What do you think?
Rate this book
Early Christian Readings of Genesis One: Patristic Exegesis and Literal Interpretation
Do the writings of the church fathers support a literalist interpretation of Genesis 1? Young earth creationists have maintained that they do. And it is sensible to look to the Fathers as a check against our modern biases.
But before enlisting the Fathers as ammunition in our contemporary Christian debates over creation and evolution, some cautions are in order. Are we correctly representing the Fathers and their concerns? Was Basil, for instance, advocating a literal interpretation in the modern sense? How can we avoid flattening the Fathers' thinking into an indexed source book in our quest for establishing their significance for contemporary Christianity?
Craig Allert notes the abuses of patristic texts and introduces the Fathers within their ancient context, since the patristic writings require careful interpretation in their own setting. What can we learn from a Basil or Theophilus, an Ephrem or Augustine, as they meditate and expound on themes in Genesis 1? How were they speaking to their own culture and the questions of their day? Might they actually have something to teach us about listening carefully to Scripture as we wrestle with the great axial questions of our own day?
Allert's study prods us to consider whether contemporary evangelicals, laudably seeking to be faithful to Scripture, may in fact be more bound to modernity in our reading of Genesis 1 than we realize. Here is a book that resets our understanding of early Christian interpretation and the contemporary conversation about Genesis 1.
But before enlisting the Fathers as ammunition in our contemporary Christian debates over creation and evolution, some cautions are in order. Are we correctly representing the Fathers and their concerns? Was Basil, for instance, advocating a literal interpretation in the modern sense? How can we avoid flattening the Fathers' thinking into an indexed source book in our quest for establishing their significance for contemporary Christianity?
Craig Allert notes the abuses of patristic texts and introduces the Fathers within their ancient context, since the patristic writings require careful interpretation in their own setting. What can we learn from a Basil or Theophilus, an Ephrem or Augustine, as they meditate and expound on themes in Genesis 1? How were they speaking to their own culture and the questions of their day? Might they actually have something to teach us about listening carefully to Scripture as we wrestle with the great axial questions of our own day?
Allert's study prods us to consider whether contemporary evangelicals, laudably seeking to be faithful to Scripture, may in fact be more bound to modernity in our reading of Genesis 1 than we realize. Here is a book that resets our understanding of early Christian interpretation and the contemporary conversation about Genesis 1.
368 pages, Paperback
Published July 24, 2018
15 people are currently reading
142 people want to read
About the author
Craig D. Allert
3 books4 followersCraig D. Allert (PhD, University of Nottingham) is professor of religious studies at Trinity Western University in Langley, British Columbia. He is the author of A High View of Scripture: Biblical Authority and the Formation of the New Testament Canon and Revelation, Truth, Canon, and Interpretation.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
January 5, 2021
Christians have wondered about the meaning of Genesis 1 from, well, . . . the beginning. It lays the foundation for our understanding of God, of creation, and of humanity. It is not surprising then that the leading figures of the early church weighed in as well.
What triggered this survey is how Craig Allert sees the church fathers being misused by those who want to employ them to support six 24-hour days. Before he does that he offers of masterful chapter on “Who Are the Church Fathers, and Why Should I Care?” This is a brief, informative, and motivational overview for any Christian, even those who don’t care about creation controversies.
Allert goes on to helpfully debunk the notion that when it comes to biblical interpretation, the church fathers were divided into “literalist” and “allegorical” schools. The reason for our misunderstanding is that the church fathers meant something very different by “literalist” (even when they said they were literal) than Christians do in the 21st century. In fact all the church fathers read the Bible through various lenses, one of which was allegorical. Where they disagreed was on what methodology should be used in allegorical readings.
Part Two gets into the weeds of what Basil, Ephrem, Theophilus, Augustine, and others actually said about Genesis 1 and related topics, without reference to 21st-century debates. Though these details may not interest all readers, Part One is very valuable and worthwhile on its own.
--
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher. My opinions are my own.
What triggered this survey is how Craig Allert sees the church fathers being misused by those who want to employ them to support six 24-hour days. Before he does that he offers of masterful chapter on “Who Are the Church Fathers, and Why Should I Care?” This is a brief, informative, and motivational overview for any Christian, even those who don’t care about creation controversies.
