Twelve Sons, Twelve Constellations

by John P. Pratt

Reprinted from Meridian Magazine (13 Jul 2005).
©2005 by John P. Pratt. All rights Reserved.

Index, Home

Contents

1. Determining Birth Dates

1.1 Seven Children in Seven Years

1.2 Which Seven Years?

1.3 Twelve Birthdays

1.4 Benjamin

1.5 Proposed Birth Dates

2. New Holy Days

2.1 Hanukkah

2.2 Feast of Esther

2.3 Easter

3. Confirming Dates

3.1 Rebekah

3.2 Leah and Rachel

3.3 Jacob

3.4 Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh

4. Scriptural Confirmation

5. Conclusion

Notes

Relating the twelve tribes of Israel to the twelve zodiac constellations helps unravel the mystery of the Lord's sacred calendars.

There is a strong Hebrew tradition that each of the twelve tribes of Israel was associated with one of the twelve constellations of the zodiac. The precise identification of which constellation goes with which of Jacob's sons has only been known with certainty for four of the tribes. Each of the twelve carried a banner or flag, and the many of those flags are believed to have displayed one of the zodiac symbols. Thus, those figures came to symbolize the entire tribe to a large degree, much as the eagle represents the United States. This article proposes a correspondence of each of those tribes to one of the zodiac emblems, based on proposed dates for the birth of each. Knowing those dates then leads to greater understanding of the holy days on the Hebrew Calendar, and testifies of the Lord's foreknowledge of all things and of his great plan of salvation.

Jacob alludes to the zodiac as he blesses his twelve sons.

What does the zodiac have to do with the twelve tribes of Israel? Aren't the zodiac signs the basis of astrology, and isn't that a false belief system? Wasn't Israel admonished over and over not to worship the hosts of heaven? Why would Israel put zodiac figures on their flags?

It is not surprising if these are your first questions as you read this article, especially if this is the first you've read on the subject. As has been pointed out in numerous earlier articles,^[1] the Book of Enoch records that an angel revealed the constellation figures to the prophet Enoch some 5,000 years ago, and many scholars claim they symbolize the key features of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Last month's article proposed that each of the twelve constellations of the zodiac, through which the sun appears to travel during the year, represents one of the twelve principal roles of the Savior.^[2]

Satan twists truth and perverts it for his own purposes, which he has clearly done with the zodiac signs. That causes many to avoid the entire subject, but the symbolism of these figures is so rich that it would be a tragedy not to learn of the beauty of their meaning, and the clarity of their symbolism. So my articles on the subject attempt to ignore the perversions and focus on the good. My position is that the sun, moon, and planets are like the hands on a huge clock, with the twelve zodiac constellations through which they move being the 12 numbers on the clock face. The Lord uses his clock to time key events in world history. But when Israel began to worship the hands on the clock, as did the pagan nations, then they were told they had missed the whole point, and to desist. Similarly today, if someone believes the planets are controlling his life, rather than merely keeping time, then Satan could falsely convince him that he is not responsible for his actions.

Having that disclaimer in mind, let us look at the evidence, even from the Bible itself, that the twelve sons of the prophet Jacob were each identified with a different sign of the zodiac.

Naphtali shows Joseph's blood-stained coat to Jacob.

First, consider the dream of Jacob's son Joseph, of the sun, moon and 11 stars (11 constellations?). He dreamed that they all bowed down to him (Gen. 37:9). When he told the dream to his family, they immediately knew that the 11 stars referred to his 11 brothers. Was that just because of the number eleven, or what it also because they already knew that each was associated with a different zodiac constellation? Evidence for answering this question affirmatively comes from noting that most of their names have close ties to the zodiac constellations, as discussed below.

Secondly, when the tribes received blessings under the hands of their father Jacob and many years later by Moses, many unmistakable references were made to zodiac constellations. Moreover, visions such as those of Ezekiel and John, describe figures with the heads of a man, lion, ox, and eagle, which just happen to match the four "cornerstone" constellations (Ezek. 1:10, Rev. 4:7).^[3] It is precisely these four key figures which are the most easily matched with the four principal sons of Israel because each is mentioned in the blessings. Reuben is compared to a man and to water, Judah is compared to a lion, Dan to a serpent (counterpart of the eagle), and Joseph's two sons to the horns of the wild ox. Those link to the constellations of the Water Bearer, the Lion, the Scorpion, and the Bull, respectively (Gen. 49: 4, 9, 17; Deut. 33:17). Those four sons are each also assigned to four directions (Num. 2:3, 10, 18, 25), and those four constellations are evenly spaced around the circle, as are the four points of a compass. And even non-Israelite prophets, such as Balaam, have used the same figures to represent the tribes (Num. 24:7-9). All of this has been discussed in detail in earlier articles, and is summarized here only as review and to make it clear that the Lord himself uses the symbolism. There is something very profound going on here, and it is certainly seems worth investigating.

Until now, the identification of the constellations associated with the other eight tribes has not been known with any degree of confidence. The other references to the zodiac are sketchy, and different scholars have proposed a variety of associations based on scriptural clues. But historical evidence of exactly what emblems were shown on which flags has been weak, and is based mostly on tradition. Thus, the information about the zodiac associations has been lost. This article proposes a correlation based on the "brute force" method of actually determining the birth dates of the twelve sons, and then looking at which constellation the sun was in at their birth.

1. Determining Birth Dates

As is known to readers of my earlier papers, I have discovered a variety of sacred calendars, which the Lord seems to be using, including the Venus, Mercury, Enoch, and (Perpetual) Hebrew calendars.^[4] My articles have proposed a framework of key religious dates in the history of mankind, from Adam down to the present day. Let us now begin to fill in more dates into that framework, and even be bold enough to propose precise dates for all of the twelve sons of Israel, and for two of their mothers, Leah and Rachel.

1.1 Seven Children in Seven Years

How is it possible to propose precise birth dates when the birth year is not given in the Bible for even one of the sons? In my former articles, at least the year was provided. Dates were proposed based on the birth dates being holy days on sacred calendars (especially the Hebrew calendar). How should we proceed if the years at not even provided? The answer is that it is clearly a puzzle to be solved, and the years are not necessary. The big clue is that we can calculate the seven-year period in which eleven of the twelve sons were born, and also the one daughter Dinah. If those dates must also fall on holy days on the Hebrew calendar and simultaneously on holy days of the Mayan Sacred Round,^[5] then there are only a few dates available. If it turns out that there are twelve dates in the seven years specified, and it also happens that all twelve occur in different signs of the zodiac, then we have the beginning of evidence that we are correct. If the four principal tribes fit the cornerstone constellations and that the names and blessings of other tribes fit their respective figures, then the evidence becomes more compelling that we have solved the puzzle. So with that hope in mind, let us proceed.

The curious thing about the history of the birth of Leah's six sons and one daughter in a seven year period is that she had a barren period during that time. She was so distressed that she had stopped bearing children that she gave her handmaid Zilpah to her husband to bear children for her. Now when is the last time you saw something like that on the evening news? How many mothers do you know who had four children in four years who then became distraught when they didn't have a fifth in the next year? Both of Jacob's wives clearly qualify as understanding the importance of the blessings of having a large posterity. So we begin to see that the pieces of this puzzle must be very tight-fitting indeed because 7 births can barely be squeezed into those time constraints. So if it turns out that they drop into place perfectly, then it will be amazing indeed. Of every 18,600 families which have exactly twelve children, on the average only one will have each born in a different month of the year or with the sun in a different constellation. If the precise time of birth is known, then there is only about one chance in forty that any one date is holy on both of those calendars. Accordingly, if blind chance governed the universe, then there would be negligible probability that even one family in history could have such a noble set of birth dates. It has occurred to me that it would be interesting to calculate just how many seven-year periods even contain twelve such dates.

Jacob and Rachel meet (Gen. 29).

Let us review the entire story briefly in order to find the seven-year period. Jacob worked seven years to marry his beloved Rachel, and awoke after the wedding to find he had married her older sister Leah. How could that happen? The Book of Jasher, which is an excellent chronological source,^[6] states that they were twins. It was still very important that one was slightly older than the other. Moreover, the bride's face was most likely veiled. In any case, seven days later he married Rachel. Leah gave birth to four children in succession: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah. Rachel was barren, which was considered a great curse, because it would mean no posterity, no family. When it was clear she was not bearing, she gave her handmaid Bilhah to her husband, and Bilhah bore Dan and then Naphtali. Note that we are not told that Dan is born after Judah, although that is usually assumed. Then it was Leah's turn to have a barren period. Each of her four children were probably born about a year apart. It must have been at least six months after the birth of Judah that she realized that she was not expecting and got nervous because by then Bilhah's second son was probably born. So Leah gave her handmaid Zilpah to Jacob to even up the odds. Zilpah bore Gad and Asher. Again we are only told the order of birth to each mother.

Now the plot thickens. We find that part of the reason for Leah's barren period was that Jacob was not spending his nights with her. When Leah's son found some fertility herbs, Rachel traded her sister Leah a night with Jacob in exchange for them. Sure enough, the trade was a success for Leah, who soon gave birth to Issachar, and later to Zebulon and Dinah. Then, finally, Rachel gave birth to Joseph. His birth was the last because immediately afterward Jacob told Laban that the second set of seven years had past, and that he wanted to take his family back to his own country (Gen. 30:25).

