Did the Church Fathers and other early scholars consider Genesis and the Pentateuch literal?

[shunyadragon]

As the previous thread this thread deals with specifically 'Did Church Fathers' and early scholars consider Genesis and the Pentateuch historically literal?

In this thread I will emphasize the Orthodox view of the Church Fathers and scholars that represent the overwhelming view of the Christian Churches up until the 20th century.

Origen was previously cited as believing in a dominantly allegorical view of Genesis. This likely true, but he is considered a heretic, and not orthodox by most of Christianity and not a Church Father.

Philo was mentioned as an early Jewish scholar that he believed in an allegorical view of Genesis. This is to a certain extent true, but he was not a Church Father, and even though he lived at the time of Jesus Christ and traveled throughout Rome including Palestine he did not record anything about Jesus. In fact his writngs of historical events in Rome during the life of Jesus is considered very accurate. He is not considered remotely a Church Father. He also believed in a historical literal Exodus, which represents a problem of the historicity and conflicts concerning Exodus as recorded in the Pentateuch. Philo became more popular in the less Orthodox liberal churches in recent history.

I acknowledge unorthodox and allegorical views of Genesis in history, but the dominant view in history is that Genesis is literal history. Yes, I acknowledge that many Church Fathers and scholars believed in both, but did believe in Genesis and the Pentateuch as literal history.

 

[metis]

I think it's likely that what we read in Genesis with the Creation accounts was possibly carried as part of an oral tradition that eventually was put in written form, which helps to explain the variations found within Genesis. Probably much the same is true of the Tanakh in general, but which is and which isn't is pretty hard to determine thousands of years later.

I take them as myth mixed in with folklore, which doesn't mean nor imply falsehood.

 

[Twilight Hue]

As the previous thread this thread deals with specifically 'Did Church Fathers' and early scholars consider Genesis and the Pentateuch historically literal?

In this thread I will emphasize the Orthodox view of the Church Fathers and scholars that represent the overwhelming view of the Christian Churches up until the 20th century.

Origen was previously cited as believing in a dominantly allegorical view of Genesis. This likely true, but he is considered a heretic, and not orthodox by most of Christianity and not a Church Father.

Philo was mentioned as an early Jewish scholar that he believed in an allegorical view of Genesis. This is to a certain extent true, but he was not a Church Father, and even though he lived at the time of Jesus Christ and traveled throughout Rome including Palestine he did not record anything about Jesus. In fact his writngs of historical events in Rome during the life of Jesus is considered very accurate. He is not considered remotely a Church Father. He also believed in a historical literal Exodus, which represents a problem of the historicity and conflicts concerning Exodus as recorded in the Pentateuch.

I acknowledge unorthodox and allegorical views of Genesis in history, but the dominant view in history is that Genesis is literal history. Yes, I acknowledge that many Church Fathers and scholars believed in both, but did believe in Genesis and the Pentateuch as literal history.

There should have been more honesty at the offset.

 

[shunyadragon]

I think it's likely that what we read in Genesis with the Creation accounts was possibly carried as part of an oral tradition that eventually was put in written form, which helps to explain the variations found within Genesis. Probably much the same is true of the Tanakh in general, but which is and which isn't is pretty hard to determine thousands of years later.

I take them as myth mixed in with folklore, which doesn't mean nor imply falsehood.

This a legitimate view considering the evidence, but the focus of this thread is how did the Church Fathers, theologians and scholars consider the literal nature of Genesis and the Pentateuch in the history of forming the dominant Orthodoxy of Christianity.

Yes, significant cracks in the feasibility of a literal Orthodox view of the scripture began in the 'Age of Enlightenment,' 18th and 19th century Biblical scholarship.and and the rise of contemporary science beginning in the 18th and 19th century. This lead to the rise of liberal churches including the radical split, split and split again in the Lutheran Church between the literalists clinging to the words of Martin Luther, and the split into liberal less orthodox Lutheran Churchs.

 

[metis]

This a legitimate view considering the evidence, but the focus of this thread is how did the Church Fathers, theologians and scholars consider the literal nature of Genesis and the Pentateuch in the history of forming the dominant Orthodoxy of Christianity.

