HAL Id: insu-02935218
https://hal-insu.archives-ouvertes.fr/insu-02935218
Submitted on 10 Sep 2020
HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of
sci-entific research documents, whether they are
pub-lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.
L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.
Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution - NoDerivatives| 4.0 International
License
The Creation of the world and the birth of chronology
Pascal Richet
To cite this version:
Pascal Richet. The Creation of the world and the birth of chronology. Comptes Rendus Géoscience,
Elsevier Masson, 2017, 349 (5), pp.226-232. �10.1016/j.crte.2017.08.001�. �insu-02935218�
History
of
Sciences
The
Creation
of
the
world
and
the
birth
of
chronology
Pascal
Richet
InstitutdephysiqueduglobedeParis,1,rueJussieu,75005Paris,France
1. Introduction
Among major scientific disciplines, geology distin-guisheditself bythe late1775–1825 period, termedits heroicage,atwhich itwasdefinedanditsgoals spelled outclearly.Themaindifficultyhadbeentorecognizethat theEarth’ssurfacehadahistory,sothatdepictingit,first andforemostthroughreconstitutionofthestratigraphic
column,becamethemainpurposeofthenewscience.But any historical account necessarily rests on anadequate chronology,whichshouldinparticularextendbackintime up toitsstarting point. Withoutbeingableto estimate precisely theageoftheEarth,thusstressedLordKelvin (1899),geologywouldbeleft‘‘inmuchthesameposition as that in which English history would be if it were impossible to ascertain whether the battle of Hastings took place 800 years ago, or 800 thousand years ago, or 800 million years ago’’. For decades, Kelvin had beenfightingagainst thenotion ofan almostunlimited
ARTICLE INFO
Articlehistory: Received8July2017
Acceptedafterrevision11August2017 Availableonline22September2017 HandledbyVincentCourtillot
Keywords: Creationism Christianity Enlightment
ABSTRACT
Theeternityoftheworldand,correlatively,thecyclicalnatureoftimewereagreedupon byallGreekphilosophicalschoolsexceptthePlatonists.Asformatter,allofthemposited thatitwaseternalso thattheideathatsomethingcouldbemadefromnothingwas consideredaspureabsurdity.WiththeadventofChristianity,however,amattercoeternal with Godraised fundamental theologicaldifficulties. Toward theend ofthe second century,apologistssuchasTatiantheAssyrian,TheophilusofAntioch,IrenaeusofLyonsor TertullianthusemphasizedGod’sabsolutefreedomandpowerbyclaimingthatCreation hadbeenmadefromnothing.AlongwiththePassionofChristandtheLastJudgment,the initialmomentdefinedbytheCreationthenconferredto timeanirreversible,linear orientationandtohistorybothanewsenseandanobsessingconcernforchronology. Unambiguously,theCreationbecamethereferencepointfortheworld’shistory.From Scriptureanalyses,onedeterminedthatittookplaceabout5500yearsearlierwithina frameworkwheretheHistoryofmanandthatoftheearthwerenotdistinct.Having designedaconsistent,universaltimescalefromchronologicaldatarecordedforallancient peoples,EusebiusofCaesareacouldthusattributetotheGreatFloodthefossilsfoundon thetopofMountLebanon.TheshortMosaicchronologieswereeventuallyrejectedduring the18thcentury,butEusebius’chronologicalprocedurewasunknowinglytransposed whenarelativegeologicaltimescalewasthensetupfromthefossilrecord.Theclose associationofCreationwithChristiandogmainturninducedsomecirclestorejectthe secondlawofthermodynamicsattheendofthe19thcenturyand,afewdecadeslater,the thesisofanexpandinguniverse.Inbothcases,thereasonwasthatcontinuouslyincreasing entropywouldimplysomelow-entropyinitialstateakintoaCreation.
C 2017Acade´miedessciences.PublishedbyElsevierMassonSAS.Thisisanopenaccess
articleundertheCCBY-NC-NDlicense(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/ 4.0/).
Emailaddress:richet@ipgp.fr.
ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect
Comptes
Rendus
Geoscience
ww w . sci e nc e di r e ct . com
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crte.2017.08.001
1631-0713/ C 2017Acade´miedessciences.PublishedbyElsevierMassonSAS.ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCCBY-NC-NDlicense(http://
geologicaltimeframeembodiedbyHutton(1788)’sfamous saying‘‘Theresult,therefore,ofourpresentenquiryis,that wefindnovestigeofabeginning,noprospectforanend’’. Thequestionoftimewas,therefore,atthecoreofthe reformthatKelvinwascallingfor.Asparticularlyjustified bythenewlyformulatedsecondlawofthermodynamics, hisambitionwastorebuildgeologyon thebasisofthe conceptoflineartimeinopposition,ontheonehand,tothe cyclesembodiedbytheeternalrebeginningsofHutton’s uniformitarian party, and, on the other, to the violent convulsionsof thecatastrophistsevidencedby repeated extinctionsoflivingspecies.Eventhoughtheageofthe Earthlowerthan100 millionyearscalculated byKelvin quickly proved to be considerably underestimated, his main point that our planet has an age that can be determinedaccuratelyhasbeenfullysubstantiated.Today evenhigh-schoolstudentsaretaughtthattheEarthformed 4.55billionyearsago sothat theidea thatit cameinto existenceata givenmomentin timesounds soobvious thatitdoesnotneedanyjustification.
