhabited it, and it is at the same time of great importance from being the probable cradle of the human race, which in all likelihood here first developed out of anthropoid apes. 

<…>

Thus, ever since liquid water existed on the earth, the boundaries of water and land have eternally changed, and we may assert that the outlines of continents and islands have never remained for an hour, nay, even for a minute, exactly the same. For the waves eternally and perpetually break on the edge of the coast, and whatever the land in these places loses in extent, it gains in other places by the accumulation of mud, which condenses into solid stone and again rises above the level of the sea as new land. Nothing can be more erroneous than the idea of a firm and unchangeable outline of our continents, such as is impressed upon us in early youth by defective lessons on geography, which are devoid of a geological basis. (emphasis added)

§

96

11. The place of water in Egyptian creation story: The macroscopic paradigm of Genesis.

Cf. “Ancient Egyptian Creation Mythology”:32

Abstract: The Polemical Background Of Biblical Genesis 1-2 by: Dr. Gordon Johnston

Introduction (excerpt)

Creation Mythology of Heliopolis: Creation of the Ennead from the Primeval Waters

The earliest documented Egyptian creation mythology is associated with the cult center of Heliopolis, the sacred city of the sun god, near the ancient capital, Memphis. This mythological system originated during the Old Kingdom Period: Dynasties 3-6 (ca. 2696-2181 BCE), when Upper and Lower Egypt was first unified under one ruler. The earliest written form of the Heliopolitan mythology is found in the Pyramid Texts which were composed during Dynasties 4-5 (ca. 2613-2345 BCE).

The Primeval Waters and the Divine Ennead (“The Nine”)

According to the mythology of Heliopolis, there had been a time when “the sky had not yet come into being; the earth had not yet come into being; humanity had not yet come into being; the gods had not yet been born; death had not yet come into being” (Pyramid Texts §1466). In this realm of nothingness, a source of creation was necessary. One of the characteristic features of Egyptian creationism is the fact that creation was essentially an act of generation, and for that act a specific generative principle was needed. This gener-ative principle was evident to the Egyptian mind in the yearly flooding of the Nile River, and the procreative powers of the waters suggested the ultimate source of all creative being, the “primeval waters.” These primeval waters of Egyptian thought were both a negative and a positive entity: negative in that they were boundless, shapeless, infinite and chaotic – all ominous concepts to the Egyptian mentality; but positive in that they contained within themselves a certain potential for being. The creative potential of the primeval waters is evident in their personification as the self-generated god Nun, as expressed in chapter 17 of the “Book of the Going Forth by Day” (a.k.a. “Book of the Dead”): “I am the great god who came into existence by himself, Nun who created his own name as a god in the primeval time of the gods.”

Thus, for the mythopoeic mentality of Heliopolis, in the beginning there was chaos, but that chaos already contained in itself the potential for order.

According to Heliopolitan tradition, the fundamental entity of the cosmos was Nun, the primeval waters of chaos from which creation emerged. After millions of years of nothing but primeval waters, the god Atum (later Re-Atum) evolved/emerged out of Nun. As the sun-god, the first act of Atum was to manifest himself as light (but before he formally created the sun). Originally he had nowhere to sit, but eventually a primeval hill emerged from the waters, and he sat down upon it. (Note: The symbol of Nun originally developed from the flooding of the Nile, and the primeval mound reflects the emergence of the isolated hillocks that appear as the waters subside). According to the Heliopolitan priests, the original primeval hillock was Heliopolis.

That potential was realized when out of the primeval waters there emerged, like the rising sun, the god Atum, the source of all created and generated being. The name Atum bears

32 (http://eedin.com/ShowArticle.aspx?ID=83&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1 [11/9/08])

97

the double meaning of “totality” and “not to be.” Atum was thus at once absolute being and absolute non-being, combining within himself these contrasting opposites. This newly emerged deity, sitting on the primeval mound in his form as Re-Atum, the Creator sun god, was frequently depicted as wearing the royal Double Crown of Egypt, symbolic of the fact that with him there came into being the kingship of the Two Lands. The Heliopolitan creation tradition, possibly for strong political reasons, thus combined within itself the created universe and the political order as two inseparable entities. From the political point of view, the Heliopolitan system attempted to create the concept of a sacral kingship, a means of justifying mythologically the newly established monarchy.

Although Atum evolved/created himself from Nun, Heliopolitan mythology views Nun as his mother. But Atum became the father of all other created gods and entities. Atum performed his creative activity through a combination of spitting and sneezing (Pyramid Texts §1248; Coffin Texts §76). This brought into being the male Shu and the female Tefnut, twin deities of the dry air and atmospheric moisture. With the birth of Shu and Tefnut, we have the first true male and female as the two complementary sources of generation, making possible the continuing process of generative creation. From the union of Shu and Tefnut was born the male Geb and the female Nut, the deified personifications of the earth and sky respectively. In these three acts by these first three sets of male/female gods, the complete natural structure of the universe has come into being. But the universe, including earth and sky, are not simply created beings; they are generated divine beings, the source of all else to come.

The physical universe began to be filled with the offspring of Geb and Nut. This divine couple begat two brothers and two sisters: the brothers Osiris and Seth, and the sisters Isis and Nephthys. The two brothers married their sisters: Isis became the wife of Osiris, and Nephthys became the wife of Seth. It was during this time that humanity came into being. Through Osiris the Egyptian monarchy came into being, with the Egyptian king representing the god Horus, the son of Osiris, on the throne.4 Thus nine deities formed the original group of creator gods known as the Ennead (“the Nine”) of Heliopolis: Atum, Shu, Tefnut, Geb, Nut, Osiris, Seth, Isis, Nephthys. This generation of gods articulated the reality of the two opposing forces of order and disorder. One brother, Osiris, embodied the principle of order; the other brother, Seth, represented disorder. The two brothers married their sisters: Isis became the wife of Osiris, and Nephthys became the wife of Seth. The admission into this group of Seth, the god of confusion and chaos, is crucial because it articulates the Egyptian realization of the continual struggle between good and evil, order and disorder, within the created world.

Accidental Creation of Humanity from Tears of Atum

How was humanity created? According to the Heliopolitan tradition, Shu and Tefnut became separated from Atum and were lost in the primeval waters. Atum sent out his Eye (the sun) to look for them, and on their return he wept tears of joy, from which sprang humanity. The Heliopolitan creation myth thus assigns to humanity a certain divine origin, but at the same time the creation of humanity does not appear as a purposeful act. Human beings were little more than the accidental product of a specific emotion of the creator deity, and hence their place within the created order was certainly not intended to be the “crown of creation,” as in Genesis 1.

Re-Atum, the Sun God of Heliopolis

The sun god was one of the most ancient of the Egyptian deities, and his influence was felt from the very beginnings of Egyptian religion and myth. His earliest form was Re, the sun

98

god of Heliopolis, and in this name he continued to be central in myth throughout the entire history of ancient Egypt.5 The importance of the sun god was a natural development in Egypt because of his prominent visibility and his obvious ability to create and sustain life. There were several myths about the sun god, but the most important dealt with his daily cycle. In the Heliopolitan creation tradition of the sun god, each day was in effect a renewal and a repetition of the creation.6

In Egyptian mythology, the universe was not a static entity, but a living force in a constant state of movement. The sun god was the ideal symbol of this vitality: he was Khepri (“the one who comes into being”) in the morning at the time of his birth; he was Re (“the developed sun god”) at noon; and he was Atum (“the completed one”) in the evening as he descended to rest on the western horizon. <…>

4 Through Osiris the Egyptian monarchy became an integral part of the Heliopolitan cycle, and with the defeat of Seth, the god of disorder, by Horus the son of Osiris, the Horus kingship was sacralized by mythological tradition. In the murder of Osiris by Seth and the defeat of Seth by Horus one can see reflections of early struggles for the throne, while figures such as Isis, Nephthys, and Hathor have frequently been interpreted as aspects of royal power.5 He was other syncretized with other gods, producing such deities as Re-Horakhty, Re-Atum, Atum-re, and Khnum-Re. Even during the reign of Akhenaten, the so-called Amarna Period, Re did not disappear in favor of the Aten; the designation of the sun god as Re-Horakhty was used during the first half of Akhenaten’s reign, and even after the name “Re” enduring in the Amarna system. When universalism arose in Egyptian thought during the New Kingdom, it was with the sun god that this universalism was associated. <...>6 The emergence of this cycle was given expression in the myth of his departure from the earth where he had originally lived, specifically at Heliopolis. During his stay of earth, a period that was a type of golden age when humans and gods lived together, Re had been required to put down several rebellions against his authority. Eventually, weary of such problems, he decided to move to the heavens, where each day he crossed the sky in his solar bark; he journeyed through the underworld each night and was reborn on the eastern horizon each morning. His journey was not without danger, for the solar bark was constantly threatened by the monstrous Apep serpent which attempted to disrupt Re’s journey. In one tradition, the god Seth had the duty of standing in the prow of the bark and defending Re from his chief enemy. Despite temporary victories by the Apep serpent, apparent in such phenomena as storm and eclipses, the solar bark was always victorious, and cosmic order was constantly maintained. In the rising of the sun, the Egyptian had the assurance that the created order and the life and sustenance of humanity were eternal and ongoing; the rising of the sun was a sacramental symbol that gave assurance of the stability of the created universe and the royal political system that governed it. (emphasis added)

Cf. W. K. C. Guthrie, History of Early Greek Philosophy Vol. 1 (Cambridge, 1962). Sum-mary of an Egyptian creation myth (c. 2500 B.C.), p. 59:

The earth itself had arisen out of Nûn the primordial waters, which are still everywhere beneath it—as Thales said—and also surrounding it like the Homeric Oceanus. At first the waters covered everything, but gradually sank until a small hillock appeared... on this hillock the creator god made his first appearance.

Cf. H. Frankfort, Kingship of the Gods (Chicago, 1948, 1978), pp. 154-155:

Outside Heliopolis the Primeval Hill was differently conceived. At Hermopolis it was an island in a lake—which symbolized the primeval waters—and was called the “Isle of

99

Flames” with a clear allusion to the glow of that momentous sunrise of the First Day. In the pyramid texts a curious writing of the “island of appearance (or ‘of sunrise’ [hieroglyph of sunrise]) of the earth” obviously reflects the same line of thought.28

The waters surrounding the Primeval Hill were, naturally, the waters of chaos; these, personified in the god Nun, were still supposed to surround the earth, an inexhaustible reserve of latent life and fertility. And the subsoil water, as well as the Nile, was thought to flow on from Nun. Since the Primeval Hill was the place of sunrise and creation, and hence the place of rebirth and resurrection, the waters of Nun which surrounded it became those waters of death which, in the imagination of many peoples, separate the world of the living from the world of the dead.29 Revealing is a pyramid text in which King Pepi calls on the ferryman to ferry him “to the Eastern side of Heaven, where the gods are born, when comes that hour of labor (Dawn)” (Pyr. 1382). It is clear that this water which the dead must cross is also the water in which they are purified and in which Re bathes before each sunrise, repeating his pristine emergence from the waters of chaos.30

The imagery from the solar sphere deeply affected Egyptian thought and culture, and the Egyptians always dwelt with particular pleasure upon the emergence of the sun from the waters. There was something familiar in that thought which brought the mystery and the marvel of creation closer without annihilating it. Every year, after a hot summer, when the Nile had risen and covered the parched lands and renewed their fertility by the silt which it brought, some high piece of ground would emerge from the slowly receding inundation and herald the beginning of a new season of fruitfulness. With delight, they pile image upon image for this phase of the act of creation. Sometimes the sun-god was said to have appeared as a small child, seated within a lotus flower which had been mysteriously lifted above the water. Sometimes a large egg had appeared from which the sun-child emerged; or the goose of Amon-Re had flown from it, its honking the first sound in the waste of water.31

The best preserved of these stories relates to Hermopolis in Middle Egypt. Here chaos had been conceptualized in eight weird creatures fit [154-155] to inhabit the primeval slime. Four were snakes and four frogs or toads. They were male and female, and they brought forth the sun. They were not part of the created universe, but of chaos itself, as their names show. Nun was the formless primeval ocean, and his female counterpart, Naunet, was the sky over it. Or perhaps it would be better to say that Nun was chaotic primeval matter, Naunet primeval space. Naunet became, in the created universe, the anti-sky which bent over the Nether-world, a counterpart and mirrored likeness of Nut, just as Nun became Okeanos, surrounding the earth and supporting it. The next pair of the Ogdoad were Kuk and Kauket, the Illimitable and the Boundless. Then came Huh and Hauet, Darkness and Obscurity, and finally, Amon and Amaunet, the Hidden and Concealed ones. If we allow that some of these gods, such as Nun and Naunet, represent primordial elements, the uncreated material out of which the cosmos came forth, then Amon and Amaunet represent air and wind, elements sufficiently chaotic, since ‘the wind bloweth where it listeth and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell where it cometh, whither it goeth” (John 3:8). Amon could therefore be conceived in later times as the dynamic element of the chaos, the mainspring of creation, the breath of life in dead matter. But this is not the original conception,32

which simply, by means of the Ogdoad, made the chaos more specific, more apt to be understood. On the isle of flames the Eight mysteriously made the sun-god come forth from the waters, and therewith their function was fulfilled.

28 Seth, Kommentar, III, 18-19. Curious evidence that the Primeval Hill in any form was ipso facto charged with vital power comes in the so-called “Cannibal Text” in the pyramids, where the dead king increases his potency by incorporating into himself other gods....29 [footnote omitted]30 [footnote omitted]31 Erman, Religion, p. 6232 [footnote omitted] (emphasis added)

100

Cf. H. & H. A. Frankfort, “Myth and Reality”, in Henri Frankfort, H. A. Frankfort, John A. Wilson, Thorkild Jacobsen, The Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man (Chicago & Lon-don, 1946. First Phoenix Edition 1977, pp. 21-23).

The Logic Of Mythopoeic Thought (excerpt)

In Egypt the creator was said to have emerged from the waters of chaos and to have made a mound of dry land upon which he could stand. This primeval hill, from which the creation took its beginning, was traditionally located in the sun temple at Heliopolis, the sun-god being in Egypt most commonly viewed as the creator. However, the Holy of Holies of each temple was equally sacred; each deity was – by the very fact that he was recognized as divine – a source of creative power. Hence each Holy of Holies throughout the land could be identified with the primeval hill. Thus it is said of the temple of Philae, which was founded in the fourth century B.C.: “This (temple) came into being when nothing at all had yet come into being and the Earth was still lying in darkness and obscurity.” The same claim was made for other temples. The names of the great shrines at Memphis, Thebes, and Hermonthis explicitly stated that they were the “divine emerging primeval island” or used similar expressions. Each sanctuary possessed the essential quality of original holiness; for, when a new temple was founded, it was assumed that the potential sacredness of the site became manifest. The equation with the primeval hill [21-22] received architectural expression also. One mounted a few steps or followed a ramp at every entrance from court or hall to the Holy of Holies, which was thus situated at a level noticeably higher than the entrance. But this coalescence of temples with the primeval hill does not give us the full measure of the significance which the sacred locality had assumed for the ancient Egyptians. The royal tombs were also made to coincide with it. The dead, and, above all, the king, were reborn in the hereafter. No place was more propitious, no site promised greater chances for a victorious passage through the crisis of death, than the primeval hill, the center of creative forces where the ordered life of the universe had begun. Hence the royal tomb was given the shape of a pyramid which is the Heliopolitan stylization of the primeval hill. To us this view is entirely unacceptable. In our continuous, homogeneous space the place of each locality is unambiguously fixed. We would insist that there must have been one single place where the first mound of dry land actually emerged from the chaotic waters. But the Egyptian would have considered such objections mere quibbles. Since the temples and the royal tombs were as sacred as the primeval hill and showed architectural forms which resembled the hill, they shared essentials. And it would be fatuous to argue whether one of these monuments could be called the primeval hill with more justification than the others. Similarly, the waters of chaos from which all life emerged were considered to be present in several places, sometimes playing their part in the economy of the country, sometimes necessary to round out the Egyptian image of the universe. The waters of chaos were sup-posed to subsist in the form of the ocean surrounding the Earth, which had emerged from them and now floated upon them. Hence these waters were also present in the subsoil water. In the cenotaph of Seti I at Abydos the coffin was placed upon an island with a double stair imitating the hieroglyph for the primeval hill; this island was surrounded by a channel filled always with subsoil water. Thus the dead king was buried and thought to rise again in the locality of creation. But the waters of chaos, the Nun, were also the waters of the nether world, which the sun and the dead have to cross. On the other hand, the primeval waters had once [22-23] contained all the potentialities of life; and they were, therefore, also the waters of the annual inundation of the Nile which renews and revives the fertility of the fields. (emphasis added)

101

Cf. H. Frankfort, Ancient Egyptian Religion (New York, 1948), p. 114:

If the thought prevails that the dead man joins the sun, the watery obstacle becomes the Lake of Dawn from which the sun rises. But the water from which the sun rises up is also Nun, the primeval ocean, from which he rose on the day of creation and which since then has surrounded and supported the earth created in its midst. This was a logical thought, since the primeval ocean possessed an immense potential of life, and the water upon which the life of Egypt depended was tapped, as subsoil water, in wells; or it rose from beneath the earth in the eddies and whirlpools of the First Cataract, where the Nile and the inundation were thought to originate. The water to be crossed can therefore be conceived as the primeval ocean, and the aim is the Isle of Flame where the sun rose at the creation of the world. (emphasis added)

Cf. H. Frankfort, Ancient Egyptian Religion (Dover: New York, 1948), pp. 131-132:

The best proof that this anti-epical attitude towards mythological subjects was typical of Egyptian literature is the absence of a coherent account of creation. This is truly astonishing, for creation was, as we have seen, the only non-recurrent event which the Egyptians acknowledged as significant (pages 20 and following; 50 and following). It had, in fact, made the difference between the nothingness of chaos and the fullness of existence in a divinely ordered cosmos. But the Egyptians were so little prepared to dwell on any change, that they did not even describe in orderly and continuous fashion the supreme change which took place at what they called “the first time.” We are obliged to reconstruct the creation story from allusions which are frequent, and from certain learned commentaries, of which we quoted one before (page 52). And [131-132] yet the contemporaries of the Egyptians left us not only the story of Genesis, but also the Babylonian “Epic of Creation,” a poem which describes, in addition to the creation of the existing universe, the violent conflict between the powers of chaos and the creator whose victory alone made creation possible. In the Mesopotamian epic we assist at the councils of war of both parties; we are told of all their preparations and of the successive moods in which they watch the conflict develop. The issue seems in the balance until the very moment when the battle is joined. In Egypt a similar situation is known, but it is treated very differently. The sun is celebrated as a victor, but not over chaos, which is seen as passive, awaiting the creator’s initiative. The sun’s enemy in Egypt is darkness, symbolized by the snake Apophis. Every night, and at every dawn the antagonist is subdued. In the New Kingdom dull pictures without movement render the sun’s victorious progress in his boat; the snake is slaughter before the god.... And in literature the theme is treated just as inadequately. The victory is mentioned but never described as an experience; it is entirely taken for granted. (emphasis added)

For Near-Eastern parallels beginning with the Phoenician, cf. A. J. Maas, “Hexaemeron”, The Catholic Encyclopedia (New York, 1908):

II. The Source of the Hexaemeron. (1) Babylonian Source

(b) The appeal of the critics to Phœnician, Egyptian, and Persian influences is of a rather elusive character. It is hard to see which particular points of these various cosmogonies can be said to have influenced the Hebrew writer. The Phœnicians begin with air moved by a breath of wind, and dark chaos; another account places first time, then desire, then darkness. The union of desire and darkness begets air (representing pure thought) and breath (the prototype of life); from these springs the cosmic egg. Sun, moon, and stars spring from the cosmic egg, and under the influence of light and heat the cosmic development continues, till the present universe is completed. The Egyptian cosmogony does not appear to contain

102

any elements more fit to serve as the source of the Hexaemeron than are the Phœnician successive evolutions. In the beginning we find the primeval waters called Nun, con-taining the male and female germs, and informed by the divine proto-soul. The latter felt a desire (personified as the god Thot) for creative activity, the image of the future universe having formed itself in the eyes of Thot. Thot causes a movement in the waters, and the latter differ-entiate themselves into four pairs of deities, male and female. These cosmogonic gods transform the invisible divine will of Thot into a visible universe. First an egg is formed, out of which arises the god of light, Ra; he is the immediate cause of life in this world. In the subsequent formation of the universe the great Ennead of gods concurs.

Variations of this cosmogony are found in the more popular accounts of creation, but they are not such as might be regarded as the source of the Hebrew cosmogony. The Persian cosmogony is really the second phase of the Iranian concept of creation. The great characteristic of Iranian thought is its dualism, which gradually tends towards monism. The early Persian phase dates from the time of the Sassanids, but in its present form is not earlier than the seventh century of the Christian Era. At any rate it seems quite impossible that the well-ordered and clear account of the Hexaemeron should be the outcome of the complicated and obscure presentation of the Avesta and the Pahlavi literature. Generally speaking, the Biblical Hexaemeron cannot be surpassed in grandeur, dignity, and simplicity. To derive it from any of the profane cosmogonies implies a derivation of order from disorder, of beauty from hideousness, of the sublime from the bizarre. (emphasis added)

For the Hebrew parallel, cf. “Cosmogony”, JewishEncyclopedia.com. By: Kaufmann Kohler, Emil G. Hirsch:

Earlier Versions

…The ancient Hebrews had a very imperfect conception of the structure of the universe. Gen. i. was not written to be a scientific treatise. It was to impress and to express the twin-doctrine of God’s creative omnipotence and of man’s dignity as being destined on earth to be a creator himself.

With the Babylonians, the Hebrews believed that in the beginning, before earth and heaven had been separated (“created,” ), there were primeval ocean (“tehom,” always without the article) and darkness ( ).

From this the “word of God” (compare such passages as, God “roars” [ ], Ps. xviii. 16; civ. 7) called forth light. He divided the waters: the upper waters he shut up in heaven, and on the lower He established the earth.

In older descriptions the combat against the tehom is related with more details. Tehom (also Rahab) has helpers, the and the Leviathan, Behemot, the “Naḥash Bariaḥ.”

The following is the order of Creation as given in Gen. 1.: (1) the heaven; (2) the earth; (3) the plants; (4) the celestial bodies; (5) the animals; (6) man.

The Hebrews regarded the earth as a plain or a hill figured like a hemisphere, swimming on water. Over this is arched the solid vault of heaven. To this vault are fastened the lights, the stars. So slight is this elevation that birds may rise to it and fly along its expanse.

Bibliography: Gunkel, Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit; Idem, Genesis; Holzinger, Genesis, pp. 17 et seq.; Jensen, Kosmologie der Babylonier. K.E. G. H.

103

For the differences between the Hebrew and Egyptian accounts, cf. “Ancient Egyptian Creation Mythology”: A Brief Survey of Scholarship: Genesis 1-2 as Polemic Against Egyptian Creation Mythologies Dr. Gordon Johnston (excerpt):33

Gerhard Hasel: Differences between Genesis and Egyptian Creation34

[1] In Heliopolitan cosmogony, the created world threatens to return to a chaotic state. However, the Hebrew Scriptures affirm that the world is firmly established and cannot be moved, even if the chaotic primeval waters threaten to destroy it.

[2] Creation occurs in a cyclical (daily, seasonal) fashion in Egypt, while in Genesis it occurs in linear succession as a one-time occurrence. Hasel notes, “Egyptian cosmology does not know a once-for-all creation which took place as expressed in Genesis 1. It does know of a creation “in the first time” (sp tpy), which, however, is ever repeated in cyclical fashion, in such a way that man himself experiences it.”

[3] In the Hermapolitan creation myths, the creator god arises out of the primeval waters as a self-created being who had a beginning. In the most striking contrast, Yahweh is presented as eternally pre-existent and independent from the primeval waters.

[4] The primeval waters in the Heliopolitan creation myths are the god Nun. But in Gen 1:2, the primeval waters (μ/hT] “the deep”) are not a pre-existent and personified god from which the creator god arose, but an inanimate object under the sovereign control of Yahweh.

34 Gerhard Hasel, “The Significance of the Cosmology of Genesis 1 in Relation to Ancient Near Eastern Parallels,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 10 (1972): 1-20; “The Polemic Nature of the Genesis Cosmology,” Evangelical Quarterly 46 (1974): 81-102.

For the agreement across traditions, cf. ibid, John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible (1748), on Genesis 1:2:

Ver. 2. And the earth was without form, and void,....

It was not in the form it now is, otherwise it must have a form, as all matter has; it was a fluid matter, the watery parts were not separated from the earthy ones; it was not put into the form of a terraqueous globe it is now, the sea apart, and the earth by itself, but were mixed and blended together, it was, as both the Targums of Jonathan and Jerusalem paraphrase it, a waste and desert, empty and destitute of both men and beasts; and it may be added, of fishes and fowls, and also of trees, herbs, and plants. It was, as Ovid {k} calls it, a chaos and an indigested mass of matter; and Hesiod {l} makes a chaos first to exist, and then the wide extended earth, and so Orpheus {m}, and others; and this is agreeably to the notion of various nations. The Chinese make a chaos to be the beginning of all things, out of which the immaterial being (God) made all things that consist of matter, which they distinguish into parts they call Yin and Yang, the one signifying hidden or imperfect, the other open or perfect {n}: and so the Egyptians, according to Diodorus Siculus {o}, whose opinion he is supposed to give, thought the system of the universe had but one form; the heaven and earth, and the nature of them, being mixed and blended together, until by degrees they separated and obtained the form they now have: and the Phoenicians, as Sanchoniatho {p} relates, supposed the principle of the universe to be a dark and windy air, or the blast of a dark air, and a turbid chaos surrounded with darkness, as follows;

33 (http://eedin.com/ShowArticle.aspx?ID=83&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1 [11/9/08])

104

and darkness was upon the face of the deep: the whole fluid mass of earth and water mixed together.34 This abyss is explained by waters in the next clause, which seem to be uppermost; and this was all a dark turbid chaos, as before expressed, without any light or motion, till an agitation was made by the Spirit, as is next observed….

{k} “Quem dixere chaos, rudis indigestaque moles”, Ovid Metamorph. l. 1. Fab. 1. {l} htoi men protista caov &c. Hesiodi Theogonia. {m} Orphei Argonautica, ver. 12. {n} Martin. Sinic. Hist. l. 1. p. 5. {o} Bibliothec. l. 1. p. 7. {p} Apud Euseb. Praepar. Evangel. l. 2. c. 10. p. 33. (emphasis added)

Cf. ibid, on Genesis 1:2:

and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters, which covered the earth, Ps 104:6 the earthy particles being heaviest sunk lower, and the waters being lighter rose up above the others: hence Thales {q} the philosopher makes water to be the beginning of all things, as do the Indian Brahmans {r}: and Aristotle {s} himself owns that this was the most ancient opinion concerning the origin of the universe, and observes, that it was not only the opinion of Thales, but of those that were the most remote from the then present generation in which he lived, and of those that first wrote on divine things; and it is frequent in Hesiod and Homer to make Oceanus, or the ocean, with Tethys, to be the parents of generation: and so the Scriptures represent the original earth as standing out of the water, and consisting of it, 2Pe 3:5

{q} Laert. in Vita Thaletis, p. 18. Cicero de Natura Deorum, l. 1. {r} Strabo. Geograph. l. 15. p. 491. {s} Metaphysic. l. 1. c. 3. (emphasis added)

§

34 Cp. Eusebius, Praep. Evang. III. xiv: “In fact Anaxagoras alone is mentioned as the first of the Greeks who declared in his discourses about first principles that mind is the cause of all things.… ‘For in the beginning,’ he said, ‘all things were mingled together in confusion: but mind came in, and brought them out of confusion into order.’” Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theol., IIIa q. 74, art. 2, obj. 2, ad 1: “Now the separation of the parts of the world from one another at the world’s beginning was effected by God’s power alone, for the work of distinction was carried out by that power: wherefore Anaxagoras asserted that the separation was effected by the act of the intellect which moves all things (cf. Aristotle, Phys. viii, 9).” That is, simple privation came first, then Mind came in. That is, watery Chaos was there to be worked on by Ethereal Mind.

105

Supplement: Water and Breath as the principles of life:

Cf. Gerald Massey, A Book of the Beginnings (London, 1881; online edition, 2007). Sec. 1. Egypt, pp. 1-4; 6; 33-34:

Travellers who have climbed and stood upon the summit of the Great Pyramid of Giza tell us how all that is most characteristic of Egypt is then and there in sight. To the south is the long necropolis of the desert, whose chief monuments are the pyramids of Abusir, Dashur, and Saqqara. That way lies the granite mountain flood-gate of the waters, which come winding along from the home of the hippopotami to leap down into the Nile-valley at last with a roar and a rush for the Mediterranean Sea. To the north there is desert also, pointed out by the ruined pyramid of Aburuash. To the west are the Libyan Hills and a limitless stretch of yellow sand. Again, there is a grey desert beyond the white line of Cairo, under the Mukattam Hills.

And through these sandy stony desert borders, Egypt runs alongside of its river in a double line of living green, the northward flowing waters and their meadowy margin broadening beneficently into the Delta. Underfoot is the Great Pyramid, still an inscrutable image of might and of mystery, strewn round with reliquary rubbish that every whirl of wind turns over as leaves in a book, revealing strange readings of the past; every chip and shard of the fragments not yet ground down to dusty nothing may possibly have their secret to tell[1].

The Great Pyramid is built at the northern end of the valley where it relatively overtops the first cataract, nearly 600 miles away to the south, and, as the eye of the whole picture, loftily [p.2] looks down on every part of the whole cultivated land of Egypt. It is built where the land comes to an apex like the shape of the pyramid itself lying flat and pointing south, and the alluvial soil of the Delta spreads out fanwise to the north. It is near to the centre of the land-surface of the globe. A Hermean fragment shows the earth figured as a woman in a recumbent position with arms uplifted towards heaven, and feet raised in the direction of the Great Bear. The geographical divisions are represented by her body, and Egypt is typified as the heart of all[2]. They set the base of the Great Pyramid very near the heart of all, or about one mile 568 yards south of the thirtieth parallel of latitude[3]. There, in the stainless air, under the rainless azure, all is so clear that distance cannot be measured, and the remotest past stands up close to you, distinct in its monumental forms and features as it was thousands of years ago; the colour yet unfaded from its face, for every influence of nature (save man) has conspired to preserve the works of art, and make dead Egypt as it were the embalmed body of an early time eternized.

Once a year the deluge comes down from above, flowing from the lakes lying far away, large as inland seas, and transforms the dry land into a garden, making the sandy waste to blossom and bear the ‘double-breasted bounteousness’ of two harvests a year, with this new tide of life from the heart of Africa. Not only does the wilderness flush with colour, for the waters, which had been running of a dull green hue, are suddenly troubled and turned crimson. The red oxide of iron mixes with the liquid and gives it a gory gleam in the sunlight, making it run like a river of blood. There is an antithesis to the inundation in another phenomenon almost as unique. This is found in the steady continuance of the north wind that blows back the waters and spreads their wealth over a larger surface of soil, and enables the boatman to sail up the river right against the descending current. Everything Egyptian is typical, and when we see how the people figured the Two Truths of mythology as the two factors of being, and how they personified breath and water, we shall more or less perceive the initiatory import of this wonderful arrangement of wind and tide, and its combination of descending and ascending motive power.

106

The Nile water is highly charged with ammonia and organic matter, which are de-posited as manure. It is, for instance, three times as rich in fertilising matter, whether in suspension or in solution, as the Thames at Hampton Court.

The Great Mendes Stele says:—

‘The entire wealth of the soil rests on the inundation of the Nile that brings its products.’[4]

This bounty was spread out for all by [p.3] the breath of the beneficent wind. Num, Lord of the Inundation, is painted on the monument as the Green God, and the limit of the inundation was the measure of Egypt’s greenness. The waters that brought the silt clothed the soil with that colour just so far as they were blown.

From the beginning Lower Egypt, the Delta, was a land literally rained down by the inundation as a gift of the gods. For the clouds arise from their several seas and sail off heavily-laden toward equatorial Africa, and there pour forth their weight of water during a rain of months on mountain slopes that drain into the fresh lakes until these are brimmed to bursting, and their northern outlet of birth is the Nile. The White Nile at first, until the Abyssinian highlands pour into it their rushing rivers of collected rain with force enough to float a mass of silt that is part of a future soil, the presence of which in the waters makes the Blue Nile; then the river becomes the turbid Red Nile of the inundation, and as it spreads out fan-wise towards the Mediterranean Sea, it drops that rich top-dressing. of soil or the very fat of land and unctuous mud-manure, every year renewed and rained down by that phenomenal flood.

We shall find the whole of the deluge legends of the world, and all the symbolical deluge language used in astronomical reckoning, are bound up inseparably with this fact of the inundation of Egypt.

The universal mythical beginning with the waters, the genesis of creation and of man from the mud, are offspring of this birthplace and parentage. In no other part of earth under heaven can there be found the scenery of the inundation visibly creating the earth, as it is still extant in the land of marvel and mystery. Only in Egypt could such a phenomenon be observed as the periodic overflow of the river Nile, that not only fertilises the fields with its annual flood, but actually deposits the earth, and visibly realises that imagery of the mythical commencement of all creation, the beginning with the waters and the mud, preserved in so many of the myths.

<…> [p.6]

The waters of Old Nile are a mirror which yet reflects the earliest imagery, made vital by the mind of man, as the symbols of his thought. A plant growing out of the waters is an ideograph of sha (á), a sign and image of primordial cause, and becoming, the substance born of, the end of one period and commencement of another, the emblem of rootage in the water, and breathing in the air, the type of the Two Truths of all Egypt’s teaching, the two sources of existence ultimately called flesh and spirit, the blood source and breathing soul.

<…> [p.33]

‘Egypt, mother of men, and first born of mortals,’ the learned Apollonius Rhodius in the Argonautics, calls that country[101]. In the [p.34] time of Xerxes, Hippys of Rhegium designated the Egyptians the most ancient of all nations[102]. ‘For my part,’ says Herodotus,

107

‘I am not of opinion that the Egyptians commenced their existence with the country called the Delta, but that they always were since men have been; and that as the soil gradually increased many of them remained in their former abodes and many came lower down. For anciently Thebes was called Egypt.’[103] He also tells us that the Egyptians, before the reign of Psammetichus, considered themselves to be the most ancient of mankind[104].

We see, by the Greek report, the Egyptians knew that Egypt was once all sea or water. Herodotus says the whole of Egypt (except the province of Thebes) was an extended marsh. No part of that which is now situate beyond the Lake Moeris was to be seen, the distance between which lake and the sea is a journey of seven days[105].

Plutarch[106] also says Egypt was at one time sea. Diodorus Siculus affirms that in primitive times, that which was Egypt when he wrote, was said to have been not a country, but one universal sea[107].

A persistent Greek tradition asserts that the primitive abode of the Egyptians was in Ethiopia, and mention is made of an ancient city of Meroe, from which issued a priesthood who were the founders of the Egyptian civilisation. Meroe, or in Egyptian Muru, means the maternal outlet, therefore the birthplace, which was typified by the Mount Muru. The modernised form of Muru or Meroe, is Balua.

NOTES TO SECTION 1

[1] [Birch, Ancient History from the Monuments; Zincke, Egypt of the Pharaohs; Warner, Mummies and Moslems; Reade, Martyrdom of Man; Smyth, Life and Work at the Great Pyramid. See Bibliography for full details of these titles. I give an example of the Victorian attitude towards Egypt and its people from one of these works…. [ remainder omitted][2] [Stobaeus, eclogarum physicarum et ethicarum libri duo, p. 992, Ed. Heeren. ‘And Horus said “Why is it then, mother, “that the men who dwell beyond the borders of our most holy land (Egypt) are not so intelligent as our people are?” “The earth,” said Isis, “lies in the middle of the universe, stretched on her back, as a human being might lie, facing toward heaven. She is parted out into as many different members, as a man; and her head lies toward the South of the Universe, her right shoulder toward the East, and her left shoulder toward the West; her feet lie beneath the Great Bear, and her thighs are situated in the regions, which follows next to the South of the Bear.”‘ W. Scott’s tr., in Hermetica, 1924, p. 192.    Many authorities are of the opinion that this extract from Stobaeus is fraudulent and has nothing to do with the author of the Poemandres. Chambers, in The Theological and Philosophical of Hermes Trismegistus, Christian Platonist, 1882, p. ix, says: ‘The majority of the Fathers, in their uncritical mode, even Lactantius himself, confounded the original Hermes with our author, in the same way that they ascribed to the Sybilline verses a far too high antiquity; and the later Fathers, moreover, especially Lactantius, made no distinction between the genuine works of our Hermes and others which falsely bear his name; some of them, as, for instance, “Asclepius,” having been written at least a century later; and those, as, for instance, “The Sacred Book” and the Dialogue between Isis and Horus (Stobaeus, Physica, 928, 1070, edit. Meineke, i. 281, 342), to which it is impossible to assign a date, are all indiscriminately ascribed to the same Hermes, although it is absolutely certain that the author of Poemandres never can have written them.’    Ibid., p. 130. ‘Stobaeus, Physica, 928, makes a long Extract purporting to be from “Hermes Trismegistus,” from the Sacred Book that called “Virgin of World” (Patrit., p. 276; Meineke, i. 281), but it is alien from the genuine writings of our Hermes, being a dialogue between Isis and Horus, and [Greek]; Greek and Egyptian Deities to whom no allusion is made in the other writings of our author, which are also manifestly inconsistent with any belief in the existence of such beings.’ See also AE 1:303.]

108

[3] [Piazzi Smyth, Life and Work at the Great Pyramid. Unable to trace in this work.][4] [Brugsch, ‘The Great Mendes Stele,’ RP, 8, 91. See p. 99, line 17.] (emphasis added)

<…>

[103] [Histories, bk. 2:15. ‘But the Delta, as the Egyptians affirm, and as I myself am persuaded, is formed of the deposits of the river, and has only recently, if I may use the expression, come to light. If, then, they had formerly no territory at all, how came they to be so extravagant as to fancy themselves the most ancient race in the world? Surely there was no need of their making the experiment with the children to see what language they would first speak. But in truth I do not believe that the Egyptians came into being at the same time with the Delta, as the Ionians call it; I think they have always existed ever since the human race began; as the land went on increasing, part of the population came down into the new country, part remained in their old settlements. In ancient times the Thebais bore the name of Egypt, a district of which the entire circumference is but 6120 furlongs.’ Tr. Rawlinson.‘If, I say, we should follow this account, we should thereby declare that in former times the Egyptians had no land to live in; for, as we have seen, their Delta at any rate is alluvial, and has appeared (so to speak) lately, as the Egyptians themselves say and as my opinion is. If then at the first there was no land for them to live in, why did they waste their labour to prove that they had come into being before all other men? They needed not to have made trial of the children to see what language they would first utter. However I am not of opinion that the Egyptians came into being at the same time as that which is called by the Ionians the Delta, but that they existed always ever since the human race came into being, and that as their land advanced forwards, many of them were left in their first abodes and many came down gradually to the lower parts. At least it is certain that in old times Thebes had the name of Egypt, and of this the circumference measures six thousand one hundred and twenty furlongs.’ Tr. Macauley.][104] [Ibid., bk. 2:2. ‘Now the Egyptians, before the reign of their king Psammetichus, believed themselves to be the most ancient of mankind. Since Psammetichus, however, made an attempt to discover who were actually the primitive race, they have been of opinion that while they surpass all other nations, the Phrygians surpass them in antiquity.’ Tr. Rawlinson.‘Now the Egyptians, before the time when Psammetichos became king over them, were wont to suppose that they had come into being first of all men; but since the time when Psammetichos having become king desired to know what men had come into being first, they suppose that the Phrygians came into being before themselves, but they themselves before all other men.’ Tr. Macauley.][105] [Ibid., bk. 2:4. ‘And they told me that the first man who ruled over Egypt was Mên, and that in his time all Egypt, except the Thebaic canton, was a marsh, none of the land below lake Mæris then showing itself above the surface of the water. This is a distance of seven days’ sail from the sea up the river.’ Tr. Rawlinson.‘They said also that the first man who became king of Egypt was Min; and that in his time all Egypt except the district of Thebes was a swamp, and none of the regions were then above water which now lie below the lake of Moiris, to which lake it is a voyage of seven days up the river from the sea.’ Tr. Macauley.][106] [Of Isis and Osiris, ch. 40.][107] [Library of History, bk. 3. ‘The Ethiopians likewise say, that the Egyptians are a colony drawn out from them by Osiris; and that Egypt was formerly no part of the continent, but a sea, at the beginning of the world; but that afterwards, it was by degrees made land by the river Nile, which brought down slime and mud out of Ethiopia. And that that country was made dry land, by heaps of earth forced down by the river, they say, is apparent by evident signs, about the mouths of the Nile. For always every year, may be seen fresh heaps of mud cast up at the mouths of the river by the working of the sea, and the land increased by it.’ Booth’s tr., vol. 1, p. 152.]

