The author and the historical truth of the fourth Gospel
(source)
The following dubia presented were answered by the Pontifical Biblical Commission as follows:
Dubium I. From the constant, universal and solemn tradition of the Church, in force since the second century, drawn especially: (a) from the testimonies and allusions of the Holy Fathers [Church fathers], ecclesiastical writers, and even heretics themselves, which, having been derived from the disciples or the first successors of the apostles, establish a necessary connection with the very origin of the book; (b) from the name of the author of the fourth Gospel universally and always accepted in the canon and lists of the sacred books; (c) from the very ancient manuscripts, codices and versions in various languages of the same sacred books; (d) from the public liturgical usage maintained since the earliest days of the Church throughout the world; leaving aside the theological argument, is it demonstrated by sufficiently solid historical argument to recognize the apostle John and no one else as the author of the fourth Gospel, so that the arguments to the contrary put forward by critics do not in any way undermine this tradition?
Answer: Yes.
Dubium II. Are the internal reasons which are drawn from the text of the fourth Gospel considered in itself, from the testimony of the writer and the manifest relationship of the same Gospel with the first letter of the apostle John, also to be regarded as confirming the tradition which attributes the fourth Gospel in an indubitable manner to the same apostle? And can the difficulties arising from comparing the same Gospel with the other three, taking into account the differences in time, purpose and audience for whom or against whom the author wrote, be reasonably resolved, as the holy fathers and Catholic exegetes have shown again and again?
Answer: Yes, on both counts.
Dubium III. Notwithstanding the practice, constantly in force from the earliest times throughout the Church, of using the fourth Gospel as a properly historical document, considering, however, the peculiar character of that Gospel and the manifest intention of the author to illustrate and prove the divinity of Christ through those very acts and words of the Lord, can it be affirmed that the facts narrated in the fourth Gospel are wholly or partly invented with that end in view, as if they were allegories or doctrinal symbols; and that the Lord’s discourses are not really and properly discourses of the Lord Himself, but the writer’s theological compositions, even if attributed to the Lord?
Answer: No.
On May 29, 1907, in the audience benignly granted to the two Most Reverend Secretaries Consultors, His Holiness ratified the above responses and commanded them to be published.
Fulcrano Vigouroux, P.S.S.
Lorenzo Janssens, O.S.B.
Secretaries Consultors
The author, time of composition and historical truth of the Gospel according to Matthew
(source)
To the following submitted dubia, the Pontifical Biblical Commission decided to respond as follows:
I. Given the universal and constant consensus since the first centuries in the Church, as clearly demonstrated by explicit testimonies of the Fathers, by the titles of the manuscripts of the Gospels, by the most ancient versions of the sacred books, by the catalogs left to us by the holy Fathers, ecclesiastical writers, supreme Pontiffs and Councils, and finally by the liturgical usage of the Eastern and Western Church, can and should it be stated with certainty that Matthew, apostle of Christ, is truly the author of the Gospel published under his name?
Answer: Yes.
II. Must it be admitted as sufficiently founded by the suffrage of tradition the opinion that Matthew preceded in writing the other evangelists, and that he wrote the first Gospel in the native language then used by the Palestinian Jews, to whom such a work was addressed?
Answer: Yes, on both counts.
III. Can the redaction of this original text be postdated to after the destruction of Jerusalem, so that the prophecies read therein concerning this destruction were written after the event: that is, is the testimony of Irenaeus which is usually cited (Advers. haeres., lib. III, ch. I, n. 2), of uncertain and controversial interpretation, to be considered of so much weight as to compel the rejection of the opinion of those who, more in accordance with tradition hold that this redaction was accomplished even before Paul’s arrival in Rome?
Answer: No, on both counts.
IV. Can the opinion of certain contemporaries be supported or considered probable that Matthew did not properly and strictly compose a Gospel as handed down to us, but only a collection of some of Christ’s sayings or discourses which then served as a source for another anonymous author whom they regard as the editor of the same Gospel?
Answer: No.
V. From the fact that the Fathers and all ecclesiastical writers, indeed the Church itself from her origin, have used as canonical only the Greek text of the Gospel known under the name of Matthew, and without excepting those who expressly affirmed that the Apostle Matthew had written it in the national language, can it be inferred with certainty that this Greek Gospel is identical in substance with that written by the same apostle in the national language?
Answer: Yes.
VI. From the fact that the author of the first Gospel has primarily a dogmatic and apologetic purpose, that is, to prove to the Jews that Jesus is the Messiah foretold by the prophets, begotten from the line of David and further from the fact that in arranging the facts and sayings he narrates and relates, he does not always respect the chronological order, can it be inferred that all this is not to be accepted as true; or can it also be asserted that the narratives of the actions and sayings of Jesus which are read in the Gospel itself, have undergone some alteration and adaptation under the influence of Old Testament prophecies and a more developed state of the Church, and therefore do not conform to historical truth?
Answer: No, on both counts.
VII. Must we, in particular, regard as destitute of solid foundation the opinions of those who doubt the historical authenticity of the first two chapters, in which the genealogy and infancy of Christ are narrated, as well as of some expressions of great dogmatic importance, such as are those relating to the primacy of Peter (Mt. 16:17-19), to the form of baptism given to the apostles together with the universal mission of preaching (Mt. 28:19f.), the Apostles’ profession of faith about the divinity of Christ (Mt 14:33), and similar others that are particularly enunciated in Matthew?
Answer: Yes.
On June 19, 1911, in an audience graciously granted to the two undersigned Most Reverend Secretaries Consultors, our Holy Father Pius X ratified the aforementioned responses and ordered their publication.
Rome, June 19, 1911.
Fulcrano VIGOUROUX, P.S.S.
Lorenzo JANSSENS, O.S.B.
