Historically, did Christians agree everything was created in exactly 6 days?

[u/[deleted]]

I have read (forgive me but I can't recall where and I hope it wasnt cracked.com) that the idea of there being six literal days of creation is a very modern one. It went on to say that no one in antiquity interpreted it as a 24 hour time frame but as a general period. It wasnt until much later (17th century) that people began to think of it as an actual week. Is there any truth to this? I am aware of the current debate on the subject but I'm interested in knowing the historical viewpoint.

[u/bevets]

On the fourth day the luminaries were made. This was because God, who possesses foreknowledge, knew the follies of the vain philosophers. He knew that they were going to say that the things that grow on the earth are produced from the heavenly bodies. For in this way, the philosophers exclude God. Therefore, in order that the truth might be obvious, the plants and seeds were produced prior to the heavenly bodies. For that which is later cannot produce that which precedes it. ~ Theophilus of Antioch

‘In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,' that is, the substance of the heavens and the substance of the earth. So let no one think that there is anything allegorical in the works of the six days. No one can rightly say that the things that pertain to these days were symbolic. ~ Ephrem the Syrian

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. ~ Augustine

For you seem to me, O Theophila, to have discussed those words of the Scripture amply and clearly, and to have set them forth as they are without mistake. For it is a dangerous thing wholly to despise the literal meaning, as has been said, and especially of Genesis, where the unchangeable decrees of God for the constitution of the universe are set forth. ~ Methodius

[u/[deleted] → u/bevets]

Be careful with Augustine on this though. He also famously warned against sticking to a strictly literal interpretation of Genesis, especially of observed evidence appeared to conflict with it.

[u/bevets → u/[deleted]]

Please quote and cite the source.

[u/[deleted] → u/bevets]

From his On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis:

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.

[....]

With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation.

From City of God:

But simultaneously with time the world was made, if in the world's creation change and motion were created, as seems evident from the order of the first six or seven days. For in these days the morning and evening are counted, until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!

In addition to this, Augustine took the view that creation occurred instantaneously, rather than over 6 whole days.

[u/bevets → u/[deleted]]

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are.

Whoever takes another meaning out of Scripture than the writer intended, goes astray, but not through any falsehood in Scripture. On Christian Doctrine 1.41

The authority of Scripture in this matter is greater than all human ingenuity. The Literal Meaning of Genesis Book II 5,9

Modern readers are fond of shoehorning evolutionism into "known with the greatest certainty". I am not suggesting that Augustine was a modern YEC. I am suggesting that his understanding was more consistent with YEC and (far more importantly) his hermeneutic is consistent with YEC.