Above: Adamo ed Eva nel paradiso terrestre by Johann Wenzel Peter (1745-1829).
This Paper was originally presented at the 5th Annual Symposium of the St. Basil Institute for the Study of the Theology of Creation cosponsored and hosted by the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross (Sancta Croce) in Rome. The theme of the symposium was “The Theology of Creation in the Magisterium.” A version of this essay will be included in a forthcoming book from St. Basil Academic.
Introduction
Are the Genesis creation narratives literal history or are they symbolic myth or theological poetry? What exactly are Catholics required to believe about Genesis 1–3? To answer these questions, we are going to analyze the responses of the Pontifical Biblical Commission from 1909 on the historical character of Genesis 1–3 as well as the Commission’s later commentary on the issue in its 1948 Letter to Cardinal Suhard of Paris.
First of all, however, what is the Pontifical Biblical Commission (PBC) and why should Catholics today care what it said about Genesis in 1909? In contemporary Catholic discourse, the responses of the PBC regarding Genesis 1–3 are frequently overlooked or dismissed as obsolete. Archbishop William Levada, for example, remarked in passing, but with apparent agreement, that these responses are “now viewed as transitory judgments.”[1] Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger mentions them as examples of magisterial teaching of which it can be said, “Their core remains valid but the individual details influenced by the circumstances at the time may need further rectification,” and then goes on to say that “the details of the determinations of their contents were later superseded once they had carried out their pastoral duty at a particular moment.”[2]
From such comments, many Catholics too easily draw the conclusion that the responses of the PBC can simply be ignored, but this assumption does not stand up to scrutiny. By exploring the nature of the authority exercised by the PBC, from its founding in 1902 to the present day, and by examining several of its individual statements in detail, this paper will demonstrate the enduring doctrinal relevance of the early twentieth-century responses for our understanding of the historical character of the Genesis creation narratives.
I. The Authority of the PBC
The PBC was established in 1902 by Pope Leo XIII with three principal aims in view: first, to promote Catholic biblical scholarship at the highest level; second, to defend the divine authority of Scripture as the word of God; and third, to moderate and resolve disputes among Catholic scholars. This, he said, “will have the happy result of providing the Apostolic See with the opportunity to declare what ought to be inviolably maintained by Catholics, what ought to be reserved for further research, and what ought to be left for the judgment of each individual.”[3]
Between 1905 and 1933, the PBC issued a series of responses on sixteen different topics. These took the form of carefully worded questions to which the PBC responded with simple ‘affirmative’ or ‘negative’ replies. Strongly traditional in tone and substance, these responses of the PBC tended to restrict the freedom of Catholic scholars to hold or teach various widely held theories of historical-critical scholarship, such as the Documentary Hypothesis and Marcan priority. Hence, as Dean Béchard dryly remarks, “Despite their being issued with the full approval and authority of the Holy See, the reception of these decisions of the PBC was never unproblematic.”[4] In fact, the opposition from some quarters against the initial responses of the PBC was such that Pope St. Pius X felt the need to clarify and re-emphasize their authoritative nature. In the Motu proprio Praestantia Scripturae of 1907 he laments that, “There are some who have not received or do not receive such decisions with the proper submission, even though they are approved by the pontiff,”[5] and then continues:
Therefore, We see that it must be declared and ordered as We do now declare and expressly order that all are bound by the duty of conscience to submit to the decisions of the Biblical Pontifical Commission, both those that have been given up until now and those that will be given in the future, just as to the decrees of the Sacred Congregations that pertain to doctrine and have been approved by the pontiff; and that all who impugn such decisions as these by word or in writing cannot escape the stigma of disobedience and temerity or on this account be free of serious guilt; and this in addition to the scandal whereby they offend and the other ways they are liable before God, mostly by pronouncing rashly and erroneously on these matters.[6]
One of the questions discussed by Catholic theologians at the time was whether these decisions of the PBC should be understood as doctrinal or disciplinary. According to Béchard, most theologians concluded that they were at least indirectly doctrinal and not merely disciplinary.[7] Indeed, it would be hard to draw any other conclusion on the basis of the clarification issued by Pius X, which expressly equates the authority of these responses to the doctrinal decrees of other congregations. If the decisions of the PBC were merely disciplinary and not doctrinal, such a comparison would be a gross exaggeration of their authority.