109

Cf. Gerald Massey, The Natural Genesis. Or Second Part of a Book of the Beginnings, Containing an Attempt to Recover and Reconstitute the Lost Origins of the Myths and Mysteries, Types and Symbols, Religion and Language, With Egypt For the Mouthpiece and Africa as the Birthplace. (London, 1903; online edition 2007), Section 3, pp. 147-148:

SECTION 3

NATURAL GENESIS AND TYPOLOGY OF THE TWO TRUTHS

‘I have penetrated the region of the Two Truths.’—Egyptian Ritual, chapter 1.‘I follow the Two Truths.’—Egyptian Ritual, chapter 72.

…When Thales, the Milesian, said water was the mother of life, he did but formulate the first perception of the primitive man in a thirsty land[31]. Water and breath were the two elements of life earliest identified; and water, having to be sought for and supplied as drink, whereas the air came of itself, would make the earliest appeal and first [p. 148 ] demand for recognition. Hence, in mythology, water is the primal element. All begins with or issues from the water, the first of our Two Truths. The ‘revelation’ concerning creation in the forty-first chapter of the Koran, says the Lord set His mind to the creation of Heaven, and it was darkness or smoke. Al-Zamakhshari affirms that this smoke or vapour of darkness ascended from the waters under the throne of God and rose above the waters and formed the heavens[32]. In the Hindu creation it is said that, ‘From the foam of the water was produced the wind;’[33] that is the breath or anima, the Egyptian pef (or beb), the exhalation.

According to the Vishnu Purana[34], the creation proceeds from the quality of darkness called sesha. Sesha shows that breathing out of the waters which is represented under the waters by Vishnu and Ananta. And in Egyptian, sos is to breathe; susu, in the inner African languages is smoke, and to breathe. The god Shu, who represents the element of breath and air, is the born child of Nun, the firmamental water. The doctrine had a natural genesis, and was derived from observation. Breath, or vapour, is a secondary condition of water in the form of mist. Heat is a means of converting water into breath or vapour. The breath of heaven is born of the firmament, which was called the celestial water; water in its second, upper, aerial or ethereal condition. <…>

The water precedes and is the creative cause of the Breath of Life, and such is the re-lationship and sequence of the Two Truths. Water is the first form of matter in all the old-est mythologies or so-called cosmogonies. It is the mother of substance, and mother and matter are one. Water is called by Plato ‘the liquid of the whole vivification;’[38] and again he alludes to it mystically as a ‘certain fountain.’ That fountain was the mother-source, in the mystical rendering of the water of life.

NOTES TO SECTION 3

[31] [Cicero, Nature of the Gods, bk. 10. ‘Thales the Milesian who first inquired after such subjects, asserted water to be the origin of things; and that God was that mind which formed all things from water.’][32] [The Koran, ch. 41. ‘Then he set his mind to the creation of heaven, and it was smoke; and he said unto it, and to the earth, Come, either obediently, or against your will. They answered, We come, obedient to thy command.’ Note p, p. 356: ‘Or darkness. Al Zamak-hshari says this smoke proceeded from the waters under the throne of GOD (which throne was one of the things created before the heavens and the earth), and rose above the water; that the water being dried up, the earth was formed out of it, and the heavens out of the smoke which had mounted aloft.’ Sale’s tr.]

110

[33] [Mahabharata S’antip. 6812 ff, quoted in Muir, Sanskrit Texts, vol. 5, p. 357. ‘In the M. Bh. S’antip. 6812 ff., it is said that from the aether “was produced water, like another darkness in darkness; and from the foam of the water was produced the wind” (tatah salilam utpannam tamaslvaparam tamah \ tasmach cha salilotpldad ttdatishthata marutah).][34] [Vishnu Purana, bk. 2:3. ‘Below the seven Patalas is the form of Vishnu, proceeding; from the quality of darkness, which is called Sesha, the excellencies of which neither Daityas nor Danavas can (fully) enumerate.’ Tr., Wilson.]

<…>

[38] [Proclus, Commentaries on the Timaeus, vol. 2, p. 383. ‘But if you understand the pouring out in such a way, as if spoken of liquid substances, perhaps you will see that this also is adapted to the soul. For moisture is the symbol of life. Hence both Plato, and prior to Plato the Gods, call the soul at one time a drop of the total vivification, but at another a certain fountain.’]

On the importance of water and spirit, cf. John 3:5:

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

Cf. John 3:1-10:

Christ's discourse with Nicodemus. John's testimony.

1 And there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This man came to Jesus by night, and said to him: Rabbi, we know that thou art come a teacher from God; for no man can do these signs which thou dost, unless God be with him. 3 Jesus answered, and said to him: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4 Nicodemus saith to him: How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter a second time into his mother's womb, and be born again? 5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

5 “Unless a man be born again”... By these words our Saviour hath declared the necessity of baptism; and by the word water it is evident that the application of it is necessary with the words. Matt. 28. 19.

6 That which is born of the flesh, is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit, is spirit. 7 Wonder not, that I said to thee, you must be born again. 8 The Spirit breatheth where he will; and thou hearest his voice, but thou knowest not whence he cometh, and whither he goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. 9 Nicodemus answered, and said to him: How can these things be done? 10 Jesus answered, and said to him: Art thou a master in Israel, and knowest not these things?

Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theol., Ia q. 74, art. 3, ad 7 (tr. English Dominican Fathers):

  Reply to Objection 4: Rabbi Moses (Perplex. ii) understands by the “Spirit of the Lord,” the air or the wind, as Plato also did, and says that it is so called according to the custom of Scripture, in which these things are throughout attributed to God.

111

But according to the holy writers, the Spirit of the Lord signifies the Holy Ghost, Who is said to “move over the water”–-that is to say, over what Augustine holds to mean formless matter, lest it should be supposed that God loved of necessity the works He was to produce, as though He stood in need of them. For love of that kind is subject to, not superior to, the object of love. Moreover, it is fittingly implied that the Spirit moved over that which was incomplete and unfinished, since that movement is not one of place, but of pre-eminent power, as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. i, 7). It is the opinion, however, of Basil (Hom. ii in Hexaem.) that the Spirit moved over the element of water, “fostering and quickening its nature and impressing vital power, as the hen broods over her chickens.” For water has especially a life-giving power, since many animals are generated in water, and the seed of all animals is liquid. Also the life of the soul is given by the water of baptism, according to Jn. 3:5: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (emphasis added)

Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, The Catechism of St. Thomas Aquinas. The Apostle’s Creed. In The Catechetical Instructions of St. Thomas Aquinas. Translated with a Commentary by Rev. Joseph B. Collins, S.S., D.D., Ph.D. Introduction by Rev. Rudolph G. Bandas, Ph.D., S.T.D. et M. (Baltimore, 1939), , pp. 58; 60-61:

The Catechism of St. Thomas Aquinas

THE TENTH ARTICLE:

“The Communion of Saints, the Forgiveness of Sins.” <…>

The Seven Sacraments: A Review

“Baptism.”—The first is Baptism which is a certain spiritual regeneration. Just as there can be no physical life unless man is first born in the flesh, so spiritual life or grace cannot be had unless man is spiritually reborn. This rebirth is effected through Baptism: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”[4] It must be known that, just as a man can be born but once, so only once is he baptized. Hence, the holy Fathers put into the Nicene Creed: “I confess one baptism.” The power of Baptism consists in this, that it cleanses from all sins as regards both their guilt and their punishment. For this reason no penance is imposed on those who are baptized, no matter to what extent they had been sinners. Moreover, if they should die immediately after Baptism, they would without delay go to heaven. Another result is that, although only priests “ex officio” may baptize, yet any one may baptize in case of necessity, provided that the proper form of Baptism is used. This is: “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” This Sacrament receives its power from the passion of Christ. “All we who are baptized in Christ Jesus are baptized in His death.”[5] Accordingly there is a threefold immersion in water after the three days in which Christ was in the sepulchre.[6]

4. John iii. 5. [60-61]5. Rom., vi. 3.6. Immersion is the act of dipping or plunging the subject into the water used in the administration of Baptism. It was a method generally employed in the early Church, and was still in vogue at the time ot St. Thomas. The Greek Church still retains it; but though valid, for obvious reasons immersion is practically no longer employed in the Latin Church. It is practised by some sects to-day in America.

§

112

12. On the original principles of all things.

a. The primary elements of all things according to the theology of the ancients:

Cf. Cory’s Ancient Fragments of Phoenician, Carthaginian, Babylonian, Egyptian and Other Writers. By I.P. Cory (London, 1832), Introductory Dissertation:

By comparing all the varied legends of the west and east in conjunction, we may obtain the following outline of the theology of the ancients.

It recognizes, as the primary elements of all things, two independent principles, of the nature of male and female. And these, in mystic union as the soul and body, constitute the great Hermaphroditic deity, the One, the Universe itself, consisting still of the two separate elements of its composition, modified, though combined in one individual, of which all things were regarded but as parts.

<…>

It has been often remarked, that the Theogonies and Cosmogonies of the heathens were the same. In addition to those naturally constituting a part of the work, I have given the most remarkable of the Hermetic, Orphic, and Pythagorean accounts; which will be found, with the celebrated collection from Damascius, under a separate head. By comparing these with the Cosmogonies of Sanchoniatho, Berossus, and the rest, we may, without much difficulty, arrive at the following conclusion: that the Ether and Chaos, or, in the language of the Philosophers, Mind and Matter, were the two primeval, eternal, and independent principles of the universe; the one regarded as a vivifying and intellectual principle, the other as a watery Chaos, boundless, and without form: both which continued for a time without motion, and in darkness. By a mystic union of the two was formed the great Hermaphroditic deity, the One, the universal World; of which the Chaotic matter presently became the body, and the Etherial Intellectual principle the soul. As soon as the union had commenced, from the Ether sprung forth the triad, Phanes or Eros, a triple divinity, the most prominent character of which was Light. He was the same with the Soul of the World, and the Intelligible triad so largely insisted upon by the Platonists. The gross chaotic elements of Earth and Water were formed into the terraqueous globe, while the disposing Ether, in the character of Phanes, under some three of the conditions of Light, Air, Heat, Fire, Ether, Flame, or Spirit, composed a physical trinity concentred in the Sun, the soul and ruler of the world. Or, according to the more refined speculations, it consisted of a trinity of mental powers, in which the Understanding, Reason or Intellect, the Soul, Passions, Feelings or Affections, Power, Counsel or Will, are variously combined. Viewed, therefore, either under a physical or metaphysical aspect, it is still a triad subordinate to, and emanating from the more ancient Intellectual Ether, and into which each person of the triad is again resolvable.

<…>

From the widely dispersed traditions upon the subject, it is manifest that the circum-stances of the creation and the deluge were well known to all mankind previously to the dispersion. And the writings of Moses give to the chosen people, not so much a new revelation as a correct, authenticated and inspired account of circumstances, which had then become partially obscured by time and abused by superstition. The formless watery Chaos and the Etherial substance of the heavens, enfolding and passing over its surface as a mighty wind, are the first principles both of the sacred and profane cosmog-

113

onies; but they are reclaimed by Moses as the materials, created by the immediate agency of an Almighty power. The subsequent process of formation so completely corresponds in both systems, that if they were not borrowed the one from the other, (a position which cannot be maintained,) they must each have been ultimately derived from the common source of revelation. Similar considerations upon the traditions of a Trinity, so universal among the nations, and an examination of what that Trinity was composed, forces upon me the conviction, that the trinitarian doctrine, as it is now believed, was one of the origin-nal and fundamental tenets of the Patriarchal religion; that the analogy between the Microcosm, as pointed out, and the then current accounts of the creation, became the stumbling block, which set mankind to refine upon the truth; that hence they fell into the errors of attributing eternity to matter, of placing a Monad above the Trinity, with the Pantheistic opinion that the Deity was no other than the universe itself. (emphasis added)

Cf. John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible (1748), on Genesis 1:2:

Ver. 2. And the earth was without form, and void,.... It was not in the form it now is, otherwise it must have a form, as all matter has; it was a fluid matter, the watery parts were not separated from the earthy ones; it was not put into the form of a terraqueous globe it is now, the sea apart, and the earth by itself, but were mixed and blended together, it was, as both the Targums of Jonathan and Jerusalem paraphrase it, a waste and desert, empty and destitute of both men and beasts; and it may be added, of fishes and fowls, and also of trees, herbs, and plants. It was, as Ovid {k} calls it, a chaos and an indigested mass of matter; and Hesiod {l} makes a chaos first to exist, and then the wide extended earth, and so Orpheus {m}, and others; and this is agreeably to the notion of various nations. The Chinese make a chaos to be the beginning of all things, out of which the immaterial being (God) made all things that consist of matter, which they distinguish into parts they call Yin and Yang, the one signifying hidden or imperfect, the other open or perfect {n}: and so the Egyptians, according to Diodorus Siculus {o}, whose opinion he is supposed to give, thought the system of the universe had but one form; the heaven and earth, and the nature of them, being mixed and blended together, until by degrees they separated and obtained the form they now have: and the Phoenicians, as Sanchoniatho {p} relates, supposed the principle of the universe to be a dark and windy air, or the blast of a dark air, and a turbid chaos surrounded with darkness, as follows; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: the whole fluid mass of earth and water mixed together.35 This abyss is explained by waters in the next clause, which seem to be uppermost; and this was all a dark turbid chaos, as before expressed, without any light or motion, till an agitation was made by the Spirit, as is next observed….

{k} “Quem dixere chaos, rudis indigestaque moles”, Ovid Metamorph. l. 1. Fab. 1. {l} htoi men protista caov &c. Hesiodi Theogonia. {m} Orphei Argonautica, ver. 12. {n} Martin. Sinic. Hist. l. 1. p. 5. {o} Bibliothec. l. 1. p. 7. {p} Apud Euseb. Praepar. Evangel. l. 2. c. 10. p. 33. (emphasis added)

35 Cp. Eusebius, Praep. Evang. III. xiv: “In fact Anaxagoras alone is mentioned as the first of the Greeks who declared in his discourses about first principles that mind is the cause of all things.… ‘For in the beginning,’ he said, ‘all things were mingled together in confusion: but mind came in, and brought them out of confusion into order.’” Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theol., IIIa q. 74, art. 2, obj. 2, ad 1: “Now the separation of the parts of the world from one another at the world’s beginning was effected by God’s power alone, for the work of distinction was carried out by that power: wherefore Anaxagoras asserted that the separation was effected by the act of the intellect which moves all things (cf. Aristotle, Phys. viii, 9).” That is, simple privation came first, then Mind came in. That is, watery Chaos was there to be worked on by Ethereal Mind.

114

Cf. G. F. Hegel, Lectures on the History of Philosophy. Introduction. B. The Relation of Philosophy to Other Departments of Knowledge:

B. The religious element to be excluded from the content of the History of Philosophy.

I would remark of this, that when we consider the elements in these ideas which bear some further connection with Philosophy, the universal of that duality with which the Notion is necessarily set forth can alone be interesting and noteworthy to us; for in it the Notion is just the immediate opposite of itself, the unity of itself with itself in the ‘other:’ a simple existence in which absolute opposition appears as the opposition of existence, and the sublation of that opposition. Because properly the Light principle is the only existence of both, and the principle of Darkness is the null and void, - the principle of Light identifies itself with Mithra, which was before called the highest existence. The opposition has laid aside the appearance of contingency, but the spiritual principle is not separate from the physical, because the good and evil are both determined as Light and Darkness. We thus here see thought breaking forth from actuality, and yet not such a separation as only takes place in Religion, when the supersensuous is itself again represented in a manner sensuous, notionless and dispersed, for the whole of what is dispersed in sensuous form is gathered together in the one single opposition, and activity is thus simply represented. These determinations lie much nearer to Thought; they are not mere images or symbols, but yet these myths do not concern Philosophy. In them Thought does not take the first place, for the myth-form remains predominant. In all religions this oscillation between form and thought is found, and such a combination still lies outside Philosophy. This is also so in the Sanchuniathonic Cosmogony of the Phoenicians. These fragments, which are found in Eusebius (Præpar. Evang. I. 10), are taken from the translation of the Sanchuniathon from Phoenician into Greek made by a Grammarian named Philo from Biblus. Philo lived in the time of Vespasian and ascribes great antiquity to the Sanchuniathon. It is there said, ‘The principles of things are found in Chaos, in which the elements exist undeveloped and confused, and in a Spirit of Air. The latter permeated the chaos, and with it engendered a slimy matter or mud which contained within it the living forces and the germs of animals. By mingling this mud with the component matter of chaos and the resulting fermentation, the elements separated themselves. The fire ele-ments ascended into the heights and formed the stars. Through their influence in the air, clouds were formed and the earth was made fruitful. From the mingling of water and earth, through the mud converted into putrefying matter, animals took their origin as imperfect and senseless. These again begot other animals perfect and endowed with senses. It was the crash of thunder in a thunderstorm that caused the first animals still sleeping in their husks to waken up to life.’7

7. Sanchuniathonis Fragm. ed. Rich. Cumberland, Lond. 1720, 8; German by J. P. Kassel, Magdeburg, 1755, 8, pp. 1-4. (emphasis added)

Cf. The Sermons of John Wesley: God’s Approbation of His Work. By John Wesley. Sermon 56 (text from the 1872 edition - Thomas Jackson, editor) (1830) (excerpt):36

And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. Genesis 1:31

I. God first created the four elements, out of which the whole universe was composed; earth, water, air, and fire.

36 Edited by Kevin Farrow, student at Northwest Nazarene College (Nampa, ID), with corrections by George Lyons for the Wesley Center for Applied Theology.] The text for John Wesley’s sermons originally came from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library.

115

II. The world, at the beginning, was in a totally different state from that wherein we find it now.

1. When God created the heavens and the earth, and all that is therein, at the conclusion of each day’s work it is said, “And God saw that it was good.” Whatever was created was good in its kind; suited to the end for which it was designed; adapted to promote the good of the whole and the glory of the great Creator. This sentence it pleased God to pass with regard to each particular creature. But there is a remarkable variation of the expression, with regard to all the parts of the universe, taken in connection with each other, and constituting one system: “And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.”

2. How small a part of this great work of God is man able to understand! But it is our duty to contemplate what he has wrought, and to understand as much of it as we are able. For “the merciful Lord,” as the Psalmist observes, “hath so done his marvellous works” of creation, as well as of providence, “that they ought to be had in remembrance” by all that fear him; which they cannot well be, unless they are understood. Let us, then, by the assistance of that Spirit who giveth unto man understanding, endeavour to take a general survey of the works which God made in this lower world, as they were before they were disordered and depraved in consequence of the sin of man: We shall then easily see, that as every creature was good in its primeval state; so, when all were compacted in one general system, “behold, they were very good.” I do not remember to have seen any attempt of this kind, unless in that truly excellent poem, (termed by Mr. Hutchinson, “That wicked farce!”) Milton’s “Paradise Lost.”

I.

1. “In the beginning God created the matter of the heavens and the earth.” (So the words, as a great man observes, may properly be translated.) He first created the four elements, out of which the whole universe was composed; earth, water, air, and fire, all mingled together in one common mass. The grossest parts of this, the earth and water, were utterly without form, till God infused a principle of motion, commanding the air to move “upon the face of the waters.” In the next place, “the Lord God said, Let there be light: And there was light.” Here were the four constituent parts of the universe; the true, original, simple elements. They were all essentially distinct from each other; and yet so intimately mixed together, in all compound bodies, that we cannot find any, be it ever so minute, which does not contain them all. (emphasis added)

§

N.B. Glancing over the foregoing excerpts, we note that several of our witnesses speak of two first principles of all things: Gerald Massey, of “two truths”, water and breath; water being “the first form of matter in all the oldest mythologies or so-called cosmogonies. It is the mother of substance, and mother and matter are one”; and breath “the Breath of life”. Likewise, I.P. Corey states that

[b]y comparing all the varied legends of the west and east in conjunction, we may obtain the following outline of the theology of the ancients. It recognizes, as the primary elements of all things, two independent principles, of the nature of male and female.

He goes on to explain that

116

By comparing these with the Cosmogonies of Sanchoniatho, Berossus, and the rest, we may, without much difficulty, arrive at the following conclusion: that the Ether and Chaos, or, in the language of the Philosophers, Mind and Matter, were the two primeval, eternal, and independent principles of the universe; the one regarded as a vivifying and intellectual principle, the other as a watery Chaos, boundless, and without form: both which continued for a time without motion, and in darkness.

Again, according to the Phoenician theology,

‘The principles of things are found in Chaos, in which the elements exist undeveloped and confused, and in a Spirit of Air. The latter permeated the chaos, and with it engendered a slimy matter or mud which contained within it the living forces and the germs of animals. By mingling this mud with the component matter of chaos and the resulting fermentation, the elements separated themselves. The fire elements ascended into the heights and formed the stars. Through their influence in the air, clouds were formed and the earth was made fruitful. From the mingling of water and earth, through the mud converted into putrefying matter, animals took their origin as imperfect and senseless. These again begot other animals perfect and endowed with senses. It was the crash of thunder in a thunderstorm that caused the first animals still sleeping in their husks to waken up to life.’7

7. Sanchuniathonis Fragm. ed. Rich. Cumberland, Lond. 1720, 8; German by J. P. Kassel, Magdeburg, 1755, 8, pp. 1-4. (G. F. Hegel, Lectures on the History of Philosophy. Introduction. B. The Relation of Philosophy to Other Departments of Knowledge)

In sum, we observe both a material and a formal principle at the origin of all things; the former being passive, like a mother; the latter, active in the manner of a father. In this regard, consider the following accounts of earth and of matter as mother:

b. Supplement: On the Earth as a mother.

Cf. Aristotle, On the Generation of Animals, I. 2 (716a 3-18) (tr. Arthur Platt):

Of the generation of animals we must speak as various questions arise in order in the case of each, and we must connect our account with what has been said. [5] For, as we said above, the male and female principles may be put down first and foremost as origins of gener-ation, the former as containing the efficient cause of generation, the latter the material of it. The most conclusive proof of this is drawn from considering how and whence comes the semen; for there is no doubt that it is out of this that those creatures are formed which are produced in the ordinary course of Nature; but we [10] must observe carefully the way in which this semen actually comes into being from the male and female. For it is just because the semen is secreted from the two sexes, the secretion taking place in them and from them, that they are first principles of generation. For by a male animal we mean that which generates in another, and by a female that which generates in itself; wherefore men [15] apply these terms to the macrocosm also, naming Earth mother as being female, but ad-dressing Heaven and the Sun and other like entities as fathers, as causing generation . (emphasis added)

Cf. Quaestiones Disputatae de Potentia Dei. On the Power of God by Thomas Aquinas, translated by the English Dominican Fathers (1952), q. 4, art. 1, obj. 7, ad 7:

Q. IV: ARTICLE I

Did the Creation of Formless Matter Precede in Duration the Creation of Things?

117

[Sum. Th. I, Q. lxvi, A. i; QQ lxvii, lxix]

7. The, formless state of matter is expressed in the words (Gen. i, 2), The earth was void and empty. Now matter is said to be void in respect of the power of production, and to be empty in respect of adornment, according to the explanation of holy men, so that the text refers to the things that move on the face of the earth. Consequently the formless condition of matter does not refer to place, nor did it precede in duration the formation of matter.

Reply to the Seventh Objection. If according to the exposition of Basil (Hom. iv in Hexam.) and his followers we take the earth to signify the element of earth, we may consider it first as the principle from which certain things originate, plants for instance, of which it is the mother so to speak (De Veget.) so that in their respect it was void before it produced them, since we say that a thing is void or vain if it fail to attain its proper effect or end. Secondly, we may consider it as the abode and place of animals, in respect of which it is described as empty.

—Or, according to the text of the Septuagint which reads invisible and incomposite part of the earth was invisible through being covered with water, as also because light was not yet produced so as to render it visible; while it was incomposite because there were as yet no plants and animals to adorn it, nor was it as yet a fit place for their generation and conservation. If, however, the earth signifies primary matter, as Augustine maintains (Dial. lxv, qu. 21), then it is said to be void in comparison with the composite body in which it subsists, because a void is opposite to firmness and solidity; while it is described as being empty in comparison with the forms which were lacking to its potentiality. Hence Plato (Tim.) compares the receptivity of matter to place, inasmuch as place received that which is located therein: and empty and full are terms which are properly applied to a place. Again matter considered in its formless condition is described as invisible, inasmuch as it lacks form which is the principle of all knowledge; and incomposite since it only subsists in a, composite state. (emphasis added)

On the earth as the “womb”, cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Aristotle’s Meteor-ology (tr. Pierre Conway, O.P. and F.R. Larcher, O.P. [1964]), Book II, lect. 1, n. 125:

…He says therefore first [122], that to some, the same things seem to be true of the generation of rivers as was said of the generation of winds. For they say that when water is raised aloft through evaporation and then re-descends, it collects under the earth and thus flows on to generate springs and rivers. It is as if they were understood to emerge from some “great womb,” i.e., from some large depth where a great amount of water is gathered. (emphasis added)

c. On first matter and matter as mother.

Cf. Aristotle, Physics I. 9 (191b36—192a 33) (tr. Hardie & Gaye):

Others,18 indeed, have apprehended the nature in question, but not adequately. In the first place they allow that a thing may come to be without qualification from not being, accepting on this point the statement19

18 The Platonists.19 That if a thing does not come to be from being, it must come to be from not-being.

118

of Parmenides. Secondly, they think that if the substratum is one [192a] numerically, it must have also only a single potentiality—which is a very different thing.

Now we distinguish matter and privation, and hold that one of these, namely the matter, is not-being only in virtue of an attribute which it has, while the privation in its own nature is not-being; and that the matter is nearly, in a sense is, substance, while the [5] privation in no sense is. They, on the other hand, identify their Great and Small alike with not being, and that whether they are taken together as one or separately. Their triad is therefore of quite a different kind from ours. For they got so far as to see that there must be some [10] underlying nature, but they make it one—for even if one philosopher20 makes a dyad of it, which he calls Great and Small, the effect is the same, for he overlooked the other nature. 21

For the one which persists is a joint cause, with the form, of what comes to be—a mother, as it were.22 But the negative part of the contrariety may often seem, [15] if you concentrate your attention on it as an evil agent, not to exist at all. For admitting with them that there is something divine, good, and desirable [= form], we hold that there are two other principles, the one contrary to it [= privation], the other such as of its own nature to desire and yearn for it [= matter]. But the consequence of their view is that the contrary desires its own extinction. Yet the form cannot desire itself, for it is not [20] defective; nor can the contrary desire it, for contraries are mutually destructive. The truth is that what desires the form is matter, as the female desires the male and the ugly the beautiful—only the ugly or the female not per se but per accidens. The matter comes to be and ceases to be in one sense, while in [25] another it does not. As that which contains the privation, it ceases to be in its own nature, for what ceases to be—the privation—is contained within it. But as potentiality it does not cease to be in its own nature, but is necessarily outside the sphere of becoming and ceasing to be. For if it came to be, something must have existed as a primary substratum from which it should come and which should persist in it; but this is its own special nature, so that it will be before coming to be. [30] (For my definition of matter is just this—the primary substratum of each thing, from which it comes to be without qualification, and which persists in the result.) And if it ceases to be it will pass into that at the last, so it will have ceased to be before ceasing to be.

20 Plato.21 The privation.22 Cf. Tim. 30 D, 51 A. (emphasis added)

d. On matter as a mother.

Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics. Books I-II translated by Richard J. Blackwell, Richard J. Spath & W. Edmund Thirlkel (Connecticut, 1963), Book I, lect. 15, nn. 129-138:

LECTURE 15 (191 b 35-192 b 5)

MATTER IS DISTINGUISHED FROM PRIVATION. MATTER IS NEITHER GENERABLE NOR CORRUPTIBLE PER SE

129. Having excluded the problems and errors of the ancient philosophers which stem from their ignorance of matter, the Philosopher here excludes the errors which stem from their ignorance of privation.

119

Concerning this he makes three points. First, he sets forth the errors of those who wandered from the truth. Secondly, where he says, ‘Now we distinguish ...’ (192 a 2 #132), he shows how this position differs from the truth determined by him above. Thirdly, where he says, ‘For the one which persists ...’ (192 a 13 #134), he proves that his own opinion is true.

130. He says, therefore, first that some philosophers touched upon matter, but did not understand it sufficiently. For they did not distinguish between matter and privation. Hence, they attributed to matter what belongs to privation. And because privation, considered in itself, is non-being, they said that matter, considered in itself, is non-being. And so just as a thing comes to be simply and per se from matter, so they believed that a thing comes to be simply and per se from non-being.

And they were led to hold this position for two reasons. First they were influenced by the argument of Parmenides, who said that whatever is other than being is non-being. Since, then, matter is other than being, because it is not being in act, they said that it is non-being simply.

Secondly, it seemed to them that that which is one in number or subject is also one in nature [ratio]. And Aristotle calls this a state of being one in potency, because things which are one in nature [ratio] are such that each has the same power. But things which are one in subject but not one in nature [ratio] do not have the same potency or power, as is clear in the white and the musical. But subject and privation are one in number, as for example, the bronze and the unshaped. Hence it seemed to them that they would be the same in nature [ratio] or in power. Hence this position accepts the unity of potency.

131. But lest anyone, because of these words, be in doubt about what the potency of matter is and whether it is one or many, it must be pointed out that act and potency divide every genus of beings, as is clear in Metaphysics, IX:1, and in Book III [L3] of this work. Hence, just as the potency for quality is not something outside the genus of quality, so the potency for substantial being is not outside the genus of substance. Therefore, the potency of matter is not some property added to its essence. Rather, matter in its very substance is potency for substantial being. Moreover, the potency of matter is one in subject with respect to many forms. But in its nature [ratio] there are many potencies according to its relation to different forms. Hence in Book III(?) it will be said that to be able to be healed and to be able to be ill differ according to nature [ratio].

132. Next where he says, ‘Now we distinguish...’ (192 a 2), he explains the difference between his own opinion and the opinion just given.

Concerning this he makes two points. First he widens our understanding of his own opinion. Secondly, where he says, ‘They, on the other hand ...’ (192 a 6 #133), he shows what the other opinion holds.

He says, therefore, first that there is a great difference between a thing’s being one in number or subject and its being one in potency or nature [ratio]. For we say, as is clear from the above [L12 #104], that matter and privation although one in subject, are other in nature [ratio]. And this is clear for two reasons. First, matter is non-being accidentally, whereas privation is non-being per se. For ‘unshaped’ signifies non-being, but ‘bronze’ does not signify non-being except insofar as ‘unshaped’ happens to be in it. Secondly, matter is ‘near to the thing’ and exists in some respect, because it is in potency to the thing and is in some respect the substance of the thing, since it enters into the constitution of the substance. But this cannot be said of privation.

120

133. Next where he says, ‘They, on the other hand ...’(192 a 6), he clarifies his understanding of the opinion of the Platonists.

He says that the Platonists also held a certain duality on the part of matter, namely, the great and the small. But this duality is different from that of Aristotle. For Aristotle held that the duality was matter and privation, which are one in subject but different in nature [ratio]. But the Platonists did not hold that one of these is privation and the other matter, but they joined privation to both, i.e., to the great and the small. They either took both of them together, not distinguishing in their speech between the great and the small, or else they took each separately. Whence it is clear that the Platonists, who posited form and the great and the small, held three completely different principles than Aristotle, who posited matter and privation and form.

The Platonists realized more than the other ancient philosophers that it is necessary to suppose some one nature for all natural forms, which nature is primary matter. But they made it one both in subject and in nature [ratio], not distinguishing between it and privation. For although they held a duality on the part of matter, namely, the great and the small, they made no distinction at all between matter and privation. Rather they spoke only of matter under which they included the great and the small. And they ignored privation, making no mention of it.

134. Next where he says, ‘For the one which persists ...’ (192 a 13), he proves that his opinion is true. Concerning this he makes two points. First he states his position, i.e., that it is necessary to distinguish privation from matter. Secondly, where he says, ‘The matter comes to be ...’ (192 a 25), he shows how matter is corrupted or generated. He treats the first point in two ways, first by explanation, and secondly by reducing [the opposite opinion] to the impossible, where he says, ‘...the other such ...’ (192 a 18).

135. He says, therefore, first that this nature which is the subject, i.e., matter, together with form is a cause of the things which come to be according to nature after the manner of a mother. For just as a mother is a cause of generation by receiving, so also is matter. But if one takes the other part of the contrariety, namely, the privation, we can imagine, by stretching our understanding, that it does not pertain to the constitution of the thing, but rather to some sort of evil for the thing. For privation is altogether non-being, since it is nothing other than the negation of a form in a subject, and is outside the whole being. Thus the argument of Parmenides that whatever is other than being is non-being, has a place in regard to privation, but not in regard to matter, as the Platonists said.

He shows that privation would pertain to evil as follows. Form is something divine and very good and desirable. It is divine because every form is a certain participation in the likeness of the divine being, which is pure act. For each thing, insofar as it is in act, has form. Form is very good because act is the perfection of potency and is its good; and it follows as a consequence of this that form is desirable, because every thing desires its own perfection.

Privation, on the other hand, is opposed to form, since it is nothing other than the removal of form. Hence, since that which is opposed to the good and removes it is evil, it is clear that privation pertains to evil. Whence it follows that privation is not the same as matter, which is the cause of a thing as a mother.

136. Next where he says, the other such...’ (192 a 18), he proves the same thing by an argument which reduces [the opposite position] to the impossible.

121

Since form is a sort of good and is desirable, matter, which is other than privation and other than form, naturally seeks and desires form according to its nature. But for those who do not distinguish matter from privation, this involves the absurdity that a contrary seeks its own corruption, which is absurd. That this is so he shows as follows.

If matter seeks form, it does not seek a form insofar as it is under this form. For in this latter case the matter does not stand in need of being through this form. (Every appetite exists because of a need, for an appetite is a desire for what is not possessed.) In like manner matter does not seek form insofar as it is under the contrary or privation, for one of the contraries is corruptive of the other, and thus something would seek its own corruption. It is clear, therefore, that matter, which seeks form, is other in nature [ratio] from both form and privation. For if matter seeks form according to its proper nature, as was said, and if it is held that matter and privation are the same in nature [ratio], it follows that privation seeks form, and thus seeks its own corruption, which is impossible. Hence it is also impossible that matter and privation be the same in nature [ratio].

Nevertheless, matter is ‘a this’, i.e., something having privation. Hence, if the feminine seeks the masculine, and if the base seeks the good, this is not because baseness itself seeks the good, which is its contrary; rather it seeks it accidentally, because that in which baseness happens to be seeks to be good. And likewise femininity does not seek masculinity; rather that in which the feminine happens to be seeks the masculine. And in like manner, privation does not seek to be form; rather that in which privation happens to be, namely, matter, seeks to be form.

137. But Avicenna opposes this position of the Philosopher in three ways.

First, matter has neither animal appetite (as is obvious in itself) nor natural appetite, whereby it would seek form. For matter does not have any form or power inclining it to anything, as for example, the heavy naturally seeks the lowest place insofar as it is inclined by its heaviness to such a place.

Secondly, he objects that, if matter seeks form, this is so because it lacks every form, or because it seeks to possess many forms at once, both which are impossible, or because it dislikes the form which it has and seeks to have another form, and this also is meaningless. Hence it seems that we must say that matter in no way seeks form.

His third objection is as follows. To say that matter seeks form as the feminine seeks the masculine is to speak figuratively, i.e., as a poet, not as a philosopher.

138. But it is easy to resolve objections of this sort. For we must note that everything which seeks something either knows that which it seeks and orders itself to it, or else it tends toward it by the ordination and direction of someone who knows, as the arrow tends toward a determinate mark by the direction and ordination of the archer. Therefore, natural appetite is nothing but the ordination of things to their end in accordance with their proper natures. However a being in act is not only ordered to its end by an active power, but also by its matter insofar as it is potency. For form is the end of matter. Therefore for matter to seek form is nothing other than matter being ordered to form as potency to act.

And because matter still remains in potency to another form while it is under some form, there is always in it an appetite for form. This is not because of a dislike for the form which it has, nor because it seeks to be the contrary at the same time, but because it is in potency to other forms while it has some form in act.

122

Nor does he use a figure of speech here; rather, he uses an example. For it was said above [L13 #118] that primary matter is knowable by way of proportion, insofar as it is related to substantial forms as sensible matters are related to accidental forms. And thus in order to explain primary matter, it is necessary to use an example taken from sensible substances. Therefore, just as he used the example of unshaped bronze and the example of the non-musical man to explain matter, so now to explain matter he uses the example of the appetite of the woman for the man and the example of appetite of the base for the good. For this happens to these things insofar as they have something which is of the nature [ratio] of matter.

However, it must be noted that Aristotle is here arguing against Plato, who used such metaphorical expressions, likening matter to a mother and the feminine, and form to the masculine. And so Aristotle uses Plato’s own metaphors against him. (emphasis added)

N.B. In sum, Aristotle is using an exemplary locution here, which may be defined as giving a singular under the universal, or a species under the genus.

Cf. Quaestiones Disputatae de Potentia Dei. On the Power of God by Thomas Aquinas, translated by the English Dominican Fathers (1952), q. 4, art. 1, obj. 2 “on the other side”; ad 2:

2. Again, that which is not cannot exercise an operation. Now formless matter exercises an operation, since it is appetent of a form (Phys. iii). Therefore matter can be without a form, and thus it is not unreasonable to suppose that formless matter preceded the formation of things in point of duration.

<…>

We must now deal with the arguments on the other side which support Augustine’s view.

<…>

2. Appetence of form is not an act of matter but a certain relationship in matter in respect of a form, in so far as matter has the form potentially, as the Commentator states (Phys. i, 81).

e. The comparison of matter with a mother in sum.

According to St. Thomas Aquinas, “matter seeks form according to its proper nature” (Commentary, n. 136). Likewise, “the appetite of the woman for the man and of the base for the good”…“happens to these things insofar as they have something which is of the nature [ratio] of matter” (ibid., n. 135): for “appetence of form is not an act of matter but a certain relationship in matter in respect of a form, in so far as matter has the form potentially” (De pot., q. 4, art. 1, ad 2 “on the other side”). In accordance with these considerations then, he explains that, “just as a mother is a cause of generation by receiving, so also is matter”: for “this nature which is the subject, i.e., matter, together with form is a cause of the things which come to be according to nature after the manner of a mother.” (Commentary, n. 135) For as Aristotle states (cf. GA, I. 2, 716a 6-7), “the female principle” is “first and foremost” an origin and cause of generation as containing “the material of it”, whereas the male principle contains the efficient, or moving, cause. In sum, just as a mother (or female principle) and father (or male principle) stand to the genesis of

123

a living thing (the paradigm being that of a human being), so, too, do matter and the passive principle stand to form and the active principle in the genesis of all things. “Hence, in what is required for the generation of offspring, some things belong to the father, some things belong to the mother: to give the nature and species to the offspring belong to the father, and to conceive and bring forth belong to the mother as patient and recipient.” (SCG IV, c. 11, n. 19)

Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Book of Job (tr. Brian Mullady) (© 1996-2009 Western Dominican Province), ch. ??, Lesson 4, on 1:21:

The Fourth Lecture: Job’s Submission

20 Then Job arose and rent his robe; he shaved his head and he fell on the ground and worshipped. 21 He said: Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked I shall return there; The Lord gave; the Lord has taken away. As God pleased, so it has been done. Blessed be the name of the Lord! In all these things, Job did not sin with his lips, nor did he say anything foolish against God.

…Job revealed the state of his mind not only by deeds, but also by words. For he rationally demonstrated that although he suffered sadness, he did not have to yield to sadness. First, he demonstrated from the condition of nature so the text said, “He said: Naked I came forth from my mother’s womb,” namely, from the earth which is the common mother of everything, “and naked shall I return there,” i.e., to the earth. Sirach speaks in the same vein saying, “Great hardship has been created for man, and a heavy yoke lies on the sons of Adam from the day they come forth from their mother’s womb until the day they return to their burial in the mother of them all.” (40:1)In sum, just as a mother (or female principle) and father (or male principle) stand to the genesis of a living thing (the paradigm being that of a human being), so, too, do matter and the passive principle stand to form and the active principle in the genesis of all things. To speak of matter as a mother, then, is to use an exemplum.

§

N.B. Let us next consider the notion of Chaos.

124

13. On the primeval chaos and the first causes of things.

a. According to the early Greeks: Homer, Hesiod, and the Orphics:

Cf. G. L. Huxley, Greek Epic Poetry from Eumelos to Panyassis (Cambridge, 1969), Ch. I, Theogonies and Theomachies, pp. 19-20:

We begin at the beginning, with the births and the battles of the gods. The early Greeks, like other peoples possessing mature imaginations, attempted to explain the origins of the world in terms of the matings and offspring of primaeval divinities. The earliest complete theogony, Hesiod’s, dates from about 700 B.C,1 but there is evidence for theo-gonical poems contemporary with his which differed markedly from the Hesiodic scheme. A cosmogonical system is also implicit in the Iliad; and this too differs from Hesiod’s.

