www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Evolution and Creation

In light of current scientific teaching on evolution, does anyone know the following? 1. What the Roman Catholic Church definitively teaches concerning what must be believed regarding the creation of human beings. 2. What the Orthodox Church definitively teaches concerning what must be believed regarding the creation of human beings. Thanks.

Joe

On the Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch

June 27, 1906 (ASS 39 [1906-07] 377f; EB 174ff; Dz 1997ff)

I: Are the arguments gathered by critics to impugn the Mosaic authorship of the sacred hooks designated by the name of the Pentateuch of such weight in spite of the cumulative evidence of many passages of both Testaments, the unbroken unanimity of the Jewish people, and furthermore of the constant tradition of the Church besides the internal indications furnished by the text itself, as to justify the statement that these books are not of Mosaic authorship but were put together from sources mostly of post-Mosaic date?

Answer: In the negative.

II: Does the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch necessarily imply a production of the whole work of such a character as to impose the belief that each and every word was written by Moses' own hand or was by him dictated to secretaries ; or is it a legitimate hypothesis that he conceived the work himself under the guidance of divine inspiration and then entrusted the writing of it to one or more persons, with the understanding that they reproduced his thoughts with fidelity and neither wrote nor omitted anything contrary to his will, and that finally the work composed after this fashion was approved by Moses, its principal and inspired author, and was published under his name?

Answer: In the negative to the first and in the affirmative to the second part.

III: Without prejudice to the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, may it be granted that in the composition of his work Moses used sources, written documents namely or oral traditions, from which in accordance with the special aim he entertained and under the guidance of divine inspiration he borrowed material and inserted it in his work either word for word or in substance, either abbreviated or amplified?

Answer: In the affirmative.

IV: Subject to the Mosaic authorship and the integrity of the Pentateuch being substantially safeguarded, may it be admitted that in the protracted course of centuries certain modifications befell it, such as : additions made after the death of Moses by an inspired writer, or glosses and explanations inserted in the text, certain words and forms changed from archaic into more recent speech, finally incorrect readings due to the fault of scribes which may be the subject of inquiry and judgement according to the laws of textual criticism?

Answer In the affirmative, saving the judgement of the Church.

Concerning the Historical Character of the First Three Chapters of Genesis

June 30, 1909 (AAS 1 [1909] 567ff; EB 332ff; Dz 2121ff)

I: Do the various exegetical systems excogitated and defended under the guise of science to exclude the literal historical sense of the first three chapters of Genesis rest on a solid foundation?

Answer: In the negative.

II: Notwithstanding the historical character and form of Genesis, the special connection of the first three chapters with one another and with the following chapters, the manifold testimonies of the Scriptures both of the Old and of the New Testaments, the almost unanimous opinion of the holy Fathers and the traditional view which the people of Israel also has handed on and the Church has always held, may it be taught that: the aforesaid three chapters of Genesis Contain not accounts of actual events, accounts, that is, which correspond to objective reality and historical truth, but, either 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; or allegories and symbols without any foundation in objective reality proposed under the form of history to inculcate religious and philosophical truths; or finally legends in part historical and in part fictitious freely composed with a view to instruction and edification?

Answer: In the negative to both parts.

III: In particular may the literal historical sense be called in doubt in the case of facts narrated in the same chapters which touch the foundations of the Christian religion: as are, among others, the creation of all things by God in 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 felicity of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the command given by God to man to test his obedience; the transgression of the divine command at the instigation of the devil under the form of a serpent; the degradation of our first parents from that primeval state of innocence; and the promise of a future Redeemer?

Answer: In the negative.

IV: In the interpretation of those passages in these chapters which the Fathers and Doctors understood in different manners without proposing anything certain and definite, is it lawful, without prejudice to the judgement of the Church and with attention to the analogy of faith, to follow and defend the opinion that commends itself to each one?

Answer: In the affirmative.