So these four women had twelve children (11 sons and a daughter) in seven years. And Leah alone had seven of them, with a barren period. Allowing a least an extra year for the barren period, wouldn't that have taken Leah eight years to have seven children? When I began calculating the dates, it became clear that the only solution was that Zebulon and Dinah had to be twins. After I discovered that, I found it confirmed in two sources. First it is Hebrew tradition that they were twins.^[7] Secondly, it states it implicitly in the Bible itself. For all of the other children, we are told that "Leah conceived" and brought forth a son. When it gets to Dinah it doesn't state that she conceived again, but only that she brought forth Dinah after Zebulon (Gen. 30:21). In other words, it implied that they are twins by leaving out the word "conceived." It is accuracy in minute details such as this which has led me to believe that Genesis is a revelation from God, rather than an attempt by Moses to record oral traditions. So that eases the requirement somewhat, for now we need only six birth dates in seven years, with an extra year between the fourth and fifth dates.

1.2 Which Seven Years?

Just when is the seven-year period during which Jacob's first twelve children were born? The scriptures provide us enough detail to zero in on the exact seven year period. Let us begin by reviewing the chronological framework already established in earlier articles.

Jacob, later renamed Israel, was the father of the twelve sons who became the heads of the twelve tribes of Israel. As was proposed in an earlier article, Jacob was born on Wed 20 Mar 1892 BC pm* ("pm star" means after 6 p.m., when the stars are shining).^[8] That is a precise starting point, but we are not told in Genesis how old he was when he had his children. With all of the other prophets and patriarchs discussed in my articles, we have been given their age when their children were born, but in the case of Jacob, we need to do a little detective work to get the answer.

Jacob, age 130, meets Pharaoh.

Long after his children were born, and Joseph was prime minister of Egypt, Jacob took his family there to survive a famine. When he appeared before Pharaoh, he stated that he was 130 years old (Gen. 47:9), which was probably in the summer of 1762 BC. How old was his son Joseph at that time? Joseph had become prime minister of Egypt at age 30 (Gen. 41:46). The seven years of plenty began in the following year, and in the second year of the famine, Jacob's family came to Egypt (Jasher 55:26). Thus, the time that Joseph became prime minister would have been nine years earlier in 1771 BC. ^[9] He was age 30 at that time, so he would have been born in 1801 BC. Joseph was born at the very end of the seven years during which Jacob's first twelve children were born, so that puts the seven years from 1808 to 1801 BC.

The proposed date for the marriage of Jacob to Leah is Sat 30 Mar 1808 BC, which was the day 14 Spring 14 SPRING on the Enoch calendar. That means it was Passover day (14 Spr) in the year also representing Passover (14 SPR). That day only occurs once in 364 years, so that was a rare day indeed, but it was nothing special on the Hebrew calendar. The next week he married Rachel on Sat 6 Apr 1808 BC, which is the last day of passover on the Enoch calendar (21 Spr) and also the minor holy day 1 Iyar on the Hebrew calendar.

This example shows how the days are equally important, and neither wife is favored over the other because one date is more special on the Enoch calendar and the other on the Hebrew calendar. The same will be true of the twelve sons of Jacob. In other words, the birthright went to Joseph not because his "stars" were better, but because of both his actions and Reuben's actions. The proposed twelve birth dates are all very nearly equally good, which is another factor which defies chance.

If these marriage dates are correct, then the birth of Jacob's first twelve children occurred during a seven year period which corresponded to the Passover week of seven years on the Enoch calendar. The last born, Joseph, has a proposed birth date in the year 21 SPRING on the Enoch calendar, corresponding to the Last Day of Passover. In the Hebrew reckoning of years, it is similar. The marriage is in the year 10 NISAN, which is a the year of Consecration, and the seven years includes the year of PASSOVER. And both the first and last years are SATURDAY, the sabbath year of rest. If so, then it was a very unusual seven-year period during which these children were born from 1808 to 1801 BC.

1.3 Twelve Birthdays

Many years have been spent by this author in trying to determine the twelve actual birth dates for the twelve sons of Jacob. There are many problems but the principal one is to discover whether or not there is a pattern of holy days on sacred calendars which they all follow. Either God is using the sacred calendars to determine the birth dates of his prophets and key leaders, or he is not. Either they all follow a pattern or not. If they do, then there is a chance to discover the actual birth dates of these twelve sons of Jacob. If they do not, then the best we could hope for might be to determine the constellation associated with each birth, which would require an accuracy of about a month.

In the former published articles from my research, there have been three general patterns proposed that the birth dates of major prophets have followed. First, allbirths have occurred on holy days on the Hebrew Calendar, and usually also on holy days on other sacred calendars, with the Sacred Round being the second most important. Second, the length of their lives has usually completed an exact number of cycles on at least one sacred calendar. In the case of the antediluvian patriarchs who lived hundreds of years, sometimes the lives completed two or more such cycles.^[10] And third, there has usually been a link from one parent to at least one child. That is, the interval between the birth of one child and the death of one parent is often an exact number of cycles on one calendar. In this case, there is one such link no matter what dates are proposed, because Benjamin was born on the day his mother died. That is exactly zero cycles on all of the sacred calendars, and it is perhaps the strongest parent-child calendrical link possible.

Rather than drag the reader through all my years of research on this subject, and preliminary attempts to discover any pattern that could be proposed for the twelve birth dates, I will simply report the results. It turns out that the requirement to fit eleven birth dates into eleven different constellations (four of which are known) in only seven years, with the twelfth birth many years later into the remaining zodiac figure is so difficult that one can easily rule out many potential patterns.

Here is the pattern which emerged. Exactly as in the case of the patriarchs, each was born on a holy day on the Hebrew calendar, and each was also born on either a day "1" or "7" on the Sacred Round. This latter proposal concerning day 7 being a minor holy day is new in this article. I have wondered about it for years. There are thirteen days in the time unit called the trecena on the Sacred Round, and it has been clear that both the first and last days ("1" and "13") are sacred, but there has not been an instance where the midpoint (or "meridian") day 7 of the trecena is also known to be holy. Now that has changed. The birth requirements are so strict for these twelve that to me it now appears that the day 7 must be a minor holy day. All twelve of the birth days turn out to be equally important. The ones which occur on minor holy days instead of major are compensated by also occurring on other sacred calendars, or having impressive conjunctions of the planets occur in the sky on those dates. We have already seen this in the case of Abraham, whose birth date was not as impressive on the calendar, but which was accompanied by a double conjunction of planets.^[11]

Before listing the twelve birth dates, let us first turn to the difficult problem of determining at least the year of Benjamin's birth.

1.4 Benjamin

What about the twelfth son, Benjamin? He was born many years later, and we are not even given the year. Do we have any way of determining Benjamin's birth date? The answer appears to be in the affirmative because of the many clues we are given about the time of his birth.

On his way to Hebron, Jacob stayed at Succoth, Shechem, and Bethel.

Let us review the history in just enough detail to deduce the year of Benjamin's birth. Laban convinced Jacob to work for him six more years after the birth of Joseph (in the spring of 1801 BC). At the end of those six years (in 1795 BC) Jacob took his family and left on his way to Canaan. During that year he crossed the Jabbok at Peniel where he wrestled the angel who said his name would be changed from Jacob to Israel. Then they sojourned a while in Succoth, and then moved to Shechem. There his daughter Dinah was defiled by Shechem (the prince and namesake of the town), leading to Simeon and Levi destroying the entire village. This caused Jacob to fear retribution from the local inhabitants, and when Jacob prayed for help, the Lord told him to go south to Bethel, where he should stay and offer sacrifice (Gen. 35:1). This he did, and there the Lord appeared to him and officially changed his name to Israel, and told him that whole groups of nations would descend from him (Gen. 35:11). While there, his mother Rebekah's nurse Deborah died and they also got word that his mother had also died in Hebron at the age of 133. After mourning for both, Rachel conceived, and later they decided to relocate back to Hebron, further south. During that journey, when they came near Bethlehem, his beloved Rachel died while giving birth to their twelfth son Benjamin (Gen. 35:16-18). They continue on south to Hebron, where his father Isaac lived (Gen. 35:27).

Hebron, home of Isaac and Rebekah.

So when was Benjamin born? The unknowns have been how long the family was at Succoth and then how long they remained at Bethel. Of many possible approaches to solve this problem, the following now seems the most straightforward. If we start from the premise that Rebekah died at age 133, a year or so before the birth of Benjamin, then everything works out easily, because Rebekah's birth date was already established in an earlier article.^[12] This method avoids the problems of exactly how long the family stayed in those two areas because it skips most of that time period. It also dovetails nicely with the record of events after they arrived in Hebron.

