Did Moses write the Pentateuch?

[Melchior]

otm:

mlchance: it is inherently unfair to do a battle of wits with someone who is unarmed…

Thanks. Would you like to show me how I am wrong? After all I am less than a half wit, right? I am sure you are prepared to make me look dumb with your superior knowledge.

Mel

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

[continuation & end]​

So, unless Darius the Mede is to be identified with Ugbaru, who governed Babylon for Cyrus after the defeat of Nabu-na’id, there is a problem.
Why take notice or attention of scholars living 2500 years later than Cyrus, rather than of the Fathers ?

Because it is the later scholars who can read the contemporary texts. The Cyrus Cylinder comes from the reign of Cyrus, and is basically a propaganda sheet, running down [Nabu-na’id](http://www.livius.org/ct-cz/cyrus_I/babylon02.html#Chronicle of Nabonidus) by accusing him of tyranny and impiety, and praising Cyrus for his piety toward the gods of Babylonia. In fact, just as Isaiah 45.1 says:

• Thus says the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have grasped, to subdue nations before him and ungird the loins of kings, to open doors before him that gates may not be closed -

the Cyrus Cylinder says this:

• Marduk = the patron god of Babylon & Babylonia; just as JHWH was of Jerusalem & Judah] scanned and looked through all the countries, searching for a righteous ruler willing to lead Marduk in the annual procession. Then he pronounced the name of Cyrus, king of Anshan, declared to become the ruler of all the world. He made the Guti country and all the Manda-hordes *** bow in submission to Cyrus’ feet. And Cyrus did always endeavor to treat according to justice the people whom Marduk has made him conquer. Marduk, the great lord, a protector if his people, beheld with pleasure Cyrus’ good deeds and his upright mind and therefore ordered him to march against his city Babylon.

So, there are genuine problems - and modern scholarship has been trying, among other things, to find answers ##*

 

[Melchior]

## [continuation & end]

So, unless Darius the Mede is to be identified with Ugbaru, who governed Babylon for Cyrus after the defeat of Nabu-na’id, there is a problem.
Why take notice or attention of scholars living 2500 years later than Cyrus, rather than of the Fathers ?

Because it is the later scholars who can read the contemporary texts. The Cyrus Cylinder comes from the reign of Cyrus, and is basically a propaganda sheet, running down [Nabu-na’id](http://www.livius.org/ct-cz/cyrus_I/babylon02.html#Chronicle of Nabonidus) by accusing him of tyranny and impiety, and praising Cyrus for his piety toward the gods of Babylonia. In fact, just as Isaiah 45.1 says:

• Thus says the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have grasped, to subdue nations before him and ungird the loins of kings, to open doors before him that gates may not be closed -

the Cyrus Cylinder says this:

• Marduk = the patron god of Babylon & Babylonia; just as JHWH was of Jerusalem & Judah] scanned and looked through all the countries, searching for a righteous ruler willing to lead Marduk in the annual procession. Then he pronounced the name of Cyrus, king of Anshan, declared to become the ruler of all the world. He made the Guti country and all the Manda-hordes **** bow in submission to Cyrus’ feet. And Cyrus did always endeavor to treat according to justice the people whom Marduk has made him conquer. Marduk, the great lord, a protector if his people, beheld with pleasure Cyrus’ good deeds and his upright mind and therefore ordered him to march against his city Babylon.

So, there are genuine problems - and modern scholarship has been trying, among other things, to find answers ##

Hi GoG,

Just a quick repsonse before bed (I will try to give this the attention it deserves tomorrow).

Why assume the worst and go with those who start out as skeptics? And why not look at the explanation of conservative scholars as well as liberal ones? Whay assume one must be a good source and the other bad? Not that I think you are doing this. But there is plently of modern scholarship that does not fall under higher criticism. And an apparent inconsistency in one book of the Bible does not mean we must hold all the rest as suspect.

For example strong arguments can be made for Moses writing of the Torah from scripture while not being able to use the same argumentation to deal with the apparent problems in Daniel. It does not necessitate a reliance on higher criticism alone or dismissing the ancients as woefully ignorant.

Anyway, I have to go to bed.

Thank you for your thoughtful, and obviously time consuming response. I will try to be equally thoughtful tomorrow when I get a break from work.

