What did the church fathers believe concerning Genesis?

[whag]

He didn't just believe in Adam, he believed that Adam was the "first man"

Paul was wrong, then.

and that through this man death entered the world,

Death has existed for as long as life has existed.

which is diametrically opposed to not just ToE but any esoteric accommodative theories about a "special" race of humans that God isolated from evolving lower primates (which the science of ToE doesn't support either). In other words, the choice is either or. Either ToE happened or Genesis creation happened. Paul and Luke believed the latter.

False dichotomy.

[GakuseiDon]

There has been confusion and a diversity of 'opinions' concerning how the church fathers view Genesis. This thread I hope clarifies this issue. My view is that those that did express their views, a majority believed in a literal Genesis with the only variability being in the length of time a Creation day is. By far the majority supported a six day week, and some a longer day. This dominant view included a literal Adam and Eve.

An interesting topic, shunyadragon! I think you are right, at least from the extant texts. But I also think the idea of Genesis being allegorical wasn't that controversial like in modern times. I don't remember reading any Church Father arguing over the implications of a young vs an old earth as a theological concern.

I believe it is Augustine, not some, who described the initial Creation event as instantaneous, and also described a six day event that may be immensely long not 24 hours, and left open some interpretation based on evidence.

Philo of Alexandria also expressed a similar view, though Philo was not a Christian of course. Philo wrote around 40 CE, but his philosophical writings influenced later Christian beliefs.

Philo writes: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book2.html

II. (2) "And on the sixth day God finished his work which he had made." It would be a sign of great simplicity to think that the world was created in six days, or indeed at all in time; because all time is only the space of days and nights, and these things the motion of the sun as he passes over the earth and under the earth does necessarily make. But the sun is a portion of heaven, so that one must confess that time is a thing posterior to the world. Therefore it would be correctly said that the world was not created in time, but that time had its existence in consequence of the world. For it is the motion of the heaven that has displayed the nature of time.

(3) When, therefore, Moses says, "God completed his works on the sixth day," we must understand that he is speaking not of a number of days, but that he takes six as a perfect number. Since it is the first number which is equal in its parts, in the half, and the third and sixth parts, and since it is produced by the multiplication of two unequal factors, two and three. And the numbers two and three exceed the incorporeality which exists in the unit; because the number two is an image of matter being divided into two parts and dissected like matter. And the number three is an image of a solid body, because a solid can be divided according to a threefold division. (4) Not but what it is also akin to the motions of organic animals. For an organic body is naturally capable of motion in six directions, forward, backwards, upwards, downwards, to the right, and to the left.

[shunyadragon]

An interesting topic, shunyadragon! I think you are right, at least from the extant texts. But I also think the idea of Genesis being allegorical wasn't that controversial like in modern times. I don't remember reading any Church Father arguing over the implications of a young vs an old earth as a theological concern.


Philo of Alexandria also expressed a similar view, though Philo was not a Christian of course. Philo wrote around 40 CE, but his philosophical writings influenced later Christian beliefs.

Philo writes: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book2.html

II. (2) "And on the sixth day God finished his work which he had made." It would be a sign of great simplicity to think that the world was created in six days, or indeed at all in time; because all time is only the space of days and nights, and these things the motion of the sun as he passes over the earth and under the earth does necessarily make. But the sun is a portion of heaven, so that one must confess that time is a thing posterior to the world. Therefore it would be correctly said that the world was not created in time, but that time had its existence in consequence of the world. For it is the motion of the heaven that has displayed the nature of time.

(3) When, therefore, Moses says, "God completed his works on the sixth day," we must understand that he is speaking not of a number of days, but that he takes six as a perfect number. Since it is the first number which is equal in its parts, in the half, and the third and sixth parts, and since it is produced by the multiplication of two unequal factors, two and three. And the numbers two and three exceed the incorporeality which exists in the unit; because the number two is an image of matter being divided into two parts and dissected like matter. And the number three is an image of a solid body, because a solid can be divided according to a threefold division. (4) Not but what it is also akin to the motions of organic animals. For an organic body is naturally capable of motion in six directions, forward, backwards, upwards, downwards, to the right, and to the left.

I agree about Philo, he was a Hellenist Jew. The interpretation of an instantaneous Creation was not uncommon among Jewish philosophers during this period. It evolved out of midrash to harmonize Genesis. In both Judaism and Christianity Greek philosophy was very influential. Clement of Alexandria, Origen,
Augustine, and Aelia Eudocia were influenced by Hellenist philosophy.

