Category Archives: Genesis

IVE Genesis Immaculate Conception Conference 7 February 2013 (pdf).

– Just thought I would put the text up for those who would like to prepare a bit, or for those who cannot attend.

– Those of you who know anything about Scripture and academics will know that there is something rather of interest here.

I have some extra time to put this up since there are serious “battery” problems with the flight from Charlotte to Washington, D.C. Not a good sign these days.

The scene at Charlotte, NC airport (the skyline is in the background) while waiting for the battery to fixed, changed out, on the plane. 7 February 2013. Yikes!

Update: O.K. We’re boarding the flight, finally! Poor IVEs, who are picking me up at Reagan National Airport.

L.T., famed Holy Souls Hermitage baldacchino artist, whose progress in painting will be reported in another post, sent in the above picture of a painting of the Wife of Adam and the Mother of the Redeemer by Sister Grace Remington, O.C.S.O. (Order of Cistercians of the Strict Observance) of the Sisters of Our Lady of the Mississippi Abbey.

Saint Pius X: Gentleman, scholar, a priest’s priest, Pastor of the Lord’s Flock

The 27 June 1906 decision of the Biblical Commission on Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.

Translation by Father George David Byers, SSL STD

[[Note that this "question" is presented in multiple parts, with none of the parts being "stand-alone", to the effect that all of it is to be read as one question with but one answer. This is not extremely subtle, but, you have to know, this has all been utterly misunderstood -- or purposely misrepresented -- by almost 100% of biblical scholars since the day it was published, either through malevolence or through political correctness or by way of an academic sloppiness which takes the "consensus" as the truth of the day, any day, from day to day, depending on how one feels. So, let's get this straight, shall we, perhaps for the first time? Since this is a rather extended presentation of the Biblical Commission, running commentary will be provided instead of just at the end.]]

Question 1: Part I

Are the arguments brought together by critics so as to smack down [inpugnandam!] the authenticity of Mosaic authorship of the Sacred Books, which are designated by the name of the Pentateuch [Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy], so weighty that, [a] despite the testimonies of the two Testaments taken together, [b] the uninterrupted consensus of the Jewish People, and [c] also the constant tradition of the Church along with [d] internal indications which are unearthed from the text itself, these [arguments] provide the right to affirm that these books do not have Moses for their author, but have been constructed with sources mostly posterior to the time of Moses?

Reply: In the negative.

[This opening question is phrased in such a way that it would beg a positive response. The reply, so short, presents an at the time necessary "shock and awe" value.  The lesson, however, was never taken to heart. Most, it seems, stopped reading there, and hold the Biblical Commission to be constituted by obscurantist ignoramuses. The "critics"thus run away, screaming with all the shrillness that can be mustered by way of the extreme political correctness of the modernists, that the Church is against scholarship, blah blah blah. The lesson is, however, rather incisive. Those who have an ideological agenda to attack Mosaic authorship are already wrong just by way of their unscientific emotionalism. There’s nothing wrong with discussing the extent of Mosaic authorship, but one shouldn’t enter such a discussion having made up one’s mind beforehand to attack the authenticity of that authorship without hearing what has yet to be discussed. You have to know that attacking "authenticity" was code for attacking the inspiration of the Word of God, so that if you asserted "Moses didn’t write this or that bit", you were saying that such parts of books or entire books didn’t belong in the Scriptures. That, of course, is just stupid, purposely misleading, hateful of God and man, but it would surely get one published, make one important, someone with a name. That kind of "authenticity" has nothing to do with the inspiration of the Word of God. Such ignorance or, perhaps, ill will, is, however, what the Biblical Commission was up against. I had such rubbish shoveled at me when I was in the seminary, and afterward, until this very day. So, the need for such comments as these is evident. Having said all that, the Commission itself, while understanding the degraded definition of authenticity as used by the modernists, instead uses the term to refer to nothing more nor less that the influence of a particular human author, without prejudice to the omnipresent inspirational action of the Divine Author. Don’t forget that the presentation is not yet over. There are three other parts to the question and answer:]

Question: Part II (itself sub-divided again into two parts):

[a] Does the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch necessarily postulate that such a redaction of all the works absolutely entail that Moses wrote every last thing that was written, or that he dictated all of it to scribes, or [b] might one otherwise admit the hypothesis of those who hold that he delegated to another or to various persons the writing of the work which he had conceived under the divine breath of inspiration in such manner as faithfully to render his thought, to write nothing against his will, and not to omit anything, so that, with the work wrought in this manner, and approved by the same Moses, the principal and inspired author, was promulgated with his name?

Reply: In the negative, for the first part; in the positive for the second.

[The negative response to part [a] does not contradict the first answer further above, does it? No, it doesn’t. So, we’re getting some nuance. Not everything had to be written by Moses, nor did he have to dictate the whole of it to scribes. The second part [b] simply allows for certain human elements noticeable in the text to be seen for what they are, this or that flare for this or that style or usage of language by this scribe in one way and by this other scribe in yet another way. This does not rule out a theology of inspiration that would grant to these others the charism of inspiration as well. We’re not done yet. This series continues as one question with one answer:]

Question: Part III

Might one – without prejudice against Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch – concede that Moses, in the redaction of his work, made use of sources, such as written documents or oral traditions, some things from which he took, either by word or by substance, paraphrasing them or amplifying them, inserting them in his work, according to the unique end proposed by himself and under the breath of divine inspiration?

Reply: In the affirmative.

