Part II, Chapter I, Section 2: The Hexaemeron in Its Relation to Science and Exegesis

Pohle, God the Author of Nature and the Supernatural, Part II, Chapter I, §2 (pp. 103–123)

Article 1: The Mosaic Account of the Creation and Physical Science

This subject properly belongs to higher apologetics or fundamental theology.¹ In the present (purely dogmatic) treatise it will suffice to lay down certain leading principles which theologians and scientists must constantly keep before them in order to safeguard the sacred rights of revealed religion without trenching on the just claims of science.

Thesis I: Nature and the Bible both tell the history of Creation, and consequently the assured results of scientific investigation can never contradict Holy Writ.

Explanation. The Word of God, rightly interpreted, cannot clash with the firmly established conclusions of science, because both Sacred Scripture and science have God for their author. Any apparent contradiction between the two must be traceable either to some false and unproved claim on the part of science, or to an incorrect interpretation of Holy Writ. A thorough investigation of all the data involved usually lays bare the source of error. The Galilei controversy is a case in point.² There can be no doubt that the various natural sciences — astronomy, geology, palaeontology, etc. — furnish, or at least are able to furnish, valuable aids to the exegete who undertakes to interpret the Mosaic cosmogony. The prudent theologian will not spurn these aids. On the contrary, the respect he owes to the Almighty Creator, whose vestiges these sciences seek to trace, will prompt him to welcome their co-operation and to pay due regard to whatever evidence they may have to offer. God has, as it were, set down an objective commentary on the Bible in the “Book of Nature,” to which the theologian can and should devote most careful attention. All true scientists are after a fashion exegetes,³ and therefore friends, not enemies, of the theologians. Those among them who antagonize revealed religion,⁴ have deserted the solid ground of science for moors and fens in which they gleefully chase deceptive will-o’-the-wisps.

Of course, Science has a perfect right to follow her own methods, and the fact that her representatives conduct their researches without constantly trying to square themselves with the Bible does not argue that they mistrust religion or despise Christianity. The history of the inductive sciences shows that in many cases an undue regard for certain favorite interpretations of Scripture has misled science and bred false theories which it took ages to get rid of. We may instance the Copernican system,⁵ the debate between Neptunists and Plutonists,⁶ the problem of the geological deluge,⁷ etc. Unfortunately, too, there have always been over-zealous though perfectly well-intentioned theologians who were ready to add to the confusion by supplying “theological arguments” for unproved and unprovable hypotheses. This explains the existence and animus of such works as J. W. Draper’s History of the Conflict between Religion and Science.⁸

Thesis II: The proper purpose of the Mosaic narrative is not scientific, but strictly religious; hence we must not seek astronomy, physics, geology, etc., in the Hexaemeron, but chiefly religious instruction.

Explanation. The grounds for this proposition are quite evident. The Bible is not a text-book of science. Had it been written to teach a supernaturally revealed system of physics, chemistry, astronomy, or geology, it would be a sealed and unintelligible book, nay, it would have proved positively dangerous to the faith of the masses, because scientific views and terms are subject to constant change. Consequently, in order to accomplish its purpose, it was necessary that the Bible in matters of natural science should adopt the language of the common people, who derive their views of nature from external appearances. This popular idiom is ever true, because it employs relative standards in the contemplation of nature, and remains forever intelligible to the masses, because it makes no claim to describe absolute facts. Even at the present day, despite the universal adoption of the Copernican system, certain popular modes of expression, based upon ocular observation of the apparent movements of the heavenly bodies, retain the geocentric color which they had in the days of Ptolemy. Even learned astronomers still speak of the summer and winter solstices, still refer to the sun as rising and setting, and so forth. “We must remember,” says St. Thomas, “that Moses addressed himself to an uncultivated people, and, condescending to their ignorance, proposed to them only what was obvious to the senses.”⁹

