Regarding the four Gospels

A. Of the Author, the Date of Composition, and the Historical Truth of the Gospel according to St. Matthew.

To the following Questions which have been proposed the Biblical Commission has decided to reply as follows:

Question 1: Can we affirm with certainty that Matthew, the Apostle of Christ, was really the author of the Gospel that goes by his name: and this on the ground of the universal and constant agreement of the Church from the earliest times, an agreement which is clearly set forth in the express declarations of the Fathers, in the Titles of Manuscript Gospels, in the very oldest Versions of the Sacred Books, in the Catalogues drawn up by the Holy Fathers, by Ecclesiastical Writers, by Supreme Pontiffs, and by the Councils, and in the Liturgical use of the Eastern and Western Churches?

Reply: In the Affirmative.

Question 2: Can it be held that there is sufficient basis in tradition for the opinion that Matthew wrote before the other Evangelists; also that he wrote this First Gospel in the native speech used by the Jews of Palestine at that time and to whom he addressed his work?

Reply: In the Affirmative to both points.

Question 3: Can the publication of this original text be referred to a time subsequent to the destruction of Jerusalem so that the prophecies which we read in it regarding that same destruction would have been written after the event? And again, is the oft-quoted testimony of Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. III. cap. I. no. 2) — the interpretation of which is uncertain and a matter of controversy — to be considered of sufficient weight to compel us to reject the opinion of those who hold that it is more in accordance with tradition to say that its publication preceded even the arrival of St. Paul in the City of Rome?

Reply: In the Negative on both points.

Question 4: Can we regard as at all probable the opinion of some recent writers according to whom Matthew did not strictly and properly-speaking compose the Gospel as it has come down to us, but merely framed a species of collection of the sayings or discourses of Christ, which collection some other anonymous author — whom they term the redactor of the Gospel — made use of as his source?

Reply: In the Negative.

Question 5: In view of the fact that the Fathers and all Ecclesiastical Writers, nay the Church Herself from Her very birth, use as Canonical solely the Greek text of the Gospel known as that of Matthew — those Fathers, be it noted, who expressly declare that Matthew wrote in his native tongue, forming no exception to this rule — can it be certainly proved that the Greek Gospel itself is substantially identical with that same Gospel which the Apostle composed in his native tongue?

Reply: In the Affirmative.

Question 6: In view of the fact that the author of the First Gospel has an especially dogmatic and apologetic aim — that namely of proving to the Jews that Jesus is the Messiah foretold by the Prophets and born of the stock of David; and that moreover in arranging the facts and discourses which he narrates he does not always follow the chronological order, is it allowable to argue that his facts are not to be regarded as true? And can it further be affirmed that the accounts of Christ's deeds and sayings which we read in this Gospel have undergone certain alterations and adaptations under the influence of the Old Testament prophecies and of the more mature state at which the Church had arrived, and that in consequence they do not completely correspond with historical truth?

Reply: In the Negative on both points.

Question 7: Can we single out as especially destitute of solid foundation the views of those who call in question the authenticity of the first two chapters in which the genealogy and infancy of Christ are narrated, as also the authenticity of certain pronouncements which are of great moment from the point of view of dogma, e.g. those referring to the Primacy of Peter, 16:17-19, the formula for Baptism, together with the commission given to the Apostles of preaching the Gospel to the whole world, 28:19-20, the Apostles' profession of faith in the Divinity of Christ, 14:33, and other similar things which are found emphatically stated in Matthew's Gospel?

Reply: In the Affirmative.

On June 19, in an audience graciously accorded to the two undersigned consultors, our Holy Father Pope Pius X ratified the above-given Replies and ordered their publication.

Rome, June 19, 1911.

