Augustine and Origen each give us "two birds with one stone"

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Gary Bates' Egyptian Matches Bungle the Carbon Rise · Creation vs. Evolution: Egyptian Chronology Calibrated · Augustine and Origen each give us "two birds with one stone" · Carbon 14 and Egyptian Chronology, a Reply to Gary Bates

A) They show that the Church Fathers (even those not believing in six literal days) were Young Earth Creationists.
B) They confirm that the Egyptians conflated their chronologies.

Origen, Contra Celsum, Book I
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04161.htm

Chapter 19

After these statements, Celsus, from a secret desire to cast discredit upon the Mosaic account of the creation, which teaches that the world is not yet ten thousand years old, but very much under that, while concealing his wish, intimates his agreement with those who hold that the world is uncreated. For, maintaining that there have been, from all eternity, many conflagrations and many deluges, and that the flood which lately took place in the time of Deucalion is comparatively modern, he clearly demonstrates to those who are able to understand him, that, in his opinion, the world was uncreated. But let this assailant of the Christian faith tell us by what arguments he was compelled to accept the statement that there have been many conflagrations and many cataclysms, and that the flood which occurred in the time of Deucalion, and the conflagration in that of Phæthon, were more recent than any others. And if he should put forward the dialogues of Plato (as evidence) on these subjects, we shall say to him that it is allowable for us also to believe that there resided in the pure and pious soul of Moses, who ascended above all created things, and united himself to the Creator of the universe, and who made known divine things with far greater clearness than Plato, or those other wise men (who lived) among the Greeks and Romans, a spirit which was divine. And if he demands of us our reasons for such a belief, let him first give grounds for his own unsupported assertions, and then we shall show that this view of ours is the correct one.

Chapter 20

And yet, against his will, Celsus is entangled into testifying that the world is comparatively modern, and not yet ten thousand years old, when he says that the Greeks consider those things as ancient, because, owing to the deluges and conflagrations, they have not beheld or received any memorials of older events. But let Celsus have, as his authorities for the myth regarding the conflagrations and inundations, those persons who, in his opinion, are the most learned of the Egyptians, traces of whose wisdom are to be found in the worship of irrational animals, and in arguments which prove that such a worship of God is in conformity with reason, and of a secret and mysterious character. The Egyptians, then, when they boastfully give their own account of the divinity of animals, are to be considered wise; but if any Jew, who has signified his adherence to the law and the lawgiver, refer everything to the Creator of the universe, and the only God, he is, in the opinion of Celsus and those like him, deemed inferior to him who degrades the Divinity not only to the level of rational and mortal animals, but even to that of irrational also!— a view which goes far beyond the mythical doctrine of transmigration, according to which the soul falls down from the summit of heaven, and enters into the body of brute beasts, both tame and savage! And if the Egyptians related fables of this kind, they are believed to convey a philosophical meaning by their enigmas and mysteries; but if Moses compose and leave behind him histories and laws for an entire nation, they are to be considered as empty fables, the language of which admits of no allegorical meaning!

Augustine, City of God, Book XII
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120112.htm

Chapter 10.— Of the Falseness of the History Which Allots Many Thousand Years to the World's Past.
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. For some hold the same opinion regarding men that they hold regarding the world itself, that they have always been. Thus Apuleius says when he is describing our race, Individually they are mortal, but collectively, and as a race, they are immortal. And when they are asked, how, if the human race has always been, they vindicate the truth of their history, which narrates who were the inventors, and what they invented, and who first instituted the liberal studies and the other arts, and who first inhabited this or that region, and this or that island? They reply, that most, if not all lands, were so desolated at intervals by fire and flood, that men were greatly reduced in numbers, and from these, again, the population was restored to its former numbers, and that thus there was at intervals a new beginning made, and though those things which had been interrupted and checked by the severe devastations were only renewed, yet they seemed to be originated then; but that man could not exist at all save as produced by man. But they say what they think, not what they know.

They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed. And, not to spend many words in exposing the baselessness of these documents, in which so many thousands of years are accounted for, nor in proving that their authorities are totally inadequate, let me cite only that letter which Alexander the Great wrote to his mother Olympias, giving her the narrative he had from an Egyptian priest, which he had extracted from their sacred archives, and which gave an account of kingdoms mentioned also by the Greek historians. In this letter of Alexander's a term of upwards of 5000 years is assigned to the kingdom of Assyria; while in the Greek history only 1300 years are reckoned from the reign of Bel himself, whom both Greek and Egyptian agree in counting the first king of Assyria. Then to the empire of the Persians and Macedonians this Egyptian assigned more than 8000 years, counting to the time of Alexander, to whom he was speaking; while among the Greeks, 485 years are assigned to the Macedonians down to the death of Alexander, and to the Persians 233 years, reckoning to the termination of his conquests. Thus these give a much smaller number of years than the Egyptians; and indeed, though multiplied three times, the Greek chronology would still be shorter. For the Egyptians are said to have formerly reckoned only four months to their year; so that one year, according to the fuller and truer computation now in use among them as well as among ourselves, would comprehend three of their old years. But not even thus, as I said, does the Greek history correspond with the Egyptian in its chronology. And therefore the former must receive the greater credit, because it does not exceed the true account of the duration of the world as it is given by our documents, which are truly sacred. Further, if this letter of Alexander, which has become so famous, differs widely in this matter of chronology from the probable credible account, how much less can we believe these documents which, though full of fabulous and fictitious antiquities, they would fain oppose to the authority of our well-known and divine books, which predicted that the whole world would believe them, and which the whole world accordingly has believed; which proved, too, that it had truly narrated past events by its prediction of future events, which have so exactly come to pass!