Two passages, both from the fourteenth book of the Iliad, are evidence of the Homeric cosmogony. In one (12.201) Hera speaks of ‘Okeanos, the begetter of the gods, and mother of Tethys’ –

)Wkeanou= te qew+=n ge/nesin kai\ mhte/ra Thqu/n.

In the other (14.245-246) Hypnos declares that he would easily send to sleep ‘even the streams of river Okeanos who is the creator of all things’ –

potamoi=o r(e/eqra‘Wkeanou=, o(/ per ge/nesij pa/ntessi te/tuktai

The two expressions strongly suggest that in Homer’s view the male Okeanos and the female Tethys were primeval progenitors of the world. The opinion was held also by the author of some verses ascribed to Orpheus and quoted by Plato (Cratylus 402B): ‘Okeanos of the fair stream first began wedlock, who married Tethys his sister by the same mother.’

)Wkeano\j prw=tpj kalli/pooj h)=rce ga/moioo(/j r(a kasignh/thn o(momh/tora Thqu\n o)/puien.

These words may have been written down as long as two centuries after Homer, but they are consistent with the Homeric scheme. Homer

1 The epoch of Hesiod and Homer is discussed in Chapter X.

does not speak of Okeanos and Tethys having one mother; but the mother’s place was perhaps reserved by him for Night, who, the poet suggests, was mightier even than Zeus. Hypnos says (Iliad 14.259-261) that Zeus would have thrown him out of sight into the sea ‘if Night, subduer of gods and men, had not save me; to her I came fleeing, and Zeus, though he was angry, did cease; for he shrank from doing what would be displeasing to swift Night’. This view of the primacy of Night in the Homeric cosmogony was maintained, against the Peripatetics, by Damaskios (De Principiis 124 [D.K. 1 B 12]); it is not demonstrably incorrect. The Hesiodic cosmogony is, in any case, widely divergent from the Homeric. Hesiod states at the beginning of his genealogies: ‘Verily at the first did Chasm come into being, and the broad-bosomed Earth, a sure seat of all things for ever . . .’ (Theogony 116 and 118-120).

h)= toi me\n prq/tista Xa/oj ge/net”, au)ta\r e)/peita

125

Gai=‘ eu)ru/sternoj, pa/ntwn e(/dos a)sfale\j ai)ei/,Ta/tara/ t’ h)ero/enta mux%= xqono\j eu)ruodei/j,h)d’ )/Eroj, o(\j ka/llistoj e)n a)qana/toisi qeoi=si.

Xa/oj, Chasm1 or Chaos, is cognate with the root xa- meaning ‘gape’. Hesiod is perhaps guilty of a slight illogicality here since there cannot have been a gaping Chasm before the separation of Earth (Gaia) and Tartaros; so Xa/oj cannot have ‘come to be’ ‘first and fore-most’ – prw/twta . . . ge/neto. Eros is perhaps Hesiod’s own invention, a divinity to preside over the generation of the other gods; but Tartaros and Earth are ancient, traditional elements, whose separation is also an essential feature of the Homeric picture of the world. In Homer dark Tartaros is at least as far below the earth as the sky is above it (Iliad 8.13-16)

1 For this translation see West [= M.L. West, Hesiod. Theogony, Oxford, 1966], p. 192. (emphasis added)

Note how Eros corresponds to the Spirit of God, understood as “the love of His will”.

b. According to Hesiod’s Theogony:

Cf. Hesiod, Theogony (tr. Athanassakis), ll. 116-123:

Chaos was born first and after her came Gaiathe broad-breasted, the firm seat of allthe immortals who hold the peaks of snowy Olympos,and the misty Tartaros in the depths of broad-pathed earthand Eros, the fairest of the deathless gods;he unstrings the limbs and subdues both mindand sensible thought in the breasts of all gods and all men.

Cf. Meya Onyurt, “Love in Greek Antiquity”:37

What did Love mean in Greek Antiquity?

…Hesiod discerns four primordial beings for the origin of all other things. Chaos symbol-izing strife and opposition, Gaia symbolizing the feminine and the productive, Tartaros symbolizing the underworld, death and extinction, finally Eros symbolizing love and unification; all of which are four fundamentals of Greek understanding. Each element has an essentiality of its own as well as a parallel structure of dependence on one another. Without strife there could be no movement thus no creation, without women there could be no con-tinuance of the movement and procreation, without death there would be no strife for immortality and thus no fight for perfection, and without Love no binding power to support life and carry it to eternity. All these parts weave a complex web of understanding between ‘being’ on one end and ‘non-being’ on the other. In every different version of the Greek origination myths there exists Eros as a masculine figure of love and it is always one of the most primary figures. According to the ancient Greeks, ‘Eros’ is the manager of the ambiguous creation, it reshapes strife and makes it an ideal being. <…>

Last edited: Sunday, February 16, 2003. Posted: Sunday, February 16, 2003

37 (http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewArticle.asp?id=9207 [5/12/10])

126

Cf. “Emergence of Scientific Explanations of Nature in Ancient Greece. The Only Scien-tific Discovery?” Arnold M. Katz, MD, DMed (Hon); Phyllis B. Katz, PhD:38

Hesiod

The mythical origins of natural science in ancient Greece are described in Hesiod’s Theo-gony, a poem written approximately a century before the flowering of the early presocratic philosophers. Hesiod was not a philosopher, but rather a farmer and shepherd who, according to N.O. Brown, “lived in an age innocent of philosophy. He presupposed an audience familiar with the idiom of mythical thinking, and accustomed to speculate on the great questions of life in that idiom.”12 G.S. Kirk describes the Theogony as “a mass of fascinating mythologic and theological material, arranged so as to constitute a history of the world from its earliest stages down to the time when Zeus established himself as supreme god.”13

Hesiod begins his Theogony with an explanation as to how his world came into being:

Hail, daughters of Zeus! Grant me the gift of lovely song!

Sing the glories of the holy gods to whom death never comes,

the gods born of Gaia and starry Ouranos,

and of those whom dark Night bore, or briny Pontos fostered.

Speak first of how the gods and the earth came into being

and of how the rivers, the boundless sea with its raging swell,

the glittering stars, and the wide sky above were created.14

Of this description of “how the gods and the earth came into being,” Apostolos Athanassakis argues: “Hesiod had a formidable task to perform. He had to explain the origin of the world and of the gods who rule it, and even though scientific thought as we know it did not exist in his day, his genealogical method and mythopoetic reasoning constitute a speculation that is rational in its own terms.”15

Hesiod describes the beginning of the world as a void or emptiness, which he called “chaos”—literally, a gap. Kirk infers that this “conception of the primordial condition as ‘Chaos’, a great murky gap, probably owes something to the poet’s own imagin-ation.”16 Hesiod continues with an anthropomorphic description, highly sexual in its conception, that combines parthenogenetic birth and amorous, often incestuous, adven-tures among a race of gods whose interactions are presented in terms of conflict, often brutal and sexual. Hesiod recounts the overthrow of Ouranos—the starry Sky—by Cronos, the son born of his mating with Gaia—the Earth—and then how Cronos’ son Zeus, who was also suppressed by his father, eventually overthrew Cronos and assumed leadership of the Olympian gods.

Of Hesiod’s view of the creation of the world, Brown observes:

Proliferation is a natural law violated by Sky and Cronos when they attempt to suppress their children; they left their children no choice except to fight in order to exist, and thus involved themselves in a retributory cycle of violence. Zeus, on the other hand, proliferates constant conflict between generations, and with unparalleled Fecundity. . . . Zeus’ regime thus makes a sharp break with the unnatural repression of the past and inaugurates a new order which permits natural development; it is, as the Greek philosophers say, “in accordance with nature.”17

38 (circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/92/3/637 [11/7/08])

127

Yet this “new order” is far from science. As G. Vlastos states: “The forces of nature, uncertainly personified as earth-born deities, are subdued by Zeus in the battle with Titans and brought more or less under his power. But there is no notion of natural laws issued and maintained by Zeus. So far from maintaining natural regularities, Zeus himself and the other gods over-ride them right and left.”18

Hesiod’s Theogony, as Brown observes,19 represents the first attempt to formulate two classic problems of Greek culture: “how to find unity in diversity, and how to find a permanent principle in the midst of flux.” We see later how the conflicts described by Hesiod came to be used, albeit in a very different paradigm, by the presocratic philosophers, who transformed these personifications into forces that were “wholly immanent in the order of nature and therefore absolutely law-abiding. . . .”20

12. Brown NO. Theogony. Hesiod. Indianapolis, Ind: Bobbs-Merrill Inc; 1953:15. 13. Kirk GS. The Nature of Greek Myths. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books Ltd; 1974:98-99. 14. Hesiod. Theogony, Works and Days, Shield. Athanassakis AN, trans. Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins University Press; 1983:16; lines 104-110. 15. Ibid. p 7. 16. Kirk GS. Op cit. p 99. 17. Brown NO. Op cit. p 23. 18. Vlastos G. “Theology and philosophy in early Greek thought”. The Philosophical Quarterly. 1952;2:114. 19. Ibid. p 46. 20. Ibid. pp 116-117. (emphasis added)

Cf. Prof. Fred L. Wilson, Science and Human Values: Mythology. Greek Myths:39

Yet more important than such echoes of Near Eastern beliefs is the similarity between the Greek and the oriental methods of interpreting nature: an ordered view of the universe was obtained by bringing its elements in a genealogical relationship with one another. <…> Associations and ‘participations’ typical of myth-making thought appear often. A particularly clear example is: ‘And Night bare hateful Doom; and black Fate and Death and Sleep she bare, and she bare the tribe of dreams; all these did dark Night bear, albeit mated unto none’ (ll. 211 ff.). The natural process of procreation thus supplied Hesiod with a scheme which allowed him to connect the phenomena and to arrange them in a comprehensible system. The Babylonian Epic of Creation and the An-Anum list use the same device; and we meet it in Egypt when Atum is said to have begotten Shu and Tefnut (Air and Moisture), who, in their turn, brought forth Geb and Nut (Earth and Sky). (emphasis added)

Cf. John Burnet, “Introduction” to Early Greek Philosophy. V. Cosmogony:

Nor is it only in this way that Hesiod shows himself a child of his time. His Theogony is at the same time a Cosmogony, though it would seem that here he was following the older tradition rather than working out a thought of his own. At any rate, he only mentions the two great cosmogonical figures, Chaos and Eros, and does not really bring them into connection with his system. They seem to belong, in fact, to an older stratum of speculation. The conception of Chaos represents a distinct effort to picture the beginning of things. It is not a formless mixture [as with Ovid], but rather, as its etymology indicates, the yawning gulf or gap where nothing is as yet.

39 (http://www.welchco.com/02/14/01/60/99/11/2409B.HTM [11/8/08])

128

We may be sure that this is not primitive. Primitive man does not feel called on to form an idea of the very beginning of all things; he takes for granted that there was something to begin with. The other figure, that of Eros, was doubtless intended to explain the impulse to production which gave rise to the whole process. These are clearly speculative ideas, but in Hesiod they are blurred and confused. We have records of great activity in the production of cosmogonies during the whole of the sixth century B.C., and we know something of the systems of Epimenides, Pherecydes, and Acusilaus. If there were speculations of this kind even before Hesiod, we need have no hesitation in believing that the earliest Orphic cosmogony goes back to that century too. The feature common to all these systems is the attempt to get behind the Gap, and to put Kronos or Zeus in the first place. That is what Aristotle has in view when he disting-uishes the “theologians” from those who were half theologians and half philosophers, and who put what was best in the beginning. It is obvious, however, that this process is the very reverse of scientific, and might be carried on indefinitely; so we have nothing to do with the cosmogonists in our present inquiry, except so far as they can be shown to have influenced the course of more sober investigations. (emphasis added)

c. According to Ovid’s Metamorphoses:

Cf. The Metamorphoses of Ovid Construed Literally Word for Word (tr. Dr. Giles), I. 1-31:

BOOK I

Animas my mind fert inclines [me] dicere to speak of formas forms mutatas changed in nova corpora into new bodies. Dii ye gods, quam for vos you mutastis et also changed illas them;) aspirate breathe [propitious] meis ceptis on my undertakings; deducitque and bring down per-petuum carmen an uninterrupted song prima ab origine from the first origin mundi of the world ad meum tempora to my own time.

(5) Ante mare before the sea et terras and the earth et caelum and the heaven quod which tegit covers omnia all things, erat there was unus vultus one appearance in toto orbe in the whole orb naturae of nature quem which dixere they called Chaos Chaos, rudis a rude indigestaque moles and undigested mass; nec quicquam and nothing nisi but pondus iners a sluggish load seminaque discordia and the discordant seeds rerum of things non bene iunctarum not well joined congesta heaped together eodem in the same place.

Nullus Titan no sun adhuc as yet praebebat furnished lumina light mundo to the world; nec Phoebe nor did the moon reparabat repair nova cornua her new horns crescendo by increasing nec nor tellus did the earth pendebat hang in aere circumfuso in the air spread around it

Cf. Ovid, Metamorphoses Book I (tr. A. S. Kline):

Bk I:1-20 The Primal Chaos

    I want to speak about bodies changed into new forms. You, gods, since you are the ones who alter these, and all other things, inspire my attempt, and spin out a continuous thread of words, from the world’s first origins to my own time.

    Before there was earth or sea or the sky that covers everything, Nature appeared the same throughout the whole world:

what we call chaos: a raw confused mass, nothing but inert matter, badly combined dis-cordant atoms of things, confused in the one place.

There was no Titan yet, shining his light on the world, or waxing Phoebe renewing her white horns, or the earth hovering in surrounding air balanced by her own weight,* or watery Am-phitrite stretching out her arms along the vast shores of the world.

129

librata balanced ponderibus suis by its own weights; nec nor Amphitrite had the sea porrex-erat stretched bracchia its arms longo margine through the long margin terrarum of the land:

quaque and where tellus the earth fuit was illic there [was] et also Pontus sea et air and air: sic thus tellus the earth erat was instabilis unsteady, unda the water innabilis not to be swum in, aer the air egens destitute lucis of light: sua forma its own form manebat remained nulli to nothing, aliud-que and one thing obstabat made oppo-sition aliis to others: quia because in uno cor-pora in one body frigid cold things pugnabant conflicted calidis with warm, humentia moist siccis with dry, mollia soft cum duris with hard, habentia things having pondus weight sine pondere [with things] without weight.

Deus God et melior Natura and a better Nature diremit broke off hunc litem this strife. Nam for abscidit he cut off terras the lands caelo from the sky, et undas, and the waters terris from the lands, et secrevit and separated liquidum caelum the liquid sky ab spisso aer from the gross air.

Quae which postquam when evolvit he had disengaged exemitque and extricated caeco ex-cervo from the blind heap, ligavit he bound dissociata disjoined locis in their places con-cordi pace in concordant peace.

Ignea vis the fiery force caeli of the heaven convex convex at and sine pondere without weight emicuit shot forth legitque and chose sibi for itself locum a place in summam arce in the highest citadel.

Aer the air est is proximus the next illi to it levitate in lightness locoque and in place.

Tellus the earth densior [was denser] his than these, travitque and drew with it grandia ele-menta the gross elements, et and pressa est was pressed gravitate by the gravity sui of itself.

Humor water circumfluus flowing round pos-sedit possessed ultima the last places, coexcuit-que and bound together solidum orbem the solid globe.

*Cp. Job 26:7: “He stretcheth out the north [tsaphon] over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing [beliymah].” Cp. also Hesiod on the earth as “the firm seat of all” (B.A.M.).

Though there was land and sea and air, it was unstable land, unswimmable water, air needing light. Nothing retained its shape, one thing ob-structed another, because in the one body, cold fought with heat, moist with dry, soft with hard, and weight with weightless things.

Bk I:21-31 Separation of the elements

   This conflict was ended by a god and a greater order of nature, since he split off the earth from the sky, and the sea from the land, and divided the transparent heavens from the dense air.

When he had disentangled the elements, and freed them from the obscure mass, he fixed them in separate spaces in harmonious peace.

The weightless fire, that forms the heavens, darted upwards to make its home in the furthest heights.

Next came air in lightness and place.

Earth, heavier than either of these, drew down the largest elements, and was compressed by its own weight.

The surrounding water took up the last space and enclosed the solid world.

130

Cf. Ovid’s Metamorphoses: in fifteen books with the notes of John Minellius, and Others, In English… etc. (Dublin, 1815), pp. 3-4:

AN EXPLANATION OF FABLE I

The creation is a mystery above the conception of human reason. Philosophers, who were never able to comprehend how something could be produced out of nothing, established this principle, Ex nihilo nihil, et in nihilum nil posse revertí. But observing the beauty and admirable structure of the universe, they were under the necessity of attributing it either to a being superior to nature, or to nature itself; they therefore supposed a pre-existent matter, which, though at first confused and without form, was afterward brought into order by some powerful cause. According to their opinion, God was not supposed to be the Creator, but rather the architect to range and dispose of the elements, and to place them in such situations as were most suitable to their respective qualities. This confusion of matter is the chaos so often sung by the poets, and of which Hesiod gave them the first model.[3-4] It is very perceptible, that this system, however monstrous and absurd, is no other than a disfigured tradition of the Mosaic creation of the world. But though disfigured and obscured by the wild imaginations of the poets, and of all that they have fabled respecting it, we still perceive the force of some truths, which they could not conceal under their fictions. For a full ex-planation of this fable, we need only consult the Bible, and read the two first chapters of the Book of Genesis, where we shall find its mythology fully unravelled.

d. According to the Hexaemeron of Moses:

Cf. Adam Clarke, The Holy Bible: Containing the Old and the New Testaments (New York, 1811), on Gen 1:2:

Verse 2. The earth was without form and void] The original terms [Hebrew omitted] tohu and [Hebrew omitted] bohu, which we translate without form and void, are of uncertain etymology; but in this place, and wherever else they are used, they convey the idea of confusion and disorder. From these terms it is probable that the ancient Syrians and Egyp-tians borrowed their gods, Theuth and Bau, and the Greeks their Chaos. God seems at first to have created the elementary principles of all things; and this formed the grand mass of matter, which in this state must be without arrangement, or any distinction of parts: a vast collection of indescribably confused materials, of nameless entities strangely mixed; and wonderfully well expressed by an ancient heathen poet:-

Ante mare et terras, et, quod tegit omnia, caelum, Unus erat toto naturae vultus in orbe, Quem dixere Chaos; rudis indigestaque moles, Nec quicquam nisi pondus iners; congestaque eodem Non bene junctarum discordia semina rerum. OVID.

Before the seas and this terrestrial ball, And heaven’s high canopy that covers all, One was the face of nature, if a face; Rather, a rude and indigested mass; A lifeless lump, unfashion’d and unframed, Of jarring seeds, and justly Chaos named. DRYDEN.

The most ancient of the Greeks have spoken nearly in the same way of this crude, in-digested state of the primitive chaotic mass. When this congeries of elementary principles was brought together, God was pleased to spend six days in assimilating, assorting, and arranging the materials, out of which he built up, not only the earth, but the whole of the solar system. (emphasis added)

§

131

e. On God as first principle: That the divine “pervades” or encloses nature (Pantheism):

Cf. Mortimer J. Adler, The Great Ideas: A Syntopicon of Great Books of the Western World (Chicago, 1952), Chapter 29, “God” (Introduction), pp. 546-547:

THE DOCTRINES known as deism and pantheism, like unqualified atheism, are as much opposed to the religious beliefs of polytheism as to the faith of Judaism and Christianity. Of these two, pantheism is much nearer atheism, for it denies the existence of a transcendent supernatural being or beings. God is Nature. God is immanent in the world and, in the extreme form of pantheism, not transcendent in any way. Certain historic doctrines which are often regarded as forms or kinds of pantheism seem to be less extreme than this, for they do not conceive the physical universe as exhausting the infinite being of God. The world, for all its vastness and variety, may only represent an aspect of the divine nature. According to Spinoza, the attributes of extension and thought, in terms of which we understand the world or nature as being of the divine substance, are merely those aspects of God which are known to us, for the divine substance consists “of infinite attributes, each one of which expresses eternal and infinite essence.” In the conception of Plotinus, the whole world represents only a partial emanation from the divine source. Yet thinkers like Plotinus and Spinoza so conceive the relation of the world to God that—as in the strictest pantheism—the religious doctrines of creation, providence, and [546-547] salvation are cither rejected or profoundly altered. In the ancient world, the teaching of the Stoic philosophers expresses a kind of pan-theism. “There is one universe made up of all things,” Marcus Aurelius writes, “and one God who pervades all things, and one substance, and one law, one common reason in all intelligent animals, and one truth.” He speaks of the “common nature,” which is apparently divine, and of which “every particular nature is a part, as the nature of the leaf is a part of the nature of the plant.” But, although he stresses the oneness and divinity of all things, Aurelius also at times uses language which seems to refer to a god who dwells apart from as well as in the world, as, for example, when he debates whether the gods have any concern with human affairs. (emphasis added)

Cf. Msgr. Eugene Kevane and Ronda Chervin, The Love of Wisdom: An Introduction to Christian Philosophy (San Francisco, 1988), p. 26:

Everywhere man is religious, indeed, but the object of his worship has changed. For the transcendent Pure Spirit has been reduced to the status of a World Soul. Spirits are thought to inhabit things of the cosmos: totems, sacred groves, amulets, manmade carvings that project and incorporated merely human imagination about spirits and gods. Images reign supreme as objects of worship in this idolatry.

Cf. Ethics: A philosophical/Historical Perspective. 4000 B.C.:

4000 B.C., the time when writing was invented is the dividing line between the long prehistory when nothing was written and the 6,000 years of recorded history. By 4,000 B.C…the primitive religions had evolved into pantheism. Mankind was no longer practicing the simple religion of praising one  god as their creator. This is not to say that people were irreligious because religion did, in fact, dominate  in many city centers. Mankind had substituted idols, reflecting a pantheistic view of the universe for the primitive Supreme Being. This World Soul inhabited totems, amulets, carvings, and sacred groves. Chervin comments that although sacrifice was still offered, the act had been reduced to a perfunctory and scheduled ritual.

132

Because pantheism and idolatry reigned, a sense of moral, personal responsibility to a Human Being in each human act had dissipated  “appeasement” of man-made gods and cosmic spirits. Chervin writes, “Pantheism, the doctrine that God is everything and that everything in the visible cosmos is God, results in the liberation of each self to be his own god” (27). What is lost in this fall is “life in his presence, the life of prayer, recognized dependence, moral fidelity, sorrow for sin, purposes of amendment, gratitude for benefits received for existence itself, and all such aspects of theistic living” (27).   What is the effect of this pantheism on morality? Chervin and Kevane write, “It represents an evasion of personal guilt, because in pantheism there is no teaching of a set of moral principles or guidelines coming from a personal Being beyond the cosmos. There is no doctrine in pantheism that specifies how men should conduct themselves in each human act in view of the all-seeing eye of the personal transcendent Creator and judge. This responsibility to God in each human act is evaded in pantheism, which becomes from this point of view a philosophical rationalization of the evasion. Thus the fall from the Supreme Being is in a true and real sense a conversion to the self, which becomes the actual object of the worship. Each person is now free, in one particular way of defining freedom, in the sense of being free  to do what he pleases” (28). (emphasis added)

[footnotes omitted]

Cf. Alexander Wilder, New Platonism and Alchemy: The Eclectic Philosophy:

Aristotle declares: “The divine essence pervades the whole world of nature; what are styled the gods are only the first principles. The myths and stories were devised to make the religious systems intelligible and attractive to the people, who otherwise would not give them any regard or veneration.”

<…>

He [Proclus] also repeats the words of Aristotle: “There are many inferior theoi but only one Mover. All that is concerning the human shape and attributes of these deities is mere fiction, invented to instruct the common people and secure their obedience to wholesome laws. But the First Principle is neither fire, nor earth, nor water, nor anything that is the object of sense. A spiritual substance is the cause of the Universe, and the source of all order, all beauty, all the motions and all the forms which are so much admired in it. All must be led up to this one primitive substance, which governs in subordination to the First. This is the general doctrine of the ancients, which has, happily, escaped the wreck of truth amid the rocks of popular errors and poetic fables.”

Cf. Aristotle, Metaphysics, XII. 8 (1074b 1-14) (tr. W. D. Ross):

[1074b] Our forefathers in the most remote ages have handed down to their posterity a tradition, in the form of a myth [en muthou schemati], that these [celestial] bodies are gods, and that the divine encloses the whole of nature. The rest of the tradition has been added later in mythical form [ta de loipa muthikos ede prosektai] with a view to the [5] persuasion of the multitude and to its legal and utilitarian expediency; they say these gods are in the form of men or like some of the other animals, and they say other things consequent on and similar to these which we have mentioned. But if one were to separate the first point from these additions and take it alone—that they thought the [10] first substances to be gods, one must regard this as an inspired utterance, and reflect that, while probably each art and each science has often been developed as far as possible and has again perished, these opinions, with others, have been preserved until the present like relics of the ancient treasure. Only thus far, then, is the opinion of our ancestors and of our earliest predecessors clear to us.

133

Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, In XII Meta., lect. 10, n. 31 (tr. B.A.M.):

Next, when he says, They are handed on, he compares the things that have been discovered about immaterial substances to ancient and popular beliefs. And he says that certain things were handed on by the ancient philosophers about the separated substances and were dismissed by those coming after them as being in the manner of fables, namely, that they are gods, and that what is divine contains [or encloses] nature as a whole. And this, in fact, may be gathered from the things above, if all immaterial substances be called gods. But if only the first principle be called God there is only one God, as is clear from the things already said. But the rest [sc. of their traditions] have been introduced in the manner of fable for the persuasion of the multitude who cannot grasp intelligible things, and insofar as it was the best [expedient] for delivering the laws, and for their usefulness to human social life [conversationis humanae], so that from inventions of this sort the multitude would be persuaded to tend to virtuous acts and turn away from vices. And what was introduced in the manner of fable he explains, adding that they said the gods were similar in form to men and to certain other animals. For they put down in the manner of fable certain men made into gods, and certain animals, and certain things consequent to those things, and they said other similar things. (emphasis added)

For an account of a philosophical system in substantial agreement with Aristotle’s description, cf. Justin Martyr, “Exhortation to the Greeks”, Chapter XIX. Testimony of Pythagoras:

And Pythagoras, son of Mnesarchus, who expounded the doctrines of his own philosophy, mystically by means of symbols, as those who have written his life show, himself seems to have entertained thoughts about the unity of God not unworthy of his foreign residence in Egypt. For when he says that unity is the first principle of all things, and that it is the cause of all good, he teaches by an allegory that God is one, and alone. And that this is so, is evident from his saying that unity and one differ widely from one another. For he says that unity belongs to the class of things perceived by the mind, but that one belongs to numbers. And if you desire to see a clearer proof of the opinion of Pythagoras concerning one God, hear his own opinion, for he spoke as follows:

“God is one; and He Himself does not, as some suppose, exist outside the world, but in it, He being wholly present in the whole circle, and beholding all generations; being the regulating ingredient of all the ages, and the administrator of His own powers and works, the first principle of all things, the light of heaven, and Father of all, the intelligence and animating soul of the universe, the movement of all orbits.”

Thus, then, Pythagoras. (emphasis added)

Cf. Fabre D’Olivet, Examinations of the Golden Verses of Pythagoras. 3. ...Revere the memory Of the Illustrious Heroes, of Spirits demi-Gods...:

Pythagoras considered the Universe as an animated All, whose members were the divine Intelligences, each ranked according to its perfections, in its proper sphere. He it was who first designated this All, by the Greek word Kosmos, in order to express the beauty, order, and regularity which reigned there; the Latins translated this word by Mundus, from which has come the French word monde. It is from Unity considered as principle of the world, that the name Universe which we give to it is derived. Pythagoras establishes Unity as the principle of all things and said that from this Unity sprang an infinite Duality.

134

The essence of this Unity, and the manner in which the Duality that emanated from it was finally brought back again, were the most profound mysteries of his doctrine; the subject sacred to the faith of his disciples and the fundamental points which were forbidden them to reveal. Their explanation was never made in writing; those who appeared worthy of learning them were content to be taught them by word of mouth. When one was forced, by the concatenation of ideas, to mention them in books of the sect, symbols and ciphers were used, and the language of Numbers employed; and these books, all obscure as they were, were still concealed with the greatest care; by all manner of means they were guarded against falling into profane hands. I cannot enter into the discussion of the famous symbol of Pythagoras, one and two, without exceeding very much the limits that I have set down in these examinations; let it suffice for me to say, that as he designated God by 1, and matter by 2, he expressed the Universe by the number 12, which results in the union of the other two. This number is formed by the multiplication of 3 by 4: that is to say, that this philosopher conceived the Universal world as composed of three particular worlds, which, being linked one with the other by means of the four elementary modifications, were developed in twelve concentric spheres. The ineffable Being which filled these twelve spheres without being understood by anyone, was God. Pythagoras gave to It, truth for soul and light for body. The Intelligences which peopled the three worlds were, firstly, the immortal gods properly so-called; secondly, the glorified heroes; thirdly, the terrestrial demons.

The immortal gods, direct emanations of the uncreated Being and manifestation of Its infinite faculties, were thus named because they could not depart from the divine life – that is, they could never fall away from their Father into oblivion, wandering in the darkness of ignorance and of impiety; whereas the souls of men, which produced, according to their degree of purity, glorified heroes and terrestrial demons, were able to depart sometimes from the divine life by voluntary drawing away from God; because the death of the intellectual essence, according to Pythagoras and imitated in this by Plato, was only ignorance and impiety. It must be observed that in my translation I have not rendered the Greek word ******** by the word demons, but by that of spirits, on account of the evil meaning that Christianity has attached to it, as I explained in a preceding note. (emphasis added)

Cf. Albert Pike, Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Free-masonry, prepared for the Supreme Council of the Thirty Third Degree for the Southern Jurisdiction of the United States: Charleston, 1871:

Timaeus of Locria and Plato his Commentator wrote of the Soul of the World, developing the doctrine of Pythagoras, who thought, says Cicero, that God is the Universal Soul, resident everywhere in nature, and of which our Souls are but emanations. ‘“God is one,” says Pythagoras, as cited by Justin Martyr: “He is not, as some think, without the world, but within it, and entire in its entirety. He sees all that becomes, forms all immortal beings, is the author of their powers and performances, the origin of all things, the Light of Heaven, the Father, the Intelligence, the Soul of all beings, the Mover of all spheres.” God, in the view of Pythagoras, was ONE, a single substance, whose continuous parts extended through all the Universe, without separation, difference, or inequality, like the soul in the human body. He denied the doctrine of the spiritualists, who had severed the Divinity from the Universe, making Him exist apart from the Universe, which thus became no more than a material work, on which acted the Abstract Cause, a God, isolated from it. The Ancient Theology did not so separate God from the Universe. This Eusebius attests, in saying that but a small number of wise men, like Moses, had sought for God or the Cause of all, outside of that ALL; while the Philosophers of Egypt and Phoenicia, real authors of all the old Cosmogonies, had placed the Supreme Cause in the Universe itself, and in its parts, so that, in their view, the world and all its parts are in God.

135

The World or Universe was thus compared to man: the Principle of Life that moves it, to that which moves man; the Soul of the World to that of man. Therefore Pythagoras called man a microcosm, or little world,40 as possessing in miniature all the qualities found on a great scale in the Universe; by his reason and intelligence partaking of the Divine Nature: and by his faculty of changing aliments into other substances, of growing, and repro-ducing himself, partaking of elementary Nature. Thus he made the Universe a great intelli-gent Being, like man—an immense Deity, having in itself, what man has in himself, move-ment, life, and intelligence, and besides, a perpetuity of existence, which man has not; and, as having in itself perpetuity of movement and life, therefore the Supreme Cause of all. Everywhere extended, this Universal Soul does not, in the view of Pythagoras, act every-where equally nor in the same manner. The highest portion of the Universe, being as it were its head, seemed to him its principal seat, and there was the guiding power of the rest of the world. In the seven concentric spheres is resident an eternal order, fruit of the intelligence, the Universal Soul that moves, by a constant and regular progression, the immortal bodies that form the harmonious system of the heavens.

Manilius says: “I sing the invisible and potent Soul of Nature; that Divine Substance which, everywhere inherent in Heaven Earth, and the Waters of the Ocean, forms the bond that holds together and makes one all the parts of the vast body of the Universe. It, balancing all Forces, and harmoniously arranging varied relations of the many members of the world, maintains the life and regular movement that agitate it, as a result of action of the living breath or single spirit that dwells in all parts, circulates in all the channels of universal nature, flashes with rapidity to all its points, and gives to animated bodies configurations appropriate to the organization of each .... This eternal Law, this Divine Force, that maintains the harmony [of] the world, makes use of the Celestial Signs to organize and guide the animated creatures that breathe upon the earth; and gives each of them the character and habits most appropriate. By action of this Force Heaven rules the condition of the Earth and of its fields cultivated by the husbandman: it gives us or takes from us vegetation and harvests: it makes the great ocean over-pass its limits at the flow, and retire within them again at ebbing, of the tide.”

Thus it is no longer by means of a poetic fiction only that heavens and the earth become animated and personified, and are deemed living existences, from which other existences proceed. For now they live, with their own life, a life eternal like the bodies, each gifted with a life and perhaps a soul, like those [of] man, a portion of the universal life and universal soul; and the other bodies that they form, and which they contain in the bosoms, live only through them and with their life, as the embryo lives in the bosom of its mother, in consequence and by means a the life communicated to it, and which the mother ever maintains by the active power of her own life. Such is the universal life of the world, reproduced in all the beings which its superior portion creates in its inferior portion, that is as it were the matrix of the world, or of the beings that the heavens engender in its bosom. (emphasis added)

Cf. “Origins of Scientific Materialism”, Theosophy, Vol. 28, No. 12, October, 1940:

The ancient pagan cosmogonies had included a multiplicity of gods who were the intelligences behind the forces of nature – personifications which were rendered acceptable to philosophy by Pythagoras and Plato. The Greek philosopher-initiates assimilated the “gods” to various degrees of spiritual intelligences emanated from the One, coming forth in mathematical harmonies expressive of and participants in the intelligence of Cosmic Mind.

40 For Plato’s view of these matters, see the Timaeus. For the place of this system among the various forms of idolatry, see my separate treatment synthesizing the doctrine of St. Thomas.

136

Cf. E. Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life (New York and London: The Free Press, 1915) (tr. Joseph Ward Swain), p. 223:

Since it has been made to embrace all of reality, the physical world as well as the moral one, the forces that move bodies as well as those that move minds have been conceived in a religious form. That is how the most diverse methods and practices, both those that make possible the continuation of the moral life (law, morals and art) and those serving the material life (the material, technical and practical sciences), are either directly or indirectly derived from religion.

It would appear, then, that the cosmogony attributed to Pythagoras best represents Aristotle’s first tradition “handed down in the form of myth”, namely, “that these [celestial] bodies are gods, and that the divine encloses [that is, pervades] the whole of nature”. And let us take occasion here to note that the Philosopher’s view, while resembling the former in certain particulars, is in no way to be identified with it: Whereas the Pythagorean is a system of pantheism, making the divine pervading nature to be the substance of God himself, Aristotle’s view is that there is an element in the world which can be reasonably called ‘divine’. Nor does he account for this element as involving anything like an emanation from God.

On the propria of Judeo-Christian world-view on the points at issue, cf. Tatian, Address to the Greeks, ch. iv. The Christians Worship God Alone (tr. J. E. Ryland):

For what reason, men of Greece, do you wish to bring the civil powers, as in a pugilistic encounter, into collision with us? And, if I am not disposed to comply with the usages of some of them, why am I to be abhorred as a vile miscreant? Does the sovereign order the payment of tribute, I am ready to render it. Does my master command me to act as a bondsman and to serve, I acknowledge the serfdom. Man is to be honoured as a fellow-man; God alone is to be feared,—He who is not visible to human eyes, nor comes within the compass of human art. Only when I am commanded to deny Him, will I not obey, but will rather die than show myself false and ungrateful. Our God did not begin to be in time: He alone is without beginning, and He Himself is the beginning of all things. God is a Spirit, not pervading matter, but the Maker of material spirits, and of the forms that are in matter; He is invisible, impalpable, being Himself the Father of both sensible and invisible things. Him we know from His creation, and apprehend His invisible power by His works. I refuse to adore that workmanship which He has made for our sakes.41 The sun and moon were made for us: how, then, can I adore my own servants? How can I speak of stocks and stones as gods? For the Spirit that pervades matter is inferior to the more divine spirit; and this, even when assimilated to the soul, is not to be honoured equally with the perfect God. (emphasis added)

For a helpful way of conceiving the relationship of God to the cosmos, cf. Abraham Cohen, Everyman’s Talmud: The Major Teachings of the Rabbinic Sages (New York, 1949), Chapter I. The Doctrine of God. Omnipresence, p. 6:

41 Cf. Rom 1:20: From the creation of the world, the invisible things of God are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead . Cf. Wis. 13:1-2: But all men are vain, in whom there is not the knowledge of God: and who by these good things that are seen, could not understand him that is, neither by attending to the works have acknowledged who was the workman: but have imagined either the fire, or the wind, or the swift air, or the circle of the stars, or the great water, or the sun and moon, to be the gods that rule the world.

137

To assist the comprehension of the place of the incorporeal God in the Universe, an analogy is drawn from the incorporeal part of the human being—the soul. ‘As the Holy One, blessed by He, fills the whole world, so also the soul fills the whole body. As the Holy One, blessed be He, sees but cannot be seen, so also the soul sees but cannot be seen. As the Holy One, blessed be He, nourishes the whole world, so also the soul nourishes the whole body. As the Holy One, blessed be He, is pure, so also the soul is pure. As the Holy One, blessed be He, dwells in the inmost part of the Universe, so also the soul dwells in the inmost part of the body’ (Ber. 10a).

On the right way of understanding the presence of God to the world, cf. Leo XIII, Divinum illud munus (May 9, 1897):

It is well to recall the explanation given by the Doctors of the Church of the words of Holy Scripture. They say that God is present and exists in all things “by His power in so far as all things are subject to His power; by His presence, inasmuch as all things are naked and open to His eyes; by His essence, inasmuch as He is present to all as the cause of their being” (St. Thomas, ST I.8.3). But God is in man, not only as in inanimate things, but because He is more fully known and loved by him, since even by nature we spontaneously love, desire, and seek after the good. Moreover, God by grace resides in the just soul as in a temple, in a most intimate and peculiar manner. From this proceeds that union of affection by which the soul adheres most closely to God, more so than the friend is united to his most loving and beloved friend, and enjoys God in all fullness and sweetness.  Now this wonderful union, which is properly called “indwelling,” differ[s] only in degree or state from that with which God beatifies the saints in heaven....

§

“God”: The nominal definition of the word in the Judeo-Christian tradition:

Cf. Mortimer J. Adler, The Great Ideas: A Syntopicon of Great Books of the Western World (Chicago, 1952), Chapter 29, “God” (Introduction), pp. 543-544:

In our civilization, what is denied by an atheist who says there is no God? Not idols or images which men may seek to placate. Not philosophical constructions or mythological figures. Certainly not the universe itself, either as an infinite and everlasting whole, or as finite and temporal, but equally mysterious in its ultimate incomprehensibility to the human mind. In our civilization, the atheist denies the existence of a supernatural being, the object of religious belief and worship among Jews, Christians, and Mohammedans. He denies the single, personal God Who created the world out of [543-544] nothing, Who transcends this created universe and sustains it by His immanent power, Who has made laws for the govern-ment of all things and cares for each particular by His providence, and Who created man in His own image, revealed Himself and His will to men, and metes out eternal rewards and punishments to the children of Adam, whom He also helps by His grace.

§

138

14. Supplement: The most ancient traditions of the Hellenes according to Plato and Aristotle.

Our intention is, that Timaeus, who is the most of an astronomer amongst us, and has made the nature of the universe his special study, should speak first, beginning with the generation of the world and going down to the creation of man.

— Plato, Timaeus

Cf. Plato, Timaeus 20c ff. (tr. Benjamin Jowett):

Hermocrates: And we too, Socrates, as Timaeus says, will not be wanting in enthusiasm; and there is no excuse for not complying with your request. As soon as we arrived yesterday at the guest-chamber of Critias, with whom we are staying, or rather on our way thither, we talked the matter over, and he told us an ancient tradition, which I wish, Critias, that you would repeat to Socrates, so that he may help us to judge whether it will satisfy his requirements or not.

Critias: I will, if Timaeus, who is our other partner, approves.