Moses’ chief purpose was to impress the Jews and the nations that were to come after them, with four fundamental truths, viz.: (1) The existence of one true God, Lord of heaven and earth; (2) the creation of all things out of nothing, which implied the falsity of the Egyptian animal and star worship no less than of Dualism and Pantheism; (3) the duty of keeping holy the Sabbath day, after the example of the divine Artificer, who created the universe in six days, and rested on the seventh;¹⁰ (4) that all the things which God made were originally good.¹¹ We do not mean to say, of course, that the purely scientific portions of the Bible have no claim to divine authority, or to deny that they are absolutely infallible. As part of the Inspired Word they embody divine revelation. However, since the Hexaemeron is susceptible of many different explanations, and the infallible Church has never given an authentic interpretation of it, but, on the contrary, has granted full liberty to exegetes, Science is nowise hampered in her peculiar field of enquiry. St. Augustine went so far as to contend that the creation of the universe was simultaneous with its formation and that what Sacred Scripture calls six days was in reality but a single moment of time.¹²

Thesis III: The relationship between the Mosaic narrative and natural science may, in principle, be defined thus: The Hexaemeron constitutes a negative, but not a positive guiding principle for scientists.

Explanation. By a positive guiding principle (norma positiva) we mean a rule, the conscientious observance of which guarantees the immediate possession of truth, while its non-observance entails error. Thus the multiplication table is a positive guiding principle in all mathematical calculations and in the affairs of everyday life. A negative guiding principle merely requires that, while enjoying the greatest possible latitude in a certain sphere, we avoid forming any conclusion which directly contradicts said principle. Thus the axiom of parallel lines is a negative guiding principle in geometry, because any proposition that runs counter to it must inevitably prove false. That the Mosaic Hexaemeron does not prescribe what route science must travel is plain from the fact that the true sense of Genesis I, 1 has never been defined either by the infallible teaching office of the Church or by scientific exegesis. Hence the Mosaic narrative is not a positive norm for the guidance of the naturalist. The very multiplicity of attempted interpretations which the Church has countenanced at various times, confirms this proposition. All that can justly be demanded, therefore, is that the scientist refrain from positively contradicting the Word of God, e.g., by defending such propositions as: “Matter is eternal”; “Matter and energy are the sole principles of the universe”; “The world originated by mere chance,” and so forth. In all other matters, such as the nebular hypothesis,¹³ the evolution of species, etc., he may hold any conclusions that seem warranted.

The exegete, on his part, is free to interpret the sacred text in accordance with the rules of hermeneutics and in harmony with each particular author’s peculiar style and with the context. Grammar, syntax, and the dictionary are quite as valuable scientific aids as the telescope, the microscope, and the testing tube. It will not do to impose the conclusions of physical science as a positive norm upon exegesis and to demand that the Hexaemeron be interpreted in accordance with constantly changing hypotheses. Modern exegetes, especially of the last half-century, have been justly charged with paying too much attention to science and too little to the Mosaic text. Though the scientists have an undeniable right to be heard,¹⁴ they have no authority to dictate how the Hexaemeron must be interpreted. All they can reasonably demand is that exegetes accept the established conclusions of science as a negative guiding principle and refrain from advocating as certain, or even probable, any theory that contradicts clearly ascertained facts.¹⁵

Thesis IV: Those theologians and scientists who deny that the so-called fossils or petrifactions are real remains of plants and animals, representing them as mere freaks of nature (lusus naturae), needlessly expose the Word of God to ridicule.

Explanation. There have been and still are theologians who, in order to save the literal interpretation of the Mosaic narrative, regard the palaeontological finds in the lower strata of the earth as specially created products of divine omnipotence, rather than as real remains of primordial organisms. Nothing is so apt to excite ridicule on the part of infidels and indignation in the camp of educated Catholic laymen, as recourse to such pitiable hypotheses, which are altogether unworthy of a true theologian. To assume that the Creator leads truth-seeking man into invincible error, is to stamp Him a cruel deceiver, who makes it His business to lay annual rings around carbonized trees found standing erect in coal-mines, and to fashion in perfect detail large and small trilobites in siluric deposits — some of them even contain well-developed embryos — all mere lusus naturae! St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas vigorously protested against this curious way of “reconciling” faith and science.