Credits are due to Jonathan Sarfati for giving a short quote from each passage, and if he lacked the reference for St. Augustine, it was supplied by Lita Sanders earlier on.

When was the Upper Palaeolithic? Flood to Babel or post-Babel?

Origen has a few sermons on Genesis. The one on the Flood states that the words of Lamech about Noah (in Genesis 5:29), namely:

And he called his name Noe, saying: This same shall comfort us from the works and labours of our hands on the earth, which the Lord hath cursed.

... are only fulfilled typologically, in Christ, it is impossible to have them fulfilled in the son of Lamech back then.

In fact not. The Palaeolithic means the society of hunter-gatherers. And hunter-gatherers do in fact repose from agriculture.

So, was the Palaeolithic (after the démise of Neanderthals at least) post-Flood or post-Babel?

Kent Hovind compares the post-Flood situation to a Gilligan's Island scenario. CMI and AiG seem to have a preference for putting this Palaeolithic (and even the Neanderthals) post-Babel. Technology loss due to populations splitting up.

And I think the answer is given : it was Noah, not Nimrod, who brought repose from agricultural pursuits./HGL

What Shall we Say on Origen?

What Did Origen Really Say? · What Shall we Say on Origen?

The Greek and Latin versions do not seem to raise different issues. I'll take only the Greek one.

16. It was not only, however, with the (Scriptures composed) before the advent (of Christ) that the Spirit thus dealt; but as being the same Spirit, and (proceeding) from the one God, He did the same thing both with the evangelists and the apostles — as even these do not contain throughout a pure history of events, which are interwoven indeed according to the letter, but which did not actually occur. Nor even do the law and the commandments wholly convey what is agreeable to reason.

Note, his "reason" seems to be "common sense" and not modern science, as the examples will show.

For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars?

Time is measured by the movement of these heavenly bodies around earth but essentially by the movement of heaven, when went on even before these bodies were created, and in which God had planted a light.

And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky?

While day-light is now shown to us by the sky, the thing is, it shone.

And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life?

Here Origen goes into Platonising overemphasis on spirituality.

First, while God no doubt gave Adam a well ordered organism with soul obeying Him and getting obedience from the body to a degree we cannot imagine, and the garden could signify this, nevertheless Adam and then Eve also were bodily beings who lived in an actual place. And why should this place not mirror the dispositions of who was living there?

And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree?

Here Origen seems to deny the sacramental principle. He is, fortunately, not in this denial when discussing the Eucharist:

Origen (c. 185 - 254 A.D.)


We give thanks to the Creator of all, and, along with thanksgiving and prayer for the blessings we have received, we also eat the bread presented to us; and this bread BECOMES BY PRAYER A SACRED BODY, which sanctifies those who sincerely partake of it.(Against Celsus 8:33)

You see how the ALTARS are no longer sprinkled with the blood of oxen, but consecrated BY THE PRECIOUS BLOOD OF CHRIST. (Homilies on Joshua 2:1)

But if that text (Lev 24:5-9) is taken to refer to the greatness of what is mystically symbolized, then there is a 'commemoration' which has an EFFECT OF GREAT PROPITIATORY VALUE. If you apply it to that 'Bread which came down from heaven and gives life to the world,' that shewbread which 'God has offered to us as a means of reconciliation, in virtue of faith, ransoming us with his blood,' and if you look to that commemoration of which the Lord says, 'Do this in commemoration of me,' then you will find that this is the unique commemoration WHICH MAKES GOD PROPITIOUS TO MEN. (Homilies on Leviticus 9)

You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received THE BODY OF THE LORD, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall, and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish….how is it that you think neglecting the word of God a lesser crime than neglecting HIS BODY? (Homilies on Exodus 13:3)

…now, however, in full view, there is the true food, THE FLESH OF THE WORD OF GOD, as He Himself says: "MY FLESH IS TRULY FOOD, AND MY BLOOD IS TRULY DRINK." (Homilies on Numbers 7:2)

Fathers of the Church on the Eucharist
by Fr. Burns K. Seeley, S.S.J.C., Ph.D.
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/fathers.htm

So, how would Origen have answered someone saying one cannot be sanctified by masticating the Host? Well, the tree of life is a pre-figuration of Christ as "the true bread", and therefore God would have provided immortality by masticating the fruit of that tree, according to some kind of sacramental arrangement made by God without any preceding prayer by the Church.

And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally.

If Adam and Eve could talk to God, it is more likely, God appeared in a theophany, with similar traits as Jesus Christ had as true Man. Let's hope Origen by "in appearance" meant "through a theophany" and "not literally" meaning it was not the three persons and fulness of divinity which was limited to the place in a manner allowing it to be seen, it was a theophany. But I am afraid, he may not even have believed in a theophany.

Cain also, when going forth from the presence of God, certainly appears to thoughtful men as likely to lead the reader to inquire what is the presence of God, and what is the meaning of going out from Him.

Same observation, though t could also be a question no more of a visible outer theophany as of God speaking in the inner mind of a man, through his imagination, in which case Cain might have simply stopped being quiet to listen to what God had to say.

And what need is there to say more, since those who are not altogether blind can collect countless instances of a similar kind recorded as having occurred, but which did not literally take place?

Well, if each item, where Origen denies literal occurrence of the story, actually allows it, this would no doubt also be the case with those "countless" other ones he hints at.

Nay, the Gospels themselves are filled with the same kind of narratives; e.g., the devil leading Jesus up into a high mountain, in order to show him from thence the kingdoms of the whole world, and the glory of them. For who is there among those who do not read such accounts carelessly, that would not condemn those who think that with the eye of the body— which requires a lofty height in order that the parts lying (immediately) under and adjacent may be seen — the kingdoms of the Persians, and Scythians, and Indians, and Parthians, were beheld, and the manner in which their princes are glorified among men?