Historically,however,suchanideawouldhaveactually seemed ludicrous, if not outright absurd to almost all ancientphilosopherswhopositedinsteadaworldeternal along witha time of cyclical nature.Ironically, thelate 19th-centurydebateaboutgeologicaltimewasinsome way repeating the controversy that took place in Late AntiquitywhenChristianapologistsdefendedtheideathat theworldwasnoteternal,buthadbeencreatedintime. Thepurposeofthisnoteistodescribehowandwhythis ideaofa worldcreated fromnothingwasproposedand justified(forextensiveaccounts, seeNautin,1973;May, 1978).Actually,amajorissuewastoknowwhetherornot matterwasitselfeternal.Wewillthusgobacktothefirst centuriesofourerawhenthetopicbecameofimportance to Church Fathers. The arguments put forward in the debatewereofcoursenotscientific,butphilosophicaland theological.Theywerenotmuchdevelopedinaprevious accountofthenotionoftheageoftheworld(Richet,1999) sothattheywillbepresentedhereintomoredetailalong withafewremarksaboutthebeginningsofchronology.Of particularinterestwillbethatthemethodsdevelopedby the early 19th-century geologists to set up a relative chronologicalscalefromthefossilrecordhadalreadybeen designed by Eusebiusof Caesarea (265–339), of early Church-historyfame,forestablishingauniversal chronol-ogyapplicabletohumanhistoryinrelationtotheageof theworld.Jumpingfinallytotheendofthe19thcentury, wewillbrieflymentionhowtheissueCreationexnihilo
camebacktotheforegroundasaresultoftheproblems raisedbythesecondlawofthermodynamicsandthenby theexpansionof theuniverse,which wereboth contra-dictingthephilosophicallygroundedideaofaneternalor cyclicworld.
2. Aworldassuredlyeternal
FromDemocritus(470–380),Plato(428–347)and Aristotle (384–322) toEpicurus (341–270)and Zenoof Citium (335–262), the founder of Stoicism, the main Greekphilosophers formulatedtheir worldviews within onlyacenturyandahalf.Inthegreatcosmologicalaccount giveninhisTimeaus,onlydidPlatoclaimthattheworld was created and that it was purposely created by a Demiurgeoutofthekhoˆra,athirdkindorreceptaclethatwas later identified with formless matter. In spite of really fundamentaldisagreements(Table1),boththeAtomists and Stoicsassumed that theworldwasendlessly going through cycles of formation and destruction, the latter beingcausedeitherbychanceatomiccollisionsordivinely ordainedgeneralconflagrations,respectively.
In the long run,however, themost influential ideas werethoseofAristotle:picturingasmalluniversecentered ontheEarthandboundbythesphere offixedstars,the Philosophertookpaintodemonstratephilosophicallyand physicallythatitwasnecessarilyeternal.Forinstance,a beginningoftimewouldimplyanabsenceoftimebefore; butonecouldsaybeforeunlessonehadalreadysupposed theexistence of time. Likewise, a movement could not arisespontaneously:eitherithadexistedforalleternity,or it was resulting fromthe action of another movement, which,itself,hadexistedforalleternityorwastheproduct ofaprecedingmovement,andsoforth.Andtheexistence ofanobviouslyunchangingcelestialworldalsotestifiedto the eternity of time, because incorruptibility was by definition absolute. In On the Heavens, Aristotle thus concludedthat‘‘theheavenasawholeneithercameinto beingnoradmitsofdestruction,assomeassert,butisone andeternal,withnoendorbeginningofitstotalduration, containingandembracinginitselftheinfinityoftime’’.
Thisfundamentalconnectionbetweentimeand celes-tialmotionswasofparticularimportance.Assummarized byAristotleinhisPhysics,‘‘sofarastimeisconcerned,we seethatallwithoneexceptionareinagreementinsaying thatitisuncreated[...]PlatoaloneassertstheCreationof time,sayingthatitis simultaneouswiththeworld,and thattheworldcame intobeing’’. Regardlessofwhether
Table1
ContrastbetweenthemaintenetsoftheAtomistswiththoseofthePlatonist,Peripatetic,StoicandNeoplatonistschoolsinnaturalphilosophya.
Atomists OtherGreekschools
Matter Eternal,discontinuous,withvacuum Eternal,continuous,withoutvacuum Soul Material Immaterial(exceptforStoics)
Motion Random SubjectedtoDesign
Dynamics Linear OrientedtowardtheEarth’scenter
Earth Flat Spherical
Universe Infinite,non-limitedtoourcosmos Finite(=cosmos) Eternallyevolving Created,eternalorcyclical Explanations Intermsofaccidents Teleological
a
FromFurley(1986),modified.
theywereassumingtheeternityoftheworld,itstemporal Creation or periodic destructions, however, all schools postulatedthatmatterwaseternal,inaccordancewiththe famous statements made by either Parmenides of Elea (515–after450) that‘‘beingisand nothingisnot’’orby Democritusthat‘‘nothingcancomeintobeingfromthat whichisnotnorpassawayintothatwhichisnot’’.