I think that probably more occurred when writings were compiled and labeled "scripture", then the view became "God inspired this and God doesn't lie".

 

[shunyadragon]

I think that probably more occurred when writings were compiled and labeled "scripture", then the view became "God inspired this and God doesn't lie".

Yes, this is part of the case when the scripture was compiled, edited and redacted into its present form

 

[Augustus]

As the previous thread this thread deals with specifically 'Did Church Fathers' and early scholars consider Genesis and the Pentateuch historically literal?

In this thread I will emphasize the Orthodox view of the Church Fathers and scholars that represent the overwhelming view of the Christian Churches up until the 20th century.

You haven't emphasised anything. Just asserted it without evidence.

Some did, some didn't. And it's not as simple as 100% literal or 100% allegorical anyway. The texts were viewed as multi-layered.

Allegorical interpretations of Genesis - Wikipedia

AFAIK, the Catholic or Orthodox Church position has never mandated a purely literal reading, and St Augustine, St (Pope) Gregory, Celsus, St Thomas etc. all advocated, at least partially, allegorical readings

Do you, for example consider St Augustine, St Gregory and St Thomas Aquinas as being heretics at odds with Church dogma?

 

[exchemist]

As the previous thread this thread deals with specifically 'Did Church Fathers' and early scholars consider Genesis and the Pentateuch historically literal?

In this thread I will emphasize the Orthodox view of the Church Fathers and scholars that represent the overwhelming view of the Christian Churches up until the 20th century.

Origen was previously cited as believing in a dominantly allegorical view of Genesis. This likely true, but he is considered a heretic, and not orthodox by most of Christianity and not a Church Father.

Philo was mentioned as an early Jewish scholar that he believed in an allegorical view of Genesis. This is to a certain extent true, but he was not a Church Father, and even though he lived at the time of Jesus Christ and traveled throughout Rome including Palestine he did not record anything about Jesus. In fact his writngs of historical events in Rome during the life of Jesus is considered very accurate. He is not considered remotely a Church Father. He also believed in a historical literal Exodus, which represents a problem of the historicity and conflicts concerning Exodus as recorded in the Pentateuch. Philo became more popular in the less Orthodox liberal churches in recent history.

I acknowledge unorthodox and allegorical views of Genesis in history, but the dominant view in history is that Genesis is literal history. Yes, I acknowledge that many Church Fathers and scholars believed in both, but did believe in Genesis and the Pentateuch as literal history.

Origen certainly is considered a Church Father: Church Fathers: Origen’s Works

Church Fathers - Wikipedia

While he fell foul of the establishment towards the end of his lifetime due to some of his writings, this is not the way he has been regarded subsequently.

There is no reason, that I am aware of, to suppose that he got into trouble because he did not take Genesis literally. He, like many scholars of his time, Jewish and Christian, read it as he read Homer.

Here is a potted history of how Genesis has been viewed, from someone at the University of Maryland:The Genesis account of creation interpreted before Darwin · myUMBC Archive · myUMBC

 

[RestlessSoul]

This a legitimate view considering the evidence, but the focus of this thread is how did the Church Fathers, theologians and scholars consider the literal nature of Genesis and the Pentateuch in the history of forming the dominant Orthodoxy of Christianity.

Yes, significant cracks in the feasibility of a literal Orthodox view of the scripture began in the 'Age of Enlightenment,' 18th and 19th century Biblical scholarship.and and the rise of contemporary science beginning in the 18th and 19th century. This lead to the rise of liberal churches including the radical split, split and split again in the Lutheran Church between the literalists clinging to the words of Martin Luther, and the split into liberal less orthodox Lutheran Churchs.

"Contemporary science" began in the 18th and 19th centuries? Are we ignoring William of Ockham, Nicolaus Copernicus and Johannes Kepler then? Howabout Newton? His Principia Mathematica was published in the 17th.

 

[exchemist]

As the previous thread this thread deals with specifically 'Did Church Fathers' and early scholars consider Genesis and the Pentateuch historically literal?

In this thread I will emphasize the Orthodox view of the Church Fathers and scholars that represent the overwhelming view of the Christian Churches up until the 20th century.

Origen was previously cited as believing in a dominantly allegorical view of Genesis. This likely true, but he is considered a heretic, and not orthodox by most of Christianity and not a Church Father.