[It is predictable, of course, that having provided an affirmative answer after having said further above that Moses might well have delegated others in the writing of the work, that the next question below will be about whether or not those delegates did the same thing, or even more. One might wish for something other than this kind of concessionary approach to academic freedom, which – while always respecting the faith and the Magisterium of the Church – is preemptive of discovery, and is always, therefore, reactionary to what non-Catholics come up with. However, this is not the spirit in which such decisions were made. Much of the viewpoint of the Commission comes from, of all people, Marie-Joseph Lagrange, O.P. The Holy See would later censure him, but his obedience would finally, posthumously, win him a hearing, at any rate, at the Congregation for the Causes of Saints. In other words, the style of these decisions is rather sarcastic, as in, "Sure, that’s right! Go for it! Why are you even asking us? Don’t be Protestant or a modernist. Be Catholic. But, go ahead, investigate the Scriptures!" Let’s continue with the last part of this ongoing question:]

Question: Part IV

Retaining a substantial Mosaic authenticity and Pentateuchal authenticity, that along the course of the centuries some modifications were brought to it, such as additions after the death of Moses by an inspired author, or glosses or explanations interjected into the text, or words and forms of an antiquated language brought in line with a more recent usage, or erroneous readings to attribute only to the errors of copyists, about which it is licit to discuss and judge according to the norms of the art of criticism?

Reply: In the affirmative, subject to the judgment of the Church.

[So, there we are. Pretty much anything can be discussed, with all due reverence and obedience being given to the Church. It has never been a doctrine of the faith that Moses wrote every word of the Pentateuch. Here it is seen that even whole parts of books can be postulated to have been written after the death of Moses. The point of all this actually isn’t about Moses. The underlying point of this multiple part question has to do with the Church’s use of the term "authenticity" over against the use of that term by the modernist crowd to mean uninspired and non-biblical.]

* * *

To the point: By an almost death defying, utterly relentless historical philological examination of the text, it does indeed seem that Genesis 2,4–3,24 was written entirely after the death of Moses, indeed, during the exile, not before nor after. That’s not to say that that hagiographer (whom I hold to be the prophet Ezekiel for very good reasons) did not use any previous sources and or oral traditions, even from Moses. I doubt it. That assertion doesn’t make me a heretic! Indeed, our Holy Father, in reviewing my thesis, has not seen fit to reprimand me. So, O.K.

Saint Pius X giving all to his studies in his youthful days, doing his terribly poor parents proud.

014 – The Genesis 2,4–3,24 project – The 23 June 1905 decision of the Biblical Commission on the real or apparent historicity of the narratives in the historical books.

Translation by Father George David Byers, SSL STD

Question:

Might one admit as a principle of correct exegesis the judgment that the books of Sacred Scripture which are held to be historical, sometimes do not refer, either wholly or in part, to history properly so called and objectively true, but only the appearance of history in order to indicate something other than the precisely literal or historical sense of the words?

Decision:

In the negative, except in the case – not easily nor temerariously admitted (in which it is not opposed to the Church’s teaching and is subject to her judgment) – that one proves with solid arguments that the hagiographer did not wish to pass on a history truly and properly so called, but, under the type and form of history, intended to propose a parable, allegory or some other sense diverse from the properly literal or historical signification of the words.

Comment: Of course, this has everything to do also with the first chapters of Genesis. There will be a specific question put to the commission about the historicity of chapter 1–3 of Genesis some four years later, but we already have something here. The idea here is to put the brakes on those lazy and politically correct exegetes who, just to get out of some perceived difficulty in the text, immediately speak of non-literal meanings. Prove it! As an example, it is said that a battle in which some few thousands of people died cannot possibly be true, but that such is at the least an exaggeration, and most likely simply a parable. That, mind you, was said most often by those who lived through the era of Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot and Hitler. Such exegetes cannot face reality in the present day, and so try to drown the voices of the past, which present the same violence. This is not helpful. The Sacred Scriptures teach us about such things in the face of the truth and charity of God. But that is not something to fear for those who are honest.

To the point: In the popular version of the technical thesis on Genesis 2,4–3,24, no convenient ditching of the historicity of the text is made. This involves a great deal of work to get to the scientifically revealed historical perspective of the hagiographer, but it is worth the effort.

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.

Saint Pius X (before becoming Pope!) from Father Mark’s Vultus blog.

I thought I knew my Biblical documents issuing from the Holy See. Obviously not. I’ve never paid attention to Praestantia Scripturae of Saint Pius X previously. I’m sure I’ve seen it a thousand times. But I didn’t bother with it. Why not? Because I so totally agreed with it that it was just commonplace to me. Yet, in looking it over now, just before diving into the popular version of the thesis, I am enthralled by it altogether. I love it. It makes me laugh out loud. It’s just so very much to the point, utterly missed by pretty much all biblical scholars of the entire 20th century and into our own day.

Here’s just a taste:

Wherefore we find it necessary to declare and to expressly prescribe, and by this our act we do declare and decree that all are bound in conscience to submit to the decisions of the Biblical Commission relating to doctrine, which have been given in the past and which shall be given in the future, in the same way as to the decrees of the Roman congregations approved by the Pontiff; nor can all those escape the note of disobedience or temerity, and consequently of grave sin, who in speech or writing contradict such decisions, and this besides the scandal they give and the other reasons for which they may be responsible before God for other temerities and errors which generally go with such contradictions.

You’ll enjoy reading it. Here’s the whole of it. It’s very short. A great day brightener.

PRAESTANTIA SCRIPTURAE Pope Pius X [from EWTN doc library]

Motu proprio of Our Most Holy Lord Pius X., by Divine Providence Pope, on the decisions of the Pontifical Commission on the Bible and on the censures and penalties against those who neglect to observe the prescriptions against the errors of the modernists:

In his encyclical letter “Providentissimus Deus,” given on November 18, 1893, our predecessor, Leo XIII, of immortal memory, after describing the dignity of Sacred Scripture and commending the study of it, set forth the laws which govern the proper study of the Holy Bible; and having proclaimed the divinity of these books against the errors and calumnies of the rationalists, he at the same time defended them against the false teachings of what is known as the higher criticism, which, as the Pontiff most wisely wrote, are clearly nothing but the commentaries of rationalism derived from a misuse of philology and kindred studies. Continue reading →

Not all nudity in art is presented for the temptation of the viewers. This sculpted relief of the Cathedral, the Duomo, of Orvieto is a good example. We simply rejoice in the “building up” of the wife of Adam from Adam’s rib.

