Galileo Understood the Then Standard View, But Misunderstood its Application to Joshua 10

Was it Baronius and Did Galileo Recall His Words Accurately? · Galileo Understood the Then Standard View, But Misunderstood its Application to Joshua 10

Letter to Benedetto Castelli
Galileo Galilei | 1613, December 21
https://inters.org/Galilei-Benedetto-Castelli

On the view expressed by St. Thomas Aquinas and shared since Ptolemy, the angel of the Sun is moving the Sun East around Earth along the Zodiac each year. Meanwhile, God moves all of the heavens from East to West each day, from the Primum Mobile (that is, the sphere of the fixed stars) down to the Oceanic Currents around the Equator.

Here is what Galileo had to say in one of these arguments for Heliocentrism:

I first ask the opponent whether he knows with how many motions the sun moves. If he knows, he must answer that is moves with two motions, namely with the annual motion from west to east and with the diurnal motion in the opposite direction from east to west.

Then, secondly, I ask him whether these two motions, so different and almost contrary to each other, belong to the sun and are its own to an equal extent. The answer must be No, but that only one is specifically its own, namely the annual motion, whereas the other is not but belongs to the highest heaven, I mean the Prime Mobile; the latter carries along with it the sun as well as the other planets and the stellar sphere, forcing them to make a revolution around the earth in twenty-four hours, with a motion, as I said, almost contrary to their own natural motion.

Coming to the third question, I ask him with which of these two motions the sun produces night and day, that is, whether with its own motion or else with that of the Prime Mobile. The answer must be that night and day are effects of the motion of the Prime Mobile and that what depends on the sun's own motion is not night or day but the various seasons and the year itself.

Now, if the day derives not from the sun's motion but from that of the Prime Mobile, who does not see that to lengthen the day one must stop the Prime Mobile and not the sun? Indeed, is there anyone who understands these first elements of astronomy and does not know that, if God had stopped the sun's motion, He would have cut and shortened the day instead fo lengthening it? For, the sun's motion being contrary to the diurnal turning, the more the sun moves toward the east the more its progression toward the west is slowed down, whereas by its motion being diminished or annihilated the sun would set that much sooner; this phenomenon is observed in the moon, whose diurnal revolutions are slower than those of the sun inasmuch as is own motion is faster than that of the sun. It follows that it is absolutely impossible to stop the sun and lengthen the day in the system of Ptolemy and Aristotle, and therefore either the motions must not be arranged as Ptolemy says or we must modify the meaning of the words of the Scripture; we would have to claim that, when it says that God stopped the sun, it meant to say that He stopped the Prime Mobile, and that is said the contrary of what it would have said if speaking to educated men in order to adapt itself to the capacity of those who are barely able to understand the rising and setting of the sun.

The answer is, both movements stopped. God stopped His own moving of the Prime Mobile, which lengthened the day, which is noted in Joshua 10:14, here:

There was not before nor after so long a day, the Lord obeying the voice of a man, and fighting for Israel
[Josue (Joshua) 10:14]

But the Sun and Moon themselves also stopped:

The sun and the moon stood still in their habitation, in the light of thy arrows, they shall go in the brightness of thy glittering spear
[Habacuc (Habakkuk) 3:11]

Why? Because Joshua had spoken to them.

Imagine a man who was holy passed by a man sick in AIDS and in a cold. Imagine he stated "God cures your cold" and God then cured BOTH the AIDS and ALSO the cold. That would be befitting, since God would be giving authority to the words of the miracle worker, he would only go beyond them to fix a deeper problem as well.

This is about what happens when God in defending the authority of Joshua's words, decree that Sun and Moon stop, within orbits that normally run Eastward, but that are dragged Westward by the Prime Mobile. AND God on top of that stops Himself the Prime Mobile.

However, we cannot imagine God just curing the AIDS but leaving the cold as it was, since in that case He would not be giving authority to the words of the holy man.

For that reason, we cannot imagine that God stopped Earth from rotating instead of stopping the heavens from rotating around it. Which is how Fundamentalists who are Heliocentrics, not the ideal combination, now tend to take this passage.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Octave of All Saints
8.XI.2024

PS, I obviously agree with Cardinal Bellarmine in his letter to Fr. Foscarini. Something may be missing at [?]