Timaeus: I quite approve.

Critias: Then listen, Socrates, to a tale which, though strange, is certainly true, having been attested by Solon, who was the wisest of the seven sages. He was a relative and a dear friend of my great-grandfather, Dropides, as he himself says in many passages of his poems; and he told the story to Critias, my grandfather, who remembered and repeated it to us. There were of old, he said, great and marvellous actions of the Athenian city, which have passed into oblivion through lapse of time and the destruction of mankind, and one in particular, greater than all the rest. This we will now rehearse. It will be a fitting monument of our gratitude to you, and a hymn of praise true and worthy of the goddess, on this her day of festival.

Socrates: Very good. And what is this ancient famous action of the Athenians, which Critias declared, on the authority of Solon, to be not a mere legend, but an actual fact?

Critias: I will tell an old-world story which I heard from an aged man; for Critias, at the time of telling it, was as he said, nearly ninety years of age, and I was about ten. Now the day was that day of the Apaturia which is called the Registration of Youth, at which, according to custom, our parents gave prizes for recitations, and the poems of several poets were recited by us boys, and many of us sang the poems of Solon, which at that time had not gone out of fashion.

One of our tribe, either because he thought so or to please Critias, said that in his judgment Solon was not only the wisest of men, but also the noblest of poets. The old man, as I very well remember, brightened up at hearing this and said, smiling: Yes, Amynander, if Solon had only, like other poets, made poetry the business of his life, and had completed the tale which he brought with him from Egypt, and had not been compelled, by reason of the factions and troubles which he found stirring in his own country when he came home, to attend to other matters, in my opinion he would have been as famous as Homer or Hesiod, or any poet.

And what was the tale about, Critias? said Amynander.

139

About the greatest action which the Athenians ever did, and which ought to have been the most famous, but, through the lapse of time and the destruction of the actors, it has not come down to us.

Tell us, said the other, the whole story, and how and from whom Solon heard this veritable tradition. He replied:

In the Egyptian Delta, at the head of which the river Nile divides, there is a certain district which is called the district of Sais, and the great city of the district is also called Sais, and is the city from which King Amasis came. The citizens have a deity for their foundress; she is called in the Egyptian tongue Neith, and is asserted by them to be the same whom the Hellenes call Athene; they are great lovers of the Athenians, and say that they are in some way related to them.

To this city came Solon, and was received there with great honour; he asked the priests who were most skilful in such matters, about antiquity, and made the discovery that neither he nor any other Hellene knew anything worth mentioning about the times of old. On one occasion, wishing to draw them on to speak of antiquity, he began to tell about the most ancient things in our part of the world-about Phoroneus, who is called “the first man,” and about Niobe; and after the Deluge, of the survival of Deucalion and Pyrrha; and he traced the genealogy of their descendants, and reckoning up the dates, tried to compute how many years ago the events of which he was speaking happened.

Thereupon one of the priests, who was of a very great age, said: O Solon, Solon, you Hellenes are never anything but children, and there is not an old man among you. Solon in return asked him what he meant. I mean to say, he replied, that in mind you are all young; there is no old opinion handed down among you by ancient tradition, nor any science which is hoary with age. And I will tell you why.

There have been, and will be again, many destructions of mankind arising out of many causes; the greatest have been brought about by the agencies of fire and water, and other lesser ones by innumerable other causes. There is a story, which even you have preserved, that once upon a time Paethon, the son of Helios, having yoked the steeds in his father’s chariot, because he was not able to drive them in the path of his father, burnt up all that was upon the earth, and was himself destroyed by a thunderbolt. Now this has the form of a myth, but really signifies a declination of the bodies moving in the heavens around the earth, and a great conflagration of things upon the earth, which recurs after long intervals; at such times those who live upon the mountains and in dry and lofty places are more liable to destruction than those who dwell by rivers or on the seashore. And from this calamity the Nile, who is our never-failing saviour, delivers and preserves us.

When, on the other hand, the gods purge the earth with a deluge of water, the survivors in your country are herdsmen and shepherds who dwell on the mountains, but those who, like you, live in cities are carried by the rivers into the sea. Whereas in this land, neither then nor at any other time, does the water come down from above on the fields, having always a tendency to come up from below; for which reason the traditions preserved here are the most ancient. The fact is, that wherever the extremity of winter frost or of summer does not prevent, mankind exist, sometimes in greater, sometimes in lesser numbers. And whatever happened either in your country or in ours, or in any other region of which we are informed-if there were any actions noble or great or in any other way remarkable, they have all been written down by us of old, and are preserved in our temples.

140

Whereas just when you and other nations are beginning to be provided with letters and the other requisites of civilized life, after the usual interval, the stream from heaven, like a pestilence, comes pouring down, and leaves only those of you who are destitute of letters and education; and so you have to begin all over again like children, and know nothing of what happened in ancient times, either among us or among yourselves. As for those genealogies of yours which you just now recounted to us, Solon, they are no better than the tales of children.

In the first place you remember a single deluge only, but there were many previous ones; in the next place, you do not know that there formerly dwelt in your land the fairest and noblest race of men which ever lived, and that you and your whole city are descended from a small seed or remnant of them which survived. And this was unknown to you, because, for many generations, the survivors of that destruction died, leaving no written word. For there was a time, Solon, before the great deluge of all, when the city which now is Athens was first in war and in every way the best governed of all cities, is said to have performed the noblest deeds and to have had the fairest constitution of any of which tradition tells, under the face of heaven.

15. Some ancient traditions in the form of myth according to Plato, Timaeus 22a ff. and Statesman, 274c-d.

“On one occasion, wishing to draw them [the Egyptian priests] on to speak of antiquity, he [Solon] began to tell about the most ancient things in our part of the world—

1. about Phoroneus, who is called “the first man,” 2. and about [B] Niobe [= the legendary source of the river Achelous]; 3. and after the Deluge, of the survival of Deucalion and Pyrrha; 4. and he traced the genealogy of their descendants, and reckoning up the dates, tried to

compute how many years ago the events of which he was speaking happened” (Plato, Timaeus 22a-b, tr. Benjamin Jowett).

“There have been, and will be again, many destructions of mankind arising out of many causes; the greatest have been brought about by the agencies of fire and water, and other lesser ones by innumerable other causes.

There is a story, which even you have preserved, that once upon a time Phaethon, the son of Helios, having yoked the steeds in his father’s chariot, because he was not able to drive them in the path of his father, burnt up all that was upon the earth, and was [D] himself destroyed by a thunderbolt.

Now this has the form of a myth, but really signifies a declination of the bodies moving in the heavens around the earth, and a great conflagration of things upon the earth, which recurs after long intervals; at such times those who live upon the mountains and in dry and lofty places are more liable to destruction than those who dwell by rivers or on the seashore.

And from this calamity the Nile, who is our never-failing saviour, delivers and preserves us” (Plato, Timaeus 22c-d, tr. Benjamin Jowett).

“Deprived of the care of God, who had possessed and tended them, they were left helpless and defenceless, and were torn in pieces by the beasts, who were naturally fierce and had now grown wild. And in the first ages they were still without skill or resource; the food which once grew spontaneously had failed, [c] and as yet they knew not how to procure it,

141

because they had never felt the pressure of necessity. For all these reasons they were in a great strait; wherefore also the gifts spoken of in the old tradition were imparted to man by the gods, together with so much teaching and education as was indispensable;

1. fire was given to them by Prometheus, [d] 2. the arts by Hephaestus and his fellow-worker, Athene, 3. seeds and plants by others.

From these is derived all that has helped to frame human life; since the care of the Gods, as I was saying, had now failed men, and they had to order their course of life for themselves, and were their own masters….” (Plato, Statesman, 274c-d, tr. B. Jowett)

16. Some ancient traditions according to Aristotle, On Philosophy, fr. 8.

Cf. John Philoponus, In Nicom. Isagogen I. 1 [= Aristotle, On Philosophy frag. 8, R2 2, R3

13, W 8, tr. ed. W. D. Ross, The Works of Aristotle, Vol. XII, Select Fragments, pp. 80—82]:

Wisdom (sofi/a) was so called as being a sort of clearness (sa/feia), inasmuch as it makes all things clear. This clearness being, as it were, something light, has acquired its name from that of light, because it brings hidden things to light. Since, then, as Aristotle says, things intelligible and divine, even if they are most clear in their own nature, seem to us dark [80-90]

and dim because of the mist of the body which hangs over us, men naturally gave to the knowledge which brings these things into the light for us the name of wisdom. But since we use the words ‘wisdom’ and ‘wise’ in a general way, it must be realized that these words are ambiguous. They have been taken by the ancients in five ways, which Aristotle mentions in his ten books On Philosophy. For you must know that men perish in diverse ways—both by plagues and famines and earthquakes and wars and various diseases and by other causes, but above all by more violent cataclysms, such as that in the time of Deucalion is said to have been; it was a great cataclysm but not the greatest of all. For herdsmen and those who have occupation in the mountains or foothills are saved, while the plains and the dwellers in them are engulfed; so, at least, they say that Dardanus was swept by the flood from Samothrace to what was afterwards called Troy, and thus was saved. Those who are saved from the water must live on the uplands, as the poet shows when he says:

‘First Zeus the cloud-gatherer begat Dardanus, and he established Dardania, for not yet was holy Ilios built upon the plain to be a city of mortal men, but they still dwelt on slopes of many-fountained Ida.’1

The word ‘still’ shows that they had not yet the courage to live in the plains. These survivors, then, not having the means of sustenance, were forced by necessity to think of useful devices—the grinding of corn, sowing, and the like—and they gave the name of wisdom to such thought, thought which discovered what was useful with a view to the necessities of life, and the name of wise to anyone who had had such thoughts. Again, they devised arts, as the poet says, ‘at the prompting of Athene’—arts not limited to the necessities of life, but going on to the production of beauty and elegance; and this again men called wisdom, and its discoverer wise, as in the phrase ‘A wise craftsman framed it,’ 2

‘knowing well by Athene’s promptings of wisdom’.3 For, because of the excellence of the discoveries, they ascribed the thought of these things to God. Again, they turned their attention to politics, and invented [81-82] laws, and all the things that hold a state together; and such they also called wisdom; for such were the Seven Wise Men—men who attained political virtues.

142

Then they went farther and proceeded to bodies themselves and the nature that fashions them, and this they call by the special name of natural science, and its possessors we describe as wise in the affairs of nature. Fifthly, men applied the name in connexion with things divine, supramundane, and completely unchangeable, and called the knowledge of these things the highest wisdom.

1 Hom., Il. 20. 215-18.2 Cf. ibid. 23, 712.3 Cf. ibid. 14. 412, Od. 16. 233.

17. Aristotle’s division of things called ‘wisdom’ in On Philosophy, fr. 8.

1. art(a) useful (1)(b) fine (2)

2. prudence (practical or political wisdom) (3)3. science (4)4. wisdom (theoretical, i.e. speculative or contemplative) (5)

In sum:

(1) the useful arts providing the necessities of life(2) arts aimed at the production of beauty and elegance(3) laws, and all things that hold a state together(4) natural science, concerned with bodies and the nature that fashions them(5) the highest wisdom, applied in connection with things divine, supramundane, and

completely unchangeable

Elaborations on the foregoing division:

(2) fine art in its poetic part embraces the work of the theologoi, certain ‘poet theologians’, or the ‘ancient poets’, such as Orpheus, Musaeus, Linus, Homer, and Hesiod; but their work is actually a mixture of poetry and dialectic, the latter being a speculative art

(3) prudence, i.e. practical or political wisdom embraces the work of the first political thinkers, especially that of the Seven Wise Men (cf. the priests and lawgivers), who produced the religious fables aimed at inducing virtue in the multitude through fear of eternal punishment and the like

(4) science embraces the work of the phusiologoi, such as Thales, Empedocles, and the other Pre-Socratic philosophers concerned with nature

(5) wisdom, i.e. speculative wisdom, or wisdom simply speaking embraces the work of the sophoi who were first philosophers, such as Pythagoras and Plato (but note that the first three also include wisdom in some way insofar as they touch on the first principles of things)Some ancient traditions in the form of myth according to Plato, Timaeus 22a-d; Statesman, 274c:

Phoroneus, the first man

143

Niobe [= the legendary source of the river Achelous] after the Deluge, the survival of Deucalion and Pyrrha Phaethon, the son of Helios the destruction of mankind by periodic catastrophes, such as the flooding of the

Nile fire given to men by Prometheus, the arts by Hephaestus and his fellow-worker,

Athene, seeds and plants by others

Some ancient traditions according to Aristotle, On Philosophy, fr. 8:

more violent cataclysms, such as that in the time of Deucalion is said to have been Dardanus swept by the flood from Samothrace to what was afterwards called Troy,

and thus was saved arts devised at the prompting of Athene

N.B. See further Excursus on Myth: A Series of Notes.

§

144

18. The Ptolemaic cosmology as represented by Dante.

Cf. Herbert Butterfield, The Origins of Modern Science, 1300-1800, revised ed. (New York: Free Press 1965), pp. 29-33:

An introductory sketch of the medieval view of the cosmos must be qualified first of all with the reservation that in this particular realm of thought there were variations, uncertainties, controversies and developments which it would obviously be impossible to describe in detail. On the whole, therefore, it would be well, perhaps, if we were to take Dante’s view of the universe as a pattern, because it will be easy to note in parenthesis some of the important variations that occurred, and at the same time this policy will enable us to see in a single survey the range of the multiple objections which it took the Copernican theory something like a hundred and fifty years to surmount. According to Dante, what one must have in mind is a series of spheres, one inside another, and at the heart of the whole system lies the motionless earth. The realm of what we should call ordinary matter is confined to the earth and its neighborhood – the region below the moon; and this matter, the stuff that we can hold between our fingers and which our modern physical sciences set out to study, is humble and unstable, being subject to change and decay for reasons which we shall examine later. The skies and the heavenly bodies – the rotating spheres and the stars and planets that are attached to them – are made of a very tangible kind of matter too, though it is more subtle in quality and it is not subject to change and corruption. It is not subject to the physical laws that govern the more earthy kind of material which we have below the moon. From the point of view of what we should call purely physical science, the earth and the skies therefore were cut off from one another and, for a medieval student, were separate organizations, though in a wider system of thought they dovetailed together to form one coherent cosmos. As to the ordinary matter of which the earth is composed, it is formed of four elements, and these are graded according to their virtue, their nobility. There is earth, which is the meanest stuff of all, then water, then air and, finally, fire, and this last comes highest in the hierarchy. We do not see these elements in their pre- and undiluted form, however – the earthy stuff that we handle when we pick up a little soil is mixed with earthiness. Of the four elements, earth and water posses gravity; they have a tendency to fall; they can only be at rest at the center of the universe. Fire and air do not have gravity, but possess the very reverse; they are characterized by levity, an actual tendency to rise, though the atmosphere clings a little to the earth because it is loaded with base mundane impurities. For all the elements have their spheres, and aspire to reach their proper sphere, where they find stability and rest; and when flame, for example, has soared to its own upper region it will be happy and contented, for here it can be still and can most endure. If the elements did not mix – if they were all at home in their proper spheres – we should have a solid sphere of earth at the heart of everything and every particle of it would be still. We should then have an ocean covering that whole globe, like a cap that fitted all round, then a sphere of air, which far above mountaintops was supposed to swirl round from east to west in sympathy with the movement of the skies. Finally, there would come the region of enduring fire, fitting like a sphere over all the rest. That, however, would be a dead universe. In fact, it was a corollary of this whole view of the world that ordinary motion up or down or in a straight line could only take place if there was something wrong – something displaced from its proper sphere. It mattered very much, therefore, that the various elements were not all in order but were mixed and out of place – for instance, some of the land had been drawn out above the waters, raised out of its proper sphere at the bottom, to provide habitable ground. On this land natural objects existed and, since they were mixtures, they might, for example, contain water, which as soon as it was released would tend to seek its way down to the sea. On the other hand, they might contain the element of fire, which would come out of them when they burned and

145

would flutter and push its way upwards, aspiring to reach its true home. But the elements are not always able to follow their nature in this pure fashion – occasionally the fire may strike downwards, as in lightning, or the water may rise in the form of vapor to prepare a store of rain. On one point, however, the law was fixed: while the elements are out of their proper spheres they are bound to be unstable – there cannot possibly be restfulness and peace. Woven, as we find them, on the surface of the globe, they make a mixed and chancy world, a world that is subject to constant mutation, liable to dissolution and decay. It is only in the northern hemisphere that land emerges, protruding about the waters that cover the rest of the globe. This land has been pulled up, out of its proper sphere, says Dante – drawn not by the moon or the planets or the ninth sky, but by an influence from the fixed stars, in his opinion. The land stretches from the Pillars of Hercules in the west to the Ganges in the east, from the Equator in the south to the Arctic Circle in the north. And in the center of this whole habitable world is Jerusalem, the Holy City. Dante had heard stories of travellers who had found a great deal more of the continent of Africa, found actual land much further south than he had been taught to consider possible. As a true rationalist he seems to have rejected “fables” that contradicted the natural science of his time, remembering that travellers were apt to be liars. The disproportionate amount of water in the world and the unbalanced distribution of the land led to some discussion of the whereabouts of the earth’s real centre. The great discoveries, however, culminating in the unmistakable discovery of America, provoked certain changes in ideas, as well as a debate concerning the possibility of the existence of inhabited countries at the antipodes. There was a growing view that earth and water, instead of coming in two separate circles, the one above the other, really dovetailed into one another to form a single sphere.

All this concerns the sublunary region; but there is another realm of matter to be considered, and this, as we have already seen, comes under a different polity. The skies are not liable to change and decay, for they – with the sun, the stars and the planets – are formed of a fifth element, an incorruptible kind of matter, which is subject to a different set of what we should call physical laws. If earth tends to fall to the centre of the universe, and fire tends to rise to its proper sphere above the air itself, the incorruptible stuff that forms the heavens has no reason for discontent – it is fixed in its congenial place already. Only one motion is possible for it – namely, circular motion – it must turn while remaining in the same place. According to Dante there are ten skies, only the last of them, the Empyrean Heaven, the abode of God, being at rest. Each of the skies is a sphere that surrounds the globe of the earth, and though all these spheres are transparent they are sufficiently tangible and real to carry one or more of the heavenly bodies round on their backs as they rotate about the earth – the whole system forming a set of transparent spheres, one around the other, with the hard earth at the centre of all. The sphere nearest to the earth has the moon attached to it, the others carry the planets or the sun, until we reach the eighth, to which all the fixed stars are fastened. A ninth sphere has no planet or star attached to it, nothing to give visible signs of its existence; but it must be there, for it is the primum mobile – it turns not only itself but all the other spheres or skies as well, from east to west, so that once in twenty-four hours the whole celestial system wheels round the motionless earth. This ninth sphere moves more quickly than any of the others, for the spirits which move it have every reason to be ardent. They are next to the Empyrean Heaven. In the system of Aristotle the spheres were supposed to be formed of a very subtle ethereal substance, moving more softly than liquids and without any friction; but with the passage of time the idea seems to have become coarsened and vulgarized. The successive heavens turned into glassy or crystalline globes, solid but still transparent, so that it became harder for men to keep in mind the fact that they were frictionless and free from weight, though the Aristotelian theory in regard to these points was still formally held. (emphasis added)

§

146

19. The modern view of the heavens: Copernicus and Galileo.

Cf. Prof. Gerhard Rempel, The Scientific Revolution, I. Copernicus. II. Galileo (1998):42

The year 1543 may be taken as the beginning of the scientific revolution, for it was then that Copernicus published The Revolution of the Heavenly Bodies and Vesalius, On the Structure of the Human Body. Within a century and a half, man’s conception of himself and the universe he inhabited was altered, and the scholastic method of reasoning was replaced by new scientific methods.

I. Copernicus

Nicholas Copernicus was born in the Polish city of Torun in 1473. Since his father, who was a merchant of German extraction, died when he was ten, he was raised by his uncle, the Bishop of Ermland. The bishop found an ecclesiastical position for his nephew and arranged for him to be educated in Italy between 1496 and 1506. While in Italy, Copernicus studied the generally accepted astronomical system of Ptolemy. This system depicted the universe as consisting of the earth and ten spheres: the moon, Mercury, Venus, the sun, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, the Firmament (fixed stars), the Crystalline Heaven which imparted motion to the spheres around the earth, and finally the motionless Empyrean Heaven where God dwelt with the elect. These spheres were generally believed to be solid and transparent, and the planets to be of a non-earthly weightless substance fitted into the spheres and revolving with them around the motionless earth. Beyond the Empyrean Heaven there was nothing. Thus, the universe was considered to be a finite entity with the stationary earth as its center.

The difficulty with the Ptolemaic system was that the planets and stars did not revolve exactly as predicted. The more observations the medieval astronomers made, the more it became apparent that something was wrong. To accommodate these discrepancies, the astronomers modified the system by suggesting that there were sub- and off-center spheres. Finally, the number of the various types of spheres reached eighty, but still mathematical calculations did not coincide with observed data. Astrologers could blame their errors on faulty astronomy and thereby repel the inference that no relation existed between the planets and fate. The calendar was known to be in error, but it was difficult to decide what corrections to make.

Copernicus became interested in these problems. He knew that an ancient astronomer, Aristarchus, had argued that the earth and the other planets revolved around the sun and that the earth also revolved daily on its axis. He determined to make mathematical calculations based on these theories, to see if they would bring better results. He kept the idea of the sub- and off-center spheres and never doubted that the planets’ paths around the sun were circular because his Platonic background led him to believe that the circle was the most perfect of geometric figures. Consequently, his calculations yielded predictions that were no more accurate than the modified Ptolemaic system. His calculations were simpler, however, and the number of sub- and off-center spheres could now be reduced to thirty-four.

As might be expected, the few theologians who took note of Copernicus’ system were inclined to reject it. Luther scornfully remarked that “this fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth.” More serious was the critical attitude of other scientists. Copernicus had anticipated some of their objections. The earth could rotate on its axis from west to east, he pointed out, without causing a constant high-velocity wind from east to west if the air

42 (http://mars.acnet.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/wc2/lectures/scientificrev.html [7/27/04])

147

revolved at the same speed and in the same direction. Also, the earth could move in an orbit around the sun without causing the stars to seem to change their location provided distance traveled by the earth was such a tiny fraction of the distance to the stars that the actual change in position could not be measured. His theory that vast distances separated the planets did not lead Copernicus to believe that the universe was infinite, although his supporters would soon advance that view. Only where his theory ran counter to the Aristotelian conception of gravity and motion was Copernicus unable to provide his critics with satisfactory answers.

To the Aristotelians, gravity was the natural tendency of heavy bodies to move towards the center of the universe. In situations in which gravity was not a factor, an object remained at rest unless a force was applied against it. If a force were constantly applied, the object moved at a constant, not an accelerated, speed. If the force were removed, the object stopped. As long as these theories were accepted, the Ptolemaic system caused fewer difficulties than the Copernican. If, as Aristotle said, a rock naturally fell towards the center of the universe, the Copernican astronomer had to explain why it actually moved towards the earth rather than the sun. Also, to Aristotle, a constant force had to be applied either to the earth to keep it moving around the sun or to the sun and planets to keep them moving around the earth. The former was the more difficult to believe because the earth was known to be very large and heavy while the sun and planets were thought to be composed of an unearthly, weightless substance that could be easily moved by the angels or some other supernatural force. Thus, a new theory of gravity and of motion had to be developed before the Copernican system could win acceptance. This was doubly true because the Aristotelians were still firmly entrenched in the university chairs of science and philosophy.

Furthermore, the Copernican system demanded that a man deny his senses, which easily told him that the sun went around the earth, in return for some mathematical calculations which made possible no better astronomical predictions than the Ptolemaic method. It is not surprising that for more than a century there were scientists who denied the validity of the Copernican system.

The debate led to a three-sided quarrel concerning the proper scientific method. The Aristotelians preferred to analyze the nature of things. They used little mathematics and few experiments but sought to construct their system by logical arguments leading from a few basic premises. Their goal was more to explain why things happen than to describe how they happen.

A second school, led by such men as the Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe (1546-1601) and the English philosopher Francis Bacon (1561-1626) favored the inductive method. They argued that the scientist should amass all the data possible through experiment and observation. Once assembled, these data would point to the correct conclusion. Tycho Brahe, for example, made observations on the motion of the planets that were as numerous and as accurate as they could have been before the invention of the telescope. His plot of the periodic changes in the location of the heavenly bodies led him to believe that Mercury and Venus revolved around the sun, but that the sun and the other planets revolved in turn around the earth. He never reduced his system to a mathematical statement, but it did follow observed fact more closely than Copernicus’s system.

The mathematical, deductive approach was the third system advocated at this time. It had received unintentional assistance from the Renaissance humanists who had preferred Plato to Aristotle, for Plato himself had been deeply influenced by a Greek mathematician of the sixth century B.C. named Pythagoras. Pythagoras had noted that the sound produced by plucking a stretched strong varied with its length. This relationship between the pitch and the

148

length of the string, which was subject to geometrical representation and mathematical measurement, led him to believe that all the important elements in the universe were subject to mathematical demonstration and that certain numbers had a peculiar mystical significance. Plato accepted this point of view and depicted nature in terms of straight lines, circles, triangles, and other geometric figures that were more perfect than the objects actually observed. Under his influence, Greek science became more mathematical than experimental, and the renewed emphasis on his thought had a similar effect in the late Renaissance. Among the chief supporters of the deductive-mathematical approach of Plato and Pythagoras were Copernicus himself and Johannes Kepler. Galileo Galilei, the third of the great trio of mathematicians, chose Archimedes as his model because that ancient scientist had applied mathematics to practical problems in physics and suggested the method that Galileo was to make his own.

Kepler (1571-1630) was an ardent Platonist who believed that simple mathematical laws were the basis of all natural phenomena. Using the data collected by his master, Brahe, he showed that planets follow elliptical orbits around the sun. he also found that they moved more rapidly as they neared the sun and that a mathematical law could express the relationship between the size of their orbits and the time that it took them to go all the way around them. His discoveries removed one of the objections to a sun-centered solar system, for his planetary tables were more accurate than those provided by the advocates of any other system.

Kepler offered no satisfactory answer to the problem of gravity, and the best explanation that he could offer for the force that moved the planets was to suggest that it came from the sun. Other developments, however, were gradually undermining the Aristotelian conception of motion and gravity. A new star that was so bright that it could be seen in daylight appeared in 1572 only to disappear again in 1574. Obviously, the region of the fixed stars was not permanent and unchanging as the Aristotelians taught. A few years later, a new comet was seen passing through the region on the far side of the moon that Aristotelians said was composed of the impenetrable, transparent spheres in which the revolving planets were located. Clearly the Aristotelians were wrong, but if the planets did not get their capacity to move in fixed orbits from the spheres, where did they get their power of motion and what force held them to a prescribed path? The next great contribution towards providing an answer to these questions and winning acceptance for the Copernican theory was made by Galileo Galilei (1564-1642).

II. Galileo

Galileo was born in Pisa of a noble Florentine family. He served as professor of mathematics at both Pisa and Padua and later held a post in the court of the Grand Duke of Tuscany. His scientific successes were due to his ability to make what some historians have called “thought experiments.” Taking a particular problem, such as the law that governs falling bodies, he would strip it of all complicating factors, such as the effect of air resistance, and then speculate on what would happen. Would a heavy object fall faster in a vacuum than a lighter one as the Aristotelians argued, or would they fall together at the same speed? Galileo drew lines to represent the various forces involved and by the use of geometry reduce them to a mathematical formula. In this manner he showed that s = gt2 where s is the distance of the fall, t is the time of fall, and g is a 2 constant. This discovery undermined the Aristotelians in two respects. it showed that there was no relation between the weight of a body and the speed at which it fell, and that if a uniform force (g) was applied to an object, it would move at an accelerated speed rather than at a constant speed as the Aristotelians had argued. this meant that if angels were constantly pushing the planets along their orbits, the planets would rotate faster and faster, Since this was obviously not the case, the force which

149

had originally set the planets in motion was no longer being applied. Neither the angels nor any other supernatural power was needed to keep the planets in motion, for as our modern law of inertia states, a body in motion continues to move in a straight line until something stops it or alters its course. Galileo, himself, did not fully state the law of inertia, and its implication that the universe could function without the active interference of a God was not generally accepted by scientists until the eighteenth century, but Aristotelian science had received a mortal blow.

Galileo also contributed to the development of the scientific method. He had not needed to perform any experiments to arrive at the law of falling bodies, and, contrary to legend, he probably never dropped a light and heavy object from the Leaning Tower of Pisa. Mathematical proof was preferred because with mathematics alone could he remove the extraneous parts of the problem and express his law simply. Bacon and the advocates of induction insisted that such factors as air resistance be considered at the same time, and the problem was thereby made too complex to find a formula readily. An Aristotelian did drop two weights from the tower at Pisa and went away claiming that Aristotle had been right, that the heavier object had landed first. Other factors must have intervened to cause the experiment to go awry. With mathematics, Galileo thought, there could be no mistakes.

Therefore, he confidently reduced the universe to mass and motion. Both could be expressed in geometric terms. “Philosophy,” he wrote, “is written in the great book which ever lies before our eyes – I mean the universe – but we cannot understand it if we do not first learn the language and grasp the symbols, in which it is written. The book is written in the mathematical language, and the symbols are triangles, circles, and other geometric figures, without whose help it is impossible to comprehend a single word of it; without which one wanders in vain through a dark labyrinth.”

He was drawn to the system of Copernicus and Kepler because they made use of geometric reasoning. “I cannot sufficiently admire,” he wrote, “the eminence of those men’s wits, that have received and held it to be true, and with the sprightliness of their judgments offered such violence to their own senses, as that they have been able to prefer that with their reason dictated to them, to that which sensible experiments represented most manifestly to the contrary. . . . I cannot find any bounds for my admiration, how that reason was able in Aristarchus and Copernicus, to commit such a rape on their senses, as in spite thereof to make herself mistress of their credulity.”

Galileo’s preference for mathematical calculations to knowledge derived only from his senses does not mean that he never made use of observation. Indeed, he was the first to use a telescope in astronomical work. He studied the moon and found that it was composed of the same substances as the earth and that it produced no light of its own, but only reflected rays from the sun. He turned his telescope on the sun itself and saw that it had spots. The sun was not a perfect substance, then, and since the spots moved, the sun rotated on its axis in the same direction as the planets moved in their orbits. He found the four satellites of Jupiter and saw that they revolved around the planet. These discoveries conformed his belief in the heliocentric system and suggested that other heavenly bodies had the same properties as the earth.

In 1632, he published his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief Systems of World. He wrote in Italian to reach a wide audience and doubtless hoped to defeat forever the defenders of Ptolemy. He showed how the rotation of the earth on its axis produced the apparent rotation of the heavens, why an object dropped from a tower will land directly below because it moved eastward with the rotation of the earth at the same speed as the tower, how gravitation prevented objects from being thrown off the whirling earth, and how the stars’

150

great distance from the earth prevented man from being able to see their changed position as the earth moved around the sun. One by one, Galileo answered the objections that had been offered to the Copernican system; at the same time he pointed out problems that made the continued acceptance of the Ptolemaic system absurd. His work was a success, but he was summoned before the Inquisition at Rome for teaching a doctrine “contrary to Holy Scripture” and was compelled to recant. His book was placed on the Index where it remained until 1822, but it was too late to halt the new astronomy and physics.

The Copernican system with its new theory of motion and its mathematical, deductive method was now enthusiastically accepted by most scientists, although the problem of gravity was not fully solved. As early as 1600, William Gilbert (1540-1603) had published a study in which he argued that gravity was a universal magnetic attraction. The earth, he believed, was a gigantic magnet that attracted the moon, and the moon in turn was a magnet that attracted the earth. When he discovered that a spherical magnet revolved on its axis when placed in a magnetic field, he offered this as an explanation of why the earth and other heavenly bodies rotated on their axes. Kepler accepted many of Gilbert’s ideas, and the view that gravity was a universal property became widely accepted. Christian Huygens (1629-1695) explained how the force of gravity, which pulled the planets towards the sun, was counterbalanced by a centrifugal force tending to cause them to leave their orbits on a tangent. It remained, however, for Sir Isaac Newton to discover the law of gravitation. With this discovery, he provided the capstone to the scientific revolution in astronomy and physics that ushered in a new era.

The triumphs achieved by the mathematical method redoubled efforts in the field of mathematics itself, and during the seventeenth century, analytic geometry and calculus were discovered, logarithms and the slide rule were invented, and arithmetical and algebraic symbols were improved and came into common use. The need for accurate measuring instruments led to the invention of the barometer, thermometer, pendulum clock, microscope, telescope, and air pump. These and other discoveries had a profound effect. They influenced philosophy, religion, art, and political thought. As a contemporary wrote, the “geometric spirit is not so exclusively bound to geometry that it could not be separated from it and applied to other fields. A work on ethics, politics, criticism, or even eloquence, other things being equal, is merely so much more beautiful and perfect if it is written in the geometric spirit.”

(c) 1998 Western New England College

On Galileo, cf. Peter Machamer, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, s.v. “Galileo Galilei” (2005) (excerpt):

3. Galileo’s Scientific Story

The philosophical thread that runs through Galileo’s intellectual life is a strong and increasing desire to find a new conception of what constitutes natural philosophy and how natural philosophy ought to be pursued. Galileo signals this goal clearly when he leaves Padua in 1611 to return to Florence and the court of the Medici and asks for the title Philosopher as well as Mathematician.

This was not just a status-affirming request, but also a reflection of his large-scale goal. What Galileo accomplished by the end of his life in 1642 was a reasonably well articulated replacement for the traditional set of analytical concepts connected with the Aristotelian tradition of natural philosophy. He offered, in place of the Aristotelian categories, a set of mechanical concepts that were accepted by almost everyone who afterwards developed the

151

‘new sciences’, and which, in some form or another, became the hallmark of the new philosophy. His way of thinking became the way of the scientific revolution (and yes, there was such a ‘revolution’, pace Shapin 1996 and others, cf. Selections in Lindberg 1990, Osler 2000.)

Some scholars might wish to describe what Galileo achieved in psychological terms as an introduction of new mental models (Palmieri 2003) or a new model of intelligibility (Machamer 1998c). However phrased, Galileo’s main move was to de-throne the Aristotelian physical categories of the one celestial (the aether or fifth element) and four terrestrial elements (fire, air, water and earth) and their differential directional natures of motion (circular, up and down). In their place he left only one element, corporeal matter, and a different way of describing the properties and motions of matter in terms of the mathematics of the equilibria of proportional relations (Palmieri 2001) that were typified by the Archimedian simple machines—the balance, the inclined plane, the lever, to which he added floating bodies and the pendulum (Machamer 1998b, Machamer and Hepburn 2004). In doing so Galileo changed the acceptable way of talking about matter and its motion, and so ushered in the mechanical tradition that characterizes so much of modern science, even today. But this would take more explaining (Dijksterhuis 1950, Machamer et al. 2000).As a main focus underlying Galileo’s accomplishments, it is useful to see him as being interested in finding a unified theory of matter, a mathematical theory of the material stuff that constitutes the whole of the cosmos. Perhaps he didn’t realize that this was his grand goal until the time he actually wrote the Discourses on the Two New Sciences in 1638. Despite working on problems of the nature of matter from 1590 onwards, he could not have written his final work much earlier than 1638, certainly not before Starry Messenger of 1610, and actually not before the Dialogues on the Two Chief World Systems of 1632. Before 1632, he did not have the theory and evidence he needed to support his claim about a unified, singular matter. He had thought deeply about the nature of matter before 1610 and had tried to work out how best to describe matter, but the idea of unified matter theory had to wait for the establishment of principles of matter’s motion on a moving earth. And this he did not accomplish until the Dialogues.

Galileo began his critique of Aristotle in the 1590 manuscript, De Motu. The first part of this manuscript deals with terrestrial matter and argues that Aristotle’s theory has it wrong. For Aristotle, sublunary or terrestrial matter is of four kinds (earth, air, water, and fire) and has two forms, heavy and light, which by nature are different principles of (natural) motion, down and up. Galileo, using an Archimedian model of floating bodies and later the balance, argues that there is only one principle of motion, the heavy (gravitas), and that lightness (or levitas) is to be explained by the heavy bodies moving so as to displace or extrude other bits of matter in such a direction that explains why the other bits rise. So on his view heaviness (or gravity) is the cause of all natural terrestrial motion. But this left him with a problem as to the nature of the heavy, the nature of gravitas. In De Motu, he argued that the moving arms of a balance could be used as a model for treating all problems of motion. In this model heaviness is the proportionality of weight of one object on one arm of a balance to the weight of another body on the other arm of the balance. In the context of floating bodies, weight is the ‘weight’ of one body minus the ‘weight’ of the medium.

Galileo realized quickly these characterizations were insufficient, and so began to explore how heaviness was relative to the different specific gravities of bodies having the same volume. He was trying to figure out what is the concept of heaviness that is characteristic of all matter. What he failed to work out, and this was probably the reason why he never published De Motu, was this positive characterization of heaviness. There seemed to be no

152

way to find standard measures of heaviness that would work across different substances. So at this point he did not have useful categories to replace the Aristotelian ones.

A while later, in his 1600 manuscript, Le Mecaniche (Galileo 1600/1960) he introduces the concept of momento, a quasi force concept that applies to a body at a moment and which is somehow proportional to weight or specific gravity (Galluzzi 1979). Still, he has no good way to measure or compare specific gravities of bodies composed of different materials; his notebooks during this early 17th century period reflect his trying again and again to find a way to bring all matter under a single proportional measuring scale. He tries to study acceleration along an inclined plane and to find a way to think of what changes acceleration brings. In this regard and during this period he attempts to examine the properties of the percussive effect of bodies of different specific gravities, or how they have differential impacts. Yet the details and categories of how to properly treat weight and movement elude him.

One of Galileo’s problems was that the Archimedean simple machines that he was using as his model of intelligibility, especially the balance, are not easily conceived of in a dynamic way. Except for the inclined plane, time is not a property of the action of simple machines that one would normally attend to. In discussing a balance, one does not normally think about how fast an arm of the balance descends nor how fast a body on the opposite arm is rising (though Galileo does in his Postils to Rocco ca. 1634–45; see Palmieri 2004b). The converse is also true. It is difficult to model ‘dynamic’ phenomena that deal with the rate of change of different bodies as problems of balance arms moving upwards or downwards because of differential weights. So it was that Galileo’s classic dynamic puzzle about how to describe time and the force of percussion, or the force of body’s impact, would remain unsolved. He could not, throughout his life, find systematic relations among specific gravities, height of fall and percussive forces.

In 1603–9, Galileo worked long at doing experiments on inclined planes and most importantly with pendula. The pendulum again exhibited to Galileo that acceleration and, therefore, time is a crucial variable. Moreover, isochrony—equal times for equal lengths of string, despite different weights—goes some way towards showing that time is a possible form for describing the equilibrium (or ratio) that needs to be made explicit in representing motion. It also shows that, in at least one case, time can displace weight as a crucial variable. Work on the force of percussion and inclined planes also emphasized acceleration and time, and during this time (ca. 1608) he wrote a little treatise on acceleration that remained unpublished.

We see from his work during this period that Galileo’s law of free fall arises out of this struggle to find the proper categories for his new science of matter and motion. Galileo accepts, probably as early as the 1594 draft of Le Mecaniche, that natural motions might be accelerated. But that accelerated motion is properly measured against time is an idea enabled only later, chiefly through his failure to find any satisfactory dependence on place and specific gravity. Galileo must have observed that the speeds of bodies increase as they move downwards and, perhaps, do so naturally, particularly in the cases of the pendulum, the inclined plane, in free fall, and during projectile motion. Also at this time he begins to think about percussive force, the force that a body acquires during its falling motion that affects the strength of its impact. For many years he thinks that the correct science of these changes should describe how bodies change according to where they are, their position, on their paths. Specifically, it seems that height is crucial. Percussive force is directly related to height and the motion of the pendulum seems to involve essentially equilibrium with respect to the height of the bob (and time also, but isochrony did not lead directly to a recognition of time’s importance.)

153

The law of free fall, expressed as proportionality to time squared, was discovered by Galileo through the inclined plane experiments (Drake 1999, v. 2), but he attempted to find an explanation of this relation, and the equivalent mean proportional relation, through a velocity-distance relation. His later and correct definition of natural acceleration as dependent on time is an insight gained through recognizing the physical significance of the mean proportional relation (Machamer and Hepburn 2004; for a different analysis of Galileo’s discovery of free fall see Renn et al. 2004.) Yet Galileo would not publish anything making time central to motion until 1638, in Discourses on the Two New Sciences (Galileo 1638/1954.) But let us return to the main matter.

