The ruins of Corinth in Greece. Image by Ingold Janssen, CC-BY-NC-SA 2.0, here.
Author, time of composition, and historical truth of the Book of Acts
(source)
In response to the following dubia, the Pontifical Biblical Commission has decided to answer as follows:
I. Considering first of all the tradition of the universal Church, which dates back to the earliest ecclesiastical writers, and being attentive to the internal characteristics of the Book of Acts, whether considered on its own or in its relationship with the third Gospel, especially regarding the affinity and mutual connection between both prologues (Luke 1:14; Acts 1:1-2), it must be held as certain that the book entitled “Acts of the Apostles” is authored by the evangelist Luke?
Answer: Yes.
II. For critical reasons drawn from language and style, from the mode of narration, from the unity of purpose and doctrine, can it be demonstrated that the Book of Acts must be attributed to a single author, and consequently, the opinion of recent writers who consider that Luke is not the sole author of the book, but rather that several authors should be considered for the same book, lacks any foundation?
Answer: Yes for both parts.
III. In particular, those important passages in Acts where the use of the third person is interrupted and the first plural is introduced (Wirstücke), do they weaken the unity of composition and authenticity? Or rather, considering them from a historical and philological point of view, do they confirm such unity?
Answer: No for the first part, Yes for the second.
IV. Given that the same book abruptly ends shortly after mentioning the two years of Paul’s imprisonment in Rome, can it be inferred that the author wrote another volume now lost or had intended to write one, and consequently, can the date of composition of the Book of Acts be deferred to long after this imprisonment? Or rather must it rightly and reasonably be held that Luke completed the book toward the end of the Apostle Paul’s first Roman imprisonment?
Answer: No for the first part, Yes for the second.
V. Considering at the same time the frequent and easy access that Luke undoubtedly had to the earliest and principal founders of the Palestinian Church and to Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, with whom he was an assistant in evangelizing and a companion on journeys; also taking into account his usual skill and diligence in seeking out witnesses and observing events with his own eyes; finally, considering the clear and admirable agreement between the Book of Acts and Paul’s letters as well as the most reliable historical documents — it must be held as certain that Luke had in his possession sources absolutely worthy of trust, which he used accurately, correctly, and faithfully, thereby rightly claiming full historical authority?
Answer: Yes.
VI. Are the difficulties usually raised here and there—generated either by supernatural events narrated by Luke; or by the way some speeches are presented, which being summaries, are considered invented and adapted to circumstances; or by certain passages apparently discordant from worldly or biblical history; or finally by some narratives that seem to contradict not only the author of Acts himself but also other sacred authors—so significant as to cast doubt on, or at least in some way diminish, the historical authority of Acts?
Answer: No.
On June 12, 1913, in an audience graciously granted to the Most Reverend Consultor Secretary, our Holy Father Pius PP. X ratified the above responses and ordered their publication.
Laurentius Janssens, O.S.B.
Consultor Secretary
Authorship, integrity and time of composition of the pastoral letters of the apostle Paul
(source)
In response to the following dubia, the Pontifical Biblical Commission has likewise decided to answer as follows:
I. Having in view the tradition of the Church, universally and firmly constant from the beginning, as attested by many ancient ecclesiastical documents, must it be held as certain that the so-called pastoral letters—namely, the two to Timothy and the one to Titus—are indeed authored by the same Apostle Paul and have always been counted among the authentic and canonical letters of Paul, despite the boldness of some heretics who, without giving any reasonable justification, excluded them from the number of Pauline letters because they were contrary to their doctrines?
Answer: Yes.
II. The “fragmentary hypothesis,” introduced and proposed in various ways by some contemporary exegetes—some of whom have no plausible reason for it and disagree among themselves—claiming that the pastoral letters were written and notably expanded by unknown authors from a later period, using fragments of letters or lost Pauline letters, can even slightly prejudice the clear and firm testimony of tradition?
Answer: No.
III. The difficulties usually raised in many ways, arising either from the author’s style and language, or from certain errors—especially Gnostic ones—which are described as already present at that time, or from the supposed state of the ecclesiastical hierarchy as already developed, as well as other similar contrary reasons, do they in any way weaken the thesis that holds the authenticity of the pastoral letters to be established and certain?
Answer: No.