Allert goes on to helpfully debunk the notion that when it comes to biblical interpretation, the church fathers were divided into “literalist” and “allegorical” schools. The reason for our misunderstanding is that the church fathers meant something very different by “literalist” (even when they said they were literal) than Christians do in the 21st century. In fact all the church fathers read the Bible through various lenses, one of which was allegorical. Where they disagreed was on what methodology should be used in allegorical readings.
Part Two gets into the weeds of what Basil, Ephrem, Theophilus, Augustine, and others actually said about Genesis 1 and related topics, without reference to 21st-century debates. Though these details may not interest all readers, Part One is very valuable and worthwhile on its own.
--
I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher. My opinions are my own.
May 21, 2020
Ressourcement and retrieval theology are all the rage today. Or at least in many evangelical and Reformed necks of the woods. It would make sense that as one wants to understand a book like Genesis better, seeing how the earliest Christian interpreters understood it brings one closer to the original context.
The problem is that one can often read the church fathers not in their own context, but filtered mostly through our modern (or even postmodern) context. The result is that one misunderstands what the church fathers are saying in general and what they might mean when they interpret the early chapters of Genesis in particular.
For more, read my full review on my personal blog: http://nathanielclaiborne.com/early-c...
The problem is that one can often read the church fathers not in their own context, but filtered mostly through our modern (or even postmodern) context. The result is that one misunderstands what the church fathers are saying in general and what they might mean when they interpret the early chapters of Genesis in particular.
For more, read my full review on my personal blog: http://nathanielclaiborne.com/early-c...
August 13, 2018
How did the earlier pastors and theologians of the Christian Church read Genesis one? Was it univocal or was there a breadth and variety? Craig Allert, professor of religious studies at Trinity Western University in Langley, British Columbia, has pulled together a goodly amount of material on this very subject in his new 368 page paperback, "Early Christian Readings of Genesis One: Patristic Exegesis and Literal Interpretation". It is written more for those who are "in the know," that is, those who (1) have a working knowledge of the patristics, and (2) who are familiar with the program and purpose of Biologos.
"Early Christian Readings of Genesis One" is a polemical book. It feels as if it is obsessed with arguing with Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research, and other young-earth organizations who have enlisted some of the early church fathers to shore up their case. This contention runs (and dare I say it, ruins) the first three chapters, and keeps surfacing in the remainder of the material. If you want a ringside seat to a stout fight, this is the book. The good work that Allert did in this volume gets covered over and hidden by the cloudy dust-up.
Though I don't necessarily agree with the author's conclusions on Basil of Caesarea, Augustine, and others, nevertheless as long as he stayed with the patristic material it was highly informative. Allert works through the two ancient schools of biblical interpretation in Antioch and Alexandria and nicely explains the differences and how they worked. He spent quality and quantity time unpacking the ways Basil read Genesis One in the "Hexaemeron" and Augustine in his two main writings on the subject. His opening chapter on "Who Are the Church Fathers, and Why Should I Care" was magnificent. The author's broadly stated intention for the book is "to give a window into the strange new world of the church fathers and how they understood creation themes in Genesis 1" (3), and as long as he stayed on that task, he was successful.
Towards the beginning of the book "Early Christian Readings of Genesis One" twists it's ankle and hobbles through most of the material, sometimes regaining its pace, and at other times unable to do more than hop along. If you can filter out the squabbles and static, you will find it a useful read. This book would make a great addition to seminary level church history class. And it would be a valuable edition to a University library. It's a book worth getting.
My thanks to IVP Academic for sending me a copy of this book used for the review. It was sent at my request, and without any strings or obligations attached. This review is therefore freely given.
"Early Christian Readings of Genesis One" is a polemical book. It feels as if it is obsessed with arguing with Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research, and other young-earth organizations who have enlisted some of the early church fathers to shore up their case. This contention runs (and dare I say it, ruins) the first three chapters, and keeps surfacing in the remainder of the material. If you want a ringside seat to a stout fight, this is the book. The good work that Allert did in this volume gets covered over and hidden by the cloudy dust-up.