One of Jan “the Elder” Brueghel’s better works, which would have us wonder what YHWH Elohim and Adam and Eve are discussing as YHWH Elohim presents Adam’s wife to Adam, instead of having us gape with fallen human eyes at all too sensuously presented bodies. They are distant, reminding us of the distance of time. They were our first parents, way, way, way back in the days of yore.

This black and white print from a Dutch bible present but one angel. There should be at least two angels, terribly ferocious cherubs, but, O.K. At least Adam and his wife are clothed in the bleeding skins prepared for them by YHWH Elohim to remind them of the kind of violence that will be involved in their redemption. Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni just couldn’t get it right in the Sistine Chapel, thus missing out on all the great theology presented in the Sacred Scriptures. Too bad, that. At least Michelangelo didn’t try to present super sensuous presentations of the human body, as do almost all other artists when depicting various scenes in Genesis.

Part of the exegesis of Genesis 2,4–3,24 will, of course, deal with original innocence before the fall and then the perception of nudity after the fall. This exegesis will fill the lacuna presently had with all variations of what is called the Theology of the Body. This will help one to evaluate more accurately, incisively, the Theology of the Body written about by Blessed John Paul II, which is so very different from the blasphemous, obscene, pornographic versions that are so rampant today, and which surely help to drag many souls straight to hell. So, this will be an important part of the The Genesis 2,4–3,24 Project.

Those who follow along will be presented with some hard work in the reading of the popular edition of the thesis, but will come to know, please God, the artwork that is the Hebrew Text of Genesis 2,4–3,24. I hope ye all persevere.

By the way, there is great art depicting the resolution of original sin by way of redemption. Here, for instance, is Jesus, immediately after dying on the cross and before the resurrection, calling forth Adam as the first one to be greeted by the Divine Son of the Mother of the Redeemer spoken of in Genesis 3,15:

Don’t forget, Wisdom 10,1 speaks of the repentance of Adam!

That gives us hope, no? Yes, it does, much hope.

A disservice to mankind has been done by so very many artists what with their all too saccharine depictions of Genesis 2,4–3,24. Outside of Mr Fangs to the left, I took the pictures in this post when I was a chaplain in Lourdes. The chaplains as a group — and I think the bishop — went to one of the UNITALSI buildings for a get together marking an anniversary of theirs if I remember correctly. The paintings were all over the walls of the corridor, where we stood waiting for the doors of the dining hall to be opened. The only one of these pictures I like is of the snake. I mean, if he were to be threatening with fangs bared, one wouldn’t stick around very long, would one. Satan is so very nice in his diabolical deception, you know, there’s nothing seriously wrong with sin, because, you know, it’s nice! The only way to get through the mind games of Satan successfully is cut through them with the truth of our Lord, that is, with the charity which unites us in all good friendship with God. True love, you see, provides one with a bit of wisdom that cannot be assailed even by nicey niceness.

I’m sure the entire world has heard that original sin consisted of eating an apple. How did that come about when the tree mentioned in Genesis is a fig tree? Well, in Latin, malum means evil, even while malum also means a fruit tree, even while malum also means apple. In other words, they ate of the fruit of the Tree of Knowing Good and/with Evil = They ate evil as their nourishment. But people still think it’s just an apple, so what’s wrong with that? Sigh.

Happy! Happy! Happy! That’s what sin is all about, right? Any beatitude that Adam and his wife had was before original sin. At this point, in their sin, they should not have nicey nice looks on their faces. They would have been terribly, horrifically confused and depressed and frightened and beligerant and hopeless at this point, all at the same time. Sin really is very evil, both the result and when it is in progress. The only way not to sin is to go to confession on a regular basis, with a priest who knows why he is a priest, which is the same reason why the Holy Spirit was sent among us, to forgive sin. Go to confession! I do. I love it! It’s a time when we know just how good and kind Jesus is. It’s truly awesome. Don’t miss out.

Perhaps one day artists will begin to get their presentations of the first chapters of Genesis correct. But more on that in Part II about art and genesis as we continue The Genesis Project series.

Marie-Joseph Lagrange, O.P.

It’s just a myth, mind you, in the sense of a fib, and probably started by a rather biased and much more recent Dominican friar, that the great Marie-Joseph Lagrange, O.P., got himself and his new French Biblical and Archeological School in the West Bank (of Jerusalem — whose library was a favorite hideout of mine during my sojourn in the Holy Land) into trouble not because of any rather untoward opinions in his biblical commentaries, but because, as he was starting the Revue Biblique, a journal of his new institute, he needed some articles, and asked a fellow Dominican to write an article. That other friar wrote a piece which included a comment on the teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas, O.P., regarding grace, over against the heretical, self-divinizing rubbish of Luis de Molina, S.J. Mind you, the rivaly about this was rabid over the centuries, and needed a pontifical intervention to stop the feuding. Yet, there were deep-seated feelings of distrust between, say, the Angelicum (an Alma Mater) and the Gregorian (a kind of Alma Mater by way of Rome’s Pontifical Biblical Institute). Needless to say, the Jesuits in Rome thought this was all a bit too much bravery for Father Lagrange. The Jebbies felt themselves to be in second place at their new Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome, the only institute in the Church, mind you, with a Pontifical mandate at that time.