Matter thus had the status of a fundamental principle.Beingbydefinitionimmaterial,didtheGodof ChristianscreatetheworldinaDemiurge-likefashionby havingput orderonto a preexisting chaos? Thedogma eventually formulatedthat the worldhad beencreated instead from nothing would play a crucial role in the emergenceofatruescienceofnature.Itisthususefulto summarizehowitwasenunciatedanddefendedatatime whereitwasrepresentingathesiswhosetotalabsurdity wasunanimouslyagreedupon.Accordingly,theChristian philosopher Boethius (480–525) would state in his ConsolationofPhilosophythat‘‘itisatruesentencethatof nothing comes nothing, which none of the ancients denied’’, sothat this postulate represented ‘‘theground ofalltheirreasoningconcerningnature’’.
3. AChristianabsurdity:Creationexnihilo
Aristotle’s picture of a small universe remained accepted for two millennia without having been really questionedintheMiddleAges,eitherinIslam orinthe LatinWest.Buthisdemonstrationoftheeternity ofthe worlddidgetearlychallengedby Christians,becauseit was plainly contradicting the detailed account of the CreationoftheworldgiveninGenesis,thefirstbookofthe Pentateuch (supposedly writtenby Moses),which they had borrowed from the Torah along with other books making up the Old Testament. For early Christians, however,theCreationoftheworldwasneitheramatter ofdogmanoracosmologicalproblem.AspartofaHistory centeredonMan, it wasadivineactwhose realitywas beyondanydoubt.Anditdidnotrequireanyphilosophical explanationbecauseitwasrelegatedtothebackgroundby theIncarnationandpassionofChrist.
Itwasinthemiddleofthe2ndcenturythattheCreation issue took on a great importance in the course of polemeticswithgnostic sectsthat wereraisinga major theologicalproblem:ifeverythinghadadivineorigin,how could the good God of the Scriptures have caused the existenceofevil?AndsinceGodcouldnothavecreatedthe world out of Himself, in view of His indivisibility and immutability, the only reasonable way to explain the existenceof evil was tokeep a Demiurge-like Creation made out of preexisting matter. According to complex schemes,it wasthenpossibletoimagine howa clearly defectivecosmoshadbeenproduced,notbytherealGod, butbyacelestialbeingoflowerrankwhohadignoredHim orrebelledagainstHimoncetheheavenlyworldhadbeen created.
Thequestionoftheoriginofthevisibleandinvisible things, matter included, was thus raised seriously. Unfortunately,however,noclearanswercouldbefound in sacred texts, as the theologian Origen (185–254) testified to when he deplored in his treatise On First
Principlesthat‘‘uptothepresentwehavenowherefound thetermmatteritselfusedinthecanonicalscripturesto denote thatsubstancewhich issaidtounderliebodies’’. The Gospels, in particular, were silent in this respect, whereastheveryfirstwordsofGenesis‘‘Inthebeginning God created theheavens and theEarth. The Earthwas formless and void’’, were ambiguous. They could have meantthatformlessmatterwaspreexistingattheCreation of the world, as actually understood when, in the Septuagint(the Greek versionof theTorah), theJewish translators described God’s creative act with the verb poı¨einpreviouslyusedbyPlatoforthatofhisDemiurge.As fortheJewishtradition,itwasoflittlehelp,becauseitwas ratherstressingthemysteryofthecreativeoperationand atthesametimecloselyassociatingwiththisbeginningthe presence of the One who is [Yahweh] and conferring a specialimportancetotheensuingAlliancewiththeelected people.
ForChristians,assumingtheCreationtohaveimposed order onto a preexisting chaos was raising a major difficulty in that God’s freedom would not have been absolute,butmarkedlyconstrainedbythenatureofthis chaosoverwhichHewouldnothavehadanyontological preeminence.Apreexistingmatterthushadtoberejected. But thethesiswasso implausibleby ancient standards that,asillustratedbyJustinMartyr(100–165),itcould notbeformulatedatonce.Justinhadfirstcomethrough unsuccessfulphilosophicalinitiationsbyaStoic(whowas ignoringeverythingaboutGod),aPeripatetic(whoasked him to pay his fees in advance), a Pythagorean (who required him first tobe fluent in geometry, music and astronomy),andaPlatonist(who,atlast,gavehimareal glanceatGod).Eventuallyitwasachanceencounterwitha humbleChristianthatletJustindiscoverthetrueGodand then open a philosophical school in Rome. Faithful to Platonisminthisrespect,hestatedinhisApologyto‘‘have beentaughtthat,beinggood,He[God]craftedallthingsin thebeginningfromunformedmatterforthesakeofhuman beings’’.
TatiantheAssyrian(120–185),aformerdiscipleof Justin in Rome, thus made an important step forward whenheimaginedatwo-stageCreation.Matterwasnot a principle, did he claim, ‘‘for matter is not without beginninglikeGod,norbecauseofhavingbeginningisit alsoofequalpowerwithGod’’.Instead‘‘itwasoriginated andbroughtintobeingbynoneother,projectedbythesole creatorofallthatis’’.InaletterwrittentoAutolycus,which includedthebriefbutmostancientknowncommentaryon Genesis, the pagan-born bishop Theophilus of Antioch (d. 190) likewise described a two-step Creation from nothingforwhichhegave arealphilosophical justifica-tion: ‘‘As God is immutable becausehe is uncreated, if matterisuncreateditmustalsobeimmutable,andequal toGod; forwhat is created is changeableand mutable, while the uncreated is unchangeable and immutable’’. Hence,Theophilusasked,
‘‘WhatwouldberemarkableifGodmadetheworldout ofpreexistentmatter?Evenahumanartisan,whenhe obtains material from someone, makes whatever he wishesoutofit.ButthepowerofGodisrevealedbyhis
making whateverhe wishes outof thenon-existent, justastheabilitytogivelifeandmotionbelongstono onebutGoldalone.’’