1.5 Proposed Birth Dates

Here is a table of the proposed birth dates for the twelve sons of Jacob, as well as some other related events, such as the births of Leah and Rachel. If the day on the sacred calendar is not a holy day, then it is indicated at a dash (—). In the event column, "b." means birth, "c." means circumcised (one week later), and "md." means married. On the Sacred Round calendar, the day "1" represents beginning, so it is ideal for birth. In the cases where the birth is on "7", then the circumcision day falls on "1" on an especially significant day. In the case of Reuben, it is 1 Water, and Water is his emblem. In the case of Judah, the circumcision is on 1 Temple, where Temple also signifies birth.^[13]

Event	Gregorian Date (BC)	Hebrew	Sacred Round	Other
Isaac b.	16 Mar 1952	Tue 10 Nisan	1 Serpent	1 Res (V) 1 Bir (M)
Rebekah b.	8 Nov 1923 pm*	Wed 1 Kislev	1 Jaguar	1 Bir (V) 1 Res (M)
Jacob b.	20 Mar 1892 pm*	Thu 15 Nisan	1 Temple	1 Birth (Venus)
Leah/Rachel b.	2 Mar 1836	Sat 15 Adar	1 Storm	1 Birth (Venus) 1 Lord (Merc)
Jacob begins work	9 Apr 1815	Sun 16 Nisan	13 Deer	15 Spr (Enoch)
Jacob/Leah md.	30 Mar 1808	Sat —	—	10 NISAN (H) 14 Spr 14 SPR (Enoch)
Jacob/Rachel md.	6 Apr 1808	Sat 1 Iyar	—	10 NISAN (H) 21 Spr (Enoch)
Reuben b. (Aqr)	23 Dec 1808	Mon 25 Kislev	7 Wind	10 NISAN (H) 14 SPR (E)
Reuben c.	30 Dec 1808	Mon 2 Tebeth	1 Water	1 Res (Merc)
Simeon b. (Cap)	16 Dec 1807 pm*	Wed 1 Tebeth	1 Flower	1 Res (Merc)
Levi b. (Psc)	5 Feb 1805	Fri 1 Adar	1 Condor	1 Birth (Merc)
Dan b. (Sco)	9 Oct 1805 pm*	Mon 15 Tishri	1 Temple	1 Adult (M)
Judah b. (Leo)	19 Jun 1804 pm*	Tue 1 Tammuz	7 Condor	14 NISAN
Naphtali b. (Vir)	17 Aug 1804 pm*	Fri 1 Elul	1 Eagle	14 NISAN, 1 Prime (V)
Gad b. (Sgr)	2 Nov 1803 pm*	Sat 1 Kislev	1 Quake	15 NISAN, 1 Cre (M)
Issachar b. (Cnc)	29 May 1802	Wed 1 Sivan	1 Serpent	1 Res (M)
Asher b. (Lib)	23 Sep 1802 pm*	Tue 1 Tishri	1 Wind	1 Res (M)
Zebulon b. (Ari)	4 Mar 1801	Tue 14 Adar	7 Dragon
Joseph b. (Tau)	6 Apr 1801	Sun 18 Nisan	1 Quake	15 Spr 21 SPR (E)
Rebekah d.	6 Apr 1790 pm*	Sun 18 Nisan	1 Jaguar	15 Spr (E), 1 Lord (V)
Benjamin b. (Gem) Rachel d.	25 May 1788	Tue 1 Sivan	1 Jaguar	1 Adult (V), 1 Lord (M)
Leah d.	1 Jul 1786 pm*	Sun 1 Tammuz	1 Light	1 Res (V), 1 Adt (M)
Ephraim & Manasseh b. (Tau)	3 Apr 1767	Thu 1 Nisan	1 Grass	1 Prime (M)
Jacob d.	14 Apr 1745 pm*	Tue 15 Nisan	1 Storm	1 Birth (V) 1 Cre (M)
Joseph d.	5 Mar 1691 pm*	Sun 1 Nisan	1 Light	9 AB (H), 9 MSU(E)

Let us consider some of these results and their implications in more detail.

2. New Holy Days

One problem that has been difficult in all of this research is to know just what the "official" holy days are on the Hebrew Calendar. What are the holy dates which the Lord has on his calendar, not including those which have just been added by man to celebrate joyous occasions? It must be remembered that all of these births occurred long before the birth of Moses, and most of them would celebrate future events. Many of the holy days are explicitly described in the law of Moses, so there is little question about them. But what about Hanukkah, the eight-day Festival of Lights which commemorates the rededication of the temple in 165 BC? Was that date on God's calendar from the beginning? What about the Feast of Esther which celebrates Esther's saving the Israelites from execution in the fifth century BC? These questions have puzzled me for years.

2.1 Hanukkah

Grouping of Mercury, Venus, Saturn and the Sun in the Water Bearer on Hanukkah, 1808 BC.

The dates for Reuben teach us several things. First, to me it appears to establish the first (and last?) day of Hanukkah to be an official minor holy day. The first day of Hanukkah falls on 25 Kislev, near the Christian Christmas season. The last day occurs seven days later on either 2 Tebeth or 3 Tebeth, depending on whether the month of Kislev has 29 or 30 days. Reuben's birth date was almost certainly on Hanukkah, and the day of his circumcision one week later would have fallen on the last day. That day was "1 Water" on the Sacred Round, and Water is the symbol of the Water Bearer constellation (Reuben). As shown in the illustration, there was also a grouping of three planets with the sun in the Water Bearer on Hanukkah (25 Kislev) that year.

2.2 Feast of Esther

The same question concerns the Feast of Esther on 14-15 Adar. Are those two days "official" holy days or not? Again, the answer seems to be in the affirmative, because the twins Zebulon and Dinah were most likely born on 14 Adar. Not only does the date fit the pattern perfectly, the planets Mercury and Venus were both located in the leg of the Ram which is breaking the bands of death. Henceforth in these articles, both Hanukkah and the Feast of Esther will be treated as minor holy days.

2.3 Easter

Joseph was probably born on Easter.

Again, a similar question arises concerning Easter, called the Waving of the Omer on the Hebrew Calendar. It falls on the Sunday after Passover, but was not declared to be a holy day in the law of Moses, but only the day of a special offering of the firstfruits from the ground. After the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, it became clear that this was really a major holy day, but was it an official holy day from the beginning? To me the answer now appears to be in the affirmative because the birth of Joseph most likely occurred on Easter Sunday of 1801 BC.

An interesting point is that Genesis states that Joseph was born at the completion of the second seven years (Gen. 30:25). According to these proposed dates, it was exactly seven years on the Enoch calendar from his marriage to Leah, and also exactly 14 years from when he began work for Laban. Apparently the seven year periods were precise to the very day.

3. Confirming Dates

Now let us look at some of the birth and death dates of the parents and grandparents of these twelve sons. They form the same type of interlocking pattern as we have seen in earlier articles about the birth dates of the antediluvian patriarchs.

3.1 Rebekah

Rebekah, born and died on 1 Jaguar.

One result of this study is the proposed death date for Jacob's mother Rebekah. Her death date is the key link in discovering the birth date of Benjamin. Her death date now appears solid enough to be the basis of forming an anchor point in history.

As discussed in an earlier article, the proposed birth date for Rebekah ties perfectly to her husband Isaac's. Her proposed birth date is Tue 8 Nov 1923 BC pm* which was 1 Kislev (Hebrew), 1 Jaguar (Sacred Round), 1 Birth (Venus) and 1 Resurrection (Mercury). His proposed birth date is Tue 16 Mar 1952 BC, being 10 Nisan (Hebrew), 1 Serpent (S. R.), 1 Resurrection (Venus) and 1 Birth (Mercury). The important feature to note is that the Venus and Mercury calendar dates are reversed for the two, just as they are for Ishmael and Isaac. That was such a rare coincidence as to really lock in her birth date.

The Book of Jasher, states that Rebekah died at age 133 while the family was at Bethel, shortly before the conception of Benjamin (Jasher 36:6). An ideal date is found at that time, being Sat 6 Apr 1790 BC, which was the same day as her birth on the Sacred Round (1 Jaguar). It is common in the ages of the patriarchs (and now matriarchs) to have their life be an exact number of cycles on one of the sacred calendars. In this case, the length of Rebekah's life would be exactly 186 Sacred Rounds. The day was also Easter on both the Hebrew and Enoch calendars, as was Joseph's proposed birth date. Again, it is common to have the period to the birth of a child or grandchild be an exact number of cycles. Moreover, it was also a holy day on the Venus calendar, as was her birth, and there are only 16 days in 584 days that such an alignment occurs. So these fulfillments of multiple patterns convince me that he death date truly has been found: Sat 6 Apr 1790 BC pm*.

3.2 Leah and Rachel

After discovering how impressive Rebekah's death date and life was, it caused me to search for the birth and death dates of both Leah and Rachel. Their birth and death years, and ages, are given in the Book of Jasher (Jasher 36:11, 41:2), so it was a much easier problem than the birth of the twelve sons of Jacob. Jasher also mentions that they were twins (Jasher 28:28), even as were Jacob and Esau. Their birth date was most likely Sat 2 Mar 1836 BC, which was the Feast of Esther (Hebrew), 1 Birth (Venus) and 1 Lord (Mercury). Thus, it is proposed that both of these wives were born on 1 Birth (V) as was Jacob, so that is a rare match. Rachel's death occurred at Benjamin's birth, and the day was also 1 Lord (M), so her life completed an exact number of cycles on the Mercury calendar. It was also on 1 Jaguar, the same as Rebekah's proposed birth and death dates.