Mel

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Melchior:

Hi GoG,

Just a quick repsonse before bed (I will try to give this the attention it deserves tomorrow).

Why assume the worst and go with those who start out as skeptics? And why not look at the explanation of conservative scholars as well as liberal ones? Whay assume one must be a good source and the other bad? Not that I think you are doing this. But there is plently of modern scholarship that does not fall under higher criticism. And an apparent inconsistency in one book of the Bible does not mean we must hold all the rest as suspect.

First, thank you for the tone of your post . FWIW, I’m not assuming the worst, I think - I began by being very “conservative” (not a very apt word, but there we are) about the Bible, but, had to reckon with “non-conservative” ideas once I attended lectures on the OT. It was difficult, just as it is for others now, but it has helped me understand the OT (in particular) far more than I did. So one no longer has to be defensive about the Bible: one can take the different names of Moses’ father-in-law (Jethro or Hobab or Reuel) without worrying about error. Looking at the Bible critically has nothing to do with finding error; one of the drawbacks, for me certainly, was that as a “conservative” one worried more about being able to be sure of inerrancy when something popped up to challenge it, than about what the text was saying ​

I’m not suggesting that the Bible should be regarded as suspect - I was trying to explain why scholars can’t take for granted what the Fathers had been able to. The change from older ideas to “non-conservative” ones is based on much better things than sheer wilfulness or malice. ##

For example strong arguments can be made for Moses writing of the Torah from scripture while not being able to use the same argumentation to deal with the apparent problems in Daniel.

Agreed - how impressive one finds them, depends, again, on the limitations of one’s knowledge ​

It does not necessitate a reliance on higher criticism alone or dismissing the ancients as woefully ignorant.

Not on higher criticism alone, certainly - the difficulty comes when people say, “Not on higher criticism at all” . ISTM that higher criticism is a very important tool for discovering what the texts mean - but not the only one. The problem is, not that it will be over-used among Catholics, so much as that it will not be used at all. If Pere Roland de Vaux O.P. could use it to illuminate the early traditions of Israel, why cannot other Catholics do likewise ? There is a genuine difficulty here: one must not cause anyone to stumble - equally, there are real problems, and they deserve to be considered on their merits. But this is a very old problem: laity and theologians have often been unsure of each other - only the way in which it makes itself known is new.​

I think part of the trouble is the label: the label “higher criticism” can sound like a claim to superior knowledge; but it is “higher”, only in relation to “lower” criticism - textual criticism: the very necessary art or science of seeking to establish the verbal form of the text. And now “criticism” has ceased to be neutral in meaning; it has long tended to mean “carping, finding fault” - but that is no essential part of criticism at all.

I wasn’t dismissing the ancients; unfortunately, there were gaps in the intellectual equipment of the Fathers, which took away something from their ability to understand it - I don’t think it wrong to say this. (Not that one can really lump together 600 years of Christian writing: nor am I dismissing the Biblical authors.) It hardly needs saying that there are many gaps in modern knowledge of the Ancient Near East ##

Anyway, I have to go to bed.

Thank you for your thoughtful, and obviously time consuming response. I will try to be equally thoughtful tomorrow when I get a break from work.

Mel

 

[mlchance]

Melchior:

I also never claimed the magisterium requires belief in the historic understanding.

Then you at last admit that a faithful Catholic is free to believe that Moses did not write the Pentateuch.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Melchior]

## First, thank you for the tone of your post . FWIW, I’m not assuming the worst, I think - I began by being very “conservative” (not a very apt word, but there we are) about the Bible, but, had to reckon with “non-conservative” ideas once I attended lectures on the OT. It was difficult, just as it is for others now, but it has helped me understand the OT (in particular) far more than I did. So one no longer has to be defensive about the Bible: one can take the different names of Moses’ father-in-law (Jethro or Hobab or Reuel) without worrying about error. Looking at the Bible critically has nothing to do with finding error; one of the drawbacks, for me certainly, was that as a “conservative” one worried more about being able to be sure of inerrancy when something popped up to challenge it, than about what the text was saying

I’m not suggesting that the Bible should be regarded as suspect - I was trying to explain why scholars can’t take for granted what the Fathers had been able to. The change from older ideas to “non-conservative” ones is based on much better things than sheer wilfulness or malice…

I only have a minute. But I just wanted to point out that the Grammatical-Historical method is more than sufficient to deal with these problems. And honestly in a way that deals with history and the text with far more integrity. You can arrive at harmony in scripture without Higher Criticism. I will have to repectfully disagree that it is a neccesary method of intrepretation. It is a popular one in acedemia to be sure, but again the Grammatical-Historical method is a stornger hermeneutical method by far. It does justice to the available hiostorical data and the text. Higher Criticism starts with basic negative assumptions (the superatural accounts are not real) that neccesarily bias it as an objecitve method of interpretation.