Noteworthy for all time is the principle which St. Augustine lays down in his famous treatise De Genesi ad Literam: “In rebus obscuris atque a nostris oculis remotissimis, si qua inde scripta etiam divina legerimus, quae possint salva fide, qua imbuimur, alias atque alias parere sententias, in nullam earum nos praecipiti affirmatione ita proiiciamus, ut, si forte diligentius discussa veritas eam recte labefactaverit, corruamus; non pro sententia divinarum Scripturarum, sed pro nostra ita dimicantes, ut eam velimus Scripturarum esse, quae nostra est, cum potius eam, quae Scripturarum est, nostram esse velle debeamus.”¹⁶ With equal earnestness the Saint censures the stupidity of those who, in the mistaken interest of faith, provoke the sarcastic ridicule of learned infidels: “Turpe est autem nimis et perniciosum ac maxime cavendum, ut Christianum de his rebus quasi secundum Christianas litteras loquentem ita delirare quilibet infidelis audiat, ut … risum tenere vix possit. Et non tam molestum est, quod errans homo deridetur, sed quod auctores nostri ab iis, qui foris sunt, talia sensisse creduntur et cum magno eorum exitio, de quorum salute satagimus, tamquam indocti reprehenduntur atque respuuntur.”¹⁷ These sentiments of the greatest among the Fathers were shared and re-echoed by the most eminent of the Church’s theologians. “Dicendum est,” says St. Thomas Aquinas, “quod sicut Augustinus docet, in huiusmodi quaestionibus duo sunt observanda: primo quidem, ut veritas Scripturae inconcusse teneatur; secundo, cum Scriptura divina multipliciter exponi possit, quod nulli expositioni aliquis ita praecise inhaereat, ut, si certa ratione constiterit hoc esse falsum, id nihilominus asserere praesumat, ne Scriptura ex hoc ab infidelibus derideatur et ne eis via credendi praecludatur.”¹⁸

St. Thomas rightly distinguishes between such Scriptural truths as appertain to the substance of faith, and such as are altogether secondary. “Si ergo circa mundi principium aliquid est, quod ad substantiam fidei pertinet, scil. mundum incepisse creatum, et hoc omnes Sancti concorditer dicunt. Quo autem modo et ordine factus sit, non pertinet ad fidem nisi per accidens, inquantum in Scriptura traditur, cuius veritatem diversa expositione Sancti salvantes diversa tradiderunt.”¹⁹ The Creator, when He established nature, also laid down the laws by which it is governed, hence we must not have recourse to miracles except where no natural explanation suffices: “Scriptura in principio Genesis commemorat institutionem naturae, quae postmodum perseverat. Unde non debet dici, quod aliquid tunc factum fuerit, quod postmodum desierit.”²⁰ And again: “In prima institutione naturae non quaeritur miraculum, sed quid natura rerum habeat, ut Augustinus dicit.”²¹

Thesis V: Since the true interpretation of the Hexaemeron with regard to the origin of the universe is uncertain, theologians and scientists are free to adopt whatever theory they prefer, provided only it be reasonable and moderate, and not evidently opposed to Scripture.

Explanation. This is merely a corollary from the preceding theses. It is scarcely necessary to point out that scientists have vied with theologians in making liberal use of the privilege named. During the last half of the nineteenth century innumerable theories designed to harmonize science and the Bible have sprung up, and the end is not yet in sight. Most of these theories are tissues of more or less airy conjectures, and not a few evince a woeful lack of consistency. The Hexaemeron has become a playground where imagination runs amuck. The Church evidently apprehends no real contradiction between the Mosaic narrative and the established conclusions of science. Among the forty or fifty theories which have been thus far contrived, it is reasonable to assume that one or two can be used for exegetical purposes without straining the sacred text.

