The Patristics (Church Fathers) on Genesis: Evidence of the Historical Interpretation of Gen 1-11

By Rev Darren Middleton

So often I hear of people claim that a literal understanding of Genesis is a recent novelty, almost as if it was a reaction to Neo-Darwinian evolution. Many suggest its roots go no deeper than 100-200 years so having heard this claimed on numerous occasions I did my own search through the Patristics (church Fathers) to see if the early Christians understood Genesis literally (as an historical event). Below is the fruit of that study, a small collection of Patristics and their views on the literal/historical nature of Genesis. There are other views, but without doubt the literal view was the dominant view of the Fathers, as can be evidenced below. For example:

Clement of Rome [A.D. 30-100]
"Wherefore, in short, at the first, when all the earth had been stained with sins, God brought a flood upon the world, which you say happened trader Deucalion; and at that time He saved a certain righteous man, with his sons, in an ark, and with him the race of all plants and animals."
*Series 1, Vol 1, Book VIII, Chapter L. "The Flood"


Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus (A.D. 181)
"On the fourth day the luminaries came into existence. Since God has foreknowledge, he understood the nonsense of the foolish philosophers who were going to say that the things produced on earth come from the stars, so that they might set God aside. In order therefore that the truth might be demonstrated, plants and seeds came into existence before the stars. For what comes into existence later cannot cause what is prior to it" 

*Series 1, Vol 11, Theophilus to Autolycus, Book 2:15

"All the years from the creation of the world [to Theophilus's day] amount to a total of 5,698 years and the odd months and days. . . . If even a chronological error has been committed by us, for example, of 50 or 100 or even 200 years, yet [there have] not [been] the thousands and tens of thousands, as Plato and Apollonius and other mendacious authors have hitherto written. And perhaps our knowledge of the whole number of the years is not quite accurate, because the odd months and days are not set down in the sacred books" 
*Series 1, Vol 11, Theophilus to Autolycus, Book 3:28-9

Hippoltus [A.D. 170-236.] : Bishop of Portus, Disciple of Ireneaus, the Great Bishop of Lyons
"Gen. I. 5. And it was evening, and it was morning, one day.
Hippolytus. He did not say "night and day," but "one day," with reference to the name of the light. He did not say the "first day; "for if he had said the "first" day, he would also have had to say that the "second" day was made.
But it was right to speak not of the "first day," but of "one day," in order that by saying "one," he might show that it returns on its orbit and, while it remains one, makes up the week.
Gen. I. 6. And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the water.
Hippolytus. On the first day God made what He made out of nothing. But on the other days He did not make out of nothing, but out of what He had made on the first day, by molding it according to His pleasure."
*Series 1, Vol 5, The Extant Works and Fragments of Hippolytus, On Genesis

Victorinus [A.D. 250? - 304]: Bishop of Petau
"To me, as I meditate and consider in my mind concerning the creation of this world in which we are kept enclosed, even such is the rapidity of that creation; as is contained in the book of Moses, which he wrote about its creation, and which is called Genesis. God produced that entire mass for the adornment of His majesty in six days; on the seventh to which He consecrated it ...with a blessing. For this reason, therefore, because in the septenary number of days both heavenly and earthly things are ordered, in place of the beginning I will consider of this seventh day after the principle of all matters pertaining to the number of seven; and as far as I shall be able, I will endeavour to portray the day of the divine power to that consummation.

In the beginning God made the light, and divided it in the exact measure of twelve hours by day and by night, for this reason, doubtless, that day might bring over the night as an occasion of rest for men's labours; that, again, day might overcome, and thus that labour might be refreshed with this alternate change of rest, and that repose again might be tempered by the exercise of day."
*Series1, Vol 7, "On the Creation of the World"

Lactantius [A.D. 307]
"...In the beginning God made the light, and divided it in the exact measure of twelve hours by day and by night, for this reason, doubtless, that day might bring over the night as an occasion of rest for men's labours; that, again, day might overcome, and thus that labour might be refreshed with this alternate change of rest, and that repose again might be tempered by the exercise of day. "On the fourth day He made two lights in the heaven, the greater and the lesser, that the one might rule over the day, the other over the night,"-the lights of the sun and moon; and He placed the rest of the stars in the heaven, that they might shine upon the earth, and by their positions distinguish the seasons, and years, and months, and days, and hours.
*Series 1, Vol. 7, The Epitome of the Divine Institutes, Homily II, "On The Creation Of The World"


Basil the Great [A.D. 330-379]: Archbishop of Caesarea
"And the evening and the morning were one day. Why does Scripture say "one day" not "the first day"? Before speaking to us of the second, the third, and the fourth days, would it not have been more natural to call that one the
first which began the series? If it therefore says "one day," it is from a wish to determine the measure of day and night, and to combine the time that they contain. Now twenty-four hours fill up the space of one day-we mean of a
day and of a night; and if, at the time of the solstices, they have not both an equal length, the time marked by Scripture does not the less circumscribe their duration. 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. 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."
*Series 11, Vol. 8, Hexaemeron, Homily II:8 "The Earth Was Invisible and Unfinished."


Ambrose of Milan [A.D. 340-397]: Bishop of Milan
"Scripture established a law that twenty-four hours, including both day and night, should be given the name of day only, as if one were to say the length of one day is twenty-four hours in extent. . . . The nights in this reckoning are considered to be component parts of the days that are counted. Therefore, just as there is a single revolution of time, so there is but one day.
Thus were created the evening and the morning. Scripture means the space of a day and a night, and afterwards no more says day and night, but calls them both under the name of the more important: a custom which you will find
throughout Scripture....... Scripture say "one day the first day"
*Series 11, Vol 10. , Book Exegetic, Hexaemeron

It is true that Augustine did not understand the days of Genesis literally (as in historical/chronological). However, we can say that whatever he does mean by day (and that is not perspicuous), it certainly isn't great periods of time. If anything his view is the six days were instantaneous. However, he did take from day six literally as is obvious by his calculation that from Adam to Noah was 2,262 years (City of God, Book 15:20) which confirms he believed the historicity of the first 11 chapters..