I have already given a conspectus of the Church Father responses in the previous one. Let's resume.

From the high mountain (which could be in geography or an arrangement made by angelic willpower as to the matter), the Devil could have said "there in the South you have Arabia, and a little to the right Egypt, turn to the left now, you see the direction of Edom, Moab and Ammon, then Persia, Bactria, India, the land of Seres from which the rare silk comes and a land on islands which has fairer skin but same slit eyes as the Seres, and who value warriors more, like the Romans do, beyond them is a sea wider than the mediterranian, and beyond that sea lives a people who all these peoples do not know" or he could have shown the kind of techniques he uses to dominate men into sin, or he could have used some kind of angelically arranged tele-vision to show Our Lord actual moving pictures of Beduins from ravines in Edom or of people in Persian trousers on horsebacks in Persia, which technique could also have been used to tell Our Lord of his techniques of domination. So, no impossibility. It's not the Gospel story, but the common sense objection, which actually cannot stand once you scrutinise it.

And the attentive reader may notice in the Gospels innumerable other passages like these, so that he will be convinced that in the histories that are literally recorded, circumstances that did not occur are inserted.

As with countless previously, so with innumerable here.

...All these statements have been made by us, in order to show that the design of that divine power which gave us the sacred Scriptures is, that we should not receive what is presented by the letter alone (such things being sometimes not true in their literal acceptation, but absurd and impossible), but that certain things have been introduced into the actual history and into the legislation that are useful in their literal sense.

I suspect a scribe has here altered "useless in the literal sense" to "useful" - otherwise the passage doesn't make sense. If this is so, this correction shows how "far out" Origen was in comparison to other Church Fathers (early or late).

As to "not receive what is presented by the letter alone" I'd prefer "not alone receive that which is presented by the letter" - that being obviously St. Augustine's take on it. Let's go to his view on the Deluge:

Chapter 27.— Of the Ark and the Deluge, and that We Cannot Agree with Those Who Receive the Bare History, But Reject the Allegorical Interpretation, Nor with Those Who Maintain the Figurative and Not the Historical Meaning.

Yet no one ought to suppose either that these things were written for no purpose, or that we should study only the historical truth, apart from any allegorical meanings; or, on the contrary, that they are only allegories, and that there were no such facts at all, or that, whether it be so or no, there is here no prophecy of the church. For what right-minded man will contend that books so religiously preserved during thousands of years, and transmitted by so orderly a succession, were written without an object, or that only the bare historical facts are to be considered when we read them? For, not to mention other instances, if the number of the animals entailed the construction of an ark of great size, where was the necessity of sending into it two unclean and seven clean animals of each species, when both could have been preserved in equal numbers? Or could not God, who ordered them to be preserved in order to replenish the race, restore them in the same way He had created them?

But they who contend that these things never happened, but are only figures setting forth other things, in the first place suppose that there could not be a flood so great that the water should rise fifteen cubits above the highest mountains, because it is said that clouds cannot rise above the top of Mount Olympus, because it reaches the sky where there is none of that thicker atmosphere in which winds, clouds, and rains have their origin. They do not reflect that the densest element of all, earth, can exist there; or perhaps they deny that the top of the mountain is earth. Why, then, do these measurers and weighers of the elements contend that earth can be raised to those aerial altitudes, and that water cannot, while they admit that water is lighter, and more likely to ascend than earth? What reason do they adduce why earth, the heavier and lower element, has for so many ages scaled to the tranquil ether, while water, the lighter, and more likely to ascend, is not suffered to do the same even for a brief space of time?

They say, too, that the area of that ark could not contain so many kinds of animals of both sexes, two of the unclean and seven of the clean. But they seem to me to reckon only one area of 300 cubits long and 50 broad, and not to remember that there was another similar in the story above, and yet another as large in the story above that again; and that there was consequently an area of 900 cubits by 150. And if we accept what Origen has with some appropriateness suggested, that Moses the man of God, being, as it is written, learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, Acts 7:22 who delighted in geometry, may have meant geometrical cubits, of which they say that one is equal to six of our cubits, then who does not see what a capacity these dimensions give to the ark? For as to their objection that an ark of such size could not be built, it is a very silly calumny; for they are aware that huge cities have been built, and they should remember that the ark was an hundred years in building. Or, perhaps, though stone can adhere to stone when cemented with nothing but lime, so that a wall of several miles may be constructed, yet plank cannot be riveted to plank by mortices, bolts, nails, and pitch-glue, so as to construct an ark which was not made with curved ribs but straight timbers, which was not to be launched by its builders, but to be lifted by the natural pressure of the water when it reached it, and which was to be preserved from shipwreck as it floated about rather by divine oversight than by human skill.

As to another customary inquiry of the scrupulous about the very minute creatures, not only such as mice and lizards, but also locusts, beetles, flies, fleas, and so forth, whether there were not in the ark a larger number of them than was determined by God in His command, those persons who are moved by this difficulty are to be reminded that the words every creeping thing of the earth only indicate that it was not needful to preserve in the ark the animals that can live in the water, whether the fishes that live submerged in it, or the sea-birds that swim on its surface. Then, when it is said male and female, no doubt reference is made to the repairing of the races, and consequently there was no need for those creatures being in the ark which are born without the union of the sexes from inanimate things, or from their corruption; or if they were in the ark, they might be there as they commonly are in houses, not in any determinate numbers; or if it was necessary that there should be a definite number of all those animals that cannot naturally live in the water, that so the most sacred mystery which was being enacted might be bodied forth and perfectly figured in actual realities, still this was not the care of Noah or his sons, but of God. For Noah did not catch the animals and put them into the ark, but gave them entrance as they came seeking it. For this is the force of the words, They shall come unto you, Genesis 6:19-20 — not, that is to say, by man's effort, but by God's will. But certainly we are not required to believe that those which have no sex also came; for it is expressly and definitely said, They shall be male and female. For there are some animals which are born out of corruption, but yet afterwards they themselves copulate and produce offspring, as flies; but others, which have no sex, like bees. Then, as to those animals which have sex, but without ability to propagate their kind, like mules and she-mules, it is probable that they were not in the ark, but that it was counted sufficient to preserve their parents, to wit, the horse and the ass; and this applies to all hybrids. Yet, if it was necessary for the completeness of the mystery, they were there; for even this species has male and female.