The number and variety of these theories is so great that they cannot easily be grouped in logical categories. For the following rough classification we are indebted to Msgr. Gutberlet.²²

1. The Verbal theory interprets “day” literally as a period of twenty-four hours. “This,” says Suarez, “is the more common opinion of the Fathers; … it is also favored by the Scholastics, though, on account of the authority of St. Augustine, they treat his divergent interpretation very modestly and with great reserve.”²³ To-day this theory is generally called the Deluge theory, for the reason that most of its modern defenders ascribe the origin of the geological strata and their organic deposits to a catastrophe caused by the Deluge.²⁴ In this hypothesis the Hexaemeron would antedate the so-called geological epochs. It is now quite generally held that the creation and formation of the cosmos must have required millions of years, and the Verbal theory no longer has any eminent defenders.

2. The Restitution theory (held by Buckland, Wiseman, A. Wagner, Hengstenberg, Vosen, and others), assumes that the ante-diluvian flora and fauna antedates the chaos described in Genesis (tohu-vabohu) and was destroyed by a great catastrophe, following which God recreated the world, forming the present cosmos in the course of six natural days. According to this theory the Hexaemeron postdates the geological epochs. A. Westermayer²⁵ represents the chaos as the work of the fallen angels. Restitutionism was revamped by A. Stenzel, but it has now been quite generally abandoned in view of the fact that the undisturbed position of the fossils found in the lower strata of the earth makes it improbable that all living organisms were buried by a sudden catastrophe. To attribute such a catastrophe to the fallen angels almost verges on superstition. Stenzel, moreover, confused the tohu-vabohu with the Deluge.

3. The numerous Concordance theories seek to synchronize the successive geological periods with the “days” of the Hexaemeron. They place the Hexaemeron either between the different geological periods, or within them. Hence the names of “Interperiodism” and “Periodism.”²⁶ “Interperiodism,” which is a rather obscure system, divides the Hexaemeron into six ordinary days of twenty-four hours each, separated by long intervening periods, which contain the millions of years demanded by geology. According to “Periodism” the six days of Genesis coincide with the geological periods, and the word “day” means an epoch or period of time. There is an older and a more recent Periodism. The former²⁷ construes a strict parallelism between the six days of Creation on the one hand and six “geological epochs” on the other. Modern Periodism, seeing the impossibility of such a close parallelism, has adopted a more or less idealistic Concordism.²⁸ Among recent champions of Periodism the following deserve to be mentioned: J. Brucker,²⁹ F. Vigouroux,³⁰ M. Seisenberger,³¹ and Bourdais.³² From this idealistic Concordism to pure Idealism is but one step.³³

4. The Idealist theories disregard the chronological sequence of the different stages of Creation and interpret the first chapter of Genesis in a purely religious sense. This puts the Bible and science on different planes; there are no points of contact between them, and a conflict is therefore impossible. The Hexaemeron transcends the geological periods and has absolutely nothing to do with them. Let the exegete and the scientist each pursue his own way in peace! “Idealism,” says Hummelauer,³⁴ “does not interpret the six days as necessarily meaning six consecutive periods of time, but as six logically distinct, outstanding momenta of God’s creative activity, or as six divine ideas realized in Creation. Cannot the historian truly assert that the Romans subjugated Europe, Asia, and Africa? Or that Goethe wrote prose and poetry? Similarly the inspired writer describes for us how God created light and the firmament, land and sea, plants, stars, and animals.”

The simplest and most acceptable form of Idealism regards the Hexaemeron as a treatise arranged according to purely logical points of view, with its main emphasis upon the “week,” and the seventh day as the Sabbath. Cfr. Exod. XXIII, 12: “Sex diebus operaberis, septimo die cessabis” — Six days thou shalt work: the seventh day thou shalt cease. The divine week of creation is the model upon which man should pattern his week of labor, the divine Sabbath is the exemplar of his day of rest, which he is to consecrate to God. The introduction of the figure six is not arbitrary; nor is it due to chronological considerations; it is based upon the pragmatism of God’s creative activity, in which the number three of the work of distinction corresponds to a like number in the ornamentation of the universe. This hypothesis has the twofold advantage of safeguarding the historic character of the Hexaemeron and of avoiding a slavish Concordism. Science can find nothing objectionable in an account of the Creation which is arranged pragmatically rather than chronologically.³⁵