In 1609 Galileo begins his work with the telescope. Many interpreters have taken this to be an interlude irrelevant to his physics. The Starry Messenger, which describes his early telescopic discoveries, was published in 1610. There are many ways to describe Galileo’s findings but for present purposes they are remarkable as the starting point of his effort to dismantle the celestial/terrestrial distinction (Feyerabend 1975). Perhaps the most unequivocal instance of this is Galileo’s analogizing the mountains on the moon to mountains in Bohemia. The abandonment of the heaven/earth dichotomy implied that all matter is of the same kind, regardless of whether it is celestial or terrestrial. Moreover, if there is only one kind of matter there can be only one kind of natural motion, one kind of motion that this matter has by nature. So it has to be that one law of motion will hold for earth, fire and the heavens. This is a far stronger claim than he had made back in 1590. In addition, he described his discovery of the four moons circling Jupiter, which he politically named the Medicean stars (after the ruling family in Florence, his patrons). In the Copernican system, the Earth’s having a moon revolving around it was unique and so seemingly problematic for a system where the Earth was just one planet among others. Jupiter’s having planets made the earth-moon system non-unique and so eliminated the potential problem.

A few years later in his Letters on the Sunspots (1612), Galileo enumerated more reasons for the breakdown of the celestial/terrestrial distinction. Basically the ideas here were that the sun has spots (maculae) and rotated in circular motion, and, most importantly Venus had phases just like the moon, which was the spatial key to physically locating Venus as being between the Sun and the earth. In these letters he claimed that the new telescopic evidence supported the Copernican theory. Later in 1623, Galileo argued for a quite mistaken material thesis. In The Assayer, he tried to show that comets were sublunary phenomena and that their properties could be explained by optical refraction. While this work stands as a masterpiece of scientific rhetoric, it is somewhat strange that Galileo should have argued against the super-lunary nature of comets, which the great Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe had demonstrated earlier.

Yet even with all these changes, two things were missing. First, Galileo needed to work out some general principles concerning the nature of motion for this new unified matter. Specifically, given his Copernicanism, he needed to work out, at least qualitatively, a way of thinking about the motions of matter on a moving earth. The change here was more than just the shift from a Ptolemaic, Earth-centered planetary system to a Sun-centered Copernican model. For Galileo, this shift was also from a mathematical planetary model to a physically realizable cosmography. It was necessary for him to describe the planets and the earth as real material bodies. In this respect, Galileo differed dramatically from Ptolemy, Copernicus, or even Tycho Brahe, who had demolished the crystalline spheres by his comets-as-celestial objects argument and flirted with physical models (Westman 1976). On the new Galilean scheme there is only one kind of matter, and it may have only one kind of motion natural to it. Therefore, he had to devise (or shall we say, discover)

154

principles of local motion that will fit a central Sun, planets moving around that sun, and a daily whirling earth.

This he did by introducing two new principles. In Day One of his Dialogues on the Two Chief World Systems (Galileo 1632) Galileo argued that all natural motion is circular. Then, in Day Two, he introduced his version of the famous principle of the relativity of observed motion. This principle held that motions in common among bodies could not be observed; only motions other than a shared common motion could be perceived as moving. The joint effect of these two principles was the conclusion that all matter shares a common motion, circular, and so only motions different from the common, say up and down motion, could be directly observed. His famous example was that a ship, the water it was floating in, and the earth all shared a common motion, so that the only observable motion would be the downward motion of a ball dropped from the top of the mast. Of course, neither of these principles originated with Galileo. They had predecessors. But no one needed them for the reasons that he did, namely that they were necessitated by a unified cosmological matter.

In the Dialogues, things are more complicated than I have just sketched. Galileo, as noted, argues for a circular natural motion, so that all things on the earth and in the atmosphere revolve in a common motion with the earth. Because of this the principle of the relativity of observed motion will apply to phenomena such as balls dropped from the masts of moving ships. Yet he also introduces at places a straight-line (rectilinear) natural motion. For example, in Day Three, he gives a quasi account for a Coriolis-type effect for the winds circulating about the earth by means of this straight-line motion. (David Miller discovered this in the text; see also Hooper 1998.) Further, in Day Four, while presenting his proof of the Copernican theory by sketching out how the three-way moving earth mechanically moves the tides, he nuances his matter theory by attributing to the element water the power of retaining an impetus for motion such that it can provide a reciprocal movement once it is sloshed against a side of a basin. This was not Galileo’s first discussion of the properties of water. We saw some in De Motu in 1590, with submerged bodies, but more importantly Galileo learned much more while working through his dispute over floating bodies. (Discourse on Floating Bodies, 1612). In fact a large part of this debate turned on the exact nature of water as matter, and what kind of mathematical proportionality could be used to correctly describe it and bodies moving in it (Cf. Palmieri, 1998, 2004a).

The final chapter of Galileo’s scientific story comes in 1638 with the publication of Discourses of the Two New Sciences. The second science, discussed (so to speak) in the last two days, dealt with the principles of local motion. These have been much commented upon in the Galilean literature. Here is where he enunciates the law of free fall, the parabolic path for projectiles and his physical “discoveries” (Drake 1999, v. 2). But the first two days, the development of his first science, has been much misunderstood and little discussed. This first science, misleadingly, has been called the science of the strength of materials, and so seems to have found a place in the history of engineering, since such a course is still taught today. However, this first science is not about the strength of materials per se. It is Galileo’s attempt to provide a mathematical science of his unified matter. (See Machamer 1998b, Machamer and Hepburn 2004, and the detailed work by Biener 2004). Galileo realizes that before he can work out a science of the motion of matter, he must have some way of showing that the nature of matter may be mathematically characterized. Both the mathematical nature of matter and the mathematical principles of motion, he believed, belong to the science of mechanics, which is the name he gives for this new way of philosophizing.

155

So it is in Day One that he begins to discuss how to describe, mathematically (or geometrically), the causes of how beams break. He is searching for the mathematical description of the essential nature of matter. He considers certain problems that use infinite atoms as basis and continues on giving reasons for various properties that matter has. Among these are the constitution of matter, properties of matter due to heaviness, the properties of the media within which bodies move and what is the cause of a body’s coherence (cohesion) as a single material body. The most famous of these discussions is his account of acceleration of falling bodies, that whatever their weight would fall equally fast in a vacuum. The Second Day lays out the mathematical principles concerning how bodies break. He accomplishes this by reducing the problems of matter to problems of the lever and the balance, something he had started working on back in 1590. However, this time he believes he is getting it right by showing mathematically how bits of matter solidify and stick together, and by describing when they break. The ultimate explanation of the “sticking” eluded him since he felt he would have to deal with unintelligible infinitesimals (and vacua) to really solve this problem.

The second science, Days Three and Four of Discorsi, dealt with proper principles of local motion, but this was now motion for all matter (not just sublunary stuff) and it took the categories of time and acceleration as basic. Interestingly, Galileo, here again, felt the need to include some anti-Aristotelian arguments about motion just as he had done back in 1590. The most famous example of his doing this is his “beautiful thought experiment”, whereby he compares two bodies of the same material of different sizes and points out that according to Aristotle they should fall at different speeds, the heavier one faster. Galileo then suggests joining the bodies together. If Aristotle were right, the lightness of the small one ought to slow down the faster larger one, and so they together should fall at a lesser speed than the heavy body alone. Then he produces his punch line: one might also conceive of the two bodies joined as being one even larger body, in which case it should fall even more quickly than the larger of the two separated bodies. So there is a contradiction in the Aristotelian position (Palmieri 2004b). Galileo’s projected Fifth Day would have treated the grand principle of the impact power of matter in motion. He calls it the force of percussion, which deals with two bodies interacting. This problem he does not solve, and it won’t be solved until Descartes, probably following Beeckman, turns the problem into finding the equilibrium points for colliding bodies.

The sketch above provides the basis for understanding Galileo’s development. He has a new science of matter, a new physical cosmography, and a new science of local motion. In all these he is using a mathematical mode of description based upon, though somewhat changed from, the proportional geometry of Euclid, Book VI and Archimedes (for details on the change see Palmieri 2002).

It is in this way that Galileo developed the new categories of the mechanical new science, the science of matter and motion. His new categories utilized some of the basic principles of traditional mechanics, to which he added the category of time and so emphasized acceleration. Throughout, he was working out the details about the nature of matter so that it could be understood as uniform and treated in a way that allowed for coherent discussion of the principles of motion. That a unified matter became accepted and its nature became one of the problems for the ‘new science’ that followed was due to Galileo. Thereafter, matter really mattered.

4. Galileo and the Church

No account of Galileo’s importance to philosophy can be complete if it does not discuss Galileo’s condemnation and the Galileo affair (Finocchiaro 1989). The end of the episode

156

is simply stated. In late 1632, after publishing Dialogues on the Two Chief World Systems, Galileo was ordered to go to Rome to be examined by the Holy Office of the Inquisition. In January 1633, a very ill Galileo made an arduous journey to Rome. Finally, in April 1633 Galileo was called before the Holy Office. This was tantamount to a charge of heresy, and he was called to repent (Shea and Artigas, 183f.) Specifically, he had been charged with teaching and defending the Copernican doctrine that holds that the Sun is at the center of the universe and that the Earth moves. This doctrine had been deemed heretical in 1616, and Copernicus’ book had been placed on the index of prohibited books, pending correction.

Galileo was summoned four times for a hearing; the last call came on June 21, 1633. The next day, 22 June, Galileo was taken to the church of Santa Maria sopra Minerva in Rome, and ordered to kneel while his sentence was read. It was declared that he was “vehemently suspect of heresy”. Galileo was made to recite and sign a formal abjuration:

I have been judged vehemently suspect of heresy, that is, of having held and believed that the sun is in the centre of the universe and immoveable, and that the earth is not at the center of same, and that it does move. Wishing however, to remove from the minds of your Eminences and all faithful Christians this vehement suspicion reasonably conceived against me, I abjure with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, I curse and detest the said errors and heresies, and generally all and every error, heresy, and sect contrary to the Holy Catholic Church. (Quoted in Shea and Artigas 194)

Galileo was not imprisoned, but had his sentence commuted to house arrest. In December 1633 he was allowed to retire to his villa in Arcetri, outside of Florence. During this time he finished his last book, Discourses on the Two New Sciences, which was published in 1638, in Holland, by Louis Elzivier. The book does not mention Copernicanism at all, and Galileo professed amazement at how it could have been published. He died on January 8, 1642.

There has been much controversy over the events leading up to Galileo’s trial, and it seems that each year we learn more about what actually happened. There is also controversy over the legitimacy of the charges against Galileo, both in terms of their content and judicial procedure. The summary judgment about this latter point is that the Church most probably acted within its authority and on ‘good’ grounds given the condemnation of Copernicus, and, as we shall see, the fact that Galileo had been warned by Cardinal Bellarmine earlier in 1616 not to defend or teach Copernicanism. The were also a number of political factors such as the Counter Reformation, the 30 Years War, and the problems with the papacy of Urban VIII that served as further impetus to Galileo’s condemnation. (McMullin, ed. 2005) It has even been argued (Redondi 1983) that the charge of Copernicanism was a compromise plea bargain to avoid the truly heretical charge of atomism, though this latter thesis has not found many willing supporters.

Legitimacy of the content, that is, of the condemnation of Copernicus, is much more problematic. Galileo had addressed this problem in 1615, when he wrote his Letter to Castelli (which becomes known as the Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina). In this letter he had argued that, of course, the Bible was an inspired text, yet two truths could not contradict one another. So in cases where it was known that science had achieved a true result, the Bible ought to be interpreted in such a way that makes it compatible with this truth. The Bible, he argued, was an historical document written for common people at an historical time, and it had to be written in language that would make sense to them and lead them towards the true religion. (McMullin 1998 has shown how Galileo’s arguments were similar to those of Augustine.)

157

Much philosophical controversy, before and after Galileo’s time, devolves around this doctrine of the two truths and their seeming incompatibility. This, of course, puts us right in the middle of such questions as: “What is truth?” and “How is truth known or shown?”

Cardinal Bellarmine was willing to countenance scientific truth if it could be proven or demonstrated (McMullin 1998). But Bellarmine held that the planetary theories of Ptolemy and Copernicus (and presumably Tycho Brahe) were only hypotheses and due to their mathematical, purely calculatory character were not susceptible to physical proof. This is a sort of instrumentalist, anti-realist position (Duhem, Machamer 1976). There are any number of ways to argue for some sort of instrumentalism. Duhem himself argued that science is not metaphysics, and so only deals with useful conjectures that enable us to systematize the phenomena. Subtler versions, without an Aquinian metaphysical bias, of this position have been argued subsequently and more fully by van Fraassen and others. Less sweepingly, it could reasonably be argued that both Ptolemy and Copernicus’ theories were primarily mathematical, and that what Galileo was defending was not Copernicus’ theory per se, but a physical realization of it. In fact, it might be more appropriate to say that the Copernican theory that Galileo was constructing was a physical realization of parts of Copernicus’ theory, which, by the way, dispensed with all the mathematical trappings (eccentrics, epicycles, Tusi couples and the like). Galileo would be led to such a view by his concern with matter theory. Of course, put this way, we are faced with the question of what constitutes identity conditions for a theory or being the same theory. There is clearly a way in which Galileo’s Copernicanism is not Copernicus.

Another aspect which has been hotly debated is: what constitutes proof or demonstration of a scientific claim? In 1616, the same year that Copernicus’ book was placed on the Index of Prohibited Books, Galileo was called before Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, head of the Holy Office of the Inquisition and warned not to defend or teach Copernicanism. During this year Galileo also completed a manuscript, On the Ebb and Flow of the Tides. The argument of this manuscript will turn up 17 years later as day Four of Galileo’s Dialogues concerning the Two Chief World Systems. This argument, about the tides, Galileo believed provided proof of the truth of the Copernican theory. It was an argument for the physical plausibility of Galileo’s version of the Copernican theory. Let’s look more closely at his argument.

Galileo argues that the motion of the earth (diurnal and axial) is the only conceivable (or maybe plausible) physical cause for the reciprocal regular motion of the tides. He restricts the possible class of causes to mechanical motions, and so rules out Kepler’s attribution of the moon as a cause. How could the moon, without any connection and at a distance, cause the tides of the seas to ebb and flow? Such an explanation would amount to the invocation of magic or occult powers. So the motion of the earth causes the waters in the basins of the seas to slosh back and forth, and since the earth’s diurnal and axial rotation is regular, so are the periods of the tides; the backward movement is due to the residual impetus built up in the water during its slosh. Differences in tidal flows are due to the differences in the physical conformations of the basins in which they flow (for background and more detail, see Palmieri 1998).

Albeit mistaken, the argument is made plausible given Galileo’s commitment to accepting only mechanically intelligible causation. One can see why Galileo thinks he has some sort of proof for the motion of the earth, and therefore for Copernicanism. Yet one can also see why Bellarmine and the instrumentalists would not be impressed. First, they do not accept Galileo’s restriction of possible causes to mechanically intelligible causes. Second, the tidal argument does not directly deal with the annual motion of the earth about the sun. And third, the argument does not touch anything about the central position of the sun or

158

about the periods of the planets as calculated by Copernicus. So at its best, Galileo’s argument is an inference to the best partial explanation of one point in Copernicus’ theory. However, for Galileo this was enough for him to believe that he had the necessary proof to convince the doubters of the Copernican system. Unfortunately, it was not until after Galileo’s life and the acceptance of a cosmology of unified matter, based on the presuppositions about matter and motion that were published in the Discourses on the Two New Sciences that people became ready to consider such a proof. But this could occur only after Galileo had changed the acceptable parameters for gaining knowledge and theorizing about the world. (emphasis added)

20. On the tides and the moon.

a. General Considerations.

Cf. Moon Tides. How the Moon Affects the Ocean Tides:43

The word “tides” is a generic term used to define the alternating rise and fall in sea level with respect to the land, produced by the gravitational attraction of the moon and the sun. To a much smaller extent, tides also occur in large lakes, the atmosphere, and within the solid crust of the earth, acted upon by these same gravitational forces of the moon and sun.

What are Lunar Tides

Tides are created because the Earth and the moon are attracted to each other, just like magnets are attracted to each other. The moon tries to pull at anything on the Earth to bring it closer. But, the Earth is able to hold onto everything except the water. Since the water is always moving, the Earth cannot hold onto it, and the moon is able to pull at it. Each day, there are two high tides and two low tides. The ocean is constantly moving from high tide to low tide, and then back to high tide. There is about 12 hours and 25 minutes between the two high tides.

Tides are the periodic rise and falling of large bodies of water. Winds and currents move the surface water causing waves. The gravitational attraction of the moon causes the oceans to bulge out in the direction of the moon. Another bulge occurs on the opposite side, since the Earth is also being pulled toward the moon (and away from the water on the far side). Ocean levels fluctuate daily as the sun, moon and earth interact. As the moon travels around the earth and as they, together, travel around the sun, the combined gravitational forces cause the world’s oceans to rise and fall. Since the earth is rotating while this is happening, two tides occur each day.

What are the different types of Tides

When the sun and moon are aligned, there are exceptionally strong gravitational forces, causing very high and very low tides which are called spring tides, though they have nothing to do with the season. When the sun and moon are not aligned, the gravitational forces cancel each other out, and the tides are not as dramatically high and low. These are called neap tides.

<…>

A Few Facts About Lunar Tides

43 (http://home.hiwaay.net/~krcool/Astro/moon/moontides/ [11/13/09])

159

The gravitational force of the moon is one ten-millionth that of earth, but when you combine other forces such as the earth’s centrifugal force created by its spin, you get tides.

The sun’s gravitational force on the earth is only 46 percent that of the moon. Making the moon the single most important factor for the creation of tides.

The sun’s gravity also produces tides. But since the forces are smaller, as compared to the moon, the effects are greatly decreased.

Tides are not caused by the direct pull of the moon’s gravity. The moon is pulling upwards on the water while the earth is pulling downward. Slight advantage to the moon and thus we have tides. Whenever the Moon, Earth and Sun are aligned, the gravitational pull of the sun adds to that of the moon causing maximum tides.

Spring tides happen when the sun and moon are on the same side of the earth (New Moon) or when the sun and moon are on opposite sides of the earth (Full Moon).

When the Moon is at first quarter or last quarter phase (meaning that it is located at right angles to the Earth-Sun line), the Sun and Moon interfere with each other in producing tidal bulges and tides are generally weaker; these are called neap tides.

Spring tides and neap tide levels are about 20% higher or lower than average.

Offshore, in the deep ocean, the difference in tides is usually less than 1.6 feet

The surf grows when it approaches a beach, and the tide increases. In bays and estuaries, this effect is amplified. (In the Bay of Fundy, tides have a range of 44.6 ft.)

The highest tides in the world are at the Bay of Fundy in Nova Scotia, Canada.

Because the earth rotates on its axis the moon completes one orbit in our sky every 25 hours (Not to be confused with moon’s 27 day orbit around the earth), we get two tidal peaks as well as two tidal troughs. These events are separated by about 12 hours.

Since the moon moves around the Earth, it is not always in the same place at the same time each day. So, each day, the times for high and low tides change by 50 minutes.

The type of gravitational force that causes tides is know as “Tractive” force.

FAQs About Lunar Tides From - “The Astronomy Cafe”

<…>During the last 400 years, there have been 39 instances or ‘Extreme Proxigean Spring Tides’ where the tide-producing severity has been near the theoretical maximum. The last one of these was on March 7 1995 at 22:00 hours Greenwich Civil Time during a lunar Full Moon. There were, in fact cases of extreme tidal flooding recorded during these particular spring tides which occur once every 31 years.” - Dr. Odenwald’s ASK THE ASTRONOMER

If the Moon were to escape, what would happen to the Earth’s oceans?

160

“What happens is that the lunar water tides on the Earth go away, but the solar water tides still occur, but with about 1/3 or so the amplitude. There are still daily high and low tides, but they would be noticeably smaller. There would be no ‘Spring’ or ‘Neap’ tides, however.”- Dr. Odenwald’s ASK THE ASTRONOMER

Why does the Moon produce TWO water tides on the Earth and not just one?

“It is intuitively easy to understand why the gravitational pull of the Moon should produce a water tide on the Earth in the part of the ocean closest to the moon along the line connecting the center of the Moon with the center of the Earth. But in fact not one but TWO water tides are produced under which the Earth rotates every day to produce about two high tides and two low tides every day. How come?

It is not the gravitational force that is doing it, but the change in the gravitational force across the body of the Earth. If you were to plot the pattern of the Moon’s ‘tidal’ gravitational force added to the Earth’s own gravitational force, at the Earth’s surface, you would be able to resolve the force vectors at different latitudes and longitudes into a radial component directed towards the Earth’s center, and a component tangential to the Earth’s surface. On the side nearest the moon, the ‘differential’ gravitational force is directed toward the Moon showing that for particles on the Earth’s surface, they are being tugged slightly towards the Moon because the force of the Moon is slightly stronger at the Earth’s surface than at the Earth’s center which is an additional 6300 kilometers from the Moon. On the far side of the Earth, the Moon is tugging on the center of the Earth slightly stronger than it is on the far surface, so the resultant force vector is directed away from the Earth’s center.

The net result of this is that the Earth gets deformed into a slightly squashed, ellipsoidal shape due to these tidal forces. This happens because if we resolve the tidal forces at each point on the Earth into a local vertical and horizontal component, the horizontal components are not zero, and are directed towards the two points along the line connecting the Earth and the Moon’s centers. These horizontal forces cause rock and water to feel a gravitational force which results in the flow of rock and water into the ‘tidal bulges’. There will be exactly two of these bulges. At exactly the positions of the tidal bulges where the Moon is at the zenith and at the nadir positions, there are no horizontal tidal forces and the flow stops. The water gets piled up, and the only effect is to slightly lower the weight of the water along the vertical direction.

Another way of thinking about this is that the gravitational force of the Moon causes the Earth to accelerate slightly towards the Moon causing the water to get pulled towards the Moon faster than the solid rock on the side nearest the Moon. On the far side, the solid Earth ‘leaves behind’ some of the water which is not as strongly accelerated towards the Moon as the Earth is. This produces the bulge on the ‘back side’ of the Earth.”- Dr. Odenwald’s ASK THE ASTRONOMER

What Causes Tides?

“There are several kinds of tides. The ones that break upon a beach every 10 seconds to a minute are caused by sea level disturbances out in the ocean produced by such things as storms. Also, the various circulation currents of sea water can have velocity components directed towards the land which will bring water up onto the beach. As this water travels towards the beach from deep water to shallow water, its amplitude will increase until it finally ‘breaks’ as a full-fledged breaker, suitable for surfing etc.

161

Now, underlying this minute to minute activity is a slower water wave which causes an alternating pattern of high-tide, low-tide, high-tide, low-tide in most places on the Earth that are directly on the ocean. This roughly 6 hour cycle is caused by the gravitational tugging of the Moon upon the Earth. This ‘tidal’ pull causes the shape of the solid Earth to be not perfectly round by something like a few dozen yards over its entire 27,000 mile circumference. The Earth gets distorted a small bit, but because it is solid rock its a small effect. The water in the oceans, however, gets distorted into a roughly ellipsoidal ( football-like) shape with a much larger amplitude. The orientation of this shape changes from minute to minute as the Moon orbits the Earth, which is why the high and low tide times change all the time. The Moon causes these tides by deforming the oceans, and as the Earth rotates under this ocean bulge, it causes a high tide to propagate onto beaches. Because there are two bulges, we get two high tides, and also two low tides each day.

The Sun also causes tides on the Earth because even though it is so far away, it is very massive. These solar tides are about half as strong as the ones produced by the Moon, and they cause the so-called Spring tides and the Neap Tides. When the bulge of ocean water raised by the Moon is added the a similar tidal bulge raised by the Sun, you get a higher, high tide called the Spring Tide. When the solar low tide is added to the lunar low tide, you get the Neap Tide. There may be even weaker tides caused by the gravitational influences of the planets Mars and Venus, but they are probably lost in the daily noise of individual tides.”- Dr. Odenwald’s ASK THE ASTRONOMER

When the Earth, Moon and Sun are aligned for Spring Tides, are they highest at Full or New Moon?

“Spring tides are about the same height whether at New or Full Moon, because the tidal bulge occurs on both sides of the Earth...the side toward the Moon ( or sun) and the side away from the Moon (or Sun). They will not be equally high because the distance between the Earth and Sun, and the Earth and Moon both vary and so will their tide producing effectiveness. The highest Spring tides occur when the Moon is at its closest to the Earth...the so-called Perigee Tide.”- Dr. Odenwald’s ASK THE ASTRONOMER

Copyright © 2002 By Keith Cooley     - eMail:krcool@hiwaay.net - Return To Keith’s Moon Page

Cf. “Tides”. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (excerpt):44

History of tidal physics

[Sir] Isaac Newton laid the foundations of scientific tidal studies with his mathematical explanation of tide-generating forces in the Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1687).[14][15] Newton first applied the theory of universal gravitation to account for the tides as due to the lunar and solar attractions,[16] offering an initial theory of the tide-generating force. Newton and others before Pierre-Simon Laplace worked with an equilibrium theory, largely concerned with an approximation that describes the tides that would occur in a non-inertial ocean evenly covering the whole Earth.[14] The tide-generating force (or its corresponding potential) is still relevant to tidal theory, but as an intermediate quantity rather than as a final result; theory has to consider also the Earth’s dynamic tidal response to the force, a response that is influenced by bathymetry, Earth’s rotation, and other factors.[17]

44 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tide&printable=yes [11/13/09])

162

In 1740, the Académie Royale des Sciences in Paris offered a prize for the best theoretical essay on tides. Daniel Bernoulli, Leonhard Euler, Colin Maclaurin and Antoine Cavalleri shared the prize.

Maclaurin used Newton’s theory to show that a smooth sphere covered by a sufficiently deep ocean under the tidal force of a single deforming body is a prolate spheroid (essentially a three dimensional oval) with major axis directed toward the deforming body. Maclaurin was the first to write about the Earth’s rotational effects on motion. Euler realized that the tidal force’s horizontal component (more than the vertical) drives the tide. In 1744 Jean le Rond d’Alembert studied tidal equations for the atmosphere which did not include rotation.

Pierre-Simon Laplace formulated a system of partial differential equations relating the ocean’s horizontal flow to its surface height, the first major dynamic theory for water tides. The Laplace tidal equations are still in use today. William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin, rewrote Laplace’s equations in terms of vorticity which allowed for solutions describing tidally-driven coastally-trapped waves, known as Kelvin waves.[18] [19] [20]

Others including Kelvin and Henri Poincare further developed Laplace’s theory. Based on these developments and the lunar theory of E W Brown, Arthur Thomas Doodson developed and published in 1921[21] the first modern development of the tide-generating potential in harmonic form: Doodson distinguished 388 tidal frequencies.[22] Some of his methods remain in use.[23]

14. ^ a b E Lisitzin (1974). “2 “Periodical sea-level changes: Astronomical tides”“. Sea-Level Changes, (Elsevier Oceanography Series). 8. p. 5.

15. ̂ “What Causes Tides?“. U S National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Ocean Service (Education section). http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/tides/tides02_cause.html.

16. ̂ See for example, in the ‘Principia’ (Book 1) (1729 translation), Corollaries 19 and 20 to Proposition 66, on pages 251-254, referring back to page 234 et seq.; and in Book 3 Propositions 24, 36 and 37, starting on page 255.

17. ̂ J Wahr (1995). Earth Tides in “Global Earth Physics”, American Geophysical Union Reference Shelf #1,. pp. 40-46.

18. ^ a b Yang Zuosheng, K. O. Emery, Xui Yui (July 1989). “Historical Development and Use of Thousand-Year-Old Tide-Prediction Tables”. ‘Limnology and Oceanography’ 34 (5): 953–957.

19. ̂ {{cite book title=Tides: A Scientific History |author=David E. Cartwright |publisher=Cambridge University Press |location=Cambridge, UK |date=1999 }}

20. ̂ Case, James (March 2000). “Understanding Tides—From Ancient Beliefs to Present-day Solutions to the Laplace Equations”. SIAM News 33 (2).

21. ̂ A T Doodson (December, 1921). “The Harmonic Development of the Tide-Generating Potential”. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A 100 (704): 305-329.

22. ̂ S Casotto, F Biscani (April 2004). “A fully analytical approach to the harmonic development of the tide-generating potential accounting for precession, nutation, and perturbations due to figure and planetary terms”. AAS Division on Dynamical Astronomy 36 (2): 67.

23. ̂ See e.g. T D Moyer (2003), “Formulation for observed and computed values of Deep Space Network data types for navigation”, vol.3 in Deep-space communications and navigation series, Wiley (2003), e.g. at pp.126-8.

Cf. U.S. Department of Commerce. NOAA Ocean Service Education. Tides and Water Levels (excerpt): 45

45 (http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/tides/tides02_cause.html [11/13/09])

163

[all figures omitted]

What are Tides?

Tides are one of the most reliable phenomena in the world. As the sun rises in the east and the stars come out at night, we are confident that the ocean waters will regularly rise and fall along our shores. The following pages describe the tremendous forces that cause the world’s tides, and why it is important for us to understand how they work.

Basically, tides are very long-period waves that move through the oceans in response to the forces exerted by the moon and sun. Tides originate in the oceans and progress toward the coastlines where they appear as the regular rise and fall of the sea surface. When the highest part, or crest of the wave reaches a particular location, high tide occurs; low tide corresponds to the lowest part of the wave, or its trough. The difference in height between the high tide and the low tide is called the tidal range.

A horizontal movement of water often accompanies the rising and falling of the tide. This is called the tidal current. The incoming tide along the coast and into the bays and estuaries is called a flood current; the outgoing tide is called an ebb current. The strongest flood and ebb currents usually occur before or near the time of the high and low tides. The weakest currents occur between the flood and ebb currents and are called slack tides. In the open ocean tidal currents are relatively weak. Near estuary entrances, narrow straits and inlets, the speed of tidal currents can reach up to several kilometers per hour (Ross, D.A., 1995).

What Causes Tides?

Gravity is one major force that creates tides. In 1687, Sir Isaac Newton explained that ocean tides result from the gravitational attraction of the sun and moon on the oceans of the earth (Sumich, J.L., 1996).

Newton’s law of universal gravitation states that the gravitational attraction between two bodies is directly proportional to their masses, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the bodies (Sumich, J.L., 1996; Thurman, H.V., 1994). Therefore, the greater the mass of the objects and the closer they are to each other, the greater the gravitational attraction between them (Ross, D.A. 1995).

Tidal forces are based on the gravitational attractive force. With regard to tidal forces on the Earth, the distance between two objects usually is more critical than their masses. Tidal generating forces vary inversely as the cube of the distance from the tide generating object. Gravitational attractive forces only vary inversely to the square of the distance between the objects (Thurman, H.V., 1994). The effect of distance on tidal forces is seen in the relationship between the sun, the moon, and the Earth’s waters.

Our sun is 27 million times larger than our moon. Based on its mass, the sun’s gravitational attraction to the Earth is more than 177 times greater than that of the moon to the Earth. If tidal forces were based solely on comparative masses, the sun should have a tide-generating force that is 27 million times greater than that of the moon. However, the sun is 390 times further from the Earth than is the moon. Thus, its tide-generating force is reduced by 3903, or about 59 million times less than the moon. Because of these conditions, the sun’s tide-generating force is about half that of the moon (Thurman, H.V., 1994).

Gravity, Inertia, and the Two Bulges

164

Gravity is a major force responsible for creating tides. Inertia, acts to counterbalance gravity. It is the tendency of moving objects to continue moving in a straight line. Together, gravity and inertia are responsible for the creation of two major tidal bulges on the Earth (Ross, D.A., 1995).

The gravitational attraction between the Earth and the moon is strongest on the side of the Earth that happens to be facing the moon, simply because it is closer. This attraction causes the water on this “near side” of Earth to be pulled toward the moon. As gravitational force acts to draw the water closer to the moon, inertia attempts to keep the water in place. But the gravitational force exceeds it and the water is pulled toward the moon, causing a “bulge” of water on the near side toward the moon (Ross, D.A., 1995).

On the opposite side of the Earth, or the “far side,” the gravitational attraction of the moon is less because it is farther away. Here, inertia exceeds the gravitational force, and the water tries to keep going in a straight line, moving away from the Earth, also forming a bulge (Ross, D.A., 1995). In this way the combination of gravity and inertia create two bulges of water. One forms where the Earth and moon are closest, and the other forms where they are furthest apart. Over the rest of the globe gravity and inertia are in relative balance. Because water is fluid, the two bulges stay aligned with the moon as the Earth rotates (Ross, D.A., 1995). The sun also plays a major role, affecting the size and position of the two tidal bulges. The interaction of the forces generated by the moon and the sun can be quite complex. As this is an introduction to the subject of tides and water levels we will focus most of our attention on the effects of the stronger celestial influence, the moon.

Changing Angles and Changing Tides

As we’ve just seen, the Earth’s two tidal bulges are aligned with the positions of the moon and the sun. Over time, the positions of these celestial bodies change relative to the Earth’s equator. The changes in their relative positions have a direct effect on daily tidal heights and tidal current intensity.

As the moon revolves around the Earth, its angle increases and decreases in relation to the equator. This is known as its declination. The two tidal bulges track the changes in lunar declination, also increasing or decreasing their angles to the equator. Similarly, the sun’s relative position to the equator changes over the course of a year as the Earth rotates around it. The sun’s declination affects the seasons as well as the tides. During the vernal and autumnal equinoxes—March 21 and September 23, respectively—the sun is at its minimum declination because it is positioned directly above the equator. On June 21 and December 22—the summer and winter solstices, respectively—the sun is at its maximum declination, i.e., its largest angle to the equator (Sumich, J.L., 1996).

Cf. TideClocks.Com. Science of the Tides (excerpt):46

THE MOON AND THE SUN

The moon travels through the sky each day going from east to west just like the sun, but the moon does it in 24 hours and 50 1/2 minutes instead of the 24 it takes the sun. The light we see from the moon is solely the reflection of the light of the sun and therefore the phases of the moon are determined by its relative position to the sun. Thus, full moon occurs on those days when the moon is rising just as the sun is setting, therefore enabling the full hemisphere

46 (http://www.tideclocks.com/about/view/3 [11/13/09])

165

of the moon to reflect the light of the sun. A “quarter moon” occurs when the moon is directly overhead just as the sun is setting thereby enabling only half the hemisphere of the moon to reflect light back to earth. Of course this situation exists all day.

THE MOON AND YOU

The tides obey the moon so who is to say that our bodies too don’t obey this powerful force? Since ancient times, man has speculated on the effect of the moon on human emotions. Even today, many millions of people all over the globe feel that the moon affects human emotions. The surprising fact is that today, more and more scientific and medical experiments have been proving the connection between the electromagnetic and gravitational pull of the moon, and man. “Man’s natural day approximates 25 hours” proclaims the SLEEP LAB at New York’s famed Montefiore Hospital-as do all similar establishments in the world. If man’s natural day “approximates 25 hours,” this time coincides almost exactly with the moon’s orbit around the earth of 24 hours and 50 1/2 minutes.

THE MOON AND THE TIDES

How did early man ever figure out that the small white disc in the sky was powerful enough to move the billions of tons of the water of the earth’s oceans up and down every day—in some places by as much as 50 feet? I’ll bet that the first to propose the idea came close to being burned at the stake! But of course this unbelievable gravitational strength of the moon not only moves the tides but also causes the land masses of the earth itself also to rise and fall by about 12 inches every day as the moon goes overhead...and to think that the moon’s gravitational force is only one-nine millionth that of the gravity of the earth! Come to think of it, the whole idea seems incredulous even today!

The reason for earth’s tides, and why high and low tides occur at regular intervals, was a subject of interest to thinkers for thousands of years, but not the good old Greeks. The Greeks live on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea. That sea happens to be relatively tideless because it is a nearly land-locked small body of water. About 325 BC, however, a Greek explorer, Pytheas of Masslia, ventured out of the Mediterranean and into the Atlantic. There he came across good pronounced tides, with two periods of high water each day and two periods of low water in between. Each month there were two periods of particularly large range between high and low tides (spring tides) and, in between, two periods of particularly small range (neap tides). What’s more, the monthly variations matched the phases of the moon. The spring tides came at first quarter and third quarter. Pytheas suggested, therefore, that the tides were caused by the moon. But, his suggestion lay fallow for two thousand years.

The main factor that spoiled the moon-tide connection for thoughtful scholars was the fact that there were two tides a day. For instance, suppose there is a high tide when the moon is high in the sky. That would make sense. The moon might well be drawing the water to itself by some mysterious force. If the water heaped up under a high moon, a point on the rotating earth, passing through the heap, would experience a high tide followed by a low tide. But a little over twelve hours later, there would be another high tide and then the moon would be nowhere in the sky.

In fact, it would be on the other side of the globe. If the moon were exerting an attractional force, the water on one side of the globe should be pulled downward in the direction of one’s feet. There should be a hollow in the ocean, not a heap. Could it be that the moon exerted an attraction on the side of the earth nearest itself and a repulsion on the side opposite? Then there would be a heap on both sides and it would explain the two high tides each day.

166

The notion that the moon would pull in some places and push in other places must have been very hard to accept, and most scholars didn’t try. So the moon’s influence on the tides was put down to astrological superstition by the astronomers of early modern times. It was only in the 17th century that a clear explanation was given – by [Sir Iasaac] Newton.

Newton argued that the gravitational attraction of the moon causes tides. This force has only a slight effect on the solid land mass (and it is detectable), but the great mass of water that makes up the oceans is free to move. Because the gravitational force decreases with the square of the distance, the moon pulls harder on that part of the earth closest to it. The water in the oceans is pulled toward the moon, resulting in a high tide on the side of the earth facing the moon. Simultaneously a high tide occurs on the opposite side of the earth. Why this second high tide? Because the pull of the moon on the far side of the earth is less (since it is farther from the moon) than the pull on the central (nearer) parts of earth, (we may visualize this as the earth being pulled away from the water on the far side, just as the water on the side of the earth near the moon is pulled away from the earth a bit) the ocean water thus tends to collect on the sides closest and farthest from the moon, and is taken from the region between, where these will be low tides. Since the moon moves relative to the earth so that it returns to the same position overhead after about 25 hours, there are 2 high and 2 low tides at any point every 25 hours (approximately 2 of each per day). Because the high tides stay more or less in line with the moon, it is as if the solid earth moved beneath the tidal bulges.

b. Note on the Gravitational Force of the Moon.

Notice that not only does the gravitational force of the moon affect the mass of waters on the earth’s surface, it also deforms the latter as well, a point to which we shall return in our discussion of the work of the Third Day.

C. Note on the Role Played by the Wind and the Hydrological Cycle in Earthquakes.

Two causes that are of the utmost importance in our understanding of the third work of distinction are well-expressed in the following texts: Cf. Aristotle, Meteorology, II. 8 (365b 23—366a 13) (tr. E. W. Webster):

We have already shown that wet and dry must both give rise to an evaporation: earthquakes are a necessary consequence of this fact. The earth is [25] essentially dry, but rain fills it with moisture. Then the sun and its own fire warm it and give rise to a quantity of wind both outside and inside it. This wind sometimes flows outwards in a single body, sometimes inwards, and sometimes it is divided. All these are necessary [30] laws. Next we must find out what body has the greatest motive force. This will certainly be the body that naturally moves farthest and is most violent. Now that which has the most rapid motion is necessarily the most violent; for its [35] swiftness gives its impact the greatest force. Again, the rarest body, that which can most readily pass through every other body, is that which naturally moves farthest. [366a] Wind satisfies these conditions in the highest degree (fire only becomes flame and moves rapidly when wind accompanies it): so that not water nor earth is the cause of earthquakes but wind—that is, the inrush of the external evaporation into the earth. Hence, since the evaporation generally follows in a continuous body in the direction in which it first started, and either all of it flows inwards or all outwards, [5] most earthquakes and the greatest are accompanied by calm. It is true that some take place when a wind is blowing, but this presents no difficulty. We sometimes [10] find several winds blowing

167

simultaneously. If one of these enters the earth we get an earthquake attended by wind. Only these earthquakes are less severe because their source and cause is divided.