Another question is commonly raised regarding the food of the carnivorous animals — whether, without transgressing the command which fixed the number to be preserved, there were necessarily others included in the ark for their sustenance; or, as is more probable, there might be some food which was not flesh, and which yet suited all. For we know how many animals whose food is flesh eat also vegetable products and fruits, especially figs and chestnuts. What wonder is it, therefore, if that wise and just man was instructed by God what would suit each, so that without flesh he prepared and stored provision fit for every species? And what is there which hunger would not make animals eat? Or what could not be made sweet and wholesome by God, who, with a divine facility, might have enabled them to do without food at all, had it not been requisite to the completeness of so great a mystery that they should be fed? But none but a contentious man can suppose that there was no prefiguring of the church in so manifold and circumstantial a detail. For the nations have already so filled the church, and are comprehended in the framework of its unity, the clean and unclean together, until the appointed end, that this one very manifest fulfillment leaves no doubt how we should interpret even those others which are somewhat more obscure, and which cannot so readily be discerned. And since this is so, if not even the most audacious will presume to assert that these things were written without a purpose, or that though the events really happened they mean nothing, or that they did not really happen, but are only allegory, or that at all events they are far from having any figurative reference to the church; if it has been made out that, on the other hand, we must rather believe that there was a wise purpose in their being committed to memory and to writing, and that they did happen, and have a significance, and that this significance has a prophetic reference to the church, then this book, having served this purpose, may now be closed, that we may go on to trace in the history subsequent to the deluge the courses of the two cities — the earthly, that lives according to men, and the heavenly, that lives according to God.

This is from his work City of God, book 15
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120115.htm

My own view on the dimensions of the Ark does not appeal to a cubit six times as long as "ours."

19. But that no one may suppose that we assert respecting the whole that no history is real because a certain one is not; and that no law is to be literally observed, because a certain one, (understood) according to the letter, is absurd or impossible; or that the statements regarding the Saviour are not true in a manner perceptible to the senses; or that no commandment and precept of His ought to be obeyed — we have to answer that, with regard to certain things, it is perfectly clear to us

The danger is a very real one, as we see from the current apostasy.

that the historical account is true; as that Abraham was buried in the double cave at Hebron, as also Isaac and Jacob, and the wives of each of them; and that Shechem was given as a portion to Joseph; and that Jerusalem is the metropolis of Judea, in which the temple of God was built by Solomon; and innumerable other statements.

Ah, quand même, as they say here!

Origen would not have felt at home with those who consider the patriarch's graves to be and to have always been cenotaphs. They may have become so, since the righteous of the Old Testament rose in the darkness of Good Friday, if that was their final resurrection - but perhaps it was just a passing resuscitation.

For the passages that are true in their historical meaning are much more numerous than those which are interspersed with a purely spiritual signification.

Tell me more, tell me more ...

And again, who would not say that the command which enjoins to honour your father and your mother, that it may be well with you, is useful, apart from all allegorical meaning, and ought to be observed, the Apostle Paul also having employed these very same words?

Exactly.

And what need is there to speak of the (prohibitions), You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness?

Figurative laws would have on St. Thomas Aquinas' view have been such ritual laws on the Old Testament that have ceased to oblige, but unlike Origen, he considers they did literally oblige back then.

And again, there are commandments contained in the Gospel which admit of no doubt whether they are to be observed according to the letter or not; e.g., that which says, But I say unto you, Whoever is angry with his brother, and so on.

Here, some people have since taken a less rigorist stance.

And again, But I say unto you, Swear not at all.

Dito.

And in the writings of the apostle the literal sense is to be retained: Warn them that are unruly, comfort the feeble-minded, support the weak, be patient towards all men; although it is possible for those ambitious of a deeper meaning to retain the profundities of the wisdom of God, without setting aside the commandment in its literal meaning.

Oh, that section is totally exempt from non-literality. Note, the language of St. Paul was an ecclesiastical language, where one tried to be precise and where therefore figurative speech was excluded when it could cause doubt, perhaps even when it couldn't. The language of Catholic dogma is heir to this kind of literality.

The careful (reader), however, will be in doubt as to certain points, being unable to show without long investigation whether this history so deemed literally occurred or not, and whether the literal meaning of this law is to be observed or not. And therefore the exact reader must, in obedience to the Saviour's injunction to search the Scriptures, carefully ascertain in how far the literal meaning is true, and in how far impossible; and so far as he can, trace out, by means of similar statements, the meaning everywhere scattered through Scripture of that which cannot be understood in a literal signification.

If a member is tempting you, cut it off ... Origen seems to have taken this too literally with his own genitals - he is not a canonised saint - and so he could have some kind of reason to ponder this point ... nope, we are not skoptsy.