Allegorism, Poetism, and Liturgism virtually destroy the historic character of the Hexaemeron, and it is not surprising, therefore, that they have met with small favor.³⁶

5. The most widely discussed among the so-called Idealistic theories just now is the Vision theory advocated by Kurtz, Hummelauer, Hoberg, and others. It regards the six days of Creation as so many visions of Adam. In six living pictures or tableaux, symbolizing six natural days, there passed before the mental vision of our ecstatic progenitor the history of creation, which could be known to no one but God. The facts thus revealed to Adam were handed down by Primitive Tradition to Moses, who faithfully recorded them in the Book of Genesis. “It can truly be said,” remarks Hummelauer, “that the universe was created in six days, that is in a vision, like as the heroes of a drama engage in combat on the stage.”³⁷ This theory claims to eliminate even the possibility of a clash between Revelation and science. “The Vision theory,” to quote Hummelauer again, “meets all objections by pointing to the difference which must naturally exist between a vision of the creative act and that act itself. Science and the Bible do not deal with precisely the same object; a difference between them, therefore, does not necessarily argue contradiction.”³⁸

But what becomes of the historic character of the Mosaic narrative? “What is there to correspond to the six days of Adam’s vision? Six ordinary days? or six periods of time? or six logical momenta? or nothing?”³⁹ Here is the weak spot of the Vision theory. Hummelauer frankly advocates “a theory of Vision sans phrase,” and refuses to accept Periodism in any shape or form.⁴⁰ But if there is no reality corresponding to the consecutive days of Adam’s vision, the division of time into six days of labor and one day of rest is based on a mere dream, and the Sabbath has no foundation in fact, despite the solemn declaration in Exodus XX, 11: “Sex enim diebus fecit Dominus coelum et terram et mare et omnia, quae in iis sunt, et requievit in die septimo; idcirco benedixit Dominus diei Sabbati et sanctificavit eum” — For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them, and rested on the seventh day: therefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it. We must not forget that this revealed truth has been formally proclaimed a rule of human conduct: “Sex diebus operaberis, septimo die cessabis” — Six days thou shalt work, the seventh day thou shalt cease (Exod. XXIII, 12). Obviously the Creator instituted this particular order not because Adam had six visions, but because the universe was actually created in the course of six days. To deny the objective truth of this fact is to do violence to the sacred text. One might as consistently adopt the extreme Idealistic theories. Hence we cannot admit that moderate Concordism and moderate Idealism have lost their raison d’être. The Vision theory, in our humble opinion, can be successfully defended only on the assumption that the six days of Adam’s vision are based on some kind of objective reality.⁴¹

Article 2: The Hexaemeron and Exegesis

Exegetically those interpretations that deviate from the literal sense of the Mosaic narrative — we have in mind chiefly moderate Concordism and Idealism — can be justified only on the assumption that the Hebrew word יוֹם does not necessarily mean an ordinary day of twenty-four hours, but may signify a longer period of time.

1. Concordism and Idealism can claim the high authority of St. Augustine and St. Thomas, which every Catholic exegete has a perfect right to follow. We have already adverted to the fact that the eminent Bishop of Hippo regarded the whole week of the Hexaemeron as one single moment, and that St. Thomas approved of this interpretation. As the Church has never disowned the teaching of St. Augustine, it cannot fairly be claimed that ecclesiastical Tradition compels us to take the Hebrew יוֹם in the sense of an ordinary day of twenty-four hours. Origen and Athanasius anticipated the teaching of Augustine. While the Fathers and Scholastics generally preferred to adhere to the literal sense, they never condemned the Augustinian interpretation. St. Thomas says: “Moyses rudem populum de creatione mundi instruens per partes divisit, quae simul facta sunt. Gregorius vero … et alii Sancti ponunt ordinem temporis in distinctione rerum servatum; et haec quidem positio est communior, et magis consonare videtur litterae quantum ad superficiem; sed prior est rationabilior, et magis ab irrisione infidelium sacram Scripturam defendens, quod valde observandum docet Augustinus,⁴² ut sic Scripturae exponantur, quod ab infidelibus non irrideantur; et haec opinio plus mihi placet.”⁴³ Under these circumstances the all but universal consensus of the Fathers and Scholastics in favor of the literal interpretation of the Mosaic narrative has no binding force.