Cf. Aristotle, Meteorology, II. 8 (368a 25—368b 11) (tr. E. W. Webster):

Water has been known to burst out during an earthquake. But that does not make water the cause of the earthquake. The wind is the efficient cause whether it drives the water along the surface or up from below: just as winds are the causes of waves and not waves of winds. Else we might as well say that earth was the cause; for it is upset [30] in an earthquake, just like water (for effusion is a form of upsetting). No, earth and water are material causes (being patients, not agents): the true cause is the wind. The combination of a tidal wave with an earthquake is due to the presence of contrary winds. It occurs when the wind which is shaking the earth does not entirely succeed in driving off the sea which another wind is bringing on, but pushes it back [368b] and heaps it up in a great mass in one place. Given this situation it follows that when this wind gives way the whole body of the sea, driven on by the other wind, will burst out and overwhelm the land. This is what happened in Achaea. There a south wind [5] was blowing, but outside a north wind; then there was a calm and the wind entered the earth, and then the tidal wave came on and simultaneously there was an earthquake. This was the more violent as the sea allowed no exit to the wind that had entered the earth, but shut it in. So in their struggle with one another the wind [10] caused the earthquake, and the wave by its settling down the inundation. (emphasis added)

For a parallel with Aristotle’s pneumatology, cf. Gad Freudenthal, Aristotle’s Theory of Material Substance: Heat and Pneuma, Form and Soul (Oxford, 1995), Ch. III, sec. 2.2, pp. 127-129:

On [128-129] what grounds, then, can warmer (and purer) pneuma be assumed to travel higher than less warm pneuma? For Aristotle’s answer, we must turn to his theory of exhalations, whose rationale was precisely to bridge the gap between the two competing construals of the elements [one being according to their proper places; the other according to the primary qualities (B.A.M.)] a gap which forbade one to say that something rises because it is hot.50 Physically speaking, the connate pneuma is somewhat analogous to what, on the scale of the entire world, Aristotle calls ‘exhalation’. Aristotle, as is well known, postulates the existence of a moist and a dry exhalation, raised by the sun from water (the sea, etc.) and the earth, respectively (e.g. Meteorology I. 4, 341b5ff.). In the present context we are interested in the first only. The ‘exhalation from water’, also called ‘vapour’ (atmis, Meteorology I. 9, 346b33; 2. 2, 354b31; 2. 4, 359b34. ff.), Aristotle says , is ‘most naturally moist and warm’ (Meteorology I. 3, 340b2f f.) 51 The vapour results from the action of heat on water, then, as connate pneuma results from blood within the body (except that the vapour, unlike the connate pneuma, separates off). Now the idea that the exhalations produced by the sun rise is self-evident: it is part of their definition. 52 On the basis of the theory of exhalations, then, the connate pneuma can indeed be held to rise by virtue of its heat, and the more so the hotter (and purer) it is.

51 ... Meteor,, I. 9, 346b29ff.52 [footnote omitted] (emphasis added)

168

In sum, to the exhalation of the earth produced by the wind corresponds the pneuma or vital spirit that plays a role in Aristotle’s account of animal generation. But as we argued in our preceding paper in connection with our consideration of the “spirit of God moving over the waters”,47 whereas natural winds (for Aristotle) are caused by the hydrological cycle, the aforementioned manifestation of God is itself the cause of the cycle insofar as the genera-tive power found in the heavens comes about the through their acquiring of the their form by their reception of light, which formation is the first work of distinction. But as we also argue in the appropriate place (cf. Part II, Sec. VIII On Creation, n. 11), referring to Psalm 33:6: By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth; which is to say, “God produces the heavens by his breath; but this happens when he says, Let there be light. (Gen. 1:3)”, the spirit of God, understood as the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, plays a role in that very work whereby the heavens receive their form.

§

47 The Opening of Genesis. Preliminaries II: Exegesis and Commentary on vv. 1-2 (Exegetical Principles II), citing St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Aristotle’s Meteorology (tr. Pierre Conway, O.P. and F.R. Larch-er, O.P. [1964]), Book II, lect. 2, nn. 178-184.

169

d. On the movement of the elements contrary to their nature: The ebb and flow of the sea and related phenomena according to St. Thomas Aquinas.

Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theol., IIa-IIae, q. 2, art. 3, c. (tr. English Dominican Fathers):

I answer that, Wherever one nature is subordinate to another, we find that two things concur towards the perfection of the lower nature, one of which is in respect of that nature’s proper movement, while the other is in respect of the movement of the higher nature. Thus water by its proper movement moves towards the centre (of the earth), while according to the movement of the moon, it moves round the centre by ebb and flow. In like manner the planets have their proper movements from west to east, while in accordance with the movement of the first heaven, they have a movement from east to west.

Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theol. Ia, q. 105, art. 6 (tr. English Dominican Fathers):

Reply to Objection 1. In natural things something may happen outside this natural order, in two ways. It may happen by the action of an agent which did not give them their natural inclination; as, for example, when a man moves a heavy body upwards, which does not owe to him its natural inclination to move downwards; and that would be against nature. It may also happen by the action of the agent on whom the natural inclination depends; and this is not against nature, as is clear in the ebb and flow of the tide, which is not against nature; although it is against the natural movement of water in a downward direction; for it is owing to the influence of a heavenly body, on which the natural inclination of lower bodies depends. Therefore since the order of nature is given to things by God; if He does anything outside this order, it is not against nature. Wherefore Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxvi, 3): “That is natural to each thing which is caused by Him from Whom is all mode, number, and order in nature.” (emphasis added)

Cf. Quaestiones Disputatae de Potentia Dei. On the Power of God by Thomas Aquinas, translated by the English Dominican Fathers (1952), q. 4, art. 1, ad 20:

That the heavenly bodies should exercise an active influence on the elements is not contrary to nature, as the Commentator says (De Coel. et Mund. iii): thus the ebb and flow of the sea, although it is not the natural movement of water as a heavy body, since it is not towards the centre, nevertheless is natural to water as moved by a heavenly body instrumentally. Much more truly may this be said of the divine action on the elements whose whole nature subsists thereby. As regards the point at issue both these actions would seem to concur in the gathering together of the waters, the divine action principally, and that of the heavenly body in a subordinate degree. Hence immediately after the formation of the firmament the text refers to the gathering of the waters together. (emphasis added)

For the case of the wind, cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Meteorology (tr. Pierre Conway, O.P. and F.R. Larcher, O.P. [1964]), Book II, lect. 8, n. 188

However, the fact that its obliqueness is caused by the motion of a heavenly body does not make the wind’s motion unnatural. This is so both because motions caused in lower bodies by the heavenly body are called natural, though they may not be according to the nature of the lower body, as is plain in the ebb and flow of the sea—since the lower bodies are by nature subject to the higher, and because whatever results in a thing from the cause of its generation is natural to it.

170

Hence, since the agent cause of winds is the motion of the sun, as was said above, 48 it follows that the obliqueness of the motion, since it is caused by the motion of the heaven, is natural to it. (emphasis added)

Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theol., Ia, q. 110, art. 3, ad 1 (tr. English Dominican Fathers):

Reply to Objection 1. There are in bodies other local movements besides those which result from the forms; for instance, the ebb and flow of the sea does not follow from the substantial form of the water, but from the influence of the moon; and much more can local movements result from the power of spiritual substances. (emphasis added)

Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Exposition of Aristotle’s Treatise On the Heavens, trans. P. Conway and F. R Larcher (Ohio, College of St. Mary of the Springs: 1964), Book I, lect. 4, nn. 38-39:

38. The second argument he gives at [23] and in it he presupposes two principles: one of which is that a motion which is outside nature, i.e., violent, is contrary to a natural motion, as earth is according to nature moved downward but upward against its nature. The second principle is that one thing is contrary to one thing, as is proved in Metaphysics X. A third also must be presupposed from sense experience, namely, that there exists a body which is moved circularly. Now, if that motion is natural to that body, we have the proposition, in keeping with the previously given reason, namely, that that body which is moved in a circle naturally is distinct from the four simple elements. But if such a motion is not natural to it, it must be against its nature.

Let us therefore first assume that that body in circular motion is fire, as some claim, or any of the other four elements. Then the natural motion of fire, which is to be moved upward, will have to be contrary to the circular motion. But this cannot be, for to one thing, one thing is contrary, and the motion contrary to an upward motion is a downward one; consequently, circular motion cannot be contrary to it. And the same holds for the other three elements. Likewise, if it be assumed that the body which is being moved circularly against its nature is a body other than the four elements, it would have to have some other natural motion. But this is impossible, because if its natural motion is up, it will be fire or air; if its motion is down, it will be water or earth. But we supposed that it is not one of the four elements. Accordingly it must be that the body moved in circular motion is being moved naturally with this motion.

Now according to what he says here Aristotle seems to be contrary to Plato who assumed that the body which is circularly moved is fire. But with respect to the truth, the opinion of both philosophers is the same on this point. For Plato calls the body which is being circularly moved “fire” on account of light, which is posited as a form of fire, but not as being of the nature of elemental fire. Hence he posited five bodies in the universe, and to these he adapted five bodily figures which geometers teach, calling the fifth body “aether.”

39. But further, what is said here, namely, that for fire to be moved circularly is outside nature seems to be contrary to what is said in Meteorology I, where Aristotle himself sets forth that hypeccauma, i.e., fire, and the upper portion of the air, are carried along circularly by the motion of the firmament, as is plain in the motion of a comet.

48 Cf. our remarks on the hydrological cycle above.

171

But it must be said that that circulation of fire or air is not natural to them, because it is not caused from an intrinsic principle. Neither is it through violence or against nature, because such a motion is in them from the influence of a higher body, whose motion fire and air follow according to a complete circulation because these bodies are closer to the heavens, but water according to an incomplete circulation, i.e., according to the ebb and flow of the sea. Earth, however, as being most remote from the heavens, suffers no such change except with respect to the sole alteration of its parts. Now whatever is present in lower bodies from the impression of the higher is not violent for them or against nature, for they are naturally apt to be moved by the higher body. (emphasis added)

Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, De Motu Cordis (tr. Gregory Froelich):

In addition, when the motions in lower bodies are caused by a universal nature, such motions are not always present in them. Take, for example, the ebb and flow of ocean tides, which result from the motion of the moon and change in accord with it. But the motion of the heart is always present in the animal. Therefore, the heart’s motion does not result from a separate cause but from an intrinsic principle.

Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, De operationibus occultis naturae ad quemdam militem ultra-montanum. A Letter of Thomas Aquinas to a Certain Knight Beyond the Mountains on the Occult Workings of Nature or Concerning the Causality of Heavenly Bodies, tr. by J. B. McAllister (Washington, 1939):

Introduction

Since in some natural bodies certain natural activities appear whose principles cannot be understood, your honor has asked that I write what I think about them.

Statement of the problem

We see indeed that a body follows the movements of the elements governing it. A stone, for example, is moved towards the center (of the earth) according to the property of earth dominant in it. Metals also have the power of cooling according to the property of water. Therefore all actions and movements whatsoever of bodies composed of elements take place according to the property and power of the elements of which such bodies are made Now such actions and movements have a clear origin, about which there arises no doubt. But there are some workings of these bodies which cannot be caused by the powers of the elements: for example, the magnet attracts iron, and certain medicines purge particular humors in definite parts of the body. Actions of this sort, therefore, must be traced to higher principles.

We must now consider that an agent of a lower rank acts or is moved according to the power of a superior agent in two ways: one way in so far as the action proceeds from it according to a form and power imparted by a superior agent, as the moon illuminated through light received from the sun. In another way it acts only through the power of the superior agent, without receiving a form for acting. It is moved only through the motion of the superior agent, as a carpenter uses a saw for cutting. The sawing is indeed primarily the work of the artisan but secondarily of the saw in so far as it is moved by the artisan—not because such an action follows upon some form and power which might stay in the saw after the artisan has used it. If, then, elementary bodies share in the actions or movements of superior agents, it ought to be in one or the other of the above mentioned ways; either the actions result from forms and powers implanted by superior agents in the elementary bodies, or the actions merely follow upon the movement of the elementary bodies by the superior agents.

172

Superior agents which exceed the nature of elements and elementary bodies are not only heavenly bodies, but also superior separated substances. Each of them produces in inferior bodies actions or movements which do not spring from a form implanted in the inferior bodies, but which come solely from the movement of the superior agents. For the sea, in its ebb and flow, has this motion over and above the property of the element (water) from the power of the moon, not indeed through an implanted form, but through the moon’s movement, which agitates the water.

Then again necromantic images have effects which do not issue from a form they may have received, but from demons who are active in the images. And we think the same thing sometimes happens through the action of God or the good angels. For the fact, that sick people were cured at the shadow of Peter the Apostle or that some illness is dispelled upon contact with a saint’s relics, is not attributable to a form implanted in these bodies, but only to the divine power which uses the bodies for these results.

It is clear that not all the workings of elementary bodies manifesting occult operations are like these.49 (emphasis added)

Cf. Encyclopedia of Science and Religion, St. Thomas Aquinas:50

In a letter to a soldier, Thomas explained how bodies could perform actions that do not follow from the nature of their constituent elements, as, for example, the attraction of a magnet for iron. Thomas regarded such actions as occult, explaining the causes of such phenomena by the behavior of two kinds of superior agents: (1) celestial bodies, or (2) separate spiritual substances, which included celestial intelligences, angels, and even demons. A superior agent can either communicate the power to perform the action directly to an inferior body, as is the case with the magnet; or the superior agent can, by its own motion, cause the body in question to move, as, for example, the moon causes the ebb and flow of the tides.

Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, De Motu Cordis, nn. 6-7 (tr. B.A.M):

6. Now some say that this natural motion comes not from any particular nature intrinsic to the animal, but from some “universal” nature, or even from an [angelic] intelligence. But this seems ridiculous. For in every natural thing the proper passions of any genus or species follow upon some intrinsic principle. For natural things are those of which the principle of motion is in them. Now nothing is more proper to animals than the motion of the heart, upon the ceasing of which their life ends. There must, then, be some principle of this motion in animals.

7. What is more, if any motion in lower bodies were caused [solely] by a universal nature, this motion would not always be in them: as, for instance, is clear in the ebb and flow of the sea, which is a consequence of the moon’s motion and varies according to it. But the motion of an animal’s heart is always in it. Therefore it is not from any separated cause alone, but from some intrinsic principle.

e. On the proper place of the elements at the foundation of the world:

49 For more on this subject, see our separate discussion of instrumental causality where we assembly many of the relevant texts of St. Thomas.50 (http://www.enotes.com/science-religion-encyclopedia/thomas-aquinas [11/29/09])

173

Cf. Quaestiones Disputatae de Potentia Dei. On the Power of God by Thomas Aquinas, translated by the English Dominican Fathers (1952), q. 4, art. 1, obj. 4, ad 4:

QUESTION IV

OF THE CREATION OF FORMLESS MATTER

Q. IV: ARTICLE I

Did the Creation of Formless Matter Precede in Duration the Creation of Things?

[Sum. Th. I, Q. lxvi, A. i; QQ lxvii, lxix]

<…>

4. But it will be said that there was formlessness or confusion as regards the position of the elements.—On the contrary according to the Philosopher (De Coelo et Mundo, iv, text. 25) every element has a place corresponding to its form: for the elements occupy their respective places by virtue of their respective forms. Hence if from the beginning matter had substantial forms, it follows that each element was in its proper place, so that there was no confusion of elements in respect of which matter could be called formless.

<…>

Reply to the Fourth Objection. The situation of the elements may be considered in two ways. First as regards their respective natures: and in this way fire naturally contains air, air water, and water earth. Secondly, as regards the necessity of generation which belongs to the middle place: and thus it is necessary that the surface of the earth be partly covered by water, so as to favour the generation and preservation of mixed bodies, especially of perfect animals which require air for breathing. We must reply, then, that this primordial formless state did not affect the situation natural to the elements considered in themselves (for all the elements had it) but the situation that was competent to them in respect of the generation of mixed bodies. This situation was not perfect as yet, seeing that mixed bodies had not yet been produced.

f. On the Three Spheres of the Earth.

Cf. the following excerpt from a Web Site:

Notice that the Lord says the agency of destruction would be the Earth itself. The planet Earth has three spheres: the core, mantle, crust (lithosphere), the seas (hydrosphere), and the air in the heaven above (several atmospheric levels [= atmosphere]). All three played a part in the destruction of the antediluvian world, so the complete answer is not necessarily confined to just geology.

The three spheres in sum:

the lithosphere (core, mantle, crust) the hydrosphere (the seas) the atmosphere (several levels)

§

174

21. That the heavens and the earth are both spherical: Ptolemy.

Cf. Claudius Ptolemy, Almagest (In The Mathematical Composition of Claudius Ptolemy, translated by R. Catesby Taliaferro) Book I, chapter 3-4:

3. THAT THE HEAVENS MOVE SPHERICALLY

It is probable the first notions of these things came to the ancients from some such observation as this. For they kept seeing the sun and moon and other stars always moving from rising to setting in parallel circles, beginning to move upward from below as if out of the earth itself, rising little by little to the top, and then coming around again and going down in the same way until at last they would disappear as if falling into the earth. And then again they would see them, after remaining some time invisible, rising and setting as if from another beginning; and they saw that the times and also the places of rising and setting generally corresponded in an ordered and regular way. But most of all the observed circular orbit of those stars which are always visible, and their revolution about one and the same centre, led them to this spherical notion. For necessarily this point became the pole of the heavenly sphere; and the stars nearer to it were those that spun around in smaller circles, and those further away made greater circles in their revolution in proportion to the distance, until a sufficient distance brought one to the disappearing stars. And then they saw that those near the always-visible stars disappeared for a short time, and those further away for a longer time proportionately. And for these reasons alone it was sufficient for them to assume this notion as a principle, and forthwith to think through also the other things consequent upon these same appearances, in accordance with the development of the science. For absolutely all the appearances contradict the other opinions.

<...>

4. THAT THE EARTH TAKEN AS A WHOLE, IS SENSIBLY SPHERICAL

Now, that also the earth taken as a whole is sensibly spherical, we could most likely think out in this way. For again it is possible to see that the sun and moon and the other stars do not rise and set at the same time for every observer on the earth, but always earlier for those living towards the orient and later for those living towards the occident. For we find that the phenomena of eclipses taking place at the same time, especially those of the moon, are not recorded at the same hours for everyone—that is, relatively to equal intervals of time from noon; but we always find later hours recorded for observers towards the orient than for those towards the occident. And since the differences in the hours is found to be proportional to the distances between the places, one would reasonably suppose the surface of the earth spherical, with the result that the general uniformity of curvature would assure every part’s covering those following it proportionately. But this would not happen if the figure were any other, as can be seen from the following considerations.

For, if it were concave, the rising stars would appear first to people towards the occident; and if it were flat, the stars would rise and set for all people together and at the same time; and if it were a pyramid, a cube, or any other polygonal figure, they would again appear at the same time for all observers on the same straight line. But none of these things appears to happen. It is further clear that it could not be cylindrical with the curved surface turned to the risings and settings and the plane bases to the poles of the universe, which some think more plausible. For then never would any of the stars be always visible to any of the inhabitants of the curved surface, but either all the stars would both rise and set for observers or the same stars for an equal distance from either of the poles would always be invisible to all observers.

175

Yet the more we advance towards the north pole, the more the southern stars are hidden and northern stars appear. So it is clear that here the curvature of the earth covering parts uniformly in oblique directions proves its spherical form on every side. Again, whenever we sail towards mountains or any high places from whatever angle and in whatever direction, we see their bulk little by little increasing as if they were arising form the sea, whereas before they seemed submerged because of the curvature of the water’s surface.

22. That the heavens and the earth are both spherical, and that water forms a spherical surface: Copernicus.

Cf. Nicholas Copernicus, On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres, I. 1-2:

THE UNIVERSE IS SPHERICAL    Chapter 1

First of all, we must note that the universe is spherical. The reason is either that, of all forms, the sphere is the most perfect, needing no joint and being a complete whole, which can be neither increased nor diminished; or that it is the most capacious of figures, best suited to enclose and retain all things; or even that all the separate parts of the universe, I mean the sun, moon, planets and stars, are seen to be of this shape; or that wholes strive to be circumscribed by this boundary, as is apparent in drops of water and other fluid bodies when they seek to be self-contained. Hence no one will question the attribution of this form to the divine bodies.

THE EARTH TOO IS SPHERICAL    Chapter 2

The earth also is spherical, since it presses upon its center from every direction. Yet it is not immediately recognized as a perfect sphere on account of the great height of the mountains and depth of the valleys. They scarcely alter the general sphericity of the earth, however, as is clear from the following considerations. For a traveler going from any place toward the north, that pole of the daily rotation gradually climbs higher, while the opposite pole drops down an equal amount. More stars in the north are seen not to set, while in the south certain stars are no longer seen to rise. Thus Italy does not see Canopus, which is visible in Egypt; and Italy does see the River’s last star, which is unfamiliar to our area in the colder region. Such stars, conversely, move higher in the heavens for a traveller heading southward, while those which are high in our sky sink down. Meanwhile, moreover, the elevations of the poles have the same ratio everywhere to the portions of the earth that have been traversed. This happens on no other figure than the sphere. Hence the earth too is evidently enclosed between poles and is therefore spherical. Furthermore, evening eclipses of the sun and moon are not seen by easterners, nor morning eclipses by westerners, while those occurring in between are seen later by easterners but earlier by westerners. The waters press down into the same figure also, as sailors are aware, since land which is not seen from a ship is visible from the top of its mast. On the other hand, if a light is attached to the top of the mast, as the ship draws away from land, those who remain ashore see the light drop down gradually until it finally disappears, as though setting. Water, furthermore, being fluid by nature, manifestly always seeks the same lower levels as earth and pushes up from the shore no higher than its rise permits. Hence whatever land emerges out of the ocean is admittedly that much higher.

That “waters press down into the same figure also” is further explained by the following:

Cf. “Archimedes: On Floating Bodies (two volumes)” (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia):

176

In the first part of this treatise, Archimedes spells out the law of equilibrium of fluids, and proves that water will adopt a spherical form around a center of gravity. This may have been an attempt at explaining the theory of contemporary Greek astronomers such as Eratosthenes that the Earth is round. The fluids described by Archimedes are not self-gravitating, since he assumes the existence of a point towards which all things fall in order to derive the spherical shape.

Cf. also the following:

(A) Archimedes, Letter:

First Postulate. Suppose that a fluid is of such a character that when its component parts are undisturbed and in immediate contact the part which is subject to the less pressure is moved by the part which is subject to the greater pressure; and that each part is forced in a perpendicular direction by the part above, if the fluid is compressed.

Proposition 1. If a surface is always cut by a plane passing through a given point, and if the section thus formed is always a circle whose center is the given point, the surface is that of a sphere.

Proposition 2. The surface of any still fluid is always the surface of a sphere whose center is the center of the earth.

In sum: If one considers the gathering together of the waters into one place to form ‘seas’ as the imparting of its ‘form’ to water (‘form’ here meaning the shape or ‘figure’), then it is reasonable to infer that earth is a globe, inasmuch as “the surface of any fluid at rest is the surface of a sphere whose center is the same as that of the earth”. Hence the heaven and the earth, each with its envelope of water, are arguably spherical in shape. (And note that St. Thomas in his treatise on the work of the six days supposes the heaven and the earth to be spherical in shape.)

Cf. The Geography of Strabo, op.cit., Book II, Chapter 5, nn. 1-6:

1 Since the taking in hand of my proposed task naturally follows the criticisms of my predecessors, let me make a second beginning by saying that the person who attempts to write an account of the countries of the earth must take many of the physical and mathematical principles as hypotheses and elaborate his whole treatise with reference to their intent and authority. For, as I have already said,150 no architect or engineer would be competent even to fix the site of a house or a city properly if he had no conception beforehand of “climata” and of the celestial phenomena, and of geometrical figures and magnitudes and heat and cold and other such things — much less a person who would fix positions for the whole of the inhabited world. For the mere drawing on one and the same plane surface of Iberia and India and the [p421] countries that lie between them and, in spite of its being a plane surface, the plotting the sun’s position at its settings, risings, and in meridian, as though these positions were fixed for all the people of the world — merely this exercise gives to the man who has previously conceived of the arrangement and movement of the celestial bodies and grasped the fact that it is depicted for the moment as a plane surface for the convenience of the eye — merely this exercise, I say, gives to that man instruction that is truly geographical, but to the man not thus qualified it does not. Indeed, the case is not the same with us when we are dealing with geography as it is when we are travelling great plains (those of Babylonia, for example) or over the sea: then all that is in front of us and behind us and on either side of us is presented to our minds as a plane surface

177

and offers no varying aspects with reference to the celestial bodies or the movements or the positions of the sun and the other stars relatively to us; but when we are dealing with geography the like parts must never present themselves to our minds in that way. The sailor on the open sea, or the man who travels through a level country, is guided by certain popular notions (and these notions impel not only the uneducated man but the man of affairs as well to act in the self-same way), because he is unfamiliar with the heavenly bodies and ignorant of the varying aspects of things with reference to them. For he sees the sun rise, pass the meridian, and set, but how it comes about he does not consider; for, indeed, such knowledge is not useful to him with reference to the task before him, any more than it is useful for him to know whether or not his [p423] body stands parallel to that of his neighbour.

But perhaps he does consider these matters, and yet holds opinions opposed to the principles of mathematics — just as the natives of any given place do; for a man’s place occasions such blunders. But the geographer does not write for the native of any particular place, nor yet does he write for the man of affairs of the kind who has paid no attention to the mathematical sciences properly so-called; nor, to be sure, does he write for the harvest-hand or the ditch-digger, but for the man who can be persuaded that the earth as a whole is such as the mathematicians represent it to be, and also all that relates to such an hypothesis. And the geographer urges upon his students that they first master those principles and then consider the subsequent problems; for, he declares, he will speak only of the results which follow from those principles; and hence his students will the more unerringly make the application of his teachings if they listen as mathematicians; but he refuses to teach geography to persons not thus qualified.

2 Now as for the matters which he regards as fundamental principles of his science, the geographer must rely upon the geometricians who have measured the earth as a whole; and in their turn the geometricians must rely upon the astronomers; and again the astronomers upon the physicists. Physics is a kind of Arete;151 by Aretai they mean those sciences that postulate nothing but depend upon themselves, and contain within themselves their own [p425] principles as well as the proofs thereof. Now what we are taught by the physicists is as follows:

The universe and the heavens are sphere-shaped. The tendency of the bodies that have weight is towards the centre. And, having taken its position about this centre in the form of a sphere, the earth remains homocentric with the heavens, as does also the axis through it, which axis extends also through the centre of the heavens. The heavens revolve round both the earth and its axis from east to west; and along with the heavens revolve the fixed stars, with the same rapidity as the vault of the heavens. Now the fixed stars move along parallel circles, and the best known parallel circles are the equator, the two tropics, and the arctic circles; whereas the planets and the sun and the moon move along certain oblique circles whose positions lie in the zodiac. Now the astronomers first accept these principles, either in whole or in part, and then work out the subsequent problems, namely, the movements of the heavenly bodies, their revolutions, their eclipses, their sizes, their respective distances, and a host of other things. And, in the same way, the geometricians, in measuring the earth as a whole, adhere to the doctrines of the physicists and the astronomers, and, in their turn, the geographers adhere to those of the geometricians.

3 Thus we must take as an hypothesis that the heavens have five zones, and that the earth also has five zones, and that the terrestrial zones have the same names as the celestial zones (I have already stated the reasons for this division into zones).152 The limits of the zones can be defined by circles drawn on both sides of the equator and parallel to it, [p427] namely, by two circles which enclose the torrid zone, and by two others, following upon these, which form the two temperate zones next to the torrid zone and the two frigid zones next to the

178

temperate zones. Beneath each of the celestial circles falls the corresponding terrestrial circle which bears the same name: and, in like manner, beneath the celestial zone, the terrestrial zone. Now they call “temperate” the zones that can be inhabited; the others they call uninhabitable, the one on account of the heat, and the other on account of the cold. They proceed in the same manner with reference to the tropic and the arctic circles (that is, in countries that admit of arctic circles):153 they define their limits by giving the terrestrial circles the same names as the celestial — and thus they define all the terrestrial circles that fall beneath the several celestial circles.

Since the celestial equator cuts the whole heavens in two, the earth also must of necessity be cut in two by the terrestrial equator. Of the two hemispheres — I refer to the two celestial as well as the two terrestrial hemispheres — one is called “the northern hemisphere” and the other “the southern hemisphere”; so also, since the torrid zone is cut in two by the same circle, the one part of it will be the northern and the other the southern. It is clear that, of the temperate zones also, the one will be northern and the other southern, each bearing the name of the hemisphere in which it lies. That hemisphere is called “northern hemisphere” which contains that temperate zone in which, as you look from the east to the west, the pole is on your right hand and the equator on your left, or in which, as you look towards [p429] the south, the west is on your right hand and the east on your left; and that hemisphere is called “southern hemisphere,” in which the opposite is true; and hence it is clear that we are in one of the two hemispheres (that is, of course, in the north), and that it is impossible for us to be in both. “Between them are great rivers; first, Oceanus”, and then the torrid zone. But neither is there an Oceanus in the centre of our whole inhabited world, cleaving the whole of it, nor, to be sure, is there a torrid spot in it; nor yet, indeed, is there a portion of it to be found whose “climata” are opposite to the “climata”154 which I have given for the northern temperate zone.155

4 By accepting these principles, then, and also by making use of the sun-dial and the other helps given him by the astronomer — by means of which are found, for the several inhabited localities, both the circles that are parallel to the equator and the circles that cut the former at right angles, the latter being drawn through the poles — the geometrician can measure the inhabited portion of the earth by visiting it and the rest of the earth by his calculation of the intervals. In the same way he can find the distance from the equator to the pole, which is a fourth part of the earth’s largest circle; and when he has this distance, he multiplies it by four; and this is the circumference of the earth. Accordingly, just as the man who measures the earth gets his principles from the astronomer and the astronomer his from the physicist, so, too, the geographer must in the p431same way first take his point of departure from the man who has measured the earth as a whole, having confidence in him and in those in whom he, in his turn, had confidence, and then explain, in the first instance, our inhabited world — its size, shape, and character, and its relations to the earth as a whole; for this is the peculiar task of the geographer. Then, secondly, he must discuss in a fitting manner the several parts of the inhabited world, both land and sea, noting in passing wherein the subject has been treated inadequately by those of our predecessors whom we have believed to be the best authorities on these matters.

5 Now let us take as hypothesis that the earth together with the sea is sphere-shaped and that the surface of the earth is one and the same with that of the high seas; for the elevations on the earth’s surface would disappear from consideration, because they are small in comparison with the great size of the earth and admit of being overlooked; and so we use “sphere-shaped” for figures of this kind, not as though they were turned on a lathe, nor yet as the geometrician uses the sphere for demonstration, but as an aid to our conception of the earth — and that, too, a rather rough conception. Now let us conceive of a sphere with five zones, and let the equator be drawn as a circle upon that sphere, and let a third circle be

179

drawn parallel thereto, bounding the frigid zone in the northern hemisphere, and let a third circle be drawn through the poles, cutting the other two circles at right angles. Then, since the northern hemisphere contains two-fourths of the earth, which are formed by the equator with the circle that passes through the poles, a quadrilateral area is p433cut off in each of the two fourths. The northern side of the quadrilateral is half of the parallel next to the pole; the southern side is half of the equator; and the two remaining sides are segments of the circle that runs through the poles, these segments lying opposite to each other and being equal in length. Now in one of these two quadrilaterals (it would seem to make no difference in which one) we say that our inhabited world lies, washed on all sides by the sea and like an island; for, as I have already said above,156 the evidence of our senses and of reason prove this.

But if anyone disbelieves the evidence of reason, it would make no difference, from the point of view of the geographer, whether we make the inhabited world an island, or merely admit what experience has taught us, namely, that it is possible to sail round the inhabited world on both sides, from the east as well as from the west,157 with the exception of a few intermediate stretches. And, as to these stretches, it makes no difference whether they are bounded by sea or by uninhabited land; for the geographer undertakes to describe the known parts of the inhabited world, but he leaves out of consideration the unknown parts of it — just as he does what is outside of it. And it will suffice to fill out and complete the outline of what we term “the island” by joining with a straight line the extreme points reached on the coasting-voyages made on both sides of the inhabited world.

6 So let us presuppose that the island lies in the aforesaid quadrilateral. We must then take as its [p435] size the figure that is obvious to our sense, which is obtained by abstracting from the entire size of the earth our hemisphere, then from this area its half, and in turn from this half the quadrilateral in which we say the inhabited world lies and it is by an analogous process that we must form our conception of the shape of the island, accommodating the obvious shape to our hypotheses.158 But since the segment of the northern hemisphere that lies between the equator and the circle drawn parallel to it next to the pole is a spinning-whorl159 in shape, and since the circle that passes through the pole, by cutting the northern hemisphere in two, also cuts the spinning-whorl in two and thus forms the quadrilateral, it will be clear that the quadrilateral in which the Atlantic Sea lies is half of a spinning-whorl’s surface; and that the inhabited world is a chlamys-shaped160 island in this quadrilateral, since it is less in size than half of the quadrilateral. This latter fact is clear from geometry, and also from the great extent of the enveloping sea which covers the extremities of the continents both in the east and west and contracts them to a tapering shape; and, in the third place, it p437is clear from the maximum length and breadth. Now the length of the inhabited world is seventy thousand stadia, being for the most part limited by a sea which still cannot be navigated because of its vastness and desolation; the breadth is less than thirty thousand stadia, being bounded by the regions that are uninhabitable on account either of heat or cold. For merely the part of the quadrilateral that is uninhabitable on account of the heat — since it has a breadth of eight thousand eight hundred stadia and a maximum length of one hundred and twenty six thousand stadia, that is, half the length of the equator — is more than half the inhabited world, and the remainder of the quadrilateral would be still more than that.161

NOTES

150 Page 25.151 That is, a kind of “supreme excellence.” Plutarch says that the Stoics recognized three “supreme excellences” (Aretai) among the sciences — namely, physics, ethics, and logic;

180

and that they regarded all three as the expedient arts for the exercise of philosophy in the acquirement of knowledge — which is wisdom. 152 See 2.3.1. 153 See 2.2.2 and footnote. 154 See footnote 2, page 22. 155 If such were the case, such a portion would have to fall within the southern hemisphere. 156 See page 17. 157 That is, one could circumnavigate the inhabited world by setting out in any one of four ways — either north or south, from either the Pillars or the eastern coast of India — were it not for the few intermediate stretches that prevent it. Compare page 17. 158 Strabo has assumed that the earth is sphere-shaped and that the inhabited world is an island within a certain spherical quadrilateral. Then, after conforming the inhabited world to the limits of the quadrilateral, which represents only the obvious, or apparent, size and shape, he proceeds by argument to define more accurately both the size and the shape within the limits of the quadrilateral. 159Approximately a truncated cone. 160 That is, mantle-shaped — a common designation for the shape of the inhabited world in Strabo’s time. The skirt of the chlamys was circular; and the collar was cut in a straight line, or else in a circle with a larger radius and a shorter arc than the skirt. If the comparison be fairly accurate, then according to Strabo’s description of the inhabited world we must think of the ends of the chlamys (which represent the eastern and western extremities of the inhabited world) as tapering, and so much so that a line joining the corners of the skirt passes through the middle of the chlamys. (See Tarbell, Classical Philology, vol. I page 286.) 161 The large quadrilateral in question is composed of (1) the inhabited world, (2) a strip one half the width of the torrid zone and 180° long, and (3) ”the remainder.” “The remainder” consists of two small quadrilaterals, one of which is east, the other west, of the inhabited world. By actual computation the strip of the torrid zone is more than half of the inhabited world, and “the remainder” is still more. Therefore the inhabited world covers less than half of the large quadrilateral in question. To illustrate the argument, draw a figure on a sphere as follows: Let AB be 180° of the equator; let CD be 180° of the parallel through the northern limit of the inhabited world; join A and C, and B and D; and then draw an arc of 180° parallel to the equator at 8,800 stadia north of the equator, and also two meridian-arcs from CD to AB through the eastern and western limits, respectively, of the inhabited world. Thus we have the large quadrilateral ACDB, and, within it, four small quadrilaterals, which constitute the three divisions above-mentioned. (emphasis added)

23. That the heaven moves circularly.

Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Aristotle’s Meteorology, lect. 1, n. 3 (tr. Pierre Conway, O.P. and F.R. Larcher, O.P.):

The second book of natural science is the book, On the Heavens, in the first part of which, i.e., in its first two books, the discussion is about the heaven and the stars, which are moved with circular motion. This he alludes to when he says: “We have also discussed the superior movement of the well-appointed stars,” meaning by “well-appointed,” very beautifully arranged, and by “as to their superior motion,” the circular motion by which all the heavenly bodies are moved. In the second part of that book, i.e. in the third and fourth books, he determines concerning the number of elements and their local motion. Alluding to this he says: “and about the bodily elements we have discussed their number and nature.” He says “bodily” elements to distinguish them from the first principles, namely, matter and form, which are not bodies but the elements or principles of bodies, whereas fire and water and earth are bodies, and are the elements of other bodies.

181

24. That the earth is round, not flat.

Cf. the following, from an internet article:

Aristotle wrote in Book II, chapter 14 of his work Heavens (350 BC):

Of the position of the earth and of the manner of its rest or movement, our discussion may here end. Its shape must necessarily be spherical.

Aristotle reiterated this in his Meteorology, and gave reasons and calculations to show that the stars and the heavens are also spherical: “… the horizon always changes with a change in our position,” he wrote, “which proves that the earth is convex and spherical.”

Augustine wrote:

… although it be supposed or scientifically demonstrated that the world is of a round and spherical form, yet it does not follow that the other side of the earth is bare of water; nor even, though it be bare, does it immediately follow that it is peopled.

Other ancient accounts

Plato, a contemporary of Aristotle and disciple of Socrates, quoted Socrates as saying: “my conviction is that the earth is a round body in the center of the heavens” (Phaedo, 380 BC).

The Roman poet Ovid (43 BC–AD 17) wrote in AD 8 that God “moulded Earth into a spacious round” (Metamorphoses, Book the First, The Creation of the World).

The Roman philosopher Plotinus (204–270) wrote in his Six Enneads (Eighth Tractate, On the Intellectual Beauty, section 7): “it is possible to give a reason why the earth is set in the midst and why it is round …”

§

182

25. The cosmology of the Bible: An overview.

Cf. Paul H. Seely, “The Three-Storied Universe” (excerpt):51

From: JASA 21 (March 1969): 18-22.

The Bible assumes that the universe consists of three stories. The top story consists of a hard firmament which serves to divide a part of the primeval ocean from the other part of that ocean which is on the earth. The middle story, the earth, is where flesh and blood men live. The bottom story, Sheol, is where the souls of the departed live.

The firmament is hard, not gaseous. This is evidenced by the etymological meaning of the Hebrew word for firmament, the logic of the case, the ease with which Moses could have described a gaseous firmament had he so desired, Biblical cross references, and the absence of any evidence to the contrary. The earth is presumably, but not necessarily flat.

The bottom story is not just figurative language for the state of the dead, nor is it simply equivalent to the meaning of “grave”. It is, as we see in Numbers 16:30-33, I Samuel 28:815, and elsewhere, the subterranean realm of the dead.

The Bible assumes that the universe is three-storied; but, we do not believe that Christians are bound to give assent to such a cosmology, since the purpose of the Bible is to give redemptive, not scientific truth. The relationship of science to Scripture is this: The Bible gives redemptive truth through the scientific thoughts of the times without ever intending that those scientific thoughts should be believed as inerrant.

INTRODUCTION

It seems to the author that the three-storied universe as it is found in the Bible serves as an object lesson to those who would like to know the relationship between science and the Bible. It would serve even better, however, if more people could see this Biblical cosmo-logy.

It seems that in reaction to unbelief, the current shibboleth of would-be theological orthodoxy is, “The Bible is inerrant whenever it touches on matters of science.” We find this doctrine to be a priori, a doctrine that is read into the teachings of the Bible, rather than derived from it by legitimate exegesis. Not that we will here undertake to show how illegitimate the exegesis has been that buttresses this a priori doctrine. Rather, we only seek to demonstrate that the Bible portrays a three-storied universe, a cosmology which any modern man will reject as being scientifically erroneous.

The three-storied universe is a cosmology wherein the universe is conceived of as consisting of three stories. The ceiling of Sheol, the bottom story, is the surface of the earth. The surface of the earth, in turn, is the floor of the middle story. The ceiling of the earth, the middle story, is the firmament with its contiguous heavenly ocean. This firmament with its ocean is, in turn, the floor of the top story, heaven.

THE UPPER STORY

The Solid Firmament

51 (http://www.asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/1969/JASA3-69Seely.html [12/11/06])

183

As to the upper story, one big point of dispute is the meaning of “raqia’”, the firmament that God created to divide the waters above and below it (Genesis 1:6). Though standard Hebrew lexicons have defined “raqia’” as “solid vault of heaven”, some conservatives have argued, perhaps from the cognate verb, raqa’ (beat out, spread out), that we may translate “raqia’” by the word “expanse”. There is some truth in this. Since metal spreads out when it is beaten, the verb “raqa’” can he translated “spread out”: (Ex. 39:3; Isa, 40:19; Jer. 10:9); and the meaning “spread out” can he used in virtual independence of the meaning “beat out”: (Ps. 136:6; Isa, 42:5; 44:24).