[shunyadragon]

An interesting topic, shunyadragon! I think you are right, at least from the extant texts. But I also think the idea of Genesis being allegorical wasn't that controversial like in modern times. I don't remember reading any Church Father arguing over the implications of a young vs an old earth as a theological concern.

I do believe it was a theological concern, because some church fathers did accuse Pagan influence in the beliefs of an old earth, vastness and naturalness of our universe, and common ancestry (evolution?). Early non-Christian philosophers like Lucretius (pagan?) advocated such modern science beliefs.

The preference in early Christianity was to harmonize Greek philosophy, Scripture and Jewish midrash.

[arnoldo]

I do believe it was a theological concern, because some church fathers did accuse Pagan influence in the beliefs of an old earth, vastness and naturalness of our universe, and common ancestry (evolution?).

Can you provide some sources for this claim?

[Roy]

Death has existed for as long as life has existed.

Not quite...

[GakuseiDon]

I do believe it was a theological concern, because some church fathers did accuse Pagan influence in the beliefs of an old earth, vastness and naturalness of our universe, and common ancestry (evolution?). Early non-Christian philosophers like Lucretius (pagan?) advocated such modern science beliefs.

The preference in early Christianity was to harmonize Greek philosophy, Scripture and Jewish midrash.

Do you have any references to show that the age of the earth was a theological concern? I agree that it was a natural philosophy (ancient science) issue, but I've never seen it posed as a theological issue.

On my website, I have a page called "In their own words", which are quotes from ancient writers on various topics which you might find interesting. One topic is the age of the earth. The link is here: http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakus...own_words.html

Theophilus of Antioch, writing around 180 CE, spends a lot of time in one of his books discussing the age of the earth. I've given only a small snippet below. From here: http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...lus-book3.html (I haven't updated it for content for a few years, so some of the links in the webpage to sources may no longer be active.)

Theophilus writes:

For Plato, as we said above, when he had demonstrated that a deluge had happened, said that it extended not over the whole earth, but only over the plains, and that those who fled to the highest hills saved themselves...

For my purpose is not to furnish mere matter of much talk, but to throw light upon the number of years from the foundation of the world, and to condemn the empty labour and trifling of these authors, because there have neither been twenty thousand times ten thousand years [200 million years] from the flood to the present time, as Plato said, affirming that there had been so many years; nor yet 15 times 10,375 years, as we have already mentioned Apollonius the Egyptian gave out; nor is the world uncreated, nor is there a spontaneous production of all things, as Pythagoras and the rest dreamed; but, being indeed created, it is also governed by the providence of God, who made all things; and the whole course of time and the years are made plain to those who wish to obey the truth. Lest, then, I seem to have made things plain up to the time of Cyrus, and to neglect the subsequent periods, as if through inability to exhibit them, I will endeavour, by God's help, to give an account, according to my ability, of the course of the subsequent times...

And from the foundation of the world the whole time is thus traced, so far as its main epochs are concerned. From the creation of the world to the deluge were 2242 years. And from the deluge to the time when Abraham our forefather begat a son, 1036 years. And from Isaac, Abraham's son, to the time when the people dwelt with Moses in the desert, 660 years. And from the death of Moses and the rule of Joshua the son of Nun, to the death of the patriarch David, 498 years. And from the death of David and the reign of Solomon to the sojourning of the people in the land of Babylon, 518 years 6 months 10 days. And from the government of Cyrus to the death of the Emperor Aurelius Verus, 744 years. All the years from the creation of the world amount to a total of 5698 years, and the odd months and days...