Nor is it the same to demonstrate that by supposing the sun to be at the center and the earth in heaven one can save the appearances, and to demonstrate that in truth the sun is at the center and the earth in the heaven; for I believe the first demonstration may be available, but I have very great doubts about the second, and in case of doubt one must not abandon the Holy Scripture as interpreted by the Holy Fathers. ... Now, suppose you say that Solomon speaks in accordance with appearances, since it seems to us that the sun moves (while the earth does so), just as to someone who moves away from the seashore on a ship it looks like the shore is moving, I shall answer that when someone moves away from the shore, although it appears to him that the shore is moving away from him, nevertheless he knows that it is an error and corrects it, seeing clearly that the ship moves and not the shore; but in regard to the sun and the earth, no wise man has any need to correct the error, since he clearly experiences that the earth stands still and that the eye is not in error when it judges that the [?] it also is not in error when it judges that the stars move.

Was it Baronius and Did Galileo Recall His Words Accurately?

Was it Baronius and Did Galileo Recall His Words Accurately? · Galileo Understood the Then Standard View, But Misunderstood its Application to Joshua 10

I'll start out with a reddit thread:

https://www.reddit.com/r/QuotesPorn/comments/9iry1x/the_bible_teaches_us_how_to_go_to_heaven_not_how/?rdt=33695

r/QuotesPorn

[deleted]

"The Bible teaches us how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go." -Cardinal Caesar Baronius [1872×1102 pixels]

[Désolé, cette publication a été supprimée par son auteur.]

tydugusa

I thought this was Galileo’s quote.. at least that’s what Neil Degrasse Tyson has said multiple times.

oxymoronic_oxygen

From what I found online, it’s often attributed to Galileo, but he was referring to an argument that he had heard from Baronius. Apparently, he had said it behind closed doors and Galileo thought it was a cool saying and wrote it down, citing Baronius as the original author.

tydugusa

Oh, Galileo you cheeky bastard.

Time_Machine_lV

So Galileo is like the Columbus of this quote.

ArabInTheWest

Ya i was just thinking the same thing, he says it in like every interview...

nickstreet36

According to Wikipedia:

"He is also known for saying, in the context of the controversies about the work of Copernicus and Galileo, "The Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go." This remark, which Baronius probably made in conversation with Galileo, was cited by the latter in his Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina (1615). "

Is this what the wiki says?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesar_Baronius

I found the words as given:

He is also known for saying, in the context of the controversies about the work of Copernicus and Galileo, "The Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."[11] This remark, which Baronio probably made in conversation with Galileo, was cited by the latter in his Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina (1615).

Footnote 11

Cerrato, Edoardo Aldo.

"How to go to Heaven, and not how the heavens go"

I then changed the words, as I should, to the following:

He is also considered as saying, cited in the context of the controversies about the work of Copernicus and Galileo, "The Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."[11] This remark, which probably Baronio (according to some) made in conversation with Galileo, before the controversy, as he died before it, was cited by the latter (without precise attribution) in his Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina (1615).

This corresponds better to what Edoardo Aldo Cerrato actually said. Here I'll give two longish quotes, from an even longer work:

After citing a long quotation from St. Augustine’s De Genesi ad litteram about the Holy Spirit’s intent in inspiring the Bible – which culminates in the statement: Spiritus Dei noluisse ista docere homines nulli saluti profutura (“The Spirit of God did not want to teach people things that would be of no help to their salvation”) – Galileo writes: “It is clear from a churchman who has been elevated to a very eminent position that the Holy Spirit’s intention is to teach us how to go to Heaven, and not how the heavens go”2.

It is commonly held that Cesare Baronio is the person from whom Galileo directly heard the words just quoted, and he wanted people to know this. If this cannot be proven through documentary evidence, the attribution is nevertheless unanimously accepted3 and is in complete agreement with the thought of this wellknown member of the Oratory.

...

The biblical question in relation to Copernicus’ opinions had already been posed by Luther in 1539 – even before the publication of De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (1543)18 – with a clear condemnation of the astronomer. Luther called him “that madman [who] wants to throw the art of astronomy into confusion”, while going on to say, “as Sacred Scripture proves, Joshua told the sun, and not the earth, to remain still”19.