If this is so, why not translate “raqia’” by the word “expanse”? We are not at all adverse to this translation. But, having translated “raqia’” by “expanse”, one has by no means changed the biblical assumption of a three-storied universe. There is nothing in the translation “expanse” that denies the solidity of that expanse. The connotations of airiness and non-solidity which tend to accompany the word “expanse” when used in Genesis 1 cannot be admitted. An “expanse” is simply something that is spread out over a wide area’’. (Webster’s Third International Dictionary). Thus, it is said that the earth is an “expanse: (Isa. 42:5; 44:24), just as the firmament is an “expanse”. To say that the firmament in the Bible is an “expanse” is not to say that it is not solid. Bear in mind that the meaning “spread out” for the cognate verb “raqia’” would never have arisen unless the idea of beating or pounding something solid had come first. The meaning “spread out” is derived from the more basic meaning “stamp” or “beat out”. The metal only spreads out after and because it has been beaten. Had the concept of solidity not been tied to “raqia’”, the concept of expanse would not have arisen. This historical etymology of “raqia’” and “raqa’” does not absolutely prove that “raqia’ in Genesis 1 is solid, but it does give an initial presumption to the idea that “raqía’” is solid.1

More directly, we find it only logical that the firmament be hard or solid in order to fulfill its purpose of serving as a divider of the primeval ocean (Gen. 1:6), carrying the water above on its back (Gen. 1:7). It is impossible, by the nature of air and water, for an empty, airy, ever continuing expanse to serve as a divider for a body of water. A part of a primeval ocean may be made to settle above or beyond a solid wall, a solid dome acting as a divider; but, place a part of a primeval ocean “above” or “beyond” (that is the Hebrew word) a gaseous or vacuous expanse, and you find that the ocean immediately makes itself at home “in” the expanse, not “beyond” it. That is, it is self-contradictory to talk of water being “beyond” an empty or gaseous expanse; for if it is “beyond” the expanse, “beyond” the firmament, where is it? The only place the water could be on the airy, atmosphere “expanse” view would be “in” the firmament, not “beyond” it, as the text requires.

On the non-solid definition of the firmament, one has to cease talking about “beyond” the firmament. That is, one has to cease talking about the text. One has to give up the Bible’s statement (Gen. 1:7) if he defines firmament as non-solid. We, therefore, reject the definition of firmament as a non-solid expanse; because such a definition immediately involves one either in a self-contradiction or in a demand that Genesis 1:7 be excised.

Other Passages

Besides these considerations, the one passage where the nature of a firmament (Raqia’) can be determined with certainty, Ezekiel 1:22-26, shows us a firmament that is solid. Keil comments that the description of the firmament in Ezekiel 1:22 is based on Exodus 24:10. If so, since Exodus 24:10 describes a solid firmament (we see Genesis 24:10 as adding more strength to our case for a solid firmament), Keil means that the firmament in Ezekiel 1:22ff. is also solid.

184

We need not doubt, however, that this was his understanding, for he adds, “Under the cano-py were the wings of the cherubim ... spread out ... so that they appeared to support the cano-py.” He goes on to show, however, that contrary to appearance, the wings did not support the canopy, “but only were so extended, when the cherubim were in motion, that they touched the canopy.”

Hengstenberg called the firmament in Ezekiel 1:22 a “vault”, under which are the cherubim; and “God’s throne stands upon the vault.” Other commentators could be cited: but, without laboring the point further, the consensus of commentators is that the firmament (raqia’) in Ezekiel 1:22-26 is a solid firmament. This adds presumptive evidence to the idea that the firmament in Genesis 1:7 is solid.

Alternative Words

To add yet more evidence, we note that if Moses had wanted to convey the idea of empty space as separating the water above from the water below, he could easily have used a word or phrase that does not suggest solidity like “raqia’” does. He could have spoken of separating (hodhal) the waters above from the waters below, without mentioning the creation of a firmament to do this work. Or, he could have spoken of putting room (moqom) or space (rcwah) as in Genesis 32:16 or space (rohoq) as in Joshua 3:4 between the two bodies of water. Moses was certainly not forced to convey a false impression because of the limitations of his language.

There are probably other ways also that the idea of a non-solid divider between the two bodies of water could have been conveyed. But, instead, we read of a “raqia’ “, which leads one most naturally to think of something solid. The LXX accordingly translates “raqia’” by “stereoma” (solid body). The Vulgate translates with “firmamentum”; and most English translations have “firmament”.

Job 37:18

There is yet another verse of Scripture (for we would interpret Scripture by Scripture) that dramatically establishes the solidity of the firmament. We refer to Job 37:18, “Can you with him spread out (raqa’) the sky, strong (or hard) as a molten (cast metal) mirror?”2

Here in the context of ancient Near Eastern thought, the sky is compared to a metal mirror. The point of comparison between the sky and the mirror is specifically the hardness of the metal. There is no escape here in saying that the passage is poetical, for the simile (the poetry) would be incongruous if the mirror were hard, but the sky gaseous. (Old Testament passages referring to heaven as a curtain or tent have reference to the “stretched-outed-ness” of heaven and disprove nothing as to its solidity.) And, even if this reflection on the hardness of the sky is not God speaking revealed truth, but only Elihu, the passage still throws light on the ancient Near Eastern conception of the firmament in Genesis 1. Nor do we ever find any revelation of God that suggests that the firmament is not solid.

Waters Above the Firmament

Parenthetically, let us add a few words about the water above the firmament since it has been the source of rather imaginative solutions to the science-Scripture conflict. In the first place, there is no evidence that the water is a mist or fog. It is rather an ocean. The deep (tehom) of Genesis 1:2 is divided in Genesis 1:6,7 into two bodies of water. The body of water below forms the earthly sea (Genesis 1:9); and the water above, since it is the other half of the

185

“tehom”, forms a heavenly sea.52 Cf. Psalm 148:4.53 Thus, the sky above is blue; and the opening of the windows of heaven allows a great deal of water to be poured out on the earth. (Genesis 7:11) Secondly, the water is above the firmament. (Genesis 1:7) Catastrophists and other science-Scripture harmonizers are forever putting this water below the firmament. This water, so far as the Bible is concerned, is on the far side of the sun, not between the sun and the earth. Finally, this water does not as a whole condense or fall as rain either before or during Noah’s flood. The heavenly ocean is still above the firmament in the time of the Psalmist (Psalm 148:4); and so far as the Bible is concerned, the water is still there.

Other Evidence

Although extra-Biblical concepts are not absolute proof of what the Bible idea is, it is significant that the ancient world thought of the sky as a solid dome above the earth or as solid concentric spheres in which the heavenly bodies were implanted.3 But, apart from the ideas of the rest of an ancient world, we think we have presented evidence sufficient to prove that the Bible has in view a solid firmament in Genesis 1:7. That is, when one adds the initial etymological presumption to the self-contradiction that arises when one defines the firmament in Genesis 1:7 as non-solid, to the definition of a firmament in Ezekiel 1 as a solid vault, to the ease with which Moses could have described a non-solid divider between the two bodies of water, to the normal translation of “raqia’”, to the Near Eastern milieu as reflected in job 37:18, to the complete absence of any hint anywhere that the firmament in Genesis 1:7 is not solid, one comes, without room for doubt, to the exegetically derived judgment that the firmament (raqia’) in Genesis 1:7 is, as standard Hebrew lexicons define it, “the solid vault of heaven.”

One last word. It has been thought by some that since the “birds fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven,” (Genesis 1:20), the firmament must be mere airy expanse. However, the Hebrew of Genesis 1:20 when properly translated reads, “let birds fly above the earth before or ‘in front of’ the firmament.” Genesis 1:20 when properly translated proves that the firmament is a solid plate, not a gaseous expanse. This is not to deny, however, that the space below the firmament is sometimes called “Heaven”. This occurs via synecdoche, since the firmament is “Heaven” proper. (Genesis 1:8)

REFERENCES

1 The defenders of a non-solid “raqia’” for Genesis 1:7 are at least under obligation to give proof of their definition; for silence cannot overthrow presumptive evidence.2 On the word, “molten”, cf. I Kings 7:16, 23 where the same hophal participle is used.3 See the articles on “firmament” in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible and in Dictionary of the Bible-William Smith, Vol. I, Part II.

§

52 For criticism of this claim, see my note following. Here I will merely point out that Seely shows no awareness of the difficulties involved in supposing waters called “the deep,” and therefore occupying the lowest place in the three-storied universe, to be divided by the firmament which, being a part of heaven, therefore occupies the highest place.53 But this Psalm (for which, see further below) in no way supports Seely’s claim. For a parallel that does, however, cf. Psalm 33:7: “He gathers the waters of the sea into jars; he puts the deep into storehouses” (NIV); such ‘storehouses’ clearly residing above the surface of the earth. Still, the presence of earthly waters on high can be accounted for by the operation of natural causes subsequent to the first moment of creation, as I endeavor to explain below.

186

26. On the waters above the firmament.

While I am in almost complete agreement with Seely in every other particular of his account, his assertions concerning the waters divided by the firmament are seriously mistaken: As the text itself makes clear, these waters are, in their entirety, at the start of the Second Day ABOVE THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH. That is to say, in no way can they be identified simply with the waters ON THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH which, on the Third Day, will be gathered together into one place and called “Seas”. That this is so is clear from the fact that verse 2 speaks of both “the face [= surface] of the deep” as well as the “face” of the waters.54 Now it would make no sense to speak of those waters as having a ‘face’—which is to say, a surface—unless they did, in fact, have one. But a surface, being the outermost limit of a body, contains the entirety of that body within its bounds, for which reason we cannot suppose the waters of the deep to extend all the way up to the place on high where the firmament will be produced; all the more so since there is a body of air lying between the two. Accordingly, to suppose the firmament to have divided these earth-bound waters is to suppose it to have come into being UNDER THEIR SURFACE and THEN to have expanded outward to reach their present place far above our heads, WITHOUT, AT THE SAME TIME, DISPLACING THE INTERVENING AIR, suppositions in no way supported by the text. An interesting counterpoint to our contention, however, is provided by the following account of an Egyptian parallel: Cf. “Ancient Egyptian Creation Mythology”:55

Tony Shetter, Th.M35Brief Survey of Egyptian Cosmology: Creation Mythology (excerpt)Condition of the Primordial State at Creation

The Egyptian view of the primordial state may help inform the Hebrew understanding of the conditions mentioned in Genesis 1:2. Creation scientists have long argued for the creation of a water canopy when the waters were separated from the waters in Genesis. Envisioning the creation of the world in Genesis from a modern scientific standpoint leads them to see the world described in Genesis 1:2 as a ball of water from which a portion of water is taken and placed above the atmosphere. However, if the Egyptian worldview gives a closer under-standing of the Hebrew worldview, quite a different idea emerges.

54 Cf. Paul H. Seely, “The Bible and Science. The First Four Days of Genesis in Concordist Theory and in Biblical Context.” From PSCF 49 (June 1997): 85-95:

Secondly, Gen. 1:2 speaks of the “face or surface of the tehom.” This phrase is used two other times in Scripture. Job 38:30 speaks of the surface of the deep being frozen. This reference is obviously to a body of liquid water freezing. It is incredible that it is a reference to the surface of a cloud freezing. The other reference is Prov. 8:27 which speaks of God at creation “marking out a circle on the face of the deep. The “circle” refers to the curvature seen when one looks at the horizon of the ocean. This reference is clearly to the sea and just as clearly not to a cloud. So, when the words “face of the deep” are used elsewhere in the OT, they refer to a liquid body of water, a sea, certainly not a cloud; there is no contextual reason to understand these words in any other way in Gen. 1:2. We might add that the words “face of the waters” which are also used in Gen. 1:2 mean the surface of a liquid body of water elsewhere in the OT, never a cloud (Gen. 7:18; Ex. 32:20; Isa. 18:2; 19:8; Hosea 10:7).”

But if, as Seely himself says, the deep is that body of water, bounded by the horizon, called “the ocean” (for which reason it is ON and not ABOVE the earth) and not some sort of cloud, how could it be divided by the firmament?55 (http://eedin.com/ShowArticle.aspx?ID=83&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1 [11/9/08])

187

The Egyptians saw the separation of waters as an air-bubble in the midst of the watery abyss of Nun.78 It was in this air-bubble that the earth (the primeval hill) arose. A closer look at Genesis 1 reveals a similar (nearly identical) concept. The author of Genesis 1:1—2:3 describes the placement of the expanse as μyIM;h’ JwtøB] “in the midst of the water” i.e. in the middle of the water (Gen 1:6) This gives the notion of an air-bubble in the middle of the deep. After making the expanse, God commands the water under heaven to gather to one place and allow the dry ground to appear.

78 R.T. Rundle Clark, Myth and Symbol in Ancient Egypt: With 18 Plates, 40 Line Drawings, a Chart of Religious Symbols, and a Map (New York: Thames and Hudson,1959), 35.

The problem with this explanation—quite apart from the fact that nothing in the text allows for anything like an “air bubble” to play a role in the coming to be of the firmament—is that the region of air is already in place on the First Day, as is indicated by the words “and darkness was on the face of the deep, and the spirit of God moved/was moving over the (face of the) waters”. Now the ruach Elohim, the spirit of God, clearly has the character of a wind; but wind is a movement of air; the latter also being the subject of darkness, since there must be a ‘body,’ so to speak, that is potentially luminous before it becomes illuminated by light in act, without which ‘darkness’ would not even be spoken of in the first place. As for the firmament created on the Second Day, that is the ‘starry,’ not the ‘aerial,’ heaven, as I have argued again and again in this monograph. Consequently, we must recognize that the waters God divided on the Second Day were not in place above the earth on the First. Still, as they must have come from the deep, we still have to explain how they got there.

27. On the role of air in the constitution of things.

Cf. the following Dr. Barbara J. Becker, Fragments of Pre-Socratic Philosophy (History 60):56

Anaximenes of Miletus (fl.. 535 BCE)

Anaximenes (556-480 BCE) argued that the arché is pneuma, a word synonymous with air and indistinguishable from vapor, wind or breath. Anaximenes saw air as the mean between the opposites of hot and cold, wet and dry. Air is not visible in its “normal” state. And it can produce transitions from one state to another. Like his predecessor, Anaximander, Anaxi-menes wrote down his thoughts. Here is a fragment from his work:

“Just as,” [Anaximenes] said, “our soul, being air, holds us together, so do breath and air encompass the whole world.”     –Aëtius, I, 3, 4)

Theophrastus provides a more complete account of Anaximenes’ views:

Anaximenes of Miletos, son of Eurystratos, who had been an associate of Anaximander, said, like him, that the underlying substance was single and unbounded. However, according to him it was not characterless, as it was for Anaximander, but had a definite character; for he said that it was Air.

56 (https://eee.uci.edu/clients/bjbecker/RevoltingIdeas/week1b.html#anaximenes [11/12/08])

188

He said that, while the Air was being thickened like felt, the Earth first came into being. The Earth is like a table in shape. It is very broad, and can accordingly be supported by the Air. The Sun, Moon and other heavenly bodies, which are of a fiery nature, are likewise sup-ported by the Air because of their breadth. The heavenly bodies were produced out of moisture rising from the Earth. When this rarefied, fire was produced: the stars are composed of the fire thus raised aloft. Revolving along with the stars there are also earthy bodies.

The heavenly bodies do not move under the Earth, as some supposed, but round it; like a cap turned round on one’s head. The Sun disappears from sight, not because it goes below the Earth, but because, having gone a long way from us, it is concealed by the higher parts of the Earth. The stars give no heat because they are so far away. They are fixed like nails in the crystalline vault of the heavens, though some say they are like fiery leaves painted on the heavens.    –Theophrastus, Opinions of Physics

N.B. Note how many of the doctrines we are concerned with appear in the foregoing testimonia, not the least of which are the role of air in the constitution of all things, the cycle of condensation and rarefaction producing substances, and the relative positions of air, earth, water, and the heavenly bodies. One could hardly emphasize too strongly the fact that the Mosaic account is intimately concerned with such things.

Cf. Duane Berquist, “Natural Fragments of the First Philosophers,” Anaximenes:57

ANAXIMENES

Just as our soul, being air, holds us together, so do breath and air surround the whole world. (Anaximenes, DK 2)

Anaximenes, the third philosopher and Milesian (or citizen of Miletus), said that air was the beginning of all things. Like Thales, he also was influenced by living things. Those most familiar to us need to breathe in order to live and when they stop breathing, they die. Indeed, some of the early Greek philosophers, like the poets and the popular imagination, thought of the soul as air. The Greek word for soul means first of all air or breath. Homer describes a man badly injured in battle. His soul is starting to leave his body, but a strong wind comes up and forces his soul back into his body and he survives.

Was it more reasonable to guess air than water or the unlimited as the beginning of things? Anaximenes could have been led by Anaximander’s thought to say air rather than water. If the beginning of things must be unlimited in both a quantitative and a qualitative sense, we have two reasons why air is a better guess than water as the beginning of all things. For there is more air than water around. There is air over all the earth, even over the desert which is lacking water. And air seems to go up and up above us, perhaps forever. Air is not more unlimited than the unlimited, but it is easier for our mind because air is somewhat sensible. Another reason why air is a better guess than water can be seen if we compare these guesses with the statement of the poet Hesiod before them. Hesiod, like other poets, emphasizes mother earth as the beginning of things. Shakespeare, in his play Timon of Athens, has Timon address the earth: “Common mother, thou, whose womb immeasurable and infinite breast, teems and feeds all.”

57 (www.aristotle-aquinas.org/the-first-philosophers/the-natural-fragments/02-On%20the%20Natural%20Fragments.pdf [10/9/08])

189

Mother earth is spoken of as the beginning of all things and also as infinite. The order of the three guesses is interesting: mother earth, water, and then air. Mother earth is the most sensible, and air, the least sensible, being invisible. When there is only air in a room, we often say it is empty or that there is nothing in that room. Water is, of course, in-between. It is visible although to some extent transparent. Earth seems to be the thickest of the three and air the thinnest. (Hence, Shakespeare says, “Strike flat, the thick rotundity of the earth” and “they are vanished into air, into thin air”) Now the thick cannot be the matter of the thin. We cannot make something thin out of something thick; the thin cannot be composed of the thick. But many layers of the thin can make up something thick; as, for example, a thick book is made out of many thin pages. Moreover, matter is like parts (and form like the whole) and the part is smaller than the whole. Hence, the first matter should have the thinnest and smallest pieces. In this way, water is a better guess than earth; and air, thanwater.

As Aristotle points out in the first book of Natural Hearing (the Physics), those who said there was one first matter generated other things out of it by rarefaction and condensation. Erwin Schrödinger comments on this:

[Anaximenes] “from a careful consideration of everyday experience...abstracted the thesis that every piece of matter can take on the solid, the liquid, the gaseous and “fiery” state; that the changes between these states do not imply a change of nature, but are brought about geometrically, as it were, by the spreading of the same amount of matter over a larger and larger volume (rarefaction) or – in the opposite transitions – by its being reduced or compressed into a smaller and smaller volume. This idea is so absolutely to the point that a modern introduction into physical science could take it over without any relevant change. Moreover, it is certainly not an unfounded guess, but the outcome of careful observation.8

8 Science and Humanism, p. 56

Cf. Michael Augros, “Notes From the Berquist Seminars” (1992), The Philosophy of Nature, nn. 17-18 (Duane 1):

17) 11/4/92 The confusion of “mother earth” is an appropriate beginning for the mind that begins in confusion (the human mind). One may separate out from it that matter is a cause. Earth is more sensible than water or air. Thicker to thinner (thin air, see Shakespeare’s Tempest).

18) 11/4/92 Matter is defined in the second book of the Physics as that out of which something comes and which is in it. The thick is made out of the thin, as in compression; a thick book is made out of thin pages. One could not make or compose a thin thing out of thick things. Thus matter is to form as part is to whole. And so for this reason, too, a thin material principle is a better guess than a thick one (and not just because thin materials like air have less determinate qualities). The smallest, finest piece is a principle even more so, e.g. a letter more so than a word more so than a sentence etc.

§

N.B. See further below on the transmutation of the elements.

190

28. On the waters above and the waters below.

Cf. Basil the Great, Hexaemeron (Homily 4) In Basil. Exegetical homilies. Translated by Agnes Clare Way. Vol. 46 The Fathers of the Church, ed. Joseph Deferrari. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1963:

Upon the gathering together of the waters.

1. There are towns where the inhabitants, from dawn to eve, feast their eyes on the tricks of innumerable conjurors. They are never tired of hearing dissolute songs which cause much impurity to spring up in their souls, and they are often called happy, because they neglect the cares of business and trades useful to life, and pass the time, which is assigned to them on this earth, in idleness and pleasure. They do not know that a theatre full of impure sights is, for those who sit there, a common school of vice; that these melodious and meretricious songs insinuate themselves into men’s souls, and all who hear them, eager to imitate the notes of harpers and pipers, are filled with filthiness. Some others, who are wild after horses, think they are backing their horses in their dreams; they harness their chariots, change their drivers, and even in sleep are not free from the folly of the day. And shall we, whom the Lord, the great worker of marvels, calls to the contemplation of His own works, tire of looking at them, or be slow to hear the words of the Holy Spirit? Shall we not rather stand around the vast and varied workshop of divine creation and, carried back in mind to the times of old, shall we not view all the order of creation? Heaven, poised like a dome, to quote the words of the prophet; earth, this immense mass which rests upon itself; the air around it, of a soft and fluid nature, a true and continual nourishment for all who breathe it, of such tenuity that it yields and opens at the least movement of the body, opposing no resistance to our motions, while, in a moment, it streams back to its place, behind those who cleave it; water, finally, that supplies drink for man, or may be designed for our other needs, and the marvellous gathering together of it into definite places which have been assigned to it: such is the spectacle which the words which I have just read will show you.

2. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear, and it was so. And the water which was under the heaven gathered together unto one place; And God called the dry land earth and the gathering together of the waters called He seas. Genesis 1:9-10 What trouble you have given me in my previous discourses by asking me why the earth was invisible, why all bodies are naturally endued with colour, and why all colour comes under the sense of sight. And, perhaps, my reason did not appear sufficient to you, when I said that the earth, without being naturally invisible, was so to us, because of the mass of water that entirely covered it. Hear then how Scripture explains itself. Let the waters be gathered together, and let the dry land appear. The veil is lifted and allows the earth, hitherto invisible, to be seen. Perhaps you will ask me new questions. And first, is it not a law of nature that water flows downwards? Why, then, does Scripture refer this to the fiat of the Creator? As long as water is spread over a level surface, it does not flow; it is immovable. But when it finds any slope, immediately the foremost portion falls, then the one that follows takes its place, and that one is itself replaced by a third. Thus incessantly they flow, pressing the one on the other, and the rapidity of their course is in proportion to the mass of water that is being carried, and the declivity down which it is borne. If such is the nature of water, it was supererogatory to command it to gather into one place. It was bound, on account of its natural instability, to fall into the most hollow part of the earth and not to stop until the levelling of its surface. We see how there is nothing so level as the surface of water. Besides, they add, how did the waters receive an order to gather into one place, when we see several seas, separated from each other by the greatest distances? To the first question I reply: Since God’s command, you know perfectly

191

well the motion of water; you know that it is unsteady and unstable and falls naturally over declivities and into hollow places. But what was its nature before this command made it take its course? You do not know yourself, and you have heard from no eye-witness. Think, in reality, that a word of God makes the nature, and that this order is for the creature a direction for its future course. There was only one creation of day and night, and since that moment they have incessantly succeeded each other and divided time into equal parts.

3. Let the waters be gathered together. It was ordered that it should be the natural property of water to flow, and in obedience to this order, the waters are never weary in their course. In speaking thus, I have only in view the flowing property of waters. Some flow of their own accord like springs and rivers, others are collected and stationary. But I speak now of flowing waters. Let the waters be gathered together unto one place. Have you never thought, when standing near a spring which is sending forth water abundantly, Who makes this water spring from the bowels of the earth? Who forced it up? Where are the store-houses which send it forth? To what place is it hastening? How is it that it is never exhausted here, and never overflows there? All this comes from that first command; it was for the waters a signal for their course.

In all the story of the waters remember this first order, let the waters be gathered together. To take their assigned places they were obliged to flow, and, once arrived there, to remain in their place and not to go farther. Thus in the language of Ecclesiastes, All the waters run into the sea; yet the sea is not full. Ecclesiastes 1:6-7 Waters flow in virtue of God’s order, and the sea is enclosed in limits according to this first law, Let the waters be gathered together unto one place. For fear the water should spread beyond its bed, and in its successive invasions cover one by one all countries, and end by flooding the whole earth, it received the order to gather unto one place. Thus we often see the furious sea raising mighty waves to the heaven, and, when once it has touched the shore, break its impetuosity in foam and retire. Fear ye not me, says the Lord....which have placed the sand for the bound of the sea. Jeremiah 5:22 A grain of sand, the weakest thing possible, curbs the violence of the ocean. For what would prevent the Red Sea from invading the whole of Egypt, which lies lower, and uniting itself to the other sea which bathes its shores, were it not fettered by the fiat of the Creator? And if I say that Egypt is lower than the Red Sea, it is because experience has convinced us of it every time that an attempt has been made to join the sea of Egypt to the Indian Ocean, of which the Red Sea is a part. Thus we have renounced this enterprise, as also have the Egyptian Sesostris, who conceived the idea, and Darius the Mede who afterwards wished to carry it out.

I report this fact to make you understand the full force of the command, Let the waters be gathered unto one place; that is to say, let there be no other gathering, and, once gathered, let them not disperse.

4. To say that the waters were gathered in one place indicates that previously they were scattered in many places. The mountains, intersected by deep ravines, accumulated water in their valleys, when from every direction the waters betook themselves to the one gathering place. What vast plains, in their extent resembling wide seas, what valleys, what cavities hollowed in many different ways, at that time full of water, must have been emptied by the command of God!58 But we must not therefore say, that if the water covered the face of the earth, all the basins which have since received the sea were originally full. Where can the gathering of the waters have come from if the basins were already full?

58 In my exegesis, I presume the exact opposite to have happened: all the waters existing without order on the face of the earth were afterwards “gathered into one place” by the very formation of such “valleys” and “plains,” which were not there prior to God’s fiat. The way in which many “Seas” can also be “one place” I explain elsewhere in these pages.

192

These basins, we reply, were only prepared at the moment when the water had to unite in a single mass.59 At that time the sea which is beyond Gadeira and the vast ocean, so dreaded by navigators, which surrounds the isle of Britain and western Spain, did not exist. But, all of a sudden, God created this vast space, and the mass of waters flowed in.

Now if our explanation of the creation of the world may appear contrary to experience, (because it is evident that all the waters did not flow together in one place,) many answers may be made, all obvious as soon as they are stated. Perhaps it is even ridiculous to reply to such objections. Ought they to bring forward in opposition ponds and accumulations of rain water, and think that this is enough to upset our reasonings? Evidently the chief and most complete affluence of the waters was what received the name of gathering unto one place. For wells are also gathering places for water, made by the hand of man to receive the moisture diffused in the hollow of the earth. This name of gathering does not mean any chance massing of water, but the greatest and most important one, wherein the element is shown collected together. In the same way that fire, in spite of its being divided into minute particles which are sufficient for our needs here, is spread in a mass in the æther; in the same way that air, in spite of a like minute division, has occupied the region round the earth; so also water, in spite of the small amount spread abroad everywhere, only forms one gathering together, that which separates the whole element from the rest. Without doubt the lakes as well those of the northern regions and those that are to be found in Greece, in Macedonia, in Bithynia and in Palestine, are gatherings together of waters; but here it means the greatest of all, that gathering the extent of which equals that of the earth. The first contain a great quantity of water; no one will deny this. Nevertheless no one could reasonably give them the name of seas, not even if they are like the great sea, charged with salt and sand. They instance for example, the Lacus Asphaltitis in Judæa, and the Serbonian lake which extends between Egypt and Palestine in the Arabian desert. These are lakes, and there is only one sea, as those affirm who have travelled round the earth. Although some authorities think the Hyrcanian and Caspian Seas are enclosed in their own boundaries, if we are to believe the geographers, they communicate with each other and together discharge themselves into the Great Sea. It is thus that, according to their account, the Red Sea and that beyond Gadeira only form one. Then why did God call the different masses of water seas? This is the reason; the waters flowed into one place, and their different accumulations, that is to say, the gulfs that the earth embraced in her folds, received from the Lord the name of seas: North Sea, South Sea, Eastern Sea, and Western Sea. The seas have even their own names, the Euxine, the Propontis, the Hellespont, the Ægean, the Ionian, the Sardinian, the Sicilian, the Tyrrhene, and many other names of which an exact enumeration would now be too long, and quite out of place. See why God calls the gathering together of waters seas. But let us return to the point from which the course of my argument has diverted me.

5. And God said: Let the waters be gathered together unto one place and let the dry land appear. He did not say let the earth appear, so as not to show itself again without form, mud-like, and in combination with the water, nor yet endued with proper form and virtue. At the same time, lest we should attribute the drying of the earth to the sun, the Creator shows it to us dried before the creation of the sun. Let us follow the thought Scripture gives us. Not only the water which was covering the earth flowed off from it, but all that which had filtered into its depths withdrew in obedience to the irresistible order of the sovereign Master. And it was so. This is quite enough to show that the Creator’s voice had effect: however, in several editions, there is added And the water which was under the heavens gathered itself unto one

59 Since the gathering together of the waters into one place by their distribution into several “Seas” may be accounted for by the formation of “basins” in the surface of the earth as the result of the divine fiat, of what use is it to suppose such receptacles to have existed from the start and then to have been succeeded by other, empty basins, as necessary to receive the waters?

193

place and the dry land was seen; words that other interpreters have not given, and which do not appear conformable to Hebrew usage. In fact, after the assertion, and it was so, it is superfluous to repeat exactly the same thing. In accurate copies these words are marked with an obelus, which is the sign of rejection.

And God called the dry land earth; and the gathering together of the waters called He seas . Genesis 1:10 Why does Scripture say above that the waters were gathered together unto one place, and that the dry earth appeared? Why does it add here the dry land appeared, and God gave it the name of earth? It is that dryness is the property which appears to characterize the nature of the subject, while the word earth is only its simple name. Just as reason is the distinctive faculty of man, and the word man serves to designate the being gifted with this faculty, so dryness is the special and peculiar quality of the earth. The element essentially dry receives therefore the name of earth, as the animal who has a neigh for a characteristic cry is called a horse. The other elements, like the earth, have received some peculiar property which distinguishes them from the rest, and makes them known for what they are. Thus water has cold for its distinguishing property; air, moisture; fire, heat. But this theory really applies only to the primitive elements of the world. The elements which contribute to the formation of bodies, and come under our senses, show us these qualities in combination, and in the whole of nature our eyes and senses can find nothing which is completely singular, simple and pure. Earth is at the same time dry and cold; water, cold and moist; air, moist and warm; fire, warm and dry. It is by the combination of their qualities that the different elements can mingle. Thanks to a common quality each of them mixes with a neighbouring element, and this natural alliance attaches it to the contrary element. For example, earth, which is at the same time dry and cold, finds in cold a relationship which unites it to water, and by the means of water unites itself to air. Water placed between the two, appears to give each a hand, and, on account of its double quality, allies itself to earth by cold and to air by moisture. Air, in its turn, takes the middle place and plays the part of a mediator between the inimical natures of water and fire, united to the first by moisture, and to the second by heat. Finally fire, of a nature at the same time warm and dry, is linked to air by warmth, and by its dryness reunites itself to the earth. And from this accord and from this mutual mixture of elements, results a circle and an harmonious choir whence each of the elements deserves its name. I have said this in order to explain why God has given to the dry land the name of earth, without however calling the earth dry. It is because dryness is not one of those qualities which the earth acquired afterwards, but one of those which constituted its essence from the beginning. Now that which causes a body to exist, is naturally antecedent to its posterior qualities and has a pre-eminence over them. It is then with reason that God chose the most ancient characteristic of the earth whereby to designate it.

6. And God saw that it was good. Genesis 1:10 Scripture does not merely wish to say that a pleasing aspect of the sea presented itself to God. It is not with eyes that the Creator views the beauty of His works. He contemplates them in His ineffable wisdom. A fair sight is the sea all bright in a settled calm; fair too, when, ruffled by a light breeze of wind, its surface shows tints of purple and azure,— when, instead of lashing with violence the neighbouring shores, it seems to kiss them with peaceful caresses. However, it is not in this that Scripture makes God find the goodness and charm of the sea. Here it is the purpose of the work which makes the goodness.

In the first place sea water is the source of all the moisture of the earth. It filters through imperceptible conduits, as is proved by the subterranean openings and caves whither its waves penetrate; it is received in oblique and sinuous canals; then, driven out by the wind, it rises to the surface of the earth, and breaks it, having become drinkable and free from its bitterness by this long percolation. Often, moved by the same cause, it springs even from

194

mines that it has crossed, deriving warmth from them, and rises boiling, and bursts forth of a burning heat, as may be seen in islands and on the sea coast; even inland in certain places, in the neighbourhood of rivers, to compare little things with great, almost the same phenomena occur. To what do these words tend? To prove that the earth is all undermined with invisible conduits, where the water travels everywhere underground from the sources of the sea.

7. Thus, in the eyes of God, the sea is good, because it makes the under current of moisture in the depths of the earth. It is good again, because from all sides it receives the rivers without exceeding its limits. It is good, because it is the origin and source of the waters in the air. Warmed by the rays of the sun, it escapes in vapour, is attracted into the high regions of the air, and is there cooled on account of its rising high above the refraction of the rays from the ground, and, the shade of the clouds adding to this refrigeration, it is changed into rain and fattens the earth. If people are incredulous, let them look at caldrons on the fire, which, though full of water, are often left empty because all the water is boiled and resolved into vapour. Sailors, too, boil even sea water, collecting the vapour in sponges, to quench their thirst in pressing need.

Finally the sea is good in the eyes of God, because it girdles the isles, of which it forms at the same time the rampart and the beauty, because it brings together the most distant parts of the earth, and facilitates the inter-communication of mariners. By this means it gives us the boon of general information, supplies the merchant with his wealth, and easily provides for the necessities of life, allowing the rich to export their superfluities, and blessing the poor with the supply of what they lack.

But whence do I perceive the goodness of the Ocean, as it appeared in the eyes of the Creator? If the Ocean is good and worthy of praise before God, how much more beautiful is the assembly of a Church like this, where the voices of men, of children, and of women, arise in our prayers to God mingling and resounding like the waves which beat upon the shore. This Church also enjoys a profound calm, and malicious spirits cannot trouble it with the breath of heresy. Deserve, then, the approbation of the Lord by remaining faithful to such good guidance, in our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory and power for ever and ever. Amen.

§

N.B. Having determined about the waters above and the waters below in relation to the firmament, we must now turn our attention to the waters which it divides.

195

29. Word study.

Cf. “A Study of Some Key Hebrew Words”:60

To understand Genesis 1: 6–8a better, we will study the key words in bold below.

Then God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate waters from waters.” And God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so. And God called the expanse heaven.

Waters (mayim). This word means a liquid water, not a vapor or solid.16 Had the water in Genesis 1: 6-8 been a vapor, cloud, mist, or ice, other Hebrew words would have been more appropriate. For example, ancient Hebrew had six words for “cloud.”

II Peter 3:5–6 also implies that this is liquid water. Peter used the same Greek word (

) to describe both the liquid water that flooded the earth and the water out of which the earth formed, an obvious reference to Genesis 1: 6-7. The fact that liquid water was both above and below the expanse contradicts the vapor or ice canopy ideas but is consistent with the “expanse = crust” interpretation.

Separate (badal). This word implies a sharp division. Furthermore, the generally untranslated preposition “ben,” associated with “badal,” means “between.” It suggests an ordering (water, expanse, water) with no overlapping or gaps. Interfaces are also implied on each side of the expanse.17 These meanings oppose a vapor, liquid, or ice particle canopy lying above the atmosphere, because atmospheric gases would mix with the canopy.

In the Midst of (tavek). This word means between, within, among, inside, etc. Sometimes it means “to bisect” or “in the center of.” Regarding Genesis 1: 6–7, the respected Jewish commentator Cassuto stated, “It is true that in the Pentateuch, too, reference is made to the division of the primeval world-ocean into two halves, situated one above the other, ...”  18

[See also Genesis 15:10.] Rabbi Solomon Yitzchaki, in his famous eleventh century Rashi Commentary, stated that the expanse was “in the exact center of the waters.” 19 As we have seen, canopy theories place less than one-half of 1% of the earth’s water above the expanse and the rest below. (This is necessary to reduce the problems associated with heat, light, and pressure mentioned earlier.) Would it not seem strange to say that your scalp is “in the midst of” your body? According to the hydroplate theory, the crust of the preflood earth divided more equally the earth’s liquid waters.

Expanse or Firmament (raqia). The key Hebrew word in Genesis 1: 6–8a is raqia

. It is translated “firmament” in the King James translation and “expanse” in most Hebrew dictionaries and modern translations. While its original meaning is

uncertain, its root, raqa , means to spread out, beat out, or hammer as one would a malleable metal. It can also mean “plate.” This may explain why the Greek Septuagint translated raqia 16 out of 17 times with the Greek word stereoma

60 (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ35.html [accessed 7/28/04])

196

 , which means “a firm or solid structure.” The Latin Vulgate used the Latin term “firmamentum,” which also denotes solidness and firmness. So the King James translators in A.D. 1611 coined the word “firmament.” Today, “firmament” is usually used poetically to mean sky, atmosphere, or heavens. In modern Hebrew, raqia means sky or heavens. However, originally it probably meant something solid or firm that was spread out.

Finally, if raqia were related to a canopy, it seems strange that other Hebrew words, often translated as “canopy,” were not used in Genesis: sukkah (Ps 18:11 and II Sam 22:12), chuppah (Is 4:5), and shaphrur (Jer 43:10).

16 Stanley V. Udd, “The Canopy and Genesis 1: 6–8,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 12, September 1975, pp. 90 – 93.* Dillow, p. 58.17 Udd, p. 91. [= Stanley V. Udd, “The Canopy and Genesis 1: 6–8,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 12, September 1975, pp. 90 – 93.]18 Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, From Adam to Noah, translated by Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem: Magnes, The Hebrew University, 1961), p. 32.19 M. Rosenbaum and A. M. Silberman, Rashi Commentary on the Pentateuch, Vol. 1 (Jerusalem: Silberman Family, 1930), p. 4.

For a Concordist view of the raqia, cf. the following excerpt, from a Web Site:

H7549ra?q??ya’BDB Definition:

1) extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament1a) expanse (flat as base, support)1b) firmament (of vault of heaven supporting waters above)1b1) considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting ‘waters’ above

Part of Speech: noun masculineA Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: from H7554Same Word by TWOT Number: 2217aTWOT 2217a

(raqia) Firmament (NASB renders more correctly as “expanse”; cf. riqqu e [Num 16.38 (H 17.3]), literally “an expansion of plates,” i.e. broad plates, beaten out (BDB p 956). raqia refer to a limited space, such as that of the canopy over the cherubim, under the throne in Ezekiel’s vision ( 1.22, 26). Or it may refer to the broad “expanse of heaven” (Dan 12.3, NASB), as it does in thirteen of its seventeen occurrences. Raqia is the most important derivative of raqa. It identifies God’s heavenly expanse. The Mosaic account of creation uses raqia interchangeably for the “open expanse of the heavens” in which birds fly (Gen 1.20, NASB), i.e. the atmosphere (H C Leupold, Exposition of Genesis, I, p 59),61 and that farther expanse of sky in which God placed “the lights...for signs and for seasons” (vv 14, 17, referring apparently to their becoming visible through the cloud cover; the stars, sun, and moon presumably having been created already in v 3), i.e. empty space (ISBE, I p 315), over which, as Job said, “He stretches out the north” (Job 26.7). The

61 Despite the fact that the author adheres to the mistaken view of the firmament, as well as denying solidity to it, this excerpt contains many biblical references of worth.

197

former receives greater emphasis, particular during that period before the second day, when the earth cooled sufficiently to permit surface waters, separated from what must still have been a massive cloud-bank above, by the atmospheric expanse (Gen 1.6-8). 62 Such circumstances serve to explain the OT poetic references to “doors” or “windows” for the phenomenon of rainfall, e.g. “He commanded the clouds above, and opened the doors of heaven” (Ps78.23). That the Hebrews knew rain came from clouds is clear from Isa 5.6, etc. In pre-Christian Egypt confusion was introduces into biblical cosmology when the LXX perhaps under the influence of Alexandrian theories of a “stone vault” of heaven, rendered raqia by stereoma, suggesting some firm, solid structure. This Greek concept was then reflected by the Latin firmamentum, hence KJV “firmament” To this day negative criticism speaks of the “vault, or firmament, regarded by Hebrews as solid, and supporting waters above it” (BDB, p 956); cf. the rendering of Job 37.18, “The skies, strong (hazaqim) as a molten mirror (cf. Ps 150.1, their “mighty expanse”), changed by the RSV to read, “the skies, hard”. Babylonian mythology recounts Marduk used half of Tiamat’s carcass to form heavens (shamamu) held in place by a crossbar (!). In the OT, however, Isaiah insists that God “stretches out the heavens (lit) like gauze (doq, Isa 40.22); and even Ezekiel’s limited canopy (raqia) is “as the (lit) eye of awesome ice” (Ezk 1.22), i.e. transparent, “shining like crystal” (RSV), though so dazzling as to be terrifying (KD cf Dan 12.3 “brightness”)

30. On the relation of the waters above the heavens to the waters below.

Cf. “Questions Raised by Genesis 1:8a”:63

Many Bible verses speak of subterranean water. When taken collectively, they appear to provide support for the statements that precede them and the hydroplate theory.

