Page 1 of 1

Philo On the Creation

Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:59 pm
by Canuckster1127
I've been doing a little more reading of early Jewish tradition to see if YEC is indeed as prominent or clear as some claim. So far I'm not seeing it, and in fact it looks to me that an allegorical approach is more common than not which doesn't accept 6 - 24 hour days.

Philo seems interesting in this regard. He was an early Christian by some measures, but others see him as more ties intellectually to Jewish Tradition in his writings.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/y ... eface.html
PREFACE TO THE ORIGINAL EDITION

The author of the following Treatises was, as the title by which he is generally known imports, of Jewish extraction, and a descendant of the sacerdotal tribe of Levi. He is spoken of by Josephus as one of the most eminent of his contemporary countrymen, and as the principal of the embassy which was sent to Caligula to solicit him to recall the command which he had issued for the erection of his statue in the temple at Jerusalem. The embassy was unsuccessful, though the death of the emperor saved the sacred edifice from the meditated profanation; but we see that Philo suffered no diminution of his credit from its unsuccessful result, since, at a subsequent period, his nephew, Tiberius Alexander, married Berenice, the daughter of King Agrippa.

The date of his birth and that of his death are alike uncertain; he speaks of himself as an old man when the embassy to Rome took place; and the treatise in which he gives an account of it was apparently written in the reign of Claudius, who succeeded Caligula A.D. 41, and reigned nearly fourteen years. His chief residence was at Alexandria, which at that period was, next to Athens, the most celebrated seat of philosophy in the world, and which had long been a favourite abode of the learned Jews. On one occasion he mentions having visited Jerusalem; and this is all we know of his personal history.

In his religious opinions he appears to have been a Pharisee, to the principles of which sect some portion of his fondness for allegorical interpretation may perhaps be owing. It was, however, rather to his philosophical labours that his celebrity among his contemporaries and his notoriety at the present day are mainly owing. He was so devoted a follower of the great founder of the Academic school, that it appears to have been a saying among the ancients that, "either Plato Philonises, or Philo Platonises." And there are many doctrines asserted in the following treatises which can be clearly traced to the principles and even to the extant works of the son of Ariston; and it is in consequence of this tendency that he is spoken of as the first of the Neo-Platonists, that is to say, of that school which attempted to reconcile the doctrines of the Greek, and more especially of the Academic, philosophy with the revelations contained in the sacred scriptures, while, at the same time, he transferred into the Platonic system many of the opinions which he borrowed from the East.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book1.html
III. (13) And he says that the world was made in six days, not because the Creator stood in need of a length of time (for it is natural that God should do everything at once, not merely by uttering a command, but by even thinking of it); but because the things created required arrangement; and number is akin to arrangement; and, of all numbers, six is, by the laws of nature, the most productive: for of all the numbers, from the unit upwards, it is the first perfect one, being made equal to its parts, and being made complete by them; the number three being half of it, and the number two a third of it, and the unit a sixth of it, and, so to say, it is formed so as to be both male and female, and is made up of the power of both natures; for in existing things the odd number is the male, and the even number is the female; accordingly, of odd numbers the first is the number three, and of even numbers the first is two, and the two numbers multiplied together make six. (14) It was fitting therefore, that the world, being the most perfect of created things, should be made according to the perfect number, namely, six: and, as it was to have in it the causes of both, which arise from combination, that it should be formed according to a mixed number, the first combination of odd and even numbers, since it was to embrace the character both of the male who sows the seed, and of the female who receives it. (15) And he allotted each of the six days to one of the portions of the whole, taking out the first day, which he does not even call the first day, that it may not be numbered with the others, but entitling it one, he names it rightly, perceiving in it, and ascribing to it the nature and appellation of the limit.


I'll add quotes and references as I find them.

Re: Philo On the Creation

Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 8:41 pm
by Gman
Interesting Bart....

There is also evidence for the "gap theory" being a predominate belief back in the first and second centuries. This would have given more credence to the OEC view...

* Jewish sages at the beginning of the second century wrote the "Targum of Onkelos," the earliest of the Aramaic versions of the OT translated Genesis 1:2 as "and the earth was laid waste."

*In 186-254 AD the early Catholic theologian Origen in his commentary De Principiis explains regarding Genesis 1:2 was "cast downwards and laid barren."

* Akiba ben Joseph's Sefer Hazzohar (1st c. AD) makes a similar claim about Genesis 1:2.

*In 1097-1141 AD Flemish scholar Hugo St. Victor wrote about Genesis 1:2 saying,"how long did the world remain in this disorder before the regular re-ordering of it was taken in hand?"

I thought this article was interesting too..

"Young Earth creationists have claimed that this view has its earliest roots in Judaism, citing, for example, the commentary on Genesis by Ibn Ezra (c. 1089—1164).[4] However, Shai Cherry of Vanderbilt University notes that Jewish theologians have generally rejected such literal interpretations of the written text, and that even Jewish commentators who oppose some aspects of Darwinian thought generally accept scientific evidence that the Earth is much older.[13] Similar claims are made of Christian commentators, but a number of prominent early Christian Church Fathers including Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Augustine, did not believe the Genesis myth depicted ordinary solar days and read creation history as an allegory as well as being theologically true (however, all of these men believed in a young earth[14]). The Protestant reformation hermeneutic inclined some of the Reformers and later Protestants toward a literal reading of the Bible as translated, believing in an ordinary day, and maintaining this younger-Earth view."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_earth_creationism

Re: Philo On the Creation

Posted: Sat Mar 27, 2010 10:24 pm
by dayage
Gman,

I agree that many of the early church fathers did not hold to 24-hour days, but could you give me direct references to your quotes? I have done a word search in Origen's book and could not find that quote.

Here is a link to "Targum of Onkelos" and it does not match your quote. It is best to give book, chapter, etc., so others can quickly check it out. I have found that using other people's research is not always a good idea.
http://www.ultimasurf.net/bible/aramaic ... esis_1.htm
here is another link
http://targum.info/onk/Gen1_6.htm

Based on what I've read from Origen, he did not hold to a Gap Theory, nor that Targum.

Genesis 1:2 does not support the Gap Theory. It is a circumstantial noun clause connected by a waw disjunctive to verse 1. Therefore, haya here means "was." Verse two is describing the earth as it was in verse 1.

Re: Philo On the Creation

Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 8:43 am
by Gman
dayage wrote:Gman,

I agree that many of the early church fathers did not hold to 24-hour days, but could you give me direct references to your quotes? I have done a word search in Origen's book and could not find that quote.

Here is a link to "Targum of Onkelos" and it does not match your quote. It is best to give book, chapter, etc., so others can quickly check it out. I have found that using other people's research is not always a good idea.
http://www.ultimasurf.net/bible/aramaic ... esis_1.htm
here is another link
http://targum.info/onk/Gen1_6.htm

Based on what I've read from Origen, he did not hold to a Gap Theory, nor that Targum.

Genesis 1:2 does not support the Gap Theory. It is a circumstantial noun clause connected by a waw disjunctive to verse 1. Therefore, haya here means "was." Verse two is describing the earth as it was in verse 1.
Dayage... I got it off a YouTube video some time ago.. If I find it again I'll let you know..

I believe that there maybe some evidence for the Gap Theory that does stem back to those times... Although it wasn't called the Gap Theory of course, or OEC. Some of this information comes from Arthur Custance.

"Canadian physiologist Arthur Custance has argued that the belief can be traced back to biblical times, citing the Targum of Onkelos (2nd c. BC), Akiba ben Joseph's Sefer Hazzohar (1st c. AD), Origen's De Principiis (3rd c. AD), and Caedmon (7th c. AD).[9]"

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gap_theory