That Moses, and not he only, but also most of the prophets who followed him, is proved to be older than all writers, and than Saturn and Belus and the Trojan war, is manifest. For according to the history of Thallus, Belus is found to be 322 years prior to the Trojan war. But we have shown above that Moses lived somewhere about 900 or 1000 years before the sack of Troy. And as Saturn and Belus flourished at the same time, most people do not know which is Saturn and which is Belus. Some worship Saturn, and call him Bel or Bal, especially the inhabitants of the eastern countries, for they do not know who either Saturn or Belus is. And among the Romans he is called Saturn, for neither do they know which of the two is more ancient--Saturn or Bel. So far as regards the commencement of the Olympiads, they say that the observance dates from Iphitus, but according to others from Linus, who is also called Ilius. The order which the whole number of years and Olympiads holds, we have shown above. I think I have now, according to my ability, accurately discoursed both of the godlessness of your practices, and of the whole number of the epochs of history. For if even a chronological error has been committed by us, of, e.g., 50 or 100, or even 200 years, yet not of thousands and tens of thousands, as Plato and Apollonius and other mendacious authors have hitherto written. And perhaps our knowledge of the whole number of the years is not quite accurate, because the odd months and days are not set down in the sacred books. But so far as regards the periods we speak of, we are corroborated by Berosus, the Chaldaean philosopher, who made the Greeks acquainted with the Chaldaean literature, and uttered some things concerning the deluge, and many other points of history, in agreement with Moses; and with the prophets Jeremiah and Daniel also, he spoke in a measure of agreement.

Theophilus is using the Bible here to establish the age of the earth, and to prove the pagans wrong. But it isn't done because he feels threatened theologically by the pagans. Nor is it presented as a theological issue between Christians.

[shunyadragon]

Do you have any references to show that the age of the earth was a theological concern? I agree that it was a natural philosophy (ancient science) issue, but I've never seen it posed as a theological issue.

On my website, I have a page called "In their own words", which are quotes from ancient writers on various topics which you might find interesting. One topic is the age of the earth. The link is here: http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakus...own_words.html

Theophilus of Antioch, writing around 180 CE, spends a lot of time in one of his books discussing the age of the earth. I've given only a small snippet below. From here: http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...lus-book3.html (I haven't updated it for content for a few years, so some of the links in the webpage to sources may no longer be active.)

Theophilus writes:

For Plato, as we said above, when he had demonstrated that a deluge had happened, said that it extended not over the whole earth, but only over the plains, and that those who fled to the highest hills saved themselves...

For my purpose is not to furnish mere matter of much talk, but to throw light upon the number of years from the foundation of the world, and to condemn the empty labour and trifling of these authors, because there have neither been twenty thousand times ten thousand years [200 million years] from the flood to the present time, as Plato said, affirming that there had been so many years; nor yet 15 times 10,375 years, as we have already mentioned Apollonius the Egyptian gave out; nor is the world uncreated, nor is there a spontaneous production of all things, as Pythagoras and the rest dreamed; but, being indeed created, it is also governed by the providence of God, who made all things; and the whole course of time and the years are made plain to those who wish to obey the truth. Lest, then, I seem to have made things plain up to the time of Cyrus, and to neglect the subsequent periods, as if through inability to exhibit them, I will endeavour, by God's help, to give an account, according to my ability, of the course of the subsequent times...

And from the foundation of the world the whole time is thus traced, so far as its main epochs are concerned. From the creation of the world to the deluge were 2242 years. And from the deluge to the time when Abraham our forefather begat a son, 1036 years. And from Isaac, Abraham's son, to the time when the people dwelt with Moses in the desert, 660 years. And from the death of Moses and the rule of Joshua the son of Nun, to the death of the patriarch David, 498 years. And from the death of David and the reign of Solomon to the sojourning of the people in the land of Babylon, 518 years 6 months 10 days. And from the government of Cyrus to the death of the Emperor Aurelius Verus, 744 years. All the years from the creation of the world amount to a total of 5698 years, and the odd months and days...

That Moses, and not he only, but also most of the prophets who followed him, is proved to be older than all writers, and than Saturn and Belus and the Trojan war, is manifest. For according to the history of Thallus, Belus is found to be 322 years prior to the Trojan war. But we have shown above that Moses lived somewhere about 900 or 1000 years before the sack of Troy. And as Saturn and Belus flourished at the same time, most people do not know which is Saturn and which is Belus. Some worship Saturn, and call him Bel or Bal, especially the inhabitants of the eastern countries, for they do not know who either Saturn or Belus is. And among the Romans he is called Saturn, for neither do they know which of the two is more ancient--Saturn or Bel. So far as regards the commencement of the Olympiads, they say that the observance dates from Iphitus, but according to others from Linus, who is also called Ilius. The order which the whole number of years and Olympiads holds, we have shown above. I think I have now, according to my ability, accurately discoursed both of the godlessness of your practices, and of the whole number of the epochs of history. For if even a chronological error has been committed by us, of, e.g., 50 or 100, or even 200 years, yet not of thousands and tens of thousands, as Plato and Apollonius and other mendacious authors have hitherto written. And perhaps our knowledge of the whole number of the years is not quite accurate, because the odd months and days are not set down in the sacred books. But so far as regards the periods we speak of, we are corroborated by Berosus, the Chaldaean philosopher, who made the Greeks acquainted with the Chaldaean literature, and uttered some things concerning the deluge, and many other points of history, in agreement with Moses; and with the prophets Jeremiah and Daniel also, he spoke in a measure of agreement.