1. In the ancient past there were large quantities of subterranean water.

Psalm 24:2: . . . He has founded it [the earth] upon the seas . . . Psalm 33:7: . . . He gathers the waters of the sea together as a heap; He lays up the deeps in storehouses . . . Psalm 104:3: He lays the beams of His upper chambers in the waters . . . Psalm 136:6: . . . [He] spread out the earth above the waters . . . II Peter 3:5: . . . the earth was formed out of water and by water . . .

2. These subterranean waters burst forth bringing on the flood.   Genesis 7:11-12: . . . the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened. And rain fell . . . Job 38:4-11: . . . the sea . . . bursting forth, it went out from the womb; when I made a cloud its garment . . . Psalm 18:15 . . .the channels of water appeared, and the foundations of the world were laid bare . . . Proverbs 3:20: . . . the deeps were broken up and the skies dripped dew . . .

3. After a time, the avalanche of water ceased, but the waters continued to rise.

62 The author, being a Concordist, equates the works of formation with stages in the cosmologist’s account of the coming to be of the universe, a commitment leading him to deny the plain meaning of the text.63 (http://baby.indstate.edu/gga/pmag/theology.htm [accessed 12/11/06])

198

Genesis 7:12: And the [geshem (see note 4)] rain fell upon the earth for forty days and forty nights. Genesis 7:24, 8:3: And the water prevailed upon the earth one hundred and fifty days . . . and at the end of one hundred and fifty days the water decreased.

4. Mountains dramatically formed as the flood waters receded.

  Psalm 104:5-9: . . . the waters were standing above the mountains. At Thy rebuke they fled; at the sound of Thy thunder they hurried away. The mountains rose; the valleys sank down to the place which Thou didst establish for them. Thou didst set a boundary that they [the water] may not pass over; that they may not return to cover the earth.

A possible description of some events in the early history of the earth may be found in Proverbs 8:22-29.

5. Some subterranean water still remains.   Exodus 20:4 . . . the water under the earth.

§

199

III. ON THE FIRMAMENT AND ITS RELATION TO WATER: A SUMMARY ACCOUNT.

1. On the overhanging firmament in relation to vapor.

Cf. Mortimer Adler, The Syntopicon, Ch. V, “Astronomy”: 

Man has used astronomy to measure, not only the passage of time or the course of a voyage, but also his position in the world, his power of knowing, his relation to God. When man first turns from himself and his immediate earthly surroundings to the larger universe of which he is a part, the object which presses on his vision is the overhanging firmament with its lumin-ous bodies, moving with great basic regularity and, upon closer observation, with certain perplexing irregularities. Always abiding and always changing, the firmament, which provides man with the visible boundary of his universe, also becomes for him a basic, in fact an inescapable, object of contemplation.

On the “overhanging firmament”, cf. Hamlet 2.2.315–18:

This goodly frame, the earth, seems to me a sterile promontory; this most excellent canopy the air, look you, this brave overhanging firmament, this majestical roof fretted with golden fire, why it appears no other thing to me than a foul and pestilent congregation of vapours.

Notice that in speaking of the air as a “canopy” and of the firmament as a “roof” Shakespeare suggests their intimate connection. Notice too how natural it is for him to conceive the body above our heads as constituted of “vapours”. So, too, in our exegesis do we suppose the firmament to be vapor, or watery air, congealed into ice.

2. On vapors.

Cf. Thomas G. Rosenmeyer, “Senecan Drama and Stoic Cosmology”, Ch. V. Krasis, the Flame and the Moist, p. 131-132:

In a passage which has something in common with Bussy’s “I know not how I fare,” Phaedra says of her suffering:

pectus insanum vapor amorque torret. intimis saevus furitpenitus medullis atque per venas meatvisceribus ignis mersus et venis latensut agilis altas flamma percurrit trabes.[42]

My maddened heart with vaporous love is scorched;My inmost marrow rages with the fire.Concealed within my vitals it travels throughThe veins and, hidden there, it races likeThe flame that guts the highest timbers.(Phae 640–44)

Vapor is exhalation. It is a fugitive, but potent, substance, sharing [131-132] in the moist and the dry, in heat and chill. It serves as a pregnant fixing of the Stoic perception that the world, both in its quotidian state and at critical junctures, is “vaporous”:

200

This brave o’erhanging firmament . . . appeareth no other thing to methan a foul and pestilent congregation of vapours.(Hamlet 2.2.316–18)

Vapor is common in Naturales quaestiones, as are its derivatives vaporans, vaporarius, vaporatio. In book 6, on earthquakes, Seneca has the vapors either causing the quakes (chapter II) or being a poisonous side effect of them (chapters 27 and 28).64 As exhalations, they nourish the celestial bodies, including the sun. But vapores can also kill.[43] The sun draws up the vapors of the earth and the sea, with important consequences for the equilibrium of the environment. Exhalations are held responsible for material changes early in Greek literature and philosophy, from Hesiod and Heraclitus to Aristotle. But it was in Stoic cosmology that the focus on fluidity and contagio made talk of vapors unusually fruitful. Here vapor is both the stuff of the world, a stand-in for the pneuma, and a manifest sign of fluctuation and instability.65

[42] The text of these ungainly lines is corrupt; I adopt Giardina’s reading without excising line 642. My argument is not affected by the various proposals of other editors.[43] Cf. Donne’s Devotions, 12th meditation: “We . . . kill ourselves with our own vapors.”[44] Cf. Marcus Aurelius 2.17: “Summing up, the body is all river, and the soul is all dream and vapor.” In the end, however, Marcus holds out the promise of salvation by philosophy. Still, the potential for pessimism and disgust is ever present; cf. 5.10: change and corruption are the only realities we know.

Cf. ibid., Ch. V. Krasis, the Flame and the Moist, pp. 134-135:

From the plays of Seneca, I choose, at random, two characteristic passages. Near the end of the first chorus of Oedipus, the pestilence is apostrophized:[46]

O dira novi facies leti,gravior leto:piger ignavos alligat artuslanguor, et aegro rubor in vultu,maculaeque caput sparsere leves;tum vapor ipsam corporis arcemflammeus uritmultoque genas sanguine tendit,oculique rigent et sacer ignispascitur artus.[47]

O cruel, strange new form of death,And worse than death!A weary languor seizes the sluggishLimbs, a sickly redness marks the face,The head is blotched with subtle stains.Soon fiery vapor burns the body’sSecret citadel

[134-135]And throbbing temples swell with blood.The eyes turn rigid; a cursed flame

64 Cp. Aristotle, Meteor., I. 14 (351a 19-29).65 Note how this conception of vapor mediates between the Homeric view of the ‘Ocean’ as a ‘Heraclitean’ flux and Aristotle’s idea that Ocean names the hydrological cycle, a divergence which we shall meet shortly.

201

Devours the limbs.(Oed 180–87)

Here both vapor and ignis, the two vital manifestations of pneuma, are made symptomatic of the plague.

[46] For the whole section on the plague, Oed 110–201, Cattin (1963a, pp. 40–51) offers a comparative tabulation of relevant passages in Thucydides, Lucretius, Vergil, and Ovid. It is significant that Sophocles’ two Oedipus plays have nothing comparable. Cattin does not note the singularities of Seneca’s account, especially the importance of vapor and its analogues. Contrast Owen (1968, p. 309), who, in commenting on lines 37–49, speaks of “atmospheric contamination.”[47] I use Giardina’s text, but follow Zwierlein’s colometry (1986b).

For vapor in Aristotle, cf. Gad Freudenthal, Aristotle’s Theory of Material Substance: Heat and Pneuma, Form and Soul (Oxford, 1995), Ch. III, sec. 2.2, pp. 128-129:

On [128-129] what grounds, then, can warmer (and purer) pneuma be assumed to travel higher than less warm pneuma? For Aristotle’s answer, we must turn to his theory of exhalations, whose rationale was precisely to bridge the gap between the two competing construals of the elements [one being according to their proper places; the other according to the primary qualities (B.A.M.)] a gap which forbade one to say that something rises because it is hot.50 Physically speaking, the connate pneuma is somewhat analogous to what, on the scale of the entire world, Aristotle calls ‘exhalation’. Aristotle, as is well known, postulates the existence of a moist and a dry exhalation, raised by the sun from water (the sea, etc.) and the earth, respectively (e.g. Meteorology I. 4, 341b5ff.). In the present context we are interested in the first only. The ‘exhalation from water’, also called ‘vapour’ (atmis, Meteorology I. 9, 346b33; 2. 2, 354b31; 2. 4, 359b34. ff.), Aristotle says, is ‘most naturally moist and warm’ (Meteorology I. 3, 340b2f f.) 51 The vapour results from the action of heat on water, then, as connate pneuma results from blood within the body (except that the vapour, unlike the connate pneuma, separates off) Now the idea that the exhalations produced by the sun rise is self-evident: it is part of their definition. 52 On the basis of the theory of exhalations, then, the connate pneuma can indeed be held to rise by virtue of its heat, and the more so the hotter (and purer) it is.

51 ... Meteor,, I. 9, 346b29ff.52 [footnote omitted] (emphasis added)

Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Aristotle’s Meteorology (tr. Pierre Conway, O.P. and F.R. Larcher, O.P. [1964]), Book II, lect. 1, n. 145:

145. … But we must understand that in regard to that whole body we call “air,”66 one part, the part nearest the earth, is as though hot and moist on account of vapor, and exhalation from the earth. For the elements are arranged in a manner that befits their nature; therefore, because air is naturally hot and moist, it is disposed to receive vapor from the earth to preserve its heat and moisture. But that part of the body commonly called “air” which is higher, is hot and dry; and this upper part we call the element “fire.” In this way the name “air” is common to two elements.

66 That is, as he will go on to show, the “air” above our heads is of two natures, one is “air” properly speaking, being moist and hot, the other is actually fire, being hot and dry. What we call “fire” is actually “flame”.

202

And because he had spoken about vapor and exhalation from the earth, he shows the difference between them and says that the nature of vapor is to be moist and hot, whereas the nature of an exhalation is to be hot and dry. As a result, vapor is, on account of its moistness, in potency to water; but an exhalation, on account of its dryness is, as it were, in potency to be ignited. (emphasis added)

Cf. ibid., Book II, lect. 2, n. 180:

180. Secondly [186], he mentions the efficient principle, which is the motion of the sun. And he says that when the sun in its course approaches a given region of the earth, its warmth elevates the moist; as the sun recedes, this raised vapor is condensed into water on account of the cold. This is why there is more rain in winter than in summer, and more at night than during the day, although night-rains go unobserved because of sleep. The rain water is divided up in the earth and drunk in by it. In the earth much heat exists, caused by the action of the sun and other heavenly bodies. And the sun overhead, heating the earth, not only draws aloft the moisture resting on the surface of the earth — for example, the water of the sea, rivers and ponds — but also dries out the earth itself and draws up the moisture drunk by the earth. Consequently the exhalation it produces from the moisture resting on the earth is called “vapor,” but the exhalation that results from its drying out the earth is called “smoke,” just as in a parallel case, the exhalation from heated wood is called “smoke.” (emphasis added)

Cf. Thomas Aquinas. Commentary on Aristotle’s De Sensu et Sensato. Translated by Kevin White. In Commentaries on Aristotle’s “On Sense and What Is Sensed” and “On Memory and Recollection”. Translated with introductions and notes by Kevin White and Edward M. Macierowski. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2005, ch. 10, Commentary (excerpt):

443a21 Then, when he says Now it seems to some, he shows that the enchymous is what is active in odor through opinions of others.

On this point he does three things. First he presents the opinions of the others. Second he eliminates them, where he says But odor seems to be neither of these (443a29). Third he concludes to his proposal, where he says Therefore it is not hard to see (443b3).

Accordingly he first says that it seems to some that odor is a smoky evaporation, smoke being common to air and earth, i.e. an intermediary between them, as it were, because it is something dissolved from dryness of earth that does not achieve the fineness of air. All of the Ancients speak of odor in a way close to this position. Hence Heraclitus says that if all beings were dissolved into smoke, the nostrils, in perceiving odor, would discern all beings, as if to say that all beings would be odors. For Heraclitus thought that vapor is a principle of things. But not all philosophers held that odor is smoke; some held that it is just something like it. Therefore, in order to show this diversity, he adds that some assigned “exhalation” to odor, some “evaporation,” and some both. And he shows the difference between these two: evaporation is nothing but dissolved moisture of water, but exhalation or smoke is something common to air and earth, since it is something dissolved from dryness of earth, as was said. A sign of this difference is that when vapor is condensed, water is generated from it, but when exhalation of smoke is condensed, something earthen is generated from it.

443a29 Then, when he says But odor seems to be neither of these, he eliminates the above-mentioned positions by two arguments.

203

The first is that vapor pertains to water, which is not odorous without an admixture of dryness, as was said above. But smoke cannot occur in water, although odor does occur in it, as was shown above by the fact that some animals can smell in water. Therefore odor is neither smoke nor vapor. (emphasis added)

3. On vapors in relation to the firmament.

Note how the remarks of Hamlet excerpted above suggest that vapors, conceived as the material substratum of the firmament, furnish a principle unifying the two things most sensibly called ‘heaven’, namely, “the canopy air” and “the overhanging firmament”. Whether or not the latter is to be understood as being formed out of the former, it remains that “this majestical roof” far above our heads is nonetheless of a different consistency than “thin air”.67

4. On the heavens as forming a ‘canopy’ over our heads.

Cf. Psalm 10:1-2:

Benedic, anima. God is to be praised for his mighty works, and wonderful providence. 1 For David himself. Bless the Lord, O my soul: O Lord my God, thou art exceedingly great. Thou hast put on praise and beauty: 2 And art clothed with light as with a garment. Who stretchest out the heaven like a pavilion.

Cf. Psalm 104 (KJV):

 1 Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty. 2 Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain.

Cf. Evolving Interpretations of the Bible’s “Cosmological Teachings”—Or—Does the Bible “Teach Science?” by Edward T. Babinski:68

Example 5: Throughout Scripture the shape and construction of the earth is assumed to resemble that of a building having a firm immovable foundation, and a roof (or canopy). “He established the earth upon its foundations, that it will not totter, forever and ever.” (Psalm 104:5) “The world is firmly established, it will not be moved.” (Psalm 93:1) “For the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s, and he set the world on them.” (I Samuel 2:8) “It is I who have firmly set its pillars.” (Psalm 75:3) “Who stretched out the heavens... and established the world.” (Jeremiah 10:12) “Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in” (Isaiah 40:22) “Stretching out heaven like a tent curtain.” (Psalm 104:1,2) “In the heavens... in the true tabernacle (tent), which the Lord pitched, not man.” (Hebrews 8:2-3) “The One who builds his upper chambers in the heavens, and has founded his vaulted dome over the earth.” (Amos 9:6) “Praise God in his sanctuary, praise him in his mighty firmament.” (Psalm 150:1)

67 Cf. The Tempest, Act III, Sc. 1, ll. xx):

Our revels now are ended; these our actors—As I foretold you—were all spirits andAre melted into air, into thin air.

68 (http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/articles/hebrew_heavens.html [12/15/06])

204

Cf. John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible (1748), on Genesis 1:6:

Ver. 6. And God said, let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters,.... On which the Spirit of God was sitting and moving, Ge 1:2 part of which were formed into clouds, and drawn up into heaven by the force of the body of fire and light already produced; and the other part left on the earth, not yet gathered into one place, as afterwards: between these God ordered a “firmament to be”, or an “expanse” {v}; something stretched out and spread like a curtain, tent,69 or canopy: and to this all those passages of Scripture refer, which speak of the stretching out of the heavens, as this firmament or expanse is afterwards called; see Ps 104:2 and by it is meant the air, as it is rendered by the Targum on Ps 19:1 we call it the “firmament” from the {w} word which the Greek interpreter uses, because it is firm, lasting, and durable: and it has the name of an expanse from its wide extent, it reaching from the earth to the third heaven; the lower and thicker parts of it form the atmosphere in which we breathe; the higher and thinner parts of it, the air in which fowls fly, and the ether or sky in which the sun, moon, and stars are placed; for all these are said to be in the firmament or expanse, Ge 1:17. These are the stories in the heavens the Scriptures speak of, Am 9:6 and the air is divided by philosophers into higher, middle, and lower regions: and so the Targum of Jonathan places this firmament or expanse between the extremities of the heaven, and the waters of the ocean. The word in the Syriac language has the sense of binding and compressing {x}; and so it is used in the Syriac version of Lu 6:38 and may denote the power of the air when formed in compressing the chaos, and dividing and separating the parts of it; and which it now has in compressing the earth, and the several parts that are in it, and by its compression preserves them and retains them in their proper places {y}: and let it divide the waters from the waters; the waters under it from those above it, as it is explained in the next verse; of which more there.

{v} eyqr “expansio”, Montanus. Tigurine version; “extensio”, Munster, Fagius, Vatablus, Aben Ezra; “expansum”, Junius, Tremellius, Piscator, Drusius, Schmidt, sterewma Sept. “firmamentum”, V. L. {w} Id. {x} Vid. Castell. Lex. col. 3647. Fuller. Miscell. Sacr. l. 1. c. 6. {y} Vid. Dickinson. Physica “vetus et vera”, c. 7. sect. 13, 14. p. 88, 89. (emphasis added)

Cf. Johannes Kepler, Epitome of Copernican Astronomy IV and V, translated by Charles Glenn Wallis, Great Books of the Western World, Volume 16, p. 853:

On the Principal Parts of the World

<…>

I thought the principal parts of the world are reckoned to be the heavens and the earth?

Of course, our uncultivated eyesight from the Earth cannot show us any other more notable parts . . . since we tread upon the one with our feet and are roofed over by the other, and since both parts seem to be commingled and cemented together in the common limbo of the horizon like a globe in which the stars, clouds, birds, man, and the various kinds of terrestrial animals are enclosed.

Cf. The Flat-Earth Bible © 1987, 1995 by Robert J. Schadewald. Reprinted from The Bulletin of the Tychonian Society #44 (July 1987):

69 Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Book of Job (tr. Brian Mullady), Chapter 26: “As far as what appears to the senses, heaven seems to be extended above the earth like a kind of tent; earth to be under heaven like the floor of the tent.” Cf. the excerpt from Kepler, given next.

205

Perhaps the scripture most frequently offered as evidence of the earth’s sphericity is the King James version of Job 26:7, “He stretcheth out the north [tsaphon] over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing [beliymah].” (The New English Bible translates it, “God spreads the canopy of the sky over chaos and suspends earth in the void.”) It is not clear what this means. The Hebrew tsaphon literally meant hidden or dark, and it was used in reference to the northern regions. Beliymah literally means “nothing.” That would contradict all of the scriptures which say the earth rests on foundations, but that interpretation is not necessary. We will return to Job 26:7 later.

<…>

There were other things to be seen at the ends of the earth. Earlier, we deferred discussion of the King James version of Job 26:7, “He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.” On several occasions when Enoch and the angel are out beyond the dome of heaven, Enoch comments that there is nothing above or below. For instance, “And I came to an empty place. And I saw (there) neither a heaven above nor an earth below, but a chaotic and terrible place (1 Enoch 21:1-2).” Could this be the kind of nothingness referred to in Job?

An angel also showed Enoch the storerooms of the winds (18:1) and the cornerstone of the earth (18:2).

Cf. Sir John Frederick William Herschel, Outlines of Astronomy, Part One (10th ed. New York, 1902; original ed. 1849), art. 61:

(61.) Lastly, he will notice, if he have patience to outwatch a long winter’s night, commencing at the earliest moment when the stars appear, and continuing till morning twilight, that those stars which he observed setting in the west have again risen in the east, while those which were rising when he first began to notice them have completed their course, and are now set; and that thus the hemisphere, or a great part of it, which was then above, is now beneath him, and its place supplied by that which was at first under his feet, which he will thus discover to be no less copiously furnished with stars than the other, and bespangled with groups no less permanent and distinctly recognizable. Thus he will learn that the great constellation that we have above spoken of as revolving round the pole is co-extensive with the whole surface of the sphere, being in reality nothing less than a universe of luminaries surrounding the earth on all sides, and brought in succession before his view, and referred (each luminary according to its own visual ray or direction from his eye) to the imaginary spherical surface, of which he himself occupies the centre. (See art. 49.) There is always, therefore (he would justly argue), a star-bespangled canopy over his head, by day as well as by night, only that the glare of daylight (which he perceives gradually to efface the stars as the morning twilight comes on) prevents them from being seen. And such is really the case.

Cf. ibid., arts. 114-115:

(114.) Celestial perspective is that branch of the general science of perspective which teaches us to conclude, from a knowledge of the real situation and forms of objects, lines, angles, motions, &c. with respect to the spectator, their apparent aspects, as seen by him projected on the imaginary concave of the heavens; and, vice versa, from the apparent configurations and movements of objects so seen projected, to conclude, so far as they can be thence concluded, their real geometrical relations to each other and to the spectator. It agrees with ordinary perspective when only a small visual area is contemplated, because the concave ground of the celestial sphere, for a small extent, may be regarded as a plane

206

surface, on which objects are seen projected or depicted as in common perspective. But when large amplitudes of the visual area are considered, or when the whole contents of space are regarded as projected on the whole interior surface of the sphere, it becomes necessary to use a different phraseology, and to resort to a different form of conception. In common perspective there is a single “point of sight,” or “centre of the picture,” the visual line from the eye to which is perpendicular to the “plane of the picture,” and all straight lines are represented by straight lines. In celestial perspective, every point to which the view is for the moment directed, is equally entitled to be considered as the “centre of the picture,” every portion of the surface of the sphere being similarly related to the eye. Moreover, every straight line (supposed to be indefinitely prolonged) is projected into a semicircle of the sphere, that, namely, in which a plane passing through the line and the eye cuts its surface. And every system of parallel straight lines, in whatever direction, is projected into a system of semicircles of the sphere, meeting in two common apexes, or vanishing points, diametrically opposite to each other, one of which corresponds to the vanishing point of parallels in ordinary perspective; the other, in such perspective has no existence. In other words, every point in the sphere to which the eye is directed may be regarded as one of the vanishing points, or one apex of a system of straight lines, parallel to that radius of the sphere which passes through it, or to the direction of the line of sight, seen in perspective from the earth, and the points diametrically opposite, or that from which he is looking, as the other. And any great circle of the sphere may similarly be regarded as the vanishing circle of a system of planes, parallel to its own.

(115.) A familiar illustration of this is often to be had by attending to the lines of light seen in the air, when the sun’s rays are darted through apertures in clouds, the sun itself being at the time obscured behind them. These lines which, marking the course of rays emanating from a point almost infinitely distant, are to be considered as parallel straight lines, are thrown into great circles of the sphere, having two apexes or points of common intersection — one in the place where the sun itself (if not obscured) would be seen. The other diametrically opposite. The first only is most commonly suggested when the spectator’s view is towards the sun. But in mountainous countries, the phenomenon of sunbeams converging towards a point diametrically opposite to the sun, and as much depressed below the horizon as the sun is elevated above it, is not unfrequently noticed, the back of the spectator being turned to the sun’s place. Occasionally, but much more rarely, the whole course of such a system of sunbeams, stretching in semicircles across the hemisphere from horizon to horizon (the sun being near setting), may be seen. Thus again, the streamers of the Aurora Borealis, which are doubtless electrical rays, parallel, or nearly parallel to each other, and to the dipping needle, usually appear to diverge from the point towards which the needle, freely suspended, would dip northwards (i.e. about 70° below the horizon and 23° west of north from London), and in their upward progress pursue the course of great circles till they again converge (in appearance) towards the point diametrically opposite (i.e. 70° above the horizon, and 23° to the eastward of south), forming a sort of canopy over-head, having that point for its centre. So also in the phenomenon of shooting stars, the lines of direction which they appear to take on certain remarkable occasions of periodical recurrence, are observed, if prolonged backwards, apparently to meet nearly in one point of the sphere; a certain indication of a general near approach to parallelism in the real directions of their motions on those occasions. On which subject more hereafter.

§

5. On the cause of the waters above the surface of the earth.

207

[see ON THE HYDROLOGICAL CYCLE above]

208

6. St. Thomas on the presence of waters above the firmament.

Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theol., Ia, q. 68, art. 2 (tr. English Dominican Fathers):

  Objection 1: It would seem that there are not waters above the firmament. For water is heavy by nature, and heavy things tend naturally downwards, not upwards. Therefore there are not waters above the firmament.

  Objection 2: Further, water is fluid by nature, and fluids cannot rest on a sphere, as experience shows. Therefore, since the firmament is a sphere, there cannot be water above it.

  Objection 3: Further, water is an element, and appointed to the generation of composite bodies, according to the relation in which imperfect things stand towards perfect. But bodies of composite nature have their place upon the earth, and not above the firmament, so that water would be useless there. But none of God’s works are useless. Therefore there are not waters above the firmament.

  On the contrary, It is written (Gn. 1:7): “(God) divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament.”

   I answer with Augustine (Gen. ad lit. ii, 5) that, “These words of Scripture have more authority than the most exalted human intellect. Hence, whatever these waters are, and whatever their mode of existence, we cannot for a moment doubt that they are there.” <…>   We must hold, then, these waters to be material, but their exact nature will be differently defined according as opinions on the firmament differ. For if by the firmament we understand the starry heaven, and as being of the nature of the four elements, for the same reason it may be believed that the waters above the heaven are of the same nature as the elemental waters. But if by the firmament we understand the starry heaven, not, however, as being of the nature of the four elements then the waters above the firmament will not be of the same nature as the elemental waters, but just as, according to Strabus, one heaven is called empyrean, that is, fiery, solely on account of its splendor: so this other heaven will be called aqueous solely on account of its transparence; and this heaven is above the starry heaven. Again, if the firmament is held to be of other nature than the elements, it may still be said to divide the waters, if we understand by water not the element but formless matter. Augustine, in fact, says (Super Gen. cont. Manich. i, 5,7) that whatever divides bodies from bodies can be said to divide waters from waters.   If, however, we understand by the firmament that part of the air in which the clouds are collected, then the waters above the firmament must rather be the vapors resolved from the waters which are raised above a part of the atmosphere, and from which the rain falls.70 But to say, as some writers alluded to by Augustine (Gen. ad lit. ii, 4), that waters resolved into vapor may be lifted above the starry heaven, is a mere absurdity.71 The solid nature of the firmament,72 the intervening region of fire, wherein all vapor must be

70 Notice here how St. Thomas allows for the hydrological cycle to be the cause of these waters.71 In truth, what is “a mere absurdity” is the supposition that the waters need to be “lifted up” above the firmament in the first place; the plain meaning of the text being that they were already there: the firmament, so we are told, being “made in the midst of the waters,” from which it follows that the waters divided by the firmament are already in place at the start of the Second Day. How they got there presents a problem to be sure; but whatever the explanation one gives, no such difficulty as touched upon by St. Augustine exists.72 It is to be noted that this assertion does away with once and for all the notion that the region of air could be called ‘the firmament’; the whole force of St. Thomas’ argument here residing in the fact that the firmament is solid in comparison with the air, and hence of a nature irreducibly opposed to that of the atmosphere in the very point with respect to which the one or the other would be called firm (contra Basil on mathematical body), thereby taking away any justification for so using the name.

209

consumed, the tendency in light and rarefied bodies to drift to one spot beneath the vault of the moon, as well as the fact that vapors are perceived not to rise even to the tops of the higher mountains, all to go to show the impossibility of this. Nor is it less absurd to say, in support of this opinion, that bodies may be rarefied infinitely, since natural bodies cannot be infinitely rarefied or divided, but up to a certain point only.

  Reply to Objection 1: Some have attempted to solve this difficulty by supposing that in spite of the natural gravity of water, it is kept in its place above the firmament by the Divine power. Augustine (Gen. ad lit. ii, 1), however will not admit this solution, but says “It is our business here to inquire how God has constituted the natures of His creatures, not how far it may have pleased Him to work on them by way of miracle.” We leave this view, then, and answer that according to the last two opinions on the firmament and the waters the solution appears from what has been said. According to the first opinion, an order of the elements must be supposed different from that given by Aristotle, that is to say, that the waters surrounding the earth are of a dense consistency, and those around the firmament of a rarer consistency, in proportion to the respective density of the earth and of the heaven. Or by the water, as stated, we may understand the matter of bodies to be signified.

  Reply to Objection 2: The solution is clear from what has been said, according to the last two opinions. But according to the first opinion, Basil gives two replies (Hom. iii in Hexaem.). He answers first, that a body seen as concave beneath need not necessarily be rounded, or convex, above. Secondly, that the waters above the firmament are not fluid, but exist outside it in a solid state, as a mass of ice, and that this is the crystalline heaven of some writers.

  Reply to Objection 3: According to the third opinion given, the waters above the firmament have been raised in the form of vapors, and serve to give rain to the earth. But according to the second opinion, they are above the heaven that is wholly transparent and starless. This, according to some, is the primary mobile, the cause of the daily revolution of the entire heaven, whereby the continuance of generation is secured. In the same way the starry heaven, by the zodiacal movement, is the cause whereby different bodies are generated or corrupted, through the rising and setting of the stars, and their various influences. But according to the first opinion these waters are set there to temper the heat of the celestial bodies, as Basil supposes (Hom. iii in Hexaem.). And Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. ii, 5) that some have considered this to be proved by the extreme cold of Saturn owing to its nearness to the waters that are above the firmament. (emphasis added)

Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theol., Ia, q. 71, obj. 3, ad 3 (tr. English Dominican Fathers):

  Objection 3: Further, fishes move in the waters, and birds in the air. If, then, fishes are produced from the waters, birds ought to be produced from the air, and not from the waters.

  Reply to Objection 3: The air, as not being so apparent to the senses, is not enumerated by itself, but with other things: partly with the water, because the lower region of the air is thickened by watery exhalations;73 partly with the heaven as to the higher region. But birds move in the lower part of the air, and so are said to fly “beneath the firmament,” even if the firmament be taken to mean the region of clouds. Hence the production of birds is ascribed to the water. (emphasis added)

73 Note that “watery exhalations” here = the “vapors” of Ia, q. 68, art. 2, c. above.

210

Cf. John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible (1748), on Genesis 1:4:

Ver. 4. And God saw the light, that it was good,.... Very pleasant and delightful, useful and beneficial; that is, he foresaw it would be good, of great service, as Picherellus {k} interprets it; for as yet there were no inhabitants of the earth to receive any advantage by it; see Ec 11:7 besides, it was doubtless good to answer some present purposes, to prepare for the work of the two following days, before the great luminary was formed; as to dispel the darkness of heaven, and that which covered the deep; to rarefy, exhale, and draw up the lighter parts of the chaos, in order to form the wide extended ether, the expanded air, and the surrounding atmosphere, while the Spirit of God was agitating the waters, and separating them from the earthy parts; and which also might serve to unite and harden those which were to form the dry land, and also to warm that when it appeared, that it might bring forth grass, herbs, and fruit trees:

{k} In Cosmopoeiam, p. 267. (emphasis added)

Cf. idem, on Genesis 1:6:

Ver. 6. And God said, let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters,.... On which the Spirit of God was sitting and moving, Ge 1:2 part of which [waters] were formed into clouds, and drawn up into heaven by the force of the body of fire and light already produced; and the other part left on the earth, not yet gathered into one place, as afterwards: <….> (emphasis added)

Cf. idem, on Genesis 1:7

Ver. 7. And God made the firmament,.... By a word speaking, commanding it into being, producing it out of the chaos, and spreading it in that vast space between the heaven of heavens and our earth {z}.

And divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; the lower part of it, the atmosphere above, which are the clouds full of water, from whence rain descends upon the earth; and which divided between them and those that were left on the earth, and so under it, not yet gathered into one place; as it now does between the clouds of heaven and the waters of the sea. Though Mr. Gregory {a} is of opinion, that an abyss of waters above the most supreme orb is here meant; or a great deep between the heavens and the heaven of heavens, where, as in storehouses, the depth is laid up; and God has his treasures of snow, hail, and rain, and from whence he brought out the waters which drowned the world at the universal deluge. Others suppose the waters above to be the crystalline heaven, which for its clearness resembles water; and which Milton {b} calls the “crystalline ocean”.

And it was so: the firmament was accordingly made, and answered this purpose, to divide the waters below it from those above it; or “it was firm” {c}, stable and durable; and so it has continued.

{z} –––and God made The firmament, expanse of liquid, pure, Transparent, elemental air, diffused In circuit to the uttermost convex Of this great round.––– Milton, Paradise Lost, B. 7. l. 263, &c. {a} Notes and Observations, &c. c. 23. p. 110, &c. {b} Ibid. l. 291. {c} Nk yhyw “et factum est firmum”, Fagius & Nachmanides in ib.

211

N.B. I confess I am unable to make heads or tails out of Gill’s exegesis in the last text excerpted. Is he placing the firmament—the heavenly body wherein the stars are affixed—between the atmosphere and the waters on the surface of the earth?

Cf. Adam Clarke, The Holy Bible: Containing the Old and the New Testaments (New York, 1811), on Gen 1:10:

An eminent chemist and philosopher, Dr. Priestley, has very properly observed that it seems plain that Moses considered the whole terraqueous globe as being created in a fluid state, the earthy and other particles of matter being mingled with the water.

§

212

7. The presence of waters above the surface of the earth explained.

How are we to account for the presence of waters above the surface of the earth? It is clear from the foregoing considerations that we must have recourse to natural causes; in the present case, to the light created on the First Day, which light, belonging to the substance of the sun, assisted by “the Spirit of God” moving over the surface of the waters like a wind, may be supposed to have caused evaporation, which was then followed by condensation, as is characteristic of the hydrological cycle. In that case, as St. Thomas says in his Commentary, the presence of water vapor above the surface of the earth is due to “the first movent cause”, which is “the circling of the sun.” Indeed, once the causality of the the body of the sun in producing water vapor over the earth is recognized, and once this knowledge is brought to bear on the fact that waters are now over the surface of the earth at the outset of the Second Day which were not there at the end of the First, the conclusion seems inescapable that, with the diurnal rotation of the newly-created luminary signaled by the alternation of night and day, the hydrological cycle is meant to be inferred as having begun on the prior day. Moreover, should we not in general suppose that created things, as soon as their natures were imparted to them, immediately began to produce their charac-teristic effects? And does not the order of nature instituted by God involve just such a hierarchy of causes operating in nature? And would it not be appropriate to suggest the existence of such causes right from the start, in the work of the first three days? In fact, the text of the Psalmist which speaks of “the deep” laid up in “storehouses” presupposes just such natural causes operating, leading to the presence of water above the firmament—that is, above the surface of the earth, waiting to be released, as happened in the Deluge. What is more, the only way in which such causes could have been prevented from operating is to suppose God to have withheld from them something without which they could not be effective, “As to this, however,” as the text cited from the Summa above states:

...Augustine remarks (Gen. ad lit. i) that in the first founding of the order of nature we must not look for miracles, but for what is in accordance with nature. (Ia, q. 67, art. 4, ad. 3)74

Now in the case of the light produced on the First Day, such a natural, created cause could only be a created intelligent substance—that is, an angel—to whose efficacy St. Thomas and many of the ancients attributed the movement and efficient causality of the heavenly bodies. But we must suppose such a cause to be operative in the present instance, for if the Angel of the heavenly Light, having been created previous to the start of that day, were not assigned this office on the First Day, when else would it have taken place? And to what reason should we attribute the delay? Again, when one recognizes the necessity facing the Catholic exegete of finding places in the text which imply the existence of angels, one could hardly ask for a better indication of their esse in rerum natura than the presence of waters above the surface of the earth, which waters, of their very nature belong to ‘the heaven of heavens,’ or the empyrean, in which the angels are believed to have been created.75

74 Cf. also Summa Theol., Ia, q. 68, art. 2, ad 1, also cited above: “Some have attempted to solve this difficulty by supposing that in spite of the natural gravity of water, it is kept in its place above the firmament by the Divine power. Augustine (Gen. ad lit. ii, 1), however will not admit this solution, but says ‘It is our business here to inquire how God has constituted the natures of His creatures, not how far it may have pleased Him to work on them by way of miracle.’”75 Cf. Summa Theol., Ia, q. 68, art. 4 excerpted and discussed above.

213

And note here that one must attribute this effect to the divine power as its first cause, inasmuch as the separated substance acts only by virtue of that prior cause, itself causing in turn the diurnal rotation of the heavenly sphere and the luminary associated with it. But to return to the waters themselves, our consideration of their formation on the Second Day will be greatly assisted by understanding them to be, not a body of water, but rather “the water vapour” which “[b]y condensation...appears in visible form as dew, mist, cloud, rain, hail, snow and ice,” as the author of the Encyclopedia Britannica article excerpted above puts it. While many posited an intervening region of fire, one can easily imagine that, to some at least of the ancients, the watery vapor in the upper airs may very well have been thought to extend to the highest reaches of the visible heaven (for which, see further below), and could therefore have been “divided” by the firmament when that transparent body was brought into being. But if so, even though they are both named “the waters,” we must nevertheless understand “the waters under the heaven” spoken of in verse 6 to name an earthly ocean in distinction from the ‘ocean’ of vapors of the upper airs also called “the waters,” albeit the latter derive from the former by way of the approach and withdrawal of the sun-like light produced on the First Day, and therefore share the same underlying nature; the two merely being different states of one and the same thing. Since, then, the very last thing to happen on the First Day was the institution of night and day, thereby implying the passage overhead of a body like the sun—the specific thing it passes over being the surface of the deep—but the very first thing met with on the Second is the presence on high of waters that would have been produced by the passage of just such a body, is it not at least reasonable to infer that, its cause being posited and its proper effect being seen to follow, with the appearance of waters above the surface of the earth we have a case not merely of post hoc but of propter hoc?

N.B. On the idea that the region of air reaches to the heavens, cf. the remark of Duane Berquist excerpted above: “...air seems to go up and up above us, perhaps forever”. Cf. also ibid., section on Heraclitus:

In the universe, the earth appears to be in the middle and above the earth is water and above the water is air up to the sun and moon and stars which seem to be fire. Heraclitus sees a movement up and down. If a solid melts and becomes water or a liquid and this evaporates into air and air ignites into fire; and then there is the reverse process following the same road in the opposite direction.

8. An objection to the hydrological theory and the grounds for a reply.

It may be supposed by some that the following verses conflict with our explanation: cf. Gen 1:4:5 (KJV):

4: These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 5: And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

If, by the dawn of the Sixth Day, and in view of the pending creation of man, God had not yet caused it to rain, how can it be thought that a natural cycle of evaporation and conden-sation had begun subsequent to the First Day? After all, with the establishment on that Day of a light-producing and diurnally-revolving body, one would have expected it to have

214

rained by now. Unless, of course, God intervened to delay this natural effect until it pleased Him to allow it. But then that would constitute an interference with the workings of nature of the kind that must be rejected in accordance with the rule laid by St. Augustine and applied by St. Thomas; a rule with which we agree.

On the other hand, the supposition that the mere departure of the sun from overhead is sufficient to cause rainfall, or any other form of precipitation for that matter, is mani-festly false, since then it would rain every night after the sun goes down, something we ob-serve not to happen. Rather, as the passage from the Elementary Lessons cited above sug-gests, and as an acquaintance with the science of meteorology makes clear, many factors concur in the coming to be of precipitation: for instance, temperature, the position of the sun, the atmosphere’s having reached its saturation point and the like. Consequently, as we have no way of knowing what conditions needed to prevail before rain would fall, we can-not suppose that during Creation Week natural causes like evaporation and condensation were not already operative, since they may have stood in need of further institutions to render them fully effective. Indeed, the very text of Scripture cited against our position in a way lends credence to it, since the statement that God had not yet caused it to rain strongly suggests that its absence demanded an explanation. But, as we learn from the verses cited, we see that God so ordered the coming into being of things that rain would not fall before the advent of the Day on which man was to be created, the Creator having acted thus in view of the fact that the plants to be produced by it were the sort that would require man to cultivate them. Accordingly, we are thereby furnished with a sufficient reason for the delay, and the explanation we have proposed remains intact.

END OF PRELIMINARIES

§

The Opening of Genesis. Preliminaries III:

On the Apparent Structure of the World

(c) 2013 Bart A. Mazzetti. All rights reserved.

215