Editing Embryology (section)

===Patristics===

The question of embryology is discussed among a number of [[List of early Christian writers|early Christian writers]], largely in terms of theological questions such as whether the fetus has value and/or when it begins to have value. (Although a number of Christian authors continued the classical discussions on the description of the development of the embryo, such as [[Jacob of Serugh]].<ref name="kour">Yousef Kouriyhe. "Jakob von Sarug (451-521): Brief an den Erzdiakon Mar Julian — Edessa — 451-521 (Syrisch) — Mekka II — TUK_0955". Corpus Coranicum. [https://corpuscoranicum.de/kontexte/index/sure/23/vers/14 Available].</ref> Passing reference to the embryo also appears in the eighth hymn of [[Ephrem the Syrian]]'s ''Paradise Hymns''.<ref>Sebastian Brock (translator), ''Saint Ephrem: Hymns on Paradise'', St. Vladimir's Seminary Press 1990, p133.</ref>) Many [[patristic]] treatments of embryology continued in the stream of Greek tradition.<ref>Peter Kitzler, "Tertullian and Ancient Embryology in De carne Christi 4,1 and 19,3−4," Journal of Ancient Christianity 2014.</ref> The earlier Greek and Roman view that it was not was reversed and all pre-natal infanticide was condemned. [[Tertullian]] held that the soul was present from the moment of conception. The [[Quinisext Council]] concluded that "we pay no attention to the subtle division as to whether the foetus is formed or unformed". In this time, then, the Roman practice of child exposure came to an end, where unwanted yet birthed children, usually females, were discarded by the parents to die.<ref>W.V. Harris, "Child Exposure in the Roman Empire," Journal of Roman Studies 1994.</ref> Other more liberal traditions followed [[Augustine]], who instead viewed that the animation of life began on the 40th day in males and the 80th day in females but not prior. Before the 40th day for men and 80th day for women, the embryo was referred to as the ''embryo informatus'', and after this period was reached, it was referred to as the ''embryo formatus''. The notion originating from the Greeks that the male embryo developed faster remained in various authors until it was experimentally disproven by Andreas Ottomar Goelicke in 1723.<ref>Joseph Needham, ''A History of Embryology'', Cambridge 1959, pp. 75-77.</ref>

Various patristic literature from backgrounds ranging from [[Nestorian]], [[Miaphysite]] and [[Chalcedonian]] discuss and choose between three different conceptions on the relation between the soul and the embryo. According to one view, the soul pre-exists and enters the embryo at the moment of conception (''prohyparxis''). According to a second view, the soul enters into existence at the moment of conception (''synhyparxis''). In a third view, the soul enters into the body after it has been formed (''methyparxis''). The first option was proposed by [[Origen]], but was increasingly rejected after the fourth century. On the other hand, the other two options were equally accepted after this point. The second position appears to have been proposed as a response to Origen's notion of a pre-existing soul. After the sixth century, the second position was also increasingly seen as Origenist and so rejected on those grounds. The writings of Origen were condemned during the Second [[Origenist Crises]] in 553. Those defending ''prohyparxis'' usually appealed to the Platonic notion of an eternally moving soul. Those defending the second position also appealed to Plato but rejected his notion on the eternality of the soul. Finally, those appealing to the third position appealed both to Aristotle and scripture. Aristotelian notions included the progression of the development of the soul, from an initial plant-like soul, to a sensitive soul found in animals and allows for movement and perception, and finally the formation of a rational soul which can only be found in the fully-formed human. Furthermore, some scriptural texts were seen as implying the formation of the soul temporally after the formation of the body (namely Genesis 2:7; Exodus 21:22-23; Zachariah 12:1). In the ''De hominis opificio'' of [[Gregory of Nyssa]], Aristotle's triparitate notion of the soul was accepted. Gregory also held that the rational soul was present at conception. [[Theodoret]] argued based on Genesis 2:7 and Exodus 21:22 that the embryo is only ensouled after the body is fully formed. Based on Exodus 21:22 and Zachariah 12:1, [[Philoxenus of Mabbug]] claimed that the soul was created in the body forty days after conception. In his ''De opificio mundi'', the Christian philosopher [[John Philoponus]] claimed that the soul is formed after the body. Later still, the author [[Leontius]] held that the body and soul were created simultaneously, though it is also possible he held that the soul pre-existed the body.<ref name="dirk">Dirk Krausmuller, "When Christology intersects with embryology: the viewpoints of Nestorian, Monophysite and Chalcedonian authors of the sixth to tenth centuries", Byzantinische Zeitschrift 2020.</ref>

Some Miaphysites and Chalcedonians seemed to have been compelled into accepting ''synhyparxis'' in the case of Jesus because of their view that the incarnation of Christ resulted in both one hypostasis and one nature, whereas some Nestorians claimed that Christ, like us, must have had his soul formed after the formation of his body because, per Hebrews 4:15, Christ was like us in all ways but sin. (On the other hand, Leontinus dismissed the relevance of Hebrews 4:15 on the basis that Christ differed from us not only in sinfulness but also conception without semen, making ''synhyparxis'' another of Christ's supernatural feats.) They felt comfortable holding this view, under their belief that the human nature of Jesus was separate from the divine hypostasis. Some Nestorians still wondered, however, if the body united with the soul in the moment the soul was created or whether it came with it only later. The Syriac author [[Babai the Great|Babai]] argued for the former on the basis that the latter was hardly better than [[adoptionism]]. [[Maximus the Confessor]] ridiculed the Aristotelian notion of the development of the soul on the basis that it would make humans parents of both plants and animals. He held to ''synhyparxis'' and regarded the other two positions both as incorrect extremes. After the 7th century, Chalcedonian discussion on embryology is slight and the few works that touch on the topic support ''synhyparxis''. But debate among other groups remains lively, still divided on similar sectarian grounds. The patriarch [[Timothy I of Seleucia-Ctesiphon|Timothy I]] argued that the Word first united with the body, and only later with the soul. He cited John 1:1, claiming on its basis that the Word became flesh first, not a human being first. Then, [[Jacob of Edessa]] rejected ''prohyparxis'' because Origen had defended it and ''methyparxis'' because he believed that it made the soul ontologically inferior and as only being made for the body. Then, [[Moses Bar Kepha]] claimed, for Christological reasons as a Miaphysite, that only ''synhyparxis'' was acceptable. He claimed that Genesis 2:7 has no temporal sequence and that Exodus 21:22 regards the formation of the body and not the soul and so is not relevant. To argue against ''methyparxis'', he reasoned that body and soul are both present at death and, because what is at the end must correspond to what is also at the beginning, conception must also have body and soul together.<ref name="dirk" />