Genesis Again
Due to the interest in the topic over in the general discussion, I thought I would throw out another chance to discuss the larger creation narrative. Although some would say the only appropriate Christian interpretation of the creation narrative is Young Earth Creationism, the majority of Christian traditions worldwide disagree with this claim. Here is a wonderful and brief article from The BioLogos Foundation which describes how Christians understood the creation narrative prior to the birth of Darwin's theories.
How was the Genesis creation story interpreted before Darwin?
Introduction
Many people assume that Darwin’s theory must have shaken the foundation of the Christian faith because of the stark difference between evolution and the idea of six-day creation. In truth, the literalist six-day interpretation of Genesis 1-2 was not the only perspective espoused by Christian thinkers prior to the publication of The Origin of Species. The works of many early Christian theologians and philosophers reveal an interpretation of Genesis compatible with Darwin’s theory.
Early Christian Thought
Origen, a third-century philosopher and theologian from Alexandria, Egypt — one of the great intellectual centers of the ancient world — provides an example of early Christian thought on creation.
Best known for On First Principles and Against Celsus, Origen presents the main doctrines of Christianity and defends them against pagan accusations. On First Principles offers the following perspective on the Genesis creation story:
"What person of intelligence, I ask, will consider as a reasonable statement that the first and the second and the third day, in which there are said to be both morning and evening, existed without sun and moon and stars, while the first day was even without a heaven? […] I do not think anyone will doubt that these are figurative expressions which indicate certain mysteries through a semblance of history." 1
Origen opposed the idea that the creation story should be interpreted as a literal and historical account of how God created the world.
St. Augustine of Hippo, a bishop in North Africa during the early fifth century, is another central figure of the period, Although he is widely known for Confessions, Augustine authored dozens of other works, several of which focus on Genesis 1-2.2 In The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Augustine argues that the first two chapters of Genesis are written to suit the understanding of the people at that time.3
"Perhaps Sacred Scripture in its customary style is speaking with the limitations of human language in addressing men of limited understanding. … The narrative of the inspired writer brings the matter down to the capacity of children." 4
In order to communicate in a way that all people could understand, the creation story was told in a simpler, allegorical fashion. Augustine also believed God created the world with the capacity to develop a view that is harmonious with biological evolution.5
Later Christian Thought
There are many other non-literalist interpretations of Genesis 1-2 later in history. St. Thomas Aquinas, a well-known 13th century philosopher and theologian, was an Italian priest who was particularly interested in the intersection of science and religion. Aquinas did not fear the possible contradiction between the Genesis creation story and scientific findings. William Carroll notes,
"Aquinas did not think that the opening of Genesis presented any difficulties for the natural sciences, for the Bible is not a textbook in the sciences. What is essential to Christian faith, according to Aquinas, is the "fact of creation," not the manner or mode of the formation of the world." 6
Aquinas’ interpretation of the creation story is evident in Summa Theologica, in which he responds to the question of whether all six days of creation are actually a description of a single day, a theory Augustine had suggested. Aquinas does not take sides in the debate, but attempts to seek harmony between the two views. Aquinas argues in favor of the view that God created all things to have potential:
"On the day on which God created the heaven and the earth, He created also every plant of the field, not, indeed, actually, but "before it sprung up in the earth," that is, potentially. … All things were not distinguished and adorned together, not from a want of power on God's part, as requiring time in which to work, but that due order might be observed in the instituting of the world. Hence it was fitting that different days should be assigned to the different states of the world, as each succeeding work added to the world a fresh state of perfection." 7
Clearly, Augustine strongly influenced Aquinas.
