Audio only:
What does the Catholic Church really teach about the controversial early chapters of Genesis? In this episode of The Jimmy Akin Podcast, Jimmy dives into the Church’s most important official statements on Genesis 1-11—from the Pontifical Biblical Commission to Pope Pius XII’s Humani Generis. Discover why the Church rejects both strict literalism and the idea they’re pure fiction, and how these chapters instead use simple, figurative language to reveal fundamental truths about salvation, human origins, and God’s plan. Don’t miss this eye-opening exploration!
TRANSCRIPT:
Coming Up
The two most controversial books of the Bible are the first and the last—Genesis and Revelation.
And the most controversial part of Genesis is the early part of the book—its first eleven chapters.
People have been particularly sharply divided on how these chapters relate to history.
Some hold that they tell the absolute, literal truth about what happened, so that if you could go back in time and bring back video recordings of this period, what you’d see would be exactly what is described in early Genesis.
On the other hand, some people hold that the stories in early Genesis are nothing but fiction and don’t have any relationship to history. They’re just stories.
But—as we’re going to see—the Catholic Church doesn’t endorse either of these approaches.
Let’s get into it!
* * *
Howdy, folks!
We’re in our second year of the podcast now, and you can help me keep making this podcast for years to come—and get early access to new episodes—by going to Patreon.com/JimmyAkinPodcast
The Pontifical Biblical Commission
There’s a lot to say about the book of Genesis, and there’s no way I’ll be able to cover it all today.
So I’m going to be focusing specifically on the Church’s most recent, official statements about the early chapters of Genesis and the approach they take.
To do that, I need to introduce you to an entity known as the Pontifical Biblical Commission or PBC.
The Pontifical Biblical Commission originally was an organ of the Church’s teaching authority or Magisterium.
It was founded in 1902 by Pope Leo XIII. At that time, it consisted of a group of cardinals, assisted by consultors, after the model of Vatican congregations.
Its purpose was to engage the field of biblical scholarship and provide responses to major controversies of the day.
In 1971, Paul VI reorganized the PBC in the motu proprio Sedula Cura, which stated that
Sedula Cura, norm 1
[The PBC] continues in its work of promoting biblical studies and assisting the Magisterium of the Church in the interpretation of Scripture.
However, the commission was no longer built around a group of cardinals working with consultors. Instead, it became a commission of biblical scholars who report to the Congregation (and now Dicastery) for the Doctrine of the Faith.
It thus ceased to have magisterial authority and became an advisory body. In his preface to the commission’s 1993 document, The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger—who was then the head of the PBC—wrote:
The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, preface
The Pontifical Biblical Commission, in its new form after the Second Vatican Council, is not an organ of the Magisterium, but rather a commission of scholars who, in their scientific and ecclesial responsibility as believing exegetes, take positions on important problems of scriptural interpretation and know that for this task they enjoy the confidence of the Magisterium.
So the PBC used to be an organ of the Magisterium but no longer is.
Early PBC Statements
The Pontifical Biblical Commission periodically releases documents, and in its early history it released a number of these that still attract attention today.
Between 1905 and 1933, it released a series of these in Dubia or question-and-answer format.
They principally concerned questions about particular books of the Bible—like did Moses write the Pentateuch, how many authors contributed to Isaiah, and in what order were the synoptic Gospels written?
These replies largely reaffirmed views that had been widely accepted in recent centuries but were being challenged by modern biblical scholarship.
At the time, these responses had magisterial authority, at least when they touched on matters of doctrine.
This was confirmed by Pope Pius X in the 1907 document Praestantia Scripturae.
But these replies—being documents of the Roman curia and not infallible papal declarations—were not set in stone.
In 1948, the PBC issued a letter to Cardinal Emmanuel Suhard of Paris concerning certain early responses.
This letter was written at the direction of Bl. Pius XII and carried his approval.
It concluded that, in light of subsequent magisterial teaching, key findings of the early PBC replies
Letter to Cardinal Suhard
It will be agreed that these replies are in no way a hindrance to further truly scientific examination of these problems in accordance with the results [of biblical scholarship] acquired in these last forty years.
So this signaled that the early PBC replies were not the last word on the subjects they discussed, and there was room for other possibilities.
In 1990, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger gave a press conference in which he discussed the early PBC decisions, and said:
“Theology Is Not Private Idea of Theologian,” L’Osservatore Romano English Weekly Edition, July 2, 1990, p. 5
As a warning cry against hasty and superficial adaptations they remain fully justified; a person of the stature of Johann Baptist Metz has said, for example, that the anti-Modernist decisions of the Church rendered a great service in keeping her from sinking into the liberal-bourgeois world. But the details of the determinations of their contents were later superseded once they had carried out their pastoral duty at a particular moment.