Overall, Origen is slightly heterodox, and this means it is putting things in exactly reverse perspective to the true one to appeal concretely from St. Augustine to Origen while pretending in principle to shun taking one Church Father who has his own line and to favour the line where Church Fathers actually meet. It is noteworthy that the timeline of Biblical history does not at all figure among his criticisms of the litteral sense after the six days of creation, and that his criticism there is to make them into one moment, not an accomodation for deep time. He was, still, a Young Earth Creationist.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Easter Monday
18.IV.2022

What Did Origen Really Say?

What Did Origen Really Say? · What Shall we Say on Origen?

Here is a little remark on the text : the translation for the first 23 chapters of book IV (De Principiis) are different from Latin and from Greek.

Here is a text, as translated from Greek:

16. It was not only, however, with the (Scriptures composed) before the advent (of Christ) that the Spirit thus dealt; but as being the same Spirit, and (proceeding) from the one God, He did the same thing both with the evangelists and the apostles — as even these do not contain throughout a pure history of events, which are interwoven indeed according to the letter, but which did not actually occur. Nor even do the law and the commandments wholly convey what is agreeable to reason. For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally. Cain also, when going forth from the presence of God, certainly appears to thoughtful men as likely to lead the reader to inquire what is the presence of God, and what is the meaning of going out from Him. And what need is there to say more, since those who are not altogether blind can collect countless instances of a similar kind recorded as having occurred, but which did not literally take place? Nay, the Gospels themselves are filled with the same kind of narratives; e.g., the devil leading Jesus up into a high mountain, in order to show him from thence the kingdoms of the whole world, and the glory of them. For who is there among those who do not read such accounts carelessly, that would not condemn those who think that with the eye of the body— which requires a lofty height in order that the parts lying (immediately) under and adjacent may be seen — the kingdoms of the Persians, and Scythians, and Indians, and Parthians, were beheld, and the manner in which their princes are glorified among men? And the attentive reader may notice in the Gospels innumerable other passages like these, so that he will be convinced that in the histories that are literally recorded, circumstances that did not occur are inserted.

...

... All these statements have been made by us, in order to show that the design of that divine power which gave us the sacred Scriptures is, that we should not receive what is presented by the letter alone (such things being sometimes not true in their literal acceptation, but absurd and impossible), but that certain things have been introduced into the actual history and into the legislation that are useful in their literal sense.

19. But that no one may suppose that we assert respecting the whole that no history is real because a certain one is not; and that no law is to be literally observed, because a certain one, (understood) according to the letter, is absurd or impossible; or that the statements regarding the Saviour are not true in a manner perceptible to the senses; or that no commandment and precept of His ought to be obeyed — we have to answer that, with regard to certain things, it is perfectly clear to us that the historical account is true; as that Abraham was buried in the double cave at Hebron, as also Isaac and Jacob, and the wives of each of them; and that Shechem was given as a portion to Joseph; and that Jerusalem is the metropolis of Judea, in which the temple of God was built by Solomon; and innumerable other statements. For the passages that are true in their historical meaning are much more numerous than those which are interspersed with a purely spiritual signification. And again, who would not say that the command which enjoins to honour your father and your mother, that it may be well with you, is useful, apart from all allegorical meaning, and ought to be observed, the Apostle Paul also having employed these very same words? And what need is there to speak of the (prohibitions), You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness? And again, there are commandments contained in the Gospel which admit of no doubt whether they are to be observed according to the letter or not; e.g., that which says, But I say unto you, Whoever is angry with his brother, and so on. And again, But I say unto you, Swear not at all. And in the writings of the apostle the literal sense is to be retained: Warn them that are unruly, comfort the feeble-minded, support the weak, be patient towards all men; although it is possible for those ambitious of a deeper meaning to retain the profundities of the wisdom of God, without setting aside the commandment in its literal meaning. The careful (reader), however, will be in doubt as to certain points, being unable to show without long investigation whether this history so deemed literally occurred or not, and whether the literal meaning of this law is to be observed or not. And therefore the exact reader must, in obedience to the Saviour's injunction to search the Scriptures, carefully ascertain in how far the literal meaning is true, and in how far impossible; and so far as he can, trace out, by means of similar statements, the meaning everywhere scattered through Scripture of that which cannot be understood in a literal signification.

And from Latin:

16. Nor was it only with regard to those Scriptures which were composed down to the advent of Christ that the Holy Spirit thus dealt; but as being one and the same Spirit, and proceeding from one God, He dealt in the same way with the evangelists and apostles. For even those narratives which He inspired them to write were not composed without the aid of that wisdom of His, the nature of which we have above explained. Whence also in them were intermingled not a few things by which, the historical order of the narrative being interrupted and broken up, the attention of the reader might be recalled, by the impossibility of the case, to an examination of the inner meaning. But, that our meaning may be ascertained by the facts themselves, let us examine the passages of Scripture. Now who is there, pray, possessed of understanding, that will regard the statement as appropriate, that the first day, and the second, and the third, in which also both evening and morning are mentioned, existed without sun, and moon, and stars — the first day even without a sky? And who is found so ignorant as to suppose that God, as if He had been a husbandman, planted trees in paradise, in Eden towards the east, and a tree of life in it, i.e., a visible and palpable tree of wood, so that anyone eating of it with bodily teeth should obtain life, and, eating again of another tree, should come to the knowledge of good and evil? No one, I think, can doubt that the statement that God walked in the afternoon in paradise, and that Adam lay hid under a tree, is related figuratively in Scripture, that some mystical meaning may be indicated by it. The departure of Cain from the presence of the Lord will manifestly cause a careful reader to inquire what is the presence of God, and how anyone can go out from it. But not to extend the task which we have before us beyond its due limits, it is very easy for anyone who pleases to gather out of holy Scripture what is recorded indeed as having been done, but what nevertheless cannot be believed as having reasonably and appropriately occurred according to the historical account. The same style of Scriptural narrative occurs abundantly in the Gospels, as when the devil is said to have placed Jesus on a lofty mountain, that he might show Him from thence all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them. How could it literally come to pass, either that Jesus should be led up by the devil into a high mountain, or that the latter should show him all the kingdoms of the world (as if they were lying beneath his bodily eyes, and adjacent to one mountain), i.e., the kingdoms of the Persians, and Scythians, and Indians? Or how could he show in what manner the kings of these kingdoms are glorified by men? And many other instances similar to this will be found in the Gospels by anyone who will read them with attention, and will observe that in those narratives which appear to be literally recorded, there are inserted and interwoven things which cannot be admitted historically, but which may be accepted in a spiritual signification.

