Boutenoff Beginnings: Ancient Christian Readings of Biblical Creation :
Boutenoff, who is an associate professor of theology at St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary, herein gives descriptive coverage of how early Christians read the creation narratives (CN) of Genesis 1-3, readings that he contends are not laden by the accretion of various layers of interpretations. Not surprising, there is no univocal reading of the biblical CN to be found within early Christianity, nor is there a single method employed by the early expositors. However, there is a consistent and coherent pattern of reading, a reading which is drastically different than (post)modern mainstream readings of the same. We would do well, then, to explore the contents of this book further in order to discern the parameters of this early reading of the CN in Scripture.
The first couple of chapters detail how the pre cursors to Christianity, specifically Philo (a Jew), dealt with the CN, as well as how the Apostle Paul viewed them. Following thereafter, Boutenoff moves into the second-century apologists, focusing on Justin Martyr, Melito of Sardis, Theophilous of Antioch, and Irenaeus of Lyons. Boutenoff notes that it would be impossible to describe these early readings of the CN without using the terms allegory, typology, myth (anachronistically), and literal sense; after all, these early thinkers took the legacy of the first century and advanced by leaps and bounds (both persecution and heresy fuelled this advancement, note). Though not univocal on all of the entailments, they all seemed to agree that creation was neither an emanation from God, nor itself eternal, Boutenoff notes.
Following his discussion of the second-century apologists, Boutenoff commits much time to highlighting the contributions of Origen to the development of patristic hermeneutics generally, and specifically with reference to the CN. Boutenoff contends that Origen’s understanding of God was principally formed by reflection on the CN. Notably, Origen did not take the CN literally, relying on typology instead (although Origen believed that the Spirit literally dictated, word-for-word, the Scriptures unto Moses, what was dictated was not history per se, but narratival stories instead, which drew readers into them, and which had alternate meanings for each).
The Cappadocians are brought to the forefront with reference to the interpretation of the CN in the fifth chapter, after Boutrenoff pays tribute to the role that Cyril of Jerusalem and Athanasius had upon the Cappadocians, particularly through transmitting the significance of Origen’s legacy to them. Notably, the Cappadocians also continued the thought of creatio ex nihilo forward, denying the pagan’s contention of pre-existent matter (a point that this reviewer finds troublesome, to be candid). Boutenoff concludes that the Cappadocians had three separate, yet related voices regarding the CN: Basil wrote first, mirroring Origen’s insights; Nyssen more thoroughly applied the same ideas than Basil, and was more systematic in his presentation; and Nazianzus, with his concern for preachable-theology, preferred approaches that avoided controversy and intricate complexity.
The concluding chapter recapitulates the argument derived from the individual writers examined, and displays that for these early Christian theologians, their excursions into the science of their day served to amplify their sense of wonder at the intricacy of creation, and the glorious God that it reflected; we would do well to emulate them in this regard. Boutenoff notes that with almost one voice, these early Christian readings highlight that the CN does not seek to speak of creation per se, but about the God that gave rise to it instead (cf. 171). In sum, Boutenoff succeeds in allowing each author to speak for himself, on his own terms, presenting evidence that within early Christianity, the CN found in Genesis 1-3 were not seen as myth, but as a proverbial poem, a poem that would yield ever deepening meaning(s) when studied. The overarching question posed to all of the writers encountered is, ‘how literally did they take the creation narratives?’ One may be surprised by the answer they find to that question in this book. I know I was… and am better because of it.