In this article, I post three documents of the Pontifical Biblical Commission (Pontificium Institutum Biblicum) from the start of the 20th century on the historical authenticity and authorship of the Pentateuch, the Book of Isaiah and the Book of Psalms.
The Pontifical Biblical Commission was established by Pope Leo XIII in 1902. When it was first founded, it was made up of five Cardinals and forty theologians and its main purpose was to answer dubia about the Bible.
St. Pius X wrote in his encyclical Praestantia Scripturae (1907):
“Our predecessor [Leo XIII], too, seeing that the danger was constantly on the increase and wishing to prevent the propagation of rash and erroneous views, by his apostolic letters “Vigilantes studiique memores,” given on October 30, 1902, established a Pontifical Council or Commission on Biblical matters, composed of several Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church distinguished for their learning and wisdom, to which Commission were added as consulters a number of men in sacred orders chosen from among the learned in theology and in the Holy Bible, of various nationalities and differing in their methods and views concerning exegetical studies. In so doing the Pontiff had in mind as an advantage most adapted for the promotion of study and for the time in which we live that in this Commission there should be the fullest freedom for proposing, examining and judging all opinions whatsoever, and that the Cardinals of the Commission were not to reach any definite decision, as described in the said apostolic letters, before they had examined the arguments in favor and against the question to be decided, omitting nothing which might serve to show in the clearest light the true and genuine state of the Biblical questions under discussion. Only after all this had been done were the decisions reached to be submitted for the approval of the Supreme Pontiff and then promulgated.
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.”
The documents can be found here. Since these old documents are only available in Italian and Latin, I have translated them from the Italian.
Image by the European Parliament, CC-BY-NC-ND 2.0, here
The mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch
(source)
In response to the following dubia, the Pontifical Biblical Commission has deemed it appropriate to respond as follows:
I. The arguments accumulated by critics to combat the Mosaic authenticity of the sacred books, which are called the Pentateuch, carry so much weight that they must affirm, despite the multiple testimonies of both Testaments taken together, the perpetual agreement of the Jewish people, the constant tradition of the Church, and the internal evidence found in the text itself, that these books were not written by Moses, but were compiled using sources that were for the most part posterior to Moses?
Answer: No.
II. The Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch necessarily postulates such an editing of the entire work, so that it is absolutely necessary that Moses wrote with his own hand all the written things, or that he dictated them to amanuenses [scribes]; or can we rather accept the hypothesis of those who think that he entrusted to another or to various persons the writing of the work that he had conceived under the inspiration of God, in such a way as to faithfully reflect his thoughts, not to write anything against his will, and not to omit anything; so that in the end, such a work, approved by Moses himself, the principal and inspired author, was published under his name?
Answer: No to the first part, yes to the second.
III. Can it be conceded, without prejudice to the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch, that Moses, in composing his work, made use of sources, both written documents and oral traditions, from which he drew certain things, either word for word or according to the basic idea, and inserted them into his work, summarizing or amplifying them according to his purpose and under divine inspiration?
Answer: Yes.
IV. While substantially preserving the Mosaic authenticity and integrity of the Pentateuch, can it be admitted that over such a long period of centuries, certain modifications have been made to it, such as: additions made after Moses’ death by an inspired author, or glosses and explanations inserted into the text; some words and forms of the older language modified to reflect the more recent language; erroneous readings attributable solely to errors of the copyists, which may be discussed and judged according to the rules of critical scholarship?
Answer: Yes, subject to the judgement of the Church.
On 27 June this year, in the audience graciously granted to the Most Reverend Secretaries Consultors, His Holiness approved the above answers and ordered their publication.
Fulcrano G. Vigouroux, P.S.S.
Lorenzo Janssens, O.S.B.
Segretari consultori
Character and author of the Book of Isaiah
(source)
The Pontifical Biblical Commission responded as follows to the following dubia:
Dubium I. Can it be taught that the prophecies found in the book of Isaiah—and in various passages of Scripture—are not prophecies in the strict sense, but are either narratives composed after the event or, if it must be acknowledged that the announcement preceded the event, the prophet does not foresee the future through a supernatural revelation from God but rather through a certain happy sagacity and natural acumen, the prophet foretold the future by conjecture from past events?
Answer: No.
Dubium II. Is the opinion that Isaiah and the other prophets only made prophecies about imminent events or events that were to occur within a short period of time compatible with the prophecies, mainly the messianic and eschatological prophecies, made by those same prophets certainly long before the events? And is it also compatible with the common opinion of the Holy Fathers [Church Fathers], who agree that the prophets also predicted events that were to take place only after many centuries?
Answer: No.