Philo was mentioned as an early Jewish scholar that he believed in an allegorical view of Genesis. This is to a certain extent true, but he was not a Church Father, and even though he lived at the time of Jesus Christ and traveled throughout Rome including Palestine he did not record anything about Jesus. In fact his writngs of historical events in Rome during the life of Jesus is considered very accurate. He is not considered remotely a Church Father. He also believed in a historical literal Exodus, which represents a problem of the historicity and conflicts concerning Exodus as recorded in the Pentateuch. Philo became more popular in the less Orthodox liberal churches in recent history.

I acknowledge unorthodox and allegorical views of Genesis in history, but the dominant view in history is that Genesis is literal history. Yes, I acknowledge that many Church Fathers and scholars believed in both, but did believe in Genesis and the Pentateuch as literal history.

You seem to need this to be so, in spite of offering no evidence for your claim. I wonder why.

It's doubtless true that throughout most of history there was little reason for the average unlettered Christian to doubt the Genesis account. But there are very good reasons why scholars and theologians would have taken a much more nuanced view of it.

You might gain something from reading this: The Great Myths 11: Biblical Literalism - History for Atheists

 

[shunyadragon]

You seem to need this to be so, in spite of offering no evidence for your claim. I wonder why.

It's doubtless true that throughout most of history there was little reason for the average unlettered Christian to doubt the Genesis account. But there are very good reasons why scholars and theologians would have taken a much more nuanced view of it.

You might gain something from reading this: The Great Myths 11: Biblical Literalism - History for Atheists

The history of Atheism is not an issue here.

Patience, its early in the thread. The next Church Father will be Saint Augustine.

 

[exchemist]

The history of Atheism is not an issue here.

Patience, its early in the thread. The next Church Father will be Saint Augustine.

How about reading at least the title of the link? It is not about the history of atheism. It is history for atheists, written because they are often misinformed about the history of the church.

 

[shunyadragon]

This citation by Saint Augustine 'appears' to endorse science over scripture.

[cite=[URL='https://entirelyuseless.com/2015/09/20/st-augustine-on-science-vs-scripture/']St. Augustine on Science vs. Scripture[/URL]]

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”

but it depends on what is called 'science' by St. Augustine, because he also states . . .

“When there is an apparent conflict between a Scripture passage and an assertion about the natural world grounded on sense or reason, the literal reading of the Scripture passage should prevail as long as the latter assertion lacks demonstration.”

These principles are at least implicit in Augustine’s De Genesi ad litteram, his commentary on the literal sense of Genesis, and are accepted by medieval writers such as Thomas Aquinas. They were employed by the church authorities during the trial of Galileo, restated by Pope Leo XIII at the end of the nineteenth century, and invoked by Pope Pius XII in 1950 when condemning polygenism (the view that the human race had more than one origin).

"In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to observed, as Augustine teaches (Gen. ad lit. i, 18). The first is, to hold the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation, only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it, if it be proved with certainty to be false; lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing."

Saint Thomas.

[/cite]

In other words both St. Augustine and St. Thomas gives the knowledge of scripture has priority over science.

 

[Koldo]

Origen certainly is considered a Church Father: Church Fathers: Origen’s Works

Church Fathers - Wikipedia

While he fell foul of the establishment towards the end of his lifetime due to some of his writings, this is not the way he has been regarded subsequently.

There is no reason, that I am aware of, to suppose that he got into trouble because he did not take Genesis literally. He, like many scholars of his time, Jewish and Christian, read it as he read Homer.

Here is a potted history of how Genesis has been viewed, from someone at the University of Maryland:The Genesis account of creation interpreted before Darwin · myUMBC Archive · myUMBC

That was not THE problem, but....

"Epiphanius particularly objected to Origen's subordinationism, his "excessive" use of allegorical hermeneutic, and his habit of proposing ideas about the Bible "speculatively, as exercises" rather than "dogmatically""

- Origen - Wikipedia

 

[shunyadragon]

You seem to need this to be so, in spite of offering no evidence for your claim. I wonder why.