This distinction between doctrine and discipline makes a difference to the kind of response that is required of Catholics in each case. As doctrinal decisions approved and promulgated by the authority of the pope, the responses of the PBC require not only the external obedience that would be owed to disciplinary decisions, but also the internal assent of the mind that is owed to the teaching of the magisterium. Although they cannot be considered infallible, because they do not come directly from the supreme authority in the Church, they still require the “religious submission of mind and will” that is due to “the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra.”[8]
If, however, this is really the case—if these responses of the PBC are really doctrinal decisions of the magisterium requiring religious submission of will and intellect, why are they generally disregarded today? One point worth noting is that Pope Paul VI completely restructured the PBC in 1971 as part of the general reform of the Roman curia after the Second Vatican Council. In its current configuration, its members are no longer Cardinals exercising delegated papal authority as an organ of the magisterium. Since 1971 it has been a purely consultative body, composed of experts in the field, offering their opinions on matters of interest to Catholic Biblical scholarship, but no longer exercising any magisterial authority in the Church.[9] Such a change in status, however, cannot do anything to revoke the authority of prior decisions of the same body when it was an organ of the magisterium.
The real change in how the responses were viewed came much earlier, in the 1950s. The encyclical letter of Pope Pius XII Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943), although doctrinally in perfect harmony with Leo XIII’s Providentissimus Deus (1893), had indicated greater openness to the use of historical-critical methods of biblical scholarship by Catholic scholars. In 1948, the PBC itself published a letter to Cardinal Suhard, Archbishop of Paris, taking a more nuanced approach to the question of the literary genre of the early chapters of Genesis.[10] The new climate of openness, after the more restrictive approach taken by the Holy See in its fight against Modernism in the first half of the twentieth-century, led to some speculation that the earlier responses of the PBC might be revoked or otherwise rendered obsolete.
The crucial moment came in 1955 in connection with the publication of the newly revised Enchiridion Biblicum, a compendium of magisterial documents on Scripture compiled by the PBC and published in 1954. Two members of the PBC—the secretary, Athanasius Miller, and the subsecretary, Arduin Kleinhans—published nearly identical statements in two different academic journals addressing the authority of the earlier responses of the PBC.[11] This is what they said:
Especially in this respect, the decrees of the Pontifical Biblical Commission have great significance. However, as long as these decrees propose views that are neither immediately or mediately connected with truths of faith and morals, it goes without saying that the interpreter of Sacred Scripture may pursue his scientific research with complete freedom and may utilize the results of these investigations, provided always that he respects the teaching authority of the Church. Today we can hardly picture to ourselves the position of Catholic scholars at the turn of the century or the dangers that threatened Catholic teaching on Scripture and its interpretation on the part of liberal and rationalistic criticism, which like a torrent tried to sweep away the sacred barriers of tradition. At present the battle is significantly less fierce. Several of the controversies have been settled, and many of the problems now are seen in an entirely new light, so that it is all too easy for us to smile at the narrowness and constraint that prevailed at that time.[12]
Most scholars at the time and ever since have accepted these words of Miller and Kleinhans as “semi-official” statements indicating the “mind” of the PBC, relativizing the authority of its earlier decrees and effectively relegating them to the dustbin of history.