Leah only lived a few years longer than Rachel, dying before Joseph was sold into Egypt. Her death was most likely on Sat 1 Jul 1786 BC pm*, which was 1 Tammuz, the same as her son Judah. It was also 1 Res (V), the same as Isaac's birth date, and also 1 Adult (M) the same as Jacob's birth date. Again, these are not just holy days, but the match the pattern of being the same as husband and children. It was also 1 Light (S.R.), the day beginning that cycle. These are enough patterns to merit publishing this date as likely to be her death date.

3.3 Jacob

Jacob lived an exact number of Hebrew years and Venus cycles.

One new date which emerged from this study is Jacob's death date. After discovering that Rebekah's life most likely was an exact number of Sacred Rounds as well as being a holy day on the Venus calendar, it seemed like a good idea to search for Jacob's death date. To me the result was stunning. By far the most likely date is Mon 14 Apr 1745 BC pm* which was both Passover and also 1 Birth on the Venus Calendar. It is amazing that such a date exists exactly 147 Hebrew years after his proposed birth date on Wed 20 Mar 1892 BC pm* which was also Passover and also 1 Birth (Venus). Until writing this article, I had not even considered that possibility for at least two reasons. First, 147 = 3 x 49, meaning that his life was exactly three jubilees long, and that alone was impressive enough to me to stop looking. Secondly, 1 Birth (Venus) only occurs on Passover about twice in 584 years on the average, so one wouldn't expect it after only 147 years. Note also that both 1 Birth (V) and 1 Temple, on which he was born, are the very days of those cycles that represent birth. Thus, this is yet another compelling confirmation of the birth date proposed for Jacob several years ago. ^[14]

3.4 Joseph, Ephraim and Manasseh

Jacob blesses Ephraim & Manasseh.

The book of Jasher states that Joseph's two sons were born when he was age 34 (Jasher 50:15). While not stating that they are twins, my conclusion is that they are, because they are compared to the horns of the wild ox (Deut. 33:17), and there is a clear birth date for them when the sun is in the constellation of the Bull, the constellation of Joseph, whom they would replace in the set of twelve tribes. Moreover, there is a clear candidate to be the death date for Joseph at age 110 (Gen. 50:26) and it occurs on the same day of the Hebrew years as the proposed birthday for his sons (1 Nisan). Moreover, their birthday fills in one more very important holy day to the set of twelve (New Year's Day). Thus, the timing of the births appears to have been foreseen and carefully planned.

4. Scriptural Confirmation

There are several clues in the scriptures about which constellation is associated with which tribe, but some are not obvious at all. When I began this study I was really encouraged about how easy the four cornerstone constellations were, because each of those four tribes (Reuben, Dan, Judah, and Joseph) were compared to the figures (Water Bearer, Scorpion, Lion, Bull) explicitly in their names or blessings. Moreover, Dan means "Judge" and Judah means "Praised," both of which tie directly to the corresponding roles of Jesus Christ of Judge and King, as discussed in last month's article. So those are the four about which everyone agrees. But the other eight were not obvious and there is little agreement about them.

After I had finished this study and had determined the birth dates in the above table, and was in the process of writing this article, the idea occurred to me to read those names and blessings one more time. It was surprising how easy it was to see that there were strong indications in front of me all the time, but many of them are only clear in the light of knowing how the twelve roles of Jesus Christ correspond to the twelve constellations.

Joseph reveals himself to his brothers.

Simeon is the Sacrifice. There are two clues that Simeon is the Sea Goat which is sacrificed. First, the blessing by Jacob stated, "Simeon and Levi are brethren; instruments of cruelty are in their habitations" (Gen. 49:5). What does that mean? Ostensibly, it refers to their slaying of the village of Shechem to defend their sister Dinah's honor, but could there be more? It occurred to me that Levi's sign is Pisces, which contains the chains or bonds which shackle the fish to the Sea Monster. Those are certainly instruments of cruelty. And the Sea Goat is the other sign which refers to an animal about to be slaughtered by the knife. Thus, the Sea Goat is a good match for Simeon's instrument of cruelty. Moreover, it was Simeon whom Joseph kept behind in Egypt as a ransom for Benjamin, that is, he was the sacrifice.

Levi is The Fishes. Levi means "Joined" which now seems like a clear reference to the Fishes, which are joined by two bands or chains to the Sea Monster. Moreover, Levi's tribe was that to whom the priesthood was given, which corresponds to the Fishes representing the role of Jesus Christ as the Great High Priest.

Conjunction of Mercury, Jupiter and the Sun in the Maiden at birth of Naphtali.

Naphtali is the Maiden. There are at least three scriptural clues that Naphtali corresponds to the constellation of the Maiden. First, in the blessing of Jacob, he is compared to a hind or doe, that is, a female deer. Why not a buck? Perhaps it is because he ties to the female constellation. Secondly, in his blessing by Moses, he is told he will be "full with the blessing of the Lord." As in many languages today, the word "full" has the double meaning of expecting a baby. Truly the Virgin Mary was "full with the blessing of the Lord." Thus both blessings contain references not only to females, but one to an expectant mother, which is clearly the Virgin's Seed. Finally, the name Naphtali means "to struggle or wrestle," ^[15]which could describe the struggle of giving birth.

Gad is the Archer. The name Gad means "fortune," coming from the root which means an invading troop or an attack which overcomes. The Archer is like a one man cavalry (a centaur) attacking and overcoming the scorpion with bow and arrow.^[16] His blessing was that Gad "shall overcome at last" (Gen. 49:19) which again fits perfectly with the Archer representing Christ as the "Savior."

Issachar is the Crab. The name Issachar means to "he will bring a reward"^[17]. That is exactly the role of the Crab, who represents Christ as the "Deliverer" who brings the captive dead forth from Hades. And his blessing echoes this theme: he is likened to a donkey "crouching down between two burdens" and "becoming a servant unto tribute" (Gen. 49:14-15).

Thus, six of the eight tribes with unknown constellations have hints in their names or roles of Christ. The other two Asher ("happy") and Zebulon ("habitation")^[18] are not as obvious. Asher may well tie to the Balance because of the joy that comes after the price has been paid. And Zebulon's "dwelling" could refer to the everlasting life of the Ram's golden fleece, but neither of these is nearly as straightforward as the other six.

5. Conclusion

The mystery of how the twelve constellations of the zodiac correspond to the twelve tribes of Israel appears now to have been solved by applying knowledge of the Lord's sacred calendars to the chronological clues in the scriptures and the Book of Jasher. Confirmation is found in the meanings of their names, as well as in the corresponding roles of Jesus Christ. Some of the implications are that Hanukkah, the Feast of Esther, and Easter are all Hebrew holy days which were on the Lord's calendar from as early as the time of Jacob. All of these together testify of the importance of the Lord's calendars as a tool to determine the exact dates of key historical religious events, and to provide many more witnesses of the historicity and accuracy of the scriptures.

Notes

1. See Pratt, John P., "Enoch Calendar Testifies of Christ," Meridian Magazine (11 Sep 2001) for authenticity of Book of Enoch, and " The Constellations Testify of Christ,"Meridian Magazine (9 Oct 2001), section 1.8, for reference to Uriel revealing the constellations.
2. Pratt, John P., " The Constellations Tell of Christ," Meridian Magazine (15 Jun 2005), called "The Zodiac Testifies of Christ" on my website.
3. Pratt, John P. "The Lion and Unicorn Testify of Christ, Part I: The Cornerstone Constellations," Meridian Magazine (8 Nov 2001).
4. Pratt, John P., "Venus Resurrects This Easter Sunday," Meridian Magazine (27 Feb 2001) for Venus and Mercury calendars, and footnote 1 above for Enoch Calendar. The Perpetual Hebrew Calendar has yet to be published, being a work in progress.
5. Pratt, John P., "A Native American Easter: How the Ancient American Calendar Testifies of Christ," Meridian Magazine (28 Mar 2001) is an introduction to the Sacred Round.
6. Pratt, John P., "How Did the Book of Jasher Know?," Meridian Magazine (7 Jan 2002).
7. The Book of Jubilees states, "and she bore twins, a boy and a girl, and she called the boy Zebulun and the girl's name was Dinah" (Jubilees 28:23), from Charlesworth, James H.,The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1985), vol 2, p. 110. I believe that account correct, but in general Jubilees is entirely unreliable in chronology and has all the earmarks of having been largely a fabrication. It gives many precise dates to give the feeling of authenticity, but they all appear to be nonsense. In this case, the birth dates of the twelve sons do not all fall within seven years, but within fourteen, which is not what is described in Genesis.
8. Pratt, John P., "Divine Calendars Testify of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob," Meridian Magazine (11 Sep 2003), section 6.
9. Thus, Joseph would have been 39 years old when his father was 130, meaning that Jacob was 91 years old when Joseph was born. That age is confirmed in the Book of Jasher (Jasher 31:21).
10. One notable example is Jared, the father of Enoch, who lived 602 Venus cycles and also 1,352 Sacred Rounds. See Pratt, John P., "Astronomical Witnesses of the Great Flood,"Meridian Magazine (13 Aug 2003), section 2.5.
11. Pratt, John P., "Divine Calendars Testify of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob," Meridian Magazine (11 Sep 2003), section 2.5.
12. Pratt, John P., "Divine Calendars Testify of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob," Meridian Magazine (11 Sep 2003), section 5.
13. The meanings of the twenty day names are discussed by Pratt, John P., "The Twenty Day Names," (20 Apr 2000).
14. See footnote 8.
15. Strong, James, The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (McClean Virgina: MacDonald) Hebrew words 5321, and 6617.
16. Strong, Hebrew words 1410, 1464.
17. Strong, Hebrew word 3485.
18. Strong, Hebrew word 836 (Asher) and 2074 (Zebulon).