Though I don't necessarily agree with the author's conclusions on Basil of Caesarea, Augustine, and others, nevertheless as long as he stayed with the patristic material it was highly informative. Allert works through the two ancient schools of biblical interpretation in Antioch and Alexandria and nicely explains the differences and how they worked. He spent quality and quantity time unpacking the ways Basil read Genesis One in the "Hexaemeron" and Augustine in his two main writings on the subject. His opening chapter on "Who Are the Church Fathers, and Why Should I Care" was magnificent. The author's broadly stated intention for the book is "to give a window into the strange new world of the church fathers and how they understood creation themes in Genesis 1" (3), and as long as he stayed on that task, he was successful.
Towards the beginning of the book "Early Christian Readings of Genesis One" twists it's ankle and hobbles through most of the material, sometimes regaining its pace, and at other times unable to do more than hop along. If you can filter out the squabbles and static, you will find it a useful read. This book would make a great addition to seminary level church history class. And it would be a valuable edition to a University library. It's a book worth getting.
My thanks to IVP Academic for sending me a copy of this book used for the review. It was sent at my request, and without any strings or obligations attached. This review is therefore freely given.
March 31, 2023
Craig Allert sets out in this work to demonstrate proper exegesis of the Church Fathers against the tendency to usurp them for their own theological and rhetorical purposes. The primary foil of the author is the use of the Church Fathers by proponents of creation science such as Answers in Genesis, in which he seeks to show that the Church Fathers’ reading of Genesis 1 is not merely literal, but rather prioritizes allegorical elements.
Allert does an excellent job of providing some historical background to the Antiochene and Alexandrian approaches to exegesis. This sets the stage for his argument that understanding what the Church Fathers meant by literal exegesis is not always what is meant in modern discussions.
Allert also rightly demonstrates that the Church Fathers prioritized figurative or allegorical interpretations and applications of Genesis 1 over a literal interpretation. This is shown through the amount of primary sources he cites.
The work, however, could have done more to define what a literal interpretation was, both in modern hermeneutical practice and the Church Fathers themselves. His main argument is that there is significant overlap, but the reader is left with more questions than answers as to what a literal interpretation actually is.
Furthermore, Allert does not seem to adequately escape the modern tendency—which he argues against—to separate literal and allegorical interpretations. He shows that the Church Fathers’ exegesis emphasized non-literal aspects of the text, but fails to interact clearly with the literal (or historical) elements that are assumed by the Church Fathers he analyzes. In fact, Augustine as one example, upheld both a literal (historical) and figurative reading of Genesis 1 simultaneously.
This is a work that I would recommend for those seeking an introduction into important literature on the Church Fathers exegesis and their use of such exegesis in Genesis 1. He provides valuable insight into the complexity of the Church Fathers and a welcome caution in utilizing them too quickly and neatly in contemporary theological discussions. It does not, however, provide a clear and thorough retrieval of the Church Fathers on Genesis 1 in the debate over the timeframe of creation.
Allert does an excellent job of providing some historical background to the Antiochene and Alexandrian approaches to exegesis. This sets the stage for his argument that understanding what the Church Fathers meant by literal exegesis is not always what is meant in modern discussions.
Allert also rightly demonstrates that the Church Fathers prioritized figurative or allegorical interpretations and applications of Genesis 1 over a literal interpretation. This is shown through the amount of primary sources he cites.
The work, however, could have done more to define what a literal interpretation was, both in modern hermeneutical practice and the Church Fathers themselves. His main argument is that there is significant overlap, but the reader is left with more questions than answers as to what a literal interpretation actually is.
Furthermore, Allert does not seem to adequately escape the modern tendency—which he argues against—to separate literal and allegorical interpretations. He shows that the Church Fathers’ exegesis emphasized non-literal aspects of the text, but fails to interact clearly with the literal (or historical) elements that are assumed by the Church Fathers he analyzes. In fact, Augustine as one example, upheld both a literal (historical) and figurative reading of Genesis 1 simultaneously.
This is a work that I would recommend for those seeking an introduction into important literature on the Church Fathers exegesis and their use of such exegesis in Genesis 1. He provides valuable insight into the complexity of the Church Fathers and a welcome caution in utilizing them too quickly and neatly in contemporary theological discussions. It does not, however, provide a clear and thorough retrieval of the Church Fathers on Genesis 1 in the debate over the timeframe of creation.