Augustine’s creation perspective can be seen even as late as the 18th century — just before Darwin published The Origin of Species — in the works of John Wesley. An Anglican minister and early leader in the Methodist movement, Wesley, like Augustine, thought scriptures were written in terms suitable for their audience. He writes,
"The inspired penman in this history [Genesis] … [wrote] for the Jews first and, calculating his narratives for the infant state of the church, describes things by their outward sensible appearances, and leaves us, by further discoveries of the divine light, to be led into the understanding of the mysteries couched under them." 8
Wesley also argues the scriptures “were written not to gratify our curiosity [of the details], but to lead us to God.”9 Darwin’s theory of biological evolution would not necessarily have conflicted with the perspectives of Wesley, Augustine, Aquinas, Origen or others, but the interpretation of Genesis was only one of the issues at hand.
Conclusion
The history of Christian thought has not been consistently dominated by proponents of a literalist interpretation of Genesis. Although a comparable list of theologians who did believe in a six day creation could be made, the examples cited here show that many prominent Christian theologians embraced an allegorical interpretation of Genesis long before science presented evidence in its favor.10 The discoveries of modern science should not be seen as a contradiction to scripture, but as guideposts toward a proper understanding of scripture’s meaning.
Augustine offers this advice:
"In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture." 11
Notes
1. Origen, "Book IV, Ch. 3," in First Principles, trans. G. Butterworth (London: SPCK, 1936), quoted in Ernest Lucas, "Interpreting Genesis in the 21st Century," Faraday Papers, no. 11 (2007), (accessed January 28, 2009). Also available online at "De Principiis (Book IV)," New Advent. (accessed January 28, 2009).
2. Gillian Clark, Augustine, the Confessions, Landmarks of World Literature (Cambridge; New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1993).
3. Bishop of Hippo Saint Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Ancient Christian Writers, no. 41 (New York, N.Y.: Newman Press, 1982).
4. Saint Bishop of Hippo Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Ancient Christian Writers, no. 41 (New York, N.Y.: Newman Press, 1982).
5. For a further discussion of Augustine’s perspective on creation, see chapter six of Francis Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (New York: Free Press, 2006), as well as chapters eight and fifteen of Alister McGrath, A Finely Tuned Universe: The Quest for God in Science and Theology (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009).
6. William E. Carroll, "Aquinas and the Big Bang," First Things 97 (1999): 18-20.
7. St. Thomas Aquinas, "Question 74: All the Seven Days in Common," in The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, 2nd ed., trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (London: Burns Oates and Washbourne, 1920). Also available online at "Summa Theologica," New Advent, http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1074.htm#2.
8. John Wesley, Wesley's Notes on the Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Francis Asbury Press, 1987), 22, quoted in Darrel R. Falk, Coming to Peace with Science: Bridging the Worlds between Faith and Biology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 35. Also available online at John Wesley, "John Wesley's Notes on the Bible," Wesley Center Online, http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/notes/index.htm (accessed January 28, 2009).
9. John Wesley, A Survey of the Wisdom of God in the Creation: Or, a Compendium of Natural Philosophy, 3rd ed. (London: J. Fry, 1777), 2:463, quoted in Falk, Coming to Peace with Science: Bridging the Worlds between Faith and Biology, 35.
10. The Catholic Church also acknowledges the diversity of early Christian interpretations of Genesis. See, for example, Catholic Answers, "Creation and Genesis," Catholic Answers, http://www.catholic.com/library/creation_and_genesis.asp (accessed January 28, 2009).
11. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis.
How was the Genesis creation story interpreted before Darwin?
Introduction
Many people assume that Darwin’s theory must have shaken the foundation of the Christian faith because of the stark difference between evolution and the idea of six-day creation. In truth, the literalist six-day interpretation of Genesis 1-2 was not the only perspective espoused by Christian thinkers prior to the publication of The Origin of Species. The works of many early Christian theologians and philosophers reveal an interpretation of Genesis compatible with Darwin’s theory.
Early Christian Thought
Origen, a third-century philosopher and theologian from Alexandria, Egypt — one of the great intellectual centers of the ancient world — provides an example of early Christian thought on creation.