The author, time of composition and historical truth of the Gospels according to Mark and Luke
(source)
To the following dubia presented, the Pontifical Biblical Commission decided to respond as follows:
1. Does the striking testimony of tradition, wonderfully consistent since the earliest days of the Church and confirmed by manifold arguments, namely, by the explicit testimonies of the Holy Fathers and ecclesiastical writers, by the quotations and allusions found in their writings, by the use of ancient heretics, by the versions of the books of the New Testament, by almost all the oldest manuscript codices, and also by the internal reasons deduced from the text of the sacred books, compel us to affirm with certainty that Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, and Luke, the physician, helper and companion of Paul, are truly the authors of the Gospels attributed to them respectively?
Answer: Yes.
II. Are the reasons by which some exegetes endeavor to prove that the last twelve verses of Mark’s Gospel (Mark 16:9-20) were not written by Mark himself but were added by another hand, such as to entitle them to assert that they are not to be accepted as inspired and canonical; or at least prove that Mark is not the author of these verses?
Answer: No, on both counts.
III. Similarly, is it permissible to question the inspiration and canonicity of Luke’s narrative about the infancy of Christ (Lk 1-2), or about the appearance of Jesus’ comforting angel and the sweat of blood (Lk 22:43-44); or at least can it be shown with solid reasons-something that pleased the ancient heretics and still haunts some recent exegetes-that these narratives do not belong to the genuine Gospel of Luke?
Answer: No, on both counts.
IV. Can and should the very rare and entirely unique documents in which the Magnificat canticle is attributed not to the Blessed Virgin Mary but to Elizabeth, somehow prevail against the concordant testimonies of almost all codices, both of the original Greek text and of the versions, and against the interpretation which the context, the Virgin’s own disposition of mind, and the constant tradition of the Church fully demand?
Answer: No.
V. As to the chronological order of the Gospels, is it permissible to depart from the opinion founded on the very ancient and constant testimony of tradition, which asserts that after Matthew, who wrote his Gospel first of all in his native tongue, Mark wrote second and Luke third; or is it to be esteemed contrary to this that other opinion which asserts that the second and third Gospels were written prior to the Greek version of the first Gospel?
Answer: No, on both counts.
VI. Is it permissible to defer the date of the composition of the Gospels of Mark and Luke until the destruction of the city of Jerusalem; or, since in Luke the Lord’s prophecy about the destruction of that city seems more circumstantial, can it be argued that at least that Gospel was written when the siege of the city had already begun?
Answer: No, on both counts.
VII. Must it be stated that Luke’s Gospel predates the book of the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 1:1-2); and since that book, which has Luke himself as its author, was finished at the end of the apostle’s Roman imprisonment (Acts 28:30-31), must it be stated that his Gospel was not composed after that time?
Answer: Yes.
VIII. Bearing in mind both the evidence of tradition and the internal arguments concerning the sources the two evangelists made use of in writing their Gospel, can one prudently doubt the view that holds that Mark wrote according to Peter’s preaching and Luke according to Paul’s preaching, while at the same time asserting that these evangelists had other sources worthy of belief, either oral or available in an already written form?
Answer: No.
IX. The words and deeds reported by Mark according to Peter’s preaching, accurately and almost graphically, and expounded very sincerely by Luke, after careful investigation of every circumstance from the beginning by means of witnesses absolutely worthy of faith, such as those who were witnesses from the beginning and became ministers of the word (Lk. 1:2-3), claim with right to themselves that full historical fidelity which the Church has always accorded them; or, on the contrary, must these same events and acts be judged, at least in part, to be devoid of historical truth, either because the writers were not eyewitnesses, or because both evangelists frequently exhibit a lack of order and a discrepancy in the sequence of events, either because, having arrived and having written later, they necessarily had to set forth conceptions foreign to the thought of Christ and the apostles or facts already more or less distorted by the imagination of the people, or finally because each of them with a purpose of his own, took into account preconceived dogmatic ideas?
Answer: Yes for the first part, No for the second.
On June 26, 1912, in an audience graciously granted to the two undersigned Most Reverend Secretaries Consultors, our Holy Father Pius X ratified the aforementioned responses and ordered their publication.
Fulcranus Vigoroux, Gr.S.Sulp.
Laurentius Janssens, O.S.B.
Consultores ab Actis.
The synoptic question and the mutual relationship between the first three Gospels
(source)
To the following dubia presented, the Pontifical Biblical Commission likewise decided to respond as follows:
I. Observing what must be observed according to previous decisions, particularly concerning the authenticity and integrity of the three Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, the substantial identity of the Greek Gospel of Matthew with its early original text, and also concerning the order of the dates of composition of these, is it permissible for exegetes to discuss freely, amidst so many different and opposing opinions of the authors, and to resort to the hypothesis of the written or oral tradition or even of the dependence of one of them on the one or ones preceding it, to explain their mutual similarities or differences?
Answer: Yes.
II. Should we assume that those who, relying neither on any testimony of tradition nor on any historical evidence, easily embrace the hypothesis commonly called the two-source hypothesis, which claims to explain the composition of the Greek Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke primarily by their dependence on the Gospel of Mark and on a collection called “the discourses of the Lord,” are observing the decisions expressed above, and can thus freely support it?
Answer: No, on both counts.
On June 26, 1912, in an audience graciously granted to the two undersigned Most Reverend Secretaries Consultors, our Holy Father Pius X ratified the aforementioned responses and ordered their publication.
Rome, June 26, 1912.
Fulcrano VIGOUROUX, P.S.S.
Lorenzo JANSSENS, O.S.B.
Secretaries Consultors
Image at the top: Santa Maria Maggiore in 2018. Image by Stefano Avolio, CC-BY-SA 2.0, here.