It's doubtless true that throughout most of history there was little reason for the average unlettered Christian to doubt the Genesis account. But there are very good reasons why scholars and theologians would have taken a much more nuanced view of it.

You might gain something from reading this: The Great Myths 11: Biblical Literalism - History for Atheists

I am familiar with these claims and references, but not this site. and find mixed problems and inaccuracies with the references in terms of the purpose of this thread. First is the reference to Philo a Jewish philosopher from the time of Christ. His view is a Hebrew view, and also biased, because he considers the Book of Exodus a literal history inspired by God written by Moses. Yes, he is the primary inspiration of the beginning of 'Mirash' allegorical and non-literal interpretations of scripture, but not well applicable to the subject of this thread.

 

[shunyadragon]

More on Sait Augustine on Genesis.

[cite=[URL="https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/people/related-articles/augustine-and-eve"]Augustine and Eve[/URL]]

In his early works, Augustine had proposed that human embodiment and gender differentiation were the results of the fall into sin. Augustine associated Eve particularly with carnal lust. But Augustine articulates his mature view of Eve in The Literal Meaning of Genesis, books 6-11, and in The City of God, books 12-14. In these works Eve functions as the archetype of the way God intended women to be before the fall, as well as a contrasting example of the actual condition of women after the fall. Augustine celebrates the goodness of Eve and her spiritual equality with Adam before the famous turning away from God. Augustine also maintains that the rational soul was the image of God in both Adam and Eve. (By rationality, Augustine primarily meant not the ability to perform logical operations but the capacity to contemplate and delight in the eternal things of God.) However, it is post-fall where Eve suffers and loses her Edenic equality: now subordinate to male authority, now giving birth in pain, and now the lesser partner in marriage.

Although the focus on rationality seems to disparage embodiment, Augustine insists that the primal constitution of human nature by God included physicality and the differentiation of male and female genders. In this context Augustine stresses the goodness of the human body as created by God—and that includes the goodness of the female body, which was designed for procreation and is in that sense the basis of human society. The corruptible bodies of both Adam and Eve were capable of becoming incorruptible spiritual bodies through a process of spiritual maturation, Augustine says. He is clear that gender differentiation was necessary for procreation even in Eden, and that sexuality existed before the fall. If the fall had not happened, Eve’s sexuality would have been subject to her rational love for God, her childbearing would have been painless, and marriage would have been free of patriarchal coercion. However, in some contexts Augustine does describe Eve as being ontologically inferior to her husband, arguing that Eve was not as rational as Adam, having been created from his rib. (Augustine conflates the two creation stories of Gen 1 and Gen 2.) [/cite]

Yes, Saint Augustine considers Genesis literal, but yes, also proposes allegorical and non-literal interpretations of Genesis.

 

[shunyadragon]

More on St. Augustine

St. Augustine Was a Young-Earth Creationist

"He spoke and they were made, He commanded and they were created. Creation, therefore, did not take place slowly in order that a slow development might be implanted in those things that are slow by nature; nor were the ages established at plodding pace at which they now pass. Time brings about the development of these creatures according to the laws of their numbers, but there was no passage of time when they received these laws at creation.17"

As for point number 3, he clearly stated,

"Unbelievers are also deceived by false documents which ascribe to history many thousand years, although we can calculate from Sacred Scripture that not 6,000 years have passed since the creation of man [emphasis mine].18."

And as for number 4, Augustine’s writings show he believed that Genesis 6–8 described a global flood. He spent five pages answering skeptical objections regarding how Noah had the ability to build the ark, how the Flood covered the highest mountains, why the Ark was big enough for all of the animals, and how carnivorous animals on the Ark could have been fed.

It should be noted that it was not as if Augustine had never been challenged by old earth beliefs. In fact, in The City of God, he rebuts cyclical, old-earth concepts:

"According to Scripture, less than 6000 years have elapsed since he began to be. . . . If it offends them that the time that has elapsed since the creation of man is so short, and his years so few according to our authorities, let them take this into consideration, that nothing that has a limit is long, and that all the ages of time being finite, are very little, or indeed nothing at all, when compared to the interminable eternity."

He clearly believed 3 out of 4 of the main points that all YECs believe. There is no doubt that Augustine, in the broad sense, was literally a young earth believer and a creationist.