Resurrection: A New Dimension of Reality

...

The Pope on the Resurrection

.... I have just finished Benedict’s Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week, his new book which was published March 10, and I was quite favorably impressed with it.

On this Wednesday before Easter, let me share some of the Pope’s statements about the Resurrection, which I found very close to my own theological position (and also close to the position of the noted New Testament scholar N. T. Wright, whom he does not cite).

Near the beginning of “Jesus’ Resurrection from the Dead,” the ninth chapter, the Pope asserts, “The Christian faith stands or falls with the truth of the testimony that Christ is risen from the dead” (p. 241). And on the following page: “Only if Jesus is risen has anything really new occurred that changes the world and the situation of mankind.”

The Pope cites New Testament scholar Gerd Lüdemann on page 246. I write more (and more critically) about him in my book The Limits of Liberalism (see especially pp. 194-5). In his book The Resurrection of Christ (2004) Lüdemann dismisses the “vain resort of accepting the resurrection of Jesus as a historical fact” and then goes on to assert that “we can no longer be Christians even if we wanted to be, for Jesus did not rise from the dead” (p. 202).

In response to what he quoted Lüdemann as saying, Benedict writes, “Naturally there can be no contradiction of clear scientific data.” But, “The Resurrection accounts certainly speak of something outside our world of experience. They speak of something new, something unprecedented—a new dimension of reality that is revealed. . . . Does that contradict science?”

The Pope continues, “Can there not be something unexpected, something unimaginable, something new? If there really is a God, is he not able to create a new dimension of human existence, a new dimension of reality altogether?” (pp. 246-7).

In the last section of the ninth chapter, Benedict says that the resurrection is “a historical event that nevertheless bursts open the dimensions of history and transcends it” (p. 273). He also says that the Resurrection can be regarded “as something akin to a radical ‘evolutionary leap,’ in which a new dimension of life emerges, a new dimension of human existence.

“Indeed, matter itself is remolded into a new type of reality. The man Jesus, complete with his body, now belongs totally to the sphere of the divine and eternal” (p. 274). So, the Resurrection “is not the same kind of historical event as the birth or crucifixion of Jesus. It is something new, a new type of event.

“Yet at the same time it must be understood that the Resurrection does not simply stand outside or above history” (p. 275). ....



Taken from:
http://theviewfromthisseat.blogspot.com/2011/04/pope-on-resurrection.html

Esoterism and Cosmology: From Ptolemy to Dante and Cusanus

 

By Wolfgang Smith

There are doctrinal conflicts which can only be resolved on an esoteric plane. In the present article I propose to reflect upon one such conflict: the antithesis, namely, between a geocentric and a heliocentric worldview. It happens, however, that there is more than one geocentrism, even as there are several distinct kinds of heliocentrism. It is necessary, therefore, to sort out these various conceptions, which pertain to different levels and must not be confounded: only then can we grasp the crux of the problem.

In the first place it is needful, once again, to distinguish between two very different ways of knowing: the way of cognitive sense perception, which takes us into the corporeal domain, and the modus operandi of physical science, which gives access to what I term the physical universe.[1]

This said, it becomes apparent that the primary geocentrism-the geocentrism which is natural to mankind-is based upon the first way of knowing: looking up at the sky, one actually perceives the stars and planets circling the Earth, while the Earth itself is experienced as central and immobile. In regard to the second way of knowing, one generally takes it for granted that science has come down unequivocally on the side of heliocentrism. It happens, however, that contemporary physics does allow a geocentric hypothesis: the notion, namely, that the Earth does not move, does not indeed orbit around the Sun; according to Einsteinian relativity, no experiment can possibly prove otherwise. Admittedly, this is not much of a geocentrism; but so far as the scientific way of knowing is concerned, it is the most that can be said: physical geocentrism, let us call it, to distinguish the latter from the primary kind. To be sure, there is also a physical heliocentrism, which affirms that it is likewise admissible to consider the Sun to be at rest and the Earth to orbit around the Sun. On the level of physical theory, thus, there is no conflict between the two positions, which is to say that both derive support from the principles of relativity. I have argued elsewhere that these principles, which appear to hold on the physical plane, are expressive of the fact that the notion of substance has no more place in fundamental physics: in a world in which only relations exist, I submit, Einsteinian relativity reigns supreme.[2]

It should be noted that there is evidently no heliocentrism based upon cognitive sense perception. Nonetheless, apart from what I have termed physical heliocentrism, there is a renowned heliocentrism championed by Galileo, which insists, supposedly on scientific grounds, that the Earth does move. One sees, however, that in claiming to have demonstrated the motion of the Earth, Galileo was in fact mistaken: his celebrated "Eppur Si Muove" remains to this day unproved. What 1 shall term Galilean heliocentrism turns out to be a bastard notion, a spurious hybrid, one can say, of the aforesaid two ways of knowing.

There is also, however, a third kind of heliocentrism, which might be termed traditional, iconic, and even perhaps esoteric; we will consider that heliocentrism in due course. But first it behooves us to reflect in some depth on the meaning and significance of the primary geocentrism.

I

t has been said that the geocentrist worldview is suited to the mentality of the so-called primitive man, someone who accepts the testimony of the senses uncritically and is supposedly incapable of scientific thought. One maintains, moreover, that human perception is inherently unreliable and subject to manifold illusions, which need to be rectified through scientific means. Even scientists admit, of course, that sense perception does indeed constitute our one and only

means of access to the external world; but one denies that it can per se bestow an authentic and accurate knowledge of things as they are. For that one needs to supplement the human faculties by scientific instruments, and avail oneself of the theories which underlie their use. The role of sense perception in the cognitive process is thus reduced ultimately to elementary acts, such as the reading of a pointer on a scale.

Oversimplified as this brief characterization of the scienceoriented epistemology may be, it does serve to identify the contemporary scientistic denigration of sense perception as a serious and respectable way of knowing. To the scientistic mentality the modus operandi of science appears as the sole legitimate means for the acquisition of authentic knowledge; as Bernand Russell once put it: "What science cannot tell us, mankind cannot know." But of course this is far from being the case! We need to understand from the outset that cognitive sense perception can give access to domains of reality beyond the range of scientific inquiry, and that in our daily life it does in fact give access to an authentic world which physical science as such cannot know. We need to remind ourselves that cognitive perception is neither a physiological nor indeed a psychological act, but is consummated in the intellect, the highest faculty within the human compound. So high, in fact, is that faculty, that according to Platonist philosophers it transcends the categories of space and time. Cognitive sense perception, thus, even in its humblest quotidian manifestations, proves to be something quite miraculous, something literally "not of this world." Moreover, in view of the fact that it constitutes our normal God-given means of knowing the external world, its scientistic denigration, I say, is not only fallacious, but impious as well. What actually limits the truth and the depth of human perception are not our faculties as such, but the use we make of them; and one should add that in this regard a collective decline appears to have been in progress since earliest times. It seems likely, moreover, that the scientistic denigration has itself had a debilitating effect upon our capacity to perceive, and has in fact accelerated our collective descent from the pristine state, a state in which, according to sacred tradition, man had the ability to penetrate "the things that are made" so as to apprehend "the invisible things of God" which they exemplify. The evolution of the scientistic outlook constitutes thus a late phase in that age old descent which St. Paul has characterized as a "darkening of the heart." It is no doubt a fine line that separates true science from scientistic negation; yet we are told in no uncertain terms that those who cross that line are "without excuse." In words which appear to have lost none of their relevance, the Apostle describes the resultant condition of these perpetrators: "Professing themselves to be wise," he declares, "they became fools." (Rom. 1:20-22)

Having alluded to the collective decline which our powers of perception have suffered, it is to be noted that even in this diminished state we are yet able to behold a world that is truly sublime, and incomparably richer-and more real! than the universe disclosed by the methods of physical science. To be sure, the scientific way of knowing has its validity and its corresponding ontological domain, as does the way of perception; but the latter, one is obliged to say; is the greater of the two. For it is by way of cognitive perception that we can know not merely the quantitative and material components of being, but can ascend to a knowledge of essences, and even, Deo volente, to a perception of "the invisible things of God."