Best known for On First Principles and Against Celsus, Origen presents the main doctrines of Christianity and defends them against pagan accusations. On First Principles offers the following perspective on the Genesis creation story:
"What person of intelligence, I ask, will consider as a reasonable statement that the first and the second and the third day, in which there are said to be both morning and evening, existed without sun and moon and stars, while the first day was even without a heaven? […] I do not think anyone will doubt that these are figurative expressions which indicate certain mysteries through a semblance of history." 1
Origen opposed the idea that the creation story should be interpreted as a literal and historical account of how God created the world.
St. Augustine of Hippo, a bishop in North Africa during the early fifth century, is another central figure of the period, Although he is widely known for Confessions, Augustine authored dozens of other works, several of which focus on Genesis 1-2.2 In The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Augustine argues that the first two chapters of Genesis are written to suit the understanding of the people at that time.3
"Perhaps Sacred Scripture in its customary style is speaking with the limitations of human language in addressing men of limited understanding. … The narrative of the inspired writer brings the matter down to the capacity of children." 4
In order to communicate in a way that all people could understand, the creation story was told in a simpler, allegorical fashion. Augustine also believed God created the world with the capacity to develop a view that is harmonious with biological evolution.5
Later Christian Thought
There are many other non-literalist interpretations of Genesis 1-2 later in history. St. Thomas Aquinas, a well-known 13th century philosopher and theologian, was an Italian priest who was particularly interested in the intersection of science and religion. Aquinas did not fear the possible contradiction between the Genesis creation story and scientific findings. William Carroll notes,
"Aquinas did not think that the opening of Genesis presented any difficulties for the natural sciences, for the Bible is not a textbook in the sciences. What is essential to Christian faith, according to Aquinas, is the "fact of creation," not the manner or mode of the formation of the world." 6
Aquinas’ interpretation of the creation story is evident in Summa Theologica, in which he responds to the question of whether all six days of creation are actually a description of a single day, a theory Augustine had suggested. Aquinas does not take sides in the debate, but attempts to seek harmony between the two views. Aquinas argues in favor of the view that God created all things to have potential:
"On the day on which God created the heaven and the earth, He created also every plant of the field, not, indeed, actually, but "before it sprung up in the earth," that is, potentially. … All things were not distinguished and adorned together, not from a want of power on God's part, as requiring time in which to work, but that due order might be observed in the instituting of the world. Hence it was fitting that different days should be assigned to the different states of the world, as each succeeding work added to the world a fresh state of perfection." 7
Clearly, Augustine strongly influenced Aquinas.
Augustine’s creation perspective can be seen even as late as the 18th century — just before Darwin published The Origin of Species — in the works of John Wesley. An Anglican minister and early leader in the Methodist movement, Wesley, like Augustine, thought scriptures were written in terms suitable for their audience. He writes,
"The inspired penman in this history [Genesis] … [wrote] for the Jews first and, calculating his narratives for the infant state of the church, describes things by their outward sensible appearances, and leaves us, by further discoveries of the divine light, to be led into the understanding of the mysteries couched under them." 8
Wesley also argues the scriptures “were written not to gratify our curiosity [of the details], but to lead us to God.”9 Darwin’s theory of biological evolution would not necessarily have conflicted with the perspectives of Wesley, Augustine, Aquinas, Origen or others, but the interpretation of Genesis was only one of the issues at hand.
Conclusion
The history of Christian thought has not been consistently dominated by proponents of a literalist interpretation of Genesis. Although a comparable list of theologians who did believe in a six day creation could be made, the examples cited here show that many prominent Christian theologians embraced an allegorical interpretation of Genesis long before science presented evidence in its favor.10 The discoveries of modern science should not be seen as a contradiction to scripture, but as guideposts toward a proper understanding of scripture’s meaning.
