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

[shunyadragon]

Responses in this thread bounced around OFF TOPIC, but the emphasis in the future should be the actual views and beliefs of the Church Fathers, who believed basically in a literal interpretation of the Pentateuch that represents real history, Yes they also endorsed alternate symbolic and allegorical interpretations, but at the foundation the Pentateuch was a literal accurate history beginning with Genesis.

 

[shunyadragon]

Responses in this thread bounced around OFF TOPIC, but the emphasis in the future should be the actual views and beliefs of the Church Fathers, who believed basically in a literal interpretation of the Pentateuch that represents real history, Yes they also endorsed alternate symbolic and allegorical interpretations, but at the foundation the Pentateuch was a literal accurate history beginning with Genesis.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Responses in this thread bounced around OFF TOPIC, but the emphasis in the future should be the actual views and beliefs of the Church Fathers, who believed basically in a literal interpretation of the Pentateuch that represents real history, Yes they also endorsed alternate symbolic and allegorical interpretations, but at the foundation the Pentateuch was a literal accurate history beginning with Genesis.

IMO, whenever we find Christians trying to put a precise date on Creation, we can infer that they're taking at least the major points of the Genesis account literally.

...and as far back as there are Christians, we can find Christians arguing over what the precise date of Creation is.

 

[wellwisher]

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.

The invention of written language appears about 3500-3000BC. This is within the early range of the Genesis dating of history; 6000 years. In the beginning was the "written"word; God. This dating also suggests that the story of Genesis was among the first published science theories; new invention. Science evolves. What came before, gave a platform, so future science could see further.

If we look at 1890's science, it would seem primitive, especially medical practices. But we do not throw out all of science, due to the past, since modern science evolved from that base. We learn from the past. Modern astral physics evolved from astrology. If modern science only had the tools of the ancient past, I doubt we would be much further along. The brain is not smarter, the change is really about; applied science making more and better tools for more detailed data. This allows you to extrapolate better with more confidence and then others ge to learn at a higher level than in the past.

It would be an interesting experiment to raise a group of children with only the tools they had 3000 year ago; study the night sky. Science would only allow you to use the data that is solid, and that can be proven by others with just the eyes. This would narrow them down. Before you could go forward, someone would need to invent the telescope, from scratch, so everyone could see what was not seen before and then that is added to the new theory.

What I like about the Genesis is the approach is it based on being rational and not statistical. It assume an omniscience God, who is the smartest person in the universe. One would expect a perfect job, since he see and can plan for every contingency; perfect logic. Genesis is not based on dice and cards, or the story wouls have God hiring is drunk cousin; Murphey, to fall down, bang into things, until something happens. Science seems to have gone astray, with too much based on Lady Luck and Murphy's Law. The modern problem is too many tools and not enough ability to reason all the data. Less data makes it easier to reason; simplicity is the closer to perfection.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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.

I don't think human mentality has evolved much in the last 2000 years. Just as now, there were those who had difficulty with figurative expression, especially fictitious genres. And there have ALWAYS been those who recognize a myth as a valuable form of fiction. For us Jews, it is Maimonides who is the great rationalist, who taught that Genesis 1 was allegory.

Maybe @metis can double check my memory on this, but I think you may be mistaken about Origen being a heretic. There were those later in history that built on his ideas but took them a step forward, aka Origenism, and THIS is considered a heresy. But that's not the same as Origen's teaching. If I remember rightly, Origen is considered a Doctor of the Church.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

For us Jews, it is Maimonides who is the great rationalist, who taught that Genesis 1 was allegory.

If Maimonides considered the Creation myth to be allegory, why did he date it to precisely 3761 BCE?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

If Maimonides considered the Creation myth to be allegory, why did he date it to precisely 3761 BCE?

Perhaps someone more familiar with all his many texts can better answer that question. I can only offer you this:

"The account given in Scripture of the Creation is not, as is generally believed, intended to convey the idea that the Universe came into existence in the manner described...; for if that had been the case, the thing would have been simply impossible, and contrary to that which is clearly perceivable in the course of nature" (Guide for the Perplexed, Part II, Chapter 30).