Getting back to the question of geocentrism, it is to be noted that the worldview at which one arrives through sense perception is perforce geocentric. Now, in light of the preceding reflections, this fact, so far from constituting some kind of stigma, bestows in itself a certain legitimacy and indeed a certain primacy upon the geocentric Weltanschauung. One can say of the latter that it constitutes the normal human outlook, which as such cannot be illegitimate or void of truth. What we learn by way of our senses is that the Earth we stand upon reposes at the center of the universe, and that the Sun, Moon, planets and stars revolve around the Earth. It is true - as we have been told often enough - that the geocentrist outlook is suited to the understanding of simple arid untutored minds; but it is equally true that this worldview is congenial to the understanding of sages and saints.

The traditional doctrine of geocentrism is based upon the conception of the Stellatum, the sphere of the stars, which rotates diurnally around the Earth. Between the Stellatum and the Earth there are the planets, the "wanderers," which differ visibly from the stars by the complexity of their apparent motions. What is of primary significance, however, is the underlying two-sphere architecture of the cosmos: the notion of an outermost sphere, comprised of stars, in perpetual revolution about the Earth, conceived as the innermost sphere. It is crucial to understand that the distinction between the two spheres, so far from being merely cosmographical, is primarily ontological, which is to say that the respective spheres represent two distinct ontologic domains, two worlds, if you will; and it is worth noting that to this day one speaks of "spheres" in a distinctly ontologic sense. It is likewise crucial to understand that the two worlds-the stellar and the terrestrial-define a hierarchic order: that the stellar world, namely, is "higher" than the terrestrial: and again I would point out that the adjectives "high" and "low" have to this day retained their hierarchic connotation. One sees thus that the two­-sphere conception of the cosmos defines a dimension of verticality which is at once cosmographic, ontologic, and axiological. The immensity of spatial distance separating our Earth from the stellar sphere becomes thus indicative of the stupendous hiatus, both ontologic and axiological, separating the two domains. To be sure, the stellar world is not to be identified with the spiritual, which is metacosmic and invisible to mortal gaze; but yet, as the highest cosmic sphere, the stellar world reflects the spiritual to a preeminent degree. According to ancient belief, there is an intimate connection between the stellar and the angelic realm, the realm of the so-called gods. The Earth, on the other hand, occupies the lowest position within the cosmic hierarchy, and this again is to be understood in a threefold sense.

These somewhat sparse indications may perhaps suffice to provide an initial glimpse of what geocentric cosmology is about. One sees that with his telescope and his polemics, Galileo had assaulted far more than a mere cosmography. It was not simply a question of whether the Earth does or does not move-whatever that might mean! Nor was it simply a question of whether the Galilean claim contradicts certain passages in Scripture, such as when the Good Book speaks of the Sun as "rising," or as "running its course." What stands at issue, clearly, is nothing less than an entire Weltanschauung. It is in fact the notion of cosmic hierarchy, of "verticality" in the traditional sense, that has come under attack. But let us note that this notion is intimately connected to the conception of spiritual ascent. One may object on the grounds that it is surely possible to "ascend" spiritually without flying up into the sky; but whereas the spiritual or metaphysical sense of verticality needs indeed to be distinguished from the cosmographic, it yet remains that the two are profoundly related. It is not mere imagination or pious poetry that Christ - ­and before Him, Enoch and Elias - "was taken up, and a cloud received him out of their sight." (Acts 1:9) The question remains, moreover, whether the two senses of verticality can in fact be separated on an existential plane, and whether the cosmographic sense may not indeed play a vital role in the spiritual life. One wonders whether an individual who thinks, a la Einstein, that "one coordinate system is as good as another," can in fact maintain a living belief in the possibility of spiritual ascent. What counts spiritually, as one knows, is what we believe with our entire being: inclusive, one is tempted to say, of the body itself, the corporeal component of our nature. Does not the First Commandment exhort us to love God "with all thine heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy might"? There can be little doubt that the ternary heart-­soul-might corresponds to the Pauline pneuma psyche-soma, which is to say that we are enjoined to love God not only with our spiritual and mental faculties, but with our corporeal being as well. Moreover, in line with this basic principle, the Church has decreed that the literal or "corporeal" sense of Scripture must not be denied,[3] must not be simply jettisoned, as contemporary theologians are wont to do. Authentic Christianity has always rejected angelism in any of its manifestations; if man is indeed a trichotomous being, his religious convictions and discipline need to be in a sense trichotomous as well. Getting back to the basic concept of verticality, it follows, then, that the cosmographic sense cannot be cast aside with impunity; and I would add that history appears to bear this out. It is surely not accidental that in the wake of the Copernican Revolution religious faith has visibly waned. In the more educated strata of society, at least, belief in the teachings of Christianity, to the extent that it has survived at all, has become strangely hollow, and conspicuously lacking in the force of existential conviction. There are notable exceptions, to be sure, but the overall trend is unmistakable; in a very real sense, Western man has forfeited his spiritual orientation. Having suffered the loss of cosmographic verticality, he finds himself in a flattened-out universe in which the concerns of authentic religion make little sense. Let it not be said that religion or spirituality have no need of a cosmology: nothing could be further from the truth. As Oskar Milosz has wisely observed: "Unless a man's concept of the physical universe accords with reality, his spiritual life will be crippled at its roots": yes, it is happening before our very eyes! Getting back to Galileo and his famous trial, one cannot but commend the Church for rallying to the defense of a position which in truth is its own.

It is vital to understand that geocentric cosmology is inherently an iconic doctrine. It pertains thus to the traditional sciences as distinguished from the modern, which are concerned with the material and thus non-iconic aspects of cosmic reality. As Seyyed Hossein Nasr explains:

The modern sciences also know nature, but no longer as an icon. They are able to tell us about the size, weight and shape of the icon and even the composition of the various colors of paint used in painting it, but they can tell us nothing of its meaning in reference to a reality beyond itself.[4]

This is a very apt illustration, and a most enlightening one. A great deal of misunderstanding and confusion in the debate over geocentrism could have been avoided if the disputants on both sides had realized that the geocentrist claim is to be understood as an iconic truth, a truth which transcends the domain of the modern physical sciences. In reality geocentrism has to do with meaning, with cosmic symbolism, and thus with the mystery of essence. It is not a truth which can be defined, let alone demonstrated, on a positivistic plane.

Having characterized geocentrism as an iconic doctrine, it may be well to point out that what stands at issue is not a matter of symbolism in some psychological sense, but a matter, rather, of objective truth. Geocentrism is thus a scientific doctrine, one which pertains, as I have said before, to the province of the traditional sciences. As such it demands a certain ability to "see," to enter into a superior mode of vision, a mode that is able to discern the meaning of the icon as distinguished from mere "shapes and colors." The contemporary scientist, on the other hand, has been trained to fix his gaze precisely upon the outermost aspects of corporeal reality: is it any wonder that he misses the iconic sense? After considerable schooling one learns to reduce the icon to mere shape and color: reduce the universe, that is, to its material and quantitative components. And so it comes about that the true meaning of geocentrism generally escapes not only its scientific critics, but its contemporary scientific defenders as well.[5] The debate rages, more often than not, over the outer husk.

Not only the reality, however, but the very conception of science in the traditional sense, has been virtually lost in the modern West. Even theologians, who should know better, have for the most part not a clue: if they had, they would not have busied themselves with the task of "demythologizing" sacred texts. Why this blindness? It is not a question of erudition, or even perhaps of "faith" in the religious sense; what is needed is a traditional ambience, something which in the West has disappeared centuries ago. Nasr is no doubt profoundly right when he compares the traditional sciences to "jewels which glow in the presence of the light of a living sapiential tradition and become opaque once that light disappears."[6] We need to realize that this marvelous metaphor applies not only to various recondite disciplines, such as alchemy or astrology but likewise to geocentrism, the meaning of which everyone presumes to understand. Given that cosmic realities are connected to their exemplars by way of essence, it follows that a worldview in which essence has been lost is one in which no traditional science - be it geocentrism or any other­ - can find recognition. Such a science may of course survive in its outer forms, even as the shapes and colors of an icon remain visible when its meaning has been lost. Geocentrism, in particular, may survive in its cosmographic dimension; thus reduced, however, to its external sense, it becomes in effect a superstition: a mere vestige of a forgotten worldview. In terms of Professor Nasr's metaphor, geocentrism has thus become "opaque."

Geocentric cosmology, whether conceived Ptolemaically or according to the Tychonian system … affirms that the stars and the seven classical planets - Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Sun, Venus, Mercury and Moon - are engaged in ceaseless revolution around the Earth, as if mounted on giant rotating spheres. In short, the heavens revolve while the Earth stands still: what is the significance of that? To the ancients it meant that the stars and planets are principles of motion in the terrestrial sphere. Even as the Sun gives rise to the alternation of day and night, and of the seasons, and the Moon gives rise to oceanic tides and other phenomena, so it is with the stars and the five remaining planets: such was the ancient belief. Astronomy and astrology were thus bound together as complementary aspects of a single science. One must not forget that Ptolemy has left us not only his Almagest - the most comprehensive and influential treatise on astronomy produced in antiquity - but also the Tetrabiblos; which deals with predictive astrology.