Raphael Cardinal Merry del Val and Pope Saint Piux X discussing — what? — the condemnation of Marie-Joseph Lagrange, O.P.?

The myth, the fib, continues: The Jebbies, thinking they would not be outdone by the Dominicans, founded another Pontifical Biblical Institute in Jerusalem to be a watchdog of the Dominicans (meaning that the Dominicans were winning such a chess game). Moreover, the Jebbies got the ear of Rafael Cardinal Merry del Val, the Secretary of State of the Holy See for Saint Pope Pius X. He, in turn, persuaded Pius X to silence Father Marie-Joseph Lagrange, though the Pontiff made no secret of his admiration for the great virtue of the Dominican friar. Now, that part of the myth is true. The Order of Preachers themselves, however, had a great time effectively burning Lagrange at the stake. They’re good at that sort of thing, you know, always with matches in hand, especially for their own. They proceded in the following years to burn much of the work of the biblical scholar. Yikes!

More recently, if the truth be told, the erudite Maurice Gilbert, S.J., has spent much of his life trying to rehabilitate the legacy of Father Lagrange, more than just an act of ecumenism, if you will. Gilbert — who I lived with in Jerusalem and with whom I’ve had many discussions, particularly on some of the finer points of the life of Lagrange and the ecclesiastical politics which dogged him — made sure to get a manuscript of Lagrange’s La Genèse, the commentary that, if anything, got him into hot water. Almost all copies were destroyed by the Dominicans. Even the copy at the Angelicum library was removed, permanently, it seems. But that copy from Gilbert made its way into the locked archives of Biblicum in Rome (RARI IX GEN 53) but with what is perhaps an original purple carbon paper typewriter copy in the general stacks of the Genesis section (IX 15A 1) next to my thesis, Genesis 2,4–3,24 (IX 15 18). I must admit I pored over that manuscript (and the actual printed version) during the years I wrote the thesis. Some bits were, in fact, a bit, how to say, avant guard, to say the least. Whatever. I like to get good insights anywhere and everywhere they can be found, which is a good thing, right?

I found some gems about the historicity of Genesis 2,4–3,24 in Lagrange’s La Genèse. I should like to shout to the whole world that Lagrange — totally alone in the entire biblical establishment — had a good understanding of this historicity of the account. Behold, from La Genèse (with my translations)…

• “Les critiques modernes urgent très volontiers l’invraisemblance de ces détails en eux-mêmes, et l’impossibilité de leur transmission. Puis ils refusent à l’auteur toute conscience de ce double fait” [87] (Modern critics very willingly suggest the implausibility of these details themselves [a "talking snake", etc.] and the impossibility of their transmission [Who's going to tell the story? Adam?]. Then they won’t permit it to be thought that the hagiographer would have recognized this double fact.) In other words, they just want to be hateful.
• “Si cette naïveté est le fait des sauvages – il faudrait voir – elle n’était nullement le fait des écrivains de l’Orient ancien” [87] (If this naïveté is true for savages — it should be understood — that has nothing to do with the reality of the writers of the ancient Orient.) Yes, that would be right, and could be seen if one has not made of oneself a cesspit of prejudice.
• “Il importe de distinguer le fond et la forme. Le fond, c’est la substance de l’enseignement; la forme c’est le genre adopté par l’auteur pour l’exprimer” [65] (It is important to disguish the background [intention] and the form. The background: this is the substance of the teaching; the form: this is the genre adopted by the author to express it [the source].) It’s interesting that thoser who insist on such things elsewhere will not apply such principles here. This is only because of prejudice.
• Lagrange provides a principle which was misinterpreted by some. He does reasonably reject any direct tradition (from Adam and his children), which was a popular concept in his day, and even in our own day, more than a century later. Nevertheless, he does extract from the text the existence of an historical “premier homme” (first man) and, of course, also “un fait purement spirituel” (an event, which was purely spiritual), but also tied to that historical first man: “La transmission historique est impossible entre le premier homme et l’auteur hébreu. Les hommes ont complètement oublié le souvenir de leurs origines historiques; comment auraient-il conservé dans ce détail la mémoire d’un fait purement spirituel?” [77] (Historical transmission [of the account] is impossible between the first man and the Hebrew author. Men have completely forgotten any recollection of their historic origins; how would the memory of a purely spiritual event been conserved in such detail?).
• Lagrange concludes many similar comments, including those on usage of Mesopotamian mythology, with this most remarkable statement:

L’allégorie, sous toutes ses formes, philosophique, morale, religieuse, est donc incapable de donner la clef du récit. L’enseignement de l’auteur n’est point indépendant du fait qu’il raconte, il croit à la réalité du fait, il le transmet à cause de sa gravité et de son importance religieuse. Sur ce point l’accord est donc presque absolu [76] (Allegory, under all of its forms, philosophic, moral, religious, is therefore incapable of providing the key to the account. The teaching of the author is not at all independent of the event which he recounts; he believes in the reality of the event; he transmits it because of its gravity and because of its religious importance. On this point the consensus is almost absolute.)

Lagrange recognizes the account to be historical. His perspective is heavily used, it seems, in subsequent responses of the Pontificia Commissio de Re Biblica: Fleming, De narrationibus (23 iunii 1905); Vigouroux – Janssens, De charactere (30 iunii 1909), and De Mosaica authentia (27 iunii 1906). These responses go out of their way to agree with Lagrange, especially that of 1909, point after point. This should be noted by all, especially by the sundry biblical scholars suffering from prejudice against the Jews.

You can find out a bit more at l’École biblique et archéologique française de Jérusalem, that is, EBAF.