...

... The object of all these statements on our part, is to show that it was the design of the Holy Spirit, who deigned to bestow upon us the sacred Scriptures, to show that we were not to be edified by the letter alone, or by everything in it — a thing which we see to be frequently impossible and inconsistent; for in that way not only absurdities, but impossibilities, would be the result; but that we are to understand that certain occurrences were interwoven in this visible history, which, when considered and understood in their inner meaning, give forth a law which is advantageous to men and worthy of God.

19. Let no one, however, entertain the suspicion that we do not believe any history in Scripture to be real, because we suspect certain events related in it not to have taken place; or that no precepts of the law are to be taken literally, because we consider certain of them, in which either the nature or possibility of the case so requires, incapable of being observed; or that we do not believe those predictions which were written of the Saviour to have been fulfilled in a manner palpable to the senses; or that His commandments are not to be literally obeyed. We have therefore to state in answer, since we are manifestly so of opinion, that the truth of the history may and ought to be preserved in the majority of instances. For who can deny that Abraham was buried in the double cave at Hebron, as well as Isaac and Jacob, and each of their wives? Or who doubts that Shechem was given as a portion to Joseph? or that Jerusalem is the metropolis of Judea, on which the temple of God was built by Solomon? — and countless other statements. For the passages which hold good in their historical acceptation are much more numerous than those which contain a purely spiritual meaning. Then, again, who would not maintain that the command to honour your father and your mother, that it may be well with you, is sufficient of itself without any spiritual meaning, and necessary for those who observe it? Especially when Paul also has confirmed the command by repeating it in the same words. And what need is there to speak of the prohibitions, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, and others of the same kind? And with respect to the precepts enjoined in the Gospels, no doubt can be entertained that very many of these are to be literally observed, as, e.g., when our Lord says, But I say unto you, Swear not at all; and when He says, Whosoever looks upon a woman to lust after her, has committed adultery with her already in his heart; the admonitions also which are found in the writings of the Apostle Paul, Warn them that are unruly, comfort the feeble-minded, support the weak, be patient towards all men, and very many others. And yet I have no doubt that an attentive reader will, in numerous instances, hesitate whether this or that history can be considered to be literally true or not; or whether this or that precept ought to be observed according to the letter or no. And therefore great pains and labour are to be employed, until every reader reverentially understand that he is dealing with divine and not human words inserted in the sacred books.

NewAdvent : Origen : De Principiis (Book IV)
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04124.htm

On 31.III.2022 (a day on which I was robbed), a John Hunt had said:

There are hundred, thousands of Bronze Age creation myths, sure. But they’re impossible to take literally today (it was tough enough in the third century AD, as one of the key Early Church Fathers, Origen, said -And who is so stupid as to imagine that God planted a garden in Eden eastward, and put in it a tree of life, which could be seen and felt?)

He refused to give a reference, and so could gloss over that Origen mainly thought Biblical history historic*. But "history" may also be a category not just on a lean cure as in Origen, but actually lacking from the vocabulary of Kirill of Moscow, on this issue:

Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and all Russia believes science and religion do not contradict each other, as they respond to different questions, and there is no sense in searching an answer to spiritual questions in works on Physics or Biology.

BIO-ORTHODOXY : Patriarch Kirill of Russia: "It is naive to read Genesis as the texbook on anthropogenesis"
http://www.bio-orthodoxy.com/2016/08/patriarch-kirill-of-russia-it-is-naive.html

In the article he is quoted mentioning "anthropogenesis", "physics", "biology", "spiritual questions" as well as "textbook" - but he never mentioned either "history" or "chronicle". I am here not concerned with his arguably believing Adam had physical ancestry and arguably dodging the question how this relates to Adam growing up with or without language, and how that affects spiritual questions**, but with the probability that, as at least nominally Eastern Orthodox (about as much as Bergoglio is Roman Catholic, Tony Palmer was Anglican) he probably thinks or hopes or pretends (to himself as to others) that he has patristic support for this. A little hint, the late Stephen J. Gould was a Jew, not a Christian. And (as is very often the case with them), a nominal one with little regard for actually setting out to believe what his ancestors or predecessors in the religion believed. He was also not a Church Father.

Now, the wording of Kirill, "it is naive" reminds a bit of Origen's (depending on what it is translated from) words in chapter 16 of book IV.

And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east,

And who is found so ignorant as to suppose that God, as if He had been a husbandman, planted trees in paradise, in Eden towards the east,

Because you see, I don't think John Hunt was the first man to quotemine this, I have seen it quotemined again, with a little more context and actual reference, that's how I found the reference, and now, I intend to prove both that this was quotemining and that Origen is perhaps not the most representative of Church Fathers.

First, it is quotemining in omitting that Origen does believe in such a thing as Biblical history - it is just a bit peppered or has cherries on the cake with non-literal episodes. Taking this as "you can't take Genesis literally" is - I won't say "literally", I resist this temptation of a pun - cherry-picking.