In a 2003 speech to the PBC, he again stressed the theme of the early decisions as valid warnings for their time but which since have been superseded:
Relationship Between Magisterium and Exegetes, May 5, 2003
It is true that, with the above-mentioned decisions, the Magisterium overly enlarged the area of certainties that the faith can guarantee; it is also true that with this, the credibility of the Magisterium was diminished and the space necessary for research and exegetical questions was excessively restricted. . . .
At first it seemed indispensable for the authenticity of Scripture, and therefore for the faith founded upon it, that the Pentateuch be indisputably attributed to Moses or that the authors of the individual Gospels be truly those named by tradition.
He concluded:
Relationship Between Magisterium and Exegetes, May 5, 2003
Meanwhile, not only those decisions of the Biblical Commission which had entered too much into the sphere of merely historical questions were corrected; we have also learned something new about the methods and limits of historical knowledge.
The matter was put succinctly by Cardinal Ratzinger’s successor as prefect of the CDF, Cardinal William Levada in a 2005 speech—while Cardinal Levada was himself the head of the Pontifical Biblical Commission—in which he remarked that
“Dei Verbum—Forty Years Later,” October 10, 2005
[The early PBC replies are] now viewed as transitory judgments.”
So the early PBC replies are not binding now. That doesn’t stop some people from citing them as if they were still authoritative, but the truth is that they are not.
A few years ago, I did a study of these replies and identified numerous passages in documents where later popes like John Paul II and Benedict XVI contradicted them.
If you’re interested in an episode about that, let me know in the comments.
Looking at Genesis 1-11
Now, before we look at what the Magisterium’s most recent statements on the first eleven chapters of Gensis have been, let’s look at the chapters themselves.
Biblical scholars have long recognized that there is a difference between these eleven chapters and the material that comes after this in the book.
We can summarize these chapters as follows. They contain:
- The Week of Creation (ch. 1)
- The Creation and Fall of Man (ch.s 2-3)
- Cain and Abel & A Genealogy of Cain’s Descendants (ch. 4)
- A Genealogy from Adam to Noah (ch. 5)
- The Noah Narrative (ch.s 6-9)
- A Genealogy of Noah’s Descendants—i.e., The Table of Nations (ch. 10)
- The Tower of Babel & A Genealogy from Shem to Abraham (ch. 11)
Like later portions of Scripture, much of the material in these chapters is organized in a genealogical way.
This is typical of the way that one would expect a patriarchal culture to preserve its heritage: By inserting the stories of significant figures in that heritage at appropriate points in an overall genealogy of those figures.
However, it can be noted that the material in Genesis 1-11 is very abbreviated compared to the remainder of the book.,
The longest section in the early part of the book is the Noah or Flood Narrative, which only spans four chapters.
By contrast, everything changes once Abraham comes on the scene, and we find that the rest of the book consists of:
- The Abraham Narrative (ch.s 12-25)—thirteen chapters
- Ishmael’s Descendants (ch. 25)—one chapter
- The Jacob Narrative (ch.s 25-35)—eleven chapters
- Esau’s Descendants (ch. 36)—one chapter
- The Joseph Narrative (ch.s 37-50)—fourteen chapters
As you can see, much more extensive sections are devoted to Abraham, Jacob, and Joseph (with brief, genealogical accounts of the descendants of Ishmael and Esau).
The accounts of these individuals are given much more space than the major figures of Genesis 1-11—that is, Adam, Cain, and Noah).
The early chapters also use more anthropomorphic language about God, depicting him as fashioning Adam’s body from the dust of the ground (like a statue made of soil), breathing into his nostrils (like artificial respiration), and then walking in the garden in the cool of the day (like a king strolling in his pleasure garden).
The early chapters also discuss events that have cosmic ramifications:
- The Creation of the World (ch. 1)
- The Creation of Mankind (ch.s 1-2)
- The Origin of Sin, Suffering, and Death (ch.s 2-3)
- The Great Flood (ch.s 6-8)
- The Origin of Languages (ch. 11)
By comparison, the material that follows deals with a much narrower scope: The actions of particular individuals and their influence on particular, local peoples and individuals.
Therefore, with the transition from Genesis 11 to Genesis 12, we seem to transition from the universal to the particular and from the lesser-known to the well-known.
We could look at the text in an even more fine-grained manner and point out differences, but already we can see a shift in the way that events are being recorded in chapters 1-11 compared to chapters 12-50.
Once Abraham appears on the scene, the literary character of the narrative changes, and this has raised questions about how the early chapters relate to history.
The Church’s Most Recent Statements
So what has the Magisterium said most recently about the early chapters of Genesis?
If we’re talking about what the Magisterium has said about the first eleven chapters as a whole and how they relate to history—rather than individual elements in them—we need to go back to 1948.
That was the year in which the Pontifical Biblical Commission—which was at that time part of the Magisterium—released the letter to Cardinal Suhard.
He had asked Pope Pius XII about the sources of the Pentateuch (that is, Genesis-Deuteronomy) and the historicity of the first eleven chapters of Genesis.
