Does the Catholic Church teach that Moses wrote the Pentateuch?

[Jerry-Jet]

Did the Pontifical Bilical Commission of the early 1900s have authority or not?

Should we respect it’s findings today?

The reason I ask is that I’ve heard that nowadays the PBC is not authoratative.

Some say it ONCE was and that changed and some say that it never had authority.

What is the truth about that?

If it did have authority then yes Moses did write the first five books and we shouldn’t listen to all the “Modern scholars” from the 1920s onward.

I wish I could get an answer to that question but I doubt that I will–it’s too hot to handle!

The modern scholars group who don’t believe in anything will tell you one thing and the traditional people who believe in the first 1900 years of Catholic teaching will tell you another.

 

[Nita]

Umm… a simple question: If Moses wrote (or edited) the Pentateuch, how is it that he wrote (or edited) the account of his death, as found in Deut 34?

Just sayin’…

Could very easily have been added by someone after Moses death in order to complete the record of his leadership. I wouldn’t see something like that as interfering with crediting Moses as the author.

 

[BibleCatholic1]

Did the Pontifical Bilical Commission of the early 1900s have authority or not?

Should we respect it’s findings today?

The reason I ask is that I’ve heard that nowadays the PBC is not authoratative.

Some say it ONCE was and that changed and some say that it never had authority.

What is the truth about that?

If it did have authority then yes Moses did write the first five books and we shouldn’t listen to all the “Modern scholars” from the 1920s onward.

I wish I could get an answer to that question but I doubt that I will–it’s too hot to handle!

The modern scholars group who don’t believe in anything will tell you one thing and the traditional people who believe in the first 1900 years of Catholic teaching will tell you another.

The PBCs decisions are not infallible, however, the commission is a legitimate authority, it’s decisions should be respected,

Authority of its decisions

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. (Catholic encyclopaedia)

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Has the PBC changed its position on Moses being the author of the first five books of the bible?

 

[Contarini]

Edwin, thanks for your response. I pointed out that Jesus, Paul and the Jews of the first century believed in Mosaic authorship and you say:

‘‘There’s no doubt that this was the conventional view in the first century, and that this language is used in the NT. *Whether that really constitutes a divinely inspired affirmation of Mosaic authorship, though, is pretty dubious.’’
*

Jesus who is God himself in the flesh, believes in the Mosaic authorship of the pentatuch and you say that it is dubious to say that this constitutes a divinely inspired affirmation of Mosaic authorship?

There are three issues here:

1. Does the use of conventional language indicate belief? Clearly not in many cases. We still say “the sun rises,” but we don’t mean it literally. Using “Moses” to refer to the Pentateuch isn’t necessarily a claim about authorship. I’m not sure this covers every instance where the term “Moses” is used, mind you. But we’d have to talk through each one and discuss just what is being affirmed and how relevant actual Mosaic authorship is.
2. The Gospels are not verbatim records of Jesus’ words. I accept that they record in substance what Jesus said and did, but they clearly do not do so word for word. Hence, you cannot argue from the fact that Jesus is recorded as saying something that Jesus said those exact words.
3. The most difficult issue is whether Jesus could actually have held beliefs that were erroneous. I know that this is a controversial claim in terms of traditional Christology, but I think that a more “kenotic” Christology (i.e., one that emphasizes Jesus’ “self-emptying” in order to be truly human, though of course without sin) is a legitimate development of the tradition. I think it’s more disturbing to say, for instance, that God Incarnate knew about germs but didn’t bother giving information that could have saved millions of lives, than that He chose to “empty Himself” of modern scientific knowledge as part of becoming human. If you are more offended by the latter than the former, I frankly question your priorities. And once you grant that Jesus “emptied Himself” of scientific knowledge it becomes quite plausible that He would have similarly “emptied Himself” of historical knowledge. Again, before you condemn this as blasphemous, consider the implications of Jesus being actively omniscient and yet not using that knowledge in the way that any half-way decent human being would do. Which is really more blasphemous?

I would rather trust Jesus, he is the way, the truth and the life.

Indeed. But do you do so with reasons or without them? If without, then isn’t it just an arbitrary choice that might just as well have gone elsewhere? If with reasons, then you can’t simply ignore reason when discussing the specifics of your beliefs.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

The modern scholars group who don’t believe in anything will tell you one thing and the traditional people who believe in the first 1900 years of Catholic teaching will tell you another.

But that’s a dichotomy that accounts only for the ends of the spectrum.

Most Catholic scholars don’t fit into either of these categories. They certainly believe in Jesus and in the teachings of the Church, but they recognize that not all traditional ideas about Biblical scholarship are correct, and that modern scholarship has much to offer.

I don’t see how one can read the Pentateuch closely and not see it as a composite document put together over a long period of time, whether the specifics of “JEDP” are correct or not.

Edwin

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Would modern scholarship trump decisions of the PBC made during the pontificate of Pope Pius X?

 

[Contarini]

Would modern scholarship trump decisions of the PBC made during the pontificate of Pope Pius X?

It’s not so much “trumping,” but that the Vatican has clearly stepped back from enforcing this more conservative approach and has allowed Biblical scholarship its proper freedom.

Obviously if you choose to follow the very conservative spectrum of scholarship for good reasons, you may do so.

But Divino Afflante Spiritu, sects. 31ff, clearly says that modern methods of Biblical scholarship are valuable and that Catholic interpreters should not simply follow patristic models.

Given the directions Catholic scholarship has gone in recent decades, I think it’s safe to say that the Vatican would have said something if it wanted to reaffirm the conclusions of the PBC from the time of Pius X.

Edwin

 

[rabbitdonkey]

However the PBC decisions I think are still binding and the church teaches the innerancy of the Bible

 

[Renan]

Has any pope revoked any document issued by the Biblical Commission? To my knowledge, it hasn’t been done yet. Actually, what I do know is Saint Pius X’s Praestantia Scripturae saying we are all bound in conscience to submit to those documents.

To me, what we have been seeing is the complete demolition of catholic exegesis. First, some people started to question the Pentateuch’s authorship. Then, some people started to question the Gospels’ authorship. It’s curious to notice those people were basically rationalists, the greatest enemies of the Church at that time. Those people were no fools, they knew what they were doing. But now it looks like the enemies are inside the Church, because what we see are many translations of the Bible - with imprimmatur - saying the Pentateuch has almost nothing of Moses and the Gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. Guys, those are the cores of the Bible, the Law and the Gospels. It’s not hard to understand why those books are the most attacked. It’s not that simple to say “it doesnt matter who wrote them as long as we know they were inspired by God”. This kind of idea has no apologetical value.

Those documents on the authorship of the Law and the Gospels were issued during Saint Pius X’s pontificate: it has to mean something. No other pope has battled modernism like him.