V: Must each and every word and phrase occurring in the aforesaid chapters always and necessarily be understood in its literal sense, so that it is never lawful to deviate from it, even when it appears obvious that the diction is employed in an applied sense, either metaphorical or anthropomorphical, and either reason forbids the retention or necessity imposes the abandonment of the literal sense?

Answer: In the negative.

VI: Provided that the literal and historical sense is presupposed, may certain passages in the same chapters, in the light of the example of the holy Fathers and of the Church itself, be wisely and profitably interpreted in an allegorical and prophetic sense?

Answer: In the affirmative.

VII: As it was not the mind of the sacred author in the composition of the first chapter of Genesis to give scientific teaching about the internal Constitution of visible things and the entire order of creation, but rather to communicate to his people a popular notion in accord with the current speech of the time and suited to the understanding and capacity of men, must the exactness of scientific language be always meticulously sought for in the interpretation of these matters?

Answer: In the negative.

VIII : In the designation and distinction of the six days mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis may the word Yom (day) be taken either in the literal sense for the natural day or in an applied sense for a certain space of time, and may this question be the subject of free discussion among exegetes?

Answer: In the affirmative.

There's nothing definitive I've seen. I certainly do not believe Adam and Eve were literal people. They're figurative representations of humanity.

So according to the principles of spiritual exegesis (which is basis for the entire Gospel and the New Testament) redemption is simply castles built on clouds.

Gordo

No, but nor do I think it's dependent on there being a literal Adam or literal Eve, or the idea that Eve was created from his rib.

Dear Gordo,

Well, of course Eve was made from Adam's rib!

Just ask any married man when he gets yelled at by his wife "Where do you feel the pain first?"

In the ribs, don't you know . . .

I hope this doesn't cause comment from Mary!

Alex

I believe that the weight of both biblical and patristic evidence is on my side.

Old Testament types that are myths cannot prophetically prefigure anything, since the exegetical science of typology as practiced by the New Testament writers and the Fathers is grounded on the literal/historical meaning of the text.

To say myths prefigure historical figures is to regard Divine Revelation in the same way as one should treat Greek Mythology (Pere Louis Bouyer has an excellent treatment of this point in his The Meaning of Sacred Scripture). One needs to get at the spiritual substance of a pagan myth by completely discounting its historicity, whereas both the Hebrew (and subsequent Christian) view of what is revealed in the sacred text is that it is true, religious history. What's more, it presents itself as true history, so if one denies its fundamental event character, this casts into doubt its inspiration. God is not the Author of myth.

That being said, it is a religious history and one should not assume that the text reveals more than it actually does. It is not, obviously, written as either a modern newspaper article or history textbook or a scientific manual. (And, just for the record, according to Genesis, Eve was fashioned from Adam's side, not necessarily his rib. I have heard some Fundamentalists claim that men have fewer ribs than women, which is in itself a myth!)

If one denies a literal Adam and Eve, than our whole Christological and redemptive framework is predicated (I like that word - I've been using it alot lately) on a historical falsehood. Hence, castles on clouds.

This may be, but the weight of patristic evidence and a literal reading of genesis would probably support a six day creation and a young earth theory. I myself don't accept either of those.

Well, I disagree. I think many things in the Old Testament are aspects of mythology; meaning that they are not simply made up, but that they point to an underlying reality, though in and of themselves may not be literally true. Consider what Origen said about these events in his On First Principles...

I see them differently. I think there is a strand of reality in the Old Testament stories, though literally they may not be true.

Even taking them at face value and nothing beyond simply would not work. If there was a literal Adam then one would trace his genealogy back from Christ to him. This would be problematic in that it would

A. Not make sense in light of the conflicting genealogies in the New Testament.
B. Not make sense in light of what we know of the age of the earth.

Again, I disagree. I don't see it that way. Adam and Eve are metaphors for the origin and state of humanity. I should add I'm not intending to argue with or disprove your viewpoint. I simply don't share it.