Higher Criticism also starts with unverifiable assumptions as well. Here is an interesting critique of the method: geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/6528/fund3.htm

When presented with only one view as an appropriate method I can see how people would assume it is the best since it can be so eye opening. But don’t make that judgement until you compare other methods side by side and look at some of the potential impossibilites of a particular system.

In Peace,

Mel

 

[francisca]

In the era when freedom of speech is very highly regarded, the Church can’t “isolate” the scriptures from secular point of view. New findings from science, history, linguistic, etc will definitely be there, and on top of that, these “information” would definitely “surrounds” believers as well. And some of them would come from skeptics/ non-believers point of view mixed around with questions about God and faith.

So out of faith, the church choose to deal with it, I guess. Surely scientific “little” truths can’t crack The Truth that Jesus has revealed to Her. I think it has something to do with the Church duty to shepherd the believers in the “information era”, and again, so I guess .

I once read that the oldest scripture is not “Genesis” nor the Pentateuch but the book of Job that was written in the time of Babylonian exile, which implies that Moses can’t be the writer of the Pentateuch. I’m not sure whether this is a correct information. Now when we read information in the internet we can get confused because some source specialized in one thing (for example evangelization) while the other is talking about historical point of view.

“Half” knowledge can be misleading. Therefore we need the church that can lead us… or we just “refuse” all “scientific evidence” and become appriory to all kinds of information from historical and literature and linguistic. For me I try not to read anything outside “word of God” context. But sometimes I got so curious and find myself reading those information too.

 

[whowantsumadebo]

Believe it or not, The Book of Job has gone from being considered the earliest book in the bible to being one of the latest in the Old Testament! Why? Apparently the hebrew is too good to be early. I don’t know why no one considered the writing quality until recently. Perhaps, it was a long developing tradition, and or a really old story where the written form was fixed at a later time. how are we supposed to know?
Anyways, I have a lot of questions in regards to the JEPD theory having to do with the Torah. First of all, I’d like to know when it was all put together, and why verses from one source where inserted in between verses from another source, and then again and again. And why? And then there are the infamous add ons!
Genesis Ch.22 begins with the E source, then all of a sudden switches over just in the middle of the story to the J source in verse 9. There isn’t an alternate version of this story, nor will it work without the two sources together, unlike some other passages.
Now either there were not separate sources for this story or the compilers dropped half of both traditions, which apparently were quite similar. Or something else, I don’t know.

 

[rossum]

mlchance:

On a related note, if there is genuine Church teaching that the various schools of historical criticism are nothing more than a vast atheist conspiracy to undermine the faith, I’d like to know that as well.

If, OTOH, there are no such teachings, or if the Church in fact endorses the use of historical criticism, then it certainly seems reasonable that people stop slinging around hoary accusations of heresy, et cetera, at people who agree with the Church on these points.

Have a look at Divino Afflante Spiritu of Pius XII, 1943.Let the interpreter then, with all care and without neglecting any light derived from recent research, endeavor to determine the peculiar character and circumstances of the sacred writer, the age in which he lived, the sources written or oral to which he had recourse and the forms of expression he employed. (para 33)

From this it appears that the Church does endorse the use of historical criticism.

rossum

 

[mlchance]

rossum:

Have a look at Divino Afflante Spiritu of Pius XII, 1943.Let the interpreter then, with all care and without neglecting any light derived from recent research, endeavor to determine the peculiar character and circumstances of the sacred writer, the age in which he lived, the sources written or oral to which he had recourse and the forms of expression he employed. (para 33)

From this it appears that the Church does endorse the use of historical criticism.

Yes, indeed, the Church does. Which I did point out several messages ago, but was promptly ignored in favor a red herring.