November 27, 2018
Solid analysis of shallow readings of patristic interpretations of Genesis 1. Allert critiques Creation science's appeal to patristic scholars (and the literalism of Benedict), and explores the theology of the early faithes.
November 16, 2018
When reading, it is easy to approach the text from our own context and presuppositions. This is not always a bad thing, but it can make a mess of what the author meant, especially when we take someone else’s work and try to make it say something completely foreign to the original context. This is true of the way many people attempt to appropriate the early church fathers as ammunition in modern debate. Some among the evangelical protestant tradition tend to sift through the church fathers with a lens, mining them for quotes to use to defend preconceived ideas, instead of letting the passages speak on their own terms, in their own context. The controversy over Genesis chapter one and the creation account is no exception.
In the introduction to “Early Christian Readings of Genesis One: Patristitc Exegesis and Literal Interpretation,” author Craig D. Allert explains the necessity of patience and deliberation when studying the church fathers. We ought to read them for what they mean, not assert meaning that isn’t there. The book is split into two portions, Understanding the Context and Reading the Church Fathers. The former involves a chapter on who the church fathers were and why they matter at all, which serves as a proper basis for the rest of the book.
The first part of the book, I believe, is the most important. In it, Allert demonstrates both the proper and improper ways to read the fathers. In speaking of how not to read them we see a much-needed critique of certain readings of the aforementioned fathers. The latter portion of the book, which is over half, focuses on actually reading them and giving us their context.
The primary focus of the book seems to be on the six days of creation. There is a chapter on creatio ex nihilo, creation out of nothing, which is actually one of my favourite chapters. I appreciate it for its subject matter, clarity, and comparison and contrast of philosophers with the church fathers. However, creatio ex nihilo is one of the less controversial topics of Genesis one; hotly debated among Christians today is whether they are literal or allegorical, and what, precisely, does “literal” actually mean. The latter debate seems to be the main concern within the book.
While I am no scholar, I still very much enjoyed reading this book, despite its academic tone. Being from IVP Academic, it comes as no surprise that it doesn’t make for easy or light reading. Somewhere around forty to fifty pages in a chapter, this book requires attentive reading. Heavily philosophical and theological, the layman may have trouble understanding some of the concepts presented, but it is never beyond grasp for the determined reader.
I would recommend “Early Christian Readings of Genesis One” for anyone studying Genesis one. Whether one is an allegorist, literalist, or other, I think all will benefit by reading this book. Aside from providing valuable information on the church fathers’ views on Genesis one, It will serve as both a reminder to be cautious when reading other people’s appropriation of the church fathers, and an explanation of how to properly read them yourself.
Many thanks to IVP for a complimentary copy of the book in exchange for my honest review.
In the introduction to “Early Christian Readings of Genesis One: Patristitc Exegesis and Literal Interpretation,” author Craig D. Allert explains the necessity of patience and deliberation when studying the church fathers. We ought to read them for what they mean, not assert meaning that isn’t there. The book is split into two portions, Understanding the Context and Reading the Church Fathers. The former involves a chapter on who the church fathers were and why they matter at all, which serves as a proper basis for the rest of the book.
The first part of the book, I believe, is the most important. In it, Allert demonstrates both the proper and improper ways to read the fathers. In speaking of how not to read them we see a much-needed critique of certain readings of the aforementioned fathers. The latter portion of the book, which is over half, focuses on actually reading them and giving us their context.
The primary focus of the book seems to be on the six days of creation. There is a chapter on creatio ex nihilo, creation out of nothing, which is actually one of my favourite chapters. I appreciate it for its subject matter, clarity, and comparison and contrast of philosophers with the church fathers. However, creatio ex nihilo is one of the less controversial topics of Genesis one; hotly debated among Christians today is whether they are literal or allegorical, and what, precisely, does “literal” actually mean. The latter debate seems to be the main concern within the book.
While I am no scholar, I still very much enjoyed reading this book, despite its academic tone. Being from IVP Academic, it comes as no surprise that it doesn’t make for easy or light reading. Somewhere around forty to fifty pages in a chapter, this book requires attentive reading. Heavily philosophical and theological, the layman may have trouble understanding some of the concepts presented, but it is never beyond grasp for the determined reader.