Uponreading of thesacredauthors,Theophilus thus concluded that ‘‘in complete harmony they taught us that He made everything out of the non-existent’’ and explained that ‘‘matter from which God made and fashionedtheworldwasin a waycreated,havingbeen madebyGod’’.
A one-step Creation to produce all beings was alternatively proposed at the same time by the Greek-born Irenaeus (130–202), bishop of Lyons, in his importantAgainsttheHeresies,whichhasleadhimtobe considered as the founder of Christian theology. By postulating a transcendent God who had first created formlessmatter,andthenaDemiurgecreatorofallthings, theGnosticsdeclinedtoadmitthat,contrarytomen,who ‘‘cannotmakeanythingoutofnothing;onlyoutofmatter thatexists’’,God‘‘HimselfinventedthematterofHiswork, sincepreviouslyitdidnotexist’’.Likewise,Irenaeusadded, they‘‘donotbelievethatthisGod,whoisaboveallthings, madejustasHewilledthediversifiedanddissimilarthings in His own realm through the Word, since as a wise architect and a very great king He is the Maker of all things’’.
Tertullian(160–225),anotherPagan-bornapologist ofnote,madeasimilarpleawhenrefutinga contempora-neous Platonizing Christian named Hermogenes, whose gnostic penchants led him toinvoke a matter ‘‘equally unborn,equallyunmade,equallyeternal,setforthasbeing without a beginning, without an end’’. This thesiswas refuted in the tract Against Hermogenes where, leaving asidetheevilproblem,Tertulliannotedthatanuncreated mattercouldhaveproclaimedbeforeGod:
‘‘I,too,amtheFirst–I,too,wasbeforeallthings–I,too, amfromwhichareallthings;equal wehavebeen– togetherwehavebeen–bothwithoutbeginningand withoutend–bothwithoutacreatorandwithoutagod. WhosubjectsmetoGod,myequalintime,myequalin age?IfthisisdonebecauseHeiscalledGod,thenI,too, have my own name; or rather I am God and He is matter,becausewebotharealsothatwhichtheother is’’.
AsalsoevokedbyTheophilus,suchaditheismwasof coursepureabsurditytoChristians.Andsincetheworld wouldreturntonothingnessattheendoftimes,asstated bytheScriptures,Tertullianstressedthatsuchanepilogue wouldnotmakeanysenseifmatterwereeternal.Onethus had toconcludethat‘‘allthingsproducedfromnothing willintheendcometonothing’’.
WhetherinRome,LyonsorAntioch,Tatian,Theophilus, Irenaeus and Tertullian independently transformed the initialcosmologicalquestionoftheformationoftheworld into the theological problem of the divine power of Creation.Inspiteoftheirdifferentbackgrounds,theirclaim for aCreation exnihilo thusshared anemphasis onthe unity,absolutepowerand unlimitedfreedomofGodby evokingtheunfathomablemysteryofaworkwhosedivine originonlywasabsolutelyknown.
4. Fromcyclicaltolineartime
IttookonlyafewgenerationsforbeliefinCreationex nihilo to prevail among Christians. As early as the beginningofthethirdcentury,ithadbecomeoneofthe maintenetsoftheirfaitheventhoughitresolutelyopposed almost all ancient thought on the most important philosophical problem, that of the origin of the world. Oneofitsfundamentalconsequenceswastonegatethe conceptofcyclicaltime,whichdidnotimplythatevents wererepeating themselves identically, but accordingto the same archetypes. Whereas Creation from nothing represented a unique and unambiguous chronological startingpoint,thePassionofChristandtheperspectiveof theLastJudgmentweregivingtimeanirreversiblelinear orientation as it was unthinkable to assume that such eventscouldhappentwiceormore.Thismajorbreakwith previous conceptions was most clearly spelled out by AugustineinhisCityofGod:‘‘ForonceChristdiedforour sins;and,risingfromthedead,Hediethnomore’’,sothat only‘‘thewickedwalkinacirclenotbecausetheirlifeisto recurbymeansofthesecircles,whichthesephilosophers imagine,butbecausethepathinwhichtheirfalsedoctrine nowrunsiscircuitous’’.
Atthesametime,religiouscontroversieshadanother importanteffect,namely,topromptChristianstomaster thephilologicalandotherscholarlymethodsusedbytheir pagan opponents for attacking their faith in order to deepentheirownunderstandingofScripturesanddefend themonthebasisofrationalarguments.Assummarized byR.M.Berchman(2005),‘‘firstreactive,thenproactive, the Church Fathers became philologists, text-critics, historians, ethnographers, chronologists in accord with thebeststandardsoftheirtimes’’.Inthisway,‘‘Christians eventually offered a sophisticated interpretation and defense of their Bible based on the same criteria used by Greeks and Romans on Homer, Virgil, Polybius and Tacitus’’.