So, to recap:

** The Church does not require that faithful Catholics believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch.*

** The Church does not condemn the techniques of modern scholarship, but is actually at the forefront of their use in Christian circles.*

Claims that modern scholarship is a tool of the devil (or liberals or atheists or whatever convenient villain) and that only a fool (or liberal or atheist or whatever convenient villain) would doubt Moses wrote the Pentateuch can be safely labeled as just an opinion (and one more or less at odds with Church teaching).

– Mark L. Chance.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Melchior:

I only have a minute. But I just wanted to point out that the Grammatical-Historical method is more than sufficient to deal with these problems. And honestly in a way that deals with history and the text with far more integrity. You can arrive at harmony in scripture without Higher Criticism. I will have to repectfully disagree that it is a neccesary method of intrepretation. It is a popular one in acedemia to be sure, but again the Grammatical-Historical method is a stornger hermeneutical method by far. It does justice to the available hiostorical data and the text. Higher Criticism starts with basic negative assumptions (the superatural accounts are not real) that neccesarily bias it as an objecitve method of interpretation.

Higher Criticism also starts with unverifiable assumptions as well. Here is an interesting critique of the method: geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/6528/fund3.htm

When presented with only one view as an appropriate method I can see how people would assume it is the best since it can be so eye opening. But don’t make that judgement until you compare other methods side by side and look at some of the potential impossibilites of a particular system.

In Peace,

Mel

I explicitly said it was not the only tool for understanding the text.​

As to the questions of method you raise: how one reasons in debated matters - not this alone - is something I think of constantly. “How valid are these arguments, what are their foundations, what do they imply ?”, is one of the most basic questions one can ask.

And I certainly don’t close my mind to other methods, approaches & solutions than the “higher critical” - but this is sometimes what some Christians do: for many of them, the argument from inerrancy, or the argument from what the magisterium has said or seems to say, trumps all considerations of the detail of the text. The trouble with insisting on the “rightness” of the Bible is, that questions about what the texts meant for their earliest readers tend to disappear.

For example, Genesis 18 has been taken as an appearance of the Trinity to Abraham. Whether it is or is not, there is no reason to think that ancient Israelites believed in Father, Son, & Holy Spirit: so, how might ancient Israelites understand an episode in which three divine beings visit a human being ? Several answers are plausible - & once we can see the text as its early readers (or hearers) might have understood it, we can bring on our specifically Christian ideas. But not the other way round - although we are looking at the text as Christians, we can’t begin by imposing our Christian ideas on the text: if we do that, we are going to risk overlooking the Israelite & Ancient Near Eastern meaning (as well as taking from the text only what we put into it). Which is like overlooking the Jewishness of Christ - the OT grew up in a particular setting, which was not Christian in its theology. So it makes no sense to treat it as though it were. The OT is particular - as is the Incarnation. Which is why the particular details of history are so important.

I don’t see why different approaches can’t “grow together” among Christians. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

mlchance:

Yes, indeed, the Church does. Which I did point out several messages ago, but was promptly ignored in favor a red herring.

So, to recap:

** The Church does not require that faithful Catholics believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch.*

** The Church does not condemn the techniques of modern scholarship, but is actually at the forefront of their use in Christian circles.*

Claims that modern scholarship is a tool of the devil (or liberals or atheists or whatever convenient villain) and that only a fool (or liberal or atheist or whatever convenient villain) would doubt Moses wrote the Pentateuch can be safely labeled as just an opinion (and one more or less at odds with Church teaching).

– Mark L. Chance.

– Mark L. Chance.

One puzzle is: since the CC has endorsed these techniques - why do so many Catholics regard them as (so to put it) “not Catholic” ?​

I can understand people not themselves caring for them - but to go further and to imply that they are in principle unCatholic is another matter.

There seem to be several issues:

• Continuity of doctrine: why are people denying the historical character of (say) Genesis; how can they be Catholics if they do so; and why does Rome seem to think doing so is OK ?
• How can people be Catholics if they ignore the decisions issued by the Pontifical Biblical Commission in & after the time of St. Pius X ?
• The scope and meaning of inspiration & inerrancy.
• How does the CC cope with the challenges raised by these “untraditional” methods of looking at Scripture ?
• Hearing of these issues can be very destructive to Catholics. What is to be done about that ?
• Episcopal sanction of the NAB or other versions with footnotes which take for granted that critical solutions can be or are valid is a very painful experience - it seems to suggest that the bishops are unorthodox or negligent.
• What can be done to reassure Catholics that “untraditional” approaches are allowed, and are not in principle rationalist or the like ?
• What solution if any would best safeguard academic freedom, orthodoxy, and charity ?