Given that the celestial spheres do indeed exert an influence upon the terrestrial world, how, let us ask, is that influence transmitted to the sublunar realm? At the hands of Aristotle this question received a rather physical answer: Having convinced himself on philosophical grounds that there can be no such thing as empty space, and persuaded that the celestial spheres are composed of an element termed the aether, Aristotle thought that each sphere exerts a kind of mechanical force upon the next, from the Stellatum down to the terrestrial. And since the latter sphere does not move, the result must be a mixing of the elements, and thus the production of internal motion and change. Such, at least, is the apparent sense of the Aristotelian doctrine. It seems, however, that earlier conceptions of stellar influence had been far more theological than physical, if one may put it so; we must remember that preceding civilizations had populated the heavens with gods or angels, as we prefer to say - who presumably disposed over more spiritual means of communicating their influence to the sublunar realm. But be this as it may, the celestial spheres were evidently conceived as "active" in relation to the terrestrial, which is to say that the worldview of these early civilizations was inherently astrological.

This basic feature of ancient cosmology has of course been abandoned in the wake of the Copernican Revolution. Copernicus himself tried hard to salvage as much as he could of the old cosmology; he was by no means a revolutionary or an iconoclast. Yet, by a kind of relentless logic, his astronomical innovation did precipitate the collapse of the ancient worldview: in the minds and imagination of those who, following Copernicus, came to espouse the heliocentric cosmography, astrology became a dead issue. For now the Earth itself revolves, and presumably acts upon other planets, even as these act upon the Earth. The new cosmology is visibly democratic: the traditional hierarchy, in which the Earth had been relegated to the lowest position, has been replaced by a planetary system in which the terrestrial globe enjoys more or less equal status with its six companion planets. There is now no more up and 'down, no more east and west,' 'north' and 'south,' except of course in relation to a particular planet orbiting the Sun. Clearly, the very basis for an astrological outlook has disappeared.

In the new cosmology, the stars and classical planets no longer exert an influence upon the Earth; or better said, no longer exert a "higher" influence. According to contemporary physics, there is an interaction via gravitational and electromagnetic forces; and certainly, in that sense, the Sun, Moon and stars still affect the Earth. But it is needless to point out that the action of forces or exchange of particles admitted by the physics of our day are nothing like the "influence of the celestial spheres" as conceived in ancient lore - which is of course precisely the reason why the very idea of astrology appears to us today as a primitive and indeed exploded superstition.

Iconic truth has to do with the relation of a cosmic to a metacosmic reality. However, since every cosmic entity is related to the metacosmic realms in multiple ways, it exemplifies a multiplicity of iconic truths. To read a cosmic icon, therefore, it is needful to make a choice; or better said: to engage in a particular perspective or point of view. What one beholds depends, so to speak, upon one's angle of vision; and as we change our point of vantage, the resultant perception may formally contradict the preceding cognition.

Having spoken of geocentrism as an iconic doctrine, I would like now to point out that heliocentrism, rightly understood, constitutes an iconic doctrine as well. The two seemingly rival contentions, thus, are both correct, which is to say that each embodies an iconic truth; it is the perspective, the point of view, that differs. More precisely: the two doctrines correspond to different levels of vision. The heliocentric position corresponds evidently to a more intellectual or internal kind of vision, inasmuch as it contradicts what might be termed the testimony of sense perception. Its iconic truth, moreover, derives from the fact that the Sun, as the representative of Deity, does by right occupy the center of the universe. As "the author not only of visibility in all visible things, but of generation and nourishment and growth" … the Sun could not be conceived Ptolemaically as a mere planet, one among several that revolve about the Earth. Considering the overtly theophanic, one might almost say, "liturgical" outlook of the traditional heliocentric orientation, it is hardly surprising that heliocentrism has been especially associated with the Pythagorean and Platonist traditions, as opposed to the Aristotelian. Based on the report of Philolaus, the Pythagoreans espoused a non-geocentric cosmology in which the Earth revolves around a central fire, the so-called Altar of the Universe, which however was apparently not identified with the Sun. That identification came about later at the hands of the Neoplatonists, whose cosmology thus became overtly heliocentric. Later still, in the Renaissance movement championed by Marsilio Ficino, the doctrine came alive again, but in a somewhat altered form; one might say that what Ficino instituted was indeed a religion, a kind of neopaganism. Copernicus himself was profoundly influenced by this movement, as can be clearly seen from numerous passages in the De Revolutionibus. To cite but one example (from the tenth chapter of the First Book) which enables us to savor the spirit of those Renaissance times:

In the middle of all sits the Sun enthroned. In this

most beautiful temple, could we place this luminary

in any better position from which he can illuminate

the whole at once? He is rightly called the Lamp, the

Mind, the Ruler of the Universe; Hermes Trismegistus

names him the Visible God, Sophocles' Electra

calls him the All-seeing. So the Sun sits as upon a royal

throne ruling his children the planets which circle

round him.

Yet despite these panegyrics, it appears that the light of iconic truth was fast fading. A kind of earth-bound literalism, hostile to the spirit of Platonic philosophy, was beginning to manifest itself, foreboding the advent of the modern age. Neither in Marsilio Ficino nor in Copernicus do we encounter an authentic revival of Platonist doctrine, nor can it be said that the resultant heliocentristn conforms altogether to its traditional prototype: "rather was it comparable," writes Titus Burckhardt. "to the dangerous popularization of an esoteric truth." ….

It behooves us to ponder this highly significant statement. Why should the truth of heliocentrism be "esoteric"? And why should its popularization be "dangerous"? We have already characterized the truth of authentic heliocentrism as "iconic"; are we perhaps to conclude that "iconic" and "esoteric" are one and the same? But by that token, authentic geocentrism would be "esoteric" as well. I propose to give at least a partial answer to these questions. Let it be noted, first of all, that there is a prima facie opposition, a kind of logical contradiction, between the geocentric and the heliocentric claims. It is to be noted, furthermore, that heliocentrism is based upon an intellective vision which replaces or supersedes the sensory. The crucial point, however, is that authentic heliocentrism does not deny that sensory truth, but accommodates it, rather, within an enlarged and perforce hierarchic vision of reality. Vivekananda has put it well when he said that "Man does not move from error to truth, but from truth to truth: from truth that is lower to truth that is higher." This toleration and indeed recognition of lower truth, I say, constitutes a mark of authentic esoterism. The higher truth is never destructive of the lower: quite to the contrary! A so­-called esoterism, therefore, which undercuts the normal and in a sense God-given beliefs of mankind is perforce a false esoterism. Christ Himself has said: "I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." And by way of further emphasis, He added: "For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matt. 5:17,18) To be sure, Christ is speaking presumably of the Mosaic law, and not of cosmology; yet even so I surmise that His words do also apply to the body of basic beliefs grounded in the Old Testament tradition, which certainly includes geocentrism. Till "heaven and earth pass," all these "lower truths" shall remain effective and binding upon us: let no man cast them off before he has actually attained the higher - before "heaven and earth have passed away" - on pain of falling into what an Upanishad calls "a greater darkness."

Getting back to the prima facie contradiction between the geocentrist and the heliocentrist claims, I would like now to point out that this conflict cannot be resolved on the level of our ordinary "common sense" views concerning physical or corporeal reality. Nor indeed can it be resolved on an Aristotelian basis, let alone a Cartesian. It needs to be resolved on the ground of a Platonist - or if you will, a Vendantistmetaphysics: no lesser realism, it appears, will do. And yes, that ground is indeed "esoteric," to say the least.

There can be little doubt, moreover, that this too is the ground upon which Dante conceived his monumental vision of what might be termed the integral cosmos. In a single poetic cosmography he combined, if you will, the geocentrist and the heliocentrist cosmologies; and it is highly significant that one passes from the former to the latter precisely at the Empyrian, which thus represents the boundary, as it were, between the two "worlds." For indeed, as one crosses that boundary, the ascending spheres no longer expand, but now contract; in that supernal and indeed angelic realm, the hierarchic ordering of successive spheres is reversed: here to "ascend" means to approach the center, where stands the Altar of the Universe, the Throne of God. The Empyrean, thus the outermost Ptolemaic sphere - marks the point of reversal, where "heaven and earth shall pass," which is also the point where "a new heaven and a new earth" shall come to be." (Is. 65:17, Rev. 12:1)

There question arises whether the preeminence of authentic heliocentrism may not be reflected on the physical plane in some corresponding cosmographieal preeminence. Does not the very principle of cosmic symbolism demand that the superior glory of the true heliocentric vision be mirrored somehow in the actual geometry of the planetary system? I submit that what Copernicus refers to as "a wonderful symmetry in the universe, and a definite relation of harmony in the motion and magnitude of the orbs, of a kind not possible to obtain in any other way," is none other than that reflection. Admittedly, the Copernican and the Tychonian systems prove to be mathematically equivalent,[7] which is to say that they predict the same apparent orbits; yet even so, the symmetries and harmony of which Copernicus speaks with justified ardor remain hidden in the Tychonian scheme, while they become resplendently manifest in the Copernican. One has mixed feelings, therefore, concerning the contemporary defense of geocentrism. Christian believers do well in guarding a doctrine which proves to be basic to their faith; but the reductionist spirit of the times has forced the debate onto a cosmographic plane where the essential has already been lost, and where the defenders find themselves at a distinct disadvantage. As 1 have noted before, the principle of relativity has offered a certain protection to the beleaguered Tychonians; but at the same time it has rendered the geocentrist cause hopeless on physical ground. Meanwhile the fact remains that a heliocentric coordinate system offers undeniable theoretical advantages precisely because it is adapted to the symmetries Copernicus had his eye upon: the very symmetries that bear witness to the heliocentric truth. The Tychonians may be right in claiming that they too can explain the observable facts, but one wonders at what cost in the form of ad hoc interventions. …. There is something pathetic in the spectacle of these defenders, whom the opposing side does not deem worthy even of a response.

