EVOLUTION AND THE BIBLE 



in distinguishing the intended literal sense from artificial 

 embellishments. The interpretation that has been outlined is 

 now shared by most Catholic commentators.^ 



At first sight, several passages in St. Paul seem opposed to 

 this interpretation. Man "is the image and glory of God. But 

 woman is the glory of man. For man is not from woman, but 

 v/oman from man. For man was not created for woman, but 

 woman for man" (I Cor. 11 : 7-9). Paul's purpose, however, 

 is not to explain authentically the Genesis text to which he 

 alludes, but simply to bring out the man's superiority; in the 

 divine plan of creation the woman's existence is required by 

 the man. Similarly, I Tim. 2:13 gives the reason why a woman 

 should not exercise authority over a man: "For Adam was 

 formed first, then Eve." St. Paul is not necessarily referring 

 to temporal priority. The description of the woman's formation 

 in Genesis is designed to teach that in the family the husband 

 and father is the head by nature and divine appointment, and 

 that all the other members of the family are subject to him, 

 since in any society good order demands central authority. 



The typology so beloved by many Fathers, who saw in the 

 formation of Eve from Adam's rib a figure of the Church 

 formed from the side of Christ, holds good even if the incident 

 is regarded as a literary form. That patristic testimony may 

 command our assent, the Fathers must exhibit unanimous 

 accord about the interpretation of a text, and must propose 

 their interpretation as a truth of faith or as necessarily 

 connected with such a truth. These conditions are lacking in 

 the present case.^o 



No documents issued by the official teaching authority of 

 the Church definitively declare the meaning of our text. In 

 1909 a response of the Biblical Commission in Rome, while 

 authorizing abandonment of ^ the literal interpretation and a 

 search for the real meaning intended by the inspired writer, 

 insisted that the historical sense must be retained with regard 



^ Among dozens of others, see J. Chaine, Le livre de la Genese (Paris, 

 1949) 40; M. Grison. Problemes d'origines (Paris, 1954) 260, n. 24; 

 C. Hauret, Beginnings: Genesis and Modern Science (Dubuque, 1955) 

 114^ — 19, 123; L. Amaldich, El ovigen del mundo y del hombre segun 

 la Biblia (Madrid, 1957) 117, 124 f.. 132. 

 '" On patristic explanations of Genesis, see Pius XII in Divino afflante 

 Spiritu, AAS 35 (1943) 313. 



101 



