This essay constitutes an initial attempt to decipher early patristic views on animals by critically examining the responses of five eminent early Christian thinkers to the man-beast references contained in Ecclesiastes 3: 18-21: Thaumaturgus (213 – 270 AD), Didymus the Blind (313 – 398 AD), Chrysostom (347 – 407 AD), Jerome (347 – 420 AD), and Augustine (354 – 430 AD). Salient patterns of interpretation are identified and discussed in comparative terms contrasting ancient Hebraic and conventional biblical views with early patristic views as needed. Overall, the general finding here is that most of these early Christian thinkers (save Augustine) were heavily inclined not to interpret these verses contextually nor in Qoheleth’s own terms nor within the range of ancient Hebraic theology and cosmology. Instead, they tended to substitute Qoheleth’s terms with their own and rewrite verses to arrive at entirely different meanings, concluding that Qoheleth was contrasting righteous human beings with depraved, wicked, sinful, or faithless people, not animals per se. The general patristic view was that since animals are not rational, differ in language and speech, and don’t have souls, among other key differences, life for them terminates on earth, access to the afterlife denied. Significantly, these claims about animals were made largely without a comprehensive exploration of other biblical texts pertinent to the issue of animal afterlife.