Ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ οἱ ἀκεραιότεροι τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς ἐκκλησίας αὐχούντων τυγχάνειν τοῦ μὲν δημιουργοῦ μείζονα οὐδένα ὑπειλήφασιν, ὑγιῶς τοὑτο ποιοῦντες· τοιαῦτα δὲ ὑπολαμβάνουσι περὶ αὐτοῦ, ὁποῖα οὐδὲ περὶ τοῦ ὠμοτάτου καὶ ἀδικωτάτου ἀνθρώπου.
But even the simpler-minded of those who claim allegiance to the church have supposed that nothing is greater than the Creator—and have done so soundly—while yet entertaining beliefs about him of a sort that they would not harbor regarding a human being of the utmost savagery and injustice.
—Origen, On First Principles, IV.ii.1
καὶ διὰ τοῦτό φησιν ὅτι τὸ γράμμα ἀποκτείνει, τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα ζωοποιεῖ, ὡς πολλαχῇ τῆς ἱστορίας, εἴπερ ἐπὶ ψιλῶν σταίημεν τῶν πραγμάτων, οὐκ ἀγαθοῦ βίου παρεχομένης ἡμῖν τὰ ὑποδείγματα· […] οἷς εἰ μή τις διὰ φιλοσοφίας ἐνθεωρήσειε τὴν ἀλήθειαν, ἀσύστατον ἢ μυθῶδες εἶναι τοῖς ἀνεπισκέπτοις τὸ λεγόμενον δόξει.
And thus [Paul] says, “The letter kills, but the spirit gives life,” for often the narrative, if we come to a halt at its bare events, does not provide us with exemplars of a good way of life. […] Unless one recognizes the truth [regarding the two trees at the center of Eden] by way of philosophy, what is being said will appear to the unperceptive as incoherent or mythical.
—Gregory of Nyssa, Prologue to Sermons on the Song of Songs
Sane quisquis voluerit omnia quae dicta sunt, secundum litteram accipere, id est non aliter intellegere quam littera sonat, et potuerit evitare blasphemias, et omnia congruentia fidei catholicae praedicare, non solum ei non est invidendum, sed praecipuus multumque laudabilis intellector habendus est. Si autem nullus exitus datur, ut pie et digne Deo quae scripta sunt intellegantur, nisi figurate atque in aenigmatibus proposita ista credamus; habentes auctoritatem apostolicam, a quibus tam multa de libris Veteris Testamenti solvuntur aenigmata, modum quem intendimus teneamus, adiuvante illo qui nos petere, quaerere et pulsare adhortatur; ut omnes istas figuras rerum secundum catholicam fidem, sive quae ad historiam, sive quae ad prophetiam pertinent, explicemus, non praeiudicantes meliori diligentiorique tractatui, sive per nos, sive per alios quibus Dominus revelare dignatur.
Of course, should anyone wish to accept all the things said in a literal sense—that is, to understand them in no way other than the letter makes them sound—and is yet able to avoid committing blasphemy, and to keep everything he preaches congruent with the universal faith, he is not only someone who should not be looked at askance, but someone who should be considered an eminent and very laudable interpreter. But if no exit is provided by which we might reach an understanding of the scriptures that is pious and worthy of God except by believing them to be figurative representations and riddles, let us adhere to the method to which this points us, having as we do the authority of those apostles by whom so many enigmas from the Old Testament were thus resolved, aided by him who exhorts us to ask, to seek, and to knock; thus may we explicate all those figures—whether they pertain to the narrative or to prophecy—in accord with the universal faith, without any prejudice regarding a still better and more diligent treatment, whether on our part or or on the part of others to whom the Lord might deign to reveal it.
—Augustine, On Genesis, Two Books Against the Manichaeans, II.ii.3
Not very many decades ago, it was generally believed among scholars of Hebrew Scripture that the earliest material in the book of Genesis—the original Yahwist texts—probably dated back to the tenth century BCE. Today the standard view is that the version we have comes from the exilic period and after, in the sixth and fifth centuries BCE; and some scholars think that the first eleven chapters—the “pre-patriarchal” narratives—may not have been added until the third century BCE. And yet this is the part of the book whose stories reach furthest back into the lore of the ancient Near East. It is also the part that most of us remember most poorly; although we all think we know the stories it contains, very few of us really do. Eden, Noah’s ark, the tower of Babel—we think we a have fairly firm grasp on what these tales are about, what they recount, what their deeper meaning is. Yet, as it happens, even those of us who have read them innumerable times still retain only those impressions of them we have been conditioned to receive, even though those impressions correspond to very little of what those tales actually say.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Leaves in the Wind to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.