Theophilus is using the Bible here to establish the age of the earth, and to prove the pagans wrong. But it isn't done because he feels threatened theologically by the pagans. Nor is it presented as a theological issue between Christians.

Your probably correct on the motivation of Theophlus. Still checking the references carefully

[Adrift]

Is there any particular reason you're using a website called Edinburgh Creation Group as an interpretive authority on these early church writings, or was it simply the first link that you found that you agreed with when you Googled "early church" and "six days creation"? I mean, taking a look at some of their other articles, they tend to hold the opinion that the case for dinosaur evolution is weak, that pagans invented the concept of evolution and that it has its roots in eastern religion (particularly Hinduism), that atheism is not compatible with science, and the like....all views I would have assumed that you, shunya, would've rejected, yet for some reason you're more than happy to use their interpretive framework for the beliefs of the early church. Is this a sort of a, the enemy of my enemy is my friend sort of thing? I don't even see a name appended to the article you're copying and pasting in each subsequent post here, so I can't tell if he's even qualified to offer his two cents on the subject.


Alternative views come from actual scholars on the subject like Professor Jefford of the Westar Institute (the institute that spawned the popular Jesus Seminar and Acts Seminar, which you may have heard of). He specializes in the early church writings, and has this to say in his book The Apostolic Fathers: An Essential Guide

Source: The Apostolic Fathers: An Essential Guide by Clayton N. Jefford

Writing from a millenarian view that was typical of many early Christians from the late-first and early-second centuries, Barnabas makes use of the six days of creation that are recalled in the opening verses of Genesis as a framework for interpreting the close of history. These "days" are not to be taken literally. Instead, they represent a period of six thousand years after which the Lord will return to punish those who have forsaken God's covenant and to reward the repentant souls who believe in Christ. Elements from the book of Daniel are interwoven into this interpretation of the end of time, mainly our author's views of contemporary history in the light of the ten kingdoms about which the prophet had warned.

© Copyright Original Source

This idea that you seem to be putting forward, that the early church was made up of YECs or something, is incredibly anachronistic. The early church wasn't reading the scriptures nearly as literally as you'd like us to assume. That isn't to say that all of the early church writers were OECs either. They were more concerned about reading the Old Testament in a sort of midrashic way to point to the New Testament and the Gospel message. They had an entirely different focus.

[shunyadragon]

Is there any particular reason you're using a website called Edinburgh Creation Group as an interpretive authority on these early church writings, or was it simply the first link that you found that you agreed with when you Googled "early church" and "six days creation"? I mean, taking a look at some of their other articles, they tend to hold the opinion that the case for dinosaur evolution is weak, that pagans invented the concept of evolution and that it has its roots in eastern religion (particularly Hinduism), that atheism is not compatible with science, and the like....all views I would have assumed that you, shunya, would've rejected, yet for some reason you're more than happy to use their interpretive framework for the beliefs of the early church. Is this a sort of a, the enemy of my enemy is my friend sort of thing? I don't even see a name appended to the article you're copying and pasting in each subsequent post here, so I can't tell if he's even qualified to offer his two cents on the subject.


Alternative views come from actual scholars on the subject like Professor Jefford of the Westar Institute (the institute that spawned the popular Jesus Seminar and Acts Seminar, which you may have heard of). He specializes in the early church writings, and has this to say in his book The Apostolic Fathers: An Essential Guide

Source: The Apostolic Fathers: An Essential Guide by Clayton N. Jefford

Writing from a millenarian view that was typical of many early Christians from the late-first and early-second centuries, Barnabas makes use of the six days of creation that are recalled in the opening verses of Genesis as a framework for interpreting the close of history. These "days" are not to be taken literally. Instead, they represent a period of six thousand years after which the Lord will return to punish those who have forsaken God's covenant and to reward the repentant souls who believe in Christ. Elements from the book of Daniel are interwoven into this interpretation of the end of time, mainly our author's views of contemporary history in the light of the ten kingdoms about which the prophet had warned.