On the Catholic side, the question of compatibility with Scripture emerged more seriously when the Copernican hypothesis began to be defined more clearly. The position of the Church and of various religious orders was extremely diverse. The Dominican Order – at least one part of it – had immediately looked suspiciously upon Galileo’s Copernican struggle. Other religious orders and other illustrious3 churchmen were, however, less firmly bound to Thomistic Aristotelianism, and were closer to the Augustinian tradition. Among these stood out the Oratorians and Baronio, whose positions opened the way to an analysis of Scripture that would go beyond a literal interpretation. There were also the Jesuits; well aware of the crisis in the Aristotelian method, they, too, were interested in Galileo’s discoveries and his researching new solutions. But they maintained a cautious attitude, being more favorable toward the model proposed by Tycho Brahe20 who, with regard to that Ptolemaic scholar, agreed to better astronomical calculations and permitted ‘preserving’ the immovability and centrality of the Earth and the movement of the Sun, in conformity with the scriptural text.

_________________________

3 Cf. M. TORRINI, Prima recognizione della fortuna del Baronio tra critica e erudizione in R. DE MAIO – L. GULIA – A. MAZZACANE (editors), Baronio storico e la Controriforma, Sora, 1982, pp. 738-739. Antonio Nardia was a friend of Galileo, and in his Scene he acknowledged Baronio’s critical honesty regarding “exact and true information about ancient times and ecclesiastical rites”. Baronio went to ‘historical museums’ with Galileo and Copernicus; for example, G. GHILINI’s Teatro d’huomini letterati, Venezia, 1647. Among more recent publications concerning the attribution of Baronio to the celebrated statement, see: R. DE MAIO, Galileo e la competenza dei teologi, in “Il Centauro”, 2 (1981), p. 4; C. M. MARTINI, Gli esegeti al tempo di Galileo, in “Vita e Pensiero”, Milano, 1966, pp. 115-124; A. POPPI, Ricerche sulla teologia e la scienza nella Scuola padovana del Cinque e Seicento, Rubbettino Ed., 2001, p. 196; P. STEFANI, Le radici bibliche della cultura occidentale, Milano, 2004, p. 191.

18 This work, dedicated to Pope Paul III, was divided into six books that contained a generalvision of the heliocentric theory, astronomical principles of spheres, a list of stars, the apparentmovements of the Sun and related phenomena, a description of the Moon and its orbital movements,and finally a concrete exposition of the new system.

19 Werke, Kritische Gesamtausgabe. Tischenreden I, Weimar 1912, 419; Weimar, 1916, pp. 412 ff.

20 Brahe was born in 1546 at Schloss Knutstorp, today in the Kingdom of Denmark. He understood that astronomy’s progress as a science would happen only if it were subject to systematic and rigorous criticism, and by the use of instruments that were as accurate as possible. His measurements of the planetary parallax by the naked eye, accurate to the minute, became the possession of Kepler, his very famous assistant, who tried without success to persuade Brahe to adopt the heliocentric model of the solar system. Brahe believed in a geocentric model, which then became called the Tychonic (or Tychonian) system. In 1599 he moved to Prague where, sponsored by Rudolph II of Hapsburg, he built a new observatory in Benátky and worked there until his death (1601). PIERRE GASSENDI: Tychonis Brahei, equitis DAni, Astronomorum Coryphaei, vitae Accessit Nicolai Copernici, Georgii Peurbachii, & Joannis Regiomontani, Astronomorum celebrium, Vita. Hagae Comitum (Den Haag), Vlacq, 1655; KITTY FERGUSON, L’uomo dal naso d’oro. Tycho Brahe e Giovanni Keplero: la strana coppia che rivoluzionò la scienza, Milano, Longanesi, 2003.

I posed the question on Quora and got a preliminary e-bot answer, because similar things seem to have been already asked elsewhere:

Q

Galileo in his Letter to Grandduchess Christina said a highly promoted Church man had said "The Bible does not teach us how the heavens go, etc" and I wonder, since back when has that man been identified with Baronius?
https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Galileo-in-his-Letter-to-Grandduchess-Christina-said-a-highly-promoted-Church-man-had-said-The-Bible-does-not-teach-us-how-the-heavens-go-etc-and-I-wonder-since-back-when-has-that-man-been-identified-with-Baronius

Importé

Assistant
https://poe.com/chat/3r7h4i9e2evrsw4czmz

Poe

The statement you’re referring to from Galileo's Letter to Grand Duchess Christina is often attributed to Cardinal Cesare Baronius, a prominent figure in the Catholic Church during the late 16th and early 17th centuries. Baronius is known for his work in ecclesiastical history and was a strong supporter of the Church.