There must be other issues too. ##

 

[otm]

mlchance:

That’s not nice.

Sigh! You are right; but I just couldn’t resist.

I don’t pretend to be a Scripture scholar, but I find it tedious, to say the least, with the attacks on scholars who are faithful to the Magisterium but are too complex for the average reader, and who are misquoted by that same reader as spouting heresy.

mlchance:

On a related note, if there is genuine Church teaching that the various schools of historical criticism are nothing more than a vast atheist conspiracy to undermine the faith, I’d like to know that as well.

If, OTOH, there are no such teachings, or if the Church in fact endorses the use of historical criticism, then it certainly seems reasonable that people stop slinging around hoary accusations of heresy, et cetera, at people who agree with the Church on these points.

– Mark L. Chance.

You said it better than I can, but I agree “in spades”.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Again, I agree with Mel, as he seems the most Catholic on this issue.

Moses is the true author of the Pentateuch. This is the magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church and has not been recinded, to my knowledge.

Decree of the Pontifical Biblical Commission on the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, which seems to be totally disregarded by modern Catholics:

**Whether it may be granted, without prejudice to the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch, that Moses employed sources in the production of his work, i.e., written documents or oral traditions, from which, to suit his special purpose and under the influence of divine inspiration, he selected some things and inserted them in his work, either literally or in substance, summarized or amplified. **

Answer: In the affirmative.

---

The Pentateuch could have various sources but it has only one human author—Moses. Joshua or someone else could easily have added the last chapter recounting Moses’ death. This are any other later redaction does not detract from the true Mosaic authorship, however.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

mlchance:

That’s not nice.

If there actually is genuine Church teaching that Catholics must believe that Moses wrote the Pentateuch despite the fact that Scripture doesn’t make such a claim, I genuinely want to know.

On a related note, if there is genuine Church teaching that the various schools of historical criticism are nothing more than a vast atheist conspiracy to undermine the faith, I’d like to know that as well.

FWIW, some asides in [Providentissimus Deus](Providentissimus Deus) could be taken as saying that.​

As could Praestantiae Scripturae:

• Motu proprio of Our Most Holy Lord Pius X., by Divine Providence Pope, on the decisions of the Pontifical Commission on the Bible and on the censures and penalties against those who neglect to observe the prescriptions against the errors of the Modernists:
• In his encyclical letter “Providentissimus Deus,” given on November 18, 1893, our predecessor, Leo XIII, of immortal memory, after describing the dignity of Sacred Scripture and commending the study of it, set forth the laws which govern the proper study of the Holy Bible; and having proclaimed the divinity of these books against the errors and calumnies of the rationalists, he at the same time defended them against the false teachings of what is known as the higher criticism, which, as the Pontiff most wisely wrote, are clearly nothing but the commentaries of rationalism derived from a misuse of philology and kindred studies.

There is probably much more that could be treated as what you’re looking for. I do wonder about the value of a judgement beginning “clearly”; what is the basis for the Pope’s assertion ?

This article about Spiritus Paraclitus may be of interest - especially the notes ##

If, OTOH, there are no such teachings, or if the Church in fact endorses the use of historical criticism, then it certainly seems reasonable that people stop slinging around hoary accusations of heresy, et cetera, at people who agree with the Church on these points.

– Mark L. Chance.

:clapping: ​

 

[itsjustdave1988]

It is not Church teaching that Moses wrote the Pentateuch.

I disagree.

According to the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia article “Pentateuch”, under the heading "Ecclesiastical Decisions"
newadvent.org/cathen/11646c.htm

Biblical Commission on 27 June, 1906, answered a series of questions concerning this subject in the following way:

(1) The arguments accumulated by the critics to impugn the Mosaic authenticity of the sacred books designated by the name Pentateuch are not of such weight as to give us the right, after setting aside numerous passages of both Testaments taken collectively, the continuous consensus of the Jewish people, the constant tradition of the Church, and internal indications derived from the text itself, to maintain that these books have not Moses as their author, but are compiled from sources for the greatest part later than the Mosaic age.

