013 – The Genesis 2,4–3,24 project – The 13 February 1905 decision of the Biblical Commission on the possible error in extra-biblical sources cited in the bible

Saint Pius X, always but always the simple priest, gentleman, scholar, pastor, leader in this Church Militant. He governed the Church, beating back the wolves even while solicitous for the sacramental welfare of children. A saint.

There are many decisions of the biblical commission we’ll be looking at. These set one on edge in such a way that one realizes just why I had to be so scientifically accurate, happily so, in my thesis (*.pdf). There are so many knuckleheads who do not give Scripture a chance, but dismiss it because they haven’t put in the effort to do the actual studies. And, yes, I’m talking about almost all the “great names” in exegesis. Let’s take a look at one of the decisions in this post. More, please God, in coming posts, on these decisions.

The 13 February 1905 decision of the Biblical Commission on the possible error in extra-biblical sources cited in the bible

Translation by Father George David Byers, SSL STD

Question:

Is it permitted to a Catholic exegete to solve difficulties occurring in some texts of Sacred Scripture, which seem to refer to historical facts, by asserting that we have in these tacit or implied quotations of documents written by a non-inspired author, which the inspired author in no way intends to approve or make his own, and that the same do not have immunity from error?

Decision:

In the negative, except for the case in which, retaining the mind and judgment of the Church, it may be proven by solid arguments, (1) that the hagiographer truly cites the sayings or documents of another and, (2) that he does not approve them nor make them his own.

* * *

Comment: In other words, the rationalists of the day, who were unreasonable in attacking Sacred Scripture by saying that it was full of error simply because there were obvious mentions of this or that myth, are to be reprimanded to the end that they make distinctions about what is actually in the text and for what reason.

To the point: In the thesis on Genesis 2,4–3,24, I’ve demonstrated that there is quite a bit of citation of the great Enūma eliš, not to approve it, but as an exercise in missionary apologetics: We see what you’ve done. Here’s why it’s wrong. And, let’s show you the real revelation of God Most High. Most comments to date have been like this: The Jews merely copied a mythology they didn’t understand, mythology which is full of error, which means that whatever the Jews wrote is full of error. Such a line of thought is full of non-sequitur “logic”: It just does not follow. The biblical commission’s response is exquisite and balanced. One has to question the motives of those who reject such decisions.