The identification of this unnamed churchman with Baronius has been made by scholars over time, particularly as Baronius had expressed similar sentiments regarding the interpretation of Scripture and science. However, the exact attribution is somewhat debated, as Galileo does not name him directly in his letter.

This connection likely became more prominent in the 19th century as historians began to delve deeper into the context of Galileo's conflicts with the Church and the figures involved in those debates. The phrase encapsulates the broader tension between scientific inquiry and religious doctrine that characterized that era.

Follow up

Can you provide sources that support the Baronius attribution?

Assistant

Poe

The attribution of the statement "The intention of the Holy Spirit is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heavens go" to Cardinal Cesare Baronius in Galileo's Letter to Grand Duchess Christina has been supported by various scholarly sources. Here are some key points and sources that discuss this attribution:

Historical Context: Baronius was a significant figure in the Catholic Church during Galileo's time, known for his ecclesiastical history and theological writings. His views on the relationship between Scripture and natural philosophy align with the sentiment expressed in Galileo's letter, which argues against a literal interpretation of the Bible in matters of science [3].
Scholarly Consensus: Many historians and scholars have identified Baronius as the churchman referred to by Galileo. This identification has been reinforced by the examination of Baronius's writings and his role in the Church, which emphasized the need for a proper understanding of Scripture in light of scientific discoveries [2].
Galileo's Argument: In his letter, Galileo uses Baronius's statement to argue that the Bible should not be used as a scientific textbook. He emphasizes that the primary purpose of Scripture is spiritual guidance, not to provide detailed accounts of the physical universe. This argument reflects Baronius's perspective on the interpretation of biblical texts [3].
Modern Interpretations: Contemporary scholars continue to reference Baronius in discussions about Galileo's work and the Church's stance on science. For instance, Maurice Finocchiaro and others have noted the importance of Baronius's views in understanding the historical context of Galileo's arguments [3].
These points illustrate the scholarly support for attributing the statement to Cardinal Baronius, highlighting its significance in the discourse between science and religion during Galileo's time.

Learn more:

Letter to Madame Christina of Lorraine, Grand Duchess of Tuscany | Inters.org
Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina Summary and Study Guide | SuperSummary
Galileo’s Letter to Grand Duchess Christina

Follow up

Can you provide specific quotes from Baronius's writings supporting this?

Assistant

Poe

Certainly! While Cardinal Cesare Baronius does not explicitly use the exact phrase attributed to him in Galileo's Letter to Grand Duchess Christina, his writings reflect similar sentiments regarding the relationship between Scripture and science. Here are a few relevant quotes and ideas from Baronius that align with this perspective:

From Annales Ecclesiastici: In his comprehensive work on church history, Baronius emphasizes the idea that Scripture should be interpreted in a way that aligns with reason and observable reality:

“The sacred writers had no intention to teach us the nature of the heavens, but rather to lead us to the knowledge of God and our salvation.”

On the Role of Scripture: Baronius argues that Scripture's purpose is spiritual, which implies that it should not be read as a scientific manual:

“It is not the office of the Holy Scriptures to teach us the natural sciences, but rather to instruct us in divine truths.”

Contextual Interpretation: He advocates for a contextual reading of the Bible, which can be interpreted as a call to separate scientific inquiry from theological doctrine:

“When the Scriptures speak of natural phenomena, the language is often metaphorical, and one must not take it literally in matters where science may provide a different understanding.”

These quotes illustrate Baronius's inclination toward a non-literal interpretation of Scripture regarding natural philosophy, supporting the broader argument that Galileo was making in his correspondence. For precise citations, it’s best to refer to Baronius's Annales Ecclesiastici or other theological writings where he discusses the nature and purpose of Scripture.

The problem is, no specific pagewise or bookwise quotes from any work was given. "On the Role of Scripture" and "Conceptual interpretation" are not titles of any works of his that I could find.