IV. Since it must be held as certain the thesis of the Apostle Paul’s double Roman imprisonment—supported not only by historical reasons but also by ecclesiastical tradition, in accordance with the testimonies of both Eastern and Western holy Fathers—and also based on clear evidence derived both from the abrupt ending of the Book of Acts and from the Pauline letters written from Rome, especially the second letter to Timothy—it can be affirmed with certainty that the pastoral letters were written during the period between Paul’s release from his first imprisonment and his death?
Answer: Yes.
On June 12, 1913, during the kindly granted audience to the undersigned Most Reverend Consultor Secretary, Our Holy Father Pius PP. X ratified the above answers and ordered them to be published.
Lorenzo JANSSENS, O.S.B.
Consultor Secretary
Authorship and mode of composition of the Letter to the Hebrews
(source)
In response to the following dubia, the Pontifical Biblical Commission has decided to answer as follows:
I. Should such doubts regarding the divine inspiration and Pauline origin of the Letter to the Hebrews, those which affected some in the West during the first centuries, primarily due to the abuse by heretics, be given so much weight that it is permissible to doubt not only whether this letter should be considered among the canonical ones – which is a matter of defined faith –, but also whether it should be regarded as an authentic letter of the Apostle Paul, considering the perpetual, unanimous and constant agreement of the Eastern Fathers, who were joined by full consensus from the entire Western Church after the fourth century; also considering carefully the acts of the supreme pontiffs and sacred Councils, especially the Council of Trent, as well as the perpetual usage of the universal Church?
Answer: No.
II. The arguments that are usually inferred both from the unusual absence of Paul’s name and the omission of the customary opening and greeting in the letter to the Hebrews, and from the purity, elegance, and perfection of diction and style of his Greek language, the way in which the Old Testament is quoted and argued from, and the differences that are claimed to exist between the doctrine of this and other Pauline letters, may in some way undermine its Pauline origin; Or rather, does the perfect agreement in doctrine and expression, the similarity of admonitions and exhortations, as well as the concordance of phrases and words recognized even by some non-Catholics, which can be observed between it and the other writings of the Apostle of the Gentiles, show and confirm its Pauline origin?
Answer: No for the first part, Yes for the second.
III. For the Apostle Paul to be considered the author of this letter, must it be affirmed not only that he conceived and expressed it entirely under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit but also that he gave it the form in which we now possess it?
Answer: No, except for a further judgment by the Church.
On June 24, 1914, during the kindly granted audience to the undersigned Most Reverend Consultor Secretary, our Holy Father Pius PP. X ratified the above answers and ordered them to be published.
Lorenzo JANSSENS, O.S.B.
Consultor Secretary
The parousia or the second coming of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the letters of Saint Paul the apostle
(source)
With regard to the following dubia presented, the Pontifical Biblical Commission has decided to respond as follows:
I. In order to resolve the difficulties encountered in the letters of Saint Paul and the other apostles when referring to the “parousia”, that is, the second coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, may a Catholic exegete assert that although the Apostles, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, do not teach any error, they have nonetheless expressed their own human sentiments in which error or deception might possibly occur?
Answer: No.
II. Having taken into account the authentic notion of the apostolic office and Saint Paul’s undoubted fidelity to his Master’s teaching, as well as the Catholic dogma on the inspiration and inerrancy of Sacred Scripture — according to which everything that an inspired author asserts, states, or implies must be considered as affirmed, stated, or implied by the Holy Spirit — and having examined the texts of the Apostle’s letters considered on their own merit, entirely consonant with the manner of speech of the Lord Himself, is it appropriate to affirm that Saint Paul in his writings has asserted nothing that does not perfectly agree with the ignorance regarding the time of the parousia which Christ himself proclaimed as characteristic of mankind?
Answer: Yes.
III. Having given attention to the Greek expression “we who are alive, who are left”, and having considered the exposition of the Fathers, beginning with Saint John Chrysostom, an expert in both the native language and Pauline letters, is it permissible to reject as too forced and lacking solid foundation the traditional interpretation accepted in Catholic schools (also accepted by the Reformers of the sixteenth century), which explains the words of Paul in 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 without in any way implying a parousia so imminent that the Apostle counts himself and his readers among those faithful who remain and will meet Christ?
Answer: No.
On June 18, 1915, during the kindly granted audience to the undersigned Reverend Consultor Secretary, our Holy Father Benedict XV has ratified the aforementioned answers and ordered them to be published.
Lorenzo JANSSENS, O.S.B.
Titular Abbot of Monte Blandino
Consultor Secretary
Statue of St. Paul in front of the Basilica dedicated to him in Rome. Image by altotemi, CC-BY-SA 2.0, here.