What are we to make of this? On the one hand, the original statements of the PBC were promulgated with papal authority; as such they could hardly be overturned by statements issued without papal approval in academic journals, even if these expressed the united views of the members of the PBC. That they even do as much as that is contested by J. E. Steinmueller, another member of the PBC at the time, who denies that those earlier responses were ever revoked, saying:
I was consultor of the first Pontifical Biblical Commission from 1947 (after the publication of Divino afflante Spiritu) to 1971; and I never heard any intimation that any decrees of the Commission were ever revoked. At most they were clarified (cf. Letter to Cardinal Suhard of Paris, 1948). Recently some Catholic scholars have asserted that the decrees were implicitly revoked by Divino afflante Spiritu (1943) and that this is confirmed by two articles written in 1955 by A. Miller and A. Kleinhans, who seem to restrict the scope of the decrees to matters of faith and morals (cf. Jerome Biblical Commentary, Vol. II, p. 629). The articles referred to were unauthorized and were condemned by the voting Cardinal members of the Commission. A. Miller and A. Kleinhans were to be brought before the Holy Office because of the articles, but were saved from this ordeal through the personal intervention of Cardinal Tisserant before the Holy Father. It was my friend, Father Miller, O.S.B., who told me the whole story before his return to Germany.[13]
Joseph Fitzmyer argues that the silence of the Holy See in choosing not to publicly repudiate the statements of Miller and Kleinhas implies tacit agreement with their thesis.[14] This idea, however, which is essentially that “silence implies consent” in matters of magisterial teaching, was formally condemned by Pope Alexander VII in 1665. The condemned proposition says that, “If a book is published by a younger or modern person, its opinion should be considered as probable, since it is not established that it has been rejected by the Holy See as improbable.”[15]
Setting that aside, however, let us step back and examine the core assertion made by Miller and Kleinhans, which is essentially that Catholics are free to disregard the responses of the PBC whenever they put forward views that are not connected to matters of faith or morals. Now, since the power of the magisterium can only be exercised in matters of faith and morals, the implicit claim here is that at least some of the rulings of the PBC, by going outside this sphere, must be interpreted as merely disciplinary in nature. In response to this, several things must be noted: first, by putting forward their central claim in such a sweeping fashion, they invite people to draw the conclusion that the responses of the PBC are mostly or even entirely disciplinary, despite the explicit statements of Pope Pius X to the contrary. Second, even if Miller and Kleinhans were right to distinguish between what is doctrinal and what is disciplinary in these responses, they did not have the authority as members of the PBC to revoke disciplinary measures established by authority of the Holy See, nor did they cite any reason or evidence that would allow us to conclude that they had been revoked. On the other hand, according to the principle of desuetude in canon law, disciplinary laws can lapse through non-enforcement over a period of more than 30 years.[16] We are now more than 70 years since the time these articles were published, and there has been no effort on the part of the Holy See to enforce the earlier rulings of the PBC, so we can safely conclude that anything that was merely disciplinary in them has lapsed by now.
The question that remains, however, is whether we can distinguish disciplinary elements from doctrinal elements in the PBC responses, bearing in mind that the declaration of Pope Pius X in Praestantia Scripturae establishes at least a strong presumption in favor of viewing them as doctrinal, which places the burden of proof on the other side.
As a test case for attempting to distinguish between doctrinal and disciplinary elements in the PBC responses of the early twentieth century, let’s take a look at the first two responses from 1905. The first question was about implicit citations in Sacred Scripture:
Question: In order to resolve difficulties that occur in some texts of Sacred Scripture that seem to relate historical facts, is the Catholic exegete permitted to assert that in these it is a matter of a tacit or implicit citation of a document written by a non-inspired author, all of whose assertions the inspired author by no means intends to approve or make his own and which, therefore, cannot be considered immune from error? Response (confirmed by the supreme pontiff on February 13): No, except in the case where, preserving the sense and judgment of the Church, it is proved by strong arguments: 1. that the sacred writer really is citing the words or documents of another, and 2. that he does not approve the same or make them his own, so that it is rightly decided that he is not speaking in his own name.[17]
In this case, I believe we can distinguish between a doctrinal core, which remains valid, and a disciplinary ruling, which has juridically lapsed. The doctrinal core of the reply is the truth that citations contained in Scripture are not in themselves immune from error. That is, in any case where the author of Scripture asserts only that something was said by another—where he merely records or reports what was said by another—in such cases the truth of Scripture requires only that the author cited really said what he is reported to have said, and not that he is necessarily correct in what he says, unless the author of Scripture also endorses the statement. The disciplinary ruling, which expresses sound prudence even if it is no longer juridically in effect, is that Catholic scholars are not permitted to make use of this explanation as a way of resolving difficulties in the interpretation of Scripture (where it seems to contradict other historical evidence) except in cases where it can be proved by strong arguments.