Now, just to say: The mistaken opinions of those who are trying to understand various topics, mistaken as we surely know now with subsequent interventions of the Sacred Magisterium, do not mean that someone is a rebel against the Church. Lagrange did all he possibly could to get a real rebel, excommunicated ex-priest Alfred Firmin Loisy, to return to the fold, to no avail. Lagrange, when he himself was silenced, was humbly, graciously, devoutly obedient, and always retained his affection for the See of Peter, always. Don’t forget the Common Doctor, whose views on the Immaculate Conception are at variance with what we believe, not because he would have rejected this as a rebel, but because he just couldn’t wrap his mind around it at the time. That doesn’t mean that Aquinas isn’t one of the greatest saints in the history of the Church.

But Father! But Father! You’re a bit emotional about this, aren’t you?

Yes, well, seeing truth being supported amidst a see of rebellion among Scripture profs when I was in the seminary, and after that, until today, was like noticing a lighthouse in a hurricane. I already had all those same views of his by way of my own research, but it was so very refreshing to see even one other biblical scholar agree with that which is reasonable and respectful. I met many an Alfred Loisy in my day. The stories are endless, but I can’t resist telling two stories:

• One professor put enormous pressure on me to turn my thesis into a conduit for his own pet projects, demanding that, in my thesis, I ideologically set about — a priori — promoting evolution and polygenism, and rejecting original sin and the promise of redemption, the Proto-Evangelium. This was one of the most respected exegetes in Rome.
• Another professor insisted that I read myself into the text, anything I want, and go from there. This was one of the most highly respected ecumenists in Rome, someone who was also taken to be somewhat of a biblical scholar. I couldn’t believe my ears. However, he repeated what he said some eight years later, reminding me in detail of the first time he had made this statement, saying that this is the only way to go.

Yes, Marie-Joseph Langrange, O.P., has some refreshing writings.

By the way, it seems that both Raphael Cardinal Merry del Val and Marie-Joseph Lagrange, O.P., have processes going on for their beatifications. Father Gilbert was the one who did the academic side of the Lagrange’s case. And isn’t that significant after such a history between the Jesuits and the Dominicans? Yes, it is.

And oh, just to say, I found myself frequently at the tomb of Lagrange, there in Jerusalem — on my knees — begging for his intercession. It’s something you can catch future hermits doing.

In 1948, surreal – though all too real – heavily laden dust clouds risen up from Aryan death camp ovens were finishing misting their tragic burden down upon a desolate earth, and planners of the Yad vaShem Holocaust Memorial in Jerusalem were documenting that which brought lamentation to all men of good will.

Meanwhile, some French Catholic exegetes wrote to Pope Pius XII about the interpretation of the first chapters of Genesis, which take pride of place in so many ways in the Hebrew Scriptures. This was related to me by William Joseph Cardinal Levada  in his official capacity as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The original letterof the exegetes is in the Papal Archives, since the letter was sent to Pius XII directly. Their letter raised some questions about the historicity of the first chapters of Genesis, which action brought to mind the relative importance of the decisions of the Biblical Commission at the beginning of the twentieth century.

Cardinal Suhard

The response took the form of a letter sent to the World War II Archbishop of Paris, Emmanuel Caelestine Cardinal Suhard. Perhaps some of the French exegetes were to be found in his ecclesiastical province. Perhaps it was also a spectacularly incisive diplomatic move to have the letter addressed to him, but I’ll leave that for historians of that Charles André Joseph Marie de Gaulle era to decide. The response was prepared by the members of the Pontifical Commission for Biblical Matters, approved by Pope Pius XII, and then signed by Jacques-Marie Vosté, O.P., in his capacity as Secretary of the said Pontifical Commission. The letter upheld a correct interpretation of the decisions of the Biblical Commission, and then proceded to speak in more detail about the sources of the Pentateuch and the historicity of the first chapters of Genesis.

The Pontifical Biblical Commission is housed on the Holy Office at the Vatican. Enter the side door after greeting the Swiss Guards, say hello to the receptionist on your left as you go up the ramp, take a right and circle up the staircase. You’ll see the door before coming out on the level above, which is the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Mind you, remnants of Nazi ideology were still to be seen in German exegesis, what with some of the German speaking crowd still thinking that the Jews were idiot copiers of a mythology that they didn’t understand, and had to have their work edited time and again, redacted time and again, revised time and again, and finally abandoned as non-sense that was, however, so ‘traditional’, that it had to be retained, even though surely it had no historical sense about it whatsoever. The reason to come up with such an opinion has nothing whatsoever to do with text of Genesis, but has everything to do with Nazi collaborators despising everything Jewish, even while retaining posts in the leading universities. One in particular was so high up in the Nazi party that he was deposed the very day after the death camps were liberated by the Americans. Now, while I’m not saying that the French exegetes were tainted with such racism, it is nevertheless true that the far-reaching response destroyed any lazy, self-serving approach of Hitleresque exegesis. What was said in the letter needed to be said. The respect shown to the Hebrew Scriptures, the Sacred Scriptures, the Catholic Scriptures, is incisive, even to the point of not hesitating to insult arrogant misuse of the Scriptures for racist ends, and rightly so.

This letter is a shining example of the respect Pope Pius XII’s Magisterium had for the Jews. It’s too bad this letter is unknown except for the fact that it is cited as an official denunciation of the Decisions of the Biblical Commission earlier in the twentieth century, which was exactly what the letter did not do. I’ll write about those decisions, please God, in another post. For now, if you know any Rabbis, you might want to send them a link to this post. I’m all for improving Jewish-Catholic relations.

So, let’s skip the introductions, the references to the previous decisions of the Biblical Commission, as well as the instruction about discussion concerning any souces of the Pentateuch, and move right to the section of the short letter that comments on the historicity of the first chapters of Genesis. Comments will be made Continue reading →

[Nota Bene: For those of you who have already read such a summary elsewhere, know that this has been revised here.]