(2) The Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch does not necessarily require such a redaction of the whole work as to render it absolutely imperative to maintain that Moses wrote all and everything with his own hand or dictated it to his secretaries; the hypothesis of those can be admitted who believe that he entrusted the composition of the work itself, conceived by him under the influence of Divine inspiration, to others, but in such a way that they were to express faithfully his own thoughts, were to write nothing against his will, were to omit nothing; and that finally the work thus produced should be approved by the same Moses, its principal and inspired author, and published under his name.

(3) It may be granted without prejudice to the Mosaic authenticity of the Pentateuch, that Moses employed sources in the production of his work, i.e., written documents or oral traditions, from which he may have drawn a number of things in accordance with the end he had in view and under the influence of Divine inspiration, and inserted them in his work either literally or according to their sense, in an abbreviated or amplified form.

(4) The substantial Mosaic authenticity and integrity of the Pentateuch remains intact if it be granted that in the long course of centuries the work has suffered several modifications, as; post-Mosaic additions either appended by an inspired author or inserted into the text as glosses and explanations; the translation of certain words and forms out of an antiquated language into the recent form of speech; finally, wrong readings due to the fault of transcribers, which one may investigate and pass sentence on according to the laws of criticism.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… you at last admit that a faithful Catholic is free to believe that Moses did not write the Pentateuch.

I cannot admit as much. I will if the above decisions of the Pontifical Bible Commission have been recinded. I have found no magisterial texts that support that claim, however.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

itsjustdave1988:

Again, I agree with Mel, as he seems the most Catholic on this issue.

Moses is the true author of the Pentateuch. This is the magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church and has not been recinded, to my knowledge.

Decree of the Pontifical Biblical Commission on the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, which seems to be totally disregarded by modern Catholics:

The Pentateuch could have various sources but it has only one human author—Moses. Joshua or someone else could easily have added the last chapter recounting Moses’ death. This are any other later redaction does not detract from the true Mosaic authorship, however.## This presents some evidence that they have been: geocities.com/pharsea/BibleCom.html

**Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger **
President of the Pontifical Biblical Commission
Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
*and Dean of the College of Cardinals *had this on the relationship between Magisterium and exegetes to say: and although his remarks are indirect, they are certainly interesting.

An article in the Catholic Encyclopedia about the Commission contains two paragraphs which are very much to the point - including this:

• The Commission though formed like a Congregation is not a Congregation but seemingly of lower rank. Its decisions are approved by the pope and published by his command. Such approval, when given in formâ communi, does not change the nature of the decisions as emanating from a Congregation or Commission, nor does it make them specifically pontifical acts; much less does it imply an exercise of the pope’s personal prerogative of infallibility. Hence they are not infallible or unchangeable, though they must be received with obedience and interior assent, by which we judge that the doctrine proposed is safe and to be accepted because of the authority by which it is presented. These decisions are not the opinions of a private assembly, but an official directive norm; to question them publicy would be lacking in respect and obedience to legitimate authority. We are not hindered from private study of the reasons on which they are based, and if some scholar should find solid arguments against a decision they should be set before the Commission.

So it is envisaged that “solid arguments” may in future be made. ISTM that - at least generally speaking - the decrees allow for the possiblity that they may need to be rescinded. ##

 

[itsjustdave1988]

In 1955 a clarification by A. Miller and A. Kleinhans, the secretary and assistant secretary of the Commission stated that the early PBC decisions could be ignored!

Yes. I’ve read this theory. I’ve also read it’s rebuttal, here:

Rediscovering the Decrees of the Pontifical Biblical Commission
*by Sean Kopczynski *
rtforum.org/lt/lt94.html

It appears that the “clarification” was unsigned. Regardless of its questionable authorship, it was not papally approved and published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (AAS), whereas the other decrees of the PBC were published in the AAS, which means they were published by the order of the Pope as an act of the Apostolic See. An unsigned dubious clarification attributed to the Secretary of the PBC, A. Miller, is less compelling to me than publications of the AAS.

