"Victorinus of Pettau (AD 250–304) wrote of God creating in six days and resting on the seventh, explicitly saying that God divided light and darkness perfectly into twelve hours each (Victorinus 1975, 341). He does not elaborate on this further.
Ephraem the Syrian (4th century AD) does not provide much more detail, simply asserting that all that is was created in six days and going on to describe the light of Day 1 as being a real source of light that lasted the first three days of Creation before being replaced on
Day 4 (Ephraem 1994, 77, 81–82)
Basil of Caesarea (AD 330–379) addresses the days in his Hexameron (n.d.), interpreting the days straightforwardly as literal and answering perceived inconsistencies in the literal day interpretation, such as how days could occur before the creation of the celestial luminaries, why evening occurs before morning, and why it is described as “one day” instead of “first day” (Basil of Caesarea, 2.8). The first question he answers by referring to the light created in Genesis 1:3 in a similar way to Ephraem, stating that there was a real created unidentified source of light which provided light to the world until the creation of the celestial luminaries. The second question he answers by citing that there was darkness (Genesis 1:2) before the creation of light (Genesis 1:3). Therefore, evening was first and then morning. The third question he answers by saying that the description of “one day” is to make clear that the evening and morning combine to make the length of one day, which he specifies is measured out as 24 hours. He continues to say that “one day” allows the description of the day returning on itself, adding to a week, then a year, and so forth. By saying “one day” the 24-hour cycle of light and darkness is given a name just like the light and the darkness. Basil does not confine himself to the literal, explaining how the first day is also a type for eternity, being the day on which light was created and the day on which later Christ would rise from the dead.
Ambrose (AD 339–397,) typically in the allegorical camp, speaks of the latter two questions of Basil in his own Hexameron, providing similar answers to Basil’s and also specifying the length of a day as 24 hours (Ambrose 1961, 1.10.36–37). Ambrose also dips his toes into the well of allegory at the end of his section, speaking of the circle of time, its connection to the coming day of the Lord, and the connection to the darkness of Genesis 1 (Ambrose 1961, 1.10.37). Ambrose believed in literal days, but he also engaged in allegorism just as Augustine (AD 354–430) described in his Confessions, thus holding to a literal and allegorical interpretation simultaneously. (Augustine 1952, 5.14.24)
Hippolytus of Rome (AD 170–236) writes in a manner that is similar to Basil and Ambrose, though commentary on only three verses from Genesis 1 remain from his Hexameron. In what does survive, Hippolytus seeks to answer why the first day is described as “one day” in a similar manner to Basil (Hippolytus 1975, 1.5). Hippolytus also describes the day as returning back on itself in a similar manner to Basil. This similar phrasing suggests that Hippolytus probably held to a literal day. Not enough of his commentary on Genesis remains to say for certain. If he did follow Basil and Ambrose as closely as it seems, it would not be unreasonable for expect for him to have held to an allegorical interpretation of some form as well." ARJ
Basil of Caesarea (AD 330–379) addresses the days in his Hexameron (n.d.), interpreting the days straightforwardly as literal and answering perceived inconsistencies in the literal day interpretation, such as how days could occur before the creation of the celestial luminaries, why evening occurs before morning, and why it is described as “one day” instead of “first day” (Basil of Caesarea, 2.8). The first question he answers by referring to the light created in Genesis 1:3 in a similar way to Ephraem, stating that there was a real created unidentified source of light which provided light to the world until the creation of the celestial luminaries. The second question he answers by citing that there was darkness (Genesis 1:2) before the creation of light (Genesis 1:3). Therefore, evening was first and then morning. The third question he answers by saying that the description of “one day” is to make clear that the evening and morning combine to make the length of one day, which he specifies is measured out as 24 hours. He continues to say that “one day” allows the description of the day returning on itself, adding to a week, then a year, and so forth. By saying “one day” the 24-hour cycle of light and darkness is given a name just like the light and the darkness. Basil does not confine himself to the literal, explaining how the first day is also a type for eternity, being the day on which light was created and the day on which later Christ would rise from the dead.
Ambrose (AD 339–397,) typically in the allegorical camp, speaks of the latter two questions of Basil in his own Hexameron, providing similar answers to Basil’s and also specifying the length of a day as 24 hours (Ambrose 1961, 1.10.36–37). Ambrose also dips his toes into the well of allegory at the end of his section, speaking of the circle of time, its connection to the coming day of the Lord, and the connection to the darkness of Genesis 1 (Ambrose 1961, 1.10.37). Ambrose believed in literal days, but he also engaged in allegorism just as Augustine (AD 354–430) described in his Confessions, thus holding to a literal and allegorical interpretation simultaneously. (Augustine 1952, 5.14.24)
Hippolytus of Rome (AD 170–236) writes in a manner that is similar to Basil and Ambrose, though commentary on only three verses from Genesis 1 remain from his Hexameron. In what does survive, Hippolytus seeks to answer why the first day is described as “one day” in a similar manner to Basil (Hippolytus 1975, 1.5). Hippolytus also describes the day as returning back on itself in a similar manner to Basil. This similar phrasing suggests that Hippolytus probably held to a literal day. Not enough of his commentary on Genesis remains to say for certain. If he did follow Basil and Ambrose as closely as it seems, it would not be unreasonable for expect for him to have held to an allegorical interpretation of some form as well." ARJ