 

[shunyadragon]

The invention of written language appears about 3500-3000BC. This is within the early range of the Genesis dating of history; 6000 years. In the beginning was the "written"word; God. This dating also suggests that the story of Genesis was among the first published science theories; new invention. Science evolves. What came before, gave a platform, so future science could see further.

If we look at 1890's science, it would seem primitive, especially medical practices. But we do not throw out all of science, due to the past, since modern science evolved from that base. We learn from the past. Modern astral physics evolved from astrology. If modern science only had the tools of the ancient past, I doubt we would be much further along. The brain is not smarter, the change is really about; applied science making more and better tools for more detailed data. This allows you to extrapolate better with more confidence and then others ge to learn at a higher level than in the past.

It would be an interesting experiment to raise a group of children with only the tools they had 3000 year ago; study the night sky. Science would only allow you to use the data that is solid, and that can be proven by others with just the eyes. This would narrow them down. Before you could go forward, someone would need to invent the telescope, from scratch, so everyone could see what was not seen before and then that is added to the new theory.

What I like about the Genesis is the approach is it based on being rational and not statistical. It assume an omniscience God, who is the smartest person in the universe. One would expect a perfect job, since he see and can plan for every contingency; perfect logic. Genesis is not based on dice and cards, or the story wouls have God hiring is drunk cousin; Murphey, to fall down, bang into things, until something happens. Science seems to have gone astray, with too much based on Lady Luck and Murphy's Law. The modern problem is too many tools and not enough ability to reason all the data. Less data makes it easier to reason; simplicity is the closer to perfection.

Too long and scattered to responding to well, but nonetheless Genesis is not rational. It is ancient mythology

It is science that is the rational approach to nature of our physical existence which you selectively reject based on an ancient tribal agenda grounded in the Pentateuch.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

This dating also suggests that the story of Genesis was among the first published science theories;

In no way shape size or form is a creation myth anything remotely similar to science.

 

[metis]

Maybe @metis can double check my memory on this, but I think you may be mistaken about Origen being a heretic.

Definitely not a heretic, imo, but since he was very heavy into textual criticism, he did make some enemies of those who disagreed with him our feel he went too far at times. We even see such disputes today with some theologians. In BAR, some do get bent out of shape with what another theologian and/or historian wrote.

 

[metis]

Perhaps someone more familiar with all his many texts can better answer that question. I can only offer you this:

"The account given in Scripture of the Creation is not, as is generally believed, intended to convey the idea that the Universe came into existence in the manner described...; for if that had been the case, the thing would have been simply impossible, and contrary to that which is clearly perceivable in the course of nature" (Guide for the Perplexed, Part II, Chapter 30).

The RAMBAM felt that most of the early chapters in Genesis were largely allegorical.

 

[Koldo]

The RAMBAM felt that most of the early chapters in Genesis were largely allegorical.

The most interesting part is why he felt that way.

*cough*convenience*cough*

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Definitely not a heretic, imo, but since he was very heavy into textual criticism, he did make some enemies of those who disagreed with him our feel he went too far at times. We even see such disputes today with some theologians. In BAR, some do get bent out of shape with what another theologian and/or historian wrote.

What is BAR?

To be really honest, I know almost nothing about Origen and his teachings, even though he is a pretty big name in your religion. I know how he took Matthew 19:12 literally, and castrated himself. That tells me he wasn't quite right in the head, but then again sometimes you just get very smart people who are odd in some ways. The other thing I remember about him was that he believed the Bible contained hidden messages. As you know, that's something I can't stand in the least.

 

[metis]

What is BAR?

Biblical Archaeology Review. It deals with archaeology from a basically scientific point of view. With you interest in the subject, consider getting a subscription, and I'm confident you won't be sorry. Biblical Archaeology Review - Wikipedia

The other thing I remember about him was that he believed the Bible contained hidden messages. As you know, that's something I can't stand in the least.

As you might expect, I got mixed feelings about him, but then I'm pretty much that way with all theologians and commentaries.