Pope St. Pius X made the following declaration: “We declare and prescribe that all are bound in conscience to submit to the decisions of the Biblical Commission, which have been given in the past and shall be given in the future, in the same way as to the Decrees pertaining to doctrine, issued by the Sacred Congregations and approved by the Soveriegn Pontiff.” [AAS 40 (1907) 724]

I understand that the role of the PBC was modified by Pope Paul VI such that it no longer was an organ of the magisterium. So, as I understand it, from the start of the PBC to the modification of Pope Paul VI, the decisions of the PBC have the same authority as doctrinal decrees approved by the Pope and published in the AAS. This understanding helps us to keep clear which PBC documents are magisterial, and which are not.

While I respect Cardinal Ratzinger’s opinion, the text of his that you provided is not a magisterial text approved by the Pope and ordered published in the AAS, as were the decrees of the PBC defending the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.

Yes, Catholic exegetes, as Cardinal Ratzinger states, have much freedom in making conclusions that are contrary to magisterial doctrine. That’s rather disconcerting, but that’s not my point, however. My point is that despite the opinions of Catholic exegetes (part of the Taught Church), the magisterium (the Teaching Church) holds to a Mosaic authorship until such decisions of the PBC are recinded by a publication of the AAS.

I agree that solid arguments may be made. I disagree that the doctrinal decisions of the PBC have been rescinded. Therefore, despite the uncompelling arguments made by the Taught Church, the Teaching Church regarding the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is still the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

I go by the Teaching Church.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

itsjustdave1988:

Yes. I’ve read this theory. I’ve also read it’s rebuttal, here:

Rediscovering the Decrees of the Pontifical Biblical Commission
*by Sean Kopczynski *
rtforum.org/lt/lt94.html

Alternative opinions are always worth knowing and reading and understanding - TY for the link​

It appears that the “clarification” was unsigned. Regardless of its questionable authorship, it was not papally approved and published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis

(AAS), whereas the other decrees of the PBC were published in the AAS, which means they were published by the order of the Pope as an act of the Apostolic See. An unsigned dubious clarification attributed to the Secretary of the PBC, A. Miller, is less compelling to me than publications of the AAS.

Pope St. Pius X made the following declaration: “**We declare and prescribe that all are bound **in conscience to submit to the decisions of the Biblical Commission, which have been given in the past and shall be given in the future, in the same way as to the Decrees pertaining to doctrine, issued by the Sacred Congregations and approved by the Soveriegn Pontiff.” [AAS 40 (1907) 724]

I understand that the role of the PBC was modified by Pope Paul VI such that it no longer was an organ of the magisterium. So, as I understand it, from the start of the PBC to the modification of Pope Paul VI, the decisions of the PBC have the same authority as doctrinal decrees approved by the Pope and published in the AAS. This understanding helps us to keep clear which PBC documents are magisterial, and which are not. ## What is not clear - among several things that are not - is the status of decrees made before the PBC ceased to be such an organ. To me at least. I would like to know - if possible.

Besides, to say that the decrees are binding in conscience, is not the same as saying that particular decisions are irreformable. The Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture of 1953 has a lot to say about this issue.

While I respect Cardinal Ratzinger’s opinion, the text of his that you provided is not a magisterial text approved by the Pope and ordered published in the AAS, as were the decrees of the PBC defending the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.

Of course not - but, he does have some authority in the matter; his opinion has a moral weight (at least) greater than that of most of us. Even if it did not, those who belabour scholars as “liberals” , “heretics”, etc., for not adopting the attitudes of 90 or 70 years ago might like to bear in mind that such scholars are - it seems - of one mind with Ratzinger. Are those who criticise the scholars, going to turn their fire on him ? If not - why not ?​

Yes, Catholic exegetes, as Cardinal Ratzinger states, have much freedom in making conclusions that are contrary to magisterial doctrine. That’s rather disconcerting, but that’s not my point, however. My point is that despite the opinions of Catholic exegetes (part of the Taught Church), the magisterium (the Teaching Church) holds to a Mosaic authorship until such decisions of the PBC are recinded by a publication of the AAS.

So what is meant by “Mosaic authorship” ? To judge from the remarks on this in the CCHS, what Pius X meant by it - and judged to be consistent with it or allowable as an interpretation of it - may not be quite what Pius XII meant by it -​