When I began this study, very many things were available to me which were not previously within the grasp of previous commentators of Genesis, such as the quite recent developments in philology, not only concerning various ancient epochs of biblical Hebrew, but also, importantly for this text, Sumerian and Akkadian.
This present availability for all biblical scholars is, in itself, a “discovery”, the importance of which has not yet begun to sink into the exegetical community: all paradigms of whatever criticisms that have any basis in the original languages are to be scrapped, to the end that a totally fresh, unprejudiced analysis of the text might take place with the new understanding provided by historical philology and linguistics. Anything else is simply dishonest, an escape from reality into a political correctness made all the worse for being pathetically nostalgic. Who is the student who has not experienced the idiocy of tyrannical political correctness regarding the first chapters of Genesis?

For those who cling, for instance, to the whimsy of a C.F.A. Dillmann, as did R. Kittle, or those who miss, more recently, the horrific nihilism of, note well, a C. Westermann, would do well to ask themselves if such emotionalism is worthy of a humanity which is so very thirsty for the truth in all charity. The following summary might spark interest.  Mind you, it is only the briefest of summaries, skipping all the exegetical and philological and linguistic observations. The purpose of the summary is, again, to spark some interest, whether one’s emotions are for or against the points made. For those who are instantly skeptical of that which is said, or immediately enthralled, I urge you to look over the *.pdf of the original thesis, but you’ll have to know your auxilliary studies rather well. The *.PDF of the original thesis HERE. The printed version has the honor of be found, for instance, in the Genesis section in the main stacks of the Pontifical Biblical Institute at IX 15 18 (in librivision here, or, if that times out, look up BYERS GEORGE DAVID in the author search form).

A summary of some points of

Genesis 2,4–3,24

1. 2,4a is a superscript to the account, mentioning multiple generations of the heavens and of the earth in their being created. This prepares us to understand how the heavens and the earth are created in view of Adam, who represents them in his person, not only in his pristine and then fallen condition, but in his redeemed state with the reception of enmity. The multiple created states of his person, pristine (though then fallen), and then redeemed, constitute the reference for the multiple generations of the heavens and the earth. Eventually, we will see how the multiple generations were created specifically with the Son of the Mother of the Redeemer in mind. This opening to the account, mind you Continue reading →

This is an in-your-face literal translation, perhaps halting, sometimes shocking, rejecting of any word-for-word esotericism, but surely getting the point across inasmuch as this is possible without further explanation arising from the exegesis. I beg the reader’s indulgence to the end of his being intrigued by the presence of 2,4a, the syntax of 2,4b-7, the names of the two special trees and the special breath, the description of the role of the woman and the motherhood of the special woman, the appellative of the serpent and the name of the special sword of the cherubim, among other things. I regret that I can’t get some special fonts to appear using WordPress.com.

2,4a These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth
in their being created:

4b In the day when Yahweh Elohim is forming earth and heavens,
5 and before all of the scrub of the field was being upon the earth
and before all of the herbage of the field was sprouting up,
inasmuch as Yahweh Elohim had not caused it to rain upon the earth
and there was no Adam to work the ground,
6 a precipitation-cloud went up from the earth
and watered the entire surface of the ground,
7 and Yahweh Elohim both fashioned The Adam, dust from the ground,
and breathed into his nostrils the breath of the living-ones,
so that The Adam came to be a living individual.

8 And Yahweh Elohim planted a garden in paradise in the beginning;
and He put there The Adam whom He had formed.
9 And Yahweh Elohim made to grow from the earth each tree
[to be] pleasant in appearance and good for food;
and The Tree of the Living-Ones was in the midst of the garden,
and The Tree of Knowing Good and Evil.

10 A river is going forth from paradise to water the garden,
and from there it divides and becomes four head-rivers.
11 The name of the first is Pîšôn;
that is the one which is going about the entire land of Hăwîlāh,
where there is the gold; 12 and the gold of that land is good;
in that place are the bedōlah and the stone of onyx.
13 The name of the second river is Gîhôn;
that is the one which is going about the entire land of Kûš.
14 And the name of the third river is Hiddeqel; [Tigris]
that is the one which is going in front of Assyria.
And the fourth river… That is the one which is Perāt ! [Euphrates]

15 Yahweh Elohim took The Adam
and established him in Garden-Paradise to work it and keep watch over it.
16 And Yahweh Elohim commanded The Adam, saying,
“From each tree of the garden you may surely eat;
17 but from The Tree of Knowing Good and Evil…
You may not eat from it!
for in the day of your eating from it you will surely die.”

18a And Yahweh Elohim said,
“Not good is the being of The Adam unto his separation.
18b I will form for him ‘a help such-as-is-before-him’.”
19a And from the ground Yahweh Elohim formed
each living being of the field
and each bird of the heavens.
19b And He brought [each one] to The Adam to see what he would call each one.
19c And whatever The Adam called it – a living individual –
that was its name.
20a The Adam gave names to each beast and bird of the heavens,
and to each living being of the field.
20b But for Adam… He did not find ‘a help such-as-is-before-him’.
21a And Yahweh Elohim caused a deep sleep to fall upon The Adam. And he did sleep.
And He took one of his ribs and replaced it with flesh.
22a And Yahweh Elohim built up the rib which he took from The Adam into a woman.
22b And He brought her to The Adam.
23 And The Adam said, “This one, this time, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.
To this one it will be called woman, for from man was taken this one.”
24 Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother
so as to cleave to his woman
so that they become one flesh.

