andrewcriddle

I've just read Ferrari's paper in Augustinian Studies.

My immediate response is that Ferrari doesn't quite make his case.

The idea (which Augustine clearly held) of the inhabited earth (Europe Asia and Africa) being a small effectively flat disc surrounded by a vast ocean is compatible with a spherical world, the surface of which is almost entirely covered by water. (Some later western writers IIUC believed something like this).

What is difficult is to determine which of the various options presented by Augustine he really believed. I get the impression from the pasages cited by Ferrari that Augustine was hedging his bets to avoid criticism either by Biblical literalists or by the scientists of his day.

Andrew Criddle

Antipope Innocent II

You doubt this based on ... what, exactly? Other than the fact you'd like me to be wrong? You've found a Latin manuscript of Cosmas that all historians of this subject have overlooked, perhaps? You have some evidence that Cosmas was known in the West prior to 1706? If so, I suggest you rush these amazing new discoveries into publication at once.

Alternatively, you haven't a clue about this stuff and are just hand-waving.


What was "heretical" about what Cosmas wrote? Why would he be charged with "heresy"? It's not heretical to write silly, unscientific cosmology.

I'm saying nothing of the sort. You just aren't reading my posts carefully enough.

And the heresy and theological errors in his work would be ... ? :huh:

Jehanne

Here is Galileo's abjuration:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1630galileo.html

Some highlights:

"But since I, after having been admonished by this Holy Office entirely to abandon the false opinion that the Sun was the centre of the universe and immoveable, and that the Earth was not the centre of the same and that it moved, and that I was neither to hold, defend, nor teach in any manner whatever, either orally or in writing, the said false doctrine; and after having received a notification that the said doctrine is contrary to Holy Writ, I did write and cause to be printed a book in which I treat of the said already condemned doctrine, and bring forward arguments of much efficacy in its favour, without arriving at any solution: I have been judged vehemently suspected of heresy, that is, of having held and believed that the Sun is the centre of the universe and immoveable, and that the Earth is not the centre of the same, and that it does move."

In Post #10, you state,

Cosmas, of course, wrote in the 6th-century, and was "condemned" three hundred years later, in the 9th-century. Not excommunicated, even posthumously, which Patriarch Photius could have done, but did not. He could have convened a Church council to discuss the matter, but he did not. Cosmas must have had his supporters, even then.

Antipope Innocent II

Er, yes - which is entirely in line with my statement that "the theological implications of the Earth not actually being the centre of the Universe were significant". Unlike the theological implications of Cosmas' bad science, which were non-existent.

Spot the difference.





What do the words "his contemporary" mean? Please read the posts you're trying to respond to.

"Excommunicated" for WHAT? How many more times do I have to explain this to you - there WAS NO THEOLOGICAL PROBLEM WITH COSMAS' BAD SCIENCE.

What part of that are you finding so hard to grasp?

Jehanne

If the works of Cosmas were known in Byzantium, they were almost certainly known in Rome. The Eastern and Western Empires began as one and were in constant communication until and after the fall of Rome and the Western Empire. If the Crusaders could bring back Arabic manuscripts from the Holy Land, certainly Cosmas' works could have made their way from Constantinople to Rome.

Nothing, that's my point!

Only if it is in disagreement with Holy Scripture!

None. Clearly, a Flat Earth is entirely compatible with "Holy Writ"!!

Jehanne

The difference is that a flat-earth is entirely compatible with Holy Scripture, while a moving Earth is not!

I agree, there was no theological problems with Cosmas' works!

Antipope Innocent II

This is total rubbish. Yes, there were diplomatic contacts. But no, that doesn't mean that if a work was known in the East it would have been known in the West as well. If that had been the case, then the vast loss of Greek science in the period from the Sixth to the Eleventh Century would never have happened. That loss was only made up when Westerners got access to Arabic translations of these works via Spain and Sicily - they needed these translations because knowledge of Greek had died out in the West.

The Crusaders brought back zero Arabic works from the Holy Land - those works came from Spain and Sicily. Cosmas' work was not known in the West until 1706 and all the hopeful (and error-laden) hand waving in the world won't change that.

Cosmas' work was barely known even in the East. It survives in a mere three Greek manuscripts and is discussed by just two commentators. It was an obscure and minor work of no significance even in the Greek world. And it was unknown in the Latin one.

Which it wasn't. Neither were the many other books of the time that said the Earth was round - the ones Photios and John Philoponus cited when they criticised Cosmas' bad science.

It wasn't considered heretical to say the Earth was flat or round. But it was considered bad science to say it was flat and not round. So Cosmas' work was declared bad science. End of story.

Jehanne

Utter nonsense. East and West were in constant communication, even after the Fall of Rome. The original Tetrarchy was setup with this in mind.

This is also utter nonsense! There exist paintings of the Virgin Mary with the phrase, "There is no God but Allah..." writing in Arabic on her veil!!

This is true of many ancient authors. How many manuscripts of Homer's works are available?

I agree! Clearly, both views were acceptable, because a flat-earth is completely compatible with Holy Scripture! The late Medieval theologians, unlike their earlier counterparts, had no choice but to admit that the Earth was round based upon the scientific evidence.

Antipope Innocent II

Of course there was "communication". But no, that doesn't mean that if a book was known in the East it was known in the West. Why do you think most of Aristotle's works were totally unknown in the West from the Sixth to the Twelfth Centuries? Are you trying to tell me the West would have known an obscure nobody like Cosmas but somehow didn't have access to Aristotle in the same way?!

Diplomatic contacts are totally irrelevant to what we're talking about here. Cosmas was not known in the West for the same reason Aristotle's "lost" works were still widely known in the East but "lost" to Western scholars until they found them again via Arabic translations.

And what the hell has that got to do with anything? Sorry, but the Nineteenth Century idea that the Crusades were a source of Arabic learning is wrong and has been known to be wrong for about 150 years. That Arabic learning came via Spain and Sicily, not Outremer.

The point is that compared to other writers of Cosmas' time three manuscripts and two commentators are paltry. This shows that Cosmas was obscure and regarded lowly even in the East.

Which is why they happily accepted that the Earth was round, taught it in their universities, wrote books on the operation of the astrolabe and equitorium and other scientific instruments which only work if you understand that the Earth is round and never, ever taught that the Earth was flat or condemned anyone for teaching that it was round.

Thank you. Case closed.

Jehanne

Okay, fine, another issue for another thread. The fact is that the First Crusaders were pilgrims as much as they were soldiers, and most (80 K out of 100 K, I believe) returned home after the conquest of the Holy Land.

Doesn't matter! Emperor Justinian would have had Cosmas put to death if he had thought that Cosmas was a manifest heretic.

This is not the question! The question is, "Did the early Christian Church (prior to Augustine and even after), believe in a flat-earth?" The answer is, "Yes, unequivocally, and they based their theology, such as the Accession of Christ, upon that belief!" See Professor Thomas Sheehan's lectures for more details on this subject:

http://www.learnoutloud.com/Catalog/...al-Jesus/23023