B. Of the Authorship, Date of Composition, and Historical Truth of the Gospels according to St. Mark and St. Luke.

To the following questions which have been proposed, the Pontifical Biblical Commission has thought fit to reply as follows:

Question 8: Does the clear voice of tradition — which from the earliest days of the Church is so wonderfully in agreement and which is confirmed by so many arguments, e.g. by the express testimonies of the Holy Fathers and Ecclesiastical Writers, by quotations and allusions occurring in their writings, by the use made of them by the heretics of old, by the Versions of the Books of the New Testament, by Manuscript copies of the greatest antiquity found over nearly the whole world, by internal arguments, too, derived from the text itself of the Sacred Books — compel us to affirm with certainty that Mark the disciple and interpreter of Peter, and Luke the physician, the companion and assistant of Paul, were really the authors of the Gospels respectively attributed to them?

Reply: In the Affirmative.

Question 9: Are the reasons whereby certain critics strive to show that the last twelve verses of the Gospel of Mark (Mark 16:9-20) were not written by Mark but added by another hand, of such force as to entitle us to affirm that these verses are not to be received as inspired and canonical? Do they at least show that Mark was not their author?

Reply: In the Negative to both questions.

Question 10: In the same way: is it lawful to call in question the inspiration and canonicity of Luke's narrative touching the Infancy of Christ (Luke chs. 1-2), or of his account of the appearance of an Angel who strengthened Christ, or again of the Sweat of blood (Luke 22:43-44)? Can it be shown by any solid arguments that — as heretics of old held, and as some modern critics would like to think — these same narratives do not belong to the genuine Gospel of Luke?

Reply: In the Negative to both questions.

Question 11: Can those exceedingly rare and altogether isolated documents in which the Canticle of the Magnificat is attributed, not to the Blessed Virgin Mary, but to Elizabeth, be allowed any weight as against the consentient testimony of nearly all Manuscripts, whether of the original Greek text or of the Versions, as well as against the interpretation clearly demanded as well by the context as by the attitude of mind of the Blessed Virgin and the constant tradition of the Church?

Reply: In the Negative.

Question 12: As concerns the chronological order of the Gospels: is it lawful to desert the view which, based upon the testimony of the most ancient and consistent of traditions, holds that after Matthew — who, first of them all, committed his Gospel to writing in his mother tongue — Mark wrote second, Luke third? And is it contrary to this view to maintain that the Second and Third Gospels were committed to writing before the Greek version of the First Gospel was made?

Reply: In the Negative to both questions.

Question 13: Is it lawful to refer the date of the composition of the Gospels of Mark and Luke to a period subsequent to the destruction of the city of Jerusalem? Or, can it be maintained that — on the ground that in Luke the Lord's prophecy regarding the destruction of the city is very precise — at least this particular Gospel was written when the siege had begun?

Reply: In the Negative to both questions.

Question 14: Ought we to affirm that the Gospel of Luke preceded the Book of the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 1:1-2)? And further, that since this later Book was finished towards the close of the Apostle's captivity at Rome (Acts 28:30-31), Luke's Gospel cannot have been composed at a later date than this?

Reply: In the Affirmative.

Question 15: Can we, having regard to the witness both of tradition and of internal arguments to the sources which the two Evangelists in question made use of, prudently call in question the view which holds that Mark wrote according to Peter's preaching, Luke according to that of Paul; a view which also allows that these same Evangelists had at their disposal sources of information, whether oral or in writing, which were well worthy of credit?

Reply: In the Negative.

Question 16: Do the words and deeds which are accurately and even graphically narrated by Mark according to Peter's preaching, and most carefully set down by Luke, having diligently attained to all things from the beginning by means of witnesses deserving of full credit inasmuch as they front the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word (Luke 1:2-3), rightly claim that historical credit which the Church has ever accorded them? Or, on the contrary, are the said words and deeds to be considered destitute, at least in part, of historical truth; and this either on the ground that the writers were not eye-witnesses; or that, in the case of both Evangelists, dislocations of the chronological order and discrepancies in the succession of events can be not infrequently discovered; or, again, on the ground that since they came later on the scene and wrote later, they must necessarily set forth ideas alien to the mind of Christ and His Apostles, or narrate facts more or less distorted by the popular imagination; or, once more, on the ground that they have, each according to his natural bent, given free rein to dogmatic preconceptions?