25 And the pair of them were naked, The Adam and his woman,
and were not ashamed in front of each other.

3,1a And the Oracle-Serpent was intelligent diversely
from any living one of the field that Yahweh Elohim had made.
3,1b And he said to the woman,
“Did Elohim really say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree of the garden?’”
2 And the woman said to the Oracle-Serpent:
“From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat,
3 but from the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, Elohim said:
‘You shall not eat from it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die’.”
4 But the Oracle-Serpent said to the woman, “You will not die.
5 For Elohim is One knowing that in the day of your eating from it,
your eyes will be opened, and you will be like Elohim,
ones who are knowing good and evil.”
6a And the woman saw that the tree is good for food,
and that it is a desirable thing to the eyes,
and that the tree is being desired to make one wise,
6b and she took of its fruit and she ate;
and she also gave [some] to her man who was with her, and he ate.
7 And the eyes of the pair of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked;
and they sewed the foliage of a fig tree and they made loincloths for themselves.

8And they heard the voice of Yahweh Elohim
proceeding in the garden along the day’s wind,
and The Adam and his woman were hidden from the face of Yahweh Elohim
in the midst of the tree(s) of the garden.
9And Yahweh Elohim called to The Adam and said to him, “Where are you?”
10And he said, “I heard your voice in the garden, and I was afraid
– for I am naked – and I hid myself.”
11And He said, “Who told you that you are naked?
Have you eaten from the tree of which I had commanded you not to eat from it?”
12 And The Adam said, “The woman – whom you gave to be with me –
she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.”
13 And Yahweh Elohim said to the woman, “What is this that you have done?”
The woman said, the Oracle-Serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

14 And Yahweh Elohim said to the Oracle-Serpent,
“Because you have done this, you are accursed apart from any beast
and apart from any living one of the field;
upon your writhingness will you go,
and dust will you eat all the days of your life;
15 and I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your seed and her seed;
he will crush you on the head,
but you will crush him on the heel.”

16 To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply your distress and your pregnancy;
in distress you will bear children,
but to your man will be your desire, and he will rule over you.”

17 And to Adam He said, “Because you listened to the voice of your woman,
and you have eaten of the tree of which I had commanded you,
‘You will not eat from it,’
the ground is accursed because of you;
in travail you will eat of it all the days of your life;
18 thorns and thistles it will sprout up to you;
and you will eat the herbage of the field;
19in the sweat of your face you will eat bread
until your returning to ground,
for out of it you were taken;
for you are dust, and to dust you will return.”

20 And The Adam called the name of his woman ‘Hava’,
for she became mother of the entire living one.
21 Yahweh Elohim made for Adam and for his woman garments of skins,
and caused them to clothe themselves.

22 Yahweh Elohim said,
“Behold, The Adam has become like one of us, knowing good and evil;
and now, lest he put forth his hand
so as to take also of The Tree of the Living Ones,
so as to eat, so as to live ‘forever’…”
23 Yahweh Elohim sent him from Garden-Eden
to till the ground from which he was taken.
24 He drove out The Adam;
and He placed in front of Garden-Eden the Cherubim
and the-causing-a-contrary-transformation-sword,
to guard the way to The Tree of the Living Ones.

In Italy, the gesture that is being made by Blessed Pope John XXIII means that the one to whom he is speaking is being extremely clever: “Che furbo che sei!” Indeed, Vaccari was quite the academic, and did quite a few various things for the Holy See.

For the epigraph of the first major section heading in the thesis on Genesis I chose an exclamation made by Father Vaccari, if I remember correctly, during an extraordinary assembly of the Italian biblical crowd in 1949. It’s very poetic, and very true. Those who know a bit of Italian will love his command of the language. My own translation follows.

Sui primi capi del Genesi fu già scritto tanto quanto forse, e senza forse, sopra niun’altra pagina della divina Scrittura. Eppure ce ne resta ancora da dire, anche del nuovo; tanto sono densi di materia e profondi per il pensiero quei primi capi che ci narrano le origini del mondo e dell’uomo e pongono le basi essenziali degli umani destini.

—Alberto Vaccari, S.J. — 1949 A.D.

On the first chapters of Genesis there has already been written so very much perhaps and forget the perhaps, more than any page of Holy Scripture. And nevertheless, there still remains more to say, even that is new, so very dense is the material and profound for thought are those first chapters which narrate to us the origins of the world and of man and lay before us the basic essentials of human destiny.

— Alberto Vaccari, S.J. — 1949 A.D.

The reason for such a quotation was to smack down right from the start some of the self-congratulatory academic crowd in their untoward opinion:

Absolutely everything that can be said about the first chapters of Genesis has already been said, so just shut up and leave us alone ’cause we are so scared at what you might say if you actually do the real scientific work that we refuse to do, resting on our aloofness as we do, since we already know everything already! So, shut up!

Well, well. Whenever you hear that kind of thing, you just have to know such a crowd are on the verge of or have already lost the faith. We must always be in a state of crushingly humble reverence before the power of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who, in fact, smacks us down dead, having us crucified to the world, the flesh and devil, to ourselves, that we might be formed by Him into being the living members of the crucified and risen and ever so majestic Son of the Living God. If we don’t have that kind of reverence for the inspired words of God about the living Word of God, we will only find ourselves in Scripture. Pope Benedict mocked such efforts of exegetes as their creating photographs of themselves, lonely and alone, in the Scriptures. Not recommended.

There were a few academics who knew what it would mean to do a thesis on Genesis 2,4–3,24, not just the academic difficulty of it all, but particularly the politics of it. This would surely touch on original sin, etc., etc., etc. Many had invested their whole lives into leading others astray, and did not want to see themselves killed off before their natural deaths. But, hey! That’s the only way to become the little children of God that we must become in order to enter the Kingdom of the Heavens. I have no regrets.

Sui primi capi del Genesi…

I just love that!

Plate 1: Thanks go to the Pontifical Biblical Institute for their kind permission to reproduce these opening cuneiform lines of Enūma eliš. See A. Deimel, Enūma eliš, SPIB, Romae.