But disagreements remained of course irremediable betweenPagansand Christians.Acase inpointwasthe eternity of the world defended by the former, which kept being vigorously denied by the latter. Because datingcouldnowbeabsolute,andnolongeronlyrelative, amongChristianstheidearapidlyprevailedthathuman historyhadtodealwiththewholeworldeversincethe veryfirstmomentofCreation. Now,thismomentcould bepreciselydated.AsclaimedbyTheophilus,atthedeath oftheRomanemperorAureliusVerusin169,‘‘thetotal numberofyearsfromthecreationoftheworldis5695, with the additional months and days’’. The method followed by Theophilus haspreviously beenput touse bytheJewishhistorianFlaviusJosephus(37–100)within the framework of the Alexandrian polemics between Greeks and Jewsabout the relative antiquities of Plato and Moses. As also developed by Tatian, Clement of Alexandria(150–215),HippolytusofRome(d.235)and otherChristianapologists,thismethodconsistedin count-ing years when following generation after generation Adam’slineageasreportedin thePentateuchby Moses, andthenthehistoricaleventsrecordedintheotherbooks oftheOldTestament.
Independentlyofanyconsiderationofnatural philoso-phy, the short timeframe of these Mosaic chronologies (derivedfromMoses’account)becamefirmlyentrenched amongChristiansbecauseoftheinfallibleauthorityofthe Scriptures.Asillustratedbythefirstapologists,ahaunting concern forchronology appeared withinthis context to accompanythenewsenseofhistorythatwasemerging. HowincompletewouldhavebeenHistoryifithadbeen lackingprecisedatesand,thus,firmlandmarks?Butthis historywasnolongerthatofthesoleJewishpeople.Ithad becomeuniversal.Bydefinition,theannusmundi,theyear oftheCreation,representedthestartingpointoftheEraof theworld.InaccordancewithTheophilus’calculations,the worldwasfrom5600to5700yearold.Amongotherdates, ayoungerageof5228yearsatthebeginningofChrist’s publiclifewasderivedbyEusebiusofCaesarea,yielding about5199yearsfortheNativity.Withrespecttotheusual 5500 years, it had the advantage of making the world 300yearsmorerecentand,thus,ofpostponingitsendby thesameamountforpeoplewhofearedthatitwouldtake placeattheendofthesixthmillennium.
Butitappearedthatmoreaccuratedatingwaspossible onthebasisofastronomicalconsiderations.Itwasknown that Christsuffered passion on Nissan 14 at full moon. Besides,it seemedreasonabletoassumethat theworld had been created at a noble stage of the celestial revolutions.In this respect, thevernal equinox wasthe obviouschoicebecause,fromtimeimmemorial,ithasbeen selectedasthereferencelongitudeinastronomy. Begin-ning from the date of the Passion, the problem then consistedindetermininginhowmanyyearsonecouldgo backtothevernalequinoxofCreationthroughappropriate luni-solar cycles(cf. Grumel, 1958). One of thevarious solutionsfoundinByzantiumgaineda verywide accep-tance.ItwasclaimingthattheCreationhadtakenplaceon the23rdofMarch,15daysbeforetheMoonfirstappeared, 5509yearsbeforethePassionofChrist.Itwasinthisway that the Byzantine Era of the world got defined, which wouldbecometheofficialcalendricreferenceuptotheend oftheByzantineEmpireandevenlaterinRussia. 5. Fromthefirstuniversalchronologytothefossilsofthe GreatFlood
The5228yearsderivedbyEusebiusdidnotprevail.This factwassomewhatanecdotal,however,whencompared with the major achievement represented by Eusebius’ Chronicle.AsstatedbyB.Croke,thiswork‘‘mustrankas oneofthemostinfluentialbooksofalltimes’’becauseof theoutstanding scholarship it displayed toerect firmly History on chronography, the science which Eusebius foundedtodateanyeventofhumanhistorywithreference to a universal chronological system. Biblical exegete, apologist, philologist, historian and even geographer, Eusebiushad close links with theemperor Constantine (r.306–337)whosebiographyhewroteintheformofa panegyric.Heismainlyknowntodaythroughhisextensive ChurchHistoryinwhichhefirmlyopposedPagancriticism todemonstratethatChristianitywasnotanephemeraland irrational faith, but was expressing instead a historical necessityattestedtobytheChurch’striumph.
AlthoughChristiansprogressivelydistinguished them-selvesfromJews,oneofthereasonswhytheydidclaim theirJewishbackgroundwastofendofftheaccusationof theiropponentsthattheircultwastoonovelandrecentto be taken seriously. Following Tatian, Theophilus or Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius thus wanted to prove that,thankstoitsJewishroots,ChristianitypredatedPagan cultssinceMoseshadforinstancelived1500yearsearlier than theGreekphilosophers. In hischronological work, however, the originality of Eusebius was not to break completely new ground. By excluding any recourse to mythology,Eratosthenes(275–193)hadalready esta-blishedinhisChronographiesthefirstcriticalchronology for Greek history from the fall of Troy (in 1184/83, accordingtohisscheme)untilthedeathofAlexanderthe Greatin323BC.AlsoinAlexandria,theJewishchronicler Demetrios(end3rd–c.BC)hadattemptedtosetadetailed
biblicalchronology;asinglelongpassageofhiswork(on Jacob’s history) hasbeen preservedthanksto Eusebius’ PreparationfortheGospel,buthissystemwasperpetuated by Flavius Josephus who adopted it in his important Antiquitiesofthe Jews.AsfortheRomans,theyrecorded datesinpoliticalordailylifeintermsofthenamesofthe consulsinofficeduringtherelevantyear,butdatedmajor eventsasyearselapsedsincethefoundationofRome[ad UrbeCondita].