Second, it is quotemining in omitting that Origen applies this to the New Testament as well, for instance the episode in Luke 4 and Matthew 4, as he mentioned it:

the devil leading Jesus up into a high mountain, in order to show him from thence the kingdoms of the whole world, and the glory of them. For who is there among those who do not read such accounts carelessly, that would not condemn those who think that with the eye of the body— which requires a lofty height in order that the parts lying (immediately) under and adjacent may be seen — the kingdoms of the Persians, and Scythians, and Indians, and Parthians, were beheld, and the manner in which their princes are glorified among men?

as when the devil is said to have placed Jesus on a lofty mountain, that he might show Him from thence all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them. How could it literally come to pass, either that Jesus should be led up by the devil into a high mountain, or that the latter should show him all the kingdoms of the world (as if they were lying beneath his bodily eyes, and adjacent to one mountain), i.e., the kingdoms of the Persians, and Scythians, and Indians? Or how could he show in what manner the kings of these kingdoms are glorified by men?

Third, this leads up to a test on how representative Origen is of the Church Fathers. You see, we can quote a lot of different Church Fathers on both Matthew 4 and Luke 4, taken together in conspectus, namely in a magnificent work by St. Thomas Aquinas, whom Kirill is of course not admitting either patristic orthodoxy or personal canonisable sainthood of. Actually, Matthew 4 makes Origen himself more reasonable than above quote.

Let us first see the verses 8 to 11 in the Bible:

Matthew 4 : [8] Again the devil took him up into a very high mountain, and shewed him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them, [9] And said to him: All these will I give thee, if falling down thou wilt adore me. [10] Then Jesus saith to him: Begone, Satan: for it is written, The Lord thy God shalt thou adore, and him only shalt thou serve. [11] Then the devil left him; and behold angels came and ministered to him.

And here come the Fathers:

PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOM. The Devil, left in uncertainty by this second reply, passes to a third temptation. Christ had broken the nets of appetite, had passed over those of ambition, he now spreads for Him those of covetousness; He taketh him up into a very high mountain, such as in going round about the earth he had noticed rising above the rest. The higher the mountain, the wider the view from it. He shews Him not so as that they truly saw the very kingdoms, cities, nations, their silver and their gold; but the quarters of the earth where each kingdom and city lay. As suppose from some high ground I were to point out to you, see there lies Rome, there Alexandria; you are not supposed to see the towns themselves, but the quarter in which they lie. Thus the Devil might point out the several quarters with his finger, and recount in words the greatness of each kingdom and its condition; for that is said to be shewn whch is in any way presented to the understanding.

ORIGEN. (in Luc. Hom. 30.) We are not to suppose that when he shewed Him the kingdoms of the world, he presented before Him the kingdom of Persia, for instance, or India; but he shewed his own kingdom, how he reigns in the world, that is, how some are governed by fornication, some by avarice.

REMIGIUS. By their glory, is meant, their gold and silver, precious stones and temporal goods.

RABANUS. The Devil shews all this to the Lord, not as though he had power to extend his vision or shew Him any thing unknown. But setting forth in speech as excellent and pleasant, that vain worldly pomp wherein himself delighted, he thought by suggestion of it, to create in Christ a love of it.

GLOSS. (ord.) He saw not, as we see, with the eye of lust, but as a physician looks on disease without receiving any hurt.

JEROME. An arrogant and vain vaunt; for he hath not the power to bestow all kingdoms, since many of the saints have, we know, been made kings by God.

PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOM. But such things as are gotten by iniquity in this world, as riches, for instance, gained by fraud or perjury, these the Devil bestows. The Devil therefore cannot give riches to whom he will, but to those only who are willing to receive them of him.

REMIGIUS. Wonderful infatuation in the Devil! To promise earthly kingdoms to Him who gives heavenly kingdoms to His faithful people, and the glory of earth to Him who is Lord of the glory of heaven!

AMBROSE. (in Luc. c. iv. 11.) Ambition has its dangers at home; that it may govern, it is first others’ slave; it bows in flattery that it may rule in honour; and while it would be exalted, it is made to stoop.

GLOSS. (non occ.) See the Devil’s pride as of old. In the beginning he sought to make himself equal with God, now he seeks to usurp the honours due to God, saying, If thou wilt fall down and worship me. Who then worships the Devil must first fall down.

PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOM. With these words He puts an end to the temptations of the Devil, that they should proceed no further.

JEROME. The Devil and Peter are not, as many suppose, condemned to the same sentence. To Peter it is said, Get thee behind me, Satan; i. e. follow thou behind Me who art contrary to My will. But here it is, Go, Satan, and is not added ‘behind Me,’ that we may understand into the fire prepared for thee and thy angels.

REMIGIUS. Other copies read, Get thee behind me; i. e. remember thee in what glory thou wast created, and into what misery thou hast fallen.

PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOM. Observe how Christ when Himself suffered wrong at the hands of the Devil, being tempted of him, saying, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down, yet was not moved to chide the Devil. But now when the Devil usurps the honour of God, he is wroth, and drives him away, saying, Go thy way, Satan; that we may learn by His example to bear injuries to ourselves with magnanimity, but wrongs to God, to endure not so much as to hear; for to be patient under our own wrongs is praiseworthy, to dissemble when God is wronged is impiety.

JEROME. When the Devil says to the Saviour, If thou wilt fall down and worship me, he is answered by the contrary declaration, that it more becomes him to worship Jesus as his Lord and God.

AUGUSTINE. (cont. Serm. Arian. 29.) The one Lord our God is the Holy Trinity, to which alone we justly owe the service of piety.

