I think you might consider reading the context of that quote from Augustine; you’re misconstruing what he’s saying, I’m afraid.
In the first sentences of the chapter you’ve quoted, Augustine says, “Let us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race. For some hold the same opinion regarding men that they hold regarding the world itself, that they have always been.” In other words, Augustine isn’t arguing against a particular theory of the beginning of human life, but rather, he’s arguing against those who argued that creation and human life itself had no beginning – it just always existed! (That, by the way, was one of the theories of Greek philosophy – that the world just always
was; if I recall correctly, Aquinas gave Aristotle a pass on that notion, by virtue of the fact that we could not know, through observation alone, that this wasn’t true (that is, that the only way we know about creation is through divine revelation).
Let’s look, then, at what Augustine says to prove his point that creation and human life were at some point created:
- “they say what they think, not what they know.” In other words, the particular claims that Augustine is truly railing against here are actually claims that aren’t based on observation or ‘science’, but rather, are simply stories that philosophers dreamt up.
- “They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years.” In other words, there are some people who are misled by fictional stories about ‘history’, such as the ‘histories’ given by the ancient Egyptians.
It’s important to see what Augustine is really saying here, so that we don’t fall into error and ascribe to him something that he
isn’t saying. You seem to be using this quote as a proof-text for a ‘young earth’. However, that’s not at all what Augustine is asserting! Let’s take a closer look at Augustine’s case, which has to do with discrepancies in the accounting of the length of Assyrian, Persian, and Macedonian empires:
- The Egyptians’ history totals 13,000 years.
- The Greeks’ history totals 2018 years.
- Even if one wishes to claim that the Egyptian ‘year’ was only four months, the Egyptian claim fails, since 2018*3= 6054 years is still way short of the Egyptian claim of 13000.
How do we know, then, that it’s not simply a case of the Egyptians getting it right and the Greeks getting it wrong? Augustine points to Eusebius’ accounting of years according to Scripture; if Scripture says that the world hasn’t been around as long as the Egyptians say that a few dynasties have been around, then he has to presume that the Greek version is
better than the Egyptian one.
This is, frankly, a
stunning argument. If Augustine were trying to prove anything, then clearly, he would be able to compare the longevity of these empires – or, at the very least, of the Macedonians and Persians – against the corresponding lengths mentioned in the Bible! Yet… Augustine doesn’t do this. Why could that be? Clearly, it would be a stronger case to demonstrate that the Egyptian claims about Macedonians and Persians are explicitly refuted by the Scriptural claims about these empires! But, why does Augustine defer?
I would offer that Augustine
isn’t trying to make an exact case about the number of years that humans have existed: rather, he’s simply demonstrating that the
orders of magnitude of claims of an eternal (or even great) span of years for the existence of humanity are skewed, when based only on fictional ‘historical’ accounts.
Is Augustine
really saying that the Scriptures are reliable, as historical and scientific data? If we want to believe that Augustine takes Scripture at face value, in terms of scientific value, then we have to suggest that he was schizophrenic, since, as (name removed by moderator) pointed out, Augustine asserted that Scripture does not necessarily give a scientific account of the origin of the universe. In that same chapter that (name removed by moderator) quoted, Augustine explains why it’s a bad thing to take Scripture literally when science already knows that the literal interpretation is flawed: “If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books.”
On one hand, you claim that Augustine is making an assertion for a 6000-year-old earth; on the other, we see both that Augustine allows for science to make scientific claims over against the Bible and that he wishes that those who do not know science (and do not understand Scripture) would stop making Christian belief look bad. Take your pick: I think I’ll stand with Augustine’s lack of discomfort at letting science do science and Scriptures do theology.