Paganchronologieswerebasicallylistsofreigns,public offices or Olympiads, complemented here and there by recordsofsignificanteventshavingtakenplaceingiven yearsoftheirreferencesystems.Tomakethemconsistent, thedifficultieswerethatthevariouscalendarsinvolved werethemselvesinconsistent,thatreferenceperiodswere rarely beginning on the first day of the year, that for politicalreasonssomeperiodshadbeenpurposelydeleted orlengthened,thatinGreekorArameantextsconfusion couldoriginateintheuseofletterstowritenumbersdown, and especially that these chronologies were mutually unconnectedsothattherewerenomeanstocheckthem forerrorsandpreventthesefromaccruingoverlongtime intervals.
Inbrief,Eusebius’originalitywastodesigna compre-hensiveandconsistentchronologybyconsidering simul-taneously all the chronological information he could gather in thebooks(most of them nowlost) consulted inthewell-stockedPalestinianlibrariesoftheperiod.He publishedhisworkintwoinstallments.Inhis Chronogra-phy, he first reported the chronology of the Chaldeans, Assyrians, Medes,Lydians,Persians,Hebrews,Egyptians, thenthechronologicalinformationavailablefortheGreek rulersorthelandsofSicyon,Athens,Argives,Lacedaemon andCorinth,andfinallythedatafortheOlympiadsandthe kingsorleadersoftheMacedonians,Thessalians,Syrians, Asians and Latins. In the Chronologicalcanons, Eusebius then established his system by using the same events recorded in different subsystemsas mutual anchors to ensuretheirsought-afterinternalconsistency.
Forthispurpose,Eusebiusdisplayedtherelevantdata insynoptictablessothatsynchroniccorrelationscouldbe readilymade.ThatRomehadbeenfoundedthefirstyearof theseventhOlympiad,forinstance,allowedhimtotighten mutuallytheLatinandGreekchronologies.Likewise,the
JewishandPersianhistories wereconnectedbythefact that,accordingtotheBookofEzra[4:24],constructionof thesecondtempleinJerusalembeganduringthesecond regnalyearoftheAchemenidkingDariusI(r.522–486).By harmonizinginthiswayallancientchronologies,Eusebius succeededinestablishinghissystemfromAbraham,the most ancient figure whose dates seemed to him well-enoughknown,untiltheyear311AD,whenhecompleted hisbook.Halfacenturylater,theChronologicalcanonswere translated intoLatin,complemented andextended until 378ADbySaintJerome(347–420).WhereastheGreek originalwaslost,itscontentwaspreservedbyJerome’s translation, which would meet in Occident witha long success.
Independently of fragments transmitted by other authors,ofexcerpts quotedin extantSyriacbooksorof passages that Eusebius incorporated himself in his PreparationfortheGospel,theoriginaltextoftheChronicle is otherwiseknown bya5th-century Armenian transla-tion. A passagekept by this version hasa considerable interestforthehistoryoftheEarth(Ellenberger,1988).As reportedbyEusebius,
‘‘As we are writing this chronicle we have received confirmation that the flood arose above the highest mountains–acontemporaryeyewitnessaccountofthe veracityoftheaccount.Inourday,[thefossilsof]fish were discovered up Mt. Lebanon. It happened that whilerockswerebeingquarriedthereforconstruction inthevalley,[thefossilsof]varioustypesofoceanfish wereuncovered,pressedintothemud.These[fossils] had been preserved to the present, thus providing evidencethat theoldstory [oftheflood]is credible. Thosewhohearthismaybelieveitornot.’’
Thepresenceofshellandfishembeddedinrockshad longbeenknown.XenophanesofColophon(575–477), for example,reportedthat ‘‘amixtureof earthwithsea occursandintimeearthisdissolvedbythemoist’’,which waswhy‘‘inthequarriesofSyracuseimpressionsoffish andseaweedhavebeenfound,andinParostheimpression ofcoralinthedepthofarock,andinMaltafossilsofallsea creatures’’. With respect to these statements, Eusebius’ interpretation wasnovelin viewof itshistorical frame-work:throughageneralsubmersionofthelands,Eusebius correlatedtheGreatFloodwiththepresenceoffossilsat thetopofmountains.Inthisway,heconnectedavestigeof theEarth’shistorywithasupposedlywell-definedancient episodeofhumanHistory,whichmadehimtheauthorof theveryfirstabsolutegeologicaldating.
6. Epilogue
Untilthe18thcentury,Mosaicchronologyremaineda veryactivefieldofresearchtowhichevenIsaacNewton (1642–1727)contributedwhenheappliedhis gravitation-al theory in an attempt at resolving scriptural incons-istencies.Assummarized withsomedisappointmentby A.DesVignoles(1649–1744),directoroftheAcademyof SciencesinBerlin,in1738,‘‘Imyselfhavegatheredmore than 200 different calculations, of which the shortest
countsonly3483yearsfromthecreationoftheworldto JesusChrist,andthelongestcounts6984’’.Actually,the problemraisedbytheubiquityoffossilsandtheirpresence uptothesummitsofthehighestmountainswasoneofthe mainfactorsthatcausedthroughoutthe18thcenturythe slowrejectionof thesemuchtooshortand inconsistent chronologies and, correlatively, the birth of the new scienceofgeology.Havingunderstoodthatvariousfossil speciescouldbeusedastimemarkersbecausetheyhad livedforonlylimited,butwell-determinedperiodsofthe Earth’s history, 19th-century geologists set up another universalchronology.Theinterestingpointis that,from correlationsmadebetweenscatteredseriesoffossilsfound at great distances from one anotheron different conti-nents,they unknowinglyapplied tonatural history the veryprocedurethatEusebiusdesigned15centuriesearlier forhumanhistory.TheycouldevenhaveinvokedEusebius’ initialstatementinhisChronicle:‘‘Permitme,rightatthe outset,tocautioneveryoneagainst[believingthat]there canbecompleteaccuracywithrespecttochronology’’.