I would recommend “Early Christian Readings of Genesis One” for anyone studying Genesis one. Whether one is an allegorist, literalist, or other, I think all will benefit by reading this book. Aside from providing valuable information on the church fathers’ views on Genesis one, It will serve as both a reminder to be cautious when reading other people’s appropriation of the church fathers, and an explanation of how to properly read them yourself.
Many thanks to IVP for a complimentary copy of the book in exchange for my honest review.
Read
December 20, 2019Преди няколко години прочетох първата книга на Крейг Алърт A High View of Scripture? The Authority of the Bible and the Formation of the New Testament Canon (Evangelical Ressourcement: Ancient Sources for the Church’s Future). Baker Academic, 2017 като впечатленията ми от нея са отлични. Втората книга от съшия автор, кяото завършвам – Early Christian Readings of Genesis One: Patristic Exegesis and Literal Interpretation. IVP Academic, 2018 също е много интересна. Заглавието говори достатъчно ясно за съдържанието, но подходът към темата е нетрадицинен. Обикновено въпросът се разглежда чрез изреждане и групиране на цитати от църковни отци, които подкрепят едно или друго виждане. Алърт предпочита да се съсредоточи върху няколко малко на брой автори, които да анализира в дълбочина. Причината за това е, че според него възраждането на интереса към патристиката в наше време носи със себе си и някои негативни следствия. Едно от тях е склонността древни текстове на църковни отци често да се използват изцяло извадени от техния контекст – и п този начин неправилно. След като казва това той показва нагледно как то се случва на практика.
Мисля, че забележката Алърт е повече от вярна – и при това съвсем навременна. Самият аз съм бил свидетел как в хода на дадена тема някой от разискващите я хора гордо представя кратък цитат от повече или по-малко значима историческа християнска фигура, след което изглежда смята, че въпросът е приключил. Дали цитатът е представен вярно спрямо неговият непосредствен и по-широк контекст, отговаря ли той на цялостните виждания на автора и дали самият автор е в хармония по този въпрос с цялостната християнска древност или изказва лично мнение рядко е вземано под внимание. Дали сме патристичен цитат и въпросът е приключил. Е, Алърт показва, че това не само не е така, но на практика е едновременно и лошо богословстване и лошо научно изследване. В това отношение неговият анализ на предполагаемият буквален прочит на Битие от страна на Василий Велики (Хексамерон) и свързаната с него дискусия за Александрийската и Антиохисйата екзегетика е много интересна и показателна (И не, Антиохийския подход не е историко-граматически както понякога се твърди).
Трябва да призная, че на моменти детайлността на анализа ми дойде в повече и някъде след средата на книгата авторът малко по малко ме изгуби. Въпреки това дори само заради въведението свързано със значимостта на патристиката за съвременното богословие, основната теза за това как правилно трябва да се чете патристичната литература и практическите примери във връзка със споровете за креационизма и тълкуването на началните глави на Битие направиха книгата напълно заслужаваща си прочита.
Мисля, че забележката Алърт е повече от вярна – и при това съвсем навременна. Самият аз съм бил свидетел как в хода на дадена тема някой от разискващите я хора гордо представя кратък цитат от повече или по-малко значима историческа християнска фигура, след което изглежда смята, че въпросът е приключил. Дали цитатът е представен вярно спрямо неговият непосредствен и по-широк контекст, отговаря ли той на цялостните виждания на автора и дали самият автор е в хармония по този въпрос с цялостната християнска древност или изказва лично мнение рядко е вземано под внимание. Дали сме патристичен цитат и въпросът е приключил. Е, Алърт показва, че това не само не е така, но на практика е едновременно и лошо богословстване и лошо научно изследване. В това отношение неговият анализ на предполагаемият буквален прочит на Битие от страна на Василий Велики (Хексамерон) и свързаната с него дискусия за Александрийската и Антиохисйата екзегетика е много интересна и показателна (И не, Антиохийския подход не е историко-граматически както понякога се твърди).