 

[Augustus]

but it depends on what is called 'science' by St. Augustine

Scientia at that time basically meant knowledge. It was not really synonymous with modern science.

Like wise religio was a virtue rather than a set of doctrines to be adhered to.

“When there is an apparent conflict between a Scripture passage and an assertion about the natural world grounded on sense or reason, the literal reading of the Scripture passage should prevail as long as the latter assertion lacks demonstration.”

Which shows it is fine to update understanding of scripture as new information becomes available.

There is no need to take things literally if doing so contradicts logic or what we know.

I am familiar with these claims and references, but not this site. and find mixed problems and inaccuracies with the references in terms of the purpose of this thread.

More on St. Augustine

St. Augustine Was a Young-Earth Creationist

Seems like a lot of cherry-picking to me.

Why, without reading it, do you judge the 1st source, written by a secular scholar, to be unreliable, but judge "Answers in Genesis", a rank creationist apologetics site, to be credible?

Do you generally think Protestant fundamentalist apologetics sites can be trusted to provide a balanced, scholarly analysis of Catholic history and doctrinal issues?

Answers in Genesis - Wikipedia

 

[shunyadragon]

Scientia at that time basically meant knowledge. It was not really synonymous with modern science.

Like wise religio was a virtue rather than a set of doctrines to be adhered to.

OK as I said it depends on how St. Augustine meant by science.

Which shows it is fine to update understanding of scripture as new information becomes available.

As cited this does not included the literal meaning of the text of Genesis and the Pentateuch

There is no need to take things literally if doing so contradicts logic or what we know.

Incomplete and contradicts St. Augustine as cited, From different sources.

Seems like a lot of cherry-picking to me.

Why, without reading it, do you judge the 1st source, written by a secular scholar, to be unreliable, but judge "Answers in Genesis", a rank creationist apologetics site, to be credible?

Do you generally think Protestant fundamentalist apologetics sites can be trusted to provide a balanced, scholarly analysis of Catholic history and doctrinal issues?

Answers in Genesis - Wikipedia

Not cherry picking. The different sources are accurate as cited and agree. IF you believe so present your alternative citations that support your assertions, which you have traditionally failed to do.

The citations from different sources document Saint Augustine's view of a literal Genesis.

 

[exchemist]

This citation by Saint Augustine 'appears' to endorse science over scripture.

[cite=[URL='https://entirelyuseless.com/2015/09/20/st-augustine-on-science-vs-scripture/']St. Augustine on Science vs. Scripture[/URL]]

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”

but it depends on what is called 'science' by St. Augustine, because he also states . . .

“When there is an apparent conflict between a Scripture passage and an assertion about the natural world grounded on sense or reason, the literal reading of the Scripture passage should prevail as long as the latter assertion lacks demonstration.”

These principles are at least implicit in Augustine’s De Genesi ad litteram, his commentary on the literal sense of Genesis, and are accepted by medieval writers such as Thomas Aquinas. They were employed by the church authorities during the trial of Galileo, restated by Pope Leo XIII at the end of the nineteenth century, and invoked by Pope Pius XII in 1950 when condemning polygenism (the view that the human race had more than one origin).

"In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to observed, as Augustine teaches (Gen. ad lit. i, 18). The first is, to hold the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation, only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it, if it be proved with certainty to be false; lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing."

Saint Thomas.

[/cite]

In other words both St. Augustine and St. Thomas gives the knowledge of scripture has priority over science.

I am not sure what your point is, here. These men were firm believers and Christian scholars. So of course their default is to give priority to scripture.

What is notable however, is that both men state in effect that (i) alternative interpretations of scripture are possible, AND that (ii) if evidence and reason show that a particular interpretation cannot be sustained, then it should be abandoned.

Augustine's remarks about how disgraceful it is for a Christian to talk arrant nonsense about the world and thus incur the ridicule of non-Christians seem very prescient, anticipating the arrival of the Seventh Day Adventists by over a millennium!

And Aquinas's remarks seem to anticipate the arrival of science, and the need for the church to accommodate its teaching to it, by about 400 years.

So both are examples of flexibility in interpretation: the opposite, actually, of some supposed doctrinal rigidity in the face of the facts.