Asamatteroffact,creationfromnothinglongremained a preserve of Christiantheologians. Itwas in particular deniedbytheNeoplatonists,whoconstitutedthelastgreat philosophicalschoolinLateAntiquity.FollowingPlotinus (204–270),theypicturedtheworldas originatingin an eternalseriesofemanationsfromtheOne,thesupreme God. And, although creation ex nihilo also became an Islamictenet,theambiguitiesoftheQur’aninthisrespect ledgreatIslamicthinkersasdifferentintheirphilosophyas al-Faˆraˆbıˆ (870–950),Avicenna(before975–1037), Aver-roes (1126–1198), Suhrawardıˆ (1154–1191) or Tuˆ sıˆ (1201–1274)todefendalsotheeternityoftheworldon either Neoplatonist or Aristotelian grounds.The reason wasofcoursethat,asforexampleexpoundedbyAristotle, thisthesisappearedtheonlyrationaloneand,assuch,was muchmoreconvincingthananyinterpretationofadivine revelation.
In this respect, it is worth reminding that the philosophicalproblemsraisedbyCreationexnihilowere stilllingeringonattheendofthe19thcenturywhenthe secondlawofthermodynamicsmetwithstrongopposition inmaterialistandpositivistcirclesbecauseacontinuous increaseintheentropyoftheuniversewasimplyingatone end theultimateheat death oftheuniverseand, atthe otherend, theexistenceof aninitial stateof minimum entropy,which couldbe tooreadilyidentified withthe Christiancreation. Assummarized byKragh (2007),for leadingscientistssuchasthechemistsW.Nernst(1853– 1932)andF.Soddy(1877–1956)orthegeologistA.Holmes (1890–1965),thegreatpioneerofradioactivedatingand early proponent of mantle convection, ‘‘cosmology had priorityoverthelawsofthermodynamicsand radioactivi-ty.Theyconsidereditasanaprioritruththattheuniverse couldhaveneitherabeginningnoranend’’.Ithappened thatthesecondlawofthermodynamicswasoneofthekey sourcesof inspiration fortheBelgian priestG.Lemaıˆtre (1894–1966)whenhepioneeredin1931thethesisofthe expansionoftheuniverseandtheassociatedbeginningof the world (Lemaıˆtre, 1931). Contrary to Nernst et al., however,Lemaıˆtrecouldnotbemisledbyametaphysicala prioribecausehefirmlydismissedanyinterpretationin
termsofadivinecreationbyconsideringinsteadthisinitial stateasacommencementnaturelfromakindofenormous radioactive nucleus, the primeval atom, from which no informationcouldbederivedonwhattookplaceearlier (seeKraghandLambert,2007).
To conclude on a lighter note, one can reflect that current astrophysical and geochemical work would certainlybeunderstoodbetterbyPlatoandChurchFathers thanbyotherGreekorIslamicphilosophers.DatingtheBig Bangand theformationof a planetarysystem in effect approximatedatingthecreationfromnothingand from formless matter, respectively, if the latter is meant to designatetheproductofelementnucleosynthesisinstars. Attheriskoffallingintoanapologetictrap,onemightthen venturethatthecurrentcosmologicalpicturerepresentsin somewayalatesynthesisoftheChristianandPlatonist traditions,coloredbytheslightAtomistorStoictouchof stellarevolutioncycles.
Acknowledgments
TheauthorthanksJ.-P.KahaneandK.Chemlafortheir invitationtoparticipateintheJanuary2017seminaronthe AgeoftheEarthattheAcade´miedessciences,J.-J.Duhot fordrawinghisattentionontheSeptuagintuseofpoı¨ein, P. Savaton for an apt remark about Eusebius, and the E´ditions du Seuil for permission to publish in advance excerpts of a forthcoming book. This paper has been invitedandacceptedbytheEditor-in-Chief.
References
Berchman,R.M.,2005.PorphyryagainsttheChristians.Brill,Leiden,The Netherlands,p.57.
DesVignoles,A.,1738.Chronologiedel’histoiresainteetdeshistoires e´trange`res quila concernent depuis la sortied’E´gypte juqu’a` la captivite´ deBabylone,2vols.A.Haude,Berlin.
Ellenberger,F.,1988.Histoiredelage´ologie,vol.1,DesAnciensa` la premie`remoitie´ duXVIIe
sie`cle,Lavoisier,Paris,tr.byR.K.Kaulaand M.Carozzi,HistoryofGeology,vol.1,FromAncientTimestotheFirst HalfofSeventeenthCentury.A.A.BalkemaPublishers,Brookfield,VT, USA.
Furley,D.,1986.Thecosmologicalcrisisinclassicalantiquity.In:Comsic problems,CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge,UK,pp.223–235. Grumel,V.,1958.Traite´ d’e´tudesbyzantines,I.LaChronologie.Presses
universitairesdeFrance,Paris.