Augustine offers this advice:
"In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture." 11
Notes
1. Origen, "Book IV, Ch. 3," in First Principles, trans. G. Butterworth (London: SPCK, 1936), quoted in Ernest Lucas, "Interpreting Genesis in the 21st Century," Faraday Papers, no. 11 (2007), (accessed January 28, 2009). Also available online at "De Principiis (Book IV)," New Advent. (accessed January 28, 2009).
2. Gillian Clark, Augustine, the Confessions, Landmarks of World Literature (Cambridge; New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1993).
3. Bishop of Hippo Saint Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Ancient Christian Writers, no. 41 (New York, N.Y.: Newman Press, 1982).
4. Saint Bishop of Hippo Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Ancient Christian Writers, no. 41 (New York, N.Y.: Newman Press, 1982).
5. For a further discussion of Augustine’s perspective on creation, see chapter six of Francis Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (New York: Free Press, 2006), as well as chapters eight and fifteen of Alister McGrath, A Finely Tuned Universe: The Quest for God in Science and Theology (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009).
6. William E. Carroll, "Aquinas and the Big Bang," First Things 97 (1999): 18-20.
7. St. Thomas Aquinas, "Question 74: All the Seven Days in Common," in The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, 2nd ed., trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (London: Burns Oates and Washbourne, 1920). Also available online at "Summa Theologica," New Advent, http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1074.htm#2.
8. John Wesley, Wesley's Notes on the Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Francis Asbury Press, 1987), 22, quoted in Darrel R. Falk, Coming to Peace with Science: Bridging the Worlds between Faith and Biology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 35. Also available online at John Wesley, "John Wesley's Notes on the Bible," Wesley Center Online, http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/notes/index.htm (accessed January 28, 2009).
9. John Wesley, A Survey of the Wisdom of God in the Creation: Or, a Compendium of Natural Philosophy, 3rd ed. (London: J. Fry, 1777), 2:463, quoted in Falk, Coming to Peace with Science: Bridging the Worlds between Faith and Biology, 35.
10. The Catholic Church also acknowledges the diversity of early Christian interpretations of Genesis. See, for example, Catholic Answers, "Creation and Genesis," Catholic Answers, http://www.catholic.com/library/creation_and_genesis.asp (accessed January 28, 2009).
11. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Aaron Schnabel on -
Hey California Scott, I really appreciate you posting this. I've long held that I don't necessarily agree with a literal interpretation of the 6 days. I'm glad to hear that such notable theologians as Augustine and Thomas Aquinas wouldn't burn me at the stake for taking a more allegorical approach to it... I've almost been threatened with that by some believers of my acquaintance.
"What is essential to Christian faith, according to Aquinas, is the "fact of creation," not the manner or mode of the formation of the world." 6" That precisely sums up my feelings on the matter. I don't care one whit whether it was a literal 7 days or if it was an undetermined span of time... what is important to me is the fact that God created the heavens and the Earth...
This has pointed me in some interesting directions to read further on the matter.
-
Permalink Reply by John Clanton on -
Spectacular quote:
Wesley also argues the scriptures “were written not to gratify our curiosity [of the details], but to lead us to God.”9
-
Permalink Reply by Herb Munson on -
Just one thought when citing great Christian men, past or present. Just don't forget that even "spiritual giants" have been known to be wrong and also to stumble. They have all said some very foolish things as well.
-
Permalink Reply by California Scott on -
I am surprised that you would make that statement, Herb. In your thread, The Flood, you wrote, "one stupid statement doesn't negate one's entire life work, does it. If so, we are all doomed to obscurity."
Although theologians such as Origen have written a few things which have been rejected by the church, none of the quotes in this article fit into that category. Generally speaking, the work of these men is accepted across the broad traditions of Christianity. If any expert theologians are to be quoted, I believe those in this article (Aquinas, Augustine, Wesley, etc.) are solid choices.