The second question was about parts of Scripture that may be only apparently historical:
Question: Can the opinion be admitted as a principle of sound exegesis that holds that the books of Sacred Scripture that are held to be historical, either in whole or in part, sometimes do not narrate history properly so called, which is objectively true, but present an appearance of history only, to signify something different from the properly literal and historical significance of the words? Response (confirmed by the supreme pontiff): No, except in the case, however, not readily or rashly to be admitted, where without opposing the sense of the Church and preserving her judgment, it is proved with strong arguments that the sacred writer did not wish to put down true history, and history properly so-called, but to set forth, under the appearance and form of history, a parable, an allegory, or some meaning removed from the properly literal or historical significance of the words.[18]
Here again, I believe we can distinguish between a doctrinal core and a disciplinary ruling. The doctrinal core is the truth that there are parables or allegories included in Scripture, and that these are to be interpreted according to the meaning intended by the author and not as literal history. The disciplinary ruling is once again that Catholic scholars are not permitted to make use of this fact as a way of resolving difficulties except in cases where it can be proved with strong arguments. As an instance of this, we could think of someone who might be tempted to regard the entire book of Jonah as an extended allegory of some kind in order to account for the “impossibility” of his surviving for three days in the belly of a large fish without having to admit the possibility of a miraculous resurrection.
Accepting, therefore, the basic distinction between a doctrinal core that remains valid in these PBC responses and disciplinary elements that have lapsed, let us turn at last to the historical character of the creation narratives in Genesis, which were addressed in a series of responses in 1909.
II. The Historical Character of Genesis 1–3
The first question touches immediately upon the historicity of Genesis 1–3, which describe the Creation and the Fall of Man:
Question 1: Are the various exegetical systems that have been devised for the purpose of excluding the literal historical sense of the first three chapters of Genesis and advocated under the guise of being scientific based upon solid arguments? Response: No.[19]
As a direct truth statement that does not address any practical question of what is or is not permitted, this must be interpreted as a doctrinal statement. Although the strength of the particular arguments under consideration is not directly contained in divine revelation, they are connected to the question of the right interpretation of the text of Scripture, which certainly does fall within the scope of the Church’s magisterium. Notice, however, the limited application of what is actually being asserted. If the arguments designed to exclude the literal historical sense do not rest on solid foundations, this does not necessarily mean that their conclusions are false; strictly speaking, it only means that the issue remains open. Moreover, the opposing position, which is clearly favoured by the PBC in this response, is not that everything in Genesis 1–3 must be taken as literal history, but only that the literal historical sense cannot be completely excluded. There is at least some literal history recorded in Genesis 1–3.
Question 2: Is it possible, in spite of the character and historic form of the book of Genesis, of the close connection of the first three chapters with one another and with those that follow, of the manifold testimony of the Scriptures both of the Old and of the New Testament, of the almost unanimous opinion of the holy Fathers, and of the traditional view—transmitted also by the Jewish people—that has always been held by the Church, to teach that the three aforesaid chapters of Genesis do not contain the narrative of things that actually happened, that is <a narrative> that corresponds to objective reality and historic truth, but, rather, either fables derived from mythologies and cosmologies of ancient peoples but purified of all polytheistic error and accommodated to monotheistic teaching by the sacred author; or allegories and symbols destitute of any foundation in objective reality but presented under the garb of history for the purpose of inculcating religious and philosophical truth; or, finally, legends partly historical and partly fictitious, freely composed for the instruction and edification of souls? Response: No to each part.[20]
The heart of the question here is the line that asks whether it can be denied that Genesis 1–3 contains accounts of actual events corresponding to objective reality and historical truth. The answer is in the negative and so the doctrinal core of this response is the truth that Genesis 1–3 does describe actual events that really happened in objective history. As a matter of interpretation of a biblical text, this falls squarely within the competence of the magisterium.