© Copyright Original Source

This idea that you seem to be putting forward, that the early church was made up of YECs or something, is incredibly anachronistic. The early church wasn't reading the scriptures nearly as literally as you'd like us to assume. That isn't to say that all of the early church writers were OECs either. They were more concerned about reading the Old Testament in a sort of midrashic way to point to the New Testament and the Gospel message. They had an entirely different focus.

Feel free to cite any source you choose. I did not use this 'site' for interpretations. The citations of the church fathers speak for themselves. The dominant view by far of the church fathers was a literal interpretation of scripture with some variation of timing.

The early church fathers were still mostly YEC. Despite some variability in the time frame, a time frame of 6,000 years remains a YEC interpretation of Genesis. A few may have promoted possible longer spans of time, but nothing like Plato, ans of course none proposed a view that the earth was millions or billions of years old for an OEC view was not ever considered by the church fathers.

Were the citations of the actual church fathers inaccurate?

[Adrift]

Feel free to cite any source you choose.

Uh, thanks for your permission?

I did not use this 'site' for interpretations.

Of course you did. You have a habit of uncritically citing sources that you think agree with you, and that ends up biting you in the butt (as you most recently did in the Christianity is a falling religion thread).

[shunyadragon]

Uh, thanks for your permission?



Of course you did. You have a habit of uncritically citing sources that you think agree with you, and that ends up biting you in the butt (as you most recently did in the Christianity is a falling religion thread).

Again, are the actual citations of the church fathers in error?

I even questioned the description in the site that described Origen as influenced by Pagans, and asked others to confirm or object this interpretation.

[Adrift]

The early church fathers were still mostly YEC. Despite some variability in the time frame, a time frame of 6,000 years remains a YEC interpretation of Genesis. A few may have promoted possible longer spans of time, but none proposed a view that the earth was millions or billions of years old for an OEC view was not ever considered by the church fathers.

I see you added this bit to your post after I replied.

Why is it so important to you that the early church fathers be YECs? This is something I see you kicking against in a number of threads. The best I can conclude is that the idea that the early church had a complicated, and sometimes allegorical view of creation goes against a sort of made up narrative in your head that the church was made up of anti-science, cosmologically simple, fundamentalists right from the start.

The early church fathers were not YECs, or at the very least, no in the sense that we understand the term "Young Earth Creationist" today. The modern notion of YECism has its roots in the reactionary fundamentalist movement of the early 20th century. But also, as I mentioned in my first post, neither were they OECs. So we can put that strawman to bed right now. The truth is that the early church were relatively open to either a literal or allegorical view of creation (or a combination of the two). They did not seem to think it was a matter of orthodoxy whether one had a more literal or more allegorical view of creation. It was open to interpretation to them.

[shunyadragon]

I see you added this bit to your post after I replied.

Why is it so important to you that the early church fathers be YECs? This is something I see you kicking against in a number of threads. The best I can conclude is that the idea that the early church had a complicated, and sometimes allegorical view of creation goes against a sort of made up narrative in your head that the church was made up of anti-science, cosmologically simple, fundamentalists right from the start.

The early church fathers were not YECs, or at the very least, no in the sense that we understand the term "Young Earth Creationist" today. The modern notion of YECism has its roots in the reactionary fundamentalist movement of the early 20th century. But also, as I mentioned in my first post, neither were they OECs. So we can put that strawman to bed right now. The truth is that the early church were relatively open to either a literal or allegorical view of creation (or a combination of the two). They did not seem to think it was a matter of orthodoxy whether one had a more literal or more allegorical view of creation. It was open to interpretation to them.

Sources please with citations from church fathers.

[Adrift]

Again, are the actual citations of the church fathers in error?

Of course not. If that's all you were citing I wouldn't have commented about being uncritical about your sources, but that's not all you were citing, was it? You were citing an interpretation of these writings simply because they agreed with your own beliefs on the subject without seeing whether or not the source was even qualified to offer his interpretation.

I even questioned the description in the site that described Origen as influenced by Pagans, and asked others to confirm or object this interpretation.

I saw that. Looks like something you didn't consider until you cited your next copy/paste. It just shows how sloppy you are in uncritically citing sources.