-
Permalink Reply by Herb Munson on
-
Didn't mean to disparage any of these great saints quoted in your article. My point was simply that we need to take what any man says with a grain of salt. Our final authority is not men but God's Word. And, I don't mean that to sound critical or as a put down ... but just a precaution. For example, Augustine's use of allegorical interpretation has done a great deal of damage to the interpretation of the Bible in my opinion and in the opinion of many others. It is usually a point that is addressed in most good books on hermeneutics. :)
-
Permalink Reply by Jamie on -
I think his point was simply that being right on 90% of the time isn't a guarantee that the other 10% doesn't exist. Brilliant men are still fallible, capable of coming to incorrect conclusions.
As I've said before, I'm not decided (and may never be) on God's timeline during the creation. However, regardless of the time period involved, I lean far more toward a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis (including the creation and the flood) than an interpretation that it's all storybook metaphor.
Sure, the books of poetry take literary license with talk of chariots carrying the sun and such, but Genesis is, by and large, written as a book of history. Where do we draw the line between metaphor and history? Where did God stop writing nursery rhymes for people and shift into explaining how things really were? Were the lifespans of Adam, Enoch, and Methuselah actual historical facts, or were they exaggerations? Does God jump from a literal story of jealousy and murder (Cain & Abel) back into mythological fable with the Flood? It just doesn't strike me as consistent. God would have to be a liar (not simply poetically exuberant) for the flood not to have occurred as it's laid out in Genesis.
Maybe Augustine, Aquinas, and Wesley could dismiss Genesis as fable, but I can't.
-
Permalink Reply by Jamie on
-
...and if I'd refreshed before posting, I could have let Herb speak for himself. :)
-
Permalink Reply by Will on -
Thank you very much for posting this, CA Scott.
Hey, Herb's statement is valid. Great thinkers are sometimes wrong. I don't think these are, but the principle still applies.
This does all seem to shift the burden toward literalists. Now, Scott's article does not clearly establish that literalism is new, but given the sway Augustine and Aquinas had over the church until the Reformation, it's clear that Christian thinking through Christian history has usually thought of the Genesis account as figurative, or at least leaned that way. A figurative interpretation is not therefore a modern corruption, but is at the core -- right or wrong.
-
Permalink Reply by Daniel Ian Richardson on -
I am a literal 6 day creationist. God doesn't try and pull the wool over our eyes. I see no reason why, if God's word says the world was made in 6 days, it wasn't. All of the bible is written literally, with the possible exception of Revelation but then there's no knowing with Revelation as those days are yet to come.
-
Permalink Reply by Herb Munson on
-
I think the biggest misunderstanding amongst believers concerning the literal interpretation of the Bible is that many don't understand that the term "literal" is a technical term. And, in that regard, needs to be carefully defined. Literal interpretation, for example, does not believe that God is a giant chicken because the Bible says, "under his wings I will safely abide" (not exact wording ... just quoting off the top of my head). So, literal interpretation basically means interpreting the Bible the same way that one would interpret any other piece of literature ... i.e. by all the rules of the normal use of language. A literal interpretor then, interprets the literal stuff literally, the metaphorical stuff metaphorically, the allegorical stuff allegorically, the figurative stuff figuratively and so on.
By the way, I have to leave in a few minutes to take my wife out of town to a couple of doctor's appointments so I will have to disengage at this point and will be absent for the rest of the day. Just didn't want you fellows to think I was ignoring any subsequent replies that you may submit in my direction. By the way, would you pray for her? We would really appreciate it.
-
Permalink Reply by Daniel Ian Richardson on
-
Thanks for clarifying that on my behalf!
-
Permalink Reply by Aaron Schnabel on
-
Yes, thank you for clarifying that... in light of that, I am removing my other response. That clarifies "literal interpretation" nicely. However I still am not convinced that the 6 days are necessarily 6 24 hour periods...
Subscribe to the Art of Manliness Blog
AoM T-shirts
© 2009 Created by Brett McKay
