[bornacatholic]

Brother, I think youforgot to read..Humani Generis literally.

Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences, so also in the historical sciences there are those who boldly transgress the limits and safeguards established by the Church. In a particular way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament. Those who favor this system, in order to defend their cause, wrongly refer to the Letter which was sent not long ago to the Archbishop of Paris by the Pontifical Commission on Biblical Studies. This letter, 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.

* I could point out to you instances where you have quoted Holy Writ and intended it to be taken literally.

[DoctorMichael]

Nice!

For the record, I hadn't encountered this word in awhile so I had to look it up.........

ex·e·ge·sis    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (ks-jss)
n. pl. ex·e·ge·ses (-sz)

1) an explanation or critical interpretation (especially of the Bible)
2) Critical explanation or analysis, especially of a text.

exegete \EK-suh-jeet\, noun:
A person who explains or interprets difficult parts of written works.

exegete is from Greek exegetes, from the verb exegeisthai, "to interpret," and is related to exegesis.

All the things said in this passage are clear and should be paid attention to, without an exegete interpreting.
-- Galen, "Commentary on Hippocrates", On the Nature of Man

He is far more a man of prayer, a witness, a confessor and a prophet, than a learned exegete and close thinking scholastic.
-- Adolf Deissmann, Paul, A Study in Social and Religious History

---

[Greek exgsis, from exgeisthai, to interpret  : ex-, ex- + hgeisthai, to lead; see sg- in Indo-European Roots.]

[sinkspur]

Thanks for posting this:

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.

Metaphorical, adapted, a popular description of the origin of the human race. Humani Generis states, in clear terms, that Genesis is largely a metaphor and a story meant to convey important truths. It is the truths which demand our focus, and not the details which deliver those truths.

We're on the same page.

[dangus]

Hmmm... Actually, I had never read that encyclical.
If I take out all the parenthetical clauses, I find this statement:

"This letter ... clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis ... do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense 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."

The Pope seems to be stating that the eleven chapters are netaphorical and that the truths contained are those that are fundamental for our salvation. Granted, it doesn't say the ONLY truths stated are those which are fundamental for our salvation, but that would be a strangely absolutist statement.

It also says that there is a second component: a "popular description of the origin of the human race and chosen people." That is a very funny way of asserting that something is true. If I say, "It's widely believed that..." do you presume that I am asserting the belief is correct? Likewise, "a popular description" seems to distance the Pope from a direct assertion. If he meant that this description were factual, would he not describe it as "widely known" rather than "a popular description?"

It seems to me that the Pope is trying to not conclusively state that the historical element (as opposed to the theological element) of the story MERELY myth, but he is plainly trying to de-emphasize the centrality of the claim that it is literally true in our objective, modern sense of truth.

Yes, the letter is criticizing not evolutionists, but those who discard the truth of Genesis entirely. But his assertion of what is the intended meaning of Genesis 1-11 is very limited.