For the first of the quotes provided, I googled and found nothing in Annales ecclesiastici or Galileo, google directed me to St. Augustine.

For the second, the first hit, imprecise match, was for the Letter to Cristina, where we precisely do NOT find an attribution to specifically Baronius.

For the third, I find "the book of nature, the book of scripture" and I do still not find any page linked to Baronius.

For the quote purportedly from Annales ecclesiastici, no page citation was provided to an edition, nor any citation of book and chapter.

Let's be precise, the assistant Poe is not an intelligent being, it's an AI, and this means, it cannot understand the question. It can however scoure and plagiarise in seconds all that seems to match all or most of the words and chose what is most often repeated.

Let's also be precise, while St. Augustine does mention metaphor, it is not in this context in:

Augustine, On Christian Doctrine: Preface/Book I
https://faculty.georgetown.edu/jod/augustine/ddc1.html

Nor, when you scroll down and click to Book II and so on ...

So, what was Cerrato, Edoardo Aldo saying again?

Baronio went to ‘historical museums’ with Galileo and Copernicus; for example, G. GHILINI’s Teatro d’huomini letterati, Venezia, 1647.

Obviously, in English this is a kind of wooden translation of the Italian phrase. I suspect "historical museums" means their textual equivalent, texts and text collections about historical people. 1647 is 5 years after Galileo died, 40 years after Baronius died, 104 years after Copernicus died. G. Ghilini is Girolamo Ghilini. A nobleman and a priest.

Nel 1647, la pubblicazione veneziana del Teatro d'huomini letterati presso la tipografia Guerigli, successiva a una precedente edizione milanese non datata, probabilmente del 1635, segnò un passo importante nella sua carriera letteraria. L'opera, raccolta enciclopedica di biografie di scrittori italiani e stranieri, fu ripubblicata a Milano in una versione invariata, probabilmente nel 1684.

In 1647, the Venetian publication of Teatro d'huomini letterati printed in Guerigli's printers office, succeeding a previous Milanese and undated edition, probably from 1635, meant an impportant step in his litterary carreere. The work, an encyclopedic collection of biographies of Italian and non-Italian writers, was republished in Milan in an invariate version, probably in 1684.

Fortunately, it is in Google Books. Teatro d'Huomini Letterati, Venezia, per li Guerigli, 1647. It so happens, despite my not so very brilliant Italian, I could make out that both the article on Baronius and the one on Galileo were too short to involve such a thing. Galileo was praised for the multitude of his writings and the height of his talent and Baronius for only sleeping 4 hours per night and praying. Heliocentrism and Geocentrism is only alluded to in one of Galileo's titles, namely Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo tolemaico e copernicano. Ghilini never states what that means.

So, 1647 is not the terminus a quo we can consider the quote as sticking to Baronius. I think the terminus a quo is later, and I suspect it is 19th C. in attempts to "make Catholicism look good" to people who were fanatic Heliocentrics and not very Catholic. Unless the volume II actually gave more detail on each, since the google book was just up to what the index calls Il fine della Tauola del Primo Volume. But a volume II could have been instead even more writers, or it could have been planned and never executed.

How about someone did some double-checking on the earliest identification of the quote source with Baronius? My own hunch is, it's rather from another Cardinal, still alive when Galileo wrote, who later became ... Pope Urban. I think Pope Urban or rather Cardinal Barberini at this time, prior to becoming Pope, really thought this well through, and part time leaned somewhat favourably to Galileo's side. But not sufficiently to make us suspect he ever was a Heliocentric. He did end up solidly Geocentric at the thought of "God was free to create the world anyway He wanted, and make it appear to us anyway He wanted."

Meanwhile, though the reddit status remains visible, it is marked as deleted. Maybe the reddit user came to find the evidence for the Baronius-attribution too weak, or as I suppose, even suspicious.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Engelbert of Cologne
7.XI.2024

Apud Swelmensem civitatem, in Germania, passio sancti Engelberti, Episcopi Coloniensis, qui, cum illuc ex oppido Sosatio ad templum dedicandum pergeret, a sicariis interceptus in via multisque vulneribus caesus, gloriosum pro defensione ecclesiasticae libertatis et Romanse Ecclesiae obedientia martyrium subiit.