The buildup to the question outlines the reasons for this conclusion, which do not have the same authority as the conclusion itself, but they clearly show the doctrinal nature of the core teaching. The five reasons given as to why Catholics are taught to believe that Genesis 1-3 describes real historical events are these: (i) “The historical character and form of Genesis”—i.e., it is presented in the form of a historical narrative by its author; (ii) “the special connection of the first three chapters with one another and with the following chapters”—the rest of Genesis is historical in nature and these chapters are organically connected to them; (iii) “the manifold testimonies of the Scriptures both of the Old and of the New Testaments”—the Scriptures in many other places treat these chapters as historical; (iv) “the almost unanimous opinion of the holy Fathers”—the Fathers of the Church have great authority in Catholic theology as the privileged witnesses of the tradition handed on by the Apostles from Jesus Christ; (v) “the traditional view which the people of Israel also has handed on and the Church has always held”—this is an argument from tradition that goes all the way back to the composition of the text: if it was understood as historical by the people for whom it was immediately written, and passed on with that understanding through all the subsequent centuries, then it was most likely intended to be understood that way by its author.
The second half of the question rules out a handful of particular theories that have been proposed regarding Genesis 1–3. First, Catholics cannot accept that the Creation stories are “fables derived from the mythologies and cosmogonies of ancient peoples and accommodated by the sacred writer to monotheistic doctrine after the expurgation of any polytheistic error.” Certainly, there could be some amount of overlap with mythologies or cosmogonies of other ancient people, but the creation accounts are not merely fables. They contain “the narrative of things that actually happened” corresponding to “objective reality and historic truth.” Second, Catholics cannot accept that the Creation narratives are “allegories and symbols without any foundation in objective reality proposed under the form of history to inculcate religious and philosophical truths.” There could be allegories and symbols in the Creation narratives, but if there are, they must have a foundation in objective reality. Finally, Catholics cannot accept that the Creation stories are “legends in part historical and in part fictitious freely composed with a view to instruction and edification.” Again, there may be allegory and symbol, but there is no fiction in the Creation narratives, no matter how instructive or edifying.
Question 3: Is it possible, in particular, to call in question the literal and historical meaning where there is question of facts narrated in the these same chapters that touch the foundation of the Christian religion, such as, among others, the creation of all things that was accomplished by God at the beginning of time, the special creation of man, the formation of the first woman from the first man, the unity of the human race, the original happiness of the first parents in a state of justice, integrity, and immortality, the command given by God to man to prove his obedience, the transgression of the divine command at the instigation of the devil under the form of a serpent, the fall of the first parents from that primitive state of innocence, and the promise of a future Redeemer? Response: No.[21]
This question provides an invaluable list of nine particular things that must be interpreted as literal historical facts in the Creation narratives. Notice here both what is included and what is not included. First, “the creation of all things by God at the beginning of time” (it does not say exactly how long ago).[22] Second, “the special (or unique) creation of man.”[23] This denies that evolution can fully account for the origin of man but does not exclude that it may have played a role in the formation of his body. Third, “the formation of the first woman from the first man.”[24] There is no mention of Adam’s rib specifically, which could therefore perhaps be interpreted symbolically. Fourth, “the unity of the human race.”[25] This excludes the idea of polygenism, the idea that Adam and Eve were not individual people but instead represent an original human population, which would later be condemned more explicitly by Pope Pius XII.[26] Fifth, “the original felicity of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality.”[27] This excludes a purely natural origin of man and defends the historical reality of the supernatural and preternatural gifts originally bestowed on him. Sixth, “the command given by God to man to test his obedience.”[28] Notice that it does not mention a fruit specifically, which could therefore perhaps be interpreted symbolically; but there was a real command given by God at the beginning of human history. Seventh, “the transgression of the divine command at the instigation of the devil under the form of a serpent.”[29] Interestingly, the appearance of the devil under the form of a serpent cannot be interpreted symbolically; Satan really appeared to Adam and Eve as a serpent. Eighth, “the degradation of our first parents from that primeval state of innocence.”[30] The fall of man on account of original sin is a historical fact. Finally, “the promise of a future Redeemer.”[31] This refers to the prophecy of Genesis 3:15, which is known as the Protoevangelium, the First Gospel, or first announcement of Good News. God says to the serpent, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” Christian tradition has always interpreted this as a prophecy of the final crushing of Satan’s head by Jesus Christ or by the Blessed Virgin Mary through her Son Jesus Christ.