Трябва да призная, че на моменти детайлността на анализа ми дойде в повече и някъде след средата на книгата авторът малко по малко ме изгуби. Въпреки това дори само заради въведението свързано със значимостта на патристиката за съвременното богословие, основната теза за това как правилно трябва да се чете патристичната литература и практическите примери във връзка със споровете за креационизма и тълкуването на началните глави на Битие направиха книгата напълно заслужаваща си прочита.
March 3, 2023
Important for understanding early Christian creation readings
Allert provides another excellent resource for understanding Christian Scripture (his first being his book on the authority of Scripture). This one is aimed at understanding how some early church fathers (ECF) interpreted the Genesis 1 creation narrative, in contradistinction to how some young earth creationists (YEC) claim the ECFs interpreted the text.
YECs have claimed that the ECF's view of Genesis 1 supports the YEC reading, at least when these EFCs are "literalists" as opposed to "allegorists." But Allert aptly demonstrates this view to be inaccurate, due to unfamiliarity with the ways in which EFCs understood literalism vs allegory (i.e., literalism was not what it currently means to YEC proponents), and the actual interpretations of the creation texts by EFCs. In short, YECs will not so easily find support for their interpretation of the Genesis 1 passage among the EFCs, and so should stop appealing to them as an authority backing the YEC position.
Among the topics Allert addresses as covered by or related to understanding the ECFs are the following: the difference between the Alexandrian and Antiochian schools of interpretation, creation 'ex nihilo' (from nothing), the meaning of the 'days' of creation, the meaning of 'beginning', and Moses as a model for spiritual formation and growth. This is an important book for appreciating the ways in which the early church understood and used the Genesis 1 passage, allowing for a far wider scope of interpretation today.
Allert provides another excellent resource for understanding Christian Scripture (his first being his book on the authority of Scripture). This one is aimed at understanding how some early church fathers (ECF) interpreted the Genesis 1 creation narrative, in contradistinction to how some young earth creationists (YEC) claim the ECFs interpreted the text.
YECs have claimed that the ECF's view of Genesis 1 supports the YEC reading, at least when these EFCs are "literalists" as opposed to "allegorists." But Allert aptly demonstrates this view to be inaccurate, due to unfamiliarity with the ways in which EFCs understood literalism vs allegory (i.e., literalism was not what it currently means to YEC proponents), and the actual interpretations of the creation texts by EFCs. In short, YECs will not so easily find support for their interpretation of the Genesis 1 passage among the EFCs, and so should stop appealing to them as an authority backing the YEC position.
Among the topics Allert addresses as covered by or related to understanding the ECFs are the following: the difference between the Alexandrian and Antiochian schools of interpretation, creation 'ex nihilo' (from nothing), the meaning of the 'days' of creation, the meaning of 'beginning', and Moses as a model for spiritual formation and growth. This is an important book for appreciating the ways in which the early church understood and used the Genesis 1 passage, allowing for a far wider scope of interpretation today.
December 11, 2024
For many early church members, the event-centered typology of the Christ-event was the core of Scripture. The holy men who become the lights of the souls they have taught are the real Light of the world. Protology is essentially about the second Adam; it is not about science. The second Adam is rarely or never mentioned in many commentators and monographs, particularly those with a scientific bent, which view Genesis' main objective as scientific. Because they fail to see the primary significance of Christ, they believe that the Scriptures are unclear.
There is a theological reincarnation of Adam for each of the covenant heads that followed, Noah, Abraham, and Moses. Redemptive history is replete with protological patterns. The relationship between protology and eschatology is demonstrated by the Sabbath. The coming kingdom of the Christians is symbolized by the Sabbath (Heb 4:4–8). Adam was made in God's image, and Jesus Christ, the second Adam, also bears God's likeness (1 Corinthians 15:45, Col 1:15). Genesis should be interpreted in the way that the New Testament presents it.
There is a theological reincarnation of Adam for each of the covenant heads that followed, Noah, Abraham, and Moses. Redemptive history is replete with protological patterns. The relationship between protology and eschatology is demonstrated by the Sabbath. The coming kingdom of the Christians is symbolized by the Sabbath (Heb 4:4–8). Adam was made in God's image, and Jesus Christ, the second Adam, also bears God's likeness (1 Corinthians 15:45, Col 1:15). Genesis should be interpreted in the way that the New Testament presents it.
October 20, 2018
See review on The Theologian's Library, here.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews