Skip to content
Genesis, Creation, and Early Man

How Do the Holy Fathers Interpret Genesis?

In what I have written about Adam and Eve, you will note that I quoted Holy Fathers who interpret the text of Genesis in a way that might be called rather “literal.” Am I correct in supposing that you would like to interpret the text more “allegorically” when you say that to believe in the immediate creation of Adam by God is “a very narrow conception of the Sacred Scriptures”? This is an extremely important point, and I am truly astonished to find that “Orthodox evolutionists” do not at all know how the Holy Fathers interpret the book of Genesis. I am sure you will agree with me that we are not free to interpret the Holy Scriptures as we please, but we must interpret them as the Holy Fathers teach us. I am afraid that not all who speak about Genesis and evolution pay attention to this principle. Some people are so concerned to combat Protestant Fundamentalism that they go to extreme lengths to refute anyone who wishes to interpret the sacred text of Genesis “literally”; but in so doing they never refer to St. Basil or other commentators on the book of Genesis, who state quite clearly the principles we are to follow in interpreting the sacred text. I am afraid that many of us who profess to follow the Patristic tradition are sometimes careless, and easily fall into accepting our own “wisdom” in place of the teaching of the Holy Fathers. I firmly believe that the whole world outlook and philosophy of life for an Orthodox Christian may be found in the Holy Fathers; if we will listen to their teaching instead of thinking we are wise enough to teach others from our own “wisdom,” we will not go astray.

And now I ask you to examine with me the very important and fundamental question: how do the Holy Fathers teach us to interpret the book of Genesis? Let us put away our preconceptions about “literal” or “allegorical” interpretations, and let us see what the Holy Fathers teach us about reading the text of Genesis.

We cannot do better than to begin with St. Basil himself, who has written so inspiringly of the Six Days of Creation. In the Hexæmeron he writes:

Those who do not admit the common meaning of the Scriptures say that water is not water, but some other nature, and they explain a plant and a fish according to their opinion. They describe also the production of reptiles and wild animals, changing it according to their own notions, just like the dream interpreters, who interpret for their own ends the appearances seen in their dreams. When I hear grass, I think of grass, and in the same manner I understand everything as it is said, a plant, a fish, a wild animal, and an ox. Indeed, I am not ashamed of the Gospel… Since Moses left unsaid, as useless for us, things in no way pertaining to us, shall we for this reason believe that the words of the Spirit are of less value than the foolish wisdom (of those who have written about the world)? Or shall I rather give glory to Him Who has not kept our mind occupied with vanities but has ordained that all things be written for the edification and guidance of our souls? This is a thing of which they seem to me to have been unaware, who have attempted by false arguments and allegorical interpretations to bestow on the Scripture a dignity of their own imagining. But theirs is the attitude of one who considers himself wiser than the revelations of the Spirit and introduces his own ideas in pretense of an explanation. Therefore, let it be understood as it has been written.1

Clearly, St. Basil is warning us to beware of “explaining away” things in Genesis which are difficult for our common sense to understand; it is very easy for the “enlightened” modern man to do this, even if he is an Orthodox Christian. Let us therefore try all the harder to understand the sacred Scripture as the Fathers understand it, and not according to our modern “wisdom.” And let us not be satisfied with the views of one Holy Father; let us examine the views of other Holy Fathers as well.

One of the standard Patristic commentaries on the book of Genesis is that of St. Ephraim the Syrian. His views are all the more important for us in that he was an “Easterner” and knew the Hebrew language well. Modern scholars tell us that “Easterners” are given to “allegorical” interpretations, and that the book of Genesis likewise must be understood in this way. But let us see what St. Ephraim says in his commentary on Genesis:

No one should think that the Creation of Six Days is an allegory; it is likewise impermissible to say that what seems, according to the account, to have been created in the course of six days, was created in a single instant, and likewise that certain names presented in this account either signify nothing, or signify something else. On the contrary, one must know that just as the heaven and the earth which were created in the beginning are actually the heaven and the earth and not something else understood under the names of heaven and earth, so also everything else that is spoken of as being created and brought into order after the creation of heaven and earth is not empty names, but the very essence of the created natures corresponds to the force of these names.2

These are still, of course, general principles; let us look now at several specific applications by St. Ephraim of these principles.

Although both the light and the clouds were created in the twinkling of an eye, still both the day and the night of the first day continued for 12 hours each.3

Again:

When in the twinkling of an eye (Adam’s) rib was taken out and likewise in an instant the flesh took its place, and the bare rib took on the complete form and all the beauty of a woman, then God led her and presented her to Adam.4

It is quite clear that St. Ephraim reads the book of Genesis “as it is written”; when he hears “the rib of Adam” he understands “the rib of Adam,” and does not understand this as an allegorical way of saying something else altogether. Likewise he quite explicitly understands the Six Days of Creation to be just six days, each with 24 hours, which he divides into an “evening and “morning” of 12 hours each.

I have deliberately taken the “simple” commentary on Genesis of St. Ephraim the Syrian, before quoting other more “mystical” commentaries, because this “simple” understanding of Genesis is the most offensive to the “enlightened” modern mind. I suspect that most Orthodox Christians who are not well read in the Holy Fathers will immediately say: “This is too simple! We know more than that now. Give us more sophisticated Fathers.” Alas for our modern “wisdom”—there are no more “sophisticated Fathers, for even the most “mystical” Fathers understand the text of Genesis in just the “simple” way St. Ephraim does! Those who wish more “sophistication” in the Holy Fathers are under the influence of modern Western ideas which are entirely foreign to the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church. But I will have to show this by quoting many Holy Fathers.

Let us examine now specifically the question of the “length” of the Six Days of Creation. I believe that this is still a question of secondary importance among those raised by the theory of evolution, but it certainly will not hurt us to know what the Holy Fathers thought of this, all the more so because here we will begin to glimpse the great difference which exists between the modern Western idea of creation, and the Patristic idea of creation. No matter how we understand them, these “Days” are quite beyond the comprehension of us who only know the corrupt “days” of our fallen world; how can we even imagine those Days when God’s creative power was mightily at work?

The Holy Fathers themselves do not seem to speak much about this question, doubtless because for them it was not a problem. It is a problem for modern man chiefly because they try to understand God’s creation by means of the laws of nature of our fallen world. It seems to be assumed by the Fathers that those Days, in duration, were not unlike the days we know, and some of them indeed specify that they were twenty-four hours in length, as does St. Ephraim. But there is one thing about these Days which is it most important for us to understand, and that concerns what you have written about whether God created “instantly.”

You write: “Since God created time, to create something ‘instantly’ would be an act contrary to His own decision and will… When we speak about the creation of stars, plants, animals and man we do not speak about miracles—we do not speak about the extraordinary interventions of God in creation but about the ‘natural’ course of creation.” I wonder if you are not substituting here some “modern wisdom” for the teaching of the Holy Fathers? What is the beginning of all things but a miracle? I have already showed you that St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory the Theologian, and St. John Damascene (and indeed all the Fathers) teach that the first man Adam appeared in a way different from the natural generation of all other men; likewise the first creatures, according to the sacred text of Genesis, appeared in a way different from all their descendants: they appeared not by natural generation but by the word of God. The modern theory of evolution denies this, because the theory of evolution was invented by unbelievers who wished to deny God’s action in creation and explain the creation by “natural” means alone. Do you not see what philosophy is behind the theory of evolution?

What do the Holy Fathers say about this? I have already quoted St. Ephraim the Syrian, whose whole commentary on Genesis describes how all God’s creative acts are done in an instant, even though the whole “Days” of creation last for 24 hours each. Let us now see what St. Basil the Great says about God’s creative acts in the Six Days.

In speaking of the Third Day of Creation, St. Basil says:

At this saying all the dense woods appeared; all the trees shot up… Likewise, all the shrubs were immediately thick with leaf and bushy; and the so-called garland plants…all came into existence in a moment of time, although they were not previously upon the earth.5

Again, he says:

“Let the earth bring forth.” This brief command was immediately mighty nature and an elaborate system which brought to perfection more swiftly than our thought the countless properties of plants.6

Again, on the Fifth Day:

The command came. Immediately rivers were productive and marshy lakes were fruitful of species proper and natural to each.7

Likewise, St. John Chrysostom, in his commentary on Genesis, teaches:

Today God goes over to the waters and shows us that from them, by His word and command, there proceeded animate creatures. What mind, tell me, can understand this miracle? What tongue will be able worthily to glorify the Creator? He said only: “Let the earth bring forth”—and immediately He aroused it to bear fruit… As of the earth He said only: “Let it bring forth”—and there appeared a great variety of flowers, grasses, and seeds, and everything occurred by His word alone; so also here He said: “Let the waters bring forth”… and suddenly there appeared so many kinds of creeping things, such a variety of birds, that it is impossible even to enumerate them with words.8

Here I will repeat: I believe that modern science in most cases knows more than St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom, St. Ephraim, and other Fathers about the properties of fishes and such specific scientific facts; no one will deny this. But who knows more about the way in which God acts: modern science, which is not even sure that God exists, and in any case tries to explain everything without Him; or these God-bearing Holy Fathers? When you say that God does not create instantly, I believe that you are giving the teaching of modern “wisdom”, not the teaching of the Holy Fathers.

Of course, there is a sense in which it is true that God’s creation is not the work of an instant; but here also the Fathers are quite precise in their teaching. I have quoted St. Ephraim, who says: “It is likewise impermissible to say that what seems, according to the account, to have been created in the course of six days, was created in a single instant.” With this in mind, let us look at the passage you quoted from St. Gregory of Nyssa: “Man was created last after the plants and animals because nature follows a path which leads to perfection.”9 “It is as if by steps that nature makes its ascent in life properties from the least to the perfect.”10 In quoting these passages, you have tried to understand them in the sense of the modern doctrine of evolution. But certainly it is not proper to read into these ancient texts the conclusions of modern philosophy! Here St. Gregory of Nyssa is surely teaching nothing different from what many other Fathers taught, based on a very “literal” understanding of Genesis.

Thus, St. Gregory the Theologian teaches, when he, like St. Ephraim, also states that the creation is not “instantaneous”:

To the days (of creation) is added a certain firstness, secondness, thirdness, and so on to the seventh day of rest of works, and by these days is divided all that is created, being brought into order by unutterable laws, but not produced in an instant by the Almighty Word, for Whom to think or to speak means already to perform the deed. If man appeared in the world last, honored by the handiwork and image of God, this is not in the least surprising; since for him, as for a king, the royal dwelling had to be prepared and only then was the king to be led in, accompanied by all creatures.11

Again St John Chrysostom teaches:

Then Almighty right hand of God and his limitless wisdom would have had no difficulty in creating everything in a single day. And what do I say, in a single day?—in a single instant. But since He created everything that exists not for His own benefit, because He needs nothing, being All-sufficient unto Himself, on the contrary he created everything in His love of mankind and goodness, and so He creates in parts and offers us by the mouth of the blessed Prophet a clear teaching of what is created so that we, having found out about this in detail, would not fall under the influence of those who are drawn away by human reasonings… And why, you will say, was man created afterwards, if he surpassed all these creatures? For a good reason. When a king intends to enter a city, his armsbearers and others must go ahead, so that the king might enter chambers already prepared for him. Precisely thus did God now, intending to place as it were a king and master over everything earthly, at first arrange all this adornment, and only then did He create the master.12

Thus the Patristic teaching is clearly that God, although He could have created everything instantly, chose instead to create it in stages of increasing perfection, each stage being the of an instant or a very short time, culminating in the creation of man, the king of creation; and the whole work is completed, neither in an instant nor in an indefinitely long time, but as it were a mean between these two extremes, precisely in six days.

St. Ephraim and St. John Chrysostom, in their commentaries on Genesis, clearly regard God’s creation as being the work of six “literal” days, on each one of which God creates “immediately” and “instantly.” And St. Basil the Great also, contrary to a widespread belief of “Christian evolutionists,” viewing God’s creations as “immediate and “sudden,” regard the Six Days as being precisely of twenty-four hours’ duration; for he says, regarding the First Day:

“There was evening and morning.” This means the space of a day and a night… “And there was evening and morning, one day.” Why did he say “one” and not “first”?… He said “one” because he was defining the measure of day and night and combining the time of a night and a day, since the twenty-four hours fill up the interval of one day, if, of course, night is understood with day.13

But even St. Gregory the Theologian, this most “contemplative” of Fathers, believed precisely the same thing, for he says:

Just as the first creation begins with Sunday (and this is evident from the fact that the seventh day after it is Saturday, because it is the day of repose from works), so also the second creation begins again with the same day [i.e., the day of Resurrection].14

And again the Theologian says, giving the Patristic view of the kind of world into which Adam was placed:

The Word, having taken a part of the newly created earth, with His immortal hands formed my image…15

As I have said, I do not regard this question as one of the first importance in discussing the question of evolution; but it is nevertheless quite symptomatic of the influence of modern philosophy on them, that “Christian evolutionists” are so anxious to reinterpret these Six Days so as not to appear foolish before the “wise men” of this world, who have “proved scientifically” that whatever “creation” there was took place over countless millions of years. Most importantly, the reason why “Christian evolutionists” have such difficulty believing in the Six Days of Creation, which gave no problem to the Holy Fathers, is because they do not understand what happened in those Six Days; they believe that long natural processes of development were going on, according to the laws of our present corrupt world; but in actual fact, according to the Holy Fathers, the nature of that first-created world was quite different from our world, as I will show below.

Let us look more closely at another basic Patristic commentary on the book of Genesis, that of St. John Chrysostom. You will note that I am not quoting obscure or dubious Fathers, but only the very pillars of Orthodoxy, in whom our whole Orthodox teaching is the most clearly and divinely expressed. In him once again we find no “allegory” at all, but only the strict interpretation of the text, as it is written. Like the other Fathers, he tells us that Adam was formed literally from dust, and Eve, literally from Adam’s rib. He writes:

If the enemies of truth will insist that it is impossible to produce something from what is nonexistent, we will ask them: Was the first man created from earth, or not? With out doubt they will agree with us and say, Yes, from earth. Then let them tell us, how was flesh formed from earth? From earth there can be dirt, bricks, clay, tile: but how was flesh produced? How were bones, nerves, sinews, fat, skin, nails, hair (produced)? How, from a single material at hand, are there so many things of different qualities? To this they cannot even open their mouths (to rely).16

And again St. Chrysostom writes:

God took a single rib, it is said: but how from this single rib did He form a whole creature? Tell me, how did the taking of the rib occur? How did Adam not feel this taking? You can say nothing about this; this is known only by Him Who created… God did not produce a new creation, but taking from an already existing creation a certain small part, from this part He made a whole creature. What power the Highest Artist God has, to produce from this small part (a rib) the composition of so many members, make so many organs of sense, and form a whole, perfect, and complete being.17

If you wish, I can quote many other passages from this work, showing that St. John Chrysostom—is he not the chief Orthodox interpreter of Sacred Scripture—everywhere interprets the sacred text of Genesis as it is written, believing that it was nothing else than an actual serpent (through whom the devil spoke) who tempted our first parents in Paradise, that God actually brought all the animals before Adam for him to name, and “the names which Adam gave them remain even until now.”18 (But according to evolutionary doctrine, many animals were extinct by the time of Adam—must we then believe that Adam did not name “all the wild beasts” [Gen. 2:19] but only the remnant of them?) St. John Chrysostom says, when speaking of the rivers of Paradise:

Perhaps one who loves to speak from his own wisdom here also will not allow that the rivers are actually rivers, nor that the waters are precisely waters, but will instill in those who allow themselves to listen to them, that they (under the names of rivers and waters) represented something else. But I entreat you, let us not pay heed to these people, let us stop up our hearing against them, and let us believe the Divine Scripture, and following what is written in it, let us strive to preserve in our souls sound dogmas.19

Is there need to quote more from this divine Father? Like St. Basil and St. Ephraim he warns us:

Not to believe what is contained in the Divine Scripture, but to introduce something else from one’s own mind—this, I believe, subjects those who hazard such a thing to great danger. (Homilies on Genesis, XIII, 3)20

Before going on I will briefly answer one objection which I have heard from those who defend evolution: they say that if one reads all the Scripture “as it is written” one will only make oneself ridiculous. They say that if we must believe that Adam was actually made from dust and Eve from Adam’s rib, then must we not believe that God has “hands,” that He “walks” in Paradise, and the like absurdities? Such an objection could not be made by anyone who has read even a single commentary of the Holy Fathers on the book of Genesis. All the Holy Fathers distinguish between what is said about creation, which must be taken “as it is written” (unless it is an obvious metaphor or other figure of speech, such as “the sun knoweth his going down” of the Psalms; but this surely does not need to be explained to any but children), and what is said about God, which must be understood, as St. John Chrysostom says repeatedly, “in a God-befitting manner.” For example, St. Chrysostom writes:

When you hear, beloved, that God planted Paradise in Eden in the east, understand the word ‘planted’ befittingly of God: that is, that He commanded; but concerning the words that follow, believe precisely that paradise was created and in that very place where the Scripture has assigned it.21

St. John of Damascus, in his work On Heresies, explicitly describes the allegorical interpretation of paradise to be part of a heresy, that of the Origenians:

They explain paradise, the heaven, and everything else in an allegorical sense.22

But what, then, are we to understand of those Holy Fathers of profound spiritual life who interpret the book of Genesis and other Holy Scriptures in a spiritual or mystical sense? If we ourselves had not gone so far away from the Patristic understanding of Scripture, this would present no problem whatever to us. The same text of Holy Scripture is true “as it is written” and it also has a spiritual interpretation. Behold what the great Father of the desert, St. Macarius the Great, a clairvoyant saint who raised the dead, says:

That Paradise was closed and that a Cherubim was commanded to prevent man from entering it by a flaming sword: of this we believe that in visible fashion it was indeed just as it is written, and at the same time we find that this occurs mystically in every soul.23

Our modern “Patristic scholars,” who approach the Holy Fathers not as living founts of tradition but only as dead “academic sources,” invariably misunderstand this very important point. Any Orthodox Christian who lives in the tradition of the Holy Fathers knows that when a Holy Father interprets a passage of Holy Scripture spiritually or allegorically, he is not thereby denying its literal meaning, which he assumes the reader knows enough to accept. I will give a clear example of this.

The divine Gregory the Theologian, in his Homily on the Theophany, writes concerning the Tree of Knowledge:

The tree was, according to my view, Contemplation, upon which it is only safe for those who have reached maturity of habit to enter.24

This is a profound spiritual interpretation, and I do not know of any passage in this Father’s writings where he says explicitly that this tree was also a literal tree, “as it is written.” Is it therefore an “open question,” as our academic scholars might tell us, whether he completely “allegorized” the story of Adam and Paradise?

Of course, we know from other writings of St. Gregory that he did not allegorize Adam and Paradise. But even more important, we have the direct testimony of another great Father concerning the very question of St. Gregory’s interpretation of the Tree of Knowledge.

But before I give this testimony I must make sure you agree with me on a basic principle of interpreting the writings of the Holy Fathers. When they are giving the teaching of the Church, the Holy Fathers (if only they are genuine Holy Fathers and not merely ecclesiastical writers of uncertain authority) do not contradict each other, even if to our feeble understanding there seem to be contradictions between them. It is academic rationalism that pits one Father against another, traces their “influence” on each other, divides them into “schools” and “factions,” and finds “contradictions” between them. All of this is foreign to the Orthodox Christian understanding of the Holy Fathers. For us the Orthodox teaching of the Holy Fathers is one single whole, and since the whole of Orthodox teaching is obviously not contained in any one Father (for all the Fathers are human and thus limited), we find parts of it in one Father and other parts in another Father, and one Father explains what is obscure in another Father; and it is not even of primary importance for us who said what, as long as it is Orthodox and in harmony with the whole Patristic teaching. I am sure that you agree with me on this principle and that you will not be surprised that I am now going to present an interpretation of the words of St. Gregory the Theologian by a great Holy Father who lived a thousand years after him: St. Gregory Palamas, Archbishop of Thessalonica.

Against St. Gregory Palamas and the other hesychast Fathers who taught the true Orthodox doctrine of the “Uncreated Light” of Mt. Tabor, there rose up the Western rationalist Barlaam. Taking advantage of the fact that St. Maximus the Confessor in one passage had called this Light of the Transfiguration a “symbol of theology,” Barlaam taught that this Light was not a manifestation of the Divinity, but only something bodily, not “literally” Divine Light, but only a “symbol” of it. This led St. Gregory Palamas to make a reply which illuminates for us the relation between the “symbolical” and “literal” interpretation of Holy Scripture, particularly with regard to the passage from St. Gregory the Theologian which I have quoted above. He writes that Barlaam and others

do not see that Maximus, wise in Divine matters, has called the Light of the Lord’s Transfiguration a symbol of theology only by analogy and in a spiritual sense. In fact, in a theology which is analogical and intended to elevate us, objects which have an existence of their own become themselves, in fact and in words, symbols by homonymy; it is in this sense that Maximus calls this Light a symbol… Similarly, Gregory the Theologian has called the tree of knowledge of good and evil contemplation, having in his contemplation considered it as a symbol of this contemplation which is intended to elevate us; but it does not follow that what is involved is an illusion or a symbol without existence of its own. For the divine Maximus also makes Moses the symbol of judgment, and Elijah the symbol of foresight! Are they too then supposed not to have really existed, but to have been invented symbolically? And could not Peter, for one who would wish to elevate himself in contemplation, become a symbol of faith, James of hope, and John of love?25

It would be possible to multiply such quotations which show what the Holy Fathers actually taught about the interpretation of Holy Scripture, and in particular of the book of Genesis; but I have already presented enough to show that the genuine Patristic teaching on this subject presents grave difficulties for one who would like to interpret the book of Genesis in accordance with modern ideas and “wisdom,” and indeed the Patristic interpretation makes it quite impossible to harmonize the account of Genesis with the theory of evolution, which requires an entirely “allegorical” interpretation of the text in many places where the Patristic interpretation will not allow this. The doctrine that Adam was created, not from dust, but by development from some other creature, is a novel teaching which is entirely foreign to Orthodox Christianity.

At this point the “Orthodox evolutionist” might try to salvage his position (of believing both in the modern theory of evolution and in the teaching of the Holy Fathers) in one of two ways.

a. He may try to say that we now know more than the Holy Fathers about nature and therefore we really can interpret the book of Genesis better than they. But even the “Orthodox evolutionist” knows that the book of Genesis is not a scientific treatise, but a Divinely-inspired work of cosmogony and theology. The interpretation of the Divinely inspired Scripture is clearly the work of God-bearing theologians, not of natural scientists, who ordinarily do not know the very first principles of such interpretation. It is true that in the book of Genesis many “facts” of nature are presented. But it must be carefully noted that these facts are not facts such as we can observe now, but an entirely special kind of facts: the creation of the heaven and the earth, of all animals and plants, of the first man. I have already pointed out that the Holy Fathers teach quite clearly that the creation of the first man Adam, for example, is quite different from the generation of men today; it is only the latter that science can observe, and about the creation of Adam it offers only philosophical speculations, not scientific knowledge.

According to the Holy Fathers, it is possible for us to know something of this first-created world, but this knowledge is not accessible to natural science. I will discuss this question further below.

b. Or again, the “Orthodox evolutionist,” in order to preserve the unquestioned Patristic interpretation of at least some of the facts described in Genesis, may begin to make arbitrary modifications of the theory of evolution itself, in order to make it “fit” the text of Genesis. Thus, one “Orthodox evolutionist” might decide that the creation of the first man must be a “special creation” which does not fit into the general pattern of the rest of creation, and thus he can believe the Scriptural account of the creation of Adam more or less “as it is written,” while believing in the rest of the Six Days’ Creation in accordance with “evolutionary science”; while another “Orthodox evolutionist” might accept the “evolution” of man himself from lower creatures, while specifying that Adam, the “first-evolved man,” appeared only in very recent times (in the evolutionary time-scale of “millions of years”), thus preserving at least the historical reality of Adam and the other Patriarchs as well as the universally-held Patristic opinion (about which I can speak in another letter, if you wish) that Adam was created about 7,500 years ago. I am sure you will agree with me that such rationalistic devices are quite foolish and futile. If the universe “evolves,” as modern philosophy teaches, then man “evolves” with it, and we must accept whatever all-knowing “science” tells us about the age of man; but if the Patristic teaching is correct, it is correct regarding both man and the rest of creation.

If you can explain to me how one can accept the Patristic interpretation of the book of Genesis and still believe in evolution, I will be glad to listen to you; but you will also have to give me better scientific evidence for evolution than that which so far exists, for to the objective and dispassionate observer the “scientific evidence” for evolution is extremely weak.

Footnotes

  1. St. Basil, Hexaemeron 9.1, Fathers of the Church vol. 46, pp. 135-36 (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1947-). ↩

  2. St. Ephraim, Commentary on Genesis 1, Tvoreniya 6, p. 282 [Fathers of the Church vol. 91, p. 74 (1.1.1)]. ↩

  3. Ibid., p. 287 [Fathers of the Church vol. 91, p. 80 (1.8.2)]. ↩

  4. Ibid., p. 315 [Fathers of the Church vol. 91, p. 105 (2.12.1)]. ↩

  5. St. Basil, Hexaemeron 5.6, Fathers of the Church vol. 46, p. 74 (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1947-). ↩

  6. Ibid. 5.10, p. 82. ↩

  7. Ibid. 7.1, p. 105. ↩

  8. St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis 7.3, Tvoreniya 4, p. 52 [Fathers of the Church vol. 74, pp. 95-96 (7.8)]. ↩

  9. St. Gregory of Nyssa, On the Making of Man 8.5, J.-P. Migne, ed, Patrologia Cursus Completus, Series Graeca. 166 vols. Paris: Migne, 1857-1886. (Hereafter PG) 44.145BC [A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church P. Schaff et al., eds. Reprint, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1952-1956; Reprint, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994, 2 5, p. 394 (Hereafter NPNF)]. ↩

  10. Ibid. 8.7, PG 44.148BC [NPNF 2 5, p. 394]. ↩

  11. St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 44: On New Week, Spring, and the Commemoration of the Martyr Mamas 4, Tvoreniya 1, pp. 656-57 [Fathers of the Church vol. 107, p. 232]. ↩

  12. St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis 3.3, 8.2, Tvoreniya 4, pp. 18, 60-61 [Fathers of the Church vol. 74, pp. 44-45, 107 (Homilies 3.12, 8.5)]. ↩

  13. St. Basil, Hexaemeron 2.8, Fathers of the Church vol. 46, pp. 33-34 (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1947-). ↩

  14. St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 44, On New Week, Spring, and the Commemoration of the Martyr Mamas 5, Tvoreniya 1, p. 657 [Fathers of the Church vol. 107, p. 233]. ↩

  15. St. Gregory the Theologian, Dogmatic Poem 8: On the Soul, lines 70-71, Tvoreniya 2, p. 33 [PG 37.452A; Pocket Patristics Series. Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1977—., 21, p. 65]. ↩

  16. St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis 2.4, Tvoreniya 4, pp. 11-12 [Fathers of the Church vol. 74, p. 35 (Homily 2.11)]. ↩

  17. Ibid. 15.2-3, pp. 121-22 [Fathers of the Church vol. 74, pp. 199-200 (15.10-11)]. ↩

  18. Ibid. 14.5, p. 116 [Fathers of the Church vol. 74, p. 191 (14.20)]. ↩

  19. Ibid. 13.4, p. 107 [Fathers of the Church vol. 74, pp. 177-78 (13.15-16)]. ↩

  20. Ibid. 13.3, p. 106 [Fathers of the Church vol. 74, pp. 175-76 (13.13)]. ↩

  21. Ibid.[Fathers of the Church vol. 74, p. 175 (13.13)]. ↩

  22. St. John Damascene, On Heresies 64, Fathers of the Church vol. 37, p. 126 (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1947—). ↩

  23. St. Macarius the Great, On Patient Endurance and Discrimination 5 (Seven Homilies 4.5), in Dukhovniya besedy, poslaniye i slova (Spiritual discourses, epistles, and homilies), p. 385 [Opuscula Ascetica 4.5, PG 34.869A; Philokalia: Ton ieron niptikon (The Philokalia of the neptic fathers). Athens: Astir Publishing Company, 1957-1963. 5 vols. Reprint, Athens: Publishing House “Sotir,” 1976. Based on the earlier editions published in Venice, 1782, and Athens, 1893, 3, p. 300 (37)]. ↩

  24. St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 38: On the Theophany, or the Nativity of the Savior 12, NPNF 2 7, p. 348. ↩

  25. St. Gregory Palamas, In Defense of the Holy Hesychasts (The Triads) 2.3.21-22, ed. and trans. [Fr.] Jean Meyendorff, pp. 430-32. ↩