Question 4: In interpreting those passages of these chapters that the Fathers and Doctors have interpreted in divers ways without leaving us anything definite or certain, is it permitted, subject to the judgment of the Church and following the analogy of faith, to follow and defend that opinion which each one has prudently found correct? Response: Yes.[32]
This reply grants the greatest possible freedom to biblical scholars within the limits of what has been definitively handed down by the Church, presupposing that any interpretation must always be in harmony with the entirety of the Catholic faith and subject always to the ultimate judgment of the Church’s magisterium. As such, it should perhaps be viewed technically as a disciplinary ruling, but this one would not have lapsed, since no custom contrary to this permission has grown up in the meantime.
Question 5: Must each and everything, namely, the words and phrases, that occur in the aforesaid chapters always and of necessity be interpreted in the literal sense, so that it is never permitted to deviate from it, even when expressions are manifestly used not literally <but> metaphorically or anthropomorphically, and when reason forbids us to hold, or necessity impels us to depart from, the literal sense? Response: No.[33]
Here we have a clear affirmation that not everything in the early chapters of Genesis needs to be interpreted literally, and indeed there are cases in which it should not be interpreted literally. A clear example of a text that is manifestly anthropomorphic is Genesis 3:8, which says that Adam and Eve “heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day.” Such a text cannot be taken literally since we know that God (prescinding from the Incarnation) does not have a body or legs with which to literally walk.
Question 6: Presupposing the literal and historical sense, may an allegorical and prophetical interpretation of certain passages of the same chapters, corresponding to the luminous example of the holy Fathers and the Church herself, be prudently and usefully applied? Response: Yes.[34]
Various Fathers of the Church, including the great St. Augustine,[35] have interpreted the creation narratives of Genesis allegorically, but without denying the literal historical interpretation. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, the spiritual sense (which includes the allegorical) “is based on the literal, and presupposes it.”[36] There is no harm, therefore, in proposing allegorical readings of the creation narratives, but these must be seen as complementary to the literal historical meaning and not as alternatives to it.
Question 7: Although it was not the intention of the sacred author, when writing the first chapter of Genesis, to teach us in a scientific manner the innermost nature of visible things and the complete order of creation but rather to hand on to his people a popular account, such as the common parlance of that age allowed, adapted to the senses and to man’s capacity, is it necessary, when interpreting these chapters, to seek strictly and always the particular characteristics of scientific discourse? Response: No.[37]
It would be easy to draw the wrong conclusion from this reply. What it does not say is that since the Bible is not a science textbook, it may get some things wrong in matters of science. That would be contrary to our belief in the complete inerrancy of the Bible as the inspired word of God.[38] What it is saying is that we should not expect the Bible to speak in the language of scientific precision. Anything the Bible teaches even in matters pertaining to science must be true, since God does not make errors, but it will be expressed in ordinary language, not in the language of a science textbook. A great example of this difference that we are all familiar with is the common way of speaking about the sun rising in the East. According to a precise scientific account, this is inaccurate. What looks like sunrise is actually an effect of the rotation of the earth. But this does not mean that anyone who refers to the sun rising in the East is in error; even scientists will use such language in ordinary conversation without meaning to endorse geocentrism! To say that the sun rises in the East is not false, but it expresses the truth in ordinary language rather than in scientific language. According to Pope Leo XIII, quoting St. Thomas Aquinas, “Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers—as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us—‘went by what sensibly appeared,’ or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to.”[39] This principle allows us to understand that assertions about the stability of the earth need not be taken as denials of heliocentrism, nor do references to “the four corners of the earth” (Isa 11:12; Rev 7:1) mean that the earth is flat or cubic.