Reply: In the Affirmative to the first question; in the Negative to the second.

C. Of the Synoptic Question: or of the Mutual Relationship between the Three First Gospels.

To the following questions likewise the Pontifical Biblical Commission has thought fit to reply as follows:

Question 17: Adhering, as we must, to the decisions just given, especially as regards the authenticity and integrity of the three Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, the substantial identity of the Greek Version of Matthew's Gospel with that Gospel in its primitive form, as also to the chronological order in which these Gospels were written, is it free to exegetes in search of explanations of the similarities and dissimilarities between these three Gospels to discuss and to make appeal to hypotheses regarding the way in which the Gospel was handed down, whether orally or in writing, or whether by dependence of one Evangelist upon his predecessor or predecessors?

Reply: In the Affirmative.

Question 18: Can they be said to uphold the aforesaid pronouncements who, unsupported by any authority from tradition or by any argument from history, readily embrace the hypothesis commonly known as the Two Document hypothesis in accordance with which they endeavor to explain the composition of the Greek Gospel of Matthew and that of Luke mainly by their dependence upon Mark and upon a so-called Collection of the Words of the Lord? And is it legitimate to defend this theory?

Reply: In the Negative to both questions.

In an audience graciously granted on June 26, 1912, to the two consultors, our Most Holy Lord, Pope Pius X ratified the above pronouncements and ordered their publication.
Rome, June 26, 1912.

D. Of the Author, and of the Historical Truth, of the Fourth Gospel.

The Pontifical Biblical Commission has furnished the following replies to the questions given below:

Question 19: Considering the constant, universal, and solemn tradition of the Church, a tradition going back to the second century and especially manifested in the testimonies of the Holy Fathers, of Ecclesiastical writers, nay even of heretics — testimonies and allusions which must have been derived from the disciples of the Apostles or their immediate successors and which are therefore closely connected with the origin of the book, a tradition manifested, too, in the constant and universal reception of the name of the author of the Fourth Gospel both in the Canon and in the catalogues of the Sacred Books, and manifested lastly in the public liturgical use prevailing throughout the Church from the first ages, can we, in view of these considerations, and abstracting from all theological arguments, hold that the authorship of the Fourth Gospel by John the Apostle and no other rests upon so solid an historical basis as not to be invalidated by the arguments alleged by critics who reject this tradition?

Reply: In the Affirmative.

Question 20: Further, do the internal arguments which are deducible from the text of the Fourth Gospel considered apart, as also those derived from the testimony of the writer himself and from the evident relationship existing between the same Gospel and the First Epistle of John the Apostle, serve as sufficient confirmation of the tradition which unhesitatingly assigns the Fourth Gospel to the same apostle?

And further, can the difficulties which appear when we compare the Fourth Gospel with the other three Gospels be reasonably solved — as indeed the Fathers and Catholic interpreters everywhere have endeavored to do — by bearing in mind the differences of time and scope and also of the auditory for whom or against whom the author wrote?

Reply: In the Affirmative to both questions.

Question 21: Can we, notwithstanding the practice of arguing from the Fourth Gospel as from a strictly historical document — a practice which has flourished in the universal Church from the earliest ages — notwithstanding, too, the peculiar character of this same Gospel and the manifest intention of the author to illustrate and vindicate the Divinity of Christ from His actual words and deeds, can we- — in spite of all this — maintain that the facts narrated in the Fourth Gospel were, wholly or in part, fictitiously composed so that they might serve as allegories or doctrinal symbols, and that similarly the discourses assigned to our Lord were not really and truly His, but the theological compositions of the author — though put, indeed, into our Lord's mouth?

Reply: In the Negative.

On May 29, 1907, in an audience graciously conceded to the two consultors, the Holy Father ratified the above Replies and ordered their publication.