2. There are also intrinsic reasons for rejecting the literal interpretation of the word “day.” In the first place geology, palaeontology, and astronomy all maintain that the formation of the universe, including our own planet, cannot have taken place within the limits of one natural week. Palaeozoic coal, for example, mesozoic chalk, and the so-called tertiary formations postulate immense periods of time. It is to be noted, also, that the first three “days” of the Hexaemeron cannot have been solar days in the strict sense of the term, because the sun was not created until the fourth day. St. Augustine observes that it is practically impossible to define the exact nature of these ante-solar days.⁴⁴ In another portion of his writings he says that it is highly improbable, not to say incredible, that the earth should have brought forth full-grown trees in fruitage within the short space of twenty-four hours.

A decisive argument for our contention is found in the fact that the word יוֹם is frequently employed by Sacred Scripture in a wider sense, to denote an indefinite period of time.⁴⁵ In Gen. II, 4 the entire period of six days is referred to as “one day.” “Istae sunt generationes coeli et terrae, quando creata sunt in die (יוֹם) quo fecit Dominus Deus coelum et terram” — These are the generations of the heaven and the earth, when they were created in the day that the Lord God made the heaven and the earth. Ezech. VII, 7 we read: “Venit tempus, prope est dies occisionis” — The time is come, the day of slaughter is near. Here “time” and “day” are evidently synonymous. Amos VIII, 13 has this passage: “In die illa deficient virgines” — In that day [i.e., at that time] the fair virgins … shall faint.

“Day” as a synonym for “time” is also frequent in such Scriptural phrases as dies vanitatis (day of vanity),⁴⁶ dies tribulationis (day of tribulation),⁴⁷ dies peccatoris (the sinner’s day),⁴⁸ dies frigoris (day of frost),⁴⁹ etc.

If יוֹם does not mean an ordinary “day,” “evening” (vespera, עֶרֶב) and “morning” (mane, בֹּקֶר) must likewise be capable of a figurative interpretation. Ereb etymologically means “mixture, confusion.” It is analogously applied to matter in a chaotic state, i.e., awaiting formation. Boker, on the other hand, which originally means “opening” or “revelation,” may be interpreted as signifying the work of seven days reduced to perfect order. This distinction is at least as old as St. Augustine, who says: “Cum dixit: ‘Facta est vespera,’ materiam informem commemorat; cum autem dicit: ‘Factum est mane,’ speciem, quae ipsa operatione impressa est materiae.”⁵⁰

But why did Moses choose the term “day” to describe the periods of Creation? Why did he not employ some other term to indicate that he meant indefinite periods of time? The week of the Creation with its six periods — crowned by the Creator’s day of repose, which was surely not an ordinary day, since it still continues — was intended to typify man’s week of labor which terminates with the Sabbath. Between a type and that which it figures there generally obtains a relation of real similarity, which by virtue of the laws of analogy justifies the use of the same concept and the same term.⁵¹

3. Nor does the assumption of the moderate Idealists, that the Hexaemeron must be regarded as history written from the pragmatic rather than the chronological point of view, necessarily run counter to the principles of sound Biblical hermeneutics. Secular historians often refer to something done on a certain day briefly as “day” (e.g., the day of Waterloo, or dies Alliensis for pugna Alliensis). In like manner Holy Scripture sometimes employs the word “day” to describe some particular event (as, for instance, dies Madian,⁵² dies occisionis,⁵³ dies Domini,⁵⁴ dies magnus irae⁵⁵), irrespective of duration. Similarly, in the Book of Genesis “day” may mean act, work, operation, or performance, regardless of duration. The analogous terms “evening” and “morning” probably signify the completion of one and the beginning of another action, just as we sometimes speak of the evening of life or the dawn of a better future.⁵⁶