Question 8: Can the word yôm (day), <which> is used in the first chapter of Genesis to describe and distinguish the six days, be understood both in its literal sense as natural day and also in a non-literal sense as a certain space of time; and is it permitted to discuss this question among exegetes? Response: Yes.[40]
The final question in the series addresses the topic that will be of most interest to the majority of readers—the interpretation of the six days of creation, and permission is given to Catholics to interpret the word “day,” as it is used in the creation narratives of Genesis, either in the literal sense as a natural day of 24-hours or in a figurative sense as referring to a certain indefinite space of time. As examples of the figurative use of the word ‘day’ even in English, consider typical expressions such as “back in my day” to refer to a certain period of one’s life or “back in the day” to refer to a past period of unspecified length. We can also look at Genesis 2:4 for a contextual example, where it says: “In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens…” and then goes on to describe the creation of man as well. If the six days of Genesis 1 are strictly literal 24-hour time periods, then the “day” of Genesis 2 must refer to a more all-encompassing period of time in order to embrace the creation of the heavens, the earth, and man, which occur on different days in Genesis 1. But if Genesis 2 uses the word “day” in this more extended sense, then it would not be unreasonable to suppose that Genesis 1 might do so as well.
III. The Letter to Cardinal Suhard
The question of the fundamentally historical character of the early chapters of Genesis was addressed by the PBC again in its 1948 letter to Cardinal Suhard, the Archbishop of Paris. Responding to a question about the historicity of the first eleven chapters of Genesis (by implication, this was also a question about the continued relevance of the earlier responses of the PBC), the PBC replied first of all that there was “no need, at least for the moment, to promulgate any new decrees regarding these questions” because “those earlier replies were “in no way opposed to further and truly scientific examination of these problems.”[41] Far from being “implicitly revoked” by Divino afflante Spiritu (issued in 1943), the replies of the PBC are positively said to be already in accordance with the freedom of research—within the limits of traditional Church teaching—promoted by that encyclical, and this is a letter approved by the authority of Pope Pius XII who authored that encyclical.
After this initial reaffirmation of the earlier replies of the PBC, the letter to Cardinal Suhard does go on to address the historicity of Genesis 1–11 in more detail, and its explanation can appear at first to contradict the teaching of the earlier replies. Here is what it says:
The question of the literary forms of the first eleven chapters of Genesis is far more obscure and complex. These literary forms correspond to none of our classical categories and cannot be judged in the light of Greco-Latin or modern literary genres. One can, therefore, neither deny nor affirm their historicity, taken as a whole, without unduly applying to them the canons of a literary genre within which it is impossible to classify them. If one agrees not to recognize in these chapters history in the classical and modern sense, one must also admit that the current scientific data do not allow giving a positive solution to all the problems they pose.
The first duty here incumbent upon scientific exegesis consists above all in the attentive study of all the literary, scientific, historical, cultural, and religious problems connected with these chapters; one should then examine closely the literary processes of the early Oriental peoples, their psychology, their way of expressing themselves, and their very notion of historical truth; in a word, one should collate without prejudice all the material from the palaeontological and historical, epigraphic, and literary sciences. Only thus can we hope to look more clearly into the true nature of certain narratives in the first chapters of Genesis.
To declare a priori that their narratives contain no history in the modern sense of the term would easily convey the idea that they contain no <history> in any sense, whereas they relate in simple and figurative language, adapted to the understanding of a less developed people, the fundamental truths presupposed for the economy of salvation as well as the popular description of the origin of the human race and of the chosen people.[42]
Does this contradict the earlier replies of the PBC, which clearly affirmed the historical character of the Genesis creation narratives? While it may seem so at first glance, it is important to note that the first paragraph of the text quoted here begins by saying that we can neither affirm nor deny the historicity of Genesis 1–11 in an unqualified sense. This is in perfect harmony with the earlier reply, which had affirmed their historicity in a carefully qualified sense—namely, they are historical in the sense that they do “contain the narrative of things that actually happened,” that the narrative “corresponds to objective reality and historic truth.” If we simply categorize them as historical in genre, we risk applying an interpretive lens that, however appropriate to modern history textbooks, would be inappropriate to the text of Genesis (e.g. expectations of strict adherence to chronological order, precise dating, and the total absence of figurative language). On the other hand, we cannot simply deny that the early chapters of Genesis are historical either, for in that case we would risk implying that there is no factual historical content in them at all, which is certainly not true and very dangerous for faith. What we should say, therefore, is precisely what the PBC said in its earlier decrees: That the early chapters of Genesis are historical in the sense that they “contain the narrative of things that actually happened” (this is common to all historical texts) without excluding that they describe these realities at least to some extent in figurative language (this is unique to ancient historical texts), while also maintaining that numerous important truths are also described in properly literal historical terms, especially the facts mentioned in the 1909 reply to the third question.