The reply of the PBC was approved by Pope Pius XII and notes:
Regarding the Sources of the Pentateuch and the Historical Value of Genesis 1-11
The Holy Father graciously entrusted to the Pontifical Biblical Commission the examination of two questions recently submitted to His Holiness concerning the sources of the Pentateuch and the historicity of the first eleven chapters of Genesis. As the result of their deliberations his holiness deigned to approve the following reply on 16 January 1948.
So this document does have papal approval.
It stated:
Regarding the Sources of the Pentateuch and the Historical Value of Genesis 1-11
The question of the literary forms of the first eleven chapters of Genesis is . . . obscure and complex.
These literary forms do not correspond to any of our classical categories and cannot be judged in the light of the Greco-Latin or modern literary types. It is therefore impossible to deny or to affirm their historicity as a whole without unduly applying to them norms of a literary type under which they cannot be classed.
If it is agreed not to see in these chapters history in the classical and modern sense, it must be admitted also that known scientific facts do not allow a positive solution of all the problems which they present.
The Commission thus noted that it is “impossible to deny or to affirm their historicity as a whole” in terms of the modern understanding of how history is written today.
This indicates that the early chapters of Genesis contain material that pertains to history but also material that would be judged non-historical if evaluated in terms of the modern methods of recording history.
The Church later began to clarify this by explaining that these early chapters contain material that does pertain to history but it’s expressed in symbolic or figurative language.
The document goes on to say:
Regarding the Sources of the Pentateuch and the Historical Value of Genesis 1-11
The first duty in this matter incumbent on scientific exegesis consists in the careful study of all the problems—literary, scientific, historical, cultural, and religious—connected with these chapters; in the next place is required a close examination of the literary methods of the ancient oriental peoples, their psychology, their manner of expressing themselves, and even their notion of historical truth.
The requisite, in a word, is to assemble without preformed judgments all the material of the palaeontological and historical, epigraphical, and literary sciences.
It is only in this way that there is hope of attaining a clearer view of the true nature of certain narratives in the first chapters of Genesis.
So it would be a mistake to just read the text in terms of our own assumptions and literary conventions.
We can’t simply read these texts without doing a careful study of how people thought and wrote at the time Genesis was composed.
And the text notes that we need to do this without preformed judgments. In other words, we need to have an open mind about how the ancients wrote. We mustn’t assume that particular things in the text have to be literal or have to be symbolic.
We need to be truly open minded, because it is only in this way that there is hope of attaining a clearer view of the true nature of certain narratives in the first chapters of Genesis.
The document also contains a warning that just because something isn’t history in the modern sense does not mean that it’s just fiction. It states:
Regarding the Sources of the Pentateuch and the Historical Value of Genesis 1-11
To declare a priori [meaning, by simply assuming] that these narratives do not contain history in the modern sense of the word might easily be understood to mean that they do not contain history in any sense, whereas they relate in simple and figurative language, adapted to the understanding of mankind at a lower stage of development, the fundamental truths underlying the divine scheme of salvation, as well as a popular description of the origins of the human race and of the chosen people.
In the meantime, it is necessary to practice patience which is part of prudence and the wisdom of life.
So, that’s the basic position that the Pontifical Biblical Commission took on this part of Genesis, saying that these chapters relate in simple and figurative language, adapted to the understanding of mankind at a lower stage of development, the fundamental truths underlying the divine scheme of salvation, as well as a popular description of the origins of the human race and of the chosen people
Two years later, Pope Pius XII endorsed this basic interpretation. In his 1950 encyclical Humani Generis, he wrote:
Humani Generis 38
This letter [of the PBC], in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, which however must be further studied and determined by exegetes.
The same chapters (the letter points out) in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people.
Pius XII thus acknowledged that Genesis 1-11 does not conform to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by authors of our own time.
However, they do pertain to history in a true sense.
What this sense is is something that must be further studied and determined by exegetes.
And these chapters use simple and metaphorical language, expressing the principal truths which are fundamental to our salvation and providing a popular description of the origin of the human race and Israel.
In subsequent decades, the Magisterium has further commented on the early chapters of Genesis.
A few years ago, I did a survey of what the Magisterium has said about which elements in the text are symbolic or metaphorical, and it was more than many might suspect.
If you’d like an episode on that topic, let me know in the comments.
However, regardless of how often or how much these chapters use symbol or metaphor to communicate the truth they are, still, communicating the truth.
* * *
If you like this content, you can help me out by liking, commenting, writing a review, sharing the podcast, and subscribing
If you’re watching on YouTube, be sure and hit the bell notification so that you always get notified when I have a new video
We’re in our second year of the podcast now, and you can help me keep making this podcast for years into the future—and can get early access to new episodes—by going to Patreon.com/JimmyAkinPodcast
Thank you, and I’ll see you next time
God bless you always!