October 26, 2003. ר: Aquinas on Creationism and Biblical Interpretation.

Thomas Aquinas talks about how to interpret Scripture in his Summa, 68:1, "Whether the firmament was made on the second day?

I answer that, In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to observed, as Augustine teaches (Gen. ad lit. i, 18). The first is, to hold the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation, only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it, if it be proved with certainty to be false; lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.
Nicely put. Suppose you believe the Bible to be reliable, or even inerrant. If a particular passage doesn't make sense under a literal interpretation, then it is silly, or perhaps even blasphemous, to use that sense, since that is effectively a claim that God does not make any sense. Rather, you should look for a different interpretation. If you are confident that the Bible is reliable, then you can be confident that such an interpretation exists.

The context in which Aquinas wrote the paragraph above was in how to interpret Genesis 1, on Creation. Whether to interpret the seven days of creation literally, figuratively, or in some other way was an old question even in his day---Augustine lived about 800 years earlier. People did not need Darwin to wonder about such things as how days of creation could exist before the sun did. Indeed, the extent to which evolution theory has gotten caught up in how to interpret Creation is peculiar, since evolution is much easier to reconcile with a literal interpretation than geology is. And, as Aquinas is implicitly noting, even if you reject Genesis 1 as being a literal explanation completely, that creates very little problem for someone who "holds the truth of Scripture without wavering". Aquinas himself seems to have accepted a pretty literal interpretation, but it seems clear he would have changed that interpetation if different evidence-- say, Carbon-14 dating-- had appeared. [ permalink, http://php.indiana.edu/~erasmuse/w/03.10.26a.htm ]

To return to Eric Rasmusen's weblog, click http://php.indiana.edu/~erasmuse/w/0.rasmusen.htm.