Hutton,J.,1788.Theoryoftheearth;oraninvestigationofthelaws observableinthecomposition,dissolution,andrestorationofland upontheglobe.Trans.Roy.Soc.Edinb.1,209–304.
KelvinofLargs(WilliamThomson,Lord),1899.Theageoftheearthasan abodefittedforlife.Science9,665–674.
Kragh, H., 2007. Cosmic radioactivity and the age of the universe, 1900–1930.J.Hist.Astron.37,393–412.
Kragh,H.,Lambert,D.,2007.Thecontextofdiscovery:Lemaıˆtreandthe originoftheprimeval-atomuniverse.Ann.Sci.64,445–470. Lemaıˆtre,G.,1931.Thebeginningoftheworldfromthepointofviewof
quantumtheory.Nature127,447–453.
May,G.,1978.Scho¨pfungausdemNichts,DieEntstehungderLehrevon dercreatioexnihilo.WalterdeGruyter,Berlin.
Nautin,P.,1973.Gene`se1,1-2,deJustina` Orige`ne. In:InPrincipio, Interpre´tationsdes,premiersversetsdelaGene`se,E´tudes augusti-niennes,Paris,pp.61–94.
Richet,P.,1999.L’Aˆ gedumonde–a` lade´couvertedel’immensite´ du temps,LeSeuil,Paris;tr.byJ.Venerella,2007,ANaturalHistoryof Time.UniversityofChicagoPress,Chicago,IL,USA.
Primarysources
Aristotle,DeCaelo,283b,tr.byJ.L.Stocks,1984,OntheHeavens,inJ. Barnes(ed.),TheCompleteWorksofAristotle,vol.2,Princeton Univer-sityPress,Princeton,NJ,USA,pp.447–511.
Aristotle,Physica,251b,tr.byR.P.HardyandR.K.Gaye,1984,Physics,in:J. Barnes(ed.),TheCompleteWorksofAristotle,vol.2,Princeton Univer-sityPress,Princeton,NJ,USA,pp.315–446.
AugustineofHippo,DeCivitateDei,XII,14:2,tr.byM.Dods,1952.TheCity ofGod,EncyclopediaBritannica,Chicago,IL,USA.
Croke,B.,1982.TheoriginalityofEusebius’Chronicle.Am.J.Philol.,103, 195–200.
Democritus,summarizedbyDiogenusLaertiusinDeClarorum philoso-phorumvitis,dogmatibusetapophtegmatibuslibridecem,IX,7:44,tr.by R.D.Hicks,1925,LivesofEminentPhilosophers,G.P.Putmans,London. Eusebius of Caesarea, Chronicorum canonum omnimodae historiae, 1and26,Armenianversioned.andtr.byJ.Karst,1911,Eusebius, Die Chronik, vol. 5, Die Griechischen ChristlichenSchriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte, J.H. Hinrich, Leipzig; Eng. tr. by R. Bedrosian, 2008,Eusebius’Chronicle,www.tertullian.org/fathers/ eusebius_chronicon_02_text.htm.
IrenaeusofLyons,Adversushaereses,10:4and11:1,tr.byD.J.Ungerand J.J. Dillon,2012, Against theHeresies,vol. 2,TheNewman Press, Mahwah,NJ,USA.
Justin Martyr,Apologia, I,10:2,tr. byD.MinnsandP. Parvis,2009, Apologies,OxfordUniversityPress,Oxford.
Newton,I.,1728.TheChronologyofAncientKingdomsAmended,towhichis Prefixı´daShortChroniclefromtheFirstMemoryofThingsinEurope,to theConquestofPersiabyAlexandertheGreat,J.Tonson,London. Origen,DePrincipiis, IV,4:6,tr.by G.W.Butterworth,1966,On First
Principles,Harper&Row,NewYork.
Parmenides,fragmentDK28B6,tr.p.215inD.W.Graham,2010,TheTexts ofEarlyGreekPhilosophy.TheCompleteFragmentsandSelected Testi-moniesoftheMajorPresocratics,vol.1,CambridgeUniversityPress, Cambridge,UK.
Plato,Timaeus,tr.byD.J.Zeyl,p.1224–1291inPlato,CompleteWorks,ed. byJ.M.Cooper,1997.HackettPub.Co,Indianapolis,IN,USA. Plotinus,Enneades,tr.byS.MacKenna,TheEnneads,FaberandFaber,
London.
TatiantheAssyrian,OratioadGraecos,5:2–3tr.byM.Whittaker,1982, OratioadGraecosandFragments,Clarendon,Oxford,UK.
Tertullian(QuintusSeptimiusFlorensTertullianus),Adversus Hermoge-nem,4:1,7:4and34:4,tr.byJ.H.Waszink,1956,TheTreatiseagainst Hermogenes,Longmans,GreenandCo,London.
TheophilusofAntioch,AdAutolycum,2:4and3:28,tr.byR.M.Grant,1970, AdAutolycum,ClarendonPress,Oxford.
XenophanesofColophon,testimonyDK21A33,tr.p.121inD.W.Graham, 2010,TheTextsofEarlyGreekPhilosophy.TheCompleteFragmentsand SelectedTestimoniesoftheMajorPresocratics,vol.1,Cambridge Uni-versityPress,Cambridge,UK.