[1] William Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Dei Verbum-Forty Years Later,” Pontifical Athenaeum of St. Anselm (Oct 10, 2005).
[2] Joseph Ratzinger, English Weekly Edition of L’Osservatore Romano: N. 27 (2 July 1990), 5.
[3] Pope Leo XIII, Apostolic Letter Vigilantiae studiique (Oct 30, 1902), §9 (AAS 35 [1902/03], 234–38); The Scripture Documents: An Anthology of Official Catholic Teachings, ed. and trans. Dean P. Béchard (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2002), 65.
[4] Béchard, The Scripture Documents, 320.
[5] DH 3503; ASS 40 (1907) 724f.
[6] DH 3503; ASS 40 (1907) 724f.
[7] Béchard, The Scripture Documents, 321. As an example, the author cites Louis-Claude Fillion, “Décisions de la Commission biblique,” Revue apologétique 33 (1921/22) 484–98, 672–88.
[8] Vatican Council II, Constitution on the Church Lumen gentium (Nov 21, 1964), §25.
[9] Pope Paul VI, Apostolic Letter Sedula cura (Jun 27, 1971): AAS 63 (1971) 665–69. The Scripture Documents, 147–150.
[10] Pontifical Biblical Commission, Letter to Cardinal Suhard (Jan 16, 1948): AAS 40 (1948) 45–48. The Scripture Documents, 221–23.
[11] Arduin Kleinhans, “De nova Enchiridii Biblici editione,” Antonianem 30 (1955): 63–65; Athanasius Miller, “Das neue biblische Handbuch,” Benediktinische Monatschrift 31 (1955): 49–50. The latter was also published in Catholic Biblical Quarterly 18 (1956): 24–25.
[12] The text is taken from Miller’s article in translation provided by The Scripture Documents, 327.
[13] J. E. Steinmueller, The Sword of the Spirit (Waco, TX: Stella Maris, 1977), 7.
[14] Joseph Fitzmyer, “The Biblical Commission and Its Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels,” in A Christological Catechism. New Testament Answers, rev. ed. (New York and Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1991), 122, n. 10.
[15] Pope Alexander VII, Decree of the Holy Office against the Laxists (Sep 24, 1665), n. 27; DH 2047.
[16] See Code of Canon Law (1983), cann. 23–28 on custom.
[17] Response of the Pontifical Biblical Commission (Feb 13, 1905): ASS 37 (1904/1905) 666; DH 3372.
[18] Response of the Pontifical Biblical Commission (Jun 23, 1905): ASS 38 (1905/1906) 124f; DH 3373.
[19] Pontifical Biblical Commission, Responsa de charactere historico trium priorum capitum Geneseos (Jun 30, 1909): AAS 1 (1909) 567–69; DH 3512.
[20] DH 3513.
[21] DH 3514.
[22] Compare CCC 296–299.
[23] Cf. CCC 355–359.
[24] Cf. CCC 371.
[25] Cf. CCC 54–55, 359–360, 375, 390–392, 402–405, 407, 416–417.
[26] Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Letter Humani generis (1950), §37.
[27] Cf. CCC 374–379, 384, 398, 415–416.
[28] Cf. CCC 396–397, 399.
[29] Cf. CCC 379, 390–392, 394–395, 397–398, 413–415.
[30] Cf. CCC 379, 390, 399–400, 410.
[31] Cf. CCC 410–411.
[32] DH 3515.
[33] DH 3516.
[34] DH 3517.
[35] St. Augustine, Confessions, XIII.
[36] St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I, q. 1, a. 10.
[37] DH 3518.
[38] See Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus (Nov 18, 1893), §20: “It is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred…. For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true.”
[39] Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, §18.
[40] DH 3519.
[41] Pontifical Biblical Commission, Letter to Cardinal Suhard (Jan 16, 1948): AAS 40 (1948) 45–48; DH 3862.
[42] DH 3864.