What necessarily baffles the exoterist mentality is what might be termed the multivalency of authentic revelation, be it scriptural or cosmic. Truth is hierarchical, and so Scripture and the cosmos itself need be in a sense hierarchical as well. No single perspective or level of understanding, no single "darshana," can do full justice to the integral truth: revelation itself informs us of this fact in various ways. Typically both Scripture and the cosmic revelation do so by way of "fissures," that is to say, by way of seeming incongruities which disturb and puzzle us, and hopefully spur us on to seek a higher level of truth. As Christ Himself intimated to His disciples on the eve before His passion: "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now."(John 16:12) Humility in the moral sense is not enough: we need also an intellectual and indeed theological humility. To preserve ourselves from falling into some arid dogmatism, we need ever to continue on our way: "from truth that is lower to truth that is higher." Dogmas, it seems, are meant for the viator, the spiritual traveler, not for the armchair theologian. It is not that dogmas of a sacred kind are simply provisional or limited in the ordinary sense, but rather that they harbor unsuspected truths. We need, as I have said, to continue on our way; as the author of Hebrews points out: "Strong meat belongeth to them that are full of age."(Heb. 5:14) Moreover, since truth derives ultimately from God, this progressive ascent constitutes indeed an itinerarium mentis in Deum, a "journey into God." But clearly, it is a journey in which the viator himself is progressively changed; in the words of St. Paul: "But we all with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, as by the Spirit of the Lord. "(2 Cor. 3:18)

As I have noted before, the higher truth of heliocentrism is reflected in the superior beauty or "symmetry" of the corresponding mathematical description; but one must remember that the "high truth" in question pertains to what may indeed be termed an esoteric level of vision. Reduced to a scientific theory in the contemporary sense - a mere cosmography - heliocentrism ranks in reality below its geocentric rival; as I have pointed out, the latter doctrine, limited though it be, corresponds to the testimony of human sense perception, and opens therefore upon vistas of truth which must remain forever unknown to the physical scientist as such. The problem with an "exoteric" geocentrism, on the other hand - a geocentrism that simply denies the heliocentric truth - is that it ultimately lacks a credible defense against a scientific heliocentrism: referents and epicycles, figuratively speaking, do not stand up well against the equations of Kepler and Newton. Even the most committed geocentrist can hardly fail to recognize a superior cogency in the heliocentric theory, and secretly sense that another truth must stand at issue, a truth which is not comprehended within the geocentric outlook. But alas, on a strictly exoteric plane that other truth becomes perforce hostile, perforce threatening to the integrity of the geocentric worldview. What by right should spur us on to seek a higher, more comprehensive level of understanding - ­what by right should be liberating - comes thus to be feared and rejected as a rank heresy.

The situation, however, is further complicated by the circumstance that heliocentrism has generally come to be identified with the Galilean doctrine, which is in fact a rank heresy. I have already argued that Galilean heliocentrism erodes the sense of verticality which supports and indeed enables the spiritual life: that it plunges us into a flattened and de-essentialized cosmos in which the claims of religion cease to be credible. I propose now to consider another ill effect of the Galilean heresy, which in a way is complementary to the aforesaid loss of verticality.

Every religion is perforce homocentric in its worldview. To put it in Christian terms: Man occupies a central position in the universe because he is made in the image and likeness of Him who is the absolute center of all that exists. Furthermore, man is central because, as the microcosm, he in a way contains within himself all that exists in the outer world, even as the center of a circle contains in a sense the full pencil of radii. Or again, man is central because he is the most precious among corporeal beings. In fact, Genesis teaches that God created the Earth as a habitat for man, and the Sun, Moon, and stars "for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years." It is on account of man's centrality, moreover, that the Fall of Adam could affect the entire universe. Now, it is true that the centrality of which we speak is above all metaphysical, or mystical, as one might also say; yet even so, it is in the nature of things that this "essential" centrality should be reflected cosmographically. Does not the outer manifestation invariably mirror the inner or essential reality? To suppose that man can be metaphysically central while inhabiting a speck of matter occupying some nondescript position in some nondescript galaxy - that would surely be incongruous in the extreme. Once again: it would deny the very principle of cosmic symbolism, and thus the theophanic nature of cosmic reality. To be sure, it is possible, on an abstract philosophic lane, to affirm metaphysical centrality and cosmographic acentrality in same breath; I doubt, however, that one can do so on an existential level, that is to say, in point of actual credence. To the extent that we truly believe the stipulated acentrality of the Earth, we are bound to relinquish the traditional claim of homocentrism: in reality, I say, these two articles of belief are mutually exclusive. One can, of course, pay lip-service to both, as contemporary theologians might do; but actual belief - that is something else entirely.

The objection may be raised that it is indeed possible to espouse an acentric cosmology without detriment to the rightful claims of religion; and one might point to Nicholas of Cusa by way of substantiating that contention. True enough! One needs however to understand that the Cusan cosmology is profoundly Platonic, and corresponds, once again, to an authentically esoteric point of view. Its so-called acentrality is consequently worlds removed from the contemporary relativistic acentrality, and could be more accurately termed a "pancentrality." By the same token, moreover, the Cardinal does not simply deny the geocentrist claim, as does the Galilean astronomer: in reality he transcends the geocentrist contention, and in so doing, paradoxically, justifies and founds it "in spirit and in truth." "It is no less true," declares Nicholas of Cusa, "that the center of the world is within the Earth than that it is outside the Earth"; for indeed, "the Blessed God is also the center of the Earth, of all spheres, of all things in the world." Here, in this terse and lucid statement worthy of a sanctified mind, we breathe the pure and invigorating air of a Christian esoterism. It is ever the way of authentic esoterism to "deny" only by affirming a higher truth, which contains but vastly exceeds the original claim.

It is true that the Earth enshrines the center of the universe; but so do the Sun, the Moon, and the myriad stars. Yet it is evidently the first of these recognitions that matters most to us so long as we are denizens of this terrestrial world. As I have noted before, we depend upon that recognition, that truth, for our orientation: our spiritual orientation no less than our physical.

What happens, now, when we ascend from a geocentric to an authentically heliocentric worldview: do we retain the original homocentrism? One may surmise that as we transcend the geocentric outlook, we likewise transcend the lesser theological conception of homocentrism, in accordance with the Pauline dictum: "I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me."(Gal. 2:20) The resultant and indeed higher homocentrism is in reality a Christocentrism; but again, that Christocentrism is not destructive of the earlier notion, the lesser truth - even as the Christ who "liveth in me" is not destructive of the "I" that "lives." It is once again a question of levels, of hierarchy. Meanwhile the intrinsic connection between geocentrism and the lesser homocentrism endures on the plane to which either notion applies, which is none other than the plane corresponding to our human condition. Let no one therefore deny either of these notions, either of these truths, "from below": the consequences of that denial cannot but be tragic in the extreme. Such a denial of either truth affects and indeed "poisons" every aspect of human culture, beginning with the life of religion, which it undermines.

….

---

Notes

[1] On this question, refer to my monograph The Quantum Enigma (Peru, IL: Sugden, 1995), especially the first two chapters.

[2] See my article “The Status of Geocentrism,” Sacred Web, July 2002 (to appear).

[3] In 1909, in a ruling on “The Historical Character of the Earlier Chapters of Genesis,” the Pontifical Biblical Commission denied the validity of “exegetical systems” which exclude the literal sense of Genesis. See Henry Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma (London: Herder, 1957), 2121-2128. It is to be noted that Pope St. Pius X, in his Motu proprio of 1907, “Prestantia Scripturae”, has declared the rulings of the Biblical Commission to be binding. See Denzinger, 2113.

[4] The Philosophy of Seyyed Hossein Nasr (La Salle, IL: Open Court, 2001), 487.

[5] It may surprise some readers to learn that geocentrism still has scientific advocates. One of the best-known today is Gerardus Bouw, director of the Association for Biblical Astronomy, and editor of Biblical Astronomer, a journal dedicated to the scientific defense of geocentrism. See also his treatise Geocentricity (Cleveland: Association for Biblical Astronomy, 1992).

[6] Op. cit., 488.

…

[Do not have access to remaining footnotes].