Dubium III. It can be admitted that the prophets, not only as censors of human depravity and heralds of the divine word for the betterment of their listeners, but also as announcers of the future, constantly had to address not future listeners, but present listeners, their contemporaries, so that they could be clearly understood by them; thus, consequently, the second part of the prophet Isaiah (chapters 40-66), in which the prophet addresses not the Jews contemporary with Isaiah, but the Jews groaning in Babylonian exile as if he were living among them and comforting them, cannot have Isaiah himself, long dead, as its author, but must be attributed to some unknown prophet who lived among the exiles?
Answer: No.
Dubium IV. Should the philological argument, deduced from the language and style, which is used to criticize the identity of the author of the book of Isaiah, be judged so strong that an authoritative man, an expert in critical science and Hebrew, cannot fail to recognize the plurality of the authors of that book?
Answer: No.
Dubium V. Are the arguments presented, even taken as a whole, sufficiently convincing to prove that the book of Isaiah must be attributed not to Isaiah alone, but to two or even more authors?
Answer: No.
On June 28, 1908, in the audience graciously granted to the two Most Reverend Consultors Secretaries, the Holy Father ratified these answers and ordered their publication.
Authors and time of composition of the Psalms
(source)
I. Are the names “Psalms of David”, “Hymns of David”, “Book of the Psalms of David”, “Davidic Psalter”, used in ancient collections and by the Councils themselves to refer to the book of the 150 Psalms of the Old Testament, as well as the opinion of many Fathers and Doctors who believed that all the psalms of the Psalter should be attributed to David, so compelling that David must be considered the sole author of the entire Psalter?
Answer: No.
II. From the concordance of the Hebrew text with the Alexandrian Greek text and with other ancient versions, can it reasonably be inferred that the titles preceding the Hebrew text of the psalms are older than the so-called Septuagint version and that, therefore, they derive, if not directly from the authors of the psalms themselves, at least from an ancient Jewish tradition?
Answer: Yes.
III. Can the aforementioned titles of the psalms, which bear witness to Jewish tradition, be prudently questioned when there is no serious reason to doubt their authenticity?
Answer: No.
IV. If we consider the frequent references in Sacred Scripture to David’s natural skill, endowed by the charismatic gift of the Holy Spirit, in composing religious poems, the institutions he founded for the liturgical singing of psalms, the attribution of psalms to him in both the Old and New Testaments, and the inscriptions placed at the beginning of the psalms since ancient times; and furthermore, if we consider the consensus of the Jews, the Fathers, and the Doctors of the Church, can one prudently deny that David is the main author of the poems of the Psalter, or affirm, on the contrary, that only a few of them should be attributed to the royal psalmist?
Answer: No, on both counts.
V. Can one deny, in particular, the Davidic origin of those psalms that are expressly cited in the Old or New Testament under the name of David, including, among others, Psalm 2 Quare fremuerunt gentes; Psalm 15 Conserva me, Domine; Psalm 17 Diligam te, Domine, fortitudo mea; Psalm 31 Beati quorum remissae sunt iniquitates; Psalm 68 Salvum me fac, Deus; Psalm 109 Dixit Dominus Domino meo?
Answer: No.
VI. Can one accept the opinion of those who assert that some of the psalms in the Psalter, whether by David or other authors, have been divided into several or combined into one for liturgical and musical reasons, or due to some negligence on the part of the transcribers, or for other unknown reasons; and similarly that other psalms, such as Miserere mei, Deus, were slightly retouched or modified, with the suppression or addition of one or another verse, in order to make them more suitable to the historical circumstances or solemnities of the Jewish people, while nevertheless preserving the inspiration of the entire sacred text?
Answer: Yes, on both counts.
VII. Can we accept as probable the opinion of those modern writers who, basing themselves on purely internal evidence or on a less correct interpretation of the sacred text, attempt to prove that quite a few psalms were composed after the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, including the era of the Maccabees?
Answer: No.
VIII. Must we, based on the multiple testimonies of the sacred books of the New Testament and the unanimous consent of the Fathers, as well as the confession of the writers of the Jewish people, recognize the existence of many prophetic and messianic psalms that announce the coming, the kingdom, the priesthood, the passion, death, and resurrection of the future Redeemer, and must we therefore absolutely reject the opinion of those who, distorting the prophetic and messianic character of the psalms, reduce these prophecies concerning Christ to mere predictions about the future fate of the chosen people?
Answer: Yes, on both counts.
On May 1, 1910, in the audience graciously granted to the two Most Reverend Secretaries Consultors, His Holiness ratified the aforementioned answers and ordered their publication.
Rome, May 1, 1910.