AUGUSTINE. (De Civ. Dei, x. 1.) By service is to be understood the honour due to God; as our version renders the Greek word ‘latria,’ wherever it occurs in Scripture, by ‘service’ (servitus), but that service which is due to men (as where the Apostle bids slaves be subject to their masters) is in Greek called ‘dulia;’ while ‘latria,’ always, or so often that we say always, is used of that worship which belongs to God.

PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOM. The Devil, we may fairly suppose, did not depart in obedience to the command, but the Divine nature of Christ, and the Holy Spirit which was in Him drove him thence, and then the Devil left him. Which also serves for our consolation, to see that the Devil does not tempt the men of God so long as he wills, but so long as Christ suffers. And though He may suffer him to tempt for a short time, yet in the end He drives him away because of the weakness of our nature.

AUGUSTINE. (De Civ. Dei, ix. 21.) After the temptation the Holy Angels, to be dreaded of all unclean spirits, ministered to the Lord, by which it was made yet more manifest to the dæmons how great was His power.

PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOM. He says not ‘Angels descended from heaven,’ that it may be known that they were ever on the earth to minister to Him, but had now by the Lord’s command departed from Him, to give opportunity for the Devil to approach, who perhaps when he saw Him surrounded by Angels would not have come near Him. But in what matters they ministered to Him, we cannot know, whether in the healing diseases, or purifying souls, or casting out dæmons; for all these things He does by the ministration of Angels, so that what they do, Himself appears to do. However it is manifest, that they did not now minister to Him because His weakness needed it, but for the honour of His power; for it is not said that they ‘succoured Him,’ but that they ministered to Him.

GREGORY. (non occ. vid. in Ezek. 1:8. n. 24. in 1 Reg. 1:1. n. 1. 2.) In these things is shewn the twofold nature in one person; it is the man whom the Devil tempts; the same is God to whom Angels minister.

PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOM. Now let us shortly review what is signified by Christ’s temptations. The fasting is abstinence from things evil, hunger is the desire of evil, bread is the gratification of the desire. He who indulges himself in any evil thing, turns stones into bread. Let him answer to the Devil’s persuasions that man does not live by the indulgence of desire alone, but by keeping the commands of God. When any is puffed up as though he were holy he is led to the temple, and when he esteems himself to have reached the summit of holiness he is set on a pinnacle of the temple. And this temptation follows the first, because victory over temptation begets conceit. But observe that Christ had voluntarily undertaken the fasting; but was led to the temple by the Devil; therefore do you voluntarily use praiseworthy abstinence, but suffer yourself not to be exalted to the summit of sanctity; fly high-mindedness, and you will not suffer a fall. The ascent of the mountain is the going forward to great riches, and the glory of this world which springs from pride of heart. When you desire to become rich, that is, to ascend the mountain, you begin to think of the ways of gaining wealth and honours, then the prince of this world is shewing you the glory of his kingdom. In the third place He provides you reasons, that if you seek to obtain all these things, you should serve him, and neglect the righteousness of God.

HILARY. When we have overcome the Devil and bruised his head, we see that Angels’ ministry and the offices of heavenly virtues will not be wanting to us.

AUGUSTINE. (De Cons. Ev. ii. 16.) Luke has not given the temptations in the same order as Matthew; so that we do not know whether the pinnacle of the temple, or the ascent of the mountain, was first in the action; but it is of no importance, so long as it is only clear that all of them were truly done.

GLOSS. (ap. Anselm.) Though Luke’s order seems the more historical; Matthew relates the temptations as they were done to Adam.

e-Catholic 2000 : Catena Aurea by St. Thomas Aguinas : [Matthew] CHAP. 4
https://www.ecatholic2000.com/catena/untitled-11.shtml#_Toc384506911

So, the other Church Fathers (and even Origen, here) differ on how the Devil showed Our Lord the kingdoms, but none of the scepticism of Origen was quoted, St. Augustine contradicted him - "we do not know whether the pinnacle of the temple, or the ascent of the mountain, was first in the action; but it is of no importance, so long as it is only clear that all of them were truly done," and the consensus clearly seems to be with St. Augustine. It is literally historic. The author who gives most spiritual lessons is also the one who gives a fairly "naive" explanation on how the showing was "truly done" - it is whoever, either St. John Chrysostom or someone else, wrote a book I do not know the title of, but which was formerly attributed to St. John Chrysostom and is by modern scholarship no longer attributed to him. In the original text of St. Thomas, it says "Chrysostomus super Matth." and only the translation into English adds any "pseudo" to this.

So, we would perhaps do well to consider following all of the Church Fathers or all except on occasions Origen, rather than Origen against all the rest - and if we see this choice made imperative in the Catena Aurea, we may from above quote from De Principiis giving the context on the remarks against literality of parts of Genesis 2 conclude that probably the other Church Fathers would not agree on that one either.

It is 50 minutes past midnight on Easter Sunday, Christ is Risen, Glorify Him, and now I am cutting off this part here, I will make another post referring to the same quotes and answering Origen's difficulties to literality.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Easter Sunday
17.IV.2022

* According to Andrew Sibley, CMI, he specifically rejected long aeons in his Contra Celsum:

Origen, origins, and allegory
by Andrew Sibley | This article is from
Journal of Creation 32(2):110–117, August 2018
https://creation.com/origen-origins-and-allegory

And you can check that claim here:

NewAdvent : Contra Celsum (Origen)
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0416.htm

** A post with short résumés in French on my main blog also indexes the actual full length articles in English on this blog, on this matter, I need not repeat each argument separately for Kirill as well, it's enough to remind him:

New blog on the kid : Une série de posts sur mon blog créationniste-jeune-terre
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2022/03/une-serie-de-posts-sur-mon-blog.html