Later Christians followed their example. Irenaeus of Lyons, in his work Against Heresies from the middle of the 2nd century, saw the story of Adam, Eve and the serpent pointing to the death of Jesus: Now in this same day that they did eat, in that also did they die. Philo was the first commentator to use allegory on Bible extensively in his writing. Thus, every time that, in the revolution of the sun, evening and morning occupy the world, their periodical succession never exceeds the space of one day. Why does Scripture say 'one day the first day'? Since he had not finished his earlier literal commentary, he The allegorical approach, which is speculative, avoids the basic message that is trying to be conveyed by Genesis 1, which is primarily spiritual as well relational, as far as what God's relationship is with His creation, as well as conveying a new revelation for the people of Israel in … The purpose of this literary device is to manifest Divine approval of the working week and the Sabbath rest.[23]. Basil rejected an allegorical interpretation in his Hexaëmeron, without commenting on the literalism of the days: I know the laws of allegory, though less by myself than from the works of others. There are those truly, who do not admit the common sense of the Scriptures, for whom water is not water, but some other nature, who see in a plant, in a fish, what their fancy wishes, who change the nature of reptiles and of wild beasts to suit their allegories, like the interpreters of dreams who explain visions in sleep to make them serve their own ends. ‘And there was evening and there was morning: one day.’ And the evening and the morning were one day. Ott makes the following comments on the “science” of Genesis and the Fathers: as the hagiographers in profane things make use of a popular, that is, a non-scientific form of exposition suitable to the mental perception of their times, a more liberal interpretation, is possible here. Allegorical Interpretation of Genesis 2 and 3 F. H. Colson, G. H. Whitaker (trans.) Yarad The literalist reading of some contemporary Christians maligns the allegorical or mythical interpretation of Genesis as a belated attempt to reconcile science with the biblical account. Philo’s allegorical interpretations of the Old Testament turned out to be influential upon Christian interpreters as well. Viewing Genesis 1-11 as allegory, legend, or myth is problematic on multiple fronts for the born-again Christian or anyone who wants to truly understand our faith. The literalist reading of some contemporary Christians maligns the allegorical or mythical interpretation of Genesis as a belated attempt to reconcile science with the biblical account. Free shipping and pickup in store on eligible orders. In The City of God, Augustine rejected both the immortality of the human race proposed by pagans, and contemporary ideas of ages (such as those of certain Greeks and Egyptians) that differed from the Church's sacred writings: Let us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race. Thus David said:" Open Thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of Thy law" (Psalms 119:18), that is to say, the things that are underneath. Such a Torah, one treating with everyday concerns, and indeed a more excellent one, we too, even we, could compile. Related Subjects. They merely bring discredit to the Bible as they pile grist upon grist on the mills of latter-day Huxleys, such as Hoyle, Sagan, Gould, and others. Where creationism is fundamentally at fault is its resting its case on a theological faultline: the biblicism constructed by the [Protestant] Reformers. He quoted the Mishnah in Tractate Chagigah which states that the actual meaning of the Creation account, mystical in nature, was traditionally transmitted from teachers to advanced scholars in a private setting. [30] In spite of this Gersonides copied Maimonides' explanation the story of Adam into his commentary on Genesis, thinly veiled by extensive usage of the word "hint". Such a Torah, one treating with everyday concerns, and indeed a more excellent one, we too, even we, could compile. Adam is the pure intellect, Eve is a body, and the Serpent is a fantasy that tries to trap intellect through the body.[31]. Maimonides argued that if science proved a point, then the finding should be accepted and scripture should be interpreted accordingly. Publication Date: 01/01/1929. In this story, Aaron and Miriam have just spoken out against their brother Moses. 19 [AD 408], The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 2:9. [33][34], Readings of the biblical Book of Genesis that treat elements of the narrative as symbols or types, Church historians on allegorical interpretation of Genesis, The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. Thus the tales related in the Torah are simply her outer garments, and woe to the man who regards that outer garb as the Torah itself, for such a man will be deprived of portion in the next world. The "Clergy Letter" Project, drafted in 2004, and signed by thousands of Christian clergy supporting science and faith, states: We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. In the book, Augustine took the view that everything in the universe was created simultaneously by God, and not in seven days like a plain account of Genesis would require. Basil rejected an allegorical interpretation in his Hexaëmeron, without commenting on the literalism of the days: I know the laws of allegory, though less by myself than from the works of others. The main point of Maimonides and Gersonides is that Fall of Man is not a story about one man, but about the human nature. Augustine rejected both the immortality of the human race proposed by pagans, and contemporary ideas of ages (such as those of certain Greeks and Egyptians) that differed from the Church’s sacred writings: Let us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race. Augustine also doesn’t envisage original sin as originating structural changes in the universe, and even suggests that the bodies of Adam and Eve were already created mortal before the Fall. God's work of creation represented in schematic form (opus distinctionis — opus ornatus) by the picture of a human working week, the termination of the work by the picture of the Sabbath rest. Maimonides applied this principle to theories about creation. But both types of interpretations have their pitfalls. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. St. Augustine also comments on the word "day" in the creation week, admitting the interpretation is difficult: But simultaneously with time the world was made, if in the world's creation change and motion were created, as seems evident from the order of the first six or seven days. Apart from his specific views, Augustine recognizes that the interpretation of the creation story is difficult, and remarks that we should be willing to change our mind about it as new information comes up.[19]. He argues that the six-day structure of creation presented in the book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way. Any other teaching about the origin and make-up of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven. If you only remember one thing from this chapter make it this: Genesis is not giving us creation science. There are those truly, who do not admit the common sense of the Scriptures, for whom water is not water, but some other nature, who see in a plant, in a fish, what their fancy wishes, who change the nature of reptiles and of wild beasts to suit their allegories, like the interpreters of dreams who explain visions in sleep to make them serve their own ends. Pope John Paul II wrote to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on the subject of cosmology and how to interpret Genesis: Cosmogony and cosmology have always aroused great interest among peoples and religions. Sir Robert Anderson wrote, “Christ and Criticism” in The Fundamentals, which wholly rejected a non-literal interpretation of Genesis by Jesus Christ. An allegorical interpretation of Genesis is a symbolic, rather than literal, reading of the biblical Book of Genesis. Notable proponents of allegorical interpretation include the Christian theologian Augustine of Hippo, who in the 4th century, on theological grounds, argued that God created everything in the universe in the same instant, and not in six days as a plain reading of Genesis would require;[2][3] and the even earlier 1st-century Jewish scholar Philo of Alexandria, who wrote that it would be a mistake to think that creation happened in six days or in any determinate amount of time.[4]. Eschatology / Jesus, The Son of Mary / Middle Eastern religions, Historical Reliability of the Acts of the Apostles. Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott in his authoritative Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, under the section "The Divine Work of Creation," (pages 92–122) covers the "biblical hexahemeron" (the "six days" of creation), the creation of man, Adam/Eve, original sin, the Fall, and the statements of the early Fathers, Saints, Church Councils, and Popes relevant to the matter. The “firmament” or “expanse” is a metaphor about the opening of the hearing ear. It is a mistake to think that allegorical interpretation lacks criteria to help discern good from bad. It is as though it said: twenty-four hours measure the space of a day, or that, in reality a day is the time that the heavens starting from one point take to return there. 146 BOOK II. St. Augustine also comments on the word “day” in the creation week, admitting the interpretation is difficult: But simultaneously with time the world was made, if in the world’s creation change and motion were created, as seems evident from the order of the first six or seven days. In reality, however, it is the body of the man that constitutes the pride of his clothes, and his soul constitutes the pride of his body. Loeb Classical Library > Philo. Just like the Early Church had rules for good exegesis, they also had rules for good allegory. To reject this truth or to treat it as 'one theory among others' is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. In this course we shall use the name Jehovah. [6], However, the Russian Orthodox hieromonk Fr. 2 out of 2 points The main stream of understanding Genesis 1 favored allegorical interpretations of much of Genesis 1 and 2. Allegorical Interpretation of Genesis 2 and 3 by Philo at Indigo.ca, Canada's largest bookstore. In Some Answered Questions, 'Abdu'l-Bahá unequivocally rejects a literal reading, instead holding that the story is a symbolic one containing "divine mysteries and universal meanings"; namely, the fall of Adam symbolizes that humanity became conscious of good and evil. For in these days the morning and evening are counted, until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. [17], With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. In this view, one was obligated to understand Torah in a way that was compatible with the findings of science. From this it is clear that the Lord suffered death, in obedience to His Father, upon that day on which Adam died while he disobeyed God. Where the prophet Hosea has God say of Israel, "Out of Egypt I called my son," (Hosea 11:1), Matthew interprets the phrase as a reference to Jesus. The philosopher Philo was born about 20 BCE to a prominent Jewish family in Alexandria, the chief home of the Jewish Diaspora as well as the chief center of Hellenistic culture; he was trained in Greek as well as Jewish learning. Some religious historians consider that biblical literalism came about with the rise of Protestantism; before the Reformation, the Bible was not usually interpreted in a completely literal way. A particular form of allegorical interpretation is the typological, according to which the key figures, main… Read More; use in. In modern times, Answers in Genesis has been a strong advocate of a literal interpretation of Genesis. Chapter 3 introduces a talking serpent, which many Christians believe is Satan in disguise. Other Jews and Christians have long regarded the creation account of Genesis as an allegory – even prior to the development of modern science and the scientific accounts (based on the scientific method) of cosmological, biological and human origins. Nahmanides, often critical of the rationalist views of Maimonides, pointed out (in his commentary to Genesis) several non-sequiturs stemming from a literal translation of the Bible's account of Creation, and stated that the account actually symbolically refers to spiritual concepts. In Palestinian Jewish exegesis, allegory provides material for haggadah, the interpretation of non-legal passages of Scripture.