Notes to Article 1

Notes to Article 2

Readings

Kurtz, Bibel und Astronomie, Berlin 1847. J. B. Pianciani, Erläuterungen zur mosaischen Schöpfungsgeschichte, Ratisbon 1853. A. Bosizio, Das Hexaemeron und die Geologie, Mainz 1865. F. H. Reusch, Bibel und Natur, 4th ed., Bonn 1876. Hummelauer, Der biblische Schöpfungsbericht, Freiburg 1877. C. Güttler, Naturforschung und Bibel, Freiburg 1877. F. E. Gigot, Special Introduction to the Study of the Old Testament, I, pp. 142 sqq., 2nd ed., New York 1903. F. Pfaff, Schöpfungsgeschichte mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des biblischen Schöpfungsberichtes, 2nd ed., Frankfurt 1877. B. Schäfer, Bibel und Wissenschaft, Münster 1881. J. W. Dawson, The Origin of the World according to Revelation and Science, New York 1880. F. N. Moigno, Les Splendeurs de la Foi, 3rd ed., 5 vols., Paris 1883. A. Stoppani, Sulla Cosmogonia Mosaica, Milano 1887. De Gryse, De Hexaemero secundum Caput Primum Geneseos ad Literam, Bruges 1889. J. McCosh, The Religious Aspect of Evolution, New York 1890. Mir y Noguera, La Creación, Madrid 1890. C. Güttler, Wissen und Glauben, 2nd ed., München 1904. A. Trissl, Das biblische Sechstagewerk, 2nd ed., Ratisbon 1894. W. D. Strappini, S.J., “What Were the Days of Genesis?” in the Month, Jan. 1881. A. Stenzel, Weltschöpfung, Sintflut und Gott, Braunschweig 1894. C. Braun, S.J., Kosmogonie vom Standpunkte christlicher Wissenschaft, 3rd ed., Münster 1905. A. Schöpfer, Geschichte des Alten Testaments mit besonderer Rücksicht auf das Verhältnis von Bibel und Wissenschaft, 5th ed., Brixen 1913. Vigouroux, Dictionnaire de la Bible, s.v. “Cosmogonie Mosaïque,” Paris 1898. F. v. Hummelauer, Noch einmal der biblische Schöpfungsbericht, Freiburg 1898. Zapletal, Der Schöpfungsbericht der Genesis, Freiburg 1902. P. Schanz, Apology, Vol. I, 4th ed., New York, n.d. M. Seisenberger, Practical Handbook for the Study of the Bible (Engl. tr. by Buchanan), pp. 260 sqq., New York, 1911.

The older theologians, like Suarez, Billuart, Tournely, etc., treat the Hexaemeron, and Dogmatic Cosmology generally, under the title “De Opere Sex Dierum,” in connection with the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, 1a, qu. 65–74.

Note on this transcription: this is by far the longest and most heavily footnoted section transcribed so far — 41 notes in Article 1, 15 in Article 2, both numbered independently (hence the A-/B- prefixes added here to keep them distinct, which are an editorial convenience, not in the original). Several Hebrew terms (יוֹם “day,” עֶרֶב “evening,” בֹּקֶר “morning”) were reconstructed from garbled OCR with good confidence, as the source itself glosses their meaning. One pair of markers (footnotes 5/6 in Article 1, attached to “Copernican system” and “Neptunists and Plutonists”) could not be pinned to their exact anchor word with full certainty because of a dropped superscript, though both citations are accurately transcribed regardless of which clause each modifies. German and French titles throughout had diacritics restored (Schöpfung, München, Münster, Rücksicht, Verhältnis, Genésiaque, Sündflut).