This “Plate 1″ appeared on the very last page of the thesis in order to complement an appendix on the , The cuneiform text was wonderfully presented by Father Anton Deimel way back in the heyday of the decades following the discovery of such mud writing. I’m thinking of making the appendix into one of the opening chapters of the popular edition. And, no, you don’t have to know any Babylonian, or Sumerian, or Akkadian for that matter.

Some might be surprised at my insistence about the use in Genesis 2,4–3,24 of the myth called Enūma eliš. Indeed, almost all presentations of Genesis say that the Jews were total idiots, and merely copied Babylonian mythology without knowing what they were doing, so that they had to edit themselves a zillion times as the centuries went by, trying to make sense of their idiocy, but without ever succeeding. Such things were said, mind you, in the lead up to and in the midst of the extermination of the “sub-human” Jews. Should we take the word of the freakoid Hitleresque German speaking biblical “scholars” (some being Nazi party members) as Gospel truth on this matter of the capacities of the Jews (not to mention the capacity of the Holy Spirit to inspire)? I think not. Call me a rebel, but I’m sick of the anti-Semitism of the academic establishment. And yes, it is anti-Semitism in full force, very much part of what helped to bring about Hitler’s Arianism as a religion in its own right.

Instead… instead… what I found in an excruciatingly scientific examination of the Hebrew text (days and weeks and months and years of historical philology stretching to 2,500 B.C.) is that it is not so much Genesis 1,1 which used the Enūma eliš outside of perhaps a few words here and there, but rather, Genesis 2,4-7, which very extensively used the Enūma eliš, not to copy it, but as a missionary and apologetic work, making the statement “We know what you’ve done with the Enūma eliš for these past two thousand years, and though we reject it, let us show you what the truth of the matter is, the truth about which you had an inkling, even if in the via negativa.”

Go ahead, call me a rebel again. But all I’m doing is ultra scientific work, and what it brings is an exhilerating panorama of the faith lived out in impossible circumstances, impossible except for the grace of God’s presence among us.

I’m very much looking forward to this Genesis project. I beg our Lord’s indulgence that I might complete the work, writing, indeed, about His Immaculate Mother.

Just some ideas for the back cover of the popular version of the thesis on Genesis 2,4–3,24…

Here’s the text of that graphic:

From a letter of Father George David Byers sent from Lourdes to His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI, on the feast of Saint Jerome, 30 September 2008:

Your Holiness, [the pages in the thesis discussing your past views of original sin] were a disputatio favoring diffusion of the truth, not a critique of the successor of Peter, nor of your Magisterium, nor of your person. The Angelus address of your Holiness here in Lourdes [14 September 2008] permits the removal of these pages from the thesis. Yet, with your permission, I would now like to retain them in a more widely published version of Genesis 2,4–3,24 – Two Generations in One Day (and its popular version) – with the inclusion of your Angelus message – so that “culture and its proponents” (especially found in a reinvigorated scientific exegesis) may be more easily considered “to be the privileged vehicles of dialogue between faith and reason, between God and man.” This, I believe, would promote Judeo-Christian relations and offer a further motivation for many to know the Living Word of God.

From the response received on the Feast of Our Lady of the Rosary, 7 October 2008, from Pope Benedict XVI through the Secretariat of State mentioning the contents of that letter:

The Holy Father wishes me to express his gratitude for your kind letter and the gift of the copy of your recent book. He appreciates the sentiments which prompted you to share your research with him. His Holiness will remember you in his prayers. Invoking upon you joy and peace in our Lord Jesus Christ, he cordially imparts his Apostolic Blessing.

“Je vous remercie de tout cœur…” – from a note sent by the Emeritus Secretary of the Pontifical Biblical Commission and Emeritus Rector of the Pontifical Biblical Institute:

It is a profound study and I warmly congratulate you for it. I wish it great success.

✠ Cardinal Albert Vanhoye, S.J.

The present volume is is a greatly expanded edition of the original literary, historical critical exegesis that constituted a doctoral thesis brought about with a relentless, sometimes groundbreaking analysis of the grammar, syntax and philology of the Hebrew text of Genesis 2,4–3,24. Only in this way was the Hebrew text’s brilliant, apologetic and missionary usage of Enūma eliš to be seen, all unexpected. Only in this way was a Judeo-Catholic compendium of the spiritual life made evident, again, all unexpected.

The simple method – a bit of common sense as suggested by the text – has been fruitful beyond measure for advancing truly scientific studies of the Sacred Scriptures, studies which, because of that, bring about an understanding of the life of faith lived out before God and one’s fellow man.

The Hebrew text offers its own premises and conclusions, which, in turn, should help shape today’s discussion on creation, evolution, polygenism, original sin, marriage, the Immaculate Conception, the extent of the redemption offered to us by God, and, indeed, the hope one may have in the face of suffering. Genesis 2,4–3,24 is, in its entirety, a Proto-Evangelium best described as two generations in one day, the Body of the Old Adam and the Body of the New Adam.

George David Byers,  s.s.l., s.t.d., was born in 1960 and ordained a Catholic priest in 1992. He taught Theology, Scripture and biblical languages in the major seminaries of Wagga Wagga, Sydney, Suva, and the Pontifical Seminary Josephinum in Columbus, where he also had responsibilities for the external and internal forum formation of the seminarians. He has been a parish priest and given many retreats and conferences to priests, religious and laity in Australia, Oceania, Eastern and Western Europe and the Americas. He is presently fulfilling a lifelong dream of being a hermit to pray for his fellow priests and bishops and to write on Scripture, Theology and the Spiritual Life.

The front cover, so far. Slowly, but surely. I think I took this picture while I was a chaplain in Lourdes a few years back. It could have been from this Summer as well. Not sure.